Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Associated Retail Stores, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia, No. 3966 May Term, 1970.
Francis J. Moran, with him Peter A. Galante, for appellant.
Robert W. Maris, with him Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Levy & Kauffman for appellee.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., DiSalle and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.
[ 47 Pa. Commw. Page 269]
In this eminent domain case, the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia (Authority) appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County which denied the Authority's post-trial motions. We affirm.
On May 21, 1970 the Authority filed a Declaration of Taking condemning the premises 833-39 Market Street. Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Company (Fidelity Trust) was the fiduciary owner of the premises. The prime tenant was Associated Retail Stores, Inc. (Associated), which operated in the three internally connected buildings a retail apparel store known as Blauners. The Blauners store business had been conducted on these premises since 1948. In the operation of the store Associated used many trade fixtures and equipment and made extensive improvements and additions Associated's lease with Fidelity Trust provided that Associated retained ownership of all those items. Unable to find a suitable relocation site for
[ 47 Pa. Commw. Page 270]
the large department store, Associated vacated the premises on May 13, 1974 and left behind all the equipment and fixtures, a substantial portion of which were attached to the real estate.
Although the Authority concluded a settlement of just compensation for the value of the real estate with Fidelity Trust, the Authority never settled with Associated. Associated sought compensation for the taking before a Board of View. The Authority appealed from the award the Board of View granted, and a trial de novo was held before a judge and jury. The jury verdict was an amount in excess of $364,000, and the common pleas judge also allowed compensation for delay in payment, to run from May 13, 1974, to the date of payment. Only the delay compensation is in issue here.
Under Section 601 of the Eminent Domain Code (Code),*fn1 a condemnee is entitled to just compensation for the taking of his property. Accordingly to Section 603 of the Code, 26 P.S. § 1-603, that compensation should account for machinery, equipment and fixtures forming part of the real estate taken. Section 611, 26 P.S. § 1-611, sets forth a mandatory requirement of delay compensation for delays in payment of just compensation for property taken.
Section 601A(b) of the Code, 26 P.S. § 1-601A(b),*fn2 provides dislocation damages for persons displaced from their place of business. Unlike Article VI which contains Section 611, as noted above, Article VI-A of the Code does not provide delay compensation.
Thus the judgment for delay compensation to Associated is warranted if the verdict is controlled by Article VI and is unwarranted if Article VI-A is the ...