Opinion
1039 EDA 2020
06-08-2021
MARVIN H. GOLD AND BEVERLY H. GOLD Appellants v. CATALFANO BROTHERS, LLC AND CHARLES CATALFANO
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 1, 2020 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s): No. 2018-00144
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and COLINS, J. [*]MEMORANDUM
COLINS, J.
Appellants, Marvin H. Gold and Beverly H. Gold, husband and wife, pro se, appeal from the judgment entered June 1, 2020, in favor of Appellees, Charles Catalfano and his company, Catalfano Brothers, LLC. We affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Appellants purport to appeal from the March 3, 2020, order denying their post-trial motion. However, an appeal properly lies from the entry of judgment. Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Construction Corp., 657 A.2d 511, 514 (Pa. Super. 1995). In the current action, judgment was entered on June 1, 2020, after Appellants' notice of appeal was filed. We have amended the caption accordingly.
The facts and procedural history underlying this appeal are as follows. Appellants own a large barn that they converted into a living space. Trial Court Opinion, dated August 12, 2019, at 2 (citing N.T., 10/30/2019, at 10). In the summer of 2017, they noticed that a section of the barn's wall would leak during heavy storms. Id. (citing N.T., 10/30/2019, at 10). Appellants contacted Appellees for an estimate. Id. (citing N.T., 10/30/2019, at 14).
In July 2017, [Appellants] entered into a contract with [Appellees].
The contract was to repair leaks in the roof of [Appellants'] converted barn wherein [Appellants] would pay [Appellees] One Thousand, One Hundred, and Ten Dollars [($1, 110.00)].1
1 Exhibit A to Plfs Complaint.
[Appellants] contracted to do the following:
a. "Remove siding and caulk about 14' of siding
b. Supply & Install flashing around window as needed
c. Supply & Install flashing on roof as needed
d. Supply & Install flashing on roof as needed
e. Supply & Install Tyvek on wall
f. Seal Tyvek to existing wall with Tyvek tape
g. Reinstall j-channel around window
h. Reinstall siding".2
2Id.
At no point did [Appellants] agree or guarantee that any work provided would fix the source of the leak.
Mr. Gold, himself a contractor, was unable to do the work nor inspect the completed work at the time of service, due to a medical condition.
When the medical condition was healed, [Appellants] inspected the work and [were] dissatisfied with the results.
[Appellants] contacted [Appellees] and expressed [their] dissatisfaction with the repairs, and claimed that [Appellees were]
required to repair the source of the leak. The parties were unable to agree as to [Appellees'] continuing obligations and [Appellants] filed this suit.
On July 22, 2019, the case was heard at an Arbitration Hearing. At Arbitration, the Arbitrators found in favor of [Appellees], holding them not liable for any damages.
On August 12, 2019, [Appellants] filed an appeal of the Arbitration decision.
Th[e trial c]ourt held a non-jury trial on October 30, 2019.
Mr. Catalfano visited Appellants' property and discovered a new leak above the roof at the siding and at the J-Molding, where the siding met the window. Trial Court Opinion, dated August 12, 2020, at 5 (citing N.T., 10/30/2019, at 42). Mr. Gold later repaired the leak by locating an area that was missing silicon caulk and caulking it. Id. at 8.
Trial Court Opinion, dated March 3, 2020, at 2-3. At the conclusion of the trial, the court entered an order and opinion in favor of Appellees, finding that they did not breach their contract for repair of the leak in Appellants' barn nor violate the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act ("HICPA") or the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") when Appellees suggested that Appellants replace all of the siding on their barn to repair the leak at issue. Trial Court Opinion, dated August 12, 2020, at 1-2. Appellants filed a post-trial motion, which the trial court denied on March 3, 2020. On April 20, 2020, Appellants filed this timely appeal, presenting the following issues for our review:
73 P.S. §§ 517.1-517.18.
Id. §§ 201-1 to 201.9.3.
Appellants filed their notice of appeal 18 days beyond the allowable 30-day timeframe provided by Pa.R.A.P. 903(a). However, on March 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania declared a general, statewide judicial emergency due to the Coronavirus disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic. See In re: General Statewide Judicial Emergency, 228 A.3d 1281 (Pa. 3/16/20) (per curiam). The Supreme Court suspended "all time calculations for purposes of time computation relevant to court cases or other judicial business, as well as time deadlines." See id. Indeed, the High Court specified thereafter: "Legal papers or pleadings…which are required to be filed between March 19, 2020 and May 8, 2020, generally shall be deemed to have been filed timely if they are filed by the close of business on May 11, 2020. In re: General Statewide Judicial Emergency, 230 A.3d 1015 (Pa. 4/28/20) (per curiam). As the Supreme Court's orders extended Appellants' filing date to May 11, 2020, their notice of appeal, dated April 29, 2020, is timely.
On May 26, 2020, Appellants filed their statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On August 12, 2020, the trial court entered its opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). Judgment was entered on June 1, 2020.
1. In a contract dispute between a homeowner and a home improvement contractor, did the [t]rial [c]ourt reach findings of fact which were manifestly contrary to and inconsistent with both [Appellants'] competent evidence and [Appellees'] competent testimonial admissions?
2. When a professional roofer admitted intentionally not finding the obvious cause of a roof leak and not effecting the appropriate simple repair of that leak and instead proposed an unnecessary $24, 000.00 repair, was the [t]rial [c]ourt's finding that [Appellees] had not violated either [HICPA] or [UTPCPL] so at odds with the evidence and/or so contrary to Appellate Law as to render those findings manifestly erroneous/arbitrary and capricious and/or flagrantly contrary to the evidence and/or an abuse of judicial discretion. See Rissi v[.] Cap[p]ella, 918 A.2d 131 ([Pa. Super.] 2007) (a case involving the Trial Judge in this matter, the Honorable Robert J. Mellon).Appellants' Brief at 3-4 (trial court answers omitted).
However, in a reply brief filed on March 10, 2021, and before this Court during video oral argument held on May 20, 2021, Appellants withdrew their allegations of consumer fraud, in the form of a violation of HICPA and/or UTPCPL. Appellants' remaining issue therefore is whether the trial court erred in its determination that Appellees did not breach their contract for the repair of a leak in Appellants' barn.
Our standard for reviewing non-jury verdicts is as follows:
Our appellate role in cases arising from non-jury trial verdicts 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 judge 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. However, where the issue concerns a question of law, our scope of review is plenary.Ferraro v. Temple University, 185 A.3d 396, 401 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion of the Honorable Robert J. Mellon, we conclude that Appellants' issue merits no relief. We determine that the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence and that the trial court did not err in any application of the law. Ferraro, 185 A.3d at 401. In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of Appellants' question. See Trial Court Opinion, dated August 12, 2020, at 5-6 (finding, inter alia, that Appellees did not break their contract, because the contract set forth siding repair specifications, which Appellees performed, as promised).
Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. The parties are instructed to attach that opinion in any filings referencing this Court's decision.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
[*] Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.