N. Price, Individually and o/b/o Freedom Ring Land Management Trust v. Menallen Twp.
221 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Neil Price (individually and as trustee) sued Menallen Township, RTK officer John R. Yantko, and Lee’s Plumbing, alleging the Township directed demolition of a residence on trust property in January 2013.
- Price filed a praecipe for writ of summons June 23, 2015; original complaint Feb 17, 2016; amended complaint Apr 6, 2016.
- Price alleges he first learned of the demolition on or before July 3, 2014 when he filed a Right-to-Know request; he also alleges he is disabled and lives in a different county.
- Claims: § 1983 (federal constitutional), negligence (Township/Yantko and Lee’s Plumbing), and conversion.
- Trial court sustained preliminary objections by Township/Yantko and later granted Lee’s Plumbing’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing all claims as time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations.
- Commonwealth Court reversed, holding factual questions remain about application of the discovery rule and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedure to raise SOL defense | Price: defense must be raised in new matter, not preliminary objections | Township/Yantko: SOL clear on face of pleading so preliminary objections proper | Court: exception to rule applies only if SOL is clear on face; here it was not, so procedural objection favored plaintiff (but court addressed merits because trial court did) |
| When statute of limitations began to run (discovery rule) | Price: did not know of demolition until July 2014; discovery rule tolls limitations until discovery | Defendants: Price could have discovered demolition earlier with minimal diligence (e.g., visiting property) | Court: factual question exists whether Price, exercising reasonable diligence (considering disability and residence), could have discovered demolition earlier; discovery rule may apply; cannot decide as matter of law |
| Judgment on the pleadings for Lee’s Plumbing based on SOL | Price: allegations create factual dispute about discovery and tolling | Lee’s Plumbing: SOL barred claims because injury was discoverable by slight diligence | Court: granting judgment on pleadings was error because factual issues about discoverability remain |
| Need for remand | Price: case should proceed to develop facts on discoverability and tolling | Defendants: statute bars suit, no further proceedings | Court: reversed dismissals and remanded for further proceedings to resolve factual issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Scavo v. Old Forge Borough, 978 A.2d 1076 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (affirmative defenses apparent on face of pleadings may be decided via preliminary objections)
- Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 468 A.2d 468 (Pa. 1983) (explains discovery rule as tolling where injury and cause are unknowable despite reasonable diligence)
- Fine v. Checcio, 870 A.2d 850 (Pa. 2005) (factual question of when injury was discovered is typically for jury; discovery-rule applicability requires inquiry into reasonable diligence)
- Scranton Gas & Water Co. v. Lackawanna Iron & Coal Co., 31 A. 484 (Pa. 1895) (early articulation of objective reasonable-diligence standard for discoverability)