Core5 at Route 100, LLC v. Lowhill Township and Lowhill Township Board of Supervisors

Summary

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court considers whether the de facto officer doctrine validates a township supervisor’s vote when the supervisor was appointed through a procedurally defective vacancy process. The Court holds that evidence of bad faith, ill will, personal benefit, or furtherance of an official’s own agenda may preclude application of the doctrine when a timely objection is raised. The Court vacates the trial court’s order and remands for factfinding regarding the officials’ knowledge and motivation.

Holdings

1. The de facto doctrine does not shield an official's actions when the official knew of the defect in title, benefited from the defect, or acted in bad faith, with ill will or motive, or to further a personal agenda, provided the affected party timely objects to the official's authority.
2. Core5's objection, made before Hughes and Dietrich voted on the plan, was timely and could permit relief if the remand findings establish the requisite knowledge, benefit, bad faith, ill will, motive, or personal agenda.
3. The trial court erred by concluding that knowledge and motivation were irrelevant and by failing to make specific findings on those issues; the order therefore had to be vacated and the case remanded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the de facto officer doctrine validates an official's vote when the official's appointment was unlawful and there is evidence that the appointing official or appointee knew of the defect, acted in bad faith or with ill will, benefited from the defect, or acted to further a personal agenda.
2. Whether a party that timely objects to the official's authority before the challenged action may obtain relief notwithstanding the de facto officer doctrine.
3. Whether the trial court erred by treating the supervisors' knowledge, motivation, and bad faith as irrelevant and failing to make factual findings on those issues.
4. Whether the trial court's order should be vacated and the matter remanded for additional factfinding and a new determination on the merits.

Disposition

vacated