Lancaster Law Blog : Lancaster PA Lawyer & Attorney : Russell Krafft & Gruber Law Firm : Pennsylvania : Lancaster's Legal Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week I had the opportunity to get out of the office and enjoy an afternoon playing golf. I was invited to play in the Lampeter-Strasburg Football Booster Club Golf Tournament at Meadia Heights and it was a great event that supported a worthy cause. During the dinner that followed the tournament, an interesting conversation arose regarding the hole sponsors and the prizes offered for things such as a hole in one. In this event, as in many golf tournaments, a car was offered as a prize for a hole in one on the par 3, 18th hole. The owner of the dealership who offered the prize was seated at our table and commented on the importance of removing the car and the signs offering the prize from the course immediately following the tournament. This caused some to look at me and ask why. 

In fact, Pennsylvania Courts have addressed this issue a number of times and the Court has taken the position that if a prize (cash or a car) is offered in exchange for the performance of an act (hole in one), then a valid contract exists and when the hole in one is made, the prize must be awarded. This is true even where the person who makes a hole in one is not part of the original tournament in which the car was offered. If it cannot be determined from the sign offering the prize that it is limited to a specific time or a specific tournament, then anyone who performs the act of making a hole in one is eligible to claim the prize.

Not all of the judges who heard this case, however, were in agreement that the car should be awarded for the hole in one. In fact, Judge Zoran Popovich wrote a dissenting opinion in the case mentioned above and it was his opinion that the act of hitting a hole in one is such a chance event in which skill is an almost irrelevant factor, that when you combine the chance or luck event of hitting a hole in one with the entry fee of the tournament and the prize of giving away a car for a hole in one, that you have all the necessary elements of gambling, which is illegal in this fashion in the State of Pennsylvania. I am sure those who have had a hole in one take issue with Judge Popovich's opinion that little or no skill is involved. 

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, this issue was not of concern at this tournament as no one hit a hole in one at Meadia on Monday. Thanks again to the Lampeter-Strasburg Football Booster Club, the tournament organizers and the L-S football players and cheerleaders. It was a great community event.

For all of our readers who are golfers, check out this interesting video of a shot made by Vijay Singh during a practice round on the 16th hole at Augusta National. Is it skill or luck – I’ll let you be the judge.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday Craig Russell and I attended the ribbon cutting ceremony for the opening of the Lancaster County Convention Center and Penn Square Marriott. We have served as solicitors for the Lancaster County Convention Center Authority since July 2007, and it has been an interesting and challenging assignment. We appreciate the opportunity to work with dedicated and capable Authority employees Kevin Molloy, Mary Ellen Davis and Lynette Colon, as well as Board Chairman Art Morris and other Board members, who volunteer their time and have provided talent, judgment and commitment to the project.

As you can imagine, everyone at yesterday's ceremony was excited and in a great mood. The contributions of politicians and community leaders, contractors and construction managers, architects, and owners were acknowledged.   For us, who reviewed countless two dimensional plans and documents referring to various spaces, it was great to see the real building, not a concept, computer model or something on paper. We discussed that one of the most gratifying things about doing real estate development work is the opportunity to see a tangible and enduring end result. That is surely the case with the Lancaster County Convention Center, and we appreciate the opportunity to be part of the project.

P.S. We had dinner at the Penn Square Grille, which is located on street level facing King Street, where Appel & Weber used to be. Let me recommend it - beautiful, gracious service and fantastic menu and food.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Tuesday, June 2, 2009, I served as a faculty member for "Landlord & Tenant Law: Beyond the Basics". The seminar was offered by Sterling Education Services, Inc., and approximately twenty-five people from varying backgrounds attended. Although there were lawyers in attendance, the majority of the participants were property managers and landlords who deal with ongoing and troubling tenant issues on a daily basis. Some of our clients attended and as part of our discussions, shared some of the challenges they face in managing the landlord/tenant relationship.

 My presentation focused on problem tenants, landlords' rights and options when a tenant is in default of his or her lease, and handling an eviction hearing before the Magisterial District Judge. Several topics sparked discussion among and questions from the participants, including the treatment and/or handling of illegal immigrants in a rental situation, and how and when to dispose of personal items left behind by a tenant who has vacated the leased premises. The varied levels of experience among the participants gave each audience member an opportunity to hear about different ways in which to proceed with a difficult tenant situation, which they may have never considered.

 Regardless of whether we were talking about a tenant's failure to pay rent, failure to abide by the rules and regulations, or failure to notify the landlord of problems with the leased property, our discussions always came back to the lease provisions. This seminar reinforced for everyone in attendance the importance of having a written lease that clearly sets forth a tenant's obligations. From time to time, as new tenants are coming into a residential or commercial property you may own, consider revising an outdated lease. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the questions I am frequently asked by nearly every client who seeks assistance with the ARD Program following a DUI arrest is, “Will my completion of the ARD Program count as a conviction?” The answer . . . it depends.

With respect to job applications submitted to potential employers, many employers ask on a job application whether or not the applicant has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor in their lifetime, or within a certain number of years from the date of application. In this context, if a person has successfully completed the ARD Program, they may answer, “no” to this question. ARD in Pennsylvania is not considered a conviction, but is, rather, an alternative means of disposition for a first DUI offense. It is offered as an opportunity for first time offenders to avoid serving a jail sentence and avoid having a conviction. 

A person who has successfully completed the ARD program is eligible to have the charge expunged from his or her record, which would guarantee that a typical employer running a background check would have no information pertaining to the charge. This is not to say that you should not be open and honest with a potential employer, but when asked if you have been convicted of a crime, you can confidently say no.   

So how does your ARD count as a conviction? Successful completion of the ARD Program does count as a conviction for purposes of subsequent DUI offenses. PennDOT and other state and local police departments retain information with regard to persons who successfully complete the ARD Program. This information is retained because, while an ARD may not be a conviction, it does count as a first offense for sentencing purposes if a person is arrested for a subsequent DUI offense within a period of ten (10) years after the first “conviction.” For an additional explanation on the DUI penalties, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

East Lampeter Township lost its appeal to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in the case of In Re: Agricultural Security Area in East Lampeter Township.  The case is an ongoing battle between the township and a group of Amish farmers who wish to create an Agricultural Security Area (ASA) for their properties in East Lampeter Township, Lancaster County.  In 2007, the farmers petitioned the Township to establish an ASA as permitted by the Agricultural Area Security Law. The farmers wanted the Township to designate an area encompassing 13 farms as an ASA.  After the petition was filed, the Township Planning Commission recommended that all but one of the properties be included in an ASA. However, after two public hearings were held, the Board of Supervisors concluded that the ASA was not necessary. Specifically, the board determined that the Township had adopted planning tools that would prevent inappropriate development of agricultural lands.

The farmers appealed to the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and a two-judge panel reversed the Board's decision, giving the farmers their first victory. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the Township argued that it had the discretion under the Agricultural Area Security Law to decide whether to create the ASA. The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) also weighed in on the appeal, contending that the General Assembly intended to give substantial discretion to the governing body of a municipality with respect to the creation of an ASA. The Commonwealth Court, indicating that the Lancaster County judicial panel adequately considered the issues, disagreed and affirmed the decision, giving the farmers another victory. Some additional details about the case are outlined in a June 2 article in the Lancaster New Era.

The Township could seek review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. However, appeals to the Commonwealth's highest court are discretionary and the court refuses the majority of requests for review. Only cases presenting novel questions or questions of first impression are accepted for review.

This case could set a precedent for agricultural landowners across Pennsylvania. If a governing body rejects a petition for an ASA and does so for reasons not enunciated specifically in the statute, the decision could be challenged.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Lately, everywhere you look you can find news about “Jon and Kate Plus 8” from Berks County. It is one of the top stories on WGAL’s website today and the Sunday News featured a story on the front page about their former home in Lancaster County. While I tend to tire of the inundation of celebrity news these days, I did find the issue of PA Child Labor Laws somewhat interesting. I will not add to the debate with a long commentary about the Gosselin’s personal lives or the show’s ratings, however, because of the local interest I did take a moment to pull up Pennsylvania’s Child Labor Laws. The PA Department of Labor and Industry (L&I) is reportedly investigating a complaint and many mainstream and tabloid news organizations anxiously await its conclusion. In Pennsylvania, the minimum age for employment in theater, modeling and television is seven. Minors and infants may be in the cast of a motion picture if a special permit is obtained. Reality TV was nonexistent when our child labor laws were adopted so it will be interesting to see if they conclude that the Gosselin’s home is a “set” and the children are “performers”. Section 7.1 of the PA Child Labor Law Act is rather limited even for more traditional media productions. Contrast the California Child Labor Law which has a lengthy Entertainment Section with specific guidelines for children of different ages. With the current popularity of Reality TV, states may need to update or clarify Child Labor Laws to specifically include or exempt these types of productions.