On July 3, 2013, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania filed an Opinion in support of a Berks County Court of Common Pleas trial court decision finding a landlord in the City of Reading (the “City”) guilty of a summary offense of violating the Fire Protection Systems Section of the City of Reading’s Property Maintenance Code (the “Code”). See Com. v. Heckman, No.: 3 C.D. 2013 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct., Jul. 3, 2013). In doing so, the Commonwealth Court found that the City could discretionally sidestep its own Board of Appeals violation hearing process and file Code citations directly with a local magisterial district justice.
By way of background, on January 11, 2012, a City Code Inspector responded to a complaint from a tenant who complained that his rental building on Walnut Street in the City was missing smoke detectors and had a malfunctioning hard-wired smoke alarm system in violation of Section 704.5 of the Code. The City inspected the building and issued a notice of violation. Days later, the Inspector revisited the building and determined that the landlord had not cured the violations, resulting in a citation. A magisterial district justice conducted a hearing on the citation on March 29, 2012, who found Defendant guilty of the offense.
The landlord then appealed, without the assistance of counsel, to the Court of Common Pleas. Based on the evidence, the Court determined that the Defendant had, in fact, partially violated Section 704.5 of the Code and ordered him to pay a fine of $200.00 plus costs within thirty days. The landlord then appealed the matter to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. On appeal, the landlord argued, among other things, that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction because he timely filed an appeal to the Property Maintenance Administrator for the City upon receiving the initial violation notice. The landlord argued that under Section 111.8 of the Code, his appeal stayed the enforcement of any violation until the City’s Board of Appeals conducted a hearing, which had not occurred.
The Commonwealth Court found that the City may initiate a summary case involving violations under Section 704.5 of the Code by issuing a citation and filing it directly with a Magisterial District Judge. See 42 Pa. C.S. § 1515(a); Pa. R. Crim. P. 400, 406. The trial court then had the right to hear any appeal of the magisterial district justice’s decision de novo. See 42 Pa. C. S. § 932. The Commonwealth Court also found that although Section 111.8 of the Code stays the City’s enforcement of an appeal of the violation notice, this provision cannot operate to condition, restrict, or divest the courts of their statutory authorized jurisdiction when a citation is properly filed. See, e.g., Western Pa. Rest. Assoc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 77 A. 2d 616 (Pa. 1951).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.