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.

JOSEPHINE HALLO v. ANTHONY D. FLORE (07/18/89)

filed: July 18, 1989.

JOSEPHINE HALLO, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DENO J. BIGI, DECEASED, APPELLEE,
v.
ANTHONY D. FLORE, KENNETH W. BEHREND, ELIZABETH M. BEHREND, HIS WIFE, MARK B. ARONSON, FRANCES E. SLATER, AND ALLEGRO CHIESA TRADING AS BROOKSIDE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MANAGED INVESTMENTS, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, AND HENRY G. CHIESA, A/K/A HENRY L. CHIESA, APPELLEES. (FIVE CASES) APPEAL OF MARK B. ARONSON. APPEAL OF KENNETH W. BEHREND. (TWO CASES) APPEAL OF BROOKSIDE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ANTHONY D. FLORE, ELIZABETH M. BEHREND, AND FRANCES E. SLATER. (TWO CASES)



Appeal from the Order entered June 10, 1988 in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Civil Division, at No. 803 of 1982. Appeal from the Order entered July 7, 1988 in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Civil Division, at No. 803 of 1982.

COUNSEL

Mark B. Aronson, Pittsburgh, for appellant, (at 997).

Kenneth W. Behrend, Pittsburgh, for appellant, (at 1152 & 1168) and for appellee (at 997, 1167 and 1169).

Larry A. Householder, Beaver Falls, for appellant (at 1167 & 1169) and for appellee (at 997, 1152 and 1168).

Robert J. Campbell, Beaver, for appellee (at 997, 1152, 1167, 1168 and 1169).

Wieand, Del Sole and Melinson, JJ.

Author: Del Sole

[ 386 Pa. Super. Page 180]

Presented before this court are five appeals each arising out of an action which sought to recover monies claimed due to an estate. The action was commenced in June of 1982 with the filing of a Complaint in Equity. An amended Complaint was filed in April of 1986 and extensive discovery commenced. On March 31, 1988 various motions for Summary Judgment were filed along with motions requesting the matter be transferred to arbitration. The court's denial of these motions are the subject of the appeals at numbers 997, 1152 and 1167 Pittsburgh 1988. Subsequent to the court's ruling a petition was filed seeking to have the court's order amended to establish that a Substantial Issue of Jurisdiction existed. The appeals numbered 1168 and 1169 Pittsburgh 1988 are taken from the order denying this petition.

APPEAL NUMBERS 1168 AND 1169 PITTSBURGH 1988

In appeal number 1168, Kenneth W. Behrend seeks review from the trial court's order which denied a Petition seeking to have the court amend its earlier order to add that the issues presented before the court raised a substantial question of jurisdiction. A separate appeal from this order was filed by Brookside Limited Partnership, Anthony D. Flore, Elizabeth M. Behrend and Francis E. Slater and given the number 1169. Since the trial court's order denying the requested Petition is not a final order from which an appeal may be taken, the appeals at numbers 1168 and 1169 Pittsburgh 1988 are quashed.

[ 386 Pa. Super. Page 181]

APPEAL NUMBERS 997, 1152 AND 1167 PITTSBURGH 1988

Three separate appeals were also taken by different defendants seeking to challenge the trial court's order denying their motions for summary judgment and requests for transfer of the matter to arbitration. Appellants claim that their interlocutory appeals from the denial of their motions for summary judgment are appealable under that section of 12 P.S. § 672 which was not repealed by Pa.R.C.P. 1451(b)(7) and which provides for the raising of jurisdictional questions. However the Judiciary Repealer Act, Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, No. 53 § 2(a) [1069] declared that 12 P.S. § 672 was to be "repealed absolutely" effective June 27, 1980. 42 P.S. § 20045(b). The right to appeal is now granted from final orders of court and certain interlocutory orders as is specified by law. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5105(a) and (c). The denial of the Summary Judgment motions filed in the trial court is not an interlocutory order from which the right to appeal is granted. See Pa.R.A.P. 311, 42 Pa.C.S.A. And despite the contention made by the ...


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.