The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-0642 \\ . . - .~ A-I AUTO REPAIR & DETAIL, INC, Plaintiff V. ANGELA BILUNAS-HARDY aJk/a ANGELA OLSEN-HARDY, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2007- IRI/:J. CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE TO INDEX JUDGMENT Please enter judgment in this matter in the amount of $97,966.37 pursuant to the attached affidavit. da b.dir/Iitigation/a-l auto/indexj udgment. pra Respectfully submitted, It:;1d~, David A. Baric, Esquire J.D. # 44853 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 Attorney for Plaintiff " AFFIDAVIT OF HEATHER BEATTIE My name is Heather Beattie. I am an attorney duly licensed in the State of Colorado to practice law. In Summit County, Colorado in case number 99CVl52 a judgment was entered for the Plaintiff in the amount of$6,548.75 for attorney's fees and costs by District Court Judge Lass. That judgment is valid, enforceable, and unsatisfied. In Summit County, Colorado case number 99CV152 a judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for actual amount of damages of$5,749.25 for payroll overpayments and $13,830.51 for invoice losses for a total of $19,579.76 by District Court Judge Ruckriegle. Judge Ruckriegle ordered statutory interest at a rate of eight percent (8%) commencing September 15, 1997. Statutory interest in Colorado is governed by Colorado Revised Statute 15-12-102(1)(b), which provides for eight percent (8%) interest to be compounded annually and calculated from the date of the wrongful withholding of property until judgment or payment, whichever occurs first. Judgment was entered on December 12, 2001. The interest accruing during the wrongful withholding period is $7,569.74. Further, under Colorado Revised Statute 18-4-405 actual damages are trebled at the time of judgment. The actual damages are $19,579.76. The trebled damages are $58,739.58. After judgment the Plaintiff becomes a creditor of the Defendant. Under C.R.S. 15-12- 1 02(4 )(b) the judgment accrues interest at the statutory rate of eight percent (8%) per annum on the amount of judgment. The amount of interest accruing from the date of judgment to today is $25,138.60. Therefore, the entire judgment to date is $91,447.62. That judgment is valid, enforceable, and unsatisfied. Thus, the entire judgment for 99CV152 is $97,966.37. On April 22, 2004 the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment issued by District Court Judge Ruckriegle in 99CV152 in case number 02CA36. There are no other pending appeals in this case. Certification of Residence The Defendant, Angela Bilunas-Hardy resides at 531 Quail Court, Mechanicsburg, P A 17050. The Plaintiff conducts business at 156 Summit CR450 Unit B7, Breckenridge, CO 80424. J1.obt Y~if Heather Beattie Attorney for Plaintiff (-J-;) .f) 1- Date Notarygfd>: ~ k OJJJ Signature My commission expires 3) a /10 o s: ~ = = --' -r'1 n co I a ....n --1 -""'~ i"np ~L-f '( ~~< -0 ~ (A) . . c...n co .. - . . ., - STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF SUMMIT CASE NO: 99CV152 I, Janice L. Reed, Clerk of the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Colorado within and for Summit County, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true, perfect and complete copy of: 99CV152 A-1 Auto Detail & Repair, Inc. v. Angela Bilunas-Hardy Transcript of Judgment in the amount of $19,579.76 In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court, at my office in Breckenridge, Colorado this January ~7 ' 2006. ~;<"L~ ~ lerk STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF SUMMIT I, David R. Lass, Judge of the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Colorado within and for the county of Summit, do hereby certify that Janice L. Reed, Clerk of Court whose name is subscribed to the foregoing Certificate of Attestation, now is, and was, at the time of signing and sealing the same, Clerk of the District Court of Summit County aforesaid, and keeper of the Records and seal thereof, duly appointed and qualified to office; that full faith and credit are and of right ought to be given to all her official acts as such in all Courts of Record and elsewhere; and that her said attestation is in due form of law, and by the proper officer. Given under my hand and seal this January ~1 ,2006.~~ Judge STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF SUMMIT I, Janice L. Reed, Clerk of the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Colorado within and for Summit County, do hereby certify that David R. Lass whose genuine signature is appended to the foregoing certificate, was, at the time of signing the same, Judge of the District Court of Summit County, of the State of Colorado, duly commissioned and qualified; that full faith and credit are and of right ought to be given to all his official acts as such, in all Courts of Record, and elsewhere. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court, at my office in Breckenridge, Colorado this January ~ 1, 2006. ~.:u_/b lerk S-~ U'J ~ r-...:. <:"--:::> c:::;, --.. .,., j"T'-1 Cl::1 1 o ., ::;:! fi'i:rJ r- :pm ,.70 ,':'~'l '" ;5~~ ""'i.C) (3fTl ~ :::0 -< - ....J ........"..,.. -4 / { ( c., .'~ ( ( DISTRICf COURT, SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO 501 N. Park Avenue PO Box 269 Breckenridge CO 80424 (970) 453-2241 Plaintiff(s): A-I AUTO REPAIR. & DETAIL, INC., a Colorado corporation, ..... .. 1M e~ e..... 8VIOIIr ceuNTY FEB 0 5 2002 -:"'CE ~ CLmU( Case Number: 99 CV 152 Defendant(I): ANGELA BILUNAS-HARDY aIkIa ANGELA OlSEN-HARDY, Attorney: Amy L. O'Donnell Law Office of J. ALBERT BAUER P.C. PO Box 307, III Ski Hill Road Breckenridge CO 80424 Phone: (970) 453-2734 Fax: (970) 453~9046 Re . #31271 mv. L Ctrm: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS Upon consideration ofPlaintitrs Bill of Costs, and the record herein, it is hereby ORDERED, that PlaintifIincurred attorney's fees and costs in the following amoWlts: Attorney fees $6,23 t .50 Costs $ ~17 2:'; Total $6,548.75 \\\\1\"""" . "",,~\\~~e!~.ED 1111111// and it IS fbdher ORDERED, !bat Defendant shall be assessed costs ~'$6",~f.e~ Dated Ibis S" dayO~."U'-' , 2002. ~ ~ [ ~ ~.\ (j) ~ -(/): =0- :; ~ 10 ~ : -~- ... ~""'. /~.? ~ . /';t\ ..... .... " '-J ~ ....~..... .... .... f'.." " . ..........,... ~~,'," \\\\ DIS .Bi'~U~~ Summi unty, Colorado Certified to 'jJlI, true and correct copy of the orilZi~al in my custody Date /I...2i' '*Of" By ~~~ puty Clerk District Court Judge 02105/2002 Order Granting plaintifI's Bill of Costs Page 1 ~ ~ d oOOOOOOOQL'ON/~~:8 '~s/e~:8 800~ 8~ ^ON<3n~) .~u, .e6e~o~s ~ S~lne^ puno~6~.pun "OY~ ,..." = = --.J .." f"'l1 co , o ." -I ffj::!J r- -",171 J!y )~;: j~ ~~~ ~ :::.0 -< -r, -:...:... ~~) c..n CO .. ,. ";.....e . . . District Court, Summit COlUlty, Colorado 50 IN. Park Avenue P.O. Box 269 Breckenridge, Colorado 80424 (970) 453-2241 A-I AUTO REPAIR & DETAIL, INC., a Colorado corporation, ffled ~. .~~e"C'l"'~lrr'"1 Court. .._....ollT C....uarv DEe 1 2 2001 Plaintiff, .l" -"-.. .', . . ; :.. r-:'.J. Cz. '=>K 11\"_..... Q(Jo~Jv _ v. ANGELA BILUNAS-HARDY aIkla ANGELA OLSEN-HARDY, Defendant. ... COURT USE ONLY'" Case Number: 99 CV 152 \ Div.: R Ctrm.: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 56, WITH AUTHORITIES TillS MA TIER comes before the Court on Plaintiff A-I Auto Repair & Detail, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 56, With Authorities. The Court has reviewed the motion, response, and reply, as .weY as the Court file in this case, and being fully advised, now rules as follows. A. FACTS Plaintiff A-I Auto. Repair & Detail, Inc. (hereinafter" A-I ") hired Defendant Hardy as a secretary/office assistant in approximately July 1996. Hardy's duties included scheduling appointments for A-I customers, collecting payments from A-I customers, making deposits to A-l's bank accounts, paying A-I bills, and preparing and issuing A-I payroll checks. Defendant worked from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with a half-hour off for lunch. Hardy was to be paid for actual hours worked. A-I did not offer paid vacation time or sick pay. Hardy tenninated her employment with A-Ion September 15, 1997. Shortly thereafter, A-I discovered that Defendant overpaid herself on her last payroll check. A-I then obtained copies of its payroll checks payable to Hardy and compared the amounts shown thereon with the .( actual number of hours Hardy worked. as recorded in the corporate calendar. A-I retained Sean ~\Q e d OOOOOOOOgL.ON/~~:e .~s/e~:e eoo~ e~ ^ON<3n~) .~UI '.Oe~o~s. S~lne^ puno~6~.pun "O~~ ! "..! . , Dougherty, Certified Public Accountant, to review said payroll records and determine any amount overpaid to Defendant. Mr. Dougherty found that from September 1,1996 to September 14, 1997, Hardy overpaid herself $5,749.25. Upon further investigation, A-I discovered that its records of approximately 69 job invoices were missing. A-I's invoice forms are sequentially-numbered, triplicate carbon copy forms. The top copy is the customer's receipt, the bottom copy is for A-I's records, and the middle copy is either destroyed or provided to their employee-mechanic, Kirk Smith, if he did the work described on the invoice, to calculate his pay. Kirk Smith retained copies of 50 of the 69 missing invoices. Each of these copies were marked "paid cash,1I however, the cash payments from these invoices totaling $10,312.51, were never deposited in A-I IS bank account. A-I alleges that Hardy took the cash paid by the customers for these invoices, destroyed A-I's records of the job, and retained the cash for herself, rather than depositing it in the corporate checking account. ( Hardy was prosecuted by the Summit County District Attorney for two counts of Theft by Series pursuant to C.R.S. 18-4-401(4) in connection with the same facts and circumstances as set forth above. Each count was for each of the consecutive six month periods in which the theft was alleged to occur, September 30, 1996 to March 30, 1997 and March 31, 1997 to September 16, 1997. During the criminal case, the prosecution utilized a qualified expert, Iohn M. M~ Certified Public Accountant, Certified Fraud Examiner, of The Mann Group, Inc. to conduct a forensic investigation of the alleged thefts. Mr. Mann concluded that Hardy retained the cash receipts from A-I IS customers, totaling $10,312.50, and overpaid herself $5,749.25. Mr. Mann concluded there was an estimated additional loss due to Hardy's retention of cash payments from the 19 invoices that could not be located of $3,518. Mr. Mann further detennined that A-I IS monthly sales amounts during the period of Defendant's employment were noticeably less than during the period immediately following the termination of her employment. On November 29, 2000, Hardy was fOWld guilty on two counts of theft by series. On March 9, 2001, Defendant was sentenced to six years probation and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of$2,849.59. This amount was fixed by the court per agreement between the Defendant and the District Attorney, after A-I failed to appear at the restitution hearing scheduled on that date. The basis for the agreement was that as a result of the jury's verdict in the criminal case, there was an issue raised with respect to the actual amount of money that Defendant overpaid herself. Because the jury did not return a verdict designating a specific dollar amount in the criminal case, as well as the fact that the District Attorney was not able to proceed to a hearing on the restitution issue, the amount of restitution was found to be reasonable by the court. Hardy's conviction is presently on appeal. No cross-appeal has been filed pertaining to the sanctions imposed by the court against the prosecution. Said sanctions precluded the District Attorney from introducing into evidence the alleged missing invoices. A-I brought this action against Hardy for conversion and civil theft. Plaintiff alleges that while employed by it, Defendant without authorization overpaid herself on payroll checks and '\ ~ ~ d oOOOOOOOgL'ON/~~:8 .~S/G~:8 800~ 8~ ^ON<3n~) .~UI .96e~o~s. S~lne^ puno~B~.pUn "O~~ ,. / . . ( retained cash payments made by A-I customers for herself. A-I now moves for summary judgment on its two claims in this action. B. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Under Rule 56( c), summary judgment is proper only when the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, or admissions establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. The purpose of summary judgment is to pennit the parties to pierce the formal allegations of the pleadings, and save the time and expense connected with trial when, as a matter oflaw, based on undisputed facts, one party could not prevail. Mt. Emmons Mining Co. v. Town of Crested Butte. 690 P.2d 231, 238 (Colo. 1984). The moving party has the initial burden to demonstrate an absence of evidence in the record that supports the nonmoving party's case. Civil Servo Comm'n v. Pinder, 812 P.2d 645, 649 (Colo. 1991). Once the moving party has met this initial burden, however, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish that there is a triable issue of fact. Id. In making this showing, the party opposing the motion for summary judgment cannot rely on the allegations of the pleadings, but must present specific facts establishing a genuine issue for trial. See C.R.C.P. 56(e); See also Dileo v. Koltnow, 613 P.2d 318, 324 (Colo. 1980). A reasonable continuance for discovery purposes may be ordered if it appears that summary judgment would be premature absent the opportunity to conduct such discovery. C.R.C.P. 56(f); Sandoval v. Archdiocese of Denver, 8 P.3d 598,605 (Colo. 2000). ( c. CONVERSION OF PAYROLL OVERPAYMENTS Plaintiff argues that Defendant is collaterally estopped from re-litigating the issue of her liability for conversion in connection with the payroll overpayments. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the final decision of a court on an issue actually litigated and determined is conclusive ofiliat issue in any subsequent suit. Pomeroy v. Waitkus. 517 P.2d 396,399 (Colo. 1973). Collateral estoppel applies when four criteria are established: (1) the issue decided in the previous case is identical with the one presented in the action in question; (2) there was a fmal judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom the preclusion is asserted was a party to the previous adjudication; and (4) the party against whom preclusion is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the previous adjudication. Id.; Blair v. All Stars Soorts Cabaret, 87 F.Supp.2d 1133, 1134-35 (D.Colo. 2000). 1. Identical Issue Defendant contends that Colorado courts have only applied collateral estoppel in matters where either both cases were civil actions or both cases were criminal actions. Defendant argues that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable because the previous adjudication was in a criminal matter, and the present matter is a civil one. The Court is not convinced by Defendant's argument. The doctrine has been held to apply in any subsequent suit Pomeroy v. Waitkus, supra. (E~phasis added). The limitation on \. ,\ C6 g d OOOOOOOOgL.ON/~~:e '~s/a~:e 800~ e~ ^ON(3n~) .~UI .e6B~O~S. S~lne^ punoADAepUn "OU~ .,;- . ( . . the doctrine urged by Defendant is not an independent consideration in the Court's analysis. Rather, the Court's only concern is that the issues themselves are identical, not the forum. On November 29,2000, Hardy was convicted of theft by series under C.R.S. 18-4- 401(4). The elements of criminal theft, as set forth in C.R.S. 18-4-401, are the defendant knowingly obtained or exercised control over anything of value of another without authorization, with the intent to deprive the other person permanently of the use or benefit of the thing of value. The jury instruction used in the criminal matter reflected these elements. Conversion is "any distinct, unauthorized act of dominion or ownership exercised by one person over personal property belonging to another." Byron v. York. !nv. Co., 296 P.2d 742, 745 (Colo. 1956). In comparing the jury instruction for theft and the definition of conversion, the Court finds that the elements to prove both are identical. In order to prove conversion, the plaintiff must show that the individual (defendant) took distinct (knowingly) WUluthoriZed (without authorization) action of dominion over (obtain or exercise control over) personal property of another (which was the property of another). Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff meets the fmt criterion of collateral estoppel. 2. Final Judgment on the Merits It is undisputed that the criminal trial was a final judgment on its merits. 3. Party to the Previous Adjudication It is undisputed that Defendant was a party to the previous adjudication. 4. Full and Fair Opportunity to Litigate the Issue Defendant contends that the criminal trial involved only part of the alleged scheme of embezzlement, and that the case "was tried in a vacuum" on this issue alone. The Court is not persuaded by this "vacuum" argument. The doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to issue preclusion. Pomerov, supra. To claim that this was one of many issues that are a part of this matter and thus collateral estoppel is inappropriate is nonsensical. The doctrine is designed to apply to such a single issue. Defendant further argues that she has not had an opportunity to complete discovery. In support of this argument Defendant's attorney has provided an affidavit indicating that material issues of fact exist, but he must be allowed more time to conduct discovery on these matters. Defendant also lists several witnesses who did not testify at the criminal trial, that allegedly will testify to circumstances that will show that Tony Atkinson and Cameron Arbuckle, owners of A- I, conspired to manipulate the "missing invoices" and the calendar in order to convince the police to investigate and press charges against Defendant. The Court finds Defendant's argument disingenuous. The Complaint was filed on May 18,1999. Defendant filed her Answer on June 18, 1999. Almosttwo-and-a-halfyears have \ passed since Defendant filed her Answer. During this time, Defendant has been involved in a \\~ e d OOOOOOOOgL"OH/Zl:e '~S/~l:a eooz az ^OH<3n~) .~UI ..Be~o~s. S~lne^ puno~n~epun "O~~ . . " ( criminal matter dealing with the identical claims that are made in this matter. While discovery in criminal matters may not always be as extensive as in civil matters, there is nonetheless opportunity to discover information. Moreover, Defendant has listed twelve individuals in her response that are likely to have information regarding Tony Atkinson and Cameron Arbuckle's conspiracy to manipulate the missing invoices and the calendar. Despite over two years of past time, despite being previously involved in a matter with identical issues, and despite the vast number of individuals who supposedly contain information, Defendant claims to be unable to produce any facts, such as in the form of an affidavit, that would create a genuine issue of material fact. Defendant herself does not produce an affidavit creating a material issue of fact. The Court finds Defendant's argument remarkable and wholly unpersuasive. Defendant admits that she presented substantial evidence at the criminal trial that placed in doubt the calendar used by the Plaintiff. Defendant further admits that evidence was produced at the criminal trial that related to the overpayment of wages. Despite this admitted evidence, Defendant was found guilty. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the criminal trial. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant is collaterally estopped from re-litigating the issue of her liability for conversion in connection with the payroll overpayments. D. DAMAGES FOR CONVERSION OF PAYROLL OVERPAYMENTS Plaintiff next argues that the amount of damages for the conversion claim should be set at $5,749.25. In support of this claim, Plaintiff cites to the affidavit of Mr. Mann assessing Defendant's overpayment of payroll checks to herself at $5,749.25. Defendant argues that if collateral estoppel' applies, the amount of damages must be limited to $2,849.58, the agreed upon amount during the restitution hearing. This amount, however, was not based on any facts before the trial court in the criminal matter. Rather, it was based on a compromise between the District Attorney and Defendant. This Court is not limited to this amount of damages. The measure of damages for conversion is generally the value of the converted property at the time and place of the misappropriation, plus interest at the legal rate from the time of the conversion until the time of trial. Masterson v. McCroskie, 573 P.2d 547, 551 (Colo. 1978). Plaintiffhas submitted uncontroverted evidence that the amount of the oveIpayment was $5,749.25. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to this amount. E. CONVERSION OF CASH PAYMENTS Plaintiff further requests summary judgment on its claim against Defendant for conversion in connection with Defendant's alleged retention of cash payments from customers. Plaintiff presents to the Court the affidavits of Tony Atkinson and John M. Mann which delineate Defendant's involvement in the retention of the cash payments. In his affidavit, Mr. Mann concluded that Defendant had retained a total of$13,830.51 in cash payments. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs version of the story and witnesses are not credible, but (\ fails to set forth specific facts to contradict it. Since Defendant is unable to present specific facts \?p L d OOOOOOOO~L.OH/~~:e .~s/~~:e eoo~ e~ ^OH(3n~) .~UI CeBe~o~s. S~lne^ puno~8~epun "O~~ I ,.. ,Jf-.... , oJ .., ~ t . establishing a genuine issue of fact for trial, the Court finds that Plaintiffs request for summary ( judgment on this claim is appropriate in the principal amount of$13,830.51. F. CIVIL THEFT Las~ Plaintiff requests summary judgment on its second claim for relief, civil theft. C.R.S. 18-4-105 provides in part: All property obtained by theft, robbery, or burglary shall be restored to the owner, and no sale, whether in good faith on the part of the purchaser orno~ shall divest the owner of his right to such property. . . In any such action, the owner may recover two hundred dollars or three times the amount of the actual damages sustained by him, whichever is greater, and may also recover costs of the action and reasonable attorney fees.... The Colorado Supreme Court has found that C.R.S. 18-4-105 provides "independent (civil] remedies to the owners of stolen property." See In re Marriasze of Allen, 724 P.2d 651,658 (Colo. 1986). In order to receive court awarded treble damages, attorney fees, and costs, the plaintiff need only prove that the defendant committed acts constituting one of the statutory crimes of theft. Itin v. Bertrand T. Uneer. P.C., 17 P.3d 129, 133 (Colo. 2000). As set forth above, it is undisputed that Defendant committed acts constituting the statutory crime of theft with respect to Plaintiffs personal property. Therefore, Defendant is liable for civil theft and Plaintiff is entitled to treble damages and attorney's fees. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, 1. Plaintiffs request for summary judgment on its two claims for conversion and civil theft against Defendant is GRANTED. 2. The amount of damages for the payroll overpayments is $5,749.25 3. The amount of damages for the invoice losses is $13,830.51. 4. Interest is set at the statutory rate of 8%, commencing September 15, 1997. 5ill/Plaintiff is entitled to treble damages and attorney's fees pursuant to C.R.S. 18-4-105. \\\,\" Iltlll ,,\\ ~ED en 11// ~ ~,~~~,,"B*'fIi~~reckenridge, Colorado on this ~~y of December, 2001. l~{/'~""~~~ BY THE COURT - .e:=. . '.0:: - ~?~ fo~ -; u> ...... ./CS ~ DISTRICT COURT 4J:J ~ &........ ......... G ~ummit County, Colorado ~/-:, ~~C;;:E"'''~~~<:;<<''~ified to be full, true and correct III'/fll"1 Nf'\',\\\\\\'copy of the original in my custody 11111111' Date 11..:Li' -0 " {.. By .Ju,~~ puty Clerk 'V\ 8 d OOOOOOOOSL'oH'~~:a '~S'~~:8 aoo~ a~ ^OH(3n~) .~UI .e6B~o~s. s~lne^ punoA6AepUn "O~~ n ~.; r--:I C:) -~ ::...... .,., r'1 co I ~ -I :r:.., rnp -c~ -",0 C5(L) ~"~l L ~'!~I ~~ -I J:> ".'J :< -:'? =.,.t: f.;-? U1 Q.) IlI"TEGRATED C 0 LOR ADO o N L I N E NET W 0 R K (I CON) Status: CLSD District Court, Summit County Case #: 1999 CV 000152 Div/Room: L Type: Money A-1 AUTO REPAIR & DETAIL, INC. VS BILUNAS-HARDY, ANGELA Case File Date: 5/18/1999 Case Close Date: 12/12/2001 Appealed: N Confidential Intermediary.............: Bar # Name Judicial Off...: 000878 DAVID RICHARD LASS Alt Jud Officer: 000000 Description Last Event.....: Order Stat Date Time Rm/D 0:00 0:00 HELD 1/29/2002 7:00 A L n/a 6/29/2004 Trial. . . . . . . . . . : Next Schd Event: Last Schd Event: Review Jury Fee Paid........ .:Y DISTRICT COURT Summit County, Colorado Certified to be full, true and correct copy of the original in my custody Date O. '-( ~ 0 kJ BY~~ Attorney(s)....: Y + Judgements....... .....:Y + Motions Filed.........:Y Amount Prayed for.....: .00 ----- PARTIES PARTY ROL STS NAME ATTORNEY ROL DEF 1 BILUNAS-HARDY, ANGELA MEINERT, TIMOTHY ALBERT PRV P OLSEN-HARDY, ANGELA PTF 1 A-1 AUTO REPAIR & DETAIL, IN NICHOLSON, LINDSEY K S PRV Business Address...... ..: 156 S.C. ROAD 450, UNIT B-7 BRECKENRIDGE, CO 80424 3DF 1 DISM ARBUCKLE, CAMERON 3DF 2 DISM ATKINSON, TONY FILE DATE EVENT DESCRIPTION 05/18/1999 Complaint OS/21/1999 Return of Service W/SUMMONS(HARDY, 5-19-99 AT 4:15PM)RT FROM 06/15/1999 Answer COUNTER-CLAIM AND THIRD PARTY SUMMONS (FOR CAMERON ARBUCKLE 06/18/1999 Reply PLAINTIFF'S TO COUNTERCLAIM 06/18/1999 Motion PLAINTIFF'S TO DISMISS THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT FILE DATE SCHEDULED EVENT DESCRIPTION 06/21/1999 Review Officer: DAVID RICHARD LASS Status.: HELD-Hearing Held TO SEE IF RSPN FILED TO MTN TO DISM 07/09/1999 Order DISMISSING THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT (COPY 10/13/1999 Disclosure Certificate Event ID: Event ID: COUNTY COURT Event ID: 000001 000002 E-Filed: E-Filed: COMPLAINT AND TONY ATKINSON) Event ID: 000004 E-Filed: /CMK /KDN /KDN /CMK 000003 E-Filed: Event ID: 000005 E-Filed: PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 14 (A) /CMK SCHD DATE TIME ROOM PRI 07/07/1999 07:00 AM R Length: 1.00 Hour(s) Note..: FILE RSPN 3RD PTY COMP Event ID: 000006 MATUKEWICZ, MEINERT) Event ID: 000007 E-Filed: /CMK /EEC E-Filed: ~ FILE DATE SCHEDULED EVENT DESCRIPTION pLAINTIFF'S C.R.C.P. 26(A) (1) 12/r5/19~9 Disclosure Certificate Event ID: 000008 PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL C.R.C.P. 26(A) (1) 01/21/2000 Motion Event ID: 000009 FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER PURSUANT 01/24/2000 Order Event ID: 000010 APPROVING STIPULATION AND GRANTING ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE MENT(COPY TO ALL) 04/30/2001 Motion FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 05/01/2001 Review Officer: WILLIAM TERRY RUCKRIEGLE Status.: HELD-Hearing Held FILE RSPN TO MTN FOR SUM JUDGE 05/01/2001 Review Officer: WILLIAM TERRY RUCKRIEGLE Status.: HELD-Hearing Held 05/09/2001 Stipulation FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT 05/11/2001 Order RE: EXTENSION OF TIME SUMMARY JUDGMENT UPON 06/15/2001 Response TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 06/25/2001 Response DEF/ BILUNAS-HARDY, ANGELA TO PTFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 06/25/2001 Review Docket Officer: DAVID RICHARD LASS Status.: HELD-Hearing Held 06/29/2001 Reply TO DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 12/12/2001 Order GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY HORITIES (COPY ALL) 12/12/2001 Case Closed 01/11/2002 Motion FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT 01/11/2002 Motion FOR SUPERSEDEAS BOND 01/11/2002 Review Officer: DAVID RICHARD LASS Status.: HELD-Hearing Held 01/17/2002 Filing Other PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS 01/17/2002 Response PLAINTIFF'S TO MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION 02/04/2002 Order RE: MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE 02/04/2002 Order RE: MOTION FOR SUPERSEDEAS BOND(COPY TO ALL) 02/05/2002 Order Event ID: 000025 GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF COSTS(COPY TO ALL) SCHD DATE TIME Event ID: 000013 TO FILE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STIPULATION OF PARTIES (COPY TO ALL) Event ID: 000014 ROOM PRI /CMK E-Filed: /CMK E-Filed: TO STIPULATION E-Filed: CASE MANAGE- /CMK E-Filed: N /CMK Event ID: 000011 56, WITH AUTHORITIES 06/15/2001 07:00 AM R Length: 1.00 Hour(s) Note..: FILE RSPN Event ID: 000018 Event ID: 000019 Event ID: 000020 /CMK 10/05/2001 07:00 AM R Length: 1.00 Hour(s) Note..: CD NOTICE Event ID: 000012 E-Filed: N PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR Event ID: 000022 /LS E-Filed: N E-Filed: /LS N /CMK N Event ID: 000015 E-Filed: /KAM 07/09/2001 07:00 AM L Length: 1.00 Hour(s) Note. .: REPLY Event ID: 000016 E-Filed: N FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT /KON Event ID: 000017 E-Filed: N JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CRCP 56, WITH AUT /KON E-Filed: N E-Filed: N /ZSK E-Filed: N /ZSK 01/29/2002 07:00 AM L Length: 1.00 Hour(s) Note. .: MOTNS Event ID: 000021 E-Filed: N /ZSK N /ZSK N /CMK N /CMK N /CMK E-Filed: Event ID: 000023 E-Filed: JUDGMENT(COPY TO ALL) Event ID: 000024 E-Filed: E-Filed: ~ F!LE DATE SCHEDULED EVENT DESCRIPTION SCHD DATE TIME ROOM PRI 06/07/2002 Motion Event ID: 000026 E-Filed: N TO SHARE \ PORTIONS OF THE RECORD(FILED WITH COURT OF APPEALS) /CMK 06/25/2002 Reply Event ID: 000027 E-Filed: N DEFENDANT/APPELLANT'S TO PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SHARE RECORD FILED WITH COURT OF APPEALS. /CMK 12/06/2002 Motion Event ID: 000028 E-Filed: N FOR ENLARGMENT OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF (FILED WITH COURT OF APPEALS) 03/28/2003 Request Filed Event ID: 000029 E-Filed: N UNOPPOSED FOR SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD(FILED WITH COURT OF APPEALS) /CMK 04/25/2003 Filing Other Event ID: 000030 E-Filed: N ORDR FROM COURT OF APPEALS - 14 DAYS TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD /KDN 04/29/2003 Brief Filed Event ID: 000031 E-Filed: N REPLY /JCS 05/07/2003 Letter Event ID: 000032 E-Filed: N ORIGINAL TO COURT OF APPEALS; COPY TO ATTY NICHOLSON & MEINERT -- REQUESTED EXHIBITS CANNOT BE LOCATED; ASSUME THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY TRANSMITTED /JLR 06/02/2003 Order Event ID: 000033 E-Filed: N FROM COURT OF APPEALS (ORDER OF 4-9-03 VACATED) /CMK 06/29/2004 Order Event ID: 000034 E-Filed: N ORDER FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGMENT AFFIRMED /JCS JGM DATE JUDGMENT DESCRIPTION STATUS 12/12/2001 JDGE Judgment Entered UNSATISFIED Ordered By..........: DAVID RICHARD LASS Debtor Fee..........: N Debtor Fee Paid.....: N 8% INTEREST COMMENCING 9-15-97, PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO TREBLE DAMAGES AND AT TY FEES PURSUANT TO CRS 18-4-105 JUDGMENT TRANSACTION(S) PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY FEES COST INTEREST COURT COSTS OTHER CHARGES JUDGMENT TRANSACTION(S) ~OUNT $19,579.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ~OUNT + PAID PAID Judgment Transaction Totals...: $19,579.76 Judgment Transaction Balance..: $19,579.76 JUDGMENT ROLE N~E Debtor DEF BILUNAS-HARDY, ANGELA Creditor PTF A-1 AUTO REPAIR & DETAIL, INC. 02/05/2002 JDGE Judgment Entered UNSATISFIED Ordered By.. ........: DAVID RICHARD LASS Debtor Fee..........: N Debtor Fee Paid.....: N JUDGMENT TRANSACTION(S) ~OUNT PRINCIPAL $0.00 JUDGMENT TRANSACTION(S) ~OUNT ATTORNEY FEES $6,231.50 COST $317.25 INTEREST $0.00 COURT COSTS $0.00 OTHER CHARGES $0.00 $0.00 PTY ROLE DEF PTF PAID PAID ..l . JGM DATE JUDGMENT Judgment Judgment JUDGMENT Debtor Debtor Creditor STATUS $6,548.75 $6,548.75 DESCRIPTION Transaction Totals. . . : Transaction Balance. . : ROLE NAME DEF BILUNAS-HARDY, ANGELA AKA OLSEN-HARDY, ANGELA PTF A-I AUTO REPAIR & DETAIL, $0.00 INC. PTY ROLE DEF AKA PTF End of Case: 1999 CV 000152 n t....... :;-::;: !-...) f:"::l = -...l -rJ 1""""1 W I o -(1 -I I-,.., ITl~ ,- fTl C? C:..l =-1~.! (".) <.n CO AFFIDAVIT OF HEATHER BEATTIE My name is Heather Beattie. I am an attorney duly licensed in the State of Colorado to practice law. In Summit County, Colorado in case number 99CV152 a judgment was entered for the Plaintiff in the amount of$6,548.75 for attorney's fees and costs by District Court Judge Lass. That judgment is valid, enforceable, and unsatisfied. In Summit County, Colorado case number 99CV152 a judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for actual amount of damages of$5,749.25 for payroll overpayments and $13,830.51 for invoice losses for a total of$19,579.76 by District Court Judge Ruckriegle. Judge Ruckriegle ordered statutory interest at a rate of eight percent (8%) commencing September 15,1997. Statutory interest in Colorado is governed by Colorado Revised Statute 15-12-l02(1)(b), which provides for eight percent (8%) interest to be compounded annually and calculated from the date of the wrongful withholding of property until judgment or payment, whichever occurs first. Judgment was entered on December 12, 2001. The interest accruing during the wrongful withholding period is $7,569.74. Further, under Colorado Revised Statute 18-4-405 actual damages are trebled at the time of judgment. The actual damages are $19,579.76. The trebled damages are $58,739.58. After judgment the Plaintiff becomes a creditor of the Defendant. Under C.R.S. 15-12- 102(4)(b) the judgment accrues interest at the statutory rate of eight percent (8%) per annum on the amount of judgment. The amount of interest accruing from the date of judgment to today is $25,138.60. Therefore, the entire judgment to date is $91,447.62. That judgment is valid, enforceable, and unsatisfied. Thus, the entire judgment for 99CV152 is $97,966.37. On April 22, 2004 the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment issued by District Court Judge Ruckriegle in 99CV152 in case number 02CA36. There are no other pending appeals in this case. Certification of Residence The Defendant, Angela Bilunas-Hardy resides at 531 Quail Court, Mechanicsburg, P A 17050. The Plaintiff conducts business at 156 Summit CR450 Unit B7, Breckenridge, CO 80424. l1Ptk Y-k?JAo- Heather Beattie Attorney for Plaintiff I ~;;"d-()7- Date Notary:r:$m ~ ~ OJ J) Signature My commission expires :s)a /;0 I , -~ (") ~;~ 2~~ r-..;) = (;:=J -.l ..,., r-rl w I (,0 c..n 0.:> ,I A-I AUTO REPAIR & DETAIL, INC, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. NO. 2007- CIVIL TERM ANGELA BILUNAS-HARDY a/k/a ANGELA OLSEN-HARDY, Defendant CERTIFICATION OF ADDRESSES I, David A. Baric, Esquire, do hereby certify that the last known address of the Defendant, Angela Bilunas-Hardy alk/a Angela Olsen-Hardy, is 531 Quail Court, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050 and the Plaintiff, A-I Auto Repair & Detail, Inc. is P.O. Box 4033, Breckenridge, Colorado 80424. O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER ~~ David A. Baric, Esquire SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2007. :..:.~ T:i~~L:.':_.__--,-_~ NOlarial SHal \ Jennifer S. Lindsay, Notary !.'Llblic Carlisle BOrD. Cumb::'i12dC1 v::nr-:!y 1 f',/,j' C0!11miSsion E>::~>';-' ~?g< ':.C..:7 l_.__._.._. ...--p... :-~,--Ler, Penn::~.,{jv;.;jnjL t ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ 0'\ ~ I~ lJ 't) }J ~ ~ \) ~ ~ . ~ (l r-..., C':; C::::) G~ ::3 . -r"j rr! 0;:; I o ,"1 --I :r:." rnp" r-r1 C:J ":? c...n GO