M.H. Pane, M.F. Pane and C. Pane v. Indian Rocks Property Owners Association, Inc. of Ledgedale
167 A.3d 266
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- The Panes own a single-family residence on three parcels in the Indian Rocks development; their 1978 deed obligates owners to follow Association rules.
- The Association previously adopted resolutions in 2003 and 2004 restricting pools (including banning in-ground pools) and repealed those resolutions in 2009 by Resolution 2009-7.
- In June 2015 the Panes sought Architectural Control approval to install an in-ground pool; the Association refused, citing handbook "Rules and Regulations" and ACC rules stating pools are prohibited.
- The Panes sued for declaratory and equitable relief to compel approval; the Association obtained a preliminary injunction in a separate action and sought to enjoin pool construction.
- At summary judgment the Association admitted no written Board resolution banning pools existed after 2009; it relied instead on handbook rules and affidavits from Board members claiming the Board intended a ban after the 2009 repeal.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Panes, ordered the Association to approve the pool, denied the Panes’ oral sanctions motion; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Pane's Argument | Association's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Were pools prohibited on individual lots in 2015? | No; no deed or covenants or effective resolution banned pools in 2015. | Yes; handbook rules and ACC rules (plus Board intent) prohibit pools. | Held for Pane: No written resolution or official Board action banning pools existed after 2009, so pools were not prohibited. |
| 2. Can Board members’ affidavits about "intention/understanding" create an enforceable restriction? | Intention alone cannot create a covenant; restrictions must be enacted officially. | Intention evidences a continuing prohibition and creates a factual dispute. | Held for Pane: Board ‘‘intention’’ without official action does not create a land-use restriction; strict construction required. |
| 3. Burden at summary judgment — who must produce evidence of a prohibition? | Pane: moving party met burden; Association failed to produce evidence to raise a genuine issue. | Association: Pane bore burden to prove pools permitted. | Held: Trial court properly granted Pane summary judgment; Association failed under Pa.R.C.P. 1035.3 to identify record evidence establishing a prohibition. |
| 4. Were sanctions under Pa. R.C.P. 1023.1 warranted for the Association’s prior pleadings? | Yes; Association maintained allegations without evidentiary support for months. | Implied defense: pleadings were reasonable; motion procedurally defective. | Held for Association: Sanctions denied — Pane filed appeal under wrong docket, failed to include required written "safe harbor" certification and did not follow Rule 1032.2(a) procedures for separate written motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vernon Township Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. Connor, 855 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2004) (land-use restrictions disfavored and strictly construed)
- Gilbert v. Synagro Central, LLC, 131 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2015) (summary judgment standard)
- Indian Rocks Property Owners Ass'n of Ledgedale v. Glatfelter, 28 A.3d 1261 (Pa. 2011) (association rules are covenants running with the land and association discretion in regulating construction)
- Burke v. City of Bethlehem, 10 A.3d 377 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (summary judgment burden principles)
- Pyeritz v. Commonwealth, 32 A.3d 687 (Pa. 2011) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- City of Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations v. DeFelice, 782 A.2d 586 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (appellate review limited to certified record)
- Dean v. Dean, 98 A.3d 637 (Pa. Super. 2014) (sanctions review — abuse of discretion)
- Guy M. Cooper, Inc. v. East Penn Sch. Dist., 894 A.2d 179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (appellate correction of docket number procedural guidance)