Melchiorre, P. v. 422 Development, Inc.
3768 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- In 1999 Melchiorre sued to preserve an older easement across land where a shopping center was proposed; parties settled by permitting a relocated, narrower easement so the center could be built, with a reversion clause if the property "ceases to be used as a shopping center."
- The oral settlement (read into the record) limited the relocated roadway width and provided monetary payments; the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
- Disputes continued about easement dimensions and encroachments; the court issued subsequent implementing orders (2009, 2012) reaffirming reversion if the property ceased to be used as a shopping center or the easement was made unavailable.
- In 2012 a demolished drug store parcel was replaced by a gasoline service station within the shopping center; Melchiorre later petitioned (2016) to enforce reversion to his original easement, arguing the gas station changed the center’s use.
- Melchiorre also alleged Appellees dumped fly ash/contaminants that damaged or rendered the easement unusable and sought depositions and a hearing; the trial court denied reversion and declined a hearing but granted a 30-day deposition extension (which Melchiorre’s counsel says he did not receive).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether addition of an on-site gas station changed the shopping center’s use to trigger reversion to the original easement | Melchiorre: a gas station is a different use; the center no longer is a "shopping center" and reversion clause is triggered | Appellees: the center remains a shopping center; incidental tenant changes do not alter the center’s overall use; plain language controls | Court: No reversion — the center still qualifies as a shopping center and the plain meaning requires cessation of use of the entire center to trigger reversion |
| Whether Melchiorre was entitled to more discovery time (depositions) because he did not receive the court’s extension order | Melchiorre: did not receive the trial court’s extension and thus lacked opportunity to take depositions on dumping claims; requests remand for depositions | Appellees: Melchiorre had prior opportunities and proferred reports had deficiencies; no good cause | Court: Remanded solely to reinstate the prior 30-day deposition extension; no further extensions; depositions allowed only for that period |
| Whether Melchiorre was entitled to a hearing on alleged dumping and easement damage | Melchiorre: disputed material facts (dumping, contamination, easement unusable) warrant a hearing | Appellees: factual disputes insufficient or improperly presented; trial court discretion to deny hearing | Court: Denied an order requiring a hearing; trial court did not abuse discretion; if depositions later show necessity, the court may order a hearing at its discretion |
| Proper interpretation and enforcement of oral settlement/easement terms | Melchiorre: settlement and orders obligate reversion upon any change inconsistent with "shopping center" use | Appellees: settlement must be read in plain terms; reversion triggers require cessation of shopping center use | Court: Settlement interpreted under contract principles; plain, unambiguous language controls — no broad reversion for single-tenant change |
Key Cases Cited
- Step Plan Servs., Inc. v. Koresko, 12 A.3d 401 (Pa. Super. 2010) (settlement agreements enforced as contracts; oral settlements can be binding)
- Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hymes, 29 A.3d 1169 (Pa. Super. 2011) (contract interpretation principles; plain meaning controls unless ambiguous)
- PARC Holdings, Inc. v. Killian, 785 A.2d 106 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard of review for trial court findings in declaratory actions)
- Hutchison v. Sunbeam Coal Co., 519 A.2d 385 (Pa. 1986) (definition of ambiguity in contract language)
- Madison Constr. Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 735 A.2d 100 (Pa. 1999) (contract terms ambiguous if reasonably susceptible to multiple constructions)
- Campbell v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Plymouth Twp., 310 A.2d 444 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (zoning case addressing service station variance — not controlling here)
- Atl. Ref. & Mktg. Corp. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of York Twp., 608 A.2d 592 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (zoning case holding gasoline-convenience store classification; not dispositive for easement interpretation)
- Silver v. Thompson, 26 A.3d 514 (Pa. Super. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Hayward v. Hayward, 868 A.2d 554 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appellate court not required to scour record for appellant’s undeveloped arguments)