PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh couple claim their neighbor has not properly maintained a retaining wall bordering their property, and that continued failure to do so will eventually result in widespread damage to their property.
George Vickery and Mary Vickery filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 4 versus Christina Norkus, also of Pittsburgh.
“Plaintiffs and defendant are the owners of residential homes located at Glen Lytle Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15217. The parties’ properties are adjacent to and abut each other. There is a retaining wall located on defendant’s property providing lateral support to plaintiff’s property,” the suit states.
“Defendant’s retaining wall provides lateral support to plaintiffs’ property, including, but not limited to, the concrete steps, walkway and foundation. Defendant’s retaining wall is failing, falling towards defendant’s driveway and away from plaintiffs’ property.”
The plaintiffs claim the defendant’s failing retaining wall is currently causing damage to that same set of concrete steps, walkway and foundation.
“Plaintiffs’ walkway and steps are rotating and moving away from plaintiffs’ property and towards defendant’s property; Plaintiffs’ walkway is fractured due to torsion stress; There is an increasing gap between plaintiffs’ front porch and the steps/walkway, as the steps and walkway fall away from plaintiffs’ property and towards defendant’s property,” per the suit.
“There is an increasing gap between plaintiffs’ steps and a retaining wall on plaintiffs’ property, as the steps and walkway fall away from plaintiffs’ property and towards defendant’s property; Plaintiffs’ railing is pulling off the porch and the roof/ceiling of the room under plaintiffs’ porch is leaking.”
The plaintiffs say they are entitled to continued lateral support by the defendant’s retaining wall, that the retaining wall and backfill needs to be rebuilt immediately in order to provide lateral support to plaintiffs’ property or otherwise, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm to their property, home, foundation, walkway and steps due to the lack of proper support from the defendant’s failing retaining wall.
“If the defendant’s retaining wall collapses – partially or entirely – the damage to plaintiffs’ property could be catastrophic,” the suit states.
For counts of injunctive relief, tortious property damage, private nuisance and trespass to land, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of arbitration limits, court costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by this Court, including, but not limited to, enjoining the defendant from trespassing on plaintiffs’ property and entering a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant, at defendant’s sole cost and expense, to repair the failing retaining wall within 30 days in a manner that meets with or exceeds all federal, state and local building codes and the accepted industry engineering and building standards.
The plaintiffs are represented by Gusty A.E. Sunseri and Joseph A. Lockwood III of Gusty A.E. Sunseri & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant has not yet secured legal counsel.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-000042
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com