Wolgemuth v. Kleinfelter
| Decision Date | 23 December 1981 |
| Citation | 437 A.2d 1329,63 Pa.Cmwlth. 395 |
| Parties | Galen H. WOLGEMUTH, Lloyd G. Grander and Daniel L. Leib, Board of Supervisors, Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County, Pa., Appellants, v. Ralph R. KLEINFELTER and Janet E. Kleinfelter, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Robert C. Rowe, Lebanon, for appellants.
Steiner & Eby, Kenneth C. Sandoe, Myerstown, for appellees.
Before ROGERS, WILLIAMS and PALLADINO, JJ.
This is an appeal by the Board of Supervisors, Heidelberg Township (Board) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County dismissing the Board's Motion to Open Peremptory Judgment. We reverse and remand.
On August 20, 1976, Appellees Ralph R. and Janet E. Kleinfelter filed a complaint in mandamus against the Board seeking to compel approval of a subdivision plan on the grounds that the Board, in denying the plan, failed to comply with the requirements of Section 508 of the Municipalities Planning Code (Code). 1 The Board filed an answer to the complaint and Appellees on September 19, 1978, filed a motion for peremptory judgment under Pa.R.C.P.No.1098. A Rule to Show Cause why the peremptory judgment should not be granted was issued September 21, 1978, to which the Board made no answer. The Rule was made absolute on August 19, 1980, on motion of Appellees and the Board was ordered to approve Appellees' plans. The Board moved to open the judgment on September 10, 1980, and the motion was dismissed.
The Board asserts that the lower court erred in dismissing the motion to open because (1) significant issues of fact remained unresolved, and (2) the notice requirements of Pa.R.C.P.No.1098 were not met.
Pa.R.C.P.No.1098 reads:
At any time after the filing of the complaint, the court may enter judgment if the right of the plaintiff thereto is clear, but the judgment may be opened upon cause shown. Judgment shall not be entered without prior notice to all parties unless the exigency of the case is such as to require action before notice, in which event notice shall be given as soon as possible.
In determining whether to grant a motion for peremptory judgment pursuant to Rule 1098, a court is to be guided by the standards governing disposition of motions for summary judgment. Commonwealth v. Mifflin County School Board, 30 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 213, 399 A.2d 421 (1977). Accordingly, in making its decision " '(t)he Court must consider both the record actually presented and the record potentially possible at the time of the trial(,)' " Schacter v. Albert, 212 Pa. Superior Ct. 58, 61-2, 239 A.2d 841, 843 (1968) (quoting International Latex Corp. v. Lexicon Products, Inc., 37 F.R.D. 524, 525-6 (E.D.Pa.1965)), and judgment can be entered "only in the clearest of cases where there is not the slightest doubt as to the absence of an issue of material fact." Leach v. Philadelphia Saving Fund Society, 234 Pa. Superior Ct. 486, 492, 340 A.2d 491, 494 (1975). Furthermore, "(t)he burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that one is entitled to judgment as a matter of law is on the moving party, and the record must be examined in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Giannini v. Carden, --- Pa. Superior Ct. ---, ---, 429 A.2d 24, 26 (1981).
Appellees assert in their complaint that the Board's decision on their subdivision application was deficient with respect to the requirements of Section 508 of the Code because it was not issued within ninety days of the application date and did not contain the required degree of specificity as to why application was denied. 2 The Board's answer to the complaint avers that the decision was made more than ninety days after the application date because Appellees requested a hearing and at that hearing, Appellees were made fully aware of purported deficiencies in their application and the reasons for its denial. These allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to the Board, suggest that Appellees waived their right to a decision which complied with the requirements of Section 508 of the Code. Such a waiver is provided for by Section 508(3) of the Code and will be given effect if properly made. See Board of Supervisors, Township of Bensalem v. DiEgidio, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 209, 396 A.2d 920 (1979). From the pleadings it cannot be determined whether Appellees did effectuate a waiver. Since an effective waiver of the right to a decision under the terms of Section 508...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackwell v. City of Philadelphia
...is on the moving party and the record must be examined in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Wolgemuth v. Kleinfelter, 63 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 395, 437 A.2d 1329 (1981). Mandamus is an extraordinary writ and is a remedy used to compel performance of a ministerial act or a mand......
-
Gondelman v. Com.
...there are no issues of material fact and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. See Wolgemuth v. Kleinfelter, 63 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 395, 437 A.2d 1329 (1981). Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of article V, section 16(b) of the Pennsylvania Constitution unde......
-
Burns v. UNIONTOWN BD. OF DIRECTORS
...and the record must be examined in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (here Superintendent). Wolgemuth v. Kleinfelter, 63 Pa.Cmwlth. 395, 437 A.2d 1329 (1981). 15. In addition, although not cited or discussed in its brief, District argued before the Court that this Court's dec......
-
Dusman v. Bd. of Dirs. of the Chambersburg Area Sch. Dist.
...whether to grant peremptory judgment, a court is guided by the standards governing summary judgment. Wolgemuth v. Kleinfelter, 63 Pa.Cmwlth. 395, 437 A.2d 1329, 1331 (1981). Accordingly, “peremptory judgment is appropriately entered only where there exists no genuine issue of material fact,......