City of Pittsburgh v. Imler Supply Co.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

City of Pittsburgh v. Imler Supply Co.

471 A.2d 591, 80 Pa. Commw. 285, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1197

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 13, 1984

DocketAppeal, No. 3015 C.D. 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 471 A.2d 591 (City of Pittsburgh v. Imler Supply Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Pittsburgh v. Imler Supply Co., 471 A.2d 591, 80 Pa. Commw. 285, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1197 (Pa. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Doyle,

Appellants appeal an order of the Allegheny County Court of -Common Pleas granting poundage against funds deposited in the court pursuant to the Eminent Domain Code (Code).¹

[286]*286Following a condemnation of the Appellant’s property,² the iCity of Pittsburgh paid into court the sum of $67,522.29 as estimated just compensation, pursuant to ¡Section 522 of the Code.³ After Appellants petitioned the court of ¡common pleas to receive this fund, together with interest, (the Allegheny County Prothonotary filed a Petition for Poundage on Eminent Domain Damages Paid into Court. The court granted the Prothonotary’s Petition and ordered that $951.72 be paid to the Prothonotary from the fund on deposit with 'the court.

On appeal, Appellants contend that ¡Section 522 of the 'Code prohibits the assessment of any fee against funds on deposit as estimated just compensation. ¡Section 522 states, in pertinent part:

The court thereafter upon petition of any party in ¡interest ¡shall distribute such funds or any funds deposited ¡in court under ¡section 407 to the persons ¡entitled thereto in accordance with the procedure ¡in section 521, but if no ¡petition is presented within :a period of five yeiars of the date of payment into court, the court ■shall ¡order the fund or ¡any balance remaining to be paid to the Commonwealth without es-cheat. No fee ¡shall be charged against these funds.

Appellee reads this section to prohibit the assessment of .a fee only in ¡situations where the fund is paid to the Commonwealth without escheat. There is nothing in the language of this section, however, which warrants snch a reading. -.The final sentence of this [287]*287section which provides that ‘ ‘ [n] o fee shall he charged against these funds” is without reservation, and must he applied to the entire section. Indeed, the use of the plural term in referring to “these funds” indicates that the final .sentence is intended to apply not only to ‘ ‘ the fund ... to be paid to the 'Commonwealth without escheat ’ ’ hut also to ‘ ‘any funds deposited in court under section 407....” Therefore, it is clear from the language of this section that under no circumstances are funds deposited as estimated just compensation .subject to a prothonotary ’¡s fee.

Appellee also argues that the Code’s provision eliminating payment of a fee has .been .superseded by the Second Class County Prothonotary Fee Act (Act).⁴ This Act establishes a fee schedule for various services performed by the prothonotary, including that 'of receiving and distributing money paid into court.⁵ Apart from .setting 'the dollar ¡amount to be .charged, however, the Act makes no revisions in existing law relating to such fees. It is clear, therefore, that a law establishing .exceptions to a fee requirement is neither inconsistent with this Act, nor superseded by it.

For the foregoing reasons we reverse the order of the Allegheny .Court of ¡Common Pleas.

[288]*288Order

Now, February 13,1984, the .order of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in the above referenced matter, .dated October .27, 1982 is hereby reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge Doyle,

Appellants appeal an order of the Allegheny County Court of -Common Pleas granting poundage against funds deposited in the court pursuant to the Eminent Domain Code (Code).¹

[286]*286Following a condemnation of the Appellant’s property,² the iCity of Pittsburgh paid into court the sum of $67,522.29 as estimated just compensation, pursuant to ¡Section 522 of the Code.³ After Appellants petitioned the court of ¡common pleas to receive this fund, together with interest, (the Allegheny County Prothonotary filed a Petition for Poundage on Eminent Domain Damages Paid into Court. The court granted the Prothonotary’s Petition and ordered that $951.72 be paid to the Prothonotary from the fund on deposit with 'the court.

On appeal, Appellants contend that ¡Section 522 of the 'Code prohibits the assessment of any fee against funds on deposit as estimated just compensation. ¡Section 522 states, in pertinent part:

The court thereafter upon petition of any party in ¡interest ¡shall distribute such funds or any funds deposited ¡in court under ¡section 407 to the persons ¡entitled thereto in accordance with the procedure ¡in section 521, but if no ¡petition is presented within :a period of five yeiars of the date of payment into court, the court ■shall ¡order the fund or ¡any balance remaining to be paid to the Commonwealth without es-cheat. No fee ¡shall be charged against these funds.

Appellee reads this section to prohibit the assessment of .a fee only in ¡situations where the fund is paid to the Commonwealth without escheat. There is nothing in the language of this section, however, which warrants snch a reading. -.The final sentence of this [287]*287section which provides that ‘ ‘ [n] o fee shall he charged against these funds” is without reservation, and must he applied to the entire section. Indeed, the use of the plural term in referring to “these funds” indicates that the final .sentence is intended to apply not only to ‘ ‘ the fund ... to be paid to the 'Commonwealth without escheat ’ ’ hut also to ‘ ‘any funds deposited in court under section 407....” Therefore, it is clear from the language of this section that under no circumstances are funds deposited as estimated just compensation .subject to a prothonotary ’¡s fee.

Appellee also argues that the Code’s provision eliminating payment of a fee has .been .superseded by the Second Class County Prothonotary Fee Act (Act).⁴ This Act establishes a fee schedule for various services performed by the prothonotary, including that 'of receiving and distributing money paid into court.⁵ Apart from .setting 'the dollar ¡amount to be .charged, however, the Act makes no revisions in existing law relating to such fees. It is clear, therefore, that a law establishing .exceptions to a fee requirement is neither inconsistent with this Act, nor superseded by it.

For the foregoing reasons we reverse the order of the Allegheny .Court of ¡Common Pleas.

[288]*288Order

Now, February 13,1984, the .order of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in the above referenced matter, .dated October .27, 1982 is hereby reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 A.2d 591, 80 Pa. Commw. 285, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-pittsburgh-v-imler-supply-co-pacommwct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack