Nicholas, K. v. McDonald, C., 1009 EDA 2022

Background

In March 2018 Buyer contracted to purchase a ~50‑year‑old Bucks County house for $480,000; Sellers had owned and altered the home (e.g., converted garage, repaired a corner bedroom wall in 2013).
Sellers completed a Real Estate Disclosure Statement (Feb. 22, 2018) stating they were not aware of structural movement, driveway/retaining wall problems, or water infiltration (other than roof/basement/crawl spaces exceptions noted).
Buyer obtained a pre‑closing home inspection identifying roof drainage and chimney concerns; parties adjusted the purchase price $3,500 and closed on April 30, 2018.
After closing Buyer discovered significant concealed moisture damage: bulging/rotted front bedroom wall, sistered studs, mold/moisture inside walls, crumbling masonry and cracked tiles; Buyer alleged these defects were not disclosed and not discoverable by her inspector.
Buyer sued under the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Act (RESDL) and the UTPCPL; after a three‑day nonjury trial the court found Sellers failed to disclose material defects (moisture damage to front walls), awarded $50,940 in repair damages and later awarded $14,838.50 attorneys’ fees and $3,680.80 costs under the UTPCPL.
Sellers appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, relying on the trial court’s findings and opinions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Nicholas‑Gould)	Defendant's Argument (McDonald)	Held
1) Use of stipulated testimony at trial	Trial testimony supported finding Sellers knew or should have known about wall damage.	Appellants argued the court improperly relied on testimony the parties had agreed could not establish liability.	Waived on appeal (not preserved); court did not reverse.
2) Sellers’ awareness of material defects	Buyer: evidence (Sellers’ admissions about 2013 repairs, expert testimony on rot/moisture) shows Sellers knew of the condition.	Sellers: damage due to other causes (e.g., termites) or not known to them.	Sufficient competent evidence supported trial court that Sellers were aware of the wall moisture/ deterioration.
3) Falsity/deceptiveness of disclosure statements	Buyer: representations of no structural/water problems were false/deceptive given concealed moisture damage.	Sellers: reasonably believed fixes (e.g., added sump pump) addressed issues; lacked intent or knowledge to deceive.	Trial court properly found statements false/deceptive under RESDL/UTPCPL; UTPCPL liability does not require intent.
4) Amount of actual damages ($50,940)	Buyer: contractor and expert estimated reframing/repair costs at $50,940.	Sellers: disputed causation, scope, and reasonableness of repair cost.	Court found contractor/expert testimony sufficient; award supported by competent evidence.
5) Applicability of UTPCPL to individual Seller‑home sale	Buyer: UTPCPL applies to anyone who purchases for household purposes and suffers an ascertainable loss from deceptive practice.	Sellers: UTPCPL applies to business actors, not individual sellers selling a home.	UTPCPL applies; strict privity or business status not required—private cause of action available to household purchasers who justifiably rely and suffer loss.

Key Cases Cited

Phelps v. Caperoon, 190 A.3d 1230 (Pa. Super. 2018) (standard for appellate review of nonjury trial findings; defer to trial court credibility determinations)
Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425 (Pa. 2004) (UTPCPL private‑action requires justifiable reliance and ascertainable loss)
DeArmitt v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 578 (Pa. Super. 2013) (describing UTPCPL’s consumer‑protection purpose)
Valley Forge Towers v. Ron‑Ike Foam Insulators, 574 A.2d 641 (Pa. Super. 1990) (UTPCPL does not require strict technical privity for a private action)
Zajick v. Cutler Grp., Inc., 169 A.3d 677 (Pa. Super. 2017) (discussing the scope of UTPCPL and private remedies)
Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 245 A.3d 637 (Pa. 2021) (1997 amendment broadened UTPCPL to cover deceptive conduct without needing intent)