Michael v. Stock, 1229 EDA 2016
Citation | 162 A.3d 465 |
Decision Date | 11 April 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 1229 EDA 2016,1229 EDA 2016 |
Parties | George E. MICHAEL v. Judith STOCK Judith Stock v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and Edward J. Morris, Esquire George E. Michael v. Tohickon Abstract Company Appeal of: Judith Stock |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
John E. Hilser, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Michael P. Coughlin, Blue Bell, for Commonwealth Land Title Insurance, appellee.
Appellant Judith Stock appeals from the order denying her motion for partial summary judgment and granting a cross-motion for summary judgment by Appellee Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company ("Land Title"). For the reasons that follow, we vacate the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings.
This case arose out of a failed real estate transaction. Stock attempted to sell to George Michael property in the Borough of Bristol, Bucks County, that was comprised of two lots (A and B). Stock and Michael initially believed that Stock held title to both lots, but, in fact, she did not hold title to Lot B. When Michael discovered the title problem, he withdrew from the transaction and sued Stock, seeking compensation for money he spent in reliance on the contract of sale. Stock then filed a third-party complaint against Land Title, which had issued her a title insurance policy and provided other services when she purportedly purchased Lots A and B. Stock and Land Title filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Stock now appeals the trial court's order denying her motion and granting that of Land Title.
The property at issue is located at 4 Mill Street in Bristol, and is currently identified for tax purposes as Bucks County Tax Map Parcel Number 4–18–28. Trial Ct. Op., 4/22/13, at 1.1 The trial court explained:
Id. at 2–3. Thus, as of 1999, the Pezzolas owned both Lots A and B. They had acquired Lot A through a series of transfers, the last of which were recorded in deeds dated 1991 and 1998. They acquired Lot B in 1994, but the deeds for the two properties were not formally merged at that time. Trial Ct. Op., 5/25/16, at 10.
On February 26, 1999, the Pezzolas entered into an Agreement to sell to Stock "the hotel liquor business located on 4 Mill Street, Borough of Bristol, Bucks County, Pennsylvania ...." Second Am. Third–Party Compl., Ex. A ¶ 1.3 The Agreement provided, "[s]eller further agrees to sell and the Buyer agrees to purchase all real estate located and connected to the aforesaid property ...." Id ¶ 3.4 The Pezzolas agreed to convey title to the property that was "good and marketable and such as will be insured at regular rates by any title company recognized in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." Id. ¶ 14. Stock agreed to "immediately, upon execution of this Agreement, order the necessary title insurance search" and to "pay for the title insurance, title search and title certificate." Id. ¶ 18.
Stock alleges that she then entered into a contract under which Land Title agreed to provide "real estate transactional services"—including title searches and the drafting and filing of a deed—for her purchase of the property, and to issue a policy insuring title to the property. Second Am. Third–Party Joinder and Compl. ¶¶ 5–6, 8, 53. On May 3, 1999, Stock obtained a Title Insurance Commitment from Land Title. Trial Ct. Op., 4/22/13, at 3. The Commitment stated:
Trial Ct. Op., 4/22/13, at 12, quoting Title Insurance Commitment, Sched. A. Schedule C contained the following description:
Title Insurance Commitment, Sched. C. It is undisputed that the metes and bounds set forth in Schedule C describe only Lot A. Trial Ct. Op., 4/22/13, at 3. In fact, the description of the property in the Commitment, including the metes and bounds and the lot number and County Parcel Number references, is the same as that in a 1991 deed by which the Pezzolas obtained title to the property at 4 Mill Street—at a time when that property did not yet include Lot B.6 Stock claims that when she received that description in Schedule C, she did not know that it encompassed only Lot A.
On June 21, 1999, Stock received a deed conveying the property from the Pezzolas to Stock. Stock alleges that Land Title was responsible or shared responsibility for preparing that deed. Second Am. Third–Party Compl. ¶ 8. The deed contained the same metes and bounds description, lot number, and parcel number as that in the Title Insurance Commitment. Trial Ct. Op., 4/22/13, at 3; Plaintiff's Compl. Ex. C (1999 deed). Stock claims that she did not know that this description included only Lot A.
Trial Ct. Op., 4/22/13, at 13 (quoting policy). Schedule B to the policy lists exceptions to coverage, including a "survey exception" that applies to "[u]nrecorded easements, discrepancies or conflicts in boundary lines, shortages in area and encroachments which an accurate and complete survey would disclose." Appellant's Brief at 22; Appellee's Brief at 34 (quoting policy).
On August 1, 2006, Stock and Michael entered into an agreement whereby Stock would sell to Michael "all that certain tract or parcel of land, including any buildings and other improvements located thereon, being Tax map Parcel No. 4–18–028," for $2.2 million. Agreement of Sale ¶¶ 1–2. At that time, Stock and Michael believed that both Lots A and B were included in the property to be conveyed. Michael paid Stock $120,000 in deposits and incurred additional expenses to obtain approvals for his planned development of the property. Trial Ct. Op., 4/22/13, at 3–4.
Prior to the closing, on March 27, 2007, Michael advised Stock that the 1999 deed had not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frederick Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hall
...the dynamics of the insurance transaction to ascertain what are the reasonable expectations of the consumer. Michael v. Stock, 2017 PA Super 99, 162 A.3d 465, 478 (2017). Where the insurer or its agent has created in the insured a reasonable expectation of coverage, even the most clearly-wr......
-
PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Lupu
... ... that reasonable minds could not differ can a trial court ... properly enter summary judgment ... Michael v. Stock, 162 A.3d 465, 472-73 (Pa. Super ... 2017) (citation omitted). "[P]arties seeking to avoid ... the entry of summary judgment ... ...