202 A.3d 52
Pa.2019Background
- Steven and Mary Szabo owned Parcel 5 (commercial property) abutting Route 19; PennDOT planned an exit ramp that affected Parcel 5 and served a declaration of taking (Jan. 10, 2013) with plot plans.
- The plot plans identified adjacent Parcels 1 and 9 as owned by others, contained title-chain notes and warnings, and did not show that portions of Parcels 1 and 9 had been or would be condemned.
- The Szabos did not file preliminary objections within 30 days because they did not object to the portion of Parcel 5 shown as condemned; PennDOT deposited estimated compensation ($587,000) and the Szabos accepted it and later petitioned for viewers.
- After construction began the Szabos obtained a survey showing PennDOT’s plans misidentified the full extent of their property interests (claiming ownership/impact to Parcels 1 and 9) and sought an evidentiary hearing. Trial court denied relief as waived; the Commonwealth Court reversed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court: PennDOT’s declaration/plan did not adequately establish the extent or effect of the taking, so failure to file preliminary objections did not waive the Szabos’ right to have factual issues resolved at an evidentiary hearing and to pursue just compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Szabo) | Defendant's Argument (PennDOT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to file preliminary objections waived claim to additional compensation for property misidentified in the plan | Szabo: The declaration/plot plan failed to show the condemnee’s entire property or the effect of the taking (Parcels 1 & 9), so they had no basis to file preliminary objections and did not waive claims | PennDOT: Section 306 makes preliminary objections the exclusive vehicle to challenge extent/nature of the property taken; Szabos should have objected within 30 days | Held: No waiver — where declaration/plan fails to adequately establish extent/effect of the taking, preliminary-objection rule does not bar later factfinding and compensation claims |
| Whether PennDOT’s mistaken/incomplete plans constituted failure to adequately establish extent/effect of the taking (i.e., de facto taking exception) | Szabo: Plans misidentified ownership and omitted condemned portions of adjacent parcels; this deprived them of notice and supports de facto-taking theory and a hearing | PennDOT: The plans provided adequate notice; Szabos knew what was being taken and delayed, causing prejudice; Greenfield/Dept. Gen. Servs. are distinguishable | Held: The Court found PennDOT’s plans did not adequately identify the full scope/effect of the taking; de facto-taking exception applies to permit an evidentiary hearing |
| Proper forum/procedure for resolving disputed fact issues about extent/ownership following inadequate notice | Szabo: Court of Common Pleas should hold evidentiary hearing to resolve ownership/extent then send matter to viewers for compensation | PennDOT: Issues should have been raised earlier by preliminary objections; allowing late factual claims prejudices condemnor | Held: Court of Common Pleas must resolve factual issues (evidentiary hearing); after findings, board of viewers determines compensation |
| Whether precedent (West Whiteland, Bernstein, Sluciak) requires strict waiver where plan shows property and owner | Szabo: Precedent allows exceptions where declaration did not adequately show extent/effect (Greenfield, Dept. Gen. Servs.); Sluciak supports compensation claims outside preliminary-objection rule | PennDOT: West Whiteland and Bernstein require timely objections; otherwise claim is waived | Held: Court distinguishes West Whiteland (where owner was accurately identified) and relies on Greenfield/Dept. Gen. Servs./Sluciak to permit exception when plan fails to give adequate notice |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Condemnation by Commonwealth, Dep't of Gen. Servs., 714 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (declaration that fails to establish extent/effect of taking can excuse failure to file preliminary objections)
- Pennsylvania Dep't of Transp. v. Greenfield Twp.-Property Owners, 582 A.2d 41 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (landowners unaware at time of declaration that property would be landlocked are not barred by failure to file preliminary objections)
- West Whiteland Assocs. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., 690 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (plot plans are the "heart" of a declaration; size/extent must be challenged promptly)
- In re Condemnation for State Route 79, 798 A.2d 725 (Pa. 2002) (Sluciak) (distinguishes between challenges to the taking and compensation; some compensation claims are not subject to preliminary-objection waiver)
- Appeal of Bernstein, 535 A.2d 1210 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (nature of property interest must ordinarily be raised by preliminary objections or is waived)
- Strong Appeal, 161 A.2d 380 (Pa. 1960) (limitations and waiver cannot run where condemnor's conduct deprived owners of notice; due-process protection of property)
- Pagni v. Commonwealth, 116 A.2d 294 (Pa. Super. 1955) (statutory bars do not apply where Commonwealth's failure to act deprived owners of notice)