PITTSBURGH – In the latest chapter of a long-standing legal feud between owners of a Sewickley Heights farm and their next-door neighbors, the borough’s mayor and his spouse, the plaintiff seeks compensatory and injunctive relief for alleged instances of trespass, reckless negligence and violation of the state constitution committed by the defendants and members of local police.
Theresa E. Fetterolf filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 11 versus John C. Oliver III and Sylvia Dallas Oliver. All parties are of Sewickley Heights.
“Since 2003, plaintiff and her husband, Scott Fetterolf, have been the owners and caretakers of the real property and improvements located at 528 Scaife Road, Sewickley, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania 15143 which are commonly known and referred to as Dundee Farm. For years before the events at issue in this case the property has been posted with visible and obvious ‘no trespassing’ signs, as well as a four-foot physical barrier at the location where the first trespass referenced below occurred. At all times pertinent hereto, defendants have lived next door to the property as demonstrated below, with the property designated in red, and the Oliver property designated in yellow. Thus, at all times pertinent hereto, defendants were well aware that the property has been and is posted and plaintiff had taken significant steps to prevent trespasses such as the ones referenced below. At all times pertinent hereto, Mr. Oliver was the mayor of the Borough of Sewickley Heights, which is located in Allegheny County,” the suit states.
“For about a decade, there has been a very strained relationship between the Fetterolfs on the one hand and defendants and the Borough on the other hand, including extensive litigation filed in multiple courts, that had, in part, resulted from Mr. Oliver and the Borough’s attempts to prevent the Fetterolfs from holding prayer groups, religious worship activities and other activities on their property, which is private property. Mrs. Oliver holds great sway in the community, and, like her husband, she has historically disapproved of how the Fetterolfs maintain and use the property. While defendants were not parties to the aforementioned litigation, because they personally disapproved of the way the Fetterolfs used and maintained the property, Mr. Oliver repeatedly used his power and influence, and defendants used their money, to champion and support the litigation in an attempt to restrict the Fetterolfs’ religious rights and freedom, interfere with their use and enjoyment of the property, and otherwise harass them. In fact, plaintiffs believe that at least one of the financial contributions defendants made towards the aforementioned litigation was in the form of a check with a handwritten note directing the Borough staff to conceal their contribution and involvement.”
The suit continues that “The efforts to restrict the Fetterolfs’ religious rights and freedom, interfere with their use and enjoyment of the property and otherwise harass them have included specific instances of Mr. Oliver sending the Borough police to the property on multiple occasions to disrupt, interfere with and/or attempt to prevent the Fetterolfs from holding prayer groups, religious worship activities and other activities on the property and making derogatory comments about Mrs. Fetterolf in writing, in public and in the local newspaper.”
“As part of their concerted effort to interfere with the Fetterolfs’ use and enjoyment of the property and harass them, on Sunday, April 11, 2021, defendants intentionally and knowingly trespassed on the property, without permission, right or authority to do so, by riding their bicycles past the ‘no trespassing’ signs, over or around the four-foot physical barrier and down the extended driveway to a point near plaintiff, her husband’s vehicles and the Fetterolfs’ home. Because of where the trespass originated, the extreme distance defendants traveled on the property and where they ultimately confronted plaintiff, defendants absolutely knew they were trespassing on the property. Prior to the trespass, the Fetterolfs had prevailed in part in the litigation, which forced the Borough and defendants to cease their attempts to prevent the Fetterolfs from conducting prayer groups and to continue to use the property for purposes of religious expression,” the suit says.
“This was much to the chagrin of defendants, who had taken significant efforts to prevent such activity, including but not limited to bankrolling at least part of the litigation and repeatedly summoning the police on the Fetterolfs. When plaintiff discovered defendants on the property, she was terrified by their presence, particularly in light of the recent hotly contested litigation with the Borough involving, in part, her religious expression and First Amendment Rights, which defendants had opposed. Plaintiff respectfully asked defendants to immediately leave the property. Not only did defendants refuse to leave the property, which they absolutely knew they were trespassing upon, but they proceeded as a form of intimidation and retaliation, to stalk, harass, harangue, taunt, berate and assault plaintiff, to the point that she became extremely upset and emotional which was patently obvious to defendants.”
According to the plaintiff, throughout their confrontation with her, the defendants “repeatedly harassed her about her religious beliefs and the litigation, which confirmed that defendants had intentionally trespassed upon the property as a form of intimidation and retaliation for the Fetterolfs asserting their First Amendment rights to speak out and oppose the Borough’s and defendants’ political agenda, personal beliefs and because the Fetterolfs had prevailed in part in the litigation.”
“Plaintiff, reasonably believing that they may physically attack her, asked defendants to immediately leave the property several more times, but each time they refused to do so. Plaintiff then called 911 to report the incident and request that police come to the property. As a further form of harassment and intimidation, when plaintiff informed defendants that she had called 911 and she was going to take pictures of them, Mrs. Oliver told Mr. Oliver to ‘Strike a pose, John.’ Eventually officers in at least three different police cars and who are believed to be from different police forces responded to the property. One of those officers was Salvatore Arena from the Borough’s police department who kept referring to Mr. Oliver as ‘Mayor.’ In the interim, Mrs. Oliver left the property,” the suit states.
“When the officers arrived, Mr. Oliver was still on the property and refusing to leave. Plaintiff promptly informed the officers that she was recording the encounter. When Officer Arena assured plaintiff that he too was recording the encounter, plaintiff trusted his representation and stopped recording the encounter. Plaintiff believes the other two officers were also recording the encounter. Because of the trespass and Mr. Oliver’s refusal to leave the property, plaintiff became exceedingly more upset and emotionally distressed, including crying, hyperventilating, and exhibiting pulmonary and cardiac symptoms; all of which was seen and duly noted by the officers and defendants. Mrs. Oliver then returned to the property to continue her intimidation of, as well as her stalking, harassment, haranguing, taunting, berating, and assaulting of plaintiff which constituted a second trespass upon the property. Mr. Fetterolf was not home at the time of either of the trespasses.”
From the moment their stalking, harassment, haranguing, taunting, berating and assaulting of plaintiff began, through its conclusion, the suit says, the defendants “saw how upset and emotionally distressed plaintiff was and how her crying, hyperventilating, and visible symptoms of pulmonary and cardiac distress continued to worsen, and yet they persisted with their stalking, harassment, haranguing, taunting, berating and assaulting of plaintiff.”
“Plaintiff repeatedly asked the officers to remove defendants from the property, get them away from her vehicles and home, and get them to stop their terroristic actions. Defendants persisted with their refusal to leave the property and their stalking, harassment, haranguing, taunting, berating and assaulting of plaintiff, even after the police pointed out the no trespassing signs and told defendants they were trespassing on the property. Mrs. Oliver then threatened plaintiff by saying that she had the ability to have the police arrest plaintiff and her husband on false charges, which confirmed plaintiff’s belief that defendants exerted control over the Borough police and were behind the numerous times the Borough police went to the property to harass the Fetterolfs and interfere with their use and enjoyment of the property. The responding officers eventually convinced defendants to leave the property,” the suit says.
“Plaintiff believes that, as of the filing of this lawsuit, criminal charges have still not been filed against Mr. Oliver and/or Mrs. Oliver, even though there can be no doubt that defendants committed, at the very least, criminal trespass. Because of how upset and emotional plaintiff was, Officer Arena offered to summon an ambulance. Believing that she would eventually be okay after defendants left the property, plaintiff declined the ambulance. At no time did defendants show any concern for plaintiff’s well-being, even though she was clearly in severe physical and emotional distress. To date, defendants’ utter callousness towards plaintiff has continued, as they have not reached out to inquire about her health and well-being.”
After having first declined an ambulance, the suit says “the plaintiff’s pulmonary and cardiac symptoms progressively and visibly worsened” – and “after the responding officers left the property, plaintiff’s symptoms continued to worsen to such a degree that she was forced to go to the emergency room at Sewickley Valley Hospital and then to the emergency room at UPMC Passavant, where doctors determined she had suffered a significant cardiac event.”
“Plaintiff was admitted to UPMC Passavant on April 11, 2021, and she remained hospitalized through April 13, 2021. During plaintiff’s hospitalization, she underwent a number of tests which confirmed she did, indeed, suffer a significant cardiac event due to the stress caused by defendants’ conduct. As a direct, proximate, factual, and legal result of defendants’ conduct as averred herein, plaintiff has suffered the following severe and serious personal injuries, all of which are or may be permanent in nature: Takotsubo’s Syndrome, which is a heart condition brought on by a stressful situation and extreme emotions; a heart attack; pulmonary and cardiac injuries; restricted breathing; severe emotional distress; left arm pain/discomfort; near Syncope; nausea; vomiting; headaches; generalized fatigue; recurring anxiety/panic attacks; difficulty sleeping; flashbacks, nightmares and intrusive thoughts; irritability, emotional distress, anxiety and fatigue; shock and injuries to her nerves and nervous system, plus other severe and serious injuries, that are more specifically defined in plaintiff’s medical and hospital records and by her treating physicians,” the suit states.
“The wrongs committed by defendants were planned, orchestrated, and intentionally committed to harass plaintiff and interfere with the Fetterolfs use and enjoyment of the property, and they persisted even after defendants saw how upset and emotionally distressed plaintiff was and how her crying, hyperventilating and visible symptoms of pulmonary and cardiac distress were continuing to worsen. The injuries, damages, losses and harm plaintiff suffered were reasonably foreseeable consequences of defendants’ outrageous, wanton and reckless conduct. Defendants’ trespasses on the property, without permission, right or authority to do so, their refusal to leave and their stalking, harassment, haranguing, taunting, berating and assaulting of plaintiff were all done with reckless disregard for plaintiff’s health, safety and well-being, which warrants the imposition of punitive damages in favor of plaintiff and against defendants. Because she reasonably and rationally fears further action by defendants, plaintiff has not held any further prayer groups on the property, and she has not requested approval for any non-agriculturally related activities on the property. Although plaintiff disagrees with and may appeal same, the Honorable William S. Stickman IV has issued an opinion in which he ruled that, when he engaged in the conduct that gave rise to the instant action, Mr. Oliver was acting in his individual capacity, and not his official capacity as mayor.”
For counts of trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, negligence, recklessness, negligence per se and violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, together with punitive damages, interest, costs, such other relief as this Honorable Court deems appropriate, and further demands that this Court enjoin defendants from any further attempts to interfere with plaintiff’s rights as protected under Article I, Sections 1, 3 and 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The plaintiff is represented by George R. Farneth II of The Farneth Law Group, in Wellsburg, W.Va.
The defendants are represented by Daniel B. McLane and Thomas E. Sanchez of Duane Morris, in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-24-000387
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com