Byers, S. v. Liggett, E.
56 WDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 26, 2017Background
- Ernest and Marilyn Liggett defaulted on loans from Stephen Byers; Byers obtained a judgment and ultimately purchased the Liggetts’ Pittsburgh property at sheriff’s sale.
- Delay in delivery/recording of the sheriff’s deed occurred due to disputes (transfer taxes, pending appeals, bankruptcy stays).
- Byers filed a petition on December 2, 2014 to fix fair market value and obtain a deficiency judgment; deed was later found delivered June 25, 2015.
- The trial court held a hearing on December 13, 2016; Byers was the sole witness and testified about (a) the judgment balance ($198,411.06) and (b) a broker’s price opinion valuing the property at $215,000 (dated Dec. 20, 2012).
- The court adjusted the property value upward to $236,500, extrapolated the first-mortgage balance from bankruptcy/foreclosure filings, calculated interest and costs, and entered a deficiency judgment of $137,083.67.
- The Liggetts appealed, raising timeliness of Byers’ petition, the validity of Byers’ 2016 supplement, and multiple challenges to the valuation and interest/calculation methods.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Liggett) | Defendant's Argument (Byers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of deficiency petition | Petition filed prematurely (before six-month window after deed delivery) and thus should be dismissed | Petition ultimately filed within statutory period because six-month clock runs from deed delivery; earlier filing did not bar relief | WAIVED on appeal for failure to file post-trial motions; court found petition timely when measured from deed delivery |
| Validity of Aug. 4, 2016 supplement | Premature original petition was a "nullity," so supplement was procedurally invalid | Supplement was proper and provided additional mortgage/foreclosure information for deficiency calculation | WAIVED for failure to preserve in post-trial motions; court considered supplement and evidence |
| Use of 2012 broker’s price opinion to fix fair market value | Broker’s opinion was stale; value should reflect date of sheriff’s sale | Broker’s opinion permitted as evidence; court adjusted value to account for time gap | WAIVED; trial court adjusted valuation upward to account for 15-month gap and its valuation was upheld |
| Calculation of judgment (interest, mortgage balance, post-sale interest) | Challenged inclusion of compound interest, incorrect mortgage figures, and interest computations after sale | Byers produced calculations and supporting filings; trial court re-extrapolated mortgage balance and computed interest/costs | WAIVED; court’s calculations accepted where Liggetts submitted no post-trial challenge and presented no counter-evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Devon Serv., LLC v. S & T Realty, 171 A.3d 287 (Pa. Super. 2017) (explains procedure and preservation rules for petitions to fix fair market value and deficiency judgments)
- Horbal v. Moxham Nat’l Bank, 697 A.2d 577 (Pa. 1997) (purpose and operation of the Deficiency Judgment Act)
- Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2002) (issues not raised in timely post-trial motions are waived on appeal)