Background
Zoryana Kaspryak and Mykhaylo Stadarskyy formerly owned a Philadelphia property together. When they divorced, they signed a notarized property settlement agreement dividing three vehicles and the real estate. The agreement gave Stadarskyy the “sole and exclusive right, title and interest” in the property, free of any claim by Kaspryak, and stated that its terms bound both parties.
Nearly two years after the divorce, Kaspryak filed a partition action. She alleged that her name remained on the deed and that Stadarskyy had not refinanced, bought out her interest, or sold the property. Stadarskyy raised the agreement through preliminary objections and argued that Kaspryak had already relinquished her ownership rights. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas dismissed the action with prejudice for lack of standing.
On appeal, Kaspryak argued that the agreement could not transfer her interest because it was not incorporated into the divorce decree and the parties never executed or recorded a new deed. She also raised factual and amendment arguments that had not been presented to the trial court. Her briefs relied on misstated statutes and cases as well as authorities the Superior Court could not verify.
The Court’s Holding
The Superior Court affirmed in a precedential opinion by Judge Nichols. It first held that Kaspryak waived her factual-dispute and amendment theories by failing to raise them below. Her challenge to the agreement’s validity was likewise not preserved because her trial-court position was limited to the agreement’s supposed inability to affect title.
The panel explained that the arguments would also fail on the merits. Pennsylvania’s Statute of Frauds requires a signed writing to transfer an interest in land; it does not invariably require a deed. The notarized property settlement agreement was a signed writing that unambiguously awarded the property to Stadarskyy. Nor did Pennsylvania’s recording statute make recording mandatory between the parties. Recording protects interests and establishes priority, but an unrecorded conveyance is not automatically ineffective.
The court independently found appellate waiver because Kaspryak failed to support her claims with pertinent authority. Two cited cases had captions or reporter citations that did not match any claimed Pennsylvania decision; one caption appeared entirely fabricated. The panel described them as hallucinated citations and warned that unverified generative-AI output can produce misrepresentations that undermine the reliability of legal authorities. The warning applied even though Kaspryak was self-represented.
Key Takeaways
- A signed Pennsylvania property settlement agreement may convey a spouse’s land interest without being merged into the divorce decree.
- Failure to record a conveyance does not necessarily invalidate it between the parties.
- Arguments not presented before the notice of appeal are ordinarily waived under Pennsylvania appellate rules.
- Fabricated or mismatched citations can support waiver when a brief lacks accurate, pertinent authority.
Why It Matters
For family and real-estate counsel, Kaspryak confirms that operative language in a property settlement agreement can do more than create a promise to convey later. Drafting should make the intended transfer explicit, address execution and recording steps, allocate mortgages and other liabilities, and specify remedies if a party refuses to cooperate. Recording remains prudent even though the absence of recording did not save this partition claim.
The opinion is also a direct appellate warning about legal research assisted by generative artificial intelligence. Lawyers and self-represented litigants remain responsible for verifying every caption, reporter citation, quotation, and proposition before filing. Pennsylvania appellate courts may treat invented authority not simply as an embarrassing mistake, but as a failure to develop a reviewable argument. Supervising attorneys should build source verification into any AI-assisted drafting workflow.
Verification should reach beyond checking whether a case name appears in a search result. The cited decision must exist at the stated reporter location, support the proposition offered, remain good law, and belong to the relevant jurisdiction. Kaspryak also shows that correct procedural preservation cannot be repaired on appeal through newly generated theories. Counsel should preserve issues in the trial court, then trace every appellate proposition to an authoritative source before signature and filing.