Owner can’t sue city over razing

Homeowner plans to refile lawsuit over demolition of Third Avenue home

An Altoona homeowner who sought compensation from the city's Code Enforcement Department, which demolished his house on the 1600 block of Third Street, cannot, at least at this time, sue the city, according to a ruling last week by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.

The home at 1616 Third St. was owned by Ahmad S. Mrad, who filed a civil complaint against the city on Dec. 9, 2022, asking that he be compensated after the city demolished it following an ongoing dispute with Mrad over suggested repairs to the structure.

Mrad represented himself in the lawsuit.

The city, represented by Pittsburgh attorney Sloane B. O'Donnell, filed objections to the lawsuit, which were granted by Blair County President Judge Wade A. Kagarise.

Mrad then appealed Kagarise's decision to the Commonwealth Court.

The appeals court, in an opinion written by Judge Stacy Wallace, agreed with the Kagarise ruling.

She was joined in the opinion by Judges Anne E. Covey and Mary Hannah Leavitt.

Mrad, who indicated in court papers that he had "no physical address," listed a telephone number in the Chicago area.

When contacted, he said he was "just a regular person" who bought the house with the idea of living in it.

He described himself as a handyman who knows how to make repairs.

Mrad said he hired a structural engineer to sketch out repairs -- including to the porch roof -- but the code enforcement department altered the proposed repairs.

The department, he said, then demanded repairs to the foundation.

He said he had completed many of the repairs, but the city department went ahead and demolished the structure before they could be completed.

Mrad said for a time he had no place to live and resided in his van.

The case before Kagarise focused only on one issue.

After filing his lawsuit in Blair County, the city did not respond to the complaint within a 20-day period as specified by Pennsylvania's Rules of Civil Procedure.

The city responded in 21 days.

As a result of the untimely response, Mrad requested a default judgment awarding him compensation.

The city, however, contended its response on the 21st day was in fact legal because Mrad had failed to file a notice that he intended to seek default judgment -- the notice to file judgment also being a requirement under the state's Rules of Civil Procedure.

The city, in its preliminary objections to Mrad's civil lawsuit, contended its workers in the code enforcement department were protected by the doctrine of governmental immunity, which "insulated the Code Department from any potential claims relating to demolition on the property."

The sole issue before Kagarise however only involved the timeliness of the city's response and the judge ruled that the city did not violate the rules in view of the requirement that Mrad first notify the city that he intended to file for judgment on the case.

The Commonwealth Court agreed with Kagarise's decision.

But Kagarise did not completely shut the door on Mrad as he seeks compensation for his loss.

Kagarise dismissed the lawsuit "without prejudice," meaning Mrad can refile his lawsuit, and Mrad said Monday he intends to do just that.

"These people demolished my home illegally," he said.

Mrad argued that the city overruled the proposed repairs that he and his engineer proposed and imposed their own ideas of what needed to be done, which increased the price of the project.

Mrad contended the duty of the code department is to inspect the property, not impose the inspector's own ideas of how to make the repairs.

One thing Mrad objected to was the code department's demand that he remove the porch of the home, not just repair the roof.

"I refused to do this," he explained.

The city continued to tell Mrad that they were going to demolish the structure. He said he asked for more time.

He said 70% of the repairs had been completed when the structure was taken down.

The Code Enforcement Department argued in its filings before the Commonwealth Court that Mrad had no valid legal argument to contest what had happened in this case.

The city stated in its legal brief that "since (Mrad's) entire complaint derives from his disagreement with the demolition of his house, the city is absolutely immune from liability for the demolition, and plaintiff is unable to recover as a matter of law."

Mrad stated he plans to refile his lawsuit next week.