The Pennsylvania Superior Court annulled a Luzerne County jury’s guilty verdict against a Scranton-based contractor who was convicted of failing to return funds to a Wilkes-Barre Township homeowner during a contractual dispute for home repairs and renovations.
James J. Owens, 58, proprietor of James J. Owens Construction, was charged by Wilkes-Barre Township police in June 2022, when he failed to complete repairs and renovations to a woman’s home on Saratoga Court, according to court records.
The homeowner and Owens entered a written contract in September 2018, when Owens was paid nearly $38,000. The work called for repairs caused by a broken sewage pipe, new kitchen cabinets, new windows and roof, a remodel laundry room, and the construction of a sun room, court records say.
As Owens performed interior work, court records say, he discovered more damage to the structure of the home that was not initially listed in the contract, including jacking the house to replace water damage load-bearing walls. Also, an electrical box needed to be relocated to make way for the sun room, which delayed the project for several years.
The woman and her two children were out of their home for nearly three years as multiple attempts failed to reclaim funds from Owens.
Following a trial before Judge David W. Lupas in April 2024, a jury convicted Owens on three counts of failure to make required deposits, theft by deception and theft by unlawful taking, but rendered not guilty verdicts on felony counts of deceptive business practices, received advance payment for services and false statements to induce agreement for home improvement services.
Owens was subsequently sentenced to four months house arrest and 18 months probation and ordered to pay the homeowner $37,986 in restitution.
After being sentenced, Owens’ attorney, Todd M. Mosser, of Philadelphia, appealed to the Superior Court claiming evidence to support the theft convictions were insufficient.
A three-member panel of the Superior Court agreed in vacating Owens’ theft convictions in a 24-page opinion.
According to the appellate court’s opinion, the contract entered by the homeowner and Owens gave Owens authority over how to spend the funds given to him while Owens did indeed perform work at the house but discovered more damage than what the contract specified. In regards to deceiving the woman in failing to return funds, the appellate court found the homeowner and Owens had multiple communications as Owens did not attempt to avoid the homeowner about unfinished work.
“Owens completed some of the interior work and the record establishes that unexpected complications arose during that work,” the appellate court opined, noting the homeowner and Owens had a difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of their contract.