Quantcast

Lawsuit: Property thought to be impacted by Duquesne Light power company route is not

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Lawsuit: Property thought to be impacted by Duquesne Light power company route is not

Courtscalesgavel27

PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh couple engaged in litigation over their property and its use by a Western Pennsylvania power company as part of a route for directing electricity through the placement of high-voltage power lines, adds they have now been advised that the current preferred route would not impact the property.

Charles Johnson and Laura Johnson of Pittsburgh initially filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 9, 2018 versus Michael Fetterolf and Dawn Fetterolf, both of Somerset County.

The complaint initially explained the plaintiffs brought the instant action on the ground of “mutual mistake”, in agreeing to buy real property from the defendants for $1.3 million. However, the suit had first claimed both parties were mistaken about the value, because only seven weeks prior to sale, Duquesne Light Company (DLC) had finalized a map for a high-voltage transmission line route through the property.

“DLC prepared its notice to defendants by May 18, 2017, while defendants still owed the property, but claims it delayed mailing the notice to defendants until June 2, shortly after they sold their property to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs would not have agreed to buy defendants’ property had they been duly notified of DLC’s plans, notice or map, all of which existed at the time of purchase,” the suit read.

Intending to retire there, the Johnsons bought the property in Indiana Township on May 22, 2017, a 19-acre section of mostly-wooded acres designated “Clean & Green”, pasture land, a stone house and reclaimed Amish barn.

The suit had said on April 5, 2015, DLC finalized a map for a new high-voltage transmission line route through the property and in close proximity to their residence – a map which was not published or in any way made public until June 2, 2017. The map showed three possible routes DLC intended to direct electric power through the Johnsons’ property.

“Both the preferred and alternate routes through defendants’ property would require the deforestation of defendants’ property and would destroy its aesthetics, its peaceful environment, any owners’ quiet enjoyment of the property, and many other unique and desirable characteristics inherent in the property, which led plaintiffs to buy it. The preferred and alternate routes through the property may also pose a health hazard, according to studies on the impact of residing in close proximity to high-voltage power lines,” the suit stated.

If DLC had mailed the June 2 notice any time before May 22, 2017, the suit claimed the defendants would have been required to disclose the notice and April 5 map to the plaintiffs, as this was material information negatively impacting their property.

According to the lawsuit, the June 2 notice was forwarded to the Fetterolfs at their new residence, rather than the Johnsons at the property in question. Though when Laura Johnson contacted the Fetterolfs to ask if they received the notice, they allegedly claimed they did not.

During a later open house on Oct. 4, 2017, where DLC presented the final route map, Laura Johnson asked DLC’s project manager whether it sent its June 2 notice to 235 Ridgehaven Lane. The manager responded that yes, it had sent that notice to the Fetterolfs at that address, because they were the owners when the mailing list was prepared.

“DLC’s project manager also confirmed that the notice sent to the Fetterolfs had not been returned to him,” the suit said.

The suit claimed that since neither the plaintiffs nor defendants knew of the proposed power line routes at the time of the property's sale, that the transaction should be rendered null and void.

UPDATE

However, the plaintiffs have explained that as of October 2020, Duquesne Light Company advised the property owners that the property is no longer on its preferred route or an impacted address. They are attempting to sell the property, which would then resolve the action for rescission.

The plaintiffs are represented by Stanley M. Stein of Stanley M. Stein Law, in Pittsburgh.

The defendants are represented by Vincent J. Barbera of Barbera Law, in Somerset.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-18-001981

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nickpennrecord@gmail.com

More News