J-A18018-18

2018 PA Super 243

____________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

** Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

GEORGE D. MEDLOCK, JR. AND 

ALICIA MEDLOCK

v.

CHILMARK HOME INSPECTIONS, 

LLC, MICHAEL MCKINNEY, AND 

MATTHEW BROWN,

v.

GLENN S. GITOMER, JANE E. 

GITOMER, AND LONG & FOSTER

REAL ESTATE, INC.,

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 3596 EDA 2017

Appeal from the Judgment Entered November 17, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at

No(s): 03145 July Term, 2015

BEFORE: STABILE, J., STEVENS*, P.J.E., and STRASSBURGER**, J.

OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 31, 2018

Appellants, Chilmark Home Inspections, LLC, Michael McKinney, and 

Matthew Brown, appeal from the judgment entered in the Court of Common 

Pleas of Philadelphia County following a non-jury trial and verdict in favor of 

Glenn S. Gitomer and Jane E. Gitomer, husband and wife (“the Gitomers”).1

____________________________________________

1 We note Appellants filed an appeal from the order denying post–trial 

motions. An appeal does not properly lie from an order denying post-trial 

motions. See Johnston the Florist, Inc., v. TEDCO Const. Corp., 657 A.2d 

511, 514 (Pa.Super. 1995) (en banc). This Court directed Appellants to 
J-A18018-18

- 2 -

After a careful review, we affirm. 

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: George D. 

Medlock, Jr., and Alicia Medlock, husband and wife (“the Medlocks”), entered 

into an agreement of sale with the Gitomers to buy the Gitomers’ home. The 

agreement of sale included a home inspection contingency clause, and the 

Medlocks retained Chilmark Home Inspections, LLC (“Chilmark”) to conduct a 

home inspection. On August 8, 2014, Michael McKinney, an employee of 

Chilmark, conducted the home inspection, and on October 2, 2014, settlement 

occurred on the property. Thereafter, the Medlocks moved into the home. 

Subsequently, the Medlocks filed a complaint2 against Chilmark, Mr. 

McKinney, and Matthew Brown, who was the owner of Chilmark (collectively 

“the Chilmark parties”), averring that “[i]n reliance on the representations and 

statements contained in the [home inspection] report, [the Medlocks] did not 

require the home seller to make any repairs or perform any investigations of 

the conditions...as was their right pursuant to the agreement of sale.” 

____________________________________________

praecipe the trial court’s Prothonotary to enter judgment and file a certified 

copy of the trial court docket reflecting the entry of judgment with this Court. 

Appellants complied, and judgment was entered on November 17, 2017. 

Thus, we shall treat the notice of appeal previously filed as filed after the entry 

of judgment. See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a).

2 The Medlocks initially filed a complaint on August 21, 2015; however, they 

filed an amended complaint on October 16, 2015. The amended complaint 

was substantially similar to the initial complaint except that the amended 

complaint contained allegations to “pierce the corporate veil” to bring claims 

against Mr. Brown, the owner of Chilmark, personally. 
J-A18018-18

- 3 -

Medlocks’ Amended Complaint, filed 10/16/15, at 3. Further, they averred 

they “were moving to the area from out of state and accordingly relied upon 

the inspection to provide notice and information about material conditions of 

the property.” Id. 

The Medlocks averred that, after living in the home for seven months, 

they discovered a brown water stain forming around one of the recessed lights 

in the finished basement, which sits below a tiled patio. In an effort to discover 

the source of the leak, Mr. Medlock removed a readily accessible panel located

in the basement wall, and he discovered “large sections of wet, rotten wood 

that could be viewed from the readily openable access panel on the floor 

directly behind the panel.” Id. at 4. The Medlocks averred the wet, rotten 

wood was from a support beam, the beam was darkened from water 

penetration, and there “were several large gaps from missing wood in the 

support beam that were viewable from the readily openable access panel[.]” 

Id. Moreover, the Medlocks averred there was evidence of mold in the wall 

directly behind the access panel, and the insulation behind the access panel 

was wet to the touch. Id. The Medlocks posited “[t]he conditions existing 

behind the readily openable access panel evidenced a water infiltration 

problem which was, or which should have been, ascertainable upon a 

reasonable inspection by [Mr. McKinney].” Id.

The Medlocks contended Mr. McKinney identified a stain next to the 

readily openable access panel, but he failed to open the panel as part of the 
J-A18018-18

- 4 -

inspection. Accordingly, the inspection report did not include the damage, 

which was readily observed once the access panel was opened. Thus, the 

extent of the damage to the basement was neither identified nor referred for 

repair prior to the Medlocks’ purchase of the home. 

On July 18, 2015, the Medlocks sent a letter via certified mail to 

Chilmark, in care of Mr. McKinney, requesting that their insurance carrier be 

put on notice of a claim. The Medlocks followed up with emails, and 

subsequent to one of the emails, on September 24, 2015, Mr. Brown

responded that he did not have insurance to cover the Medlocks’ claim 

because he failed to follow the requirements of his policy. Specifically, Mr. 

Brown responded that, because he failed to provide a written agreement to 

the Medlocks to perform the inspection services, his insurance carrier 

indicated it would deny coverage for a claim. 

Based on the aforementioned, the Medlocks raised against the Chilmark 

parties a violation of the PA Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection 

Law (“UTPCPL”), negligence, a breach of contract, and negligent 

misrepresentation. 

The Chilmark parties filed an answer to the Medlocks’ complaint, and on 

July 8, 2016, they filed a joinder complaint seeking to join the Gitomers as 

well as Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc. (“the real estate company”), for which 

Mrs. Gitomer worked as a real estate agent. Specifically, the Chilmark parties

alleged the Medlocks purchased the subject property from the Gitomers, and 
J-A18018-18

- 5 -

during the transaction, Mrs. Gitomer acted in a dual capacity: as both seller 

and seller’s agent. Further, the Chilmark parties averred the Gitomers 

purposefully concealed the rot and water damage at issue, as well as failed to 

disclose such information in the seller’s property disclosure statement. The 

Chilmark parties also averred the Gitomers failed to disclose in the seller’s 

disclosure statement that they had remodeled the basement during their 

ownership and this omission was a proximate cause of the Medlocks’ damages.

Accordingly, the Chilmark parties sought contribution and 

indemnification. Moreover, indicating the Medlocks had resolved their claims 

against the Chilmark parties and had expressly assigned their rights to them, 

the Chilmark parties raised, as the Medlocks’ assignee, claims against the 

Gitomers and the real estate company, including negligent misrepresentation, 

violation of the Pennsylvania Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law (“RESDL”), and 

violation of the UTPCPL.

The Gitomers filed preliminary objections, which the trial court denied,3

as well as an answer with new matter and a cross-claim. In the cross-claim, 

the Gitomers averred the Chilmark parties were solely liable to the Medlocks. 

____________________________________________

3 The Gitomers alleged in the trial court that the Chilmark parties were not 

permitted to “stand in the shoes” of the Medlocks since claims under the 

RESDL are reserved for buyers. They continue to present such a claim in their 

appellee brief. However, as discussed infra, we affirm the judgment entered 

in favor of the Gitomers on different grounds, and therefore, we need not 

address this issue. 
J-A18018-18

- 6 -

On August 21, 2017, the matter proceeded to a bench trial at which the

parties informed the trial court that the real estate company settled with the 

Chilmark parties prior to trial, and Mrs. Gitomer was released from liability as 

an agent, but not in her individual capacity. N.T., 8/21/17, at 8-9. The 

Chilmark parties reiterated that the Medlocks settled their claims against the 

Chilmark parties and expressly assigned their rights to the Chilmark parties.

Accordingly, at trial, the Chilmark parties proceeded as “the plaintiffs” with 

the Gitomers as “the defendants.” 

Mr. Medlock testified that, in connection with the purchase of the home, 

the Medlocks received a seller’s disclosure statement from the Gitomers. Id.

at 22. Mr. Medlock explained he understood the form to require the sellers to 

inform the buyers of “anything that is wrong with the property,” and the 

Medlocks relied upon the information provided in the form. Id. at 22-23. Mr. 

Medlock testified the Gitomers did not include in the seller’s disclosure 

statment that there had been any additions or alterations done to the rear 

basement. Id. at 23. Mr. Medlock confirmed Chilmark performed an 

inspection of the home prior to the Medlocks’ purchase thereof. Id.

Mr. Medlock testified he moved into the house in late 2014, and five or 

six months later, he noticed a brown water stain around a light in the 

basement ceiling. Id. at 24. The Medlocks called “a number of companies to 

try [to] figure out what [was] going on.” Id. at 25. After a number of 

recommendations about what might be causing the brown stain, Mr. Medlock 
J-A18018-18

- 7 -

“ended up opening the access panel and saw the extensive damage behind 

the access panel, and that’s when [the Medlocks] went through the process of 

contacting Chilmark[.]” Id. Mr. Medlock testified the damage included 

insulation completely soaked in water, and chunks of wet, rotting wood from 

a support beam. Id. at 26. 

The Medlocks hired a contractor to remove the drywall where the access 

panel was located, and upon removing the drywall, the contractor discovered 

additional rotten wood. Id. at 29. Mr. Medlock confirmed some of the rotten

wood was not discovered until the contractor removed the drywall. Id. The 

contractor removed all of the drywall in the basement to determine the extent 

of the water damage. Id. Mr. Medlock noted the wall containing the access 

panel had “newer looking studs that framed that wall” as compared to the rest 

of the walls in the basement. Id. at 34. He also noted it appeared as if 

someone put up a frame to support the rotten beams, and there was new 

wood and drywall attached to the rotten beams. Id. The drywall, which was 

attached to the rotten beams, contained a stamp indicating “Made in the 

U.S.A.-December 14, 2003.” Id. at 36. 

Mr. Medlock testified he paid $76,000.00 for necessary renovations. Id.

at 42. Further, the following relevant exchange occurred:

Q: Mr. Medlock, if you had known at the time that you were 

purchasing the home that there had been prior work done to that 

rear basement wall—I’m sorry, the rear basement room without a 

permit, would that have impacted your purchase on this at all?

A: We would not have purchased the property.
J-A18018-18

- 8 -

Q: Why not?

A: We had seen several properties that we liked that had 

issues. Some had needed work. We didn’t want a place that 

needed work. With this, with the permits, I watch home shows, 

and I know if you have something that is unpermitted, they can 

come in and tell you that you need to redo the entire room. We 

didn’t want to deal with that.

Id. at 46. 

On cross-examination, Mr. Medlock admitted that, if he or the home 

inspector had opened the access panel, the damage would have been readily 

observable prior to purchase. Id. at 48. He admitted that, in the seller’s 

disclosure statement, the Gitomers checked “yes” next to the question: “Are 

you aware of any water leakage accumulation or dampness within the 

basement or crawl space?” Id. at 52. They also checked “yes” next to the 

question: “Do you know of any repairs or other attempts to control any water 

or dampness problems in the basement or crawl space?” Id.

He also admitted the summary of the inspection report from Chilmark 

relevantly revealed the tiled patio, which was attached to the house on the 

water damaged basement wall, “has settled and cracked” and “[m]ay require 

replacement.” Id. at 67. The inspection report also indicated “[s]ealing the 

cracks is recommended to reduce water pressure[,]” and it noted “[t]he 

basement shows evidence of moisture penetration.” Id. at 64-65. Also, the 

inspection report included a photo of a stain, which was located on the wall 

next to the access panel in the basement. Id. at 71. Moreover, the inspection 

report indicated there was a water stain noted in the dining room and “[t]his 
J-A18018-18

- 9 -

is suspected to be the result of prior leakage from the patio[.]” Id. at 68. 

Further, the inspection report noted “[t]he French door and the first floor rear 

wall is essentially rotted.” Id. at 66. Mr. Medlock admitted that, to the best 

of his knowledge, a Chilmark employee did not open the access panel as part 

of the home inspection, and had they done so “they would have seen what 

was going on in the walls[.]” Id. at 58. 

Joseph Graci, who testified as an expert in the field of civil and structural 

engineering, indicated that, on October 24, 2015, he conducted a structural 

assessment of the patio in the rear part of the subject house and the wood 

joists that support the patio. Id. at 83. He opined years of water infiltration 

rotted the original support beams and new wood was then installed next to 

the old beams to add strength. Id. at 83-86. Mr. Graci indicated there was 

no record that a permit was issued to refinish the basement or install the new 

beams. Id. at 88-89. 

Mr. Graci opined that “the root cause of the damage to the wood 

members was the long term leaking of the [patio,]” and the support beams 

were no longer structurally sound. Id. at 89. He testified:

[N]othing was done to mitigate that damage, so if those 

joists were damaged, and they appeared to have been damaged 

at the time that the room was finished, that some structural 

mediation should have occurred. So they should have assisted 

the joists, removed the rotted joists, they should have done 

something to make sure that when they put [the] ceiling on, that 

they made sure that the system was structurally sound to support 

the weight. Had they [done] that with a permit, and an engineer 

who prepared plans for that, they would have been led down that 

path. They [sic] since they avoided the permit process, they [sic]
J-A18018-18

- 10 -

was never any inspection there by an engineer and by the 

township, to my knowledge. 

Id. at 90-91. 

Mr. Graci opined the presence of the new wood attached to the old, 

rotten wood suggested that someone knew “they needed some help, but they 

didn’t complete it properly, and they didn’t have anybody,...that would have 

the expertise and the legal right to be able to make a determination that the 

wood was either structurally sound or structurally not sound.” Id. at 91-92. 

Mr. Graci indicated that only a professional engineer is allowed by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to make a structural determination. Id. at 

92. 

On cross-examination, Mr. Graci testified he found no evidence of any 

permits issued in 2003 or 2004 relative to the alterations made to the 

basement. Id. at 95-96. However, upon further questioning, he admitted 

that records from the Township revealed that an electrical permit was issued 

to the Gitomers in 2004. Id. He opined that, in order to finish the basement 

in the manner apparently done by the Gitomers, a building permit would have 

been required. Id. at 97. Mr. Graci admitted that it appeared the work in the 

basement was done by a contractor, and thus, he had no personal knowledge 

as to whether the Gitomers were aware of the water problem at the time 

improvements were made to the basement. Id. at 104-05. 
J-A18018-18

- 11 -

On cross-examination,4 Jane E. Gitomer testified the Gitomers moved 

into the house in November of 1989, and in 2004, they had work done to the 

basement. Id. at 110. Although she could not recall the name of the 

contractor, she remembered that the contractor installed new drywall, a 

heating system, carpet, lights, French doors, and a ceiling. Id. at 111. The 

work lasted between four to six weeks, and Mrs. Gitomer admitted she could 

not find any paperwork indicating the contractor had secured a building permit 

for the work. Id. Mrs. Gitomer admitted the Gitomers failed to disclose on 

the seller’s disclosure property form that a contractor had made alterations to 

the basement in 2004. Id. at 116-17, 119. 

Mrs. Gitomer denied observing any leaking into the basement ceiling 

from the tiled patio. Id. at 113-14. Thus, Mrs. Gitomer testified that, since 

the Gitomers did not experience water leakage from the tiled patio into the 

room, they did not disclose anything in this regard in the seller’s disclosure 

statement. Id. at 114. Further, Mrs. Gitomer denied that the contractor, 

who placed the new wood next to the rotting support beams, told the Gitomers 

about the rotting beams, and she was not aware that new wood was being 

placed next to rotting wood for structural support. Id. at 117. Mrs. Gitomer 

testified that she never discussed permits with her contractor, and she 

____________________________________________

4 The parties agreed that the Chilmark parties would call the Gitomers to the 

stand as if on cross-examination, and the Gitomers would then be questioned 

by their attorney as if on direct examination. 
J-A18018-18

- 12 -

assumed that, if a building permit was necessary, the contractor would have 

secured one. Id. at 118, 122. 

On direct examination, Mrs. Gitomer testified that, as of 2004, she had 

not contemplated selling the home. Id. at 120. However, in 2014, the 

Gitomers decided to sell the house in order to move into a smaller home. Id.

at 121. She explained that the reason she was unable to find paperwork 

relative to permits for the basement was related to the fact she discarded 

most of her paper records when she and her husband moved into the smaller 

home. Id. She testified that, if a building permit was required for the 

basement renovation, the contractor would have secured it without discussing 

it with her. Id. at 122. She acknowledged a contractor performed work in 

the basement in 2004, and the Township’s records reveal the contractor 

secured an electrical permit, but not a building permit. Id. at 123. Further, 

the Township’s records reveal “an inspector came out to inspect the work that 

was done[]” in the basement. Id. 

She testified she did not disclose in the seller’s disclosure statement that 

work had been done in the basement because she considered the work to be 

“cosmetic.” Id. at 126, 130. She denied attempting to conceal any water 

damage in the basement, and she testified that, if the contractor in 2004 

would have told her about the damage, she would have ensured it was fixed. 

Id. at 127. She noted that she entertained on the patio and her children 

spent time in the basement, none of which would have occurred if Mrs. 
J-A18018-18

- 13 -

Gitomer knew about the rotting wood. Id. at 124. She also testified that, in 

2011, she had the patio tiled, and the contractor never informed her that he 

saw any evidence of water intrusion. Id. at 128. 

On cross-examination, Glenn S. Gitomer acknowledged the Gitomers 

made changes to the basement in 2004. He remembered the room existed 

when the Gitomers purchased the house, and in 2004, they decided to add 

drywall to three of the walls, recessed lighting, and a new heating system. 

Id. at 134-35. He testified that, during the construction, he did not go into 

the room, and the contractor, whose name he could not recall, did not inform 

him of any water problem or rotting wood. Id. at 136, 139. 

With regard to permits, he testified the Gitomers relied on the expertise 

of their contractors to secure the necessary permits. Id. at 136. He recalled 

that the contractor received some type of permit for the basement work in 

2004, and “the work was inspected by Lower Merion Township.” Id. He noted 

he was unaware of any other permits being required for the basement work 

and, if additional permits were required, he assumed the contractor would 

have secured them. Id. at 137. 

On direct examination, Mr. Gitomer denied observing any water 

intrusion into the home from the patio. Id. at 142. He further denied seeing 

any type of damaged wood or rotten wood in or around the patio. Id. at 143. 

Alesio Panaccio, a general contractor, testified that, in 2011, on the 

patio at the subject house, he replaced the stamped concrete with tile. Id. at 
J-A18018-18

- 14 -

158. He did not get a permit for this work because it was cosmetic. Id. Mr. 

Panaccio explained the patio had an existing concrete base, which he did not 

remove. Id. at 160. Rather, he removed the top, stamped concrete portion 

and then tiled the patio. Id. He denied observing any signs of water intrusion 

into the home or rotting wood when he tiled the patio. Id.

At the conclusion of all testimony, by order and opinion entered on 

August 25, 2017, the trial court ruled in favor of the Gitomers and expressly 

found they were not liable on all outstanding claims. Relevantly, the trial court 

specifically held:

Both Jane and Glenn Gitomer testified at trial. Both said 

they were aware of water seepage in that room at ground level 

and that had been disclosed. They had been unaware of any water 

damage from the ceiling, which is why they had not disclosed any. 

They argued that they entertained socially on the [patio] (which 

they never would have done if they had known of the water 

damage), and that they had never experienced leaking in the 

ceiling of the room. [Mrs.] Gitomer testified that they had 

extensively renovated the room in 2004.

Chilmark presented Joseph Graci, owner and principle of 

Franklin Engineering, as an expert in civil and structural 

engineering. Mr. Graci visited the property on October 24, 2015, 

to assess the structure. He testified that he saw years of water 

infiltration damage, maybe from as much as forty years, as well 

as damage from termites. He observed newer wood used to 

“sister” older wood and wallboard installed “right to the ceiling.” 

He testified that he found no permit for work done on the property 

in 2003; however, there was an electrical permit for this property 

in 2004. Mr. Graci did his inspection of the property in this case 

and testified in this case without remuneration because he felt 

Chilmark is a “good inspector.” The Court finds Mr. Graci’s 

testimony about people and contractors covering up matters is 

totally speculative and without any basis.

The Gitomers testified that they were entirely unaware of 

the damage and had never tried to conceal any such information. 
J-A18018-18

- 15 -

Furthermore, they testified that they had never discussed 

construction permits with their 2004 contractor and had never 

looked inside the access panel during or after construction was 

completed. Neither of the Gitomers was able to recall the identity 

of the contractor used in the 2004 renovation, and any paperwork 

about the project was discarded when the Gitomers moved from 

the property.

The Court finds in favor of [the Gitomers] and against [the 

Chilmark parties]. The Court finds the Gitomers’ account credible 

and finds that [the Chilmark parties] did not sufficiently prove the 

Gitomers knew or should have known about the ceiling water 

damage behind the access panel. Furthermore, the Court finds 

unpersuasive Chilmark’s argument that the Gitomers would have 

covered the damage over with drywall with the intent of 

concealment ten years before selling the house. 

Trial Court Opinion, filed 8/25/17, at 3-4. 

On September 1, 2017, the Chilmark parties filed a timely post-trial 

motion. Therein, with regard to the trial court’s verdict that the Gitomers did 

not violate the Pennsylvania Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law (“RESDL”), the 

Chilmark parties contended the trial court erred in its interpretation of the 

RESDL.5 They specifically argued the following: 

[The Chilmark parties] respectfully submit that the Court 

erred as a matter of law, at least with respect to the claim for 

violations of the RESDL, because that claim did not require proof 

that the Gitomers actually knew about the ceiling water damage 

or that they intended to conceal anything. Rather, [the Chilmark 

parties] needed only to prove that the Gitomers knew about the 

2004 renovation because the 2004 renovation was separately 

required to be disclosed on the Seller’s Property Disclosure 

Statement. At trial, the Gitomers admitted that they had 

____________________________________________

5 The Chilmark parties raised in their post-trial motion, as well as Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement, a claim that the trial court’s verdict was against the weight 

of the evidence as to all claims. However, they have abandoned this claim on 

appeal, and thus, we decline to address it further. 
J-A18018-18

- 16 -

renovated the rear basement room and it is undisputed from the 

face of the Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement that such 

renovation was not disclosed. Furthermore, [Mr.] Medlock 

testified unequivocally and without challenge that had he known 

of such permitted renovation work, he would not have moved 

forward with purchasing the [h]ome. [The Chilmark parties] 

clearly met their burden under the RESDL. [The Chilmark parties’] 

counsel argued these points in open court following the 

presentation of testimony. 

***

Based on the statutory language of the RESDL, the 

undisputed fact that the Gitomers failed to disclose the 2004 

renovation, and the uncontroverted testimony of [Mr.] Medlock 

that he would not have moved forward with the purchase of the 

[h]ome, it is respectfully submitted that the Court erred as a 

matter of law in finding [the Chilmark parties] had not met their 

burden under the RESDL.

The Chilmark Parties’ Post-Trial Motion, filed 9/1/17, at 3-5 (emphasis

omitted). 

The trial court denied the Chilmark parties’ post-trial motion on October 

17, 2017, and this appeal followed on October 24, 2017. The trial court 

directed the Chilmark parties to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the 

Chilmark parties timely complied. The trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) 

opinion on March 8, 2018, in which it relevantly explained the following as to 

the RESDL claim: 

The Disclosure Statement form used by the Gitomers asked, 

“Have any additions, structural changes, or other alterations been 

made to the property during your ownership? Itemize and date 

all additions/alterations below.” It is undisputed that the Gitomers 

answered in the affirmative and listed ten changes on the blanks 

provided. They did not include mention of the 200[4] [basement] 

renovation. Jane Gitomer stated that it was omitted “[b]ecause I 

really thought of it as cosmetic, the same way I thought of 

changing wallpaper in the house from paint or vice-versa, like if I 
J-A18018-18

- 17 -

had wallpaper and decided to take it down. I really just was 

changing the look of the room. I didn’t think it was structural or 

alternating [sic].” 

[The Chilmark parties’] argument that “[they] need only to 

prove [for RESDL liability] that the Gitomers knew about the 2004 

renovation because the 2004 renovation was separately required 

to be disclosed on the Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement 

conflates the formal requirements for the Disclosure Statement 

under [Section] 7304 with the [Section] 7311 liability provision.

[The Chilmark parties] argued that Section 7304 creates a 

“duty” to disclose all alterations that occurred during the seller’s 

ownership, whether or not such alterations constituted defects of 

any kind, and the violation of that provision invoked the RESDL 

liability provision. However, [the trial court does] not agree with 

this interpretation. The duty established by the RESDL is clearly 

for the seller to disclose “known,” “material defects” in the 

property. The section establishing the duty, [Section] 7303, 

states that the seller “shall disclose to the buyer any material 

defects with the property known to the seller by completing all 

applicable items in a property disclosure statement which satisfies 

the [statutory] requirements....” The completion of “all applicable 

items” on the Statement is the method by which “all material 

defects known to the seller” are disclosed, but ultimately the duty 

is disclosure of defects. Even if the Gitomers had included the 

200[4] [basement] renovation on the form, this would not have 

constituted disclosure of the water damage, since the Gitomers’ 

contractors had not been hired to address any decay or make any 

repairs.7 Contrary to the [Chilmark parties’] suggestion, 

“alteration” and “defect” are simply not interchangeable for 

purposes of RESDL liability.

7The Chilmark parties have not contested Jane Gitomer’s assertion that 

the renovation involved putting up drywall and installing new heating, 

new carpet, new lighting, [] a new ceiling, and replacing a set of sliding 

doors.

Furthermore, [the Chilmark parties’] reading of the statute 

is incompatible with the other provisions of the RESDL affirming 

that the duty is to disclose “known material defects.” See [68 

Pa.C.S.A.] §§ 7308, 7306, and 7309. 

Mr. Medlock also testified [] it was the disclosure of the 

potentially unpermitted8 200[4] renovation that would have 

dissuaded the Medlocks from purchasing the home: “[I]f you had
J-A18018-18

- 18 -

8

It is unknown and disputed whether or not the work was actually done 

without a required permit. Jane Gitomer testified that she did not know 

if one had been required or obtained, but that she had been involved in 

many renovations and that she generally relied on the contractors to 

recognize and address permit issues. She stated that she did not have 

records of a permit because she had gotten rid of all records pertaining 

to the house soon after they moved out.

known at the time that you were purchasing the home that...the 

rear basement room [had prior work done] without a permit, 

would that have impacted your purchase on this at all?” “We 

would not have purchased the property....With this, with the 

permits, I watch home shows, and I know if you have something 

that is unpermitted, they can come in and tell you that you need 

to redo the entire room. We didn’t want to deal with that.” Thus, 

the Medlocks’ purchase decision would have been affected by 

disclosure of potential future permit problems, not necessarily the 

disclosure of water damage.

Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/8/18, at 6-9 (citations, emphasis, footnote, and 

parentheticals omitted) (footnotes in original). 

Thereafter, this Court issued an order noting that no judgment had been 

entered on the docket and directing the Chilmark parties to praecipe for the 

entry of judgment in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 301. On November 17, 2017, 

the Chilmark parties filed the necessary praecipe for the entry of judgment. 

On appeal, the Chilmark parties allege the trial court erred in its 

interpretation of the RESDL. Specifically, they contend the trial court erred in 

concluding the Gitomers’ failure to disclose the known 2004 basement 

renovation in the seller’s disclosure statement was not “actionable” as a 

violation under the RESDL and/or that they proved actual damages as a result 

of the violation. 

Our standard of review is as follows:
J-A18018-18

- 19 -

Upon appeal of a non-jury trial verdict, we consider the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner and will 

reverse the trial court only if its findings of fact lack the support 

of competent evidence or its findings are premised on an error of 

law.

When this Court reviews the findings of the trial judge, the 

evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the victorious 

party below and all evidence and proper inferences favorable to 

that party must be taken as true and all unfavorable inferences 

rejected. The court’s findings are especially binding on appeal, 

where they are based upon the credibility of the witnesses, unless 

it appears that the court abused its discretion or that the court’s 

findings lack evidentiary support or that the court capriciously 

disbelieved the evidence. 

Nicholas v. Hofmann, 158 A.3d 675, 688-89 (Pa.Super. 2017) (citations 

omitted). 

In determining whether the trial court properly construed the RESDL, 

we must analyze and interpret its statutory language. See Retina Assocs. 

of Greater Phila., Ltd. v. Retinovitreous Assocs., Ltd., 176 A.3d 263 

(Pa.Super. 2017). The rules of statutory construction are well-settled:

The Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S. §§ 1901–1991, 

sets forth principles of statutory construction to guide a court’s 

efforts with respect to statutory interpretation. In so doing, 

however, the Act expressly limits the use of its construction 

principles. The purpose of statutory interpretation is to ascertain 

the General Assembly’s intent and to give it effect. In discerning 

that intent, courts first look to the language of the statute itself. 

If the language of the statute clearly and unambiguously sets forth 

the legislative intent, it is the duty of the court to apply that intent 

and not look beyond the statutory language to ascertain its 

meaning. Courts may apply the rules of statutory construction 

only when the statutory language is not explicit or is ambiguous.

We must read all sections of a statute together and in 

conjunction with each other, construing them with reference to 

the entire statute. When construing one section of a statute, 

courts must read that section not by itself, but with reference to, 
J-A18018-18

- 20 -

and in light of, the other sections. Statutory language must be 

read in context, together and in conjunction with the remaining 

statutory language.

Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect 

to all its provisions. We presume the legislature did not intend a 

result that is absurd, impossible, or unreasonable, and that it 

intends the entire statute to be effective and certain. When 

evaluating the interplay of several statutory provisions, we 

recognize that statutes that relate to the same class of persons 

are in pari materia and should be construed together, if possible, 

as one statute.

Retina Assocs. of Greater Phila., Ltd., 176 A.3d at 27 (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

By way of background, the RESDL, which became effective on December 

20, 2001, applies “to all residential real estate transfers” except for certain 

types of transfers, none of which is applicable here. See 68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7302. 

With these legal precepts in mind, we set forth the following relevant 

provisions of the RESDL:

Section 7304, titled “Disclosure form,” relevantly provides:

(a) General rule.--A form of property disclosure statement that 

satisfies the requirements of this chapter shall be promulgated by 

the State Real Estate Commission. Nothing in this chapter shall 

preclude a seller from using a form of property disclosure 

statement that contains additional provisions that require greater 

specificity or that call for the disclosure of the condition or 

existence of other features of the property.

(b) Contents of property disclosure statement.--The form of 

property disclosure statement promulgated by the State Real 

Estate Commission shall call for disclosures with respect to all of 

the following subjects:

***

(7) Additions, remodeling and structural changes to 

the property.
J-A18018-18

- 21 -

68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7304 (bold in original). 

Section 7308, titled “Affirmative duty of seller,” relevantly provides:

The seller is not obligated by this chapter to make any specific 

investigation or inquiry in an effort to complete the property 

disclosure statement. In completing the property disclosure 

statement, the seller shall not make any representations that the 

seller or the agent for the seller knows or has reason to know are 

false, deceptive or misleading and shall not fail to disclose a known 

material defect.

68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7308.6

Section 7311(a), titled “Failure to comply,” relevantly provides:

(a) General rule.--A residential real estate transfer subject to 

this chapter shall not be invalidated solely because of the failure 

of any person to comply with any provision of this chapter. 

However, any person who willfully or negligently violates or fails 

to perform any duty prescribed by any provision of this chapter 

shall be liable in the amount of actual damages suffered by the 

buyer as a result of a violation of this chapter. This subsection 

shall not be construed so as to restrict or expand the authority of 

a court to impose punitive damages or apply other remedies 

applicable under any other provision of law.

____________________________________________

6 Section 7303, titled “Disclosure of material defects,” specifically addresses a 

seller’s obligation to disclose known “material defects” and provides:

Any seller who intends to transfer any interest in real property 

shall disclose to the buyer any material defects with the property 

known to the seller by completing all applicable items in a property 

disclosure statement which satisfies the requirements of section 

7304 (relating to disclosure form). A signed and dated copy of the 

property disclosure statement shall be delivered to the buyer in 

accordance with section 7305 (relating to delivery of disclosure 

form) prior to the signing of an agreement of transfer by the seller 

and buyer with respect to the property.

68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7303.
J-A18018-18

- 22 -

68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7311 (bold in original).

Here, the trial court concluded the Gitomers were unaware of the water 

problem in the basement of the house until after the sale of the house, and 

thus, they did not violate the RESDL by failing to disclose the water problem. 

The Chilmark parties do not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact or legal 

conclusions in this regard. However, as indicated supra, the Chilmark parties

contend the trial court erred in failing to conclude the Gitomers’ failure to 

disclose in the seller’s disclosure statement that they made 

additions/remodeling/structural changes to the basement in 2004 (of which 

the Gitomers were obviously aware) requires a finding that the Gitomers 

violated their duty in this regard under the RESDL. We agree.

Section 7308, by its title and plain language, imposes an affirmative 

duty upon the seller. Specifically, Section 7308 provides: “In completing 

the property disclosure statement, the seller shall not make any 

representations that the seller or the agent for the seller knows or has 

reason to know are false, deceptive or misleading and shall not fail to 

disclose a known material defect.” 68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7308 (emphasis added).

Contrary to the trial court, we do not interpret Section 7308 to limit the 

seller’s affirmative duty to disclose only “known material defects.” Rather, by 

its plain, unambiguous language, Section 7308 also affirmatively requires the

seller, in completing the property disclosure statement, to “not make any 

representations that the seller or the agent for the seller knows or has reason 
J-A18018-18

- 23 -

to know are false, deceptive or misleading[.]”7 68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7308. See

Koken v. Reliance Ins. Co., 586 Pa. 269, 893 A.2d 70, 81 (2006) (holding

“the term ‘shall’ is mandatory for purposes of statutory construction when a 

statute is unambiguous”) (some internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted)); 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1903(a) (“Words and phrases shall be construed 

according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved 

usage[.]”).

In the case sub judice, the seller’s disclosure statement called for the 

disclosure of “[a]dditions/alterations.”8It is undisputed that, in response 

thereto, the Gitomers represented they were aware of the following 

additions/alterations: kitchen renovation, three bathroom renovations, new 

____________________________________________

7 As this Court recently noted:

[The] RESDL is intended to protect the purchaser of real 

property, and the method of protection is a disclosure statement 

that is included within the bill that the seller has to complete so 

that presumably the buyer accurately knows what the seller 

knows about the property when the sale occurs.

***

In sum, the Pennsylvania legislature noted the RESDL 

protects the purchasers of real property and ensures that both 

parties have some parity of knowledge regarding any issues with 

the property. 

Phelps v. Caperoon, --- A.3d ---, 2018 WL 3016477, at *13 (Pa.Super. filed 

6/18/18) (quotation marks, quotation, and citation omitted). 

8 While the language in the RESDL calls for disclosure of “additions, remodeling 

and structural changes to the property,” the disclosure statement in the 

instant case called for the disclosure of “additions/alterations.” However, the 

Chilmark parties have not raised a claim concerning this discrepancy. 
J-A18018-18

- 24 -

window in the dining room, new French doors in dining room, new tiled deck 

and fencing, new electrical panel board, new HVAC system, new driveway, 

new black fencing, and new front path lighting. However, it is equally 

undisputed that, although they were aware of the basement alteration in 

2004, the Gitomers did not disclose such information on the statement. That 

is, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Gitomers, as verdict 

winners, it is clear that their answer to the portion of the form related to 

disclosing “[a]dditions/alterations” was “false, deceptive or misleading” and 

they knew or had reason to know. See Nicholas, supra (setting forth our 

standard of review). 

Having concluded the Gitomers failed to fulfill their affirmative duty in 

this regard, we turn to Section 7311, which sets forth the liability for a seller’s 

failure to comply. Relevantly, Section 7311 provides that “any person who 

willfully or negligently violates or fails to perform any duty prescribed by any 

provision of this chapter shall be liable in the amount of actual damages 

suffered by the buyer as a result of a violation of this chapter.” 68 

Pa.C.S.A. § 7311 (emphasis added).9 Thus, the inquiry is whether, viewing 

the evidence in the light most favorable to the Gitomers, as verdict winners, 

the Gitomers were, at the very least, negligent in failing to disclose the 2004 

____________________________________________

9 This Court recently set forth the measure of “actual damages” under the 

RESDL as “repair costs, capped by the market value of the property.” Phelps,

2018 WL 3016477, at *13 (footnote omitted).
J-A18018-18

- 25 -

basement renovation and whether the Medlocks suffered actual damages as 

a result thereof. 

Assuming, arguendo, the Gitomers were at least negligent in failing to 

disclose the 2004 basement renovation, we agree with trial court that the 

Chilmark parties have failed to establish the Medlocks suffered actual damages 

as a result of this violation. For instance, the Chilmark parties do not suggest 

that the Medlocks would have discovered the existing water damage had the 

Gitomers disclosed the 2004 basement renovation in the seller’s disclosure 

statement.10 

At most, from the Chilmark parties’ brief, we glean the following 

argument as to causation and actual damages: The Gitomers were required 

to secure a building permit for the 2004 basement renovation; the Gitomers 

failed to secure a building permit; Mr. Medlock unequivocally testified the 

Medlocks would not have purchased the home if the 2004 basement 

renovation required a building permit and such was made without it; and thus, 

the Gitomers’ failure to disclose the 2004 basement renovation deprived the 

Medlocks of discovering the unpermitted renovation. Chilmark Parties’ Brief at 

15; Chilmark Parties’ Reply Brief at 3. 

____________________________________________

10 In its opinion, the trial court found there was no evidence that, if the 

Gitomers had included the 2004 basement renovation in the seller’s disclosure 

statement, this would have led to the disclosure of the water problem, of which 

the Gitomers were unaware. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/8/18, at 7. 
J-A18018-18

- 26 -

However, as was within its province, the trial court did not find credible 

Mr. Graci’s testimony that the Gitomers were required to have a building 

permit and/or they failed to secure the necessary permits. Nicholas, supra. 

Further, the trial court, pointing to Mrs. Gitomer’s testimony, concluded it is 

“unknown” whether the basement work was completed without a required 

permit. 

Moreover, the trial court noted that, while Mr. Medlock testified the 

Medlocks would not have purchased the home if an unpermitted renovation 

was made to the basement, he indicated his concern was that someone would 

require him to “redo” the room because of a permit violation. N.T., 8/21/17, 

at 46. However, there is no indication anyone complained to the Medlocks 

about a permit violation or asked them to “redo” the basement for this reason. 

We conclude the trial court’s factual findings are supported by the 

record. Id. Thus, under the circumstances of this case, as it was the Chilmark 

parties’ burden to establish the necessary elements for the RESDL claim, we 

conclude they failed to meet their burden of establishing the Medlocks suffered 

actual damage as a result of the Gitomers’ failure to disclose the 2004 

basement alteration. 

For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 

Affirmed. 
J-A18018-18

- 27 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/31/18