In Re: Condemnation by the Mercer Area SD of Mercer County for Acquisition of Land for School Purposes in the Borough of Mercer ~ Appeal of: Mercer Area SD
58 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 15, 2016Background
- Mercer Area School District filed a condemnation declaration to acquire portions of land owned by Kevin & Doreen Wright and Glenn & Edith Krofcheck to construct a roadway to school grounds.
- Trial court initially sustained some preliminary objections; this Court previously reversed as to res judicata and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand, after an evidentiary hearing the trial court concluded the District acted in bad faith in investigating/deciding the taking and struck the declaration of taking (Dec. 16, 2015).
- The District appealed; the trial court ordered the District to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement within 21 days (due Feb. 2, 2016).
- The District mailed the 1925(b) statement (postmarked Feb. 1, 2016) but did not obtain USPS Form 3817 (Certificate of Mailing); the prothonotary received and docketed the statement on Feb. 3, 2016 (one day late).
- Landowners moved to quash the appeal as untimely; the Commonwealth Court held the late 1925(b) statement waived all appellate issues and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the District's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement timely filed? | (Landowners) Statement was filed late; waiver applies. | (District) Mailing postmark and cover letter dates show timely mailing; equitable relief or remand nunc pro tunc should be granted. | Statement was received/docketed one day late; absent Form 3817 receipt, filing date is receipt by prothonotary; untimely = waiver. |
| Can a USPS postmark substitute for Form 3817 under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(1)? | (Landowners) No; rule requires Form 3817 or similar. | (District) Postmark demonstrates deposit on Feb. 1 so should be timely. | Postmark is not one of the recognized postal forms; rule does not permit postmark as evidence of filing date. |
| Is remand or nunc pro tunc relief appropriate for late 1925(b) filing due to mail delay? | (Landowners) No good cause shown; no relief. | (District) Mail delay was unforeseeable; request remand to cure defect. | Mail delays are foreseeable/avoidable; no good cause; remand/nunc pro tunc relief denied. |
| Did the trial court err in finding bad faith in the condemnation taking? | (District) Trial court applied incorrect standard and record does not support bad faith finding. | (Landowners) Trial court properly found bad faith after evidentiary hearing. | Court did not reach merits: all issues waived by untimely 1925(b), so trial court's order affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Clinton County Tax Claims, 109 A.3d 331 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (untimely Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver)
- Greater Erie Industrial Development Corp. v. Presque Isle Downs, Inc., 88 A.3d 222 (Pa. Super. 2014) (Rule 1925(b) compliance required; exceptions narrowly construed)
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001) (delays in U.S. mail do not justify nunc pro tunc relief)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (untimely Rule 1925(b) statements result in waiver of issues)