Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

TAKING EMINENT DOMAIN CERTAIN PARCELS REAL ESTATE BY REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EASTON (02/02/79)

decided: February 2, 1979.

IN RE: TAKING IN EMINENT DOMAIN OF CERTAIN PARCELS OF REAL ESTATE BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF EASTON, PENNSYLVANIA ET AL. RAYMOND MONINGHOFF, APPELLANT


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 by the Redevelopment Authority of Easton, Pa., located in the South Side Neighborhood Development Program, Project No. Pa. A-2, in the City of Easton, Pa., No. 33 October Term, 1975.

COUNSEL

Robert L. Lansberry, with him Lansberry & Lansberry, for appellant.

Daniel E. Cohen, with him Seidel and Cohen, for appellee.

Judges Mencer, Blatt and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 289]

Condemnee Moninghoff appeals from the lower court's decision denying his claim for business dislocation damages in conjunction with the condemnation of his Easton property, which included a nine unit apartment building.

The Redevelopment Authority of Easton filed a declaration of taking, and paid estimated just compensation in the amount of $43,200 to condemnee. Viewers were appointed and filed their report on August 6, 1976 awarding condemnee general damages of $47,000,

[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 290]

    but denying condemnee's claim for business dislocation damages. Condemnee appealed the general damage award to the Court of Common Pleas where the jury returned a verdict of $47,000 for the taking, but a judge denied the claim for business dislocation damages, under Section 601-A(b)(3) of the Eminent Domain Code (Code),*fn1 heard separately.*fn2

Condemnee argues that he has met the burden of proof entitling him to dislocation damages by presenting substantial evidence of his inability to secure a relocation property, which in effect proves that he would necessarily suffer a substantial loss of patronage. Thus condemnee argues that the court erred as a matter of law by denying him business dislocation damages. We disagree and affirm the lower court's decision denying business dislocation damages.

Section 601-A(b)(3), provides in pertinent part:

(3) In addition to damages under clauses (1) or (2) of this subsection, damages of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) nor less than twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500), in an amount equal to . . . (ii) the average annual net earnings. . . . In the case of a business, payment shall be made under this subsection only if the business (i) cannot be relocated without a substantial loss of its existing patronage. . . .

In March Brothers v. Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 212, 215, 342 A.2d 131, 133 (1975) this court held that Section 601-A(b)(3) requires the condemnee to prove that "its ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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