J-S34011-23

2024 PA Super 124

OCEANVIEW PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT & RECOVERY 

SERVICES, LLC

v.

ADELAIDE C. BAKER, DECEASED, 

TOGETHER WITH KNOWN HEIRS 

AND UNKNOWN HEIRS, 

SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS AND 

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PITTSBURGH 

PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COUNTY OF 

ALLEGHENY, PENNSYLVANIA 

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BUREAU 

OF INDIVIDUAL TAXES, 

INHERITANCE TAX DIVISION

BLOOMFIELD DEVELOPMENT 

CORPORATION,

v.

ADELAIDE C. BAKER, DECEASED, 

TOGETHER WITH KNOWN HEIRS 

AND UNKNOWN HEIRS, 

SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, AND 

OCEAN VIEW PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT RECOVERY SERVICES, 

LLC, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, 

PITTSBURGH PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 

COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, 

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

REVENUE, BUREAU OF INDIVIDUAL 

TAXES, INHERITANCE TAX 

DIVISION.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 292 WDA 2023
J-S34011-23

- 2 -

APPEAL OF: OCEANVIEW PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT & RECOVERY 

SERVIES, LLC

Appeal from the Order Entered February 9, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at 

No(s): No. GD -21-000983

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and MURRAY, J.

OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED: JUNE 12, 2024

Oceanview Property Management & Recovery Services, LLC

(Oceanview), appeals from the February 9, 2023 order1 denying its post-trial 

motion, seeking to have the trial court reverse its December 19, 2022 order

which, inter alia, appointed City of Bridges Community Land Trust (City of 

Bridges) as conservator over the abandoned and blighted property in question

and declined to appoint Oceanview as conservator. Upon careful review, we 

affirm.

Adelaide C. Baker, deceased, was the record owner of a house located 

at 4701 Lorigan Street in Pittsburgh (the Property). On February 3, 2021, 

Oceanview, a party in interest,2filed a petition for the appointment of a 

____________________________________________

1 Oceanview appeals under Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(2), which “authorizes appeals 

from interlocutory orders that either do or refuse to modify, confirm[,] or 

dissolve attachments or similar matter[s] affecting the possession or control 

of property.” Triffin v. Interstate Printing Co., 515 A.2d 956, 957 (Pa. 

Super. 1986). As stated in our per curiam order filed March 25, 2024, the 

instant interlocutory appeal is properly before us pursuant to Rule 311(a)(2). 

See Order, 3/25/24.

2 A “party in interest” is defined as “a person or entity who has a direct and 

immediate interest in a residential, commercial[,] or industrial building,” 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S34011-23

- 3 -

conservator, wherein it averred that the Property’s conditions qualify it for 

designation as “blighted and abandoned” pursuant to the Abandoned and 

Blighted Property Conservatorship Act (the Act), 68 P.S. §§ 1101-1110. 

Oceanview stated that the Property had not been legally occupied for at least 

twelve months prior to the filing of the petition and was believed to have been

vacant since at least 2016. See Petition, 2/3/21, at ¶¶ 37-38. Oceanview 

also requested it be appointed as conservator to prevent waste and begin 

improvements to and rehabilitation of the Property. See id. at ¶¶ 53-56.

On April 14, 2021, Bloomfield Development Corporation (Bloomfield), 

another party in interest, filed a petition to intervene. On June 15, 2021, the 

trial court granted Bloomfield’s petition. Bloomfield subsequently filed a 

separate petition pursuant to the Act, proposing that City of Bridges, a 

nonprofit corporation, be appointed as conservator. On May 5, 2022, following 

Oceanview’s motion and Bloomfield’s consent, the trial court consolidated the 

two actions for the purpose of appointing a conservator for the Property.

On August 29-30, 2022, the Honorable W. Terrence O’Brien presided 

over a rule to show cause hearing. On September 17, 2022, the trial court 

entered an order directing the parties to file proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, briefs in support of their respective positions, and proposed 

____________________________________________

including the following: (1) the owner; (2) a lienholder or secured creditor of 

the owner; (3) a resident or business owner within 2,000 feet of the building; 

(4) certain nonprofit corporations; (5) a municipality or school district in which 

the building is located; and (6) a land bank, as defined under 68 Pa.C.S.A. § 

2103. See 68 P.S. § 1103. 
J-S34011-23

- 4 -

orders. The order also allowed for the filing of responsive briefs. On 

December 19, 2022, the trial court, following appropriate filings by the 

respective parties, entered an order which, inter alia, appointed City of Bridges 

as conservator for the Property.3 The court specifically made a finding that:

[T]he Act instructs the [c]ourt to give preference to a nonprofit 

organization over an individual when making an appointment of 

conservator. City of Bridges is a nonprofit corporation with 

experience rehabilitating abandoned and blighted properties in 

Pittsburgh. Moreover, its preliminary plan of abatement was more 

developed than Oceanview’s plan and has the added benefit of 

creating and preserving affordable housing, a goal of this [c]ourt 

when adjudicating proceedings under the Act.

Order, 12/19/22, at ¶ 3.

Oceanview timely filed a post-trial motion alleging that the trial court

erred as a matter of law in finding that: (1) the Act gives preference to 

nonprofit corporations over an individual; (2) City of Bridges could serve as 

conservator, in violation of section 1109 of the Act; and (3) affordable housing 

was a goal of the court, in violation of section 1102 of the Act. See generally

Post-Trial Motion, 12/28/22. On February 9, 2023, the trial court denied the 

motion.

4

____________________________________________

3 We note that no nongovernmental lienholder was identified. All lienholders 

were identified as governmental entities. See Brief in Support of Bloomfield’s 

Petition for Appointment of Conservator, 10/31/22, at 17; see also 68 P.S. § 

1105(e). 

4 Oceanview filed a timely post-trial motion challenging the trial court’s 

appointment of City of Bridges as conservator. See, e.g., Scioli Turco, Inc.

v. Prioleau, 207 A.3d 346, 349 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2019) (Court requiring posttrial motion be filed to preserve appellate issues following hearing under the 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S34011-23

- 5 -

On March 7, 2023, Oceanview filed a timely notice of appeal.5 On March 

20, 2023, the trial court stated it would not file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion 

because the February 9, 2023 order adequately addressed Oceanview’s

claims. As such, Oceanview did not file a Rule 1925(b) concise statement of 

____________________________________________

Act). The trial court then entered the February 9, 2023 order denying 

Oceanview’s post-trial motion. Oceanview timely filed its notice of appeal,

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(2), from that order. See Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(2)

(permitting interlocutory appeal as of right from “order confirming, modifying, 

dissolving, or refusing to confirm, modify[,] or dissolve an attachment 

custodianship, receivership, or similar matter affecting the possession of 

property or control of property”). Because post-trial motions were required 

after entry of the December 19, 2022 order, and because the February 9, 

2023 order denying the post-trial motion refused to modify the appointment 

of City of Bridges as conservator, Oceanview properly brings this appeal 

pursuant to Rule 311(a)(2).

5 The limited case law regarding the Act presents conflicting approaches to

whether an appeal properly lies from the entry of an interlocutory order or if 

entry of final judgment is required. See Wolf v. Santiago, 230 A.3d 394, at 

399 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2020) (requiring entry of judgment after denial of posttrial motion in proceeding under the Act; addressing merits of appeal because

notice of appeal filed after announcement of determination but before entry 

of appealable order shall be treated as filed after such entry); c.f. Phila. 

Cmty. Dev. Coal., Inc. v. Phila. Redevelopment Auth., 298 A.3d 172, 176 

n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2023) (appeals from Act proceedings fall within Rule 

311(a)(2)). See also Commonwealth v. Bowers, 185 A.3d 358, 362 n.4 

(Pa. Super. 2018) (Commonwealth Court decisions are not binding on this 

Court but may be used as persuasive authority). See 68 P.S. § 1110 (court 

may order termination of conservatorship if conditions leading to finding of 

blight are abated or corrected and “purposes of the conservatorship have been 

fulfilled”). 

As noted supra, Oceanview takes issue with the court’s refusal to modify the 

conservatorship it established in the December 19, 2022 order. As such, an 

interlocutory appeal may be taken from the trial court’s February 9, 2023 

order. See Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(2).
J-S34011-23

- 6 -

errors complained of on appeal.6 Oceanview challenges the trial court’s 

decision to appoint City of Bridges as conservator, raising the following claims

on appeal:

[1.] Whether [the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or 

abused its discretion when it held that the Act] mandates that the 

court give a non[]profit corporation priority over a competent 

entity.

[2.] Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or abused 

its discretion when it appointed City of Bridges[] as conservator, 

in violation of [s]ection 1109 of the [Act,] which mandates 

distribution of proceeds from the sale of a property once 

remediated/rehabilitated.

[3.] Whether the trial court committed an error of law and/or 

abused its discretion in holding that the [Act’s] intended purpose 

was to create and preserve affordable housing[,] in violation of 

the legislative purpose of the Act, pursuant to [s]ection 1102.

Appellant’s Brief, at 2.

Our standard and scope of review in non-jury cases is well-established:

Our review in a non-jury case is limited to whether the findings of 

the trial court are supported by competent evidence and whether 

the trial court committed error in the application of law. We must 

grant the court’s findings of fact the same weight and effect as 

the verdict of a jury and, accordingly, may disturb the non-jury 

verdict only if the court’s findings are unsupported by competent 

evidence or the court committed legal error that affected the 

outcome of the trial. It is not the role of an appellate court to pass 

on the credibility of witnesses; hence[,] we will not substitute our 

judgment for that of the fact-finder. Thus, the test we apply is 

not whether we would have reached the same result on the 

evidence presented, but rather, after due consideration of the 

evidence which the trial court found credible, whether the trial 

court could have reasonably reached its conclusion.

____________________________________________

6 The trial court did not order Oceanview to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.
J-S34011-23

- 7 -

G & G Inv’rs, LLC v. Phillips Simmons Real Estate Holdings, LLC, 183 

A.3d 472, 478 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citations omitted).

The Act provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(e) APPOINTMENT.--

(1) If the court determines after a hearing that the 

property has met the conditions of subsection (d), the 

court may appoint a conservator, certify the schedule 

of encumbrances[,] and grant such other relief as may 

be just and appropriate. The certification shall be 

binding with respect to all mortgages, liens[,] and 

encumbrances, including municipal liens, arising or 

attaching to the property prior to the date of the 

petition.

(2) The court shall give first consideration for 

appointment as conservator to the most senior 

nongovernmental lienholder on the property.

(3) In the event the senior lienholder is found to be 

not competent or declines the appointment, the court 

may appoint a nonprofit corporation or other 

competent entity. If the property is located in a city 

of the first class, the nonprofit corporation or entity 

must be located in the city and must have participated 

in a project within a five-mile radius of the location of 

the property. In appointing a conservator, the court 

shall:

(i) consider any recommendations 

contained in the petition or otherwise 

presented by a party in interest; and

(ii) give preference to the appointment of 

a nonprofit corporation or governmental 

unit over an individual.

68 P.S. § 1105(e).

§ 1109. Sale of property
J-S34011-23

- 8 -

(a) SALE BY OWNER OR LIENHOLDER.-- If a property subject 

to conservatorship is sold by the owner or foreclosed upon by a 

lienholder or if any interest therein is transferred, such sale, 

foreclosure[,] or transfer shall be subject to the conservatorship.

(b) SALE BY CONSERVATOR.-- Upon application of the 

conservator, the court may order the sale of the property if the 

court finds that:

(1) Notice and an opportunity to provide comment to 

the court was given to each record owner of the 

property and each lienholder.

(2) The conservator has been in control of the 

building for more than three months and the owner 

has not successfully petitioned to terminate the 

conservatorship under section 10.

(3) The terms and conditions of the sale are 

acceptable to the court, and the buyer has a 

reasonable likelihood of maintaining the property.

(c) SALE FREE AND CLEAR.--

(1) The court may authorize the conservator to sell 

the building free and clear of all liens, claims[,] and 

encumbrances, provided that the proceeds of the sale 

are distributed pursuant to subsection (d) at 

settlement.

(2) In the event that the proceeds of the sale are 

insufficient to pay all existing liens, claims[,] and 

encumbrances, the proceeds shall be distributed 

according to the priorities set forth in subsection (d) 

and all unpaid liens, claims[,] or encumbrances which 

have not been assumed under section 8(d) shall be 

extinguished.

(d) DISTRIBUTION.-- The proceeds of the sale shall be applied 

in accordance with the following priorities to:

(1) All court costs.

(2) Liens of the Commonwealth, liens for unpaid 

property taxes[,] and properly recorded municipal 

liens.
J-S34011-23

- 9 -

(3) Costs and expenses of sale.

(4) Principal and interest on any borrowing or 

incurrence of indebtedness granted priority over 

existing liens and security interest under section 8(b).

(4.1) Costs incurred by the petitioner in preparing 

and filing the petition in accordance with the 

requirements of section 4.

(5) Costs of rehabilitation and any fees and expenses 

incurred by the conservator in connection with the 

sale or the safeguarding of the property for which the 

lien authorized under section (5)(g) was filed.

(6) Valid liens and security interests in accordance 

with their priority.

(7) Any unpaid obligations of the conservator.

(8) (Deleted by amendment).

(9) The owner.

(e) OWNER’S PROCEEDS AS UNCLAIMED PROPERTY.-- In 

the event the owner cannot be located, any proceeds from the 

sale which belong to the owner shall be presumed to be 

abandoned and unclaimed and shall be subject to the custody and 

control of the Commonwealth pursuant to Article XIII.1 of the act 

of April 9, 1929 (P.L. 343, No. 176), known as The Fiscal Code.

68 P.S. § 1109.

§ 1102. Legislative findings and purpose

The General Assembly finds and declares that:

(1) Pennsylvania’s older communities are important 

to the Commonwealth’s economic health by providing 

a focal point for businesses and services and to this 

Commonwealth’s quality of life with its rich history 

and diverse communities. However, many older 

communities suffer from blighted properties that have 

been abandoned by their owners.

(2) Many citizens of this Commonwealth are 

adversely affected by abandoned and blighted 

residential, commercial[,] and industrial properties, 
J-S34011-23

- 10 -

including those citizens who live in proximity to such 

substandard buildings, as well as those who own 

property in the vicinity of such buildings.

(3) Substandard, deteriorating[,] and abandoned 

residential, commercial[,] and industrial structures 

are a public safety threat and nuisance and their 

blighting effect diminishes property values in the 

communities in which these properties are located.

(4) If these buildings are not rehabilitated, they are 

likely to remain abandoned and further deteriorate, 

resulting in increased costs to the Commonwealth, 

municipality[,] and taxpayers to secure and ultimately 

demolish them.

(5) Providing a mechanism to transform abandoned 

and blighted buildings into productive reuse is an 

opportunity for communities to modernize, 

revitalize[,] and grow, and to improve the quality of 

life for neighbors who are already there.

(6) If the owner of a residential, commercial[,] or 

industrial building fails to maintain the property in 

accordance with applicable municipal codes or 

standards of public welfare or safety, it is in the best 

interest of the Commonwealth, the municipality[,] and 

the community for the court, pursuant to the 

provisions of this act, to appoint a conservator to 

make the necessary improvements before the building 

deteriorates further and necessitates demolition, 

resulting in the removal of the building from the 

housing supply or prohibiting future productive 

economic use.

68 P.S. § 1102.

Instantly, the trial court found that City of Bridges was a nonprofit “with 

experience rehabilitating abandoned and blighted properties in Pittsburgh” 

and that its “preliminary plan of abatement was more developed than 

Oceanview’s plan.” Order, 12/19/22, at ¶ 3. The court further stated that it 

gives preference to a nonprofit organization over an individual when 
J-S34011-23

- 11 -

appointing a conservator under section 1105(e)(3)(ii) of the Act. See id. 

Moreover, the court highlighted the “added benefit of creating and preserving 

affordable housing” in the community. Id. 

Oceanview argues that the trial court erred when it appointed City of 

Bridges because it misconstrued the meaning of section 1105(e)(3), and that 

the plain language of the section dictates that the court “may appoint a 

nonprofit corporation or other competent entity.” Appellant’s Brief, at 8 

(quoting 68 P.S. § 1105(e)). Oceanview posits that a court’s obligation when 

ascertaining the meaning of a statute is to give words their “plain and ordinary 

meaning,” to consider words “in their grammatical context,” and to “determine 

the intent of the legislature.” Id. at 11. 

Oceanview provides no evidence that the court misconstrued or 

misapplied the law. To the contrary, Oceanview highlights that the trial court

stated at the rule to show cause hearing that the Act “does not require” only 

nonprofits to be appointed as conservator. Id. at 8; see also N.T. Rule to 

Show Cause Hearing, 8/29/22-8/30/22, at 151. In addition, in its order 

appointing City of Bridges, the trial court was clear that the preference for 

nonprofit corporations is over individuals, just as the statute states. See

Order, 12/19/22, at ¶ 3; see also 68 P.S. § 1105(e)(3)(ii). Further, in 

denying Oceanview’s post-trial motion, the trial court reiterated its 

understanding of its obligation to consider any recommendations contained by 

a party in interest and give preference to the appointment of a nonprofit 

corporation over an individual. See Post-Trial Motion Order, 2/9/23 
J-S34011-23

- 12 -

(referencing last sentence of section 1105(e)(3)). The trial court did not err 

in its recitation or application of the statute, nor has Oceanview provided any 

argument or evidence to suggest that the trial court failed to appoint a 

competent entity. As such, Oceanview is not entitled to relief with respect to 

this issue. See G & G Inv’rs, LLC, supra.

Next, Oceanview argues that the court erred by appointing City of 

Bridges as conservator because its plan fails to maximize the value of the 

Property. See Appellant’s Brief, at 15-16. Specifically, Oceanview points to 

the statements by City of Bridges that it would retain ownership of the land

and sell the home on the Property, and that it plans only to rehabilitate the 

exterior of the Property before petitioning the court to sell it. See id. at 14-

15. Oceanview argues that this plan violates section 1109(d) of the Act, which 

sets out the requirement for the distribution of proceeds following a courtapproved sale, by failing to maximize its potential selling price. Id. at 15. 

Oceanview makes the bald statement that, “[i]n general, when a 

property is remediated and rehabilitated, the value of the property can then 

be maximized, through a court sale.” Id. Oceanview, however, provides no 

factual basis, no statute, and no case law to support this assertion. Oceanview 

asks this Court to consider the plain language of the words used to interpret 

section 1109(d) of the Act. A review of the section, reproduced in full, supra, 

makes no mention of the value of the Property. Rather, section 1109 simply 

explains the process by which a sale should be made and the manner in which

the proceeds of the sale shall be distributed. See 68 P.S. § 1109. The trial 
J-S34011-23

- 13 -

court also recognized this fact, stating that the Act “does not require a 

conservator to maximize the value of the subject property.” Post-Trial Motion 

Order, 2/9/23. Furthermore, the trial court’s order appointing City of Bridges 

makes no mention of the sale of the Property, but it does require a future 

hearing on a final plan of abatement and that City of Bridges provide annual 

status reports to the court in accordance with the Act. See Order, 12/19/22, 

at ¶¶ 5-6. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not err or abuse its 

discretion by appointing City of Bridges pursuant to section 1109(d) of the 

Act. Accordingly, Oceanview is not entitled to relief with respect to this claim. 

Finally, Oceanview argues that the trial court erred or abused its 

discretion by holding that the Act’s purpose is to create and preserve 

affordable housing. Oceanview points to section 1102, which defines the 

purpose of the Act and does not mention affordable housing. See Appellant’s 

Brief, at 18-19. Oceanview further contends that the trial court’s statement 

that appointing City of Bridges “has the added benefit of creating and 

preserving affordable housing” goes beyond the requirements of the Act and 

is therefore improper and an abuse of the court’s discretion. Id. at 19-20 

(citing In re a Conservatorship Proceeding in Rem by Germantown 

Conservancy, Inc., 995 A.2d 451 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)). However, Oceanview 

fails to set forth any argument or explanation to support its position that the 

trial court was attempting to add an affordable housing “requirement” to the 

purpose of the Act, or the manner in which the court otherwise erred or abused 

its discretion.
J-S34011-23

- 14 -

“The failure to develop an adequate argument in an appellate brief may 

[] result in waiver of the claim under Pa.R.A.P. 2119.” Commonwealth v. 

Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation and quotation 

marks omitted). “We shall not develop an argument for an appellant, nor 

shall we scour the record to find evidence to support an argument.” Milby v. 

Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2018); see also Wolf, 230 A.3d at

401. As such, we conclude that Oceanview has waived this claim on appeal.

However, even if this issue were not waived, we would conclude that 

Oceanview is not entitled to relief. The trial court heard two days of testimony 

from witnesses, heard argument from both Oceanview and Bloomfield, and 

ordered the parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law 

before making any determination regarding which entity would serve as 

conservator for the Property. See Order, 9/19/22. 

When the trial court issued its order appointing City of Bridges as 

conservator of the Property, the court explained its reasons for doing so, 

including that it is “a nonprofit corporation with experience rehabilitating 

abandoned and blighted properties in Pittsburgh. Moreover, its preliminary 

plan of abatement was more developed than Oceanview’s plan.” Order, 

12/19/22, at ¶ 3. The court further stated that City of Bridges’ plan had “the 

added benefit of creating and preserving affordable housing, a goal of 

this [c]ourt when adjudicating proceedings under the Act.” Id. (emphasis 

added). 
J-S34011-23

- 15 -

At no point did the trial court state that the creation of affordable 

housing was a newly imposed requirement, let alone a stated purpose of the 

Act, but rather that it was a “factor the court may consider in choosing 

between competing proposed conservators.” Post-Trial Motion Order, 2/9/23; 

see also Order, 12/19/22, at ¶ 3 (City of Bridges’ “plan of abatement was 

more developed” and had “the added benefit of creating and preserving 

affordable housing[.]”). As such, we conclude that the trial court did not err 

or abuse its discretion in considering, as one factor in its decision, the fact 

that City of Bridges’ plan included affordable housing. Oceanview is not 

entitled to relief on this issue.

Order affirmed.

Murray, J., joins the Opinion.

Stabile, J., Concurs in the Result.

DATE: 6/12/2024