The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has ruled against George and Marcia Levitsky in their appeal regarding a nuisance claim against the Wallingford-Swarthmore School District and the Township of Nether Providence. This ruling, issued on October 13, 2026, affirms previous decisions made by the Delaware County Common Pleas Court. The case, which has drawn attention due to its implications for property rights and local governance, highlights the challenges residents may face when contesting municipal actions.
The Levitsky family, who live adjacent to King Field, the school district's athletic field, claimed that noise, lights, and debris from the field constituted a private and public nuisance against their property rights. The court's decision is significant as it underscores the complexities involved in nuisance claims and the legal requirements for appealing lower court decisions.
The Levitsky couple filed their initial complaint in 2017, alleging that the activities at King Field disturbed their peace and enjoyment of their property. The case progressed through the courts, with the trial court dismissing the Township of Nether Providence from the proceedings in early 2018. After several hearings and motions, the trial court denied their request for a permanent injunction against the school district in November 2021. Following this, the Levitskys filed a post-trial motion, which was ultimately denied as untimely in March 2025.
In their appeal, the Levitskys raised two main issues: whether the Commonwealth Court had jurisdiction to hear their case and whether they had waived their appellate issues due to the timing of their post-trial motion. The court, led by Judge Anne E. Covey, ruled that the appeal was valid and that the Levitskys had indeed waived their issues by failing to file their post-trial motion within the required timeframe.
Judge Covey stated in the opinion, "Where a party fails to file timely post-trial motions after a bench trial, no issues are preserved for this Court to review." This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal proceedings, particularly in civil cases where post-trial motions are mandatory for preserving issues for appeal.
The court's ruling also clarified the timeline for appeals in such cases. The Levitskys' appeal was considered timely because it was filed after the trial court entered judgment on October 20, 2025. However, the court maintained that the untimeliness of their post-trial motion meant that they could not raise any issues on appeal.
This decision has broader implications for residents and property owners who may feel aggrieved by local government actions. It highlights the necessity for individuals to understand and comply with legal procedures to effectively challenge municipal decisions. The ruling reinforces the idea that procedural missteps can significantly impact the outcome of a case, regardless of the merits of the underlying claims.
Looking ahead, the Levitskys may have limited options for further action. The court's ruling can be appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but such appeals are typically reserved for cases with substantial legal questions or issues of public interest. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any plans the Levitskys may have for further legal action.
This case serves as a reminder of the complexities of property law and the importance of timely legal action. As municipalities continue to expand and develop, residents must remain vigilant in protecting their rights while navigating the legal landscape.