Umbelina v. Adams
34 A.3d 151
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Umbelinas purchased Lot 17 in Jefferson Court Development seeking a flat lot due to Mrs. Umbelina’s knee problems.
- Builder Adams built the home; the driveway was steep and the lot’s trees could not be removed due to township restrictions.
- Umbelinas approved initial garage location and a twelve-foot back shift for the house, intending to install a pool.
- Township steep slope ordinance required professional drive-way engineering, which were not secured; permit and CO were issued without knowledge of the ordinance.
- Punch list items remained unfinished; after closing, code violations and maintenance issues were discovered and Umbelinas hired others to remedy defects.
- Umbelinas sued for rescission and UTPCPL; trial court denied fraud and granted restitution for repairs, then on appeal this Court vacated the restitution but affirmed denial of rescission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rescission was proper when the court found the home not habitable. | Umbelinas argued rescission warranted due to material defects undermining contract essence. | Adams contends no fraud or fundamental defect justifying rescission; breach, if any, was not grounds for rescission of an executed contract. | Rescission denied; no fraud or fundamental breach shown. |
| Whether restitution was proper when rescission was not granted. | Umbelinas claim restitution brings them to status quo for defective work. | Restoration of costs is inconsistent with rescission and not recoverable absent fraud. | Restitution vacated as inconsistent with rescission. |
| Whether the trial court’s findings support the lot-selection conclusions. | Umbelinas contend the steepest slope of the lot and driveway justify rescission. | Court found no fraudulent misrepresentation; weight of evidence supports that conclusion. | Findings on lot slope not disturbed; no rescission based on lot choice. |
| Whether Adams’ conduct constitutes fraud or misrepresentation supporting rescission. | Umbelinas rely on negligent misrepresentations regarding driveway slope and grading. | Trial court properly found no fraudulent misrepresentations. | Fraud not proven; rescission not warranted. |
| Whether restitution was improper as it relied on implied warranty or unjust enrichment. | Umbelinas seek restitution for faulty workmanship under equity. | Restitution cannot be based on unjust enrichment where a written contract exists and fraud was not proven. | Restitution inappropriate; unjust enrichment not available absent claim; restored relief vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wedgewood Diner, Inc. v. Good, 368 Pa. Super. 480, 534 A.2d 537 (Pa. Super. 1987) (election of remedies; rescission vs. damages are inconsistent)
- Schwartz v. Rockey, 593 Pa. 536, 932 A.2d 885 (Pa. 2007) (binding election of the remedy)
- Castle v. Cohen, 676 F. Supp. 620 (E.D. Pa. 1987) (Castle not controlling; anticipatory breach in executory contract)
- LJL Transp., Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight Corp., 599 Pa. 546, 962 A.2d 639 (Pa. 2009) (material breach can excuse further performance when core purpose is destroyed)
- Namy v. Black, 367 Pa. 523, 80 A.2d 744 (Pa. 1951) (executed contracts cannot be rescinded absent fraud or misrepresentation)
- Boyle v. Odell, 413 Pa. Super. 562, 605 A.2d 1260 (Pa. Super. 1992) (restitutionary damages may accompany rescission; not inconsistent)
- Metz v. Quaker Highlands, Inc., 714 A.2d 447 (Pa. Super. 1998) (restoration rights with rescission; conditional authority)
- Elderkin v. Gaster, 447 Pa. 118, 288 A.2d 771 (Pa. 1972) (implied warranty of habitability; damages typical remedy)
- Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 24 A.3d 875 (Pa. Super. 2011) (unjust enrichment when contract exists not applicable)