Media Center

May 8, 2026
Publications

Seven Development Group Incorporated v. Exeter Township, No. 25-12104 (C.C.P. Berks County Mar. 16, 2026) (Fudeman, J.)

In a case raising important questions about municipal bidding procedures, standing to challenge public property sales, and whether a private cause of action exists under the Second Class Township Code, Judge Madelyn S. Fudeman of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas overruled Exeter Township’s (“Exeter”) preliminary objections to a complaint brought by Seven Development Group Inc. (“Developer”). Exeter subsequently obtained certification of the order for interlocutory appeal and a stay of proceedings.

Key takeaways:

• The Court overruled preliminary objections, challenging the legal sufficiency of claims alleging violations of the Second Class Township Code’s property sale provisions, 53 P.S. § 66503.
• The decision preserves, at least through the preliminary objection stage, the argument that a private cause of action exists under the Second Class Township Code’s real property sale provisions.
• The ruling raises an unresolved question about whether a redevelopment authority qualifies as a “municipal authority” under § 66503(c)’s exemption from public bidding requirements.
• The Court certified the order for interlocutory appeal under 42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b), finding that the case involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.

Background

In 2023, Exeter, a second-class township, advertised the “Exeter Promenade” for public bid, with a minimum bid of $3 million and a deadline of July 6, 2023. After rejecting a non-conforming $2 million bid on July 10, 2023, Exeter received a $3 million Letter of Intent from the Developer on July 21, 2023. Exeter’s Manager acknowledged receipt and forwarded the offer to Exeter’s Solicitor, but despite multiple follow-up inquiries, Exeter never responded substantively.

On September 25, 2023, the Board voted to re-advertise the property but did not do so. In March 2024, the Board sold the property to the Berks County Redevelopment Authority (“Redevelopment Authority”) for $3 million, with Exeter’s Solicitor stating that no acceptable bid had been received in 2023. The Developer did not learn of the sale until August 2024 and filed suit, alleging that Exeter violated 53 P.S. § 66503 of the Second Class Township Code by failing to follow the required bidding procedures and by ignoring its conforming bid.

Disputed issues

Exeter argued that the Developer’s letter of intent (LOI) was not a valid bid, stating it was late, unsealed, lacked the required caption, and did not include a 10% certified check. That non-compliance with mandatory bidding requirements is fatal under Tactical Pub. Safety, LLC v. Pa. Dep’t of Gen. Servs., 297 A.3d 41 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023), and Karp v. Redevelopment Auth. of Phila., 566 A.2d 649 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989). The Developer countered that Exeter was still entertaining non-conforming bids as late as July 10, 2023, that the Board’s September 25, 2023, motion to re-advertise showed the process remained open, and that the LOI satisfied the $3 million minimum, creating a duty to address it.

Exeter contended that no private cause of action exists under 53 P.S. § 66503 and that the Developer lacked standing because it never submitted a conforming bid. The Developer responded by citing 53 P.S. § 66501 (“any township may sue or be sued”) and Greater Fourth St. Assocs. v. Smithfield Twp., 816 A.2d 388 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2003), which recognized such a claim, and argued it had a substantial, direct, and immediate interest as a bidder meeting the minimum requirement, additionally asserting taxpayer standing through its governor.

Finally, Exeter argued the sale to the Redevelopment Authority was lawful under § 66503(c)’s exemption for conveyances to “municipal authorities.” The Developer disputed this, arguing the Redevelopment Authority was created under the Urban Redevelopment Law, 35 P.S. § 1701 et seq., not the Municipality Authorities Act, 53 Pa.C.S. § 5601 et seq., and that Section 1704(a) expressly states a redevelopment authority “shall in no way be deemed to be an instrumentality of such municipality.”

Court’s ruling and subsequent proceedings

On January 21, 2026, Judge Fudeman overruled the preliminary objections. Exeter then moved to amend the order to include certification for interlocutory appeal. The Court granted that motion, and the case is now before the Commonwealth Court.

Why this matters

The appeal presents questions lacking clear appellate authority: whether a private cause of action exists under 53 P.S. § 66503, whether a redevelopment authority qualifies as a “municipal authority” under § 66503(c), and what a township owes bidders who submit offers during or near an open bidding process. Competitive bidding statutes protect against “favoritism, improvidence, fraud and corruption,” Carbo v. Redstone Twp., 960 A.2d 899 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008), and public officers “must act with the utmost good faith, fidelity and integrity” when dealing with public property. The Commonwealth Court’s resolution should provide important guidance on the scope of those obligations and the remedies available to disappointed bidders.

A copy of the developer brief can be found here, and a copy of the township brief can be found here.