Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-03425 - " ...q "=j , i ~j j )l"~ , ~! i' "7 '''' ..L.~ ~,~~'r, ,...;;#;'\>. -''il;-!i&''-' . _ -' ":~-,;~1-?1~, ~ "1\[i!;l. "1 .~ ,; \ \- \ \ I I \ i i J · i1 l~j -' , .; . ,.: V\,j ra1 ........J ~i , <<)1 I l ., . ., I 0...' ~l ,",~ lj .....,.. ,~ ~ ..,\ .:-"(' ~.~ " ~ '::::. G} ~ 'VJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ " . <:::::J < \ ... -' ql-:34-AJ Monica Del Carmen Gomez, by her Attorney-In-Fact, Walter Wiltschek v, Suzanne S. Abel IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Walter Wiltschek v, Suzanne S. Abel Nos, 1711 MDA 1999 and 141 MDA 2000 ORDER The trial court order appealed renders a verdict in favor of the Defendant and notes that Defendant's counterclaims have been withdrawn. No Post-trial motions have been filed in the above- captioned cases. The appeals are therefore quashed sua sponte. See Fernandes v, Warminister Municipal Authoritv, 296 Pa. Super. 519, 442 A.2d 1174 (1982). PER CURIAM DATE: February 23, 2000 TRUE COpy FROM RECORD Attest:'llB2 8 200D ~:e:1U /l.~ Chief Clerk - Superior Court of Pa, Middle Distric,t, \,,' , "':~'."i/;;~":.-: ~:l ;~,,'. i ~ OJ l: ,<;. ' >- en 0.; (("'~ . ' '~ /"n,..., 1-- -, ~ UI() N {)-": , (011 <,- II:::, i.i.: 0> ) ci:J:' (11 l1.'t.'- " ..--j ..,,1 , - 1- : ; ~:I -., ~. : ~.i- l.L ("(1 :::J 0 0' 0 L " ., ..I", ,]-) ('1 .'\) C,)_ '--.J \'n )i~ ':t' Vt ~I d I ~- . \ ~ ~ , ,..,t .Q ~>- 0\ lJ.J <,I ~ -..f-:O~ :~~ ': 'z : '0 . 'r : Ui : . If- ~~\i0 "! ~J: g: :5' . ~ .. qD- ~~ ~u . -. . i (J- CI" If' \'- , ~) 1\ 'L I" ! 'I U)~ <<3~~ >-<~~ ~UC/) Zo~ o z OU)C: ~U) 0 ~~S I I _ _ll~_ J ----------=-~ -- -.--. -.. -- " ~ ~ OM ~~~~ ct:-"'f o:;;~~ ~.!3...;i!? :e~:2~ -~ M >.M :E~!::;g OVi~.o ~~ ~~ !as: ~~ :c....:r:t:: ~ > M u.~ E::: - o:::~ ..,'" ."'t ....""OIl ~E.2~ 0" ""l' ;:t]o~ ........~r: :z=z;;: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ,;' WALTER WILTSCHEK, Plaintiff, ('1'1 - \''''''' NO. '1') - :)l 'o~ ....) C l:.'i..' \liJ (Y\ v. PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS SUZANNE S. ABEL, Defendant. . . PRAECIPE To: Prothonotary Issue writ to name the following as a Defendant in the above-captioned case: Suzanne S. Abel Counsel for the Plaintiff is: John James Mooney. III. Esquire Mooney & Associates. 230 York Street. Hanover. PA 17331 ' Address: , : Unknown Counsel for the Defendant (if known and v Date: / /;~9- (d(;:'/~f] Supreme WRIT OF SUMMONS TO DEFENDANT TO: Suzanne S. Abel 5029 E. Trindle Road. Apt. #1 Mechanicsburg. PA 17055 YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT Walter Wiltschek HAS NAMED YOU AS A DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION, WHICH YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DEFEND. /'7' r~ Date: Jl\~ \C\-I" 1 \qq'i? (::;.)0v4;~ . Prothonotary By: Deputy l , <"I " ~~r , - v, , ,. .. ~o ~ " -... O-LU'<( .-_~ : I- - .. ~~ , :~J: L I : ' l- e, '.... ci I-J ~ " l.) , \ (.J 'z .0.. .:J<j ~ ~ ~~' lU: . . . . - 11- II II I, I (/)5: <<:s~5 ~~~ ~UCIJ ZO~ o z O(/)CI: ';>. (/) ~ <r::~ I I __=:-:::-__ L . , ~ ~ .~ ~~~~ Ef-~ o J:i~ <:1 ~Ul...~ oo~r-- :;:.~;;:!;::: ;:; ~;:;;::; 1,:..-.0 oJ;;~~ t ~.:~ g;5! ~ ~ :Z!~~~ ~ . ~ u_~ Et- o5;~'1' ~.!!i:g 5:E~S ~ Cl o~ z~~;::: _zr:: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WALTER WILTSCHEK, Plaintiff, NO. 98-3425 . . vs. . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW SUZANNE S. ABEL, Defendant. . . NOTICE You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt 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 for any other relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Lawyer Referral 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 NOTICIA Le nan demandado a usted a la corte. Si usted guiere defenderse en contra estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notification. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra suya. Se ha avisado que si usted no se defienda, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de dernanda. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO 0 PROPIEDA- DES 0 OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES PARA USTED. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE 0 CONOCES UN ABOGADO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Lawyer Referral 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 4-, i , i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~ WALTER WILTSCHEK, Plaintiff, NO. 98-3425 j .~ 1V ! vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW \' SUZANNE S. ABEL, Defendant. C 0 M P L A I N T AND NOW, this q~ day of October, 1998, comes the Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, by and through his attorneys, Mooney & Associates, by John James Mooney, III, Esquire, and files the within Complaint, whereof the following is a statement, to wit: 1. Plaintiff is Walter Wiltschek, an adu]t individual who resides at 2901 Brookeside Avenue, Dover, York County, Pennsylvania 17315. 2. Defendant is Suzanne S. Abel, an adult individual residing at 5029 E. Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. On or about December 20, 1997, Walter wiltschek met Defendant through an ad in the newspaper which was intended by Defendant to solicit romantic relationships or companionship by adult males. 4. Defendant and Plaintiff became involved in a romantic relationship which caused Plaintiff to place a great deal of trust in Defendant. 1 ---- 01 '. ' JJHI 10-5-90. 5. Defendant further represented to Plaintiff that she was an attorney, which also caused Plaintiff to place a great deal of trust in Defendant. 6. Plaintiff later learned that Defendant, although a law school graduate, was not a licensed attorney. 7. Defendant represented to Plaintiff that she was expecting to receive a substantial cash settlement from an ex- husband and even requested Plaintiff's assistance in searching into assets owned by her ex-husband. COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT 8. Plaintiff repeats and real leges paragraphs 1 through 7 hereof. 9. On or about January 13, 1998, Defendant borrowed $5,000.00 from Plaintiff upon her express promise to repay the money upon receipt of the settlement she expected in paragraph 7 hereof. 10. Shortly thereafter, Defendant borrowed another $500.00 from Plaintiff pursuant to the same promise of repayment. 11. In February 1998, Plaintiff transferred a 1992 BMW automobile to Defendant upon her express promise to pay Plaintiff the sum of $18,800.00, which sum she expected to receive from her settlement referred to in paragraph 7 hereof. 2 b. 12. Shortly after obtaining ownership, Defendant terminated the romantic relationship, demanded Plaintiff give her back the keys to her apartment, the keys to her car which Plaintiff had been driving, as well as all keys to the 1992 BMW vehicle. 13. Defendant severed all relationships with Plaintiff and indicated she had no intention of repaying Plaintiff. 14. Defendant further stated that all monies and the vehicle were now "gifts" to Defendant and he could not prove otherwise. 15. Despite demands, Defendant has failed and refused to pay Plaintiff, which failure constitutes a breach of contract. 16. Plaintiff has suffered monetary damages of $24,300.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment in the amount of $24,300.00 plus interest and costs of this suit. COUNT II: FRAUDULENT CONVERSION 17. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 16 hereof. 18. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant fraudulently induced Plaintiff into lending her money and conveying the automobile to her and that Defendant had no intention of repaying Plaintiff the sums owed to him. 3 7, 19. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant fraudulently converted the money and property to her ~ own without any consideration by deceitful, untrue and maliciously false representations which were intended to defraud Plaintiff. I i 20. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant has engaged in a pattern of deceit, the purpose of which was solely to obtain pecuniary gain for herself. 21. Despite demands, Defendant has failed and refused to pay Plaintiff, which has caused monetary damage to Plaintiff. 22. Defendant's conduct is fraudulent, outrageous and malicious necessitating the imposition of punitive damages. 23. Plaintiff has sustained damages of the $24,300.00 plus interest, attorney fees and costs of this suit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $24,300.00 plus interest, costs of suit, attorney fees, punitive damages and other relief the Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, By Esquire ~r oney, III, Attorney for Plaintiff 230 York Street Hanover, PA 17331 (717) 632-4656 I.D. # 39137 4 ~ ,- v, I , ( , " , (' , " ( PI L - , , L, , , , , C,' , l ) I 1 I I I ! I I ,I II Ii I !1 I' I I II I I' I' II Ii ______JL_ ,I II II " " il I[ 'I ,I I' Ii II I II I 1',- II - ii :1 Ii II 1'1 Ii ir I',' 1"1' I' I! 'I 'I ]i Ii Ii ' I',' !I II ii I! II II I II II il II _ LL,,_______,LL,_n____ __n________________ U):!: ~LU5 >-t;~ WJd~ ZOw OU)~ OU)O ~--<~ ..__. ___._..__.~__.~._~____.__._____ _._..____...._.... __._....__ .._., ____.,.,__....___u___..__.__.w -"--.---.. --._-- ---.-..-------..-.. ,-'-'--'-~--'~--- . . '" . " ~ oM ~ON ",,el;.?~ :eE-~ o :;:~;.! ~~~~ :-...,;;!r- " :i Z~ ~-$: .;;:;c5~ ~ ~8 rO- Q<:~ ~Xr:: :;: ~~l::! C"'- o~it ~ ,~ ~~]~ >C't:"'<T ~U~e ...~ ...!:: Z_Z,... WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, SUZANNE ABEL, (('7-";" -11'61 Defendant No, 98-3425 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS ANSWER AND NOW, this ~ day of December, 1998, comes the Defendant, Suzanne Abel, pro se pending retention of counsel, and files the following Answer with New Matter and Counterclaims to the first Complaint: 1. Denied. Plaintiff testified on November 25, 1998, before District Justice Farrell of York County, that he no longer resides at the averred address, Plaintiffs current residence is unknown. 2, Admitted. 3, Admitted. 4, Admitted in part, denied in part. Plaintiff and Defendant were involved in a romantic relationship, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 4, Said averments are therefore denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. 5. Denied, Defendant has never represented to Plaintiff, or anyone else, that she is an attorney, Moreover, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 5. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. 6, Denied, Defendant has never represented to Plaintiff, or anyone else, that she is an attorney, Defendant informed Plaintiff during their first conversation that Defendant was a law school graduate, and was planning to take the July 1998 bar exam, After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knOWledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 6, Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. 7, Denied, Defendant has been divorced since July 11,1990. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 7. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. I~ WHEREFORE, Defendant, Suzanne Abel, respectfUlly requests judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff, together with the costs of this action and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT 1: BREACH of CONTRACT 8, No answer is deemed necessary, However, if somehow an answer is deemed necessary, the responses to Paragraphs 1 through 7 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, 9, Denied. Defendant never borrowed any money from Plaintiff. Defendant never entered into any promise with Plaintiff to give or to pay Plaintiff any money, After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 9. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. 10, Denied, Defendant never borrowed any money from Plaintiff, Defendant never entered into any promise with Plaintiff to give or to pay Plaintiff any money, After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 10. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. 11, Denied in part, admitted in part. On January 8, 1998, Plaintiff attempted to transfer to Defendant title of a 1992 BMW gray market automobile; that said transfer was accomplished on February 19, 1998, for a declared value of $8865.49, for which Defendant paid all costs and taxes of transfer, After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 10. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. 12, Denied in part, admitted in part, Plaintiff, not Defendant, terminated the relationship. Upon Plaintiffs termination of the relationship, Defendant demanded Plaintiff return all Defendant's keys which Plaintiff had legitimately and/or surreptitiously procured, After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 12. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial 13, Denied in part, admitted in part. Plaintiff terminated the relationship. Defendant has stated that she does not intend to return Plaintiffs donative gifts. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 13, Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. 14, Denied in part, admitted in part. Defendant never made the alleged statement to Plaintiff, or anyone else. Plaintiffs gifts to Defendant were regularly and IS J I I , J I , i , ! consistently referenced as gifts between the parties, both before and after the respective titles were transferred. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 14, Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. 15, Denied. The averments of Paragraph 15 are Conclusions of Law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendant never entered into any contract with Plaintiff. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 15. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 16. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Suzanne Abel, respectfully requests jUdgment in her favor and against Plaintiff, together with the costs of this action and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT 2: FRAUDULENT CONVERSION 17. No answer is deemed necessary. However, if somehow an answer is deemed necessary, the responses to Paragraphs 1 through 16 above are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, 18, Denied, The averments of Paragraph 18 are Conclusions of Law to which no responsive pleading is required, To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 18. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial, 19, Denied, The averments of Paragraph 19 are Conclusions of Law to which no responsive pleading is required, To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 19. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. 20. Denied. Defendant honestly represented herself to Plaintiff, Defendant never intended to deceive Plaintiff, After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 20. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. J~, 21. Denied in part, admitted in part. Following Plaintiffs termination of the relationship, Plaintiff repeatedly demanded Defendant re-convey Plaintiffs gifts, including the instant automobile under threat of harm to Defendant's person and property, After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 21, Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. By way of further response, the New Matter and Counterclaims below are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 22. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 22 are Conclusions of Law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 22, Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. 23, Denied, After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 23. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Suzanne Abel, respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff, together with the costs of this action and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate, NEW MA ITER 24, The foregoing responses to the averments of the Complaint are incorporated by reference and re-alleged as affirmative defenses. 25, The Complaint, and each count therein, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 26, Defendant avers she is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff had knowledge of, and voluntarily assumed the risks out of, the transactions from which the alleged injuries and damages arose, 27. Defendant avers she is not liable to Plaintiff because the intentionally and/or wrongful acts of persons other than Defendant constituted an intervening and superseding cause of Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages, 28. Plaintiffs claims must be reduced and/or barred as a result of the provisions of certain releases executed by Plaintiff in the course of legally transferring title to the automobile, 29. Defendant avers she is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff freely, knowingly, and intentionally gifted to, and executed and delivered to, Defendant all donative transfers of gifts. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Suzanne Abel, respectfully requests judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff, together with the costs of this action and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. COUNTERCLAIMS COUNT 1: FRAUD 30. Paragraphs 1 through 29 are hereby incorporated by reference. 31. On or after December 20, 1997, Defendant and Plaintiff Wiltschek became involved in a relationship, which caused Defendant to place her trust in Plaintiff Wiltschek. 32. Plaintiff Wiltschek represented to Defendant that he was an executive international sales representative for DentsPly, Int'l, making a six figure salary, owning four homes: one in York, PA, one in Florida, one in Chile, and one in Germany; and owning several investment vehicles, 33. Plaintiff Wiltschek showed Defendant what appeared to be recent photographs of Plaintiff Wiltschek with his Porsche, his Mercedes Benz, his 1985 Camaro, and his MG, Plaintiff Wiltschek regularly drove a 1988 Mercury Sable, and further told Defendant he had a 1977 Pontiac. Plaintiff Wiltschek further showed Defendant his classic, pristine 1960's Dodge stored in the garage at the 119 South Duke Street property, Plaintiff Wiltschek represented to Defendant that he owned all of these vehicles, 34, Plaintiff Wiltschek represented to Defendant that he had lived for the prior two years in Germany with his now ex-wife (Karen) and their two adopted daughters (Tierra Lenker, now returned to her birth parents, and Jazmin Wiltschek), 35, Plaintiff Wiltschek represented to Defendant that he was fluent in three languages, and that he regularly traveled the world in his capacity as an international sales representative. 36. Plaintiff Wiltschek showered Defendant, and Defendant's three children, with lavish gifts inclUding expensive jewelry, a leather purse, clothing, designer perfumes, expensive dinners, candy, flowers, books, bubble bath, toys for the children, expensive social outings (including an extravagant New Year's Eve Party), and cash. Plaintiff Wiltschek paid for the gifts purchased in Defendant's presence with cash, and credit cards, 37, Plaintiff Wiltschek regularly discussed with Defendant plans to travel locally and internationally together; and plans to take excursions to visit art exhibits and museums, Plaintiff Wiltschek and Defendant took several excursions together. 38. Defendant had told Plaintiff Wiltschek that she was planning to take the Bar Exam in July 1998, and the parties made their long term travel and excursion plans accordingly, /7 39. Defendant told Plaintiff Willschek that she had been divorced for 10 years, and that she was currently involved in child custody litigation to maintain custody of her six- year-old daughter. 40. Defendant told Plaintiff Wiltschek that Defendant was active in counseling to help cope with the stress inherent in the child custody litigation. 41. Defendant and Plaintiff Willschek eventually became romantically involved, which caused Defendant to place a great deal of trust in Plaintiff Wiltschek. t\2. Pursuant to their trusting relationship, Defendant allowed Plaintiff Willschek to transfer into her checking account a wire transfer of $5000.00 from Plaintiffs German bank account upon Plaintiff Wiltschek's assertion that he did not yet have a local bank account. 43. Once it had deposited into Defendant's account, Defendant offered to give Plaintiff Wiltschek a cashier's check for his $5000.00 Plaintiff Wiltschek refused and directed Defendant to pay Plaintiff Wiltschek's living expenses, at his direction, until he established a local checking account. At Plaintiff Wiltschek's direction, Defendant issued checks and made cash payments for Plaintiff Willschek's living expenses including dining out, gas for his Mercury Sable car, food, and household furnishings. 44. Further pursuant to their trusting relationship, Plaintiff Wiltschek gave Defendant a car. Defendant authorized the initial gift transfer on January 8, 1998, attempting to transfer title of Plaintiff Wiltschek's 1992 BMW gray market car into Defendant's name. Plaintiff Willschek alleged he did not need the car, and that he wanted Defendant to have a large car to accommodate her two teenage boys and young daughter comfortably and safely. 45. Plaintiff Wiltschek admitted to Defendant on February 19, 1998, when the title transfer was actually accomplished that he was unable to obtain automobile insurance because of his felony conviction for a driving-under-the-influence related homicide-by-vehicle for which he was imprisoned for one year at Maryland's Snow Hill Correction Facility around 1992. 46. Plaintiff Wiltschek represented to Defendant that he owned the 119 South Duke Street property, that he originally titled the property to Plaintiff Monica del Carmen Gomez Perez Wiltschek so that his ex-wife (Karen) could not claim the property if it was inherited by the minor child, Jazmin Wiltschek, whom he was allowing to be raised by his ex-wife (Karen) as her own daughter. 47. Plaintiff Wiltschek represented to Defendant that title to the property was clear, and that Defendant should use the property to obtain a home equity loan to finance Defendant's child custody litigation. 48. Further pursuant to their trusting relationship, Defendant accepted Plaintiff Willschek's gift transfer of the title of the real property at 119 South Duke Street, York, PA. Plaintiff Wiltschek represented to Defendant that Plaintiff Wiltschek purchased the property in cash in August 1997, and had titled it to Jazmin If Willschek's (his adopted daughter) birth mother who lives in Chile, had never left Chile, and only spoke Spanish. The mother was revealed to be the instant Plaintiff Gomez. 49. Defendant subsequently learned that Plaintiff Gomez was also Plaintiff Willschek's third, and bigamous, wife: Monica del Carmen Gomez Perez Wiltschek. 50. At the conference on January 28, 1998, to transfer legal title of the 119 South Duke Street property, Plaintiff Wiltschek introduced the Reverend Doctor Gerald Gingrich as Plaintiff Monica del Carmen Gomez Perez Wiltschek's Attorney in Fact. Defendant had previously met Dr. Gingrich and found him to be a sincere, trustworthy, honest man, further adding to Plaintiff Willschek's credibility, and further increasing Defendant's trust in Plaintiff Wiltschek. 51. Upon Alan Kim Patrono, Esq.'s inquiry, Plaintiff Willschek asserted, and Dr. Gingrich confirmed, that Plaintiff Wiltschek has already paid cash for the prope.ity, necessitating Mr. Patrono's office to re-write the Property Settlement Sheet confirming receipt of the cash payment. 52. Following settlement, Plaintiff Wiltschek admitted to Defendant that he had not actually adopted the minor child, Jazmin Wiltschek, and that he was not the biological father of the minor child. Plaintiff Willschek represented to Defendant that he was the minor child's father because he was able to get his name listed on the minor child's Chilean birth certificate, thereby conferring upon her U.S. citizenship. 53. Defendant then began, at Plaintiff Wiltschek's insistence and guidance, applying for a home equity loan pursuant to Plaintiff Wiltschek's suggestion that Defendant use the proceeds of the loan to finance her child custody litigation. 54. Further pursuant to their trusting relationship, Defendant accompanied Plaintiff Wiltschek to his ex-wife's (Karen's) house where he thereupon showed Defendant $500.00 cash he allegedly received from Plaintiff Wiltschek's ex-wife (Karen). Plaintiff Wiltschek alleged the $500.00 was re-payment of prior a loan Plaintiff Wiltschek had extended to his ex-wife (Karen). 55. Plaintiff Wiltschek used the $500.00 for a romantic weekend in Atlantic City and New York City, when the parties became engaged. Defendant never had possession or control of the $500.00 cash. Nor did Defendant ever borrow any money from Plaintiff Wiltschek. 56. Almost immediately after the engagement, Plaintiff Wiltschek began making demands upon Defendant to liquidate her assets, including her personal jewelry, automobiles, and the property at 119 South Duke Street, both by selling them outright and by obtaining a home equity loan using the property as collateral to provide living expenses for Plaintiff Wiltschek. 57. Defendant in the meantime learned that Plaintiff had misrepresented his occupational status. Plaintiff Wiltschek eventually admitted he was unemployed and had not worked at DentsPly, Int'1. since 1994 when he fled the United States to ~ l ~ /f hide in Europe with the minor child, Tierra Lenker, whom the York County Courts had ordered be returned to her biological parents. 58. Plaintiff Wiltschek further admitted to Defendant that he was unable to work because he had failed to pay federal and state taxes since he received his retirement buy-out money of $132,500 on March 31, 1995, from Legg Mason. Plaintiff Wiltschek represented that the balance of the retirement buy-out was on deposit in his account in Germany, which was where the wire transfer of $5000.00 in early January 1998 originated. 59. Plaintiff Wiltschek specifically admitted to Defendant that he had been a fugitive in Europe from November 1994 through April 1997 with his ex-wife (Karen), with the child they had attempted to adopt but had been ordered to return to her birth parents, Tierra Lenker, and with the child for whom he was named the father on the Chilean birth certificate, Jazmin Wiltschek. 60. Plaintiff Wiltschek further admitted his U.S. passport had been canceled on July 2, 1997 pursuant to his criminal activity, but that Plaintiff Wiltschek still had a valid Chilean Passport, and a valid Austrian Passport, so that their international travel plans were still possible. 61. Defendant began to suspect that Plaintiff Wiltschek had defrauded Defendant into using her good name and credit to launder money back into the United States in an attempt to avoid his tax and criminal liabilities. Therefore, Defendant ceased to agree to Plaintiff Wiltschek's ongoing demands. 62. For 3 weeks following the engagement, Plaintiff Wiltschek incessantly nagged and badgered Defendant by demanding Defendant liquidate her assets and turn the proceeds over to Plaintiff Wiltschek for his living expenses. Defendant explained to Plaintiff Wiltschek that Defendant was not financially able to absorb the tax consequences for the accession to wealth which would occur upon the immediate sale or re-conveyance of the car and the house. 63. Plaintiff Wiltschek asserted that "this isn't worth it anymore," and then demanded return of his engagement ring which Defendant promptly returned, thus terminating the relationship. 64. Defendant subsequently requested Plaintiff Wiltschek relinquish possession of the property at 119 South Duke Street, as well as all keys to the property and the vehicles. Plaintiff Wiltschek relinquished some keys, but retained his set of keys to the 1992 BMW and to the property at 119 South Duke Street, York, PA. It was then that Defendant discovered Plaintiff Wiltschek had procured unauthorized copies of her apartment and both mailbox keys. 65. Plaintiff Wiltschek immediately, and repeatedly thereafter, threatened to "make sure you can never practice law in Pennsylvania" by reporting Defendant to the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners, the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and her employer for stealing Plaintiff Wiltschek's property. d..O. 66. Plaintiff Wiltschek also threatened "to destroy Defendant" by contacting opposing counsel and then testifying against Defendant at her upcoming child custody hearing; unless Defendant re-conveyed title to both the automobile and the 119 South Duke Street property, immediately. 67. Plaintiff Willschek's conduct and course of action were intended to induce Defendant into permitting Plaintiff Willschek to use Defendant's good name and credit to launder his money into the United States, escape tax liability, and avoid detection for his criminal conduct. 68. Because of Plaintiff Willschek's actions and course of conduct preceding the title transfers, Defendant trusted Plaintiff Wiltschek and detrimentally relied upon Plaintiff Willschek's assertions when Defendant accepted Plaintiff Wiltschek's generous gifts. 69. Plaintiff Wiltschek's conduct was fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff Wiltschek. 70. Because of Plaintiff Wiltschek's actions and course of conduct after the engagement, Defendant has suffered pecuniary damages to her credit in the amount of $100,000.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit, and punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests Judgment in the amount of $100,000.00 plus interest and costs of this suit, and punitive damages. COUNT 2: CONVERSION 71. Paragraphs 1 through 70 are hereby incorporated by reference. 72. Between January 199B and March 1998, Plaintiff Wiltschek had unsupervised access to Defendant's apartment of residence at 5029 East Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, 73. Without Defendant's prior knowledge or permission, Plaintiff Wiltschek removed from Defendant's residence the following items: a) One apartment key for Defendant's apartment. b) Two mailbox keys; including one for a Post Office Box at the Mechanicsburg, PA post office and one for the apartment mail box. c) One pearl necklace and earring set. d) One pair of sapphire and diamond earrings Defendant purchased from the $1000.00 inheritance received from her deceased father's estate. e) One photograph of Defendant. f) Several CDs and cassette tapes. g) Various dishes, pots, storage containers, and food. dJ h) 2 Crystal wine glasses Defendant received from her Grandmother, which her Grandmother had originally brought over from Scotland. i) Personal supplies; including toothpaste, shaving cream, shampoo, cream rinse, toilet paper, paper towels, hand towels and washcloths. 74. As Defendant discovered the missing items, Defendant asked Plaintiff Wiltschek about their disappearance. Mr. Wiltschek admitted taking each item, and promised to return each. Plaintiff Wiltschek returned the keys and the photograph. Defendant subsequently found the kitchen items in Plaintiff Wiltschek's kitchen at 119 South Duke Street, York, PA while taking inventory after Plaintiff Wiltschek vacated the premises. 75. Plaintiff Wiltschek has refused to return the remaining items (i.e., the pearl necklace and earring set, the sapphire and diamond earrings, CD's and cassette tapes). 76. Plaintiff Wiltschek's refusal to return to Defendant her personal property, which Plaintiff Wiltschek admitted he took without Defendant's permission, has permanently deprived Defendant of the use and enjoyment of said chattels. 77. Because of Plaintiff Wiltschek's conversion of Defendant's personal property, Defendant has suffered monetary damages in the amount of $2000.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests Judgment in the amount of $2000.00 plus interest and costs of this suit. COUNT 3: TRESPASS TO LAND 78. Paragraphs 1 through 77 are hereby incorporated by reference. 79. On or about the July 4, 1998, weekend, Plaintiff Wiltschek used an unauthorized and improperly retained key to intentionally gained access through a locked passageway door at the front of the house at 119 South Duke Street, of which Defendant is the legal owner, to the passageway leading to the property's back yard. Plaintiff Wiltschek kicked in the back passageway door, breaking it. 80. Once inside the back yard, Defendant Wiltschek went to the back porch where he used Plaintiffs garden tools and leather gloves to break the window into the Butler's Pantry on the first floor of the circa 1870 house. 81. Defendant Wiltschek stacked the broken window pieces and original hand hewn wood trim on the windowsill and on the sidewalk. The glass inside the house was swept up and the larger pieces of glass were stacked on the pantry shelf. 82. Unable to gain entry through this 18" square window however, Defendant proceeded to the second floor where he removed the security grate from the second floor kitchen window. Defendant broke the window and climbed into the kitchen, breaking the over-the-sink light below the window in the process of entering. Defendant cleaned up the broken wood, glass, and plastic, placing it in the trash bag in the kitchen. ;Z0:6 83. On July 5, 1998, Defendant returned home to find the property damaged. Defendant called York City Police, who responded and filed a report. 84. The window glass and wood trim were not replaceable with modern glass and wood trim. Defendant needed to have a custom made window to replace the window Plaintiff Wiltschek destroyed. 85. Plaintiff Wiltschek's conduct was fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff Willschek. 86. Defendant has suffered monetary damages caused by Plaintiff Wiltschek's trespass to repair and/or replace the passageway doors and locks, the Butler's Pantry window and trim, the second floor window security grate, the window, and the light in the amount of $1200.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit, and punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests Judgment in the amount of $1200.00 plus interest and costs of this suit, and punitive damages. COUNT 4: CONVERSION 87. Paragraphs 1 through 86 are hereby incorporated by reference. 88. After entering Defendant's house at 119 South Duke Street, York, PA, the weekend of July 4, 1998, Plaintiff Wiltschek used Defendant's trash bags to remove the following items belonging to Defendant from Defendant's property: a) Defendant's box of hand tools and electric tools, all of which were Craftsman or Black & Decker brands (including hammer, standard and metric screw driver sets, standard wrench set, standard socket set, automatic screwdriver, wire cutters, set of 4 pliers, portable drill, level, 2 adjustable wrenches, masks and goggles, hand saw, miter box, tape measure, drill bits, nails, screws, bolts, washers, exacto knife and blades, duct tape, WD40. b) Defendant's sixteen year old son's CD Player & radio boom box, containing one "Blues Travelers" CD. c) Defendant's six years old daughter's five Caucasian baby dolls, baby doll clothing, the daughter's baby blankets she used for her dolls, and the daughter's baby clothing she used for her dolls. d) One 10-count box of Hefty green yard trash bags; One 20-count box of Hefty white kitchen trash bags. e) Garden pruning tools and leather gardening gloves. f) Three rolls of Charmin triple-roll toilet paper (plastic wrapping of toilet paper was left at the property). 89. Defendant has suffered monetary damages to replace all items in the amount of $2500.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit. d.3/ 90. Plaintiff Wiltschek's taking of Defendant her personal property without Defendant's permission has permanently deprived Defendant of the use and enjoyment of said chattels. 91. Plaintiff Wiltschek's conduct was fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff Wiltschek. 92. Defendant has suffered monetary damages to replace the chattel Plaintiff Wiltschek took and kept without consc'r.t of Defendant Owner in the amount of $2500.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit, and punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfUlly requests Judgment in the amount of $2500.00 plus interest and costs of this suit, and punitive damages. COUNT 5: INTENTiONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 93. Paragraphs 1 through 92 are hereby incorporated by reference. 94. Through his actions and course of conduct detailed in the preceding paragraphs and incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiff Wiltschek intentionally and/or recklessly defrauded Defendant into trusting him, and accepting his gifts. 95. Plaintiff Wiltschek's actions and course of conduct induced Defendant to place her trust in Plaintiff Wiltschek by accepting Plaintiff Wiltschek's generous gifts of the car and the property. Particularly in light of Plaintiff Wiltschek's knowledge of Defendant's stress over her pending child custody litigation, Plaintiffs actions and course of cunduct were extreme and outrageous. 96. Because of Plaintiff Wiltschek's extreme and outrageous conduct, Defendant has suffered severe emotional distress. 97. Further because of Plaintiff Wiltschek's extreme and outrageous conduct, Defendant was unable to focus on the July 1998 Bar Exam, thus not passing the exam. 98. Due to Defendant's professional humiliation with long term career consequences, and stress caused by Plaintiff Wiltschek's frivolous and harassing series of law suits in two different counties, Defendant sought and received psychiatric care, which resulted in employment difficulties for Defendant. 99. Plaintiff Wiltschek's conduct was fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff Wiltschek. 100. Defendant has suffered emotional damages in the amount of $100,000.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit. Defendant has further suffered pecuniary damages for medical treatment in the amount of $5000.00, and punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests Judgment in the amount of $105,000.00 plus interest and costs of this suit, and punitive damages. o<f COUNT 6: DEFAMATION 101. Paragraphs 1 through 100 are incorporated by reference. 1 02. In the course of setting forth his allegations in his Complaint, Plaintiff Wiltschek asserted in Paragraph 5 that "Defendant further represented to Plaintiff that she was an attorney, which also caused Plaintiff to place a great deal of trust in Defendant." 103.As Answered in Paragraph 5, Defendant never asserted to anyone, including Plaintiff Wiltschek, that she was an attorney and/or that she was licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania or in any other state. Defendant has never performed any legal services for Plaintiff Wiltschek, nor has she ever represented to Plaintiff Wiltschek that she was qualified to do so. 104. Plaintiff Wiltschek knew his allegation was inaccurate and erroneous because he repeatedly asked Defendant to perform legal work for him. To wit: (1) handle a discrimination law suit Plaintiff Wiltschek had filed against a previous employer, (2) handle a slanderllibel/defamation law suit Plaintiff Wiltschek wanted filed against various York County newspapers which reported on his two year kidnapping story regarding minor, Tierra Lenker, (3) handle various law suits Plaintiff Wiltschek wanted filed against Brooks Pomper, Esq., Tierra Lenker's court appointed attorney who was pursuing a Contempt Order against Plaintiff Wiltschek for testifying before York County Judge Erb that he did not know the whereabouts of his ex-wife, or the minor child, Tierra Lenker, and (4) handle a replevin suit in Florida regarding one of Plaintiff Wiltschek's automobiles. 105. Defendants refused each repeated request, reminded Plaintiff Wiltschek each time that Defendant was not authorized to practice law, and each time recommended PlaintiffWiltschek contact an attorney. 106. The publication of Plaintiff Wiltschek's assertion that Defendant misrepresented herself as a licensed attorney has materially damaged Defendant's credibility in the local legal community, and has seriously damaged Defendant's ability to be admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar. 107. Defendant has suffered pUblic humiliation and reduced credibility in the Courtroom of District Justice William Farrell where Plaintiff Wiltschek publicly reiterated his defamatory allegation. 108. Defendant has suffered public humiliation and an inability to procure legal counsel due to Plaintiff Wiltschek's defamatory allegation. 109. Plaintiff Wiltschek's allegation against Defendant has adversely affected Defendant's reputation. 110. Plaintiff Wiltschek's conduct was fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff Wiltschek. 0<0; . . ('-'I ....J 0 -- :'.l ,-I -, :J ~ , 'I ; lJ , -, -'.) ;'1 , , ,'.:J , , , CJ . ,; . 'i ~..:) 'TI -, .~~. -0 'D , ;:, '< i f~ 01 (~ (,~ ..: ' . , \1,1 (. :> ~ :\:: C' (,. .. '.;- , ., ()': 1 ". t " , (.1 (" I.. l~l. (", ,'1 "- t. t .- I:' l>, e. ".., > U C' U ~L ----- -_.:_-.::--=-~ ::::- I I l___~ TI II 'I Ii II II 'I U) ;: <X5u..J~ >-~ r..wu 20 OU) OU) ~<r: I- <( C/) >- w z a: o l- I- <( . a . :g, OM "ON il.l~::! ~ ~ ~f-~ o';:(~~ ~~,,;~ soCi- .....oq;.;o!:'- ; M t;:z~ E:!:-~ OVi~~ ~ ~ ~~ go g ~ ::i:i:J:%!;:::: ~ . M u_~ 1::;"'- Oa~"1 ~ ~1:!:g "':E~~ OejON !~!~ z_z;:::: JJH/hl '2I1)1(Y~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WALTER WIL'I'SCHI~K, Plaintiff, NO. 98-3425 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW SUZANNE ABEL, Defendant. PLAINTIFF' S ANSWE~t TO '1/3 day NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS AND NOW, this of February, 1999, comes the Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, by and through his attorneys, Mooney & Associates, by John James Mooney, III, Esquire, and files the within Plaintiff's Answer to new Matter and Counterclaims, whereof the following isa statement, to wit: PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TQ NEW MATTER 24. No response required. 25. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff's Complaint and each of its counts fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 26. Denied. It is denied that Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff for the injuries and damages which arose from said sale transaction. By way of further response, Defendant intended to defraud Plaintiff and had no intention of paying the contract sale price of $40,000.00 and assumption of the risk is not a defense to fraud. 1 ;z~. JJHIt,), ;" 'J' 'I', II II I PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS COUNT 1: FRAUD 30. No response required. 31. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that a relationship existed. It is denied that Defendant placed her trust in Plaintiff. Strict proof thereof is demanded. 32. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff represented to Defendant that he was an executive international sales representative for DentsPly International, making a six figure salary, owning four homes in Pennsylvania, Florida, Chile and Germany and owned several investment vehicles. It is denied that the same is relevant to the within subject matter or is proper grounds for a counterclaim. 33. Denied in part, admitted in part. It is denied that Plaintiff showed Defendant recent photographs of himself with his porsche, Mercedes Benz, 1985 Camero and MG. It is denied that Plaintiff showed Defendant his 1960's Dodge stored in the garage at the 119 South Duke Street property. It is admitted that Plaintiff purchased a 1988 Mercury Sable and a 1977 Pontiac. It is denied that Plaintiff represented to Defendant that he owned all of these vehicles. By way of further response, Defendant stole photo albums from the 119 South Duke 3 30. JJM/h 2/9/99 I defraud Plaintiff of assets. It is denied that the same is relevant to the within subject matter or is proper grounds for a Counterclaim. 42. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff transferred $5,000.00 into Defendant's checking account because Plaintiff did not have a local bank account. By way of further response, Plaintiff transferred $3,000.00 into Defendant's bank account for her benefit to pay rent and car payments. Plaintiff did have a local bank account in the United states. 43. Denied. It is denied that Defendant offered Plaintiff a cashier's check or paid for Plaintiff's living expenses including dining out, gas for his Mercury Sable car, food and household furnishings. By way of further response, Defendant began spending the money immediately upon transfer, for her benefit. 44. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff gifted his 1992 BMW into Defendant's name. By way of further response, the transaction was a sale, not a gift, which occurred on January 8, 1998, before a notary public. By way of further response, Plaintiff did need the car, as he had no other form of transport. Defendant was to pay Plaintiff in the future for the vehicle. 6 33, [ ( I f f . ,-..: :.' JJM/tl 2/Q/9Q 49. Denied. It is denied that Monica del Carmen Gomez Perez Wiltschek and Walter Wiltschek are involved in a bigamous marriage. It is denied that the same is relevant to the within subject matter or is proper grounds for a Counterclaim. 50. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff introduced the Reverend Doctor Gerald Gingrich as Monica del Carmen Gomez Perez Wiltschek's Attorney-in-Fact. It is denied that Defendant relied upon any introduction or had any trust in Plaintiff. It is denied thac the same is relevant to the within subject matter or is proper grounds for a Counterclaim. 51. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff or the Reverend Dr. Gerald Gingrich asserted that he had paid cash for the property. 52. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff admitted he had not actually adopted the minor child, Jazmin Wiltschek, and that he was not the biological father of the minor child. It is denied that the same is relevant to the within subject matter or is proper grounds for a Counterclaim. 53. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff insisted Defendant should apply for a home equity loan to finance her child custody litigation. By way of further response, Defendant represented to Plaintiff that her brother from California was 8 J~ ;\ , . JJHn,li ml'" I I I I I going to renovate the 119 South Duke Street property and she was II going to sell it for a profit. 54. uenied. It is denied that Defendant accompanied Plaintiff to his ex-wife's house where he showed Defendant $500.00 cash he received from his ex-wife. It is denied that Plaintiff alleged the $500.00 was repayment of a prior loan to his ex-wife. By way of further response, Defendant never accompanied Plaintiff to his ex-wife's residence, nor did his ex-wife owe him any money for a loan. Plaintiff borrowed $500.00 from his ex-wife to have Defendant's 1994 Honda Civic repaired. 55. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff used the $500.00 for a romantic weekend in Atlantic City and New York City. By way of further response, this money was used for auto repairs to Defendant's 1994 Honda Civic. It is further denied that the parties wer.e ever engaged to be F.arried. 56. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff demanded Defendant liquidate her assets by selling them and Obtaining a home equity loan, using the property as collateral to provide living expenses for Plaintiff. 57. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff misrepresented his occupational status. It is further denied that Plaintiff fled the United States to hide in Europe with the minor child, 9 3G. ''''fI/lJI''I''I'''' !I , i Tierra Lenker. It is denied that the same is relevant to the within subject matter or is proper grounds for a Counterclaim. 58. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff admitted to Defendant that he was unable to work because he had failed to pay federal and state taxes since March 31, 1995. By way of further response, Plaintiff has never been notified by the IRS or any other revenue department that he owes taxes. Defendant stole Plaintiff's personal documents and made assumptions therefrom. It is denied that the same is relevant to the within subject matter or is proper grounds for a Counterclaim. 59. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff admitted to Defendant that he had been a fugitive in Europe with his ex-wife and children. By way of further response, Plaintiff has never been charged with any crime and has never been a fugitive. It is denied that the same is relevant to the within subject matter or is proper grounds for a Counterclaim. 60. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff admitted that his United States passport had been cancelled. By way of further response, Plaintiff's passport has never been cancelled nor revoked. It is denied that the same is relevant to the within subject matter or is proper grounds for a Counterclaim. 10 87, J\ . .........li;,;J"~L"....,... JJM/JJ 219/YY I j I ! , I, 'I Ii I il 61 'I . I, 'II criminal name" or , Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff had any tax and/or liabilities. It is denied that Defendant has a "good good credit status. 62. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff incessantly nagged and badgered Defendant by demanding Defendant liquidate her assets and turn the proceeds over to Plaintiff for living expenses. It is denied that Plaintiff related anything remotely close to Defendant's imaginative rendition of the facts alleged. 63. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the relationship was terminated, however, the termination was done by Defendant after she had fraudulently converted property of Plaintiff. It is denied that the same is relevant to the within subject matter or is proper grounds for a Counterclaim. 64. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that " Defendant requested Plaintiff to relinquish possession of the property at 119 South Duke Street, as well as the keys to the property and vehicles. It is denied that Plaintiff did not return the keys to the real property ;vhich Defendant fraudulently converted. It is further denied that Plaintiff procured unauthorized copies of her apartment and both mailbox keys. By way of further response, Plaintiff returned all keys to her apartment, in his possession to Defendant, immediately. 11 3f JJ!1/h, 211J/'lf) I I I II WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim of fraud and enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff. COUNT 7: CONVF.RSION 71. No response required. 72. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff had unsupervised access to Defendant's apartment of residence at 5029 East Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg. By way of further response, Defendant supplied Defendant with a key to her apartment. Defendant further authori~ed Plaintiff to pick up her daughter at school on several occasions. 73. Denied. Defendant denies the following: a) Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff removed one (1) apartment key for Defendant's apartment; b) Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff removed two (2) mailbox keys, including one (1) for a post office box at the Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania post office and one (1) for the apartment; c) Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff removed one (1) pearl necklace and earring set; 13 {D. ""H/JJ ."1'11'''' I I , I [ , !I , il 75. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has refused to return the remaining items referred to in paragraph number 73. By way of further response, it is denied that Plaintiff has those items in his possession. 76. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff deprived Defendant the use and enjoyment of said chattels. By way of further response, it is denied that Plaintiff has said chattels in his possession. 77. Denied. It is denied that Defendant has suffered monetary damages in the amount of $2,000.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit, because of Plaintiff's conversion of Defendant's personal property. By way of further response, it is denied that Plaintiff has said items in his possession. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim of conversion and enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff. COUNT 3: TRRSPASS TO LAND 78. No response required. 79. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff used an unauthorized and improperly retained key to gain access through a locked passageway door at the front of the house on 119 South Duke Street. It is denied that Plaintiff kicked in the back 15 Lf;l 'L~<~_';;'":: "'--'-". y'" --""". J,nlllJI ;/~n1 I I passageway door breaking it. By way of further response, Plaintiff did not have a key in his possession to gain access through said passageway since Defendant had changed the lock to that entry as well. 80. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff broke the window into the butler's pantry on the first floor of the house. 8l. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Wi! tschek (sic) , (Plaintiff) , stacked the broken window pieces and original hand hewn wood trim on the windowsill and on the sidewalk. 82. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Wiltschek (sic), (Plaintiff), removed the security grate from the second floor kitchen window. It is denied that Defendant (sic), (Plaintiff), broke the window and climbed into the kitchen breaking the over- the-sink light below the window in the process of entering. It is denied that Defendant (sic), (Plaintiff), cleaned up the broken wood, glass and plastic, placing it in the trash bag in the kitchen. By way of further response, Plaintiff did not have a key to gain access through the locked passageway door at the front of the house located at 119 South Duke Street, and accordingly, did not commit trespass or cause damages as alleged. 16 L(j. c) Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff removed Defendant's daughter's five (5) Caucasian baby dolls, baby doll clothing and the daughter's baby blankets and baby clothing; d) Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff removed one (1) 10-count box of Hefty green yard trash bags and one (1) 20-count box of Hefty white kitchen trash bags; e) Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff removed garden pruning tools and leather gardening gloves; and f) Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff removed three (3) rolls of Charmin triple-roll toilet paper. 89. Denied. It is denied that Defendant has suffered monetary damages to replace all items in the amount of $2,500.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit. By way of further response, it is denied that Plaintiff removed the property of Defendant, as alleged in paragraph number 88. 90. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff took Defendant's personal property. Therefore, it is denied that Plaintiff deprived Defendant of the use and enjoyment of said chattels. 91. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff acted in a fraudulent, outrageous and malicious manner. It is denied that Plaintiff's conduct, which is denied, supports the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff. 19 ~, 96. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has acted in any extreme or outrageous way. It is therefore denied that Plaintiff has caused Defendant to suffer severe emotional distress. 97. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has acted in any extreme or outrageous manner. It is therefore denied that Plaintiff has caused Defendant to fail the July 1998 Bar Exam. By way of further response, Defendant has attempted to pass the Bar Exam on several other occasions (at least 7 times), prior to Plaintiff and Defendant meeting. 98. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff's lawsuits are frivolous and harassing. It is further denied that they have caused professional humiliation with long term career consequences and stress. It is denied that Defendant's psychiatric care is a result of Plaintiff's lawsuits. By way of further response, Defendant was seeking psychiatric care and medication, prior to Plaintiff's lawsuits, for a pre-existing emotional disorder she has. 99. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff acted in any fraudulent, outrageous and malicious way, thereby supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff. 21 L(-g, JJM/111 :/9/qq 100. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has caused Defendant to suffer emoLional damages in the amount of $100,000.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit. It is further denied that Plaintiff has caused Defendant to suffer pecuniary damages for medical treatment in the amount of $5,000.00 and punitive damages. By way of further response, Defendant was seeking psychiatric care and medication, prior to Plaintiff's lawsuits, for a pre-existing emotional disorder she has. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff. COUNT 6: DEFAMATION 101. No response required. 102. Admitted. 103. Denied. It is denied that Defendant did not assert to Plaintiff that she was an attorney and/or that she was licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania or in any other state. It is denied that Defendant has never performed any legal services for Plaintiff or that she never represented to Plaintiff that she was qualified to do so. By way of further response, Defendant prepared a document for Plaintiff regarding 22 ~ J'Jr1/tll I I I il I ' I I I I ~/9/~) Plaintiff's custodY case. 104. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff repeatedly asked Defendant to perform legal work for him. 105. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff made any repeated request, to Defendant, to perform legal work on his behalf. It is denied that Defendant advised Plaintiff to contact an attorney. 106. Denied. It is denied that the publication of Plaintiff's assertion of Defendant's misrepresentation, as a licensed attorney, materially damaged Defendant's credibility in the local legal community and seriously damaged Defendant's ability to be admitted to the Pennsylvania Bar. By way of further response, Defendant has damaged her credibility solely on her own through representations which she made to Plaintiff and others, as being a licensed attorney. 107. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff caused any pUblic humiliation and reduced the credibility of Defendant in the Courtroom of District Justice William Farrell. By way of further response, Defendant has publicly humiliated and damaged her credibility solely on her own through representations which she made to Plaintiff and others, as being a licensed attorney. 23 JO, JJN/h'1 ~/')lc'" 108. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has caused Defendant public humiliation and an inability to procure legal counsel. By way of further response, Defendant has publicly humiliated and damaged her credibility solely on her own through representations which she made to Plaintiff and others, as being a licensed attorney. 109. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff's allegation against Defendant has adversely affected Defendant's reputation. By way of further response, Defendant has damaged her reputation and credibility solely on her own through representations which she made to Plaintiff and others, as being a licensed attorney. 110. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has acted in any fraudulent, outrageous and malicious way, thereby supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff. 111. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has caused Defendant to suffer emotional damages in the amount of $100,000.00, as well as interest, costs of this suit and punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim of defamation and enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff. 24 0-/ ,>- If) to ':~' " M fo'" .z ~Q cO :::><1' , a ()=~ :t:: 02' <l '-L :r: '00: ::> t-- CJ <-' 0 N ~"fi5 u: we'- .,)Z -Ju:/ C::: f.1.':Z .LL-:'"I" u.. UJliJ r::=: ":t ~a.. I.t..: -~ 0 0"1 ::J en U . "'-. , .- WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. SUZANNE ABEL, No. 98-3425 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant INRE: MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND NOW, this day of Motion for Continuance is hereby granted. By the Court, Kevin A. Hess, J. &6. , 1999, Defendant's . ,..".,.-...--.-....,. WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. SUZANNE ABEL, No. 98-3425 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE Suzanne Abel, Defendant herein, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant a Continuance of the above listed case, for the reasons set forth below: 1. Pending a judicial ruling on Defendant's Petition for Change of Venue to enable consolidation of the three outstanding cases involving th-e same parties, transactions, facts, and legal issues; 2. Defendant was hospitalized and received extensive medical treatment from February 14, 1999 through March 5,1999. Defendant was therefore unable to respond to, or address, the issues raised in Plaintiffs flurry of Answers, Praecipes, and Discovery. 3. Plaintiff filed its Answer to New Matter and Counterclaims on February 23, 1999, then filed its Praecipe for Listing Cases for Trial on February 24, 1999; leaving insufficient time to conduct discovery in response to Plaintiffs Answer. This Motion is made and based upon the Notice of Motion heretofore served and filed, on the pleadings in this action, and upon the statement of the treatment provider. Respectfully Submitted, By: '1l6\:{i iLlL( {(till Name: . Suza~ne Abel, Pro 5e Address: P.O~-Box 1032 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (;i WALTER WILTSCHEK Plaintiff IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA vs. 98-3425 CIVIL SUZANNE ABEL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: MOTION TO OUASH PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE ORDER AND NOW, this "Z.....~ day of April, 1999, a rule is issued on the plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested ought not to be granted. This rule returnable twenty (20) days after service. Argument hereon is set for Wednesday, May 26,1999, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4. At that time, the parties shall also address the question of the joinder of the Rev. Dr. Gerald Gingrich as an additional defendant and whether, inter alia, the defendant or the plaintiffs have complained with Pa.R.c.p. 2252(b)(I). In the event that the motion for change of venue is decided adversely to the defendant and, further, that this case will not proceed against Rev. Gingrich, trial herein is set for Wednesday, June 16, 1999, at 9:30 a,l11. If it is determined that the case cannot proceed to trial forthwith, the trial date will be cancelled. BY THE COURT, (p4-, ~ '-. ~ ~' ..:J 7' r- eo :'i.,. .'UJQ C)0~ q(~ ;rL:: c) 4.7-' :.-., H-~ oc:..: [~5~ ..J...: .' ~6 '" ~.;, fJ) t1: _~)Z (.l. U'-;7 '--1- 0;: 1.l.ltO u:LU :r:: Cl.. L"J o_ r- .c: "0 U- rn ''''i 0 (T\ U -;i~'f' 'C ~ ~ , r.:. .. " .,;, . , , i "',;"- ,. ~ " " WALTER WIL TSCHEK. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. Defendant No. 98-3425 CIVIL ACTION. LAW SUZANNE ABEL, PETITON FOR CHANGE OF VENUE AND NOW, this day of April, 1999, comes the Defendant, Suzanne Abel, Pro Se, and files a Petition for Change of Venue (Forum Non Conviens), to Wit: 1. Plaintiff Walter Wiltschek is an adult individual whose residence is unknown, but whose last known residence was 2901 Brookeside Avenue, Dover, York County, Pennsylvania 17315. 2. Defendant Suzanne Abel is an adult resident residing at 5029 East Tindle Road. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 3. Before this Honorable Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is the above docketed case at No. 98-3425 CIVIL ACTION - LAW (attached as Exhibit A). 4. Before this Honorable Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is the case docketed at No. 9R-3426 CIVIL ACTION - LAW (attached as Exhibit B). 6.a. Plaintiffs Choice of Venue: G.b. Plaintiff filed the above docketed case in Cumberland County, along with sister case docketed at No. 98-3525. Plaintiff then filed a third case premised on the same underlying factual and legal issues in York County, docketed at No. 98-SU06021.09. While Plaintiffs choice of venue is generally accorded significant weight, instantly Plaintiff clearly chose two separate venues. Defendant asks this Honorable Court to permit the collective cases to be heard in one venue. ~ )1 [1 I I ;j, ) .~. , 1. . ;.;~).' (.1/- . r: fl" . II: rc, \"'.. \ ,::~ i , , ,I I 5. Before the Honorable Court of Common Pleas of York County is the case docketed at No. 98-SU06021.09 CIVIL ACTION - LAW (attached at Exhibit C). 6. Removal to York County is necessary because the balancing of convenience strongly favors a transfer for the following reasons: ~7. . , 6.c. Interests of Other Parties: 1. ease of access I: sources of proof - Real property title records are located at the York County Courthouse; police records and evidence are located at the City of York Police Department office; and title transfer records for the real property are located at the realty transfer office in the City of York. 2. availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses - All of Plaintiffs witnesses, to Defendant's knowledge, reside and/or work in York County. None of Plaintiffs witnesses, to Defendant's knowledge, reside and/or work in Cumberland County. 3. cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses - Defendant's witnesses reside in Dauphin County but have agreed to willingly appear in York County without process, if they only have to testify one time. 4. possibility that view of the premises will be required - The real property at issue in case Docketed at No.98-3426, and the personal property at issue in the case Docketed at No, 98-SU-06021.09, are located one block from the York County Courthouse in the City of York. Both cases allege a valuation of the respective property. Therefore, the likelihood is great that the property will need to be viewed by the Court in the course of resolving these matters. 5. potential enforceability of judgment - The County of York will be in the strongest position to quickly and efficiently enforce a judgment against Defendants since both the real and personal property are located within the county, and within the City, of York. 6. ease, celebrity or expense of litigation - The Court may, sua sponte, consolidate the~e cases (Pa.R.C.P. 213.1(a)). Notwithstanding, Defendant Abel intends to seek consolidation of the three cases to minimize legal expenses, and research, preparation and court time; and to minimize inconvenience and costs for herself and her. witnesses. Removal to York County, and the subsequent consolidation of the cases, will undoubtedly result in parallel time and cost savings for the Court and Plaintiff, 6.c. Public Interest: 1, judicial economy - The three cases at issue all involve the same four individuals, the same series of transactions, the same allegations, the same legal issues, the same burdens of proof, the same defenses, the same collection of witnesses, and the same documentary evidence. These cases are factually complex and tightly interwoven. It would be an unnecessary waste of precious judicial resources for tlle factual &f. . background to be outlined in two sister courts. Furthermore, the likelihood is great that the property will need to be viewed by the court in the course of resolving these matters. It would likewise be an unnecessary waste of precious judicial resources for the Cumberland County Judiciary to travel to within one block of the York County Courthouse to view the subject real and personal property when the cases can properly be transferred to York County. 2. court / judicial familiarity - Because the three cases are grounded in the same legal issues, a finding in one court will have preclusive effect on the outstanding case(s). Further, the York County judicial system is familiar with the property at issue, with the location of the real and personal property at issue, with the counsel of record, and with the local procedure for enforcement of judgment. 7. Removal to York County is necessary because Defendant is presently faced with the undue legal and financial hardship and burden of defending the identical factual and legal issues in three separate cases in two separate counties. In part due to the number of cases and the diversity of venues, Defendant has been unable thus far to obtain counsel. Changing venue to one county, and subsequently consolidating the three cases, will result in less work for potential counsel, and therefore better enable Defendant to secure counsel in these matters. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant this Petition to Change Venue to York County for Consolidation with the pending matter already docketed in that venue. Respectfully Submitted, By: S1 {,(i ,IUU (( f ,cd Name: su~~rie Abel, Pro S'e Address: P.O;Box 1032 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (P1. \ JJHJ 10-'"'' . ' . 5. Defendant further represented to Plaintiff that she was an attorney, which also caused Plaintiff to place a great deal of trust in Defendant. 6. Plaintiff later learned that Defendant, although a law school graduate, was not a licensed attorney. 7. Defendant represented to Plaintiff that she was expecting to receive a substantial cash settlement from an ex- husband and even requested Plaintiff's assistance in searching into assets owned by her ex-husband. COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT 8. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 7 hereof. 9. On or about January 13, 1998, Defendant borrowed $5,000.00 from Plaintiff upon her express promise to repay the money upon receipt of the settlement she expected in paragraph 7 hereof. 10. Shortly thereafter, Defendant borrowed another $500.00 from Plaintiff pursuant to the same promise of repayment. 11. In February 1998, Plaintiff transferred a 1992 BMW automobile to Defendant upon her express promise to pay Plaintiff the sum of $18,800.00, which sum she expected to receive from her settlement referred to in paragraph 7 hereof. 2 7J. -') JJ'K/ 10-5-'8 12. Shortly after obtaining ownership, Defendant terminated the romantic relationship, demanded Plaintiff give her back the keys to her apartment, the keys to her car which Plaintiff had been dri.ving, as well as all keys to the 1992 BMW vehicle. 13. Defendant severed all relationships with plaintiff and indicated she had no intention of repaying plaintiff. 14. Defendant further stated that all monies and the vehicle were now "gifts" to Defendant and he could not prove otherwise. 15. Despite demands, Defendant has failed and refused to pay Plaintiff, which failure constitutes a breach of contract. 16. Plaintiff has suffered monetary damages of $24,300.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment in the amount of $24,300.00 plus interest and costs of this suit. COUNT II: FRAUDULENT CONVERSION 17. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 16 hereof. lB. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant fraudulently induced plaintiff into lending her money and conveying the automobile to her and that Defendant had no intention of repnying Plaintiff the sums owed to him. 3 73. , . TRUE' In TllSt!~ and r.f.o ~,. 01 T 0..,,,,,,. . ' 19. plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant fraudulently converted the money and property to her own without any consideration by deceitful, untrue and maliciously false representations which were intended to defraud Plaintiff. 20. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant has engaged in a pattern of deceit, the purpose of which was solely to obtain pecuniary gain for herself. 21. Despite demands, Defendant has failed and refused to pay Plaintiff, which has caused monetary damage to plaintiff. 22. Defendant's conduct is fraudulent, outrageous and malicious necessitating the imposition of punitive damages. 23. Plaintiff has sustained damages of the $24,300.00 plus interest, attorney fees and costs of this suit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $24,300.00 plus interest, costs of suit, attorney fees, punitive damages and other relief the Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, for By Jo n Jame M Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 230 York Street Hanover, PA 17331 (717) 632-4656 I.D. # 39137 FROM RECORD , I here unto S6l my I\aod CarUm, J);17 , 19~ 4 7tfr ) IN lO-S-II' and correct description of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On or about December 20, 1997, Plaintiff, Walter wiltschek, met Defendant through an ad in the newspaper which was intended by Defendant to solicit romantic relationships or companionship by adult males. 6. Defendant and Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, became involved in a romantic relationship which caused Plaintiff to place a great deal of trust in Defendant. 7. Defendant further represented to Plaintiff, walter Wiltschek, that she was an attorney, which also caused walter Wiltschek to place a great deal of trust in Defendant. 8. Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, later learned that Defendant, although a law school graduate, was not a licensed attorney. 9. Defendant represented to Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, that she was expecting to receive a substantial cash settlement from an ex-husband and even requested Plaintiff's assistance in searching into assets owned by her ex-husband. COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT 10. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 9 hereof. 11. Defendant and Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, agreed that Defendant would purchase the real property of Plaintiff referred 2 70, L .. ;' " :J '\1 I", ., lD.,5..11 to in paragraph 4 herein for the sum $40,000.00. 12. Defendant wanted to purchase the property as an investment and was going to pay for the property with either funds obtained from her ex-husband, as set forth in paragraph 9 herein or by refinance of the property. 13. On January 28, 1998, Plaintiff, Monica Del Carmen Gomez, by and through her attorney-in-fact, Gerald I. Gingerich, conveyed the property to Defendant. A true and correct copy of said deed is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference. 14. Shortly after said conveyance, Defendant terminated the romantic relationship and refused to pay the $40,000.00. She further engaged in a self-help eviction of Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, who had been living at the property aforementioned, by changing the locks on the real property. 15. Despite demands, Defendant has breached the contract and r.efused to pay for the real property or to convey it back to Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $40,000.00 plus interests, costs of suit and any other relief, equitable or otherwise, including recision of the transfer to Defendant. 3 7~ ) .' 0-5.... COUNT II: FRAUDULENT CONVERSION 16. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 15 hereof. 17. Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant fraudulently enticed Plaintiff into the Agreement and never had any intention of paying the contract price, but intended to defraud Plaintiff. 18. Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant intended to fraudulently convert the property to her own without any consideration being paid by using deceitful, untrue and malicious representations solely intended to defraud Plaintiff. 19. Plaintiff, Walter wiltschek, believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant had engaged in a pattern of deceit, the purpose of which was solely to obtain pecuniary gain for herself. 20. Despite demands, Defendant has failed and refused to pay for the'real property or, in the alternative, to convey it back to Plaintiff. 21. Defendant's conduct is fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby necessitating the imposition of punitive damages against Defendant. 22. Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, has sustained monetary loss including the value of the property, interest, attorney fees and costs of this suit. 4 fo. .,.~"o~~~-;::::-:;. " 'f-. '';....u:. . " Power of Attorney KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ PEREZ, of Santiago, Chile, do hereby make, constitute and appoint WALTER WILTSCHEK of York County, Pennsylvania, my true and lawful Attorney In Fact for me and in my name, place and stead and on my behalf to do and execute the following acts, deeds and things, including (but not by way of limitation) the following: 1. To purchase, have, hold, possess, control, manage, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate, sell or otherwise dispose of, lease(for any term or perpetually and with or without privilege of purchase and with or without privilege of renewal) the real estate known as premises No. 119 South Duke Street, York, Pennsylvania, and its contents of household goods and furnishings; as well as all or any part of my property, real or personal, in such manner and on such terms as my said Attorney In Fact shall see fit; in connection with the foregoing to make, execute, acknowledge and deliver deeds, mortgages, bills of sale, leases and other proper instruments of conveyance, hypothecation, lease, assignment and transfer and to invest and reinvest the proceeds of such sale and/or any other monies of mine in such property, real or personal, as my said Attorney In Fact deem expedient. 2. To receive and collect any monies that may be due ~nd owing to me from any person, firm or corporation and to deposit the same in any bank account of mine or in any account my Attorney In Fact shall open for me under the authority granted him in this instrument; and to withdraw the same and any other monies on deposit in such account or accounts. 3. To pay from my funds, using therefor eithe~ principal or income in the sole discretion of my said Attorney In Fact such expenses of mine as my Attorney In Fact shall see fit to defray for my benefit and to sign income tax retlir-ns for me. 4. To enter into and to perform contracts on my behalf and to carry out all contracts entered into by me. S. And generally to do and perform all acts, deeds and things that I personally could do if present and acting in the premises notwithstanding the fact that authority has not been specifically conferred hereinabove upon my Attorney In Fact to do and perform such acts, deeds and things. (1) EXHIBIT A ~~ ~. J .-. - ...... .-.. t1J. #. ~ ," 6. This Power of Attorney shall not be affected by the disability or incapacity of the principal. 7. This Power of Attorney shall remain effective until death, Order of Court or revocation. 8. I hereby ratify and confirm all that my said Attorney In Fact shall lawfully do or cease to be done by virtue hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this JUl I 4 199] day of July ,1997 \\ I _ . "'-0 V" ~ MONICA DEL CARMEN . G~~r GOMEZ PEREZ '(Seal) Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of (Seal) , I do hereby accept this Power of Attorney this 11 day (2 ) 03 ) " r , #2- : Alan Kim Patrone; Esq. . 30 WttSl Mlddla SlrHI Got1y1llul1l, Pennsytvanll 1T.)2:: 717.:J34.801lO " li... , 'i \'" . ..... ,I,' \.' '.' . . . ..... - . .~., :. /',' ,./ THIS DEED MADE '!'HE ,23 rt day of January in the ~W one thousand nine hundred ninety eight, (1998), ~-, BETWEEN MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ PEREZ, a single woman, by her ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, GERALD I. GINGRICH, of 773 Kreitz Creek Road, York, pennsylvania, GRANTOR / AND 6 SUZANNE ABEL, of 5029 Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055, GRANTEE, WITNESSETH, that in consideration of the sum of FORTY THOUSAND AND NO/l00 DOLLARS, ($40,000.00), in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby ac~~owledged, the said Grantors do hereby grant and convey to the said Grantee, ALL that certain tract ot land situated, lying, and being on the eastern side of and known as No: 119 South Duke Street in the ~;;'k, York County, Penns:.lvonia, together with the ~mprovements thereon erected and bounded ~lj limited as follows to wit: BOUNDED on the north by property now or formerly bf York Trust Company on the east by a public alley on the south by property now or formerly of Curtis N. Hollinger and on the west by said South Duke Street. Fronting on . said South Duke Street 28 feet 'and 9 inches and extending of uniform width to the hereilwefore mentioned alley. BEING '!'HE SAME which Edna E. Leidig, widow, by her Attorney- in-Fact, Theodora E. Waltermyer, by rheir deed dated August 15, 1997 and recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of York County, pennsylvania in Record Book 1299 at Page 993 granted and conveyed unto Monica Del Carro.,.. Gomez Perez, a single woman, erroneously stated as a married w~man in said deed, the GRANTOR herein. EXHIBIT gf Co' l' I I ~, F Ii p, 1'\1 f.., r:' [". 1-.... .': ") ....... ...___.....~-~.o;-.:....l;~,: ......-.-... ...-.-.' ) . . .~.~_..... .." . ...._.-~-_.. ., AND, the said Grantor does hereby covenant and agree that she . will warrant specially the property hereby conveyed, subject to recorded and/or visible easements and restrictions, if any. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto set her hand and seal the day and year first above written. SIGNED. SEALED:AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF 4~~/~ ,4--- , ()h.v // fhf-,..J WITNESSES t Rece.ved FEB 2 6 1998 , ., City of York I j , Ul co Ct 011'1 0 "., Q co co "1"~ ~ ~ N LU a: ",,1fI (7IE .,; _cnO ...; co ___0 "" LU>-.... l::: nJ (71 0. - - -- ~ Qt-% - - - %a: !!'!i(7lS.-l '" :z: u..::>:> ;;a: QJ 1lCI' cO IX gj>cCd~ CC..J !i:O~ .cu u>- ~ !E:=li!li '" en ~ofj.-l. LU""% ~r~:=d"" Q.:c:'Z ""CO......C1l ....-..- ~rnQ: "4'" ~ cc ~ ~ ;:;~ JrJ~aJc~ fJ MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ by her attorney-in-fac E~ I. GINGRICH I Certify This Dec:ument '1b Be Recorded Ip. York County, Pa. ,........ .~-;...8f....f9... ..- ......'; ~a.. .= .~..-. ..~"V'. .... ..~.. :"';iJ""'~ . o' :a. ~o. !~: \ :::: ...... . . . -. . :~. ':. 0, ... .. ~"" .... ." ."'.".f'~~::.<..1"'". ,," LoWR'~'.. . ........." ~s ) AFFIDA vrr coMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANI^ . SS. . . coUNTY OF YORK Befixe me, a NotaIy Public. in and for said Coun1y and 0., .... ...W'C8lth. pc:rsooally m(;TUI'.&..?J..{ (~(f1.Ul 1..)cJ17\i. z... b./ 111.1 6....~,rJ'j , {(]- fC.cr ~ 7,/,; {'-r-, ^ LJilrs" h.:.. . bcingdulyswoma......n.Jingtolaw.deposcs and says that the facts .;;.. ,1M:....; in the tL.~ Cum (Jlo ((] t , arc true and COIrOCt to the best of his- koowlcdgc. infur...".tinn and 'bclicL 1n &1,,, cc(. j)d Ca~ /~1-<k: ilf/!.. "e;e-ttM 21ft;- j!lnt.c G,~'hu;Z ~, t- SWORN and SUBSCRIBED to before me this gib- day of (~)hQA ,1m ~.lu1An (' \ru~ Nomy Public ~ Notanal Seal Public \ Melissa C. Miller. Notar)'ountY Hanover 60;0. ~~~ :lay'" 2000 "~y commIsSIon \:.7:01 . '. ~ :,~~cCl~t'On 01 N(ltIHl~S 88. , , \ '-, . " . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Plaintiff NO. 98 SU 06021.09 vs CIVIL ACTION - LAW SUZANNE S, ABEL, Defendant JUR Y TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT .D ::0 ~ ::J -< ::. ;11 c ::- ~-, ;:.. .'\.) -.- - ~.... . ;;.~~' ~ .. AND NOW, this 1.. \ day of '\:::La..c . 1998, comes the Plain'iiff, ~9 _ - w ." u:> _ Waiter Wiltschek, by and through his attorneys, Mooney & Associates, by Judith Koper' Morris, Esquire, and files the within Complaint, whereof the following is a statement, to wit: 1. Plaintiff is Walter Wiltschek, an adult individual who resides at 2901 Brookeside Avenue, Dover, York County, Pennsylvania 17315, 2. Defendant is Suzanne S. Abe~ an adult individual who resides at 5029 E. Toodle Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 4. On or about August 15, 1997, Plaintiff; residing at 119 South Duke Street, York City, York County, Pennsylvania, with all ifhis personal belongings, 5. On or about December 20, 1997, Plaintiff; Walter Wl.ltschek, met Defendant through an ad in the newspaper which was intended by Defendant to solicit romantic i I " 'I relationships or companionship by adult males, 6. Defendant and Plaintiff; Walter Wiltschek, became involved in a romantic q(). \1 f f. I . 3 .-, ", ) -) ., . ,.' relationship which caused Plaintiff to place a great deal of trust in Defendant. 7. Defendant further represented to Plaintifi: Walter Wiltschek, that she was an attomey, which also caused Walter Wtltschek to place a great deal of trust in Defendant. 8. Plaintifi: Walter Wiltschek, later learned that Defendant, although a law school graduate, was not a licensed attorney, 9. On January 28, 1998, Defendant acquired ownership of 119 South Duke Street, York, Pennsylvania, 10. Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, continued to lawfully reside at property with all of his personal belongings, 11. Shortly after the Defendant was conveyed 11 South Duke Street she terminated the romantic relationship, 12. Defendant engaged in a self-help eviction ofPlaintifl: Walter Wiltschek, who had been living at the property aforementioned, by changing the locks on the real property. 13. At the time th~ Defendant changed the locks, all of Plaintiff's personal property was on the premises. Despite numerous demands, Defendant has refused to . return Plaintiff's personal belongings and is wrongfully detaining them. 14. Attached here as Exhibit "A" is a.'1 itemization and evaluation of the personal property which Defendant has wrongfully held. 15, Plaintiffhas been damaged in the amount of $15,525,00 WHEREFORE. Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to enter judgement against Defendant in the amount of$15,525,OO, which is within the limits ofmanditory 1/. . . ,,'-:;"~:-,~-;';:7' "" } . '.. --) ') ,,' Exhibit 1: Itemization and Value ofPropertv held bv Defendant Suzanne Abel ROOM VALUE Livine Room Antique for records and records $ 200.00 Sofa plus two annchairs $ 400,00 Large Stereo $ 300.00 Werlitzer Stereo/CD from Germany $1500.00 Entertainment Center $ 125,00 TV - New From Boscov's $ 240.00 VCR - Replacement Cost $ 250.00 Dinine Room/Kitchen Microwave (from Germany) $ 250.00 Utensils $ 50.00 Refrigerator $ 200.00 Dishwasher (from Germany) $ 600,00 Linens $ 25.00 Oneida Silver Plate $ 75,00 Nortake China $ 500,00 Complete set of dishes $ 75.00 , CfJ, . . . . q+ . . . ' '\ , I ,.' , . Collector's Watch $ 75.00 (paid) New Wallets (four) $ 80.00 Office Supply $ 150.00 Books (hardbound and Dictionaries) $ 300.00 Collection of 45 Records $ 100.00 Wooden clothes hangars $ 25.00 Garden tools (sheers, rakes) $ 50.00 Car cleaning supplies $ 25.00 Infant car seat (gift) $ 60.00 New 10 speed Kreudler Gennan bike $ 800.00 Electrolux Vacuum Cleaner (new) $ 900.00 Electrolux Vacuum Cleaner (used) $ 200.00 Total of Personal Possessions $15,525.00 Cj~. \ I '\ " IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADAMS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Walter Wiltschek NO. 98 SU 06021.09 Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW Suzanne Abel Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AFFIDAVIT I, Judith Koper Morris, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, am familiar with the facts regarding the above- captioned action and do hereby verify that . the averments contained in Itemization and Value of Property held by Suzanne F~el are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 13-/(1) qf Date Koper c(;l ire ,of':) ..........:.. -..0 C'. -, ,,~ - " . - \/ ...... ;'.:: . '. - ,'::. ....: !9 (..> l<:) ",;:-' ...,.- 17 ~ '. ,,'":0- "':' -,- WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. SUZANNE ABEL, No. 98.3425 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant IN RE: MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR . PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR DISCOVERY AND NOW, this day of , 1999, Defendant Abel's Motion to Quash Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents for Discovery is hereby granted. By the Court, Kevin A. Hess, J. / tJ{), WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. SUZANNE ABEL, No. 98.3425 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR DISCOVERY AND NOW, this day of April, 1999, upon consideration of the foregoing Petition, it is hereby ordered that 1) a rule is issued upon the respondents to show cause why Defendant is not entitled to the relief requested; 2) the respondents shall file an answer to the petition within twenty days of service upon the respondents; 3) the petition shall be decided under Pa.R.C.P, No. 206.7; 4) argument shall be held on the of of the Cumberland County Courthouse; and , 1999 in Courtroom 5) notice of the entry of this order shall be provided to all parties by the petitioner. BY THE COURT: Kevin A. Hess, J. /61 WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. Defendant No. 98-3425 CIVIL ACTION - LAW SUZANNE ABEL, DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR DISCOVERY, and, in the alternative, DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND NOW, this Jo- day of April, 1999, comes the Defendant, Suzanne Abel, Pro Se, and files a Motion to Quash Discovery, and in the alternative, a Motion for a Protective Order, to Wit: 1. On behalf of Plaintiff, Plaintiffs counsel has requested discovery / production of documents and things. The discovery directs that "Defendant produce copies of any and all psychiatric and psychological documents regarding Defendant from December 1997 through the present." 2. Plaintiffs discovery request is irrelevant to the instant causes of action. 3. Plaintiffs discovery request will cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, and unduly burdensome expense to the Defendant because is it overly broad, This generic discovery request amounts to a fishing expedition, which is prohibited by Pa. R.C.P. 4011. 4. Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents and Things to Defendant was not filed with the Clerk of Courts or the Prothonotary's Office of Cumberland County, as required by Local Rule No. 4001-1. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant the Motion to Quash Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents for discovery. 5. An unqualified production of Defendant's medical records may occasion disclosure of matters which are protected from discovery; for example, under doctor/patient privilege, and matters which may cause her unreasonable embarrassment or, perhaps, infringe upon her right of privacy under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. j6Lf' 'I".,..'.~ WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. Defendant No. 98-3426 CIVIL ACTION - LAW SUZANNE ABEL, PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Rule to Show Cause and Petition for Change of Venue was served upon the following by hand delivery at the Cumberland County Courthouse on April 22, 1999: Attorney for Plaintiffs: John James Mooney, III, Esquire Mooney & Associates 230 York Street Hanover, PA 17331 ,,"-- "'<Z )" Suz n e Abel P.O. Box 1032 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 791-9904 Pro Se Defendant /b~ WALTER WILTSCIIEK Plaintiff IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA ;' I vs. 98-3425 CIVIL I SUZANNE ABEL, Defenda!lt CIVIL ACTION - LA W IN RE: MOTION TO OUASH PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE ORDER AND NOW, this 1-' day of May, 1999, it appearing that the Court has a conflict, argument in the above captioned matter sct for May 26, 1999, at 3:00 p.m. , is rescheduled to May 26, 1999, at 1:30 p.m, in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, P A. BY THE COURT, John James Mooney, III, Esquirc Mooney & Associates 230 York Street Hanover, PA 17331 ---/y~ '4~ Kevin A. Hess, 1. , / Suzanne S. Abel, Pro Se 5029 E. Triindle Road, Apt. I Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 c" &' ,(, !),,,;,(,.,L 5'/10/.:\,. :r1m /()~ '. WALTER WILTSCHEK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 98-3425 CIVIL SUZANNE ABEL, Defendanl CIVIL ACTION - LA W MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ, by her attorney-in- Fact, WALTER WIL TSCHEK : Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 98-3426 CIVIL vs. SUZANNE ABEL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LA W IN RE: NONJURY TRIAL BEFORE HESS. J. The above captioned matters were consolidated for trial and disposition. The case arises out of the transfer of certain assets to the defendant for which the plaintiff now demands repayment or reimbursement. The case has a touch of romance and even intrigue. There is, in fact, a surreal quality about it. Mr, Walter Wiltschek, the plaintiff, purports to be an international businessman. He has spent time in Europe and has a wife in Chile. He and the defendant became involved in a romantic relationship through an ad in a newspaper. Eventually, the two traveled for a romantic weekend to New York City where they were engaged to be married. Shortly after the engagement, the relationship deteriorated. In the meantime, however, ., r, I " i. II 1\ ~ j, I 't I \;,,;. \~ ,! , ~;f' ;..~7. Mr. Wiltsehek, as attorney-in-fact for his Chilean wife, conveyed certain real estate to the //~. '. 98-3425 CIVIL 98-3426 CIVIL set aside a transaction to prove that a conlidential rclationship existed between the parties. Thomas v. Seaman, 451 "a. 347,304 A.2d 134 (1973). Where undue influence and incompeteney do not appear and thc rclationship between the parties is not one ordinarily known as confidential in law, the evidence to sustain a confidential relationship must be certain, it cannot arise from suspicion or from infrequent or unrclated acts. Weir. supra, 556 A.2d at 825. If it is established that a confidential relationship existed at the time the alleged gift was made, the burden shifts to the donee to show that the alleged gift was free of any taint of undue influence or deception, !fl; Banko v. Malanecki, 499 Pa. 92, 45 I A.2d 1008 (1982). In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant misrepresented herself as a licensed attorney and because of that misrepresentation, a confidential relationship somehow arose. We are satisfied that the testimony concerning this misrepresentation is not credible. Even if it were, at no time does the plaintiff contend that Ms. Abel was hired to be his lawyer or that their relationship was one of attorney-client. The Statute of Frauds with regard to personalty is dealt with at 13 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1206. It states: A. General Rule. - Except in the cases described in subsection b, a contract for the sale of personal property is not enforceable by way of action or defense beyond $5,000 in amount or value of remedy unless there is some writing which indicates that a contract for sale has been made between the parties at a defined or stated price, reasonably identifies the subject matter, and is signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent. )11: ~..- ........... ......-.". C) H:' (~~ C \'1,) ,~ ~> ; '. ~') ~~l .-1 ".. , - , , '.T.1 , .' ~.') r~~ ; ) i . . . : ii .- ~c-~ <-~ ~~! :,,~1 :..:;~ , IT'. -, RECE~~l.i'~D OCT 0 6 1999 . WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 98-3425 CIVIL SUZANNE ABEL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ, by her attorney-in- Fact, WALTER WILTSCHEK : Plaintiffs 98-3426 CIVIL vs, SUZANNE ABEL, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: NONJUR Y TRIAL BEFORE HESS. J. ORDER AND NOW, this , ,'" --r day of October, 1999, after trial without a jury, in both captioned matters, we fmd on the plaintiff's claims in favor of the defendant. The counterclaims of the defendant have been withdrawn. BY THE COURT, . AJ. " PYS510 Cumborlilnd County Prothonotary's Offlco C I v II CiI:W I nqul ry 1 Page 1998-03425 WIUl'SCIIEK WI\L.'l'EIl (vs) 1\11I':1. SU~I\NNE S Ileference No..: Case Type.....: WRIT OF SUMMONS Judgment......: .00 Judge I\ssIgned: IIESS KEVIN 1\ DIsposed Dese.: ------------ Case Commonts ------------- F II od. . . . . . . . : '1'111\0. . . . . . . . . : I':XOCII t I on Dnto Ju ry 'I'rlal.... DIsposed Date. IIIgtwr Crt 1.: Il1gl1er Crt 2.: 6/1911998 2:39 0/00/0000 0/00/0000 1711 MDA 99 *********************************~**k*k***************************************** General Index I\ttorney Info WILTSCIIEK WALTER PLI\INTIFF MOONEY JOliN JIll I\BEL SUZI\NNE S DEFENDI\N'l' PRO SE 5029 E TRINDLE ROI\D I\PT #1 MECHANICSBURG PI\ 17055 ******************************************************************************** * Date EntrIes * ******************************************************************************** G/19/1998 6/23/1998 10/16/1998 11119/1998 12/03/1998 12/23/1998 2/2511999 3/04/1999 3/30/1999 4112/1999 4/12/1999 4/22/1999 4/22/1999 4/22/1999 5/07/1999 5/27/1999 10/04/1999 _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PRI\ECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL I\CTION-WRIT OF SUMMONS ISSUED ------------------------------------.------------------------------- SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED. Litiqant.: I\BEL SUZI\NNE S SERVED : 6/23/98 WRIT OF SUMMONS Costs....: $30.20 Pd By: MOONEY & I\SSOC. 06/23/1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLI\IN'l' ------------------------------------------------------------------- PRI\ECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT BY JOHN JAMES MOONEY III ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED Litlqant.: I\BEL SUZANNE S SERVED : 12/02/98 REINST NOT & COMPL Costs....: $31.44 Pd By: MOONEY & ASSOCIATES 12/03/1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM ------------------------------------------------------------------- PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS ------------------------------------------------------------------- PRI\ECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL BY JOHN JAMES MOONEY I II ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATED 3/30/99 - IN RE NONJURY TRIAL - PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 4/22/99 9 I\M - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 3/31/99 ------------------------------------------------------------------- MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ------------------------------------------------------------------- PE~ITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR DISCOVERY AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR 1\ PROTECTIVE ORDER ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATED 4/22/99 - IN RE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - DENIED - BY KEVIN 1\ HESS J - COPIES MAILED 4/22/99 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATED 4/22/99 - IN RE MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE - RULE IS ISSUED ON PLAINTIFF RETURNABLE 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE - ARGUMENT 5/26/99 3 PM CR 4 - TRIAL 6/16/99 9:30 AM - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 4/22/99 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DI\TED 5/7/99 - IN RE MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE ~ ARGUMENT 5/26/99 3 PM IS RESCHEDULED TO 5/26/99 1:30 PM CR 4 - BY KEVIN 1\ HESS J - COPIES MI\ILED 5/10/99 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - DATED 5/26/99 - IN RE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE - DENIED - TRIAL 6/16/99 9:30 AM - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MI\ILED 5/27/99 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DI\TED 10/4/99 - IN RE NONJURY TRIAL - WE FIND ON THE PLAINTIFF'S CLI\IMS IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT - COUNTERCLAIMS OF THE PYS5l0 Page 2 Cumbol'! ilnd County PI:ot:llonoL,ll"Y' s Of f Lco C i v I I Cil:'" In'lu i ry 1998-03425 W1L'I'SCIIEK WI\UI'EH (vs) 1\1\\0:1. S\J~^NN\o: S Hefor.onco No..: Case TY\lC. . . . .: WIlIT .Iudgmen ;. . . . . . : .Judge I\ss f gnorl: IIESS ll.i.sjloHocl Dosc.: ------------ CaHe Commonts ------------- OF SUMMONS .00 KI':V.I N 1\ Filod........: '['1rno. . . .. .. . .: !':xocut.l.on Dilte Jur.y 'J'r..lill... . O.l.sposod lJate. II1gher Crt 1.: 111 qher Crt 2.: 1\ RESS J - COPIES MAILED 6/19/1998 2:39 0/00/0000 0/00/0000 1 7 11 MDA 99 10/11/1999 10/29/0099 DEFlmDI\N'I' III\V!': B\o:EN WI'J'HDIlI\WN - BY KEVIN 10/5/99 --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUGGESTION OF BI\NKIlUPTCY BY STEVEN P MINEIl ESQ -------------.------------------------------------------------------ NOTICE OF I\PPEI\L TO SUPERIOR COURT FHOM ORDER ENTERED 10/4/99 BY WI\Ul'ER WI UI'SCIIEK ------------------------------------------------------------------- 12/03/1999 1/27/2000 TRANSCRIPT FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF I\PPEAL DOCKETING TO I 1711 MDA 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LI\ST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------.------------------------------------- ******************************************************************************** * Escrow Information * * Fees & Debits Bea Bal Pvmts/Ad-j End Bal * ************************************************~******************************* WRIT OF SUMMONS TAX ON WRIT SETTLEMENT JCP FEE I\PPEAL 35.00 35.00 .50 .50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 30.00 30.00 ------------------------ 75.50 75.50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ------------ .00 ******************************************************************************** * End of Case Information * ******************************************************************************** TRUE OOPY FROM R~ 11'1 T8Iltimony 'l'ffiaraol. I hore unto rot ~ I-.i "lId u1 .i ~)')U(11~ Carlisle" Pa. r . ,(l,~ J!%t. r' ....... INDEX OF \'JITNESSES FOR TIm PI.I\I NTI FF DIRECT CROSS \'Jalter Wiltscheck 3 23 Suzanne Abel (As on Cross) 41 Arnold J. Baum 50 53 David Abel 54 FOR THE DEFENDANT Suzanne Abel 57 76 John Zimmerman 88 97 Christine Ramos 98 102 REBUTTAL \'Jalter Wiltscheck 104 106 INDEX OF EXHIBITS FOR THE PLAINTIFF MARKED ADMITTED Ex. No. 1 - power of attorney 5 57 Ex. No. 2 - deed 11 57 Ex. No. 3 - settlement statement 11 57 Ex. No. 4 - mortgage contract 14 57 FOR THE DEFENDANT Ex. No. 1 - DMV document 63 103 Ex. No. 2 - DMV document 64 103 Ex. No. 3 - invoices 84 103 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 matters, docketed at 98-3425 and 98-3426. Before we call 10 our first witness, Your Honor, there is one procedural 11 matter I would like to represent to the court. I had 12 issued a subpoena for Mr. David Abel. And it appears as 13 though I don't need Mr. Abel to remain and will not be 14 presenting him as a witness today. I have to apologize 15 also on the record for not talking to him prior to today. 16 He had requested not to be present. And I didn I t really 17 expect him to appear, but he has appeared. I would ask 18 that he be released from that, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Any objection? 20 MS. ABEL: No, Your Honor. 21 THE COURT: Then he is excused from the 22 subpoena, 23 MR. MOONEY: Thank you, Your Honor. We 24 would then call, Your Honor, Walter Wiltschek. 25 Whereupon, WALTER WILTSCHEK, having been THE COURT: Good morning. MS. I\BEL: Good morning, Your Honor. MR. MOONEY: Good morning. THE COURT: Counsel ready? MR. MOONEY: We are, Your Honor. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. MOONEY: Good morning, Your Honor. John Mooney appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs in these 3 1 duly sworn, testified as follows: 2 MR. MOONEY: Your I~nor, Mr. Wiltschek has a 3 hearing problem, so I wi 11 t,(. asking my queRt ions very 4 loud. 5 THE COURT: I understand. Go ahead. 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MOONEY: Q A Q A 17404. Q A Q 16 Del Carmen Gomez? 17 A I am married to her. 18 Q And is she a United States citizen? 19 A No. She is a Chilean citizen. 20 21 22 Q What is your ethnic background, sir? A Pardon? 23 Q What is your ethnic background? Are you a citizen of any other countries other than the United 24 States? 25 A I was born in Chile, South America. I grew 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 up Bolivia, Chile, Argentina and Europe. Q Now, Mr. Wiltschek, did you have occasion to serve as a power of ~ttorney for your wife, Monica Del Carmen Gomez? A I did. (Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit No.1 was marked for identification.) MR. MOONEY: May I approach the witness, Your Honor? THE COURT: Certainly. BY MR. MOONEY: Q Mr. Wiltschek, I am showing you what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit NO.1. It appears to be a power of attorney for Monica Del Carmen Gomez to yourself, is that correct? A That's correct. Q And, Mr. Wiltschek, did you in fact use that power of attorney to purchase a property located at 119 South Duke Street in York, Pennsylvania? A No. I did not. Dr. Gerald Gingrich had an identical power. And he used his power of attorney to purchase the property. Q And what was the location of this property? A 119 South Duke Street in York, Pennsylvania. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .,""-... Q And do you recall when you purchased it, sir? A I believe that the property was purchased August 15, 1997. Q Now, Mr. Wiltschek, that property, could you just generally describe what type of property it is? A It is a three story single home, brick, in downtown York, with a large enclosed yard and a three car garage. Q A Q Did you reside in that property at sometime? Yes, I did. Had that property previously been used as a law office? A Yes. The first floor was used as a law office before it was purchased for Monica Del Carmen Gomez. 16 Q You are married to her, correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Was there a plan for her to come to the 19 United States? 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Yes, there was. Q Has she come to the United States? A No. She has not. Q And do you have a child with her? A Yes, I do. Q And is that child in the United States? 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Yes, she is. Q Now, Mr. Wiltschek, the property at 119 South Duke Street, do you recall how much that property was purchased for? A It was purchased for $40,000.00. Q Mr. Wiltschek, do you know Suzanne Abel? A Yes, I do. Q And how did you come to know Suzanne Abel? A I have been residing in Europe and Germany. Monica Del Carmen Gomez had been residing with me. She went back to Chile. I came back to the United States. We had decided that we would live in York, Pennsylvania. And after I got back, in December of 1997, a friend of mine had told me that you could meet some interesting people through these matchmaker ads in the paper. And in the Merchandiser published in the Hanover area, I saw an ad that said cultural woman, thirty-six years old, et cetera. And I called her box and left a message. And a few days later I got a call that said this is Suzanne. I am answering your call. And she did not want to leave a phone number. She called three times until she reached me at my telephone number. Q Do you know when it was that you first met her? A I met her on December 20th, 1997. 7 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .~-, I'~:\ 1 Q And where did you meet? 2 A At the bar called the Hop in York, 3 Pennsylvania. Q Did you ultimately become intimately involved with her? A Yes, I did. Q Was that a romantic relationship? A Well, not romantic -- it was a sexual and romantic relationship. Q How quickly after meeting her did that relationship begin? A We met on the 20th. She asked me to come to her house for Christmas Day, which was five days later. At 5029 East Trindle Road in Mechanicsburg. the day together with her three children. I did. We spent And then in the 16 evening she asked me to come back to her bedroom and we 17 started petting. 18 19 20 21 22 23 with her three children. We went to what's called 24 Christmas Magic, a light show. r had my daughter with me. 25 We had dinner at Argentos Restaurant. And after the dinner Q Did you stay over then? A No. r did not. Q After that was there a point in time when you spent the night, the entire night? A Three days later. She came down to York 8 1 2 3 .1 I 4 [ ! 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,-., I asked her when do you want me to come back and visit you. She said after you drop your daughter off tonight. And I said what do you want me to bring along. And she said a toothbrush and a change of underwear. And I stayed overnight that night with her three children in the apartment. Q Now, Mr. Wiltschek, did Ms. Abel indicate to you anything about her employment or what she was employed as? A The very first night that I met her at the Hop I asked her what do you do for a living. And she told me I am an attorney. And I asked her what kind of 1 '''J.ctice do you have. And she said, oh, I am not in private practice. I work for the State of Pennsylvania at the Worker's Compensation Appeals Board. Q At sometime within the next several weeks did you and she discuss the property at 119 South Duke Street? A Did I do what? Q Did you discuss the property at 119 South Duke Street with her sometime after the end of December, 1997? A Yes. The Saturday after Christmas she came to the house with her children. She t0ld me how much she liked the house. And that she would like to get away from 9 1 Mechanicsburg and live in York. And that she would like to 2 purchase a property. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q Did she indicate anything about using it as a site for a law office? A Yes. She told me that the first floor was ideal to set up a law practice. Q At this time did you have any reason not to trust her or believe in what she was telling you? A I did not. Q Now, Mr. Wiltschek, did you and she talk about a sale of that property then? A Yes, we did. Q And what were the terms of that going to be? A She was going to pay the same price that had been paid my Monica, which was $40,000.00. Q Now, did Suzanne Abel indicate to you how 17 she was going to pay for that? 18 A She said she expected to receive a large 19 cash settlement from her ex-husband, David Abel. 20 Q Had she indicated to you on other occasions 21 or made representations to you about getting money and you 22 had in fact had gone places with her and she had gotten 23 money? Had you accompanied her? 24 A Yes. She asked me on one occasion to 25 accompany her to Biglerville, where she had resided with 10 1 her boyfriend Gary Castile. She said that her ex-husband, 2 David Abel, just to annoy her, had sent her checks [or 3 money for several thousand dollars that he owed her to the 4 Biglerville address, Beachtown Road, as I remember. And we 5 drove there together. And the checks were in the mailbox, 6 and she picked them up. 7 Q So what she had told you turned out to be correct? 8 9 10 A Q Pardon? What she had told you about getting this 11 money turned out to be correct? 12 A That's correct 13 (Whereupon, 14 Plaintiff's Exhibit Nos. 2 & 3 15 were marked for identification.) 16 MR. MOONEY: May I approach the witness, Your Honor? 17 18 THE COURT: Certainly. 19 BY MR. MOONEY: 20 Q Mr. Wiltschek, I am showing you what has 21 been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No.2. Can you identify 22 that as the deed that was in fact used to convey title to 23 this property to Ms. Abel? 24 25 A Q That is correct. And the consideration stated on there, Mr. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wiltschek, is $40,000.00, is that correct? A That is correct. Q Did you receive $40,000.00 from Ms. Abel? A I did not. Q Did Dr. Gingrich receive $40,000.00 from Ms. Abel? He did not, to the best of my knowledge. Did Monica Del Carmen Gomez receive A Q $40,000.00? A She did not. Q I would like to direct your attention then to what's been marked as Exhibit 3. Is that in fact a copy of the settlement sheet from that transaction? A I have it. Q Now, that indicates that the purchase price was $40,000.00, and that there was a deposit of $40,000.00. Was there a deposit? A There was no deposit. Q Why wasn't a deposit made and why did this transaction go through? A Ms. Abel told me that she was going to bring a check the day of the transaction. And when Attorney Patrono asked her for the check for $40,000.00, she said I don't have the money. Q So what did you do? 12 .~ " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,.., ,/""""; A I didn't do anything. I believe we told Dr. Gingrich that the check would be in the mail. That's what she had told me that she would send the check in the mail to Dr. Gingrich, who was acting as the power of attorney for Monica Del Carmen Gomez. o Now, Mr. Wiltschek, after the settlement date, did you continue to reside in the property? A Yes, I did. o After the settlement date did you continue to have a relationship with Suzanne Abel? A Yes, I did. o And did you in fact become engaged to her on February the 14th, 1998? A I did. I would say she pressured me into that. She told me at work she was what she called the butt of jokes. get laid. It was a joke that she could not get a date or And that the only way she would continue the relationship with me was if I gave her an engagement ring. So on February 14 February 13, we drove to Atlantic City. And the next day we took a bus, a Greyhound bus to New York, went to the Empire State Building, and I gave her an engagement ring. o Did you continue to see her regularly throughout the month of January, February and March of 1998? 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A Yes, I did. I was basically staying at her apartment in Mechanicsburg during the week, at her request (Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit No.4 was marked for identification.) Q Mr. Wiltschek, I would like to have you identify what I have marked as Exhibit No.4. Do you recognize that document? MS. ABEL: Objection to foundation, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: It looks to me as a mortgage 13 contract. 14 BY MR. MOONEY: 15 Q What is the date of that mortgage? 16 A It is dated April 8, 1998. 17 Q And that's a mortgage on the property at 119 18 South Duke Street? 19 THE COURT: Well, in light of the objection 20 and his comment that it looks like a mortgage, he obviously 21 does not know. 22 THE WITNESS: Well, it is a mortgage -- 23 MR. MOONEY: Held on. I can clean that up 24 if the Court would like. 25 THE COURT: Go ahead. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 BY MR. MOONEY: Q Did you in fact go to the records of York County and obtain that document? A Yes, I did. Q Now, that's dated April the 8th of 1998? A Correct. Q How long did you live in the property, Mr. Wiltschek, at 119 South Duke Street? A The last day that I was in the house was April 14, 1998. Q Now, on that day, the last day that you resided there, did you at that time know that there had been a mortgage placed against the property by Suzanne Abel? A I did not know that. Q How did it come to be that after April the 14th, 1998, you no longer resided at the property? 18 A I was away from York for about a week 19 MS. ABEL: Objection to relevance __ 20 THE COURT: What? 21 MS. ABEL: Objection to relevance, Your 22 Honor. The cause of action is a breach of contract. 23 THE COURT: Overruled. Let's move on with 24 the facts of the case. Go ahead. 25 BY MR. MOONEY: 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q Mr. Wiltschek, tell us how it came to be that after April 14th you didn't reside there? What happened? A I was away from York for I would say about two weeks. And when I returned, the doors that lock on the front door had been changed. And I could not get into the property. Q Did you talk to Ms. Abel? A Yes, I did. Q What did she say? A She met me in person on May 1st, 1998, at the Bob Evans restaurant in York. Two days after she broke up with me, which would have been March 22nd, 1998, I told her I would like to have the keys to the property back, and you need to reverse the transaction since you are breaking up with me. And she said I need the keys because I am going to remodel the house. And I said what do you mean remodel the house. I am going to remodel it and sell it. And I said what about me. She said you have to move out. I said, I don't have a place to move out. She told me go to a rescue mission. Q Sometime around the end of March did you 23 authorize Dr. Gingrich to send a letter asking for the 24 $40,000.00? 25 A Yes, I did. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Q Did you ever receive that $40,000.00 on behalf of Ms. Del Carmen Gomez? A I did not. Q Now, Walt, prior to that had you had other financial dealings with Ms. Abel prior to the termination of the relationship? A Yes. I arranged for $5,000.00 to be deposited into her account at the State Employees Credit Union in Harrisburg. I had an account in Germany still from when I lived there. She showed me the papers. She actually got $4,988.00. $12.00 were deducted for bank fees. Q Why did you do that? A She told me she needed money to pay for a psychological study. She was behind on her car payments and on her rent. And she told me she would repay me. Q How was she going to repay you? A Again, she had mentioned that she would be receiving a large cash settlement. Q Do you know when this $5,000.00 was transferred to her account? 22 A January 15, 1998. 23 Q Did you also lend her another $500.00? 24 A Yes, I did. Her car was damaged in three 25 places. She wanted to sell it because it was approaching 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 100,000 miles. 1 got estimates for her car. I borrowed $500.00 from my ex-wife, Karen Garret. I had her car repaired at Marcho's Body Shop in Hanover and paid for it. Q Did she ever pay you that $500.007 A She did not. Q Now, in February of 1998 did you have a transaction with her involving a certain BMW vehicle? A Yes, I did. Q And can you describe what this vehicle was, where you obtained it? A I had purchased the 1992 BMW automobile in Germany. I had it shipped over here. I had been told by AAA that because it was over five years old I didn't have to pay to convert it. Well, when it arrived here, they told me that the extension had expired. And I would have to pay $5,000.00 to get it converted to U.S. standards. The vehicle arrived here in December of 1997. Shortly before I met Ms. Abel it was done with the conversion. I 19 told her about the car. And she told me that she wanted to 20 see it. And the automobile was stored at Frances Kreb's 21 home in Hanover. She looked at the car and said, oh, 22 that's a beautiful car. I want to buy it from you. I said 23 fine. I want to sell it because I need money. 24 And on January the 5th, 1998, we went to the 25 AAA office in Hanover. Had a mechanic certify the VIN 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .."'-", p.'::- number, and tried to do the purchase at AAA. But AAA said that the fair market value was $20,000.00. And she told me I don't have that much monel to pay the sales tax on it. She was going to pay for the price of the car later. And we didn't do a transaction. Q Did you agree upon a sales price? A Yes, we did. Q What was that? A I believe it was $18,865.00. Q Did you attempt to make a transfer of the vehicle at another notary? A Yes. Three days later we wpnt to SHS services, which is owned by Loretta Selman, on January 8th. And she did the paperwork. And the price of the car was written as $8,865.00 and some cents. Because, again, Ms. Abel wanted to save on the tax, and she did pay -- write a check for the sales tax on that amount to PennDOT. Q Did that transfer occur? 19 A After February 14, after I had given an 20 engagement ring to Ms. Abel, she told me that Loretta 21 Selman had called her and said that PennDOT had rejected 22 the paperwork, because the car had to be first registered 23 in my name and then transferred to her -- sold to her. She 24 told me that Loretta Selman was very upset with me. And 25 that she was going to handle everything. 19 1 Q Wha t do you mean she was going to handle 2 everything? She being who? 3 A All the paperwork on the __ 4 Q Who was going to handle everything? 5 A Suzanne Abel. 6 Q All right. 7 A She went to Loretta Selman's office, picked 8 up all the paperwork. I never got to see them. This was 9 on February 18, 1998. The next day she told me we would go 10 to PennDOT in Harrisburg. I know how to do all this. You 11 leave it to me. And we will get the transfer done the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 proper way. Q A Q A Q A Did you accompany her to PennDOT? ~ Yes. I met her there. Did you sign any paperwork? Yes, I did. Were you shown what you were signing? She put several papers in front of me, told 19 me sign here, put your driver's license here. I did not 20 get to read the forms that I was signing. 21 Q Did you hear Ms. Abel make any 22 representations to the clerk about her last name and the 23 reason it was different from yours or what her employment 24 was? 25 A Yes. The PennDOT employee, her initials are 20 1 KR, they will not tell you their name, asked Ms. Abel how 2 come your names are different, because one of the forms for 3 some reason said that I was her husband that she signed. 4 And she said how come your names are different. And she 5 said because I am an attorney I didn't want to change my 6 name. 7 Q When that statement was made, did you think 8 that there was any possibility that you were gifting this 9 car to Ms. Abel? 10 11 A Q No. I did not. With respect to the car, did you ever intend 12 to give Ms. Abel that car? 13 A No. I did not. It was the only vehicle I 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 had at the time. Q With respect to the real property, located at 119 South Duke Street, did you ever intend to just give that property to her? A I did not. I had known Ms. Abel only a very short time. Q Did you subsequently learn that Ms. Abel was not an attorney? A Q A Yes, I did. How and when did you learn that? I contacted her place of employment, and 25 they told me that she was not an attorney, that she was a 21 law clerk. 1 2 3 4 Q Did you then check with the disciplinary committee to see if she was a licensed attorney? A I did. And I was also told that she is not 5 a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania. 6 Q Did you ask Ms. Abel to repay the money for 7 the car, the moneys that you loaned her, as well as the 8 $40,000.00 for the property at 119 South Duke Street in 9 York, Pennsylvania? 10 A Yes, I did. When she broke up with me, I 11 had been driving her car, which was a '94 Honda Civic. And 12 she had been driving the BMW. That night she demanded that 13 I hand the keys to her Honda Civic. I had a set of keys to 14 the BMW. I drove away in the BMW with my belongings which 15 I had in her apartment. And I said, let me know when you 16 want to meet to transfer title of the car back to me. And 17 she told me if you don't return the car to me by tomorrow, 18 I will call the police and report it as a stolen vehicle. 19 And on Friday, the next day, I got a call from Hampden 20 Township Police, telling me that if I did not return the 21 car to Ms. Abel by Saturday at 3:00 p.m. I would be charged 22 with stealing the vehicle. 23 Q Prior to Ms. Abel terminating your 24 relationship, had she ever said to you that she considered 25 the house and the car and the money to be gifts? 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 r BY MS. ABEL: Q When you answerod my ad in December of 1998 -- A Oh, yes, I was. Q Thank you. Do you frequently have relationships with other women while you are married? MR. MOONEY: Object on the basis of 8 relevance, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: I do not. BY MS. ABEL: Q What was the date of birth of the child that you had with Ms. Perez? MR. MOONEY: I object on the basis -- THE COURT: Explain why this is relevant, 15 why his personal life is relevant? 16 MS. ABEL: Your Honor, as part of a 17 counterclaim and to defend myself against the fraud, I have 18 alleged that in fact it is the plaintiff who had defrauded 19 me. And that there was an ongoing course of conduct on the 20 plaintiff's behalf, in which he defrauded me on just about 21 every material aspect of his life, beginning with the fact 22 that he never disclosed that he was married, that there was 23 this alleged child. It all goes to establish fraud, Your 24 Honor. 25 THE COURT: Go ahead. 24 ....~"" ...., 1 BY MS. ABEL: 2 Q So you were married on January 31st, 1995. 3 What was the date of birth of the child that you allegedly 4 had with Ms. Perez? 5 A January 31, 1995. 6 Q Busy day. The $40,000.00 cash that you paid 7 for the house in York -- 8 9 10 11 12 A Q A Q I did not pay $40,000.00 cash for any house. Where did the $40,000.00 come from? It came from Monica Del Carmen Gomez. Do you have any idea where she got that money? 13 MR. MOONEY: Obj ect on the basis of 14 relevance, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: You will have to shed some light 16 on that. 17 MS. ABEL: I will move on, Your Honor. 18 BY MS. ABEL: 19 Q You had a power of attorney with Ms. Perez 20 dated July 14th, I believe, 1997? 21 A Yes, I did. 22 Q That you offered as Exhibit No.1. You also 23 testified that Mr. Gingrich had a power of attorney with your wife? 24 25 A Yes, I did. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q Do you know why you had two separate powers of attorney? A Because Dr. Gingrich and his wife were going to assist me in bringing Monica Del Carmen to this country. Q If you were Ms. Perez' husband, why didn't you put the house in your name? MR. MOONEY: I am going to object, Your Honor, on the basis of relevance. THE COURT: Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Why? BY MS. ABEL: 12 Q Yes. 13 A Because she wanted to immigrate to the 14 United States. Because it was her money. And because it 15 was thought that it would be helpful for her to get a Visa 16 if she owned property in this country. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Now, the question was why isn't your name the power of attorney on the deed? A Pardon? Q A Why weren't you the power of attorney -- Because Dr. Gingrich acted as the power of attorney. Q Why weren't you the power of attorney for the house? A I don't understand the question why. I said 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -'''''~ why Dr. Gingrich did it. Q I didn't ask why he did it. I asked why you were not the power of attorney for your wife for the house that was purchased with her money in York, Pennsylvania? A Because it was decided that he would execute the power of attorney. Q who decided that Mr. Gingrich would execute the power of attorney on behalf of your wife? A He said he was going to do it. Q You are saying that Dr. Gingrich came to you and said I am going to exercise power of attorney over your wife for property in Pennsylvania, and you said okay? A No. I said Monica wants to purchase this property. Would you accept the power of attorney and purchase the property on her behalf. And he said yes. Q Why, if you already had a power of attorney for her, did you not do it yourself as her husband? MR. MOONEY: I think it has been asked and answered, Your Honor. MS. ABEL: It has been asked, Your Honor, but it has not been answered. THE COURT: It has been asked about five times. Is there a particular reason why it was Dr. Gingrich and not you? If there was no particular reason, then there was no particular reason. But was there a 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~.~" particular reason? THE WITNESS: There was no particular reason. THE COURT: There was no particular reason? THE WITNESS: There was no particular reason. We didn't want to have a conflict of interest. THE COURT: Okay. Fine. BY MS. ABEL: Q Mr. Wiltschek, did you ever see any evidence that I was an attorney? Did you ever see anything tangible? A I don't know about seeing, but I heard evidence. Q A Well, but -- what I am asking is -- Oh, I did see evidence I would say. Q Okay. A When one of your friends came to your apartment. Her name is Tina. I don't know her last name. She came with legal documents about her divorce. And you told me I am helping Tina with her divorce case. So I assumed that you were acting as an attorney, advising her on her case. Q Did you ever see any business cards with my name listed as an attorney at law? A You kept everything locked in the apartment, 28 1 so I had no access to your personal belongings. 2 Q So you saw nothing tang ible. I twas just 3 YOllr slIRpicions and assumptions? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Well, you told me that the law clerks at the Worker's Compensation Appeal Board were jealous of you because you were an attorney. And you coulc.i come and go as you pleased. And they were jealous, because they were just simple clerks. Q And that was before or after they were -- how did you put it -- I was the butt of the jokes? So they were jealous of me, and I was the butt of jokes? Is that your testimony? A Right. And you asked me to accompany you to a baptism in upstate New York for one of your friends who works at the Worker's Compensation Appeal Board. He is blind MS. ABEL: Nonresponsive, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: And you introduced me to an attorney, and you told me he is also an attorney. BY MS. ABEL: Q Mr. Wiltschek, did you sign the pleadings that your attorney entered on your behalf in these matters? A Did I sign them? Q Yes. A Yes, I did. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r~ Q Did you read them? A Yes, I have. Q To the best of your knowledge is the information in the pleadings accurate? A Could I see which documents you are talking about. Q Sure. MS. ABEL: If it please the Court, I have copies. I can pullout the originals if it helps. THE COURT: I have the file in front of me. MS. ABEL: Specifically, Your Honor, I am looking at the plaintiff's answer to new matter and counterclaims. And there are two one under each cause of action. THE COURT: Well, I assume you are going to ask him about specific allegations. So I will wait until you do that. BY MS. ABEL: Q Mr. Wiltschek, you testified on direct that you borrowed $500.00 from your ex-wife, Karen Garret? A I did. Q And then the statement that, quote, it is denied that plaintiff alleged the $500.00 was a prior loan from his ex-wife is inaccurate? A I don't understand the question. 30 ,'''''\', r- 1 Q In your pleadings you alleged that you never 2 borrowed any money or got any money from your eX-~life? 3 A I believe I said that I didn't borrow the 4 money for a romant ic weekend. I borrowed the money to 5 repair your car. 6 MS. ABEL: With the Court's indulgence, 7 please. 8 MR. MOONEY: Your Honor, I would like to 9 note for the record that Ms. Abel is representing herself 10 pro se. I am unsure procedurally what she may need to 11 discuss with individuals throughout the trial. 12 THE COURT: If she wants to talk to people, 13 she can, as long as it doesn't delay the proceedings. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1988. 25 BY MS. ABEL: Q Mr. Wiltschek, were you employed in December of 1997? A Yes, I was. Q Where were you working? A I was employed by the Electrolux Corporation at the Hanover branch. Q Were you ever employed with DentsPly Corporation? A I was employed by DentsPly from 1971 to Q Isn't it true, Mr. Wiltschek, that you 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 represented to me that you were employed or had been employed with DentsPly? A That I had been employed until 19HH, that's correct. Q I\nd wasn't your position there as an international sales representative? A No. It was a regional expert manager. Q Did you ever travel in the course of that job? A Yes, I did. Q What passport did you use? A I have had an American passport since 1976 when I became a U.S. citizen. Q Has that passport ever been canceled or revoked? A Never. Q Are you sure? A Yes. I have it here in my briefcase if you would like to look at it. Q Yeah. I would actually. THE COURT: This better be real pertinent to something. MS. ABEL: Your Honor, again, it goes to fraud. THE COURT: Okay. What did he tell you 32 ~, r", 1 about his citizenship? 2 MS. ABEL: No. He alleged to me with 3 regards to his passport that it had been revoked pursuant 4 to criminal proceedings in York County for contempt for 5 failure to disclose the whereabouts of a child the court 6 ordered him to return. 7 THE COURT: My goodness. This is getting 8 more and more like a soap opera. 9 MS. ABEL: It is, Your Honor. 10 MR. MOONEY: Judge, if I may speak to this. 11 The claims of the defendant that the plaintiff has 12 defrauded her, I don't think they are contained in her 13 counterclaims. She has lost no property. She has claimed 14 an intentional infliction of emotional distress, which we 15 are going to have some testimony on her psychological 16 well-being. But there has been -- although it is raised in 17 her new matter I assume, Your Honor, I think 18 THE COURT: Take a quick look at his 19 passport and move on. 20 MS. ABEL: If it please the court, the issue 21 is defamation. 22 THE COURT: I have already ruled on it. You 23 don r t have to talk about it anymore. As I said, take a 24 quick look at his passport. 25 BY MS. ABEL: 33 P" . " /"", 5 Q When was this passport issued, sir? A The dato that's on the passport. Q \<lhen was the passport issued, sir? A July 2nd, 1997, Q So if there is another passport that says 1 2 3 4 6 canceled July 2nd, 1997... 7 A Yes. When your old passport expires, they 8 put cancel on it, and they issue a new one. That is the 9 procedure. 10 THE COURT: I will take judicial notice of 11 that. 12 BY MS. ABEL: 13 Q Did you ever disclose to me your 14 relationship with Ms. Perez? 15 A Yes, I did. 16 Q When did you disclose to me that 17 relationship? 18 A At the very beginning. 19 Q What did you tell me? 20 A That I was married to Monica Del Carmen, and 21 that she was filing for annulment. 22 Q Did you ever disclose to me any information 23 about your daughter? 24 A About her daughter? 25 Q Your daughter, Jazmin. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ./"""", r"', 17 fraud. The plaintiff alleged that he was he never 18 alleged that he was married to Ms. Perez. In fact, his 19 ex-wife 20 THE COURT: He has just told you -- his 21 testimony is that he said he did. So badgering him about 22 it is counter-productive. I will certainly hear you out on 23 the issue and listen very carefully to what you have to 24 say. 25 BY MS. ABEL: ^ I don't disclose anything. You met my daughter. She stayed overnight at your apartment. So you know very well who my daughter is. o Did you ever provide me any information about her parentage? A I told you that Monica and I are her parents. o Does Jazmin live with you solely right now? MR. MOONEY: Your Honor, I would like to object. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. ABEL: o Do you have sole custody of your daughter? MR. MOONEY: Same question, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MS. ABEL: Again, Your Honor, it goes to 35 ....'..., 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q Mr'. ~liltfJchek, you testified on direct that you did not have any other cal.' beflidefl the '92 BMW? ^ At the time when it WilS transferred to you I did not. Q Did you ever own a 1988 Mercury Sable? A Yes, I did. Q When did you purchase that? A I believe it was in December of 1997. Q Did you ever sell that vehicle? A Yes, I did. Q When did you sell that? A I sold it in January of 1998. Q To whom did you sell that? A To Kay Gingrich. Q So when you testified that at the time you transferred the vehicle to me you had no other vehicle, that was not correct? A It is correct, because I no longer had the Mercury. It had already been transferred to Kay Gingrich. She had already physical possession of the vehicle. Q When did she take physical possession of the vehicle? A I don't remember. I don't have the 24 information with me. You may want to ask Ms. Gingrich. 25 She is here in the courtroom. 36 ~' ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Q Were there ever any documents signed evidencing any of these alleged contracts between you and me? A Well, you signed the documents for transfer of the BMW at Loretta Selman'S office in Hanover. You signed documents at the PennDOT offices in Harrisburg. You signed the settlement sheet for the property in York at Apple Leaf Abstract I believe the company is called. Q Were there ever any contracts of sale documents signed beyond the title transfer documents? A Signed, I don't believe so. Q So there is no evidence of these alleged 13 contracts between you and me? 14 A I don't know about contracts. I know that 15 you signed the documents for transfer of the property on 16 the automobile to you. 17 Q And did you sign those documents as well? 18 A I signed the one for the automobile, not the 19 20 21 22 23 24 not have my glasses with me at PennDOT when you asked me to 25 sign different documents. one for the property. Q And when you signed it, were you ill? A Was I ill? Q Yes? A No. But I am hard of hearing. And I did 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 /'''- o I\re you an educated man, Mr. Wiltschek? ^ I believe so. o Do you speak any other language besides English? A Yes, I do. I speak German, French and Spanish. o And so if in the pleadings you allege that you don't speak any other languages, that would have been incorrect? A I don't remember -- I don't know what pleadings you are talking about. I believe my attorney admitted that I do speak foreign languages. o Is it your custom as an educated man who speaks several foreign languages to sign documents and enter into contracts without the benefit of reading any of it or having any of it in writing? A It is when the person who asks me to do it has told me that she is an attorney, and that I have a trusting relationship with that person. o So if as you allege I was an attorney, you automatically signed A I am not alleging that is what you told me. o Would you please let me finish the question? If as you allege you only gave this to me because I was an attorney, then it follows that you would not have given any 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - of this if you had known I was not an attorney? Is that accurate? 1\ Well, that was one because you told me you were an attorney, which I believe I respect members of society because they have to be in court and follow certain rules of ethics. And, secondly, because we were involved in a romantic sexual relationship, which you had told me you intended to conduct a marriage. So I believe that if you were going to be my future wife that I could trust you. Q Did you expect I would be your future wife? A Pardon? 12 Q Did you expect I would be your future wife? 13 A That's what you told me in New York on 14 February 14. When I said will you marry me, you said yes. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q But on direct you testified that I coerced you into becoming engaged? A You did. Q To the best of your knowledge -- excuse me, let me rephrase. Mr. Wiltschek, when you transferred the title to the vehicle, is it your testimony today that you were under coercion? A Which vehicle are we talking about? Q How many vehicles were there? THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You are the one that asked the first question. Let's not 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 BY MS. ABEL: 21 have the dog chase the tail. BY MS. ABEL: Q The vehicle that you alleged in your complaint, when you signed the documents, for that -- A The 1992 BMW. Q Yes, sir. A Yes. You told me pretty much that I was stupid because I had not done the paperwork right. That you would take care of everything. You told me stand back. I will take care of all these things. I know how to handle PennDOT. You put different papers in front of me, which I did not read. You told me sign here. Put your driver's license number here. And that is what I did. I trusted you. Q An educated man? THE COURT: Was that a question? BY MS. ABEL: Q Are you an educated man? THE COURT: He already said he was. Q Was there any contract, any written 22 agreement between you and me, with regards to the $5,000.00 23 that you transferred -- 24 THE COURT: Ms. Abel, he already said there 25 were no written contracts. We are not going to start to 40 "-'~', 1 repeat testimony. That's not why I am sitting here. 2 Anything else? 3 4 5 6 7 8 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 9 AFTER RECESS 1 0 MR. MOONEY: Your Honor, we would I ike to 11 call the defendant, Suzanne Abel. 12 THE COURT: As on cross? 13 MR. MOONEY: Yes. 14 MS. ABEL: Your Honor, may I be allowed to 15 take a note paper and pen so that I can take notes as I am 16 answering questions? 17 THE COURT: As long as it doesn't delay 18 anything. I have never heard of that procedure, so we will 19 play this by ear. 20 Whereupon, SUZANNE ABEL, having been duly 21 sworn, testified as follows: 22 (AS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION) 23 BY MR. MOONEY: 24 Q State your full name for the court. 25 A Suzanne Abel. MS. ABEL: I am finished, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you have any redirect? MR. MOONEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sir, you may step down. THE COURT: We will take a brief recess. 41 -', ,-, 1 Q Ms. Abel, where do you reside? 2 1~E COURT: Ms. Abel, stop taking notes. 3 This is already delaying matters. Where do you live? 4 THE WITNESS: 1204 Louisa Lane, 5 Mechanicsburg. 6 BY MR. MOONEY: 7 8 9 10 11 Q A Q What is your date of birth? 10/7/61. Your social security number? THE WITNESS: That's not relevant, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Answer the question. 13 THE WITNESS: (The social security number 14 was given at this point but was later stricken from the 15 transcript by the Court.) 16 BY MR. MOONEY: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Ms. Abel, you are not an attorney, are you? A No, sir. Q You graduated from law school? A Yes, sir. Q When did you graduate? A May of '95. Q And prior to meeting Mr. Wiltschek how many times did you take the Pennsylvania Bar Exam? A More than once. I can sit here and 42 -, 1 calculate it if Your Honor would like. In Pennsylvania or 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 anywhere? him. Q A Pennsylvania. I believe it was four times before I met Q Now, Ms. Abel, I would like to refer your attention to the exhibit marked Exhibit 3. MR. MOONEY: May I approach the witness with the exhibits, Your Honor? THE COURT: Go ahead. Exhibit 2? A Q $40,000.00? A Q A 11 BY MR. MOONEY: 12 Q Referring you to Exhibit 3. Could you take 13 a look at page two, and does that contain your signature? 14 A Yes, it does. 15 Q Now, would you agree with me that you did 16 not pay $40,000.00 for the property? 17 A That's correct. Q And the deed, which I believe was marked 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Yes. Does that also reference a consideration of Yes, it does. You did not pay Walter Wiltschek that? No. I did not. 43 0'"''''' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And you did not pay Dr. Gingrich that money, Q correct? A That's correct. Q Nor have you paid Monica Del Carmen Gomez? A Never met her. Q The property at 119 South Duke Street, you encumbered with a mortgage, correct? A Yes, I did. Q And in your application process to Beneficial did you in fact represent to them that you bought the property for $40,000.00? A That's not my recollection, sir. Q What did you represent to them? A My recollection is I told them what it was, which was a gift. That there was a $40,000.00 consideration that was paid on my behalf, that it was a gift to me. Q The gift theory that you have, did you file and claim this gift on your income tax? A I don't know. Q You don't know? A Q A Q No. Did you file a tax return for the year 1997? Yes. Did you file one in 1998? 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A Yes. Q In the 1998 tax return did you claim a gift of a house of $40,000.00? A I filed a 1040(a) form, sir, and I didn't see anyplace to put it on. Q Did you file a gift of this BMW? A Again, there was no place to put it on. I did list it as assets. Q Ms. Abel, you have filed a counterclaim in this matter? A Yes, sir. Q Indicating that Mr. Wiltschek has caused you emotional distress? THE WITNESS: If it please the Court, I am withdrawing that cause of action. THE COURT: All right. BY MR. MOONEY: Q You were not expecting to receive a divorce settlement in the winter of 1998, were you? A I was divorced in 1990, sir. Q Were you expecting to receive a cash settlement from your ex-husband, David Abel? A The divorce was settled and final three 24 months after. There was no expectation of any settlement 25 ever. There was never any representation of any 45 ~ 1 settlement. The situation between my ex-husband and myself , I: , . 2 has been resolved for years. And everyone who knows me 3 knows that. And I never represented anything to anyone 4 else to the contrary. \; 5 Q You were, however, expecting to receive a 6 lump sum arrearage payment at that time, weren't you? .' 7 A Pursuant to the custody situation that 8 finally resolved with regards to my two boys, there was a 9 one time lump sum payment. I believe it was in the amount 10 of around forty-five hundred or $5,000.00. And that I did 11 receive. And that was it. And that was already spent 12 before it ever came. Most of that went to my attorney in 13 the custody matter. 14 Q And that was happening at about the time 15 that Mr. Wiltschek and you talked about this house and 16 transferred this car? 17 A You are a little bit confused about time, 18 sir. That was settled in October of '97 before I ever met 19 the plaintiff. 20 Q The home equity loan that you obtained from 21 Beneficial is a lien upon the property at 119 South Duke 22 Street? 23 A Yes, sir. 24 Q And at the time that you obtained that loan 25 had you evicted Mr. Wiltschek? 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A Mr. Wiltschek was never evicted. He voluntarily left. Q He voluntarily left the house? A Abandoned it. And then took a lot of the fixtures out of the house with him, sir. Q How much is this house worth? A It was appraised about seventy thousand. Q Would seventy-five thousand be more accurate? A I am not an appraiser, sir. Q Did you get a copy of the appraisal that was 12 done when you did a refinance at Beneficial? 13 A There was no refinance. It was a finance 14 only. And I believe there was an appraisal. And that was 15 what the finance company used to qualify the loan. 16 Q So it is your testimony that Mr. Wiltschek, 17 after giving you the house, after giving you the car, after 18 giving you $5,000.00, voluntarily abandoned the house, is 19 that correct? 20 A That's correct. Because I asked him to pay 21 his utilities as he had agreed. And when he found out that 22 I was not happy supporting him, then he threatened to sue 23 me, threatened to make sure that I never practiced law, 24 stalked me, threatened me physically. And then I advised 25 him through the Gingriches and through his attorney that he 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~- should leave since he was threatening me and stalking me. And he in fact did voluntarily leave. Q Ms. Abel, do you suffer from a multiple personality disorder? A Yes, sir. Q And it causes you to have trouble distinguishing facts from reality? A No, sir. Q Are you on any medication now that would impair your memory A Q No, sir. -- or your ability to distinguish fiction 13 from truth? 14 A No, sir. 15 MR. MOONEY: If the court will bear with me 16 for just one moment, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: Okay. 18 BY MR. MOONEY: 19 Q Do you know who Jay Baum is? 20 A That's my daughter's father. 21 Q Did you tell Mr. Baum that you bought this 22 car from Mr. Wiltschek? 23 A No. I have never alleged to anyone that I 24 bought anything. These were all gifts. 25 Q You did go to Loretta Selman's office in 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Hanover, SHS Associates, and complete a form which indicated that there was a sale of this vehicle for about $8,800.00, did you not? A Mr. Wiltschek made arrangements at this office in Hanover. I live in Harrisburg. I don't have any business contacts in Hanover. And all of the forms were already filled out when I got there. And there was a dispute between Mr. Wiltschek and the lady who handled the forms as to the value of the vehicle. That dispute was between the two of them. He had paid for the vehicle. I am not sure what the nature __ Q My question, Ms. Abel, is did you sign a form that indicated it was a sale? A My understanding was I was signing a form accepting title of the vehicle. Q And you paid A The transfer tax. Q Six percent sales tax, correct? 19 A Yes. And the title fees and everything 20 else. That was my agreement with Mr. Wiltschek. That I 21 would pay all the costs associated, and he would give me 22 the vehicle. Because he alleged to me he couldn't get car 23 insurance. 24 MR. MOONEY: That's all the questions I have 25 for Ms. Abel at this time, Your Honor. 49 .~",,,,,..\ r-- 1 THE COURT: In fairness to Ms. Abel, as I 2 reflect on it, her social security number appeared to be 3 less relevant. As I contemplate this, was there a 4 particular reason why you asked that? 5 MR. MOONEY: No, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: We will direct that Ms. Abel's 7 objection is sustained and her social number will be 8 stricken from the transcript of this case. 9 Ms. Abel, we will, of course, give you an 10 opportunity to testify on your own behalf a little later 11 on. With that, you can step down. 12 MR. MOONEY: Your Honor, I would like to 13 call Jay Baum. 14 MS. ABEL: Offer of proof, Your Honor. 15 I'1R. MOONEY: Statements made by the 16 defendant to him, Your Honor, which were subject of her 17 examination just moments ago. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 Whereupon, ARNOLD J. BAUM, having been duly 20 sworn, testified as follows: 21 DIRECT EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. MOONEY: 23 Q Will you state your full name? 24 A Arnold J. Baum. 25 Q Mr. Baum, what is your address, sir? 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A 390 Crooked Hill Road, Hummelstown. Q And do you know Suzanne Abel? A Yes, I do. Q And how do you know her? A For over fifteen years. Met her through David Abel, her ex-husband. Q And do you in fact have a daughter together 8 with Ms. Abel? 9 A Yes, I do. 10 Q In the course of exercising and sharing 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 reply? 25 custody of your daughter, did you have an opportunity to discover that Ms. Abel was driving a 1992 BMW 700 series automobile? A Yes, I did. Q And did it surprise you when you saw her driving such a vehicle? A Yes, it did. Q Why? A I just never expected her to afford a vehicle like that. Q A Q Did you ask her about it? Yes. And what did you ask her, and what did she A I just told her it was a nice car if I 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ,,'.... remember correctly. I\nd she had told me she was purchasing it from Walt. Q You have known Ms. Abel for fifteen years? A At least, yes. Q And you have had contact with her and other members of the community as a result of your daughter that you share with her? Yes. That I have. And for how many years have you shared your A Q daughter? A Q have you had Seven. And in that capacity and in that manner, an opportunity to become familiar with what her reputation is in the community for truthfulness and veracity? and.. . A Yes. Q And what is that? A Most people find that she is standoffish Q You were present for her testimony regarding a personality disorder. You are familiar with that? 24 Honor. 25 A Yes, I am. MS. ABEL: Objection. Relevance, Your THE COURT: She has withdrawn the claim for 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~", mental health implications. MR. MOONEY: She has, Your Honor -_ THE COURT: Are you suggesting that this is going to credibility? MR. MOONEY: No, Your Honor. I will withdraw the question. BY MR. MOONEY: Q Did you ever become -- I have no further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you have any questions? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ABEL: Q Mr. Baum, are we engaged, currently you and I, in litigation regarding the custody of our daughter? A Yes, we are. Q Would it benefit you to have a finding against me today? A Not at all. Q You are sure about that? A In my personal opinion I don't see how I could benefit from this. MS. ABEL: No further questions. THE COURT: Anything else? MR. MOONEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You can step 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Honor. 11 12 13 r-' down. MR. MOONEY: May I have just a moment, Your 'I 14 Honor, to whether or not he in fact owed Ms. Abel a large 15 lump sum of money in the winter of 1998. 16 THE COURT: Okay. He is not going to 17 testify as to any confidential communications between the 18 two of them during their marriage? 19 MR. MOONEY: No, Your Honor. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 Whereupon, DAVID ABEL, having been duly 22 sworn, testified as follows: 23 DIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. MOONEY: 25 Q please state your full name and address for Honor? THE COURT: MR. MOONEY: MS. ABEL: Sure. Call David Abel, Your Honor. Objection, Your Honor. That witness was released. THE COURT: MS. ABEL: I am sorry. I didn't hear you. The witness was released, Your THE COURT: MS. ABEL: MR. MOONEY: Well, he stayed. Offer of proof, Your Honor. He is going to testify, Your 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the court? A David Samuel Abel. 100 Northgate Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Q And, Mr. Abel, were you formerly married to Suzanne Abel? A Yes, I was. Q What was the date of your divorce? A July 11th, 1990. Q Were the economic issues of your divorce resolved at that time in 1990? A Yes. Q So there was no property settlement distribution that was to be forthcoming from you to her? A No, sir. Not at that time. Q You were present for Mr. Wiltschek's testimony earlier? A Yes, sir, I was. Q Mr. Wiltschek indicated that he accompanied Ms. Abel to a Gary Castile's house in Adams County, the Biglerville area, to get some support checks. Did you in fact mail a couple of support checks to Ms. Abel at that particular location? A At that time the only support that she would have been entitled would have come through Cumberland County Domestic Relations since it was withheld from my 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 -- paycheck. Q So you didn't personally mail those checks? A No, sir. I would not have been able to. Q In the late fall of 1997 into the winter of 1998 were there any economic negotiations going on between you and Ms. Abel. which woul.d have resulted in her having some money? A There was at that time, in 1997, in August of '97, Suzanne had voluntarily relinquished full custody of my son Daniel to me and had initiated an action for back support that she felt she was due. Q And what was the amount of that ultimately? A Q We discussed an amount of around $4,000.00. Were you aware of whether or not she ever 15 moved to York, Pennsylvania? 16 A No, sir. My children only had mentioned 17 that she had a house in that area and that they had gone 18 back and forth. And that was why infrequently they were 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 late. MR. MOONEY: That's all the questions I have for Mr. Abel, Your Honor. THE COURT: MS. ABEL: THE COURT: MR. MOONEY: Any questions? No, sir. .. Thank you. You can step down. Your Honor, given my client's 56 1 hearing problem, may I just take him out into the hallway 2 for a minute and just converse with him very briefly? 3 THE COURT: Yes. 4 (Mr. Mooney and his client briefly 5 exi ted the courtroom.) 6 MR. MOONEY: Your Honor, but for moving for 7 the admission of Plaintiff's Exhibits, I believe 1 through 8 4, the plaintiff has no further testimony to present. 9 THE COURT: Is there any objection to any of 10 the exhibits? 11 12 13 14 15 16 MS. ABEL: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: They are admitted. Ms. Abel. MS. ABEL: Your Honor, I would like to testify. THE COURT: Come on up. Bring with you, of 17 course, anything that you need. 18 You recall you are still under oath. And I 19 think you stated your name previously and your address and 20 so forth, so go ahead 21 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, pursuant to 22 putting an ad in the paper in December of 1998, the 23 plaintiff answered my ad. I responded a couple times until 24 I got ahold of him. And we had two or three phone calls 25 before we first met on December 20th. At that time he 57 1 represented to me - - he appeared to me in an expensive 2 European suit with rings on his fingors that appeared to me 3 to be valuable gem stones. He took me out for dinner. He 4 took me dancing afterwards. We went out for drinks. It 5 was an expensive evening. And he proceeded to laud me with 6 explanations of how he had worked for DentsPly, 7 International, and that he was an international sales 8 representative and traveled around the world, and that he 9 spoke in various foreign languages. 10 He indicated to me that he was a reputable 11 person. He treated me very well. There was no reason for 12 me at that point to doubt any of the assertions that he 13 made. He alleged to me that he had a house in Germany, 14 that he had a house in Florida, and that he had a house in 15 York as part of his career traveling around the world 16 selling dental equipment. 17 He also alleged to me that he had a daughter 18 that he shared custody with his ex-wife Karen Garret, and 19 that they had divorced in February of 1995. I shared with 20 him that I was going through -- I had just finished up a 21 ten year protracted custody battle with regards to my two 22 boys, and that I was at that point in the throes of a 23 custody battle with regards to my now seven year old 24 daughter. 25 I indicated that I had gone through law 58 1 school, and that I had attempted to take the bar exam 2 several times. But that every time I did coincidentally I 3 got served with another legal suit. And that unfortunately 4 I had not yet passed. So, therefore, I was working with 5 the Commonweal th in the legal department at the Worker's 6 Compensation Appeal Board writing legal opinions. I 7 indicated that there were many people there who had passed 8 the bar, and there were several of us there who had not yet 9 passed the bar. And that we were continuing to try. And 10 that I would be sitting for the exam again in July of that 11 year. 12 It was a rather long evening. And I thought 13 that we were both very honest with each other. Pursuant to 14 that evening, I agreed to see him regularly thereafter. We 15 spoke on the phone, if not seeing each other, every day. 16 As he testified, we did share Christmas Day together with 17 our c~ildren. We also did share the day several days later 18 when we went to see the light show. His allegations of my 19 prowess are flattering if not untrue. The relationship 20 did, within a couple weeks, become more intimate. 21 At the time that I first went to his house 22 on Christmas Day with my children I had never been there 23 before, and my children had never been there before. And 24 we walked through the house. And we were in awe because 25 it is an incredible 1870's house right in downtown York. 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .'- And I have a background in American studies and in historic preservation. And the house absolutely fascinarsd me. And he said to me I want to give this to you. ^nd my sixteen year old said, mom, take it, you would be crazy. And I thought he was joking. That conversation, however, continued almost daily thereafter. And he kept saying, I want to give you the house. I want to give you the house. And I thought he was just being either friendly or silly. Eventually he said, no, you don't understand. I want to give you the house to help you with your financial situation, because I know the custody situation is not good. And I have seen you with Elly, and you are wonderful. And there is no reason you should lose custody. And I don't have any money. All my money is in Germany. I can't get it for you, but I can transfer some over. And I need some cash. But can I transfer some over to your account at the credit rmi=. And it didn't seem to me under the circumstances to be an unusual or an unreasonable request. So I gave him the information from my checking account to allow him to transfer money over. And, in fact, the money did come from Dresden, Germany. As he testified, it was slightly less than $5,000.00. When it came, I offered to have a cashier's check written for that amount. And he 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 refused. Instead he said, here, how about if you pay these bills for me. And so I paid a few bills. I\nd there were -- I think it amounted to about $1,500.00 worth of miscellaneous bills for him. And then he wanted to go shopping for furniture for his daughter. And he wanted to go out to dinner. And so the rest of the money was taken out through my MAC card or through direct checks for direct purchases at his direction. Contrary to his statements, I never spent any of his money. And I never saw that money as a gift to me. It was never used by me. He took control of that money. And I kept a separate accounting of that money in my account. And it was all used up for his purposes. At one point he said that I should be paying for dinner for him because he had used up all of his $5,000.00. And that was one of the instances there became several instances where I began to think something is not right here. At the same time that this house issue was going on, this conversation ongoing conversation with regards to the house, he also talked to me about his car. And he explained to me that it had come over. And as he testified, that he had to have this tremendous amount of adaptation work done or something because it is a gray market car. And he needed to bring it into Pennsylvania. But he said that he couldn't get car insurance because of 61 --, 1'......, 1 his prior conviction. No insurance company would insure 2 him. And he said you have got a sixteen year old kid and a 3 thirteen yeal' old kid, and they are all crammed up in a 4 small Honda Civic. It is silly for you to be driving that 5 around. You can have my car. And I said but that isn't 6 going to leave you with one. He said, yes, it is, I have 7 the Sable. And I said okay. And he said besides that I 8 have the other car, the Buick, that's in the garage. 9 And then he said there was another car that 10 he had that he also parked at Frances Kreb's house, who is 11 his ex-wife's grandmother. And I had seen all of those 12 cars. So I believed him. I never saw a title to those 13 cars. But I believed what he told me. Nevertheless, it 14 seemed to me that a car was an awfully lavish gift. He had 15 taken me out to dinner and bought me and my kids gifts. 16 Every time he came over he brought perfume, purses, 17 jewelry, clothing, toys. He never came empty-handed. 18 Flowers, food. 19 But a car is a whole separate matter. And I 20 was really hesitant about that. And he said, look, I 21 can't -- I can't drive it. I can't insure it. And so I 22 said, well, you know, if you are sure about this. And he 23 continued to press the issue. So I agreed to attend the 24 title transfer in Hanover and took time off work without 25 pay and went down. And he got into a disagreement with the 62 ,-....., /".- 1 lady about the value of the car. He wanted it valued -- I 2 don't remember, for like $5,000.00. I\nd she wanted to go 3 with blue book value. And then she said something about it 4 wasn't proper. And -- the bottom line is I paid for all 5 the costs on it. My understanding was that he was giving 6 me the car, And that I would pay the insurance, which I 7 did, that I would pay all of the repairs and maintenances, 8 which I have. That I would pay for all of the fees with 9 PennDOT, which I have. And the car would be in my name. 10 And that he would be driving his Mercury Sable. 11 Then as he testified, PennDOT kicked the 12 paperwork back and said that the title couldn't go from him 13 in Germany to me in Pennsylvania without being retitled to 14 him in Pennsylvania first. And so we went down to PennDOT. 15 He filled out the forms. I filled out some of the forms. 16 Should we mark this Defendant's Exhibit No.1? 17 (Whereupon, 18 Defendant's Exhibit No.1 19 was marked for identification.) 20 THE WITNESS: And that document corresponds 21 wi th Defendant' 5 Exhibit No.2, ,. which was the original 22 attempt to transfer the car into my name. 23 (Whereupon, 24 Defendant's Exhibit No.2 25 was marked for identification.) 63 "...... 1 MR. MOONEY: May I examine the original 2 exhibits, please? 3 THE COURT: Sure. Go ilheild. 4 MR. MOONEY: Thank you, Your Honor. 5 THE WITNESS: When the title was originally 6 -- the paperwork was originally kicked back from PennDOT, 7 Mr. Wiltschek wanted to go back down to Hanover, and I 8 couldn't afford time-wise to do that, and I said that the 9 main office for PennDOT is in Harrisburg. We can go there, 10 get it all done and not have to worry about PennDOT kicking 11 it back later, which is what we did. His assertion that 12 all the paperwork was already filled out is erroneous. 13 Document No. 1354187 is in the plaintiff's handwriting. 14 And that was the title transfer that was done at that day. 15 I made no representations to him then or to 16 the clerks or to anyone else that I was an attorney. There 17 was a question about our relationship. There was to be an 18 additional fee or a higher fee -- if you don't transfer 19 within a family versus if you do, this transfer occurred on 20 February -- I believe it was February 19th, Your Honor. 21 And as the plaintiff testified, that was approximately four 22 or five days after we had become engaged. He was pressing 23 to get married immediately. And it was still my intention 24 at that point to honor my agreement to marry him. And we 25 discussed that with the clerk. And she said, well, if you 64 1 MR. IVlOONEY: Mi'lY I examine the original 2 exhibits, plei'lse? 3 '1'118 COURT: Sure. Go i'lhead. 4 MR. MOONEY: Thi'lnk you, Your Honor. 5 THE WITNESS: When the title was originally 6 -- the paperwork was originally kicked back from PennDOT, 7 Mr. Wiltschek wanted to go back down to Hanover, and I 8 couldn't afford time-wise to do that, and I said that the 9 main office for PennDOT is in Harrisburg. We can go there, 10 get it all done and not have to worry about PennDOT kicking 11 it back later, which is what we did. His assertion that 12 all the paperwork was already filled out is erroneous. 13 Document No. 1354187 is in the plaintiff's handwriting. 14 And that was the title transfer that was done at that day. 15 I made no representations to him then or to 16 the clerks or to anyone else that I was an attorney. There 17 was a question about our relationship. There was to be an 18 additional fee or a higher fee -- if you don't transfer 19 within a family versus if you do, this transfer occurred on 20 February -- I believe it was February 19th, Your Honor. 21 And as the plaintiff testified, that was approximately four 22 or five days after we had become engaged. He was pressing 23 to get married immediately. And it was still my intention 24 at that point to honor my agreement to marry him. And we 25 discussed that with the clerk. And she said, well, if you 64 ----- 1 are going to get married shortly, then just write husband 2 on there, which the plaintiff did. 3 The documents were signed. Again, I paid 4 the fees that were outstanding. And a new title was issued 5 in my name pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Code. After the 6 plaintiff threatened to sue me and to ruin my career and 7 make sure I could never practice law, I contacted a friend 8 of mine, who advised me to contact PennDOT. I had them 9 review the title work. And they confirmed that in fact 10 MR. MOONEY: I obj ect to that, Your Honor. 11 It is hearsay. 12 THE COURT: Sustained. Where did he write 13 husband on these documents? 14 THE WITNESS: At the top, the number is 15 7914599. 16 THE COURT: I am sorry. Where does it say 17 that? 18 THE WITNESS: Relationship to applicant, and 19 he wrote in husband. 20 THE COURT: I am just not finding it. I am 21 sure it is there. 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: In Section F, Your Honor. THE COURT: F. Okay. Thank you very much. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Therefore, the title of the 65 1 car transferred into my name. Again, there was no 2 allegation on my part that [ wau ever going to pay him any 3 money. I made it i1hlll1(L1ntly clpi1l' to him that there was no 4 money. I took a maj or hi t on my divorce set tlement. I 5 forfeited a substantial amount of money in the divorce 6 settlement. And it was a permanent settlement, so there 7 was never going to be any way to recover that. And there 8 was no money. After ten years of custody fights, everyone 9 who knew me, including the plaintiff, and probably based on 10 my assertions to the clerk, the lady at PennDOT, also knew 11 that there just was no money. There was never an assertion 12 that I was going to make any future payments or pay for 13 this vehicle. 14 There was a discussion about whether or not 15 he would take my Honda in exchange. And he said, no, I 16 should hold onto that, because my sixteen year old who 17 was then fifteen, was going to be driving soon and he would 18 need a vehicle. So he didn't even want my Honda in 19 exchange. 20 Back in January I had met the Gingriches at 21 their house. The plaintiff introduced me to them. And 22 they seemed like very nice reputable people. And they 23 seemed honorable. They are, from my association with them, 24 respectful people in the community. And their relationship 25 with the plaintiff bolstered his credibility. And I made 66 1 the conclusion that certainly people of that caliber 2 wouldn't ass"ciate with anybody who was fraudulent or 3 deceitful or less than reputable. And, therefore, I 4 trusted a lot of the things that the plaintiff said to me. 5 And in hindsight, obviously, that was pretty stupid. 6 Nevertheless, the plaintiff alleged to me 7 that he had this house. And that he didn't want to put in 8 his name, because he didn't want his ex-wife Karen to get 9 it. And he said that she could have gotten it, because she 10 has custody of Perez' and Wiltschek's child. 11 Begging the court's pardon, I am trying to 12 simplify this as much as possible. It was my understanding 13 that the house was titled in Perez' name with money that 14 Wiltschek had provided from his account in Germany. Mr. 15 Wiltschek alleged to me that there were several hundred 16 thousand dollars in his account in Germany, and that it was 17 going to stay there because he didn't want Karen to get it. 18 He didn't want his ex-wife to get it. And he didn't want 19 to have to pay taxes on it because of previous transactions 20 that were fraudulent. 21 He never represented to me that the house 22 was paid for by Ms. Perez. He wanted -- he said because I 23 own the house and I pay for it, I want to give it to you. 24 And my thought was that was just beyond the car that's 25 worth $5,000.00 is one thing, but a house is a whole other 67 /J_ 1 matter. 1\ piece o[ [nOpcl'Ly. Tllolt: 'n d p,!nllanent transfer. 2 I\nd he puulwd tile [[lUll" .\IlclIHI[llIccl tlw isuue. He scheduled 3 two nepal'du' <:Ionillll dolL<'n. I\nd 1 thought he was kidding, 4 and I didn't <]0. I\nd lie ncheclllled a third closing date. 5 I\nd he na i d YOll IIdve {Jot: LO nhow up to this one because the 6 attonlL'Y jn (j"n in,! vc'ry annoyed. He gets everything ready 7 and then YOll don' t nho~1 up. 8 I\ncl I naid that, you know, I can't accept a 9 gift o[ il hOIIll". I\nd he said I am giving it to you. I 10 will IltdY the"c. l will keep paying the utilities. You 11 can 1Il0ve clown a[tel' ~]chool is over, because I couldn't 12 leave the al.-ea with lilY kids in school there. And, you 13 know, once you pass the bar you can set up a law firm on 14 the first [100r. And in the meantime, since I can't get my 15 money out of Germany without having people find it, figure 16 out that I have it, you can use the house for collateral as 17 a loan and be able to payoff your attorney and continue to 18 support the custody battle with Mr. Baum. 19 In hindsight I am very aware that I made a 20 very foolish decision. But my daughter is the world to me. 21 I\nd so I agreed to accept the gift. And I went to the 22 closing. I\t torney Patrono was there. He represented Mr. 23 Wil tschok. And Mr. Gingrich, it was my understanding that 24 he wau tl!chnically representing Mr. Gingrich, but Mr. 2'- .) Wiltnchek represented to me that he had done all the 68 r 1 bnHI(IIiL lip to codo bocause it was not up to code. I had ~ L II(' pl limb i II') !'<:!pa i red and brought up to code. I put a 3 ndl'['I,'!'dLol: ill .it, because the one that had been in there ~ didll't [lIl1ction, or at least it didn't turn on when you 5 plugged it in and turned all the buttons. G I have done a lot of remodeling on it. Did 7 a lot oC work to it, in spite of incidents that have 8 invol ved the pol ice in that residence. There was never any 9 contract or any agreement to purchase the home, because I 1. 0 never had the money. I never would have asserted that I 11 did. I have never asserted to the plaintiff that I was an 12 attorney, because I never have been. And I have never 13 asserted that to anyone. In fact, it is almost a bit of a 14 joke, that there are new rules written in the board of law 15 examiners to accommodate me. That's all I have, Your 16 Honor. 17 THE COURT: How did you and Mr. Wiltschek 18 then come to be separated? 19 THE WITNESS: After we had become engaged, 20 he began asking me to liquidate assets. He wanted me to 21 sell my car. And then he wanted me to sell the BMW. He 22 put ads in the paper for both of those. And my 23 understanding was he took the cars on various days and had 24 people look at them. He wanted me to take out a loan for 25 the $40,000.00 value on the house, and then he wanted me to 70 ......... ,., 1 give it to him for living expenses. In addition to that, 2 he had agreed to pay his own living expenses there. And 3 the living expenses was the electric bill, the gas bill, 4 the water bill, the sewer bill, the trash bill, the oil 5 bill, whatever it cost him to live there. 6 And he refused to do it. And I couldn I t 7 afford to support him in York and myself and my kids in 8 Mechanicsburg. And I began saying no to him. And some of 9 his requests became in my mind unethical. He asked me to 10 perform legal services for him. And I refused. And I 11 suggested that he get an attorney. He wanted help trying 12 to sue one of the attorneys who helped to prosecute him in 13 an unrelated custody matter in York. He wanted me to try 14 to sue -- find out if he could sue the newspapers in York 15 who printed what he felt were libelous comments about him. 16 He wanted me to find out if he could sue an 17 attorney -- he wanted to sue a garage in Florida who had a 18 Porsche of his that would not return it. He wanted me to 19 find out if he could sue Karen to get more money out of 20 her. And each of these times I did what I do for anybody 21 that I feel is a friend of mine, I do whatever legal 22 research I can realistically do with my limited resources. 23 And then I say to them this is what I found. Now you need 24 to go talk to an attorney. I have never filed any 25 documents for anyone. I have never represented I was an 71 1 attorney. I have done nothing more than the plaintiff had 2 already done for himself in all of his off time at local 3 libraries. I did legal research for him. 4 It was not my understanding that that was a 5 violation of any code to provide legal research for 6 someone. I did not make any advice to him except to say I 7 think you need to go talk to an attorney if you want to go 8 any further. He became angry with me that I began saying 9 no to him. I don't think anyone had ever said no to him 10 before. And when it became clear that I would not continue 11 to support him, and I would not participate in some of his 12 schemes, he had a couple different schemes going to try to 13 withhold property from other people and then extort money 14 from them, and I refused to participate in those, he got 15 really angry, and he said this just isn't wor~h it anymore. 16 And I said, well, that's good. 17 And I had talked to some of the people that 18 I work with, and I said -- 19 MR. MOONEY: I am going to obj ect, Your 20 Honor, on the basis of relevancy. What she said to the 21 people she worked with 22 THE COURT: Well, it will go to her state of 23 mind. Go ahead. You understand we are not going to admit 24 it for the truth of the matter asserted in the statement, 25 but go ahead. 72 1 TilE ~ITTNESS: I understand. I had become 2 conce l"Iwd about illY peJ:flonal sa fet y and my daughter's 3 personal safety after watching Mr. Wiltschek's behavior 4 deteriorate relatively quickly in the time after we had 5 bec~me engaged. He became abusive with my daughter. He 6 became abusive with me. And I was concerned about how to 7 get rid of him from my life, given this mess that I had 8 allowed myself to get into. And based upon the advice of 9 other people and my own conclusions, I elected to allow him 10 to withdraw from the relationship rather than trying to get 11 him out. 12 And he had confirmed to me previously that 13 when his second ex-wife who was still his wife when he 14 married Ms. Perez tried to throw him out that he told me 15 some pretty nasty things that he had done. And I was 16 concerned. So he said, that's it, I want out. This isn't 17 worth it anymore is what he said. And he said I want my 18 ring back. And I said, okay, have it. Then he packed up 19 whatever stuff he had in my apartment, and he walked out. 20 And that's when I said I need the keys. And he said the 21 car is mine. And I said, well, the car is titled in my 22 name. And you gave it to me. And even if I give it back, 23 it is titled in my name. And until anything changes, with 24 your prior conviction and history, if you are in an 25 accident, I am on the hook for that, and I won't have that. 73 ,r'.', 1 So you need to bring the car back. And he refused. And he 2 became belligerent. 3 And that's when I called the police and 4 asked them. And he did return the vehicle. He did not 5 return everything in the vehicle or all the keys, but he 6 did return the vehicle. 7 THE COURT: You said there were incidents of 8 abuse at the property in York. Were the police ever 9 called? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Twice. 11 THE COURT: So such a call would appear in 12 the docket, the police blotter down in York County? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Do you remember the dates? THE WITNESS: I can get them, Your Honor. THE COURT: Pardon? THE WITNESS: I can get them. THE COURT: Okay. THE WITNESS: The first one was over the 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 July 4th weekend. I had spent -- I believe Saturday was 21 the 3rd, and I spent that day with my kids and with my 22 friends up in Harrisburg, and then I went down on Sunday 23 morning with Tina's son Tristan. And when we got there, I 24 noticed that the lawn mower had been pulled out. It had 25 been partially disassembled. And then I saw that the back 74 , ~ v ~ ,.-, r"-:;.', 1 THE ~IITNESS: No. Not prior to him leaving. 2 THE COURT: All right. Okay. 3 THE WITNESS: The stalking and all of that 4 came afterwards pursuant to his threats. He made good on 5 them. 6 THE COURT: So you say there was a second 7 incident then after April of '98? 8 THE WITNESS: He began stalking me with his 9 friend that he met at the bar, that I understood he 10 subsequently lived with, a Brenda Quire. And she indicated 11 to me -- 12 MR. MOONEY: I am going to object, Your 13 Honor. 14 THE COURT: Sustained. 15 Well, let's move on to something else. Is 16 there anything else that you want to add or to say? 17 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor. Except to say 18 that I am sorry for being so stupid. 19 THE COURT: Mr. Mooney. 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. MOONEY: 22 Q Ms. Abel, you testified that you were 23 surprised that Mr. Wiltschek would give you such a lavish 24 gift as a car? 25 A Yes. 76 :~ .: ;~ I !,i t' /' 'I '~ :r i ~'.. : 'r~ ), " 'r1 i],' 10:'; f::": I"':: i" )' I'.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q Right? Yet according to your version, by the time he gave you this 1992 8MW he had already given you a seventy-five or $70,000.00 Ilouse? He had already transferred $5,000.00 into your checking account. So why were you surprised about this lavish gift? A Let me go over with you again the chronology. Q The house came first, didn't it? A No. Q The house did not come first? A No. The house was the last thing. MR. MOONEY: May I approach the witness, Your Honor? THE COURT: Go ahead. BY MR. MOONEY: Q Settlement occurred on the house January 17 28th, 1998, correct? 18 A Correct. The first attempt to transfer the 19 title of the car occurred on January 8th, 1998. 20 Q That was at Mrs. Selman's when you paid the 21 sales tax, right? 22 A That was when he gave me the car. 23 Q And I think you testified that at the time 24 all these gifts were flowing your way you believe Mr. 25 Wiltschek was an extravagant and successful international 77 -~ 1 businessman with DentsPly? 2 A His story changed over time. And at some 3 point after he transferred the title to the car -- or at 4 least attempted to -- we didn't find out the title 5 wasn't -- the transfer didn't go through until February. 6 So up until that point we were assuming and operating that 7 the original gift had gone through. About a week or two 8 after the title of the car transferred, he admitted to me 9 that he was not really working with DentsPly anymore. That 10 he had not worked there since he fled to Germany in '94 or 11 five. And that he was working at Electrolux as a vacuum 12 cleaner salesman. 13 Q You bought a vacuum cleaner from him in 14 early January, didn't you? 15 A He asked me 16 Q The question is did you buy a vacuum cleaner 17 from him in early January? 18 A And the answer is he asked me to fill out a 19 loan agreement a loan application, to be able to 20 purchase a vacuum cleaner. I filled out the loan 21 application to purchase this $2,000.00 vacuum cleaner, 22 because he said that it would help him get like a thousand 23 dollar commission. He took my vacuum cleaner with the 24 sales documents. And then I was supposed to get the vacuum 25 cleaner. And I never got the vacuum cleaner. He 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ,'" sUbsequently informed me that he never intended to give me the vacuum cleaner, that he was going to turn around and sell it and keep the money and profit for himself. And he advised me that he had coerced me into making a false representation on the application. Q So he deprived you of your vacuum cleaner apparently, right? A Yes, sir. Q And the other thing that he did to you is he gave you the $70,000.00 house, is that right? A Yes. Q A Now -- I didn't find out about the vacuum cleaner situation though until the beginning of March, which is one of the reasons that I said -- that I began to say there is a major problem with this picture. Q Do you have -_ A And one of the things that I -_ may I finish? Q A Go right ahead. One of the things that I did, because I 22 never took delivery of the vacuum cleaner, and my house 23 needed vacuumed after three months, was I called Electrolux 24 and said what happened to it. And they said, well, he took 25 delivery of it back in January. And when I questioned him 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~, /-- on it, he said, oh, you know, here it is. I will bring it up to your place. And then he had me write a letter to Electrolux alleging that I never got it or something I have copies of the letter. And he had me write to Electrolux. And I called down -- Q That's all the questions I have about the vacuum. Do you have some receipts for this $5,000.00 or $5,500.00 that you spent? A That was not my money. It wasn't a gift of mine. It was the plaintiff's money that he spent. Q He spent? A Yes. Q But you said you paid some bills. He didn't have a checking account and you paid $1,500.00 in bills. Do you have those bills or those checks? A Plaintiff kept them all. He gave them to me, had me write the check, and then took everything with him. Most of it, as I said, was withdrawn in cash from the MAC machine. And then he did with it whatever he did. But I never got Q A Q So he took It was his money to take. Did you use any of it to pay car payments on your car? A No. 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .......... F"'..... Q Did you use any of it to pay the closing costs? A I think the agreement was that part of that money would go for the taxes on it. Q Did you use the money to pay the PennDOT check that you wrote to Loretta Selman? A No. That was mine. MR. MOONEY: Can I approach the witness, Your Honor? BY MR. MOONEY: Q Do you recognize the pink sheet with the red writing on it? A Yes. Q A Is that your handwriting? Yes. Q And is that a total of the $5,000.00 and your accounting of how it was spent? A That was my accounting of it. That's how I wanted to spend it, and he said no. Q So that's how you wanted to spend it, and you pre-planned that, knowing on January the 15th that you would have Apple Leaf Abstract expenses of $1,242.00, right? Is that what it says? A Q Let me look at it again. Isn't that what it says? That's the date on 81 '.1.:~":',:,:":~''''''-:;';'''-r. r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Q But on January 15th you knew you were going to spend money at Apple Leaf: Abstract, didn't you? You couldn't have been that shocked about having to show up for a set tlement? A It is not a matter -- I never said I was shocked showing up at a settlement. I eaid I didn't want to go. These are the expenses that he said part of it had already been paid. Part of it had not yet been paid. This was an accountir,g of \/here we were at so far. Because I did not appreciate the allegation that I was spending his money. Q From the time that the property was transferred to your name, January 28th, 1998 -- A Right. Q -- to the time Mr. Wiltschek left, which you 16 don't know exactly what date that was, do you? 17 18 Only what he alleged. The utilities were being paid by who? Me. You paid the utilities? Yes. In what names were those utilities. 19 A Q A Q A Q 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: THE COURT: THE WITNESS: May I look, Your Honor? Of course. The oil bill to SICO is billed 83 ,.~-" 1 to me at my P.O. box citing the 119 South Duke Street 2 address. 3 MR. MOONEY: May I approach the witness, 4 Your Honor? 5 THE WITNESS: Would you like a copy of this? 6 MR. MOONEY: I would like to see what you 7 are looking at before you testify about it. 8 THE WITNESS: If it please the court, we 9 will offer this as Defense Exhibit 3. 10 MR. MOONEY: Not in cross-examination you 11 won't. I would object to that, Judge. 12 THE COURT : Given that she is pro se, under 13 these circumstances, she doesn't have an attorney to offer 14 it in redirect. We will have it marked, and you can 15 technically offer it at the right time. I understand. 16 THE WITNESS: The City of York -- 17 MR. MOONEY: Ms. Abel, I need a moment to 18 look at the exhibits. I can't read and listen to you at 19 the same time. So will you give me a moment? 20 THE WITNESS: If you need one. 2 1 MR . MOONEY: Thank you. 22 BY MR. MOONEY: 23 Q Ms. Abel, you have handed me a package of 24 documents which appears to be, bear with my math, nine 25 pages, correct? 84 1 2 3 on it. Q You don't have the bill in this package, correct? 4 A I paid that bill. And the same thing -- 5 don't you get utilities bills 6 MR. MOONEY: I don't have a question. 7 BY MR. MOONEY: 8 Q And it is your testimony that after all this 9 property was transferred to you, Mr. Wiltschek was 10 requesting that you do other financial transactions, and 11 you disagreed with those, correct? 12 A Yes, sir. 13 Q And because he got so mad about that, that 14 he voluntarily abandoned and left 119 South Duke Street? 15 A No. He voluntarily abandoned and left our 16 relationship. A Q not? A Q for free? A 86 ~,-~-. t';"'~';, 1 2 Q A Is that your testimony? Yeah. 3 MR. MOONEY: That's all the questions I 4 have, Your Honor. 5 THE COURT: To revisit one matter. When did 6 the two of you first begin to discuss marriage? 7 THE WITNESS: I suspected that he wanted to 8 propose to me at the trip to Atlantic City and New York. 9 But there wasn't any discussion about it. I suspected it, 10 11 12 13 14 15 THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah. 16 THE COURT: There had been no discussion of 17 marriage up until that point? 18 THE WITNESS: Not wi th me. And, of course, 19 I didn't know he had already been married -- he was already 20 married at the time, or I never would have dated him. 21 THE COURT: I don't have anything further. 22 Does anybody have anything else? 23 24 25 but we didn't have any discussions about it. THE COURT: And that was in February of '98? THE WITNESS: Valentine's Day, yes. THE COURT: That was after the house had been transferred? MR. MOONEY: THE COURT: MS. ABEL: No, Your Honor. Thank you. You can step down. Call John Zimmerman. 87 1 THE COURT: Perhaps we can have an offer of 2 where we are going. 3 MS. ABEL: Just simply to establish, Your 4 Honor, that he is not bar admitted. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 MR. MOONEY: I am sorry, I missed that. 7 THE COURT: That he is not a member of the 8 bar either? 9 MS. ABEL: Right. 10 11 12 13 BY MS. ABEL: Q A Q How long have you worked with me? For two years. Do we still remain associates? 14 A Not professional associates. We still 15 remain friends. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q In the course of working together were we in the same office? A Yes, we were. Q Were there ever occasions when we would have discussions at the office? A Q Daily. Can you explain how we had daily 23 discussions? 24 MR. MOONEY: I am going to object on the 25 basis of relevance, Your Honor. 89 ""'" 1 THE COURT: I would have to be clairvoyant 2 to rule on your objection, because I don't know where we 3 are going. Can you just give a proffer? 4 MS. ABEL: Yes. Your Honor, the defendant 5 brought -- or I am sorry, the plaintiff brought testimony 6 in with regards to my reputation at work and comments that 7 my co-workers have made. And Mr. Zimmerman is able to 8 provide firsthand knowledge about my work environment. 9 MR. MOONEY: Actually, Your Honor, the 10 testimony of the plaintiff were comments of the party to 11 this action. They are made as a reference to what her 12 comments were 13 THE COURT: I will tell you what. This case 14 I don't think is going to turn on the answers to these 15 questions. And so I am going to go ahead and let you go 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ahead. Proceed. BY MS. ABEL: Q Can you please tell us what my reputation was within the office? A Your reputation -- you were a law clerk. You are a law clerk. And you were known to do very good work. You were one of the highest producers of legal opinions. Do you mean personal reputation or professional reputation? Q What was my personal reputation in the 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 office? A Well, you were known to be -- funny, but at times inappropriate if not rude. And that your personal life was known to be a bit of a mess. Q Thank you. Can you describe the circumstances under which my personal life would come into discussion at the office? A Well, because you would bring it up. You were involved in I believe two custody battles. One with Mr. Abel and one with Mr. Baum. And we were friends, and so we would go to the smoking room and we would discuss we all discussed, you know, our personal lives and what was going on among the group of us. And you contributed to that just as anyone else did. Q There was testimony that I was the butt of jokes in the office. Is that accurate? A Yes. In the sense that we all were. I mean, we all had sort of a banter. I was the butt of jokes. Everybody else we worked with was the butt of jokes. It was just the way we were. Q Was I the butt of jokes because of my relationship with Mr. Wiltschek and the lack of marriage or establishment thereof? A As I recall, those of us in the office, and myself included, asked you not to date men any longer in 91 ." ,..-..-. 1 light of the fact that you had been through these two 2 custody battles and the failed relationship with Mr. 3 Castile. My recollection is we were urging you not to date 4 anybody. 5 Q Did you ever have a chance to meet the 6 plaintiff? 7 A Yes, I did. 8 Q And under what circumstances did you meet 9 him? 10 A You invited me to lunch at the Gazebo Room 11 to meet him. 12 Q Based on your meeting with the plaintiff, 13 what was your impression of him? 14 MR. MOONEY: I am going to object. 15 THE COURT: You will have to rephrase the 16 question. 17 BY MS. ABEL: 18 Q Were you able to form an opinion about the 19 character or the nature of the plaintiff at that time? 20 MR. MOONEY: I am going to have to renew my 21 objection. 22 THE COURT: Sustained. I am not saying you 23 can't ask him what he saw and what he heard. But the 24 question you just asked I can't possibly permit. 25 BY MS. ABEL: 92 .~ ........---............ .,-.- ~ ...,.~-~,,_......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Do you recall what you saw or what you heard at that luncheon? A I don't rccall the conversation specifically. I did not speak with the plaintiff myself much. Mainly I spoke with you, because I didn't know him. What I saw was what appeared to be a distinguished man in a nice suit, who was well-spoken and articulate. Q Do you have any knowledge of my reputation in the community generally? A When you say reputation... Q For character, for veracity? A In the community generally -_ I can only speak to the office community. Q What is my reputation for veracity and honesty within the office? A Well, you are known to be very honest, and you are very forthright and blunt even. Everyone knows where they stand with you. There is no question of that. There is really no mystery to you. We all know what's going on in your life. And we all know that you are very honest about everything. Q Do you ever recall any discussions with regards to the house? A You told me that -_ MR. MOONEY: I am going to object, Your 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ---, Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. There is a contention that there is some fabrication going on about how this house was procured. And the statements she made contemporaneously are relevant. THE WITNESS: You told me that the plaintiff had a house in York, and that he wanted to give you that house. And then you were willing to take it -- well, there was some hesitation at first I recall, because it did seem like a large gift. And you were also embroiled in a custody matter I believe over your daughter. And I knew that you were in need of money. And that you knew that you could use the house as collateral to pay the attorneys in an attempt to keep your daughter. And so you were willing to accept the gift. BY MS. ABEL: Q Were there similarly any discussions with regards to the BMW? MR. MOONEY: Your Honor, if I may just ask. I understand the court's ruling. If I may ask for some foundation. I think it may be important to know like where we were, when we were. THE COURT: I agree. BY MS. ABEL: Q Let me back you up to the smoking room 94 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~. r-.. 1 discussion. Can you tell us a little bit more about that, 2 please? 3 A About the discussions about the house? 4 Q \'Ihere is the smoking room, how often did we meet, who all was there? A Well, at the Worker's Compensation Appeal Board there is a smoking room that is sort of in a back hall. That's the only place that you can smoke unless you go outside. And there is a table and chairs in there. We often would take our work into that room. And we would smoke and work intermittently. We would chat. Usually in the morning and again in the afternoon, pretty much everyday. Q And for approximately what period of time? A Usually for about a half an hour, maybe forty-five minutes if we really had a lot to discuss. Q And you indicated we, were there other people besides yourself and myself? A Yes. Q Who? A Mary Jo Geist and Robert Sauerman. MS. ABEL: Is that sufficient? THE COURT: Well, I think the other issue 24 was when. 25 BY MS. ABEL: 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Q Can you tell us with regards to the discussions of the house, do you recall when they occurred t irne-wise? Did that OCCU1" in December or March or. . . A No. It would have been in January. Q The beginning of January, the end of January? A Well, I was not aware that you had met and were dating Mr. Wiltschek until January, because I was away over Christmas and came back after New Years'. So it would have been probably in the beginning of January and continuing. Q A Q And these discussions were ongoing? Yes, they were. With regards to the '92 BMW, again, were 15 there any discussions? 16 A Yes. Actually I believe that came up first, 17 the discussions about the car. And that would have been in 18 the beginning of January. I recall that we -- you 19 discussed the car first. And then the house came a little 20 bit later than that, although not much later. 21 Q Do you recall whether or. not I indicated 22 whether or not I was going to pay for either of these? 23 A Oh, you never said you were going to pay for 24 them, because we all knew you didn't have any money. And 25 you never said that you had any intention of paying. 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 --\ ,.'-" ~ Q Did I ever give any indication of the terms under which I was to take title to these pieces of property? A With regard to the car, you said that he was going to transfer the car to you with the agreement that you would pay for the sales tax and licensing fees and all of that sort of thing. And I remember you going down to PennDOT during work one day in order to do that. With regard to the house, I don't -- I recall that you were going to be responsible for the bills of course. But not that there would be any exchange of value for the house. Q Did I ever indicate that I thought that this was a loan or a gift? A You indicated that it was a gift, not a loan. Q A That what was a gift? The house, the car. MS. ABEL: Nothing further. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MOONEY: Q Did those discussions by Ms. Abel, which would have occurred in January then of '98, shock you? A It seemed - - I won't say it shocked me. It seemed a little unusual. Q Did she tell you she had not met him until 97 ...... ,"...~... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 around Christmas of 1997? A Yes. I knew that. But she also said that he WiJ.S a man - - an international businessman and seemed to have a great number of assets and wanted to help her. I have known Ms. Abel to date before. And she usually gets involved very quickly. And in her previous relationship with Mr. Castile, whom I knew, she started dating him and moved in with him. And it is just the way she is. She gets involved rapidly and aggressively. Q And in her rapid, aggressive involvement with Mr. Castile, did she end up with some assets too? A No assets that I am aware of. MR. MOONEY: That's all the questions I have for Mr. Zimmerman, Your Honor. THE COURT: MR. MOONEY: Thank you. You can step down. Call Christine Ramos. Whereupon, CHRISTINE RAMOS, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. ABEL: Q Would you please tell us your name and address? A Christine Ramos. 463 Rich Valley Road, Carlisle. Q Do you have a nickname? 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .-..'.... , f.:;'~ A Tina. Q Tina, how long have you known me? A About nine or ten years. Q And what is the circumstances that brought about your knowing me? A I attended a Discovery Toy party at a friend of mine. And you were the toy demonstrator. And then we subsequently continued meeting. I came into the business and started selling Discovery Toys myself. And then our business relationship blossomed into a friendship. So you would consider us friends at this Q point? A Q with men? A Q A Q A week. Oh, yes. Are you aware of my personal relationships Yes. Very much so. And how are you aware of them? We talk about them. How often? Quite often. At least a couple of times a If not in person on the phone. Q Have I ever discussed with you Mr. Wil tschek? A Q Yeah. Had you ever had an occasion to meet Mr. 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 -, ,..- Wil tschek? A Yes. I am not sure, but I think the first time that I met him was at a small party that YOll had at your apartment. Q And what did you observe at that party? A He was very quiet. He didn't talk to a lot of people. Q What did you observe to be his demeanor at that time? A I don't know. He just kind of hung out. I mean, he was nicely dressed. Didn't display any inappropriate behavior. But he was very quiet and kind of withdrawn. Q Were there ever discussions between you and I with regards to the car that you heard about? A Yes. Q Do you remember when they occurred? A It would have been sometime in January. I can't put any exact dates on it. But it would have been in January. Q Can you describe the nature of our 22 discussions? 23 24 25 MR. MOONEY: I am going to object, Your Honor. THE COURT: Nature -- I will permit it. Go 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -. ,.,.-'"\ ahead. THE WITNESS: You just happened to mention that he had a car that he was giving to you. BY MS. ABEL: Q Was there ever any discussion between you and me about me paying for that car? A No. None. Q Do you recall, were there any discussions between us about a house? A Yes. Q And what was the nature of those discussions? A You told me he had this really neat house down in York. And that he wanted to give that to you because he didn't - - he wanted to put the house in your name so that - - I guess it would have been his first ex-wife - - it was an ex-wife couldn't get to it. Q Okay. To the best of your recollection, did I ever discuss with you the sale or the purchase of either of those items? A No. What we discussed was that he was giving these to you. You wouldn't have been able to purchase either one. Q Was there ever any discussion about any cash money that you have heard about today? 101 r-r, 1 A No. Not that I can recall. I , :6 2 Q Are you f:amiliar with my character within . . 4 A I feel that I am, yeah. Jj ~I' r~ . / I r r ! , 3 the general community? 5 Q What is my reputation for my character in 6 the general community? 7 A Very honest, very up front. I feel it is a 8 pretty good reputation. 9 Q Are you aware of any reputation I may have 10 with regards to veracity and telling the truth or 11 deceitfulness? 12 A I have not known you to ever be deceitful. 13 You have always been honest, sometimes to a fault. I don't 14 mean a fault. But you have always been honest and open. 15 MS. ABEL: I have nothing further. 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION L r I I ~ ~ ~. ,~~ :~. t{ 17 BY MR. MOONEY: 18 Q Ms. Ramos, outside of your work relationship 19 with Ms. Abel, how many other friends do you share in 20 common? 21 A Oh, boy. You want friends or family? 22 Q Friends, people from the community. 23 A Well, let's see, five, six, seven. It is 24 kind of hard to put a number on it, because I would have to 25 spend a lot of time to really sit here and think about who 102 '""" 1""'\ 1 I know, who she knows, and put it all together. 2 Q The discussions you had about this car, did 3 they include Ms. Abel giving Mr. Wiltschek the Honda? 4 A She mentioned that he was driving the Honda. 5 I don't recall her ever saying that she actually gave him 6 the Honda. 7 MR. MOONEY: That's all the questions I 8 have, Your Honor. 9 10 11 12 THE COURT: Anything else? MS. ABEL: No. THE COURT: Thank you. You can step down. MS. ABEL: Your Honor, I would like to offer 13 into evidence the defense exhibits. 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: Any objection? MR. MOONEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: They are admitted. MS. ABEL: The defense rests, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any rebuttal testimony? MR. MOONEY: Very briefly, Your Honor. From 20 Mr. Wiltschek. 21 REBUTTAL 22 (Whereupon, Mr. Wiltschek was recalled.) 23 DIRECT EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. MOONEY: 25 Q Mr. Wiltschek, you are still under oath. 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Yes. Q Were you present for Suzanne Abel's testimony? A Yes, I was. Q Mr. Wiltschek, she indicates that you must have told her that you have some past criminal record that prevents you from operating a car or getting car insurance. Is that true? A That is not true. When I met Ms. Abel I told her very clearly that I have had a conviction for an automobile accident. Q How many years ago was it? A Pardon? Q A Q A Q How many years ago was it? That was in 1997. 1987 or '97? '87. '87. So it was over ten years ago then? A Yes. Q Do you have a driver's license? A My driver's license was never suspended. And neither was my insurance. Q So since then you have always had insurance, always had a license, and always been able to operate a car? 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ''''''. ("'I., ^ Yes, I was. Q Do you have hundreds of thousands of dollars in some German bank? ^ No. I do not. Q Did you ever tell Ms. Abel that you did? A I did not. Q Do you own a home in Germany? A I never owned a home in Germany. Q Did you tell Ms. Abel that you did? A I did not. Q You were formerly married to Karen Garret, correct? A Q That's correct. Do you know when you were divorced from Ms. Garret? A Q February 23, 1995. 1995. Were you trying to hide any assets from your ex-wife that you divorced in '95? A No. I was not. Q Have you had your assets seized by anyone? Are there any creditors out there trying to seize assets from you? A To get access? Q Assets. Do you have any creditors who are trying to seize your assets? 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ,..... A Nobody. Q Are there some bench warrants out there for you or anything? A I have not been charged with any crime. MR. MOONEY: I have no further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any cross-examination? MS. ABEL: Just a couple quick ones. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ABEL: Q You just testified you were divorced from 12 Ms. Garret in February 23rd of 1995? 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A Q That's correct. And you testified earlier that you married Ms. Monica Gomez Perez on January 31, 1995? A That's correct. Q You don't have a problem with that? MR. MOONEY: I am going to object, Your Honor, to the form of the question. This is a conflict of law question. We have a Chilean marriage. I don't really know that it is relevant to debate that. And whether he has a problem with it or not. Apparently he didn't when he got married. THE COURT: I am going to permit the 25 question. 106 . '.~.. ....-:-- ~:.:;:~;; ("-" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Do you have a problem with that? THE WITNESS: Do I have a problem? THE COURT: Did you have a problem with that? THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor. BY MS. ABEL: Q Sir, you just testified that there is no bench warrant issued against you? A That is correct. Q Has there ever been a bench warrant issued against you? A Q A bench warrant? Has there ever been a bench warrant issued for your arrest? A Not to my knowledge. Q Are you sure? A I am sure. Q So if I showed you evidence that the court in York County issued a bench warrant for your arrest for failing to appear at a contempt hearing, that would surprise you? 22 MR. MOONEY: It is not a bench warrant for 23 arrest, Your Honor. 24 25 THE COURT: Well, can we be agreed on what it was? 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ~ (~,.,.,. Q And, in fact, you were charged with homicide by vehicle, is that correct? A Pardon? Q You were charged with homicide __ A No. It was manslaughter by vehicle. Q Manslaughter. MS. ABEL: Nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: I want to take this opportunity to make sure that I understand the early chronology of this case correctly. You married this woman, Monica Gomez Perez, right? THE WITNESS: That's correct. THE COURT: And she was in Santiago, in Chile? 15 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 16 THE COURT: Is she still there? 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: And I assume that you had her 19 execute this power of attorney. Did she know that one of 20 your intentions was to buy her a house so that she would 21 move to the United States? 22 THE WITNESS: Yes, she did, Your Honor. 23 THE COURT: And that's part of the purpose 24 of the power of attorney? 25 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honor. 109 1 THE COURT: But she never came here, so you 2 ended up with a house, and she wasn't there to occupy it? 3 THE WITNESS: Shc was unablc to get a Visa. 4 THE COURT: So then you responded to Ms. 5 Abel's ad. And you are telling me that Ms. Abel, when she 6 took title to your house, agreed to pay you $40,000.00 for 7 it? 8 THE WITNESS: She agreed to send Dr. 9 Gingrich a check for $40,000.00. 10 THE COURT: She agreed to send Dr. Gingrich 11 that? 12 THE WITNESS: Right. 13 THE COURT: If you had married her, would 14 you have expected her to make that payment? 15 THE WITNESS: Pardon? 16 THE COURT: If you had married her, would 17 you have expected her to pay $40,000.00 for your -- what 18 would then be your marital residence? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: Definitely. THE COURT: You would have expected her to make the payment? THE WITNESS: To make payment. THE COURT: Notwithstanding. Okay. Thank you. MR. MOONEY: No further rebuttal, Your 110 -, ..' , CERTI FI CATI ON I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of same. '(iM);MaJ. ~ Barbara E. Graham Official Stenographer ----------------------------- The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. p~ ::? 1'117 Date ~./!p/., ~~:nA. Hess, J. ;;uth Judicial District 113 9:37 A.M. _ (1 [[-- 3'-/),.0- Superior Court of Pennsylvania Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 1711 MDA 1999 Page 1 of 2 January 19, 2000 MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ, by her Attorney-in-Fact, WALTER WIL TSCHEK v. SUZANNE S. ABEL - Iniliating Document: Case Status: Notice of Appeal Active Case Processing Status: January 19, 2000 Journal Number: Case Category: Civil Awaiting Original Record 3023 CaseType: Civil Action Law Consolidated Docket Nos.: Related Docket Nos.: SCHEDULED EVENT Next Event Type: Docketing Statement Received Next Event Type: Original Record Received Next Event Due Date: February 2, 2000 Next Event Due Date: February 28, 2000 COUNSEL INFORMATION Appellant, W1L TSCHEK, WALTER ProSe: IFP Status: Attorney: BarNo.: Address: Appoint Counsel Status: W1L TSCHEK, WALTER Law Firm: P.O. BOX 384:; YORK, PA 17402 Phone No.: (717)848-2600 Receive Mail: Yes Fax No.: Appellant, CARMEN GOMEZ, MONICA DEL Pro Se: IFP Status: Attorney: BarNo.: Address: Appoint Counsel Status: WIL TSCHEK, WALTER Law Firm: P.O. BOX 3843 YORK, PA 17402 Phone No.: (717)848-2600 Receive Mail: Yes Fax No.: Appellee, A8EL, SUZANNE S. Pro Se: IFP Status: Attorney: ABEL, SUZANNE 10/1/99 Appoint Counsel Status: 9:37 A.M. . Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 1711 MDA 1999 Page 2 of 2 January 19, 2000 Superior Court of Pennsylvania *' Bar No.: Address: Law Firm: , .. ., , 5029 E. TRINDLE ROAD MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Phone No.: Receive Mail: Yes Fax No.: FEE INFORMATION Receipt No.: TRIAL COURT/AGENCY INFORMATION Court Below: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas County: Cumberland Date of Order Appealed From: October 4,1999 Date Documents Received: November 1, 1999 Order Type: Order Entered Division: Civil Judicial District: 9 Date Notice of Appeal Filed: October 29,1999 OTN: Judge: Hess, Kevin A. Judge Lower Court Docket No. 98-3425 98-3426 ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENTS Original Record Item Filed Date Content/Description Date of Remand of Record: Filed Date November 1, 1999 DOCKET ENTRIES Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type Filed By Notice of Appeal Appellant WILTSCHEK, WALTER January 19, 2000 Docketing Statement Exited (Civil) Middle District Filing Office 10/1/99 3023 CUllI!>orlnnd CounLy ProLhonnLilry'H Offlco Civil COHe InquIry 199n.03425 WI!.'I'SClIEK WM:I'J-:Il (v"l Mil':!. SU~ANNJ-: S pYS510 page' Uo foroneD No..: COHO 'I'y\"'.....: ~IHI'I' ell-" SUMMONS Jud'llllon.......: .00 ,Iudge MIs I (Jnocl: IIJ-:f;fi KJ-:V I N A D I sposecl Dosc.: -.------- CilSC ComrnnnLn Vi led........: 'J'i.mo......... : J-:xecuLlon DaLe ,Jury'I'rlal.... DlspOHed Date. IIlgher Crt I.: Illgl1er Crt 2.: 611911998 2:39 0/00/0000 0/00/0000 1711 MDA 99 ~..******************.*********************************************************' General Index Mctorney Info WIl:rSCIiEK I-IAJ:I'J-:Il I'LMN'I'IVF MOONJ-:Y ,IOIIN ,I 1 I I ABEL SUZANNE S DEFENDANT PRO SE 5029 E TRINDl,E ROAD Ap1' # 1 MECllANICSJJURG PA 17055 ******************************************************************************** * Date Entries * *******************k************************************************************ 1- 2.. -3 6/1911998 6/2311998 f-- 10 II -- /2- ID 10/16/1998 1111911998 12/0311998 M- 2..1 L'if - oJ'" n. E;l S'i ~ ~ , lDtf- (07 i (p.{--- - I en I I I I I , I \ "'tf;'~~5" 4/22/1999 I I I I 12/23/1998 2/25/1999 3/04/1999 3/3011999 4/1211999 4/1211999 4/2211999 S'i 4/22/1999 fDS 5/0711999 i b~ 5/27/1999 \ lID --" lib 10/0411999 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION-WRIT OF SUMMONS ISSUED -------------------------------------------------------------------- SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED. Lltiqant.: ABEL SUZANNE S SERVED : 6/23/98 WRIT OF SUMMONS Costs....: $30.20 Pd By: MOONEY & ASSOC. 06/23/1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAIN'!' -------------------------------------------------------------------- PRAECIPE TO REINS'I'A'!'E COMPLAINT BY JOHN JAMES MOONEY III ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED Litiqant.: ABEL SUZANNE S SERVED : 12/02/98 REINST NOT & COMpL Costs....: $31.44 I'd By: MOONEY & ASSOCIATES 12/03/1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ANSWER WI'I'H NEW MA1'TER AND COUNTERCLAIM ------------------------------------------------------------------- PI.AIN'i'I FF' S ANSWER TO NEW MAT1'ER AND COUNTERCLAIMS ------------------------------------------------------------------- PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL BY JOHN JAMES MOONEY III ESQ ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATED 3/30/99 - IN RE NONJURY TRIAL - PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 4/22/99 9 AM - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 3/31/99 ------------------------------------------------------------------- MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR DISCOVERY AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER _ DATED 4/22/99 - IN RE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - DENIED - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 4/22/99 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER _ DATED 4/22/99 - IN RE MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE - RULE IS ISSUED ON PLAINTIFF RETURNABLE 20 DAYS AFTER SERVICE - ARGUMENT 5/26/99 3 PM CR 4 - TRIAL 6/16/99 9:30 AM - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 4/22/99 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER - DATED 5/7/99 - IN RE MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE - ARGUMENT 5/26/99 3 PM IS RESCHEDULED TO 5/26/99 1:30 PM CR 4 - BY KEVIN A IiESS J - COPIES MAILED 5/10/99 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER OF COURT - DATED 5/26/99 - IN RE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE _ DENIED - TRIAL 6/16/99 9:30 AM - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 5/27/99 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER _ DATED 10/4/99 - IN RE NONJURY TRIAL - WE FIND ON THE PLAIN'i'IFF'S CLAIMS IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT - COUNTERCLAIMS OF THE I'YS510 Cumborland county prothonotary's Orrico Civil Casu Inquiry 1998-03425 WIJ:I'SCIII.;K WM,'I'EIl (vs) MlI.;r, SU7.^NNI'; S I'ago ROrf~ronco No..: Caso Typo.....: WIlIT .Judgmont...... : ,Judgo ^ss I gnncl: m;ss Disposod Dose.: -----------." CilHP COlll1l1unLH ---.-. 1lI':I'I':NIJ^N'I' "^VE IlElm WI 'I'IInll^WN 10/C,/99 llY KI';VIN 1'1 10rI........: tI'JIllD......... : /':XOCll Lion Da to ,Ju,'y Tria I.... D I sl'osocl Ilil to. II I q 10'" Cr.'!. I.: IIlqho,' Crt 2.: ^ m:ss ,J - COl'rES MM I.F:n 6/1 9/ I 991 2: 3! 0/00/0001 0/00/0001 1711 MD^ 9! 01' SUMMONS .00 KEVIN ^ i/1 - "<6' 10/11/1999 10/29/0099 SUGm:STION 01' Il^NKlllJP'I'CY llY STEVEN I' MINim ESQ ----..-------------------------------------..------------------------ NO'I' I CI.: 01' ^I'I'E^, , '1'0 SUI'I':1l101l COUIl'I' "'1l0M OllDl':1l r-:NTERED 10/4/99 BY WM,'I'I.;1l WII,'I'SCIII';K ------.-------------------------------------------------_. 12103/1999 1/27/2000 'l'Il^NSC III 1"1' I'II.P.O -------------------..------------------------------------------------- ******************************************************************************* * Escrow Information * Fees & Dobits Ueo Ual Pvmts/^di End Ua1 ********************************~********~******t****************************** SLIP I-: H lOll COllll'l' OF P^ NO'!'JCE 01-" ^I'PEAI, /JOCKE'J'JNG TO # 1711 MDA 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L^ST ENTRY - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ---- .. ----.----------------------------------------------------------- WRIT OF SUMMONS TAX ON WRIT SETTLEMENT JCP FEE APPE^L 35.00 35.00 .50 .50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 30.00 30.00 ------------------------ 75.50 75.50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 ------------ .00 ******************************************************************************* * End of Case Information **************************************************i**************************** ..~_.'.""', Power of Attorney KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ PEREZ, of Santiago, Chile, do hereby make, constitute and appoint WALTER WILTSCHEK of York County, Pennsylvania, my true and lawful Attorney In Fact for me and in my name, place and stead and on my behalf to do and execute the following acts, deeds and things, including (but not by way of limitation) the following: 1. To purchase, have, hold, possess, control, manage, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate, sell or otherwise dispose of, lease(for any term or perpetually and with or without privilege of purchase and with or without privilege of renewal) the real estate known as premises No. 119 South Duke Street, York, Pennsylvania, and its contents of household goods and furnishings; as well as all or any part of my property, rea 1 or personal, in such manner and on such terms as my said Attorney In Fact shal1 see fit; in connection with the foregoing to make, execute, acknowledge and deliver deeds, mortgages, bills of sale, leases and other proper instruments of conveyance, hypothecation, lease, assignment and transfer and to invest and reinvest the proceeds of such sale and/or any other monies of mine in such property, real or personal, as my said Attorney In Fact deem expedient. 2. To receive and collect any monies that maybe due and owing to me from any person, firm or corporation and to deposit the same in any bank account of mine or in any account my Attorney In Fact shall open for me under the authority granted him in this instrument; and to withdraw the same and any other monies on deposit in such account or accounts. 3. To pay from my 'funds, using therefor either principal or income in the sole discretion of my said Attorney In Fact such expenses of mine as my Attorney In Fact shal1 see fit to defray for my benefit and to sign income tax returns for me. 4. To enter into and to perform contracts on my behalf and to carry out all contracts entered into by me. 5. And generally to do and perform all acts, deeds and things that I personally could do if present and acting in the premises notwithstanding the fact that authority has not been specifically conferred hereinabove upon my Attorney In Fact to do and perform such acts, deeds and things. (1) ., ,",PLAINJ/f.F'S, . ,,-'<'EXj;IIBIY' ':. ;.\, ,"'. , 1.. ,- f , -' ( ( : Alan Kim Patrono, Esq. 30 Wost Mlddlo Sl,oal Gollysburg. Pennaylvanla 17:l2~ 717.:134.8098 ..:-. PLAINTIFF;!5: ';'" 'EXHIBIT .:- " ',. " . . ., (\ d- /. ( ..:./ I.... THIS DEED MADE THE -28 ~ day of January in the ~W one thousand nine hundred ninety eight, (1998), ~vl BETWEEN MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ PEREZ, a single woman, by her ATTORNEY-IN-F,ACT, GERALD I. GINGRICH, of 773 Kreitz Creek Road, York, Pennsylvania, GRANTOR / AND o SUZANNE ABEL, of 5029 Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055, GRANTEE, WITNESSETH, that in consideration of the sum of FORTY THOUSAND AND NO/lOa DOLLARS, ($40,000.00), in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the said Grantors do hereby grant and convey to the said Grantee, .'f ALL that .certain tract of. land situated, lying, and being on the eastern side of and known as No: 119 Qouth Duke Street in the ~rk, York County, Fenns:.lve.nia, together with the ~mprovements thereon erected and bounded and limited as follows to wit: BOUNDED on the north by property now or formerly bf York Trust Company on the east by a public alley on the south by property now or formerly of Curtis N. Hollinger and on the west by said South Duke Street. Fronting on . said South Duke Street 28 feet 'and 9 inches and extending of uniform width to the hereili.:>efo!'e mentioned alley. BEING THE SAME which Edna. E. Leidig, widow, by her Attorney- in-Fact, Theodora B. Waltermyer, by rheir deed dated August 15, 1997 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of York County, Pennsylvania in Record Book 1299 at Page 993 granted and conveyed unto Monica Del Carm.:" Gomez Perez, a single woman, erroneously stated as a married wc.man in said deed, the GRANTOR herein. ..~'hll1J- r '. . .......,."......-......~-..........._. .."""....... . AND, the said Grantor does hereby covenant and agree that she will warrant specially the property hereby conveyed, subject to recorded and/or visible easements and restrictions, if any. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto set her hand and seal the day and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED)AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF mhA/~ g;yu.. . Ir7~Mc~ MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ by her attorney-in-fac I. GINGRICH ? EJ~J (}h.-v// -thf-r.to~ WITNESSES G1 t Rece~ved I Certl'y This Decument 'lb Be Recorded Ip. York County, Pa. FEB 2 6 1998 .... City of York --- ....0"" '~li\.RfCD.'" ..:"~.........:",,,.:.. .~. 0."':='.- ::tl .."'~ it.J': :~: .""". '-- .~.. . :0- ~-... . ..~: . ~.. .....: ..:oR;....:.:r.-...~... .'." COU1\\~'.. . .......... I j , U) '" 00 0 l.O 0 .., llJ '" Ln .." (\J 0 <U <=> 0 . . .. .. .; w a: "" ~1 (!'IE: _ 0: r-, co '" _........ 0 '" w)-.... :::leu (!'IQ. ... '" ... ... '" <=>I-Z '" ... ... ~tns~ '" za: :z: LL.:::J::> z co '" co ~ -' 00-1 to> c !i:0~ .eu ~ :::Jxcnc U)- c::::Ja:~== .:.:: en ~ 06.-l II <n :c.... lil LtJ:::.:::z: ""CO....-l(!'l z : ~ ~ c::J >- c:::I~:Z: a: ~ow ~O'\lX '4" r= CQ 0::: :x 1-1- cz: =-,........c..:a o)-a. ~ en J:J II !'" Q Ct u_ I:!; !-LIe: ~",:P-: ::;l -~Ulellltll1t St.atemlnl ". 0..1'1.....1 .1 1l.~I~.. "11/'''' U.....'.,I"I ;,.;-.. oW ___.__!..~'!.!!. 'U'OJU fi:-"'I}1I10min , n 111,\ 1:0-'ri~ J [) COM~Ci! rlv4ter 'li~'" ",,;i.,- L,Qi;;;J;;;;",,' i ,;;-;;;;,j,., \1)1./18 .1.0 V^ !i U Cvm. 111\. c. uGiiEf;j:l;olm il Iv,nld".d iO"'Qi.;rOt.lllllL1IJVfl""1 0 actual =l!ultme;;lcoiil/ll~iPa'd iO'i~d b, Ih., lI..lIhllo(.ol'll flgtnl 'lie ;I'O;;'~-- lIa"l~ !flltrkld 'p 0 0 . wert ,UId OIlUI<.1, 01 Ck)\no; llle, Ql, ShO"" htllll fOI "'fo'lfIlll~nlll Clurp"n' ."d ',f'l Iml ~~LlJo'" h n", In,~la b.IiMiilMllJ NiUfi'"sS'or ol~,~"T~!iiI[ NlII .' . .. '. .--. - . .... S021lASI 1.\loH ni"lJ 1~(;"'lt\8~'G. PA lIalS " . f.~JjiJJF.-ifjjl-;;5iffiEU.UFUtitn;----' iiHiifj'illTIriiiiirnirrri(z 8f IlER AIIluilTiiimt1ipj'lol'f.iii:iii0i.-~' ----- (Seller 1111 . ) 113 ~IlEltl rnm: nnM. YOIU:. rA 1"06.1)117 F.1MMO ^NU .Um.s. C)f \.ENOL" .U>flll)ijWIKI, = . " '\,. ij~itlY 11?~IIIlX.;:~ln((' lCX'Mlotl, Ion'.. r. 11'01 irsHfLEMEtH f1GUii: I' , . I' . .., '.1, rv.ce ()I' ~riil\.eMeNt: ': '.: 'N-Pl. Iii' ,.tlstr'Aetl"II'Cnrti;~Y., ("N _ 2}-2159J54' ,30 W. H1ddlt Sirt'!tl!;lhte II. Cett)b.lrd: rA. .:...l.:::"..!;..~.......:~,.,:/.. . ~ f:m!nifMFNr VAlE: January 28. 1991.1 J. SUMMA"'" Of UUl1ll0W~"'S II1AIl 1 . OA05S AMOUNT 0 It d ~ , ,I; .~:: 17J2S.' ....j ,. U K. 9UMMA"Y UF 5~~LEII's Imil~c'lull 100. .GnO S, AMOUN' II l:! 1 StLLt.B. 4fl~o,llll'~'tl.~ 100.61.;., U.'ffUlltl,"f1H, ,.,"~.\li.:' ~\;l.::;~!:" .,'., .. .,~O.UOU.U] .e..c....,III..I..~Ic'. I ,,' "'II.U tlu"', IU. .tllll/11111 ""..... 1.:Hil~..Mii.:t,: l'.:;;"~:::<~ jl~;'! , 11,."'......0':- :l~ ;.;~.;:H~~:lr .,'l~ :t :~. .l:..:. :i 1~; 1";; ~;' '. ." ': :;.;!., i,'ie 3. if/i 5 I~~. U4. .~ IU C:'/ltWII t.Li..; '.'.. .<.:,,',:_:. 10',: .'-^UNSlMENIS fon IIEMS rAiOiiY1iiirn iji "trMiir.r.:-,.....,- . ':.404. Cl\j.~~~~.!~~~._ ~ . l.~.__ 40'. Ot~~I' II'" " .,.'~..'Cil...:..:.I~:...; :.:'.;i','~I' 40'. SOOJl I/za 106/)0 1.1'!r:ii5, !.!!'.__-l. ;..;.:.... ...-- ....- AUJUSIMENIS fun 11 EMS PAIU BY SE.UER III An\lANCE: IDt.ehRI,lUU ., .101 ......11/."/111 ' 1t ,:.,.,..., ,- .,.~ UI wro. 1128 to 6;JO 2.:..LiJ.. L:. 449.62 ll!~ "I, II!.' .._,...1....:..- . . . ..,'.,.."." .1111. .". ...11.... w 41.,267.07 .20, Gno.t;S ,lMOUN roue 10 SE;LLEfl: t;.:.;,.~.".,..,' ;,nEDUCtlUtI IN OUNI-UUE 10 saLE 40,H9.82 ljlO. GI10SS MlOtlNr DUE FilUM OOMOWeR: 200. NA Nrs PAID BY un IN BEU-'lF OF B :.. !!,l:.~~!!.I!L!!.!.I!~.!!!.!"'".r !!~. r,Io!!!,a1 I.......~I ", .t" 11'~('1 !01,l.olll..,ltl..{oll.h'lIU,,,C11. 'IIi.... . , ,,' '..... "~l..~l::~:U: .1"." ,':' ..' o oou.uo !!'!,; tl!.~U "1"_ clI."'....llnu.nll ':~~ !!tllu,~" liI(I~.!!.l' U!!!:e' ~UOI 01, !...,,~. lun(l) hUll .ul.U I. I"-J>.!!ii ~l ;-..i....,iiii., hlll l::",: i 'l:~, r..!!:!!-.llIto"d "'''l,I~'' 101" ..i.!!.L.ooo,QQ _W..:..ft.Q ~~ ~ ':l_~. .. ... . !!'. t~1 .. .. .. nt. 1QI. d" ~~ ~llf. . -_..- . AC),J1I!=;1MFNJS FQr\ IIEMS UNPAID BY SEllER: m Olr/l'w~ Inn 1/ 1/90" 1 28 98 ."",.e.u~!U.~..'::;-'ll .9~a 28 9 111,"1"11"'."1' It 11.1 A ." 'j,3-'J;O to.. .. ...'._, ",. , .. '. . . .. ; ,,~..: ..,'. '109. AlJJUSJMEtltS 'OR IItMS UW'^IO BY sell fR: ,IO.OlrJlO."Uru -Ii.. 1 911,.. ]J.~~/!ln ,: I,L~.!'i~~!!!f'71 '1 98.. ;1728798 SIL"III........., \I :,.,110. ":;":"i."i,; ".' .. 1..,..!'u .lLGO 10.. ... . .. ~ ..t. ....... 1..... . , ,.'!~' II'. lit. .. :..!;.. ." , ....... ,..'L"..:: :"f;'! J;i51s.:,:~::-~..;,',', ... .'.ii:.!:.t.:;~::"..'.': ~-,.. ~ ~L ",, . .' ' : . ....".' _. ..., . , .... ., III. j. 1 " ~". - ..._111. IU. Ii. .;~'.:'i~~;;:,!.'.;:.,;:>,. ..: ..,,:. '., .,. ~~"I": !...~' .;.~.,:,,;, '~:'.: :!'U. lOIN. PAll> HYtfon 520. 1011J. ne:OUCTlONS BOmOWEJl: 40 , 045 . 0 B IN AMOUUr CUE Sl;llEU: :nI, C.a.slt A' tErT1.EMENTf MtfO.l!on WE :';j;i "~.';'.':!'~.. ...:, , lil!., :OAm IAT.sr:m M~Nr.l01~RC.'M S!1.LEIl: 101 Gran ~flnJnt due rUllll bOrr.'J../er ("~ 28 'I. U" ~OI Gross alT()lmt ,1IJ_ .~",.~~l1~r...1!.!~Z(!L.__ JUZ, leU .nounC ld D (lor borrMr,(Itne. ZU ~40 ',04. B 6ozUeH:.rtd : :lt1.amt.:';.due~stlletl1lrll! 520 303. CIISII (@'nOMllOYO) oOA1OweA, 1,211..99 60'3. C1.S11 ( 0101 (I] 'nOM) Sellen, IHlD.l (3-88) - nF.SPA. 110 4305.2 <to,S;"6 SA 1.U,44~. ~ 1.40 546.58 96.7G rM;E 1 3 BOOK PAG: ~. OPEN-END ~o\lcAG~ 523 THIS MORTGAGE SECURES FUTURE ADVANCES WlIICII MORTGAGEE '\ lIAS It. CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE ). ~ TIllS MORTGAGE, ente~ ilJlD this 8th day of Aoril . 19..iL, between Suzanne . Abel ~ ' hereafter ""lied "Mortgagors," and o BENEFICIAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporalion, IllI BENEFlCIAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPAN~ d/b/a Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Pennsylvania, tt a Pennsylvania Corporation..V . ~ having an office and place of business at 4910 Carlisle PiKe Suite 104 ,Mechanicsbuu , Pennsylvania, hereafter ""lied "Mortgagee." WITNESSETIl, that to secun: payment by Mortgagors of a Credit Une Accounl AgretlJlellto hel::8fter called "Agreement," of even dale herewilh, by which Mortgagee is obligated to make loans and advances up 10 S lb,~ O.U , hereafter called "Credit Line" and all other obligations of Mortgagors under the terms and provisions of this Mortgage, Mortgagors do by these presents, sell, grant and convey to' Morlg.~e. ALL the fall awing described real eSlate, hereafter called "Property:' situated in the I'D City o Borough 0 1bwnship of .orle: , County of York , Commonwealth of penl\'ylvaula, described as foUows: ____ , I 'a' .. - 4 , , '1ECEIVED ....eLI.\/NTIFF'S. . '.. . .:. EXH./BIT<i:::'. N;T: 1.; L( J. J. M. Municipal Thx Lot 1-34-6-103 ,Block . Unifonn Parcelldenlifier Being premises cQQ.veved 10 Mortgagors by deed of conveyance duly recorded in lhe office 'for lhe Recordiog of Deeds in this County in Deed Book No. U 1'+ ,Page 1536 . as the Property therein described. o If this bOlC is checked, this Mortgage is subjeclto a prior mortgage dated ' 19_. executed by Mortgagors to as mortgagee, which prior mortgage secures payment of a promissory note in the principai amount of S . That prior mortgage was recorded on ' 19_ with lhe Recorder of the County of ' Pennsylvania, in Book , Page 10 HAVE AND 10 HOLD the Property hereby granted and conveyed unto Mortgagee, to and for the use and behoof of Mortgagee, its successors and assigns, forever. TIllS MORTGAGE IS MADE subjecllo the following candidons, and Mortgagors agree: I. Mortgagors will make all payments on the due date thereof and perform all other obligations as required or provided herein and in Ibe Agreemenl. 2. This Mortgage secures any and all fulure advances which Mortgagee shall make 10 Mortgagor under Ihe Agreemenl up to the Credit Line. 3. Mortgagors will pay when due all taxes and assessmcnts levied or assessed against the Property or any part thereof, and will deliver receipls for Ihose payments to Mortgagee upon request and if Mortgagee pays any taxes or assessments plus penalties and costs, the amounts so paId may be added 10 the unpaid balance of the debt secured by this Mortgage. 4. Mortgagors will keep the improvements on the Property constantly insured against fire and such other hazards, in such amount and with such carriers as Mortgagee shall approve, with loss, if any, payable 10 Mortgagee as its inlerest may appear. 5. Mortgagee, at its oplion in case of default by Mortgagors of any obligalion required of them under paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Mortgage, shall hwe the right to pay any taXes, assessments, waler and sewer renlS, insurance premiums and all other charges and ,/ claims which Mortgagors have agreed to pay under lhe lenns of the Agreement and this Mortgage, and any and all monies so paid shall be a part of lhe debt hereby secured and rew;erable as such. in all respects, with interest thereon from the date of such payment. 6. Mortgagors will neither commit nor suffer any strip, waste, impairment or deterioration of the Property, and will maintain lhe same in good order and repair. 7. In lhe event that Mortgagors default in the making of any paymenl due and payable underlhe Agreement, or in the keeping and perfonnance by MortgagolS of any of lhe conditions or covenants of this Mortgage or the Agreement, Mortgagee may forthwith bring an Action of Mortgage Foreclosure hereon, or inslilule other foreclosure proceedings upon this Mon~age, and may proceed to judgment and execution to recover lhe Unpaid Balance of the Account plus accrued but unpaid interest, meluding attorney fees as pennitted by law, costs of suit and costs of sale. RL 4 PA 201221"'.5. EAl. NC7o'. '94 ( .. BOOK 1320 PAGE 35214 8. Upon commencemenl oC a suit in Corecl~ure oC this Mongage or suit to which Mongagee may be made a party by reason of this Mongagc, or al any lime during Ihe pendeno/ oC any such suit, Mongagee, upon application to Ihe appropriate coun, al once, withoul nOlice to Mortgagor or any person clauning under Morlgagor, and without consideration oC the adequacy oC the security or Ihe solvency oC Mongagor, shall appoint a receiver for the Propeny. The receiver shall (1) lake possession of Ihe Propeny; (2) make repaiIs and keep tbe Propeny ID proper conditio~ and repair; and (3) pay (a) alltaxos and assessments accruing during the receivership, (b) all unpaid tax:s and assessmelllS unpaid and tax sales remolDing unredeemed, at or prior 10 the Coreclosure sale, (c) all insurance premiums necessary to keep Ihe Propcrty insured in accordance with the provisions oC this Mongage, and (d) tbe expense of the receivership, and apply tbe balance, iC any, againslthe indebledne.. secured by this Mongage. 9. If Mongagors voluntarily shall sell or convey the Propeny, in whole or in pan, or any interesl in that Propeny or by some act or means divest tbemselves oC litle to Ibe Propcny without oblaining Ihe wrinen consenl oC Mongagee, Ihen Mongagee, at its option, may declare the entire balance oC Ibe loan plus interest on the balance immediately due and payable. This option shall oot apply if (1) the sale oC tbe Property is pennined because the purchaser's creditwonhiness is salisfactory 10 Mongagee and (2) that purchaser, prior to the sale, has execuled a wrinen assumplion agreement containing terms prescribed by Mongagee, including, if required, an increase in the rate of inlerest payable under the Agreement. ' W. Morlgagors, and each of them in this Mortgagc, hcreby waive and release all benefit and relief from any and all ap~raisement, slay and exemption laws, now in force or hereafter passed. either Cor Ibe benefit or relief of Morlgagors which limit Ihe unpaid principal balance duc under the Note 10 a sum nol ID excess of the amount actually paid by the purchaser of the Propeny at a sale oC Ihe Propeny in any judicial proceedings upon the NOle or upon this Mongage, exempt the Propeny or any olher premises or propeny, real or personal, or any pan oC the proceeds of sale thereof, from anachment, levy or sale under execution, or provide for any stay of execution or olher process. 11. Mortgagor warrants lhal (1) Ihe Propcny has nol been used in the past and is not presently used for hazardous and/or toxic waste, (2) Ihe Propeny complies wilh all Cederal, slate and local environmental laws regarding hazardous and/or toxic waste, (3) asbcstos has not been used as a building material on any building material on any building erecled on lhe Propeny in Ibe past. (4) the Propeny is not presenllyused Cor asbestos storage and (5) lhe Mongagor complies with all federal, state. and local laws, as well as regulalions, regarding the use and storage of asbestos. 12. Mortgagor convenants and agrees to comply wilb all federal, state, and local environmental laws in the mainlenanee and use of Ibe Propeny . 13. Mortga~or warrants that neither the Property nor the loan proceeds were or will be used in illegal drug activity, and the Propeny is not subject to seizure by any goveT1lJ!1entaJ a..uthority.because of any. illegal drug activity. BUT PROVIDED ALWAYS. tbat if Mongagors do payf;r cause this Mongage and the debt hereby secured to be paid in full, on tbe day and in the manner provided in the Agreement, then this Mortgage and lhe estate he,eby granled shall cease and delennine and become void, anything herein to the contrary nolWithstandlllg. The covenants herein contained shall bind, and the benefits and advanlages, shall inure to, the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the paroesberelo. Whenever used, Ihe singular number shall include lhe plural, the plural the singular. and Ihe use of any gender shall be applicable to 011 genders. Payment of this Mongage is subject to lhe terms and conditions of the Agreement of even dale between Mortgagors and Mongagee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Mortgagors hiNe signed t.his Mongage, with seal(s) affIxed, on tbe dale first above written. Si a1ed and delivere . the pre ce of: , , 19~, before me, Sandra L. Hartman (Name of Officer) the undersigned. officer, personally appeared Suzanne . Abel .~:~.:. (Name of Bom1oNtr) known to me .(~liMactori1y proven) to be the person whose name ...1!!...- subscribed to tbe within instrument and acknowledged .-,[\I'UIlU......, is/a.re that she ..,;. .~ ~J,.!~!lo.6"'ni.~.(~r tbe purposes herein contained. hc/she/l~r:.~,~U..~>. ,,,"~ '....;.0..{. ~ .',~... ~~". ~ ~ 0."....:.,1". WlTNEQSil1lV .~~riiif(~ll~~he~~~:~ar aforesaid. .1....~.:.l~.!f...t~._ ~:...:~ :,~'m~' ..I~R. .....l._._ ' n ..l'j"f'.'< "." ,',~'}...._~....,' '_'::.' ".4''' , ~'i'.~L'.J'i', """';"~'_"""..seal ~" .....J. f".... t..; . Notary Public '. .. . en'" " umberland County My commission.e,. . ' .. ',.. 0'19 . ' , ~onOltlotarles COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF Cumberland On Ihis the 8 th day of April WiInCSS Witness \VilDeSS ) ) 55.: ) Xl (I~ A{jh ~ 01).{ J ~el (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) g4-~ ~ NO( ublic of PCDnsylvanta - ',~ ;~~ .-,,~.;','I;"\.,.:'::,::"', """., _'~ -, '. ,.' ----- .-----------..---.-- " ....." '" ,. ',<", " 1j . .' '( 'lj,(~"..' :\. ,-' , , . ~ ' " . ~ " '. 'Y.l PURCltASE PRICE (800 nolo on fCMJrso) . j .~ . OP600-;.'. INI u:ss TRADE.IN o FAiR' "''"','', .~l:i"\,>;:',,~' .,'\f,< ~'_I';1....~H;":' l. fl. /f:~"'~J.. 'p AAlOONT '. ,. . ',.:., ;, 'f)"";,,,, '~'I";V,' t. _' Oqt :~-'''. ......~~"letnlJl1\ S\n\cm.n\ --- .-----,_...-......-..._~.- III OUI".....' ~III'~I.... ..~ v...~ 1l..",.,.'I~1 ;1:... "W _____2':'_'!..!... "01 om ~:-"'I)t1. of lOin , n f1~ Z:O-'riVl J [J(;"~tj;;j';[i; llvo1tler .!IO:;;;U;;ii.,- L'9"I' 1","",;";'C';;'';;'b'' \()fl.m ,I. 0 VA G [J CVlI~. 1115, c:1iUie:1fi;lio",.. It lumldll.d iOoi;9iotl. IlhllW11"niOi aehJal Cllultm.iijcoii.~;a io-i.;jij b, Ih\! "..ll~~ii ;r,o:;;;-- IlomA III1Uklld 'p 0 o' wert pAid oun\lj, 01 tlo~"'Q; Ihllf 010 ,hOwn Ill.... fo' fifolfflllllconol (lV/JlMI" ,nd "II Iml ~v.'Jt.lo'" h 11'<1 Inl~la b.liiMnilll ^,iiir..sS or OOl'lUY/fn:-:-:TullJiifiii'l - '--, --- . . . '. SOl1lASI IRUU[ R!\4-V hW~"I'~Bl'P.G. rA 110S5 '. . P~iiMW^Wi-^oUHE~ OF !!itt": li~li(.riirrrtJii.iirclii'rrr.rriTiiiin.iit:.rJimiiml.ai~i.o. i 'r.iil.iiii.ii .----~-_._-- (Sel1tf 1111 . ) 713 kAlIll rnHK noUl. VOIlX. rA 1140G.lJ1I9 F.liMlG ^"U AlJUJilffi\lfitNUllt mil1W1!ilIli:F. . .,..,-:;-- . ' '\: uNiOii'EiiW- ..-l.~"":'..~'~,~,_._, IJ? \OUIIIOC<[ ~lR[[1 l(X:^1I0tl: tOlU:'. rA 11AGl irseifl~MEIIf ^O(;~Ii:--:'T,:. '~pl. It'; .hsir.tttlI1R'(i'Cfli"~y7,~.l. .',' ; fllA.tE. or 1\cfllEMerH:. .' .JL1", IUddlt Strnt'51)ite'L G~tt)'blJrr1; fA. tflH.lJ.2159J!iof' '.:.,;.'.I.I'.[;','",;,"-':~.'.:IF':_!:, :: r~p.nifUfji~iE: hnUlfY lB. 199f1 --........--. J. 9UMMAIlV OF uilltl\oW~II'S IrlAIl!lACllutl Un. 0005:; M10Ukr DU uS, ." .. 11'. c....'ul.a1....!'Ic. \ ..... . ~), .... ..:..1 r ',.. 1'1 4.Q.t..!!.HJ!..i.Q.Q. "' "...~u 11.."1, ..~. ::~:::ll::t~. j.; ~~Oi.t~.t~:\(I.;~ ;iF: ,..:~'.~;~ :;~1..i J;";. ;P};0Hd ~ ij~l~~ 6 ".. !!!-._-~....; ~ ... ..,~...._-~... AUJUS1MENIS roo IIEMS PAIU 8'( Sf.:LtER I" .e.nV,\"'CE: lu.nlll.....u.1i ., : "'.'1'" "..,.: .,0::' 1O'.(t~_r, IU" II .In "I"U/'l'~" ... I. ..... _ 11, ",...., ,. ..-t :'~,,' L',j. r.,'. 101 SClOOL 1128 to 6/JO 4-~2 1l!~ In. lit.. .. .. .. .....'... . . . ..,'.,,;., 1M. GnoSS /lMOUNr VUE FilUM OQflflOWER: 200. IIMOUtdS PAlO BY un IN net.t.lF OF e w 41.,287.07 I'" .....,... m:..~~!!.'~!.!!.!.I!~':.!.!_...."., ~!? M~!!," .........;1... ~t'" 1.1~lt) !n LoI.I....IoI..(')II~.1 ,u'lIcll. 'de.;'. ,.' .' .... ":'.~!;'~::::;1.V,". o OOO.UU ,":'.' '. ." .'"....". !!' !~A In. ~Ol. IU, ._-~... - All./USIMFNfS FOI1Itl:MS .U~.PAID BV ~eLlEn: . .:210. CJ.rl\."1' IIJ~!....."!..~~ ..1/9811 1/~~/2B JII. C'n~!f I.~II ~'. ".-11 '.f /9th. . t/2079n 1L.1~ .,.., J,3 ;'~O .".a..."......I. " m '1&. I". III. ~11. ..__111. .".. . .....,." ..'. ! ...... ~ '. ., ': , .; ~ ..~j~.;~!.!.! , ,.. " ':. Ii. ...d .. 2'0. 1011L PAIU UYIFOO SomOWE1l: :JOO. CAS" At ~rn..eMENr,r WlO'!onIlOWE :-.;. ..~,,:. ...... . '. ~u....Ji!:!l!iS ~ll'OlInt du@ (,om borrMr {11!3J.2nL 41; 28'/. U'/ JU2. Leu Uoun~ aid tl/lor barrowtr (IIne~ ~40 '.045:.08 303. CIIS" (@'nUM) (0 10) ucmowen; I., 24 1. 99 40,045.0~ . <.!...:- :C.t!:. 11325", . . ~ , .. . ~ijMMAhY UF S~ lEII's 1 ilATISXci1Ulr- loo.,.OO5.AMOUNIWiP.'lOS(!LlEH:,..". ..... ";:. ~ WI~O:IfllI'~"j'U.'U';'d ...'" ,,-, I' 't I .,40,UOO:OO' !'.r"""U".IIII' '~~:-;i;'j!':':!J:,:'i: I ; .,.~~~''';! .. .' '" ~ '01.:. '"., '.: '.. .;, . --^uiVSiMENiS'fOi'liiEMsrAiDDTI"iiirii iii AtriNir.i;:-' ';.404. ~;~~"~.~!~~!. ~ " . '.I.._.:.:.~ _01. o.~f1I' n... ,. ..~.A....i~I~""i ,,;:.;-1'."':':'" S(IOJt. 1/28 10 linn .0'. ; "III. . '11. ..tJ." 1 fir:fi 5, ...... ".1' .20. onor.s ...,."OUlH Oue TO SUllEn: ~;., nUJUC'lutlS IN _ N1 VUE lU SI!liER:- ':. !J!;t'c..!"4'UIIIII..I1!."UU1.U!..,., _ ';!i-: !!Ll'w~'';'>l \~41~.~_1!. ~'!!!~~. ,uo) u. e....~. "I"i.!l.!~un IUIlI.CIII ,~~.!!!il ~~,.". .,;"iii.. hlll l:':.,.: i ~O~. ".!JI~' ~' .!Co,,4 ...,ug'p.',:-k1'" !:OA .." ..., " 40,H9.~' i.,. ~UUU.OO !io r: ftii -............- 'lIP. tn. :' .'.'.."....... 1L.11'. n,ftO ... .. ;'" (~1I. .,. ., ,'. ".. .... ., ", . III. :llSlS,.:,-;,:-,....'.;; '!!: "'!'.;'11, ::. ..."".' ..," .!~i.^.:~' }.'_'~.~.'"' '" .. ..;;:.".1..:"....... .,.....;,.....:..! 520~ALf;OUC110US IN ,wO\mr DUE S1:llEIt; r..u.' OAG. 'Ar.sr:m .., 'Nr,lOMlt'M S!.LLEft: ~!ll.....>>.ross all'OunllkJ".tr;udhr..H!alz{~L.d 60ZJ.H:U.:r : ;1n;'/l1l.;"due'st:lti!fl1l1lt! 520 003. CAS" ( OlD) I g rnoM) SELLEn, .; ,-.., 40,liM; ~A _,iU, 44971'? ,.40 546 58 96.76 IIIID.1 (3,88) . IlF.SPA, 110 4305.2 ,'^ue t ~5 ')~'-~"'-'I I , .' ,. " " " / .. ..:"~,, "" ....,'.,.', "-""""" IIl'U I Ill" .1j~1\1 l. 100, IUlIIL 9^ltSJunUl([lr9 CUMMtSSIUU ....ltIII, ,',to."..,,', S~IILEM~IH'C"^"UES lIAI1f.llf11'I'III:t " ,". 1'11111 I III 1M 1I011l1llWUrS rlJfllJS ^' r.nllrMI:11I 1'^"""11M r.lIllllfl '1II1IlS ^' !irlII IM[lU iJivlsiuu OF cmrMISSi0i4 (dim 1001 ASfOlLUWS: "~I J~ 19'1..1 ---10 lQ)~tlm..111UUJll!tn:U.n' ,.. BOO, III S I'^",^ULE It c.;UlHll:.CIlUU WlIlIlUAIl: IgLJ,l!.U!Iji!!]!!Mlt. '" IgLLJltll1l!.'.1011 '" 1!ll~~Rf'!J1f1II.!lJo' liWi!J:f.ll.UlilL!i' In..J.I!ll.I~I.!l1!1nJJ' IQLMltl.I.U:lJ~LltI!UL!.mJu.Jo m...AtlJl!!!ll!.tU!. IQI 1!1 110 Ill. 900, J1t:M9 JIEUUJllEU D'IlENUEII lu Uti PA'U It' AuvIIU{.I;,: Hllftlllulloem 1iLMt1J.JI.1..hUWI~m '01 HJ..11lJu.I...",I.,u IlImlum 101 12! r1odlolluune. DIIMlum 101 b1. 1000, IliSEI1VE f'U 11 EU II jUW!!I!!1..!!!t!!ill~' I!1QL.Ml1IA!~O JJU.QILl!.JIWlllu IUt.S:2W1..l1U!!JLI1!t' lJIiL"".,nl....llm.n.. ICU "aa~ ....uflnu ICO' 10 D' Lu' "'oW2---, y..llI YfL.!1I 'mEI1: m!~"'" ! mon,I..1t . p,an'''I. !._ manl'" ~. m~Il" (II' manl"'" I manU,." . ",onll.. o. Lscrow Ad uSUrenl pi' "'O~!" PII mom" '" m!~l" ,.. mO"I" '" mOOlI" ,'1 manl~ ptt monl~ pit manl" 100, II re ale Accounlln C ARGE : ~ 1!!h.!!1!!!l!!!nlll' c'o....'I.. 10 ll~Il!S.JOIIIll.I...chlll 1103.11,,"......1011110"111 l'C4l1tl,"'''''I''C,blnd"la jl01 (locum"" DlnlllnOn '11 1HJ..lIa'IIIIII,le IIC', AltO'''.'''' 1,," 10 ~.!!!."lbaulllm.Nu",bJ!.ll.-- 1101. lhlt ItIUlllnll1 10 OlU ntPlIlJllC IlllC CUt'NI'f I fIlAC Jhtlu... lIoll.. 'U"" Numb... . 1l0t.IIO~ ~flssill: !ll!.l"","'.co.,,.a. t 1110 0.011'" oo.!tWlLJ iQ.i.Q.UJL_9JI __ 1111. UISBlJlSHIJH IlE' N'PtlLEM N1SIlIAClltki CO IlU, Iln. 1200. GUVEUNMENl nEe I (l ANU lllANSFEIt C IAHUES: 1101, n.c/I.fIln,: ':"11 D..~ Ii 25.00 I MO'la.._ I ,'. mt...2!J'/c!!,!!_,.!!!''''''u' D..~i 40~-1...fdS'!!I1'1I" 112' lIUl,ln/,lImo': Dnd t 400.,00 11.40'IOIa.' mi. PMR OF AlIllR/lH' RECOIlIJER or OWlS IIC'. 300. A UI U IolNI K. r^IIlUtlU CASIl 5'. UU ----3.ii.oii 3.UU Is 40,000.00 , 111'liu... 22-. UU, .-JillLJlll. -.Ml.!1.JlY 13.5Q SE 1 E E 'C AJ-IUES: J'OI,8unn11l UO'PlllIn,,,,cllb,,le J'C, "" !3C5 "" ill' .1400, IOfAl SeTTLEMENT CIlAIlGES 63'1.25 5U1,5U 110"" u"lu., ........d 1101 INtH 1S.III.n"nl Q,",,,,"n' 'n~ III I'" bU' 01 m, ~"o..l.d,. 'n~ bdol, ,. I. . IIU' .nd 'CCUIIII 11111""011 III ." llcolp" Ind dllbulI"".n" "..~. ... m, Iccau . b, m. Iol 1"'1 IlIn"c1l0... I lu,I""1 ClI1I" 1"1' I hl"':C/"~:'/':'~ :'.::: ::"~;;= i9~.~~,e? ~i/./"'~/I.9.~' ~ llona.lI: D.'"' -+ Aa.nl: ~,J: 1/2B 90 - - IDIHiTli!rlmi.t1 GlIlll'lIIlllf/liflGll1IKIIIFY mr!1TlifMl'n I filllGnlrll 9.h,ol nd..O....: Ilall: Au.nl: 11111: l".IlUn'l 9.IIII11"nI9111.....II'.."lth'''... P"fll"dl.. "Ullnd .ceur.', HCllU'" allhl.lrlnUC!lnn. "'I" IhI. .Ul....,nl. ~I 'n h. rll.blll..,1 !II Itt"'''ln~. Il,U: Ihlll.menl Aalnl: titAn /( ~l-'z,,,,,- ,,"" 1/7.11/911 ^~51fi^[ liiil.li"N1t --- WAnNINO: 1111 I c.lm. III ho..lroa'J ~..h 1.1.. IU.."..n', 10 I'" IInllo" OU,,, an ,10(. 01 In, Olio.. ,I...'al 'rum, 1',...111.. upon cOM'r.l1nfl C~.. I"r.~"'o . U". Inol l,ur!I.,,,., "'.",. ra' 01.11'" "'111\1. It U,S. Cod. IIICllan.tOOI Ind UH.lon 101,1, '. r 4f~ BOOK ' PAG: ~. OPEN.END ~i1cAG~ 5 23 11IIS MORTGAGE SECURES FUTURE ADVANCES WHICH MORTGAGEE ~ '\ HAS A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE ) TIllS MORTGAGE, enle in Ihis 8th day of April , 19~, be!Ween Suzanne . Aoel , here.f1er called" Mortgagors," and o BENEFICIAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY, . Pennsylvania corporation, IXI BENEFICIAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPAN~ d/b/a Beneficial Morlgage Co. of Pennsylvania, t! a Pennsylvania Corporalion,.'V" ~ having an office and place of business at 4910 Carlisle PiKe Suite 104 .Mechanicsburll: . ,Pennsylvania, hereafter called "Mortgagee." WITNESSETH, thai 10 secun: payment by Mortgagors of. Credit Line Account AgroelJle~IO hell'8fler called "Agreement," of even dale herewith, by which Mortgagee is obligaled 10 ma"" loans and advances up 10 S lb.'> O. U , hereafler called "Credit Line" and aU other obligations of Mortgagors undenhe lerms and provisions of this Mortgage, Morlgagors do by Ihese presents, sell, grant and convey 10' MOrlgal!l:e. QLL Ihe follllWing described real eSlale, hereafler called "Property," siruated in lhe ro City o Boroul(/J 0 Thwnship of """tor , County of York , Commonweallh of Pen7i.ylv.ula, described as follows: ~ '. , , ~ECEIVED ~J 'j' Il. I.: '.' ..4,j J. J. M. Municipal lax Lot 1-34-6-103 ,Block . Uniform Parcel IdentWer Being premises cQl1..v!'\'ed tn Mortgagors by deed of conveyance duly recorded in Ihe office for Ihe Recording of Deeds in this County in Deed Book No. U ill ,Page 1536 . as Ihe Property therein described. o If this box is checked, this Mortgage is subjecllO a prior mortgage daled , 19_. execuled by Mortgagors 10 as mortgagee, which prior mortgage securos paymenl of a promissory nole in the principal amount of S . That prior mortgage was recorded on , 19_ wilh the Recorder of the County of , Pennsylvania, in Book , Page TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property hereby granted and conveyed unto Morlgagee, to and for Ihe use and behoof of Mortgagee, its successors and assigns, forever. TIllS MORTGAGE IS MADE subjecj 10 Ihe follOWing condilions, and Morlgagors agree: ' 1. Mortgagors will make all paymenlS on Ihe due dale Ihereof and perform all other Obligations as required or provided hereio and in the Agreemenl. 2. This Mortgage secures any and all fulure advances which Morlgagee shall make to Mortgagor under Ihe Agreemenl up 10 the Credil Line, 3. Mortgagors will pay when due all taxes and assessmenls levied or assessed against Ihe Property or any part lhereof, and will deliver receipts for those payments to Mortgagee upon requesl and if Mortgagee pays any laxes or assessmenls plus pen.llies and costs, Ihe amounts so paid may be added to the unpaid balance of the debt secured by this Mortgage. 4. Mortgagors will keep Ihe improvemenls on Ihe Property conslantly insured against fire and such other haZards, in such amount and with such carriers as Mortgagee shall approve, with loss, if any, payable 10 Mortgagee as its interesl may appear. 5. Mortgagee, al ils oplion in case of defaull by Mortgagors of any obligalion re<juired nf Ihem under pal1lgTaphs 3 and 4 of lhis Mortgage, shall have the righllo pay any taxes, assessmenlS, water and sewer rents, insurance premiums and all other charges and ...- claims which Mortgagors bave agreed 10 pay under Ihe lerms of the Agreement and this Mortgage, and any and all monies so paid shall be a part of Ihe debt hereby secured and recoverable as such, in all respects, with intereST thereon from the date of such paymenl. 6. Mortgagors will neither commit nor suffer any strip, wasle, impainnent or delerioralion of the Property, and will maintain Ihe same in good order and repair. 7. In Ihe event that Mortgagors defaull in lhe making of any payment due and payable under Ihe Agreement, or in Ihe keeping and performance by Mortgagors of any of Ihe conditions or covenants of Ihis Mortgage or the Agreement, Mortgagee may forthwitb bring an Action of Mortgage Foreclosure hereon, or institute other foreclosure proceedings upon tbis Mortllage, and may proceed to judgment and execution 10 recover Ihe Unpaid Balance of the Accoun! plus accrued bUI unpaid interesl, lDeluding attorney fees as permilted by law, costs of suit and costs of sale. RL 4 PA 20/2212S, Ed. Nev. '94 '" (- BOOK 1320 PAGE 352~ 8. Upon commencemenl of a SUil in fo",closure of lhis Morlgage or suillO which Mortgagee may be made a parly by reason of Ihis Mortgage, or al any lime during Ihe penden':)' of any such suil, Mortgagee, upon applicalion 10 the appropriale court, at once, wilhout nOlice In Morlgagor or any person elauning under Mnrlgagor, and without consideralion of Ihe adequacy of Ihe securily or Ibe solvency of Mortgagor, shall appoint a receiver for the Property. The receiver shall (1) take possession of the Property; (2) make repairs and keep the Property 10 proper eondilion and repair; and (3) pay (a) alllaxes and assessmenls accruing during Ihe receivership, (b) all unpaid laxes and assessments unpaid and tax sales "'mammg unredeemed, alar prior 10 Ihe fo",closure sale, (c) all insurance p",miL>ms neeessal)' 10 keep lhe Properly insu",d in accordance with the provisions of this Mortgage, and (d) lhe expense of lhe ",ceivership, and apply the balance, if any, agalnsllhe indebledness secun:d by Ihis Mortgage. 9. If Mortgagors voluntarily shall sell or convey lhe Property, in whole or in part, or any interest in thai Property or by some act or means divest themselves of lirle 10 Ihe Property wilhoul obtaining the wrinen consent of Mortgagee, Ihen Mortgagee, al ils oplion, may declare the enti", balance of Ihe loan plus inteICSt on the balance immediale!>' due and payable. This oprion shall nOI apply if (1) the sale of the Properly is pennineQ because lhe purchaser's credilWOrthlOess is sa~i ,factoI)' to Mortgagee and (2) Ihal purchaser, prior to lhe sale, has executed a wrinen assumption agreement conlaining terms prescribed by Mortgagee, includmg, if required, an inc",ase In Ihe rate of inle",st payable under the Agreement. ' 10. Mortgagors, and each of them in this Mortgage, hereby waive and release all benelit and ",lief from any and all appraisemenl, Slay and exemplion laws, naw in force or hereafter passed, either for the benefil or relief of Morlgagors which limit lhe unpaid principal balance due under the NOle to a sum not 10 excess of the amounl aClually paid by the purchaser of the Property al a sale of the Property in any judicial proceedings upon Ihe NOle or upon this Mongage, exempt lhe Property or any olher premises or property, real or personal, or any part of the proceeds nf sale lliereof, from anachment, levy or sale under execulion, or provide for any stay of execulion or olher process. 11. Mortgagor warrants Ihal (1) lhe Property has nOI been used in Ihe past and is nol presently used for hazardous and/or loxie waste, (2) the Property complies wilh all federal, state and local environmental laws "'garding hazardous and/or loxic waste, (3) asbeslos has not been used as a building malerial on any building malerial on any building e",cled on the Property in the past, (4) lhe Property is nOI p",sently used for asbeslos srarage and (5) Ihe Mongagor complies wilh all federal, state, and local laws, as well as regulations, regarding the use and storage of asbestos. 12. Mortgagor coovenants and agrees to comply Wilh all federal, stale, and local environmental laws in lhe mainlenance and use of the Property. 13. Mortga~or warrants that neilher the Properly nor the loan proceeds we", or will be used in illegal drug activily, and the Property is nOI subject to seizure by any governl)lentaJ a.uthority.because of any. illegal drug activity. BUT PROVIDED ALWAYS, that if Mortgagors do paydr cause lhis Mortgage and Ihe deb I hereby secured to be paid in full, on the day and In the manner provided In the Agreement, then lhis Mortgage and lhe estale be~eby granted shall cease and detennine and become void, anything berein 10 lhe conlrary notwithslandillg. . The covenants herein contaioed shall bind, and lhe benefits and advantages. shall inure la, the respeclive heirs, execulors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the p.~rties .heieto. Whenever used, the singular number shall include the plural, the plural lhe singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. Payment of lhis Mortgage is subject to the lerms and conditions of Ihe Ag",emenl of even dale between Mortgagors and Mongagee. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Mortgagors have signed this Mortgage, Wilh seales) affixed, on lbe date firsl above wriUen. Si aled and delive", . the pre ce of: .. /, '. a/ift/1U (J 1)1, ) Suza S. Abel (SEAL) (SEAL) (SEAL) Witness \\Iimess WilOCSS COMMONWEALTII OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) sS.: ) COUNTY OF Cumberland On this the 8th day of April , 19~, before me, Sandra L. Hartman _. (Name of Offi"r) Ihe undersigned, officer, personally appeared Suzanne. Abel ~~;k., (Name of Borrower) kna.vn to me (~OOctorily proven) to be Ihe person whose name ~ subscribed [0 tbe within instrumenl and ackna.vledged ~(,'II".U....." is/an: that she ..,;. ';~~~~~aili.r.for the purposes herein contained. he/she,llhev ':-)?" 1.1" ~'. ," ~ ."...... ~. .~.. ~,..'"-t. .... C. .~ '. ~ ~.~'t~~..1". W1TNe~SfIJlX. J\a.rid~"~"" ~be~~~:~ar aforesaid. '~-.'f!'w.'~""'.Q' ....:.:l:~:;.;;Qift.. " ;l~'.~.".~" U;;.. . Q..: ~l;:'~iko"" ~..: 1 i"...:~')~ ',.: '..~. .... .... .'.'.,.:, ..'..'.'.II"....S..Bl .' v .. ,...... ... .......'; hSllii 1.,.,.. ,Notary Public ". .. . en'" " umnorland Counly My commission. '. . . .. ..., il'JP , . . . ASsQl:iaUon llf U ~~~/ ~ N'ot lie of PCllnsyJ...anla - \ : ( Alan Kim Palrono, Esq. 30 Wost Mlddlo Slrool Gettysburg. Pennsylvania 1702~ 717-334.8098 #2- -' . (': v \/ 1./ THIS DEED MADE THE ,ZZ ~ day of January in the ~ff one thousand nine hundred ninety eight, (1998), ~'I BETWEEN MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ PEREZ, a single woman, by her ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, GERALD I. GINGRICH, of 773 Kreitz Creek Road, York, Pennsylvania, GRANTOR / AND (; SUZANNE ABEL, of 5029 Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055, GRANTEE, WITNESSETH, that in consideration of the sum of FORTY THOUSAND AND NO/lOa DOLLARS, ($40,000.00), in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the said Grantors do hereby grant and convey to the said Grantee, ALL that certain tract of. land situated, lying, and being on the eastern ~ide of and known as No: 119 Qouth Duke Street in the ~rk, York County, <'enns:,lvd,nia, together with the ~mprovements thereon erected and bounded anJ limited as follows to wit: BOUNDED on the north by property now or formerly bf York Trust Company on the east by a public alley on the south by property now or formerly of Curtis N. Hollinger and on the west by said South Duke Street. Fronting on ,said South Duke Street 28 feet 'and 9 inches and extending of uniform width to the hereili;Jefo!'e mentioned alley. BEING THE SAME which Edna. E. Leidig, widow, by her Attorney- in-Fact, Theodora B. Waltermyer, by t-l1.eir de'ed dated August 15, 1997 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of York County, Pennsylvania in Record Book 1299 at Page 993 granted and conveyed unto Monica Del Carm;~li Gomez Perez I a single woman, erroneously stated as a married wc.man in said deed, the GRANTOR herein. ."' -: (' ,....... .' ....... ", -....... .........-."..~~~............,... '. .',,'Il.o.........._ AND, the said Grantor does hereby covenant and agree that she will warrant specially the property hereby conveyed, subject to recorded and/or visible easements and restrictions, if any. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto set her hand and seal the day and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED ,AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF 4A~/~ dz,~ . Jn~M('~ MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ by her attorney-in-fac I. GINGRICH ~. EJ~J ;}/~-V // L....._ WITNESSES t I Received FEB 2 6 1998 '. City of York - , J , en '" ~:;::tJg In ~ co N "" . .. .. .. LLl a: '" ~, en E: '" .... On 0 .; co .... - _ 0 '" LLl>-..... ~cu ena. - ... ...- = "".....:z: ... ... ... ~tns.... '" :z:a: :z: LL.:::l:> :z:~ . ~ ..... ..... 00...J iOffi .cu '" co ~ :::J><cnQ u>- O~,.j II c<Z:l;t!= ~ en r.n ::z:: f- fii' LLl:>:::z: ",~",,.jen ~:~~c:J>- QU::Z U::CLU ~CJ"Ia:: ..:r ~ ~ ,fi ~ ::;t; 0>-... ;5 CJ"I .a II ~1.&J:i!(.,)- i Certify This Decument 1b Be Recorded Ip. York County, Pa. ", ......... '~\ll Rfr/l. -0. ....d'~...:.....:*'1.:o. .~v.. .:,"~.. :~/ ...u"~ . .. .~. It..): :3: :I:!.~ :0- .-. . .n,. .... .'. . X., ....__ .. ..:Q~ .....:.:.... '~.<lIi ..,1f'1( coo"'.!'... . -...".... Power of Attorney KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ PEREZ, of Santiago, Chile, do hereby make, constitute and appoint WALTER WILTSCHEK of York County, Pennsylvania, my true and lawful Attorney In Fact for ma and in my name, place and stead and on my behalf to do and execute the fol10wing acts, deeds and things, including (but not by way of limitation) the following: 1. To purchase, have, hold, possess, control, manage, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate, sell or otherwise dispose of, lease(for any term or perpetually and with or without privilege of purchase and with or without privilege of renewal) the real estate known as premises No. 119 South Duke Street, York, Pennsylvania, and its contents of household goods and furnishings; as well as aIL or any part of my property, real or personal, in such manner and on such terms as my said Attorney In Fact shal1 see fit; in connection with the foregoing to make, execute, acknowledge and deliver deeds, mortgages, bills of sale, leases and other proper instruments of conveyance, hypothecation, lease, assignment and transfer and to invest and reinvest the proceeds of such sale and/or any other monies of mine in such property, real or personal, as my said Attorney In Fact deem expedient. 2. To receive and collect any monies that may be due and owing to me from any person, firm or corporation and to deposit the same in any bank account of mine or in any account my Attorney In Fact shall open for me under the authority granted him in this instrument; and to withdraw the same and any other monies on deposit in such account or accounts. 3. To pay from my funds, using therefor either principal or income in the sole discretion of my said Attorney In Fact such expenses of mine as my Attorney In Fact shal1 see fit to defray for my benefit and to sign income tax returns for me. 4. To enter into and to perform contracts on my behalf and to carry out all contracts entered into by me. 5. And generally to do and perform all acts, deeds and things that I personally could do if present and acting in the premises notwithstanding the fact that authority has not been specifically conferred hereinabove upon my Attorney In Fact to do and perform such acts, deeds and things. (1) '~ '.. ".~.... " JJM/ 4/8/S9 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WALTER WILTSCHEK, Plaintiff, NO. 98-3425 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW SUZANNE ABEL, Defendant. PLAINTIFF' S PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM AND NOW, this ~rd day of Ai)n'1 , 1999, comes the Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, by and through his attorneys, Mooney & Associates, by John James Mooney, III, Esquire, and files the within Plaintiff's Pre-Trial Memorandum, wherein the following is a statement, to wit: I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AS TO LIABILITY: Plaintiff and Defendant became involved in a romantic relationship on or about December 20, 1997. Defendant represented to Plaintiff that she was an attorney and caused Plaintiff to place a great deal of trust into her. Plaintiff lent $5,500.00 to Defendant with her express promise to repay said amount. In February of 1998, Plaintiff transferred a 1992 BMW automobile to Defendant upon her express promise to pay Plaintiff the sum of $18,800.00. After Plaintiff loaned Defendant the money and transferred the vehicle, Plaintiff learned that Defendant was not a licensed attorney. To date, Defendant had failed to pay the loan of $5,500.00 and the $18,800.00 for the vehicle. Accordingly, Defendant is in breach of contract and Plaintiff believes and avers that Defendant is also guilty of fraudulent conversion by false representations made to Plaintiff which were intended to defraud him of the $5,500.00 and the BMW vehicle, valued at $18,800.00. 1 JJMI 4/8/99 I VII. STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS: Unknown. Plaintiff desires payment in full of $24,300.00 plus interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, 3 WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. SUZANNE ABEL, No. 98.3425 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ, by her Attorney-in.Fact, WALTER WILTSCHEK, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. SUZANNE ABEL, No. 98-3426 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW ISSUES I. DID PLAINTIFF SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROVING FRAUD? II. DID PLAINTIFF SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROVING THE TITLE TRANSFERS WERE OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS? III. DID DEFENDANT SUSTAIN HER BURDEN OF PROVING THE TITLE TRANSFERS OF THE VEHICLE AND REAL PROPERTY WERE VALID INTER VIVOS GIFTS? IV. DID PLAINTIFF SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROVING AN ENTITLEMENT TO RECOVERY UNDER A THEORY OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT? BACKGROUND During the pendency of a romantic relationship, Plaintiff stated his intention to give to Defendant several gifts including, inter alia, a vehicle and real property. Plaintiff delivered his promised gifts. Plaintiff also transferred legal title to the vehicle and real property to Defendant, whereupon Defendant became solely responsible for the physical and financial maintenance of both the vehicle and the real property. When Plaintiff subsequently terminated the relationship, he demanded Defendant re-convey both titled gifts. Defendant refused to re-convey the vehicle and real property since they were gifts. and since Defendant discovered that Plaintiff's ongoing fraudulent and criminal activities, for which Plaintiff attempted to implicate Defendant. placed Defendant in a precarious legal position. Plaintiff thereupon commenced the instant litigation. At the trial on June 16. 1999. before the Honorable Judge Kevin Hess, Plaintiff testified that he knowingly and voluntarily signed over the titles of the vehicle and real property to Defendant, but that he would not have done so had Defendant not misrepresented that she was a licensed attorney. Defendant testified that she accepted Plaintiff's gifts based upon Plaintiff's assertions that he wanted to help her; that no discussions occurred regarding payment for any of his gifts, including the vehicle and the real property; and that she specifically told Plaintiff she was not a licensed attorney and that she was studying to take the bar exam. Both parties presented character witnesses regarding Defendant. The Court took the case under advisement and ordered each party to file a Memorandum of Law in fifteen days. DISCUSSION I. DID PLAINTIFF SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROVING FRAUD? The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to prove fraud. Gibbs v. Ernst, 538 Pa. 193, 647 A.2d 882 (1994). The plaintiff can sustain his burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant made a representation calculated to deceive the plaintiff, that the misrepresentation was material to the transaction at hand, that the misrepresentation was made with knowledge of the falsity or with reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false, that the misrepresentation was made with the intent to induce reliance, that the plaintiff justifiably relied upon the misrepresentation, and that the plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by that reliance. !Q.. The plaintiff's burden of proof is not sustained by reliance upon conjecture, guess or suspicion. Waqner v. Somerset County Memorial Park, 372 Pa. 338, 92 A.2d 440 (1953). Plaintiff alleged Defendant misrepresented that she was a licensed attorney, and that, based upon that misrepresentation, he delivered the items and transferred title to the vehicle and real property to Defendant. At trial, Plaintiff admitted he believed Defendant was a licensed attorney, not by Defendant's representations, but because he Page 2 "believed and assumed" she was licensed after he saw her talking to her friend about divorce law. Plaintiff failed to present any evidence showing that Defendant had in any way represented herself as a licensed attorney. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that Defendant made a false assertion. Additionally, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate with any evidence that the alleged misrepresentation was material, induced justifiable reliance, or caused injury. To the contrary, Plaintiff testified that he checked with the Pa Disciplinary Board, the Pa Board of Law Examiners, and the PA Bar Association to confirm that Defendant was not a licensed attorney. Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proving fraud. , . II. DID PLAINTIFF SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROVING THE TITLE TRANSFERS WERE OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS? Regarding the vehicle, the Statute of Frauds requires a contract for the sale of goods for a price of $500.00 or more to be in writing. 13 Pa. C.S.A. 92201, et seq. The party asserting a parol modification of a written contract for a sale within the Statute of Frauds has the burden of proof. Producers Coke Co. v. Hoover, 268 Pa. 104, 110 A. 733 (1920). Further, plaintiff has the burden of proving that a valid contract was entered into by the parties. Linn v. Emplovers' Reinsurance Corp., 397 Pa. 153, 153 A.2d 483 (1959). Plaintiff alleged a contemporaneous oral agreement was created when the title was transferred which provided that Defendant would pay Plaintiff for the vehicle at some indefinite time in the future. Plaintiff offered no evidence to support his allegation that the parties ever entered into a valid contract. To the contrary, Plaintiff admitted he knowingly and intentionally delivered the vehicle and legal title without any consideration. Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proving an oral contract for the sale of the vehicle sufficient to remove legal title from the statute of frauds. Regarding the real property, the Statute of Frauds requires a contract for the sale of land to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. 33 P.S. 91, et seq. A conveyance of real property through a deed is presumptively valid and will not be set aside unless it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the transfer was improperly induced by fraud or other misconduct on the part of the transferee. Walsh v. Page 3 Bucalo, 423 Pa. Super. 25, 620 A.2d 21 (1993). The burden of proving that the transfer was the product of a lack of mental capacity or undue influence or fraud or a confidential relationship is on the person seeking to set aside the deed. 19.. A confidential relationship exists when the parties do not deal on equal terms and/or when it is established that one party occupies a superior position over the other. 19.. When undue influence or incompetency are not present, the evidence of a confidential relationship must be certain; it cannot arise from suspicion or infrequent or unrelated acts. 19.. Further. when the language of a contract is clear and unequivocal, courts interpret its meaning by its contents alone, within the four corners of the document. Banks Enqineerinq Co.. Inc. v. POlons, _ Pa. Super. _,697 A.2d 1020 (1997). The courts generally do not rewrite agreements or make up special provisions for parties who fail to anticipate forseeable problems. 19.. When a contract does not provide for a contingency, it is not ambiguous; rather, it is silent, and the court may not "read" into the contract something it does not contain. 19.. at 1023. The vendee's reliance on his own recollection and unsubstantiated allegations to establish a contract are insufficient to sustain his burden of proof. Id. Moreover, a party who relies on an oral agreement for the exchange of realty must produce witnesses who heard the parties repeat it in each other's presence, and a contract is not to be inferred from the declarations of one of the parties. Kirk v. Ford, 330 Pa. 579, 200 A. 26 (1938). For an oral contract to be taken out of the statute of frauds, terms of the contract must be shown by full, complete, and satisfactory proof; evidence must adequately describe the land and amount of consideration, establish adverse possession in furtherance of the alleged contract, and show performance or part performance which could not be compensated in damages and which would make recission inequitable and unjust. Kurland v. Stolker, 516 Pa. 587, 533 A.2d 1370 (1987). Plaintiff alleged a contemporaneous oral agreement was created when the deed was transferred at closing which provided that Defendant would pay Plaintiff for the real property at some indefinite time in the future. As previously, Plaintiff offered no Page 4 evidence to support his allegation of an oral agreement for the sale of the real property. Plaintiff failed to establish any fraud or misconduct by Defendant. Plaintiff testified that he did not suffer from mental incapacity or undue influence when he authorized the title transfer at closing. Plaintiff further admitted that there were material facts! he failed to disclose to Defendant, thus placing Plaintiff in a superior position over Defendant, not the reverse, as required to sustain his burden of proof. Further, the title transfer documents executed at the closing settlement meeting for the real property are clear and unequivocal. Plaintiff failed to anticipate forseeable problems, Le., the parties' relationship could end. Plaintiff's subsequent independent recollection of a contemporaneous oral agreement relative to the title of real property is insufficient to sustain Plaintiff's burden of proving the title documents should be taken out of the statute of frauds. , Moreover, Plaintiff did not present the testimony of his friend, Gerald Gingrich, who was Attorney in Fact for Plaintiff's third and bigamous wife, Monica del Carmen Gomez. Nor did Plaintiff present the testimony of his attorney, Alan Kim Patrono, Esq., who handled the closing on the real property. Absent the testimony of these witnesses or any other evidence supporting his allegation, Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proving an oral contract for the sale of the real property, thus leaving legal title within the statut~ of frauds. III. DID DEFENDANT SUSTAIN HER BURDEN OF PROVING THE TITLE TRANSFERS OF THE VEHICLE AND REAL PROPERTY WERE THERE VALID INTER VIVOS GIFTS? The burden of proof is on the donee to show with clear, precise, direct and convincing evidence that the donor intended to make an immediate gift and that the gift was delivered. Mericle v. Wolf, 386 Pa. Super. 82, 562 A.2d 364 (1989). The donee can sustain her burden of proof generally with the testimony of a credible witness who 1 Plaintiff admitted on cross examination that he was still married to the instant Monica del Carmen Gomez while dating Defendant, that his marriage to Ms. Gomez occurred while he was still married to Karen Garrett Wiltschek, that he was convicted of manslaughter by vehicle for which he served one year in Maryland in 1987, that a bench warrant was issued for his arrest in 1995 in connection wilh the kidnapping of a minor child in 1994, and that he accepted 12 months probation for contempt on June 1, 1998. (see attached). "I . il .. \ ;/ II.... ;. ~ ..:,' I.. ., ,) I.'...~ :..! : t-,~ Page 5 testifies as to the facts as distinctly remembered, with details narrated exactly and in due order, and with testimony so clear, direct, weighty and convincing to enable the finder of facts to conclude, without hElsitancy, of the truth of the facts as asserted. Lessner v. Rubinson, 527 Pa. 393, 592 A.2d 678 (1991); Hera v. McCormick, 425 Pa. Super. 432, 625 A.2d 682 (1993). The donee can sustain her burden of proving the intent to make an immediate gift with documentary evidence demonstrating that the mental capacity of the donor was of an intelligent perception with an understanding of the dispositions made of his property, and that the persons and objects he desired were the recipients of his bounty. Horner bv Peoples National Bank of Central Pennsvlvania, - Pa. Super. _,719 A.2d 1101 (1998). Finally, the donee can sustain her burden of proving delivery of the gift by showing actual or constructive delivery which invests the donee with complete control over the subject and Which simultaneously divests the donor of complete control over the subject. Hera, supra. As to the vehicle, Defendant offered the Department of Transportation title document forms, which were completed and signed by both Plaintiff and Defendant, and which vested legal title in Defendant. Defendant testified she took immediate possession of the vehicle and has remained solely responsible for the physical and financial maintenance of the vehicle beginning when Plaintiff initially titled the vehicle to Defendant in January 1998. Defendant never asked Plaintiff to give her anything, including his vehicle. Plaintiff intended to make an immediate gift of the vehicle and actually delivered the gift to Defendant. Defendant sustained her burden of proving a prima facia gift of the vehicle. As to the real property, Plaintiff offered the duly recorded general warranty deed conveyed to Defendant on January 28, 1998, which vested legal title in Defendant. Plaintiff admitted he attended the closing settlement meeting and authorized his friend, Rev. Gerald Gingrich, to sign over title without requesting or receiving any money from Defendant. Defendant testified that immediately after the title closing meeting, Plaintiff delivered to Defendant the keys to the real property and the utility bills, which were thereupon transferred into Defendant's name. Defendant never asked Plaintiff to give her anything, including the real property which Plaintiff alleged belonged to him. Page 6 Plaintiff intended to make an immediate gift of the real property and actually delivered the gift to Defendant. Defendant sustained her burden of proving a prima facia gift of the real property. Once the donee sustains her burden of proving a prima facia gift, the burden of proof shifts to the donor to demonstrate with clear, precise, direct and convincing evidence that a confidential relationship was established. Banko v. Malanecki, 499 Pa. 92, 451 A.2d 1008 (1982). To establish a confidential relationship, the donor must establish that circumstances made it certain that the parties were not dealing on equal terms; where the donee exerted overmasking influence over the donor or the donor had a weakness, dependence or trust in the donee, which Justifiably made an unfair advantage possible as where a superior position over the othor oxlsts Intellectually, physically, governmentally, or morally, so the opportunity to use that superiority to the donor's disadvantage exists. In re Estate of Mevers, 434 Pa. Super. 165,642 A.2d 525 (1994); Hera, supra; Horner, supra. Plaintiff testified that he was an educated, worldly man whe was not ill or suffering any mental defects when he signed the instant title documents. Plaintiff further admitted that there were material issues of fact (see Footnote 111) which he failed to disclose to Defendant prior to any of the title transactions so that any superior position existed solely in Plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proving a confidential relationship existed to Plaintiff's disadvantage. If the donor sustains his burden of proof, the burden of proof shifts back to the donee to prove that the gift was free of taint of undue influence or deception because the gift was a free, voluntary, and intelligent act of the denor which was free of undue influence or deception. Estate of Mevers, supra. Even if the court finds Plaintiff sustained his burden of proof to rebut the prima facia evidence of gifts, Plaintiff admitted at trial that he freely, voluntarily and intelligently gave title to Defendant, notwithstanding his assumption that Defendant was a licensed attorney. Plaintiff did not testify that he was under any undue Influence or deception when he authorized and signed the title documonts. Plaintiff sustained her Page 7 burden of proving that the transfers of the vehicle and real property were both valid inter vivos gifts from Plaintiff. IV. DID PLAINTIFF SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROVING ENTITLEMENT TO RECOVERY ON A THEORY OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT? There are three separate remedies available under the theory of unjust enrichment: resulting trusts, constructing trusts, and quasi-contract. Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine which focuses on whether defendant has been unjustly enriched. Schenick v. K.E.David.Ltd., 446 Pa. Super. 94, 666 A.2d 327 (1995). The Statute of Frauds prevents enforcement of a parol promise to convey real estate and a trust will not be imposed unless 1) the original transfer was procured by fraud, duress, undue influence or mistake, or 2) the transferee was in a confidential relationship at the time of the original transfer. Busher v. Keeler, 33 Leh.L.J. 29 (1968). However, the doctrine of unclean hands applies when a wrongdoer directly affects the relationship between the parties and is directly connected with the matter in controversy. Jackman v. Pelusi, 379 Pa. Super. 361, 550 A.2d 199 (1988). The Court may raise the doctrine sua sponte because the doctrine is implicated when a party's conduct shocks the moral sensibilities of the court. kl Plaintiff's impeachment based upon his criminal activities and contempt are shocking and reveal Plaintiff's unclean hands in the instant litigation. Moreover, Plaintiff's admissions on cross examination revealed that the gifts may have fulfilled Plaintiff's goal of laundering money back into the United States while avoiding detection and taxation. Plaintiff's fraud should preclude recovery. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's unclean hands, a resulting trust arises when a person makes, or causes to be made, a disposition of property under circumstances which raise an inference that he does not intend that the person taking the property should have a beneficial interest therein; and such a trust is created if a party uses his own money to purchase a property and transfers the property to another. Polivehiclepo v. POlivehiclepo, 410 Pa. 543, 189 A.2d 171 (1963). The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the trust with clear, precise and indubitable evidence. Sneiderman v. Kahn, 350 Pa. 496, 39 A.2d 608 (1944). The evidence can be established with oral testimony, Page 8 but it must be so clear, precise, convincing and salis factory thai it snlisfios tho mind and conscience of the court. Thomka v. Thomka, 109 Pitts.L.J. 367 (1961). Whoro a transfer of property is made to one person and anothor pays tho purchaso prico in order to accomplish an illegal purpose, a resulting trust do os not miso If Iho policy againsl unjust enrichment of the transferee is outweighod by tho policy against giving relief to an illegal transaction. Lona v. Jones, 13 Chest. 235 (1965).2 Plaintiff alternately testified that he purchased tho vohiclo and roal property with his money and/or with the money from his third wifo, Monica dol Carmen Gomez. However, Plaintiff also testified that intended to convoy lilie or the vehicle and the real property to Defendant. Defendant testified that PlalntHf dolivored Immediate possession of both gifts to Defendant upon convoyanco of legal lilies. Plaintiff never testified that he did not intend for Defendant to havo a beneficial interest in his gifts. To the contrary, Plaintiff admitted he would have pursued his alleged oral contracts for payment, even if he had made Defendant his fourth bigamous wife. Based on the totality of his actions and testimony, Plaintilf failed to satisfy his burden of proving a resulting trust. Next, the imposition of a constructive trust is an equitable remedy designed to prevent unjust enrichment. Yohe v. Yohe, 466 Pa. 405, 353 Pa. 417 (1976). A constructive trust arises when a person holding title to property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another on the grounds that he would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it. Brasile v. Estate of Brasile Bv and Throuah Brasile, 354 Pa. Super. 400, 512 A.2d 10 (1986). To impose a constructive trust on land, the court must find both a confidential relationship and a reliance on a promise to reconvey induced by that reliance. Moreland v. Metrovich, 249 Pa. Super. 88, 375 A.2d 772 (1977). A confidential relationship exists whenever one occupies a position of advisor 2 Evidence that a man entered into a merelricious relationship with a married woman purchased property with his funds and put title in woman's name did not raise presumption that property was placed in her name as a gift. Orth v. Wood, 354 Pa. 121, 47 A.2d 140 (1946). However, where a husband purchases real property with his own funds and places it in his wife's name or transfers property to wife without consideration, there Is a factual presumption of a gift, and to rebut the presumption and establish a resulting trust, the husband must support his claim by clear, explicit and unequivocal evidence. Shapiro v. Shapiro, 424 Pa. 120, 224 A.2d 164. (1966). Page 9 or counselor as to reasonably inspire confidence that he will act in good faith for the other's interests. Foster v. Schmitt, 429 Pa. 102,239 A.2d 471 (1968). In suits to establish constructive trusts, a presumption of rights exists in favor of the one in whom the legal title is lodged. Metzaer v. Metzaer, 338 Pa. 564, 14 A.2d 285 (1940). Where the property was conveyed by general warranty deed, absolute by its terms, and there was nothing to indicate that acquisition and retention of the property by grantee would result in unjust enrichment, prior beneficial owner was not entitled to reconveyance on theory of constructive trust. Grav v. Leibert, 357 Pa. 130, 53 A.2d 132 (1947). To establish a trust in land, evidence must be of the highest probative value and must be direct, positive, express, unambiguous, and convincing. Sechler v. Sechler, 403 Pa. 1, 169 A.2d. 78 (1961). This evidence can be based on oral testimony. Fridav v. Friday, 311 Pa. Super. 17,457 A.2d 91 (1983). Defendant asserts that, as with resulting trusts, the plaintiff carries the burden of proof. Plaintiff did not testify that his relationship with Defendant was confidential. Rather, he testified that he withheld significant factual matters from Defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff did not allege Defendant promised to re-convey title to the vehicle or the real property. Rather, Plaintiff testified about an alleged oral contract for Defendant to pay for the gifts. Defendant's valid legal titles are controlling. Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proof sufficient to support imposition of a constructive trust. Finally, the law implies a contract between parties, known as a quasi-contract, which requires a defendant to make restitution to a plaintiff for the value of the benefit conferred in quantum meruit when unjust enrichment is found. Duauesne Litho. Inc. v. Roberts & Laworski, 443 Pa. Super. 170,661 A.2d 9 (1995). To prove unjust enrichment, plaintiff has the burden of proving defendant wrongfully secured or passively received benefit that would be unconscionable to retain. Salvino Steel & Iron Works. Inc. v. Fletcher & Sons. Inc., 398 Pa. Super. 86,580 A.2d 853 (1990). The most important factor for the court to consider when applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment is whether the enrichment of the defendant is unjust. Schenick v. K.E. David. Ltd., 446 Pa. Super. 94, 666 A.2d 327 (1995). Significantly, the doctrine of Page 10 unjust enrichment does not apply simply because a defendant may have benefited as a result of a plaintiff's actions. Stvler v. Huqo, 422 Pa. Super 262,619 A.2d 347 (1993). Instantly, Plaintiff testified that he knowingly and willingly gifted the vehicle and real property to Defendant. Defendant did not wrongfully secure the gifts. Nor did Defendant passively receive the benefits of Plaintiff's gifts. Rather, Defendant testified she knowingly accepted Plaintiff's direct gifts and actively enjoyed the benefits therefrom, including executing a home equity loan on the real property. Defendant's enrichment was not unjust. Plaintiff's sole argument is that after having gifted these items and then broken off the relationship, Defendant refused to re-convey them to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's poor judgment and frustration that his attempt of extortion was unsuccessful is insufficient to sustain his burden of proving unjust enrichment. Regarding the $5500.00 Plaintiff alleged he loaned to Defendant, Plaintiff offered no evidence to support his burden of proving a loan existed or that Defendant exercised control over the money at issue. Rather, Defendant testified that $5000.00 was transferred into Defendant's checking account from Plaintiff's account in Germany, but that Plaintiff directed all payments and retained all receipts. Defendant further testified that she accompanied Plaintiff to his second ex-wife's house where he returned with $500.00 in cash, but that Plaintiff never gave that money to Defendant, but used it to pay for the couple's weekend in Atlantic City and New York where Piaintiff proposed to Defendant. Since Defendant was never in control of any of the money, and was never in possession of part of the money, Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proving unjust enrichment. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court render judgment favor of the Defendant, and dismiss Plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, 231 tK(1iUJJ C~tLlf Suzanhe Abel Pro Se Defendant Page 11 ---..---.. . .,... IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WALTER WILTSCHEK and KAREN WILTSCHEK No. 92-SU-05307-03 VS Civil Action - Law KEITH LENKER and JILL MARIE LENKER : Custody ~ York, Pa., Thursday, July 13, 1995 - A.M. Before the Honorable Penny L. Blackwell - Judge APPEARANCE S: RICHARD H. MYLIN, III, Esquire Counsel for the Lenkers BROOKS K. POMPER, Esquire Counsel for the Child * * * o R D E R It is now hereby ordered that a bench warrant be issued for the arrest of Walter Wiltschek, and that he be held until he can be brought before the Court upon the first business day after his arrest. @ ZOZ09f17S0291 . .._~ --.-,. ..... --_.'----,.-'-- ---..-.,-.----- --.-------.---..---Z..,.. i ( , I ( I " I , , IN THE COURT OF COMMON ~LEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WALTER WILTSCHEK and KAREN. WII.TSCHEK vs NO. 92-SU-OS307-03 KEITH R. LENKER and JILL M. WILEY LENKER APPEARANCES: :> /'; I: , I ~ F If r l 'I II, .l:' 1/1[' ". , , i. I I ! ' :,i '!j .J. York, Pa., Monday, June 1, 1998 Before the Honorable Joseph E. Erb, Senior JUdge Y.2 -- _J JOHN J. MOONEY, III, Esquire " and DANN S. JOHNS, Esquire ~ For the Plaintiff/Walter Wiltscbek ~ I .. :.:...: 3 .1 :..;.... SUZANNE S. SMITH, Esquire For the Plaintiff/Karen Wiltschek ~ ,_. >~ I,. Ii: ii I I RICHARD H. MYLIN, III, Esquire For the Defendant/Jill M. Wiley Lenker , BROOKS K. POMPER, Esquire For Tierra Lenker ."1 ."! TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ;;1 , :.~ ~'I .,' ."i " Iro.-.r., r'Ij,_. .Report ed by: - ,. 1(', ;":! I,.,..: '1,.,<1 "- ~ .I..'~I I ~,~ .~;, ..1/ Judith A. Greenholt, RPR Official Court Reporter I' 1 they were gifts, and since Defendant discovered that Plaintiff's ongoing fraudulent and criminal activities, for which Plaintiff attempted to implicate Defendant, placed Defendant in a precarious legal position. Plaintiff thereupon commenced the instant litigation. At the trial on June 16, 1999, before the Honorable Judge Kevin Hess, Plaintiff testified that he knowingly and voluntarily signed over the titles of the vehicle and real property to Defendant, but that he would not have done so had Defendant not misrepresented that she was a licensed attorney. Defendant testified that she accepted Plaintiff's gifts based upon Plaintiff's assertions that he wanted to help her; that no discussions occurred regarding payment for any of his gifts, including the vehicle and the real property; and that she specifically told Plaintiff she was not a licensed attorney and that she was studying to take the bar exam. Both parties presented character witnesses regarding Defendant. The Court took the case under advisement and ordered each party to file a Memorandum of Law in fifteen days. DISCUSSION I. DID PLAINTIFF SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROVING FRAUD? The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to prove fraud. Gibbs v. Ernst, 538 Pa. 193,647 A.2d 882 (1994). The plaintiff can sustain his burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant made a representation calculated to deceive the plaintiff, that the misrepresentation was material to the transaction at hand, that the misrepresentation was made with knowledge of the falsity or with reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false, that the misrepresentation was made with the intent to induce reliance, that the plaintiff justifiably relied upon the misrepresentation, and that the plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by that reliance. llL The plaintiff's burden of proof is not sustained by reliance upon conjecture, guess or suspicion. Waaner v. Somerset Countv Memorial Park, 372 Pa. 338, 92 A.2d 440 (1953). Plaintiff alleged Defendant misrepresented that she was a licensed attorney, and that, based upon that misrepresentation, he delivered the items and transferred title to the vehicle and real property to Defendant. At trial, Plaintiff admitted he believed Defendant was a licensed attorney, not by Defendant's representations, but because he Page 2 "believed and assumed" she was licensed after he saw her talking to her friend about divorce law. Plaintiff failed to present any evidence showing that Defendant had in any way represented herself as a licensed attorney. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that Defendant made a false assertion. Additionally, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate with any evidence that the alleged misrepresentation was material, induced justifiable reliance, or caused injury. To the contrary, Plaintiff testified that he checked with the Pa Disciplinary Board, the Pa Board of Law Examiners, and the PA Bar Association to confirm that Defendant was not a licensed attorney. Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proving fraud. II. DID PLAINTIFF SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROVING THE TITLE TRANSFERS WERE OUTSIDE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS? Regarding the vehicle, the Statute of Frauds requires a contract for the sale of goods for a price of $500.00 or more to be in writing. 13 Pa. C.S.A. ~2201, et seq. The party asserting a parol modification of a written contract for a sale within the Statute of Frauds has the burden of proof. Producers Coke Co. v. Hoover, 268 Pa. 104, 110 A. 733 (1920). Further, plaintiff has the burden of proving that a valid contract was entered into by the parties. Linn v. Emplovers' Reinsurance Corp., 397 Pa. 153, 153 A.2d 483 (1959). Plaintiff alleged a contemporaneous oral agreement was created when the title was transferred which provided that Defendant would pay Plaintiff for the vehicle at some indefinite time in the future. Plaintiff offered no evidence to support his allegation that the parties ever entered into a valid contract. To the contrary, Plaintiff admitted he knowingly and intentionally delivered the vehicle and legal title without any consideration. Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proving an oral contract for the sale of the vehicle sufficient to remove legal title from the statute of frauds. Regarding the real property, the Statute of Frauds requires a contract for the sale of land to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. 33 P.S. ~1, et seq. A conveyance of real property through a deed is presumptively valid and will not be set aside unless it is shown by c1erlr and convincing evidence that the transfer was improperly induced by fraud or other misconduct on the part of the transferee. Walsh v. Page 3 Bucalo, 423 Pa. Super. 25, 620 A.2d 21 (1993). The burden of proving that the transfer was the product of a lack of mental capacity or undue influence or fraud or a confidential relationship is on the person seeking to set aside the deed. !Q., A confidential relationship exists when the parties do not deal on equal terms and/or when it is established that one party occupies a superior position over the other. !Q., When undue influence or incompetency are not present, the evidence of a confidential relationship must be certain; it cannot arise from suspicion or infrequent or unrelated acts. Jd. Further, when the language of a contract is clear and unequivocal, courts interpret its meaning by its contents alone, within the four corners of the document. Banks Enaineerina Co.. Inc. v. Polons, _ Pa. Super. _,697 A.2d 1020 (1997). The courts generally do not rewrite agreements or make up special provisions for parties who fail to anticipate forseeable problems. !Q., When a contract does not provide for a contingency, it is not ambiguous; rather, it is silent, and the court may not "read" into the contract something it does not contain. !Q., at1 023. The vendee's reliance on his own recollection and unsubstantiated allegations to establish a contract are insufficient to sustain his burden of proof. Id. Moreover, a party who relies on an oral agreement for the exchange of realty must produce witnesses who heard the parties repeat it in each other's presence, and a contract is not to be inferred from the declarations of one of the parties. Kirk v. Ford, 330 Pa. 579, 200 A. 26 (1938). For an oral contract to be taken out of the statute of frauds, terms of the contract must be shown by full, complete, and satisfactory proof; evidence must adequately describe the land and amount of consideration, establish adverse possession in furtherance of the alleged contract, and show performance or part performance which could not be compensated in damages and which would make recission inequitable and unjust. Kurland v. Stolker, 516 Pa. 587, 533 A.2d 1370 (1987). Plaintiff alleged a contemporaneous oral agreement was created when the deed was transferred at closing which provided that Defendant would pay Plaintiff for the real property at some indefinite time in the future. As previously, Plaintiff offered no Page 4 evidence to support his allegation of an oral agreement for the sale of the real property. Plaintiff failed to establish any fraud or misconduct by Defendant. Plaintiff testified that he did not suffer from mental incapacity or undue influence when he authorized the title transfer at closing. Plaintiff further admitted that there were material facts! he failed to disclose to Defendant, thus placing Plaintiff in a superior position over Defendant, not the reverse, as required to sustain his burden of proof. Further, the title transfer documents executed at the closing settlement meeting for the real property are clear and unequivocal. Plaintiff failed to anticipate forseeable problems, I.e., the parties' relationship could end. Plaintiff's subsequent independent recollection of a contemporaneous oral agreement relative to the title of real property is insufficient to sustain Plaintiff's burden of proving the title documents should be taken out of the statute of frauds. Moreover, Plaintiff did not present the testimony of his friend, Gerald Gingrich, who was Attorney in Fact for Plaintiff's third and bigamous wife, Monica del Carmen Gomez. Nor did Plaintiff present the testimony of his attorney, Alan Kim Patrono, Esq., who handled the closing on the real property. Absent the testimony of these witnesses or any other evidence supporting his allegation, Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proving an oral contract for the sale of the real property, thus leaving legal title within the statute of frauds. III. DID DEFENDANT SUSTAIN HER BURDEN OF PROVING THE TITLE TRANSFERS OF THE VEHICLE AND REAL PROPERTY WERE THERE VALID INTER VIVOS GIFTS? The burden of proof is on the donee to show with clear, precise, direct and convincing evidence that the donor intended to make an immediate gift and that the gift was delivered. Mericle v. Wolf, 386 Pa. Super. 82, 562 A.2d 364 (1989). The donee can sustain her burden of proof generally with the testimony of a credible witness who 1 Plaintiff admitted on cross examination that he was still married to the instant Monica del Carmen Gomez while dating Defendant, that his marriage to Ms. Gomez occurred while he was still married to Karen Garrett Wiltschek, that he was convicted of manslaughter by vehicle for which he served one year in Maryland in 1987, that a bench warrant was issued for his arrest in 1995 in connection with the kidnapping of a minor child in 1994, and that he accepted 12 months probation for contempt on June 1,1998. (see attached). Page 5 testifies as to the facts as distinctly remembered, with details narrated exactly and in due order, and with testimony so clear, direct, weighty and convincing to enable the finder of facts to conclude, without hesitancy, of the truth of the facts as asserted. Lessner v. Rubinson, 527 Pa. 393, 592 A.2d 678 (1991); Hera v. McCormick, 425 Pa. Super. 432, 625 A.2d 682 (1993). The donee can sustain her burden of proving the intent to make an immediate gift with documentary evidence demonstrating that the mental capacity of the donor was of an intelligent perception with an understanding of the dispositions made of his property, and that the persons and objects he desired were the recipients of his bounty. Horner bv Peoples National Bank of Central Pennsvlvania, - Pa. Super. _, 719 A.2d 1101 (1998). Finally, the donee can sustain her burden of proving delivery of the gift by showing actual or constructive delivery which invests the donee with complete control over the subject and which simultaneously divests the donor of complete control over the subject. Hera, supra. As to the vehicle, Defendant offered the Department of Transportation title document forms, which were completed and signed by both Plaintiff and Defendant, and which vested legal title in Defendant. Defendant testified she took immediate possession of the vehicle and h2s remained solely responsible for the physical and financial maintenance of the vehicle beginning when Plaintiff initially titled the vehicle to Defendant in January 1998. Defendant never asked Plaintiff to give her anything, including his vehicle. Plaintiff intended to make an immediate gift of the vehicle and actually delivered the gift to Defendant. Defendant sustained her burden of proving a prima facia gift of the vehicle. As to the real property, Plaintiff offered the duly recorded general warranty deed conveyed to Defendant on January 28, 1998, which vested legal title in Defendant. Plaintiff admitted he attended the closing settlement meeting and authorized his friend, Rev. Gerald Gingrich, to sign over title without requesting or receiving any money from Defendant. Defendant testified that immediately after the title closing meeting, Plaintiff delivered to Defendant the keys to the real property and the utility bills, which were thereupon transferred into Defendant's name. Defendant never asked Plaintiff to give her anything, including the real property which Plaintiff alleged belonged to him. Page 6 . Plaintiff intended to make an immediate gift of the real property and actually delivered the gift to Defendant. Defendant sustained her burden of proving a prima facia gift of the real property. Once the donee sustains her burden of proving a prima facia gift, the burden of proof shifts to the donor to demonstrate with clear, precise, direct and convincing evidence that a confidential relationship was established. Banko v. Ma/anecki, 499 Pa. 92,451 A.2d 1008 (1982). To establish a confidential relationship, the donor must establish that circumstances made it certain that the parties were not dealing on equal terms; where the donee exerted overmasking influence Over the donor or the donor had a weakness, dependence or trust in the donee, which justifiably made an unfair advantage possible as where a superior position over the other exists intellectually, physically, governmentally, or morally, so the opportunity to use that superiority to the donor's disadvantage exists. In re Estate of Mevers, 434 Pa. Super. 165,642 A.2d 525 (1994); Hera, SUpra; Horner, supra. Plaintiff testified that he was an educated, worldly man who was not ill or suffering any mental defects when he signed the instant title documents. Plaintiff further admitted that there were material issues of fact (see Footnote #1) which he failed to disclose to Defendant prior to any of the title transactions so that any superior position existed solely in Plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proving a confidential relationship existed to Plaintiff's disadvantage. If the donor sustains his burden of proof, the burden of proof shifts back to the donee to prove that the gift was free of taint of undue influence or deception because the gift was a free, voluntary, and intelligent act of the donor which was free of undue influence or deception. Estate of Mevers, supra. Even If the court finds Plaintiff sustained his burden of Proof to rebut the prima facia evidence of gifts, Plaintiff admitted at trial that he freely, voluntarily and intelligently gave title to Defendant, notWithstanding his assumption that Defendant was a licensed attorney. Plaintiff did not testify that he was under any undue influence or deception when he authorized and signed the title documents. Plaintiff sustained her Page 7 burden of proving that the transfers of the vehicle and real property were both valid inter vivos gifts from Plaintiff. IV. DID PLAINTIFF SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROVING ENTITLEMENT TO RECOVERY ON A THEORY OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT? There are three separate remedies available under the theory of unjust enrichment: resulting trusts, constructing trusts, and quasi-contract. Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine which focuses on whether defendant has been unjustly enriched. Schenick v. K.E.David.Lld., 446 Pa. Super. 94, 666 A.2d 327 (1995). The Statute of Frauds prevents enforcement of a parol promise to convey real estate and a trust will not be imposed unless 1) the original transfer was procured by fraud, duress, undue influence or mistake, or 2) the transferee was in a confidential relationship at the time of the original transfer. Busher v. Keeler, 33 Leh.L.J. 29 (1968). However, the doctrine of unclean hands applies when a wrongdoer directly affects the relationship between the parties and is directly connected with the matter in controversy. Jackman v. Pelusi, 379 Pa. Super. 361,550 A.2d 199 (1988). The Court may raise the doctrine sua sponte because the doctrine is implicated when a party's conduct shocks the moral sensibilities of the court. J..Q.. Plaintiff's impeachment based upon his criminal activities and contempt are shocking and reveal Plaintiff's unclean hands in the instant litigation. Moreover, Plaintiff's admissions on cross examination revealed that the gifts may have fulfilled Plaintiff's goal of laundering money back into the United States while avoiding detection and taxation. Plaintiff's fraud should preclude recovery. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's unclean hands, a resulting trust arises when a person makes, or causes to be made, a disposition of property under circumstances which raise an inference that he does not intend that the person taking the property should have a beneficial interest therein; and such a trust is created if a party uses his own money to purchase a property and transfers the property to another. Polivehiclepo v. Polivehiclepo, 410 Pa. 543, 189 A.2d 171 (1963). The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the trust with clear, precise and indubitable evidence. Sneiderman v. Kahn, 350 Pa. 496, 39 A.2d 608 (1944). The evidence can be established with oral testimony, Page 8 but it must be so clear, precise, convincing and satisfactory that it satisfies the mind and conscience of the court. Thomka v. Thomka, 109 Pitts.L.J. 367 (1961). Where a transfer of property is made to one person and another pays the purchase price in order to accomplish an illegal purpose, a resulting trust does not arise if the policy against unjust enrichment of the transferee is outweighed by the policy against giving relief to an illegal transaction. Lona v. Jones, 13 Chest. 235 (1965).2 Plaintiff alternately testified that he purchased the vehicle and real property with his money and/or with the money from his third wife, Monica del Carmen Gomez. However, Plaintiff also testified that intended to convey title of the vehicle and the real property to Defendant. Defendant testified that Plaintiff delivered immediate possession of both gifts to Defendant upon conveyance of legal titles. Plaintiff never testified that he did not intend for Defendant to have a beneficial interest in his gifts. To the contrary, Plaintiff admitted he would have pursued his alleged oral contracts for payment, even if he had made Defendant his fourth bigamous wife. Based on the totality of his actions and testimony, Plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of proving a resulting trust. Next, the imposition of a constructive trust is an equitable remedy designed to prevent unjust enrichment. Yohe v. Yohe, 466 Pa. 405, 353 Pa. 417 (1976). A constructive trust arises when a person holding title to property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another on the grounds that he would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it. Brasile v. Estate of Brasile Bv and Throuah Brasile, 354 Pa. Super. 400, 512 A.2d 10 (1986). To impose a constructive trust on land, the court must find both a confidential relationship and a reliance on a promise to reconvey induced by that reliance. Moreland v. Metrovich, 249 Pa. Super. 88, 375 A.2d 772 (1977). A confidential relationship exists whenever one occupies a position of advisor 2 Evidence that a man entered into a meretricious relationship with a married woman purchased property with his funds and put title in woman's name did not raise presumption that property was placed in her name as a gift. Orth v. Wood, 354 Pa. 121, 47 A.2d 140 (1946). However, where a husband purchases real property with his own funds and places it in his wife's name or transfers property to wife without consideration, there is a factual presumption of a gift, and to rebut the presumption and establish a resulting trust, the husband must support his claim by clear, explicit and unequivocal evidence. Shapiro v. Shapiro, 424 Pa. 120,224 A.2d 164 (1966). Page 9 or counselor as to reasonably inspire confidence that he will act in good faith for the other's interests. Foster v. Schmitt, 429 Pa. 102,239 A.2d 471 (1968). In suits to establish constructive trusts, a presumption of rights exists in favor of the one in whom the legal title is lodged. Metzqer v. MetzQer, 338 Pa. 564, 14 A.2d 285 (1940). Where the property was conveyed by general warranty deed, absolute by its terms, and there was nothing to indicate that acquisition and retention of the property by grantee would result in unjust enrichment, prior beneficial owner was not entitled to reconveyance on theory of constructive trust. Grav v. Leibert, 357 Pa. 130, 53 A.2d 132 (1947). To establish a trust in land, evidence must be of the highest probative value and must be direct, positive, express, unambiguous, and convincing. Sechler v. Sechler, 403 Pa. 1, 169 A.2d. 78 (1961). This evidence can be based on oral testimony. Fridav v. Fridav, 311 Pa. Super. 17,457 A.2d 91 (1983). Defendant asserts that, as with resulting trusts, the plaintiff carries the burden of proof. Plaintiff did not testify that his relationship with Defendant was confidential. Rather, he testified that he withheld significant factual matters from Defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff did not allege Defendant promised to re-convey title to the vehicle or the real property. Rather, Plaintiff testified about an alleged oral contract for Defendant to pay for the gifts. Defendant's valid legal titles are controlling. Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proof sufficient to support imposition of a constructive trust. Finally, the law implies a contract between parties, known as a quasi-contract, which requires a defendant to make restitution to a plaintiff for the value of the benefit conferred in quantum meruit when unjust enrichment is found. Duquesne Litho, Inc. v. Roberts & Laworski, 443 Pa. Super. 170, 661 A.2d9 (1995). To prove unjust enrichment, plaintiff has the burden of proving defendant wrongfully secured or passively received benefit that would be unconscionable to retain. Salvino Steel & Iron Works. Inc. v. Fletcher & Sons. Inc., 398 Pa. Super. 86, 580 A.2d 853 (1990). The most important factor for the court to consider when applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment is whether the enrichment of the defendant is unjust. Schenick v. K.E. David. Ltd., 446 Pa. Super. 94, 666 A.2d 327 (1995). Significantly, the doctrine of Page 1 0 unjust enrichment does not apply simply because a defendant may have benefited as a result of a plaintiff's actions. Stvler v. HUQo, 422 Pa. Super 262,619 A.2d 347 (1993), Instantly, Plaintiff testified that he knowingly and willingly gifted the vehicle and real property to Defendant. Defendant did not wrongfully secure the gifts. Nor did Defendant passively receive the benefits of Plaintiff's gifts. Rather, Defendant testified she knowingly accepted Plaintiff's direct gifts and actively enjoyed the benefits therefrom, including executing a home equity loan on the real property. Defendant's enrichment was not unjust. Plaintiff's sole argument is that after having gifted these items and then broken off the relationship, Defendant refused to re-convey them to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's poor judgment and frustration that his attempt of extortion was unsuccessful is insufficient to sustain his burden of proving unjust enrichment. Regarding the $5500.00 Plaintiff alleged he loaned to Defendant, Plaintiff offered no evidence to support his burden of proving a loan existed or that Defendant exercised control over the money at issue. Rather, Defendant testified that $5000.00 was transferred into Defendant's checking account from Plaintiff's account in Germany, but that Plaintiff directed all payments and retained all receipts. Defendant further testified that she accompanied Plaintiff to his second ex-wife's house where he returned with $500.00 in cash, but that Plaintiff never gave that money to Defendant, but used it to pay for the couple's weekend in Atlantic City and New York where Plaintiff proposed to Defendant. Since Defendant was never in control of any of the money, and was never in possession of part of the money, Plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proving unjust enrichment. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court render judgment favor of the Defendant, and dismiss Plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, ~;lrr~WCWle Suzan~e Abel Pro Se Defendant Page 11 - -_.! . .'I:"'~'-..... It is also directed that if at all possible, notice be given to the Department of state for the escrowing of Mr. Wiltschek's passport, given that there is concern that he would leave the jurisdiction of the United States so as to avoid service and/or any hearings to address his possible Contempt of Court. ~ Copies of this Order are tJ be sent to Mr. Wiltschek at his last known address of 1711 Art Drive, Hanover Pennsylvania, 17331; to Attorney Mylin; to Attorney Pomper; and a copy to the Department of State. BY THE COURT: ~ \€,,,,~~ L. BLACKWE, ) Judge sjk 2 \ ./ -. -.:. WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SUZANNE ABEL, Defendant No. 98-3425 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ, by her Attorney-in-Fact, WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. SUZANNE ABEL, Defendant No. 98-3426 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Rule to Show Cause and Petition for Change of Venue was served upon the fol/owing by regular and First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid on July 1,1999: Attorney for Plaintiffs: John James Mooney, III, Esquire Mooney & Associates 230 York Street Hanover, PA 17331 .--, L ^,L{ Jt Suz n e Abel P.O. Box 1032 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 303-0355 Pro Se Defendant Page 12 KML/hm i/:::~:l/l}rJ In the case at hand. Plaintiff testified that at the start of his relationship with Defendant she told him she was an attorney. Believing her to be an attorney, Plaintiff placed great trust upon her word and believed her when she told him she would repay him the money for the real estate. Therefore. a confidential relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant which caused them to deal in unequal terms and caused her to have a great deal of influence over Plaintiff. Therefore, the burden in this case must shift to Defendant to establish that if this transaction was a gift, that it was free of any taint of undue influence or deception. With respect to the sum of $5,500.00 which Plaintiff gave to Defendant and was promised by Defendant to repay, Plaintiff maintains again that there was a confidential relationship between himself and Defendant. A confidential relationship exists if the parties do not deal on equal terms, but on the one side there is an overmastering influence, or, on the other, a weakness, dependence or trust. Id at 1010, citing Estate of Dzierski, 449 Pa. 285, 296 A.2d 716 (1972). Plaintiff had an unusual amount of trust in Defendant since she represented herself to be an attorney to Plaintiff which caused him to justifiably rely on her promise to repay him the sum of $5,500.00. In this case, since a confidential relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendant, 5 1/ I' " P :1 ' 1\ II I t:Ml.!hrn j/-:'9/99 at the time the alleged gift was made, the burden shifts to the Dcfcndilnt to establish that the alleged gift was free of any taint of undue influence or deception. With respect to the automobile, for which Defendant promised to repay Plaintiff, again, Plaintiff maintains that a confidential relationship existed between himself and Defendant as outlined above. Plaintiff testified that Defendant promised to repay him the sum of $18,000.00. Believing her to be an attorney, he took her at her word and entered into an oral contract with her. He never manifested any intent to give Defendant any interest in a gift. It is not credible that he would have given Defendant so many gifts after only knowing her for approximately one (1) month. Plaintiff maintains he has established, through his testimony, that a confidential relationship existed between himself and Defendant which now places the burden on Defendant to prove that the alleged gift was free of any taint of undue influence or deception, which she cannot since she entered into three (3) separate contracts with Defendant fraudulently with the intent to deprive him of substantial cash and property, both personal and real. 6 JJM/ 8/11/99 I . BMl~ AUTOMOBILE It should be noted that the parties attempted a transfer of the vehicle at the offices of Loretta Sellman, a notary public and that the actual price listed for the vehicle was shown as $8,865.49 and on that particular day, sales tax of $590.43 was paid by Suzanne Abel. It was only after that transfer was uneffective that the Defendant took the paperwork to PennDot and obtained a gift 'transfer". It is obvious that the prior attempt was in accordance with the parties' agreement that there would be a sale and a later exchange of consideration. II. REAL ESTATE AT 119 SOUTH DUKE STREET Defendant seeks to prevent repayment of an amount of $40,000.00 and contends that the property was gifted to her. It should be noted, however, that the deed did not contain consideration of $1.00, there was an actual settlement at which the services of an abstract and an attorney were procured to purchase the property and in the event that Plaintiff, as Attorney-in-Fact for Monica Del Carmen Gomez, had intended to gift the property, there would have been none of the above required. 2 JJM/ 8/11/99 It should be noted that the property is currently in foreclosure and accordingly, the Court can take judicial notice of records in the York County Courthouse, which indicate that a foreclosure has been instituted by Beneficial Finance. This is interesting in light of the fact that Ms. Abel noted she was intending to move to the property. However, she has never moved to the property, nor has she made any payments on the loan indicating intent to defraud the lending company, Beneficial Finance, into lending her $26,000.00 for unknown reasons. III. BENCH WARRANT It should be noted that Plaintiff had responded to a bench warrant to appear and testify. There was never any contempt against Plaintiff for any willful misconduct; but only for not paying attorney fees as had been ordered in a prior custody adjudication. Further, the Plaintiff appeared before the Honorable Penny Blackwell, in the York County Court of Common Pleas and was not arrested, incarcerated or taken into custoc\y. The Court, at that point in time, merely indicated that they were unaware of the warrant and the warrant was. lifted. There has been no criminal conduct nor fraudulent behavior on the part of the Plaintiff in this particular case. 3 . KLEPPERS KEY SHOP 117 East King Street , YORK, PA 17403-2035 (717) 848.1754 INVOICE NO. ~. '", ,", . ....-.... -. j NAME: -)(JC:/ QTv. DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT C .~ L' ~ c.-n /) t' : I ADDRESSl I I I I CITV/STATE: ZIP: I PHONE: I ? y~. 'J?!!.. I I , NATURE OF SERVICE: I I I .0. J ,.., , Doc-" jl ~ A,,/ Fro 1'\ T <?,T I S', /).;/0;. ~ s-l 70 r/<...p~. I I /1'1.. J - l , / .. .. - /, i 1 \ I ., ,- - ! I /" .... JFI I .. J:.y( J ~v ( (.V'" \ - - v ~ , -- - , : I I I TOTAL MATERIALS I I o SHOP o HOME )<1 BUSINESS LABOR S- $' k::o I " mlP CHARGE , '~ , I .....-:; " LOCKSMITH, /'/:< iI ""'.... C-I-., TOTAL CHARGES S ,SO c\..:, , TAX -'YeP TERMS: 10 Days Net, 1.5% Per Month On (-, CASH ON COMPLETION TOTAL )-({,-l!cf Accounts After 30 Days. Prompt PF WOR.._ Payment Encourages Prompt Service. 51 ~~fJ lULU . Jl.V . '/ Signature 'Dove constitutes acceptance 01 above work as tieing \ . satls' or. Please: Pay, From This Invoice No Other Bill Will Be Sent DATE: -,I. .):~-?,f INVOIC::: act y and that eqUipment has been left in gOod condition. TI-I~N;~ YC~: " 'Nl"S" '.OEf:ENO~' ',,' ': " ).'EXH.I.Srf, ': : ',' ,'., 3 "..t::tr""~.AlN"!:~t..JJF."~~ -..~: _L!I19n "- -' I All"" U. P.O, BOX 302, i MOUNT JOY, PA. I , -tOME COMFORT DIVISION ; -, - )<. 0 -0 ~ I'~ m :>. " 'oJ >I :t ':':0: ",. 'n I - ::.> ",. ~ -0 0 - CD " <: I R .- J> 0 :.. .... - ~ CH " ..., 0 .. -0 =: - :0 Z - - .:> ~ :!> ::l "'J> " ,; ;:\- ::J::- :l: . :. If) -< '" .. "~ UI '.f". <:> ~:: - :,.1 ~ ~ z Il 0 :.~ Vl '" , ~ ... ~::l ~ CD <: 0 - 0- :7.''': ~ '. ~. ~':: '7' = -- " .:. :r. c- ... START 11/21/9B FINISH 11/21/98 ACCESS # - SCHEDULED ACCDL'NT NUMBER t€T 'J{F. GALLONS START SET VOL 6~lLONS FINISJ.! mJ THIS Dt!. *f VOLUME CORRECTED TO iF SALE IlUl1BER . DRIVER NUMBER TRUCK NUMBER PROOUCT CJJI)E PRICE/GALLON NET PRICE/GALLON SUSTOTAL BRAND TOT ilL DUE IF PAID BY ;2103/98 PAY 17552.0302 :r"'c.n f'!"l: =.,:.. ~ .....-0 :t:'::." ='" 0 --..,.- - .- "- =~=:';> ". :r ~- :no:> OX' t.ol :: ..... =:.... ~- ^ -0 ::n '..' -r:: .... ::> ". - , ::; ~ ~ '.) ... .... c ::: ,. .:. :> /', -0 .... ~ "'" , - :;l ~ I ..,.... ': o 07:21:20 (,7:23:23 50728~ . 4901Ci1-1 :~ , (, 4" , 1.'1 4il ~ .'" 60,(' 8147.. 91. 0'1, " ", ~ .7990 .'19Y~ $ 39.1~i ; ":\" 4(" ...7.. ... i -- 1" ~~, : PA. HEATING FUEL VOLUME DELIVERED ADJUSTED TO 60' F REC'O. DELI, X VERY REC'D. PAY. $ MEt<T THIS IS YOUR INVOICE I ~ g : . ~ I ~ ~ i . ....,; '.~ ~ i ".. ., z o -; ." C r r I I I I I I I i I I I I I , I I I I ! , . ~ . w.... G/~IJ' ~ HOME COMFORT DIVISION 'u,.. """"~~""''''_'''''' i P.O, BOX 302. MOUNT JOY, PA, 17552.0302 -<- :1:." '" 0_ mo ~ I Or- :>;1-0 7J "O:l> I J> ^ :t";tt 0 ~ tIlU'J . (J) %lo:J:z.... ~ ~ .... .,,~ ::zx 0.1"'1 '" .. .... i" c.n J>- :->- I ",.~ - :n -0.:.. ^ :no::> -~~ ':D .... -m "'CH " R 'oJ = rJ; o~ "'1Jl :>;1 -0 0 ',,", " 0.... ::l ~." "-0 ... . 'J "J -0:; ':Xl ... "l iCJI C'J ::> .,,;;> :r:- 'oJ I :n 0 .. ~~ I - I ... ~~ ~~ :J: , '"1 c' I :1>' 0" ~~ j '. I I I /-'. -0 \..' '=' 0 START 10/13/9B 07:37:20 FINISH 10/1J/9B 07:38:37 ACCESS # - SCHEOUUo'D 5072eS. ,'\::COUIf: NU~.BER 4Q01OH-j NET VOL GALLONS ST~T O.V efT VOl GALLONS fiNISH r " .~I. .. TEHf THIS DEL *F 61. i VOLlf.~E CORRECTED TO *F 60.(; 'oALE NlIHBEF: 7'" '.: ,:A", DRIVER NUKBER O. .'.1.. TRUCK /UHBER 81, PRODUCT CODE , ". PRICUGALLON $ .759(1 H.ET PRICE/GAlLON ,7390 SUBTOTAL $ 3.92 SR~HO TOTAL DUE $ ., rl" w. ..~ !~ PAlO BY 10/25/98 PAY \ ' ., ..,h[;.!. PA. HEATING FUEL VOLUME DELIVERED ADJUSTED TO 60' F REC'D. S~'y X THIS IS ~ AEC'D. YOUR -; ~~rrr, ~, , INVOICE ~ .-_... '.------- -".. I I I I I j I I I I I I I I I i I i I j :J ir 2 3010ANI I:fnOA 5151Hl $ IN3" 'AYd "a.o3U X AU,^ '1130 "a.o3U ~ 009 01 031snrov 03"l3^1130 3rml0^ 13n~ !lNI1V3H 'Vd 3010ANI I:fnOA 31 SIHl :J :> u. ... o z ~ ,09 01 031snrov 03"l3^1130 3rml0^ 13n~ ONI1V3H 'V, i I I I I I I , I I I I ~~ "L~': TW s ::"i"lI~'! ~. .... ':'oZ6' ~OOl' - 'i6~E' .- ". '0 ',j6 '~i11. :'(,<, -::.~ "'H:- n... ~SIn.: ;!~CT~:' ....,. 1 ~ 12 Si(;Tt~, :,~, ~ :./';)i/;': ,18 0:7: .:: 3r..o ~"flljl rJt~r~~' 1;llJl::i~': NOil~9::.:!:,: _: INOC:SIQ :5m~:.: ...... t "" 'j,:'~fjt I li';0! 1 ~,jte" :;{j~.a" S , ',~ ;..) ':t ....,,..,. . J!'..~} :'(:S' ~G~;~[I/::::'..: 3QD~ ~:nar,:.:, ::m~nN,::; :~ ~3awnN ci~l~;~:~ :J38lin~ m, ;~ U ::31~3~~G: ~V'''::,'< >1 -'3C SIhl j.:;. -~ \ '-~ ~ "~: , ~-;~(;T~~t; ...:;...,'\( :,J(...'J.. ~:~l~m~ i~:~0::": ",", . " ~;j~1GH:: - ~ ::3J~~ ,. : ,;iOI06\ . ~BZLOS ~r:IJ1:ov W:Ol:60 36161 !~{! 36/8!iH 13m: , kLi,- .!.\'a_:. :~:6i::OO ':~:1C::SO . 0 "- -< 0 " " .. u.. z C!l Q 0 .. C ~ -< " .. . . tr.l " ".. !- ..J ',,' Z ,. 0- .... UJ 0 l!: ::: ,. I"J ~ &1 I ..., t:) 0 ~ - -< .... 0 !- :.:: .- <l: Z 0 ~ L1.I <l: .. ... ,... "" , 0 ~ t', t>- ..J ~ .... " '" ..J 0- >- en , .... ...1 ~ .. :<: :<: ~ u.. ('J ~ <= "- ~ 0- 0 .. ~ " - ;- ,.. ... !- ., UJ ,.. L1.I ~ :=l Z , C co ... w w <"" .... N ., co ::.::: M ~ u: M ..., ..... " -, "- ~ C !- ., i.lJ ffi ,~ .... 0 ~ a:l ;... , ~ 0 ~ ., W c..~ .,. ... en '" a ~ ~ <I: " .,. '" ~. ~ "- ....:-> :> '. "- '" '-Ll => :f Q co ~ '-Ll -< ~ --' 0- ~'~, ::.:: :<: '" -0 (.'!" :.n '" <i: w :=l .. .. '- en :<: :,.0,; . "- Z --' Q u.. "- iei l.;l C Z C '" ..., 1..;'1 :r: '(f.j U ... :I: .<. ~. .... co w ,..., ;'-. W:: <i: U C <: 2 -0 ~ t;',.1 "- '. .... 0- '" a- u: .... ".. ~ ".. .,. .... .... * u: ~ c 0 .- '..-: .... .~ .. - - >- o .. :. ~ ~ ~ w c ~ . ".. .,. o 8 (". 0-. ~ ,.. . I ... " " , ~ !.oJ ........... .... ~. c.:: tr:: lJ-f-C C". :.:.!:n ~ t.,'::' !"" <:'l.l..;,-l "." :r :..:,:= <J: ZQ:.J... ~:- :z Zu: :'" ,c ~ CI" '.,..o-.e::: ::i-a ~ --.- GO€O-GSSL ~ C:O€O'GSSH 'Vd 'Aor lNnoVol 'GO€ X08 'O'd ; , ' 'Aor lNnoVol . NOISIAIO .ll:fO:lWOO 3WOH _~ 03/S -- .~ .... ,,'"_... . '-'r,--.---" ... ...___.1 i . '-", r'?",,"~l.O.{\.)lr" , :;' X08 'O'd . . .' -.........- CD ... .. \ ~~ ~\ <l:' . ~u..l\ -..:1 co.. LW:. "....,q ,~ ,.. 1~:i :: c ~! , C:IL,\ MC',)::,' , Ii ,,~. ~.. :;. !r';";c !- 'if" ,l, !f.l -: ~ <I: ,Ii:'," 11;f\ --L I) NOISIAIO ll:fO:lWOO 3WC i '0;;: .2-~3l5,~I~i ."....-. ~t,;..::. .l,~.~ 86/~e/~~, ,;'j Q!~,: .:: 3fIC ~~ lei ss~~~. '?! lDlans NDT~ai33I:;d l::N liOll~/3:JIl:lj 3003 l:JnOO~d d38wr~i nn~l l.f3aWI1~ d3;ma a38Hm; 31~S ~f ~1 G31J3~~CJ ~~nlQt ~1 130 S!~1~~31 ~SINI; S~~1;7j ~O~ ~~ !~lS SN01i~B ~O^ l~i ;ruwnN lilnDJ:J'J 'I3l0a3HJB - ~ 5S33:)'J 86!~~/~O HSIHI~ B6/~U~O mlS ... .. ~ >- %: co" Ct: .oJ: LLi CJ::M "'0 en... ...... ~ ::I '" ~l..J __ ~ -=<1: =~ t': w z J:l ',:"': :;: ... .-" " - o-.~ f",) _ ~c ... >- ... z ..... ~ <I: "'': ;-c Remit to: City of York. PO Box 1506. York. PA 17405-1506 Telephone: (717) 849-2268 Office Hours: Mon. - Fri. 8:00 am to 4:15 pm M;knJ;,}",SUMMARy'i()F.......k........... .. .......,. . ""SUl\11\1ARY< OF'" il;t~'!t.,~~WERCJ:t'ARGES/. ". .' ......REFt.JSECHARGES PREVIOUS BALANCE: 18,20 PREVIOUS BALANCE: 18,67 Paymcnts: Paymcnts: Adjustmcnts: 1000 I Gallons Uscd: Late Paymcnt Pcnaltics: Adjustmcnts: 9.10 [I] Rcsidential Units @ 14,75 .14 0 Commercial Units @ 29,50 14.75 Late Payment Pcnaltics: .22 33,64 TOTAL SEWER CHARGES: 27.44 TOTAL REFUSE CHARGES: Please make checks payable to: City of York Include Account Number on your check. Payments can be made at any branch of York Bank. It~!II\tjl~~i~!~;;i.!f~1~~1~tlP~i:~!I&~i~~(i~~~~i;~~~~wi~~~i,~~~I~i!~Il~I~'li:~;I!lltl:i:lt!1 Account Name Account Number Scrvice Period SUZANNE ABEL 172501190 11/01/98 - 11/30/98 PO BOX 1032 MECHANICSBURG PA 17055-1032 Service Location 119 S DUKE ST NOTICE Need a gift idea for your friend, neighbor or relative? Why not put some money on their sewer account? We will accept any amount and provide you with a gift certificate! Give us a call today at 849-2268! 12.791 ME'l'ER SIZE 1 GRAVITY RATE METER READING CATV Read Prior Read Gallons Billed INCB - RESIDENTIAL INFORMATION 230000 230000 o CURRENT CHARGE Customer Charge Current Charge 12.80 12.80 BILLING PERIOD 02/11/98 TBRU 03/03/98 AMOUNT OF LA1lT BILL $ .00 You Paid .00 Adjustment .00 I' BALANCE Of' LAST BILL $ .00 I Late Charge .00 Current Charge 12.80 Electric Credit .08CR I , , TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 12.72 Approximate state tax included in thie bill .64 SERVICE TO: SUZANNE SABEL 119 S DUKE ST YORK PA 17403-2038 ACCOUNT NUMBER CUE DATE 04/13/98 91-00901003-2 PLEASE PAY 12.72 KOepltlls p3n lor your recora See back fOI more information THE YORK WATER COMPANY METER SIZE 1 GRAVITY RATE METER READING CATV Read Prior Read Gallons BiUed INCB - RESIDENTIAL INFORMATION 232000 230000 2000 CURRENT CHARGE Customer Charge 2000 GAL X .001890 Current Charge 12.80 3.78 16.58 BILLING PERIOD 03/03/98 THRU 04/03/98 'I' i _:":_ I....,.. I', i "', 1-" ;,<' r ; 1\, I ,-, ., ;; :/; i'l ( Ii',:: ,If'?;-' 111;_:(: I;} ~' I', 'j'" ],':;, ,""., .",:,', 'I:;~ li) (:ry ----"~ I:'~,$ AMOUNT Of' LAST BILL '$ You Paid - Thank You Adj ustment 12.72 12.72 .00 BALANCE Of' LAST BILL Late Charge Current Charge DSIC Surcharge Electric Credit $ .00 .00 16.58 .06 .08CR TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 16.56 Approximate state tax inCluded in this bill .83