Scioli Turco, Inc. v. Prileau, D., 207 A.3d 346

Background

Scioli Turco, Inc. (STI), a non-profit, petitioned to be appointed conservator of 3206 Pearl Street under the Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act to rehabilitate/demolish the property.
Petition alleged property was open, unsecured, a public nuisance, required major repairs, had debris/overgrowth, and had been unoccupied for prior 12 months.
At hearing, neighborhood witness and Project Rehab representative testified the property was gutted, code-deficient, and vacant; owner-occupant Rasheed Prioleau testified he slept at the property several nights per week, had performed some work, held contractor certification, but had not obtained permits and had received inspection violations.
Trial court found Prioleau credible and concluded the property was ‘‘occupied’’ and therefore ‘‘legally occupied’’ under the Act, denying STI’s petition.
On appeal, the Superior Court reviewed statutory construction de novo, agreed ‘‘legally occupied’’ requires occupation that comports with law (i.e., not barred by code orders or illegal occupancy), but affirmed because STI produced no evidence that occupancy was illegal or that a code official had ordered vacating/prohibited occupancy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "legally occupied" in 68 P.S. §1105(d)(1) means mere physical presence by owner or also requires occupancy that complies with law	STI: term also requires that occupancy be lawful—if building is so unsafe or has an official vacate order, no legal occupation exists	Owners: occupancy by owner (or with owner’s consent) suffices; Prioleau’s sleeping there meant property was occupied and not subject to conservatorship	Court: "legally occupied" unambiguously means occupation that comports with law (e.g., not barred by code vacate orders); interpretation reversed trial court’s narrow reading
Whether evidence supported finding that property was illegally occupied or subject to a vacate/prohibition order	STI: building code violations rendered property incapable of legal occupation; Mr. Spak testified it violated codes	Owners: Prioleau testified to residing there, taking steps to repair, and no official vacate/order evidence	Court: STI failed to present evidence of an official determination or posted vacate order; lay testimony that it "would violate" codes insufficient; occupancy held lawful for purposes of Act
Whether trial court erred in denying conservatorship given Act’s remedial purpose to address blight	STI: permitting an owner to periodically occupy would defeat Act’s purpose to prevent demolition and dangerous conditions	Owners: continued occupation by owner distinguishes from abandoned/vagrant occupancy the Act targets	Court: agreed with STI’s purposive critique of trial court reading but concluded record lacked proof of illegal occupation, so conservatorship properly denied
Whether appellate court may affirm on a legal basis different from trial court’s	STI: N/A	Owners: N/A	Court: Appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by record; here it did so though it disagreed with trial court’s legal rationale

Key Cases Cited

G & G Inv’rs, LLC v. Phillips Simmons Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 183 A.3d 472 (Pa. Super. 2018) (standard of review and evidentiary burdens in non-jury conservatorship proceedings under the Act)
Generation Mortg. Co. v. Nguyen, 138 A.3d 646 (Pa. Super. 2016) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
Whitmoyer v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Mountain Country Meats), 186 A.3d 947 (Pa. 2018) (statutory interpretation principles; consider statute as whole)
Snyder Bros., Inc. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 198 A.3d 1056 (Pa. 2018) (ambiguity requires multiple reasonable interpretations)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 194 A.3d 126 (Pa. Super. 2018) (appellate courts may affirm on any legal basis supported by record)
Gemini Equip. Co. v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 595 A.2d 1211 (Pa. Super. 1991) (post-trial relief nomenclature and preservation rules)