Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-2496 CivilRUTH BENDER and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALICE BEERS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION—LAW V. DONALD WOOD, SR., : Defendant : No. 04-2496 CIVIL TERM IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925 OLER, J., January 3, 2008. In this civil action, two devisees of land from their father filed a complaint in ejectment against a sibling who refused to vacate the property.' The sibling filed a counterclaim for unjust enrichment. Following a bench trial, the court entered a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in Plaintiffs' ejectment action, and against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiffs on Defendant's claim for unjust enrichment .3 Defendant's motion for post -trial relief was subsequently denied,4 and judgment was entered on the verdict.5 From the denial of the motion for post -trial relief, Defendant has filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court .6 The issues raised on appeal have been expressed in a statement of matters complained of on appeal as follows: ' Plaintiffs' Complaint for Ejectment, filed June 2, 2004. 2 Defendant's Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim, filed August 3, 2004. 'Verdict, August 7, 2007. 4 Order of Court, October 12, 2007. s Writ of Possession, October 29, 2007. 6 Defendant's Notice of Appeal, filed November 13, 2007; A denial of a motion for post -trial relief is not an appealable order. Fletcher -Hardee Corp. v. Szymanski, 2007 WL 2984153 *2 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2007). However, judgment was entered on the verdict prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. "While Appellant purported in its notice of appeal that it was appealing from the trial Court's order denying its motion for post -trial relief, such orders are not appealable until they are reduced to judgment. However, because judgment subsequently was entered, this appeal is properly before [the appellate] Court." Id. 1. Whether the Court's determination to grant Plaintiff's Complaint for Ejectment and deny Defendant's Counterclaim for unjust enrichment was supported by the evidence and the applicable law due to a failure to apply the equitable principles of unjust enrichment and by ejecting the Defendant without compensating Defendant for the value of the improvements paid for and installed by Defendant to the real property at issue in the Plaintiff's Complaint. 2. Whether the Court's determination to grant Plaintiff's Complaint for Ejectment and deny Defendant's Counterclaim for unjust enrichment was supported by the evidence and the applicable law due to a failure to apply the equitable principles of unjust enrichment and by ejecting Defendant without compensating Defendant for the value of the money given by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs for use of the property from 2003 to mid -2007. 3. Whether the Court, in the course of the hearings below, committed prejudicial error by ignoring certain evidence offered by Defendant, including but not limited to the Defendant's uncontroverted testimony that Defendant paid for the materials and installation of all of the existing improvements on the real property that is the subject matter of Plaintiff's Complaint. 4. Whether the Court's two orders, dated August 6, 2007, and October 12, 2007 respectively, represent legal error and/or an abuse of discretion by failing to articulate, in any manner whatsoever, why the Defendant's claims were denied/dismissed.' This opinion in support of the judgment is written pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a). STATEMENT OF FACTS On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, "we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, granting that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences." Hoy v. Angelone, 456 Pa. Super. 596, 604, 691 A.2d 476, 480 (1997). "[T]he trial court acts as the factfinder in a bench trial and may believe all, part or none of the evidence presented." Ruthrauff, Inc. v. Ravin, Inc., 2006 PA Super 352, ¶31, 914 A.2d 880, 888. Viewed in this light, the evidence at trial may be summarized as follows. Plaintiffs are Ruth Bender, an adult individual residing at 698 Front Street, Enola, Pennsylvania,$ and Alice Beers, an adult individual residing at 199 Fairmont Defendant's Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, filed November 29, 2007. s N.T. 16, Trial, August 6, 2007 (hereinafter N.T. —). 2 Avenue, Enola, Pennsylvania.9 Defendant is Donald Wood, Sr., an adult individual residing at 700 High Street, Enola, Pennsylvania.10 The parties are children of Adelbert Haylon Wood," who died on June 29, 1993,12 possessed of certain land in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 13 Under decedent's will, the land was devised to Plaintiffs.14 It was the subject of a decree awarding real estate to Plaintiffs dated October 14, 1994.1' The land had been acquired by decedent several decades before his death, 16 and was used as a salvage yard by decedent and Defendant, his son. 17 At the time of decedent's death, materials for a "pole building" on the property had been purchased with proceeds of the business,18 and the building had been partially erected.19 Without Plaintiffs' knowledge or consent, Defendant proceeded to complete construction of the building;20 he also thereafter blacktopped a driveway on the property without their consent. 21 In spite of Plaintiffs demands that he leave, Defendant continued to operate the business on Plaintiffs' property.22 Defendant's conduct was described by one Plaintiff as follows: 9 N.T. 4. 10 N.T. 18-19. " N.T. 5, 8, 10, 17, 20; Plaintiffs' Ex. 1, trial, August 6, 2007 (hereinafter Plaintiffs'/Defendant's Ex. _). 12 N.T. 5. 13 Plaintiffs' Ex. 1. 14 N.T. 11; Plaintiffs' Ex. 1. " Plaintiffs' Ex. 1. 16 Plaintiffs' Ex. 1. 17 N.T. 19. 18 N.T. 12, 31-32. 19 N.T. 20-21. 20 N.T. 7-9, 12, 33. 2' N.T. 22. 22 N.T. 9. 3 Q And over the years what efforts have you made to have your brother stop operating his business? A We have argued with him. We have fussed with him to have his stuff taken off, not to let those other people on there. In fact, if we went up there, a lot of times we went up, and he would get angry with us because we said, this is our property, and we don't want these people up here. People would meet me in the woods and say, this is private property, you have to leave. Q Now by people, what do you mean? A Well, people that are working for him. Q And what are they doing? A Junking. Q Okay. A Crushing cars, hauling things out, stuff like that. And people would come to us. We would stop them from going up there with truck loads of stuff, and they would say the owner said we could do this. 21 Defendant refused to allow access to the building, 24 maintained dogs on the premises "that neither [Plaintiff] c[ould] go near,"25 refused to sign a lease ,26 and told them that he was "going to just keep right on doing what I'm doing."27 For over ten years he utilized the property for his business without paying Plaintiffs anything. 28 In June of 2004, Plaintiffs filed the instant action in ejectment. 29 In December of 2004, Defendant began sending monthly checks to Plaintiffs in the amount of $250.00 or $275.00,30 with a view to covering taxes on 2s N.T. 9-10. 24 N.T. 12. 2s N.T. 12. 26 N.T. 9. 27 N.T. 9. 2s N.T. 30. 29 Plaintiffs' Complaint for Ejectment, filed June 2, 2004. so N.T. 29-30. 11 the property he was using.31 Ultimately, Plaintiffs refused to accept further checks ,32 but Defendant still failed to vacate the premise S.33 At the trial, Defendant testified that the pole building which he completed construction of in the 1990s34 was worth about $40,000.00,35 but that he could not estimate the cost of putting the building up. 36 He stated that he had spent between $6,000.00 and $8,000.00 on macadam for the driveway which he paved ,37 and had paid for an electrical connection for the building.38 He had been, according to his testimony, surprised that his father had not devised the property to him.39 He testified that his efforts to buy the property from Plaintiffs had proven unsuccessful.4o Defendant's position, which was an understandably defensive one given the circumstances, was expressed in his testimony as follows: Q All right. So what are you asking the Court to do? A I'm only asking for more time. I would like to purchase the property, if I could, just the building, to use when I move out, to keep my toys in, my boat and my motor home, over the winter months. Q And how much time are you asking for? A As much as I can get. I have a new building in Pittsburgh that is 60 by 140 that will house my new business. It's going to take some time to put it up. Q Well, how much time? Give me a guess. 31 N.T. 29. sz In July of 2007, Plaintiffs notified Defendant that they would no longer accept these checks. From December, 2004, to July, 2006, according to Defendant, he paid a total of $8,200.00. N.T. 24-25. " See Defendant's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, filed November 13, 2007. 34 N.T. 21. " N.T. 23. 36 N.T. 32. 37 N.T. 23. " N.T. 22. s9 N.T. 33. 40 N.T. 26. E A It would be nice if I had a year, but I don't look for that to happen.41 Q [A]s far as the rental payment, for lack of a better phrase, are you ready, willing, and able to continue to make those payments to your sisters? A Absolutely. Q Would you even agree to a higher amount per month? A Yes, I would. Q So possibly purchasing the parcel is one option, continuing the current arrangement, I'll put that in quotes, is another option. You're saying you're also looking to relocate the business, but that hasn't happened yet? A Right. That's correct .42 At the conclusion of the trial, following arguments by counsel, the court took the matter under advisement .43 Subsequently, the following verdict was entered: AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Complaint for Ejectment, and of Defendant's Counterclaim for unjust enrichment, and following a nonjury trial held on August 6, 2007, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. On Plaintiffs' Complaint for Ejectment, the Court finds in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant, and Defendant is directed to vacate the property described in Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 (attached hereto), and to remove all personalty in his possession therefrom, within 60 days of the date of this order; and 2. On Defendant's Counterclaim for unjust enrichment, the Court finds in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant.` Defendant filed a motion for post -trial relief on August 20, 2007.45 This motion asserted the following: 1. A bench trial was held on this matter on August 6, 2007. 41 N.T. 33. 42 N.T. 34. 43 N.T. 38-39. 44 Verdict, August 7, 2007. 4s Defendant's Motion for Post -Trial Relief, filed August 20, 2007. 0 2. On August 13, 2007, Defendant's counsel was served with a copy of the Court's August 7, 2007 verdict finding in favor of the Plaintiffs. 3. The Court's verdict made no mention of the substantial improvements that the Defendant made to the parcel in question, including the building (and purchase) of a pole building, a macadam driveway and an extension of the electric service. 4. The Court's verdict makes no mention of the Eight Thousand Doller ($8,000.00) plus in cash payments that the Defendant made to the Plaintiffs. 5. The above issues were preserved by counsel for the Defendant at the pre-trial conference with the Court, and during the parties' closing arguments at the time of trial .46 Relief requested by Defendant in the motion for post -trial relief was "that the Court affirm, modify or change its order to reflect that the Defendant should be compensated for the improvements to the parcel and/or cash payments made to the Plaintiffs."47 This motion was denied by the court, following argument, on October 12, 2007.48 From the denial of the motion for post -trial relief, Defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court on November 13, 2007.49 Somewhat inexplicably in view of the limited nature of Defendant's motion for post -trial relief, Defendant simultaneously filed a motion for a stay pending appeal to permit Defendant to continue to occupy the property.50 This motion was denied .51 DISCUSSION On an appeal in a civil case, appellant's issues are limited to those raised in his or her post -trial motion. See Hysong v. Lewicki, 931 A.2d 63, 65 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). In the present case, Defendant's motion for post -trial relief did not challenge the aspect of the court's verdict ejecting him from Plaintiffs premises; 46 Defendant's Motion for Post -Trial Relief, paras. 1-5. 47 Defendant's Motion for Post -Trial Relief, ad damnum clause. 48 Order of Court, October 12, 2007. 49 Defendant's Notice of Appeal, filed November 13, 2007. Judgment had been entered on the verdict on October 29, 2007. so Defendant's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, filed November 13, 2007. 51 Order of Court, December 10, 2007. 7 the motion, instead, sought judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Defendant's counterclaim for unjust enrichment. To the extent that Defendant's statement of matters complained of on appeal purports to pursue the issue of the propriety of ejectment on appeal it is subject to the doctrine of waiver. "To sustain a claim of unjust enrichment, it must be shown ... that a person wrongly secured or passively received a benefit that it would be unconscionable to retain." Martin v. Little, Brown and Co., 304 Pa. Super. 424, 431, 450 A.2d 984, 988 (1981) (emphasis added). In this context, "[a]s a general rule, volunteers have no right to restitution." Id. In the present case, where (a) Defendant made improvements to land at a time when he was a volunteer and, in essence, a trespasser, without the knowledge or consent of the legal owners of the property, (b) the improvements were for his own benefit and not that of the owners, (c) Defendant utilized the property to his own economic advantage for many years in disregard of the owners' legal rights, and (d) following the initiation of litigation paid the owners money to cover taxes on the property which he continued to occupy and profit from, the equities requisite to an unjust enrichment claim on his behalf were not present. Finally, under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1038(a), a bench trial is to be conducted "as nearly as may be as a trial by jury." Under Rule 1038(b), "[t]he decision of the trial judge may consist only of general findings as to all parties but shall dispose of all claims for relief. The trial judge may include as part of the decision specific findings of fact and conclusions of law with appropriate discussion. ,52 In the present case, the court was no more obligated to make special findings of fact in rendering its verdict than a jury would have been. 52 Pa. R.C.P. 1038(b) (emphasis added). '3 BY THE COURT, J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Charles E. Petrie, Esq. 3528 Brisban Street Harrisburg, PA 17111 Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronald T. Tomasko, Esq. 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Attorney for Defendant 0