Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-06601 '\ , \ ~ ~~ 'Ji ~ ~ ~ . ~ // ~ ~ , ~ ." ~ I i I I ,) ~! I . i ~i ; 5. Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle for use in a roo ling business operated by his u sole proprietor. 6. Plaintiff had title to the subject vehicle transferred to Defendant Boggs, for the sole rcason that his operator's license was under suspension for a long period of time and he could not obtain vehicle insurance on the subject vehicle if it were titled in his name. 7. The lotation of the Ford dump truck is 329 Walnutdale Road, Shippentburg. PeMsylvania. g. The reasonable value of the Ford dump truck is $3,000.00. 9. In November, 1995, Plaintiff purchased a 1979 Ford pickup truck from Kyner's Auto Sales. 10. Plaintiff purchased the pickup truck for use in a roofing business operated by him as a sole proprietor. II. Plaintiff had title to the pickup truck transferred to Defendant Boggs, for the sole reason that his operator's license was under suspension for a long pniod of time and he could not obtain vehicle insurance on the subject vehicle if it were titled in his name. 12. After the pickup truck was purchased, Plaintiff purchased I snowplow and had it allached to the pickup truck. 2 ~ '.... r 25" Zenith color TV Assortment of roofing hand tools One Craftsman roofing nail gun Assortment of hunting equipment Five (05) new pairs of Wrangler jeans Four (04) Adidas and Nike sweatshirts S 20000 S 20000 S 35000 S 200 00 S 10000 S 16000 18. Except for the 24" McCullough chain saw, Milwaukee 1/2" angle drill, 3/S" Makita drill, and 24' fiberglass ladder, the items of personal property described in Paragraph 17 are located at 126 West Garfield Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 19. Since November II, 1997, Defendant Boggs has, without permission or consent of Plaintiff or anyone else entitled to give consent or permission, retained possession of Plaintifl's personal property and had failed and refused to relinquish possession of Plaintiffs personal property to Plaintiff, despite repeated demands 20. Defendant Boggs has threatened to sell or destroy Plaintiffs personal property instead of returning it to him and has, in fact, sold Plaintiff's 1979 Ford pickup truck and snowplow attachment, 24" McCullough chain saw, Milwaukee 1/2" angle drill, 3/S" Makita drill and 24' fiberglass ladder to Defendant Williams for $1,50000 2\. Plaintiff has demanded that Defendant Boggs transfer title of the Ford dump truck to the name of a third party of his choice, but Defendant Boggs has failed and refused to do so. 22, Plaintiff has been and will continue to be damaged by Defendant Boggs' wrongful detention of Plaintiffs property in an amount which cannot be computed until Plaintiff has recovered his property; including but not limited to loss of income from his roofing business because of the inability to do roofing jobs without the equipment detained by Defendant Boggs. 4 25. Defendant Boggs has transferred title of the 1979 Ford pickup truck and purported to sell this truck and snowplow auachment, together with the 24" McCullough chain saw, Milwaukee 1/2" angle drill, 3/8" Makita drill and 24' tiberglass ladder to Defendant Williams on a date between November II, 1997, and November 24, 1997, for the price ofSl,50000 , 26. At the time of this transfer of title and purported sale of property, Defendant Williams knew that the property in question was owned by Plaintiff . 27. Plaintiff has demanded that Defendant Williams relinquish possession of the Plaintill's personal property in her possession, but she has failed and refused to do so. 28, Plaintiff has demanded that Defendant Williams transfer the title of the 1979 Ford pickup truck to the name of a third party of his choice, but Defendant Williams has failed and refused to do so. l- I ! ! 29. The Ford pickup truck and the items of personal property dClCribed in Parasraph 17 are located at 2368 Walnut BoUom Road, Carlisle, PeMsylvania. l , r 1 I 30. Plaintiff has been and will continue to be damsged by Defendant Wdlimla' wrongful detention of Plaintill's property in an amount which cannot be computed until Plaiatl8' has recovered his property, including but not limited to loss of income from hi, roo&aa 1lI,f'r... because of the inability to do rooting jobs without the equipment detained by DefendaDt'W!JII~ 3 1. Defendant Williams' wrongful detention of Plaintill's property has "- outrageous, willful, wanton and/or in reckless disregarll of Plaintill's right., and recovery of punitive damages. 6 , r "'" VERIFICATION I verilY that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the ., best of my personal knowledge and belief I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa CS Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date:~ h fr <:ut:= J YL 0 r .~ \ OAR Y D CONSTRUCTION OARY D COOLEY . PO SOX 322 SHIPPENSBURO PA. 17257 Invoice OAT~_ _H L~N~~~!__ 4N97 60 ~ 81LL TO: mVOTT 329 WALNlJTDALE ROAD SHIPl'ENSBURO PA.l 1257 P.O. NUMBER TERMS PROJECT DUMP TRUCK Not 60 QUANTITY DESCRIPTION RATE AMOUNT 3.ooo.0C' FORD DUMP TRUCK 3.000.00 ~) '~ GARY 0 COOLEY TIIAN1CS YOU TOTAL I I I, 13,000.00 ,. I tr. J I.CJ ... f.. ~ ~~ N ,/ :-.) ..f" ,1~) :T'~ ~'3 ~~ a ~ ,-:: u,. ,!;) (~, , "-' 0 " et '0 .il :n ~ i L..~ C... :7 ~I' 'a /~ :7 :--r... I: ;...fj .. r: t- , ~!J.:1.. -= ~ ....~ r- ;:> t cr. e..;. ~ .. q::, f,',; ~ " q ,. '"J j 8 " " " .{ . ~ j .~ SALLY J, WINDER Allornry at Law '701 E. Kina Strtc1 Shippcn\hl.lfl. PA 11:2~1 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NOI 1997-06601 P COMMONWEALTH Of PENNSYLVANIA. COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND I ! I ! ! ~ i f I l. OTT JERRY LEE VS, BOGGS BARBARA S ET AL KATHY J, CLARKE CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who to law, says. the within COMPLAINT - . Sheriff or Deputy Shsriff of bsing duly sworn according REPLEVIN w.. .srvwd ~ ! upon WILLIAMS KIM the dwfendant. at 1019100 HOURS, on the -1ih day of pecember 19~ at . 1442 TRINDLE ROAD CARLISLE. PA 17013 . CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, by handing to KIM WILLIAMS a true and attested copy of the COMPLAINT - REPLEVIN and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof, . Sheriff's CostSI Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6,00 3,10 ,00 2,00 So answe~..:~ ~ ~s K:~ne, e: .ll,l~ SALLY J. WINDER 12/10/1997 . by ~l1x,' ( I (C'--JZC J~Pj y SheriU Sworn and subscribed to before me this 10!: day of AL II u.J~ --' 19 97 A,D, Ct'f" (2 ~ · 0,-.. I l>ro{honotary ~ r ; i I ! f ! I I ~ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NOI 1997-06601 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA I COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND OTT JERRY LEE VS, BOGGS BARBARA S ET AL 1\ " " .~, . Sheriff or De~~ty Sheriff of being duly sworn a~==,~~ng REPLEVIN wall ..'f'ved KRISTIN D, MERTZ CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who to law, says, the within COMPLAINT - upon BOGGS BARBARA S defendant, at 1347100 HOURS, on the ~ day of December 192L at 126 WEST GARFIELD STREET SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 thD .J . CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, by handing to BARBARA S, BOGGS a true and attested copy of the COMPLAINT - REPLEVIN together with NOTICE and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. . Sheriff's Costs I Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So?~ _.,,~ ~-t' H, Th~:~ne~% SALLY J, WINDER 12/10/1997 by t "-t' ~ .l./l ....~ tJ. . 6eputy ri%% ~ 18,00 13,02 ,00 2.00 633,02 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 10 ~ day of JJ.U.L~ 19 91 A, D, ()....,..<- () 'Yz" '-l':, ,O~r-. "-- / I I'rOlhoo'otary ,-n v., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I CML ACTION. LAW JERRY LEE O'IT, Plaintiff BARBARA S, BOGGS and KIM WILLIAMS, Defendant. NUMBER 97.6601 CML TERM IN REPLEVIN NOTICE 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 Counter.Claim and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and ajudgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Counter-Claim or for any other claim or relief requested by the Counter-Claim Plaintiffs. 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 TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OU1' WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP, CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 TELEPHONE: 717-249-3166 VI. I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION . LAW JERRY LEE OTT, Plaintiff BARBARA S, BOGGS and KIM WILLIAMS, Defendantl NUMBER 97.6601 CIVIL TERM IN REPLEVIN ANSWER 1. Denied. The Plaintiff, Jerry Lee Ott, is currently incarcerated at the Cumberland County Prison. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. It is believed, and therefore averred that the vehicle Willi purchuad somewhat after this date. Admitted that the purchlllle Willi made by funds from Jerry Lee Ott. It is denied that the document attached to Plaintifi"s Complaint is a bill of sale. Rather, it is an invoice and payment Willi not made until some time after the invoice date. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 5. Denied. Defendant Boggs believes and therefore avers that the vehicle Willi purchased at a time when Plaintiff was incarcerated, and that he was working for another individual, Ron Williams, on work relelllle. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 6. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendant Boggs llllserts that through her own funds, she has maintained insurance on ',his vehicle from its date of acquisition to the present time. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 7. Denied. It is believed and therefore averred that the vohicle has been moved on several occasions, by the Plaintiff or his agents, and that it is now located somewhere on Cabin Lane, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 8. Admitted that the vehicle has approximately this value, it may have some increased value due to improvements from Defendant Boggs' funds. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 9. Admitted that Plaintiff participated in the purchase of this vehicle. It is denied that he purchased it solely. The vehicle was purchased partly with funds trom Defendant Boggs and partly with funds from Plaintiff. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar ! t t, c: , ,. ~, ! ,,", , with the !lubject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 10. Denied that the Plaintiff was the sole proprietor for this propose, He was employed by R&R Roofing. It is also believed that the vehicle was not used for roofing business, but was used as a general means of transportation. Defendant Williams ill unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 11. Denied. Because both Defendant Boggs and Plaintiff participated in the purchase of this vehicle, it was titled in Defendant Boggs' name to reflect her ownership interest in the vehicle. Much of the transaction of purchasing this vehicle was undertaken solely by Defendant Boggs. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 12. Admitted that a snow-plow was purchased. Denied that it was purchased solely with Plaintiffs funds. Defendant Boggs contributed to the purchase of this snow-plow. Defendant WillilUl18 is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 13. Denied that this approximates the value. The truck is valued at approximately $1500, The plow is not attached to the truck and has only partial framing, so that it would not add much value to the truck. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 14. Denied. While the pick-up truck is located at this address, the pick-up truck does not have the snow-plow attached to it. The snow-plow remains in the same location where Plaintiff left it after its last use. Defendant WillilUl18 ie unable to admit or deny the averments in tbis paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. II' ~ t t. 15. Denied. While some of the fire arms were acquired by Plaintiff, some were acquired by Defendant Boggs or were a gift to Defendant Boggs. The Mossberg 12 gauge model 835 magnum shotgun was purchlllled by Defendant Boggs. The 12 gauge double barrel shotgun Willi a gift to Defendant Boggs, for use by her son when he Is old enough to use this. It Is further denied that the amounts stated represent the value ~... of these Items. It Is believed that the amounts set forth reflect purchase prices, and Defendant believes that the value of these items Is much less than the amounts set , forth In the Complaint. Defendant WIlliams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she Is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 16. Denied. None of these tlrearms are located at 126 West Garfield Street, The Plaintiff, through friends and acquaintances, hllll gained possession of these iro r f!fearme, and Defendant Boggs is currently unaware of their location. Defendant Williams Is unable to admit or deny the averments In this paragraph since she Is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 17. Denied. It Is denied that the values set forth reflect the actual value of these Items. It appears that these values actually reflect purchase prices rather than current value, and Defendant Boggs believes that the actual values are much less than stated. It Is further denied that Plaintiff acquired the various items set forth. Many of these Items were purchlllled by Defendant Boggs through credit card and other purchlllles and Defendant Boggs continues to be responsible for and continues to pay for these various acquisitions. Of the listed Items, Defendant Boggs agrees that the following items are the property of Plaintiff: 2 mounted B-point deer heads I ! 4 metal scoop shovels 4 tear-off roofing &hovels I ~ . , Assortment of roofing hand tools. (These were turned over to the police, to return to Plaintiff Ott.) ,.. Assortment of hunting equipment. (Defendant Boggs is unaware of very much equ.i,pment, but she knows of a gun rack, and part of a bow, which Plaintiff gave as a ., gift to Defendant Boggs' children.) 1 pair of Wrangler jeans. (Defendant Boggs is unaware of the other four pairs described, and the one pair owned by Plaintiff was retrieved by him some time ago.) 4 Adidas and Nike sweatshirts. (These are currently in the possession of the Plaintiff.) Defendant Williams is unabls to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph ~ , since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 18. Denied. Defendant Boggs is unaware of the Makita Drill referenced, and is unaware of its location. Plaintiff has thejeans, and the Adidas and Nike sweatshirts referenced. The hand tools were turned over to the Police. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint, 19. Denied that Plaintiff has ever demanded or requested any of these items. It is denied that these items are personal property of the Plaintiff, as described in paragraphs 17 and 18. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matt.er of this portion of the Complaint. 20. Denied that Defendant Boggs has threatened to sell any property which is not her property. Denied that the Makita drill was sold by Defendant Boggs. During a telephone conversation between Defendant Boggs and Plaintiff, Plaintiff expressed his view that the 1979 Ford truck should be sold at an auction or to Ron Williams, Defendant Williams' boyfriend, and an employer of the Plaintiff. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfanilliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 21. Denied that Plaintiff has ever demanded this directly of Defendant Boggs. Defendant Boggs is prepared to do so unon a full resolution of the finl\Dcial interests of the parties as set forth in this case. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfanilliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 22. Denied. The Plaintiff is currently incarcerated, and even if his allegations are true, which Defendants deny, he is not financially harmed by any actions of Defendant Boggs. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 23. Denied. To the contrary, the actione of Plaintiff, in his abusive behavior and his failure to help provide financial support to Plaintiff and to the two children of Plaintiff and Defendant Boggs have caused Defendant Boggs great financial harm. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. WHEREAS, for the rell80ns set forth above, Defendant Boggs respectfully requests this Honorable Court that it deny the relief requested by Plaintiff, 24. No further answer required. 25. Admitted, except that the sale of the pick-up truck did 110t include auy snow-plow attachment and Defendants are unaware of the Makita drill referenced in the Complaint. 26. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Williams knew that the property in question was owned by the Plaintiff. It is further denied that the property Wll8 owned by the Plaintiff since it Wll8 titled in the name of Defendant Boggs, 27. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff has demanded Defendant Williams relinquish possession of the fiberglll8s ladder, It is denied that it is the Plaintiff's personal property. It is admitted that Defendant Williams has refused to relinquish pos8ession of her property to the Plaintiff, 28. Denied. Plaintiff never made any request like this. 29. Admitted that the Ford pick-up truck is located at this location. Denied that any of the other items set forth at paragraph seventeen are located at this address. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Williams is wrongfully ,~ ~:~ ij detaining auy of Plaintiff"s property, and therefore there can be no t1Aml1ge to the j~ Plaintiff, especially since the Plaintiff is currently incarcerated. 31. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Williams hll8 wrongfully " ,.-: detained any of Plaintiff"s property or that any conduct of Defendant WllIiAmA is in any way outrageous, willful, wanton, or in reckless disregard of Plaintifrs rights. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintifrs Complaint be dismissed and judgement be entered for Defendant Williams. DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM 32. The averments and responses set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference. 33. Plaintiff has on various occasions over the past fifteen years, physically harmed, abused, and threatened to abuse Defendant Boggs. Some, but not all of these actions have resulted in the entry of a Protection from Abuse Order against the Plaintiff, on Defendant Boggs' behalf and Plaintiff Ott has been found to be in contempt of this Order. 34. The actions of Plaintiff, physically abusing and threatening to abuse Defendant Boggs, have caused her physical harm, emotional distress, and psychological harm. Defendant Boggs asserts that the couduct of Plaintiff has been intentional, reckless, negligent, and in wanton disregard of Defendant Boggs' rights. 35. Two of the firearms owned by Defendant Boggs, and described in her reply to paragraph fUteen of Plaintifrs Complaint, are her property and remain in the possession of Plaintiff, his agents, or authorized representatives, and Defendant Boggs seeks their return or their reasonable current value, as well as the return of one air compressor located at 329 Walnut Bottom Road, or the purchase price of this air compressor, which Defendant Boggs currently continues to pay. 36. Plaintiff, in retaliation for the claimed conduct of Defendant Boggs, intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly, caused damage to Defendant Boggs' vehicle by vandalizing the vehicle, damaging the tires, and placing sugar in the gas tank, causing approximately $1084 of damage to the vehicle, and approximately $225 of out- of-pocket costs to obtain replacement transportation while the vehicle was in repair, plus a rleductible of $286. Defendant Boggs seeks this amount from Plaintiff, reflecting the damages incurred by her, as a result of Plaintiff's conduct. 37. In August 1997, Defendant Boggs obtained four NASCAR tickets, at a cost of $698, with the express agreement and understanding that Plaintiff would pay for the cost of these tickets. Plaintiff has failed to pay for the cost of these tickets, and currently, Defendant is obligated to pay for them because the cost of these tickets was charged to her own account. Defendant Boggs seeks this amount from Plaintiff, reflecting the liability incurred by her, as a result of Plaintifrs conduct. 38. During 1996, Plaintiff incurred cellular telephone expenses of $370 which have been billed to Defendant Boggs' account and for which she is liable. Defendant Boggs seeks this amount from Plaintiff, reflecting the liability incurred by her, as a result of Plaintifrs conduct. 39. An air compressor was purchased by Defendant Boggs, in February or March of 1997, at a cost of $291.49. (This is part of the $2,300 value placed on the pick-up truck.) Defendant Boggs remains liable for this air compressor and demands either the return of this property or costs incurred by Defendant Boggs for purchase of this item which she believes and therefore avers is in possession of the Plaintiff or his agents. 40. Plaintiff has threatened to vandalize or damage the vehicle owned by Kim Williams. These threats, which were made by Plaintiff in a reckless, negligent and or intentional manner have caused psychological and emotional distress to Defendant Williams and Boggs, and Defendant Boggs seeks damages for Plaintifrs wrongful conduct. 41. Due to the wrongful conduct of Plaintiff, Defendant Boggs was terminated from ajob at Raskas Cheese Products in Shippensburg, at which she was paid $10.29 per hour. His conduct led to a Protection From Abuse Petition brought by Defendant Boggs against Plaintiff. He used fowl language toward, and threatenlld to kill a co- worker and supervisors when they contacted Defendant Boggs' residence to determine whether she would be able to return to work. As a direct result of Plaintiff's conduct, Defendant Boggs was terminated from this job, causing her lost wages and income. 42. The allegations and assertions of Plaintiff WI set forth in his Complaint are outrageous, willful, wanton and in reckless disregard of Defendants' rights and of the truth regarding the ownership interests of the various items described in Plaintifrs Complaint. Accordingly, Defendants seek recovery of punitive damages and counsel fees expended in defending this matter. 43. The allegations and assertions of Defendants, as set forth in his Counterclaim relate to conduct of the Plaintiff which is outrageous, willful, wanton and in reckless disregard of Defendants' rights. Accordingly, Defendants seek recovery of punitive damages and counsel fees expended in prosecuting Defendants' interests. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Defendants respectfully request of this Honorable Court that it award them $20,000 in damages, plus costs of attorney fee a and punitive damagea for the wrongful conduct of Plaintiff. Reapectfully aubmitted, \ \~ctY /..1 ~/~--:<. . . ,,- ..',./' ~.;' .-.' ",', -~ ~,,;--"" , . ,..',.'" ....'.'1.,.....(';. - , BY: Samuel W. Milke8, E8q. JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 E. High Street Carli8le, PA 17013 (717) 249-6427 Attorney No. 30130 " ~ VERIFICATION I hereby verilY that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct, I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa,C,S, Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, Dated: \ (~tt 8' ~la ~~sA-- AHA S, BOaGS ~ L-! VERIFICATION I hereby verilY that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I underotand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: \ (? {'1 ~ V,-~ ~~~Q~:~ KIM WILLIAMS VI. IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION . LAW JERRY LEE OTT, Plaintiff BARBARA S. BOGGS and KIM WD..LIAMS, Defendantl I NUMBER 07.6601 CIVIL TERM IN REPLEVIN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Erin Pharris, hereby certify that a true and certified copy of Defendant's Answer and Defendant's Counterclaim, in the above captioned matter, was duly served upon Sally Winder, Esq., attorney for the Plaintiffs, by depositing it in the U.S. Mail, postage paid, on January 2, 1998, addressed as follows: Sally Winder, Esq. 701 E. King Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 I hereby veruy that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated:~J11() 1 iii ~J/J 1m} 't{.~0 /11~V1 V tl.',,(LU(;X II/~ ERIN PHARRIS ~ V) li1 co ... (... 1 fefii o. r LI1 . .. .11_ ;]" - '~'5 r;- , :,':l '-" N ,') (.> --".# ~l::.' :ho ~td ~);r_ ::r. <:,) ..~(I) - .~::, 'I J....o. - 9, ~.. .. ~ => ;t. " ~ .r:- JERRY LEE OTT, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plalntl" VI CIVIL ACfION - LAW NUMBER: 97 - 6601 CIVIL TERM BARBARA S. BOGGS and, KIM WILLIAMS, IN REPLEVIN Derendanta PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECfION TO DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM Plaintiff, JERRY LEE OTT. by his undersigned counsel, preliminary objects to Defendants' counterclaim pursuant to Pa, R,C,P. 1028(a)(2) as follows: PRELIMINARY OBJECfION RAISING FAILURE TO CONFORM TO PA. R.C.P. IOSZ(a) I. Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants, Barbara S. Boggs and Kim Williams, by filing a complaint in replevin on November 26,1997, 2. Service of the complaint was effected upon Defendant Barbara S. Boggs on December 3, 1997, and upon Defendant Kim Williams on December 4, 1997, 3. The plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. 4. Defendants filed their answer and counterclaim against Plaintiff on January 2, 1998. S. The counterclaim filed by Defendants does not assert a claim against Plaintiff which is secured by a lien on the propeny which is listed in the complaint, and the recovery of possession of which or the reasonable value thereof, is the subject of the complaint in replevin. 6. Pa. R.C.P. 1082(a) provides that: "A claim secured by a lien on the property may be set forth as a counterclaim. No other counterclaim may be assened." 7. Under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2), a party may preliminarily o~iect by way of a motion to strike off a pleading because of lack of conformity to law or rule of coun. 8. Defendants' filing of a counterclaim which does not assen a claim secured by a lien on the property is in violation of Pa. R.C.P. 1082(a), and Defendants' counterclaim against Plaintiff must be stricken. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the counterclaim against him be stricken. (jJI' SALLY, INDER, ESQ. Attorney for PLAINTIFF, JERRY LEE OTT 701 East King Street Sblppensburg PA 17157 (717) 532.9476 ..... joa...J 2 . i ~__~_ . . ,- ~. - - .- ~. ~" ..., ('0 CI' ?; ? ':J J,-!" ("}"-'" ~ ~J :<-f. c~2 "...~J 1 !~.. \~im l"Pa. ..... "5 D ~ ~'O'. -- ( of-:;- U - f1,: p .... I . ,.,'C' . \,j.-." F L1. o (ll \fl 9 :r- ..s: ("") N .. . .-.. . ... SALLY J. WINDER A I/orney al Law 701 E. Kin. Slfttl ShippcnWNrl, fA 112S7 ,"';Y'f.t>:1i the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 6. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendant Boggs asserts that through her own funds, she has maintained insurance on this vehicle from its date of acquisition to the present time. Defendant Boggs retains the right of ownership of this vehicle, based upon her title ownership and base upon various debts the Plaintiff owes Defendant Boggs, as well as various atlIrmative claims Defendant Boggs has against Plaintiff. These atlIrmative claims will be made in a separate Complaint, to be fLIed, if necessary, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, depending upon the outcome of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed in the above referenced case. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 7. Denied. It is believed and therefore averred that the vehicle has been moved on several occasions, by the Plaintiff or his agents, and that it is now located somewhere on Cabin Lane, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 8. Admitted that the vehicle has approximately this value but it may have some increased value due to improvements from Defendant Boggs' funds. Defendant WilliAm" is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 9. Admitted that Plaintiff participated in the purchase of this vehicle. It is denied that he purchased it solely. The vehicle was purchased partly with funds from Defendant Boggs and partly with funds from Plaintiff, and was titled in Defendant Bogge' name. Defendant Williams ia unable to admit or deny the avermenta in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 10. Denied that the Plaintiff was the sole proprietor for this propose. He was employed by R&R Roofing. It is also believed that the vehicle was not used for roofing 11. Denied. Because both Defendant Boggs and Plaintiff participated in the , ! . . . . ~ I I I busine8S, but was used as a general means of transportation. Defendant Williama is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the eubject matter of this portion of the Complaint. purchase of this vehicle, it was titled in Defendant Boggs' name to reflect her ownership interest in the vehicle. Much of the transaction of purchasing this vehicle was undertaken solely by Defendant Bogge. Defendant Williama is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 12. Admitted that a snow-plow was purchased. Denied that it was purchaaed 13. Denied that this approximates the value. The truck ia valued at I f ~'. ,~ :r,::;; " ,.' ~ ~;~ flj. ~y p;.,.- ::$ 'K solely with Plaintifrs funds. Defendant Boggs contributed to the purchase of this snow-plow. Defendant Williama is unable to admit or deny the avermenta in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion or the Complaint. < approximately $1500. The plow is not attached to the truck and has only partial framing, so that it would not add much value to the truck. Defendant Wi11ian1e i8 unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 14. Denied. While the pick-up truck is located at this address, the pick-up truck does not have the snow-plow attached to it. The snow-plow remains in the aame location where Plaintiff left it after its last use. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 15. Denied. While some of the fue arms were acquired by Plaintiff, some were acquired by Defendant Boggs or were a gift to Defendant Boggs. The Mossberg 12 gauge model 835 magnum shotgun was purchased by Defendant Boggs. The 12 gauge double barrel shotgun was a gift to Defendant Boggs, for use by her son when he is old enough to use this. These two fue arms continue to be retained by Plaintiff or his agents. It is further denied that the amounts stated represent the value of these items. It is believed that the amounts set forth reflect purchase prices, and Defendant believes that the value of these items is much less than the amounts set forth in the Complaint. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of thie portion of the Complaint. 16. Denied. None of these firearms are located at 126 West Garfield Street. The Plaintiff, through friends and acquaintances, has gained possession of these firearms, and Defendant Boggs is currently unaware of their location. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 17. Denied. It is denied that the values set forth reflect the actual value of t r these items. It appears that these valuea actually reflect purchase prices rather than current value, and Defendant Boggs believes that the actual values are much leaa than stated. It is further denied that Plaintiff acquired the various items set forth. Many of these itema were purchased by Defendant Bogga through credit card and other purchases and Defendant Boggs continues to be responsible for and continues to pay for these various acquisitiona. Of the listed items, Defendant Bogga agreea that the , following itema are the property of Plaintiff; . 2 mounted 8-point deer heads 4 metal scoop shovels 4 tear-off roofing shovels Assortment of roofing hand tools. (These were turned over to the police, to return to Plaintiff Ott.) ~ ,. Assortment of hunting equipment. (Defendant Bogga is unaware of very much equipment, but she knows of a gun rack, and part of a bow, which Plaintiff gave as a gift to Defendant Boggs' children.) 1 pair of Wrangler jeans. (Defendant Boggs is unaware of the other four pairs described, and the one pair owned by Plaintiff was retrieved by him some time ago.) 4 Adidas and Nike sweatshirts. (These are currently in the possession of the Plaintiff.) Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the avermenta in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 18. Denied. Defendant Boggs is unaware of the Makita Drill referenced, and ia unaware of ita location. Plaintiff has the jeans, and the Adidas and Nike aweatehirta referenced. The hand too1a were turned over to the Police. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in thia paragraph since ahe ia completely unfamiliar with the aubject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 19. Denied that Plaintiff has ever demanded or requested any of theae items. It ia denied that these items are peraonal property of the Plaintiff, as described in paragraphs 17 and 18. Defendant WillillDlB is unable to admit or deny the avermenta in this paragraph aince she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 20. Denied that Defendant Bogga has threatened to sell any property which ia not her property. Denied that the Makita drill was sold by Defendant Bogga. During a telephone conversation between Defendant Boggs and Plaintiff, Plaintiff expressed hia view that the 1979 Ford truck should be aold at an auction or to Ron Williams, Defendant Williams' then-boyfriend, and an employer of the Plaintiff. Derendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the avermanta in thia paragraph since ahe is completely unfamiliar with the eubject mattEr of this portion of the Complaint. 21. Denied that Plaintiff has ever demanded thie directly of Defendant Boggs. Defendant Bogge is prepared to do so upon a full resolution of the financial intereata of the parties as set forth in thie case, but she remains tith owner of thia vehicle. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in thia paragraph aince she is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of thia portion of the Complaint. 22. Denied. The Plaintiff has been incarcerated during much of the time aince the filing of his civil action, and even if his allegationa are true, which Defendants deny, he is not financially harmed by any actions of Defendant Boggs. Defendant Williama is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since ahe is completely unfamiliar with the subject matter of this portion of the Complaint. 23. Denied. To the contrary, the actions of Plaintiff, in his abusive behavior and his failure to help provide financial support to Plaintiff aud to the two children of Plaintiff and Defendant Boggs have caused Defendant Boggs great financial harm. Additionally, debt incurred by Defendant Boggs, in connection with expenses that are those of Plaintiff (some of which are addressed above) have caused and continue to cause great hardship to Defendant Boggs. Defendant Williams is unable to admit or deny the averments in this paragraph since she is completely unfamiliar with the aubject matter of this portion of the Complaint. WHEREAS, for the reasons set forth above, Defendant Boggs respectfully requests this Honorable Court that it deny the relief requested by Plaintiff. COUNT II 24. No further answer required. 25. Admitted, except that the sale of the pick.up truck did not include any snow-plow attachment and Defendante are unaware of the Makita drill referenced in the Complaint. 26. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Williams knew that the property in question was owned by the Plaintiff. It is further denied that the property was owned by the Plaintiff since it was titled in the name of Defendant Bogga. Defendant Williams relied upon Defendant Boggs, in believing that Defendant Williams was purchasing a vehicle wit,h good title. 27. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff has demanded Defendant Williams relinquish possession of the fiberglasa ladder. It is denied that it is tbe Plainti1rs personal property. It is admitted that Derendant Williama has refused to relinquish posaession of her property to the Plaintiff. 28. Denied. Plaintiff never made any request like this. 29. Admitted that the Ford pick-up truck is located at this location. Denied that any of tho other itema set forth at paragraph seventeen are located at this address. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied tbat Defendant Williams Is wrongfully detaining any of Plaintiff's property, and therefore there can be no damage to the Plaintiff, especially since the Plaintiff has been incarcerated during much of the time since filing his Complaint. 31. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Williams has wrongfully detained any of Plainti1rs property or that any conduct of Defendant Williams is in any way outrageous, willful, wanton, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed and judgement be entered for Defendant Williams. NEW MATTER AFFmMATIVE DEFENSES: ACCORD AND SATISFACTION, PAYMENT, RELEASE, AND ILLEGALITY 32. Defendants incorporate by reference their answers set forth above. I \ 33. On November 26, 1997, Plaintiff f1led this action in Replevin against the Defendants, seeking various items of property, and damAges. 34. On January 2, 1998, the Defendants med an Answer and Counterclaim, denying that Plaintiff was entitled to the relief requested, and speciJYing property and/or damages to which they were entitled. 35. On January 23, 1998, the PlainLill'rued Preliminary Objections, asserting that the Defendantl could not raise the issues set forth, by way of a Counterclaim to an action in Replevin. 36. On January 22, 1998, during the pendency of this action, Defendant Boggs and Plaintiff entered into an agreement, in which he received "all items requested from Barbara Boggs" and in which he agreed not to "pursue any law suit regarding aaid items. I will not pursue any monetary punitive damages against Barbara Boggs." See attached Affidavit of Barbara Boggs, accompanied by original, notarized agreem3nt of Jerry Otto 37. Plaintiff and Defendant Boggs have entered into a full and complete settlement of the matters at issue in this case, and accordingly the action should be dismissed against Defendant Boggs. 38. The case presented by Plaintiff against Defendant Williams is completely reliant upon the case presented against Defendant Boggs, in that: a. All property which Defendant Williams is alleged to have in her possession, belonging to Plaintiff, is alleged to have come into her possession through actions of Defendant Boggs, by her sale of property to Defendant Williams. b. The vehicles which are the subject of this action were at all relevant times titled in the name of Barbara Boggs. c. Defendant Boggs is an indispensable party. 39. For the reasons described above, Defendant Williams may not be sued individually in this action. 40. At paragraphs 6 and 11 of his Complaint, Plaintiff statea that the sole reason he placed title of vehicles he "purchased" into Defendant BOgg8' name ia that hia drivera licen8e was under suspension and he could not obtain in8urance if the vehicles were titled in hi8 own name. Plaintiff may not lawfully "purchase" and "own" a vehicle in the manner which he has de8cribed. WHEREFORE, for the reasons !let forth above, Defendants respectfully request of this Honorable Court that it dismiss the case pending against them. Respectfully submitted, ~Qo\~~ Y: Samuel W. Milkes, Esq. JACOBSEN & MILKES 52 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6427 Attorney No. 30130 VI. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUN'IY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION. LAW NUMBER 07-6601 CIVIL TERM IN REPLEVIN JERRY LEE OTl', Plaintiff BARBARA S. BOGGS and KIM WILLIAMS, Defendant. AFFIDAVIT OF BARBARA S. BOGGS I, Barbara S. Boggs, being of sound mind, hereby afflrm that the following information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief: 1. I am a Defendant in the above action. 2. A third party met with the Plaintiff, Jerry Ott, on January 22, 1998, at which time, through the third party, we agreed upon a settlement of all disputed raised in this civil action. 3. On January 22, 1998, Mr. Ott signed the attached document, conflrming that in exchange for my providing Mr. Ott with various items at issue in this action, he agreed not to pursue this action against me. 4. The attached document was signed by Mr. Ott in the presence of a notary, on the date shown. I hereby verilY that the statements made in the foregoing Affidavit 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. Section 4904, I ! ~ I relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated;~(:JOlq~ ~~ \\().A.c~.Q'~;/:L . nARBARA ~O~ VI. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA I CIVIL ACTION . LAW I I NUMBER 97.6601 CIVIL TERM JERRY LEE OTT, Plaintiff BARBARA S. BOGGS and KIM wnJ.JAMS, Defendantl IN REPLEVIN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Erin Pharris, hereby certify that a true and certified copy of Defendant's Amended Answer, in the above captioned matter, was duly served upon Sally Winder, Esq., attorney for the Plaintiff, by depositing it in the U.S. Mail, postage paid, on February 23, 1998, addressed as follows: Sally Winder, Esq. 701 E. King Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 I hereby verilY that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: t-/231'I'D ~. ;{ vtw<l(;u . ERIN PHARRIS () '.'" n , :..) .., , , - I ~; , . '1 ,', J 'I'CI .' , ....) .. :'j l....... .' , ., I , , .-:1 " I \ ... , ) r~, ;) . . n-l ...:.; "j ',,> :j -:" --, --