{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:pasuperct-740-mda-2025-2026-06-23", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:pasuperct-740-mda-2025-2026-06-23)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-17", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:e7344b", "proof": "sha256:8ad19796c327c7705e6172b17491941289cc3db4abd1e88bf0528a52dd78fd05", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:pasuperct-740-mda-2025-2026-06-23", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2026 PA Super 133", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "KEVIN & LISA HOLLINGER", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appellants", "paragraphs": [ "para_5" ] }, { "title": "JENNIFER DIETRICH, MICHELE", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "MCCARTNEY, COLDWELL BANKER", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, LISA", "paragraphs": [ "para_9" ] }, { "title": "D/B/A CENTURY 21 GOLD AND JOHN", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "DOES 1-10, JOHN DOE CORP. 1-10", "paragraphs": [ "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20" ] }, { "title": "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "PENNSYLVANIA", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "No. 740 MDA 2025", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appeal from the Order Entered May 7, 2025", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s):", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "20-3489", "paragraphs": [ "para_27" ] }, { "title": "OPINION BY KING, J.: FILED JUNE 23, 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appellants, Kevin and Lisa Hollinger, appeal from the final order of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Berks County Court of Common Pleas, entered on May 7, 2025, which granted", "paragraphs": [ "para_31", "para_32", "para_33" ] }, { "title": "Appellees Lisa Tiger (“Tiger”) and Advance Realty, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Gold", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(“Advance Realty”) (collectively “Buyers’ Agents”); the July 19, 2021 order", "paragraphs": [ "para_36" ] }, { "title": "McCartney (“McCartney”) and Coldwell Banker (“Coldwell Banker”)", "paragraphs": [ "para_38" ] }, { "title": "1 We have amended the caption to include all defendants listed in Appellants’", "paragraphs": [ "para_40" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_42" ] }, { "title": "(collectively “Seller’s Agents”); the April 13, 2022 orders of the trial court", "paragraphs": [ "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48" ] }, { "title": "The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this", "paragraphs": [ "para_50" ] }, { "title": "On April 24, 2017, [Appellants] entered into an agreement", "paragraphs": [ "para_52", "para_53" ] }, { "title": "(“the Property”) from [Dietrich] with settlement to occur on", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "June 29, 2017. [Appellants] were represented by [Buyers’", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Agents], while Dietrich was represented by [Seller’s Agents]", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(collectively “Agent Defendants”). [Appellants] first", "paragraphs": [ "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61" ] }, { "title": "Statement (“SDS”), as required pursuant to the Real Estate", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Seller Disclosure Law (“RESDL”), [68 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7301-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "7315], provided by Dietrich, which indicated that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76" ] }, { "title": "2020, setting forth causes of action for violation of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_79", "para_80", "para_81" ] }, { "title": "Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”). [73", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "P.S. §§ 201-1 – 201-10]. [Appellants’] Complaint alleged", "paragraphs": [ "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89" ] }, { "title": "However, [Appellants] claimed that shortly after settlement", "paragraphs": [ "para_91" ] }, { "title": "Property. Further investigation prompted by concern led", "paragraphs": [ "para_93" ] }, { "title": "Property had experienced previous flooding in the basement", "paragraphs": [ "para_95", "para_96", "para_97" ] }, { "title": "Dietrich knew that water infiltration into the basement was", "paragraphs": [ "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113" ] }, { "title": "On August 5, 2020, Buyers’ Agents filed preliminary objections to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_115", "para_116" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121" ] }, { "title": "On October 14, 2020, Dietrich filed preliminary objections challenging", "paragraphs": [ "para_123", "para_124", "para_125" ] }, { "title": "Dietrich’s objections in part, dismissing count II-civil conspiracy and count III-", "paragraphs": [ "para_127" ] }, { "title": "On May 20, 2021, Seller’s Agents filed a motion for judgment on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132" ] }, { "title": "On January 10, 2022, Buyers’ Agents filed a motion for judgment on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_134", "para_135" ] }, { "title": "2 Despite the trial court’s striking of count-III, fraud, from the complaint, the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Buyers’ Agents and Appellants proceeded as if the fraud claim remained", "paragraphs": [ "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_146" ] }, { "title": "VII-UTPCPL violations, arguing that Appellants failed to allege sufficient facts", "paragraphs": [ "para_148", "para_149", "para_150" ] }, { "title": "Buyers’ Agents also asserted that the UTPCPL claims against them could not", "paragraphs": [ "para_152", "para_153" ] }, { "title": "Appellants failed to allege any factual support for their claims that Buyers’", "paragraphs": [ "para_155" ] }, { "title": "On January 13, 2022, Seller’s Agents filed a second motion for judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160" ] }, { "title": "Seller’s Agents further maintained that Appellants failed to identify any specific", "paragraphs": [ "para_162" ] }, { "title": "Seller’s Agents insisted that Appellants were further barred from pursuing this", "paragraphs": [ "para_164" ] }, { "title": "7311(b). Seller’s Agents argued that even though the statute is titled as a", "paragraphs": [ "para_166", "para_167" ] }, { "title": "Subsequently, on March 7, 2022, Dietrich filed a motion for", "paragraphs": [ "para_169" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_171", "para_172", "para_173" ] }, { "title": "RESDL and negligence claims were barred by the applicable", "paragraphs": [ "para_175", "para_176" ] }, { "title": "Agreement of Sale (“the Agreement [of Sale]”), which", "paragraphs": [ "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183" ] }, { "title": "Agreement [of Sale], according to Dietrich, included", "paragraphs": [ "para_185", "para_186", "para_187" ] }, { "title": "Property. Finally, Dietrich claims that because the RESDL", "paragraphs": [ "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193" ] }, { "title": "(Trial Court Opinion, entered 5/7/25, at 4-5) (unnecessary capitalization", "paragraphs": [ "para_195", "para_196", "para_197" ] }, { "title": "On March 11, 2022, Buyers’ Agents and Seller’s Agents filed motions for", "paragraphs": [ "para_199", "para_200" ] }, { "title": "Agents on the remaining claims against them: count V-negligence, and count", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "VII-UTPCPL violation. That same day, the trial court granted the motion for", "paragraphs": [ "para_203", "para_204" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209" ] }, { "title": "Also on April 13, 2022, the trial court denied Dietrich’s motion for", "paragraphs": [ "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218" ] }, { "title": "Agreement of Sale, Appellants accepted the Property “as is,” and specified", "paragraphs": [ "para_220", "para_221" ] }, { "title": "Appellants’ expert, arguing that Appellants failed to provide any expert reports", "paragraphs": [ "para_223" ] }, { "title": "Dietrich sought to exclude any testimony regarding the SDS based on her", "paragraphs": [ "para_225", "para_226" ] }, { "title": "The court heard argument on the motions in limine and, on September", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "27, 2022, the court granted Dietrich relief. Specifically, the court excluded", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_230" ] }, { "title": "Appellants’ expert testimony, any testimony regarding the SDS, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_232" ] }, { "title": "Appellants initially purported to appeal from the trial court’s orders", "paragraphs": [ "para_234", "para_235", "para_236" ] }, { "title": "Hollinger v. Dietrich, No. 1623 MDA 2022, No. 1624 MDA 2022, No. 1625", "paragraphs": [ "para_238" ] }, { "title": "2024) (unpublished memorandum). Upon remand, the trial court held a", "paragraphs": [ "para_240", "para_241" ] }, { "title": "On May 7, 2025, the trial court granted Dietrich’s motion for summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_243", "para_244", "para_245" ] }, { "title": "5/7/25). In its accompanying opinion, the trial court explained that it", "paragraphs": [ "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250" ] }, { "title": "Because Appellants had relied solely on the SDS in support of the remaining", "paragraphs": [ "para_252" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259" ] }, { "title": "1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraphs": [ "para_261", "para_262" ] }, { "title": "3 On August 19, 2025, this Court entered a rule to show cause why the appeal", "paragraphs": [ "para_264", "para_265" ] }, { "title": "Doe Corp. 1-10. Appellants responded arguing that the inclusion of John Doe", "paragraphs": [ "para_267" ] }, { "title": "Rather, Appellants maintained that the issue of whether claims remained", "paragraphs": [ "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274" ] }, { "title": "Kathryn’s Korner Thrift Shop, 169 A.3d 96, 100 (Pa.Super. 2017)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(reiterating that orders which do not dispose of all claims and all parties are", "paragraphs": [ "para_277" ] }, { "title": "(Pa.Super. 2001), reversed on other grounds, 575 Pa. 236, 836 A.2d 25", "paragraphs": [ "para_279" ] }, { "title": "John Doe” on the caption, because Dr. John Doe was not a legal party as he", "paragraphs": [ "para_281", "para_282" ] }, { "title": "Einstein Med. Ctr., 51 A.3d 202 (Pa.Super. 2012), this Court held that where", "paragraphs": [ "para_284", "para_285" ] }, { "title": "Here, we note that the John Doe 1-10 and John Doe Corp. 1-10 defendants", "paragraphs": [ "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300" ] }, { "title": "2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraphs": [ "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314" ] }, { "title": "3. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraphs": [ "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319" ] }, { "title": "McCartney was aware of water infiltration in the", "paragraphs": [ "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324" ] }, { "title": "4. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraphs": [ "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_334" ] }, { "title": "5. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraphs": [ "para_336" ] }, { "title": "Dietrich’s motion for summary judgment and to exclude", "paragraphs": [ "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345" ] }, { "title": "6. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraphs": [ "para_347" ] }, { "title": "Dietrich’s motion for summary judgment and to exclude", "paragraphs": [ "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356" ] }, { "title": "7. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraphs": [ "para_358" ] }, { "title": "Dietrich’s motion for summary judgment seeking to exclude", "paragraphs": [ "para_360" ] }, { "title": "Agreement of Sale specifically references the [RESDL] and", "paragraphs": [ "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370" ] }, { "title": "8. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraphs": [ "para_372" ] }, { "title": "Dietrich’s motion for summary judgment ostensibly on the", "paragraphs": [ "para_374", "para_375" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384" ] }, { "title": "In their first issue, Appellants contend that the trial court erred when it", "paragraphs": [ "para_386" ] }, { "title": "Specifically, they assert that Buyers’ Agents failed to inform them of water", "paragraphs": [ "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398" ] }, { "title": "(Complaint at ¶ 9). Appellants argue that Buyers’ Agents had a fiduciary duty", "paragraphs": [ "para_400", "para_401" ] }, { "title": "Appellants insist that they pled sufficient facts to support their claim for fraud", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_404", "para_405", "para_406" ] }, { "title": "The relevant scope and standard of review in examining a challenge to", "paragraphs": [ "para_408" ] }, { "title": "Our review of a trial court’s sustaining of preliminary", "paragraphs": [ "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416" ] }, { "title": "All material facts set forth in the complaint as well as all", "paragraphs": [ "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423" ] }, { "title": "Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1234 (Pa.Super. 2008) (emphasis in", "paragraphs": [ "para_425" ] }, { "title": "Community Ass’n, 924 A.2d 675, 679 (Pa.Super. 2007) (stating: “To be", "paragraphs": [ "para_427", "para_428", "para_429" ] }, { "title": "In order to prove fraud the following elements must be", "paragraphs": [ "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_438", "para_439" ] }, { "title": "103 A.3d 806 (2014) (citing Youndt v. First National Bank of Port", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Allegany, 868 A.2d 539, 545 (Pa.Super. 2005)). “Concealment of a material", "paragraphs": [ "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448" ] }, { "title": "(quoting Youndt, supra at 545). “Fraud is a generic term used to describe", "paragraphs": [ "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455" ] }, { "title": "(Pa.Super. 2005) (citing Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(b)). While it is", "paragraphs": [ "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_467", "para_468" ] }, { "title": "Instantly, Appellants alleged in their complaint that they had expressly", "paragraphs": [ "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474" ] }, { "title": "Buyers’ Agents as their realtors because they had “represented that they were", "paragraphs": [ "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481" ] }, { "title": "68. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the preceding paragraphs", "paragraphs": [ "para_483" ] }, { "title": "69. At all times material, Defendants represented that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Home was in compliance with the applicable building codes", "paragraphs": [ "para_486", "para_487", "para_488" ] }, { "title": "70. These statements were misrepresentations as the Home", "paragraphs": [ "para_490", "para_491", "para_492" ] }, { "title": "71. Moreover, as set forth above, Defendants knew or", "paragraphs": [ "para_494" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_496", "para_497" ] }, { "title": "72. Plaintiffs relied on these misrepresentations in deciding", "paragraphs": [ "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502" ] }, { "title": "74. As a result of Defendants’ deceptive and intentionally", "paragraphs": [ "para_504", "para_505" ] }, { "title": "75. Moreover, Defendants’ conduct has diminished the", "paragraphs": [ "para_507", "para_508" ] }, { "title": "76. Defendants’ actions were outrageous in that they were", "paragraphs": [ "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515" ] }, { "title": "In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explained its order sustaining", "paragraphs": [ "para_517" ] }, { "title": "Instantly, Appellants contend that [Buyers’ Agents]", "paragraphs": [ "para_519" ] }, { "title": "Nevertheless, Appellants did not allege that [Buyers’", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Agents] knew of any specific defect or water infiltration at", "paragraphs": [ "para_522", "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526", "para_527", "para_528", "para_529" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_531" ] }, { "title": "Even accepting as true all well-pleaded facts, we fail to see", "paragraphs": [ "para_533", "para_534", "para_535" ] }, { "title": "Agents] knew of any water infiltration at the Property. Nor", "paragraphs": [ "para_537", "para_538" ] }, { "title": "Moreover, Appellants failed to present a prima facie case", "paragraphs": [ "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543", "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549" ] }, { "title": "Appellants do not assert that Tiger knew of any water", "paragraphs": [ "para_551", "para_552", "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556" ] }, { "title": "Accepting all the material facts set forth in the complaint as true, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563", "para_564" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_566", "para_567" ] }, { "title": "See Lerner, supra. Accordingly, we discern no error or abuse of discretion", "paragraphs": [ "para_569", "para_570", "para_571", "para_572" ] }, { "title": "In their second issue, Appellants argue that the trial court erred when it", "paragraphs": [ "para_574" ] }, { "title": "Appellants’ claims for count V-negligence and count VII-UTPCPL violation. For", "paragraphs": [ "para_576", "para_577" ] }, { "title": "V-negligence and then will proceed to address the grant of summary judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_579" ] }, { "title": "First, Appellants argue that Buyers’ Agents had a duty of care both to", "paragraphs": [ "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584", "para_585", "para_586", "para_587" ] }, { "title": "(Appellants’ Brief at 45-46) (citing Antatis v. Kolarosky, No. 1311 WDA", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_590" ] }, { "title": "2019, 2020 WL 1174500 (Pa.Super. filed Mar. 11, 2020) (unpublished", "paragraphs": [ "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595", "para_596", "para_597", "para_598", "para_599" ] }, { "title": "Our standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is well", "paragraphs": [ "para_601" ] }, { "title": "We view the record in the light most favorable to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_603" ] }, { "title": "4 Appellants rely on Antatis in support of their claim that Buyers’ Agents had", "paragraphs": [ "para_605", "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610", "para_611", "para_612", "para_613", "para_614" ] }, { "title": "5 In our discussion of the first issue raised, we affirmed the trial court’s order", "paragraphs": [ "para_616", "para_617" ] }, { "title": "Tiger and Advance Realty’s failure to ascertain the truth about water", "paragraphs": [ "para_619", "para_620", "para_621" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_623", "para_624", "para_625", "para_626", "para_627", "para_628", "para_629", "para_630", "para_631", "para_632", "para_633" ] }, { "title": "Shellenberger v. Kreider Farms, 288 A.3d 898, 905 (Pa.Super. 2023)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Further:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof on", "paragraphs": [ "para_637", "para_638", "para_639", "para_640", "para_641", "para_642" ] }, { "title": "Thus, our responsibility as an appellate court is to determine", "paragraphs": [ "para_644", "para_645", "para_646", "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651" ] }, { "title": "To establish a claim of negligence against a real estate agent, a plaintiff", "paragraphs": [ "para_653", "para_654", "para_655" ] }, { "title": "1034, 1042 (Pa.Super. 2015). Notably, “unless there is a duty upon the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_658", "para_659", "para_660" ] }, { "title": "(Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 573 Pa. 710, 827 A.2d 1202 (2003) (citation", "paragraphs": [ "para_662" ] }, { "title": "In Bortz v. Noon, 556 Pa. 489, 729 A.2d 555 (1999), the Pennsylvania", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Supreme Court considered whether an agent had a duty to buyers in the", "paragraphs": [ "para_665", "para_666", "para_667", "para_668" ] }, { "title": "Court decided that the record did not support a conclusion that the agent had", "paragraphs": [ "para_670", "para_671", "para_672", "para_673", "para_674" ] }, { "title": "We believe that imposing upon the Agent the duty to", "paragraphs": [ "para_676", "para_677", "para_678", "para_679", "para_680", "para_681", "para_682", "para_683", "para_684", "para_685" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_687" ] }, { "title": "Id. at 505, 729 A.2d at 563. Indeed, the Real Estate Licensing and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Registration Act explicitly provides that “[u]nless otherwise agreed, a licensee", "paragraphs": [ "para_690", "para_691", "para_692", "para_693" ] }, { "title": "Nevertheless, as this Court has noted, there is a distinction between", "paragraphs": [ "para_695", "para_696", "para_697", "para_698" ] }, { "title": "1130 (Pa.Super. 1987) (holding that agent of estate may be liable to third", "paragraphs": [ "para_700", "para_701", "para_702" ] }, { "title": "Instantly, the trial court found that Appellants’ negligence claim against", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Buyers’ Agents failed because Appellants failed to show that Buyers’ Agents", "paragraphs": [ "para_705", "para_706", "para_707", "para_708" ] }, { "title": "Court Opinion, entered 10/11/22, at 5-6). The court went on to state:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_711", "para_712", "para_713", "para_714", "para_715", "para_716", "para_717", "para_718" ] }, { "title": "Defendants of water infiltration at the Property which could", "paragraphs": [ "para_720", "para_721", "para_722", "para_723" ] }, { "title": "The record supports the trial court’s determination that Appellants failed", "paragraphs": [ "para_725", "para_726", "para_727", "para_728", "para_729", "para_730", "para_731", "para_732" ] }, { "title": "Likewise, Buyers’ Agents did not have a duty to independently investigate the", "paragraphs": [ "para_734", "para_735" ] }, { "title": "Agents had no knowledge of prior water intrusion and did not have a duty to", "paragraphs": [ "para_737", "para_738" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_740", "para_741", "para_742" ] }, { "title": "In the second part of Appellants’ issue, they claim that the trial court", "paragraphs": [ "para_744" ] }, { "title": "UTPCPL violation. Appellants argue that Buyers’ Agents engaged in deceptive", "paragraphs": [ "para_746" ] }, { "title": "Appellants justifiably relied on this deceptive conduct to their financial", "paragraphs": [ "para_748", "para_749", "para_750", "para_751", "para_752", "para_753", "para_754", "para_755", "para_756", "para_757" ] }, { "title": "(2004) (citing Weinberg v. Sun Co., 565 Pa. 612, 777 A.2d 442, 446", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(2001)). As this Court has explained:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The UTPCPL is Pennsylvania’s consumer protection law and", "paragraphs": [ "para_761", "para_762", "para_763", "para_764", "para_765" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_767", "para_768", "para_769" ] }, { "title": "The UTPCPL provides a private right of action for anyone", "paragraphs": [ "para_771", "para_772", "para_773", "para_774", "para_775" ] }, { "title": "Section 201–2(4) lists twenty enumerated practices which", "paragraphs": [ "para_777", "para_778", "para_779", "para_780", "para_781" ] }, { "title": "Under the UTPCPL’s catchall provision, “unfair or deceptive acts or", "paragraphs": [ "para_783", "para_784", "para_785", "para_786", "para_787", "para_788", "para_789", "para_790" ] }, { "title": "Instantly, the trial court explained:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "There are no factual allegations in the complaint to support", "paragraphs": [ "para_793", "para_794", "para_795" ] }, { "title": "Property. The alleged misrepresentations at issue were", "paragraphs": [ "para_797" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_799", "para_800", "para_801", "para_802", "para_803", "para_804", "para_805", "para_806", "para_807", "para_808", "para_809" ] }, { "title": "(Trial Court Opinion, 12/8/22, at 10-11). The trial court continued:", "paragraphs": [ "para_811", "para_812" ] }, { "title": "Defendants about the condition of the Property, specifically", "paragraphs": [ "para_814", "para_815" ] }, { "title": "Defendants had actual knowledge of construction defects", "paragraphs": [ "para_817", "para_818", "para_819" ] }, { "title": "We agree with the trial court’s reasoning. Appellants alleged that", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Buyers’ Agents engaged in fraudulent or deceptive conduct upon which", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appellants justifiably relied to their financial detriment. However, other than", "paragraphs": [ "para_823", "para_824", "para_825", "para_826" ] }, { "title": "Property and made any statements to either deceive Appellants about their", "paragraphs": [ "para_828" ] }, { "title": "Although justifiable reliance is typically a question of fact for the jury, as the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_831", "para_832", "para_833", "para_834", "para_835", "para_836" ] }, { "title": "In their third issue, Appellants argue that the trial court erred when it", "paragraphs": [ "para_838" ] }, { "title": "Appellants’ claims count III-fraud and count V-negligence. For purposes of", "paragraphs": [ "para_840" ] }, { "title": "This Court has set forth our well-settled standard of review of a ruling", "paragraphs": [ "para_842" ] }, { "title": "Our standard of review of a ruling on a motion for judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_844", "para_845" ] }, { "title": "Inc., 314 A.3d 894, 904 (Pa.Super. 2024). A motion for", "paragraphs": [ "para_847" ] }, { "title": "Washabaugh v. Gaudenzia, Inc., 316 A.3d 1008, 1011", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(Pa.Super. 2024)[, appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 333 A.3d", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1267 (2025)]. “Judgment on the pleadings is proper only", "paragraphs": [ "para_851", "para_852", "para_853", "para_854" ] }, { "title": "Like the trial court, we “must accept as true all well pleaded", "paragraphs": [ "para_856", "para_857", "para_858", "para_859" ] }, { "title": "1011. Grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is", "paragraphs": [ "para_861", "para_862", "para_863" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_865", "para_866" ] }, { "title": "Appellants argue that Seller’s Agents’ act of concealing the material fact", "paragraphs": [ "para_868", "para_869" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs that no such water damage or infiltration had ever occurred,” and", "paragraphs": [ "para_871", "para_872", "para_873", "para_874", "para_875", "para_876" ] }, { "title": "44). Appellants insist that these pleadings sufficiently set forth material facts", "paragraphs": [ "para_878", "para_879", "para_880" ] }, { "title": "We reiterate that to prove fraud, plaintiffs must establish the following", "paragraphs": [ "para_882", "para_883", "para_884", "para_885", "para_886", "para_887" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_889", "para_890" ] }, { "title": "Here, the trial court explained that “count III of [Appellants’] Complaint", "paragraphs": [ "para_892", "para_893" ] }, { "title": "Court Opinion, entered 12/8/22, at 7). The court further elaborated its", "paragraphs": [ "para_895", "para_896", "para_897", "para_898", "para_899", "para_900", "para_901", "para_902", "para_903", "para_904", "para_905", "para_906", "para_907", "para_908", "para_909", "para_910", "para_911", "para_912", "para_913", "para_914", "para_915" ] }, { "title": "Based on our review, we see no error in the trial court’s order granting", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Seller’s Agents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. See SpiriTrust", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lutheran, supra. Accepting as true all well pleaded statements of fact and", "paragraphs": [ "para_919", "para_920" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_922" ] }, { "title": "See Weissberger, supra. Appellants’ general assertion that “all Defendants", "paragraphs": [ "para_924", "para_925", "para_926" ] }, { "title": "Complaint at ¶ 9), and does not in itself contain a specific averment of a", "paragraphs": [ "para_928", "para_929" ] }, { "title": "Milliken, supra. This generalized averment does not comply with our Rules", "paragraphs": [ "para_931", "para_932", "para_933", "para_934", "para_935", "para_936", "para_937", "para_938", "para_939", "para_940", "para_941" ] }, { "title": "With respect to the trial court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings for", "paragraphs": [ "para_943", "para_944" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_946", "para_947" ] }, { "title": "Appellants maintain that Seller’s Agents had a duty to inform them about", "paragraphs": [ "para_949", "para_950" ] }, { "title": "Appellants argue that because there was clearly a duty owed, the trial court", "paragraphs": [ "para_952", "para_953" ] }, { "title": "It is well established that, “[a] cause of action in negligence requires", "paragraphs": [ "para_955", "para_956", "para_957", "para_958" ] }, { "title": "90, 95, 821 A.2d 1215, 1218 (2003)) (citation omitted). “The primary", "paragraphs": [ "para_960", "para_961", "para_962" ] }, { "title": "Here, the trial court explained that it granted Seller’s Agents’ motion for", "paragraphs": [ "para_964", "para_965", "para_966" ] }, { "title": "Plaintiffs a duty of care to ensure that all water infiltration", "paragraphs": [ "para_968", "para_969", "para_970" ] }, { "title": "Defendants of water infiltration at the Property which could", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_973", "para_974", "para_975", "para_976", "para_977" ] }, { "title": "Although Appellants insist that Seller’s Agents were aware of the water", "paragraphs": [ "para_979", "para_980", "para_981", "para_982", "para_983" ] }, { "title": "Seller’s Agents breached a specific duty owed to Appellants. Accordingly, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_985", "para_986" ] }, { "title": "We next turn to Appellants’ fifth and sixth issues, wherein they claim", "paragraphs": [ "para_988", "para_989" ] }, { "title": "Specifically, Appellants insist that the trial court erred when the court", "paragraphs": [ "para_991", "para_992", "para_993" ] }, { "title": "6 Based on our determination that the RESDL operates as a statute of repose", "paragraphs": [ "para_995" ] }, { "title": "Appellants’ fourth issue arguing that the court erred in granting summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_997", "para_998", "para_999" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1001", "para_1002" ] }, { "title": "Appellants maintain that Section 7311(b) of the RESDL is specifically identified", "paragraphs": [ "para_1004", "para_1005", "para_1006", "para_1007", "para_1008", "para_1009", "para_1010", "para_1011", "para_1012" ] }, { "title": "This issue presents a pure legal question of statutory interpretation and", "paragraphs": [ "para_1014", "para_1015" ] }, { "title": "925 (2022). “In construing a statute, a court must give effect to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1017" ] }, { "title": "The statute’s plain language is the best indicator of the legislature’s intent.”", "paragraphs": [ "para_1019" ] }, { "title": "To ascertain the plain meaning, we consider the operative", "paragraphs": [ "para_1021", "para_1022", "para_1023", "para_1024", "para_1025", "para_1026", "para_1027" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1029", "para_1030", "para_1031", "para_1032" ] }, { "title": "Kornfeind, supra at 126-27, 280 A.3d at 925 (citations and internal", "paragraphs": [ "para_1034" ] }, { "title": "A statute of limitations limits the time for a plaintiff to bring suit based", "paragraphs": [ "para_1036" ] }, { "title": "371, 715 A.2d 423 (1998). Statutes of repose similarly limit the time for a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1038", "para_1039" ] }, { "title": "640 (2025). Thus, “statutes of repose begin to run at the time of the negligent", "paragraphs": [ "para_1041", "para_1042" ] }, { "title": "Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 602 Pa. 627, 648, 981 A.2d 198, 211", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(2009) (stating: “A statute of repose is defined as a ‘statute barring any suit", "paragraphs": [ "para_1045", "para_1046" ] }, { "title": "Supreme Court has explained:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A statute of limitations limits the time for a plaintiff to bring", "paragraphs": [ "para_1049" ] }, { "title": "A.2d at 425. A cause of action accrues “when an injury is", "paragraphs": [ "para_1051", "para_1052" ] }, { "title": "353, 15 A.3d 479, 484 (2011). While a statute of repose", "paragraphs": [ "para_1054", "para_1055", "para_1056", "para_1057" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1059" ] }, { "title": "Abrams, 981 A.2d at 211 (internal quotations and citations", "paragraphs": [ "para_1061", "para_1062", "para_1063", "para_1064", "para_1065" ] }, { "title": "Inc., 635 Pa. 108, 132 A.3d 946, 952 (2015)] (citing", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Abrams, 981 A.2d at 211 (explaining that “the period", "paragraphs": [ "para_1068", "para_1069", "para_1070" ] }, { "title": "Area Sch. Dist. v. Campbell, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 131, 618", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A.2d 1129, 1134 (1992) (noting that “statutes of limitation", "paragraphs": [ "para_1073", "para_1074", "para_1075", "para_1076", "para_1077", "para_1078", "para_1079", "para_1080", "para_1081", "para_1082", "para_1083" ] }, { "title": "We have explained that when the General Assembly drafts", "paragraphs": [ "para_1085", "para_1086", "para_1087" ] }, { "title": "A.2d at 426 (quoting Altoona Area Sch. Dist., 618 A.2d at", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1134). Importantly, the General Assembly does not tie the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1090", "para_1091" ] }, { "title": "211. Rather, the focus is on whether the “limitations period", "paragraphs": [ "para_1093", "para_1094", "para_1095", "para_1096" ] }, { "title": "Gidor, supra at ___, 345 A.3d at 640-41. Furthermore, “because statutes of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1098" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1100", "para_1101", "para_1102" ] }, { "title": "Section 7311(b) of the RESDL provides the following:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Section 7311. Failure to comply", "paragraphs": [ "para_1105" ] }, { "title": "(b) Statute of limitations.--An action for damages as a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1107", "para_1108" ] }, { "title": "68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7311(b). While the heading of section 7311(b) is “Statute of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1110", "para_1111" ] }, { "title": "(citing Commonwealth v. Magwood, 503 Pa. 169, 177, 469 A.2d 115, 119", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(1983)). See also 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1924 (providing that “[t]he headings", "paragraphs": [ "para_1114", "para_1115", "para_1116", "para_1117", "para_1118", "para_1119" ] }, { "title": "In Gidor, our Supreme Court evaluated whether section 7512 of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Home Inspection Law operated as a statute of limitations or a statute of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1122", "para_1123" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1125", "para_1126", "para_1127", "para_1128" ] }, { "title": "640. The High Court explained that “when the General Assembly drafts", "paragraphs": [ "para_1130", "para_1131", "para_1132" ] }, { "title": "7512 was similar to the construction statute of repose, explaining that both", "paragraphs": [ "para_1134", "para_1135", "para_1136" ] }, { "title": "345 A.3d at 642. Ultimately, concluding that section 7512 followed the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1138", "para_1139", "para_1140" ] }, { "title": "Here, the trial court offered the following explanation of its order", "paragraphs": [ "para_1142", "para_1143" ] }, { "title": "The statute provides that claims brought under the [RESDL]", "paragraphs": [ "para_1145", "para_1146", "para_1147", "para_1148" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, it operates as a statute of repose which", "paragraphs": [ "para_1150" ] }, { "title": "The [RESDL] states: “an action for damages as a result of a", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1153", "para_1154", "para_1155" ] }, { "title": "7311(b). Although labeled as a statute of limitations, its", "paragraphs": [ "para_1157" ] }, { "title": "Pennsylvania federal court is instructive here: “… a title has", "paragraphs": [ "para_1159", "para_1160", "para_1161", "para_1162", "para_1163", "para_1164" ] }, { "title": "2017, and [Appellants] commenced this litigation on March", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "23, 2020, two years and eight months after the final", "paragraphs": [ "para_1167", "para_1168" ] }, { "title": "Based upon the clear and unambiguous language of section 7311(b), we", "paragraphs": [ "para_1170", "para_1171", "para_1172", "para_1173", "para_1174", "para_1175", "para_1176", "para_1177", "para_1178", "para_1179", "para_1180", "para_1181", "para_1182" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1184", "para_1185", "para_1186" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting the motions for summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_1188", "para_1189" ] }, { "title": "Appellant’s final issues concern the trial court’s grant of Dietrich’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1191", "para_1192", "para_1193" ] }, { "title": "Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence lie within", "paragraphs": [ "para_1195", "para_1196", "para_1197" ] }, { "title": "Smith, 15 A.3d 492, 496 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citing Stumpf", "paragraphs": [ "para_1199", "para_1200", "para_1201", "para_1202", "para_1203", "para_1204", "para_1205" ] }, { "title": "7 The discussion portion of Appellants’ brief does not align with the questions", "paragraphs": [ "para_1207", "para_1208", "para_1209", "para_1210", "para_1211", "para_1212" ] }, { "title": "Agreement of Sale, specifically arguing that the trial court erred in precluding", "paragraphs": [ "para_1214", "para_1215", "para_1216", "para_1217", "para_1218" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1220", "para_1221", "para_1222" ] }, { "title": "Keystone Dedicated Logistics, LLC v. JGB Enters., Inc., 77 A.3d 1, 11", "paragraphs": [ "para_1224" ] }, { "title": "First, Appellants assert that the trial court excluded admission of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SDS based on the court’s finding that the RESDL claims were barred by the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1227" ] }, { "title": "RESDL claims were barred by the statute of repose did not require the court", "paragraphs": [ "para_1229" ] }, { "title": "Appellants claim that in enacting the RESDL, the General Assembly did not", "paragraphs": [ "para_1231", "para_1232", "para_1233", "para_1234" ] }, { "title": "It appears to be an issue of first impression for this Court whether an", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SDS made pursuant to the RESDL, should remain admissible in support of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1237", "para_1238", "para_1239" ] }, { "title": "The RESDL applies to all residential real estate transfers and mandates", "paragraphs": [ "para_1241" ] }, { "title": "Any seller who intends to transfer any interest in real", "paragraphs": [ "para_1243", "para_1244" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1246", "para_1247", "para_1248", "para_1249", "para_1250", "para_1251", "para_1252", "para_1253", "para_1254", "para_1255", "para_1256", "para_1257", "para_1258" ] }, { "title": "The legislative history of the RESDL indicates “that the RESDL ‘is", "paragraphs": [ "para_1260", "para_1261", "para_1262", "para_1263" ] }, { "title": "Caperoon, 190 A.3d 1230, 1245 (Pa.Super. 2018) (quoting Pa. Senate", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Journal 2138, June 18, 1996 (statement of Sen. David J. Brightbill)). The", "paragraphs": [ "para_1266", "para_1267" ] }, { "title": "It says if you know there is a problem, then tell us there is", "paragraphs": [ "para_1269", "para_1270", "para_1271", "para_1272", "para_1273" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1275", "para_1276" ] }, { "title": "This Court has also explained that the RESDL does not foreclose", "paragraphs": [ "para_1278", "para_1279", "para_1280" ] }, { "title": "374 (Pa.Super. 2023), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 318 A.3d 96 (2024)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(affirming finding of fraud based on seller’s representations contained within", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "RESDL form). As previously discussed, the RESDL also contains a two-year", "paragraphs": [ "para_1284", "para_1285", "para_1286", "para_1287" ] }, { "title": "The legislative history of the RESDL discussed above demonstrates that", "paragraphs": [ "para_1289", "para_1290", "para_1291", "para_1292", "para_1293", "para_1294", "para_1295" ] }, { "title": "Pa.C.S.A. § 7311(a) (stating: “This subsection shall not be construed so as to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1297" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1299", "para_1300" ] }, { "title": "In our view, extending a seller’s liability for such mandatorily disclosed", "paragraphs": [ "para_1302", "para_1303", "para_1304", "para_1305", "para_1306", "para_1307", "para_1308", "para_1309", "para_1310", "para_1311", "para_1312" ] }, { "title": "Next, Appellants argue that the trial court erred when it granted", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Dietrich’s motion in limine to exclude any agreement other than the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Agreement of Sale. Specifically, Appellants maintain that the SDS was", "paragraphs": [ "para_1316" ] }, { "title": "Sale provided that “the [RESDL] requires that before an agreement of sale is", "paragraphs": [ "para_1318", "para_1319", "para_1320", "para_1321" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1323", "para_1324", "para_1325", "para_1326", "para_1327" ] }, { "title": "Appellants’ issue concerns the trial court’s application of the parol", "paragraphs": [ "para_1329", "para_1330", "para_1331", "para_1332", "para_1333" ] }, { "title": "In Hosler, supra, this Court held that “absent express incorporation of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1335", "para_1336", "para_1337" ] }, { "title": "(explaining there is “no provision in RESDL that expressly states that", "paragraphs": [ "para_1339", "para_1340" ] }, { "title": "Notably, Pennsylvania case law has recognized an exception to the parol", "paragraphs": [ "para_1342" ] }, { "title": "8 Appellants’ argument is based on a trial court decision from the Allegheny", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "County Court of Common Pleas, Vaughn v. Drab, 73 Pa. D. & C.4th 550, 558", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(Com. Pl. 2005). We remind Appellants that we are not bound by decisions", "paragraphs": [ "para_1346", "para_1347" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1349", "para_1350", "para_1351", "para_1352", "para_1353", "para_1354" ] }, { "title": "Partnership v. Bell Atlantic Properties, Inc., 653 A.2d 663, 666", "paragraphs": [ "para_1356" ] }, { "title": "Instantly, the parties agree that the Agreement of Sale constitutes the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1358", "para_1359", "para_1360" ] }, { "title": "(A) All representations, claims, advertising, promotional", "paragraphs": [ "para_1362" ] }, { "title": "Brokers, their licensees, employees, officers or partners are", "paragraphs": [ "para_1364", "para_1365", "para_1366", "para_1367", "para_1368", "para_1369", "para_1370", "para_1371" ] }, { "title": "(Agreement of Sale at 11). Significantly, the Agreement of Sale does not", "paragraphs": [ "para_1373" ] }, { "title": "Upon review, we agree with the trial court that because there is no", "paragraphs": [ "para_1375", "para_1376" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1378", "para_1379", "para_1380", "para_1381", "para_1382", "para_1383" ] }, { "title": "Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted Dietrich’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1385", "para_1386" ] }, { "title": "Finally, we turn to Appellants’ last claim, that the trial court erred in", "paragraphs": [ "para_1388", "para_1389", "para_1390" ] }, { "title": "Our Rules of Appellate Procedure make clear that appellate briefs must", "paragraphs": [ "para_1392" ] }, { "title": "Rules. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Arguments must be followed by an appropriate", "paragraphs": [ "para_1394" ] }, { "title": "Where an appellant fails to properly raise or develop issues on appeal, or", "paragraphs": [ "para_1396", "para_1397" ] }, { "title": "9 We note that even if this exception applied, it would permit evidence", "paragraphs": [ "para_1399", "para_1400", "para_1401", "para_1402" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1404", "para_1405" ] }, { "title": "747 A.2d 943, 944 (Pa.Super. 2000) (holding appellant waived claim where", "paragraphs": [ "para_1407", "para_1408", "para_1409", "para_1410" ] }, { "title": "Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super. 2006) (explaining appellant’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1412", "para_1413", "para_1414", "para_1415", "para_1416" ] }, { "title": "A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 631 Pa. 719, 110 A.3d 998", "paragraphs": [ "para_1418" ] }, { "title": "Instantly, Appellants’ one paragraph discussion of their final claim does", "paragraphs": [ "para_1420", "para_1421", "para_1422", "para_1423", "para_1424", "para_1425", "para_1426" ] }, { "title": "J-A04021-26", "paragraphs": [ "para_1428", "para_1429", "para_1430" ] }, { "title": "Prothonotary", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Date: 06/23/2026", "paragraphs": [] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "2026 PA Super 133", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "KEVIN & LISA HOLLINGER", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "Appellants", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "JENNIFER DIETRICH, MICHELE", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "MCCARTNEY, COLDWELL BANKER", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE, LISA", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "TIGER, ADVANCE REALTY, INC.", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "D/B/A CENTURY 21 GOLD AND JOHN", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "DOES 1-10, JOHN DOE CORP. 1-10", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": ":", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "PENNSYLVANIA", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "No. 740 MDA 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Appeal from the Order Entered May 7, 2025", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s):", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "20-3489", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and LANE, J.", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "OPINION BY KING, J.: FILED JUNE 23, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "Appellants, Kevin and Lisa Hollinger, appeal from the final order of the", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Berks County Court of Common Pleas, entered on May 7, 2025, which granted", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "the motion for summary judgment and motion for judgment on the pleadings", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "filed by Appellee, Jennifer Dietrich (“Dietrich”).1 Appellants challenge the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "court’s November 16, 2020 order sustaining the preliminary objections of", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "Appellees Lisa Tiger (“Tiger”) and Advance Realty, Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Gold", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "(“Advance Realty”) (collectively “Buyers’ Agents”); the July 19, 2021 order", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Appellees Michele", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "McCartney (“McCartney”) and Coldwell Banker (“Coldwell Banker”)", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "____________________________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "1 We have amended the caption to include all defendants listed in Appellants’", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "- 2 -", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "(collectively “Seller’s Agents”); the April 13, 2022 orders of the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "which granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Buyers’ Agents and", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Seller’s Agents; the order", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "entered September 27, 2022, which granted Dietrich’s motions in limine; and", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "the orders entered May 7, 2025, that granted Dietrich’s motion for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "judgment and motion for judgment on the pleadings. We affirm.", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "The trial court set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "case as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "On April 24, 2017, [Appellants] entered into an agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "[(“Agreement of Sale”)] to purchase the real property", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "located at 1413 Old Mill Road, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "(“the Property”) from [Dietrich] with settlement to occur on", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "June 29, 2017. [Appellants] were represented by [Buyers’", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "Agents], while Dietrich was represented by [Seller’s Agents]", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "(collectively “Agent Defendants”). [Appellants] first", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "discovered the Property on the market in 2017 and, after", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "viewing the Property, were impressed with the high-end,", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "quality finishes and construction of the Property. Prior to", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "the transaction, [Appellants] reviewed the Sellers Disclosure", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "Statement (“SDS”), as required pursuant to the Real Estate", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "Seller Disclosure Law (“RESDL”), [68 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7301-", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "7315], provided by Dietrich, which indicated that the", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "Property had a sump pump in working order and a sump pit,", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "and that she was not aware of any water infiltration into the", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "basement or of any repairs to control water or dampness", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "issues, or other drainage or flooding issues. Dietrich did", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "disclose in the SDS that a rehab and addition of the Property", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "had been completed in 2006, which occurred prior to her", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "marriage to her late husband and subsequent habitation of", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "the Property. Further, Dietrich disclosed that a sewage", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "backup in 2016 had necessitated new carpet, tile, and dry", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "wall to be installed, as well as that the backup was", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "“professionally blew out.” [(Complaint, at Ex. A, p. 5)].", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "[Appellants] filed suit against all Defendants on March 23,", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "2020, setting forth causes of action for violation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "- 3 -", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "RESDL, civil conspiracy, fraud, breach of contract,", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "negligence, and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”). [73", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "P.S. §§ 201-1 – 201-10]. [Appellants’] Complaint alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "that prior to the [A]greement of [S]ale, [Appellants]", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "reviewed the SDS that Dietrich [had submitted], which did", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "not disclose any water damage. Likewise, [Appellants]", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "noted that they specifically sought assurances from Dietrich,", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "through the Agent Defendants, that no water infiltration had", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "occurred at the Property.", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "However, [Appellants] claimed that shortly after settlement", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "and closing, they noticed flooding in the basement of the", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "Property. Further investigation prompted by concern led", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "[Appellants] to discover, according to them, that the", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "Property had experienced previous flooding in the basement", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "over a long period of time. [Appellants] also alleged that a", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "waterproofing system had been installed after an addition", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "had been completed by Dietrich, which demonstrated that", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "Dietrich knew that water infiltration into the basement was", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "an issue. [Appellants] claimed that they engaged the", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "services of a remediation expert who informed [Appellants]", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "that the cause of the water infiltration was the improperly", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "constructed addition to the Property and the landscape", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "grading performed after the addition was completed.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "[Appellants] additionally asserted that “many of their", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "neighbors were experiencing similar water infiltration", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "issues, and that the community in general routinely dealt", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "with flooded basements.” [(Complaint at ¶ 44)].", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "[Appellants] further alleged that [Tiger and McCartney] both", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "lived in the area of the Property and, as such, coupled with", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "their knowledge as real estate agents, they knew or should", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "have known that water infiltration was a problem", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "throughout the neighborhood.", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "(Trial Court Opinion, entered 5/7/25, at 1-3).", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "On August 5, 2020, Buyers’ Agents filed preliminary objections to the", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "complaint, arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim for count II-civil", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "conspiracy, count III-fraud, count V-negligence, and count VI-UTPCPL", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "- 4 -", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "violations. On November 16, 2020, the trial court sustained Buyers’ Agents’", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "preliminary objections to Appellants’ complaint in part and struck count II-civil", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "conspiracy and count III-fraud from the complaint.2", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "On October 14, 2020, Dietrich filed preliminary objections challenging", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "the sufficiency of the damages claimed and objecting in the nature of a", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "demurrer to count II-civil conspiracy, count III-fraud, count V-negligence, and", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "count VI-UTPCPL violation. On November 16, 2020, the trial court sustained", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "Dietrich’s objections in part, dismissing count II-civil conspiracy and count III-", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "fraud. The court ordered Dietrich to file an answer to the remaining counts.", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "On May 20, 2021, Seller’s Agents filed a motion for judgment on the", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "pleading seeking to dismiss Appellants’ claims for count II-civil conspiracy,", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "count III-fraud, and count V-negligence. On July 19, 2021, the court granted", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "Seller’s Agents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Trial Court Order,", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "entered 7/19/21).", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "On January 10, 2022, Buyers’ Agents filed a motion for judgment on the", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "pleadings as to the claims of count III-fraud, count V-negligence, and count", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "____________________________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "2 Despite the trial court’s striking of count-III, fraud, from the complaint, the", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "Buyers’ Agents and Appellants proceeded as if the fraud claim remained", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "viable; Buyers’ Agents later moved for summary judgment as to count III-", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "fraud, and obtained summary judgment in their favor. (See Buyers’ Agents’", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "Motion for Summary Judgment, 3/11/22; Trial Court Order, entered 4/13/22).", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "However, because there is no indication that the trial court’s November 16,", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "2020 order sustaining preliminary objections was ever vacated or amended,", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "the record reflects that order as the operative order disposing of Appellants’", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "claim for count III-fraud, as to the Buyers’ Agents.", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "- 5 -", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "VII-UTPCPL violations, arguing that Appellants failed to allege sufficient facts", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "to support their claims. Specifically, Buyers’ Agents argued that Appellants", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "failed to allege that they made any false or reckless representations, or that", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "they knew that any representations made by Dietrich were false or reckless.", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "Buyers’ Agents also asserted that the UTPCPL claims against them could not", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "be supported because the UTPCPL did not regulate the behavior of the buyers–", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "Appellants–whom Buyers’ Agents represented in the transaction; and further,", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "Appellants failed to allege any factual support for their claims that Buyers’", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "Agents engaged in any deceptive or unfair acts.", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "On January 13, 2022, Seller’s Agents filed a second motion for judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "on the pleadings, arguing that Appellants had failed to adduce factual support", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "for count I-RESDL violation because the RESDL requires that an agent have", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "actual knowledge of the material defect to impose liability and Seller’s Agents", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "did not have a duty to complete an independent inspection of the Property.", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "Seller’s Agents further maintained that Appellants failed to identify any specific", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "oral or written misrepresentation to support a violation of the RESDL. Finally,", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "Seller’s Agents insisted that Appellants were further barred from pursuing this", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "claim based on the two-year statute of repose contained in 68 Pa.C.S.A. §", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "7311(b). Seller’s Agents argued that even though the statute is titled as a", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "“statute of limitations,” it operates as a statute of repose because the viability", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "of an action is extinguished two years after the date of settlement.", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "Subsequently, on March 7, 2022, Dietrich filed a motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "judgment on the pleadings seeking judgment in her favor as", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "- 6 -", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "to the claims for violations of the RESDL and UTPCPL, breach", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "of contract, and negligence. Dietrich first claimed that the", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "RESDL and negligence claims were barred by the applicable", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "statute of limitations or repose. Dietrich argued that the", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "only contract between [Appellants] and Dietrich was the", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "Agreement of Sale (“the Agreement [of Sale]”), which", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "included that all representations and claims by Dietrich were", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "not part of the Agreement [of Sale] unless expressly", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "incorporated therein. Because the SDS was not expressly", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "incorporated into the Agreement [of Sale], Dietrich", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "contended, [Appellants] could not use the SDS as a basis", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "for a breach of contract claim. Other terms of the", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "Agreement [of Sale], according to Dietrich, included", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "[Appellants’] inspection requirements, [Appellants’]", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "acceptance of the Property “IN ITS PRESENT CONDITION…,”", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "and a release of Dietrich for defects or conditions of the", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "Property. Finally, Dietrich claims that because the RESDL", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "cause of action is barred by the statute of repose, and", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "because the Agreement [of Sale] released Dietrich of", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "liability for defects or conditions of the [P]roperty,", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "[Appellants] also fail to sustain their cause of action for", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "violations of the UTPCPL.", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "(Trial Court Opinion, entered 5/7/25, at 4-5) (unnecessary capitalization", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "omitted). Dietrich filed a motion for summary judgment on March 10, 2022,", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "seeking relief on the same basis as set forth in her motion for judgment on", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "the pleadings.", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "On March 11, 2022, Buyers’ Agents and Seller’s Agents filed motions for", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "summary judgment. On April 13, 2022, the trial court granted the motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "summary judgment of Buyers’ Agents, entering judgment in favor of Buyers’", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "Agents on the remaining claims against them: count V-negligence, and count", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "VII-UTPCPL violation. That same day, the trial court granted the motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "summary judgment of Seller’s Agents and entered judgment in their favor on", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "the remaining claim against them, count I-RESDL violation. In both orders,", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "- 7 -", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "the trial court explained that the prior motions for judgment on the pleadings", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "filed by Agent Defendants were moot pursuant to the grant of summary", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "judgment relief.", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "Also on April 13, 2022, the trial court denied Dietrich’s motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "summary judgment and granted, in part, Dietrich’s motion for judgment on", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "the pleadings dismissing count III-fraud based on Appellants’ concession that", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "no specific evidence of fraud, sufficient to meet the legal standard, had been", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "offered. The court thereafter scheduled the case for a jury trial to begin on", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "October 4, 2022.", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "On August 8, 2022, Dietrich filed motions in limine. In the first motion,", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "she sought exclusion of any agreement, including the SDS, that was outside", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "of the Agreement of Sale. Dietrich argued that pursuant to the terms of the", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "Agreement of Sale, Appellants accepted the Property “as is,” and specified", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "that the Agreement of Sale was all-inclusive as to the terms of sale and did", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "not include the SDS. Dietrich next sought to exclude the testimony of", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "Appellants’ expert, arguing that Appellants failed to provide any expert reports", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "pursuant to the deadlines set forth in the case management order. Finally,", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "Dietrich sought to exclude any testimony regarding the SDS based on her", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "continued argument that the count I-RESDL violation claim was barred due to", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "the statute of repose, and thus, admission of the SDS was also barred.", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "The court heard argument on the motions in limine and, on September", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "27, 2022, the court granted Dietrich relief. Specifically, the court excluded", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "- 8 -", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "Appellants’ expert testimony, any testimony regarding the SDS, and", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "testimony to any agreement other than the Agreement of Sale.", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "Appellants initially purported to appeal from the trial court’s orders", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "granting the Agent Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and the order", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "granting Dietrich’s motions in limine. However, this Court quashed the appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "as interlocutory and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. See", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "Hollinger v. Dietrich, No. 1623 MDA 2022, No. 1624 MDA 2022, No. 1625", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "MDA 2022, No. 1626 MDA 2022, No. 1629 MDA 2022 (Pa.Super. filed Jan. 3,", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "2024) (unpublished memorandum). Upon remand, the trial court held a", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "status conference during which Dietrich asked the trial court to reconsider", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "Dietrich’s motion for summary judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "On May 7, 2025, the trial court granted Dietrich’s motion for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "judgment as to count I-RESDL violation, and granted Dietrich’s motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "judgment on the pleadings as to count IV-breach of contract, count V-", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "negligence, and count VI-UTPCPL violation. (Trial Court Order, entered", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "5/7/25). In its accompanying opinion, the trial court explained that it", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "interpreted the RESDL as a statute of repose, rather than a statute of", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "limitations; hence, Appellants had two years from the date of sale to", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "commence an action. The court further found that the statute of repose", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "applicable to the RESDL extinguishes the claims thereto and excludes the SDS.", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "Because Appellants had relied solely on the SDS in support of the remaining", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "claims, the court found that Appellants had failed to aver relevant allegations", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "- 9 -", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "to support the causes of action for breach of contract, negligence, or violations", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "of the UTPCPL. Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal, and pursuant to the", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "court’s order, Appellants filed their concise statements of errors complained", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "of on appeal.3", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "Appellants raise the following issues on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "1. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "abused its discretion in its November 16, 2020 order", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "____________________________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "3 On August 19, 2025, this Court entered a rule to show cause why the appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "should not be quashed, because it was unclear whether the May 7, 2025 order", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "was final where it left unresolved the claims against John Doe 1-10 and John", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "Doe Corp. 1-10. Appellants responded arguing that the inclusion of John Doe", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "defendants did not mean that there were outstanding claims remaining.", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "Rather, Appellants maintained that the issue of whether claims remained", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "depended on whether the John Doe defendants constituted “legal parties” to", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "the action. Appellants asserted that because no claims were affirmatively pled", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "against the John Doe defendants, their presence in the pleadings did not", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "prevent the order from being final.", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "Generally, appeals may be taken only from final orders. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(a).", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "A final order is one that disposes of all claims and all parties. Reason v.", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "Kathryn’s Korner Thrift Shop, 169 A.3d 96, 100 (Pa.Super. 2017)", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "(reiterating that orders which do not dispose of all claims and all parties are", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "interlocutory and unappealable). In Zane v. Friends Hospital, 770 A.2d 339", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "(Pa.Super. 2001), reversed on other grounds, 575 Pa. 236, 836 A.2d 25", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "(2003), this Court held that an order was final, despite the presence of “Dr.", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "John Doe” on the caption, because Dr. John Doe was not a legal party as he", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "had never been identified, never been served, and had never entered an", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "appearance in the action. Id. at 340 n.1. Similarly, in Weiley v. Albert", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "Einstein Med. Ctr., 51 A.3d 202 (Pa.Super. 2012), this Court held that where", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "a John Doe defendant was never identified, and had never entered an", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "appearance, he was not a legal party. Id. at 215.", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "Here, we note that the John Doe 1-10 and John Doe Corp. 1-10 defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "were never identified, never served, and had never entered an appearance in", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "the action. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the John Doe defendants did", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "not constitute legal parties to the action, and their presence in the pleadings", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "does not prevent the May 7, 2025 order from being a final order.", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "- 10 -", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "[sustaining Buyers’ Agents’] preliminary objections to", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "[Appellants’] claim for fraud where there was substantial", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "factual evidence demonstrating that … Tiger was aware of", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "water infiltration in [Appellants’] home and failed to inform", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "[Appellants] of such water infiltration, despite [Appellants’]", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "specific requests that the home not be subject to water", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "infiltration, and where such non-disclosure of a material fact", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "is tantamount to a material misrepresentation?", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "2. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "abused its discretion in its April 13, 2022 order granting", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "[Buyers’ Agents’] motion for summary judgment where", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "there was substantial factual evidence demonstrating that", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "… Tiger knew or should have known of water infiltration in", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "[Appellants’] home and failed to inform [Appellants] of such", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "water infiltration in violation of her duties, as well as in", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "violation of the [UTPCPL], and where the Supreme Court and", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "the Superior Court have routinely found that where a", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "buyer’s agent knew or should have known about latent", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "defects in a home, and where the plaintiffs made clear that", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "they were relying on representations relating to the", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "presence of such latent defects, a realtor has a duty to", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "ensure that the representations made are correct[?]", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "3. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "abused its discretion in its July 19, 2021 order granting", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "[Seller’s Agents’] motion for judgment on the pleadings as", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "to [Appellants’] claims for fraud and negligence where there", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "was substantial factual evidence demonstrating that …", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "McCartney was aware of water infiltration in the", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "[Appellants’] home, had an affirmative duty to disclose it,", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "and failed to inform [Appellants] of such water infiltration,", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "despite [Appellants’] specific requests that the home not be", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "subject to water infiltration[?]", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "4. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "abused its discretion in its April 13, 2022 Order granting", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "[Seller’s Agents’] motion for summary judgment where", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "there was substantial factual evidence demonstrating that", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "… McCartney knew or should have known of water", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "infiltration in the [Appellants’] home and failed to inform", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "[Appellants] of such water infiltration in violation of her", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "duties under the [RESDL]?", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "- 11 -", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "5. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "abused its discretion in its May [7], 2025 order granting …", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "Dietrich’s motion for summary judgment and to exclude", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "testimony regarding the [SDS] on the basis that it is subject", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "to the principles of a statute of repose where there is no", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "controlling law applying the principles of a statute of repose", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "to the statute, and the fact that the statute itself is", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "specifically identified as a statute of limitation, thus", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "compelling the conclusion that the RESDL is not a statute of", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "repose, and is subject to the discovery rule and the", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "equitable tolling doctrine?", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "6. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "abused its discretion in its May [7], 2025 order granting …", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "Dietrich’s motion for summary judgment and to exclude", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "testimony regarding the [SDS] on the basis that it is subject", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "to the principles of a statute of repose where such preclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "excluded affirmative statements that were relevant to", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "[Appellants’] claims for violation of the [UTPCPL], as well as", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "[Appellants’] claims for breach of contract, and where the", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "mere fact that [Appellants’] claim for violation of the", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "[RESDL] may have lapsed did not render such statements", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "irrelevant or prejudicial?", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "7. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "abused its discretion in its May [7], 2025 order granting …", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "Dietrich’s motion for summary judgment seeking to exclude", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "any agreement other than the Agreement of Sale where the", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "Agreement of Sale specifically references the [RESDL] and", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "states that “the [RESDL] requires that before an agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "of sale is signed, the seller in a residential real estate", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "transfer must make certain disclosures regarding the", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "property to potential buyers in a form defined by law” and", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "therefore any documents and testimony demonstrating such", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "attempts to either to comply with the law by providing a", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "[SDS], (given that such a requirement is specifically", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "referenced within the Agreement of Sale) by providing her", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "disclosures must be allowed?", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "8. Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law and/or", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "abused its discretion in its May [7], 2025 order granting …", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "Dietrich’s motion for summary judgment ostensibly on the", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "basis that [Appellants] did not submit expert reports where", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "[Appellants] identified John Hoeffert as a witness in their", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "- 12 -", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "pre-trial memorandum, and produced his report in discovery", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "well prior to the July 1, 2022 deadline on March 1, 2022,", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "and identified Construction Master Services in their pre-trial", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "memorandum and submitted its proposal to repair the", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "defects in discovery on March 1, 2022, and submitted", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "opposition both filed and at oral argument[?]", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "(Appellants’ Brief at 11-15) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "In their first issue, Appellants contend that the trial court erred when it", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "granted Buyers’ Agents’ preliminary objections to Appellants’ claim for fraud.", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "Specifically, they assert that Buyers’ Agents failed to inform them of water", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "infiltration in the home despite Appellants’ specific requests to purchase a", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "home without water damage. Appellants further maintain that there was", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "substantial evidence that Buyers’ Agents were aware of water infiltration in", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "the home. Appellants insist that at the preliminary objections stage of the", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "proceedings, the trial court was required to accept as true Appellants’", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "averments that Tiger, who lived in the neighborhood, had knowledge about a", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "history of water infiltration throughout the community. Likewise, Appellants", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "assert that the trial court was obligated to accept as true their pleading that", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "“all Defendants expressly assured Plaintiffs that no such water damage or", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "infiltration had ever occurred. These representations were reflected in the", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "legally-obligated disclosures provided by the seller and the seller’s agent.”", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "(Complaint at ¶ 9). Appellants argue that Buyers’ Agents had a fiduciary duty", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "to disclose the prior water infiltration and yet concealed these facts for their", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "own benefit to earn the commission from the sale of the home. Accordingly,", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "Appellants insist that they pled sufficient facts to support their claim for fraud", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "- 13 -", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "against Buyers’ Agents, and the trial court erred in sustaining the preliminary", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "objections. We disagree.", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "The relevant scope and standard of review in examining a challenge to", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "an order sustaining preliminary objections are as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "Our review of a trial court’s sustaining of preliminary", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "objections in the nature of a demurrer is plenary. Such", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "preliminary objections should be sustained only if, assuming", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "the averments of the complaint to be true, the plaintiff has", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "failed to assert a legally cognizable cause of action. We will", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "reverse a trial court’s decision to sustain preliminary", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "objections only if the trial court has committed an error of", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "law or an abuse of discretion.", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "All material facts set forth in the complaint as well as all", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "inferences reasonably [deducible] therefrom are admitted as", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "true for [the purpose of this review]. The question presented", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "by the demurrer is whether, on the facts averred, the law", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "says with certainty that no recovery is possible. Where a", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained,", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "this doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling it.", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1234 (Pa.Super. 2008) (emphasis in", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "original) (internal citations omitted). See Burgoyne v. Pinecrest", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "Community Ass’n, 924 A.2d 675, 679 (Pa.Super. 2007) (stating: “To be", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "clear and free from doubt that dismissal is appropriate, it must appear with", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "certainty that the law would not permit recovery by the plaintiff upon the facts", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "averred”) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "In order to prove fraud the following elements must be", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "shown: (1) a representation; (2) which is material to the", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "transaction at hand; (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (4)", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5)", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and (6) the", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "resulting injury was proximately caused by the reliance.", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "- 14 -", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "Milliken v. Jacono, 60 A.3d 133, 140 (Pa.Super. 2012), aff’d, 628 Pa. 62,", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "103 A.3d 806 (2014) (citing Youndt v. First National Bank of Port", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "Allegany, 868 A.2d 539, 545 (Pa.Super. 2005)). “Concealment of a material", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "fact can amount to actionable fraud if the seller intentionally concealed a", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "material fact to deceive the purchaser; however, mere silence without a duty", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "to speak will not constitute fraud.” Viguers v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 837", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "A.2d 534, 540 (Pa.Super. 2003), aff’d, 584 Pa. 120, 881 A.2d 1262 (2005).", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "“[I]n real estate transactions, fraud arises when a seller knowingly", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "makes a misrepresentation, undertakes a concealment calculated to deceive,", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "or commits non-privileged failure to disclose.” Milliken, supra at 140", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "(quoting Youndt, supra at 545). “Fraud is a generic term used to describe", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "anything calculated to deceive, whether by single act or combination, or by", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "falsehood or by innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "gesture.” Id. (quoting Youndt, supra at 545).", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "“In Pennsylvania, fraud of any kind must be pleaded in a", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "complaint with particularity.” Kern v. Kern, 892 A.2d 1, 8", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "(Pa.Super. 2005) (citing Pa.R.Civ.P. 1019(b)). While it is", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "impossible to establish precisely what degree of particularity", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "is required to sufficiently allege fraud, it is well-settled that", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "the following two conditions must always be met: “The", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "pleadings must adequately explain the nature of the claim", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "to the opposing party so as to permit him to prepare a", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "defense[,] and they must be sufficient to convince the court", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "that the averments are not merely subterfuge.” Youndt[,", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "supra at 544-45].", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "Rudy v. Lesniak, 343 A.3d 1261, 1267-68 (Pa.Super. 2025), appeal denied,", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "- 15 -", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "___ Pa. ___, 355 A.3d 800 (2026).", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "Instantly, Appellants alleged in their complaint that they had expressly", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "requested confirmation that the Property was not subject to any water damage", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "and that “all Defendants expressly assured Plaintiffs that no such water", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "damage or infiltration had ever occurred. These representations were", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "reflected in the legally-obligated disclosures provided by the seller and the", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "seller’s agent.” (Complaint at ¶¶ 9, 34). Appellants averred that they retained", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "Buyers’ Agents as their realtors because they had “represented that they were", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "experts in the area” and that Tiger “resided in a home in the same", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "neighborhood” as the Property. (Id. at ¶¶ 26, 27). Appellants claimed that", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "because they had learned from neighbors that flooding was common in the", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "neighborhood, Tiger knew or should have known of water infiltration in the", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "basement. (Id. at ¶ 45). With respect to count III-fraud, Appellants further", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "pled:", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "68. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the preceding paragraphs", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "contained in this pleading as though fully set forth herein.", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "69. At all times material, Defendants represented that the", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "Home was in compliance with the applicable building codes", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "and industry standards, was in excellent condition, did not", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "contain material defects and was not subject to water", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "infiltration.", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "70. These statements were misrepresentations as the Home", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "and the surrounding property were improperly constructed", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "and graded, leading to significant and substantial water", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "infiltration.", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "71. Moreover, as set forth above, Defendants knew or", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "should have known of the water infiltration and grading", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "- 16 -", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "defects.", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "72. Plaintiffs relied on these misrepresentations in deciding", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "to purchase a home from Defendants.", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "73. As a result of Defendants’, and its agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "misrepresentations, Plaintiffs purchased the Home that was", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "subject to water infiltration and flooding.", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "74. As a result of Defendants’ deceptive and intentionally", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "fraudulent conduct, Plaintiffs have been significantly", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "damaged.", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "75. Moreover, Defendants’ conduct has diminished the", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "resale value of Plaintiffs’ Home, as these defects and", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "damages must be disclosed when the Home is sold.", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "76. Defendants’ actions were outrageous in that they were", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "committed wrongfully, knowingly, oppressively,", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "intentionally, with an evil motive, actual malice, wanton and", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "reckless disregard for the law, gross negligence and/or", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "reckless indifference to the rights of Plaintiffs. Therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages.", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "(Complaint at ¶¶ 68-76).", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explained its order sustaining", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "the preliminary objections filed by Buyers’ Agents as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "Instantly, Appellants contend that [Buyers’ Agents]", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "concealed the existence of prior water infiltration.", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "Nevertheless, Appellants did not allege that [Buyers’", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "Agents] knew of any specific defect or water infiltration at", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "the Property. Likewise, Appellants make no allegation that", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "[Buyers’ Agents] were informed of any previous water", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "infiltration or of defects at the Property and failed to disclose", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "the same to Appellants. Instead, Appellants merely claim", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "that Tiger lived in the same neighborhood and should have", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "known that the Property would be subject to the same", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "flooding issues that other homes in the neighborhood", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "allegedly experienced.", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "- 17 -", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "Even accepting as true all well-pleaded facts, we fail to see", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "how [Buyers’ Agents’] alleged knowledge of the", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "neighborhood in general would be material to the specific", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "transaction. Again, there was no allegation that [Buyers’", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "Agents] knew of any water infiltration at the Property. Nor", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "is there an independent duty to investigate the contents of", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "the SDS.", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "Moreover, Appellants failed to present a prima facie case", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "that [Buyers’ Agents] made any knowing misrepresentation", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "regarding the Property, concealed any information", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "regarding the Property in order to deceive, or that they", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "failed to disclose any non-privileged information regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "the Property. Again, Appellants alleged that [Tiger] lived in", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "the same neighborhood and [was an] expert realtor … and", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "thus, imputed knowledge of some neighborhood properties", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "experience flooding to [Buyers’ Agents]. Notwithstanding", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "such an inference, it does not transmute any of such alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "knowledge to material information for the Property.", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "Appellants do not assert that Tiger knew of any water", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "infiltration or flooding at the Property, which would have", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "been material. As such, [the trial court found] no error in", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "sustaining [Buyers’ Agents’ preliminary] objection and", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "dismissing Appellants’ cause of action in fraud against", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "[Buyers’ Agents].", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "(Trial Court Opinion, entered 8/19/25, at 12-13) (emphasis in original).", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "Accepting all the material facts set forth in the complaint as true, the", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "record supports the trial court’s finding that Appellants failed to assert a legally", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "cognizable cause of action for fraud against Buyers’ Agents. As the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "acknowledged, Appellants did not aver that Buyers’ Agents had any specific", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "knowledge of water infiltration at the Property. The general averments that", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "because Tiger lived in the area she should have known of water infiltration in", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "the basement of the Property are no more than conclusory statements and,", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "without specific facts from which Tiger’s specific knowledge about the Property", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "- 18 -", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "can be reasonably inferred, are insufficient to survive preliminary objections.", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "See Lerner, supra. Accordingly, we discern no error or abuse of discretion", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "in the trial court’s determination that Appellants failed to plead fraud with", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "sufficient particularity against Buyers’ Agents to convince the court that such", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "averments are not merely subterfuge. See Rudy, supra. Appellants’ first", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "issue is meritless.", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "In their second issue, Appellants argue that the trial court erred when it", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "granted Buyers’ Agents’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "Appellants’ claims for count V-negligence and count VII-UTPCPL violation. For", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "purposes of disposition, because this issue encompasses two distinct", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "questions, we first address the court’s grant of summary judgment for count", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "V-negligence and then will proceed to address the grant of summary judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "for count VII-UTPCPL violation.", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "First, Appellants argue that Buyers’ Agents had a duty of care both to", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "know about latent defects in the home and to ensure that any representations", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "concerning the purchase of the Property were correct. Specifically, they assert", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "that even assuming that Buyers’ Agents were not aware of the water", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "infiltration “the circumstances surrounding the transaction bound [Tiger] to", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "ascertain the truth prior to assuring [Appellants] that no water infiltration had", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "occurred.” (Appellants’ Brief at 46). Hence, Appellants argue that a real", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "estate agent has a duty to investigate the truth of any representations made.", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "(Appellants’ Brief at 45-46) (citing Antatis v. Kolarosky, No. 1311 WDA", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "- 19 -", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "2019, 2020 WL 1174500 (Pa.Super. filed Mar. 11, 2020) (unpublished", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "memorandum)).4 Alternatively, Appellants suggest that even if this Court has", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "not recognized such a duty in the past, this Court should find a duty in this", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "instance based on the relationship between the parties, the inequity of placing", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "the duty to investigate for water damage on buyers themselves, and a public", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "interest in realtors being required to disclose any knowledge they have about", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "water infiltration. (Id. at 51-53). On these grounds, Appellants conclude that", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "the trial court erred in granting Buyers’ Agents’ motion for summary judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "on their claim of negligence.5 We disagree.", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "Our standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is well", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "settled:", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "We view the record in the light most favorable to the", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "____________________________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "4 Appellants rely on Antatis in support of their claim that Buyers’ Agents had", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "a duty to investigate the representations made in the SDS. However, we note", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "that Antatis concerned a claim for fraud, not negligence. See id. (wherein", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "buyers’ agent misinformed buyers there was no point in having home", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "inspection and that getting one done prior to closing was waste of time even", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "though agent know of prior water intrusions into home and yet made those", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "comments). Furthermore, Antatis is readily distinguishable from the instant", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "case because the agent in that case had knowledge of prior water intrusion", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "into the home; whereas, here there is no evidence that Buyers’ Agents had", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "any knowledge of prior water intrusion in the Property. Id. Thus, Appellants’", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "reliance on Antatis affords them no relief.", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "5 In our discussion of the first issue raised, we affirmed the trial court’s order", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "sustaining the preliminary objections and dismissal of Appellants’ Count III-", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "fraud, against Buyers’ Agents. Although Appellants again have argued that", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "Tiger and Advance Realty’s failure to ascertain the truth about water", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "infiltration amounted to actionable fraud (see Appellants’ Brief at 41-45), we", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "decline to readdress that claim here, where the trial court dismissed the claim", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "of fraud at the preliminary objections stage. (See supra at 4, n.2).", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "- 20 -", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "nonmoving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "moving party. Only where there is no material fact and it is", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "clear that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "matter of law will summary judgment be entered. Our", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "scope of review of a trial court’s order granting or denying", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "summary judgment is plenary, and our standard of review", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "is clear: the trial court’s order will be reversed only where it", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "is established that the court committed an error of law or", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "abused its discretion.", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "Shellenberger v. Kreider Farms, 288 A.3d 898, 905 (Pa.Super. 2023)", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Further:", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "Where the non-moving party bears the burden of proof on", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "an issue, he may not merely rely on his pleadings or", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "answers in order to survive summary judgment. Further,", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "failure of a nonmoving party to adduce sufficient evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "on an issue essential to his case and on which he bears the", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "party to judgment as a matter of law.", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "Thus, our responsibility as an appellate court is to determine", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "whether the record either establishes that the material facts", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "are undisputed or contains insufficient evidence of facts to", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "make out a prima facie cause of action, such that there is", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "no issue to be decided by the fact-finder. If there is", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "evidence that would allow a fact-finder to render a verdict", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "in favor of the non-moving party, then summary judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "should be denied.", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "Id. at 905-06 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "To establish a claim of negligence against a real estate agent, a plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "must prove that the agent owed a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty,", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "that the breach proximately caused damages, and actual loss suffered by the", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "plaintiff. Ramalingam v. Keller Williams Realty Grp., Inc., 121 A.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "1034, 1042 (Pa.Super. 2015). Notably, “unless there is a duty upon the", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "- 21 -", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "defendant in favor of the plaintiff which has been breached, there can be no", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "cause of action based upon negligence.” Minnich v. Yost, 817 A.2d 538, 541", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "(Pa.Super. 2003), appeal denied, 573 Pa. 710, 827 A.2d 1202 (2003) (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "In Bortz v. Noon, 556 Pa. 489, 729 A.2d 555 (1999), the Pennsylvania", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "Supreme Court considered whether an agent had a duty to buyers in the", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "context of a negligent misrepresentation claim, for failing to use reasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "care in ascertaining the truth of representations passed along to buyers, when", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "the realtor passed along information that she had received from the title", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "company, that the property had a clean septic dye test. There, our Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "Court decided that the record did not support a conclusion that the agent had", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "an independent duty to investigate the accuracy of the septic dye test,", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "explaining that “[t]here is no record evidence that the Agent had specialized", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "knowledge of septic systems, that she pretended to have such knowledge, or", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "that she assumed the obligation of guaranteeing or providing this information", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "to the Buyer.” Id. at 504-05, 729 A.2d at 563. The Court further explained:", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "We believe that imposing upon the Agent the duty to", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "investigate, in the unique circumstance of this case, would", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "place too high a burden on real estate agents. It would be", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "an unreasonable burden on them because it would make it", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "their responsibility to guarantee the accuracy of pre-closing", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "tests done by persons with whom they have no", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "relationship. Thus, we hold that a real estate broker has", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "no duty to make an independent investigation of a", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "contractor’s report, where the real estate broker did not", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "have any agency or contractual relationship with the third", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "party.", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "- 22 -", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "Id. at 505, 729 A.2d at 563. Indeed, the Real Estate Licensing and", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "Registration Act explicitly provides that “[u]nless otherwise agreed, a licensee", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "owes no duty to conduct an independent inspection of the property and owes", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": "no duty to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of any", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "representation made by a consumer to a transaction reasonably believed by", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "the licensee to be accurate and reliable.” 63 P.S. § 455.606a(i).", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "Nevertheless, as this Court has noted, there is a distinction between", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "agents having no duty to investigate, and agents having actual knowledge", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "about defects. In the context of failure to disclose material defects, a duty", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "arises from an agent’s knowledge of defects and the materiality of the", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "undisclosed information. See Roberts v. Est. of Barbagallo, 531 A.2d 1125,", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "1130 (Pa.Super. 1987) (holding that agent of estate may be liable to third", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "party for its own deceit in not disclosing that property contained banned urea", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "formaldehyde foam insulation (“UFFI”) despite agent knowing of UFFI and", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "knowing that its presence was material).", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "Instantly, the trial court found that Appellants’ negligence claim against", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "Buyers’ Agents failed because Appellants failed to show that Buyers’ Agents", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "breached a duty owed to Appellants. The court explained that “[t]he record", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "is devoid of any facts alleged by [Appellants] to support the claims that [the", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "Agent Defendants] were aware of any construction and/or grading defects,", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "water infiltration issues, or drainage/flooding problems at the Property.” (Trial", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "Court Opinion, entered 10/11/22, at 5-6). The court went on to state:", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "- 23 -", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "[Appellants] have not identified a breach of any duty owed", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "to them by the Agent Defendants. Again, [Appellants] make", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "only general averments that all Defendants owed", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "[Appellants] a duty of care to ensure that all water", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "infiltration problems were properly disclosed. These general", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "averments coupled with failure of [Appellants] to allege any", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "credible facts to show knowledge held by the Agent", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "Defendants of water infiltration at the Property which could", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "plausibly support a claim against them leads to the", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "inescapable conclusion that Count V (negligence) cannot", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "survive.", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "(Trial Court Opinion, entered 10/11/22, at 7).", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "The record supports the trial court’s determination that Appellants failed", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "to establish that Buyers’ Agents breached a duty owed to Appellants. In the", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "context of a negligence claim, a duty arises from the agent’s knowledge of", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "defects and the materiality of the undisclosed information, yet here there is", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "no evidence that Buyers’ Agents had any actual knowledge of any prior water", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "infiltration in the Property. See Roberts, supra. Although Appellants are", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "correct that there is a duty on agents to disclose known instances of water", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "intrusion in a house, their argument ignores the fact that they have produced", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "no evidence that Buyers’ Agents knew about water intrusion at the Property.", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "Likewise, Buyers’ Agents did not have a duty to independently investigate the", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "veracity of the statements made in the SDS that there was no water infiltration", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "in the Property. See 63 P.S. § 455.606a(i). Accordingly, because Buyers’", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "Agents had no knowledge of prior water intrusion and did not have a duty to", "paragraph_id": "para_736" }, { "text": "independently investigate whether there was water intrusion at the Property,", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "they did not make a representation that they knew to be false. As such, the", "paragraph_id": "para_738" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_739" }, { "text": "- 24 -", "paragraph_id": "para_740" }, { "text": "trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law in granting", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "Buyers’ Agents’ motion for summary judgment on count V-negligence.", "paragraph_id": "para_742" }, { "text": "In the second part of Appellants’ issue, they claim that the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Buyers’ Agents on count VII-", "paragraph_id": "para_744" }, { "text": "UTPCPL violation. Appellants argue that Buyers’ Agents engaged in deceptive", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "conduct that created a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding, and that", "paragraph_id": "para_746" }, { "text": "Appellants justifiably relied on this deceptive conduct to their financial", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "detriment when they purchased the Property. Specifically, the deceptive", "paragraph_id": "para_748" }, { "text": "conduct alleged is that Buyers’ Agents failed to disclose information about", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "water intrusion at the Property. Appellants insist that whether they justifiably", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "relied on the deceptive conduct was a question of fact for the fact-finder to", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "decide, and therefore the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on", "paragraph_id": "para_752" }, { "text": "this claim. We disagree.", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "“To bring a private cause of action under the UTPCPL, a plaintiff must", "paragraph_id": "para_754" }, { "text": "show that he justifiably relied on the defendant’s wrongful conduct or", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "representation and that he suffered harm as a result of that reliance.” Yocca", "paragraph_id": "para_756" }, { "text": "v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 578 Pa. 479, 501, 854 A.2d 425, 438", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "(2004) (citing Weinberg v. Sun Co., 565 Pa. 612, 777 A.2d 442, 446", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "(2001)). As this Court has explained:", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "The UTPCPL is Pennsylvania’s consumer protection law and", "paragraph_id": "para_760" }, { "text": "seeks to prevent “[u]nfair methods of competition and", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any", "paragraph_id": "para_762" }, { "text": "trade or commerce....” The purpose of the UTPCPL is to", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "protect the public from unfair or deceptive business", "paragraph_id": "para_764" }, { "text": "practices. Our Supreme Court has stated courts should", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_766" }, { "text": "- 25 -", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "liberally construe the UTPCPL in order to effect the", "paragraph_id": "para_768" }, { "text": "legislative goal of consumer protection.", "paragraph_id": "para_769" }, { "text": "The UTPCPL provides a private right of action for anyone", "paragraph_id": "para_770" }, { "text": "who “suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property”", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "as a result of “an unlawful method, act or practice.” Upon", "paragraph_id": "para_772" }, { "text": "a finding of liability, the court has the discretion to award", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "“up to three times the actual damages sustained” and", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "provide any additional relief the court deems proper.", "paragraph_id": "para_775" }, { "text": "Section 201–2(4) lists twenty enumerated practices which", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "constitute actionable “unfair methods of competition” or", "paragraph_id": "para_777" }, { "text": "“unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The UTPCPL also", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "contains a catchall provision at 73 P.S. § 201–2(4)(xxi).", "paragraph_id": "para_779" }, { "text": "Bennett v. A.T. Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC, 40 A.3d 145,", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "151-52 (Pa.Super. 2012) (emphasis omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_781" }, { "text": "Under the UTPCPL’s catchall provision, “unfair or deceptive acts or", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "practices” include “engaging in any … fraudulent or deceptive conduct which", "paragraph_id": "para_783" }, { "text": "creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.” 73 P.S. 201–2(4)(xxi).", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "“[A]ny deceptive conduct, ‘which creates a likelihood of confusion or of", "paragraph_id": "para_785" }, { "text": "misunderstanding,’ is actionable under 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi), whether", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "committed intentionally (as in a fraudulent misrepresentation), carelessly (as", "paragraph_id": "para_787" }, { "text": "in a negligent misrepresentation), or with the utmost care (as in strict", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "liability).” Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 195 A.3d 930, 939 (Pa.Super.", "paragraph_id": "para_789" }, { "text": "2018), aff’d, 664 Pa. 567, 245 A.3d 637 (2021).", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "Instantly, the trial court explained:", "paragraph_id": "para_791" }, { "text": "There are no factual allegations in the complaint to support", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "the claim that [Buyers’ Agents] engaged in any unfair or", "paragraph_id": "para_793" }, { "text": "deceptive acts or practices or that they made any", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "misrepresentations regarding water infiltration at the", "paragraph_id": "para_795" }, { "text": "Property. The alleged misrepresentations at issue were", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "contained in the SDS. The conclusory allegation that", "paragraph_id": "para_797" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "- 26 -", "paragraph_id": "para_799" }, { "text": "[Buyers’ Agents] knew or improperly failed to discover that", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "the [P]roperty had water issues is unsupported both legally", "paragraph_id": "para_801" }, { "text": "and factually. [Appellants] rely only upon general", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "allegations regarding water infiltration at other properties in", "paragraph_id": "para_803" }, { "text": "the community thus deducing that the Agent Defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "knew or should have known that there was such a condition", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "at the [P]roperty. [Appellants] cannot cite to any legal duty", "paragraph_id": "para_806" }, { "text": "of the Agent Defendants to have inspected or discovered", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "any such condition or that they had any knowledge that such", "paragraph_id": "para_808" }, { "text": "a condition existed at the [P]roperty.", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "(Trial Court Opinion, 12/8/22, at 10-11). The trial court continued:", "paragraph_id": "para_810" }, { "text": "[Appellants] do not identify with any degree of specificity", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "whatsoever any representations attributable to the Agent", "paragraph_id": "para_812" }, { "text": "Defendants about the condition of the Property, specifically", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "the presence or extent of water infiltration at or before the", "paragraph_id": "para_814" }, { "text": "time of settlement. [Appellants] allege that the Agent[]", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "Defendants had actual knowledge of construction defects", "paragraph_id": "para_816" }, { "text": "but remained unable to identify individuals who had that", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "knowledge and specifically what that knowledge was.", "paragraph_id": "para_818" }, { "text": "(Id. at 12).", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "We agree with the trial court’s reasoning. Appellants alleged that", "paragraph_id": "para_820" }, { "text": "Buyers’ Agents engaged in fraudulent or deceptive conduct upon which", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "Appellants justifiably relied to their financial detriment. However, other than", "paragraph_id": "para_822" }, { "text": "general allegations that Buyers’ Agents did not inform Appellants about water", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "intrusion, Appellants have not identified any specific fraudulent or deceptive", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "conduct attributable to Buyers’ Agents. As discussed, Appellants have", "paragraph_id": "para_825" }, { "text": "presented no evidence that Buyers’ Agents knew of water infiltration in the", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "Property and made any statements to either deceive Appellants about their", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "knowledge of water infiltration or to mislead Appellants as to the same.", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "Although justifiable reliance is typically a question of fact for the jury, as the", "paragraph_id": "para_829" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "- 27 -", "paragraph_id": "para_831" }, { "text": "trial court explained, Appellants’ UTPCPL claim does not reach the justifiable", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "reliance issue where they did not present any evidence in support of the", "paragraph_id": "para_833" }, { "text": "deceptive conduct element of their claim. On this record, we cannot say that", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "the trial court erred in granting Buyers’ Agents’ motion for summary judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_835" }, { "text": "at count VII-UTPCPL violation. Appellants’ second issue is meritless.", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "In their third issue, Appellants argue that the trial court erred when it", "paragraph_id": "para_837" }, { "text": "granted Seller’s Agents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "Appellants’ claims count III-fraud and count V-negligence. For purposes of", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "disposition, we address each claim separately.", "paragraph_id": "para_840" }, { "text": "This Court has set forth our well-settled standard of review of a ruling", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "on a motion for judgment on the pleadings as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_842" }, { "text": "Our standard of review of a ruling on a motion for judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "on the pleadings is de novo, and our scope of review is", "paragraph_id": "para_844" }, { "text": "plenary. See SpiriTrust Lutheran v. Wagman Constr.,", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "Inc., 314 A.3d 894, 904 (Pa.Super. 2024). A motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_846" }, { "text": "judgment on the pleadings is similar to a demurrer. See", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "Washabaugh v. Gaudenzia, Inc., 316 A.3d 1008, 1011", "paragraph_id": "para_848" }, { "text": "(Pa.Super. 2024)[, appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 333 A.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "1267 (2025)]. “Judgment on the pleadings is proper only", "paragraph_id": "para_850" }, { "text": "where the pleadings evidence that there are no material", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "facts in dispute such that a trial by jury would be", "paragraph_id": "para_852" }, { "text": "unnecessary.” Five Star Bank v. Chipego, 312 A.3d 910,", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "918 (Pa.Super. 2024) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_854" }, { "text": "Like the trial court, we “must accept as true all well pleaded", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "statements of fact, admissions, and any documents properly", "paragraph_id": "para_856" }, { "text": "attached to the pleadings presented by the party against", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "whom the motion is filed, considering only those facts which", "paragraph_id": "para_858" }, { "text": "were specifically admitted.” Washabaugh[, supra] at", "paragraph_id": "para_859" }, { "text": "1011. Grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is", "paragraph_id": "para_860" }, { "text": "proper “only when the moving party’s right to succeed is", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "certain and the case is so free from doubt that the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_862" }, { "text": "would clearly be a fruitless exercise.” Id. (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_864" }, { "text": "- 28 -", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "Boyle v. Meyer, 344 A.3d 839, 844 (Pa.Super. 2025).", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "Appellants argue that Seller’s Agents’ act of concealing the material fact", "paragraph_id": "para_867" }, { "text": "of water infiltration amounts to actionable fraud. Appellants maintain that the", "paragraph_id": "para_868" }, { "text": "specific pleadings in the complaint, that “all Defendants expressly assured", "paragraph_id": "para_869" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs that no such water damage or infiltration had ever occurred,” and", "paragraph_id": "para_870" }, { "text": "that “McCartney was the agent for Defendant Dietrich and knew about and", "paragraph_id": "para_871" }, { "text": "was involved in the misrepresentations of quality,” sufficiently pled the", "paragraph_id": "para_872" }, { "text": "intentional misrepresentation necessary for a claim of fraud. (Complaint at", "paragraph_id": "para_873" }, { "text": "¶¶ 9, 14). Appellants further pled that because McCartney lived in the same", "paragraph_id": "para_874" }, { "text": "neighborhood as the home, she was a member of the community and was", "paragraph_id": "para_875" }, { "text": "aware that flooding was common in the community generally. (Id. at ¶¶ 36,", "paragraph_id": "para_876" }, { "text": "44). Appellants insist that these pleadings sufficiently set forth material facts", "paragraph_id": "para_877" }, { "text": "to support their claim of fraud against Seller’s Agents and, therefore, the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_878" }, { "text": "court erred in granting Seller’s Agents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings", "paragraph_id": "para_879" }, { "text": "on Appellants’ fraud claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_880" }, { "text": "We reiterate that to prove fraud, plaintiffs must establish the following", "paragraph_id": "para_881" }, { "text": "elements by clear and convincing evidence: “(1) a representation; (2) which", "paragraph_id": "para_882" }, { "text": "is material to the transaction at hand; (3) made falsely, with knowledge of its", "paragraph_id": "para_883" }, { "text": "falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (4) with the intent of", "paragraph_id": "para_884" }, { "text": "misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance on the", "paragraph_id": "para_885" }, { "text": "misrepresentation; and (6) the resulting injury was proximately caused by the", "paragraph_id": "para_886" }, { "text": "reliance.” Weissberger v. Myers, 90 A.3d 730, 731 (Pa.Super. 2014). See", "paragraph_id": "para_887" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_888" }, { "text": "- 29 -", "paragraph_id": "para_889" }, { "text": "also Milliken, supra at 140.", "paragraph_id": "para_890" }, { "text": "Here, the trial court explained that “count III of [Appellants’] Complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_891" }, { "text": "was dismissed … because [Appellants] failed to identify any credible written", "paragraph_id": "para_892" }, { "text": "or oral representation with the specificity required of a fraud claim.” (Trial", "paragraph_id": "para_893" }, { "text": "Court Opinion, entered 12/8/22, at 7). The court further elaborated its", "paragraph_id": "para_894" }, { "text": "reasons for granting Seller’s Agents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on", "paragraph_id": "para_895" }, { "text": "count III-fraud as follows:", "paragraph_id": "para_896" }, { "text": "[Appellants] allege the Agent Defendants made oral and", "paragraph_id": "para_897" }, { "text": "written representations, but [Appellants] were unable to", "paragraph_id": "para_898" }, { "text": "produce any such writings or identify with any degree of", "paragraph_id": "para_899" }, { "text": "specificity what the representations were, how they were", "paragraph_id": "para_900" }, { "text": "made, or who made them. Rather, [Appellants] rely upon", "paragraph_id": "para_901" }, { "text": "assertions that Defendants McCartney and Tiger live in the", "paragraph_id": "para_902" }, { "text": "same general neighborhood and knew or should have known", "paragraph_id": "para_903" }, { "text": "that the homes in the area are subject to water infiltration.", "paragraph_id": "para_904" }, { "text": "[Appellants] further allege that neighbors experience similar", "paragraph_id": "para_905" }, { "text": "water infiltration issues, but do not identify the identity of", "paragraph_id": "para_906" }, { "text": "any such neighbors or the source of that information", "paragraph_id": "para_907" }, { "text": "sufficient to support a fraud claim. This failure is fatal to", "paragraph_id": "para_908" }, { "text": "[Appellants’] claims for fraud. … These vague and factually", "paragraph_id": "para_909" }, { "text": "unsupported allegations by [Appellants] simply and clearly", "paragraph_id": "para_910" }, { "text": "do not meet the legal threshold. [Appellants’] persistent", "paragraph_id": "para_911" }, { "text": "failure to properly plead facts sufficiently specific to support", "paragraph_id": "para_912" }, { "text": "a claim for fraud make it clear that Count III was properly", "paragraph_id": "para_913" }, { "text": "dismissed.", "paragraph_id": "para_914" }, { "text": "(Id. at 7-8).", "paragraph_id": "para_915" }, { "text": "Based on our review, we see no error in the trial court’s order granting", "paragraph_id": "para_916" }, { "text": "Seller’s Agents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. See SpiriTrust", "paragraph_id": "para_917" }, { "text": "Lutheran, supra. Accepting as true all well pleaded statements of fact and", "paragraph_id": "para_918" }, { "text": "admissions, the pleadings fail to establish that Seller’s Agents made a knowing", "paragraph_id": "para_919" }, { "text": "or reckless misrepresentation concerning water infiltration at the Property.", "paragraph_id": "para_920" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_921" }, { "text": "- 30 -", "paragraph_id": "para_922" }, { "text": "See Weissberger, supra. Appellants’ general assertion that “all Defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_923" }, { "text": "expressly assured Plaintiffs that no such water damage or infiltration had ever", "paragraph_id": "para_924" }, { "text": "occurred” refers to those “representations [that] were reflected in the legally-", "paragraph_id": "para_925" }, { "text": "obligated disclosures provided by the seller and the seller’s agent,” (see", "paragraph_id": "para_926" }, { "text": "Complaint at ¶ 9), and does not in itself contain a specific averment of a", "paragraph_id": "para_927" }, { "text": "representation, material to the transaction, that was made falsely with", "paragraph_id": "para_928" }, { "text": "knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false. See", "paragraph_id": "para_929" }, { "text": "Milliken, supra. This generalized averment does not comply with our Rules", "paragraph_id": "para_930" }, { "text": "of Civil Procedure, which require “averments of fraud or mistake [to] be", "paragraph_id": "para_931" }, { "text": "averred with particularity.” Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b). Additionally, Appellants’", "paragraph_id": "para_932" }, { "text": "inference that Seller’s Agents must have known of water infiltration at the", "paragraph_id": "para_933" }, { "text": "Property because flooding was common in the neighborhood and, therefore,", "paragraph_id": "para_934" }, { "text": "McCartney, who lived in the neighborhood, likely knew about water infiltration,", "paragraph_id": "para_935" }, { "text": "is not sufficient to establish knowledge of water infiltration at the Property", "paragraph_id": "para_936" }, { "text": "itself. Accordingly, Appellants did not adequately set forth factual allegations", "paragraph_id": "para_937" }, { "text": "in the complaint to support their assertion that Seller’s Agents made any", "paragraph_id": "para_938" }, { "text": "misrepresentations about water infiltration at the Property. Therefore, the", "paragraph_id": "para_939" }, { "text": "trial court did not err in granting Seller’s Agents’ motion for judgment on the", "paragraph_id": "para_940" }, { "text": "pleadings for count III-fraud. See Boyle, supra.", "paragraph_id": "para_941" }, { "text": "With respect to the trial court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings for", "paragraph_id": "para_942" }, { "text": "count V-negligence, Appellants argue that the complaint set forth allegations", "paragraph_id": "para_943" }, { "text": "necessary to establish that Seller’s Agents had a duty to disclose material", "paragraph_id": "para_944" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_945" }, { "text": "- 31 -", "paragraph_id": "para_946" }, { "text": "defects of which they had knowledge and breached that duty. Specifically,", "paragraph_id": "para_947" }, { "text": "Appellants maintain that Seller’s Agents had a duty to inform them about", "paragraph_id": "para_948" }, { "text": "water infiltration and failed to do so, and Appellants relied on Seller’s Agents’", "paragraph_id": "para_949" }, { "text": "failure to disclose the water infiltration and were damaged as a result.", "paragraph_id": "para_950" }, { "text": "Appellants argue that because there was clearly a duty owed, the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_951" }, { "text": "similarly erred in granting the Seller’s Agents’ motion for judgment on the", "paragraph_id": "para_952" }, { "text": "pleadings on Appellants’ negligence claim. We disagree.", "paragraph_id": "para_953" }, { "text": "It is well established that, “[a] cause of action in negligence requires", "paragraph_id": "para_954" }, { "text": "allegations that establish the breach of a legally recognized duty or obligation", "paragraph_id": "para_955" }, { "text": "that is causally connected to the damages suffered by the complainant.” Bilt-", "paragraph_id": "para_956" }, { "text": "Rite Contractors, Inc. v. The Architectural Studio, 581 Pa. 454, 470-71,", "paragraph_id": "para_957" }, { "text": "866 A.2d 270, 280 (2005) (quoting Sharpe v. St. Luke’s Hospital, 573 Pa.", "paragraph_id": "para_958" }, { "text": "90, 95, 821 A.2d 1215, 1218 (2003)) (citation omitted). “The primary", "paragraph_id": "para_959" }, { "text": "element in any negligence cause of action is that the defendant owes a duty", "paragraph_id": "para_960" }, { "text": "of care to the plaintiff.” Id. (quoting Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 562", "paragraph_id": "para_961" }, { "text": "Pa. 547, 552, 756 A.2d 1166, 1168 (2000)).", "paragraph_id": "para_962" }, { "text": "Here, the trial court explained that it granted Seller’s Agents’ motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_963" }, { "text": "judgment on the pleadings because Appellants failed to identify a breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_964" }, { "text": "any duty owed to them. The court pointed out that Appellants", "paragraph_id": "para_965" }, { "text": "make only general averments that all Defendants owed", "paragraph_id": "para_966" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs a duty of care to ensure that all water infiltration", "paragraph_id": "para_967" }, { "text": "problems were properly disclosed. These general", "paragraph_id": "para_968" }, { "text": "averments coupled with failure of the Plaintiffs to allege any", "paragraph_id": "para_969" }, { "text": "credible facts to show knowledge held by the Agent", "paragraph_id": "para_970" }, { "text": "Defendants of water infiltration at the Property which could", "paragraph_id": "para_971" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_972" }, { "text": "- 32 -", "paragraph_id": "para_973" }, { "text": "plausibly support a claim against them leads to the", "paragraph_id": "para_974" }, { "text": "inescapable conclusion that Count V negligence claim", "paragraph_id": "para_975" }, { "text": "cannot survive, thus it was properly dismissed.", "paragraph_id": "para_976" }, { "text": "(Trial Court Opinion, entered 12/8/22, at 9).", "paragraph_id": "para_977" }, { "text": "Although Appellants insist that Seller’s Agents were aware of the water", "paragraph_id": "para_978" }, { "text": "infiltration in the Property, our review of the complaint reveals that Appellants", "paragraph_id": "para_979" }, { "text": "do not plead any specific allegations that would establish that Seller’s Agents", "paragraph_id": "para_980" }, { "text": "had any knowledge of water intrusion at the Property. The general averments", "paragraph_id": "para_981" }, { "text": "that Seller’s Agents must have known about water infiltration based on the", "paragraph_id": "para_982" }, { "text": "fact that McCartney lived in the neighborhood is insufficient to establish that", "paragraph_id": "para_983" }, { "text": "Seller’s Agents breached a specific duty owed to Appellants. Accordingly, the", "paragraph_id": "para_984" }, { "text": "trial court did not err when it granted Seller’s Agents’ motion for judgment on", "paragraph_id": "para_985" }, { "text": "the pleadings with respect to count V-negligence.", "paragraph_id": "para_986" }, { "text": "We next turn to Appellants’ fifth and sixth issues, wherein they claim", "paragraph_id": "para_987" }, { "text": "that the trial court erred in granting the motions for summary judgment filed", "paragraph_id": "para_988" }, { "text": "by Seller’s Agents and Dietrich and dismissed count I-RESDL violation.6", "paragraph_id": "para_989" }, { "text": "Specifically, Appellants insist that the trial court erred when the court", "paragraph_id": "para_990" }, { "text": "interpreted the RESDL as being a statute of repose rather than operating", "paragraph_id": "para_991" }, { "text": "under a statute of limitations. Therefore, they claim the court erred when it", "paragraph_id": "para_992" }, { "text": "____________________________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_993" }, { "text": "6 Based on our determination that the RESDL operates as a statute of repose", "paragraph_id": "para_994" }, { "text": "such that Appellants’ claims under the RESDL were barred, we need not reach", "paragraph_id": "para_995" }, { "text": "Appellants’ fourth issue arguing that the court erred in granting summary", "paragraph_id": "para_996" }, { "text": "judgment on the RESDL claim because of an alleged genuine issue of material", "paragraph_id": "para_997" }, { "text": "fact as to the credibility of Seller’s Agents in their denial of knowledge of water", "paragraph_id": "para_998" }, { "text": "intrusion at the Property.", "paragraph_id": "para_999" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1000" }, { "text": "- 33 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1001" }, { "text": "dismissed the RESDL claim based on the statute of repose violation.", "paragraph_id": "para_1002" }, { "text": "Appellants maintain that Section 7311(b) of the RESDL is specifically identified", "paragraph_id": "para_1003" }, { "text": "as a statute of limitations, and there is no controlling precedent applying it as", "paragraph_id": "para_1004" }, { "text": "a statute of repose. Construed as a statute of limitations, Appellants argue", "paragraph_id": "para_1005" }, { "text": "the RESDL is subject to both the discovery rule and the equitable tolling", "paragraph_id": "para_1006" }, { "text": "doctrine. Appellants acknowledge that the trial court and Seller’s Agents rely", "paragraph_id": "para_1007" }, { "text": "on a federal case, Star v. Rosenthal, 884 F.Supp. 2d 319 (E.D.Pa. 2012),", "paragraph_id": "para_1008" }, { "text": "for its determination that the RESDL operates as a statute of repose; however,", "paragraph_id": "para_1009" }, { "text": "they argue that the federal case is not precedential and therefore this Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1010" }, { "text": "should base our determination on the words of the RESDL identifying it as a", "paragraph_id": "para_1011" }, { "text": "statute of limitations. We disagree.", "paragraph_id": "para_1012" }, { "text": "This issue presents a pure legal question of statutory interpretation and", "paragraph_id": "para_1013" }, { "text": "as such, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.", "paragraph_id": "para_1014" }, { "text": "Kornfeind v. New Werner Holding Co., 674 Pa. 115, 126, 280 A.3d 918,", "paragraph_id": "para_1015" }, { "text": "925 (2022). “In construing a statute, a court must give effect to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1016" }, { "text": "legislature’s intent and to all the statute’s provisions. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a).", "paragraph_id": "para_1017" }, { "text": "The statute’s plain language is the best indicator of the legislature’s intent.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1018" }, { "text": "Id. (case citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_1019" }, { "text": "To ascertain the plain meaning, we consider the operative", "paragraph_id": "para_1020" }, { "text": "statutory language in context and give words and phrases", "paragraph_id": "para_1021" }, { "text": "their common and approved usage. Courts must give effect", "paragraph_id": "para_1022" }, { "text": "to a clear and unambiguous statute and cannot disregard", "paragraph_id": "para_1023" }, { "text": "the statute’s plain meaning to implement its objectives. A", "paragraph_id": "para_1024" }, { "text": "statute is ambiguous when there are at least two reasonable", "paragraph_id": "para_1025" }, { "text": "interpretations of the text. Only if the statute is ambiguous,", "paragraph_id": "para_1026" }, { "text": "and not explicit, do we resort to other means of discerning", "paragraph_id": "para_1027" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1028" }, { "text": "- 34 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1029" }, { "text": "legislative intent. When a statute is ambiguous, courts", "paragraph_id": "para_1030" }, { "text": "apply the factors in the Statutory Construction Act to discern", "paragraph_id": "para_1031" }, { "text": "the legislature’s intent.", "paragraph_id": "para_1032" }, { "text": "Kornfeind, supra at 126-27, 280 A.3d at 925 (citations and internal", "paragraph_id": "para_1033" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_1034" }, { "text": "A statute of limitations limits the time for a plaintiff to bring suit based", "paragraph_id": "para_1035" }, { "text": "on when a cause of action accrues. Vargo v. Koppers Co., Inc., 552 Pa.", "paragraph_id": "para_1036" }, { "text": "371, 715 A.2d 423 (1998). Statutes of repose similarly limit the time for a", "paragraph_id": "para_1037" }, { "text": "plaintiff to bring suit; however, a statute of repose is not related to the accrual", "paragraph_id": "para_1038" }, { "text": "of any cause of action. Gidor v. Mangus, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 345 A.3d 629,", "paragraph_id": "para_1039" }, { "text": "640 (2025). Thus, “statutes of repose begin to run at the time of the negligent", "paragraph_id": "para_1040" }, { "text": "act, while statutes of limitations do not begin to run until the cause of action", "paragraph_id": "para_1041" }, { "text": "accrues.” Matharu v. Muir, 86 A.3d 250, 263 (Pa.Super. 2014). See also", "paragraph_id": "para_1042" }, { "text": "Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp., 602 Pa. 627, 648, 981 A.2d 198, 211", "paragraph_id": "para_1043" }, { "text": "(2009) (stating: “A statute of repose is defined as a ‘statute barring any suit", "paragraph_id": "para_1044" }, { "text": "that is brought after a specified time since the defendant acted ..., even if this", "paragraph_id": "para_1045" }, { "text": "period ends before the plaintiff has suffered a resulting injury’”). As our", "paragraph_id": "para_1046" }, { "text": "Supreme Court has explained:", "paragraph_id": "para_1047" }, { "text": "A statute of limitations limits the time for a plaintiff to bring", "paragraph_id": "para_1048" }, { "text": "suit based on when a cause of action accrues. Vargo, 715", "paragraph_id": "para_1049" }, { "text": "A.2d at 425. A cause of action accrues “when an injury is", "paragraph_id": "para_1050" }, { "text": "inflicted and the corresponding right to institute a suit for", "paragraph_id": "para_1051" }, { "text": "damages arises.” Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, 609 Pa.", "paragraph_id": "para_1052" }, { "text": "353, 15 A.3d 479, 484 (2011). While a statute of repose", "paragraph_id": "para_1053" }, { "text": "also limits the time for a plaintiff to bring suit, unlike a", "paragraph_id": "para_1054" }, { "text": "statute of limitations, a statute of repose “‘is not related to", "paragraph_id": "para_1055" }, { "text": "the accrual of any cause of action’” because “the injury need", "paragraph_id": "para_1056" }, { "text": "not have occurred, much less have been discovered.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1057" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1058" }, { "text": "- 35 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1059" }, { "text": "Abrams, 981 A.2d at 211 (internal quotations and citations", "paragraph_id": "para_1060" }, { "text": "omitted). “Where a limitations period begins with a", "paragraph_id": "para_1061" }, { "text": "definitely established event that is independent of an", "paragraph_id": "para_1062" }, { "text": "injurious occurrence or discovery thereof, the statute is", "paragraph_id": "para_1063" }, { "text": "considered to be one of repose.” [City of Phila. v. City of", "paragraph_id": "para_1064" }, { "text": "Phila. Tax Rev. Bd. ex rel. Keystone Health Plan E.,", "paragraph_id": "para_1065" }, { "text": "Inc., 635 Pa. 108, 132 A.3d 946, 952 (2015)] (citing", "paragraph_id": "para_1066" }, { "text": "Abrams, 981 A.2d at 211 (explaining that “the period", "paragraph_id": "para_1067" }, { "text": "contained in a statute of repose begins when a specific event", "paragraph_id": "para_1068" }, { "text": "occurs, regardless of whether a cause of action has accrued", "paragraph_id": "para_1069" }, { "text": "or whether any injury has resulted”)); see also Altoona", "paragraph_id": "para_1070" }, { "text": "Area Sch. Dist. v. Campbell, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 131, 618", "paragraph_id": "para_1071" }, { "text": "A.2d 1129, 1134 (1992) (noting that “statutes of limitation", "paragraph_id": "para_1072" }, { "text": "begin to run from the time of an injurious occurrence or", "paragraph_id": "para_1073" }, { "text": "discovery of the same, ... whereas statutes of repose run", "paragraph_id": "para_1074" }, { "text": "for a statutorily determined period of time after a definitively", "paragraph_id": "para_1075" }, { "text": "established event independent of an injurious occurrence or", "paragraph_id": "para_1076" }, { "text": "discovery of the same”). Importantly, a statute of repose", "paragraph_id": "para_1077" }, { "text": "“completely abolishes and eliminates [a] cause of action”", "paragraph_id": "para_1078" }, { "text": "regardless of when the claim accrues and, in some cases,", "paragraph_id": "para_1079" }, { "text": "even before the claim accrues. Vargo, 715 A.2d at 425", "paragraph_id": "para_1080" }, { "text": "(citing Noll [by Noll v. Harrisburg Area YMCA, 537 Pa.", "paragraph_id": "para_1081" }, { "text": "274, 643 A.2d 81, 84 (1994)]).", "paragraph_id": "para_1082" }, { "text": "* * *", "paragraph_id": "para_1083" }, { "text": "We have explained that when the General Assembly drafts", "paragraph_id": "para_1084" }, { "text": "statutes of repose, it includes “‘wording describing a", "paragraph_id": "para_1085" }, { "text": "definitely established event which commences the", "paragraph_id": "para_1086" }, { "text": "statutorily determined [repose] period[.]’” Vargo, 715", "paragraph_id": "para_1087" }, { "text": "A.2d at 426 (quoting Altoona Area Sch. Dist., 618 A.2d at", "paragraph_id": "para_1088" }, { "text": "1134). Importantly, the General Assembly does not tie the", "paragraph_id": "para_1089" }, { "text": "repose period to “whether a cause of action has accrued or", "paragraph_id": "para_1090" }, { "text": "whether any injury has resulted.” Abrams, 981 A.2d at", "paragraph_id": "para_1091" }, { "text": "211. Rather, the focus is on whether the “limitations period", "paragraph_id": "para_1092" }, { "text": "begins with a definitely established event that is", "paragraph_id": "para_1093" }, { "text": "independent of an injurious occurrence or discovery", "paragraph_id": "para_1094" }, { "text": "thereof[.]” City of Phila., 132 A.3d at 952. If so, “the", "paragraph_id": "para_1095" }, { "text": "statute is considered to be one of repose.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1096" }, { "text": "Gidor, supra at ___, 345 A.3d at 640-41. Furthermore, “because statutes of", "paragraph_id": "para_1097" }, { "text": "repose not only bar a party’s right to a remedy, but abolish and eliminate a", "paragraph_id": "para_1098" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1099" }, { "text": "- 36 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1100" }, { "text": "cause of action entirely, a plaintiff may not invoke the discovery rule or other", "paragraph_id": "para_1101" }, { "text": "equitable tolling considerations.” Id. at ___, 345 A.3d at 641.", "paragraph_id": "para_1102" }, { "text": "Section 7311(b) of the RESDL provides the following:", "paragraph_id": "para_1103" }, { "text": "Section 7311. Failure to comply", "paragraph_id": "para_1104" }, { "text": "* * *", "paragraph_id": "para_1105" }, { "text": "(b) Statute of limitations.--An action for damages as a", "paragraph_id": "para_1106" }, { "text": "result of a violation of this chapter must be commenced", "paragraph_id": "para_1107" }, { "text": "within two years after the date of final settlement.", "paragraph_id": "para_1108" }, { "text": "68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7311(b). While the heading of section 7311(b) is “Statute of", "paragraph_id": "para_1109" }, { "text": "limitations,” it is well settled “that we only look to the title of a statute if the", "paragraph_id": "para_1110" }, { "text": "text of the statute is ambiguous.” Gidor, supra at ___, 345 A.3d at 639", "paragraph_id": "para_1111" }, { "text": "(citing Commonwealth v. Magwood, 503 Pa. 169, 177, 469 A.2d 115, 119", "paragraph_id": "para_1112" }, { "text": "(1983)). See also 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1924 (providing that “[t]he headings", "paragraph_id": "para_1113" }, { "text": "prefixed to titles, parts, articles, chapters, sections and other divisions of a", "paragraph_id": "para_1114" }, { "text": "statute shall not be considered to control[,] but may be used to aid in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1115" }, { "text": "construction thereof”). In other words, “the title cannot control the plain", "paragraph_id": "para_1116" }, { "text": "words of a statute and … even if a statute is ambiguous, the title may only be", "paragraph_id": "para_1117" }, { "text": "considered to resolve the uncertainty.” Gidor, supra at ___, 345 A.3d at 639", "paragraph_id": "para_1118" }, { "text": "(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_1119" }, { "text": "In Gidor, our Supreme Court evaluated whether section 7512 of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1120" }, { "text": "Home Inspection Law operated as a statute of limitations or a statute of", "paragraph_id": "para_1121" }, { "text": "repose. There, our Supreme Court held that despite section 7512 being titled", "paragraph_id": "para_1122" }, { "text": "as a statute of limitations, the text of section 7512 was “plain and", "paragraph_id": "para_1123" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1124" }, { "text": "- 37 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1125" }, { "text": "unambiguous in commanding that ‘[a]n action to recover damages arising", "paragraph_id": "para_1126" }, { "text": "from a home inspection report must be commenced within one year after the", "paragraph_id": "para_1127" }, { "text": "date the report is delivered.’ 68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7512.” Id. at ___, 345 A.3d at", "paragraph_id": "para_1128" }, { "text": "640. The High Court explained that “when the General Assembly drafts", "paragraph_id": "para_1129" }, { "text": "statutes of repose, it includes ‘wording describing a definitely established", "paragraph_id": "para_1130" }, { "text": "event which commences the statutorily determined [repose] period[.]’” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1131" }, { "text": "at 641 (citing Vargo, supra at 426). The Gidor Court recognized that section", "paragraph_id": "para_1132" }, { "text": "7512 was similar to the construction statute of repose, explaining that both", "paragraph_id": "para_1133" }, { "text": "statutes command that an “action ... must be commenced within [a certain", "paragraph_id": "para_1134" }, { "text": "amount of time] after [the occurrence of a definitely established event that is", "paragraph_id": "para_1135" }, { "text": "independent of an injurious occurrence or discovery thereof].” Id. at ___,", "paragraph_id": "para_1136" }, { "text": "345 A.3d at 642. Ultimately, concluding that section 7512 followed the", "paragraph_id": "para_1137" }, { "text": "established framework of setting forth an established event triggering the", "paragraph_id": "para_1138" }, { "text": "commencement of a repose period, the Court held that section 7512 was a", "paragraph_id": "para_1139" }, { "text": "statute of repose. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1140" }, { "text": "Here, the trial court offered the following explanation of its order", "paragraph_id": "para_1141" }, { "text": "granting summary judgment in favor of Dietrich and Seller’s Agents with", "paragraph_id": "para_1142" }, { "text": "respect to Appellants’ claim brought under the RESDL:", "paragraph_id": "para_1143" }, { "text": "The statute provides that claims brought under the [RESDL]", "paragraph_id": "para_1144" }, { "text": "must be brought within two years from the date of", "paragraph_id": "para_1145" }, { "text": "settlement. Although the statute is titled as one of", "paragraph_id": "para_1146" }, { "text": "limitation, it does not run from a subjective event, rather", "paragraph_id": "para_1147" }, { "text": "from a firm, objective date and contains no tolling provision.", "paragraph_id": "para_1148" }, { "text": "Therefore, it operates as a statute of repose which", "paragraph_id": "para_1149" }, { "text": "extinguishes all causes of action at the end of a time certain.", "paragraph_id": "para_1150" }, { "text": "The [RESDL] states: “an action for damages as a result of a", "paragraph_id": "para_1151" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1152" }, { "text": "- 38 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1153" }, { "text": "violation of this chapter must be commenced within two", "paragraph_id": "para_1154" }, { "text": "years after the date of final settlement.” 68 Pa.C.S.A. §", "paragraph_id": "para_1155" }, { "text": "7311(b). Although labeled as a statute of limitations, its", "paragraph_id": "para_1156" }, { "text": "interpretation and application as a statute of repose by a", "paragraph_id": "para_1157" }, { "text": "Pennsylvania federal court is instructive here: “… a title has", "paragraph_id": "para_1158" }, { "text": "minimal probative value regarding the actual character of", "paragraph_id": "para_1159" }, { "text": "this provision given that other Pennsylvania statutory", "paragraph_id": "para_1160" }, { "text": "provisions that indisputably impose statutes of repose are", "paragraph_id": "para_1161" }, { "text": "nonetheless sometimes identified by the General Assembly", "paragraph_id": "para_1162" }, { "text": "as statutes of limitations.” [Star, supra at 325]. … The", "paragraph_id": "para_1163" }, { "text": "settlement date in this transaction occurred on July 14,", "paragraph_id": "para_1164" }, { "text": "2017, and [Appellants] commenced this litigation on March", "paragraph_id": "para_1165" }, { "text": "23, 2020, two years and eight months after the final", "paragraph_id": "para_1166" }, { "text": "settlement date.", "paragraph_id": "para_1167" }, { "text": "(Trial Court Opinion, entered 12/8/22, at 13-14).", "paragraph_id": "para_1168" }, { "text": "Based upon the clear and unambiguous language of section 7311(b), we", "paragraph_id": "para_1169" }, { "text": "agree with the trial court and conclude that the statute is intended to be a", "paragraph_id": "para_1170" }, { "text": "statute of repose, and not a statute limitations, because the action", "paragraph_id": "para_1171" }, { "text": "commences on the date of “the occurrence of a definitely established event", "paragraph_id": "para_1172" }, { "text": "that is independent of an injurious occurrence or discovery thereof” — in this", "paragraph_id": "para_1173" }, { "text": "case, the date of final settlement. See Gidor, supra. We note the similarities", "paragraph_id": "para_1174" }, { "text": "between section 7311(b) and section 7512, with both sections commanding", "paragraph_id": "para_1175" }, { "text": "that an action for damages pursuant to that chapter must be commenced", "paragraph_id": "para_1176" }, { "text": "within a certain time after a definitely established event, and independent of", "paragraph_id": "para_1177" }, { "text": "any injury or discovery of any injury. Section 7311(b) follows the established", "paragraph_id": "para_1178" }, { "text": "framework of a statute of repose and specifies that actions for damages must", "paragraph_id": "para_1179" }, { "text": "be commenced within two years after the date of final settlement. Thus,", "paragraph_id": "para_1180" }, { "text": "notwithstanding its title, it is a statute of repose. Accordingly, we agree with", "paragraph_id": "para_1181" }, { "text": "the trial court that because the instant litigation was commenced on March", "paragraph_id": "para_1182" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1183" }, { "text": "- 39 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1184" }, { "text": "23, 2020, two years and eight months after the final settlement date,", "paragraph_id": "para_1185" }, { "text": "Appellants’ claims under the RESDL are barred by the statute of repose.", "paragraph_id": "para_1186" }, { "text": "Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting the motions for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_1187" }, { "text": "judgment filed by Dietrich or Seller’s Agents with respect to count I-RESDL", "paragraph_id": "para_1188" }, { "text": "violation.", "paragraph_id": "para_1189" }, { "text": "Appellant’s final issues concern the trial court’s grant of Dietrich’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1190" }, { "text": "motions in limine.7 We review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion", "paragraph_id": "para_1191" }, { "text": "in limine for an abuse of discretion. Parr v. Ford Motor Co., 109 A.3d 682,", "paragraph_id": "para_1192" }, { "text": "690 (Pa.Super. 2014).", "paragraph_id": "para_1193" }, { "text": "Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence lie within", "paragraph_id": "para_1194" }, { "text": "the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not", "paragraph_id": "para_1195" }, { "text": "reverse the court’s decision absent a clear abuse of", "paragraph_id": "para_1196" }, { "text": "discretion. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1197" }, { "text": "Smith, 15 A.3d 492, 496 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citing Stumpf", "paragraph_id": "para_1198" }, { "text": "v. Nye, 950 A.2d 1032, 1035-1036 (Pa.Super. 2008)[,", "paragraph_id": "para_1199" }, { "text": "appeal denied, 599 Pa. 711, 962 A.2d 1198 (2008)]). “An", "paragraph_id": "para_1200" }, { "text": "abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an", "paragraph_id": "para_1201" }, { "text": "appellate court might have reached a different conclusion,", "paragraph_id": "para_1202" }, { "text": "but requires a manifest unreasonableness, or partiality,", "paragraph_id": "para_1203" }, { "text": "prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be", "paragraph_id": "para_1204" }, { "text": "____________________________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_1205" }, { "text": "7 The discussion portion of Appellants’ brief does not align with the questions", "paragraph_id": "para_1206" }, { "text": "presented. Appellants combine their final questions into a separate section", "paragraph_id": "para_1207" }, { "text": "“E” in the discussion portion of their brief, which is divided into three", "paragraph_id": "para_1208" }, { "text": "segments. The first concerns both the trial court’s classification of the RESDL", "paragraph_id": "para_1209" }, { "text": "as a statute of repose and the court’s decision to exclude the SDS as evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_1210" }, { "text": "for other claims. (See Appellants’ Brief at 65-70). The second subsection", "paragraph_id": "para_1211" }, { "text": "also concerns the trial court’s exclusion of any agreement other than the", "paragraph_id": "para_1212" }, { "text": "Agreement of Sale, specifically arguing that the trial court erred in precluding", "paragraph_id": "para_1213" }, { "text": "the SDS under the parol evidence rule. Finally, the third subsection concerns", "paragraph_id": "para_1214" }, { "text": "whether the court erred in precluding the testimony of Appellants’ expert. For", "paragraph_id": "para_1215" }, { "text": "clarity of disposition, we will first address the arguments concerning the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_1216" }, { "text": "court’s preclusion of the SDS, and then separately will address the preclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_1217" }, { "text": "of Appellants’ expert witnesses.", "paragraph_id": "para_1218" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1219" }, { "text": "- 40 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1220" }, { "text": "clearly erroneous.” Grady v. Frito–Lay, Inc., 576 Pa. 546,", "paragraph_id": "para_1221" }, { "text": "839 A.2d 1038, 1046 (2003).", "paragraph_id": "para_1222" }, { "text": "Keystone Dedicated Logistics, LLC v. JGB Enters., Inc., 77 A.3d 1, 11", "paragraph_id": "para_1223" }, { "text": "(Pa.Super. 2013).", "paragraph_id": "para_1224" }, { "text": "First, Appellants assert that the trial court excluded admission of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1225" }, { "text": "SDS based on the court’s finding that the RESDL claims were barred by the", "paragraph_id": "para_1226" }, { "text": "statute of repose. Appellants argue that the trial court’s conclusion that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1227" }, { "text": "RESDL claims were barred by the statute of repose did not require the court", "paragraph_id": "para_1228" }, { "text": "to exclude the SDS as evidence in support of Appellants’ other claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_1229" }, { "text": "Appellants claim that in enacting the RESDL, the General Assembly did not", "paragraph_id": "para_1230" }, { "text": "intend to restrict other remedies; therefore, Appellants insist that the court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1231" }, { "text": "preclusion of the SDS based on the statute of repose barring the RESDL", "paragraph_id": "para_1232" }, { "text": "claims, constitutes an error of law where the preclusion had the effect of", "paragraph_id": "para_1233" }, { "text": "extinguishing Appellants’ claims under the UTPCPL. We disagree.", "paragraph_id": "para_1234" }, { "text": "It appears to be an issue of first impression for this Court whether an", "paragraph_id": "para_1235" }, { "text": "SDS made pursuant to the RESDL, should remain admissible in support of", "paragraph_id": "para_1236" }, { "text": "other claims where any claims under the RESDL itself are barred by the two-", "paragraph_id": "para_1237" }, { "text": "year statute of repose. Accordingly, we look to the language of the RESDL", "paragraph_id": "para_1238" }, { "text": "itself.", "paragraph_id": "para_1239" }, { "text": "The RESDL applies to all residential real estate transfers and mandates", "paragraph_id": "para_1240" }, { "text": "certain disclosures:", "paragraph_id": "para_1241" }, { "text": "Any seller who intends to transfer any interest in real", "paragraph_id": "para_1242" }, { "text": "property shall disclose to the buyer any material defects", "paragraph_id": "para_1243" }, { "text": "with the property known to the seller by completing all", "paragraph_id": "para_1244" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1245" }, { "text": "- 41 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1246" }, { "text": "applicable items in a property disclosure statement which", "paragraph_id": "para_1247" }, { "text": "satisfies the requirements of [§] 7304 (relating to disclosure", "paragraph_id": "para_1248" }, { "text": "form). A signed and dated copy of the property disclosure", "paragraph_id": "para_1249" }, { "text": "statement shall be delivered to the buyer in accordance with", "paragraph_id": "para_1250" }, { "text": "[§] 7305 (relating to delivery of disclosure form) prior to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1251" }, { "text": "signing of an agreement of transfer by the seller and buyer", "paragraph_id": "para_1252" }, { "text": "with respect to the property.", "paragraph_id": "para_1253" }, { "text": "68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7303. See also Wentworth v. Steinmetz, 349 A.3d 189,", "paragraph_id": "para_1254" }, { "text": "198 (Pa.Super. 2025) (explaining: “A basement that floods, a roof that leaks,", "paragraph_id": "para_1255" }, { "text": "beams that were damaged by termites, an asbestos-tile kitchen floor: these", "paragraph_id": "para_1256" }, { "text": "are the conditions our legislature requires sellers to disclose if they are", "paragraph_id": "para_1257" }, { "text": "known”).", "paragraph_id": "para_1258" }, { "text": "The legislative history of the RESDL indicates “that the RESDL ‘is", "paragraph_id": "para_1259" }, { "text": "intended to protect the purchaser of real property, and the method of", "paragraph_id": "para_1260" }, { "text": "protection is a disclosure statement that is included within the bill that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1261" }, { "text": "seller has to complete so that presumably the buyer accurately knows what", "paragraph_id": "para_1262" }, { "text": "the seller knows about the property when the sale occurs.’” Phelps v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1263" }, { "text": "Caperoon, 190 A.3d 1230, 1245 (Pa.Super. 2018) (quoting Pa. Senate", "paragraph_id": "para_1264" }, { "text": "Journal 2138, June 18, 1996 (statement of Sen. David J. Brightbill)). The", "paragraph_id": "para_1265" }, { "text": "legislature emphasized the consumer protection purpose of the RESDL,", "paragraph_id": "para_1266" }, { "text": "explaining:", "paragraph_id": "para_1267" }, { "text": "It says if you know there is a problem, then tell us there is", "paragraph_id": "para_1268" }, { "text": "a problem so that when we buy your house we know what", "paragraph_id": "para_1269" }, { "text": "that is, and if we know upfront and still agree to your price,", "paragraph_id": "para_1270" }, { "text": "then we know that the price was worth whatever it is we are", "paragraph_id": "para_1271" }, { "text": "willing to pay…", "paragraph_id": "para_1272" }, { "text": "Id. (quoting Pa. Senate Journal 2138-39, June 18, 1996 (statement of Sen.", "paragraph_id": "para_1273" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1274" }, { "text": "- 42 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1275" }, { "text": "Jake Corman)).", "paragraph_id": "para_1276" }, { "text": "This Court has also explained that the RESDL does not foreclose", "paragraph_id": "para_1277" }, { "text": "independent common law tort and contract claims, and this Court has held", "paragraph_id": "para_1278" }, { "text": "that SDS’s made in compliance with the RESDL are admissible in support of", "paragraph_id": "para_1279" }, { "text": "those common law claims. See, e.g., Hosler v. Tweedlie, 306 A.3d 361,", "paragraph_id": "para_1280" }, { "text": "374 (Pa.Super. 2023), appeal denied, ___ Pa. ___, 318 A.3d 96 (2024)", "paragraph_id": "para_1281" }, { "text": "(affirming finding of fraud based on seller’s representations contained within", "paragraph_id": "para_1282" }, { "text": "RESDL form). As previously discussed, the RESDL also contains a two-year", "paragraph_id": "para_1283" }, { "text": "statute of repose, limiting the timeframe in which sellers remain liable after", "paragraph_id": "para_1284" }, { "text": "the sale of a property. See 68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7311(b) (requiring that “[a]n action", "paragraph_id": "para_1285" }, { "text": "for damages as a result of a violation of this chapter must be commenced", "paragraph_id": "para_1286" }, { "text": "within two years after the date of final settlement”).", "paragraph_id": "para_1287" }, { "text": "The legislative history of the RESDL discussed above demonstrates that", "paragraph_id": "para_1288" }, { "text": "in its enactment of the RESDL, the General Assembly sought to protect", "paragraph_id": "para_1289" }, { "text": "consumers in real estate transactions, and therefore mandated disclosure of", "paragraph_id": "para_1290" }, { "text": "such defects in the SDS. The General Assembly also limited actions brought", "paragraph_id": "para_1291" }, { "text": "under the RESDL based on the SDS by a two-year statute of repose. We note", "paragraph_id": "para_1292" }, { "text": "that the RESDL did not foreclose common law tort or breach of contract claims,", "paragraph_id": "para_1293" }, { "text": "nor did the RESDL foreclose claims under the UTPCPL. However, the RESDL", "paragraph_id": "para_1294" }, { "text": "neither expands nor restricts these existing common law remedies. See 68", "paragraph_id": "para_1295" }, { "text": "Pa.C.S.A. § 7311(a) (stating: “This subsection shall not be construed so as to", "paragraph_id": "para_1296" }, { "text": "restrict or expand the authority of a court to impose punitive damages or apply", "paragraph_id": "para_1297" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1298" }, { "text": "- 43 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1299" }, { "text": "other remedies applicable under any other provision of law”).", "paragraph_id": "para_1300" }, { "text": "In our view, extending a seller’s liability for such mandatorily disclosed", "paragraph_id": "para_1301" }, { "text": "statements beyond the two-year statute of repose would run afoul of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1302" }, { "text": "express statement declining to expand remedies applicable under other", "paragraph_id": "para_1303" }, { "text": "provisions of law. In other words, if a buyer were able to use the mandatory", "paragraph_id": "para_1304" }, { "text": "disclosure statement in support of common law claims of fraud or tort against", "paragraph_id": "para_1305" }, { "text": "the seller beyond the two-year statute of repose, the RESDL and its mandatory", "paragraph_id": "para_1306" }, { "text": "disclosure requirements would be used to expand remedies available under", "paragraph_id": "para_1307" }, { "text": "other provisions of law. See 68 Pa.C.S.A. § 7311. Accordingly, we conclude", "paragraph_id": "para_1308" }, { "text": "that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted Dietrich’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1309" }, { "text": "motion in limine and precluded Appellants from using the SDS in support of", "paragraph_id": "para_1310" }, { "text": "their breach of contract, negligence, and UTPCPL claims, because the statute", "paragraph_id": "para_1311" }, { "text": "of repose for the RESDL had passed.", "paragraph_id": "para_1312" }, { "text": "Next, Appellants argue that the trial court erred when it granted", "paragraph_id": "para_1313" }, { "text": "Dietrich’s motion in limine to exclude any agreement other than the", "paragraph_id": "para_1314" }, { "text": "Agreement of Sale. Specifically, Appellants maintain that the SDS was", "paragraph_id": "para_1315" }, { "text": "effectively incorporated into the Agreement of Sale, where the Agreement of", "paragraph_id": "para_1316" }, { "text": "Sale provided that “the [RESDL] requires that before an agreement of sale is", "paragraph_id": "para_1317" }, { "text": "signed, the seller in a residential real estate transfer must make certain", "paragraph_id": "para_1318" }, { "text": "disclosures regarding the property to potential buyers in a form defined by", "paragraph_id": "para_1319" }, { "text": "law.” (Appellants’ Brief at 70-71). Appellants claim that this phrasing", "paragraph_id": "para_1320" }, { "text": "effectively incorporated the SDS into the Agreement of Sale, and therefore", "paragraph_id": "para_1321" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1322" }, { "text": "- 44 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1323" }, { "text": "the trial court erred in granting Dietrich’s motion in limine to exclude any", "paragraph_id": "para_1324" }, { "text": "agreement other than the Agreement of Sale. Appellants also contend that", "paragraph_id": "para_1325" }, { "text": "the parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of seller disclosure statements", "paragraph_id": "para_1326" }, { "text": "generally.8 We disagree.", "paragraph_id": "para_1327" }, { "text": "Appellants’ issue concerns the trial court’s application of the parol", "paragraph_id": "para_1328" }, { "text": "evidence rule. The parol evidence rule provides that when parties have", "paragraph_id": "para_1329" }, { "text": "reduced an agreement to a final and fully integrated writing, the law declares", "paragraph_id": "para_1330" }, { "text": "the writing to be the best and only evidence of the agreement and all", "paragraph_id": "para_1331" }, { "text": "preliminary agreements are superseded by the written contract. Rudy, supra", "paragraph_id": "para_1332" }, { "text": "at 1268.", "paragraph_id": "para_1333" }, { "text": "In Hosler, supra, this Court held that “absent express incorporation of", "paragraph_id": "para_1334" }, { "text": "the RESDL form into an agreement of sale, which is not present in the case", "paragraph_id": "para_1335" }, { "text": "sub judice, representations made in the RESDL form cannot be found to exist", "paragraph_id": "para_1336" }, { "text": "within the four corners of an agreement of sale.” Hosler, supra at 374 n.11", "paragraph_id": "para_1337" }, { "text": "(explaining there is “no provision in RESDL that expressly states that", "paragraph_id": "para_1338" }, { "text": "representations made pursuant to this law are incorporated into an agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_1339" }, { "text": "of sale”).", "paragraph_id": "para_1340" }, { "text": "Notably, Pennsylvania case law has recognized an exception to the parol", "paragraph_id": "para_1341" }, { "text": "____________________________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_1342" }, { "text": "8 Appellants’ argument is based on a trial court decision from the Allegheny", "paragraph_id": "para_1343" }, { "text": "County Court of Common Pleas, Vaughn v. Drab, 73 Pa. D. & C.4th 550, 558", "paragraph_id": "para_1344" }, { "text": "(Com. Pl. 2005). We remind Appellants that we are not bound by decisions", "paragraph_id": "para_1345" }, { "text": "of a Court of Common Pleas, even if they are directly on point. Keller v. Mey,", "paragraph_id": "para_1346" }, { "text": "67 A.3d 1, 5 n.6 (Pa.Super. 2013).", "paragraph_id": "para_1347" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1348" }, { "text": "- 45 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1349" }, { "text": "evidence rule concerning fraud claims. Specifically, when a party alleges that", "paragraph_id": "para_1350" }, { "text": "they were fraudulently induced into an agreement, “no valid agreement came", "paragraph_id": "para_1351" }, { "text": "into being and parol evidence is admissible to show that the alleged agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_1352" }, { "text": "is void.” Blumenstock v. Gibson, 811 A.2d 1029, 1036 (Pa.Super. 2002),", "paragraph_id": "para_1353" }, { "text": "appeal denied, 573 Pa. 714, 828 A.2d 349 (2003) (citing 1726 Cherry Street", "paragraph_id": "para_1354" }, { "text": "Partnership v. Bell Atlantic Properties, Inc., 653 A.2d 663, 666", "paragraph_id": "para_1355" }, { "text": "(Pa.Super. 1995), appeal denied, 544 Pa. 647, 664 A.2d 976 (1995)).", "paragraph_id": "para_1356" }, { "text": "Instantly, the parties agree that the Agreement of Sale constitutes the", "paragraph_id": "para_1357" }, { "text": "parties’ written contract for the sale of the Property. The Agreement of Sale", "paragraph_id": "para_1358" }, { "text": "specifically contains an integration clause limiting the agreement to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1359" }, { "text": "written document, and provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_1360" }, { "text": "(A) All representations, claims, advertising, promotional", "paragraph_id": "para_1361" }, { "text": "activities, brochures or plans of any kind made by Seller,", "paragraph_id": "para_1362" }, { "text": "Brokers, their licensees, employees, officers or partners are", "paragraph_id": "para_1363" }, { "text": "not a part of this Agreement unless expressly incorporated", "paragraph_id": "para_1364" }, { "text": "or stated in this Agreement. This Agreement contains the", "paragraph_id": "para_1365" }, { "text": "whole agreement between Seller and Buyer, and there are", "paragraph_id": "para_1366" }, { "text": "no other terms, obligations, covenants, representations,", "paragraph_id": "para_1367" }, { "text": "statements or conditions, oral or otherwise, of any kind", "paragraph_id": "para_1368" }, { "text": "whatsoever concerning this sale. This Agreement will not", "paragraph_id": "para_1369" }, { "text": "be altered, amended, changed or modified except in writing", "paragraph_id": "para_1370" }, { "text": "executed by the parties.", "paragraph_id": "para_1371" }, { "text": "(Agreement of Sale at 11). Significantly, the Agreement of Sale does not", "paragraph_id": "para_1372" }, { "text": "expressly incorporate the SDS as part of the agreement.", "paragraph_id": "para_1373" }, { "text": "Upon review, we agree with the trial court that because there is no", "paragraph_id": "para_1374" }, { "text": "language in the Agreement of Sale that expressly incorporated the SDS into", "paragraph_id": "para_1375" }, { "text": "the Agreement of Sale, the representations in the SDS are not a part of that", "paragraph_id": "para_1376" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1377" }, { "text": "- 46 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1378" }, { "text": "written agreement. See Holser, supra. Although Appellants generally assert", "paragraph_id": "para_1379" }, { "text": "that the parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of a seller disclosure", "paragraph_id": "para_1380" }, { "text": "statement, they have not set forth an argument of fraudulent inducement into", "paragraph_id": "para_1381" }, { "text": "the contract and have not established that the fraudulent inducement", "paragraph_id": "para_1382" }, { "text": "exception to the parol evidence rule applies.9 See Blumenstock, supra.", "paragraph_id": "para_1383" }, { "text": "Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted Dietrich’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1384" }, { "text": "motion in limine and excluded evidence of other agreements as part of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1385" }, { "text": "Agreement of Sale.", "paragraph_id": "para_1386" }, { "text": "Finally, we turn to Appellants’ last claim, that the trial court erred in", "paragraph_id": "para_1387" }, { "text": "granting Dietrich’s motion in limine to preclude the testimony of Appellants’", "paragraph_id": "para_1388" }, { "text": "experts. However, before we address the merits of this issue, we must", "paragraph_id": "para_1389" }, { "text": "consider whether Appellants have preserved this claim on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_1390" }, { "text": "Our Rules of Appellate Procedure make clear that appellate briefs must", "paragraph_id": "para_1391" }, { "text": "conform in all material respects to the briefing requirements set forth in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1392" }, { "text": "Rules. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Arguments must be followed by an appropriate", "paragraph_id": "para_1393" }, { "text": "discussion and citation of pertinent authorities. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).", "paragraph_id": "para_1394" }, { "text": "Where an appellant fails to properly raise or develop issues on appeal, or", "paragraph_id": "para_1395" }, { "text": "where a brief is wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court", "paragraph_id": "para_1396" }, { "text": "____________________________________________", "paragraph_id": "para_1397" }, { "text": "9 We note that even if this exception applied, it would permit evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_1398" }, { "text": "establishing the fraudulent inducement for the purpose of invalidating the", "paragraph_id": "para_1399" }, { "text": "sales contract. It would not permit evidence of a secondary document as part", "paragraph_id": "para_1400" }, { "text": "of the Agreement of Sale to attempt to establish a claim for breach of contract", "paragraph_id": "para_1401" }, { "text": "or a UTPCPL violation.", "paragraph_id": "para_1402" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1403" }, { "text": "- 47 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1404" }, { "text": "will not consider the merits of the claims raised on appeal. Butler v. Illes,", "paragraph_id": "para_1405" }, { "text": "747 A.2d 943, 944 (Pa.Super. 2000) (holding appellant waived claim where", "paragraph_id": "para_1406" }, { "text": "she failed to set forth adequate argument concerning her claim on appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_1407" }, { "text": "appellant’s argument lacked meaningful substance and consisted of mere", "paragraph_id": "para_1408" }, { "text": "conclusory statements; appellant failed to cogently explain or even tenuously", "paragraph_id": "para_1409" }, { "text": "assert why trial court abused its discretion or made error of law). See also", "paragraph_id": "para_1410" }, { "text": "Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa.Super. 2006) (explaining appellant’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1411" }, { "text": "arguments must adhere to rules of appellate procedure, and arguments which", "paragraph_id": "para_1412" }, { "text": "are not appropriately developed are waived; arguments not appropriately", "paragraph_id": "para_1413" }, { "text": "developed include those where party has failed to cite relevant authority in", "paragraph_id": "para_1414" }, { "text": "support of contention). Indeed, “[t]his Court will not act as counsel and will", "paragraph_id": "para_1415" }, { "text": "not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Coulter v. Ramsden, 94", "paragraph_id": "para_1416" }, { "text": "A.3d 1080, 1088 (Pa.Super. 2014), appeal denied, 631 Pa. 719, 110 A.3d 998", "paragraph_id": "para_1417" }, { "text": "(2014).", "paragraph_id": "para_1418" }, { "text": "Instantly, Appellants’ one paragraph discussion of their final claim does", "paragraph_id": "para_1419" }, { "text": "not contain any citation to or discussion of pertinent authority and does not", "paragraph_id": "para_1420" }, { "text": "make any attempt to apply the facts of record to controlling authority in", "paragraph_id": "para_1421" }, { "text": "support of their claim. Appellants’ conclusory argument section, lacking any", "paragraph_id": "para_1422" }, { "text": "citation to relevant case law, is woefully inadequate. We will not act as", "paragraph_id": "para_1423" }, { "text": "Appellants’ counsel and develop their arguments. See Coulter, supra. Thus,", "paragraph_id": "para_1424" }, { "text": "Appellants’ final issue is waived. Accordingly, we affirm.", "paragraph_id": "para_1425" }, { "text": "Order affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_1426" }, { "text": "J-A04021-26", "paragraph_id": "para_1427" }, { "text": "- 48 -", "paragraph_id": "para_1428" }, { "text": "Judgment Entered.", "paragraph_id": "para_1429" }, { "text": "Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.", "paragraph_id": "para_1430" }, { "text": "Prothonotary", "paragraph_id": "para_1431" }, { "text": "Date: 06/23/2026", "paragraph_id": "para_1432" } ], "word_count": 13478, "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "cd24742d17e46ff4f8412a205ef8f9d0d8e7aadb327e4d698db9bf123a7121a8", "source_url": "https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A04021-26o - 106828227363611282.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-17T17:24:52.087+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/pasuperct-740-mda-2025-2026-06-23", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:pasuperct-740-mda-2025-2026-06-23", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:pasuperct-740-mda-2025-2026-06-23", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:pasuperct-740-mda-2025-2026-06-23", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "cd24742d17e46ff4f8412a205ef8f9d0d8e7aadb327e4d698db9bf123a7121a8", "recomputed_sha256": "cd24742d17e46ff4f8412a205ef8f9d0d8e7aadb327e4d698db9bf123a7121a8", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-17T23:27:01.624Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:8ad19796c327c7705e6172b17491941289cc3db4abd1e88bf0528a52dd78fd05", "version": "legal-2026-10-17", "expires": "2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33", "content_hash": "sha256:8ad19796c327c7705e6172b17491941289cc3db4abd1e88bf0528a52dd78fd05", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-18T00:27:02.195Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:pasuperct-740-mda-2025-2026-06-23", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:pasuperct-740-mda-2025-2026-06-23" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:pasuperct-740-mda-2025-2026-06-23" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:pasuperct-740-mda-2025-2026-06-23" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "_sweep_notice": { "mode": "citation", "reason": "corpus sweep without measurable return", "vendor": "Anthropic", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text", "full_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise", "attribution": "cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source" }, "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }