The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld a ruling in favor of TP Investment Properties, LLC (TP) in a property ownership dispute against Naama, LLC (Naama). The court's decision, filed on October 21, 2026, confirmed that TP is the rightful owner of a residential property located at 2823 N. 28th Street in Philadelphia. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the rights of bona fide purchasers in real estate transactions, particularly regarding the recording of property interests.
The case, identified by docket number 3084 EDA 2025, arose from a quiet title action initiated by TP against Naama and co-defendant Hawah Musa. The dispute centered around the ownership of the property after conflicting claims were made regarding its title. The court's ruling has implications for property buyers and sellers, particularly in how they handle the recording of deeds and mortgages.
TP is a Philadelphia-based real estate investment company, with Tyler Phillips serving as its principal. Naama, a Wyoming limited liability company, operates as a residential property holding company, managed by Kotb “Sam” Elbialy. The conflict began when TP purchased the property from Musa, who had previously entered into a lease with an option to buy agreement with Homemart, LLC. After Musa executed a general warranty deed to TP, Naama claimed that it had prior interests in the property through a mortgage and a deed in lieu of foreclosure that were recorded on the same day as TP's deed.
The dispute escalated when TP filed its complaint on March 6, 2023, alleging that it was an innocent bona fide purchaser without notice of Naama's interests in the property. TP argued that it had no knowledge of the Naama mortgage or deed until they were recorded on January 23, 2023, the same day it recorded its deed. TP sought a declaration that Naama's claims were void under the Pennsylvania Recording Act.
Naama responded by filing a counterclaim against TP, asserting that it had recorded its mortgage and deed before TP's deed and that TP had actual notice of Naama’s interests in the property. Naama also claimed that TP did not pay fair market value for the property, which it asserted was worth significantly more than the $75,000 purchase price.
After a non-jury trial held on January 27, 2025, the court ruled in favor of TP, finding that it was a bona fide purchaser without notice of Naama's interests. The court noted that Naama had waited ten months to record its interests in the property, which contributed to its loss of priority. The court stated, "TP was an innocent bona fide purchaser without notice" and affirmed that Naama's mortgage and deed were void due to the failure to record them in a timely manner.
The ruling was authored by Judge Susan L. Schulman, who emphasized the importance of the recording statutes in protecting the rights of bona fide purchasers. The court found that Naama's delay in recording its interests exposed it to the risk of losing its claims to the property. The court's findings were supported by credible evidence presented during the trial.
This ruling has significant implications for future real estate transactions, as it reinforces the principle that buyers who act in good faith and without notice of prior claims can secure their interests in property. It also serves as a reminder for property owners and lenders to promptly record their interests to protect their rights.
Looking ahead, Naama has the option to appeal the decision, but it will need to demonstrate that the court made an error in its findings or application of the law. The outcome of this case may influence similar disputes regarding property ownership and the rights of bona fide purchasers in Pennsylvania.