On Thursday, December 20, 2012, a week after the U.S. Senate passed H.R. 4367, a bill eliminating the requirement that ATM operators post a fee notice on the ATM equipment, President Obama signed the bill into law. Banks, credit unions, and ATM industry groups, many of whom viewed the fee notice requirements as a source of frivolous lawsuits against ATM owners and operators, worked to push the legislation through Congress. While the new law eliminates the requirement that ATM operators post notice of fees on the actual equipment, fee notices are still required to be posted on the ATM screen or provided on a paper noticed issued by the machine. What remains unclear is the effect the new law will have on fee notice lawsuits that were pending prior to the repeal of the old fee notice requirements. The defendants in those pending matters are hopeful that the courts will consider the change in the law in their overall consideration of the cases.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal in Osprey Portfolio, LLC v. Izett, on the issue of the applicable statute of limitations for a loan guaranty that is signed under seal. In Osprey, the lender argued that a guaranty is an “instrument” which, if signed under seal, is governed by a 20-year statute of limitations pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. 5529. The guarantor argued that a guaranty is merely a “contract” which is governed by a four-year statute of limitations pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. 5525.
In Commerce Bank/Harrisburg, N.A. v. Kessler, 2012 WL 1610139 (Pa. Super. 2012), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled on two issues of first impression: whether the amended version of the Mechanics Lien Law (“MLL”), 49 P.S. 1101, et seq., applies to contracts entered into prior to its January 1, 2007 effective date, and when a mechanics lien will have priority over an open-end mortgage.
The first issue addressed by the Court in Kessler applies to a limited number of loans- those for which contracts were entered into and visible commencement of work occurred prior to the January 1, 2007 effective date of the amended MLL, but the lien obtained after January 1, 2007. On this issue, the Court held that the applicable law was the amended MLL, since it was the law in effect at the time the contractors’ lien was filed; the law in place when construction began and the contract was entered into was not applied.