Hey kids, if you are looking for some fun carnival action tomorrow night, I just got word that Holy Ghost Church and Father Evans are on the Planning Commission schedule. I am sure this will be a real hoot.
FRON THE COURT RECORDS: NOTE, THE SNB WON THIS RULING! FIRST WIN:
"The crux of this case is whether Plaintiff, as lessee of the Property under a 99 year lease, can enter into an agreement of sale to sell a portion of the Property on behalf of an “inactive” landlord. It is undisputed that Plaintiff has possession of the Property pursuant to a 99-year lease entered into between the parties on or about June 15, 1941. It is also undisputed that SNB is the record owner of the Property and is a non-profit corporation organized and currently existing under Pennsylvania law. Plaintiff wants to raise money for a new church facility. To do so, Plaintiff plans to sell an undefined and unsubdivided portion of the leased premises to a third party and use the proceeds of that sale to fund the construction of the new church facility. Plaintiff is not the record owner of, nor does it have legal title to, the leased premises. Plaintiff’s only legal interest in the Property is as a lessee under the lease. Regardless, Plaintiff is asking this Court to decree that Plaintiff is permitted to sell a portion of the leased premises. And the only reason in support of its argument is that Plaintiff has acted on behalf of Defendant SNB because SNB has been “inactive” since Plaintiff satisfied its rental requirements under the lease in 1952.
Plaintiff has failed in its Complaint to set forth the legal grounds under which it is entitled to title in the Property. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1061(b)(2), a party may bring a quiet title action to: (1) determine any right, lien, title or interest in land; or (2) determine the validity, discharge of any document, obligation or deed affecting any right, lien or interest in the land. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1061(b)(2) (emphasis added). In this case, Plaintiff does not challenge the validity of the two deeds conveying fee simple title in the Property to SNB, nor does Plaintiff ask this Court to discharge either of those two deeds. In this case, Plaintiff is asking this Court to determine the right, title and interest to the Property. As such, Plaintiff must demonstrate title to the property by a fair preponderance of the evidence, which places upon the Plaintiff the burden of proving a prima facie title, which proof is sufficient until a better title is shown in the adverse party. Poffenberger v. Goldstein, 776 A.2d 1037, 1041 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). It is undisputed that the recorded deeds to the Property vest fee simple title to the property in Defendant, SNB. As such, Plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate a superior title in the Property. See Id.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is legally insufficient because it fails to describe the land in question. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1065 requires Plaintiff to describe the land in the Complaint. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1065. Rule 1065 requires a specific description of the land and does not permit a description to be incorporated by reference. See Cheesman v. Yurkanin, 73 Pa. D. & C. 378 (C.P. Luzerne Cty. 1951). If the subject of the quiet title action is a portion of the total parcel of land, the plaintiff’s description of the land must specifically describe the disputed portion, and a description of the entire parcel is not sufficient to satisfy the Rule 1065 requirement. See Grace Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Parchinski, 467 A.2d 94 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1983).
Plaintiff has failed to describe the exact property at issue in this case. The only possible description reference is in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint in which it refers only to the December 7, 1938 deed attached as an exhibit to the Complaint. Plaintiff’s mere reference to the deed without more is legally insufficient and in direct violation of Rule 1065. See Cheesman, 73 Pa. D. & C. 378. Additionally, Plaintiff is seeking a decree from this court to allow the conveyance of only 1.66 acres of the entire 19.72 acres. (See Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶¶ 5, 20) Plaintiff fails, however, to include in its Complaint a metes and bound description of that portion of the Property which renders its Complaint legally insufficient under Rule 1065. See Grace Bldg. Co., 467 A.2d at 96. Even if this Court was inclined to quiet title in the property in the name of Plaintiff, it would know not what portion of the property it was quieting title in. Based on this reason alone, this Court must sustain Defendants’ Preliminary Objections and dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on ground that it is legally insufficient.
In addition to the failure of Plaintiff’s Complaint to comply with the rules governing quiet title actions, Plaintiff has also failed to state a legally sufficient claim for quiet title. As noted above, Plaintiff must demonstrate title to the Property by a fair preponderance of the evidence, which places upon Plaintiff the burden of proving a prima facie title. In this case, the basis of Plaintiff’s claim to title in the Property is two fold; (1) Plaintiff claims that it has effectively been the “real owner of the Property” because it has maintained the Property, paid taxes or other levies or assessments associated with the Property and has continually occupied and utilized the Property; and (2) Plaintiff claims that Plaintiff’s Board has effectively operated and conducted the affairs of Defendant SNB because SNB has not taken any action or operated through a separate board of directors since 1941. Neither of these claims is sufficient to establish Plaintiff’s right to title in the Property.
The fact that Plaintiff has maintained the Property, paid taxes and continually occupied the Property does not give Plaintiff title to the Property because the lease terms require Plaintiff to do so. The 99 year ground lease is essentially a triple net lease under which the lessee is responsible for all aspects of the Property. Under the lease, Plaintiff must “promptly pay, when due, to the proper authorities . . . all taxes, assessment and other charges . . . imposed by governmental authority upon . . . the premises . . . and any buildings and improvements” on the Property. (Lease, page 3). The Lease further requires Plaintiff to “keep all buildings and improvements” situated on the Property at Plaintiff’s expense. (Lease, p.4). Such costs include the costs of maintaining and insuring the buildings and the Property. (Lease, p.5). Yet, Plaintiff alleges that it has “effectively been the real owner of the Property” because it has “maintained the Property, paid any taxes or other levies or assessment associated with the property” and “has continually occupied and utilized the Property.” (See Plaintiff’s Complaint, ¶¶38, 39). The fact that Plaintiff has satisfied its covenants under the lease does not give Plaintiff, as a lessee under a lease, the right or title to the Property. The absurdity of Plaintiff’s argument essentially would result in the conveyance of title to leased property to every lessee who abides by its lease terms.
Plaintiff also alleges that it has a right to title in the Property because Plaintiff’s Board has “effectively operated and conducted the affairs of SNB by and through the [Plaintiff’s] Board.” Plaintiff fails, however, to plead any legal theory under which a corporation can acquire the assets of another corporation because it allegedly acts on behalf of that corporation. Even assuming that SNB has been “inactive” since 1941, as alleged by Plaintiff, it is a basic tenant of law that absent an agreement otherwise, one person cannot act on behalf of another person. See Basile v. H&R Block, Inc., 761 A.2d 1115, 1120 (Pa. 2000). Plaintiff has not pled in its Complaint the existence of an intra-company agreement between Plaintiff and SNB authorizing Plaintiff to act on SNB’s behalf. Nor does the lease itself provide Plaintiff with the right to act on SNB’s behalf with respect to the conveyance of the Property. SNB is a duly organized non-profit corporation organized and validly existing under Pennsylvania law, as demonstrated by the Good Standing Certificate issued by the Pennsylvania Department of State on September 11, 2008 and attached as Exhibit “A” hereto. Plaintiff’s argument fails to recognize the separate legal existence of Plaintiff and SNB, and thereby fails to respect the formalities of their separate legal existence. The plain and simple truth of this matter is that SNB is the owner of the Property and only SNB and its members can legally convey the Property. See Lacey Park Volunteer Fire Co. No. 1 v. Warminster Twp., 365 A.2d 880, 882 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (holding that the Township could not sell the assets of a fire company organized as a nonprofit corporation because only the members of the nonprofit corporation can decide the future of the corporation and the property).
Plaintiff tries to muddy the water in this case by making a claim that SNB is “inactive”, and therefore Plaintiff has the right to dispose of SNB’s land and retain the sale proceeds. But is SNB really inactive as purported by Plaintiff? SNB’s sole asset is 19.72 acres of land that it leases entirely to Plaintiff. The lease is for a term of 99 years and the lease required that the entire rent be paid upfront in 1951, which was done. The lease also shifts the burden of maintaining and operating the land to the Plaintiff as lessee. Under these facts, SNB is not required to do anything during the term since the lease is essentially a triple net ground lease, the lessee is responsible for all aspects of the Property and all rental payments were paid nearly fifty-seven years ago. Admittedly, this does not excuse SNB’s failure to hold annual meetings, but that alone does not render SNB “inactive” as alleged by Plaintiff. The deed is still in the name of SNB and the County’s assessment records show SNB as the record owner of the Property. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Nonprofit Corporation Law of 1988 does not include a concept of inactivity for its duly chartered corporations. See 15 Pa.C.S. §§ 5101 et seq. As such, SNB is still “active” for purposes of its existence under the non-profits law, and thus, is the only entity who can convey its assets.
B. Preliminary Objection Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) for Legal Insufficiency of a Pleading (Demurrer) – Insufficiency of Request for Declaratory Judgment.
In this case, Plaintiff requests an order decreeing that Plaintiff has the power and authority to act for and behalf of Defendant SNB “for any and all purposes” including selling a portion of the Property because Plaintiff “has always acted for and on behalf of” Defendant SNB. As discussed above, there is no legal grounds that would allow Plaintiff to act on behalf of Defendant SNB, absent an agreement otherwise. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment is legally insufficient and must be denied.
C. Preliminary Objection Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) for Legal Insufficiency of a Pleading (Demurrer) – Insufficiency of Request for Injunction.
Plaintiff seeks an injunction from this Court specifically enjoining all third parties, individuals or entities from seeking or purporting to act on behalf of Defendant SNB for any purpose. To prevail on a claim for a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish a clear right to relief, that there is an urgent necessity to avoid injury which cannot be compensated for by damages and that greater injury will result from refusing rather than granting the relief requested. Big Bass Lake Community Assoc. v. Warren, 950 A.2d 1137, 1144 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to establish a clear right to title to the Property or a clear right to act on behalf of Defendant SNB. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for permanent injunctive relief is legally insufficient and must be denied.
IV. Conclusion
For all of these reasons, Defendants respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order sustaining the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff the Holy Church Carpatho-Russian Greek Catholic (Orthodox) Church of the Eastern Rite of Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, and dismissing the Complaint with prejudice."
NOTE, RULING POSTED ON
THIS TWICE. GIVE IT UP EVANS!if council entertains this they are disrespecting a court of law!
Perhaps the board and priest do not understand the definition of obedience, and perpetual existance?
Did Evans finalize his retirement community in Saint Kits?
Did Fedornock break ground on his
property purchased in Florida?
Maybe they will both save on their blood pressure meds' and give it up, move to their island/southern parcels and quit raping the social security / church salaries/ incomes from extra entities and allow this town, commission and church to heal?
The following ownership was repeatedly denied by Fedornock at annual meetings and private inquisitions of HGC and past council members. This land was a cash deal purchase after his first year in Phoenixville: Next /records of Evans property:
.
Charlotte County
Florida
Details
Tax Record
Account Number Tax Type Tax Year
412003282001 REAL ESTATE 2008
Mailing Address
FEDORNOCK JOHN R & ET AL
PO BOX 133
PHOENIXVILLE PA 19460
Property Address
6158 BLACKBERRY ST CC
Old Acct Number
0064544-001800-9
Assessed Value Exempt Amount Taxable Value
$26,350.00 see below see below
Exemption Detail Millage Code Escrow Code
NO EXEMPTIONS 005
Legal Description (click for full description)
6158 BLACKBERRY ST PCH 069 3442 0018 PORT CHARLOTTE, FLORIDA
SEC69 BLK3442 LTS 18 & 19 542 /350
Ad Valorem Taxes
Taxing Authority Rate Exemption Amount Taxable Value Taxes Levied
CHARLOTTE COUNTY
COUNTY GENERAL FUND 4.3535 0 $26,350 $114.72
CAPITAL PROJECTS 1.2654 0 $26,350 $33.34
COUNTY HEALTH UNIT 0.0907 0 $26,350 $2.39
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAN 0.2000 0 $26,350 $5.27
SOUTHWEST FL WATER MANAGEMENT
SOUTHWEST FL WATER 0.3866 0 $26,350 $10.19
PEACE RIVER BASIN 0.1827 0 $26,350 $4.81
WEST COAST INLAND NAVIGATION 0.0394 0 $26,350 $1.04
STUMP PASS BEACH RENOURISHMENT 0.1978 0 $26,350 $5.21
CHARLOTTE PUBLIC SAFETY UNIT 1.8277 0 $26,350 $48.16
GREATER CHARLOTTE LIGHTING 0.1925 0 $26,350 $5.07
CHARLOTTE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 4.0210 0 $26,350 $105.96
DISCRETIONARY 0.5890 0 $26,350 $15.52
CAPITAL OUTLAY 1.7500 0 $26,350 $46.11
Total Millage 15.0963 Total Taxes $397.79
Non-Ad Valorem Assessments
Code Levying Authority Amount
IIAF ENGLEWOOD AREA FIRE DISTRICT $103.76
MEE1 ENGLEWOOD EAST-NU ST & DR-MANT $380.00
MWSU WEST CHARLOTTE STORMWATER UTIL $23.64
Total Assessments $507.40
Taxes & Assessments $905.19
Anon 9:23
"....perpetual existance?"
Is that anything like "life everlasting"?
Didn't this same thing happen in Pottstown about a year ago?
A guy was renting a gas station and pretended he was the owner and not the renter. He then entered into an agreement of sale with a potential buyer, to actually sell a property that wasn't even his, LOL. I think the guy is in jail.
10:04
"perpetual existance"
is the concise language utilized by lawyers to ensure the greedy in the future could not claim ownership. This existance ensures the POPE, the BISHOP, the LAYMAN who is not obediant to the purpose do not try to do what they are doing to you know...
Wanna see a real circus? Stop in the HG church vestibule on Sunday morning and watch the church officers scramble to hide like roaches in the light when someone from the "other side" trying to save the property, comes up the sidewalk and walks in. Evans has successfully split the church despite his comment on tape and video at a Phoenixville council meeting that he would not,could not and will not be responsible for that and withdrew his proposal. So what happened? Why are we still on the same page? Is this the church "going forward" like their newbie pres. says?
Give me a break!!!
How has the plan for this complex changed since it's inception in
October 2007 - to March 2008 at the vote, to now?
Who has authorized the planning commission to advertise on this issue when they all agreed to be against it's location?
Why is Evans allowed on the Planning Commission when the sunshine act could bring him down?
there is nothing good about this....
this situation is a true example of good meets evil. lets see who wins in the end. the church claims good always wins out- we'll see how true that line is.
Is the car wash still being put in on Starr Street across from the Church Street?
Is the Starr Street still being made into a three lane road?
both of these items were "hot points" as to why the HUD Housing for Elderly should be done so we wouldn't have a car wash out front nor lose property to enimant domain.
No word of it ever since.
Also, how can the board file a lawsuit as the HGB and lose .. and later call a meeting as the defendants and try to act as owners. Time for contempt of court hearings people! lololol
It seems like the only one benefitting from any of this is the lawyer. He can just keep it going and going and going until there is no more profit to be had.
Don't you love how the lawers stand up and the priest stands up and speak on and on and on.....
without much fact.
shame on you Orthodox families
