Zitney v. Appalachian Timber Products, Inc.
72 A.3d 281
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Timber contract (unrecorded) to harvest 12-inch+ timber from Browns' property; ATP to harvest within 24 months and comply with PA law.
- Browns defaulted on mortgage; bank received deed recorded Feb 20, 2001; Appellants bought the property Oct 2001 without warranty deed.
- Oct 7, 2001 Appleby began harvesting within 24-month window; Appellants were not in possession or recorded title.
- Appellants sued Nov 2002 for value of removed timber and damages to remaining trees, soil, stream, and aesthetic value.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment: contract governs timber removal; damages limited to contract noncompliance; jury verdict for ATP/Appleby; post-trial motions denied.
- Appeal addresses whether unrecorded contract binds bona fide purchasers, damages scope, negligence, special value instruction, and JNOV grounds; appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unrecorded timber contract binds Appellants as bona fide purchasers. | Zitney argues contract is a deed notice; not binding on purchasers. | ATP/Appleby contend contract is sale of goods; not notice; binding despite non-recordation. | Contract treated as sale of goods; not subject to recording notice; no error. |
| Damages for removal of slash, restoration, and forest value. | Damages arise from contract noncompliance and environmental violations. | Damages limited to contract terms; no liability shown for broader environmental damages. | Damages issue moot as jury found no liability and did not consider damages. |
| Whether a negligence instruction was warranted. | Paragraph 35 pleaded negligence via environmental violations; trial should have instructed on negligence. | Pleading did not plead a negligence theory; instruction inappropriate. | Negligence instruction declined; any error harmless given no proof of breach. |
| Whether the court should have given a special value of property instruction. | Old-growth forest/streams have special value; jury should be instructed accordingly. | Lack of legal authority; claim undeveloped and waived. | Waived for lack of authority and development; no instruction warranted. |
| Whether JNOV was appropriate based on alleged statutory violations or contract breach. | Dugan's testimony showed Clean Streams Law/erosion violations, yielding JNOV. | Jury rejected liability; evidence insufficient for JNOV as a matter of law. | No basis for JNOV; verdict supported by record; affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLintock’s Appeal, 71 Pa. 365 (Pa. 1872) (timber sale/reservation depends on contract intent; immediate severance distinguishes personalty from land interest)
- Havens v. Pearson, 334 Pa. 570, 6 A.2d 84 (Pa. 1939) (timber contracts: time to remove indicates sale of goods vs land; definable intent governs)
- Robbins v. Farwell, 193 Pa. 37, 44 A. 260 (Pa. 1899) (short removal window indicates sale of personal property)
- Patterson v. Graham, 164 Pa. 234, 30 A. 247 (Pa. 1894) (timber removal period as indicator of sale of personal property)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (arbitration standard akin to summary judgment)
- Fanning v. Davne, 795 A.2d 388 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (jurisdictional note on appeal from post-trial order when judgment not entered)
- Mackall v. Fleegle, 801 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (jurisdictional treatment of finality when judgment not clearly entered)
- Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Constr. Corp., 657 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) (appeals from post-trial orders; final pronouncement sufficient for jurisdiction)
- Garcia v. Community Legal Services Corp., 362 Pa. Super. 484, 524 A.2d 980 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987) (liberal pleading standards; waivers for failure to plead negligence need clear)
- Duquesne Light Co. v. U.S. Indus. Fabricators, 334 Pa. Super. 444, 483 A.2d 536 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) (liberal construction not to disregard pleading rules)