*1 In Re: CONDEMNATION BY the CITY proper-
OF COATESVILLE of certain
ty property interests
Property: Tax Parcel No. 38- Valley
3-25 Station Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
Appeal of: Estate of Patricia Gregory.
In Re: Condemnation property
Coatesville of certain interests
Property: Tax Parcel No. 38- Valley
3-25 Station Road
Coatesville, PA 19320
Appeal of: of Coatesville. Pennsylvania.
Commonwealth Court of
Argued Feb. 2006. April
Decided
Reargument Denied June *2 Bass, Philadelphia and Andrew
Herbert Chester, Lehr, appellant, for G. West of Coatesville. Jarvis, Coatesville, appellee,
Alan J. A. Gregory. Patricia Estate of PELLEGRINI, Judge, and BEFORE: McCLOSKEY, FRIEDMAN, Judge, and Judge. Senior PELLEGRINI. Judge BY OPINION Es appeal is the Before us (Estate) from Gregory tate Patricia Pleas of of the Court of Common an order (trial court) overruling its Chester to a declaration City of Coatesville municipality1 and for (City), a home rule class, under the merly city of the third Domain Code2 take Eminent Valley Township owns in that the Estatе public golf course.3 4, 2002, City filed a January On condemning real declaration of County Tax as property known Chester purpose for the (Property) Parcel 38-3-25 establishing creating (First Declara- related facilities course and The notice Taking). tion of record taking identified the declaration of Wilmington and as the owner/condemnee oth- Company among Railroad Northern notice of the First served ers.4 cross-appeal because it quash We City adoрted a 1. In home charter and is before the trial court was successful Char- provisions of Home Rule under the therefore, standing to aggrieved; it has no not (Home Optional Law ter and Plans can- appeal. Pa. R.A.P. 501. While Law), §§ Pa.C.S. 2901-3171 referen- arguments be considered appeal, its can dum. why court’s the trial as additional reasons nt. 14. be sustained. See order should Sess., Special P.L. Act of June amended, §§ 1-101—1-903. as con- notice also identified 4. The proper- condemned demnees/owners Declaration of on the time condemnation.5 That necessi- Company. Northern Railroad City, July tated to file Taking” “Second Declaration of against However, Estate, the Estate which referenced three sections *3 Wilmington and Northern Railroad Com of Third Code6 City the Class as pany, Property was the owner at the ty Reading Company objections interests to be the and to the Second Declaration of Tak- Philadelphia Company. Electric ing in thе belief that was he half owner of the fact, any In Wilson did not have 5. simplified We have the facts. For those Property interest in the conveyed because he morass, slogging through interested in this Property his interest in the Grego- to Patricia this is how the Estate became involved in the ry pursuant property agree- to the settlement 15, 1984, litigation: by deed dated October executed ment in December of 1986. When Wilmington and Northern Railroad Com- Wilson discovered he was not an owner of рany Property sold the to Howard Wilson and Property, he preliminary objec- withdrew his his wife Patricia Wilson. The Wilsons never tions. copy conveyance, received a of the deed of 18, raised, 2003, June On Estate was and the deed was never recorded in the Office three and letters of administration for the County. the Recorder of Deeds of Chester 21, granted were July Estate 2003, Wilson. On confirmation, 13, January A deed of dated Wilson, City served as Administra- 2003, Wilmington from the and Northern Estate, filing tor of with notice of the Company, grantors Proper- Railroad as of the Taking. the Second Declaration ty, to both Patricia and Howard Wilson con- 15, transfer, firming the October was 23, amended, 1931, 932, 6. Act of June P.L. as recorded in the Office of the Recorder of §§ 53 P.S. 35101-39701. The three sections February 21, Deeds of Chester on Code of the that were cited in the Ordinance 2801, 37801, § were Section Section Howard and Wilson Patricia Wilson were 2403, 37403, § perti- P.S. and the most 20, 1987, January divorced on entered and nеnt, 3703, 38703, Section P.S. which property into a agreement settlement on De- provides: 1986, 5, cember wherein Howard Wilson take, use, may upon, purchase Cities enter agreed conveyance Property to the acquire, by gift right and of emi- conveyance Patricia That Wilson. was ac- domain, lands, property buildings, and nent complished, conveyance and deed of dat- purpose making, extending, for en- January ed was recorded in the larging, maintaining places and recreation Office of the Recorder of Chester Deeds of public parks, park- which shall consist of County. Wilson Patricia remarried and took ways, playgrounds, playfields, gymnasiums, Gregory. Sep- the name Patricia She died on baths, swimming public pools, or indoor tember centers, may levy City recreation and collect The learned several months after the special may filing necessary such taxes be Taking as the First Declaration of same, (Wilson) pay apрropriations for the might Howard and make Wilson have an inter- care, result, maintenance, improvement, Property, est in the and for as a filed a regulation, government July second declaration on same. may Property separate designate apart for the same a set action Cities for use (Second Taking). purposes specified Declaration This Second for in this Taking pursuant buildings Declaration of was made section lands and owned such (Ordinance), Ordinance No. 1195-2002 which and not or devoted cities dedicated to other public may enacted on June 2002. The notice of use. Cities also lease lands and buildings temporary declaration identified the in such cities for use Lands, purposes. record property as the such for owner/condemnee Company buildings city may and Northern Railroad and Wilson outside the limits of the acquired as a of other condemned in like for manner recreation condemnee/owner places, interests. The served notice of and such be annexed to lands city, provided by the Second Declaration of Wilson in the manner act on August territory preliminary city. 2002. Wilson filed the annexation a purposes. attendant recreational prelimi- other taking. for the The Estate filed City appealed.8 the Estate and the among Both nary objections7 contending, have the things, did not Property condemn the under power to contends Initially,
Third
it was a
the Estatе
Class
Code because
municipality,
overruling
and did not
that the trial court erred
objection that
premature
Property
to condemn the
Property
could not condemn
facility
pro-
recreational
because was
business,
advance
condemnation was to
public
because the
prietary
purpose.
use.
rather
than
proprietary
City’s preliminary
*4
takings
blight
for
of
objections
While
elimination
preliminary
Estate’s
contended
impermis
in an
might
or
not result
might
standing, had
the Estate had no
property,
challenge
of a
sible use
objec-
right
preliminary
its
to file
waived
the exact na
might
premature
be
because
tions,
cognizable
and had
no
set forth
has yet
of the use
to be discerned.
ture
claim.
Redevelopment Authority
In re
But see
of
(Pa.
3, 2004,
Philadelphia,
those communities had
city
in a
provision
contained
Whether
take,
they
the action
desired to
dertake
county
particular
to that
applicable
code
denied,
specifically
and unless was
county
a statute that
city
of
class
58
upheld.
action should be
Pa.C.S.
every part
in
of
applicable
“uniform and
provides:
§ 2961
has been decided
Commonwealth”
we
Generally,
inconsistently.11
adopted a
somewhat
municipality
A
which has
municipal and coun-
held that various
may
any
exercise
rule charter
home
(Act
(Pa.Cmwlth.2002)
applied
example
home rule mu-
A.2d
an
of when a
11. For
municipalities
as to all
nicipality
to enact
as well
does not have
to home rule
contrary provisions,
cities).
West
see Brotherhood
other
Chester,
Borough West
Chester Police v.
ty codes are not uniform
filling
vacancy
to in the manner of
in the
every part
because,
attorney). Yet,
of the Commonwealth
office of
in
district
definition,
cases,
adopted
codes are not
we have
what
best
applica-
can
every
hybrid
ble to
described
part
approach,
of the Commonwealth
as
holding
particular
and the
that while a
code
applies,
codes themselves are based on an
still
exception
municipаlity
to
home rule
uniformity provision
con-
to
supplement
in
its terms under
Pennsylvania
tained
its home rule
Constitution.
Farrell,
result,
powers.
See McSwain v.
As a
in some cases we have held
(1993)
154 Pa.Cmwlth.
fact that appellee an is not to file SULLIVAN BOARD COUNTY OF appeal a cross mean does not ASSESSMENT APPEALS. appellee prohibited filing from a cross appeal when the lower tribunal ruled Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Court of issue, against it on an if appellee an Argued Feb. appeal desires to file a cross to raise an Decided April support issue in of affirmance on other grounds, I believe has appellee stand-
ing do so. majority quash relies Rule 501 to cross appeal. (empha- Rule 501 added)
sis “any states that party who is by
aggrieved an ... appealable order
appeal An “appeal” therefrom.” must be within thirty days entry
order, appeal” whereas a “cross must be
filed within days filing fourteen “appeal.” 903(b), See Pa. R.A.P.
1113(b) 1512(a)(2). & logically One could that,
interpret these rules to mean while appellant
an must be aggrieved an
order to file an “appeal,” appellee an need
not be aggrieved that order to file a
“cross An appeal.” appellee’s purpose in protect a cross appeal against is to possibility appellate that the court will
reverse the tribunal below without consid-
ering before, issues raised but not consid- by,
ered that tribunal or without consider-
ing grounds would result an I
affirmance. submit party
standing protect its interests in such a
fashion.