Commonwealth Court did not err in assessing interest against state agency in mandamus action by city to collect payments due to city under order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
How later courts described this case
- Commonwealth Court did not err in assessing interest against state agency in mandamus action by city to collect payments due to city under order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
- Argument that did not appear in the pleadings was deemed waived for appellate review purposes in accordance with Dilliplaine
- City of Pittsburgh filed mandamus action in Commonwealth Court to enforce order of Public Utility Commission on allocation of funding for bridge demolition
- argument does not appear in the pleadings, thus it is waived
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIX, Justice,
dissenting.
The decision of the majority overlooks one vitally important fact: that involved here is a wholly intergovernmental transaction. The party in the position of debtor as a consequence of the Public Utility Commission’s clarification order is the Department of Transportation (PennDOT), which is an arm of the Commonwealth. The creditor is the City of Pittsburgh, which is a political subdivision of that same Commonwealth. In my view, where a governmental body is in the position of creditor in the transaction and is also a subdivision of the debtor, there is no place for imposing an interest charge. For the “pockets” from which the payment must come and the eventual recipient are one-in-the-same.
If, on the other hand, there were additional costs incurred by the political subdivision to a third party for the Commonwealth’s failure to pay the specified sum at the appointed time, those costs could be rightfully charged against the state. Here no evidence was presented which showed any additional costs were incurred by the City of Pittsburgh due to PennDOT’s delay in paying the certified costs.
I therefore respectfully dissent.