Court Opinion

ID: 9956496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 14:12:10.846198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:34.239153
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Township of Moon                               :
                                               :
              v.                               :   No. 1129 C.D. 2022
                                               :   ARGUED: February 6, 2024
Paul Schreiber and Lora                        :
Schreiber, husband and wife,                   :
                        Appellants             :

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM                                                        FILED: April 2, 2024

              Appellants Paul and Lora Schreiber, husband and wife, appeal from an
order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County denying their post-trial
motions and entering judgment against them. The Schreibers challenge on appeal
the trial court’s issuance of a permanent injunction against them as well as its order
granting the Township of Moon’s motions for attorney fees. We affirm.
              The pertinent facts are as follows.1 This matter involves fill and grading
that the Schreibers conducted, without a permit, on their property located at 1215
Maple Street Extension in the Township. At all relevant times, the Township had in
effect a grading and excavating ordinance which provides, in pertinent part:

              1. Except as exempted by [Section] 9-105, no person shall
              do any clearing, stripping, grading, construction or other
              activity involving the disturbance of natural terrain or
              vegetative ground cover, or no person shall allow such
              activities to occur on his property, unless he has applied
              for and obtained a valid grading permit from the Code
              Official. Specifically, the following activities require a
              grading permit:

       1
          The factual and procedural background of this matter is lengthy. As we write for the
parties, the Court will limit its recitation of the facts to those necessary to the disposition.
                    A. Modifying, disturbing, blocking, diverting or
              otherwise adversely affecting the natural overland or
              subsurface flow of stormwater.

                     ....

                    C. Filling, clearing, stripping, excavating and
              grading of any land including stockpiling (temporary or
              permanent) of excavated or fill material.

              2. Prior to beginning work associated with a grading
              permit, an applicant shall provide proof that the applicant
              or applicant’s representative has applied for and/or
              obtained all necessary permits and approvals, including,
              but not limited to, permits granted by [the Department of
              Environmental Protection].

Moon Twp., Pa., Mun. Code § 9-104(1)(A),(C)&(2) (2015) (Grading Ordinance);
Original Record (O.R.) at 39-40.2 The exceptions to the Grading Ordinance found
in Section 9-105 include, among other things, small quantities of fill, authorized
Township capital improvement and public works projects, and accepted agricultural
land management practices. O.R. at 40-41.
              Section 9-124 of the Grading Ordinance, titled “Violations and
Penalties,” provides as follows:

              1. Any person, firm, or corporation who shall violate any
              provision of this Part, or fails to comply therewith, or with
              any of the requirements thereof, upon conviction thereof
              in an action brought before a magisterial district judge
              in the manner provided for the enforcement of
              summary offenses under the Pennsylvania Rules of
              Criminal Procedure, shall be sentenced to pay a fine of
              not less than $300 nor more than $1,000 plus costs,
              including reasonable attorney fees incurred by the

       2
        Because the original record was filed electronically and was not paginated, the page
numbers referenced herein reflect electronic pagination.

                                             2
              Township, and, in default of payment of said fine and
              costs, to a term of imprisonment to the extent permitted by
              law for the punishment of summary offenses. A separate
              offense shall arise for each day or portion thereof in which
              a violation of this Part is found to exist and for each section
              of this Part found to have been violated. The Township
              may also commence appropriate actions in equity or
              other to prevent, restrain, correct, enjoin, or abate
              violations of this Part. All fines and penalties collected for
              violations of this Part shall be paid to the Township
              Treasurer.      The initial determination of ordinance
              violation is hereby delegated to the Township Manager,
              the Police Department, the Code Official, the authorized
              designee of the Township Manager, and to any other
              officer or agent that the Township Manager or Board of
              Supervisors shall deem appropriate.

              2. In addition, the Township, through its Solicitor, may
              institute injunctive, mandamus, or any other appropriate
              action or proceeding at law or in equity for the
              enforcement of this Part. Any court of competent
              jurisdiction shall have the right to issue restraining orders,
              temporary or permanent injunctions, mandamus, or other
              appropriate forms of remedy or relief.

Grading Ordinance § 9-124 (emphasis added); O.R. at 48.
              The Township received numerous calls and complaints from residents
in 2018 regarding the Schreibers’ activities in placing fill on their property.3 In July
2018, the Township filed in the trial court a complaint and motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the Schreibers’ excavation and grading activities on
their property without first obtaining a permit, and to have them remove the fill

       3
         The Schreibers previously applied for a grading permit but were denied in 2011 and 2015
due to failure to pay the application fee and failure to provide all required information,
respectively. In 2016, they were twice found not guilty of the summary offense of violating the
Grading Ordinance.

                                               3
material improperly placed, as well as requesting fines, costs, and attorney fees. See
O.R. at 15-16, 58-60.
               On August 7, 2018, the trial court issued an order granting a temporary
injunction pending a hearing on the Township’s complaint seeking permanent
injunctive relief. O.R. at 171. The order specifically enjoined the Schreibers from
dumping fill on their property pending further order of court and permitted the
Township engineer to view the property for a period of two hours. Id. The Township
attempted to conduct a site view several times but the Schreibers refused, thus
prolonging the litigation and spawning several unsuccessful interlocutory appeals to
this Court.4    The Schreibers subsequently filed preliminary objections to the
complaint asserting a demurrer and arguing that the action was barred by res
judicata, collateral estoppel, and double jeopardy. Id. at 701-14. The trial court
summarily overruled the preliminary objections. Id. at 971.
               In January 2019, the Schreibers filed a praecipe for writ to join
additional defendants, namely the Township’s Solicitor, Dillon McCandless King
Coulter & Graham L.L.P., as well as three individual attorneys from that firm. O.R.
at 1015-16. The Schreibers later filed a second amended third party complaint to
join these additional defendants, asserting claims of abuse of civil process and
malicious prosecution. Id. at 1293-1315. The trial court sua sponte severed the

       4
          See Twp. of Moon v. Paul Schreiber and Lori Schreiber, husband and wife (Pa. Cmwlth.,
No. 1245 C.D. 2018, discontinued Oct. 15, 2019); Twp. of Moon v. Paul Schreiber and Lori
Schreiber, husband and wife (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1415 C.D. 2018, discontinued Oct. 15, 2019); Twp.
of Moon v. Paul Schreiber and Lori Schreiber, husband and wife (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1542 C.D.
2018, filed Nov. 21, 2019), slip op. at 10 (granting Township’s motion to quash for lack of
jurisdiction because the trial court’s order was not an appealable collateral order).

                                              4
Schreibers’ counterclaims and the Township retained new counsel in the equity
action.5 Id. at 1317-18.
                 In the meantime, Joseph F. Boward, the Township’s engineer,
conducted a view of the property on October 9, 2018. Trial Ct. Op., March 29, 2023,
at 7. His resulting report noted 11 violations of the Township’s ordinances based
upon the Schreibers’ fill activities on their property and concluded that none of the
exceptions found in Section 9-105 of the Grading Ordinance applied. Id. at 7-8. Mr.
Boward’s report indicated, among other things, that the fill embankment on the
Schreibers’ property contained a diverse mixture of construction rubble and debris,
including asphalt materials, and was poorly constructed and wholly unstable,
presenting a hazardous condition and risk of landslide. Id. at 8.
                 After several continuances, an injunction hearing was conducted on
June 24-25, 2019.            At that time, the Township6 presented testimony and
photographic evidence in support of its claim that large amounts of unclean fill had
been dumped on the property.7
                 On July 11, 2019, the trial court issued findings of fact and an order
determining that the Schreibers had violated the Grading Ordinance because they
placed unclean fill materials above a sewer line on their property without a permit,
creating an unstable slope and a substantial risk of harm to surrounding properties.
O.R. at 1767-68.          The trial court permanently enjoined the Schreibers “from

       5
           The Schreibers’ counterclaims are not at issue in this appeal.
       6
         The Township presented testimony from the following witnesses: Dawn Lane, Township
Manager; Scott Brilhart, Township Assistant Manager and Planning Director; Zachary West and
Phyllis Tkach, both of whom own property adjacent to the Schreibers; Gregory Seamon, Township
Chief of Police; Scott Henkenmeyer, Township Public Works Facilities Manager; Mr. Boward;
and professional engineer Kevin A. Brett.
       7
        Testifying for the Schreibers were Robert Phillis, Sergeant for the Township Police, and
Mr. Schreiber himself.

                                                  5
depositing any fill or conducting any fill, excavation[,] or grading activities on the[ir]
property prior to securing a grading permit from” the Township. Id. at 1768. It
further ordered the Schreibers to “remediate the hazardous slope and soil conditions
that exist,” and to retain a licensed professional geotechnical engineer to develop a
remediation strategy. Id. In addition, the trial court gave the Township 15 days in
which to file a petition for attorney fees. Id. at 1769. The Township’s initial motion
sought attorney fees totaling $88,679.00, as well as costs incurred in retaining its
engineering experts totaling $14,555.50. Id. at 1794. The trial court set argument
on the motion for attorney fees for September 30, 2019, and ordered that post-trial
motions would not be due until the Township’s motion for attorney fees had been
decided. Id. at 1775, 1898.
             After the injunction hearing was held and resulting order issued, the
Schreibers filed a motion for recusal of the trial judge, the Honorable Donald Walko,
Jr., and for a new trial. O.R. at 1901-05. While the Schreibers initially asserted that
Judge Walko should recuse himself from the Township’s motion for attorney fees,
they later requested that he also recuse from the recusal motion as well as their
request for a new trial. Id. at 1929-32. Judge Walko denied both motions following
argument, id. at 1935-36; however, the trial court ultimately issued an order
reassigning the action to the Honorable Michael A. Della Vecchia, id. at 2080.
             By March 2020, the Schreibers still had not retained an engineer to
work with the Township on a remediation plan, as ordered. Therefore, the Township
filed a petition for rule to show cause why the Schreibers should not be held in
contempt for failure to comply with the permanent injunction. O.R. at 1958-91.
Judge Della Vecchia conducted a status conference with the parties in June 2021 at
the Township’s request, after which he issued an order attempting to facilitate the

                                            6
Schreibers’ compliance. See id. at 2122-24. However, in a motion for conciliation
conference filed in October 2021, the Township noted that the letter it received from
the Schreibers’ then-retained engineer indicated “that nothing needs to be done” and
failed “to propose any remediation plan at all, much less one satisfying the
requirements set forth by [the] Township’s engineer.” Id. at 2128. Following
another conference and with the consent of the parties, the trial court issued an order
directing the Schreibers to produce copies of soil analysis reports as well as notes,
photographs, and other data from their engineer’s inspections of the property and
directing their engineer to meet with Mr. Boward in person, without the parties or
counsel, no later than January 17, 2022. Id. at 2136.
               In May 2022, the Township filed a motion for entry of a Consent
Decree, which the trial court so entered. The Consent Decree states, in part:

                      9. The [p]arties, wishing to avoid further litigation
               in relation to [the Schreibers’] alleged failure to comply
               with Judge Walko’s [permanent injunction] Order, have
               agreed to resolve the [p]etition for [r]ule to [s]how cause
               by means of a Consent Decree, which if approved by the
               [trial c]ourt, will set forth a course satisfactory to both
               parties in resolution of the issues pertaining to remediation
               of the condition of the slope which had remained pending
               since the Court’s order of July 11, 2019.

                     10. This Consent Decree does not resolve [the
               Township]’s [m]otion for [attorney f]ees, as
               supplemented, which remains pending before the Court.
O.R. at 2141; see also id. at 2145. Through the Consent Decree, the Schreibers
agreed to take significant remedial and preventative measures under the supervision
of their engineer.8 The Consent Decree also specifically provides:

       8
        For example, the Schreibers agreed to install a silt fence or appropriately-sized silt sock
within 20 days, implement reasonable erosion control measures within 30 days, install survey
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                                7
               16. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed:

                      a. As an admission of wrongdoing by [the
                         Schreibers];

                      b. To restrict or limit the [Schreibers’] ability to
                         fully litigate ancillary issues in this matter,
                         including the pending [motion] for [attorney
                         f]ees; and/or

                      c. To infringe upon [the Schreibers’] appellate
                         rights relative to any aspect of this case.

Id. at 2149.
               Shortly thereafter, the Township submitted a second supplemental
motion for attorney fees seeking $138,555.44 in attorney fees and $14,555.50 in
previously documented expert fees, for a total of $153,110.94. O.R. at 2152-56.
Following argument, the trial court issued an order granting the Township’s motions
for attorney fees and ordering the Schreibers to pay the full amount requested by the
Township. Id. at 2243. The trial court subsequently denied the Schreibers’ post-
trial motions and entered judgment in favor of the Township and against the
Schreibers. The appeal to this Court followed.9

monuments on the property and monitor them for evidence of any earth movement, and secure a
bond for the purpose of guaranteeing completion of the required work, etc. O.R. at 2143-49.
       9
         It should be noted that the Schreibers’ non-compliance persisted even after entry of the
Consent Decree and the appeal to this Court. As such, in March 2023, the Township filed a motion
to enforce the Consent Decree. O.R. at 2574-97. The Township asserted multiple violations,
including the Schreibers’ failure to provide their engineer with the equipment necessary for him
to properly observe the slope for the possibility of geological movement, and their refusal to
develop any plan to address the past problematic readings. Id. at 2579-81. The Township sought
to have the trial court hold the Schreibers in contempt and impose appropriate sanctions. Id. at
2582. On March 24, 2023, the trial court issued a consent order indicating that the parties had
reached an agreement as to the relief sought by the Township and, therefore, granting in part the
(Footnote continued on next page…)

                                               8
               At bottom, the Schreibers’ appeal challenges the trial court’s entry of a
permanent injunction.10 “The requirements for permanent injunctive relief are well
settled: ‘a clear right to relief; an urgent necessity to avoid an injury that cannot be
compensated in damages; and a finding that greater injury will result from refusing,
rather than granting, the relief requested.’” Eagleview Corp. Ctr. Ass’n v. Citadel
Fed. Credit Union, 243 A.3d 764, 772 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) [quoting Big Bass Lake
Cmty. Ass’n v. Warren, 950 A.2d 1137, 1144 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008)]. Moreover, in
“reviewing the grant or denial of a final or permanent injunction, an appellate court’s
review is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law.”
K.H. v. Pa. Interscholastic Athletic Ass’n, 277 A.3d 638, 645 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022)
[quoting Buffalo Twp. v. Jones, 813 A.2d 659, 663-64 (Pa. 2002)].
               We discern no error in the trial court’s determination.                     There is
overwhelming evidence of record to support the Township’s claim that the
Schreibers placed unclean fill materials on their property without a permit, in
violation of the Grading Ordinance.               Neighbors as well as several Township
employees testified that they personally observed trucks depositing large amounts
of fill material onto the Schreibers’ property, with the fill being described as
containing dirt, concrete, metal, stumps, bricks, pipe, and asphalt. The record further
establishes that the Schreibers’ actions created an unstable slope and a substantial

Township’s motion. Id. at 2601-02. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(2) (after an appeal is taken, a trial
court may “[e]nforce any order entered in the matter, unless the effect of the order has been
superseded as prescribed in this chapter”).
       10
          The majority of the Schreibers’ argument section of their brief focuses on the trial court’s
discussion in its Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P.) 1925(a) opinion pertaining
to judicial estoppel. See Schreibers’ Br. at 13-25. Specifically, the trial court found that the
Schreibers could not contest the permanent injunction order because they took an inconsistent
position in the Consent Decree by agreeing to remediate the conditions of the slope and fill on
their property and agreeing to comply with the Grading Ordinance in the future. See Trial Ct. Op.,
March 29, 2023, at 13-18. Given our disposition we need not reach this issue.

                                                  9
risk of harm to surrounding properties given the potential for a landslide as well as
placement of the heavy fill directly over a sewer line. The Township tried for many
years and by various means to get the Schreibers to cease and abate these violations,
to no avail. The fact that the Schreibers have continued their obstructive behavior
and have failed to comply with both the permanent injunction order and the Consent
Decree11 – which they voluntarily entered into – serves to underscore the necessity
of this action. In sum, we discern no error in the trial court’s determination that the
Township met its burden and, in particular, established a clear right to relief as a
matter of law. See Buffalo Twp., 813 A.2d at 664 n.4 (“Ultimately, the grant or
denial of a permanent injunction will turn on whether the lower court properly found
that the party seeking the injunction established a clear right to relief as a matter of
law.”).12
               Next, the Schreibers argue that Judge Walko erred in denying their
recusal motions, without a hearing, and that Judge Della Vecchia’s failure to address
the recusal issue in his Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P.)
1925(a) opinion frustrates their ability to obtain meaningful appellate review. They
claim that, at the least, a remand is appropriate and necessary because there are no
findings of fact in this regard.

       11
          As the Township also notes, a consent decree is “a contract binding the parties thereto to
the terms thereof,” and “[a]s a contract, the court, in the absence of fraud, accident or mistake, has
neither the power nor the authority to modify or vary the terms set forth.” Lower Frederick Twp.
v. Clemmer, 543 A.2d 502, 510 (Pa. 1988). The Schreibers have not alleged any fraud, accident,
or mistake here, nor have they sought to modify the Consent Decree.
       12
           The Schreibers also argue that the trial court erred in overruling their preliminary
objections because the Township failed to plead sufficient facts establishing that they violated the
Grading Ordinance or any of the requirements for injunctive relief. This argument similarly fails
for the reasons stated above. In addition, while the complaint is succinct, it contains sufficient
averments to make out a violation of the Grading Ordinance and assert that none of the exceptions
therein apply.

                                                 10
             First, we note that although Judge Walko issued an order denying the
Schreibers’ recusal motions, the case was nonetheless reassigned to Judge Della
Vecchia. See O.R. at 2080. The Schreibers ultimately received the relief they
requested in their recusal motions as Judge Della Vecchia, not Judge Walko, heard
and ruled upon the Township’s motions for attorney fees as well as the Schreibers’
post-trial motions. Because the Schreibers received their requested relief and the
case was assigned to another trial court judge, the recusal issue is moot.
             Even if the issue were not moot, the Schreibers’ arguments pertaining
to recusal are without merit. “The party requesting recusal must produce evidence
establishing bias, prejudice[,] or unfairness ‘which raises a substantial doubt as to
the jurist’s ability to preside impartially.’” DeLuca v. Mountaintop Area Joint
Sanitary Auth., 234 A.3d 886, 895 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2020) [quoting Commonwealth v.
Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 79, 89 (Pa. 1998)]. Moreover,

             [i]n considering a recusal request, the jurist must first
             make a conscientious determination of his or her ability to
             assess the case in an impartial manner, free of personal
             bias or interest in the outcome. The jurist must then
             consider whether his or her continued involvement in the
             case creates an appearance of impropriety and/or would
             tend to undermine public confidence in the judiciary. This
             is a personal and unreviewable decision that only the
             jurist can make. . . . Where a jurist rules that he or she
             can hear and dispose of a case fairly and without
             prejudice, that decision will not be overruled on appeal
             but for an abuse of discretion. . . . In reviewing a denial
             of a disqualification motion, we recognize that our judges
             are honorable, fair[,] and competent.

DeLuca, 234 A.3d at 895 (quoting Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d at 89) (emphasis added in
DeLuca).

                                         11
             The record demonstrates that Judge Walko repeatedly afforded the
Schreibers the ability to present evidence to support their recusal motions, yet they
failed to do so. The Schreibers’ arguments relied solely upon purported campaign
contributions, many of which were decades old and made during Judge Walko’s
previous legislative campaign. In short, the Schreibers failed to produce evidence
to meet their heavy burden. See, e.g., Residents of Buckingham Springs v. Bucks
Cnty. Assessment Off., 60 A.3d 883, 888 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (campaign
contributions from many years prior and for smaller amounts did “not show bias, or
even the appearance of bias”). A remand is neither necessary nor warranted here,
and we discern no abuse of discretion in Judge Walko’s decision.
             Finally, the Schreibers argue that the trial court erred in granting the
Township’s motions for attorney fees because the Grading Ordinance does not
provide for such fees in actions in equity; rather, it only contemplates attorney fees
upon conviction of a summary offense before a magisterial district judge. See
Grading Ordinance § 9-124; O.R. at 48. Accordingly, the Schreibers argue that the
attorney fees award should be vacated.
             However, as the Township correctly notes, the Schreibers never raised
this argument before the trial court. It is not contained in their responses to any of
the Township’s three motions for attorney fees, to which the Schreibers asserted
general denials, and was not raised during argument. See Suppl. R., filed March 1,
2024. An issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, and the Schreibers’
failure to raise this issue before the trial court results in waiver. Orange Stones Co.
v. City of Reading, 32 A.3d 287, 291 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
             Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

                                          12
       IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Township of Moon                     :
                                     :
           v.                        :   No. 1129 C.D. 2022
                                     :
Paul Schreiber and Lora              :
Schreiber, husband and wife,         :
                        Appellants   :

PER CURIAM
                                 ORDER

           AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2024, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegheny County is hereby AFFIRMED.