Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Pennsylvania opinions name it 9 courts 1908–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
DiDonato v. Reliance Standard Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2020Co., 249 A.2d 327, 329 (Pa. 1969) (citing Payne v. Clark, 187 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1963)). 2020DiDonato v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, 249 A.2d 327, 329 (Pa. 1969). | 2 | 5 |
Byrne v. Kaniggreen2 sentences1985The principle was properly set forth in Byrne v. Kanig, 231 Pa. Super. 531 , 332 A.2d 472 (1974), wherein the court stated: “When an unconditional agreement for the sale of land is signed, vendor retains security interest for payment of the unpaid purchase price, and purchaser becomes equitable or beneficial owner through the doctrine of equitable conversion . . . and is entitled to any benefit accruing to property between date of execution of the agreement of sale and conveyance.” The correlation to the doctrine stated in Byrne is that the beneficial owner (plaintiffs herein) would, likewise, 1985The principle was properly set forth in Byrne v. Kanig, 231 Pa. Super. 531 , 332 A.2d 472 (1974), wherein the court stated: “When an unconditional agreement for the sale of land is signed, vendor retains security interest for payment of the unpaid purchase price, and purchaser becomes equitable or beneficial owner through the doctrine of equitable conversion . . . and is entitled to any benefit accruing to property between date of execution of the agreement of sale and conveyance.” The correlation to the doctrine stated in Byrne is that the beneficial owner (plaintiffs herein) would, likewise, | 2 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Investment Resource Holding, Inc.green2 sentences2022Holding, Inc., 168 A.3d 225 , 229 (Pa.Super. 2017) (“It is well-established law here that when the Agreement of Sale is signed, the purchaser becomes the equitable or beneficial owner through the doctrine of equitable conversion. 2022Holding, Inc., 168 A.3d 225, 229 (Pa.Super. 2017) (“It is well-established law here that when the Agreement of Sale is signed, the purchaser becomes the equitable or beneficial owner through the doctrine of equitable conversion. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Highbergergreen1 sentence2020See also In re Highberger’s Estate, 360 A.2d 580, 581 (Pa. 1976) (recognizing that “the execution of an agreement of sale of real property converts, through the doctrine of equitable conversion, the seller’s interest into personalty and the buyer’s interest into realty. | 1 | 1 |
Bauer v. Hillgreen2 sentences2017Citing Bauer v. Hill, 110 A. 346, 347 (Pa. 1920), TSG asserts that “Pennsylvania courts consider a sale of real property ‘complete’ at execution of the sale agreement, even though full payment, delivery of the deed, and possession is set for a future time.” TSG’s Brief at 24. 2017Bauer, 110 A. at 347 (citations and quotation marks omitted). [W]hen an unconditional agreement for the sale of land is signed, the purchaser becomes the equitable or beneficial owner through the doctrine of equitable conversion. | 1 | 1 |
Zitzelberger v. Salvatoregreen2 sentences2015Zitzelberger v. Salvatore, 458 A.2d 1021, 1023 , 312 Pa.Super. 402, 405 (1983); Byrne v. Craig, 332 A.2d 472, 474 , 231 Pa.Super. 531, 535 (1974) ;DiDonato v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. 2015Zitzelberger v. Salvatore, 458 A.2d 1021, 1023 , 312 Pa.Super. 402, 405 (1983); Byrne v. Craig, 332 A.2d 472, 474 , 231 Pa.Super. 531, 535 (1974) ;DiDonato v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Payne v. Clark
green
1 sentence2020Co., 249 A.2d 327, 329 (Pa. 1969) (citing Payne v. Clark, 187 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1963)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bell Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Laura Lanes, Inc.
green
1 sentence1983Relying on the guidance of the Byrne decision, the court in Watt v. Cope, et al., supra, employed the doctrine of equitable conversion to hold that an installment sales agreement is a sale for purposes of a real estate broker’s commission. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Kistner
green
2 sentences1976E. g., Department of Revenue v. Baxter, 486 P.2d 360 (Alaska 1971); Estate of Briebach, 132 Mont. 437 , 318 P.2d 223 (Mont.1957); In re Eilermann’s Estate, 179 Wash. 15 , 35 P.2d 763 (Wash.1934). 1976E.g., Department of Revenue v. Baxter, 486 P.2d 360 (Alaska 1971); Estate of Briebach, 132 Mont. 437 , 318 P.2d 223 (Mont. 1957); In re Eilermann's Estate, 179 Wash. 15 , 35 P.2d 763 (Wash. 1934). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Kerr v. Day
green
2 sentences1976E. g., the doctrine of equitable conversion may apply: to transmit the property if seller or purchaser had died intestate, Kerr v. Day, 14 Pa. 112 (1850); to determine who bears the risk of loss until delivery of the deed, DiDonato v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. 1976The actions of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, in view of our case law, persuades us that equitable conversion is not to be applied in this case. [15] E.g., the doctrine of equitable conversion may apply: to transmit the property if seller or purchaser had died intestate, Kerr v. Day, 14 Pa. 112 (1850); to determine who bears the risk of loss until delivery of the deed, DiDonato v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Department of Revenue v. Baxter
green
2 sentences1976E. g., Department of Revenue v. Baxter, 486 P.2d 360 (Alaska 1971); Estate of Briebach, 132 Mont. 437 , 318 P.2d 223 (Mont.1957); In re Eilermann’s Estate, 179 Wash. 15 , 35 P.2d 763 (Wash.1934). 1976E.g., Department of Revenue v. Baxter, 486 P.2d 360 (Alaska 1971); Estate of Briebach, 132 Mont. 437 , 318 P.2d 223 (Mont. 1957); In re Eilermann's Estate, 179 Wash. 15 , 35 P.2d 763 (Wash. 1934). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
In Re Eilermann's Estate
green
2 sentences1976E.g., Department of Revenue v. Baxter, 486 P.2d 360 (Alaska 1971); Estate of Briebach, 132 Mont. 437 , 318 P.2d 223 (Mont. 1957); In re Eilermann's Estate, 179 Wash. 15 , 35 P.2d 763 (Wash. 1934). 1976E.g., Department of Revenue v. Baxter, 486 P.2d 360 (Alaska 1971); Estate of Briebach, 132 Mont. 437 , 318 P.2d 223 (Mont. 1957); In re Eilermann's Estate, 179 Wash. 15 , 35 P.2d 763 (Wash. 1934). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
In Re Briebach's Estate
neutral
2 sentences1976E. g., Department of Revenue v. Baxter, 486 P.2d 360 (Alaska 1971); Estate of Briebach, 132 Mont. 437 , 318 P.2d 223 (Mont.1957); In re Eilermann’s Estate, 179 Wash. 15 , 35 P.2d 763 (Wash.1934). 1976E.g., Department of Revenue v. Baxter, 486 P.2d 360 (Alaska 1971); Estate of Briebach, 132 Mont. 437 , 318 P.2d 223 (Mont. 1957); In re Eilermann's Estate, 179 Wash. 15 , 35 P.2d 763 (Wash. 1934). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Commonwealth v. Presbyterian Hospital
neutral
2 sentences1976In Commonwealth v. Presbyterian Hospital, 287 Pa. 49 , 134 A. 427 (1926), decedent, a non-resident, directed in his will that his real property in Pennsylvania be sold. 1976In Commonwealth v. Presbyterian Hospital, 287 Pa. 49 , 134 A. 427 (1926), decedent, a non-resident, directed in his will that his real property in Pennsylvania be sold. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Dubin Paper Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America
green
1 sentence1973In doing so he relies upon Dubin Paper Company v. Insurance Co. of North America, 361 Pa. 68 , which is a leading authority for the doctrine of equitable conversion. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Yerkes v. Yerkes
neutral
1 sentence1945A direction to sell upon a future con tingency does not effect an equitable conversion until an actual sale. . . .” The following pertinent language appears in Yerkes v. Yerkes, 200 Pa. 419 , 423: “The doctrine of equitable conversion ... is a fiction therefore invented to sustain and carry out the intention of the testator or settlor, never to defeat it. | 1 | 1945–1945 |
McCullough's Estate
green
1 sentence1930To demonstrate that it is not the contract operating as a deed which actually conveys, but is the equity power of the court, see Orr’s Estate, 283 Pa. 475 ; Welsh v. Ford, 282 Pa. 96 ; McCullough’s Estate, 292 Pa. 177 . | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Welsh Et Ux. v. Ford Et Ux.
green
1 sentence1930To demonstrate that it is not the contract operating as a deed which actually conveys, but is the equity power of the court, see Orr’s Estate, 283 Pa. 475 ; Welsh v. Ford, 282 Pa. 96 ; McCullough’s Estate, 292 Pa. 177 . | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Morrow ex rel. Isett v. Brenizer
green
1 sentence1908The purpose of a sale, and therefore of a conversion, was that the estate might be divided; if there was no necessity for a division the purpose fell and the estate remained unconverted.” In Morrow v. Brenizer, 2 Rawle, 185 , Mr. Justice Huston, speaking of the admitted limitations or qualifications of the doctrine of equitable conversion, said (p. 193): “ The rule does not apply where the object for which the sale was to be made ceases. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Craig v. Leslie
green
1 sentence1908In an elaborate opinion in Craig v. Leslie, 3 Wheaton, 563 , Mr. Justice Washington says (p. 582): “The whole of this doctrine proceeds upon a principle which is incontrovertible, that where the testator merely directs the real estate to'be converted into money, for the purposes directed in his will, so much of the estate, or the money arising from it, as is not effectually disposed of by the will (whether it arise from some omission or defect in the will itself, or from any subsequent accident, which prevents the devise from taking effect), results to the heir at law, as the old use not dispo | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.