Bayview Loan Servicing LLC v. Wicker

Jan 17, 2018
310 WAL 2017 (Granted)
Versions:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the remaining issue. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

  1. Where a Court of Common Pleas grants a petition by issuing an immediately effective injunction, is that order immediately appealable of right under Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(4)?
  2. Is an order of the Court of Common Pleas that enjoined a school district from collecting a portion of its 2016 taxes a “final order” as to which [Petitioner] must file post-trial motions before taking an appeal, even though other and different claims in the case remain unaddressed?
  3. May a Court of Common Pleas convert a preliminary injunction hearing into a permanent injunction hearing without the consent of the parties?

The Applications for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae are GRANTED.

Justice Todd did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

  1. Did the Superior Court err in affirming the decision of the trial court which found the [Respondent‘s] witness competent to testify and received evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule?
  2. As to the contested evidence received by the Court, will a grant of allocatur, here, resolve the conflict between both U.S. Bank v. Pautenis; Boyle v. Steiman and Commonwealth Financial Systems v. Smith as to the admissibility of witness testimony at a debt collection trial?

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2018, the appeal is DISMISSED as having been improvidently granted.

Justice Dougherty files a concurring statement.

Justices Donohue and Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

JUSTICE DOUGHERTY, Concurring

I agree with the decision to dismiss the Commonwealth‘s appeal as improvidently granted. As today‘s order leaves standing the Superior Court‘s ruling which dismissed serious homicide and related charges, I find it prudent to explain my reasons for joining the per curiam order.

The Commonwealth presented the following two issues in its petition for allowance of appeal to this Court: