Brobst, W., Sr. v. Brobst, W., Jr.
Brobst, W., Sr. v. Brobst, W., Jr. No. 1212 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Plaintiff William F. Brobst, Sr. sued defendants William F. Brobst, Jr. and Roxanne Brobst for ejectment from real property (an estate by the entireties) that plaintiff asserted he solely owned after his wife's death.
- Defendants counterclaimed and sought partial summary judgment, arguing the entireties estate was extinguished or that they retained some interest in the parcel.
- The trial court (Judge James M. Lillis) granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied defendants' counterclaims, and effectively denied defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.
- Defendants appealed the June 22/23, 2016 order raising three issues: (A) whether the entireties estate was extinguished; (B) whether defendants nonetheless held some interest in the parcel; and (C) whether the court failed to consider defendants’ affirmative defenses.
- The Superior Court reviewed the record de novo for summary judgment standards and adopted the trial court’s 12-page opinion, finding no error of law or abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Was the entireties estate extinguished? | Brobst Sr.: Entireties estate survived and became plaintiff's sole ownership after spouse's death. | Brobst Jr.: Entireties estate was extinguished so they retained rights. | Court: Entireties estate was not extinguished; summary judgment for plaintiff. |
| B. Do defendants retain any estate/interest in the parcel? | Brobst Sr.: No remaining interest; ejectment appropriate. | Brobst Jr.: Defendants were seized with some estate/interest regardless. | Court: No genuine issue of material fact supporting defendants’ interest; ruled for plaintiff. |
| C. Were defendants’ affirmative defenses considered properly? | Brobst Sr.: Trial court considered and rejected defenses; no basis to deny summary judgment. | Brobst Jr.: Trial court abused discretion by failing to consider affirmative defenses. | Court: Trial court did not err or abuse discretion; defenses insufficient to defeat summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Universal Health Services, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Assoc., 884 A.2d 889 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment appeals)
- LJL Transp., Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight Corp., 962 A.2d 639 (Pa. 2009) (summary judgment entry when no genuine issue of material fact exists)
- Krapf v. St. Luke’s Hospital, 4 A.3d 642 (Pa. Super. 2010) (procedural standards on summary judgment review)
- Marks v. Tasman, 589 A.2d 205 (Pa. 1991) (party opposing supported summary judgment must produce specific facts showing genuine issue)
- Overly v. Kass, 554 A.2d 970 (Pa. Super. 1989) (opposition to summary judgment requires evidentiary showing)
- Tom Morello Construction Co., Inc. v. Bridgeport Federal Savings and Loan Assn., 421 A.2d 747 (Pa. Super. 1980) (same)