Edwards, M. v. Carite Co.
143 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 9, 2016Background
- The Mollie Ann Edwards Family Trust (Trust) purchased three Johnstown, PA commercial properties from Carite Co./Carstensen, Inc. (Seller) in March–April 2013.
- Seller completed Pennsylvania Seller’s Property Disclosure statements for each property; disclosures variably indicated roofs had leaked and/or been replaced (one disclosed no leaks).
- After purchase, the Trust discovered roof leaks at all three properties between August 2013 and summer 2014 and sued asserting fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, RESDL violations, and (initially) a UTPCPL claim.
- At summary judgment, the trial court relied on the disclosures and trustee admissions (she did not inspect or inquire about roofs, and roofs did not leak for months after purchase) to conclude the Trust offered only conclusory assertions and no genuine issue of material fact.
- The court granted summary judgment for Seller; the Trust appealed arguing the court failed to view evidence in its favor and that circumstances suggested fraud.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the record contained only unsupported assertions of fraud/ misrepresentation and that summary judgment was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because factual disputes exist | Trust: Seller engaged in a pattern of nondisclosure/ misrepresentation about roof defects across three rapid sales that supports fraud and precludes summary judgment | Seller: Written disclosures and Trustee’s admissions (no inspection, no inquiry, roofs initially did not leak) leave no factual dispute supporting fraud or negligent misrepresentation | Affirmed: No genuine issue of material fact; Trust’s claims are conclusory and insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether evidence should be viewed in light most favorable to non-moving party | Trust: Court failed to credit inferences supportive of fraud when reviewing evidence | Seller: Summary judgment supported by Trustee’s admissions and documentary disclosures; Nanty-Glo rule inapplicable where admissions support the motion | Affirmed: Court properly viewed record; admissions and disclosures preclude reasonable jury finding for Trust |
| Application of RESDL disclosure duty | Trust: Seller failed to disclose known material defects in violation of RESDL | Seller: Disclosures were completed and indicated roof conditions; Trustee had no evidence Seller knew of active leaks | Held: Disclosures and lack of proof Seller’s actual knowledge defeat RESDL-based claim |
| Nanty-Glo (need for oral testimony before summary judgment) | Trust (argued on appeal): Summary judgment was premature because issues depend on oral testimony | Seller: Motion was supported by Trustee’s admissions, so exception to Nanty-Glo applies | Not preserved on appeal; alternatively, exception applies and summary judgment remains proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Reinoso v. Heritage Warminster SPE LLC, 108 A.3d 80 (Pa. Super. 2015) (summary judgment standard and appellate review explained)
- Blumenstock v. Gibson, 811 A.2d 1029 (Pa. Super. 2002) (fraud in real estate requires knowingly false misrepresentation, concealment, or non-privileged failure to disclose; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Gibbs v. Ernst, 647 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1994) (definition of negligent misrepresentation and duty to investigate)
- Penn Ctr. House, Inc. v. Hoffman, 553 A.2d 900 (Pa. 1989) (Nanty-Glo rule on denying summary judgment where resolution depends on oral testimony)
- Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co., 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932) (origin of rule limiting summary judgment when matters depend on oral testimony)
- Sherman v. Franklin Reg’l Med. Ctr., 660 A.2d 1370 (Pa. Super. 1995) (exception to Nanty-Glo where moving party relies on admissions of opposing party)