Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-1333COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM I I MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. ~ 7'/,3~ NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Magisterial District Judge on the date and in the case referenced below. ^3-~ DATE OF J DGMENJJ IN HE CASE OFrfl) ~ ~ Ipg/gt,~ oZ P, !U 7 ~S ~,{/f This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(6) in action R.C.P. D.J. No. 10088. ~ "~ °' ~'~ This Notice of Appeal, when received by the Magisterial District Judge, will before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED operate as a SUPERSEDERS to the judgment for possession in this case. within twenty (20) days alter filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. Signature o(Prothonotary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before Magisterial District Judge. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. _._.. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon .~ dtL%~ ~~- ~~ appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal / Name of appellees) (Common Pleas No. 07' /~~~~ )within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of nod prQs:,:iorr~ i. ZU Signature of appella or attorney or agents. RULE: To ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ , appellees) Name ofappellee(s) - (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date~~ 20 o) YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTlTRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF AOPC 312-05 PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served < v~r ^ a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No. ,upon the Magisterial District Judge designated therein on' ~-~ (date of service) , 20 ^ by personal service ^ by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) , on 20 ^by personal service^ by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORN) (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF , 20 Signature of official before whom affidavit was made Signature of affiant Title of official , My commission expires on ~ , 20 AOPC 312A - 05 u ~- , -r .~. ~~ ~ ~ ---, r-r ~ - z `,~ _ `- : i t"~ =~: .. . ~ r, :-e COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA C;(ll INTY [1F• C~RRLAIfID Meg. Dist. No.: MDJ Name: Hon. 09-3-05 1LARS ffi]LItTIN Address: 507 III YORE ST 1LEC$A1~ICSBII~LG, Telephone: (717) 766-4575 17055 ATTORPEY DEF PRIYATB SIRIIlfGER, GEOFFREY 1L 401 8 LODT88R ST STE 103 CARLISLE, PA 17013-2625 Q~~~3~ NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT RESIDENTIAL LEASE PLAINTIFF: NAME and ADDRESS GREG A1LD PAIL rFOOLDS ~ , 28 COLD SPRINGS RD CARLISLE, PA 17015 L J VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS ~1PRIGHTSTONE, RSLLY, ET AL. ~ 212 ~ ALLEN STREET ILECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 L .J Docket No.: LT-0000434-06 Date Filed: 12/19/06 _ - THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: FOR P INTTFF - ®Judgment was entered for: (Name) FODLDS, GREG AND PAIL Judgment was entered against ~iRIGHTSTONE, >~lLLY in a ® Landlord/Tenant action in the amount of $ 1, 358.75 on 2/08/07 (Date of Judgment) The amount of rent per month, as established by the Magisterial District Judge, is $ 650.00. The total amount of the Security Deposit is $ . 00 Total Amount Established b MDJ Less • Security Deposit Applie~ _ Rent in Arrears $ 1, 300.00 - $ 0 = Physical Damages Leasehold Property $ .00 -$ .00= Damages/Unjust Detention $ _ 00 - $ _ 00= Less Amt Due Defendant from Cross Complaint - Interest (if provided by lease) UT Judgment Amount ^ Attachment Prohibited/ Judgment Costs 42 Pa.C.S. § 8127 Attorney Fees ^ This case dismissed without prejudice. ^ Possession granted. ® Possession granted if money judgment ^ Possession not granted. Total Judgment Adjudicated300 00 $ 1 _00 $ _00 $ _0O $ 1,300_00 $ 58_75 $ _00 $ 1,358.75 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ Certified Judgment Total $ ^ Defendants are jointly and severally liable. - IN AN ACTION INVOLVING A RESIDENTIAL LEASE, ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURTS OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. THIS APPEAL WILL INCLUDE AN APPEAL OF THE MONEY JUDGMENT, IF ANY. IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A SUPERSEDERS, THE APPELLANT MUST DEPOSIT WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURTS THE LESSER OF THREE MONTHS RENT OR THE RENT ACTUALLY IN ARREARS ON TH DATE THE APPEA IS FILE IF A PARTY WISyI PPEAL ONLY,TH JAJD I x , " ," JAG A S E#~TY HAS 30 DAYS AFTER TNE~~fNTRY (~{dU NT I HI FFLE~' TICE OF APPEAL'GVITH THE PROTHO O ARY/CLERK OF COURTS OF THE,COtfF~T OF C M N PLE S I I IOI)I. THE PARTY PiLI G UJI C ~F~ F~JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THE NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHER S OVID~D IN THE RULES O~CIVIL PRO DURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF OMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; AND-NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE.ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE . UNLESS THE JUDGMENT7S ENTERED IN THE COURT 2;lF COM ,ON PLE„AS, ANYONE INTERESTED 1N THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE SETTLES, OR OTH Y E~j$ W~1 N ET~GIS~~ ICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR.PAYS IN FULL, U GMENT. .~ ,;: Date d%~~`/ ~r/~ ! ~U c ,Magisterial District Judge c rtl t at t Is Is a true an correct copy o t e recor o t e procee Ings containing t e ~u gment. Date ,Magisterial District Judge M~ commission expires first Monday of January, 2012 • SEAL AO C 315A-O6 PA GREG AND PAM FOULDS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiffs :CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA vs. :DOCKET No. ~r7 1 CIVIL KELLY WRIGHTSTONE, ~ l rr ~~ Defendant PRAECIPE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS To the Prothonotary: Kindly allow KELLY WRIGHTSTONE to proceed in forma pauperis. I, Geoffrey M. Biringer, the attorney for the party proceeding in forma pauperis, certify that I believe the party is unable to pay the costs and that I am providing free legal service to the party. ~~ ~- Geoffrey M. Biringer MIDPENN LEGAL SERVICES 401 E. Lowther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-9400 Sup. Ct. ID# 18040 ~~ ^; ~ c~:- `_ ~ ~ -- ;.~'- _ . ~ s'~ ...1'o lY'j _" _ 1.x:3 ~'~ .{. -3 c- - . - ..,,,, C~~ . ~ ~.. ~+ } _.~ ~ ~" ~ './ 't;OlU11VrONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of ~{'~`t~~'"y"`~`'- NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Magisterial District Judge on the date and in the case referenced below. =" . ~~ ~- DATE OF J DGMEN IN HE CASE OF (Plain>tifll ,,per ~~De/enda G:r + DOCKET No. SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT O TTORNEY O GENT , ~ ;-,` :-;~ Ft1 f- ~.~ ..=~ This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R C'PD:J. Ndg001 ~ action ~~ R.C.P. D.J. No. 10088. ~- ~'~"~ ~~ This Notice of Appeal, when received by the Magisterial District Judge, will before a Magisterial District Judge, A COki~AINT-I¢('UST~E FILED operate as a SUPERSEDERS to the judgment for possession in this case. within :: ;`~ ~,~ •~ twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before Magisterial District Judge. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon /.~ C~~"-OL_ ~~ ~~ appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Name of appellees) (Common Pleas No. ~ 7~~~ )within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of,norr;p,rps_,rj~.;~ Signature of appella or attorney or agent. RULE: To ~`~"'~~ ~~ ~~~~~ , appellees) Name of appeflee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AG ST OU. ' (3) T(~he date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. • Dater 1 .20 Signatur of Profhonota +or->J pu YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF ApP`E4L::= AOPC 312-05 # 5, 4 ' • . , ~ J -. T • IJ^^ ~ , ~ ~ ~ W M1 , • . • 1 • ~ I • - I •' • • ~, ~ "' Postage : ~ 3 q °o cenlned Fee Q, C~ 0 ° 1"~~ ° Return Receipt Fee ~; - {Endorsement Required) ~i ~~~~ Here °£:, ~ ResfrkKed Delivery Fee .L"' ~ (Endorsemend Required) ~y _~. f1J Total P ~ ~, 6 ~ ~; ostage & Fees u1 , ", ~~ 0 f C ,..,. PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF AP °~'.!~ PA~'- ~D /ojS (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (f0) DAYS O1AD~^~ Z g CD4l S t; n sLQ ~A ~ ? ~ t .~" COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANiA~ ~ °11 COUNTY OF ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served ©~~13~3 a copy of the Notice f Appeal, Common Pleas No. ,upon the Magisterial District Judge designated therein on '-~ (date of service) 20 ^ y perso al service ~y (certified) (ree,Nsf~et~rnail, sender's re`cei~pt attached hereto, and upon the appe I e, ( me) , on 3 ~ Y~O 7 20 V ~ ^by personal service by (certified) (~i a mai sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORN)~AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS ~ DAY OF Mar. , 20 6~ ~~ S S-~-f-l~ Signature of official before whom affidavit was made A~~"RAIRt. SFAI- dOC': 3.SMfIkt. NOTAFt1' PUBI.K' Cttllsl~ 3ora Cumbeda~i ^~tty ~+ ~ `wxairos:4Qril ~~; 2009 ...r....r•+~~- o'S-~r ~( Title of afficial '+ ~ i r S /'/J7 Signature of affiant CE RTI FIED (Do mestic Mail Onl. For d elivery i nformati< My commission expires on ~, 20 AOPC 312A - 05 ~i o~~'~i~~ ~~~ i s~ ~ ~- --------- -- ---- - o.POewrn>o. Sol /1~~ n~ a alr...~; m Postage 3 + 3 o ceroned Fee 2 . ~F-0 p p Return Receipt Fee ~• (ErrdorsemeM Required) O Resirlded Delivery Fee [~ (Endorsement Required) ~ b ` ' Total Postage & Fees $ . r u-1 > am.A~ ,~ Here '~~° a ;Q ,,~' ~~ ~': ----- --A -/'?,DSS-------- c:a , ~ ~.. ' ' ~ ~~ m ~- °; CIa ~ -- ' ~ .~ 1 G! C" ~ ..3 ~' c ` ~ ~~°i ~J C> ~, , c:r+ ~ ., ~m ~. GREGORY FOULDS and PAMELA FOULDS, Plaintiffs v. KELLY WRIGHTSTONE and ANGIE WRIGHTSTONE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-1333 CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this 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 claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or properly or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SI;T FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 AVISO LISTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accibn dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notification de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar action como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier soma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamation o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importances para usted. LISTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI LISTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI LISTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMAC[ON SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 (800) 990-9108 Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Cunningham &Chernicoff, P.C. 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-6570 Facsimile: (717) 238-4809 Email: jcunningham(c~,cclawpc.com GREGORY FOULDS and PAMELA FOULDS, Plaintiffs v. KELLY WRIGHTSTONE and ANGIE WRIGHTSTONE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-1333 CIVIL ACTION -LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, your Plaintiffs, Gregory Foulds and Pamela Foulds, by and through their counsel, Cunningham &Chernicoff, P.C., who files this action at law and, in support thereof, avers the following: Plaintiffs, Gregory Foulds and Pamela Foulds, his wife, are adult individuals who reside at 28 Cold Spring Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendants, Kelly Wrighstone and Angie Wrightstone, his wife, are adult individuals who's last known address was 212 West Allen Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. In calendar year 2001, Plaintiffs leased to the Defendants on a verbal month to month term the real property known and numbered as 212 West Allen Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania under the terms of which lease, Defendants were to pay the sewer and trash bills together with rent. 4. During the relevant period of time, Defendants were to pay Plaintiffs the monthly rent of $650.00 per month. 5. Defendants, during the following months, either paid partial rent or failed to pay the entire rent: a. January, 2006; b. February, 2006; c. March, 2006; d. May, 2006; e. June, 2006; f. July, 2006; g. August, 2006; h. September, 2006; i. October, 2006; j. November, 2006; k. December, 2006; 1. January, 2007; m. February, 2007; and n. March, 2007. The total amount of rent due and owing as of the date of this pleading equals the sum of $2,293.83. A true and correct copy of the Rent Payment History is attached hereto, made part hereof, is incorporated herein by reference and is marked as Exhibit "P-1 ". 2 6. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement, Defendants were to pay the quarterly charges for sewer and trash services for the subject matter property. 7. Defendants, during the following months, either paid only part of the charges incurred for sewer and trash services or failed to pay the entire amount: a. July, 2006; b. October, 2006; and c. January, 2007. The total of the unpaid sewer and trash services equaled the sum of $504.82. A true and correct copy charges incurred for sewer and trash services is included in the Rent Payment History, which is attached hereto, made part hereof, is incorporated herein by reference and is marked as Exhibit "P-1". 8. Defendants, during the course of their tenancy, requested the following various loans from the Plaintiffs with the understanding the monies would be repaid to the Plaintiffs by the Defendants: Date Description Amount a. January 8, 2006 Car Payment $ 88.00; and b. May 19, 2006 Loan 333.00; The total amount of loans given to Defendants and remaining unpaid to the Plaintiffs equals the amount of $421.00. A true and correct copy of the various loans is included in the Rent Payment History, which is attached hereto, made part hereof, is incorporated herein by reference and is marked as Exhibit "P-1 ". 3 9. On or about March 14, 2007, Defendants abandoned the apartment known and numbered as 212 West Allen Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 10. At the time the Defendants abandoned the apartment, Plaintiffs had an opportunity to inspect the apartment and found the apartment to have been left in a damaged condition far beyond normal wear and tear. 11. Specifically, the following damage, all of which was beyond normal wear and tear, was observed in the apartment: Description of Repair/Replacement Amount a. Trash Removal (remove debris from $800.00 premises, 2 dump truck loads) b. Repair Window Trim due to damage 550.00 caused by Tenants attaching plastic to windows with staples c. Repair of Drywall due to damage 1,850.00 throughout rental unit d. House and Carpet Cleaning 400.00 e. Replacement of Refrigerator (Tenants 350.00 painted the unit black; shelves are missing) f. Repair of Front Door 155.00 g. Oil Tank Service (Tenants allowed oil 300.00 tank to run dry resulting in the supply lines being clogged) h. Replacement of Upstairs Bedroom Door 225.00 due to damage caused by Tenants i. Repair of Water Heater (damage caused 275.00 to unit due to Tenants shutting off water to the unit) j. Replacement of 2 Missing Light 100.00 Fixtures 4 Total Amount Owed for $5,005.00 Repairs/Replacement 12. The total cost to repair or replace the damages to the premises and appliances located in the apartment equal the sum of $5,005.00. A true and correct copy of the estimate for the replacement and/or repair of the damages is attached hereto, made part hereof, is incorporated herein by reference and is marked as Exhibit "P-2". 13. Defendants never placed a security deposit for the apartment unit with the Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for $2,368.00 of unpaid rent, unpaid sewer and trash service charges in the amount of $504.82 and miscellaneous loan amounts equaling $421.00 together with damages to the real property and appliances in the real property equal to the sum of $5,005.00, for a total damage award of $8,298.82 together with costs and interests. Respectfully submitted, CiIN)~YNCy>'IA~o1~& ~IERNICOFF, P.C. Dated: March ~v .2007 By: rdal~lD unningham, Esquire A I.D. o. 23144 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-6570 Attorneys for Plaintiffs F:\Home\AHE W ITT\DOC S\D-F\FOULDS\ W RIGHTSTONE\COMPLAINT. wpd 5 Jan 20 00 12:08p 71''7-486-8641 VERIFICATION true and falsi Dated: Dated: undersigned, the Plaintiffs, verify that the statements contained in the foregoing are PAMELR FOULDS to the best of their knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn to authorities. ~'j f i, //+` f t Gregory Fonlds C1~` Pamela Foulds p.l Exhibit "P-1 " RENT PAYMENT HISTORY Kelly Wrightstone Date Rent Sewer &Trash Misc. Amount Paid Balance 01/06/06 650.00 96.00 (car) 88.00 200.00 (634.00) 01/13/06 225.00 (409.00) O 1 /20/06 63.00 (346.00) 01/27/06 225.00 (121.00) 02/03/06 650.00 96.00 (675.00) 02/10/06 241.00 (434.00) 02/ 17/06 217.00 (217.00) 02/24/06 109.00 (108.00) 03/03/06 650.00 108.00 (650.00) 03/10/06 216.00 (434.00) 03/17/06 0.00 (434.00) 03/24/06 197.00 (237.00) 03/31/06 650.00 96.00 237.00 (746.00) 04/07/06 216.00 (530.00) 04/14/06 313.00 (217.00) 04/21 /06 217.00 0.00 04/28/06 0.00 0.00 05/05/06 650.00 0.00 (650.00) 05/12/06 216.00 (434.00) 05/19/06 (loan) 333.00 0.00 (767.00) 05/26/06 217.00 (550.00) 06/02/06 650.00 242.00 (958.00) 06/09/06 207.00 (751.00) 06/16/06 180.00 (571.00) 06/23/06 238.00 (333.00) 06/30/06 650.00 0.00 (983.00) 07/07/06 106.00 0.00 (1,089.00) 07/14/06 100.00 (989.00) 07/21/06 0.00 (989.00) 07/28/06 0.00 (989.00) 08/04/06 650.00 0.00 (1,639.00) 08/11/06 306.00 (1,333.00) 08/18/06 200..00 (1,133.00) 08/25/06 175.00 (958.00) 09/01/06 650.00 0.00 (1,608.00) 09/08/06 100.00 (1,508.00) 09/15/06 140.00 (1,368.00) 09/22/06 189.00 (1,179.00) 09/29/06 280.00 (899.00) 10/06/06 650.00 228.00 280.00 (1,497.00) 10/13/06 0.00 (1,497.00) 10/20/06 315.00 (1,182.00) 10/27/06 280.00 (902.00) 11/03/06 650.00 336.00 (1,216.00) 11/10/06 0.00 (1,216.00) 11/17/06 91.00 (1,125.00) 11/24/06 266.00 (859.00) 12/01/06 650.00 182.00 (1,327.00) 12/08/06 28.00 (1,299.00) 12/15/06 126.00 (1,173.00) 12/19/06 (Court Cost) 117.50 Amount not added in balance 0.00 (1,173.00) 12/22/06 0.00 (1,173.00) 12/29/06 0.00 (1,173.00) 01/01/07 650.00 0.00 (1,823.00) 01/23/07 170.82 0.00 (1,993.82) 02/01/07 650.00 0.00 (2,643.82) 03/01/07 650.00 0.00 (3,293.82) Exhibit t~ ~~ Jan 19 00 04:06a Mark D. Lincoln 125 Frost Road Gardners, PA 17324 ? 1 ? 486-8961 PAMELA FOULDS I 717-4s~6-8641 p. i INTERIC)R & EXTERIOR •REMODELING •CARPENTRY •HOME IMPROVEMENTS •FIILLY INSllRED Date of invoice Invoice No. a2ilsro7 CONSTRUCTIOi\[ ~ GregFouids _____~ Quantity Description Unit Price Amount Repair Work For :212 West Allen Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Trash Removal (remove debris from premises - 2 dump truck toads) $800.00 Window Trim Repair (tenant put plastic on all windows with staples) $550.00 Drywall Repair (damage to drywall throughout home) $1850.00 House and Carpet peening $400.00 Refrigerator Replacement (tenant painted black and shelves missing) $350.00 Front Door Repair $ S 55.00 Oil Tank Service (oil ran dry clogging supply licks) $300.00 Upstairs Bedroom Door (damages by tenant) $2~.Q0 Water Heater (calcium sediment due to water shutot~ $275,00 2 Light Fixtures (missing) i ~ $I00.0'0 ~ this estimate does not include painting throughout borne ~ ~ customer copy Total $5,005.00 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Angela L. Hewitt, Secretary, with the law firm of Cunningham & Chernicoff, P.C., hereby certify that on th day of March, 2007, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by first-class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to: Geoffrey M. Biringer, Esquire 8 Irvin Row Carlisle, PA 17013-3019 CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C. By: Angela L. Hewitt 2320 North Second Street P. O. Box 60457 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457 F:\FIome\AHEWITT\DOCS\D-F\FOULDS\WRIGHTSTONE\CERT OF SERVICE.wpd .r ~. C~ r'~ ~- r . 9 --.J "T'1 "~ ~. _. i -F: 4"7 N ~ } t. ~ ' -~ -~ ~"; ._ z -.-- GREGORY FOULDS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PAMELA FOULDS, Plaintiffs :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : N0.07-1333 KELLY WRIGHTSTONE and ANGIE WRIGHTSTONE, Defendants :CIVIL ACTION -LAW To: GREGORY FOULDS and PAM FOULDS: You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. s/s Geoffrey M. Birineer Attorney for Defendant 401 E. Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-9400 GREGORY FOULDS and PAMELA FOULDS, Plaintiffs v. KELLY WRIGHTSTONE and ANGIE WRIGHTSTONE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.07-1333 CIVIL ACTION -LAW DEFENDANTS' ANSWER, NEW MATTER. AND COUNTERCLAIMS ANSWER Defendants, by their attorneys MidPenn Legal Services and Geoffrey M Biringer, hereby set forth as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part. Defendants now reside in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. 3. Admitted in part. Admitted that the leased property was 212 West Allen Street, Mechanicsburg, and the Defendants were to pay rent, but denied that the inception of the lease was 2001, or that the Defendants were to pay sewer and trash bills. Byway of further answer, Defendants believe that the lease began in 2002, and that the Plaintiffs agreed to pay for the water and sewer bills. 4. Admitted in part. The rent was initially set at $600 per month and did not increase to $650 until some time in 2005, when the Plaintiffs' mortgage increased. By way of further answer and, as more fully set out in New Matter below, the Defendants were not to "pay" the rent, but had the rent deducted from wages paid to the Defendant Kelly Wrightstone by the Plaintiffs. 5. Admitted in part. Admitted that Defendants did not have rent deducted from their wages for the months of January, February and March, 2007, because Defendant Kelly Wrightstone did not work for the Defendants during those months. Denied that Defendants owe the Plaintiffs any sums of money for the remainder of the months listed because, as more fully set out in New Matter below, the premises were not worth the contract rent due to breaches of the implied warranty of habitability caused by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs' violation of Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law, the Plaintiffs failure to accurately credit Defendant's wages during the time in question, and the Plaintiffs' failure to credit the Defendants for the materials Defendants used to make repairs on the leased premises. 6. Denied. Plaintiffs, at the inception of the verbal lease, promised to pay the sewer and trash service, received bills in their names only, and did not provide Defendants any documentation as to the amounts due. 7. Denied. Any payments that Defendants made or did not make were in the total control of the Plaintiffs as deductions from the Defendant's wages. Defendants specifically deny any liability for the said charges, and, as the information alleged is within the exclusive control of the Plaintiffs, deny the allegations and demand strict proof thereof at trial. 8. Admitted that the loans were made, but denied that they remain unpaid. The loans were repaid out of Defendant Kelly Wrightstone's wages. 9. Denied. Defendants did not "abandon" the premises, rather they were evicted on March 14, 2007 by process emanating from the office of MDJ Mark Martin, District No. 09-3-OS and indexed in that office to LT-0000434-06. 10. Denied. Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Byway of further answer, Defendants did no damage to the leased premises and in fact, improved its condition by making repairs over the course of the lease. 11. Denied that Defendants caused any damage to the leased premises or that said amounts for repairs or the total of said amounts for repairs is accurate, as Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Byway of further answer: a. Defendants left a couch and love-seat in the house; the basement, however was filled with property that was there when the Defendants moved in. b. Plaintiffs authorized Defendants to "winterize" the unit by attaching plastic as indicated and, in fact, supplied the plastic. c. Defendants purchased drywall with the consent of the Plaintiffs to repair the mudroom, kitchen and bathroom, but were not allowed to complete the job. d. The carpet was old and worn at the inception of the lease and Defendants covered it with their own carpet to make it more liveable. e. The shelves were missing at the inception of the lease, and the refrigerator was painted black because it was rusting badly. f. Defendant removed a rotted door and replaced it with a new one purchased at his own expense for $360. g. The tank never ran dry. On one occasion it was very low, but the next day the Defendant bled the lines and added oil. h. No door on inception of lease. Defendants added a half door from another part of the house. i. Tenants never shut off water to the unit. j. Fixtures were not installed at the inception of the lease. 12. Denied. Defendants are without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. Defendants paid a security deposit of one-half of one month's rent, or $300. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed and judgment entered for the Defendants. NEW MATTER 14. Paragraphs 1-13 are incorporated herein by reference hereto. 15. Defendant Kelly Wrightstone was hired by the Plaintiffs as a laborer in their construction business some time in 2001. 16. As part of this employment arrangement Defendants were to rent the subject leased premises for $600 per month and payment of all utilities except sewer and trash. 17. The rent was to be taken out of the Defendant's wages and the balance was to be paid over to the Defendant as income. 18. No written lease was executed, and no written authorization for the deduction of rent from wages was signed by the Defendants. 19. Plaintiffs provided some hand-written receipts for rent credited to the Defendants, but Defendants received no regular weekly, bi-weekly, monthly or yearly statements as to the amount of wages earned and received, credits of wages against rent or loans, utility bills, or taxes or other charges deducted from wages. 20. At times, and in particular at Holiday times such as Thanksgiving and Christmas 2005, Defendants received no wages at all, without any explanation from the Plaintiffs. 21. Defendant received no paycheck, accounting, or written explanation of the amount of his wages or deductions from his wages. 22. Upon the inception of the lease, the parties agreed that the leased premises needed a lot of work, including, but not limited to: a distinct odor from the keeping of animals from the previous renter, an inoperative stove, leaks including a leak in the sewer line, black sewer flies around a puddle at the leak, no heat in the third floor, and improper and unsafe wiring. 23. Plaintiffs agreed that Defendant Kelly Wrightstone was authorized to purchase whatever materials he need to make the repairs and that he would be reimbursed for his work upon reporting the purchases to the Plaintiffs. 24. Despite the fact that the Defendant purchased materials from time to time over the period of the Lease to make necessary repairs, and reported these repairs to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs paid nothing to the Defendants in reimbursement. 25. Over the course of the Lease, Defendant made drywall repairs, put in a new stove, purchased a shower, and repaired the ceiling in the kitchen, all with the approval of the Plaintiffs and received no compensation. 26. Defendant believes and therefore avers, that he spent a significant amount of his own money, approximately $1,800, in materials from various locations to make necessary repairs with the approval of the Plaintiffs to the leased premises. 27. Despite these repairs, some problems, like the lack of heat to the third floor, the sewer leak, and the completion of an extensive drywall project, were both beyond the capability of the Defendant and the willingness of the Plaintiffs to invest any money in the property. 28. Despite the knowledge of the Plaintiffs of the overall condition of the leased premises, and the need for necessary repairs as set out above, Plaintiff neither made, nor authorized any other repairs to the premises. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES I. ILLEGALITY -WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION LAW 29. Paragraphs 1-28 are incorporated herein by reference hereto. 30. Despite the lack of written authorization by the Defendants for the deduction of loans, rent, or other charges, Plaintiffs made deductions from the Defendants wages and, in doing so, violated Pennsylvania's "Wage Payment and Collection Law," 43 P.S.260.1-260.12. 31. Defendants believe, and therefore, aver, that Plaintiffs have not accurately accounted for Defendant's wages earned over expenses lawfully associated with the rental to be due, and that Plaintiffs, therefore owe Defendants wages. WHEREFORE, Defendants claim a right of setoff or Counterclaim against the Plaintiffs, in the amount of the wages found to be due after an accounting, and 25% of the amount due or $500, whichever is greater, pursuant to Section 10 of the Wage Payment and Collection Law. II. UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACT 32. Pazagraphs 1-31 are incorporated herein by reference hereto. 33. By promising to reimburse Defendants for materials expended on the leased premises with no intent to make such reimbursements, by deducting chazges such as sewer and trash charges from wages, knowing those charges were to be borne by the Plaintiffs, and by failing to provide a regular accounting to the Defendants of the credits and debits to their account, Plaintiffs violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law, at 73 P.S. 201-2 (xxi). 34. Said violations damaged the Defendants in loss of reimbursements in the amount of approximately $1,800, overchazging of sewer and trash chazges and wages not paid or improperly debited in amounts to be determined by a proper accounting. WHEREFORE, Defendants assert by way of setoff or Counterclaim damages in an unliquidated amount not in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollazs ($25,000) which amount is within the amount requiring referral to compulsory azbitration. COUNTERCLAIMS I. BREACH OF CONTRACT 35. Pazagraphs 1-34 aze incorporated herein by reference hereto. 36. In failing to reimburse Defendants for materials expended on the repair of the leased premises as promised, Plaintiffs breached a contract with the Defendants. 37. As a direct result of that breach, Defendants spend approximately $1,800 of their own money on these materials which, in turn led, at least in part, to their eventual eviction. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment against Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,800 plus interest from the inception of the lease, which amount is within the amount requiring referral to compulsory arbitration. II. IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 38. Paragraphs 1-37 are incorporated herein by reference hereto. 39. Due to the failure of the Plaintiffs to make promised and necessary repairs to the leased premises from the inception of the lease, Plaintiffs breached the implied warranty of habitability to the Defendants. 40. Said breach reduced the liveability of the premises, including an inability to use the unheated third floor for half of the yeaz, to an actual value of $400 per month, rather than the mazket rent of $600 per month. 41. This one third reduction in the liveability of the premises caused Defendants to overpay their rent from the inception of the lease, until January, 2007 in the total amount of $14,400. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment against the Plaintiffs in the amount of $14,400 which amount is within the amount requiring referral to compulsory azbitration. Respectfully submitted: MIDPENN LEGAL SERVICES Dated: `~ '3 ~/ B Y~ '~ Geoffrey M. Biringer 401 E. Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17103 (717) 243-9400 ID#18040 VERIFICATION We, Angela Wrightstone and Kelly Wrightstone, make this verification that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~ ~ ~ D 7 ----~--_.__._. An e a Wri htst e g g o~ Date: l~ .z 7~ 7 Kelly Wn tone CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Geoffrey M, Biringer, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 3`d day of May, 2007, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by first-class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to: Jordan Cunningham, Esquire 2320 North Second Street P.O. Box 60457 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457 MIDPENN LEGAL SERVICES B ~ ./ ~ , Y~ .- Geoffrey M. Biringer 401 E. Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-9400 ID#18040 tom'. ~--~ - , ~-n ~-..~ _. ;-i z -'-' r._ ;~, ;, ~:~ c~ -~? ~ , ~-,~ _._.. - a"-~ - .r Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Cunningham & Chernicoff, P.C. 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-6570 Facsimile: (717) 238-4809 Email: ~cunningham((a~cclawpc.com GREGORY FOULDS and PAMELA FOULDS, Plaintiffs v. KELLY WRIGHTSTONE and ANGIE WRIGHTSTONE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-1333 CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Defendants Kelly Wrightstone and Angie Wrightstone c/o Geoffrey M. Biringer, Esquire 401 East Louther Street Suite 103 Carlisle, PA 17013 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. COFF, P.C. Dated: May ~, 2007 By: Jo Ingham, Esquire A Su eme Court I.D. No. 23144 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-6570 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire Cunningham &Chernicoff, P.C. 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-6570 Facsimile: (717) 238-4809 Email: jcunnin ham e,cclawpc.com GREGORY FOULDS and PAMELA FOULDS, Plaintiffs v. KELLY WRIGHTSTONE and ANGIE WRIGHTSTONE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-1333 CIVIL ACTION -LAW PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, your Plaintiffs, Gregory Foulds and Pamela Foulds, by and through their counsel, Cunningham &Chernicoff, P.C., who files Reply to New Matter and Answer to Counterclaim and, in support thereof, avers the following: REPLY TO NEW MATTER 14. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 13 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth herein. 15. The averments of Paragraph 15 are denied. To the contrary, Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, was a subcontractor who was paid on a subcontractor basis. 16. The averments of Paragraph 16 are partially admitted and partially denied. It is denied that there was an employment arrangement between Plaintiffs and Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone. To the contrary, the relationship was that of contractor and subcontractor. As a subcontractor, Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, was neither paid a payroll check nor were wages deductions withheld from him. It is admitted that Defendants rented the leased premises from the Plaintiffs for the amount of $600.00 per month, under which arrangement Defendants were to pay all the utilities together with the sewer and trash bill. The Borough of Mechanicsburg will only bill the record title owner of the property for sewer and trash and it was agreed that Defendants would reimburse the Plaintiffs for the sewer and trash bill upon their receipt of the same. 17. The averments of Paragraph 17 are partially admitted and partially denied. It is denied that the Plaintiffs ever paid the Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, a wage or that Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, was an employee of Plaintiffs. To the contrary, rent was taken from the amount paid to Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, as a subcontractor on a weekly basis and on each check issued to Defendant, Kelly Wrightston, as a subcontractor any setoff for rent or payment of sewer and trash was duly noted in the memo section of the check. 2 18. The averments of Paragraph 18 are partially admitted and partially denied. It is admitted that a written lease was never executed by the parties. To the contrary, it is denied that the Plaintiffs paid wages to Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone. By way of further pleading, any deduction from the subcontractor fee paid on a weekly basis to Mr. Wrightstone were reflected as deductions taken from the gross amount paid to him. 19. The averments of Paragraph 19 are partially admitted and partially denied. It is admitted that Plaintiffs did not provide handwritten receipts for rent. To the contrary, by agreement of the parties, on each check written to Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, as a subcontractor, deductions were taken on a weekly basis for the payment of rent and/or sewer and trash or both. To the contrary, on each gross check issued to the Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, by the Plaintiffs, there would be an indication of the amount of setoff for rent and/or sewer and trash bill set forth in the memo section of the check which was in lieu of a written receipt. 20. The averments of Paragraph 20 are denied. Plaintiffs were not the employer of the Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, and, therefore, no wages were paid. As a subcontractor, Mr. Wrightstone would be paid for hours worked during a week. On Thanksgiving and Christmas of 2005, the Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, did not work therefore he was not paid any monies. 21. The averments of Paragraph 21 are denied. Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, did not receive a paycheck or wages from the Plaintiffs. Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, would be paid as a subcontractor for the hours he worked during any week. Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, was paid by the Plaintiffs as a subcontractor. If there were any deductions from the gross amounts paid to Mr. Wrightstone in his capacity as a subcontractor, the deductions either for rent or sewer and trash were set forth in the memo section of the check written to Mr. Wrightstone. 22. The averments of Paragraph 22 are denied. To the contrary, at the inception of the lease, there did not exist a distinct odor from the keeping of animals from a prior tenant, there did not exist an inoperable stove, there did not exist a leak from the sewer line nor was there a puddle or any collection of water from the sewer lines in the premises, nor was there improper and unsafe wiring. As concerns the third floor, the third floor of the premises was an attic which would not have been heated. By way of further pleading, the Plaintiffs rented to the Defendants only the first and second floors of the premises. The third floor, an attic storage area, was closed off by a door from the first and second floors. 23. The averments of Paragraph 23 are denied. To the contrary, from time to time, Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, would request from the Plaintiffs that he be allowed to make aesthetic changes to the apartment. From time to time, the Plaintiffs would accede to Mr. Wrightstone's requests to make changes to the apartment, however, there was no understanding that Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, would be reimbursed or paid for materials and labor for aesthetic work done in the premises. The only repairs for which the Plaintiffs acknowledge responsibility were for maintenance repairs. Plaintiffs, as concerns the maintenance repairs, authorized Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, to make such maintenance repairs and secure materials to effect the repairs to the Plaintiffs' at Eberly Lumber and charge the materials to Plaintiffs' account. 4 24. The averments of Paragraph 24 are denied. It is denied that the Defendants were required to purchase materials to make necessary maintenance repairs as any material needed for those repairs were to be charged against the Plaintiffs' house account at Eberly Lumber. It is also denied that there were ever any requests by the Defendants for reimbursement for materials used in making any of the necessary maintenance repairs. 25. The averments of Paragraph 25 are partially admitted and partially denied. It is admitted that the Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, requested the Plaintiffs to allow him to remove a clawfoot tub and install a shower stall. It was understood that the cost of removing the operable clawfoot tub and installing the shower stall was an item which was to be paid solely by the Defendant and that any necessary repairs to the drywall caused by the installation of the shower stall would also be the responsibility of the Defendant. As concerns the ceiling in the kitchen, Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, indicated an interest in and requested to make changes to the kitchen ceiling for purely aesthetic purposes. Plaintiffs agreed to allow the Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, to make the change to the kitchen ceiling with the understanding that Defendants would be responsible for all of the costs attendant thereto. By way of further pleading, Defendant did not complete the drywall repairs in either the bathroom where he installed a shower stall nor at the site of the kitchen ceiling, which work was left unfinished. As concerns the allegation that Defendant purchased a new stove, the stove which is currently in place in the kitchen of the premises is the same stove as was in place at the time of the inception of the lease agreement and that the stove has never been replaced. 5 26. The averments of Paragraph 26 are denied. Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief that Defendant spent his own money or, in the alternative, spent $1,800.00 in obtaining materials and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further pleading, any repairs beyond normal maintenance expenses would be the sole responsibility of the Defendants as the understanding between the Defendants and the Plaintiffs was that the Defendants were to remove the functional clawfoot tub and replace it with a shower stall and replace the kitchen ceiling for aesthetic purposes at their own costs. Any expenses for materials for necessary maintenance repairs were to be billed to Plaintiffs' account at Eberly Lumber. 27. The averments of Paragraph 27 are denied. To the contrary, the Plaintiffs did not lease the third floor attic of the premises to the Defendants. The third floor attic was closed off from the remainder of the premises by a door. The lease agreement reached between the parties was that the Defendants were to rent the first two (2) floors of the premises. In the alternative, the third floor was never intended to be a living area, but, instead, is an attic area intended merely for the storage of materials. As concerns the ability of the Defendant, Kelly Wrightstone, to make and complete the drywall projects, Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. As concerns the alleged sewer leak, there never was nor did there ever exist a sewer leak. Finally, as to the allegation that investiture of monies into the property was beyond the capability of the Plaintiffs, the averments are denied. 6 28. The averments of Paragraph 28 are denied. To the contrary, it is denied that the conditions referred to in the allegation existed. By way of further pleading, Defendants never requested any of the items referred to rendered the premises uninhabitable. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE I ILLEGALITY AND WAGE PAYMENT AND COLLECTION LAW 29. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 13 of the Complaint and Paragraphs 14 through 28 of the Reply to New Matter are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth herein. 30. The averments of Paragraph 30 represent a conclusion of fact or law to which a response is not required. If it is later judicially determined, the averments are specifically denied. 31. The averments of Paragraph 31 are denied. To the contrary, Plaintiffs on a weekly basis paid Defendant as a subcontractor and deducted expenses lawfully associated with the rental due. Defendant was never an employee and there are no wages due and owing to him. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE II UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACT 32. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 13 of the Complaint, Paragraphs 14 through 28 of the Reply to New Matter and Paragraphs 29 through 31 of the Reply to Affirmative Defense are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth herein. 33. The averments of Paragraph 33 represent a conclusion of fact or law to which a response is not required. If it is later judicially determined, the averments are specifically denied. 7 34. The averments of Paragraph 34 represent a conclusion of fact or law to which a response is not required. If it is later judicially determined, the averments are specifically denied. ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS I -BREACH OF CONTRACT 35. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 13 of the Complaint, Paragraphs 14 through 28 of the Reply to New Matter and Paragraphs 29 through 34 of the Reply to Affirmative Defense are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth herein. 36. The averments of Paragraph 36 represent a conclusion of law or fact to which a response is not required. If it is later judicially determined a response should have been filed, the averments are specifically denied. 37. The averments of Paragraph 37 represent a conclusion of law or fact to which a response is not required. If it is later judicially determined a response should have been filed, the averments are specifically denied. ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS II -IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 38. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 13 of the Complaint, Paragraphs 14 through 28 of the Reply to New Matter, Paragraphs 29 through 34 of the Reply to Affirmative Defense and Paragraphs 35 through 37 of the Answer to Counterclaim are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth herein. 8 39. The averments of Paragraph 39 represent a conclusion of law or fact to which a response is not required. If it is later judicially determined that a response should have been filed, the averments are specifically denied. 40. The averments of Paragraph 40 represent a conclusion of law or fact to which a response is not required. If it is later judicially determined that a response should have been filed, the averments are specifically denied. 41. The averments of Paragraph 41 represent a conclusion of law or fact to which a response is not required. If it is later judicially determined that a response should have been filed, the averments are specifically denied. PLAINTIFFS' NEW MATTER TO THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES I. -ILLEGALITY AND WAGE COLLECTION LAW 42. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 13 of the Complaint, Paragraphs 14 through 28 of the Reply to New Matter, Paragraphs 29 through 34 of the Reply to Affirmative Defense and Paragraphs 35 through 41 of the Answer to Counterclaim are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth herein. 43. The averments of Paragraphs 29 through 31 of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses alleging a cause of action pursuant to the Wage Payment and Collection Law are barred by the principal of the statute of limitations. 44. The averments of Paragraphs 29 through 31 of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses alleging a cause of action pursuant to the Wage Payment and Collection Law are barred by the principal of estoppel. 9 45. The averments of Paragraphs 29 through 31 of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses alleging a cause of action pursuant to the Wage Payment and Collection Law are barred by the principal of laches. 46. The averments of Paragraphs 29 through 31 of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses alleging a cause of action pursuant to the Wage Payment and Collection Law are barred by the principal of waiver. 47. Defendant pursued a claim for unpaid wages and hours through federal and state agencies who determined Defendant was not an employee but, instead, a subcontractor and dismissed the claim. The averments of Paragraphs 29 through 31 of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses are barred by the principal of collateral estoppel or res judication. PLAINTIFFS' NEW MATTER TO THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES II. -UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACT 48. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 13 of the Complaint, Paragraphs 14 through 28 of the Reply to New Matter, Paragraphs 29 through 34 of the Reply to Affirmative Defense, Paragraphs 35 through 41 of the Answer to Counterclaim and Paragraphs 42 through 47 of Plaintiffls New Matter to the Affirmative Defenses are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth herein. 49. The averments of Paragraphs 32 through 34 of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses alleging a cause of action pursuant to the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act are barred by the principal of the statute of limitations. 10 50. The averments of Paragraphs 32 through 34 of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses alleging a cause of action pursuant to the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act are barred by the principal of estoppel. 51. The averments of Paragraphs 32 through 34 of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses alleging a cause of action pursuant to the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act are barred by the principal of lathes. 52. The averments of Paragraphs 32 through 34 of Defendant's Affirmative Defenses alleging a cause of action pursuant to the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act are barred by the principal of waiver. PLAINTIFFS' NEW MATTER TO THE COUNTERCLAIM I. -BREACH OF CONTRACT 53. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 13 of the Complaint, Paragraphs 14 through 28 of the Reply to New Matter, Paragraphs 29 through 34 of the Reply to Affirmative Defense, Paragraphs 35 through 41 of the Answer to Counterclaim and Paragraphs 42 through 52 of Plaintiff s New Matter to the Affirmative Defenses are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth herein. 54. The averments of Paragraphs 35 through 37 of Defendant's Counterclaim alleging a cause of action pursuant to Breach of Contract are barred by the principal of the statute of limitations. 11 55. The averments of Paragraphs 35 through 37 of Defendant's Counterclaim alleging a cause of action pursuant to Breach of Contract aze barred by the principal of estoppel. 56. The averments of Pazagraphs 35 through 37 of Defendant's Counterclaim alleging a cause of action pursuant to Breach of Contract aze barred by the principal of laches. 57. The averments of Pazagraphs 35 through 37 of Defendant's Counterclaim alleging a cause of action pursuant to Breach of Contract aze barred by the principal of waiver. PLAINTIFFS' NEW MATTER TO THE COUNTERCLAIM II. -IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 58. The averments of Pazagraphs 1 through 13 of the Complaint, Pazagraphs 14 through 28 of the Reply to New Matter, Paragraphs 29 through 34 of the Reply to Affirmative Defense, Pazagraphs 35 through 41 of the Answer to Counterclaim, Pazagraphs 42 through 52 of Plaintiff s New Matter to the Defendants' Affirmative Defenses and Paragraph 52 through 57 of Plaintiff s New Matter to Defendants' Counterclaims aze incorporated herein as if more fully set forth herein. 59. The averments of Pazagraphs 38 through 41 of Defendant's Counterclaim alleging a cause of action pursuant to the Implied Warranty of Habitability aze barred by the principal of the statute of limitations. 60. The averments of Paragraphs 38 through 41 of Defendant's Counterclaim alleging a cause of action pursuant to the Implied Warranty of Habitability are barred by the principal of estoppel. 12 61. The averments of Paragraphs 38 through 41 of Defendant's Counterclaim alleging a cause of action pursuant to the Implied Warranty of Habitability are barred by the principal of laches. 62. The averments of Paragraphs 38 through 41 of Defendant's Counterclaim alleging a cause of action pursuant to the Implied Warranty of Habitability are barred by the principal of waiver. 63. Defendants never placed the Plaintiffs on notice, in writing, of any claim of a breach of implied warranty. 64. At no time did the Defendants place Plaintiffs on Notice of any deficiencies in the property Defendants claim depreciated the fair rental value of the prepaid. 65. Defendants' claim of breach of implied warranty of habitability is fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted as the Defendants did not give prior notice to the Plaintiffs of specific claims of defects in the property which impacted upon the warranty of habitability. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants on the claims of violations of the Wage Payment and Collect Law; Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act; Breach of Contract; and Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability. CHERNICOFF, P.C. Dated: May ~ 2007 By: ~ ~ ordan .Cunningham, Esquire PA Supreme Court I.D. No. 23144 2320 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-6570 Attorneys for Plaintiffs F:\Home\AHEWITT\DOCS\D-F\FOULDS\WRIGHTSTONE\PLAINTIFFS ANSWER TO NEW MATTER & COUNTERCLAIM.wpd 13 Mar 10 00 09:42a PRMELR FOULDS VERIFICATIOI~T 717-486-8641 he undersigned, the Plaintiffs, verify that the statements contained in the foregoing are true and orrect to the best of their knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false stateme is herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn to authorities. Dated: `:, ;l i ~-I~ ~U-? Gregory Foulds Dated: 5 'I ~ ~ O~ ~. Pamela Foulds p.2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Angela L. Hewitt, Secretary, with the law firm of Cunningham & Chernicoff, P.C., hereby certify that on the ~ day of May, 2007, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by first-class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to: Geoffrey M. Biringer, Esquire 401 East Louther Street Suite 103 Carlisle, PA 17013 CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C. By: gela L. Hewitt 2320 North Second Street P. O. Box 60457 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457 F:\Home\AHEWITT\DOCS\D-F\FOULDS\WRIGH'I'STONE\CERT OF SERVICE.wpd C~l n - ~; ~. - .~ ~ .~ ~,~ - ! : ~~ . - 1 '1 w l ('`.? .. ~.. ~: o GREGORY FOULDS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PAMELA FOULDS, . Plaintiffs :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : N0.07-1333 KELLY WRIGHTSTONE and ANGIE WRIGHTSTONE, Defendants :CIVIL ACTION -LAW DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF5' NEW MATTER 42. No response required. 43. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 44. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 45. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 46. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 47. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 48. Denied. No response required. 49. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 50. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 51. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 52. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 53. Denied. No response required. 54. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 55. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 56. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 57. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 58. Denied. No response required. 59. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 60. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 61. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 62. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 63. Admitte d that the Defendants did not place the Plaintiffs on notice in writing, but denied that no notice was given, as Defendants told the Plaintiffs, on numerous occasions, of the deficiencies in the premises. 64. Denied. Defendants told the Plaintiffs, on numerous occasions, of the deficiencies in the premises. 65. Denied. The allegation is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Byway of further answer, Defendants told the Plaintiffs, on numerous occasions, of the deficiencies in the premises. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray that Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed and Judgment entered for Defendants on their Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims. Respectfully submitted: MIDPENN LEGAL SERVICES Dated: ~o/(Q/!J 7 By: Geoffrey M. Biri ger 401 E. Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-9400 PA Sup.Ct.#18040 ', ; VERIFICATION We, Kelly Wrightstone and Angie Wrightstone, make this verification that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information add belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~p ~S~O ~. Date: ~ /3/ ~ ~ Kelly W htstone An a Wnghts ne ~~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Geoffrey M. Biringer, being a Member in good standing of the Bar, hereby state that I served a copy of Defendants Kelly Wrightstone's and Angie Wrightstone's Answer to Plaintiffs' New Matter by placing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid to the following person and at the following address: Jordan D. Cunningham, Esquire 2320 North 2"d Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: ~~~ /© ~ Geoffrey M. Biringer 401 E. Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-9400 Sup.Ct.ID#18040 ~ ~ ~ K=_,. .~1,_ ..~~ fy~; , ~': ti _r-i -_: ° ~ - -~ ..... ~ p ~