Stromick v. North Fayette County Municipal Authority

• Citation: 380 A.2d 954,33 Pa.Cmwlth. 66
• Parties: Patrick J. STROMICK, Appellant, v. The NORTH FAYETTE COUNTY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, Appellee.
• Decision Date: 19 December 1977
• Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Page 954

380 A.2d 954

33 Pa.Cmwlth. 66

Patrick J. STROMICK, Appellant, v. The NORTH FAYETTE COUNTY MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, Appellee.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Nov. 3, 1977.

Decided Dec. 19, 1977.

[33 Pa.Cmwlth. 67] Joseph R. Rygiel, Uniontown, for appellant.

Paul V. Mahoney, Uniontown, for appellee.

Before WILKINSON and ROGERS, JJ.

OPINION

ROGERS, Judge.

Patrick J. Stromick sued the North Fayette County Municipal Authority in equity seeking an order compelling the Authority, a municipal water supplier, to restore water services to a private water line owned by Stromick and others.

By deed dated July 9, 1969, Stromick, his wife Goldie and Clarence Ashton and Vivian, his wife, acquired title to a 7.95 acre parcel of land in Union Township, Fayette County. A dwelling on the property received water from the Authority under service contract No. 6404 executed by Patrick J. Stromick and dated April 20, 1970. This instrument is called a residential contract for water service. A provision of the contract incorporates therein the rules and regulations of the Authority. The Authority's water reaches the dwelling house by a 2-inch service line extension ¹ which is connected to the Authority's service line connection ² in the public road, which in turn is connected to the Authority's 4-inch transmission main. ³

By deed dated July 6, 1972, the Stromicks and Ashtons conveyed a portion of their land to Yvonne Hopwood, and her daughter, Colleen Hopwood Wynegar. The deed conferred on the grantees the right to use the extension service line but reserved the ownership of the line to the grantors. The Stromicks and Ashtons later rented a small portion of their land and sold another small portion on each of which a mobile home was placed. Stromick, or others with his permission, ran water lines from the 2-inch service line extension to the trailers. ⁴ The Authority learned of these connections and notified Stromick in July of 1973 that the additional taps into the service line extension violated the Authority's regulations and should be removed. Stromick refused to remove the taps and, on May 6, 1974, the Authority terminated water service through the service line extension thus depriving all three dwellings of water.

Stromick filed his complaint in equity on May 9, 1974. The court below issued a temporary injunction restoring water services until final disposition of the action. After trial on the merits the court below concluded that Stromick had violated Authority regulations; that the owners of the Hopwood-Wynegar residence were nevertheless entitled to water services under the contract between Stromick and the Authority; but that although Stromick was not entitled to have water supplied to the trailers because of the violation of Authority rules water service to the trailers should continue for one year "to permit an amicable settlement of the dispute, or in the alternative, to afford the innocent parties involved an opportunity to pursue any legal procedures which they may have." Stromick complains that the court below erroneously concluded that the Authority's regulations must be observed and improperly limited its order that water service to the trailers be continued for only one year. We affirm the order below.

Section V, Rule 47 of the Authority's regulations provides that:

"ONE SERVICE CONNECTION FOR EACH CUSTOMER: A service line will be used to supply a single customer only, and no premises shall have more than one service connection except where impossible or impracticable to furnish an adequate water supply service thereto through one service connection, in which event the Authority may agree to the installation and use of more than one such connection."

Section VII, Rule 65(b)(2) states that:

"(b) By Authority: Service under any application may be discontinued for any of the following reasons.

(2) For the use of water for or in connection with, or for the benefit of any other premises or purposes than those described in the application."

Stromick clearly violated Section V, Rule 47 and the Authority could terminate service under Section VII, Rule 65(b)(2).

Stromick contends that the one service line per customer regulation is capricious and arbitrary and therefore unenforceable. We disagree. A...