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

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

Governor Tom Corbett recently signed the "Fair Share Act." This legislation brings Pennsylvania out of the minority of states regarding the method used to assign liability in personal injury cases. Our state has now joined over 40 others in abandoning the theory of joint and several liability. There is a significant difference between the two methods:

• Joint & Several Liability – the old law:  Under this method, if there were multiple Defendants determined to be at fault in a personal injury case, any of the Defendants could be required to pay 100% of the damages awarded to the injured party. The payment could be awarded regardless of the Defendant’s percentage of fault in the sustained injury. For example, if one of the Defendants was found to be 1% at fault in the case, the individual or business could still be required to pay in excess of 1% of the damages, even up to 100%, if the other Defendants were unable or unlikely to pay their shares. 
• Fair Share Act – the new law:  This law eliminates the joint and several component in Pennsylvania’s liability laws. Under the new Act, Defendants will only be held liable to pay the percentage of damages for which they have been found to be at fault. There are exceptions if their damages exceed 60%. Using the same example as above, a Defendant who was found to be 1% at fault in a case, will only be required to pay 1% of the monetary damages awarded even if the other Defendants are unable or unlikely to pay their shares. 

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

When it comes to divorce, there are multiple ways for parties to arrive at an agreement. Occasionally I am asked by clients to review a marital settlement agreement that was reached as a result of a mediation conference. There are also occasions when clients come to an initial meeting with me and ask the difference between mediation and Collaborative Law. Although there is an increasing awareness of both alternatives, it is still common to get elements of the two processes confused. In order to distinguish more clearly between the two, especially for those who may be interested in pursuing either as an alternative route in their divorce, the following is my explanation in a nutshell.

In mediation, an impartial third party, who acts as the mediator, assists the parties with their negotiations and tries to help them settle their dispute. The mediator does not have to be an attorney and cannot act as an advocate for either side or give either party legal advice. In other words, if an agreement contains terms that are grossly unfair to one party, the mediator may not recognize them and, even if he or she does, is not permitted to give legal advice about the issue or any other issue. If both parties have attorneys who are not present at the mediation, they are free to contact them for advice in between mediation sessions. However, when the attorneys are not present during mediation, they are essentially unable to give their clients legal advice throughout the ongoing negotiations. Once an agreement has been reached between the parties, the mediator will typically prepare a draft of it for review and comment by the parties and attorneys before it is signed.

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

This two part series will cover the most common mistakes people make when trying to form a Limited Liability Company (LLC) themselves. The first part of this series will address the importance of an operating agreement. The second part of this series will address potential problems when filling out a Certificate of Organization.

I work with a lot of new businesses and I understand saving money is important to a business. Cutting costs ultimately adds to the bottom line, which is extremely important for new business owners, so I can understand why people would want to try to form their LLC on their own. As an attorney I try to provide the maximum value to each client. While some people might feel that it's significantly more cost effective to form an LLC on their own, my clients know that I will work diligently to identify and correct issues that may cause unforeseen problems. The value of retaining an experienced lawyer is that I have seen firsthand the types of things that can go wrong. I am able to bring that experience to my clients who are new business owners and ask questions that may have significant implications to how they should structure an LLC.

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

In a recent blog article, Christina Hausner explained how Lancaster County residents affected by the recent flooding may be eligible for property tax relief. In addition to those tax advantages, taxpayers may be able to deduct uninsured losses resulting from catastrophic damage. 

The Internal Revenue Service allows deductions for "casualty losses," which are defined as the complete or partial destruction of a taxpayer’s property resulting from an identifiable event that is sudden, unexpected and unusual. Disaster losses are casualty losses that occur within an area that has been declared a disaster area by the federal government. 

There are two methods of determining the dollar amount of a disaster loss. The first method is to have a qualified appraiser determine the fair market value of the property immediately before and immediately after the disaster, the difference of which would be the loss. The second method takes into account the actual cost of repairing the property in determining the loss, which can only be done when the property is actually repaired. In addition, no part of a loss for which the taxpayer has been reimbursed or for which there is a reasonable prospect of reimbursement is deductible. Another limitation is that disaster losses are generally subject to a floor equal to 10% of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income (AGI). This means that the loss can only be taken to the extent that it exceeds 10% of the taxpayer’s AGI.