Wiler, T. v. Maggio, T.
Wiler, T. v. Maggio, T. No. 452 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Thomas Wiler (owner of 614 Cherry St.) sued neighbor Thomas Maggio (owner of 620/622 Cherry St.) seeking a permanent injunction to stop Maggio from renting a small rear building (historically 620½, later 622) as a separate residence, alleging violation of Garden Court restrictive covenants recorded in 1907.
- The Declaration limits each lot to one single-family building and forbids "outbuildings" and use of any building for "commercial purposes."
- The rear structure on Maggio’s lot existed as a separate dwelling since at least the 1920s/1930s (tax, census, city directories, association minutes), and the Garden Court governing body and predecessors repeatedly knew of and acquiesced to its residential use for decades.
- Wiler purchased his lot in 2005, knew of the rear dwelling, but did not sue until 2012 after Maggio bought the property in 2008 and renovated the rear unit to rent; Wiler alleged Maggio converted a garage to an apartment between 2008–2011.
- The trial court found (1) the Declaration does not expressly prohibit renting and, if renting is prohibited, Wiler himself rents his home and thus is not in a clearly superior position; (2) laches applies because of long delay and prejudice to Maggio; and (3) equitable relief (permanent injunction) was not warranted. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restrictive covenants prohibit Maggio from renting the rear unit | Wiler: Renting the rear unit is a "commercial purpose" barred by the Declaration and the covenant runs with the land, so injunction is warranted | Maggio: Declaration contains no express ban on "rental"; historical, open residential rental use and acquiescence by the association; unit is a legal nonconforming use | The court agreed with Maggio: Declaration does not expressly forbid renting; even if renting were barred, Wiler likewise rents and lacks clean equitable standing |
| Whether laches bars Wiler's claim for injunctive relief | Wiler: He acted promptly upon learning of Maggio’s intent and showed due diligence; no prejudice to Maggio | Maggio: The rear unit was openly used as a dwelling for decades; association and predecessors knew and took no legal action; Wiler delayed over 6 years after purchase and longer historically, causing prejudice (investment reliance) | The court held laches applies (delay and prejudice satisfied), barring equitable relief |
| Whether plaintiff showed the necessary elements for a permanent injunction | Wiler: Has a clear right to enforcement of the covenant and irreparable injury that money damages cannot remedy | Maggio: Plaintiff failed to show a clear right; granting an injunction would cause greater, irreparable harm to Maggio (investment, reliance) | The court held Wiler failed to demonstrate a clear right or that injunction would avoid greater injury; injunction denied |
| Whether prior association conduct and public records affect enforceability | Wiler: Historic acquiescence doesn't negate the covenant’s legal force against current owner | Maggio: Longstanding, open use, association letters/minutes, tax and zoning records show recognized nonconforming use and acquiescence, supporting laches and equitable defense | The court accepted Maggio’s position: historical use and association acquiescence support application of laches and equitable denial of relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Wellspan Health v. Bayliss, 869 A.2d 990 (Pa. Super. 2005) (plaintiff must prove a clear right to permanent injunctive relief)
- Buffalo Twp. v. Jones, 813 A.2d 659 (Pa. 2002) (standard of review for denial of injunction involves whether the court erred in law)
- Anderson v. Litke Family Ltd. P’ship, 748 A.2d 737 (Pa. Super. 2000) (appellate review of non-jury findings; evidence viewed in light most favorable to prevailing party)
- Vernon Twp. Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc. v. Connor, 855 A.2d 873 (Pa. 2004) (restrictive covenants are enforceable but disfavored and construed strictly against the party claiming benefit)
- Dreher Twp. Bd. v. Solitron Dev. Co., 481 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 1984) (covenants restricting land use construed against beneficiary)
- Fulton v. Fulton, 106 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (doctrine of laches: elements and equitable bar to stale claims)
- Estate of Scharlach, 809 A.2d 382 (Pa. Super. 2002) (laches may bar equitable relief even where legal claims remain timely)
- Woodward Twp. v. Zerbe, 6 A.3d 651 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010) (elements required for permanent injunction)
- Big Bass Lake Community Ass’n v. Warren, 950 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (permanent injunction should issue cautiously and only where plaintiff’s rights are clear and harm irreparable)