Appeal from the Order Entered on November 22, 1988, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 51381 TLD March 1983.
Cheryl B. Wolf, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Robin R. Bridges, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Samuel Shevlin, Philadelphia, for Charles Davis, participating party.
Cirillo, President Judge, and Rowley and Hester, JJ.
[ 388 Pa. Super. Page 199]
Chicken's Place, Inc. appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on November 22, 1988, which granted it the right to redeem certain real property upon the payment of $25,000.00 and a specified amount of interest.*fn1 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
The relevant facts may be summarized as follows. On January 5, 1987, due to unpaid municipal taxes, the Sheriff of Philadelphia offered appellant's property, a commercial building located on West Queen Lane, for sale. Appellee
[ 388 Pa. Super. Page 200]
Charles Davis submitted the winning bid and purchased it for $25,000.00. Seven months later, the sheriff's deed conveying the premises was acknowledged.
On April 8, 1988, appellant petitioned for redemption of the property. During the pendency of the proceedings concerning that petition, a fire damaged the building which, throughout these events, remained in appellant's possession and control. Appellant paid no rent. Shortly thereafter, appellant, at its own expense, began repairing the structure.
Five months after appellant filed its petition, the trial court entered an order granting it the right to redeem the property upon the payment of a sum to be determined later. In conjunction with that order, a memorandum was filed which indicated that appellant should bear the burden of the fire loss. On November 22, 1988, the court entered a second order designating that appellant had to pay $25,000.00 plus interest at ten percent per annum from the date that the sheriff's deed was acknowledged, August 17, 1987, to redeem the property. This timely appeal followed.
The issue raised on appeal concerns who should bear the risk of loss resulting from the fire which severely damaged the uninsured premises. Appellant, by his argument, attempts to impose a duty upon appellee to purchase insurance. Since appellee breached that duty, appellant contends that it is entitled to a credit against the redemption price for the property. In order to determine the validity of that ...