Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

B.O. v. C.O

404 Pa. Super. 127 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
B.O. v. C.O

25 Citing cases

  1. Huff v. Nationwide Ins. Co.

    167 B.R. 53 (W.D. Pa. 1992)   Cited 13 times

    The elements of fraud under Pennsylvania law are: (1) a misrepresentation; (2) fraudulent utterance thereof; (3) an intention by the maker that the recipient will thereby be induced to act; (4) justifiable reliance by the recipient upon the misrepresentation; and (5) damage to the recipient as a result. Briggs v. Erie Ins. Group, 406 Pa. Super. 560, 566, 594 A.2d 761, 764 (1991); B.O. v. C.O., 404 Pa. Super. 127, 131, 590 A.2d 313, 315 (1991); Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A., 318 Pa. Super. 90, 108, 464 A.2d 1243 (1983); Mellon Bank v. First Union Real Estate, 951 F.2d 1399, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991). At trial, the trustee argued that Berringer never assigned his right to security compensation to the Credit Union. The trustee contended that Allegar's letter of September 10, 1982 and Parson's letter of October 19, 1982 contained actionable misrepresentations of existing facts.

  2. R.W.E. v. A.B.K

    2008 Pa. Super. 253 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)   Cited 21 times
    Stating trial court has no jurisdiction to proceed from time appeal is taken until this Court remands record to trial court

    23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(g)(2). ¶ 16 In B.O. v. CO., 404 Pa.Super. 127, 590 A.2d 313 (1991), this Court stated that "when an allegation of fraud is injected in [an acknowledgment of paternity] case, the whole tone and tenor of the matter changes. It opens the door to overturning settled issues and policies of the law." B.O., 590 A.2d at 315.

  3. Gurfein v. Sovereign Group

    826 F. Supp. 890 (E.D. Pa. 1993)   Cited 37 times
    Finding significance in a plaintiff's ability to furnish documents showing fraudulent activity

    In stating a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, as compared to negligent misrepresentation, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the misrepresentation was made knowingly or recklessly by defendants. See, e.g. Brindle v. West Allegheny Hospital, 406 Pa. Super. 572, 594 A.2d 766, 768 (1991) (interpreting "fraudulent utterance" element as referring to defendant's scienter) (citing B.O. v. C.O., 404 Pa. Super. 127, 590 A.2d 313 (1991)).

  4. S.B. v. H.D.

    No. 1110 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2016)

    With regard to a fraud allegation in a paternity case, our Court noted the following: In B.O. v. C.O., 404 Pa. Super. 127, 590 A.2d 313 (1991), this Court stated that "when an allegation of fraud is injected in [an acknowledgement of paternity] case, the whole tone and tenor of the matter changes. It opens the door to overturning settled issues and policies of the law.

  5. Ellison v. Lopez

    2008 Pa. Super. 242 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008)   Cited 11 times
    Setting forth the elements of fraud

    ¶ 10 However, the doctrine of paternity by estoppel will not be applied where fraud has been established. See Gebler, 895 A.2d at 4; B.O.v. CO., 404 Pa.Super. 127, 590 A2d 313, 315 (1991). Even where the father-child relationship has been established, as is the case here, evidence of fraud may preclude application of the doctrine of paternity by estoppel.

  6. Gebler v. Gatti

    2006 Pa. Super. 19 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006)   Cited 15 times
    Finding fraud by omission when the mother did not inform the alleged father that there was a possibility that he was not the father

    (N.T., 1/11/05 at p. 12, 21). See B.O. v. C.O., 404 Pa.Super. 127, 590 A.2d 313, 315 (1991) ("When an allegation of fraud is injected in a case, the whole tone and tenor of the matter changes. It opens the door to overturning settled issues and policies of the law.").

  7. Sekol v. Delsantro

    2000 Pa. Super. 351 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000)   Cited 14 times

    Id. at 575-576. See also, B.O. v. C.O., 590 A.2d 313, 315 (Pa.Super. 1991) ("When an allegation of fraud is injected in a case, the whole tone and tenor of the matter changes. It opens the door to overturning settled issues and policies of the law."). The test for fraud is: (1) a misrepresentation, (2) a fraudulent utterance, (3) an intention by the maker that the recipient will thereby by induced to act, (4) justifiable reliance by the recipient upon the misrepresentation, and (5) damage to the recipient as a proximate result.

  8. Garman v. Garman

    435 Pa. Super. 590 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994)   Cited 4 times

    We have held that where the failure to challenge paternity was precipitated by fraud, a putative father will be permitted to question his status under certain circumstances. B.O. v.C.O., 404 Pa. Super. 127, 590 A.2d 313 (1991). In B.O. v. C.O., the fraud was the representation by mother that C.O. was the father of a child born to this unmarried couple.

  9. DeCoatsworth v. Jones

    414 Pa. Super. 589 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992)   Cited 10 times
    In DeCoatsworth v. Jones, 414 Pa. Super. 589, 607 A.2d 1094 (1992), allocatur granted, ___ Pa. ___, 619 A.2d 700 (1993), the Superior Court held that both tenants by the entireties were indispensable parties to a claim for fraud in a transaction which allegedly deprived an estranged husband of his interest in real estate owned by husband and wife as tenants by the entireties.

    At trial, appellant had the burden of proving appellee committed fraud or intent to defraud by clear, precise and convincing evidence. B.O. v. C.O., 404 Pa. Super. 127, 131, 590 A.2d 313, 315 (1991). The elements of fraud are: (1) a misrepresentation, (2) a fraudulent utterance thereof, (3) an intention by the maker that the recipient will thereby be induced to act, (4) justifiable reliance by the recipient upon the misrepresentation, and (5) damage to the recipient as the proximate result.

  10. Briggs v. Erie Ins. Group

    406 Pa. Super. 560 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)   Cited 21 times
    In Briggs, the plaintiffs were the executors of the estates of two women who died as a result of an automobile collision.

    We have recently clarified the second element of the test to refer to the intent or scienter required for an utterance to be considered fraudulent, which intent has been characterized as knowing or reckless. B.O. v. C.O., 404 Pa. Super. 127, 132, fn. 1, 590 A.2d 313, 315 fn. 1 (1991). The allegations contained in Appellants' complaint satisfy each of these elements.