J-A38038-11- 2 -that, so long as Appellee made regular payments to Appellant, Appellantwould not execute on the judgment. The trial court approved the parties’ settlement on May 7, 2009.On April 5, 2010, Appellant filed an affidavit of default wherein italleged that Appellee had defaulted on her payment obligations. Thefollowing day, Appellant filed a praecipe for writ of execution. On August 2,2010, the subject property was sold by sheriff’s sale; Appellant was thesuccessful bidder.On August 31, 2010, Appellee filed a document which she entitled “Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Sheriff’s Sale.” Appellee contended thatthe trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter becauseAppellant failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Homeowner’sEmergency Mortgage Act, 35 P.S. §§ 1680.401c
(“Act 91”). Morespecifically, Appellee maintained that the Act 91 notice she received fromAppellant failed to inform her that she had thirty days to have a face-to-facemeeting with Appellant. After holding a hearing, the trial court agreed withAppellee that the Act 91 notice was deficient. The court issued an ordersetting aside the sheriff’s sale and the judgment; the order also dismissedAppellant’s complaint without prejudice. Appellant timely filed an appeal.
As to the manner in which we review such orders, our Supreme Court hasstated the following:A petition to set aside a sheriff sale is governed by our rules of civil procedure which provide that [u]pon petition of any party ininterest before delivery of the . . . sheriff's deed to real property,
(Footnote Continued Next Page)