Opinion
Argued April 6, 1979
July 11, 1979.
Municipalities — Municipal claim — Cost of weed removal — Sufficiency of denial — Reasonableness — Trial on the merits.
1. A mere denial of the reasonableness of a municipal claim for reimbursement of the cost of weed removal is insufficient to warrant that a trial be held on the merits of the matter, but an affidavit of defense denying reasonableness and asserting that another specific figure would be reasonable necessitates that the matter be tried on the merits. [171]
Argued April 6, 1979, before Judges WILKINSON, JR., BLATT and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1316 C.D. 1978, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in case of Upper Merion Township v. Warwick Homes, No. 76-16956.
Municipal claim filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County to recover cost of weed removal. Praecipe for writ of scire facias sur municipal claim filed. Affidavit of defense filed by property owner. Petition for judgment filed and granted. Judgment entered. Moss, J. Property owner appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed and remanded.
Jacob S. Richman, for appellant.
Gregory J. Dean, with him Meneses Dean, for appellee.
Upper Merion Township (Township) filed a municipal claim for $675.00, plus interest and costs, for the removal of weeds on property owned by Warwick Homes, Inc. (appellant). The Township later filed a praecipe for writ of scire facias sur municipal claim, to which the appellant filed an affidavit of defense alleging that the Township's claim was unreasonable and excessive and that the reasonable cost of removing the weeds was no more than $100.00. The Township then filed a petition for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense, which the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County granted. The appellant has appealed here seeking a remand for a trial on the merits and arguing that its allegations that the amount of the claim is unreasonable and that a reasonable amount would be $100.00 are sufficient to require a trial on the merits. We agree.
Our research discloses no authority which directly addresses the issue here presented. There is at least implicit support in a number of cases, however, for the proposition that, while a mere denial of the reasonableness of a claim such as the Township's here is not sufficient to warrant a trial on the merits, such a denial coupled with a statement as to what a reasonable amount would be is sufficient. See Pittsburgh v. MacConnell, 130 Pa. 463, 18 A. 645 (1889); Platt v. Philadelphia, 183 Pa. Super. 486, 133 A.2d 860 (1957); Archbald v. Stone, 91 Pa. Super. 268 (1927); Griffith Dicola v. W. Michael Connelly, Inc., 14 Chest. Co. Rep. 140 (1966); Blythe v. J. S. Mozino Co., 46 Del. Co. Rep. 335 (1959). We believe, moreover, "that summary judgment on the pleadings should be entered against the defendant only when the answer clearly presents no meritorious defense." Philadelphia, to use, v. O'Brien, 176 Pa. Super. 235, 236, 107 A.2d 587, 588 (1954) (emphasis in original).
The appellant's affidavit of defense here, being sufficient to put in issue the reasonableness of the amount of the Township's claim, requires us to order that the matter be remanded for a trial on the merits.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 1979, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in the above-captioned matter is hereby reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with our opinion.