Kapcsos, A. v. Benshoff, M.
Kapcsos, A. v. Benshoff, M. No. 227 WDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jun 29, 2017Background
- Appeal from Cambria County Common Pleas judgment (March 8, 2016) in a partition/owelty dispute between co-tenants Adam L. Kapcsos (appellee) and Malisha J. Benshoff (appellant).
- Central contested credits: (1) Kapcsos’s initial down payment toward purchase price, and (2) subsequent mortgage payments credited in calculating owelty (equalization payment) upon partition.
- Majority held mortgage payments should be credited to Kapcsos; Majority also concluded the down payment was an inter vivos gift to Benshoff.
- Judge Strassburger concurs in result on mortgage payments but disagrees with Majority’s reasoning concerning the down payment, arguing partition precedents support a possible credit to Kapcsos.
- Strassburger argues the trial court erred in crediting the entire down payment to Kapcsos because Kapcsos occupied the property and benefited over time; recommends remand for a partial ("disappearing") credit calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kapcsos) | Defendant's Argument (Benshoff) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the down payment should be treated as a gift (no credit) or as a purchase-money contribution (creditable in owelty) | Down payment was a contribution toward purchase; Kapcsos should receive credit | Down payment was an inter vivos gift to Benshoff; no credit | Majority: down payment treated as gift to Benshoff; Strassburger: partition precedents permit credit and remand for calculation |
| Whether mortgage payments should be credited in calculating owelty | Mortgage payments by Kapcsos should be credited | Opposed or disputed as not fully creditable | All concur that mortgage payments are creditable to Kapcsos |
| If credit is allowed for down payment, whether full amount or prorated based on occupancy/benefit | Kapcsos claims credit for contribution (amount disputed) | Benshoff argues no credit or minimal credit given benefit received | Strassburger: trial court erred in awarding full credit; remand to calculate a "disappearing credit" reflecting time/benefit |
Key Cases Cited
- Weiskircher v. Connelly, 93 A. 1068 (Pa. 1915) (early partition case on purchase-money credits)
- Nicholson v. Johnston, 855 A.2d 97 (Pa. Super. 2004) (partition precedent addressing purchase-money credits)
- Fascione v. Fascione, 416 A.2d 1023 (Pa. Super. 1979) (partition case on division/credits)
- Ramsey v. Taylor, 668 A.2d 1147 (Pa. Super. 1995) (partition principles governing credits)
- Maxwell v. Saylor, 58 A.2d 355 (Pa. 1948) (property-interest cases cited by Majority)
- Teacher v. Kijurina, 76 A.2d 197 (Pa. 1950) (property-interest cases involving rights on death)
- Bove v. Bove, 149 A.2d 67 (Pa. 1959) (cases concerning property interests upon a tenant’s death)
- DeLoatch v. Murphy, 535 A.2d 146 (Pa. Super. 1987) (heir/estate-related property decisions cited)
- Banko v. Malanecki, 451 A.2d 1008 (Pa. 1982) (division of joint bank accounts; distinguishable)
- Moore v. Miller, 910 A.2d 704 (Pa. Super. 2006) (property-interest case relied on by Majority)
- Sergi v. Sergi, 506 A.2d 928 (Pa. Super. 1986) (endorses a "disappearing credit" approach for premarital cash; analogized by Strassburger)