A Carbon County judge last month rejected post-trial motions filed by Jim Thorpe Borough following a court ruling requiring the municipality to maintain a set of concrete steps connecting High Street to West Broadway.

In his Dec. 10 order, Common Pleas Judge Joseph Matika allowed for the admission of one exhibit excluded during the trial, though stated, “it does not affect our verdict or decision.”

Matika also dismissed the borough’s claim that maintaining the steps conflicts with its rights under the Borough Code to vacate streets.

“As the subject area is nothing more than a set of concrete steps running between two streets in the borough and not a street itself, we see no conflict nor that our decision is otherwise contrary to law,” Matika wrote. “In fact, at the argument on the post-trial motion, we asked the borough for case law to support this claim, but none was provided.”

A June 2024 decision by Matika found the steps to be a public thoroughfare, obligating the borough to their upkeep. The dispute arose after a 2017 insurance claim prompted a land survey revealing that the steps cross three property lines, including those of the borough, Three Towers Apartments owner Tom Loughery at 49 West Broadway, and an LLC at 61 West Broadway, now a short-term rental property.

Legal dispute and ruling

Following the land survey, Loughery closed the steps and filed a lawsuit in 2019, seeking a declaratory judgment to clarify responsibility for maintaining or removing the steps. In his June ruling, Matika ordered the borough to maintain the steps for public use, rejecting the borough’s arguments that the steps were not formally dedicated to the public.

During the trial, the Lougherys presented evidence, including old newspaper articles and testimony, asserting the steps were a longstanding public thoroughfare. Attorney Joshua Gildea, representing the Lougherys, argued, “The evidence at trial clearly demonstrated that the High Street steps were irrevocably dedicated to the public — i.e., the community of Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania.”

The court also noted that the borough had engaged in actions consistent with maintaining the steps, such as installing railings, painting, removing snow and leaves, replacing landings, and performing general repairs.

“The steps have been used as an unrestricted public thoroughfare from the time they were constructed until the borough first began to contend that they were not dedicated to the public in 2017,” Gildea wrote in a legal brief.

Borough’s appeal

Jim Thorpe Borough Solicitor James Nanovic argued during an October hearing that the court’s order improperly restricts the borough’s discretion in determining maintenance levels. He expressed concerns that the plaintiffs could file contempt petitions if the borough’s maintenance efforts were deemed insufficient.

“The order creates an additional obligation which would fall upon the borough that it did not previously have,” Nanovic stated.

Nanovic also challenged the admissibility of certain evidence presented during the trial, including newspaper articles purportedly showing the steps’ history. He argued these articles failed to meet the legal standard for admissibility as ancient documents and did not conclusively prove the borough’s involvement in constructing the steps.

Furthermore, the borough contended that no formal dedication of the steps as public property had ever occurred.

“The plaintiff has not presented any proof as to who the party may have been who made the offer of dedication,” Nanovic wrote in a brief supporting the appeal.

Another appeal

Jim Thorpe last week voted to appeal Matika’s Dec. 10 decision on the post-trial motion.

The move sparked questions from resident Patricia Spillman during the public comment portion of the meeting.

Spillman urged council members to reconsider the appeal and emphasized the steps’ importance to the community.

“Could you at least park your car on High Street and walk down to the old bakery as if you live here?” she asked. “Have any of you ever walked High Street? Walked Dead Man’s Hill? Do you think that’s a safe hill to continue to allow people to use?”

Strubinger defended the decision to appeal, citing the council’s duty to protect the borough.

“We’re defending a position, and as council members, that’s our job — to protect the borough,” Strubinger said.

He also addressed safety concerns, explaining that the borough has yet to determine whether the steps are safe. “Unfortunately, we’re not even at that point to determine [safety]. Someone fell there and attempted to sue the borough, so at some point, we’ll get to that.”

Spillman pressed for further clarification, asking why the appeal was necessary and what the council’s plan would be if the court’s decision were upheld. However, Nanovic declined to explain the rationale for the appeal, stating, “I recommended it, but I’m not going to explain why.”

Councilman Mike Yeastedt was the lone member to vote against appealing Matika’s decision. Yeastedt said he could not comment as it was an executive session issue.