Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Graziani v. Randolph

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 9, 2005Published

1Concurrence

CONCURRING OPINION BY

KLEIN, J.:

¶ 1 Because I believe that certain issues raised in the prior incarnation of this appeal remain unclear and because such issues may arise in other actions, I write separately. The issues are the confusion over whether certain actions taken during the bankruptcy are void or voidable and the need for specific proof of intent to ratify those actions.

Actions taken against a debtor during the pendency of bankruptcy are void.

¶ 2 Many courts, including our own, are uncertain as to whether actions taken against a debtor during the pendency of a bankruptcy are void or…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. In Re: Russell Schwartz Linda Schwartz, Debtors. Russell Schwartz Linda Schwartz v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
  2. Robert A. Sikes and Janice K. Sikes v. Global Marine, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
  3. Raymark Industries, Inc., Debtor-Appellant v. George Q. LaiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
  4. Forest City Grant Liberty Associates v. Genro II, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Pankas v. BellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964

1 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