Legal Opinion
Holzapfel v. Mahony
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided October 14, 1987No. 942PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WIEAND, Judge:
The procedural nightmare in this appeal came about because of a failure to distinguish between proceedings to open a judgment and a petition for a deficiency judgment. We shall attempt to place the matter in its proper procedural posture. Only then does the need for additional proceedings become clear.
John D. Mahony and his wife, now deceased, purchased a tract of real estate, with twenty rental units erected thereon, from Jack Holzapfel on June 1, 1981. As part of the consideration, Mahony executed in favor of Holzapfel a mortgage in the amount of $139,000.00 and a judgment…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Philadelphia Bond & Mortgage Co v. Highland Crest Homes, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
- Plympton Cabinet Co. v. RosenbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Lyman Felheim Co. v. WalkerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
3Cited by5 opinions
- Joe J. Jordan James E. Mitchell Jordan Mitchell, Inc. v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, Joe J. Jordan James E. Mitchell Jordan Mitchell, Inc., on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Arnold T. Berman Myron J. Berman John J. Petit, Jr., Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Joe J. Jordan James E. Mitchell Jordan Mitchell, Inc., at No. 92-1424, Arnold T. Berman and Myron J. Berman, at No. 92-1456Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & FrankelCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Wilk v. KocharaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Schluth, W. v. Krishavtar, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
- Schluth, W. v. Krishavtar, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023