ShareThis Page

Judge orders man to repay $928 to Greensburg Salem

Joe Napsha
| Saturday, May 12, 2012, 2:45 p.m.

A New Stanton area man who drove a school bus for the Greensburg Salem School District last year has to repay the district for the $928 check that was mistakenly issued to him on Jan. 31.

On Wednesday, District Justice James Albert, of Greensburg, ordered Robert C. Kemerer, 51, of Hempfield Township, to repay the money that Kemerer admitted he owed to the school district, plus court costs. Albert said that within 30 days Kemerer would receive a letter ordering him to reimburse the school district.

John Scales, the school district's solicitor, said a clerical error resulted in Kemerer getting a check that was due another person. The district attempted to stop payment on the check when it discovered the error but learned the check already had been cashed, Scales said after the hearing. The district did not receive any payment from Kemerer, so it filed the complaint on March 7.

Kemerer said after the hearing that he initially thought the check was for the money earned driving an activity bus for Greensburg Salem last year. The check was in an envelope with his W-2 wage statement for 2002. He said he used the money to pay bills.

Kemerer said he offered to repay the money in monthly installments of $50, but the school district wanted higher monthly payments. Kemerer and his wife, Darlene, claimed the dispute caused them to lose their jobs as bus drivers for Laidlaw Transit Co., which provides transportation for the school district.

Scales denied the district had any role in the loss of their jobs. He said the school district wrote to Kemerer on Feb. 12 saying it would allow the bus driver to repay the amount in monthly installments of $200, but Kemerer did not respond, nor did he make any payments.

"We are willing to be reasonable," Scales said about a repayment schedule.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me