Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-2326 KEVIN B. GANTZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, : DEFENDANT : 08-2326 CIVIL TERM MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., June 20, 2011:-- On January 12, 2011, after a non-jury trial to determine, inter alia, the parties’ respective interest in the workshop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, the court found that the workshop was a partnership asset with value, and directed defendant to state an accounting of the workshop within thirty days. On February 10, 2011, the defendant submitted his accounting to which the plaintiff filed objections on February 24, 2011. On March 23, 2011, we set a hearing date for June 2, 2011, at which time the parties were given the opportunity to supplement the record with respect to the value of the workshop. At that hearing, defendant presented the expert testimony of Larry E. Foote with respect to the value of the building, following which, plaintiff testified briefly regarding the value of the workshop. The court is now faced with the task of assigning a value to the workshop based on the original record, which included the testimony of plaintiff’s expert, Steven W. Barrett, and the supplemental record. Plaintiff’s expert assigned a value of $196,669, having used the Marshall Swift cost approach. In contrast, defendant’s expert used a market value or comparable sales approach and 08-2326 CIVIL TERM determined the value to be $73,000. Finally, plaintiff provided supplemental testimony on June 2, 2011, in the form of the partnership’s insurance policy for the year 2006-2007 in which the replacement cost for the workshop was listed at $148,366. The problem, as recognized by everyone involved in this case, is that the workshop rests on real property that is owned by the defendant and not by the partnership. To compound matters, the defendant testified previously that he had no interest in using the building. His solution, as related in his accounting and in argument on June 2, 2011, is to sell the property at a public sale along with the personal property of the partnership. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that plaintiff’s expert felt compelled to use several adjustments in comparing the value of the workshop to other properties, all of which involved a building and land. Ultimately, as with a marriage that has gone sour, we can no more easily satisfy the parties herein than we could if they were bitterly estranged spouses. But, cutting the “baby” in half at a public sale is too Solomonesque for our tastes. As facile as this approach would be, it ignores the fact that the defendant has “custody” of the building no matter what we order. Defendant may not want to use the building, but he should have considered that before he allowed the building to be “birthed” on his property. This is especially true because, as we previously found, defendant did not want to purchase a separate tract of land on -2- 08-2326 CIVIL TERM which to build the partnership workshop but insisted that it be built on his property. Furthermore, defendant decided to “terminate the parental rights” of the plaintiff by excluding him from the workshop. Having, made his bed, defendant is constrained to sleep in it. Before beating this metaphor to death, we conclude with this final thought – it is not for the court to determine what defendant should do with his child. Defendant must choose whether to put him to work, have him adopted or allow him to wither from neglect. Although we value the opinion of both esteemed experts, under all of the circumstances of this case, we find the more conservative valuation by defendant’s expert to be slightly more persuasive. Nevertheless, we find that he overly discounted the value of this improvement on defendant’s real estate. A workshop on an unrelated third-party’s property may only be worth $73,000, but we cannot overlook defendant’s ownership of the real property where the workshop is situated. To do so would be to accord him a windfall. Therefore, we determine that the value of this partnership asset is $110,000 and enter the following order. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of June, 2011, after consideration of the full record in this case, the court determines that the workshop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania is a partnership asset with a value of $110,000. -3- 08-2326 CIVIL TERM Accordingly, defendant is directed to compensate plaintiff for his one-half share of the value of that building within 90 days of the date of this order. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire For Plaintiff George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire For Defendant :saa -4- KEVIN B. GANTZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, : DEFENDANT : 08-2326 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of June, 2011, after consideration of the full record in this case, the court determines that the workshop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania is a partnership asset with a value of $110,000. Accordingly, defendant is directed to compensate plaintiff for his one-half share of the value of that building within 90 days of the date of this order. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire For Plaintiff George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire For Defendant :saa