In re Barnes Foundation
74 A.3d 129
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- The Barnes Foundation, a charitable trust for art education, obtained a 2004 Orphans’ Court decree permitting relocation of its gallery from Lower Merion to Philadelphia; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court quashed the only appeal in 2005.
- Multiple parties sought to reopen the 2002/2004 proceedings in 2007 and again in 2011; prior reopen petitions had been dismissed for lack of standing.
- Richard R. Feudale filed a 2011 petition to reopen and asserted standing under Article I, §27 (PA Constitution), the Historic Preservation Act (37 Pa.C.S. §512), and constitutional claims regarding state action and legislative appropriations.
- The Barnes and the Commonwealth filed preliminary objections asserting lack of standing; the Orphans’ Court sustained those objections, dismissed the petitions, and found the filings sanctionable under 42 Pa.C.S. §2503, awarding The Barnes fees ($15,000 from Feudale). The court denied fees to the Commonwealth.
- Feudale appealed the standing dismissal and the sanctions; the Commonwealth cross‑appealed the denial of its fees. The Superior Court affirmed lack of standing, reversed the sanctions against Feudale, and affirmed denial of fees to the Commonwealth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to reopen/enforce charitable trust | Feudale: he has "special knowledge" and statutory standing under Historic Preservation Act §512 to reopen and challenge relocation | The Barnes/Commonwealth: private parties generally lack standing to enforce charitable trusts; Feudale has no special or direct interest distinct from the public | Court: Feudale lacks standing; preliminary objections sustained and petition dismissed |
| Applicability of Historic Preservation Act §512 | Feudale: §512 permits any person to sue to protect historic resources, so he may intervene | Defendants: §512 does not automatically confer standing absent a special, direct interest (e.g., vested effort or injury) | Court: §512 alone insufficient here; Feudale has no special interest and relied only on scholarship, so no standing |
| Constitutional challenge re: legislative appropriation & Article I, §10 (Contract Clause) | Feudale: legislative funding (Senate Bill 1218) encouraged breach of trust; thus state actors violated constitutional limits | Defendants: merits aside, Feudale lacks standing to assert these claims | Court: did not reach merits; dismissed for lack of standing |
| Sanctions under 42 Pa.C.S. §2503 | Feudale: petition was not so frivolous or vexatious to warrant fees; his Historic Preservation Act claim was nonfrivolous | The Barnes: repeated, meritless filings (similar prior attempts) were dilatory, arbitrary and vexatious warranting sanctions | Court: reversed fee award against Feudale—petition warranted examination and was not wholly frivolous; affirmed no fees to Commonwealth |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Barnes Foundation, 871 A.2d 792 (Pa. 2005) (quashing sole appeal from Orphans’ Court decree)
- Pennsylvania Medical Soc. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare of Com. of Pa., 39 A.3d 267 (Pa. 2012) (standing requires substantial, direct and immediate interest)
- In re Milton Hershey School, 911 A.2d 1258 (Pa. 2006) (private parties generally lack standing to enforce charitable trusts)
- William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (standing requires aggrievement beyond common public interest)
- Friends of Atglen‑Susquehanna Trail, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Com’n, 717 A.2d 581 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (Section 512 relevant where intervener had direct, concrete interests and exerted substantial efforts)
- Thunberg v. Strause, 682 A.2d 295 (Pa. 1996) (standards for awarding counsel fees as sanctions)