The opinion
J-A06013-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
JOHN R. BLACKBURN III IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
KING INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC
No. 2409 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 28, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County
Civil Division at No(s): No. 2015-01295-CT
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and RANSOM, J.
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JULY 06, 2017
Appellant, John R. Blackburn III,1 appeals from the judgment2 entered
following a June 28, 2016 order, which modified the amount of a judgment
____________________________________________
1
The caption in the notice of appeal listed John R. Blackburn III and
Donanne M. Blackburn as Appellants and King Investment Group, LLC, Peter
Papadopoulos, Hristos Papadopoulos, and Anita Papadopoulos as Appellees.
See Notice of Appeal, 7/27/16. However, only John R. Blackburn III and
King Investment Group, LLC appear to be parties to the instant appeal. See
Appellant’s Brief; Appellee’s Brief; Order, 6/28/16. We have corrected the
caption accordingly.
2
Appellant purports to appeal from the order entered June 28, 2016, which
partially granted Appellant’s post-trial motion by modifying the verdict in
favor of Appellee, King Investment Group, LLC, from $147,735 to $132,935,
while denying the rest of the relief requested in his post-trial motion. See
Notice of Appeal, 7/27/16. “Orders denying post-trial motions, however, are
not appealable. Rather, it is the subsequent judgment that is the appealable
order when a trial has occurred.” Harvey v. Rouse Chamberlin, Ltd., 901
A.2d 523, 524 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted). Here, the June 28,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A06013-17
in favor of Appellee, King Investment Group, LLC, from $147,735 to
$132,935. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in its interpretation
of the contract, improperly precluded expert testimony, and erred in its
calculation of damages recoverable by Appellee. We affirm.
The factual basis of this litigation is largely undisputed. On February
18, 2011, Appellant entered into a written agreement (the “Agreement”) to
convey property located at 19-19½ King Street, Malvern, Chester County, to
Appellee for $625,000.3 The property consisted of two commercial buildings,
one of which contained a pizza shop owned by the members of Appellee.
Following execution of the Agreement, but prior to settlement, the parties
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
2016 order directed that the judgment for $132,935 be entered on the
docket. See Docket Entry #27, 6/28/16.
“[W]here a trial court denied a party’s post-trial motions and unequivocally
enters judgment in the same order, that order is immediately appealable
and an appeal should be filed within thirty days of its entry on the trial court
docket.” Taxin v. Shoemaker, 799 A.2d 859, 860 (Pa. Super. 2002)
(footnote omitted). Thus, this appeal correctly lies from the entry of
judgment, entered by the order, rather than the order itself. However,
despite his error, this Court will address the appeal because judgment has
been entered on the verdict. See Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v.
Edwin L. Wiegand Division, 781 A.2d 1263, 1266 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2001).
We have corrected the caption accordingly.
3
As part of the Agreement, Appellant granted Appellee a $125,000 purchase
money loan pursuant to the terms of a judgment note. In December 2015,
Appellant commenced a separate action, successfully confessing a judgment
of $145,347.12, later modified to $143,347.12, against Appellee for
defaulting on the note. See Trial Court Order, 3/28/16, at docket no. 2015-
11212-JD. Appellee appealed this judgment. However, a panel quashed the
appeal as untimely. See Blackburn v. King Investment Grp., LLC, ___
A.3d ___, 2017 WL 1246700 (Pa. Super., filed April 5, 2017).
-2-
J-A06013-17
completed several written addendums to the Agreement. In relevant parts,
the addendums provided that Appellant would: (1) continue to occupy the
rear commercial premises for $1,000 a month, payable to Appellee, until
December 31, 2011; (2) install two American Disabilities Act compliant
bathrooms; (3) install new heating and air conditioning units on the first and
second floor of the property; (4) replace the plumbing in the addition to the
main building; and (5) replace a broken hot water heater. See Addendum,
2/18/11, at ¶ 43; Third Addendum, 5/9/11, at ¶ 52(A)-(E); Fourth
Addendum, 5/19/11, at ¶ 55(A). All of these renovations were to be
undertaken at Appellant’s sole cost and expense, and with the exception of
the ninety-day period for replacing the hot water heater, were to be
completed within two years of the settlement date. See id. In May 2011, the
parties settled and Appellant conveyed the property to Appellee.
Subsequently, Appellant breached his obligation to pay rent and
complete the agreed to renovations. Thus, in February 2015, Appellee filed a
complaint against Appellant and his wife, Donanne M. Blackburn, asserting
(1) breach of contract of the written agreement of sale; (2) breach of
contract for unpaid rent; (3) fraud; (4) negligent misrepresentation; (5)
violations of Pennsylvania’s Uniform Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq., and (6) unjust enrichment. Upon
Appellant’s preliminary objections filing, the trial court dismissed counts (3)
-3-
J-A06013-17
through (6) against all parties, and counts (1) and (2) against Appellant’s
wife.
On March 17, 2016, the trial court held a non-jury trial on the
remaining breach of contract claims against Appellant. Appellee presented a
fact witness, Jerry O’Connor, to testify in relation to a construction proposal
he completed for the property in 2013. O’Connor, a general contractor,
testified that he estimated the value of the renovations based upon
blueprints submitted to him by Appellee. The proposal included estimates for
the complete demolition of two existing bathrooms, the construction of two
new bathrooms, the installation of an acoustic ceiling grid, two Bryant gas
furnaces and condensers, plumbing, ductwork registers and grills, and seven
day programmable thermostats. O’Connor’s proposal did not differentiate
between the costs of completing each line item, but generally concluded that
the total cost of completion to be $114,935. O’Connor testified this rate
would increase $6,500 in labor costs if the work were performed as of the
date of trial.
Appellee also submitted into evidence invoices from Airtek Heating and
Air Conditioning, Inc., relating to the installation of heating pumps. The
invoices indicated that it would cost $7,500 for installation of two-ton
Goodman GMC Heat pumps with two-ton air handler units and $850 for the
installation of a new Bradford water heater.
-4-
J-A06013-17
Appellant testified on his own behalf. Appellant admitted he failed to
pay rent pursuant the addendum to the Agreement. And he agreed with
Appellee that he owed $18,000 as a result. Further, Appellant admitted that
he breached the Agreement by failing to complete any of the contracted
renovations to the property. However, Appellant contested the scope and
cost of the work O’Connor’s proposal included.
To contest O’Connor’s proposal, Appellant presented his own proposal
estimating the costs of labor and materials for the renovations. Appellant’s
proposal estimated that it would cost $3,200 to renovate the bathrooms,
$14,900 to replace the heating and cooling system, $7,840 to replace the
heating and cooling system on the second floor, and $570 to replace the hot
water heater. Appellant offered no evidence as to the cost to replace the
plumbing in the attached addition. Appellant also intended to present the
testimony of Stephen Tait, a general contractor, to opine as to the
renovations Appellant was obligated to complete under the Agreement.
Ultimately, the trial court precluded Tait’s opinion testimony, following
Appellee’s objection to Appellant’s failure to disclose Tait’s expert status
prior to trial.
Following the conclusion of testimony, the trial court entered a verdict
in favor of Appellee and against Appellant for $139,435—$121,435 for failure
to make the repairs mandated under the Agreement, and $18,000 for unpaid
rent pursuant to the Agreement. In support of its verdict, the trial court
-5-
J-A06013-17
determined that the Agreement was clear and unambiguous, and thus,
reasoned that Appellant’s admitted failure to make the repairs in the
Agreement required him to pay the credible damages as set forth by
O’Connor.
Appellee filed a motion to include pre-judgment interest in the verdict.
Appellant did not respond. The trial court corrected the verdict to $147,785.
Subsequently, Appellant filed a post-trial motion disputing: (1) the trial
court’s grant of Appellee’s post-trial motion; (2) the trial court’s
interpretation of the Agreement; (3) acceptance of Appellee’s witness’s
estimate of total damages; and (4) the trial court’s exclusion of the expert
testimony of Tait. The trial court granted Appellant’s motion in part by
modifying the verdict from $147,785 to $132,935. However, the trial court
denied Appellant’s claims that it erred by accepting Appellee’s damage
estimate or by excluding Tait’s expert testimony. This appeal follows.
We apply the following standard of review to a nonjury trial verdict:
Our appellate role in cases arising from nonjury 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 the 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.
The trial court’s conclusions of law on appeal originating
from a non-jury trial are not binding on an appellate court
-6-
J-A06013-17
because it is the appellate court’s duty to determine if the trial
court correctly applied the law to the facts of the case.
Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC v. Wolf Run Min. Co., 53 A.3d 53,
60-61 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted; brackets
and ellipses in original). Furthermore, the trial court, as the finder of fact, is
free to believe “all, part[,] or none of the evidence presented.” Ruthrauff,
Inc. v. Ravin, Inc., 914 A.2d 880, 888 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation
omitted). “Issues of credibility and conflicts in evidence are for the trial court
to resolve; this Court is not permitted to reexamine the weight and
credibility determinations or substitute our judgment for that of the
factfinder.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In his first issue, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by
determining that the damages caused by his breach of the Agreement
amounted to $139,435. See Appellant’s Brief, at 4. His claim is two-fold.
The first aspect of Appellant’s argument concerns the trial court’s
interpretation of the parties’ Agreement. See id., at 10-26. The second
challenges the trial court’s calculation of damages based upon its allegedly
incorrect interpretation of the contract term and scope of renovations. See
id.
First, Appellant contends that the trial court incorrectly interpreted
paragraph 52 of the third addendum to the Agreement. See Appellant’s
Brief, at 10. Contract interpretation is a question of law; therefore, this
Court is not bound by the trial court’s interpretation. See Kraisinger v.
-7-
J-A06013-17
Kraisinger, 928 A.2d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2007). “In construing a contract,
the intention of the parties is paramount and the court will adopt an
interpretation which under all circumstances ascribes the most reasonable,
probable, and natural conduct of the parties, bearing in mind the objects
manifestly to be accomplished.” Charles D. Stein Revocable Trust v.
General Felt Industries, Inc., 749 A.2d 978, 980 (Pa. Super. 2000).
In determining the intent of the parties to a written
agreement, the court looks to what they have clearly expressed,
for the law does not assume that the language of the contract
was chosen carelessly.
When interpreting agreements containing clear and
unambiguous terms, we need only examine the writing itself to
give effect to the parties’ intent. The language of a contract is
unambiguous if we can determine its meaning without any guide
other than a knowledge of the simple facts on which, from the
nature of the language in general, its meaning depends. When
terms in a contract are not defined, we must construe the words
in accordance with their natural, plain, and ordinary meaning. As
the parties have the right to make their own contract, we will not
modify the plain meaning of the words under the guise of
interpretation or give the language a construction in conflict with
the accepting meaning of the language used.
On the contrary, the terms of a contract are ambiguous if
the terms are reasonably or fairly susceptible of different
constructions and are capable of being understood in more than
one sense. Additionally, we will determine that the language is
ambiguous if the language is obscure in meaning through
indefiniteness of expression or has a double meaning. Where the
language of the contract is ambiguous, the provision is to be
construed against the drafter.
In re Jerome Markowitz Trust, 71 A.3d 289, 301 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(citation omitted).
-8-
J-A06013-17
At issue, is the phrase “renovate and otherwise install” as used in the
provision in the third addendum addressing the renovations to bathrooms
within the property. The provision provides:
(A) [Appellant] and [Appellee] hereby expressly agree that
[Appellant] shall renovate and otherwise install two (2) handicap
bathrooms, both of which are compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act [(“ADA”)] within two (2) years from the
anniversary date of settlement, at [Appellant’s] sole cost and
expense.
Third Addendum, 5/9/11, at ¶ 52(A) (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that the phrase “renovate and otherwise install” in
section paragraph 52(A) of the third addendum to the Agreement was
ambiguous as to whether it required Appellant to demolish and completely
rebuild the bathrooms or to simply bring them into compliance with ADA
standards. See Appellant’s Brief, at 10. Appellant alleges that the addendum
contains an ambiguous term, “renovate,” which should be construed in his
favor. See id. Conversely, the trial court and Appellee contend that the term
“renovate” is clear and unambiguous, and as such, the scope of work to be
completed is clearly defined through the addendums and consistent with the
complete remodel present in O’Connor’s proposal. See Rule 1925(a)
Statement, 9/19/16, at 3-4; Appellee’s Brief, at 12.
Here, we agree with the trial court’s finding that the phrase “renovate
and otherwise install” as used in the third addendum to the Agreement is
clear and unambiguous. Appellees clearly understood the term “renovate” to
connote demolition and complete replacement, as evidenced by the
-9-
J-A06013-17
blueprints relied upon by O’Connor in preparing his estimate. This
understanding is supported by the rest of the provisions in the addendum.
They indicate that the parties intended for Appellant to undertake a major
renovation to the property, rather than just making small repairs. Further,
while Appellant claims that he understood the term “renovate and otherwise
install” to connote altering the bathrooms to bring them into compliance with
the ADA, the trial court found Appellant’s testimony to be incredible. See
Trial Court Opinion, 6/28/16, at 8. As an appellate court, we will not
challenge a trial court’s credibility determinations. Thus, we find no error in
the trial court’s determination that the Agreement language was
unambiguous and required a complete remodel of the bathrooms.
The second aspect of Appellant’s first issue challenges the trial court’s
calculation of damages based upon the alleged incorrect interpretation of the
contract and scope of the work to be completed. See Appellant’s Brief, at
10. As discussed above, we do not find that the trial court incorrectly
interpreted the contract or the scope of work to be completed. Thus, we are
left with Appellant’s challenge to the calculation of damages.
Where one party to a contract without any legal
justification, breached the contract, the other party is entitled to
recover, unless the contract provided otherwise, whatever
damages he suffered, provided (1) that they were such as would
naturally and ordinarily result from the breach, or (2) they were
reasonably foreseeable and within the contemplation of the
parties at the time they made the contract, and (3) they can be
proved with reasonable certainty.
- 10 -
J-A06013-17
Ferrer v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, 825 A.2d 591,
610 (Pa. 2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The purpose of the
damage award is to place the non-breaching party “as nearly as possible in
the same position [it] would have occupied had there been no breach.”
Lambert v. Durallium Products Corp., 72 A.2d 66, 67 (Pa. 1950)
(citations omitted). Further,
[t]he determination of damages is a factual question to be
decided by the fact-finder. The fact-finder must assess the
testimony, by weighing the evidence and determining its
credibility, and by accepting or rejecting the estimates of
damages given by the witnesses.
Although the fact-finder may not render a verdict based on
sheer conjecture or guesswork, it may use a measure of
speculation in estimating damages. The fact-finder may make a
just and reasonable estimate of the damage based on relevant
data, and in such circumstances may act on probable,
inferential, as well as direct and positive proof.
Omicron Systems, Inc. v. Weiner, 860 A.2d 554, 564-565 (Pa. Super.
2004) (citation omitted).
Here, Appellant admits that he did not complete any of the contracted
renovations set forth in the Agreement. See Appellant’s Brief, at 10. To
justify the amount of damages awarded, the trial court outlined the credible
evidence set forth at the hearing and determined that Appellees proved that
they sustained $132,935 in damages. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/28/16, at
7; Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 9/19/16, at 3-6. This amount was supported by the
record, as evidenced by O’Connor’s testimony and written proposal. Thus,
Appellant is essentially challenging the weight the trial court gave to
- 11 -
J-A06013-17
O’Connor’s testimony. As an appellate court, we will not reweigh the
evidence. Therefore, because the damage amount was supported by the
record, we affirm the award of damages.
In his final issue, Appellant contends that the trial court erred by
prohibiting his fact witness, Tait, from testifying as an expert witness. See
Appellant’s Brief, at 8, 27. Appellant contends that Appellee’s failure to
pursue the identification of expert witnesses pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5
through discovery, prior to trial, precludes the trial court’s prohibition of Tait
status as an expert witness. See id., at 30.
“[T]he standard for qualification of an expert witness is a liberal one.
When determining whether a witness is qualified as an expert the court is to
examine whether the witness has any reasonable pretension to specialized
knowledge on the subject under investigation.” Callahan v. Nat’l R.R.
Passenger Corp., 979 A.2d 866, 875-876 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation
omitted). If a trial court determines that a witness may testify as an expert,
he may testify and the weight to be given to such testimony is
for the trier of fact to determine. It is also well established that a
witness may be qualified to render an expert opinion based on
training and experience. Formal education on the subject matter
of the testimony is not required…. It is not a necessary
prerequisite that the expert be possessed of all of the knowledge
in a given field, only that he possess more knowledge than is
otherwise within the ordinary range of training, knowledge,
intelligence or experience.
- 12 -
J-A06013-17
Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, Inc., 664 A.2d 525, 528 (Pa. 1995) (citations
omitted). However, when considering the admission of expert evidence, our
standard of review is very narrow:
The admission or exclusion of evidence, including the
admission of testimony from an expert witness, is within the
sound discretion of the trial court. … [W]e may only reverse
upon a showing that the trial court clearly abused its discretion
or committed an error of law. To constitute reversible error, an
evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful
or prejudicial to the complaining party.
Turney Media Fuel, Inc., v. Toll Bros., Inc., 725 A.2d 836, 839 (Pa.
Super. 1999) (internal citations omitted); see also Pa.R.E. 702 Comment.
Here, the trial court explained its decision to prohibit Tait from
testifying as an expert witness as follows:
At trial, Appellee’s counsel indicated that he had
requested, through discovery, that Appellant produce the
documents intended to be introduced at trial. Because [] Tait did
not prepare an expert report, as is customary, Appellant was
able to avoid identification of [] Tait as an expert. I determined
that this caused Appellee unfair surprise.
Moreover, the decision to preclude [] Tait from testifying
as an expert was also grounded in his qualifications. The
qualification of an expert witness rests within the sound
discretion of the trial judge. [] Tait identified himself as a general
contractor with 42 years of experience. Without the benefit of a
curriculum vitae offered as evidence or any further elaboration
on his experience, this is the extent of [] Tait’s qualifications.
Further it was established that [] Tait’s testimony was based on
a limited review of the relevant contract provisions, [O’]Connor’s
estimate, and the testimony at trial. In my discretion, I
determined that [] Tait was simply not qualified to offer expert
opinions as to the value of the work that was contemplated
under the contract or criticism of [O’]Connor’s estimate.
- 13 -
J-A06013-17
Having determined that [] Tait was not identified prior to
trial, had produced no report or curriculum vitae, and limited
qualifications, I found that the prejudice to Appellee was too
great to allow him to offer any opinions as an expert witness.
Instead, he was permitted to testify as a fact witness on behalf
of Appellant.
Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 9/19/16, at 7-8 (citation omitted).
While Appellant is correct in noting that Appellee did not request the
identification of expert witnesses pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5, this does not
lead to the automatic conclusion that the trial court should have allowed Tait
to testify as a witness. The trial court, as it explained above, found a number
of reasons, including a lack of curriculum vitae, Appellant’s attempt to game
the discovery process, and limited qualifications, to explain why Tait could
not be confirmed as an expert witness. We find no error of law in the trial
court’s reasoning for excluding this witness’s expert testimony. Thus, as we
find no error of law or abuse of discretion, Appellant’s second issue on
appeal is without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/6/2017
- 14 -