Osprey Portfolio, LLC v. Izett
51 A.3d 181, 616 Pa. 545, 2012 WL 3269219, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 1781
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Osprey Portfolio, LLC v. Izett. Read the opinion of the Court — 620 Pa. 274 →
Opinion
ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of August 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:
(1) Whether the trial court erred in holding that [Petitioner’s] conditional and non-negotiable Guaranty, which forms the basis of Osprey’s claims, is an “instrument” under seal (a suit of which is governed by a twenty-year statute of limitations pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5529), rather than a “contract” under seal(a suit of which would be governed by a four-year statute of limitations pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5525)?
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Osprey Portfolio, LLC v. Izett, 51 A.3d 181, 616 Pa. 545, 2012 WL 3269219, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 1781 (Pa. 2012).
51 A.3d 181 (Osprey Portfolio, LLC v. Izett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.