HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-01142
~
.
\l
~
~
~
./i;l
'. ,.,'
<~;~:;,
,'~
,".!:-j
,\1.
:f\.ill
;,i5,
:,l~"!
._""
: 'y)~;)J
".:Yi
~.. ',\
:1
j"
"1
~
"J
i
.
<
II:
~
~
u
-...{
:Ii
~
/
f
...
~
:--.
.5
...
J~
:;t
-
-
~
""
1':"oI'U.I'\'\UATAHI.INll'NIM If ~IIfJUf~ 1l't1.1
C',uk.l: llUly,II2;U\., I'M
MUM.I: IIW:/'Mlll..II1>!JI'M
I'., . ~._.
.~.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
KEITH L. LEHMAN & TAMMY
LEHMAN. lldlbla K & R LEHMAN
CONTRACTING,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION ' LAW
v.
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE,
Defendants
NO. Q8- U 4d CUi-.Q l0W'\
NOTICE
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the c1aim~ set forth in the
following pages. you must 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 defenses or objections to the c1aim~ 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 further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the Plaintiffs. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
'\
,
I
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 OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP:
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty A venue
Carlisle. Pennsylvania 170 I 3
Telephone (7 17) 249,3 I 66
j
,
(
I'
~,
,I I
\1 (
.\ .
:(
. r"
, ;
. I"
MARTSON. DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTIO
By ~cJtQ~
Ivo V. Otto, III, Esquire
PA Attorney 10 No. 27763
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
PA Attorney ID No. 75901
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243,3341
Attol'l/eys[o/' Plailllif[
Date: March 2, 19911
.~'
. .
KEITH L. LEHMAN & TAMMY
LEHMAN. t/d/b/a K & R LEHMAN
CONTRACTING.
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION, LAW
v.
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE.
NO. C\~ - )\ 4d- Cuu.0 ~I'V\
Defendants
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs. Keith L. Lehman and Tammy Lehman. trading and doing
business as K & R Lehman Contracting, by and through their attorneys, Martson, Deardorff. William~
& Otto, and hereby aver as follows:
1. Plaintiffs are Keith L. Lehman and Tammy Lehman, husband and wife, trading and
doing business as K & R Lehman Contracting with its principle place of business at 2107 Walnut
Bottom Road. Carlisle, Cumberland County. Pennsylvania 17013.
2. Defendants are Kerry R. Henne and Joan M. Henne, husband and wife, and are adult
individuals residing at 3 Morrison Way, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
3. On or about June 23, 1997, Defendants entered into a written Agreement with
Plaintiffs for the construction of a two,story, two car garage house. (A copy of this Agreement is
attached hereto as Exhibit "An).
4. In exchange for Plaintiffs' construction of the house, Defendants agreed to pay
Plaintiffs $1 HO,OOO.OO plus or minus any additions or subtractions as permitted under the Agreement.
5. Modifications to the work to be performed under the Agreement resulted in
permissible additions totaling $14.690.7H thus adding this amount to the contract price.
6. Modification to the work to be performed under the AgreelTlent resulted in permissible
subtractions totaling $13,429.00 thus subtracting this amount from the contract price.
7. Taking into consideration the permissible additions and subtractions, the total amount
due under the Agreement is $1 H 1.2Ci I. 7H.
l
(
I
,.
~
X. Additionally. Dcfcndal1lS arc in posscssion of matcrials owncd by Pluintiffs thuI wcrc
Icft althc construction sitc valucd ut $X53.24.
lJ. Plainliffs complctcd pcrformance under Ihe conlruct on or ubout Januury 13, IlJlJX.
10. As of Murch 2. IlJlJX, Defcndants havc made paymcnts to Plaintiffs undcr the
Agrccmcnt totuling $1/\4,000.00, Icaving un unpaid balance of $17.26 I. 7X.
11. Additionally, thc paymcnts totaling $1/\4,000.00 wcrc not disburscd to Plaintiffs inu
timely munncr undcr thc Agrcelrentthus causing PlaintilT.~ to incur, and to continue to incur. ongoing
additionul expenses currently totaling $575.00.
12. Moreover, Defendants' untiJrelydisbursements and refusal to puy the unpaid balance
under the Agreelrent have caused Plaintiffs to lose additional business opportunitics, und the resultant
profits therefrom. because Plaintiffs were deprived of the financial ability to pursue these additional
construction projects.
13. Despite repeated demand for payment. Defendants have failed complete paymcnt as
required under the Agreemel1l and have failed to compensate Plaintiffs for damages incurred.
COUNT)
BREACH OF CONTRACT
14. Pluintiffs hereby incorporute by reference the uverments contained in paragraphs 1
through 13 of this Complaint as iffully set forth.
15. By failing to tender payment as required under the Agreement, Defendants have
breached the Agreement.
16. By fuiling to disburse paYIrents in a timely manner in compliance with the term~ of the
Agreement, Defendants have breached the Agreement.
17. By breaching the Agreement. Defendants have caused damages to Plaintiffs in the
amount of $17.26 I. 7X as well as ongoing consequential damages and lost profits.
WHEREFORE. Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendal1ls in an amount exceeding
$25.000.00 plus costs, interest. and allorneys' fees.
i .. '_~,
- pl'UlruUltl
.~'
/i)
Page No,
1
of
3
Pages
K & R LEHMAN CONTRACTING
~QlXWXU
~~~"~IRR~~~.\')')(AHIfl:~i'~A
.~Ay'AXXXll(loMj
PROPOSAL IUDMlffW 10
and Joan I/enne
2107 Walnut Bottom Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone I (717) 258-1204
113 Petersbur Road
CITY, 'T~H[ AND In' COllt
Carlisle PA 17013
ARCItIl[Cr
JOD NAM[
PttON[
249-1023
June 23, 1997
OAf[
Two Story with Two Car Garage
JOo lOCA liON
IJAU Of rlAN5
w. hereby ,Ubmlt "JlJclllc.IIO'" .ntle.tl""'III' fo,:
JOO PHONe
Two Story wfth Two Car Garage
BlueprInts
Excavating
W(lll
Sap tIc
Dasement
Masonryt front porch & garage
hltouse Package
Electric
Plumbing
I/eating
Insulation
Drywa 11
Paint and Stain
K Hellen
Flooring
Light ing
Garage Doors and Operators
Gas Fireplace
Sidewalks
Basement Entrance from Garage
Bonus Room
BuildIng Labor
TOTfIL
S 350.00
6,000.00
3,000.00
5,000.00
10,370.00
6,029.00
72,303.00
4,750.00
10,100.00
7,400.00
3,500.00
6,000.00
1,000.00
9,460.00
6,440.00
1,000.00
3,000.00
1,500.00
650.00
1,000.00
2,648.00
18,500.00
$lBO,OOU.OO
,
1
.
.\
,
I
l
..
I
I'
\
I'
.
. ,:.
r :"/:
\I~,
'f":
I.'....
: ~. ,.'^:.
\' r>i"
t' .
.' r'.
. ie;
,:,
r<",
I,:,",
) ~l~g~:
l':'}I*
..J,(
SEE PAGE 2 FOR SPECIFICATIONS
III, IIrol'lI"' horotJy 10 furnish material and lalJor - complete in accordance with alJove specifications. for Ihe sum of:
One Itundred EI gtlty Thousand and 00/100-h-------------------------dorrars ($ lBO,OOO.OO
iI)'m',,1 to bll made fl' follow,: ).
TO DE PAID ACCORDItlG TO BAliK DRAWS
AU 'tI.I.llel ,. '10"'"""1 fu t.. It '11t'~.I,..d An WOI) 10 L. CO"'I,leled ill' "'orkmanh"e
nllnnlt .UII/dUlI 10 '14nll,,1I 11f'~lln\ Ant .11.,1"011 (IF devI.hon "DOl Ibove '1leti"tI
'''In' In,,'hll1l11 .,1/1 IUlh ,,'" b. "'cul"t onl, "lIOn "",UE'I'! orden. .nd will becomE'.n
uh. tli.r,. I,l,,, '"d .I~,,,, II.. ',III:ul, All .it"l'mrnh COIII,nit'nl upon \111~n. ectldenh
.f d.I'I' h'tlllld flUI tonll1l1 0.."" 10 ""t "11'. tornldo .nd ollll'r 'oeet'nal)' in\uranl;e
Ou, MJ/'", ".lulI, ur"."tI fI, WIlI.'''l'n', CllfIll'cmuhon In'uffnee
Authorized
Sienalure _
Keith L. Ie ."n,
Nofe: HilS proposa may tie
withdrawn by us if nol accepled wilhin
--=.
Arrl'.'1<<lItl' II! Vrllpllllnl-The .hove price,. 'I'<'cil"."oo,
"'" COfut.!UlfU 'lilt ull,'M.lo,y allll ale hereby aCcepll'd. You art' aulhoriloJd
10 dll 'he 'IllU'~ ... '1M'(llwj Piljf1'llml will be n....dc as oullmt>d above.
,,'- ~ -......
0'1. or '-"ltl,II",,'I!" _' --_L
20
days.
.--'-
~-=--
SIttnalure //
.. ,/-
,.----'
l .-/.~,
.-.-::~
I
I
!
J
Signa lure
EXHIBIT "A"
~.prriftrnti1tlt.a
Pago No.
2
of
3
pages
. ..
.._ __d_.__"_______._.__.__._
_ _,_ _ _ Two StO!Y,with Two"Car Garage
.. ",------.--.--------
**Housepackiige-p-ri ee-subjecY to --riie'feci'se -cue .'to-i iicrease-i n'-l ulnlie-r-pri'ces.
--------------------.-----
EXCAVATING ALLOWANCE: $6,000.00 - Any extra costs over and above allowed price
C1ueto--rocks-(dyii'dirii fe')',--etC."will be an additTona 1 cosCiiiidwil r be-billed
separately. Digging....'!:.ater_lfn!, e1ectr_icJ..in!!__~_nd.0_~Lgrade..:.__.__
__WELk ALlllliAN~Ei'l:l_'~_'OOO .~g.=-.~~j'lext~.a co~!..s_. 01 Vl!!~-~.g.~lal~8y,~.-~.QWt.~ld pri ce due to
roc~s, etc. w ue an auultlona cost anu Wl ue ul eu separa e y. ,
S'EPTrCACLllIiANCE::-SS-;-OOlf.-Oo - Any extra costs over and above alloweCl price will
be an additional cost and will be billed se~ratelY.
COItTRACT PRICE INCLUDES:
See Building ~ecifications Sheet for all exterior and interior building
materi~~ Drywall interior flnish, carpet, padding, vfnyl and ceramic t-fle
according_to ~lans, seamless s~outing.
BASENENT: 8" concrete footers,_~and l()"_~oured concre~e _l"'aJls, stone base
under 4" concrete floor, outside entrance with Silco Door, french
drain (4" sewer and drain~i~e) and threu~) windows.
GARAGE: 8" concrete footer, 8" block, stone base for 6" concrete floor.
FRENCH DRAIN AND/OR SUMP PUMP: ~~p_~~~p hole in basement,-pump~ if needed,
4" drain towel around house for drainage.
FROrlrpORCH: 8:'-cons~.~ fo~ter, 8" ''block, stone base for 4" concrete floor,
· . . . .- fJ-(tL
HOUSE PACKAGE: See ~pec Sheet
CARPET, PADDIN~ VINYL AND CERN1IC TILE: to be customer's choi~e with an
allowance of $6,440.00 (carpet, padding and installation - $20.00
per sg~are~ar~,~eramic tile - $6.00 per square foot installed).
Selections to be made at Richardson's Floor and Wall, 305 South _ _
Favette Stre~, Shipp_ensbl![g" PA 17057. ......
PAINT & STAIN: to be customer's choi~al1 walls and ceilinQs to be one
color; trim color to be customer's choice.
KITCHEN: to be customer's choice lI'ith an allowance of $9,460.00
KITCHEN APPLIANCES: garbagE disposal only.
INSULATION: See Spec Sheet
FIREPLACE: 90S fireplace lI'ith an allowance of S1,500.00.
----, ---OGHfTiiG:--to'be'customer'sct.o{ce'-i,;rtil'a-nua-TlOl'lance 0(1'-,000.00- for interior
~nrl pxt~rin'. lirllt~
'/
Submitted by -0 L L. , .
THIS PAGE BECOMlS PART OF AND IN CQNFORUANce WITH PROPOSAL FOR;
V to R lEHU... CONTR 'CTIN" IWO Story Y!1 th Two Car Garage
r. ;. "'''''' ." '-' Job Name/No. KcrL,}'-P.'';J/.l('~" Henne
KE~th L. Lehmll~, Accopted by ~.~/.....,." DUlo" - . ~
I t;- I t1hI1l.t.LSJ
d' Z J " I ' .. ,-..
Dale _ -::.~!:::. " __ 19 ___~ A"cerf~d h~' '._. _ ....*_!.:..:-_ Oate--L.-=--=:"':~_ 19
.....",.,
19 ~ :~.
~ -~
&prrffitutinitB
3
Pogo No.
01
3
pages
.'
I'LUNDINul
Install all rough-In and connett,lons to adapt the followlng:_
- - ,-..- u__ h. _+_. h._.
Kitchen I
One (1) Amerl cast doub 1e_ bowL -sJnLw.Lt!~~_l-loeru:~rOrn'Lf~u-'~L________
with spray.
One (1) PRO 33355 I ns I .n~er.a tOLdj ~PO_s!! t.
DIShwasher hook-up.
Ic('maker box.
. - .- . ---+ -~- '.-.".----
',. -._____n__.._..______ ._.___
Master Bat/II g~~ qj :~t~f.o~~~s~~I~nd .seat.____._,__.___.______"____._________
. '" .One II ... Moen,brass_Ja\latoryJaucet...________,___,_____._.__ ___
Bath I g~~ qj'~~~i~h~~~~e~n~i~-.~~:J 11FMoen'-brass-tub'lshoWerfaucet-:----..
.--, .One .ll . Moen. br,ass..1 avatoryJau_cet..______._____________
. LaundrYI.One( lLwasl1 Ing machJne__boll._____
MIsc... __One..( 1) .gas_water _heater.
Two (2) outdoor hydrants.
ELECrillCI-All-sw'ffCiies-'and recepT;;c1es wired to code, customer's choice for
--.--... --- '. .-. ___receptac1 e.. placement, .meta_LU gllt_boxes_fLLe.v,eD'.J:9.Q!!1.. _rec_e.s.sed
11ghts in kitchen, lights in every closet, 200 amp underground
0_- -___a. --.- _serv! ce ,_two -( ZLQuar..tz_.Lights_ofLexteri or _O.f.J1Qt.!s_e,ioll.r..HL
outside receptacles, access pipe from basement to attic for any
-.-----.-- -.-___cx tr.a.curcu I tLl'oLfutur.Luse.
-.--- -IlEA TI NG 1.,..Ga s Jur.nace ..for.ced -hot...a-iLwf.th_cerltr..aLai r.
'-'--..-- ..SI DEh'ALKSI.JronLonly, _3 ~_wide ...6~_concrete.
.
------ - COIITRACL PR I CLDOES_NOLl NCLUDE _GRAD I NG JUID_SEEDl NG-OE..LAW1LOR.J.ANDSCAf>.ING.
WIl/CH WILL BE THE RESPOllSIBILITY OF THE Ol.INERS.
---.----.----.------------ - - -
ANY CHANGES MADE TO THE BLUEPRINT THAT WILL INCREASE THE PRICE OVER WHAT IS
-- --ALLOWED - WILL.BLAN ..ADD IJj ONAL _COSLTO ..THE_CUSIOI-JER.--1HE..tQSIJIiCRElISE_D_UE...J.Q
AllY CHANGES WILL BE PAID BY THE CUSTOMER BEFORE WORK IS COMPLETED AND A CHANGE
----- ORDER - fORM .1/ ILLBE -COI1PLETED _AND__S I GNED-BLIHLCU5I0I1ER.
-------.-..---...
-----_..__.._.-._-_.._-_.._-----_..__.~--_._-+-------
,._,- -'.. .--..., '__'.'___u._+_..
..._--.-.._- -------.- ----______n____..
K &. R LEH~~t.~ CONTRf.("Tl~G
K~ fth L. Lehma~,
Suhn'lIud by J.: l L __ Dole J I' "L___Z '\ _ 19. 5, 7.
""
THIS PAGE 8ECOMF;,S rAnT DF ArID !N CONFpnJ.1;oNCE \'IjTH PRQPOSAL Fon.
1~'C, ~tO:~Y tiltl. 'h'C, l.ar bGrage
Job NarnelNo. j~~-r_j=---En~~.L~.7.l ~~=-~U~
- - .~ ',' ;.>.... ~,- .
Accepled by --=- .-,- c'" Dale ,- 19:::>
- l"jIJI"~!1 . .
Accepl('j by~:'~ - -.. ':'~:=::--_oale~~.::.......~=--,_ 19 ~-;"-;o,
", .
'.
Mr. & Mrs. Kerry R. Henne
113 Petersburg Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone: (717) 249-1023
Two Story with Two Car Garage
BUILOER: K & R Lehman Contracting
2107 Walnut Bottom Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone: (717) 258-1204
PROPOSED DRAW SCHEDULE:
(20%) 1. Upon completion of basement and subfloor. $ 34,000.00
(25%) 2. Upon completion of house framing with doors and
windows installed and shingles installed. $ 42,500.00
(20%) 3. Electric and plumbing roughed-in, insulated and
ready for drywall. $ 34,000.00
(15%) 4. Orywall installed, painting completed, kitchen
(20%) installed and exterior completed. $ 25,500.00
5. Trim installed, carpet, padding, vinyl and ceramic
tile installed and house ready to move in. $ 34,000.00
TOTAL $170,000.00
14:S[3
SoI"I'<,"on No. .
8~lld.. . ,4K t.ell/~41'1
0-" K!.u~ -':t.f~tr
o."'n fo, Qllall J..,,,, ~ '21 - r 1
0.10 .fllA..
TyptofHulldln, 2 - S'1012~
llUILUINl; SPECIFICATIONS
. Quo.. No
I'I1on. .DuJld.,
Phont .Otm.,
0... Q\lolod
P.I'lS
2 SB . I L., If
G'< '1 - 10 C!. 3
o.lo.fo.U..".
L... I '~h-.J 'l;:-s~ ft1~e..
(Uvlng Room (right) or Oeft) taclnl frOllt or houle)
NOTE: En'll h.",. I. q.- .....rellnr l<> lIuJld.,'. 0' Own..'. ~llcado"", PI..... fill oulllo_ 'PO'" .....fuDy, I...... "'...." YES WfLl..
liE BUPPI.lED. llolll.l",".hd NO 0' (NOT LISTED) "ILL NOT BE SUPPI.lED.
BASEMENT MATEIl1ALS AND PANELII; 12. YES @) con'lnlcdon .1...
I.~O lttlIJoolulDlII 13. (YES) NO Indftoo,pl)'lODOd '3h I,..,...! {,
I. <t!i!'lO "",.. (wood .llIy) s; e.. E l...... :u YES @ oon_.n ,I...
.. n:s ~ """"q.oth.. llll. @JNO balt"'.nlllal.. <
4. ('RS-:)NO .......nllllnd....lt;n>t) A VI Ow I......... l.....ri.1 oblY)(1W-CU1 onIY~...plltoly pre.buiilt>
a. YES @ ""-.'!llllerlo,doo.. lIl\. YES NO b.......nltlal'nlllnd black.lo
5. YES @J ...."'.nlln..ri.,doo.. PANEL SYlITEM:
7. n:s@) ....1Il..lIlllerl.'woodplln.,. 27. Gis )NO
lmallrialonly)(pa..r.)!hel.hl )
e. YES@) "--OIllllllerio, "",,.1 ahlllhiDr
I
28, @>O
..
eGrDen
YES ~ ......"'fDlblterio,putitlG..
lmallrllloPllly) (pa..J')lh~bl)
YES@) liel4 Ipplied l<>p plaia r:, paMI.
n:s ~ .........1 farttb, otrip.t
(alerio,) Unllrio,)
1lO.~O
29. Q~o
10.
II.
12. @.>O 1iD_ltrllnaulallo.)
I'. ~o liD pl.Qe lrerulat(trutedL>
IlC~" oth.,.
WOOD n.ooR SYSTEMS:
14. n:s@..)lolftoo,lruutto
IS. YES@) Zndfloo,lruutto
ISA. YES @> I. C Iloor Ir1wo b..el...
I'. ~NO ".lloo,J.I... T...\ I IS' (.," 0 .(.
n. @ NO WlloorJoil" .s~. 34.
18. @) NO fIoo'JOitlobozin~1.j S'\Y(\oop ~o 35,
19, ~NO 1ol/2ndnoo,joilloc.ndlevor :16.
20, YES @ llridrin, fo, noor jol. (..ood) fm,"1J
~ :3 ,. T f b ./)
21. ~ NO lot noo, plywood r.
81. @)IO
3Io\.@)NO
!2. @)NO
33. @) No
830\. cYE~L "No
@..)Io
@NO
@)NO
36A,(@) No
PI" lor..
fl., ....
..lorl., ..nel. .11\ noo, 2. Y I.{
Ie." 0 .(.
S'TUI<I.I~ i
'lllerlo,paner. .2Ddn_
c;'"""",
'.
.."'rlor ",...IhI.o, . 2nd 1100' _1.
!l~
-S~, ~
eomtn
. ..
....... pan.r. (h'bHalabll e.e
'/1.." O~"
..teriollb..lhirl........ ~ ~.~
In"rio, plntl.. lot noor 2., It
Ie. 'I o. C::.
Jnttrior pane Ie. 2nd aGOr
S' '" "'--'L
double lop pJ.lt I. "'rio, pantl.
fldo'y Ipplied 1I.ld .pplled ~
ti.ld Ipplltd lop pr.", '=::::;.11';., Pln.r. ==:-
..lIib, n.lI" 2 .6Colhor)
20 PI'HUI.lud. fo, hra<ln.., bulkhead DI...ri.1
Il<.
/lD12 . C. 16' fo, brann.., etc.
JAN-22-1998 14:50
.........
Y-
.
:I:'~ gi'L ~ 10/1'-
pilch
pilch
pilch
pilch
hip
ohod
,.mb..1
la_nord
0111"
11. @YO rooltru....
.. @)NO ...taltruu.po....
II. C~")NO truub"d.'h4(0\h"~
' /I
40. <Xi) NO ,obi. ...... ("'.o\hod) Z. O~fJ
41. ns@ pbl,,"olo(.heolhed)
42. @> NO Illftan
I
I
43, l~ NO ooIIl..lolllta
44. (YES::>NO brid,!.. lor ..W,,'oIala (wood/metal)
45. ~ NO rllIt. pole
46. @)NO .lIi.knoo.oU.
47. @)NO' .......porUorCllrport
013. @NO
49. €s)NO
150. YES@
&1. ~NO
&2. YES NO
113. 0
&4. NO
156. NO
156. NO
".
..... overh.nl (Crom Ilud Une)
It II
,obI. overhonl (hom Ilud IInel
\~"
,.bl. overbo., Iaddu.
ov.III... ...Ium ~riol (wood)
rootobeothin, .2l!.<.:' (.)... tJ
.,
rool plywood clip.
A1l111l1Dum drip ecl&e (eaves a: pblel) @)S,
toOrrel@olb.
roor oblnalu 5. exPOOUIe A1:lt.l.,.
bond o ",,",\l." ~ c:..ot.rt 114 ~ color
.225 FIG other
&7. @)NO .roornall.
118, ~ NO '181l1DlinOlD lIuhlna
59. ~ NO proper ftol
150. @) NO 00&< venl brown ..hi.. blaek
81. YE~ Iouvr.. ("ood) site
(oIumillum) Ii..
pordl ....m wood ....red
YES i ..rport ....... .tnmlaom ..nncI
YES N c:o.rport Itoam lIOOd co-.d
YES 0 on:h boanl. (I .... a old..)
75. @NO pord: ~~, wood or ~
Iiz. CI
63 ~NO
&4. @ NO
66. ~ NO
66. YES (];
@ NO
YES ~
M. @) NO
67.
118,
70. C!.~ NO
YES GiliJ
71.
72.
73.
74.
P.05
IUmlnUD1'.~
oIwnlnllDl ooIlil & lucla 'Yllc'" cola,
food. bo.n1.(.II.) 'Z,.1i,
Z-it'''
nke boanl. (oh,)
wood Gml.ad r.ed..)"Itfa:l
oomllQ be ftolod 1/8 Y 213 _ all _
..,lfit ftlll otrip 001". (oIre)
poICb or carpolt coW.. (l)umloOlll)
/3/8' plJ'1fOC)d>S V \ "".. (
pon:h ....m .tllllllna", ....red
7ll. @No porch poIlI ..ppolt
77. C~')NO ltroelW'lI...."'.
77A.@>0 "mlnlled'-",(.)
WTNDOWS AND EXTERIOR OOORS AND GARAGE DOORS:
78. <!~) NO Dv.lllold &mie cIoor1: iIllUla~O
1Iy1. .c~~ fj\.<~1 lnDd CcoC'1~\1
l1un<! olre 'Z. - B 'f 1<" I 1 ~ q ~1
S
'3
79. ~NO
80. ~ NO
81.~NO
81^~NO
82. @) NO
83. @ NO
P." 2 01 4
110. or.leelr\.operato..
110.oltronlllllllc..
ov.llleod ...... door(.) lDoI01lccl
pror- door Ira.k, ....ler. Jlmb.. and
briekmold
.I<l<rior "'7rncc doon (.lcoJ) (wood)
brand ~(e.
fronldoolllyl_ -H. IS"
IUrdooulyl. ---1:l- ,e 'i
110... to rlrar' Ilyl. 1-\ - I '70
0111....
~"
jlmb widlh
"lerior door oid.U.ht@.r (21
lockatt., .It.andle Ityle, .lite,. front only
I
I
J~-22-1998
.""'u. ._~
~~.@) NO
... ,@ NO
14:S1
"u,....uun..,. .a....n'"
Dr.
lochOlt,.lnltlj....brond ~ '" I ",<:.1.. .
,t~I~; ~::-.. .om<.)(.oodll.lumln....) ~ ,
e1u (.,".. \,. t\ In... ~1l""1~"""
wlad....: (oIn:l. oIool""')
ANDERSEN OTHER
aln&Je aJUt IDtuloted aJlU
?tuld~ ("DI&/I pelf. aJ~
ICt'OellS low E II...
@E:>
primed
15.~o
telnoloDe
IIDIInJ.Ihcd
Ili.... YES ~ .kyU... (dICI. .Hlred) brand:
fixed opontla,
d...o nil
I5B. @JNO 1A..llted fincl,tau
Inp...ld. _ ocUl,.n _ oth.r .:::i..-
I5C. ~ wind.. pan.l.
EXTERIOR TRIM, SIDINGS, ETC,
N. YES @ trin. boal1la (.b.)
87. YES @ eomle. trim
88. YES @)...loeelllnooOl ..IIr1.r 1II.ldln..
89, ~O wlndo...h.lten(dlCl.i1"irtdll.UV'red~
90. YES@ dOOI.hullon (ellCl. d,"irodll..v.recI . p.nel
91. YES@) .ecorativ. fr.nt door trim ond he.d
wood .Iyle
typon .tyle
12. @ NO oldl~. Ind .ce....ri..
921., fJ/ A
brie. tbj' bullderl (dlCle ..h... brie.)
f"mt ",hI end
ft., I.n end
13,
114,
Ilbl.. other
YES @).~poll .nd ....th..v.n.lh....'ehiekenl
YES @) ~'''rior dKk .1..
lC'il'C'lt dui"dt
.lAln
horiz.ont..al nil
pickfl "il
other
il.Uir, indiutt hcirht "aradt to d<<ku _
Pa,t 3 01 4
P.O?
..
94A. @>NO ...ood .hl...
INTEItI0n 11llMS, DOORS, HI/ELVINO, ETC.
~. (mJNO .aln 11&1..: width ~. bo.ed
k
.
pine.... pln. ./pla. otria,on
... .n..... .,... .tri",.ra
01. Ind 01. ./pln. .trIn,....
1I(j, @)NO ...In .lalr ralllnl . .... .JL. bllCh L
8'1. @> NO ....1I.rb.lconyralU...
87.... YES @ pr..ammblcd Il&lr rail
!lll. @)NO lrImmtd opealb..
eg, @)No pn,ho.... Inllrl.f.doo.. (drdtdulred)
t:Nw,"'t:.lca.-c..
IpUIJambl C C&I~ IIDCU( lOoH'J
Q peJambs~ ~':~
C&sln. .pplled F/I Lamb.
100. (YES) NO 010011 d..~"'edlbl,r.lci?)lidlnll)
101. (y~ NO pock.t .....
102. @Yo Inlerl.rwlnd...ndd..r"Iin~'(drd'd'olred)
~. Z"I
nneh ~ au V
. fin,.r IoIDt Ccl..~
102G.JNO wind.w 0111. (dlCl. d..lred)
. ~ plel.... fnm.
1028, YES@ window trim
dry.....1I ...Ium. . .pron " .tool only
103. ~O b...bOlnllll m'Lch(.I"I(~)
104, YES (fjj) b....h..
IOS. @ NO metllel...t rOd. ond .h.lv..
106. ~NO wood .helv.. .nd m.tll.od.
107. YES~ oak noorinll'pl'ffin. un"n,'
\ '1
')C
, ((
I
J
.,..
,
J
\
,
I
!
i
(
I
C.,.,h.r.')
lOll. YES G .. . pll'lC."I~'here?1
109. YES €J
~ . partlel. bo.n1lwh....?1
I09A.@JNO
HARDWARE
110. @ NO
:::: ~::
'~'Iaulnpll'(wh...?) -BA-/1..c -t- KJ;:I""
ll4vl<""'1
.f
cOlted nails
undtrlll)'mtnl nail.
finilhinl n.ill
J~~-22-19ge 14:51
p.ee
-
IIC; '~O mleooUaDoo" hanl...... or 101 kind
Capod!y)
<!DtlaI r.a.w..n)(ochlr)
'121; YES cE2) hulkhOld lIoJ.h 1lI.lOrlal (..plaln)
127. @) NO
yAAltl.. (I.plal.ll)
C,.u ~ ~ ""-
1N8t1LA110N8:
118. ~NO
a~l
J
rf4ld InoWatlo. (l)'pId I ( s-n.. rtJO~ e..
mllrior .ppUeatlo. <1oa)@
llIdarlor .PPUeatlo~ (ao)
118. (nvNO ~1aRI.1I0n~_
117. ~) NO atarior wall buoulatloD.1- \ '3
III. 1'1:8 @) Ialalor waU lDnIalloa
'D. ~.. ................ 11-
1tO.' NO ftoor....tlIowr IaoaIalloa
112. YES NO ""'dow """ ulerior door lDnIalloa
~vpo("'" ~.e~
8!'ECIAL INTERIOR 'l1U14S AND EXTERIOR TRIMS:
123. YES @
131. YES
132. YES
183. YES NO
1114. YES ti'o
W. YES NO
lOB SIn::
COUNTY ell ,Y\(J ~oI" (~h.I
8TATE
fA
128. @>NO .......r 14>"" (u,laIa 00Wrlq)
rnlk6t.c LuIC
Pol "'- 'c,...
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS,
129. YES@.> poJJ do,," tol~ afaIn
11
~ ,q
ISO. YES @) tal.. dlDO"lIl.., Ileam. (I..../wood)
@) chi...., paado
NO
"
l~ NO er\caoIOD Jaml>1 t01' ""'do.. wla
~ABINETS AND VANITIES:
1:14. ~ NO t1leh... eablDlIa (uplaln) C'-l ~-4<. ~
aA-t.
OPl'IONS DESmED
llemi.. aU olllloaala "'lDirlcl ror PIicinI
1
"
.'
llpodal.OleOorodd!tio.lllafonn.t1on:
P.e. C or C
TOTAl P.08
"
"
;.
,:'
I'!
,
,
~- I
i
" .~~ r)
, ~. oJ "
^'
, :J
, . '1
- .:J
,.
i .' I - " ''11
r'~) .:)
", (1)
'-., .,
" .Tl "II
:-1 , ":1
.") .,<. (j
-" ~~? ~l u , n
-,
C'l .,....
:::! :.0
In -<
..~
~ U) r=:
~
~;s .. .-:,
~~ c') :.J..f
r..l:;,.
:r. (....".
i$ .. !;.
Q.. (:-"I~:::;
c;) . ". ~-
m ~"0)
1::: 1 "12':
p-'"
\IJ Z ,";jiD
?-= ::;:, (1,)(.1..
-, ::~
'j, ex:: ::>
0 CT\ U
.
~ ' ,
~~
~~.
'lil.~e
~~
~!
~l
fllm
;~
j~
E-<a:
Cob ~ t3 -ft) ,
I~~::::
I1ltl:::l
........:;c
... .e. a: ':;l
.~ E.;! 0:
......,8
:c _
.~~
. r:l 15
...
, '
.
.~
.
:>
~
,.., III
~ ...,
l>.lrJ~
~I~
l>l 21
I
l>.l
u
~el
~H~
UjE.;!:E!!
t:8
~a:~
H2
j~~
~~!
~~~
~~~.
~
. ,
~o .
o ,
oll~"
~ ~ 1<\'
:s '<_
~ i2 R-
~~~ 9 - ~
... i:I ~ '1<\
110 111 ~-.:o
~ ~ ti.L N
fJ~j. ,Q ~~ 6'
~, ~ !li:jD
Cl :r: '" '"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~
~ ~ ~ ~d ~
.","
, ..
;,.-
.',.'
.',
.4 , .
.
KEITH L, LEHMAN & TAMMY
LEHMAN, t/d/b/u K & R LEI'IMAN
CONTRACfING,
Pluintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. lJM,I142 Civil Term
v.
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE,
Defendunts
Jury Triul Demunded
ORIlER
AND NOW, this _ day of June, IlJlJM, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for
Continuance of Argument, said Motion is DENIED and the purties are hereby ordered to submit
briefs upon which this Court will render a decision on Defendants' Preliminary Objections. Oral
argument of Defendants' Preliminary Objections is canceled.
1.
j
,
!
,
!
"I
.~'
1I;\1'I1.I1..N'^ TM'tI.lNiI\N!M I( 'lJlNIl~/.I Moll'"
I ''''JIr.I: nUl-VIM 12:~1~'lI'M
Nnl'W.l: IIt''''JIMIl'':IIt;ll~^M
KEITH L. LEHMAN & TAMMY
LEHMAN, t/d/b/a K & R LEHMAN
CONTRACfING,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
~JUN 081998
No. lJX,I142 Civil Term
v.
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE,
Defendants
Jury Trial Demanded
ANSWER OF PLAINTIFFS TO nEFENnANTS'
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF ARGUMENT ANn
NEW MATTER
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Keith L. Lehman and Tammy Lehman, trading and doing
business as K & R Lehman Contracting, by ami through their attorneys. MaTtson, Deardorff, WilIiam~
& Otto, and hereby answer as follows:
I. Admitted.
2. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that this case involves routine claim~
in contract, including consequential damages, arising from a transaction in which Plaintiffs
constructed a residence for Defendants. It is denied that Plaintiffs' claim~ are limited to contract
claim~. By way of further answer, these issues are so routine that the issues can be resolved on briefs.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. Plaintiffs' claims for damages are in excess of $25,000.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
"'
H. Denied. All the defenses raised by Defendants in their preliminary objections have
either been cllJ'ed witb Defendants', or Defendants' counsel's, knowledge or are clearly frivolous
and/or dilatory in nature. Moreover, Plaintiffs are being prejudiced by Defendants' dilatory bebavior
and will continue to be prejudiced and irreparably harmed by u further delay of these proceedings.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Plaintiffs' motion for a
continuation of argument.
NEW MA'n'ER
lJ. The responses in paragraphs I through H are incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
10. On March 2, IlJlJH, Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendants in an effort to
collect $17,261.7H owed to them under a construction contract, plus consequential damages.
II. Although Defendants admitted in writing through their former counsel, Robert G.
Frey, Esquire, that they still owe Plaintiffs at least $4,346.13, no further payments have been made
to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have been forced to bring an action against Defendants to collect not only
amounts in dispute but also amounts admitted as owed to Plaintiffs.
12. On March 30, IlJlJH, Defendant filed preiiminary objections to Plaintiffs' complaint
claiming that K & R Lehman Contracting was not a registered fictitious name, that the Defendants
did not complete change order forl1t~, and that the complaint lacked specificity.
13. Since the filing of the preliminary objections, Plaintiffs, with Defendants' counsel's
knowledge, have (I) cured the fictitious name objection by registering a fictitious name, and (2) have
cured the specificity objection by providing an itemized list of claims to Defendants' counsel at his
request. The objection regarding the change order form is clearly frivolous given that Plaintiffs
2
,"'
fran~dtheir complaint partially in unjust enrichment and because this objection concerns lImalerial
fllct in dispute.
14. Nevertheless, Defendants have refused to withdraw any of their preliminary objections,
even those objections that have been cured.
15. On May 22, IlJlJH, Plaintiffs listed the preliminary objections for argument for June
24, IlJlJH, in an effort to move the case forward and dispose of the objections.
16. Pluintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that Defendants' request to continue the
argument on their objections to August is yet another delay tactic being employed to hinder the
progress of this case, to intentionally prejudice the Plaintiffs, and to delay an inevitable judgment in
favor of the Plaintiffs.
17. Plaintiffs operate a smull, family construction business and are being greatly prejudiced
by these efforts to delay resolution of this case.
I H. Due to Defendants' refusal to move this case forward and permit Plaintiffs to collect
the amounts owed to them, Plaintiffs are unable to pay subcontractors for work performed in
connection with the construction of Defendants' home in which they are now living.
IlJ. Every day that this case is left unresolved, the Plaintiffs sink further und further into
arrears with regards to these subcontractors.
20. Until Plaintiffs can pay these subcontractors, Plaintiffs cannot operate their business
because many of the necessary subcontructors will not' perform work for them until they, or their
colleagues, are paid.
3
21. Unnecessary and intelllional delay oflhis case will continue to prejudice I'llIintill~ IInd
will eXllcerb:lle the domino effect already put into place by Defendants' refusaltn pay whllt is nwed
under the contract.
22. Plaintiffs will be permanently and irreparllbly harmed by a eontinulltion of the orlll
lIrgument in that Plaintiffs will cOlllinue to lose business opportunities and will suffer harm to their
reputation us reputable contractors.
23. By Defendants' counsel's own admission, this case eoncerns routine eontract clail1t~.
24. Given the simplicity of the issues, Plaintiff.~ submit that this Court can decide the
preliminary objections on briefs alone and should do so in order to prevent further delay of this case
and to prevent unnecessary prejudice and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and their business.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff.~ respectfully request that this Court deny Plaintiff.~' motion for a
continuation of argument and order the parties to submit brief.~.
\
,
I
MARTS ON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & 0110
Date: June H, IYYR
By ~~.iJ,
Ivo V. Otto, III, Esquire
PA Attorney LD. No. 27763
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
PA Attorney LD. No. 75901
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attol'lleY.I'fol' Plailltifj:\'
j
4
(/' .
i~
l.:;'~.
d;:
:(:
l'
f'.:/';
',i,;
3f;~
:rii,
,.1':".
. .
KEITH L. LEHMAN & TAMMY
LEHMAN, t/d/b/ll K & R LEHMAN
CONTRACTING,
PllIintiffs
IN THE COURT or COMMON I'LEAS or
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. lJH-1142 Civil Term
v.
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE,
Defendants
Jury Trial Demanded
VERIFICATION
I, Keith Lehman, certify that the facts alleged in the foregoing are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge, information, and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of IH
Pa.C,S. *4lJ04 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: June 5, IlJ9H
~~
5
KEITH L. LEHMAN & TAMMY
LEHMAN, tldlbla K & R LEHMAN
CONTRACTING,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTy,PENNSYLVANIA
No. lJH.1142 Civil Term
v.
KERRY R, HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE,
Jury Trial Demanded
Defendants
CI<:RTWICATI<: 01<' SI<:RVICI<:
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this date by
depositing the same in the Post Office at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, first class mail, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
Wayne F. Shade, Esquire
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
By ~JLCf}~
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
PA Attorney LD. No. 75lJOl
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attol'lleysfol' PlaintiffS
Date: June H, IlJ9H
6
'".
KEITII L. LEHMAN & TAMMY
LEI-IMAN, Ildlbln K & R LEIIMAN
CONTRACTING,
PlnintiOl;
IN TI-/E COURT OF COMMON ('LEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 98-1142 Civil Term
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE,
Defendants
Jury Trial Demanded
ORDER
AND NOW, this _ day ofJune, 1998, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for
Continuance of Argument, said Motion is DENIED and the parties are hereby ordered to submit
briefs upon which this Court will render a deeision on Defendants' Preliminary Objections. Oral
argumcnt of Defendants' Prcliminary Objeetions is caneeled.
J.
)
I
II.
!~
: ,f'
i '
J I,:'~
ii"
: \1":,"','
I ,_.~
'1',
\, "
"
, ,
i
~~
11
/i{"
tE
&
C\J
~
'.
::::
.'ro
'<i
~
.-:
,J
!...J~'..\ '
(J......
....,
,..... ...-,
);?'S
'?' r,)
itJ.....
", ~":J
I.'t'f.I:!
[j
-
-
~
"q'
t:f
"
"
I'
~- (
...;'
:~l~:;!
;;/:::i'><
~ >>(", .
i'~..iii,~i(;.J",,:"
:1,:~'~:~~J!il
'u;'es~ "
1,;,r~iA
f,!,~i~~~\~'"
",,,,,,,,,Y,~,~;
.J..
~
~~
'.,:U
~~
~o
. u
~~
~
~
71
tl
','~
.::~
"..~J
,:.J ...
':'8'
.'!:J
;,;
of
tl,
Ij
Jl
Ill!~
~
.
~
~
~
. -
:,'
"",:,.,
'.','
"',-'
.~" .
, . ,~-" '
~ .
(:
W ^ YNE F. S"^DE
Allomey llll.aw
53 Wcsl"omfrcl Slrecl
Carlisle, f'enns)'h'unia
17013
. ,
KEITH L. LElIMAN nnd : IN TI IE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
TAMMY LEI IMAN, l/d/b/n : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
K & R LEHMAN CONTRACTING, : CIVIL ACTION. LA W
Plnintil1S
v,
KERRY R. I-IENNE nnd
JOAN M. HENNE.
Detendants
: NO. 98.1142 CIVIL TERM
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend againstlhe claims set forth in
the following pages, you must lake action within twenty (20) days aller the pleadings and
Notice arc served, filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the
claims set forth against you. You arc warned that if you fai/to do so the case may
proceed without you and a jUdgment may be entered against you by the Court without
further notice tor any money claimed in the pleadings or for any other claim of 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 HA VE A LA WYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE
TI-lE OFFICE SET FORTI-l BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL
HELP.
Cumber/and County Bar Association
2 Liberty A venue
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone: (717) 249-3166
v~~
WaynCJ'f.. Shade, Esquire
Supreme Court No. 157 I 2
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania J 7013
Telephone: 7 17-243-0220
Attorney tor Defendant
4.
Admiltc'd. By wuy o/'Iilrthcr unswcr, Dclcndllnls uvcr Ihullhc AgrccmCnl
spccificd vurious ullowunccs which would cnlillc Dclcndunls 10 crcdils in lhc cvcnllhal
the uClual cosls wcrc not us much us "whut is ullowcd". It is lilrthcr udmiltcd lhut thc
Agrccmcnt providcd lhut uny chungcs "involving cxtra cosls" or "lhat will incrcusc lhc
price ovcr what is allowed" and which will "bc paid by thc customer bclore work is
completed and u change order fonn will bc completcd and signed by thc customer". It is
dcnied that any incrcased costs were ever spccificd in any changc orders. On the
contrary, Dcfcndanls aver that they rcpeatedly requested infonnation as to any increases
in costs duc to changes in thc specifications but that Plaintiffs ncvcr indicated any such
increascs eithcr orally or in writing prior to lhe completion ofthe changes.
5.
The avennents of~5 ofthc Complaint arc denied. On thc contrary, Defendanls
aver that, aftcr rcasonablc investigation, they arc without knowlcdge or infonnation
sut1icient to fonn a belief that Plainliffs ever specified any increased cosls in any change
order or indicatcd any increases in costs eithcr orally or in writing prior to thc complelion
of the changes.
6.
The ave.nnents of~6 ofthe Complaint arc admitted in part and denied in part. It is
admittcd thallhc Agrecmenl spcci fied various allowances which would enlitle
W A YNIi F. SIlAllli
AlIom,),.IIAW Dclcndanls 10 crcdils in lhc cvcnt that thc actual costs wcre not as much as "what is
5JWcsll'omrrCISlrttl
CarUslc"lcnnsYlunill
17013
-2-
'0'-. ---on
allowcd", II is dcnicd that thc "pennissiblc subtractions" wcrc inthc amount 01'$13.429.
On the contrury, Dcfcndants aver that thc pcnnissiblc sublructions IIrc in cxccss of
$14.429,
7.
Thc avcnncnts of~7 ofthc Complaint arc dcnicd. On thc contrary, Defcndants
avcr that, whcn agrccd crcdits and compcnsation for construction dcfccts and
uncompleted work are taken into account, nothing is owcd to Plaintiffs.
8.
The avennents of~8 of the Complaint arc denied. On the contrary, Defendants
aver that Plaintiffs abandoned certain materials at thc construction site, that Dcfendants
have repcatedly requested that Plaintiffs remove the items and that Plaintiffs have refused
to do so.
9.
The avennents of~9 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, Dcfendants
aver that Plaintiffs never completed perfonnance under thc contract.
10.
The avennents of~1O of the Complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It
is admitted that Defendants have made payments to Plaintiffs under the Agreemcnt in thc
amount 01'$164,000, but it is denicd that there is an unpaid balanee 01'$17,261.78. On
thc contrary, Defendants aver that, when agreed credits and compcnsation lor
WAYNE F. SIlAllE
Allomc)' al Law
S3 West Pomfrcl Slrccl
Carlislc,l'cnnsyhanill
17013
-3-
II~.;
I'"
[! i
I,
.
"
, ,
iu
'i
,
. '
!
i,
"
\o:",~
,
, '
WAYNE F. SIIAIJE
Allomc)'Dll..aw
5JWcslflomrrclSlreel
Corlislc.IJcnns)'I\'onill
17013
'".
purticulurly sct fbrth in thc uvcnncnts of thc Countcrcluim hcrcin which urc incorporutcd
hcrein by rcfercncc us though thlly sct fbrth.
16.
The uvcrmcnts of,,16 ofthc Complaint arc dcnied. On thc contrury, Detendunts
uvcr that Plainiins havc substuntially und matcrially brcachcd thc Agrcemcnt as morc
particularly sct Ibrth in thc uvcnncnts ofthc Countcrcluim herein which arc incorporatcd
herein by rclercncc as though fhlly sct forth.
17.
The avcnnents of~ 17 of thc Complaint arc denicd. On thc contrary, Dcfendants
avcr that, when ugreed crcdits and compensation for construction defccts and
uncompleted work arc takcn into aecount, nothing is owed to Plaintiffs.
COUNT II
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
18.
Thc avcnnents' of~~1 through 13 ofthc Complaint, bcing at issuc, no thrthcr
response is required.
19.
Thc avcnncnts of~19 ofthc Compluint arc dcnicd. On thc contrary, PlaintirtS avcr
that, when agrccd crcdits and compcnsation Ibr construction dcfccts and uncompletcd
work arc takcn into aecount, nothing is owcd to PlaintirtS.
,\
,
,
I
,
,
,1
!'~"\
i{
~, I
'I
'I
,
I,
,
,
,
"
.5-
"'
20.
The avcnnents of~20 ofthc Complaint arc denied, On thc contrary. the IInswcr to
~8 IIbove is incorporutcd hercin by rcfcrcnce liS though fully sct forth.
21.
The IIvcnnents of~21 ofthe Complaint are denied. On the contrury, PllIintifls avcr
that, whcn agrccd credits and compcnsation for construetion defects IInd uncompleted
work arc tllken into account, nothing is owed to Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, Dcfcndants dcmand that the Complaint bc dismisscd and that
judgment be entcred in favor of Defcndants and against Plaintiffs.
NEW MATTER
22.
Plaintiffs aver that they are trading and doing busincss as K & R Lehman
Contracting.
23.
Plaintiffs do not liver that the fictitious name under which they are trading and
doing business has becn properly rcgistercd as such as rcquircd by law.
24.
There is no indication in the Complaint as to how the lctters "K & R" could rcfer
to a person by thc name ofTlImmy Lehman.
W A YNH F. SnAil!,
Anotncyal1.aw
'3 Wnll'omrrcl Slreet
Carli!lc,l'cnnsyl\ania
17013
-6-
l
,
)
I
I{
11
\.
II!
I ' ,
, "
:.: >
,
"
"
.'
, I'"'
, '
25.
Therc is no indication in thc Complaint as to who thc "R" would havc bccn in K &
R Lchman Contracting.
WHEREFORE, Dcfendants dcmand thatthc Complaint bc dismisscd I'or lack of
capacity to sue and that judgment bc entcrcd in favor of Defcndants and against Plaintiffs.
COUNTERCLAIM
26.
Thc Agrecment exprcssly rcquired that all work was to be completed in a
workmanlike manner aecording to standard practices.
27.
The dwelling was to be constructed in accordance with a specific floor plan
design.
28.
The stairway between the first and seeond floors was not constructed in
accordance with the design specifications.
29.
Plaintiffs installed cap shingles on the roof which did not match the color of the
remaining shingles.
30.
The shinglcs on the roofwcrc installed with exposed nails which havc caused
WAYNE F. SHADE
AlIomey allAw
S3 West Pomfrct Street
Carlisle. Pcnnsyh'llnill
11013
leaks in the interior of the dwclling.
-7-
1;
I..,
'f
:11
"
I
31.
The first Iloor joists arc too smull to support the Iloor,
32.
The circuit breakcr on thc panel for the sump pump does not control thc sump
pump.
33.
The use of small clectric powered tools in the house causes thc lights to dim.
34.
The kitchen island which contains thc gas rangc is not stationary.
35,
Plaintiffs failed to paint four doors in thc dwelling.
36.
Plaintiffs did not install the screens for the windows.
37.
PlaintiffS did not providc screens for the windows in the bonus room and for onc
of the windows in the garage.
38.
"~
..
I I
,/ ,
II .
II.
I; \
Ii
Plaintiffs did not install a vcnt for the clothes drycr.
39.
Plaintiffs did not construct the stairs to the basement in accordanee with the
WAYNE F. SilAnE
AIIUm"AlI.." Township Code provisions therefor.
53 West I'omrrtt SUCCI
Carlisl~.I'cnns)l\Dnja
17013
-8-
'"'
The statements in the fbregoing Answer, New Matter ullll Counterclaimure bused
upon infonnation which hils been assembled by my IIttorney in this litigution. The
langullge of the stlltements is not my own. I hllve relld the stlltements: und to the extent
that they arc bllsed upon infbnnlltion which I have given to my counsel, they lire true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, informlltion and belief. lunderstund that fitlse
statements herein lire made subject to the penalties of 18 l'a.C.S. ~4904 relating to
unsworn litlsification to aulhorities.
Date: August 11, 1998
~4~
KctrY~R. Henne
(..--.~
::-1-(._.... 11'\ / 1-,,--
Joan ~' Henne tJ
()
WAVNH F. SUAIlI:
AltumC)'IlII.AW
jJWcstl'omrrctSlrtet
Carlislc,Pcnnsyl\'llnil1
17013
i,'",(:
.- .':
'j,,'
,...
"C".':
r:=
,~"""
rh",
~~)~
, q;J
~'i:0
',.,14
I1J(i,)
(ua.. '
:.....
,':'.:,'B' ()
'"'
"
,,-"
'r.
:"_!::./</~,
.j,' ',-' - ~',' ~; ."
'-..;
./
';"
..
. 'J
',! '" "": ,',;,'/A',,/.};;'1t,k'\'"
" "::(":h;;~Y~%t;~;:~':,?;;ii
.' .' ", ,. ~ ,~?
.'.t :':11' ''r.~:I't'?JJa: (;:,'
-' ,') ", '1~ -y....,l'::i ';-:
"~;:;F~':kfg~~~ ;1
.,', -"',:"" ~,'f-Iii;"O')'\l:.):"'\, r
", !':'.~'!~\;!:i;~ftf}~
. rIJ' 'Ii!' ,[9",i:,;,."",
:f;.;'t;:l': fi2;;S;:
,', f~'.~,~~;/ti
:::'~'~;'j;j't;{
....,' '. . . ~ ,} '~r'/~
, tf'\:') "/"
, ."",~,...~:\!.:'r
:':,/" '~)~'~':,.,;"",~,'
',',;:.;,::.' ,'"
'(:."" );;;,?,
".;-;,,:,;:_,:-,;:;,~_'- r,."
,- ,',~,
,
,
','
'.:l';:
',,'
, ,
:'.'"
'" ..,.
:;
1}
, .' ,~'
..'
Ul
<I
, 0
U'
~I
~o
15~
'::i!!:)
1
~
Q
,.
'.. ,~..
';':
,;j
..ij"
mil
lli!'~."
~".,",
',,~ '
"
~*i,
~.\l-\'
li#~
~J.~:._~l
;i;'~
, ,1"" ,'~~H.-..!~:-Ji~;:
". "l,\\,/l'J:,,""'jl
.". ~ "d ;'141"i1,."t'{'''
\ jJ . >~/,.J~:\!'if,
.: - ;{\:~~ :."A~a~
""!'\I';";;$"I' ,
. ~" nl 1~\"". ,
'e ~:-::. '; '-.'f:>,{:::7./!i{.
",' \ J "I""" ~JjJ.:.'
.:': ".~.-~,.:':,~~f:f.~:~~
~<).i ." y In:'li~''
:,'<: .',,^ _I" ,"<.:;;.:~';'~;.:~"
.~. >'I,-l".-""\)(f:":st,:'
/, .~' ~ 'I:~' ~~\:,~~~{;~?:E~;~ZiJ~~;J.;
" '.,' 1)'_"""'\'ly,,,II~'t'
, I'.., ;''.' .'.,,~.'T'r\)!;} t'r
, : !J;'f",J.Oi/-T.~/t ',.'<1-
,~,. :. , ..q:}\':~~j~Ji)' ~'
'.-, ,'., ,,/..t:t;:':V:ll~lt.- ""~
':' .~.)\ ,~,,'}~1)';;-;:f., :1
" ,,' ~, t./"",...-kj- ~ "l~'
" :~l "".~~';l ",:"""; t.o~ .
, ' \" I.~ ltl.,,~,r -: ~lj;rj( l
,"~;:ld~t;~~~,W(;~6 '
'. ,\,\. ~:. ...,c;.;l?J{"':. :'
" ,',' '~:''''~;'i'!r",~:~'L\
.' '~;~:::(.'I,~-,~,t:;';'4\";f
. ':i"t"/1'~"j)~,p~~'
.. ,,~;,;~:&j;:-~It i,i
.' ;:-;:~..-l.,"'\ I ;J-.:'
,\""...~J\~;..i}~l': :l'
, ", ,,;~41\~:~ ':..::~
\,-"
;,
'.:
C,'"
" '., "
.
"
.
,-
"
.'t
.
KEITH L. L1~I-IMAN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
TAMMY LElIMAN, tld/b/a : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
K & R LEHMAN CONTRACTING, : CIVIL ACTION - LA W
Plaintiffs
v.
KERRY R, HENNE and
JOAN M. HENNE,
Defendants
: NO. 98-1142 CIVIL TERM
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this -----H.b- day of June, 1998, upon consideration ofthe within
Motion, a Rulc is issued upon Plaintiffs to show causc why Defendants' Motion lor
Continuance of Argument should not be granted.
Rule ret~~able within ~
~ -:f1r~ &'W-UJl
\u-- J{/\v\/ko.a..Q. ~
~~~
~~
Carl C. Risch, Esquirc
Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto
Attorneys for Plaintiff.~
Wayne F. Shade, Esquirc
Attorne~ for Defendants
W ^ YNH F. SIl^IJH
AlIomey II LAW
'3 West Pomrrcl Slreet
Carlislc,l'enns)'h"ania
170ll
days of date of service hereof. ~"\
BY THE COURT:/
" /
~q
/
e,,-J>-~ (\'>",,,.f....{ (., / If 19 &'.
.><S.l'?
j
(
J.
i..
I"
r~~t
'\('I!t
I.'.,
(
f..,
(
[I':','
~::j
":f.:
\,i.... ~
'~
~>"
~
(~
;';"';
, .
KElTII L. LEHMAN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
TAMMY LEHMAN, IId/b/a : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
K & R LElIMAN CONTRACTING, : CIVIL ACTION - LA W
Plaintiffs
v.
: NO, 98-1142 CIVIL TERM
KERRY R.I-IENNE and
JOAN M. HENNE,
Defendants
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF ARGUMENT
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
The Motion of Defendants KERRY R. HENNE and JOAN M. HENNE, by their
attorney, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, respectfully represents, as follows:
I.
On March 2, 1998, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants herein.
2.
This case involves routine contract claims arising from a transaction in which
Plaintiffs constructed a residence for Defendants.
3.
Defendants have filed Preliminary Objeetions to the Complaint including a
demurrer.
WAYNJOF.SIIAIlJO
AllomcYIIII.Aw
53 W~I Pomfrel SIr~1
Clfli~lc.llcnnl)'I\'Inill
17013
I
I
I!,
I'"
WAYNE F. SIlADE
Anomcy at law
SJ West Pomfrcl Slrttt
CarJislc.Pcnnsylnnio
17013
. .
4.
Plaintiffs' total claims lor damages are less than $18,000 which reprcsent less than
10% ofthc initial contract price.
5.
On May 26, 1998, Dcfendants rcceived service of a copy of Plaintiffs' Praecipe
listing Defendants' Preliminary Objections for argument on June 24, 1998.
6.
Defendants promptly requested a continuance to the next argument court because
counsel for Defendants will be out of state on vacation on June 24, 1998.
7.
Plaintiffs have refused to agree to the request for a continuance under these
circumstances.
8.
Defendants aver that they have significant defenses to the claims in this matter and
that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by the requested continuance, particularly in a case
of this limited magnitude.
WHE~FORE, Defendants respectfully request that your Honorable Court issue a
Rule upon Plaintiffs to show cause why the requested continuance should not be granted.
~~r~
Wayn F. Shade, EsquIre
Attorney for Defendants
,
')
,\
,
I
J
I
(
')
I
I'
}
ii'"
~; ,~
\(.'"
'(....'
'.;'
-, \ ~ ,
.. I.
\ I.
, to.
-2-
.. ~_.
'.....
Waync r, Shade, Esquire, statcs that hc is thc attorncy for thc party or partics tiling
thc forcgoing documcnt; and that hc makcs this vcrification based upon facts which arc
within his pcrsonal knowlcdgc, infornlation or bclicf and that any falsc statcmcnts hcrein
arc madc subject to thc penaltics of 18 Pa. C.S. ~4904 rclating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Datc: Junc I, 1998
w~~a~
WAYNEF,SUADE
Allomey al Law
.53 Wesl Pomrrel Street
Carlisle, Pennsyh.-ania
17013
r\
".
" , ~ c~ , ,
.. I ~". . ,
J\.._;...,
,.:
; . j ~
,. ,- .., "" ., -',"
; i ',.' i j 1\ ~. 1'1.. ; ;:
UT"!" 'J" . :.::;
i r~, i;.._
.'-., "
:". I ~ ..... i, : , L
. . .,
;....'..';!,',;
~~lL':': t. ; L_! ~!::.:.c:...~i~~!=-_}A_.Jt~.__..__.____._ .._...._...
V:'::"
IJI0:! l F~l;.; E J.U:_I\ _~J~_::~_~,_________._~..__
....:~~I.E~~ET_:~~~rlLIJl.!-_.~;~__~___________, ~':ll(;'l'.i l.l ')1 [i':,:'rU t.)' Sii.;:.\" ..1..1'1. U1
CUi'IlJEELtIN[\ C('unty, r''':;'LfJ:.;.;'.l\'.li'lld, ....ll;~1 L'~I..ilIU dull' ;.jHUI Ii '~"1\:':'~:':';C}.l.'-J.ln'.:1
'..: Cl 1 ~i j{, ~-; eJ, 'l:J, U "j ";.i. L h ~'l ~2J i-:J' L.DJJLL_____________
.... ,,:n;.;' :i .~, 1" '/ '," d
upon
HEinlE JC 1\:-; n
df.:.'ir:'!ld-:lnt, :.J.l
tht:.
j ~::'1;':;:U0 HC..IUh:::, -;;(1 t.IIL' LUh ,jdY '-'.I.. U.:3rcJl
--..--
1 ')'30 at _;i :I!..::I\Rl~:;'-J:( h'AL--..
~t\ ill~l SL~6 1701,';~___.~.._.
------.-----
. CU1Wl::j,LAlID
C':lun t;.:, r':'Ili}.;.;Y l.'.;~nid, by h.:1fJ'i.':"i"llt f.,.! Q.il)~ 1 ~j~.i-.i.:;_i:..Ll"j'I:IG, i\[IULT
P!\UGHTER JlF CjL~FT,
-------------..----
d t:.: 1,.;'2:" ane.! ,jtt.,}~t~.:.,d ;':'l_'~ji' vi t;I'_O ~.::...Ui,;j',L"lHI.
l.j9'2lh..:.:-r \/ll!l nGTII~______._______
.'
aod :.it Uv:; ;;;';d;'II..: ti:ll'~' 1J.I...:.t:ctl-rl,:1 Hi,;;';' ;,.j t tL'ol....":"lll !.u (Le' ClilIL.:'rl',:,s tlH.-:Jl'C'ol.
SJ~0r'if!'~ C~3t_;
[lU81:c tJ. n':,l
.::: I:~ r v .::. ,:~j,-:
l\f.f1.du'.'i t
~:';1I r..~.h;~ 2' 9 ;.:.:.
C,, ~:;~i
~:,~ "Il':~"'l'-~~~
-,,:,-;I~ '
. uc
'::',0!")
,...:.-....-.......----.-----.--.
/>', J r;,.;".ii:..i;";; 1"J...tfl!::..', ;,;;.oDt:'!'.,LJ.1.
;.J.L'::. cl~;:;'-ll /~ h 'r~..UiJ
~:.'\:\:)(.Ih;:i" hiLL.iJ~i'L~
'-.'..'
....... 1
~-c~:t--:f~Z:Z-k-
h "
.. r
s<",;.~ III ;.1;;1
j';:. 'J :.:. .;_~! ':'::,,~ lJ
'....'
:..: I.. J ':.'1',_, ;iI'"
I','.... /' ~
.l,J...> _ _~___._
'..l '.' ~,
~~------
,- DC ._
.;.-.1_.7_,_.,___ :',. ..'.
__0 ,,,,--Q -,~,~!, '~--f-~----____
~ ',11'_-"\.,.,,,.;
.-'\'11.."
-
-
" I.~.
,n :'::1,' ~.. i- --~~~~ ,~;.... ~'.. ,'-_...~..,-f.;:I,..~=-:-":'
q
"
"
, i I,) : 1'. '- ,_; i. ~ _ j .
, :.;;iJii';,'i;:t\;.....r:; C;F i'i.:;UL~"!-;"', h::"!l;
:;'; j" ,> j" ~.) i j l.: ~": ;,; L./i:; t.,
;:E.LUi..-l.J-LLU';;J].lLj~-Ll_~.~________.
,!.-
..:\.
!.1Lllil E..JitU.h .1~J~T _.r..1-____________....
RODCI~T ~~J'.'rrLh, ::.:;E_~____.______._,
:';'':!It,.:.l.L.1,;.
).J..
l)'.~Tuti' Sht.>J,-li..t"
-.-'
,~, .!.
cur,nEilLMID C:Ol'f,ty. I'L'''i18i'lvCl''~J, _ile, /)01[." dull ;""l'l" uGC,-,rJHi~;
to l"w. SuY'::;. LliL' wll.liili GQIF~[LL.___.___._____._. """ "'''''';~'U
BEHNE EEI\j\~~' E
,
d.:;,>f(lndan t, ci t
---
u,.,
Up,~ln
1998 ':It
:] l'iORFll SOli ;" t\ Y
11 :JIZI: \:';~') H(iUl~.f3, Gr. t.h/:o' .L'~_'.Jl.'J;jY '':'i,f j-:.:tLctL
--.------..
CAR LIS L F;J.....J::.<L.J:-:91 J
----------
tl true ,:d,d .,U'<'.,I..c'd '_',c'I')' ClJ th,c' --,,';.'1'i['~!:.j;;L___
P!,')[:;HTER Of ['SFI-'---______...____
C,'unty. Fconnsj'l';,Jf>lCl, OJ' 1'''IWln,j '_'..' (';'llLi;;.U-i., i,cLLL;UG. /\(,UL,_.___
._---~.----
___, 0lill:.El~Ll~ijL'
._-~--'.'--~---'-
I:.(..IG-~.t:ho:.'':'~ Itith IiOTI<:""i:
dnLl dL U..c' ;;"'mL' '-lid': 'c!lr,e,C;,.lf'" !~'-cL d\,',..."C.l,.,', '_'..' """, (.'_""-el,'-:... 'ehb 'e'c'~.
---~-----_.~-_._-----~-_._-,
,
'I
,j
Shj~rl!I'~ Cu:~t~:
[")v'~ 1:c.( in~:;
::: \..' 1 " ..... :i. :...~. \':;:'
Ai! ilia '.'l t
Surcftijri;,i':"
-1.
U'.;.,'
(l
-" "....".C~/~~~
t--- ----.-______ _,......--._.__.__.-.-.-~_ __
:',. j flUid,.. "'; I'...l.. 1 ilL:, ";>jIL'l.i.1. 1
::S~I::'\":~";"'o2td' --P~ I.
"--~-~~4- III
,:i.
I,
,
::(,'
r;I-.:
.L.;:..
1.;.'.
..'.:..,'.
lu
~.;i"Jr-i'l
:.u;.;
~ ,'1..,..:.
.(. ;::..: d t ;..' '_1. ,~;:
C l '-r./oJ.-b.LJ~!:j '.. ,
thi.-; _.Ij,~._ ,".i'
1 '3 _ _'i' Yo.. ,;. L
()'=-'t~rc Q 1~","___~i:'_~_'_'.LfJf!:.t[.
-~ 1",'\,j\-""IL;.~_.'J:
j;
I'
,
, I
I, ,
,I
r', ,..
I' "
"
r Ii';'.
,~
u ,'"
:':':":'i
~' '
.'1&0 '
[0>
;;~~ .'
el~ "
...'" '
z;
:,..0 ,,',:.,
"~:I,~~Wja
;.l5g ~~ ~
"',;,.'"".'~' ."'. ,~'
,.iIl ,~ Q
",.::l: 't::N~
j~'~!c!l~,'
,.1= ~ =I >-
:;~2: d~'
, ,,' CJ .
".,.."..', ,z.
.,,:...;"':',",-.'." "--:'-,".-.'
, I
,)
,,'
:.
C)
(";.
of
u
II
i
" '"
,
.1 \i,. 0<;
~,
8i
'r...:):>.
.,~
.. ..
,j~
::l
U
~ji~
;:'_:~:t'\~t,("'~~J
': ;',",,;:~J,~'-"~f
,,},r~'i)'],~S \4'j.,:
,1 :f;::'f~G)~il'
:".,r"r/,li ,,"
I;" ',g,~N~!~,:li~~~~\~1
!;,.....E,>.lJ:;;i.:rJ\'
",: '-,~'.~' q~,';::-lt:tI-:~~
:!;':,':i~:,J,Ji6~t~;t.~~
"I.,.,};;f?J'H'~~l.":
.15;,::y(,}~~tlfri1~k~~'
',"',""'''''.'''\',::0,. 'f}"
,,_ .,::,,:;;,,: /?~~r?K~;~~:~':~;
, ' "..,..,',' cOSt"~'!"~
.. ::' f" ::r';;:j1~ n-~:.~j:{~~>'l:~{\~~,\~;
" "'!""J":'\"""I\";''"'\~''A'''H..:..,-,..
:; \' .. .'~ ,L- \;i,t~... ;,:.}~>. :,:: Vi~:' '~-'I.l;:;~\'- {
,.', .,',"'..,'..h.'{;'i.'.'."
<.\',:"; ;\;;;~<:;):~~:.'.Wir1)~S -:~;',~~;'
-'f :" '...:.;_/;,.f<....',),.:l.J~~~y.;,I,J~
, .,'.., , :(]?."W~riin!~~,~~
,,> ..1'....c \; ._"'l'iJt"~;.~J&;.-,J.,,>;.
,'~'i~tr~
, >
.~;
;f
u
,...!I
1
'"
~
5
~
~
I
'...
,~
I
'.',,-
,;..,......
".:'/.rJ"
.,_.'
",,;
.:'
'J':';
. .:,' ~:'
','-'
".,..,"
,-,.'-'
',.
.. ..
;! ~.'';
~~ -.
. -.' ...
"
~
KEITH L. LEHMAN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
TAMMY LEHMAN, IId/b/a : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
K & R LEHMAN CONTRACTING, : CIVIL ACTION _ LA W
Plaintiffs i
I
\
v.
KERRY R. HENNE and
JOAN M. HENNE,
Defendants
: NO. 98-1142 CIVIL TERM
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
'"
DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
,
MOTION RAISING LACK OF JURISDICTION
OVER THE SUBJECT MA ITER
I.
Plaintiffs aver that they are trading and doing business as K & R Lehman
,\
\
Contracting.
2.
t
,
r
I
I',
Plaintiffs do not aver that the fictitious name under which they are trading and
doing business has been properly registered as such as required by law.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed and
that jUdgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs.
DEMURRER
t..
3.
WAYNEF. SllADE
A'IDmcylllAw work to be perfonned under the agreement resulted in extra costs.
'3 Wcst Pomfrcl Sltecl
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
Plaintiffs have averred in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint that modifications to the
WAYNE F. S"ADE
Allomey AI Law
'J West Pomrrct Sired
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
4.
The written agreement expressly requires execution of u change order fonn and
payment prior to completion for any changes involving cost increases.
5,
Plaintiffs fail to aver that Defendants cxeeuted any change order fonns prior to
completion of any changes.
6.
Plaintiffs fail to aver that Defendants were even notified orally of any cost
increases during the course ofperfonnanee of the contract.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed and
that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs.
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
7.
Plaintiffs aver in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint that they are entitled to more than {,
$14,000 in additional costs to Defendants without specifYing the modifications upon
which that claim is based and the cost of each modification,
8.
Plaintiffs aver in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint that modifications resulted in
pennissible subtractions totaling $13,429 without specifying the modifications upon
which those subtractions would be based and the cost of each modification.
-2-
WAYNE F. SHADE
Anomcy al Law
53 West Pomfrel SU'ee1
Carlisle. Pennsylvania
17013
. . . . .
WHEREFORE, Defendants rcqucst that PlaintilTs' bc rcquircd to plcad with
sufficicnt spccificity to cnablc Dcfcndants to prcpure their defcnsc,
Datc: March 30, 1998
a::~ ~~L
Wayne . Shade, Esquirc
Supreme Court No, 15712
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone: 717-243-0220
i
I
,
1
,I
Attorney for Defendants
\
i
J
\
(
..
-3-
,.
: I
l.
, .
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request thut Defendants' preliminary objection raising lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter be overruled.
m:MURRER
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. Paragraph 4 constitutes an improper attempt to characterize or paraphrase
a provision of the contract which is a writing and speaks for itself, and is denied for that reason.
5. Admitted in part, denied in part. While it is admitted that Plaintiffs have not averred
that Defendants executed any change order forl1t~ prior to completion of any changes, this allegation
i~ denied to the extent that it implies that Defendants did not have any knowledge of, or did not ugree
to, all modifications.
6. Admitted in part, denied in part. While it is admitted that Plaintiffs have not averred
that Defendants were orally notified of changes, this allegation is denied to the extent that it implies
that Defendants did not have any knowledge of, or did not agree to, all modificutions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Defendants' demurrer be overruled.
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
7. Admitted in part, denied in part. While it is admitted that Plaintiffs have not specified
the modifications, this allegation is denied to the extent that it implies that Defendants did not have
any knowledge of, or did not agree to, all modifications.
8. Admitted in part, denied in part. While it i~ admitted that Plaintiffs have not specified
the modifications, this allegation is denied to the extent that it implies that Defendants did not have
any knowledge of, or did not agree to, all modifications.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Defendants' motion for more specific pleading be
overruled.
2
....
NEW MA'I"I'ER
By way of further response, Plaintiffs aver the following new matter:
lJ. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by referencc the responses contained in paragraphs I
through H as if fully set forth.
10. The Agreement between the parties is specifically between Keith L. Lehman and
Defendants.
II. Plaintiffs are not required to allege that "K & R Lehman Contracting" is a registered
fictitious name in order for this Court to have subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
12. Defendants knew at aJl times, both before and after cxecution of the Agreement, that
thcy were dealing with Keith and Tammy Lehman, and, therefore, the purpose of fictitious name
registration has been fulfilled.
13. Plaintiffs werc not required to file a fictitious name registration with the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because the presence of "Lehman" and "Keith L. Lehman" in the
Agreement clearly identifies the Plaintiffs.
14. Regardless of any alleged obligation to register a fictitious name with the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Agreement between the parties is valid and enforceable under
Pennsylvania law.
15. In order to cure any alleged defect, Plaintiffs have filed a fictitious namc application
with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
16. Defendants' preliminary objection raising lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter
constitutes dilatory conduct for which Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
42 Pa.C.S. *2503(7).
17. Defendants had knowledge of and agreed to all modifications, both additions and
subtractions, under thc Agreement.
I R. Any requirements under the Agreement regarding change order forl1t~ and prior
payment for modifications were mutually waived by the parties by virtue of Defendants' knowledge
3
:t:
h..
of and lIgreement to all modifications under the Agreement and by virtue of Plaintiffs' agreernent to
complete these modifications without prior payment.
IlJ. Plaintiffs are not rcquiredto 1I11cge that change order form~ were completed in order
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for breach of the Agreelnenl.
20. Plail1liff.~ are not required to allege that change order forl1t~ were completed in order
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for unjust enrichment.
21. There are genuine i~sues of material fact in dispute and Defendants are not entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
22. Defendants' demurrer constitutes dilatory conduct for which Plaintiffs are entitled to
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. * 2503(7).
MARTS ON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & 0110
By ~cO: _0_
Ivo . Otto, Ill, Esquire
PA Attorney I.D. No. 27763
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
PA Attorney I.D. No. 75901
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attol'lleY.I'for Plailltiffs
Dute: April 20, 1998
4
KEITH L. LEI-/MAN & TAMMY
LEHMAN, t/d/b/ll K & R LEHMAN
CONTRACTING,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. lJH.1142 Civil Term
v.
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE,
Defendants
Jury Trial Demanded
VERIFICATION
I, Keith Lehman, certify that the facts alleged in the foregoing are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge. information, and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18
Pu.C.S. !l4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: April 20, 1998
'~
~~
,.
Keith Le n
I
,
5
..\
\;....
.
"
KEITH L. LEHMAN and : IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
TAMMY LEHMAN, tldlb/a : CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
K & R LEHMAN CONTRACTING, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plainli ITs
v.
: NO. 98-1142 CIVIL TERM
KERRY R. HENNE and
JOAN M. HENNE,
Defendants
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO NEW MA TIER
TO PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS'
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
AND NOW, come Defendants KERRY R. HENNE and JOAN M. HENNE, by
and through their attorney, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, and reply to the New Matter to
PlaintilTs' Answer to Defendants' Preliminary Objections, as follows:
9.
The avennents' of Paragraph 9 being at issue, no response is required.
10.
The avennents of Paragraph 10 are denied. On the contrary, PlaintilTs have
averred in Paragraph 3 ofthe Complaint that both Plaintiff3 were parties to the agreement
among the parties in this case.
II.
The avennents' of Paragraph II being at issue, no response is required.
WAYNEF.SllADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomrret Street
Carlisle, PCMSylvania
17013
f
\ '
(
I
~"
i
\,'
i
\
"'
12.
Thc uvcnncnts of Purugruph 12 urc inconsistcnt with thc uvcnnents of Purugruph
\0 in thut Puragruph 12 uvcrs thut Dcfcndunts werc dculing with both PluintilTs whcrcus
thc uvcnncnts of Purugraph 10 stutc that thc Dcfendunts wcre deuling only with PluintilT
Kcith L. Lehman. This confinns thc necd for registration of the fictitious namc in this
case, In the absence ofregistrution ofthc fictitious name as rcquircd by law, Dcfendants
have no idea as to the identity ofR Lchman.
13.
The avennents of Paragraph 13 are denied. On thc contrary, Defendants' reply to
Paragraph 12 above is incorporated herein by refcrence as though fully set forth.
14.
The avcnnents' of Paragraph 14, being conclusions oflaw, no response is
rcquired.
IS.
The avennents of Paragraph IS arc dcnied. On the contrary, Defcndants aver that
only PlaintilTKeith L. Lehman has registered the fictitious name ofK & R Lehman and
that Plaintiff Tammy Lehman docs not appear to be registercd as an owner of the business
which is operating under the rcgistcred fictitious namc.
-2-
,
,
"
22,
Thc uvcnncnts ofPllrugruph 22 IIrc dcnicd, On thc contrury, Delcndunts uver thut
PluintilTs persist in refusing to pleud their speeiul dumages us required by the Rules of
Civil Procedure.
tU~~
Wayne ,Shade, Esquire
Supreme Court No. 15712
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvaniu 17013
Telephone: 717-243-0220
Attorney for Defendants
WAYNE F. SIIADE
Anomcy II Law
53 West Pomfrcl Street
Carlille, PCMS)lvanil
17013
-4-
...
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Iblt be t:ypewxltten and subnitted in 11111'1 ~,....te)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within IlllItter far the next Ar!Pnent COUrt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire ~ticn IlIIBt be stated in full)
Keith L.Lehman and Tanvny Lehman,
t/d/b/a K & R Lehman Cont~acting
(Plaintiff) ,
VB.
Ke~~y R. Henne and
Joan M. Henne
(Defendant)
No. 98-1142 Civil' Te~m
19 98
1. state IlllItter to be argued (i.e.. plaintiff's llDticn far new trial. defendant's
dI!IIurrer to a:qUaint. etc.):
Defendants' P~elimina~y Objections
,\
,
1
i
2. Identify ccunsello'tlo will aJ:'f#J8 case:
1
II
\'
~
,-:I
, J!
1.( .
"
ii
,\1
, "
; ,;
~ ,'f:-,
1',1
I,
,11
j) 1.
I; 1
1\ \,
1', ...
" I
i 1 : ~
, ;.~-.'
! . ",
II'
b'"
h'
:'.::~~;i~
(a) far plaintiff: Ca~l c. Risch, Esqui~e
AddL....s: MDW&O
10 East High St~eet
Ca~lisle, PA 17013
(b) far defendant: Wayne F. Shade, Esqui~e
AddL: 53 West Pomf~et St~eet
Ca~lisle, PA 17013
3. I will notify all plIrt:ies in writing within bIo days that this C2S8 bas
been listed far argunent.
4. Argument Court Date: June 24/ 1998
Dated: May 22, 1998
"
'~
~w&~~
.\I'rnrn.." frrr Plaintiffs
. . , ,
KElTl-I L. LElIMAN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
TAMMY LmIMAN, Vd/b/a : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
K & R LEHMAN CONTRACTING, : CIVIL ACTION _ LA W
Plaintifr.~
Y.
: NO. 98-1142 CIVIL TERM
KERRY R.HENNE and
JOAN M. HENNE,
Defendants
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER
TO PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF ARGUMENT
AND NOW, come Defendants KERRY R. HENNE and JOAN M. HENNE, by
and through their attorney, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, and reply to the New Matter to
Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendants' Motion for Continuance of Argument, as follows:
9.
The averments' of Paragraph 9, being at issue, no response is required.
10.
Admitted.
II.
The ayerments of Paragraph II arc denied. On the contrary, Defendants aver that
Plaintiffs confuse inadmissible negotiations with admissions.
12.
WAYNIOF.SIIADIO
Allomey Illl...aw
'3 West IJomfn:1 Street
Carlisle,IJenns)h'anill
17013
Admitted.
. .
posture. By way of further reply, De/endants aver that they should not be required to
engage alternative counsel on relatively short notice where Plaintiffs refuse 10 cure their
pleadings which arc so materially defective that the requirement of an amended
Complaint is readily apparent.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Answer and Ncw
Matter to Defendants' Motion for Continuance of Argument be dismissed and that
Defendants' Rule to Show Cause why a continuance should not be granted be made
absolute.
Respectfully submitted,
W~~a~~
Attorney for Defendants
WAYNE F. SllAIl!;
Allomey 811.aw
53 West I'omfrcl Slreel
Carlislc,IJcnns)'I\'ania
17Ul3
.5-
"I-
"
"
Ir
'/
'I
,
I:
i.i
,
", '
. '
Wuync F. Shudc, Esquirc, slutcs thut hc is thc uttorncy lor Ihc purty or purtics liIing
thc foregoing document; und that he mukcs this verilicution bused upon lac Is which urc
within his pcrsonul knowledgc, inlonnution or belicl' und that any falsc statcmcnts hcrcin
urc madc subjcCI to thc penaltics 01' III Pu. C.S. ~4904 rcfuting to unsworn lalsi lication to
authoritics.
Datc: June 10, 1998
&~u E~
Waync F. hadc
I
.I
,
ii
WAYNE F. SIlADE
Attorney Ill.aw
"3 West Pomrrcl Slrect
Carlislc,PennsylvlUlia
17013
"
I,
'.;
KEITH L. LEHMAN and
TAMMY LEHMAN t/d/b/a
K & R LEHMAN CONTRACTING :
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.(i
, \
I
~\ 1
\ :'
I ~
J!t
.ff
98-1142 CIVIL
vs.
KERRY R. HENNE and
JOAN M. HENNE,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF ARGUMENT
BY THE COURT,
-l/" -'"
VIf~
Edgar B. Bayley; J.
/
1....
I,'
.
I:
I ).
I~
\i
')
,\
<
!
ORDER
AND NOW, this
to
day of June, 1998, it is ordered that counsel for both
parties shall eomply with the briefing sehedule fer the argument court listing of June 24, 1998.
The briefs shall be forwarded by the Court Administrator to this judge and defendants'
preliminary objeetions will be decided without argument.
Ivo V. Otto, III, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
(!A-F rn"'~'-<L Icl/llq'l.
,j" "fl,
.
, I
)
I
Wayne F. Shade, Esquire
For the Defendants
Court Administrator ./i"",1 d"I",.,',(,{ /'1,,1'1Y" ,'IL",
:rlm
:j
,
l
\"~
,."
,~.
,
;;;-
r
(:;
"
'-(i
J;
Ii
"
"
'.
'-'r.,
,,~t1~m\~\i~r';'J}i:i;:\ , ,
" ,fiJ..I',~",.""...",
~~:~~~t~frJ":",~.~, ., ,. '
"'s'g.",.""."." ,.
; tj,i~lr$fi!!\i
r IgI~fiJ;)<f
: l!';j'\iB~"~H;; '~I' ,
\.1"8>' '..~,.:.,. "~
.' ~i~" ~,',:;' /~,: ~,:-
: ~~!~~,~'>: " f'" "~
1 ~l~}\,~~~,: /,~/.'
, .
IS
(-0'
IX ""
f~
",B
a=a
"-0
~~
'~~
~f
~
r
of
:t;.' '
11
, ,,M,
\~,,~
" ~"
,~:
i~
'.
, .'
" .;
.'
.
. ,
"
"s,""l""
',',', ' : .'~ ...', i:'i{~!C
,. !l~~':;t\:
.' ~<fMi<~.
"','.'1;1\3"',\,,'
",-:';,
,..,;-",
..;"',.".
. ,
"
, ,
, ..
KE),fI-I L. LEHMAN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
TAMMY LEI-WAN. tld/b/a : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
K & R LEHMAN CONTRACTING, : CIVIL ACTION - LA W
Plaintiffs
v.
: NO. 98-1142 CIVIL TERM
KERRY R.HENNE and
JOAN M. HENNE,
Defendants
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
HISTORY OF THE CASE
On March 2, 1998, Plaintiffs Keith L. Lehman & Tammy Lchman filcd a
Complaint against Dcfcndants. Plaintiffs allcgcd in ~Ithat they wcrc husband and wifc
and were trading and doing business as K & R Lehman Contracting. Thcrc was no
avcrment that K & R Lchman Contracting was a registcrcd fictitious namc. and thcrc was
no indication as to how the leUcrs "K & R" could rcfcr to a person by the name of Tammy
Lehman or as to who thc "R" would have been in K & R Lchman Contracting.
The Complaint furthcr alleged that Dcfendants cntered into a wriUen agreement
with Plaintiffs for thc construction of a house. A copy of the wriUen agrecment was
aUachcd 10 the Complaint.
Plaintiffs avcrred in "5 of the Complaint that modifications to thc work to bc
performed under the agrccmcnt rcsultcd in cxtra costs.
WAYNE F. SIIAIlE
Allomcy all.aw
SJ Wcsll'umrrcl Sln:c:1
Carlisle. I'cnnsyl\"anill
17013
I: -,
I..:
'1"
L
1\' ,
I .'
, I
, ~ I
)J
:\:i
i j
I .
)
(
II
~
,"(
{
,
'I
.'/ .
"
:1
H
. ..'
1\ is obvious frol11 u rcvicw of thc wrillcnugrcclllcnlthllt it wus not prcpured by
Defcndunts. 1\ wus prcpured uponu prcprinted proposlll un bchulfofthc buildcr. Onthc
very lirst pugc of the prcprinted proposul. it wus indicuted thutuny ultcrution or deviution
from thc spccilicutions involvil/g extra costs will bc executed only upon wrillcn ordcrs.
und will become un cxtrn churgc ovcr und ubovc thc estimatc. I'uge 3 of'thc prcprintcd
document further specilically provided thut any changcs mudc to thc blueprint that will
increase the price over what is allowed will be an additional cost to the customcr, that a
change ordcr form would be completcd and signed by the customcr and any cost incrcase
would be paid by the customcr bcforc work was complcted.
Therc is no avcrment in thc Complaint that any written ehange ordcrs werc ever
exccuted or that Defcndants were even infonned orally that any changes involved extra
costs.
PlaintilTs further averred generally that they arc entitlcd to morc than $14,000 in
additional costs without specifying, in thcir plcuding, the modilications upon which that
claim is based imd thc cost of cach modilication.
As a rcsult ofthc obvious dcliciencics in thc Complaint, Dcfcndants filcd
"
Preliminary Objcetions. They challcnged the tiling of the Complaint against thcm wherc
there was no avcrment that thc lictitious namc undcr whieh Plaintiffs wcre allcged to be
trading and doing busincss had been properly registercd as rcquircd by law. Plaintiffs
also interposcd a demurrer on thc claim for compensation for changes where there were
WAYNE F. SIlAllH
Attorney Ill.aw
S3 W~1 Pomfn:1 SIred
Carlisle. Pcnnsyl\'anill.
17013
-2-
~
.
,:
no uvcnnents tllIIt Dclcndunts wcrc propcrly inlilnlled ofuny cxtl'll cxpcnse involving uny
chungcs prior to cOll1plction of the chnngcs. Finlllly. Defcndllnts o~icclcd to thc fiJilurc 10
plcud spcciul dUll1ugcs spccilicully.
( Ruther tllUn tiling unull1cnded COll1pluint, Pluintiffs liIed un Answcr with New
Mutter to Dcfcndants' Prcliminury Objcctions. )
Contrllry to thc uvcnncnts in the very Iirst pUrllgraph of the Compluint thut both
individuul Plaintiffs had contractcd with Delcndunts, Pluintiffs uvcrrcd in ~I 0 ofthcir
Ncw Mallcr that Dcfendunts cntercd into the agrcement only with Plaintiff Kcith L.
Lehman. To further confound thcir avermcnts, Plaintiffs averrcd in ~12 ofthcir New
Mallcr that Dcfcndants knew at all times that Ihcy wcrc dcaling with both Plaintiffs Keith
L. Lehman and Tammy Lehman.
Plaintiffs allegcd in ~15 ofthcir New Mallcr that, although a fictitious namc
')
\
,
,
registration was unnecessary, thcy did file a fictitious nume registration in an allcmptto
j
,
cure the objcction raised by Defcndants in that respect.
In ~15 of our Reply to PlaintiffS' New Maller, wc allcgcd that only PlaintiffKcith
~
1
\
,~
h
I
L. Lehman has been registered as a principal ofK & R Lehmanund thut Plaintiff Tammy
Lehman was not registcred as an owncr of the busincss which is opcrating undcr the now
registcred Iictitious namc.
Dcfcndants' Preliminary Objections are now beforc your Honorable Court for
'li,
'I'
" '
"
;.1
:1
, ..
I ~
disposition.
WAYNE F. SIlAIlE
Attorneyall.aw
.53 WU1I'omrrel Slm:l
Carlisle. Pcnnsyl\'ani.
17013
-:
-3-
STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED
l. IS AN ENTITY PROI'ERL Y BEFORE TIlE COURT WHERE IT IS NOT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH TIlE FICTITIOUS NAME REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS?
II. WHERE A WRI'ITEN AGREEMENT PREPARED OY A BUILDER
.
REQUIRES ALL CHANGES INVOLVING EXTRA CHARGES TO BE
DOCUMENTED PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE WORK, MAY Tl-IB BUILDER
IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CHARGES AGAINST THE OWNER WIIERE THE OWNER
WAS NEVER INFORMED THAT REQUESTED CHANGES WOULD INVOLVE
ADDITIONAL CHARGES?
III. MAYA PARTY BE PERMI'ITED TO PROCEED WITH CLAIMS FOR
SPECIAL DAMAGES WITHOUT PLEADING THEM SPECIFICALLY?
ARGUMENT
I. AN 'ENTITY IS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT
WHERE IT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FICTITIOUS NAME
REGISTRA nON REQUIREMENTS.
The Complaint purports to identify thc partics as Keith L. Lchman & Tammy
Lchman, tldlbla K & R Lchman Contracting. It is undisputed that at thc time that the
Complaint was filcd, thcrc was no Iictitious namc rcgistration for "K & R Lehman
Contracting".
-4-
Pluintiffs hllvc lIvcrred in 'i'III-13 ofthcir Ncw Mullcr to our Prcliminllry
Objcctions tllllt thc numc "K & R Lchmun Conlructing" did not requirc rcgistrutionlls u
fictitious nlllllC becausc it was sufficiently clellr that it rcferrcd to Plaintiffs. Even if we
accept that K Lchman is Kcith Lchman. thcre is nothing in "K & R Lehman Contraeting"
that would indicatc thc involvement ofa pcrson by thc namc of Tammy Lchman.
Morcover, Lehman is a vcry common namc in this area, and therc is no indieation from
thc fictitious name itsclfas to thc identity ofR Lehman. Thcrefore. thc name is clearly
fictitious.
In spite .oftheir contentions that it was not necessary to registcr "K & R Lehman
Contracting"as a fictitious name, Plaintiffs alleged in ~15 of their Ncw Matter that they
did file a fictitious name rcgistration in an attempt to cure the objection raised by
Defendants in that rcspect.
The provisions 01'54 Pa.C.S. *331 explicitly set forth, as follows:
~311 Contracts entered into by entity using unregistered
fictitious name
(A) GENERAL RULE.-- No entity which has failed to
register a lietitious name as required by this chapter shall bc
pennitted to maintain any action in any tribunal of this
Commonwealth until such entity shall have complied with thc
provisions of this chapter. ....
W ^ YNH F. SIlADB
Attorneyall.aw
5JWcstlJomfrC:ISlrect
Carlisle. Pennsylvania
170\3
(B) CIVIL PENAL TY.-- Before any cntity may institute any
action in any tribunal of this Commonwealth on any cause of action
arising out of any transaction in rcspect to which such cntity used a
fictitious name prior to the datc ofthc registration of such fictitious
nume, or aner thc date its rcgistration under this chapter was
cancelcd or otherwise terminated as to such entity, the entity shall
-5.
1
,
i (
.""-
t
,I,
,
\ 'I
Lehman Contracting. We I'urthcr averrcd thut PluintilTTummy I.chmlln wus not
lictitious namc.
.
t
\
,
)
I:
J
registercd as an owncr ofthc busincss which is opcrating undcr thc now registcrcd
The requirements ol'thc Iictitious name luw urc clear. Il'partics wish to use thc
court system ol'the Commonwcalth, they must comply with those rcquirements. Wc
contend that Plaintiffs cannot bc hcld to havc met even the standard ol'substuntial
prior to secking to cmploy thc court system against Defendants. Wc I'urthcr contcnd that
compliancc with thc lictitious name rcquiremcnts where they had not registcrcd anything
thcy are clearly not cven now in substantial compliance where it is undcniablc that thcy
havc not paid the applicable civil penalty and have not listcd Tammy Lehman as an
individual who is interested in the business.
')
\
,
1
We submit that, rathcr than curing their fatally defective plcadings by tiling the
f
,
subsequent fictitious name registration, Plaintifls havc compoundcd the confusion in this
case rather than clarifying the situation by registering the lictitious name only to Plaintiff
Keith L. Lehman wherc the caption and '1~1 and 3 ofthc Complaint specifically indicate
that both individual Plaintifls wcrc trading and doing business under the unregistercd
lictitious name; Thc utter confusion stcmming I'rom the inconsistencics in PlaintiffS'
,~ .
Ii
I
own plcadings i1lustratcs the nccd for a propcrly rcgistcrcd fictitious namc as a loundation
for thc commencement ofa civil aclion. To pennit PlaintiffS to cngage the court system
against Dcfendants in thc prcscnt posture of this casc would bc to ignorc thc simplc and
WAYNE F. SIlAIlE
Allorncy DI '.a. obvious rcquircmcnts ol'thc rcgistration of fictitious namcs. Wc I'urthcr submit that this
'3WC!II'umrrcISlrccl
Carlislc:,I'cnn!)hanill ~
17013
-7-
'".
issue is not academic and that, where the averments of the Compluint are inconsistent
with the subsequently registered fictitious name, Plaintifl); ure not properly befbre the
Court; and their Complaint must be dismissed.
.
II. WHERE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT PREPARED BY A
BUILDER REQUIRES ALL CHANGES IN VOL VING EXTRA
CHARGES TO BE DOCUMENTED PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE
WORK, THE BUILDER MAY NOT IMPOSE ADDITIONAL
CHARGES AGAINST THE OWNER WHERE THE OWNER WAS
NEVER INFORMED THAT REQUESTED CHANGES WOULD
INVOL VE ADDITIONAL CHARGES.
Plaintiffs are in the business of constructing homcs. Thcy drafled the agreemcnt
which required written change ordcrs prior to the completion of any work lor which thcrc
was to be an extra chargc. That rcquiremcnt appears not oncc but twice in the contract. It
appears in thc preprinted first page and in Plaintiffs' spccilically drancd third pagc.
Our law' generally upholds the validity and sanctity of no-oral modification
clauscs. Thcre are only Iimitcd circumstances whcre a valid oralmodilication of a
contract may be found dcspite thc cxistcnce ofa no-oral modification clause. In order to
avoid thc binding effcct of a no-oralmodilication clause, it must bc allegcd that a party
waived the rcquircment that modifications be in writing to be eflcctive. Lea.l'ing Service
Corp. v. Ben.l'on, 317 Pa. Super. 439, 449-450, 464 A2d 402, 407 (1983). It must also bc
alleged that the party claiming waivcr was mislcd and prc.;judiced by statcments or cvents
subsequcnt to the cntry into thc agreement with thc no-oralmodifieation clausc. Berwick
WAYNE F. S"AIlE v. Daniel W. Kelder Real/OJ's, 407 Pa. Super. 528, 532, 595 A2d 1272, 1274 (1991).
Anomey 1111./1"'
$JWc:sll'omrrcISltc:cl
Cllllislc,IJcnnSY)Yllnia
17013
-8-
We cuntcnd that thcrc is nothing in the allcgations ofthc Complaint in this casc which
would support the rcquircd waivcr oflhe no-orulmodilication e1ausc. Evcn iflhere wcrc sueh
allegations, wc contcnd that the issuc is not wbelher or not Delendants requestcd changes to the
agreement. The issue is whethcr any requested changes involved cxtra costs. The agreement
draned by Plaintiffs does not say that all changes had to be in wriling, but only those whieh
would involve extra eosts.
Wc submitthatPlaintills may not be permilled to claim thousands of do liars of extra
charges ancr th~ fact where there is no avcrmcnt that Plaintills even made the minimal ellort to
inform Defendants orally, before the work was pcrformcd, that extra payment would be cxpeetcd,
not to mention whcre there is no avennent that the changes were reduced to writing as
expressly required in the written agreement. From the tenns ofthe contract which was
drafted by Plaintiffs, we contend that Defendants had a right to assume that the requested
changes would not involve extra expense where Plaintiffs did not specify that requested
changes would involve extra costs and the amount of those cxtra costs. There is no
allegation that Defendants stood by and watched changes being made with knowledge
that there would be extra expense. If the owners had known that they would be sued for
thousands of dollars for various changes, they may very well have elected not to have
proceeded with the changes.
Plaintiffs allege in thc Second Count of their Complaint that Defendants would be
somehow unjustly enriched if your Honorable Court would not require Defendants to give
Plaintiffs more than $18,000. We contend that there is nothing in law or equity that
WAYNI; F. SHAIll;
Allomc)' al Law
S3Wesl/'omrr<IS'r<" would cntitle Plaintiffs to the aid orthis Court to rcwrite the contract which thcy drafted
Carlislc,l)cnns)'I\'ania
17013
-9-
and which prcc/udcs thcm fhllll imposing IIdditionul churgcs uncr thc fhcl whcrc
Defendants Wcrc nOlnolificd ofuny addilional chargcs prior tOlhc pcrformancc ol'lhc
work. 'fanYlhlng, wc conlcnd lhalthc cquitics would prce/udc imposilion ofcxlra
charges agllinst Dcfendants whcrc thcrc are no aIlegations thatthcy Wcrc informcd thaI
thc changes thatlhcy requestcd involved CXlra charges. 'fanyonc would bc prejudiced by
thc invalidation ofthc repcated no-oral modification clauses inthc agrcemcnt in this casc,
it would clearly be Defendants.
For IIII of the forcgoing reasons, we respcctfuIly submit that Plaintiffs hllvc fhi/ed
to stllte II cause of action IIgainst Defendllnts IInd thllt the Complaint must be dismissed.
III, A PARTY MA Y NOT BE PERMITTED TO PROCEED WITH
CLAIMS FOR SPECIAL DAMAGES WITHOUT PLEADING THEM
SPECIFICA.LL Y.
There werc twenty-two distinct categories of specificalions to which specific costs
were assigned in the agreement whieh is attached to the Complaint in this case.
Without making any altemptto specifY each aIlcgcd change and the additional
charges for each aIleged changc, Plaintiffs simply claim $14,690.78 from Defendants in
'liS of the Complaint.
We submit that the Complaint is so obviously in violation of the requiremcnts of
Pa.R.Civ.p. '019(1) that no further authority is rcquired to sustain our Preliminary
Objection in thc nature ofa Motion for more Spccific Complaint.
W ^ YNE F. S"^lJE
AltomeYlI.ll..aw
.53 WC:SI romrrel Street
CDrlislC:.I'ennsyh'lI.nill
17013
-10.
\
I
i
I i
!~
, "
t
if
:1:'
\'
{
i i
,
~~
~>=
...CIl~
~ffi:5
::1:"',
::1: 'z
~16
OuO":
I-< -l
~!~ . .
o u
u
'~~ '
g; ~ '
r~:'"
{t',. '
~;..,,: .
t.,~ .
1:'''' ,
'i"':;,~
~,\-'," .
~~j;, ~ . .
:;I~,~f'
'J~,{:, "
:tt;,',,
<4r ~
t,~;; ,
,J" ,'"
"7;,'
%~.~:~
~:~j,.
:If"
'~r, ;.
It. '
~,i .
t,\',"
C"
~I~
~~6
ii~
-l~o
....J 'u
E~
!;I~
-l
~
:I:
:i
~
....
~
~
~
:I:
'0:
~
!;I
.;;
gO
i~~ 8-
f~~ ~ ~~~
~ · !i~~M
~ " 8 Vl" t::
<:ir"\j ~~!8
~~. E:Co.. ~
~~i 12~~'~
< 2 ~ 1.\,~ a
::;: .ll <..u..
:>
~>
~~
lZg;
~;;gCll
CIl-lZ
tt~o
~~6
:5~~
...":0
~Q
oz
~lf
~~
;!Q
III
,',
, >
,
J
.':
!
t....
. .
... ....
\ ',;;;.'
1';"HU~''lJIA rAH1.lNWNIM M WolU~~ '.UN.I
I 'rul,,!; u.!I1V'" 11;~lM I'M
Ilr\l...,I,U'r'I"t"",m:2.I:!,f,AM
KEITH L. LEHMAN & TAMMY
LEHMAN, t/d/b/a K & R LEHMAN
CONTRACTING,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS or
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. lJH-1142 Civil Term
v.
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE,
Jury Trial Demanded
Defendants
BRmF 01<' PLAINTWFS OPPOSINf: nEFENnANTS'
PREUMINARY OB.JECTIONS
I, STATEMENT (W FACTS ANn PROCEnURAL HISTORY
On March 2, 19lJH, Keith und Tammy Lehman filed a complaint against Kerry and Joan Henne
in an effort to collect $17,261.7H owed to them under a construction contract, plus consequential
damages related to their breach. (Complaint at ~~ I, 10, and 17). In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege,
inter alia, the following: Plaintiffs are trading and doing business us K & R Lehman Contracting
(Complaint ~ I); the parties entered into a written agreement for the construction of a two-story, two
car garage house, with agreement uttached, in exchange for $1 HO,OOO.OO (Complaint ~~ 3, 4);
pennissible additions and subtractions to the ugreement resulted in a total amount due of $IH 1,261.7H
(Complaint ~~ 5-7); Plaintiffs completed performance under the agreement (Complaint ~ lJ);
Defendants have paid all amounts due under the contract, taking into account the permissible
additions and subtractions, except $17,261.7H (Complaint ~ 10); Defendants' refusal to pay all
amounts due have caused Plaintiffs to lose business opportunities and suffer additional damages
(Complaint ~ 12). Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs ask for relief under the theories of contract
and unjust enrichment.
On March 30, IlJ9H, Defendants filed preliminary objections to Plaintiffs' complaint.
Defendants claimed in these preliminary objections that: (I) this Court lack jurisdiction over the
subject matter of Ihe complaint because Plaintift:~ did not aver thaI K & R Lehmun Conlracting wus
a properly registered fictitious namc; (2) Plailllift:~ fuiled to statc a claim upon which relief can be
granted because Plaintiffs did not uver that Defendants executed any change order fonm prior to
completion of any changes under the agreement; and (3) Plaintiffs should be ordered to plead with
specificity the additions und subtractions alleged in the paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint. See
Defendants' Preliminary Objections, Defendants did not allege that, even though K & R Lehman
Contracting was not a registered fictitious name, they did not know they were dealing with Keith L.
Lehman, Plaintiff herein.
On or about April 6, IlJlJH, counsel for Plaintiffs, Carl C. Risch, contacted counsel for
Defendants, Wayne Shade, regarding the preliminary objections. Affidavit of Curl C. Risch ~ 2
(attached as "Exhibit A"). In that telephone conversation, Mr. Risch specifically asked Mr. Shade
if he wished Plaintiffs to amend their complaint and itemize each and every addition and substraction
under the agreement making these allegations a matter ofrecord. Affidavit of Curl C. Risch ~ 3.
Mr. Shade specifically instructed Mr. Risch not to amend the complaint with such facts but, rather,
to write Mr. Shade a letter itemizing the additions and subtractions so he could discuss them with the
Defendants. Affidavit of Carl C. Risch ~ 4. Mr. Risch complied with this request by writing a
detuiled letter to Mr. Shade, dated April 15, IlJ9H, specifically itemizing these additions and
subtractions. Affidavit of Carl C. Risch ~ 5 (a copy of the letter is attached as "Exhibit B"). Even
though counsel for the Defendants was provided with the requested letter in lieu of an amended
complaint, Defendants have refused to withdraw their preliminary objections based on specificity.
On April 20, IlJlJH, Plaintiffs unswered Defendants' preliminury objections with new matter.
In this answer, Plaintiffs alleged, illter alia, that a fictitious name application had been filed with the
Pennsylvania Department of State curing any defect. Answer ~ 15. On May 11, 19lJ8, Defendants
answered Pluintiff.~' new matter. On May 22, IlJlJH, Plaintiffs listed this matter for urgument. Byan
Order dated June 10, IlJ9H, thL~ Court canceled oral urgument of this matter and directed the purties
to submit briefs.
2
II, QUESTIONS PRESENTED
;\:
I'
t.
1\,
I '
1,-.
II,
I } (
I'~
I
I
I"
I
I
i
,
!
i
I
! }
I~
.J
')
I
,
1
A. Are Plaintiff.~ properly before this Court where "K & R Lehman Cnlltl'llcling" was not
registered as a fictitious nall~ at the tin~ this aClion was comlllCnced hut where Keith
L. Lehman, a named Plaintiff, is expressly a party 10 the contract and where the
fictitious name was subsequently rcgislered with the DepartlllCllt of Slate'l
B. Have Plaintiff.~ failed to state a claim upon which relief ClIlI be gl'llllted in cnntract and
unjust enrichment where PlaintilTs have alleged Ihat Dctelldauls permitted all additions
and subtractions under the constructioll agreelllCnl bUI did lint specifically allege that
change order forms had been compleled'l
C. Does Plaintiffs' complaint inapproprialely lack SIIl:c1ticity in violation of Pa.R.C.P.
10 19(f)'I
III. ARGUMENT
A, Plaintiffs are properly before this Cuurt beclIuse they lire In cllmpliance III'
substantial compliance with the Fletitlllus NlIllles Act, 54 1'1I.C.S. !i!i301.332.
Defendants have preliminarily objected to I'laintift:~' complaint on grounds that K & R
Lehman Contracting, a name used from time to time by I'laintilI~, was not a duly registered fictitious
name under the Fictitious Names Act, 54 Pa.C.S. !i!i 301-332. Even though K & R Lehman
Contracting was not a duly registered fictitious name as of the date this action was commenced,
P1aintiff.~ are nevertheless properly before this Court for two reasons: (I) Because Keith L. Lehman,
Plaintiff herein, is a named party to this uction and appeurs as a named party to the agrecment us
attached to the complaint, regi~tration of K & R Lehm:m Contructing was nOlllecessary for purposes
of this action, and (2) Because Plaintiffs duly registered K & R Lehman Contructing as alictitious
name under the Act, any defects were cured and the PllIinliffs are in suhstantial compliance with thc
Fictitious Names Act, 54 Pa.C.S. !i331 (c).
\ !
, '
\
~ '
I
I
1
~~.;
Ii
"
I,
,
"
"
'I
, '
:I
. \
,
( \'-'
" ,
I. Because Keith L. Lehman is both a party to the agreement between the
parties and a party to this action, the registration of K & R Lehman
Contracting as a fictitious name was unnecessary to support this action,
Under the Fictitious Names Act, a party entering into u contract using a fictitious name cannot
maintain an action under thL~ contract until he has complied with the registration requirements of the
Fictitious Names Act. 54 Pa.C.S. !l 331 (a). The purpose of this registration procedure is to protect
those who deal with persons carrying on a business under an assumed name, and to enable them to
know with whom they are doing business. See U.S. v. American Standard Remodeling Co., 252
F.Supp. 690 (W.D.Pu. 1966). Keith L. Lehman, however, has not violated the Fictitious Names Act
because he has not transucted business under an assumed name without expressly and unequivocally
di~losing his identity to the Defendants as the owner and operator of K & R Lehman Contracting.
In the agreement attached to Plaintiffs' complaint, Keith L. Lehman's name appears on every page
of the contract directly under the name K & R Lehman Contracting. There is no question under the
contract that Defendants entered into an agreement with Keith L. Lehman and that Keith L. Lehman
and K & R Lehman Contracting are one in the same. Defendants have not alleged that they did not
know Keith L. Lehman was involved in the transaction nor have they alleged with any seriousness
that they did not know with whom they were deuling.
Further, as an individual party to the contract, Keith L. Lehman brought this action aguinst
Defendants for damages resulting from their breach of the tenm of the agreement. This action was
not brought in the name of K & R Lehman Contracting alone because the contract was not entered
into by K & R Lehman Contracting. Therefore, Keith L. Lehman has not violated the Fictitious
Names Act because he has not transacted business under an assumed name; rather, he has contracted
business under his own name ulong with a trade name that describes his business. I
Additionally, Defendants vigorously argue that Tammy Lehman should not be a
purty to this lawsuit because she is not an "owner" of the now registered fictitious name, K & R
Lehman Contracting. Although Tammy Lehman was not a party to the contract and does not
have all interest in UK & R Lehman Contracting," she was made a party as the spouse of Keith L.
Lehman who has gained rights in the contract by virtue of her position. Her presence as a plaintiff
4
2. lIeelluse 1'llIlullffs duly I'elllslel'ed K & I( I.ehmllu CUlllrllcllllllllS II
fictitious 1I11me ulldel'lIw I\CI,lII1Y derecls \\'el'e cUl'edlllldlhe 1'llIllIllffs
lire 111 suhsllllllllll comllUlIllce \\'lIh IIw Illclltlous NlImes Act. 54 1'1I,C,S.
!l33\(c),
On April 21, IlJlJH, Keith L, Ldumn duly reglslcll'd K &,1{ l.clumn COllll'Ucling as a fictitious
name with the Departn~ntol' State. All hough I'I1IilllilTs donlll helleve that this was ueces~ary since
they did not transact business with Deleudllnts uuder IIn assunlCd name, they nevertheless liIed the
registration to cure any delecls ami In allow them to he in "suhstanlilll compliance" with the Fictitious
Names Act. Parties who truusact business uuder an assumed nan1C and then initiate an uction, may
be deemed in "substantial compliance" with Ihe Ficlitinus NanlCs Act under Sectioll 331 (c) if they
regi~ter the fictitious name soollllfler I~ginning the IIIWSUit, SI'I' .lolli/soli 1'. Lllllrelallll Bllilders, II
Pa. D. & C. 4th 271 (IlJlJ I). I'arties ill "subslantial compliance" with the Act are 1I0t penalized.
Because Keith L. Lehman registered K & I{ Lehman Conlructing as u fictitious lIame within a few
weeks of initiating the lawsuit and beclluse Del'emlanls have 1I0t ulleged tlwtthey did not know with
whom they were dealing, Plaintiffs should he deemed in substantial compliance with the Act and
permitted to proceed with their action against Defendants.
For the above reasons, Plaintiffs request that Defendants' preliminary objection raising lack
of jurisdiction over the subject mutter be overruled.
\
,
I
II.
1'I111nliffs hllve stilted II c1l1hnUIIlIl1 which relier clln be granted in contract and
unjust enrichment where 1'llIinliffs hllve 1I11eged thllt IJefendants permitted all
additions lInd suhtl'llclions under the conslructiun agreement,
l
,
Defendants have demurred 10 Pluintiffs' complaint on grounds that, because the agreement
between the parties requires thut "change order form~" be completed before additional work is
perfonllCd, Plaintiffs cannot maintain their cuuse of action without averring that these "change order
form~" had been completed. Plaintiffs, however, do not need to make such a specific allegation to
will not prejudice Defendanls in any wuy but, ruther, will protect her rights as the spouse of Keith
L. Lehman.
5
~
. -.......,...t'
support their cause of action. Plaintiffs have properly stated a cause of uction in contract and unjust
enrichment because they huve alleged Ilmt Defendants e,l"pI'C'.I',\'ly permitted all the udditions and
subtractions alleged in paragruphs 5 and 6:
5. Modifications to the work to be performed under the
Agreement resulted in IU'l'1Ilissible udditions totaling
$14,(ilJO.7H thus adding this amount to the contract price.
6. Modification to the work to be performed under the
Agreement resulted in permissible subtractions totaling
$13,42lJ.OO thus subtracting this amount from the contract
price.
(Emphasis added). Permitting the additions and substraction by change order form, while stated in
the contract, is not the only method by which Defendants could have given this permission. For
example, Defendants could have waived their right to a change order form if they allowed the
additions or subtractions to be made by standing by and saying nothing while knowing that a change
order form had not been completed. See West Shore Lumber CompallY v. Sweelley, II Monroe L.
R. 24 (llJ4H) (holding that a party cunnot stand by and watch u job be performed and then refuse to
pay because certain contractual obligations were not fulfilled).
Nevertheless, the argument raised by the Defendants is factual in nature and inappropriate at
the preliminary objection stage. If Defendants wish to urgue that the permission given to Keith L.
Lehman to make the additions and subtractions was somehow defective under the terl1t~ of the
contract, i.e., no change order forl1t~, Defendants are free to include such arguments as affirmative
defenses. Defendants, however, are prohibited from arguing that such a requirement be specifically
pleaded given that so many factual issues surrounding this issue must be developed.
For the ubove reasons, Plaintiffs request that Defendants' demurrer be overruled.
6
. ......,,..;'
C. PlaintilTs' ClIIlllJluill1 dues Ilul illUIJIII'ulJriulely luck sJlecificily under l'u,R.C,P,
III I 9(rJ.
Defendants have preliminurily objected to Plaintiffs' complainl on grounds that it lacks
specificity under Pa.R.C.P. 10 IlJ(O because Plaintiffs have not itemized each and every addition and
substraction as alleged in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint. Defendants' objection should be
overruled for two reasons: (I) Rule I () IlJ(O does not require that "extras" claimed under a contract
be specifically pleaded when discovery procedures are available, and (2) Counsel for Defendants
requested a letter itemizing those additions and subtractions in lieu of an amended complaint, and that
letter has been provided.
Rule 10 IlJ(1) requires that "[a]verments of time, place and itel1t~ of special damage be
specifically pleaded." However, modifications to contracts, i.e., extras, need not be pleaded with any
more specificity than identifying the group of extras and claiming a lump sum for each group. See
ge/lerally Wal'.I'haw v. Arami/lgo Realty COI]}., 15 D. & C. 2d 480 (I lJ5H). The discovery process
i.~ to be used to ascertain the details surrounding these "extras." [d. Therefore, in the present case,
Plaintiffs have adequately described the additions and subtructions under the contract.
Regardless, Defendants should be estopped from maintaining their preliminary objection based
on specificity due to the behavior of their counsel. On or about April 6, 1998, counsel for Plaintiffs,
Carl C. Risch, contacted counsel for Defendants, Wayne Shade, regarding the preliminary objections.
Affidavit of Carl C. Risch ~ 2. In that telephone conversation, Mr. Risch specifically asked Mr.
Shade if he wished Plaintiffs to amend their complaint and itemize each and every addition and
substraction under the agreement making these allegutions a matter of record. Affidavit of Carl C.
Risch ~ 3. Mr. Shade specifically instructed Mr. Risch not to amend the compluint with such facts
but, rather, to write Mr. Shade a letter itemizing the additions and subtractions so he could discuss
them with the Defendants. Affidavit of Carl C. Risch ~ 4. Mr. Risch complied with this request by
writing a detailed letter to Mr. Shade, dated April 15, llJ9H, specifically itemizing these additions and
subtractions. Affidavit of Carl C. Risch ~ 5. Even though counsel for the Defendants was provided
the letter, Defendants have refused to withdraw their preliminary objections based on specificity.
i
,
7
l11erefore, the preliminary objection should be nverruled becnuse the Defendants have already been
supplied with specific information in the form reqnested .. a leller not made part of Ihe record.
IV. CONCLUSION
Wherefore, Plaintiff.~ request tlmt the preliminary objections be overruled for the above
reasons.
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
By r~,Dw' ~
(vo V. Otto, III, Esquire
PA Attorney LD. No. 27763
Carl C. Risch, Esquire
PA Attorney LD. No. 75901
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attol'lleys fol' Plaillliff.\'
Date: June IlJ, IlJ98
j
H
fl:'HI.I!\\IIATAI'IUNiI!NIM M "'IIl'IWM.AI'I1.t"'lIl1
"I'I'IIr.I: lIV'Jv'}MII2.....M I'M
~nlW.l: 1.,ltYllIlTW1:l""M
'11".1
KEITH L. LEHMAN & TAMMY
LEHMAN, tldlbla K & R LEHMAN
CONTRACTING,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. lJH-1142 Civil Term
v.
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE,
Defendants
Jury Trial Demanded
AFFIIlA VI'!'
I, Carl C. Risch, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that:
I. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
and I am currently representing Keith L. And Tammy Lehman in the above captioned suit.
2. On or ubout April Ii, IlJ9H, I contacted counsel for Defendants, Wayne Shade,
regarding the preliminary objections that he filed in the above captioned suit.
3. In that telephone conversation, I specifically asked Mr. Shade if he wished Plaintiffs
to amend their complaint und itemize each and every addition and substraction under the ugreement
making these allegations a matter of record.
4. Mr. Shade specifically instructed me not to amend the complaint with such facts but,
rather, to write Mr. Shade u letter itemizing the additions und subtractions so he could discuss them
with the Defendants.
5. I complied with thi~ request by writing u detailed letter to Mr. Shade, dated April 15,
IlJlJH, specifically itemizing these additions and subtractions, A c pyof he letter is ~ayd hereto.
Carl C, Risch
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
: 5S
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
On Uds. Ule 19U1 day nf June. 199M, bellJre me Ihe undersigned onicer, persoually appeared Carl C. Risch known
In me nr salisfaclnrily proven In be the person whose name is subscribed 10 Ihe wilhiu instrument 11l1d acknowledged thai
he execuled the slllne for the purpnses Iherein eontaiued.
'/tall
EXHIBIT "A"
Notarial Soal
Trlela D. Eekenroad, Notary Public
Carlisle Boro, Cumberlond Counly
My Commission Expires Oct. 23. 2000
"
.1
\
exhibit 8
'~'-'-'--'--:?
. . . "'t"
t
8
vIta,,&n, q)etWdO'1'# fl{tliam6 &- O'tto
Wayne P. Shade, Esquire
April IS, 1998
Pago 2
Heating
House Package - Increase in Lumber Prices
Drywall. 33 sheets
Siding - Exterior Comers
Kitchen Pantry
Circle Tops in Master Bath
Upstairs Closets
Two 3042 Windows Upstairs in Bonus Room
Brass Hardware (French Door in Master Bedroom)
Paint and Prep (French Door in Master Bedroom)
Add Fish Scales to Pront Exterior
Siding - Extra Circle Top in Garage
Add Twin Window in Garage - 2nd Floor
Add Laundry Room Door to Foyer
Stairway - Paint and Stain Labor
3/0 Door - 9 Lite Slab Only for Garage
TOTAL ADDITIONS
n. Lehman Subtractions/Credits
Flooring
Vanities, Tops and Cabinets for Laundry Room
Lighting
Gas Fireplace
Sidewalk
Flooring for Bonus Room
Drywall for Bonus Room
Trim and Paint for Bonus Room
Work to be Completed - 2 small handrails,
tighten balusters, paint typon and
door trim, and general clean-up
Change Cap Shingles
TOTAL CREDITS
m. Henne Additions
Building Permit
Electrie
Plumbing
House Package Lumber Increase
Upstairs Closets
2 Windows in Bonus Room
Brass Hardware, French Door
Add Twin Window in Garage, 2nd Floor
I
\
'I
,
2,105.34
2,487.00
273.57
200.00
454.56
312.50
807.74
685.00
257.51
175.00
100,00
40.00
100.00
182.50
750.00
14500
$14,690.78
$6,440.00
1,951.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
650,00
948.00
265,00
475.00
,
1
,
1
,
.
.
100.00
100 00
$13,429.00
I(
$ 858.82 f
I
679.00 i
;
881.00 .
!
2,487.00 I
300.00 I
685.00 [,
150.00 1\
100.00
.AtaI'I.wn, q)f!04'dol'lt 'fI{tlt'amJ cY 0110
, Wayne P. Shade, Esquire
April 15, 1998
Page 3
Add Laundry Room Door to Foyer
TOTAL ADDITIONS
18250
$6,523.32
IV. Henne SubstractionslCredits
~
o
o
Flooring
Vanities, etc. for Laundry
Lighting
Gas Fireplace
Sidewalk
Flooring for Bonus Room
Drywall for Bonus Room
Trim and Paint Bonus Room
Work to be completed:
Change Cap Shingles
Paint Doors
Install Oak Stairway per plans
Install Porch Posts
Install Screens
Install Dryer Vent
Correct Basement Stairs
Install Handrails
Front Door Provided by Hennes
Front Door Knob
Stone for Driveway
TOTAL CREDITS
$6,440.00
1,951.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
650.00
948.00
265.00
475.00
725.00
300.00
1,825.00
325.00
70.00
135.00
425.00
110.00
364.00
100.00
56919
$18,177.19
If the detail provided in this letter is satisfuctory to you and your clients, please withdraw your
preliminary objections to the complaint based on specificity per our conversation. If you rP.quire more
specificity, please let us know and I will make reeeipts and other materials available.
I look forward to working with you in resolving this matter. Whenever you are ready to
discuss settlement, please feel free to eontact me.
Very truly yours,
I'
MARTS ON, DEARDORFF, Wll.LIAMS & 0170
;,
Carl C. Risch
F.\FJLES\DATAFlLE'GENLn9N69o.WS.2
':'<
,-"
KEITH L. LEHMAN & TAMMY
LEHMAN, t/d/b/a K & R
LEHMAN CONTRACTING,
PLAINTIFFS
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE,
DEFENDANTS
98-1142 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 1998, the preliminary objections of
defendants to plaintiffs' complaint. ARE DISMISSED.
Edgar B. Bayley J.
Ivo V. Otto, III, Esquire
For Plaintiffs
_ rA~ ~ 'l/t't/q'd. J
--U" .:z,f'.
Wayne F. Shade, Esquire
For Defendants
:saa
,..
h;
j.;:.
I.IJ ~;':
':(Jr-
p:.1'
"I'
<:')('"1
A,_,
wL.~
U:~\I
r',
b
111
..:J
9
~
,:~
?~=::
-co<':
'.....J ~.l
; ~.;
, ..:~:!
:'''(1)
.',.;.
iil':S
~{~u...
'!!;,
U
"'n
-.1:
C':l
(,..'1
, -~,
:::to
00
ell
V;
'-"I,
cd 'IICC"
UJ.I~
~',I__,:,'E() ','" ",a 1II
~ - ;~:':E~
:~~ ~~~l
8,.~ ~ ~ .. ~
!ll~ ~I~
;~ ~,
,
>
'"
filr.l
Iii
. .e
"I>: :f:.El
I~~
. ~
. . ..
.'
"
, .
':'.:/
,
-tIl
ifHl
f3g5;j
C~fll
'~ ~~
tIlCS
f::~
H -
~f5t1l
~il
~~f3
~- C
~
!~,=,) s
< ",' !;c'. ~
'.~ '- ~ ~~.
i5Ij~i~
c 2. OiVLC;; ~
~r"\, r~"~,~iS
01----4. eX", ..
~ ~'-' i Il ~ ~J
!:1, ~ ~ i5 ~ ~,
::E '" '( I-VI-,
-..;.
.
....
,'..'
..
" <
.',"
" ",
"
, ,-
......
flflLf.lriII)ATAr1I.1:'4J1:NIXX'Yl'N1I1URI! I
l',mld 01l2~U~2.wrM
RMMd'0III1Ml10IlI0IP.L1
KEITH L, LEHMAN & TAMMY
LEHMAN, t/dlb/a K & R LEHMAN
CONTRACTING,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 98-1142 Civil Term
v.
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE,
Defendants
Jury Trial Demanded
REPLY OF PLAINTIFFS TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER
AND ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM
AND NOW, eo me the Plaintiffs, Keith L. Lehman and Tammy Lehman, trading and doing
business as K & R Lehman Contracting, by and through their attorneys, Martson, Deardorff, Williams
& Otto, and hereby reply and answer as follows:
REPLY TO NEW MATTER
22. Admitted.
23. Admitted, By way of further answer, K & R Lehman Contraeting has been properly
registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State as a fietitious name.
24. Admitted. By way of further answer, Tammy Lehman is a plaintiff in this action in
order to defend any interest in the business of her husband, Keith Lehman, that she may have gained
by being his spouse.
25. Admitted.
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
26. Denied. The averments in paragraph 26 inappropriately attempt to charaeterize or
paraphrase the terms c;>f the Agreement, which is a writing, a speaks for itself.
27. Admitted in part, denied in part, It is admitted that the dwelling was to be construeted
in accordance with a floor plan, but this allegation is denied to the extent that it implies that this floor
plan could not properly be modified by the parties upon agreement.
!
.,i
c
r
28. Admitted. By way of further answer, the ehanges in design to the stairway between
the first and seeond floors of the dwelling were made at the direetion of the Defendants.
29, Admitted. By way of further answer, the Defendants were given eredit for these
omissions and the amount due under the contract was redueed aecordingly.
30. Denied, It is specifically denied that the shingles were installed with exposed nails.
The Plaintiffs Jack sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph
30 and those allegations are therefore denied,
31. Denied. It is specifieally denied that the first floor joists are too small to support the
floor. To the contrary, the joists are of adequate size.
32. Denied. The Plaintiffs laek sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations
in paragraph 32 and those allegations are therefore denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs did
not install a sump pump. Plaintiffs only installed a hole into whieh a sump pump eould be placed.
33. The Plaintiffs laek sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
paragraph 33 and those allegations are therefore denied,
34. The Plaintiffs lack sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations in
paragraph 34 and those allegations are therefore denied,
35. Admitted in part, denied in part, It is admitted that some doors were not painted, but
Plaintiffs laek sufficient knowledge as to how many doors were not painted and thus these allegations
are denied. By way of further answer, it was eommercially reasonable not to paint the doors that
were not painted because these doors led to unfinished areas.
36. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendants would not permit Plaintiffs to install
the sereens.
37, Denied. AJI sereens were provided by Plaintiffs.
38. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendants would not permit Plaintiffs to install
a elothes drier vent.
2
'"'
39, Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendants brought in a separate contractor to
eomplete construction of the basement stairs before Plaintiffs eould complete construction
themselves.
40. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendants would not permit Plaintiffs to install
the handrails, the Defendants were given credit for these omissions, and the amount due under the
eontract was reduced aecordingly.
41. Admitted. By way of further answer, the Defendants were given credit for this item
and the amount due under the eontract was redueed aceordingly.
42. Admitted. By way of further answer, the Defendants were given credit for this item
and the amount due under the contraet was reduced aeeordingly,
43. Admitted. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs did not provide driveway stone
because the Defendants had already exceeded their excavating allowance whieh included this item.
44. Denied, The Plaintiffs lack sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations
in paragraph 44 and those allegations are therefore denied.
45. Admitted. By way of further answer, the failure to install an ice maker shut off valve
was at the direetion of the Defendants.
46. Denied. To the contrary, the plumbing charges exceeded the plumbing allowance by
$881.00 and the Defendants aequicsced to this.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants.
M1\TSON, .?7'\~ORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
By \. ~att O~ :Q
Ivo V. Otto, III, Esquire
PA Attorney 1.0. No. 27763
Carl C. Riseh, Esquire
PA Attorney I.D. No. 75901
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
AltomeY.I'for Plaintiffs
Date: August 17, 1998
3
. .
KEITH L. LEHMAN & TAMMY
LEHMAN, tIdlb/a K & R LEHMAN
CONTRACTING,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No, 98-1142 Civil Term
v.
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M.
HENNE,
Defendants
Jury Trial Demanded
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby eertifY that a true and correet copy of the foregoing was served this date by
depositing the same in the Post Office at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, first class mail, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
Wayne F. Shade, Esquire
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
MARTS ON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
By 0 ~OcfLQ
Carl C. Riseh, Esquire
PA Attorney 1.0. No. 75901
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
AttorneY.I'for Plaintiffs
Date: August 17,1998
4
KEITH L. LEHMAN and
TAMMY LEHMAN, Ud/b/a :
K & R LEHMAN CONTRACTING:
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO. 98-1142 CIVIL TERM
KERRY R. HENNE and
JOAN M. HENNE,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please note my withdrawal as counsel for Kerry R. Henne and Joan M. Henne,
Defendants in the above mailer.
Dated:
,
By:~6~,
Robert L. O'Brien, Esquire
17 West South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-6873
The undersigned Defendants in the above captioned action consent to the
withdrawal of Robert L. O'Brien, EsqUire as counsel and will proceed pro se in the
mailer.
Dated: 9,,}/ -1f
Ljov~~~
~~~p~
"
KEITII , LEIIMAN and
TAMMY LEIIMAN, Ildlbla
: IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
K & R LEHMAN CONTRACTING,
Plaintiffs
NO, 98-1142 CIVIL TERM
KERRY R, HENNE and
JOAN M, HENNE,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
Kindly enter the appearance of Steven T. Hanford, Esquire, on behalf of Defendants,
Kerry and Joan Henne, in the above-eaptioned matter.
.C.
"'-
Steven T. Hanford, squire
Attorney ID No. 47105
Louis J. Capozzi, Jr., Esquire
Attorney ID No. 46599
3109 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 17110
Defendant's counsel of reeord
j
,
Dated:~/;1,3/00
~
.~.
KEITH. LEHMAN and
TAMMY LEHMAN, tldlhlll
: IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
K & R LEHMAN CONTRACTING,
Plaintiffs
KERRY R. HENNE and
JOAN M. HENNE,
Defendants
NO. 98.1142 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 hereby certify that 1 am this day serving the attached materials on the person and in the
manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements ofPa. R.C.P. No. 440: Service
by first class mail, addressed as follows:
Charles Mackin, Esquire
COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS
831 Market Street
Lemoyne, PAl 7043
Anthony Marrone, Esquire
Miller Associates
600 North 12'h Street
Lemoyne, P A 17043
Daniel K. Deardorff, Esquire
MARTS ON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Bradley L. Griffie
GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Steven T. Hanford, quire
Louis J. Capozzi, Jr., Esquire
3109 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Defendant's counsel of record
Date: c:f(j:;, 31 00
I
.
".1
.~.
KEITH L. LEHMAN & TAMMY LEHMAN,
t/d/b/a K & R LEHMAN CONl'RACrING,
Plaintiff
l~; THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CL"lBERLAND COUNTY I PENNSYLVANIA'
~1O. 98-1142
CIVIL
1998
v.
KERRY R. HENNE & JOAN M. HENNE,
Defendants
. .
.
RULE 1312-1. The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially
in the following form:
PETITION FOR APPOINnl~T OF ARBITRATORS
TO THE HONORABLE. THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
Daniel K. Deardorff, Esquire , counsel for the plaintiff~~~~~~a~~~ in
the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that:
1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue.
2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is S18,l15.00
The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is not in excess of $25/000.00
The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counselor are other-
wise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Law Firm of Martson Deardorff Willian~
Law Firm of O'Brien, Baric & Scherer, and Wayne F. Shade, Esquire
WHEREFORE. your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3)
arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted.
ORDER OF' em'p.T
A..'lD NOW
, 19.2.L,
in consideration of the
Esq., f!l,A.!f..1/ W~
.
forego ing
Esq., and
,Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the
above-captioned
actions) as prayed for.
P. J.
.,
"
FILED-OPFlCE
or: TI.:? r,,-,'v..:;\liOTMY
99 SEP 21, ^"10: IJ B
CUMBb,li.\D COUNT'l'
PENNSYLVANiA
-'
~ OJ
-a. 00 ("6
fr. ~ 0 c--
("J 8 c- 1.0
~ N 8$ c- oo
UJQ
u~- :c: t ~ t() ':ij it
n:~ a.. :>. j cL.
"l-r G!;;.J
~b ,... "':.G5 ~
r...: :::12:
. ':"'- ffi -.
Et~~ C!- ...-
r!:: L:J ..il~
v; :"E
1.1.. CTo ::J
(.1 Cj\ (.)
,......:
..;...., \.
KtlTI-t L. LC'7m'l'" J In''''......, )
LEktnltN I tldl4/r_ J<. ~ Lel.....c.^ )
Co"..,..,... c;h'(j . )
PIc. ...+1 F{\. )
)
)
)
In The Court of Common Pleas of
We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn
(or affirmed), make the following award:
(Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be
separately stated.)
Oil f1,.{' (10m" 1&>.;,., t Wc:.-{,'~" j'^ ,r var- ,..f -/1..<" Pln;.,i:(1; fA, -f1...e t:.IMtI'J"T c:r
, f,.:a
f> /3) 78(). of(.. 61\. -n.. (C\u,.{.,r(" I....." _de -h'n~A ;"+;',-1(,,. o-f' -/1..... Oe..:fOo.,xoJ'-:t-J
j" -f1-..f' OlY1r)u.,+ r>F &~ ("("3.''1. Carl... (",,1., -k. hr-r:..r -/1..t>;-""ro,l.\f'l
~h.
Cumberland County, ~ennsylvania
~o.--9..!,- 11'1;) C; v, I ~ krr-.
tau.'! I<.. 'rEAJ,.JF ~ Jo,tJ,J
HENIoJE,
.n.
OATH
We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we
the Constitution of the United States and the
wealth and that we will discharge the dutie
will support, obey and defend
C~nstitution of this Common-
ice with fidelity.
AWARD
Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name i:
applicable. )
Date of Hearing: '1(/7( ();::,
Date of Award: L( I, r ( 0(\
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD
. ~ooo 3' WI .p
. ~_ t at:' t .~1., the above
and notice thereof given by-mail to the
Now, the }7111 day of AfW.S2
award was entered upon the docket
parties or their attornevs.
Arbitrators' comcensation to be
paid upon appeal~
$ 8,'10,OD
.~no'
Protn
\\J \~I.'N:1:.""'I\'\:
Deputy
By:
(,.It.'it;. "
M. "" .
G..+h ~: J.u.LH
-,.. ..,~.
".............. ~.
c..k......t.... P. 1\'1 ..,It..:... .
a,~ In ILM.v....~. lIe...;.'...... I a.......~, Pc.
(. vv '/l."ff)., / l.-~' J;..
,t',.....,- . r... I 7.' '(;1
1 . .-,
1~ e.. l' ,r. U'-'
-
~ ~
J J
.. t"
,-.f 0
~ ~ t~'
? 7-l {t
" . -y..
.f' yr.
'S -'
J ~ [
:0 0.- 0
[', ':1
~ ~
1'\,
))
~ (1 a '.-:'1
l.::': 0 ..
< )...".
l:lr::
n"l,-- ~J -n
%:~i, ;'7) @
ili ~:~ i.~
'-' .. ,
?- r:;L .";!
r .,' _. "'<..'
}:~J ~~ .f
G ~ "'" <:~
~;
t ,,:, -,
. .
i