Court Opinion

ID: 9692251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:48:35.425164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:33.567007
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge SIMPSON.
■ I ■ concur in the thoughtful majority opinion. I write separately for two reasons. First, I write to commend the trial judges, especially the most recent judge, the Honorable Carol K McGinley, on the professional manner in which issues in this unnecessarily complicated case were addressed.
Second, I write to circumscribe preliminary determinations in condemnation cases. Section 517 of the Eminent Domain Code1 directs in pertinent part that on appeal from the board of viewers, “[a]ll objections, other than to the amount of the award, raised by the appeal shall be determined by the court preliminarily.”
The purpose of this statutory provision “is to enable a trial court to dispose of legal issues questioned by the parties to the litigation in the hope that those parties, otherwise satisfied with the amount of the award, would then be satisfied with the board’s report and not demand trial de novo.” Kellman Trust Fund v.Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp., 24 Pa.Cmwlth. 102, 354 A.2d 583, 591, n. 8 (1976). The provision does not require all questions of law be settled before trial, only that the *983board of viewers’ report be settled before trial. Id. at 594-95. Admissibility of evidence or legal issues may be considered during the course of a trial or before a trial commences. Id. at 595.
In this case, the parties show an affinity for litigation. No party is satisfied with the board of viewers’ report, and all parties demand trial de novo.' It is unlikely that any preliminary determination will move the case closer to the amicable settlement which was the goal of the drafters.
Under these circumstances there is no reason to expand the function of preliminary determinations. In particular, I would not burden the trial court with preliminary determination of evidence, such as the issues relating to the effect of the protective order on proof of market value and admissibility of the Stipulation. This is especially true here, where trial is further delayed by this appeal. I concur in the decision because neither the parties nor the trial judge raise this issue.

. Act of June 22, 1964, Special Sess., P.L. 84, 26 P.S. § 1-517.