MOSAICA ACAD. CHAR. SCH. v. DEPT. OF EDUC.
| Decision Date | 31 December 2002 |
| Citation | 813 A.2d 813,572 Pa. 191 |
| Parties | MOSAICA ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, Lisa Mayo and Desiree McCall v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; Eugene Hickok, In His Capacity As Secretary of Education of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; The School District of Philadelphia Board of Education and David Hornbeck, In His Capacity as Superintendent of The School District of Philadelphia v. Bensalem Township School District, Ruth E. Bell, President, Board of School Directors Appeal of School District of Philadelphia Board of Education and David Hornbeck, In His Capacity As Superintendent of The School District of Philadelphia. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Danielle Banks, Michael David O'Mara, Andre L. Dennis, Philadelphia, for appellants, School Dist. of Philadelphia Bd. of Educ. and David Hornbeck, in his capacity as Superintendent of School District of Philadelphia.
William R. Lloyd, Harrisburg, for appellant amicus curiae, PA State Educ. Ass'n.
Janetta Fink Call, for appellees, Mosaica Academy Charter School, Lisa Mayo and Desiree McCall.
Jason R. Wiley, New Britain, for appellees, Bensalem Tp. School Dist. and Ruth E. Bell.
Karen S. Feuchtenberger, Harrisburg, for appellee, Com. Dept. of Educ.
Before ZAPPALA, C.J., and CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR and EAKIN, JJ.
This direct appeal involves a declaratory judgment action brought by Mosaica Academy Charter School to compel Philadelphia School District to pay its tuition subsidies due under the Charter School Law (CSL)1 and to provide transportation to resident students attending the charter school. The Commonwealth Court granted summary judgment in favor of Mosaica Academy, directed Philadelphia School District to provide transportation to Philadelphia students attending Mosaica Academy and awarded Mosaica Academy attorneys' fees and costs. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
The facts of this case are undisputed. On March 31, 1998, Bensalem Township School District received Mosaica Academy's charter school application. The application stated that Mosaica Academy intended to contract with its affiliate company, Mosaica Education, Inc., (MEI), to receive educational and administrative services. Bensalem Township School District reviewed the application and, on June 24, 1998, granted the charter. After Mosaica Academy determined that sixty percent of its student body resided in Philadelphia, it sought the statutorily mandated subsidies from Philadelphia School District pursuant to Section 17-1725-A. of the CSL. 24 P.S. § 17-1725-A.2 It further requested that Philadelphia School District provide transportation to each of its resident students attending the charter school.3 Philadelphia School District refused both requests.
On September 4, 1998, Mosaica Academy, along with Lisa Mayo and Desiree McCall (collectively Mosaica), filed a petition for review in Commonwealth Court against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Education, Eugene Hickok, in his capacity as Secretary of Education, the School District of Philadelphia Board of Education, and David Hornbeck, in his capacity as Superintendent of the School District of Philadelphia (collectively Philadelphia School District). The petition for review requested that the Commonwealth Court:
Philadelphia School District denied that Mosaica had a right to the relief requested. It asserted that the charter issued to Mosaica violates the CSL because Mosaica was impermissibly created as the alter ego of MEI and because Mosaica failed to obtain a regional charter when it intended to recruit most of its students from outside of Bensalem. Philadelphia School District also asserted that it had no duty to transport its resident students to Mosaica. Philadelphia School District further sought to join MEI and asserted a counterclaim against MEI and Mosaica, claiming unjust enrichment and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. Philadelphia School District also moved to join as additional defendants Bensalem Township School District and Ruth Bell, in her capacity as President of the Board of School Directors (collectively BTSD), and filed a three-count joinder complaint against them.5 Mosaica, MEI and BTSD filed preliminary objections.
On May 12, 1999, the Commonwealth Court overruled the preliminary objections of Mosaica and MEI without opinion. That same day, the Commonwealth Court issued an opinion and order sustaining in part and overruling in part BTSD's preliminary objections.6
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. By order dated July 20, 2000, the Commonwealth Court granted the joint motion for summary judgment filed by Mosaica and MEI. It also granted summary judgment in favor of the Commonwealth, Department of Education, and BTSD.7 It dismissed all claims Philadelphia School District had asserted against the various parties. The court held that, although the CSL provided an appeal for the denial of a charter school application, an appeal is not permitted where a charter application has been granted. It ruled that the exclusive remedy for the revocation or termination of a charter lies in Section 17-1729-A.(a) of the CSL. Thus, it concluded that Philadelphia School District's challenge to the grant of Mosaica's charter constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the discretion exercised by BTSD. The court further held that even assuming that Philadelphia School District was aggrieved by BTSD's grant of a charter to Mosaica, Philadelphia School District failed to exhaust its administrative remedies through the Charter School Appeal Board.
As to declaratory relief, the Commonwealth Court ordered Philadelphia School District to provide transportation to Philadelphia students who attend Mosaica and reimburse Mosaica for the cost of educating the enrolled Philadelphia residents. The Commonwealth Court ruled that if Philadelphia School District does not meet its statutory obligation under the CSL, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Education, shall pay to Mosaica those reimbursement subsidies due pursuant to Section 17-1725-A.(a)(5) of the CSL.8 Finally, it ordered Philadelphia School District to pay Mosaica costs and attorneys fees upon the submission of time records and costs to the court.
On December 18, 2000, the Commonwealth Court entered an order pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7538 and 7541(b), granting Mosaica's request for attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $265,221.52. The court noted that, although a finding of obdurate or vexatious conduct on the part of Philadelphia School District is not necessary here, it would have granted Mosaica attorneys fees and costs on that basis as well.
Philadelphia School District filed a direct appeal to this Court pursuant to Section 723 of the Judicial Code. Id. at § 723(a).9 The first issue for review is whether Philadelphia School District's challenge to the validity of BTSD's charter is a proper defense in this declaratory judgment action. In resolving this issue, we must determine whether the Commonwealth Court erred by holding that there is no appeal from the grant of a charter and that the exclusive remedy for revocation or termination of the charter lies in the procedure set forth in the CSL.
Because these are issues of law, our review is plenary. Phillips v. A-Best Products, 542 Pa. 124, 665 A.2d 1167, 1170 (1995). In addressing these issues, we keep in mind that in construing statutory language, "[w]ords and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage." 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903. We further note that in reviewing whether an award of summary judgment is appropriate, appellate courts view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the non-moving party. Pappas v. Asbel, 555 Pa. 342, 724 A.2d 889 (1998). Only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law will summary judgment be entered. Id. Philadelphia School District argues that summary judgment was improperly entered against it because it has no obligation to pay Mosaica tuition subsidies, notwithstanding the fact that sixty percent of Mosaica's student body resides in Philadelphia. This claim is based upon Philadelphia School District's underlying challenge to the propriety of BTSD's grant of Mosaica's charter. Although we shall address Philadelphia School District's arguments in this regard, the resolution of this issue is clear. Section 17-1725-A. of the CSL mandates that charter school funding be derived in part from the per pupil subsidies paid by the enrolled student's school district of residence. 24 P.S. § 17-1725-A.(a)(2). Those payments are to be made monthly and flow directly to the charter school. Id. at § 17-1725-A.(a)(5). Philadelphia School District intentionally failed to comply with these clear statutory mandates and therefore summary judgment was properly entered in favor of Mosaica.
Philadelphia School District argues that the Commonwealth Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bert Co. v. Matthew Turk, William Collins, Jamie Heynes, David Mcdonnell, First Nat'l Ins. Agency, LLC
...authorization, a clear agreement of the parties, or some other established exception." Mosaica Academy Charter School v. Com. Dept. of Education , 572 Pa. 191, 813 A.2d 813, 822 (2002). See also Trizechahn Gateway LLC v. Titus , 601 Pa. 637, 976 A.2d 474, 482-83 (2009) ; Lavelle v. Koch , 5......
-
Peerless Ins. Co. v. Pa. Cyber Charter Sch.
...without any court order to do so.8 Peerless points to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Mosaica Acad. Charter Sch. v. Com. Dept. of Educ., 572 Pa. 191, 813 A.2d 813 (2002), in which the court often refers to the payments school districts are required to make to charter schools un......
-
Medevac MidAtlantic, LLC v. Keystone Mercy Health Plan
...631, 639 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997). 133. See 28 U.S.C. § 2202; 42 Pa. Con. Stat. Ann. § 7538. 134. Mosaica Academy Charter Sch. v. Commonwealth Dep't of Educ., 572 Pa. 191, 813 A.2d 813, 824–25 (2002) (fees permissible where insured was forced to seek declaratory relief in response to insurer's ba......
-
Reinhold v. Cnty. of York
...recoverable absent express authority, agreement of the parties or some other established exception. Mosaica Acad. Charter Sch. v. Commonwealth, 572 Pa. 191, 813 A.2d 813, 822 (Pa.2002)). Arguing that the amended complaint fails to state one of these sources of recovery, defendants contend t......