Sewer and Sewage Treatment Refund Act Statute of Limitations Municipality Authorities Act

FP Willow Ridge Assoc's, L.P. v. Allen Twp., PICS Case No. 17-1138 (Pa. Commw. July 6, 2017) Wojcik, J. (16 pages).

Claim for refund of sewage fees was not barred by property owner's failure to comply with statute of notification in Refund Act, but claim failed because such fees were authorized by the Municipality Authorities Act. Summary judgment affirmed.

FP Willow Ridge Associates, L.P., appealed from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Allen Township and against Willow Ridge, and dismissing Northampton Borough's summary judgment motion as moot. Willow Ridge was the owner of an apartment complex in Allen Township. The township owned and operated a sewage collection and transmission system within the township; the borough owned the plant that treated the township's sewage, pursuant to an Intermunicipal Sewer Service Agreement. Under the agreement, sewage was metered by an equivalent dwelling unit, which represented the volume of water used per quarter by any single-family dwelling. The township set the sewer tapping fee at $3,000, and treated each dwelling unit as one EDU.

Willow Ridge's predecessor-in-interest for the apartment complex requested 270 EDUs. After Willow Ridge acquired the complex, it entered an agreement with the township at the same $3,000 tapping fee per EDU, but paid for only 218 EDUs of capacity, arguing that each apartment unit needed less than 1 EDU. Willow Ridge subsequently filed the present complaint against the township and borough, alleging they overestimated the number of EDUs required to service the apartment complex. Willow Ridge's complaint set forth three counts: declaratory judgment under the Refund Act, breach of contract, and violation of the Municipality Authorities Act. Willow Ridge later filed a claim for refund.

In response, the township filed preliminary objections, which resulted in the dismissal of the MAA claim pursuant to the two-year statute of limitations. The trial court also dismissed the breach of contract claim upon the township's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the claim was actually a tort claim barred by a two-year statute of limitations. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on the remaining Refund Act claim, which the trial court granted in favor of the township, dismissing the borough's motion as moot. The trial court ruled that Willow Ridge failed to toll the Refund Act's three-year statute of limitations by not following the act's statutory requirement to file a written and verified claim within the limitations period as a necessary predicate to a court claim.