In The Matter Of: Opening A Private Rd. For The Benefit Of v. Delcimmuto
| Decision Date | 30 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2214 CD 2007,[J-70-2010],No. 10 WAP 2009,No. GD04-02972.,10 WAP 2009,2214 CD 2007,GD04-02972. |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF: OPENING A PRIVATE ROAD FOR THE BENEFIT OF TIMOTHY P. O'REILLY OVER LANDS OF (A) HICKORY ON THE GREEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND (B) MARY LOU SORBARA; GREGORY E. BURGUNDER; ANN E. CAIN; DON E. COTTRILL & NORMA J. COTTRILL, H/W; JOSEPH K. CUPPLES; BART v. DELCIMMUTO; JAMES D. DRAGOO & LINDA J. DRAGOO, H/W; KIMBERLY M. FONZI; BRIAN J. GALLAGHER & DIANE J. GALLAGHER, H/W; DOLORES M. GEMBAROSKY; MICHAEL J. GRALISH, JR. & VIRGINIA A. GRALISH, H/W; JAMES BATTISTA; JEFFERY W. HUTCHENS; MICHAEL STEINBERG; GEORGE E. WILMOT & LINDA M. WILMOT, H/W; HARRY J. LEE, JR.; JOHN G. BYRNE; S. GREG MALONE; JOSEPH v. MAZUR & KELLY L. POOLE; THOMAS C. SCHAAL & PATTY G. SCHAAL, H/W; REGIS G. NIEDERBERGER & KATHLEEN C. NIEDERBERGER, H/W; GORDON J. ORR; ANNE M. PAUL; THOMAS G. PORTER & MELINDA D. PORTER, H/W; JOSEPH ALAN SHRAGER; ERIC H. RITTENHOUSE & DANIELLE L. RITTENHOUSE, H/W; LISA A. CUSICK; JEROME SCHMIER & CAROL FALO, H/W; NANCY J. HUFF; MARCUS A. SPATAFORE & KRISTIN C. SPATAFORE, H/W; WILLIAM E. SPRECHER & MARCELLENE SPRECHER, H/W, AND FRANK J. SPRECHER & AGNES E. SPRECHER, H/W, LIFE ESTATE; ROXANNE M. SQUILLANTE; SUSAN C. STANKO; SHANAN R. STEWART; GERALD W. DANHIRES & LINDA DANHIRES, H/W; GREGORY TAYLOR; GIANNA M. YECKLEY; DENNIS M. ZAMERSKI & NOREEN ZAMERSKI, H/W; BETTY B. WILLIAMS & LEON I. WILLIAMS (CO-TRUSTEES); MICHELINE STABILE; WILLIAM F. PITZER; JANET ZEWE; FRANKI R. COLANGELO; KAREN R. BILLINGHAM; ROMAN M. HLUTKOWSKI; VIRGINIA L. KNAUS, TRUSTEE UNDER QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST AGREEMENT, DATED JULY 27, 2000; JOAN L. MASSELLA; DONNA DURKAN; GERALDINE R. ALTENHOF; APRAJITA RATHORE & RAVI RAMAMOORTHY, H/W; JAMES E. SPENCE & KATHY F. SPENCE, H/W; TRACY WEST MALONE; JENNIFER A. CALLERY; THE JUDITH F. KOBLITZ TRUST; ADRIANNA F. VIOLA; DOROTHY D. WAGNER; SPITZIG LIVING TRUST AND WILLIAM A. SPITZIG AND MARILYN J. SPITZIG (TRUSTEES); SANDRA JEAN HANSON; THOMAS C. SKENA; ZARAF MOSHIN; PAUL W. AMIC & CAROLE L. AMIC, H/W; MARGARET M. SHOWALTER; JAMES P. FLANNERY & PATRICIA C. FLANNERY, H/W; DEBORAH A. GERTZ; CAROL L. SCHARTNER; JOHN A. UDISCHAS & SUSAN C. UDISCHAS, H/W; DONNA M. BARTKO; KYLI J. MARTIN; FREDERICK RAPONE SR. & ROBERTA RAPONE, H/W; AMY R. SOLOMON; RICHARD M. BUCK & BARBARA L. BUCK, H/W; ARLENE LIPTON; WILLIAM G. EILER; CATHERINE M. SMITH; DAVID J. CARROLL; MILDRED K. FINCKE; MARGARET M. CORNELLIUS; JOSEPH A. TESTA & MARGARET J. TESTA, H/W; CANDACE L. SALVINI; A. WHITNEY LOBDELL & ROBERTA S. LOBDELL, H/W; RONALD G. BAUER & TERESA L. BAUER, H/W; ANNA MARIE CIMAROLLI; JOR R. PALMER & ANN D. PALMER, H/W; RITA v. FRIZLEN; JOSEPH J. ASTORINO & MARILYN J. ASTORINO, H/W; THOMAS S. PHILLIPS; JOHN A. GERCHER; NAOMI H. PATTON; STANLEY A. HACK & CHRISTINE E. HACK, H/W; MELISSA J. SCHILLER & MELANIE M. SCHILLER; JOHN SCHLATER & PAULETTE SCHLATER H/W; WILLIAM J. GARRITY, SR. & PATRICIA ANN GARRITY, H/W; ARCHIE L. MCINTYRE; CLARENCE JOSEPH WELTER & MARA WELTER, H/W; LISBETH A. DINEEN; CHARLES W. FETROW & MARGARET A. FETROW, H/W; JOCELYN BREAKWELL, MARK A. PETROZZA & DOROTHY M. PETROZZA, H/W; JAMIE A. BRACE, AS THEIR INTERESTS MAY APPEAR APPEAL OF: HICKORY ON THE GREEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, McCAFFERY, ORIE MELVIN, JJ.
Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered
affirming the Order of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas entered
In this appeal, we review the Commonwealth Court's determination that the Pennsylvania Private Road Act does not effect an unconstitutional taking of private property.
Under the law commonly known as the Private Road Act, 1 the owner of a landlocked property is permitted to petition the court of common pleas for the appointment of a board of viewers to evaluate the necessity of a private road to connect such property with the nearest public thoroughfare or private way leading to a public thoroughfare. See 36 P.S. §2731. Upon a finding of necessity, the board will lay out a private road to cause the least damage to private property. See 36 P.S. §1785. The Act requires the owner of the landlocked property to pay damages to persons over whose property the new road is built; the owner is then afforded exclusive use of the road. See 36 P.S. §§2736, 2761.
Appellee, Timothy O'Reilly, owns a property in South Fayette Township, Allegheny County, which, he relates, was landlocked as a result of the Commonwealth's exercise of eminent domain to build Interstate 79. In February 2004, Appellee commenced proceedings under the Act to open a private road to connect his property to Clubview Drive, a public road within the "Hickory on the Green" residential development. The proposed road would traverse land owned by Mary Lou Sorbara ("Sorbara") and the Hickory on the Green Homeowners Association ("Hickory on the Green"). Appellants, Sorbara, Hickory on the Green, and its constituent property owners, filed preliminary objections contending that the Act facilitates an unconstitutional taking of private property for a private purpose in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Sections 1 and 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania.2
The common pleas court overruled Appellants' objections, referencing a history of decisions upholding the constitutionality of the PRA. See In re Opening a Private Rd. (O'Reilly), No. 04-2972, slip, op, at 19 (C.P. Allegheny, Oct. 26, 2007).3 It did note, however, two recent decisions highlighting potential constitutional implications associated with the Act. See In re Laying Out and Opening a Private Rd. (Zeafla), 405 Pa. Super. 298, 309, 592 A.2d 343, 349 (1991) (); In re Forrester, 575 Pa. 365, 370-71, 836 A.2d 102, 105-06 (2003) (plurality) (). The court pondered the constitutional import of Forrester's plurality conclusion that the Act serves only private interests, see O'Reilly, No. 04-2972, slip. op. at 19 (), but did not address the matter further, reasoning that, because Forrester expressly disclaimed consideration of the constitutionality of the Act, it was bound by prior authority deeming the Act to be constitutional.
The common pleas court nonetheless proceeded to analyze independently whether the Act served a public purpose. Without articulating a standard to govern such analysis, the court reasoned that, despite the significant private benefits conferred by the Act, unlocking the resources of landlocked property served a public purpose sufficient to sustain constitutionality. The court acknowledged, however, that if it were bound by the statement in Forrester that the Act serves only private interests, it would be "compelled to agree with [this author and Madame Justice Newman] that, if analyzed pursuant to eminent domain principles, the constitutional foundation of the PRA would appear to be fatally undermined[.]" O'Reilly, No. 04-2972, slip. op. at 21 n.7 (). The court lastly suggested that, given the public policy interests at stake, the Act should be analyzed as an exercise of the state's police power and, possibly, as merely an extension of the common law "way of necessity" doctrine. See id. at 21 n.9 (citing McKeighan v. Grass Lake Twp. Supervisor, 593 N.W.2d 605 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999), overruled by Tolksdorf v. Griffith, 626 N.W.2d 163 (Mich. 2001)).
On permissive interlocutory appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed in a divided en banc opinion. See In re Opening a Private Rd. (O'Reilly), 954 A.2d 57 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (en banc). The majority opined that the constitutionality of the PRA had been settled in Pennsylvania, see, e.g., Waddell's Appeal, 84 Pa. 90 (1877), until recent decisions in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005), and Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, 595 Pa. 607, 939 A.2d 331 (2007), sparked arenewed interest in defining what constitutes a public purpose in the eminent domain context.4 From Lands of Stone, the majority gleaned that, in Pennsylvania, O'Reilly, 954 A.2d at 62 (quoting Lands of Stone, 595 Pa. at 617, 939 A.2d at 337 (emphasis in original)) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court then briefly addressed Forrester, commenting that it "raised serious doubts about the constitutionality of the Private Road Act," owing to its suggestion that a taking under the Act "conferred no public benefit." Id. The court did not discuss the impact of Forrester immediately, however, electing instead to conduct a historical investigation of the PRA.
The en banc majority questioned, why, if the General Assembly recognized in the Mills Act that the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibited a riparian landowner from takingprivate property without the owner's consent to construct a dam, it did not require consent to take private property to build a private road under the PRA, which was enacted only one year earlier. The answer, according to the majority, was a 1700 enactment by the Pre-Commonwealth Provincial Legislature providing that every purchaser of land would be granted an additional six percent of land free of charge for the building of public roads as they became necessary.
The majority...
To continue reading
Request your trial