Alliance Bank v. Attractive Prop., LLC
32 Pa. D. & C.5th 1
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2013Background
- Alliance Bank filed a mortgage foreclosure against Attractive Properties LLC and 1514 Taney Street, LLC for $48,978.60, leading to a sheriff's sale of the Taney Street property on August 7, 2012.
- Petitioner filed a petition under Pa.R.C.P. No. 3281 on February 12, 2013 to establish the fair market value of the property, proposing $20,503.23.
- Intervenor Kenneth M. Kapner, on behalf of respondents, intervened March 25, 2013, asserting FMV of $52,400 based on AVI assessment.
- A May 29, 2013 hearing featured an independent appraiser who valued the property at $9,000 due to extensive damages, using five nearby comparables in average condition.
- The trial court fixed the FMV at $20,503.23, noting deteriorated condition observed after the sheriff’s sale and reliance on credible, comparable data over AVI.
- The appellants appealed July 1, 2013, challenging the admission of post-petition appraisal, urging AVI value, and arguing mitigation should affect FMV; the court’s order denied the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post hoc appraisal evidence was properly admitted | Kapner argues admission of post-petition appraisal was improper. | Petitioner contends the appraisal is admissible as part of valuation evidence. | Appellate review affirms admissibility and supports FMV. |
| Whether AVI should control FMV over the independent appraisal | Kapner contends AVI value ($52,400) reflects true FMV. | Petitioner contends AVI is unreliable for individual properties; court should rely on targeted appraisal. | Court correctly declined AVI in favor of the independent appraisal-based value. |
| Whether evidence of current property condition or mitigation affects FMV | Mitigation and current disrepair should reduce FMV. | FMV determined as if average condition; mitigation irrelevant. | FMV fixed at $20,503.23 disregards current disrepair and mitigation effects. |
| Whether the court's FMV determination was supported by substantial evidence | Claim that the court abused its discretion by not adopting higher values. | Argues substantial evidence supports the chosen value based on comparables and condition. | FMV of $20,503.23 supported by substantial evidence; appellate standard met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walnut St. Federal Sav. And Loan Ass'n v. Bernstein, 147 A.2d 359 (Pa. 1959) (trial court has broad discretion in fixing FMV; appellate review limited to substantial evidence)
- Confederation Life Ins. Co. v. Morrisville Properties, L.P. and Site Development, Inc., 715 A.2d 1147 (Pa. Super. 1998) (credibility determinations and use of comparables are appropriate in FMV determinations)
- Shrawder v. Quiggle, 389 A.2d 1135 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1978) (appellate review limited; substantiates use of evidence in FMV ruling)
- Bryn Mawr Trust Co. v. Healy, 667 A.2d 719 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) (credibility determinations upheld on appeal)
- Union Nat’l Bank of Pittsburgh v. Crump, 37 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1944) (consideration of recent sales of comparable properties in FMV analysis)