A recent Pennsylvania case has again confirmed that a unit owner in a condominium or homeowners’ association is required to pay their assessments, regardless of whether they think the association has failed to provide some service. In Logans’ Reserve Homeowners’ Association v. McCabe, some unit owners believed that the association was not adequately mowing the area behind their units.  They complained that the overgrown common areas caused snakes and ticks to plague the unit owners.  Because of this, the unit owners decided to stop paying their assessments until the association mowed the common areas the way they wanted them to.

The Commonwealth Court held that unit owners are required to pay assessments “regardless of any alleged inadequacies in the association’s performance.”  The Court said that any breach of the association’s duties does not allow a unit owner to withhold their payments.  Unit owners are required to pay all assessments when due and they have no right to withhold payment of assessments for an alleged non-provision of services.

This case is nothing new.  Pennsylvania Courts have made and upheld this decision since 1990.  It is a good reminder that unit owners cannot withhold payment of their assessments, even if they are dissatisfied with the job of the association.

Aaron Marines is an attorney at Russell, Krafft & Gruber, LLP, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He received his law degree from Widener University and practices in a variety of areas including Commercial Real EstateLand Use, Land Planning and Zoning matters.

A recent case, Serota v. London-Towne Homeowners Association, dealt with an association trying to alter the voting rights of a unit owner.  More broadly, the case gives some instruction on how to amend the governing documents of a community that was created before the passage of the Pennsylvania Uniform Planned Communities Act (the “UPCA”).

The facts of the case are straightforward.  London-Towne Homeowners Association is a community with 70 townhouses.  Serota owned 12 of these.  The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the “CCR’s”) was recorded in 1979, before the UPCA was enacted.  The CCR’s provided that each unit received one vote.  This means Serota had 12 of the 70 votes of the Association.  The CCR’s provided that they could be amended with the vote of 75% of all unit owners.  The Executive Board of the Association amended the bylaws to provide that each unit owner receives only one vote, regardless of the number of units they own.  The UPCA provides that no amendment can change the ownership percentages or the voting strength of any unit owner without that unit owner’s approval.

Even though the CCR’s were recorded before the UPCA, some of its sections apply retroactively to communities created before the Act.  One of these sections deals with amendments to the declaration or CCR’s. Section 5102(d) of the UPCA provides that an amendment may be made either in accordance with the law at the time of the declaration, or be using procedures in the UPCA.  This means that if the old CCR’s do not have any way to be amended, then the Association can use the process in the UPCA. However, all amendments to a need to comply with the procedures and requirements in the document being amended, as well as the procedures and requirements of the UPCA.  Continue Reading Association Cannot Change Voting Rights of Unit Owner Without the Unit Owner’s Consent

Lawyers aren’t known as the most forward-thinking, technologically savvy group. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since a key principle of the American judicial system is the concept of precedent; making decisions now that are bound by decisions of the past. Attorneys are notoriously hesitant to adopt change. But in today’s constantly changing legal market, it’s not good enough to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the benefits that technology can add to the attorney-client relationship.

The American Bar Association publishes the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which acts as guidance for the ethical rules adopted by each state. Model Rule 1.1 requires lawyers to provide competent representation to a client, which includes understanding the benefits and risks associated with technology. Technology is also referenced in Model Rule 1.6(c) which requires a lawyer to make “reasonable efforts” to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of or access to information relating to the representation. The Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct have implemented both concepts . Continue Reading Is Your Attorney Tech Savvy?

It was my pleasure to attend the recent Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry presentation of the “Changing Nature of Banking in Central PA.”  The presenters were Brian Bisignani of Post & Schell and Dave Hornberger and Andria Linn of Orrstown Bank.  They spoke about topics ranging from the effect of the recent bank acquisitions in central Pennsylvania, to the growth of community banks in Lancaster County, the challenges of marketing to millennials, the decline in retail sales, and cyber security and phishing attacks.

One of the things that struck me was that over thirty percent of all of the cash deposits in Lancaster County were affected by the recent bank acquisitions, or “roll ups” to use the term that Dave frequently called them.  In a very short amount of time there have been huge changes in local banking, affecting both banks and their customers.

Dave did a great job of summing up the concerns I have heard from many bankers over the past few months.  He noted that very big banks can be competitive because of their rates and lending base.  Smaller community banks gain customers by emphasizing their flexibility, with a faster speed to market and more personal customer service.  While these are all necessary, especially the personal level of service, they are not everything that our customers need.  Continue Reading Trends in the Banking Industry

As a recent graduate of Leadership Lancaster’s Core Class and member of the ACHIEVE Committee, it’s no secret that I’m a big fan of the programs that Leadership Lancaster offers to Lancaster County. For more information on my experience, check out the following series of Reflections on Leadership Lancaster posts: About One Month In, Part Two, and The Finale.

Earlier this year, Executive Director and fearless leader Deb Rohrer announced that she would be retiring after 10 years of serving Leadership Lancaster. The announcement was the beginning of a search for a replacement to fill Deb’s big shoes.

The search came to an end last week when Leadership Lancaster announced that Kate Zimmerman, currently Program Director of Leadership Lancaster, would be promoted to the role of Executive Director. To anyone familiar with the program over the past few years, Kate and Deb have been a great leadership team for the organization, so it comes as no surprise that Kate was selected for the role. Continue Reading Leadership Lancaster Announces New Executive Director

In the world of you just can’t make this stuff up, a woman recently swallowed over $7,000 in cash to keep it from her husband.  Apparently she had been saving for a vacation to Panama and was concerned that her husband would take it during a recent dispute.

There are several ways this woman could have protected those assets rather than swallowing them.  The most obvious answer would be a bank account in her name only.  While the couple is married and the money, if earned during the marriage, would be considered marital property in Pennsylvania in the event of a divorce, it would have been protected from him squandering it or taking it from her.  If she was so concerned about him taking her money, a prenuptial agreement prior to marriage could have protected the entire sum and then some.  If this distrust of her husband is a new development, she may want to speak with an attorney about her rights and how to protect this money.

Swallowing any sum of money is not a good idea.  It does make others question one’s capacity.  Perhaps a guardian may need to be appointed to protect her assets.  According to doctors, $5,700 was recovered from the woman during emergency surgery.  Which begs the question- what happened to the rest of the money?

Lindsay Schoeneberger is an attorney at Russell, Krafft & Gruber, LLP in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. She received her law degree from Widener University School of Law and practices in a variety of areas including Family Law.

Another day, another scam.Scam Uses Pennsylvania Supreme Court Phone Number

According to a report from the Legal Intelligencer, in an attempt to obtain personal information and money, scammers have called hundreds of individuals. The caller ID shows the phone number 717-781-6181 and states “PA Courts.”

In the case of any suspicious call, email or other communication you receive requesting sensitive personal information or money, we recommend taking steps to independently determine the source of the communication and disregarding the contact information provided in it. You can do this by finding contact information from a reputable source such as a website and contacting the purported sender to inquire about the request. You can also do a Google search that includes the word “scam” and the purported source to get an idea of the typical types of scams that are used. Continue Reading Public Service Announcement: Scam Uses Pennsylvania Supreme Court Phone Number

This is Part 3 of a series of posts analyzing the legal issues in the hit podcast S-Town, produced by the creators of Serial and This American Life. For more background, check out the introduction to the series. Although the events in S-Town occur in Alabama, for the purposes of this series, the legal analysis will be based on general principles of law and Pennsylvania law, since we’re Pennsylvania lawyers.

 SPOILER ALERT! If you haven’t listened to the series yet and want to avoid spoilers, proceed beyond this point with caution.

Prior to John B.’s death, he tells host and producer, Brian Reed that Tyler Goodson and his brother Jake Goodson are each going to receive some gold when he dies.  He makes various other promises throughout his recorded interviews with Brian about someone getting something when he died.  John also had an elaborate suicide note that he kept on his computer.  He even showed it to Brian during one of their times together.  Surely with such planning, most people would assume John made a Will to ensure his final wishes were carried out.  Unfortunately, once John is dead, no Will is ever found. Continue Reading Legal Lessons from Hit Podcast, S-Town – Part 3: Will

Back in 2015, I wrote a blog post asking “Is Co-Parenting Possible?”  The article highlighted one family’s path to co-parenting.  Slowly, I’ve begun to see more and more success stories about co-parenting.

Recently Lancaster Online featured a story about a local family that has decided that co-parenting is in their daughter’s best interest.  For the Hawkeys of Lancaster and Bankerts of York, co-parenting wasn’t always easy.  They struggled at the beginning, simply going through custody exchanges without much interaction.  But recently they realized they needed to do more for their daughter.  When a rare family dinner made their daughter so happy, they decided to do more.  In mid-March the family decided  to go on a co-parenting family vacation to Walt Disney World in Florida.

This is a great example that even if it takes a while for everyone to be in a place where they can work together, when they can, the children really benefit.  However, I will repeat my prior caveat – not all families can or should co-parent.  But when they can, it is remarkable what can happen.

Lindsay Schoeneberger is an attorney at Russell, Krafft & Gruber, LLP in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. She received her law degree from Widener University School of Law and practices in a variety of areas including Family Law.

It was announced on Wednesday that one of the more popular craft breweries in the country, Wicked Weed Brewing out of Ashville, North Carolina, was acquired by Anheuser-Busch, the world’s largest producer of beer.  Interestingly (but not surprising if you follow the craft beer industry) the announcement was met with significant backlash from the craft beer community.  The acquisition garnered significant criticism on Twitter, with many accusing Wicked Weed of “selling out.” The deal even generated a statement from the North Carolina’s Craft Brewers Guild, saying that they were “disheartened” by the announcement.  In another example, when Elysian Brewing Company out of Seattle announced its sale to Anheuser-Busch in 2015, the owner reported that customers were buying beers and dumping them onto the floor in protest of the sale!

Why are craft brewers treated so differently in the business world than other startups?  Why are they accused of “selling out” when in other industries, startup companies are celebrated and their founders turned into celebrities when they successfully sell off their company for millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars?

The answer is not so simple and there seems to be reasonable arguments that can be made on both sides of the issue (beyond just pouring out a perfectly good beer).  Customers and craft beer enthusiasts often express concern that the takeover by a large, international corporate giant is going to impact the quality of the beer.  In some cases, this seems to be a justifiable concern.  The article from Thrillist cites a number of examples including Goose Island and Ballast Point where, after the acquisition, the original ownership left, recipes were changed, and in one case, a coveted batch of beer had to be recalled because of a non-toxic bacteria that infected the beer required its recall.  These issues were all blamed on the takeover and many people swore off drinking these beers as a result. Continue Reading Double (IPA) Standard for Craft Breweries?