212 A.3d 1168
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- Stephen and Mary Szabo own property adjacent to State Route 19; PennDOT filed a declaration of taking in 2013 identifying part of Parcel 5 for condemnation.
- While construction proceeded, PennDOT’s contractors entered areas of the Szabos’ land not depicted in the Declaration; surveys showed Parcels 1 and 9 were misidentified as owned by others.
- The Szabos filed a petition in the de jure condemnation proceeding seeking an evidentiary hearing to identify the property actually taken and its owners; the trial court denied that petition.
- This Court (Szabo I) reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, holding the Declaration’s inaccurate plans deprived the Szabos of adequate notice.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Szabo II) affirmed, directing the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the property interests affected and to have a board of viewers determine compensation.
- Before Szabo II issued, the Szabos filed a separate de facto petition seeking a board of viewers for Parcels 1 and 9; the trial court dismissed it as duplicative pending the Supreme Court appeal, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by dismissing Szabos’ de facto petition without an evidentiary hearing | Szabos: the de facto petition raises factual issues (Parcels 1 & 9) requiring an independent hearing and potentially different remedies than the de jure case | PennDOT: Szabo I/II already secured the same relief; de facto petition would duplicate/remedy matters to be decided on remand and could be precluded | Court: Dismissal moot—Supreme Court remand provides the same relief; trial court’s dismissal affirmed by dismissal of appeal as moot |
| Whether Szabos can pursue de facto fees/costs not available in de jure proceeding | Szabos: de facto proceeding may yield greater reimbursement (fees/expenses) than de jure limits | PennDOT: Whether the taking was de jure or de facto is for the remand hearing/board; award of fees/costs is for trial court on remand | Court: Moot—Supreme Court remand covers determination of property taken and compensation, including fees/costs as appropriate on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Szabo v. Department of Transportation, 159 A.3d 604 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (reversing trial court and remanding for evidentiary hearing where declaration plans were inaccurate)
- Szabo v. Department of Transportation, 202 A.3d 52 (Pa. 2019) (Supreme Court affirming and directing trial court evidentiary hearing to determine property interests affected and remanding compensation issues to board of viewers)
- West Whiteland v. Department of Transportation, 690 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (procedural defects that affect the extent or effect of a taking go to the heart of a declaration of taking)
- Norberry One Condominium Ass'n v. PennDOT, 805 A.2d 59 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (harmless procedural irregularities will not set aside a condemnation decision)