McAdoo, A. v. Caruso, C., 1802 EDA 2016

Background

In 2006 Andrew McAdoo, his wife Michelle (deceased 2007), and Cheri Caruso acquired a Bensalem single‑family home; deed shows McAdoo and Caruso each hold a 50% tenancy in common. Purchase price ~$200,000; 2015 appraisal $170,000. Mortgage at purchase was $97,500; balance in 2015 about $87,575. Net equity in 2015 ≈ $82,425.
McAdoo filed for partition in 2013. A Master heard evidence (including a broker’s $1,200/month rental opinion) and issued a report; McAdoo filed exceptions seeking $85,000 for his half (half the appraised value without deducting mortgage).
The trial court (after argument) credited McAdoo with $102,500 (his $5,000 deposit + $97,500 down payment) and credited Caruso with $78,676 for mortgage principal/interest, taxes, and insurance paid. Total credited contributions exceeded the property’s net equity.
To resolve the surplus-credit issue, the court apportioned the net equity ($82,425) between the parties pro rata according to their total contributions (McAdoo 56.57%, Caruso 43.43%), resulting in an owelty award to McAdoo of $46,627.82 if Caruso bought him out (or distribution of sale proceeds in that ratio).
McAdoo appealed arguing (A) mortgage should be charged solely to Caruso per complaint paragraph 6/default; (B) Statute of Frauds/deed controls and extrinsic intent evidence improperly considered; (C) court ignored ten years of Caruso’s exclusive occupancy and should have given McAdoo rental credit; (D) result is inequitable/unjust enrichment.

Issues

Issue	McAdoo's Argument	Caruso's Argument	Held
Allocation of mortgage and credits	Mortgage was taken by Caruso to buy her half; debt should be charged solely to Caruso and not reduce McAdoo’s claim	Both McAdoo and Caruso signed mortgage and are jointly liable; payments by Caruso reduced joint debt and may be credited	Court credited Caruso for mortgage payments; mortgage is joint debt because both signed => credits appropriate
Statute of Frauds / deed primacy	Deed shows equal shares; statute forbids varying deed by extrinsic intent evidence; court should not reallocate based on intent	Partition proceeds allocation may consider equitable credits under Pa.R.C.P. 1570(a)(5); statute of frauds does not bar partition adjustments	Statute of Frauds inapplicable to partition; court treated deed as establishing tenancy in common and then equitably allocated credits—no violation
Rent/occupancy credit	McAdoo entitled to fair rental credit for Caruso’s exclusive occupancy (broker opined $1,200/mo); delay by Caruso increased loss	Broker opinion lacked time span and supporting proof; McAdoo failed to prove rental amount/duration	Court denied rental credit because evidence failed to establish rental value over the relevant period
Overall equity / unjust enrichment	Award is inequitable: McAdoo bore majority of purchase outlay but receives less; credits unjustly enrich Caruso	Court apportioned net equity by relative monetary contributions to reach equitable result	Appellate court affirmed trial court: equitable crediting and pro rata division of net equity was sound and not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Nicholson v. Johnston, 855 A.2d 97 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard of review in equitable partition matters)
Piercing Pagoda, Inc. v. Hoffner, 351 A.2d 207 (Pa. 1976) (trial court factual findings in equity have force of jury verdict)
Weiskircher v. Connelly, 93 A. 1068 (Pa. 1915) (credits for mortgage payments permitted post‑purchase)
Fascione v. Fascione, 416 A.2d 1023 (Pa. Super. 1979) (recognizing credits for post‑purchase expenditures)
Wolf v. Wolf, 28 A. 164 (Pa. 1893) (partition is not a sale/transfer governed by Statute of Frauds)
Sciotto v. Sciotto, 288 A.2d 822 (Pa. 1972) (fair rental value may be credited against co‑tenant in exclusive possession)
In re Estate of Quick, 905 A.2d 471 (Pa. 2006) (rights of tenants in common)
McKnight v. McKnight, 498 A.2d 961 (Pa. Super. 1985) (exception to Statute of Frauds for oral partition)