On Nov. 16, the Pennsylvania Superior Court revisited Snyder v. Thomas (No. 407 WDA 2013, PICS Case No. 13-2873 (C.P. Lawrence Oct. 7, 2013)) and handed down a nonprecedential decision, which differed from its earlier examination of the case (102 A.3d 507, 2014). The Snyder case is unique in that it entails the manner in which an attorney's involvement on only one side of a real estate transaction, however straightforward, can impact a specific performance analysis.

The facts here, though not terribly complicated, are slightly aberrational both procedurally and substantively. The sellers, an elderly couple, had been leasing a portion of their property in Slippery Rock to the eventual buyer, from 2007 to 2010. The oral lease gave him the right to cultivate 65 acres of the property, according to the opinion. Eventually, in February 2010, the couple, desirous of selling off all of the property, met the buyer to discuss terms. Notably, the sellers were keen on retaining the right to reside in the farmhouse for the remainder of their lives. For the purpose of drawing up an agreement of sale and submitting a formal counteroffer, the buyer retained the services of an attorney. As it turned out, the buyer's counsel had previously represented the sellers on four prior occasions, from 2005 to 2009. That same lawyer had also declined representation of the sellers on another occasion, due to a conflict, the opinion said.

After negotiations related to the purchase and whether the price was to be paid in installments or a lump sum, the parties met again in late April 2010 at the office of the buyer's counsel. The deal was then finalized at the full asking price of $350,000, with a lease so that the sellers could remain in the farmhouse for $250 per month. Notably, the buyer would take the property subject to prior grants, reservations, or leases as shown by instruments of records. Also, in case of a default, the buyer would have the right of specific performance and attorney fees, the opinion said. It is undisputed that the sellers signed the agreement of sale that very day—declining to have the proposal independently reviewed as per the attorney's suggestion. It is also undisputed that neither the attorney nor the purchaser communicated to the sellers that the attorney was only representing the buyer; there was no affirmative communication that the attorney represented the sellers.