# Mele Construction Co. v. Crown American Corp.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · November 19, 1992 · 421 Pa. Super. 569

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746970

## Case

- **Full name:** MELE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. CROWN AMERICAN CORPORATION
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 19, 1992
- **Citations:** 421 Pa. Super. 569; 618 A.2d 956; 1992 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4011
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Elliott
- **Judges:** Montemuro, Elliott, Cercone
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746970

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that scienter was not pleaded

## Opinion text

FORD ELLIOTT, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent to that part of the majority’s opinion which holds that the waiver of liens agreement was clear as to precisely how much and what land was contemplated by the agreement.
The majority notes on pages 960 and 961 of its opinion that the basis of appellant’s argument, the so-called “Exhibit B,” which allegedly limited the waiver of liens to some plot of land somewhat smaller than the entire Viewmont Mall project, was never introduced into the official record. The majority correctly recites the rule that we may not consider evidence not made a part of the record. However, we find other evidence which is of record that at least presents the issue that the waiver of liens agreement is ambiguous in scope. Specifically, the “Defendant’s Brief in Reply to Claimant’s Brief in Opposition to Preliminary Objections” admits that “the entire tract of land for the Viewmont Mall inadvertently was not included in the legal descriptions for the stipulations against liens.” Additionally, the Stipulation of Counsel signed by both sides clearly implies that there was some amount of land to which appellant was entitled to a lien and to which appellant had not granted a waiver.
While the evidence which is of record is insufficient for us to broadly rule in appellant’s favor, it should at least permit *582 appellant to survive preliminary objections. I would remand for a hearing to determine exactly what land was described and contemplated by the parties in the execution of the waiver of liens.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746970. Public record. Not legal advice.