In Re: Condemnation of the Property of C. and R. LeFever v. Lower Salford Twp. Authority and Lower Salford Twp., In Re: Condemnation of the Property of C. and R. LeFever v. Lower Salford Twp. Authority and Lower Salford Twp.

Carl and Rosemary LeFever own property at 445 Tyson Road in Lower Salford Township and granted two easements in 2004–2005: a permanent stormwater/guiderail and grading easement to the Township and a Deed of Easement to the Lower Salford Township Authority for a sewer force main (owners received credit for the sewer easement).
Construction occurred in 2005. In 2011 Owners filed a Petition for Appointment of a Board of Viewers alleging a de facto condemnation: grading and installation of the sewer force main created a steep incline, swales, puddling, loss of access to several lots, flooding, structural damage, regulatory noncompliance, and erosion.
The Authority and Township filed preliminary objections (POs) arguing the Petition failed to: (1) briefly describe the property taken as required by 26 Pa.C.S. §502(a)(5), and (2) allege a legally sufficient de facto taking because the easements authorized grading, drainage, and related work.
No evidence was offered by Owners at the 2016 hearing; the Township’s engineer (Youmans, P.E.) testified and the parties stipulated dismissal of the Authority. The trial court sustained the POs and dismissed the Petition.
On appeal, Owners argued (1) laches should not bar the POs, (2) the construction exceeded easement scope and caused a de facto taking, and (3) the trial court improperly considered allegations directed at the Authority. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of property description under §502(a)(5)	LeFever: Petition’s description (steep incline, loss of access) adequately identifies property taken	Township: Description is vague and insufficient given existing detailed easements	Court: Petition fails to meet §502(a)(5); PO sustained
Legal sufficiency of de facto taking claim	LeFever: Grading, road movement, and sewer installation exceeded easement and substantially deprived beneficial use	Township: Easements authorized grading, drainage, and related work; Owners didn’t allege specific actions by Township or present evidence	Court: Owners failed to plead/prove elements of de facto taking; PO sustained
Evidentiary sufficiency at hearing	LeFever: Relies on Township expert testimony and appellate factual assertions to show overreach	Township: Youmans’ testimony did not establish that Township exceeded easement; Owners presented no supporting evidence	Court: Youmans’ testimony and record insufficient to meet Owners’ heavy burden; affirmed
Laches/Delay defense	LeFever: Delay should not bar consideration; they acted to defend rights	Township: Owners delayed prosecution of their claim for years; laches applies to bar relief	Court: Owners’ inaction (over four years without requesting hearing) supports application of laches; Owners cannot rely on estoppel by laches to defeat POs

Linde Enterprises, Inc. v. Lackawanna River Basin Sewer Authority, 911 A.2d 658 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (standard for testing legal sufficiency of petition for de facto taking on preliminary objections)
Williams v. Borough of Blakely, 25 A.3d 458 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (elements required to prove de facto taking and characterization of interference with ownership rights)
Genter v. Blair County Convention and Sports Facilities Authority, 805 A.2d 51 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (standard for substantial deprivation depending on property use; residential owner-occupied use rarely qualifies)
In re Condemnation by the Department of Transportation, 827 A.2d 544 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (reiterating limits of de facto taking claims where prior compensation was paid and evidence of permanent invasion is required)
West Penn Power Co. v. Bruni, 387 A.2d 1316 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (no de facto taking where owners failed to show utility exceeded rights granted by easement)