Tupitza news

July 2008 Lancaster, PA The Court of Common Pleas reverses decision of the East Lampeter Board of Supervisors. Most lawyers never get the chance to handle a case that will have an impact that will last for years. Tupitza & Associates recently received a landmark decision in an Agricultural Security case. This case challenged a Lancaster County Township which refused to create an Ag Security district. Property must be in such a district in order for the owner to sell a perpetual restriction against development to the county. This decision will impact Lancaster County and perhaps the entire state and will result in more farmland being preserved forever. The Supervisors are expected to appeal.

June 2009 Harrisburg, PA Commonwealth Court upholds decision of Lancaster County Court. Landmark victory for agriculture preservation. In a case argued before the Commonwealth Court by James Tupitza, and briefed by Mr. Tupitza and Jennifer H. Janis, Esq., the Commonwealth Court has just entered an Opinion in favor of farming and farm preservation. Mr. Tupitza stated that this is indeed one of the most important cases in many years. Two hundred years from now, no one will remember who won a boundary dispute or who forced a builder to correct deficiencies. You will however be able to see preserved farms in Lancaster Cournty and across the state that were able to be preserved because of this decision. Recent excerpts from the news (see National Public Radio article and listen to clip) underline the importance of sourcing food locally. See the full opinion of the lower and appellate courts at www.cvc-lancaster.org

May 2009 Malvern. (names redacted for privacy) The ******* @@@@ Homeowners Association revealed today that it settled litigation with The ***** ****** Group, developer of its community. The litigation began as a $110,000 claim by the developer against the homeowner association for unpaid maintenance expenses. In the end, the developer dropped its claim and settled with the association by paying the association $220,000.00. The case was resolved following a settlement conference before senior judge Charles B. Smith.

Attorneys James Tupitza and Jennifer Hulnick Janis of Tupitza & Associates led the trial team for the Association, while Richard McBride represented the developer. Mr. Tupitza stated that "in the end it became clear that the developer followed the age old habit of not paying association fees on undeveloped lots. We caught him redhanded"

While many Homeowners Declarations exempt developers from the obligation to pay, the Uniform Planned Community Act trumps these documents...................

West Chester, PA June 2009 Local Firm Sues Robo-Callers West Chester attorneys James S. Tupitza and Jennifer H. Janis have filed a multicount complaint against Automotive Warranty Solutions, LLC. The suit alleges that the defendant violated state and federal laws, including "DO NOT CALL" laws by soliciting their 85 year old client and convincing her that she needed a 5 year auto warranty at a cost in excess of $3,000 in order to keep driving her car. The practice of calling every number in an area code to sell car warranties peaked in May of this year and fell off sharply when exposed by several national news programs. Mr. Tupitza said the even as they were preparing to file the suit, the robo-callers called his office during the lunch hour to sell a car warranty. The suit seeks return of the allegedly improper payment, punitive damages and attorney's fees.

August 2009 Philadelphia The Commonwealth Court has rendered a decision in the matter of Robal Associates v. Supervisors of Charlestown Township which sustained last years decision of Common Pleas Judge Ronald C. Nagle. Judge Nagle's decision reversed the decision of the supervisors which denied Robal's right to subdivide it long held property. James S. Tupitza of West Chester represented Robal. This is the second trip to the Commonwealth Court, and the township's second loss asit seeks to block development of the tract. The property was zoned for townhouses and single family homes when the first plan depicting 23 single family homes was presented in 2002. The developer bnegotiated down to 19 lots but the supervisors said this was too many and that single family lots violated zoning. The developer then filed a plan conforming to the zoning with 55 lots. In an attempt to block development the supervisors re-zoned the land to Agricultural. The Commonwelath Court ruled that the re-zoning was illegal. The supervisors replied by rejecting the plan for several failures to comply to the zoning ordinance. Among the alleged failures to comply that were rejected by the Courts, was the contention that the zoning ordinance prohibited any structure within 150 feet of the tract perimeter. The supervisors contended that anything man-made or man- dsiturbed was a structure, including roads, stop signs, utility lines and grading. The Courts found such an argument to be without merit as it would prevent any vehicular or utility acces to the homes.

December, 2009 Harrisburg, PA: Local Company wins in The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. In a case addressing residential construction issues, the Supreme Court let stand the decisions of the Superior Court and the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas in a dispute between a high end home builder and a prominent local trial lawyer, who was building a new home on the lawyer's lot. The builder, represented by James Tupitza of Tupitza & Associates, was contracted to build a luxury home, complete with multiple kitchens, ball room and theatre in Radnor. The Court ruled that the property owners materially breached the construction contract when they terminated the construction contract with no notice to the builder and no right to cure alleged defects. The case points out the need, even for a trial lawyer, to consult with a competent real estate lawyer when legal issues arise in building a home.

January 21, 2010 Montgomery County, PA TOXIC TORT trial begins against Pulte Homes. Trial began today in the case of the Pulte-Geist home. Two expert witnesses, an industrial hygienist and a prominent occupational health physician testified today in the first day of a trial against national home builder Pulte Homes. The case alleges that Pulte delivered a home which contained chemicals alpha pinene and beta pinene which , even now, more than seven years after delivery, exceed acceptable TEEL standards by 24,000%. The experts supported the Plaintiff's claim that the home has caused numerous hospitalizations and medical expenses for the family of six and has prevented them from selling the home. The case is being conducted in private arbitration, due to a clause in the Pulte agreement of sale, and is expected to take several months to complete. Attorney James Tupitza of West Chester firm Tupitza & Associates represents the Plaintiffs.

January 28, 2010 Philadelphia, PA Home Theft Trials Ends in Philadelphia Courts. The trial of one of the numerous theft of home cases, which have plagued the city in recent years ended favorable for the owners today. This case had a twist. The home, located in the Mt. Airy district, and owned by the estate of a deceased woman, was stolen in 2007 by Evin Jarrett, using a forged deed. Jarrett conspired with a paralegal, a notary, and an imposter who purported to act for the woman, not knowing she was dead. The woman's son's, now the real owners, found Jarrett and friends living in the house and all of their mother's property gone. Confronted, Jarrett sold the house in a quick sale for cash to a local real estate investor, who specializes in fix and flip deals.

The sons sued the investor for return of the house, to set aside the forged deed, and for rent during the 2 years the house was in the investor's possession. The suit was answered with a counter-claim. The investor sued the real owners and asked that they be ordered to pay him the $145,000 that he gave to the thief, $84,000 given to a contractor for fix up the house, $200,000 which was the claimed increase in value of the home after the theft, and the investor's utility bills, lawn mowing expenses and real estate taxes.

The real owners were represented by Jennifer Janis and James S. Tupitza of Tupitza & Associates. James Tupitza commented "the human mind has a difficult time properly comprehending the theft of a house. We had to overcome that basic issue. We chose to cross-examine the investor by asking how he would have felt to have found his car stolen, all his things in the car gone, and the car sold to someone driving it around City Hall. Finally we asked him how he would feel if the person driving his car refused to give it up and then sued him asking him to pay for the oil change and cash wash he just got."

The trial ended with a confidential settlement just before closing arguments. Mr. Tupitza said "the settlement was very favorable to my clients."