The Shafers’ preliminary objections necessarily assume the truth of all facts set forth inStambaugh’s amended complaint. Even accepting Stambaugh’s allegations as true, Stambaugh’scomplaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted (
), seeksrelief that is unavailable (
), fails adequately to specify his monetarydamages (
), and depends on inadmissible evidence of settlementnegotiations between the parties (
). The Shafers’ preliminary objectionsshould be sustained and Stambaugh’s amended complaint dismissed in its entirety.
Stambaugh’s Complaint Fails to State a Claim uponWhich Relief May Be Granted
Despite its extensive allegations, Stambaugh’s amended complaint fails to state any claimupon which this Court could grant relief even if Stambaugh could prove each and every one of the allegations he offers. Defendants’ principle preliminary objection, then, is in the nature of demurrer. A demurrer admits every well-pleaded material fact set forth in the pleadings to whichit is addressed as well as all reasonably-deducible inferences, but not conclusions of law. Inorder to sustain a demurrer, the Court must find that the law will not afford plaintiff any recoveryon the strength of the pleaded facts.
See, e.g., National Recovery Systems v. Frebraro
, 430 A.2d686 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981). The standard is whether the complaint states a claim for relief under any theory of law.
Morley v. Gory
, 814 A.2d 762 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). Here, Stambaugh’samended complaint plainly does not.With regard to fundamentals of the claims Stambaugh attempts to plead, any action basedon the flow of surface waters must begin with the recognition that “[t]he law of surface waters inthis jurisdiction remains essentially unchanged from its origins in the maxim, ‘Water must flowas it is wont to flow.’”
Laform v. Bethlehem Township
, 499 A.2d 1373, 1377 (Pa. Super. Ct.1985). As explained below, the rules applicable to this dispute distill into a single—andsimple—proposition: “Generally, damage to the lower landowner’s property from surface water as a result of the upper landowner’s use of his property is not actionable.”
Olexa v. De SalesUniv.
, 78 Pa. D. & C. 4th 171, 186 (Lehigh County, Dec. 13, 2005).