Court Opinion

ID: 9758126
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:12:32.680009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:47.266077
License: Public Domain

*568PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I join in the Majority’s Opinion in No. 121 E.D. Appeal Docket 1983, but I vigorously dissent with the result and the reasoning of No. 126 E.D. Appeal Docket 1983. The Majority Opinion completely ignores the obvious intent of Act 515. The clear purpose of the Act is to allow for covenants “preserving land uses” not land ownership. The Section of the Act covering breach of the covenant by a land owner makes it clear that it is an altered use and not a change in the status of ownership which will breach the covenant.
Section 6 of the Act, 16 P.S. § 11946, Breach of Covenant by Land Owner, states that a breach occurs only:
If the land owner, his successors or assigns, while the covenant is in effect, alters the use of the land to any use other than that designated in the covenant, (emphasis added)
By adopting this language, the Legislature envisioned that a land owner might assign or convey his property; however, the covenant would run with the land and bind any successors or assigns to the use of the land as designated in the covenant. The purpose of this Act is expressed in the title, which states:
An Act enabling certain counties of the Commonwealth to covenant with land owners for preservation of land in farm, forest, water supply, or open space uses, (emphasis added)
Thus, it makes no difference who owns the land or in what manner ownership is held. As long as the use remains unchanged and the owner preserves the land as farm, forest, water supply or open space land, he is in compliance with the Act.
There is no reason why this rationale should not apply to a change of ownership when only a portion of the land is conveyed. The new owner will have the same rights and liabilities as the original owner since he will be bound by the same use as designated in the original covenant.
*569Furthermore, the Majority misconstrues the term “common ownership” as used in the Act. Common ownership means that two or more adjoining land owners whose land, individually, does not meet the acreage requirement can band together and covenant that their collective lands be preserved as farm, forest, water supply or open space land. This definition of common ownership is the only one that carries out the intent of the Act, which is to preserve land use. In sum, it does not matter who or how many persons own the land or what kind of interest they own, as long as there are twenty acres used and being preserved as farm land.
Therefore, I would hold that the covenant was not breached by Feeneys Nursery since the use of the land, as designated in the covenant, remained unchanged.
McDERMOTT, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.