Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 16-2516
___________
Debtor
v.
Appellants
__________
Lawrence C. Bolla
Michael P. Kruszewski
Arthur D. Martinucci [Argued]
Quinn Buseck Leemhuis Toohey & Kroto
2222 West Grandview Boulevard
Erie, PA 16506
Counsel for Appellants
*
Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit
Judge for the Third Circuit, assumed senior status on
February 1, 2017.
2
____________
3
treasurer stating whether back taxes were owed on the
property.
4
The Taxing Authorities and Park Restoration filed
cross motions for summary judgment. The Bankruptcy Court
granted partial summary judgment in favor of both parties. It
held that under Section 638 the Taxing Authorities were
entitled to full payment of the delinquent taxes ($478,260.75),
and that Park Restoration, as the named insured, was entitled
to the balance of the insurance proceeds.
5
II
III
6
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue, we
must predict how it would rule. Id. (citing Covington v.
Contl Gen. Tire, Inc., 381 F.3d 216, 218 (3d Cir. 2004)).
When interpreting Pennsylvania law, we apply its rules of
statutory interpretation. See 1 Pa. Cons. Stat. 1921
(providing guidance for courts interpreting Pennsylvania
statutes); see also United States v. Atiyeh, 402 F.3d 354, 369
71 (3d Cir. 2005) (applying Pennsylvania rules of statutory
interpretation to construe a statute). Pennsylvanias General
Assembly also provided that Section 638 shall be liberally
construed to accomplish its purpose. 40 Pa. Stat. 638(k).
7
Finally, upon receipt of the certificate, Erie was
required to transfer to the treasurer an amount from the
insurance proceeds necessary to pay the taxes. 40 Pa. Stat.
638(b)(2)(ii).
8
(quoting Dobrek v. Phelan, 419 F.3d 259, 264 (3d Cir.
2005)).
9
1
10
as follows: (a) net proceeds of sale of six separate lots owned
by the Trustees; (b) payment of $478,260.75 due from Park
Restorations fire insurance proceeds; and (c) a safeguard
for the prevention of an overpayment to the Taxing
Authorities. Taxing Authorities Rule 28j Letter dated Jan. 23,
2017, at 3. In effect, this payment plan means that since the
Taxing Authorities have won this appeal, it is possible that
the net proceeds from the sale of these lots will be used to
satisfy delinquent taxes owed on other parcels or to satisfy
other claims from the Trustees creditors rather than to pay
the tax debt owed by the Trustees on the parcel where the
Beach Club was located. Park Restoration Rule 28j Letter
dated Jan. 23, 2017, at 23. While Park Restoration makes a
plausible case that it might be subject to an inequitable
distribution of proceeds at a later date, the record on appeal
neither compels that conclusion nor allows us to make a
definitive judgment in that regard. Thus, we will rely on the
Bankruptcy Court to consider those issues in due course and
we emphasize that nothing in this opinion should be
construed to preclude Park Restoration from seeking an
accounting or any other equitable relief in the future.
11
The Fifth Amendment provides that private property
[shall not] be taken for public use, without just
compensation. U.S. Const. amend. V. The Fifth Amendment
applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617 (2001). The
Pennsylvania Constitution also provides that private
property [shall not] be taken or applied to public use, without
authority of law and without just compensation being first
made or secured. Pa. Const. Art. I, 10. The Pennsylvania
Supreme Court follows federal law in Takings Clause cases
so our analysis under the Fifth Amendment applies equally to
Pennsylvanias Constitution. Corman v. NCAA, 74 A.3d
1149, 1167 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).
12
Amendment: regulations that compel the property owner to
suffer a physical invasion of his property and regulation
[that] denies all economically beneficial or productive use of
land. Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003,
1015 (1992). When determining whether a regulatory taking
has occurred, the Court may consider the economic impact
of the regulation on the claimant and the character of the
governmental action. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New
York, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978).
13
Placement Facility, 626 A.2d 1177, 1179 (Pa. Super. Ct.
1993))).
IV
14