The Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that a contractor can be convicted of home improvement fraud even when the contractor and homeowner never signed a written contract. In Commonwealth v. Sims, decided November 3, 2026, the Court ruled that an oral agreement can satisfy the contract requirement under Pennsylvania’s Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act. The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, seven years of probation with electronic monitoring for the first year, and $13,000 in restitution.
The Facts of Commonwealth v. Sims
In the fall of 2022, the defendant met with two Berks County homeowners about improvements to their pool area, hot tub, gazebo, and retaining wall. Sims visited the property approximately a dozen times and provided a written proposal estimating the project at $25,000. The proposal did not contain original signatures, and the parties did not sign another contract.
The parties expected the initial work to take about two weeks. They planned to finish the pool work in the spring while the homeowners investigated whether the original pool installer would contribute to the repairs. In November 2022, the homeowners paid the defendant $13,000 toward the project.
The defendant and an employee installed a cement slab for the pool filter and started the retaining wall. The defendant did not finish the wall or complete the other promised improvements. The defendant repeatedly scheduled work and then offered explanations for failing to perform it. He blamed problems with his employee and agreed to return at least some of the money, but he never made a refund. He also failed to provide receipts accounting for the advance payment.
By July 2023, the homeowners were still seeking repayment. They eventually contacted the police. After a bench trial, the trial court convicted the defendant of home improvement fraud. the defendant appealed, arguing that the Commonwealth could not prove the offense without a written contract meeting the Act’s requirements.
The Superior Court’s Ruling
The Superior Court rejected that argument. The defendant was convicted under 73 P.S. § 517.8(a)(2), which addresses contractors who accept advance payments and then fail to provide the agreed services or materials when required and fail to return payment for what they did not provide. The statute accounts for circumstances extending the deadline, including certain events beyond the parties’ control, unforeseen labor strikes, and extensions agreed to by the homeowner.
The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant acted with intent to defraud or injure someone, or knew that he was facilitating fraud or injury. A homeowner’s dissatisfaction with a project does not eliminate that requirement.
The defendant relied on a separate provision, Section 517.7(a), which requires a written, signed contract containing specified information before a contractor can enforce a home improvement contract against a homeowner. He argued that the Commonwealth likewise needed a written contract to obtain a criminal conviction.
The Court explained that the legislature included the writing requirement in the provision governing enforcement against homeowners. The legislature did not include the same requirement in the criminal provision. Other parts of the home improvement fraud statute expressly address both written and oral agreements. Reading those provisions together, the Court concluded that the Commonwealth could establish the necessary agreement without a signed document.
The Court also rejected the argument that the rule requiring courts to resolve serious uncertainty in a criminal statute in the defendant’s favor required a different result. Although the term contract could initially refer to either an agreement or a written document, the Court found that the surrounding statutory provisions resolved that ambiguity.
The Commonwealth proved an agreement in this case through the proposal, the payment, the text messages, and the defendant’s decision to begin the work. Those facts supported the trial court’s finding that the parties agreed on the work, price, and timing. The Superior Court also relied on the substantially unfinished project, repeated missed commitments, missing receipts, and unfulfilled refund promise. The defendant’s limited performance did not require an acquittal.
The Takeaway
The defendant makes it harder for a contractor to defeat a home improvement fraud charge solely because the parties never signed a contract. The Commonwealth still must prove the actual agreement, the failure to perform and refund payment as the statute requires, and the defendant’s fraudulent intent or knowledge. Defense counsel should examine the promised work and deadlines, any agreed extensions, the work actually performed, material purchases, payments, and communications about delays or refunds. A contractor may have defenses based on those facts even when the absence of a signature will not resolve the case. Prosecutors must prove the required mental state beyond a reasonable doubt; they cannot obtain a conviction simply by showing that a customer paid for an unfinished job.
Facing Criminal Charges or Appealing a Criminal Case in Pennsylvania? We Can Help.
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder.
We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
