Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Coleman v. Coleman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 14, 1995Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWieand, Judge

I agree with the majority that the summary judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff-appellees must be reversed. Instead of entering judgment for the appellant, however, I would remand for further proceedings.

The applicable principles of law were stated by the Supreme Court in Masgai v. Masgai, 460 Pa. 453, 333 A.2d 861 (1975), as follows:

One who by acceptance of a deed assumes and agrees to pay a mortgage to which the property is subject becomes liable both to his grantor and also to the mortgagee as a third party beneficiary. See Steinert v. Galasso, 363 Pa. 393, 69 A.2d 841 (1949). If…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. MECO REALTY CO. v. BurnsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  2. May's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  3. Masgai v. MasgaiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Dobkin v. LandsbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  5. Fair Oaks Building & Loan Ass'n v. KahlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

7 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