In Re: Condemnation by PennDOT, of Right-Of-Way for SR 0022 in the Twp. of Frankstown Stewart M. Merritts, Jr. v. PennDOT
194 A.3d 722
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Condemnee Stewart M. Merritts, Jr. owns two parcels along State Route 22; DOT filed a Declaration of Taking seeking a 1,150 sq ft drainage easement and 2,896 sq ft temporary construction easement as part of a Route 22 safety/drainage improvement project.
- Project includes replacing/relocating existing storm pipes (15"→18"; 24"→42") and other corridor safety/drainage work; DOT will own and maintain the new pipes according to its witnesses.
- Township plans (separately) to vacate Flowing Spring Road and potentially dedicate that right-of-way to Rails to Trails (a private nonprofit) for a recreational trail; those plans post‑date the Declaration and were not in DOT’s filing.
- Condemnee filed preliminary objections (POs) arguing: trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing earlier; Commonwealth lacks authority to condemn (patent/warrant/privity argument); the taking benefits a private enterprise/is excessive; and the taking violates the Storm Water Management Act.
- The trial court held oral argument, then conducted an evidentiary hearing, credited DOT’s engineer testimony, overruled the POs, and granted a writ of possession; Condemnee appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by hearing oral argument before an evidentiary hearing | Merritts: Florek/Werts require an evidentiary hearing first when facts are disputed | DOT: Merritts ultimately received an evidentiary hearing; Florek/Werts distinguishable | No error — court held evidentiary hearing before overruling POs |
| Whether Commonwealth had authority to condemn land conveyed by colonial warrant/patent (privity/laches) | Merritts: patent is highest title; Commonwealth must have reserved interest or privity at time of statehood; otherwise claim barred | DOT: Eminent domain is inherent sovereign power; statute authorizes DOT condemnations for transportation; no privity needed | Held for DOT — sovereign eminent domain power applies despite original patent; statute authorizes taking |
| Whether taking improperly benefits private party (Rails to Trails) or is excessive (size/location of pipes) | Merritts: future transfer of vacated road to Rails to Trails makes taking for private benefit; 15" pipe sufficient so larger easement is excessive | DOT: Rails to Trails transfer is collateral to DOT’s Declaration; drainage easement supports public transportation purpose; engineer credibly testified need and minimality | Held for DOT — Rails to Trails issue collateral; taking serves public transportation purpose and is not excessive |
| Whether taking violates Storm Water Management Act by vesting maintenance with private entity | Merritts: Act assigns stormwater maintenance duties to the developer/alterer; transferring maintenance to Rails to Trails violates Act | DOT: This objection is collateral to the Declaration; DOT’s engineer testified DOT will maintain the pipes | Held for DOT — objection collateral and unsupported; not proper preliminary objection |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Legislative Route 1018, Section 4, Lower Chichester Twp., Del. Cnty., 222 A.2d 906 (Pa. 1966) (sovereign eminent domain power is inherent and not dependent on privity)
- Kohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 (1875) (states possess an inherent right of eminent domain distinct from title)
- Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Ry. Co., 135 U.S. 641 (1890) (patent title does not preclude governmental exercise of eminent domain)
- United States v. Coronado Beach Co., 255 U.S. 472 (1921) (limitations on challenging federal patents where government exercised condemnation and payment of compensation was required)
- Summa Corp. v. California ex rel. State Lands Comm'n, 466 U.S. 198 (1984) (claims to preexisting public trust rights in patented lands must ordinarily have been asserted in patent proceedings)
- Middletown Twp. v. Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d 331 (Pa. 2007) (takings must not be excessive; public purpose inquiry examines fundamental purpose)
- Appeal of Corcoran, 537 A.2d 384 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (DOT authorized to condemn when taking furthers safe, efficient transportation)