Upper Montgomery Joint Authority v. Yerk
| Decision Date | 22 February 1971 |
| Citation | 1 Pa.Cmwlth. 269,274 A.2d 212 |
| Parties | UPPER MONTGOMERY JOINT AUTHORITY, Condemnee, Appellant, v. Lawrence I. YERK, Condemnee, Appellee. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
C. Edmund Wells, Wells, Campbell, Yohn & Wells, Pottstown, for appellant.
Bruce L. Waltman, Red Hill, for appellee.
Before BOWMAN, Presiding Judge, and CRUMLISH, KRAMER, WILKINSON MANDERINO, MENCER, and BARBIERI,
Before BOWMAN, President Judge, and
This eminent domain case comes before this Court on appeal from an order by the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, dismissing New Matter and the defense of the Statute of Limitations raised therein by Upper Montgomery Joint Authority (Condemnor) to a Petition for Appointment of a Jury of View filed by Lawrence I. Yerk (Condemnee).
Condemnor effected the taking of the Condemnee's land by the filing of condemnation indemnity bonds on October 27, 1960 and January 4, 1961. The filing of the bonds effected the taking under the Statute then in effect which provided that when 'any municipality * * * having the right to acquire lands * * * by eminent domain, has tendered a bond * * * filed in and approved by the court, such municipality * * * shall have the right to immediate possession thereof.' (Act of June 7, 1907, P.L. 461, § 1, 26 P.S § 141). A limitation of six years began to run on January 4, 1961, the date when the last bond was filed because of another statutory provision that 'no person having an interest in any land * * * may petition for the appointment of viewers for the assessment of damages or bring an action for damages after expiration of a period of Six years from the date on which the political subdivision or authority became Entitled to possession of the land * * *'. Act of April 3, 1956, P.L. 1366, § 1, 26 P.S. § 152). (Emphasis added)
Both parties engaged in certain negotiations in an effort to reach amicable agreement as to the amount payable for the taking, but all such negotiations ceased in 1962 and no further action was taken by either Condemnor or Condemnee until the filing by Condemnee of the instant Petition for Appointment of a Jury of View on March 24, 1970.
The Acts of 1907 and 1956 were specifically repealed by Section 902 of the Eminent Domain Code of 1964, (Act of June 22, 1964 (Special Session), P.L. 84, § 902, 26 P.S. § 1--902). Section 524 of the new Code contains a specific limitation on applications for Appointment of Viewers: (Emphasis added)
As Section 524 is procedural, rather than substantive, it can be applied retroactively to an eminent domain proceeding which has not yet been concluded or barred under preexisting law. No vested right has been abridged by an extension of the time in which a claim for condemnation damages could be made. See Agostin v. Pittsburgh Steel Foundry Corporation, 354 Pa. 543, 47 A.2d 680 (1946); Seneca v. Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company, 142 Pa.Super. 470, 16 A.2d 754 (1941); Matkosky v. Midvale Company, 143 Pa.Super. 197, 18 A.2d 102 (1941).
Section 302 of the new Code makes clear the Legislature's intent that Section 524 (a provision of Article V) is to be given retroactive effect. Section 302 reads: 26 P.S. § 1--302. (Emphasis added)
Neither party disputes that 'the condemnation was effective prior to the effective date' of the new Code. Thus Section 524 was applicable to the instant case as of its effective date, June 22, 1964. Also, it is undisputed that on June 22, 1964, the limitation provided in the 1956 Act had not yet expired, and that no payment or offer to make payment had been made under Section 407 of the new Code of 'the amount of just compensation that is estimated by the Condemnor'. Under such circumstances, since the Statute of Limitations in Section 524 of the new Act is applicable, we conclude, as a matter of law, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial