James P. Coho, Lancaster, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Jones, C. J., and Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy and Manderino, JJ. Manderino, J., concurs in the result. Roberts, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Jones, C. J., joins. Nix, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
This is an appeal from a final decree in equity which ordered specific performance of an agreement for sale of real property.*fn1
In July 1968, appellant and her late husband entered into a written lease agreement with appellee Lloyd H. Miller*fn2 for the property which is the subject of this suit.*fn3 The term of the lease was one year, with an option
to purchase within two years. The agreement also provided that the optionees, if they exercised the option, would accept a deed for the property from one Everett McDonald. At the time he entered into this lease-option agreement, Mr. Miller had in his possession a deed to the property in question which was signed by Everett McDonald and his wife. The space in the deed for the grantee's name, however, was blank, and the deed apparently was not acknowledged. In January, 1969, appellant or her late husband orally communicated to Mr. Miller their desire to exercise the option, and this communication was orally acknowledged by Mr. Miller. Thereafter, Mrs. Salzman or her husband made several attempts to arrange for settlement, but Miller either refused or neglected to fix a date. In February, 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Miller received a second deed to the property from the McDonalds.*fn4 This deed named the Millers as grantees as tenants by the entireties, and was subsequently recorded.
Appellant commenced the present action for specific performance of the lease-option agreement in September, 1973. The final decree ordered the Millers to convey the property to appellant, but subject to Mrs. Miller's "inchoate intestate rights."*fn5 On this appeal, appellant argues that Mrs. Miller had no intestate rights in the property,
and therefore the trial court should have ordered that the conveyance to appellant be free and clear of all encumbrances.
In concluding that the property here at issue should be conveyed subject to Mrs. Miller's "inchoate intestate rights," the ...