Appeal from the Order Entered October 29, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD- 11-23786
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
Appellant, Evelyn Vitanovich, appeals from the orders entered October 29, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which granted the preliminary objections of Appellees, John and Patricia Grubb and Coldwell Banker Real Estate Services, Inc. (collectively, "Appellees"), to Vitanovich's Second Amended Complaint. After review, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
This case centers upon a residential home purchase. The facts alleged in Vitanovich's Second Amended Complaint filed August 10, 2012, are as follows. On December 29, 2010, Appellees John and Patricia Grubb sold their hom e located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Vitanovich. Prior to entering into an agreement of sale, the Grubbs provided Vitanovich with a Seller Disclosure Statement, completed October 12, 2010, which stated that the only areas of the house that were not air conditioned or heated were the master bedroom and the garage. In reliance upon the Seller Disclosure Statement, Vitanovich signed the Agreement of Sale on November 15, 2010.
Thereafter, on December 15, 2010, Vitanovich, through her son, Michael Vitanovich, met with the Grubbs and their real estate agent, Jackie Gerkey of Coldwell Banker. In that meeting the Grubbs and Jackie Gerkey reiterated that the cooling and heating systems did not extend to the master bedroom and the garage. When Vitanovich moved into the house, however, she discovered that the heating system did not heat the kitchen and family room, and the cooling system did not cool the entire second floor of the house. Vitanovich estimated the cost to heat the kitchen and family room and to cool the second floor to be $12, 541.00.
On November 17, 2011, Vitanovich filed a Civil Complaint alleging m isrepresentation and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, 73 Pa.Stat. § 201-1 et seq. An Amended Complaint was filed on March 9, 2012, and a Second Am ended Complaint followed on August 10, 2012. Appellees filed Preliminary Objections to Vitanovich's Second Amended Complaint on August 20, 2012, alleging that the Complaint failed to state a cause of action. On October 29, 2012, the trial court granted Appellees' Preliminary Objections and dismissed Vitanovich's Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. This timely appeal followed.
On appeal, Vitanovich raises the following issues for our review:
I. Whether the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint states a cause of action against the sellers for m isrepresentation?
II. Whether the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint states a cause of action against the agent for m isrepresentation?
Appellant's Brief at 2.
Our standard when reviewing a trial court's decision to sustain preliminary objections in the nature ...