Whitacker-Reid v. Pottsgrove School District, Board of School Directors
160 A.3d 905
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Mother enrolled two children in Pottsgrove School District using her grandmother Octavia Durham’s address (District Address); children attended 2013–14 and 2014–15 school years.
- District investigated after a complaint and surveillance; investigators reported Mother drove a red car registered to an address in Pottstown and surveillance saw Mother at the District Address but not at the Pottstown address.
- District notified Mother it found she did not reside in the District and held a hearing (April 15, 2015); Hearing Officer concluded Mother was non-resident and recommended exclusion/expulsion.
- Board adopted the Hearing Officer’s findings; Mother appealed to Montgomery County Common Pleas pro se.
- Mother obtained pro bono counsel the day before oral argument and requested a one-week continuance to file a brief; common pleas denied the continuance, limited argument to issues raised in Mother’s appeal, and affirmed the Board.
- Commonwealth Court reviewed (no additional evidence taken) and reversed common pleas, finding the District failed to present substantial evidence of Mother’s non-residency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common pleas abused its discretion by denying a one-week continuance to permit counsel to file a brief | Whitaker-Reid: denial prejudiced her; counsel needed time to brief complex legal issues | District: request was untimely (day before argument), would prejudice District, and common pleas acted within discretion | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; factors (prejudice, timing, diligence, complexity) supported refusal |
| Whether common pleas should have allowed new legal issues at oral argument (burden of proof; Hearing Officer assistance) | Whitaker-Reid: common pleas should have permitted counsel to raise these legal claims despite no brief | District: new issues were waived because not raised below; permitting them would prejudice District | Court treated these as reasons for the continuance request and did not reach them on the merits; issues were not preserved below and largely waived |
| Whether the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence (residency) | Whitaker-Reid: documentary evidence and enrollment paperwork support residency at District Address; no reliable alternative residence proven | District: surveillance, attendance patterns, and investigative report support non-residency and an alternative Pottstown address | Reversed: many Board findings lacked substantial evidence (missing/uncertain forms; no reliable proof Mother lived at the alleged alternative address); record as whole supports that Mother resided at the District Address |
| Which party bore the initial burden to prove residency at the hearing | Whitaker-Reid: argued Hearing Officer improperly shifted burden (raised late) | District: proceeded on Hearing Officer’s statement that Mother had burden | Court: issue waived on appeal; but remarked initial enrollment documentation can satisfy plaintiff’s burden and then burden shifts to District to substantiate non-residency |
Key Cases Cited
- Nerkowski v. Yellow Cab Co. of Pittsburgh, 259 A.2d 171 (Pa. 1969) (continuance denial can be abusive under unusual circumstances)
- Birdsall v. Carbon County Bd. of Assessment & Rev. of Taxes, 649 A.2d 740 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (factors for evaluating continuance requests)
- Cumberland Valley School Dist. v. In re Residence Hearing Before Bd. of Sch. Directors, 744 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2000) (definition of residence under School Code; physical presence test)
- Paek v. Pen Argyl Area Sch. Dist., 923 A.2d 563 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (documentary evidence insufficient where substantial evidence supports alternative non‑district residence)
- Behm v. Wilmington Area Sch. Dist., 996 A.2d 60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (local agency must have substantial evidence to substantiate non‑residency determination)