Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Beneficial Consumer Discount Company D/B/A Beneficial Mortgage Company v. Pamela A. Vukman

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT


October 16, 2012

BENEFICIAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY D/B/A BENEFICIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PETITIONER
v.
PAMELA A. VUKMAN, RESPONDENT

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

Per curiam.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and the Petition to Supplement are GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Does a lender's use of the Uniform Act 91 Notice divest a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction and require setting aside a completed Sheriff's Sale, vacating a consent judgment, and dismissing a foreclosure action where any claimed defect in the notice implicates only jurisdiction based on a procedural matter, the lender had no discretion in the form of notice it used, the notice was prescribed by the PHFA consistent with express statutory authorization, and the record shows that the borrower-in-default suffered no prejudice from the lender's use of the Uniform Act 91 Notice, received all the protections contemplated by Act 91, and waived any claim of a procedural defect concerning Act 91?

Additionally, the parties are directed to brief the following issue:

Whether the recently-enacted Homeowner Assistance Settlement Act, 35 P.S. § 1681.1 et seq., affects our disposition. See Greenough v. Greenough, 11 Pa. 489 (1849). See also Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 734 A.2d 840, 843-844 (Pa. 1999).

20121016

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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