Frank v. Tewinkle, 45 A.3d 434

Appellant Alan Frank, a former Pennsylvania attorney with suspended license, appeals from trial court orders sustaining preliminary objections by TeWinkle and Sciarrino and by Bernard and Stuczynski.
Frank solicited assignments of injury-claim proceeds from Voorhis and the Plonskis through Overcharge Recovery Co. and filed breach-of-contract suits against their attorneys based on alleged unauthorized disbursements.
Appellees alleged Frank engaged in unauthorized practice of law and that the assignments and disbursement agreements show champerty.
Trial court granted both sets of preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, dismissing the complaints, and Frank timely appealed.
On appeal, the court held that the assignments were champertous, invalid, and thus Frank was not a real party in interest, affirming the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether champerty remains a viable defense against assignments to sue attorneys	Frank argued assignments are legally permissible under Hedlund.	Appellees urged champerty invalidates assignments as against policy.	Champerty remains valid defense; assignments champertous and invalid.
Does assignee become real party in interest when paying consideration for exclusive ownership	Frank contends exclusive ownership transfers real interest.	Defendants argue no real interest due to lack of legitimate stake.	Assignee is not a real party where no legitimate interest and exclusive ownership are shown; champerty invalidates claim.
Are revenue-sharing provisions within assignments void under champerty	Frank likens to revenue-sharing; argues not champertous.	Defendants emphasize three-part champerty test remains applicable.	Three-part champerty test satisfied; agreements champertous.
Do the amended complaints describe champertous activity as a matter of law	Frank maintains claims meritorious despite assignment form.	Defendants contend champerty bars relief as a matter of law.	Yes, champerty bars relief; demurrers properly sustained.
Should venue be changed on remand due to delay in ruling on objections	Frank challenges delay and seeks venue change.	Defendants maintain no reversible error on delay.	Issue deemed nonessential after champerty ruling; not remanded for venue change.

Belfonte v. Miller, 243 A.2d 150 (Pa. 1968) (three-part test for champerty; invalidates champertous assignments)
Hedlund Mfg. v. Weiser, Stapler & Spivak, 539 A.2d 357 (Pa. 1988) (assignment of legal malpractice claims permissible when not champertous)
Westmoreland County v. RTA Group, Inc., 767 A.2d 1144 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (champerty/maintenance considerations in contract claims)
Richette v. Pennsylvania R.R., 187 A.2d 910 (Pa. 1963) (definition of champertous agreement as financing litigation for share of proceeds)
Mazur v. Trinity Area Sch. Dist., 961 A.2d 96 (Pa. 2008) (de novo review standard for preliminary objections; factual sufficiency)