In Re: Wissahickon Playground ~ Appeal of: G. Paulmier
In Re: Wissahickon Playground ~ Appeal of: G. Paulmier - 2492 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Parcel in Germantown deeded to Philadelphia in 1935 for use as a playground; half sold in 1953 to PHA for public housing.
- From 2005–2010 the City/PHA developed a Redevelopment Plan to replace a 120‑unit high‑rise with 55 lower‑density public housing units; Ordinance approving conveyance passed in 2010.
- Community objections were raised beginning at least 2011; counsel for Appellants sent letters in September and December 2014 asserting the property’s dedication and arguing Orphans’ Court approval was required.
- PHA imploded the high‑rise in Sept. 2014, began redevelopment, and completed 55 new homes occupied by families before Appellants filed their Orphans’ Court Petition (filed March 26, 2015).
- Trial court denied the Petition (Nov. 3, 2015); Appellants appealed. The Commonwealth Court held the appeal moot and affirmed the trial court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laches | Appellants: Laches inapplicable because Appellees knew dedication/public‑trust/DDPA required Orphans’ Court approval and thus should have acted with clean hands. | Appellees: Appellants delayed and failed to prosecute with due diligence, prejudicing PHA. | Court did not need to reach merits because appeal was moot; trial court had applied laches below and appellant’s delay was noted. |
| Orphans’ Court approval required before sale | Appellants: Property dedication/public‑trust and DDPA required Orphans’ Court approval before changing use/sale. | Appellees: Redevelopment proceeded; final housing completed; remedies no longer viable. | Court found the appeal moot (reopening as playground or enjoining redevelopment no longer possible), so it did not grant relief on this claim. |
| Preliminary injunction elements | Appellants: Met the prerequisites for preliminary injunction (immediate/irreparable harm, likelihood of success on merits). | Appellees: Appellants unreasonably delayed; redevelopment largely complete making injunctive relief impracticable. | Court held the appeal moot and affirmed trial court order denying injunctive relief; did not grant preliminary relief. |
| Mootness (threshold) | — | Appellees: Redevelopment complete and housing occupied, so no live controversy; appeal moot. | Court agreed the case is moot because there is nothing to enjoin and any relief would be advisory; affirmed trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Milton Hershey School Trust, 807 A.2d 324 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (standards for preliminary injunction review)
- In re Gross, 382 A.2d 116 (Pa. 1978) (mootness and no advisory opinions)
- In re Estate of Ryerss, 987 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (public trust/dedication doctrine described)
- Koter v. Cosgrove, 844 A.2d 29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (definition and application of laches in equity)
- Phila. Lodge No. 5 v. Phila. Bd. of Pensions & Retirement, 606 A.2d 603 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (courts will not decide moot questions)