Case ID: a3d_178/html/1289-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC, Respondent v. James Bernard WICKER and Beryl G. Wicker, Petitioners
    No. 310 WAL 2017
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    January 17, 2018
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2018, the Petition for-Allowance of Appeal is .GRANTED, 'LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Did the Superior Court err in affirming the decision of the trial court which found the [Respondent’s] witness competent to testify and received evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule?
(2) As to the contested evidence received by the Court, will a grant of allocatur, here, resolve the conflict between both U.S. Bank v. Pauten-is; Boyle v. Steiman and Commonwealth Financial Systems v. Smith as to the admissibility of witness testimony at a debt collection trial?