Petry v. Tanglwood Lakes, Inc.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
522 A.2d 1053 (1987)

- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
Gloria Petry (plaintiff) bought a plot of land from Tanglwood Lakes, Inc. (Tanglwood) (defendant), a developer. Petry built a cottage on the land. At the time Petry bought the land, Tanglwood intended to build a lake that would transform Petry’s land into lakefront property. Before Petry bought the land, Tanglwood showed Petry a development map that included the intended lake. Tanglwood also showed Petry lake-construction documents stating that the lake would be finished within five years and would not cost landowners anything other than the maintenance fees the homeowner’s association (HOA) would collect. Four years later, Tanglwood received a government permit to build the lake. Tanglwood renewed the permit annually for a number of years before getting into a dispute with the HOA. Petry was not involved in the Tanglwood-HOA dispute. Tanglwood and the HOA entered a settlement in which Tanglwood promised to build a recreational area in place of the lake. Petry sued Tanglwood in both law and equity. Petry asked the court to award her specific performance by requiring Tanglwood to build the lake, plus monetary damages for the delay. Petry also asked the court to enjoin the Tanglwood-HOA settlement agreement. Tanglwood argued, and the trial court agreed, that Petry had an adequate legal remedy. Thus, the trial court transferred Petry’s case to the law side of the court, getting rid of Petry’s specific performance request. Petry appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Papadakos, J.)
Dissent (Larsen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.