79 A.3d 748
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Tim and Jaime Lake own a Downingtown property that began experiencing increased, sediment-laden stormwater runoff after development of the uphill "Cairns Tract" (Claremont Village) completed in 2003.
- Developer defendants Hankin Group/Hankin Properties built the development; Chester Valley Engineers designed stormwater controls; Claremont Village Homeowners’ Association now controls stormwater on the tract.
- Lakes allege recurring flooding, sediment deposition, driveway damage, and safety concerns; they sent a 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue in December 2007 and filed suit in December 2009 asserting statutory and common-law claims (Clean Streams Law, Storm Water Management Act, negligence, nuisance, continuing trespass, etc.).
- DEP investigated, issued a Notice of Violation to the association in 2008, approved a corrective plan, and the association implemented repairs that reduced—but did not eliminate—flooding and sediment problems.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding the Lakes’ claims were time-barred and that Hankin entities could not be liable under the Clean Streams Law because they no longer owned the tract.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded, finding material factual disputes over whether the harm is continuing and rejecting the bar to Clean Streams Law claims against prior actors who tortiously caused conditions continuing to trespass.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of limitations bars claims (permanent vs continuing trespass) | Lakes: flooding is intermittent, damages unpredictable, constitutes continuing trespass so limitations did not accrue to bar suit | Defendants: development caused permanent change by ~2003 so statute ran before suit | Reversed: material facts support continuing trespass; summary judgment on timeliness erroneous |
| Whether equitable claims (abatement) are time-barred or subject to laches | Lakes: equitable relief not governed by statute of limitations; laches requires factual showing | Defendants: delay bars relief | Held: equitable claims not barred by statutes; laches requires factual inquiry — inappropriate for summary judgment here |
| Whether failure to join neighboring property owners (Dortones, Wortley) deprives court of jurisdiction as indispensable parties | Lakes: neighbors are not indispensable; relief can be fashioned without impairing their property rights | Defendants: neighbors own affected land and must be joined | Held: neighbors are not indispensable under these facts; joinder can be ordered if later found necessary |
| Whether prior owner/developer (Hankin entities) can be liable under Clean Streams Law despite no longer owning the tract | Lakes: prior actors who tortiously created the condition remain liable while the trespass continues | Defendants: cannot be in violation now because they lack control/ability to abate | Held: prior actors may be liable for continuing trespass/violations; lack of current ownership is not an absolute defense to Clean Streams Law claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Graybill v. Providence Township, 593 A.2d 1314 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (continuing trespass doctrine; distinction between permanent change and recurring injury governs accrual)
- United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. J.H. France Refractories Co., 668 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1995) (statutes of limitation not controlling in equity; laches inquiry explained)
- Stilp v. Hafer, 718 A.2d 290 (Pa. 1998) (laches elements and need for factual determination)
- Miller v. Stroud Township, 804 A.2d 749 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (continuing trespass where installation coupled with rainfall caused ongoing contamination)
- Cassel-Hess v. Hoffer, 44 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. 2012) (supporting continuing trespass analysis)
- Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Diamond Fuel Co., 346 A.2d 788 (Pa. 1975) (definition of indispensable party and joinder requirements)
- Scherbick v. Community College of Allegheny County, 387 A.2d 1301 (Pa. 1978) (fee owner as indispensable party when subject of litigation)