Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-3425 civilWALTER WILTSCHEK, Plaintiff · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SUZANNE ABEL, ' Defendant " 98-3425 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION- LAW MONICA DEL CARMEN · GOMEZ, by her attorney-in- · Fact, WALTER WILTSCHEK · Plaintiffs ' SUZANNE ABEL, ' Defendant ' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-.3426 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION- LAW IN RE: NONJURY TRIAL BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this day of October, 1999, after trial without a jury, in both captioned matters, we find on the plaintiff' s claims in favor of the defendant. The counterclaims of the defendant have been withdrawn. BY THE COURT, ess, J. John J. Mooney, III, Esquire For the Plaintiff Suzanne Abel Pro Se Defendant :rlm WALTER WILTSCHEK, · Plaintiff · VS. ' · SUZANNE ABEL, · Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-3425 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION- LAW MONICA DEL CARMEN · GOMEZ, by her attorney-in- · Fact, WALTER WILTSCHEK · Plaintiff · · SUZANNE ABEL, · Defendant · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-3426 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION- LAW IN RE' NONJURY TRIAL BEFORE HESS, J. The above captioned matters were consolidated for trial and disposition. The case arises out of the transfer of certain assets to the defendant for which the plaintiff now demands repayment or reimbursement. The case has a touch of romance and even intrigue. There is, in fact, a surreal quality about it. Mr. Walter Wiltschek, the plaintiff, purports to be an international businessman. He has spent time in Europe and has a wife in Chile. He and the defendant became involved in a romantic relationship through an ad in a newspaper. Eventually, the two traveled for a romantic weekend to New York City where they were engaged to be married. Shortly after the engagement, the relationship deteriorated. In the meantime, however, Mr. Wiltschek, as attomey-in-fact for his Chilean wife, conveyed certain real estate to the 98-3425 CIVIL 98-3426 CIVIL defendant. He also transferred legal title of a BMW motor vehicle and claims to have made a loan to the defendant in the amount of $5,500. There is no written instrument of any kind reflecting the defendant's agreement to pay for any of these items or setting forth the terms of a repayment of a loan. Nonetheless, Mr. Wiltschek now seeks reimbursement and repayment from his former inamorata. Ms. Abel counters that, while she was flattered by the plaintiff s generosity, she is neither obliged nor in a position to pay him the more than $60,000 which he now seeks. At first blush, it would appear illogical that a worldly and well-educated man would transfer certain property outright to a person to whom he is not yet married. Realizing, however, that one of the transfers was made by the attomey-in-fact for the plaintiff's current wife, the matter becomes less mysterious. After careful consideration of all of the testimony adduced in this case, we are satisfied to resolve questions of credibility in favor of the defendant. This factual determination may, alone, be sufficient to resolve this case. Notwithstanding, we note that basic legal principles militate against recovery by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's attempts to prove certain understandings with regard to these assets is clearly violative of the Statute of Frauds. The plaintiff contends that the Statute of Frauds has no application because a confidential relationship existed between the parties. A confidential relationship exists where the circumstances "make it certain that the parties did not deal on equal terms; where, on the one side there is an overmastering influence, or on the other, weakness, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed." Weir by Gasper v. Estate of Ciao, 521 Pa. 491,504, 556 A.2d 819, 825 (1989). The burden is initially on the party seeking to 98-3425 CIVIL 98-3426 CIVIL set aside a transaction to prove that a confidential relationship existed between the parties. Thomas v. Seaman, 451 Pa. 347, 304 A.2d 134 (1973). Where undue influence and incompetency do not appear and the relationship between the parties.is not one ordinarily known as confidential in law, the evidence to sustain a confidential relationship must be certain, it cannot arise from suspicion or from infrequent or unrelated acts. Weir, supra, 556 A.2d at 825. If it is established that a confidential relationship existed at the time the alleged girl was made, the burden shifts to the donee to show that the alleged girl was free of any taint of undue influence or deception. Id.; Banko v. Malanecki, 499 Pa. 92, 451 A.2d 1008 (1982). In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant misrepresented herself as a licensed attorney and because of that misrepresentation, a confidential relationship somehow arose. We are satisfied that the testimony concerning this misrepresentation is not credible. Even if it were, at no time does the plaintiff contend that Ms. Abel was hired to be his lawyer or that their relationship was one of attorney-client. The Statute of Frauds with regard to personalty is dealt with at 13 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1206. It states: A. General Rule.- Except in the cases described in subsection b, a contract for the sale of personal property is not enforceable by way of action or defense beyond $5,000 in amount or value of remedy unless there is some writing which indicates that a contract for sale has been made between the parties at a defined or stated price, reasonably identifies the subject matter, and is signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent. 98-3425 CIVIL 98-3426 CIVIL The plaintiff contends that there was a contemporaneous oral agreement at the time he transferred title of the BMW to the defendant to the effect that the defendant would pay the defendant $18,000 for the vehicle albeit at some indefinite time. in the future. There was, however, no written evidence of any such agreement. What remains is simply the outright transfer of title of the vehicle from the plaintiff to the defendant with no evidence whatsoever of whether or when any consideration would be paid by her to him. Plaintiff alleged a contemporaneous oral agreement was created when the sum of $5,500 was transferred to the defendant, which provided that the defendant would repay the plaintiff for the money at some indefinite time in the future. The plaintiff offered no written evidence to support his allegation and in any event failed to sustain his burden of proving even an oral contract. Regarding the real property, the Statute of Frauds requires a contract for the sale of land to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. 33 P.S. Section 1 et seq. A conveyance of real property through a deed is presumptively valid and will not be set aside unless it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the transfer was improperly induced by fraud or other misconduct on the part of the transferee. Walsh v. Bucalo, 423 Pa. Super. 25,620 A.2d 21 (1993). The burden of proving that the transfer was the product of a lack of mental capacity or undue influence or fraud or a confidential relationship is on the person seeking to set aside the deed. We have already dealt with the fact that no confidential relationship existed in this case. There is also no evidence of undue influence or fraud of any kind. In fact, the plaintiff admitted that there were facts which he failed to disclose. Nor, is there evidence that the transfers were 98-3425 CIVIL 98-3426 CIVIL the product of the lack of mental capacity. The plaintiff agreed that he was not ill or suffering any mental defects when he signed the instant title documents. The defendant contends that the items of property in this case were girls, admittedly lavish, prompted by her romantic involvement with the plaintiff. Whether any of these items _ were given to the defendant in contemplation of marriage need not be addressed, however, as the plaintiff has not raised such a contention and is now clearly estopped from doing so..See Lindh v. Surma_n, 702 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 1997), holding that the girl of an engagement ring was subject to an implied condition requiring its return if the marriage did not take place. ORDER AND NOW, this q ''~ day of October, 1999, after trial without a jury, in both captioned matters, we find on the plaintiff's claims in favor of the defendant. The counterclaims of the defendant have been withdrawn.. BY THE COURT, John J. Mooney, III, Esquire For the Plaintiff Hess, J. Suzanne Abel Pro Se Defendant :tim