Legal Opinion
Pantuso Motors, Inc. v. Corestates Bank
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided June 19, 2002No. 675 MDA 1999 and 683 MDA 1999PublishedCited by 53 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice SAYLOR.
The question presented is whether a two, four or six year statute of limitations attaches to claims for damages resulting from a judgment creditor’s failure to mark a judgment satis fíed of record after it has been paid in full and an appropriate request for satisfaction has been made.
In 1990, CoreStates Bank (“CoreStates”) 1 extended to Pantuso Motors, Inc. (“Pantuso”), a revolving credit line secured by mortgages, a promissory note, and financing statements. 2 In July of 1994, CoreStates confessed judgment against Pantuso in the amount of $471,716.71. Two months later,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Commonwealth v. RootSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
- Masland v. BachmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. White Cross Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Geisinger Clinic v. Di CuccioSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Commonwealth v. Musser Forests, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. FerrettiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Mishoe v. Erie InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Joyner v. Sibley Memorial HospitalDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2003
- Gustine Uniontown Associates, Ltd. v. Anthony Crane Rental, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- A. G. Cullen Construction, Inc. v. State System of Higher EducationCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.