Court Opinion

ID: 9704956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:53:03.373478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:06.853989
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The complaint in equity filed by appellant, Gloria S. Petry, seeks specific performance of appellee’s promise and agreement to construct Briarwood Lake as that lake is depicted and laid out in maps and plans of the Tanglwood Lakes Development. The averments set forth in appellant’s complaint fairly and sufficiently state a cause *61of action in equity for specific performance. The trial court’s order transferring this case to the law side of the court was erroneous.
Specific performance is an equitable remedy to compel performance of an agreement in unique situations. Pugh v. Holmes, 486 Pa. 272, 295, 405 A.2d 897, 908 (1979). The facts alleged in appellant’s complaint set forth a situation that indeed is unique. I disagree with the majority that appellant’s damages can be readily computed or ascertained. This case is not about the value of a piece of property as it currently exists and the value of that same property if Briarwood Lake had been constructed. The questions raised here are much broader. They deal with life style values not cash values. The majority’s acceptance of the theory that the failure to build the lake merely involves a diminution in the value of appellant’s property fails to give due consideration to the very unique quality of the property as a lake front lot. Indeed, this unique feature is what attracts prospective owners and sells the lots.
Appellant’s averments adequately show that she agreed to purchase and the appellee agreed to deliver a parcel of land having as a unique attribute a recreational lake at its doorstep. The appellant’s purchase of this property was more than a real estate investment. It was an investment in a way of life and Briarwood Lake was essential to that way of life. Damages in this case do not merely involve the difference in the value of appellant’s property abutting the lake as opposed to its value without the lake. Calculation of appellant’s damages for her loss of a unique way of life — which is her real loss in this case — would be speculative and highly problematical. In other words, it would be extremely difficult to determine money damages that would compensate the appellant for loss of the lake, along with loss of the boating, swimming, fishing and the general life style that goes with it.
Equity has jurisdiction over the cause of action set forth by the appellant. We should not approve the chancellor’s *62order putting appellant out of court on her equitable complaint before hearing testimony and receiving evidence.
I would reverse the order of the Superior Court, dismiss appellee’s preliminary objections and remand this case to the lower court for an order directing the appellee to answer appellant’s complaint in equity.