present circumstances, however, any earnings that the County would have realized on unclaimed bond funds would not have attached to the principal and, hence, would not have given rise to ownership rights associated with those funds, because the bondholders did not own, and were not entitled to collect, such interest no matter how much túne elapsed after the bonds matured. For this reason, we find that the County’s suggested interpretation is also reasonable. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ suggestion, it is not entirely clear from the face of the statute whether the Legislature intended unclaimable interest and other accretions to escheat along with the principal in every case. The statute being ambiguous, see Trizechahn Gateway LLC v. Titus, 601 Pa. 637, 653, 976 A.2d 474, 483 (2009) (<HOLDING>), we must resolve the question with reference
holding there was no doubt that the trial judge erred in failing to appoint at least two experts holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state law holding that interpretations of a statute which produce absurd results are to be avoided if alternative interpretations consistent with the legislative purpose are available holding that when a contract is ambiguous and the parties suggest different interpretations summary judgment is inappropriate because an issue of fact exists recognizing that an ambiguity exists when there are at least two reasonable interpretations of the text under review