Vandelay Holdings, LLC v. Jackson, D. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-A06040-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 VANDELAY HOLDINGS, LLC. APPELLANT v. DWIGHT JACKSON, APPELLEE v. JAMES MELASECCA, STEVEN K. LLOYD AND PAMELA CARPENTER : : : : : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 2002 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment Entered September 12, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s). 02656 Aug. Term 2009 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J. AND LAZARUS, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E. FILED APRIL 15, 2014 Vandelay Holdings, LLC (Vandelay) commenced this action to eject Dwight Jackson from the premises at 2028 N. 15th Street, Philadelphia (the Property).1 Jackson filed a counter-claim to quiet title and alleged conspiracy to commit fraud and/or theft by deception and unfair or deceptive practices. Jackson also filed cross-claims alleging conspiracy to commit fraud and/or theft by deception against additional defendants Pamela Carpenter, Steven K. Lloyd, and James Melasecca. Following a non-jury trial and post-trial motions, judgment 1 defendants. The only other occupant was J J.A06040-14 was entered in favor of Jackson on his counter-claim to quiet title.2 All other claims, counter-claims, and cross-claims were denied, with the exception that a nonsuit judgment was entered against Carpenter for failure to appear for trial. We affirm. Vandelay raises the following issues on appeal: 1. Did the trial court commit an error of law in finding that Vandelay [] was not a bona fide purchaser for value of [the Property], entitled to the protections of Pennsylvania Recording Act, 21 Pa.C.S.A. § 351? 2. Did the trial court commit an error of law in finding that possession of a property is constructive notice that defeats when there is no evidence that the purchaser had actual notice of the possession? 3. Did the trial court commit an error of law in finding that Vandelay [] had an affirmative duty to inspect the property to assure that it was unoccupied in addition to reviewing the chain of title to the Property? 4. Did the trial court commit an error of law in finding in favor of [] Jackson and against Vandelay [] on [its] claim 5. Did the trial court commit an error of law in failing to apply the clear and convincing standard to the issue of whether Vandelay [] had constructive notice of [] Miller-Thompson. The original caption was modified when counsel filed a suggestion of death for Ms. Miller-Thompson on February 11, 2012. 2 Vandelay filed its notice of appeal prematurely, prior to the entry of judgment. Vandelay complied with the direction of this Court to praecipe the trial court prothonotary to enter judgment. Thus, we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. See Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. Tedco Constr. Corp., 657 A.2d 511 (Pa. Super. 1995); Pa.R.A.P. 905(a). ~2~ J.A06040-14 -5. Zaleppa v. Seiwell, 9 A.3d 632, 635 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting Paliometros v. Loyola, 932 A.2d 128, 132 (Pa. Super. 2007)). Our standard of review is de novo; our scope of review is plenary. Id. (quoting Straub v. Cherne Indus., 880 A.2d 561, 566 (Pa. 2005)). We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable Annette M. Rizzo of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, filed August 2, 2013. We conclude that Judge issues presented in this appeal.3 Accordingly, we adopt the opinion as our own for purposes of further appellate review. Judgment affirmed. 3 reliance on Carnegie Natural Gas Co. v. Braddock, 597 A.2d 285 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (Carnegie) (declining to impute constructive notice of a second gas pipeline to landowner where evidence only supported notice of a single pipeline), as Vandelay failed to submit a brief in support of its postCarnegie is misplaced. Vandelay suggests that constructive notice of possession cannot defeat a bona fide p court made no such ruling. To the contrary, the Carnegie court merely found no evidence of constructive notice. See Carnegie, 597 A.2d at 288. ~3~ J.A06040-14 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 4/15/2014 ~4~

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.