2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-5-2009 

# Thom a s S tuble r v

. N orm an Ro s s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2129

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Thom as S tub le r v

. N orm an Ros s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1401. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/14011 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 2129 THOM AS G. S TUBL ER; BETH B. STUBLER

v . N O RM A N C. RO SS; A M Y BE LL R O SS N orm an C . R oss, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 4- 06- cv- 01305 ) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . M a lco lm M u ir

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 21, 2009 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, SL O V I T E R , and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: M ay5, 2009)

OP I NI ONTh e Di s t r i c t Co u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. 1 § 1332. W e have j ur i s di ct i on over t he D i s t r i ct C ourt ’ s fi nal or der p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 2 SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. A p p e llan t N o rm a n C . R o ss a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r m a n d a tin g sp e c if ic p erf o rm an ce o f a co n tr ac t fo r th e sa le of land to ap p ell ee s T h o m as a n d B eth S tub ler. 1 I. B ec au se w e w ri te prim aril yfo r th e p arti es, ou r recit ati o n o f th e f ac ts i s b ri ef. In 1993, t he Fi r s tN at i onal B ank of D anvi l l e, as t rus t ee of K athr yn B l eche r , exec ut ed a de ed t hat conv ey ed to R oss and h i s tw o b rothers, C l ark R oss ( “C l ark”) and D on al d R oss (“D on al d”), as t enan t s i n co m m on , propert yi n L i berty , M aho ning, and V al l eyT ow nships, M o n tou r C o u n ty , P en n sy lvan ia. T h is de ed w as re co rde d in the M o n tou r C o u n tyR ec o rd B ook 167 atpage 571. A tt he t i m e of the conve y ance , t he exa ctboundar i es of the pr oper t yw er e uncl ear . T heyr emai n s o. I n 1997, al l t hr ee Ross br ot her s s ol d t o t he Stubl er s about414 acr es of the l and convey ed undert he 1993 dee d i n M ahoni ng and V al l eyT ow ns hi ps . I n O ct ober2005, R os s and C l ark ent er ed i nt o negot i at i ons t o s el l t hei rpr oper t yi n L i ber t yT ow ns hi p t o t he S tu b ler s. D o n a ld d id n o t jo in th a t tran sa c tio n . P u rsu a n t to a w ritten a g re e m e n t o f sa le
exec ut ed on D ece m ber30, 2005, t he Stubl er s pur chas ed the “s el l er s ’ i nt er es ti n [t ax a ss e ss m e n t] P a rc e l # 4 -2 1 -4 4 [ a c tu a lly4 -2 0 -4 4 ], 4 -2 1 -4 9 a n d 4 -2 1 -5 1 ” in L ib e rty T ow ns hi p, M ont ourC ount y , Penns y l vani a, Z i p code 17821, for$400, 000 ( $200, 000 perW e not e thatR os s “el ect ed nott o m ake a n i s s ue of the 2 fac tt hatone ( 1) of t he t hr ee ( 3) par cel s w as m i s i dent i fi ed as 4- 21- 4 4 in s te a d o f

4 -2 0 -4 4 .” A p p . a t 2 1 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T he co m plai nt al so nam ed R oss’ no w ex-w i fe, A m yR oss, 3 a s a d e f e n d a n t, bu t th e S tu b ler s h a v e v o lu n tar ilyd ism iss e d th e ir cl ai m s agai ns tA m yR os s w i t h pr ej udi ce. 3 br ot her ) . A pp. at73. T he pr oper t yw as fur t heri dent i fi ed as “[p] ar tof par cel # 4- 21- 44

2 [s i c] , 4- 21- 49 and 4- 21- 51 as des cr i bed i n deed book 167 pa ge 571. ” A pp. at73. T he par t i es ’ dual r eal es t at e age nts t at ed atherdepos i t i on t hats he us ed the phr as e “pa r tof par cel ” bec aus e R os s and C l ark l acke d ful l ow ner s hi p of the l and s ol d. T h e M o n to u r C o u n tytax a ss e ss o r’s o f f ice e stim a ted th a t th e th re e tax p a rc e ls
su b jec t to th e a g re e m e n t co n tain e d a p p ro x im a tely6 0 1 a c re s. H o w e v e r, p re su m a b ly beca us e of pe r s i s t entuncert ai nt yr egar di ng t he ac cur acyof thatfi gur e, t he Stubl er s had t he r i ghtundert he agr eementt o s ur veyt he pr oper t yand t o t erm i nat e the agr eementi f the actual boundar i es w er e notacc ept abl e. O t herw i s e, s et t l ementw as s chedul ed forM ay30, 2006. H o w e v e r, af

ter th e S tu b ler s s u rv e y e d th e p a rc e ls a n d in d ica ted th e ir re a d in e ss to cl os e on the agr eement , R os s r efus ed t o compl et e the conve y ance . C l ark, on t he other h an d , d id so , an d the S tub lers no w p o sses s h is i n terest i n the p rop erty . T h e S tub lers are
w ill in g a n d a b le to c lo se o n R o ss ’ in ter e st. T he Stubl er s t hen br oughtan ac t i on agai ns tR os s i n Penns y l vani a s t at e courtfor 3
s peci fi c per form ance and damages . R os s r emoved t he ca s e t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t . A ft er4

th e p a rties m a d e c ro ss -m o tio n s f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, th e D istric t C o u rt o rd e re d sp e c if ic per form ance . T he C our tr ej ect ed R os s ’ ar gum entt hatt he agr eementw as i nval i d under Penns y l vani a’ s St atut e of Fr auds , 33 Pa. C ons . St at . § 1 et s eq. T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so rejected R o ss’ arg u m en t th at sp ec ifi c p erf o rm an ce w as in ap p rop ri ate b ec au se th e S tub lers fai l ed t o pr epar e an a ppr opr i at e dee d as r equi r ed byt he agr eementbeca us e R os s ’ br eac h
e x c u s e d th e S tu b le rs ’ n o n p e rf o rm a n c e . R os s s ubs equent l ym oved forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed. T he Stubl er s t hen di s m i s s ed thei rcl ai m s form onet arydamages agai ns tR os s . T her efor e, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt e n te re d a f in a l o rd e r m a n d a tin g s p e c if ic p e rf o rm a n c e o f

th e a g re e m e n t. R oss t i m el yapp eal s. II. R oss ar gu es that the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in orderi ng speci fi c perform ance b ecause t he agr eementfai l ed t o des cr i be s uffi ci ent l yt he pr oper t yt o be s ol d and ther efor e w as unenfor cea bl e underPenns y l vani a’ s St atut e of Fr auds . W e di s agr ee. Fi r s t , R os s cont ends t hatt he agr eement“i s compl et el ydevoi d of anydes cr i pt i on of t he s ubj ectm at t er[of the agr eement ] . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at23. H ow ever , t he agr eement i dent i fi es t he pr oper t yt o be s ol d as t he “s el l er s ’ i nt er es ti n Par cel # 4- 21- 44 [s i c] , 4- 21- 49
a n d 4 -2 1 -5 1 ” in L ib e rt yT o w n s h ip , M o n to u r C o u n ty, P e n n s y lv a n ia , Z ip c o d e 1 7 8 2 1 . A pp. at73. A l t hough t hi s des cr i pt i on does notcont ai n t he exa ctm et es and bounds of the pr oper t yt o be conve y ed, “a de s cr i pt i on i s adequa t e i f i tw oul d enabl e a c om pet ent5

s ur vey ort o fi nd and i dent i fyt he l and w i t h t he ai d onl yof the des cr i pt i on i t s el f and of pr operextr i ns i c fa ct s r efe r r ed t o i n t he agr eement . ” W i l l s v. Y oung , 255 F. 2d 65, 67 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 5 8 ); see al

so Suchan v. Sw ope , 5 3 A .2 d 1 1 6 , 1 1 8 (P a . 1 9 4 7 ) (“ [ P ]a ro l ev id e n c e to des cr i be the l and i nt ended t o be s ol d i s one thi ng, and par ol evi dence t o appl ya w r i t t en d e s c ri p tio n to la n d is a n o th e r a n d v e ry d if f e re n t th in g , a n d f

o r t h a t p u rp o s e is a d m is s ib le .” ( quot at i on om i t t ed) ) . T hus , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatus e of “ t he t ax par cel
n u m b e rs p ro v id e s a n a d e q u a te r e f e re n c e p o in t” to id e n tifyth e p ro p e rty . A p p . at 2 4 ; c f. Suchan , 53 A . 2d at118 ( col l ect i ng cas es , i ncl udi ng s ever al i n w hi ch r efe r ence t o s t r eet ad d resse s w ere d ee m ed su ff ici en t t o iden ti fyp rop ertyco n v ey ed ). R oss ar gu es that this con cl usi on i s und erm i ned byt he fa ctt hat the ag reem ent al so i dent i fi es t he pr oper t yt o be s ol d as “[p] ar tof par cel # 4- 21- 44 [s i c] , 4- 21- 49 and 4- 21- 51
as des cr i bed i n deed book 167 pa ge 571, ” A pp. at73, beca us e the r efe r ence d deed i ncl udes di ffe r ent , ol dert ax par cel num ber s and al s o i ncl udes ot herpr oper t ynots ubj ect t o t he agr eementati s s ue. T hati s , t hi s cour t“mustdet erm i ne w hatL i ber t yT ow ns hi p r eal
es t at e i n [the dee d] i s des cr i bed byt he thr ee t ax par cel s . . . w i t hout‘ s uppl y i ng’ fort he par t i es t he des cr i pt i on t heyt hemsel ves om i t t ed fr om t he agr eement . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at 2 7 . T h a t is e a silyd o n e : th e lan d to b e c o n v e y e d is th a t co n tain e d in th e tax p a rc e ls refer enced i n the agreem ent, no t hing m ore and no t hing l ess. Fi nal l y , R os s cont ends t hatt he phr as e “pa r tof par cel ” w i t hi n t he agr eement i ndi cat ed that , i f the Stubl er s ’ s ur veyof the pr oper tydemonstr at ed thatt he t ax as s es s or6

u n d e re stim a ted th e a c re a g e in th e tax p a rc e ls, th e n R o ss w o u ld b e re q u ire d to c o n v e yo n ly 600 acr es ( i . e. , an amountequal t o t he as s es s or ’ s es t i m at e) . M or eover , R os s cont ends t hat t hi s i nt erpr et at i on of the phr as e “pa r tof par cel ” w oul d r endert he agr eement unenfor cea bl e undert he St atut e of Fr auds beca us e nothi ng i n t he agr eementi dent i fi ed
w hats peci fi c por t i on of the par cel s w oul d be conve y ed. H o w e v e r, w e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit beca us e nothi ng i n t he agr eementi ndi cat es t hatt he part i es cont empl at ed a c onvey ance of l es s t han R os s ’ ent i r e ow ner s hi p i nt er es ti n t he par cel s . M or eover , t o t he ext entt hatpar ol evi dence i s admi s s i bl e t o r es ol ve anyambi gui t yi n t he meani ng of the phr as e “pa r tof parcel , ” t hat evi den ce con t radi ct s R oss’ i nterpret at i on . M ostsi gn i fi cantl y , t he p art i es’ dual r eal es t at e age ntt es t i fi ed atherdepos i t i on t hats he i ncl uded the phr as e “pa r tof p arc el” in the ag ree m en t t o m ak e c lear tha t R o ss an d C lark d id n o t po sses s the en ti re ow ner s hi p i nt er es ti n t he par cel s . I ndeed, t hi s i nt erpr et at i on i s cons i s t entw i t h t he
a g re e m e n t’s e a rlier d e f

in iti o n o f th e p ro p e rtyto b e c o n v e y e d a s th e “ se llers ’ in ter e st” in t he par cel s , r athert han outr i ghtow ner s hi p. I n s um , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatt he agr eements uffi ci ent l yi dent i fi ed th e p ro p e rt yto b e s o ld a n d th e re f o re c o m p lie d w ith P e n n s y lv a n ia ’s S ta tu te o f F ra u d s . III . F o r th e a b o v e -sta ted re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.