Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pivirotto v. City of Pittsburgh

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 22, 1987No. 71 W.D. Appeal Docket, 1986Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHutchinson, Justice

I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree with the majority that appellee was entitled to notice prior to demolition of the premises he purchased at the tax sale. I believe, however, that this right to notice is based on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than equitable conversion. Under Pennsylvania law, equitable title cannot transfer while the original owner still has a right of redemption. The analysis of equitable conversion is unnecessary to the result and may change or confuse the doctrine of equitable conversion as it exists in this Commonwealth.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Mennonite Board of Missions v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Laudenberger v. Port Auth. of AlleghenySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Craig v. Magee Memorial Rehabilitation CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Tracy v. County of Chester, Tax Claim BureauSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API