## Facts

- A murder-suicide occurred inside the home in February 2006 and was widely publicized.
- The Jaconos later bought the property from the estate, renovated it, and listed it for sale.
- Before selling, the Jaconos consulted counsel and real-estate industry sources about whether the event had to be disclosed under Pennsylvania’s Real Estate Seller Disclosure Law (RESDL); they were advised it was not a “material defect.”
- The Jaconos completed the statutory seller disclosure form, which focused on physical/property conditions and did not ask about deaths or crimes; they did not disclose the murder-suicide.
- Milliken purchased the home, later learned of the murder-suicide, and alleged she would not have bought the house (or would have paid less) had she known, claiming stigma-based diminution in value and emotional distress.
- Milliken sued the sellers and multiple brokers/agents for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and deceptive conduct under the UTPCPL based on nondisclosure.

## Issues

1. Whether a murder-suicide inside a home is a “material defect” requiring disclosure under RESDL.
2. Whether nondisclosure of such an event can support liability for common-law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or deceptive conduct under the UTPCPL absent an affirmative misstatement.
3. Whether Pennsylvania common law imposes a duty to disclose non-physical, stigma-based information about past events at a property.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- The court held a murder-suicide is not an actionable “material defect” of the property.
- Because there was no duty to disclose the event, nondisclosure could not support Milliken’s fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or UTPCPL claims.

## Legal Principles

- RESDL’s disclosure duty is directed to defects tied to the property’s physical condition, systems, or title, not reputational or psychological stigmas.
- A past crime or tragedy that does not alter the property’s structure, utility, or title is not a “material defect” requiring disclosure under RESDL.
- Common-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation require an affirmative misrepresentation or a duty to speak; silence is not actionable without an independent obligation to disclose.
- The UTPCPL catch-all provision does not make nondisclosure “deceptive” where no statutory or common-law duty to disclose exists.
- Any expansion of disclosure duties to include psychologically stigmatizing events is a legislative policy decision.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Pennsylvania law does not require residential sellers or their agents to disclose a prior murder-suicide as a material defect, and that mere nondisclosure of such a stigmatizing event—without a specific duty to speak—does not establish fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or UTPCPL liability.


Milliken v. Jacono, 103 A.3d 806 (Pa. 2014)