Devon Service, LLC v. S & T Realty
171 A.3d 287
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- S & T Realty (owned by Saul Barsh) owned four commercial properties subject to mortgages to Customers Bank; Appellants defaulted.
- Customers Bank obtained summary judgment for $1,444,155 and assigned its rights to Devon Service, LLC (Appellee).
- Devon bought the properties at Sheriff’s Sale (April 16, 2015) and later petitioned to fix fair market value and obtain a deficiency judgment.
- Appellee’s appraiser valued the properties at $1,030,000; Appellants’ appraiser valued them at $1,510,000. The trial court fixed fair market value (net of credits) at $897,500 and entered a deficiency judgment of $687,704.66.
- Appellants did not file post-trial motions under Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 and failed to timely submit a Rule 1925(b) statement; they appealed without raising these issues first in the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by using lower sale prices instead of appellants’ higher appraiser valuation when fixing fair market value | Devon: trial court reasonably relied on comparables and appraisal evidence supporting lower value | Barsh/S & T: court improperly credited sale prices and ignored higher fair market value appraisal | Court: Issues waived for failure to file post-trial motions; alternatively, ample evidence supported trial court’s valuation (affirmed) |
| Whether fair market value credit should be measured as of Sheriff’s Sale date | Devon: applied proper valuation principles and date of sale factors | Barsh/S & T: fair market value credit should reflect value as of April 16, 2015 | Court: Waived; also concluded trial court considered appropriate factors/dates in valuation (no reversible error) |
| Whether interest was miscalculated by not crediting fair market value at sale date | Devon: calculation consistent with fixed value and credits | Barsh/S & T: incorrect interest computation deprived them of credit reducing deficiency | Court: Waived; no reversible error in calculations as applied to the court’s valuation |
| Preservation/Procedural issue: Failure to file post-trial motion and Rule 1925(b) statement | Devon: preservation rules not met; appellate issues waived | Barsh/S & T: contend they did not receive the Rule 1925(b) order and did not have opportunity to seek relief | Court: Waiver under Pa.R.C.P. 227.1 and Pa.R.A.P. 302(a); failure to preserve fatal to appeal (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Horbal v. Moxham Nat. Bank, 697 A.2d 577 (Pa. 1997) (Deficiency Judgment Act reduces creditor’s judgment by fair market value of property taken in execution)
- Union Nat’l Bank of Pittsburgh v. Crump, 37 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1944) (comparable sales are a proper factor in determining fair market value)
- Bryn Mawr Trust Co. v. Healy, 667 A.2d 719 (Pa. Super. 1995) (definition of fair market value and trial court’s role in weighing valuation evidence)
- Confederation Life Ins. Co. v. Morrisville Props., L.P., 715 A.2d 1147 (Pa. Super. 1998) (appellate review defers to trial court’s credibility and valuation findings)
- First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Carnegie v. Keisling, 746 A.2d 1150 (Pa. Super. 2000) (judgment creditor bears burden to comply with Deficiency Judgment Act; Act construed to aid debtors)
- Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2002) (issues not raised in post-trial motions are waived on appeal)
- Nw. Sav. Bank v. Knapp, 149 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2016) (statutory interpretation of Deficiency Judgment Act reviewed de novo)