Bezjak, J. v. Diamond, M.
135 A.3d 623
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Dispute over ~65 acres in Fayette County; Appellants (Bezjak family) sued to quiet title against Diamond heirs and Nilan, a prior owner.
- Title history: Minnie and Emet Diamond owned property as tenants in common; Emet conveyed his interest to Pontorero & Sons in 1977.
- Pontorero filed bankruptcy in 1983; property remained in the bankruptcy estate until sold by the trustee to Joseph Bezjak in a 2002 federal bankruptcy sale (purchase completed 1999–2002 timeframe).
- Appellants claim adverse possession (tacking Pontorero’s possession to theirs) and alternative theories (mutual mistake, intent, warranty); they concede they did not know of the Diamond heirs’ interest until ~2008–2010 and never ejected the heirs.
- Trial court denied Appellants’ summary judgment and granted summary judgment for Appellees, dismissing Appellants’ quiet-title claim; Bezjaks appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants satisfied 21-year adverse possession | Bezjak: tacking Pontorero’s possession (since 1977) plus their possession meets 21 years | Diamond heirs: Pontorero’s 1983 bankruptcy placed property in custodia legis, interrupting continuity | Court: Held adverse-possession period interrupted by bankruptcy; 21 years not met |
| Whether Appellants ousted cotenants (required to claim against co-owners) | Bezjak: claimed acts and possession effectively excluded heirs | Diamond heirs: no actual notice or unequivocal acts of ouster; cotenants not ousted | Court: No evidence of actual ouster or notice; adverse possession against cotenants not established |
| Whether equitable theories (mutual mistake, intent, warranty) grant relief | Bezjak: 1977 deed should be reformed/interpreted to convey full title/minerals | Diamond heirs: Bezjaks lack standing to reform 1977 deed; claims are contractual and unsupported; testimony relied on is inadmissible hearsay | Court: Reformation/interpretation unavailable; claims lack standing and admissible evidence |
| Whether summary judgment rulings were proper | Bezjak: trial court erred in granting defendants’ and denying plaintiffs’ summary judgment | Diamond heirs: entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on bankruptcy interruption and lack of ouster | Court: Affirmed trial court; no genuine issue of material fact, appellees entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Showalter v. Pantaleo, 9 A.3d 233 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bankruptcy filing interrupts continuity for adverse possession)
- General Iron Indus. v. A. Finkl & Sons Co., 686 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. 1997) (upon bankruptcy filing property is in custodia legis, interrupting adverse possession)
- Conneaut Lake Park v. Klingensmith, 66 A.2d 828 (Pa. 1949) (one cotenant cannot acquire title against another absent ouster)
- Medusa Portland Cement Co. v. Lamantina, 44 A.2d 244 (Pa. 1945) (sale and conveyance by one cotenant, followed by 21 years’ possession by purchaser, can constitute ouster)
- Recreation Land Corp. v. Hartzfeld, 947 A.2d 771 (Pa. Super. 2008) (elements required for adverse possession)
- Edmondson v. Dolinich, 453 A.2d 611 (Pa. Super. 1982) (adverse possession requires clear proof of strict elements)