OPINION
OLSON
J.
Appellants
Gary L. Tweedlie and Susan M. Tweedlie, husband and wife,
(collectively, "Sellers") appeal from the July 26,
2023 judgment[1] entered in the Court of Common Pleas of
Juniata County upon a non-jury verdict in favor of Buyers. We
affirm the judgment, in part, and vacate the judgment, in
part, and remand the case in accordance with this opinion.
The
record reveals that, on August 2, 2016, Buyers filed a
complaint against Sellers alleging causes of action for
breach of contract, fraud, and failure to disclose pursuant
to the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law[2]
("RESDL") in connection with Buyers' purchase
of a residential property from Sellers. On August 16, 2016,
Sellers filed a preliminary objection pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(6), asserting that
Buyers' civil action was not ripe for resolution because
Buyers failed to first submit their disputed claims to
mediation, as previously agreed to by the parties. The trial
court sustained Sellers' preliminary objection on May 3,
2017.
On July
31, 2017, Buyers filed an amended complaint against Sellers,
alleging the same three causes of actions as contained in the
original complaint and asserting that Sellers refused to
avail themselves of the opportunity to submit the matter to
mediation/arbitration.[3] On August 9, 2017, Sellers filed
preliminary objections to Buyers' amended complaint,
asserting, inter alia, the pendency of mediation.
The trial court sustained
Sellers' preliminary objections and ordered the parties
to submit the matter to mediation.[4]
On
October 1, 2019, a board of three arbitrators awarded Buyers
$12,000.00 in damages and $1,000.00 in attorney's fees.
On October 2, 2019, Sellers appealed the arbitration award,
demanding a trial de novo. See 42 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 7361(d) (stating that, "[a]ny party to a matter
[disposed of by compulsory arbitration] shall have the right
to appeal for trial de novo in the [trial]
court").
On
October 26, 2020, the trial court conducted a non-jury trial,
at the conclusion of which the parties were ordered to submit
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Sellers
submitted their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law on December 21, 2020, and Buyers submitted their findings
of fact and conclusions of law on December 28, 2020.
On June
29, 2021, the trial court entered a verdict in favor of
Buyers and against Sellers on each of Buyers' three
causes of action and awarded judgment in the amount of
$49,879.87.[5] In its June 29, 2021 verdict, the trial
court ordered the prothonotary to enter judgment in favor of
Buyers and
against Sellers in the amount of $49,879.87 which the
prothonotary did on the same day.
Sellers
filed a motion for post-trial relief seeking JNOV on July 9,
2021, and a brief in support of their motion for post-trial
relief on October 8, 2021. Buyers filed a brief in opposition
to Sellers' motion for post-trial relief on November 22,
2021. On December 2, 2021, the trial court denied
Sellers' request for JNOV and "confirm[ed] its order
entering judgment in favor of [Buyers] and against [Sellers]
in the amount of $49,879.87." Trial Court Order, 12/2/21
(extraneous capitalization omitted). On December 28, 2021,
Sellers filed a notice of appeal challenging the December 2,
2021 order denying JNOV. Sellers filed a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule
Appellate Procedure 1925(b) on January 12, 2022. On January
27, 2022, the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion
stating that it was relying on the record to address
Sellers' issues.[6]
On July
25, 2023, this Court remanded the case to the trial court for
the entry of judgment. Hosler v. Tweedlie, 2023 WL
4742383, at *3 (Pa. Super. filed July 25, 2023) (unpublished
memorandum) In so doing, we explained,
The entry of judgment on June 29, 2021, was premature because
the judgment was entered before the expiration of the 10-day
period in which to file a motion for post-trial relief.
Jenkins[ v. Robertson], 277 A.3d [1196,]
1198 [(Pa. Super. 2022)]. As
such, the June 29, 2021 entry of judgment is void and of no
legal effect. Id. The record further demonstrates
that neither party filed a praecipe for entry of
judgment, and judgment was never entered by the prothonotary
after the December 2, 2021 denial of [Sellers'] motion
for post-trial relief. Because judgment was never entered
outside the 10-day period in which to file a timely
post-trial motion, this Court is without jurisdiction to
address the merits of [Sellers'] issues. Ryan[
v. GAF Corp], 665 A.2d [843,] 844 [(Pa. Super.
1995)].
Tweedlie, 2023 WL 4742383, at *3.[7]
On July
26, 2023, the prothonotary for the Court of Common Pleas of
Juniata County entered judgment in favor of Buyers and
against Sellers in the amount of $49,879.87. Having perfected
our jurisdiction in this matter, we now turn to Sellers'
appeal.
Sellers raise the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion when
there was legally insufficient evidence for a verdict of
breach of contract as to [Sellers], where there was an
express contractual release upon waiver of inspection rights?
2. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion when
there was legally insufficient evidence for a verdict of
fraud by [Sellers]?
3. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion when it
found breach of an implied warranty of habitability without
basis in law or fact?
4. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by
awarding the [] demolition and replacement cost when the
evidence
did not establish that demolition and replacement was
required?
5. Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by
awarding attorney's fees, in absence of a recognized
exception to the American Rule?
Sellers' Brief at 2 (extraneous capitalization omitted).
Our
standard and scope of review in an appeal from a judgment
entered on a non-jury verdict
is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are
supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court
committed error in any application of the law. The findings
of fact of the trial [court] must be given the same weight
and effect on appeal as the verdict of a jury. We consider
the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict winner.
We will reverse the trial court only if its findings of fact
are not supported by competent evidence in the record or if
its findings are premised on an error of law.
J.J. DeLuca Co., Inc. v. Toll Naval Assoc., 56 A.3d
402, 410 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted).
In the
case sub judice, the trial court, as trier-of-fact,
made the following findings of fact:
1. The property was purchased by [Sellers] on [] June [2,]
2011.
2. Shortly after purchasing the property, [Sellers] had an
8-foot by 20-foot addition built onto an existing structure
on the house.
3. [Sellers] did not obtain a building permit for the
construction of the addition nor did they obtain an occupancy
permit upon completion of the construction.
4. The [trial] court finds that structural changes were made
to the residence, which required that a building permit be
issued.
5. Due to the fact the building permit was not issued, the
addition to the residence was never inspected by a code
enforcement officer or other authorized inspector.
6. The "foundation" supporting the new addition was
two 5-gallon buckets filled with stone and buried
approximately 18 inches underground, not the 36 inches
required by code.
7. There was no concrete fill underneath the buckets.
8. The addition was used as living space by [Sellers] in that
a laminate floor was installed, the addition was [drywalled]
and painted, electric wiring was run behind the [drywall, and
a] beaded board ceiling, windows and an exterior door were
included in the addition.
9. The property was sold to [Buyers] by [Sellers] in 2015.
10. The Listing Agreement prepared by Sellers' real
estate agent listed the addition as a [sunroom] with living
space of 342 square feet.
11. The [sunroom] was included as living space in determining
the purchase price of the property.
12. Approximately 6 months after the sale of the real estate
[Buyers] noticed that defects were beginning to appear in the
[sunroom]. These defects included, but were not limited to,
cracks in the [drywall], cracks above the windows, separation
of the windows from the wall, inability of the windows to
operate properly (open and []shut completely)[,] and the
floor was no longer level.
13. [Buyers] called [Sellers] to discuss these issues.
[Sellers] never responded.
14. [Buyers] also noted other defects such as [the] T-11
siding was flush with the ground, the shingles were pulling
off the roof[,] and [the roof leaked].
15. [Sellers] did not put a concrete slab under the [sunroom]
addition due to a sewer line running under that space.
16. [Buyers] would not have paid what they ultimately paid
for the property had they known [of] the defective condition
of the [sunroom]. They also testified that they would not
have
purchased the property if they had known the [sunroom] had
serious defects.
17. On [] February [27,] 2020, an estimate to remove and
replace the [sunroom], in the amount of $38,370.94 was given
to [Buyers].
18. On [] February [27,] 2020, an estimate as to the cost to
repair the foundation, windows, flooring, ceiling, et
cetera, was given to [Buyers] in the
...
