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.

BOB J. WHITE ET AL. v. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (10/08/82)

decided: October 8, 1982.

BOB J. WHITE ET AL.
v.
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY OF MCKEESPORT. JULIAN W. PANEK AND MARY PANEK, T/D/B/A LAWRENCE THE FLORIST, APPELLANTS



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Bob J. White, a/k/a Robert J. White; Jane Madeline White or the Estate of Jane M. White, deceased; John Leo Malloy II, a/k/a John Lee Malloy, Jr.; Margaret Malloy; John Lee Malloy III; Kenneth S. Malloy; James Michael Malloy, a minor; Mary Amelia Malloy Hyatt; Maureen Hyatt Glick; Valerie Hyatt Davis; and Equibank, N.S., Trustee for Certain Unascertained Persons; Julian W. Panek and Mary Panek, t/d/b/a Lawrence, The Florists v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of McKeesport, No. 2892 April Term, 1973.

COUNSEL

John M. Tighe, with him Martin F. P. Vinci III, Tarasi & Tighe, for appellants.

Thomas J. Dempsey, for appellee.

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

Author: Williams

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 309]

Julian W. Panek and Mary Panek (Paneks) have appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County that granted them only part of the relief they requested in a "petition to enforce a settlement agreement." The agreement in question had been entered into by the Paneks and the Redevelopment Authority of the City of McKeesport (Authority) in the course of eminent domain litigation.

In 1973, the Authority formally condemned a property at which the Paneks, as tenants, operated a florist business. As a result of the condemnation the Paneks had to relocate their business. The Paneks sought to obtain business dislocation damages under Section 601-A(b)(3) of the Eminent Domain Code (Code);*fn1 but that claim was denied by the board of viewers.

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 310]

The viewers' award, entered in September 1976, allowed the Paneks only an attorney fee under Section 610 of the Code,*fn2 in the amount of $500.

The Paneks' appeal from the viewers' award suffered a compulsory non-suit; and the trial court's denial of a motion to remove the non-suit was affirmed by our Court on December 15, 1980. Panek Appeal, 55 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 327, 423 A.2d 472 (1980). The Paneks' petition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for an allowance of appeal was denied.

About June 20, 1979, before the mentioned non-suit had become a final judgment of the trial court, the Paneks and the Authority entered into an agreement that is the underlying subject of the instant appeal.*fn3 Under the agreement the Authority was to pay the Paneks, pursuant to Section 601-A(b)(4) of the Code,*fn4 the sum of $900 to reimburse them for expenses they incurred in searching for a new business site. The agreement also provided for the payment of the $500 attorney fee the board of viewers had awarded. According to the Paneks, the Authority agreed to pay these monies by June 30, 1979.

When almost two years elapsed without the Authority making payment as agreed, the Paneks sought to obtain judicial ...


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.