Legal Opinion

Kelly v. Hannan

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 16, 1989No. 1808PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POPOVICH, Judge:

This is an appeal from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County granting the appellees’ preliminary objections. On appeal, the appellant, Marion D. Kelly (Kelly Building Company) hereafter “Kelly”, con*640tends: (1) improved property remains subject to a mechanics’ lien if the lease which purports to exempt the improved realty is patently fraudulent; and (2) the theory of estoppel validates a mechanics’ lien filing where the parties to the construction contract are represented to be the owners of the improved realty. We reverse.

Briefly, the facts, as stated…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Pugh v. HolmesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. Friestad v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  3. Schrader v. HeathSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
  4. Pugh v. HolmesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Legman v. Scranton School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kress Brothers v. Williams, P.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  2. Linde Corp. v. Black Bear Property L.P., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lycoming County2014
  3. Lobar Associates, Inc. v. O'Neill, E.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API