from the Judgment Entered August 2, 2018 In the Court of
Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s):
BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
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.
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
owned vacant real estate in Towamencin Township, Montgomery
County. Buyer, Michael and Linda, LLC, is a homebuilder.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
timely appealed and filed a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Statement. The trial court issued a responsive Opinion,
citing its ...