Party Wall Preliminary Injunction Quiet Title
631 N. Broad St., LP v. Congregation Rodeph Shalom, PICS Case No. 17-1068 (C.P. Philadelphia July 10, 2017) Djerassi, J. (22 pages).
A preliminary injunction was appropriate to avoid irreparable harm where one owner of a party wall proposed to demolish a portion of the wall without the consent of the other owner. An order denying a quiet title action was not ripe for appeal where counterclaims remained undecided and no final order had yet been entered.
The parties were the owners of adjacent properties in Philadelphia. A party wall was built on the property line in the 1860s. Plaintiff wished to redevelop its property and convert an existing building into residences. As part of the redevelopment project, plaintiff sought to demolish a portion of the party wall. The city building authority granted plaintiff a permit authorizing it to remove a portion of the party wall to accommodate windows for the planned apartments.
The party wall sat on the property line and extended approximately five inches onto defendant's property. From the 1950s to the present time, no building on defendant's property was physically connected to the party wall. Defendant had a one-story building on its property, which was separated from the party wall by an alleyway. In 2011, defendant paid $350,000 to fix the crumbling brickwork and add new mesh and a layer of stucco to the party wall. Defendant recovered a portion of those repair costs from the prior owner of plaintiff's property.
Plaintiff filed this quiet title action. Defendant filed an answer and counterclaims. The court granted defendant's motion for a preliminary injunction preventing plaintiff from demolishing all or any of the party wall, absent an agreement of the parties or court order. The court also entered an order denying the quiet title action. Plaintiff appealed both orders.
The order denying the action in quiet title was not a final order disposing of all claims. Defendant's counterclaims still needed to be adjudicated. Therefore, the order on the quiet title issue was not ripe for appeal.
The court held the preliminary injunction was proper to avoid imminent and irreparable harm. Plaintiff argued that defendant had no property interest in the wall and was not entitled to injunctive relief because defendant no longer used the wall for its original purpose. The court found the wall was still a party wall even though it was no longer used as it once was, to separate a baker and a stable. The property line ran under the wall, with several inches of the wall extending onto defendant's property. Defendant's repairs to the wall just a few years before indicated that defendant had not abandoned its rights regarding the wall. Both parties owned the wall, and the court concluded plaintiff was not entitled to create any openings in the party wall without the consent of defendant. The court held a preliminary injunction was appropriate.