West Brandywine Twp. v. J.P. Diromualdo, Inc. and J.P. Diromualdo, individually
38 and 198 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Feb 8, 2017Background
- In 2009 West Brandywine Township retained appraiser John P. Diromualdo to value a parcel it intended to acquire; Diromualdo issued a March 20, 2009 appraisal valuing the parcel at $744,000 and the Township purchased it for that amount on July 9, 2009.
- A deed restriction limiting the property's use to public open space/public use had been filed on February 24, 2009. The Township knew of that restriction during pre-acquisition negotiations but did not tell Diromualdo.
- In 2014 the Township learned the 2009 appraisal did not account for the deed restriction; Diromualdo’s 2014 reappraisal valued the property at $211,000.
- In March 2015 the Township sued Diromualdo for professional negligence, breach of contract, and misrepresentation seeking the difference in values.
- Diromualdo moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting the claims were time-barred under the statute of limitations; the trial court granted the motion and denied the Township leave to amend; the Township appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly resolved when the limitations period began (i.e., assumed fact-finder role) | Township: When it learned of the omission in 2014 was a fact for a jury; laypersons can’t detect appraisal errors earlier (citing Sadtler). | Diromualdo: The omission was discoverable from the 2009 report and Township’s own knowledge of the deed restriction; limitations began in 2009. | Court: Where facts are undisputed and clear, commencement is a question of law; limitations began in 2009 and claims are time-barred. |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint | Township: Proposed amendments explain when/how it first learned of the omission and are not futile. | Diromualdo: Amendments wouldn’t avoid the statute-of-limitations bar and therefore are futile. | Court: Amendments were futile because they didn’t rebut the limitations analysis; denial of leave was not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sadtler v. Jackson-Cross Co., 587 A.2d 727 (Pa. Super. 1991) (generally the commencement of limitations as a factual question for a jury)
- Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, 15 A.3d 479 (Pa. 2011) (discovery rule tolls limitations until plaintiff reasonably should know injury and cause)
- Glenbrook Leasing Co. v. Beausang, 839 A.2d 437 (Pa. 2003) (where discovery is clear, commencement of limitations may be decided as a matter of law)
- Baselice v. Franciscan Friars Assumption BVM Province, Inc., 879 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2005) (a plaintiff who has means of discovery but neglects to use them may be time-barred)
- Weaver v. Franklin County, 918 A.2d 194 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (amendment properly refused when amendment is futile)