Zokaites Properties, LP and Wyncrest Development, Inc. v. Butler Township UCC Board of Appeals
Zokaites Properties, LP and Wyncrest Development, Inc. v. Butler Township UCC Board of Appeals - 519 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | May 3, 2017Background
- Developers (Zokaites Properties, LP and Wyncrest Development, Inc.) planned a 47‑lot residential subdivision (Wyncrest Estates) in Butler Township; 15 homes had been built under the 2009 UCC.
- Developers’ subcontractor applied in 2010 for a permit to build a home under the 2006 UCC; the Township Code Officer required compliance with the 2009 UCC.
- Developers relied on a December 15, 2009 letter from an architect (signed 15 days before the 2009 UCC effective date) which they claimed constituted a pre‑effective date design contract entitling them to the 2006 UCC grandfathering provision.
- The Township UCC Board and the trial court found the Letter was not an enforceable design contract and required evidence of detrimental reliance to apply the 2006 UCC; the trial court entered judgment for the Board.
- On appeal, Developers failed to file the Rule 1925(b) Statement ordered by the trial court; the trial court issued Rule 1925(a) opinions noting the failure and warned of waiver.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding Developers waived all appellate issues by not filing the Rule 1925(b) Statement and declined to remand because Developers did not show good cause or seek timely relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 15, 2009 Letter is a pre‑effective design contract invoking the UCC grandfathering (so 2006 UCC applies) | Letter executed before the 2009 UCC effective date so 2006 UCC controls; no detrimental reliance proof required | Letter lacks enforceable contract terms; Board argues 2009 UCC governs and detrimental reliance evidence required | Not reached on merits — issue waived for failure to file Rule 1925(b) Statement |
| Whether failure to file a Rule 1925(b) Statement can be excused and remand ordered to allow nunc pro tunc filing | Counsel claims non‑receipt of trial court order (blames mail) and requests remand in reply brief | Board points to certified docket mailings and argues bright‑line waiver rule applies; no timely motion for extension or remand was filed | Waiver upheld; remand denied — Developers did not request timely extension or show good cause |
| Whether courts may overlook Rule 1925(b) noncompliance where trial court issued opinions | Developers argue they first learned of opinions only after appellate rejection and sought relief | Board invokes controlling precedent enforcing strict compliance regardless of opinions issued | Court enforces bright‑line Rule 1925(b) waiver rule despite potential harshness |
| Whether lack of receipt of mailed order rebuts presumption of receipt and justifies relief | Developers assert non‑receipt of December order | Court relies on Prothonotary’s certifications and mailbox rule presumption of receipt | Non‑receipt claim rejected absent credible showing; presumption of receipt applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (Rule 1925(b) bright‑line waiver applies absent compliance)
- Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775 (Pa. 2005) (failure to timely file Rule 1925(b) statement results in waiver)
- Commonwealth v. Gravely, 970 A.2d 1137 (Pa. 2009) (appellant must file written application in trial court to obtain extension for Rule 1925(b))
- In re Clinton County Tax Claims Bureau Consolidated Return, 109 A.3d 331 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (untimely Rule 1925(b) filing results in waiver absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 903 A.2d 1178 (Pa. 2006) (supports uniformity and certainty rationale for strict 1925 enforcement)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (appellants must comply with trial court order to file Statement to preserve appellate claims)
- Estate of Boyle, 77 A.3d 674 (Pa. Super. 2013) (affirming application of Rule 1925(b) despite harsh result)
- Volk v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 49 A.3d 38 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (mailbox rule: properly addressed mail is presumed received)
- Schlag v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 963 A.2d 598 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (docket silence as to service can prevent finding of waiver)