Szabo v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
159 A.3d 604
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Stephen and Mary Szabo own commercial property in McMurray, PA. The PA Department of Transportation filed a Declaration of Taking to acquire part of their land for SR‑19 expansion.
- Plans attached to the Declaration misidentified certain parcels as owned by others; a later survey showed DOT actually condemned more of the Szabos’ land than the Declaration indicated.
- The Department agreed to construct a rear parking lot as part of the project.
- The Szabos filed a Petition for Appointment of Viewers and later a Petition for an Evidentiary Hearing to determine extent/nature of the taking and correct ownership; the trial court denied the evidentiary hearing.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether the Declaration gave adequate notice of the extent/effect of the taking and whether failure to file preliminary objections waived the Szabos’ challenge. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Declaration of Taking adequately identified property and provided notice of extent/effect of taking | Declaration misidentified owners and understated condemnation; thus Szabos lacked adequate notice and did not discover error until survey — hearing required | Plans accompanying Declaration gave notice of parcels; Szabos received Notice of Taking and met with DOT — statutory requirements satisfied | Declaration did not adequately identify property; inadequate notice because plans misidentified ownership and understated taking; remand for evidentiary hearing |
| Whether failure to file preliminary objections within 30 days waived Szabos’ challenge to extent/nature of taking | Waiver rule should not apply where Declaration fails to establish extent/effect of taking; condemnee should not bear burden to detect condemnor’s errors | Section 306 requires preliminary objections within 30 days and is the exclusive early challenge method; late objections should be barred to prevent prejudice | No waiver: courts allow challenges where Declaration does not adequately establish extent/effect; Szabos preserved issue and are entitled to a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- West Whiteland Associates v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, 690 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (plans attached to a declaration are central to identifying condemned property)
- In re Commonwealth, Department of General Services, 714 A.2d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (declaration that does not adequately establish extent/effect of taking does not waive later challenge; evidentiary hearing required if factual issues exist)
- Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Greenfield Township-Property Owners, 582 A.2d 41 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (failure to file preliminary objections does not bar de facto taking claim when condemnee lacked notice of the taking’s consequences)
- City of Pittsburgh v. Gold, 390 A.2d 1373 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (late discovery of condemnation-related damage can permit later challenge despite not filing preliminary objections)