298 A.3d 172
Pa. Commw. Ct.2023Background
- PCDC filed a Petition (Apr. 13, 2021) under the Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act seeking appointment of a conservator for a building at 3110 W. Berks St., Philadelphia.
- The City’s L&I declared the building imminently dangerous and demolished it (May 2021); the lot remains vacant.
- PRA answered and argued demolition rendered the Petition moot; the trial court initially dismissed as moot but granted reconsideration to evaluate conditions as of the petition filing date.
- After an evidentiary hearing (Oct. 22, 2021) the trial court found conservatorship conditions existed as of the petition date but terminated the Petition because demolition remediated the condition; it lifted the lis pendens and permitted PCDC to file for fees and costs under the Act.
- PRA appealed; PCDC moved to quash for lack of a final order. The Commonwealth Court denied the Motion to Quash and affirmed the trial court: the order was appealable under Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(2); fees/costs were allowable under Section 5(f) because the petition met statutory conditions; the case was not moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (PCDC) | Defendant's Argument (PRA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of Oct. 22 Order under Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(2) | Order affected possession/control by resolving whether conservatorship conditions existed; appealable | Not appealable — no conservator appointed and demolition meant no effect on possession/control | Appealable under Rule 311(a)(2); conservatorship proceeding is a similar matter and the order resolved the heart of the dispute |
| Whether PCDC is precluded from recovering fees/costs because a third party abated conditions pre-hearing | Fees recoverable under §5(f) if petition states conditions for conservatorship | No fee entitlement where an independent third party (L&I) demolished the building before a hearing and owner made no §5(f) election | Fees/costs allowed: §5(f) permits award when petition states conservatorship conditions (alternative to owner election) |
| Mootness — should the action have been dismissed because conditions were abated pre-hearing | Not moot because Act requires inquiry into whether conditions existed as of petition filing date; subsequent demolition does not eliminate that inquiry | Moot — demolition remediated alleged conditions before merits hearing | Not moot: court must determine conditions as of filing date; subsequent remediation does not dispose of statutory inquiry |
| Whether the American Rule/statutory language bars recovery of attorney’s fees absent explicit authorization | Act authorizes recovery where petition states conditions or owner elects remedies; §5(f) supplies authorization | American Rule and §5(f) statutory text preclude fee recovery absent explicit owner election or conservator appointment | American Rule not a bar here because the Act (§5(f)) authorizes fees when petition states conditions for conservatorship |
Key Cases Cited
- Triffin v. Interstate Printing Co., 515 A.2d 956 (Pa. Super. 1986) (interlocutory appeals under Rule 311(a)(2) include orders refusing to confirm a custodial remedy affecting possession)
- Foulke v. Lavelle, 454 A.2d 56 (Pa. Super. 1982) (orders denying efforts to set aside or stay a writ of attachment affect possession and fall within Rule 311(a)(2))
- In re Conservatorship Proceeding in Rem by Germantown Conservancy, Inc., 995 A.2d 451 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (describing conservatorship purpose to take possession, rehabilitate, and potentially sell property under the Act)
- Francisville Neighborhood Dev. Corp. v. Estate of Moore, 174 A.3d 1193 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (§5(f) permits award of fees/costs when petition states conservatorship conditions or owner elects statutorily specified remedies)
- U.S. Nat’l Bank in Johnstown v. Johnson, 487 A.2d 809 (Pa. 1985) (lifting a lis pendens is interlocutory and not a final order)
- Richard Allen Preparatory Charter Sch. v. Dep’t of Educ., 161 A.3d 415 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (describing the American Rule: attorney’s fees are recoverable only where statutory authorization exists)