Partition Owelty Acquisition Costs Language of the Deed
Kapcsos v. Benshoff, PICS Case No. 17-1142 (Pa. Super. June 29, 2017) Solano, J. (31 pages).
Trial court properly partitioned property that appellee and appellant bought as joint tenants with the right of survivorship but erred in subtracting the acquisition costs paid by appellee when calculating appellant's owelty because the language of the deed required that appellant receive the full value of her interest in the property. Judgment vacated and order affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Appellee and appellant purchased property in 2005 as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. The unmarried parties separated in 2008 and appellee filed an action for partition in 2014. Appellant did not contribute any funds to the down payment or the acquisition costs and the mortgage was in the name of both parties. Appellee moved out of the property in 2008 and appellant lived there until 2010. Appellant left in 2010 and appellee moved in and found the property in need of repairs. Appellant paid the mortgage and all expenses from 2008 until 2010 and appellee paid all expenses from 2010 to the present. The trial court held that the property could not be divided and allowed appellee to take title to the entire premises after paying appellant owelty equal to the value of her interest. Appellant appealed.
Appellant contended that the trial court erred in allowing appellee credit for the down payment and acquisition costs he paid. She argued that the acquisition costs were not a conditional gift and there was no expectation of credit or repayment. The trial court awarded the credit under R.Civ.P. 1570 (a)(5) finding that the payment fell under the "other amounts paid." The court looked to the sparse caselaw and found that a court had the authority to allow a credit for payments made toward a purchase price when calculating the owelty due in a partition action. However the language of the deed and precedent based on the deed language determined a contrary result. Appellant persuasively argued that the fact that the deed conveyed the property to the parties as joint tenants required that she was entitled to half of the property's value without regard to how much appellee paid when they bought the property. The deed stated that the property was conveyed to appellee and appellant ("grantees") as "joint tenants with the right of survivorship" and stated that the purchase price was paid "by the said grantees" without any mention of which of them contributed the funds. The trial court explained that it gave the credit as a matter of equity but equitable discretion could not be exercised to negate a controlling rule of law. The court found that precedent required that appellant receive the full value of her interest in the property and that it was error to subtract appellee's payment when calculating appellant's owelty.