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.

GILBERT LOMBARDO v. CARMELLA DEMARCO (06/05/85)

argued: June 5, 1985.

GILBERT LOMBARDO
v.
CARMELLA DEMARCO, VINCENT DEMARCO, MARIAN F. CARBO, NICHOLAS A. CARBO, JOHN B. CARBO, PAUL J. CARBO, PETER A. CARBO, MARGARET CARBO HALLMAN, JOSEPH URIANI, GEORGE URIANI, ROSE URIANI TROILO, CAROL STAHL, DOROTHY PASCALE, ROSE CARBO, FLORENCE STANSBERY, LOUIS PARENTE, JR., ISABELLA P. CIPOLLINI, JOSEPH PARENTE, MARLENE P. LEPONE, AND LESTER PARENTE. APPEAL OF VINCENT DEMARCO



Appeal from the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Montgomery County, at No. 83-14384.

COUNSEL

Howard R. Golde, Bala Cynwyd, for appellant.

Frank L. Caiola, Norristown, for appellee.

Wickersham, Brosky and Tamilia, JJ.

Author: Wickersham

[ 350 Pa. Super. Page 492]

Vincent DeMarco, one of twenty-one co-owners of three tracts of land in West Norriton Township, Montgomery County, filed this lone appeal from an order directing partition of the tracts.

The real property in question was owned at one time by the parties' common ancestor, Mary DeMarco. After her death in 1960, title to the property passed in equal shares to her seven children: Carmella DeMarco, Vincent DeMarco (appellant herein), Anna Carbo, Mary Uriani, Clara Lombardo, Florence Stansbery, and Rose Parente. Because Rose Parente predeceased her mother, however, Rose's share of the property was divided equally among her six children.*fn1 Since that time, Anna Carbo, Mary Uriani, and Clara Lombardo have also died, each leaving their respective one-seventh

[ 350 Pa. Super. Page 493]

    interest to their children.*fn2 All of the parties own their respective interests as tenants in common.

On September 29, 1983, Gilbert Lombardo, one of Mary DeMarco's grandchildren and owner of an undivided one-twenty-first interest in the real estate, filed a complaint in equity seeking partition of the property. He named as defendants the twenty other relatives upon whom interests in the property had passed. One of those relatives, his uncle Vincent DeMarco, filed preliminary objections to the complaint. The objections were overruled and various pleadings followed. On June 22, 1984, the lower court issued a rule upon Mr. DeMarco to show cause why a decree in partition should not be granted after a hearing on July 25, 1984. That hearing culminated in an order on October 15, 1984, directing partition and specifying the shares going to each of the twenty-one parties.*fn3 This order

[ 350 Pa. Super. Page 494]

    was reduced to judgment on November 9, 1984, whereupon Mr. DeMarco filed this timely appeal.*fn4 None of the other parties have appealed.

Appellant raises seven issues before us:

1. Did the lower court insure [appellant] an adequate opportunity for discovery?

2. Should the lower court have granted [appellant] a full trial in this case?

3. Should the lower court have permitted cross-examination of a witness regarding matters relating to a title search?

4. Did the plaintiff have an absolute right to partition in this case?

5. Was the order directing partition an unnecessary infringement upon the property rights of [appellant]?

6. Did the plaintiff come before the lower court with ...


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.