Court Opinion

ID: 9715955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:21:22.684893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:40.190039
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
Sechan, who is the appellant herein, is the owner of leased mineral interests in five contiguous tracts, each of which tracts is owned in fee by different persons. All five tracts were condemned. Appellant petitioned the lower Court to consolidate in this one eminent domain proceeding which involved only the Porter *600property all the claims for damages to his interests in all of the five tracts aforesaid, and thus enable the jury to fix the value of and the damages to which he was entitled for all his mineral interests which were taken by the Commonwealth in all five separate properties.
Section 507, of the Eminent Domain Code of June 22, 1964, P. L. 84, provides: “The claims of all the owners of the condemned property, including joint tenants, tenants in common, life tenants, remaindermen,owners of easements, and all others having an interest in the property, and the claims of all tenants, if any, of the property, shall be heard or tried together and the award of the viewers or the verdict on appeal from the viewers shall first fix the total amount of damages for the property, and second, apportion the total amount of damages between or among the several claimants entitled thereto.” No. 6, §507, 26 P.S. §1-507 (1964).
Section 507 is clear on the issue raised by appellant’s petition and gives no support to his contention. It provides in plain language that the claims of all enumerated interests and of all others having an interest in the property condemned shall be heard or tried together; but it does not provide for a consolidation and trial of five condemned properties or of any party’s interest in each of said five condemned properties. The Legislature clearly intended the claimants and the term “property” to mean and include all persons who claim a fee and all persons who are tenants or remaindermen or owners of easements, as well as all other persons who have any interest in the property which was condemned.
I concur in the result reached by the majority and I would affirm the Order of the lower Court.
Mr. Justice Eagen joins in this Concurring Opinion.