Deberry, S. v. The Estate of Garrison, G.
Deberry, S. v. The Estate of Garrison, G. No. 687 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 24, 2017Background
- In 2012, Sharon DeBerry sued the Estate of George M. Garrison, Mable J. Garrison, and David M. Garrison alleging an oral May 30, 2001 contract to sell a 10‑acre parcel surrounding her trailer for $10,500, payable over two years; DeBerry alleged she would take deed after George’s death (George died 2003).
- Mable admitted in deposition that she and George sold the property to DeBerry; DeBerry produced check receipts showing payment of the agreed amount.
- In April 2006 Mable executed a deed conveying the property to herself and David as joint tenants; David later refinanced and paid mortgage/taxes on the 100‑acre parcel.
- Trial court granted DeBerry summary judgment (July 2015), finding the oral contract existed and David was not a bona fide purchaser; Estate and Mable later moved for summary judgment on David’s cross‑claim and the court granted it (April 2016).
- David appealed, arguing (1) genuine issues of material fact existed as to the contract and his bona fide purchaser status, and (2) the court abused discretion by allowing an allegedly untimely summary‑judgment motion by co‑appellees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DeBerry) | Defendant's Argument (David) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of oral land‑sale contract | DeBerry: oral agreement existed; she paid purchase price; Mable admitted sale | David: disputes existence, payment, identity of parcel, and George’s intent | Court: Contract existed; summary judgment for DeBerry (issue effectively waived on appeal by David’s vague Rule 1925(b) statement) |
| David’s status as bona fide purchaser | DeBerry: possession by DeBerry and evidence put David on notice of prior equitable interest | David: acted in good faith, retained counsel, conducted title search, lacked knowledge/inquiry notice | Court: David had notice via DeBerry’s possession and admissions; not a bona fide purchaser; summary judgment against him |
| Timeliness / procedural fairness of co‑appellees’ summary‑judgment motion | DeBerry/Estate/Mable: motion properly considered by trial court | David: motion was untimely under earlier scheduling order; court abused discretion | Court: Claim waived for inadequate briefing and incomplete record (no relevant transcript), so no relief granted |
| Appellate preservation (Rule 1925(b)) | DeBerry: not applicable | David: raised various substantive factual disputes on appeal | Held: Several of David’s substantive challenges deemed waived for being too vague in Rule 1925(b) or inadequately developed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Truax v. Roulhac, 126 A.3d 991 (Pa. Super. 2015) (summary judgment standard)
- Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 812 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2002) (summary judgment standard and deference rule)
- Rowe v. Ream, 105 Pa. 543 (Pa. 1884) (possession of land is notice to the world; possession puts purchaser on inquiry)
- Roberts v. Estate of Pursley, 718 A.2d 837 (Pa. Super. 1998) (subsequent buyer must be without notice of prior equitable interest to be bona fide purchaser)
- Carnegie Natural Gas Co. v. Braddock, 597 A.2d 285 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (definition of bona fide purchaser: pays consideration, no notice, acts in good faith)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (Rule 1925(b) waiver principles)