by Jennifer L. Tis, Esq.

One thing that I’ve noticed time and time again in my practice is that clients are not always aware that they may need to appear in court at some point if they choose to take legal action against a debtor. In Pennsylvania, if the matter is not settled or if judgment is not obtained prior, it will go to either arbitration or trial. The factor that determines which type of hearing you will have is the amount for which you are suing. If that amount is over a certain limit (usually $25,000.00 or $50,000.00 depending upon the county) your case will go to trial and if it is below a certain amount it will go to arbitration. The arbitration that I refer to, however, is through the Court of Common Pleas and is not affiliated with the American Arbitration Association. It operates much like a trial except for the fact that your case is presented to a panel of three attorneys as opposed to a Judge. What many creditors do not realize is that regardless of whether the matter will first be scheduled for arbitration or trial, a witness must physically appear at the hearing to testify on behalf of the Plaintiff. I have been asked many times whether the witness may ‘appear’ by telephone. This has never been allowed in Pennsylvania Courts and it is expected that if you file suit in Pennsylvania you, or a credible individual with first-hand knowledge of the matter, are able and willing to appear in Pennsylvania Courts in regards to that suit. Although many cases come to an end through either settlement or judgment, by default or otherwise, long before trial or arbitration is scheduled , one must always prepare for a potentially lengthy litigation. Therefore, I would urge anyone considering filing suit in Pennsylvania to first ask themselves whether they will be able to travel to the county in which the suit is filed for one or more hearings. If the answer is ‘no,’ such action should be reconsidered so as not to spend even more money chasing a debtor who has already caused you a loss.

by Maribeth Thomas, Esq.

Alternate dispute resolutions such as mediation have become prevalent in bankruptcy proceedings and often result in much success for all parties involved. Mediation is not an official judicial proceeding and instead is designed to encourage collective agreement amongst parties to a dispute. The mediation process is informal and is most often entered into voluntarily by the parties.

In particular, mediation can be especially effective in Chapter 11 bankruptcies as a tool to construct a consensual plan of reorganization. The mediation process provides the debtor with an opportunity to negotiate, with the assistance of a neutral third party, with creditors in an informal setting to reach a settlement that is fair and in the best interests of all involved parties. Furthermore, by providing the debtor with an opportunity to resolve claims outside of court, both money and time can be saved by avoiding potentially expensive and lengthy litigation.

Mediation may also be useful in the chapter 7 context to resolve disputes involving preference, avoidance, non-dischargeability, fraudulent conveyance and claims allowance actions. Most recently, jurisdictions have implemented mediation procedures to prevent foreclosures. Such programs have been pioneered in Florida courts and require the debtor to file a chapter 13 bankruptcy. The programs work to reduce foreclosures by reducing monthly payments and, in certain instances, forgiving mortgage principal. Early statistics demonstrate that the programs created by bankruptcy courts are significantly more successful in stopping foreclosures than programs implemented in the state court system.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has adopted mediation procedures as a method of dispute resolution under Local Rule 9019-2. General Court Procedure # 4 establishes the specific requirements and standards for the mediation process. While the court can direct a party to mediation, a party may request mediation from the court through a signed stipulation or by the filing of a motion. It is important to remember that the mediation process does not delay any other proceedings in the bankruptcy case. If the mediator assigned to the case requires compensation, such costs are usually shared between the parties involved in the mediation. Each party and its primary attorney, must be present at the scheduled mediation conference, as well as any other parties in interest whose presence is necessary for a full resolution of the matter. Importantly, all material, both oral and written, that is produced at a mediation conference is to remain confidential. However, any material presented at the conference that would otherwise be discoverable or admissible is not exempted from discovery in a court proceeding merely by its use in mediation. If the parties are able to reach a settlement through mediation, the mediator must submit a fully executed stipulation to the court within twenty days after the conclusion of mediation. If the mediation conference does not result in a successful resolution of the dispute, the matter proceeds as scheduled before the court. For a full description of the procedures for mediation before the Bankruptcy Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania, please refer to the court’s General Court Procedures which can be found on the court’s website: http://www.pawb.uscourts.gov/.

by Shawn P. McClure, Esq.

It is a very common situation for a creditor to be owed a large sum of money from a debtor who continues to operate by paying other creditors or parties. Naturally, this is very frustrating. It can also be very disturbing because at the same time there are rumblings of the debtor’s financial instability. At this point, the creditor must decide on a course of action.

Certainly, the creditor has the option of filing a state court breach of contract action and working toward obtaining a judgment. However, litigating a lawsuit takes time and even more time is spent to execute on the judgment. The passage of time affords the debtor the opportunity to continue paying others and ultimately wind down the business.

There is another option, which is often overlooked. Force the debtor into bankruptcy. This is done by filing an involuntary bankruptcy petition. The reason for an involuntary bankruptcy is to prevent and protect creditors from unfair activities and treatment by debtors. The greatest advantage to an involuntary bankruptcy is that it forces bankruptcy upon the debtor rather than allowing the debtor to ultimately file on its own terms. This is extremely important because of the ability to recover payments or wrongful transfers by the debtor within certain time frames leading up to the filing of the bankruptcy petition. These payments and transfers can be brought back into the bankruptcy estate to be properly distributed by the bankruptcy court.

In sum, bankruptcy is not always a bad thing for unsecured creditors. It just simply depends upon whose terms the bankruptcy is filed.

If you are interested in reading more about involuntary bankruptcy click here

by Shawn P. McClure, Esq.

Often, when foreclosing on a piece of real property, a secured creditor’s focus and objective is limited to the recovery of the property. However, in this economic climate, more and more secured creditors are electing to pursue a deficiency balance against the debtor because the underlying debt owed exceeds the value of any real property that is recovered.

Deficiency Judgments in Pennsylvania are governed by statute. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8103. In order to establish a deficiency balance, a judgment creditor must first file a Petition to Fix the Fair Market Value of Real Property Sold. This Petition must be filed within six (6) months, “following execution and delivery of the sheriff’s deed for the property sold in connection with the execution proceedings.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(b)(2). Therefore, it is important that a creditor make the decision to pursue a deficiency balance as soon as possible.

The purpose of the petition is to establish a fair market value of the real property sold, so that figure can be offset against the total amount of the debt owed. This process recognizes that the secured creditor who purchases the real property at foreclosure sale for Sheriff’s costs, usually a couple thousand dollars, cannot then pursue the debtor for the full remaining balance of the debt. Establishing the fair market value and crediting it against the debt owed prevents the secured creditor from receiving a windfall.

The Petition is filed as a supplementary proceeding on the same docket in which the judgment was entered. If an answer is filed to the Petition alleging that the fair market value of the property is more than the value stated in the petition, then the court shall hear evidence and fix the fair market value of the property sold. This is usually a battle of appraisals that turns on what parties’ appraiser appears more qualified and credible to the court.

While the deficiency judgment process in Pennsylvania seems quite simple, there are two important factors that cannot be overlooked: 1) Timing; and 2) Hiring a qualified appraiser. These are both issues that can easily be address by your creditors’ rights attorney.

by Shawn P. McClure, Esq.

While I subscribe to the belief that a secured lien holder should always know the location of its collateral, I understand that is essentially impossible to practice. Which is why a secured lien holder may some day find themselves in a position where they find their collateral in the possession of a third party. Often that third party is a garage looking to be paid for repairs, towing or storage with respect to the collateral.

Under Pennsylvania law, the secured lien holder is generally on the hook for repairs and towing charges. The theory being that the secured lien holder receives any benefit bestowed upon the collateral. However, a dispute often arises over storage fees. Particularly, where a garage stores the collateral and then makes no effort to inform the secured lien holder of the collateral’s location.

With typical charges of $25.00-$35.00 per day, these storage fees can quickly accumulate. A garage is entitled to any storage fees incurred after the secured lien holder gave “consent” to storing the collateral. Obviously, if the secured lien holder gave express consent to store the collateral, there is no issue. The problem arises in instances of implied consent. Implied consent will be found when the garage has sent notice to the secured lien holder that they have the collateral and the secured lien holder does not pick up the collateral.

However, most problems arise when express consent is not given and notice is not sent. The secured lien holder after months of contacting the Debtor about delinquent payments finally hears from the Debtor that the collateral has been at the local garage for months. So what does a secured lien holder do?

1. Immediately contact the garage and find out exactly what amount of money they are demanding. Obtain a break down of the charges identifying what is for repairs, towing, storage, etc. Also, find out what they are charging per day to store the collateral.

2. Immediately make a reasonable offer, in writing, to the garage to resolve the matter. Pennsylvania case law provides that if a garage declines a reasonable offer to a secured lien holder, then the garage cannot seek any storage fees if it is later found consent to storage did not exist.

3. It is usually best to settle. However, if the garage is unreasonable, then immediate legal action should be taken by contacting your creditors’ rights attorney.

By Jennifer Tis, Esq.

Undoubtedly, social networking sites such as Facebook will change the face of the legal practice in a number of ways, some foreseeable, some not. Already, Facebook has been used in criminal investigations, used for “cyber-bullying” and has been the subject of privacy disputes due to school administrations’ use of Facebook to suspend students for activities such as underage drinking.
Facebook has also been a sought-after source of information for attorneys involved in active litigation in a variety of areas of the law. Whether it’s a civil or criminal matter, a case can often be expeditiously closed due to a few posts made by either the Plaintiff or Defendant on Facebook or other social networking site. Often times, however, an individual’s public posts may not reveal much in regards to an active litigation matter though the individual’s private posts and messages may disclose much more. The question is, how can an attorney ethically gain access to the private information located within an opposing party’s social network site?
It is tempting to have another individual, such as a friend, secretary or paralegal, send a “friend request” to an opposing party in order to gain access to the information that is not made public on their Facebook page. To do so, however, would violate a number of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, including, but not limited to, Rule 5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants) and 8.4 (Misconduct).
Rather, there are a few non-binding cases out there that suggest that private information from an individual’s social network site may be obtained through discovery requests. One case in particular comes from Jefferson County, Pennsylvania and illustrates what may be Pennsylvania’s emerging view toward discovery and social networking sites. In McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, the Plaintiff claimed that he was injured when the Defendant rear-ended him during a cool down lap after a stock race.
After the Plaintiff posted information on the public portion of his Facebook and MySpace accounts which indicated that he may not actually be injured, the Defendant requested Plaintiff’s usernames and passwords to his social network accounts in Interrogatories. The Plaintiff objected to this request and the Defendant filed a Motion to Compel. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion and ordered the Plaintiff to produce his usernames and passwords to his Facebook and MySpace accounts to Defendant’s counsel, only (the Defendant, himself, was not permitted access to the accounts). The Court further ordered that the Plaintiff was prohibited from taking steps to alter or delete existing information or posts from his Facebook and MySpace accounts.
The Court stated: “Under Pennsylvania’s broad discovery rules, as long as it is relevant to the litigation, whether directly or peripherally, a party may obtain discovery regarding any unprivileged matter. Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1.” McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, 2010 Pa.Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 270, 2. “In this case, the Plaintiff asked the Court to recognize communications shared among his private friends on social network computer sites as confidential and privileged and thus protected against disclosure.” Id, at 3.The Court noted that Pennsylvania law does not favor evidentiary privileges “for they are in derogation of the search for the truth.” Id, (quoting) Hutchison v. Luddy, 414 Pa. Super. 138, 606 A.2d 905, 908-09 (Pa. Super. 1992) (quoting) Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 175, 99 S. Ct. 1635, 60 L. Ed. 2d 115 (1979).
The Court also pointed to the terms and privacy policies of both Facebook and MySpace stating that they “clearly express the possibility of disclosure” barring the Plaintiff from successfully maintaining that the element of confidentiality protects his Facebook and MySpace accounts from discovery. Id at 10.
The Court went on to state “whatever relational harm may be realized by social network computer site users is undoubtedly outweighed by the benefit of correctly disposing of litigation.” Id, at 11.
The fact that the Plaintiff first posted public information that was relevant to the matter and, therefore, suggested that additional relevant information may be located in the private sections of his Facebook and MySpace pages was clearly taken into account. Had he not made the public posts, I believe that the Court may have ruled differently.
Although this case is not binding, it may be an indication of what is to come from Pennsylvania Courts with respect to social networking sites and litigation. Will Pennsylvania adopt a narrow interpretation of confidentiality? Only time and additional ill-advised posts from plaintiffs and defendants will tell.

A while back, Nick Krawec wrote an excellent article by this name (see original here). I was just having a conversation with Jennifer Tis about how we could improve our client’s position in a case by agreeing to a proposed payment schedule which we know the debtor won’t keep but, in exchange, asking for additional “credit enhancements” of the kind Nick refers to. For instance, in this case, we know the principal asset is owned by the debtor and his wife. So, in exchange for the payment plan he proposes, we want a guarantee by his wife, or at least a lien on the jointly-held asset. Prompted me to re-post this link and to refer to his terrific article.

A recent article about getting ready for the “good times.”

Read the article

by Jennifer L. Tis, Esq.

As a creditor’s rights attorney, I often receive Answers to our Complaints filed Pro Se by  Defendants. Sometimes these Answers are in the proper format and I assume that an attorney prepared the response but declined to enter his appearance. Sometimes, however, they simply consist of a paragraph denying liability for the debt or expressing an interest in entering into a payment plan. Whether or not they are in the proper format is irrelevant, however, if the Defendant is a corporation. Thanks to the Pennsylvania case of Walacavage v. Excell 2000, Inc., 331 Pa.Super. 137, 480 A.2d 281 (Pa.Super., 1984) a corporate entity may only appear in court through an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This means that if an individual who owns a corporation files a Pro Se response to a Complaint that names only the corporation as the defendant he is in violation of Pennsylvania law.

The Court in Walacavage also addressed the concern that the requirement of a corporate entity to hire counsel puts corporations at a disadvantage. The Court stated that such a requirement does not deny corporations due process or equal protection under the law. It seems that there are several rationales behind this requirement one of which is the fact that a corporation is technically fictitious so that even if the individual filing the Pro Se response is the President of the corporation, the corporation itself is a fabrication and, therefore, cannot represent itself. Another suggested rationale is that incorporating a business brings many benefits including protection from personal liability. By the same token, however, there are responsibilities that come with such protection including the responsibility to hire an attorney for representation. Finally, it is suggested that the legal issues before the court can become confused when an attorney is not representing a corporation, however, I don’t see how it can be any more confusing for the court than when an individual represents himself…it can be bewildering for everyone involved.  I, personally, believe that the rationale accounting for equal benefits and responsibilities makes the most sense. If an individual wants to remain shielded from personal liability he is going to have sacrifice some benefits that he would otherwise have if not incorporated such as the ability to represent himself in court. You can’t have your cake and represent it in court, too.

                It is always surprising to me how many individuals who have incorporated a business are unaware of the necessity of retaining counsel for a legal matter. In my opinion, the best way to go about dealing with a Pro Se response from a corporate defendant is to file Preliminary Objections to the response. Filing Preliminary Objections to a Pro Se response from a corporate Defendant can save a great deal of time for you and a great deal of money for your client. I find that it often leads to settlement or, better yet, has the effect of getting the response stricken followed by Judgment by Default. From both a financial and expeditious perspective either of these two scenarios is preferable to having to prepare for and attend arbitration or trial as well as requiring your client to send a witness to court.

by Shawn P. McClure

Once a claim goes legal, there are many factors that come into play and directly impact a creditor’s ability to get paid.  As a credit professional, you must be aware of these factors to determine their impact on settlement negotiations and how far you decide to push the debtor.  As a creditors’ rights attorney, we must be available to quickly identify how these factors impact litigation and provide our clients with intelligent insight as to how litigation is likely to play out in light of these factors.

The rules of evidence are such a factor.  All of a sudden the forwarded email from a cousin’s mother’s friend who used to work for the debtor may not make it to the trier-of-fact, let alone have the impact the creditor thought it would.   

In the typical creditor-debtor dispute, evidence usually translates to written documents (contracts, invoices, statements, correspondence etc.) setting forth the basis for the parties’ relationship.  As a result of being a simple man, I like to keep in mind three simple concepts when determining whether I can get documents into evidence.  Those concepts are:

1.       Relevance – Why does this matter?

2.       Authentication – Is this real?

3.       Hearsay – Is this reliable?

The first concept is pretty self explanatory and is often easily understood because it involves logic that makes sense to a layperson.  For example, my client’s contract with the debtor is relevant to the issue of whether or not money is owed to my client.  Whereas, my client’s lease with their landlord has no bearing on the issue. 

It is with issues of authentication and hearsay, that clients and attorneys spend an inordinate amount of time explaining to each other and arguing with debtor’s counsel.  I could write pages upon pages trying to explain these concepts, so I will leave you with three helpful tips.  The last being the most useful.  Pay attention to rules on self-authenticating documents to hopefully ease the burden on yourself.  Hearsay is an out of court statement offered for its truth, it remains hearsay even if the declarant is now on the stand during trial.  Lastly, evidence law is determined by the trial judge that you are currently practicing before.  

I would like to wrap up by sharing a recent experience that illustrates why it is important to keep evidence concepts in mind throughout the legal process. 

I recently had a case where debtor’s counsel filed preliminary objections in response to my client’s complaint.  Simultaneously, debtor’s counsel served discovery requests.  More specifically, debtor’s counsel served a request for production of documents seeking the original credit application that was alleged in the complaint.  Debtor’s counsel filed preliminary objections asking the court to dismiss the complaint because we failed to attach the original credit application to our complaint.  The basis for these objections being that the failure to attach the original credit application was a violation of the Best Evidence Doctrine.  Well, we didn’t have the original credit application.  We told debtor’s counsel we didn’t have it in our responses to discovery.  However, in deciding the preliminary objections, the judge correctly overruled the debtor.  As simple as it sounds, debtor’s counsel forgot one importance aspect of the Best Evidence Doctrine.  It doesn’t come into play until a party is trying to put evidence into the record at trial.   

As for how that case turned out at trial … it will probably settle soon.