IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David G. Szymanski, :

Appellant :

: 

 v. : No. 34 C.D. 2022

: Submitted: December 30, 2022

Board of Supervisors of :

New London Township :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WALLACE FILED: April 20, 2023

David G. Szymanski (Szymanski) appeals from the Order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Chester County (Common Pleas) sustaining his appeal of the 

December 3, 2020 Decision of the New London Township (Township) Board of 

Supervisors (Board) and striking a condition imposed by the Board in its Final Minor 

Subdivision Plan decision. On appeal, Szymanski argues that even though he 

prevailed before Common Pleas, dictum in Common Pleas’ opinion placed a cloud 

on the title to his real estate. As a result, he requests that this Court vacate the dictum 

in Common Pleas’ opinion. Since Szymanski does not have standing, we dismiss

his appeal. 

I. Background

Common Pleas succinctly set forth the complex factual background and 

procedural history of this matter as follows:
2

David G. Szymanski is the owner of a farm of approximately 83 

acres located [in] . . . New London Township, Chester County, 

Pennsylvania . . . (the “Property”). In 2018, Mr. Szymanski submitted 

to the Board an Application for Subdivision and Land Development and 

Final Minor Subdivision Plan (the “First Application” or “First 

Szymanski Plan”). The First Application sought to divide Mr. 

Szymanski’s Property into two lots––Lot 2A, consisting of 

approximately 11.28 acres with a proposed residence, attendant 

driveway and storm water management area -- and Lot 2B, consisting 

of approximately 72.1 acres, including approximately 28.3 residual 

acres in New London Township and approximately 43.8 acres in 

Franklin Township containing Mr. Szymanski’s residence and farm 

structures. After obtaining necessary approvals from other agencies and 

satisfactory reviews by the Chester County Planning Commission and 

the Township Engineer, the Board issued a written decision on March 

7, 2019, approving the First Application, subject to conditions (the

“First Decision”). One such condition was a requirement that the First 

Szymanski Plan include a note restricting any further subdivision of 

either parcel (the “First Condition”). . . .

The basis for the imposed First Condition was a previous note 

placed on the 2003 Final Minor Subdivision Plan submitted by thenowner Alice J. Conner (the “Conner Plan”). The Conner Plan, which 

predated Mr. Szymanski’s purchase of the Property, contained the 

following language at Note 4: 

4) Further subdivision of Lot #1 and Lot #2 shall be deed

restricted as follows: Lot #1 shall be restricted to a 

maximum of one additional lot. Lot #2 shall be restricted 

to a maximum of one additional agricultural lot.

Specific language addressing these restrictions shall be

included in subsequent deeds of conveyance for these 

properties. 

The following language appeared in the deed conveying Ms. 

Conner’s interest in the Property to Mr. Szymanski: 

FUTURE SUBDIVISION: BUYER AGREES 

PURSUANT TO SELLER’S DESIRE THAT BUYER 

WILL AGREE TO ONLY SUBDIVIDING HIS 

PORTION OF THE PROPERTY INTO TWO (2) 
3

PARCELS BOTH OF WHICH SHALL REMAIN 

SUBJECT TO ACT 319[1] AFTER SETTLEMENT. 

By letter dated February 7, 2019, Mr. Szymanski expressly 

rejected the First Condition and requested that the Board 

unconditionally approve his First Application. It did not do so and on 

April 8, 2019, Mr. Szymanski filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the 

First Condition. Later, Mr. Szymanski withdrew his appeal. 

Two years later, on October 14, 2020, Mr. Szymanski filed 

another Application (the “Second Application”) and Final Minor 

Subdivision Plan (the “Second Szymanski Plan”). On November 11, 

2020, at a public meeting, the New London Township Planning 

Commission recommended approval of the Second Szymanski Plan, 

subject to placement of the following note on the Second Szymanski 

Plan (the “Second Condition”):

12. This subdivision extinguishes the right to further 

subdivide by creating one new agricultural parcel on Lot 

#2 . . . as granted by the Final Subdivision Plan of Property 

Owned by Alice J. Conner dated 28 July 2003 last revised 

29 September 2003. Upon approval of this subdivision, the 

new Lots #2A and #2B will be deed restricted from further 

subdivision. 

By email dated November 13, 2020, Mr. Szymanski notified the 

Township that he would not agree to place the new Note 12 on the 

Second Szymanski Plan as proposed by the Planning Commission. By 

Decision dated December 3, 2020, the Board determined that if Mr. 

Szymanski did not submit a revised Final Subdivision Plan containing 

the new Note 12 within thirty (30) days, the Second Szymanski Plan 

was denied. 

On January 4, 2021, Mr. Szymanski appealed the December 3, 

2020 Decision of the Board.

Common Pleas Op., 12/6/21, at 1-3.

Common Pleas, by order filed December 6, 2021, sustained Szymanski’s 

appeal, striking the Second Condition as a requirement for approval of Szymanski’s 

1

 Act of December 19, 1974, P.L. 973, as amended, 72 P.S. §§ 5490.1 – 5490.13
4

Final Minor Subdivision Plan. Common Pleas Order, 12/6/21. Despite obtaining 

the relief he requested, Szymanski appealed Common Pleas’ decision to this Court. 

On appeal, Szymanski argues a portion of Common Pleas’ opinion, in which 

Common Pleas determined the restrictions in Szymanski’s deed were “binding on 

Mr. Szymanski and future property owners,” placed a cloud upon his title. See 

generally Appellant’s Br. Accordingly, Szymanski believes he was aggrieved by 

Common Pleas’ opinion. Id. The Board, however, argues that Szymanski, as the 

prevailing party before Common Pleas, does not have standing to pursue this appeal.

II. Standing

Rule 501 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure providesthat “any 

party who is aggrieved by an appealable order . . . may appeal therefrom.” Pa.R.A.P. 

501. “Whether a party has standing to appeal is determined on a case-by-case basis 

and, if a person is determined aggrieved, he has standing.” Chiro-Med Rev. Co. v. 

Bureau of Workers’ Comp., 908 A.2d 980, 984 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (citation 

omitted). “As a general matter, the core concept of the doctrine of standing is that a 

person who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter he seeks to challenge 

is not ‘aggrieved’ and has no right to obtain a judicial resolution of his challenge.” 

In re T.J., 739 A.2d 478, 481 (Pa. 1999).

Generally, “[a] prevailing party is not ‘aggrieved’ and therefore, does not have 

standing to appeal an order that has been entered in his or her favor.” Ratti v. 

Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 758 A.2d 695, 700 (Pa. Super. 2000). Where the 

prevailing party receives an incomplete remedy, however, they are generally 

permitted to appeal. See Chiro-Med, 908 A.2d 980, 985 (prevailing party permitted 

to cross-appeal where “it did not receive all the relief it requested”); Marsh v. 

Hanley, 856 A.2d 138 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appeal permitted where jury awarded wage 
5

loss damages but did not award damages for compensable bodily injuries); 

Pittsburgh Constr. Co. v. Griffith, 834 A.2d 572 (Pa. Super. 2003) (prevailing party 

permitted to cross-appeal where trial court did not award contractual interest). 

In essence, Szymanski filed a subdivision plan and requested approval from 

the Board. When the Board determined it would not approve his plan unless he 

added additional notations to the plan, Szymanski appealed and requested that 

Common Pleas strike the Board’s requirement for additional notations. Common 

Pleas sustained Szymanski’s appeal and struck the Board’s requirement for 

additional notations. As a result, Szymanski was the prevailing party, and he 

received all of the relief he requested from Common Pleas. 

Nevertheless, Szymanski believes he was aggrieved by a statement in 

Common Pleas’ opinion, which Szymanski repeatedly calls dictum. See generally 

Appellant’s Br. “Judicial dictum has been defined as ‘[a]n opinion by a court on a 

question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed 

on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision.’” City of Lower Burrell v. 

City of Lower Burrell Wage & Policy Comm., 795 A.2d 432, 437 n. 7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2002) (citation omitted). “Dicta has no precedential value.” Id. 

We agree with Szymanski that Common Pleas’ statement that restrictions in 

Szymanski’s deed were binding on Szymanski and future property owners was 

judicial dictum. Common Pleas’ ultimate decision was that the Board’s imposition 

of additional conditions was improper. Whether restrictions in Szymanski’s deed 

were binding on Szymanski and future owners was not essential to that decision. 

We are not persuaded, however, by Szymanski’s arguments that Common 

Pleas’ statement “has a confiscatory effect on [his] property.” See Appellant’s Br. 

at 4, 5. Szymanski concedes Common Pleas’ statement was dictum, which means 
6

that it has no precedential value. As a result, Common Pleas’ statement does not 

take anything from Szymanski, nor does it affect his ability to pursue any issues in 

the future. 

III. Conclusion

Szymanski received a complete remedy in his appeal to Common Pleas, where 

he was the prevailing party. In addition, Common Pleas’ statement that restrictions 

in Szymanski’s deed were binding on Szymanski and future property owners did not 

adversely affect Szymanski, because he concedes this statement was 

non-precedential dictum. Therefore, Szymanski is not an “aggrieved” party under 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 501, and he lacks standing to appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss Szymanski’s appeal. 

______________________________

STACY WALLACE, Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon concurs in result only.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

David G. Szymanski, :

Appellant :

: 

 v. : No. 34 C.D. 2022

: 

Board of Supervisors of :

New London Township :

O R D E R 

 AND NOW, this 20th day of April 2023, the appeal of David G. Szymanski 

from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County’s order, docketed on December 

6, 2021, is hereby DISMISSED. 

______________________________

STACY WALLACE, Judge