J-A16032-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

ALONZA BAKER TOLO PROPERTIES, 

LLC

v.

JESSIE BROWN AND BLESSING REAL 

ESTATE AND MANAGEMENT, LLC 

AND MARSTON STREET HOLDING, 

LLC AND CHEREE CLARK AND JAMES 

KENT

APPEAL OF: BLESSING REAL ESTATE 

AND MANAGEMENT, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2248 EDA 2021

Appeal from the Judgment Entered February 7, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at 

No(s): 180501431

BEFORE: McLAUGHLIN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED AUGUST 1, 2022

Blessing Real Estate and Management, LLC (Blessing Real Estate) 

appeals from the judgment1 entered in the Court of Common Pleas of 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Blessing Real Estate purported to appeal from the September 20, 2021 order 

denying its post-trial motions. On February 2, 2022, this Court issued a Rule 

directing Blessing Real Estate to praecipe the trial court prothonotary to enter 

final judgment on the trial court’s decision. See Fanning v. Davne, 795 A.2d 

388, 391 (Pa. Super. 2002), appeal denied, 825 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2003) 

(reiterating that appeal properly lies from judgment entered after trial court’s 

disposition of post-trial motions). On February 7, 2022, judgment was 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A16032-22

- 2 -

Philadelphia County (trial court) in favor of Tolo Properties, LLC (Tolo) in this 

quiet title action. Blessing Real Estate argues that the court erred in failing to 

exclude testimony on the basis of Dead Man’s Statute;

2

finding that the deed 

to Jessie Brown (Brown) was void; and that Blessing Real Estate had no 

interest in the subject property at 1516-18 Marston Street in Philadelphia (the 

Property).

3

 We affirm.

I.

A.

On May 6, 2018, Alonza Baker, Jr. (Alonza Jr.), administrator of the 

estate of Catherine Baker (Baker Jr.) filed a complaint to quiet title to the 

Property. The court held a hearing on June 29, 2019, at which it heard the 

testimony of Baker Jr.; David Champagne (Champagne), the sole owner of 

Tolo; Marcder Guerrier (Guerrier), owner of Blessing Real Estate; F. Scott 

____________________________________________

entered in the trial court and, therefore, we will treat this appeal as timely 

filed after the judgment’s entry. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5).

2 Tolo maintains that any Dead’s Man Act issue is waived because it was not 

properly raised. However, at the commencement of Baker Jr.’s testimony, 

counsel for Blessing Real Estate raised a Dead Man’s Act objection, stating he 

intended to raise it in objection to some questions offered by Tolo’s witnesses. 

The trial court stated that there would be a continuing objection that it would 

deal with as the case proceeded. (See N.T. Trial, 6/29/19, at 24-25). Both 

Brown’s estate and Blessing Real Estate renewed the objection several times 

throughout the testimony. (See id. at 41, 45, 64, 141). We conclude this 

was sufficient to preserve the issue.

3 The Property is a large garage that can hold approximately 20-25 cars. (See

N.T. Hearing, 6/29/19, at 48, 107).
J-A16032-22

- 3 -

Donahue, Esquire (Donahue), representative of the Brown estate; and James 

Kent (Kent).

1.

Baker Jr. testified regarding the chain of title that led to the Tolo deed. 

He stated that he is the adult child of Catherine and Alonza Baker, Sr. (Baker 

Sr.). (See N.T. Trial, 6/29/19, at 30). He identified his birth certificate and 

stated that his siblings are Gloria, Sam, Terry and Bayne Baker. (See id.); 

(Tolo Exhibit 5). Regarding the Property’s prior deeds, he testified as follows:

• By deed executed on May 15, 1980, Catherine Baker, Baker

Sr. and Derrick Hart held title to the Property as tenants in 

common, with the Bakers holding a fifty percent interest and 

Derrick Hart holding a fifty percent interest. (See N.T. Trial, at 

31); (Tolo Exhibit 1).

• Baker Sr. died on May 10, 1998, and his fifty percent 

interest passed to Catherine Baker as a matter of law. (See N.T. 

Trial, at 32).

• Catherine Baker died on January 4, 2013. (See id. at 32). 

On January 30, 2013, Baker Jr. was granted letters of 

administration for his mother’s estate. (See Tolo Exhibit 6).

• Derrick Hart died on October 25, 2008, passing his fifty 

percent interest in the Property to his lawful heirs. After Hart’s 

passing, James Kent petitioned for letters of administration of 

Derrick Hart’s Estate, representing himself as Hart’s nephew. 

(See N.T. Trial, at 34). After litigation regarding the appointment 

of an estate administrator, the orphans’ court granted letters of 

administration to Derrick Hart’s daughter Cheree Clark. (See id.

at 33); (Tolo Exhibit 4).

Under the chain of title as of 2013, the estates of Derrick Hart and 

Catherine Baker owned the Property, with each owning a fifty percent interest. 
J-A16032-22

- 4 -

(See N.T. Trial, at 33). On January 11, 2019, Baker Jr. and Cheree Clark met 

with Champagne and transferred the Estates’ interests in the Property to Tolo. 

(See N.T. Trial, at 42-43); (Tolo Exhibit 10).

2.

The other chain of title began on August 22, 2013, where Brown,

purporting to be the sole heir of the estate of Catherine Baker, recorded an 

August 13, 2013 deed transferring title of the Property from himself as sole 

heir to himself individually. (See N.T. Trial, at 38-39); (Tolo Exhibit 7). Baker 

Jr. testified that Brown was not an heir of Catherine Baker, none of the Baker 

siblings knew him and the transfer was not authorized by Alonza Jr. (See

N.T. Trial, at 38-39). On October 28, 2013, a deed transferring title of the 

Property to from Brown to Blessing Real Estate was filed. (See id. at 40); 

(Tolo Exhibit 8). On June 8, 2017, a deed transferring title from Blessing Real 

Estate to Kent in consideration of $10,000.00 was recorded. The deed had an 

illegible signature. (See Tolo Exhibit 9). Under this purported chain of title, 

Blessing only has a claim to one-half of the Property.

3.

Champagne testified that he is the sole member and owner of Tolo. Prior 

to Champagne entering into an agreement of sale for the Property on behalf 

of Tolo with the estates, he testified that Kent harassed Champagne’s 

attorney, putting him in fear of his life if the sale went forward. (See N.T. 

Trial, at 66). However, after conducting title research, he was confident that 
J-A16032-22

- 5 -

the Catherine Baker and Derrick Hart estates owned the Property. He saw the 

letters of administration appointing Alonza Jr. and Cheree Clark as the 

administrators of the estates and was certain they had the authority to 

execute a deed for the Property. (See id. at 65, 67, 71); (Tolo Exhibit 10).

On October 11, 2019, Champagne, on behalf of Tolo, signed the 

agreement of sale for the Property and the deed was recorded. (See N.T.

Trial, at 67-70); (Tolo Exhibit 10). According to the deed, Tolo paid 

$80,000.00 for the Property and ultimately took over as the plaintiff in this 

matter. (See N.T. Trial, at 69); (Tolo Exhibit 10).

4.

Guerrier testified that he owns Blessing Real Estate. (See N.T. Trial, at 

105). He stated that Brown came into his car repair shop and told him that 

he owned a garage property that was for sale. (See id. at 106, 109-11). 

Guerrier’s inspection of the Property revealed that it had no roof, a damaged 

door and debris. A vehicle was abandoned inside. (See id. at 107). Guerrier 

testified that he paid Brown $5,000.00 for the Property ($4,000.00 check; 

$1,000.00 cash). (See id. at 108); (Blessing Exhibit 4). However, the 

September 12, 2013 deed between Brown and Blessing Real Estate recorded 

on October 28, 2013, lists the consideration paid as $1.00. (See N.T. Trial, 

at 111); (Tolo Exhibit 8). Blessing Real Estate made repairs to the Property 

and paid the Property’s outstanding real estate taxes in the amount of 

$19,946.66, saving it from a tax sale. (See N.T. Trial, at 112-13, 115).
J-A16032-22

- 6 -

Guerrier began receiving threatening phone calls that he should not go 

to the Property because it belonged to a family. (See id. at 115-16). He said 

he did not know who Kent is, never agreed to sell him the Property and did 

not receive any money for it. (See id. at 115-16, 118). However, on June 8, 

2017, the deed transferring title from Blessing Real Estate to Kent in 

consideration of $10,000.00 was recorded with an illegible signature. (See

Tolo Exhibit 9).

5.

On March 24, 2019, Brown passed away. Donahue testified that he 

became involved with this matter because Champagne (Tolo) contacted him 

because he is an estate attorney. (See N.T. Trial, at 144). To his knowledge, 

Brown’s mother, Queen Brown, is alive because she was the informant on his 

death certificate. (See id. at 145). She had the opportunity to serve as her 

son’s estate administrator, but she never filled out the letters of 

administration, and on January 5, 2021, he was appointed as the 

administrator of the Brown estate. (See id. at 148). He said that he could 

not speak on Brown’s behalf because he did not know him. (See id. at 146).

6.

Kent appeared pro se. In his “opening,” which the trial court treated as 

testimony, he stated that Derrick Hart was his wife’s uncle and that the Audi

vehicle left at the Property was his. (See id. at 16). He maintained that 

Brown and Blessing Real Estate have been working together for years, with 
J-A16032-22

- 7 -

neither entitled to the Property because it should be in his family. He stated 

that he had a crew that cleaned out the garage and put a new door on it. 

(See id. at 16, 21). His general argument appeared to be that no one was 

entitled to the Property other than him since he was a family member. He 

was unaware of any legible copy of the May 30, 2017 deed transferring title 

of the Property to him from Blessing Real Estate other than the one that had 

been recorded, which did not contain legible signatures. (See id. at 156-57). 

He had no evidence that he paid the $10,000.00 represented on the deed 

because he paid for the Property in cash. (See id. at 157); (Tolo Exhibit 9).

There was no objection to any of the exhibits entered during the trial.

B.

On July 1, 2021, the trial court found that the January 11, 2019 deed 

between the estates of Catherine Baker and Derrick Hart and Tolo was valid 

and binding and, therefore, Tolo owned the Property free and clear of any 

third-party claims. It declared the following deeds void and cancelled: (1) 

the August 13, 2013 deed purporting to transfer the Property from Brown as 

sole heir of Catherine Baker to Brown individually; (2) the September 19, 2013 

deed purporting to transfer title to of the Property from Brown to Blessing Real 

Estate; and (3) the May 30, 2017 deed purportedly transferring title of the 

Property from Blessing Real Estate to Kent. It enjoined Brown, Blessing Real 

Estate and Kent from asserting any right, title or interest in the Property. (See

Trial Court Opinion, 2/02/22, at 2-3); (see also Order, 7/02/21).
J-A16032-22

- 8 -

The trial court found that it did not err by overruling the continuous 

objection to the testimony of Baker Jr., Kent and Champagne because Brown 

had no actual interest in the immediate result of the lawsuit. It explained 

that, even if it would have ruled in Blessing Real Estate’s favor, the Brown 

estate would have no interest in the Property because Blessing Real Estate 

would have held the Property interest. (See Trial Ct. Op., at 5-6).

Blessing Real Estate filed post-trial motions (1) seeking to vacate the 

July 2, 2021 order based on the court’s consideration of testimony that should 

have been excluded pursuant to the Dead Man’s Statute; and/or (2) 

reimbursement of 2017 real estate taxes it paid for the Property. (Blessing

Real Estate Post-Trial Motion, 7/12/21, at 1-3). On September 20, 2021, the 

trial court granted the post-trial motions in part, ordering reimbursement of 

$1,945.66 to Blessing Real Estate for its payment of the real estate taxes; the 

court denied the remainder of the post-trial motions. (See Order, 9/20/21). 

Blessing Real Estate timely appealed and filed a statement of errors 

complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).

Blessing Real Estate raises three claims challenging that the trial court 

erred: (1) in considering testimony that violated the Dead Man’s Statute; (2) 

in finding the August 13, 2013 deed to Brown void; and (3) in finding Blessing 
J-A16032-22

- 9 -

Real Estate has no interest in the Property.4 (See Blessing Real Estate’s Brief, 

at 1-2).

II.

A.

Blessing Real Estate contends that Tolo did not sustain its burden of 

proof concerning the validity of its deed because the trial court erred in failing 

to exclude the testimony of Alonza Jr., Kent and Champagne pursuant to the 

Dead Man’s Statute. It contends that under the Dead Man’s Act, none of the 

witnesses could present evidence to Brown’s contention in the deed that he 

was the sole heir of Elizabeth Baker. Because Brown had an actual interest in 

____________________________________________

4

It is long-settled that “[i]n reviewing an action to quiet title, an appellate 

court’s review is limited to determining whether the findings of fact are 

supported by competent evidence, whether an error of law has been 

committed, and whether there has been a manifest abuse of discretion.” 

Regions Mortgage, Inc. v. Muthler, 889 A.2d 39, 41 (Pa. 2005) (internal 

citation and quotation marks omitted).

It is not the role of an appellate court to pass on the 

credibility of witnesses; hence we will not substitute our judgment 

for that of the factfinder. Thus, the test we apply is not whether 

we would have reached the same result on the evidence 

presented, but rather, after due consideration of the evidence 

which the trial court found credible, whether the trial court could 

have reasonably reached its conclusion.

Hollock v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 842 A.2d 409, 414 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en

banc), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 903 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 2006)

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see In re Estate of Plance, 

175 A.3d 249, 259-60 (Pa. 2019) (“[A]ll conflicts in testimony must be 

resolved by the hearing judge, who is the sole arbitrator of credibility.”) 

(citation omitted).
J-A16032-22

- 10 -

the immediate result of the suit, the interests of Baker and Tolo are adverse 

to Brown’s interests and Brown’s rights have passed to a party of record who 

represents his interests, in both Blessing Real Estate as a successor in title 

and in Brown’s estate that has a direct interest in the validity of title. Tolo 

maintains that the devisavit vel non or real estate of deceased owner 

exception of the Dead Man’s Act applies to this matter.

The Dead Man’s Act provides, in pertinent part:

Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, in any civil action 

or proceeding, where any party to a thing or contract in action is 

dead ... and his right thereto or therein has passed, either by his 

own act or by the act of the law, to a party on the record who 

represents his interest in the subject in controversy, neither any 

surviving or remaining party to such thing or contract, nor any 

other person whose interest shall be adverse to the said right of 

such deceased ... shall be a competent witness to any matter 

occurring before the death of said party .... unless the issue or 

inquiry be devisavit vel non, or be any other issue or inquiry 

respecting the property of a deceased owner, and the controversy 

is between parties respectively claiming such property by 

devolution on the death of such owner, in which case all persons 

shall be fully competent.

42 Pa.C.S. § 5930.5 Specifically, in order for a witness to be disqualified from 

testifying under this statute:

1. the deceased must have had an actual right or interest in the 

matter at issue, the interest of the witness must be adverse,

____________________________________________

5 “Competency of a witness is the rule and incompetency the exception.” In 

re Hendrickson’s Estate, 130 A.3d 143, 146 (Pa. 1957). The party 

challenging competence bears the burden to establish incompetency. See 

Commonwealth v. Boich, 982 A.2d 102, 109 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal 

denied, 3 A.3d 669 (Pa. 2010) (citations omitted).
J-A16032-22

- 11 -

2. the right of the deceased must have passed to a party of record 

who represents the deceased’s interests, and

3. the interest of the proposed witness be adverse to the interest 

of the decedent’s estate.

Punxsutawney Municipal Airport Authority v. Lellock, 745 A.2d 666, 670

(Pa. Super. 2000).

There are exceptions and limitations in the application of the Dead Man’s 

Statute.

• Adverse surviving parties are only disqualified from 

testifying as to any transaction or event that occurred before 

decedent’s death. See Zigmantanis v. Zigmantanis, 797 A.2d 

990, 995 (Pa. Super. 2002).

• “The Dead Man’s Act applies only to oral testimony. Written 

evidence offered by an adverse surviving party is not rendered 

incompetent by the Dead Man’s Act and is admissible.” Larkin v. 

Metz, 580 A.2d 1150, 1153 (Pa. Super. 1990) (citation omitted).

• “The devisavit vel non exception of the Dead Man’s Act 

provides that witnesses are competent to testify in disputes 

arising over the passage of property, through will or intestacy, 

although their testimony might otherwise be rendered 

incompetent through operation of the general rule.” In re Est. of 

Janosky, 827 A.2d 512, 516 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). “This exception applies to 

disputes involving the transfer of a decedent’s estate both by 

operation of law or by will and renders competent all witnesses 

claiming decedent’s property by reason of her death.” See In re 

Est. of Gadiparthi, 632 A.2d 942, 946 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).

6

____________________________________________

6 “Although decisions of the Commonwealth Court are not binding on this 

Court, we may rely on them if we are persuaded by their reasoning.” Prieto 

Corp. v. Gambone Const. Co., 100 A.3d 602, 607 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2014) 

(citation omitted).
J-A16032-22

- 12 -

B.

The trial court found that the Dead Man’s Statute was not applicable 

because the testimony of Baker Jr., Kent and Champagne was not adverse 

since Brown had no actual interest in the immediate result of the lawsuit. It 

reasoned that the Brown estate had no interest in the Property since Brown 

had conveyed the Property to Blessing Real Estate. However, we disagree

with the trial court because the three-prong test to determine whether the 

Dead Man’s Statute applies has been met.

The first prong was met because the Brown estate could potentially be 

subject to damages once the deed from Brown to Blessing Real Estate was 

declared, as it was, void. That would make the Brown estate potentially liable 

for damages to Blessing Real Estate in the amount paid by Blessing Real Estate

for the Property and expenses relating to the Property.

The second prong was met because the interests of Baker Jr., Kent and 

Champagne (Tolo) are in direct conflict with the Brown estate. Baker Jr., Kent

and Champagne maintain that Brown’s August 13, 2013 deed was fraudulent

and he was not entitled to ownership of the Property after Catherine Baker’s

passing.

Finally, the third prong is met because Brown’s rights in the Property 

passed to a party of record who represents his interests. Both his estate and 

his successor-in-interest, Blessing Real Estate, were defendants in the matter 

and appeared at the trial. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5930. Hence, all three prongs 
J-A16032-22

- 13 -

have been met. Nonetheless, while the testimony of Baker Jr., Kent and 

Champagne is subject to the application of the Dead Man’s Statute, that 

testimony would be admissible under the devisavit vel non exception.

The entire dispute between the parties involved their competing 

interests in the Property due to Catherine Baker’s death and a dispute about 

who were the surviving heirs. Under this exception, witnesses are competent 

to testify in disputes arising over the passage of property, through will or 

intestacy, although their testimony might otherwise be rendered incompetent 

through operation of the general rule. Although their subject testimony 

otherwise may be subject to preclusion pursuant to the Dead Man’s Statute, 

application of the devisavit vel non exception to the Baker Jr., Kent7 and 

Champagne testimony renders it competent. Therefore, the trial court did not 

err in not excluding it as not competent.8

____________________________________________

7 The trial court does not represent that it relied on Kent’s testimony.

8 Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the Dead Man’s Act should have 

precluded the testimony, we disagree with Blessing Real Estate’s conclusion 

that if this testimony were precluded, the only evidence that would have 

remained for the court’s consideration was “the Deed of Brown to Blessing 

upon which Blessing’s 50% interest in the Property must be confirmed.” 

(Blessing Real Estate’s Brief, at 15). As mentioned, “The Dead Man’s Act 

applies only to oral testimony. Written evidence offered by an adverse 

surviving party is not rendered incompetent by the Dead Man’s Act and is 

admissible.” Larkin v. Metz, 580 A.2d 1150, 1153 (Pa. Super. 1990) 

(citation omitted; emphases added). Tolo admitted nine documents into 

evidence, including the Letter of Administration granted to Baker Jr. and the 

August 13, 2013 deed in which Brown misrepresented he was the only heir 

that the court properly considered, even if the Dead Man’s Act applied to 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A16032-22

- 14 -

III.

Blessing Real Estate next claims that the trial court erred in finding that 

the August 13, 2013 deed between Brown as sole heir of Catherine Baker’s 

estate and Brown individually was void. (See Blessing Real Estate’s Brief, at 

15-20). It maintains the deed was presumptively valid and that Tolo failed to 

establish its invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.

9

As observed by Blessing Real Estate, it is well-settled that “[t]he burden 

of overcoming the presumption of delivery of a deed resulting from its 

recording is upon the person attacking its validity and requires clear, positive 

proof that no delivery was intended and that the recording was unauthorized.” 

Claar v. Burket, 136 A.2d 111, 113 (Pa. 1957) (citation omitted). If “a deed

[is] absolute and complete in itself, attacked as being in fact otherwise 

intended ... , there is a [] presumption that the title is in conformity with the 

deed, and it should not be dislodged except by clear, precise, convincing, and 

satisfactory evidence to the contrary.” Id.

____________________________________________

preclude the testimony. Baker Jr.’s birth certificate was also introduced into 

evidence.

9 Blessing Real Estate below and in its brief contended that it was entitled to 

all of the Property. Nowhere did it explain how that it was so when it was 

established that the August 13, 2013 deed was recorded transferring title of 

the Property from Brown as “sole heir” of Catherine Baker to himself

individually, and Catherine Baker only owned one-half of the Property. At oral 

argument, counsel for Blessing Real Estate conceded that it is only entitled to 

one-half of the Property.
J-A16032-22

- 15 -

However, also well-settled and not addressed by Blessing Real Estate, 

is that an estate administrator “is under a duty to take custody of the estate 

and administer it in such a way as to preserve and protect the property for 

distribution to the proper persons within a reasonable time.” In re 

Kurkowski’s Estate, 409 A.2d 357, 360-61 (Pa. 1979) (citations omitted).

Hence, an individual, even assuming he may be entitled to subsequent share 

in the distribution of an estate, may not “retain possession of an asset of an 

estate when the personal representative is charged with the responsibility of 

possessing and administering such asset[.]” In re Brose’s Estate, 223 A.32d 

661, 663 (Pa. 1966).

Here, the trial court found:

As fact-finder, [the trial court] was well within [its] 

discretion in finding [the August 13, 2013 and September 19, 

2013] deeds to be void based off the admissible evidence 

presented which included, but was not limited to, Alonza Baker 

and David Champagne’s testimony that they did not know 

Defendant Brown, Alonza Baker testifying that [he] was the 

Administrator of Catherine Baker’s estate, more shown by the 

Letter of Administration. The trial court found this evidence 

sufficient to consider the deed of August 13, 2013 granting title to 

Decedent Brown fraudulent and voided the deed per the court’s 

order.

Any further transfer of the property from the voided deed 

would therefore be void as the court found that Decedent Brown 

did not have interest in the property. ... 
J-A16032-22

- 16 -

(Trial Ct. Op., at 6-7). 10

In addition to the foregoing, we agree with Tolo that the evidence 

established that Brown’s allegation on the August 13, 2013 deed that he was 

the sole heir of Catherine Baker was a fraudulent misrepresentation. (See

Tolo’s Brief, at 10). It is undisputed that Baker Jr. was Catherine’s son which 

was supported by his birth certificate. Additionally, Baker Jr. testified to 

having four siblings and this testimony was also undisputed. (See N.T. Trial, 

at 30); (Tolo Exhibit 5).

It was for the trial court to consider the weight of this competing 

evidence. The testimony and evidence provided prima facie proof that the 

August 2013 deed purporting to transfer the Property from Brown as Catherine 

Baker’s heir to Brown individually was invalid. See In re Kurkowski’s 

Estate, supra at 360-61; In re Brose’s Estate, supra at 663. Accordingly, 

the competent evidence of record supports the court’s finding that the August 

____________________________________________

10 When this October 28, 2013 deed was filed from Brown to Blessing Real 

Estate, we noted that the estate had been raised on January 30, 2013, when 

Baker Jr. was granted letters of administration for his mother’s estate. We 

note that 20 Pa.C.S. § 3535 provides, in relevant part, that “[u]pon application 

of any party in interest and after such notice as the court shall direct, the 

court may order the personal representative to deliver to any distributee 

possession of any real estate to which he is entitled, provided that claimants 

and other distributees are not prejudiced thereby.”
J-A16032-22

- 17 -

13, 2013 deed was invalid, and no legal error or abuse of discretion was 

committed . See Regions Mortg., Inc., supra at 41.

11

IV.

Finally, Blessing Real Estate argues that the trial court erred in finding 

that it had no interest in the Property because it contends the Catherine Baker 

and Derrick Hart estates are estopped from challenging Blessing Real Estate’s 

interest status as a bona fide purchaser for value in 2013 because, in reliance 

on Baker Jr.’s failure to address the Brown deeds, he paid the taxes to prevent 

the Property from being sold at a tax sale in 2017. (See Blessing Real Estate’s 

Brief, at 20-23). In other words, although it realized the Property was titled 

to someone else, Blessing Real Estate maintains it was Baker Jr.’s 

responsibility to notify it of this fact, and his failure to do so rendered Blessing

Real Estate a bona fide purchaser and justified its actions.

Pursuant to the Recording Statute,

All deeds ... wherein it shall be the intention of the parties 

executing the same to grant, bargain, sell, and convey any lands,

____________________________________________

11 We note that Blessing Real Estate states that the challenge to the 2013 

deed implicates the doctrine of laches because no action was taken on the 

deed until 2018 when Baker Jr. filed the action to quiet title. (See id. at 19). 

However, Blessing Real Estate fails to provide any argument or discussion 

regarding this claim, thus waiving it. The trial court found that laches did not 

apply because Brown had unclean hands himself due to his recording of the 

fraudulent August 13, 2013 deed, rendering any deeds following to be void. 

(See Trial Ct. Op., at 7). The trial court did not find, as Blessing Real Estate 

represents, that Blessing Real Estate had unclean hands, only that its deed 

was void because of the fraudulent Brown deed. We discern no abuse of 

discretion or error of law in this finding.
J-A16032-22

- 18 -

... shall be recorded in the office for the recording of deeds .... 

Every such deed ... which shall not be ... recorded, as aforesaid, 

shall be adjudged fraudulent and void as to any subsequent bona 

fide purchaser ... duly entered in the prothonotary’s office of the 

county in which the lands ... are situate[.]

21 P.S. § 351. “A bona fide purchaser is one who buys real or personal 

property without notice of claim of others’ outstanding rights in the property.” 

Lesnick v. Chartiers Natural Gas Co., 889 A.2d 1282, 1285 (Pa. Super. 

2005). Hence, the grantee of an unrecorded deed cannot claim protection 

from a bona fide purchaser who had no notice of the existence of the deed.

Here, the chain of title demonstrates that on May 19, 1980, the Property 

was deeded to Catherine Baker, Baker Sr. and Derrick Hart, and the deed was 

recorded. (See Tolo Exhibits 1, 11). Baker Jr. and Cheree Clark were 

appointed to administer the Catherine Baker and Derrick Hart estates upon 

the passing of the individuals. (See Tolo Exhibits 4, 6). At no time was the 

Property deeded to Brown prior to him fraudulently deeding it to himself in 

2013. (See Tolo Exhibit 11). Therefore, where there were no unrecorded 

undiscoverable deeds that failed to give Blessing Real Estate notice of the 

estates’ rights to the Property, Blessing Real Estate was not a bona fide

purchaser subject to the protections afforded by the Recording Statute.

Nor are we persuaded by its reliance on Lund v. Heinrich, 189 A.2d 

581 (Pa. 1963), and Roberts v. Estate of Purely, 718 A.2d 837 (Pa. 1998).

Lund held that “[i]f ... the cotenants sit idly by for over twenty-five 

years, and elect to make no claim of ownership in the property until after
J-A16032-22

- 19 -

the interests of a bona fide purchaser has intervened, that amounts to 

ratification and estops them from subsequently questioning the title of the 

innocent purchaser.” Lund, supra at 584 (citations and emphases omitted; 

emphases added). “An innocent purchaser for value, having neither actual 

nor constructive knowledge of claims of a third party, holds the title 

acquired free of any such secret equities. Where one of two innocent persons 

must suffer, he whose neglect makes the injury possible must bear the 

responsibility.” Id. (citations omitted; emphases added). Relying on Lund, 

the Roberts Court observed that, “[t]he recording statute was intended to 

protect bona fide purchasers who give value for land. In order to qualify as a 

bona fide purchaser, the subsequent purchaser must be without notice of a 

prior equitable interest.” Roberts, supra at 841.

Here, as stated previously, Blessing Real Estate is not an innocent bona 

fide purchaser. The ownership interest of the estates was not hidden, but 

instead was recorded and apparent from the chain of title. Because of its 

neglect in failing to protect its interest despite this knowledge, Blessing Real 

Estate must bear responsibility for its decision to purchase the Property.

For all of these reasons, Blessing Real Estate’s issues are without merit 

where the competent evidence of record supports the court’s findings, and no 
J-A16032-22

- 20 -

legal error or abuse of discretion was committed.12 See Regions Mortg., 

Inc., supra at 41.

Judgment affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/1/2022

____________________________________________

12 To the extent that any of our reasoning differs from that of the trial court, 

we note that “we may affirm the decision of the trial court on any valid basis 

appearing of record.” Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA v. Fin.

Software Sys., Inc., 99 A.3d 79, 82 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).