Musi, Mattson, Daubenberger & Clark, L.L.P. is pleased to announce that Joseph T. Mattson has joined the firm as Of Counsel. With more than four decades of legal experience, Mr. Mattson brings a wealth of knowledge, professionalism, and trusted advocacy to the firm and its clients. Throughout his distinguished career, he has earned a strong reputation for providing thoughtful counsel and dedicated representation across a broad range of legal matters. Mr. Mattson earned his Bachelor’s Degree in History from Villanova University in 1975 and later received his law degree from Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law in 1978. Since entering private practice, he has represented thousands of clients and developed extensive experience in areas including estate planning, estate administration, civil litigation, criminal defense, real estate matters, and general legal practice. As Of Counsel, Mr. Mattson will continue serving clients with the same commitment, responsiveness, and practical legal guidance that have defined his career. His experience and longstanding ties to the community further strengthen the firm’s ability to provide exceptional legal services throughout southeastern Pennsylvania. “We are excited to welcome Joe to the firm,” said the attorneys of MMD&C. “His decades of experience, professionalism, and dedication to client service make him…
Grandparents often play a special and irreplaceable role in a child’s life. From helping with daily care to providing emotional support and stability during difficult times, grandparents can be a child’s safe haven. But what happens when circumstances make it necessary for a grandparent to seek legal custody? Whether due to the death of a parent or ongoing safety concerns, some grandparents find themselves in the challenging position of needing to step in legally. It’s important to understand that grandparents do not automatically have the right to custody or visitation in Pennsylvania, and navigating the legal process can be complicated. Knowing the rules and requirements is essential for protecting both the child’s best interests and the grandparent’s legal rights. Before a grandparent can ask a court for custody, they must have standing. Standing is a legal term meaning one’s ability to bring a case in court. Generally, only parents have automatic standing. Biological parents are presumed to have the right to make decisions for their children, while grandparents do not automatically have the right to file for custody just because they are related to the child. In Pennsylvania, grandparents can have standing under specific circumstances. For full physical or legal…
At Musi, Mattson, Daubenberger & Clark, LLP, we take pride in our wide range of practice and expertise in the area of Family Law. MMDC is proud to share that our Family Law Division is currently in the midst of three appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Family Law Partner, Lucas A. Clark, IV, Esquire is at the forefront of handling these matters. While the Trial Court is tasked with making factual and legal determinations, the Appellate Courts play a crucial role in reviewing whether the Trial Court abused its discretion when rendering a Final Order. When a party disagrees with any Final Order that the Trial Court enters, a party can file what is called a Notice of Appeal within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order. In the case of our three current appeals, the Superior Court would have proper jurisdiction since custody and divorce matters fall under the civil litigation umbrella. Appealing to the Superior Court requires extensive time and commitment to show how the Trial Court abused its discretion, or if one is in the role as Appellee, why the Trial Court rendered the correct decision. Two of the three cases appealed to…
In Pennsylvania, Dram Shop Law holds bars, restaurants and any liquor licensee liable if they serve alcohol to an underage customer or a customer that is visibly intoxicated. At the same time, the law places limits on liability and requires plaintiffs to meet specific evidentiary burdens before responsibility may be imposed. There is a statute of limitations in Pennsylvania for filing a dram shop case. The statute 42 Pa.Cons. State 552(2)(2024) gives you two (2) years to file your lawsuit. The clock starts ticking on the date you were injured. There are two statutes in Pennsylvania that are considered Dram Shop Statutes. In case you are wondering the term “dram” comes from an old unit of liquid measurement. The first is 47 P.S. 4-493-(1)(2024), which makes it illegal for a licensee to sell or serve alcohol to a person who is “visibly intoxicated” or to a minor. The second statute is 47 P.S. 4-497(2024) states that a licensee can only be liable for injuries that happen off the licensee’s premises when the licensee sold or served alcoholic beverages to a customer who was visibly intoxicated: “No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them…
MMD&C is pleased to recognize Lucas A. Clark, IV, Esquire for his recent success in a series of custody and relocation trials. Through diligent preparation, strategic advocacy, and effective courtroom representation, Luke achieved favorable results on behalf of his clients in three separate matters. MMD&C would also like to congratulate Robyn E. Musi, Esquire, who provided valued assistance to Luke throughout these proceedings, contributing to the firm’s continued record of excellence in family law litigation. In one recent case, Luke and Robyn successfully represented the mother of three children in a highly contested and protracted custody matter that involved numerous petitions and extensive litigation. The mother sought to relocate with the children to northern New Jersey to be closer to her extended family and better employment. Evidence at trial demonstrated that the children spent substantial time in New Jersey, already forming strong social and familial ties there. Throughout the proceedings, the father opposed the relocation vehemently. Meanwhile, on the mother’s behalf, Luke and Robyn presented evidence that she had secured better housing and superior educational opportunities for the children in New Jersey, and that the move would provide them with a more supportive and nurturing environment. Accordingly, the Court found…