136 A.3d 162
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Oliver contracted to buy ~71.5 acres in Butler County from the Balls; the Balls breached by refusing to convey the property.
- Oliver sought specific performance (equitable decree to compel conveyance) and/or damages; specific performance was severed and tried non-jury.
- Trial court found a valid contract and breach but, after Oliver’s testimony about the property (timbered, hilly, a wet-weather stream, mineral rights, near his home, potential for subdivision), granted a nonsuit at the close of Oliver’s case and denied specific performance for lack of an inadequate remedy at law.
- Oliver filed a post-trial motion to remove the nonsuit; the trial court denied it, Balls entered judgment, and Oliver appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the trial court erred in granting nonsuit and denying specific performance given the general rule that land is unique and damages are often inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oliver had an inadequate remedy at law to justify specific performance of a real estate sale | Oliver argued the property’s characteristics (timber, minerals, wet-weather stream, topography, proximity to his home, development potential) made it unique and money damages inadequate | Balls argued Oliver did not prove the property’s attributes were unique or unavailable elsewhere and that damages could be quantified, so specific performance was inappropriate | Reversed: court held land is presumptively unique; Oliver’s testimony about the parcel and its value to him established inadequacy of legal remedy and specific performance may be ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Payne v. Clark, 187 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1963) (explains equitable title upon contract and availability of specific performance for land sales)
- Cimina v. Bronich, 537 A.2d 1355 (Pa. 1988) (specific performance arises because land is unique and not duplicable by money)
- Petry v. Tanglwood Lakes, Inc., 522 A.2d 1053 (Pa. 1987) (real estate contracts traditionally enforceable by specific performance for buyers)
- Boyd & Mahoney v. Chevron U.S.A., 614 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Super. 1992) (applied uniqueness analysis to property useful to buyer but did not displace land’s general presumption of uniqueness)
- Wagner v. Estate of Rummel, 571 A.2d 1055 (Pa. Super. 1990) (denial of specific performance where enforcement would produce injustice or unconscionable result)