Appellees motion in Pennsylvania

2022See Menkowitz, 211 A.3d at 804; Karden, 219 A.3d at 627. - 18 - J-A21026-21 This Court has stated that “federal law does not mandate that a mortgagee comply with the regulations and [HUD] Handbook provisions prior to foreclosing on an FHA-insured mortgage[,]” but it has held that “a mortgagor of an FHA-insured mortgage may raise as an equitable defense to foreclosure, the mortgagee’s deviation from compliance with the forbearance provisions of the HUD Handbook and regulations.” Smith, 530 A.2d at 922- 23; accord Bank of New York Mellon for Certificate Holders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan T

2022See Menkowitz, 211 A.3d at 804 ; Karden, 219 A.3d at 627 . - 18 - J-A21026-21 This Court has stated that “federal law does not mandate that a mortgagee comply with the regulations and [HUD] Handbook provisions prior to foreclosing on an FHA-insured mortgage[,]” but it has held that “a mortgagor of an FHA-insured mortgage may raise as an equitable defense to foreclosure, the mortgagee’s deviation from compliance with the forbearance provisions of the HUD Handbook and regulations.” Smith, 530 A.2d at 922 - 23; accord Bank of New York Mellon for Certificate Holders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loa

2022See Menkowitz, 211 A.3d at 804; Karden, 219 A.3d at 627. - 18 - J-A21026-21 This Court has stated that “federal law does not mandate that a mortgagee comply with the regulations and [HUD] Handbook provisions prior to foreclosing on an FHA-insured mortgage[,]” but it has held that “a mortgagor of an FHA-insured mortgage may raise as an equitable defense to foreclosure, the mortgagee’s deviation from compliance with the forbearance provisions of the HUD Handbook and regulations.” Smith, 530 A.2d at 922- 23; accord Bank of New York Mellon for Certificate Holders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan T

2022See Menkowitz, 211 A.3d at 804 ; Karden, 219 A.3d at 627 . - 18 - J-A21026-21 This Court has stated that “federal law does not mandate that a mortgagee comply with the regulations and [HUD] Handbook provisions prior to foreclosing on an FHA-insured mortgage[,]” but it has held that “a mortgagor of an FHA-insured mortgage may raise as an equitable defense to foreclosure, the mortgagee’s deviation from compliance with the forbearance provisions of the HUD Handbook and regulations.” Smith, 530 A.2d at 922 - 23; accord Bank of New York Mellon for Certificate Holders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loa

2020Id., 869 A.2d at 1044 (determining whether information sought in discovery order was relevant, an issue that is not “separable from and collateral to the main cause of action”).

2020Id., 869 A.2d at 1044 (determining whether information sought in discovery order was relevant, an issue that is not “separable from and collateral to the main cause of action”).

2020See Parr v. Ford Motor Co., 109 A.3d 682, 690 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate court reviews trial court’s grant or denial of motion in limine for abuse of discretion). 13 As for Appellant’s argument concerning the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, our review of the record reveals Appellant did not raise such a claim in her complaint or at any time before the trial court.

2017See Parr, 109 A.3d at 690 .

2019See Toro, 150 A.3d at 977-978 ; cf. Rodriguez, 111 A.3d at 1193 ; Thakrar, 75 Pa. D&C 4th at 442-43.

2019(Appellees' brief at 14-24.) In any negligence cause of action, a plaintiff is required to establish the following by a preponderance of the evidence: "(1) a duty or obligation recognized by law; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages." Toro v. Fitness Intl LLC, 150 A.3d 968, 976-977 (Pa.Super. 2016), quoting Estate of Swift by Swift v. Northeastern Hosp., 690 A.2d 719, 722 (Pa.Super. 1997), appeal denied, 701 A.2d 577 (Pa. 1997).

2022See Menkowitz, 211 A.3d at 804; Karden, 219 A.3d at 627. - 18 - J-A21026-21 This Court has stated that “federal law does not mandate that a mortgagee comply with the regulations and [HUD] Handbook provisions prior to foreclosing on an FHA-insured mortgage[,]” but it has held that “a mortgagor of an FHA-insured mortgage may raise as an equitable defense to foreclosure, the mortgagee’s deviation from compliance with the forbearance provisions of the HUD Handbook and regulations.” Smith, 530 A.2d at 922- 23; accord Bank of New York Mellon for Certificate Holders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan T

2022See Menkowitz, 211 A.3d at 804 ; Karden, 219 A.3d at 627 . - 18 - J-A21026-21 This Court has stated that “federal law does not mandate that a mortgagee comply with the regulations and [HUD] Handbook provisions prior to foreclosing on an FHA-insured mortgage[,]” but it has held that “a mortgagor of an FHA-insured mortgage may raise as an equitable defense to foreclosure, the mortgagee’s deviation from compliance with the forbearance provisions of the HUD Handbook and regulations.” Smith, 530 A.2d at 922 - 23; accord Bank of New York Mellon for Certificate Holders of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loa

2002As we may not consider issues that have not been properly preserved, Arthur v. Kuchar, 546 Pa. 12 , 682 A.2d 1250, 1255 (1996), our first task is to determine what issues, if any, have been properly preserved for our review.

2002As we may not consider issues that have not been properly preserved, Arthur v. Kuchar, 546 Pa. 12 , 682 A.2d 1250, 1255 (1996), our first task is to determine what issues, if any, have been properly preserved for our review.

2026Moon v. Dauphin Cnty., 129 A.3d 16, 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 6 The Borough first contends that the trial court erroneously held that the determination of whether the paved Pathway within the Park is a local agency street and, thus, whether Appellees’ claim consequently falls within the Streets Exception, is a question of fact for a jury.

2026See Appellants’ Answer at 3, citing Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 300 A.3d 430 (Pa. Super. 2023) (en banc), allocatur granted, 325 A.3d 446 (Pa. 2024).

2025It did not, in any way, abrogate the crashworthiness doctrine.10 Instead, it clarified the method by which a plaintiff may go about proving the first element of the crashworthiness doctrine, i.e., “the design of the vehicle was defective.” Colville, 809 A.2d at 922 (emphasis added). 11 Simply put, Tincher did not involve a crashworthiness case and Appellees’ claim to the contrary is specious, at best. ____________________________________________ 10 The crashworthiness doctrine is hardly mentioned in Tincher.

2025See Youndt, supra; ____________________________________________ 12 See Agreement at ¶ 12 (stating that the property is being purchased “solely in reliance of” an inspection performed by Appellees or their agent and that “there are no representations or warranties except as herein set forth”); id. at ¶ 16 (“This Agreement constitutes the entire contract between the parties hereto and there are no other understandings, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof.”). 13 We agree with the parties that the trial court erred in finding that parol evidence of Appellant’s misrepresentations

2025Importantly, this Court has previously explained that, when considering a petition to open a judgment, “matters dehors the record filed by the party in whose favor the warrant is given, i.e., testimony, depositions, admissions, and other evidence, may be considered by the court.” Id., citing Resolution Trust Corp. v. Copley Qu- Wayne Associates, 683 A.2d 269, 273 (Pa. 1996). - 16 - J-S30007-25 In its 1925(a) opinion, the trial court set forth its rationale for granting Appellees’ motion for reconsideration and, ultimately, for vacating its August 12, 2024 order and denying the petition to open

2025We note, however, that under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505, a “trial court has broad discretion to modify or rescind an order, and this power may be exercised sua sponte.” Haines v. Jones, 830 A.2d 579, 584 (Pa. Super. 2003).

2025The Third Circuit cogently highlighted this principle in discussing “the purpose of according absolute immunity to” criminal prosecutors, Although conferring absolute immunity obliges courts to sometimes deny relief to those with valid claims against dishonest or malicious government officials, the underlying logic is that it is ultimately better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation[.] ____________________________________________ 8 The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania and t

2025See Soto v. Nabisco, Inc., 32 A.3d 787 , 788 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2011) (the failure of opposing party to file preliminary objections to defective preliminary objections which erroneously raised substantive defenses waives any procedural defect and allows trial court to rule on the preliminary objections); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).

2024This court has held that an appeal will not lie from an order granting partial summary judgment.” Bolmgren v. State Farm, 758 A.2d 689 , 690–691 (Pa.Super. 2000) (citations omitted); see also Moore Motors, Inc. v. Beaudry, 775 A.2d 869, 870 (Pa.Super. 2001) (per curiam) (quashing appeal from order -3- J-A27038-23 granting Appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment as interlocutory and unappealable).

2024See Monroe, supra. Even if Appellants had inadvertently omitted their proffered supplemental evidence, we note that the court did not rule on Appellees’ motion for summary judgment until July 25, 2022, over a year after Appellants filed their response in opposition.

2024See Monroe, supra. Even if Appellants had inadvertently omitted their proffered supplemental evidence, we note that the court did not rule on Appellees’ motion for summary judgment until July 25, 2022, over a year after Appellants filed their response in opposition.

2024See Nicolaou, 195 A.3d at 892 ; see also DiDomizio, 280 A.3d at 1046 ; Carlino, 208 A.3d at 103-04 .

2024See Kelly, supra. Notably, Appellants did not attach the evidence on which they now rely in their response to Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, which Appellants filed on April 30, 2021.