121 A.3d 1118
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Wyse (contractor) and Leone (homeowner) entered written HUD-related home-improvement agreements in late 2009; Wyse did not include a HICPA registration number on the contracts.
- Wyse performed work from January–April 2010; Leone terminated work in April 2010, refusing payment and instructing Wyse to stop and remove tools.
- Wyse filed a mechanic’s lien and breach-of-contract claim; Leone counterclaimed for breach, UTPCPL violations, and alleged unworkmanlike construction. The cases were consolidated and tried to the bench.
- Leone argued HICPA rendered the written contract void and therefore Wyse could not recover on the contract; Wyse pursued recovery under quantum meruit (unjust enrichment) and mechanic’s lien.
- The trial court entered judgment for Wyse for $12,488 plus interest; Leone appealed raising HICPA, workmanship, arbitration clause, exclusion of an expert, judicial bias, and damages computation issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Leone) | Defendant's Argument (Wyse) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Effect of HICPA noncompliance on recovery | HICPA makes the written contract void and unenforceable because Wyse lacked/failed to show a registration number, so Leone is entitled to JNOV. | HICPA bars enforcement of the express contract but does not preclude quasi‑contract (quantum meruit) recovery for work actually performed. | Court: HICPA voids the contract but, under Durst and Shafer, quantum meruit recovery remains available; denial of JNOV affirmed. |
| 2. Quality of work / unworkmanlike construction | Photographs and testimony overwhelmingly show unworkmanlike work; no rebutting expert evidence; verdict should be set aside. | Much of the work was unfinished; Leone approved portions and terminated contractor before cure; deficiencies were curable and not shown to justify withholding all payment. | Court: Credibility and weight favored Wyse; trial court reasonably found work incomplete and allowed recovery; no JNOV or new trial. |
| 3. Arbitration clause in homeowner agreement | Agreement contains binding arbitration clause; case should have been stayed/compelled to arbitration and not tried in court. | The written homeowner agreement is void under HICPA, so arbitration clause is unenforceable. | Court: Because HICPA renders the contract void, arbitration clause unenforceable; issue rejected. |
| 4. Exclusion of Leone’s expert (Ketchel) and his cost-to-cure estimate | Ketchel is qualified (decades in construction/inspection); his testimony and estimate should have been admitted. | Ketchel lacked demonstrated specialized, reliable methodology: inspection occurred years after work stopped, relied on video/limited inspection, gave ‘‘ballpark’’ estimates. | Court: No abuse of discretion in excluding Ketchel as an expert; his opinions were lay-level observations and speculative. |
| 5. Alleged trial-court bias | Judge’s interruptions, tone, and rulings favored Wyse and hindered Leone’s presentation; new trial or recusal required. | Judge’s admonitions and questions were efforts to manage a disorganized bench trial; both parties were treated similarly and given full opportunity. | Court: No evidence of judicial bias or prejudice; no new trial. |
| 6. Damages calculation | Award assumes work was substantially completed though remedial work remained; damages should be altered or reversed. | Judgment reflects reasonable value for work/materials provided; Leone terminated contractor before cure. | Court: Leone’s argument inadequately briefed and therefore waived; judgment stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shafer Elec. & Const. v. Mantia, 96 A.3d 989 (Pa. 2014) (HICPA does not bar quantum meruit recovery when an express home‑improvement contract is noncompliant)
- Durst v. Milroy, 52 A.3d 357 (Pa. Super. 2012) (quantum meruit available where no enforceable written home‑improvement contract exists)
- Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Wapner, 903 A.2d 565 (Pa. 2006) (standard of review for JNOV and viewing evidence in favor of verdict winner)
- Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Healthcare Mgmt. Alternatives, Inc., 832 A.2d 501 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to prove quantum meruit/unjust enrichment)
- Sands v. Forrest, 434 A.2d 122 (Pa. Super. 1981) (Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033 permits liberal amendment to conform pleadings to evidence)