HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-00023
C \0 ,'")
t -.J .,
,- ,I
[, ' -'!
, 1,_.
I ll"n
h.) j 1.1]
:C)
, ...... -'J
"
'J..
,()
:;': ;111
t
'_'1 ."
h) '"
4
~
.
;
,IlJl)(;MENT NOTE
$ 100,000,00
,). I'
., .,;."(
:/ ."/ 'f (
We. Larry V. Boycr and Mary B. Boyer, promise to pay to thc ordcr of Dr. Edward
G. Boycr,thc sum ofOnc lIundrcd Thousand ($IOO,OO().Oll) Dollars in lawful money of the
,
,
,
I
t
!
I
,.
i
I
I
United States of Amcriea, together with interest thereon at the rate of Scven and Fivc
Hundred Fiftccn lIundredths (7.515%) pcrcent per annum; payablc in equal monthly
installmcnts of $70().29, thc first paYll1cntto be duc thirty (30) days from thc datc hercof
and thc rcmaining paymcnts to bc duc on the samc day of each month thereafter.
And furthcr, I do hcreby authorize and empowcr any allomey of any Court of Rccord
of Pcnnsylvania or clsewhcrc to appear for and cnter Judgment against mc lor the abovc
sum, with or without declaration, with costs of suit, relcasc of errors, without stay of
cxccution, and with Fifteen (ISo!.,) percent added lor collection fees; and I also waivc thc
right of inquisition on any real cstatc that may be Icvied upon to collect this Notc, and do
hcrcby voluntarily condemn thc samc, and authorizc thc Prothonotary to cnter upon thc writ
of cxccution said voluntary condcmnation; and I further agrce that said real estatc may bc
sold on a writ of execution and I hereby waive and release all relief from any and all
appraiscmcnt, stay or cxemption laws of any Statc now in force or hcrcafter to bc passcd.
WITNESS my hand and seal the day and ycar lirst ubo\'e written.
WITNESS:
(u</ /1\1
"'J
,J(J.' ~
(C/1t7((({((i _ ' D ~
(I . " V. B ycr
'(I-(jU((.rocJ;{IU, 6' ~UL/
Mary B. ~.~er 0
SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED before me
;'~, .
tbis' 'I day of J \ ,', Iii I" . 1996.
,
Ii/I.' I /
Nolnry Public '
My Commission Expires:
;. ,
!
(
Nc.:;uiaI30<11
Tracy l. lockh~rl. Hol.lI'l Public
H<1rrl!;tufC"l. O:wphil1 COllll!Y
'.ty COnl:lli,:!.ioll bpif.)" 1.1~IY 3,1:'1)')
,
12/27/1996 Page 1
Boyer to Boyer 1
Compound Period ........ Monthly l
Nominal Annual Rate." : 7,515 % f
Effective Annual Rate ,. : 7,779 %
Periodic Rate .............,: 0,6262 % (
.
Daily Rate .................. : 0,02059 %
,
!'
CASH FLOW DATA
Event Start Date Amount Number Period End Date
1 Loan 12/31/1996 100,000.00 1
2 Payment 01/31/1997 700.24 360 Monthly 12/31/2026
AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE - Normal Amortization
Date Payment Interest Principal Balance
Loan 12/31/1996 100,000.00
1996 Totals 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 01/31/1997 700.24 626.25 73.99 99,926.01
2 02/28/1997 700.24 625.79 74.45 99,851.56
3 03/31/1997 700.24 625,32 74.92 99,776.64
4 04/30/1997 700.24 624.85 75.39 99,701.25
5 05/31/1997 700.24 624,38 75.86 99,625.39
6 06/30/1997 700.24 623.90 76.34 99,549.05
7 07/31/1997 700.24 623.43 76.81 99,472.24
8 08/31/1997 700.24 622.94 77.30 99,394.94
9 09/30/1997 700.24 622.46 77.78 99,317.16
10 10/31/1997 700.24 621.97 78.27 99,238.89
11 11/30/1997 700.24 621.48 78,76 99,160.13
12 12/31/1997 700.24 620.99 79,25 99,080.88
1997 Totals 8,402.88 7,483.76 919.12
13 01/31/1998 700.24 620.49 79.75 99,001.13
14 02/28/1998 700.24 619.99 80.25 98,920.88
15 03/31/1998 700.24 619.49 80.75 98,840.13
16 04/30/1998 700.24 618.99 81.25 98,758.88
17 05/31/1998 700,24 618,48 81.76 98,677.12
18 06/30/1998 700.24 617.97 82.27 98,594.85
19 07/31/1998 700.24 617.45 82.79 98,512.06
20 08/31/1998 700.24 616.93 83,31 98,428.75
21 09/30/1998 700.24 616.41 83.83 98,344,92
22 10/31/1998 700.24 615.89 84.35 98,260.57
23 11/30/1998 700.24 615.36 84.88 98,175.69
24 12/31/1998 700.24 614.83 85.41 98,090.28
1998 Totals 8,402.88 7,412.28 990.60
25 01/31/1999 700.24 614.29 85.95 98,004.33
~ ~ .J
~
~ ~ ~.
--t. ~ '\.
v ~ ~
~ ~ ~
"
~
.......
"-
V
'-10
\J
~
r:
( ,
,
'oJ)
.oJ
n
n
I
,-;1
-(.'1
" ' ~:.J
..,
'..
:IJ
: ~- )
,1'-'
:j
.'1
,
..
~
I
'"
-.-,
:,'.)
:n
I"
DR. EDWARD O. I\OYFR
: IN TilE CO! IRT OF ('or..1MON PLEAS
: ('\ IMI\I'RLAND CO\ INTY. I'FNNSYLV ANIA
Pluintill:
v.
: No. () 7 ,) ~
CIVIL TERM
I.ARRY V, I\OYER und
MARY B, BOYER, his wife.
Dct'endunts.
TO: LARRY V. BOYER AND MARY BElli BOYER, Defcndants
You urc hercby notified thutol1 (1. ,;J /tl~' ')
uguinst you in the sum of $1 00,000.00 in tl ubove-euptioned case.
, judgmcnt was entercd
DATE:
/d7')
,_/ ~ ( , ?', / (/_' ,11,.
IJ ~"':tL. l"t.~4.J C( -. @
Prothonotary /K (
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT
HA VE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE
SET FORT!I BELOW TO FIND OUT WIIERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL IIELP.
Lawyer Rcferrul Service
Court Administrator
Cumbcrlund County Courthouse
Carlislc. Pennsylvania 17013
I hcrcby ccrtify that thc following is the address of thc dcfendunt statcd in thc certificatc of
rcsidcncc:
Mr. Larry Boyer and Mrs. Mary Beth Boyer
1020 Tunbridge Lanc
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvaniu 17055 /
',-,'I, /t'r...i" / " ), '.,
(Annu Marie Sossong, Esquire "
SKARLATOS & ZONARICII
decide the issue of whether, a t the time of Sull i van's license
t
suspension, PennDOT had the authority to suspend a driver's license
based on an out-of-state conviction pursuant to the Driver License
Compact of 1961 (Compact).
Because we conclude that, at the
relevant time, the Commonwealth had not enacted the Compact into
law, we affirm the Order of the Commonwealth Court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Compact is a contractual agreement among states intended
to promote compliance with each party state's driving laws and
regulations.
Besides Pennsylvania. the Compact has thirty-nine
party jurisdictions (thirty-eight states and the District of
Columbia), each of which has enacted the Compact into law by
statute.2
(.. .continued)
or an adjudication of delinquency based on section 3731 or 3733. .
2
~ Ala. Code 55 32-6-30 to 36; Ariz. Rev. Stat. 55
28-1601 to 1605; Ark. Code 55 27-17-101 to 106; Ca1. Veh. Code 5
15000 et seg.; Colo. Rev. Stat. 55 24-60-1101 to 1107; 1992 Conn.
Acts 92-186 (Reg. Sess.); Del. Code tit. 21, 5 8101; D.C.Code 55
40-1501 and 1502; 23 Fla. Stat. Ann. 55 322.43 to 322.48; Haw. Rev.
Stat. 55 286C-1 and 286C-2; Idaho Code 55 49-2001 to 2003; Ill.
Ann. Stat. ch. 625, ~ 5/6-700 to 708; Ind. Code Ann. 55 9-28-1-1 to
6; Iowa Code 55 321C.1 and 321C.2; Kan. Stat. Ann. 55 8-1212 to
1218; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 55 32:1420 to 1425; Me. Rev. Stat. tit.
29, 55 631 to 675; Md. Transp. Code 55 16-701 to 708; Minn. Stat.
55 171.50 to 56; Miss. Code Ann. 55 63-1-101 to 113; Mo. Ann. Stat.
55 301.600 to 302.605; Mont. Code Ann. 55 61-5-401 to 406; 2A Neb.
Rev. Stat. App. at 840; Nev. Rev. Stat. 55 483.640 to 483.690; N.H.
Rev. Stat. 5 263.77; N.J. Stat. Ann. 55 39:50-1 to 14; N.M. Stat.
Ann. 55 66-5-49 to 51; N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law 5 516; N.C. Gen. Stat.
55 20-4.21 to 4.30; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 5 4507.60 Okla.Stat. tit.
47, 55 781 to 788; Or. Rev. Stat. 5 802.540; S.C. Code Ann. 55
56-1-610 to 690; Utah Code Ann. 55 41-2-501 to 506; Vt. Stat. Ann.
(continued... )
[J-158-1997] - 2
he did argue that PennDOT improperly failed to notify Sullivan that
the suspension of his license was based on the Compact. The trial
court sustained Sullivan's appeal, and PennDOT appealed to the
Commonwealth Court.
The Commonwealth Court considered Article VIII of the Compact,
which provides as follows:
(1) This compact shall enter into force and become
effective as to any state when it has enacted the same
into law.
(2) Any party state may withdraw from this compact by
enacting a statute repealing the same. , .
The court concluded that the Commonwealth had not "enacted [the
Compact] into law" as required by Article VIII(l), and, therefore,
PennDOT lacked the authority to suspend Sullivan's license based on
his conviction in Nebraska.
DISCUSSION
On appeal to this Court, PennDOT first argues that the
Commonwealth Court should not have addressed the issue of whether
the Commonwealth enacted the Compact into law, because Sullivan did
not raise it in the trial court. In the first instance, PennDOT
overlooks the fact that, until the September 20, 1995 hearing, it
had not notified Sullivan that it was relying on the Compact for
authority to suspend his license. Moreover, the general rule that
issues not raised in the lower court may not be raised on appeal
applies only to appellants, not to appellees. ~ Commonwealth v.
Katze, 540 Pa. 416, 658 A.2d 345 (1995) (plurality opinion);
[J-158-l997j - 5
The Compact is a contract between states. Accordingly. we are
bound to interpret its terms according to their plain meaning.
~. Jl..JL" Steuart v. McChesnev. 498 Pa. 45, 444 A.2d 659 (1982).
Furthermore. this Court will not rewrite the terms of a contract.
nor give them a meaning that conflicts with that of the language
used. I.d..... at 50-51. 444 A.2d at 662 (quoting Robert F. Felte.
Inc. v. White. 451 Pa. 137. 144. 30:< A.2d 347. 351 (1973) (quoting
Haaartv v. William Akers. ,Ir. Co.. Inc.. 342 Pa. 236. 239. 20 A.2d
317, 319 (1941))). Pursuant to Article VIII(l) of the Compact. its
provisions "enter into force and become effective as to any state
when it has enacted the [Compact] into law." In the context of law
making, the plain meaning of the term "enactment" is "[t]he method
or process by which a bill in the Legislature becomes a law."
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 526 (6th ed. 1990).
The language of Article VIII(2) of the Compact supports this
interpretation. It provides that. "[a]ny party state may withdraw
from this compact by enacting a statute repealing the same.. "
If the passage of a statute were not also required for entry into
the Compact. the withdrawal provision of Article VIII(2) would be
incongruously burdensome. We cannot conclude that the Compact's
drafters intended such a disparity between entry into and
withdrawal from the Compact. nor are we empowered to give the terms
of the contract a meaning inconsistent with the drafters' clear
intent. .s..e..e. ~. Steuart. 498 Pa. at 48-49. 444 A.2d at 661;
Felte, 451 Pa. at 143-44, 302 A.2d at 351. Thus. we hold that the
[J-158-l997] , 7
:,
Compact becomes effective as to the Commonwealth only when the
Legislature passes a statute adopting it. Any other construction
would impermissibly strain the language of the contract beyond its
plain meaning.
Notwithstanding the Compact's express language, PennDOT argues
that, in passing Section 6146 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. !i
6146, the Legislature properly delega ted to the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) the authority to enter into the Compact.
Overall, the Legislature may delegate policy making authority to an
administrative agency, so long as the Legislature makes the "basic
pOlicy choices" and establishes "adequate standards which wi 11
guide and restrain the exercise of the delegated administrative
functions." Gilliaan v. PennsYlvania Horse Racina Commission, 492
Pa. 92, 96, 422 A.2d 487, 489 (1980) (citing William Penn Parking
Garaae. Inc. v. City of Pittsburah, 464 Pa. 168, 346 A.2d 269
(1975); Chartiers Valley Joint Schools v. County Board of School
Directors of AlJeahenv County, 418 Pa. 520, 211 A.2d 487 (1965);
Belovskv v. RedeveloDment Authoritv of the City of PhiladelDhia,
357 Pa. 329, 54 A.2d 277 (1947)).
Here, PennDOT asserts tha t
Section 6141 of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. !i 6141, evinces the
Legislature's basic policy choice to participate in interstate
agreements regarding the regulation of drivers,' and that Section
, Section 6141 of the Vehicle Code, entitled "Declaration
of pOlicy", provides that:
It is the policy of this Commonwealth to promote and
(continued.. .)
[J-158'1997j - 8
6146 adequately limits the Secretary's discretion in entering into
such agreements, e.g., by specifically referring to the Compact.
Thus, PennDOT concludes, by delegating to the Secretary the
authority to enter into the Compact, the Legislature obviated the
need to pass a statute enacting the Compact into law.
law shall be passed except by bill.
"
In light of these
PennDOT's argument is unavailing, however, because it
conflicts with the separation of powers mandated by the
Pennsylvania Constitution. Article II, section 1 provides that,
"[t)he legislative power of this Commonwealth shall be vested in a
General ASSembly, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives;" and Article III, Section 1 provides that, "[n)o
constitutional provisions, "[i)t is axiomatic that the Legislature
cannot constitutionally delegate the power to make law to any other
branch of government or to any other body or authority." Gilliaan,
492 Pa. at 95, 422 A.2d at 489 (citing State Board of Chirooractic
Examiners v. Life Fe1lowshio of Pennsv1vania, 441 Pa. 293, 272 A.2d
478 (1971)).
(.. .continued)
encourage the fullest possible use of its highway system by
au thorizing the making and execution of reciprocal agreements,
arrangements and declarations with other states, provinces,
territories and countries with respect to drivers licensed and
vehicles registered in this and other states, provinces,
territories and countries, thus contributing to the economic and
social development and growth of this Commonwealth,
75 Pa.C.S. 9 6141.
[J-158-1997] . 9
In Ruch v. Wilhelm, 3S2 Pi!. 'ifJ6, 43 A.2d 894 (1945), this
Court held that the powc,r of "nubstantive enactment" is vested in
the Legislature alone. Thus, the Court determined that.
"[a]uthority may be given to a government official or an
administrative agency to make rules and regUlations to cover mere
matters of detail for the implementation of a statute. but where
the statute itself is lacking in essential substantive provisions
the law does not permit a transfer of the power to supply them, for
the legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law." .I.d...... at
592-93. 43 A.2d at 897.
In this case. we view 75 Pa,C,S. 5 6146(1) merely as a
delegation of authority to implement the mechanics of the Compact
in the Commonwealth. Pursuant to the Constitution's separation of
powers. however. the Legislature could not delegate to the
Secretary the power to enact the Compact into law as required by
its terms. Thus. while not unconstitutional. 75 Pa.C.S. 5 6146(1)
is insufficient to render the Compact effective as to the
Commonwealth.
Indeed. the Legislature seemed to concede as much in passing
Act No. 1996-149 (Act). Although the Secretary had purported to
enter into the Compact effective January 1. 1995. on December 10,
1996. the Legislature passed the Act. which. inter <l.l.i.a. added
Section 1581 to the Vehicle Code. That section sets forth the full
text of the Compact and provides that. "[t]he Driver's License
[J-158-1997] - 10