The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-00033 ~FYS~10D Cumberland County Prothonotary's OfD~ce Case Entries 2000-00033 MPJ CONSTRUCTION INC (vs) EDWARDS TOD ET AL Filed Date: 1/03/2000 Time: 4:03 Case Type: COMPLAINT Page ~ of 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - 1/03/00 COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1/10/00 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDANTS BY J STEPHEN FEINOUR ESQ 2/14/00 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM - ATTY FEINOUR 3/03/00 PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/12/00 DEFENDANT'S OBJECITIONS TO PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6/12/00 DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 9/06/00 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE + F2=Done FlO=Print F12=Cancel F17=Top F18=Bot ~PYS~lnD Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Case Entr~es 2000-00033 MPJ CONSTRUCTION INC (vs) EDWARDS TOD ET AL Filed Date: 1/03/2000 Time: 4:03 Case Type: COMPLAINT Page ---1 of 2 9/06/00 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/21/00 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/05/00 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - OF DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION - BY J STEPHEN FEINOUR ESQ ATTY FOR DEFTS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 10/10/00 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS - BY WILLIAM L MYERS JR ESQ 10/17/00 ORDER - DATED 10/17/00 - IN RE PLFFS MOTION TO COMPEL - RULE IS ISSUED TO SHOW CAUSE - RULE RETURNABLE 20 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE - BY THE COURT J WESLEY OLER JR J COPIES MAILED 10/18/00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - F2=Done FlO=Print F12=Cancel F17=Top F18=Bot ,( t .- ( DAVIS & MYERS By: William L. Myers, Jr., Esquire Po.. I.D. No. 38702 Suite 2330 1601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6262 Attorneys for Plaintiff MPJConstruction, Inc. MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, 5147 Ore Bank Road East York, PA 17406, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION v. TOD and SHERI EDWARDS 331 WnJO\V Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011, Defendants : NO. .;2DQQ n Ct,,;~( !~ NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court, If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you mu~t take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or, by attorney and filing in writing with the; Court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned thar if you fail to do so, the case may proce<:d. without you, and a judgment may be entered against you by the CAlmt without brther notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Pla:mtitT. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR -t, . " " TELEPHONE TIm OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP, CUl\1BERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 A VI SO USTED HA smo DEMANDADOjA EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se Ie advierte de que si uested falia de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un falio por cualquier suma de dinero rec1amada en las' demanda 0 cualquier otra rec1amacion 0 remedio solicitado por el demandante puedeserdictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted, . USTEDDEBE LLEV AKESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. S1 USTED NO ITENE UN ABOGADO 0 NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME 0 V AYA A LA S1GUEIENTE OFICINA PARA A VERlGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR AS1STENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 By: William L. Mye Attorney for P amtiff Suite 2330 1601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6262 I.D. No. 38702 '- , 0( . , , DAVIS & MYERS By: William L. Myers, Jr" Esquire Pa, 1.D, No, 38702 Suite 2330 1601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6262 Attorneys for Plaintiff MPJ Construction, Inc, MPJ CONSTRUCTION, mc. 5147 Ore Bank Road East York, PA 17460, : m THE COURT OF C0MJ\10N PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND coa~~y, PA Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v, TOD and SHERI EDWARDS 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA ]70]], Defendants, ~"A~'.33 ~ I.u...... : NO, <<'VV~ THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff MPJ Construction, Inc. ("MPI") is a small contracting company organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Permsylvania, with a business address at 5]47 Ore Bank Road East, York, Pennsylvania, 17406, 2, Defendants Tod and Sheri Edwards, husband and wife (the "Edwards"), are adult citizens and residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 33] Willow Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 1701], -i r " , , > ~ FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Aereement Between MPJ and The Edwards 3, lVlPJ hereby restates and reavers as though fully set forth herein the averments contained in Paragraphs 1-2 hereinabove, 4. On March 17, 1998, the Edwards hired MPJ to construct a two-story addition to their residence at 331 Willow Avenue, Camp llill, Pennsylvania, The agreement was memorialized in a Proposal and Specifications, submitted by MPJ and accepted and signed by Tod Edwards, (A copy of the Proposal and Specifications is attached hereto as Exhibit A), 5, In the Proposal, lVlPJ sets forth a price of $62,000,00 to complete the work, with a proviso that alterations from the specifications involving extra costs would increase the price, 6, The parties agreed that MPJ was to be the general contractor on the project, empowered to hire subcontractors and to control their work. 7, On March 25, 1998, MPJ applied for a building permit and shortly thereafter commenced work on the project. 2 i. , ) ~ , , ~ Defendant's Decision To Alter Construction By Using Glass Block In The Bathroom; Defendant's Hiring Of A Second Contractor To Install The Glass Block 8, The Specifications (Spec, #19) expressly call for the use of ceramic tile in the shower stall walls ofthe master bathroom, 9. Consistent with the Specifications, J\1PJ constructed a bathroom floor sufficient to hold the weight of ceramic-tiled shower walls. 10. In or about April, 1998, the Edwards, without consulting J\1PJ, decided to enclose the master bathroom shower in heavy glass block, and, on their own and without going through J\1PJ, hired Cornerstone Glass Block Company ("Cornerstone") as a contractor to install the glass block. 11. On April 28, 1996, at Mr, Edwards' direction, J\1PJ owner Mark Weaver faxed the drawings for the master bathroom to Cornerstone, 12, Between April and June, 1998, the Edwards changed the design of the glass block arrangement for the master bathroom shower. 13, On June 4, 1998, Mr, Weaver faxed Cornerstone the revised plans for the master bathroom shower using the glass block design fmally approved by the Edwards. 14, In June of 1998, after the Edwards made their fmal decision on the glass block arrangement they wanted for the master bathroom shower, Mr, Weaver, informed the Edwards that he had constructed the bathroom floor to accommodate the weight of ceramic 3 ,~ , " i , ) } tile not glass block, that he had never worked with glass block before, and that he could not guarantee that the bathroom floor would support the weight of the glass block. 15. The Edwards directed Mr, Weaver to contact Cornerstone about the issue, 16, In or about June of 1998, at the direction of the Edwards, Mr. Weaver called Cornerstone, and spoke with an individual identified as "Jack Jennings," Mr. Weaver informed Mr. Jennings that Mr, Weaver had not worked with glass block before and that Mr, Weaver did not mow whether the bathroom floor, constructed to support the weight of ceramic tile, would bear the weight of the glass block. Mr, Jennings represented to Mr, Weaver that he had a great deal of experience in installing glass block and that ifMPJ put in some additional structural lumber for support, this would be sufficient to bear the weight of the glass blood. 17. Mr, Weaver informed the Edwards that he had spoken with Mr, Jennings, repeated what Mr, Jennings had told him. Mr. Weaver reiterated to the Edwards that Mr, Weaver had no experience with glass block and that he did not mow whether the additional support called for by Mr, Jennings would or would not suffice to support the weight of the glass block. Mr, Edwards directed Mr, Weaver to install the extra support per Mr, Jennings' directions, and Mr, Weaver did so, 18. In or about the last week of July of 1998, Cornerstone installed the glass block shower walls, 4 < . .." \ , J ~ 19. In August of 1998, the Edwards provided :MPJ a punch list that did not reference any sagging or other problem with the bathroom floor, (Exhibit B hereto), The Edwards' Hiring Of An Engineer 20, At some point after the August punch list, Mr, Edwards asked Mr, Weaver to come and look at the bathroom floor, because it appeared to the Edwards to be sagging a little. Mr, Weaver looked at the floor and offered to open up the ceiling below to see what was causing the sagging, Mr, Weaver stated that if the problem was the weight of the glass block, he would not accept responsibility, as he had told Mr, Edwards that J'vlPJ didn't work with glass block and had relied on Cornerstone, whom the Edwards had hired themselves, 21. On September 19, 1998, the Edwards hired an engineer, W.B. Miller. 22, On September 19,1998, Mr, Edwards informed MPJ that Edwards had hired engineer Miller, The Edwards' Failure To Pay The Balance Owed to MPJ 23, In or about the first week in November, 1998, J'vlPJ completed the project with the exception of some of the more minor punch-list items, The total cost of the project at completion was $62,000 plus $12,238.55 in change orders, for a total of$74,238,55, 24, At the time the project was completed, the Edwards owed J'vlPJ $13,946.53, 5 , <I '. , J .. ) 24. On or about November 23, 1998, MPJ forwarded its final Invoice to the Edwards, (A copy of the Invoice is attached hereto as Exhibit CC:1 ) 25, For a full month following MPJ's submission of its Invoice to the Edwards, the Edwards neither paid MPJ the remaining $13,946 balance nor explained why the Edwards were withholding payment, 26, On December 22, 1998, Mr, Miller sent a report to the Edwards, indicating floor sagging in various areas of the second floor, and hypothesizing possible causes, including: (i) excessive loads on the second floor joists; (ii) deterioration due to exposure to moisture during construction; and (iii) use oflower grade lumber. (A copy of the Report is attached hereto as Exhibit Q'-'2 ) 27, After December 22, 1998, the Edwards provided MPJ with a copy of engineer Miller's report, 28, On January 6, 1999, MPJ faxed the Edwards, asking what the Edwards wanted to be done about the floor and requesting the retainage owed, less a sum to account for potential work on the floor, (Exhibit D hereto), 29, Nr, 'Veaver several times tried to contact the Edwards, leaving messages on the Edwards' answering machine on January 18 and January 19,1999. 30, On January 19, 1999, Mr. Edwards called MPJ and agreed to allow MPJ to come to the Edwards property to inspect the floor on February 2, but close to February 2, the Edwards canceled the inspection, 6 'c '" '1:_ o 31. After the Edwards canceled the meeting, the Weavers sought the aide of counsel John Kenneff, Mr, Weaver was concerned at this point that the Edwards were simply using the floor issue as a reason to deny payment to MPJ of the remaining $13,946 owed on the project 32, Attorney Kenneff, on behalf of the Weavers, sent a letter to the Edwards on February 23, 1999. In the letter, Mr. Kenneff requested payment of the $13,900 in owed retainage or at least the opportunity to inspect the floor to determine the causes of the sagging, (Exhibit E hereto), 36 Mr, Edwards sent a letter to MPJ on March 3, 1999, demanding that MPJ pay to have the first floor ceiling removed, pay engineer Miller inspect the cause of the sagging and decide how to cure it, and to make and pay for the necessary changes, as well as to reenter the property to finish the punch list items, (A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit F), 37, Although the Edwards supposedly received an estimate of $8,000,00 to address the floor problem, in their letter to MPJ, the Edwards refused to release any of the $13,946 owed to MPJ until all of his demand are met 38, After receiving the Edwards' letter of March 3, 1999, Mr, Weaver several times tried to arrange with the Edwards to inspect the property, determine the cause of the problem, and remediate it, if appropriate, The Edwards, however, would not make themselves available, 7 -1 , , , ) 39, On March 31, 1999, :MPJ, through its attorney, John Kenneff, wrote to the Edwards, agreeing to do the inspection and all but two of the punch list items and, in return, asked only for $5,946 of the owed retainage (the $13,946 less the $8,000 estimate supposedly given to the Edwards), :MPJ also asks that the remaining $8,000 be placed into escrow pending resolution of the parties' dispute, (A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit G), 40, The Edwards refused to tender the $5,946 asked for, or to place the remaining $8,000 in escrow. The Edwards also refused to allow :MPJ to open the first floor ceiling to determine the cause ofthe sagging, 41. After waiting another month, :MPJ, through its attorney, again wrote to the Edwards, on May 11, 1999, stating that, ":MPJ stands ready to adres (sic) the bathroom floor problem," and asking the Edwards to contact :MPJ or its attorney with dates and times suitable to meet at the property. (A copy of the May 11, 1999 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit H). 42, Eventually, the Edwards gave :MPJ pennission to conduct a very cursory inspectiou of the property, which took place on June 28, 1999, 43, :MPJ paid to have an engineer, Francis R. Stearns, present during the June, 1999 inspection, Engineer Stearns found that the floor deflection was not exceptional and certainly did not represent a structural concern. Nonetheless, Mr, Weaver offered to the Edwards to install a stiffer floor system at the shower enclosure, Mr, Stearns' opinions and 8 , , . , , , ) MPJ's offer to enhance the floor are memorialized in Mr. Stearns' report of July 27, 1999, (A copy ofMr, Stearns' report is attached hereto as Exhibit I), The Edwards' Continuing Failure To Pay MPJ 44, On August 10, 1999, MPJ wrote to the Edwards asking, again, to be allowed to enter the property, open the first floor ceiling and determine the cause of the claimed sagging of the second floor, (A copy oftms letter is attached hereto as Exhibit J), 45. Since the August 10, 1999 letter, MPJ has repeatedly tried to secure the Edwards' permission to enter the property, open the first floor ceiling and determine the cause of the claimed sagging of the second floor, 46. To date, the Edwards have failed to answer MPJ's requests for an opportunity to determine the cause of the problem and, if necessary, to fix it. 47, By reason of the Edwards' failure to afford MPJ the opportunity to address the problem, it is clear that the Edwards simply want to keep the remaining $13,946 owed to MPJ, and are using the sagging floor as an excuse to do so, COUNT I (BREACH OF CONTRACT) 48, MPJ hereby restates and reavers as though fully set forth herein the averments contained in Paragraphs I through 47 hereinabove, 9 , , . >. , , , 49, MPJ fulfilled all of its obligations under its contract with the Edwards, and is entitled to the $13,946 owed on the contract. 50, The Edwards have breached the contract by failing to tender the remaining $13,946 owed to MPJ. 51. As part of the contract, the Edwards expressly agreed to pay MPJ a service charge of 1,5% per month (18% per year) to all amounts overdue by than thirty (30) days. 52, As part of the contract, the Edwards expressly agreed to pay MPJ "Costs plus reasonable attorney fees" "in case of suit for collection," WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MPJ demands judgment in its favor and against the Edwards for damages in the amount of $13,946,53, together with interest thereon at 1.5% per month from November 30, 1998, attorneys' fees and such other and further relief as the Court and trier of fact shall determine, COUNT II (QUANTUM MERUIT) 53, MPJ hereby restates and reavers as though fully set forth herein the averments contained in Paragraphs 1 through 52 hereinabove. 10 , . , , , , 54. J\1PJ constructed a two-story addition to the Edwards home, performing work with a value of $62,000, plus $12,238.55 in change orders requested by the Edwards during construction, for a total of$74,238,55, 55, To date, the Edwards have paid J\1PJ only $60,292,02 for the addition, so that J\1PJ has been underpaid in the amount of $13,946,53 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff J\1PJ demands judgment in its favor and against the Edwards for damages in the amount of $13,946,53, together with interest thereon at 1.5% per month from November 30, 1998, attorneys' fees and such other and further relief as the Court and trier of fact shall determine, COUNT III (UNJUST ENRICHMENT) 56, J\1PJ hereby restates and reavers as though fully set forth herein the averments contained in Paragraphs 1 through 55 hereinabove, 57, J\1PJ constructed a two-story addition to the Edwards home, perfonning work with a value of$74,238,55. 58. To date, the Edwards have paid J\1PJ only $60,292,02 for the addition, 59, The Edwards have been unjustly enriched in the amount of$13,946,53, 11 . , , WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MPJ demands judgment in its favor and against the Edwards for damages in the amount of $13,946,53, together with interest thereon at 1.5% per month from November 30, 1998, attorneys' fees and such other and further relief as the Court and trier offact shall determine, DAVIS & sqmre BY; 12 , , EXHIBIT "A" . , , ) ." ,c..". ~";/'" -t. -- '-'._..' '.. c. ' '. MPI' CONSTRUCTION INC. Proposal , , , . 5147 Ore Bank Road York, PA 17406 Phone/Fax: (717) 840-0618 PHONE W e Pr~po~e/ herebY to furnish material and labor - complete in ac.cordance with specifications below. for the sum of: /;':j~-.'~!'f 7IA_)('; !HOUfI11u'r) (:hut) OJ1cu dollars Payment to be made as follows: ~{/ ~Il material is guaranteed to be as specified, All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from specifications below involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders and will become an extra char'Qe-over and above the estimate, All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our controL Ownerto earlY fire, tornado and other necessaf)' insurance" Our workers are fully covered by Workmen.s Compensation Insurance. PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO'.. "'fcjo [',)W,<',;:,); STREET; :;' f WILW w' /I Vii CITY. STjoTEand Zlf,cODE ,)~ '- ,1 f1 ,J f'ltfJ. r,! ARCH ITECT f )_/ p.'r I DATE OF PLANS 7')7 z 347 I DATE JOB NAME J 4 I ft(jMt::. 1)!)17!0'v JOB LOCATION <)' ,__ liME: J In Irf; I / -, JOB PHONE O' ($ (,,2. 000 /1<7!-1_.___ ,- , .. r :: Y"Note: This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within Authorized Signature /$'-. days We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: r Sf!:' 1177/101;::;) -. , " " -, , .<'!' " " ,-, / /. ' '. '.I. T " '-- ~- '..' " A service charge of 1-112% per month (18%) per annum will be charged to all accounts past 30 days~ Costs plus reasonable attorney fees to be added in case of suit for coHection. __,_~.> Acceptance of Proposal - the above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance ~',~,-~ /. /0-: SignaiC;e ~ ; i :/;::ir . SignJmj~1 / MPI 5147 ORE BANK ROAD YORK. fA 1>1406 Phone/Fax: (717) 840-0618 C:oYY'lmerc::ial - Residential New Home,J . Addilion$ . Goroge$ . Remodeling , . , , ~~;'" ~ . '."..r , }',' c~'f' t' .,.." c<-o .. t' of ~r'orial t'or constructl f Ie' 'Ie ~r> "-wo' ''nlDJ.t ........IT,Ica lCXI;c"u.. ,-",scnp 10l "u~. 00 0 ..--..........""x...........7\....,.i'.....l~,. ... ..#D/liT...M.................... .,........... .~:. .................................................. '~_. for... :T.qQ..~aW(/;.ul.f. .ItNlI.. .v/;l.MI. .MWf.(;A'..,.........................,................. '. ,. !1Jildirg permits dfXJ zooing permJ ts to be jJdld by .... ..a.IY.<<~If....................................... ,;. 1. EXCAVATHJ~ /JNJ ffiADIt.G:.,... All tq:Jsoil ~1I be scraped fran the 1o.Or!< an:d i:IId suitably sWckt:d lor re'-u;e In lirkll Yradln:J.':t,b:-.~~;.'iil{ earth or other fill fII'ltenal stldll be rewved fran the CW1er S proper'ty wltl1clJt al~XDvJI Iran tIM.' (Wiers. ~~'1,t':': extrarecus fII'lterials will be l:uried 00 lot. Raioval of said fII'lterials fran Jot W1J] Ill: al ad:l1tiooal cost Ui~r,{,.. o.ner. fd:J it iooa I fIll material required for gradirg. fill noved 11m me sectim ul U'E' lot to dfllther. Willer/', such as sprirgs. or tree stwps, etc. vtlich flUSt be dedIt with will be all extra eXj"""'>t' to the ewers. If ra:k":% excavatioo is ra::essary, the cost of excavatirg the rock: 101111 be jJdid by the CWlers. . ".,;::~1( - /./ .'@l""" 2. .SEEDlt.G & srRllBERY: Seedirg: Yes ..... No ...... Shrut.bery: Yt.'s ...., ftJ .v... ':~;,ii~" . Sq. ft. allGol<'lf1Ce for ~ifl:l .........7'............ AlltwilOl fuf' lJ\rU1Jcry '...... ::-......:... ,,!~i-; ", 3. ffiIVElOl\Y: staaj ....<<~L...... AOjildlt WWI s~ ............... ~. It. djh.w..1lU~ ..........;';1..<: A d1a~ of ..................... per sq. ft. will be nade for edch >4. ft. over allcwance. ... .;~;- 4. FCJ..UlI\TlCNS NiJ >V\LLS: Materials No. of Co.Jr;,.,,~ A. BaSEJ:fS1ts 000." .... ..... eO .......... ..... .0. ... ...~......o................ ... ..... ...." ..... ..... ....... .... ......... B. lhi2r UOOXCdvate:1 areas ....'............................................ .......,......... .... ~;,...:..If"'. '.t'-" >~',' C. Crd'.tll s))aces ...... ..... .e. .....0........ .... .......... ..... .0........0............,... ..................0....... .... ~"~~~,{'~~+'.!~~-,.. ~~~;~ D. lhi2r Jl(lr'dles, walls, & jJdtios .......................................... ......,.......... ....... ','. .,j7fJ E. Other .f:f.'f-.. /!.EM.~.E:@.. Qr.. !J~IJ/!?9.';'............,............... ..".. ,1:.. ...... ......8;~;~ll!," FootJrgs: Ccn:ret.e mlx .....;I.${:{9..f.$.I....... Wall footIrIJ ~ILt: ........ ..~~.r..z.1.;.... ......,;;;ft..~...'~.;.'.{ Girder....,................ "....'.' ,. .......... 3'" Steel colllm<;, Dte to cmtaJr of lot. etc. if awl lima] coorses of block or oUler ntlterials are IHlulruJ. the cost of flilterials an:J labor I?lus 1()j; will be an extra mJlge. 5. PCro-ES. PAn os /JNJ W6.lKS: . . Material for porches ........... ..Na . .. .. , . .. ........ .. . tillCi<n=ss ...........,.."....... _' . .. .. ... .';', .. ;;.c.,'" .. If ......... -,,,;ffo":;: t1iterlal for ~tlO .. ...... .......... ........ .............ud<.k1le::.~ .......... ....0.............. ... ....... .......... ..'];'~ Material for walk ............. .':...................... tl1ici<ll2ss .............,................. .........,i~. I' ....~. LalJtl1 of walk ...............;................ ..... .t111CJo~SS .......................... ............ .i.~t~~i ~~..::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: :::::,::::~1'l 6. ~::~re~ ~~~~~. No ..y( Olirrrey: Yes ..... AAJ .~', .:'_ Fif€l)lace descriptim: .......::............. .... ..................................................... .... ... ..,.;_. .....'~-~:;~.~ Mantle descriptioo; ........ .-:................. .... ...........,..,.........,........................ :;;,... ,-":'iee. 7. EXlERIIl< WAlLS: [M locatiO'I AIlGol<'lf1Ce ":. C'''^^th'I'm 7/1(,," o.~.1l. Au $'I''Y'I1>IOIL ../,.".. .',.. i ...JlI..:a ''::II .... ..... ....... ......... .......... ..~... ...... ....... "I"'T..... In-.... ..rnJ.r~................ .........~,;t~~:.~!_.... S+~ - "'!i.~r' u.,.IIJ:: ...............................",......................................................................~~i..~.- BriCk........................:-:.....;............................................,..........~..... :1irIT,.,."..,... Sidifl:l ,.....,.....,.".., J.Q,~q{>, ,?". .fr.Io/y.... .<!~..4!-~"..... A~. .(y" nz:t':.('!J!..,~~...,... ..~~~~:!-l.'1'~';:; OtiJer ............... ................................ ...............,.............,..... ..'... ...I~~;i~~,~f{ ~:,~~I ;',::> . . c. . .~;~f~ " FlLul (Ul:jlRlJ:llllol: Joist frd'nirYl-<i'i..tendl .. H~!j:: f1R,...,.., ,SIZI"..".. u-A:>f/.9.....,.".., .bt,ldgu", u ..J.{~Ou. ...... . '"" "-:: ,,/.. 1" .::; 8 "'. .... ':i..i>-f\oor-~tena\ ,..,.,...... u....... .'1-.,... .1..... .~...~.,. .._ _.." _....,..,.. _..., u'.... ......... ....... Cal:rete slab: Garage u.......... Re<:. Room ............ laurdry room ............~. Basarent .......:'..... Otiler ........... .[i1J.J:t;. .~It... kttN(i:.k~................. ............. _............ _....... ........ .... ..~.~.:'~.. Finish floor (eam floor), . Main Bathroom .....~...::....;~........allowance per sq. yd. installed......,...~............jCf;.... Master Bath .......~l"..~,4/iI.(...I.I.4t=......allcwarre r 1 l'i installed ..../.Q::-....~~1{1!?f......,.... Pt:w:Ier Rron ........... ::-................ .allcwarn:! per sq. yd. installed................................ Latrory........... .l!.k..::.....;r-z....... .allcwarre per sq. }d. installed................................ Kitcha1............ ..~~~'... w.If.... ..allcwarre per sq. }d. installa:l... :/.7::?.. .~<1y.1~..f.7::.... ~. Living Room ........~'14fr:.............allawance per sq. }d. installa:l...../~~~..................... Dining Rcon .... .....,........... ...... ...allcwarre per sq. }d. !nstalla:l....;f;... ex;........ ............ Bedroom(s)........ ..CM.pf.r:..... u... ..allcwarre per sq, }d, ~nstalla:l... u Is:...... .......... .......~ Ii'lll ... ................................. .allcwance per sq. }d. lnstalla:l......................... ......,. FO}er u...............'........ ,........ .allcwarre per sq. }d. installa:l............. ........ ..... ...... Re<:. Roon ................................allcwarre per sq. yd. installa:l.......,........................ Other roons ....... u ,.........;........ ..allcwance per sq. }d. installed.................... ....... ..... 9. 1ro"1~. GJTTER N-CJ ro.t&\lI rs : 7/J ,...;. .' Sheilthing .... .... ....',......'"., ,/~...9:~',?!, u. ..'......'''. _ . fel t. .. .!f.~fH(IJ..t:. .... ....Ibs./~... W:lll franing--~. ... i},.~ ,'1-.'@' ./~.. .0+........ ..Int...... Pl." ,ju@,;/V..,q..t;.......,...........:,.....,.I1.. S/llngles ..:.. fh..//Vtl,-r.:. EiiJM..COwt.)....... ...lElgJt..... '.,l.S;.l..t1:fl.....,',.... .Color.. .Ct"''1- f.w?!tCl<. Rafter frii1Ung.~ .~)_-..fit<.. ..szxe.....<i X.~..... .Spac1ng.... 7.f... ""~""" . grade. ......................... ~ ~ .. .. .. .. .. ; .. .. .... .. .... .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . .. . .... ...... .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . ~ .. . ~ .. .. . .. . . .. .. ....... .. .. Trusses........._ ,...... ''''.' . _ __ ,..,......,..'..............................,.......................... \,tJtter dfd ib.flsj:.oJts Material: SiLE......:i. :'.. fi.'-.'1tt!r-!'l/':l.. .K... ~!-< l7Jv.l.'i. ...If.,y,4..~l('{ci~ffJUU...:, .................................................................................................................................................................. 10. INSULA Tl rn : . Ceiling /lll.terial ...... RJ~., .13i~.W.N. ;...lr!............................. ...tniCkrk:S5...... ,..... ......... W:lII /lll.terial ,........~~~J;4~>...........................................thickress.....~.~~~.......... Floor IItlteriaJ .............. ;::.......... ..................................... thickness..... :;-. ...... ....... Otiler ...... .......... .... ........... .... ........,.... .......... ........ ........... ................ .......................... ..... .................. ........ ..-.................................................................................................................................... Q.................... ...... ........... 11. INTERIm WILL FINISH: Plaster ......... thicmess........... .frollS to be plastered.......................... '........ ...... .... ..... ~~;i i: :;;.~;:::: ;;.;;~~: (.~: j: g::;;;;;,' ~.;;. ~~;; i~:: A~: ::k~;~~:~;': :~;,; :~a~~;~~::::::::: .........................................................................t.......................~............................................. Pareling: yes....... No.. v.:-:. Allcwaoce per pam1 ......,....,.......'......,...., ,...................... ~ witll parelil1J ................................................. ............ ................................................................... ..... ...... ..... .......................................................................................................................................... 12: fXXRS, TRIM N-CJ WUO::WS: J " Interior cmrs; twe... ~; .f."'..;~.L..{gJ..q.J{~.t.,.. thickness...... I.:fi............, IH:ltt:nalll.C{J.Q.(1;f1p.O;S.t:.f. . .................................................................................................................................................... Exterior tb:Jrs: twe......................,... .thickness...., u...........'.... /lll.terial.................. .,"'.. s.........................:.~.......................................,..............,......................."',. tom d1ars; twe .. .(Y?..........,.................. .... ........ ,.......... ,ruTtler..................... I te. tr'. st I ,.,,<,,1~ r"".Ji. 2~nC()l,O"'I~l- u.:< . .J, n n rlOr 1m. y e,v".....;. '~,' M'J... "1~nQ... u............... fJ.,.., X":......... ./lll.tenal. .YT.q9u..... SUirs: /lll.terial ..,...0...............,..,...........,... u.., u...."..,'.....,. ,................... .,. Stair Rail: type...... ,...P.. '/.......... '..,.., ..................' $ Fo)€r Divid.er: describe ....J.."((,;......................... ......... ....... ..~.. ..... ... ....... ..... ..............., .... .......... ',:.- ...................................................... ... ~~t ,)lIf _.:~,;.,. , - ..(~ ~ , , ~ dlair Rai I......"., ~.,.-:...:..................,......,....'" _. '. _,..",....,:...", ~.....,..............:: ,~; Celllll;ll3ea11s: descnbe ....................... ............................................... ..... ..... ..t:'., l\, "',' Qttler .................................... ~... ~... ..... ~........ .....~. ~ ~....~. ~.. ~""."." ~"........ ~.................. 6...6....... .'.. ~~..::\. P;~~'~;~'(~~;':::::~f::::::::::::~i~;;::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::~~i~:::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~;~; .~~ '~J.~;~:::::::::::::: :~;~~;:::: j~~~~~;;;::::::::: :~~~;~:: ;;:;'1::: :ij{J~~~~ iil/~~ ..~~6...".6"..'~".666~."6.."6."......".............'......~.............6...................................~.. p Scre€llS ......... f(f:-,}............... .rurber... .... .Au............. t}1)e..........,......................, Ba.sarent Wi~s ".", f.!Q....7'. ..flJltler......,..".,..,..,..... .lIIJterial..,...................,.., ..... SkItters: yes......... No.......... flJltler...................... ...lIIJtenal.......................... ..... 13. CAB1 tEf IoO<IC A. KIW1E1-4: oo~ri.be .. .~.~f.. .kf.!~.':t./.o..f-'I)..... ..............:... ........................ ...... ..... ..... ~. ::~~:~.: -'~~t1~ -"/", .. . . .... . . .. . . . . .. ... . . . . .. . ... . . . .. . .. . . . . ..... . . . ... .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . .. ... ~ . ~ ~ .. 6 666 .. . . . . ... . . . . ~ ..6. ... . .... . .. ..6.........~.. ~.. ~............................... ~.. ~..... .........~.. ~ ~.. ~.".."......"~. _... _. ............. ..... ... All extra built-in features Sudl as lazy susans, OJtting boaros, giass doors, <etc. will be at extra cost to the (U)er. CaJnter tqJ...................................... .Back splash.........,......,.,................ ..... .... B, WoHl BATH: Clu1ter tqJ ...............'..'.............................................,........................... Vani ty ,."..........,.................................................................................. >/all cabinet ........................................................................................... Other ......................................................................,........................... C. ~1ER BATH: . CWnter tqJ..... o.~t;... Au.F?., ,Cv.I.,Q./~1.M.. H-?fl.I3u:... w'!rJ1., O<r/.'3.~.Si~K. .A?W.~.. .?tP...~~ Vanity........ .72.:.":. .1.8.~.. N~o.. ..6./K#;.... ...4",,;,1... .~Q, ~........."......................... Wall cabinet .,. .II.~..................,........... ,............................................... ..... ()t:l)er ...... _ .. . . . . . . . . . . .. ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . . . . ~ ~ . ~ . ~ . . . ~ .. ~ . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . .. ~ . . . .. ~ . . .. ~ . . ~ . ~ 6 6 .. ~ . . . . . _ . .. ~ . ~ ~ . ~ . . . . . . . . . D. sroro FLiXR M1H: CaJnter tqJ ................................. ................."................. .:........:............ Vanity................... ,.............. .......... .................................,................... Wall cabinet ..................................................................,,'...................... OtJ1er ........6....... ~ .... .. .. . .. . . . .. . .. .. . 6 . . . .... . . . .. . . . . . ... . .. . . .. . . . . . .. 6 . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . 0 . .. ~ . . . ~ .. .. ~ . . .... 0.. ~ 6.. ~ ~... . . E. OTHER ....... 0 ~~. ~ ~.. ~.. ~..... 0 ~ 6 ~.............. ~.......................... 0..................................... ..... .................................................................0......................................u.................................... 14. APPLIQlJUS: j/a-r .1;'k<-.UDIf-f) ".' : Stove........... .......:................. .allcwance ......,....,...'.......,'...... ,color..,.............. Distwasher ........................ .size.. ........ ........ .allcwance #..."......,., ..:.olar"............... DiSjXlSQI... .............................. ....... .......... .allcwance #..........". '................. ...... t-txlj ..:........ ..... .... ......... .......... tjf)e. .... ... ... ....... .........................0.. .color.~.. .............. ..... Ref. ..: ..... ...................... .size................. ..allGYdflCe #.............. .color................. Washer............................ .size.................. .allGYarce #..".......... ,color................. Orjer ............................. .size................. ..allcwarce #.............. .color.............. ". Compacter ..........................size...................allcwanoe #...........,.,.color................. Ot.Jier ~........... ~........... e.................... .................. .... ................... u........ 0............. ..... ~ ...... ,0, , 015. . PllMllf\K3; Style or Ma/Q2 .......D.if.'-;r1;.."!'r..d9~...5it,J.c,.?r.:il.....:......:........................ r fb. Color Locatlm T""" i/ J.- fA/t:.d;e, Sink... O' '... ...... /JM.t... .~. ~.7:'/~W$. .S:~f4 .. .....U.Kr.rr-!"-i,d......... .... .... @r!..$J2.:.c.~ lavatory..... .t'/lt.!f,4"I.. {.?' . ........-:;,...... ......... !l?JM....!.<.1FIf(!.qql:1......... 41i+!1Y..iWJ....w... . lavatory...... .S'ltI.~.. (.~. . OM~.t'?..~t,.(.... Wri-.... .'!......... .'! ............... Ifl#.td..!~...a:;..fd. lavatory...........;,j........ ... '':~''''''''''' .. ....I'l....... ./l...... .............. . ...........?i...fII.. .. ToJIet ........... .V.I/ti...... ... .t<.lIIr&........ .... ..r.16::i'<<<l. .-RIJ'Tt/.......... ...... (.~;.I... ..~..C(:.... roi let &..".........."..".." .-::............. .................................. ............................................................................ ......................~............... ~ Toilet ........................ ..:::........... .................. ............. ................................ .............................. ... ...... ..." ~ .... ... Bathtm ......,.... ..7'....... ................. ...................................... ......... ........... BathlJJb ... "'j;" "~'L""" .. .... ...:...... ... ........i1'. 0..... ..,}....... .....: ..... .....:.7'.....;-<:.0.. , Sla.er Stall ..:;tCU;.. ?-.I ................. ..,....qO.V:HL..D&:t1f............ f.I.IJty....I).~...M, la.Jncfry tray........................... .................".."...... ...... ...............................;... ......................... ;...... ........ .... Lawn h)drants .............."............" ........................... ............................................ ..................... ~ ,. Other ......................... ................. .................................................................. ~::;.: ............................. .................. .-..............,........................................... Water ~ter; describe .....':./.........................':1.............. ..........~.J..................... JlutanatlC washer hook-up.. 0 .N~. ..drj€r hook-LlJ .... ../YP.... o....&.rIp PUlp .... .U.c<..... ............... Water SUWly: ptbllc nEin ....,..:-...,........hook-up fee.......:-:..........I p.lbllc nEin, a charc;e of .......~.......... per foot for excavating trench frun hclJse to point of hook-up. In:H vlrnal System: .... If irdividJal system. O:llntractor will give D..ner a .........:7............aIlCA<oeoce for cost of well, JXJTP. l1'i\terial, labor ard water tests. if any. This allcwaoce iocludes cost of TUrning the lines into the t'aJSe. 16. D1SPOSA.l SYSID\: MIle se.er .....::'.......hook-up fee ....7'.......01 lot system......::,........AIlC/;/doce......:,......... If 01 lot System is usro. desigJ ard size will be determire:J by percClat!CJl tests a'rd lcoaI inspector. All costs. If any, for tests ard permits shall be D..ner !; respcnsibility. 17. 1-fATlf><<;: Cescribe . ..~~1';. t.f'.~~., Jr..J:..I;f.., ~.~?............ ~.........,.,.........,.,.............. ......... ...... . . .. , . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ ') . , , , .. . . , . . .. . .. . ..' . . . . . . . . . . . . .. o. . . . . . . . . 0 , . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . ... .. .. ...... AIR aNJITlCJIIIf><<; ... .f.'(Q......,.....................:............................................ ...,..... ....................................................................................~............................. 18. ELECTRIC WIRING: Service ..............N-f'. CM!rhead .......................lrder grcun::1.................. The local utility cmpany shall furnish sWly to hCuse. 00 Tot'll rurber of arti('ts: all();'aoce.....~g,.,....... A charge of ,..~.5.:o......per cutlet over this alIcw. -Fixture aIlcwatXe ,..,..,Q........... This allcwaoce itXludes all fixtures, Ji~~S, ap;lchi~. MiscellarJ2Cl1s ........,.. o. JXq, ..U4>/iC f1.r.f?JMf. 'j^l~}.u.Q!'f}" !'!lfff/....:lM... ..f1!r.(. m:4.. ..1.. .... .........................'. ..tvtm.~.Cf:l(1....f J.QI;J,:.". .. H!-H't!I:tJ.<;.<;.......................... ........... 19. CERPMIC TILE: . Main Bath ......., ,-:.......,.... "1:1" .... ...... "'il" C".,..~...lt... .,.. ......... ......... ............. .. t-Bster Bath .. ...$t<o.JY.M.. SVJ1..r... .H(I//..>...... Ill:~.. ''>'1-..1.1:.. ,7(-.<,P.i!&;il/.q;.................:... ....... .'. Po.der Rron ......::..................................... .................................. .......... ......if: Other Roons .......~.....,.........,...... ................................................... ....... ........ zo. PAH.,rr!t>Ki. W>.lLPftPERl NG ft!oCJ DEro<A n t>Ki: . Interior painting .M???,. .7NQ. {..QltrJ. /-It11'J!. 1iI<;r:,.. .(8,'t1. :.1/Yp, .(:Pitn. .LIrr?r, ,.$fflI.:(;.I.M. ./JH-.~Wi.e Wallpaper .:,.:.....!li9,.."......".,.....................,...,...,..,.......... 0......................... Exterior paIntIng.. JlP......".,............................. 0.....'.,..................... ......... ....... Other clecorating .... .7'., "Z' ..................... ...........0......... ........................... ........:..::;, , , ',: 21. GARAGE: Yes ......... No . ..... nurrber of cars ..........,....,....Garage door operator ...............,. . Jl.FfaCfi:d ......................... Detached ........... ............. .1lJ1It-in .................. .........., L\:xJr size ........................rurber ..........make .................style ............................ . electric ...........,...,'.. 0.. .wirdcw .......,......... .rumer .............. ,ext. door .................. Glrage finished..................,........ ...lk1finished ......................................... ......... . !?...... ..,~ ,. . , . . 22. MtSC8..CAJlEOJS:' ...... .AQD... 1., 2qN~. 7P.. :fX'f..7?"!~ ..6J!fM-.. ..,:qIJ....!l.f{J!. J:~ .Nf0.. !h.Q([!qd. /.d-t.7J(;.6.f?;?m1'1 .. ../(J.i'i.';-.'t. &r.r... !1N.a. .lStm~~cJJ.. R~ :t!f. J/,1..fA ,.1.f:i.~ /{tz '1Q{'iJ. ~t0P.IJ;M.Ii~r.... ........!'!. <;.': ~ 9:~~,. :t:tP.~.. {P.!. 7J!.9..L... Ct.fl.f;-V, ~:t~IJ....&1.Q..7:. .~.1J!: 7:.... !iP.lll.... 1dtJ1M......... '/"-AA7/L Is .z;vCLUO€O ' .t~ .... ...1:1.~~~.................... .................................... ................. ..... ........ ..... .............. ......... ...... ...... ..........,...,_~ :~_ ................................................................................................................. .. ,.f.,>:~ f~~ !q~~,., ;!c., f.~~ !f.s.) /i.^!5f-. .f;?!fJ.~1f.:,. !tfq"t!,! F!,.'?:r!f: . f.€!.-:.... . t!~. A~~':'!.on{g.!. ;&[';':';'Pll!, . . (Pit-. . k~,;.. ~<!.'!.P/!'!y.. {.q,?e.~ .{. ?fff.~~. /?:~.I. .f.Tf-).,............................... .......: . WJ c::J1flf1Y / ...f.".1"...~........,.... ';'1:"" '::'~f- ~ ':Ii~,1 ,'-~~l ).~'" .i! ik- .. .. ~ '" .:~f~;( y , EXHIBIT "B" , , , J , > :', " ' ~~:~~~ ~:~:~.~j~c./~._~~~~~~.., "dH'_.~~ .- ~1'A~V~:"~~.!:1I)L..- ...-.-- ~uC;fC~:;.-;>-- '-----' /::;.~1l-u'e .".. .......'b<i . L.4-rlc..u ____ _.'__un. .____.. -t2itL72.wi.. Sf'lc.~~r AJIf,(D k"~ j{:}-:,A~j~9C ... . .. H____ . J~.:..~t>. -p,.""v~_..____. ._,. ._.__,_______ __ ._.___... ' . . '.. @' €/J,~=-U i-# .. f2."r;~ . W .rJ2.4t)~ j:: 1....-~ l.~.t-:. ji~.;;_:.i~_;~==-=-~-.. '. ~_~_~l!'cLJI"t:._(~_.. r.-~.M_l()t.AJ:_I2,I:~!.~U__~..,.:;,__ _' .. '-- hl.T Ol.lf'."___,____ ".... "',' 1\[ 'I tf 1':> . .. .. _ ._....... ........ .. . ... ._ . ...._ tb ...K: crutL,-J ~_.(J6-_WA:J'2k._P~~!.S-"c{:;L..=~.=..-=--=--= ........... . -I~-L)LA~..,..,_._ .__.___.__________.____ u. _.~. @.'Pt.(k(r.:O,,)kL {VtJ..J'rt:.._.tL t3 t.t:_01:_*kA t!~_,___ . _ .___._~. . .ldlfit-d _ bdr~,~cr.. {A,D""1-__..L..f...0......u- J2"i>~._ _ .,__ . M'.~'-~6-.b-,.t>C _42..J-~ _~/C!l_L&L A ___________~. . 5t;;/l)dA~;,t~~~~ !ft~;~~<f~------- .A._D_5Hlu _'t~,L _'_. L_Itt...__o___sk(J,t;,/__U___ !E'oAC j,...t M-_~.-!...~'-/~~_-=-_if:t~_f1.~y.?:J_ . r;;~.PS _.1.l./5A6..(}.;,,_SHO_Ud/J>_ftfJ'S _~~H-'-J:1,~E./l_. .. ___J:)w_fJ..1 p,_f=ttL-_.~y~IV.JL-c..b7r db_______- ~Ld -::J.l::k-c.tXf-:~tf -f.'-~-'- .-- '----:-;;,------.-...----.' l!1v.. MV-J~lf~;r- --.f24c~ p--t.~~-------.7~~ '.'. _THe.__ __ _.__WL~_IL_ _ 5_n_Li':!J_If;>lfl.._,___. _ .__ (-II4-W L_ tf:j Q,t}l..k..y-_. ~ ._P-1.~__k,~CL__~' .~L-Qt::>_..J_ 9t- _"_L_LI>/jst.,..:._k~ L--<. T i-~ >'C ___-'". .' ~. ~.__I?~lt-,:.luLJ?~~WJ>.~-.~~ Ls> /U~ ~~~_._ . . .' .... ."" r[j)-WtJL&tJ)St:4LL?___ -_. - " .' ~.' . ., 3" ~ ~-k.- c(\,-h,l\ihjl ~- CP~""" c_r<'e. c:.o_Y'Jlo.,- W6'-1.-~,.A.. ~1'"f!.'-tl-.!. D<s-_ I-.. ~se~I:.e"u- ?o..c.. /!Doe- LI" -h> ' ;?.4,AAt c..y e~D--1 @J~.ySI.-~DNO 4~~~~,,'c..~~~.k~~';:.rArr/c . '..'_ ...... ha- C~M'-"!~c.o17>"::ch.j'k1'!!!-sr~,,..I$..tI.&1.-t!..2!.;J~.. ......_' ~ : .. . . . -' ";", .. ~ 6');A/'U CDM~/~6-<i.l. .~~'; :J_-Z;;~~~n~.!~'::)~_:~- -'-".:~'.' Ltt, r ./2.t,If!./h. C:>.tfdo/Ul..-t)/ J3~.J.! -b-<.r::-_ -:.j-k,C _,. .... '_ __. t-J.pr~!lvMl/h_tA.,.JJC.lr>.~rt.od_"'_'d_'H'u__ .....'_ _.. . . 9 Ds~:tf?,J)dl5,._b-Ju.o._j?r/G_..G_~f'IL~---b--,.----.... ... '(j".:tR-f..,__/~_f7)_.-f~tt.,.g.(;Qrr&:L~_f)~p.( _ __ m'_' ~~~;,~~ ~~~;'-~j;~,,~;;'- A,)1,~~:: ... . ~. e!:~-.~{f~7 ;.-~u...;~ft~~: ~:: iSr~-=------ --- -. ">" 7 .. ..._______..H...'-:kE!'-___..___.__..__._~. . .lIC.f:?__,___.. . 7' .f,JetbJ;t>.r~- ~-- fd~ - P(.~;t.?r'..Lf~L/G,._.-._- L-.c.. ,." -<.. . p~_~.h.I.d~.!..k_S..._~1-&....i:J--E!Sd~ Le>,...,........_ _ ______~.~',. .-. Bbtl.bg,..,/J"'[.)A('$a-.~.nfy....f-J:::ruz-,-Q4...LJ_-Nr.--~ ." 'J1;..J ~/- 5 tto(?,ir.._.-&._~:.CL-.J:JL As roo - -'1.--' m____.__ ----. . . ........ _. _ . . .. .. .r;:..+;!!/-., . .. '. 5"rf 1- ;$.. +:~..l..~~~I-_~~{i:L,G..__fc.~;~~~Q.==-~\,~.. u~ ,~.!~.Yt.._J.2:';'L?)4"_ .'B~c..:..",,-."t _.f5:!:!.!:L4__"f__ dH::!.Us.___ .... . 5. ,(k-, (:ic~~~-:'~-;~I=;;~:;--=t:;.~-t~-;-i:d~;'~--~.~==~. .' ~-d:::t::Z~~~;:;;;::C {,",#~,J_", ~I ",1M", ,;.,..~~_ . h.f:.:-~,{'~L.o'Lr.:. ..c\...tQ_ J/tA'S'5<":!_<r:._-6d-_/ect:A.~c.~_ .i.<-.l>l>'hf'-l~ ~i?. f;;:t:r;ii.:.~t..A.~.o. __ ___,_____ _n__~ u;;,~'.. .J,..}_a.1.-fL; .D ( ./:..~, "'_S:.J,I.._J2~_<?~____n____.__. __._ __~, .5"ld.~t:,._o-,.Jk~Q.0_~aj)___s.", -":'=:kDf f'rL5i::_I=:c'5rA.L-:i lL.J.5":' _~ - _ ~J,I:~},,",___S~-.!_.r._IJ::-i.P _UEC_~J:>If.;f<?_~Q __~______ .. . ._I-d,:rLl_~L--...h,0:!:...:.-;f;rM:_12otd...J;!.,r W-!('t:::.r.q~~,.. ('5 M 4-<..:.. S ~"'-' A-;tO j}1I-1:A ~'~""'U-M' i) '''(M - (,"'''-4'L. ~ . ,'. . .~ , , . '-,', . . '.', . . EXHIBIT "C-l" , , , 5147 ORE BANK ROAD YORK, PA 17406 Phone/Fax: (717) 840-0618 Commercial - Residential New Homes. Additions. Garages. Remodeling .. I , I /1 MPJ Construction, Inc. 5147 Ore Bank Road East York, PA 17406 Statement I DATE I 10/13/1999 I TO: EdwardslDroege 331 Willow Ave, Camp Hill, PA 17011 AMOUNT DUE AMOUNT ENC. SI3,946.53 DATE TRANSACTION AMOUNT BALANCE I , , i 03/31/1998 Balance forward 0.00 I 04/0111998 INV #C.O, 1335-1 449.00 ! 449,00 , 04/22/1998 INV#lstDraw 9,300,00 I 9,749,00 I 04/22/1998 PMT - Deposit -9,300,00 449.00 I 05/12/1998 INV #C,O. 1335-2 985,00 I 1,434.00 05/12/1998 INV #C,O, 1335-3 535,58 1,969.58 I 05/1811998 PMT #105 - Change Orders # 1335-1,2,3 -1,969.58 0.00 06/09/l998 INV #2nd Draw 12,400,00 12,400,00 06/09/1998 PMT -12,400,00 0,00 I 06115/1998 INV #3rd Draw 15,500.00 15,500,00 , 06/15/1998 PMT -15,500,00 0,00 07/1911998 INV #C,O, 1335-4 799.00 799,00 07/19/1998 INV #C.O. 1335-5 580.00 1,379.00 , 07/19/1998 INV #C,O, 1335-6 126,00 1,505,00 07/l9/1998 INV #C.O, 1335-7 3,158,76 4,663,76 07/l911998 INV #C.O. 1335-8 773.27 5,437,03 07119/1998 INV #C.O. 1335-9 1,952.07 7,389,10 I i 08112/1998 INV #4 th draw 12,400,00 19,789.10 08112/1998 PMT -20,400,00 -610,90 1112311998 INV #CO 10 to 16 2,879.87 2,268.97 1112311998 INV #FmaI Draw 12,400,00 14,668.97 CURRENT 1-30 DAYS PAST 31-60 DAYS PAST 61-90 DAYS PAST OVER 90 DAYS AMOUNT DUE DUE DUE DUE PAST DUE , I 0,00. 0.00 0.00 ! i 0.00 13,946.53 $13,946.53 Pagel EXHIBIT "C- 2" . , ~, (-1... ., 7 W.s. MILLER IV, P.E. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 3001 PlKESTREET HARRISBURG, PA 17111 TEL: (717) 564-4644 FAX: (717) 564,2432 December 22, 1998 Mr. Tod Edwards Keystone Financial Mortgage Co. 2270 Erin Court P.O. Box 7628 Lancaster, FA 17604-7628 Re: Inspection and Analysis of Second Floor Structure in New Addition Residence ofMr, and Mrs, Tod Edwards 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, FA 17011 Dear Mr, Edwards: In accordance with your requ,est, I conducted a structural inspection at your residence on September 19, 1998, The purpose of my inspection was to determine the cause of apparent sagging or deflection in the second floor structure of the new addition, and to make recommendations for repair or corrective remedial action, as necessary, My inspection was conducted in the presence of you and your wife, and it included observations and measurements on the first and second floor areas of the addition, and a review of certain photographs which were taken during construction, The new addition at the rear of the Edwards residence is a two story wood frame structure with approximate overall exterior dimensions of 15 feet deep (front to rear) by 30 feet long (left to right). The rlIst floor of the addition is a large open Kitchen and Family Room area while the second floor area consists of a Master Bathroom, Powder Room, and Closets on the left side half, and a Bedroom on the right side half, The second floor structure of the addition reportedly consists of 2xl0 floor joists (No.2 Hem-Fir) at 16 inch centers spanning the 15 foot distance between the original rear exterior wall of the existing home and the new rear exterior wall of the addition, The joists frame to the original rear exterior wall of the home with standard metal joist hanger connections to a continuous 2x1O ledger board connected to the existing siding and stud frame wall. Mr. Edwards also reported that a triple 2x 10 beam joist was installed under the 4 inch glass block shower partition, located approximately 10 feet in from the left side exterior wall. The floor in the addition is reported to be waferboard or oriented strand board subfloor with quarry tile fInish over concrete backer board in the Master Bathroom and carpet over underlayment grade plywood elsewhere. Following substantial completion of the addition, and the installation of the shower unit, the glass block shower surround walls, and the quarry tile finish in the Master Bathroom area, Mr. Edwards noticed significant sagging and deflection in certain areas of the floor structure. He fu~er rep~rted that the waferboard subfloor was subjected to numerous days of rainfall and wet condlllOn~ until the building was closed-in, and that certain areas of the waferboard subfloor were quite soft pnor to installation of the concrete backerboard and plywood underlayment / / ' / // . , , , Insp. ofTod Edwards Residence (2) December 22, 1998 . . I conducted a detailed walk-through visual inspection of the addition on September 19,1998 to determine the nature and cause of the reported problem, Due to the presence of the second floor - floor finishes and the first floor - ceiling fmishes, the second floor framing and subfloor could not be directly observed. Nevertheless, it was quite apparent that floor sagging or low spots of approximately 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch were present in the quarry tile floor finish of the Master Bedroom. The worst of the sagging was in the central Hallway between the Powder Room and the Walk-in- Closet, the extension of that Hallway to the immediate left of the shower enclosure, and in the floor area to the immediate from of the shower area, Other areas of the Master Bathroom either had no apparent evidence of the same sagging problem or were hidden by the presence of dividing partitions. Moreover, an inspection of the underside of the second floor structure at the first floor ceiling level revealed no direct evidence of any significant structural problems, Based on 2xlO floor joists at 16 inch centers, and a triple 2xlO joist beam under the glass block shower enclosure, structural calculations were performed to review the adequacy of the floor joists for the imposed loading conditions, Calculations were conducted for three separate loading conditions as described below: 1. The floor joists under the left end of the Master Bathroom, which support the floor areas of the Powder Room, the small Closet, the floor area to the left of the shower, and various wood stud partitions running perpendicular to the joists. 2, The triple 2xl0 floor joist beam which supports a 16 inch width of floor plus both the glass block shower partition and the partition to the right of the central Hallway, 3. The floor joists under the right end of the Master Bathroom which support the floor areas of the Walk-in-Closet and the shower, and various wood stud partitions running perpendicular to the joists, Assuming No.2 Hem-Fir lumber, and under a futi20 psf dead load, a 30 psf live load, and the weight of the partitions, the calculations indicate a very minor 2% overstress in the joists for loading condition number 1, and a rather significant 20% overstress for the joists in loading condition number 3. The triple 2x I 0 beam joist had significant reserve capacity under full design load. Under permanent floor/ceiling dead loads and the weight of the supported partitions, deflection calculations indicate initial deflections ranging between 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch for the three loading conditions, and possible long term deflections of between 3/8 and 3/4 of an inch for the various loading conditions depending on certain factors including the initial moisture content of the framing lumber, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS- Assuming that the lumber size, species, grade, and spacing are as assumed in the calculations, the calculations indicate minor to moderate overstress in the 2xlO second floor joists. Accordingly, it would have been appropriate to either use a higher grade lumber, space the joists at 12 inch centers, or use 2x12's in lieu of the 2xlO's, Nevertheless, deflection calculations indicate that at least the initial deflections due to permanent dead load are within an acceptable range and limits, and they do not fully explain the total amounts of sagging and deflection which were observed in the finished second floor areas of the Master Bathroom, Accordingly, there must be some other condition that is at least contributing to the observed sagging and deflection problem. These could include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Misalignment, dropping, or failure of the joist end connections or ledger connections to the existing wall. 2. The use of lower grade lumber, smaller size joists, or joists with larger spacing than those used in the calculations, 3. Deterioration or damage to the joists or subfloor from prolonged exposure to moisture, 4. Installation of floor joists with their curvature or "camber" down, I, I " , , Insp. ofTod Edwards Residence (3) December 22, 1998 Although the final repair or remedial action will likely be the removal of floor finishes and the leveling of the subfloor in the Master Bathroom, I would recommend that further investigative action be undertaken. Since it is also likely that some addition or sistering of the joists may need to be done under the Master Bathroom area to correct the inadequacies of the joists as shown by the calculations, I would recommend that the area of drywall ceiling under the Master Bathroom be removed to fully expose the framing and sub-floor above, Upon completion of the ceiling removal, I would be available to conduct a more detailed inspection of the framing, and to provide fmal recommendations' for repair, For you use and records, I have enclosed two copies of the 8 pages of structural calculations that were prepared in corljunction with my analysis. If you have any questions or comments concerning my inspection or this report, please contact me. '~A William S. Mille~ Structural Engineer EXHIBIT "D" , , , , ~; 0>\ !:> , , MPJ 5147 ORE BANK ROAD YORK, PA 174p6 PhonelFax: (717) G40-o61& C~rnrnorclcll - RO$lclerol'.cll New Homes. Adcllions . Garages . I!e~lng INC. FACSIMILE COVER PAGE To: TOO EDWARDS Sent: 1/6199 at 11 :01;00 PM Subject: HOME F<ENOVATION TOD, YOU HAVE STILL NOT GIVEN ME AN ANSWER ON WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO.I MUST HAVE THE BULK OF MY FINAL PAYMENT NOW, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO.IF IT IS YOUR INTENTION NOT TO PAY ME THEN PLEASE TELL ME SO,I DID NOT GIVE UP ON YOU OR YOUR PROJECT AND WILL HONOR MY AGREEMENTS, IF YOU WISH TO HOLD 2 OR 3 KTILL YOU DECIDE OR UNTIL WE REPAIR THE FLOOR THAT IS FINE WITH ME.I WILL WAIT FOR YOUR RESPONSE. THANKS,MARK From: Pages: Mark P. Weaver 1 (including C"ver) , , EXHIBIT "E" . , , , z. , &ec Gxt " " , GOODMAN & KENNEFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW 246B MAj'lOR AVE, MILLERSVILLE, PA 17551 THOMAS L, GOODMAN JOHN A, KENNEFF February 23, 1999 lELEPHONE (717) 872-4605 FACSIMILE (717) 872-4670 Mr. and Mrs, Tad Edwards 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: MPJ Construction, Inc. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Edwards: Please be informed that MPJ Construction, Inc. has retained my office to collect the moneys owed in connection with work performed at your residence, The sum of$ 13,946.63 is owed to MPJ Construction, lnc, for this project and was billed on November 23, 1998, Unless MPJ Construction, lnc, receives payment of the above amount in its entirety or is given the opportunity to address any problems by Friday, March 5, 1999, we will initiate litigation against you at the Court of Common Pleas of York County. MPl Construction, lnc, does not want this relationship to deteriorate to litigation and stands ready to, with an engineer, address the bathroom floor issue, However, due to the large sum of money owed to it for such an extended period of time, MPl must move this matter forward. Sincerely, John A. Kenneft:, Esquire JAK/tmw cc: MPl Construction, lnc, , , EXHIBIT "F" . , , , MAR. 5.1999 9:04AM NO. 578 P.2 .-- ~ -' [<K.v /,;:y flu IV (,M. t.J~ r -- ..... Tad Robert Edwards 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-2347 March 3, 1999 ' MPJ Con$lntction Mark Weaver 5147 Ore Bank Road York, PA 17406 Dear Mark: This letter follows my delivery to you of the structural report prepared by W. S, Miller analyzing the deficiencies in ibe workmanship end the structural integrity of second floor master bathroom. Ir is our intent to resolve all outstanding issues pursuant to Ollt construction contract at331 Willow Avenue, C>unp Hill,PA, Rel'larding the deflection and associated damage in the second floor master bathroom, we are vo'illir,g to consider remedial action proposed by MI'J Construction, provided the proposed remedial action is approved by oW' engineering cOl1.'lultanr. We are quite dismayed by the deficiencies in your company's worlananship particularly in the second floor master bathroom where there appears to be a Jack of structural integrity in the floorir.g and sub-floor support. Proposed s:eps will include removal of the first floor ceilinS to exatnine the second ,toty sub.floor and beam joists in the affected area. Once opened, the affected orca can be subjected to a detailed inspection by a professional structural engineer. Alrtly expense a preliminary structural analysiS was conducted by W. S, Miller. We intend to have W. S. Miller conduct the detal!ed inspeetiol1 of the affected area and recommend the appropriate'remedial steps, We will expect fo be reimbursed by you for this engineering review and supervision. Those remedial actions suggested by the structural engineer and conducted in accordance with his specific instructions are expected, We shall expect all work to be undertaken promptly and completed with due diligence. All cosH or remedial work is the soleresponsibijity ofMPJ as cover:d under MPJ's warranty. namage to existing flXrures and materials due to the deflection and aseociated remedial action is expected to be corrected by MPJ ConSIn\ctinn at its expense. Furthennorc the follo\ving outstanding punch list items are expected to be completed immediately. OuI$tal1ding items include, but are not limited to: . French Door, Grout breaking up between threshold and tile . Molding: Cuts on individual pieces do not line up. Check each area near baseboard heat. . First Floor Powder Room: Vanity finish work, trim work, painting, gap for baseboard heat pipe . Kitchen Ceiling: Painting and finish around small reoessed lighting . Kitchen double phone jack not attached and useable . Exterior wiring for radon fan, holes not sealed, north side exterior wall . Breaker panel not properly fastened . Wa, boiler re-pressurized, noticed increased noise indicative ohir in line,? . Damage to Living Room light switch . Pergo transition ITom Living Room to Family Room . Cab10 does llOt work in Master Bedroom . New BedroOm trim and door painting incomplete . New Bec1room window cracked . Master Bathroom hardware not secure >'~." ~NO:578 P.3 ~l" -~ < . Masler Bathroom bi-fold doors not aligned . Dl)Wall finish rear comer ,mall second fioor lavatory . Cup holder small aecond floor lavatory fulling out, painling not compleee, check tile work near baseboard heal . Hardware on pocket door is not functional . Master Bathroom ceiling fanl heal light and shower light not working . wane in clo'et door knob falling apart, drywall finish work and painting . Down 'poul'conneclion south rear corner not finished in a workmanlike manor . Various nail pops, drywall finish work and paintin.li! We will not agree to the release of any further funds until the remedial work and the outstanding "punch !i,t" items are satisfactorily completed, Please acoept this as my responsa 10 your attorney', letlll! dated 2123/99 received 2125/99 by certified mail. We look forward to your response and ultimale resolution of this maner. Please contact me directly to con,ider next steps. ~a A/ 0 'TodR. Edward~ co: J, Stephen Feinour. Esq" Nauman, Smith, Shissler and Hall . . ,~"--- --~~--.~ "- ,~ .' '. ."........ ,.~... " EXHIBIT "G" . , " , <, , , C!, &- --- GOODMAN & KENNEFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW 246B MANOR AVE. MILLERSVlLLE. PA 17551 THOMAS L, GOODMAN JOHN A. KENNEFF TELEPHONE (717) 872-4605 FACSIMILE (717) 872-4670 March 31, 1999 Mr, Tad R, Edwards 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: MPJ Construction, Inc. Dear Mr. Edwards: Thank you for your letter of March 3, 1999 which I have re,viewed with Mr, Weaver. While he agrees that there is a problem with the second floor master bathroom, he i, not willing to accept any responsibility until the exact namre of the problem is identified. MPJ, as stated to you before, is agreeable to cut open the ceiling direcdy beneath the floor to determine the problem. He intends to bring an engineer with him and will be responsible for payment of that engineer. If you desire to have Mr. .Miller be present, his services will be paid for by MPJ in the event the problem is shown to be an error in the construction of the floor. With regard to the punch list items, Mr. Weaver is agreeable to completing all of those listed with the exception of the following: L Pergo transition from living room to family room, As Mr. Weaver stated to you previously, pergo is made to flex. The floor condition is within acceptable pergo construction limits. Nothing can be done about this issue. 2. Master bab.'1room hardware not se=e and cup holder on second floor lavatory. The bathroom hardware was installed at your direction and in the location specified by you and was done by MPJ as an accommodation at no charge. If they are to do any further work in these areas, they must receive compensation. However, prior to performing any of the foregoing, MPJ must receive partial payment on his invoice of November, 1998, You stated to Mr. VVeaver previously you /' I I ' .;. ~ -. . , , , . -' Mr. Tad R. Edwards March 31, 1999 Page Two received an estimate of $8,000,00 to fIx the problem. Based on that, MPJ is looking to receive the sum of $5,946,53. It is usual practice to receive payment in full from a customer prior to performing warranty work. In addition, in order ensure that when the problem is fIXed MPJ receives the remaining $8,000,00, we are requesting that it be put in an escrow account with your attorney or with me. The money will not be removed until the parties reach an agreement or in the event of a court order if litigation becomes necessary, If the foregoing is acceptable, please forward payment to me a check for $5,946.53 along with a list of dates and times that you and your engineer will be available, Thank you. Sincerely, ~ John A. Kenneff JAK/tmw cc: MPJ ConstrUction, Inc. EXHIBIT "H" \. "'.,. i+ \ ~. . , -- GOODMAN & KENNEFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW 246B MANOR AVE. MILLERSVILLE, PA 17551 THOMAS L. GOODMAN JOHN A. KENNEFF May 11,1999 TELEPHONE (717) 872-4605 FACSIMILE (717) 872-4670 Mr. and Mrs. Tod Edwards 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: MPJ Construction, Inc, Dear Mr, and Mrs, Edwards: We have not heard from vou in over a month on this matter, MPJ stands - ready to addres the bathroom floor problem, Please contact either Mr, Weaver or my office with dates and times suitable next week to meet at the property. Ifwe do not hear from you by this Friday, May 14, 1999 we will assume that you do not want MPJ to address the problem and/or correct and we will immediatly commence an action against you for the sums owed to MPJ Construction. If it becomes necessary to do so, you will incur great expense as well as time lost due to answering interrogatories, attending depositions, etc. Obviously, we do not want to waste your time or money nor does Mr, Weaver want to waste his time in litigation when the problem may be a simple joist out of place or a piece of wood being warped, However, the sum is large and we can no longer allow this issue to be ignored by you, Please contact the undersigned or Mr. Weaver by May 14, 1999. Sincerely, '~A ~'-"l---\..\<?r....lWJ ~ A Kenneff W ; , :J - EXHIBIT "I" , . , . 3 '-~7/1999 08:39 7174323170 STEARNS ' PAGE: 01 ~., ". Francis R. Stearns,RE. Consulting Engineer 40 Aspen OrNe Olll8burg. PA 17019-9593 , 717-432-7119 , fax: 717-432-3170 July 27, 1999 Mark P. Weaver MPJ Construction, Inc. 5147 Ore Bank Road York, PA 17406 Re: Edwards Residence 331 Willow Avenue, Camp Hill Ref no. 661 I have reviewed the en9ineer's report dated Oecember 22, 1998, prepared by W.S. Miller, IV, P.E. The report provided quantitative analysis of the problelll of the glass block shower enclosure separating from the wall. 1 reviewed the site with you on June 28, 1999. The floor system is dimension lumber, 2xlO's f 16", and (3) 2xlO's at the glass block wall. The deflection of the floor is not exceptional, and does not represent a structural concern. Unfortunately, the home owner is dissatisfied with the condition at the intersection of the glass block wall and the exterior house wall. I recoJllllend that a molding be provided at this intersection to close the joint. In addition, your firm has offered to provide a stiffer floor system at the shower enclosure. I have analyzed the increase of the stiffness of the floor system by adding Micro-lam lVl lumber joists to the framing at this location. The addition of two lVl at the triple joists will more than double the stiffness of the floor joists, and provide a more dimensionally stable floor frame. The single floor joists can be sistered with a single lVl and the stiffness of these joists will be increased almost three times. If you have any questions, or if you require additional assistance at this time, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 1:~ -1:l -? F ank Stearns, P.E. ilding Structural Engineer encl STEARNS --,' -:z.x 10 I. S(1', OS )~ ):-.. /2- :: qs." ,,,"" H"""", F-,~ Ale>_ 2- e::I,3c>o,ao" PS' 5'1", f,.",,,,,>::. :- " 1'-'1 :>< 10 1l". ,,,,'" r.;;I - " ' I "..,. x. "l' "'t l- V L f.?!:' (~,..sY I '" ,,,, :;- J I f; JN~ IS -::: 2.. Q 0". <>-:>'-' F' !: I S""rT"f'N'<?!>~::; '2..31 ~ 10'" llo-'",'" 3 - 2.)( 10 ADO 2. .,., ,387"><.10<- \""VL C2 I :- ~e1 + -f"2)X 10' :: I IV C 11..e:>'~ 1" ::: '72.- J "I 5 J "'" L-" :2. 'I: I 0 - f',-T:>1) LvL 1:-1 " 12~ '< 10 :: (12"1. -\0 2. ~ I ) X. 1010 :: !,.'l(~Oll""'S" '" :2. ,'1 " .. 94-q)( 10" " 360 l(' 10 PAGE 02 -'- , . J EXHIBIT "J" \- .,~ 5 . , y " " MPI 5147 ORE BANK ROAD YORK, PA 17406 Phone/Fax: (17) 840-0618 e~l"Y'IlrY1lorc::lc" - RO$h:le~"iClI New HOt'I'Ie$ . Additions. Garoges . Remodeling INC. FACSIMILE COVER PAGE To: TOO EDWARDS Sent: 8/10/99 at 12:38:00 PM Subject: HOME REPAIRS TOD,SORRY I DID NOT GET BACK SOONER BUT WE WERE AWAY FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS.IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION ANY CRACKED TILE OR BLOCK WILL BE REPAIRED.I DO NOT ANTICIPATE THAT MOVING THE FLOOR ONLY 1/2 "TO 314"THAT THERE WILL BE TOO MUCH DAMAGE. THANKS,MARK From: Pages: Mark P. Weaver 1 (including GQver) ------ --- }A-~ t-dl<- . , t '. .. VERIFICATION I, Tina M, Weaver, Secretary of.MPJ Construction, Inc., verifY that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C.S,A. Section 4904, relating to un\,orn falsifications to authorities. Dated this 'LVV:'> day of _ f\Q t~. M.k:~0 ,1999, , .MPJ CONSTRUCl\ION, !NC{', ~' \ \. " I, I. "11 ' , l.v II \!J,-.A1LLuJL 1dC- - Tina M. Weaver, Secretary . , ,,'\l.' ~:,i<".. . j, ~. "U.""ltJ"till'" g~ 'i'i"~, ~' "1IlI:.~II~~,ll_li!l"'Il;~f.UIM.j:'lll1ll11li-~"m~ " W..1illS[~~ I'. ~!, ~ ~ 'Wl1~.~',""r.:~~.n~~,~~fI{:i;~''P1Siti~~ .- ."",1" F. , r .t~I!' , 1 l I ie, 1 ~ '1f< _ _" , ..'" ;; . ' }~~ f, """';;r';~~i - ;; "1 l,<t. :~ - , ~, "',!!~jl..,iIt";jr'!li"Ii'~ :~~ .;~~"~':1:!~'~!,'9:~~~~ , ' .. ,tla#;.. 3', :fif'l W (1$;: BEilJiNDCOOID'f . ,PENI\!$YL,VAN\6., :..:;1 ;"~ ",i ,:-j ,;,,,i , <~i , . ":7' MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. ,::!., ",~. ., ., .'(: ~. VS. " ," I, . ;:'. ~~~~rl1~~;:~~:~: !~l'~f~ L,:','.,' ,::I":..::,~,,:, c,~", '&1""',c~"i 0 '''~'.. ;--'''' ~.,".~ ~. "" '. ",pl; , ..- ~l _ " ':'::.::,., , :: '_ ,:" ;,' f ": :.., , .' '.'"1 '''"i,l;:ii::.,:" , ,::,,: ,I '.:~~r!'':''. :: \'~'il"'''I' ,"" .~ :';;'I'i ",'0- li5:;:,.' '" ,;". ,I",; ::30:,1;,: D" ," J.fS". S"o -Pb3 .'" " .- : ","'1 , . ,,, ':'-l'" d... ." J ' , -, , " ., l' '__d, ., ^' ~ \ ~ . ~-~i1'ii~;~J,:" "k"~'.h:i' ,~.~,1;'~1'~:t.~,~~;;~~ .~;;~~:W~:~~~}~i~;;"~1f~~ ::':~:: ~'\:~t~~~~~::.i't;r:;l:~~~i~,;~~' X1'~t. ~:;':~ ' . 'f,<....-I!:'...,",. ,~.~-!/J1 TOD and SHERIEDWARPS " 1~lllllk' 1 ::11;, ~!ir I :Ifhlli:!~ :!~::! ~:!~; ;~~'" ~!it~ '-"" '",,' I 'l;' ~ ,>; '". ~:~?i:' filL" '....,,, , IU:I~' ,;,~,::tiU;: , ';t!~" I iI', ,',',',c,', ";,,, , I ;:I~:: i!l~ 1',1:1(' I' : 1 ~:i~~ I ; I iIIii~ I!!'!: .II~! '!i ~II!I "II, :~:I~" : ::~i;, ~i:~.'~; ! Ii_\i. !il!!~'.t'!! ; ',i,,:~"!II' I'I,':~,: , I:~I' :;1 d 1m , I': "I~ ' : i:t1!:: ~!~,I , ".; "i~1 : I!~n iP" , I.~,~ 'I ~ii:; ,:'~:i ~1I:~;~:~ .:q~~1' , ,~; " ','II,'t"",', ~ k"~" , ::~~ !' ~::tlTr~~t{~ ~i~;~ "b:~'f,,~~l'~l~:~'~,,~fr "', , "', '" '~''''''''''' ,'.' .','. ,"", C. t.. -=ti 17 2.'iS' Q.4I- R9f..1o'l DAVIS & MYERS A PRorESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 2330 1601 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19103 ....~-ti- ;",' ;' _' ,,;-:,' _, ",~::' ::.-~~,1, ".'1 _ " ,"':..~>.- ,.,..~,:"",.f~.1.l', . '~,;''-''l.,,~~ 1,"__.:'..:i,l.,":.lIO.J-;-;I-.,~,,:, ";"~,"A-~~ ,'.-. ' .~'! ':'; '" ,"-,''"'-1\0'"''1.' ,'" ,""J1;-j"-' 'S_'.'\!',. ",.",C," ,-I.,lOn"I:_I:>,,;. .~c..;"........~.,....'" l.;"..;_,,","";','~ '.4;''',_r,.,,. ;'~i,,:i:;::)::i~,:.~,: !'::]1~:~t~~~~1~'~Z&~~~~"1~;~;~~m~J; ~J.~F;;:~~l~~~g~~I~~~t! :l~ .. ) E;;::1~'~<~~r:fl[MJ,,;ii,~;;r~~~~ .;.;. ~,~ ~~:.i.;;~i...,", '~:::'~,;~:'f;'i[;~;;;~~:~~~~',~~1 1 :~"".~,~,< .:~, ':,1 . ': l~.,~~,,~~~~~!'W'mn;;~''''''I'' ,}t1!~'>'i:"lf """>"i-,"",,,,,,,..~,;r,:,,<~';~o.:."~l'1~ff"'~~ " . ,. ~ . . ,.."n, .oJ' ". ' "';-\"" ~ ;~" ...'!t,' "l,t;,~ '.:, ,'," _' "..' ,.,:, "</-;"'.' ,<1 ~r",~ ,,'.;' ~ ,\ i1. .:" .".... ...' ':,,"~. 1'.oi'.lIF,i;!j>',:,~",_-,"ll"~ ",>""",wr~.:,'~lJ ~~~~~~~.~:;{?~~ ~:~'J :&(~;~F: !t~ii'~:~~ ~L"~'4 ~iilfi~:' ;'1,',,'" " tP' '. e MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please enter the appearance of NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP, and J. STEPHEN FEINOUR, ESQUIRE on behalf of Defendants in the above action, reserving, however, the right to plead or otherwise move. NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP ~ {7> f' .--.,. B. ~ (rea:. b 3l--- .,"'~ J tephen einonr, Esquire Supreme Court LD. No. 24580 20D North Third Street, 18th Floor P. O. Box 840 Harrisbnrg, P A 17108 Telephone: (717) 236-3010 Counsel for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards Date: January 6, 2000 '. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2000, I, J. Stephen Feinonr, Esquire, of the firm of NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certif'y that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel of record as follows: William 1. Myers, Jr., Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP ~rr/ -, . lIe.. G.......... V g ,. ~ ~ '---"---"--- tephen' Feinour, Esquire IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2000-33 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW AI ED-O:fICE OF THE PH01HONOTi\RY v. 00 JMjIO PH 3: 62 CUM5ERIJ\l~D COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA \ MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff " . TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants . ENTRY OF APPEARANCE "' " . . LAW OFFICES NA1lJ1>HAN. ~MlTlIlI. SlEl.SEllLEn~ & lIlL'lo.LL, LLP 200 NORTH THIRD STREET P.O. Box 840 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-0840 r T "Y~ MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, NO, 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: MPJ Construction, Inc" Plaintiff You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from the service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you, NAUMAN, SMITII, SmSSLER AND HALL, LLP ./~ ~ . : i'I"~ . ..-L- ~~ ~;;Ph n Feinonr, Esquire U;u~~eme Court ID#24580 200 North Third Street P,O, Box 840 Harrisburg, P A 17108 Telephone: 717/236-3010 Counsel for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife Date: z(/,,/(&'V:J r , MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, NO, 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAlNTIFF"S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER Ai~D COUNTERCLAIM NOW COME the Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards (hereinafter collectively the "Edwards"), by and through their attorneys, Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP, and fIle the following Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim: 1, Admitted on information and belief, 2, Admitted, 3, Defendants restate and re-aver the responses set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above as though more fully set forth herein, 4, Admitted in part and denied in part, It is admitted that Defendant, Tod Edwards, executed the Specifications appended as Exhibit "A" to Plaintiff's Complaint on March 17, 1998, The document captioned "Proposal" was presented to Defendant, Tod Edwards, subsequent to March 17, 1998 and was backdated by Plaintiff's representative, Mark Weaver (hereinafter "Weaver"), The Proposal and "Specifications" are written documents which speak for themselves, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied. 5, Admitted in part and denied in part, It is admitted that the Proposal submitted by Plaintiff, MPJ Construction, Inc, (hereinafter "MPJ"), provided for the ftnnishing of material and labor in accordance with the accompanying Specifications for a total price of $62,000,00, The Proposal and "Specifications" are written documents which speak for themselves, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied, 6, Denied, The agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants for the construction of the two-story addition at Defendants' residence is set forth in the Proposal and Specifications (hereinafter the "Contract") attached as Exhibit "A" to the Complaint. It is admitted that Plaintiff, MPJ, functioned in the capacity of general contractor on the project and did engage certain subcontractors to perform various aspects of the work. It is denied that any agreement, written or oral, existed between MPJ and the Edwards respecting the engagement of subcontractors to perform work under the contract. 7, Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a building permit was issued by the Borough of Camp Hill on or about March 30, 1998, and that Plaintiff, MPJ, commenced work on the project shortly thereafter, After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 7 and therefore demand proof thereof at trial. 8, Denied, The Specifications provide for a $10,50 per square foot allowance for the installation of ceramic tile in the master bath shower enclosnre, It is denied that the Contract called for the use of ceramic tile in the master bath shower enclosnre as Defendants had communicated to MP J well in advance of execution of the Contract, their desire to have glass block utilized for the shower enclosnre, Plaintiff, MPJ did not object or raise any other issue respecting Defendants' - 2- "- desire to have glass a block enclosnre installed in the second floor master bathroom. Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, only advised the Edwards that MPJ had not installed glass block and that they would need to engage another contractor for that work, The Proposal and Specifications are written documents which speak for themselves, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied, 9, Denied, It is denied that Plaintiff, MPJ constructed a bathroom floor that was structnrally sufficient or properly constructed in a good and workmanlike manner, Plaintiff, MPJ was fully aware of Defendants' plan to utilize glass block for the master bathroom shower enclosnre before the contract was executed and before construction was commenced on the frame and second story subfloor. Defendants informed Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, that the glass block would be installed by Cornerstone Glass Block Company ("Cornerstone"), The contract did not provide for MPJ to install ceramic tile shower enclosnre, The flooring and floor support installed by MPJ was deficient in workmanship and inadequate as more fully set forth hereinbelow, 10, Denied, It is denied that in or about April, 1998, the Edwards, without consulting MPJ, decided to enclose the master bathroom shower in heavy glass block and, on their own and without going through MPJ, hired Cornerstone as a contractor to install the glass block, To the contrary, Defendants consulted with MPJ's representative, Weaver, regarding their desire to utilize glass block for the master bathroom shower enclosnre, Weaver informed Defendants that he had not installed glass block shower stall walls and that they would need to engage a different contractor to perform that work. Defendants are informed, believe and therefore aver that Cornerstone consulted " - :J - , , with MPJ regarding the glass block shower enclosnre to be installed in the master bathroom and that MPJ had full knowledge of the specifications ofthe glass block to be installed well in advance of construction of the second story frame and flooring, 11, Denied, After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 11 and therefore demand strict proof thereof at trial, 12. Denied as stated, In approximately April, 1998, Plaintiff, MPJ, prepared drawings at the request of Defendants altering the configuration of the glass block enclosnre from a curve to a right angle which decreased the number of lineal feet of glass block and the corresponding weight of the shower enclosnre, 13, Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 13 and therefore demand strict proof thereof at trial. . Defendants believe and therefore aver that Weaver submitted copies of the revised drawing for the master bathroom shower stall enclosnre configuration to Plaintiff for delivery to Cornerstone, 14, Denied, It is denied that in June of 1998 Weaver informed Defendants that he had constructed the bathroom floor to accommodate the weight of ceramic tile, not glass block, that he had never worked with glass block before, and that he could not guarantee that the bathroom floor would support the weight of the glass block. To the contrary, Weaver only informed Defendants in March of 1998 that he had no experience with the installation of glass block and that they, -4- therefore, would have to engage another contractor for the installation of said glass block. Weaver never raised any issue regarding the structnral integrity of the floor or the ability of the flooring to support the proposed glass block shower enclosnre, nor did he advise Defendants of any limitations in the weight bearing capacity of the floor. 15, Denied, It is denied that Defendants directed Weaver to contact Cornerstone about the ability of the bathroom floor to support the weight of the glass block shower enclosnre, To the contrary Weaver had been in communication with Cornerstone and at no time raised any issue or conceruing about the ability of the floor to support the weight of the glass block enclosure, 16, Denied, After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 16 and therefore demand strict proof thereof at trial, 17. Denied, At no time did Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, express any concern to Edwards regarding the adequacy of the floor to support the weight of the glass block. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 17 and therefore demand strict proof thereof at trial. 18, Admitted with clarification, In or about the last week of July, 1998, Cornerstone installed a shower enclosnre constructed of Pittsburgh Plate Glass ("PPG") Decora pattern 6x6x3 inch glass blocks, - 5 - , 19, Denied as stated, It is admitted that in or about August, 1998, the Edwards provided MPJ with a preliminary "punch" list of items of deficient or incomplete workmanship that had been detected, It is denied that the document attached as Exhibit "B" to the Complaint was delivered to MPJ, as there is handwriting that is not Defendants and that was no on the original document. Exhibit "B" is a document which speaks for itself, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied, Exhibit "B" to Plaintiff's Complaint does not reference the master bathroom floor or the family room ceiling because at the time of preparation of the list the master bathroom remained incomplete due to problems between Plaintiff and the tile subcontractor. Furthermore, Defendants were unable to live in their house from June, 1998 until September, 1998, due to dust, dirt and debris associated with the construction, 20, Denied, It is denied that Defendants, Edwards, requested Weaver to examine the bathroom floor because it appeared to Edwards to be sagging a little; that Weaver looked at the floor and offered to open up the ceiling below to see what was causing the sagging; and that Weaver stated that if the problem was the weight of the glass block, he would not accept responsibility. To the contrary, workmen engaged by Plaintiff, MPJ, came to the job site sporadically in late August, 1998, Dnring the last week of August, 1998 several workmen walked through the master bathroom and identified an area of sagging in the floor to Defendants, A worker engaged by MPJ contirmed that the floor surface sagged by approximately two inches whereupon Detimdants contacted Weaver and arranged for a walk-through inspection of the master bathroom, During said inspection Weaver acknowledged the existence of an approximately two inch dip in the master bathroom floor and a - 6- corresponding two inch sag or deflection in the family room ceiling, Defendants requested Weaver to consult a professional engineer for evaluation of the deflection in the master bathroom floor and family room ceiling which Weaver refused to do, 21. Denied as stated, It is admitted that Defendants were required to engage an independent engineer, W,S, Miller, IV, P,E, ("Miller"), to evaluate the cause of the deflection in the master bathroom floor and family room ceiling and the appropriate remedial action. The engineer, Miller, was engaged by D~fendants in advance of September 19, 1998, 22, Denied as stated, It is admitted that prior to September 19, 1998 Defendants informed MPJ of their retention of Miller to evaluate the condition ofthe master bathroom floor and the family room ceiling, Weaver was advised that Defendants would provide him with the engineering report prepared by Miller in order to reach agreement as to the appropriate remedial action to correct Plaintiffs deficient workmanship, notwithstanding Weaver's refusal to obtain a professional engineering evaluation, 23, Denied, It is admitted that in or about the first week of November, 1998, Plaintiff, MPJ completed work on the project with the exception of correction of the deficient workmanship in the master bathroom floor and family room ceiling and other punch list items, The work completion was approximately four months beyond the July, 1998 completion date promised by Plaintiff, Plaintiff submitted an invoice to Defendants in the total amount of$74,238,55, comprised of the $62,000,00 project price plus additional charges of$12,238,55. It is specifically denied that - 7- Plaintiff was entitled to the sum demanded due to the numerous items of deficient and incomplete workmanship more specifically set forth hereinafter, 24. Denied, It is denied that at the time of the alleged completion of work by Plaintiff, MPJ, on the project Defendants, Edwards, owed MPJ the sum of$13,946.53, To the contrary there were numerous items of deficient and incomplete workmanship, for which the fair and reasonable cost of repair and replacement exceeded the balance claimed by Plaintiff, 24.(sic) Denied as stated. It is denied that the document identified as Exhibit "C-l" to Plaintiff's Complaint was sent on or about November 23, 1998 as said document is dated October 13,1999, 25, Admitted in part and denied in part, It is admitted that Defendants have not paid the amount shown as the "amount due" on the October 13, 1999 invoice as such amount is not properly due and owing to Plaintiff, It is denied that Plaintiff was not provided with any explanation as to why payment was being withheld, To the contrary, Plaintiff, MPJ, was well aware of the deficiencies in the workmanship in the construction of the master bathroom floor and family room ceiling which had not been corrected to the satisfaction of Defendants and the incomplete items on Defendants' punch list, 26, Denied as stated. It is admitted that the professional engineer, Miller, submitted a report dated December 22, 1998 to Defendants discussing his inspection and analysis of the deficiencies in the second floor structnre of the addition, Mr, Miller noted deficiencies in the construction of the floor by Plaintiff, including but not limited to inadequate structnral design, use - 8 - of inadequate or damaged materials, and deficient workmanship. The document speaks for itself, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied. 27, Admitted, 28, Denied, It is denied that Defendants, Edwards, received any fax transmittal from Plaintiff, MPJ, on or about January 6, 1999, 29. Denied as stated, It is admitted that Weaver left a telephone message on Defendants' answering machine on January 18, 1999, which message was promptly retnrned by Edwards the same day although Weaver was unavailable and Edwards left a telephonic message on Plaintiffs answering machine, 30. Denied as stated, It is admitted that on or about January 19, 1999, Defendant, Tod Edwards, and MPJ's representative, Weaver, arranged to meet at the Edwards' property to inspect the floor on February 2, 1999, Defendants encountered schedule conflicts and notified Weaver several days in advance that the February 2, 1999 date was no longer suitable, The meeting was rescheduled, however, Weaver, without explanation, did not appear. 31, Denied, After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 31 and therefore strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, 32, Denied as stated. It is admitted that Attorney John A. Kenneff, Esquire, directed a letter dated February 23,1999 to Defendal'lts, The February 23, 19991etter is a document which speaks for itself, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied, Upon receipt of .9- said letter, Defendant, Tod Edwards, contacted Attorney Kenneff's office but was unable to speak with Attorney Kenneff, 36,(sic) Denied as stated, It is admitted that Defendant, Tod Edwards directed a letter dated March 3, 1999 to Plaintiff, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "F" to Plaintiff's Complaint, The March 3, 1999 letter is a document which speaks for itself, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied. 37, Denied, The March 3, 1999 letter sent by Defendant, Tod Edwards, to Plaintiff, MPJ, set forth an itemization of the deficient and incomplete workmanship of Plaintiff and refused to approve release or payment of $13,946,00 demanded by MPJ until the items of deficient and incomplete workmanship were corrected, The estimated cost of remedying the "punch list" items and the flooring deflection exceeds the amount claimed by Plaintiff, Plaintiff has refused to complete or remedy the "punch list" items, The March 3, 1999 letter and "punch list" are incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein, 38, Denied, It is denied that Weaver tried to arrange meetings with Defendants but that Defendants would not'make themselves available, To the contrary, Defendants, Edwards, tried on several occasions to schedule an inspection of the property with Weaver but Weaver declined to meet ,'lith Defendants on the dates proposed, 39, Denied, It is admitted that Attorney John Kenneff, acting on behalf of Plaintiff, MPJ, directed a letter to Defendants, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "G" to Plaintiff's Complaint, The March 31, 1999 letter is a document which speaks for itself, any characterization thereof by - 10- , Plaintiff being expressly denied, It is denied that Attorney Kenneff's letter offered an acceptable solution to the dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants, 40, Admitted in part and denied in part, It is admitted that Defendants, Edwards, refused to release the sum of $5,946.00 to MPJ or to place the balance claimed in escrow as said monies were not properly due and owing to Plaintiff, It is further admitted that Defendants did not agree to allow MPJ to cut open the first floor ceiling to examine the second floor subfloor support as MPJ refused to provide adequate assurance that it would properly repair the flooring and assume responsibility for any collateral damage associated with the inspection and repair of the deflection in the flooring/ceiling, 41. Admitted in part and denied in part, It is admitted that Defendants, Edwards, received a letter dated May 11, 1999, from Plaintiff's counsel. The May 11, 1999 letter is a document which speaks for itse1t: any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied, It is denied that Plaintiff, MPJ, was willing or capable of properly correcting the deflection condition in the second floor master bathroom floor and the family room ceiling, 42. Denied as stated, It is admitted that Defendants gave MPJ permission to enter the property to conduct an inspection on or about June 28, 1999, It is denied that Defendants would only allow "a very cnrsory inspection of the property" as MPJ was permitted to make a full and complete inspection and, in fact, was accompanied by an engineer. 43, Admitted in part and denied in part, It is admitted that an engineer, believed to be Francis R. Sterns, was present with Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, dnring the June 28, 1999 - 11 - inspection, At the end of July, 1999, Defendants were provided with a copy of a report purportedly prepared by Mr. Sterns, It is denied that "the floor deflection was not exceptional" and "did not represent a structnral concern" as there was a very visible area of deflection in the second floor master bathroom floor and the family room ceiling, It is denied that the proposal made by Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, was a suitable or adequate solution for the problems noted by Defendants' engineering expert, Miller, 44, Denied, Defendants, Edwards, deny receiving or seeing a letter dated August 10, 1999 from PlaintiffMPJ which is attached as Exhibit "J" to Plaintiff's Complaint. 45. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff, MPJ, has repeatedly tried to secure Edwards' permission to enter the property, open the first floor ceiling and determine the cause of the claimed sagging of the second floor, To the contrary, Defendants, Edwards, have had no contact with Plaintiff, MPJ, since the transmittal of the letter dated August 3, 1999, 46, Denied, It is denied that Defendants, Edwards, to date have failed to answer Plaintiff's requests for an opportunity to determine the cause of the problem and to fix it, To the contrary, Defendants have offered Plaintiff, MPJ, reasonable and full opportunity to remedy the defective and deficient workmanship but Plaintiff, MPJ, has not demonstrated a willingness or ability to properly do so, It is further averred that Defendants have secnred an estimate for the cost of remedying and correcting Plaintiff's deficient workmanship in the second story flooring and subfloor support, at a cost of$16,050.00, which sum exceeds the balance claimed by Plaintiff, A true and correct copy - 12- , of the proposal ofTPM Construction dated January 28, 2000, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof, 47, Denied, It is denied that Defendants, Edwards, have failed to afford Plaintiff, MPJ, a reasonable opportunity to address "the problem" attributable to Plaintiff's negligent and deficient workmanship and that Defendants are using the sagging floor as an excuse to retain the remaining $13,946,00 owed to MPJ, Defendants incorporate their response to Paragraph 46 above by way of further response to the averments of Paragraph 47, COUNT I (Breach of Contract) 48, Defendants, Edwards, hereby incorporate by reference their responses to the averments of Paragraphs 1 through 47 above as though more fully set forth herein. 49, Denied, It is denied that MPJ fulfilled all of its obligations under its contract with Edwards and is entitled to the $13,946,00 owed on the contract, To the contrary, Plaintiffperformed its work in a negligent, deficient and unworkmanlike manner which resulted in significant deflection and sagging of the second floor master bathroom floor and family room ceiling, The fair and reasonable cost of correcting and completing Plaintiffs deficient workmanship, including completion of the "punch list" items, is in the amount of$19,190,OO, which amount exceeds the amount claimed by Plaintiff, - 13 - 50, Denied, It is denied that Defendants, Edwards, have breached their contract with Plaintiff by failing to tender the remaining $13,946,00 claimed by MPJ. To the contrary, Plaintiff, MPJ has breached its contract with Defendants in that it failed to timely complete its work in a proper and workmanlike manner according to standard practices, failed to adequately supervise and control the work performed by subcontractors, and engaged subcontractors who were not qualified to perform the work assigned to them by Plaintifflmder the contract, and utilized materials that were inadequate or substandard for the proper support of the second story floor, 51, Denied, The averments of Paragraph 51 constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procednre, If, however, they be deemed averments of fact, the same are expressly denied, 52, Denied. The averments of Paragraph 51 constitute a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procednre, If, however, they be deemed averments of fact, the same are expressly denied, It is denied that Defendants expressly agreed to pay MPJ "costs plus reasonable attorneys fees in case of suit for collection," WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment in their favor on Plaintiff s Complaint, together with costs of this proceeding, COUNT II (Quantum Meruit) - 14 - , 53. Defendants, Edwards, hereby incorporate by reference their responses to the averments of Paragraphs 1 through 52 above as though more fully set forth herein, 54, Denied, It is denied that the work performed by Plaintiff, MPJ, in the construction of the two-story addition to Defendants' home has a reasonable value of $74,238,55, inclusive of the cost of change orders approved by Defendants. To the contrary, Defendants have been deprived of a substantial value of the two-story addition due to the incomplete, negligent and deficient workmanship and materials furnished by Plaintiff, MPJ, and subcontractors engaged by it. 55, Admitted in part and denied in part, It is admitted that Defendants, Edwards, have paid Plaintiff, MPJ, the sum of $60,292.02, It is denied that Plaintift~ MPJ, has been underpaid in the amount of$13,946,53 or that Plaintiff is entitled to the payments that it has received or any further payment as Defendants will incnr costs exceeding the balance claimed by Plaintiff to be owing under the contract in order to properly correct, remedy and complete the deficient workmanship by Plaintiff, MPJ and the subcontractors engaged by it, as more fully set forth in Defendants' Counterclaim hereinbelow, WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment in their favor on Plaintiffs Complaint together with costs of this proceeding. COUNT III (Unjust Enrichment) - 15 - 56, Defendants, Edwards, hereby incorporate by reference their responses to the averments of Paragraphs 1 through 55 above as though more fully set forth herein, 57, Denied, It is denied that Plaintiff, MPJ, constructed a two-story addition to the Edwards' home with a value of $74,238.55, To the contrary, Defendants have been deprived of substantial value of the two story addition due to the incomplete, substandard, negligent and deficient workmanship and materials furnished by Plaintiff, MPJ, and subcontractors engaged by it. 58, Admitted in part and denied in part, It is admitted that Defendants, Edwards, have paid MPJ the sum of $60,292,02, It is denied that Plaintiffs, MPJ, is entitled to the payments it has received or any further payment as Defendants will incnr costs exceeding the balance claimed by Plaintiff to be owing under the contract in order to properly correct, remedy and complete the deficient workmanship by Plaintiff, MPJ and subcontractors engaged by it as more fully set forth in Defendants' Counterclaim hereinbelow, 59, The averments of Paragraph 59 state a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procednre. If, however, they be deemed averments of fact, the same are expressly denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment in their favor on Plaintiff's Complaint together with costs of this proceeding. - 16- . NEW MATTER 60, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendants upon which relief can be granted, 61. Plaintiff's claim is barred by Plaintiff's own breach of its duties and responsibilities under its Contract with Defendants, 62, Plaintiff's claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands, 63. Plaintiff, MPJ, and particularly Plaintiffs President and Owner, Mark Weaver, represented to Defendants that it was qualified to design and construct a two-story addition to the Edwards' existing home and that said work would be performed in a workmanlike manner and would be of good quality, 64. In reliance upon the aforesaid representations by Plaintiff, Defendants, Edwards, entered into an agreement with Plaintiff for the construction of the two story addition to their existing home, with a construction completion date of on or before July 1, 1998, 65, Defendants, Edwards, encountered numerous delays in the performance of the work by Plaintiff, MPJ, such that work on the project was not completed by MPJ until late November, 1998, 66, The agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants expressly provided that all work was to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices and that all material is guaranteed to be as specified, - 17- , , 67, Prior to execution of the Proposal and Specifications between Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants informed Plaintiff, MPJ, of their desire to utilize glass block for the shower enclosnre in the second floor master bathroom, 68, Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, informed Defendants that MPJ did not install glass block and that Defendants would need to engage another contractor to perform that work. 69. Prior to execution of the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants, and prior to commencement of construction by Plaintiff, Defendants informed MPJ of their selection of Cornerstone Glass Block Company ("Cornerstone") to perform the installation of the glass block for the shower enclosnre, 70, Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, prepared design drawings for the location of the glass block shower enclosnre and revised the drawings to change the confIgnration from a cnrve to a right angle which revision resulted in the reduction of the linear feet of glass block required for the enclosnre and a corresponding reduction in the weight ofthe glass block enclosnre, 71, At no time prior to execution of the Contract or during construction did Plaintiff, MPJ, inform Defendants of any concern regarding the structnral integrity of the second story subfloor support or its adequacy to support the weight of the glass block shower enclosure. 72, The frame of the two story addition and particularly the support beams for the second story floor were left uncovered and exposed to the weather and other elements for an extended period of time between the months of April and May, 1998, dnring which time there was an extensive amount of rainfalL - 18 - , 73, In approximately August, 1998, a dispute arose between Plaintiff, MPJ, and its tile subcontractor whereupon the tile subcontractor refused to finish the job and left the work site, 74, Plaintiff, MPJ, constructed the frame and second story subfloor with full knowledge and awareness that sufficient structnral support was required to support the weight of the glass block shower enclosnre, 75. Following completion of the work by Plaintiff, MPJ, Defendants became aware of an area of significant sagging or deflection in the second story master bathroom floor and a corresponding deflecting in the ceiling of the family room immediately underneath. 76, Defendants, Edwards, promptly demanded that Plaintiff, MPJ, determine the cause of the deflection and undertake proper and adequate corrective action, including but not limited to obtaining an analysis of the deflection condition by a qualified engineer. 77, Despite Defendants' repeated complaints, Plaintiff, MPJ, has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the severity of the deficiencies in its workmanship and to undertake appropriate remedial action, 78, As a direct result of Plaintiff's failure to engage an engineer to analyze the cause of the significant deflection in the second story floor, Defendants were required to incnr the expense of engaging an independent engineer, W,S, Miller, IV, P,E" to examine the subfloor to determine the cause of the deflection and the appropriate remedial measnres to correct the deflection, which evaluation was performed at a cost of$250,OO, - 19 - TT 79, The structnral engineer, Miller, observed ". , , floor sagging or low spots of approximately Y:, to 3/4 of an inch were present in the quarry tile floor finish of the Master Bedroom, The worst of the sagging was in the central Hallway between the Powder Room and the Walk-in- Closet, the extension of that Hallway to the immediate left of the shower enclosure, and in the floor area to the immediate front of the shower area," Miller has determined that overstress conditions exist in the 2xl0 second floor joists at the ends of the master bathroom, (See Miller report attached as Exhibit C-2 of Plaintiff's Complaint and incorporated herein by reference,) 80, The fair and reasonable cost of correcting Plaintiff's deficient workmanship is in the amount of$16,050,OO, which amOlmt exceeds the balance claimed to be due by Plaintiff under its agreement with Defendants, COUNTERCLAIM COUNT I (Breach of Contract) 81, The averments of paragraphs 63 through 80 above are incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein, 82. Plaintiff, MPJ, is in breach of its contract with Defendants in that it has failed to timely complete its work in a proper and workmanlike manner according to standard practices and has failed to use material guaranteed as specified, 83, Plaintiff, MPJ, has breached its contract with Defendants in that it: - 20- . ., (a) it constructed a two story addition with a substantial deflection or sagging in the second story mast bathroom floor and a corresponding deflection in the first floor family room ceiling; (b) it constructed flooring and a subfloor support for the master bathroom that was uneven and resulted in substantial floor deflection; (c) it failed to perform and complete its work in a proper and workmanlike manner according to standard practices; (d) utilized lumber of insufficient grade and/or size to support the expected load of the second story improvements; (e) failed to properly design and construct the second story floor; (f) it failed to properly supervise and control the work performed by subcontractors engaged by it; (g) it failed to engage competent and qualified subcontractors to perform the work assigned to them; (h) it failed to complete its work in a timely manner; (i) it failed to utilize materials that were guaranteed as specified; and G) it allowed portions of the frame and subfloor support system to be unduly exposed to the weather and other elements resulting in damage to said components of the structure and a corresponding loss of structural integrity, - 21 - '. , .' 84. As a direct result of Plaintiff's breach of its Contract, Defendants have been required to engage the services of a structnral engineer to analyze the cause of the deflection condition in the second story master bathroom floor and to engage a contractor to perform the work required to correct the deficient condition, including completion of the "punch list" items, at a total cost of $19,440,00, WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment against Plaintiff, MPJ Construction, Inc" in the amount of$19,440,OO, together with prejudgment interest at the legal rate and costs of this proceeding, COUNT II (Negligence) 85. The averments of paragraphs 63 through 80 above are incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein, 86, Plaintiff, MPJ, was negligent in the performance of its work under its agreement with Defendants in that: (a) it constructed a two story addition with a substantial deflection or sagging in the second story mast bathroom floor and a corresponding deflection in the first floor family room ceiling; (b) it constructed flooring and a subfloor support for the master bathroom that was uneven and resulted in substantial floor deflection; - 22- it failed to perform and complete its work in a proper and workmanlike manner according to standard practices; utilized lumber of insufficient grade and/or size to support the expected load of the second story improvements; failed to properly design and construct the second story floor; it failed to properly supervise and control the work performed by subcontractors engaged by it; it failed to engage competent and qualified subcontractors to perform the work assigned to them; it failed to complete its work in a timely manner; it failed to utilize materials that were guaranteed as specified; and it allowed portions of the frame and subfloor support system to be unduly exposed to the weather and other elements resulting in damage to said components of the structnre and a corresponding loss of structnral integrity. 87, As a consequence of the negligence of Plaintiff, MPJ, Defendants have incurred j (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) G) ,> damages in the total amount of$19,440,OO, for which claim is made herein, WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment against Plaintiff, MPJ Construction, lnc" in the amount of $19,440,00, together with prejudgment interest at the legal rate and costs of this proceeding, - 23- .> COUNT III (Breath of Warranty) 88, The averments of paragraphs 63 through 80 above are incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein, 89. Plaintiff, MPJ, expressly warranted that its work and that of subcontractors engaged by MPJ, would be performed in a timely, good and workmanlike manner and that all materials were guaranteed to be as specified, 90. Plaintiff, MPJ, breached its warranty to Defendants in that it: (a) it constructed a two story addition with a substantial deflection or sagging in the second story mast bathroom floor and a corresponding deflection in the first floor family room ceiling; (b) it constructed flooring and a subfloor support for the master bathroom that was uneven and resulted in substantial floor deflection; (c) it failed to perform and complete its work in a proper and workmanlike manner according to standard practices; (d) utilized lumber of insufficient grade and/or size to support the expected load of the second story improvements; (e) failed to properly design and construct the second story floor; (t) it failed to properly supervise and control the work performed by subcontractors engaged by it; - 24- .> .' (g) it failed to engage competent and qualified subcontractors to perform the work assigned to them; (h) it failed to complete its work in a timely manner; (i) it failed to utilize materials that were guaranteed as specified; and G) it allowed portions of the frame and subfloor support system to be unduly exposed to the weather and other elements resulting in damage to said components of the structure and a corresponding loss of structural integrity, 91. As a consequence of the breach of warranty by Plaintiff, MPH, Defendants have incurred damages in the total amount of $19,440,00, for which claim is made herein, WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment against Plaintiff, MPJ Construction, Inc" in the amount of$19,440,OO, together with prejudgment interest at the legal rate and costs of this proceeding, COUNT IV (Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law) 92, The averments of paragraphs 63 through 80 above are incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 93, Defendants are consumers within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P,S, S 201-1, et seq, - 25- > , 94, The improvements constructed by Plaintiff, MPJ, for the two story addition to Defendants' residence are incomplete and inferior in quality in that there is a substantial deflection in the master bathroom floor and family room ceiling, 95. The workmanship of Plaintiff, MPJ, is substandard and inferior in that: (a) the subfloor structural support is inadequate to support the weight of the second tloor improvements; (b) the master bathroom flooring is uneven and has an approximately two inch sagging or deflection condition; ( c) there is a lack of structural integrity in the second story floor and subfloor due to either substandard workmanship or inferior materials, or both, 96, Plaintiff, MPJ, misrepresented the quality ofits workmanship and the materials it used in the construction of Defendants' two story addition in violation of S2( 4)(vii) and (xvi) of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("PaUTPCPL"), 73 P,S, S 201- 2(4)(vii) and (xvi), for which damages are claimed, 97, Defendants are entitled to statutory damages and reasonable attorneys fees and costs for Plaintiff's wilful violation of the PaUTPCPL, pnrsuant to 73 P,S, S 201-9,2. - 26- . . . WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment against Plaintiff, MPJ Construction, Inc" in the amount of $19,440,00, or such amount as the Court shall deem appropriate, together with reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this proceeding, NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP , , Stepheh Feinour, Esquire Supreme Court ID #24580 ?.//y-/~ Date: -( I 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor p, 0, Box 840 Harrisburg, P A 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Attomeys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards - 27- ... . VERIFICATION . We, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, the undersigned do hereby state that the statements set forth in the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C,S,A. S;4904 relating to unsworn fal ' lcation to authorities, Sheri Edwards Date: 2/14/00 -28 - , .. - T P M Construction 111 N Sadsbury Court Gap, PA 17527 (610) 593-6024 . . Proposal Proposal NO: DATE: January 28, 2000 To: Tod Edwards 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 SALESPERSON JOB NUMBER DATE ACCEPTED TERMS Tom Martin DESCRIPTION MATERIALS AMOUNT Due to the presence of the second floor, floor finishes and the first floor ceiling finishes, the second flOOr framing could not be directly viewed. Possibility of further work could be incurred dependent on findings after removal of first floor ceiling and second floor finish. This proposal is contingent upon what the necessary steps are to correct at my visual observation. $600.00 Remove existing drywall from first floor ceiling (labor) to expose existing floor structure for Master Bedroom/Bath/Closet $1,500.00 Replace with new 5/8" drywall $4,500.00 Install steel plates on both sides of walls to jack up existing floor until deflection is corrected and floor is level. Install a LVL Beam or steel beam to support existing floor $1,300_00 Remove existing tile, wonderboard and concrete backerboard from second floor bathroom. Remove existing cabinets, toilets and repair plumbing due to removal of We . $450.00 $1,200,00 $2500,00 $4,000_00 Remove existing giass tile due to correction of floor (labor only) Replace glass block around shower Replace with new 2" x 2" ceramic tile and 12" x 12" ceramic tile $16,050.00 SUBTOTAL \ ~~& \OC~ $16,050.00 Proposed Amount EXHIBIT A If you have any questions concerning this proposal, call: Tom Martin (610) 593-6024 i , -~ .. ; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2000, I, J, Stephen Feinonr, Esquire, of the fum of NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel ofrecord as follows: William 1. Myers, Jr" Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP ,- A,f (' ~ / - . . Stephen Feinonr, Esquire IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000-33 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW " ., " .. MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff v. TaD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM .. ~,,' , !;.( i LAW OFFICES NA1lJ1>lIAN. l">ltJllTllll, SmrllSElH.m:nR & lIlIALL 200 NORTH THIRD STREET P.O. Box 840 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-0840 ! ""I:["'~"'CI"" ( k___.! ":" ! I,""~..._., .'\ ::: 1\'", ,I r \ JI~\I.-\ { , I' . -, ., ~ II r"1 In'Sf> 00 FEn : j'h Ii."'; Cll',",/,\',I~i+~\ /'.;<D C()Ut{(Y 1'.1.'.. ...r,!".. . . "p.I"e'Yl\',"HA rCl'{j\,; .iI',\!'l1 , < DAVIS & MYERS By: William 1. Myers, Jr., Esquire Pa. I.D. No, 38702 Suite 2330 160 I Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6262 Attorneys for Plaintiff MPJ Construction, Inc, MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, 5147 Ore Bank Road East York, PA 17460, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF n;. T FI'~ COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA W.V\BEfl-lANCJ Plaintiff; CIVIL ACTION v, TOD and SHERI EDWARDS 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants, : NO, 2000-33 PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM PlaintiffMPJ Construction, Inc, (''MPJ''), by its undersigned counsel, responds to defendants' New Matter and Counterclaim as follows: ANSWER TO NEW MATTER 60, Denied as a conclnsion oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required, 61, Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, By way of further answer, MPJ did not breach its duties and responsibilities to defendants, 62, Denied as a conclnsion oflaw to which no responsive pleading is required, , 63, Denied as stated. Mr, Weaver was qualified to design and construct the addition, However, Mr, Weaver never said he was qualified to work with glass block, and expressly so informed defendants, 64, Denied, It is denied that defendants relied on any representations by Mr, Weaver, To the contrary, defendants knew that MPJ had not worked in glass block before, that MPJ had constructed the floor to hold the weight of ceramic tile as called for in the contract, and that MPJ could not guarantee that the bathroom floor would support the weight of the glass block. With respect to the floor's ability to hold the weight of glass block, defendants relied on Cornerstone; specifically, Mr, Weaver told Mr, Edwards that Cornerstone had represented that if some additional wooden joists were installed, the floor would support the glass block, and Mr, Edwards himself directed Mr. Weaver to do what Cornerstone directed, Additionally, MPJ never promised a completion date of July, 65. Denied. The reason for much of the delay was that defendants made numerous material change orders, Additionally, there was a rain delay, which can happen on any construction job, MPJ's proposal expressly states that "all greements" were contingent upon "delays beyond our control." 66, Denied as a characterization of a document, the terms of which speak for themselves, 67, Denied, Defendants never informed MPJ of their intent to use glass block in the bathroom until April of 1998, 68, Denied as stated, Mr. Weaver told defendants that MPJ did not install glass block and had never worked with glass block before, that he had constructed the bathroom floor to hold the weight of the ceramic tile the parties had discussed and which was in the Specifications, and that he could not guarantee that the bathroom floor would support the weight of the glass block. Mr, Weaver did not tell defendants that they would need to engage another contractor to perform the work, as defendants had already told Mr, Weaver that they had hired Cornerstone, 69. Denied, Defendants never told MPJ about Cornerstone before the parties executed their agreement or before MPJ began construction. Defendants never informed MPJ oftheir intent to use glass block until April of 1998, 70, Denied as stated, Defendants were the ones who changed the design from a curve to a right angle, 71. Admitted in part, denied in part, It is admitted that before construction, MPJ did note express concern regarding the structnral integrity of the floor or its ability to support glass block, because glass block was never mentioned before construction, The averment is denied with respect to what happened once construction began and defendants eventually informed MPJ that they intended to use glass block. Mr, Weaver expressly informed defendants that he could not guarantee that the bathroom floor could support the weight of glass block. 72. Admitted in part, denied in part, It happens sometimes during construction that it will rain before a structnre is completed, It did rain during the construction here, MPJ took normal and reasonable precautions to protect the site, including placing tarps over the construction site to protect it. 73, Denied, MPJ fired a tile subcontractor, 74, Denied, When the floor was constructed, MPJ believed that defendants wanted ceramic tile in the bathroom shower, as they had agreed in the contract and informed him, 75, Admitted in part, denied in part, It is admitted that the floor and ceiling sag/deflect, but denied that it is significant, 76, Admitted that defendants have demanded that MPJ assume the entire bnrden of addressing the deflection that may have been caused by defendants' own decision to switch from ceramic tile to glass block in the shower. 77, Denied, Defendants retained engineer Miller on or before December 22, 1998, the date of his report, Defendants did not demand MPJ to address the deflection issue until defendant's letter of March 3, 1999, some three months later, 78, Denied. Mr, Miller's letter speaks for itself, and MPJ denies any characterizations ofthe letter, 79. Denied, Defendant's hiring of TPM Construction Company after the hiring of defense counsel was self-serving and a part of defendant's litigation strategy, 80, Denied, ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM COUNT I: 81. MPJ hereby restates and reavers as though fully set forth herein the averments contained in Paragraphs 63-80, above, 82, Denied, 83(a)-G), Denied, 84. Denied, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MPJ demands judgment in its favor and against defendants for damages in the amount of $13,946,53, together with interest thereon at 1.5% per month from November 30, 1998, attorneys' fees and such other and further relief as the Court and trier of fact shall determine, COUNT II: 85. MPJ hereby restates and reavers as though fully set forth herein the averments contained in Paragraphs 63-80 hereinabove, 86(a)-(j), Denied, 87, Denied, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MPJ demands judgment in its favor and against defendants for damages in the amount of $13,946.53, together with interest thereon at 1.5% per month from November 30, 1998, attorneys' fees and such other and further relief as the Court and trier of fact shall determine, COUNT III: 88, MPJ hereby restates and reavers as though fully set forth herein the averments contained in Paragraphs 63-80, above, 89, Denied, 90(a)-G), Denied. 91. Denied, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MPJ demands judgment in its favor and against defendants for damages in the amount of $13,946.53, together with interest thereon at 1.5% per month from November 30, 1998, attorneys' fees and such other and further relief as the Court and trier of fact shall determine. COUNT IV: 92. MPJ hereby restates and reavers as though fully set forth herein the averments contained in Paragraphs 63-80, above, 93, 94, Denied, 95(a)-(c), Denied that the workmanship ofMPJ is substandard and inferior, and that the conditions referenced in Paragraphs 95(a)-(c) were the fault ofMPJ, 96, Denied, 97, Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MPJ demands judgment in its favor and against defendants for damages in the anrount of $13,946,53, together with interest thereon at 1.5% per month from November 30, 1998, attorneys' fees and such other and further relief as the Court and trier of fact shall determine, BY: ( VERIFICATION WILLIAM 1. MYERS, JR, hereby states that he is the attorney for the Plaintiff in the within action, and verifies that the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, The undersigned understands that the statements are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, WI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, WILLIAM 1. MYERS, JR., ESQUIRE, hereby certif'y that I have today served a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Answer to Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim on J, Stephen Feinonr, Esquire, 200 N, Third Street, P,O, Box 840, Harrisbnrg, P A 17108 by First Class Mail. DATED: March 1,2000 RLED-O~,9CE OF THE F','im HOi:O! ARY 00 M~.R -3 PH 2: 02 CLMBERU,'~[J CO~jNTY PENNSYL\'l~"J II I ' ! i. I' ,.. :i I I': 'i i!!" !i!'!i MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs, NO, 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards (hereinafter "Edwards"), by and through their counsel, Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP, hereby make objection to the Interrogatories of Plaintiff directed to Defendant as follows: Objection to Plaintiff's Definitions and Instrnctions Sections Defendants object to the definitions and instructions sections of Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production directed them to the extent the definitions section and/or instructions exceeds the scope and parameters of all applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procednre as well as Cumberland County Local Rules of Court, To the extent the definitions and/or instructions sections of Plaintiff s Interrogatories exceed the aforementioned procednral rules, Defendants' responses to said Interrogatories are only to the extent required by Pennsylvania's Civil Procednre Rules as well as the Cumberland County Rules of Court, 10, Objection, Interrogatory No, 10 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R,C,P, 4003,1, 11. Objection, Interrogatory No, 11 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R.C,P, 4003,1, 20, Objection, Interrogatory No, 20 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R.C,P, 4003,1, 29, Objection, Interrogatory No, 29 is objected to as being vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is confidential and privileged, which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff s claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R,C,P, 4003,1. 30, Objection. Interrogatory No, 30 is objected to as being vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is confidential and privileged, which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff s claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R.C,P, 4003.1, 31, Objection, Interrogatory No, 31 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is confidential and privileged, which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff's claim, and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R.C,P. 4003,1. 32, Objection, Interrogatory No, 32 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is confidential and privileged, which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff's claim, and -2- which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R.C,P, 4003,1. 41. Objection, Interrogatory No, 41 is objected to on the basis that it seeks protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa,R,C,P, 4003,5, Without waiving said objection, Defendants will provide Plaintiff with such information as is discoverable under Pa.R,C,P, 4003.5 with respect to any expert witness who is expected to testif'y at trial. 42. Objection, Interrogatory No, 42 is objected to on the basis that it seeks protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa.R,C,P, 4003.5, Without waiving said objection, Defendants will provide Plaintiff with such information as is discoverable under Pa,R.C,P, 4003.5 with respect to any expert witness who is expected to testif'y at trial, 43. Objection, Interrogatory No, 43 is objected to on the basis that it seeks protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa,R,C,P, 4003,5, Without waiving said objection, Defendants will provide Plaintiff with such information as is discoverable under Pa,R.C,P, 4003.5 with respect to any expert witness who is expected to testif'y at trial. - 3 - 44, Objection. Interrogatory No, 44 is objected to on the basis that it seeks protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa,R.C,P, 4003.5, NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP Date~" e I t-) ue>z> ~:2' B _ .- . /10\ ~ ,Ste en Feinonr, Esquire Supreme Court ID #24580 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor p, 0, Box 840 Harrisbnrg, PAl 71 08-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Attorneys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards -4- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2000, I, J, Stephen Feinour, Esquire, of the firm of NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certif'y that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories by fIrst class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel of record as follows: William 1. Myers; Jr" Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP -5- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ,NO. 2i000'-33!- CIVIl; TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW ,I F' ED. .(\,:"['1"'" - '-'1.r '.....' Of~ Tl.' 0".;"}Y'" ;;"T'''Y . ., _. . ,..,. ;,.,'[I':\Jlfifi v. 00 JUNI2 PM 3:39 CUrv'J8ERLANOGOUNTY PENNSYLVANiA MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants (' DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIF 's INTERROGATORIES i ;. LAW OFFICES NAUMAN.~MnH.Sn~LEH & HALL 200 NORTH THIRD STREET P.O. Box 840 HARRISBURG, PENNSYL..VANIA 17108-0840 , , , MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, NO, 2000-33 Civil Term TOO EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Defendants, Tad Edwards and Sheri Edwards (hereinafter "Edwards"), by and through their counsel, Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP, hereby make objection to the Request for Production of Plaintiff directed to Defendant as follows: I, Defendants incorporate their objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories by reference thereto as though more fully set forth herein, 2, Defendants incorporate their objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories by reference thereto as though more fully set forth herein, 3, Defendants incorporate their objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories by reference thereto as though more fully set forth herein, 5, Objection, Request for Production No, 5 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R,C,P, 4003,1. 8, Objection, Request for Production No, 8 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R,C,P, 4003,1. 14, Objection, Request for Production No, 14 is objected to as being vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiffs claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R,C,P, 4003,1. 15. Objection, Request for Production No, 15 is objected to as being vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff's claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R.C,P, 4003,1. 16, Objection, Request for Production No, 16 is objected to as being vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiffs claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R,C,P, 4003.1. 17, Objection, Request for Production No, 17 is objected to as being vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff's claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R.C,P, 4003,1, Without waiving said objections, Defendants will identif'y the principle documents for their construction loan with Keystone Financial Mortgage Company, the loan payment history and the disposition of the loan proceeds, -2- 21. Objection. Request for Production No, 21 is objected to on the basis that it seeks protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa,R.C,P,4003,5, Without waiving said objection, Defendants will provide Plaintiff with such information as is discoverable under Pa,R.C,P, 4003,5 with respect to any expert witness who is expected to testif'y at trial, 22, Objection, Request for Production No, 22 is objected to on the basis that it seeks protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa,R,C,P,4003.5, Without waiving said objection, Defendants will provide Plaintiff with such information as is discoverable under Pa.R,C,P, 4003.5 with respect to any expert witness who is expected to testif'y at trial, 24, Objection, Request for Production No, 24 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is confidential and privileged, which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiffs claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R.C,P, 4003,1, Without waiving said - 3 - objection, Defendants will provide Plaintiff with such information as is discoverable under PaR.C,P, 4003.5 with respect to any expert witness who is expected to testif'y at trial, NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP J, St~ hen Feinonr, Esquire Supreme Court ID #24580 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor p, 0, Box 840 Harrisbnrg, PA 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Datef"'" 12; WOO Attorneys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards -4- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2000, I, J, Stephen Feinonr, Esquire, of the f1I1Il of NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certif'y that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Request for Production by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel of record as follows: William 1. Myers, Jr., Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP ~ - 5 - IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : lip. 2000:-'313-CIVIL 'I:EIlM I C'IVIL ACTr'ON - LAW ' v. (;F 'I f:!~F~{)'Ltl')~ " . ";:,:)'JOTAF/Y 00 ..IUN '2 PM 3: ,~9 CUA/o,.", . P'UCl1uWD COI r..,.." EN!\lS'fLVANll" I r MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff TOO EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants ,,1'1 '" , " DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION " II , I i ,I ! "I ,;.i, I LAW DmcEs NAUMAN. 8.MITH. SHISSLER &; HALL 200 NORTH THIRD STREET P.O, Box 840 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 171 OB~0840 '.' ~. , MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, NO, 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS,. Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2000, I, J, Stephen Feinonr, Esquire, of the firm of NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of Defendant's Interrogatories Directed to Plaintiff-- First Set by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel of record as follows: William L, Myers, Jr" Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor p, O. Box 840 Harrisbnrg, P A 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Attorneys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards "" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :00'. 2000-3'31 Civil'Term CIVIL ACTIoN - LAW MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. , Plaintiff v. TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF INTERROGATORIES - i I , ! LAW OFFICES ,/::1 .. . , NAUHAN.SMrrD.SUISSLEH & HALL 200 NORTH THIRD STREET P.O, Box 840 HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17108-0840 Fn.ffi-OcRCE c= ",r~ pC'':;l'-::\:}TpRY 00 SEP -0 Pr\ 3: 04 CUMtJER\j",O COUNTY PENNSYLVA.'lIA < .'-- MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, NO, 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2000, I, J, Stephen Feinour, Esquire, of the firm of NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certif'y that I have this day served a true and correct copy of Defendant's Reqnest for Prodnction of Documents Directed to Plaintiff by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel of record as follows: William 1. Myers, Jr" Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP ~ 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor p, 0, Box 840 Harrisbnrg, P A 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Attorneys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. i 2000-33:, CiVil Term ;,' , " CIVIL ACTION - LAW FI f[}-()ifiCE ~ C., T ' ' ~":"r."" F::J ,NW ~I- .:"" ..' I' ,." to! ' v. 00 SEP ..6 Pl, 3: [)ll CUM5f.r\U,"lO COUf\.'1Y PENNsYLVANIA MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff l' . . TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ", ( LAW OF'FlCES NAUMAN. SMITH. SHISSLER & HALL 200 NORTH THIRD STREET P.O. Box 840 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 171 oa~0840 .' MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, NO. 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this "t{!i;.. day of October, 2000, I, J, Stephen Feinonr, Esquire, of the firm of NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certif'y that I have this day served a true and correct copy of Defendant's Answers to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel of record as follows: William 1. Myers, Jr" Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP trv.? /?/ --, ~,,"?'-< i B ",. './ . i ~1,{1I <2.L--"-,,,-- )~_.,"1-~.)'-\...~ L.~ .- -~ If. StePhen F einoUr, Esquire Supreme Court ID #24580 ~ 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor p, 0, Box 840 Harrisbnrg, PA 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Attorneys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards (, I i t I I I t( I ,,' I ~, I , , I ! 'I i ~. IN THE COURT OF qOMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY" PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000-33 I CIVIL ACTION - LAW MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff v. TOD EDWARDS and SHBRI EDWARDS, DefEindants , " CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDNA~' ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF PLAINTIFF AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS , LAW OFFICES NAUMAN. ~M~K. SKI_LEU & HALL 200 NORTH IHIRD STREET ~t""" ~.-.Y AdO FiLED-oFA:X 0:: "I" ?~tcrHG:1OT/\RY 00 OCT -5 PM 3; 11 CUMBERlJlND couNTY PENNSYlVANIA ..........J ......... ~,.,.. u.. .... ~.. .L.,'......' J;.J....JJ.-....., U.. CUMBERLAND COUNT'i(, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2000-33 I CIVIL ACTION - LAW i\ MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff v. TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants . " CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDNA~ ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF PLAINTIFF' AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS A 'I ': ,~ . , .n , , LAW OFF1CES NAUl"IAN. SM:rrD. SUISSLER & HALL 200 NORTH THIRD STREET P.O. Box 840 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-0840 RLE[}-()fRCE Or ~,r C'1"~"O';OTHN t~ ;'; :',,~.)~r, ,\... It\nl 00 OCT - 5 Pr\ 3: I ! CUMStRl}ND OOUNTY PENNSYLVAi'l1A ~ ~ \ .l I ! \ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Np. 2000i~13,3i i" CIVIL ACTION - LAW MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff v. TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, DefEindants ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF DEFENDNA" ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF PLAINTIFF AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS .' . . LAW OFFICES NAUMAN.~~n.SHffi8LER & EL~LL 200 NORTH THIRD STREE;T P.o. Box B40 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-0840 FiLED .OFFICE C- 1 . ..,....., 'I)' 'JT^R'" i:- ; - . " ,.,1' r\ ,'~ If1~ I 00 OCT -5 PM 3: II CUMBEHiJl.~O COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA LAW OFFICES N.&:U~9 SMJITEl,. Smr:JISS)["lEUR 8:: lHIAL:IL.9 JLLP SPENCER G. NAUMAN, ..JR. ..J. STEPHEN FEINOUR CRAIG..J. STAUOENMAIER 8E:N..JAMIN C. OUNLAP, JR. 18TH FL.OOR 200 NORTH TH I RD STREET P. O. Box 840 HARRISBU RG. PEN NSYLVAN IA 17 108-0840 TELEPHONE COUNSEL D....VID C. E:ATON .JOH N C. SULLIV....N DENNIS E. BOYLE .JODI A.~BEIERSCHMITT L. RENEE LIEUX (717) 236"-3010 DIRECT E..MAIL-ADDReSS NSSH@NSSH.COM TE: LE FAX (717) 234-1925 November 6, 2000 HAND DELIVERED Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County Conrthouse One Conrthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 RE: MPJ Construction, Inc. v. Tod and Sheri Edwards No. 2000-33 Civil Term Dear SirlMadam: I enclose herewith the original and fonr (4) copies of Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Answers for fIling in the above-captioned matter. Once the Memorandum is fIled, please retnrn tiroe-stamped copies to onr messenger for return to the undersigned, If you have any questions, please advise, Very truly yonrs, ~t~~~~ u ~::;~:n Feinonr JSF/jc Enclosures cc: William Myers, Esquire, w/enc, Mr, & Mrs, Tod Edwards MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, NO, 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife ("Edwards"), by their counsel, Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP, hereby submit this memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Answers and in response to the Rule to Show Cause issued by the Court. Defendants incorporate by reference their Answer to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Answers, which Answer was fIled on September 21,2000, Defendants have fully responded to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production with the exception of those Interrogatories and Requests to which objection was timely made and discussed hereinafter. Factual History. In March, 1998, Defendants, Edwards, entered into a contract with Plaintiff, MPJ Construction, Inc, ("MPJ"), for the construction of a two-story addition to their existing residence at 331 Willow Avenue, Camp Hill Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, The construction "contract" consisted of a Proposal and Specifications (hereinafter the "Contract") dated March 17, 1998, which provided that Plaintiff was to provide material and labor for a total price of $62,000,00, Pnrsuant to the Contract, Plaintiff, MPJ, functioned in the capacity of general contractor on the project and engaged certain employees and subcontractors to perform various aspects of the work, Prior to execution of the Contract, Defendants communicated to MPJ their desire to have glass block utilized for the shower enclosnre in the second story master bathroom, The subject of the glass block shower enclosnre was discussed between Defendants and MPJ's principal, Mark Weaver, in face-to-face meetings, telephone conversations and telefacsimile transmissions. Mr, Weaver informed the Edwards that he did not have a subcontractor who installed glass block and that, accordingly, Defendants would need to engage a contractor to supply and install the glass block for the bathroom shower enclosnre, Defendants contacted Cornerstone Glass Block Company ("Cornerstone") to supply and install the glass block for the glass block shower enclosnre and dnring March, 1998, drawings of the glass block shower enclosnre wall were exchanged between Defendants, Mark Weaver, and Jack Jennings at Cornerstone, In fact, Weaver prepared design drawings for the location of the glass block shower enclosnre and subsequently revised the drawings to change the confIgnration from an overlapping curve to a right angle, which revision resulted in a reduction of the linear feet of glass block required for the enclosnre and a corresponding reduction in the weight of the glass block enclosnre, On April 30, 1998, Defendants signed and accepted Cornerstone's proposal to provide an install the glass block at a cost of $2,000,00, Plaintiff, MPJ, was well aware of Defendants' desire to use glass block for their shower enclosnre at the time the Contract was executed between Defendants and MPJ and well in advance of commencement of construction of the frame and subfloor support of the addition, This -2- knowledge is evidenced by the provision of a $10.50 per square foot allowance in lieu of installation of ceramic tile in the master bath shower enclosnre in the Contract specifications, In April, 1998, MPJ conunenced construction on the project and dnring the last week of July, 1998, Cornerstone installed the shower enclosure constructed of Pittsburgh Plate Glass ("PPG") decora pattern 6x6x3 inch glass blocks on the shower enclosnre base constructed by MPJ, In August 1998, the Edwards provided MPJ with a preliminary "punch list" identifYing numerous items of deficient or incomplete workmanship that had been detected, Dnring the last week of August 1998, after Defendants' delivery of the preliminary "punch list" to MPJ, workmen engaged by MPJ identified an area of signiticant floor detlection and sagging in the master bathroom, Defendants inunediately contacted Mark Weaver and scheduled an inspection of the master bathroom, dnring which Weaver acknowledged an approximate 1-2 inch sagging in the master bathroom floor and a corresponding sagging or deflection in the family room ceiling below it. Defendants requested Weaver to consult a professional engineer for evaluation of the deflection in the master bathroom floor and family room ceiling which Weaver refused to do, whereupon Defendants engaged an independent structnral engineer, W,S, Miller, IV, P,E. to evaluate the floor deflection and the cause thereof, William Miller inspected the two-story addition on September 19, 1998, and noted deficiencies in MPJ's construction of the floor support system, including inadequate structnral design, improper installation of the floor joists with their curvatnre or "camber" down, improper - 3 - spacing of the floor joists, and use of damaged or deficient materials, (See Miller Report dated December 22, 1998 - Plaintiffs' Complaint Exhibit "C"-2.) Areas of the family room ceiling were opened which confirmed the presence of support joists which had been installed with their camber downward resulting in deflections (i.e, sagging) of between 5!8ths and 3!4ths of an inch, These deflections existed prior to installation of the shower enclosnre as evidenced by the use of a number of wood shims of various thicknesses up to a half inch maximum between the top of the joists and the underside of the OSB (wafer board) subfloor sheathing, In other locations construction adhesive was used as a filler material. Plaintiff, MPJ, has refused to take proper remedial action to correct the floor deflection resulting in the refusal of Defendants to release payment of $13,946.00 to MPJ until the items of deficient and incomplete workmanship were corrected, Defendants have obtained estimates to remedy Plaintiff's deficient workmanship, which estimates exceed the amount Defendants are withholding from Plaintiff, Plaintiff, MPJ, commenced this action to recover the balance of the contract price, as adjusted by change orders, Defendants deny any obligation to Plaintiff for its deficient workmanship and have counterclaimed for the cost of correcting Plaintiff's defective work under the Contract, Interrogatory Nos 10 and 11 and Document Requests 5 and 8. Plaintiff's Interrogatory Nos, 10 and 11 seek the substance of communications between the Edwards and other contractors, including estimates and any other docunients exchanged between -4- Edwards and those contractors, Defendants have objected to those Interrogatories on the basis that they seek information which is irrelevant and immaterial to the claims between the parties and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R,C,P, 4003.1, The issue in the present case is Plaintiffs breach of its construction contract with Defendants based on the deficiencies in the design and construction of the subfloor support which resulted in significant deflection in the master bathroom floor and the family room ceiling, and Defendants damages resulting therefrom, Any estimates or communications Defendants may have had with other contractors prior to entering into the Contract with MPJ are wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the issues of this case, Defendants have objected to Plaintiffs Request for Production Nos, 5 and 8 on the same basis, Interrogatory Nos. 29 - 32 and Document Requests 14-17 and 24. Interrogatory Nos, 29 and 30 seek all documents relating to any loans incurred by the Edwards to fmance the construction of the addition, including payments made on the loan and the Edwards' use of the loan monies, Plaintiff, MPJ, has no interest, legal or otherwise, in the sonrce of funds used by the Edwards to pay for the two-story addition, and specifically, MP J does not hold third party beneficiary status as to any third party financing Defendants may have utilized to fmance the construction project. Similarly, the Edwards fIled federal income tax retnrns are privileged, confidential and have no relevancy to the issues in this breach of contract claim, See Spancrete Northeast, lnc, v. Elite Associates, 148 A.D.2d 694, 539 N,y.s,2d 441 (Supreme Ct" App. Div, NY -5- 1989); Cipriani v, DelTurco, 23 Beaver 1.J, 118 (C,P, Bea~er Co" 1961), Plaintiff has made no showing of necessity for this information in the within suit, Clearly, Interrogatory No, 31 is designed solely for the purpose of harassing, annoying and invading the privacy of Defendants, Likewise, Interrogatory No, 32 seeks investment or banking information which is confidential, privileged, and irrelevant to the issues in this case, The issue is whether Plaintift: MPJ, is entitled to any payment beyond that which it has already received in light of the woefully deficient workmanship in the construction of the subfloor of the two-story addition, MPJ's only claim is as to the balance which it claims it is due under the contractor and therefore Defendants' use of any third party funds is wholly irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff's claim. Document Requests 14 through 17 and 24 are objected to on the basis discussed above, Interrogatory Nos. 42 and 43 and Document Requests 21-22. Plaintiffs Interrogatory Nos, 41 and 42 seek the natnre and substance of communications between Defendants and their expert engineer, W.S, Miller, IV, P,E, Defendants have objected to these Interrogatories on the basis that they seek protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa,R,C,P. 4003,5, Document Requests 21 and 22 are objectionable for the same reason, Defendants have infornled Plaintiff that the structural engineer, W.s, Miller, IV, P ,E" has been engaged as an expert witness to testif'y at trial and that Defendants will provide Plaintiff with said expert's reports in accordance with Pa,R,C,P, 4003,5, - 6- For the foregoing reasons, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, respectfully request this Court to deny Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, or alternatively, to schedule a discovery conference, NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP ~\ ,-.=::L~ If eprlen Feinonr, Esquire V Supreme Court ID #24580 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor P. 0, Box 840 Harrisbnrg, P A 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Date: IIf I ~ Attorneys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards -7- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 6th day of November, 2000, I, J. Stephen Feinonr, Esquire, ofthe firm of NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Answers, by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel of record as follows: William 1. Myers, Jr., Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP - 8 - , :z: o ..:::: <:> C1> '" <:::> ~ , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO,2000-3111 C~vitl Term , MPJ CONSTR~CTION, INC ., Plaintiff v, TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants " , , :,, , I , MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISOCVERY ANSWERS , , I I , LAW OFACES NAUMAN. SMI"I'H. SHISSLER I ': & HALL 200 NORTH THIRD STREET , . P.O. Box 840 HARRISBURG, PENNSYL.VANIA 17108-0840 MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs, NO, 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife ("Edwards"), by their counsel, Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP, hereby submit this memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Answers and in response to the Rule to Show Cause issued by the Court, Defendants incorporate by reference their Answer to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Answers, which Answer was fIled on September 21,2000, Defendants have fully responded to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production with the exception of those Interrogatories and Requests to which objection was timely made and discussed hereinafter, Factual History. In March, 1998, Defendants, Edwards, entered into a contract with Plaintiff, MPJ Construction, Inc. eMPJ"), for the construction of a two-story addition to their existing residence at 331 Willow Avenue, Camp Hill Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, The construction "contract" consisted of a Proposal and Specifications (hereinafter the "Contract") dated March 17, 1998, which provided that Plaintiff was to provide material and labor for a total price of $62,000,00, Pnrsuant to the Contract, Plaintiff, MPJ, functioned in the capacity of general contractor on the project and engaged certain employees and subcontractors to perform various aspects of the work. Prior to execution of the Contract, Defendants communicated to MPJ their desire to have glass block utilized for the shower enclosnre in the second story master bathroom, The subject of the glass block shower enclosnre was discussed between Defendants and MPJ's principal, Mark Weaver, in face-to-face meetings, telephone conversations and telefacsimile transmissions. Mr. Weaver informed the Edwards. that he did not have a subcontractor who installed glass block and that, accordingly, Defendants would need to engage a contractor to supply and install the glass block for the bathroom shower enclosnre, Defendants contacted Cornerstone Glass Block Company ("Cornerstone") to supply and install the glass block for the glass block shower enclosnre and dnring March, 1998, drawings of the glass block shower enclosure wall were exchanged between Defendants, Mark Weaver, and Jack Jennings at Cornerstone, In fact, Weaver prepared design drawings for the location of the glass block shower enclosnre and subsequently revised the drawings to change the configuration from an overlapping curve to a right angle, which revision resulted in a reduction of the linear feet of glass block required for the enclosnre and a corresponding reduction in the weight of the glass block enclosure, On April 30, 1998, Defendants signed and accepted Cornerstone's proposal to provide an install the glass block at a cost of $2,000,00, Plaintiff, MPJ, was well aware of Defendants' desire to use glass block for their shower enclosnre at the time the Contract was executed between Defendants and MP J and well in advance of commencement of construction of the frame and subfloor support of the addition, This -2- knowledge is evidenced by the provision of a $10,50 per square foot allowance in lieu of installation of ceramic tile in the master bath shower enclosnre in the Contract specifications, In April, 1998, MPJ commenced construction on the project and during the last week of July, 1998, Cornerstone installed the shower enclosure constructed of Pittsburgh Plate Glass ("PPG") decora pattern 6x6x3 inch glass blocks on the shower enclosnre base constructed by MPJ, In August 1998, the Edwards provided MPJ with a preliminary "punch list" identif'ying numerous items of deficient or incomplete workmanship that had been detected, During the last week of August 1998, after Defendants' delivery of the preliminary "punch list" to MP J, workmen engaged by MPJ identified an area of signifIcant floor deflection and sagging in the master bathroom, Defendants immediately contacted Mark Weaver and scheduled an inspection of the master bathroom, during which Weaver acknowledged an approximate 1-2 inch sagging in the master bathroom floor and a corresponding sagging or deflection in the family room ceiling below it, Defendants requested Weaver to consult a professional engineer for evaluation of the deflection in the master bathroom floor and family room ceiling which Weaver refused to do, whereupon Defendants engaged an independent structnral engineer, W,S. Miller, IV, P .E, to evaluate the floor deflection and the cause thereof, William Miller inspected the two-story addition on September 19, 1998, and noted deficiencies in MPJ's construction of the floor support system, including inadequate structural design, improper installation of the floor joists with their curvatnre or "camber" down, improper - 3 - spacing of the floor joists, and use of damaged or deficient materials. (See Miller Report dated December 22, 1998 - Plaintiffs' Complaint Exhibit "C"-2.) Areas of the family room ceiling were opened which confIrmed the presence of support joists which had been installed with their camber downward resulting in deflections (i.e, sagging) of between 5/8ths and 3/4ths of an inch, These deflections existed prior to installation of the shower enclosnre as evidenced by the use of a number of wood shims of various thicknesses up to a half inch maximum between the top of the joists and the underside of the OSB (wafer board) subfloor sheathing, In other locations construction adhesive was used as a filler material, Plaintiff, MPJ, has refused to take proper remedial action to correct the floor deflection resulting in the refusal of Defendants to release payment of $13,946,00 to MPJ until the items of deficient and incomplete workmanship were corrected, Defendants have obtained estimates to remedy Plaintiff's deficient workmanship, which estimates exceed the amount Defendants are withholding from Plaintiff, Plaintiff, MPJ, commenced this action to recover the balance of the contract price, as adjusted by change orders, Defendants deny any obligation to Plaintiff for its deficient workmanship and have counterclaimed for the cost of correcting Plaintiff's defective work under the Contract, Interrogatory Nos 10 and 11 and Document Requests 5 and 8. Plaintiff's Interrogatory Nos; 10 and 11 seek the substance of communications between the Edwards and other contractors, including estimates and any other docunients exchanged between -4- Edwards and those contractors, Defendants have objected to those Interrogatories on the basis that they seek information which is irrelevant and immaterial to the claims between the parties and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa,R.C,P. 4003,1. The issne in the present case is Plaintiff's breach of its construction contract with Defendants based on the deficiencies in the design. and construction of the subfloor support which resulted in significant deflection in the master bathroom floor and the family room ceiling, and Defendants damages resulting therefrom. Any estimates or communications Defendants may have had with other contractors prior to entering into the Contract with MPJ are wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the issues of this case, Defendants have objected to Plaintiff's Request for Production Nos, 5 and 8 on the same basis, Interrogatory Nos. 29 - 32 and Docnment Requests 14-17 and 24. Interrogatory Nos, 29 and 30 seek all documents relating to any loans incnrred by the Edwards to finance the construction of the addition, including payments made on the loan and the Edwards' use of the loan monies, Plaintiff, MPJ, has no interest, legal or otherwise, in the source ". of funds used by the Edwards to pay for the two-story addition, and specifically, MP J does not hold third party beneficiary status as to any third party financing Defendants may have utilized to fmance the construction project, Similarly, the Edwards fIled federal income tax retnrns are privileged, confidential and have no relevancy to the issues in this breach of contract claim, See Spancrete Northeast, Inc, v. Elite Associates, 148 A.D,2d 694,539 N.Y.S.2d 441 (Supreme Ct., App, Div, NY -5- 1989); Cipriani v. De/Turco, 23 Beaver LJ, 118 (C.P, Beav:er Co" 1961), Plaintiff has made no showing of necessity for this information in the within suit, Clearly, Interrogatory No, 31 is designed solely for the purpose of harassing, annoying and invading the privacy of Defendants. Likewise, Interrogatory No, 32 seeks investment or banking information which is confidential, privileged, and irrelevant to the issues in this case, The issue is whether Plaintiff, MP J, is entitled to any payment beyond that which it has already received in light of the woefully deficient workmanship in the construction of the subfloor of the two-story addition, MPJ's only claim is as to the balance which it claims it is due under the contractor and therefore Defendants' use of any third party funds is wholly irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff's claim. Document Requests 14 through 17 and 24 are objected to on the basis discussed above, Interrogatory Nos. 42 and 43 and Document Requests 21-22. Plaintiff's Interrogatory Nos, 41 and 42 seek the natnre and substance of communications between Defendants and their expert engineer, W,S. Miller, IV, P,E. Defendants have objected to these Interrogatories on the basis that they seek protected trial preparation material and information -provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa.R.C,P, 4003,5, Document Requests 21 and 22 are objectionable for the same reason. Defendants have informed Plaintiff that the structnral engineer, W.S, Miller, IV, P,E" has been engaged as an e:lqJert witness to testif'y at trial and that Defendants will provide Plaintiff with said expert's reports in accordance with Pa,R,C.P, 4003,5. - 6- For the foregoing reasons, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, respectfully request this Court to deny Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, or alternatively, to schedule a discovery conference, NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP e en Feinour, Esquire Supreme Court ID #24580 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor p, 0, Box 840 Harrisbnrg, PA 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Date: It/b I ~ Attorneys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards -7- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 6th day of November, 2000, I, J, Stephen Feinonr, Esquire, of the fIrm of NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Answers, by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel of record as follows: William 1. Myers, Jr" Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP dJ%C-~~~ , Stephen Feinonr, Esquire - 8- LAW OFFICES NAlr&JI:AN. S1>UT.... SHISSLER & lIlALL. 200 NORTH THIRD STREET - p, O. Box 840 NOV 0 6 2000.b? HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17/08-0840 , , MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, NO, 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife ("Edwards"), by its counsel, NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP, makes this Answer to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Answers as follows: 1, Denied as stated, The action involves Plaintiff's breach of its construction agreement with Defendants for the construction of a two-story addition due to Plaintiff's inadequate structnral design of the second story floor support, use of inadequate or damaged materials, and deficient workmanship which has resulted in a substantial sagging or deflection of the second story floor and first floor family room ceiling. Defendants incorporate the averments of their Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim by reference thereto, 2, Admitted, 3, Admitted, 4, Admitted, Plaintiff's discovery requests were received by Defendants' counsel on May 16,2000. 5, Admitted with clarification, Defendants' objectioned to certain of Plaintiff's interrogatories and request for production which seek information which is beyond the scope of permissible discovery under Pa, R.C,P, 4003.1, which is confidential and privileged, which is protected trial preparation material, and/or which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff's claim, Defendants' objections were timely served on June 12,2000, 6, Denied, It is denied that Defendants' objections are "specious and without merit," 7, Admitted, It is denied that the gratuitous, self-serving statements by Plaintiff's counsel in the letter have merit, 8, Denied as stated, Plaintiff's have been provided with the evaluative report prepared by a structnral engineer engaged by Defendants, W, S, Miller IV P,E, Responses to those interrogatories and requests for production to which no objection or only partial objection has been fIled have been forwarded to Defendants for verification and will be promptly served upon Plaintiff when received, WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, or alternatively, to < schedule a discovery conference or hearing to address the merits of Defendants' objections to Plaintiff's discovery requests, NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP .f.4"~~ ~~~ v!:.- r-..: ,:___ ( Y.Stephen Feinonr, Esquire '-/ Supreme Court ID #24580 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor p, 0, Box 840 Harrisbnrg, P A 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Attorneys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards . I <?( 21 ! 2/t:.>Ot? MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, NO, 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2000, 1, J, Stephen Feinonr, Esquire, of the firm of NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certif'y that I have this day served a true and correct copy of Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Answers, by fIrst class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel of record as follows: William 1. Myers, Jr., Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP D'~~~ -:)h;/( , . ~.r.~h n Feinonr, Esquire . Supreme Court ID #24580 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor p, 0, Box 840 Harrisbnrg, PA 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Attorneys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards FtED-OfFlCE OF !HIE rROTHC\~aTAF/Y 00 SE'P 21 PM 2: 14 CUMBEiiLMiD COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ..' i I !,i ~ ;, . MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. Plaintiff tNTBB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs, CIVIL ACTION - LAW 00-0033 CIVIL TOD and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendant IN RE: PLA.1NTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ORDER AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2000, a rule is issued on the Defendants to show cause why the relief requested in the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel should not be granted, This rule returnable twenty (20) days from the date of service. BY THE COURT, c.~ 1')aJ.d J 0 -f'? -0 0 1?(s FiLED-ot:F1CE Of THE ~'?;QTHOt-.iOTJ'>RY oooel \ I Pl1 3: 52 CUMBERLi'N0 COUNTY PENNSYLVANiA ......t , #' , aCT 11 2a~ ~ IN TBE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, v, TOD and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants, : NO, 2000-33 ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2000, upon consideration of the Motion to Compel submitted by PlaintiffMPJ Construction, Inc" and any opposition thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED, that defendants' objections to MPJ's discovery requests are overruled, and that defendants shall, within ten (10) days of the date hereof, submit full and complete answers to each and every interrogatory and document requests served by MPJ, and shall serve MPJ with all documents requested in the document requests, including both those discovery requests objected to and not objected to by defendants, BY THE COURT: J, DAVIS & MYERS By: William 1. Myers, Jr" Esquire Pa,I,]),No, 38702 Suite 2330 1601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6262 Attorneys for Plaintiff MPJ Construction, Inc, MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v, TOD and SHERI EDWARDS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants, : NO, 2000-33 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS Plaintiff MPJ Construction, Inc, ("MPJ"), by its undersigned counsel, hereby moves the Court to enter an Order compelling defendants Tod and Sherri Edwards ("defendants") to fully and completely answer MPJ's discovery requests. In support of this motion, MPJ avers as follows: 1. This action is a residential construction dispute in which MPJ alleges that defendants have wrongfully withheld almost $14,000 they owe to MPJ for a two-story addition MPJ built onto defendants' house, 2, MPJ instituted this action by filing a complaint with the Court on January 3,2000, A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. ,. 3, Defendants fIled their answer, along with a counterclaim, on or about February 14, 2000, A copy of the answer and counterclaim is attached hereto as Exhibit B, 4, On May 12, 2000, MPJ served defendants with interrogatories and document requests, A copy of Plaintiff's discovery requests is attached hereto as Exhibit C, 5. On June 15, 2000, MPJ received defendant's objections to Plaintiff's discovery requests, Copies of defendant's objections are attached hereto as Exhibit D, 6, For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum, defendant's objections are specious and without merit. 7, By letter dated June 28, 2000, undersigned counsel for MPJ requested defendants to fully answer the discovery requests, A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit E, 8 Defendants have failed to provide any answers to MPJ's discovery reqnests or to provide any responsive documents, WHEREFORE, PlaintiffMPJ Construction, Inc, respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order compelling defendants to provide full and complete answers to all of MPJ's interrogatories and to provide all documents requested in the document requests, DAVIS & MYERS By: William 1. Myers, Jr" Esquire Pa, LD, No, 38702 Suite 2330 1601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6262 Attorneys for Plaintiff MPJ Construction, Inc, MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION v, TOD and SHERI EDWARDS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants, : NO, 2000-33 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS Plaintiff MPJ Construction, Inc, ("MPJ"), by its undersigned counsel, hereby snbmits this Memorandum in support of its Motion asking the Court to enter an Order compelling defendants Tod and Sherri Edwards ("defendants'') to fully and completely answer Plaintiff's discovery requests, Factual Back2Tound This is a residential construction dispute, J\1PJ, a small residential construction company, instituted this action because defendants wrongfully withheld almost $14,000 owed to MPJ for a two-story addition built by MPJ to defendants' house, For many months, defendants held onto the money, refusing to pay it and refusing MPJ any meaningful chance to cure certain limited defects claimed by defendants, These claimed defects involved the upstairs bathroom floor; that is, until MPJ instituted suit - since then, defendants have begun discovering all kinds of unbearable conditions that they hadn't noticed before, It is MP J' s contention that defendants were happy to live with the alleged defects in the addition if they could keep the $14,000 owed to MPJ, Once MPJ instituted suit, however, defendants counterattacked, adding many new items to their list of grievances against MPJ, The Glass Block Shower Wall Issue The original defect claimed by defendants was that the bathroom floor sagged slightly, The reason for this is that MPJ built the shower floor to carry the weight of a shower wall made of ceramic tile, bnt defendants changed their mind in mid-contract to insist upon a shower wall built of glass block, which is much heavier, Defendants actually went outside the general contract relationship with MPJ and directly hired a glass block contractor, Cornerstone Glass Block, Defendants claim that it had always been their intention to install a glass block shower wall (even though the contract with MPJ clearly spells out a ceramic tile wall), Potentially relevant to the issue of when defendants decided on a glass block wall will be defendants' communications with other contractors; these communications may show bids and estimates from other contractors based upon a ceramic tile shower wall. This would dispel defendants' claim that they always wanted a glass block. Also potentially relevant will be defendants' communications with glass block contractors other than Cornerstone; these may show that defendants only decided on a glass block shower wall after the initiation of their contract with MPJ, FOT these reasons, Plaintiff's discovery requests include interrogatories 10, 11, and 20, and Document Requests 5 and 8, These are discussed in undersigned counsel's letter to defendant as follows: InterroRatories 10-11 - Interrogatories 10 and 11 request information concerning your clients' communications with contractors other than I\1PJ. Your objections on the basis of relevancy and irmnateriality are patently frivolous; a key issue in this case is whether and when your clients communicated with !vIp J their desire to use glass block shower enclosures as opposed to tile. Estimates from other contractors would indicate whether your clients did or did not communicate a desire to use glass block, and whether other contractors included the cost of glass block in their estimate, Interro2atorv 20 - Interrogatory 20 requests information concerning companies other than Cornerstone with whom your clients communicated regarding the use of glass block. Your objection on the grounds of relevance and immateriality is specious, As you lmow, your client's decision to use glass block is a key issue in this case and communications \Vith glass block companies other than Cornerstone are likely to lead to admissible evidence. Document Request 5 - This requests your client to produce all estimates and other documents exchanged between them and any other contractor other than MPJ concerning the addition. For the reasons set forth above in discussing the interrogatories, your objections to this document request are specious. The documents may reveal that your clients did not request the other contractors to use glass block, just as they did not so request !vIPJ until after the project was started, Doeument Request 8 - This document request seeks all documents exchanged between your clients and persons other than MPJ and Cornerstone concerning the use of glass block for the additions master bathroom shower. For the reasons stated above, this information is highly relevant to material issues in this case, and your objections to the document requests are specious. Damages on the Counterclaim In their counterclaim, defendants of course claim financial damage, Bearing directly on the issue of whether defendants did in fact suffer financial harm is what use they made of the $14,000 they withheld from MPJ, Defendant's counsel has remarked to MPJ's counsel that defendant's had to take out, and pay interest on, a loan for the addition, Information pertaining to such loans, then, is highly relevant. Additionally, MPJ is entitled to find out if defendants actually made a profit on the borrowed money, Both defendants are both banking executives, and it would seem likely that they invested the money withheld from MPJ to their profit in the strong bull market. On these issues, MPJ submitted Interrogatories 29-32, and Document Requests 14-17, and 24, which are discussed as follows in undersigned counsel's letter to defendants, Jnterro~atories 29-30 - Interrogatories 29 and 30 request information pertaining to any loans taken out by your clients to help pay for the addition, Your objections that the Interrogatories are "vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is confidential and privileged, " are facially meritless; the interrogatories are precisely worded and they do not seek any information protected by any recognized confidentially or privilege rule. Additionally, your objections on the basis or relevance and immateriality are baseless. Your clients' intent not to pay J\.1PJ for the addition is a key issue in this case. It is OUI position that your client did not intend to pay MPJ the full value of the addition, but to use the monies they received to invest and earn profit on. Your clients' use of these monies and the profits your clients made on these monies bear directly on your claims to financial damages, Your client's profit on the use of the loan moneys also bears directly on your clients' claims of damages. Interro1!atories 31-32 - These interrogatories, like the previous interrogatories, seek information relating to your client's use and reporting of the loan monies it received for the addition, Again, your objections are specious, Initially, your clients' use of the loan monies, and profiting from that use, bears directly your clients; damages claims. Additionally, if your clients took out a home improvement loan, and used the money for other than home improvement, yet deducted all the interest payments on the Federal Tax Returns, your clients may have engaged in tax fraud, which certainly bears on their honesty or dishonesty in this case. Document Requests 14-17 - These document requests seek information relating to loans taken out by your clients, your clients' use of the loan monies and the outstanding balances on the loan monies. For the reasons set forth above, in respect to the interrogatories, these document requests bear directly on your clients' damages claims and your objections are without merit. Document Request 24 - This document requests your clients' federal income tax returns for the years 1998-1999. Your clients' federal tax returns record the loan amounts taken out by your clients, your clients' deduction for those loan amounts, your clients profiting from the investments of those loan amounts, all of which bear directly on your clients' damages claims, Defendant's Communications With Their Engineering Expert Even before this case was instituted, defendants hired their own engineer ("Mr, Miller"), Communications between defendants and Mr, Miller are patently relevant and discovery requests seeking the same are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Thus, undersigned counsel made the following arguments to defendant in his letter m support of the discovery reqnests pertaining to these communications, Interroe::atories 41-44 - These interrogatories seek information relating to your clients' communications with Engineer Miller, regarding l\1PJ's construction of the addition. Because your client's personally hired Mr. Miller and communicated with Mr. Miller before your involvement in the case, your objections on the basis tbat the information is protected as trial preparation material is specious, Documents Reauests 21-22 - These document requests seek all documents exchanged between your clients and their Engineer, MI. Miller. For the reasons set forth above, these documents bear directly on key liability issues in this case and are not protected as trial preparation material inasmuch as they occurred outside of the context of your relationship with the Edwards. Defendants' Promise and Failure to Provide Anv Answers or Documents In the letter to defense counsel on June 28, undersigned counsel requested defendant to provide answers to MPJ's interrogatories, as follows: In yonr letter to me of June 12, 2000, you stated that you would forward your clients' answers to the interrogatories and documents requests you did not object to "within the next couple of days," It has been over two weeks since that time, and I still do not have yonr clients' answers, Unless I receive yonr answers by Wednesday, I must, again, fIle a Motion to Compel. Undersigned counsel has waited over two months since defendants' promise to provide discovery answers, Defendants have been as forthcoming with their discovery obligations as they were with the money they owed to MPJ, Conclusion Defendants have failed utterly to answer any ofMPJ's discovery requests, despite their month's-old promise to do so, and in violation of their discovery obligations under the Rules of Civil Procedure, The requests that defendants objected to were legitimate and defendant's objections were specious. Accordingly, l\1PJ respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order overruling defendant's objections and compelling defendants to answer all of l\1PJ's discovery requests, and to provide all the requested documents, including the ones defendant objected to. DAVIS & MYERS BY: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, WILLIAM L. MYERS, JR., ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have today served true and correct copies of the foregoing Motion to Compel, supporting Memorandum and proposed form of Order on the below-listed counsel of record for defendant, by fIrst-class mail, postage prepaid. J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, L.L.P. 18th Floor, 200 N. Third Street P.O. Box 840 Harrisburg, P A 17108-9,840 /1;? / 1111 120 ,1 'William ,: Dated: September 6, 2000 .'6.. . DAVIS & MYERS By: William L.-:Myers, Jr., Esquire Pa. I.D. No. 38702 Suire 2330 1601 Market Srreet Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6262 rES 2. 2. 2U\j~ r Attornevs for Plaintiff MPJ Construction, 1ne. . .J CONSTRUCTION, INe. 5147 Ore Bank Road East York, PA 17406, ; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A Plaintiff : C1VIT- ACTION TRUE COpy FROM RECORD In T~imoilY w11Llreof, I here unto ss! my hand and tl""1'8 ssal of said Good at Carlisle, Va. ,--Thls;b~:y_tl ~~~/~~ ~M- thlll'lOtary v. TOD and SHERI EDWARDS 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011, Defendants : NO. ;).()OO - 2J C;o,-'l!~~ NOTICETO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and notice are served, by enterillg a written appearance personally or, by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defense or objections to rhe claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you, and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without fi.u-ther notice for any m~':Y claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may' lose money or property or other rights important to you. . YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR <.! " , TELErHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FTh1D OUT \;I,THERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COU}..1}"Y Bll.R ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEM...Iu"mADOjA EN CORTE. Si liSted desea , ~e(enderse de las demandas que se preseman mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tOmar I. .on notificacion de esta Dernanda y A viso radicando personalmente 0 por medio de un abogado una comparecencia ~crita y radicando en la Corte por escritO sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las dernandas presemadas aqui en contra suya. :Se Ie advierte de que si uested falla de tomaraccion como se describe anteriormente; el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero rec1amada en las dernanda 0 cualquier orra rec1amacion 0 remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicionai. . Usted puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para liSted. USTED DEBE LLEV AR ESTE DOCUlvlliNTO A SU ABOGADO IN.MEDIATA1.\1ENTE. SI USTED NO ITENE UN ABOGADO 0 NO PUEDE P AGARLE A UNO, LLAL\1E 0 V AYA A LA SIGUEIENTE OFICINA PARA A VERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL: CUMBERLAND COu'NTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Libert)' Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 ~/ By: \ .~/-/ William L. Mye Attorney for P amtiff Suite 2330 1601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6262. I.D. No. 38702 ,.....' DAVIS & MYERS By: William L. Myers, Jr., Esquire Pa. I.D. No. 38702 Suite 2330 160 I Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 56of.'6262 , Attorneys for Plaintiff MPJ Construction, Inc. MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. 5147 Ore Bank Road East York, PA 17460, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV~NIA Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION (~-~~ v. TaD and SHERI EDWARDS 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, P A 17011, Defendants. : NO. .' THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff MPJ Construction, Inc. ("l\1PJ") is a small contracting company organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a business address at 5147 Ore Bank Road East, York, Pennsylvania, 17406. 2. Defendants Tod and Sheri Edwards, husband and wife (the "Edwards"), are adult citizens and residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 331 Willow Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011. '-..< I" FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Agreement Between MPJ and The Edwards 3. MPJ hereby restates and reavers as though fully set forth herein the averments contained in Paragraphs 1-2 hereinabove. 5. In the Proposal, l\1PJ sets forth a price of $62,000.00 to complete the work, with a proviso that alterations from the specifIcations involving extra costs would increase the price. 6. The parties agreed .that MPJ was to be the general contractor on the project, empowered to hire subcontractors and to control their work. 7. On March 25, 1998, MPJ applied for a building permit and shortly thereafter commenced work on the project. 2 "' " Defendant's Decision To Alter Construction By Using Glass Block In The Bathroom;. Defendant's Hiring Of A Second Contractor. To Install The Glass Block 8. The SpecifIcations (Spec. #19) expressly call for the use of ceramic tile in the shower stall walls of the master bathroom. 9. Consistent with the SpecifIcations, MPJ constructed a bathroom floor sufficient to hold the weight of ceramic-tiled shower walls. 10. In or about April, 1998, the Edwards, without consulting l\1PJ, decided .to enclose the master bathroom shower in heavy glass block, and, on their own and without going through MPJ, hired Cornerstone Glass Block Company ("Cornerstone") as a contractor to install the glass block. 11. On April 28, 1996, at Mr. Edwards' direction, l\1PJ owner Mark Weaver faxed the drawings for the master bathroom to Comerstone. 12. Between April and June, 1998, the Edwards changed the design of the glass block arrangement for the master bathroom shower. 13. On June 4, 1998, Mr. Weaver faxed Comerstone the revised plans for the master bathroom shower using the glass block design finally approved by the Edwards. 14. In June of 1998, after the Edwards made their final decision on the glass block arrangement they wanted for the master bathroom shower, Mr. Weaver, informed the Edwards that he had constructed the bathroom floor to accommodate the weight of ceramic 3 " tile not glass block, that he had never worked with glass block before, and that he could not guarantee that the bathroom floor would supporl the weight of the glass block. 15. The Edwards directed Mr. Weaver to contact Cornerstone about the issue. - -;....-- 16. In or about June of 1998, at the direction of the Edwards, Mr. Weaver called Cornerstone, and spoke with an individual identifIed as "Jack Jennings." Mr. Weaver informed :Mr. Jennings that Mr. Weaver had not worked with glass block before and that Mr. Weaver did not lmow whether the bathroom floor, constructed to support the weight 'Of ceramic tile, would bear the weight of the glass block. Mr. Jennings represented to :Mr. Weaver that he had a great deal of experience in installing glass block and that ifMPJ put in some additional structural lumber for support, this would be sufficient to bear the weight of . the glass blood. 17. :Mr. Weaver informed the Edwards that he had spoken with :Mr. Jennings, repeated what :Mr. Jennings had told him. Mr. Weaver reiterated to the Edwards that Mr. Weaver had no experience with glass block and that he did not lmow whether the additional support called for by:Mr. Jennings would or wouldnot-sumce to,support the weight of the glass block. :Mr. Edwards directed:Mr. Weaver to install the extra support per:Mr. Jennings' directions, and:Mr. Weaver did so. 18. In or about the last w~ek of July of 1998, Cornerstone installed the glass block shower walls. 4 .'" 19. In August of 1998, the Edwards provided MPJ a punch list that did not reference any sagging or other problem with the' bathroom floor. (Exhibit B hereto). The Edwards' Hiring Of An Engineer 20. At some point after the August punch list, Mr. Edwards asked Mr. Weaver to come and look at the bathroom floor, because it appeared to the Edwards to be sagging a little. Mr. Weaver looked at the floor and offered to open up the ceiling below to see what was causing the sagging. Mr. Weaver stated that if the problem was the weight of the glass block, he would not accept responsibility, as he had told Mr. Edwards that MPJ didn't work with glass block and had. relied on Cornerstone, whom the Edwards had hired themselves. 21. On September 19,1998, the Edwards hired an engineer, W.E. Miller. 22. On September 19,1998, Mr. Edwards informed MPJthat Edwards had hired engineer Miller. The Edwards' Failure To Pay The Balance Owed to MPJ 23. In or about the first week in November, 1998, MPJ completed the project with the exception of some of the more rninqr punch-list items. The total cost of the project at completion was $62,000 plus $12,238.55 in change orders, for a total of$74,238.55. 24. At the time the project was completed, the Edwards owed MPJ $.13,946.53. 5 24. On or about November 23, 1998, l\1PJ forwarded its fInal Invoice to the Edwards. (A copy of the Invoice is attached hei-eto as Exhibit C-1 ) 25. For a full month following MPJ's submission of its Invoice to the Edwards, the Edwards neither paid :MPJ the remaining $13,946 balance nor explained why the Edwards were withholding payment. 26. On December 22, 1998, Mr. Miller sent a report to the Edwards, indicating floor sagging in various areas of the second floor, and hypothesizing possible causeIF, / including: (i) excessive loads on the second floor joists; (ii) .deterioration due to exposure to moisture during construc,tion; and (iii) use of lower grade lumber. (A copy of the Report is attached hereto as Exhibit C.'- 2 ) 27. After December 22, 1998, the Edwards provided :MPJ with a copy of engineer Miller's report. 28. On January 6, 1999, l\1PJ faxed the Edwards, asking what the Edwards wanted to be done about the floor. and requesting the retainage owed, Jess a sum to account for potential work on the floor. (Exhibit D hereto). 29. Nr, Weaver several times tried to contact the Edwards, leaving messages on the Edwards' answering machine on January 18 and January 19, 1999. 30. On January 19, J999, Mr. Edwards called :MPJ and agreed to allow :MPJ to come to the Edwards property to inspect the floor on February2, but close to February 2, the Edwards canceled the inspection. 6 ;. 31. After the Edwards canceled ~ meeting, the Weavers sought the aide of counsel John Kenneff. Mr. Weaver was concerned at this point that the Edwards were simply using the floor issue as a reason to deny payment to MPJ of the remaining $13,946 owed on the project. 32. Attorney Kenneft; on behalf of the Weavers, sent a letter to the Edwards on February 23, 1999. In the letter, Mr. Kenneffrequested payment of the $13,900 in owed retainage or at least the opportunity to inspect the floor to determine the causes of the sagging. (Exhibit E hereto). 36 Mr. Edwards sent a letter to 1v.l1'J on March 3, 1999, demanding that MPJ pay to have the fIrst floor ceiling removed; pay.engineer Miller inspect the cause' of the sagging and decide how to cure it, and to make and pay for the necessary changes, as well as to reenter the property to fInish the punch list items. (A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit F). 37. Although the Edwards supposedly received an estimate of $8,000.00 to address the floor problem, in their letter to 1v.l1'J, the Edwards refused to release any of the $13,946 owed to 1v.l1'J until all of his demand are met. 38. After receiving the Edwards' letter of March 3, 1999, Mr. Weaver several 'times tried to arrange with the Edwards to inspect the property, detennine the. cause of the problem, and remediate it, if appropriate. The Edwards, however, would not make themselves available. 7 (-- . " \. . i ! , , . ' 39. On March 31, 1999, M:PJ, throl1gh its attomey, John Kenneff, wrote to the Edwards, agreeing to do the inspection and aU but two of the punch list items and, in return, asked only for $5,946 of the owed retainage (the $13,946 less the $8,000 estimate supposedly given to the Edwards). M:PJ also asks that the remaining $8,000 be placed into escrow pending resolution of the parties' dispute. (A copy of the letter is attached hereto as Exhibit G). 40. The Edwards refused to tender the $5,946 asked for, or to place the remairlli"1g $8,000 in escrow. The Edwards also refused to allow M:PJ to open the fIrst floor ceiling to determine the cause of the sagging. .41. After waiting.another month, M:PJ, through its attomey, again wrote to the Edwards, on May 11, 1999, stating that, ":MPJ stands ready to adres (sic) the bathroom floor problem," and asking the Edwards to contact MPJ or its attomey with dates and times suitable to meet at the property. (A copy of the May 11, 1999 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit H). 42. Eventually, the Edwards gave M:PJ pennission to conduct a very cursory inspection of the property, which took place on June 28, 1999. 43. MPJ paid to have an engineer, Francis R. Stearns, present during the June, 1999 inspection. Engineer Steams found that the floor deflection was not exceptional and certainly did not represent a structural concern. Nonetheless,:Mr. Weaver offered to the Edwards to install a stiffer floor system at the shower enclosure. :Mr. Steams' opinions and 8 ( '. I I MPJ's offer to enhance the floor are memorialized in.Mr. Stearns' report of July 27, 1999; ~ (A copy of .Mr. Stearns' report is attached hereto as Exhibit 1). The Edwards' Continuing Failure To Pay MPJ 44. On August 10, 1999, MPJ wrote to the Edwards asking, again, to be allowed to enter the property, open the fIrst floor ceiling and determine the cause of the claimed sagging of the second floor. (A copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit J). 45. Since the August 10, 1999 letter, MPJ has repeatedly tried to secure the Edwards' permission to enter the property, open the fIrst floor ceiling and determine the cause of the claimed sagging of the second floor. .' 46. To date, the Edwards have failed to answer MPJ's requests for an opportunity to detemune the cause of the problem and, if necessary, to fIx it. 47. By reason of the Edwards' failure to afford MPJ the opportunity to address the problem, it is clear that the Edwards simply want to keep the remaining $13,946 owed to l\1P J, and are using the sagging floor as an excuse to do so. COUNT! (BREACH OF CONTRACT) 48. MPI hereby restates and reavers as though fully set forth herein the averments contained in Paragraphs 1 through 47 hereinabove. 9 49. l\1PJ fulfIlled all of its obligatio~~ under its contract with the Edwards, and is entitled to the $13,946 owed on the contract. . 30:'-- The Edwards have breached the contract by failing to tender the remaining $13,946 owed to MPJ. 51. As part of the contract, the Edwards expressly agreed to pay l\1PJ a service charge of 1.5% per month (18% per year) to all amounts overdue by than thirty (30) days. (', 52. As part of the contract, the Edwards expressly agreed to pay MPJ "Costs plus reasonable attorney fees" "in case of suit for collection." ". WHEREFORE, Plaintiff l\1PJ demands judgment in its favor and against the Edwards for damages in the amount of $13,946.53, together with interest thereon at 1.5% per month from November 30, 1998, attorneys' fees and such other and further relief as the Court and trier of fact shall determine. COUNT II (QUAl'ITUM MERUIT) 53. l\1PJ hereby restates and reavers as though fully set forth herein the ',' averments contained in Paragraphs 1 through 52 hereinabove. ..' ,.;. ,:t- ':: ;: 10 54. MPJ constructed a two-story addition to the Edwards home, performing work. with a value of $62,000, plus $12,238.55 in change orders requested by the Edwards during construction, for a total of$74,238.55. 55. To date, the Edwards have paid MPJ only $60,292.02 for the addition, so that MPJ has been underpaid in the amount of$13,946.53 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MPJ demands judgment in its favor and against the < ( Edwards for damages in the amount of $13,946.53, together with interest thereon at 1.5% per month from November 30, 1998, attorneys' fees and such other and further relief as the Court and trier of fact shall determine. COUNT III (UNJUST ENRICHMENT) 56. MPJ hereby restates and reavers as though fully set forth herein the avennents contained in Paragraphs 1 through 55 hereinabove. 57. MPJ constructed a two-story addition to the Edwards home, performing work with a value of$74,238.55. 58. To date, the Edwards have paid MPJ only $60,292.02 for the addition. 59. The Edwards have been unjustly enriched in the amount of$13,946.53. 11 ~~'. ( :' WHEREFORE, Plaintiff MPJ demands judgment ill its favor and against the Edwards for damages in the amount of$13,946.53, together with interest thereon at 1.5% per month from November 30, 1998, attorneys' fees and such other.and further relief as the Court :futi1i:ier of fact shall detemrine. BY: 12 . - -:""- " EXHIBIT "l\:' '. MPI CONSTRUCTION INC. Proposal === 5147 Ore Bank Road York, PA 17406 Phone/Fax: (717) 840-0618 PHONE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO'. fZi] E ;)p../.I:.,2f,)J STREE1] ,11 iJ/!"U'fcL /].;/3 CITY. STfTEand Zlf,cODE /)" l.- /':,l-1..J .J.'/i'Lf rl] ARCHITECT '../-J.P'; I DATE OF PLANS I JOB PHONE I DATE 737 2347 JOB NAME flUMe LJI):)/"U.-J JOB LOCATJON ~, ;- ~.. <'.1'1 J /17171; I / We Propo~" hereby to furnish material and labor - complete in ac'cordance with specifications below, for the sum of: /' . ~ ~ f c4/ ,;~~'. \', ''f' / /~..)t... !liUU(/;f...-I; ~'rr...jl) ./ leu dollars ='c"men1 to be made as follows: ,:.:" '~II material is guaranteed to be as specified .AIl work 10 be completed joa work",;:;nlike "':"'...nner according to s1andard practices. Any alteration or devialion from specifiCltions ~elow involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders and will become <on e7~"-"",!arge over and above The estimate. All 3greementsconHnQent upon strikes. .:.cci( ,r d~!ays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire. fornado and olher necessary ;"I5~rc:I...~. Our workers are tuUy covered by Workmens Compensation (nscf.ence. ,-.. (' Co2 000 /J_/ .'! ,. I!/^ t 'f _~ t t_---- I Authorized Signature ,"/ "",[.--." Note: This proposal may be , withdrawn by us jf not accepted within I~-' days \Ie hereby submit specifications and estimates for: ,- <... /1 , ;'rr: h77riO/C/J '. --.... ,. .., ~ '.., ;.~ " ., /,' ;,' / .". ... -',' tr '-;,..' ,../', - -'. .~ 4' .'. ;ervice charge of 1~1I2% per month (18%) per .urn will be charged to all accounts past 30 davs. ~.p]us reasonable attorney fees to be added in case UlI for collection. _~.:......" C~ta~lce of Proposal ~ the above prices, ;1 ICatlons and conditions are satisfactory and :' €reby accepted. You are authorized'to do the .< .ads specified. Payment will be made as ,lne above. ~ . //0ff;~/. ,~ /(':'0 ! Signa{ure)G/~ '~./,- . ? ., CrO^'f' ti ,.-AN> . t' oflll'ltcrial f coostnrt' fle"'":lO '-wo .5ThD.t.{'.~- .' ...,.,.--.If,.lca 0I70aJu ,-",SCrIP 101 . or len 0 ........"...........................'?;r....::~;.;;,:,ji~ J .,. ..f.f.I)A.JT...M.................... 'rj.F'" .../-V,:...... ..................................... ........ !~,....~~. for... ;T.qQ. .t;:a""'<1;~.f. .ItHD.. .y.'. .MI.. MWf.f?{........................................ ....... .ii'.. .. ~ ,.;:,.~ EiJildirq pennits 2.ri:nenirq pennits to be J:Gid by.. ... .r).IX<<~/$............................. ....... ..~<( . 1. EXo.VATlCl'I MD mADINS: ;f.'~, All tq:Jsoil sholl be scraiE1 fran tile ;.Or!: area ard suitably SWC;,;Q for reCl,se in fieldl SJrodlrg. "'l:6rbce~~;:;:;; earth or other filllll'lterial 5/lall be rmovEd Fran the (),.reI' S prqlt!r"ty wllItcut al(>rt!v.Jl Iron tllt? O...n:rs': "A}(.~~:ofi: extrarroJs Ill3terials wi 1] be wried en Jot. RaIoval of said Ill'lteriaJ S Fran Jot will /;e dt .rtJlticnal cost ii:)f?Ji o.-.rer. klijticnaJ fill Ill'lterial re:)L1u'Bd for grading, fill novEd troll en? se::tien of u..' lot to il(otl1er. watkr' su::tl as sprirgs, or tree StUTpS, etc. lI1idlllUst be cl:alt wim will tJe an extra eXI"~I'", lJ.I tile o.ners. .If ro:K'~?-', excavatien is fB:essary, the COSt of excavatirq the ro:k .,ill be paid by the o.rl2rs. .:.;: . ..:.:~?c" V ./ .....~".. 2. .SEEDlNS & 9-RLGBERY: Soo:1lng: Yes ..... ItJ ...... Slruti.l.:r'y: Y"-'5..... NJ .y....r;~. t'''>. ft. alla.srx;e for ~irq ........ .7"... ......... AllOokllQ tor !Jlr1.t.L>t:ry ....... .7...... :':...,j~;;r: ':'. 3.u<IVEl-VlY: St.aBj ....Np........ A~ldlt wlUl5~ ............... S:j. It. dllr.....sLf:: .........;:.;".,: A d1arge of ..................... per sq. ft. will be rre.::e for eaCll >q. ft. ov~r alICWdIl::e. 4. FCU'-D;TlC\'6 ND i-f\LLS: !-'CitE:rials No. o( Cwr~" A. Basere1ts................. ~... .... ............,......... . ...... .... ..... ................. B. I..tri2r urexGdvata:1 arEas................... .......................... .... ......... ..... ... C. CriMI spaces ....................................................;........ ..... ,', . ... ...... D. I..tri2r pord1es. walls. & patios .......................................... ................. E. OtI1er .f:r:."f.. .1!.Ef.!.~.E:(lfIJ... .Qt.. !1.~I)/!/p''';'..... ....................... .......1:... ..... Frotirqs: Ccn:rete mix ......;;..S?:l9..f.$.I....... Wall fc.otirl9 51.:" ........ ..6.~.r..?-.1.:/.... Gir62r .... ................... ................... 3'" Steel coJum<; C\..e to C01taJr of lot, etc. if a.iiitimaJ COJrses of block or otlJ(;r lItlterials Me r"'lulruJ. the cost of . rrtlterials am latar ~lus 10); wi 11 be an extra mli1}e. .. ,,,,@j:~ff;. 5. . "PES. PATIOS MD \.WXS: . .. "1!:;"c~~ naterial for p:xmes ...... ..... ..<<a....... ...... .... ...tJlickJiesS ....... ........... ..... .,. '" ... ;:};',...::;'1f.( M" ". . -.......";'- tltenal (or patiO ......... ................ ..... ...... .tJ11LNIO'~ ...... ............... ........ .......... ...~,,' . t\3terJ 01 for hEllk ~ 6. ................... ..'! ........: ....... e. ..... ..... tJlicK;12SS ........................... ..... .... ... ........ .;,,~. L of ~ I .... , . . .~.&,~. 81gth \4dlf\ ............ ........ eo: ....... ...... ..0. ..... ... .t1l1ckJess ...... ......... eo.. '-~--:...... ::.~~;-:-....~~~-.......~~~~'..:~~~ 6. :;~~ :~: ~;~=;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: ::\:.i,:'::tt Fu-eplace: yes........ 1tJ.. ~ Olillrey: yes..... N::J . v.:. .. ..:~W F j I -'---" . rep 00: u=.rlptJ{J]: .. .... :::............. ...... ....................... ................ ................... .... /It'J1t I e. -'-scrl' pt I' ~ . -' "".' . ..~. OX ~.. .............................................................................. ..:.~... ..,4.. 7. EATER] (:R \oIbil.S: rw= Locatili'l ... Alla.srx;e. ~~. Sheathirq ................. '0.'-::. .'?:?.f3!. ........ ..... .A~fJfT~~IL. h!I1??f............... .......;~:.. :t~j sUrf' - . .~~;~,~ ~ ........................................... ~.........,. ...... .... ............ .................. ...... ..... ...~~.~... ~;:.:~ Brick ........................::............................................................. ~..... :1:."..;':; ~!("r' 5idin;l ........ .......... .J.Q.~q~ ..;3.~. .V;.tfy..... '%" .4!-.<{I:l,.... /J.l.:',-Jx.:M.~~J!...J:./'Jf!,.?. ..... ..<1;~~~~.rr~i 0t1 . ~,"q,. l:2f' ..... .... ............... ... ....... ....... ......... ........... ................. .... ....... ..... ...... .............~~~~~;i-.> ..!~'""~~'.".}~ . .~:-~'t.~~: .. ;'{i; ,',.0 .. ~ E:".i\-....". ./{3~~~~o_ I'",.. S:;}~. .,'. ... >~~:-:~,.~..- ~: ~ wf ~;i""': ..;,. MPl ,. . . .<" 5147 ORE BANK ROAD VO~~. PA 1'1:406 Phone/Fax: (717) 840-0618 Con""\merc:::ial . Residential New Home.~ . Additions. Garages. Remodeling -, " ..... .:' ....:i:~' ....:I.......~,. ::: :;:;:~~r ::{i~ R'~'a~Jt;- ..... .\:-'.. ~,.~..~. ". . .. . .. ;.{~:~~~r ",..;~ B.' FLM CllblRlC11U'i: .. JJirt frd"rilng--lIl'lterldl .. Hf-Jj:: .ElK "'.. hSjZP........ {J. .>:/.9.. h........ .bh."'IW'..... limo... ~. .,..~ {; u,; ." .......... :urfloor--ffi'Iterial .................... ..~. ,...1.. ..... 9...~,fl.:................... ......... ....... ........ ". Q;n::rete slab: G:lraye .:;........... 102c. Rron ............ LaJrijry roan ............:. BaSSTe1t ......:;:..... Other ........ .l:i.IJ5:(. .iu:9/t.. /.J.v.'tNP.. .1.!:rJ.M:.................... ............................ ."...:'~':~.~.. Finish floor (each flror) .~ . .. '. H3in Bathrcon .....;..>>...:-.......:.;..:..... ...aJ lo.;an:e' per sq. }d. installe:1........ .."'............ fr.... ;.' Paster Bath .......--.:"'/U1/i!.(...I.(4~......allcwan:::e ~ '1 r' installe:l ....l.q:!'....~,.N1f?{......,.... F'cw:ler Rcan ...........::-.................allo..arD: per sq. }d. installe:1................................ l.a!rdry..... ...... '~":-:""'.:,:.z"'''' ..allcwan:::e per sq. )<1. installed....... ........ .......... ....... K!rd1e1..:.: ::.:...... ;h~"1~(... (1M..... .allcwan:::e per sq. )<1. !nstal led"':J .7. ';'~. .$.<1y.1~..a::.... ~ . l1Vlfl;j Rd:r1i :.......~~r..............allo.;arce per sq. }d. Installed...../.$;....................... Dining Rron .........;................... .allcwan:::e per sq. }d. !nstalled....;,f.... (V. .... ............... I?€dra:rn(s)......... .CA4/t: r........... ..alla.er.:e per sq. }d. InstaII e:L ... {~....................... H'ill .....................................allo.;arce per sq. }d. installe:l................................" Fo)€r ....................................allcwan;e per sq. }d. installed................................ fi8:. Rron ................................allcwan;e per sq. }d. installe:l.....................,.......... IJth:r n:XlTlS ...................:..........allo.arce per sq. )<1. installe:l................................ j. IUFINS, G.JTTER ND ~rs: . Sheiithing ..... ................... ."M~.. .9, !<,.?l. ... .................. feJ t.... (t~f/t(i.,,"C....... .,1bS.!5::.. 1'1 fr~J.rn--E?t. ' . 4. ,.-:, /:(.. o.c:. Int ' "L! CJ I~' O.c.. .' . ~,,~J~". ~~.. m:l(.{,i~i.; :f.7~iii~Mf)::::::::: :\€i~t::: ~:~t: J.:tfiti::::::::::: :~j~;::: G ~if;'~0-o<. Rafter framrg.((. !L-.fj~.. .szxe.... .<<"..~.~..... .sp:;cirg.... 1: 1.... ...c;....... .grade.................. ........ .....-........................................................................................................... T rvsses ......... _ ,.. . ... ......... _ __ ... ......... .............. ....... .......... ........................... CUtter ard t:b-.l1sj:oJts l"l:;teriaJ: ~iLe......:i: :'.. fi.~.yt1Ir-[<,I/';l... K... ~.<.I l77v.l..r. ..If.'YlL ..tJRW~k;<95-!r:;...:: .....~...~...................~..................._.................................................,.........................., lNSIJl.ATI Ct<: . . ',';:. . "-'J' . 1 D,O /1'AWt'" ~ I,.,) tJ1' t~. . '-<'I In;) ootena ......~... ..o.,.,....,~....... ...................... .......... ICN.:SS......... ........ .... ftJllllEterial ......._. D.t;f./..M,1~>... ............... ........................ .tJ1ic"'tess... .::}.<'7. :'. ......... Floor rr'dterial ............ ..::-:............ .......... ......................... thickrEss.. ....7:............. Other ..................... ~.. ........ ~.................... .,. ............................... .... .......... .... .........o ..... .............................................................................................................................o _ '{1CR Wi'li F1NJ9i: Plaster........ .thicJoo'i::Ss........... .rmllS to be plastered........................ ......... ..... ............ ;~;':;;i ::y.~~:: ::~;~~: ?'i:;: Y.B::~' ~ '~'~;':;i i~:: A~: :~~~:~;: ~;: :~;.;:~;;.~~~;~::::: :.::: ...................................................................... t............................................................. ~al12lirq: Yes ....... 1tJ..~. Allo..an::e per pan?l ......................................................... Rcons with panelirg ............................. ..................... ................ ....... ...... .......... .............................................................................................................................. IX.O<$, lRIM ND I-Il/ID-6: .}. '" ' Interior d:xJrs: t;pe... ~: .f.A.'-I?L. .GAq';{S.~.. thil:kress...... I. ?i............. fil:lteria] .r/.cp,Q. (!;;tff.O?/.r:f. . . . .. . . . :. ..... . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . .. . .. ~ . .. . .. ... . . . ;. ... ... . ... . .. . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . . ... .. .. . . Exterici 6::ors: twe.......................... .thickress... ............... ..... oot.eriaL..... ...... ..... ",or ~~~.~~;.....~~.:::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::~:::::::::::::::::::::~~:::::::::::::::::::::. Interior trim; style.l.?'\~1i.: ~h"'r lJ.li'!-\:.. ?'~\fa:'~:~~............... fJ... .y.~......... .oot.erial.. rr.Q9.lL... Stairs' IlEteriaJ M . Sta. '. . ..... 'i:(;' ........ '--'" ........ .... .... ........ ....... ............. ............. .......... Fo Ir ~1!; t~....:..... PM.... ........ ...... .... ...... ... .......... ......... ... .... ........,... ......... -;~ , ~r DJ vIder. deSCrIbe __. . Q__........... __......... __................... __............ .................... ..::;:.< . ." ~t.- . /;Wl ". . ~ 6J,3ir Rail Ceil iflJ 8ea'ns; rescri be , . Other ~.................................................... "t!:...................................................:...................................................................................................... !"~€~~~ P. .",,- - (t ) Q l'~ I .~ lcWre Wlu..uo )1)e ..... ..............g ass..... .:..................... . sty e....... ........... ...... ,,'...":~ :~'t ~;~; .~~. :J;j CK;~ ~ ~ ~~: ~: ::::::: :~;~~;:::: i;~~;~;~:::::::::: :~~;;~:: f{;;~:: fj{J~~~~ ji!/~~;" ........................................................................................................~.. .: S::re€IJS ..:... ..<.kf~~'."" ...... .., .rurber... .....Ath..... ...... .t)1J€.:. ........ .... ........ ....... ..~. !la.seTe1t h'ln::tlo'S ...... A.!9....7 ....rumer..... ........... ........ .lffiter:al.. ........ .... ........ ..... .... SJmters: yes.............. f'.b....... ........ n.rrt>er'...... ....... ......... ....... ..ITflterla]...... ........... ............ ........ 13. 0'81 lET fffiiC A. KIwn/; rescrire . ..~.<<f.. .Ur..':<I.o.f{)... ............ ... ..... ...... ... ........ ............. ........ .sf :~~~ ........................................ ~............................................................................................................................................................................ .. .. .. ~ . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . .... .. .. . . . .. . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . ~ .. . .. . . '" .. ... . . Ail extra wilt-in features SUCIl as lazy susans. O1ttiflJ tu:ln:1s, glass doors, He. will re at extra cost to Ire CUEr. ...O~~....~ +~ Ba k l"~ . ( r-u I"",r .....,.,....................................... C sp =<1............................................ B. VAIN Bi\lH: o Carrter tqJ ........... ............. ..... ... ..... ................ .................... ................... Vani ty ................................................................................................. W311 cabiret ................ .:.'... ...... ..... .... ... ..... .......... ........ ...... ..... ...... ..... ... .... O'"J1er ...... ......... .... ..................... ........... ........ ............. ...... ............... ..... " C. W\SrtR Bi\TH:. . . CaJnter tq:J..... P.to.f(.... At.c.-i.. .CI.l.4r:z/M-o.. H~f,I3u... uJ.!'l1.. (Rr/..f3,.L.+-:.Sit:-!K.. AUil..'J!.. .?m.. ~~ Vanity........ .7.2.: .J!. .L8. :'.. );.(qQD.. ..$.4> ~... .ltU-PM.. .~Q,':.o.......... .......................... I4:ill cabinet ... .i/.q.... .......... ........... ..... ..... ... ....... ............. ...... ..... ... ........... 0t11e:r ................................................................................................................................ D. SED1D FLCl::R BA.TH; rlJ..Jl1t..er tqJ ................................... ~ . . . ... . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. "" ... .. .. ~ .. . . . .. . .. . . .. .. ... . . .'. . . . . .. . .. . .. .... ~". . . . . . : '" . . ~ .. . . .. . .. ... o Ofii ty . ~ .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . . ~ .. .. . .. . . . . . . ~ . . . ~ . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . ... . ... ... . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . .. W3n cabiret ........................................................................................... Other ................:.............................................................;............;....... 0 . E. OTI-fR .................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................ ~LICPl(;ES: ;/0.,.. :[;J,,- uD?j) Cove ......... .........:.. ............... .all~ ................ ............... .color............. ..... Distr..asher ......................... size................... .allo.-.arx:e II.............. ..:0101................. DiSjXlS.al.................................................. .allo..an::e 11......................-............... Ii:o:1 ..;............................ t)1)e........;................... ................ .color.................. Ref. ..;...:....................... .size........ ..... ..... .allcwdf)(E II..... ......... .color.,... ............ l-l:islJer ......... ......... .... ...... .size... ........... .....allcwarx:e II. .... .... ..... .color...... ..... ...... ~r ............................. .size.................. .allcwarx:e #.............. .color................. Co7pacter ..........................size...................allcwance #...............color................. Cl1:h:r ................................................................................................................................ .!']:.. . ,.:,... .~ .. r:' .. . -::.j..' '15. 'PLlMllN3~ Style or Mol<e .......D.lf.LX-1:..q!';-..d{!~...1.it1./.4f:-.7;:3<......;..:......;................:~.. r tb. Color .. Lo:ati01 T~ -:~ .:r~Wet /1 . iJ C 1/.. 1 ,. .z::;.;'~~. Sink...........'" .<J.I-!i-.. .~. j.7N; .W;. .;).7X-fIr ....... }j,.~rr-!!$r.'................. ?!-9r!.. jJf/':J" :7""':: LavatDry .....!.I/.<!(,4;r..{.7., . .......::;,:..... ....,....ftA77:1-.-."&,f"rlf~~/{I:1;........ A-f.l.{J.iX.P.~....~. ' Lavatory...... IN./t.. (1.. . Og~.f? .Wlt.{'... fMf..... .'f...... ... .'!............... 4-/-UJ.l:!.. !W...~..f(/.. LavatDry... ........ i1...... ... . ...,:,........... ......l~... ... ..Ii:................... . ..... ......'tc..'bb.. . Tollet ............ .'It...... ....('.If/[(........ ......r.1Mm..t:<ItTtI................ U.f}N.....~..q:.... Toilet............. .7....... . ................ .............. ..... ......... ..... ..... ... ..................; Toflet ..............::. ..... . ... ............. ... ..... ...... ........................ ......... ...: ....... Batht.lJb ..:. .-. ,.r.... .7..... .. ................. ...................................... .................... =bSt~i i': J.;j:~~: 19:1:::: ::;: :::::::: :::: :::H6~:iiiL: 68.-&:::::: :.: ::::.. iiQh(::i~f.~M'- Lcurdry tray................ ... .............. ... ..... ...... ............ :.. ... ...... .... .:................ La"n hjdrants ............... ................. ...................................... ~..................,. other ....................... ................. .................................................:........ ;;.i.: ............................... ................... .-.......................................................................... Watet-r.:ater: 6escribe ..... "."f'; ................. ...... ':J" ............ .,:....... "'J ... .................. />uto1otlC washer hcok-up ....N!....dr)€r hook-t..p ......NP.........s.np P1P .....u.<l.................... Water SUWly: , (-'plie rrnin .......::...........hook-up fee.......::..........I p;blie llEin, a dla,-,;e of .......;........... ,.er foot for excavatin;J trerd1 frun hcl.lse to point of hook-up. In:ilvldJal Sy.;te11: .. if irdividJal systen, Co.rltractor~will give (}"ner a ........_:::-............allcwarce for rost of .ell, P1TP, rrnterial, labor an:! water tests, if any. This allOtlarce in::lLOeS cost of rumln;J the lines Into the h:J..tse. 16. DISf'OS.'J. SYSID1: MIle se..er ..... .:-...... .hook-up fee ...:-:-.. .....01 lot systEm.... ..::-....... ..AlJ().oIan::e..... .:-.. ........ IF 01 Lot Sy.;tEm is used, Oesigl afld size will l:€ 62termired by percCi5dcn tests a"rd 10031 inspector. All costs, if any, for tests ard permIts shall l:€ Or.rer!; resp::rlsibillty. 17. f-fATIN3: D=scril:€ .. :$.t;?,. /f'.~!-.. .(r.1:..I:1. ..:':~?......,... ..~, ...... .... ...... -... ........ ........ .......... ...... ..,. ..................... .;~........ ... ... ............ ..:..... ....... ... ........ ............. ...... ..... ...... AJ.R ffiDITIC1VII"iS .... Lr:f...... .....0......................... ...... ......0.......0.......... e......................... ................. .. ..............................................................................~..............~............. lB.. .....EaRle h'IRIN3: Servio: ............../>/oP, fM2mead .......................l.t:Oer gram;:I.................. ]he local lJtility empany shall fumish sLWly tD hcl.lse. 00 Total Il.Ilt::>2r of aItIi'ts: a]]cwan::e.....~-?-:......... A charqe of ....;$,f........per o.rtlet over this allo;. '"Fixture allcwance .......0........... This aiianorce in::1wes all fixtures, li9';)~S. aN-chi,;: . . MlscellaneaJs ............. );,(q.. .Uf.,.HC f7.nvMf. ':;/';~k.U.Qf:{),. !!Tl1f1t...7<'t1"..... P.-:f.;' mt-l.. ..1-:-..... . .......... ............... .M17i.~.C{:/t1....( .I.Q9,:."-j..Hf.u>.rff+.1}.(,I;-................ ............ ........ '.. i9. CERPMIC nLE: . ./i' M3 i Bath - ..',' n ....................... .i:r':......... .... "v" (-'....~.. .n....J,.. ... ...... ...... ..... 7'" .......... Moster Bath " ..,.$fWx(.1... S17Jf...I.,. .n!l.44.5!..... /.qJ F.'.. ''''r'' r.CJ7?<.fJ. .l'9i<<CE....................... .... .... ~rR= :::::: :~:: ::::::: ::: :::: ::: :::::: :::::::::::::::: ::::::: ::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::~ D. PAl NTI fIG, WbJ..LPAPERIIIG /IN) OCo::x<ATlN3: . Interior pairrtln;J . Mu?. .7119. t.Q1"rs. f.<'trrJ!. fYrr... .Mltt.:. :1~D..(P!t~. /,tn;<. .~I-(I.:G.l.fiL Af+.~au !-la]]paper .......... JI? ...... ........ ...... ..................... ........ ................. ................. Exterior pairrtin;J .. JlP,..................................................... -........... ............... ''',; otrer decorating.... .7............................................................ ........... ..... ...... ....,;.:). 1. GlRAG:: yes.......... No . /... rurber of ears ..... :............. .G5rage cbJr q;>erator ................. "'. ~ ..;. ......... ...... ...... Detached .... .... ........ .... .... .8.Jilt-in .... .... ........ ......... .... . CI:or size .........................ll.Ilt::>2r ..........rreke .................style ............................ . ;;!ectrlc ....._.................wird::J..I ..................n.nber ...............ext. roor .~................. . ""rage fInished............................ ..l.t1finlshed ............................. ...................... .. _ "::....i .:~ ;.. zz.. l-IlSCB..I.#EOJS; . ~~,... ~. . < ~~~~~~~:. . ..... .t1<J.o... 1.. ZqNf-:'?;'. ~JC.'J.71.,,!{:..6;!f{{?..';;tJ.. .1I.f&f..[~/:!.~.!kQ{f:qJ. (.(?1.7J(I.6.fg~1't .... mt;t.'!-; 't. /k;r.{... fWD. .!Stm-(~!-').. .!~~ !tft. .t/f..."fP. ,.1/1.: /i1 ywiJ. h-0P.1IJ"q.Iif1.r::~. ..... ..[tf. :.<::; 9:~L. :t?-f!0... ~~ 7J!9.'.., C!.11; ~ ~:t~tl....~Q..?: .fi."'!t 7:....!J P.ll i.... w.~..... .?;'c ,I I ~ 0 .k. .... r:J.I;:!:f?'h-.. _?...... <;!-.'!9.Ii[................... .......... ..... ....................... ..... ..., "':'.'X~: '~<r< . . - -.- ..g.......g...................................................................................................................... ... f.~~ ~!'.H~~5.:".. 1/.0. .t?~~ m:J .1i.^!~ .~ff-P.~,y~/.!i!f>/:!y/!-!t}.~ .r.~.s;,.. t!f.AY-:-:':!~<:!-1. p.c..~.c.~. .. tm.. .IP.~~.. ~<I.'.'-P.'!!l':.. .(C:'?€.~ .{. -?Yf.r;::..f./?f~ .J.E.n;..j..................... ..... ...............: . WJ c:J!!!f1frNI / ...IH.f...~........,.... , '1... . .0 ,.=- . 1~ :.{..:. . , .'...~.. ..t;:;.;. ... ~,~~::.l <, ":;;~r. '. ~ :: :'::,:(,t. .:H:"-, "':.i~"!:'.~' . -'.~~ .':'-::0~; ~t~; .' .~:i~ ;. :~,,' ~t '-..', . :.}Ei: t, " /-, ( \ \. ! EXHIBIT "B" >, ...::........-. 0;,";-.. : ~." .: . ~ : ~ . : ! ~~:;~;:~ 7;~ :,;_ 0 .rL~. .II~ ._~.~~'~~_ h. ..__~~.:::.:-,.,::'-~....,:>';;:i~,~!:<"'~:..:.:--. &~9...t/t-..j?<co .fro.t.lL. _ _...... _ __ _ ___.__n_'?_._ . _ ____._ -k-rIL.-Ue,'L-.-_ !(.c~__ G.krl:r_ -::. ('~.' ~e..? -'___" , ____h. ftPi!?t.Ot- Snc,~!:-f U,A-fO <,-'U/, #::<<.::'..t:..-1.~. ___, . .,. ,_____~ !2J.. (9 b-;t>:'- V.)- @. if;~~,!~ L;',',~V~~ '-~.~.~~~~ :~~; {~~;~,~~'~;;&::;:2-1;'L====-- .. ~__/kkJJ-cidI"U<-:-:, __ML:'u:ow:_.a.;:-,f::!...~<-J.._h:.".~._____ . ~ '--_ h~..r Ow.. _ _.... _. __u__._. 'f"::'. .A:Plfg:ft,J ~.~.~s._ .. _..,h' .._u._u '" . IV____ '!-:5 '_. ......_., '.'.__" .,... OUh ___., ..._____._.,___ ,.___. ...,..,.c.,...._ ._"._ t b ,-~ /-~~- ~~~A .,f- I#-,.WA..t"Lk .f} <., ~ ~ ( <:, e ~-.------:----;:~;:--- . j!.,;>;;c':::~._.~-:."<:.:-:.- ,. ---~-,---,----_.. - '.--.---. ..-..- ..__h._____ .:>.:}~;:::;}~\?;:::-:~t':;;::::~x::,>., . . @ Pt.a-Cr.D:j.b:,L &u..1r:t:-)L t3Ct::._f)Lj~-J!~. ______,___~~':': ;,.: :':::"-':.:"~<'J_:, --~" - W&/-t..d, bd.[v-{'":f.6:rd.-D"'!_.(!....c.J!.."!f..j2"j)~ '- __ ___----','. --. ,'.,.- ',-.' ::' . "Mf~~e-'Cr .M.AC ,424~ __~I-L&LI?r .._ _._______,. ~:/DdA~~; t~;~~ .._jff~;~~~~-~.-.-~ . ..."..:,.~....-..-:,.,.,-,..'... .__." _ _D__'5H....._ 'tJ.L_ .. _, LIiLO____Y3 ______u___ . !-:09.cj~ft!3-__~..!...c...<:IAtd_--=,_iH~_a,~o:z>_' ..'..--:V,-," 9;dJJ 5 -. U15-"D: {. Y'l-' S&P_U~.R__f<< 6S ~LS; H.1J::1-.!Ac.A..---:.;::::',~~ ~: '.. :. ...,,:;:;';'-":i.:::;, ., " .... " m~r:'ti;:, -r::-__M~L:::'tmf:' ,Z~ ~ ;;=', · .":-j~~,i;~. --.. LD..L>_ ""_ 9-1---uL -L I5-IJ ~z.....:.,-/.:H t-_L,-g- 2.-..3::::L. J'r:-- _ __,C;,' >'.''-;;\; ":~':;'; , . 1l,: '~::.\~~ -:--~; (2-7 jAJ ~~_4~_& /LA., ~~---'--._' . .- :,:;>:~';:.";~.-;;:,:;:,.ti:.~:-.J~::;~~..'::::,;'::;:' y -1:. ~. &(... st _ ,s__,___________ ___. , , . , "'" . '.' .".. .'...:.... '.,',. ., 3"~ ~- .:J)~ Co.....IPCc>r... ~~t..-!- ~Mo f-ret-U-L Va",,- h 6A-S't:.~t-c-Jr ?O,L f/ooe., U"./,; '?A.AAt <.J(-r2'.b---! V ~" / '5J-~ 0--'17 4A8~ Cl$'<-~~ :-k~~';:r.- Arr/c 1;/'2; C"~;:!z.c-rI.lTd 1<<.. .M.~$(".!..<<-...I:'5.~P..~o<J~.._. ~.\.L- <'0, .i\/bjl .:' .-: .. . ." . '.~ .:' <.~,:': '<',~",: >;. . ::.::~ .....:. .~. ';': ':-..: ~.:. ".....~':<. V t.)Ar7% CvMIAIH(;.., frl. );~~"~.-.ZJ;~~-L:J..~~~_~_.)~_~.-_-".~~--' .. L!-t-. r.;2~AI2..: Gr:,.,r-IVL._t2L.J3A...f.t...C::fb:-<C_h -j.lor _..__n.. n-"_~_ t--Jp.r~/4..Art..fh...t./t..~ LD~rt.o':"L_ ._._..__.__ _ V OC;,J. [5'):?:pJ T:L h,/t.t..Q_._/?rA:".._ .J:::lJ!&erL,z,_ --#.....-- .-.------ __i:is: ~.n !A..~~. f~~(;~~~~~-~~~~f ~_--.-_..~..-~_.- ~ ~GV-'l~/.Ai.- c::.OL.-t:.. /,,!u..D..:. !::, 11/'./6--5 . ~.)i".""L_ ___ _. '" --L~.._...Jcr..-IL,..) ;...........__._.,- _..____ _.__.'_.._.. _..._. _ _.._...________.. '7.. - ,; ~1:: 7:~~~ {;i~;-f:r;:;~-~~ -Si~ c:_.___ __ ~(/::;~:. . ......h:.:?..:: .'. ~. ~ A.. h:r.{1z-..'.~_s..~_~.Y..~~"~~jl~:C ~:..,.._._~ _ '~"~==~"\-J:Si;/~~:i:;~f:;';':::j~:;~':-::!i:\;;'-; .'.: ~ r:;z;oJ~0~ .L:).~ rE~. fxk.rfy_ .~c~Ct::7C-l.U'<""'h..Lk..,.J.L .___i?:;::.. .....".::. .....'...::....: ... ~ 'U..Jt.-&-)_5tr:t> t],:-C_ ..t.?_0kld..T:../isr_ _ _. _.._._ ._.....___._______.. . 2.j.s.a~-!,:-~ /-hc_~~.~....i...t-~L_"__Id..-- ;;'!.J.~'tf..~d._ .. . __ _ ..__....._._........:';; ;,.,. . . .. . . <'9.,..YLrS r-/..~ I t..5.-~r..f::;t;P () , u../.r-6e.. t~o (. _.. ..' .. u-~ ,~~:;.;:~.ti-;~-;;~~-~~-B_.d~~~~~.,[~i~Z_;__~u..~~==...::~.:: . ... ':{\-;-.-. ... '. . 5...( k..... '."- ... . 3~.c~.~:~-;.~~~~L~~~~.~~J;i..~~~;;;;;;..I0~;;~._~=.=~.}~~;';': ... b '=.: 6.4.&bLL5-r;;;'" --.~ .. ...... ~::::{:~~.~;~'o . :A,~;~7rAii:fT/~JMK- ;~~ .~. --r - ....--- ..,.tr_..-0.~______ _._j. __.._.__I:::.t.r:c__1_ . r...'--:~_c:.~_('-I.t.A=,?_s..~t..~;<"'~..~~D_ ..._ __ __.__..__ _..________. .. G..@:~.. ..._. ........ _ ___.._:i. ~~_...J)Q..o..:!-__.__ _n. __.__. ___._ _..~'_j. . ~,-~t.,_o...:._r~__(20-..~iJ)__s..6----::-.~c,-t !...d....::r-l-::f__'5r4..L-.{UJ.5....:.~.:J'. . ~5u."'-~. f.-Cf- -f}~j) upr MA<L--K-j ~Q A.>> (5l;1~:tL~~iji:o-l~~~t:.~.fJS~~;.14~S~~-.; .,,>c,..... ..' - '.: ... o . . :.: '-~ .".:-', .... ~ . .' '. ~~ .' . ~ ., . "," ,..::..:::..:.:..:..:,;:... . . . . . . ~ '.~::;:':'.~~, : ; .~: /.~~.:. ~_~I't:~..~.:.?:'..,{...J~.;.~..:... ."',': ..... ,", . \: ;';.;<;~'.~.~~:~ .," :.~..~...~.'~:;.;~~:;:.:~.~::;\. . .~+ .., '; EXHIBIT "C-l" '. . MPI CONSTRUCTION 5147 ORE BANK ROAD YORK, PA 17406 Phone/Fax: (7]7) 840-0618 Commercial - Residential New Home~ . Additions. Garages. Remodeling MPJ Construction, Inc. 5147 Ore Bank Rofld East York, PA 17406 Statement I DATE JOI13/1999 TO: EdwardslDroege 331 "'illow AVe. CampHiJI,PA 17011 f" - TRANSACTION AMOUNT DUE '. SI3,946.53 AMOUNT AMOUNT ENC. DATE BALANCE i 03/3 lfl998 Balance forward I 0.00 , 1 I 04/01/J998 lNV#C.a.1335-1 449.00 449.00 J i 04/2211998 INV #]st Draw 9,300.00 9,749.00 , 04/2211998 PMT - Deposit -9,300.00 449.00 I 1 05/J2I1998 lNV lIc.a. 1335-2 985.00 1,434.00 1 . 05/1211998 lNV IIc.a. 1335-3 535.58 1,969.58 ! , , 05/18/1998 PMTII105 - Change Orders # 1335-1,2,3 -1,969.58 I 0.00 , i I , 06109/1998 lNV #2nd Draw 12,400.00 12;400.00 i I ! 06/09/1998 PMT -12,400.00 0.00 I I 06/15/J998 lNV 113rd Draw 15,500.00 15,500.00 I , 06I15/J998 PMT .15,500.00 0.00 I ! I i 07/]9/]998 lNV IIc.a. 1335-4 799.00 799.00 ! j 07/19/1998 lNV #C.O. 1335-5 580.00 I 1,379.00 l 07/19/1998 lNV IIca. 1335-6 126.00 1.505.00 I ! I 07119/1998 lNV !lC.0. 1335-7 3,158.76 i 4,663.76 I , 07/]9/1998 . lNV #C.O. 1335-8' 773.27 I 5,437.03 I j 07/1911998 lNV #c.a. 1335-9 . 1,952.07 7,389.10 i , 0811211998 lNV #4 tb draw 12,400.00 19,789.10 I 0811211.998 PMT -20,400.00 -610.90 I l1I23/1998 lNV !lca 10 to 16 2,879.87 I 2,268.97 , I 11/2311998 lNV IIFmai Draw 12,400.00 14,668.97 i I CURRENT I 1-30 DAYS PAST 31-60 DAYS PAST 61-90 DAYS PAST OVER 90 DAYS I AMOUNT DUE DUE DUE DUE PAST DUE i i ; 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,946.53 S13,946.53 L Page 1 -, . . /""" , , EXHIBIT "C- 2" " . ~.:' . . (-1- W.s. MILLER IV, P.E. CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGTh'EER 0001 PIKE SIREEr HARRISBURG, PA 17111 TEL: ~717) 564-4644 FAX: (717) 564.2432 - . December 22, 1998 Mr. Tod Edwards Keystone Financial Mortgage Co. 2270 EriJl Court P.O. Box 7628 Lancaster, PA 17604.7628 Re: Inspection and Analysis of Second Floor Structure in New Addition Residence of :Mr. and 11rs. Tod Edwards 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Dear Mr. Edwards: In accordance with your request, I conducted a structural inspection at your residence on September 19, 1998. The purpose of my inspection was to determine the cause of apparent sagging or deflection in the second floor structure of the new addition, and to make recommendations for repair or corrective remedial action, as necessary. ]\'1y inspection was conducted in the presence of you and your wife, and it included observations and measurements on the fu-st and second floor areas of the addition, and a review of cel-cain photographs which were taken during construction. ( The new addition at the rear of the Edwards residence is a two story wood frame structure with approximate overall exterior dimensions of 15 feet deep (front to rear) by 30 feet long (left to right). The fIrst floor of the addition is a large open Kitchen and Family Room area while the second floor area consists of a Master Bathroom, !"owder Room, and Closets on the left side half, and a Bedroom on the right side half. The second floor structure of the addition reponedly consists of 2xlO floor joists (No.2 Hem-Fir) at 16 inch centers spanning the 15 foot distance between the original rear exterior wall of the existing home and the new rear exterior wall of the addition. The joists frame to the original rear exterior wall of the home with standard metal joist hanger connections to a continuous 2xl0 ledger board connected to the existing siding and stud frame wall. Mr. Edwards also reponed that a triple 2xlO be.amjoist was installed under the 4 inch glass block shower pmtition, located approximately 10 feet in from the left side exterior wall. The floor in the addition is reported to be waferboard or oriented strand board subfloor with quarry tile finish over concrete backer board in the Master Bathroom and carpet over underlayment grade plywood elsewhere. Following substantial completion of the addition, and the installation of the shower unit, the glass block shower surround walls, and the quarry tile fInish in the Master Bathroom area, Mr. Edwards noticed significant sagging and deflection in certain areas of the floor structure. He fu~er rep~ned that the wafer board subfloor was subjected to numerous days of rainfall and wet condlUon~ until the building was closed-in, and that certain areas of the waferboard subfloor were quite soft pnor to installation of the concrete backerboard and plywood underlayment ../. .1/ / > Insp. of Tod Edwards Residence (2) December 22,1998 f , . I conducted a detailed walle-through visual inspection of the addition on September 19, 1998 to determine the nature and cause o{ihe reported problem. Due to the presence of the second floor - floor finishes and the first floor - ceiling finishes, the second floor framing and subfloor could not beeL directly observed. Nevertheless, it was quite apparent that floor saaaing or low spots of ):S'J -" l approxirMteJ-y 112 to 3/4 of an inch were present in the quarry tile fl~~r finish of the l>.faster B,{droo~ The worst of the sagging was in the central Hallway between the Powder Room and the Walle'oin---/ Closet, the extension of that Hallway to the iillmediate left of the shower enclosure, and in the floor . area to the immediate front of the shower area. Other areas of the J\..faster Bathroom either had no apparent evidence of the same sagging problem or were hidden by the presence of dividing partitions. Moreover, an inspection of the underside of the second floor Structure at the flISt floor ceiling level revealed no direct evidence of any signiiicant structural problems. Based on 2xlO floor joists at 16 inch centers, and a triple 2x10 joist beam under the glass block shower enclosure, structural calculations were perfomed to review the adequacy of the floor Joists for the imposed loading conditions. Calculations were conducted for three separate loading conditions as described below: 1. The floor joists under the left end of L1e Master Bathroom, which support the floor areas of the Powder Room, the small Closet, the f100r area to the left of the shower, and various wood stud partitions running perpendicular ro the joists. ~ 2. The triple 2xlO floor joist beam which supports a(16 inch wjcJ.th'of floor plus both the glass block shower partition and the partition to the ligh'fOf-mecentral Hallwax. . 3.. The floor joists under the right end of the Master Bathroom which support the floor areas of the Walle-in-Closet and the shower, and various wood stud partitions running perpendicular to the joists. Assuming No.2 Hem-Fir lumber, and under a 1"u1120 psf dead load, a 30 psf live load, and the weight of the partitions, the calculations indicate a very minor 2% overstress in the joists for loading condition number 1, and a rather significant 20% overstress for the joists in loading condition number 3. The . triple 2xlO beam joist had significant reserve capacity under full design load. Under penn anent floor/ceiling dead loads and the weight of the supported partitions, deflection calculations indicate initial deflections ranging between 1/4 to 3/8 of an inch for the three loading conditions, and possible long term deflections of between 3/8 and 3/4 of an inch for the various loading conditions depending on certain factors including the initial moisture content of the framing lumber. CONCLUSIONS AJ'\,1]) RECOMMEl\1])ATIONS- Assuming that the lumber size, species, grade, and spacing are as assumed in the calculations, the calculations indicate minor to moderate overstress in the 2xlO second floor joists. Accordingly, it would have been appropriate to either use a higher grade lumber, space the joists at 12 inch centers, or use 2x12's in lieu of the 2xlO's. Nevertheless. deflection calculations indicate that at least the initial deflections due to ermanent dead load are wiihill AU d':'Ccpla.Llc range and lirn!I5, and they du uut fully exp <un the tot amounts 0 saggmg an e ecnon w lC were s e m e finished second floor areas of the Master Bathroom. Accordingly, there must be some other condition that is at least contributing to the observed sagging and deflection problem. These could include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Misalignment, dropping, or failure of the joist end connections or ledger connections to the existing wall. 2. The use of lower grade lumber, smaller size joists, or joists with larger spacing than those used in the calculations. :3. Deterioration or damage to the joists or subfloor from prolonged exposure to moisture. 4. Installation of floor joists with their curvature or "camber" down. . I:: / " Insp. ofTod Edwards Residence , (3) December 22, 1998 ~ : Although the final repair or remedial action will likely be the removal of floor finishes and the leveling . of the subfloor in the Master Bathroom, I would recommend that further investigative action be undertaken. Since it is also likely that some addition or sistering of thejoists may need to be done under the Master Bathroom area to correct the inadequacies of the joists as shown by the calculations, I would J;e~opw1end that the area of drywall ceiling under the Master Bathroom be removed to fully expose the framing and sub-floor above. Upon completion of the ceiling removal, I would be availabl~ to conduct a more detailed inspection of the framing, and to prqvide rmal recommendations' for repau-. For you use and records, I have enclosed two copies of the 8 pages of structural calculations that were prepared in conjunction with my analysis. If you have any questions or comments concerning my inspection or this report, please contact me. ,~~ . William S. Mille~ Structural Engineer " .t f; .' ". .. , , ( , . . EXHIBIT "D" <; I--'~ .P ~ MPI 5147 ORE BANK ROAD YORK, PA 174?6 Phone/Fox: (717) 540-0618 Ce>mm&rc::lcd - Ro."ld""'.....t-ic::a1 New Homes. Additions. Garoges . ~emodllllng ( , INC. FACSIMILE COVER PAGE To: Sent: Subject; TOO EDWARDS 1~6199 at 11 :01:00 PM HOME RENOVATION From: Pages; Mark P. Weaver , 1 (including Cever) TOD, YOU HAVE STILL NOT GIVEN MEAN ANSWER ON WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO 00.1 MUST HAVE THE BULK OF MY FINAL PAYMENT NOW, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO.IF IT IS YOUR INTENTION NOT TO PAY ME THEN PLEASE TELL ME SO.l DID NOT GIVE UP ON YOU OR YOUR PROJECT AND WILL HONOR MY AGREEMENTS. IF YOU WISH TO HOLD 2 OR 3 K TILL YOU DECIDE _OR UNTIL WE REPAIR THE FLOOR THAT IS FINE WITH ME.I WILL WAIT FOR YOUR RESPONSE. THANKS, MARK . .~ . ~ . . '. EXHIBIT "E" z. ~' ~ GOODMAN & KENNEFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2A6ll MAfOR AVE. MILLERSVlLLE, PA 17SS 1 THOMAS L. OOODMAN JOHN A. KENNEFF February 23, 1999 TELEPHONE (717) 872-4605 FACSIMILE (717) 872-4670 Mr. and Mrs. Tod Edwards 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: MPl Construction, Inc. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Edwards: Please be informed that MPl Construction, Inc. has retained my office to collect the moneys owed in connection \vith work performed at your residence. The sum of$ .13,946.63 .1S owed to MPJ Construction, Inc. for this project and was billed.onNovember 23; 1998. ,: Unless MPJ Construction, Inc. receives payment of the above amount in its entirety or is given the opportunity to address any problems by Friday, March 5, 1999, we will initiate litigation against you at the Court of Common Pleas of York County. MPJ Construction, Inc. does not want this relationship to deteriorate to litigation and stands ready to, with an engineer, address the bathroom floor issue. However, due to the large sum of money owed to it for such an extended period of time, MPJ must move this matter forward. Sincerely, John A. Kenneff; Esquire JAKltmw cc: MPJ Construction, Inc. , ." : < EXHIBIT "F" . ....,..,:.,. MRR;..5.1999 9:.B4AM NO. 578 P.2 .... .- ~ (l.l.V/luJ Pvf.J(,fJ. I...J$/ v Too Robelt Edw~c.s 331 Willow A"eIlui: CsmpHill,PA liDl) (717)737-2347 March 3, 1999 ' - MPJ Constrllclion Mark Weaver 5147 Grd3wl< Road York, FA 17406 Desr Mllfk: Thi.< leuer follows my ooli"ery to ,'ou oftlle sl!'Jcrural report prepared by W. S. Miller e."12ly;dng L\;e deiiciencies in me v.'orknsnship e.~d 1.1,e Ell1lcltJ~ inregrily of second iloor In..mr b~Dom 11 is our inten!lo Itsolve r.il OUISl2..11ding issues pursuaDl to ellr consUllctiC:J centrac! a! 331 Willow Avenue, Camp . EilJ,PA. ,. Regarding lbe deflection and associated damage in L\;e second floor maSler buhrMm, we are willing tD consider remedicl accjon proposed by !\'fl' J Cons:u-:Jction I Pto;..ided the propostd remedial action is approved by our engbeenng COnEl.:.lta."lI. Vie are quite ciis!ncyed by the ciefic~encies in your compiU:!Y's workmenshil' pmcul.,.ly in lbe secol1011oor roas::r ba1.l)room whOJ" lbere ..ppears to be a lac.1( of sttucru.ral integrity 1.., Uie i1oor..ng ~d Eub--i1oor E!.~pport.: Proposed s-;eps \id21 include removal of !hc fuH flooi' ceiling to exam~~e the ;eccnd story sub.flDcr l?.nd bea1njoist~ in the iliected a.~a. Once o?~ned,:he affecten area C2Zl b~ subject~d to a det21jed mspection bye. professional strUcturaJ eZJgbeer. At my expe..,se a prelL-"m2r;,' 'tnJc~.ll"ol .."12lys;s was conducted by W. S. Miller. We i'"llend tD have W. S. Miller cenduc! Ille deWled ir,spection of the a,'Jecl"" = and recommend lbe ..pproprisle'remedial sieps, We "sill e.xpect to be rdm.bursed by you for this e."1gineedng review and supeTl--1sion. Those remediaI.actio!':.S 511gBested by the StnlCIill"f.1 engineer a:-tO cDnducted in eccotrlance with his spec1J1c instrUotions &Te expecl"". We shElll expect all work to be lllloenal(ell promprly and completed wilh due diligence. All CO,! for rem.dial work is tho sole responsibililY ofMPJ as ccvered tiZlder MPJ's wuranty. Damage to existing IlXfJ.!'es :?.nd rnaterials due to ~t deflec.tion and associated remedi~ action is expected to be oorreoted by Ml'J COllStnlction SI ils expense. Fur1he.nnore the following outstanding pu.:"ich Hn items ar~ expected to be cOT.:lpJeted isnmediate1;'. Outstanding items include, but t.re net limi~d to: . French Door, GroUl breakillg up betwe,n 6reshold and tile . Melding: Curs on mdi,,;ciual pieces 60 ~cl lin. up. Check eF.ch Ilrea near baseboard heat. . Firs! Fleor Po"",dar Room: VlL.,ity tinis:, work, trJ:n work, paimi',g, gap for bl!$ebo",-d h.a! pipe . Kitchen Ceiling: P9illlmg ano fmish a!cund sroall receESed lighlL.,g . Kiteben double phone Jack not sttscned !:..'1d uE;eab!e . Exterior Wi...-i...ilg for radon fz.n, holes not ::eaJed, north side exterior \vall . Breaker panel DC! properly fe.srened. .. \V:;s bo)]er re.~ressurize.c; Doticed increc..seo nn;5e indicative of ~~r ;n BDes? . Damage to L~v:.ng Room light sw'itch . Pergo tr2.1is;t:on from Living Room to Family Room . CabI~ does: not work ~n Master Bedroortl. . Netv Bed.""Oo!D trim and ooor painting ~ncDmp!ett; . New Bearoo,^, wiudow cracY..eO . Ml3.5.tet Bathroom hardware not secure '. ( .- oberl Edwards .' Willow Avenue p Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-2347 March3,1999 Page 2 qf2 f , - .. _ Maste:r Bawoo,." oi-foM doors not aligned . DryWall finish rear comer small second floor lavatory . CUI' holder small steond floor lavatory f!l1ling out, painting not complete, check tile work near baseboard heat . Hardware on pocket door :s not functional . Master Bathroom ceiling f,,"/ h eatli ght a.~d shower light not worldng . WaU, in olosel door knob falling apart, d.'Y"'al1 finish work end painting . Down Sl'Out'oollllect:oIl SOUL" rear coma not finished in a workml!.lll.ilce manor . Various Dan pops, dryo.;'ll11 finish work EJ:d painting We will not agree to t."e release of any furl"er funds until the remedial work altd the OUlStElllding "punch list" items ue satisfactorily complelecl. Please accept this as my rosporu;e to your at'.orney's letter d2.ted 2/23/99 received 2125/99 by cenified mal!. We loole forward to your response and ulti,nate resolution o{this matter. Please conract me directly to ~;if~ TodR. Edward , cc: J. Stephen Fcmour, Esq., Natmlan, Smith, Shissler end H?ll ~~ ;: ".--... c "-, \ EXHIBIT "G" , --- GOODMAN & KENNEFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2.:6B MfJ'lOR AVE. MILLERSVILLE, PA 17551 c!, G- .' THOMAS L. GOODMAN JOHN A. KENNEFF 1ELEPHONE (717) 872-4605 FACSIMILE (717) 872-4670 March 31,1999 Mr. Tod R. Edwards 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 "--'> Re: MPJ ConsrruCtion, Inc. Dear Mr. Edwards: . Thank you for your letter ofMarc..113, 1999 \"\'hich I have re;-vie\"!.'ed with .Mi. Weaver.. While he agrees that there is a problem with the second floor masrer bathroom, he i~ not willing to accept any responsibility until the exacr nature of the problem is identified. MPJ, as Stated to you before, is agreeable to CUt open the ceiling directly beneath the floor to determine the problem. He intel1ds to bring an engineer with him and ,vill be responsible for payment ofthar engineer. If you desire ro have Mr. .Miller be present, his services v.>ill be paid for by .M1'J in the event the problem is shown to be an error in the consrruction of the floor. With regard to the punch list items, Mr. Weaver is agreeable to completing all of those listed "'~th the exception of the following: 1. Pergo transition from living room to family room. As .Mi. Weaver stated to you pre'~ously, pergo is made to flex. The floor condition is within acceptable pergo consrruction limits. Nothing can be done abour this issue. 2. Master bau'1room hardware not se=e and cup holder on second floor lavatory. The bathroom hardware was insralled at your direction and in the location specified by you and was done by MPJ as an accommodation at no charge. If they are to do any further work in these areas, they must receive compensation. However, prior to performing any of the foregoing,. 1:.{PJ must receive partial paymenron his invoice of November, 1998. You stated to Mr. Weaver previously you ->"'.:r-,~~.-':;..'?:.""',;:-F ',"",:",~_;.' ./ I , / Mr. Tod R. Edwards March 31, 1999 Page Two received an estimate of 58,000.00 to fIX the problem. Based on that, Ml'J is looking t~. receive the sum of $5,946.53. It is usual practice to receive payment in full from a customer prior to performing warranty work. In addition, in order ensure that when the problem is fIXed.MJ?J receives the remai'ling S8,000.00, we are requesting that ir be pUt in an escrow account "'1th your attorney or with me. The money will not be removed until the parries reach an agreeihenr or in the event of a court order if litigation becomes necessary. . If the foregoing is acceptable, please forward paymenr ro me a check for S5,946.53 along"\.v1rh a list of dates and times that you and your engineer will be ava:ilable~ Thank you. Sincerely, c-;Q.. John A. Kenneff JAK/emw cc: Ml'J Consrruction, Inc. ., ~ EXHIBIT "H" . .. .. i+ ". ---- GOODMAN & KENNEFF AITORNEYS AT LAW 246B MANOR AVE. MlLLERSVlLLE, PA 17551 THOMAS L. GOODMAN JOHN A. KENNEFF May 11,1999 ULEPHONE (717) 872-4605 FACSIMILE (717) 872-4670 Mr. a,n(LMrs. Tad Edwards 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: MPJ Construction, Inc. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Edwards: We have not heard from you in over a month on this matter. MPl stands ready to addres the bathroom floor problem. Please contact either Mr. Weaver or my office with dates and times suitable next week to meet at the property. . . . . Ifwe.donot hear from you by this Friday, May 14, 1999 we Will assume. that you do not want MPl to address the problem and/or correct and we will immediatly commence an action against you for the sums owed to MPJ Construction. If it becomes necessary to do so, you will incur great ex-pense as well as time lost due to answering interrogatories, attending depositions, etc. Obviously, we do notwanUo waste your time or money nor does Mr. Weaver want to waste his time in litigation when the problem may be a simple joist out of place or a piece of wood being warped. However, the sum is large and we can no longer allow this issue to be ignored by you. Please contact the undersigned or Mr. Weaver by May 14, 1999. Sincerely. -. "\ '~..-A ~~0)...\. OYJ ~ ~Kenneff fu . , f'--.. l ' f . - ..',-- EXHIBIT "I" :;.~ ~. 51727;,999 eB,39 n74323,70 STEARNS . PAGE 01 Francis R. Stearns, P. E. Consultlng Engineer 40 Aspen OrNe OlJlsbt.w-g, FA 17019-9593 . 717-432-7119 floc 717-432-3170 i July 27, 1999 !4rl:: P. Weaver MPJ Construction, Inc. 5147 Ore Bank Road York, PA 17406 Re: Edwards Residence 331 Willow Avenue, Camp Hill Ref no. 661 ~~ave reviewed the engineer's report dated December 22, 1998, prepared by W.S. ...iller, IV, P.E. The report provided quantitative analysis of the preble!!! of the glass block shower enclosure separating from the wall. I reviewed the site with you on June 28, 1999. . The floor system is dimension lumber, 2xIO's ~ 16", and (3) 2xl0's at the glass block wall. The deflection of the floor is not exceptional, and does not represent a structural concern, Unfortunately, the home owner is dissatisfied with the condition at the intersection of the glass block wall and the exterior hciuse wall. I recoJl1llend that a lllOlding be provided at this intersection to close the joint. In addition, your fim has offered to provide a stiffer floor system at the shower enclosure. I have analyzed the increase of the stiffness of the floor system by adding Micro-lam LVL lumber joists to the framing at this location. The addition of two. lVl at the triple joists will more than double the stiffness . ~~ the floor joists, and prOVide a more dimensionally stable floor frame. The \ .\gle floor joists can be sistered with a single lVL and the stiffness of these joists will be increased almost three times. If you have any questions, or If you require additional assistance at this time, please do not hesitate to contact ~. Sincerely, 1~U -? F ank Stearns, P.E. ildin9. Structural Engineer encl ~ -::z..x 1'0 1.5(1.1.5)' /2- = .r "" HtrM- P,.<. No_ 2- 5-r'ft'tJ.;,?=> " 1;;;1 - STEARNS 9S.t INfo e:::1.3oo.a.:>" PSI '- 1:;2.'1 X 10 110- ,..,'" :> . I :/.,.. X q I" \... V L (--, - I. 7" (~.:1sY 'I" 1:2.. .: JJ!; IN~ s ~ 2 0.:::.0, O...:l...:) .. ' S"'-l1"f"N,<$S ::: 3-2X1IJ ADO 2 :: ,38 LVL INC>:"e?"~<? '" S I^,' l<: :2. 'J( I 0 - A-DP LvL E'\ I !'-l C I'te?> j;" <: :2 _ "7 'I PS: \ 2..3 I )( I 0 " llo-Jl"'" 7 .,(,10 (, (21:: 081 + 4<'2)"; '2_ J'1 12~ " 10'- := (! 2.. '1. .} 2. ~ I ) x.. J 0 (; ;: '. I U 4 :: 84'1 x 10 G. '" 3r-o XID PAGE 82 -'- ~' ~ . " ( 'I , , , EXHIBIT eeJ" y .. . MPI 5147 ORE BANK ~AO YORK, PA 17406 Phone/fox: (717) 840-0618 Cc>ryu'V\$rc='cd - RO$'deo.....U=1 New Homes. Addffiom . GorQQe$ . I<~ = INC. FACSIMILE COVER PAGE, To: TOO EDWARDS Sent.: 8(101))9 at 12:38:00 PM SubjeCt;. HOME REPAIRS TOD,SORRY i DID NOT GET BACK SOONER BUT WE WERE AWAY FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS.IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION ANY CRACKED TILE OR BLOCK WILL BE REPAIRED.I DO NOT ANTICIPATE THAT MOVING THE F"LooR ONLY 1/2 "TO 3!4"THAT THERE WILL BE TOO MUCH DAMAGE. THANKS,MARK From: MarkP. Weaver 1 (including CQ.ver) Pages: ------ ---- J:A-~ +-0)<- """ .<6 ~::: VERIFICATION I, Tina M. Weaver, Secretary ofMPJ Consrruction, Inc., verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are rrue and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to un worn falsifications to authorities. . ~O . ~ Dated this l.V .. CR. ",J, U, 1999, . ~J CONSTRU'O~, INC\\ ~i)J 1\ '(~JJDLU.iJ.';~t.- TmaM. Weaver, Secretary . 'J (1 . MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. Plaintiff ; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: l\1PJ Construction, Inc., Plaintiff 1-"~ I . You are hereby notifIed to plead to the enclosed New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from the service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. NAUMAN, SMITH, SmsSLERAND HALL, LLP ~. ~~3--~~ . Steph6n Feinour, Esquire Supreme Court.ID#24580 i .~ . ",' 200 North Third Street P.O. Box 840 Harrisburg,PA 17108 Telephone: 717/236-3010- -.- ..- .-, -- Counsel for Defendants, .Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife H.B 1 (; 2000 -'- ,d-:9------ j2, ZK.J Date: 2//1 -" TRUE Copy FROM RECORD III Testimony WiJl;roof. j hen; umo 9(jt my haoo and the seal at said Court at Carl!sle, Pa. fh!s /'1#1 day of r::-e.b ;}oDO ~ . \ , ^0- \V\~mQ!,.J 4,-tr Prothonowy (1 l-l '- l\1PJ CONSTRUCTION, INe. Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA - - .~.- vs. NO. 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF"S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM ...-_.... NOW COME the Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards (hereinafter collectively the "Edwards"), by and through their attorneys, Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP, and file the following Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim: 1. Admitted on information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Defendants restate and re-aver the responses set forth in Paragraphs I and 2 above as though more fully set forth herein. '. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant, Tod Edwards, executed the Specifications appended as Exhibit" A" to Plaintiff's Complaint on March 17, 199.8. The document captioned "Proposal" was presented to Defendant, Tod Edwards, subsequent to March 17, 1998 and was backdated by Plaintiff's representative, Mark Weaver (hereinafter "Weaver"). The Proposal and "SpecifIcations" are written documents which speak for themselves, any characterization thereof by P1aintiffbeing expressly denied. 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Proposal submitted by Plaintiff, l\1PJ Construction, Inc. (hereinafter "l\1PJ"), provided for the furnishing of material and l.l. " ~, 'I labor in accordance with the accompanying SpecifIcations for a total price of $62,000.00. The Proposal and "SpecifIcations" are written docwnents which speak for themselves, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied. 6. Denied. The agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants for the construction of the two-story addition at Defendants' residence is set forth in the Proposal and Specifications (hereinafter the "Contract") attached as Exhibit "A" to the Complaint. It is admitted that Plaintiff, r-' MPJ, functioned in the capacity of general contractor on the project and did engage certain subcontractors to perforrn various aspects of the work. It is denied that any agreement, written or oral, existed between l\1P J and the Edwards respecting the engagement of subcontractors to perforrn work under the contract. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a building permit was issued by the Borough of Camp Hill on or about March 30,1998, and that Plaintiff, MPJ, commenced work on the project shortly thereafter. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge ( or inforrnation sufficient to forrn a belief as to the truth of the remaining averrnents of Paragraph 7 and therefore demand proof thereof at trial. 8. Denied. The SpecifIcations provide for a $10.50 per square foot allowance for the - installation of ceramic tile in the master bath shower enclosure. It is denied that the Contract called for the use of ceramic tile in the master bath shower enclosure as Defendants had communicated to MP J well in advance of execution of the Contract, their desire to have glass block utilized for the shower enclosure. Plaintiff, MPJ did not object or raise any other issue respecting Defendants' -2 - (--_...,~ ,. ~. 1/ (1 . " desire to have glass a block enclosure installed in the second floor master bathroom. Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, only advised the Edwards that l\1PJ had not installed glass block and that they would need to engage another contractor for that work. The Proposal and SpecifIcations are written documents which speak for themselves, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied. 9. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff, .l\1PJ constructed a bathroom floor that was structurally sufficient or properly constructed in a good and wor1ananlike manner. Plaintiff, MP J was fully aware of Defendants' plan to utilize glass block for the master bathroom shower enclosure before the contract was executed and before construction was commenced on the frame and second story subfloor. Defendants informed Plaintiffs representative, Weaver, that the glass block would be installed by Cornerstone Glass Block Company ("Cornerstone"). The contract did not provide for MP J to install ceramic tile shower enclosure. The flooring and floor support installed by l\1P J was deficient in workmanship and inadequate as more fully set forth hereinbelow. 10. Denied. It is denied that in or about April, 1998, the Edwards, without consulting l\1PJ, decided to enclose the master bathroom shower in heavy glass block and, on their own and without going through MPJ, hired Cornerstone as a contractor to install the glass block. To tlie' contrary, Defendants consulted with l\1P J' s representative, Weaver, regarding their desire to utilize glass block for the master bathroom shower e!1closure. Weaver informed :Qefendants that he had not installed glass block shower stall walls and that they would need to engage a different contractor to perform that work. Defendants are informed, believe and therefore aver that Cornerstone consulted - 3 - .. " " with l\1P J regarding the glass block shower enclosure to be installed in the master bathroom and that MPJ had full knowledge of the specifications of the glass block to be installed well in advance of . - ,,',...... construction of the second story frame and flooring. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph II and therefore demand strict proof thereof at trial. i~'-''''\ \ 12. Denied as stated. In approximately April, 1998, Plaintiff, l\1PJ, prepared drawings at the request of Defendants altering the configuration of the glass block enclosure from a curve .to a right angle which decreased the number oflinea1 feet of glass block and the corresponding weight of the shower enclosure. 13 ~ Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 13 and therefore demand strict proof thereof at trial. Defendants believe and therefore aver that Weaver submitted copies of the revised drawing for the master bathroom shower stall enclosure configuration to Plaintiff for delivery to Cornerstone. 14. Denied. It is denied that in June of 1998 Weaver informed Defendants that he had constructed the bathroom floor to accommodate the weight of ceramic tile, not glass block, that he had never worked with glass block before, an.d that he could not guarantee that the bathroom floor would support the weight of the glass block. To the contrary, Weaver only informed Defendants in March of 1998 that he had no experience with the installation of glass block and that they, -4- '. ., ~. therefore, would have to engage another contractor for the installation of said glass block. Weaver never raised any issue regarding the structural integrity oftbe floor or tbe ability of the Booring to support tbe proposed glass block shower enclosure, nor did he advise Defendants of any limitations in the weight bearing capacity of tbe floor. 15. Denied. It is denied that Defendants directed Weaver to contact Cornerstone about the ability of the bathroom floor to support the weight of the glass block shower enclosure. To the (--': contrary Weaver bad been in communication witb Cornerstone and at no time raised any issue or concerning about the ability of the floor to support the weight of.the glass block enclosure. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the trutb. of the averments of Paragraph 16 and therefore demand strict proof thereof at trial. 17. Denied. At no time did Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, express any concern to Edwards regarding tbe adequacy of the floor to support tbe weight of tbe glass block. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to tbe trutb of the remaining averments of Paragraph 17 and tberefore demand strict proof thereof at trial. 18. Admitted witb clarification. In or about tbe last week of July, 1998, Cornerstone installed a shower enclosure constructed of. Pittsburgh Plate Glass ("PPG") Decora pattern 6x6x3 inch glass blocks. -5- '. .' J' , 19. Denied as stated. It is admitted that in or about August, 1998, the Edwards provided l\1PJ with a preliminary "punch" list of items of deficient or incomplete workmanship that had been detected. It is denied that the document attached as Exhibit "B" to the Complaint was delivered to MPJ, as there is handwriting that is not Defendants and that was no on the original document. Exhibit "B" is a document which speaks for itself, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied. Exhibit "B" to Plaintiff's Complaint does not reference the master bathroom floor or the family room ceiling because at the time of preparation of the list the master bathroom remained incomplete due to problems between Plaintiff and the tile subcontractor. Furthermore, Defendants were unable to live in their house from June, 1998 until September, 1998, due to dust, dirt and debris associated with the construction. 20. Denied. It is denied that Defendants, Edwards, requested Weaver to examine the bathroom floor because it appeared to Edwards to be sagging a little; that Weaver looked at the floor and offered to open up the ceiling below to see what was causing the sagging; and that Weaver stated that if the problem was the weight of the glass block, he would not accept responsibility. To the contrary, workmen engaged by Plaintiff, l\1PJ, came to the job site sporadically in late August, 1998. During the last week of August, 1998 several workmen walked throUgh the master bathroom and identifIed an area of sagging in the floor to Defendants. A worker engaged by MPJ confIrmed that the floor surface sagged by approximately twp inches whereupon Defendants contacted Weaver and arranged for a walk-through inspection of the master bathroom. During said inspection Weaver acknowledged the existence of an approximately two inch dip in the master bathroom floor and a -6- '. . . " corresponding two inch sag or deflection in the family room ceiling. Defendants requested Weaver to consult a professional engineer for evaluation of the deflection in the master bathroom-floor and . - '::;''-- family room ceiling which Weaver refused to do. 21. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendants were required to engage an independent engineer, W.S. Miller, IV, P.E. ("Miller"), to evaluate the cause of the deflection in the master bathroom floor and family room ceiling and the appropriate remedial action. The engineer, Miller, was engaged by Defendants in advance of September 19,1998. 22. Denied as stated. It is admitted that prior to September 19, 1998 Defendants informed MPJ of their retention of Miller to evaluate the condition of the master bathroom floor and the family room ceiling. Weaver was advised that Defendants would provide him with.the engineering report prepared by Miller in order to reach agreement as to the appropriate remedial action to cotrect Plaintiffs defIcient workmanship, notwithstanding Weaver's refusal to obtain a professional engineering evaluation. 23. Denied. It is admitted that in or about the fIrst week of November, 1998, Plaintiff, MPJ completed work on the project with the exception of correction of the defIcient workmanship in the master bathroom floor and family room ceiling and other punch list items. The work' completion was approximately four months beyond the July, 1998 completion date promised by Plaintiff. Plaintiff submitted an invoice to Defendants in the total amount of $74,238.55, comprised of the $62,000.00 project price plus additional charges of $12,238.55. It is specifIcally denied that -7- (> '. . ' ,. " Plaintiff was entitled to the sum demanded due to the numerous items of defIcient and incomplete workmanship more specifically set forth hereinafter. 24. Denied. It is denied that at the time of the alleged completion of work by Plaintiff, l\1PJ, on the project Defendants, Edwards, owed MPJ the sum of$13,946.53. To the contrary there were numerous items of defIcient and incomplete workmanship, for which the fair and reasonable cost of repair and replacement exceeded the balance claimed by Plaintiff. 24.(sic) Denied as stated. It is denied that the document identifIed as Exhibit "C-l" to Plaintiff's Complaint was sent on or about November 23, 1998 as said document is dated October 13, 1999. 25. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants have not paid the amount shown as the "amount due" on the October l3, 1999 invoice as such amount is not properly due and owing to Plaintiff. It is denied that Plaintiff was not provided with any explanation as to why payment was being withheld. To the contrary, Plaintiff, l\1PJ, was well aware of the defIciencies in the worlananship in the construction of the master bathroom floor and family room ceiling which had not been corrected to the satisfaction of Defendants and the incomplete items on Defendants' punch list. 26. Denied as stated. It is admitted that the professional engineer, Miller, submitted a report dated December 22, 1998 to DefenQants discussing his inspection and analysis of the defIciencies in the second floor structure of the addition. Mr. Miller noted defIciencies in the construction of the floor by Plaintiff, including but not limited to inadequate structural design, use ~ - 8- . , " of inadequate or damaged materials, and defIcient workmanship. The document speaks for itself, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied. 27. Admitted. 28. Denied. It is denied that Defendants, Edwards, received any fax transmitral from Plaintiff, l\1PJ, on or about January 6, 1999. 29. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Weaver left a telephone message on Defendants' answering machine on January 18, 1999, which message was promptly returned by Edwards.the same day although Weaver was unavailable arid Edwards left a telephonic message on Plaintiff's answering machine. 30. Denied as stated. It is admitted that on or about January 19, 1999, Defendant, Tod Edwards, and MPJ's representative, Weaver, arranged to meet at the Edwards' property to inspect the floor on February 2, 1999. Defendants encountered schedule conflicts and notifIed Weaver several days in advance that the February 2, 1999 date was no longer suitable. The meeting was rescheduled, however, Weaver, without explanation, did not appear. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a beliefas to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 31 and therefore strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 32. Denied as stated. It is admitt~ that Attorney John A. Kenneff, Esquire, directed a letter dated February 23,1999 to Defendants. The February 23, 1999 letter is a document which speaks for itself, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied. Upon receipt of -9- . ' said letter, Defendant, Tod Edwards, contacted Attorney Kenneff's office but was unable to speak with Attorney Kenneff. 36.(sic) Denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendant, Tod Edwards directed a letter dated March 3,1999 to Plaintiff; a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "F" to Plaintiff's Complaint. The March 3, 1999 letter is a document which speaks for itself, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied. c 37. Denied. The March 3, 1999 letter sent by Defendant, Tod Edwards, to Plaintiff, MPJ, set forth an itemization of the defIcient and incomplete workmanship of Plaintiff and refused to approve release or payment of $13,946.00 demanded by l\1PJ until the items of defIcient and incomplete workmanship were corrected. The estimated cost of remedying the "punch list" items and the flooring deflection exceeds the amount claimed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has refused to complete or remedy the "punch list" items. The March 3, 1999 letter and "punch list" are incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 38. Denied. It is denied that Weaver tried to arrange meetings with Defendants hut that Defendants would not make themselves available. To the contrary, Defendants, Edwards, tried on several occasions to schedule an inspection of the property with Weaver but Weaver declined to - meet with Defendants on the dates proposed. 39. Denied. It is admitted that Att<?rney John Kenneff; acting on behalf of Plaintiff, MP J, directed a letter to Defendants, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "G" to Plaintiff's Complaint. The March 31, 1999 letter is a document which speaks for itself, any characterii.ation thereof by - 10- .' Plaintiff being expressly denied. It is denied that Attorney Kennefrs letter offered an acceptable solution to the dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants. 40. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants, Edwards, refused to release the sum of $5,946.00 to l\1PJ or to place the balance claimed in escrow as said monies were not properly due and owing to Plaintiff. It is further admitted that Defendants did not agree to allow l\1P J to cut open the fIrst floor ceiling to examine the second floor subfloor support as MP J r", refused to provide adequate assurance that it would properly repair the flooring and assume responsibility for any collateral damage associated with the inspection and repair of the deflection in the flooring/ceiling. 41. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants, Edwards, received a letter dated May II, 1999, from Plaintiff's counsel. The May 11, 19991etter is a document which speaks for itself, any characterization thereof by Plaintiff being expressly denied. It is denied that Plaintiff, MPJ, was willing or capable of properly correcting the deflection condition in the second floor master bathroom floor and the family room ceiling. 42. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendants gave l\1PJ permission to enter the property to conduct an inspection on or about June 28, 1999. It is denied that Defendants would ouli allow "a very cursory inspection of the property" as MPJ was permitted to make a full and complete inspection and, in fact, was accompanied by ~ engineer. 43. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that an engineer, believed to be Francis R. Stems, was present with Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, during the June 28, 1999 - 11 - " .' inspection. At the end ofJuly, 1999, Defendants were provided with a copy of a report purportedly prepared by Mr. Sterns. It is denied that "the floor deflection was not exceptional" and "did not represent a structural concern" as there was a very visible area of deflection in the second floor master bathroom floor and the family room ceiling. It is denied that the proposal made by Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, was a suitable or adequate solution for the problems noted by Defendants' engineering expert, Miller. ( \ 44. Denied. Defendants, Edwards, deny receiving or seeing a letter dated August 10, 1999 from Plaintiffl\1PJ which is attached as Exhibit "J" to Plaintiff's Complaint. 45. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff, MPJ;has repeatedly tried to secure Edwards' permission to enter the property, open the fIrst floor ceiling and determine the cause of the claimed sagging of the second floor. To the contrary, Defendants, Edwards, have had no contact with Plaintiff, MPJ, since the transmittal of the letter dated August 3, 1999. 46. Denied. It is denied.that Defendants, Edwards, to date have failed to answer Plaintiff's <;, requests for an opportunity to determine the cause of the problem and to :frx it. To the contrary, Defendants have offered Plaintiff, l\1PJ, reasonable and full opportunity to remedy the defective and defIcient workmanship but Plaintiff, l\1PJ, has.not demonstrated a willingness or ability to properly do so. It is further averred that Defendants have secured an estimate for the cost of remedying and correcting Plaintiff's defIcient workmanship In the second story flooring and subfloor support, at a cost of $16,050.00, which sum exceeds the balance claimed by Plaintiff. A true and correct copy -12 - ... .. , , of the proposal ofTPM Construction dated January 28, 2000, is attached hereto as Exhibit "AU and made a part hereof. - ~'..- 47. Denied. It is denied that Defendants, Edwards, have failed to afford Plaintiff, l\1PJ, a reasonable opportunity to address "the problem" attributable to Plaintiff's negligent and defIcient workmanship and that Defendants are using the sagging floor as an excUSe to retain the remaining $13,946.00 owed to MFJ. Defendants incorporate their response to Paragraph 46 above by way of further response to the averments of Paragraph 47. COUNT I (Breach of Contract) 48. Defendants, Edwards, hereby incorporate by reference their responses to the averments of Paragraphs I through 47 above as though more fully set forth herein. 49. Denied. It is denied that l\1PJ fulfIlled all of its obligations under its contract with Edwards and is entitled to the $13,946.00 owed on the contract. To the contrary, Plaintiff performed its work in a negligent, defIcient and unworkmanlike manner which resulted in signifIcant deflection and sagging of the second floor master bathroom floor and fam,ily room ceiling. The fair and - reasonable cost of correcting and completing Plaintiff's defIcient workmanship, including completion of the "punch list" items, is in ~e amount of $19,190.00, which amount exceeds the amount claimed by Plaintiff. -13 - " .' .. , , 50. Denied. It is denied that Defendants, Edwards, have breached their contract with Plaintiff by failing to tender the remaining $13,946.00 claimed by l\1PJ. To the contrary, Plaintiff, MPJ has breached its contract with Defendants in that it failed to timely complete its work in a proper and workmanlike manner according to standard practices, failed to adequately supervise and control the work performed by suhcontractors, and engaged subcontractors who were not qualifIed to perform the work assigned to them by Plaintiff under the contract, and utilized materials that were inadequate or substandard for the proper support of the second story floor. 51. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 51 constitute a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. If, however, they be deemed averments of fact, the same are expressly denied. 52. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 51 constitute a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. If, however, they be deemed averments of fact, the same are expressly denied. It is denied that Defendants expressly agreed to pay MPJ "costs plus reasonable attorneys fees in case of suit for collection." WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demandjudgment in their favor on Plaintiff's Complaint, together with costs of this proceeding. COUNT II (Quantum Meruit) - 14- " .' . , 53. Defendants, Edwards, hereby incorporate by reference their responses to the averments of Paragraphs I tlu-ough 52 above as though more fully set forth herein. 54. Denied. It is denied that the work performed by Plaintiff, l\1PJ, in the construction of the two-story addition to Defendants' home has a reasonable value of $74,238.55, inclusive of the cost of change orders approved by Defendants. To the contrary, Defendants have been deprived of a substantial value of the two-story addition due to the incomplete, negligent and deficient <" workmanship and materials furnished by Plaintiff, l\1PJ, and subcontractors engaged by it. 55. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants, Edwards, have paid Plaintiff, l\1PJ, the sum of $60,292.02. It is denied that Plaintift~ MPJ, has been underpaid in the amount of$13,946.53 or that Plaintiff is entitled to the payments that it has received or any further payment as Defendants will incur costs exceeding the balance claimed by Plaintiff to be owing under the contract in order to properly correct, remedy and complete the defIcient workmanship by Plaintiff, l\1PJ and the subcontractors engaged by it, as more fully set forth in Defendants' Counterclaim hereinbelow. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment in their favor on Plaintiff's Complaint together with costs of this proceeding. COUNT ill (Unjust Enrichment) - 15 - " " 56. Defendants, Edwards, hereby incorporate by reference their responses to the averments of Paragraphs I through 55 above as though more fully set forth herein. 57. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff, l\1PJ, constructed a two-story addition to the Edwards' home with a value of $74,238.55. To. the contrary, Defendants have been deprived of substantial value of the two story addition due to the incomplete, substandard, negligent and defIcient workmanship and materials furnished by Plain1:iff; l\1PJ, and subcontractors engaged by it. ( 58. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants, Edwards, have pmd MPJ the sum of $60,292.02. It is denied that Plaintiffs, MPJ, is entitled to the payinents it has received or any further payment as Defendants will incur costs exceeding the balance claimed by Plaintiff to be owing under the contract in o.rder to properly correct, remedy and co.mplete the defIcient workmanship by Plain1:iff; l\1PJ and subcontractors engaged by it as more fully set forth in Defendants' Counterclaim hereinbelow. 59. The averments of Paragraph 59 state a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. If, however, they be deemed averments offact, the same are expressly denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment in their favor on Plaintiff's Complaint together with costs of this proceeding. - 16- r' \ ( ...~ ,,' " " NEW MATTER 60. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendants upon which relief can be granted. 61. Plaintiffs claim is barred by Plaintiffs own breach of its duties and responsibilities under its Contract with Defendants. 62. Plaintiff s claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. 63. Plaintiff, l\1PJ, and particularly Plaintiffs President and Owner, Mark Weaver, represented to Defendants that it was qualified to design and construct a two-story addition to the Edwards' existing home and that said work would be performed in a workmanlike manner and would be of good quality. 64. In reliance upon the aforesaid representations by Plaintiff, Defendants, Edwards, entered into an agreement with Plaintiff for the construction of the two story addition to their existing home, with a construction completion date of on or before July 1, 1998. 65. Defendants, Edwards, encountered numerous delays in the performance of the work by Plaintiff, MPJ, such that work on the project was not completed by MPJ until late November, 1998. 66. The agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants expressly provided that all work was to be completed in a workmanlike manner a<?cording to standard practices and that all material is guaranteed to be as specifIed. - 17- ,. " I I I 67. Prior to execution oftbe Proposal and Specifications between Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants informed Plaintiff, MPJ, of their desire to utilize glass block for the shower enclosure in the second floor master bathroom. 68. Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, informed Defendants that l\1PJ did not install glass block and that Defendants would need to engage another contractor to perform that work. 69. Prior to execution of the agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants, and prior to (-- commencement of construction by Plaintiff, Defendants informed MPJ of their selection-of Cornerstone Glass Block Company ("Cornerstone") to perform the installation of the glass block for tbe shower enclosure. 70. Plaintiff's representative, Weaver, prepared design drawings for the location oftbe glass block shower enclosure and revised the drawings to change the confIguration from a curve to a right angle which revision resulted in tbe reduction of the linear feet of glass block required for the enclosure and a corresponding reduction in the weight of the glass block enclosure. 71. At no time prior to execution of the Contract or during construction did Plaintiff, l\1PJ, inform Defendants of any concern regarding the structural integrity of the second story subfloor support or its adequacy to support the weight of the glass block shower enclosure. 72. The :frame of the two story addition and particularly the support beams for the second story floor were left uncovered and exposed to ~e weather and other elements for an extended period of time between the months of April and May, 1998, during which time there was an extensive amount of rainfalL - 18 - ,- " 73. In approximately August, 1998, a dispute arose between Plaintiff, l\1P J, and its tile subcontractor whereupon the tile subcontractor refused to fmish the job and left the work site. - ':'~- 74. Plaintiff, l\1PJ, constructed the frame and second story subfloor with full knowledge and awareness that sufficient structural support was required to support the weight of the glass block shower enclosure. 75. Following completion of the work by Plaintiff, MPJ, Defendants became aware of an (- area of signifIcant sagging or deflection in the second story master bathroom floor and a corresponding deflecting in the ceiling of the family room immediately underneath. 76. Defendants, Edwards, promptly demanded that Plaintiff, l\1PJ, determine the cause of the deflection and undertake proper and adequate corrective action, including but not limited to obtaining an analysis of the deflection condition by a qualifIed engineer. 77. Despite Defendants' repeated complaints, Plaintiff, MPJ, has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the severity of the defIciencies in its workmanship and to undertake appropriate remedial action. 78. As a direct result of Plaintiff's failure to engage an engineer to analyze the cause of the signifIcant deflection in the second story floor, Defendants were required to incur the expense of engaging an independent engineer, W.S. Miller, IV, P.E., to examine the subfloor to determine the cause of the deflection and the appropriate. remedial measures to correct the deflection, which evaluation was performed at a cost of $250.00. - 19- ," " 79. The structural engineer, Miller, observed ". . . floor sagging or low spots of approximately Yo to 3/4 of an inch were present in the quarry tile floor finish of the Master Bedroom. The worst of the sagging was in the central Hallway between the Powder Room and the Walk-in- Closet, the extension of that Hallway to the immediate left of the shower enclosure, and in the floor area to the immediate front of the shower area." Miller has determined that overstress conditions exist in the 2xl 0 second floor joists at the ends of the master bathroom. (See Millerreport attached as Exhibit C-2 of Plaintiff's Complaint and incorporated herein by reference.) 80. The fair and reasonable cost of correcting Plaintiff's defIcient worJun.anship is in the amount of$16,050.00, which amount exceeds the balance claimed to be due by Plaintiff under its agreement with Defendants. COUNTERCLAIM COUNT I (Breach of Contract) 81. The averments of paragraphs 63 through 80 above are incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 82. Plaintiff, l\1PJ, is in breach of its contract with Defendants in that it has failed to timely' complete its work in a proper and workmanlike manner according to standard practices and has failed to use material guaranteed as specifIed: 83. Plaintiff, l\1PJ, has breached its contract with Defendants in that it; - 20- ," / (a) it constructed a two story addition with a substantial deflection or sagging in the second story mast bathroom floor and a corresponding deflection in the first floor family room ceiling; (b) it constructed flooring and a subfloor support for the master bathroom that was uneven and resulted insubstantial floor deflection; (c) it failed to perform and complete its work in a proper and workmanlike manner according to standard practices; (d) utilized lumber of insufficient grade and/or size to support the expected load of the second story improvements; (e) failed to properly design and construct the second story floor; (f) it failed to properly supervise and control the work performed by subcontractors engaged by it; (g) it failed to engage competent and qualifIed subcontractors to perform the work assigned to them; (h) it failed to complete its work in a timely manner; __-i.-'.'>_~..____~. (i) it failed to utilize materials that were guaranteed as specified; and G) it allowed portions of the frame and subfloor support system to be unduly exposed to the weather and other elements resulting in damage to said components of the str<lCture and a corresponding loss of structural integrity. - 21 - ,~ t 84. As a direct result of Plaintiffs breach ofits Contract, Defendants have been required to engage the services of a structural engineer to analyze the cause of the deflection condition in the second story master bathroom floor and to engage a contractor to perform the work required to correct the defIcient condition, including completion of the "punch list" items, at a total cost of $19,440.00. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment ( against Plaintiff, l\1PJ Construction, Inc., in the amount of$19,440.00, together with prejudgment interest at the legal rate and costs of this proceeding. COUNT II (Negligence) 85. The averments of paragraphs 63 through 80 above are incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 86. Plaintiff, l\1PJ, was negligent in the performance of its work under its agreement with Defendants in that: (a) . it constructed a two story addition with a substantial deflection or sagging in the second story mast bathroom floor and a corresponding deflection in the fIrst floor family room ceiling; (h) it constructed flooring' and a subfloor support for the master bathroom that was uneven and resulted in substantial floor deflection; - 22- ,- . , (c) it failed to perform and complete its work in a proper and workmanlike manner according to standard practices; (d) utilized lumber of insufficient grade and/or size to support the expected load of the second story improvements; (e) failed to properly design and construct the second story floor; (f) it failed to properly supervise and control the work performed by /-.,. ( subcontractors engaged by it; (g) it failed to engage competent and qualified subcontractors to perform the work assigned to them; (h) it failed to complete its work in a timely manner; (i) it failed to utilize materials that were guaranteed as specifIed; and G) it allowed portions of the frame and subfloor support system to be unduly exposed to the weather and other elements resulting in damage to said components of the structure and a corresponding loss of structural integrity. 87. As a consequence of the negligence of Plaintiff, l\1PJ, Defendants have incurred damages in the total amount of $19,440.00, for which claim is made herein. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment against Plaintiff, l\1PJ Construction, Inc., in !he aIllount of $19,440.00, together with prejudgment interest at the legal rate and costs ofthis proceeding. - 23- ,- .' COUNT III (Breath of Warranty) "&8,:~ The averments of paragraphs 63 through 80 above are incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 89. Plaintiff, MPJ, expressly warranted that its work and that of subcontractors engaged by l\1PJ, would be performed in a timely, good and workmanlike manner and that all materials were guaranteed to be as specifIed. (-: 90. Plaintiff, l\1PJ, breached its warranty to Defendants in that it: (a) it constructed a two story addition with a substantial deflection or sagging in the second story mast bathroom floor and a corresponding deflection in the fIrSt floor family room ceiling; (b) it constructed flooring and a subfloor support for the master bathroom that was uneven and resulted in substantial floor deflection; (c) it failed to perform and complete its work in a proper and workmanlike manner according to standard practices; (d) . utilized lumber of iIisufficient grade and/or size to support the expected load of the second story improvements; (e) failed to properly design and construct the second story floor; (f) it failed to properly' supervise and control the work performed by subcontractors engaged by it; - 24- r . . (g) it failed to engage competent and qualifIed subcontractors to perform the work assigned to them; (11) it failed to complete its work in a timely manner; (i) it failed to utilize materials that were guaranteed as specified; and G) it allowed portions of the frame and sub floor support system to be unduly exposed to the weather and other elements resulting in damage to said c components of the structure and a corresponding loss of structural integrity. 91. As a consequence of the breach of warranty by Plaintiff, l\1PH, Defendants have incurred damages in the total amount of$19,440.00, for which claim is made herein. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment against Plaintiff, MP J Construction, Inc., in the amount of $19,440.00, together with prejudgment interest at the legal rate and costs of this proceeding. COUNT IV (Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law) , , 92. The averments of paragraphs 63 through 80 above are incorporated by reference as though more fully set forth herein. 93. Defendants are consumers within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. S 201-1, et seq. - 25- r 94. The improvements constructed by Plaintiff, MPJ, for the two story addition to Defendants' residence are incomplete and inferior in quality in that there is a substantial deflection in the master bathroom floor and family room ceiling. 95. The workmanship of Plaintiff, l\1PJ, is substandard and inferior in that: (a) the subfloor structural support is inadequate to support the weight of the second floor improvements; ( (b) the master bathroom flooring is uneven and has an approximately two inch sagging or deflection condition; ( c) there is a lack of structural integrity in the second story floor and subfloor due to either substandard workmanship or inferior materials, or both. 96. Plaintiff, l\1PJ, misrepresented the quality of its workmanship and the materials it used in the construction of Defendants' two story addition in violation of g2(4)(vii) and (xvi) of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Conswner Protection Law ("PaUTPCPL"), 73 P .S. g 201- 2(4)(vii) and (xvi), for which damages are claimed. 97. Defendants are entitled to statutory damages and reasonable attorneys fees and costs for Plaintiff's wilful violation of the PaUTPCPL, pursuant to 73 P.S. g 201-9.2. -26 - r . . " WHEREFORE, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, his wife, demand judgment against Plaintiff, l\1PJ Construction, Inc., in the amount of$19,440.00, or such amount as the Court shall deem appropriate, together with reasonable attorneys fees and costs of this proceeding. NAUMAN, SMITH, smSSLER & HALL, LLP (.. >---..J-- . Steph6n Feinour, Esquire Supreme Court ill #24580 Date: 2(1'1'/8.(;<) 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor P. O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Attorneys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards -27 - t "., VERIFICATION . - We, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards, the undersigned do hereby state that the statements set forth in the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Mattcr and Counterclaim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. ~4904 relating to unsworn fal . authorities. ( Date: 2/14/00 \. ~' -28.: - , T. P M Construction , 1~1 N Sadsbury Court Gap, PA 17527 (610) 593-6024 To; Tod Edwards 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 .. ' .Proposal , Proposal NO: DATE: January 28, 2000 SALESPERSON JOB NUMBER DATE ACCEPTED TERMS Tom Martin I ( DESCRIPTION MATERIALS AMOUNT Due to the presence of the second floor, floor finishes and the first floor ceiling finishes, the second floor framing could not be directly viewed. Possibility of further work could be incurred dependent on findings after removal of first floor ceiling and second floor finish. This proposal is contingent upon what the necessary steps are to correct at my visual observation. Remove existing drywall from first floor ceiling (labor) to expose existing floor structure for Master BedroomlBathlCloset Replace with new 518" drywall I nslall steel plates on both sides of walls to jack up existing floor until deflection is corrected and floor is level. I nstall a L VL Beam or steel beam to support existing floor , , - Remove existing tile, wonderboard and concrete backerboard from second floor bathroom. Remove existing cabinets, toilets and repair plumbing due to removal of tile . Remove existing glass tile due to correction of floor (labor only) Replace glass block around shower Replace with new 2" x 2" ceramic tile and J2" x 12" ceramic tile ? \ 1~8 \00 - If you have any questions concerning this proposal, call: Tom Martin (610) 593-6024 i $600.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,300.00 $450.00 $1,200.00 $2500.00 $4,000.00 SUBTOTAL $16,050.00 Proposed Amount $16,050.00 EXHIBIT A 1 -. r . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE t\NJ) NOW, this 14th day of February, 2000, I, J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire, of the fIrm of NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel of record as follows: /- , William L. Myers, Jr., Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP -\ c.. .., ,I . Stephen Feinour, Esquire DAVIS & MYERS By: William L. Myers, Jr., Esquire Pa. LD. No. 38702 Suite 2330 1601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215),564-6262 Attorneys for Plaintiff l\1P J Construction, Inc. l\1PJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. 5147 Ore Bank Road East York, PA 17460, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CAMBRIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION v. ( " TOD and SHERI EDWARDS 331 Willow Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. ; NO. 2000-33 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES . AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS ADDRESSED TO DEFENDANTS TOD AND SHERI EDWARDS Plaintiff l\1PJ Construction Company ("MPJ"), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby serve these interrogatories and document requests on defendants Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards. Plaintiffs request defendants to answer these discovery requests and to produce the documents requested herein within thirty (30) days of service hereof under oath and in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the Definitions and Instructions contained herein, at the offices of DAVIS & MYERS, Suite 2330, 1601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. :: DE~TIONSANDINSTRUCTIONS 1. "You" and "your" refer to defendants Tod and Sheri Edwards and to ail agents, attomeys and representatives thereof. - ~.-2. "Person" means all individuals and entities, including, but not limited to, individuals, corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, associations and proprietorships. 3. . "Document" or "documents" includes all forms of retrievable data, whether written, printed, typed, taped or videotaped, photocopied or coded digitally, electrostatically or eleetromagnetically, wherever located, including the originals and all non-identical copies, whether different from originals by reason of any notations made on such copies or otherwise, including, but not limited to, letters, E-Mails, telecopies, construction estimates, instructions, invoices, purchase orders, guidelines, directives, standards, manuals, contracts, agreements, partnership agreements, insurance policies, newsletters, newspaper articles, magazine articles, press releases, advertisements, envelopes, telegrams, teletypes, interoffice communications, forms, slips, memoranda, reports, records, specifIcations, notes, notebooks, diaries, calendars, logs, ledgers, accounting books, invoices, minutes of meetings, logs of meetings, plans, photocopies, graphs, descriptions, photographs, motion pictures, videotapes, slides, reeordings; publications, transcripts, notes and/or memoranda of telephone conversations and telephone logs. 4. A13 used herein, "or" incluaes "and" and vice versa (i.e., "and/or"). 5. Whenever a request uses the singular form, it also means the plural form, and vice versa. 6. As used herein, "he" includes "she" and "his" includes "hers," and vice versa. 7. "Identity" or "identity," when used in reference to any individual person, melJIl!l.lo state his full name and present or last known business and home address, and his present or last known position and business affiliation, unless otherwise indicated. 8. "Identity" or "identity," when used in reference to a business firm or entity, means to state its full name, principal place of business and address. 9. "Identity" or "identity," when used in reference to a document or written communication, means to state the date on which it was authored or originated, the identity of its author or originator, the identity of each person to whom the original or a copy was addressed or delivered or who otherwise received the original or a copy of the document, the nature of the document (e.g., letter or memorandum), the title or description of the general nature or subject matter of the document, and the identity of the person having possession, custody or control of the document. 10. To the extent that information sought by any interrogatory or document request can be furnished by reference to the answer furnished to another interrogatory or document request, such practice will be acceptable. Separate answers, however, should be accorded for each interrogatory and document request and section thereof, and interrogatories and document requests should not be joined together and accorded common answers. 11. Where exact data or dates cannot be furnished, estimated data or dates should be supplied to the extent possible. Where estimated data or dates are used, it should be so stated. 12. If a privilege or the work product doctrine is asserted in respect of a document or oral communication: (a) Identif'y the document or oral communication; (b) Identify the interrogatory or document request to which the document or communication is responsive; (c) State the purpose for which the document or communication was authored or made; and (d) Explain the basis for the immunity or privilege claimed. 13. To the extent that you presently do not have knowledge of all facts, documents, witnesses or other infurmation called for by any of these interrogatories or document requests, so state, and provide or identify such facts, documents, witnesses, or other information as are presently known by you. Answers to the effect that discovery is continuing and that information will be provided in the future, without any other responsive information, will be taken to mean that you presently have no knowledge of any facts, documents, witnesses or other information responsive to the interrogatory or document request. 14. If you object to only part of an interrogatory or document request, identify the part to which you object and provide the information or documents requested by the remainder of the interrogatory or document request. 15. These interrogatories and document requests are continuing. Any information secured subsequent to the serving of your responses, which supplements those responses and would have been included had it been known or available, is to be supplied promptly by supplemental answers or submissions. (\ , . ( INTERROGATORIES 1. Please state Mr. Edwards full name, age, date of birth and social se;curity number. ANSWER: 2. Please state Mrs. Edwards full name, age, date of birth and social security number. ANSWER: 3. Please identifY Mr. Edwards' present employer, state the address where Mr. Edwards works and state his job title and describe his duties. ANSWER: ,. \ 4. Please identifY Mrs. Edwards' present employer, state the address where Mrs. Edwards works and state her job title and describe her duties. ANSWER: 5. Describe in detail Mr. Edwards' education, including where and when he graduated from high school and the nature of any college education, including where and when he attended college, whether he graduated and, if so, what degrees he received, . _ ":,'r- ANSWER: ( 6. Describe in detail Mrs. Edwards' education, including where and when she graduated from high school and the nature of any college education, including where and when she attended college, whether he graduated and, if so, what degrees she received. ANSWER: 7. Describe in detail Mr. Edwards' employment history, including, with respect to each full-time position he held since graduating from high-school: The identif'y of the employer; Mr. Edwards' job title and duties; and the period during which Mr. B!iwards held the position. ANSWER: 8. Describe in detail Mrs. Edwards' employment history, including, with respect to each full-time position she held since graduating from high-schoo!; The identif'y of the employer; Mrs. Edwards' job title and duties; and the period during which Mrs. Edwards held the position. ANSWER: 9. State when Mr. and Mrs. Edwards fIrst decided to add an addition (the "Addition'') to their residence at residence at 331 Willow Avenue, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania (The "Residence'') and describe in detail what additional rooms they decided among themselves to include in the addition. ANSWER: 10. State whether Mr. and Mrs. Edwards spoke with or obtained estimates for the Addition from any contractors other than l\1PJ. If so, identify by name and address each such contractor, and identify the employee or agent of the contractor with who.:m Mr. or Mrs. Edwards spoke. ANSWER: ( 11. If Mr. and Mrs. Edwards spoke with or obtained estimates for the addition from any contractors other than l\1PJ, identify and produce all documents exchanged between the Edwards and the contractor. ANSWER: 12. State when it was that Mr. and/or Mrs. Edwards (the "Edwards") first decided to use glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower. ANSWER: , \ 13. State when it was that Mr. and Mrs. Edwards fIrSt communicated to l\1PJ their desire to use glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower, and identifY how the Edwards communicated this decision to MPJ (i.e., by letter, phone, face-to-face meeting, etc.) ANSWER: 14. After the fIrst time Mr. or Mrs. Edwards communicated to l\1PJ their desire to use glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower, state the date of each subsequent instance where Mr. and Mrs. Edwards communicated to l\1PJ regarding . - ~''- the use glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower, and identify the nature of the communication (i.e., by letter, phone, face-to-face meeting, etc.) ANSWER: ( IS. Identify and produce each and every document exchanged between the Edwards and l\1PJ evidencing, referring or relating to the to use of glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower. ANSWER: i- \ 16. State when it was that Mr. and Mrs. Edwards fIrst communicated to Cornerstone Glass Block Company ("Cornerstone") their desire to use glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower, and identity how the Edwards communicated this decision to Cornerstone (i.e., by letter, phone, face-to-face meeting, etc.). ANSWER: 17. After the fIrst time Mr. or Mrs. Edwards communicated to Comerstone their desire to use glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower, state the date of each subsequent instance where Mr. and Mrs. Edwards communicated to Cornerstone regarding the use of glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower, and state the nature of the communication (i.e., by letter, phone, face-to-face meeting, etc.) ANSWER: 18. State the date on which Mr. and Mrs. Edwards hired Cornerstone to provide and install the glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower, and identifY and produce all Purchase Orders or other documents pursuant to which the Edwa;rds so hired Cornerstone. ANSWER: 19. IdentifY and produce each and every document exchanged between the Edwards and Cornerstone evidencing, referring or relating to the use glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower. ANSWER: 20. Identify all companies other than Cornerstone with whom the Edwards communicated regarding the use of glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower, state the date of each communication, the nature of each communication (e.g., phone call, letter, face-to-face meeting), and identify and produce each and every document constituting, evidencing, referring or relating to the communication. ANSWER: c 21. Identify and produce all documents exchanged between Cornerstone and WJ concerning the use of glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower. ANSWER: { , '>; 22. State the dates(s) on which Cornerstone installed. the glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower. ANSWER: ( 23. How much did Mr. and Mrs. Edwards agree to pay to Cornerstone for providing and installing the glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower. ANSWER: 24. How much did Mr. and Mrs. Edwards actually pay to Cornerstone for providing and installing the glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower. If your answer is different from your answer to the previous interrogatory, state why the two amounts differ. ANSWER: 25. Identify all Invoices and other documents pursuant to which Cornerstone billed Mr. and Mrs. Edwards for the glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower. A..l'I!SWER: 26. Produce copies of all cancelled checks evidencing the Edwards' payments to Cornerstone for the glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower. ANSWER: 27. State how Mr. and Mrs. Edwards learned about Cornerstone (i.e., they had hired Comerstone before, saw yellow pages add, were given the name from a friend, etc.) ANSWER: 28. State where Mr. and Mrs. Edwards obtained the money to pay for the Addition. If the Edwards used, in whole or part, a loan, state; (a) The institution which gave the Edwards the loan; (b) The initial amount of the loan; (c) The total amount of the loan; (d) All terms (interest rate, duration, etc.) of the loan (e) The date and amount of each and every payment made by the Edwards on the loan; (f) The amount of any current outstanding balance. 29. Identif'y all documents evidencing, referring or relating to any loans taken out by Mr. or Mrs. Edwards to help pay for the Addition, any payments by the Edwards on that loan, and any use by the Edwards of the loan moneys. ANSWER: ( \ 30. If the Edwards took out a loan to payor to help pay for the Addition, and used some of the loan moneys for things other than the Addition, identify each thing or activity the Edwards used loan money for, state the amount of the loan money so used, and identify all documents evidencing, referring or relating to said use of the loan money. ANSWER: 31. Did Mr. and Mrs. Edwards claim all interest payments made on the loan as a deduction on their federal tax returns? If not, how much of the interest payments did Mr. and Mrs. Edwards deduct? ANSWER: ~..- i \. 32. Did Mr. or Mrs. Edwards invest any of the loan moneys in stocks, bonds, money-market funds, interest-bearing savings or other accounts or in any other money- earning ways? If so, identify each and every such use of the loan moneys and identify each and every document evidencing, bearing on or relating to the same. ANSWER: 33. State when it was that Mr. and Mrs. Edwards first noticed sagging in the floor ofthe Addition's master bathroom shower. ANSWER: " - ",,''- 34. State when it was that Mr. and Mrs. Edwards first communicated with MPJ concerning sagging in the floor of the Addition's master bathroom shower, and identify how the Edwards communicated this to MPJ (i.e., by letter, phone, face-to-face meeting, etc.). ANSWER: 35. After the first time Mr. or Mrs. Edwards communicated to MPJ about sagging in the floor of their desire to use glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower, state the date of each subsequent instance where Mr. and Mrs. Edwards communicated to MPJ regarding sagging in the floor of the Addition's master bathroom shower, and state the nature of the communication (i.e., by letter, phone, face-to-face meeting, etc.) ANSWER: ( 36. Identify and produce all documents exchanged between the Edwards and MPJ concerning sagging in the floor of the master bathroom shower. ANSWER: 37. State whether the Edwards communicated with Cornerstone about sagging in the floor of the Addition's master bathroom shower. If so, state the date and nature of each such communication. ANSWER: 38. Identify and produce all documents exchanged between the Edwards and Cornerstone referencing sagging in the floor of the Addition's master bathroom shower. ANSWER: 39. State whether the Edwards communicated with any person or company other than Cornerstone and MPJ about sagging in the floor of the Addition's master bathroom shower. If so, state the date and nature of each such communication. ANSWER: 40. Identify and produce all documents exchanged between the Edwards and any person or company other than Cornerstone and MPJ referencing sagging in the floor of the Addition's master bathroom shower. ANSWER: 41. State when the Edwards first contacted engineer W.B. Miller about the Addition, state the nature of the communication (e.g., phone call, letter, meeting, etc.), and describe the substance of the communication. ANSWER: ( " 42. After the first time the Edwards contacted engineer W.B. Miller, state the date of all subsequent communications between the Edwards and Mr. Miller, state the nature of the communication (e.g., phone call, letter, meeting, etc.), and describe the substance of the communication. A..~SWER: (-.'\, , , 43. Identify and produce all documents exchanged between the Edwards and engineer W.B. Miller regarding the Addition. ANSWER: 44. State how Mr. and Mrs. Edwards first learned about engineer W.B. Miller (e.g., from phone book, referred by a friend, neighbor and/or attorney, etc.) ANSWER: 45. State when Mr. and Mrs. Edwards first provided MPJ with a copy of engineer Miller's December 1998 report and state how the report was conveyed (e.g., by letter, fax, in person, etc.). Ifthe Edwards conveyed Mr. Millers' report to WJ by letter, fax or, other cover document, identify and produce the document. ANSWER: 46. Identify the source of the Edward's initial claim that they had received an estimate of $8,000 to address the floor issues in the Addition, and identify and produce. all documents evidencing, referring or relating to that estimate. ANSWER: 47. With regard to your opening of the ceiling below the Addition's master bathroom prior to the site inspection: (a) (b) (c) State the date and time when the ceiling was opened; Identif'y all persons present when the ceiling was opened; and Identify the person who actually opened the ceiling, and Describe that person's relationship to Mr. and Mrs. Edwards. ANSWER: DOCUMENT REQUESTS 1. _ ,....2. Produce all documents called for in the preceding interrogatories. Produce all documents identified in answer to the preceding ( interrogatories. 3. Produce all documents on which you base your answers to the preceding interrogatories. 4. Produce all photographs and videotapes of the Addition, including work- in-progress photographs and videotapes as well as photographs and videotapes taken after MPJ stopped work on the Addition. 5. Produce all estimates and other documents exchanged between the Edwards and any contractor other than WJ with whom the Edwards communicated regarding an addition at the Edwards' Residence. 6. Produce all documents exchanged between the Edwards and WJ concerning the use of glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower. 7. Produce all documents exchanged between the Edwards and Cornerstone concerning the use of glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower. 8. Produce all documents exchanged between the Edwards and all persons and companies other than MPJ and Cornerstone concerning the use of glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower. 9. Produce all documents exchanged between WJ and Cornerstone concerning the use of glass block for the Addition's master bathroom shower.. 10. Produce all purchase orders and invoices between the Edwards and Cornerstone for glass block and glass block installation for the Addition's master bathroom shower. . _ ,,11. Produce all cancelled checks and other documents showing payments by ( the Edwards to Cornerstone. 12. Produce all documents showing outstanding balances allegedly owed by the Edwards to Cornerstone. 13. Produce all cancelled checks and other documents showing payments by the Edwards to :MPJ. 14. Produce all documents relating to any loans taken out by the Edwards to pay for, or help pay for, the Addition. 15. Produce all documents evidencing payments by the Edwards on any loans taken out by them to pay for, or help pay for the Addition ("Addition Loans). 16. Produce all documents evidencing outstanding balances on Addition Loans. 17. Produce all documents evidencing the Edwards use of Addition Loan money other than to pay for the addition, or their investment of Addition Loan money. 18. Produce all documents exchanged between the Edwards and MPJ concerning alleged sagging in the flooring of the Addition. 19. Produce all documents exchanged between the Edwards and Cornerstone concerning alleged sagging in the flooring of the Addition. 20. Produce all documents exchanged between the Edwards and all persons or companies other than :MPJ and Cornerstone concerning alleged sagging in the flooring of the Addition. _ ,21. 22. Produce all documents exchanged between the Edwards and W.B. Miller. Produce all documents evidencing payment by the Edwards and/or their representatives to W.B. Miller. 23. Produce all documents concerning of your opening of the ceiling below the Addition's master bathroom prior to the site inspection. 24. Produce Mr. and Mrs. Edward's federal tax returns for the years 1998 and 1999. DAVIS & MYERS BY: Williarn L. Myers, Jr., Esquire MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA vs. NO. 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW ('~: \... )oJ (") 0 ~ a ""'O("1J C nlfTf :''''' Z:u -"- DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S t; I:.~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ~6 f'V "j;i; ~ (") :;1." :.:, Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards (hereinafter "Edwards"), by ancPtjJUglt;thei?2 ~ ::<! w s:; counsel, Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP, hereby make objection to the Request for Prod~tion< o 'n ':;-:1 of Plaintiff directed to Defendant as follows: 1. Defendants incorporate their objections to Plainti:ffs Interrogatories by reference thereto as though more fully set forth herein. 2. Defendants incorporate their objections to Plaintiff s Interrogatories by reference thereto as though more fully set forth herein. __0. 3. Defendants incorporate their objections to Plaintiffs Interrogatories by reference thereto \.,' as though more fully set forth herein. 5. Objection. Request for Production No.5 is objected to on the basis that it seeks' information which is irrelevant, immaterial and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P.4003.1. 8. Objection. Request for Production No.8 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and which is not reasonabl~Y~~\~ ~n~p~e , J JUN 1 5 2000 \0 '. . , \ , -., tjP discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P.4003.1. -1'4. Objection. Request for Production No. 14 is objected to as being vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiffs claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. ( , 15. Objection. Request for Production No. 15 is objected to as being vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiffs claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. 16. Objection. Request for Production No. 16 is objected to as being vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiffs claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. 17. Objection. Request for Production No. 17 is objected to as being vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiffs claim and which is not. reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. Without waiving said objections, Defendants will identify the principle documents for their construction loan with Keystone Financial Mortgage Company, the loan payment history and the disposition of the loan proceeds. -2- ( 21. Objection. Request for Production No. 21 is objected to on the basis that it seeks protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an exp~rt witness which IS"beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa.R.C.P.4003.5. Without waiving said objection, Defendants wiU provide Plaintiff with such information as is discoverable under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5 with respect to any expert witness who is expected to testify at trial. 22. Objection. Request for Production No. 22 is objected to on the basis that it seeks protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa.R.C.P.4003.5. Without waiving said objection, Defendants wiU provide Plaintiff with such information as is discoverable under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5 with respect to any expert witness who is expected to testify at trial. 24. Objection. Request for Production No. 24 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is confidential and privileged, which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff's claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. Without waiving said. - 3 - ("'i ~ objection, Defendants will provide Plaintiff with such information as is discoverable under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5 with respect to any expert witness who is expected to testify at trial. NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP o~~L ~. .^~V-" J. St en Fernour, EsqUIre Supreme Court ID #24580 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor P. O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Datetf"'/L<: 12..,2..<JVD Attorneys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards -4- ('" - , . \ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -A;J:::!P NOW, this 12th day of June, 2000, I, J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire, of the firm of NAUMAN, SMITH, smSSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Request for Production by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel of record as follows: William L. Myers, Jr., Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP -5- MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA . - ,,- vs. NO. 2000-33 Civil Term TOD EDWARDS and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants (") r~ ~ c::: S? -0 ffi :. '1 2fT. ~ --JiL 0~' r-.=- :-;;2:1 "-#_, c-. I ~~ ~ '.~~? ZL. _.... I .___1 ",",0 ';,co ~c- ,. J :_",n-.. Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards (hereinafter "Edwards"), by and tl:m:lUgniheit::i. '. =< f;. ~ counsel, Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP, hereby make objection to the Interrogatories of CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ---"" ( , Plaintiff directed to Defendant as follows: Objection to Plaintiff's Definitions and Instrnctions Sections Defendants object to the definitions and instructions sections of Plaintiff s Interrogatories and Request for Production directed them to the extent the definitions section and/or instructions exceeds the scope and parameters of all applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure as well as Cumberland County Local Rules of Court. To the extent the definitions and/or instructions sections of Plaintiffs Interrogatories exceed the aforementioned procedural rules, Defendants' responses to said Interrogatories are only to the extent required by Pennsylvania's Civil Procedure Rules as well as the Cumberland County Rules of Court. 10. Objection. Interrogatory No. 10 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and which is'not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of _ admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted 1!TIder Pa.R.C.P .4003.1. ~~(l;;~n~t7~1n j JUN 15 2000 10 : 8y cJo ___I ("" ( 11. Objection. Interrogatory No. 11 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. 20. Objection. Interrogatory No. 20 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is irrelevant, immaterial and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is outside the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.l. 29. Objection. Interrogatory No. 29 is objected to as being vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is confidential and privileged, which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff's claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. 30. Objection. Interrogatory No. 30 is objected to as being vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is confidential and privileged, which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff s claim and which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. 31. Objection. Interrogatory No. 31 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is confidential and privileged, which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiffs claim, and . which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. 32. Objection. Interrogatory No. 32 is objected to on the basis that it seeks information which is confidential and privileged, which is irrelevant and immaterial to Plaintiff s claim, and -2- ( which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and hence is beyond the scope of discovery permitted under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. 41. Objection. Interrogatory No. 41 is objected to on the basis that it seeks protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5. Without waiving said objection, Defendants will provide Plaintiff with such information as is discoverable under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5 with respect to any expert witness who is expected to test~fy at trial. 42. Objection. Interrogatory No. 42 is objected to on the basis that it seeks protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5. Without waiving said objection, Defendants will provide Plaintiff with such information as is discoverable under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5 with respect to any expert witness who is expected to testify at trial. 43. Objection. Interrogatory No. 43 is objected to on the basis that it seeks protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond' the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5. Without waiving said objection, Defendants will provide Plaintiff with such information as is discoverable under Pa.R.C.P. '!..003.5 with respect to any expert witness who is expected to testify at trial. -3- 44. Objection. Interrogatory No. 44 is objected to on the basis that it seeks protected trial preparation material and information provided to or known by an expert witness which is beyond the scope of trial preparation material and expert testimony discoverable under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5. NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP . Step en Feinour, Esquire Supreme Court ill #24580 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor P. O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 Phone: 717-236-3010 Fax: 717-234-1925 Attorneys for Defendants, Tod Edwards and Sheri Edwards /" <.'" \ Datel"" <' /7.-; 2.CRJD - 4- . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2000, I, J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire, of the firm of NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP, counsel for Defendants, hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the parties or counsel of record as follows: William L. Myers, Jr., Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 NAUMAN, SMITH, SmSSLER & HALL, LLP --;, -5- June 28, 2000 BY MAIL AND TELECOPY TO 717-234-1925 J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL, L.L.P. 18th Floor, 200 N. Third Street P.O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 Re: MPJ Construction v. Edwards Dear Mr. Feinour: In am in receipt of your objections to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Document Requests and send this letter to urge you to reconsider your positions, for the following reasons: InterroQatories 10-11 - Interrogatories 10 and 11 request information concerning your clients' communications with contractors other than MPJ. Your objections on the basis of relevancy and immateriality are patently frivolous; a key issue in this case is whether and when your clients communicated with MPJ their desire to use glass block shower enclosures as opposed to tile. Estimates from other contractors would indicate whether your clients did or did not communicate a desire to use glass block, and whether other contractors included the cost of glass block in their estimate. InterroQatorv 20 - Interrogatory 20 requests information concerning companies other than Cornerstone with whom your clients communicated regarding the use of glass block. Your objection on the grounds of relevance and immateriality is specious. As you know, your client's decision to use glass block is a key issue in this case and communications with glass block companies other than Cornerstone are likely to lead to admissible evidence. J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire June 28, 2000 Page Two Interroqatories 29-30 - Interrogatories 29 and 30 request information pertaining to any loans taken out by your clients to help pay for the addition. Your objections that the Interrogatories are "vague, overbroad, and seeking information which is confidential and privileged, " are facially meritless; the interrogatories are precisely worded and they do not seek any information protected by any recognized confidentially or privilege rule. Additionally, your objections on the basis or relevance and immateriality are baseless. Your clients' intent not to pay MPJ for the addition is a key issue in this case. It is our position that your client did not intend to pay MPJ the full value of the addition, but to use the monies they received to invest and earn profit on. Your clients' use of these monies and the profits your clients made on these monies bear directly on your claims to financial damages. Your client's profit on the use of the loan moneys also bears directly on your clients' claims of damages. Interroaatories 31-32 - These interrogatories, like the previous interrogatories, seek information relating to your client's use and reporting of the loan monies it received for the addition. Again, your objections are specious. Initially, your clients' use of the loan monies, and profiting from that use, bears directly your clients; damages claims. Additionally, if your clients took out a home improvement loan, and used the money for other than home improvement, yet deducted all the interest payments on the Federal Tax Returns, your clients may have engaged in tax fraud, which certainly bears on their honesty or dishonesty in this case. Interroaatories 41-44 - These interrogatories seek information relating to your clients' communications with Engineer Miller, regarding MPJ's construction of the addition. Because your client's personally hired Mr. Miller and communicated with Mr. Miller before your involvement in the case, your objections on the basis that the information is protected as trial preparation material is specious. Document Request 5 - This requests your client to produce all estimates and other documents exchanged between them and any other contractor other than MPJ concerning the addition. For the reasons set forth above in discussing the interrogatories, your objections to this document request are specious. The documents may reveal that your clients did not request the other contractors to use glass block, just as they did not so request MPJ until after the project was started. J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire June 28, 2000 Page Three Document ReQuest 8 - This document request seeks all documents exchanged between your clients and persons other than MPJ and Cornerstone concerning the use of glass block for the additions master bathroom shower. For the reasons stated above, this information is highly relevant to material issues in this case, and your objections to the document requests are specious Document ReQuests 14-17 - These document requests seek information relating to loans taken out by your clients, your clients' use of the loan monies and the outstanding balances on the loan monies. For the reasons set forth above, in respect to the interrogatories, these document requests bear directly on your clients' damages claims and your objections are without merit. Documents ReQuests 21-22 - These document requests seek all documents exchanged between your clients and their Engineer, Mr. Miller. For the reasons set forth above, these documents bear directly on key liability issues in this case and are not protected as trial preparation material inasmuch as they occurred outside of the context of your relationship with the Edwards. ,Document ReQuest 24 - This document requests your clients' federal income tax returns for the years 1998-1999. Your clients' federal tax returns record the loan amounts taken out by your clients, your clients' deduction for those loan amounts, your clients profiting from the investments of those loan amounts, all of which bear directly on your clients' damages claims. I ask you to seriously consider the above and to modify your position to answer the interrogatories and provide the requested documents. Today is Wednesday, June 28, 2000. Unless I hear from you by Wednesday, July 5 that you will answer the interrogatories and produce the requested documents, I shall have no recourse but to file a Motion to Compel with the Court. J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire June 28, 2000 Page Four In your letter to me of June 12, 2000, you stated that you would forward your clients' answers to the interrogatories and documents requests you did not object to "within the next couple of days." It has been over two weeks since that time, and I still do not have your clients' answers. Unless I receive your answers by Wednesday, I must, again, file a Motion to Compel. Sincerely, William L. Myers, Jr. WLM:do cc: Mark Weaver F [J}-UrCE (".: I' :: , ",THi^\',\'J"l"ny .~' ... _ ' , J ,>.,r, 'It'\r\ 00 rn I 0 Pi; 3: 02 CL:MUbiIP'lD COUN1Y PENNSYLVANiA "_I' ..."-,, ,( '-/--- DAVIS & MYERS By: William L. Myers, Jr., Esquire Pa. I.D, No. 38702 Suite 2330 1601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6262 Attorneys for Plaintiff MPJ Construction, Inc. MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION TOD and SHERI EDWARDS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. : NO. 2000-33 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MEMORDANUM OPPOSING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS Plaintiff, MPJ CONSTRUCTION, by its undersigned counsel, hereby submits this response to Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery Answers. In this response, MPJ addresses only the issue of the loan funds obtained by the Edwards to finance the construction. MPJ will rely on its original Memorandum in support of its motion to compel with respect to the other issues raised by Defendants. The loan funds obtained by the Edwards to finance the construction are directly relevant to defendants' duty to mitigate damages. If defendants had a pool of funds available to invest, their duty to mitigate damages required defendants to invest the loan proceeds wisely to minimize their damages. Indeed, it is highly likely that defendants, both banking executives; in the midst of the biggest stock market and economic boom in C<._~- history, did in fact invest the loan proceeds and earn a considerable profit on them. MPJ is entitled to find this out. On the other hand, if defendants squandered the construction loan, MPJ is entitled to fmd this out as well. For the foregoing reasons Plaintiff, MPJ Construction, Inc. respectfully requests the Court to grant Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Respectfully submitted, BY: <' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, WILLIAM L. MYERS, JR., ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have today served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Memorandum Opposing Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery Answers on J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire, NAUMAN, SMITH, SHISSLER & HALL LLP, 18th Floor, 200 N. Third Street, P.O. Box 840, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 by First Class Mail. DATED: November 14, 2000 ! ! ' ''I' FI)-(1:tI('~ r ~>". ~J,T v'~ C;: :1 ' fTUiO:,iClTA9Y 00 ttoV 15 PMlt: 12 , dJM8EfV;~j COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA !,: : i, i i ! !', i: """"'.. .,' ,"; .,- I \., ,", '\ ': ",jl': u" i (, . ::1"., ! ~! I , "',,. '" I :1 MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA CIVIL ACTION - LAW TOD and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants NO. 00-0033 CIVIL IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2000, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, filed on October 10,2000, and Defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, fIled (prematurely) on September 21,2000, a discovery conference/hearing is scheduled in chambers of the undersigned judge for Monday, December 11, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. BY THE COURT, William L. Myers, Jr., Esquire Davis & Myers 1601 Market Street, Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Attorney for Plaintiff rU~ ) 6 J. sley Oler, J . !..crp~;oJ ~ JI-It-oo RXS J. Stephen Feinour, Esquire 200 North Third Street, 18th Floor P. O. Box 840 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840 Attorney for Defendants :r1m CiU'D-ofFICt ~_ _," ,_~~~ '()\->'O:lW;v "r : ,-' I"~'\ 'I.... ' -...' ,'_.. "_",, I GO HOII \;) Pl'\ 3: DO CUMSCRLPND COUNIY PENNS'{lYi\"lIA MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff v. IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW TOD and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendant NO. 00-0033 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 2000, upon relation of counsel that the above-captioned matter has settled, the discovery conference!hearing previously scheduled for December 11, 2000, is cancelled and Plaintiffs Motion To Compel filed on October 10,2000, is deemed moot.. BY TIIE COURT, William L. Myers, Jr., Esq. 1601 Market Street Suite 2330 Philadelphia, PA 19103 , Attorney for Plaintiff L~UD1f)~ 0 <::> ~ c: = ;,;: .,~ -., ~M FfiiJ - J2-J3-00 ~., " r- zs:: ~..,fTl ~X~ S2:z N ~3Y r::CJ .....;0 -0 -~ ~ :::t: f:5 28 :z: 5>c:: '-:? qrn ~ => ~ 0 J. Stephen Feinour, Esq. 200 North Third Street 18th Floor P.O. Box 840 Harrisburg, P A 17108-0840 Attorney for Defendants :rc , 1." '1 DAVIS & MYERS By: William L. Myers, Jr., Esquire Pa. I.D. No. 38702 Suite 2330 1601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 564-6262 Attorneys for Plaintiff MPJ Construction, Inc. MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. TOD and SHERI EDWARDS, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. : NO. 2000-33 PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above case settled, discontinued and ended as to all claims and counterclaims, each side to bear its own fees and costs. NAUMAN, SMTH, SHISSLER & HALL, LLP BY: / en Feinour, Esquire for Defendants ., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUN'rY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2,0 Op-3~ I' .. ! CIVIL ACTION. FLED-06<:. f-,..,,' . ""'1I'N '!\Tf RY : '.',' I,. Ii ".J L ~ v. 01 .JMII 7 M! II: 15 CU~ISEf\LAI~D COUNlY PENNSYLVANIA " . MPJ CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff < . TOD and SHERI EDWARDS, Defendants . f PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END " ~ .. . ~ , LAW OFFICES NAUMAN. SMITH. SUIS8LEK & HALL 200 NORTH THIRD STREET P.O, Box 840 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17108-0840