T.C. Braxton v. Cyncon, Inc. and H.W. Hines and M.E. Hines

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

T.C. Braxton v. Cyncon, Inc. and H.W. Hines and M.E. Hines

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 4, 2018·No. 2020 C.D. 2016·Published

Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Theolivia C. Braxton, through : her court appointed substitute, : Calvin C. Braxton : : Appellant : : v. : No. 2020 C.D. 2016 : Cyncon, Inc. and Herbert W. : Hines and Mary Ellen Hines :

ORDER AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2018, it is hereby ordered that Appellant’s Application for Reargument is GRANTED to the extent that footnote 5 on page 5 of this Court’s opinion filed on November 13, 2017, is amended to address Appellant’s claim regarding the trial court’s purported error in denying his motion to transfer the matter. The amended footnote reads as follows: 5 This Court may affirm the decision of the trial court on any basis without regard to the basis upon which the trial court relied. Shearer v. Naftzinger, 747 A.2d 859, 861 (Pa. 2000). Moreover, Braxton’s claim that the trial court erred in failing to transfer the matter to orphans’ court does not compel a different result. The only cause of action that Braxton asserted against Cyncon in the amended complaint was in ejectment. R.R. at 101a. The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over that action. Sections 931, 952, 1722 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §§931 952, 1722; Section 712 of the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa. C.S. §712; Bannard v. New York State Natural Gas Corporation, 172 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1961); Green Acres Rehabilitation and Nursing Center v. Sullivan, 113 A.3d 1261, 1268-70 (Pa. Super. 2015).

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

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Theolivia C. Braxton, through : her court appointed substitute, : Calvin C. Braxton : : Appellant : : v. : No. 2020 C.D. 2016 : Cyncon, Inc. and Herbert W. : Hines and Mary Ellen Hines :

ORDER AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2018, it is hereby ordered that Appellant’s Application for Reargument is GRANTED to the extent that footnote 5 on page 5 of this Court’s opinion filed on November 13, 2017, is amended to address Appellant’s claim regarding the trial court’s purported error in denying his motion to transfer the matter. The amended footnote reads as follows: 5 This Court may affirm the decision of the trial court on any basis without regard to the basis upon which the trial court relied. Shearer v. Naftzinger, 747 A.2d 859, 861 (Pa. 2000). Moreover, Braxton’s claim that the trial court erred in failing to transfer the matter to orphans’ court does not compel a different result. The only cause of action that Braxton asserted against Cyncon in the amended complaint was in ejectment. R.R. at 101a. The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over that action. Sections 931, 952, 1722 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. §§931 952, 1722; Section 712 of the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code, 20 Pa. C.S. §712; Bannard v. New York State Natural Gas Corporation, 172 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1961); Green Acres Rehabilitation and Nursing Center v. Sullivan, 113 A.3d 1261, 1268-70 (Pa. Super. 2015).

T.C. Braxton v. Cyncon, Inc. and H.W. Hines and M.E. Hines, (Pa. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

T.C. Braxton v. Cyncon, Inc. and H.W. Hines and M.E. Hines (T.C. Braxton v. Cyncon, Inc. and H.W. Hines and M.E. Hines) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related