Estate of Kanya v. Insectarium & Butterfly Pavillion, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1811 EDA 2021,J-A20036-22 |
| Parties | THE ESTATE OF STEPHEN D. KANYA, JR. v. INSECTARIUM AND BUTTERFLY PAVILLION, INC. Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Insectarium and Butterfly Pavilion, Inc. d/b/a The Philadelphia Insectarium and Butterfly Pavilion (IBP) appeals from the judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) in favor of The Estate of Stephen D Kanya, Jr. (the Estate) against IBP in the amount of $11,000. The court had entered an Order making permanent a preliminary injunction directing IBP to remove its personal property from real property owned by the Estate and enjoining it from further entry. IBP challenges the trial court's issuance of the preliminary injunction on a number of bases, the trial court's award of damages to the Estate, and several of the court's evidentiary rulings at the bench trial. We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. Stephen D. Kanya, Jr. (the Decedent) purchased the subject property, located at 8042-8044 Frankford Avenue in Philadelphia (the Property) in July 1994. When the Decedent passed away in 2006, the Property went into the Estate and it is the record title holder.[1] The Property is vacant land and IBP is located on an adjacent parcel. IBP entered on the Property, without permission, and has used it as a parking lot for its employees, visitors and customers, as well as leaving tires, garbage and a disabled truck thereon.
The Estate sent a cease and desist letter to IBP in December 2017 asserting that its use of the Property constituted a criminal trespass and demanded that it no longer use the Property in any capacity. In 2019, IBP created a Facebook event page inviting guests to a July 25 "Monarch Beer Garden" on the Property. The Estate sent a second cease and desist letter upon learning of the event to IBP in advance of its occurrence. IBP held the beer garden in disregard of the letter and continued to host similar activities.
The Estate initiated this action in August 2019 by filing a complaint against IBP for trespass. It also filed a petition for preliminary injunction seeking an order requiring: "(1) Defendants, their employees, visitors and/or customers to cease entering upon the Property, (2) Defendants to cease permitting automobiles to be parked on the Property, and (3) Defendants to remove all items and fixtures that they placed on the Property." (Petition for Preliminary Injunction, 8/09/19, at 8). After holding a hearing on September 18, 2019, the trial court granted the preliminary injunction that same day. However, the order did not list the specific obligations of IBP or include bond requirement for the Estate.[2] When Counsel for IBP contacted the Estate and suggested that the order was invalid because of the bond omission, on September 23, 2019, the Estate filed an emergency motion to modify the trial court's September 18, 2019 order, which the court granted that same day without holding an additional hearing. The trial court amended its order to include language tracking the relief the Estate requested in the petition for preliminary injunction directing IBP to remove their personal property from the Property and to cease any further trespass. The trial court stated that IBP is "forbidden from trespassing on the [Property]" and its "obligations with respect to the Property are as follows: (1) Defendants, their employees, visitors and/or customers are required to cease entering upon the Property, (2) Defendants are required to cease permitting automobiles to be parked on the Property, and (3) Defendants are required to remove all items and fixtures that they placed on the Property." (Order, 9/23/19). The modified order also included a nominal bond requirement in the amount of $1.00. The trial court explained that it amended the order five days after its entry (well within the prescribed 30-day statutory timeframe) to include language expressly listing IBP's obligations and to correct the clerical error regarding the nominal bond. (See Trial Court Opinion, 3/30/22, at 9); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505.
The trial court held a bench trial on the trespass action on June 28, 2021, via Zoom videoconference due to the Covid-19 pandemic. One of the Decedent's children, Justine Zaccardi, testified that she has been an executrix to the Estate along with two other beneficiaries since January 2016. Ms. Zaccardi explained that the recorded deed to the Property is dated July 18, 1994, and lists only the Decedent as the grantee. (See N.T. Trial, at 17). Likewise, the Philadelphia Real Estate Transfer Tax Certification identifies only the Decedent as the grantee, and the recorded mortgage satisfaction for the Property lists only the Decedent as the mortgager. (See id. at 18-19). Counsel for IBP stipulated that all recorded documents related to the Property since 1994 identify only the Decedent as the record owner and make no reference to his son, Mr. Kanya. (See id. at 20-21).
Ms. Zaccardi testified that she became aware of IBP's use of the Property in June 2016 and (Id. at 37). Ms. Zaccardi was shown a Google aerial image of the Property depicting IBP using it as a parking lot, with vehicles and its cherry picker parked on it and "hundreds of . . . potted plants made from tires that were painted and placed on the Property." (Id. at 46). Ms. Zaccardi identified for the record advertisements IBP posted on social media during the summer of 2019 lauding the turnout at its prior beer party and promoting its (Id. at 52). Ms. Zaccardi advised that the Estate has no insurance policy or licensing agreement to host parties on the Property, and she noted that the events went forward despite the cease and desist letters.
Ms. Zaccardi further testified that there has been
(Id. at 58). The City of Philadelphia finally removed IBP's cherry picker from the Property in July 2020 after IBP ignored the Estate's repeated requests that it remove the truck because of vandalism in the area around it. (See id. at 59). Ms. Zaccardi averred that the lot "has just become a dump site" for IBP trash and she observed garbage, debris and tires accumulating next to and on the Property after the preliminary injunction was issued. (Id. at 61; see id. at 63-64).
As to damages, Ms. Zaccardi testified that the Estate incurred several expenses to address trespassing on the Property totaling approximately $10,000, including: installing three security cameras with an associated $75.00 monthly SIM card fee; installation of gates, fences and fencing repairs; front gate work to weld gate shut and then repair work after it was cut and welded open; numerous lock repairs; herbicide and plant removal; and property survey to mark exact boundary lines. (See id. at 74-75).
At several points during trial, counsel for IBP objected to the admission of Estate exhibits, asserting that he had "been trying to follow these documents and [. . . what] has been sent to me is a mess." (Id. at 34; see also id. at 30). The trial court overruled the objections, explaining that "what is being brought up on the screen is what I received . . . This is what they filed with the Court. (Id. at 34-35; see id. at 49). The trial court also explained that court staff was controlling the documents displayed on the screen in accordance with the parties' submissions.
Counsel for IBP then sought to introduce a series of documents relating to other real estate transactions processed by the Decedent, including an August 2001 mortgage satisfaction transaction, unrecorded deeds concerning other properties, and real estate transactions made by Decedent's son, Mr. Kanya. Counsel for the Estate objected to the admission of these documents on the basis of relevance to the instant trespass action, and the trial court sustained the objection. (See id. at 129-137).
On July 7, 2021, the trial court entered its verdict in favor of the Estate against IBP and awarded $10,000 in economic damages and $1,000 in punitive damages. The trial court also entered the September 23, 2019 preliminary injunction as a permanent injunction. IBP filed a post-trial motion which the trial court denied on August 6, 2021, and entered judgment on the verdict. IBP timely appealed and it and the trial court complied with Rule 1925. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)-(b).[3]
We begin by noting that "[a] permanent injunction is a permanent order requiring an individual or entity to comply with mandatory conditions imposed by the court." Oberholzer v. Galapo, 274 A.3d 738, 746 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted). "A permanent injunction may be granted only where: 1) the party seeking the injunction has established that its right to relief is clear; 2) an injunction is necessary to avoid an injury where there no adequate remedy at law, i.e., damages will not compensate for the injury; and 3) a greater injury will result from refusing rather than granting injunctive relief." Id. (citation omitted).
IBP first challenges...
To continue reading
Request your trial