Steuart v. McChesney
444 A.2d 659 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the language of a written contract is clear and unambiguous, its meaning must be determined solely from the express terms of the agreement, and courts will not consider extrinsic evidence or equitable principles to rewrite the contract or alter the parties' bargain.
Facts:
- On June 8, 1968, Lepha I. Steuart and her husband granted William C. and Joyce C. McChesney a right of first refusal on a parcel of farmland.
- The agreement stipulated that if the Steuarts received a bona fide offer, the McChesneys could purchase the property at a price 'equivalent to the market value of the premises according to the assessment rolls as maintained by the County of Warren'.
- Warren County's practice was to assess real estate for tax purposes at 50% of its market value.
- On July 6, 1977, a real estate broker appraised the property's market value at $50,000.
- In October 1977, Steuart received bona fide offers of $35,000 and $30,000 for the property.
- Upon receiving notice, the McChesneys sought to exercise their right, tendering $7,820, which was twice the property's assessed value of $3,910 on the tax rolls.
- Steuart refused the McChesneys' tender of $7,820.
Procedural Posture:
- Lepha Steuart filed an action in equity in the Court of Common Pleas, seeking to cancel the agreement or have the price set at $35,000.
- The McChesneys countersued, requesting specific performance of the contract at the price of $7,820.
- The Court of Common Pleas (the trial court) found in favor of Steuart, construing the agreement to require a purchase price of $35,000.
- The McChesneys, as appellants, appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Superior Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the plain language of the agreement set the price at the tax-assessed value of $7,820.
- Lepha Steuart, as appellant, then appealed the Superior Court's order to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a right of first refusal agreement, does the plain and unambiguous language setting the purchase price at the property's tax-assessed market value control, even when that value is significantly lower than a bona fide third-party offer?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaherty, J.
No, the plain and unambiguous language setting the price at the tax-assessed value controls. When a contract is clear and unequivocal, its meaning is determined by its contents alone. The court's role is to interpret the contract the parties made, not to rewrite it based on what might seem more equitable or wise after the fact. The agreement clearly separates the triggering event—a bona fide offer—from the price mechanism, which is explicitly tied to the county tax assessment rolls. Since there was no evidence of fraud or unfairness in the contract's formation, inadequacy of consideration is not a sufficient ground to deny specific performance.
Dissenting - Roberts, J.
Yes, the plain language should not control here because it produces a grossly unfair result based on outdated and inaccurate information. The contract tied the price to the 'market value' as determined by tax rolls, and the parties intended this value to be current. The assessment on record was from 1972 and did not reflect the property's actual 1977 value, which bona fide offers proved was at least four times greater. Granting specific performance at the outdated value provides an unearned windfall to the appellees due to the county's failure to perform its statutory duty to maintain accurate assessments. The court should have remanded to determine the proper assessed value for 1977 and set the price accordingly.
Analysis:
This case serves as a strong reaffirmation of the 'plain meaning rule' in contract interpretation, prioritizing textualism over equitable considerations. It establishes that courts will enforce clear and unambiguous contract terms as written, even if doing so leads to a result that appears harsh or creates a windfall for one party. This decision reinforces the predictability of written agreements by limiting the ability of a dissatisfied party to introduce extrinsic evidence or argue for a fairness-based revision of the bargain. Consequently, it places the burden squarely on the contracting parties to draft agreements that precisely reflect their intent and account for future contingencies.
Unlock the full brief for Steuart v. McChesney