Waite, J. v. CDG Properties, LLC v. Grandview Mgmt
1905 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 18, 2017Background
- James G. Waite sued Grandview Management and Burnham Farms (Appellants) over storm‑water runoff that allegedly caused tree death on Waite's property after a development project; trial court found Appellants failed to construct/maintain a proper drainage system.
- Trial court entered a mandatory injunction ordering Appellants to “modify the storm water drainage system so that water is conveyed to the storm water basin as intended and no longer drains onto [Waite’s] property.”
- Stone Valley Construction, the contractor that built the swale, was granted a directed verdict (no evidence it designed/constructed/maintained improperly).
- Waite’s experts testified trees died after construction and additional water reached Waite’s property, but they did not measure or trace subsurface flows, quantify excess flow, or identify whether the problem was design, construction, or maintenance.
- The dissent (Judge Ott) agreed injunction can be proper generally but argued the record lacked the detailed proof required to issue a mandatory injunction or to give Appellants a sufficiently specific remedy to obey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory injunctive relief was proper | Waite: mandatory relief is appropriate to stop continued harm (modify swale/ditch grade to convey water to basin). | Appellants: evidence insufficient and order too vague/speculative to be obeyed. | Majority affirmed injunction; dissent would reverse for lack of evidence showing how to correct harm. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of causation (design/construction/maintenance) | Waite: experts linked increased water after construction to tree deaths. | Appellants: experts did not trace/measure underground flow or identify specific cause; Stone Valley absolved by directed verdict. | Majority concluded liability for failing to construct/maintain was established as to Appellants; dissent found evidence insufficient against builder and insufficiently specific. |
| Specificity / narrow tailoring of remedy | Waite: relief simply requires correcting ditch grade into retention pond. | Appellants: trial evidence does not identify what corrective measures would fix the problem. | Dissent held remedy was too vague given record; majority nonetheless upheld injunction (dissent disagreed). |
| Standard for mandatory injunction (extraordinary remedy) | Waite: harm is ongoing and irreparable to trees, justifying injunction. | Appellants: mandatory injunction requires clear right and urgent necessity plus proof of means of abatement. | Dissent emphasized heightened scrutiny for mandatory injunctions and found the record lacking; majority applied injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gati v. University of Pittsburgh, 91 A.3d 723 (Pa. Super. 2014) (mandatory injunction is extraordinary and should be issued sparingly)
- Big Bass Lake Cmty. Ass’n v. Warren, 950 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (elements and cautious use of injunctive relief; need clear right and irreparable harm)
- John G. Bryant Co., Inc. v. Sling Testing & Repair, Inc., 369 A.2d 1164 (Pa. 1977) (courts must narrowly tailor injunctive remedies)
- Youst v. Keck’s Food Service, Inc., 94 A.3d 1057 (Pa. Super. 2014) (detailed evidence of diverted or concentrated water supported injunctive relief)
- Rau v. Wilden Acres, Inc., 103 A.2d 422 (Pa. Super. 1954) (detailed factual showing of diversion and channeling of surface water supported relief)
- St. Andrew’s Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Lower Providence Twp., 198 A.2d 860 (Pa. 1964) (installation of pipe created concentrated flow and increased harm; support for injunctive relief)
- Ridgeway Court, Inc. v. Landon Courts, Inc., 442 A.2d 246 (Pa. Super. 1981) (development altered natural flow, increased acreage draining onto plaintiff; expert quantification supported remedy)