## Facts

- Gloria S. Petry bought a lot in the Tanglwood Lakes subdivision in Pike County, Pennsylvania, by deed dated November 3, 1970, for $18,000.
- The lot abutted a platted but unbuilt second lake, “Lake Briarwood,” shown on developer maps and plans displayed to prospective buyers.
- The developer provided HUD registration/property materials representing that a second lake and other recreational facilities would be completed within three to five years at no cost to lot owners other than association dues for maintenance.
- In 1973, Petry built a cottage oriented toward the projected lake and used it as a regular summer home and occasional vacation property.
- In 1974, the developer obtained a state permit for construction of Lake Briarwood and renewed it for several years.
- In 1975, the developer filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, during the proceeding, agreed with the homeowners’ association to escrow funds for eventual lake construction; bankruptcy concluded in 1979.
- Later, the developer and the homeowners’ association negotiated a settlement to eliminate the lake and substitute a recreational area; Petry was not a party to that litigation or settlement.
- Petry sued seeking (1) specific performance requiring construction of the lake (and damages for delay) and (2) an injunction to prevent implementation of the settlement eliminating the lake.
- The trial court concluded Petry had an adequate remedy at law, declined equitable jurisdiction, and transferred the matter to the law side; Petry appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Petry had a “full, adequate, and complete” remedy at law such that equity must refuse specific performance and injunctive relief regarding the promised construction of Lake Briarwood.
2. Whether a developer–homeowners’ association settlement eliminating the platted lake could defeat Petry’s asserted contractual rights when she was not a party to that settlement.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the order transferring the case to the law side.
- The Court held Petry did not have an adequate remedy at law and could proceed in equity.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on Petry’s equitable claims, including specific performance and injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Equity may grant specific performance when the legal remedy is not full, adequate, and complete; the mere existence of a damages theory does not automatically bar equitable relief.
- Promises tied to the use, character, and expected configuration of real property—such as construction of a platted lake materially affecting a lot—may involve interests for which damages can be speculative or incomplete.
- A settlement between a developer and a homeowners’ association cannot, by itself, extinguish an individual purchaser’s separate contractual expectations where the purchaser was not a party to the action or settlement.

## Conclusion

The court restored equitable jurisdiction because Petry’s claim concerned a promised land-related amenity affecting the character of her property, making money damages an incomplete substitute and allowing her to pursue specific performance and injunctive relief despite the developer–association settlement.


Petry v. Tanglwood Lakes, Inc., 522 A.2d 1053 (Pa. 1987)