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.

KAREN L. MULL v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (08/13/87)

decided: August 13, 1987.

KAREN L. MULL, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency in case of Re: Karen L. Mull, dated November 14, 1985.

COUNSEL

David Abrams, Abrams & Mazer, for petitioner.

Lawana M. Johns, for respondent.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., and Judge Palladino, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.

Author: Palladino

[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 460]

Karen L. Mull (Petitioner) petitions for review of an order of The Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (Agency) which denied Petitioner's application for emergency mortgage assistance under the Pennsylvania Homeowner's Emergency Assistance Act (Act 91).*fn1

In 1968, Petitioner and her husband financed the purchase of a home in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with a mortgage from Landmark Savings Association (Landmark). In August, 1984, Petitioner filed an action in divorce and an action for protection from abuse against her husband, Robert C. Mull. On October 17, 1984, Landmark sent a letter to Petitioner and her husband indicating Landmark's intention to foreclose upon the mortgage. Along with this letter, Landmark also enclosed an "Act 91 Notice."*fn2 Petitioner took no action until she received a Complaint in Mortgage Foreclosure in December, 1984 and in January, 1985 had a face-to-face

[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 461]

    meeting with a credit counseling agency as required by Act 91.*fn3

On February 18, 1985 Petitioner applied to the Agency for emergency mortgage assistance. On April 3, 1985, Petitioner's application was denied because Petitioner was not suffering from financial hardship due to circumstances beyond her control and because Petitioner failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Act 91.*fn4 Petitioner appealed and an administrative

[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 462]

    hearing was held on October 29, 1985 before an Agency Hearing Examiner who affirmed the denial of Petitioner's application. The Hearing Examiner held that Petitioner failed to comply with procedural requirements of Act 91 and that Petitioner had ...


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.