Title: Vernon Township Volunteer Fire Dept., v. William E. Connor, et al. and Vernon Township Volunteer Fire Department, v. Vicki R. Kurt, et al. (Dissenting Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 33WAP2003
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: August 20, 2004

[J-11-2004] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT VERNON TOWNSHIP VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC., A NON-PROFIT PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, Appellee v. WILLIAM E. CONNOR AND BARBARA J. SANDERS, CARMIN E. GRASSO, CARMIN E. GRASSO EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF BARBARA L. GRASSO, DECEASED, DONALD J. DUNBAUGH AND VIVIAN J. DUNBAUGH, WILLIAM B. BARR AND PATRICIA D. BARR, Appellants VERNON TOWNSHIP VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC., A NON-PROFIT PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, Appellee v. VICKI R. KURT, RUSSELL E. BRIGGS, RITA H. BRIGGS, ROBERT W. GRASINGER, JENNIFER L. ROSE, LINDA SUE HARRIS, MICHAEL W. YOCINA AND SCOTT E. YOCINA, Appellants : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ; : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 33 WAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered December 23, 2003, at No. 246WDA2002, reversing the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County entered February 26, 2002, at Nos. AD2000-123 and AD2000-857. ARGUED: March 2, 2004 [J-11-2004] - 2 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: AUGUST 19, 2004 I agree with the majority’s assessment, in footnote twelve of its opinion, that the Superior Court, having discerned an error in the trial court’s approach to delineating the boundaries of the immediate neighborhood for purposes of determining the obsolescence of the covenant at issue,1 should have remanded to the common pleas court. In my view, aside from the requirement that adjoining tracts must be considered, evaluation of what constitutes the relevant immediate (as opposed to remote) neighborhood is a uniquely factual determination that is interdependent with the assessment of impact and the continued viability of restrictions in light of changed circumstances.2 It appearing, at least to me, that the majority and dissenting opinions 1 Here, the common pleas court expressly defined the boundaries of the immediate area as according to the “Cussewago Creek and a wooded hill to the south, the wooded Water Company land to the Northwest, the industrial park to the Northeast, and the City of Meadville to the East,” which are the boundaries of the subdivision subject to the restrictions. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 4 (indicating that, in addition to the northeast boundary with the industrial park, “[t]he remainder of the restricted tract is bounded by wooded land to the northwest, the Cussewago Creek to the south and west, and the City of Meadville to the east”). As the majority notes, this Court in Deitch v. Bier, 460 Pa. 394, 333 A.2d 784 (1975), required at least an express consideration of adjoining tracts in the assessment of the impact of changes to an immediate neighborhood. See id. at 396-97, 333 A.2d at 785. 2 Although I agree with Mr. Justice Castille that the prevailing sympathy in the neighborhood is with the volunteer fire department, the relevant legal analysis, designed to balance the important and vested property interests involved against the policy of affording relief against obsolete restrictions, focuses on value to any beneficiary owner. See Phillips v. Donaldson, 269 Pa. 244, 247, 112 A. 236, 238 (1920) (“Nor, under such covenant, is it necessary that the community or the majority of the lot owners whose rights under the covenant are affected should complain . . .[;] . . . we should not hesitate to enforce its provisions where one of the dominant owners seeks such enforcement in an unchanged locality.”). [J-11-2004] - 3 here can be read as also embodying fact finding from the appellate vantage, I believe that the remand approach is best.