M. Kuziak v. Borough of Danville and Borough of Danville Rental Registration and Property Maintenance Hearing Board
125 A.3d 470
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Kuziak owned 39 rental units in Danville. The Borough enacted Ordinance 508 (effective Jan 1, 2012) requiring annual rental registration and a $75 fee per unit; late fees applied.
- Kuziak paid $50 per unit ($1,950) on Dec 31, 2012; Borough later accepted a further partial payment of $975 on Aug 10, 2013 and treated it as partial payment for 2013.
- On July 9, 2013 the Borough repealed Ordinance 508 and enacted Ordinance 513 (immediately effective), which reenacted the registration scheme with identical fees and a provision stating registration is required “beginning with the calendar year 2012.”
- Borough demanded $3,900 for 2013 (39 units × $100? as pled in record), offsetting the $975 payment and asserting a $2,925 balance; Kuziak appealed to the Borough Hearing Board which denied relief.
- Kuziak appealed to the trial court raising challenges: Sunshine Act (notice) defect as to Ordinance 508, Ordinance 513’s alleged retroactivity, entitlement to credit for 2012 payment, and multiple constitutional challenges; the trial court affirmed and imposed fees plus a civil penalty.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, concluding the administrative record was complete, the Sunshine Act challenge was unsupported/untimely, Ordinance 513 was not retroactive, and constitutional claims were not preserved below.
Issues
| Issue | Kuziak’s Argument | Borough’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had to hold de novo hearing under Local Agency Law §754 | Section 754 requires de novo hearing because issues about ordinance enactment exist | Record before Board was complete; §754(b) governs and allows review on record | No de novo hearing required; record was complete and review on the certified record was proper |
| Whether Ordinance 508 was void for failure to comply with Sunshine Act notice requirements | Ordinance 508 was improperly advertised and thus void ab initio | No evidence presented that notice was improper; challenge untimely under Sunshine Act and Judicial Code | Dismissed: Kuziak presented no evidence and challenge was untimely; Ordinance 508 valid |
| Whether Ordinance 513 is impermissibly retroactive (it states registration begins with calendar year 2012) | Provision makes Ordinance 513 retroactive and imposes new burdens for 2012 | 513 reenacted 508’s requirements and fees; no new burdens; §1976 allows enforcement under either ordinance | Not retroactive; obligations were identical and collectible under either ordinance per §1976 principles |
| Constitutional and contract-clause challenges to Ordinance 513 (impairment of contracts, due process, Fourth Amendment, etc.) | Ordinance 513 impairs lease obligations and violates federal/state constitutional protections | Issues were not raised or litigated before the Board or tried in the trial court | Claims waived for appellate review; not preserved below and therefore not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Geissler v. Board of Commissioners of Upper Dublin Township, 463 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (local agency de novo hearing required only when record is incomplete)
- In re Thompson, 896 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (definition of a full and complete administrative record)
- Retirement Bd. of Allegheny County v. Colville, 852 A.2d 445 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (trial court discretion on completeness of record; no remand to cure appellant’s failure to present evidence)
- McLaughin v. Centre County Housing Authority, 616 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (record incomplete where transcript missing)
- School Dist. of the City of Erie v. Hamot Medical Ctr., 602 A.2d 407 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (record incomplete where party withheld necessary documentation)
- Sher v. Berks County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 940 A.2d 629 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (definition and effect of a retroactive law)
- R & P Services, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Revenue, 541 A.2d 432 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (retroactivity imposes new burdens on past transactions)
- Philadelphia Eagles Football Club, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 823 A.2d 108 (Pa. 2003) (Statutory Construction Act principles useful for local ordinance construction)
- Spencer v. City of Reading Charter Bd., 97 A.3d 834 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (scope of appellate review where trial court takes no additional evidence)
- Residents Against Matrix v. Lower Makefield Twp., 845 A.2d 908 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (agency abuses discretion when findings lack substantial-evidence support)