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.

EDMOND J. TESSIER AND REGINA TESSIER v. PETER AND JEAN PIETRANGELO AND CENTRAL EXTERMINATING COMPANY (03/06/87)

filed: March 6, 1987.

EDMOND J. TESSIER AND REGINA TESSIER, APPELLANTS,
v.
PETER AND JEAN PIETRANGELO AND CENTRAL EXTERMINATING COMPANY



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Bucks County at No. 81-04173-05-2.

COUNSEL

Gary R. Block, West Chester, for appellants.

JoAnne W. Rathgeber, Trevose, for appellees.

Wickersham, McEwen and Beck, JJ.

Author: Wickersham

[ 361 Pa. Super. Page 211]

This is an appeal from an order entered on May 15, 1986, by the Honorable Isaac S. Garb, President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, denying appellants' application to reactivate this case which was terminated by local rule. We reverse.

[ 361 Pa. Super. Page 212]

On May 5, 1981, appellants, Edmond J. and Regina Tessier, filed a complaint alleging that appellees concealed termite damage in the home sold to them. Appellees, Peter and Jean Pietrangelo, countered with preliminary objections to the complaint on June 5, 1981. Appellants then filed an answer to the preliminary objections as well as a supporting memorandum.

No further action occurred until September 30, 1983, when a termination notice issued pursuant to Bucks County R.C.P. 900*fn1 was mailed to appellants. Thereafter, on November 7, 1984, the action was terminated by the court due to inactivity. The appellants filed an application to reactivate the matter on August 23, 1985. The lower court denied same citing appellants' failure to explain the period of inactivity before the notice of termination was mailed and the failure to act promptly after the notice was mailed in support of its order. Appellants filed a timely appeal from this order.

On appeal appellants raise the following issues:

A. The trial court erred in refusing to grant buyers [sic] application to reactivate their cause when the buyers promptly filed their application after discovery of the termination and when the sellers failed to present evidence of prejudice.

B. The Honorable Trial Judge erred in failing to grant the buyers the right to oral argument prior ...


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.