Case Name: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC, Respondent v. James Bernard WICKER and Beryl G. Wicker, Petitioners
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2018-01-17
Citations: 178 A.3d 1289
Docket Number: No. 310 WAL 2017
Parties: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC, Respondent v. James Bernard WICKER and Beryl G. Wicker, Petitioners
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 178
Pages: 1289–1290

Head Matter:
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

Opinion:
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?