M. Mendez and MH&I, LLC v. City of Phila., Phila. Vacant Property Review Committee, M. Mendez and MH&I, LLC v. City of Phila., Phila. Vacant Property Review Committee

Background

Philadelphia owned a vacant lot at 1707 N. Orianna St. (Orianna Property) between properties owned by Mendez/MH&I (1704 N. 3rd) and Gearhart (1708 N. 3rd).
Gearhart applied in 2006 and 2012; Mendez applied on October 4, 2012. The Vacant Property Review Committee (VPRC) initially recommended sale to Mendez after an August 13, 2013 meeting.
On August 29, 2013, HCD/VPRC employee Susie Jarmon sent Mendez a letter estimating the sale price and requesting confirmation and documentation; Mendez returned the paperwork on September 10, 2013.
The VPRC later reconsidered, voted for a competitive sale, then on January 13, 2015 recommended selling to Gearhart (the earlier applicant). Neither City Council nor the Commissioner approved any final sale.
Mendez sued to enjoin sale to Gearhart and to compel Philadelphia to sell to her, arguing the August 29, 2013 letter was a binding contract (or at least obligated Philadelphia to advance her application). The trial court held for the City; Commonwealth Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by ruling before proposed findings were filed	May 4, 2016 ruling occurred before parties filed proposed findings, depriving Mendez of opportunity	Trial court later vacated the May 4 order, considered the filings, and reissued judgment	Moot: court vacated initial order and expressly considered the parties’ proposed findings when reentering judgment
Whether August 29, 2013 letter was a binding contract to sell the Orianna Property to Mendez	Letter confirmed sale terms and requested documents; Mendez says it created an enforceable sale contract	Letter was conditional, contained estimates, required further approvals and did not state a final price or unconditional acceptance	Not a contract: conditional language and lack of specific agreed price/acceptance meant only negotiations/confirmation of interest
Whether the letter at least required the City to forward Mendez’s application to the next administrative step	Letter obligated City to advance her application/process toward sale	Letter mentions approvals required but contains no promise to advance application	Rejected: letter did not obligate City to advance the application or guarantee next-step processing
Whether VPRC abused discretion such that sale to Gearhart should be enjoined	VPRC changed recommendation after City sent offer to Mendez and thus acted arbitrarily	Issue waived and VPRC is advisory; its recommendations are non-final and not judicially reviewable	Waived and non-reviewable: parties stipulated sole issue was the letter; VPRC is advisory and its recommendations are not final agency adjudications

Key Cases Cited

Parsons Bros. Slate Co. v. Dep’t of Highways, 211 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1965) (no contract without offer and unconditional acceptance)
GMH Assocs., Inc. v. Prudential Realty Grp., 752 A.2d 889 (Pa. Super. 2000) (essential terms for real‑estate sale include parties, property, and purchase price)
City of Scranton v. Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP, 871 A.2d 875 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (statutory requirements for municipal contracts are mandatory)
City of Phila. v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 937 A.2d 1176 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (mootness principles in appellate review)
Innes v. Sch. Dist. of Nanticoke, 20 A.2d 225 (Pa. 1941) (parties must know the extent of the contracting officers’ power)
Peluso v. Kistner, 970 A.2d 530 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (elements required to establish promissory estoppel)