Davis, A. v. Panarella, M.

J-A17021-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ATTIKIS J. DAVIS AND KELLIE RAE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
DAVIS : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
MICHAEL PANARELLA AND :
CHRISTINE A. PANARELLA : No. 2153 EDA 2021
:
Appellants :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered October 8, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Civil Division at No(s):
003649-CV-2019
ATTIKIS J. DAVIS AND KELLIE RAE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
DAVIS : PENNSYLVANIA
:
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
: No. 2266 EDA 2021
MICHAEL PANARELLA AND :
CHRISTINE A. PANARELLA :
Appeal from the Judgment Entered October 8, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Civil Division at No(s):
003649-CV-2019
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and COLINS, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 19, 2022
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A17021-22
In these cross-appeals,1 Michael Panarella and Christine A. Panarella
(the Panarellas) and Attikis J. Davis and Kellie Rae Davis (the Davises) appeal
from the judgment entered in favor of the Davises and against the Panarellas.
In the appeal at 2153 EDA 2021, the Panarellas challenge the trial court’s
calculation of damages and counsel fees, and in the cross-appeal at 2266 EDA
2021, the Davises contend that the trial court erred in failing to award punitive
damages against the Panarellas. After review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the procedural history and made the
following findings of fact:
This matter came before the [c]ourt for a non-jury trial held on
April 30, 2021. [The Davises] alleged that [the Panarellas] sold
them real property without disclosing an encroachment of a
portion of the driveway and landscaping on a neighboring lot.
[The Davises] also alleged the neighboring lot, owned by the
[Panarellas] was to be sold to [the Davises] under a separate
agreement. [The Davises] filed a complaint alleging adverse
possession, violation of the Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law
(RESDL), fraud, nuisance, trespass, replevin, specific performance
and breach of contract. The parties have now submitted briefs,
having waived the time period for a decision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. [The Panarellas] were the owners of Lots 14 and 15 located at
229 Evergreen Court, Saylorsburg, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
2. Lot 14 was a vacant lot and Lot 15 was improved with a house
thereon, including a driveway and other outdoor improvements.
3. [The Panarellas] had listed the properties for sale at least three
different times prior to June of 2017.
____________________________________________
1This Court consolidated these cross-appeals sua sponte, and designated the
Panarellas as Appellants/Cross-Appellees and the Davises as Appellees/Cross-
Appellants. Order, 12/21/21; Order, 1/31/22.
-2-
J-A17021-22
4. [The Panarellas] had tried in the past to sell both of the
properties together and at least one time listed and marketed
them for sale together, consisting of a total of 3.64 acres.
5. Some time prior to June 2017, [the Panarellas] received a
referral to James Galligan, a Keller Williams real estate agent
located in Stroudsburg, PA, from Robert Pistone, a Keller Williams
real estate agent located in Las Vegas, NV, where the [the
Panarellas] had recently moved. Mr. Galligan and Mr. Pistone
were both affiliated with Keller Williams and Mr. Pistone had
received Mr. Galligan’s information as an agent in the Poconos
where these lots are located.
6. While in Las Vegas for a seminar in May 2017, Mr. Galligan met
with Mr. Pistone and Mrs. Panarella to discuss a potential
marketing plan for [the Panarellas’] property.
7. Mr. Pistone recalled that there was a discussion at that meeting
of [the Panarellas] wanting to sell both lots together.
8. Sometime thereafter, Mr. Galligan met Mr. Panarella at the
house on Lot 15 to discuss a listing agreement. Mr. Galligan
advised that the market might not be conducive to the price the
[the Panarellas] wanted for both properties, and that [the
Panarellas] could list Lot 15 for sale and try to offer Lot 14 to a
prospective buyer of Lot 15 when they made an offer, or wait and
sell it separately in the future.
9. Based upon that conversation, Mr. Galligan prepared a listing
agreement in early June 2017 for the improved Lot 15 only and
the [the Panarellas] signed that agreement.
10. Mr. Galligan proceeded to list the property on the Multiple
Listing Service (MLS), and marketed it specifically as Lot 15,
consisting of an improved 1.94 acre lot.
11. [The Panarellas] filled out and signed a Sellers Property
Disclosure Statement (Disclosure Statement) on or about June 5,
2017.
12. The Disclosure Statement at paragraph 18(B), specifically
asking whether [the Panarellas] were aware of any
encroachments, boundary line disputes, or any shared common
areas/driveways, was answered “No” by [the Panarellas].
13. At the time they filled out the Disclosure Statement, [the
Panarellas] knew that a portion of their driveway, landscaping,
-3-
J-A17021-22
retaining wall, and mailbox area encroached onto Lot 14 from Lot
15.
14. At the time they filled out the Disclosure Statement, and
through August 2018, [the Panarellas] did not inform their real
estate agent, Mr. Galligan, of the property encroachment from Lot
15 onto Lot 14.
15. If Mr. Galligan had been made aware of the encroachments
he would have required that it be disclosed to potential buyers,
and required that the lots be listed and sold together.
16. [The Davises] eventually became interested in the improved
Lot 15 and were shown the property through their real estate
agent, Jessica Keller.
17. Ms. Keller knew of no listing agreement that included Lot 14
being offered for sale with Lot 15, nor was it listed for sale
together with Lot 15 in the MLS.
18. Ms. Keller subsequently learned of [the Panarellas’] ownership
of Lot 14 through her own research and not because Lot 14 was
listed in the MLS or presented as a package deal with Lot 15.
19. [The Davises] initially were only interested in purchasing the
improved Lot 15 that was listed for sale in the MLS.
20. [The Davises] made an offer to purchase Lot 15 and [the
Panarellas] issued a counteroffer at a higher price that also
included Lot 14 in the sale.
21. [The Davises] were reluctant to purchase the vacant Lot 14
with Lot 15, but ultimately agreed to do so in order to meet the
[the Panarellas’] demand in order to purchase Lot 15. The sale
price for Lot 15 was $ 389,000 with closing on or before August
21, 2017. A separate installment agreement of sale was signed
for vacant Lot 14 at a sale price of $25,000, with $500 down, $200
per month from September 21, 2017, and the balance due on or
before August 21, 2018.
22. At no time prior to closing on Lot 15 on August 21, 2017 did
[the Panarellas] advise either the [the Davises], [the Davises’]
real estate agent, or [the Panarellas’] real estate agent, Mr.
Galligan, that a portion of the driveway, landscaping, retaining
wall and mailbox encroached from Lot 15 onto Lot 14.
-4-
J-A17021-22
23. [The Davises] would not have purchased the properties if they
had known of the encroachments prior to closing.
24. Prior to the closing on Lot 15, [the Davises] had a home
inspection performed.
25. As a result of the home inspection, a verbal agreement was
reached, as memorialized in emails between the real estate
agents. [The Panarellas] agreed to remediate the radon levels,
have the septic system pumped, and have the well “shocked” due
to coliform.
26. A written addendum to the contract for the repairs was
prepared and signed by the [the Davises], but the [the Panarellas]
never signed it.
27. On Friday, August 18, 2017, just days prior to the closing on
Lot 15, [the Davises] found out from their real estate agent that
the [the Panarellas] had called [the Davises’] mortgage company,
inquiring whether or not the agreed upon repairs had to be
performed in order to obtain a “clear to close” from the lender.
28. Upon learning that [the Davises] already had a “clear to close”
from the lender, the [the Panarellas] informed their real estate
agent that they would not be completing the agreed upon repairs,
and the [the Davises] were forced to purchase the property “as
is” or forego the entire transaction.
29. [The Davises] elected to proceed with the purchase and the
parties closed on the sale of Lot 15 on Monday, August 21, 2017,
at which time the [the Panarellas] paid the cost to pump the septic
system, Mr. Galligan paid to shock the well, and [the Davises]
were left with the radon mitigation cost.
30. After closing on Lot 15, [the Davises] paid $857 for additional
plumbing work related to the well, $1100 for a radon mitigation
system, and $75 to spray for carpenter bees for a total of $2032.
31. [The Davises] proceeded to move into the residence on Lot
15, made payments on Lot 14, and erected a shed on Lot 14 along
the property line.
32. [The Davises] made ten (10) monthly payments of $200
through July 2018 for the vacant Lot 14, having missed the June
payment.
-5-
J-A17021-22
33. [The Davises] also paid the 2018 property tax bill for Lot 14
at the request of the [the Panarellas].
34. On or about August 2, 2018, [the Davises] began leaving
phone call messages and sending texts to [the Panarellas]
requesting a six (6) month extension to close on Lot 14, and
offering to double the monthly payment to $400 until closing.
35. [The Davises] paid $400 to [the Panarellas] on August 16,
2018, and left another message with [the Panarellas] repeating
the request for an extension. At the time, they did not realize that
one prior $200 payment had been missed, but this payment
brought them current on the monthly payments under the
installment agreement.
36. [The Panarellas] accepted all of the payments made by the
[the Davises] totaling $2,400, together with the initial deposit of
$500, for a total of $2,900, without declaring [the Davises] in
default.
37. [The Panarellas] did not respond to the [the Davises’] requests
to extend the closing date for Lot 14, and when the [the Davises]
failed to close on or before August 21, 2018, as required in the
installment agreement, [the Panarellas] notified [the Davises]
they were in default and the agreement was terminated.
38. In [the Panarellas’] notification of default and termination,
they indicated the property would be placed back on the market
and that if [the Davises] still wanted to purchase Lot 14, the
purchase price would now be $45,000. In a later phone call with
[the Davises], the [the Panarellas] explained the increase in
purchase price was due to the likely cost the [the Davises] would
incur to remove the encroachments on Lot 14 if they did not
purchase said lot.
39. Shortly thereafter, [the Panarellas] advised [the Davises] they
would be erecting a fence along the property line of Lot 14 and
Lot 15, and then did so about 20 days later. The fence effectively
“fenced in” the [the Davises’] shed onto Lot 14. Although [the
Davises] were able to remove contents of the shed before the
fence was installed, they were unable to move the shed and a
ramp to access the shed prior to the fence being installed.
40. On or about August 30, 2018, following a phone call with [the
Panarellas], Mr. Galligan learned for the first time that a portion
of the driveway, landscaping, retaining wall, and mailbox
-6-
J-A17021-22
encroached onto Lot 14 from Lot 15. Mr. Galligan immediately
advised his broker and [the Davises’] real estate agent.
41. Due to this new information, the [the Davises] engaged Frank
Smith, Jr. to survey the lot line along Lots 14 and 15.
42. The survey revealed property boundary encroachments onto
Lot 14 of the paved driveway, several paver areas, a ramp [the
Davises] constructed to their shed on Lot 14, a small retaining
wall, additional landscaping and the mailbox.
43. [The Davises] spent $972 erecting the ramp to their shed that
the survey reveals is over the boundary line.
44. The driveway, pavers, retaining wall, landscaping and mailbox
were all installed by or at the direction of the [the Panarellas].
45. [The Panarellas] obtained a cost estimate from Sugar Hollow
to remove the areas of encroachment in the amount of $18,500.
46. [The Davises] were in the process of obtaining a permit to
move the shed when [the Panarellas] erected the fence with no
trespassing signs.
47. [The Davises] have had no access to their shed for nearly two
(2) years and have been unable to move it due to the erection of
the fence and no trespassing signs.
48. [The Panarellas] have demanded that [the Davises] remove
the mailbox that [the Panarellas] had installed over the lot line
onto Lot 14.
49. [The Panarellas] installed or directed installation of the
driveway and other encroachments onto Lot 14 themselves, while
owning both Lots 14 and 15. This was done at the time of or after
building the house on Lot 15, which was completed in 2002.
50. [The Davises] have incurred attorney’s fees in this matter of
$12,153 up to time of trial.
Trial Ct. Mem. and Order, 8/27/21, at 1-9 (some formatting altered).
At the conclusion of trial, the trial court concluded and awarded
damages as follows:
1. The claim for Quiet Title/Adverse Possession is DENIED.
-7-
J-A17021-22
2. The claim under the Real Estate Sellers Disclosure Law (RESDL)
is GRANTED and [the Davises] are awarded $2,900 in payments
made for Lot 14, $972 for the ramp constructed to the shed and
$18,500 as the cost to remove and repair the encroaching areas,
all incurred as a result of the reliance on the Sellers’ Disclosure
Statement.
3. The claim for fraud is GRANTED. [The Davises] are awarded
the same damages as set forth under the claim for violation of the
RESDL, without needing to be assessed separately at this time
since they were already awarded in paragraph 2 herein.
4. The claim for Nuisance is DENIED.
5. The claim for Trespass is DENIED.
6. The claim for Replevin is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall have ninety
(90) days from the date this matter is deemed final to enter [the
Panarellas’] Lot 14 and retrieve their shed and ramp in the easiest
manner available. [The Panarellas] shall cooperate in that regard.
7. The claim for Specific Performance is DENIED.
8. The claims for breach of contract are DENIED.
9. The claim for punitive damages is DENIED.
10. The claim for attorney’s fees is GRANTED. [The Davises are]
awarded $12,434.69 in attorney’s fees.
The total amount of monetary damages awarded to [the Davises]
and against [the Panarellas] is $34,806.69.
Id. at 26-27.
On September 1, 2021, the parties submitted a joint motion asking for
an extension of time in which to file post-trial motions. The trial court granted
the motion and directed that post-trial motions shall be filed on or before
September 14, 2021. Order, 9/1/21.
The Panarellas filed their post-trial motion on September 7, 2021, and
the Davises filed their post-trial motions on September 14, 2021. The trial
-8-
J-A17021-22
court denied both parties’ post-trial motions and judgment was entered on
October 8, 2021.2 The Panarellas filed their appeal on October 13, 2021, and
the Davises cross-appealed on October 25, 2021. The Davises, Panarellas,
and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
The Panarellas’ Appeal
On appeal, the Panarellas present the following issues:
1. Whether the trial court erred when it found in favor of [the
Davises] where there was no legally competent evidence which
met the standard required to prove damages under the Real
Estate Seller Disclosure Act[.]
2. Whether the trial court erred in speculating on the award of
attorney fees.
3. Whether the trial court erred in awarding a return of down
payment monies when the buyer defaults because they could
not come up with the balloon payment.
4. Whether the trial court erred in finding that there was fraud,
when the testimony clearly showed it was negligence, and not
intentional.
The Panarellas’ First Step Brief at 4 (formatting altered).
Our standard of review is as follows:
____________________________________________
2 Although the Davises correctly appeal from the October 8, 2021 judgment,
the record reflects that the Panarellas purport to appeal from the September
15, 2021 order denying post-trial motions. A trial court’s decision in a non-
jury trial does not become final for purposes of appeal until properly reduced
to and entered as a formal judgment under Pa.R.Civ.P. 227.4. See Morgan
v. Millstone Resources Ltd., 267 A.3d 1235, 1243 (Pa. Super. 2021); see
also Mackall v. Fleegle, 801 A.2d 577, 580 (Pa. Super. 2002) (explaining
that an appeal does not properly lie from an order denying a post-trial motion,
but rather from the judgment entered following disposition of post-trial
motions). We have corrected the caption accordingly.
-9-
J-A17021-22
Upon appeal of a non-jury trial verdict, we consider the evidence
in a light most favorable to the verdict winner and will reverse the
trial court only if its findings of fact lack the support of competent
evidence or its findings are premised on an error of law.
When this Court reviews the findings of the trial judge, the
evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the victorious
party below and all evidence and proper inferences favorable to
that party must be taken as true and all unfavorable inferences
rejected. The court’s findings are especially binding on appeal,
where they are based upon the credibility of the witnesses, unless
it appears that the court abused its discretion or that the court’s
findings lack evidentiary support or that the court capriciously
disbelieved the evidence.
It is inappropriate for an appellate court to make factual
determinations in the face of conflicting evidence.
Phelps v. Caperoon, 190 A.3d 1230, 1243 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation
omitted and formatting altered).
At the outset, we note that although the Panarellas purport to raise four
issues in their statement of questions presented, their brief contains only one
lengthy argument section in violation of Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (stating “[t]he
argument shall be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be
argued; and shall have at the head of each part[,] in distinctive type . . . the
particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of
authorities as are deemed pertinent.”). Additionally, the Panarellas’ brief
consists of unsupported assertions of error and undeveloped claims combined
into a single argument. See the Panarellas’ First Step Brief at 8-15. Upon
review, we conclude that this conglomeration of arguments and undeveloped
allegations of error result in waiver. See Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21,
29 (Pa. Super. 2006) (providing that arguments that fail to adhere to the
- 10 -
J-A17021-22
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure and arguments that are not
developed are waived); see also Milby v. Pote, 189 A.3d 1065, 1079 (Pa.
Super. 2018) (noting that it is not the duty of the reviewing court to develop
an argument for an appellant or scour the record to find evidence to support
an argument). In any event, were we to reach the Panarellas’ issues, we
would affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Mem. and
Order, 8/27/21, at 1-27.
The Davises’ Cross-Appeal.
In their cross-appeal at 2266 EDA 2021, the Davises raise the following
issues:
1. Did the trial court commit reversible error when it declined to
award treble and/or punitive damages?
2. Did the trial court commit reversible error when it denied [the
Davises’] count for nuisance?
3. Did the trial court commit reversible error when it denied [the
Davises’] count for trespass?
4. Did the trial court commit reversible error when it denied [the
Davises’] count for specific performance?
5. Did the trial court commit reversible error when it denied [the
Davises’] count for breach of contract?
6. Did the trial court commit reversible error when it denied [the
Davises’] count for quiet title/adverse possession?
The Davises’ Second Step Brief at 1-2 (formatting altered).
Upon review, however, we conclude that the argument portion of the
Davises’ brief suffers from deficiencies similar to those found in the Panarellas’
brief. Although the Davises identify issues and present multiple statements
- 11 -
J-A17021-22
of the law, they fail to develop any legal argument or provide relevant support
for their conclusory statements. See the Davises’ Second Step Brief at 23-
35. Rather, the Davises’ arguments are undeveloped, and as such, we
conclude that they have waived their issues on appeal. See Lackner, 892
A.2d at 29; see also Milby, 189 A.3d at 1079. In any event, were we to
reach the merits of the Davises’ claims of error, we would affirm on the basis
of the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Mem. and Order, 8/27/21, at 1-27.
Conclusion
After review, and for the reasons set forth above, we conclude that
neither the Panarellas nor the Davises are entitled to appellate relief.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment following the trial court’s opinion and
order of August 27, 2021, which included its non-jury trial judgment
determination in this matter.
Judgment affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/19/2022
- 12 -
Received 11/30/2021 10:33:46 Aldiftoa
Filed 11/30/2021 10:33:46 AM Superior Court Eastern District
2153 EDA 2021
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONROE COUNTY
FORTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ATTIKIS J. DAVIS and
NO. 3649 CIVIL 2019
KELLIE RAE DAVIS,
Plaintiffs
VS.
MICHAEL PANARELLA and
CHRISTINE A. PANARELLA,
Defendants :NON-JURY TRIAL
OPINION
This matter came before the Court for anon jury trial held on April 30, 2021.
Plaintiffs, Attikis J. Davis and Kellie Rae Davis ("Plaintiffs") alleged that Defendants, Michael
Panarella and Christine A. Panarella, sold them real property without disclosing an encroachment
of aportion of the driveway and landscaping on aneighboring lot. Plaintiffs also alleged the
neighboring lot, owned by the Defendants, was to be sold to them under aseparate agreement.
Plaintiffs filed aComplaint alleging adverse possession, violation of the Real Estate Seller
Disclosure Law ("RESDL"), fraud, nuisance, trespass, replevin, specific performance and breach
of contract. The parties have now submitted briefs, having waived the time period for adecision.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.Defendants were the owners of Lots 14 and 15 located at 229 Evergreen Court,
Saylorsburg, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 15-17, p. 87; Plaintiffs' Exh. 1and
9.
2. Lot 14 was avacant lot and Lot 15 was improved with ahouse thereon,
including adriveway and other outdoor improvements. N.T. 4/30/21 p. 105; Plaintiffs' Exh. 1
and 9.
3. Defendants had listed the properties for sale at least three different times prior
to June of 2017. Id. at 58-59; 130.
4. Defendants had tried in the past to sell both of the properties together and at
least one time listed and marketed them for sale together, consisting of atotal of 3.64 acres. Id. at
88; 109; Plaintiffs' Exh. 19.
5. Some time prior to June 2017, Defendants received areferral to James
Galligan, aKeller Williams real estate agent located in Stroudsburg, PA, from Robert Pistone, a
Keller Williams real estate agent located in Las Vegas, NV, where the Defendants had recently
moved. Mr. Galligan and Mr. Pistone were both affiliated with Keller Williams and Mr. Pistone
had received Mr. Galligan's information as an agent in the Poconos where these lots are located.
N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 58; 61-62; 70-71; 88; 112-113.
6. While in Las Vegas for aseminar in May 2017, Mr. Galligan met with Mr.
Pistone and Mrs. Panarella to discuss apotential marketing plan for Defendants' property. Id. at
61-62; 76-77; 113-114.
2
7. Mr. Pistone recalled that there was adiscussion at that meeting of Defendants
wanting to sell both lots together. Id. at 112-120.
8. Sometime thereafter, Mr. Galligan met Mr. Panarella at the house on Lot 15 to
discuss alisting agreement. Id. at 62-64; 77-78. Mr. Galligan advised that the market might not
be conducive to the price the Defendants wanted for both properties, and that Defendants could
list Lot 15 for sale and try to offer Lot 14 to aprospective buyer of Lot 15 when they made an
offer, or wait and sell it separately in the future. Id. at 60-61.
9. Based upon that conversation, Mr. Galligan prepared alisting agreement in
early June 2017 for the improved Lot 15 only and the Defendants signed that agreement. Id. at
60-63; 68-69; 89; 101.
10. Mr. Galligan proceeded to list the property on the Multiple Listing Service
("MLS"), and marketed it specifically as Lot 15, consisting of an improved 1.94 acre lot. Id.
11. Defendants filled out and signed aSellers Property Disclosure Statement
("Disclosure Statement") on or about June 5, 2017. Plaintiffs' Exh. 2; N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 89-90;
101-102; 122-123.
12. The Disclosure Statement at paragraph 18(B), specifically asking whether
Defendants were aware of any encroachments, boundary line disputes, or any shared common
areas/driveways, was answered "No" by the Defendants. Plaintiffs' Exh. 2; N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 19-
20; 109; 122.
13. At the time they filled out the Disclosure Statement, Defendants knew that a
portion of their driveway, landscaping, retaining wall, and mailbox area encroached onto Lot 14
from Lot 15. N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 89-90; 100; 102-103; 105; 123-125.
3
14. At the time they filled out the Disclosure Statement, and through August
2018, Defendants did not inform their real estate agent, Mr. Galligan, of the property
encroachment from Lot 15 onto Lot 14. Id. at pp. 19; 65; 68-69; Plaintiff's Exh. 14.
15. If Mr. Galligan had been made aware of the encroachments he would have
required that it be disclosed to potential buyers, and required that the lots be listed and sold
together. Id. at pp. 65-66.
16. Plaintiffs eventually became interested in the improved Lot 15 and were
shown the property through their real estate agent, Jessica Keller. Id. at 16-17.
17. Ms. Keller knew of no listing agreement that included Lot 14 being offered
for sale with Lot 15, nor was it listed for sale together with Lot 15 in the MLS. Plaintiffs' Exh.
24 pp. 12, 13, 23, 26-28; Plaintiffs' Exh. 2.
18. Ms. Keller subsequently learned of Defendants' ownership of Lot 14 through
her own research and not because Lot 14 was listed in the MLS or presented as apackage deal
with Lot 15. Id.
19. Plaintiffs initially were only interested in purchasing the improved Lot 15 that
was listed for sale in the MLS. N.T. 4/
30/21 pp. 17; 20-21; 50-51.
20. Plaintiffs made an offer to purchase Lot 15 and Defendants issued acounter-
offer at ahigher price that also included Lot 14 in the sale. Id. at 20; 34; 50-51; Defendants' Exh.
21. Plaintiffs were reluctant to purchase the vacant Lot 14 with Lot 15, but
ultimately agreed to do so in order to meet the Defendants' demand in order to purchase Lot 15.
The sale price for Lot 15 was $ 389,000 with closing on or before August 21, 2017. A separate
4
I
installment agreement of sale was signed for vacant Lot 14 at asale price of $25,000, with $ 500
down, $200 per month from September 21, 2017 and the balance due on or before August 21,
2018. Plaintiffs' Exh. 1, 7and 8; N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 50-51; 54-55.
22. At no time prior to closing on Lot 15 on August 21, 2017 did Defendants
advise either the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' real estate agent, or Defendants' real estate agent, Mr.
Galligan, that aportion of the driveway, landscaping, retaining wall and mailbox encroached
from Lot 15 onto Lot 14. N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 19-20; 29-30; 35-36; 52-53; 65-66; 68-69; Plaintiffs'
Exh. 24 pp. 13; 23-24; 26-28.
23. Plaintiffs would not have purchased the properties if they had known of the
encroachments prior to closing. N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 20-21; 30.
24. Prior to the closing on Lot 15, Plaintiffs had ahome inspection performed.
Plaintiffs' Exh. 3; N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 25; 42; 66-67.
25. As aresult of the home inspection, averbal agreement was reached, as
memorialized in emails between the real estate agents. Defendants agreed to remediate the radon
levels, have the septic system pumped, and have the well "shocked" due to coliform. N.T.
4/30/21 pp. 66-68; 71-72; Plaintiffs' Exh. 5.
26. A written addendum to the contract for the repairs was prepared and signed
by the Plaintiffs, but the Defendants never signed it. N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 44; 66-68; 81-82; 91-92;
Plaintiffs' Exh. 4.
27. On Friday, August 18, 2017, just days prior to the closing on Lot 15,
Plaintiffs found out from their real estate agent that the Defendants had called Plaintiffs'
5
mortgage company, inquiring whether or not the agreed upon repairs had to be performed in
order to obtain a "clear to close" from the lender. N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 42-44; 91-93,
28. Upon learning that Plaintiffs already had a "clear to close" from the lender,
the Defendants informed their real estate agent that they would not be completing the agreed
upon repairs, and the Plaintiffs were forced to purchase the property "as is" or forego the entire
transaction. Id. at 42-44; 67-68; 71-72; 91-93.
29. Plaintiffs elected to proceed with the purchase and the parties closed on the
sale of Lot 15 on Monday, August 21, 2017, at which time the Defendants paid the cost to pump
the septic system, Mr. Galligan paid to shock the well, and Plaintiffs were left with the radon
mitigation cost. Id. at 67-68; 73-74; Plaintiffs' Exh. 6.
30. After closing on Lot 15, Plaintiffs paid $ 857 for additional plumbing work
related to the well, $ 1100 for aradon mitigation system, and $75 to spray for carpenter bees for a
total of $2032. N.T. 4/
30/21 p. 42; Plaintiffs' Exh. 6.
31. Plaintiffs proceeded to move into the residence on Lot 15, made payments on
Lot 14, and erected ashed on Lot 14 along the property line. N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 22-23; 32; 48; 52-
53.
32. Plaintiffs made ten ( 10) monthly payments of $200 through July 2018 for the
vacant Lot 14, having missed the June payment. N.T. 4/
30/21 pp. 32; 126-127; Plaintiffs' Exh. 9.
33. Plaintiffs also paid the 2018 property tax bill for Lot 14 at the request of the
Defendants. N.T. 4/30/21 p. 48.
34. On or about August 2, 2018, Plaintiffs began leaving phone call messages
and sending texts to Defendants requesting asix (6) month extension to close on Lot 14, and
6
offering to double the monthly payment to $400 until closing. Id. at 41-42; 93-94; Plaintiffs'
Exh. 9, 10 and 11; Defendants' Exh. "A."
35. Plaintiffs paid $400 to Defendants on August 16, 2018 and left another
message with Defendants repeating the request for an extension. At the time, they did not realize
that one prior $200 payment had been missed, but this payment brought them current on the
monthly payments under the installment agreement. N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 31-32; 130; Plaintiffs' Exh.
9, 10, 11 and 12; Defendants' Exh. "A."
36. Defendants accepted all of the payments made by the Plaintiffs totaling
$2,400, together with the initial deposit of $500, for atotal of $2,900, without declaring Plaintiffs
in default. N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 32, 93-94; 126-127; Defendants' Exh. "A."
37. Defendants did not respond to the Plaintiffs' requests to extend the closing
date for Lot 14, and when the Plaintiffs failed to close on or before August 21, 2018 as required
in the installment agreement, Defendants notified Plaintiffs they were in default and the
agreement was terminated. N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 41-42; 46; 94-96; 106-108; 127-128; Plaintiffs' Exh.
13.
38. In the Defendants' notification of default and termination, they indicated the
property would be placed back on the market and that if Plaintiffs still wanted to purchase Lot
14, the purchase price would now be $45,000. Id. In alater phone call with Plaintiffs, the
Defendants explained the increase in purchase price was due to the likely cost the Plaintiffs
would incur to remove the encroachments on Lot 14 if they did not purchase said lot.
Defendants' Exh. "A" p. 6.
7
39. Shortly thereafter, the Defendants advised the Plaintiffs they would be
erecting afence along the property line of Lot 14 and Lot 15, and then did so about 20 days later.
The fence effectively "fenced in" the Plaintiffs' shed onto Lot 14. Although Plaintiffs were able
to remove contents of the shed before the fence was installed, they were unable to move the shed
and aramp to access the shed prior to the fence being installed. N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 22-24; 26-28;
36-41; 104-105; 128-129.
40. On or about August 30, 2018, following aphone call with Defendants, Mr.
Galligan learned for the first time that aportion of the driveway, landscaping, retaining wall,
and mailbox encroached onto Lot 14 from Lot 15. Mr. Galligan immediately advised his broker
and Plaintiffs' real estate agent. Id. at 61; 68-69; Plaintiffs' Exh. 14.
41. Due to this new information, the Plaintiffs engaged Frank Smith, Jr. to survey
the lot line along Lots 14 and 15. N.T. 4/30/21 p. 21; Plaintiffs' Exh. 15.
42. The survey revealed property boundary encroachments onto Lot 14 of the
paved driveway, several paver areas, aramp Plaintiffs constructed to their shed on Lot 14, a
small retaining wall, additional landscaping and the mailbox. Plaintiffs' Exh. 15.
43. Plaintiffs spent $ 972 erecting the ramp to their shed that the survey reveals is
over the boundary line. N.T. 4/30/21 p. 23; Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.
44. The driveway, pavers, retaining wall, landscaping and mailbox were all
installed by or at the direction of the Defendants. N.T. 4/30/21 pp. 26-27; 89-90; 102-103; 105;
123-125.
45. Defendants obtained acost estimate from Sugar Hollow to remove the areas
of encroachment in the amount of $ 18,500. Defendants' Exh. "A" p. 6.
8
46. Plaintiffs were in the process of obtaining apermit to move the shed when
Defendants erected the fence with no trespassing signs. N.T. 4/
30/21 pp. 22-24; 26-28; 36-41;
94-97; 104-105; 128-129.
47. Plaintiffs have had no access to their shed for nearly two (2) years and have
been unable to move it due to the erection of the fence and no trespassing signs. Id.
48. Defendants have demanded that Plaintiffs remove the mailbox that
Defendants had installed over the lot line onto Lot 14. Id. at 26-27; 96.
49. Defendants installed or directed installation of the driveway and other
encroachments onto Lot 14 themselves, while owning both Lots 14 and 15. This was done at the
time of or after building the house on Lot 15, which was completed in 2002. Id. 87; 105.
50. Plaintiffs have incurred attorney's fees in this matter of $ 12,153 up to time of
trial. Plaintiffs' Exh. 25 and 26. ($ 13,615.94 less $ 1,462.50 (6hrs. @243.75) estimated for trial).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs have filed suit with claims of quiet title by adverse possession; Real
Estate Sellers Disclosure Law ("RESDL") violations; fraud; nuisance; trespass; replevin; specific
performance and breach of contract. We will discuss those claims in that order.
A. Quiet Title by Adverse Possession —
For adverse possession to apply, one must occupy the land of another who has
title to said land and the occupier's possession must be actual, exclusive, visible, notorious,
distinct and hostile for aperiod of 21 years or more. 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 5530; Burns v.
Mitchell, 381 A.2d 487 (Pa. Super. 1977). The term "hostile" means the person in possession
9
intends to hold title against the record title holder. Glenn v. Shuey, 407 Pa. Super. 213, 595 A.2d
606 ( 1991).
In this case, Defendants purchased Lots 14 and 15 together by deed dated March
26, 2001. See Plaintiffs Exh. 17. Defendants then constructed ahouse on Lot 15, together with
adriveway, retaining wall, other landscaping and amailbox sometime in 2001-2002. The
encroachments started to exist, at the earliest, in 2001. Plaintiffs discovered the encroachments
in 2018 and Defendants constructed afence along the property line at that time, ending any
period of possession that had been created. This was less than 21 years.
More importantly, the possession for the entire time the Defendants owned both
lots did not qualify as adverse possession because such possession was not hostile. One who
holds title to both parcels containing the encroachment cannot intend to hold the property against
the record title holder because they are the same person. By the very definition of "hostile," one
who owns both parcels with an encroachment from one onto the other, does not have aclaim for
adverse possession. Therefore, any such adverse possession of the area of the encroachments did
not start to be hostile until Plaintiffs purchased Lot 15 in 2017. Insufficient time has passed
since then to claim adverse possession of the disputed area. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have not
met the requirements for adverse possession.
B. Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law ("RESDL") —
All residential real estate sales require that sellers fill out, sign, and provide to
buyers prior to asale, adetailed disclosure regarding the real property. 68 Pa. C.S.A. Section
7301-7314. (the "RESDL") Under the RESDL, sellers must disclose any material defects with
10
the property. See 68 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7303. A material defect is one that could have a
significant adverse impact on the value of real property being sold. 68 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7102;
See also Phelps v. Caperoon, 2018 Pa. Super. 171, 190 A.3d 1230 (2018). The required Seller's
Disclosure Statement includes the condition of soils, drainage and boundaries. See 68 Pa. C.S.A.
Section 7304(B)(13). Sellers are not liable for failure to disclose where they have no knowledge
of amaterial defect, or believe it was corrected. Id. at Section 7309. Areal estate agent can also
be liable if they had actual knowledge of amaterial defect and did not disclose it to buyers. Id. at
Section 7310.
A Disclosure Statement is required to be filled out and signed by sellers even if a
property is being sold "as is." Phelps supra. An innocent misrepresentation about boundary
lines can also be material and actionable on the theory that sellers know basic facts about their
property before asale. See Miller v. Bare, 457 F. Supp. 1359 (W.D. Pa. 1978). Finally, there are
no exceptions to the disclosure requirement. Phelps supra.
Here, the Defendants answered "No" to question 18B in the Disclosure Statement
which asked whether they were aware of any encroachments, boundary line disputes or of any
shared common areas, such as driveways. In this case, aportion of the driveway, retaining wall,
landscaping materials and mailbox all encroached onto Lot 14 from Lot 15. Defendants knew of
the encroachments over the boundary line prior to the sale to Plaintiffs. Defendants had the
home and all improvements thereon constructed, including the areas encroaching on Lot 14.
But, they failed to disclose it to the Plaintiffs, either in writing as required by the RESDL, or
orally. We do not find Defendants credible in their testimony that they disclosed the
encroachments to their real estate agent, James Galligan. We find Mr. Galligan's testimony
I1
more convincing and credible in that regard. However, even if they had, Defendants still would
not be relieved of their duty to disclose in the Disclosure Statement. 68 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7301
et seq. On the face of the Sellter's Disclosure Statement alone, we find that the Defendants
failed to disclose aknown defect.
We also find the encroachments were amaterial defect of Lot 15. The
encroachments had asubstantial effect on the value of the property as part of the driveway,
retaining wall, landscaping and mailbox were on aseparate lot. All would have to be removed
from Lot 14 upon demand of the owner of Lot 14, unless an easement was granted, or a
subdivision of part of Lot 14 was approved. Those scenarios would be subject to the approval of
the owner of Lot 14, and in the case of asubdivision, the approval of the Township would also
be required. Defendants own Lot 14, want to sell Lot 14, and have shown that they are unlikely
to work with the Plaintiffs to correct the situation. Even if Defendants would do so, there would
be legal and professional expenses incurred. Furthermore, Plaintiffs testified that had they
known of the encroachments prior to signing an agreement of sale or closing on the real
property, they never would have purchased the property, even if Lot 14 was being purchased
together at the same time as Lot 15.
Defendants argue they notified their real estate agent of the encroachment, and
cite this as the reason for wanting to sell Lot 14 with Lot 15. We find their testimony
unconvincing. Mr. Galligan, alicensed real estate agent in Pennsylvania for 22 years,
understands the ramifications of non-disclosure, and he was more credible in his testimony that
he would have disclosed the encroachments immediately had he known of them. This is backed
up by Mr. Galligan's decision to immediately inform his broker and Plaintiffs' real estate agent
12
when he was advised of the encroachment by the Defendants over ayear after the closing on Lot
15, when the Lot 14 sale did not take place. Adding to Mr. Galligan's credibility over that of the
Defendants is that the Defendants then used the encroachment issue to try and leverage the
Plaintiffs into purchasing Lot 14 at ahigher price, once the original installment agreement had
expired. Defendants admitted as much in atelephone call to the Plaintiffs in September 2018
when they told Plaintiffs the higher sale price was because the parties now faced potential legal
fees and/or acost of at least $ 15,000-$18,000 to remove the encroachments. See Defendants'
Exh. "A" p. 6. In doing so, the Defendants actually admitted that the higher purchase price for
Lot 14 was due to the encroachments and the potential cost Plaintiffs would have to correct them
now that they knew about it. Id. This is unconscionable since Defendants knew of the
encroachments, failed to disclose the encroachments, and now had the Defendants over abarrel,
because they had not been able to close on Lot 14 under the original installment agreement.
Furthermore, even if the Defendants had told Mr. Galligan prior to Plaintiffs entering an
agreement of sale with them that there was an encroachment, Defendants still violated the
RESDL by failing to note the encroachment in the Disclosure Statement. That requirement
cannot be waived. See Phelps, supra.
Defendants also seem to be arguing that the mistake, if any, was innocent, since
they were selling both lots to the Plaintiffs, albeit not at the same time. First, there is no such
exception under the RESDL. Second, Lot 14 was not being conveyed simultaneously with Lot
15, and there was always achance (as it proved to be) that Plaintiffs would not close on the
purchase of Lot 14. In any event, it still would have been amaterial defect even if Plaintiffs had
closed on the purchase of Lot 14, as they would have potential expenses when they sold either
13
Lot 14, or 15, or even both together, once the encroachments were discovered. Even if the
encroachments could have been discovered by the Plaintiffs if they had done asurvey prior to
closing (which is rarely done in Pennsylvania), that is no excuse for non-disclosure under the
RESDL. Finally, the persuasive arguments set forth in Miller v. Bare, supra, convince us that the
encroachments were abasic fact about the properties that Defendants knew of and failed to
disclose. According to the Defendants' own testimony, it was one reason they wanted to sell the
lots together. Any "innocent mistake" claimed by them is disingenuous, and still actionable.
They knew about the encroachments and should have disclosed them, whether they were selling
the lots together or not. The whole purpose of the RESDL is disclosure so informed decisions
can be made.
As we find the Defendants violated the RESDL, the next issue is damages
sustained. The RESDL provides for "actual damages" of the other party. 68 Pa. C.S.A. Section
7311; Phelps v. Caperoon, supra. Although Plaintiffs stated in testimony they would not have
purchased either lot if they knew of the encroachments, they are not seeking rescission of the
sale of Lot 15 and they ultimately did not purchase Lot 14. Plaintiffs have not presented any
evidence of diminution of value of Lot 15 due to the encroachments. As aresult, there is only
speculation as to the value of Lot 15 being less than the purchase price due to the encroachments.
Plaintiffs have provided convincing testimony that Defendants have demanded that Plaintiffs
remove the mailbox encroaching on Lot 14 that the Defendants actually installed. Defendants
have not yet demanded removal of the other encroachments, but they or anew owner of Lot 14
could do so at any time. However, the Plaintiffs did not present any costs incurred or estimates
of costs to remove and repair the areas of encroachment.
14
We find that the payments made to purchase Lot 14 and the proven costs
associated with the shed incurred by the Plaintiffs are included within the meaning of "actual
damages" under Section 7311 of the RESDL. 68 Pa. C.S.A. Section 7311. Although Plaintiffs
have not provided aclaim for rescission with respect to Lot 15, or aloss in value or cost to
repair/remediate Lot 15 due to Defendants' violations of the RESDL, Plaintiffs have adequately
plead and testified they would not have attempted to purchase Lot 14 with known
encroachments. They ultimately did not close on the purchase for other reasons, but not before
incurring payments to the Defendants to purchase Lot 14, and to place the shed on Lot 14. We
find these are actual damages incurred due to reliance upon the Defendants' Disclosure
Statement as contemplated by the Pennsylvania legislature in adopting the RESDL and as set
forth in Phelps v. Caperoon, supra. These damages were sought and proven as being incurred by
the Plaintiffs. The Defendants' failure to disclose the encroachments led directly to Plaintiffs
incurring those expenses that were proven at time of trial. Those damages include the deposit
paid on Lot 14 of $500, ten ( 10) payments of $200 and one ( 1) payment of $400 ($2,400), and
$972 for construction of the ramp to the shed. None of those costs would have been incurred if
Defendants had made the appropriate disclosure. Plaintiffs provided no testimony of the costs
they claimed in their Complaint for storage fees as aresult of not having access to the shed to
move it. Therefore, those costs cannot be awarded. The total amount of proven damages directly
incurred by Plaintiffs related to Lot 14 for Defendants' failure to disclose is $3,872.00. 1
'Plaintiff testified credibly that they paid areal estate tax bill on Lot 14 at the direction of Defendants, but they
failed to state the amount of that bill so we cannot consider it for damages.
15
Although the Plaintiffs did not present proof of the cost to remove the
encroachments, testimony on behalf of the Defendants did. See Defendants' Exh. "A" p. 6. In a
telephone call with the Plaintiffs, the Defendants estimated the cost to remove the encroachments
as $ 15,000 - $ 18,000. They further stated that they received aquote for such work from "Sugar
Hollow" in the amount of $ 18,500. Id. We don't doubt that the Defendants received such a
quote, as they appeared to have been readily prepared for the telephone conversation with
i
Plaintiffs that was recorded and transcribed as Defendants' Exh. "A," which took place after
Plaintiffs' default on the purchase of Lot 14. Defendants spoke of talking to alawyer,
contemplating suing both real estate agents, (including Mr. Galligan for "illegal" actions and a
"federal offense"), and obtaining aquote to remove the encroachments. The text of that
conversation clearly shows that Defendants were prepared to deflect blame from them to the real
estate professionals and to convince the Plaintiffs of the costs and problems they. would incur by
not purchasing Lot 14. These costs and problems were the rationale of the Defendants wanting
an additional $20,000 to sell the lot to the Plaintiffs. Defendant Michael Panarella explained the
higher price as follows: " So, that's why that letter came in at $45,000 because if you did not
want to buy the property, that would guarantee you that would cost you $ 15,000 - $ 18,000 to
move everything." Id. Mr. Panarella had previously said in that conversation:
"Because of the fact that the encroachment is there, as it stands
right now the mailbox would have to be moved, the shed would
have to be moved, the driveway to acertain point would have to be
moved, the retaining wall would have to be moved, all that garden
has to be moved. Now if you don't buy your (sic) property, so
what Idid was have Sugar Hollow bill $ 18,500 to do that. So what
Idid was add that onto of (sic) the money that was supposed to be
done in closing with the interest Iturned around when payments
were late." Id.
16
We find the Defendants' estimate of work to remove the encroachments both
credible and convincing due to the context in which it was made. We take this as an admission
of the Defendants of the cost to remove the encroachments. The Defendants were clearly trying
to rationalize to the Plaintiffs why the failure to purchase Lot 14 timely, would result in ahigher
purchase price thereafter. It appears they did their homework on said cost to remove the
encroachments, making it both convincing and reasonable as the cost to correct. Therefore, the
cost of $ 18,500 is aproven damage incurred by the Plaintiffs. The total damages to be awarded
due to Defendants' non-disclosure and violation of the RESDL is $22,372.
C. Fraud —
Plaintiffs' next claim is for common law fraud. They must show clear and
convincing evidence of 1) arepresentation; 2) which is material to the transaction at hand; 3)
made falsely with knowledge of the falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; 4)
with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; 5) justifiable reliance on the
misrepresentation; and, 6) resulting injury from the reliance. Gibbs v. Ernst, 538 Pa. 193, 674
A.2d 882 ( 1994). In this case, the elements of common law fraud have also been met. We find
Plaintiffs and Mr. Galligan credible and convincing that Defendants never disclosed the
encroachments on Lot 14 to them until ayear after the closing on Lot 15. The statements were
made in the Seller's Disclosure Statement which listed no encroachments or boundary line
problems. This representation was clearly false. It was material to the transaction at hand.
Plaintiffs testified they would not have purchased either property if the correct representation had
been made. Defendants' intent to mislead Plaintiffs to rely on the representation is clear in the
17
circumstantial evidence of this case. That includes the price paid for both lots; Defendants'
insistence that Plaintiffs purchase Lot 14 after receiving an offer from them to only purchase Lot
15; Defendants' non-disclosure in the Seller's Disclosure Statement and failure to notify Mr.
Galligan of the encroachments; and, Defendants notifying Mr. Galligan and the Plaintiffs only
after Plaintiffs sought more time to close on Lot 14, Defendants' termination of the agreement on
Lot 14, and subsequent request for ahigher purchase price at that time.
The Plaintiffs clearly relied on the misrepresentation, as they purchased Lot 15,
signed an installment agreement to buy Lot 14, and moved their shed onto Lot 14 and
constructed aramp to it. The damages sustained were those set forth above under the RESDL
violation: $500 down payment and $2,400 in payments on Lot 14, the ramp cost of $972, and
$18,500 to remove the encroachments. We find these were the provable damages for fraud, being
the same as the violation of the RESDL.
D. Nuisance —
Plaintiffs' next claim is for nuisance. A person is subject to liability for aprivate
claim of nuisance if the conduct invades another's interest in the enjoyment of land, and the
invasion is a) intentional and unreasonable or b) unintentional, but reckless. Restatement
(Second) of Torts Section 822. However, such liability will only extend to instances of
significant harm of akind suffered by anormal person or by aproperty in normal condition and
used for normal purposes. Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 821F. Here, the nuisance
alleged is the encroachment onto Lot 14, created by the Defendants, and the shed erected on Lot
14 by the Plaintiffs, that is now fenced in by the Defendants. The encroachments do not
18
constitute anuisance to Lot 15 and Plaintiffs' enjoyment therein under the definition of the
Restatement. Although Plaintiffs may need to move their mailbox, there is no other immediate
action requested. Nor are any of the encroachments an invasion of someone else onto Plaintiffs'
Lot 15.
With regard to the shed, again, there is no invasion of the Plaintiffs' use and
enjoyment of land, being Lot 15. The shed is on the Defendants' Lot 14. The Defendants are
not encroaching or preventing use of Plaintiffs' Lot 15. Therefore, nuisance does not apply in
this case.
E. Trespass —
Plaintiffs claim atrespass on their land by the actions of the Defendants. A
trespass is defined as an unprivileged, intentional intrusion upon land in possession of another.
Kopka v. Bell Telephone Co., 371 Pa. 444, 91 A.2d 232 ( 1952). For the same reasoning as set
forth above concerning nuisance, there is no actionable claim for trespass. Here, Defendants are
not trespassing on Plaintiffs' Lot 15. The encroachments are onto Lot 14. The Plaintiffs' shed is
located on Lot 14, but Defendants are not encroaching in any way on Plaintiffs' Lot 15.
Therefore, the claim for trespass will be denied.
F. Replevin —
Plaintiffs' shed is located on Defendants' Lot 14. It was placed there when
Plaintiffs were under agreement to purchase Lot 14. Plaintiffs constructed aramp to access the
shed at acost of $ 972. They then moved items that were in the shed to astorage facility when
the Defendants terminated the Agreement of Sale for Lot 14 due to Plaintiffs' inability to close
19
within the timeframe set in the Agreement. Defendants gave notice of termination of the
Agreement, notice they would be constructing afence along the property line, and then
constructed that fence. Plaintiffs were unable to move the shed prior to the fence being erected
and now there are "no trespassing" signs posted on Lot 14.
Replevin is an action to regain possession of goods detained or illegally possessed
by another. Int'l. Elec. Co. v. N.S.T. Metal Prod. Co., 370 Pa. 213 ( 1952). The shed clearly
belongs to Plaintiffs. It was placed on Lot 14 when the Plaintiffs had an equitable interest
therein under the installment agreement of sale with Defendants. We also find that the shed was
placed on Lot 14 with Defendants' knowledge and without objection. Defendants have retained
possession of the shed belonging to the Plaintiffs by virtue of the fence and "no trespassing"
signs which prevent removal by the Plaintiffs. Notice of approximately twenty days was given
to Plaintiffs prior to erection of the fence which was insufficient time for Plaintiffs to move the
shed. The Plaintiffs are entitled to retrieve their shed and the ramp to the shed. This may be
difficult now that afence has been erected, but we will grant aperiod of time for Plaintiffs to go
onto Lot 14 and retrieve the shed and ramp. Defendants will have to work with Plaintiffs to do
that in the easiest manner that can be accomplished. The money damages sought by Plaintiffs
under the Replevin count are not appropriate in areplevin action and will not be awarded. A
replevin claim allows someone to simply retrieve the item for which they have title. We also
note that Defendants have not provided any cost estimate to remove the shed from Lot 14, and
thus, no recoverable damages anyway.
20
G. Specific Performance —
Plaintiffs seek specific performance of the Agreement to purchase Lot 14.
Specific performance is aproper remedy to convey title to real property for the terms of a
contract where no adequate remedy at law exists and the other party violates the terms of the
contract. Messina v. Silberstein, 528 A.2d 959 (Pa. Super. 1987). In this case, the parties had an
installment Agreement of Sale for Plaintiffs to purchase Lot 14 on or before August 21, 2018.
The Agreement had atime is of the essence clause. It also contained aclause that the Sellers
(Defendants) could retain all sums paid by the Buyers (Plaintiffs) in the event of Plaintiffs'
default. Plaintiffs failed to close on the purchase of Lot 14 on or before August 21, 2018.
Defendants immediately sent anotice of default and terminated the Agreement.
Plaintiffs contend they remain ready, willing and able to purchase Lot 14 for the
agreed upon price of the Agreement. However, they were unable to do so on or before August
21, 2018, the date required in the Agreement. In fact, Plaintiffs admitted they were unable to
close in the time period required and sought asix month extension. This was aunilateral attempt
to extend the Agreement beyond the expiration date for aclosing. Defendants responded they
were unwilling to do so. There was no evidence that Plaintiffs were ready, willing and able to
close on the purchase on or before August 21, 2018, nor that Defendants defaulted under the
Agreement. Therefore, the request for specific performance cannot be granted.
H. Breach of Contract —
Plaintiffs have essentially made two separate claims for breach of contract. The
first is for the costs of repairs the Plaintiffs paid that Defendants had agreed to remediate prior to
21
closing on Lot 15 of $2,032. The other claim is for the monies paid to the Defendants by the
Plaintiffs toward the purchase of Lot 14 which was $2,900 ($500 deposit plus $2,400 paid
through August 18, 2018). For breach of contract, the following must be proven: 1) the
existence of acontract; 2) abreach of duty imposed by the contract; 3) resulting damages.
Corestates Bank, N.A. v. Cutillo, 723 A.2d 1053 (Pa. Super. 1999). The statute of frauds
requires that all contracts pertaining to the purchase of land be in writing. Brotman v. Brotman,
353 Pa. 570, 46 A.2d 175 ( 1946); Manley v. Manley, 238 Pa. Super. 196, 357 A.2d 641 ( 1976).
Here, Plaintiffs had an Agreement of Sale with Defendants to purchase Lot 14.
That Agreement was in writing and had atime is of the essence clause. Plaintiffs made
payments under the Agreement as required. Plaintiffs failed to close on or before August 21,
2018 as required by the Agreement. Defendants were not in default of that Agreement, and
therefore, did not breach acontract. Plaintiffs were unable to close on or before the agreed upon
closing date and Defendants terminated the Agreement. The language of the Agreement called
for the Defendants to keep any monies paid by Plaintiffs. Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot recover
the monies paid to Defendants under atheory of breach of contract regarding Lot 14.
Similarly, Plaintiffs cannot recover under atheory for breach of contract
regarding the monies they paid for repair issues on Lot 15 which Defendants had originally
agreed to address. Based upon the credible testimony of Mr. Galligan, the parties had agreed, at
least verbally, to have the Sellers pay to pump the septic system, install aradon mitigation
system and to shock the well water. A written addendum was prepared for those items, but never
signed by the Defendants. The Defendants ultimately paid for the septic system to be pumped;
22
however, at closing on August 21, 2017, Defendants refused to pay for anything else. 2 Mr.
Galligan ended by paying the cost to shock the well and Plaintiffs paid for the radon system
($1,100).
At closing, the parties chose to close without anything further in writing.
Defendants never signed the written addendum. The Plaintiffs chose to close on Lot 15. The
inspection contingency paragraph of the Agreement of Sale at paragraph 13 required amutually
acceptable written agreement concerning repair issues, and if not obtained, the Plaintiffs could
terminate the agreement or move forward and purchase "as is" with arelease pursuant to
paragraph 28 of the agreement. By choosing to close without awritten agreement on the repair
issues, the Plaintiffs' claims were subject to the "as is" clause and release language of the
Agreement, and cannot be reviewed now.
While we agree with Plaintiffs that they were in an untenable position at closing
over the repair issues, the language of the Agreement controls. Those claims were released. As
Mr. Galligan noted, in his 20+ years of experience it was rare that parties would fail to keep an
oral promise to make repairs. It is particularly curious that Defendants only did so after learning
the Plaintiffs had a "clear to close" from their lender whether or not the repairs were made. That
left the Plaintiffs with no leverage at that point, short of cancelling the whole deal. It is
disappointing when people refuse to honor their word and choose to lessen their integrity, but it
'- Plaintiffs contend there was also an agreement to pay for carpenter bee remediation ($ 75), and that they incurred
additional plumbing expenses related to the well, but we do not find evidence of this in the record. Mr. Galligan
provided credible and convincing testimony of what was ultimately agreed to in the course of negotiations over
inspection items.
23
is not actionable in this context. Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot recover on their breach of contract
claims regarding the repair issues.
Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages and attorney's fees. An award of punitive
damages requires ashowing of willful, malicious conduct, or conduct so careless as to be a
wanton disregard for others, or when adefendant acts with an evil motive. We find that while
the Defendants' behavior in this case was egregious, it was not enough to rise to the level
necessary for an award of punitive damages.
Plaintiffs have submitted aclaim for attorney's fees in the amount of $ 13,165.94.
See Plaintiffs' Exh. 25 and 26. This includes an estimated 6hours at $243.75 per hour
($1,462.50) for trial. The imposition of attorney's fees is appropriate where it is provided for by
.statute, or contained in an agreement of the parties. We find that the clause "actual damages"
under Section 7311 of the RESDL includes the ability to award attorney's fees. 68 Pa. C.S.A.
Section 7311. Although not specified in the RESDL, there is no case law defining "actual
damages," nor guidance regarding attorney's fees under this statute. Therefore, we find no
prohibition to such an award under the RESDL as part of "actual damages." We find that
attorney's fees to bring an action under the RESDL is an "actual damage" and corollary to the
grounds under which the RESDL exists. Absent Defendants' conduct in violating the RESDL
the Plaintiffs would not have incurred attorney's fees to bring this action. We find no other
authority under the other claims brought by Plaintiffs to award attorney's fees, but do so under
the RESDL. We further find that the attorney's fees sought were the reasonable and necessary
amount to bring the RESDL claim and were no more than necessary just because other causes of
action were raised. The issues raised, the discovery taken, the preparation for trial and the trial
24
itself were inseparable from aclaim only under the RESDL versus the other causes of action.
Therefore, we will make an award for most of the attorney's fees sought except for the total time
estimated for trial. The actual time for the trial was about three (3) hours, so we will mold the
Plaintiffs' attorney's fees request to $ 12,434.69. ($ 13,165.94 less $ 731.25 representing three (3)
hours at trial instead of six (6) hours). The amount of attorney's fees was reasonable and set
forth sufficiently in Plaintiffs' Exhibits 25. and 26. This will be added to the other proven
damages.
25
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONROE COUNTY
FORTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
ATTIKIS J. DAVIS and
KELLIE RAE DAVIS, NO. 3649 CIVIL 2019
Plaintiffs
VS.
MICHAEL PANARELLA and
CHRISTINE A. PANARELLA,
Defendants : NON-JURY TRIAL
aRDER
AND NOW, this a 7 11:•
;t d
fay of August, 2021, following anon jury trial in this
matter, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The claim for Quiet Title/Adverse Possession is DENIED.
2. The claim under the Real Estate Sellers Disclosure Law ("RESDL") is
GRANTED and Plaintiffs are awarded $2,900 in payments made for Lot 14, $ 972 for the ramp
constructed to the shed and $ 18,500 as the cost to remove and repair the encroaching areas, all
incurred as aresult of the reliance on the Sellers' Disclosure Statement.
3. The claim for fraud is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are awarded the same damages
as set forth under the claim for violation of the RESDL, without needing to be assessed
separately at this time since they were already awarded in paragraph 2herein.
26
4. The claim for Nuisance is DENIED.
5. The claim for Trespass is DENIED.
6. The claim for Replevin is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall have ninety (90) days
from the date this matter is deemed final to enter Defendants' Lot 14 and retrieve their shed and
ramp in the easiest manner available. Defendants shall cooperate in that regard.
7. The claim for Specific Performance is DENIED.
8. The claims for breach of contract are DENIED.
9. The claim for punitive damages is DENIED.
10. The claim for attorney's fees is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $ 12,434.69
in attorney's fees.
The total amount of monetary damages awarded to Plaintiffs and against
Defendants is $34,806.69.
BY THE COURT:
DAVID J. ' VILL USON, J.
cc: Brett J. Riegel, Esq.
David A. Martino, Esq. i••:
DJW2021-066 Davis vPanarella 3649 CV 2019.docx N C;
J
•h
27