HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-01074
tJ"
j'
(j'
-j
J
,i
I '
i en"
, c
I .-'
I~
1\1)
,
!
;
I
,
I
i
I
I~
J
-::J-
r-
o
-
I
.....9
CT
,)
. _._if"
,
o
C'
a Building Agreement on behalt ot Clites Design and
Construction (CDS) in which CDS was to construct a home for
the mentioned Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Boore.
6.
Pursuant to an agreement between J. Micha<91 Adler and in
Defendant's capacity as agent and part owner ot CDS, and also
pursuant to the standard custom and practice within the real
estate trade in the Central Pennsylvania area, Defendant
Donald Clites agreed to pay to Plaintiff a real estate
commission in the amount of $9,5QO.00.
7.
Al though CDS completed construction of the Boore home and has
received all funds payable to CDS pursuant to the contract
with the Boores, no payment has been made to Plaintiff on the
mentioned $9,500.00.
8.
The business CDS is a proprietorship owned jointly by
Defendants Donald Clites and Lacy Ann Clites and,
essentially, is a family business owned by both Defendants.
9.
There currently exists monies which is held in the name of
both Defendants which monies are the product of revenue from
the CDS enterprise and said monies are available and include
the mentioned commissions owing to the Plaintiff of $9,500.00.
10.
The mentioned commission became owing in December, 1994 at
\-J ",
...
",
) 'I
.:(
,l
;J r'
~ - 0
... '.'; ,.
,. '...
~ """
...
<{
~~
'~
~
')
'-~ :
,
I
.
,
I
L
~:s
1Il~ Z.
~~ :a
'"
~rn >< -
8 0
~ffi ira u ,...
je\ ~ -
~ ~ I!! <
~~ lLl f-<l:: Vl ~
-:31 Eo< 0 "' = ...J ~
~.... '"' :ij~ rJl ~, :l
u~:s ::l c.... 'tl s:: ..; ,. ,.
"' '"
.... .:: -<II Q ~ z ~ z
l&t~ ::> ~'a <IIrn'tl z~ .. ~
o ...... lLlS:: ~lLl Z ~ ... ..
o u ~~ rnEo<C11 l&tZ ~ !jJ ::l
t\uz ~H"" ~ ~ < ~
0..:1' Eo<...lCII Q::t: '" :l
Ot::lH.... > HUt::l Eo< "., ~
O~f-<O Gz ~~
U U.-I C U
<, Z t::l~
!tl ...1~ ..... ~cn
E-<~H ;l ~~ ~~
:> . lLl Ill.....
Z ....0 Eo< ...l
STERLING REALTV GROUP,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSVLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
DONALD CLITES and
LACV ANN CLITES,
Defendants
NO. 96-1074 CIVIL TERM
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT LACY ANN CLITES WITH NEW MATTER
AND NOW, comes Defendant LACV ANN CLITES, by and through her
attorney, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, and files the following Answer
with New Hatter:
1.
Admitted.
2.
The averments of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint are admitted
in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant DONALD
CLITES claims to reside at 104B 3rd Street, Boiling springs,
Pennuylvania, but it is denied that this address is his actual
residence. On the contrary, Defendant LACV ANN CLITES avers that
Defendant DONALD CLITES resides at 37 West Ridge Street,
Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
3.
The averments of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint are admitted
in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant LACV
ANN CLITES is an adult individual, but it is denied that she
resides at 643 West Old York Road. On the contrary, Defendant
LACV ANN CLITES avers that she resides at 615 West Old York Road,
WAYNIl F. SHADE
A."nxpIlA" Carlisle, Pennsylvania l7013.
,] Wul. Pomfrd Sttttt
CutiaJc. Pavt.1}1....nil
1701l
ANN CLITES to compel discovery of 3uch receipts and
disbursements.
8 .
Admitted. By way of further answer, the avftrments in
response to Paragraph 6 above are incorporated herein by
reference as though fully set forth.
9.
The averments of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint are admitted
in part and denied in part. It is admitted that there are
currently funds held in escrow in the names of both Defendants,
but it is denied that those funds are the product of revenue from
Clites Design and Construction or that said funds are available
and include the claimed commissions. On the contrary, Defendant
LACV ANN CLITES avers that the funds are not the product of
revenue from Clites Design and Construction. They are
exclusively the product of two transactions which did not involve
Clites Design and Construction. The first of said transactions
was the sale of a home on Lot 58, Laurel Oak Drive, Soiling
Springs, Pennsylvania, which Defendant LACV ANN CLITES believes
and therefore avers was constructed by Windsor Building
Corporation or by a joint venture between Defendant DONALD CLITES
and Norman Elam. The second of said transactions was the sale of
Lot 3 of the Parent Industries subdivision in Dickinson Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which lot was owned by
Defendants but not as a part of Clites Design and Construction.
WAYNE F. SHADE
AIIumey II tlW
n Well PuoUm Slntt
e....... Pt.t)I".ni.a
110n
Plaintiff, its agents, servants and employees, have at all times
had direct knowledge that the escrow fund contains no part of the
-3-