MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE, INC., D/B/A AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE, INC., D/B/A AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. v. KENNETH L. RALICH AND KAREN R. RALICH Appellants No. 1328 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 163 Atlantic: 982 A.2d 77 Petition for Reargument Denied 10/27/2009 Filed: 8/25/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered August 8, 2008 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No. GD06-031037
Before: DONOHUE, CLELAND and KELLY, JJ.
Opinion by: CLELAND, J.
Appellants, Kenneth and Karen Ralich (the Ralichs), appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granting the Motion to Strike the Ralichs’ Petition to Set Aside Sheriff’s Sale and Motion to Dismiss Foreclosure Proceedings. Because the Ralichs’ Petition was not timely filed pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 3132 and 3135(a), and its untimeliness was not excused by an exception, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TIMOTHY HOPFER

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TIMOTHY HOPFER No. 3427 EDA 2007 2009 PA Super 16 Atlantic: 965 A.2d 270 Filed: 1/28/2009
	Appeal from the PCRA Order entered November 8, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal No. CP-15-CR-0001417-2006
Before: ORIE MELVIN, KLEIN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: FITZGERALD, J.
Appellant, Timothy Hopfer, files this pro se appeal from the order of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, dismissing as untimely his first petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). The PCRA court found all of his claims waived because his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was untimely filed. Appellant has also filed a motion to amend and supplement statement of matters complained of on appeal. We hold that when an appellant timely files for an enlargement or extension of time within which to file his Rule 1925(b) statement, the trial court must explain why it finds that good cause was not shown before it may deny the request. We further hold that this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Bond, 630 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Super. 1993), does not apply when the PCRA court grants counsel’s request to withdraw representation and dismisses the PCRA petition less than twenty days before the petitioner receives counsel’s official request for withdrawal. Accordingly, we vacate the PCRA court’s order and deny as moot Appellant’s motion to amend and supplement statement.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here