The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has issued a significant ruling in a property condemnation case involving Margaret L. Burns and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). The court's decision, filed on July 7, 2026, reversed a lower court's order that had struck down part of Burns' petition related to a de facto taking of her property. This ruling is important as it clarifies the rights of property owners when faced with government takings and the requirements for proper notification in such cases.
Burns, a resident of Horsham, Pennsylvania, owns a 7.840-acre parcel of land that includes her home, which borders County Line Road. The dispute arose when PennDOT filed a Declaration of Taking in August 2019 to acquire a small portion of her property—specifically, 0.114 acres—to widen the road. However, Burns later discovered that part of her house, specifically the porch, was also affected by the taking, which was not accurately reflected in the initial plot plan provided by PennDOT.
The case began when Burns filed a petition requesting the appointment of viewers to assess damages for the de jure taking of her property. Her petition included multiple counts, including one that claimed a de facto taking occurred because the plot plan did not accurately depict the extent of the property being condemned. The trial court, however, struck down several counts of her petition, including the one related to the de facto taking, stating that it was encompassed by the damages sought in the de jure taking.
Burns appealed the trial court's decision, particularly focusing on the striking of Count III, which addressed the alleged inaccuracies in the Declaration of Taking. The Commonwealth Court, led by Senior Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, reviewed the case and determined that the trial court's ruling was not justified. The court emphasized that the plot plan provided by PennDOT was misleading and did not adequately inform Burns about the extent of the taking.
In its ruling, the court stated, "The Plot Plan did not show that the taking included the concrete porch, which is part of the 'masonry dwelling.'" The court found that the omission of the porch from the plot plan was significant and that it misrepresented the actual scope of the taking. As a result, the court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This ruling has broader implications for property owners facing similar situations. It reinforces the idea that government entities must provide clear and accurate information when declaring a taking of private property. The court's decision also allows for the possibility of seeking damages for both de jure and de facto takings in a single proceeding, which could impact future cases involving property condemnation.
Moving forward, the case will return to the trial court for further evaluation regarding the de facto taking of Burns' property. The court will need to determine the extent of the taking and assess any damages owed to Burns as a result. This ruling not only provides a pathway for Burns to seek just compensation but also sets a precedent for other property owners who may find themselves in similar circumstances.
As the case progresses, it remains to be seen whether PennDOT will appeal the Commonwealth Court's decision or if there are other related cases pending that could affect the outcome of this situation. For now, the ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and accuracy in the condemnation process.