Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pines v. Farrell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 28, 2004No. 48 EAP 2003Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION

Justice EAKIN.

Although I agree with my colleagues’ conclusion that § 3502(a) of the Judicial Code authorizes the Court Administrator to promulgate a regulation interpreting the term “property transfer,” I believe the regulation’s characterization of mortgages,1 mortgage assignments, releases, and satisfactions, as “property transfers” for purposes of 42 Pa.C.S. § 3733(a.l)(l)(v) is not in accord with the law. Thus, I offer my dissent.

There is ample authority that in Pennsylvania, although a mortgage involves a conveyance, such a conveyance functions as a lien. “A mortgage,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Beaver County Building & Loan Ass'n v. WinowichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  2. Harper v. Consolidated Rubber Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  3. Tryon v. MunsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
  4. Day v. OstergardSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  5. Salter v. ReedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851

8 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