Workingmen's Sav. Loan v. Kestner

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Hart

    246 B.R. 709 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2000)   Cited 47 times
    Holding Fannie Mae vicariously liable for unfair trade practices that violated Chapter 93A

    W.D. Pa. 1997); In re Stober 193 B.R. 5 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1996); In re Doud. 30 B.R. 731, 733-734 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1983);Workingmen's Savings and Loan Association of Dellwood Corp. v. Kestner 438 Pa. Super. 186, 652 A.2d 327 (1994). According to the principle of noscitur a sociis, the word "continuation," as used in ยง 362(a)(1), must be read in conjunction with other words that surround it, such as "commencement."

  2. In re Roche

    228 B.R. 102 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 1998)   Cited 7 times
    Concluding no damages were assessable for the creditor's willful violation of the stay because there "considerable amount of `persuasive legal authority'" and thatUniversity Medical Center found an exception "where a creditor's actions are consistent with `contemporaneous interpretations of Section 362'"

    As to whether the postponement of a sale in accordance with state law procedure during the pendency of the automatic stay is a violation of the automatic stay, every court that has studied this specific issue (and not been reversed) has found no violation. Workingmen's Savings and Loan Association of Dellwood Corp. v. Kestner, 438 Pa. Super. 186, 652 A.2d 327 (1994); In re Peters, 101 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1996); In re Roach, 660 F.2d 1316, 1319 (9th Cir. 1981); In re Fritz, 225 B.R. 218 (E.D.Wash. 1997); Zeoli v. RIHTMortgage Corp., 148 B.R. 698 (D.N.H. 1993); In re Tome, 113 B.R. 626, 630-632 (Bkrtcy. C.D.Cal. 1990); In re Barnes, 119 B.R. 552, 556 (S.D.Ohio 1989); In re Taylor 207 B.R. 995, 999 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. 1997); In re Stober, 193 B.R. 5 (Bankr.D.Ariz. 1996); In re Doud, 30 B.R. 731, 733-734 (Bankr.W.D.Wash.

  3. Citizens Bank v. Myrthil

    J-A21026-19 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 22, 2019)

    In fact, all of the cases cited by Appellant simply state that a motion to set aside a sheriff's sale must be filed before the deed is recorded. See Concord Liberty Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. NTC Properties, 312 A.2d 4 (Pa. 1973); Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys. v. Ralich, 982 A.2d 77 (Pa. Super. 2009); Workingmen's Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Dellwood Corp. v. Kestner, 652 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super. 1994). Herein, Myrthil complied with both Rule 3132 and 3135. Indeed, Myrthil filed a timely motion to set aside the sheriff's sale on November 20, 2017. Myrthil's Motion to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale, 11/20/17, at 1-4. The sheriff's deed was not recorded until January 8, 2018. Appellant's Brief at 6. Accordingly, Appellant's reliance on the above-mentioned case law is erroneous.

  4. RBS Citizens, N.A. v. Unknown

    J-S95018-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. May. 23, 2017)

    As the trial court properly concluded, Rule 3183 was inapplicable here because RBS Citizens sought relief from a judgment entered in its favor and the sheriff's sale had already occurred. Trial Ct. Op., 7/27/16, at 4 (citing Workingmen's Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Dellwood Corp. v. Kestner, 652 A.2d 327, 328 (Pa.Super. 1994) ("The proper procedure to contest a sheriff's sale is by petition, before delivery of the sheriff's deed, under Pa.R.C.P. 3132.")); see also 15 West's Pa. Prac., Mortgages (3d ed.) ยง 5.4 ("[Pa.R.C.P.] 3181(h), incorporating Rule 3132 . . ., provides the sole grounds for relief after the sale has been made."). Rule 3132 governs petitions to set aside a sheriff's sale:

  5. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Kawah

    No. J-S40044-16 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jul. 22, 2016)

    After delivery of a sheriff's deed to a purchaser, the only attacks possible on the sheriff's sale are those based on fraud[,] which vitiates the transaction[,] or a lack of authority to make the sale." Workingmen's Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Dellwood Corp. v. Kestner, 652 A.2d 327, 328 (Pa. Super. 1994) (internal citations omitted). "Averments of fraud or mistake shall be averred with particularity.

  6. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems v. Ralich

    2009 Pa. Super. 163 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009)   Cited 39 times
    Finding petition challenging sheriff's sale was untimely when filed three months after sale occurred

    A sheriff's sale may be set aside after delivery of the sheriff's deed based on fraud or lack of authority to make the sale. See Knox v. Noggle, 328 Pa. 302, 196 A. 18 (1938); Workingmen's Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Dellwood Corp. v. Kestner, 438 Pa. Super. 186, 652 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super. 1994). In their Petition, the Ralichs assert various procedural irregularities plagued the sale.