Township of Summit v. Property Located at Vacant Land in Summit Township
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 286
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- This is an appeal from a trial court ruling upholding a lien filed by Summit Township against the Hessinger Property for infrastructure improvements related to Bush Industries' development project.
- Bush Industries sought and obtained a BID grant to cover road, water, and sewer work adjacent to the Bush property, including a Hessinger Drive turn-around on Hessinger land.
- The Plot of Survey signed by multiple landowners included a dedication of public highways and a covenant to install and pay for utilities within the subdivision, but did not clearly bind Hessinger to pay for improvements beyond Bush Industries' property.
- Township approved the Plot of Survey and later assessed $70,000 (later reflected as $85,000 lien) to Hessinger and Greenfield Investment Company’s property, without a formal ordinance or notice for the improvements and in apparent excess of statutory limits.
- The Second Class Township Code requires formal assessments and notices; the Municipal Claims Act creates a lien only for lawfully imposed or assessed claims, which the Township allegedly failed to meet.
- The appellate court held that the lien is invalid as a matter of law, reversing the trial court and remanding for entry of summary judgment in favor the Hessinger owners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lien is valid under statutory assessment requirements | Township argues it is a municipal claim despite contract/estoppel theories. | Owners contend no lawful assessment or ordinance compliance exists. | Lien invalid; failed assessment requirements nullify a municipal lien. |
| Whether Plot of Survey created a contractual obligation to pay for improvements | Plot of Survey language may bind signers to pay for improvements. | Language does not unambiguously bind Hessinger to pay, and dedication language releases Township liability. | Plot of Survey does not impose a contractual obligation on Hessinger for the disputed improvements. |
| Whether promissory estoppel supports the lien | Plot of Survey could constitute a promise to pay for improvements. | No clear promise or reliance establishing estoppel exists. | Promissory estoppel fails; insufficient reliance and lack of an enforceable promise. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Coventry Township v. Tripodi, 64 A.3d 1128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (municipal liens arise by operation of law only when lawfully imposed or assessed)
- In re Scranton Sewer, 213 Pa. 4, 62 A. 173 (1905) (municipal liens not based on private agreement if not lawfully imposed)
- Spring Garden Township v. Logan, 149 Pa. Super. 580, 27 A.2d 419 (Pa. Super. 1942) (situs of liability for municipal improvements depends on statutory compliance)