Legal Opinion

Hohmann v. Webb

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County

Decided November 17, 2010No. 10899 of 2010Published

1Opinion of the Court

COX, J.,

Before the court for disposition are the preliminary objections filed on behalf of the defendants Robert L. Webb, Jr., and Sharyn Webb, which assert the following arguments:

*540I. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the current case as the plaintiff has failed to provide proper notice as set forth in “Act 6” or, more specifically, 41 P.S. § 403;

II. The plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as the defendants have cured any alleged default prior to receiving the notice of intent to foreclose;

III. The complaint is insufficiently specific…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Skendzel v. MarshallIndiana Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Anderson Contracting Co. v. DaughertySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Bankers Trust Co. v. FoustSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  4. Commonwealth v. EmmettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  5. STILLWATER LAKES CIVIC ASS'N. v. KrawitzCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API