Green v. Manross

1

STEPHANIE GREEN on behalf of her minor children, et al. Plaintiff, v. LARRY MANROSS, City Manager of Titusville PA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-289 Erie

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

September 30, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The within civil action arises out of a dispute between local officials and Plaintiffs Stephanie Green (“Green”) and Michael Restivo (“Restivo”) concerning Plaintiff's use and occupancy of a residence located in Titusville, Pennsylvania. The remaining Defendants in the case are Titusville City Code Enforcer Timothy Lorenz (“Lorenz”), Titusville Police Chief Harold Minch (“Minch”), and Titusville police officer Glen Ciccarelli (“Ciccarelli”). These Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs' remaining claims. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion will be granted.

I. Background^[1]

A. Relevant Legal Background

In 1999, the Commonwealth's General Assembly enacted the Pennsylvania Construction Code Act (“PCCA”). See Act of November 10, 1999, P.L. 491, as amended 35 Pa. Stat. Arm. §§7210.101-7210.1103 (West). The PCCA was designed to, among other things, “insure uniform, modem construction standards and regulations throughout the Commonwealth for the protection of life, health and property and for the safety and welfare of consumers, the general public and the owners and occupants of buildings and structures.” Schuylkill Twp. v. Pennsylvania Builders Ass'n, 935 A.2d 575, 577 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007) (citing 35 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 7210.102) (West)) (footnote omitted), aff'd 7 A.3d 249 (Pa. 2010). To that end, Section 301(a)(1) of the PCCA directed the Department of Labor and Industry (the “Department”) to promulgate regulations adopting “the 1999 BOCA National Building Code, Fourteenth Edition” (hereafter, “BOCA Building Code”) as a “Uniform Construction Code” 35 Pa. Stat. Ann. §7210.301(a)(1) (West). The Department has done so, and its Uniform Construction Code (“UCC”) provisions are now codified at Title 34 of the Pennsylvania Code, Part XIV. See 34 Pa. Code. §§401.1 et seq.

“The [PCCA] applies generally to the construction, alteration, repair and occupancy of all buildings in the Commonwealth and preempts the establishment of different construction standards by local ordinance.” Schuylkill Twp., 935 A.2d at 577 (citing 35 Pa. Stat. Ann. §7210.104(a) and (d)). Municipalities may, however, enact ordinances that equal or exceed the minimum requirements of the UCC. See 35 Pa. Stat. Ann. §7210.503 (West); Schuylkill Twp., 935 A.3d at 577. In addition, the PCCA gives municipalities various options relative to the administration and enforcement of the Act, including the option to administer and enforce the provisions of the Act themselves through the appointment of a responsible municipal code official. See 35 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 7210.501(b)(1). Where a municipality elects self-enforcement, it is statutorily required to establish a board of appeals to hear appeals from the decisions of its code administrator. Id. at §7210.501(c)(1).

By municipal ordinance, the City of Titusville has adopted the Pennsylvania UCC and the provisions of the BOA Building Code. See ECF No. 82-23 at 1 (UCC §1707.02); ECF No. 8224 at 1 (Building Code §1709.01). The City has also elected to self-administer and enforce the provisions of the PCCA. ECF No. 82-23 at 1 (UCC §1707.01).

At times relevant to this case, Defendant Lorenz held the title of Building Inspector for the City of Titusville and was responsible for the enforcement of municipal and state laws concerning building construction, renovations, and property maintenance. ECF No. 82-7, ¶¶1-3. As it relates to this action, Lorenz was the official responsible under local ordinance for enforcement of the City's building and housing codes which entailed, among other things, issuing building permits, conducting inspections to ensure compliance with any code requirements, issuing any necessary notices or orders, and assessing whether residences within the City of Titusville were safe and suitable for human habitation. See ECF No. 82-26 (Building Code §§1705.01(a), 1705.03, 1705.05,1705.06); ECF No. 82-23 (UCC Code §1707.03); ECF No. 82-24 (Building Code §§1709.04 and 1709.06); ECF No. 82-25 (Housing Code §§1905.01, 1905.02,1905.05); ECF No. 82-27 (Housing Code §1907.01); ECF No. 82-8, Lorenz Depo at 9:1-7, 11:11-14; ECF No. 82-7, ¶4. Following the Commonwealth's adoption of the Pennsylvania UCC, the City of Titusville utilized the services of a third-party inspector. ECF No. 82-8, Lorenz Depo. at 10:22-11:6.

B. Factual Background

In October 1994, Chris and Eva Tharp purchased a home located at 307 North Martin Street in the City of Titusville, Crawford County, Pennsylvania (hereafter, the “North Martin Street Property” or “Property”). DCSMF ¶1. The Tharps resided at the Property until sometime around 2013 or 2014 when they moved out due to the presence of black mold. Thereafter, they stopped paying taxes on the Property. Id. ¶¶2-3. On September 23, 2016, the North Martin Street Property was subjected to a Tax Upset Sale to Crawford County. Id. ¶¶3, 4.

In or around the summer of 2017, the City of Titusville was notified about the dilapidated and dangerous condition of the rear addition to the home on the Property, which was at risk for collapse. DCSMF ¶14. Because the Tharps had abandoned the Property with no intention of repairing the dangerous condition, employees of the City of Titusville undertook the demolition of the rear addition with the Tharps' permission. Id. ¶¶15-16. After demolishing the rear addition, the city employees boarded up the back of the residence, which would have otherwise been open to the elements. Id. ¶15. Removal of the rear addition resulted in numerous electrical wires and plumbing lines being exposed, which were largely contained within the crawlspace area of the basement. Id. ¶17.

In May of 2018, Green and Restivo began searching for a home in Titusville that they might live in together, along with Green's children. DCSMF ¶¶6-9. Green became interested in purchasing the Property after seeing it on a list of “county-held” properties. Id. ¶10. Plaintiffs attempted to contact the Crawford County Treasurer, Christine Krzysiak (“Krzysiak”), concerning the Property on or about June 17, 2018, but they were unable to speak with Krzysiak at that time. Id. ¶11.

Plaintiffs first accessed the North Martin Street Property on June 21, 2018 by entering a “hole” at the back of the house. DCSMF ¶13. At the time Plaintiffs first gained entry, the “whole back wall of the house was gone,” and there was no running water and no electricity. Id. ¶¶13, 18. Various wires and plumbing lines were exposed, the house had sustained water damage, and there were problems with the floors, the foundation, the walls, and the roof. DCSMF ¶18. Plaintiffs began to occupy the North Martin Street Property as of June 21, 2018, but they did not then live there full time. Id. ¶25.

That same month, Lorenz received an inquiry about the status of the Property from a neighbor who noted that it appeared someone was living there. DCSMF ¶31. Lorenz was familiar with the home because he had been involved in the demolition work that had been performed in 2017. Id. ¶30. He was therefore aware that the demolition had left numerous electrical wires and plumbing lines exposed. ECF No. 82-7, ¶11. According to Lorenz, the remaining interior floors of the house were in extremely poor condition, such that a person could fall through them if stepping with sufficient force. Id. ¶12. The rear of the house was boarded up, but numerous gaps remained between the boards, leaving the interior of the residence largely exposed to the elements. Id. ¶13. Lorenz considered the house unfit for human habitation at that point but did not begin a process of formal condemnation because the structure had been vacant, was being held by the County as a tax-delinquent parcel and was not in danger of imminent collapse. Id. ¶14; ECF No. 82-8, Lorenz Depo. at 82:21-83:4. He “thought that it was going to make somebody a pretty good house,” but felt it “still needed some care” before it could be occupied. Lorenz Depo. at 83:4-8.

Lorenz visited the Property on Friday, June 22, 2018, at which time he encountered Green, who answered the door in a bathrobe. DCSMF ¶32. Green denied that she was living there but indicated that she intended to purchase the Property and had placed a bid on it. Id. ¶33. Noticing that the electricity had been turned on, Lorenz checked the fuse panel and saw that the electrical system had passed a third-party inspection. Id. ¶¶34-35.

Later that day, Lorenz reached out to Krzysiak via email. Lorenz noted that

a woman appeared to be living in a house that has been vacant for quite some time and we had no request to have the water turned on. When I checked it out, a woman named Stephanie Green said that she was buying it from County repository. She said that she got the key from you and that it may take a year to get title. Can you let me know if this is accurate? ...

ECF No. 82-6 at 1. Krzysiak replied:

This is not true. We have this property as a county held property. It has not been through a Judicial Sale and therefore is not even in repository. It if was, it would only take 30-45 days to get the deed.

We have not accepted any offers on this property....

Id.

Lorenz followed this discussion up with an email to Green the following Monday morning, June 25, 2018. Lorenz wrote:

I contacted the Crawford County Court house and they informed me that the property at 307 N. Martin St., where we spoke last Friday, is County held and would not reach repository until it has made it through Judicial

...