Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott Named 2013 Healthiest Employers® in Western Pennsylvania

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott has been selected as one of the 2013 Healthiest Employers® in Western Pennsylvania by the Pittsburgh Business Times. This award recognizes Meyer, Unkovic & Scott for its wellness programs and efforts in promoting good health practices. 

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott’s wellness programs target three realms of health: mind, body, and financial as follows:
  • Massage Therapy
  • Yoga
  • MUS Run/Walk Team: Lawyers with Sole
  • One-on-one meetings with Hirtle Callaghan
  • Flu Shots
  • Smoking Cessation Lunch and Learn
In addition to the above programs, all employees have access to the website www.lifesolutionsforyou.com. This website is dedicated to connecting employees to resources on topics such as, elder care, financial /credit concerns, child care,  alcohol and drug concerns.

Our UPMC partnership provides health coach services to assist UPMC members with a variety of matters, including: stress management, nutrition, weight or diabetes management and getting started with physical activity. All services are private and confidential through their  1-800-647-3327  24/7 line.


 

Monday, June 24, 2013

Round Two - It's Down To The Wire!

Today is the last day of voting for the second round of the
Pittsburgh Business Times’ Social Madness Competition. 

Thank you for helping us to get here.

We need your help now more than ever!
 
Help Meyer, Unkovic & Scott advance to the third round and make us one step closer to donating $10,000 to our charities.  If we win the finals of the Social Madness Competition, we will donate the $10,000 grand prize to Attorneys Against Hunger and Neighborhood Legal Services Association.

Thank you for your help!

Friday, June 21, 2013

Thank you - We've advanced to round two!


Because of your support, we have made it to the second round!

We need your help again to advance to the third round of the Pittsburgh Business Times Social Madness competition. 
  
  
  
  
You can cast a vote once a day until Monday, June 24th.  We'd also like you to connect with us on our social media sites.
 
The prize for winning the overall national competition is a $10,000 donation by The Business Journals to the charity/charities to be named by the winner.

After you vote for the firm, your vote button will change to a "Thank you for your vote!" button and give you the option to share the voting link on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Google+.  Please consider sharing this with your contacts as well.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Contractors Need To Be Aware Of Law's Limits


Brandon Rothey, Esquire
bbr@muslaw.com
“Contractors need to be aware of law's limits,” an article by Brandon Rothey was featured in the Business Workshop section of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Click here to read Brandon's article.

Friday, June 14, 2013

Social Media Madness - We need your help to advance to the second round!

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP is competing in The Pittsburgh Business Times Social Madness competition.  We need your help to advance to the second round.  Please visit http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/socialmadness and cast your vote for us in the small category.  You can cast a vote once a day until Monday, June 17th.  We'd also like you to connect with us on our social media sites.

The prize for winning the overall national competition is a $10,000 donation by The Business Journals to the charity/charities to be named by the winner.

After you vote for the firm, your vote button will change to a "Thank you for your vote!" button and give you the option to share the voting link on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Google+.  Please consider sharing this with your contacts as well.



Thursday, June 13, 2013

No Need To Disclose 'Psychological' Property Defects

Frank Kosir, Jr., Esquire
fk@muslaw.com
Frank Kosir’s article, “No need to disclose 'psychological' property defects,” appeared in the Business Workshop section. Click here to read more.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Entitlement to Site-Specific Relief

Appeal of Chester County Outdoor, LLC, 2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 79 (2013)

Frank Kosir, Jr., Esquire
fk@muslaw.com
This matter addressed the issue of whether a party successfully challenging the validity of a zoning ordinance was entitled to site-specific relief where its challenge did not include a request for such relief.  Chester County Outdoor, LLC (“CCO”) is an entity engaged in the development, operation, construction and maintenance of billboards.  In the course of its operations, CCO entered into a lease to construct a billboard on certain real property (“Property”) situated at 27 Commerce Boulevard in Penn Township (“Township”), Chester County, Pennsylvania.  The Township’s zoning ordinance (“Ordinance”) did not make any provision for the construction or operation of billboards within the Township and, in response, CCO filed a validity challenge with the Township’s Zoning Hearing Board (“Board”) pursuant to Section 10916.1(a)(1) of the Municipalities Planning Code (53 P.S. §10916.1(a)(1)), asserting that the section of the Ordinance governing advertising signs unlawfully excluded billboards.  CCO’s challenge as filed included proposed plans for the billboard that it sought to construct on the Property.
 
The Board conducted a hearing on CCO’s validity challenge, at which hearing CCO withdrew the plans that it had submitted for the proposed billboard.  Thereafter, the Board proceeded solely on the validity challenge and issued a decision holding that the section of the Ordinance governing advertising signs was exclusionary and would be stricken.  However, in its decision, the Board further noted that, had CCO not withdrawn its application for site-specific relief, the application would have been denied as the proposed billboard did not comply with applicable set-back requirements.  CCO filed an appeal to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas asserting that it was entitled to site-specific relief, which appeal the court dismissed, concluding that CCO lacked standing to challenge the Board’s determinations.
 
On appeal, our Commonwealth Court affirmed.  In issuing its ruling the court noted that, in order to have standing to challenge the determinations of a zoning hearing board, a party must have a direct interest in the question litigated.  In this instance, the only issue before the Board was the validity of the section of the Ordinance governing advertising signs, an issue that the Board had decided in CCO’s favor.  The fact that the Board’s decision included a statement that CCO would not have been entitled to the site-specific relief it had previously sought did not make CCO an aggrieved party, as the application for site-specific relief had been withdrawn and was not before the Board.  Rather, the Board’s reference to CCO’s application amounted to nothing more than dictum advising CCO that, in its current form, its plans for the proposed billboard would not satisfy other provisions of the Ordinance.  Therefore, as the Board did not deny CCO’s request for site-specific relief, it was not an aggrieved party, and lacked standing to challenge the Board’s decision. 

Friday, June 7, 2013

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott's Real Estate Group Named In Best Law Firm Corporate Practices Awards

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott’s Real Estate & Lending Group was recently named as one of the leading real estate departments in The Legal Intelligencer’s Best Law Firm Corporate Practices awards for law firms in Pennsylvania. Meyer, Unkovic & Scott was the only mid-sized law firm from Western Pennsylvania to receive this honor.
 
The honorees will be published in the July 30th print edition of The Legal Intelligencer, but you can view the online details now by visiting The Legal Intelligencer Blog.
 
Please visit our website to learn more about our Real Estate & Lending Group.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Meyer, Unkovic & Scott Best Lawyers Appeared in "On The Docket"

An announcement regarding the MUS attorneys who were named to the 2013 edition of The Best Lawyers appeared in the On The Docket section of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  Click here to view the announcement.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Employers Must Use New I-9 Form

Joel Pfeffer, Esquire
jp@muslaw.com
An article by Joel Pfeffer was featured in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s Business Workshop section. To read, “Employers must use new I-9 form,” click here to read Joel's article.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Established Ownership of Mortgage?

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 2013 PA Super 55, 2013 Pa. Super. LEXIS 142 (2013)
Frank Kosir, Jr., Esquire
fk@muslaw.com
This matter addressed the issue of whether an alleged mortgage holder had established ownership of the mortgage and note in question so as to justify a grant of summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding.  On May 6, 2010 Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. as Trustee for Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. 2000-1 (“Deutsche Bank”) commenced a foreclosure action against Francis X. Murray (“Murray”) pursuant to a residential mortgage.  In its Complaint, Deutsche Bank identified Great Western Bank d/b/a Sierra Western Mortgage Company as the mortgagee, and alleged that, through a series of transfers and mergers, it held title to the mortgage and note.  Following the filing of the Complaint, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) was substituted as plaintiff in the proceeding by leave of court based upon an allegation that it was the successor in interest to Deutsche Bank.

In response to the Complaint, Murray filed an Answer and New Matter asserting inter alia that, as more than seven (7) years had passed from the execution of the alleged assignment and its recording, the assignment was defective and the foreclosure complaint had to be dismissed.  Murray further asserted that certain assignments in the chain of title were defective, and that the name of the original mortgagee on the mortgage differed from that set forth in the Complaint.  The trial court entered summary judgment for the Plaintiff, concluding that there was no question of material fact as to the Plaintiff’s rights in the Mortgage or Note, or in its right to foreclose.

On appeal, our Superior Court reversed.  In issuing its ruling, the court concluded that a review of the record established several defects in the Plaintiff’s case that warranted the reversal of the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.  First, the Plaintiff had failed to establish that it was in possession of the original note indorsed in blank and, as such, was unable to establish that it had a right to foreclose against Murray.  Although the Plaintiff had produced a note, the parties were unable to agree as to whether the note produced was in fact an original indorsed in blank, thereby creating an issue of material fact prohibiting the entry of summary judgment.  For these reasons, the matter had to be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to determine, inter alia, whether the note in the Plaintiff’s possession was in fact the original note indorsed in blank, thereby vesting in the Plaintiff the right to foreclose against Francis.  However, the court further concluded that, as the Plaintiff had failed to provide any evidence that it was a rightful successor to the original lender, the trial court had erred in granting the Plaintiff leave to substitute itself as a party in the matter and that, prior to a hearing on remand, the Plaintiff had to establish that it was in fact a successor in interest to the original lender.

Monday, June 3, 2013

Department of Labor Issues New FMLA Interpretations in 2013

Elaina Smiley, Esquire
es@muslaw.com
Attorney Elania Smiley's article "Department of Labor Issues New FMLA Interpretations in 2013" appeared in Issue #4 of the Western PA Healthcare News.  Click here to read Elaina's article.