43 Pa. D. & C.5th 49
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2014Background
- Millcreek Township filed a declaration of taking (and later an amended declaration) to acquire a 0.618‑acre easement across Angela Cres Trust land for storm‑water channel improvements; the easement’s pecuniary value was about $9,000.
- The Trust (Laurel Hirt trustee) filed extensive preliminary objections; after discovery and a non‑jury hearing the trial court sustained two preliminary objections defeating the taking; Commonwealth Court and Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied relief to Millcreek on appeal.
- The Trust sought reimbursement under the Eminent Domain Code for attorney, engineering and other fees incurred challenging the taking; original requests exceeded $2.4 million (after reductions) for fees and costs arising from multiple related lawsuits and long litigation.
- Millcreek opposed the requested amount as unreasonable, pointing to block billing, duplication, excessive staffing and travel, costs attributable to other matters, and rates/hours that exceeded local norms.
- After a contested evidentiary hearing with competing expert testimony on billing reasonableness, the court credited the defendant’s expert and applied Pennsylvania fee‑reasonableness factors, ultimately awarding the Trust $517,868 (about equal to a premium on Millcreek’s own litigation costs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to reimbursement under the Eminent Domain Code | Trust: prevailing on preliminary objections entitles reimbursement of fees, engineering and other costs incurred because of condemnation | Millcreek: does not dispute statutory entitlement but contests scope (what was "because of the condemnation") | Court: Trust entitled to reimbursement, but limited to reasonable fees and costs actually incurred because of the condemnation proceeding; award quantified below |
| Reasonableness of hours billed and staffing levels | Trust: complex eminent‑domain and environmental issues justified team approach, multiple attorneys, travel and high hours | Millcreek: hours excessive, pervasive duplication, unnecessary group meetings and multiple counsel where one would suffice | Court: many entries excessive or unexplained (block billing, duplication, large group meetings, multiple attendees); reduced award accordingly |
| Hourly rates claimed (local norm) | Trust: retained top out‑of‑county specialists whose higher rates were justified by expertise | Millcreek: Philadelphia rates exceed northwest PA norms; comparable local counsel available at lower rates | Held: FR partners’ rates exceed local norms; TMG rates generally within local norms; court discounted rates where appropriate |
| Allocation of time/costs to other cases or non‑condemnation work | Trust: lumped invoices and block billing presumed attributable to condemnation work | Millcreek: substantial billed time and expenses relate to other parallel litigation (EHB, negligence, Sunshine Act) and are not recoverable | Court: many costs/time were for other matters or ambiguous due to block billing; Trust failed to meet burden to segregate; those amounts excluded or reduced |
Key Cases Cited
- Trizechahn Gateway LLC v. Titus, 976 A.2d 474 (Pa. 2009) (reiterating the American Rule—each party bears its own fees absent statutory authorization)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar principles; burden to prove reasonable hours and rates)
- In re Trust Estate of LaRocca, 246 A.2d 337 (Pa. 1968) (factors for assessing reasonableness of attorney fees)
- Samuel‑Bassett v. Kia Motors, 34 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2011) (appellate deference to trial court fee determinations unless record lacks support)
- In re Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Authority, 452 A.2d 1113 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (applying LaRocca factors in condemnation/fee contexts)
- Harrisburg v. Dauphin County Bd. of Assessment, 51 A.3d 275 (Pa. Commw. Ct.) (trial‑court credibility and fee‑assessment principles)
- Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205 (U.S. 2011) (observing that fee disputes can become a "second major litigation")