Jupiter Tavern, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
171 A.3d 921
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- License H-1212 (Jupiter Tavern, Inc.) expired (treated as September 30, 2011) and was not timely renewed; statutory two-year window to renew closed on September 30, 2013.
- TD Bank held a security interest and foreclosed; St. Matthew’s purchased property at sheriff’s sale in March 2013; Pettit claims she acquired rights to the business and license from St. Matthew’s and received a Bill of Sale dated October 15, 2013.
- Pettit filed multiple renewal/validation applications in 2015, seeking nunc pro tunc relief after a denied 2014 transfer application revealed the license had expired.
- The Board denied Pettit’s nunc pro tunc request and found she lacked documentary proof of authority or a recognized interest in the license; it concluded the license had permanently ceased to exist after the two-year window.
- The Court of Common Pleas affirmed, finding Pettit lacked standing as an “aggrieved” party and failed to satisfy the statutory timing and standards for nunc pro tunc renewal; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pettit) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal | Pettit said she acquired rights at sheriff’s sale and thus is aggrieved by non-renewal and may appeal as an applicant | Board said only the named licensee is recognized absent proof (court order/affidavit); Pettit has no proved affiliation with Licensee | Court held Pettit lacked credited evidence of a direct, substantial interest and therefore lacked standing to appeal |
| Availability of nunc pro tunc relief under the Liquor Code (Section 470) | Pettit urged application of the relaxed "good cause" standard from Eathorne for extensions | Board argued statutory Section 470 governs renewals, contains specific timing (within 60 days pre-expiration or within 2 years post-expiration) and requires "reasonable cause," so Eathorne is inapposite | Court held Section 470 controls; Pettit’s filings were outside statutory time limits and did not meet the Code’s standard, so nunc pro tunc relief was unavailable |
| Equitable nunc pro tunc (Cook standard) | Pettit asserted non-negligent counsel error and prompt action after learning of the problem | Board and trial court found delay was long (applications filed ~2 years after license ceased to exist) and Pettit failed to show non-negligent circumstances or lack of prejudice to Board | Court agreed Pettit would not meet Cook criteria (non-negligence, short delay, no prejudice) even under equitable analysis |
| Documentary chain-of-title to license | Pettit relied on Bill of Sale, ratification, and testimony to show she acquired license rights | Board argued Bill of Sale post-dated the expiration/cessation and there was no court order/affidavit showing transferable interest; requested tax clearance and other formalities unmet | Court found the documentary proof uncredited/insufficient to establish a chain of title to an extant license |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Rev., 671 A.2d 1130 (Pa. 1996) (equitable nunc pro tunc relief standard: non-negligent circumstances, short delay, no prejudice)
- William Penn Parking Garage v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (standing requires a direct, substantial, immediate interest to be an "aggrieved" party)
- Eathorne v. State Ethics Commission, 960 A.2d 206 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (applies a "good cause" extension standard under a specific statutory provision of the Ethics Act)