Court Opinion

ID: 9369362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 16:10:21.228992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.470370
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NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37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-
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                                                                            Circulated AS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED     01/12/2023 02:01 Page
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              FOLLOWS.,    PM 1
                                                                                                                $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             IN THE COURT OF COMMON               PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              CIVIL ACTION — LAW

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          KATHLEEN NICHOLS-GOULD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Plaintiff,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Vs.                                :      No.      2018-06816

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          CHARLES and SUSANNE MCDONALD                 (h/w)   :
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Defendants.                                     :

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     OPINION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             I.        INTRODUCTION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Charles and Susanne McDonald (hereinafter, “Appellants”! filed a Notice of Appeal from

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          this Court’s Decision and Order, dated July 1, 2021, in which the undersigned found in favor of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Kathleen Nichols-Gould (hereinafter, “Appellee’’) and against Appellants after a three-day nonjury

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          trial before the undersigned. This Court’s Opinion is being filed as required by Pennsylvania Rule
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          of Appellate Procedure 1925(a) and in compliance therewith.       For the reasons stated below, the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          undersigned respectfully suggests the instant Appeal should be denied.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             II.       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL             BACKGROUND

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Appellants purchased the property located at 3912 Street Road in Buckingham Township,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Bucks County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter, “the Property”) in October 2005. Notes of Testimony

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (“N.T.”) 10/6/2020, 31:20-22; 160:13-15; N.T. 10/8/2020, 15:15-17; P-1 § 2(C); D-25 J 2(C)?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Appellants spent thousands of dollars renovating the Property during their ownership, making

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          extensive improvements, some of which altered or changed the structural integrity of the house.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          N.T. 10/7/2020, 42:1-21; 43:14 — 44:9; N.T. 10/8/2020, 53:13-18; P-1 J 8; D-25 § 8. Among the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          repairs performed by Appellants was the removal of the lower portion of the wall in the corner
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ' Mrs. McDonald adopted the testimony of Mr. McDonald at trial. N.T. 10/7/2020, 99:16-18.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ? p- refers to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits and D- refers to Defendants’ Trial vane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      :B. HtIt 8 the responsibili
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ponsibility   of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   all Bartles to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   partiés of the notify all rested
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   content of thi
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Ordet/action                   °
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                      2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 2
                                                                                                                $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of ,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            bedroom      in 2013. N.T.        10/7/2020, 67:11-25; 68:1-19; 87:1-20. Appellants admitted that they

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            noticed deterioration of the studs and gypsum board inside the wall at that time. N.T. 10/7/2020,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            67:11-25; 68:1-19; 87:1-20.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Appellee offered to purchase Appellants’ home for $480,000.00 after they listed it for sale

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            in 2018. N.T. 10/6/2020, 39:14-15; N.T. 10/7/2020, 40:15 — 41:6; N.T. 10/8/2020, 70:23 — 71:3;

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            P-2. As part of the parties’ real estate transaction, Appellants prepared a Real Estate Seller’s

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Disclosure        Statement   (“Disclosure    Statement”).      N.T.    10/6/2020,   31:11-16;      P-1;   D-25.   In

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Paragraph 7 of the Disclosure Statement, Appellants indicated that they “were not aware of any

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            past or present movement,           shifting, deterioration, or other problems with walls, foundations, or

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            other structural components .. . ” P-1 § 7(A)-(C); D-25 § 7(A)-(C).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      After     settlement,    Appellee   noticed     several   significant   problems   with    the   Property,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            including a deteriorated and failing front wall on the main level. N.T. 10/6/2020, 70:5 — 89:6; P-9
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            to P-11. In light of the issues that Appellee observed on the Property, and the repairs that were

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            necessary to correct those issues, Appellee filed a Complaint against Appellants alleging violations

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”) and the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Pennsylvania Real Estate Sellers’ Disclosure Law (“RESDL”)‘.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Subsequently, a three-day bench trial was held before the undersigned from October 6,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            2020, through October 8, 2020, after which time the undersigned issued a Memorandum Decision

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            and Order finding in favor of Appellee and against Appellants on Appellee’s claims. The Court’s

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            25-page Decision was issued July 1, 2021.               It contained 61 Findings of Fact, a substantial number

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            of which were stipulated to by the parties.                 The Decision outlines and explains the Court’s
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            373 PS. §§ 201-1 et seg.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            4 68 Pa.C.S. §§ 7311 et seq.
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                      2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 3
                                                                                                                $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          reasoning for the award that was entered. The parties stipulated at trial that fee petitions would be

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          presented via post-trial submissions. N.T. 10/7/2020, 8:6-12. On March 7, 2022, the undersigned

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          issued    a Memorandum Decision and Order awarding $14,838.50 in attorney’s fees and $3,680.80

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          in costs to Appellee. Appellants filed their Notice of Appeal on April 12, 2022, and this Court

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          directed Appellants to file a Statement of Matters Complained of On Appeal on April 13, 2022.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Il.        STATEMENT       OF MATTERS        COMPLAINED         OF ON APPEAL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    On May 4, 2022, Appellants filed their Concise Statement of Matters Complained of On

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Appeal, which are set forth verbatim below:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    1.   The Court erred in finding that Plaintiff proved by preponderance of the evidence that
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Defendants failed to properly disclose the condition of the front walls.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         To the extent the Court found that Defendants were aware of and failed to disclose
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         moisture in the front walls, the Court erred in finding that Plaintiff proved by a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         preponderance of the evidence that the alleged moisture in the front walls predated the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         closing and that Defendants were aware of the alleged moisture or alleged condition of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         the walls.
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         The Court erred in finding that “Based on Mr. McDonald’s replacement of the drywall
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         in the corner bedroom, these statements were either false, deceptive, or misleading.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         The Court erred by awarding $50,940.00 for the front walls. That figure improperly
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         included many components that were never present at the property while Defendants
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         owned it, as well as components that were not damaged/deteriorated when Plaintiff
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         took ownership. By way of example only, inter alia, the figure improperly included a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         new ceiling, even though there was no evidence of any problems with the ceiling; it
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         improperly included new walls that are not part of the front walls; it improperly
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         included the installation of a new heating system; it improperly included a “rebuild [of]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         electric panel closet;” it improperly included the cost to raise the wall above grade. By
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         way of further example on, inter alia, although this Court properly found that “The
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Plaintiff has not proven the deteriorated masonry on the front of the house is a material
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         defect for which she can recover,” this Court nonetheless improperly awarded Plaintiff
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         the costs to remove and replace (with siding) the masonry wall. In short, the Court
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         improperly found that Defendants were responsible to provide Plaintiff with a home
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         that is substantially newer and substantially improved over the 50-year-old home that
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Defendants’ owned, offered for sale and sold to Plaintiff.
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    5.   The Court erred in awarding Plaintiff attorney fees and costs.
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                     2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 4
                                                                                                                $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   6.   The Court erred in awarding Plaintiff $14,838.50 in fees and $3,680.00 in costs. To the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        extent Plaintiff was entitled to any fees or costs, the amounts awarded by the Court are
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        excessive, not supported by the evidence and not supported by the law.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   7.   The Court erred in applying the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        (UTPCPL) to this case because Defendants are individuals that were and are not in the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        business of selling homes. Defendants were and are not “vendors” or in the business of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        selling anything. Defendants are not in the business of dealing with other consumers.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Indeed, Defendants are typical consumers who were selling their residence like average
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        people do every day.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   8.   Even if the UTPCPL is applicable, this Court erred in holding that Defendants violated
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        the UTPCPL.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   9.   Evenifthe UTPCPL is applicable, this Court erred in holding that Defendants engaged
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        in fraudulent and deceptive conduct.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   10. Even if the UTPCPL is applicable, this Court erred in holding that Plaintiff may recover
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       up to three times actual damages.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    11. This Court erred in holding that Defendants violated the Real Estate Seller Disclosure
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Law.
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             IV.        DISCUSSION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   For ease of discussion, this Court will consolidate and address Appellants’ arguments

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          pertaining to Appellants’ knowledge of the moisture damage in the front walls first, followed by

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          the amount of Appellee’s award, and then by the application of the UTPCPL.               The Court will

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          conclude with a discussion of the application of the RESDL.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             A.     Standard of Review

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   The Court, sitting as finder of fact in a nonjury trial, “is permitted to accept all, part, or

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          none of the testimony, and [has the] exclusive province to resolve conflicts in that testimony.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Haan v. Wells, 103 A.3d 60, 72 (Pa. Super. 2014). As the Pennsylvania Superior Court has stated,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            “(the appellate court’s] role in cases arising from non-jury trial
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            verdicts is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            committed error in any application of the law. The findings of the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            trial judge in a non-jury case must be given the same weight and
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                  2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 5
                                                                                                                $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         effect on appeal as the verdict of a jury, and the findings will not be
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         disturbed on appeal unless predicated upon errors of law or
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         unsupported by competent evidence in the record. Furthermore, [the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         appellate court’s] standard of review demands that [the court]
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Levitt v. Patrick, 976 A.2d 581, 588-89 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citing Baney v. Eoute, 784 A.2d 132,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          135 (Pa. Super. 2001)). Moreover, “[the] award [of] attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          an action are within the discretion of the trial court, and [appellate courts] will not reverse a trial

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          court's decision on the matter in the absence     of an abuse of discretion.” First Pennsylvania v.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          National Union, 580 A.2d 799, 803 (Pa. Super. 1990).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             B.   Appellants’ Knowledge of Moisture Damage in the Front Walls

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  The Court determined that Appellants were aware of the moisture damage and deterioration

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          in the front walls when filling out the Disclosure Statement in 2018, yet failed to disclose same,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          because Appellants admitted that they opened the wall in the corner bedroom in 2013 and noticed
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          deterioration of the studs and gypsum board at that time. N.T. 10/7/2020, 67:11-25; 68:1-19; 87:1-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          20. Appellants admitted that the inside of the wall in the corner bedroom appeared similar in 2013

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          to what Appellee observed in 2018 when she re-opened the same wall. N.T. 10/8/2020, 72:22-25;

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          73:1-3. This was specifically discussed in the Court’s written Decision entered July 1, 2021, a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  While Appellants attributed the deterioration that they observed solely to termite damage

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          or age, the experts who presented testimony at trial regarding the corner bedroom all agreed that

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          there was moisture damage in the walls, including Appellants’ own expert, Herbert Scott. N.T.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          10/6/2020, 221:19-25; N.T. 10/7/2020, 22:9-23; 68:7-16; 158:20-25; 159:1. Indeed, Mr. Scott

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          testified that moisture damage likely preceded any termite damage as termites need moisture to
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          survive. N.T. 10/7/2020, 161:3-8; 175:18-24.
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                   2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 6
                                                                                                                $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Appellee’s expert, Michael Lohman, testified that the interior of the walls in the corner

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          bedroom had already begun to rot and become covered in mold when Appellants opened the wall

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          in 2013. N.T. 10/7/2020, 36:1-4. Mr. Lohman further testified that “[a]nyone can look at black

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          mold and see that it is obviously black mold” and that “anyone that had general common sense . .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          . would [have] remove[d] any of the rotted wood that had mold on it” rather than sistering the studs

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          and sealing off the wall. N.T. 10/7/2020, 37:2-14.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   This Court found that Mr. Lohman’s testimony that the moisture damage and deterioration

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          in the corner bedroom wall was obvious to Appellants in 2013 was credible, and that Appellants’

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          testimony to the contrary was       implausible.   Accordingly,    Appellants’   failure to disclose the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          moisture damage and deterioration in the corner bedroom wall on the Disclosure Sheet that they

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          prepared and presented to Appellee in 2018 was false, deceptive, and misleading, and in violation

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          of the UTPCPL and RESDL, as discussed in Sections IV(D) and IV(E) below.
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              C.   Amount of Appellee’s Award

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   The Court, sitting as finder of fact in this nonjury trial, accepted the testimony of Appellee’s

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          witness, Thomas Gavin, that there was deterioration on the interior of front walls, including rotting

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          studs, moist insulation, and deteriorating gypsum board, which had a significant adverse impact

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          on the value of the Property, evidenced by the cost of replacing such walls. Mr. Lohman confirmed

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          the reasonableness of the cost of the repairs performed by Mr. Gavin at trial. N.T. 10/7/2020, 20:13

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          — 21:12. The Court’s award of $50,940.00 for the repairs that were necessary were based upon Mr.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Gavin’s repair estimates. This was also explained in the Court’s Decision, a copy of which is

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          attached hereto.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   The Court accepted the witnesses’ testimony and did not award all costs listed in the
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Estimate, but rather focused on line items. It should be noted that the Court had the discretion to
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                 2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 7
                                                                                                                $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          triple the damages but chose not to do so. Any argument, or suggestion that a lesser amount of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          damages should have been awarded can at best be characterized as “ungrateful”. Appellants failed

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          to disclose damage in the walls. The award entered is remedial and should cover all of Appellee’s

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          costs associated with Appellants’ wrongdoing. Under the law, to ensure that all reasonable costs

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          are awarded, the Court is authorized to issue three times the amount of the damage. The award

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          could have been $150,000.00.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Reasonable attorneys’ fees are recoverable for actions brought under the UTPCPL. See

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Boehm v. Riversource Life Ins. Co., 117 A.3d 308, 335 (Pa. Super. 2015); 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          In determining an appropriate attorneys’ fee award, courts are instructed to consider:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         “(1) [t]he time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         questions involved and the skill requisite properly to conduct the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         case; (2) [t]he customary charges of the members of the bar for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         similar services; (3) [t]he amount involved in the controversy and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         the benefits resulting to the clients from the services; and (4) [t]he
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         contingency or certainty of the compensation.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Boehm, 117 A.3d at 335 (citations omitted). Moreover, “there should be ‘a sense of proportionality

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          between an award of damages [under the UTPCPL] and an award of attorney's fees,’ and whether

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          plaintiff has pursued other theories of recovery in addition to a UTPCPL claim ‘should [be] given

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          consideration’ in arriving at an appropriate award of fees.” Id. (citing Neal v. Bavarian Motors,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          882 A.2d 1022, 1031 (Pa. Super. 2005)). Other costs incurred by UTPCPL            claimants are also

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          recoverable under the plain language of the statute. Fazio v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 62

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          A.3d 396, 402 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citing 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a)).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 As discussed in Section IV(D) below, the UTPCPL applies to Appellants’ conduct in this

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          case. The undersigned issued a detailed Memorandum Decision and Order laying out its reasoning
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          for the award of Appellee’s attorney’s fees and costs on March 7, 2022, a copy of which is attached

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          hereto as Exhibit “B”. Appellants failed to articulate any support for their contention that the
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                  2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 8
                                                                                                                $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          amount awarded to Appellee in that Order was excessive, not supported by the evidence and not

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          supported by the law. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the amount of fees awarded by

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          the undersigned to Appellee was not an abuse of discretion and should be upheld on appeal.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              D.   Application of the VTPCPL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   The UTPCPL provides:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            “[a]ny 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.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a). Among the unfair or deceptive acts or practices enumerated in the UTPCPL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          is a catchall provision which prohibits “[eJngaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi). Courts have
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          recognized that the UTPCPL is a remedial statute which is designed to protect consumers from

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          fraud and unfair or deceptive business practices. Boehm,       117 A.3d at 322. Thus, the statute is to

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          be liberally construed, and the preponderance of the evidence standard applies to claims arising

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          thereunder. Id.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   The clear and unambiguous language of the UTPCPL provides that “the court may, it its

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          discretion, award up to three times the actual damages sustained.” Schwartz v. Rockey, 932 A.2d

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          885, 890 (Pa. 2007); Metz v. Quaker Highlands, 714 A.2d 447, 450 (Pa. Super. 1998); 73 P.S. §

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          201-9.2(a). Moreover, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the award of treble damages

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          under the UTPCPL is “not to be closely constrained by the common-law requirements associated

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          with the award of punitive damages” but may be “reviewed by the appellate courts for rationality.”
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Schwartz, 932 A.2d at 898.
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                  2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 9
                                                                                                                $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  The UTPCPL      applies to residential real estate transactions, even when the seller is an

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          individual. Growall v. Maietta, 931 A.2d 667, 676 (Pa. Super. 2007) (finding that “[t]here is no

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          question that the purchase or lease of a home, condominium, or apartment for residential purposes

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          comes under the protections of the UTPCPL”         even when the sellers were individuals) (citing

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Valley Forge Towers South Condominium v. Ron-Ike Foam Insulators, Inc., 574 A.2d 641, 645

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (Pa. Super. 1990)). Appellants offer no legal support for their contention otherwise.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Based upon the testimony presented at trial, this Court found that Appellants were aware

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          of the moisture damage and deterioration in the front walls and failed to disclose same on the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Disclosure Statement that Appellants prepared in 2018. Appellants’ conduct was deceptive and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          caused Appellee’s confusion or misunderstanding of the extent of repairs that were necessary on

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          the Property. Accordingly, this Court correctly concluded that Appellants violated the UTPCPL,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          awarded damages for same and reasonable fees to Appellee as outlined in Section IV(C) above.
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  It should be noted that the Court could have entered treble damages but chose not to do so.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          The Court’s calculation of damages was done carefully with the intent to ensure that all repairs

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          necessitated by the Appellants’ wrongdoing were covered. If there was some specific item that

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Appellants wish to challenge, the Court has little sympathy for same, based upon the fact that the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Court chose not to triple the costs of Appellee’s repairs.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             E.   Application of the RESDL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  The RESDL is a remedial statute that was designed to address the very issues presented in

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          this case. Under the RESDL, sellers are required to disclose all material defects and not to make

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          any statements that they know are false or misleading. Medlock v. Chilmark Home Insps., LLC,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          195 A.3d 277, 289 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citing 68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7308). A material defect is defined as
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          “[a] problem with a residential real property or any portion of it that would have a significant
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                 2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 10
                                                                                                                $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          adverse impact on the value of the property or that involves an unreasonable risk to people on the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          property[.]” Milliken v. Jacono, 60 A.3d 133, 138 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citing 68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7102

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          in pertinent part).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  As discussed in Section IV(B) above, the Court concluded that Appellants knew about the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          moisture damage and deterioration in the corner bedroom wall as early as 2013 and did not disclose

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          same to Appellee on the Disclosure Sheet that Appellants prepared in 2018. N.T. 10/7/2020, 67:11-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          25; 68:1-19; 87:1-20; P-1 4 7(A)-(C); D-25 4 7(A)-(C). Based upon the testimony presented at

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          trial, this Court also concluded that the moisture damage in the front walls was a material defect

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          that should have been disclosed.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Mr. Lohman testified that the interior of the front walls was rotting, falling apart, and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          covered in black mold, which would have been obvious to Appellants in 2013, and which had a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          significant adverse impact on the value of the Property and created an unreasonable risk to
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          inhabitants of the Property. N.T. 10/7/2020 at 12:11 — 13:1-10; 19:4-21; 27:1-5; 36:1 — 37:24.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the Court properly found that Appellants’ failure to

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          disclose the moisture damage and deterioration in the front wall of the corner bedroom violated

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          the RESDL.
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          10
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 11
                                                                                                                $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 CONCLUSION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 It is respectfully submitted that each of the alleged errors raised on appeal have been

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          addressed by this Court, and that this Court did not err in its findings. The undersigned’s Decision

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          and Order entered on July 1, 2021 properly found in favor of Appellee and against Appellants on

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          the issues that were raised by Appellants in this Appeal. Thus, the instant Appeal should be denied.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                BY THE COURT:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             bflefer
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          pate
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              COL.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ROBERT 0. Balam
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          11
2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 12

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             VAS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             l
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Exhi
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Jajayog Yyyaqezify :Aq palis-F
                                           “SJU@UINDOP PUB UOHEULOUI JeHUEpYUOD-UOU UeY] AgUaseyip SJuaUINDOp pue UOHeULIOJUI fenUEpPUOCD Burpy auinbas Jey] SLNOD jeu, pue ajeyjeddy ay} Jo sps0day ase :elueA|ASUUdg jo WalsAS jerlolone payiuf ey}
                                                                                       40 AaljOdl SSADDV DIG AY} JO SUOISIAOIA AY} YIM SayduOD Bulls IY} FEY] SELNI9D J9/ly PUL 000 = 894 ‘We GO°b ZZ0Z/01/90 UO ArejOUOY}O/d SyaNg Jo AUN 38 panja2ey SE:FOANS - 68-91890-810Z #ASeO
                                                                                                                                                         themdinipbiicicieoSesere, RépenDs503e"6: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 13
RUSUAP OI AORSProtnoNG Lah ZILA 7TAQILEL, 26 P190.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      CIVIL DIVISION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           KATHLEEN NICHOLS-GOULD,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Plaintiff

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             y.                   )                          ;                   2018-06816

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           CHARLES P. McDONALD, JR. and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           SUSANNE McDONALD,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Defendants

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                DECISION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The Parties appeared before the undersigned for a trial from October 6, 2020 through

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           October 8, 2020. This Decision is based upon the evidence, arguments, exhibits, and testimony

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           presented at trial, along with the submissions of the Parties thereafter. This Court reserves the right

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           to supplement this Decision with additional facts and legal authority should an appeal be filed.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I.       FINDINGS OF FACT                                                                                           |

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        A. Defendants’ Ownership of the Property

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               1. The Defendants, Charles P, McDonald, Jr. and Susanne McDonald, purchased property at                                 .
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                :

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    3912 Street Road, in Buckingham Township (the “Property””) in October 2005. Trial Tr.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    vol. I, 31:20-22, 160:13-15; Trial Tr. vol. III, 15:15-17; P-1 9 2(C); D-25 ¥ 2(C).'

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               2.   Mrs. McDonald adopted the testimony of Mr. McDonald. Trial Tr. vol. I, 99:16-18.
sextin AC RHHOLO1 CASE: B UDHIBOITED-REDGEBelreeuhiscl

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               3. The Defendants spent thousands of dollars and countless hours renovating the home during

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    their ownership, making extensive improvements, some of which altered or changed the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    structural integrity of the house—converting the garage to a family room, removing a
                                                                                                                                                         E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              s’ trial exhibits.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ' References to “P-_” refer to Plaintiff's trial exhibits, References to “D.__* refer to Defendant

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       I                           N.B. It is the responsibility of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ~     fl parties to notify all itereste
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           E THIS ORDERIJUDGMENT WAS DOCKETED AND SENT ON 07/02/2021 Eelorecion                                                                         oS F bib 236,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ord er/acio
                                                                                                                                                                 “72
                                                                                                                                                                                    aneYocuments! >"         2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 14
$0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of
                                                                                                                                                                      infarittatioh

                                                                                                                                                                                                            dividing wall, and installing a wood burning stove. Trial Tr. vol. II, 42:1-21, 43:14-44:9: ;
                                                                                                                                                                              ane

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Trial Tr. vol. ITI, 53:13-18; P-1      78; D-25 4 8.
                                                                                 d MIG Montidential inforniatigirand dodirhénts differently thar’ nori-c orittiéntiar

                                                                                                                                                                                                       4, The Defendants made changes to the basement and crawl space:
                                                                                                                                                          de

                                                                                                                                                                                                               a.      On approximately three occasions during the Defendants’             ownership    of the -

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Property, about one quarter of an.inch of water infiltrated the basement after heavy

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       rains. Trial Tr. vol. II, 51:10-19; Trial Tr. vol. III, 27:17-21.

                                                                                                                                                                                                               b.      The Defendants installed a second sump pump in 2011 and no longer had issues

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       with water in the basement. Trial Tr. vol. II, $1:10-14, 80:21-25; Trial Tr. vol. Ul,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       27:22-28:19.                                |                       |

                                                                                                                                                                                                                c.     Mr. McDonald occasionally saw water in the crawl space. Trial Tr. vol. III, 29:24-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       25, 30:24-31:14,                                                    oe
                                                                                                                                                                                                                d.     The basement was a “wet basement.” Trial Tr. vol. II, 84:16-17; Trial Tr. vol. 1,
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       29:17-18.                         ,                            )
                                                                                                                                                      ED MESA NEGA
                                                                                           Ae AOARADGEHG y RoheBF FSM SNORE: TE REOTAE SP MEF RURHE ERRATA

                                                                                                                                                                                                       5. The Defendants made changes to the yard:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                a.     Prior to hiring Dougherty Landscaping in 2007 to install a swale on the Property,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       the septic system failed at least three times due to the drain field overflowing. Trial

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     - Tr, vol. I, 64:17-66:8; P-22.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                b.     The swale diverted water away from the septic system’s absorption area and toward

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       the front of the house in a side yard, but it did not stop the septic system from

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       failing. Trial Tr. vol. II, 64:17-23, 66:9-21,
                                                                                                             E-Mela (PublinadeanescehiBent: Z2503676

                                                                                                                                                                                                                c.     The Defendants installed a sand-mound            septic system around 2009-2010 that

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       corrected any septic issues on the Property. Trial Tr. vol. H, 82:11-21.

                                                                                                                                                                                                       6.   The Defendants made changes to the front bedroom:
                                                                                           eA                                                           au
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    / threat non-contentiatintormation ancdotiajentai<".
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              + Bae
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      wi
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 15
 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  a.   In 2013, the Defendants replaced the lower part of the drywall in the corer

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       bedroom because there was a large crack in the sheetrock. Trial Tr. vol. II, 67:11-
                                                                                                                                                    ve (gus

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       22, 86:6-23; Trial Tr. vol. I, 72:4-8.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  b. The Defendants sistered studs together in the wall and noticed that the gypsum

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       board was cracked and falling down, but they did not replace it. Trial Tr. vol. IT,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 nthaes
                                                                                                                                                                                                        differeritf

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       68:4-19; Trial Tr. vol. III, 72:4-8.
                                                                                                                         AN RBI RKe Rrasiennk Dy ntsOWae/agand WGMontidéntial informa fen-anerdocuments

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  c.   At that time, the stud “was a little chewed up,” directly above a portion of the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       basement where there was termite damage. Trial Tr. vol. II, 85:19-21, 88:10-13;
                                                                                                                                                                                         hone -

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Trial Tr. vol. Il, 45:15-25, 46:1-2; D-42._

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           7. The Defendants converted the garage into a family room:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  a.   The Defendants hired a contractor, Dave Will Do It, to do the electrical work, which .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       involved opening the walls and installing new drywall. Trial Tr. vol. II, 77:12-23.
Case# 2018-0681 6-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 b.    The contractor removed the garage door, framed the new wall with windows, and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       installed sheetrock, Trial Tr. vol, III, 48:19-24.                 ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 c.    The Defendants did not obtain permits, inspections, or approvals for the conversion.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Trial Tr. vol. II, 75:24-76:5.                                         |
                                                                                                            OR bes! ab GENE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 d.    The Defendants installed tiling on the floor as part of the conversion, but they did

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       not first level the floor. Trial Tr. vol. II, 76:6-11. They knew the floor was not level
                                                                                        GTR EF FOR oJ HA E2080

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       when they installed the tiles. Trial Tr. vol. I, 96:7-10; Trial Tr. vol. Il, 51:2-13.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 e.    The Defendants were aware of some cracks in the tiles, and some of the cracks were
                                                                                                                                                                                     Scans dideBert: 22503676 ~

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       visible in the MLS listing photographs. Trial Tr, vol. II, 76:12-77:2, 93:24-95 :3; p-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       27.
                                                                                                                                                                        “78 EMpla utuipla
                                                                                                      ECOS PASO IGRE ANS
                                                                                                      we SF
                                                                                                                                                                                                   and doguments::              2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 16
$0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of
                                                                                                                Mie nfiden tial informationsand.docwrsnts differentlysthamnen-confidentialinformation

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     f.   The Defendants repaired some of the tiles. Trial Tr. vol. II, 94:15-20; Trial Tr. vol.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          I, 52:7-12.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          8. The Defendants installed slate tile on the front porch, but they did not level the surface or

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               prepare it first. Trial Tr. vol. IL, 70:24-71:5, 72:14-18; P-7. *
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          9.   The Defendants made repairs to the split-rail fence on many occasions over the years, using

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               metal braces or joinder plates, sometimes even replacing the entire rail. Trial Tr. vol. II,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               74:11-18.                                      |

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          10. The Defendants did not make any repairs to the exterior of the home, Trial Tr. vol. II, 71:9-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               IL.                           )
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     B. The Sale of the Property

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          11. The Defendants were selling the Property because Mr. McDonald developed malignant

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               melanoma and could no longer spend time in the sun; the Property required a significant
          Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE.35 Received at Coun ty of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee
                                                                                  RGR BE RRO ERE RISCOURE. ALB UNE REAR TADOONS THA RARI EBB

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               amount of outdoor maintenance. Trial Tr. vol. I, 16:5-11.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ‘12. At the time of sale, the house was approximately forty-nine (49) years old. D-23.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          13. The Plaintiff, Kathleen Nichols-Gould, first-visited the Property in March 2018. Trial Tr.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               vol. I, 28:23-29:19,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          14, The Plaintiff visited the Property several times: March 11, 2018; March 16, 2018; March

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               24, 2018; and April 27, 2018. Trial Tr. vol. III, 60:22-61:19.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          15, When the Plaintiff first visited, the house was fully furnished, there was snow on the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ground, and there was personal property against the walls in the basement. Trial Tr. vol. I,
                                                                                                                                                                                    03676

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               30:2-11; P-27; D-1 to D-22.
                                            Pombetraceepe oe

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          16. The Plaintiff made an offer on the Property which the Defendants immediately accepted.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Trial Tr. vol. II 40:15-41-6; Trial Tr. vol. IJ, 70:23-71-3.
                                                                                    TRAINED
                                                                                                                ‘al
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     E.
                                                                                                                3 ona
                                                                                                                                                                                        ha
                                                                                                                         docurients:,-° -                                                                                                                 2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 17
Policy.of,,
                         teh BopemeSQg6n®: Case’ Re cor ds of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than-non-confidential information-and
                                                                                                                                                   ling somplies with thegravigions of the Bulli rs Jecess

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   17. The purchase price of the Property was $480,000. Trial Tr. vol. I, 39:14-15; P-2.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 - 18, The Plaintiff signed an Agreement of Sale (with certain contingencies) with the Defendants

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       for the purchase of the Property on March 11, 2018. Trial Tr. vol. I, 39:7-13; Trial Tr. vol.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       I, 60:1-15; P-2; D-26,                               |           |
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   19, The Plaintiff hired a home inspection company to conduct an inspection of the Property.
<: TG RRSPBENS BOG ROGRID-ILAAT ERIS AEDS ACR Ocaineg at RacktyRob Buockst Pyotr AREY BBZ7 NOB OM: Fes Prh0:00.. The filercerdifies that.this,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Trial Tr. vol. I, 39:16-18.                                  .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   20. The inspection was done on March 16, 2018. Trial Tr. vol. II, 61:20-23.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   21. The home inspection company issued an Inspection Report, dated March 16, 2018, which

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       indicated that structural components “appear functional.” Trial Tr. vol. II, 62:24-63:15;

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       D-27 § 3.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  22. Further, the Report stated that everything “‘appeared functional” in the interior except for

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       the steps, stairways, balconies, and railings, which Mr. McDonald subsequently fixed. Trial

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Tr. vol. III, 63:16-64:2; D-27 § 9.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  23. The Report did not identify any of the material defects that are claimed in this case. Trial

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Tr. vol. I, 138:2-5; D-27.                                              |
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  24. After receiving the Report, the Plaintiff requested repairs to the chimney and radon |

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       remediation. Trial Tr. vol. I, 39:19-23.                                                               |

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  25, There was an adjustment in the purchase price by $3,500:00, and some work was done to

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       correct the problems identified by the Report. Trial Tr. vol. I, 154:20-155:23; Trial Tr. vol.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      IM, 65:1-66:8.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  26. The sale was originally supposed to occur on May 17, 2018, but this was moved up to April

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      30, 2018. Trial Tr. vol. 1, 8:13-14, 40:12+19; Trial Tr. vol. III, 67:13-70:22; P-2; D-26.?
                                                                                                                                                                                                             E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter
     thilainitBebkenicady

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ? It is unclear which party needed to move the date up. Trial Tr. vol. II, 67:13-70:22. The Court, however, finds that
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              this is not a controlling factor.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       ‘S       -
                                                                           the provisions of the;Public Access PoliGyMbreisixc:
                                                                                                                                  &=                                                   2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 18

                                                                                                                                  i3
                                                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                                                   8
                                                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                                                   Ss
                                                                                                                                   Ci)
                                                                                                                                   <
                                                                                                                                  23
                                                                                                                                   6                                                     C. The Seller’s Disclosure Statement
                                                                                                                                   S
                                                                                                                                  $                                              27. On February 22, 2018, the Defendants signed a Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement (the
                                                                                                                                  &
                                                                                                                                  ~~

                                                                                                                                   &
                                                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                                                  =
                                                                                                                                  <
                                                                                                                                                                                     “SDS”). Trial Tr. vol. I, 31:11-16; P-1; D-25.
        AH 2-6 ORO, Fes PNOL0.                                                            IN THIS STATEMENT.
                                                                                                                                  +
                                                                                                                                   ©
                                                                                                                                  is
                                                                                                                                  $w
                                                                                                                                  and
                                                                                                                                   3
                                                                                                                                                                                     P-1 p. 10; D-25 p. 10.
                                                                                                                                   Ss
                                                                                                                                  oO
                                                                                                                                  8                                              32. The SDS provides that the Buyer (the Plaintiff) acknowledged receipt of it:
                                                                                                                                  KE
                                                                                                                                  as]
                                                                                                                                   s
                                                                                                                                   9
                                                                                                                                  2o
                                                                                                                                                                                              The undersigned Buyer acknowledges receipt of this Disclosure
                                                                                                                                  &                                                           Statement. Buyer acknowledges
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          that this Statement is not a warranty
                                                                                                                    oy
                                                                                                                                  g                                                           and that, unless stated otherwise in the sales contract, Buyer is
                                                                                                                  4
                                                                                                                    ©                                                                         purchasing this property in its present condition. It is Buyer’s
Racad ROCHE

                                                                                                                   $
                                                                                                                   ~
                                                                                                                    S                                                                         responsibility to satisfy himself or herself as to the condition of the
                                                                                                                                   nM.
                                                                                                                                  zgS                                                         property. Buyer may request that the property be inspected, at
                                                                                                                                  &
                                                                                                                                   oO
                                                                                                                                   o                                                          Buyer’s expense and by qualified professionals, to determine the
                                                                                                            wy
                                                                                                            a7)
                                                                                                                                                                                              condition of the structure and its components.
                                                                                                              &
                                                                                                                                  .S)

                                 @
                                 .                                                                                                                                        3 The Plaintiff's copy of the SDS does not include the Plaintiff's signature. P-1. Her signature is only on Defendants’
                                                                                                                                                                          copy. D-25. See Trial Tr. vol. I, 32:4-6. There was some dispute at trial regarding when the Plaintiff signed the SDS,
                                                                                                                                         E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                          but there was no dispute that she received it prior to signing the Agreement of Sale, Trial Tr. vol. I, 31:2-4, 28:19-24,
                                    :                                                                                                                                     and prior to final settlement, Trial Tr. vol. I, 135:7-8, 213:11-16, The Court finds the date of signing is irrelevant to
                                                                                                                                   n

                                                                                                                                                                          the claims asserted because the Plaintiff credibly testified to relying upon the representations of the SDS prior to
                                                                                                                                  e
                                                                                                                                  Ss                                      finalizing the sale. Trial Tr. vol. I, 32:1-3.

                                                                                                                                  g
                                                                                                                                  >
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      6

                                                                                                                                  3
                                                                                                                                  $

                                                                                                                                  7F
          nfidentiatinformationsard,decuments.differently tharlnoncontidentiah ROmaaion and doQument sisson
                                                                                                    Lotte
                                                                                                                      2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 19
       $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of
                                                                                             me:

                                                                                                                     P-1 p. 10; D-25 p. 10.
                                                                                            PY Uo

                                                                                                                 33. The SDS provides the definition of a “material defect” in two locations:             (1) in the
                                                                                              af

                                                                                                                     background section titled “Information Regarding the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law,”

                                                                                                                     and (2) in the disclosure section titled “Miscellaneous—Additional Material Defects.” P-1

                                                                                                                     p. 1,    {20(D); D-25 p. 1, | 20(D). It has two elements:

                                                                                                                              A material defect is a problem with a residential real property or any
                                                                                                                              portion of it that would have a significant adverse impact on the
                                                                                                                              value of the property or that involves an unreasonable risk to people
                                                                                               me

                                                                                                                              on the property. The fact that a structural element, system or
                                     ome

                                                                                                                              subsystem is at or beyond the end of the normal useful life of such
                                                                                                                              a structural element, system or subsystem is not by itself a material
                                                                                                                              defect.

                                                                                                                    P-1 p. 1, §20(D); D-25 p. 1, { 20(D); Trial Tr. vol. Il, 109:20-22.
                                                                                                                 34. There was no evidence that either party did not comprehend or understand the language of
                                                        128 Plot

                                                                                                                    the SDS.
           of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee
                                             y ats CRAG

                                                                                                                 35. The following sections of the SDS are relevant to the claims in this case:
                                                   ee

                                                                                                                         a.   Paragraph 5 asks about sump pumps and water infiltration in the basements and

                                                                                                                              crawl spaces. The Defendants said the Property has two sump pits and two sump
                                              RUKE Brett Rte

                                                                                                                              pumps—both of which have run and are in working order. P-1 9 5(A); D-25 ¥ 5(A).

                                                                                                                              With respect to water infiltration, the Defendants were aware of water leakage,
                                                         1%BAS WEG EEE REIT, COMTI

                                                                                                                              accumulation, or dampness within the basement or crawl space, and they were

                                                                                                                              aware of repairs or attempts to control the water or dampness problem.    P-1 J 5B);
  Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at Count: y

                                                                                                                              D-25 { 5(B). In their explanation to the “yes” answers, Defendants indicated “2nd
                                  BARB Lubathe es FaiBecnt: 22503676 -

                                                                                                                              sump pump installed” and “crawl space may get some moisture during heavy

                                                                                                                              rainfall 3/4 inches.” P-1    5; D-25   9 5, See Trial Tr. vol. I, 32:10-33:12, 161:4-
Pisses, Lead

                                                                                                                              162:7; Trial Tr. vol. I, 48:9-13; Trial Tr. vol, Il, 42:1-25.
                                                                                                                                                                ~]
                                                                                                                                                                         the: PublicAccess Policy Prrrcuzpects
                                                                                                                                                                                      of the Appéilate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information. and documents differently than-non-confidentiat information and documents. +s.   2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 20
                                                                                                                                                                      ef visions.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        b.     With respect to flooding and drainage on the Property, the Defendants maintained

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               flood insurance, and they were not aware of any past or present draining or flooding
FORCE ERIE BOTY BOGIES BIL: JOBRIF ESS RUDGEIERE ceived art MawkisPob Rocks dtr Hoty BAT OR OM, £26 PMO: Gaxkhe: filet. certifies thatibis.filing complies: withéhenare

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               problems affecting the Property, nor were they aware of any drainage or flooding

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               mitigation on the Property. P-] | 18(A); D-25 ] 18(A). But, the Defendants were

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               aware of a man-made feature that temporarily or permanently conveys or manages

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               storm water, and in the explanation for this “yes” answer, the Defendants wrote

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               “small swale.” P-1, { 18(A); D-25, { 18(A); Trial Tr. vol. I, 35:7-38:6; Trial Tr. vol.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Il, 64:3-12.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       c.     In Paragraph 7, the Defendants were not aware of (1) any past or present movement,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              shifting, deterioration, or other problems with walls, foundations, or other structural

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              components; (2) any past or present problems with driveways, walkways, patios, or

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              retaining walls on the Property; and (3) they were not aware of any past or present

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              water infiltration in the house or other structures, other than the roof, basement, or     ~

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              crawl spaces. P-1 { 7(A)-(C); D-25 | 7(A)-(C). See Trial Tr. vol. I, 33:13-34:21.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       d. In Paragraph 8, Defendants made additions, structural changes, or other alterations

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              to the Property including converting the garage into a family room in 2007,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             - removing a dividing wall between the living room and dining room in 2015, and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              adding a woodburning stove in the family room in 2011. P-1 | 8; D-25 ] 8; Trial
                                                         "75 pMB MELONTER BOPEMRBINET:’Cas e Records

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             . Tr. vol. I, 184:6-14; Trial Tr. vol. III, 48:12-18, 53:13-54:8. The addition of the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              wood burning stove was the only addition/alteration for which the Defendants

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              obtained a permit and final inspection/approval. P-1     8; D-25   8. See Trial Tr. vol.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              J, 34:22-35:6.
                                                             E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter ©
                                                 Betas GPuneyAs Asche Brattionatiyatsanenaeoaird Min Pid nfidentiabinformationaad documents differently thapnan-confidentatintoration and -daQumenttscaax:.                 2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 21
- Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE.35 Received at Coun ty of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                e. ‘Under Paragraph 20, for “miscellaneous” disclosures, the Defendants answered
                                                                                                                                                                                                                2

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    “no” to the question of whether they were “aware of any material defects to the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     property, dwelling, or fixtures which are not disclosed elsewhere on this form.” P-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     1 { 20(D); D-25 { 20(D). See Trial Tr. vol. I, 38:7-18; Trial Tr. vol. II, 74:7-10.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        36. Further, the Defendants made the following relevant disclosures:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               a. They          possessed   no   expertise   in   contracting,   engineering,   architecture,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     environmental assessment or other areas related to the construction and conditions
                                                                                                                                                                                                                oe

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     of the Property and its improvements, P-1 | 1(A); D-25 J 1(A). See Trial Tr. vol. I,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     160:4-12; Trial Tr. vol. Il, 39:9-15.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               b.    They were occupying the Property as of February 22, 2018. P-1 | 2(A); D-25 J

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     2(A).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               c. Termites had previously affected the Property, and the Property was treated for this
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    problem when the Defendants purchased it in 2005. P-1] 6; D-25 { 6; Trial Tr. vol.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    I, 187:21-188:8; Trial Tr. vol, I, 89:25-90:21; Trial Tr. vol. UI, 45:15-46:10.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               D. Problems and Repairs

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        37. After settlement, the Plaintiff discovered several problems with the Property that she

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           asserts are material defects that the Defendants failed to disclose:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               a.   Flooding in the basement and adjoining crawlspace, Trial Tr. vol. I, 42:17-61:7; P-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    3 to P-S;                                             |
                                                                                                                                                                                  ~~

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              b.    Flooding in the yard, Trial Tr. vol. I, 63:16-70:4; P-11A;

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              c. A deteriorated and failing front wall on thé main level (affecting both front
                                                                                                                                                                                    * B-MRD GPa het cHeiBert 22503676

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    bedrooms and the family room), Trial Tr. vol. I, 70:5-89:6; P-9 to P-11;
            I PARGEIS yeRehe BA Re

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ‘d.    Cracked floor tiles in the family room, Trial Tr. vol. I, 97:17-103:3; P-6; P-27;
                                                                                                                                                                                         and. Cogumentiecns:
                                                                                                                                                                                      contde                             2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 22
                                                                                                                                                                                  Vania ft
$0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             e.   An improperly installed front porch, Trial Tr. vol. I, 89:8-92:15; P-7;
                                                                                                                                                                       atias inigunalion
                                                                                                                                        andedocuments differently dhan.nen-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             f.   Deteriorated masonry on the front of the house, Trial Tr. vol. I, 92:16-97:16; P-8;
                                                                                                                                                                          Me alae wore

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  and                                                                      7

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             g. A failing split-rail fence around the back of the Property, Trial Tr. vol. I, 103:4-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  106:3; P-11B.                                                                         )
                                                                                                                                                                              opata

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    38. The Plaintiff presented photographs of these problems that she took after purchasing the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Property. P-4 to P-11; P-29; D-50.*

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    39. The Plaintiff had mold remediation performed in the basement, and she has a dehumidifier
                                                                                                                                   eos we
                                                                        Abneke Brett ona paesCTVSR/EORire2b P ktpnsidential information

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        running twenty-four/seven in the basement: Trial Tr. vol. I, 60:12-20.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    40. The Plaintiff had the concrete wall in the basement filled with cement to keep the water

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        out. Trial Tr. vol. I, 61:1-4.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   41, Scott Cambum of Urwiler & Walter, a land development, surveying, and engineering firm,
          Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at Count y of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        testified as to the topographical survey and plan to address grading issues of the Property.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Trial Tr. vol. I, 246:20-253:19,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   42. Mr. Camburn prepared a proposal for a‘plan of action for engineering and surveying

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        services. Trial Tr. vol. I, 247:17-3; P-16,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   43. Mr. Camburn was asked to generate a plan of existing conditions, to prepare a grading plan,
                                                                            PERO RAGS AS GOUT

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        and to prepare an erosion control plan. Trial Tr. vol. I, 252:13-253:12; P-16.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   44, Thomas Gavin was hired to do some of the work at the Plaintiff's home. Trial Tr. vol. I,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        107:12-13.
                                                                                                                           vere
                                                                                                                         eee

                                                                                                                                                                                                               ‘There was some discussion at trial regarding the dates the pictures were taken. On the third day of trial, the Parties
                                                                                                                                                                                                               submitted additional exhibits that include the dates the pictures were taken for clarification, Trial Tr. vol. Il,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  3:16-
                                                                                                                                                                                                               10:6; P-29; D-46 to D-49,                                       .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         10
                                                                                              beahet G6 umty Anh Ralls Rrottionatéry onsotvacreqaird Ae erapcfidential ioformation. aul stocuments-oifferenty, than.aen-confidantiayinformation.and-gaguments richigeen!       2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 23
$0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           45. Mr. Gavin provided a proposal for the repairs dated November 24, 2019, which he testified
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   relay Pt

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               was fair in value. Trial Tr. vol. I, 224:24-246:3; Trial Tr. vol. I, 20:5-12; P-15.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           46, Mr. Gavin inspected the front walls in the bedrooms, the converted garage, and the exterior

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               masonry—not the basement or the landscaping/fence. Trial Tr. vol. I, 221:8-18; P-14.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           47. Mr. Gavin made various repairs including the following:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   a.   Mr. Gavin raised the floor in the family room. Trial Tr. vol J, 223:5-16.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  b.    Mr. Gavin reframed the interior walls and installed vinyl siding on the exterior.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Trial Tr. vol. I, 223:18-20.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  c.    Mr, Gavin installed new electrical. Trial Tr. vol. I, 224:3-7,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  d. Mr. Gavin removed the concrete on the front porch and poured a new slab, draining

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        away from the house. Trial Tr. vol. I, 224:20-23.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  e.    Mr. Gavin sistered the studs in the basement and fixed the ribbon board and sill
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at Count y of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        plate in the basement. Trial Tr. vol. I, 60:22-25.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           48. Michael Lohman was hired by the Plaintiff to inspect the house and give an opinion

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              concerning the conditions of the house, which Plaintiff relied on when she contracted for

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              repairs. Trial Tr. vol. I, 106:4-15.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           49. Mr. Lohman is qualified as an expert in residential construction, and the Parties agreed that

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              he was permitted to testify about his observations of the conditions of the Property and the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              cause of the conditions he observed. Trial Tr. vol. II, 4:18-23.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           50. Mr. Lohman was also permitted to testify as to the reasonableness and necessity of the
                                                                                                                                    78 E.Mpla (Rubia headesdHaeiBept: 22503676

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              work and the costs that were incurred to fix the issues, Trial Tr. vol. IJ, 5:24-6:1; P-14.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           51. Herbert Scott conducted a site inspection of the Property on March 6, 2019. Trial Tr. vol.
                                                                                                         EF GA,
                                                                                              OIRAGIES EER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Il, 130:21-24,                                   |                    |

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          11
                                                                                                   ERM
                                                                                              abe woes
                                                                                                                                                                            a Mie kipitidentialinformatios aboddéuments differant! than.non-confidertiatintesmation.and- documents.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Ate os
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 24
$0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           nae

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         52. Mr. Scott is qualified as an expert in the building science, general construction, and home
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 te

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             inspection field, Trial Tr. vol. II, 99:20-23.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  A Magia FOfe

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         53. There was evidence of water in the basement. Trial Tr. vol. II, 9:22-12:10.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         54. There was evidence of water damage in the interior walls of the bedrooms and the family
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    bosip  oO

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             room. Trial Tr. vol. I, 221:22-223:1; Trial Tr. vol. I, 12:15-16:2, 175:4-24.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         55. This water damage caused rotted studs, joists, etc. in the walls of the bedrooms and the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             family room. Trial Tr. vol. I, 221 2-973:1; Trial Tr. vol. IJ, 175:14-17.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         56. There was evidence of termite damage in the walls in addition to water damage. Trial Tr.
                                                                                                                                                                                                         rat eH?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             vol. II, 22:12-20, 145:4-146:15, 158:20-159:1, 175:4-24.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         57. Drywall with a date of 2013 was installed in the bedroom. Trial Tr. vol. Il, 13:1-6; P-9.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         58. The tile on the floor in the family room was cracked. The floor was not properly prepped.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             and leveled. Trial Tr. vol. I, 223:5-16; Trial Tr. vol. I, 16:3-18:5, 162:12-21.
          Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at Coun ty of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee
                                                                                         BPPREEOIEOREEIG MOEA BF Petra i emRbestas County niikuilcke BrattionatapebsCneQeOat

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         59. The front porch was not properly sloped away from the house. Trial Tr. vol. I, 224:20-23,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Trial Tr. vol. I, 18:6-19:25, 167:13-168:17,           )
                                                                                                                                                               ges

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         60. The original construction of the home, approximately fifty (50) years prior to the Plaintiff's
                                                                                                                                                            Se

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            purchase, led to problems with water in the walls and damage to the exterior masonry. Trial

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Tr. vol. I, 234:8-238:19; Trial Tr. vol. Il, 27:24-28:12, 144:23-145:3, 148:24-149:11,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             159:15-23, 165:23-166:5.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                E. Damages and Repairs

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         61. Plaintiff asserts that the total estimated repair for the property is $241,259.58, including
                                                                                                    o Sennes dHeletBept: 22503676 *

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            work that the Plaintiff has already done and work that the Plaintiff expects to have done.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            P-14,
                                                                                  S78 BMRA BQHE)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        12
                                                                                               ge
                                                                                Rae
                                                            A RucKe Erathionatayiots HhaZegaita 125 Pltpntidentiat information: ard daguments differentiy.than-nes-eantidential dtp Gpatlenea NG AO CUR eM Rex:               2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 25
                                                                                                                                                                                                          ong
                                              ly of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of
                                                                                                                                                                                                     ve

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        I.       PROCEDURAL POSTURE
                                                                                                                                                                                    eo ocrva g

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             The Plaintiff filed a Complaint on November 26, 2018                   asserting three counts: (I) Violation

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   of the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law (“RESDL”), 68 Pa.C.S. §§ 7301 et seq.; (II) Violation of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. §§ 201-1 et seq.;

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   and (III) Negligence.° The Defendants filed an ‘Answer, New Matter, and Counterclaim on

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   December 28, 2018 asserting a breach of contract.® The Plaintiff responded on January 8, 2019.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   The Praecipe for a Jury Trial was filed on December 10, 2019, and the case was initially ordered
                                                                                                                                      a OUTTA

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   on the trial list for the Trial Term beginning March 2, 2020.’ The Parties filed Pre-Trial

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  - Memorandums on February 24, 2020.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             The undersigned held a telephone conference with the Parties on September 24, 2020. One

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   of the issues raised during this conference
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             was whether there was a right to a jury trial for a claim

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  asserted under the RESDL. The Parties agreed that there was no right to a jury trial for such a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  claim, and therefore, a waiver trial was held before the undersigned from October 6, 2020 through

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  October 8, 2020.                                                                                                          |

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             At the beginning of trial, the Parties also stipulated to withdrawal of a claim conceming

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  misrepresentation of square footage of the property. Trial Tr. vol. I, 8:2-5. And, the Parties
                                  Ae: PERE TERS As CPUTEV

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  stipulated that the request for attorneys’ fees under the UTPCPL would be heard through post-trial

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  submissions, without requiring expert testimony. Trial Tr. vol. I, 8:6-12.
    Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at Count

         a Bes diet: iBept: 22503676

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  * Prior to trial, the Parties stipulated to the withdrawal of Count II for Negligence—leaving only two counts, one for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  violation of the RESDL and the other for violation of the UTPCPL. Stipulation, Mar. 2, 2020; Trial Tr. vol. I, 7:16-
                                        ey

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  20.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  * Prior to trial, the Parties stipulated to withdrawal of the counterclaim. Stipulation, Mar. 2, 2020; Trial Tr. vol. I, 7:21-
                                                                      oy

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  23.
| EMRE BYRNE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  7 The case was subsequently ordered on the trial list for the Trial Term beginning April 13, 2020; the Trial Term
                                                                     6

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  beginning August 3, 2020; and finally, the Trial Term beginning September 28, 2020.
                                                          ARGS!

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               13
                                                               2,
                                                                                                                                                                                                             vifferently thacmemcontidentatiniumatiosand documentscroyed
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               A hen ee
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 26
$0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I.       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          WeFR om

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        A. RESDL, 68 Pa.C.S. §§ 7301 et seq:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    There is no dispute about the applicability of the RESDL. See 68 Pa.C.S. § 7302; Medlock
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          te Te (Eres oo

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           y. Chilmark Home Inspections, LLC, 195 A.3d 277, 288 (Pa. Super, 2018) (stating the RESDL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           “applies ‘to all residential real estate transfers’ except for certain types of transfers”). The purpose

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           of the RESDL is “to protect the purchaser of real property, and the method of protection is a
                                                                                                                                                      Nts HAGA ed 2h Pld nticentetintormetioneaacd.decoments

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           disclosure statement that is included within the bill that the sellér has to complete so that
                                                                                                                                                                                                 lana ~L

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           presumably the buyer accurately: knows what the seller knows about the property when the sale

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           occurs.” Medlock, 195 A.3d at 290 n.7 (quoting Phelps v. Caperoon, 190 A.3d 1230, 1245 (Pa.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Super. 2018)). Further, the RESDL “protects the purchasers of real property and ensures that both

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           parties have some parity of knowledge regarding any issues with the property.” Id. (quoting Phelps,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           190 A.3d at 1246).
          Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Under the RESDL, homeowners are required to disclose material defects to the purchaser:
                                                                                                                     SB AIREAT Ok GPHTEY OS FORE ERATRNMNAY

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            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. § 7303. If a seller does not know of certain information that is required to be disclosed
                                                                                                               WERE:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           at the time disclosure is made, “the seller may make a disclosure based on the best information
                                                                                                               3676. 77°

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           available to the seller.” Id. § 7306. There is no exception to the disclosure requirements. Phelps,
                                                                                                                                                             iBopt: Z2

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           190 A.3d at 1238.
                                                                                                88 Fé

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    A material defect is defined as:
                                            wre                                                    RS: CS
                                                                                    ” BL AMBE HubliDathe

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              14
                                                                                                               ABA
                                                                                                                                                                                          ‘Rie
                                                                                                                                                d oe! wméntsidifferently then aes-oorfidential infarmatar-ar-dacuments,               2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 27
    The filer certifies that this filin g complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                Bpeseds

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           _ A problem with a residential real property or any portion of it that
                                                                                                                                                                                      TPS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            would have a significant adverse impact on the value of the property
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            or that involves an unreasonable risk to people on the property. The
                                                                                                                                                                                    ~

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            fact that a structural element, system or subsystem is near, at or
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            beyond the end of the normal useful life of such a structural element,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ‘system or subsystem is not by itselfa material defect.
                                                                                                                                                                                   vA
                                                                                                                                                                                    Be,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          68 Pa.C.S. § 7102. The SDS in this case defines a material defect with the exact same language.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          P-1 p.1,     20(D); D-25 p.1, | 20(D). “Generally, a seller ‘should only be required to reveal material
                                                                                                                                                                                    *
                                                                                                                                                                              Etemte"

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          defects with the actual physical structure of the house, with legal impairments on the property, and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          with hazardous materials located there.” Phelps, 190 A.3d at 1237 (quoting Milliken v. Jacono, 60
                                                      G6 Reerelveront Gavetn ph euats Srratraactequnts OTA 2RNAte HRPBdnfidentialinfoxation dnd 203

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          A.3d 133, 140 (Pa. Super. 2012) (en banc) (examining 68 PaC.s. § 7304 and discussing the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          mandatory disclosures under the RESDL that'deal with the actual physical structure of the house,
                                                                                                                                                                            0
                                                                                                                                                                          Arie

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          its components,      and the condition of the curtilage-—Section 7304(a)(3)-{13); potential legal
                     $0.00.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          impairments attached to the property—Sections 7304(a)(15)-(16); and hazardous substances on

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          the property—Section 7304(a)(14))).
               of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     There is an affirmative duty imposed upon the seller:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            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 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. § 7308; Medlock ) 195 A.3d at 289-90. The Pennsylvania Superior Court in Medlock
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE.35 Received at Count y

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          discussed the disclosure requirement of the RESDL:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            [W]e 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
                                                                             Bc hectdRoPt:
                                                                              SR ROP RE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            any representations that the seller or the agent for the seller knows
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            or has reason to know are false, deceptive or misleading[.]”
                                                x4

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             1S
                                                                                                                                                                  th
                                                                                                                       men.againential infarmation-ang documents, sans
                                                                                                                                                                 "pagina
                                                                                                                                                                                      2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 28
 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                             195 A.3d at 290 (quoting 68 Pa.C.S. § 7308),
                                                                                                                                                                 Goes
                                                                                                                                                                 PIR

                                                                                                                                                                                     “[A]ny person who willfully or negligently violates or fails to perform any duty prescribed
                                                                                                                                                                 ose
                                                                                                                 theaerently

                                                                                                                                                                             by any provision
                                                                                                                                                                                            of this chapter shall be liable in the amount of actual damages suffered by the
                                                                                                                   “asp fice’

                                                                                                                                                                             buyer as a result of a violation of this chapter.” 68 Pa.C.S. § 7311(a). However, the seller is not |
                                                                                                           is-diff

                                                                                                                                                                             liable for any errors, inaccuracies, or omissions in the SDS if (1) the seller had no knowledge of

                                                                                                                                                                             the error, inaccuracy, or omission; (2) if the error, inaccuracy, or omission “was based on a
                                                                                                           oes

                                                                                                                                                                           | reasonable belief that a material defect or other matter not disclosed had been corrected”; or (3)
                                                                                                                                                          Bers
                                                                             cat Some ppevats smattrona tenors HA ZRNAte 1nd Phd nfidentiakintormation and act
                                                                                                                                                          PTS

                                                                                                                                                                             the error, inaccuracy, or omission “was based on information provided by a public agency, home

                                                                                                                                                                             inspector, contractor or person registered or licensed. . . .” Id. § 7309(a). Although there may be

                                                                                                                                                                             an “as is” clause in the SDS, the “RESDL contains no exceptions to the disclosure requirements,
                                                                                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                                                                                 MA

                                                                                                                                                                             including the presence of an ‘as is’ clause in an agreement to transfer residential real estate, and

                                                                                                                                                                             thus, Seller must comply.” Phelps, 190 A.3d at 1238.
Case# 201 8-0681 6-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at Count y of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                    The Plaintiff is seeking actual damages, plus interest capped at the sales price of the
                                                                                                                                                                 wee

                                                                                                                                                                            property under the RESDL, 68 Pa.C.S. § 7311, because the Defendants did not disclose material

                                                                                                                                                                            defects of the Property about which they knew or had reason to know. The “actual damages” that

                                                                                                                                                                            may be awarded are “repair costs, capped by the market value of the property.” Medlock, 195 A.3d

                                                                                                                                                                            at 290 (quoting Phelps, 190 A.3d at 1246). The defects that the Plaintiff asserts claims for include

                                                                                                                                                                            (1) flooding in the basement and crawl space; (2) flooding in the yard; B) deteriorated and failing

                                                                                                                                                                            front wall on main level in the bedrooms and family room; (4) cracked floor tiles in the family

                                                                                                                                                                            room; (5) improperly installed front porch; (6) deteriorated masonry on the front of the house; and
                                                                                              GE:

                                                                                                                                                                           - (7) failing split-rail fence. Each of these alleged material defects is discussed below.
                                                                          EMcos tape Ta sent a0

                                                                                                                                                                                    The Court applies the definition of a material defect found in the RESDL and the SDS—

                                                                                                                                                                            “A problem with a residential real property or any portion of it that would have a significant

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              16
                                                                                                                                   E. HATA
                                                                                                           widen,
                                                                                                                                                    £0
 HDS Poa tidentiai-ioformation and.doeampniscdifferent! 'y thaswaencentidential infosmetion,and_doc umen, ferry                                                                   2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 29
                                                                                                                                                  erin
       $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                EE

                                                                                                                                                                         adverse impact on the value of the property or that involves an unreasonable risk to people on the
                                                                                                                                                he

                                                                                                                                                                         property.” 68 Pa.C.S. § 7102; P-I p.1,
                                                                                                                                                eA

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  {20(D); D-25 p.1, | 20(D). The alleged material defects in

                                                                                                                                                                         this case are all related to the actual physical structure of the Property. See Phelps, 190 A.3d at
                                                                                                                                               ste

                                                                                                                                                                         1237 (quoting Milliken, 60 A.3d at 140). Importantly, the seller is not liable for any errors,
                                                                                                                                               ott
                                                                                                                                               Méabhy

                                                                                                                                                                         inaccuracies, or omissions in the SDS if (1) the seller had no knowledge of the error, inaccuracy,

                                                                                                                                                                         or omission; or (2) if the error, inaccuracy, or omission “was based on a reasonable belief that a
                                       oe i one cS

                                                                                                                                                                         material defect or other matter not disclosed had been corrected.” 68 Pa.C.S. § 7309(a). And, the

                                                                                                                                                                       _ RESDL “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 to know are false,

                                                                                                                                                                        deceptive or misleading[.]’” Medlock, 195 A.3d at 290 (quoting 68 Pa.C.S. § 7308).
                                                                                                                                               Appin et

                                                                                                                                                                            1,   Flooding in the Basement and Crawl Space

                                                                                                                                                                                 The Court does not find flooding in the basement and crawl space was a material defect for
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at Coun ty of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                        which Plaintiff can recover. The Defendants were aware of significant water in the basement on at
                                                                                                      GoHetA op Blsks drrotaaetquas O7AO RDI
                                                                                                                                           re
                                                                                                                                           Ty

                                                                                                                                                                        least three occasions during heavy rains prior to installing the second sump pump, characterizing

                                                                                                                                                                        the basement as a “wet basement.” The Defendants admitted that the basement flooded prior to

                                                                                                                                                                        installation of the second sump pump. The Defendants had an affirmative duty not to make any

                                                                                                                                                                        representations that they knew were false, deceptive, or misleading; they were required to disclose

                                                                                                                                                                        any known material defects. See 68 PaCS, § 7308; Medlock,        195 A.3d at 289-90. However, the
                                   CE Re Reversal

                                                                                                                                                                        Defendants are not liable for failure to disclose a material defect if the omission of it on the SDS

                                                                                                                                                                        was based on a reasonable belief that the material defect had been corrected. See 68 Pa.C.S. §
                           Ze UDRE
  pant een a Op Py SAA AD:22503676

                                                                                                                                                                        7309(a). The Court finds that Defendants did not have any flooding issues after the installation of

                                                                                                                                                                        the second sump pump. The Plaintiff, although she states that she experienced flooding on multiple
                                                                                                                                    E-PMEP SP eI h Dem AecRedidRept:

                                                                                                                                                                        occasions, only provided photographs of one instance when nearly five inches of rain fell.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        17
 Lge
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              mormatiosand documeatsat,
                                                                                                                                                                                          fyte
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 30
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   i
 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     The Court finds that the Defendants reasonably believed the material defect was corrected
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   "TGfeese

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            by the addition of the second sump pump. There was no credible evidence that they experienced
                                                                                                                                                                                                             differently:thanaes-aentidential

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            significant flooding in the basement after the installation of the second sump pump. The
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           satn £0, AP *

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Defendants indicated on the SDS that a second sump pump was installed and that the crawl space

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            may get some moisture during heavy rainfalls. Based on the testimony, the Court finds this

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            disclosure was sufficient.   .                 ,
                                                                                                                                                                                               anc.doguments
                                                                                                                                                                                          Bee’

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                2.   Flooding in the Yard
                                                                                                                                                                                                   74

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     The Court does not find that flooding in the yard was a material defect for which the
                                                                                                                                                 quots O70 2apate1 a8 Pho nfideatalsnfarmation

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Plaintiff can recover. There was no evidence presented that the flooding had a significant impact
                                                                                                                                                                                  FE ig

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            on the value of the Property or that it involved an unreasonable risk to people.on the Property.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Neither expert provided significant testimony regarding the flooding of the lot. The Defendants

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            admitted that a swale was installed, and that the water was redirected to the. side yard area.
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Furthermore, there was work done replacing the septic system, which apparently fixed the
                                                                                                                                                            is                                                 me
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Th       t

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            problem. The Defendants even hosted a backyard wedding in May 2015, following a heavy
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ) rainstorm. Trial Tr. vol. II, 79:8-80:25; D-32 to D-36. It would have been reasonable for them to
                                                                              15) dar AZBOP CED sUaNee- Cea Rei cedcet Steet pp lists Mratiioiad
                                                                                                                                           hay

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            believe that there was no yard drainage issue which had a Significant impact on the value of the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            property.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     On the SDS, Defendants answered “no” they were not “aware of any past or present

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            drainage or flooding problems affecting the property.” Based on this language, asking if the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Defendants were aware of “any past . . . drainage or flooding problems,” one could argue that the
                                                                                                                    UPUPIED DEORG:RERtERCOL: 22503676

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Defendants clearly were aware of a “past” flooding problem and for that reason should have

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            disclosed a past flooding problem on the SDS. However, as with the flooding in the basement, the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Defendants reasonably believed the problem ‘was corrected by the replacement of the septic
                                                                             ORS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               18
                                                                                                     aes ig
                                                                                                                         "EPMA
                                                                                                                                                                                                ead documents: crux
                                                                                                                                                                                                               ABA
                                                                                                 Ba Phonfidentiahintsrmation and documents cifferently thah:Pen-ceblidential information                                         2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 31
                                                                                                     $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of
                                                                                                                                                                                        “V7e Pent Pe

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      system, and therefore, the Court will not find them liable for failing to disclose past drainage

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      problems.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          3.    Deteriorated and Failing Front Wall in the Bedrooms and Family Room
                                                                                                                                                                   Phear RF

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               _ The deteriorated and failing front walls are a material defect for which Plaintiff can recover.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Deterioration on the interior of the walls—rotting studs, moist insulation, deteriorated gypsum
                                                                                                                                                          -

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      board—has       a significant adverse impact on the value of property, evidenced by the cost of
                                                                                                                                         27F Bee pate wpe

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      replacing such walls. The Defendants          admit to fixing a crack in the corner bedroom,        which

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      required replacing the drywall and sistering the studs in 2013. Both experts noted that the interior

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      walls were moist and that termites could not cause moisture damage—trather, moisture likely led
                                                                                                               AAR AE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      to the termite problem.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                When the Defendants replaced the drywall in 2013, they were able to.look into the wall

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      and see what was happening. Mr. McDonald admitted he sistered the studs because the original
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee
 eQaseB OM AEB IG SEALER PEGs WAGE: 8 Recedeitds CourtyippBlaks MnotfordtGnuots WAIApate
                                                                                            Ate

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      studs were rotted. He saw the rotted gypsum board, but he did not replace it. In 2013, the interior
                                                                                        cel

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ofthe wall looked “similar” to what was shown in the Plaintiffs photographs presented at trial.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      The Defendants were clearly aware of the deteriorated interior walls in the bedroom. Their
                                                                    Apith 1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      knowledge of this damage in at least one bedroom should have been disclosed as a material defect

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      on the SDS. On the SDS, the Defendants indicated they were not aware of any problems with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      deterioration of walls or any water infiltration in the house; other than the basement or crawl space.
                                              oe a     re)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Based on Mr. McDonald’s replacement of the drywall in the comer bedroom, these statements

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      were either false, deceptive, or misleading, and the Defendants are liable.
E-Meln SPubiicebeerechearéept: 22503676

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         4.     Cracked Floor Tiles in the Family Room

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                The cracked floor tiles in the family room, some of which were obvious, are a.defect. It is

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      undisputed that at least some of the cracked tiles were visible when the Plaintiff visited the property

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           19
                                                                          Po =
                                                                                                                                            '
                                                                                                                                       Mt
                                                                                                                                                                                                                Sean iis
                                                                                                                                                                                            ate ¢fa
                                                                                                                                                                                 tial Infozmeaea       POCUM eMnd                    2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 32
                                                                                                       $0.00.‘ The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of
                                                                                                                                        simp gee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            prior to purchasing the home. Both she and her inspector should have seen the obvious tiles and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            could have checked the entire floor with little effort. Floor tiles will crack, there was no expert
                                                                                                                                                                                                   tor

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            testimony presented suggesting a “normal useful life” of this particular structural element. This is
                                                                                                                                                                                                eds

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           the type of damage which purchasers of homes typically identify and then bicker with the seller -
                                                                                                                                                                              aanaie
                                                                                                                                                                    thap

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            over a credit at the closing. The Court does not find that the cracked tiles would have had a
                                                                                                  ine Pkpntide ntiekimormmaionand dddcaranis cifferently,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            “sipnificant adverse impact on the value of the property,” and therefore this defect does not rise to
                                                                                                                                                                                8 Kone Pre

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            the level of a “material defect.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The Court finds the Defendants are not liable for failing to disclose this defect. As
                                                                                                                                pt

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           mentioned, the purpose of the RESDL is to protect the buyer so that the buyer and the seller “have
                                                                                                                                                                                   "
                                                                                                                    Sate adn ap                                                Fate of i

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           some parity of knowledge regarding any issues with the property.” Medlock, 195 A.3d at 290 n.7
                                                                                                                ee
                                                                                                                                                                                     .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (quoting Phelps,     190   A.3d   at 1246).   Although there are no exceptions
                                            pRaes En Goins ve Btiaks Grothoiatéyiotsdha2agater

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               to the disclosure

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           requirements, the Parties had some parity of knowledge regarding the cracked floor tiles because
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at Coun ty of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee
                                                                                                                                                                        une

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           they were visible at the time of sale, and the Court does not find that cracked floor tiles would have
                                                                                                                                                                        “oF

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           had a significant adverse impact on the value of the property.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               5.   Improperly Installed Front Porch
                                                                                                                                                                        ot
                                                                                                                                                                        Pyteme

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The Plaintiff has not proven the improperly installed front porch is a material defect for
                                                                                                                                                                        ftet
                                                                                                                                                                        no

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           which she can recover. It is undisputed that the frorit porch did not slope away from the house.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Although Mr. McDonald installed the porch tile on top of the existing concrete without first
                                              VAP ot.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           leveling it, there is no evidence that the Defendants knew that there was a material defect of water
                                                                                                                                                                        oer

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           pooling. There was no evidence that the Defendants ever experienced water pooling on the front
                                                                                                                 Gi: $7 4Rcpt: 225036 76

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           porch. There is no evidence that this happened on any occasion other than when the Plaintiff took

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           the pictures which were presented at trial, It is not likely that the improperly installed front porch
                 Sy APBR he

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           led to a significant amount of deterioration in the front wall and basement. The Court finds the
                                                                                           AHA ch

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             20
                                                          oe
                                                                                          ee
                                                                                          ifideatial irformationnacidecumentSenne:
                                                                                                                                                                               tt
                                                                                                                                                                                                   2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 33
                                                                          of the Public Access Policy of
                                                                                                                                                                               weet

                                                                                                                                                                                         Defendants’ testimony credible that they were not aware of this alleged material defect, and                   ©
                                                                                                       Te  maa

                                                                                                                                                                                         therefore, they are not liable for it.

                                                                                                                                                                                             6.   Deteriorated Masonry on the Front of the House
                                                                                                                                                                               nt
 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions
                                                                                                                                                                               fie
                                                                   5

                                                                                                                                                                                                  The Plaintiff has not proven the deteriorated masonry on the front of the house is a material
                                                             Stanet, ppBiaks salttioiablequets OTA 2ARNIte Ti Phonfidential intormation and documnénfs-ditferently thassnah.   Sn

                                                                                                                                                                                         defect for which she can recover. The experts concluded that the deteriorated masonry was from

                                                                                                                                                                                         water infiltration due to the original construction of the home, which was typical construction for
                                                                                                                                                                               FS
                                                                                                                                                                               Woe

                                                                                                                                                                                       " homes that were approximately fifty (50) years old. “The fact that a structural element.    . . is near,
                                                                                                                                                                               Timed

                                                                                                                                                                                         at or beyond the end of the normal useful life of such a structural élement . . . is not by itself a

                                                                                                                                                                                         material defect.” 68 Pa.C.S. § 7102. Although Mr. McDonald opened the front bedroom wall and

                                                                                                                                                                                         saw the deteriorating wood and gypsum board, there was no evidence that he saw deteriorated

                                                                                                                                                                                         masonry. The Court cannot assume he had knowledge of this condition and finds the Plaintiff has

                                                                                                                                                                                       - not proven the deteriorated masonry is a material defect for which she is entitled to recover.
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                             7. Failing Split-Rail Fence

                                                                                                                                                                                                  The Plaintiff has not proven the failing split-rail fence is a material defect for which she

                                                                                                                                                                                         can recover. Although the Defendants were aware of the failing split rail fence, there was no
                                                                                                                                                                               has

                                                                                                                                                                                         evidence to support a claim that this was a material defect that adversely impacts the value of the
                                                     86 Rapeiventet

                                                                                                                                                                                        . property or involves:an unreasonable risk to people on the property. 68 Pa.C.S. § 7102. Split-rail

                                                                                                                                                                                         fences of the type on the property regularly need replacement pieces, and their “normal useful life”

                                                                                                                                                                                         is quite limited.

                                                                                                                                                                                                      B. UTPCPL, 73 P.S. §§ 201-1 et seq.
                                                                                                                                                                    03676

                                                                                                                                                                                                  The purpose of the UTPCPL is to “protect the public from unfair or deceptive business

                                                                                                                                                                                        practices,” Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 195 A.3d 930, 941 (Pa, Super. 2018) (quoting Richards           -
                                                                                                                                                           7 UBIISh DCR Pe chesedRCP
                                                                                                          RA TS, SVT ZERE
                                                                                                                                                         E-PaIND
                                                                                              the Gagne OLR

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          2]
                                                                                        ive
                                                                                        spree
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 34
 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 152 A.3d 1027, 1035 (Pa. Super. 2016)). It is for consumer protection. Id.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               at 940.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Under the UTPCPL, “[e]ngaging in any [] fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a
                                                                                                                                                                                                              documents diterently than none

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding,” is an unfair method of competition or unfair or

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               deceptive act or practice. 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi). Such an act or practice is unlawful. Id. § 201-3.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               “[AJny deceptive conduct, ‘which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding,’ is |
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Crp

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               actionable under 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi), whether committed intentionally (as in fraudulent

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               misrepresentation), carelessly (as in a negligent misrepresentation), or with the utmost care (as in
                                                                                                                                                                          am.F Bldonfidentiat intoanstionsand
                                                                                                                                                                                                 APA eat

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               strict liability).’” Gregg, 195 A.3d at 939 (quoting Commonwealth v. TAP Pharm. Prods., Inc., 36

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               A.3d 1197, 1253      (Pa. Cmwith.    2011)). Strict liability is imposed “on vendors who      deceive

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               consumers by creating a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding in private, as well as public,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               causes of actions. Carelessness or intent, required for negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations,
Case# 2018-0681 6-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Grams
                                                                                                      BF HEM SHARE: Ieee bem as. County Ant cule BrathimoteyonsOTee/egatd

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               may be absent when perpetrating ‘deceptive conduct’ under 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi).” Id. (citing

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               TAP Pharm. Prods., 36 A.3d at 1253). The purchase of a home for residential purposes is protected
                                                                                                                                                       Suh Tay

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               -by the UTPCPL. Growall v. Maietta, 931 A.2d 667, 676 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing Valley Forge
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    (
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Towers §. Condo. v. Ron-Ike Foam Insulators, Inc., 574 A.2d 641, 648 (Pa. Super. 1990)).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         The UTPCPL provides for a private right to recover damages:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Any person who purchases or leases goods or services primarily for
                                                                                                                                                                                 lanwet

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               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
                                                                                                                                                                                                keer dieciBept: 22503676 ~

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              _ to recover actual damages or one hundred dollars ($ 100), whichever
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               is greater. The court may, in its discretion, award up to three times
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               the 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
                                                                                                                                                                                       EMala ubtina

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               relief provided in this section, costs and reasonable attorney fees.
                                                                                                      EB RANB LON GAEIE yet

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 22
                                                                                                      Ect
                                                                                                                                                                                       er
                                                                                                 2H Fldontidential inforavationvarid documentssditterent|. than non-cinfilentiahintormation ansdacumentsi: :. ;               2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 35
                                                                                                      $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of
                                                                                                                                                                                                 iat eens

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Id. § 201-9.2. This gives the trial court discretion to award treble damages and attorneys’ fees. Id.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Plaintiff is seeking up to three times actual damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs
                                                                                                                                                                                 oe

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ‘under the UTPCPL because the Defendants engaged in “fraudulent and deceptive” conduct. At
                                                                                                                                                                         a EAp

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  this time, the Court will only address whether to award up to three times actual damages for

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  “fraudulent and deceptive” conduct. * The undersigned found that Defendants failed to disclose
                                                                                                                                                      75 yeris

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  material defects in the deteriorated interior walls in violation of the RESDL. See Section ILA.3,
                                                                                                                                                  Seas

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  supra. This constitutes a violation of the UTPCPL for which Plaintiff may recover up to three

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  times actual damages. 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       IV.      DAMAGES
                                                                                                                        Payee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             As mentioned, “[a] material defect is a problem with a residential real property or any
                                        EO ROCSOS. GO Unsy/of aulieke Erattionatay.orsQrvac/egatd

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  portion of it that would have a significant adverse impact on the value of the property or that

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  involves an unreasonable risk to people on the property.” P-1 D. 1, | 20(D); D-25 p. 1, | 20(D);
                                                                                                FUELS
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Trial
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Tr. vol. I, 109:20-22 (emphasis added).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             As discussed above, Plaintiff is entitled to recover for Defendants’ failure to disclose the
                                                                                fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  material defect of the deteriorated interior walls in the front bedrooms and family room. See

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Section II.A.3, supra. Plaintiff's estimated repairs for the family room total $62,779.09. P-14 p.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  1. Plaintiff’s estimated repairs for the bedrooms total $44,727.00. P-14 p. 2. The Court does not

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  find Plaintiff is entitled to these full amounts as actual damages for violation of the RESDL and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  UTPCPL because some of the repairs are optional and not necessary and some of the repairs are

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  not related to the deterioration in the walls. See P-14; P-15.
                                                                87° CARA Bp eblige WeevescHeniBent 22503676"
                                                                                                PES sYWOGE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  * At the beginning of trial, the Parties stipulated that the request for attorneys’ fees under the UTPCPL would   be heard
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  through post-trial submissions. Trial Tr. vol. 1, 8:6-12. Therefore, the Court does not consider an award of attorneys’
                                                                        PRT BOA RSIGIS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  fees and costs at this time.
                                                                    aS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             23
                                                                                                     roto
                                                                                                                           as                                               informationeaddecuinénts difecenty than AOn-cOnmaSnWabRaoimialon and.datubiants...              2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 36
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Oe
$0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     TORT

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Mr. Gavin’s estimated repairs for rebuilding the bedroom walls totaled $15,260.00. P-15 J
                                                                                                                                                                              Cartan Foe

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  1, Plaintiffis entitled to recover this amount. Mr. Gavin’s proposal included additional options for
                                                                                                                                                                                Ce

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  sistering floor joists, installing new shutters, and replacing windows. Id. at [J 1.14-1.16. Plaintiff

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  is not entitled to recover for these optional items as they were not necessary to complete the repairs

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  for the deteriorated interior walls.
                                                                                                                                                                                                            me, eee
                                                                                                                                                                                                              mK

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Mr. Gavin’s        estimated repairs for rebuilding the wall in the family room totaled

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 "$35,680.00. Id, at J 2. Plaintiff is entitled to recover this amount. Again, Mr. Gavin's proposal
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ">
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               frmetas

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  included additional options for- shutters and windows, but Plaintiff is not entitled to recover for
                                                                                                                                                                                                         rink

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  these optional items because they were not necessary for the repairs to the deteriorated interior

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  walls. Id. at ff 2.1-2.2.
                                                                                                                        Beltite RecthoniatatponDmee/20end :-BhBMpntidential

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           The Court finds actual damages, therefore, are in the amount of $50,940.00. The repairs
                                                                                                                                                                    “ft                                       VTE Qe

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  completed for the deterioration of the interior bedroom and family room walls seem fair and
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  reasonable. The home was nearly fifty (50) years old and ran its course, but the deterioration in

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  the interior walls was clearly a material defect known by the Defendants that was not disclosed.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  This material defect should have been disclosed and highlighted for Plaintiff in the SDS to allow

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ’ Plaintiff to discover the problem and any potential solutions. The Court declines to award any

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  additional damages under the UTPCPL because the actual damages alone are significant.
                                                                                                          rats Gdunb,op
                                                                                                                My ay

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      V.      FINAL CONCLUSION
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           In consideration of the evidence, arguments, exhibits, and testimony presented at trial,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  which was held before the undersigned from October 6, 2020 through October 8, 2020, along with
                                                                                                                                                                  eases eR@ckBept: 22503676 >>

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 the submissions of the Parties thereafter, this Court concludes that the Plaintiff has proven one
                                                                                                 RAGED IGAGAS JAA ARIF ER»

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 material defect that the Defendants failed to disclose on the SDS for which she should recover: the
                                                                                                                                                   75" B bila (Rubilpha

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 deteriorated interior walls in the bedrooms and family room. All other claims were either not

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    24
                                                                                               SOR
2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 37

                                                                                       material defects and/or were not proven. Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the amount of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             This Court’s Verdict and Order consistent with this Decision is being entered on this same

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Mt
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           BALD J.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ROBERT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   : Oe
                                                                                                                                                                                    $50,940.00 for violations of the RESDL and the UTPCPL.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            25
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     5
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              és     Sy
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              eo     o~Ny
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              3S      sN
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      si
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .   -—    We
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          3   a              A
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            49}9849S yyeqeziy Aq pai4-F
                                           ‘SJUBLUADOP PUB.LMONEULUOjU! enuepyaeo-uoU uey] AgUaJeyip SIOLUNIOp pue UOHewuOUI                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         /eyUEpIZUOs   Bully asinbas Jey} SLNOD. jeluL.pUe ajEyaddy ay] JO SpsODOY eseQ -@peeokemadue pgIsApeaidayqnghaeyeul
                                      SHA LO DBI) SIT TENT SAMSTS) OY OOO SEL WQBOY LCS AIEINY UE Met RING IA-LEMID YO NGUIG GOP IOI
        3 EBONY 01/4 SUF IOSUGSROLA CPF
1 OS FOROS                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              GO92 ELIA ICD OCI    HIDE PEE ITT
2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 38

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   "Bo
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   it
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Exhi
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Jajayog Yyyaqezify :Aq palis-F
                                           “SJU@UINDOP PUB UOHEULOUI JeHUEpYUOD-UOU UeY] AgUaseyip SJuaUINDOp pue UOHeULIOJUI fenUEpPUOCD Burpy auinbas Jey] SLNOD jeu, pue ajeyjeddy ay} Jo sps0day ase :elueA|ASUUdg jo WalsAS jerlolone payiuf ey}
                                                                                       40 AaljOdl SSADDV DIG AY} JO SUOISIAOIA AY} YIM SayduOD Bulls IY} FEY] SELNI9D J9/ly PUL 000 = 894 ‘We GO°b ZZ0Z/01/90 UO ArejOUOY}O/d SyaNg Jo AUN 38 panja2ey SE:FOANS - 68-91890-810Z #ASeO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 39
                           a

                           eee
                                             FD                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .
                           3} s                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            IN THE COURT OF COMMON             PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                           ats                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CIVIL DIVISION
                                             oee
                           =e                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     .
                                             282                                                                                                                                                                                                                      KATHLEEN NICHOLS-GOULD                                ;
                           LLG
                           4 22
                                             sa5                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Plaintiff,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                sunty
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |                               .     :.                    |
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  1

                                             owe                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            :
                           $a2                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ;
                           $5                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 v.                                                            No, 2018-06816
                           ees                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |                                     :                    |
                           Sipe                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        CHARLES P, MCDONALD, JR. and                          :
                           <8]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         SUSANNE MCDONALD, hiw                                    :
                           se                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Defendants.                                       :
                           sss
                           |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            MEMORANDUM DECISION
                                             see
                           As                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 This Memorandum Decision addresses Kathleen Nichols-Gould’s (“Plaintiff's”) Post-Trial
                           Es
                           a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Motion for Attorney’s Fees.    For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned grants said Post-
                        8S                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ;
                                                                                                            E. Rhedpjfenizedeial Syatetep! Perinsylvania: Case Recordsof the Appellaté-and-Trial Courts that require'filing con

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Trial Motion and awards $14,838.50 in attorney’s fees and $3,680.80 in costs to Plaintiff in an
                                                                                                       pogo th COASHER ULANORE Sy Shem URRE AS Ranned tO REUaabAT ake AppalaegnameaacagZe Bape Mture nin g
Case# 201 8-0681 6-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       appropriate Order to follow.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           A. Background

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              After a three-day bench trial in the above captioned case, the Court issued its Order and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Verdict along with a written Decision on July 1, 2021, in which the Court found for Plaintiff in the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       amount of $50,940.00.   The Court’s Order stated that “Counsel for Plaintiff may file a Petition for

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Attorney’s fees. The Court will schedule a phone conference with Counsel to discuss the process

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       to be followed conceming same.”     On July 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Post-Trial Motion

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       seeking Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the Court’s July 1, 2021 Order and the Penn              Ivania Unfair

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 P.S. § 201.9.2                   (authorizing an

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for violation of the Act).
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   THIS ORDER/JUDGMENT WAS DOCKETED AND SENT ON 03/08/2022 PURSUANT TO PA. R. C. P. 236.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      —-       a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 40
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Te
 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                    of PiennsylVania~Gase Records o f the-Appeliate and Trial Courts'that require filing confidential information and-docaments differently thar rion-confidential inforindtich’and documént sr
                                                             Rot
                                                 Alitifoiaeeses                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ios

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       B.   Attorney’s Fees

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Attorney’s fees and costs are a statutory right under the UTPCPL          within the sound
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   discretion of the trial court.     73 P.S. § 201.9.2.   The UTPCPL      allows for the recovery of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   “reasonable” attorney’s fees and “was not intended to provide a claimant, or his a torney, with a
                                                                                                      hthiidiinpecinaliéewih¢hegraves

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   windfall or bonanza should he or she be successful.” Boehm v, Riversource Life, 117 A.3d 308,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   336 (Pa, Super. 2015) (citations omitted).     Therefore, Pennsylvania courts have recognized that

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   there should be "a sense of proportionality between an award of damages and an award of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   attorney's fees [under the UTPCPL]."      Richards v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc,, 217 A.3d 854, 868-71

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   (Pa. Super. 2019) (citing McCauslin v, Reliance Fin. Co., 751 A.2d 683, 686 (Pa. Super. 2000)),

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            At the same time, however, “the fee-shifting statutory provision of the UTPCPL is designed
                                                                                       Bas

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   to promote its purpose of punishing and deterring unfair and deceptive business practices and to
                                                                                       RM ie Hi Mm pSOM Mi

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   encourage experienced attorneys to litigate such cases, even where recovery is uncertain.”        Id.
Received at Count y of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   (citing Krebs v. United Refining Co. of Pennsylvania, 893 A.2d 776, 788 (Pa. Super. 2006)
                                                                                       85/ ened eceaeGauebtas Backs: Remehatd anion G3) CCZ0R 28a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   (citations omitted)).   Thus, in considering such an award, the Court may inquire into the time and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the case, the customary charge of members of the bar,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   the amount involved and the certainty of compensation, among other factors. See        Skurnowicz v.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Lucci, 798 A.2d 788, 796 (Pa. Super. 2002) (superseded by statute on other grounds in Milliken

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   v. Jacono, 60 A.3d 133 (Pa. Super. 2012)).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            1. Time and Labor Required.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            This case lasted two and one-half years from beginning to end, involved complex issues,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   and concerned multiple alleged defects throughout the property (flooded basement, deteriorated

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   bedroom walls, deteriorated family room walls, defective tile, exterior flooding, exterior masonry,
           ase# 2018-0681 6-89 - oligos

                                                                                                                       igigiel Systena
                                                                                       bie
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        zabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   defective fencing, and exterior flooding). The trial involved three days of testimony, a handful of
                                                                                                                                  a
                                                                                         cea
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          led by.
                                                                                            fi
                                                                                       ager    sacle
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      reaibyork ents. 0.4                      2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 41
 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                        Wein’ Sys terrepf Perinsylvania: Case Records‘of the Appellate and Trial‘Courts that require filirig confidential information"and documents differently than non-confidential information and doctiments.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               kethu
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           bio Avedss

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  expert witnesses, and several motions in limine.       Accordingly, the time and labor required to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              1
                                                                                                                      ¥ POS R SR ena ed ASS Restle GGL ahe A OU ENOEAEY NO TEMOLROS 10 8 Cthinee Bia OI Ti Tare iGleinibentifedtotratatis diiageotapliceseith tih provisionsrotd

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  litigate this case was significant.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Because the counts in this case were tried in a single proceeding, it is difficult to segregate

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  the amount of time that Plaintiff spent developing each count.       Twp. of S. Whitehall v. Karoly,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  891 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa. Commw. 2006). Thus, it was Defendants’ burden to establish a basis for

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  segregating the hours spent on Plaintiff's successful and unsuccessful counts. Id.          Like in Karoly,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Defendants presented no evidence by way of affidavit or otherwise to challenge the accuracy and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  reasonableness of the hours charged by Plaintiff's counsel. . See id.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Accordingly, Defendants have waived the argument that Plaintiff's total claimed attorney’s

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  fees are inaccurate or unreasonable, and this Court agrees with Plaintiff that she is technically

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  entitled to recover up to 100% of the 125.75         hours that Plaintiffs counsel spent preparing

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Plaintiff's case.   See Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's Post-Trial Motion for Attorney’s Fees.         However,
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Plaintiff was not ultimately successful with respect to all items of damages claimed.          Therefore,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  the Court will modify the award of attorney’s fees to 40% of the total amount claimed by Plaintiff

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  for the reasons set forth in more detail below.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          2.    Novelty and Difficulty of Case.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Although this case was not tremendously novel, it did involve an interpretation of the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Pennsylvania Real Estate Seller’s Disclosure Law (“RESDL”), 68 Pa.C.S. §§ 730]-7314, and the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  UTPCPL, in addition to Plaintiff's contract and common        law claims.       Furthermore, there were a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  number of alleged material defects, and because Plaintiff served as her own general contractor, it

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  was necessary to hire expert witnesses to summarize the entire project and the costs associated

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  with each item to be repaired. The case was hotly contested and necessitated extensive discovery
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Schecter
                                                                                                             si ORISy
                                                                                                                        E-Fil led by: Elizabeth
                                                                                       BIE Beagrie’  UL
                                                                                               Ipifi              mote hed
                                                                                                                                                                       yet (herprowisionsidfdbe                                     lokamentgic tas
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            : iameicey                              2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 42
                                                                                                                    $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                              Case-‘Records‘of the Appellatevand Trial Courts that requiré filing confidentialinformation and documents-differently than non-confidential information’and ‘dociiments.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                eager
                                                                                                                                                                                                 tu ibitoAnedon  uid

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      and several site visits by the parties and expert witnesses. Thus, this case was relatively difficult
                                                                                                                                                                                                       a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      to litigate.
                                                                                                                                                                                         aaiboae

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               3.    Difficulty of Questions Involved.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               The questions involved in this case were also relatively complex, in that there were a
                                                                                                                                                                                pleat

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      number of overlapping legal issues for the parties and the Court to unpack.          Fo r example, the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      undersigned questioned the parties on the effect of exculpatory language in the Sel er’s disclosure
                                                                                                                                                   ia ddingentspiiste
                                                                                                                                                                .

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      sheet, and its interaction with Plaintiff's statutory rights under the RESDL.     See Trial Transcript
                                                                                                                                                      "

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (“TT”), Vol II, 126:2-8; TT, Vol III, 86:6-25; 87:1-25; 88:1-5.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               In addition, the parties briefed the Court on whether defects that were kno wn but thought
                                                                                                                            hajbetndanetagh

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      to be rectified or that were caused by age or external factors met the definition of a defect under

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      the RESDL. See TT, Vol III, 82:18-25; 90:11-23, 97:12-19.         Accordingly, the que stions involved
                                                                                                                  POT

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      in this case were relatively difficult.
                                                              aeRH ase Arp bemtAAOIBIOT A022 aerehiteoHis
 Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee
                                                                                                        wee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               4.     Skill Required.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               This case involved numerous alleged defects, extensive discovery, and the presentation of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      multiple witnesses over several days of testimony.          The parties were     each | represented by

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      experienced and tenacious counsel. Accordingly, this case required significant skj ll to litigate.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                5.    Customary. Charges.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                The parties stipulated that the reasonable hourly rate is $295 and that no expert testimony
                                    S RANA OC REL 1RNB

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      would be required on this point. See TT, Vol I, 8:6-12. Accordingly, the Court ac cepts that $295
                                                       peslek

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      is the hourly rate and will issue its award in accordance therewith.
                               fPennsvivania:
                                       y/
                          He ENGR
E. mediay merges ie Supeeetep' ‘
                                                                  treQaaniba URORAY.
                                                                                                                                                                                             2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 43
$0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                            6. Amount in Controversy.

                                                                                                                                                                                            There    was   well   over $1,000,000.00   in controversy    in this action.’   See Plaintiffs

                                                                                                                                                                                 Memorandum of Law in Support of Post-Trial Motion for Attorney’s Fees.                Thus the amount in

                                                                                                                                                                                 controversy was substantial.

                                                                                                                                                                                       7.         Benefits Resulting.

                                                                                                                                                                                            This Court awarded Plaintiff $50,940.00, approximately 20% of Plaintiff's requested relief,

                                                                                                                                                                                 to compensate Plaintiff for Defendants’ deceptive conduct.             Thus, Plaintiff received a limited

                                                                                                                                                                                 though demonstrable benefit from Plaintiff's counsel’s services.          Accordingly, and as mentioned

                                                                                                                                                                                 above, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to 40% of her total requested attorney’s fees, or

                                                                                                                                                                                 $14,838.50, representing a reasonable and proportionate award for the amount of benefit resulting

                                                                                                                                                                                 to Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff's counsel’s services.

                                                                                                                                                                                            8.    Contingency.
         Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                            Plaintiff's counsel declined to elaborate on whether his compensation was contingent or

                                                                                                                                                                                 certain.        Nonetheless, the parties stipulated that $295 is the reasonable hourly      rate and that

                                                                                                                                                                                 Plaintiff's costs were reasonable.         See TT, Vol   I, 8:6-12.    Thus, the Court’s central focus in

                                                                                                                                                                                 resolving this Motion is the amount of time that Plaintiff's counsel expended and the extent to
                                                                                                               a             feet Pefinsyivania: Case Records‘of the Appeliate

                                                                                                                                                                                 which the time billed translated into a benefit to Plaintiff.
                                                                                   RARE:

                                                                                                                                                                                 1 RESDL Damages
                                                                                                                                                                                 $241,259.58 cost to repair undisclosed material defects
                                                                                   BP, ERAS

                                                                                                                                                                                 $43,426.22 interest from 4/30/18 at 6% per annum (3 years)
                                                                                                               i Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                 UTPCPL Damages
                                                                                                                                                                                 $729,962.28 3x actual damages as penalty under UTPCPL
                                                                                                        E. Spl des) ecndaaick Sus

                                                                                                                                                                                 $TBD attorney’s fees ($295 per hour) and costs under UTPCPL
                                                                                                                                                                                 $TBD expert testimony fees at $150 per hour
                                                                                                peractreCS      ARSE UR OR!
                                                                                                                                               i
                                                                                                Preece”
Case# 2018-06816-89 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 06/10/2022 4:05 PM, Fee = $0. 00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of
                                             ivedakCRenok                                                                              (dle   ntertid® thahthisdting entaalite nitty aprovisiers ditinel Au bifortates Batty ot uma                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     wore

                             i
                                                       Biche. ArotetiattamaT03/ Owain

 PT
                idudisial Syséeneef Pennsylvania: Case-Records of the Appeliate-and Trial Courts thatrequiré filing confidentlahinformation and documents differently than'rion-confidential information
                                                                                                                                                                                                      and documents? #2"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            '
      E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                54
                                                                                                                les!                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           9,

                                                                                                                                                                         with this Decision.

                                                                                                                             lyfe
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Conclusion.

                                                                                                                                                                                               as a result of Plaintiff's counsel’s services.

                                                                                                           .
                                                                                                                .
                                                                                                                                      heb
                                                                                                           /.
                                                                                                                                                       BY THE COURT:

                                                                                                                ROBERT O. BALDI, J.
                                                                                                                                      A.
                                                                                                                                                                                                   The Court will issue an appropriate Ofder consistent
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  In summary, the Court finds that while Plaintiff is technically entitled to} recover up to

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          time billed is reasonable and proportionate in light of the amount of benefit resulting to Plaintiff
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 100% of the 125.75 hours billed by Plaintiff's counsel, an award of 40% of the total amount of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             2018-06816-0089 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 44