Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MAX A. HANKIN AND JANET HANKIN v. MOE HENRY HANKIN (09/09/81)

argued: September 9, 1981.

MAX A. HANKIN AND JANET HANKIN,
v.
MOE HENRY HANKIN, SABINA HANKIN, PERCH P. HANKIN, GERTRUDE HANKIN, BENJAMIN R. SHANKEN AND PAULINE SHANKEN, AND ESTATE OF SAMUEL HANKIN AND HARRIET HANKIN AND PAN AMERICAN ASSOCIATES. APPEAL OF MOE HENRY HANKIN, SABINA HANKIN, PERCH P. HANKIN, GERTRUDE HANKIN, BENJAMIN SHANKEN, AND PAULINE SHANKEN



No. 2131 Philadelphia, 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Action, Equity, of Montgomery County at No. 77-14009.

COUNSEL

Thomas A. Allen, Philadelphia, and Philip D. Weiss, Norristown, for appellants.

Franklin Poul, Philadelphia, for Max Hankin, etc., appellees.

Sheldon Bonovitz, Philadelphia, for Samuel Hankin, appellee.

Theodore R. Mann, Philadelphia, for Harriet Hankin, appellee.

Stephen G. Yusem, Norristown, for Pan American, appellee.

Popovich, Watkins and Van der Voort, JJ. Popovich, J., files a dissenting opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 302 Pa. Super. Page 297]

This controversy is no stranger to this Court. A full recital of the factual basis of the controversy is set forth in Hankin v. Hankin, 279 Pa. Superior Ct. 179, 420 A.2d 1090 (1980) and will not be repeated in this opinion.

The court below originally entered the following Decree Nisi after extensive hearings, findings of fact and conclusions of law:

"AND NOW this 2nd day of April, 1979, in accordance with the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, IT IS HEREBY DECREED that:

1. No receiver shall presently be appointed to dispose of the assets of the 'Hankin Family Partnership'.

2. Management and liquidation of the assets of the 'Hankin Family Partnership' shall continue as heretofore, under supervision of the Court.

3. In accordance with conclusions of law 15 through 18, supra, the Willow Grove Park properties are to be sold to Pan American Associates pursuant to the existing Agreements. Execution of the required documents to effect such conveyances by a majority of the partners shall be valid and sufficient to complete passage of title.

4. The Option Agreement covering the Valley Forge Golf Course property is valid and binding upon the partnership. In the event said option is exercised by Pan American Associates, execution of the required documents to effect a conveyance thereunder by a majority of the partners shall be valid and sufficient to complete passage of title.

5. The Court will review and act upon requests to approve such additional sales of partnership property as shall from time to time be presented for such purpose. If

[ 302 Pa. Super. Page 298]

    necessary, hearings will be scheduled to consider the appropriateness of proposed sales.

6. Moe and Perch Hankin shall continue to arrange the payment of federal and state income taxes for the individual partners, as has been the custom of the partnership in the past.

7. The various motions and preliminary objections filed heretofore, being moot by reason of this Adjudication, are so declared and dismissed.

8. The Court will enter such additional orders as are required to effectuate the continuing liquidation of partnership assets, as such are required, from time to time, after due ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.