I wanted to notify the clerk that the argument would no longer be needed, and he told me that the argument would be canceled, but that as a matter of course, a corporation can file pro se in cases valued at less than $10,000 (I may be wrong on the exact threshold he mentioned by a bit, but my $9,000 and change case was under it).

This was a bit of a shock to me, and I have not actually heard about this happening in practice. I also checked the case law to see if there was an opinion somewhere that backed this up, but I have found nothing that establishes a threshold for when a corporation must hire representation.

If someone has had this happen, please let me know in the comments, as I would really like to know.

Bob Bernstein

That’s right, Judge Marilyn Milian is willing to hear our dispute on the oldest reality court show on television. Not only did we receive notice that, for the first time in our firm’s history, “The People’s Court” is interested in hearing a dispute for a client we represent, but we also found out that the show is interested in a second case that we have been retained to handle!

Having a chance to appear on “The People’s Court” is pretty amazing, but two chances? That is almost too much to bear.

As much as our clients would love to appear on the show and get the chance to be berated by Judge Milian for all sorts of facts that are tangentially related to the claim (at best) and wildly off topic (at worst), our clients have decided to pass on this opportunity.

But all kidding aside, have any of our readers had the same experience? If you’ve been contacted by “The People’s Court” please let us know. It would be interesting to see just how often the show contacts parties who are represented by counsel, because it always seemed like they dealt mainly with people who call in and want to appear on the show.

Unfortunately, our flight was leaving from the wrong Shanghai airport for us to ride the Maglev train.  It would have been nice.  We took a taxi to the Airport (instead of the Metro) just to be on the safe side.  Got the 12:15 Hainan Airways flight to Beijing.  Best economy seats that we could get were middle seats.  Just two hours, so not terrible.  We did get a full meal on this flight, however.  I chose the “duck rice.”

At the Beijing airport, we arrived at the domestic terminal and had to take the 15 minute bus ride to the International terminal.  We paid attention this time (unlike when we arrived after a full day of travel) and saw this cavernous counter area.  After an uneventful check-in, we spent a couple of hours at the Air China First Class lounge.  Nowhere near as nice as the Maple Leaf lounge of Air Canada in Toronto on the way out.

Once on the flight at 6:00 p.m., it was a pretty easy 13 hours.  I didn’t mention this on the way out, but the most direct route to an from Beijing from Toronto is over the North Pole (or near it).    Since it was daylight much of the time in both directions, there were some awesome photos of the frozen North.

Kirk and I were both thinking of skipping the second meal on the flight, since we had a couple of hours to kill and intended to go back to the lavish Maple Leaf lounge.  Glad we didn’t, since the immigration, border control and TSA North had other plans for our two hours!

It was a bit of an adjustment to go from the palatial first class of the Boeing 777 to the cramped confines of the Dash-8 (propeller) aircraft  to PIT.  The latter was delayed about 30 minutes while, according to the pilot, maintenance “pumped up” the oxygen a bit.  I pictured guys out there with a bicycle pump!

The flight was fine.  It was good to get home to our families and our own beds, after a successful and exciting trip.  Thanks for reading.

Bob

Anyway, it was a fantastic trip; a beautifully sunny day and we got to see 1500 km or so (at 300 km/h), as well as the world’s longest bridge.  This is a bridge (a viaduct) built for the high speed train, which extends more than 100 miles!  Here is an example of the views.

Got into Shanghai and took the metro for the 45-minute (11 stop) trip to the hotel.  The cost for the two of us was about 90 cents (total)!  Here is the submay map so you can follow along. 

Then to the Westin Bund.  A very nice hotel.  Here is a view from the room and of the lobby at night. 

Last time I was here, I met a lawyer from Italy, who had moved to Beijing and set up shop.  He acted as guide last trip and was very helpful.  I made arrangements to meet Roberto Salvi (now practicing in Shanghai AND Beijing).  After a walk along the riverfront, we went to dinner at M on the Bund, a fabulous place. 

A breakfast meeting this morning and then off to the airport.  more to come…

We had dinner Saturday with my son’s friend (and mine) Mike Marquis, of Perella Weinberg Partners.  Mike is a high school chum of Alex’s, from Allderdice, now resident in Beijing.  It was great to catch up.  See photo attached with Mike and Kirk.

Sunday, we did a presentation with our client’s U.S. recovery team, exploring bankruptcy and secured credit issues to see how they can improve their process.  It was a very warm and meaningful reception, followed by a private lunch with our main contacts, Jennie and Lizy (photo attached).  Unfortunately, the group manager had to excuse himself, since another driver had crashed into his car that morning and he had to deal with it. And yes, you read it correctly, the presentation was Sunday.  Monday begins a three-day holiday, so businesses are closed.  However, most worked Saturday and Sunday to make up for it.  Try that, U.S. employers!

Sunday afternoon, a walk (and Subway ride) to Tienanmen Square.  It was too late to get into the Forbidden City, so that will wait for the next trip for Kirk,  I had been there on my previous Beijing trip.  More to come…

Bob

Under Pennsylvania law, a judgment entered against a  debtor creates a judgment lien against any real property that your debtor owns in the county where the judgment was entered. This occurs by operation of law the moment the judgment is indexed.  This is a valuable tool for creditors because now the debtor cannot sell or refinance that piece of real property without addressing your judgment. 

However, this does not mean that all a creditor must do is sit back and wait for a sale or refinance by the debtor.  As with all things collection related, it is important to be proactive.  As a judgment creditor in Pennsylvania, you should continue to monitor the judgment because it must be revived prior to the passage of five (5) years from the date it was entered in order to maintain it’s priority.  Additionally, you should keep an eye on any after acquired property by the debtor to which your lien will attach, as well as, any property acquired in other counties.  In order to place a judgment lien on property in a county outside that county where the judgment was entered, a judgment creditor must index the judgment in the other county.

Revival of a judgment is done by writ. Under applicable rules, the debtor is served with the writ and may respond in the same fashion as an answer and new matter. If another entity or person has obtained title to the real property without the judgment lien being resolved, the writ of revival can be served upon them.  Typically, if the writ is timely and procedurally correct there is no defense afforded the judgment debtor and you have maintained your judgment’s priority.

Maintaining priority is a useful collection tip as it will prevent those creditors who arrive later in time to get ahead of you in line.

In my practice at Bernstein Law Firm, I often represent creditors in consumer bankruptcy cases, whether for clients directly or as local counsel.  Most of the time, the debtor on the other side of the matter is represented by counsel, but sometimes they represent themselves Pro se – meaning they are their own attorney.

The Bankruptcy Code specifically permits people to represent themselves in bankruptcy, although an owner of a business cannot represent himself or herself if the business has filed for bankruptcy.  In that case, an attorney must appear for the business at all hearings.

Whether a person should represent themselves in their own bankruptcy is another question – the Bankruptcy Code contains many pit traps for the unwary and can even seem a tad complex at times to your average 10-year practitioner such as myself. 

Most Chapter 13s and Chapter 7s filed Pro Se fail almost immediately because the debtor neglects to file the necessary documents to get the case started – such as completed Schedules or the Certificate of Credit Counseling.

However, if the debtor clears the first few hurdles and the case survives, the case may reach the point where we would become involved on behalf of a creditor.  At that point, I have observed a modified set of rules being applied to Pro Se debtors and want to share some tips about how to approach these cases to get the desired result.

I have observed that judges will give Pro Se debtors more of a benefit of the doubt, forgive pleading deficiencies and tolerate worse behavior and appearance than from an attorney representing the debtor. 

Judges will also invariably let the debtor have his/her day in court no matter how irrational the complaint or defense.  Pro Se debtors are more likely to be allowed to proceed with an action to the conclusion and to be allowed to vent/rant their position ad infinitum.  However, at the end of the proceeding, the court will rule on the matter impartially most often against the Pro Se debtor.  I applaud judges for this approach because it allows the Pro Se debtor to feel like they were at least able to get their point off their chest.

In one infamous case in our office (where the parties will have to remain anonymous), a Pro Se debtor sought to discharge his student loans despite the fact that he was young, healthy and employed.  The Pro Se debtor’s pleadings contained insults and wild accusations against the opposing attorneys, the clerk of courts and the judge himself.  The Pro Se debtor’s behavior in court was so erratic and threatening that security staff were brought into the courtroom to ensure order was maintained.

Nevertheless, the judge involved maintained decorum in the courtroom and treated the Pro Se debtor with absolute respect.  The debtor was allowed to proceed to trial despite refusing to turn over relevant evidence to opposing counsel. At trial, the debtor did not present a witness.  The proceeding was to a degree a wasted enterprise for all involved, but the Pro Se debtor had his day in court.  In a way, the process of justice was served.

In summary, the lessons I have learned from opposing Pro Se debtors are the following:

1.  The court will indulge their often incoherent arguments and treat them with respect, even if the debtor is not returning the respect by his comments, demeanor or dress.  Opposing attorneys should do the same and avoid patronizing or insulting the debtor.  If that occurs, the court will be upset with the creditor’s attorney.

2.  The court will often forgive pleading errors that would be more important if made by an attorney, including timing and service errors.  It is not always useful to concentrate on the debtor’s procedural mistakes.  The best approach is to address the merits.

3.  The court will want the creditor’s attorney to address the debtor’s concerns, no matter how confusingly presented.  The court will appreciate goodwill gestures by the creditors such as small compromises or offers to consider the debtor’s concerns outside of the bankruptcy process.

In Pennsylvania, ejectment is an action by a party who does not posses certain land but has a right to do so.  The action is brought against a Defendant who has actual possession of the land.  An ejectment action can also be used to determine a question of title to real property. 

Such an action can be distinguished from a quiet title action because an ejectment is used to determine the immediate rights between a Plaintiff and Defendant while a quiet title action is used to determine the relative and respective rights of all potential titleholders.  It should also be noted that an ejectment action is a separate and distinct action from an eviction.  An eviction is used to terminate a leaseholder’s interest before the end of the term for a breach of a lease while an ejectment is used to remove a (former) leaseholder from the property after the lease has expired.

A suit for ejectment should be brought in the county in which the property involved in the dispute is located.  As with most actions in Pennsylvania State Court, the action can be instituted by the filing of a praecipe for writ of summons or a complaint.  The only indispensible party to an ejectment action is the party or parties who possess the land.  An interesting twist to naming parties is that when a person in possession of the property, who is not named as a party to an ejectment action, is served with original process, that person becomes a Defendant in the action.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the Plaintiff in an ejectment action specifically describe the land and describe an abstract of title upon which the Plaintiff relies.  The Plaintiff must also plead that they have a right to immediate possession of the land.  Some of the possible defenses to an ejectment action can be adverse possession, estoppel, res judicata or by proving that title exists as to a third person.

A judgment in an ejectment action should describe the land to be recovered with reasonable certainty.  This description is necessary so that execution or a writ of possession may be issued upon the judgment.  Judgment can be obtained by default, confession or on the pleadings.  It should be noted that judgment on the pleadings can be requested by either party.  

As with all areas of law, the specific facts of any scenario could change the manner in which to proceed.  The preceding was intended to give a basic outline of an ejectment action in Pennsylvania.  For a more specific analysis of an actual claim or dispute, you should consult an attorney.