Bd. of Supervisors of Willistown Twp. v. Main Line Gardens, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | 1549 C.D. 2015,1460 C.D. 2015,No. 1434 C.D. 2015,1456 C.D. 2015,1573 C.D. 2015,1574 C.D. 2015,1434 C.D. 2015 |
| Citation | 184 A.3d 615 |
| Parties | BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF WILLISTOWN TOWNSHIP v. MAIN LINE GARDENS, INC. and Coffman Associates, LLC Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
James S. Tupitza, West Chester, for designated appellants.
Scot R. Withers, West Chester, for appellee.
BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge, HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON
These six consolidated appeals return to this Court following our Supreme Court's remand in Board of Supervisors of Willistown Township v. Main Line Gardens, Inc., 638 Pa. 323, 155 A.3d 39 (2017) ( Main Line Gardens II ). In Main LineGardens II, the Supreme Court determined a single judge of this Court erred in dismissing the appeals filed by Main Line Gardens, Inc. and Coffman Associates, LLC (collectively, Main Line) following the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County's1 (trial court) entry of judgment against Main Line in six zoning enforcement actions filed by the Willistown Township Board of Supervisors (Township). A single judge of this Court dismissed Main Line's appeals based on its failure to file briefs in support of its post-trial motions in the trial court. Our Supreme Court reversed and remanded to this Court for review of the merits of the issues raised in Main Line's underlying appeals.
As to the merits, Main Line primarily argues the trial court erred in determining Main Line waived the issue of res judicata , which, it asserts, bars the Township's enforcement actions. Main Line also contends the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to the Township. Upon review, we affirm.
In April 2011, the Township issued Main Line a zoning enforcement notice, which indicated that Main Line's garden center use did not comply with the terms of a prior conditional use decision as well as the Willistown Township Zoning Ordinance of 1981 (zoning ordinance). Relevant here, the Township alleged continuing violations by Main Line related to the dumping, storing, transferring, or processing of tree waste in the form of wood chips, in violation of Section 139–146(B) of the zoning ordinance. Main Line appealed the enforcement notice to the Zoning Hearing Board of Willistown Township (ZHB), which, after hearings, determined Main Line was in violation of the zoning ordinance and prior conditional use approval. The trial court upheld the ZHB's decision, as modified, and this Court affirmed. Thereafter, the Supreme Court denied Main Line's petition for allowance of appeal.
To enforce the ZHB's determination, in August 2013, the Township filed seven civil complaint enforcement actions against Main Line in magisterial district court for per diem violations of the zoning ordinance. Each complaint sought per diem violations for specific 12–day periods because, based on the jurisdictional limit of the magisterial district court ($12,000 per action), the Township had to file seven separate actions seeking discrete 12–day periods of violations in each, separate action. A hearing ensued before a magisterial district judge.
Ultimately, the magisterial district court issued separate notices of judgment against Main Line in the amount of $6,143 on each of the seven complaints, for a total judgment of $43,001. Main Line appealed the seven magisterial district court judgments to the trial court, and the Township filed complaints against Main Line in each of the seven actions. In each complaint, the Township sought the imposition of per diem fines for the period of May 23, 2012, to August 14, 2013.2
In May 2014, after civil arbitrations in the seven actions, an arbitration panel entered an award in favor of the Township in one of the seven actions in the amount of $21,274.67, and in favor of Main Line in the remaining six actions. The Township entered judgment on the arbitrators' award in the one case decided in its favor, and it filed notices of appeal in the other six cases, which then proceeded before the trial court de novo . See Pa. R.C.P. No. 1311(a).
Prior to trial, Main Line filed motions for summary judgment in the six remaining actions. In supporting briefs filed in each case, Main Line argued that res judicata barred the Township from offering proof of damages because the arbitrators rendered a decision on damages (in the first case decided in favor of the Township) for the entire 84–day period alleged in that case, and that case was a final judgment because the Township did not appeal that decision.
In response, the Township filed a motion for leave to amend its complaints in the six actions to set forth the distinct 12–day periods set forth in the complaints it filed in the magisterial district court. Main Line filed responsive briefs, arguing against amendment based on res judicata . The Township also filed cross-motions for summary judgment with supporting briefs in the six cases, offering its own res judicata argument, namely that the doctrine should bar Main Line from contesting the arbitrators' factual findings relating to its zoning ordinance violations in the case decided in favor of the Township as Main Line did not appeal that decision. Main Line filed responses and supporting briefs to the Township's cross-motions for summary judgment, offering further argument on the application of res judicata under the existing procedural posture of the six cases.
Thereafter, the trial court denied all of the motions and cross-motions for summary judgment. At the outset of a non-jury trial, over Main Line's objections based on res judicata , the trial court granted the Township's motion to amend its six complaints.3 The trial court acknowledged Main Line's res judicata and collateral estoppel objections, and the trial court provided the parties an opportunity to argue those issues.
After the non-jury trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the Township in all six actions in the amount of $15,200 in each case (for a total of $91,200). In a footnote to the first of its six orders, the trial court indicated that Main Line did not properly raise res judicata as a defense in the six actions because it did not raise the defense in its pleadings. Specifically, the trial court stated:
Not having been pled, [Main Line's] reliance on the defense of res judicata is unavailing. Had that defense been pled, [the Township] could have taken the appropriate steps to separate each of the causes of action. Further, the actual violations have been proven with sufficient specificity, the burden being on the [Township] to demonstrate the violations but only by a preponderance of the evidence and we impose a fine of $100 per day. In addition, [the Township] is entitled to recover its reasonable and appropriate attorney's fees and costs, Borough of Bradford Woods v. Platts, 799 A.2d 984 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), but [the Township] also has the burden of proof as to those damages. In this and the related cases, it was difficult to ascertain the appropriate amount to be awarded but we are satisfied that the amounts awarded in this and the related cases (we divided the awardable costs and fees equally among the cases) are sufficiently supported by the evidence.
Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 535a.
Main Line filed timely post-trial motions in each of the six cases. However, it did not file briefs in support of its post-trial motions. The trial court subsequently entered six separate orders denying Main Line's post-trial motions, and it entered six separate judgments against Main Line.
Main Line filed six notices of appeal from the six separate judgments entered in the trial court.4 The trial court directed Main Line to file concise statements of the errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b), which it did.
The trial court subsequently issued an opinion pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a). In its opinion, the trial court explained that Main Line first asserted that the trial court erred in finding Main Line did not avail itself of the defense of res judicata . The trial court stated Main Line was correct in that assertion, but the trial court's error in deeming the defense of res judiciata waived was harmless because, on the merits, the defense did not apply here.
To that end, the trial court stated, the doctrine of res judicata precludes an action where the former and latter suits possess the following common elements: (1) identity of issues; (2) identity of causes of action; (3) identity of persons and parties to the action; and, (4) identity of the capacity of the parties suing or being sued. In re Iulo, 564 Pa. 205, 766 A.2d 335 (2001) ; see also Daley v. A.W. Chesterton, Inc., 614 Pa. 335, 37 A.3d 1175 (2012). Here, the trial court stated, each of the seven suits the Township filed related to different time periods; therefore, the requisite identities were not present.
Next, the trial court stated, Main Line's second argument was that the trial court erred in permitting amendment of the six complaints that proceeded to trial. The trial court explained Main Line's argument on this point depended on its first argument, that the claims in the six complaints were barred by res judicata . However, the trial court stated, as noted above, each of the seven complaints covered a distinct time period; therefore, res judicata did not apply.
Finally, the trial court stated, Main Line argued that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees where the evidence the Township presented commingled allowable fees with those that were not recoverable. The trial court explained that Main Line was correct that the evidence did not clearly differentiate the fees incurred for each of the applicable 12–day periods. However, the trial court stated, based on the evidence presented, it was able to make a determination with reasonable accuracy and without impermissible speculation.5
For these reasons, the trial court opined that...
To continue reading
Request your trial