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.

CONDEMNATION LANDS AND PROPERTY ESTATE MARY WALLECK (07/14/87)

decided: July 14, 1987.

IN RE: CONDEMNATION OF LANDS AND PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE OF MARY WALLECK, DECEASED. IN RE: CONDEMNATION OF LANDS AND PROPERTY OF SYLVIA Y. CERNAVA AND JOHN M. CERNAVA, BROTHER AND SISTER, AS JOINT TENANTS WITH RIGHT OF SURVIVORSHIP AND NOT AS TENANTS IN COMMON. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, APPELLANT


Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, in cases of In Re: Condemnation of lands and property of the Estate of Mary Walleck, Deceased, No. 111 October Term, 1983, and In Re: Condemnation of lands and property of Sylvia Y. Cernava and John M. Cernava, brother and sister, as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common, No. 161 September Term, 1983.

COUNSEL

Frank A. Conte, for appellant.

Jeffrey P. Derrico, with him, Gaylord W. Greenlee, Greenlee, Derrico, Posa, Harrington & Rodgers, for appellee, William Hill.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Kalish.

Author: Kalish

[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 373]

Appellant, Redevelopment Authority of Washington County, appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas

[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 374]

    of Washington County which denied its motion for post trial relief. We affirm.

In September and October of 1983, appellant filed declarations of taking against two adjacent parcels of real estate, the first being owned by the estate of Mary Walleck and the second being owned by Sylvia Y. Cernava and John M. Cernava. Appellee, William Hill, occupied the first floor storerooms of both properties as a tenant and used the space for his business of buying, selling and repairing new and used appliances and other household items.

Upon the filing of a petition by appellee to determine whether he had a right to damages pursuant to section 601-A of the Eminent Domain Code (Code),*fn1 a Board of View was appointed. The Board of View found that appellee was entitled to payment for direct loss of personal property but denied his claim for loss of patronage.

On appeal to the trial court, the parties stipulated to liquidated damages of $14,000 if appellee were to prevail. The only issue before the trial court, and before us today, is whether appellee was engaged in a lawful business activity on the condemned premises, thereby having a compensable interest.

Section 601-A of the Code provides for damages for persons displaced from their place of business. Section 201(7) of the Code, 26 P.S. ยง 1-201(7), defines business as "any lawful activity, excepting a farm operation, conducted primarily: (1) for the purchase, sale, lease or rental of personal or real property, or for the manufacture, processing or marketing of products, commodities, or any other ...


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.