Milliken v. Jacono
60 A.3d 133
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Buyer appeals after trial court granted summary judgment for Sellers and their agents on claims arising from the 2007 sale of 12 Pickering Trail.
- The property had a murder–suicide in 2006 by prior owners Konstantinos and Georgia Koumboulis; Sellers purchased from the Koumboulis Estate in 2006.
- Buyer signed a sale agreement on June 17, 2007; Seller Property Disclosure Statement dated that date did not disclose the murder–suicide.
- Buyer asserts RESDL violations, common-law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and UTPCPL based on nondisclosure of the murder–suicide as a material defect.
- Sellers and agents, after consulting Real Estate Commission guidance, did not treat the murder–suicide as a material defect; disclosures focused on physical, legal, and hazardous aspects.
- Trial court granted summary judgment; the court held that psychological damage from a murder–suicide is not a material defect under RESDL and that other theories fail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is murder–suicide a material defect under RESDL? | Milliken argues it is a material defect affecting value. | Sellers argue it is not among enumerated defects and not a physical/ legal failure. | No; murder–suicide is not a RESDL material defect. |
| Does nondisclosure support common-law fraud? | Milliken contends concealment of the murder–suicide constitutes fraud. | Sellers had no duty to disclose purely psychological defects; no material defect disclosed. | No; no objective material defect disclosed. |
| Does nondisclosure support negligent misrepresentation? | Milliken asserts a duty to disclose the murder–suicide exists and was relied upon. | No duty to disclose purely psychological issues; no misrepresentation identified. | No; no duty owed for such disclosure; judgment affirmed. |
| Does catch-all UTPCPL violation lie from alleged nondisclosure? | Milliken invokes UTPCPL catch-all for deceptive or fraudulent conduct. | Sellers did not engage in deceptive conduct; failure to disclose not actionable under UTPCPL post-amendment. | No; not actionable under UTPCPL. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc. v. Duquesne Light Co., 52 A.3d 347 (Pa. Super. 2012) (summary judgment standard; record viewed in light for genuine issues)
- Reed v. King, 145 Cal.App.3d 261 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (disclosure of murder affecting value; materiality under California rule)
- Van Camp v. Bradford, 63 Ohio Misc.2d 245 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pl. 1993) (broad view of materiality in disclosures (cited by Buyer))
- Youndt v. First National Bank of Port Allegany, 868 A.2d 539 (Pa. Super. 2005) (elements of fraud in real estate context)
- Skurnowicz v. Lucci, 798 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2002) (catch-all UTPCPL requires proof of common-law fraud elements before amendment)
- Bennett v. A.T. Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC, 40 A.3d 145 (Pa. Super. 2012) (post-amendment burden for UTPCPL catch-all deems deceptive conduct sufficient)
- Re Reed v. King, 193 Cal.Rptr. 130 (Cal. App. 1983) (economic loss from reputation/defect; materiality recognized by California court)