Kapcsos, A. v. Benshoff, M., Kapcsos, A. v. Benshoff, M. No. 227 WDA 2016

Malisha Benshoff and Adam Kapcsos purchased a Sidman, PA house in 2005 by deed conveying the property to both as joint tenants with right of survivorship; purchase price $93,000.
Kapcsos paid $2,000 earnest plus $20,322.56 at closing from his savings; balance financed by a mortgage in both names.
The parties separated in 2008; each paid mortgage/utilities during different periods (Benshoff 2008–Mar 2010; Kapcsos Apr 2010–present).
Kapcsos sued for partition in 2014; trial court found property indivisible and awarded sole possession to Kapcsos upon payment of an owelty to Benshoff.
Trial court computed Benshoff’s one-half equity plus one-half proven rental value, then reduced that owelty by credits to Kapcsos for (a) a hot-water heater, (b) one-half of mortgage payments since Apr 2010, and (c) the full $22,322.56 purchase-money payments, yielding an owelty of $7,011.33.
On appeal the Superior Court affirmed credit for mortgage payments but held it was error to credit Kapcsos for his purchase-money payments; remanded to recalculate the owelty without the down‑payment/closing‑cost credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Benshoff)	Defendant's Argument (Kapcsos)	Held
Whether purchase‑money/down‑payment can be credited against owelty under Pa.R.C.P. 1570(a)(5)	Such acquisition costs should not reduce Benshoff’s one‑half interest because deed created equal shares; purchase money was effectively a gift and DeLoatch/Moore line bars extrinsic adjustment	Rule 1570(a)(5) permits credit for “other amounts paid”; equity and precedent (Weiskircher, Nicholson) allow credit for purchase money	Credit for mortgage/purchase‑money is permitted by Rule 1570 generally, but where deed creates equal joint interests and no special circumstances (e.g., conditional gift) are proven, credit for acquisition payments that would alter deed‑created interests is impermissible; trial court erred to subtract Kapcsos’ purchase money here
Whether one‑half of mortgage payments made by a co‑tenant may be credited	If mortgage credits allowed for Kapcsos, Benshoff should get credit for her earlier mortgage payments (May 2008–July 2010)	Mortgage payments increase equity and are properly credited under prior authority	Mortgage payments made after creation of the joint tenancy may be credited; trial court properly credited Kapcsos one‑half of his mortgage payments and did not err in denying Benshoff a credit because she failed to prove amounts paid

Weiskircher v. Connelly, 93 A. 1068 (Pa. 1915) (historic Supreme Court approval of crediting purchase‑money contributions in partition).
Nicholson v. Johnston, 855 A.2d 97 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirming credit for purchase money where proved to be a conditional gift tied to marriage expectations).
Fascione v. Fascione, 416 A.2d 1023 (Pa. Super. 1979) (credit one‑half of mortgage payments because they increase equities).
DeLoatch v. Murphy, 535 A.2d 146 (Pa. Super. 1987) (deed language fixes co‑tenancy interests; contributions to purchase price not relevant to deed‑created interests).
Banko v. Malanecki, 451 A.2d 1008 (Pa. 1982) (creation of joint account viewed as prima facie inter vivos gift; limits reimbursement).
Moore v. Miller, 910 A.2d 704 (Pa. Super. 2006) (reversing credit for purchase price where deed created joint ownership and no evidence of conditional gift).
Teacher v. Kijurina, 76 A.2d 197 (Pa. 1950) (extrinsic evidence of contributions cannot vary the interests created by the deed).
Bove v. Bove, 149 A.2d 67 (Pa. 1959) (same principle respecting deed as determinative).
Maxwell v. Saylor, 58 A.2d 355 (Pa. 1948) (same principle respecting deed as determinative).