HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-05427
~
Q
VI
~
-
~
<t
~
~,
~.~~
/ ~.
"
~
\
"'~
,~
,
';:,
...
'"
>
.~;~;~:..p:,.
,,'>,c__,__,
~;:~
.;w,","
"
t'
"
e) ,
~I
0"
c:\wpSl\lb...,tJion\nullccs.1U tile ISmS.IXrU) AU~LI.I 1.1'1'17
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DOCKET NO. 96-5427
USA M. DAVIDSON,
.
,
v.
BRADLEY RICHARD KENNEDY,
W. H. NEWBOLD'S SON "CO./
HOPPER SOLIDAY" CO., INC. and
EVEREN CLEARING CORPORATION,
formerly KEMPER CLEARING
CORPORATION
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
TO: W. H. Newbold's Son & Co./Hopper Soliday & Co., Inc.
K/N/A Fahnestock and Company
c/o Registered Agent, CT Corporation System
1500 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Date of Notice: ~ ' ~ flf?
IMPORTANT NOnCE
YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO TAKE ACTION REOUIRED OF
YOU IN THIS CASE. UNlESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE,
A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE
YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A
LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE. GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET HELP:
-
COURT ADMINISTRATOR. FoURTH FLOOR
CUM8ERlAND COUNTY COURT HOUSE
CARuSLE. PENNSYlVANIA 17013
(717) 24O.QOO
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL FLOWER" LINDSAY, P.C.
Attorneys for Plainti"
~
I,
~
;.1
a ,~,
; oate:J!,a1
;j -/
'I
~
. .
By'
o CaIOI J. ~Yo Esqun
10 . 44693
t 1 East High StTeel
CaIiIIIe. PA 11'013
(117) 2"3-$513
.
.,
...l
'1'
... t.-
o ~
""
I' I ' ~J
0- "
.... \
l"t
~
....
:> '1
~
t;j-
~ ~
~ ~
~
f~ ..1' ;.
...'
III ,- ~
,)-
It' .-.
~~ ..-'-.
[2' 'n
C'-
~l n
,:0 W ....
(,I) .:.:.~
h r- ~
CJ' V
d..vidl.t.ln.Ct)m
13. On or about February 28, 1991, Defendant Kennedy deposited the proceeds of the
sale of the P.P.G Stock into the joint account opened by him on February 7, 1991.
14. On Information and belief, the proceeds of sale of the stock was $17,170.71.
15. On information and belief, Defendant Kennedy removed all proceeds of the sale of
the P.P.G. Stock from the joint account and converted the proceeds to his own use.
16. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the proceeds of the stock sold earned
interest in an amount unknown.
17. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the stock increased in value from the date
of the sale to the present.
18. Prior to the sale of the stock, Defendant Kennedy had received dividend checks
which, upon information and belief. total $4,118.13.
19. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant Kennedy, forged or caused to
be forged Plaintiffs endorsement. cashed the dividend checks and converted the proceeds to his
own purposes.
COUNT I . CONV~RSION AGAINST pEf.~"D~ttT
D8ADLEY RICHARO K~Mtf~DY
20. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each allegation contained in paragraphs 1.19
above as though they were setlOrth herein at length.
.
dilvid...ln.t..lm
I
28. Defendant Everen was negligent and breached its duty in guaranteeing the signature
in that it:
(a) failed to require identification bearing Plaintiff'S signature;
(b) failed to require picture identification;
(c) failed to wilnuss the signature; and,
(d) failed to accept the signature of a person known to it.
29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Everen's negligence, Plaintiff has
suffered economic loss from the sale of the stock in the amount of approximately $17.170.71.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in her favor and against
Defendant Kemper in the amount of $17,071.71.
COUNT III . NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDAto:
W. H. NEWBOLD'S SON" CO./HOPPER SQUDAV " CO., IN~,
30. Plaintiff incorporates Iwwin by reference each allegation contained in paragraphs 1-19
above as though they were set fOrth herein in full.
31. Defendant Newbold had a duty to ascertain that the Signature on the signature card
was that of Plaintiff before opening the account in Plaintiff's and Defendant Kennedy's name.
32. Defendant Newbold was negligent and breached its duty in that it:
(a) failed to requtre identlftcatlOO bearing Ptainbff's signature;
(b) failed to reqUIre picture ldenbftcation;
I
I
i
I
I
!
I
!
i
!
i
I
~
,
!
davi\btm.cum
,
(c) failed to witness the signature; and,
(d) failed to accept the signature of a person known to it.
33. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Newbold's negligence, Plaintiff has
suffered economic loss in the amount of $17,170.71.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in her favor and against
Defendant Newbold in the amount of $17,170.71.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL FLOWER & UNDSAY, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
> iCy' ., / .['
By: - .10 L .....C),k
Carol J'lindsay, Esquire
. .' 10 # 44693
11 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5513
I
.
C:\ WPSI \Carol\Pldg\Davidson.P
LISA M. DAVIDSON,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLANDCOUN1Y,PENNSYLV ANIA
DOCKET NO: 96-5427
PlalntllT
v.
,
,
BRADLEY RICHARD KENNEDY,
W. H. NEWBOLD'S SON & CO.I
HOPPER SOLIDAY & CO., INC. and
EVEREN CLEARING CORPORATION,
formerly KEMPER CLEARING
CORPORATION,
: CML ACTION. LAW
Defendant
f8AECJ.eE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly add the attached Decree of Divorce as Exhibit 'A' to the original Complaint filed of
record.
,
i.
"
II
II
,I
,;
"
;i
q
01
Respectfully submitted.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL. FLOWER & UNDSAY
Attorneys tor Plaintiff
Date:
By:
C8roI,J.
ION
11 East High Street
Carlisle. PA 17013
(717) 243-5S13
--. _~..l.::.~
'-ij;'1.I: .
1.---. ~,'.""" -..
'/ ':;;:' .
;
,
.' .
I
I
.
I
1
.
.'.:.~
. ~r.
...,-1.
;~~ ~ }:;::
::' ~~:.
"
/@
,,'
,
. .;
.
',.
..
No. !.~~U!!-_-
IN THE HATTER OF THE
HARRIAGE OP
LISA HARlE KENNEDY
AND
BRAOLEY RICHARD ICEIlNEDY
5
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
5
5
HARRIS COUNTY, T E X ^ S
312 Th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
--
00
C"J
117 ~UY:IVCIlCE
on the ~day of ~~1980' LISA HARlE KENNEDY,
the Petitionar,. appeared in peroon and by attorney and announced
ready for trial.
The lIaopondent, IIIlADLEY RICHARD KENNEDY, althou9h duly
properlY cited. did not appear u.d wholly "deJ~r
The COurt, havin9 examined the pleadin9. and heard
and arvument of coun.el, find. that all neceooary qualification.
and prerequi.ite. of law have been le,ally oatiofied, that this
Court hao juri.diction of all the partie. and oubject ..tter of
th1s cau.e, and that the ..terial a11e9ationa contained in peUtioner'.
pleadin,. are trUe. A jury wa. waived, and all ..tter. 10 controver.y.
includi09 que.tions of fact and of l.w, were .ubmitted to the
Court. All per.on. entitled to cit.tion were properly cited.
The IlAltin9 of a record of te.tiJlany w.. _ived by the parU..
with the con..nt ofth. court.
IT IS IlECp,J%D th.t LISA MUE IlEllllEll'f, ..Ut"i.....r and IRAllLEY
IUCBAllD UtlllEllY , lIa.pond.nt. be and they are hereby di YOrced.
tile COlat Und. that ther. 1. no child of the ..rda,. of
'etitioner and ...po04...t .nd that noM b expected.
tile Court Und. that no caBUftity property other than personal
.U.CtA hu be... .cc:wsuuted by the parU...
n 11 IlEC.utI th.t the property of the partie. IMt and b
h.r.by .wari" to the party had"'l po.....1on of .uch pr....rty.
n 11 IlEClIUll that ..u.ti_r and ...poNle"t ....11 ..._t.
.U 1Aa~..ta .........ry to .ffact th1. .ec.... and that ,.titi_..
.... ...pond...., ...... .u .ppropri.te .... .........ry write, ..antioa.
.... proce.., .. "81 and .. .!ua .. l. nee......y to .co.pl1.h
tli. ...uUoa and Unal 4lapo.1\101\ of Ulh 1_'_""
C"J
N
~
if
IXI III IT
" A"
SHERIFF'S RETURN - SUMM'':NS/COMPL.A; ,.
Pfr.;0li11 ::::':: ~~::"' I/;itr};t.!
/. ""fllJ. I fI- 51f.J 1 ..." "
't W((!i . ;jJi/A/,Iffj tolf "' 1- '#J'l-l-%'
SER~~!E KNOWN TO jit'Wt //;1!iJi/J- _ L~ ~
by h",.J'l~' ,ed 'l"'I"'If'i'll'i ",' w' '~.",';C~PI'I"I' ;,~od io tire ,bo.. ",pH"'" ",IL"
on _ _ ~tftJ'_ :1.2.. __, l~ _ %" ,at !let) o'clock, LM" E..;.T.ID.S.T.
- 1/ -1 C m;}J/tl ~ --- /1 I
at _/.bJ,XL..L!Ia./ 2.....j]/ - , L .1-~-- - - ,in Ih~.o,ty of Ph.i~adelphlc,
State ol Pcn~sylvllllia, tL 11L&.1}15!J ~('. 7 1;1(/. -. J:;/t/b ~,~-
o (l) l.le afCllesaid defcndant, p"rsr,; f:
o (2) an aduit melnbcr cor tle iu...ily 01 ",uid defend;]nt, .':ith whom sci I defendant rcsides, who stcted t:~,]:
o Dcfendant
~ndullt Compo'lY
his/her relationship to ~;],d dele","ilt is that of ---- -,
o (3) an adult per~oll ;, chon c ,,!. Jlcndant' s resid~ncc; thc t ok cdult I>erson having relused, upon re-
quest, to giVe hisi/lcr n.,c and reluUonship .J said defendant;
o (4),)' m'Jllaqe; (lelk ollhe ph.ce I)llad'lln9 in which so,d delc~d d auditS;
~ agent or pelSOtI lor l~e tin:e l~ I in d1ar'le or ddradunl's c;fIi~ or 4sual place 01 business.
o (6) the ,___..__,.. _ ,wi oUicer tI ~aiJ dderdOlit Company;
. ....
SWolN to ).~ gj!~~
....,.. "'. 1ft -I . -- '"'
~J '''I,wers,
~_H . GRUN. SlIfti/;
, ';i ;;-,,_ li'"l':
.-- s.t
...... 8",-, Jt . - !IlIlII
.....,.""".. ~l<~\"~
'" r~lci~"- e~' .l:#W 4- 1
~NII...r........4WttI....
/1 . ~ I
. /1:; /' ~!~~ 1'1///
It: I;, /11~, ~f:l/(J?(/ > L_._-
J I ~ !',.'"j. ~- \-,"('
..-
~1>
..... fl..' .. ~\~k
-SHERIFF'S OFFICE
50 NORTH OUKE STREET, LANCASTeR. PENNSYLVANIA 17602.(7171299.8200
SHERIFF SERVICE .. [INSTRUCTIONS fOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ~-;,. ..-......... (No.
PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN 51 copy"'" _. -typo ox print _ 00.............".,_
~----- --~~-----~------- -
2 COURT NUMBER
96-5427 Civil Term 3
--------_._-_.~---_._-_. ._-----_..._.~--------_.- .-.....-- ------_.~._- ....
3. DEfENDANT/S! 4 TYPE Of WRIT OR COMPLAINT (Jl
Bradley Richard Kennedy et a1 Complain t n
S~ { 5 N~~~~fl~;:~~.;~~~N~~~P~AA~~,~~~l;:~~"~:~'i~:;'--& -~o.~-;;;~:----- ~
..". 6 ADDRESS (Slreet Of RFD. Apartment No . City. Bora. Twp 51al8 and ZIP COl.f(') ",
AT 1825 Oregon Pike, Lancaster, PA C'l
7 INDICATE UNUSUAL SERVICE. COMMON Of PA X DEPUTIZE OTHER Cumber1 and----.-
Now. Oct. J, l~~b 19 _.I.SHERIFFOF~MCOUNTY.PA.dohereb ---
Lancas ter County to execute thiS Wn
to law. This deputation being made at the request and risk 01 the pla,ntlff. __~....
.. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INfORMATION THAT WIll ASSIST IN EXPEDITiNG SERVlC :
1 PLAINTIFF/Sf
Lisa M. Davidson
deputize the Sheriff of
tum~.s..
A,I R. _ -...
NOTE ONLY APPUCABlE ON WRIT OF [XECUT1ON: H.B. WAIVER Of WA.TCHMAN - Any deputy sher;ft Jqvytn9. upon Of attactung any property under
Wttntn wnt may leave same WIthout a watchman. ." custody of whomever fS found In po5-S&SSlQfI. aftet' OOItf)-mg pt'rson of levy Of attactwnent WIthout kablllty on
lhe par1 of such 00puty or the sI'letlff 10 any platnt." hefein for any loss destruc11Ol'l Of removal of any SUl..-tl property be'ure M\en'h.wlt> thereof
I SlGNATU~~~~=t:~~~O~T~FF PAID ADVA~~;-~~;;sl'O-;~~~:;~R----r"0AT:0_2_;~---'-
---..-.-.".--.-.--. ...~..._--.---..._.....".- '-.~---......_.-------...,._- -'.~- ,,____w...~___....._._. _.._,_._.................___ n___.... ..__.___.... .1.__.___._.. _ ________.____..._._,,__.....______ ._1___.__._____.________.~.___..______
12 SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADORESS BELOW, (TIlt. __ ..... be eomploted . noI;co io 10 be _I
CAROL J LINDSAY, ESQ. AT 11 E. HIGH ST., CARLISLE, PA. 17013
SPACE BELOW FORUSe-OF-SHERiFfONLY ":00-"01 WRITE BELOW THIS UNE
..--.----.-~NiiiE(;iA;:;thon~ LCSo Of";;"rty(;;'Ck;'.-;-'---'--'---T1iO..teReC~- ITS E.p.rilhOn~d:;'~g.da!e
13 ~;~~~~;=,:,,::,} JUDY MORRIS 295 3609 '10-4-96 i 11-1-96
. - -----..--...-.----~.-._-- . -- ____.___.u.,_ _......__"_.._._,,__~._____...,,._~.~_. __0__._______________..._.
16 1 ht>re-t>".- CERT1fY ilnd RETURN !h4t I r,.J'-i? Ptl'rSQI"a!ly set\'ed ha...e 1t>:.1'~1 "'I)f>nn,' of ~Jl;:t' .l'i !)Mown '" -Re-ma~s f\dve t"l<eCuloo as shovm tn
Rl.'rTlii''IIS' me .-flt Of COl't\plalflt destnbfld em me 1Odo'v",luill CO!l\p,jTlv ~'."po!aho" elc al tN> ,H!~rn\iS show~ .tf:Iove. Of on me !f'!d!\llduiil company CO!
PU'dOOn en: al the oli1dresS tnWfled ~w by l"\;trl<1n-t-;I a tRUE _net ATTESTED copy 1hettcJ'
17 I he'e~~' cer11f.,. and re-luln a NOT FOUHD ~~jtln;.e I am undbie 10 k"iCate Itle uhilv'du,-fl ('[}mj.>dfIV ,:orpurat><w eo!;: !'!Jmect 3I:lo'..'~ rStooe !~r1Ii.5 bek11o\1
is'"-Na':;:;-and "lie-oi~~"'K...:;:aI~5efV('i(-~-,x;t;-~- abovell_Aeiai~;P'lli- 6tit~~;:;'l- ,- - -.... -----0 --'l19-"-~-~;;::-' ;--,:;;;;';-.--;;'''';:;-'';;~:-
,....,.~IIl~~!o~
, Dla.e.:t...ll:M
X1-.~~~~~t~~~-lC~tP'ON;;;'(kftt;.;;iff-~ -&~;;- aoo\o"l ISt;~ ~-Ri'{:i'~N<j"'c~-e;~'T~-. "'--"~---'I11'oal;0i-~e;22T;n;--
'M
""
EST
(t'-5T
t J -I. TTEWTS
rDOiOTiiitftT~"'r""'iiiitft [~TilOtIT ....... TDOit... '......
~. ''''.~' C,o," !,4'-,t:l L~h., sCJ~,.;"L~.L.... c) 'ii l....:...""...,d
i " 0
-100.00_ L .1Q.50'H_ .L_~,L
E~plred 11/1/96: Lt. Grimm ~poke to Attornev Carol Lindsay and a Jo~eph Smtth
51' ,Tn conference call re: Ihls "'~Iter; Wrtl wtll have 10 be fllt'd oul of Lancaster Co.;
Attornev reque"ted all atlached 1l\atertal he sent 10 her. (1' /'I
'-~- \ 1 \1\ ff..~r
:------l-~Ini.~T '.,.' ''''''-iitift--j''~-~:tftt.
i 0
~J "'f~'1 ,. :2<lL.o.~o;'-'(7()
_J._ .l.,;>Q . _ 1~"
R.8.7458
.lO Af"t.t.~Jli..S
,. ~HlQl,tf(' '.vm Yi\ft,'ldlPd ~ t'wolb.1t- ~ 1t!<.;
""..,. II t~. "
tv/'ii.1 " /:, )
J",-:::_" 'bc~ '-,. ~ _l
-\i
Z "
.. ,) l-
"~l
""r'" ...., .--""~ .
, v o.w-
11 / l/'lf>
-r-.'"!~'-'-'.'r~
. UPIii'
r
M'f \^i.~S:~"'-~ ONtt ~_ .. ,_..
3lt ,,t,,,."''\\itt.l.:'i..* !4t1.:.iwr (..... TH[ ....,.. MT\JlIltlt IiQliAfUiA'I}
{)if "V~~)o-\li-"-n ,l(:S-\.IN:. l..l!Ml)ftlh' .,..: t;~\..f .
,.. >,.... q.....--.",.,
''0 .1;.0...._...1'''''',
~v'.
. 0-; .~
In
-,
in€:
~ ...'.......
'-
C~urt CT C~mm=;'i.
-.
.. ,;:-t;
. .---
.
--
wi
... ,1 ~l
'--=.J;-::::::;:~\=n= \...:;t.:,,;;.:y t
,.. I'
...0: ~c '-_I_
t _';'u ...y 1_,,,....
Lisa M. Davidson
.-
., ::.
Everen Clearing corpor~tion
:iaw,
~~ 96-5427 Ciyil Term
':1
1---
oct. 3. 1996
:.9- !. S=.-:.z::: 0: C~G:::::=..!..1_"!) COO\7!. :::.-\- e:a
. -:.- .:_..:..- .:.. c-.....::; ...:
.:.---: -;"- - ---- ....
Philadelphia
,.- ., ...
"--==1 ::t _=:: =:L ,"f::'1
=_ _ .:_._~_ ~.;_.. _..~_ ~ ~_ ..,.- _.: _.= ci == .':f..,- -_'-
-:'---- -~ - - .~_. -
r~~~~
c:-.._" -' ,.------..--..1 f8=.... ".
.....__ .. :-_........ __ -4'.-
A5a:rlt Or
- .
:::e;-- .1.=
So a::.:..ci.
1MB! ..
c:..w....,. h.
cem
!~_-: =; t1:..-~ ~
!I1"-:c. _
~c::..t.l.~ t
1
l!_
:: ~ ____ ~ :.l
A1: '..~J.., ".7:
-------
s
,- .--
. .
, . '. I
. I
iJa\llbun.t'um
LISA M. DAVIDSON.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
vs.
BRADLEY RICHARD KENNEDY.
W. H. NEWBOLD'S SON & CO.;
HOPPER SOLIDAY & CO.. INC.
and EVER EN CLEARING CORPORATION,
formerly KEMPER CLEARING
CORPORATION,
NO. 96. CIVIL ACTION
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
Delendants :
IN TRESPASS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
NOW comes Plaintiff. LISA M. DAVIDSON. by and through her attorneys, FLOWER.
MORGENTHAL, FLOWER & LINDSAY. PC.. and states as follows:
1. Plaintiff is Usa M. Davidson an adult individual residing at P.O. Box 2107,
Westminster, Carroll County, Maryland.
2. Defendant Bradley Richard Kennedy is an adult individual residing at 787 Baltimore
Pike, Gardners. Cumberland County. Pennsylvania.
3. Defendant W. H. Newbold's Son & Co./Hopper Soliday & Co., Inc., is a
corporation organized and eKistlng under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, having
I its principal place of business at 1825 Oregon PIke, Lancaster, Lancaster County. Pennsylvania.
I
I
I
i.
II
!
4.
Defendant Everen Clearing Corporation, formerly known as Kemper Clearing
Corporation, is a corporation orgaTllzed and eXisting under the laws of the State of OeIaware.
fI
\JOI\lI\JMtn,t"llm
13. On or about February 28, 1991, Defendant Kennedy deposited the proceeds of the
sale of the P.P.G Stock into the joint account opened by him on February 7, 1991.
14. On information and belief, the proceeds of sale of the stock was $17,170.71.
15. On information and belief, Defendant Kennedy removed all proceeds of the sale of
the P.P.G. Stock from the joint account and converted the proceeds to his own use.
16. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the proceeds of the stock sold earned
interest in an amount unknown.
17. Plaintilf believes and therefore avers that the stock increased in value from the date
of the sale to the present.
18. Prior to the sale of the stock, Defendant Kennedy had received dividend checks
which, upon information and belief. total 54,118.13.
19. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant Kennedy, forged or caused to
be forged Plaintiff's endorsement, cashed the diVidend checks and converted the proceeds to his
own purposes.
COUNT I . CONVERSION AGAINST DEFENDANT
BRADI.EY RICHARD KE~"'EDY
20. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each allegatiOn contained in paragraphs 1.19
above as thOugh they were set forth herein at length.
dol"iJwn.l'tlm
21. Defendant, without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, fraudulently and intentionally
exercised control over the stock and deprived Plaintiff of her rightful interest in the stock.
22. Despite repeated demands, Defendant has failed or refused to return to Plaintiff her
share of the stock.
23. As the direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff has suffered
economic loss.
24. At all relevant times, Defendant acted willfully and wantonly with disregard for
Plaintiff's interest.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in her favor and against
Defendant in an amount to include punitive damages, in excess of 525,000.00.
COUNT II . NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT
EVEREN CLEARING CORPORATION
25. Plaintiff incorporates hereIn by reference each allegation contained in paragraphs 1-19
above as though they were set forth herein at length.
26. On or about February 19. 1991, Defendant Everen, then Kemper Clearing
Corporation, guaranteed the endorsement on the stock as being that of Plaintiff.
27. Defendant Everen had a duty to ascertain that the signature on the stock was that
of Plaintiff before guaranteeing the signature.
M
~
~
J
'I
!I
p
j
tJOI"ltJlo,lln,,"nn1 '
28. Defendant Everen was negligent and breached its duty in guaranteeing the signature
in that it:
(a) failed to require identification bearing Plaintiff's signature;
(b) failed to require picture identification;
(c) failed to wilnHs:; the signature; and,
(d) failed to accept the signature of a person known to it.
29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Everen's negligence. Plaintiff has
suffered economic loss from the sale of the stock in the amount of approximately $17,170.71.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in her favor and against
Defendant Kemper in the amount of $17,071.71.
COUNT III . NEGLIGENCE AGAINST DEFENDANT
W. H. NEWBOLD'S SON & CO./HOPPER SOLIDAY'" CO.. INC.
30. Plaintiff incorporales I1f'1l'ln by reference each allegation contained in paragraphs 1.19
above as though they were set forth herein in luU.
31. Defendant Newbold had a duty to ascertain that the signature on the signature card
was that of Plaintiff before opening the account in Plainllff's and Defendant Kennedy's name.
32. Defendant Newbold was negligent and breached its duty in that it: .
(8) faded to require identification beanng P1aintlff's signature;
(b) failed to reQUlre picture Identlhcallon;
~1
davidwm....Clm
(c) failed to witness the signature; and,
(d) failed to accept the signature of a person known to it.
33. As a direct and proximate result 01 Defendant Newbold's negligence, Plaintiff has
suffered economic loss in the amount of 517,170.71.
WHEREFORE. Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in her favor and against
Defendant Newbold in the amount of 517,170.71.
FLOWER, MORGENTHAL FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
;
l /
By: -
-
My..
Carol J. indsay, Esquire
ID /I 44693
11 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5513
,.
Ii
/1 . d' .~-/.' /-7 /:.)
{/ ,I rYn~~, "d/, ~ (..~"'. .J r/.'('. .
1/,/,. )l(-~.('-."C:'-<._- ,,-v:.'>~,:.. ,
//{' }c{t';/?::,..,~;t. 1'~~d~z',
~t'...,-Ji~~ft.'/ ).-/1. /<:':'.?-c?j_,fk;~/
C/ OI'I'ER TO PURCBABI I'OR CASH
ALL OUTSTAHDING SIARIS 01' CONKON STOCK
of
HOPPER SOLIDAY CORPORATION
at
$1.25 HBT Pia SIARI
by
HS ACQUISITION CORP.
aD iDdirect vbolly-oVDed subsidiary of
I'~ISTOC.K. VINBR HOLDINGS INC.. ", J /~,-t>"':-' ....--
. k /. - /J l' _ ,I?;.: ....../..... -vr'" -,;/ 7-d:J
$~ tl. (7'!'br~. J c. mfl1?la...., . PJJR: eP/"l -9~:P -~i
/ .
THE OFFER AND WITHDRAWAL RIGHTS WILL EXPIRE AT 12:00
MIDNIGHT, NEW YORK CITY TIME, ON APRIL 18, 1991, UNLESS
EXTENDED.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HOPPER SOLIDAY CORPORATION
(THE "COMPANY") HAS UNANIMOUSLY DETERMINED THAT THE OFFER IS IN
THE BEST INTEREST OF STOCKHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY AND RECOMMENDS
THAT STOCKHOLDERS ACCEPT THE OFFER AND TENDER THEIR SHARES
PURSUANT TO THE OFFER.
THE OFFER IS CONDITIONED UPON, AMONG OTHER THINGS, A
MINIMUM OF 80\ OF THE OUTSTANDING SHARES (INCLUDING ANY
OUTSTANDING RESTRICTED STOCX GRANTS UNDER THE COMPANY'S
RESTRICTED STOCX GRANT PLAN) BEING VALIDLY TENDERED AND NOT
WITHDRAWN PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE OFFER (THE "MINIMUM
CONDITION").
HS ACQUISITION CORP. HAS BEEN ADVISF.D THAT THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY HAS DECLARED A PREFERRED STOCX
DIVIDEND PAYABLE TO ITS STOCKHOLDERS OF RECORD (AND HOLDERS OF
RESTRICTED STOCX GRANTS) AS OF THE TIME IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO
THE CONSUMMATION OF THE OFFER OF ONE SHARE OF MANDATORILY
REDEEMABLE PREFERRED STOCK FOR EACH SHARE OF COMMON STOCJt
OUTSTANDING ON THAT DATE. THE PREFERRED STOCX IS
NON-TRANSFERABLE AND WILL NOT BE ACQUIRED BY HS ACQUISITION
CORP. PURSUANT TO THE OFFER. THE PREFERRED STOCX IS REQUIRED
TO BE REDEEMED BY THE COMPANY IN THE EVENT A PENDING
TRANSACTION TO SELL A SUBSIDIARY OF THE COMPANY IS
CONSUMMATED. THE AGGREGATE REDDCP'l'TON PItICE WILL BE
} \I '1'1'11< S( '\lj,\" ,I,,\. \ :.1>-." .
~ ,...+,., r '\L.,
.... ' f ~ .',
:.
;,. "
,4.4-
" .,i 4"
'. ,
""-
\f"-
.
to
N)
~
~
.
SHI!Ri......'s RETURN - SUMMONS/COMPL.AINT
;])rwJIJ~
C~~d- .
COMMON PLEAS NO. Cj' - J -c;.2 7
COUNTY COURT
VERSUS "../
()J. If. Iv f.,vJhO / J; ~ I- 1(:
IJy~ Sv /,j':J 'V C.~.:J;,L tJ/!(1J
h;l.l'orJ hd( 'f Cd.
TERM, 19
NO.F '/1//..3 CJ
J 0 Defendant
SERVED AND MADE KNDWN TO 5m-<. 4 J tJ:,(;.-.<- p(Defendant Company
by handi?jin true and attested copy of the within Summons/Complaint., issued in the above captioned matter
on ~ I / J(. ,19 Cf 7 ,at /~. I/I.'o'clock, A II., E.s.T.I@'
at / r V u..) ,j 11i"lA j.. , in the County of Philadelphia,
State of Pennsylvania, to lJ< h h I ( ~I f.L-
c (1) the aforesaid defendant, personally;
o (2) an adult member of the family of said defendant, with whom said defendant resides, who stated that
his/her relationship to said defendant is that of
o (3) an adult person in charge of defendant's residence; the said adult perSOll having refused, upon re-
quest, to give his/her name and relationship to said defendant;
o (4) the manoqer/c1erk of the place of lodging in which said defendant resides;
~ (5) oqent or person for the time being in chCUl)l! of defendant's office or llSual place of business.
o (6) the and officer of said defendant Company;
So Answers,
_It D. ........ SlHaftH
)
, .
8y}'C~. . .
,
r"_"~.u.~;':1!i~;fJ' '/.1',;,..__
I'.~.', ,/.,,41
. 'S ~..< t 1 ti')
,
6. The averments of fact contained in paragraph six of the plaintiffs
complaint are admitted.
7. The averments of fact contained in paragraph seven of the plaintiffs
complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that the parties owned
342 shares of said stock at the time of their divorce or at any other time. To the
contrary, the parties owned 81 shares of said stock at that time, which, subsequent to
their divorce and judicially imposed equitable property distribution, split to 162 shares
and later to 324 shares. Furthermore, at the time of separation of the parties, they
owned only 36 shares of stock.
8. The averments of fact contained in paragraph eight of the plaintiffs
complaint are specifically denied. To the contrary, defendant Kennedy believes and
therefor avers that said stock was distributed to him under the terms of the divorce
decree as hereinafter set forth in his new matter, the applicable averments of which are
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length.
9. The averments of fact contained in paragraph nine of the plaintiffs
complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that subsequent to the
divorce deaee entered in the State of Texas and additional proceedings held thereon
in this Court, plaintiff reasserted claim to said stock and defendant Kennedy attempted
to reach en amicable accommodation with plaintiff in order to resolve this issue. It is
admitted that the negotiations were unsuocessful and that no agree.nent was reached
between the parties To the extent that this paragraph avers that plaintiff had or has
any right to any portion of the stock. suffered any monetary damages 8S the result of
the sale of the stock, or that defendant KeriI1edy's attempt to reach an amiCable
resolution of the matter c:onstJtuted an admissiOn on his part of plaintiff's ownership
mterest, those .... menta .. specifically denied, a. hereinaftel' set forth in defendant
,
Kennedy's new matter, the applicable averments of which are incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth at length.
10. The averments of fact contained in paragraph ten of the plaintiff's
complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that defendant
Kennedy signed a signature card to open said account. However, to the extent that this
paragraph avers that plaintiff had or has any right 10 any portion of the stock or suffered
any monetary damages as the result of the opening of this account or the sale of the
stock, those averments are specifically denied, as hereinafter set forth in defendant
Kennedy's new matter, the applicable averments of which are incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth at length,
11. The averments of fact contained in paragraph eleven of the plaintiff's
complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that defendant
Kennedy signed the stock certificates. However, to the extent that this paragraph avers
that plaintiff had or has any right to any portion of the stock or suffered any monetary
damages as the result of the sale of the stock, those averments are specifically denied,
as hereinafter sat forth in defendant Kennedy's new matter, the applicable averments of
which are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length.
12. The averments of fact contained in paragraph twelve of the plaintiff's
complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that defendant
Kennedy sold the shares of stock. However, to the extent that this paragraph avers
that plaintiff had or has any right to any portion of the stock or suffered any monetary
damages as the result of the sale of the stock, those averments are specifically denied,
as herein8fter set forth in defendant Ker.nedy's new matter, the applicable averments of
which are lI'lCOfPOtated herein by reference as If fully set forth at 1engtt'I.
13 The avennents of fad contalned in pel'AgI aph thirteen of the ~.
complaint are 8dmItted in part and denied in part It ,s admrtted that def.ooant
Kennedy deposited the proceeds of the sale of the stock into said account. However,
to the extent that this paragraph avers that plaintiff had or has any right to any portion
of the stock or suffered any monetary damages as the result of the sale of the stock
and the deposit into the account of the proceeds of the sale, those averments are
specificelly denied, as hereinafter set forth in defendant Kennedy's new matter. the
applicable averments of which are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth
at length.
14. The averments of fact contained in paragraph fourteen of the plaintiffs
complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the proceeds from
the sale of 324 shares of said stock was $17,170.71. By way of further response,
defendant Kennedy avers that these proceeds were the result of the sale of 324 shares
of stock, but thet the amount of said stock owned by the parties at the time of their
separation was only 36 shares, or 11.11 % of the total at the time of the sale. However,
to the extent thet this paregraph avers that plaintiff had or has any right to any portion
of the stock or suffered any monetary damages as the result of the sale of the stock,
those averments are specifically denied, as hereinafter set forth in defendant
Kennedy's new matter, the applicable averments of which are incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth at length.
15. The averments of fact contained in paragraph fifteen of the plaintiffs
complaint are edmitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that defendant
Kennedy removed the proceeds of the sale of the stock from said acx:ount to his own
use and benefit. However, to the extent that this paragraph avers that plaintiff had or
has any right to any portion of the stock or suffered any monetary d8mages as the
result of the aale of the stock or the withdllwal from the acx:ount of the pux:llds of the
sale, those averments ere specifically denied, as hereinafter set forth in defendant
Kerli'ledy's new matter, the appli<:8ble averments of which.... incorpolated herein by
reference as if fully set forth at 1el1Qth,
16. The averments of fact contained in paragraph sixteen of the plaintiffs
complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that to the extent that
defendant Kennedy deposited any of the proceeds of the sale of the stock into an
interest bearing account, the proceeds earned interest in an unknown amount while on
deposit. However, to the extent that this paragraph avers that plaintiff had or has any
right to any portion of the stock or suffered any monetary damages as the result of the
sale of the stock or the withdrawal from the account of the proceeds of the sale, or
retained any right to any portion of the interest earned on such proceeds, those
averments are specifically denied, as hereinafter set forth in defendant Kennedy's new
matter, the applicable averments of which are incorporated herein by reference as if
fully set forth at length.
17. The averments of fact contained in paragraph seventeen of the plaintiffs
complaint are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation defendant Kennedy
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this
averment and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. However, to the extent that
this paragraph avers that plaintiff had or has any right to any portion of the stock or
suffered any monetary damages as the result of the sale of the stock or the withdrawal
from the account of the proceeds of the sale, or retained any right to any portion of the
interest earned on such proceeds, or any inaease in the value of the stock, those
averments are specifically denied, as hereinafter set forth in defendant Kennedy's new
matter, the applicable averments of which are incorporated herein by reference as if
fully set forth at length.
18. The averments of fact contained in p&/agt &ph eighteen of the pJaintifrs
compJalnt are admitted in ~ and del lied in~. It is admitted that prior to the sale of
the stock, defendant Kerti'ledy received dividend checks. It is denied that the 8n'lCU\t of
such dividends was $4,118.13, by reason that after reasonable investigation defend8nt
Kennedy is Without knowledge or It lfo. matlOl'l suffICient to form a belief as to the truth of
thls averment .-lei proof thereof at tn8IlS demanded, If relevant However, to the extent
that this paragraph avers that plaintiff had or has any right to any portion of the stock or
suffered any monetary damages as the result of the sale of the stock or the withdrawal
from the account of the proceeds of the sale, or retained any right to any portion of the
interest earned on such proceeds, or any increase in the value of the stock, or any
dividends thereon, those averments are specifically denied, as hereinafter set forth in
defendant Kennedy's new matter, the appliceble averments of which are incorporated
herein by reference as if fully set forth at length.
19. The averments of fact contained in paragraph nineteen of the plaintiffs
complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that prior to the sale of
the stock, defendant Kennedy received dividend checks, signed and cashed the checks
and used the proceeds for his own use and benefit. However, to the extent that this
paragraph avers that plaintiff had or has any right to any portion of the stock or suffered
any monetary damages as the result of the sale of the stock or the withdrawal from the
account of the proceeds of the sale, or retained any right to any portion of the interest
earned on such proceeds, or any increase in the value of the stock, or any dividends
thereon. those averments are specifically denied, as hereinafter set forth in defendant
Kennedy's new matter, the applicable averments of which are incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth at length.
WHEREFORE, defendant Kennedy demands that judgment be entered against
plaintiff and that the complaint be dismissed
COIJN1" CONVfIWml.
Davidson v. Kennedy
20 Defendant Ker."'ledy', responses to plaintiff's complaint, p8f8Qrtphs one
through mneteen. .. heretly incorpol attd herein by reference as If fully set forth at
Iengttt
21, The averments of paragraph twenty-one of plaintiffs complaint are
conclusions of law to which no response is required. However, to the extent that a
response may be required, these averments are specifically denied. To the contrary,
defendant Kennedy believed then and now and therefor avers that the stock in question
was distributed to him under the terms of the parties' divorce decree and therefore, at
the time of the receipt of dividends from the stock and the sale of the stock subsequent
to he parties' divorce, plaintiff had no right to any portion of the stock and did not suffer
any monetary damages, as hereinafter set forth in defendant Kennedy's new matter,
the applicable averments of which are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set
forth at length.
22. The averments of paragraph twenty-two of plaintiffs complaint are
admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that plaintiff has demanded payment
from defendant Kennedy and that he has refused to make any payment to plaintiff on
account of the stock except for various efforts to resolve this dispute amicably.
However, to the extent that this paragraph avers that plaintiff had or has any right to
any portion of the stock or the dividends therefrom or suffered any monetary damages
as the result of the sale of the stock, those averments are specificelly denied, as
hereinafter set forth in defendant Kennedy's new matter, the applicable averments of
which are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length.
23. The averments of paragraph twenty-three of plaintiff's complaint are
conclusions of law to which no responsa is required. However, to the extent that a
response may be required, these averments are specifically denied. To the contrary,
defendant Kennedy believed then and now and therefor avers that the stock in question
was distnbuted to him under the terms of the parties' dlVOl'te de<:ree and the! efore, at
the time of the receipt of dividends from the stock and the sale of the stock subsequent
to the partIes' divorce, plaintiff had no right to any portion of the divide! Ids or stock and
dId not suffef any monetary damages, as hereinafter set forth In defendant KenledfS
new matter, the applicable averments of which are incorporated herein by reference as
if fully set forth at length.
24. The averments of paragraph twenty-three of plaintiff's complaint are
conclusions of law to which no response is required. However, to the extent that a
response may be required, these averments are specifically denied. To the contrary,
defendant Kennedy believed then and now and therefor avers that the stock in question
was distributed to him under the terms of the parties' divorce decree and therefore, at
the time of the receipt of dividends from the stock and the sale of the stock subsequent
to the parties' divorce, plaintiff had no right to any portion of the dividends or stock and
did not suffer any monetary damages, as hereinafter set forth in defendant Kennedy's
new matter, the applicable averments of which are incorporated herein by reference as
if fully set forth at length.
WHEREFORE, defendant Kennedy demands that judgment be entered against
plaintiff and that the complaint be dismissed.
Davidson v. Eveten Clearing CorpoteUon
25. Defendant Kennedy's responses to plaintiff's complaint, paragraphs one
through twenty..four are hereby incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at
length.
26. The averments of fad contained in palagcaph twenty-six of plaintiffs
c:ompIaint are directed to defendant Everen Clearing Corporation end do not requite an
answer from defendant Kennedy.
27. The averments contained in paragraph twenty-seven of plaintiff's
complaint are directed to defendant Everen Clearing Corporation and do not require an
answer from defendant Kennedy.
28. The averments contained in paragraph twenty-eight of plaintiff's complaint
are directed to defendant Everen Clearing Corporation and do not require an answer
from defendant Kennedy.
29. The averments contained in paragraph twenty-nine of plaintiff's complaint
are directed to defendant Everen Clearing Corporation and do not require an answer
from defendant Kennedy. However, to the extent that plaintiff is claiming compensation
from any party in the amount of $17,170.71, defendant Kennedy points out that the
figure of $17,170,71 was the sale price of the stock at the time ofthe sale and not the
value of the 36 shares of stock owned by the parties at the time of their separation.
WHEREFORE, defendant Kennedy demands that judgment be entered against
plaintiff and that the complaint be dismissed,
Davidson v. W.H. Newbold'. Son & Co. I Hoppw Soliday & Co.. Inc.
30. Defendant Kerli'l8dy's responses to plaintiffs complaint, palagtapha one
thrOugh twenty-nine ....Iweby inCoI'pOrated herein by reference u if Uly set forth It
length,
31. The averments contained in paragraph thirty-one of plaintiff's complaint
are directed to defendants W.H. Newbold's Son & Co. I Hopper Soliday & Co" Inc., and
do not require an answer from defendant Kennedy.
32. The averments contained in paragraph thirty-two of plaintiff's complaint
are directed to defendants W.H. Newbold's Son & Co, I Hopper Soliday & Co., Inc., and
do not require an answer from defendant Kennedy.
33. The averments contained in paragraph thirty-three of plaintiff's complaint
are directed to defendants W,H. Newbold's Son & Co. I Hopper Soliday & CO., Inc.,
and do not require an answer from defendant Kennedy. However, to the extent that
plaintiff is claiming compensation from any party in the amount of $17,170.71,
defendant Kennedy points out that the figure of $17,170.71 was the sale price of the
stock at the time of the sale and not the value of the 36 shares of stock owned by the
parties at the time of their separation,
WHEREFORE, defendant Kennedy demands that judgment be entered against
plaintiff and that the complaint be dismissed.
~
34, Defendant Kennedy's responses to plaintiff's complaint, paragraphs one
through thirty-four are hereby incorporated herein by reference 8S if fully set forth at
length.
35 Plaintiff and defendant Kennedy were married on June 18, 19n and
ceased to live together as husband and Wlf. on or about July 24, 1978,
38 On the petItion of plaintiff, a decree in divorce was granted, ex parte. in
the 312'" District of Harris County. Texas, and docketed to No 80-47418, on December
18, 1980. A copy of said decree is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated
herein by reference thereto,
37. Pursuant to the petition of plaintiff, said decree awarded the property of
the parties to the party having possession of such property and further stipulated that
the parties "shall execute all instruments necessary to effect this decree and that
petitioner [plaintiff herein] and respondent [defendant Kennedy herein] have all
appropriate and necessary writs, execution and process, as many and as often as is
necessary to accomplish the execution and final disposition of this judgment".
38, At the time of the entry of said decree, defendant Kennedy was in
possession, inter alia, of a total of 81 shares of common capital stock of PPG
Industries. Inc" 36 shares of which were from prior to the parties' separation and 45
share of which were from after the parties' separation.
39. At the time of the entry of the divorce decree said stock was owned by
both parties jointly; however. the decree. on information provided to the Court by
plaintiff herein. did not find that there was any jointly owned property.
40. On August 4.1982. defendant herein obtained a rule upon plaintiff to
show cause why said divorce decree should not be registered in the Court of Common
Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and edopted and enforced as its own. A
copy of said Rule is attached hereto as Exhibit 'B" and Incorporated herein by
reference thereto
41 Said Rule was returnable twenty days from the date of service by certified
mati upon the plaintiff herein
42 Said Rule was served upon p/alntlff herein on August 7. 1982. by certified
mad. return rec&tpt requested addressed to her at 2509 M8ybeny Road. Westminster.
Maryland 21157, return receipt No. P260 629 422. An affidavit of service of the petition
and rule was filed on August 9, 1982, by Harold S. Irwin, Jr., attorney for defendant
herein at the time. A copy of the affidavit of service and the signed receipt is attached
hereto as Exhibit "C' and incorporated herein by reference thereto.
43. On August 31, 1982, on default of the plaintiff herein to respond to the
rule to show cause and on petition of defendant herein to make the Rule absolute, the
Rule was made absolute by Order of this Court signed by George E. Hoffer, Judge. A
copy of the petition to make the rule absolute and the Order of Court doing so is
attached hereto as Exhibit "D' and incorporated herein by reference thereto.
44. Plaintiff herein did contact defendant Kennedy's counsel on September 1,
1982, after the Rule had been made absolute and the decree of divorce had been
confirmed and docketed in Pennsylvania, attempting to negotiate for a payment to her
on account of the stock which is the subject of this action.
45. These negotiations continued, on and off, until around April, 1986;
however, nothing was resolved and no further contact of plaintiff was made until on or
about August 6, 1996, when plaintiff's present counsel sent a letter to defendant
Kennedy and eventually filing the instant complaint on October 2, 1996,
46 Defendant Kennedy believes and therefor avers that all property issues
between the parties were resolved in their divorce decree which provided, on the
information provided to the Court by plaintiff, that each party was to retain any assets
then in their possession
~7 However. to the extent that the Texas dtvorce decree did not fInd that the
partieS owned 8l'ly pntly owned property at the time and to the exte..,t that was not
C8USed by the failure of plainbff to provtde the Court WIth the appl optiate n 1formetion,
any . c:tefloency. '" the decree could have and should have been resolved at the time of
1-
l
1
.
::t~\ft
-
'-.
r. . ~,~
-,
.,;
.'
'.
/
.;.'~.
NO. !!!.=t!UL___
IN THE HATTER OF THE
MARRIAGE 0'
LISA HARlE KENNEDY
AND
BRADLEY RICHARD KEUNEDY
5
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
5
5
HARRIS COUNTY, T E X ^ S
_31~ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
117 ?!f}li-E.YIValCE
On the ~day of ~~~~1980' LISA HARIP. KENNEDY,
tho Petitioner" appeared 1n person and by attorney and announced
ready for trial.
The Respondent, BRADLEY RICHARD KENNEDY, althoU9h duly
Jr+.."JJ-
properly cited, did not .ppear .lId wholly made ~.
Th. COurt, h.vin9 examined the pleadin9s and
and .rgument of counsel. finds that all necessary qualifications
and prerequisites of law have been legally satisfied. that this
Court has jurisdiction of all the parties and subject matter of
this c.use, and that the ..terial alle9ations contained in Petitioner'e
pl.adings are true. A jury was waived, and all matt.r. in controv.r.y,
including questions of fact and of law, were submitted to the
CO
~ Court. All persona entitled to citation w.r. properly cited.
Th. making of a record of t.stiMOny was waived by the parti..
~
N
~
{J
with the consent of the Court.
IT IS DECREED that LISA HARlE KEllNEDY, Petition.r and BRADLEY
RICHARD KENNEDY , ".pond.nt, be and they .r. h.r.by divorced.
The Court finds that there is no child of the marriag. of
Petitioner and lIe.pondent .nd that none is .xpected.
Th. Court find. that no c~unity property other than personal
.ffect. has be.n .ccumul.t.d by the parti.s.
IT IS DECREED that the property of the parties be .nd i.
h.r.by .w.rded to the party having possession of such property.
IT IS DEC~D that P.titioner .nd Respond.nt .h.ll ...cut.
.11 instruw.nt. n.ce.sary to .ffeet this d.cr.. .nd that Petitioner
and ".pond.nt h.ve .11 .ppropriat. .nd n.e....ry write, e.ecution.
and proc.... as many .nd .. often as is nece..ary to ac~pli.h
t!\. ......Uon .nd Unal dhposiUon of thI. lud'l_nt.
./
i
~'
,
.
..
'.r not
i
?
~
~
~
~
IT IS DECREED that all relief requested in this cause and
expre.sly 9r~ntj~erein be
SIGNED this ~___day of
_,1980.
A'(\D BY'
~~l.{(,_,
"-"""
. , .
, " ~;- - ~ -~. ' .
.... 04\1-, '
.
........-....-.-- ..-...----
.,. ... - ..~..
.'
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
BRADLEY KICHIIRD KENNEDY
r"UUonnr
I
,
I
I
i
t
I
^\lC)ust.
VI.
~o. 2314
tnU..9 82
LISA HIIKIE KEHIIEDY
Re~pandont
"
.
Thh 4th ct., or
l~tl2 .tth.
'MUnC'Or Harold S. Irwin, Jr.. E_q.. Attornoy for PetiUon..r to
Rul. 01\ Lha liar ie Kennody I
ORDER or COURT
AIlD 1I000, th18 4th day of Augu.t. 1982. on moUon of Harold S.
Irwin. Jr., E_q.. attorney for petitioner. Bradley Richard Kennedy.
a rule 18 hereby granted upon re.pendent. Lha Kuie Kennedy. to
.how Cau.e why the dacree in divorce granted by the J12th Di.trict
at Harri. County. Texa.. .nd docketed to HO. 80-47418, .hould not
be regi.tered in the Court at Co.mon 'lea. ot cumberland County,
'enn.ylvania, and adopted and enforced a. ita own.
Rule returnable 20 day. from the date of .ervice hereof.
Service to be by certified ..ail. return receipt reque.teJ.
8y the Court.
GE~E E. HorrER. JU~ge
And now thi_ 4th day of 1\II<)\I_t. 19112. Rule iuued in accordance
with Order ot Court.
UlllRE!lC1 I. loIEUtER, .
Prothonotary
.y 9,~.#_ .,,).~.. .
~ . DaINty
I.. tftt~ ..h....r. I h.. h....1lle "'" I8J'
kIOd ....t .mud lh. ...1 "'..... C..rt.t Carllal., Illla
4th .ol' .,
'I
A.....~t
A. D. 1,12
ta Lle. Mn 1. lteMe'"
# .J.~- "
:;P;;ty Ptotll_a.; -
A, Tn\!F. CC;:V rR(I:~ n~";(W)
f'\ Tr..+; t.":.".: ___'-i.\f. ..~ 0." 11," ~,.. ~ !~.. :'....'''1
. ,"'1 ..... ,,' '\,'~'. ...."'.~ ~\,:. '......
.'. ~ ~
n,L'-~~l. :' :-J :::':'-~'. r.....
'" ~- - ~_. '. - - . ...",.,,--
".', ~.. .
11 attached hereto. made:l parL th":'t'~r and mar:':cd 1\5 petlt1one:"~
Exh1b1t "A".
I},
rurll.lant to the petitton t r rt.:~r,(...!;d...~t, t.:'~a :.::ir:'.: i\cr....c..l.:.,.. ..'_~ ~
deCl.UC awarded the prol.C'rt~. of th(~ ~1~\r1";"'l'~' :-:'0 tt.flo II"\rot:,: !"..'t.V~~I-: : ;;.: .: ~ ..'j.
uf 31.a:h PI'OI'\.':'\.~'f :lnd furthc~r ;~t.ll'ul;:'.d !.t.~lt. ~h,.: V1l",:..';: "';:'..: ~ '.~'
61ll ln3trument. necessary to IlTect th1s de~rP.'e and ~h~t p~t~~ ~~a~~' t&:':.i
:"es(.rmdttnt h1"... 'lll. arrropr1;"t:,. :\n'J r."I~j"&'~'\r,j" :'1':""4........., :-:';.':l...::"~:-:
proeCSA. as l'\hny and :1~ u~.t.~n tiS is n~\~e~:J,'Jr'y t..) un:f.l~":lll:;t. .,t...~. '..:.,:..'; .."::.'
an\l r1nnl dlsrosltlon 0:. this .!urlj~mt'r.t".
6.
'''u'allant to the roreiu1nc dll-.ree amI :;~ct1on 506 U!' ~he ,'",' ....,:<;_
vanta Divorce Code. pet~tloner h~r~!.n retju~st"' th:'1t ':~~~
~'~'.;.:",'~
...~. .'
.-....
'.'4 t
a\!IJj'\. :.t:.i :t.o=, ".:..on ....tlU c:ro~'ul.~e i',lt.1 c.i.~\~t.,.~~ :.:.~: 1-. :'("":1' ~ :
:.~.~: "t. ~roi'er:y ~hl~h ~.Ilrtt 11. J;oss~J.J~'~n v~. !'~t.~~~.,:)~... ~'.~' '__. .... "'::.~_
:1.::.,.. ,~r .ald t;!e~rve ~n~ r~ttialn $(J ... od.1:::
(:I' '''.11..,;...:'1'"" (4:;) "I:''''','.'
"t...';::: ..;' i'. f-. ':.
:r.i.J'.st:,,' "~' ,
C~'l...:.:.::.t"t." :,\.1. ;"0 l.'9~1 :,..
(t..: :-!~~:-t~.-.i::~ \36) $O..l'.~:
!' :,. . . :~ :~ ( . . ') :
3t\');,,:~ tJt" ?t~.\;. tndu~:trl.,f!i. L,~. ~...f\~t;~...:-~i':".;..1 t.:
..,.l.~lrl..:lt(.' 'I.'. :'0 )';1919.
(oti) An :'nt~l'C'~~ in t:-r"~1l1n r{;;a':' l'r!>1\iI!'t.r.~ .1ti,,;'\~~ ~n
Con~g~!n!W!I i.:ntt No. 50), 1n ~h.! i."olt)ny, 1]01 ~t.ll1r:..:':
.\'i"uur.:, V11\:tut:.. tkndl. Yh'::lt.l'l, C-Ht1:.i!;';llh~ ...t.
iJ'l~t ~~~k No. 3~ ln the> IIlr~t'\":~nt.j "cn1o:-':~:I...~ :'n~t
;10, ~OJ.
- , -
l\ueby en"" to tll. party Mvlll9 1'0.....101\ of S\lc\\ property.
. ... ..-......a.... .~..,' ....__...
Fii,\IlLEY H ll~ll.i!;o KI':'l!lI':OV.
I', 'I. II 1')11" I'
I!l '1'I1E ,"'IIB'(' ,W l'uMMOfl PLEAS OF
v.
1'(1~10Ei~i.MlD r'I)IItI1'Y, PENNSYLVANIA
~[VI! A~TfuN - LAW
;>3111 ('1'111. 1982
i.i:~i\ ',.\'nE r:ENNEIW.
R,'~;p\')ndenl
"I !Jf'/:)f{';E
!\f'F ::1AVIT OI'~.g)1V}C!LOl"_!.:F.T ~!}_~:l
1'(1:'1~':J:-;W!:;"LTli uP f'ENN3YLVAiliA :
~)S .
"Y;~,T'i 01-' ';I'~1BE.R:..rl:lD
,iND :\OW, Ha:'old S. Irwin, Jr" being duly sworn according to law,
j ,.." JepOc;e and state:
1.
7!,:\t h.~ 13 a c(\!!lpetent adult and altol'ne;; r,)r Br!ldIey Richard
f..'!!:h"dy, ,et I t Inner : n t Ih' capt loned aet 1011 In d I vorCl'.
2.
7hnt be .'ervl'd t h~' respond'~nt, LIsa ~lar I e Kennedy, on August 7, 1982.
I~,' .lending; a cl'r~Hled cop! of thc petit Ion, order of court and rule to
h...r by cel'tlfll.'d mall on August 5. 1982, with a return receipt requested,
and being receipt for cE"rtir1ed mall number P260629422, addressed to
: lsa Marie Kennedy, 2509 Mayberry Road, Westminster, Maryland 21157.
3.
That the 5:\td receipt for ~erttrled mall is per3ona11y ai~ned by
"11'.;. R('Itc'rt Dc1.vl,h,on, tl~ moth< l' 01' rl:'sl'"nJent. and I:; attached herl'to
and :!l:\dE' a ptlrt h{~I't'or.
Ii.
~... ......
~'Je.r! f~h"t tht' stat,':!',en:: r'!\dc In '.Ii 1 s afftdavtt are trul:' and
cnrrwti.l 'li1<!'r~tllncl th:lt ral.\t' .3t!ltcl!lf!n'" hef"E'tn arE" IIIlld.~ subject to
~tl.",\l~_"~t('~'~f l~ r,. '.~.:~~ ~, ,.t\"H ")Oq. r"\'.l'!tlnt: tt\ l.lnf1wtlrf. r'\14tfl-
".~"
,'l~ :'8~.':l.tt~L'I': ~ t.:' ~a
. co.. ken"....
c'~-'I -'fI
~"'<<I
..... ~~ ,,.
: ;:;~. . ,<'I.'
....:, .I
'QU'
ki
r')ra-:.....-"'r~ tn,
A ~_ ~",,' r1'lt"Y' t'"t" r~t. t t :
....,.._~.-;.."-~."
. ~ .----.
~.._.-,. ..."-'<.,,.-.,
.
.
BRADLEY RICHARD KENNEDY,
Petitioner
iN THE COlJRT LW ';OMMON P[.~:^S OF
ClJ~lBER[.ANI) COUNTY, PENNSYl.vANIA
v.
':lVlI, AGTIOU
LAW
231'1 CIVIL 1982
LISA ~ARIE KENNEDY,
Respondent
HI DIVl'Beio:
MOTIOS TO r:_,~!!::_!WLE ABSOLt:TE
AND NOW. come" Harold S. Irwin, Jr.. Esquire, Attorney for petitioner,
Bradley R tchard Kennedy, and r,-'spect fully s~t:' forth a:; follows:
1.
vn ,\ul!>u"t. 4, 1982, the HOllol'able George E. Hoffer entered an
ol'dl'r of court grant ing a rule on respondent. Lisa Marie Kennedy, to
5how cause why the decree In divorce granted by the 312th District of
Harrls County, Texas. and docketed to No. 80-47418. shoUld not be register-
ed In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. Pennsylvania. and
aJol'ted and enforced as its own.
2.
Such proceedIng 18 In accordance with and pursuant to Section 506
~r the Dlvor~e Code of the Commonwealth of Penn$ylvanla.
3.
7ht" p.;oUtlon, order of CO!!!'t and rulli! Wlls sel'ved pursuant to the
CO\.lrt order '10 '\UgU5t 7, 1952. An affidavit of so!'rvlco!' thereof has been
fIled l\y IIH" undl'!l""t~n..d.
4"
':'we~t)'Jay" 1;-,,'1<1' f'lilPS,,-,'1 a tne.' \,n,' r~l'elpt (,r si!!l"vle~ or tt\(! petl-
I \.en, <:r,j"'r \'f <"l'1\lr' 1\or1 rul", {',ut no ilPPi)I\I"IU\ce hail t.;"'.n entlH'1'd on