Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-1354 equityGEORGE W. SCOTT and · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF J.~IET M. KREIDER-SCOTT, · CUMBERL~D COIJNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff · · V. · · TANIA KELLEY, · NO. 99-1354 EQUITY De~endan~ · IN RE: ADJUDICATION BEFORE GUIDO, J. DECREE NISI AND NOW, this ~~ day of AUGUST, 1999, after hearing and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows- 1) Plaintiffs are the owners of the fifty (50) foot wide parcel of ground extending from Hanna Road between Lots No. 2 and No. 3 appearing on the subdivision plans recorded in Cumberland County Plan Book 41 page 131 and Cumberland County Plan Book 62 page 84. 2) The metes and bounds description of the deed from Defendant to Plaintiffs dated March 25, 1998 and recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book 174 page 678 should be reformed to contain the disputed parcel. Upon petition we will sign an appropriate order with a corrected description. 3) Defendant, her successors and assigns, are permanently enjoined from blockin~ access to said parcel or otherwise interfering with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment thereof. 4) The bond posted by Plaintiffs pursuant to our order of March 18, 1999 shall be returned to them. This order shall become final ten (10) days from its date of filin~ unless exceptions are filed. By the C Ed . Guido, J. Lisa M. Greason, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Tania Kelley, Pro Se :sld GEORGE W. SCOTT and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF JANET M. KREIDER-SCOTT, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiffs · PENNSYLVANIA · · TANIA KELLEY, : NO. 99-1354 EQUITY Defendant : I N RE: ADJUD I CAT I ON BEFORE GUIDO, J, OPINION AND DECREE NISI This action was commenced by a complaint in equity filed on March 9, 1999. Plaintiffs have requested the reformation of a deed based upon an alleged mutual mistake. Concurrently with the filing of the complaint in equity, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. On March 18, 1999, after meeting with the parties, we entered a temporary order granting interim relief. A hearing on the merits was held before this Court on June 28, 1999. Based upon the testimony presented at the hearing, the following findings of fact, discussion, conclusions of law and decree nisi are made and entered. FINDINGS OF FACT 1) Plaintiffs are adult individuals who reside at 85 Hanna Road, Newburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. They are husband and wife. 99-1354 EQUITY 2) Defendant is an adult individual who resides at 820 Dumeny Road, Greencastle, Franklin County, Pennsylvania. She is a wi dow. 3) On January 10, 1998 the parties entered into a written agreement for the sale of real estate whereby Defendant agreed to sell and convey to the Plaintiffs "Lot No. 8 Hanna Road, Newburg, 48.38 acres in the Township of Hopewell County of Cumberland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" 4) In 1976 Defendant and her now deceased husband acquired approximately 108.5 acres of farmland in Hopewell Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania by deed which was recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book Y Volume 26 Page 182.2 5) In April of 1982 Defendant and her husband subdivided the far southwest corner of the tract into six (6) separate building lots containing an aggregate area of approximately five (5) acres. Ail lots contained frontage on Hanna Road. 6) The aforesaid subdivision plan was prepared by Carl Bert, registered surveyor, and is recorded in Cumberland County Plan Book 41 page 131. see Defendant's Exhibit 1. See Plaintiffs' Exhibits B, C-i, and C-2. See Plaintiffs' Exhibits A-1 and A-2. 99-1354 EQUITY 7) The one hundred and three (103) acre residual tract contained substantial frontage along Hanna Road, including a fifty (50) foot wide parcel which divided Lot No. 2 and Lot No. 3. 8) The aforesaid fifty (50) foot wide parcel is the subject of this controversy. It is hereinafter referred to as the "disputed parcel". 9) The Defendant still owns Lot No. 2. Her son owns Lot No. 3. 10) In 1991 Defendant and her husband further subdivided the residual tract into Lots seven (7) eight (8) and nine (9) . 11) The 1991 subdivision plan was prepared by John R. Kissinger, registered surveyor, and is recorded in Cumberland County Plan Book 62 Page 84. By its terms, it was prepared so that lot No. 7 could be conveyed. 12) Lot No. 9 contains 35.05 acres and comprises the entire northern portion of the tract. Lot No. 7 contains 20.1294 acres in the middle of the tract. Lot No. 8 contains 48.38 acres and comprises the remainder of the tract to the south of Lot No. 7. 13) The disputed parcel is part of Lot No. 8. 99-1354 EQUITY 14) The Defendant and her husband intended to make the disputed parcel part of Lot No. 2 and Lot No. 3 of the original subdivision. 15) The Defendant and her husband discussed this possibility with Mr. Kissinger. He said that a further subdivision was necessary and could be accomplished at any time. 16) Plaintiffs purchased Lot No. seven (7) from Defendant and her husband in 1992. 17) Shortly thereafter, Defendant's husband took ill and, eventually, died. 18) No further subdivision plans were ever prepared or recorded. 19) When Defendant entered into the a~reement of sale with Plaintiffs on January 10, 1998, she did not intend to convey the disputed parcel. 20) When Plaintiffs entered into the a~reement of January 10, 1998, they fully intended to buy the disputed parcel which was clearly part of Lot No. 8 appearin~ on the subdivisions of record. 21) The Defendant never discussed the disputed parcel with her attorney who prepared the deed of conveyance. 22) Pursuant to the written a~reement of sale, the Deed of Conveyance should have included the disputed parcel. 99-1354 EQUITY 23) The settlement on Lot No. 8 was held on March 28, 1998 at which time the Defendant delivered a Deed to Plaintiffs 24) The metes and bounds description contained in the Deed does not include the disputed parcel. 25) In addition to the metes and bounds description contained in the Deed, the Deed also describes the parcel conveyed as follows: BEING Lot No. 8 and containin~ 48.38 acres, as per final plan by John R. Kissinger, dated January 4, 1991, copy which is recorded amon~ the plot plan records of Cumberland County Pennsylvania.s CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1) This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties. 2) Plaintiffs are the owners of the disputed parcel. 3) Plaintiffs are entitled to have the Deed reformed to include the disputed parcel. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs argue that the 'Deed should be reformed to include the disputed parcel on the basis of mutual mistake. They further argue that the parties, by the terms of their contract, clearly intended that the disputed parcel be 4 see para. 15 of complaint and Answer as well as Exhibit D to Complaint. s See Exhibit D attached to Plaintiffs'Complaint. 99-1354 EQUITY included in the deed. They have cited several cases, includin~ Wipinski v. Muzzotta, 325 Pa. Super. 128, 472 A.2d 680 (1984), and S~. Mark's Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Briarcliff Realty Co., 197 Pa. Super. 118, 177 A.2d 169 (1962) in support of their position. We do not a~ree that a mutual mistake occurred. In the St. Mark's case, supra, the Superior Court stated the doctrine of mutual mistake as follows- [c]ourts of equity have jurisdiction to reform deeds when mutual mistakes appear and the evidence is clear and positive, although the mistake is denied by one of the parties; and also in cases of unilateral mistake when it is made with the knowledge of the other party. 197 Pa. Super. 118, 121, 177 A.2d 169, 171. Based upon the testimony, we are satisfied that neither mutual mistake, nor unilateral mistake with knowledge of the other party, is present in this case. The Defendant, Mrs. Kelly, is an elderly widow who is not knowledgeable in real estate matters. We found her testimony that she had no intention of conveyin~ the disputed parcel when she si~ned the a~reement of sale to be credible. We also found her to be believable when she testified that she relied upon her realtors, surveyors and attorneys to handle her affairs. She was not aware that the Plaintiffs thought they were buyin~ the disputed parcel. The failure to 99-1354 EQUITY have another subdivision plan prepared to add the disputed parcel to Lot No. 2 and Lot No. 3 of the original plan was an honest oversight on her part. Therefore, a reformation of the deed on the basis of mutual mistake would not be appropriate. However, we are satisfied that Plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the disputed parcel based not only upon the contract, but also upon the clear language of the deed of conveyance. As noted above, while the metes and bounds description contained in the deed fails to include the disputed parcel, the description in the deed does include the followin~ language. BEING Lot No. 8 and containin~ 48.38 acres, as per final plan by John R. Kissin~er, dated January 4, 1991, a copy which is recorded amon~ the plot plan records of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. It has lon~ been the law of this Commonwealth that "when a map or plan is referred to in a deed as showin~ or ~ identifyin~ the land described in the deed, the map or plan becomes a material and essential part of the deed, and must be treated as if copied into the deed." Goldsmith v. Means, 104 Pa. Super.. 571, 577, 158 A. 596, 599, (1932). In the instant case, the attorney for Defendant inadvertently neglected to include the disputed parcel in the metes and bounds description. However, since the disputed 99-1354 EQUITY parcel is part of Lot No. 8 on the plan which is referred to in the deed, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the requested relief. As the Superior Court so aptly put it in .~oldsmith, supra, Bound by the rule of law that the plan so identifyin~ the.lot prevails over an error in a course or length of a line, the defendant must submit to the correction of the error by adherin~ to the plan. 104 Pa. Super. 571, 578, 158 A. 596, 599. For the reasons set forth above, we will enter the decree nisi that follows. DECREE NISI AND NOW, this 23RD day of AUGUST, 1999, after hearing and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying opinion, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows- 1) Plaintiffs are the owners of the fifty(50) foot wide parcel of ground extending from Hanna Road between Lots No. 2 and No. 3 appearing on the subdivision plans recorded in Cumberland County Plan Book 41 page 131 and Cumberland County Plan Book 62 page 84. 2) The metes and bounds description of the deed from Defendant to Plaintiffs dated March 25, 1998 and recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book 174 page 678 should be reformed 99-1354 EQUITY to contain the disputed parcel. Upon petition we will sign an appropriate order with a corrected description. 3) Defendant, her successors and assigns, are permanently enjoined from blocking access to said parcel or otherwise interfering with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment thereof. 4) The bond posted by Plaintiffs pursuant to our order of March 18, 1999 shall be returned to them. This order shall become final ten (10) days from its date of filing unless exceptions are filed. By the Court, /s/ Edward E. Gui do Edward E. Guido, J. Lisa M. Greason, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Tania Kelley, Pro Se -sld ..