Court Opinion

ID: 9756530
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:35:11.335433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:25.030649
License: Public Domain

*175Justice SAYLOR,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the majority that the Superior Court articulated the correct legal standard, which follows naturally from Raker v. G.C. Murphy Co., 358 Pa. 339, 58 A.2d 18 (1948), and appropriately balances the need for access to the courts with a tenant’s right to undisturbed possession. See Majority Opinion at 174, 912 A.2d at 251. For the reasons articulated by the Superior Court, however, I would additionally conclude that Kohl did not act in bad faith. See Kohl v. PNC Bank Nat’l Assoc., 863 A.2d 23, 32-33 (Pa.Super.2004). Accordingly, I would affirm the order of the Superior Court. 1 therefore respectfully dissent from the portion of the majority opinion remanding the case to the trial court for further proceedings.