Easton Area Joint Sewer Authority v. Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority, BUSHKILL-LOWER
| Decision Date | 03 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | BUSHKILL-LOWER |
| Parties | EASTON AREA JOINT SEWER AUTHORITY, Appellant, v.LEHIGH JOINT SEWER AUTHORITY et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Stanley E. Stettz, Teel, Stettz, Shimer & Digiacomo, Ltd., and Karl H. Kline, Charles S. Smith, Easton, John Molnar, Bangor, Gary Asteak, Joseph M. Reibman, Reibman & Reibman, Donald Himmelreich, Easton, Raymond C. Haggerty, Bethlehem, Thomas Stitt, Ellwood Malos, Easton, for appellant.
Before BLATT, WILLIAMS and DOYLE, JJ.
This case comes before the Court on appeal by the plaintiff below from a dismissal of certain defendant municipalities from an assumpsit and trespass action. The trial court sustained preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. We reverse that order and remand for further proceedings.
On June 24, 1976, Easton, Forks Township, Palmer Township, West Easton Borough, Wilson Borough, and the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority (BLLA) 1 entered into an agreement by which they incorporated the Easton Area Joint Sewer Authority (EAJSA) to effectuate the planned expansion of the Easton Sewage Treatment Plant, and to provide sewage treatment facilities for the mutual benefit of the incorporators. Easton agreed to lease its treatment plant to EAJSA; Palmer, Forks and BLLA agreed respectively to pay 35.5%, 20.9%, and 43.6% of the construction costs outstanding after federal and state grant moneys had been exhausted on the expansion of Easton's plant.
The agreement established that EAJSA be composed of fourteen members with a total of ten votes between them. The four members appointed by Easton, and the four appointed respectively by West Easton, Forks, Wilson, and Palmer were to have one vote each; the six members appointed by the six municipalities which incorporated BLLA, one from each municipality, were to share the remaining two votes, even though the said municipalities were not parties to the agreement. EAJSA was to administer the expansion and operation of the enlarged plant.
In early 1981, EAJSA filed a complaint in Northampton County Court of Common Pleas consisting of nine causes of action in assumpsit and six in trespass. The prayers for relief can be classified thus:
(1) Judgment against BLLA for $1,763,805.75 plus interest and the administrative costs of negotiating a loan in that amount, based upon allegations that BLLA had failed to pay its share of the excess construction costs and EAJSA had been required to borrow the funds.
(2) Judgment in the above amount against each of the individual municipalities which had incorporated BLLA for their respective failures to provide BLLA with money with which it could, in turn, pay EAJSA, based upon allegations that (a) they authorized BLLA to negotiate with the other EAJSA incorporators regarding sewage treatment, and (b) they are third party beneficiaries of the contract.
(3) Judgment in the above amount against the same individual municipalities for intentional and unjustifiable interference with BLLA's performance of its contractual obligations, and procurement of its breach of the June 24, 1976 agreement, by their several failures to provide money to BLLA.
(4) Judgment against the same municipalities for their breach of an alleged oral representation that they would be responsible for paying their total share of EAJSA's operating budget.
Several defendants 2 filed demurrers 3 to the complaint, asserting (1) that EAJSA had failed to set forth a legal basis for the townships' alleged duty to provide BLLA with enough money to meet its obligations, (2) that they have neither a legal nor a contractual obligation to pay any of BLLA's operating budget, (3) that the Municipality Authorities Act of 1945 4 specifically provides that an authority shall not have the power to pledge the financial resources of a political subdivision, and (4) that they are not signatories to the agreement from which EAJSA's cause of action allegedly springs.
The trial court dismissed the complaint with regard to each of the municipal defendants, sustaining all demurrers. EAJSA appealed that decision to this Court, assigning as error that failure of the common pleas court to recognize and therefore address (1) the issue of intentional interference in a contractual relationship, and (2) the cause of action in assumpsit raised in Count 15, in which the appellant alleges breach of an oral representation upon which it relied in developing its budget. Review of such errors of law is within the limits of our scope of review. Mid Valley Taxpayers Association v. Mid Valley School District, 52 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 402, 407, 416 A.2d 590, 592 (1980).
In an appeal from an order sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, we are constrained to examine only those...
To continue reading
Request your trial