Hoyak, C. v. Dippolito, A.
Hoyak, C. v. Dippolito, A. No. 1383 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Mar 13, 2017Background
- Owners Curt and Joyce Hoyak (Hoyaks) leased a 55x65 parking lot to Anthony Dippolito under a 99-year lease; lease required tenant maintenance, insurance naming landlords as additional insureds, payment of 37% of real estate taxes upon notice, and allowed forfeiture after uncured defaults with a 15-day cure period.
- Hoyaks alleged multiple defaults: permitting a utility trailer on the lot, refusing to plow after snow, failing to maintain/provide proof of insurance, and failing to pay his share of real estate taxes since 2000.
- Hoyaks served a written Notice of Default on November 11, 2013 specifying lack of insurance proof, unpaid taxes, and unauthorized assignment; that notice was the first written demand for insurance and taxes.
- Dippolito responded by obtaining and providing multiple insurance documents; final endorsement (adding Hoyaks as additional insureds and correcting address) was effective December 27, 2013 and provided in February 2014.
- Trial court found technical breaches but refused to forfeit the lease: trailer issue was not included in the written notice (estoppel/waiver of prior verbal notices), snow/ice issues were not uncured for more than 15 days, insurance cure efforts in good faith (cure process begun within 15 days), and the tax demand was defective because it sought past years and not the presently assessed tax as required by the lease.
- Trial court awarded nominal damages ($4) on breach claim and awarded Hoyaks attorney’s fees under Lease ¶7.00; both sides appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hoyak) | Defendant's Argument (Dippolito) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Trailer on lot — default and ejectment | Trailer parking violated lease and justified forfeiture/ejectment | Hoyaks failed to include trailer in written Notice of Default; prior verbal notices insufficient; waiver/estoppel applies | Court: No forfeiture; trailer issue not in written notice, so not a basis for forfeiture |
| 2) Failure to plow — default and ejectment | Repeated refusal to plow made lot unsafe and was uncured default warranting ejectment | Snow/ice conditions did not remain unremedied for more than 15 days; no forfeiture | Court: No forfeiture; conditions were temporary and not uncured >15 days |
| 3) Insurance/proof — default and ejectment | Longstanding failure to maintain/provide required insurance supports forfeiture | Dippolito promptly pursued cure after written notice; eventual cure obtained (though >15 days) and acted in good faith | Court: Technical default but equitable refusal to forfeit; good-faith efforts to cure distinguish case from willful noncompliance |
| 4) Failure to pay real estate taxes — default and ejectment | Hoyaks’ tax worksheet showed unpaid taxes since 2000; failure to pay triggered default | Lease requires landlord notice after taxes are assessed and before payment; Hoyaks’ demand sought past remitted taxes and was defective | Court: No default; Notice of Default did not satisfy lease’s notice requirement for presently charged taxes |
| 5) Award of attorney’s fees under lease ¶7.00 | Fees recoverable as “damages, costs and expenses” incurred because of tenant defaults | Argues clause does not clearly authorize fees or award excessive fees given nominal damages | Court: ¶7.00 is sufficiently broad to include attorney’s fees; fees awarded but reduced given nominal recovery and proportionality |
Key Cases Cited
- Gbur v. Golio, 932 A.2d 203 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for new trial/JNOV)
- Slater v. Pearle Vision Ctr., Inc., 546 A.2d 676 (Pa. Super. 1988) (doctrine of necessary implication in contract interpretation)
- Barraclough v. Atlantic Refining Co., 326 A.2d 477 (Pa. Super. 1974) (equitable refusal to enforce forfeiture for de minimis breach)
- Cambria-Stoltz Enterprises v. TNT Investments, 747 A.2d 947 (Pa. Super. 2000) (forfeiture appropriate for willful failure to provide certificate of insurance)
- Wrenfield Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. DeYoung, 600 A.2d 960 (Pa. Super. 1991) (contract language broad enough to include attorney’s fees even if not explicitly named)
- Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Philadelphia Transp. Co., 173 A.2d 109 (Pa. 1961) (broad indemnity/reimbursement language can include attorney’s fees)