Fake v. Commonwealth

Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas

Fake v. Commonwealth

15 Pa. D. & C.3d 109, 1980 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 326

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County

DecidedJuly 16, 1980

Docketno. 486N of 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Pa. D. & C.3d 109 (Fake v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fake v. Commonwealth, 15 Pa. D. & C.3d 109, 1980 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 326 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

MORGAN, J.,

— Plaintiffs have entered judgment against the Commonwealth on a jury verdict under the Eminent Domain Code. A writ of execution has been issued on praecipe filed in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 3101 and a levy has been made by the sheriff of Dauphin County on all furnishings and equipment in the office of the Secretary of General Services and on 50 state-owned automobiles. A petition to set aside the writ raises the question whether this judgment against the Commonwealth can be enforced by execution.

The writ cannot issue under the Rules of Civil Procedure relating to execution because judgments against the Commonwealth are expressly excepted from the definition of the term “judgments.” See Pa.R.C.P. 3101(a); 7 Standard Pa. Pract. Execution §15. Nor is there any section of the Eminent Domain Code or other act of assembly providing for enforcement of this judgment by execution. We therefore hold that there may not be this private levy on public property to satisfy a condemnation award. We reject the argument that the aversion of our Supreme Court to sovereign immunity against suit should aid plaintiffs here. In suit there is no such potential for disruption of the [111]*111proper administration of government as there is in the collection process of which the instant case is a graphic example. See also 9 Goodrich-Amram 2d §3101(b):5. Further, the lack of any recourse which prompted the abrogation of the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not exist here. An alternative to execution and the appropriate remedy for these plaintiffs is an action of mandamus to compel payment of the award. See Alberts v. Urban Redev. Auth., 2 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 167, 277 A. 2d 361 (1971).

Accordingly, we enter the following

ORDER

And now, July 16, 1980, the petition of the Commonwealth to set aside the writ of execution issued herein is granted.

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

MORGAN, J.,

— Plaintiffs have entered judgment against the Commonwealth on a jury verdict under the Eminent Domain Code. A writ of execution has been issued on praecipe filed in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 3101 and a levy has been made by the sheriff of Dauphin County on all furnishings and equipment in the office of the Secretary of General Services and on 50 state-owned automobiles. A petition to set aside the writ raises the question whether this judgment against the Commonwealth can be enforced by execution.

The writ cannot issue under the Rules of Civil Procedure relating to execution because judgments against the Commonwealth are expressly excepted from the definition of the term “judgments.” See Pa.R.C.P. 3101(a); 7 Standard Pa. Pract. Execution §15. Nor is there any section of the Eminent Domain Code or other act of assembly providing for enforcement of this judgment by execution. We therefore hold that there may not be this private levy on public property to satisfy a condemnation award. We reject the argument that the aversion of our Supreme Court to sovereign immunity against suit should aid plaintiffs here. In suit there is no such potential for disruption of the [111]*111proper administration of government as there is in the collection process of which the instant case is a graphic example. See also 9 Goodrich-Amram 2d §3101(b):5. Further, the lack of any recourse which prompted the abrogation of the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not exist here. An alternative to execution and the appropriate remedy for these plaintiffs is an action of mandamus to compel payment of the award. See Alberts v. Urban Redev. Auth., 2 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 167, 277 A. 2d 361 (1971).

Accordingly, we enter the following

ORDER

And now, July 16, 1980, the petition of the Commonwealth to set aside the writ of execution issued herein is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Pa. D. & C.3d 109, 1980 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fake-v-commonwealth-pactcompldauphi-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack