Bollard & Assoc. v. H&R Industries, 1038 EDA 2016

Bollard & Associates (commission claimant) sued H&R Industries (debtor) and its owner Harry Schmidt for unpaid commissions; H&R did not appeal the judgment.
Bollard employees testified Schmidt orally promised to pay commissions personally if H&R could not, mentioning personal real-estate investments (Allentown townhomes, Cherry Hill property) as sources of funds.
Schmidt denied making a personal guarantee, testified any references to his properties did not link his personal funds to H&R’s obligations.
Bench trial: court invited proposed Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law addressing burden of proof; defendants did not submit them; Bollard did.
Trial court found Schmidt’s testimony not credible, concluded Schmidt personally guaranteed the debt, and entered judgment for Bollard for $402,815.73 plus interest.
On appeal Schmidt argued insufficient evidence and that any promise was conditional on sale of his properties and/or that a clear-and-convincing standard should apply; the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bollard)	Defendant's Argument (Schmidt)	Held
Sufficiency to impose personal liability on owner	Oral testimony (three witnesses) shows Schmidt promised to pay personally; evidence supports judgment	Testimony inconsistent; no writing; promise was company debt, not personal; insufficent proof	Affirmed: evidence sufficient; trial court credibility findings deferred to; judgment stands
Applicable burden of proof for oral personal guarantee	(Bollard) Preponderance applies; in any event evidence meets clear-and-convincing standard	Clear-and-convincing required (relying on federal authority); post-trial failure to address burden waived issue	Superior Court avoided deciding standard; held evidence satisfied clear-and-convincing too, so result stands
Conditional promise (tied to sale of properties)	N/A — Bollard argued promise was an unconditional personal guarantee	Promise was conditioned on liquidation of Allentown/Cherry Hill assets and thus unenforceable until sale	Rejected: record contains no agreement conditioning liability on sale of those properties; claim fails
Waiver for failure to file requested Findings/Conclusions	Bollard argued defendants failed to comply with court order and abandoned objections	Schmidt argued counsel sought extensions and thus did not waive the burden argument	Court noted possible waiver but resolved appeal on merits; no relief granted to Schmidt

Biller v. Ziegler, 593 A.2d 436 (Pa. Super. 1991) (main-object rule exception to Statute of Frauds for promises to answer for another)
Webb Mfg. Co. v. Sinoff, 674 A.2d 723 (Pa. Super. 1996) (discussing enforceability of oral guarantees under main-purpose rule)
Jefferson-Travis, Inc. v. Giant Eagle Markets, Inc., 393 F.2d 426 (3d Cir. 1968) (federal authority cited by defendant arguing for clear-and-convincing standard for oral guarantees)
Lessner v. Rubinson, 592 A.2d 678 (Pa. 1991) (definition and requirements of the clear-and-convincing evidence standard)