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.

Michael and Linda, LLC v. Smith

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 25, 2019

MICHAEL AND LINDA, LLC
v.
ROBERT S. SMITH AND RENEE M. SMITH, Appellants

          Appeal from the Judgment Entered August 2, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): 2016-10803

          BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

          OPINION

          DUBOW, J.

         Robert S. Smith and Renee M. Smith (hereafter, Sellers) appeal from the Judgment entered against them on August 2, 2018, in this real estate transaction dispute. We discern no trial court error of law or abuse of discretion and, therefore, affirm.

         We derive the following statement of facts from the trial court's Decision, which is supported by the record. See Trial Ct. Decision, 7/3/18, at 1-4.[1]

         Sellers owned vacant real estate in Towamencin Township, Montgomery County. Buyer, Michael and Linda, LLC, is a homebuilder.

         The parties executed an Agreement of Sale in December 2015 for three adjacent parcels of real estate (collectively, the Property). The three parcels were identified as Lots 25, 26, and 27, which corresponded to parcel identification numbers: 533-00-00943-003, 53-00-00942-004, and 53-00-08142-004, respectively. The total, negotiated purchase price for these lots was $370, 000.[2]

         The Agreement of Sale included a "time is of the essence" provision. It obligated Sellers to provide good and marketable title, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. The Agreement of Sale set settlement for January 29, 2016, but also provided for the extension of the settlement date by written agreement of the parties.

         Prior to settlement, a title search revealed a mortgage on Lot 27. The parties agreed to settle on the other lots for two-thirds of the negotiated price and, further, to extend settlement on Lot 27 to February 29, 2016. As the new settlement date approached, because the title issue remained unresolved, the parties agreed to extend settlement further until March 14, 2016. At some point thereafter, when it became clear that the title issue was yet unresolved, Buyer proposed a third extension to the settlement date, but Sellers refused.

         In April 2016, Buyer learned that the title issue was resolved and, therefore, advised Sellers that settlement could proceed. However, Sellers refused to settle on Lot 27.

         In May 2016, Buyer commenced this litigation by Summons, thereafter filing a Complaint asserting breach of contract. Complaint, 8/22/16. Following a bench trial in May 2018, the court found in favor of Buyer, granting its request for specific performance and thus directing Sellers to convey Lot 27 to Buyer.

         Sellers timely filed a Post-Trial Motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the court's verdict. Sellers' Post-Trial Motion, 7/12/18. The trial court denied the Motion and entered Judgment in favor of Buyer. Trial Ct. Order, 7/31/18; Trial Ct. Judgment, 8/2/18.

         Sellers timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement. The trial court issued a responsive Opinion, citing its ...


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.