Share this:

Plaintiff owned a large parcel of land that he developed into a mobile home park in phases over the course of several years.  In 2001 and 2006 the defendant, the Township of Tilden (“Township”) approved Phases VI and VII of the land development on condition that the plaintiff develop and install sewage collection and water distribution systems in the mobile home park.  The plaintiff never completed the water and sewage systems claiming obstructionist and harassing behavior by the Township. 

Soon after, a Township zoning officer inspected the mobile home park without notice.  Upon the officer finding several violations, the Township scheduled a hearing to discuss the matter.  The Township accepted the plaintiff’s licensing fees in August 2007 but never issued him a license.  Then, without notice or an opportunity to be heard, the Township announced to the public that the plaintiff was operating the mobile home park without a license.  After banning further building at the park, the Township sought to force the plaintiff to relinquish ten acres of the mobile home park for a sewer easement.  

In 2009 the plaintiff filed suit against the Township of Tilden in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania claiming his procedural and substantive due process rights, among other things, were violated.  The district court granted the defendant’s motions for dismissal and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 

The Court of Appeals, relying on Hill v. Borough of Kutztown, 455 F.3d 128, 138 (3d Cir. 2010), decided that “to make out a procedural due process claim, [the plaintiff] must show that the defendants deprived him of a protected interest and that the state procedure for challenging the deprivation was constitutionally inadequate.”  The court acknowledged that the plaintiff has been deprived of a protected property interest but found that the Township provided constitutionally adequate procedural due process by providing reasonable remedies.  The court noted that reasonable remedies available included post-deprivation hearings and common law tort remedies. 

In regards to the substantive due process claim, the courts decided the deprivation of a protected property interest did not “shock the conscience” and therefore the plaintiff had no claim.  The Third Circuit specified that the plaintiff did not allege any conduct that could be considered “shocking to the conscience” since it was not egregious enough. 

Perano v. Township of Tilden, 2011 WL 1388381 (3^rd Cir. 4/13/2011) 

The opinion can be accessed here