• In re: Appeal of Dogwood Drive, L.P.

    Publication Date: 2022-09-05
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Real Estate | State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge Finely
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0930

    While the COVID-19 pandemic presented some extraordinary circumstances, appellant was granted extra time to file a notice of appeal by emergency order and its failure to file within that extended period was due to its own misinterpretation of the order and decision to wait, not an administrative breakdown or other extraordinary circumstance. The court recommended affirmance.

  • Cao v. US Bank Nat'l Ass'n

    Publication Date: 2022-08-29
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge Fritsch
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0925

    Court denied petition to re-argue a foreclosure action where plaintiffs failed to show that notice was defective. The court held that the matter was barred under the doctrine of res judicata since plaintiffs' had already litigated the matter in bankruptcy proceedings in both Pennsylvania and New York.

  • In re Y.A.P.

    Publication Date: 2022-08-29
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge Gilman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0932

    Court denied appeal in termination of parental rights matter holding that the state's agency showed by clear and convincing evidence that termination of rights was proper under §2511(a) and adoption was ultimately in the best interest of the minor, as expressed through the agency and the minor's attorney.

  • In re: Estate of Romano

    Publication Date: 2022-08-29
    Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge Fritsch
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0931

    Court requested that the Orphans' Court order denying a petition to remove an estate's administrator be affirmed. Specifically, the court emphasized the fact that the court is granted the discretion with reviewing an administrator's capacity, and in this instant matter, although the administrator had Parkinson's Disease, his condition did not further limit his cognitive or physical abilities.

  • Breen v. Breen

    Publication Date: 2022-08-29
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge McMaster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0924

    Court affirmed previous order awarding alimony and 529 funds to an ex-wife, finding that the wife was the primary caregiver of the children, and the ex-husband's ability to significantly provide for himself weighed in the favor of wife receiving alimony for a period of four years while she continued to care for the children and look for employment.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings and Related Torts in Pennsylvania, Second Edition

    Authors: George Bochetto, David P. Heim, John A. O’Connell, Robert S. Tintner

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Hanbicki v. Leader

    Publication Date: 2022-08-15
    Practice Area: Landlord Tenant Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge Mellon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0843

    Court affirmed trial court's ruling holding plaintiff landlord in contempt for refusal to allow defendant tenant the ability to retrieve personal belongings, in violation of a court order.

  • Bucks County Water & Sewer Auth. v. Ridge

    Publication Date: 2022-08-15
    Practice Area: Public Utilities
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge Mellon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0841

    The Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority was entitled to relief on its motion for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense as it had the power to provide services within Bensalem Township and the right, under §7107 of the Municipal Claims Act, to file liens for non-payment of services. The court recommended affirmance.

  • PB Warminster Plaza, LLC v. Roth

    Publication Date: 2022-08-08
    Practice Area: Attorney Compensation
    Industry: Legal Services | Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge McMaster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0847

    Even if plaintiff did not waive the issue of attorney fees by failing to appeal an underlying order and failing to comply with Pa.R.App.P. 1925, the company could not avoid a specific contract provision calling for reasonable fees of five percent of the total due under a lease that plaintiff relied on to confess judgment. The court recommended that plaintiff's appeal be quashed.

  • DiGregorio v. Bristol Twp. Police Benevolent Ass'n

    Publication Date: 2022-07-04
    Practice Area: Labor Law
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge Trauger
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0670

    Plaintiff, a township police officer, could not avoid the collective bargaining agreement requirement that he first exhaust all administrative remedies given that his allegations of collusion and conspiracy between his employer and union were founded on baseless and unsubstantiated accusations. The court of common pleas recommended affirmance.

  • Collins v. Collins

    Publication Date: 2022-07-04
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Bucks County
    Judge: Judge McMaster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-0669

    Court denied mother's appeal from a trial court decision allowing paternal relatives to have contact with her daughter arguing that this constituted a visitation order which was not in the best interests of her daughter. The court clarified that their order allowing the contact with the paternal relatives was only a contact order arising from father's paternal rights and therefore no separate "visitation order" was issued.