In July of 2004, a Tyrone woman decided to seek further legal action in a continuing dispute between her, the Bald Eagle Baseball Association and PennDOT.
Now, a Blair County Court of Common Pleas judge has ruled the case should be decided at a higher level. In a Jan. 5 ruling, Judge Hiram A. Carpenter ruled the lawsuit should be heard in Commonwealth Court since the case involved a state agency.
According to the plaintiff’s attorney, James Bigelow, PennDOT contended the case should be moved to the state level and the judge agreed.
Bigelow filed a series of legal papers on behalf of his client, Barbara Miller, in July of 2004. The action stemmed from the baseball association’s sale of the land to PennDOT and the transportation agency’s use of the land as a wetlands project,
The association sold the land (8.65 acres) located along old Route 220 near the Olivia Village complex to PennDOT after a determination, it along with its contractor, were in violation of the Clean Water Act. The association was alerted to the problem in 2001 after having created baseball fields on the property in the late 1990s. The fields covered about four acres of the land. According to the court papers, the association filled in wetlands without receiving proper permits from the state’s Department of Environmental Protection.
The association determined it would be too cost prohibitive to rectify the environmental problems, so instead it sold the land to PennDOT for its use in creating wetlands as part of its effort to mitigate or replace wetlands which were affected by the Interstate 99 project.
Bigelow said the actions went against what his client originally intended when she sold the land to the baseball association. He also contended the actions violated a “reverter clause” in a 1997 deed agreement between the association and Miller.
Bigelow asked the court to interpret the meaning of language in the deed about restrictions on subsequent use of the land. Documents filed in the case cited language from the deed which indicates the land would be used “solely as a baseball field or for other recreational purposes.”
If the land wasn’t used for that purpose for a period of 12 consecutive months, it would revert back to Miller.
The question became whether or not wetlands are a recreational use as intended by the parties in the original agreement. Bigelow contends language in the deed indicated use of the land would not only apply to the baseball association but as he explained it would “run with the land,” in other words, it would apply to subsequent owners.
“The furthest thing from her mind was it was going to be used as a wetlands,” Bigelow told The Daily Herald in July. “She envisioned baseball fields, even a full recreational park with soccer fields, basketball courts, a horseshoe area, track, volleyball, a picnic area and walking grounds-not a wetlands project.
“The question is what was the intent of Mrs. Miller,” said Bigelow.
Bigelow had sought to settle the matter out of court after filing a writ of summons in late April to inform PennDOT and the baseball association of his client’s intention to file suit. He said the settlement proposal fell on deaf ears from the other involved parties.
Miller sold the property to the baseball association for $1 as a gesture to the community to help the association create new baseball fields. The association sold the property to PennDOT for $56,000. Bigelow also sought to have the money frozen to prevent the baseball association from using the funds while the case is being decided. He said the association’s receipt of the funds is an “unjust enrichment” since it should not have been allowed to sell the land in the first place due to the “reverter clause.”
When the association sold the property to PennDOT in 2003 about five acres of the land had not been developed for baseball fields or recreational purposes. The court documents contend the association was already in breach of the reverter clause when it sold the land to PennDOT since more than 12 consecutive months had passed without several acres of the land being used for recreational purposes.
Miller contends the five acres should have gone back to her, not to PennDOT. But, since the transaction did occur, the $56,000 should have gone to her rather than to the baseball association.
In addition to seeking having the money be turned over to Miller, Bigelow is also pursuing having her legal fees and court costs reimbursed since the plaintiff is contending the land was taken without just compensation.
He said Miller was willing to sell the five acres the association had not used plus additional acreage on other property she still owns to allow PennDOT the 8.65 acres to complete the wetlands project.
Bigelow explained had this been done PennDOT would have had the land for the project, the association would have been able to keep its fields and Miller would have been justly compensated.
With the sale of the fields, youngsters who played in the association were left to find other teams to play for last summer while the association looked at other options for a new location.
Bigelow said he does not plan to appeal Judge Carpenter’s ruling. He said he’ll take the case to the Commonwealth Court level.
Yesterday, a spokesperson for PennDOT said it is the agency’s policy not to comment on matters that are being litigated.
