Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TAKING EMINENT DOMAIN CERTAIN PARCELS REAL ESTATE LOCATED NORTHSIDE URBAN RENEWAL AREA NO. 1 (10/26/76)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: October 26, 1976.

IN RE: TAKING IN EMINENT DOMAIN OF CERTAIN PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED IN THE NORTHSIDE URBAN RENEWAL AREA NO. 1, PROJECT PENNA. R. 389 IN THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PA., BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BETHLEHEM, PA. LORRAINE A. HABER AND CAROL A. CORRIERE, TRUSTEES, APPELLANTS

Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County in case of In Re: Taking in Eminent Domain of certain parcels of real estate located in the Northside Urban Renewal Area No. 1, Project Penna. R-389 in the City of Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pennsylvania, by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, No. 15 May Term, 1975, Court Minutes.

COUNSEL

Richard J. Haber, with him Haber and Corriere, for appellants.

Michael E. Riskin, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., and Wilkinson, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 97]

The appellants are the owners of a property being condemned by appellee. A substantial portion of the property is under lease as a law office. The law office acts as a registered office of various corporations and businesses. In addition to condemning appellants' title, appellee also condemned the law office -- tenants' leasehold interest. Prior to a hearing appellants filed preliminary objections, only one of which is here involved. We quote in its entirety:

"II. Motion To Join Additional Condemnees In Accordance With Section 506 Of The Eminent Domain Code Of 1964, As Amended:

"1. The following entities, known to the Condemnees to have an interest in the subject premises, which will incur costs as a result of said condemnation, are as follows:

Nature of

Name Address Interest

1. American Abstract Com-

     pany 619 Main Street Registered or

Bethlehem Principal Office

2. Union Guaranty Company 619 Main Street Registered or

Bethlehem Principal Office

3. Associated Fire and Safety

Equipment Company 619 Main Street Registered or

Bethlehem Principal Office

4. Vista Realty, Inc. 619 Main Street Registered or

Bethlehem Principal Office

5. Tenmen Investors, Inc. 619 Main Street Registered or

Bethlehem Principal Office

6. All-American Corporation 619 Main Street Registered or

Bethlehem Principal Office

7. Lehigh Valley Cableradio

Corporation 619 Main Street Registered or

Bethlehem Principal Office

8. Sunflower Farms, Inc. 619 Main Street Registered or

Bethlehem Principal Office"

The lower court dismissed this preliminary objection on the basis that it did not come within any of the 4 categories designated by Section 406 of the Eminent Domain Code, Act of June 22, 1964, Special

[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 98]

Sess., P.L. 84, as amended, 26 P.S. § 1-406. We affirm.

In their brief the appellants attempt to bring their preliminary objection into categories (3) and (4) of Section 406, which provides:

Preliminary objections shall be limited to and shall be the exclusive method of challenging . . . (3) any other procedure followed by the condemnor; or (4) the declaration of taking. . . .

We disagree.

It seems clear to us that Section 506 of the Eminent Domain Code, 26 P.S. § 1-506, requiring the condemnee to furnish the viewers and the condemnors with the names and addresses of any others having an interest in the property, clearly does not require the condemnor to add those individuals as condemnees on penalty of having preliminary objections sustained. Indeed, Section 506(b) expressly provides:

(b) The court may permit a mortgagee, judgment creditor or other lien holder to intervene in the proceedings where his interest is not adequately protected, but he shall not be a party to the proceedings unless he has intervened.

If indeed, the parties to whom appellants refer as having an interest in the condemned property are entitled to be parties to this action, it would appear that the proper procedure would be for them to file a petition to intervene.

Accordingly, we will enter an order affirming the decision of the court below.

Order

And Now, October 26, 1976, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Civil Division -- Law, dated December 10, 1975, dismissing Preliminary Objection numbered "II", is affirmed.

Disposition

Affirmed.

19761026

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.