Harper J Dimmerman

October 06, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

An August 2017 decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Zajick v. The Cutler Group, (2017 Pa. Super 285), illustrates the pitfalls of pursuing consumer protection relief against a new home builder.

By Harper J. Dimmerman and James M. Lammendola

5 minute read

July 06, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

A three-judge Pennsylvania Superior Court panel, in the nonprecedential decision of Streiner v. Baker Residential of Pennsylvania, No. 1253 EDA 2015, filed June 9, recently affirmed a Chester County trial court judge's ­decision to award summary judgment to a home builder, holding that the homeowner's sales agreement for the newly constructed house disclaimed any implied warranty for ­ merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, reasonable workmanship or ­habitability and found that the disclaimer did not render the sales agreement unconscionable.

By Harper J. Dimmerman 
and James M. Lammendola

11 minute read

April 05, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

In the Feb. 19 decision Oliver v. Ball (No. 1602 WDA 2014), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reaffirmed the vitality of specific performance as an equitable remedy for a seller's breach of a real estate sales contract. This decision comes only three months after the court, on a remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, exercised its discretion and granted specific performance in Snyder v. Thomas, No. 407 WDA 2013, PICS Case No. 13-2873 (C.P. Lawrence Oct. 7, 2013), in spite of unproven allegations concerning the sellers' impairment and attorney conflict of interest. In Oliver, the court set forth a cogent overview of the law, citing 10 Pennsylvania appellate decisions, distinguishing three others, as well as favorably citing four opinions from other jurisdictions. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in not granting specific performance because the remedy at law was adequate.

By James M. Lammendola 
and Harper J. Dimmerman

14 minute read

January 05, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Snyder v. Thomas is unique in that it entails the manner in which an attorney's involvement on only one side of a real estate transaction, however straightforward, can impact a specific performance analysis.

By Harper J. Dimmerman 
and James M. Lammendola

5 minute read

January 04, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Snyder v. Thomas is unique in that it entails the manner in which an attorney's involvement on only one side of a real estate transaction, however straightforward, can impact a specific performance analysis.

By Harper J. Dimmerman 
and James M. Lammendola

5 minute read

October 06, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

A recent state Superior Court decision underscores the sanctity of contracts and interprets the Pennsylvania Code escrow provisions as they relate to real estate brokers. This case, Ramalingam v. Keller Williams Realty Group (No. 2185 EDA 2014, filed July 20, 2015), is labeled as nonprecedential. Nevertheless, the court's application of the law, especially in the context of an appeal from a bench trial, is highly instructive.

By Harper J. Dimmerman and James M. Lammendola

7 minute read

July 07, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

The prolonged legal wrangling over Kardon Park, a 50-acre area of parkland that occupies parts of Downingtown Borough and East Caln Township in Chester County, continues with a Commonwealth Court decision April 29.

By James M. Lammendola and Harper J. Dimmerman

7 minute read

July 06, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

The prolonged legal wrangling over Kardon Park, a 50-acre area of parkland that occupies parts of Downingtown Borough and East Caln Township in Chester County, continues with a Commonwealth Court decision April 29.

By James M. Lammendola and Harper J. Dimmerman

7 minute read

April 07, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) should give landlords pause before withholding security deposits. In Hansen v. Bupp, No. 673 WDA 2014 (non-precedential), a state Superior Court decision handed down Feb. 24 affirmed a significant award against a landlord. The litigation stemmed from a dispute over the withholding of a security deposit and rent in the context of a residential lease to college students in Allegheny County.

By James M. Lammendola and Harper J. Dimmerman

6 minute read

April 06, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) should give landlords pause before withholding security deposits. In Hansen v. Bupp, No. 673 WDA 2014 (non-precedential), a state Superior Court decision handed down Feb. 24 affirmed a significant award against a landlord. The litigation stemmed from a dispute over the withholding of a security deposit and rent in the context of a residential lease to college students in Allegheny County.

By James M. Lammendola and Harper J. Dimmerman

6 minute read