# Stephan v. Waldron Electric Heating & Cooling LLC

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · September 19, 2014 · 2014 Pa. Super. 205

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803872

## Case

- **Full name:** Thorsten STEPHAN, Appellee v. WALDRON ELECTRIC HEATING AND COOLING LLC, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 19, 2014
- **Citations:** 2014 Pa. Super. 205; 100 A.3d 660; 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2914; 2014 WL 4656415
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Musmanno
- **Judges:** Donohue, Allen, Musmanno
- **Cited by:** 119 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803872

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the trial judge’s findings of fact are given the same weight as the verdict of a jury
- noting that we are bound by the trial court’s factual findings

## Opinion text

DISSENTING OPINION BY
MUSMANNO, J.:
Because the record supports the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings, I dissent.
Thorsten Stephan (“Stephan”) filed the instant action against Waldron Electric Heating and Cooling, LLC (“Waldron”), alleging “extreme overcharging by [Wal-dron] for a minor home repair.” Com *670 plaint, 5/21/12, at 1. The magistrate, a panel of arbitrators, and the trial court sitting as fact-finder all agreed with Stephan and found in his favor. The trial court, in fact, specifically found Stephan to be credible, and Waldron to be not credible. Trial Court Memorandum, 11/19/13, at 1 (unnumbered).
In its Opinion, the Majority rejects the trial court’s determination, observing that “the trial court did not cite trial testimony, exhibits or any specific basis for its credibility determinations.” Majority Opinion at 667. However, as this Court has recognized, “[credibility determinations and consideration of conflicts in the evidence are within the purview of the trial court and such evidence should not be reweighed on appeal.” John B. Conomos, Inc. v. Sun Co., 831 A.2d 696, 703 (Pa.Super.2003). “We do not disturb findings of fact simply because this Court would have reached a different conclusion, but rather determine whether there is competent evidence in the record that a judicial mind could reasonably have determined to support the finding.” Id.
The competent evidence of record reflects that, for the 15-minute replacement of a burnt wire in an electrical outlet, Waldron charged Stephan $402 for the diagnosis, $721 for the repair, and an administrative fee of $251. The trial court credited Stephan’s testimony, and found that “[Waldron’s] conduct was deceptive, unreasonable, and unjust.” Trial Court Memorandum, 11/19/13, at 1 (unnumbered). Because Stephan’s testimony supports the trial court’s finding, and the amount charged for a 15-minute repair is outrageous, I would affirm the judgment entered by the trial court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9803872. Public record. Not legal advice.