IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
July 29, 2008
INGOMAR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PLAINTIFF
JEFFREY J. CURRENT; PAULA H. CURRENT; SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., F/K/A FAIRBANKS CAPITAL CORP.; RANDAL L. SPAHR; AND CRYSTAL C. JAMES, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 29th day of July, upon consideration of the motion in limine (Doc. 44) of defendant Select Portfolio Servicing ("SPS"), which seeks to exclude all evidence supporting the cross-claim of defendants Randal L. Spahr and Crystal C. James (hereinafter "Spahr and James") against SPS, and it appearing that, if plaintiff Ingomar Limited Partnership ("Ingomar") is found to possess a lien on Spahr and James's property, the cross-claim will seek indemnity from SPS on the ground that SPS allegedly recorded real estate documents relevant to Ingomar's interest in an erroneous fashion,*fn1 and the court concluding that the validity of Spahr and James's cross-claim for indemnity is therefore wholly dependent on the resolution of their disputed status as bona fide purchasers vis-à-vis Ingomar's interest, see Leedom v. Spano, 647 A.2d 221, 228 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994) (stating that buyers who "pa[y] for their property without knowledge of . . . defects in the title they assert . . . are entitled to unencumbered title as bona fide purchasers for value."), see also Manton Cork Corp. v. Reiley-Moustakas Dev., No. Civ. A. 84-3723, 1987 WL 5286, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Jan 8, 1987) (holding that indemnity applies only when a party establishes that it has suffered harm "which resulted from the wrongful conduct of another who was primarily liable for the wrong"); and that disposition of the cross-claim against SPS is more appropriately addressed after adjudication of the legal relationships among Spahr and James and Ingomar, and the court finding that evidence of Spahr and James's cross-claim against SPS is relevant insofar as it will elucidate those relationships, will provide the court with the evidence necessary to adjudicate the cross-claim in the event that Spahr and James are not found be bona fide purchasers, and will provide the parties with the factual basis necessary to brief the legal sufficiency of the cross-claim,*fn2 see FED. R. EVID. 401 (stating that evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence . . . more or less probable than it would be without the evidence), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion in limine (Doc. 44) is DENIED.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge