Court Opinion

ID: 9368994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-07 17:08:34.740918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:12.110103
License: Public Domain

J-A28018-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    KATHLEEN NICHOLAS-GOULD                    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    CHARLES P. MCDONALD, JR. AND               :
    SUSANNE MCDONALD                           :
                                               :   No. 1009 EDA 2022
                       Appellants              :

              Appeal from the Judgment Entered March 14, 2022
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s):
                                 2018-06816

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., LAZARUS, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                            FILED FEBRUARY 7, 2023

        Charles P. McDonald, Jr., and Susanne McDonald (h/w) (collectively, the

McDonalds/Sellers) appeal from the judgment, entered on the non-jury

verdict in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, in favor of Appellee

Kathleen Nicholas-Gould (Buyer) in the amount of $69,459.30, in this

residential real estate case. After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the

opinions authored by the Honorable Robert O. Baldi.

        On March 11, 2018, the parties executed an agreement of sale, in the

amount of $480,000.00, for property (Property) located at 3912 Street Road1

in Buckingham Township, Bucks County. Sellers had purchased the Property

in November 2005 and made extensive improvements to it, including

____________________________________________

1   The home was approximately 50 years old at the time of the sale.
J-A28018-22

removing a lower portion of the wall in the corner bedroom in 2013, as well

as converting the garage into a family room in or around 2007.

      On February 22, 2018, Sellers executed a Real Estate Disclosure

Statement (Disclosure Statement) that included, among other things, the

following averments:

         •   Sellers “were not aware of any past or present movement,
             shifting, deterioration, or other problems with walls,
             foundations, or other structural components[;]”

         •   Sellers “were not aware of any past of present problems
             with driveways, walkways, patios, or retaining walls on the
             property[;]”

         •   Sellers “were not aware of any past or present water
             infiltration in the house or other structures, other than the
             roof, basement[,] or crawl spaces.”

Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement, 2/22/18, at ¶¶ 7(A), (B), & (C). On

March 11, 2018, Buyer reviewed the Disclosure Statement and testified that

based on the Disclosure Statement she believed that there were no structural

problems with the Property.     N.T. Non-Jury Trial, 10/6/20, at 34.    Finally,

Buyer testified that she relied upon the representations in the Disclosure

Statement when she decided to purchase the Property. Id. at 32.

      Buyer hired a company to inspect the Property prior to closing. The

inspector issued a report, dated March 16, 2018, listing items in/on the

Property that needed corrective work.       In particular, the inspection report

noted that there were material defects with regard to the roof drainage system

(a defective rain gutter/downspout) and the chimney (placement of right roof

framing member).       See Inspection Report by Steve Maurer of Maurer

                                      -2-
J-A28018-22

Inspections, LLC, 3/16/18, at 4.2              The inspection report also noted that

everything “appeared functional” in the interior of the Property, except for

certain steps, stairways, balconies, and railings, which Mr. McDonald

subsequently fixed. The remaining problem items were either addressed or

waived by the parties prior to settlement.3

        The parties made settlement on the Property on April 30, 2018.4

Following settlement, Buyer “discovered that the Property was riddled with

numerous undisclosed material defects that were neither readily observable

nor discoverable by [Buyer’s] inspector,” including, but not limited to, a

deteriorated and failing front wall on the main level, basement and crawlspace

flooding, cracked floor tiles in the family room, deteriorating masonry on the

outside front of the home, and a failing split-rail backyard fence. Complaint,

11/26/18, at ¶¶ 23-45. In particular, Buyer discovered that the front wall of

one of the bedrooms was bulging and that water was seeping through the

paint. When Buyer cut open a portion of that wall, she found that the studs

____________________________________________

2 The inspection report also noted that further evaluation by a qualified
chimney sweep was required to assess the condition of the chimney’s flues
and vents as the interior chimney and furnace flues could not be inspected
because that was “beyond the scope of a home inspector.” Id.

3A $3,500.00 adjustment in favor of Buyer was applied to the final purchase
price of the Property to account for the cost to repair some of the problems
noted in the inspection report.

4   The parties stipulated that the closing date of the sale was April 30, 2018.

                                           -3-
J-A28018-22

were so deteriorated from water damage that new studs had been “sistered”5

to the old studs to prevent the wall from completely falling down. In addition,

Buyer noticed that pieces of wood and insulation inside the wall were moist

and contained dark spots/mold, that the drywall or plasterboard was

destroyed, and that the masonry was crumbling.

        On November 26, 2018, Buyer filed a complaint against Sellers alleging

violations of the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Act (RESDL)6 and the Unfair

Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPCPL).7 In her complaint,

Buyer requested treble damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Sellers

filed an answer, new matter, and counterclaim asserting breach of contract.8

        Following a three-day non-jury trial, held in October 2020,9 Judge Baldi

found in favor of Buyer, concluding that Sellers’ failure to disclose material

____________________________________________

5 “A sister stud is a secondary stud that is installed alongside an existing stud.
It is usually used to reinforce a stud that has been damaged or is bowed in a
manner         that      compromises        its      load-bearing       capacity.”
https://knowledgeburrow.com/what-does-sistering-mean-in-
construction/#:~:text=What%20does%20Sistering%20mean%20in%20con
struction%3F%20A%20sister,in%20a%20manner%20that%20compromises
%20its%20load-bearing%20capacity. (last visited 12/28/23).

6   68 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7301-14.

7   73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq.

8 The parties jointly stipulated to the following: Buyer will withdraw a claim
for negligence and Sellers will withdraw their counterclaims for loss of the
bargain and for attorneys’ fees.

9On the second day of trial, Mrs. McDonald testified that she adopted her
husband’s testimony as her own. N.T. Non-Jury Trial, 10/7/20, at 99.

                                           -4-
J-A28018-22

defects—specifically, moisture damage and deterioration of the front wall of

the Property that extended from a corner bedroom to the family room—

constituted a violation of the RESDL and the UTPCPL.10         The trial judge

awarded Buyer $50,940.00 in compensatory damages11 to cover the costs to

repair the deteriorating walls.

       On July 20, 2021, Sellers filed a post-trial motion, which the court

subsequently denied. Buyer filed a post-trial petition seeking attorneys’ fees

and costs under the UTPCPL;12 Sellers filed an answer opposing the petition.

On March 7, 2022, the trial court granted Buyer’s petition, awarding Buyer

$14,838.50 in attorneys’ fees and $3,680.80 in costs. See 73 P.S. § 201.9.2

(statute authorizing recovery of “reasonable” attorneys’ fees and costs for

violation of UTPCPL).

____________________________________________

10  The court specifically found that Sellers reasonably believed that their
installation of a second sump pump corrected any significant flooding issues
in the Property’s basement and crawl space and, thus, Buyer could not recover
for Sellers’ alleged failure to disclose this issue. The court also found that
Buyer could not recover for alleged flooding in the yard of the Property where
no evidence was presented at trial to show that the flooding had a significant
impact on the value of the Property or that it involved an unreasonable risk to
people on the Property. Finally, the court found that Buyer could not recover
on the failing split-rail fence or deteriorating masonry on the front of the
home. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/1/21, at 21.

11Although permissible under the UTPCPL, the court declined to award treble
damages.

12 The parties stipulated that any request that Buyers may have for attorneys’
fees under the UTPCPL would be heard via post-trial motions without the need
for expert testimony as it relates to the reasonableness of attorney rates.

                                           -5-
J-A28018-22

       Sellers filed a timely notice of appeal and court-ordered Pa.R.A.P.

1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Sellers present

the following issues for our consideration:

       (1)    Whether the [trial c]ourt improperly relied on testimony that
              the parties and the [trial c]ourt stipulated could not be used
              to establish liability[.13]

       (2)    Whether there was sufficient competent evidence
              introduced at trial that the [Sellers] were aware of any
              material defects in the front bedroom wall[.]

       (3)    Whether there was sufficient competent evidence that the
              [Sellers’] statement that they were not aware of any
              material defects in the front bedroom wall were false,
              deceptive, and misleading[.]

       (4)    Whether there was sufficient competent evidence to support
              actual damages in the amount of $50,940.00[.]

       (5)    Whether the [trial c]ourt erred in applying the UTPCPL to
              this case because the [Sellers] are individual consumers
              that were [not] and are not in the business of selling homes.

Appellants’ Brief, at 7.

       Upon appeal of a non-jury trial verdict, an appellate court
       considers the evidence in a 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 an appellate 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
____________________________________________

13Sellers did not preserve this issue in post-trial motions. Thus, it is waived
on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are
waived.”).

                                           -6-
J-A28018-22

      or that the court capriciously disbelieved the evidence. It is
      inappropriate for an appellate court to make factual
      determinations in the face of conflicting evidence.

Phelps v. Caperoon, 190 A.3d 1230, 1243 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation

omitted).

      With regard to issues two and four, Buyer’s expert witness concluded

that water infiltration, not termites as alleged by Sellers, was the cause of

damage to the Property’s walls and that the way to remedy the damage was

to reframe the walls and entirely replace the masonry. See N.T. 10/7/20, at

12-15, id., 10/6/20, at 221-22 (expert testifying sill plate, joists of house,

and studding in front walls were “rotted”); id. at 22-23 (expert testifying no

vapor barrier in front walls to keep moisture from seeping through exterior

stone). Buyer’s contractor testified that a “reasonable and appropriate” cost

to reframe the front walls would be $50,940.00 ($15,260.00 (bedrooms walls)

and $35,680.00 (family room/garage wall)).      Id., 10/7/20, at 20-21; see

Plaintiff’s Exhibit 15, at 1-2.

      With regard to issue number three, Mr. McDonald admitted at trial that,

in 2013, he opened up the front wall to replace the lower portion of drywall

and, in the process, “sistered” new studs to the old studs. Id., 10/7/20 at

67-68; id. at 85 (Seller testifying inside corner bedroom wall, “There was a

stud that was a little chewed up[.]”). Mr. McDonald also testified that the

drywall inside the wall was “cracked and falling down.” Id., 10/8/20, at 72-

73.   Finally, Mr. McDonald testified that when the Property’s garage was

                                    -7-
J-A28018-22

converted to a family room, he observed the week-long construction process

“about three or four times.” Id., 10/7/20, at 78.

       With regard to Sellers’ final issue, we note that the UTPCPL provides for

a private cause of action.

       The UTPCPL is Pennsylvania’s consumer protection law, which
       serves the purpose of protecting the public from unfair or
       deceptive business practices. DeArmitt [v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.,
       73 A.3d 578, 587 (Pa. Super. 2013)]. The UTPCPL explicitly
       authorizes a private cause of action for anyone who purchases
       goods primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and
       “suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property” as a result
       of any person employing an unlawful method, act, or practice. 73
       P.S. §201-9.2(a).

       In order to bring a private cause of action under the UTPCPL, “a
       plaintiff must show that he justifiably relied on the defendant’s
       wrongful conduct or representation and that he suffered harm as
       a result of that reliance.” Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports,
       Inc., [] 854 A.2d 425, 438 (Pa. 2004) (emphasis added). Strict
       technical privity is not required to bring a cause of action under
       the UTPCPL. Valley Forge Towers Smith Condominium v.
       Ron-Ike Foam Insulators, Inc., [] 574 A.2d 641, 647 (Pa.
       Super. 1990).

Zajick v. Cutler Grp., Inc., 169 A.3d 677, 680 (Pa. Super. 2017).14
____________________________________________

14 Specifically, section 201-3 of the UTPCPL creates a private cause of action
in the following circumstances:

       (a)    Any person who purchases or leases goods or services
              primarily for personal, family or household purposes
              and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money
              or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or
              employment by any person of a method, act or
              practice declared unlawful by section 3 of this act,
              may bring a private action to recover actual damages
              or one hundred dollars ($ 100), whichever is greater. The
              court may, in its discretion, award up to three times the
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -8-
J-A28018-22

       After examining the parties’ briefs, the issues on appeal, and relevant

statutory and case law, we affirm the court’s judgment. In doing so, we rely

upon the thorough and well-written opinions authored by Judge Baldi. See

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 6/10/22, at 5-10; Trial Court Opinion, 7/1/21.

       Judgment affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/7/2023

____________________________________________

              actual damages sustained, but not less than one hundred
              dollars ($ 100), and may provide such additional relief as it
              deems necessary or proper. The court may award to the
              plaintiff, in addition to other relief provided in this
              section, costs and reasonable attorney fees.

73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a) (emphasis added). Under section 3 of the UTPCPL
“unlawful acts or practices” are defined as “unfair methods of competition and
unfair or deceptive acts of practices in the context of any trade or commerce
as defined by subclauses (i) through (xxi) of clause (4) of section 2 of this act
and regulations promulgated under section 3.1 of this act[.]” Id. at § 201-3.
The UTPCPL prohibits “engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct
which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.” Id. at 201-
2(4)(xxi). See Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 245 A.3d 637 (Pa. 2021)
(UTPCPL’s 1997 amendment created “catch all” provision that expanded its
scope to cover not just “fraudulent” but also “deceptive” conduct; statute
requires neither intent to deceive nor negligence with regard to effect of
misrepresentation).

                                           -9-