Noto, M. v. Millett, D.
362 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- Notos own land abutting Millett’s; Millett planned a stormwater basin and spillway whose overflow could reach Noto’s property.
- Permits were obtained under Pennsylvania Storm Water Management Act after Millett submitted a runoff management plan to the Lackawanna County Conservation District.
- After installation, Noto filed amended complaint alleging negligence, nuisance, declaratory and equitable relief; MSW Act claims were abandoned; new allegations of design miscalculations were added.
- Amended allegations claimed the basin’s capacity was miscalculated (overstated 25%), with lower spillway/rock elevations reducing capacity (roughly 56% less than planned).
- Trial court sustained Millett’s preliminary objections as not ripe, noting no known design problems in the built system and that alleged harms were remote, hypothetical, or contingent on a 100-year storm.
- Appellants appealed; the appellate court reviewed the demurrer de novo, addressing the misapplication of facts outside the complaint and the ripeness doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliance on extrinsic facts in demurrer | Noto argues miscalculations outside the complaint were relied upon. | Millett contends outside facts are permissible at demurrer if properly supported. | Court erred in considering outside facts; harmless error |
| Ripeness of claims | Allegations show imminent harm from runoff and miscalculations. | No present injury; future harm is speculative, not ripe. | Claims not ripe; affirmed demurrer |
Key Cases Cited
- Grose v. Procter & Gamble Paper Products, 866 A.2d 437 (Pa. Super. 2005) (tests demurrer; factual sufficiency from complaint with inferences)
- Juszczyszyn v. Taiwo, 113 A.3d 853 (Pa. Super. 2015) (accepts inferences from complaint; limits on outside facts)
- Ranck v. Bonal Enterprises, Inc., 359 A.2d 748 (Pa. 1976) (nuisance injunctive relief requires practical certainty of harm)
- Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P. v. City of Philadelphia, 937 A.2d 385 (Pa. 2007) (ripeness; avoid premature judicial action)
- Klein v. Shadyside Health, Educ. and Research Corp., 643 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (nuisance by operation; influences on whether relief is appropriate; persuasive)
- Chase v. Eldred Borough, 902 A.2d 992 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (distinguishes actual vs. threatened nuisance; not controlling here)
- Bretz v. Central Bucks School Dist., 86 A.3d 306 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (nuisance doctrine; distinctions on actual harm vs. prospective)