Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint set forth sufficient allegations to provide the Stuckas with notice of the Bank’s claims. The allegations contained therein, if ultimately proven, would permit recovery. See Hess v. Fox Rothschild, LLP, 925 A.2d 798, 805-06 (Pa.Super.2007) (stating that, in ruling on preliminary objections, the court must determine whether the allegations of the complaint would permit recovery if ultimately proven). We do not find persuasive the Stuckas’ argument that the Bank was required to attach a signed document. Neither Rule 1019 or Atlantic Credit set forth such a requirement. Further, the Court of Common Pleas decisions relied on by the Stue-kas are not binding precedent for this Court. See Commonwealth v. Phinn, 761 A.2d 176, 179 (Pa.Super.2000) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that the trial court erred
holding that a published decision of a court of common pleas was not binding precedent for the superior court panel holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court holding that a prior panel decision is binding on subsequent panels holding that one panel cannot overrule a prior panels published decision holding that one panel of this court is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion