UPDATE: Land Bank Update

The Philadelphia Land Bank will hold a public hearing on its 2015 Progress Report & Strategic Plan Update on Wednesday, Nov. 4 from 3-6 p.m. The report outlines the recent activity of the Land Bank, including its incorporation and selection of board members, correcting the deeds of approximately 6,400 publicly owned properties, refining the City’s “upfront pricing” model to set accurate and consistent property prices, targeting approximately 600 tax delinquent properties for potential acquisition through tax foreclosure, establishing target acquisition and disposition goals, and more.

Continue Reading

UPDATE: FORMATION OF THE PHILADELPHIA LAND BANK

In January of 2014, Mayor Nutter predicted that it could take a year for the City to organize its Land Bank, which had been approved by a December 13, 2013 ordinance.  His prediction is proving accurate.  The Land Bank is now scheduled for full implementation by ‘early’ 2015.

Continue Reading

Attorney Paul J. Toner of Orphanides & Toner, LLP, Advances Client’s Position with a Superior Court Decision Ruling that Planned Communities Developed Without a Homeowners Association Could Not Be Forcibly Reorganized into a Planned Community Governed by a Modern Homeowners Association

On May 1, 2014, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision that upheld the legal structure of a private planned community and ruled that a newly formed association of lot owners could not be recognized as a mandatory unit owners association.

Continue Reading

Commonwealth Court Deems Property Tax Rebate Rule Invalid under State and Federal Constitutions

On March 14, 2014, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania invalidated a requirement in the Senior Citizens Property Tax and Rent Rebate Assistance Act that had prohibited the estate of a deceased senior citizen from applying for a tax rebate where the decedent did not live into the succeeding calendar year.  In C. Muscarella, Executor of the Estate of J. Carbo, __ A.3d __ (Pa.Cmwlth.2014), the Commonwealth Court held that the requirement violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the state and federal Constitutions.  

Continue Reading