These real estate-related appeals cases had some noteworthy takeaways for Pennsylvania attorneys.

Multiple Settlement Extensions Reach Limit

In Michael & Linda, LLC v. Smith, 216 A.3d 262 (2019), the Pennsylvania Superior Court was asked to resolve the issue of whether the buyer in a real estate transaction dispute was entitled to the remedy of specific performance based upon the sellers' breach of the parties' agreement of sale. The parties executed the agreement for three adjacent parcels of real estate (the property), including a "time is of the essence" provision and obligating the sellers to provide good and marketable title, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. The agreement set settlement for Jan. 29, 2016, but provided for the extension of the settlement date by written agreement of the parties.

Following execution of the agreement of sale, a title search revealed a mortgage on one of the three lots on the property. The parties agreed to move forward with settlement of the other two lots and extend closing on the encumbered lot to Feb. 29, 2016. As this new settlement date approached and the issue remained unresolved, the date was again extended until March 14, 2016. However, when this date approached and there was no resolution on the encumbrance, the sellers then refused to agree to a third extension of settlement date. In April 2016, the buyer learned that the encumbrance was removed from the third lot and that the settlement could proceed, yet the sellers again refused.

The buyer filed an action against the sellers, asserting breach of contract and requesting specific performance. The trial court found in favor of the buyer and directed the sellers to convey the third lot. On appeal, the Superior Court reiterated that the contract was not ambiguous, nor were the sellers agreed upon deliveries. As the agreed extensions of settlement afforded the sellers an opportunity to meet their contractual obligation to convey a clean title, time was of the essence for sellers to do so, unless the buyer elected to terminate the agreement of sale. Due to this, the Superior Court affirmed that the trial court properly granted specific performance, as the facts clearly established the sellers' refusal to convey the third lot otherwise left the buyer without an adequate remedy at law.

Private Roads in Spotlight

In In re Adams, 212 A.3d 1004 (2019), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal to consider an issue of first impression in the commonwealth: whether the Pennsylvania Private Road Act permits a landowner who has adequate access to their land for their current use of the property to demonstrate that a private road is necessary for a different proposed future use of that property. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Commonwealth Court and held that, because a determination of necessity under Section 2732 of the Private Road Act had to be based on the present use of the property and not on a proposed use, the appellees had not shown the requisite level of necessity under the act to justify taking a portion of the appellant's property for a private road.

Under the Private Road Act, the petitioner must demonstrate both that the road is necessary and that opening it will serve a public purpose. On the issue of necessity, the appellant argued that the appellees' parcel was not landlocked because the appellees acknowledged a separate road provided access to the edge of their parcel. To support his position on necessity, the appellant relied on the reasoning set forth in Application of Little, 119 A.2d 587, 589 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1956), that necessity must be based on the present use of the property and that a future, contemplated use cannot provide the "strict necessity" for a taking under the act. The court agreed and found that the proper framework to evaluate necessity is to consider whether there is a present use for which the landowner cannot access the property.

Frank Kosir Jr. is an attorney at Pittsburgh-based law firm Meyer, Unkovic & Scott. He has significant civil litigation and general practice experience in all areas of real property law. Contact him at [email protected].