Painter-Francis, L. v. Painter, T.
Painter-Francis, L. v. Painter, T. No. 185 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 27, 2017Background
- In 1982 A. Logan and Dorothy Painter conveyed undivided 1/5 interests in a 42‑acre parcel to themselves and four children (and spouses). Terry Painter and Joy (Painter) Howard each held an undivided 1/5 interest; after their 1987 divorce their shared interest could be partitioned.
- Executors brought a partition action in 2008. By consent order a Special Master was appointed to conduct partition proceedings and value the property.
- In 2012 the court split the former joint 1/5 interest into two 1/10 interests (one to Terry, one to Joy/Howard). In November 2012 Howard executed an assignment conveying her 1/10 interest to David and Carol Painter.
- Special Master found the parcel indivisible without spoiling the whole and recommended a private sale to the parties at fair market value ($673,920). Painter repeatedly failed to contest ownership/assignment until late in the partition proceedings; the court denied his exceptions in January 2016.
- Painter then sued (2016) for breach of a post‑nuptial agreement claiming Howard had assigned her property interest to him and thus could not validly transfer it to David and Carol. The trial court dismissed the breach action as barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel; the Superior Court affirmed the partition ruling but reversed dismissal of the breach action and remanded it for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Painter) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Painter waived right to challenge Howard’s assignment | Painter: Assignment invalid because post‑nuptial agreement conveyed Howard’s interest to him; court should review assignment validity | Appellees: Painter sat on rights for years, failed to timely object; therefore he waived challenge | Court: Painter waited too long; partition court properly found waiver as to exceptions to Master’s report (affirmed) |
| Whether Special Master erred in reallocating Howard’s 1/10 to David & Carol (no recorded assignment, no hearing) | Painter: Assignment not of record; no hearing; he had no opportunity to contest | Appellees: Assignment was presented and relied on in partition proceedings; Painter’s delay prevented challenge | Court: No abuse of discretion in confirming allocation for partition purposes; Painter’s exceptions denied (affirmed) |
| Whether post‑nuptial agreement precluded Howard’s transfer, so Painter owns her 1/10 | Painter: Agreement assigns Howard’s interests to him and binds her assigns; transfer to David/Carol invalid | Appellees: Issue was litigable in partition; Painter failed to timely assert it so cannot revive it | Court: Partition court decided denial of exceptions on waiver, not merits of post‑nuptial issue; no final judgment on merits regarding agreement — Painter may pursue breach action (remand) |
| Whether breach of contract complaint was barred by res judicata / collateral estoppel | Painter: Breach action raises different claims (contract, fraud, constructive trust) and concerns issues not determined in partition | Appellees: Painter is relitigating the same claim disguised as contract action; barred by preclusion | Court: Dismissal was improper because prior proceedings did not produce a final merits determination on the post‑nuptial agreement; reverse and remand the breach action |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernstein v. Sherman, 902 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2005) (appeal from partition master’s recommendations and private sale order)
- Fulton v. Fulton, 106 A.3d 127 (Pa. Super. 2014) (laches bars relief where delay prejudices another)
- Feingold v. Hendzrak, 15 A.3d 937 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for preliminary objections/demurrer)
- Matternas v. Stehman, 642 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Super. 1993) (elements required to invoke res judicata)
- Wilkes ex rel. Mason v. Phoenix Home Life Mut. Ins. Co., 902 A.2d 266 (Pa. 2006) (res judicata applies to claims that could have been raised earlier)