Uniqueness and the Availability of Specific Performance

In the Feb. 19 decision Oliver v. Ball (No. 1602 WDA 2014), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reaffirmed the vitality of specific performance as an equitable remedy for a seller’s breach of a real estate sales contract. This decision comes only three months after the court, on a remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, exercised its discretion and granted specific performance in Snyder v. Thomas, No. 407 WDA 2013, PICS Case No. 13-2873 (C.P. Lawrence Oct. 7, 2013), in spite of unproven allegations concerning the sellers’ impairment and attorney conflict of interest. In Oliver, the court set forth a cogent overview of the law, citing 10 Pennsylvania appellate decisions, distinguishing three others, as well as favorably citing four opinions from other jurisdictions. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in not granting specific performance because the remedy at law was adequate.

The undisputed facts in Oliver appear straightforward enough for a case that sparked a somewhat extended discussion. The sellers breached a residential sales contract, for two tracts of land, ­comprising 71.5 acres of land in Cranberry Township, Butler County. The seller failed to convey the subject parcels and litigation was ­commenced. The specific performance claim was severed from the claim for money damages and proceeded to a non-jury trial. At the conclusion of the buyer’s testimony, the sellers moved for a compulsory nonsuit, which the trial court granted. Jerome P. Oliver (the buyer) testified as to a number of subjective factors that established the inadequacy of money damages: the purchase was to be a long-term investment for the purposes of harvesting timber, granting gas rights to fracking companies, and possible subdivision and development. He also contended proximity to his residence and the land’s topography were important considerations in deciding on this particular property. It “is only maybe five miles as the crow flies from my home so that is important, to try to keep my investments within a reasonable distance from my home and where I work,” he testified. However, on cross-examination, the buyer conceded that “he owns investment properties located as far away as Westmoreland and Crawford counties.”