Bindas v. Commonwealth
| Docket Number | 27 WAP 2022,J-17-2023 |
| Decision Date | 22 August 2023 |
| Parties | DONALD R. BINDAS, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
1
DONALD R. BINDAS, Appellant
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee
No. 27 WAP 2022
No. J-17-2023
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
August 22, 2023
ARGUED: April 19, 2023
Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered May 18, 2021 at No. 652 CD 2018, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County entered February 26, 2018 at No. 2016-4760.
TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ.
OPINION
WECHT JUSTICE
In 2015, the Department of Transportation ("PennDOT") began constructing a diamond interchange and installing a drainage system on property abutting Interstate 70 ("I-70") in Washington County, Pennsylvania. The property's owner, Donald Bindas, filed a petition for the appointment of a board of viewers, seeking compensation for this encumbrance upon his land. PennDOT asserted that its predecessor, the Department of Highways ("DOH"), had secured a highway easement for the land in question in 1958. Both the trial court and the Commonwealth Court agreed, dismissing Bindas' suit. Upon our review of the statutory authority that PennDOT invokes, as well as the record, we find that DOH's failure to comply with the requirements of 36 P.S. § 670-210 renders that easement invalid. Accordingly, we vacate the Commonwealth Court's order, and we remand with the instruction that PennDOT's preliminary objections be overruled.
The General Assembly enacted the State Highway Law in 1945. Section 210 therein states:
The [Secretary of Transportation] is hereby empowered to change, alter, or establish the width, lines, location, or grades of any State highway or any intersecting road in any township, borough, or incorporated town, in such manner as in his discretion, may seem best, in order to correct danger or inconvenience to the traveling public, or lessen the cost to the Commonwealth in the construction, reconstruction, or maintenance thereof. . . . Before any change or order of vacation is made, the secretary shall first submit a plan of the proposed change or any proposed order of vacation duly acknowledged to the Governor; and the same shall be approved by him, and filed as a public record in the office of the department and a copy thereof shall be recorded in the office for the recording of deeds in the proper county at the expense of the department in a plan book or books provided by the county for that purpose. The approval of such plan or plans by the Governor shall be considered to be the condemnation of an easement for highway purposes from all property within the lines marked as required for right of way and the condemnation of an easement of support or protection from all property within the lines marked as required for slopes. All plans or orders so approved, filed and recorded shall indicate the names of the owners or reputed owners of the land affected by taking or vacation and of lands abutting the same. It shall be the duty of the recorder of deeds of each county to provide a plan book or books for the recording of such plans and orders, and to maintain an adequate locality index for the same.[1]
Thirteen years later, the Governor approved and signed a "Construction and Condemnation of Right of Way Plan" providing for the expansion of I-70. At the time, the property now owned by Bindas covered two separate parcels, one owned by Otto and Rose Koehler, and the other owned by E. Helene Carter. The Koehlers and Carter signed quitclaim deeds to DOH, which were not recorded. In 1976, the Washington County Tax Claim Bureau acquired both parcels. The next year, it sold the property to Frances and Cecilia Jaworski, who, in turn, sold the property to Bindas.
The chain of title of the Carter property included the following paragraph in subsequent deeds:
EXCEPTING and RESERVING therefrom and thereout the greater portion of the above described tract, condemned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for highway purposes for a limited access highway as shown on Sheet No. 44 of Right of Way Plan for Route No. 798, Section No. 1-A, Washington County, as approved by the Governor on August 1, 1958; the portion so taken being situated between [the enumerated] Stations [ ] on the left side of the road.[2]
Nevertheless, when Sheila Sten-a title searcher in Washington County for thirty-three years, enlisted by Bindas-investigated PennDOT's claim in April 2016, she found no encumbrances upon the property. Only when PennDOT's counsel alerted her to its existence did Sten find a copy of the 1958 plan on microfilm, in an unlabeled drawer at the Washington County Recorder of Deeds office. The drawers were not indexed.
Following the title search, Bindas petitioned for the appointment of a board of viewers in August 2016. PennDOT filed preliminary objections and the trial court held an evidentiary hearing in September 2017. Bindas argued that Section 210 required not only recording of the 1958 plan, but indexing within a locality index. Furthermore, he asserted that it was PennDOT's duty to ensure that the plan was properly indexed, and that the Department's failure to do so left it without an enforceable interest in the property. Citing First Citizens National Bank v. Sherwood, 879 A.2d 178 (Pa. 2005), PennDOT maintained that "the fact that the 1958 Plan was not properly indexed does not void the condemnation action so long as it is properly filed and recorded."[3]
The trial court granted PennDOT's preliminary objections, finding that "the lack of indexing" was "the fault of the Washington County Recorder of Deeds Office."[4] It therefore refused to divest PennDOT of a property interest based upon a third party's error. The court reasoned that several deeds expressly referred to the easement, a
search was warranted by prospective buyers, and a PennDOT employee had been able to locate the document at the County Recorder's Office in a matter of minutes. Finding that this case was analogous to Sherwood, the court held that a "defective indexing does not invalidate the instrument."[5] Accordingly, it sustained PennDOT's preliminary objections.
Bindas appealed, and the Commonwealth Court, sitting en banc, affirmed.[6] The court relied upon Section 210's provision that "[t]he approval of such plan or plans by the Governor shall be considered to be the condemnation of an easement," and found that PennDOT had satisfied the State Highway Law's command.[7] It cited Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. McGowan, 450 A.2d 232 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982), for the proposition that the recording of the 1958 plan provided Bindas with constructive notice of the easement. Because it is the duty of the purchaser of real estate to investigate its title and to exercise due diligence in doing so,[8] the majority held that Bindas should have known to examine the extent of PennDOT's interest in the property. Because PennDOT complied with the requirements of Section 210 and provided just compensation to the Koehlers and Carter, the court determined that Bindas' argument failed.
Judges Covey and Ceisler authored dissents. Judge Covey found that DOH had a duty to ensure proper recording and indexing under Prouty v. Marshall, 74 A. 550 (Pa. 1909). She argued that Pennsylvania courts have "repeatedly applied" the principle that "[t]he person offering an instrument for record has a duty to see that it is properly recorded
and properly indexed, and cannot hide behind a mistake of the recorder."[9] While Section 210 imposed a duty upon the Recorder of Deeds to record plans and maintain indexes, it "does not explicitly allocate the risk of defective recording or indexing as between the parties."[10] Accordingly, Judge Covey would have endorsed Bindas' position as a matter of law, and would have reversed the trial court's order.
Judge Ceisler's dissent focused upon the text of Section 210 and the purpose of the indexing requirement. She acknowledged that statutes providing for the power of eminent domain should be strictly construed, and that a court must read a statute to give effect to all of its provisions.[11]
Under the Majority's interpretation of Section 210 of the State Highway Law, all that is required for property to be condemned by [PennDOT] is that the Governor approve the plan and that [PennDOT] present the plan to the county recorder of deeds office for filing, without ever ensuring that the plan is properly recorded or indexed. Such an interpretation renders the remainder of Section 210 meaningless.[12]
When Section 210 refers to "such plan," she contended, it refers to a plan that has been "approved, filed and recorded," and "all three actions are required for condemnation."[13] Judge Ceisler added that Sten's inability to locate evidence of the easement while a PennDOT employee could locate it in five minutes demonstrated "why a highway plan must be properly recorded and indexed in order to provide notice to affected landowners."[14] Because the 1958 Plan was not recorded "in a plan book," as Section 210
requires, she also found Sherwood distinguishable.[15] Like Judge Covey, she would have reversed the trial court's order.
Bindas petitioned for allowance of appeal, which this Court granted. The issues, as stated by Bindas, are as follows:
1. Did the Commonwealth Court err in finding that a right of way plan approved by the Governor is effective to condemn property pursuant to 36 P.S. § 670-210 without the proper recording and indexing as required by that statute?
2. Did the Commonwealth Court err in finding that the Department of Transportation and its predecessor, the Department of Highways, have no duty to ensure its right of way plans are properly recorded and indexed as required by 36 P.S. § 670-210?
Bindas argues that the Commonwealth Court ignored Section 210's use of the mandatory "shall," and that its...
To continue reading
Request your trial