Cabbagestalk v. Wendover Financial Services, Inc. (In re Cabbagestalk)

272 B.R. 859
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 31, 2002
DocketBankruptcy No. 99-26025-JKF; Adversary No. 00-2540-JKF
StatusPublished

This text of 272 B.R. 859 (Cabbagestalk v. Wendover Financial Services, Inc. (In re Cabbagestalk)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cabbagestalk v. Wendover Financial Services, Inc. (In re Cabbagestalk), 272 B.R. 859 (Pa. 2002).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

JUDITH K. FITZGERALD, Chief Judge.

The matter before the court is Debtor’s motion for reconsideration of our order entered December 4, 2001, in connection with a Memorandum Opinion of the same date. The December 4th order stated only that the motion to dismiss the complaint filed on behalf of defendant Liberty Furnace was denied and that the Debtor’s claim against Liberty Furnace was not barred by the statute of limitations under the Pennsylvania Home Improvement Finance Act.2 The “wherefore” clause of the motion for reconsideration asks that we “find that the Debtor be allowed to proceed with the above-listed causes of action against” Liberty Furnace. Docket No. 46. Those causes of action are stated to be the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), the Home Improvement Finance Act, fraud, and negligence. Our December 4th Memorandum Opinion and Order dealt with the Home Improvement Finance Act and we do not revisit that issue here. The brief filed in support of the motion states that Debtor filed the instant motion for reconsideration “as to Debtor’s causes of action against Liberty Furnace Corp., Inc. and the statute of limitations applicable for each.” Id. at Docket No. 50. Debtor then proceeds to state that the statute of limitations for breach of contract actions is four years pursuant to 13 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 2725 and six years under the UTPCPL, 73 P.S. § 201-2(4). Section 2725(a) of title 13 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes states that the statute of limitations on a contract for sale is four years.

Section 201-2 of title 73 is a definitional section and does not state a statute of limitations. The six year statute of limitations of 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 5527 applies to causes of action under the UTPCPL. See Gabriel v. O’Hara, 368 Pa.Super. 383, 534 A.2d 488, 496 (1987).

Any civil action or proceeding which is neither subject to another limitation specified in this subchapter nor excluded from the application of a period of limitation by section 5531 (relating to no limitation) must be commenced within six years.

42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 5527. Nonetheless, we agree that the time period of the statutes of limitations for breach of contract and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law are as Debtor states.3

[861]*861Whether or not Debtor can prove her claims is a not a matter that can be decided on the pleadings or by way of a motion for reconsideration. Debtor will have to prove at trial the elements of each of her causes of action.

An appropriate order will be entered.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2002, it is ORDERED that Debtor’s Motion for Reconsideration concerning the statutes of limitations for breach of contract and under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law is granted insofar as the former is four years and the latter is six years.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gabriel v. O'HARA
534 A.2d 488 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 B.R. 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabbagestalk-v-wendover-financial-services-inc-in-re-cabbagestalk-pawb-2002.