A hypertechnical distinction can rear its ugly head at any given time, even when a litigant has been prudent throughout, successfully navigating the confession of judgment rules for instance.
The Home Savings v. Irongate decision, handed down by the Pennsylvania Superior Court on April 8, is a stark reminder that judgment creditors must strictly adhere to every statutory mandate during the course of judgment enforcement, no matter how technical some of these requirements can be. Mortgagees and mortgagors alike would be remiss not to pay close attention to the analysis applied and the derived outcome in Irongate .
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
