By Lara Shipkovitz, Esq.

Recently in Pennsylvania a Westmoreland County Judge ruled that landowner gas leases need not have both parties signatures to be valid in Snyder v. Rex Energy., Case No. 09CI06332.  Local landowners brought suit against Rex alleging the company reneged on a deal to lease their properties for Marcellus Shale drilling.  Rex maintained the leases were unenforceable because they never signed the leases.  Accordingly, the Company argued no contract existed.  The landowners argued that a contract was entered when they signed the leases that were prepared by the company without making any changes to the lease; meaning, this constituted a valid acceptance of the terms offered by Rex.  Judge Caruso agreed stating that the leases, unlike those in other cases, did not contain the express requirement that the company sign them to be valid. The issue was considered early on in the pleadings and later, the parties settled.  Ultimately, Rex agreed to five year leases, including bonus payments and royalties for the landowners.   In light of the increasing rulings and considerations of Marcellus Shale issues, it is more than ever for a landowner to understand  his/her legal rights and obtain experienced counsel for any transaction affecting these rights.

 Check out our Marcellus Shale website and feel free to contact us (news@bernsteinlaw.com) if you have any questions.

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 Scott Schuster

Typically, the central purpose of filing a bankruptcy is to “discharge” all or most of the debtors’ debts. A bankruptcy “discharge” releases the debtor from personal liability for certain specified types of debts. In other words, the debtor is no longer legally required to pay any debts that are discharged. The discharge is a permanent order forever prohibiting the debtor’s creditors from taking any form of collection action on discharged debts, including legal action and communications with the debtor, such as telephone calls, letters, and personal contacts. Generally, excluding cases that are dismissed or converted, individual debtors receive a discharge in more than 99 percent of chapter 7 cases.

However, the Bankruptcy Code sets forth an extensive list of debts that are nondischargeable. Unfortunately, nondischargeability is not automatic – a creditor that holds such a debt must file a complaint with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to have the debt declared nondischargeable. A nondischargeability complaint must usually be filed within about sixty (60) to ninety (90) days after the debtor files his or her bankruptcy petition. 

The largest category of nondischargable debts are those incurred through: 1) false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud; or 2) obtained through the use of a statement in writing, which is materially false regarding the debtor’s financial condition, and on which the creditor reasonably relied.

As one would imagine, the terms “false pretenses, false representations, or actual fraud” can encompass many types of dishonest behavior. An important consideration the court will make is whether the debtor intentionally and knowingly made the false/fraudulent representations. To except a debt from discharge under this section, the false representations giving rise to the debt must have been knowingly and fraudulently made. In other words, the failure to pay a debt is not sufficient, even if there is no excuse for the failure. The debtor has to incur the debt knowing that he will not be able to pay the debt, and knowing that the statements he is making to the creditor about his ability and intention to pay are untrue.

A creditor alleging fraud has the burden of proving that the debtor knew that any stated intention to repay was false and that the debtor nevertheless deliberately incurred the debt. The fact that the debtor was insolvent does not by itself provide a sufficient basis for inferring the debtor’s intent. A debtor’s honest belief that a debt would be repaid in the future, even if in hindsight found to have been very unrealistic, negates any fraudulent intent.

Use of a materially false writing concerning the debtor’s financial position comes up often in transactions that required the debtor to complete a credit application. On most credit applications, lenders will ask a debtor to list their monthly income and their current outstanding debts. Lenders then use this information to determine the debtor’s “debt-to-income” ratio. If the debtor falsely inflates their income, or omits certain debts, then the debt-to-income is inaccurate. If the court determines that the creditor reasonably relied upon the credit application in making the loan, then the debt is nondischargeable.

by Shawn McClure

When a collection claim results in litigation, a creditor must become familiar with certain legal concepts that will often determine whether or not the creditor sees any recovery as a result of the lawsuit.  One such legal concept is the “burden of proof.” 

In all civil litigation, the burden of proof requires the plaintiff, the creditor, to convince the trier of fact (either a judge or jury) of the plaintiff’s entitlement to the relief being sought.  The plaintiff must prove each element of its claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.  In other words, the initial burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show the court why the defendant/debtor owes the money. 

The underlying legal cause of action in a collection case is typically for breach of contract.  Generally, a plaintiff must show: 1) the existence of a contract and its essential terms; 2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract; and 3) resultant damages.  This is why it is critical that a creditor keep meticulous and detailed business records, which can be used to meet the plaintiff’s initial burden of proof.  

Invoices between the parties can be offered as evidence of the existence of a contract between the parties.  The breach is the defendant/debtor’s failure to pay according to invoice terms.  Lastly, the plaintiff/creditor has been damaged because they have provided goods to the defendant/debtor and have not received payment.  Seems simply enough, but one would be surprised at the number of creditors who do not have or simply do not feel they should be burdened with having to produce such supporting documentation for the court. 

Keep in mind that when your attorney asks you to provide documentation of the claim against the debtor, he or she is not questioning the merits of your claim, but rather preparing to meet the burden that the law has placed on you as a plaintiff in a civil action.  Also, if you havent realized it by now, simply stating that the debtor knows they owe the money will not suffice.