# Groff v. Borough of Sellersville

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · January 28, 1974 · 12 Pa. Commw. 315

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696742

## Case

- **Full name:** Steward S. Groff, Appellant, v. the Borough of Sellersville, Appellee
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 28, 1974
- **Citations:** 12 Pa. Commw. 315; 314 A.2d 328; 1974 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1058
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Rogers
- **Judges:** Rogers, Bowman, Ceumlish, Keamee, Wilkinson, Mencee, Rogees, Blatt
- **Cited by:** 37 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696742

## Opinion text

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Rogers :
I concur in the majority’s conclusion that the record supports the lower court’s finding that the appellant’s building is a public nuisance. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s action remanding the matter for an order different from that made by the court below.
During the first series of hearings below the appellant conceded that his building required repairs and testified that he was willing to make such. He even called a witness to testify as to what was needed to restore the building to a reasonably safe condition. The trial judge then suggested that he. should make an order affording the appellant ninety (90) days to undertake such work, suggesting from the bench that this time limitation might be extended upon request. The parties agreed to this disposition of the case. The trial judge then dictated an order from the bench and the appellant and his counsel expressly assented to its terms. This occurred on May 3, 1971.
Rather than do any work on the building or ask for an extension of time, the appellant filed an appeal to the Commonwealth Court. This was later withdrawn.
Further hearings were conducted by the court below. An adjudication nisi was entered on June 30, 1972 requiring the appellant to remove the building within ten (10) days. After exceptions filed, the decree nisi was entered as a final decree on January 19, 1973, one year and eight months after the court’s first order entered by agreement of the parties.
*323 In my opinion it was no abuse of the court’s discretion in June 1972 and January 1973 to order the appellant to remove a building which he had agreed, but failed, to repair in May of 1971. I further note that the appellant’s brief on this appeal makes no mention whatsoever of a desire or intention to repair his building. If he is to be given a further opportunity to do so, it should come not from us but from the court below which has the power to modify its decree if equity requires it.
Judges Wilkinson and Mencer join in this Concurring and Dissenting Opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9696742. Public record. Not legal advice.