In this dispute between a condominium association council and three condominium owners, the Superior Court was asked to determine whether a provision of the Uniform Condominium Act (UCA) requiring a two-thirds majority vote of owners to amend a Declaration of Condominium, applied retroactively to a Declaration enacted under its precursor, the Unit Property Act (UPA). The Superior Court concluded that because the Declaration was silent about the percentage required for Declaration amendments, no conflict existed between it and the UCA, and thus the UCA provision governed Declaration amendments, requiring a two-thirds vote..
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Category: Real Estate (Page 3 of 5)
In this decision, the Commonwealth Court determined that a home purchaser, not in direct privity with the original home builder, may assert claims for fraud and claims under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”).
This dispute involved the subsurface rights to a property in Rush Township, Centre County, Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was asked to determine whether a 1935 tax sale resulted in the transferring of only the surface rights to the property. The Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and upheld the “title wash” tax sale principle, meaning the tax sale resulted in the transfer of the entire property, not merely the surface rights.
The Commonwealth Court was required to determine whether or not Sunoco had authority to condemn property in order to advance phase two of its Mariner East pipeline project. Several property owners challenged the condemnations, arguing that Sunoco was not regulated by the Pennsylvania Utility Commission (PUC) and, therefore, could not exercise the eminent domain powers of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Court agreed with Sunoco, holding that the company was regulated by PUC for purposes of those portions of the project occurring solely in Pennsylvania.
This case required the Commonwealth Court to review the evidence from a borough council meeting regarding a proposed land development plan and conditional use application. The court held that the applicant presented sufficient evidence to show that the plans complied with the applicable ordinance, and the objector failed to meet its burden of proving otherwise. Furthermore, the court ruled that a dispute over an easement, which was raised by the objector, can only be heard in court, not at a council or zoning hearing board meeting.
This case involved a dispute regarding the condemnation of land in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth Court was required to determine whether or not the owner of real property located in Holland was given adequate notice that its land would be condemned. In affirming the trial court’s determination, the Commonwealth Court held that the owner had been given adequate notice.
This case required the Commonwealth Court to determine whether or not the Borough of Midland (Midland) was immune from suit in a dispute involving utility service facilities. In affirming the trial court, the Commonwealth Court held that Midland was immune. The plaintiffs failed to show that (1) the facilities were in a dangerous condition and (2) expenditures made to correct a dangerous condition were a cognizable injury.
In this case, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether Edward Trusello (Trusello) was liable to Deep Meadows Civic Association (the Association), a home owner’s association, for home owner’s fees. In affirming the lower court, the Commonwealth Court held that Trusello neither had notice of any obligation to pay the Association nor received any benefit from the Association’s common area. Therefore, Trusello was not liable to the Association for any fees.
In this case involving the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine (1) whether the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) grant of an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) is a final agency action and (2) whether, in the absence of judicial review, Hawkes Co. (Hawkes) had alternative remedies. The Court held that the grant of an approved JD is a final agency action. Furthermore, it held that Hawke was without alternative remedies besides judicial review.
In this matter, the Commonwealth Court was asked to decide whether a housing cooperative board can impose a limitation on the number of dwelling units individual members can own. The court determined that such a policy was not authorized because the cooperative’s bylaws did not contain any such limitation. Such a policy, the court concluded, could only be imposed as an amendment to the cooperative’s bylaws.
Published By:
