Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Devon Service, LLC v. S & T Realty

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

September 20, 2017

DEVON SERVICE, LLC ASSIGNEE OF CUSTOMERS BANK F/K/A NEW CENTURY BANK, Appellee
v.
S & T REALTY AND SAUL BARSH, Appellants

         Appeal from the Order Entered October 26, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No.: 2013-11998

          BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J. [*]

          OPINION

          PLATT, J.

         Appellants, S & T Realty and Saul Barsh, appeal from the order fixing the fair market value of four foreclosed commercial properties and entering a decree in favor of plaintiff/Appellee, Devon Service, LLC, the judgment creditor by assignment. Appellants claim chiefly that the trial court improperly used lower sales prices instead of their own appraiser's higher valuations, and together with other purported procedural mistakes, set the fair market value too low, erroneously depriving them of a net credit of $132, 500 against the deficiency judgment they owe. We affirm.

         We derive the facts from the trial court's opinion and our independent review of the certified record. Defendant/Appellant Saul Barsh is the sole owner of the other named Appellant, S & T Realty (S & T).[1] (See Trial Court Opinion, 10/26/16, at 1). Barsh, through S & T, owned four commercial properties subject to mortgages in favor of Customers Bank, Appellee's assignor/predecessor in interest.[2] Appellants ultimately defaulted.

         On December 18, 2014, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Customers Bank, in the amount of $1, 444, 155.00. Customers Bank eventually assigned its interest to Appellee.[3] Appellee later bought the properties at a Sheriff's sale, on April 16, 2015.[4] Appellee then timely petitioned for a deficiency judgment.[5] The trial court held a hearing on June 22, 2016, and September 16, 2016. Appellee's appraiser, Robert B. Rogers, determined the fair market value of the properties to be $1, 030, 000.00. Appellants' appraiser, Vincent D. Quinn, determined the properties to have a fair market value of $1, 510, 000.00. In addition to providing written reports, both appraisers testified at the hearing.

         After the hearings, the trial court issued its order, together with an explanatory opinion. (See Order, and Decision, 10/26/16). The trial court fixed the fair market value of the real estate at issue, net of credits, municipal liens, etc., (which are not in dispute), to be $897, 500.00.[6] It also entered a deficiency judgment of $687, 704.66. (See Order, supra).

         The trial court essentially accepted the valuation of Appellee's appraiser, Mr. Rogers (originally prepared for Customers Bank), over Appellants' valuation from Mr. Quinn. Appellants did not file a motion for post-trial relief. See Pa.R.C.P. 227.1.

         Appellants timely appealed, on November 23, 2016. The trial court issued an order on November 29, 2016 for a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors, due on December 20, 2016. Although the docket confirms that the order was served on all counsel, neither Appellants nor appellate counsel responded, and both deny receipt.

          On January 10, 2017, the trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion, noting that Appellants had failed to file a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors. (See Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 1/10/17, at 1). It concluded that all appellate issues were automatically waived. The trial court also expressed its belief that the prior Order and Decision adequately explained the reasoning for its judgment. (See id. at 2).

         Notably, Appellants and appellate counsel maintain that the trial court's opinion was their first notice that the court had ordered a Rule 1925(b) statement of errors. (See Sur-Reply of Appellants S & T Realty and Saul Barsh, at 1).

         Appellants present three questions on appeal.

I. Where the [trial] [c]ourt considered the appraisals of fair market value of the parties' expert appraisers and accepted and relied upon the [Appellee's] appraiser's opinion of $1, 030, 000, did it err as a matter of law, in only crediting [Appellant(s)] with the (lower) [sic] sales price and not fair market value?
II. Did the [trial] [c]ourt err as a matter of law in failing to apply credit for the fair market value of the foreclosed properties as of the date of the Sheriff's Sale (April 16, 2015)?
III. Did the [trial] [c]ourt err as a matter of law by miscalculating interest, both by using the incorrect credit for the sale of the foreclosed properties and by failing to credit the fair market value of the foreclosed properties ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.