• Khalil v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am.

    Publication Date: 2022-05-09
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Insurance | Legal Services | Real Estate
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0515

    Trial court properly entered summary judgment as to all appellees on the basis of res judicata in dispute over water damage to a condominium unit and a settlement agreement in that action because appellant could have raised fraud on prior occasions and her failure to use those opportunities precluded her from alleging fraud in this case. Affirmed.

  • Trinidad v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Transp.

    Publication Date: 2022-04-18
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Jubelirer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0422

    Trial court erred in dismissing Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's motion for possession because the order was an appealable, collateral order, DOT established its right of possession by paying the condemnees the estimated just compensation and the federal residential eviction halt was inapplicable to commercial property. Reversed.

  • Turns v. Dauphin County

    Publication Date: 2022-04-04
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Cannon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0359

    Trial court properly found appellant was entitled to the original purchase price and real estate taxes paid on a property sold at a tax sale in 1973 because the sale was void ab initio since the property did not actually exist and properly denied appellant's claims for compound interest or attorney fees. Affirmed.

  • Yost v. Murphy

    Publication Date: 2022-04-04
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge Trauger
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0300

    The evidence demonstrated the existence of an express grant of a right-of-way and/or driveway easement allowing plaintiff access over defendant's property and notice of that easement, which was specifically identified in a seller's disclosure statement provided to defendant. The court granted plaintiff relief.

  • Bank of America, N.A. v. Scott

    Publication Date: 2022-03-22
    Practice Area: Attorney Rates and Arrangements | Real Estate
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Automotive
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Nichols
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0302

    Plaintiff correctly argued that when a reverse mortgage is due because of a mortgagor's death, the mortgagor's heirs are not necessarily entitled to notice of and the right to exercise the option to purchase the mortgaged property for 95 percent of its appraised value; however, defendants demonstrated that plaintiff failed to comply with relevant federal regulations governing reverse mortgages. The superior court affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Connecticut Appellate Practice & Procedure, 8th Edition

    Authors: HON. ELIOT D. PRESCOTT, JULIE A. LAVOIE

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Calisto v. Rodgers

    Publication Date: 2022-03-14
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Kunselman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0284

    Deeds were not invalid under statute of frauds where they were signed by sole executor and beneficiary of estate in the name of the decedent, meaning the deeds were signed by the party transferring ownership of the real estate. Judgment of the trial court affirmed.

  • Turner v. Estate of Baird

    Publication Date: 2022-02-21
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0185

    Trial court erred in ruling on appellees' action for ejectment, quiet title, trespass and injunctive relief in dispute over a piece of un-deeded property between the parties' properties because the abandoned roadway was never vacated, borough was an indispensable party and trial court lacked jurisdiction. Order vacated.

  • Zayo Group, LLC v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.

    Publication Date: 2022-02-14
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom | Transportation
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
    Judge: District Judge Conner
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0154

    Plaintiff moved to remand its condemnation action seeking an aerial license to string fiber optic wire on telephone poles along defendant's railroad tracks and court found the Interstate Commerce Clause Termination Act did not preempt the commonwealth's eminent domain code and the amount in controversy was not enough to support diversity jurisdiction. Motion granted.

  • Palmer v. Palena

    Publication Date: 2022-01-24
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Tunnell County
    Judge: Judge Tunnell
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0028

    The court held that plaintiff did not establish a clear right to relief to support a preliminary injunction because he did not demonstrate an element of his adverse possession claim that there was a hostile act between the parties in relation to title to a piece of real estate. Motion denied.

  • Hensel v. Hutchinson

    Publication Date: 2022-01-24
    Practice Area: Real Estate
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Fayette County
    Judge: Judge Wagner
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0026

    Plaintiff's complaint failed to sufficiently allege either a claim under the Private Road Act or a claim of easement by estoppel where the pleading did not include averments establishing necessity or public benefit from the opening of a road, and did not allege notice regarding the purported easement. The court sustained defendant's preliminary objections.