delaware county legal journal · pdf filedelaware county legal journal ... richard k....

DEL

AW

AR

E C

OU

NT

Y LE

GA

L JO

UR

NA

L January 6, 2017 ~ Vol. 104 • No. 1 ~ Media, PA

NOTICES TO THE BAR

Calendar: DCBA Events 3 PBI Seminars 4

DCBA/CLE Seminars Guy G. deFuria Inn of Court Meeting/CLE Seminar 5 Technology and Ethics 6

—————144th Annual President’s Dinner 9Memorial Resolution –

Karen L. Newell 11Notice of Administrative Suspension 13Notice of Suspension 13Orphans’ Court Division

Audit Dates 2017 14

LEGAL NOTICES

Change of Name 21Charter Application 22Charter Application Non-Profit 23Charter Application Professional 23Corporate Dissolution 23Estate and Trust Notices 16Fictitious Name 23Foreign Corporation 24Judgments 27Private Detective License 24Service by Publication 24Sheriff ’s Sales 37

CASES REPORTED-104 Del. Co. Rep. 1-42In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline L.P. of Permanent and Temporary

Rights of Way for the Transportation of Ethane, Propane, Liquid Petroleum Gas, and Other Petroleum Products in Edgmont Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Over the Lands of David W. Monzo and Sharon P. Monzo—Eminent Domain – Declaration of Taking – Preliminary Objections – Hearing Requirement – Waiver of Challenges – Scope of Review

1

N.B.

DCBA ANNUAL PRESIDENT’S DINNER Friday, January 20, 2017

Springfield Country Club

2

NOTICES TO THE BAR Vol. 104 No. 1 1/6/17DELAWARE COUNTY LEGAL JOURNAL

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORWilliam L. Baldwin Executive Director

STAFFJacqueline H. CsopJudith L. FluhartyTracy E. PriceDebby A. SulekKathy I. TarrNancy Ravert Ward

OFFICE:Bar Association Building 335 West Front Street Media, PA 19063 Telephone (610) 566-6625 Facsimile (610) 566-7952 http://www.delcobar.org

Subscription $75.00 Per Year. Published Every Friday. Legal Notices, advertisements and no-tices to the bar must be received by 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday one week prior to the date of publication. Periodicals-class postage paid at Media, PA and additional offices, under the Act of Congress, March 3, 1879.Postmasters: Changes of address are to be sent to 335 W. Front St., Media, PA 19063Copyright © 2017 Delaware County Bar AssociationAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or any other means without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.

All legal notices must be submitted in typewritten form and are published exactly as submit-ted by the advertiser. Neither the Delaware County Legal Journal nor the printer will assume any responsibility to edit, make spelling corrections, eliminate errors in grammar or make any changes in content. The Delaware County Legal Journal makes no representation as to the quality of services offered by any advertiser in this publication.

Ellen E. Lavelle Jennifer H. Maddaloni Stacey H. Main Matthew M. Ryan Daniel J. Siegel Barry W. VanRensler

Ronald A. Amarant Matthew Bilker Hon. John P. Capuzzi, Sr. David S. Daniel Marie C. Feindt

LEGAL JOURNAL COMMITTEE

Editor:Kathleen S. O’Connell-Bell EditorAssistant Editor:Rachael L. Kemmey Assistant EditorJudicial Representative:Hon. George A. Pagano

USPS 151-960The Official Legal Newspaper of Delaware County — Reporting the Decisions of the

Courts of Delaware County The 32nd Judicial District of PennsylvaniaOWNED AND PUBLISHED BY

DELAWARE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION2017

OFFICERSScott C. Gottel PresidentRobert R. DeLong, Jr. President ElectVincent B. Mancini Vice PresidentCraig B. Huffman TreasurerRobert F. Kelly, Jr. Recording SecretaryKaren E. Friel Corresponding Secretary

DIRECTORS Kristen M. Rushing Jonathan Peri Past PresidentsMichael H. Hill President, Young Lawyers’ Section Michael A. Burns Michael S. D’Agostino Patrick T. Daley David S. Daniel

Kristina DeSenze Alexander D. DiSanti Andrew J. Edelberg Gregory J. Hurchalla Robert C. Keller John A. Prodoehl, Jr. Mary V. Z. Wachterhauser Carrie A. Woody

3

NOTICES TO THE BAR Vol. 104 No. 1 1/6/17

JANUARY: Jan 10 Executive Committee – Luncheon Meeting –

12:15 p.m. Jan 11 Inn of Court – CLE Seminar – “You’re a

Lawyer? I Have a Question!” – Cocktails – 5:30 p.m. – Dinner & CLE – 6:30 p.m. – Springfield Country Club

Jan 16 DCBA CLOSED – Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Observed

Jan 18 Board of Directors – Meeting – 4:00 p.m. Jan 20 Annual President’s Dinner – Cocktails –

6:30 p.m. – Dinner – 7:30 p.m. – Springfield Country Club

Jan 25 FLS – Lunch & Learn – “Technology & Ethics” – Bring Your Own Brown Bag Lunch – Registration – 12:00 Noon – Seminar – 12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Jan 31 PBI – CLE Seminar – “Using Social Media Effectively” – Lunch Included – Registration – 10:30 a.m. – Seminar – 11:00 a.m. – 2:30 p.m.

Jan 31 Inn of Court – Team Meeting – 3:00 p.m.FEBRUARY: Feb 1 FLS – Meeting – 3:30 p.m. Feb 2 Women in Law Committee – Meeting – Bring

Your Own Brown Bag Lunch – 12:15 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.

Feb 2 YLS – Luncheon Meeting – 12:30 p.m. Feb 3 Memorial Service for Joseph Kauffman,

Esquire – 12:30 p.m. Feb 7 Executive Committee – Luncheon Meeting –

12:15 p.m. Feb 15 Board of Directors – Meeting – 4:00 p.m.

CALENDARS:DELAWARE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION

MARK YOUR CALENDARS!

All Events Will Be Held at the DCBA Unless Otherwise Noted

CANCELLED

4


JANUARY 31, 2017 Using Social Media Effectively and Ethically in Your Practice (Lunch Included) 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Registration 10:30 a.m. Place: Delaware County Bar Association Building Tuition—Members: $249.00, Post 1/13: $125.00 Credits: 2 Substantive, 1* Ethics

FEBRUARY 23, 2017 Internet Legal Research (Lunch Included) 12:30 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., Registration 12:00 Noon Place: Delaware County Bar Association Building Tuition—Members: $249.00, Post 1/13: $125.00 Credits: 2 Substantive, 1* Ethics

MARCH 3, 2017 Lincoln on Professionalism (Breakfast Included) 9:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., Registration 8:30 a.m. Place: Delaware County Bar Association Building Tuition—Members: $199.00, Post 1/13: $179.00, Others: $219.00 Credits: 0 Substantive, 3 Ethics

MARCH 16, 2017 Using & Abusing the Residential Agreement of Sale (Lunch Included) 12:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m., Registration 11:30 a.m. Place: Delaware County Bar Association Building Tuition—Members: $249.00, Post 1/13: $125.00 Credits: 3 Substantive, 0 Ethics

APRIL 10, 2017 Estates and Litigation Proceeds (Breakfast Included) 9:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., Registration 8:30 a.m. Place: Delaware County Bar Association Building Tuition—Members: $249.00, Post 1/13: $125.00 Credits: 3 Substantive, 0 Ethics

SEMINARS:

DELAWARE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION PBI Seminars

If applying for CLE credits, attendee must abide by the requirements set forth by the CLE Board and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Send check and registration to: Pennsylvania Bar Institute, 5080 Ritter Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.

“Walk-Ins” (Those who have not pre-registered with PBI at least one week before the seminar) may attend the seminar but will only receive materials that day while supplies last on a first come, first served basis. Materials will be shipped at a later date.

For information call PBI at 1-800-932-4637. THOSE WHO WISH TO USE VISA OR MASTERCARD SHOULD DO SO THROUGH PBI, MECHANICSBURG, PRIOR TO DATE OF SEMINAR.

5


Guy G. deFuria Inn of Court of the Delaware County Bar Association

Meeting/CLE Seminar

“YOU’RE A LAWYER? I HAVE A QUESTION!”Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2017Location: Springfield Country ClubCocktails: 5:30 p.m.Dinner and CLE: 6:30 p.m.Cost: Inn Members $35.00 for dinner only $45.00 for dinner and CLE Non-Members $40.00 for dinner only $50.00 for dinner and CLECredits: 1 Substantive Credit___________________________________________________________

Join the Guy G. deFuria Inn of Court for its January meeting and earn 1 substantive CLE credit. The program for this meeting is “You’re a Lawyer? I Have a Question!” Be prepared to answer your friends’ and relatives’ questions about the following:

• Traffic tickets• Traffic stops• DUI checkpoint rules• License suspension questions• Self-defense/self-defense of home• Wills and estatesTo register, visit www.delcobar.org or contact Nancy Ravert Ward at

[email protected]. 23, 30; Jan. 6

FREE NOTARY SERVICE FOR DCBA MEMBERS

Effective now as a benefit of membership.If you have any questions, please contact Judy at (610) 566-6625 x221.

6


FAMILY LAW SECTION – LUNCH & LEARNTechnology and Ethics

DATE: Wednesday, January 25, 2017LOCATION: Delaware County Bar Association BuildingREGISTRATION & LUNCH: 12:00 Noon – 12:30 p.m. (Bring your own brown bag lunch and beverage.)SEMINAR: 12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.CLE CREDITS: 1.0 Ethics Credit HourCOST: $35 DCBA Members $45 Non-Member Attorneys

ALL ARE WELCOME.The Family Law Section will present a Lunch and Learn program on Tech-

nology and Ethics with emphasis on the use of social media, electronic evi-dence and issues related to technology competence and client confidentiality.

Richard K. Herrmann, Esquire will be the presenter. He is a partner in the firm of Morris James LLP. Mr. Herrmann is Co-Chair of the Delaware Supreme Court’s Commission on Law and Technology. He is on the execu-tive committee of the Richard K. Herrmann Technology Inn of Court. Mr. Herrmann also teaches at Delaware Law School and the National Judicial College. In addition he authors technology columns for the Delaware Bar Journal and The Bencher.

To make a reservation, register on-line at www.delcobar.org or by e-mailing [email protected].

Jan. 6, 13, 20


7

DELAWARE COUNTY LEGAL JOURNAL Advertising

7

KENNETH P. BARROW, JR. REALTOR/APPRAISER PA CERTIFIED GENERAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISER #GA-000231-L

Real Estate Appraisal and Consultation, Zoning Analysis and Expert Witness, Industrial, Commercial, Land and Residential

Real Estate Sales and Leasing 36 E. FIFTH STREET, SUITE 102

CHESTER, PA 19013 OFFICE: 610.447.8816 CELL: 610.220.2708

[email protected] WWW.KPBREALTOR.COM

DELAWARE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMITTEE – CLE SEMINAR

“ETHICAL ISSUES WITH SOCIAL MEDIA EVIDENCE”Date: Friday, March 1, 2013Place: Delaware County Bar Association Building – AuditoriumRegistration & Lunch: 12:00 p.m.Seminar: 12:30 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.Cost: $35.00 DCBA MEMBERS $45.00 NONMEMBER ATTORNEYS Worth: 1.0 Ethics CLE Credit Hour

Bring Your Own Brown Bag Lunch & BeverageMark R. Schmidt, Esquire, will present a seminar on the admissibility of

social media in discovery and trial settings. Ethical issues will be the focus of this presentation.

To be assured a reservation, please complete the form below and mail, with your check made payable to the Delaware County Bar Association, At-tention: Karen Newell, Delaware County Bar Association, 335 West Front Street, Post Office Box 466, Media, PA 19063.James R. Flandreau, EsquireChair, Workers’ Compensation Committee---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – CLE SEMINAR – MARCH 1, 2013NAME: ____________________________________________________

ADDRESS: _________________________________________________

PHONE: ________________________SUPREME COURT #: ________

AMOUNT ENCLOSED: _____________ COMPLIANCE GROUP #: _____

Feb. 15, 22

7


8


9


All members of the Delaware County Bar Association are cordially invited to the

144th Annual President’s Dinner

Friday, January 20, 2017 Cocktails 6:30 pm

Dinner 7:30 pm

Springfield Country Club 400 West Sproul Road

Springfield, Pennsylvania

$95.00 Per Member

Please join us in honoring outgoing President, Scott C. Gottel, and welcoming Incoming President, Robert R. DeLong, Jr.

Members Only - Black Tie Optional

RSVP by January 13

Member Name Entrée Filet Mignon Crab Cakes

Make check payable to DCBA and send to

Nancy Ravert Ward, 335 West Front Street, Media, PA 19063

For more information or to RSVP by phone call 610-566-6625 ext 222.

Dec. 16—Jan. 13

10


MASTERCARD AND VISAACCEPTED AT THE

DELAWARE COUNTY

BAR ASSOCIATIONThe Delaware County Bar

Association acceptsMASTERCARD & VISA

for membership dues, lawyer referral fees, legal ads

and Legal Journal Subscriptions

Charges may be taken via telephone or walk-in

rrs TM

11


MEMORIAL RESOLUTION FOR KAREN L. NEWELL

DCBA COLLEAGUE 19872016On April 20, 1987, a young woman named Karen Kristie walked through

the front doors of the Delaware County Bar Association to begin working as secretary for the late Elizabeth C. Price. This was the beginning of a new career for Karen, and she was to dedicate 29 years to serving the members of the DCBA.

Karen brought incredible organizational skills to her job, and because of her talent and diligence, her original role of secretary evolved into a key position at the Bar Association. Among many of her great accomplishments, Karen led the effort to prepare the application and supporting materials so that the DCBA could become an accredited CLE provider in the early 1990s, making this Association one of the first to offer official continuing education seminars in Pennsylvania. Over the years, she assumed ever greater responsibilities, which included:

• Planning and advertising all CLE programming;• Serving as liaison with the Bench, Board, sections, and various com-

mittees;• Handling of administrative duties for the Guy G. deFuria Inn of Court;• Planning the Annual Dinner, Bench Bar Conference, Law Day Program,

and Annual General Membership Meeting;• Processing all new membership applications and communicating with

new members;• Processing Fee Dispute Petitions;• Organizing materials for the Alternative Dispute Resolution program;• Helping to coordinate the Rosenberg Golf League and plan activities

for this and any other Association groups;• Serving as the Association archivist.This list only touches the surface of Karen’s contributions, and she

handled all of her tasks with grace and professionalism. For her many years of service, the Young Lawyers’ Section recognized Karen with its Liberty Bell Award in 2016.

While we knew her as the colleague who could handle any work issue and who was probably one of the most adept people at multitasking, Karen also had many successes in her personal life. She was the proud mother of Jason and Adam, cherished the time she spent with her grandchildren, and loved her husband, Jim Newell. Her dedication to her job was only surpassed by her dedication to her family.

There is no way to adequately articulate all that Karen meant to the DCBA. She was kind, thoughtful, patient, hard-working and humble. Despite all that she did, Karen would never take credit but always preferred to work “behind the scenes” without recognition. Karen’s greatest reward was to do her job and do it well.

12


As a huge Seinfeld fan, Karen often would make allusions to the show when the circumstances warranted it. For those who are familiar with the TV program, one of her favorite lines (uttered by the character Frank Costanza) was “Serenity now!” Karen epitomized this sentiment by engendering the qualities of patience, composure and understanding both in her personal and professional life. We cannot begin to count all of the many ways by which Karen made this Association great, but we were blessed to have had her constancy and support for nearly three decades, and she will always be with the DCBA in spirit.

Karen, thank you for all that you have done for the Association, and we pray that you will enjoy “Serenity now” and for all eternity!

AND NOW, this Memorial Committee moves that this resolution be adopted by the Delaware County Bar Association, made part of its minutes.

MEMORIAL RESOLUTION COMMITTEE

SCOTT C. GOTTEL, PRESIDENTROBERT R. DeLONG, PRESIDENT-ELECTWILLIAM L. BALDWINJACQUELINE CSOPJUDITH FLUHARTYTRACY PRICEDEBRA SULEKKATHRYN TARR

Jan. 6

13


NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUSPENSIONNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Christopher Joseph Dilenno of

Delaware County has been Administratively Suspended by Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated November 21, 2016, pursuant to Rule 111(b), Pa. R.C.L.E., which requires that every active lawyer shall annually complete, during the compliance period for which he or she is assigned, the continuing legal education required by the Continuing Legal Education Board. The Order became effective December 21, 2016 for Compliance Group 1.Suzanne E. PriceAttorney RegistrarThe Disciplinary Board of theSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

Jan. 6

NOTICE OF SUSPENSIONNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT by Order of the Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania issued December 19, 2016, BRENDAN J. MAGEE of Clifton Heights, PA, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day, to be effective January 18, 2017.Julia M. Frankston-Morris, EsquireSecretary of the BoardThe Disciplinary Board of theSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

Jan. 6

14


COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DELAWARE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Orphans’ Court Division 2017

Last Day for Filing Accounts* Audit Date

December 6, 2016 January 9, 2017January 3, 2017 February 13, 2017**January 31, 2017 March 6, 2017February 28, 2017 April 3, 2017March 28, 2017 May 1, 2017May 2, 2017 June 5, 2017June 6, 2017 July 10, 2017August 8, 2017 September 11, 2017August 29, 2017 October 2, 2017October 3, 2017 November 6, 2017October 31, 2017 December 4, 2017December 5, 2017 January 9, 2018January 2, 2018 February 5, 2018

*By 2:00 P.M.

**This date is changed from February 6, 2017.

JENNIFER HOLSTEN MADDALONI, ESQUIRERegister of Wills and Clerk ofthe Orphans’ Court Division ofthe Court of Common Pleas ofDelaware County, Pennsylvania

Dec. 23, 30; Jan. 6

PREPARATION OF FIDUCIARY ACCOUNTINGSEstates, Trusts, Schedules and Statements of Distribution. Over 30

years’ experience. $75.00 per hour for handwritten drafts; $100 per hour for typed draft. Kindly contact Paul Benedict at: [email protected] or (610) 299-4958. References upon request.

Dec. 16, 23, 30; Jan. 6

15



8

DEADLINE FOR MEMBERSHIP APPLICANTS FOR MARCH 2011

REMINDER – NEW Membership ApplicantsTo new membership applicants of the Delaware County Bar Association:

The deadline for the return of completed application forms to the Delaware County Bar Association (335 West Front Street, Post Office Box 466, Media, PA 19063) is FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 2011. Applications WILL NOT be accepted after this date—NO EXCEPTIONS!

Dec. 17—Mar. 4

2021 ARCH STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 www.mburrkeim.com

• PREPARATION AND FILING SERVICES IN ALL STATES

• CORPORATION AND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OUTFITS

• SAME DAY SHIPMENT OF YOUR ORDER

• CORPORATE STATUS REPORTS

• UCC, LIEN AND JUDGMENT SEARCH SERVICES

• DOCUMENT RETRIEVAL

• REGISTERED AGENT SERVICE IN ALL STATES

INCORPORATION AND LIMITED LIABILITY INCORPORATION AND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FORMATION SERVICESCOMPANY FORMATION SERVICES

Phone: 215‐563‐8113

Fax: 215‐977‐9386

M. BURR KEIM COMPANY

LAWYER ADVERTISING

The DCBA Board of Directors, at the recommenda-tion of the Legal Journal Committee, has adopted a new rule permitting Lawyer Advertising in the Legal Journal. Lawyer ads must comply with the prescribed format to be considered for publication. The cost of placing your ad in each issue of the Legal Journal is $75.00 for a half page and $100.00 for a full page. Simply complete the Lawyer Advertising form that was e-mailed to the membership and submit it by e-mail to [email protected] or if you prefer, complete and print the form and fax it to the attention of Tracy Price at (610) 566-7952.

DELAWARE COUNTY LEGAL JOURNAL Vol. 104 No. 1 1/6/17

16

ESTATE AND TRUST NOTICES

Notice is hereby given that, in the estates of the decedents set forth below, the Register of Wills has granted letters testamentary or of administration to the persons named. Notice is also hereby given of the existence of the trusts of the deceased sett lors set forth below for whom no personal representatives have been appointed within 90 days of death. All persons having claims or demands against said estates or trusts are requested to make known the same, and all persons indebted to said estates or trusts are requested to make payment, without delay, to the executors or administrators or trustees or to their attorneys named below.

FIRST PUBLICATIONLOIS N. BARTL, dec’d.

Late of the Township of Middletown, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Kathleen M. Klein c/o David T. Videon, Esquire, The Loft at Woodmont, 3500 Reading Way, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006. DAVID T. VIDEON, ATTY. Baratta, Russell & Baratta The Loft at Woodmont 3500 Reading Way Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006

MICHAEL P. BRANDON a/k/a MICHAEL BRANDON, dec’d. Late of the Township of Ridley, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Trinh Thi Brandon, 420 Harvard Ave., Apt. 2A, Swarthmore, PA 19081. LINDA M. ANDERSON, ATTY. Anderson Elder Law 206 Old State Rd. Media, PA 19063

CHARLOTTE D. FORD a/k/a CHARLOTTE DEVOL FORD, dec’d. Late of the Township of Newtown, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Charles Victor Ford c/o Duke Schneider, Esquire, 17 W. Miner St., West Chester, PA 19382. DUKE SCHNEIDER, ATTY. MacElree Harvey, Ltd. 17 W. Miner St. West Chester, PA 19382

PHYLLIS CORBETT HALL, dec’d. Late of the Township of Chadds Ford, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Patricia Richards. DENNIS WOODY, ATTY. 110 West Front St. Media, PA 19063

E. BLAIR HARPER, dec’d. Late of the Borough of Brookhaven, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Adele Susan Harper c/o John Yanoshak, Esquire, P.O. Box 626, Media, PA 19063. JOHN YANOSHAK, ATTY. KAO Law Associates P.O. Box 626 Media, PA 19063

MARY M. HARRIS, dec’d. Late of the Township of Middletown, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Alexandria Shields, 4652 Lucerne Valley Road, Lilburn, GA 30047. ELIZABETH T. STEFANIDE, ATTY. 339 W. Baltimore Avenue Media, PA 19063

CAROL H. HURD, dec’d. Late of the Township of Middletown, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: William O. Hurd, Jr. c/o Harris J. Resnick, Esquire, 22 Old State Road, Media, PA 19063. HARRIS J. RESNICK, ATTY. 22 Old State Road Media, PA 19063

KENNETH JACOBY, dec’d. Late of the Township of Haverford, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Paul Cohn c/o William Morrow, Esquire, One Montgomery Plaza, Suite 902, Norristown, PA 19401. WILLIAM MORROW, ATTY. Morrow, Tompkins, Trueblood & Lefevre, LLC One Montgomery Plaza Suite 902 Norristown, PA 19401

EDWARD C. JEVNICK, JR., dec’d. Late of the Township of Tinicum, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Edward C. Jevnick, III c/o W. David Breen, Sr., Esquire, 1112 MacDade Blvd., Box 158, Woodlyn, PA 19094. W. DAVID BREEN, SR., ATTY. 1112 MacDade Blvd. Box 158 Woodlyn, PA 19094

JOHN C. KEGEL, III a/k/a JOHN C. KEGEL, dec’d. Late of the Township of Concord, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Michael Clement. JOHN A. NOVELLO, ATTY. 221 N. Olive Street Media, PA 19063


17

WINIFRED M. MESSICK a/k/a DOLLY MESSICK and WINNIE MESSICK, dec’d. Late of the Township of Haverford, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Richard C. Messick, 4116 Garrett Rd., Drexel Hill, PA 19026.

WILLIAM J. MURPHY, III, dec’d. Late of the Township of Haverford, Delaware County, PA. CoExtrs.: Raymond Joseph Murphy and David Joseph Murphy c/o Denise A. Smith, Esquire, P.O. Box 1490, Havertown, PA 19083. DENISE A. SMITH, ATTY. Law Offices of Denise A. Smith P.O. Box 1490 Havertown, PA 19083

CHARLES F. PENNINGTON, dec’d. Late of the Borough of Clifton Heights, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Dorothy L. Pennington c/o William J. Luttrell, III, Esquire, 11 S. Olive St., 4th Fl., Media, PA 19063. WILLIAM J. LUTTRELL, III, ATTY. 11 S. Olive St. 4th Fl. Media, PA 19063

HENRY G. SALMON, SR., dec’d. Late of the Township of Thornbury, Delaware County, PA. Admr.: Scott M. Salmon c/o Robert S. Supplee, Esquire, 329 South High St., West Chester, PA 19382. ROBERT S. SUPPLEE, ATTY. 329 South High St. West Chester, PA 19382

JANE P. SCULLIN a/k/a JANE SCULLIN, dec’d. Late of the Township of Haverford, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Thomas A. Bell, 2617 Huntingdon Pike, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006. THOMAS A. BELL, ATTY. Semanoff Ormsby Greenberg & Torchia, LLC 2617 Huntingdon Pike Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006

JOHN SEMERJIAN, dec’d. Late of the Township of Marple, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: David Artzerounian c/o Steven P. Barsamian, Esquire, 2021 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103. STEVEN P. BARSAMIAN, ATTY. 2021 Locust St. Philadelphia, PA 19103

ROSE MARIE SEMERJIAN a/k/a ROSE ARTZEROUNIAN, dec’d. Late of the Township of Marple, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: David Artzerounian c/o Steven P. Barsamian, Esquire, 2021 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103. STEVEN P. BARSAMIAN, ATTY. 2021 Locust St. Philadelphia, PA 19103

GREGG A. SHARBAUGH, SR., dec’d. Late of the Borough of Norwood, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Mary T. Sharbaugh, 127 Mohawk Ave., P.O. Box 23, Norwood, PA 19074. LINDA M. ANDERSON, ATTY. Anderson Elder Law 206 Old State Rd. Media, PA 19063

ELSIE V. STEWART, dec’d. Late of the Township of Haverford, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Carol Gay Gegan, 500 Woodland Dr., Havertown, PA 19083. MICHAEL ALAN SIDDONS, ATTY. The Law Office of Michael Alan Siddons, Esquire P.O. Box 403 Media, PA 19063

MARGARET N. VITALE a/k/a MARGARET VITALE, dec’d. Late of the Township of Springfield, Delaware County, PA. Extxs.: Rosemarie Anne Votta (Named in Will As Rosemarie A. Votta) and Janet Ann Vitale (Named in Will As Janet Vitale), 110 Brian’s Way, Wayne, PA 19087.

SHERRY ANN WALKER, dec’d. Late of the City of Chester, Delaware County, PA. Admx.: Jeanet O. Harris, 215 Ivy St., Chester, PA 19013. ELIZABETH B. PLACE, ATTY. Skarlatos Zonarich LLC 17 S. Second St. 6th Fl. Harrisburg, PA 171012039

GLORIA ZORANSKI, dec’d. Late of the Township of Upper Chichester, Delaware County, PA. Admx. CTA: Sylvia M. Gourley c/o Guy F. Matthews, Esquire, 300 W. State St., Ste. 300, Media, PA 19063.


18

GUY F. MATTHEWS, ATTY. Eckell, Sparks, Levy, Auerbach, Monte, Sloane, Matthews and Auslander, P.C. 300 W. State St. Ste. 300 Media, PA 19063

SECOND PUBLICATIONTERESA A. DRAGONI, dec’d.

Late of the Borough of Brookhaven, Delaware County, PA. Extrs.: Anthony J. Dragoni and James A. Dragoni c/o Joseph L. Monte, Jr., Esquire, 300 W. State St., Ste. 300, Media, PA 19063. JOSEPH L. MONTE, JR., ATTY. Eckell, Sparks, Levy, Auerbach, Monte, Sloane, Matthews & Auslander, P.C. 300 W. State St. Ste. 300 Media, PA 19063

CALVIN E. FICHTER, SR. a/k/a CALVIN FICHTER, dec’d. Late of the Township of Marple, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Martin J. Dolan (Named in Will As Martin Dolan) c/o James A. Gillin, Esquire, 2 Old State Rd., Media, PA 19063. JAMES A. GILLIN, ATTY. James A. Gillin, P.C. 2 Old State Rd. Media, PA 19063

LINDA JEAN HUSBAND a/k/a LINDA J. HUSBAND, dec’d. Late of the Township of Marple, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Seth E. Pancoast, III c/o Mark S. Pinnie, Esquire, 218 West Front Street, Media, PA 19063. MARK S. PINNIE, ATTY. Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie and Seelaus, LLP 218 West Front Street Media, PA 19063

MURIEL KEELER, dec’d. Late of the Township of Bethel, Delaware County, PA. CoExtrs.: Diane C. Keeler and James A. Keeler. DENNIS WOODY, ATTY. 110 West Front St. Media, PA 19063

CRAIG EMMETT KELLY, dec’d. Late of the Borough of Aldan, Delaware County, PA. Admr.: Graham Kelly c/o Lindsey J. Conan, Esquire, 755 North Monroe Street, Media, PA 19063.

LINDSEY J. CONAN, ATTY. Conan Law Offices, LLC 755 North Monroe Street Media, PA 19063

JOHN V. LEONARD, dec’d. Late of the Township of Concord, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Marianne L. Wojtkielwicz, 747 Brooke Circle, Morton, PA 19070.

LOUISE C. LIUZZI, dec’d. Late of the Township of Haverford, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Frank P. Liuzzi, 2406 West Chester Pike, Broomall, PA 19008.

MARIE G. MARKLE, dec’d. Late of the Township of Marple, Delaware County, PA. Admr.: Paul J. Markle c/o D. Selaine Keaton, Esquire, 21 W. Front Street, P.O. Box 1970, Media, PA 19063. D. SELAINE KEATON, ATTY. 21 W. Front Street P.O. Box 1970 Media, PA 19063

MARIA POLEGATO, dec’d. Late of the Township of Upper Providence, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Michael Polegato c/o G. Guy Smith, Esquire, 300 W. State St., Ste. 301, Media, PA 19063. G. GUY SMITH, ATTY. Harris & Smith 300 W. State St. Ste. 301 Media, PA 19063

THEODORE J. RECZEK, dec’d. Late of the Township of Aston, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Bernadette Jones (nee Reczek), 42 East Second Street, Media, PA 19063.

MARYANNE SOLARCZYK, dec’d. Late of the Township of Concord, Delaware County, PA. Admx. CTA: Frances S. Bacchus c/o Dana M. Breslin, Esquire, 3305 Edgmont Avenue, Brookhaven, PA 19015. DANA M. BRESLIN, ATTY. Pappano & Breslin 3305 Edgmont Avenue Brookhaven, PA 19015

MARGARET T. STRAIN a/k/a MARGARET STRAIN, dec’d. Late of the Township of Ridley, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Michael Cirigliano c/o Stephen D. Molineux, Esquire, 227 MacDade Boulevard, Collingdale, PA 19023.


19

STEPHEN D. MOLINEUX, ATTY. 227 MacDade Boulevard Collingdale, PA 19023

PHILLIP J. TOANONE, dec’d. Late of the Township of Bethel, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Virginia Gale Toanone c/o Mark S. Pinnie, Esquire, 218 West Front Street, Media, PA 19063. MARK S. PINNIE, ATTY. Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie and Seelaus, LLP 218 West Front Street Media, PA 19063

JOYCE E. ZALOTA, dec’d. Late of the Township of Aston, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Stephanie Donaway c/o Dana M. Breslin, Esquire, 3305 Edgmont Avenue, Brookhaven, PA 19015. DANA M. BRESLIN, ATTY. Pappano & Breslin 3305 Edgmont Avenue Brookhaven, PA 19015

EVA ZOMBORI, dec’d. Late of the Borough of Media, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Peter John Zombori c/o Robert J. Breslin, Jr., Esquire, 3305 Edgmont Avenue, Brookhaven, PA 19015. ROBERT J. BRESLIN, JR., ATTY. Pappano & Breslin 3305 Edgmont Avenue Brookhaven, PA 19015

THIRD AND FINAL PUBLICATIONBERTHA M. DALY, dec’d.

Late of the Township of Darby, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Anne Marie Halstead, 101 N. Wells Avenue, Glenolden, PA 19036. KELLY C. HAYES, ATTY. McNichol, Byrne & Matlawski 1223 N. Providence Road Media, PA 19063

JOHN F. DAVIS, SR., dec’d. Late of the Township of Radnor, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Kathleen M. Quarto c/o Kevin J. Ryan, Esquire, 220 W. Gay Street, West Chester, PA 193802917. KEVIN J. RYAN, ATTY. Ryan, Morton & Imms LLC 220 W. Gay Street West Chester, PA 193802917

ANTHONY DelVISCIO, JR., dec’d. Late of the Township of Ridley, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Carolyn M. Fansler, 60 Barren Road, Media, PA 19063.

ANNA M. DOLAN, dec’d. Late of the Township of Haverford, Delaware County, PA. Extrs.: Joseph M. Bayer and William E. Dolan, Jr. c/o William P. Culp, Jr., Esquire, 614 Darby Rd., Havertown, PA 19083. WILLIAM P. CULP, JR., ATTY. 614 Darby Rd. Havertown, PA 19083

DOROTHY DUNCAN a/k/a DOROTHY P. DUNCAN and DOROTHY POST DUNCAN, dec’d. Late of the Township of Concord, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Keith Barton, 111 Beacon Court, Wilmington, DE 19808.

JOAN JOHNSON EDWARDS a/k/a JOAN J. EDWARDS, dec’d. Late of the Township of Newtown, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Susan K. Markus c/o Gregory G. Alexander, Esquire, 1608 Walnut St., Ste. 900, Philadelphia, PA 19103. GREGORY G. ALEXANDER, ATTY. Alexander & Pelli, LLC 1608 Walnut St. Ste. 900 Philadelphia, PA 19103

BESS EFSTATHIOU, dec’d. Late of the Borough of Swarthmore, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Penny E. Blaine c/o Robert H. Holber, Esquire, 41 East Front Street, Media, PA 19063. ROBERT H. HOLBER, ATTY. 41 East Front Street Media, PA 19063

MARY S. GIRLING a/k/a MARY GIRLING, dec’d. Late of the Township of Edgmont, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: John K. Girling, 14 Pine Dr., Chester Springs, PA 19425. DAVID R. GLYN, ATTY. Cozen O’Connor One Liberty Place 1650 Market St. Ste. 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103

HELEN V. GRINNAN, dec’d. Late of the Township of Springfield, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Patrick F. Conville, 2236 Lilac Lane, Jamison, PA 18929. ROBERT C. GERHARD, III, ATTY. Gerhard & Gerhard, P.C. 222 South Easton Road Suite 104 Glenside, PA 19038


20

MARJORIE E. JABLONSKI, dec’d. Late of the Township of Thornbury, Delaware County, PA. Extrs.: Fred N. Orner, 267 Glen Mills Road, Glen Mills, PA 19342 and Frank A. Jackalous, 111 Kemp Road, Pottstown, PA 19465. ELIZABETH T. STEFANIDE, ATTY. 339 W. Baltimore Avenue Media, PA 19063

OMIRO GEORGE KARALIS a/k/a OMIRO G. KARALIS and OMIRO KARALIS, dec’d. Late of the Borough of Media, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Josephine Karalis c/o Stephanie P. Kalogredis, Esquire, 14 S. Bryn Mawr Ave., Suite 210, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010. STEPHANIE P. KALOGREDIS, ATTY. 14 S. Bryn Mawr Ave. Suite 210 Bryn Mawr, PA 19010

TATIANA KATERYNCZUK, dec’d. Late of the City of Chester, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Mary K. Widdowson (Named in Will As Mary Widdowson), 2226 W. Helms Manor, Upper Chichester, PA 19061. LINDA M. ANDERSON, ATTY. Anderson Elder Law 206 Old State Rd. Media, PA 19063

ETHEL M. KEEGAN, dec’d. Late of the Borough of Sharon Hill, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Richard J. Keegan, Sr. c/o Dennis J. Muir, Esquire, 4 West Front Street, Media, PA 19063. DENNIS J. MUIR, ATTY. 4 West Front Street Media, PA 19063

REED M. KROTZER, JR. a/k/a REED M. KROTZER, dec’d. Late of the Borough of Media, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Debra A. Gallagher, 20 Rampart East, Media, PA 19063. LINDA M. ANDERSON, ATTY. Anderson Elder Law 206 Old State Rd. Media, PA 19063

JANE D. LAUGHEAD, dec’d. Late of the Township of Nether Providence, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Richard T. Laughead c/o David T. Videon, Esquire, The Loft at Woodmont, 3500 Reading Way, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006.

DAVID T. VIDEON, ATTY. Baratta, Russell & Baratta The Loft at Woodmont 3500 Reading Way Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006

JANICE T. LONGO, dec’d. Late of the Borough of Brookhaven, Delaware County, PA. Extrs.: Kathleen B. Dougherty and Robert J. Dougherty c/o Stephen J. Kelly, Esquire, 213 E. State Street, Kennett Square, PA 19348. STEPHEN J. KELLY, ATTY. Brutscher Foley Milliner & Land, LLP 213 E. State Street Kennett Square, PA 19348

RICHARD L. McCLINTOCK, dec’d. Late of the Township of Middletown, Delaware County, PA. Admx.: Frances D. McClintock c/o Toni Lee Cavanagh, Esquire, 112 W. Front Street, Media, PA 19063. TONI LEE CAVANAGH, ATTY. 112 W. Front Street Media, PA 19063

WILLIAM H. McGARVEY, JR., dec’d. Late of the Township of Upper Darby, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Richard Hidy c/o Rebecca Rosenberger Smolen, Esquire, One Bala Plaza, Ste. 623, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004. REBECCA ROSENBERGER SMOLEN, ATTY. Bala Law Group, LLC One Bala Plaza Ste. 623 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004

MARIA L. MIRANDA a/k/a MARIA MIRANDA, dec’d. Late of the Township of Bethel, Delaware County, PA. Extrs.: Norbert J. Miranda and Maria Helen Hashem c/o Guy F. Matthews, Esquire, 300 W. State St., Ste. 300, Media, PA 19063. GUY F. MATTHEWS, ATTY. Eckell, Sparks, Levy, Auerbach, Monte, Sloane, Matthews & Auslander, P.C. 300 W. State St. Ste. 300 Media, PA 19063


21

MARY KAY MYERS, dec’d. Late of the Township of Radnor, Delaware County, PA. Extrs.: Mary C. Canniff (Named in Will As Mary Clarinda Myers Canniff ) and Michael E. Myers (Named in Will As Michael Edward Andrew Myers) c/o Carol R. Livingood, Esquire, 130 W. Lancaster Ave., P.O. Box 191, Wayne, PA 190870191. CAROL R. LIVINGOOD, ATTY. Davis Bennett Spiess & Livingood LLC 130 W. Lancaster Ave. P.O. Box 191 Wayne, PA 190870191

JUNE M. NAKRASIUS, dec’d. Late of the Township of Bethel, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Joseph J. Nakrasius, Jr. c/o Robert J. Breslin, Jr., Esquire, 3305 Edgmont Avenue, Brookhaven, PA 19015. ROBERT J. BRESLIN, JR., ATTY. Pappano & Breslin 3305 Edgmont Avenue Brookhaven, PA 19015

BERNICE NORTHERN, dec’d. Late of the City of Chester, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Arlington Northern c/o Gail M. Whitaker, Esquire, 41 East Front Street, Media, PA 19063. GAIL M. WHITAKER, ATTY. 41 East Front Street Media, PA 19063

GERTRUDE PIERCE, dec’d. Late of the Township of Upper Chichester, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Andrea Pierce Adcock c/o Robert J. Breslin, Jr., Esquire, 3305 Edgmont Avenue, Brookhaven, PA 19015. ROBERT J. BRESLIN, JR., ATTY. Pappano & Breslin 3305 Edgmont Avenue Brookhaven, PA 19015

BESS J. RISENHOOVER a/k/a BESS RISENHOOVER, dec’d. Late of the Borough of Marcus Hook, Delaware County, PA. Extx.: Angelina DeSanto c/o Daniel B. Lippard, Esquire, 214 West Front Street, Media, PA 19063. DANIEL B. LIPPARD, ATTY. 214 West Front Street Media, PA 19063

KENNETH S. SMITH, dec’d. Late of the Township of Concord, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: Dana P. Clarke c/o Joseph E. Lastowka, Jr., Esquire, The Madison Building, 108 Chesley Drive, Media, PA 190631712. JOSEPH E. LASTOWKA, JR., ATTY. Abbott Lastowka & Overholt LLP Attorneys and Counsellors at Law The Madison Building 108 Chesley Drive Media, PA 190631712

MARGARET E. SPITZNER, dec’d. Late of the Township of Concord, Delaware County, PA. CoExtrs.: Wayne George Spitzner and Mark Alan Spitzner c/o L. Peter Temple, Esquire, P.O. Box 384, Kennett Square, PA 19348. L. PETER TEMPLE, ATTY. Larmore Scarlett LLP P.O. Box 384 Kennett Square, PA 19348

MARIE M. TAGGART, dec’d. Late of the Township of Haverford, Delaware County, PA. Extr.: James Tolomeo c/o Michael F. X. Gillin, Esquire, 230 North Monroe Street, Media, PA 19063. MICHAEL F. X. GILLIN, ATTY. Michael F. X. Gillin & Associates, P.C. 230 North Monroe Street P.O. Box 2037 Media, PA 19063

CHANGE OF NAME

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION—LAW

NO. 169491

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on November 1, 2016, the Petition of Conner Michael Gagliardi, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian, Ryan Michael Hendrick for a Change of Name was filed in the above named Court, praying for a decree to change the name(s) of Conner Michael Gagliardi to Conner Michael Gagliardi Hendrick.


22

The Court has fixed January 17, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom TBA, Delaware County Courthouse, Media, Pennsylvania, as the time and place for the hearing of said Petition, when and where all persons interested may appear and show cause, if any they have, why the prayer of said Petition should not be granted.VICKI ELLEN HERR, Solicitor 14 S. Orange Street Media, PA 19063

Dec. 30; Jan. 6

CHANGE OF NAME



NO. 2016008584

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on October 3, 2016, a Petition for a Change of Name was filed in the above named Court, praying for a decree to change the name(s) of Aditya Ranganathan to Aditya Nir-vaan Ranganathan.

The Court has fixed January 17, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom TBA, Delaware County Courthouse, Media, Pennsylvania, as the time and place for the hearing of said Petition, when and where all persons interested may appear and show cause, if any they have, why the prayer of said Petition should not be granted.

Dec. 30; Jan. 6

CHANGE OF NAME



NO. 2016009606

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on November 4, 2016, the Petition of Zahkee RogersTaylor, a minor, by and through his/her parent and natural guardian, Lisa Hawkins for a Change of Name was filed in the above named Court, praying for a decree to change the name(s) of Zahkee Rogers-Taylor to Zahkee Hawkins.

The Court has fixed January 31, 2017, at 8:30 A.M. in Courtroom TBA, Delaware County Courthouse, Media, Pennsylvania, as the time and place for the hearing of said Petition, when and where all persons interested may appear and show cause, if any they have, why the prayer of said Petition should not be granted.

Jan. 6, 13

CHARTER APPLICATION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT a corporation is to be or has been in corporated under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988.

Garecht Media Group, Inc.

has been (will be) incorporated under the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988.

Jan. 6

GrayFinn, Inc.

has been (will be) incorporated under the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988.EUGENE J. MALADY, Solicitor 211213 North Olive St. Suite 1 Media, PA 19063

Jan. 6

JMSB Distributors, Inc.

has been (will be) incorporated under the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988.DENVER E. WHARTON, Solicitor 360 Stonycreek Street Johnstown, PA 15901

Jan. 6

Spectrum Acquisition I, Inc.

has been (will be) incorporated under the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988.

Jan. 6


23

CHARTER APPLICATION NON-PROFIT

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application was made to the Department of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for the purpose of obtaining a charter of a NonProfit Corporation which was organized under the provisions of the Pennsylvania NonProfit Corporation Law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The name of the corporation is:

Healthy NewsWorks

The Articles of Incorporation have been (are to be) filed on: December 8, 2016.

The purpose or purposes for which it was organized are as follows: exclusively for charitable, scientific and education purposes, all within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. In particular, the corporation shall empower elementary and middle school students in disadvantaged communities to research, write and produce healthfocused publications and related media to raise health awareness and understanding in their schools.PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, Solicitors 100 Market Street Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101

Jan. 6

The name of the corporation is:

P.S. 14 Foundation

The Articles of Incorporation have been (are to be) filed on: November 30, 2016.

The purpose or purposes for which it was organized are as follows: To empower citizens with a better understanding of resources available to strive for the betterment of the region.DONALD J. WEISS, Solicitor 6 Dickinson Dr. Ste. 110 Chadds Ford, PA 19317

Jan. 6

CHARTER APPLICATION PROFESSIONAL

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT on October 25, 2016, Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Department of State for:

Elwyn Health Services of Pennsylvania, P.C.

a professional corporation organized under the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988.FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, Solicitors 747 Constitution Drive Ste. 100 P.O. Box 673 Exton, PA 193410673

Jan. 6

CORPORATE DISSOLUTION

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to all creditors and claimants of R-A-I Indus-trial Electronics, Inc., a Pennsylvania business corporation, that the shareholders have approved a proposal that the Corporation dissolve voluntarily and that its Board of Directors is now engaged in winding up and settling the affairs of the Corporation under the provisions of Section 1975 of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law of 1988.CYNTHIA J. RAYMOND, Solicitor Four Glenhardie Corporate Center 1255 Drummers Ln. Ste. 105 Wayne, PA 19087

Jan. 6

FICTITIOUS NAME

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to the provisions of Act of Assembly No. 295, effective March 16, 1983, as amended, of intention to file in the Office of the Department of State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, an application for the conduct of a business in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, under the assumed or fictitious name, style or designation of:

A Casa Pizza

with its principal place of business at 2877 Lovell Ave., Broomall, PA 19008.


24

The name(s) and address(es) of the entity owning or interested in said business is (are): A Casa Enterprises NS LLC, 2877 Lovell Ave., Broomall, PA 19008.

The application has been/will be filed on or after October 20, 2016.DONALD J. WEISS, Solicitor 6 Dickinson Dr. Ste. 110 Chadds Ford, PA 19317

Jan. 6

FOREIGN CORPORATION

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY

General Floor Industries, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey has applied for registration under the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Associations Code. The address of its principal office under the laws of the jurisdiction of formation is: 190 Benigno Blvd., Bellmawr, NJ 08031 and the address of its proposed registered office in the Commonwealth is: 101 Pine St., Holmes, PA 19043.KURTZ & REVNESS, P.C., Solicitors 3 Glenhardie Corp. Ctr. 1265 Drummers Lane Suite 209 Wayne, PA 19087

Jan. 6

PRIVATE DETECTIVE LICENSE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the petition of Jack D. Lippart to be a licensed Private Detective pursuant to the Pennsylvania Private Detective Act of 1953 has been filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania with a Hearing to be had thereon February 1, 2017 at 8:30 a.m., Courtroom TBA, Delaware County Courthouse, Media, PA 19063.ROBERT B. GEORGE, Solicitor DiOrio & Sereni, LLP 21 West Front Street Media, PA 19063 (610) 5655700

Jan. 6, 13

SERVICE BY PUBLICATION

DELAWARE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

NUMBER: 168321

NOTICE OF ACTION IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE

American Advisors Group, Plaintiffv.

Deborah C. GaskinsSimms, Known Surviving Heir of Deborah S. Gaskins and Unknown Surviving Heirs of Deborah S. Gaskins, DefendantsTO: Unknown Surviving Heirs of

Deborah S. Gaskins

Premises subject to foreclosure: 1904 Garrett Road, Lansdowne, Pennsylvania 19050.

NOTICE

If you wish to defend, you must enter a written appearance personally or by attorney and file your defenses or objections in writing with the court. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you without further notice for the relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. You should take this notice to your lawyer at once. If you do not have a lawyer, go to or telephone the office set forth below. This office can provide you with information about hiring a lawyer. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, this office may be able to provide you with information about agencies that may offer legal services to eligible persons at a reduced fee or no fee.

Lawyers’ Reference Service Delaware County Bar Association

335 W. Front Street Media, PA 19063 (610) 5666625

www.delcobar.orgMcCABE, WEISBERG & CONWAY, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 123 S. Broad St. Ste. 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19109 (215) 7901010

Jan. 6


25




NO. 2016008088


DITECH FINANCIAL LLC f/k/a GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC, Plaintiff

vs.DINA TIMMES a/k/a DINA BENNETT, in her capacity as Heir of NORMAN BENNETT, DeceasedS. BENNETT, in her capacity as Heir of NORMAN BENNETT, DeceasedUNKNOWN HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS AND ALL PERSONS, FIRMS OR ASSOCIATIONS CLAIMING RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST FROM OR UNDER NORMAN BENNETT, DECEASED, Defendants

NOTICETO: Unknown Heirs, Successors,

Assigns and All Persons, Firms or Associations Claiming Right, Title or Interest From or Under Norman Bennett, Deceased

You are hereby notified that on September 19, 2016, Plaintiff, DITECH FINANCIAL LLC f/k/a GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC, filed a Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint endorsed with a Notice to Defend, against you in the Court of Common Pleas of DELAWARE County, Pennsylvania, docketed to No. 2016008088. Wherein Plaintiff seeks to foreclose on the mortgage secured on your property located at 201 12TH STREET, BROOKHAVEN, PA 190153021 whereupon your property would be sold by the Sheriff of DELAWARE County.

You are hereby notified to plead to the above referenced Complaint on or before 20 days from the date of this publication or a Judgment will be entered against you.

NOTICE

If you wish to defend, you must enter a written appearance personally or by attorney and file your defenses or objections in writing with the court. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you without further notice for the relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.

IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.



www.delcobar.org

Jan. 6




NO. 2016007255


FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff

vs.


26

GEOFFREY PYLE, in his capacity as Heir of CHRISTOPHER PYLE, DeceasedRACHEL PYLE, in her capacity as Heir of CHRISTOPHER PYLE, DeceasedNICOLE PYLE, in her capacity as Heir of CHRISTOPHER PYLE, DeceasedUNKNOWN HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS AND ALL PERSONS, FIRMS OR ASSOCIATIONS CLAIMING RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST FROM OR UNDER CHRISTOPHER PYLE, DECEASED, Defendants

NOTICETO: Unknown Heirs, Successors,

Assigns and All Persons, Firms or Associations Claiming Right, Title or Interest From or Under Christopher Pyle, Deceased

You are hereby notified that on August 22, 2016, Plaintiff, FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY, filed a Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint endorsed with a Notice to Defend, against you in the Court of Common Pleas of DELAWARE County, Pennsylvania, docketed to No. 2016007255. Wherein Plaintiff seeks to foreclose on the mortgage secured on your property located at 302 NETHERINGTON DRIVE, BROOMALL, PA 190081713 whereupon your property would be sold by the Sheriff of DELAWARE County.

You are hereby notified to plead to the above referenced Complaint on or before 20 days from the date of this publication or a Judgment will be entered against you.

NOTICE

If you wish to defend, you must enter a written appearance personally or by attorney and file your defenses or objections in writing with the court. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you without further notice for the relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.

IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.



www.delcobar.org

Jan. 6


COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY,

PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS’ COURT DIVISION

NO. 637 OF 2016

IN RE: Estate of LOUISE MANLEY, Deceased

CITATIONTO: H e i r s o f L o u i s e M a n l e y ,

Deceased

At the instance of Holly Landmesser, by her Attorney, Jessica M. Gulash, Esq.

Greetings: You are hereby cited to appear or to file a full and complete answer/response to the averments of the Petition for the Grant of Letters of Administration Pursuant to 20 Pa. C.S.A. §3152 filed in the abovereferenced matter in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Orphans’ Court Division, on or before the 12th day of January, 2017, with the Register of Wills of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 201 W. Front St., Media, PA 19063, and to show cause, if any you may have, why the Register of Wills should not grant Letters of Administration to Holly Landmesser. You are further hereby noticed that a hearing on the Petition for Grant of Letters of Administration is scheduled for Thursday, January 12, 2017, at 1:30 P.M., with an Orphans’ Court Representative in Hearing Room T.B.A., Delaware County Courthouse, Media, PA.JESSICA M. GULASH, ESQUIRE Lundy, Beldecos & Milby, P.C. 450 N. Narberth Ave. Ste. 200 Narberth, PA 19072 610.668.0772

Dec. 23, 30; Jan. 6


27



PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS’ COURT DIVISION

NOS. 0056 OF 2016, 0057 OF 2016 AND 0058 OF 2016

NOTICE OF HEARING TO: Patricia Hibbs a/k/a Gardner

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT a Petition for Goal Change to Adoption/Termination of Parental Rights has been filed by Children and Youth Services of Delaware County as we are requesting to change the permanency goal from reunification to adoption and are seeking the termination of the parental rights of the mother of Tyler G. (bd. 4/18/07), Kyleigh G. (bd. 5/14/10) and April G. (bd. 4/30/13).

A Hearing with respect to said Petitions is scheduled for January 19, 2017 before the Honorable Barry C. Dozor and will be held at 1:30 p.m. You have a right to appear at said Hearing and contest the Petition for Termination and if you fail to do so your parental rights may be terminated. In addition, you are advised that you may have an option for an enforceable voluntary agreement under ACT 101 of 2010 for continuing contact following the adoption of your child between the adoptive parent and a birth parent and/or birth relative if all parties agree and the agreement is approved by the Court.

YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. THE ATTORNEY THAT HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO REPRESENT YOU IS DAN ARMSTRONG, ESQUIRE AT (610) 6271400.

Dec. 23, 30; Jan. 6

JUDGMENT NOTICES

JUDGMENTS, VERDICTS, LIENS, WAIVER OF LIENS AND OTHER MATTERS ENTERED IN THE JUDGMENT INDEX IN THE OFFICE OF JUDICIAL SUPPORT AT MEDIA, PENNA.

The name of the person against whom such entry is made in each case appears first, followed by the name of the person in whose favor the entry is made and the amount. Details concerning the nature of the entry are available in the Judicial Support record.

The Judgment Index in the Judicial Support office at Media discloses that the following judgments, verdicts, liens, waiver of liens and other matters have been entered on the dates indicated.

Accuracy of the entries is not guaranteed

Vincent, Eveline Gerard; Township of Upper Darby; 10/23/15; $183.43

Viola, Darcie A; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Viola, Michael; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Vondran, Kevin; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Voulgari, Thomas; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $1,037.30

Vouras, Vasilios; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Vouras, Zoi; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Wager, Andrew; Township of Upper Darby; 10/28/15; $183.43

Wakefield, Carlton; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Wakefield, Olivia Ames; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Walker, Florence Y; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $259.33

Wallace, Mathew; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

Walsh, James; Township of Upper Darby; 10/15/15; $183.43

Ward, Carletta G; Township of Upper Darby; 11/02/15; $259.33

Ward, Catherine; Township of Upper Darby; 11/02/15; $259.33

Ward, David J; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

Ward, Virginia L; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

Warn, Nanette C; Township of Upper Darby; 10/26/15; $134.07

Warn, Patrick T; Township of Upper Darby; 10/26/15; $134.07

Warren, Doris E; Township of Upper Darby; 11/13/15; $259.33

Warren, Doris E; Township of Upper Darby; 10/14/15; $183.43

Wassell, Shawn M; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $183.43

Watkins, Nyah; Township of Upper Darby; 10/26/15; $183.43


28

Watkins, Stacy; Township of Upper Darby; 11/10/15; $259.33

Watkins, Stacy; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Watlington, Jerry J; Township of Upper Darby; 10/26/15; $183.43

Watson, Charlene; Township of Upper Darby; 11/13/15; $259.33

Watson, Charlene; Township of Upper Darby; 10/14/15; $183.43

Watson, Debra; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $183.43

Watson, Debra E; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $366.85

Weanquoi, Yorh Z; Township of Upper Darby; 11/10/15; $259.33

Webb, Gina; Township of Upper Darby; 10/28/15; $183.43

Weeks, Anne M; Township of Upper Darby; 10/27/15; $183.43

Weeks, James O; Township of Upper Darby; 10/27/15; $183.43

Weiman, Joan M; Township of Upper Darby; 10/23/15; $183.43

Weiman, Thomas J; Township of Upper Darby; 10/23/15; $183.43

Weldon, Sharon; Township of Upper Darby; 11/12/15; $259.33

Weldon, Sharon; Township of Upper Darby; 10/13/15; $183.43

Wells Fargo Bank; Township of Upper Darby; 11/10/15; $259.33



Wells, Raquel; Township of Upper Darby; 11/13/15; $259.33

Wells, Raquel; Township of Upper Darby; 10/14/15; $183.43

Werner, Michelle; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $183.43

Westley, Cornelius; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $183.43

Wetherill, Ward Ruston; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $183.43

Wetherill, Donna L; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $183.43

Whalen Jr, John F; Township of Upper Darby; 10/28/15; $183.43

Whalen, Susan M; Township of Upper Darby; 10/28/15; $183.43

White, Alice Serena; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $183.43

White, Kristin Brountas; Township of Upper Darby; 11/02/15; $259.33

White, Paula Jayne; Township of Upper Darby; 10/27/15; $183.43

White, Robyn C; Township of Upper Darby; 10/19/15; $366.85

White, Sabrina S; Township of Upper Darby; 10/23/15; $183.43

White, Susan C; Township of Upper Darby; 10/19/15; $366.85

White, Tiffany; Township of Upper Darby; 10/15/15; $183.43

White, William K; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

White, Yolanda Kim; Township of Upper Darby; 10/28/15; $183.43

Whitefield, David; Township of Upper Darby; 11/10/15; $259.33

Whitefield, David; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Whitefield, Kysha; Township of Upper Darby; 11/10/15; $259.33

Whitefield, Kysha; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Whiteman, Joanne S.; Township of Upper Darby; 10/19/15; $183.43

Whiteman, Lowell L.; Township of Upper Darby; 10/19/15; $183.43

Whitmore, Hope; Township of Upper Darby; 10/19/15; $183.43

Whittington, Melvin L; Township of Upper Darby; 10/28/15; $183.43

Whorisky, Raymond; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

Whyte, Emile J; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $183.43

Whyte, Erika L; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $183.43

Wickersham, Barbara; Township of Upper Darby; 10/26/15; $183.43

Wickersham, John J; Township of Upper Darby; 10/26/15; $183.43

Wieners, John C; Township of Upper Darby; 10/27/15; $183.43

Wilcox, Cheryl; Township of Upper Darby; 11/13/15; $259.33

Wilcox, Cheryl; Township of Upper Darby; 10/14/15; $183.43

Wiley, Gail M; Township of Upper Darby; 10/27/15; $183.43

Wilkinson, R M; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

Wilkinson, Walter; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43


29

Willaims, Harrison; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Willard, Joseph J; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

Williams, Alicia K; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $259.33

Williams, Angela; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $259.33

Williams, Barbara J; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Williams, Clyde Q; Township of Upper Darby; 10/30/15; $183.43

Williams, Elizabeth; Township of Upper Darby; 10/26/15; $183.43

Williams, Iefay A; Township of Upper Darby; 10/23/15; $183.43

Williams, J Emmanuel; Township of Upper Darby; 10/30/15; $183.43

Williams, Jamar D; Township of Upper Darby; 11/03/15; $259.33

Williams, Julius; Township of Upper Darby; 11/02/15; $259.33

Williams, Kim; Township of Upper Darby; 11/25/15; $259.33

Williams, Lance; Township of Upper Darby; 10/16/15; $183.43

Williams, Lynn; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $259.33

Williams, Monique Danielle; Township of Upper Darby; 11/12/15; $259.33

Williams, Monique Danielle; Township of Upper Darby; 10/13/15; $183.43

Williams, Rhonda; Township of Upper Darby; 11/13/15; $259.33

Williams, Rhonda; Township of Upper Darby; 10/14/15; $183.43

Williams, Richard M; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Williams, Rochelle D; Township of Upper Darby; 11/12/15; $259.33

Williams, Serene M; Township of Upper Darby; 11/03/15; $259.33

Williams, Sheryle; Township of Upper Darby; 10/16/15; $183.43

WillisLavette, A; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

Willis, Ursula; Township of Upper Darby; 10/23/15; $183.43

Wilmington Natl Wilmington; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

Wilmington Savngs Fund; Township of Upper Darby; 10/26/15; $183.43

Wilson, Belinda; Township of Upper Darby; 10/30/15; $183.43

Wilson, Bryant; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $259.33

Wilson, Edith M; Township of Upper Darby; 11/10/15; $259.33

Wilson, Edith M; Township of Upper Darby; 10/13/15; $183.43

Wilson, Joseph; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Wilson, Timothy; Township of Upper Darby; 10/13/15; $183.43

Wilson, Timothy M; Township of Upper Darby; 11/10/15; $259.33

Wilson, Victoria L; Township of Upper Darby; 10/23/15; $183.43

Wimberly, Michelle; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Winans, Evanthia; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Winnegan, Carla; Township of Upper Darby; 11/02/15; $259.33

Wiseley, Janell L; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $183.43

Witherspoon, Davidetta; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $238.43

Witkowski, Deborah M; Township of Upper Darby; 10/20/15; $183.43

Witkowski, John F; Township of Upper Darby; 10/20/15; $183.43

Woltanski, Danielle; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $1,183.43

Woodington, Daniel E; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $183.43

Woods, Shawn; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $259.33

Woodson, Rhonda; Township of Upper Darby; 10/15/15; $366.85

Wright, James W; Township of Upper Darby; 10/28/15; $183.43

Wright, Kareem; Township of Upper Darby; 11/10/15; $259.33

Wright, Kareem; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Wright, Michael A; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $259.33

Wright, Nathan; Township of Upper Darby; 10/30/15; $259.33

Wright, Ruth; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $259.33

Wufsus, Marie L; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

Wufsus, Matthew J; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

Yafondo, Emmanuel; Township of Upper Darby; 11/12/15; $259.33


30

Yafondo, Emmanuel; Township of Upper Darby; 10/13/15; $183.43

Yannone, Elizabeth A; Township of Upper Darby; 10/21/15; $183.43

Yarbray, Sheree A; Township of Upper Darby; 11/10/15; $259.33

Yesmin, Shabana; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $259.33

Yost, Teresa; Township of Upper Darby; 11/03/15; $259.33

Young, Bobby J; Township of Upper Darby; 11/02/15; $259.33

Young, Cynthia A; Township of Upper Darby; 10/26/15; $183.43

Young, James; Township of Upper Darby; 11/13/15; $1,037.30

Young, James; Township of Upper Darby; 10/14/15; $733.70

Young, Jere A; Township of Upper Darby; 10/26/15; $183.43

Young, Jerilyn F; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $183.43

Young, Matthew James; Township of Upper Darby; 10/29/15; $183.43

Young, Taneka; Township of Upper Darby; 10/30/15; $183.43

Youssef, Sahar; Township of Upper Darby; 11/10/15; $259.33

Youssef, Samar; Township of Upper Darby; 11/10/15; $259.33

Yuille, Glenwayne; Township of Upper Darby; 10/30/15; $259.33

Yuille, Herbert; Township of Upper Darby; 10/30/15; $259.33

Yula, Linda; Township of Upper Darby; 10/27/15; $183.43

Yula, Michael A; Township of Upper Darby; 10/27/15; $183.43

Zaakaria Makada, Mohamed; Township of Upper Darby; 11/02/15; $518.65

Zampitella, Anthony J; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

ZannatulMewa, Mosamat; Township of Upper Darby; 11/10/15; $259.33

Zarate, Alvaro F; Township of Upper Darby; 10/27/15; $183.43

Zaza, Oreta S; Township of Upper Darby; 10/15/15; $183.43

Zebley, John Paul; Township of Upper Darby; 11/13/15; $259.33

Zebley, John Paul; Township of Upper Darby; 10/14/15; $183.43

Zebley, Robin A; Township of Upper Darby; 11/13/15; $259.33

Zebley, Robin A; Township of Upper Darby; 10/14/15; $183.43

Zeineddine, Wajdi; Township of Upper Darby; 11/13/15; $259.33



Zeineddine, Wajdi F; Township of Upper Darby; 11/09/15; $259.33

Zepka, John; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

Ziegler, Amy; Township of Upper Darby; 10/22/15; $183.43

Zuefle, Arlene; Township of Upper Darby; 10/19/15; $183.43

140 N 9th Street Partners; Eagle National Bank; 11/18/15; $273,565.16

140 N 9th Street Partners; Eagle National Bank; 11/18/15; $130,827.19

2 Good Food Mart LLC; Singer Equipment Co. Inc.; 11/12/15; $6,436.64

26 Yu Inc /IND / DBA; Pichonot, Enide; 10/21/15; $9,000.00

69th Street Retail Owner, LP; E G Electric LLC; 11/02/15; $175,421.00

7327A West Chester Pike LP; Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB S/B/M/ Alliance Bank; 11/24/15; $492,277.62

7329 West Chester Pike LP; Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB S/B/M/ Alliance Bank; 11/24/15; $492,277.62

7331 West Chester Pike LP; Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB S/B/M/ Alliance Bank; 11/24/15; $492,277.62

920 Matsonford LLC; PNL SV LLC; 10/01/15; $1,178,038.11

A. Bel Audiology Associates; American Hearing Aid Associates; 10/13/15; $148,423.24

A. Bel Audiology Associates & Musicians Hearing Center Inc/AKA; American Hearing Aid Associates; 10/13/15; $148,423.24

Abacs LLC; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $714.99

Abbonizio, Robert; Unifund Corporation; 10/27/15; $4,062.47

Acker, Vivian; Alliance Capital Management; 11/03/15; $9,487.04

Adams, Joanne; Bank of New York Mellon /FKA; 11/24/15; $769,118.39


31

Adams, Robert; Bank of New York Mellon /FKA; 11/24/15; $769,118.39

AdjinTettey, Ayikumah; Borough of Colwyn; 10/22/15; $899.24

Adjintettey, George; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $914.02

Adkins Jr, Illiam Troy; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Adorante Electric Inc; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $590.68

Advance Transit Mix Inc; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $6,589.81

Advance Transit Mix Inc; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $2,836.72

Aguila, Cristobal J; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $1,157.22

Ahigbe, Peter; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Ahmad, Baseer; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $144.35

Ahmad, Homa; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $144.35

Ahmed, Leona; City of Chester; 10/30/15; $862.53

Ahmed, Mohammed; City of Chester; 10/30/15; $862.53

Ahmed, Saleh U; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Ahmed, Sharif; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $366.85

Ahmed, Sharif; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $366.85

AikelloCarlton, Alice; Joan M. Carpus Living Trust; 11/24/15; $14,722.98

Air Generation II; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/02/15; $135,584.39

Akand, Anwar; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Akhtar, Naeem; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $168.89

Akhtar, Nazia; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $168.89

Akinkunmi, Bonke Rebecca; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $183.43

Akintan, Adenike; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $183.43

Akinwale, Goodluck; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Akter, Nasrin; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $183.43

Alam, Mohammed; Township of Upper Darby; 10/14/15; $366.85

Alauddin, Sheikh; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Alexander, Corey C; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Alexander, Janice; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Ali, Ansar; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $183.43

All Known and Unk, Ind, Hrs, Ssr, Assg, Business Entities, Non Profit Entities Etc....; Quicken Loans Inc.; 10/06/15; $324,950.69

All Unknown Heirs Successors and Assigns; Federal National Mortgage Association; 11/05/15; $125,722.02

Allen, Brenda; Hop Energy, LLC; 10/13/15; $1,994.76

Allen, Donte Tyrik; Green Tree Servicing; 10/08/15; $78,753.84

Allied Petroleum Ventures of Newtown Inc; PNL Newco II, LLC; 11/17/15; $120,737.73

Allison, Dwayne; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $183.43

Alvarado, Luis; Wells Fargo Bank; 10/08/15; $171,573.37

Alvarez, Delia; Lansdowne Borough; 10/ 27/15; $2,894.26

Alves, Allistair H; Discover Bank; 10/19/15; $4,928.45

Amador Jr, Severo B; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Amador, Adelaids; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Ambrose, Michael; Mcandrew, Matthew; 10/27/15; $4,255.00

Amin, Mohammed N; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Amin, Mohammed N; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Anam, Khoyrul; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $366.85

Anderson 3rd, James E.; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $932.20

Anderson, Earl; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $366.85

Anderson, Paul; Hutchins, Jennie; 10/09/15; $30,498.98

Anderson, Shawn D; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43


32

Anderson, Tiairra; State Farm Federal Credit Union; 10/15/15; $10,227.73

Anderson, Wayne L; Portfolio Recovery Associates; 10/07/15; $2,211.68

Andre, Marie S; Nicholson, Michael; 11/ 02/15; $1,738.00

Andrews, Kathyann A; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Andrews, Melissa R; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $183.43

Angelina, Anthony J.; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/02/15; $2,522.44

Angelo, Charles P; Township of Darby; 10/05/15; $268.88

Angelo, Yvette; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Anitra Gipson /DCD; Federal National Mortgage Association; 11/05/15; $125,722.02

Annance Consulting Inc; Ciampa, Peter; 11/25/15; $2,922,958.34

Anne, Jennifer; US Bank National Association; 10/28/15; $150,436.97

Antoniadis, Evangelia; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Any and All Known or Unknonn Heirs of Emma Scully and Anyone Cl Rt, Title or Int in Real Property; National Loan Services, LLC; 10/07/15; $68,289.51

Aponte, Lucia; Richfield Garden Apartments; 10/22/15; $10,831.98

Archambo, Crystal L; Discover Bank; 11/06/15; $14,586.68

Armstead, Carol; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $366.85

Armstead, Jacqueline; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $366.85

Arthur Jr, Tohmas J; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $183.43

Artis, Kelli; U.S. Bank National Association; 10/16/15; $156,905.22

Artis, Marion; Township of Darby; 10/05/15; $268.88

Asikhia /AKA, Edward Usifo; Federal National Mortgage Association; 11/09/15; $61,627.10

Asikhia, Bosede; Federal National Mortgage Association; 11/09/15; $61,627.10

Asikhia, Ohimi Ifijen; Federal National Mortgage Association; 11/09/15; $61,627.10

Asikhia, Usifo Edward; Federal National Mortgage Association; 11/09/15; $61,627.10

Askew, Angela D.; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $183.43

Askew, Laura; Cach LLC; 11/24/15; $5,032.30

Asset Holding Newlands; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Atlantic Structural Panels Inc; Commonwealth of PA Unemployment Comp Fund; 10/02/15; $1,161.27

Auteri, Diana; Capital One N.A.; 10/29/15; $356,606.52

Auteri, Diana; Capital One N.A.; 11/05/15; $356,606.52

Auteri, Joseph A; Capital One N.A.; 10/29/15; $356,606.52

Auteri, Joseph A; Capital One N.A.; 11/05/15; $356,606.52

Auto Depot of Williamstown; Westlake Services Inc; 11/04/15; $17,811.61

Avila, Angel O; T D Bank, N A /SSR; 10/29/15; $210,132.37

Avitalle, James J; University of the Arts; 10/29/15; $2,124.91

Awobaikun, Taria L; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $183.43

Ayala, Iverlyn; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; 11/18/15; $194,352.78

Backus, Alise J; Discover Bank; 10/20/15; $7,291.38

Badame, Paul S; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Badessa, James; Dunkin, Heather; 11/18/15; $17,124.00

Badey, Steven; TD Bank USA, N.A. As Suc in Interest to Target National Bank; 11/04/15; $1,936.15

Bagla LLC Penn; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Bailey, William; Palisades Collection LLC; 10/16/15; $4,897.59

Baines, Christopher J; Citibank NA; 10/07/15; $3,651.49

Baker, Kathryn A; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Balde, Moustapha; Midland Funding LLC; 10/14/15; $948.06

Balmer Sr., John E; Discover Bank; 10/ 02/15; $7,212.59

Bangura, Memuna; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43


33

Bank of America; Township of Ridley; 10/05/15; $100.65

Bank of America N A; St. Josephs University; 11/04/15; $620.59

Bank USA HSBC; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Banks, Phillip J; FDIC; 11/04/15; $13,776,930.29

Bannister, Kyle; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $183.43

Barbee, Akilah; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Barnabei, Carole; LVNV Funding LLC; 10/01/15; $1,546.98

Barnard, George; Hibu Inc /FKA; 11/17/15; $6,230.90

Barnes, Claudette C.; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/02/15; $2,351.75

Barnes, Sylvester; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $183.43

Barolo, Andrew J; Discover Bank; 10/20/15; $10,986.89

Barone, Barry J; TD Auto Finance LLC; 10/13/15; $12,947.94

Barrhal, Emily; Discover Bank; 11/10/15; $12,126.38

Barry, Rita; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Bartle, Bernadette C; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $171.69

Barylak /ADX, Chrystina A; Citimortgage Inc; 11/09/15; $437,847.74

Batdorf, Sarah A.; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/ 01/15; $1,875.36

Batdorf, William E.; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $1,875.36

Bateman, Robert; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Bates, Anita; Discover Bank; 10/19/15; $9,395.96

Bauernschmidt, Julie; Kirchoff, Lilly; 10/14/15; $218,263.65

Baxter, George R.; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Baylor, Albert; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Bechler, Francis; Township of Darby; 10/ 05/15; $268.88

Beck, Joshua; Cypress Financial Recoveries, LLC; 10/13/15; $802.58

Becker, Louise F; EnerbankUSA; 10/01/15; $5,066.59

Becker, Thomas F; EnerbankUSA; 10/01/15; $5,066.59

Beckett, Ivan A.; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Beckham, Ronald; HSBC Bank USA NA; 10/14/15; $39,084.91

Bedwell, Katherine M.; Cavalry SPV I, LLC ASG/ of HSBC Bank Nevada, NA/Capital One Bank USA, NA; 11/02/15; $1,386.06

Bell, Asia R; Remit Corporation; 11/10/15; $2,600.30

Bell, Shawn K; City of Chester; 11/13/15; $1,033.86

Bellenghi, Joshua I; City of Chester; 10/08/15; $1,795.62

Belneau, Rony G; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Beltrante, Anthony S; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Beltrante, Penelope; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Ben Franklin Plumbing; Peco Energy Company; 11/24/15; $2,824.80

Bender, Steven; City of Chester; 11/30/15; $2,617.81

Benner Sr., Jeffrey; Platt, Diorgio, and Difabio; 10/09/15; $7,923.32

Bennett, Gwen; Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC; 11/06/15; $1,217.67

Bennett, Lynne M; Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC; 11/06/15; $776.64

Benson, Doris E; Wells Fargo Bank N.A.; 11/19/15; $57,304.27

Benton, Victoria; Tiger Management, LLC; 11/16/15; $2,488.98

Berardi, Michael; Trivellas, Sotirios; 10/27/15; $230.31

Bernhart, Bridgett; Township of Darby; 10/02/15; $268.88

Bernie’s Pretzel Bakery; Lentz Milling Company; 10/05/15; $24,332.15

Berthau, Terrell; LVNV Funding LLC; 11/02/15; $4,949.46

Bethel Real Estate Associates Inc; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $566.52

Betzala Jr, Joseph W; JPMorgan Chase Bank NA; 11/23/15; $67,429.05

Betzala, Christine; JPMorgan Chase Bank NA; 11/23/15; $67,429.05

Bewen, Sam; Anton Plumbing and Heating Inc; 10/16/15; $430.30


34

Bhattacharya, Anad; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $699.40

Bibby, Joanne K; LVNV Funding LLC; 10/ 27/15; $2,968.14

Biggans Jr, Ronald J; City of Chester; 11/06/15; $1,552.37

Biggans, Kelli Ann; City of Chester; 11/ 06/15; $1,552.37

Bishop, David L.; City of Chester; 11/30/15; $3,633.22

Bishop, Joan O.; Township of Darby; 10/ 02/15; $268.88

Bishop, Lisa C.; City of Chester; 11/30/15; $3,633.22

Bivens, Patricia; City of Chester; 10/14/15; $1,185.62

Blango, Dawn; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/02/15; $2,336.45

Bligen, Diane; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Blila, Moussa; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $183.43

Blizzard, Damon P; Loandpen.com LLC; 10/01/15; $106,348.60

Blythe, Joanne M; City of Chester; 11/30/15; $798.72

Blythe, Robert W; City of Chester; 11/30/15; $798.72

Boat Real Estate LLC; Colwyn Borough; 11/10/15; $2,359.82

Bobb, Allen; Westlake Services Inc; 11/ 19/15; $17,811.61

Bobo, Salinda; Township of Darby; 10/06/15; $268.88

Boccuto, James A; Township of Ridley; 10/05/15; $341.04

Bogaert, Elizabeth; Sychrony Bank; 10/ 21/15; $2,076.23

Bolden, Chanel; Hemphill, Joseph; 10/05/15; $337.75

Bolden, Chanel; MJC Lawnworks Inc; 10/ 05/15; $337.75

Bolden, Josette B; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Bollinger, John J; Remit Corporation; 10/ 09/15; $21,303.83

Bollinger, Warren Joseph; U.S. Bank, National Association /TR; 11/25/15; $161,908.07

Bollinger, Warren Joseph; U.S. Bank, National Association /TR; 11/10/15; $160,390.79

Bonaduce Jr, John A.; Township of Darby; 10/02/15; $268.88

Bonaparte, Phyliss; Township of Darby; 10/05/15; $268.88

Bond, Andretta; Federal National Mortgage Association; 10/01/15; $48,680.26

Bond, Van M; Federal National Mortgage Association; 10/01/15; $48,680.26

Bonham, Geraldine E; Lansdowne Borough; 10/27/15; $3,765.97

Bonham, Geraldine E; Nationstar Mortgage LLC; 11/06/15; $147,626.67

Booker, Jennifer J.; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $183.43

Boothwyn Diner LLC; UGI Energy Services LLC /AKA; 10/01/15; $8,429.99

Boothwyn Diner; UGI Energy Services LLC /AKA; 10/01/15; $8,429.99

Bordes, Fanie; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $183.43

Bordes, Guy; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $183.43

Borough of Colwyn; Borough of Colwyn; 10/26/15; $2,964.65

Borrello Jr, Del; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $183.43

Bourne, Michelle; US Bank; 10/21/15; $143,748.53

Boursiquot Sr, Joseph; Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC; 10/23/15; $944.29

Boursiquot, Cassandra I; Bank of America, NA/SSR; 11/12/15; $189,826.25

Bowers Sr, Robert L; Cavalry SPV I; 10/29/15; $3,596.06

Bowie, Marybeth; Asset Acceptance LLC; 11/16/15; $22,742.33

Bowland, Randall C; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $959.86

Bowland, Stephanie; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $959.86

Bowman /TR /IND, Marva; Citimortgage Inc; 10/02/15; $84,058.21

Boyd /TA/ DBA Jr., Henry A; Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania; 11/30/15; $39,476.96

Boyle, Nicholas; Tran, Kim Hoa; 10/14/15; $2,000.00

BR Management II, LLC; Sharon Savings Bank; 10/29/15; $364,952.94

Bracken, Hugh J.; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/ 01/15; $759.04


35

Bradley, Joycee T; City of Chester; 11/30/15; $2,758.32

Bradley, Patricia; JPMorgan Chase Bank; 11/10/15; $140,068.87

Bradley, Tyrone K; City of Chester; 11/30/15; $2,758.32

Brahin Bathea Black Empire Inc /AKA; Peco Energy Company; 11/23/15; $3,481.60

Brahin Bethea Black Empire Inc; Peco Energy Company; 11/23/15; $3,481.60

Branch, Bernard; Township of Darby; 10/05/15; $268.88

Branch, Darryl F; Township of Darby; 10/05/15; $268.88

Branson, Latreice; Mariner Finance LLC; 10/27/15; $3,209.25

Breckinridge, Madeline; Valley Forge Military Academy and College; 10/22/15; $23,081.82

Bressi, Linda J; City of Chester; 11/30/15; $1,641.87

Bright, Sheila; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $183.43

Brink, Sandy; Discover Bank; 10/20/15; $14,039.68

Briscoe, Violet; City of Chester; 10/19/15; $837.56

Brisson, Zachary M.; PHH Mortgage Corporation; 11/05/15; $245,425.94

Brittingham, Jennifer L; M & T Bank /SSR; 11/05/15; $200,744.88

Brown, Earl; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $140.23

Brown, Eileen; Santander Bank National Association; 10/19/15; $178,624.26

Brown, Gordon L; Capital One Bank USA N.A.; 11/13/15; $6,519.97

Brown, Gregory; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Brown, Jennifer C.; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Brown, Kellie A; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Brown, Kyle; Santander Bank National Association; 10/19/15; $163,042.38

Brown, Kyle M; Santander Bank National Association; 10/19/15; $163,042.38

Brown, Monyu; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Brown, Phyllis R; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Brown, Shanice K.; Macdade Apt. 2010 LP; 10/14/15; $1,254.86

Brown, Shanta; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $907.22

Brown, Sharron L; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $183.43

Brown, Tina Marie; Caliber Home Loans Inc./FKA; 10/13/15; $82,126.91

Brown, Tina Marie; Vericrest Financial Inc /FKA; 10/13/15; $82,126.91

Brown, Victoria C; Wells Fargo Bank NA; 11/19/15; $74,089.21

Brown, Waltina M; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $183.43

Browne, Nancy N; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $131.98

Brownie’s Pub; Pichonot, Enide; 10/21/15; $9,000.00

Browning, Deon; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Broxton, Derron D; Eagle One Federal Credit Union; 11/23/15; $12,852.96

Bruton, Nevin T; U.S. Bank National Association; 10/23/15; $146,710.54

Bryant, Dianne S; City of Chester; 11/13/15; $3,979.02

Bryant, James; City of Chester; 11/13/15; $3,979.02

Bryant, Samantha; National Collegiate Student Loan Trust; 11/02/15; $6,423.10






Bucephalus LLC; Deniran Estates Inc; 10/02/15; $10,367.21

Buckley, Robert C; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $15,557.36

Bui, Dung Hong; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $183.43

Bumstead, Andrew H; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $3,230.76

Burd, Joshua; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/02/15; $1,036.95


36

Burger, Frances A Metzger; JP Morgan Chase Bank National Assoc; 10/05/15; $117,660.84

Burger, Richard C; JP Morgan Chase Bank National Assoc; 10/05/15; $117,660.84

Burger A/K/A, Frances A; JP Morgan Chase Bank National Assoc; 10/05/15; $117,660.84

Burgess, Iesha; City of Chester; 10/14/15; $1,182.99

Burney, Oyango; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $183.43

Burrell, George; Laser Spine Institute; 11/30/15; $6,502.03

Burton, Dawn; Neighborhood Restorations LP X; 11/12/15; $3,743.00

Burton, Nakisha; Franklin Mint F.C.U.; 10/29/15; $1,528.85

Burton, Pamala; D’ambro, Christopher; 10/15/15; $9,600.00

Butler, Edward F.; Township of Darby; 10/05/15; $268.88

Byers, Debbie S.; Township of Darby; 10/05/15; $268.88

Bynum, Dionne; LVNV Funding LLC; 10/30/15; $1,060.99

Byrne, John J.; Township of Darby; 10/ 05/15; $268.88

Byrne, Joseph F; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $183.43

Bythewayabbott, Diane; Cach LLC; 10/ 26/15; $4,748.99

C Saw Properties LLC; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Caban, Antonio; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $1,271.70

Caldwell, Alfonso; City of Chester; 11/13/15; $1,950.56

Caldwell, Alfonso; City of Chester; 10/07/15; $1,827.20

Caldwell, Alphonso; City of Chester; 10/ 14/15; $1,792.86

Caldwell, Betty; City of Chester; 11/13/15; $1,950.56

Caldwell, Kelli; City of Chester; 10/14/15; $1,792.86

Caldwell, Zakiyah; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Calhoun, Andre; Township of Upper Darby; 10/08/15; $183.43

Campanese, Tamara; Bottos, George; 11/13/15; $5,177.98

Campanese, Tamara; Bottos, Vasiliki; 11/13/15; $5,177.98

Campbell, Nelson R; Greenwood Trust Company; 10/21/15; $9,982.16

Campbell, Alfred; Township of Upper Darby; 10/06/15; $183.43

Campbell, Eulale; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Campbell, Vincent R; JP Morgan Chase Bank; 11/17/15; $111,685.58

Campi, John; Discover Bank; 11/19/15; $16,040.64

Canakisterry, Katherine D; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; 10/01/15; $1,671.32

Cannon /ADX, Theresa; Wells Fargo Bank, NA; 11/06/15; $120,041.60

Cannon Jr, Harry D; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Cannon, Ann; U.S. Bank National Association /TR; 10/22/15; $406,591.35

Cannon, Marybeth; Township of Upper Darby; 10/09/15; $183.43

Cannon, Michael; U.S. Bank National Association /TR; 10/22/15; $406,591.35

Canto, Erick Levi Perez; U.S. Bank National Association; 10/23/15; $85,343.21

Canto, Erick Levi Perez; U.S. Bank National Association; 10/23/15; $146,710.54

Canty, Gwendolyn; Midland Funding LLC; 10/14/15; $1,209.36

Cardenas, Wilson; Progressive Specialty Insurance Company; 10/23/15; $9,256.34

Cardwell, Brian; Volt Participation Trust 2011NPL2; 10/29/15; $105,112.05

Carmichael, Darrell; Township of Darby; 10/05/15; $268.88





Carpenter, Anna Marie; Property A Management; 10/13/15; $2,456.38

Carranza /AKA, Jessica; Wells Fargo Bank; 11/18/15; $208,607.24

Carranza, Jessica; Township of Upper Darby; 10/07/15; $183.43

Carranzo, Jessica; Wells Fargo Bank; 11/ 18/15; $208,607.24


37

LOCALITY INDEX SHERIFF’S SALES OF REAL ESTATE

COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING ROOM

COURTHOUSE, MEDIA, PA January 20, 2017

11:00 A.M. Prevailing Time

BOROUGH Aldan 53, 121

Brookhaven 22 Clifton Heights 4, 92, 95, 124

Collingdale 120 Colwyn 131

Darby 31 East Lansdowne 64

Eddystone 110 Folcroft 59, 72, 81, 98, 99, 109

Glenolden 66, 73, 136 Lansdowne 7, 10, 37, 42, 43, 63, 86, 114

Marcus Hook 54, 107 Morton 80, 112 Norwood 20, 97

Parkside 36 Prospect Park 41, 132 Ridley Park 69, 135

Sharon Hill 2, 24, 34, 58 Upland 13, 118

Yeadon 12, 14, 18, 38, 39, 94, 128

CITY Chester 5, 9, 17, 55, 60, 62, 88, 130

TOWNSHIP Aston 50 Bethel 16

Concord 6, 90, 137 Darby 29, 51, 74, 82, 101

Haverford 15, 126 Lower Chichester 48, 71

Marple 102, 123 Newtown 52, 116

Nether Providence 44, 67, 134 Radnor 125

Ridley 23, 28, 68, 76, 122 Springfield 11, 84, 115

Tinicum 8 Upper Chichester 3, 35, 40, 61, 83, 91,

100, 111, 117 Upper Darby 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33,

46, 49, 57, 75, 77, 78, 79, 85, 87, 89, 93, 96, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 113, 119, 129

Upper Providence 127

Conditions: $ 2,000.00 cash or certified check at time of sale (unless otherwise stated in advertisement), balance in ten days. Other conditions on day of sale.

To all parties in interest and claimants:

TAKE NOTICE that a Schedule of Dis-tribution will be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of sale and distribution will be made in accordance with the Schedule of Distribution unless exceptions are filed thereto within ten (10) days thereafter. No further notice of the filing of the Schedule of Distribution will be given.

No. 5076 2. 2016

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE

862 Marshall Road Sharon Hill, PA 19079

Property in the Borough of Sharon Hill, County of Delaware, and State of Penn-sylvania.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: resi-dential dwelling.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Jamel T. Brown, Jennifer M. Walley.

Hand Money $4,099.22

Udren Law Offices, P.C., Attorneys

MARY McFALL HOPPER, Sheriff

No. 002333 3. 2016


Property in the Township of Upper Chichester, County of Delaware, State of PA on the Westerly side of Colonial Road.

Front: 138 Depth: 90 feet

BEING Premises: 2112 Briarcliff Av-enue, Marcus Hook, Township of Upper Chichester, PA 19061.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: single family residential dwelling.


38

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Maurice R. Harris.


Stephen M. Hladik, Attorney


No. 3715 4. 2016


Property in the Borough of Clifton Heights, County of Delaware and State of PA, on the Westerly side of Colonial Road.


BEING Premises: 207 S. Springfield Road, Clifton Heights, PA 19018.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Danielle Ionata and Charles Donnelly.




No. 11152A 5. 2014


Judgment Amount: $38,479.18

Property in the City of Chester, County of Delaware and State of PA.

Front: Irregular Depth: Irregular

BEING Premises: 1427 Edgemont Av-enue, Chester City, PA 19013.

Folio Number: 49-02-00895-06.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: resi-dential property.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: David P. Bolt and Colleen M. Bolt.


Sarah K. McCaffery, Esquire, Attorney


No. 5637 6. 2016


Property in the Township of Concord, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on Smithbridge Road.

Front: IRR Depth: IRR

BEING Premises: 458 Smithbridge Road, Glen Mills, PA 19342.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Jennifer L. Matwiejewicz and Kevin L. Matwieje-wicz.


KML Law Group, P.C., Attorneys


No. 006050 7. 2016



Property in Lansdowne Borough, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 246 West Plumstead Avenue, Lansdowne, PA 19050.

Folio Number: 23-00-02675-00.


39


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Fatima Zafar Hall, Administratrix of the Estate of Dorothy H. Datoo, deceased.




No. 005599 8. 2016



Property in the Township of Tinicum, County of Delaware and State of PA.


BEING Premises: 303 Corinthian Av-enue, Essington, PA 19029.

Folio Number: 45-00-00278-25.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Patricia Pastore a/k/a Patricia A. Pastore.




No. 4369A 9. 2016


Property in the City of Chester, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on the Southeasterly side of Hancock Street.


BEING Premises: 1415 Hancock Street, Chester, PA 19013.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: a single family residential dwelling.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Yvonne M. Hicks.




No. 3608 10. 2016


Property in Lansdowne Borough, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania.

Front: 70 Depth: 145

BEING Premises: 12 Eldon Avenue, Lansdowne, PA 19050.

Parcel No. 23-00-00843-35.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: resi-dential real estate.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Valerie Lynne Ford a/k/a Valerie L. Ford.


Stern & Eisenberg, PC, Attorneys Jessica N. Manis, Attorney


No. 2385 11. 2016


352 Hemlock Lane Springfield, PA 19064

Property in the Township of Springfield, County of Delaware and State of Pennsyl-vania.


40


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Joseph A. Contrisciano.




No. 680 12. 2016


608 Ruskin Lane Yeadon, PA 19050

Property in the Borough of Yeadon, County of Delaware, and State of Penn-sylvania.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Fatira Elhadi.




No. 8101 13. 2015


Property in Upland Borough, County of Delaware, and State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 517 West 24th Street, Chester, PA 19013-4947.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Kimley T. Butler.


Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, LLP, Attorneys


No. 00716A 14. 2013


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, hereditaments and appurtenances, Situate on the North-east side of Serrill Avenue at the distance of 199.21 feet Southeastward from the Southeast side of Bunting Road (now known as MacDade Boulevard), in the Borough of Yeadon, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.

CONTAINING in front or breadth on the said Serrill Avenue 22 feet and extending of that width in length or depth North-eastward between parallel lines at right angles to said Serrill Avenue 100 feet to the middle line of a certain 15 feet wide driveway which extends Northwestward and Southeastward from the said Bunting Road (now known as MacDade Boulevard) to Chester Avenue.

Tax ID No. 48-00-02979-00.

For information purposes only—prop-erty a/k/a 1019 Serrill Avenue, Yeadon, PA 19050.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: Resi-dential dwelling.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Ralph D. Benjamin and Sonia D. Benjamin.


Parker McCay P.A., Attorneys Daniel J. Capecci, Esquire, Attorney



41

No. 002211A 15. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground, hereditaments and appurtenances, Situate in the Township of Haverford, County of Delaware and State of Pennsyl-vania, and described according to a map of property of the Inverness Corporation, said plan made by Yerkes Engineering Co., Civil Engineers and Surveyors, dated 2/3/1964 and last revised 3/31/1965 as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point on the South-easterly side of Marple Road, said side of Marple Road being at the distance or 25 feet Southeast of the title line thereof; said point being measured by the 3 following courses and distances from the point by the intersection of the title line in the bed of Marple Road and the title line in the bed of Darby Road; (1 ) along the title line through the bed of Marple Road Southwestwardly 313.37 feet to a point, a corner of land now or late of John G. Gardner; (2) South 22 degrees, 33 minutes 30 seconds East partly crossing Marple Road 25 feet to a point on the Southeasterly side of Marple Road and (3) South 66 degrees, 26 minutes 25 seconds West along the Southeasterly side of Marple Road 300.87 feet to the point of beginning; thence extending from said point of begin-ning point Lot No. 4, South 23 degrees, 33 minutes, 35 seconds East, 205.53 feet to a point in line of Lot No. 5; thence partly along Lots Nos. 5 and 2, South 66 degrees, 26 minutes 25 seconds West, 132.64 feet to a point, a corner of Lot No. 2; thence extending along Lot No. 2 the 7 following courses and distances; (1) North 56 degrees, 54 minutes West, 27.90 feet to a point; (2) South 66 degrees, 01 minute West, 20.35 feet to a point; (3) South 48 degrees, 22 minutes West 72.20 feet to a point, (4) South 66 degrees, 58 minutes West, 43.50 feet to a point; (5) North 25 degrees, 06 minutes, 30 seconds West, 94 feet to a point, (6) North 42 degrees, 51 minutes, 40 seconds East, 150.95 feet to a point and (7) North 23 degrees, 33 minutes, 35 seconds West, 60 feet to a point on the Southeasterly side of Marple Road aforesaid; thence extending North 66 degrees, 26 minutes, 25 seconds East, along the said side of Marple Road 144.67 feet to the first mentioned point and place of beginning.

BEING Lot No. 3 as shown on the above mentioned plan.

ALSO BEING 33 Marple Road.

BEING the same premises which Joan C. Mazzotti and Michael C. Kelly, by Inden-ture dated May 9, 2003 and recorded in the Recorder of Deeds in and for the County of Delaware, aforesaid, in Record Book 2794 page 1399 &c., granted and conveyed unto Brendan J. Barry and Marina A. Barry, husband and wife, in fee.

BEING Folio No. 22-04-00483-04.

For information purposes only—property a/k/a 33 Marple Road, Haverford, PA 19041.

TITLE to said premises is vested in Bren-dan J. Barry and Marina A. Barry, his wife by Deed from Joan C. Mazzotti and Michael C. Kelly dated 5/9/200 , recorded 6/2/2003 in Book 2794, page 1399.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: a residential dwelling.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Bren-dan J. Barry and Marina A. Barry.


Parker McCay, P.A. Daniel J. Capecci, Esquire, Attorneys


No. 4490A 16. 2015


Property in the Township of Bethel, County of Delaware and State of Penn-sylvania.

Description: 2 sty house gar 4,778sf Lot 31

BEING Premises: 3129 Woods Edge Drive, Boothwyn, PA 19061.

Parcel No. 03-00-00517-51.


42


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Garfield Taylor and Mary K. Tomlin.




No. 004239A 17. 2014


Property in the City of Chester, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 731 Irvington Place a/k/a 731 Irvington Road, Chester, PA 19013.

Parcel No. 49-010-02008-00.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Crystal J. Lewis.


Stern & Eisenberg, PC, Attorneys


No. 005847 18. 2016


Property in the Borough of Yeadon, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on the Southerly side of Elder Avenue.


BEING Premises: 130 Elder Avenue, Yeadon, PA 19050.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Tame-sha Wilson.




No. 002497 19. 2015


Property in Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on Wellington Road.

Front: Irr Depth: Irr

BEING Premises: 167 Wellington Road, Upper Darby, PA 19082.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Ac-hamma Joseph and Joseph Mathai.




No. 11114A 20. 2015


Property in the Borough of Norwood, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on the Southerly side of Winona Avenue.


BEING Premises: 226 East Winona Avenue, Norwood, PA 19074.



43

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: George R. Davidson and Patricia M. Davidson a/k/a Pat M. Davidson.




No. 496 21. 2016


4013 Vernon Road Drexel Hill, PA 19026

Property in the Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware, State of Penn-sylvania.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Jamie Houser, Matthew Houser.




No. 13553 22. 2010


Property in Borough of Brookhaven, County of Delaware and State of Penn-sylvania.

Description: Building 12-11 Unit 209 Timber Drive.

BEING Premises: 7511 Hilltop Drive, Brookhaven, PA 19015-1311.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Ange-lina J. Edwards and Robert E. Edwards.




No. 011679A 23. 2014


Property in Ridley Township, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 361 Cedar Avenue, Holmes, PA 19043-1204.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Dany-elle I. Dinan a/k/a Danyelle Dinan and Matthew S. Dinan a/k/a Matthew Dinan.




No. 6226 24. 2014


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the messuage or tenement thereon erected, situate on the Southeast-erly side of Melrose Avenue (50 feet wide) at the distance of 80.73 feet Northeastwardly from the Northeasterly side of Tribbet or Tribbitt Avenue (50 feet wide) in the Bor-ough of Sharon Hill, in Delaware County and State of PA.


44

CONTAINING in front or breadth on the said Southeasterly side of Melrose Avenue 40 feet and extending Southeastwardly of that width in length or depth between parallel lines at right angles to the said Melrose Avenue 125 feet.

ALSO ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground, Situate on the Southeasterly side of Melrose Avenue (50 feet wide) at the distance of 120.73 feet Northeastwardly from the Northeasterly side of Tribbet or Tribbitt Avenue (50 feet wide) in the Bor-ough of Sharon Hill, in Delaware County and State of PA.

CONTAINING in front or breadth Northeastwardly on the said Southeasterly side of Melrose Avenue 20 feet and extend-ing Southeastwardly of that width in length or depth between parallel lines at right angles to the said Melrose Avenue 125 feet.

ALSO ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground, situate in the Borough of Sharon Hill, Delaware County, State of PA bounded and described as follows:

BEGINNING at a point a corner of land conveyed by the said Horace T. Keller to George F. Atz, which point is at the dis-tance of 125 feet Northeastwardly from a point in the Northeasterly side of Tribbitt Avenue now Folcroft Avenue 50 feet wide, which last named point is at the distance of 175.08 feet, Southeastwardly from the Southeasterly side of Melrose Avenue 50 feet wide; thence extending along lands of Ruth Gamon and E. Ralph Kaighn North 26 degrees 19 minutes West, 54.48 feet to a corner of lands of George G. Koch and Al-bert W. Holbrook thence North 61 degrees 38 minutes East, 20 feet to a point; thence South 26 degrees 19 minutes East, 54.48 feet to a point and thence South 63 degrees 41 minutes West, 20 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: a residential property.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Ken-neth C. Hill, Sr.


Law Office of Gregory Javardian, LLC, Attorneys


No. 004865A 25. 2011


Property in Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware and State of Penn-sylvania.

Front: 16 Depth: 82

BEING Premises: 1141 Myrtlewood Av-enue, Havertown, PA 19083-5202.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: John Vrolyk.




No. 001328A 26. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN parcel of land lying and being situate in the Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to wit:

CONTAINING

Folio No. 16-08-00147-009.

Property: 916 Argyle Road, Drexel Hill, PA 19026.

BEING the same premises which Ray-mond Whoriskey and Cindy Culleney, by Deed dated March 27, 2008 and recorded June 5, 2008 in and for Delaware County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book Volume 4376, page 803, granted and conveyed unto Ray-mond Whoriskey.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: house.


45

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Ray-mond Whoriskey.


Justin F. Kobeski, Attorney


No. 006204 27. 2016


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or parcels of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, SITUATE in the Township of Upper Darby in the County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania, and designated and known as Lots numbered 213, 214 and 215 on a certain plan of lots called “Highland Park” surveyed for Wood Harmon Real Estate, trustees, by Joseph W. Hunter, Civil Engineer, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania on May 19, 1904 which plan is recorded in the Office for the Recording of Deeds, etc., in and for the County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania in Deed Book L No. 7 page 620 &c.

BEGINNING at a point on the South-easterly side of Madison Avenue at the distance of 100 feet Northeastwardly from the Northeasterly side of Park Avenue (40 feet wide);

CONTAINING in the front or breadth on the said Southeasterly side of Madison Avenue 75 feet and extending of that width in length or depth Southeastwardly be-tween parallel lines at right angles to said Madison Avenue 130 feet.

BEING known as 49 South Madison Avenue, Highland Park, Upper Darby, PA 19082.

TITLE to said premises is vested in An-drew A. Williams and Reina G. Williams by Deed from the Estate of Philomena Browne, by P. Bernadette Truhlar, executrix, dated 5/23/2007 and recorded 5/25/2007 in Book 4109 page 2012.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Reina G. Williams.


Martha E. Von Rosenstiel, P.C., Attorneys


No. 002970 28. 2014


ALL THAT CERTAIN parcel of land lying and being situate in the Township of Ridley, County of Delaware and Com-monwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to wit:

CONTAINING

FOLIO No. 38-04-00560-00.

Property: 222 Cedar Avenue, Holmes, PA 19043.

BEING the same premises which Con-stance A. Katein, Executrix of the Estate of Anna Elizabeth Katein, deceased, by Deed dated December 28, 2004 and re-corded January 5, 2005 in and for Delaware County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book Volume 3384, page 1325, granted and conveyed unto Thomas Johnson.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Thomas Johnson.





46

No. 6884 29. 2015


Property in the Darby Township, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 18 Bayard Avenue, Sharon Hill, PA 19079-1009.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Andrea M. Barnes.




No. 011418A 30. 2014



CONTAINING

Folio No. 16-04-00328-00.

Property: 7224 Bradford Road, Upper Darby, PA 19082.

BEING the same premises which Nicole Edwards Watkins by Deed dated August 15, 2006 and recorded August 22, 2006 in and for Delaware County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book Volume 3887, page 483, granted and conveyed unto Jean Leveille and An-toinette Ernest.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Jean Leveille and Antoinette Ernest.




No. 10052 31. 2015


Property in the Borough of Darby, Coun-ty of Delaware, and Commonwealth of PA on the Northeasterly side of Maple Terrace.


BEING Premises: 903 Maple Terrace Darby, PA 19023.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Deborah Denise Scott.




No. 009563 32. 2015



CONTAINING

Folio No. 16-08-00971-01.

Property: 2268 Dermond Avenue, Upper Darby, PA 19082.


47

BEING the same premises which James P. Patterson and Carol Ann Patterson, no marital status shown, by Deed dated Febru-ary 23, 2007 and recorded March 6, 2007 in and for Delaware County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book Volume 04044, page 1371, granted and conveyed unto Janus Aquila, as sole owner.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Janus Aquila, as sole owner.




No. 005178 33. 2015


Property in Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware and State of Penn-sylvania.


BEING Premises: 556 North Sycamore Avenue a/k/a, 556 Sycamore Avenue, Clif-ton Heights, PA 19018-1023.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: David Kline and Beth Kline.




No. 006431 34. 2016


Property in the Borough of Sharon Hill, County of Delaware, and Commonwealth of PA on the Westerly side of Sharon Park Drive.


BEING Premises: 212 Sharon Park Drive, Sharon Hill, PA 19079.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Hopeton D. Brown.




No. 3742 35. 2016


Property in the Township of Upper Chichester, County of Delaware, Com-monwealth of PA on the Northerly side of McCay Avenue.


BEING Premises: 1624 McCay Avenue, Boothwyn, PA 19061.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Ronald McGrain and Regina Anna McGrain.





48

No. 005131 36. 2016


Property in the Borough of Parkside, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on the Park Vallei Lane.


BEING Premises: 22 Park Vallei Lane, Brookhaven, PA 19015.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Nicole J. Venish.




No. 010893 37. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN parcel of land lying and being situate in the Borough of Lansdowne, County of Delaware, and Com-monwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to wit:

CONTAINING

Folio No. 23-00-00143-00.

Property: 224 West Albemarle Avenue, Lansdowne, PA 19050.

BEING the same premises which Rich-ard J. Pacitti, Jr. and Anne Pacittti, no marital status shown, by Deed dated May 16, 2001 and recorded May 30, 2001 in and for Delaware County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book Volume 2183, page 1830 granted and conveyed unto Lana M. Gavin, no marital status shown.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Lana M. Gavin, no marital status shown.




No. 11241 38. 2015


Property in the Yeadon Borough, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania.

Front: 58 Depth: 77

BEING Premises: 909 Longacre Boule-vard, Yeadon, PA 19050-3321.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Valina Crawford.




No. 7815A 39. 2013


Property in the Yeadon Borough, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania.

HSE Front: 80 Depth: 122

GRD Front: 40 Depth: 122

BEING Premises: 1206 North Longacre Boulevard, Yeadon, PA 19050-3411.



49

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Martin Thompson a/k/a Martin D. Thompson and Paulette Thompson a/k/a Paulette Chavis.




No. 2328 40. 2016


Property in Upper Chichester Town-ship, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.

Description: 1 sty hse Lot 105

BEING Premises: 729 Hawthorne Lane, Aston, PA 19014.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Marilyn C. Campbell.




No. 4227A 41. 2014


Property in Prospect Park Borough, County of Delaware and State of Penn-sylvania.


BEING Premises: 1632 Amosland Road, Prospect Park, PA 19076-1016.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Edward J. Dougherty, Jr.




No. 3978 42. 2015


Property in Borough of Lansdowne, County of Delaware and State of Penn-sylvania.

Front: 110 Depth: 116 Irr

BEING Premises: 79 South Wycombe Avenue, Lansdowne, PA 19050-2946.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Randal V. Troy and James J. Freese.




No. 4541B 43. 2013


Property in Borough of Lansdowne, County of Delaware and State of Penn-sylvania.

1.52 Acres

BEING Premises: 46 Pennock Ter-race, Lansdowne, PA 19050-2316.



50

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Emma J. Lapsansky.




No. 010846 44. 2014


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, Situate in the Township of Nether Providence, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania and being Lot 14 on a certain Plan of Lots of Edwin C. Prichard prepared by Damon and Foster, Civil Engineers, Sharon Hill, Pennsylvania, on November 25, 1952 and last revised Oc-tober 27, 1954 and described in accordance with the aforesaid plan as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point on the South-westerly side of Prichard Lane measured the there following courses and distances along the said side of Prichard Lane with its point of intersection with the Westerly side of Highland Avenue (forty feet wide) (both sides extending to intersect) yiz: (1) North sixty-six degrees, forty-five minutes, twen-ty-three seconds West seventy-nine feet and nineteen one-hundredths of a foot to a point of curve; (2) on a line curving to the right having a radius of six hundred forty-two feet the arc distance of four hundred forty-eight feet and twenty one-hundredths of a foot to a point of reverse curve; and (3) on a line curving to the left having a radius of fifty feet the arc distance of eight feet to the beginning point thence extending along the said side of Prichard Lane the three follow-ing courses and distances, viz: (1) on a line curving to the left having a radius of fifty feet the arc distance of thirty-one feet and seventy-seven one hundredths of a foot to a point of reverse curve; (2) on a line curv-ing to the right having a radius of fifty feet the arc distance of ninety seven feet and seventy-three one hundredths of a foot to a point a corner and (3) North twenty-six degrees, forty-five minutes, twenty-three seconds West nine feet and sixty-eight one hundredths of a foot to a point; thence

extending South seventy-two degrees, twenty-eight minutes, fifteen seconds West two hundred one feet and fourteen one-hundredths of a foot to an iron pipe; thence extending South thirty-nine degrees, two minutes, fifteen seconds East one hundred fifty-four and ninety-five on hundredths fee to a point and thence extending North sixty-three degrees, ten minutes, twenty-six seconds East one hundred sixty-four feet and ninety-three one-hundredths of a foot to the first mentioned point and place of beginning.

BEING Folio No. 34-00-02080-00.

BEING the same premises which Olive J. Faulkner granted and conveyed unto David B. Lanciano and Irene Lanciano, husband and wife, by Deed dated June 29, 2000 and recorded July 10, 2000 in Delaware County Record Book 2034, page 1642.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: David B Lanciano and Irene D. Lanciano, a/k/a Irene Lanciano.


Martha E. Von Rosenstiel, P.C., Attorneys


No. 000182 46. 2016



CONTAINING

Folio No. 16-13-01163-00.

Property: 3830 Brunswick Avenue, Drexel Hill, PA 19026.


51

BEING the same premises which Chris-topher A. Chiappardi, by Deed dated June 23, 2004 and recorded July 2, 2004 in and for Delaware County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book Volume 03225, page 0909, granted and conveyed unto Debra Watson.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Debra Watson.




No. 2747 48. 2016


Property in Lower Chichester Town-ship, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 1519 Yates Avenue, Linwood, PA 19061-4355.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Lois E. Harasymiw and Bohdan Harasymiw.




No. 3299 49. 2016


Property in the Upper Darby Township, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania on the Northeasterly side of Brunswick Avenue.

BEING Folio No. 16-12-00165-00.

BEING Premises: 3433 Brunswick Avenue, Drexel Hil, Pennsylvania 19026.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Stanley Peascheck, known surviving heir of Mary Lou Billings and unknown surviving heirs of Mary Lou Billings.


McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C., Attorneys


No. 6072C 50. 2012


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, hereditaments and appurtenances, situate in the Township of Aston, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania, and bounded and described according to a survey thereof made by Ches-ter F. Baker, Surveyor, on June 9, 1922, as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point on the South-easterly side of Ford Avenue at the distance of 107.44 feet Northeast from Elleton Road, thence by said road North 55 degrees 53 minutes East 89.42 feet, thence South 34 degrees 4 minutes East 68.09 feet to line of lands of the School District of Aston Township, thence by said lands South 56 degrees 46 minutes 5 seconds West 89.43 feet, thence North 34 degrees, 4 minutes West, 66.71 feet to the place of beginning.

TOGETHER with the right, use and privilege of a certain pump situate on the Southeasterly side of Ford Avenue, in com-mon with the owners, occupiers and tenants of the adjoining properties.


52

TITLE to said premises vested in Kos-tas Adamidis and Maria Adamidis, his wife by Deed from Maria Adamidis dated 04/13/1999 and recorded 04/12/1999 in the Delaware County Recorder of Deeds in Book 01860 page 1546 as Instrument No. 1999028538.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Maria Adamidis, original mortgagor and real owner and Kostas Adamidis, real owner.


Robert W. Williams, Attorney


No. 457 51. 2016


Folio No. 15-00-01468-00.

ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground, with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, Situate in the Township of Darby, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, known as Lot No. 437 on a survey and plan made of Briarcliffe Section of Westbrook Park, Plan No. 8C-1, made by Damon and Foster, Civil Engineers, Sharon Hill, Pennsylvania on 8/5/1953, which Plan is recorded in the Office for the Recording of Deeds in and for the County of Delaware at Media on 8/10/1953, in plan Case No. 11 Plats 4 and described as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point on the North-westerly side of Garfield Avenue (50 feet wide) which point is measured on the arc of a circle curving to the right, having a radius of 225 feet, the arc distance of 148.02 feet from a point of curve on the Southwesterly side of Garfield Avenue, which point of curve is measured North 24 degrees 10 minutes West, 232.41 feet from a point of tangent on the Southwesterly side of Garfield Avenue, which point of tangent is measured on the arc of a circle curving to the left, having a radius of 25 feet, the arc distance of 39.27 feet from a point of curve on the Northwesterly side of Academy Av-enue (41.5 feet wide); thence extending from said point of beginning, North 80 degrees 33 minutes West, passing partly through the party wall of the building erected on this lot and the building erected on the lot adjoin-ing to the Southwest thereof and crossing a certain 12 feet wide driveway which extends Southwesterly thence Southeastwardly communicating with another 12 feet wide driveway which extends Northeastwardly into Garfield Avenue and Southwestwardly thence Southeastwardly into Academy Avenue and also Northwestwardly thence Northeastwardly thence Southeastwardly into Garfield Avenue, 152.57 feet to a point; thence extending North 9 degrees 27 minutes East, 16 feet to a point; thence extending South 80 degrees 33 minutes East, re-crossing the aforesaid driveway and passing partly through the party wall of the building erected on this lot and buildings erected on the lot adjoining to the Northeast thereof, 154.29 feet to a point on the Northwesterly side of Garfield Avenue; thence along the same, on the arc of circle curving to the left, having a radius of 225 feet, the arc distance of 16.10 feet to the first mentioned point and place of beginning.

TOGETHER with the free and com-mon use, right, liberty and privilege of the aforesaid driveway as either a driveway, passageway and/or watercourse in common with the owners, tenants and occupiers of the other lots of ground bounding thereon and entitled to the use thereof at all times hereafter, forever.

SUBJECT, however, to the proportionate part of the expense of keeping said driveway in good order and repair.


53

BEING the same premises which Joseph F. McDade by Deed dated 4/15/1999 and recorded 4/27/1999 in Delaware County in Volume 1866 page 2080 conveyed unto Daniel Michael Organ, in fee.

BEING 734 Garfield Avenue, a/k/a 734 S. Garfield Avenue, Glenolden, Darby Township, PA.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Daniel Michael Organ.


Michael S. Bloom, Esquire, Attorney


No. 9841 52. 2015


4124 West Chester Pike Newtown Square, PA 19073

Property in the Township of Newtown, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Denise Demarco, United States of America.




No. 006400 53. 2014


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, Hereditaments and Appurtenances, Situate in Aldan Borough, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania, described in accordance with a plan thereof by Over & Tingley, C.E., dated 9/21/1939, as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at point on the Northwest-erly side of Walnut Avenue (45 feet wide) at the distance of 459.76 feet measured North 64 degrees East from the intersection of the said side of Walnut Avenue and the Northwesterly side of Linden Avenue (50 feet wide) (both extended).

CONTAINING in front or breadth on the said side of Walnut Avenue measured North 64 degrees East, 49 feet and extend-ing of that width in length or depth North-westwardly between parallel lines at right angles to the said Walnut Avenue 118 feet.

BEING Lot No. 58 on the aforesaid plan and also known as No. 401 Walnut Avenue.

TITLE to said premises vested in Wil-liam T. Griffith and Teresa C. Griffith, husband and wife by Deed from Laurie B. Sheely dated December 7, 2004 and recorded on December 28, 2004 in the Delaware County Recorder of Deeds in Book 3376, page 191.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: William T. Griffith and Teresa C. Griffith.





54

No. 06721 54. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, SITUATE in the Borough of Marcus Hook, County of Dela-ware and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania described according to a Final Subdivision Plan for Leonard F. Daddona made by Cantania Engineering Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineer of Milmont Park, PA dated 6/1/89 recorded in Delaware County Recorder of Deeds Office in Plan Case 16 page 449 as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point on the South-westerly side of McClenachan Terrace (40 feet wide) on a corner of Lot 2 on said plan, thence extending from said beginning point, South 25 degrees, 45 minutes East, along the Southwesterly side of McClenachan Terrace, 30.00 feet to a point thence extend-ing South 64 degrees, 15 minutes West, along lands now or late of Lewis 110.08 feet to a point; thence extending North 25 degrees, 45 minutes West along lands now or late of the Borough of Marcus Hook, 30.00 feet to a point on the corner of Lot No. 2 on said Plan, thence extending along same North 64 degrees, 15 minutes East crossing a Seepage Pit 110.08 feet to a point on the Southwesterly side of McClenachan Terrace, being the first mentioned point and place of beginning.

BEING Lot No. 1 on said Plan.

TITLE to said premises vested in Linda M. Trimmer by Deed from L. Frank Daddona and Donna Daddona, husband and wife and Leonard Daddona and Shirley Daddona, husband and wife dated Septem-ber 29, 2003 and recorded on September 29, 2003 in the Delaware County Recorder of Deeds in Book 2955, page 1406 as Instru-ment No. 2003128541.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Linda M. Trimmer.




No. 7837A 55. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of land with the buildings and IMPROVEMENTS thereon erected, SITUATE on the Westerly side of Parkway Avenue at the distance of 185 feet measured Southwardly from the Southwesterly corner of Parkway Avenue and Blossom Avenue in the City of Chester, County of Delaware and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania being Lot 270 Block “E” on the plan of William Freihofer’s Chester Park Development and known as Premises 158 E. Parkway Avenue.

CONTAINING in front measured thence Southwardly 30 feet and extending in depth Westwardly between parallel lines at right angles to the said Parkway Avenue 120 feet.

BOUNDED on the North by lands H.H. Ward; on the West by lands of Harvey S. Fellenbaum, et ux., and on the South by lands of Clara L. and Lillian M. Freshley.

TITLE to said premises vested in Tyesha Henry by Deed from Williar C. Richan dated June 6, 2006 and recorded on July 5, 20906 in the Delaware County Recorder of Deeds in Book 03843, page 1976 as Instrument No. 2006061977.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Tyesha Henry.





55

No. 10013B 57. 2014


ALL THAT CERTAIN parcel of land in Township of Upper Darby, Delaware County, Commonwealth of PA, as more fully described in Book 2594, page 2139 ID No. 16-05-00715-00, being known and designated as a metes and bounds property.

HAVING erected thereon a dwelling known as 562 Larchwood Avenue, Upper Darby, PA 19082.

PARCEL No. 16-05-00715-00.

BEING the same premises which Kevin O. Brown and Jeanie Brown, son and mother, by Deed dated 10/28/2002 and re-corded 11/25/2002 in the Recorder’s Office of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, granted and conveyed unto Henry Soeh Kpou and Areminta McCloud.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: dwell-ing.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Henry Soeh Kpou and Areminta McCloud.


Louis P. Vitti, Attorney


No. 006190 58. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, hereditaments and appurtenances, SITUATE in the Bor-ough of Sharon Hill, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania, described ac-cording to a Survey and Plan thereof made by Damon & Foster, Civil Engineers on 10/17/1923 and described as follows, to wit:

SITUATE on the Northwest side of Marshall Road at the distance of 124.36 feet Southwestwardly from a point on the Northwest side of said Marshall Road where the Northwesternmost point of the Southwesterly line of Barry Avenue (40 feet wide) intersects the said Northwesterly side of Marshall Road.

CONTAINING in front or breadth on the said Marshall Road 18 feet and extending of that width in length or depth Northwest-ward between parallel lines at right angles to the said Marshall Road 75 feet to the Southeasterly line of the right of way of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad including on the rear thereof the soil of a certain 3 feet wide alley which extends Southwestward and Northeastward.

TITLE to said premises vested in Nichole S. Ritz, as sole owner by Deed from Joseph Providence dated February 28, 2006 and recorded on March 3, 2006 in the Delaware County Recorder of Deeds in Book 3742, page 1924 as Instrument No. 2006021823.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Nichole S. Ritz.




No. 006797 59. 2016


Property in the Folcroft Borough, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania.

Front: 30 Depth: 98

BEING Premises: 116 Folcroft Avenue, Folcroft, PA 19032-1010.



56

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Brian L. Marshall.




No. 1471 60. 2016


Property in Chester City, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.

Front: 60 Depth: 87

BEING Premises: 215 Gray Street, Chester, PA 19013-4907.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: An-twain Bullock.




No. 3944 61. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN parcel of land situ-ate on the Easterly side of Redwood Street at the distance of 202.02 feet Northwardly from Beeson Avenue in the Township of Upper Chichester, County of Delaware and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

CONTAINING in front on the said Red-wood Street measured thence Northwardly 35 feet more or less and extending in depth Eastwardly continuing the same width 87 feet more or less on the Southerly line and 84 feet more or less along the Northerly line to lands of Vincent Massey and containing in the rear along the last mentioned lands 35.12 feet more or less.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Ronald E. Cox, Jr.


Powers, Kirn & Associates, LLC, Attorneys


No. 006385 62. 2016


Property in the City of Chester, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on the Northeasterly corner of Highland Avenue and Tenth Street.


BEING Premises: 1001 Highland Av-enue, Chester, PA 19013.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Larry Carter.





57

No. 10501 63. 2015


Property in Lansdowne Borough, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 41 Berkley Avenue, Lansdowne, PA 19050-1324.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Marci Taylor a/k/a Marci Krufka.




No. 008255B 64. 2013


Property in the Borough of East Lans-downe, County of Delaware, Common-wealth of PA on the Westerly side of Wildwood Avenue.


BEING Premises: 156 Wildwood Avenue, Lansdowne, PA 19050.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Zyheem D. Miller.




No. 6093 66. 2015


PREMISES A

ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of land Situate in the Borough of Glenolden, in the County of Delaware and State of Pennsyl-vania, designated and known as lot No. 57 on Plan of ‘Warwick Annex’ Surveyed for Wood, Harmon and Company by Joseph H. Young, Civil Engineers, recorded in the Office for the Recording of Deeds etc., in and for the County of Delaware aforesaid, in Deed Book P-8 page 624 and described as follows, to wit:

SITUATE on the Northeasterly side of Isabel Avenue (40 feet wide) at the distance of 375 feet Southeastwardly from the South-westerly side of Glen Avenue (40 feet wide).

CONTAINING in front or breadth on the said Northeasterly side of Isabel Avenue 25 feet and extending of that width in length or depth Northeastwardly between lines parallel with said Isabel Avenue 100 feet.

PREMISES B

ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of land with the two and one half story frame and stucco dwelling thereon erected, situate on the Northeasterly side of Isabel Avenue at the distance of 400 feet measured South-eastwardly from the Southeasterly corner of the said Isabel Avenue and Glen Avenue in the Borough of Glenolden, in the County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.

CONTAINING in front or breadth along the Northeasterly side of Isabel Avenue measured South 24 degrees 6 minutes East, 25 feet and extending in depth of that width between parallel lines at right angles North 65 degrees 54 minutes degrees East, 100 feet the Southeasterly line of said lot passing thorough the middle of the party wall between these premises herein described and the messuage adjoining on the Southeast.

BOUNDED on the Northeast by lands now or late of Bert R. Parker, and on the Southeast by lands now or late of Dorothy E. Swartley.


58

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: a residential property.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Jean M. Manspeaker.




No. 2407 67. 2016


Property in Nether Providence Town-ship, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.

Front: 85.35’ Depth: 61.66’

BEING Premises: 708 Hartford Court, Wallingford, PA 19086-7015.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Julie Bossler and Unknown heirs, successors, assigns and all persons, firms or associa-tions claiming right, title or interest from or under Bridie Frescoln a/k/a Bridie Ann Coan, deceased.




No. 006025 68. 2016


Property in Ridley Township, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.

Front: 57.98’ Depth: 109.45’

and

Front: 41’ Depth: 119’

BEING Premises: 526 Morton Avenue, Folsom, PA 19033-2726.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: David A. Wright and Cynthia G. Wright.




No. 006908 69. 2016


Property in Ridley Park Borough, Coun-ty of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 307 Michell Street, Ridley Park, PA 19078-3611.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Damon P. Blizzard.





59

No. 004531A 71. 2015

MONEY JUDGMENT

ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of land with the one and one-half story frame bungalow and IMPROVEMENTS thereon erected, hereditaments and appurtenances, Situate in the Township of Lower Chi-chester, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point the intersection of the Southeasterly side of a 20 feet wide street the Northwesterly line of which said street runs parallel with Ridge Avenue and 20 feet Southeastwardly from same with the Southwesterly side of the said Yates Avenue.

CONTAINING in front along the North-easterly side of the said 20 feet wide street measured; thence Southwestwardly 55 feet and extending in depth Southeastwardly along the Southwesterly side of the said Yates Avenue, 135 feet to the Northwesterly side of a 20 feet wide alley.

BOUNDED on the Southwest by lands now or late of Judith Emma Devonshire.

ALSO ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of land, hereditaments and appurtenances, situate in the Township of Lower Chi-chester, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point on the South-easterly side of a 20 feet wide street, the Northwesterly line of which said street runs parallel with and at the rectangular distance of 20 feet Southeastwardly from the Southeasterly side of Ridge Road, said point being at the distance of 80 feet Northeastwardly from the line of lands now or late of the Estate of Edwin R. Morton, deceased, and a corner of lands now or late of Frances Jane Berg; extending thence Southeastwardly by lands now or late of said Frances Jane Berg on a line parallel with lands now or late of the said Estate of Edwin R. Morton, deceased, 130 feet to a point a corner of lands now or late of Leon W. Syfrit; thence Northeastwardly by last mentioned lands on a line parallel with said street 60 feet to another corner of lands now or late of said Leon W. Syfrit; thence still by the same Northwestwardly on a line parallel with lands now or late of said Estate of Edwin R. Morton, deceased, 130 feet to the Southeasterly side of said 20 feet wide street and thence Southwestwardly by the Southeasterly side of said street 60 feet to the first mentioned point and place of beginning.

TOGETHER with the right and use of said alley in common with the owners of other lands abutting thereon.

Tax ID/Parcel No. 08-00-00941-00 and 08-00-0942-00.

BEING the same premises which Daniel W. Bonaventure and Winifred Bonaven-ture, his wife by Deed dated 09/06/1985 and recorded 9/20/1985 in Delaware County in Volume 270 page 1401 conveyed unto Christy Sitaras and Kaliopi Sitaras, his wife, in fee.

And the said Kaliopi Sitaras, also known as Kaliopi Sitaris died on May 6, 2019.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: n/a.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Irene Maltezos, M&M Capital Investments, LLC.


Michael LaRosa, Attorney



60

No. 2705 72. 2016



Property in the Borough of Folcroft, County of Delaware, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 514 Dalmas Avenue, Folcroft, PA 19032.

Folio Number: 20-00-00451-00.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Wil-liam Kane.




No. 7390 73. 2016


Property in the Borough of Glenolden, County of Delaware, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Condo Unit A-9

BEING Premises: 100 East Glenolden Avenue, Apt A9, Glenolden, PA 19036-2255.

Parcel No. 21-00-00899-09.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Bryan Arena.




No. 6870 74. 2016


Property in the Darby Township, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania.

Front: 16 ft Depth: 120 ft

BEING Premises: 717 Oakwood Drive, Glenolden, PA 19036-1611.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Michael Macchia.




No. 5877 75. 2016


Property in the Upper Darby Township, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania on the Southeasterly side of 68th Street. (68th Street is now called Kent Road)

BEING Folio No. 16-01-00750-00.

BEING Premises: 413 Kent Road, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania 19082.



61

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Kathryn A. Meloni, Administratrix of the Estate of Mary O. Rush.




No. 20332D 76. 2006


Property in the Township of Ridley, County of Delaware and State of Pennsyl-vania on the Northeasterly side of Quaint Street.

BEING Folio No. 38-04-01711-00.

BEING Premises: 856 Quaint St. Clifton Heights, Pennsylvania 19018.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Susan Kaminsky.




No. 1779 77. 2016



Property in Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 1213 Cobbs Street, Drexel Hill, PA 19026.

Folio Number: 16-08-00820-00.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Chris-topher M. Amadio.




No. 8418 78. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, Situate in the Township of Upper Darby, County of Dela-ware and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, described according to a plan and survey thereof made by A.F. Damo, Jr., Township Engineer, on January 13, 1922 and recorded at Media, in Deed Book No. 404 page 624 as follows, to wit:

SITUATE on the Southeasterly side of State Road (fifty feet wide) at the distance of two hundred eighty one and thirty four one hundredths feet Northeastwardly from the Northeasterly side of West Chester Turnpike (sixty feet wide).

CONTAINING in front or breadth on the said State Road sixteen feet and extending of that width on length or depth South-eastwardly between parallel lines at right angles to the said State Road one hundred feet to a certain ten feet wide driveway ex-tending Northeastwardly into Delco Road.

BEING No. 29 North State Road.

TOGETHER with free and common use right, liberty and privilege of the above mentioned ten feet wide driveways as and for a passageway and water course at all times hereafter forever.


62


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Andrew Kleiman.




No. 006771 79. 2016


Property in Upper Darby Township, County of Delaware and State of Penn-sylvania.


BEING Premises: 167 Powell Lane, Up-per Darby, PA 19082-3323.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Keith Jones.




No. 1984 80. 2016


Property in Morton Borough, County of Delaware and State of PA.


BEING Premises: 214 Pennington Av-enue, Morton, PA 19070.

Parcel No. 29-00-00479-00.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Curtis D. Richardson and Venice A. Richardson.




No. 2353A 81. 2016


Property in the Borough of Folcroft, County of Delaware and in State of Penn-sylvania.

BEING Folio No. 20-00-00511-00.

BEING Premises: 2111 Delmar Drive, Folcroft, Pennsylvania 19032.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: William H. Perez.




No. 5452 82. 2016


Property in the Township of Darby, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania on the Northwest corner of Beech Avenue.

BEING Folio No. 15-00-00497-00.

BEING Premises: 1001 Beech Avenue, Glenolden, Pennsylvania 19036.


63


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Patricia A. Maffei.




No. 9566 83. 2015


Property in the Township of Upper Chichester, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.

BEING more commonly known as: 751 Burdett Drive, Aston, PA 19014.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Thomas R. Baney, Jr. and Karen L. Baney.


Bradley J. Osborne, Esquire, Attorney


No. 9767 84. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, Situate in the Township of Springfield, County of Dela-ware and State of Pennsylvania, described according to a Plan of Subdivision made for George S. Milne, Jr., by George Lewis, Registered Surveyor, Drexel Hill, PA on August 19, 1964, and revised September 26, 1964, as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at spike in the center line of Beatty Road (33 feet wide) at the distance of 880.26 feet, more or less, meas-ured Westwardly along said center line from its intersection with the center line of Chester Road; thence extending from said beginning point and along the center line of Beatty Road South 47 degrees 17 minutes West 30 feet to a point; thence leaving said center line and extending along other land now late of George S. Milne, Jr., et ux, the 4 following courses and distances: (1) North 42 degrees 43 minutes West 188 feet to a point, (2) South 47 degrees 17 minutes West 35 feet to a point, (3) North 42 degrees 43 minutes West 63.78 feet to a point, and (4) South 47 degrees 17 minutes East 59.05 feet to a point in line of land now or late of S. Franklin Pancoast; thence extending along said land the 2 following courses and distances: (1) North 42 degrees 30 minutes West 39.77 feet to a point and (2) North 47 degrees 17 minutes East 277.16 feet to a point; thence extending South 42 degrees 43 minutes East 103.55 feet to a point; thence extending South 47 degrees 17 minutes West 153.26 feet to a point; thence extend-ing South 42 degrees 43 minutes East 188 feet to the first mentioned point and place of beginning.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: David Foody.




No. 002036 85. 2016






64

BEING Premises: 1119 Agnew Drive, Drexel Hill, PA 19026.

Folio Number: 16-08-00075-00.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Law-rence Startzell a/k/a Larry Startzell.




No. 1257 86. 2016


Property in Lansdowne Borough, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 39 Schappet Terrace, Lansdowne, PA 19050.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Kathryn Poet a/k/a Kathryn Quinlan.




No. 006362 87. 2016



Square ft: 3,840

BEING Premises: 3827 Sommers Av-enue, Drexel Hill, PA 19026.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Davyd Jacobs.




No. 003201 88. 2016


Property in Chester City, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 822 West 3rd Street, Chester, PA 19013-3603.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: La-monte Dawson a/k/a Lamont Dawson.




No. 10665 89. 2015


Property in Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on the Southeasterly side of South Brighton Avenue.



65

BEING Premises: 63 South Brighton Avenue, Upper Darby, PA 19082.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Johnny Norman.




No. 8742 90. 2015


Property in the Township of Concord, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on the Southwesterly side of Annesley Drive.


BEING Premises: 22 Annesley Drive, Glen Mills, PA 19342.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: RFB Philadelphia Properties LLC.




No. 5701 91. 2016


Property in the Township of Upper Chichester, County of Delaware and in the State of Pennsylvania.

BEING Folio No. 09-00-00098-00.

BEING Premises: 1101 Beeson Avenue, Boothwyn, Pennsylvania 19061.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Sean A. Salmon and Jacquelyn A. Salmon.




No. 003563 92. 2016


Property in the Borough of Clifton Heights, County of Delaware, and State of PA on the North side of Berkley Avenue.

Front: irregular Depth: irregular

BEING Premises: 203 E. Berkley Av-enue, Clifton Heights, PA 19018.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: one and one-half story single dwelling.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Francis J. Rich, III.




No. 001903 93. 2016


Property in Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on the Southerly side of Carol Boulevard.



66

BEING Premises: 221 South Carol Boul-evard, Upper Darby, PA 19082.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Charles Colfer and Lelia J. Colfer.




No. 3820 94. 2016


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground, with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, Situate in the Borough of Yeadon, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania and described ac-cording to a survey thereof, made by Damon & Foster, Civil Engineers of Sharon Hill, Pennsylvania on 11/7/1937 as follows:

SITUATE on the Northeasterly side of Arbor Avenue (40 feet wide), at the dis-tance of of 55 feet Southeastwardly from the Southeasterly side of Myra Avenue (50 feet wide).

CONTAINING in front or breadth on said Arbor Avenue, 27.5 feet and extending of that width in length or depth between parallel lines at right angles to said Arbor Avenue, Northeastwardly, 115 feet.

TOGETHER with the free and common use, right, liberty and privilege of a certain 12.5 feet wide driveway as and for a drive-way and passageway at all times hereafter forever, in common with the owners, ten-ants and occupiers of the other lots abutting thereon at all times hereafter forever.

SUBJECT to the proportionate part of the expense of keeping the same in good order and repair.

BEING the same premises which Ome-lia Brown by Deed dated 06/23/2000 and recorded 06/30/2000 in Delaware County in Volume 2031 page 761 conveyed unto Mildred D. Pettyjohn, in fee.

BEING Folio No. 48-00-00080-00.

BEING 505 Arbor Road, Yeadon, Bor-ough, Pennsylvania.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Mildred D. Pettyjohn.


Pressman & Doyle, LLC, Attorneys


No. 8776 95. 2015


Property in Clifton Heights Borough, County of Delaware, and State of Penn-sylvania.


BEING Premises: 113 West Berkley Avenue, Clifton Heights, PA 19018-2534.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Andrew J. Donohue a/k/a Andrew J. Donohue, III, Christine Donohue a/k/a Christine Noel Pettit Donohue.





67

No. 006072 96. 2016


Property in the Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware, and State of PA on the Southwesterly line of Upland Way and Southwesterly side of Lombardy Road.


BEING Premises: 322 Lombardy Road, Drexel Hill, PA 19026.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: two story dwelling.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Nasir M. Alvi a/k/a Nasir Alvi and Huma Nasir a/k/a Huma Alvi.




No. 542 97. 2016


Property in the Norwood Borough, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 506 Mohawk Avenue, Norwood, PA 19074.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Mad-elyn Watts.




No. 004807 98. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, Hereditaments and Appurtenances, Situate in the the Borough of Folcroft, County of Delaware and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, de-scribed according to a Plan of a portion of Delmar Village made for John McClatchy by H. Gilroy Damon Associates, Inc., Civil Engineers, on May 4, 1971 last revised Au-gust 9, 1971, as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point on the Southwest side of School Lane (65 feet wide) meas ured the 2 following courses and distances from a point of curve on the Northwest side of Taylor Drive (60 feet wide) viz: (1) along the arc of a circle curving to the left having a ra-dius of 25 feet the arc distance of 39.27 feet to a point of tangent on the Southwest side of School Lane (65 feet wide); and (2) along the same North 29 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds West 421 feet to the place of begin-ning, a corner of Lot No. 21; thence along the same partly through a party wall South 60 degrees 6 minutes 30 seconds West 105 feet to a point; thence North 29 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds West 25 feet to a corner of Lot No. 23; thence along the same North 60 degrees 6 minutes 30 seconds East 105 feet to a point on the Southwest side of School lane, aforesaid; thence extending along same; South 29 degrees 53 minutes 30 seconds East 25 feet to the first above mentioned point and place of beginning.

BEING Lot No. 22 on the above men-tioned plan.

BEING Folio No. 20-00-01253-50.

BEING 836 School Lane, Folcroft Bor-ough, PA.



68

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Kirk N. Pavoni.


Michael S. Bloom, Esquire, Attorney


No. 007010 99. 2015


Property in the Folcroft Borough, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on the Northwesterly side of Delmar Drive.


BEING Premises: 1726 Delmar Drive, Folcroft, PA 19032.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Sally E. Deveney, Apryl Wagner, solely in her capac-ity as heir of Ellis Stringfellow, deceased, Alleen Serody Solely in her capacity as heir of Ellis Stringfellow, deceased, Gabrielle Ri-vera f/k/a Gabrielle Arce solely in her capac-ity as heir of Ellis Stringfellow, deceased, Drew Stringfellow solely in his capacity as heir of Ellis Stringfellow, deceased, Sean Stringfellow, solely in his capacity as heir of Ellis Stringfellow, deceased and Marian Stringfellow a/k/a Marian L. Stringfellow.




No. 003804 100. 2016




BEING Premises: 929 Galbreath Avenue a/k/a 929 Galbraith Avenue, Upper Chi-chester, PA 19061-3515.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Vincent A. Sbandi a/k/a Vincent A. Sbandi, Jr. a/k/a Vincent Sbandi and Marie Sbandi a/k/a Marie K. Sbandi.




No. 011111 101. 2015


Property in the Darby Township, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 1043 Cedarwood Road, Glenolden, PA 19036-1534.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Anita E. McDevitt.




No. 4423 102. 2015


Property in Marple Township, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.


69

Front: 358’ Depth: 265’ IRR

BEING Premises: 1150 Cedar Grove Road, Broomall, PA 19008-1602.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Barbara Lagos.




No. 6947 103. 2016


Property in Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on the Northwest side of Long Lane.


BEING Premises: 244 Long Lane Upper Darby, PA 19082.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Rigat B. Fissehaye.




No. 04356 104. 2016


Property in Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on the Southwesterly side of Fairfax Road.


BEING Premises: 854 Fairfax Road, Drexel Hill, PA 19026.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Joseph Mischler a/k/a Joseph Mischler, Jr.




No. 002172D 105. 2010


Property in Upper Darby Township, County of Delaware, and State of Penn-sylvania.


BEING Premises: 333 Lincoln Avenue, Lansdowne, PA 19050-1038.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: El-chardo Browne and Marva Browne.




No. 006392 106. 2016


Property in Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware, Commonwealth of PA on the Northeasterly side of Huntley Road.



70

BEING Premises: 315 Huntley Road, Upper Darby, PA 19082.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Karen Simmons.




No. 003670A 107. 2015



Property in the Borough of Marcus Hook, County of Delaware and State of PA.


BEING Premises: 12 East 8th Street, Marcus Hook, PA 19061.

Folio Number: 24-00-00158-00.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Andrea Chipolla and Unknown Heirs, Successors, Assigns and all Persons, Firms or Associa-tions claiming right, title or interest from of under John J. Chipolla, deceased.




No. 004511F 108. 2012





BEING Premises: 136 Westdale Road, Upper Darby, PA 19082.

Folio Number: 16-06-01317-00.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: John Bedard and Agnes Bedard.




No. 6607A 109. 2015



Property in the Borough of Folcroft, County of Delaware, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 731 Bennington Av-enue, Folcroft, PA 19032.

Folio Number: 20-00-00098-00.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Carolyn Morgan and Ray Morgan.





71

No. 0070021 110. 2016


Property in Eddystone Borough, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 724 Ashland Avenue, Crum Lynne, PA 19022-1440.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Joyce-lyn F. Gillespie.




No. 007240 111. 2016




BEING Premises: 654 Cherrytree Road a/k/a 654 Cherry Tree Road, Upper Chi-chester, PA 19014.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Sylvia M. Good.




No. 3173 112. 2016


Property in the Borough of Morton, County of Delaware and State of Penn-sylvania.

BEING Parcel/Folio No. 29-00-00386-00.

BEING Premises: 49 S. Morton Avenue, Morton, PA 19070.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Joseph R. Bellesorte and Magdalena C. Bellesorte.


Bradley J. Osborne, Esquire, Attorney


No. 002863A 113. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground, Situate in the Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania as shown on Plan of Lots of Peter S. Mozino, made by Damon and Foster, Civil Engineers, Sharon Hill, PA, dated 12/28/1947 and last revised 3/19/1948 bounded and described as follows:

BEGINNING at a point in the North-easterly side of Blythe Avenue as laid out (40 feet wide) at the distance of 141 feet measured South 16 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds East from the intersection of the said side of Blythe Avenue, produced with the Southeasterly side of Rosemont Avenue as laid out 50 feet wide, produced; thence leaving the said side of Blythe Avenue, North 73 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 119.14 feet to a point; thence South 26 degrees 54 minutes 28 seconds East 25.41 feet to a point; thence South 73 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds West 123.61 feet to a point in the said side of Blythe Avenue; thence along the said side of Blythe Avenue, North 16 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds East 23 feet to the first mentioned point and place of BEGINNING.


72

BEING Lot No. 35.

TITLE to said premises vested in Paul K. Pietrini by Deed from Jaclyn Egan dated June 10, 2010 and recorded on June 11, 2010 in the Delaware County Recorder of Deeds in Book 04753, page 1890 as Instru-ment No. 2010031646.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Paul K. Pietrini.




No. 2484 114. 2016


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, Situate in the Borough of Lansdowne, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania, aforesaid and bounded and described according to a recent survey thereof made by Thomas G. Janvier, C.E. as follows:

BEGINNING at a point in the center of Madison Avenue (as laid out 30 feet wide) said point being 250.37 feet North 77 degrees 12 minutes East from the center of Lansdowne Avenue (as laid out 50 feet wide) and said Madison Avenue; thence by property No. 17 Madison Avenue North 10 degrees 13 minutes West 113.08 feet to a point; thence by land of the Bell Telephone Company North 77 degrees 12 minutes West 49.04 feet; thence by property No. 25 Madison Avenue the three following courses and distances: (1) South 7 degrees 50 min-utes East 52.09 feet, (2) South 13 degrees 43 minutes East 31 feet passing through the middle of a double stone dwelling, and (3) South 12 degrees 6 minutes East 30 feet to the center of Madison Avenue on the arc by the same South 77 degrees 12 minutes West 50 feet to the first mentioned point and place of beginning.

TITLE to said premises vested in Fer-nando Press by Deed from Clifton A. John-son dated November 24, 2009 and recorded on December 4, 2009 in the Delaware County Recorder of Deeds in Book 4666, page 1424, under Instrument 2009080858.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Fer-nando Press.




No. 3011 115. 2016


Property in the Township of Spring-field, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania on the Southwesterly side of Springfield Road.

BEING Folio No. 42-00-06340-00.

BEING Premises: 422 East Springfield Road, Springfield, Pennsylvania 19064.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Kath-leen A. Booth.





73

No. 003982 116. 2016


Property in Newtown Township, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 116 Northwood Road, Newtown Square, PA 19073-4327.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Harry J. Patterson, IV and Maria T. Patterson a/k/a Maria T. Russo Patterson.




No. 10343A 117. 2015


Property in the Township of Upper Chichester, County of Delaware and State of PA.

Front: 18.44 ft Depth: 128 ft

BEING Premises: 628 Johnson Avenue, Upper Chichester, PA 19061.

Parcel Nos. 09-00-01652-00.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Shelley Hampel a/k/a Shelley Stewart-Spannbauer.


Stern & Eisenberg, PC, Attorneys Jessica Manis, Attorney


No. 9894 118. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of land with the buildings and IMPROVEMENTS thereon erected, Situate in the Borough of Upland, County of Delaware and Com-monwealth of Pennsylvania, and described according to a survey thereto by Chester F. Baker, Borough Surveyor dated November 17th, 1932, as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point at the intersec-tion of the Southwesterly side of Eighth Street and the Northwesterly side of Up-land Avenue; thence by the Northwesterly side of Upland Avenue South 59 degrees 25 minutes 30 seconds West 56.07 feet to lands now or late of Protection Building and Loan Association No. 2 of Philadelphia; thence by said land North 48 degrees 6 minutes 55 seconds West 102.59 feet to lands now or late of Elizabeth G. Mills; thence by said lands, North 32 degrees 33 minutes 25 seconds East 41.15 feet to the Southwest-erly side of Eighth Street; thence by said side of Eighth Street South 57 degrees 18 minutes East 7 19 feet to a point of curve; thence still by said street line and on an arc of a curve to the left in a Southeasterly direction and having a radius of 857.06 feet the arc distance of 109.45 feet to a point of reverse curve; thence on an arc of a curve to the right in a Southeasterly and South-westerly direction and having a radius of 10 feet the arc distance of 21.54 feet to a point of tangency with the Northwesterly side of Upland Avenue, being the place of beginning.

EXCEPTING thereof and thereout from the above described:

ALL THAT CERTAIN parcel of land situate in the Borough of Upland, County of Delaware and Commonwealth of Penn-sylvania, bounded and described as follows, according to a survey and plan thereof dated September 8, 1964 prepared by Catania En-gineering Associates, Inc., Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Chester, Penna, to wit:


74

BEGINNING at a point of tangent the intersection of the Southwesterly side of Eighth Street and the Northwesterly side of Upland Avenue; thence (1) along the said side of Upland Avenue South 59 degrees 23 minutes 30 seconds West 9.34 feet to a point; thence (2) Northeasterly, Northerly and Northwesterly along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 15 feet for a distance of 32.30 feet to a point on a curve along the Southwesterly side of Eighth Street; thence (3) Southeasterly along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 857.06 feet for a distance of 9.37 feet to a point of reverse curve; thence (4) South-easterly, Southerly, and Southwesterly along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 10 feet, for a distance of 21.64 feet to the first mentioned point and place of beginning.

FOLIO No. 47-00-00482-00

Premises: 400 Upland Avenue, Upland, Pennsylvania 19015.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: Com-mercial 1 story Bldg, 66 x 177.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Gary F. Timmes, Jr.


Charles N. Shurr, Jr., Esquire, Attorney


No. 6907 119. 2016




BEING Premises: 154 Normandy Road, Upper Darby, PA 19082-4805.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Mortoza H. Mukul.




No. 007710 120. 2016


Property in the Borough of Collingdale, County of Delaware, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.


BEING Premises: 204 Staley Avenue, Collingdale, PA 19023-1802.

Parcel No. 11-00-02730-00.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Tressa M. Disylvestro.




No. 7171 121. 2016


Property in Aldan Borough, County of Delaware and State of PA.


BEING Premises: 123 Beech Avenue, Clifton Heights, PA 19018.

Parcel No. 01-00-00149-00.


75


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Karen L. Ianieri and Thomas J. Ianieri.




No. 009338A 122. 2014


All THOSE CERTAIN lots or pieces of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, Situate in the Township of Ridley, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania, being known and designated as Lots Nos. 25 and 26 on the Plan of Amosland Terrace described and/more fully as follows:

BEGINNING at a point on the South-easterly side of Franklin Avenue at the distance of ten hundred fifty-one (1051) feet measured Northeastwardly from the Northeasterly side of Amosland Road,

CONTAINING in front or breadth along the Southeasterly side of the said Franklin Avenue measured Northeastwardly one hundred (100’) feet and extending of that width in length or depth Southeastwardly between parallel lines at right angles to the said Franklin Avenue one hundred fifty (150’) feet.

Parcel Number: 38-04-00896-00.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Latrell Taylor and Malika Taylor.




No. 6320 123. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, Situate in Marple Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, described according to a Plan of Hillview Section 2, made by Damon and Foster, Civil Engineers, Sharon Hill, Pennsylva-nia, dated August 20, 1952, and revised September 11, 1952, as follows:

BEGINNING at a point on the South-easterly side of Sylvan Drive (50 feet wide) at the arc distance of 85.82 feet measured on a line curing to the right having a radius of 650 feet from a point of reverse curve in same, which point of reverse curve is at the arc distance of 37.42 feet measured on a line curving to the left having a radius of 25 feet from a point of tangent on the Southwesterly side of Hillview Road (50 feet wide); thence extending from said begin-ning point South 51 degrees, 5 minutes, 14 seconds East 123.07 feet to a point; thence extending South 62 degrees, 54 minutes East 96.44 feet to a point; thence extending South 46 degrees, 32 minutes, 10 seconds West 122.36 feet to a point; thence extend-ing North 44 degrees, 17 minutes, 2 seconds West 207.27 feet to a point on the said Southeasterly side of Sylvan Drive; thence extending along same on a line curving to the left having a radius of 650 feet the arc distance of 77.18 feet to the first mentioned point and place of beginning.

BEING known as Lot No. 118 on said Plan, House No. 125 Sylvan Drive.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Helen O. Vasquez, individually and as Adminis-tratrix of the Estate of Phyllis Vasquez, deceased.





76

No. 8778A 124. 2015



Property in the Borough of Clifton Heights, County of Delaware and State of PA.


BEING Premises: 328 Prospect Avenue, Clifton Heights, PA 19018.

Folio Number: 10-00-01636-00 & 10-00-01009-01.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Wil-liam Ramey.




No. 9702 125. 2015


504 Maple Wood Avenue Wayne, PA 19087

Property in the Township of Radnor, County of Delaware and State of Penn-sylvania.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Dorothy Wright, individually, and as known heir of Oakley Wright a/k/a Oakley S. Wright, Jes-sica Wright, known heir of Oakley Wright a/k/a Oakley S. Wright, Kharma Wright, known heir of Oakley Wright a/k/a Oakley S. Wright, Laurie Swygert, known heir of Oakley Wright a/k/a Oakley S Wright, Lisa Henry, known heir of Oakley Wright a/k/a Oakley S. Wright, Oakley Wright, Jr., known heir of Oakley Wright a/k/a Oakley S. Wright, Robert Wright, known heir of Oakley Wright a/k/a Oakley S. Wright, Stephanie Serious, known heir of Oakley Wright a/k/a Oakley S. Wright, unknown heirs, successors, assigns and all persons, firms, or associations claiming right, title or interest from or under Oakley Wright a/k/a Oakley S. Wright, Wesley Wright, known heir of Oakley Wright a/k/a Oakley S. Wright.




No. 006793 126. 2016


ALL THE RIGHT, title, interest and claim of Carl E. Henderson and Susan V. Henderson of, in and to the following described property:

ALL the following described real estate situated in the Township of Haverford, Delaware County, Pennsylania, Having erected thereon a dwelling known and num-bered as 101 Clemson Road, Bryn Mawr, PA 19010. DBV 1565, page 0499 and Folio No. 22-05-00161-00.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: single family dwelling.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Carl E. Henderson and Susan V. Henderson.


Kristine M. Anthou, Attorney



77

No. 03828C 127. 2014


Real Property: 251 Crum Creek Road, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Tax Par-cel No. 35-00-00270-01.

ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, SITUATE in the Township of Upper Providence, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania, bounded and described according to a sub-division plan thereof known as “Turkington Tract” made by Brandywine Valley Engi-neers, Inc., dated 1-30-1985 and last revised 7-8-1985 and recorded in Plan Volume No. 14 page 233 , as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point on the title line in the bed of Crum Creek Road said point also marking a corner of Lot No. 3 on said plan, thence from said beginning point along the title line in the bed of Crum Creek Road, North 40 degrees, 55 minutes, 26 seconds West, 51.71 feet to a point, thence leaving the bed of Crum Creek Road, crossing the Northeasterly side of thereof and along Lot No. 2 on said plan, North 63 degrees, 51 minutes, 45 seconds East, 25.06 feet to an iron pipe, thence South 40 degrees, 55 minutes, 26 seconds East, 13.00 feet to a point, thence North 42 degrees 46 minutes 14 seconds East 23.81 feet to a point, thence North 60 degrees 53 minutes East, 77.00 feet to a point, thence North 85 degrees 23 minutes 15 seconds East, 126.84 feet to an iron pipe; thence along Lot No. 5 on said plan crossing a 20.00 feet wide proposed sanitary sewer easement on said plan, North 46 degrees, 8 minutes, 14 seconds East, 193.31 feet to a point at or near the side of Crum Creek, thence along or near the same four (4) following courses and distances (1) South 50 degrees, 11 min-utes, 26 seconds East, 162.40 feet to a point thence (2) South 06 degrees, 07 minutes, 26 seconds East, 46.68 feet to a point, thence (3) South 31 degrees, 07 minutes, 53 sec-onds West, 61.87 feet to a point, thence (4) South 81 degrees, 50 minutes, 53 seconds West, 92.86 feet to a point, thence along Lot No. 3 on said plan, the three (3) following courses with distances, (1) recrossing the bed of said proposed 20.00 feet wide sani-tary sewer easement, (1) North 77 degrees, 34 minutes, 13 seconds West, 123.75 feet to a point, thence (2) North 79 degrees, 01 minutes, 18 seconds West, 94.81 feet to an iron pipe, thence (3) South 68 degrees, 51 minutes, 45 seconds West, 154.81 feet recrossing the Southeasterly side of Crum Creek Road to the first mentioned point and place of beginning.

CONTAINING 46,770 square feet more or less.

BEING Lot No. 4 on said plan.

Folio No. 35-00-00270-01.

BEING the same lands and premises which Paul A. Ringiewicz and Margaret M. Ringiewicz, by Deed dated December 12, 1996 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Delaware County Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on December 27, 1996 did grant and convey unto Margaret M. Ringiewicz, in fee.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: a dwelling.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Mar-garet M. McGreevy a/k/a Margaret M. Ringiewicz.


Bonnie R. Golub, Esquire, Attorney


No. 000577 128. 2016


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected, Situate in the Borough of Yeadon, County of Delaware, and State of Pennsylvania, bounded and described according to a certain Plan and Survey thereof made by Damon & Foster, Civil Engineers, dated July 13, 1927, as follows, to wit:


78

BEGINNING at a point on the South-westerly side of Cypress Street (40 feet wide) at the distance of 210 feet Southeast-wardly from the Southeasterly side of Myra Avenue (50 feet wide), thence extending South 64 degrees 58 minutes 40 seconds West 115 feet to a point, thence extending South 25 degrees 1 minute 20 seconds East 25 feet to a point, thence extending North 64 degrees 58 minutes 40 seconds East, passing through the middle of a party wall 115 feet to a point in the Southwesterly side of said Cypress Street, thence extending along the same North 25 degrees 1 minute 20 seconds West 25 feet to the first men-tioned point and place of beginning.

BEING known as Parcel Number 48-00-01178-00.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Lisa A. Lloyd.




No. 6644A 129. 2015


ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground with the buildings and IMPROVE-MENTS thereon erected,

SITUATE in the Township of Upper Darby, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania, consisting of part of Lot No. 1750 and all of Lots Nos. 1751 and 1752, Aronimink Section, Plan of Drexel Hill Realty Company recorded at Media in the Office for the Recording of Deeds in and for the County or Delaware in Plan Case No. 2, page 11, as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point on the South-west side of Foss Avenue (50 feet wide) at the distance of 767 feet Northwest from the Northwest side of Highland Avenue (50 feet wide); thence extending along the Southwest side of Foss Avenue North 25 degrees 2 minutes West, 68.52 feet to a point; thence extending South 70 degrees 14 minutes 5 seconds West, 100.40 feet to a point; thence extending South 25 degrees 2 minutes East, 77.74 feet to a point; thence extending North 64 degrees 58 minutes East, 100 feet to the fist mentioned point and place of beginning.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Janice A. Rafferty.




No. 4823 130. 2016

MONEY JUDGMENT

Folio Nos. 49-06-01048-00 and 49-06-01049-00.

PARCEL ONE

ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of land, together with any IMPROVEMENTS erected thereon if any, situate on the East-erly side of Penn Street at the distance of 251.5 feet Northwardly from the Northeast-erly corner of said Penn Street and Fifth Street, in the City of Chester in the County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.


79

CONTAINING in front measured thence Northwardly along the Easterly side of the said Penn Street 19 feet and extending of that width in length or depth Eastwardly between parallel lines at right angles to the said Penn Street 100 feet the Southerly line of said lot passing through the middle of the party wall between the dwelling hereby conveyed and the dwelling adjoining on the South (now removed). Bounded on the North and East by lands of the McCausland Engineering Company formerly belonging to Edward B. Dorsett and on the South by lands late of J. Irvin Taylor.

BEING 529 Penn Street, City of Chester and BEING Delaware County Folio No. 49-06-01048-00.

PARCEL TWO

ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of land with the building and IMPROVEMENTS thereon erected, Situate in the City of Chester in the County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania and bounded and described as follows, to wit:

BEGINNING at a point on the Easterly sid of Penn Street at the distance of 270.5 feet Northwardly from the Northeasterly corner of the said Penn Street and Fifth Street a corner of lands of Margaret E. Grundy; extending thence Eastwardly by said lands on a line at right angles to the said Penn Street 100 feet to a point another corner of said lands; thence Southwardly by the said lands and by lands of Anna C. Mortland, lands of Rebecca H. Raxly, lands of Russell W. Benake, lands of William J. Farley, lands of Charles W. Hendrixson and Joanne his wife, lands of Albert A. Husson and Gussle G. his wife, and lands of R. Reymonds Milbourne and Florence L. his wife, on a line parallel with the said Penn Street 150 feet to a point a corner of lands of William H. Turner; thence Eastwardly by the last mentioned lands by a line at right angles to the said Penn Street 123 feet more or less to a point at low water mark on Chester River; thence Northwardly by said low water mark 510 feet more or less to a point in the Southerly line of lands of the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington Railroad Company; thence Westwardly by said Railroad Company lands 218 feet more or less to a point another corner of said lands; thence Southwardly by the said lands 6.5 feet to a point another corner of said lands; thence Westwardly by said lands 357.5 feet to a point on the Easterly side of the said Penn Street; thence Southwardly by the Easterly side of the said Penn Street 160 feet to the place of beginning.

BEING 531-543 Penn Street a/k/a as 6th and Penn Street, City of Chester and BEING Delaware County Folio No. 49-06-01049-0.

ALL OF THE FOREGOING BEING the same premises which Diversified Holdings Company, Inc., by Deed dated January 1, 2004 and recorded December 22, 2004 in the Office for the Recorder of Deeds in and for the County of Delaware and Common-wealth of Pennsylvania in Volume 3373 page 1275, granted and conveyed unto Di-versified Holdings Company, LLC, a Penn-sylvania limited liability company, in fee.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: a one-story commercial building.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Diversi-fied Holdings Company, LLC.


Steven J. Adams, Attorney


No. 65254 131. 2012


ALL THAT CERTAIN frame messuage and lot or piece of land, SITUATE in the Borough of Colwyn, County of Delaware, and State of Pennsylvania.

Location of property: 122 Main Street, Colwyn, Pennsylvania 19023.

IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF: Com-mercial Property.

SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Boat Real Estate, L.L.C.


Jill M. Wojdyla, Esquire, Attorney



80

No. 954 132. 2016


Property in Prospect Park Borough, County of Delaware and State of Penn-sylvania.

Front: 35’ Depth: 116.05’

BEING Premises: 810 7th Avenue, Pros-pect Park, PA 19076.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Michael D. Nelling.




No. 60202 134. 2014

MONEY JUDGMENT

ALL THAT CERTAIN frame house and lots of land Situate on the Southwesterly side of Ronaldson Street in South Media in the Township of Nether Providence, County of Delaware and State of Pennsylvania.

Location of property: 112 Ronaldson Street, Wallingford, Pennsylvania 19086.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Rodney E. Day and Dorothea E. Day.


Jason J. Leininger, Esquire, Attorney


No. 5138A 135. 2012


Property in the Borough of Ridley Park, County of Delaware and State of Pennsyl-vania on the Southeasterly side of Hinckley Avenue.

BEING Folio No. 37-00-00995-00.

BEING Premises: 534 East Hinckley Avenue, Ridley Park, Pennsylvania 19078.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Kristin M. Harris and William J. Harris.




No. 5520 136. 2016


Property in the Borough of Glenolden, County of Delaware, State of Pennsylvania on the Southwesterly side of Glenolden Avenue.

BEING Folio No. 21-00-00876-00; 21-00-00875-00.

BEING Premises: 204 East Glenolden Avenue, Glenolden, Pennsylvania 19036.


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Thomas E. Adams and Mary F. Adams.





81

No. 50017 137. 2010


ALL THAT CERTAIN parcel of land with the IMPROVEMENTS thereon erected, Situated in the State of Pennsylvania, County of Delaware, Township of Concord, being bounded and described for Chris Panarello, Jr. according to Plan No. 1063-00 dated 6/30/1994 and last revised 9/1/1994 and recorded in Plan Book 18 page 271, prepared by Robert W. Mattox PLS, Inc., Professional Land Surveyor, Drexel Hill, PA as follows:

BEGINNING at a point on the South-westerly side of Concord Road (40 feet wide), said point being the common corner of lands now or late of Jean and Gary Anderson, and those now or late of Chris Panarello, Jr.; thence along said side of Con-cord Road South 45 degrees 17 minutes 00 seconds East the distance of 193.65 feet to a point; thence leaving said side of Concord Road along the Northerly line of Lot No. 2 on said plan South 68 degrees 48 minutes 02 seconds West the distance of 337.18 feet to a point; thence along the Northeasterly side of Lot No. 2 North 21 degrees 12 min-utes 00 seconds West the distance of 176.81 feet to a point; thence along the Southerly line of lands now or late of Jean and Gary Anderson North 68 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds East the distance of 257.45 feet to a point on the Southwesterly side of Concord Road, said point being the first mentioned point and place of beginning.

BEING premises: 804 Concord Road, Glen Mills, 19342.

One-half (1/2) interest


SOLD AS THE PROPERTY OF: Frank M. Aiello.


Raymond J. Falzone, Jr., Attorney

Continued to January 20, 2017 by Order of Court.

MARY McFALL HOPPER, Sheriff Dec. 30; Jan. 6, 13

DELAWARE COUNTY REPORTS 11 (2017).] In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline L.P.

In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline L.P. [104 Del.1 (2017).] In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline L.P.

In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline L.P. of Permanent and Temporary Rights of Way

for the Transportation of Ethane, Propane, Liquid Petroleum Gas, and Other Petroleum

Products in Edgmont Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Over the Lands of David W. Monzo

and Sharon P. MonzoEminent Domain – Declaration of Taking – Preliminary Objections – Hearing

Requirement – Waiver of Challenges – Scope of Review.In an eminent domain case disposed of on preliminary objections, the Pennsylvania

Commonwealth Court is limited to determining if the Common Pleas Court’s necessary find-ings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and if an error of law or abuse of discretion was committed. Stark v. Equitable Gas Co., LLC, 116 A.3d 760, 765 n. 8 (Pa.Cmwlth.2015).

Preliminary objections are the sole method by which a condemnee may challenge a declaration of taking pursuant to the Eminent Domain Code. 26 Pa. C.S. §§ 101-1106; 26 Pa. C.S. 306; Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d 331, 337 (Pa. 2007).

Preliminary objections filed pursuant to the Eminent Domain Code are the exclusive method for resolving challenges to the power or right of the condemnor to appropriate the condemned property unless previously adjudicated, the sufficiency of the security, any other procedures followed by the condemnor, or the declaration of taking, and they are intended to serve as a mechanism for the expeditious resolution of factual and legal challenges to a declaration of taking before the parties proceed to the damages stage. 26 Pa. C.S. § 306; A Condemnation Proceeding In Rem by the Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 891 A.2d 820 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); 66 Pa.C.S. 306(3).

Failure to raise challenges in the preliminary objections to an eminent domain pro-ceeding at one time results in a waiver of those challenges. 26 Pa. C.S. § 306(b); Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d 331, 337 (Pa. 2007).

Where issues before the court in an action under the Eminent Domain Code are purely legal, a court may rule on preliminary objections without a hearing. Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation. v. Montgomery Township, 655 A.2d 1086, 1088 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).

The Trial Court held:

The Condemnees, David W. Monzo and Sharon P. Monzo, have appealed from this Court’s Order overruling their Preliminary Objections to the Declaration of Taking of an easement through their property for the construction of a portion of the Mariner East 2 pipeline by the Condemnor, Sunoco Pipeline, L.C., to transport Natural Gas Liquids (“NGLs”) to points both inside and outside of the borders of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Condemnees having raised their statutory Preliminary Objections to Sunoco’s taking, the Court held as follows:

“1. Sunoco Pipeline L.P. is regulated as a public utility by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (the ‘PUC’).2. The Mariner East 2 service is included within Sunoco Pipeline L.P.’s certificated public utility service.3. Mariner East 2 provides both intrastate and interstate pipeline service.4. Sunoco Pipeline L.P. and the Mariner East 2 service are dually regulated by the PUC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 5. Neither the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. app. § 1 et seq. (1988), nor the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (‘HLPSA’), 49 U.S.C. 2001 et seq., preempts the PUC’s regulation of intrastate shipments on the Mariner East 2 service.

89 82

DELAWARE COUNTY REPORTS2 In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline L.P. [104 Del.

6. Section 104 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 104, does not restrict the PUC’s jurisdiction over the intrastate shipments on the Mariner East 2 service.7. As a public utility providing public utility service under the Business Corporation Law, 15 Pa.C.S. § 1511(a), Sunoco Pipeline L.P. has the power of eminent domain. 8. The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to compel a different result.9. The public need for the Mariner East 2 service has already been conclusively determined by the General Assembly, through enactment of the Business Corpora-tion Law, and the PUC, through issuance of Certificates of Public Convenience, and Sunoco Pipeline L.P.’s taking is reasonable for the purpose of providing the Mariner East 2 service. 10. The Property Rights Protection Act, 26 Pa.C.S. § 204, does not apply to condem-nations by public utilities such as Sunoco Pipeline.11. Sunoco Pipeline L.P. has complied with all the requirements of the Eminent Domain Code in filing the Declaration of Taking.12. The bond Sunoco Pipeline L.P. posted is adequate to secure payment of just compensation.” Id., (footnotes omitted).

On appeal from the foregoing Order, the Condemnees contended that the Court improperly denied their Preliminary Objections in the absence of a hearing, an allegation devoid of factual merit, inasmuch as a hearing on the within Preliminary Objections was conducted on July 6, 2016.

Moreover, the Condemnees never provided the Court with a transcript of the Hearing, nor requested that a transcript be ordered, thus requiring the Court to rely upon its bench notes taken at that proceeding. Regardless of the lack of transcript, since the action under the Eminent Domain Code was purely legally based, the Court was permitted to rule upon the Condemnees’ Preliminary Objections in the absence of a hearing. As such, this issue is utterly unfounded in the record, as well as waived for purposes of appeal.

Shortly following the issuance of the foregoing appealed from Order, the issues Condemnees raised in their Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal were either specifically and/or generally addressed by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in the case authority of In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.: Appeal of R. Scott Martin, et al., 143 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), with findings and holdings both control-ling upon and supportive of this Court’s rulings upon the instant Preliminary Objections. The Martin opinion is appended as Exhibit A, infra.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court’s Order denying the Preliminary Objections of Condemnees should be affirmed on appeal.

No. 16-002220

George J. Kroculick, Esquire and Andrew J. Reilly, Esquire, Attorneys for the Condemnor.

Michael F. Faherty, Esquire and Charles S. Katz, Jr., Esquire, Attorneys for the Condemnees.

Opinion by the Honorable Charles B. Burr, II, S.J., dated October 5, 2016.

OPINION

The Condemnees, David W. Monzo and Sharon P. Monzo, have appealed from the July 8, 2016 Order of this Court following a Hearing held on July 6, 2016, over-ruling, in their entirety, the Condemnees’ Preliminary Objections to the Declaration of Taking of an easement through their property for the construction of a portion of the Mariner East 2 pipeline by the Condemnor, Sunoco Pipeline, L.C. (“Sunoco”),

83


to transport Natural Gas Liquids (“NGLs”) to points both inside and outside of the borders of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The within Declaration of Taking was filed by Sunoco on March 10, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. Sunoco sought thereby to condemn a 0.44 acre permanent pipeline easement, a 0.08 acre temporary workspace easement, and a 0.20 acre additional temporary workspace easement on the Condemnees’ property situate at 1772 Shepherd Lane, Edgmont Township, Delaware County. (Declaration of Taking, ¶¶ 57-59, 61). Sunoco posted a security bond in the amount of $29,000.00 to cover the costs of damages resulting from appropriation of its interest in this property. (Id., ¶¶ 66-68). In support of the condemnation of the Monzos’ land, Sunoco pleaded that:

• TheMarinerEast2pipelineprojectispartofSunoco’slargerMarinerEastproject, which is designed to efficiently transport NGLs such as ethane, pro-pane, and other petroleum products from the shale areas of Western Penn-sylvania, West Virginia, and Eastern Ohio in order to increase the supply of NGLs to consumers. (Declaration of Taking, ¶ 4, p. 2).

• Off-rampsandon-rampsalongthepipelinewillallowshipperstotransportNGLs within Pennsylvania, the pipeline being a highway for the transpor-tation of NGLs with the shipments between Pennsylvania on-ramps and Pennsylvania off-ramps moving entirely within the Commonwealth. (Id., ¶ 5, p. 2; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit A—Mariner East Project Map).

• SunocoisauthorizedtocondemneasementsunderPennsylvania’sBusinessCorporation Law as a Public Utility Corporation regulated by the state’s Public Utility Commission (“PUC”).1 (Id., Section I A, ¶¶ 6-9, and fn 1, pp. 2-3).

• Sonocohas,since2002,providedpipelinetransportationserviceofpetroleumproducts and refined petroleum products within Pennsylvania, subject to the PUC’s oversight and jurisdiction. The PUC has reaffirmed in three final PUC Orders in 2014 and two final PUC Orders in 2015 that Sunoco is a public utility subject to the PUC’s regulation as a public utility. (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶¶ 10-11, p.3).

• Additionally,thePUChasrecognizedthattheMarinerEastserviceisapublicservice by means of the below-listed actions which establish that the PUC has regulated and continues to regulate Sunoco as a public utility for the Mariner East service. Consequently, Sunoco is a “public utility corporation” for purposes of exercising eminent domain under the BCL and the Eminent Domain Code. 15 Pa.C.S. § 1511; 26 Pa.C.S. § 101 et sequitur:

84

———1 15 Pa. C.S.A. § 1511, provides in relevant part:

“§ 1511. Additional powers of certain public utility corporations.(a) General rule.—A public utility corporation shall, in addition to any other power of eminent

domain conferred by any other statute, have the right to take, occupy and condemn property for one or more of the followign principal purposes and an-cillary purposes reasonably necessary or appropriate for the accomplishment of the principal purposes:

*****(2) The transportation of artificial or natural gas, electricity, petroleum

or petroleum products or water or any combination of such substanes for the public.” (Id.).

83


(1) PUC July 24, 2014 Final 703(g) Order;(2) August 21, 2014 Mariner East Tariff;(3) PUC August 21, 2014 Final CPC [Certificate of Public Convenience] Order;(4) PUC January 15, 2015 Sunoco Pipeline Mariner East Tariff; and(5) PUC March 26, 2015 Sunoco Pipeline Mariner East Tariff. (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶ 11, pp. 3-4).

• In2002,thePUCapprovedthemergeroftheSunPipeLineCompanyandAtlantic Pipeline Corporation and a transfer of assets that included an in-tegrated pipeline system, as well as a Certificate of Public Convenience (the “2000 CPC”) from the PUC that confirmed the PUC’s regulatory oversight over Sunoco and provided to Sunoco the right to transport petroleum products and refined petroleum products in the former service area of both corporations. (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶¶ 12-13, p. 4; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit B).

• In2012,SunocoannounceditsplanstoconstructtheMarinerEastpipelineproject within the territories included within the 2002 CPC to be divided into stages and designed to relieve the oversupply of NGLs in the Marcellus and Utica Shale basin, as well as to relieve supply-side shortages of propane in Pennsylvania and the Northern United States. The Mariner East 1 and Mariner East 2 projects always contemplated both interstate and intrastate transportation of NGLs. (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶¶ 14-15, pp. 4-5).

• Asaresultofnewmarketconditionsresultingfromtheharshwinterweatherof 2013-2014 that caused increased demand for intrastate shipments of pro-pane, Sunoco accelerated its business plans to increase the intrastate supply of propane within Pennsylvania and initiated proceedings with the PUC that would enable the company to do so. (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶¶ 16-17, p. 5).

• OnMay21,2014,SunocofiledanapplicationunderSection703(g)2 of the Public Utility Code[, 66 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 101-3316], to clarify a PUC Order issued on August 29, 2013 granting Sunoco the authority to suspend and abandon its provision of an east-to-west gasoline and distillate service and the corresponding tariffs in certain territories along its pipeline and to enable west-to-east service of NGLs in those territories as part of its Mariner East project. Thereafter, on July 24, 2014, the PUC issued its final Order of that date granting Sunoco’s application and reaffirming Sunoco’s authority under its existing CPCs to transport petroleum products, including propane, between Delmont, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania and Twin Oaks, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶¶ 18-19, pp. 5-6; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit C).

• ThePUC’sJuly24,2014Final703(g)Order:(1)notedthatSunocohadre-tained its authority under its 2002 CPC to provide petroleum products and refined petroleum products transportation service between Delmont and Twin

85

———2 “66 Pa.C.S.A. § 703. Fixing of hearings, provides:

*****(g) Rescission and amendment of orders.—The commission may, at any time, after notice and after opportunity to be heard as provided in this chapter, rescind or amend any order made by it. Any order rescinding or amending a prior order shall, when served upon the person, corporation, or municipal corporation affected, and after notice thereof is given to the other parties to the proceedings, have the same effect as is herein provided for original orders.” Id.


Oaks, Pennsylvania, notwithstanding its abandonment of gasoline and distil-late service; and (2) recognized (a) Sunoco’s addition of intrastate propane transportation service in response to the above-said changed market condi-tions; (b) that the definition of “petroleum products” is interpreted broadly to include propane; and (c) that proposed provision of intrastate propane service will result in numerous public benefits by, inter alia, allowing Sunoco to “completely address the need for uninterrupted deliveries of propane in Pennsylvania and to ensure that there is adequate pipeline capacity to meet peak demand for propane during the winter season.” (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶¶ 20-21, p. 6; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit C at pp. 8-9).

• ConsistentwiththePUC’sJuly24,2014703(g)Order,SunocofiledTariffPipeline Pa. P.U.C. No. 16 on June 11, 2014, to become effective on October 1, 2014. This tariff reflected the PUC regulated pipeline transportation rate for the west-to-east intrastate movement of propane from Mechanicsburg to Twin Oaks, Pennsylvania. By final Order dated August 21, 2014, in Docket No. R-2014-2426158 (August 21, 2014 Tariff ), the Commission permitted the tariff to become effective on October 1, 2014. Under Section 1302 of the Public Utility Code, such a tariff being permitted by the PUC is the very essence of and indicia of constituting direct regulation by the PUC of a public utility, in this case Sunoco Pipeline. 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 1302.3 (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶¶ 22-25, p. 7; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit D—August 21, 2014 Tariff ).

• ByvirtueofSunoco’sexistingCPCs,theCommissionrecognizedandauthor-ized Sunoco as a public utility service to transport petroleum and refined petroleum products bi-directionally in the following Pennsylvania counties in which the Mariner East project is situated: Allegheny, Berks, Blair, Cambria, Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Lancaster, Lebanon, Perry, Westmoreland and York. On June 6. 2014, Su-noco applied to add Washington County, Pennsylvania, which originally was not the situs of Sunoco facilities, to its service territory because the Mariner East service would originate there. By a now Final Order dated August 21, 2014, the PUC granted that application and authorized the provision of in-trastate petroleum and refined petroleum products pipeline transportation in Washington County, thereby expanding the service area in which Sunoco is authorized to provide its intrastate Mariner East service. In doing so, the Commission recognized that the service proposed is in the public interest by stating:

“[W]e believe that approval of the Application is necessary and proper for the service, accommodation and convenience of the public. We believe

86

———3 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 1302—Tariffs; filing and inspection, provides:“Under such regulations as the commission may prescribe, every public utility shall file with the commission, within such time and in such form as the commission may designate, tariffs showing all rates established by it and collected or enforced, or to be collected or enforced, within the jurisdiction of the commission. The tariffs of any public utility also subject to the jurisdiction of a Federal regulatory body shall correspond, so far as practicable, to the form of those prescribed by such Federal regulatory body. Every public utility shall keep copies of such tariffs open to public inspection under such rules and regulations as the commission may prescribe. One copy of any rate filing shall be made available, at a convenient location and for a reasonable length of time within each of the utilities’ service areas, for inspection and study by customers, upon request to the utility.” Id.

85


granting Sunoco authority to commence intrastate transportation of propane in Washington County will enhance delivery options for the transport of natural gas and natural gas liquids in Pennsylvania. In the wake of the propane shortage experienced in 2014, Sunoco’s proposed service will increase the supply of propane in markets with a demand for these resources, including in Pennsylvania, ensuring that Pennsyl-vania’s citizens enjoy access to propane heating fuel. Additionally, the proposed service will offer a safer and more economic transportation alternative for shippers to existing rail and trucking services.” (Id., Sec-tion I. A. 1., ¶¶ 26-28, pp. 7-8; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit E—PUC August 21, 2014 Final CPC Order).

• Section1101of thePublicUtilityCode states that “[u]ponapplicationofany proposed public utility and the approval of such application by the com-mission evidenced by its [CPC] . . . it shall be lawful for any such proposed public utility to begin to offer, render, furnish, or supply service within this Commonwealth. 66 Pa. C.S.A. §1101.4 Sunoco followed Section 1102 of the Public Utility Code in applying for and receiving the CPC for Mariner East service in Washington County, Pennsylvania, and the PUC, by Order entered on August 21, 2014, expressly authorized Sunoco to “offer, render, furnish or supply intrastate petroleum and refined petroleum products pipeline service to the public in Washington County” for Mariner East Service.5 (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶¶ 28-33, pp. 8-9; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit E—PUC August 21, 2014 Final CPC Order, p. 5).

• Under thePublicUtilityCode,onlyanentity thatprovidespublicutilityservice may be granted a CPC by the PUC.6 Thus, the granting of multiple

87

———4 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 1101. Organization of public utilities and beginning of service, provides that:“Upon the application of any proposed public utility and the approval of such application by the commission evidenced by its certificate of public convenience first had and obtained, it shall be lawful for any such proposed public utility to begin to offer, render, furnish, or supply service within this Commonwealth. The commission’s certificate of public convenience granted under the authority of this section shall include a description of the nature of the service and of the territory in which it may be offered, rendered, furnished or supplied.” Id.5 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102. Enumeration of acts requiring certificate, states, in relevant part, that:“(a) General rule.—Upon the application of any public utility and the approval of such ap-plication by the commission, evidenced by its certificate of public convenience first had and obtained, and upon compliance with existing laws, it shall be lawful:(1) For any public utility to begin to offer, render, furnish or supply within this Common-wealth service of a different nature or to a different territory than that authorized by:

(i) A certificate of public convenience granted under this part or under the former provisions of the act of July 26, 1913 (P.L. 1374, No. 854), known as “The Public Service Company Law,”1 or the act of May 28, 1937 (P.L. 1053, No. 286), known as the ‘Public Utility Law.’ ” Id.

6 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103. Procedure to obtain certificates of public convenience, states, in relevant part:“(a) General rule.—Every application for a certificate of public convenience shall be made to the commission in writing, be verified by oath or affirmation, and be in such form, and contain such information, as the commission may require by its regulations. A certificate of public convenience shall be granted by order of the commission, only if the commission shall find or determine that the granting of such certificate is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public . . ..” Id.


CPCs to Sunoco, in addition to the filing and approval of Sunoco’s multiple tariffs and tariff supplements for the Mariner East service, establish that the PUC found that Sunoco is a public utility and that the service is a public utility service. (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶ 33 and fn 3, p. 9).

• OnNovember6,2014,SunocofiledSupplementNo.2TariffPipeline—PaP.U.C. No. 16, proposing to add the new origin point of Houston, Washington County, Pennsylvania for west-to-east intrastate movement of propane (i.e., through Delaware County, Pennsylvania) consistent with the CPCs described above, to become effective on January 5, 2015. (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶¶ 34-35, p. 9).

• OnDecember18,2014,SunocofiledSupplementNo.4,voluntarilypostponingthe foregoing effective date to January 16, 2015. By Order entered on January 15, 2015 in Docket No. R-2014-2452684 (“PUC January 15, 2015 Tariff ”), the Commission again acknowledged and reaffirmed Sunoco’s status as a public utility corporation by permitting Supplement No. 2 to become effective on January 16, 2015. 66 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1303 and 1304.7 (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶¶ 36-37, pp. 9-10; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit F—PUC January 15, 2015 Tariff ).

• By Order entered on March 26, 2015, the Commission permitted TariffPipeline Supplement No. 5 Pa P.U.C. 16 to become effective March 30, 2015, for shipment from Delmont, Westmoreland County to Twin Oaks, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶ 38, p. 10; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit G—March 26, 2015 Tariff Order).

• Accordingly,pursuanttothefollowingdocumentationdiscussedatlength,supra, Sunoco Pipeline is regulated as a public utility by the PUC and is a public utility corporation, and the Mariner East service is a public utility service rendered by Sunoco within the meaning of the BCL. The PUC’s Or-ders and decisions establishing Sunoco’s status as a public utility corporation are conclusive and not subject to attack in the lower courts because they are squarely within the primary jurisdiction of the PUC. [Case authority citations omitted]. Further evidence of Sunoco’s public utility status is found in the fact that Sunoco is obligated to pay the Public Utility Realty Tax Assessment and the annual Pennsylvania Public Utility Gross Receipts Tax. Sunoco is also exempt from registration required under the Gas and Hazardous Liquids

88

———7 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 1303. Adherence to tariffs, provides:“No public utility shall, directly or indirectly, by any device whatsoever, or in anywise, demand or receive from any person, corporation, or municipal corporation a greater or less rate for any service rendered or to be rendered by such public utility than that specified in the tariffs of such public utility applicable thereto. The rates specified in such tariffs shall be the lawful rates of such public utility until changed, as provided in this part. Any public utility, having more than one rate applicable to service rendered to a patron, shall, after no-tice of service conditions, compute bills under the rate most advantageous to the patron.” Id.66 Pa.C.S.A. § 1304. Discrimination in rates, provides, in relevant part:“No public utility shall, as to rates, make or grant any unreasonable preference or advantage to any person, corporation, or municipal corporation, or subject any person, corporation, or municipal corporation to any unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. No public utility shall establish or maintain any unreasonable difference as to rates, either as between localities or as between classes of service. . ..” Id.

87


Pipelines Act (“Act 127”) due to its public utility status. 58 P.S. §§ 801.102 and 801.301.8

(1) PUC July 24, 2014 Final 703(g) Order;(2) August 21, 2014 Mariner East Tariff;(3) PUC August 21, 2014 Final CPC [Certificate of Public Convenience] Order;(4) PUC January 15, 2015 Sunoco Pipeline Mariner East Tariff; and(5) PUC March 26, 2015 Sunoco Pipeline Mariner East Tariff. (Id., Section I. A. 1., ¶¶ 39-42 and fn 4, pp. 10-11).

• UndertheBCL,apublicutilitycorporationlikeSunocomayexercisethepower of eminent domain to transport “petroleum or petroleum products.” 15 Pa.C.S. § 1511(a)(2), supra. The BCL’s definition of “petroleum products” has been interpreted broadly by the PUC to include both propane and ethane. (Id., Section I. A. 2., ¶¶ 43-44, pp. 11-12; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit H— October 29, 2014 Order, pp. 37-38).

• MultiplePennsylvaniacourtshaverecognizedthatSunocoisapublicutilitycorporation with the power to condemn under the BCL for the Mariner East Pipeline project. Condemnees have raised preliminary objections to those declarations of taking, and the Courts of Common Pleas of Cumberland, Huntingdon and Washington Counties overruled them upon findings that Sunoco is a public utility corporation authorized to do so under Section 1511 of the BCL, supra. Courts of Common Pleas of Blair, Cumberland, Dauphin and Huntingdon Counties have granted Sunoco access to property pursuant to the Eminent Domain Code with the power to condemn for the Mariner East 2 project. Accordingly, by virtue of its status and authority as a Pennsylvania regulated public utility with Certificates of Public Convenience issued and tariffs approved by the PUC, Sunoco has the power to condemn property in connection with the Mariner East 2 project under Section 1511(a)(2), supra, of the BCL. (Id., Section I. A. 3., ¶¶ 45-49, pp. 12-14)(citations to case authori-ties omitted).

• ThepurposeofthecondemnationistoconstructtheMarinerEastProjectwhich is expected to have a major economic impact upon the region both monetarily and job-wise, with its second phase intended to efficiently provide ethane, propane and other petroleum product transportation services to its customers and consumers. Plans for the second phase of the project, Mari-ner East 2, include the placement of two pipelines adjacent to one another separated by a distance of approximately five feet over the portion of the Mariner East line which runs from Delmont, Pennsylvania to the Marcus

89

———8 58 Pa.C.S.A. [Gas and Hazardous Liquids Pipelines Act] § 801.102 Definitions, provides: “ ‘Pipeline operator.’ A person that owns or operates equipment or facilities in this Com-monwealth for the transportation of gas or hazardous liquids by pipeline or pipeline facility regulated under Federal pipeline safety laws. The term does not include a public utility or an ultimate consumer who owns a service line on his real property.” Id.58 Pa.C.S.A. § 801.301. Registry of pipeline operators, provides, in relevant part:(a) Registry.—The commission shall establish and maintain a registry of all pipeline opera-tors.*****(c) Registration with commission.—(1) A pipeline operator shall register with the commission. . ..” Id.


Hook Industrial Complex (“MHIC”), and the placement of a single line over the portion of the Mariner East line that runs between Delmont, Pennsylvania and the Virginia border. (Id., Section II, ¶¶ 50-52, 54, pp. 14-15).

• InitsAugust21,2014OrdergrantingSunoco’sapplicationforaCPCforWashington County, Pennsylvania, the PUC expressly recognized that the Mariner East Project could include this second phase, the PUC stated:

“Subject to continued shipper interest, Sunoco intends to undertake a second phase of the Mariner East Project, which will expand the capacity of the project by constructing: (1) a 16 inch or larger pipeline paralleling its existing pipeline from Houston, PA to the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex and along much of the same route, and (2) a new 15 miles of pipeline from Houston, PA to a point near the Pennsylvania-Ohio boundary line. This second phase, sometimes referred to as ‘Mariner East 2’, will increase the take-away capacity of natural gas liquids from the Marcellus Shale and will enable Sunoco to provide additional on-loading and off-loading points within Pennsylvania for both intrastate and interstate propane shipments.” (Id., Section II, ¶ 53, pp. 14-15).

• InanOpinionandOrderdatedOctober29,2014grantingSunoco’sExceptionsto an Initial Decision, consistent with prior decisions, the Commission noted that “Sunoco is certificated in Pennsylvania as a public utility to transport petroleum and refined petroleum products including propane, from Delmont, Pennsylvania to Twin Oaks, Pennsylvania” and further that its “certificated authority is not limited to specific pipe or set of pipes, but rather, includes both the upgrading of current facilities and the expansion of existing capacity as needed for the provision of the authorized service within the certificated territory.” . . . Accordingly, Sunoco’s CPC’s include the authority to provide the Mariner East 2 service, which service is merely an expansion of the Mari-ner East 1 service. (Id., Section II, ¶ 53, p. 15, fn 5; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit H—PUC Opinion and Order dated October 29, 2014).

• Withtheexceptionofsomeofthevalves,MarinerEast2willberoutedbelowground level, with most of the pipeline paralleling and within the existing right-of way of the Mariner East 1 pipeline. Part of Mariner East 2 will be located in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, which is within the geographic scope of the Certificates of Public Convenience issued by the PUC to Sunoco. (Id., Section II, ¶¶ 55-56, p. 15).

• SunocoiscondemningpermanentandtemporaryrightsofwayovertheCon-demnees’ property that will be located, in part, over and upon certain land owned by Condemnees in Edgmont Township, Delaware County, Pennsyl-vania (“the Property”). Condemnees acquired the Property via a Deed dated March 16, 2015 and recorded in the Recorder of Deeds Office in Delaware County, Pennsylvania on March 18, 2015 in Volume 5615, Page 2376. The Property, situated at 1772 Shepherd Lane, Edgmont Township, Pennsylvania 19342, was assigned Tax Parcel I.D. No. 19-00-00330-48. (Id., Section III, ¶¶ 57-59, p. 15, See also: Section III, ¶¶ 60-64 p. 16 for additional pleadings vis a vis the details, scope and reasons for the taking).

• SunocohasbeenunabletoreachanagreementwiththeCondemneesconcern-ing acquisition of the easements for the Mariner East 2 pipeline. Therefore, by virtue of the power of eminent domain as provided by law, and the corporate

9089


resolution of Sunoco dated March 1, 2016, Sunoco has determined to condemn and appropriate easements over and upon the Property for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining the Mariner East 2 pipeline for the transportation of ethane, propane, liquid petroleum gas, and other petroleum products, with Sunoco, its successors and assigns, having the right to enter unto the easements as may be necessary for these purposes. (Id., Section III, ¶ 65, p. 17; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit T—Sunoco’s corporate resolution).

• Sunoco is filing a bond in the amount of $29,000.00 backed by LibertyMutual Insurance Company as Surety, conditioned for the payment of all damages arising from the appropriation of Sunoco’s interest in the Property (the “Bond”). The Bond secures just compensation for damages that may be sustained by reason of the taking of the proposed permanent and temporary workplace easements for the construction of Mariner East 2. (Id., Section IV, ¶¶ 66-68 and Ad Damnum clause pp. 17-18; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit S—Condemned Property Description).

The Condemnees filed their response to Sunoco’s Declaration of Taking pursuant to Section 3069 of Pennsylvania’s Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa. C.S. §§ 101-1106, listing Preliminary Objections that were enumerated as follows:(1) The Mariner East 1 pipeline service has been regulated by the PUC, but the PUC’s Certificates and Orders approve only intrastate service and merely refer to, but do not approve, the Mariner East 2 service. Therefore, Sunoco is not a public utility corporation regulated by the PUC for Mariner East 2. (Id., ¶ 1, p. 3).(2) The PUC may readily regulate the Mariner East 1 pipeline service, or other intrastate pipelines, but is prohibited from regulating Mariner East 2, which crosses state lines and thus is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce subject to regulation under the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”) by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). Therefore, Sunoco may not obtain State eminent domain power for Mariner East 2 because the applicable Federal regulation states that such jurisdiction is “exclusive Federal jurisdiction” under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Appendix A to Part 195, Subpart H, second paragraph, thereby precluding state regulation and state eminent domain power in this proj-ect. In Sunoco v. Loper, Docket No. 2013-SU-4518-05 (2014), a decision concerning Mariner East 2, a project to transport NGLs from Ohio and West Virginia across Pennsylvania and into Delaware, Sunoco tried to obtain the requested eminent do-main power in York County, Pennsylvania, but failed. President Judge Leinbaugh of the 19th Judicial District in York County, forcefully rejected this attempt in his

91

———9 “26 Pa. C.S.A. § 306*****

(3) Preliminary objections shall be limited to and shall be the exclusive method of challenging:

(i) The power or right of the condemnor to appropriate the condemned property unless it has been previously adjudicated.(ii) The sufficiency of the security.(iii) The declaration of taking.(iv) Any other procedure followed by the condemnor.

(b) Waiver.—Failure to raise by preliminary objections the issues listed in subsection (a) shall constitute a waiver. Issues of compensation may not be raised by preliminary objections.” Id.


February 24, 2014 Opinion and Order, and in his March 25, 2014 Reaffirming Or-der. The plan to add on-loading and offloading locations within Pennsylvania does nothing to alter the pipeline as being in interstate commerce subject to exclusive Federal jurisdiction. Federal regulation of interstate commerce via the ICA does not contain nor convey eminent domain power. See also: Clean air Council, et al. v. Sunoco Pipeline L.P. No. 03484 (C.P. Phila. February 5, 2016). Generous FERC tariff rates provide the funding to purchase easement rights for hazardous liquid pipelines from willing property owners. (Id., Introductory ¶, p. 3 and numbered ¶ 2, pp. 3-6)(citations to extrajurisdictional and federal case authorities omitted); Con-demnees’ Preliminary Objections, Exhibits A and B—Judge Leinbaugh’s Opinion and Orders; C—February 15, 2013 FERC Order granting Sunoco’s Mariner East 1 Petition; D—December 1, 2014 FERC Order granting Sunoco’s Mariner East 2 Petition; Exhibit E—February 5, 2016 Clean Air Council, et al. v. Sunoco Pipeline L.P., supra, Order and Opinion; Exhibit F—December 31, 2013 FERC Order reaf-firming its intent to retain jurisdiction over liquid ethane pipelines in ruling on petition of a feedstock company; Condemnees’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Preliminary Objections, Exhibit A—Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Appendix A to Part 195, Subpart H; Declaration of Taking, Exhibit T—Sunoco’s Corporate Resolution approving “Mariner East 2” Project.(3). Because Federal jurisdiction over Mariner East 2 is exclusive, its regulation by the PUC is prohibited. (Id., ¶ 3, p. 6).(4). The taking is prohibited by collateral estoppel inasmuch as the issue of whether Sunoco has the power of eminent domain to condemn for its Mariner East 2 pipeline was decided against Sunoco by Judge Leinbaugh in Sunoco v. Loper, supra. Judge Leinbaugh determined that the Sunoco Mariner East 2 pipeline is “regulated by FERC pursuant to the [ICA], and not the Natural Gas Act, as a common carrier and not a public utility, and later reiterated that Sunoco’s stated purpose for the Project was to transport NGLs through an interstate pipeline. (Id., ¶ 4, p. 7).(5). Sunoco’s Corporate Resolution appended as Exhibit T to its Declaration of Tak-ing approving the Mariner East 2 Project for “350 miles from Ohio through West Virginia and Pennsylvania, does not authorize what is asserted in Paragraph 52 of its Declaration of Taking, i.e. “[p]lans for the second phase of the project, Mariner East 2, include the placement of two (2) pipelines adjacent to one another, separated by a distance of approximately five (5) feet over the portion of the Mariner East line which runs from Delmont, Pennsylvania to the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex, and the placement of a single line over the portion of the Mariner East line that runs between Delmont, Pennsylvania and the Virginia border.” The Resolution of the interstate Mariner East 2 pipeline does not authorize the attempt to use emi-nent domain for the intrastate pipeline service in the declaration of taking. Only authorized acquisitions to a resolution may be condemned. In re Certain Parcels of Real Estate, 216 A.2d 774 (Pa. 1966). (Id., ¶ 5, p. 7; Declaration of Taking, ¶ 52 and Exhibit T—Sunoco Corporate Resolutions, Mariner East 2 Project).(6). If [sic] the service fails the public need test. Sunoco is unable to prove the ser-vice to be furnished as necessary and proper in the public interest, nor is Sunoco able to prove the inadequacy of the prior service, citing to Redding v. Atlantic City Electric Co., 269 A.2d 680 (Pa. 2009). (Id., ¶ 6, p. 7).

9291


(7). The Declaration of Taking seeks approval for two pipelines, while, if any public need exists, it is only for one pipeline. The proposed taking is a prohibited excessive taking. (Id., ¶ 7, p. 8).(8). The attempted condemnation is for private enterprise and is thus prohibited by the Property Rights Protection Act, 26 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 201-204. The Public Util-ity exception of service “for the public” is inapplicable to this interstate commerce activity for private enterprise. The public utility exception does not apply to service which is not “for the public.” (Id., ¶ 8, p. 8).(9). The proposed Mariner East 2 service is “service of a different nature” requiring Sunoco’s application to the Pennsylvania PUC for a distinct Certificate of Public Convenience per 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 1102(a)(1), supra. (Id., ¶ 9, p. 8).(10). The potential of eminent domain power for petroleum or petroleum products does not encompass the natural gas liquids at issue under Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d 331, 337 (Pa. 2007). (Id., ¶ 10, p. 8).(11). The bond amount proposed by Sunoco is inadequate for the severe harm caused to this property. (Id., ¶ 11, p. 8).(12). Fees and costs are demanded per 26 Pa.C.S.A. § 306(g).

Although a Hearing was held on the Condemnees’ Preliminary Objections on July 6, 2016, this Court was neither provided with a proposed Order soliciting the printing of a transcript, nor was it provided with a copy if one was obtained by the Condemnees from the Delaware County Office of Electronic Recording themselves. Thereafter, on July 8, 2016, the Court issued the following Order disposing of the Condemnees’ Preliminary Objections in their entirety, although the numerical ordering of the findings does not strictly adhere to the numbering of the specific paragraphs expressing their Preliminary Objections as they were listed hereinabove:

“ORDER

1. Sunoco Pipeline L.P. is regulated as a public utility by the Pennsyl-vania Public Utility Commission (the “PUC”).2. The Mariner East 2 service is included within Sunoco Pipeline L.P.’s certificated public utility service.3. Mariner East 2 provides both intrastate and interstate pipeline service.4. Sunoco Pipeline L.P. and the Mariner East 2 service are dually regulated by the PUC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 5. Neither the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. app. § 1 et seq. (1988), nor the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979 (“HLPSA”), 49 U.S.C. 2001 et seq., preempts the PUC’s regulation of intrastate ship-ments on the Mariner East 2 service.6. Section 104 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 104, does not restrict the PUC’s jurisdiction over the intrastate shipments on the Mariner East 2 service.10

93

———10 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 104. Interstate and foreign commerce, provides:“The provisions of this part, except when specifically so provided, shall not apply, or be construed to apply, to commerce with foreign nations, or among the several states, except insofar as the same may be permitted under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and the acts of Congress.” Id.


7. As a public utility providing public utility service under the Business Corporation Law, 15 Pa.C.S. § 1511(a), Sunoco Pipeline L.P. has the power of eminent domain. 8. The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to compel a dif-ferent result.9. The public need for the Mariner East 2 service has already been conclusively determined by the General Assembly, through enactment of the Business Corporation Law, and the PUC, through issuance of Certificates of Public Convenience, and Sunoco Pipeline L.P.’s taking is reasonable for the purpose of providing the Mariner East 2 service. 10. The Property Rights Protection Act, 26 Pa.C.S. § 204, does not apply to condemnations by public utilities such as Sunoco Pipeline.11

11. Sunoco Pipeline L.P. has complied with all the requirements of the Eminent Domain Code in filing the Declaration of Taking.12. The bond Sunoco Pipeline L.P. posted is adequate to secure payment of just compensation.

BY THE COURT:/S/Charles B. Burr, II, S.J.” (Id.).

On July 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upheld the lower court’s overruling of preliminary objections to Sunoco’s taking of the condemnees’ property for construction of the Mariner East 2 pipeline in an Opinion and Order issued in the case of In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.: Appeal of R. Scott Martin, et al., 143 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). The Commonwealth Court generally described the pleadings of the parties in the foregoing case as follows:

“. . . Condemnees objected: that Sunoco lacked the power or the right to condemn their land as Sunoco was not a public utility regulated by PUC for the Mariner East 2 pipeline; that Sunoco’s corporate resolution authorized takings only for an interstate pipeline and not an intrastate pipeline; that the declarations were barred by collateral estoppel on the basis of the York County decision; that the Mariner East 2 pipeline was an interstate pipeline and not an intrastate pipeline; that the Declarations sought to condemn their

94

———11 26 Pa.C.S.A. § 204. Eminent domain for private business prohibited, provides, in relevant part: “(a) Prohibition.—Except as set forth in subsection (b), the exercise by any condemnor of the power of eminent domain to take private property in order to use it for private enter-prise is prohibited.(b) Exception.—Subsection (a) does not apply if any of the following apply:

(1) (i) the condemnee consents to the use of the property for private enterprise; or(ii) the condemnee does not file or does not prevail on preliminary objection filed to a declaration of taking for the acquisition of condemnee’s property.(2) The property is taken by, to the extent the party has the power of eminent domain,

transferred or leased to any of the following:

(i) A public utility or railroad as defined in 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 102 [“Public utility. (1) Any person or corporations now or hereafter owning or operating in this Commonwealth equipment or facilities for: . . . (v) Transporting or conveying natural or artificial gas, crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum products, materials for refrigeration, or oxy-gen or nitrogen, or other fluid substance, by pipeline or conduit, for the public for compensation”]. Id.

93


properties for two pipelines while the agency Condemnees assert has sole jurisdiction, FERC, approved only one pipeline; that Sunoco lacked the FERC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) necessary to exercise eminent domain power for the pipeline; and that Sunoco’s proposed bond amounts were insufficient. . ..Sunoco filed responses to Condemnees’ Preliminary Objections that were, like the objections, essentially uniform. With regard to the corresponding objections referenced in the preceding paragraph, Sunoco asserted: that PUC recognizes that, the fact that Sunoco has FERC authorization to make inter-state movements on Mariner East notwithstanding, Sunoco also has authority under state law to provide intrastate service as a public utility regulated by PUC; that the corporate resolution attached to the Declarations is not defec-tive in any way; that the identical issue of whether Sunoco has the power of eminent domain to condemn for the Mariner East 2 pipeline was not decided previously in the York County decision; that the Mariner East 2 pipeline is regulated by both PUC and by FERC; that FERC’s regulation of interstate shipments on Mariner East 2 pipeline is inapplicable to a determination of Sunoco’s eminent domain authority as a Pennsylvania-regulated public util-ity; that a FERC Certificate is not the only method by which a public utility can obtain eminent domain power in Pennsylvania where state law provides eminent domain authority both to utilities regulated by PUC and to utilities regulated by an officer or agency of the United States, such as FERC; and that the bonds posted by Sunoco were adequate. . .. ” Id., 143 A.3d at _____. (Citations to Reproduced Record omitted).

The Commonwealth Court’s decision to affirm the overruling of preliminary objections identical to those raised and overruled in the instant case is controlling upon this Court and contravenes any second-guessing of the within ruling here below. In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.: Appeal of R. Scott Martin, et al., supra. By necessary implication, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court is “bound by stare decisis to follow decisions of [its] own court until they are either overruled by the Supreme Court, or compelling reasons persuade [them] otherwise.” County of Armstrong v. W.C.A.B. and Borough of Kittanning, 81 Pa. Cmwlth. 474, 478, 473 A.2d 755, 757 (1984). Any such reasons must, by necessity, be raised at the appellate level, and not sub judice, at this stage of the litigation.

The Condemnees have submitted the following Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal:

“The Owners recognize that the recent decision by the Commonwealth Court in In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.: Appeal of R.S. Martin, et al., 1979, 1980 and 1981 CD 2015 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. July 14, 2016) addressed several, but not all, of the issues raised in Owners’ Preliminary Objections, however, this decision will be appealed and[,] in anticipation possible reversal of that decision, Owners preserve the following issues for appeal:1. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in overruling Owners’ Preliminary Objec-tions in their entirety without holding an evidentiary hearing as required per the Pennsylvania Eminent Domain Code, 26 Pa. C.S.A. § 306(f)?2. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in finding that Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. (‘Sunoco’) is regulated as a public utility by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (‘PUC’) for the only pipeline at issue, Mariner East 2?

95


3. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in finding the Mariner East 2 service is included within Sunoco’s certificated public utility service when Sunoco failed to provide any PUC Order or Certificate pertaining to Mariner East 2?4. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in finding Mariner East 2 provides both in-trastate and interstate pipeline service when the primary purpose is clearly to ship natural gas liquids (‘NGL’s’) away from Pennsylvania and Sunoco failed to provide any documentation to support proposed intrastate service on Mariner East 2?5. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in finding that Sunoco and the Mariner East 2 service are dually regulated by the PUC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (‘FERC’) when no law supports dual jurisdiction and well-established law defines Mariner East 2 as interstate commerce and thus subject to exclusive federal regulation?6. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in finding that neither the Interstate Com-merce Act[, 49 U.S.C. app. § 1 et seq. (1988),] nor the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act of 1979, 49 U.S.C. 2001[,] preempts PUC regulation of Mariner East 2?7. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in finding PUC jurisdiction over the Marine East 2 service when the Public Utility Code clearly prohibits PUC regulation of interstate commerce per 66 Pa. C.S.A. § 104?8. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in granting Sunoco the power of eminent domain for Mariner East 2 when, for Mariner East 2, it is not a public utility cor-poration, providing public utility service, under the Pennsylvania Business Corpo-ration Law (‘BCL’) [15 Pa. C.S. §§ 1101-9507] and it is not regulated by the PUC?9. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in finding Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. v. Loper, 2013-SU-4518-05 (C.P. York County, February 24, 2014)[,] reaffirmed March 25, 2014[,] does not apply to compel a different result?10. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in finding the public need for Mariner East 2 service already determined by the PUC through the issuance of the Certificates of Public Convenience and the taking reasonable for the purpose of providing Mariner East 2 service when no PUC order or certificate addresses the Mariner East 2 or evaluates the public need of Mariner East 2?11. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in finding the Property Rights Protection Act, 26 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 201-204, does not apply and that Sunoco falls within the exception to the Act as a public utility for Mariner East 2?12. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in overruling Owners’ preliminary objection regarding the Sunoco resolution where it did not authorize the proposed condem-nation and the law requires a valid resolution pursuant to 26 Pa. C.S.A. § 302?13. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in overruling Owners’ preliminary objection challenging the attempted condemnation for two (2) pipelines when there is only a need for (1) pipeline?14. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in overruling Owners’ preliminary objection challenging the taking because the Mariner East 2 service is ‘service of a different nature’ and Sunoco failed to apply to the PUC for a Certificate of Public Convenience per 66 Pa. C.S.A. § 1102(a)(1)?15. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in overruling Owners’ preliminary objection challenging the attempted condemnation because eminent domain power is to be strictly construed. Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d 331, 337 (Pa. 2007), and eminent domain power for petroleum or petroleum products does not encompass the NGLs at issue here?

9695


16. Did the Court of Common Pleas err in finding the proposed bond amount adequate and overruling Owners’ preliminary objection?” (Condemnees’ Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, pp. 2-4).

Discussion

In an eminent domain case disposed of on preliminary objections, the Penn-sylvania Commonwealth Court is limited to determining if the common pleas court’s necessary findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and if an error of law or an abuse of discretion was committed. Stark v. Equitable Gas Co., LLC, 116 A.3d 760, 765 n. 8 (Pa.Cmwlth.2015). Preliminary objections are the sole method by which a condemnee may challenge the declaration of taking. Middletown Township. v. Lands of Stone, supra. Preliminary objections filed pursuant to the Eminent Domain Code are the exclusive method for resolving challenges to the power or right of the condemnor to appropriate the condemned property unless previously adjudicated, the sufficiency of the security, any other procedures followed by the condemnor, or the declaration of taking, and they are intended to serve as a mechanism for the expeditious resolution of factual and legal challenges to a declaration of taking before the parties proceed to the damages stage. 66 Pa.C.S.A. 306(3); A Condemnation Proceeding In Rem by the Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 891 A.2d 820 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). Failure to raise challenges in the preliminary objections to an eminent domain proceeding at one time results in a waiver of those challenges. Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, supra.

Intitially, it must be observed that the Condemnees have charged this Court with error in ruling upon their Preliminary Objections in the absence of a hearing. (Concise Statement, Paragraph 1). However, a hearing was held in this case for the reception of argument on the within Preliminary Objections on July 6, 2016. The Court was not provided with a transcript of that proceeding by the Condemnees, nor requested to order one from the Delaware County Office of Electronic Recording on their behalf, and must rely upon its extensive Bench Notes in recalling what took place therein. Nevertheless, where issues before the court in an action under the eminent domain code are purely legal, a court may rule on preliminary objection without a hearing. Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation. v. Montgomery Town-ship, 655 A.2d 1086, 1088 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Hence, this claim has been waived, if not lacking in a factual basis altogether.

Additionally, any alleged issues of the instant Condemnees that were un-addressed by the Commonwealth Court in the Opinion filed in the case of In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.: Appeal of R. Scott Martin, et al., supra, that would not be dispositive of claims that Sunoco had neither the power, nor the right to appropriate the condemned property, nor had provided sufficient security, nor followed the requisite procedures in seeking condemnation, would be of no mo-ment whatsoever. 66 Pa.C.S.A. 306(3); A Condemnation Proceeding In Rem by the Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, supra; Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, supra. However, all of the matters listed in Paragraphs 2 through 16 of the Condemnees’ Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal were either addressed directly or subsumed in the findings listed in the appealed from Order of this Court and would, as well, be deemed to be included in the factual and legal matrices encompassed and ruled upon by the Commonwealth Court in its In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.: Appeal of R. Scott Martin, et al., supra, Opinion.

97


The Opinion of the Commonwealth Court filed in the case of In re: Condem-nation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P.: Appeal of R. Scott Martin, et al., supra, setting forth the findings and holdings that are binding upon this Court and necessitate affirmance of the Order overruling the condemnees’ Preliminary Objections to the Declaration of Taking in this case is appended hereto as Exhibit A.

BY THE COURT: __________________________________ CHARLES B. BURR, II, S. J.

9897


99

EXHIBIT “A”

In re Sunoco Pipeline, L.P., 143 A.3d 1000 (2016)

© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

143 A.3d 1000 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

In re: Condemnation by SUNOCO PIPELINE, L.P. of Permanent and Temporary Rights of Way for the Transportation of Ethane, Propane, Liquid

Petroleum Gas, and other Petroleum Products in the Township of North Middleton, Cumberland

County, Pennsylvania, over the Lands of R. Scott Martin and Pamela S. Martin.

Appeal of: R. Scott Martin and Pamela S. Martin. In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. of Permanent and Temporary Rights of Way for the

Transportation of Ethane, Propane, Liquid Petroleum Gas, and other Petroleum Products in the Township of North Middleton, Cumberland

County, Pennsylvania, over the Lands of Douglas M. Fitzgerald and Lyndsey M. Fitzgerald.

Appeal of: Douglas M. Fitzgerald and Lyndsey M. Fitzgerald.

In re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. of Permanent and Temporary Rights of Way for the

Transportation of Ethane, Propane, Liquid Petroleum Gas, and other Petroleum Products in the Township of North Middleton, Cumberland

County, Pennsylvania, over the Lands of Harvey A. Nickey and Anna M. Nickey.

Appeal of: Harvey A. Nickey and Anna M. Nickey.

Argued March 9, 2016. |

Decided July 14, 2016.

Synopsis Background: Pipeline service operator sought to condemn property, and condemnees filed objections. The Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Guido, J., overruled the objections. Condemnees appealed.

Holdings: The Commonwealth Court, Nos. 1979 C.D. 2015, 1980 C.D. 2015, 1981 C.D. 2015, Cohn Jubelirer, J., held that: [1] collateral estoppel did not bar action; [2] operator was public utility corporation empowered to exercise eminent domain; [3] operator had power to condemn property for construction of pipeline; and

[4] there was no basis for the Court of Common Pleas to review the Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) determination of public need.

Affirmed. Brobson, J., filed dissenting opinion. McCullough, J., filed dissenting opinion.

West Headnotes (16) [1]

Public Utilities Regulation

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC) is an agency of the United States that may regulate an entity as a public utility under the Business Corporation Law of 1988 (BCL). 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103.

Cases that cite this headnote

[2]

Eminent Domain Nature and source of power

Simply being subject to Public Utility

Commission (PUC) regulation is insufficient for an entity to have the power of eminent domain. 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 1104.


[3]

Carriers Power to control and regulate

Gas Mains, pipes, and appliances

It is the Public Utility Commission (PUC), and

not the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


100



(FERC), that has authority to regulate intrastate shipments of natural gas and petroleum products.


[4]

Eminent Domain Matters concluded

Issue decided in previous case regarding

pipeline service operator’s plans to construct interstate natural gas pipeline was not same issue raised in operator’s petition to condemn property after pipeline was repurposed to be interstate and intrastate pipeline, and therefore collateral estoppel did not bar action; prior case addressed only whether operator was public utility corporation because it was subject to regulation as public utility by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and did not decide whether operator was public utility corporation because it was subject to regulation as public utility by Public Utility Commission (PUC).


[5]

Eminent Domain Review

In an eminent domain case disposed of on

preliminary objections the Commonwealth Court is limited to determining if the court of common pleas’ necessary findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and if an error of law or an abuse of discretion was committed.


[6]

Judgment Matters actually litigated and determined

Collateral estoppel bars any subsequent action

where the sole issue requiring judgment was

litigated previously.


[7]

Judgment Nature and requisites of former adjudication

as ground of estoppel in general

For collateral estoppel to apply, the following conditions must be met: (1) the issue or issue of fact previously determined in a prior action are the same, with no requirement that the cause of action be the same, (2) the previous judgment is final on the merits, (3) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked is identical to the party in the prior action, and (4) the party against whom estoppel is invoked had full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action.


[8]

Eminent Domain To Private Corporation

Service to be provided by natural gas pipeline

involved both interstate service, subject to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulation, and intrastate service, subject to Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulation, and therefore pipeline service operator was public utility corporation empowered to exercise eminent domain, despite contention that pipeline was solely in interstate commerce; pipeline was to consist of physical structure with access points in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, product was to be placed into pipeline and removed at multiple points within Pennsylvania, and pipeline operator had filed, and received PUC approval, of multiple tariffs applicable to operator’s provision of intrastate service. 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1511.


99


101



[9]

Eminent Domain To Private Corporation

Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulated

intrastate shipments of natural gas liquids, including service provided by pipeline that was authorized expansion of existing service, and therefore pipeline service operator had power of eminent domain to condemn property for construction of pipeline; operator’s certificates of public convenience applied to both existing service and to planned expansion, and operator’s approved tariffs proposed to add new origin point for west-to-east intrastate movements of propane, based on the certificates issued.


[10]

Eminent Domain Jurisdiction of courts in general

There was no basis for court of common pleas to

review Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) determination that public need was demonstrated by pipeline service operator in application to condemn property to construct natural gas pipeline; PUC followed its statutory mandate and evaluated issues within its purview, and allowing such review would have permitted collateral attacks on PUC decisions and would have been contrary to statute that placed review within authority of Commonwealth Court. 15 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1103, 1511(a)(2); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 763; 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103(a); 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1104 (Repealed).


[11]

Public Utilities Powers and Functions

The Public Utility Commission (PUC) is

charged with responsibility to determine which entities are public utilities and to regulate how public utilities provide public utility service.


[12]

Eminent Domain Jurisdiction

While courts of common pleas have jurisdiction

to review whether an entity attempting to exercise eminent domain power meets the criteria of the Business Corporation Law of 1988 (BCL), that jurisdiction does not include the authority to revisit Public Utility Commission (PUC) adjudications. 15 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1103, 1511(a)(2); 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1104 (Repealed).


[13]

Eminent Domain Evidence as to right to take

A certificate of public convenience issued by the

Public Utility Commission (PUC) is prima facie evidence that PUC has determined that there is a public need for the proposed service and that the holder is clothed with the eminent domain power. 15 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1103, 1511(a)(2); 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1104 (Repealed).


[14]

Eminent Domain Jurisdiction of courts in general

The Eminent Domain Code does not permit a

court of common pleas to review the public need for a proposed service by a public utility that has been authorized by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) through the issuance of a certificate of public convenience. 15 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1103, 1511(a)(2); 26 Pa.C.S.A. § 306(a); 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1104 (Repealed).



102



[15]

Public Utilities Jurisdiction of courts in advance of or

pending proceedings before commission

Determinations of public need for a proposed utility service are made by the Public Utility Commission (PUC), not the courts. 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103(a).


[16]

Public Utilities Service and facilities

Under the section of the Public Utility Code

regarding applications for certificates of public convenience, the applicant must demonstrate a public need or demand for the proposed service. 66 Pa.C.S.A. § 1103(a).


Attorneys and Law Firms

Michael F. Faherty, Hershey, for appellants.

Christopher A. Lewis, Philadelphia, and Alan R. Boynton, Jr., Harrisburg, for appellee.

BEFORE: MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge, RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge, P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge, PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, ANNE E. COVEY, Judge, and MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge.

OPINION

COHN JUBELIRER, Judge.

R. Scott Martin and Pamela S. Martin, Douglas M. Fitzgerald and Lyndsey M. Fitzgerald, and Harvey A.

Nickey and Anna M. Nickey (Condemnees) appeal from the September 29, 2015 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (common pleas) that overruled Condemnees’ Preliminary Objections to Declarations of Taking (Declarations) filed by Condemnor Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. (Sunoco) to facilitate construction of the phase of its Mariner East Project known as the Mariner East 2 pipeline. Condemnees assert that common pleas erred when it overruled their Preliminary Objections because: Sunoco’s Declarations are barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel by an earlier York County decision; the Mariner East 2 pipeline is not an intrastate pipeline subject to Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) regulation; the Mariner East 2 pipeline does not provide PUC regulated service; and, no public need exists for the Mariner East 2 pipeline. After careful review of the record, we find no error and therefore affirm.

I. PUC and FERC Jurisdiction, Sunoco and the Mariner East Project

Before we address the specific facts of these appeals and their merits, it will be helpful to provide some general background information on the nature of the interrelationships between Sunoco, PUC and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as well as the nature and history of the Mariner East Project.

A. Regulation of Public Utilities by PUC and by FERC [1] Section 1511(a)(2) of the Business Corporation Law of 19881 (BCL), 15 Pa.C.S. § 1511(a)(2),2 provides that “public utility corporations” may exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn property for the transportation of, inter alia, natural gas and petroleum products. Section 1103 of the BCL, 15 Pa.C.S. § 1103, defines public utility corporation as “[a]ny domestic or foreign corporation for profit that ... is subject to regulation as a public utility by the [PUC] or an officer or agency of the United States....” FERC is an agency of the United States that may regulate an entity as a public utility under this section. [2] Jurisdiction over the certification and regulation of public utilities in the Commonwealth is vested in PUC through the Public Utility Code (Code).3 However, simply being subject to PUC regulation is insufficient for an entity to have the power of eminent domain. Section 1104 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1104, requires that a public utility must possess a certificate of public convenience (CPC) issued by PUC pursuant to Section 1101 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1101, before exercising the power of

101


103



eminent domain.4 [3] Both FERC and PUC regulate the shipments of natural gas and petroleum products or service through those pipelines, and not the actual physical pipelines conveying those liquids. (R.R. at 1344a.) FERC’s jurisdiction is derived from the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) and applies to interstate movements,5 while the Code and PUC’s jurisdiction apply to intrastate movements.6 This jurisdiction is not mutually exclusive. See, e.g., Amoco Pipeline, Co., 62 F.E.R.C. ¶ 61119, at 61803–61804, 1993 WL 25751, at *4 (Feb. 8, 1993) (finding that “the commingling of oil streams is not a factor in fixing jurisdiction under the ICA”); (R.R. at 687a, 693a, 1379a–80a.) In Amoco, FERC held as follows:

Amoco argues that the commingling of the crude oil from Wyoming and other states makes all of the commingled crude oil subject to the interstate rate. This argument has no merit. As the cases demonstrate, the commingling of oil streams is not a factor in fixing jurisdiction under the ICA. Rather, we look to the “fixed and persistent intent of the shipper,” and to such factors as whether storage or processing interrupt the continuity of the transportation.

It is not disputed that both interstate and intrastate transportation occur over the pipeline segments in question, nor is there any dispute that crude oil shipped by Sinclair over these segments, no matter where produced, is destined for Sinclair’s Wyoming refineries. Therefore, the crude oil produced outside of Wyoming and transported over Amoco’s Wyoming facilities to Sinclair’s refineries in that state is moving in interstate commerce and is covered by the tariffs filed by Amoco with this Commission. Transportation over Amoco’s facilities of that portion of the crude oil that is both produced and refined in Wyoming is subject to the regulation of the Wyoming [Public Service Commission]. Commingling does not alter the jurisdictional nature of the shipments, and as Sinclair has stated, the question of jurisdiction arises only in the context of the facts relevant to individual shipments.

Amoco argues that later decisions have effectively overruled this precedent. However, the cases cited by Amoco relate to the transportation of natural gas, which is governed by the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and which do not control our determination of the effect of commingling crude oil from various sources.

62 F.E.R.C. at ¶¶ 61803–61804, 1993 WL 25751 at *4. See also National Steel Corp. v. Long, 718 F.Supp. 622, 625 (W.D.Mich.1989) (holding in a prospective challenge to the exercise of regulatory jurisdiction by the Michigan

Public Service Commission that the federal scheme under the ICA “is not so comprehensive as to address the local interests which are the focus of state regulation.”); Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 155 Tex. 483, 289 S.W.2d 547 (1955) (where shipper produced oil in New Mexico and Texas and delivered it by pipeline to Texas tank farm where it was commingled and shipped by rail to various destinations, the shipper accepting at destination the equivalent of oil delivered to farm, that portion of oil shipped which was equivalent in volume to that produced in New Mexico was subject to interstate rate, while that portion equivalent in volume to that produced in Texas was subject to intrastate rate.); Removing Obstacles to Increased Elec. Generation & Natural Gas Supply in the W. United States, 94 F.E.R.C. ¶¶ 61272, 61977 (Mar. 14, 2001) (FERC authority limited to regulating terms and rates of interstate shipments on a proposed line). Thus, it is apparent from these authorities that it is PUC, and not FERC, that has authority to regulate intrastate shipments. Similarly, the record shows that pipeline service operators in Pennsylvania, such as Sunoco, can be, and frequently are, simultaneously regulated by both FERC and PUC through a regulatory rubric where FERC jurisdiction is limited only to interstate shipments, and PUC’s jurisdiction extends only to intrastate shipments. (R.R. at 1379a–80a.)

B. Regulation of Sunoco as a Public Utility As to Sunoco generally, the record shows that it has been operating as a public utility corporation7 in Pennsylvania since 2002, at which time Sunoco received PUC approval for the transfer, merger, possession, and use of all assets of the Sun Pipe Line Company (“Sun”) and of the Atlantic Pipeline Corporation (“Atlantic”), both of which were subject to PUC jurisdiction. (R.R. at 28a–33a, 670a.) As such, Sunoco came into possession of a pipeline system operated previously by Sun and its predecessors and Atlantic and its predecessors. This “legacy” pipeline system operated under CPCs issued in 1930 and 1931 by PUC’s statutory predecessor, the Pennsylvania Public Service Commission. (R.R. at 89a–90a.) The record substantiates that the pipeline system previously provided and currently provides interstate and intrastate service on the same pipelines. (R.R. at 90a–93a, 657a, 672a, 687a, 821a–22a, 1383a–87a.) PUC has regulated Sunoco’s intrastate pipeline transportation of petroleum products and refined petroleum products since 2002, and FERC has regulated Sunoco’s interstate service of the same products on the same pipelines. (R.R. at 90a–93a, 1383a–87a.) As to regulation by PUC, that agency in an Order entered on October 29, 2014 concluded that: “Sunoco has been certificated as a public utility in Pennsylvania for many


104



years, and [that] the existence of Commission Orders granting the [CPCs] to Sunoco is prima facie evidence ... that Sunoco is a public utility under the Code.” (R.R. at 116a.) PUC further explained that Sunoco’s existing authority under its prior CPCs gave it the right to reverse the flow within the existing pipeline and to add new pipelines if Sunoco concluded it was necessary to expand the previously certificated service, stating:

Thus, Sunoco has the authority to provide intrastate petroleum and refined petroleum products bi-directionally through pipeline service to the public between the Ohio and New York borders and Marcus Hook, Delaware County through generally identified points. This authority is not contingent upon a specific directional flow or a specific route within the certificated territory. Additionally, this authority is not limited to a specific pipe or set of pipes, but rather, includes both the upgrading of current facilities and the expansion of existing capacity as needed for the provision of the authorized service within the certificated territory.

(R.R. at 122a (emphasis added).) Additionally, by Order dated July 24, 2014, PUC clarified Sunoco’s authority under its existing CPCs to transport petroleum products and refined petroleum products, including propane,8 between Delmont, Westmoreland County and Twin Oaks, Delaware County. (R.R. at 41a–51a.) Therein, PUC stated that Sunoco retained that authority under its 2002 CPCs, its prior suspension and abandonment of gasoline and distillate service notwithstanding. (R.R. at 49a.) PUC further found that Sunoco’s proposed intrastate propane service would result in “numerous potential public benefits” by allowing Sunoco “to immediately address the need for uninterrupted deliveries of propane in Pennsylvania and to ensure that there is adequate pipeline capacity to meet peak demand for propane during the winter heating season.” (R.R. at 49a–50a.) Further, by Order dated August 21, 2014, PUC granted Sunoco’s Application for a CPC to expand its service territory into Washington County. (R.R. at 60a–64a.) In that Application, Sunoco stated that it intended to expand

the capacity of the Mariner East Project by implementing the Mariner East 2 pipeline, which would increase the take-away capacity of natural gas liquids (NGLs)9 from the Marcellus Shale and allow Sunoco to provide additional on-loading and off-loading points within Pennsylvania for interstate and intrastate propane shipments. (R.R. at 61a–62a.) PUC, by authorizing the provision of intrastate petroleum and refined petroleum products pipeline transportation service in Washington County in the August 21, 2014 Order expanded the service territory in which Sunoco is authorized to provide Mariner East service. (R.R. at 60a–64a.) PUC found that the expansion was in the public interest, stating:

Upon full consideration of all matters of record, we believe that approval of this Application is necessary and proper for the service, accommodation, and convenience of the public. We believe granting Sunoco authority to commence intrastate transportation of propane in Washington County will enhance delivery options for the transport of natural gas and natural gas liquids in Pennsylvania. In the wake of the propane shortage experienced in 2014, Sunoco’s proposed service will increase the supply of propane in markets with a demand for these resources, including in Pennsylvania, ensuring that Pennsylvania’s citizens enjoy access to propane heating fuel. Additionally, the proposed service will offer a safer and more economic transportation alternative for shippers to existing rail and trucking services....

(R.R. at 63a (emphasis added).)10 Therefore, pursuant to PUC’s Orders, Sunoco has CPCs that authorize it to transport, via its pipeline system, petroleum and refined petroleum products, including propane, from and to points within Pennsylvania. This authority was expanded to include Washington County in recognition of the public need and the importance of increasing the supply of propane to the citizens of Pennsylvania.

103


105



C. The Mariner East Project In 2012, Sunoco announced its intent to develop an integrated pipeline system for transporting petroleum products and NGLs such as propane, ethane, and butane from the Marcellus and Utica Shales in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio to the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex (“MHIC”) and points in between. (R.R. at 9a, 46a, 1377a.) Sunoco’s various filings describe the overall goal of the Mariner East Project as an integrated pipeline system to move NGLs from the Marcellus and Utica Shales through and within the Commonwealth; and to provide take away capacity for the Marcellus and Utica Shale plays and the flexibility to reach various commercial markets, using pipeline and terminal infrastructure within the Commonwealth. (R.R. at 61a, 91a, 93a–94a, 656a, 662a.)

1. Mariner East 1

The Mariner East Project has two phases. The first, referred to as Mariner East 1, has been completed and utilized Sunoco’s existing pipeline infrastructure, bolstered by a 51–mile extension from Houston, in Washington County, to Delmont, in Westmoreland County, to ship 70,000 barrels per day of NGLs from the Marcellus Shale basin to the MHIC. (R.R. at 46a, 93a, 498a, 1377a.)

1. Mariner East 2

Sunoco has begun work on the second phase of the Mariner East Project, known as Mariner East 2. (R.R. at 16a.) Unlike Mariner East 1, which used both existing and new pipelines, Mariner East 2 requires construction of a new 351–mile pipeline largely tracing the Mariner East 1 pipeline route, with origin points in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. (R.R. at 658a, 1377a–78a.) Sunoco’s plans for the Mariner East 2 phase include constructing two adjacent pipelines separated by approximately five feet over the portion of the Mariner East line which runs from Delmont, Pennsylvania to the MHIC, and a single line over the portion of the Mariner East line which runs between Delmont and the West Virginia border. (R.R. at 17a.) With the exception of some valves, Mariner East 2 will be below ground level, with most of it paralleling and within the existing right of way of the Mariner East 1 pipeline. Part of Mariner East 2 will be located in Cumberland County which is within the geographic scope of the CPC issued to

Sunoco by the PUC. (R.R. at 12a, 18a.) While Mariner East 1 was underway, Marcellus and Utica Shale producers and shippers advised Sunoco that there was a need for additional capacity to transport more than the 70,000 barrels of NGLs per day being transported by Mariner East 1. (R.R. at 694a–95a, 1339a, 1378a.) Sunoco thus undertook to expand Mariner East Project capacity and developed the Mariner East 2 pipeline. (R.R. at 1339a–40a, 1384a.) This expansion of the Mariner East 1 service will enlarge capacity to allow movement of an additional 275,000 barrels per day of NGLs, (R.R. at 498a), thereby allowing shippers from the Marcellus and Utica Shales to transport more barrels of NGLs through the Commonwealth to destinations within the Commonwealth, as well as to the MHIC for storage, processing, and distribution to local, domestic, and international markets. (R.R. at 604a, 1251a.) It is intended to increase the take-away capacity of NGLs from the Marcellus and Utica Shales and enable Sunoco to provide additional on-loading and off-loading points within Pennsylvania for both interstate and intrastate propane shipments and increase the amount of propane that would be available for delivery or use in Pennsylvania. (R.R. at 661a–64a, 1377a–78a.) PUC recognized this second phase of the Mariner East Project in its August 21, 2014 Order granting Sunoco’s CPC application for Washington County, stating:

Subject to continued shipper interest, Sunoco intends to undertake a second phase of the Mariner East project, which will expand the capacity of the project by constructing: (1) a 16 inch or larger pipeline, paralleling its existing pipeline from Houston, PA to the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex and along much of the same route, and (2) a new 15 miles of pipeline from Houston, PA to a point near the Pennsylvania–Ohio boundary line. This second phase, sometimes referred to as “Mariner East 2”, will increase the take away capacity of natural gas liquids from the Marcellus Shale and will enable Sunoco to provide additional on-loading and offloading points within Pennsylvania for both intrastate and interstate propane shipments.


106



(R.R. at 61a–62a (emphasis added).) Sunoco does not contest that the Mariner East Project initially was prioritized for interstate service.11 However, before PUC and common pleas, Sunoco explained that during and after winter 2013–2014, as a result of the “polar vortex,” it had a significant increase in shipper demand for intrastate shipments of propane due to an increase in consumer demand within Pennsylvania as a result of shortages due to harsh winter conditions and insufficient pipeline infrastructure. (R.R. at 694a–95a, 1378a.) These changes in market conditions led Sunoco to accelerate its provision of intrastate service on the Mariner East Project. Sunoco thus sought and obtained PUC approval to provide intrastate service on the Mariner East 1 and 2 pipelines as described above. As described in more detail below, PUC issued three final Orders in 2014 and two final Orders in 2015 confirming that Sunoco is a public utility corporation subject to PUC regulation as a public utility. PUC also recognized that the service provided by both phases of the Mariner East Project is a public utility service.

3. PUC Orders and Tariffs

Sunoco on May 21, 2014 filed an application pursuant to Section 703(g) of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 703(g),12 to clarify an August 29, 2013 PUC Order granting Sunoco authority to suspend and abandon its provision of east-to-west gasoline and distillate service (and the corresponding tariffs) in certain territories along its pipeline in order to facilitate the west-to-east Mariner East service of NGLs in those territories. (R.R. at 10a.) PUC on July 24, 2014, issued an Opinion and Order granting Sunoco’s Application and reaffirmed Sunoco’s authority under its existing CPCs to transport petroleum products and refined petroleum products, including propane, between Delmont, Westmoreland County, and Twin Oaks, Delaware County. (Id.) This approved route includes Cumberland County. (R.R. at 12a, 18a.) PUC in its July 24, 2014 Order recognized that: circumstances changed regarding the Mariner East Project since August 2013 and that in response, Sunoco intended to provide intrastate transportation service of propane to respond to changing market conditions and increased shipper interest in additional intrastate pipeline service facilities; the definition of “petroleum products” is interpreted broadly to encompass propane; and Sunoco’s proposed intrastate propane service will result in numerous public benefits by allowing it “to immediately address the need for uninterrupted deliveries of propane in

Pennsylvania and to ensure that there is adequate pipeline capacity to meet peak demand for propane during the winter heating season.” (R.R. at 48a–50a.) In addition to the May 21, 2014 application, Sunoco on June 12, 2014 filed Tariff Pipeline Pa. P.U.C. No. 16, with a proposed effective date of October 1, 2014. This tariff reflected PUC-regulated pipeline transportation rate for the west-to-east intrastate movement of propane from Mechanicsburg (Cumberland County) to Twin Oaks. (R.R. at 53a–54a.) PUC by final Order dated August 21, 2014, permitted the tariff to become effective on October 1, 2014. (R.R. at 53a–57a.) PUC, by these actions and through Sunoco’s previously obtained CPCs, authorized Sunoco as a public utility to transport, as a public utility service, petroleum and refined petroleum products both east to west and west to east in the following Pennsylvania counties through which the Mariner East Project is located: Allegheny, Westmoreland, Indiana, Cambria, Blair, Huntingdon, Juniata, Perry, Cumberland, York, Dauphin, Lebanon, Lancaster, Berks, Chester, and Delaware. (R.R. at 10a–12a, 48a–49a, 60a–64a.) Sunoco’s service territory originally did not include Washington County because Sunoco did not maintain facilities there and had not applied to PUC for a CPC for that county. However because the planned Mariner East service would originate in Washington County, Sunoco on June 6, 2014 applied to PUC to expand its service territory into that county. (R.R. at 12a–13a.) PUC by Order dated August 21, 2014 granted Sunoco’s application and authorized the provision of intrastate petroleum and refined petroleum products pipeline transportation service in Washington County, thus expanding Sunoco’s service territory for its intrastate Mariner East service. (R.R. at 60a–64a.)

II. Background of the Instant Appeals The genesis of this matter was the filing by Sunoco on July 21, 2015 of the three Declarations in common pleas. As to Condemnees R. Scott Martin and Pamela S. Martin, Sunoco sought to condemn a permanent non-exclusive easement of 1.5 acres, a temporary workspace easement of 0.72 acres, and an additional workspace easement of 0.12 acres on the Martins’ property on Longs Gap Road, North Middleton Township, Cumberland County. (R.R. at 7a–156a.) As to Condemnees Douglas M. Fitzgerald and Lyndsey M. Fitzgerald, Sunoco sought to condemn a permanent non-exclusive easement of 0.14 acres and a temporary workspace easement of 0.07 acres on the Fitzgeralds’ property at 281 Pine Creek Drive, Carlisle,

105


107



Cumberland County. (R.R. at 307a–454a.) As to Condemnees Harvey A. Nickey and Anna M. Nickey, Sunoco sought to condemn a permanent non-exclusive easement of 0.7 acres, and a temporary workspace easement of 0.31 acres on the Nickeys’ property at 125 Blain McCrea Road, Lower Mifflin Township, Cumberland County. (R.R. at 157a–306a.) Condemnees filed Preliminary Objections to the Declarations for their respective properties. (R.R. at 455a–507a, 561a–613a, 508a–560a.) Condemnees are here, and were before common pleas, represented by the same counsel. Hence all three sets of Preliminary Objections raised the same objections to the Declarations subject to variances for the individual properties. All Condemnees objected: that Sunoco lacked the power or the right to condemn their land as Sunoco was not a public utility regulated by PUC for the Mariner East 2 pipeline; that Sunoco’s corporate resolution authorized takings only for an interstate pipeline and not an intrastate pipeline; that the declarations were barred by collateral estoppel on the basis of the York County decision; that the Mariner East 2 pipeline was an interstate pipeline and not an intrastate pipeline; that the Declarations sought to condemn their properties for two pipelines while the agency Condemnees assert has sole jurisdiction, FERC, approved only one pipeline; that Sunoco lacked the FERC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) necessary to exercise eminent domain power for the pipeline; and that Sunoco’s proposed bond amounts were insufficient. (Id.) Sunoco filed responses to Condemnees’ Preliminary Objections that were, like the objections, essentially uniform. With regard to the corresponding objections referenced in the preceding paragraph, Sunoco asserted: that PUC recognizes that, the fact that Sunoco has FERC authorization to make interstate movements on Mariner East notwithstanding, Sunoco also has authority under state law to provide intrastate service as a public utility regulated by PUC; that the corporate resolution attached to the Declarations is not defective in any way; that the identical issue of whether Sunoco has the power of eminent domain to condemn for the Mariner East 2 pipeline was not decided previously in the York County decision; that the Mariner East 2 pipeline is regulated by both PUC and by FERC; that FERC’s regulation of interstate shipments on Mariner East 2 pipeline is inapplicable to a determination of Sunoco’s eminent domain authority as a Pennsylvania-regulated public utility; that a FERC Certificate is not the only method by which a public utility can obtain eminent domain power in Pennsylvania where state law provides eminent domain authority both to utilities regulated by PUC and to utilities

regulated by an officer or agency of the United States, such as FERC; and that the bonds posted by Sunoco were adequate. (R.R. at 621a–33a, 951a–63a, 786a–98a.)

III. Common Pleas Decision Common pleas consolidated the three Declarations and Preliminary Objections for hearing as they essentially were identical,13 and scheduled a hearing on the Preliminary Objections for September 22, 2015. Both Condemnees and Sunoco offered testimony and entered exhibits into the record. (R.R. at 1328a–1998a.) Common pleas on September 29, 2015, entered its Order overruling Condemnees’ Preliminary Objections.14 Condemnees appealed to this Court and common pleas directed the filing of a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal (Statement) pursuant to Rule 1925(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P.1925(b).15 Following receipt of Condemnees’ Statements, common pleas on December 22, 2015 issued its Opinion in support of its September 29, 2015 Order. Common pleas first addressed Condemnees’ contention that FERC possesses sole jurisdiction over the Mariner East 2 pipeline. After repeating the text of the first paragraph of the footnote from the September 29, 2015 Order, common pleas noted that “the Natural Gas Act (NGA)[ ] 15 U.S.C. § 717(a)(5)[ ] ... grants ‘FERC exclusive jurisdiction over the transportation and sale of natural gas in interstate commerce for resale,’ ” but observed further that “[h]owever, [Mariner East 2 pipeline] will transport natural gas liquids (NGLs), and thus, the physical pipeline is not regulated under the ambit of FERC through the NGA[ ]]].” (December 22, 2015 Op. at 3 (footnote omitted) (citation omitted).) Common pleas stated further that:

Condemnees[ ] also argue that because [Sunoco] did not receive a Certificate .... from FERC for ME2, they do not possess the power of eminent domain under federal law. Again, Condemnees are operating under the mistaken belief that FERC regulates the siting of NGL pipelines.[ ] FERC, pursuant to the NGA, regulates the siting of pipelines that carry interstate shipments of natural gas, doing so through the issuance of a CPC.[ ] Because FERC does not possess authority to regulate the siting of NGL pipelines, the responsibility falls to state agencies regardless of the physical jurisdiction of the NGL pipeline.[ ]

We were satisfied that the PUC regulates intrastate shipments of NGL. Therefore, [Sunoco] is considered a “public utility corporation” under Pennsylvania’s Business Corporation Laws (BCL).[ ] Pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. [ ] § 1511(a)(2), public utility corporations


108



“have the right to take, occupy and condemn property for [the] principal purpose[ ] and ancillary purposes reasonably necessary or appropriate for the accomplishment of ... [t]he transportation of ... petroleum or petroleum products ... for the public.” As a result, [Sunoco] has the power of eminent domain to condemn property for the construction of [Mariner East 2 pipeline].

(December 22, 2015 Op. at 3–4 (footnotes omitted).) Common pleas next addressed Condemnees’ collateral estoppel argument and relied on the text of the second paragraph of the footnote from the September 29, 2015 Order quoted above in holding that the reasoning in the York County decision relied upon by Condemnees, Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. v. Loper, 2013–SU–4518–05 (C.P.York, February 24, 2014) (reaffirmed March 25, 2014), did not apply in this instance because Sunoco reconfigured the Mariner East 2 pipeline “to be both an interstate pipeline as well as an intrastate pipeline subject to PUC regulation.” (December 22, 2015 Op. at 4–5.) With regard to Condemnees’ argument that Sunoco, to obtain the power of eminent domain under the BCL, must be granted a FERC Certificate as set forth in Nat’l Fuel Gas Supply Corp. v. Kovalchick Corp., 74 Pa. D. & C.4th 22 (2005), common pleas concluded that Kovalchick also was inapposite to the facts of this case. Common pleas noted that the condemnor in Kovalchick was granted eminent domain power because it was subject to FERC regulation under the NGA. However, as common pleas earlier concluded that the Mariner East 2 pipeline was not regulated by FERC under the NGA because it does not transport natural gas; common pleas held that Sunoco did not need a FERC Certificate to obtain the eminent domain power under the BCL. (December 22, 2015 Op. at 5–6.) Common pleas also rejected Condemnees’ argument that PUC’s orders issued to Sunoco regarding the Mariner East project did not include a reference to the Mariner East 2 pipeline, noting that PUC Order attached to each Declaration as Exhibit D provides:

Subject to continued shipper Interest, Sunoco intends to undertake a second phase of the Mariner East project ... This second phase, sometimes referred to as ‘Mariner East 2’, [sic] will increase the take-away capacity of natural gas from the Marcellus Shale and will enable Sunoco to provide additional on-loading and offloading points within Pennsylvania for both intrastate and interstate propane shipments.

(December 22, 2015 Op. at 6.)16

IV. Issues Before This Court

A. Collateral Estoppel [4] [5] Condemnees appealed to this Court.17 Condemnees first argue that common pleas erred when it declined to find that Sunoco’s Petitions were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel based on Loper. As described above, common pleas concluded that Loper is inapposite to this matter because it was decided when Sunoco’s plans for the Mariner East 2 pipeline featured a purely interstate pipeline, crossing Pennsylvania state lines but containing no stations for the offloading of transported materials in Pennsylvania. Common pleas pointed out here that in Loper, Sunoco argued that FERC provided it with the power of eminent domain for a purely interstate pipeline, and that subsequently Sunoco repurposed Mariner East 2 to be both an interstate pipeline as well as an intrastate pipeline subject to PUC regulation. Condemnees argue here that common pleas erred and that Mariner East 2 is in interstate service only. On that basis, PUC lacks jurisdiction and Sunoco thus is not a public utility corporation under the BCL. Moreover, Condemnees assert that Sunoco is regulated by FERC as a common carrier and not as a public utility with the power of eminent domain. Condemnees state that in Loper, Sunoco contended that it is a public utility under the BCL and therefore clothed with the eminent domain power and that Sunoco makes the same argument in this matter. For these reasons, Condemnees argue that the issue presented before common pleas is identical to that presented in Loper and that collateral estoppel applies to bar Sunoco’s Declarations as to Condemnees. [6] [7] Collateral estoppel bars any subsequent action where the sole issue requiring judgment was litigated previously. Thompson v. Karastan Rug Mills, 228 Pa.Super. 260, 323 A.2d 341, 343 (1974). For collateral estoppel to apply, the following conditions must be met: (1) the issue or issue of fact previously determined in a prior action are the same (no requirement that the cause of action be the same); (2) the previous judgment is final on the merits; (3) the party against whom the doctrine is invoked is identical to the party in the prior action; and (4) the party against whom estoppel is invoked had full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action. Dep’t of Transp. v. Martinelli, 128 Pa.Cmwlth. 448, 563 A.2d 973, 976 (1989). Based on the record in this case, common pleas did not err in finding that collateral estoppel does not bar this action.

107


109



The issue decided in Loper is not the same issue raised in this case, and so it does not meet the first condition. At issue in Loper was whether Sunoco satisfied the definition of public utility corporation as a result of the regulation of its interstate service by FERC and not as a result of PUC’s regulation of its intrastate service. At the time Loper was decided, Sunoco had not yet sought or obtained PUC approval to provide intrastate service. (R.R. at 107a, 1378a.) The Loper court addressed only whether Sunoco was a public utility corporation because it was subject to regulation as a public utility by an officer or agency of the United States, i.e., FERC, and did not decide whether Sunoco was a public utility corporation because it was subject to regulation as a public utility by PUC, the issue raised here. Although Condemnees disagree that Sunoco can prevail on this issue that is a separate inquiry from whether the issue was previously decided. For these reasons, we agree that collateral estoppel is not a bar to this case.

B. Whether Mariner East is both an Interstate and Intrastate Pipeline

[8] Condemnees next argue that common pleas erred when it concluded that the Mariner East 2 pipeline was both an interstate and an intrastate pipeline subject to PUC jurisdiction. This argument is grounded in the fact that Sunoco is a common carrier under the ICA and that it obtained FERC approval to transport NGLs from Ohio and West Virginia to the MHIC and beyond via the Mariner East 2 pipeline. Put another way, Condemnees assert that PUC has jurisdiction only over pipelines beginning and ending entirely in Pennsylvania, and that the Mariner East 2 pipeline is solely in interstate commerce because it crosses state lines. Condemnees maintain that Sunoco thus lacks eminent domain power because the Mariner East 2 pipeline can never be regulated by PUC as the Code prohibits PUC from regulating interstate commerce. Condemnees argue that common pleas used an incorrect conception of interstate commerce and cite numerous decisions for the proposition that a pipeline that crosses a state line is in interstate commerce and that products in that pipeline remain in interstate commerce during their entire journey. Condemnees thus disagree with common pleas’ conclusion that, because the Mariner East 2 pipeline “will provide both loading and offloading of ethane, propane, liquid petroleum gas and other petroleum products within the Commonwealth ... [it] provides intrastate service, regulated by the [PUC].” (September 29, 2015 Order at 2 n. 1.) Based on our review, we conclude that the record establishes that the expanded service to be provided by

the Mariner East 2 pipeline will involve both interstate service (subject to FERC regulation) and intrastate service (subject to PUC regulation) and that common pleas did not err when it overruled Condemnees’ Preliminary Objection. FERC’s decision in Amoco and the other authority previously discussed support this conclusion. Condemnees apparently do not accept that the service at issue can be both interstate and intrastate, and the cases they cite are not on point as they address general principles of interstate commerce and/or transport of natural gas.18 Moreover, PUC Orders related to the Mariner East Project and the testimony before common pleas establishes that the Mariner East 2 pipeline will provide both interstate and intrastate service. (R.R. at 49a, 53a–54a, 61a–62a, 66a, 68a, 72a–73a, 118a–19a, 657a, 659a, 1336a, 1339a, 1344a, 1378a.) The record establishes that the Mariner East 2 pipeline will consist of a physical structure with access points in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Product will be placed into the pipeline and removed at multiple points within Pennsylvania.19 (R.R. at 945a.) In addition, Sunoco has filed, and received PUC approval, of multiple tariffs applicable to Sunoco’s provision of intrastate service through the Mariner East Project, including the use of Mariner East 2. (See supra note 10.) As we noted, under Section 1302 of the Code, authority to file a tariff is limited to a public utility regulated by PUC. We thus conclude that Sunoco is a public utility corporation empowered to exercise eminent domain under Section 1511 of the BCL, and that common pleas did not err when it overruled Condemnees’ Preliminary Objection that the Mariner East 2 pipeline was an interstate pipeline and not an intrastate pipeline.

C. PUC Regulation of Mariner East 2 Service [9] Condemnees next argue that common pleas erred when it concluded that the Mariner East 2 pipeline provides service regulated by PUC. There are two related prongs to Condemnees’ argument: that PUC Orders do not cover service on the Mariner East 2 pipeline; and, that PUC did not issue a CPC for Mariner East 2 because it provides interstate commerce. Common pleas found both of these arguments unpersuasive. The record reflects that Sunoco, on June 9, 2014, applied to PUC to expand its service territory for the Mariner East Project, including Mariner East 2, into Washington County, the only service territory not previously certificated for Mariner East service by prior CPCs. (R.R. at 60a.) By Order dated August 21, 2014, PUC granted the application authorizing Sunoco’s provision of intrastate petroleum and refined petroleum products


110



pipeline transportation service in Washington County thus expanding Sunoco’s service territory for its Mariner East service. (R.R. at 59a–64a.) PUC’s Order accompanying the CPC described the authorized service, and specifically described Mariner East 2 service as an expansion of existing Mariner East 1 service. (R.R. at 61a.) The result of this Order is that PUC authorized Mariner East 1 and Mariner East 2 intrastate service in 17 counties, from Washington County in western Pennsylvania, through 15 other counties, including Cumberland County, to Delaware County in eastern Pennsylvania. (R.R. at 1637a.) Subsequently, in its October 29, 2014 Order, PUC stated that:

[T]his authority [under existing CPCs] is not limited to a specific pipe or set of pipes, but rather, includes both the upgrading of current facilities and the expansion of existing capacity as needed for the provision of the authorized service within a certificated territory.

(R.R. at 122a (emphasis added).) From these PUC Orders we conclude that Sunoco’s CPCs apply to both Mariner East 1 service and to Mariner East 2 service, as it is an authorized expansion of the same service. (R.R. at 657a–59a, 1344a, 1377a.) In addition, Sunoco’s approved tariffs proposed to add the new origin point of Houston, Washington County for west-to-east intrastate movements of propane, based on the CPCs issued. (R.R. at 66a.) On these bases, we hold that common pleas did not err when it concluded that “PUC regulates intrastate shipments of NGL[s,]” including service provided by Mariner East 2, and that “[a]s a result, [Sunoco] has the power of eminent domain to condemn property for the construction of [Mariner East 2].” (December 22, 2015 Op. at 4.)

D. Demonstration of Public Need Condemnees’ final argument is that common pleas erred when it overruled the Preliminary Objections and approved a pipeline where no public need was demonstrated. According to Condemnees, PUC approval of a service is only a preliminary step, and it was common pleas’ responsibility to review the public need and to make a determination of the scope and validity of the condemnation for the Mariner East 2 pipeline. PUC filed an amicus brief solely addressing this issue.20

PUC expresses concern that Condemnees’ argument, if credited, would permit eminent domain litigants to challenge the validity of PUC-issued CPCs before courts of common pleas, which would constitute impermissible collateral attacks on otherwise valid PUC orders and raises serious jurisdictional concerns. PUC argues, as does Sunoco, that the CPCs Sunoco obtained through its acquisition of Sun and Atlantic were for an integrated pipeline system and not a single pipeline, and that PUC’s October 29, 2014 Order confirms that Sunoco’s intrastate transportation of propane and other petroleum hydrocarbons is within its existing certificated authority for petroleum and petroleum products. PUC cites the same history we detailed above to establish that it, on numerous occasions, has asserted its regulatory authority over Sunoco and its public utility service on the Mariner East system.

1. PUC has statewide jurisdiction over public utilities

[10] [11] Initially, we observe that the Code charges PUC with responsibility to determine which entities are public utilities and to regulate how public utilities provide public utility service. This has long been the statutory mandate. See, e.g., Pottsville Union Traction Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Service Comm’n, 67 Pa.Super. 301 (1917). It is beyond purview that the General Assembly intended PUC to have statewide jurisdiction over public utilities and to foreclose local public utility regulation. Duquesne Light Co. v. Monroeville Borough, 449 Pa. 573, 298 A.2d 252 (1972). [12] [13] As previously described, in the public utility context, an entity must meet separate but related requirements set forth in both the BCL and the Code to be a public utility corporation clothed with the power of eminent domain. Section 1511(a)(2) of the BCL provides that “public utility corporations” may exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn property for the transportation of, inter alia, natural gas and petroleum products. Section 1103 of the BCL defines public utility corporation as “[a]ny domestic or foreign corporation for profit that ... is subject to regulation as a public utility by the [PUC]....” 15 Pa.C.S. § 1103. Section 1104 of the Code requires that a public utility must possess a CPC issued by PUC pursuant to Section 1101 of the Code before exercising eminent domain. While courts of common pleas have jurisdiction to review whether an entity attempting to exercise eminent domain power meets the BCL criteria, that jurisdiction does not include the authority to revisit PUC adjudications. A CPC issued by PUC is prima facie evidence that PUC has determined

109


111



that there is a public need for the proposed service and that the holder is clothed with the eminent domain power. This Court has stated “[t]he administrative system of this Commonwealth would be thrown into chaos if we were to hold that agency decisions, reviewable by law by the Commonwealth Court, are also susceptible to collateral attack in equity in the numerous common pleas courts.” Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, 65 Pa.Cmwlth. 213, 442 A.2d 364, 367 n. 5 (1982).

2. The Eminent Domain Code governs the scope and validity of a taking, and not public need

The Eminent Domain Code21 governs process and procedure in condemnation proceedings. Section 306 of the Eminent Domain Code provides in pertinent part that:

§ 306. Preliminary objections.

(a) Filing and exclusive method of challenging certain matters.—

(1) Within 30 days after being served with notice of condemnation, the condemnee may file preliminary objections to the declaration of taking.

(2) The court upon cause shown may extend the time for filing preliminary objections.

(3) Preliminary objections shall be limited to and shall be the exclusive method of challenging:

(i) The power or right of the condemnor to appropriate the condemned property unless it has been previously adjudicated.

(ii) The sufficiency of the security.

(iii) The declaration of taking.

(iv) Any other procedure followed by the condemnor.

26 Pa.C.S. § 306(a). [14] The Eminent Domain Code does not permit common pleas to review the public need for a proposed service by a public utility that has been authorized by PUC through the issuance of a CPC. In Fairview Water Co. v. Public Utility Comm’n, 509 Pa. 384, 502 A.2d 162 (1985), our Supreme Court discussed the proper forum for a condemnee’s challenge to the legality of a taking when a public utility attempts to condemn an easement and PUC

has determined that condemnee’s property is necessary for the utility service. The case stemmed from a dispute between Fairview and a power company over the power company’s continuing use of an easement previously agreed to by the parties. Id. at 163. The power company filed an application with PUC requesting a finding and determination that its transmission line was necessary and proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public. A PUC Administrative Law Judge determined that the service was necessary and proper and also determined the scope and validity of the easement. This court affirmed. On appeal, Fairview argued that PUC lacked jurisdiction to determine the scope and validity of the easement. Id. at 163–64. The Supreme Court agreed and stated: “[o]nce there has been a determination by the PUC that the proposed service is necessary and proper, the issues of scope and validity and damages must be determined by a Court of Common Pleas exercising equity jurisdiction.” Id. at 167. As Sunoco here holds CPCs issued by PUC and PUC in its Orders issuing the CPCs found the authorized service to be necessary and proper, it is left to common pleas to evaluate scope and validity of the easement, but not the public need. [15] [16] As illustrated by Fairview, determinations of public need for a proposed utility service are made by PUC, not the courts. Section 1103 of the Code requires an applicant for a CPC to establish that the proposed service is “necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public.” 66 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a). Under this section, the applicant must “demonstrate a public need or demand for the proposed service....” Chester Water Auth. v. Public Utility Comm’n, 581 Pa. 640, 868 A.2d 384, 386 (2005) (emphasis added).22 In this case, PUC in its July 24, 2014 Order held that Sunoco’s proposed intrastate propane service would result in “numerous potential public benefits” by allowing Sunoco “to immediately address the need for uninterrupted deliveries of propane in Pennsylvania and to ensure that there is adequate pipeline capacity to meet peak demand for propane during the winter heating season.” (R.R. at 49a–50a.) Further, in granting Sunoco’s CPC application to extend its service territory into Washington County, PUC stated:

[W]e believe that approval of this Application is necessary and proper for the service, accommodation, and convenience of the public. We believe granting Sunoco authority to commence intrastate transportation of


112



propane in Washington County will enhance delivery options for the transport of natural gas and natural gas liquids in Pennsylvania. In the wake of the propane shortage experienced in 2014, Sunoco’s proposed service will increase the supply of propane in markets with a demand for these resources, including in Pennsylvania, ensuring that Pennsylvania’s citizens enjoy access to propane heating fuel. Additionally, the proposed service will offer a safer and more economic transportation alternative for shippers to existing rail and trucking services.

(R.R. at 63a (emphasis added).) Here, both PUC and common pleas followed their statutory mandates and evaluated the issues within their respective purviews. There is no basis for a common pleas court to review a PUC determination of public need. In fact, to allow such review would permit collateral attacks on PUC decisions and be contrary to Section 763 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 763, which places review of PUC decisions within the jurisdiction of this Court. For these reasons, we conclude that common pleas did not err when it overruled Condemnees’ Preliminary Objections to Sunoco’s Declarations of Taking. We further conclude that Sunoco is regulated as a public utility by PUC and is a public utility corporation, and Mariner East intrastate service is a public utility service rendered by Sunoco within the meaning of the BCL, 15 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103, 1511. The September 29, 2015 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is hereby affirmed.

ORDER

NOW, this 14th day of July, 2016, the September 29, 2015 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is hereby AFFIRMED.

DISSENTING OPINION BY Judge BROBSON.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

∼James Madison1 Private property rights have long been afforded especial protection in this Commonwealth. For that reason, the law of our Commonwealth requires that courts closely scrutinize the exercise of eminent domain. Eminent domain is a privilege conferred by the General Assembly, while property ownership is a right of our citizens protected by the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution. As between the privilege and the right, the right is paramount. I cannot improve upon the words of our Pennsylvania Supreme Court from 1866:

The right of the Commonwealth to take private property with out (sic) the owner’s assent on compensation made, or authorize it to be taken, exists in her sovereign right of eminent domain, and can never be lawfully exercised but for a public purpose—supposed and intended to benefit the public, either mediately or immediately. The power arises out of that natural principle which teaches that private convenience must yield to the public wants. This public interest must lie at the basis of the exercise, or it would be confiscation and usurpation to exercise it. This being the reason for the exercise of such a power, it requires no argument to prove that after the right has been exercised the use of the property must be held in accordance with and for the purposes which justified its taking. Otherwise it would be a fraud on the owner, and an abuse of power.... The exercise of the right of eminent domain, whether directly by the state or its authorized grantee, is necessarily in derogation of private right, and the rule in that case is, that the authority is to be strictly construed [.] What is not granted is not to be exercised.

111


113



Lance’s Appeal, 55 Pa. 16, 25–26 (1866) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see Winger v. Aires, 371 Pa. 242, 89 A.2d 521, 523 (1952). With respect to the exercise of eminent domain, this Court’s duty is clear: “[T]he court of original appellate jurisdiction has the responsibility, in the first instance, to review Appellants’ preserved and colorable arguments, and any decision to affirm the taking of their property should be closely reasoned.” In re Opening a Private Road (O’Reilly), 607 Pa. 280, 5 A.3d 246, 258–59 (2010). At issue in this case is the effort of a publicly-traded company—Appellee Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. (Sunoco)—to take the private property of citizens in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (Property Owners), for the purpose of constructing a portion of an underground pipeline, which is a component of a project that Sunoco has dubbed Mariner East 2(ME2).2 This proposed pipeline will have the capacity to provide for both the interstate transportation of natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Ohio and West Virginia to Pennsylvania and the intrastate transportation of NGLs within Pennsylvania.3 The pipeline will terminate at Sunoco’s Marcus Hook Industrial Complex, Delaware County, Pennsylvania (Marcus Hook IC). Although the majority’s decision affirming the taking is well-reasoned, I believe that Property Owners have raised a substantial and critical mixed issue of fact and law that must be resolved before any court places its imprimatur on the proposed takings. I thus respectfully dissent. Sunoco’s legislative authority to take private property in the Commonwealth through eminent domain in order to construct an underground pipeline emanates from the Business Corporation Law of 1988(BCL), which provides:

(a) General rule.—A public utility corporation shall, in addition to any other power of eminent domain conferred by any other statute, have the right to take, occupy and condemn property for one or more of the following principal purposes and ancillary purposes reasonably necessary or appropriate for the accomplishment of the principal purposes:

....

(2) The transportation of artificial or natural gas, electricity, petroleum or petroleum products or water or any combination of such substances for the public.

15 Pa.C.S. § 1511(a)(2) (emphasis added). When interpreting a statute, this Court is guided by the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1501–1991, which provides that “[t]he object of all interpretation and

construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). “The clearest indication of legislative intent is generally the plain language of a statute.” Walker v. Eleby, 577 Pa. 104, 842 A.2d 389, 400 (2004). “When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). Only “[w]hen the words of the statute are not explicit” may this Court resort to statutory construction. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(c). “A statute is ambiguous or unclear if its language is subject to two or more reasonable interpretations.” Bethenergy Mines, Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 676 A.2d 711, 715 (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 546 Pa. 668, 685 A.2d 547 (1996). Moreover, “[e]very statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a). It is presumed “[t]hat the General Assembly intends the entire statute to be effective and certain.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(2). Thus, no provision of a statute shall be “reduced to mere surplusage.” Walker, 842 A.2d at 400. Finally, it is presumed “[t]hat the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.” 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1). Applying these principles of statutory construction to the eminent domain provision for public utility corporations in the BCL, the intent of the General Assembly is clear and unambiguous. A public utility corporation may use eminent domain to construct a facility, such as a pipeline, so long as the “principal purpose” of the facility is the transportation of the petroleum product, in this case NGLs, “for the public.” This “public use” condition in the BCL is coextensive with property rights conferred and protected by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. Specifically, the Declaration of Rights in the Pennsylvania Constitution both authorizes and limits the use of eminent domain: “No person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall private property be taken or applied to public use, without authority of law and without just compensation being first made or secured.” Pa. Const. art. I, § 10 (emphasis added). The proper and lawful exercise of eminent domain under the Declaration of Rights, then, is evidenced by (1) authority of law (i.e., legislation, such as the BCL), (2) just compensation, and (3) the taking of property for “public use.” In addition, Article X, section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution addresses use of eminent domain by municipal and other corporations. Like Section 10 of the Declaration of Rights, Article X, section 4 recognizes the power of eminent domain only with respect to the “taking [of] private property for public use.” Pa. Const. art. X, § 4 (emphasis added). In the context of eminent domain, courts have used the


114



phrases “public use” and “public purpose” interchangeably. In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 125 S.Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439 (2005), a sharply-divided United States Supreme Court, interpreting the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,4 held that the taking of private property in furtherance of a community economic development plan by a private entity furthered a “public purpose” and thus was a valid “public use” for eminent domain purposes. Critics of the Kelo majority have contended that the majority applied an overly-broad interpretation of the phrase “public use,” opening the door for eminent domain takings that serve virtually any “public purpose.”5 This Court need not enter into this debate, however, because in cases involving the taking of private property by eminent domain (or like authority), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has interpreted both “public use” and “public purpose” narrowly in favor of the private property interests of the landowner. In Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, 595 Pa. 607, 939 A.2d 331 (2007), a post-Kelo decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Middletown Township could exercise its eminent domain power under Section 2201 of The Second Class Township Code6 to take private farm land for recreational purposes. The authorizing statute provides:

The board of supervisors may designate lands or buildings owned, leased or controlled by the township for use as parks, playgrounds, playfields, gymnasiums, swimming pools, indoor recreation centers, public parks and other recreation areas and facilities and acquire lands or buildings by lease, gift, devise, purchase or by the exercise of the right of eminent domain for recreational purposes and construct and equip facilities for recreational purposes.

Section 2201 of The Second Class Township Code (emphasis added). The Supreme Court next considered whether Middletown Township acted within the scope of this statutory authority when it sought to take by eminent domain a 175–acre farm in Bucks County. Although Section 2201 of The Second Class Township Code does not expressly use the phrase “public use,” the Supreme Court opined that in light of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,

“the only means of validly overcoming the private right of property ownership ... is to take for ‘public use.’ In other words, without a public purpose, there is no authority to take property from private owners.” Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d at 337 (citation omitted) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. V) (emphasis added). As for the appropriate inquiry, the Supreme Court opined:

According to our Court, “a taking will be seen as having a public purpose only where the public is to be the primary and paramount beneficiary of its exercise.” In considering whether a primary public purpose was properly invoked, this Court has looked for the “real or fundamental purpose” behind a taking. Stated otherwise, the true purpose must primarily benefit the public....

This means that the government is not free to give mere lip service to its authorized purpose or to act precipitously and offer retroactive justification.... Clearly, evidence of a well-developed plan of proper scope is significant proof that an authorized purpose truly motivates a taking.

....

... Because the law requires that the true purpose of the taking be recreational, it is not sufficient that some part of the record support that recreational purposes were put forth. But rather, in order to uphold the invocation of the power of eminent domain, this Court must find that the recreational purpose was real and fundamental, not post-hoc or pre-textual.

Id. at 337–38 (citation omitted) (quoting In re Bruce Ave., 438 Pa. 498, 266 A.2d 96 (1970), and Belovsky v. Redevelopment Auth., 357 Pa. 329, 54 A.2d 277 (1947)) (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court then proceeded to examine the common pleas court’s factual findings to determine whether the “true purpose” of the proposed taking in Lands of Stone was for the statutorily-authorized purpose—i.e., recreational use. The Supreme Court concluded that the common pleas court’s factual findings did not support the taking. The Supreme Court noted that the plan on which Middletown Township’s taking was premised did not at all provide for use of the farm property for recreational purposes. Id. at 339. The Supreme Court also rejected as insignificant Middletown Township’s consideration of various recreational options for the property, each of which the Supreme Court found problematic from a “public use” and necessity perspective. Id. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected the common pleas court’s finding that Middletown Township

113


115



“might” use portions of the property for passive recreation, noting the absence of any record evidence to support this finding. Id. The Supreme Court concluded:

It is clear that in order to invoke that power [of eminent domain], it was incumbent upon the Township to identify the fact that it could take for a recreational purpose and to take action to effectuate that purpose. Further, as stated previously, precedent demonstrates that condemnations have been consistently upheld when the taking is orchestrated according to a carefully developed plan which effectuates the stated purpose. Anything less would make an empty shell of our public use requirements. It cannot be sufficient to merely wave the proper statutory language like a scepter under the nose of a property owner and demand that he forfeit his land for the sake of the public. Rather, there must be some substantial and rational proof by way of an intelligent plan that demonstrates informed judgment to prove that an authorized public purpose is the true goal of the taking.

The record does not support any finding of a condemnation proceeding informed by intelligent judgment or a concrete plan to use the Stone farm for the authorized purpose of recreation....

Id. at 340 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the common pleas court erred in overruling the preliminary objections to the taking. Id. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court revisited the power of eminent domain a few years later, when it considered a constitutional challenge to the Private Road Act.7 The Private Road Act allows a landowner to petition the court of common pleas to appoint a board of viewers to consider the necessity of a private road to connect landlocked property with the nearest public thoroughfare. Like eminent domain, the landowner who is successful under the Private Road Act must compensate the person over whose property the private road is built. In In re Opening a Private Road (O’Reilly), 607 Pa. 280, 5 A.3d 246 (2010), the challengers contended that the Private Road Act authorized the taking of private property for private purposes in violation of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. The Supreme Court, agreeing with the challengers, opined that the Private Road Act provides for a government taking of private property in the constitutional sense. O’Reilly, 5 A.3d at 257. The Supreme Court held that any effort by the General Assembly to vest within an individual or nongovernmental entity the right to take private property for its own use must constitute “a valid exercise of the power of eminent domain.” Id. In this

Court’s majority opinion on review by the Supreme Court in O’Reilly, we articulated a public benefit behind the private road in question:

[E]ven if we were to use a traditional takings analysis to determine the constitutionality of the [Private] Road Act, a public purpose is served by allowing the laying out of roads over the land of another. Although the private property owner who petitioned for the private road certainly gains from the opening of the road, the public gains because otherwise inaccessible swaths of land in Pennsylvania would remain fallow and unproductive, whether to farm, timber or log for residences, making that land virtually worthless and not contributing to commerce or the tax base of this Commonwealth. All of this, plus the fact that private roads are considered part of the road system of Pennsylvania, equate with the conclusion that a public purpose is served by the Private Road Act provisions that allow for the taking of property of another for a private road to give access to landlocked property.

In re Opening a Private Road (O’Reilly), 954 A.2d 57, 72 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (en banc) (emphasis added), vacated and remanded, 607 Pa. 280, 5 A.3d 246 (2010). The Supreme Court, however, found this articulation of a public purpose, or benefit, inadequate to support a taking. Instead, the test, as articulated in Lands of Stone, requires that “the public must be the primary and paramount beneficiary of the taking.” O’Reilly, 5 A.3d at 258 (citing Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d at 337). The Supreme Court, therefore, vacated this Court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision—i.e., to apply the proper test. In their preliminary objections below and on appeal, Property Owners note that when Sunoco presented this very same pipeline facility—ME2—to the Court of Common Pleas of York County (York County court), Sunoco maintained that the sole purpose of the pipeline was for the interstate transportation of all types of NGLs (ethane, propane, liquid petroleum, gas, and others) for Sunoco’s customers. In its February 25, 2014 Opinion


116



Denying Motion for Immediate Right of Entry, the York County court,8 accepting Sunoco’s represented purpose for constructing the pipeline, held that the facility was not an act in furtherance of Sunoco’s PUC authority, but, rather, was an act in furtherance of interstate commerce, regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) 484a–89a.) Under such circumstances, according to the York County court, Sunoco’s power of eminent domain as a public utility corporation under the BCL was not triggered. Sunoco, through PUC-issued certificates of public convenience, is authorized to offer, furnish, or supply intrastate petroleum and refined petroleum products pipeline service.9 The particular NGL that is the subject of this PUC authority is propane, which many in the Commonwealth use as fuel for heating. (R.R. 60a–64a.)10 At the time the York County court issued its decision, however, Sunoco did not have PUC authority to offer that intrastate public utility service from Pennsylvanian’s western-most border to Pennsylvania’s eastern-most border. In western Pennsylvania, that authority stopped at Westmoreland County. In addition, as revealed below, Sunoco had suspended/abandoned intrastate service in some parts of the Commonwealth before pursuing the taking in York County. Following the York County court’s decision, Sunoco filed two applications with the PUC relating to ME2. The first, filed on May 21, 2014, sought “clarification” of a prior PUC Order (issued August 29, 2013), which granted Sunoco the authority to suspend and abandon public utility service in certain portions of its authorized territory. The PUC granted that application by order dated July 24, 2014. (R.R. 191a–201a.) In its disposition, the PUC noted a change of circumstances that prompted its reconsideration of the prior order authorizing suspension and abandonment of service:

We conclude that Sunoco has identified new considerations in its Petition, based on its averments that the circumstances surrounding the Mariner East Pipeline project have changed since the issuance of the August 2013 Order. When we approved Sunoco’s Abandonment Application, the Company did not intend to provide intrastate service within Pennsylvania from the Mariner East Pipeline and planned to provide only intrastate transportation of ethane and

propane from west-to-east to the [Marcus Hook IC]. August 2013 Order at 3. The Company’s plans have since changed due to the increased demand for intrastate transportation of propane, and Sunoco now intends to offer intrastate propane service in response to the increased shipper interest in securing intrastate pipeline facilities.

(R.R. 198a–99a.) In granting Sunoco’s application for clarification, the PUC confirmed that Sunoco retained its authority to provide intrastate public utility service through its certificates of public convenience in the previously abandoned service areas and clarified the procedures that Sunoco must follow to resume pipeline transportation services for petroleum products in those areas. (R.R. 200a–01a.) On June 9, 2014, Sunoco applied to the PUC for authority to extend its authorized service to the public in Washington County, Pennsylvania—a border county with West Virginia. The PUC approved that request in August 2014. (Id.) With that decision, Sunoco, for the first time, had PUC authority to provide public utility service in the form of pipeline transportation of petroleum products in Pennsylvania as far east as Delaware County and as far west as Washington County. As noted above, Sunoco relied solely on the interstate component, or purpose, of ME2 in the York County court proceeding (Loper ). On or about July 21, 2015, Sunoco filed the three Declarations of Taking in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (trial court), that are at issue in this appeal. In the Declarations of Taking, in the proceedings below, and in this appeal, Sunoco emphasizes its PUC authority and the intrastate service that ME2 will provide to those in Pennsylvania who benefit from that regulated service. As it did in its May 21, 2014 application to the PUC, Sunoco acknowledges in the Declarations of Taking that the renewed focus on intrastate supply of petroleum products occurred at or around the time of the York County court’s decision in Loper:

During and following the 2013–2014 winter season, Sunoco Pipeline experiences a significant increase in shipper demand for intrastate shipments of propane due to an increase in local consumer demand for propane. These

115


117



changes in market conditions were due to propane shortages caused by the harsh winter conditions and a deficit in pipeline infrastructure. The resulting price spikes and shortages prompted unprecedented emergency measures from both the state and federal governments. In reaction to the unfolding market conditions and shipper interest, Sunoco Pipeline accelerated its business plans to provide intrastate shipments of propane within the Commonwealth, in addition to interstate shipments of propane and ethane.

(R.R. 159a–60a (emphasis in original).) Absent from the Declarations of Taking, however, are any allegations that this new emphasis on the intrastate supply of propane to people within the Commonwealth is, as the Supreme Court phrased in Lands of Stone, the “true” purpose behind the taking.11 With this background, Property Owners are justifiably skeptical. At base, Property Owners contend that nothing of material moment has changed in terms of Sunoco’s purpose for constructing and its intended use of ME2. Counsel for Property Owners questioned Curtis M. Stambaugh, Esquire, Sunoco’s Assistant General Counsel, about this issue at the hearing on the preliminary objections below:

Q. And at that point [in a brief filed by Sunoco in the York County matter] doesn’t your Sunoco brief indicate that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission has no jurisdiction to regulate the pipeline because it is an interstate line not an intrastate line?

A. Yes, sir, I do. As you are aware from the four hearings we’ve already had where you’ve been counsel on the opposite side, we have repeatedly testified that in 2014 the initial plan was for interstate service only. After the polar vortex that changed to contemplate both inter and intrastate, that is actually the reason why we need to go get the Certificate of Public Convenience to include Washington County from the Public Utility Commission.

Q. After the polar vortex and after this [York County] decision, was Mariner East 2 still an interstate pipeline?

A. It is both, yes, sir, inter and intrastate.

Q. Continues to cross state lines? Continues to be a

proposal to cross state lines?

A. Yes, sir.

(R.R. 1339a–40a.) According to Property Owners, ME2 is now what it always has been—a predominantly, if not exclusively, interstate endeavor, intended to benefit not the Pennsylvanians who require propane to heat their homes, but Sunoco’s customers, who will use the pipeline to transport NGLs from parts west of Pennsylvania and within western Pennsylvania to the Marcus Hook IC for eventual use by concerns outside of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, Property Owners contend that the result before the trial court on the Declarations of Taking should have matched the result in York County. Although the legal issue is not as clearly articulated as I would hope (or even expect) it to be, the concern of Property Owners is plain. In their Statement of the Case, Property Owners complain that Sunoco “engaged in an array of activities attempting to obtain state eminent domain power to reduce the cost of purchasing property rights,” but that ME2 is still a matter of interstate commerce. The eminent domain power of the BCL is, therefore, not available, according to Property Owners. (Appellants’ Br. at 5.) At page 16 of their brief, Property Owners describe Sunoco’s addition of new on—and off-ramp locations along ME2 to serve intrastate service as “a faulty ploy to try to obtain eminent domain power.” (Id. at 16.) Although Property Owners mostly couch their arguments on appeal in terms of the pipeline being interstate and not intrastate (the trial court found that it is both), the position that the pipeline is not intrastate enough to trigger eminent domain authority under the BCL can also be gleaned from a fair and reasonable reading of the record below and Property Owners’ arguments on appeal. Upon review of the trial court’s September 29, 2015 Order, overruling Property Owners’ preliminary objections to the Declarations of Taking, and the trial court’s subsequent Opinion Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P.1925, I must conclude that the trial court’s analysis of the takings at issue in this case and of Property Owners’ contentions is incomplete. The trial court grounded its decision below on its factual findings that ME2, as reconfigured following the York County matter, will have the capacity to provide both interstate service regulated by FERC and intrastate service regulated by the PUC. Those findings alone, however, are inadequate to address the key legal question of whether Sunoco’s “true purpose” behind the takings is to provide intrastate public utility service to Pennsylvanians of the type authorized and in the territories authorized by the PUC. If the courts are to allow these takings to proceed, it must be so, and not


118



some post-hoc, retroactive, or pre-textual justification to secure land by eminent domain. Sunoco must convince the trial court, through “some substantial and rational proof,” that providing PUC-authorized service “is the true goal” of taking Property Owners’ land. Lands of Stone, 939 A.2d at 337–40. This Court cannot and should not authorize the taking of private land in this case until the trial court makes such findings and renders such a legal conclusion. At that point, we can properly exercise appellate review.

DISSENTING OPINION BY Judge McCULLOUGH. I must respectfully dissent from the thoughtful Majority decision to permit Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. (Sunoco), a publicly traded company, to confiscate the private property of R. Scott Martin and Pamela Martin, Douglas M. Fitzgerald and Lyndsey M. Fitzgerald, and Harvey A. Nickey and Anna M. Nickey (Condemnees). After reviewing the procedural history of this matter, I am concerned that Sunoco is trying to avoid what may be the collateral estoppel effect of a decision adverse to its interests rendered by the Court of Common Pleas of York County and to utilize the sovereign power of eminent domain to take Condemnee’s property for its exclusively private benefit. Specifically, in recent proceedings before the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Sunoco represented that the same pipeline facility that is at issue here, known as the Mariner East 2 pipeline or ME2, was for interstate transportation of all types of natural gas liquids (NGLs). Based on that representation, the common pleas court quite properly determined that ME2 was not in furtherance of Sunoco’s Public Utility Commission (PUC) authority and, hence, Sunoco could not assert eminent domain powers under the guise of an intrastate public utility corporation and in accordance with section 1511(a) of the Business Corporation Law of 1988, 15 Pa.C.S. § 1511(a). See Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. v. Loper (York County C.P., No. 2013–SU–4518–05, filed February 24, 2014) (reaffirmed March 25, 2014). Rather than appeal the decision in Loper, Sunoco, in May of 2014, less than two months after that decision, sought, and subsequently obtained, a “clarification” from the PUC to re-assert intrastate service after Sunoco had previously obtained PUC approval to abandon such service less than a year before as set forth in a PUC Order dated August 29, 2013. Sunoco then followed up its claimed renewed intention to provide intrastate service within the Commonwealth from as far east as Delaware County to as far west as Washington County.

In other words, without abandoning its admitted interstate purpose for ME2, Sunoco has obtained approval for intrastate service for the first time across the entire breadth of Pennsylvania. Sunoco’s dizzying array of procedural moves and reversal of course as to its business plans in Pennsylvania in the aftermath of the Loper decision were followed by the present declarations of taking seeking extensive portions of Condemnees’ private properties in Cumberland County, not York County. Despite its prior representation that ME2 was an interstate pipeline, Sunoco now claims that it has an intrastate component as well, and, upon that basis alone, has sufficient justification for these takings. The assertion that ME2 will have several new “on and off” ramp locations so as to ostensibly provide intrastate service, is, at the preliminary hearing stage, insufficient to counter the recent representation Sunoco made to the Court of Common Pleas of York County that ME2 was exclusively interstate. In order to uphold the invocation of the power of eminent domain, the justification must be genuine and real, not hypothesized, or invented post hoc in response to litigation. See Middletown Township v. Lands of Stone, 595 Pa. 607, 939 A.2d 331, 338 (2007); see also United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 135 L.Ed.2d 735 (1996). Additionally, I am troubled by Sunoco’s failure to obtain any PUC recognition that ME2 is within the ambit of the “intrastate” service it now professes it plans to provide, as well as its failure to obtain any certificate of public convenience (CPC) to expressly authorize it to exercise the power of eminent domain. As can be gleaned from the Majority’s opinion, Sunoco has cobbled together various CPCs since the 1930’s, but never sought a CPC or any other PUC approval granting it the ability to exercise eminent domain within the Commonwealth. Most certainly, Sunoco never sought authority to exercise eminent domain as to ME2. Rather, Sunoco would have this Court confer such power upon it on the basis of vague, non-specific language in a PUC Order dated October 29, 2014, which was entered as part of Sunoco’s post-Loper procedural posturing. I believe this violates the spirit if not the letter of Section 1104 of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 1104. I would also note that the cases cited by the Majority to analogize this case to other instances of concurrent interstate and intrastate activity by business entities are clearly distinguishable in that none of the cases so cited involved the exercise of eminent domain powers to take private property. Private ownership of property is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution, and as

117


119



noted by my colleague, Judge Brobson, in his dissent, a right that is zealously protected under the Pennsylvania Constitution as well. The Majority’s decision, I fear, will gravely undermine that right. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s decision and sustain Appellee’s preliminary objection that Sunoco is collaterally estopped from re-litigating the interstate nature of ME2. I would also caution Sunoco not to bypass the PUC should it desire to pursue this matter further and obtain, in the first instance, the proper authority from the PUC to exercise eminent domain powers with respect to ME2 before it targets private property within the Commonwealth and seeks to deprive Commonwealth citizens of their fundamental right to own the same.

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

All Citations

143 A.3d 1000

Footnotes 1

15 Pa.C.S. §§ 1101–9507.

2

Section 1511(a)(2) of the BCL provides: § 1511. Additional powers of certain public utility corporations. (a) General rule.— A public utility corporation shall, in addition to any other power of eminent domain conferred by any other statute,have the right to take, occupy and condemn property for one or more of the following principal purposes andancillary purposes reasonably necessary or appropriate for the accomplishment of the principal purposes:

(2) The transportation of artificial or natural gas, electricity, petroleum or petroleum products or water or anycombination of such substances for the public.

15 Pa.C.S. § 1511(a)(2).

3

66 Pa.C.S. §§ 101–3316.

4

Section 1101 of the Code (related to the organization of public utilities and the beginning of service) provides: Upon the application of any proposed public utility and the approval of such application by the commissionevidenced by its certificate of public convenience first had and obtained, it shall be lawful for any such proposedpublic utility to begin to offer, render, furnish, or supply service within this Commonwealth. The commission’scertificate of public convenience granted under the authority of this section shall include a description of the natureof the service and of the territory in which it may be offered, rendered, furnished or supplied.

66 Pa.C.S. § 1101. Similarly, Section 1102 of the Code (related to the enumeration of the acts requiring a certificateof public convenience), provides, in part, as follows:

(a) General rule.—Upon the application of any public utility and the approval of such application by the commission, evidenced by its certificate of public convenience first had and obtained, and upon compliance with


120



existing laws, it shall be lawful: (1) For any public utility to begin to offer, render, furnish or supply within this Commonwealth service of a different nature or to a different territory....

66 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 1104 of the Code states: § 1104. Certain appropriations by right of eminent domain prohibited. Unless its power of eminent domain existed under prior law, no domestic public utility or foreign public utilityauthorized to do business in this Commonwealth shall exercise any power of eminent domain within thisCommonwealth until it shall have received the certificate of public convenience required by section 1101 (relating to organization of public utilities and beginning of service).

66 Pa.C.S. § 1104.

5

See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7155; 42 U.S.C. § 7172(b) (transferring authority conferred by ICA upon the InterstateCommerce Commission (ICC) to regulate pipeline transportation of oil to FERC); 49 U.S.C. § 60502 (regarding FERC jurisdiction over rates for the transportation of oil by pipeline formerly vested in the ICC). According to its website,FERC is an independent agency that among other duties regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas and oil. The website further notes that many areas beyond FERC’s jurisdiction are within the province of state publicutility commissions. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, What FERC Does, available athttp://ferc.gov/about/ferc-does.asp (last visited May 20, 2016).

6

Pipeline transportation services are defined as public utility services under Section 102 of the Code, 66 Pa.C.S. § 102, which provides as follows:

§ 102. Definitions.

Public utility. (1) Any person or corporations now or hereafter owning or operating in this Commonwealth equipment or facilitiesfor:

(v) Transporting or conveying natural or artificial gas, crude oil, gasoline, or petroleum products, materials forrefrigeration, or oxygen or nitrogen, or other fluid substance, by pipeline or conduit, for the public forcompensation.

Id.

7

Sunoco points out that the term “public utility corporation” is not limited to corporations, but also includes partnershipsand limited liability companies, citing Section 8102(a)(2) of the BCL, 15 Pa.C.S. § 8102(a)(2), which provides that:

§ 8102. Interchangeability of partnership, limited liability company and corporate forms of organization. (a) General rule.— Subject to any restrictions on a specific line of business made applicable by section 103 (relating to subordinationof title to regulatory laws):

(2) A domestic or foreign partnership or limited liability company may exercise any right, power, franchise orprivilege that a domestic or foreign corporation engaged in the same line of business might exercise under thelaws of this Commonwealth, including powers conferred by section 1511 (relating to additional powers of certain public utility corporations) or other provisions of law granting the right to a duly authorized corporation to take or occupy property and make compensation therefor.

Id.

8

PUC has interpreted the definition of “petroleum products” broadly to encompass what would otherwise be anexhaustive list of products. This list includes propane. See Petition of Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. for Amendment of the Order Entered on August 29, 2013, Entered July 24, 2014, Docket No. P–2014–2422583, at 9 n. 5, (R.R. at 41a–51a); and Petition of Granger Energy of Honey Brook LLC, Docket No. P–00032043, at 14 (Order entered August 19, 2004). In these Orders, PUC held that this interpretation is consistent with the definition of “petroleum gas” in the federal gaspipeline transportation safety regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part 192. Part 192 has been adopted by PUC and defines“petroleum gas” to include propane. 49 C.F.R. § 192.3. PUC posits that its interpretation also is consistent with the definition of “petroleum” in the federal hazardous liquids pipeline safety regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part 195. Part 195 alsohas been adopted by PUC (52 Pa.Code § 59.33(b)) and defines “petroleum” to include natural gas liquids and liquefiedpetroleum gas, which can include propane. 49 C.F.R. § 195.2. The following definitions can be found in the Parts 192 and 195 of the C.F.R.:

§ 192.3 Definitions. As used in this part:

119




Petroleum gas means propane, propylene, butane, (normal butane or isobutanes), and butylene (including isomers), or mixtures composed predominantly of these gases, having a vapor pressure not exceeding 208 psi(1434 kPa) gage at 100° F (38° C).

49 C.F.R. § 192.3 § 195.2 Definitions As used in this part—

Petroleum means crude oil, condensate, natural gasoline, natural gas liquids, and liquefied petroleum gas. Petroleum product means flammable, toxic, or corrosive products obtained from distilling and processing of crudeoil, unfinished oils, natural gas liquids, blend stocks and other miscellaneous hydrocarbon compounds.

49 C.F.R. § 195.2

9

According to the United States Energy Information Administration: Natural gas liquids (NGLs) are hydrocarbons—in the same family of molecules as natural gas and crude oil,composed exclusively of carbon and hydrogen. Ethane, propane, butane, isobutane, and pentane are all NGLs ...NGLs are used as inputs for petrochemical plants, burned for space heat and cooking, and blended into vehiclefuel .... The chemical composition of these hydrocarbons is similar, yet their applications vary widely. Ethane occupies thelargest share of NGL field production. It is used almost exclusively to produce ethylene, which is then turned intoplastics. Much of the propane, by contrast, is burned for heating, although a substantial amount is used as petrochemical feedstock....

United States Energy Information Administration, Today in Energy, April 20, 2012, available at http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5930&src=email (last visited May 20, 2016).

10

Sunoco also points out that it has filed all necessary tariffs required to implement the intrastate service proposed by theMariner East Project. The authority to file a tariff is limited to a public utility regulated by PUC. Section 1302 of theCode states that “every public utility shall file with the [C]ommission ... tariffs showing all rates established by it andcollected or enforced, or to be collected or enforced, within the jurisdiction of the [C]ommission.” 66 Pa.C.S. § 1302. The record contains the following with regard to Sunoco’s tariffs:

Sunoco filed Tariff Pipeline—Pa. P.U.C. No. 16 on June 12, 2014. By final Order dated August 21, 2014, in DocketNo. R–2014–2426158 PUC permitted the tariff to become effective on October 1, 2014. (R.R. at 53a–56a.) On November 6, 2014, Sunoco filed Supplement No. 2 Tariff Pipeline–Pa P.U.C. No. 16 (Supplement No. 2) to become effective January 5, 2015. (R.R. at 66a.) Supplement No. 2 proposed to add the new origin point of Houston, Washington County for west-to-east intrastate movements of propane, based on the CPCs issued. (Id.) On December 18, 2014, Sunoco filed Supplement No. 4 voluntarily postponing the effective date to January 16, 2015.PUC allowed Tariff Pipeline–Pa. P.U.C. No. 16 and Supplement No. 2 to become effective. (R.R. at 53a–57a, 66a–69a.)

11

The York County decision upon which Condemnees rely for their collateral estoppel argument and which we addressinfra was issued during this timeframe and prior to Sunoco’s decision to expand service on the Mariner East Project to include intrastate service.

12

Section 703(g) of the Code provides: § 703. Fixing of hearings.

(g) Rescission and amendment of orders.— The commission may, at any time, after notice and after opportunity to be heard as provided in this chapter,rescind or amend any order made by it. Any order rescinding or amending a prior order shall, when served uponthe person, corporation, or municipal corporation affected, and after notice thereof is given to the other parties tothe proceedings, have the same effect as is herein provided for original orders.

66 Pa.C.S. § 703(g).

13

(December 22, 2015 Op. at 2 n. 1.)

14

Common pleas added the following footnote to its September 29, 2015 Order: We feel that a brief explanation of our decision is appropriate in regards to [sic] Preliminary Objections 1, 3 and 7.As to the first Preliminary Objection, the Mariner East 2 (ME2) pipeline at issue will provide both loading and offloading of ethane, propane, liquid petroleum gas and other petroleum products within the Commonwealth. Assuch, ME2 provides intrastate service, regulated by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC). [Sunoco] is a “[p]ublic utility corporation” as defined at 15 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 1103. Pennsylvania public utility corporations possess

121




the power of eminent domain. 15 Pa.C.S.[ ] § 1511. Since ME2 may be regulated by both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the PUC, federal preemption is not at issue. As to the third Preliminary Objection, the Honorable Judge Linebaugh’s decision in Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. v. Loper,2013–SU–4518–05 (C.P.York, February 24, 2014) (reaffirmed March 25, 2014) is inapposite to the case at bar. Loper was decided when Condemnor’s plans for ME2 consisted of the installation of a purely interstate pipeline,crossing Pennsylvania state lines but containing no stations for the off-loading of transported materials. In Loper,Condemnor had argued that FERC provided that with the power of eminent domain for a purely interstate pipeline. Since that decision Condemnor has reconfigured ME2 to be both an interstate pipeline as well as an intrastatepipeline subject to PUC regulation. While we had questions as to the adequacy of the bond, the Condemnees failed to present any evidence as to the effect of the taking upon the value of their property. Therefore we have no alternative but to overrule their seventhPreliminary Objection.

(September 29, 2015 Order at 2 (emphasis in original).)

15

Pa. R.A.P.1925(b) provides as follows: Rule 1925. Opinion in Support of Order

(b) Direction to file statement of errors complained of on appeal; instructions to the appellant and the trialcourt.—If the judge entering the order giving rise to the notice of appeal (“judge”) desires clarification of the errorscomplained of on appeal, the judge may enter an order directing the appellant to file of record in the trial court andserve on the judge a concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal (“Statement”).

Id.

16

Common pleas also rejected Condemnees’ arguments that Sunoco’s corporate resolutions authorized takings for interstate pipelines only. (December 22, 2015 Op. at 5–6.) Condemnees do not pursue that argument here.

17

In an eminent domain case disposed of on preliminary objections this Court is limited to determining if common pleas’necessary findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and if an error of law or an abuse of discretion was committed. Stark v. Equitable Gas Co., LLC, 116 A.3d 760, 765 n. 8 (Pa.Cmwlth.2015).

18

See, e.g., Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 101 S.Ct. 2114, 68 L.Ed.2d 576 (1981) (for purposes of evaluating effect under the Commerce Clause of state tax, natural gas flowing from Gulf of Mexico in pipelines through Louisiana to up to 30 other states does not lose interstate character even if processing to remove NGLs takes place inLouisiana); California v. Lo–Vaca Gathering Co., 379 U.S. 366, 85 S.Ct. 486, 13 L.Ed.2d 357 (1965) (sale of gas which crosses a state line at any stage of its movement from wellhead to ultimate consumption is in interstate commercewithin the meaning of the Natural Gas Act).

19

Testimony shows that on-loading in Pennsylvania will occur in Independence Township (Washington County), Houston (Washington County), Delmont (Westmoreland County), and Mechanicsburg (Cumberland County). (R.R. at 1340a.)Off-loading points in Pennsylvania are in Mechanicsburg, Schaefferstown (Lebanon County), Montello (Berks County),and Twin Oaks (Delaware County). (R.R. at 1341a.)

20

PUC takes no position regarding the affirmance or reversal of common pleas’ decision or whether Sunocoappropriately exercised eminent domain authority against Condemnees’ real property interests.

21

26 Pa.C.S. §§ 101–1106.

22

Condemnees cite several decisions for the proposition that “[t]he Court must ... review whether Mariner East 2 pipelinesatisfies the public purpose test.” (Condemnees’ Br. at 26–27.) However, none of the cases cited support the proposition that common pleas may review a public utility’s CPC in an eminent domain context because those casesinvolve appellate review of PUC decisions related to public need for a particular service, not court decisions involving eminent domain.

1

James Madison, Property, in The Founders’ Constitution I:598 (Philip Kurland and Ralph Lerner eds., Chicago: Univ. ofChicago Press 1987) (emphasis in original).

2

Although Sunoco disputes that ME2 is an actual reference to the pipeline in question, unless the context indicatesotherwise, I will use ME2 to refer to the proposed pipeline.

3 NGLs are byproducts of natural gas production compressed into liquid form. They include pentane, propane, butane,

122121




isobutene, and ethane.

4

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits that taking of “private property ... for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const. amend. V (emphasis added).

5

See, e.g., Ilya Somin, The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain 73 (2015); Brent Nicholson and Sue Ann Mota, From Public Use to Public Purpose: The Supreme Court Stretches the TakingsClause in Kelo v. City of New London, 41:1 Gonz. L.Rev. 81 (2005).

6

Act of May 1, 1933, P.L. 103, as amended, 53 P.S. § 67201.

7

Act of June 13, 1836, P.L. 551, as amended, 36 P.S. §§ 2731–2891.

8

Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. v. Loper (C.P. York, 2013–SU–4518–05, filed February 25, 2014) (reaffirmed March 25, 2014).

9

The definition of “public utility” in the Public Utility Code includes a person or corporation that owns or operates facilitiesin the Commonwealth for: “transporting or conveying ... petroleum products ... for the public for compensation.” 66 Pa.C.S. § 102. Although the Public Utility Code does not define “petroleum product,” the PUC, in its amicus curiaebrief, notes that PUC considers propane a “petroleum product.” (PUC Br. at 6–7.)

10

In an October 29, 2014 decision, the PUC concluded that Sunoco’s authority also extended to pipeline service for theintrastate transportation of ethane. (R.R. 120a–22a.)

11

Sunoco argues that the ME2 project always contemplated an intrastate component. For purposes of this dissent, Iaccept that claim. The question that remains is whether that intrastate component is the “true” purpose behind theconstruction of the pipeline.

End of Document

© 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

123

DELI TO:VER

PERIODICAL PUBLICATION* Dated Material. Do Not Delay. Please Deliver Before Monday, January 9, 2017

delaware county legal journal · pdf filedelaware county legal journal ... richard k....

Documents