Lancaster, PA  2008:   East Lampeter Township Supervisors reject the formal Petition of local farmers, who were represented by James S. Tupitza,  to create an Agricultural Security District as a means of preserving their farms against encroaching development. The case will be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County.
July 2008 Lancaster, PA  The Court of Common Pleas reverses decision of the East Lampeter Board of Supervisors.  Most lawyers never get the chance to handle a case that will have an impact that will last for years.  Tupitza & Associates recently received a landmark decision in an Agricultural Security case.  This case challenged a Lancaster County Township which refused to create an Ag Security district.  Property must be in such a district in order for the owner to sell a perpetual  restriction against development to the county.  This decision will impact Lancaster County and perhaps the entire state and will result in more farmland being preserved forever. The Supervisors are expected to appeal.
June 2009  Harrisburg, PA     Commonwealth Court upholds decision of Lancaster County Court. Landmark victory for agriculture preservation.  In a case argued before the Commonwealth Court by James Tupitza, and briefed by Mr. Tupitza and Jennifer H. Janis, Esq., the Commonwealth Court has just entered an Opinion in favor of farming and farm preservation.  Mr. Tupitza stated that this is indeed one of the most important cases in many years.  Two hundred years from now, no one will remember who won a boundary dispute or who forced a builder to correct deficiencies.  You will however be able to see preserved farms in Lancaster Cournty and across the state that were able to be preserved because of this decision.  Recent excerpts from the news  underline the importance of sourcing food locally.  See the full opinion of the lower and appellate courts at www.cvc-lancaster.org
December, 2009  Harrisburg, PA:    Local Company wins in The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.   In a case  addressing  residential construction issues, the Supreme Court let stand the decisions of the Superior Court and the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas in a dispute between a high end home builder and  a prominent local trial lawyer.  The builder was building a new home on the lawyer's lot.    The builder, represented by James Tupitza of Tupitza & Associates, was contracted to build a luxury home, complete with multiple kitchens, ball room and theatre in Radnor.  The Court ruled that the property owners materially breached the construction contract when they terminated the construction contract with no notice to the builder and no right to cure alleged defects. The case points out the need, even for a trial lawyer, to consult with a competent real estate lawyer when legal issues arise in building a home.
Philadelphia  November 2010  Toxic Home Trial -- Six Figure Verdict for Homehowners.
Jim and Chrissie Brown thought  they were buying a dream home from national builder Pulte.  The home, in suburban Phoenixville, turned out to be contaminated with a toxic chemical at a potentially lethal level.  Following a bifurcated trial spread over 6 months, the Browns were awarded a six figure verdict, including damages to the home, medical damages and non-economic damages (pain, suffering, humiliation etc.).  The case originally started in Chester County Court, but was moved to private arbitration at the request of Pulte, based on an arbitration clause in the agreement of sale.  Following the arbitration award, the matter has been moved to Federal Court in Philadelphia, where Pulte has submitted a proposed order to the Court, seeking dismissal of the case. James Tupitza of West Chester represented the Browns
April 12, 2011  West Chester, PA  DEFENSE VERDICT IN CONSTRUCTION CASE

A Common Pleas Court Jury today returned a unanamous verdict for local builder Robin Nellius, in the case of Doll v.  Nellius.

The case was brought by the Plaintiff against Nellius claiming damages for Breach of Contract and a violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (the "UTPCPL").  Plaintiff Doll contracted with Nellius to purchase a factory built home for delivery to Doll's Chester County lot.  The contract contained a mortgage contingency provision allowing Doll to get out if he could not obtain a committment for financing in the amount of $183,900.

In the Unfair Trade Practices case, Doll claimed he was defauded because the builder did not tell him he would still have to make payments on his land acquisition mortgage after purchacing the home and because the builder did not warn him that his real estate taxes would go up if he put a new home on his lot.  West Chester attorney, James S. Tupitza, representing Defendant Robin Nellius, made a Motion for Directed Verdict during the trial arguing these claims were ridiculous  and the Court dismissed all claims of fraud and violation of the UTPCPL.

The Plaintiff then claimed he should get damages because he did not have a commitment for a loan of $183,900 within 90 days of the contract.  Attorney Tupitza pointed out that Mr. Doll never applied for a loan in this amount.  He applied for a loan of $257,000 and was given a commitment for $235,000 which he claimed did not satisfy the requirement of a commitment for $183,900.00.  Although the commitment was not obtained within the 90 day contingency period, the responsibility for the delay was placed on Doll since he waited 21 days before applying, never applied for the correct amount and added his girlfriend and then withdrew her from the application.

This was the second successful defense verdict in this dispute.  After losing at arbitration, Doll appealed and demanded a jury trial.