Milliken v. Jacono
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
103 A.3d 806 (2014)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Joseph and Kathleen Jacono (defendants) purchased a house in which a highly publicized murder-suicide had occurred a few months earlier. The Jaconos consulted with various parties—their attorney, their agents at Re/Max Town & Country (defendant), and employees of the Pennsylvania Real Estate Commission—all of which told the Jaconos that the murder-suicide did not constitute a material defect necessitating disclosure. The Jaconos invested in renovating the property and put it up for sale, omitting mention of the murder-suicide in their property-disclosure statement. Janet Milliken (plaintiff) purchased the home and claimed to have learned of the murder-suicide only after moving in. Milliken brought an action to rescind the purchase, arguing that the Jaconos had failed to disclose a material defect. More specifically, Milliken alleged negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Jaconos. Milliken appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Eakin, J.)
Concurrence (Todd, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.