Act 135 Conservator Appointment for Vacant Property Upheld by Superior Court

In Philadelphia, recently, there has been a push in City Council to limit the ability for non-profit organizations and individuals to take over derelict properties under Pennsylvania’s Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act, 68 P.S. § 1101 et seq., also known as Act 135.

What Act 135 Allows and How It Works

Act 135 was enacted in Pennsylvania as a way to eliminate blighted properties from neighborhoods by allowing interested parties to file a private cause of action against absentee property owners.  Under Act 135, if a conservator is appointed by the trial court, they can bring a property up to applicable building codes and, after doing so, they will not only be repaid the cost for doing but they will also earn a commission for their time and energy which could even result in the forced sale of the property. 

The Dispute in Oceanview

In a recent opinion written by Judge Anne E. Lazarus, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Oceanview Property Management & Recovery Services, LLC v. Baker, 319 A.3d 508 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024), held that the trial court did not err in the appointment of a conservator different from the one preferred by the plaintiff which initiated the Act 135 in the first place. 

In Oceanview, a property situated in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was still in the name of its deceased owner and the property was believed to have been vacant since at least 2016, the opinion said. 

In 2021, Oceanview Property Management & Recovery Services, LLC initiated an Act 135 action in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas by way of petition for appointment as conservator over the allegedly blighted and abandoned property, the opinion said. 

In the petition, Oceanview requested that it be appointed as conservator under Act 135 to prevent further deterioration of the property and to permit it to begin rehabilitating the property, the opinion said. 

Trial Court Weighs Competing Conservator Petitions

According to the opinion, shortly thereafter, Bloomfield Development Corporation filed a petition to intervene in the pending Act 135 action, which the trial court granted. 

Bloomfield also filed its own petition, proposing that the City of Bridges, a nonprofit corporation, be appointed as conservator of the property, the opinion said. 

The trial court in Oceanview then consolidated the petitions and ordered Oceanview and the City of Bridges to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, briefs in support of their legal arguments, and proposed court orders, the opinion said. 

The trial court also permitted Oceanview and the City of Bridges to file responsive briefs. 

Subsequently, the trial court in Oceanview ruled that the City of Bridges should be appointed conservator of the property, the opinion said. 

The trial court in Oceanview found that Act 135 requires courts in Pennsylvania to give preferential treatment to nonprofit organizations, such as the City of Bridges. 

Arguments on Appeal

Per the opinion, Oceanview filed a post-trial motion arguing that that the trial court erred in Oceanview when it found that Act 135 gives preference for the appointment of nonprofit organizations, that the City of Bridges could serve as conservator, and that affordable housing as part of the plan for abatement of the property was a valid consideration.

After its post-trial motion was denied by the trial court, Oceanview filed an appeal of the trial court’s ruling to the Superior Court. 

On appeal, Oceanview raised similar issues as it did in its post-trial motion. 

In its first argument, Oceanview posited that the trial court misinterpreted language in Act 135 which set forth that a court “may appoint a nonprofit corporation or entity.” 

In response to that argument, the Superior Court noted that Oceanview did not provide any evidence that the trial court “misconstrued or misapplied the law.” 

Superior Court Affirms Conservator Selection

The Superior Court held that the trial court correctly interpreted Act 135 as requiring it to give greater weight to nonprofit organizations, such as the City of Bridges, over individuals.  Furthermore, the Superior Court observed that Oceanview did not submit any facts or legal arguments to suggest that the City of Bridges was unqualified to serve as a conservator. 

In its second argument, Oceanview contended that the trial court committed an error of law because the City of Bridges’ plan for abatement of the property did not maximize its full potential dollar value. 

The Superior Court emphasized that the trial court correctly recognized this as well when it stated that Act 135 “does not require a conservator to maximize the value of the subject property.”  

In the end, the Superior Court upheld the trial court’s ruling to award the conservatorship to the City of Bridges as being soundly within its discretion and supported by the record.

Alan Nochumson is the principal of Nochumson P.C., a legal services firm with a focus on real estate, land use and zoning, litigation, and business counseling for the people of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Nochumson is a frequent author and lecturer on issues commonly confronting businesses, individuals and professionals. You can reach him at 215-600-2851 or alan.nochumson@nochumson.com.