Wolf v. Santiago

230 A.3d 394

Barbara WOLF

v.Miguel SANTIAGO, Noris Santiago, Kushner M. Louis, Celia Kushner, City of Philadelphia, City of Philadelphia Department of Revenue, City of Philadelphia Water Revenue Bureau, City of Philadelphia Bureau of Administrative Adjudication, PA Department of Revenue, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Labor & Industry, Internal Revenue U.S. Department of Treasury

Appeal of: Miguel Santiago and Noris Santiago

No. 1274 EDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted January 6, 2020

Filed March 03, 2020

Jonathan J. Sobel, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Christopher I. McCabe, Philadelphia, for appellee.

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.^*

OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.:

Miguel and Noris Santiago (Appellants) appeal from the judgment entered on May 21, 2019, after the trial court found that the property owned by Appellants qualified as an abandoned and blighted property in need of remediation and appointed a conservator pursuant to the Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act (Act 135), 68 P.S. §§ 1101 - 1111. We affirm.

We provide the following background. Appellants are the owners of a house located at 1601 Mount Vernon Street in Philadelphia (the Property). On January 25, 2018, Barbara Wolf¹ filed a petition pursuant to 68 P.S. § 1104, where she averred that the Property is considered a "significant historical structure[ ] in the City of Philadelphia," and contends Appellants have left the property in a dilapidated state.² Petition, 1/25/2018, at ¶¶ 9, 11. Specifically, Wolf requested the trial court appoint the Spring Garden CDC as conservator. Id. at ¶ 34; see also , 68 P.S. § 1105(e) (governing the appointment of a conservator).

Hearings were held on April 18, 2018, and November 13, 2018, pursuant to subsection 1105(c). The trial court summarized the testimony as follows.

At the time of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the rear section of the physical structure on the Property had been razed by the City due to its dangerous and unsafe condition. This resulted in the rear section of the remaining structure being exposed. After issuance of numerous code violations by the City Department of Licenses and Inspections [ (L & I) ], and no action by [ ] Appellants, the City covered but did not seal the rear exposed section to avoid further deterioration.

* * *

[Wolf] identified 15 photographs depicting the condition of the Property. She testified that there was trash piled up in front of the Property, graffiti on the front of the building, and brick deterioration on the front and on the side. [Wolf] further testified that the pointing between the bricks had deteriorated in the front façade, and was in need of repair and repointing between the bricks, particularly under some of the windows. Two of the windows were covered with metal grating that had rusted. Other windows were boarded by 2X4's, and one of the windows was open and exposed the interior to the elements, allowing moisture and water penetration. [Wolf] testified that the sheaving from the roof was falling in at the corners, and that a tree growing in the Property was pushing through some of the bricks.

[Wolf] testified that no one lived in the Property, and that she had not seen any electrical lights [at] the [P]roperty for years. [ ]

[Wolf's] second witness was Michael Fox, a nearby neighbor. He testified that since 2010 he resided at 605 North 16^th Street, approximately 100 feet away from the Property. [ ] Fox is a member of the Spring Garden Civic Association.

[ ] Fox testified that he has witnessed the Property decay for eight years. The rear of the Property was removed and a temporary wall put in place. There was graffiti on the front of the Property underneath the windows, a tree growing out of the top corner of the Property, and a pit in the backyard that is full of weeds and trash. [ ] Fox testified that the temporary fence placed in the front and side of the Property had been moved outward to encompass and block the adjacent sidewalk, forcing pedestrians to walk in the street. [ ]

[ ] Fox further testified that he had not seen any effort by Appellants to address the condition at [the] Property. He did not observe work being done at the Property over the previous two years. As far as [ ] Fox knew, there have been no occupants at the Property or utilities connected to the Property. [ ]

The next witness was Joel Schmitt, the property manager of the properties at 1603 and 1605 Mt. Vernon Street, which are immediately adjacent to the Property. [ ] Schmitt testified that the condition of the Property was "absolutely" having a monetary effect on the owner of the two properties under his management. He testified that "a lot of tenants have refused rental specifically because of the building next door. In a lot of cases, we actually lower the rent to get tenants in the building." [N.T., 4/18/2018, at 67.]

[ ] Schmitt also expressed concerns that after heavy rains, moisture and water from the Property leaked into the properties under his management; and that rodents from the Property were entering his properties. [ ]

[Wolf] then offered the testimony of Randal Baron from the Philadelphia Historical Commission. He testified that he is a Preservation Planner, and his duties include overseeing designated historical buildings, such as review of renovation designs for compliance with the historical designation of the Spring Garden Historic District. The Property is significant within the Historic District because it was where Robert Purvis, a father of the Underground Railroad in Philadelphia, resided from 1878 to 1898. There is no legal difference between a property individually designated and a property designated as part of the district. In other words, the building is under the Historical Commission's jurisdiction.

[ ] Baron testified that "[i]n December of 2003, an application was filed by [Miguel] Santiago to renovate the building, to demolish the garage at the back of it, to put some additions, and to turn it into residential units, and ... it was taken all the way through, and it was approved by the Historical Commission December [in] of 2003." [N.T., 4/18/2018, at 75.] Despite approval, no renovations were performed.

[ ] Baron further testified that the Historical Commission signed off on plans for a complete rehabilitation of the [P]roperty in 2007, but none was performed. In 2009 the Historical Commission signed off on a building permit application for wall shoring and partial reconstruction of the rear walls, but no work was performed. In 2010, the Historical Commission approved plans for a new roof, windows and walls. Again no work was performed. In 2011, the Historical Commission approved an application for the demolition and reconstruction of the side wall. Again, no work was performed.

[ ] Baron testified that in 2012, a court ordered the removal of the rear L portion of the [P]roperty because it had become imminently dangerous, but conditional upon it being rebuilt within one year. The rear "L" portion was demolished but never rebuilt. In 2013, the Historical Commission approved the rebuilding of the cornice and gable wall. Neither have been done. In 2017, a court issued an [o]rder against Appellants "to make the building safe." The Historical Commission received an application to rebuild the rear wall near where the "L" had been removed. In July [of] 2017, the Commission approved the application, provided the vinyl siding was replaced with an appropriate cladding material. No work as performed. [ ]

Finally, the court heard testimony from Thomas Rybakowski from the City of Philadelphia. [ ] Rybakowski testified that he had inspected the Property and issued violation notices on behalf of the Department of [L & I]. [ ] Rybakowski testified that in 2017, L & I declared the Property "unsafe" in accordance with the City Code and L & I protocols. Specifically, the building had deterioration on the front wall bricks which allowed water to penetrate the Property, and potentially compromise the structure of the bricks and wall. [ ] Rybakowski testified that a tree^[3] was growing in the interior of the Property from the side of a load-bearing wall, near the top of the roof line.

[ ] Rybakowski testified that he had inspected the Property in 2016 and 2017. He found the Property to be unsafe, as per the designation from [L & I]. During those inspections, there was no safe way to access the second and third floors of the Property, other than by extension ladder. There were also no operational electrical, heating or plumbing systems; and there were open and exposed joists throughout the ceiling.

[ ] Rybakowski testified that based on his inspections, the Property was not habitable. He also testified that the condition of the Property was a risk of fire. [ ] Rybakowski's primary concern was the continued deterioration of the front and side walls and the possibility of collapse. [ ]

The [trial] court was concerned that the [Property] was not able to be salvaged and due to its condition should be demolished. The matter was continued for the building to be inspected by the City. The [trial] court also advised Appellants that at the next hearing, the court would consider [c]onditional [r]elief^[4] as allowed under the Act and Appellants should be prepared to present evidence and testimony as to their intended plan for the Property. A hearing date was scheduled but one of the Appellants filed for [b]ankruptcy. All proceedings were stayed for approximately seven (7) months during the pendency of Appellants' [b]ankruptcy cases.³

³ Noris Santiago filed for [b]ankruptcy on April 30, 2018. On June 1, 2018, after two hearings, the [b]ankruptcy was dismissed. Miguel A. Santiago filed for [b]ankruptcy on July 11, 2018. On October 2, 2018, after three hearings[,] the [b]ankruptcy was dismissed.

On November 13, 2018, a second hearing took place before [the trial] court. [ ] Th[e trial] court heard additional testimony from [ ]

...