IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Foster Township :
:
v. : No. 445 C.D. 2022
:
Farida B. Rahman, : Submitted: February 6, 2024
Appellant :
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM FILED: March 18, 2024
Farida B. Rahman (Rahman), proceeding pro se, appeals from the April
6, 2022 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County (trial court), which
denied her application for permanent injunctive relief. Upon review, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Rahman owns real property at 53 Prescott Road, White Haven, which is
in Foster Township (Township), Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. For the past 12 years,
since approximately 2011, Rahman has been involved in ongoing collection matters
and other litigation with the Township concerning a sewer connection on her property.1
The most recent dispute arose when, on January 10, 2022, the Township
sent Rahman a letter by certified mail, notifying her that her sewer account was past
1
In fact, this is the fifth appeal Rahman has filed in connection with her ongoing dispute with
the Township. See Foster Township v. Rahman (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1428 C.D. 2021, filed September
22, 2023); Rahman v. Foster Township (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1099 C.D. 2018, filed June 7, 2019);
Rahman v. Foster Township and Jones, 211 A.3d 914 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019); Foster Township v.
Rahman (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1172 C.D. 2018, filed November 18, 2019); Foster Township v. Rahman
(Pa. Cmwlth., No. 847 C.D. 2011, filed February 21, 2012). Since filing the present appeal, Rahman
has filed two more appeals that are pending in this Court at docket numbers 588 C.D. 2023 and 1406
C.D. 2023.
due in the amount of $561.00 and giving her 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt.
(Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 11a.) The January 10, 2022 letter stated: “If you do
notify us that you dispute the validity of this debt within thirty (30) days after receipt
of this letter, we will obtain verification of the debt and provide it to you.” Id.
Rahman disputed the debt within 30 days by delivering to the Township a
letter on February 8, 2022, alleging that she did not owe the debt because the Township
“[does] not provide any sewer service” at her property. Id. at 12a. On February 18,
2022, the Township filed a municipal lien against Rahman’s property in the amount of
$754.25 for unpaid sewer fees, penalties, filing costs, and attorney fees. Id. at 8a. On
February 18, 2022, a Notice of Entry of Judgment was sent to Rahman by the Division
of Judicial Records and Services for Luzerne County. Id. at 6a.
On February 27, 2022, Rahman filed a motion titled “Motion Request to
Judge et al. 42 Pa. C.S.[] § 5505 Permits Judgment Should be Vacated due to Fraud,
error Dated February 18, 2022 and for Special Injunction” (Motion to Vacate and for
Special Injunction). Id. at 1a. Rahman argued that the judgment should be vacated
because: (1) the Township had in 2010 already executed on a prior judgment in the
amount of $2,673.48; (2) the Township did not use the $2,673.48 to satisfy her
outstanding sewer bills;2 (3) the Township did not provide her with verification of the
debt as promised in its January 10, 2022 letter; and (4) the Township does not provide
sewer service to her house and, therefore, she should not be receiving any sewer bills.
She also requested a “special injunction” to stop the Township from executing on the
judgment. Id. at 1a-4a.
She claims the Township and her former attorney, Thomas J. Jones, Jr., “pocketed the
2
money.” (R.R. at 33a-34a.) Rahman has also commenced a civil action against Attorney Jones. See
Rahman v. Foster Township and Jones, 211 A.3d 914 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019).
2
On March 1, 2022, the trial court conducted an ex parte hearing to
consider the emergency injunctive nature of the Motion to Vacate and for Special
Injunction, at which Rahman appeared and represented herself. Rahman testified that,
although she is not using the toilets in her house, the Township “keep[s] sending [her]
bills” and issued the lien. Id. at 32a-37a. She presented photographs of two dried-up
toilet bowls. After hearing her testimony and arguments, the trial court denied
Rahman’s Motion to Vacate and for Special Injunction to the extent Rahman requested
special injunctive relief because she failed to demonstrate that the municipal lien would
cause her immediate and irreparable injury. Id. at 18a, 39a, 47a. A second hearing was
scheduled by the trial court for March 22, 2022, to resolve the remaining arguments
Rahman raised regarding the validity of the municipal lien. Id. at 18a, 24a.
On March 7, 2022, Rahman filed a Notice to the Township to issue a scire
facias pursuant to Section 16 of the Municipal Claims and Tax Lien Act (MCTLA), 53
P.S. § 7184.3 Id. at 20a. In response, the Township issued a writ of scire facias on
3
Act of May 16, 1923, P.L. 207, as amended. Section 16 of MCTLA provides:
Any party named as defendant in the claim filed, or admitted to defend
thereagainst, may file, as of course, and serve a notice upon the
claimant or upon the counsel of record to issue a scire facias thereon,
within fifteen days after notice so to do. If no scire facias be issued
within fifteen days after the affidavit of service of notice is filed of
record, the claim shall be stricken off by the court, upon motion. If a
scire facias be issued in accordance with such notice, the claimant shall
not be permitted to discontinue the same, or suffer a nonsuit upon the
trial thereof, but a compulsory nonsuit shall be entered by the court if
the claimant does not appear, or withdraws, or for reason fails to
maintain his claim.
53 P.S. § 7184.
The purpose of filing and serving the notice to issue a writ of scire facias is to force a hearing
on the municipal claim. North Coventry Township v. Tripodi, 64 A.3d 1128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). In
(Footnote continued on next page…)
3
March 21, 2022, which notified Rahman that she must file an Affidavit of Defense
within 15 days, or a judgment may be entered against her. Id. at 26a-27a.
At the March 22, 2022 hearing, Rahman provided evidence that she
disputed the municipal lien within the timeframe set forth in the Township’s January
10, 2022 letter. Id. at 61a-62a. She also established that the Township did not provide
her with verification of the debt in accord with its January 10, 2022 letter. Id.
By order dated March 30, 2022, the trial court vacated the February 18,
2022 judgment because the Township “failed to comply with the directives in the
January 10, 2022 correspondence to [Rahman] and entered judgment after a timely
dispute [of] the validity of the debt was served by [Rahman] to [the] Township.” Id. at
47a. The trial court concluded that the remainder of the Motion to Vacate and for
Special Injunction was rendered moot by the vacation of the February 18, 2022
judgment. Id.
On March 31, 2022, the Township sent a letter to the Luzerne County
Sheriff’s Department and canceled service of the writ of scire facias based on the trial
court’s March 30, 2022 order. Id. at 28a. The letter canceling service of the writ
explained, “please cancel this service request as a conference was held on this matter
recently and we will be proceeding with this matter via alternative means.” Id. at 29a
(emphasis removed).
On April 2, 2022, Rahman filed another motion, titled “Motion to Dismiss
the Scire Facias (Motion to Dismiss),” seeking permanent injunctive relief and arguing
that, because the February 18, 2022 judgment was vacated, the Township should be
enjoined from “fil[ing] such an action again.” Id. at 44a-45a. Rahman argued that
because “[t]he [Township] illegally received one judgment against [her] on February
this case, a hearing was already scheduled and the matter was proceeding on Rahman’s Motion to
Vacate and for Special Injunction, so it is unclear why Rahman filed the Section 16 Notice.
4
18, 2022 . . . [t]he [Township] cannot ask the [trial] court to get another judgment on
the same action twice[.]” Id. at 45a.
On April 6, 2022, the trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss because the
permanent injunctive relief Rahman requested was “not appropriate in that the sewer
bills will continue to accumulate so long as the service is active,” and because the trial
court “lacked jurisdiction to permanently enjoin [the] Township from collection of
delinquent sewer payments.” Id. at 69a.
On April 14, 2022, Rahman filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the
trial court denied on April 19, 2022. Id. at 78a.
On May 3, 2022, Rahman filed her Notice of Appeal from the April 6,
2022 order denying her request to permanently enjoin the Township from issuing any
more municipal liens against her property for nonpayment of her sewer bills.
After she filed her Notice of Appeal, Rahman continued to file motions in
the trial court. On August 2, 2022, Rahman filed a motion titled “Motion to Judge et.
al for a Compulsory Nonsuit with Prejudice” (Motion for Compulsory Nonsuit),
arguing that because the Township canceled service of the writ of scire facias, the
Township had “abandoned its case” and that the Township and the “[trial court] tr[ied]
to cover up the truth.” Id. at 126a-28a. The trial court entered an order on October 11,
2022, explaining that it was without jurisdiction to entertain the Motion for
Compulsory Nonsuit because Rahman had already filed a Notice of Appeal thereby
divesting the trial court of jurisdiction. Id. at 138a.
On October 30, 2022, Rahman filed another motion titled “Motion My
Rights Are Violated Under 42 U.S. Code § 1983. Illegal Order Should be Vacated.
Judgment Should be Entered in Her Favor,” arguing that the trial court entered its
October 11, 2022 order to “cover up the truth to help her friend/relative, which is
5
illegal” and “killing her appeal.” Id. at 136a-37a. On November 3, 2022, the trial court
entered an order once again explaining that it was without jurisdiction to rule on the
motion because Rahman had filed a Notice of Appeal thereby divesting the trial court
of jurisdiction. Id. at 144a.
In her Statement of Questions Involved, Rahman raises the following two
issues:
1. Whether the [trial] court erred and abused its discretion
[when it] denied [Rahman’s] Motion [to Dismiss] and
Reconsideration?
2. Whether the [trial] court violated [Rahman’s] rights under
42 U.S. Code § 1983 [when it] entered the Order dated
October 11, 2022?
(Rahman’s Br. at 7.)
II. Discussion
A. Denial of Request to Enjoin the Township from Issuing any Future
Liens Against her Property for Nonpayment of Future Sewer Bills
Rahman argues that the trial court erred when it denied her request to
enjoin the Township from issuing any future liens against her property for unpaid sewer
bills. She asserts that she “is not using the service” and, therefore, “there are [no]
unpaid sewer bills.” (Rahman’s Br. at 10.) We find this argument to be lacking in
merit.
Rahman’s position seems to be based on the misperception that because
she is not using her toilets, and has not for a long time, the Township does not provide
any sewer service to her property and therefore there can be no unpaid sewer bills. See
Rahman’s Br. at 10, 21. Even though she is not using her toilets, Rahman is using the
Township’s sewer service in other ways. Wastewater from sinks, showers, tubs,
washers, and dishwashers flow from drain lines to the main sewer line. Thus, the fact
6
that Rahman is not using her toilets does not mean that the Township is not providing
sewer service to the property or billing her improperly. See Foster Township, Luzerne
County, Pennsylvania Sewer System Rules and Regulations, Ordinance No. 1-2012,
(2012) (requiring property owners to connect to the Township’s sewer system and that
all sanitary sewage including wastewater flowing from toilets, showers, sinks and
washing machines must be discharged into the sewer system).
Section 15 of the MCTLA specifically authorizes the entry of a municipal
lien on property for non-payment of fees or assessments. 53 P.S. § 7183. In addition,
the liens may include any penalties, interest, and other costs. “[I]t is perfectly legal for
a municipality to file liens and enter judgments on real property and have the property
sold, where property owners willfully refuse to pay for the sewage and water services
which they have received.” General Municipal Authority of Harvey’s Lake v. Yuhas,
572 A.2d 1291, 1294 (Pa. Super. 1990). As the trial court correctly pointed out in its
April 6, 2022 order, sewer bills will continue to accumulate so long as service is active.
We agree with the trial court that it had no legal basis to permanently enjoin the
Township from the collection of delinquent sewer payments for the services it provides.
The Township has every right to file liens and move for the entry of judgment to
enforce its rights. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing
to enjoin the Township from issuing any future liens against Rahman’s property if she
refuses to pay for sewer services she receives.4
4
To the extent that Rahman challenges the trial court’s denial of her motion for
reconsideration, her argument fails. A trial court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration is not an
appealable order. In re Merrick’s Estate, 247 A.2d 786, 787 (Pa. 1968); Murkey v. Corbin, 533 A.2d
1091 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
7
B. October 11, 2022 Order Denying Rahman’s August 2, 2022,
Motion for a Compulsory Nonsuit
Next, Rahman argues that the trial court violated her civil rights under 42
U.S.C. § 19835 when it entered its October 11, 2022 order, denying her Motion for a
Compulsory Nonsuit. This issue is also without merit.
As the trial court aptly explained twice, it did not have jurisdiction to rule
on the merits of Rahman’s Motion for Compulsory Nonsuit because it was filed after
Rahman had filed her Notice of Appeal on May 3, 2022. After an appeal is filed, the
trial court may no longer proceed in the matter. Pa. R.A.P. 1701(a). Here, once
Rahman filed her appeal from the trial court’s April 6, 2022 order, the trial court could
not entertain the additional motions filed by Rahman. The trial court committed no
error.
For the reasons set forth above, Rahman’s arguments on appeal lack merit.
The April 6, 2022 order of the trial court is affirmed.
5
Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1963 states in pertinent part:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunizes secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be
liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress. . . .
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
8
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Foster Township :
:
v. : No. 445 C.D. 2022
:
Farida B. Rahman, :
Appellant :
PER CURIAM
ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 2024, the April 6, 2022 Order of
the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County is hereby AFFIRMED.
Foster Twp. v. F.B. Rahman
Combined Opinion