Williams, D. v. Smythe Stores Condominium Assoc.
2329 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 2, 2017Background
- Smythe acquired Unit 5B at 107 Arch Street at sheriff’s sale in 2011; Williams had purchased the unit in 2000 and the property was foreclosed.
- Smythe obtained summary judgment in ejectment and a judgment for possession on January 24, 2012; Williams did not appeal that judgment.
- Williams filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy and, as part of her Plan, Smythe agreed to resell the Unit to Williams via quitclaim deed conditioned on payments, payment of taxes/condo fees, and recording the deed by a date certain.
- Williams defaulted on the Plan (failed to pay taxes and condo fees) and missed the extended deed-recording deadline; Smythe filed a certification of default and obtained relief from the automatic stay in bankruptcy.
- Smythe filed for a writ of possession in state court; Williams attempted to record a deed after the deadline and moved to strike the writ, mark the judgment satisfied, and obtain sanctions; the trial court denied Williams’ petition and struck the late deed.
- Williams appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, holding Smythe could execute on its unappealed judgment of possession because Williams breached the stipulation/condition precedent and the underlying judgment remained valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Smythe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an express restriction on the deed (a filing date) invalidates the deed if not met | The failure to record the deed does not negate its validity; no express restriction should void the deed | The deed was conditioned on recording by a date certain per the stipulation; failure to meet the condition renders deed void | Held for Smythe: the recording deadline was a condition precedent under the stipulation and Williams’ failure allowed Smythe to proceed to execute judgment |
| Whether any express restriction on the deed was properly executed and complies with PA law | The restriction (if any) was not properly or effectively imposed to invalidate the deed | The stipulation was a binding contractual agreement imposing the condition, enforceable under PA contract/stipulation law | Held for Smythe: the stipulation is enforceable and construed like a contract; no defect in execution was found |
| Whether the Bankruptcy Court had authority/intention to place or allow the restriction on the deed | The bankruptcy proceedings could not (or did not) validly impose such a restriction to defeat the state-court possession judgment | The Bankruptcy Court approved the Plan/stipulation that allowed Smythe to file a certification of default and obtain relief from the automatic stay to pursue state remedies | Held for Smythe: the Bankruptcy Court’s stipulation and relief-from-stay process permitted enforcement of the condition and Smythe’s state-court remedies |
| Whether recording/execution of the deed necessarily invalidated Smythe’s 2012 judgment for possession | Recording the deed should satisfy/void the possession judgment and prevent the writ | Smythe retained a valid, unappealed judgment for possession; a writ of possession is proper to execute that judgment regardless of the late deed | Held for Smythe: the underlying, unappealed judgment of possession remained valid; denial of petition to set aside writ was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobbs v. Allied Chem. Corp., 661 A.2d 1375 (Pa. Super. 1995) (parties may bind themselves by stipulation; stipulation interpreted like contract)
- Longenecker v. Matway, 462 A.2d 261 (Pa. Super. 1983) (limits on matters parties may stipulate to)
- Tyler v. King, 496 A.2d 16 (Pa. Super. 1985) (contractual interpretation principles apply to stipulations)
- Wrenfield Homeowners’ Ass’n v. DeYoung, 600 A.2d 960 (Pa. Super. 1991) (court adopts interpretation that most reasonably effectuates parties’ intent)
- Alt. Nat. Tr., LLC v. Stivala Investments, Inc., 922 A.2d 919 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for denial of petition to strike judgment)
- Castings Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Klein, 663 A.2d 220 (Pa. Super. 1995) (abuse of discretion defined)
- Johnson v. Martofel, 797 A.2d 943 (Pa. Super. 2002) (denial of petition to set aside writ of possession warranted where valid, unappealed judgment of possession exists)