HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-03426
, '.
. .' ~ . ~.! (. . . .
l, -', "
. ,
-t:
' ... .. ~.
, .
"
'.
" . :
. .
.
.1
1
.....i
Uj
,
..Q'
~!
,
1
>:
J
I
)tj
\I,
~j
I
OJ
01
~:;:i~1~1;~~,;,:
"ql..,.."
. ,j~"i,;t:.
..~\
\
,
i
I
II
i (I
I ~ I
I~l
I
-I
. .
:)
....
. <:J .'
I
'-'j
C11
;,--1
\ ("() I
, I
I . j
\ 001
'0"":
. I
I
. j
0'
~
" -:}
'il
.,'
?'?<{S
'-?~
x-::
~~
v\"
i.J\
1Jcn
. C
ON
, OJ
OJ"
o "
)( CD
5?;
"'CD
1\)-
:!::
CD
o
::T
OJ
"
i;j'
0-
C
~
!P
~
, ,
\ ~
,
"
i'r,
"i~i,
\:
~
-.j
o
Ul
Ul
~~~
[t~
lfi ~~
JY~
;>
II\l:5:'-
0>"'00
::IOO::T
0-(::1::1
<OCD'-
CD-,,<Dl
0.... ^'po3
-Ucn.....CD
.....-....00
........00
....1800:5:
_I .- 0 0
~ n 0
'" -'::I
UJ at CD
.... CD '<
00 -
\':l
~
~
t
m
00
.0
c:
=;-
CD
~\
,:~
~ "
;~~.
~~l
~~ "i'
l\o\~
~ \. .
~~~ji"
~c:... ,~...., .
!:::~ )1F:::110
'~
I
,.-
''''.', ","
'..
';.,,-,...-
..~-~-"_....:-.=-=-~-
-"Ii --
'I
II
'I
II
'I
I
I
I
I
II
I
1-
.___"_l.L_...~..__
I
,I
V)~
~~-"
>-<~
~zu
'-'0
OV)
OV)
~<t:
!i
11
II
"
:i
i i'
I Ii
i I!
I; il,
II I,
i! Ii
I ~ Ii
II II
II II
-=~-=:-..:.~==-~~:::-~=~."~:=:_~_:::::--::-
"
,
,
-: .,
.. W
'._.' ,
. "
'I
f-
<l:
en
r
w
z
a:
o
f-
f-
<l:
.
.
~
.
~
.~
~ON
~~~~
o ~ c....,
..>oiW""~
~Sl~\-
~
~-~
E~:;~
O",c..:,!
~~ ~~
o 0 ~
; ~ ;!:::
:::r::N:I:....
:;:
.~ o:~
::::~.,(
O.;;c...;;,
~3]~
>(-;:><"<1'
O"'ON
~:;: ~ ~
~=z~
t'f''';~
t" ~.
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS
COUNT 1: FRAUD
31. No response required.
32. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that
a relationship existed. It is denied that Defendant place her
trust in Plaintiff. Strict proof thereof is demanded.
33. 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.
34. 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
4
{pc.
'~'<..JH/h .~/~I/(l(l
, ,
I
'I
I
i
I
I
I
I Street property in March of 1998 and made assumptions therefrom.
I
II It is denied tha t the same is relevant to the within subj ect
I matter or is proper grounds for a Counterclaim.
35. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff represented to
Defendant that he had lived for the prior two (2) years in
Germany with his ex-wife and two adopted daughters. It is
denied that the same is relevant to the within subject matter or
is proper grounds for a Counterclaim.
36. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff represented to
Defendant that he was fluent in three (3) languages and
regularly traveled the world in his capacity as an international
sales representative. By way of further response, Plaintiff did
travel internationally in the past. It is denied that the same
is relevant to the within subject matter or is proper grounds
for a Counterclaim.
37. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff showered
Defendant and her children with lavish gifts and expensive
social outings. It is denied that Plaintiff paid for gifts with
cash and credit cards and purchased the gifts in Defendant's
presence. By way of further response, Plaintiff was unemployed
and with little income most of the time. It is denied that the
same is relevant to the within subject matter or is proper
grounds for a Counterclaim.
5
(pJ,
JJH/h . 21 1.1/ 'i~l
Tierra Lenker. 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 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
11
73.
,,-~
76.
Denied.
It is denied that Plaintiff has refused to
I
I return
the remaining items refcrrcd to in paragraph number 74.
By way of further response, it is denied that Plaintiff has
those items in his possession.
77. 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.
78. 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
i judgment on behalf of Plaintiff.
COUNT 3: TR~SPASS TO LAND
79. No response required.
80. 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
I
I
II
I
I
II
16
7r,
"''''',1 "yO'
i Duke Street. It is denied that Plaintiff kicked in the back
i
[ passageway door breaking it. By way of further response,
,
i Plaintiff did not have a key in his possession to gain access
I through said passageway since Defendant had changed the lock to
that entry as well.
81. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff broke the window
into the butler's pantry on the first floor of the house.
82. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Wiltschek (sic) ,
(Plaintiff) , stacked the broken window pieces and original hand
hewn wood trim on the windowsill and on the sidewalk.
83. Denied. It is denied tha t 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
accord~ngly, did not commit trespass or cause damages as
alleged.
'I
I
17
7f
I
JJM/tl.' ;'1'.11'.1"
I.""....
I
,
I contact an attorney.
107. 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.
108. 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.
109. 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.
24
~{p.
."" f:"....
I'll, C r PI': FOil (,IS'rING CASE ~'OR . .U^"
(Must be typewritten ilnd suanitted in duplicate)
10 'I'IIE PROI'1I0t\UI'MlY OF CUMBERLJ\ND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
(Check one) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
( XX) for trial without a jury.
-----------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entirc caption must be statcd in full)
(check onc)
( X) Civil Action - Law
Monica Del Carmen Gomez,
by her Attorney-In-Fact.
Walter Wiltschek
Appeal from Arbitration
(other)
(Plaintiff)
vs.
Suzanne S. Abel
(Defendant)
The trial list will be called on
and 4/20/99
Trials COITTrence on 5/10/99 & 5/17/99
Pretrials will be held on 4/28/99
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials. )
vs.
(The party listing this case for trial shall
provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to
all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 2l4.l.)
No.
98
Civil
3426
19 98
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
John James Mooney, III, Esquire
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Suzanne S. Abel, Pro Se
This case is ready for trial.
Date: 1/2/99
q/.
'"' .----......-
uire
..
()
S-~
--~;..-
r'~: ':-:-' .
\.8
I.D
i..)
'Ii
~:J
I
.!
. !~!:
.,il
..-,
-j{\
~! ~fJ
l,jrn
-I
~~
~(~' ::
~::: i_
--1"'1
.,'.
"
3-:~i
r;-
:;2 :.:
I
I
I
I
I
I
vs.
REV. DR. GERALD GINGRICH,
Additional Defendant
-~
-' .
--
o
-n
:::J
:= :!!
....-
_....:4.
, 1'0
~t,
-~
.~1 ;':}
',-;:1'\
'-.'
....
<-
:<
i
'r' .
I
~'
'IZ'
!/'.
I '
~~ /.
, ,.\
. \ II
. '1;'
i J'
:'. /p:
1,/, .
jf.
"~ J
,1.\ .
I!'
la '
1
.
,.--
,
MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ,
by her Attorney-In-Fact,
WALTER WIL TSCHEK,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Defendant
No, 98-3426
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
-'
~~! ~!.
'~:':.''':':
?..~ -g
':':')
,"
.:'")
N
c~;
vs,
SUZANNE ABEL,
t." .
..
" .-
"
-:~
-.
,,:>
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT
To: Prothonotary
Kindly Issue Writ to Join as an Additional Defendant, to the following party In the
above captioned case:
Reverend Doctor Gerald Gingrich, 773 Kreitz Creek Road, York, PA 17406-
8719
Counsel for Plaintiff is:
John James Mooney, III, Esquire, Mooney & Associates, 230 York Street,
Hanover, PA 17331.
Counsel for Defendant is:
Suzanne Abel, Pro Se, P,O. Box 1032 ,Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.
Date: IJ/;3Jq~
Signature
Name: Suz e Abel, Pro Se
Address: P,O, Box 1032
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
CjS
,':, ;:.,'"":-"'..;t"':"'::-':""'"
:'~i.. . ,,~'.'f!;. '.~ ~~;:; or;- ---,-.' ,"
'~jf,"""'''' . "
. ,';' ,!,J~;-~:'~': .
. .-~ ~.I ..'- " .' ,
. . .
.,~"'......,
',. :.;0--......'...
. ~.l _~1_. ...
'. ::..:;~~;~X;'~.~~ .
.......:, t.~....
~\
. -
"
j I~ I'C ;..
IJ .. u
"C Z~ E
~ 0
~
g .r: Q <~ .-:
N ,I-' I U
aJ U '..-1 ..
~ e III I-< c oZ \J'l
0 \J'l
0 ~ 01 0= ~~ 0
l:l I C :.a ~
c ...-1 "C Z~
C ...-l l:l <: ....~ Jl
.-I aJ I .l>: 00 po:
...-1 e >, aJ ~ 'tl
:> I-< aJ .r: .-I .........:l ~
...-1 III C U III
U U I-< IJl .-I I-< 0< ~~J
0 .j.J aJ aJl E-<Z
'" .-I .j.J .-I .0 l:l
N aJ .j.J '..-1 .0: E-<9
..,. Cl .0: ~ .
l"'l aJ I-< ....E-< IH
I III I-< I-< C Cl p::....
<Xl U aJ (U C ~O
'" -...-1 .r: .j.J III .
C .-l N :> 0
oJ. 0 >, III ;:l aJ <
~ .0 ~ en ~
c; Ce.
J
.>: 0\ ~
~. N
~ ., 5..,;
q,e OJ no>_
'(22 :rC ()~
~,U:"~~, .oo.:t >.
""!~r-:: 95=
<%<;;~ ". ~(11
")~
. t~# - i'r9
. 0-
.~ l1.{ c:::. itJLD
.\itu:~ 9i ~t;l(l..
. F= -"
f:r' ;:)
Cf\ U
,., I '. . \",,) .' . . I...!'J) -,
j .
r
r, 1.....,) ~ ~'" y
.--
,
...-,.~ -.
\
WALTER WIL TSCHEK,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.,'
vs,
REV. DR. GERALD GINGRICH,
KATHLEEN GINGRICH,
Additional Defendants
No, 98-SU06021 ,09
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
o.D '"
..,
1.0
~ 7-
:"".-
-< .. ;.;>
c
- ''0
-
2
.' ..
w
-
\D
SUZANNE ABEL,
Defendant
vs,
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
ANSWER
AND NOW, this Ir day of March, 1999, comes the Defendant, Suzanne Abel,
pro se pending retention of counsel. and files the following Answer with New Matter and
Counterclaims to the 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, Said averment therefore is denied, and strict proof thereof,
if admissible, is demanded at trial.
2. Admitted.
3, Paragraph 3 was omitted from Plaintiffs Complaint.
4, Denied in part, admitted in part. Plaintiff represented to Defendant that he had
several residences, one of which was the 119 South Duke Street address. Plaintiff
never advised Defendant when he began or ended residing at any of his purported
addresses, After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of
Paragraph 4. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if
admissible, is demanded at trial.
5. Admitted,
6. Denied in part, admitted 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 6. Said
averments are therefore denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded
at trial.
7, 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
JDI.
..
l~--\
averments of Paragraph 7. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof
thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial.
8, 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 8, Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if
admissible, is demanded at trial.
9. Admitted,
10. Denied in part, admitted in part, Plaintiff continued to reside with his personal
belongings at 119 South Duke Street, subject to the agreed upon condition that
Plaintiff reimburse Defendant for Plaintiffs hou~ing costs including, but not limited
to, electric, gas, oil, water, sewer, trash, and repairs & maintenance, Plaintiff failed
to reimburse Defendant for any expenses Plaintiff incurred. Thereupon, Plaintiffs
continued residence was neither lawful nor authorized, 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, Plaintiff, not Defendant, terminated the relationship. After reasonable
investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 11. Said averments
therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial.
12. Denied in part, admitted in part, Plaintiff re-keyed the front door lock, thus
locking out Defendant, the lawful owner of the property, on or about March 31,
1998, On or before April 25, 1998, Plaintiff voluntarily vacated and abandoned the
property, taking with him everything a person could load into a small truck, inCluding
real property fixtures. On April 28, 1998, Defendant had the locks changed to
prevent Plaintiffs re-entry and further damage to the real property. 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, By the time Defendant first entered the premises on April 25, 1998, and
subsequently changed the locks on April 28, 1998, Plaintiff, or Plaintiffs agent, had
removed almost all of Plaintiffs personal property, as well as fixtures which were
attached to the real property, and which Plaintiff had represented to Defendant
were permanent fixtures in the property. Therefore, when Defendant entered the
premises on April 25, 1998, and again on April 28, 1998, Defendant found the
residence to be essentially vacant. Defendant initially attempted to locate Plaintiff
to arrange return of Plaintiffs remaining personal property, identified as Exhibit A,
Plaintiff eventually requested return of the items identified as Exhibit A, but
demanded to meet with Defendant alone to "teach her a thing or two about the law,"
J 0 d--.
.~.
, '
Plaintiffs current threat, in context with Plaintiffs prior threats and subsequent
actions carrying out those prior threats against Defendant's person, property, and
profession placed Defendant in apprehension of imminent harm, Therefore,
Defendant requested that Plaintiff secure a constable or sheriff to witness and
supervise the transfer of property. Defendant has repeatedly offered to meet with
Plaintiff to perform the transfer of personal property, Each time Plaintiff has
heretofore refused to comply with Defendant's condition, electing instead to file the
instant action, After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of
Paragraph 13, Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if
admissible, is demanded at trial.
14. Denied. Attached here as Exhibit A, is an itemization and valuation of the personal
property Plaintiff abandoned at the property, which Defendant continues to offer to
Plaintiff for reclamation. This personal property remains at the residence at 119
South Duke Street, York, PA, and Defendant continues to extend the offer for
reclamation when witnessed by an Officer of the Law. As recently as November
25, 1998, Plaintiff continues to refuse to reclaim his abandoned property. 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. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of
Paragraph 15, Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if
admissible, is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Suzanne Abel, respectfully request~ 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 rrER
16. The foregoing responses to the averments of the Complaint are incorporated by
reference and re-alleged as affirmative defenses.
17. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
18, 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
damages arose,
19. Defendant avers she is not liable to Plaintiff because Plaintiff freely, knowingly, and
intentionally abandoned his personal property enumerated in Exhibit A on or about
April 25, 1998, Despite repeated offers by Defendant, Plaintiff has refused to make
arrangements to reclaim the items remaining at the residence, as itemized at
'.
}06.
,"",,\ )
r"'''',
Defense Exhibit A. Therefore, Plaintiff has relinquished any and all claims to those
items,
20. Defendant avers she is not liable to Plaintiff because the intentional and/or wrongful
acts of persons other than Defendant; to wit: Additional Defendants; constituted an
intervening and superseding cause of Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Suzanne Abel, respectfUlly requests judgment in her favor
and against Plaintiff and/or Additional Defendants, together with the costs of this action
and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNTERCLAIMS
COUNT 1: FRAUD
21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are hereby incorporated by reference.
22. Pursuant to Rule 2252 of the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure, Defendant joins
Additional Defendants.
a) Additional Defendants are the Reverend Doctor Gerald Gingrich and Kathleen
Gingrich, husband and wife, adult individuals whose last known address was
773 Kreutz Creek Road, York, York County, Pennsylvania 17406, and who are
now believed to reside in the Dover area, York County, Pennsylvania,
b) At the meeting of December 20, 1997, Plaintiff represented to Defendant that
Additional Defendants were long time friends of Plaintiff who had loyally
supported Plaintiff through his legal trials.
c) On or about Christmas, 1997, Plaintiff introduced Defendant to Additional
Defendants at Additional Defendants' house where Additional Defendants were
having a Christmas party for their friends and congregation,
d) In the course of that afternoon Christmas party, Additional Defendants
independently corroborated Plaintiffs assertions that Additional Defendants
were Plaintiffs long time friends who loyally supported Plaintiff through his legal
trials.
e) Further in the course of that afternoon Christmas party, Additional Defendants
made statements to Defendant directly, and in Defendant's presence to third
parties, that Plaintiff was an honorable, trustworthy, finanCially stable person
who had recently fallen on hard times.
f) Additional Defendants further represented to Defendant that Plaintiff was an
attentive, loving, devoted father whose honor and integrity were beyond
respect.
g) Additional Defendants alleged that Gerald Gingrich was the pastor at a church.
h) Defendant accepted one invitation to attend a service at Additional Defendant's
church,
/0 !r--,
".....~ '
l
t.-....
i) Plaintiff sold Additional Defendants his Mercury Sable car in January 1998 and
alleged to Defendant he took a loss on the transaction, Defendant
subsequently learned Plaintiff realized a profit from the transaction.
j) Additional Defendants represented to Defendant that Plaintiffs legal problems
were solely the responsibility of Plaintiffs ex-wife, Karen.
.
k) Additional Defendants represented to Defendant that Plaintiffs daughter,
Jazmin Wiltschek, was Plaintiffs legally adopted child,
I) Plaintiff represented to Defendant that Additional Defendants managed
Plaintiffs financial affairs.
m) Defendant heard, on several occasions, messages on Plaintiffs answering
machine from Additional Defendants relating to the payment of Plaintiffs
expenses,
n) Plaintiff eventually alleged, and Additional Defendant confirmed, that Additional
Defendant Gerald Gingrich held power of attorney for Plaintiffs house, which
Plaintiff recorded in his adopted daughter's Chilean birth mother's name.
0) Additional Defendant Gerald Gingrich attended the closing wherein Additional
Defendant Gerald Gingrich knowingly and willingly signed over to Defendant
the property at 119 South Duke Street, York, Pennsylvania, subject of the
litigation docketed at No. 98-3426 CIVIL ACTION - LAW, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
23. On or after December 20, 1997, Defendant and Plaintiff became involved in a
relationship, which caused Defendant to place her trust in Plaintiff.
24. Plaintiff 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.
25. Plaintiff showed Defendant what appeared to be recent photographs of Plaintiff with
his Porsche, his Mercedes Benz, his 1985 Camaro, and his MG. Plaintiff regularly
drove a 1988 Mercury Sable, and further told Defendant he had a 1977 Pontiac.
Plaintiff further showed Defendant his classic, pristine 1960's DOdge stored in the
garage at the 119 South Duke Street property, Plaintiff represented to Defendant
that he owned all of these vehicles,
26. Plaintiff 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).
27, Plaintiff 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,
28. Plaintiff showered Defendant, and Defendant's three children, with lavish gifts
including expensive jewelry, a leather purse, clothing, designer perfumes,
/rJj'
r~
r"'":.,
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 paid for the gifts purchased in Defendant's presence with cash, and
credit cards.
29, Plaintiff regularly discussed with Defendant plans to travel locally and internationally
together; and plans to take excursions to visit art exhibits and museums, Plaintiff
and Defendant took several excursions together,
30, Defendant had told Plaintiff that she was planning to take the Bar Exam in July
1998, and the parties made their long term travel and excursion plans accordingly.
31. Defendant told Plaintiff 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.
32, Defendant told Plaintiff that Defendant was active in counseling to help cope with
the stress inherent in the child custody litigation.
33, Defendant and Plaintiff eventually became romantically involved, which caused
Defendant to place a great deal of trust in Plaintiff,
34. Pursuant to their trusting relationship, Defendant allowed Plaintiff to transfer into
her checking account a wire transfer of $5000.00 from Plaintiffs German bank
account upon Plaintiffs assertion that he did not yet have a local bank account.
35, Once it had deposited into Defendant's account, Defendant offered to give Plaintiff
a cashier's check for his $5000.00 Plaintiff refused and directed Defendant to pay
Plaintiffs living expenses, at his direction, until he established a local cheCking
account. At Plaintiff's direction, Defendant issued checks and made cash
payments for Plaintiffs living expenses including dining out, gas for his Mercury
Sable car, food, and household furnishings,
36. Further pursuant to their trusting relationship, Plaintiff gave Defendant a car.
Defendant authorized the initial gift transfer on January 8, 1998, attempting to
transfer title of Plaintiffs 1992 BMW gray market car into Defendant's name.
Plaintiff alleged he i:lid 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,
37. Plaintiff 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 misdemeanor 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 1987,
38. Plaintiff 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
JD~.
:,;
,',I
I
'I
II
i!
Ii
, 1
1"1
1......
1: ;:1,
.,..~..'.:)l
, '..x
~--:::..7,j
l"~
"
r:"..,
inherited by the minor child, Jazmin WiIlschek, whom he was allowing to be raised
by his ex-wife (Karen) as her own daughter.
39. Plaintiff 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,
40. Further pursuant to their trusting relationship, Defendant accepted Plaintiffs gift
transfer of the title of the real property at 119 South Duke Street, York, PA. Plaintiff
represented to Defendant that Plaintiff purchased the property in cash in August
1997, and had titled it to Jazmin WiIlschek's (his adopted daughter) birth mother
who lives in Chile, had never left Chile, and only spoke Spanish,
41. Defendant subsequently learned that Plaintiff Gomez was also Plaintiffs third, and
bigamous, wife: Monica del Carmen Gomez Perez WiIlschek.
42, At the conference on January 28, 1998, to transfer legal title of the 119 South Duke
Street property, Plaintiff 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 Plaintiffs credibility, and further increasing Defendant's trust
in Plaintiff,
43. Upon Alan Kim Patrono, Esq.'s inquiry, Plaintiff asserted, and Dr, Gingrich
confirmed, that Plaintiff has already paid cash for the property, necessitating Mr.
Patrono's office to re-write the Property Settlement Sheet confirming receipt of the
cash payment.
44. Following settlement, Plaintiff 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 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,
45. Upon agreement of the parties, Plaintiff continues to reside at the 119 South Duke
Street property and promised to reimburse Defendant for Plaintiffs living expenses
I hOUSing costs.
46. Defendant then began, at Plaintiffs insistence and guidance, applying for a home
equity loan pursuant to Plaintiffs suggestion that Defendant use the proceeds of
the loan to finance her child custody litigation,
47. Further pursuant to their trusting relationship, Defendant accompanied Plaintiff to
his ex-wife's (Karen's) house where he thereupon showed Defendant $500.00 cash
he allegedly received from Plaintiffs ex-wife (Karen). Plaintiff alleged the $500.00
was re-payment of prior a loan Plaintiff had extended to his ex-wife (Karen),
48. Plaintiff used the $500.00 for a romantic weekend in Atlantic City and New York
City, when the parties became engaged, Defendant nevei had possession or
/67.
,~
1'......."
control of the $500,00 cash, Nor did Defendant ever borrow any money from
Plaintiff,
49. Almost immediately after the engagement, Plaintiff began making demands upon
Defendant to liquidate her assets, including her personal jewelry, automobiles, and
the property at119 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.
50, Defendant in the meantime learned that Plaintiff had misrepresented his
occupational status, Plaintiff eventually admitted he was unemployed and had not
worked at DentsPly, Int'I. since 1994 when he fled the United States to hide in
Europe with the minor child, Tierra Lenker, whom the York County Courts had
ordered be returned to her biological parents.
51. Plaintiff 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 $132,500.00 on March 31, 1995, from Legg Mason. Plaintiff 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,
52. Plaintiff 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,
53. Plaintiff further admitted his U,S. passport had been canceled on July 2, 1997
pursuant to his criminal activity, but that Plaintiff still had a valid Chilean Passport,
and a valid Austrian Passport, so that their international travel plans were still
possible.
54. Because of Plaintiffs actions, verbal assertions, promises, and course of conduct,
Defendant trusted Plaintiff and detrimentally relied upon Plaintiffs assertions when
Defendant accepted Plaintiffs generous gifts.
55. Plaintiff intended his conduct and course of action to induce Defendant into
permitting Plaintiff 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.
56, Plaintiffs conduct induced Defendant to accept Plaintiffs gifts and assurances that
he would honor his agreements regarding the pet dog, Amber, and Plaintiffs living
expenses I housing costs,
57, Defendant began to suspect that Plaintiff 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
Plaintiffs ongoing demands,
/ () r.
/"-.
58, For 3 weeks following the engagement, Plaintiff incessantly nagged and badgered
Defendant by demanding Defendant liquidate her assets and turn the proceeds
over to Plaintiff for his living expenses, Defendant explained to Plaintiff 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,
59. Plaintiff asserted that "this isn't worth it anymore," and then demanded return of his
engagement ring which Defendant promptly returned, thus terminating the
relationship,
60. Defendant subsequently requested Plaintiff relinquish possession of the property at
119 South Duke Street, as well as all keys to the property and the vehicles. Plaintiff
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 had procured unauthorized copies of her apartment and both
mailbox keys,
61. Plaintiff 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 Plaintiffs property,
62. Plaintiff 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,
63, Plaintiff subsequently advised Defendant that he was getting therapy for his
drinking problem, and that he wanted to resume the relationship, Additional
Defendants confirmed Plaintiffs assertions that he was receiving treatment, and
that he wanted the relationship to work,
64. Additional Defendants called Defendant asserting that Plaintiff had realized the
error of his ways, a!1d recommended to Defendant to give Plaintiff another chance
at the relationship,
65. In reliance upon Additional Defendants' assertions and considering Additional
Defendants' social and moral stature, Defendant agreed to meet Plaintiff to discuss
a reconciliation,
66. At that meeting, Defendant returned Plaintiffs two German wine glasses and a
leather purse Plaintiff had given Defendant.
67. In reliance upon Plaintiffs, and Additional Defendant's, actions, verbal assertions,
and promises, Defendant was induced into believing that Plaintiff would peaceably
and voluntarily vacate the residence by April 24, 1998, taking only his personal
property with him,
/01,
-',
,
68. Plaintiff and/or Additional Defendants removed Plaintiffs personal property, as well
as fixtures attached to the real property during the month of April 1998,
69. Defendant learned that Plaintiff had vacated the residence when she went to the
residence after receiving assurances from Additional Defendants that Plaintiff had
moved out.
70. Additional Defendants subsequently confirmed to Defendant that they had, upon
Plaintiffs instructions, removed the personal property Plaintiff left behind when he
fled to Germany in April 1998 under the auspices of visiting his ailing mother,
71. Additional Defendant further confirmed that they placed Plaintiffs personal property
in storage, and then sold Plaintiffs personal property at Plaintiffs instructions,
netting only several hundred dollars which was turned over to Plaintiff upon his
return from Germany.
72. Plaintiffs conduct was fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby supporting the
imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff.
73. Because of Plaintiffs actions and course of conduct after the engagement,
Defendant has suffered pecuniary damages to her credit and legal reputation 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 against Plaintiff
and Additional Defendants,
COUNT 2: BREACH OF CONTRACT and TRESPASS TO LAND
74, Paragraphs 1 through 73 are hereby incorporated by reference.
75, After title to the real property at 119 South Duke Street, York, PA was legally
conveyed to Defendant on January 28, 1998, Plaintiff agreed to reimburse ..
Defendant for all housing costs including, but not limited to, oil, gas, electric, water,
sewer, trash, and repairs & maintenance. Attached here as Exhibit B is an
itemization of the housing costs Plaintiff incurred between January 28, 1998 and
April 28, 1998,
76. Plaintiff subsequently, repeatedly refused to reimburse Defendant for any of the
expenses Plaintiff incurred while living at Defendant's property, in breach of the
parties' agreement that Plaintiff would cover his own living expenses,
77. Defendant has incurred damages in the amount of $732,93 for Plaintiffs
unreimbursed housing expenses,
78. Upon Plaintiffs defiant and unyielding repudiation of the parties' agreement for
Plaintiff to cover his own housing expenses, Defendant notified Plaintiff on or about
March 1, 1998, he would have to vacate the premises by April 1, 1998,
79, Defendant went to the property on April 1 , 1998, and discovered that Plaintiff had
changed the locks, and that Defendant was unable to gain access to the property,
lit).
~"'''''''
r..'>
80. Upon looking inside the locked front door, Defendant discovered that the property
had been damaged, to wit: the }I," thick period glass in the foyer interior door had
been smashed. Defendant knew that Plaintiff and the Reverend Doctor Gerald
Gingrich had keys to the property. To Defendant's knowledge, no one else had
keys, The previous owner of the property is deceased.
81. The circa 1870 window glass was replaceable with modern glass, although
Defendant had to special order the glass due to the thickness and pattern of the
glass. The replacement glass cost $90,10.
82, During the month of April 1998, Defendant did not have access to the property, and
made no attempt to gain access to the property.
83. During April 1998, Defendant was unable to communicate with Plaintiff, despite
repeated attempts to communicate through Plaintiffs ex-wife (Karen), Plaintiffs
attomeys of record (John Mooney, Esq. and Dann Johns, Esq.), and Additional
Defendants, Each of the parties alleged they had no idea of Plaintiffs
whereabouts, and/or expressed their unwillingness to convey messages to
Plaintiffs,
84. On April 24, 1998, Additional Defendants represented to Defendant that Plaintiff
had vacated the premises and left the country, Defendant knew, based on Court
documents Plaintiff had previously shown to Defendant, that Plaintiffs United
States Passport had been canceled in July 1997, Defendant further knew, based
on Piaintiffs demonstrations to Defendant, that Plaintiff held Chilean and Austrian
passports issued in January 1995, despite Plaintiffs status as a U.S. citizen
naturalized in the 1970's. Therefore, Defendant believed Plaintiff may still have
been in the area, and would continue to commit criminal acts unless affirmatively
thwarted,
85. On Saturday, April 25, 1998, went to the South Duke Street residence in the
company of two associates and gained access to the property. Defendant and the
two associates discovered that the premises had been vacated and abandoned. All
of the personal property that could be carried by person and transported in a small
truck had been removed. Defendant also discovered several large trash bags
throughout and outside the residence; and discovered several bags .contained
various documents evidencing Plaintiffs criminal activities and intentionally
fraudulent assertions and conduct regarding Defendant.
86. On April 28, 1998, Defendant returned to the property in the company of a
locksmith. Defendant had the locks changed to prevent Plaintiffs unlawful re-entry,
The cost to change the locks was $141.67,
87, Defendant has suffered monetary damages caused by Plaintiffs unlawful trespass
and habitation of $964.70, to replace the circa 1870's window Plaintiff broke, and to
re-key the locks after Plaintiff vacated and abandoned the property, as well as
interest and costs of this suit, and punitive damages.
!I!-
",r""",-,
-~.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests Judgment in the amount of $964,70
plus interest and costs of this suit, and punitive damages against Plaintiff and Additional
Defendants,
COUNT 3: CONVERSION
88. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are hereby incorporated by reference.
89. Additionally, upon entering the residence on April 25, 1998, Defendant discovered
that Plaintiff, or Plaintiffs agents, had removed many fixtures, Attached here as
Exhibit C is an itemization and valuation of the fixtures Plaintiff or his agent
removed from the real property at 119 South Duke Street during the month of April
1998,
90. Defendant further discovered that, in the process of removing fixtures, including
custom made draperies, carpet and shelving units, Plaintiff or Plaintiffs agent
caused damage to the property which necessitated repair and/or replacement. The
cost of repairing the structure and the replacement value of the fixtures, as itemized
in Exhibit C, is $12,700,00.
91, In February 1998, Plaintiff has asked Defendant to allow Defendant's dog, a beagle
named Amber, to stay at the South Duke Street house to help protect Plaintiff and
the property, Defendant agreed, on condition that the dog be returned if Plaintiff
decided she was too much work,
92. Upon entering the residence on April 25, 1998, Defendant further discovered that
Amber, her food, food and water bowls, brush, and leash were all gone. Plaintiff
initially alleged the dog ran away, but then subsequently admitted to Defendant that
he sold Amber to "get even" with Defendant. Amber was valued at $500.00, The
food, food and water bowls, brush, and leash are valued at $55,00.
93, Plaintiffs refusal to return to Defendant her fixtures and personal property, which
Plaintiff admitted he took without Defendant's permission, has permanently
deprived Defendant of the use and enjoyment of said items.
94. Because of Plaintiffs conversion of Defendant's fixtures and personal property,
Defendant has suffered monetary damages in the amount of $13,255.00, as well as
interest and costs of this suit.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests Judgment in the amount of $13,255,00
plus interest and costs of this suit against Plaintiff and Additional Defendants,
fl
I
COUNT 4: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
95, Paragraphs 1 through 94 are hereby incorporated by reference,
96, Through his actions and course of conduct detailed in the preceding paragraphs
and incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiff intentionally and/or recklessly
defrauded Defendant into trusting him, and accepting his gifts,
II J-
-,.....,.
,'-0"",
,
,
97. Plaintiffs actions and course of conduct induced Defendant to place her trust in
Plaintiff by accepting Plaintiffs generous gifts of the car and the property. Under
any circumstances, but particularly in light of Plaintiffs knowledge of Defendant's
stress over her pending child custody litigation, Plaintiffs actions and course of
conduct were extreme and outrageous.
98. Plaintiff has instituted numerous separate legal proceedings and investigations
against Defendant in the past six months in an attempt to harass, intimidate, and
extort money from Defendant, to wit:
a) No, 98-3425 CIVIL ACTION - LAW, in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
b) No, 98-3426 CIVIL ACTION - LAW, in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
c) No. CV435-98-101, District Justice Farrell, in York County, Pennsylvania
d) No, 98-SU-06021 ,09 CIVIL ACTION - LAW, in York County, Pennsylvania
e) Cumberland County District Attorney's Office Criminal Investigation, in
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
99, Because of Plaintiffs extreme and outrageous conduct, Defendant has suffered
severe emotional distress,
100. Further because of Plaintiffs extreme and outrageous conduct, Defendant was
unable to focus on the July 1998 Bar Exam, thus not passing the exam.
101. Due to Defendant's professional humiliation with permanent career
consequences, and stress caused by Plaintiffs frivolous and harassing series of
law suits in two different counties, Defendant sought and received psychiatric
care, which resulted in employment difficulties for Defendant.
102. Plaintiff's conduct was fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby supporting
the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff,
103. Defendant has suffered emotional damages in the amount of $1 00,000.00, as well
as interest and costs of this suit. Defendant has further suffered pecuniary
damages for medical treatment in excess 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 against Plaintiff .'
and Additional Defendants,
COUNT 4: DEFAMATION
104. Paragraphs 1 through 103 are incorporated by reference,
105. In the course of setting forth his allegations in his Complaint, Plaintiff asserted in
Paragraphs 7 and 8 that "Defendant further represented to Plaintiff that she was
an attorney, which also caused Plaintiff to place a great deal of trust in
Defendant."
I t3-
,
f". -..,
106. As Answered in Paragraphs 7 and 8, Defendant never asserted to anyone,
including Plaintiff, 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, nor has she ever represented to Plaintiff
that she was qualified to do so,
107. Plaintiff 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 had filed against a previous employer, (2) handle a
slander/libel/defamation law suit Plaintiff 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 wanted filed against Brooks
Pomper, Esq., Tierra Lenker's court appointed attorney who was pursuing a
Contempt Order against Plaintiff 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 Plaintiffs automobiles.
108, Defendant refused each of Plaintiffs repeated requests, each time reminded
Plaintiff that Defendant was not authorized to practice law, and each time
recommended Plaintiff contact an attorney,
109, Plaintiff reiterated his defamatory allegation in open court before District Justice
Farrell on November 25,1998.
110. The publication of Plaintiffs assertion that Defendant misrepresented herself as a
licensed attorney has materially damaged Defendant's credibility in the local legal
community, and has seriously impaired Defendant's ability to be admitted to the
Pennsylvania Bar, Plaintiffs numerous and serious, but unfounded, allegations
necessitate Defendant incurring additional legal expenses to defendant against
rejection from the Pennsylvania Bar; the outcome of which is, at best, uncertain.
111. Defendant has further suffered public humiliation and damaged credibility in the
Courtroom of District Justice William Farrell where Plaintiff publicly reiterated h!s
defamatory allegation.
112. Defendant has similarly suffered public humiliation and an ongoing inability to
procure legal counsel due to Plaintiffs defamatory allegation.
113. Plaintiffs defamatory allegation adversely affected Defendant's reputation in the
general community, in the legal communities of Cumberland, York, and Dauphin
Counties, and with the Pennsylvania Bar.
114, Plaintiffs conduct was intentional, fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby
supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff.
115. Defendant has suffered severe emotional damage due to Plaintiffs extreme and
outrageous conduct in the amount of $100,000.00, plus legal career earnings, as
well as interest and costs of this suit, and punitive damages,
/IJ
., .
".~.....-.. .
\
WALTER WIL TSCHEK,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
SUZANNE ABEL,
Defendant
vs.
REV. DR. GERALD GINGRICH,
KATHLEEN GINGRICH,
Additional Defendants
No. 98-SU06021.09
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer was served upon
Plaintiffs attorney, John James Mooney, III, Esquire, Mooney & Associates, 230 York
Street, Hanover, PA 17331 by regular and First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid on
March 12, 1999,
. IUU. u.../
S'uzan e Abel
P.O. Box 1032
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(717) 791-9904
Pro Se Defendant
/d... c) ,
1"''''',
..~.., ,
MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEi:: IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintirr CUMIlERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLV ANIA
VS.
<JX-3426 CIVIL
SUZANNE A13EL.
Dcrcndant
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
vs,
REV, DR. GERALD GINGRICH,
Additional Defcndant
IN RE: MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
ORDER
AND NOW, this
;!. 2...,J day or April, 1999. the defcndant's motion for
continuance is DENIED,
BY THE COURT,
John James Mooney, III, Esquire
Mooney & Associates
230 York Street
Hanover, PA 17331
,/IlL
", ' ~d~tf_ o.-f/:1 ;;J./9 (I,
c..-c-tf>-<-<4J / ,. -- "b, l' ,
Suzanne S, Abel, Pro Se
5029 E, Trindle Road, Apt. 1
Meehanicsburg, PA 17055
Court Administrator
:rlm
/J.J..
>- 0..0 r;
.~. <'< "'-
I- CO ....1
0 o;E
UJz f:..J~
<.) . .....
R=Q :;:c >
......~~ (";1~
c-
'." I '" '~"(J)
',,, u.:: ::JZ
',,.WO:- O:fj
=:!t;'1..I Ck: tUu
',u..-C Cl. roc..
F oct ...
u_ en. =>
0 en <.:>
\..-/'
~',
v
I
<-,:
--I
.-."
.
MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ,
by her Attorney-in-Fact.
WALTER WIL TSCHEK,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
SUZANNE ABEL,
Defendant
vs.
REV. DR. GERALD GINGRICH,
Additional Defendant
No. 98-3426
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
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 is Monica Del Carmen Gomez Perez, an adult individual whose residence
is unknown, but is believed to reside in Chile, South America, represented by her
Attorney in Fact, Walter Wiltschek.
2. 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.
3. Defendant Suzanne Abel is an adult resident residing at 5029 East Tindle Road,
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.
4. Additional Defendant Reverend Doctor Gerald Gingrich is an adult resident
residing at1 05 Rt. 30, Thomasville, PA 17364.
5. Before this Honorable Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is the case
docketed at No. 98-3425 CIVIL ACTION - LAW (attached as Exhibit A).
6. Before this Honorable Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is the
above case docketed at No. 98-3426 CIVIL ACTION - LAW (attached as Exhibit
B).
7. 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).
8. Removal to York County is necessary because the balancing of convenience
strongly favors a transfer for the following reasons:
/36.
i~'
~~.......~
.
8.a. Plaintiffs Choice of Venue:
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 Abel asks this Honorable Court to permit the
collective cases to be heard in one venue.
8.b. Interests of Other Parties:
1. ease of access to 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 and Additional Defendant's witnesses, to
Defendant Abel's knowledge, reside and/or work in York County.
None of Plaintiffs and Additional Defendant's witnesses, to Defendant
Abel's knowledge, reside and/or work in Cumberland County.
3. cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses - Defendant Abel'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 these cases (Pa.R.C.P. 213.'I(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
/3(.
""""
,....,
consolidation of the cases, will undoubtedly result in parallel time and
cost savings for the Court, Plaintiff, and Additional Defendant.
8.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 the factual
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.
9. 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,
ell
,- ,
Name: Suza ne Abel, Pro Se
,
Address: P.O~- ox 1032
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
By:
/3).
""',,)
t""lt.",
Jm.I lD..5.U
12. Shortly aftcr obtaining owncrship, Dcfcndant
terminated the romantic rclationship, dcmanded 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.
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 repaying Plaintiff the sums owed to him.
3
I 3 fp.
i
'f
!
;; ":'" ':~::t;_~
,t";':';i",
~
, ,
AFFIDAVIT
COMMONWEALm OF PENNSYLVANIlt
: 88:
COUNTY OF YORK.
Before me, a Notary Public, in 8Dd for said County 8Dd Commcnwea1th. pcr.lOII8lly
appc.arcd j .,I.~ll J..-,' t. I'd -':()ir; Ie
. being duly sworn a......>1Jiug 10 law, deposes 8Dd
says that the filets ....H.IH;'~:1 in the fu.~;..g C'c!mDlolnr-
arc tIuc and coacct 10 the bcstof hi.<- knowkdgc, inti" .....hnn 8Dd bclict:
L(}/-; ~Cli'(
SWORN 8Dd SUBSCRJBED
10 befuIe me this q~ day of
~d~ ,19!e
~t)~
NotIzy Public
Notarial Seal P bl C
Melissa C. ~,ner. Nota2'ou~ty'
Hanover oorc, Yo~ M ,. 20'J0
Mv commISSion E.xPlreS ay II.
. .,,_~." ':'SSO~\ii:iO:1 t': N:J:1!:;S
/3 r,
~)
,.....,
10-'-98 .
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
I 4-(
"
1: l
I:
,
"
.,
,I
it
[1
,
,
r
,
I,
'f-\;";'."';'
",,:"
,........'" ~
/""",,
.'
10..'."
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, 199B, 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 refused 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
! 4-~
.-"', I
r'
JJKJ D-5-U
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
I frj.
t:'
," (', '. ,- , ,: . .
-
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 Attornev
In Fact shall see fit; in connection with the foregoing to make,"
execute, acknowledge and deliver deeds, mortgages, bills 0:
sale, leases and other proper instruments of conveyance,
hypothecation, lease, assignment and transfer and to invest
and reinvest the proceeds 0: 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 thRt 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 shall 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.
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)
;U
EXHIBIT
Pi
A
'W
,,'
'.-
.".
....,...,... ':0- --::.
go
,
"
...
"
.
,..""',
6. This Powe. of Atto.ney shall not be affected by the
disability o. incapacity of the principal,
.
\
f
7. This Powe. of Atto.ney shall remain effective until death,
Order of Court o. revocation.
8, I he.eby .atify and confi.m all that my said Atto.ney
In Fact shall lawfully do o. cease to be done by vi.tue he.eof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have he.eunto set my hand and seal
this JUL '4 1997 day of July ,1997
\\ I _ .
'-\.() \.t \./"Q.~
MONI~A DEL CARMEN
C;~~r
GOMEZ PEREZ
'(Seal)
Signed, Sealed and De1ive.ed in the Presence of
(Seal)
,..
. I do he.eby accept this Powe. of Attorney this
19
day
" -
:1,"
1;.
~
\ ~-
, r\
.t{
'I '.
"1 I
;1..:'
'l(\
(2)
.""'1 )
1"""'\
'.
('C'.
#2-
Alan Kim PBlronll; Esq.
:lO Wool Middle SlI1lel
Ge<<ysllurg, Pennsylvania IT.:Z
717.:J34.l1098
,
.
"
i,
\'..
. .... -
,.
"
\'"
'.
<,' '"
, ....
,;.'
'.1
THIS DEED
MADE THE j!,'3 ~ 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
AT'I'ORNEY-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/10C DOLLARS, ($40,000.00), in hand oaid, the receiot 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 beina on
s~:..e~side of and known as No: 119 South Duke Street in~the
~u~~_:c:rk, York County, r'enns:;lve'nia, together with the
~mprovements thereon erected and bounded ~:~ 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 extendina
. of uniform width to the hereilwefore mentioned alley. ~
BEING THE SAME which Edna E. Leidic, widow, by her Attorney-
in-Fact, Theodcra B. Waltermyer, by rh~ir deed dated August 15,
1997 and reccrded in the office cf 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 w~man in said deed, the GRANTOR
herein. EXHIBIT
/41 G
........,)
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
4~~/;c. g-..-
.
~ gj c:~ Jf-, ~
MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ Z
by her attorneY-in-fac~
I. GINGRICH
()/J.</ /I-tbf-~u
WITNESSES
. J,~ ~J.~
~RALD I. GI~ICH, ~arney-
in-fact
t
\
ReCelVed
FEB 2 6 1998
City of York
J
CD .:> o-=-U"10 V'>
'" Cl C> v: ..~ ~ ~ '"
..... a: ",Ill ClE: .,; _ a rJ a on
.....,....... ~('J O'I~ C> ___0 ."
~ - -- ~
"'0-% - - -
%a: !5ClSool ~
....."'::> ""aJ..'Cl i>c"'~
OQ..J !i;0~ .('J ~
u,... "'Il!'"
.:.: CD ~ OS.-4 . ... bI
.....""% !!l
a::::u,J:::Z:: "'aJ....-4Cl r~=~,...
....-... e":mQ: oof' '" cc:.;:I:--
- cc =- --=- ~u
I CertD.'y ThiaDecument 'Ib Be
Recorded I~ York County, Pa.
..,......
.~-;....RfI'8.t.~
....~ .....:: IP.A "".
.~.~.v_.
.r!lf. - ...~..
:>t:'. '."'~
. .' :L 'oGl.
!~: ::;:
~'-". . /~:
"""" i,:.,. .... .:
..."",;:::....:.<.. ,~..'"
.."'~"I;::...
. ..........
;4-[
1"'""\
~
AFFIDA vrr
COMMONWEALlH OF PENNSYLVANIk
: ss:
COUNTY OF YORK
Before me, a NotBry Public, in and for said Coun1y md Commonwealth. pc:rsona1ly
((]1;T\JCl;..."]x1 (J."fT\LI1 I..JcJ7T<i-Z- I:::t{ /'1;.1
C...t[,;rrJ'j .. ,,1- ~ (' r t:..
~ ' ,I,', { 'n ^ LJ,; r5J.^ Iu . being duly sworn lil.;\;ulJiug to law, deposes and
says that the facts c..'IH:...,j in the fu.~~ CC.n1 /J (0 (r1 r
arc true md (A,u,.a to the best of Jus- kDowicdgc, injiYm..hnn md bcIict:
1n ~u cq: j)~'
ILfJ:... C!
LIlt;-
SWORN md SUBSCRIBED
to before me this 9th- day of
(~)},DA . 1m.
JfhL.Mn C ~
NoCmy Public
NOlanal Seal P bfc
Melissa C. Miller. Notacry u tv'
So.... YO""' OUn'l
Hanov2f .... M" 2000
Uv commisSIon Exclres ay I ,
, :'~~cCl:l,tIOn 0\ twtan~s
IS;.
~)
)
,.
. .
Complete set of glasses
$ 50.00
THREE BEDROOMS
Bedroom #1
rruddJ-e.
Double bed
Two night tables
Three mirrors
Small radio and cassette
Total of Bedroom # ]
$ 700.00
Bedroom # 2
~
French Provincial Double Bed
Two dressers
Night stand
Light
Total of Bedroom # 2
$ 350.00
Bedroom # 3
Single bed
Night stand
Total of Bedroom # 3
$100.00
Linens
$200.00
Bathroom # 1
i
"
, ,
i: I
,
~. I
i
Massager
i
.i
,
/ !J~l
. .
,
r-'~ )
r.......'\ !
. .
,.
Shaving machine electric model
$150.00
Towels
$100.00
Dininl! Room
Large Dining Table with four chairs
$400.00
Microwave can
$100.00
Artwork and paintings (some prints)
$2000.00
Miscellaneous
Clothing (coats. shins. etc.)
S1000.00
Medication
$ 100.00
Toiletries
S 50.00
Snowblower (used)
$ 100.00
Holiday Decor
$ 250.00
Antique toys
Marx Truck
S1400.00
German Toys
S 100.00
Ceiling fans (brought from Germany)
(two at $50.00 per fan)
$ 100.00
Electronic cash register
S1000.00
Dehwnidifiers
(two at S50_00 each)
S 100.00
Photographs and frames
S 300.00
Personal documents
Priceless
Custom Jewelry (necklaces, bracelets)
S 120.00
(51.
-
.'....-..
..-
,,-,\ - \ r'~" )
I
. .
Collector's Watch $ 75.00 (paid)
,
New Wallets (four) $ 80.00 ,
I ' ~
. ,
Office Supply $ 150.00 [v.
Books (hardbound and Dictionaries) $ 300.00 {~
, ~
Collection of 45 Records $ 100.00 i !
, '
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 German bike $ 800.00
Electrolux Vacuum Cleaner (new) $ 900.00
Electrolux Vacuum Cleaner (used) $ 200.00
Total of Personal Possessions $15,525.00
/~,
.~
.
,""'"\
, .
,;,..;.,
MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ,
by her Attorney-in-Fact,
WALTER WIL TSCHEK,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
SUZANNE ABEL,
Defendant
vs.
REV. DR. GERALD GINGRICH,
Additional 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 following by regular and First Class
U.S. Mail, postage prepaid on April 12. 1999:
Attorney for Plaintiffs:
John James Mooney, III, Esquire
Mooney & Associates
230 York Street
Hanover, PA 17331
Additional Defendant: (counsel unknown):
Rev, Dr. Gerald Gingrich
105 Rt. 30
Thomasville, PA 17364
lU
SUZ8 ne Abel
,
P.O. Box 1032
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(717) 791-9904
Pro Se Defendant
I~(
.,.:'....-:...'..
~ ...
~
MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ: IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
\'S.
9X-J426 CIVIL
SUZANNE ABEL.
Defcndant
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
\'S.
REV. DR. GERALD GINGRICH,
Additional Defcndant
IN RE: MOTION TO OUASIJ PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
ORDER
AND NOW, this
'Z.. 2....oJ day of April, 1999, a rule is issued on the plaintiff to show
cause why the relicI' requcsted ought not to be grantcd. This rulc returnablc twenty (20) days
after service. Argument hcrcon 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, intcr alia, the defendant or thc plaintiffs
have complained with Pa.R.C.P. 2252(b)(I). In thc evcnt that the motion for change of venue is
decided adversely to the defcndant and, furthcr, that this case will not proceed against Rev.
Gingrich, trial hercin is set for Wcdnesday, Junc 16, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. If it is dctermined that
l
the case cannot proceed to trial forthwith, thc trial datc will be cancelled.
BY THE COURT,
,
~Al
Ke)in A. I-less, J.
/
1~3
.......-'.>~
" ~......-~
""'"
~
John James Mooney, 1/1, Esquire
Mooney & Associates
230 York Street
Hanover, PA 17331
. ~,,,,..(l~L't(
/. ./ U-'~ .
- l,.......:-iJ~'
.d"-.l..)'1Q.
I~-' .
~,.
Suzanlll: S. Abel, Pro Se
5029 E. Trindle Roml, Apt. I
Mechanicsburg,I'A 17055
Court Administrator
:rlm
/~4
'b: al ~.
< ..::J 7-
1-. a:. _.~
wO T)?
C)? ::':: ;~)Z
u: ~.,~ '- <1
'.l~_L .::: O~
.c.).......
be
:', l1:. N :"(.f)
L.W o~ ('oJ ..:Jz
'.'Z
--:.;Jl{', o~ t~.hu
0::" .
'r:-: 0.. .~B Q..
"-"
u. m :5
u cr> u
.~
..
\.J
~
y
'-
1"",
r--'l
doctor/patient privilege, and mailers which may cause her unreasonable
embarrassment or, perhaps, Infringe upon her right of privacy under the
Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions.
G. Plaintiff's discovery request will cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment,
opprosslon, and unduly burdensome expense to the Defendant because is it
overly broad. The generic discovery request amounts to a fishing expedition,
which Is prohibited by Pa. R.C.P. 4011.
7. The records and documents Plaintiff purports to request contain intimate and
personal details of Defendant's life.
8. Dissemination of this highly personal information will result in embarrassment,
unreasonable annoyance, oppression, and probable additional trauma to
Defendant and Defendant's minor children.
9. Defendant is protected from Plaintiffs blanket Request for Production of
Documents pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4012 as follows:
a) A discovery request which is limited in scope and which does not violate the
doctor/patient privilege,
b) A discovery request which enumerates with specificity the exact nature and
quality of documents requested, and
c) A discovery request which stipulates that the requested material will be
delivered to this Honorable Court and sealed under Order of Court and
opened only as directed by this Honorable Court may be warranted.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant a
Motion for a Protective Order.
RespectfUlly Submitted,
9JJ~UWj CLivl
Suzah e Abel, Pro Se
P.O. Box 1032
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
By:
Name:
Address:
/70,
...
.
.
.
~
.
.
e
.
. .
f'!'!..
\~ .t
.
.
. .
,::;
". . ,; ,;.0",_".-,..,;. "_"r,, ...,;:.~.,.
..__.,--~-
'.
. '---~-_...._-.,._--
, - -_.,--,_._-~,----
"
COUNTY OF YORK
I 'L
1
t 2B EAST MARKET ST" YORK. P~ .17401.;;'. '.: ";INSTRUCTIONS. .....,'J::}>:!i::i:,;'~
i.... PROCESS RECi~pe,.~~~ ~F~Yb~~IT OF RETURN . PLEASE tyPE ONLYLIf"ES.1Tii,ii,,:;::\j
it ..'DONOTDETACHANYCopiES;J:iC;AF:, ~ .'
;0: . ..1, ~LAI~TIFF/SI 2. COURT NUMBER
Ii . Monica Del Carmen GOrrez& Walter ~1iltschek.. 98-3426 Civil
!) 3. DEFENDANT/51 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT
Suzanne Abel VS Rev. Dr. Gerald Gingrich writ to Join Additional Deft.
SERVe 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL. COMPANY. CORPORATION. ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIEO. ATTACHEO. OR SOLD.
.~ Rev. Dr. Gerald Ginqrich
.....-- 10' ADDRESS (STREET OR RFD WITH BOX NUMBER. APT NO., CITY. BORO. TWP., STATE AND ZIP CODE
, AT Rte. 130 Thoma6ville, PA 17364
t.,...7;INDIC"1ESEilVICE" CPERSDNI\L CPERSONINCHARGE. I CDEp,UTIZE , CCeRtMAIL. _ ,IJ1STCLASSMAIL CPOSTED . CDTHER
,i. NOW 19 _I, SHERIFF OF YORK CbUNtY, PA, do hereby deputize ihe sheriff 01 . .'
,'" .' COUNTY to execute this Wrl! and mBke return thereol according
.::;::10 law, Thla deputetlon being made at the request and risk olthe plelntlff.
'..:L' ",_. ,"
)~ ;.8. BPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE:
(
OFFICE OF: THE SHERIFF
SERVICE CALL
(717) 771-9601
I
SHERIFF OF YORK GOUNTY
OUT OF CX:JlJNTY'
CUMBEHLAND
ADVM"CE FEE PO BY CU/4BERLAND COUN'I'Y' SHEHIFF
~:~ ,1 "" "
.NDTE'ONLY APPUCABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN, Any deputy sheriff levying upon or ehachlng any property undar wllhln wril may leava . .'
:"i,:,_':. sa~:YIi,~uta watchman,_ln custody'ofwhomever Is found In possesston, after nollfylng person ollew or attachment, withoutliabUity on the part of such deputy or tho sheriff to any'
;)!,:'t.: plahiUff herein' for'any loss, destructl!Jn, or removal of any property before sheriN's sale thereof.., ,/ ,. /:;.i..-
K..9..TYSJ=~N~fESS of ATTORNEY/ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE! '10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE
k.' -POBox 1032, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-791-9904 4/12/99
12. t)~ND ,NOnCE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME, AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This al'8a must be completed If notice Is to be mallea).
Cumberland County.Sheriff
...1l"#~(~.f,;~'ii1i:?ii";~:;)i;SPACE'eELOW'FOR:USE'OF.THE SHERIFF,ONLV .',00. NOT'WRITEBELOWTHIS LINE ,(".";.;,;,.,;,,,,"'':;;!
~,~~ >:';,,13'~:J,aCknOWiel:tge receipt of the writ, ':' ',SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CL~RK 14. Date Received 15. ExpiratJo~'
'J;' .' orcomplalnlaslndlcaledabove. B. Feeser 4/14/99 5/12/99
~'",~~.:.-, ,,-' ,-,-.., ,,' :,.., ,-" ,,' ,'- ,-. ~-' '-'''' "
;,fi,;,,:;::.,';lB..~h.eI'8bYC;:'ER FYand_RErURNtha. t I [J havop. ersona.IIY sorved, a have-posted propinty, [J have legal evittence of serVice 85 shown In .
':;':"~';':: ":':" Bemarks~, have executed as In ,"Remarks", the wrlt!Jr complaint described on the Individual, company, cor.
_;~:._;:-, ::' :" peraUon, c, I the address inserted below by handing a TRUE and ATTESTED COPY thereol. . . -. .
...;-",,',
',:f~;"'17.1J nie by certlIY and return a NOY' FOUND because I am unable to locate the Individuai, company. corporation. etc, named above. (See remarks below.)
,. - 18. NAM AN LE OF INDIVID}l SERVED I LIST ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relationship to Defendenl) 19. Dal of 6JIVlca 20.1ime oLSelVlce
t/ /(,,/9'1 'j: tioJ-
Time Miles Int. Date nme Miles Int
,.',-,-;,';;;
3.72(21. 72)
/(/tj c.".Y"c~ c.-I
-,~...>,~,"~.,,,.,...,>,
,.".,'
C-lG, ..:;
. /33/ }L,;;~\~
. (1/:;'/I.rI;1
. "~.l
.f,
l',
,'.,,-'
.-.~ '
,,;,;:'~'~:"~'"
"2J.st
:34..dayof
'->:,~..'
36. Signature 01
35. /
,4t(;l''':MV';~6MMISSON.ExPIREs': Pl<<~~i.~.~i,~' ,~,,'
,;,,:,,/,42.1 ACKNOWLEOGE RECEIPT OF THE SHERIEF'S RETURN SIGNATURE
ii"'\:.OFAUTHORIZED ISSUING AUTHORITY'AND TITLE ..
i;~~~f:;tWHr(E~__lssulng Authority :_; 2. PINK '. Attorney ,3,' CANARY,. Sherifl's Office
I/~':'\f~:/!!;S::~'.o;'<:,:,":'..:~.,:" ..: . .... ..
",- ", :",',~; i":'. 'i";-'. .,; -,. ".,',
COUNTY OF YORK
- '
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
SERVICI~ CALL
(717) 771-9601
L
r- - .
,,{: -
f,\,
fl' ';
~ '
-It "j
,'j "
'\' ,
:!"
I '
} ,"
~, ;l,r.
}~ - I If...
11)f
"~I, ,
;11\
Ij -,
"I .
;;
28 EAST MARKET ST.. YORK. PA 17401
SHERIFF SERVICE
PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN
INSTRUCTIONS
PLEASE TYPE ONLY LINES 1 TO 12
DO NOT DETACH ANY COPIES.
1. PLAINTlFF/S! 2. counr NUMUEn
Monica Del Cannen Gomez& Walter Wiltschek 98-3426 Civil
3. DEFENDANT/S! 4. TYPE OF wnlT OR COMPLAINT
Suzanne Abel VS Rev. Dr. Gerald Gingrich IWrit to Join Additional Deft.
S E 5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL. COMPANY. CORPORATION. ETC. TO SEnvE OR OESCnlPTlON OF pnOPEnTY TO BE LEVIED. ATTACHED. OR SOLO.
ERV
. Rev. Dr. Gerald Gingrich
10 . ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT NO.. CITY. BORO. TWP.. STATE ANO ZIP COOE
AT Rte. 130 Thomasville, PA 17364
7. INDICATE SERVICE, 0 PERSONAL 0 PERSON IN CHARGE 0 DEPUTIZE 0 CERT. MAIL a 1 ST CLASS MAIL a POSTED a OTHER
NOW 19 _I, SHERIFF OF YORK COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the sheriff 01
COUNTY to execute this Writ and make return thereol according
to law. This deputation being made at the request and risk 01 the plalntlll.
8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE:
2.00
'1J5-IOS-- /t{, 30 7i.
StlEAIFF OF VORK COUNTY
OUT OF CXJUNTY
CUMBERIJ\ND
ADVANCE FEE PO BY CUMBERLAND CXJUNTY SHERIFF
NOTE ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN. Any deputy sherilf levying upon or allaching any property under within writ may leave
same without a watchman, In custody of whomever is found In possession, aller notifying person 01 levy or Bllachmen!. without liability on tho part 01 such depuly or the sherifllo any
plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property beloro sheriff's sale thereol.
9. TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS 01 ATTORNEY/ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE
Suzanne Abel
POBox 1032, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-791-9904 4/12/99
12. SEND NonCE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This ores must be completed If notice Is to be melled).
Cumberland County Sheriff
',':!. ".' '. SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SHERIFF ONLY. DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
13.1 acknowledge receIpt 01 tho writ SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CLERK 14. Dalo Received 15. Expirationl~
or complaint as Indicated abov.. B. Feeser 4/14/99 5/12/99
16.1 hereby C~R FY and RETURN that I Cl have personally served, 0 have posted property. Cl havo regal evidence of service as shown in
~Aemarks', have execuled as In "Remarks', the writ or complaint described on tho individual, company, cor-
porallon, c, the address Inserted below by handing a TRUE and ATTESTED COPY thereol.
17, Q I hereby certify and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locato the individual, company, corporation, etc, named above. (See remarks below.)
18, NAM AN iT LE OF INDIVID}l ERVEOI LIST ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relationship to Defendant) 19,Dal of S rvice 20. lime of Service
. It, 99 7; tJ,j-
~.OO 3.n
S~t v..l >v ,'(I",) K; CI~ lM-
23. n $51.28
I' I-{ . C.1';331}("
I ('1//)//11)
33.AFFIRMED
SO ANSWER.
35.
J:!v.
36. Signature of
Cep. Shorilf
37.Signaturc of Yor
County ShoriffM. HOSE,
38. Signature 01 Foreign
County Sheriff
34. day of
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
42.1 ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE SHERIFF'S RETURN SIGNATURE
OF AUTHORIZED ISSUING AUTHORITY AND TITLE
1, WHITE. Issuing Aulhorlly 2, PINK. Attornoy 3, CANARY - Shorllf's Olflce
4. BLUE - Sheriff's Olfice / 7 (J:
~
(":~~
MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
98-3426 CIVIL TERM
~'
SUZANNE ABEL,
Defendant
V.
REV.DR.GERALD GINGRICH,
Addl. Defendant
WALTER WILTSCHEK,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 98-3425 CIVIL TERM
SUZANNE ABEL,
Defendant
IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 1999, the motion of the
defendant for a change of venue is denied. Trial in this
case will be conducted on Wednesday, June 16, 1999, at 9:30
a.m.
By the Court,
Judith Koper Morris, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Ad
Suzanne S. Abel, Pro Se
P.O. Box 1032
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
C'A-~~ fY"-~J2,.L
5/~'l j'i?
....&.-r.
:bg
17 r.
olI>;;"~
r-":;'\
WALTER WILTSCIIEK,
Plaintiff
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
98-3425 CIVIL
SUZANNE ABEL,
-- Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
MONICA DEL CARMEN
GOMEZ, by her attorney-in-
Fact, WALTER WIL TSCHEK :
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND CO~TY, PENNSYLVANIA
98-3426 CIVIL /
vs.
SUZANNE ABEL,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: NONJURY TRIAL
BEFORE HESS. J.
ORDER
AND NOW, this
,,'"
-, day of October, 1999, after trial without ajury, in both
captioned matters, we find on the plaintiffs claims in favor of the defendant. The counterclaims
of the defendant have been withdrawn.
BY THE COURT,
.l1i
laD'
.,:,.'
''-'" - ~,::-
F""\
,""--;",
WALTER WILTSCIIEK,
Plaintiff
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
98-3425 CIVIL
vs.
SUZANNE ABEL,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MONICA DEL CARMEN
GOMEZ, by her allorney-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 - LAW
IN RE: NONJURY TRIAL
BEFORE I-lESS. J.
The above captioned mailers 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,
Mr. Wiltschek, as allorney-in-fact for his Chilean wife, conveyed certain real estate to the
( ocL
"-~'~...'
. ~...---....
t
t.
~;
p.
r-'\
"-"'"1
98-3425 CIVIL
98-3426 CIVIL
The plaintiff contends that there was a contemporaneous oral agreement at the time he
transferred title of the BMW to the defendant to the effeet that the defendant would pay the
defendant $18,000 for the vehicJc-nJbcil at some indefinite time in the future. There was, _
however, no written evidcnce of any such agrcement. What remains is simply the outright
transfer of title of the vehicle from the plaintiff to the defendant with no evidence whatsoever of
whether or when any consideration would be paid by her to him.
Plaintiff alleged a contemporaneous oral agreement was created when the sum of
$5,500 was transferred to the defendant, which provided that the defendant would repay the
plaintiff for the money at some indefinite time in the future. The plaintiff offered no written
evidence to support his allegation and in any event failed to sustain his burden of proving even
an oral contract.
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. Section I et seq. A conveyance
of real property through a deed is presumptively valid and will not be set aside unless it is shown
by elear and convincing evidence that the transfer was improperly induced by fraud or other
misconduct on the part of the transferee. Walsh v. Bucalo, 423 Pa.Super. 25, 620 A.2d 21
(1993). The burden of proving that the transfer was the product ofa lack of mental capacity or
undue influence or fraud or a confidential relationship is on the person seeking to set aside the
deed. We have already dealt with the fact that no confidential relationship existcd in this case.
There is also no evidenee of undue influence or fraud of any kind. In fact, the plaintiff admittcd
that there were faets which he failed to disclose. Nor, is there evidence that the transfers were
4
/f~
98-3425 CIVIL
98-3426 CIVIL
f""';
~;-.'~ \
the product of the lack of menial capacity. The plaintiff agreed that he was not ill or suffering
any mental defects when he signed the instant title documents.
The defendant contends that the items of property in this case were gifts, admittedly
lavish, prompted by her romantic involvement with the plaintiff. Whether any of these items
were given to the defendant in contemplation of marriage need not be addressed, however, as the
plaintiff has not raised such a contention and is now clearly estopped from doing so. See Lindh
v. Surman, 702 A.2d 560 (Pa.Super. 1997), holding that the gift of an engagement ring was
subject to an implied condition requiring its return if the marriage did not take place.
ORDER
AND NOW, this
"{... day of October, 1999, after trial without a jury, in both
captioned matters, we find on the plaintiffs claims in favor of the defendant. The counterclaims
of the defendant have been withdrawn.
BY THE COURT,
John 1. Mooney, III, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Suzanne Abel
Pro Se Defendant
:r1m
5
ItC.
/
.-
)
c: '..D n
('," '.{) 1
:-) I
" --, -1';
::~~: ':'.:{ : ,-
; ,-,
-' l ::'J
(.' , (J.)
... .
.;( ,
-. C' .."1",.,
..'
,. '-1
-..- ~'1 1:.
:'1 ,-.-,
()\ --.~
" ."
'.
", .'
""'"
,.....
98-3425 CIVIL
98-3426 CIVIL
defendant. He also transferred legal title of a BMW motor vehicle and claims to have made a
loan to the defendant in the amount of $5,500. There is no written instrument of any kind
reflecting the defendant's agreement to pay for any of these items or setting forth the tenns ofa
repayment ofa loan_ Nonetheless, Mr. Wiltsehek now seeks reimbursement and repayment from
his former inamorata. Ms. Abel counters that, while she was flattered by the plaintiff's
generosity, she is neither obliged nor in a position to pay him the more than $60,000 which he
now seeks.
At first blush, it would appear illogical that a worldly and well-educated man would
transfer certain property outright to a person to whom he is not yet married. Realizing, however,
that one of the transfers was made by the attorney-in-fact for the plaintiffs current wife, the
matter becomes less mysterious.
After careful consideration of all of the testimony adduced in this case, we are satisfied to
resolve questions of credibility in favor of the defendant. This factual detennination may, alone,
be sufficient to resolve this case. Notwithstanding, we note that basic legal principles militate
against recovery by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs attempts to prove certain understandings with
regard to these assets is clearly violative of the Statute of Frauds. The plaintiff contends that the
Statute of Frauds has no application because a confidential relationship existed between the
parties. A confidential relationship exists where the circumstances "make it certain that the
parties did not deal on equal tenns; where, on the one side there is an ovennastering influence, or
on the other, weakness, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed." Weir bv Gasper v. Estate of
Ciao, 521 Pa. 491, 504, 556 A.2d 819, 825 (1989). The burden is initially on the party seeking to
2 /13.
.' I,..
~-,
rr"
98-3425 CIVIL
98-3426 CIVIL
The plaintiff contends that there was a contemporaneous oral agreement at the time he
transferred title of the BMW to the defendant to the effect that the defendant would pay the
Regarding the real property, the Statute of Frauds requires a contract for the sale ofland
defendant $18,000 for the vehicle albeit at some indefinite time. in the future. There was,
however, no written evidence of any such agreement. What remains is simply the outright
transfer of title of the vehicle from the plaintiff to the defendant with no evidence whatsoever of
whether or when any consideration would be paid by her to him.
Plaintiff alleged a contemporaneolls oral agreement was created when the sum of
$5,500 was transferred to the defendant, which provided that the defendant would repay the
plaintifffor the money at some indefinite time in the future. The plaintiff offered no written
evidence to support his allegation and in any event failed to sustain his burden of proving even
an oral contract.
to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. 33 P.S. Section 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 clear and convincing evidence that the transfer was improperly induced by fraud or other
misconduct on the part of the transferee. Walsh v. 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. We have already dealt with the fact that no confidential relationship existed in this case.
There is also no evidence of undue influence or fraud of any kind. In fact, the plaintiff admitted
that there were facts which he failed to disclose. Nor, is there evidence that the transfers were
4 I rS-
.~
c
<.-
;AJ P "<t
fi::. C>
jI::.
~ 0
~ e. . ..
~ " 1:) , ~'.;
0: :;
('l '.',
r
t
AJ
r
E
G:
(/J
t
, ~'l
. ...'
-~)
. )
d'
>J
\.0
"
1:\
:.1
; :.1 ~~1
.,.11
,0
, ..:,(L)
..!~,
~'- -n
';~~ (")
':":rn
':;.:..',
-;.:~
:<
..-....,
r:i
,;-
10
P.Y1'l510
Cumbarland County Prot~onotarY'~O((ice
~ Civil Case Inqulry r~
1998-03425 WILTSCHEK WALT8R (vs) ABEL SUZANNE S
Page
1
Reference No..:
Case Type...,.: WRIT OF SUMMONS
Judgment. . . . , , : .00
Judge Assigned: HESS KEVIN A
Disposed Desc.:
------------ Case Comments ------------_
F 1.l ed. . . . . . . . :
'PJme. . . . .. . . . :
Execution Date
,Jury Trial"..
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Hlgher Crt 2,:
6/19/1998
2:39
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
***********************************'k********************************************
General Index Attorney In(o
WILTSCHEK WALTER PLAINTIFF MOONEY JOHN JIll
ABEL SUZANNE S DEFENDANT PRO SE
5029 E TRINDLE ROAD APT #1
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
********************************************************************************
* Date Entries *
********************************************************************************
6/19/1998
6/23/1998
10/16/1998
11/19/1998
12/03/1998
12/23/1998
2/25/1999
3/04/1999
3/30/1999
4/12/1999
4/12/1999
4/22/1999
4/22/1999
4/22/1999
5/07/1999
5/27/1999
10/04/1999
- - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION-WRIT OF SUMMONS ISSUED
-------------------------.------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED.
Litiqant.: ABEL SUZANNE S
SERVED : 6/23/98 WRIT OF SUMMONS
Costs....: $30.20 Pd By: MOONEY & ASSOC. 06/23/1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE 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 Pd By: MOONEY & ASSOCIATES 12/03/1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER WI'l'H NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
-------------------------------------.------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO NEW MATTER 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 REQUEST
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 HESS J - COPIES MAILED 5/10/99
-------------------------.------------------------------------------
ORD~R OF COURT - DATED 5/26/99 - IN RE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF
VENUE - DENIED - TRIAL 6/16/999:30 AM - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES
MAILED 5/27/99 .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 10/4/99 - IN RE NONJURY TRIAL - WE FIND ON THE
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT - COUNTERCLAIMS OF THE
/i7-
4:31 P.M.
. ,
.1"'\
r-1 5 -j 4-J-/p
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number: 141 MDA 2000
Page 1 of 2
January 21, 2000
WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Appellant v. SUZANNE S. ABEL, Appellee
Monica Del Carmen Gomez, by her Attorney-in-Fact, WALTER WIL TSCHEK, Appellant
v. SUZANNE: S. ABEL, Appellee
-
Initiating Document:
Case Status:
Notice of Appeal
Active
Case Processing Status: January 21,2000
Journal Number:
Case Category: Civil
Awaiting Original Record
CaseType: Civil Action Law
Consolidated Docket Nos.:
Related Docket Nos.:
Next Event Type: Original Record Received
SCHEDULED EVENT
Next Event Due Date: December 8, 1999
Next Event Type: Docketing Statement Received
Next Event Due Date: February 4, 2000
COUNSEL INFORMATION
Appellant, WIL TSCHEK, WALTER
Pro Se: ProSe
IFP Status:
Attorney:
BarNo.:
Address:
Appoint Counsel Status:
Wiltschek, Walter
Law Firm:
PO Box 3843
York, PA 17402
Phone No.:
Receive Mail: Yes
Fax No.: (/
Appellee, ABEL, SUZANNE S.
Pro Se: ProSe
IFP Status:
Attorney:
BarNo.:
Address:
Appoint Counsei Status:
ABEL, SUZANNE
Law Firm:
5029 E. TRINDLE ROAD
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
Phone No.:
Receive Mail: Yes
Fax No.:
FEE INFORMATION
Receipt No.:15012
10/1/99
c)o-o
3023
,
r""
98-3425 CIVIL
98-3426 CIVIL
set aside a transaction to prove that a confidential relationship existed between the parties.
Thomas v. Seaman, 451 Pa. 347, 304 A.2d 134 (1973).
Where undue influence and incompetency do not appear
and the relationship 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
unrelated 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. Id.; Banko v. Malanecki, 499 Pa. 92, 451 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.
"
;-1
"
"
"
'I
i-J
,!
"
"
;!i
"
3
old?
!
r.
".~\,
..-
98-3425 CIVIL
98-3426 CIVIL
The plaintiff contends that there was a contemporaneous oral agreement at the time he
transferred title of the BMW to the defendant to the effect that the defendant would pay the
defendant $1 8,000 for the vehic1-~ albeit at some indefinite time in the future. There was,
however, no written evidence of any such agreement. What remains is simply the outright
transfer of title of the vehicle from the plaintiff to the defendant with no evidence whatsoever of
whether or when any consideration would be paid by her to him.
Plaintiff alleged a contemporaneolls oral agreement was created when the sum of
$5,500 was transferred to the defendant, which provided that the defendant would repay the
plaintiff for the money at some indefinite time in the future. The plaintiff offered no written
evidence to support his allegation and in any event failed to sustain his burden of proving even
an oral contract.
Regarding the real property,the Statute of Frauds requires a contract for the sale ofland
to be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. 33 P.S. Section I 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. 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. We have already dealt with the fact that no confidential relationship existed in this case.
There is also no evidence of undue influence or fraud of any kind. In fact, the plaintiff admitted
that there were facts which he failed to disclose. Nor, is there evidence that the transfers were
4
0{ CIj,
~ 0 ~
0- 0
Ik. 0
cij 0
........
C5 \:J
~ n
r
~
r
~
~
n
;:i'
r--
r-
-'
-~~, '\ ..
:. '
u
{
. "
,:.~I
.,
:r',
,
-I
'.~.; :;2
,,-;~
'::,,~
1),(")
.~ ~:,
"--:1 '_
,- ':;jA
t:'? 1~!,
::~ h.~{j
I ~j =<
-::>
.,:?,
~.)
-0
. .:~":
;;.
~ '. 5
--,
PYS510
CUl1l1ll:-rland County ProthonotarY'.li.-Office
r-, Civil Case Inquiry ~,
Page
1
SlJ~MNE
I" II cd. . . . . . . , :
'rime. . . . . . . . . :
Execution Date
.Jury '['r.tal.."
Disposed Date.
Iltgher Crt i.:
Ill.gher Crt 2.:
1998-03426 GOME~ MONICA DEI. CARMI':N (vs) ABEl,
Refer.ence No,.:
Caso 'rypo, , . . .: WR 1'[' OF SUMMONS
Judgment......: .00
Judge AssIgned: IIESS KEVIN A
DIsposed Dose.:
------------ Case COllll11enLH __HH___________
6/19/1998
2:42
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
**********************A*********************************************************
General Index ALtorlley IlIfo
GOMEZ MONICA DEL CARMEN
WIL'l'SCHEK WAL'l'ER POWER OF
ATTORNEY
ABEL SUZANNE S
5029 E TRINDLE ROAD APT #1
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
GINGRICH GERALD REVEREND
DOCTOR
773 KREITZ CREEK ROAD
YORK FA 17406 8719
PI,AIN'I'I FF
"LAI N'l'I FF
MOONEY JOHN JIll
MOONEY JOliN JIll
PRO SE
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
y
Judgment Index
GINGRICH GERALD REVEREND
DOCTOR
Amount
Date Desc
6/10/1999 WITHDRAWN
********************************************************************************
* Date Entries *
********************************************************************************
6/19/1998
6/23/1998
9/10/1998
9/24/1998
10/08/1998
10/08/1998
10/16/1998
10/21/1998
10/21/1998
10/27/1998
11/17/1998
11/17/1998
11/19/1998
11/20/1998
12/03/1998
- - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION-WRIT OF SUMMONS ISSUED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED.
Litigant.: ABEL SUZANNE S
SERVED : 6/23/98 WRIT OF SUMMONS
Costs.. ..: $30.20 Pd By: MOONEY & ASSOCIATES 06/23/1998
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDANT BY HUBERT X GILROY
ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE ISSUED - CURTIS R LONG
PROTHONOTARY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO AMEND CAPTION - MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMES - BY JOHN JAMES
MOONEY I II ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION FOR CONTEMPT
---~---------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
-----------------------------------------------'--------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 10/21/98 - IN RE PETITION FOR CONTEMPT -
ARGUMENT IS SCHEDULED FOR 12/3/98 1:30 PM CR 4 - BY KEVIN A HESS J
NOTICE MAILED 10/22/98
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COURT ORDER - DATED 10/26/98 - IN RE PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL - RULE IS ISSUED UPON DEFENDANT RETURNABLE 10 DAYS FROM
DATE OF SERVICE - BY KEVIN A HESS J - NOTICE MAILED 10/27/98
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE
------------------------------..------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 11/17/98 - IN RE PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE -
GRANTED - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 11/17/98
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAIN'r BY JOHN JAMES MOONEY III ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDANT BY HUBERT X
GILROY ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
0<1 (
PYS510
1998-03426
cuml~~r]and County ProthonotarY'~Office
, , CivJi Case TnquJry "
GOME~ MONICA DEL CARMEN (vs) ABEL SUZANNE
2
Page
Reference No..:
Case Type..,..: WRIT OF SUMMONS
Judgment.,....: .00
.Judge Ass I.gnm!: IIJ;SS KI;V IN A
D.I spoRed Dosc.:
-------.----- Case Comments -------------
6/19/1998
2:42
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
12/04/1998
12/23/1998
12/23/1998
2/25/1999
3/04/1999
3/30/1999
4/12/1999
4/12/1999
4/12/1999
4/22/1999
4/23/1999
4/22/1999
4/22/1999
5/07/1999
5/27/1999
6/10/1999
10/04/1999
10/11/1999
F i 1 ad. . . . . . . . :
'rime......... :
Exeeu tJ on Da te
,Jury 'I'rJal.."
Disposed Date.
IIJgher Crt 1.:
IIJgher Crt 2.:
1.ltlgant.: ABEL SlJ~ANNE S
SERVED : 12/02/98 REINS'I' NO'l'I (, COMPI, ORDER OF COUR'l'
~~~:::::::_~~~:~~-~~-~~:_~~~~~:_~-~~~~~~~~~~-~:~~~~~~~~------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 12/3/98 - IN RE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS -
PETITION IS DEFERRED - DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT HERSELF TO A DEPOSITION
BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 12/7/98
-------.------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER WITH NEW MA'I"l'ER AND COUN'l'ERCLAIMS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT - REVEREND DOCTOR
GERALD GINGRICH - BY SUZANNE ABEL PRO SE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO NEW MAT~'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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR REINSTATEMENT OF PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litiqant.: GINGRICH GERALD DR REV
SERVED : 4/16/99 THOMASVILLE PA YORK COUNTY
Costs....: $58.72 Pd By: SUZANNE ABEL 04/23/1999
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 4/22/99 - IN RE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - DENIED - BY
KEVIN A HESS .I - COPIES MIALED 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 .I -
COPIES MAILED 4/22/99
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 5/7/99 - IN RE MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE -
ARGUMENT 5/26/99 3 PM IS RESCHEDULED 5/26/99 1:30 PM CR 4 - BY
KEVIN A HESS .I - 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW THE COMPLAINT AGAINST REV DR GERALD GINGRICH
WITH PREJUDICE BY SUZANE ABEL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 10/4/99 - IN RE NONJURY TRIAL - WE FIND ON THE
PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT - COUNTERCLAIMS OF THE
DEFENDANT HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED
10/5/99
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY BY STEVEN P MINER ESQ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
********************************************************************************
* Escrow Information *
* Fees & Debits Beq BaI Pvmts/Ad4 End Ba1 *
********************************************************************************
=2(~.
PYS510
Page
3
C:JlilbArlilnd CounLy ProtllOnoLilrY'!j-.Office
,-, C1vll Case Inquiry "--0.
1998-03426 GOME7. MON r C^ DEI. CMlMEN (vs) MJEL SlJ7.^NNI',
35.00 35,00
,50 .50
5,00 5.00
5.00 5.00
5.00 5.00
------------------------
50.50 50.50
FlIed, . . . . . . . :
'l'l(no. . . . . . . . . :
Execution Dato
,Jury 'I'r1al....
Disposed Date,
lIigher Crt 1.:
lIigher Crt 2.:
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
- ------.-----
.00
6/19/1998
2:42
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
Referonce No..:
Caso Typo,. ,..: WRIT OF SlJMMONS
Judgment....,.: .00
Judge ^ssigned: III.;SS KIN IN ^
Disposed Desc.:
------------ Case CommenLs -------------
WRI'l' OF SUMMONS
T^X ON WRIT
SETTI.EMENT
JCP FEE
SET'l'LEMENT
.~I
.~
f.
***************~****************************************************************
* End of Case Information *
********************************************************************************
oZ13.
PYS510
1998-03426
Cumberland County
Civil Case
Prothonotary's Office
Inquiry _ _ .
~
&~uANNE
Filed........ :
'rime. I.... . ",:
Execution Date
Jury Trial....
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
6/19/19!
2:.
0/00/001
O/OOiOOI
I 1/1 MO/~ lDGlO
....
GOMEZ .,.,)NICA DEL CARMEN (vs) AIlEI,
Page
I
Reference No..:
Case Type.. ...: WRIT OF SUMMONS
Judgment... ...: .00
Judge Assigned: m:ss KEVIN A
Disposed Dusc.:
------------ Case Comments -------------
"".
,
,
\
\
****..*********************************.********************.**.*************.
Gnnnrol Index Attorney Info
GOMEZ MONICA DEL CARMEN PLAINTIFF MOONEY JOHN JIll
WILTSCHEK WALTER powlm OF PLAINTIFF MOONEY ,1OHN J III
ATTORNEY
ABEL SUZANNE S DEFENDANT PRO SE
5029 E TRINDLE ROAD AP'r # 1
MECHANICS BURG PA 17055
GINGRICH GERM,D REVEREND DEFENDANT Y
DOCTOR
773 KREITZ CREEK ROAD
YORK PA 17406 8719
Judgment Index
GINGRICH GERALD REVEREND
DOCTOR
Amount
Date Desc
6/10/1999 WITHDRAWN
*****************************************************************************,
* Date Entries
*****************************************************************************~
/- :L 6/19/1998
3- cf 6/23/1998
,'l 9/10/1998
~ 9/24/1998
1--- g 10/08/1998
fi- /f.. 10/08/1998
11 / 3D 10/16/1998
M-.34- 10/21/1998
q 10/21/1998
!Jf 10/27/1998
35"- 38" 11/17/1998
jj 11/17/1998
!H - i/b 11/19/1998
Ifl 11/20/1998
If). 12/03/1998
- - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION-WRIT OF SUMMONS ISSUI
----------------------------------------------------------------_.
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED.
Litigant.: ABEL SUZANNE S
SERVED : 6/23/98 WRIT OF SUMMONS
Costs....: $30.20 Pd By: MOONEY & ASSOCIATES 06/23/1998
------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDANT BY HUBERT X GILROY
ESQ
------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE ISSUED - CURTIS R LOr
PROTHONOTARY
-----------------------------------------------------------------~
PRAECIPE TO AMEND CAPTION - MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMES - BY JOHN JAME
MOONEY II I ESQ
------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION FOR CONTEMPT
------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLAINT
------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 10/21/98 - IN RE PETITION FOR CONTEMPT -
ARGUMENT IS SCHEDULED FOR 12/3198 1:30 PM CR 4 - BY KEVIN A HESS J
NOTICE MAILED 10/22/98
------------------------------------------------------------------
COURT ORDER - DATED 10/26/98 - IN RE PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL - RULE IS ISSUED UPON DEFENDANT RETURNABLE 10 DAYS FROM
DATE OF SERVICE - BY KEVIN A HESS J - NOTICE MAILED 10/27/98
------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 11/17/98 - IN RE PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE _
GRANTED - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 11/17/98
------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT BY JOHN JAMES MOONEY III ESQ
------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDANT BY HUBERT X
GILROY ESQ
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
.h. . Ph;:;:-r,':".~
.. . .
. ....'.'. ...........
, ; - .-:~. ,~,'j:~~~L.f:201ilii~~;J!d;~~~~:~;~j;:;~~:j~~_f~:~~{iijri~U;ill\~~t8~tjl;~~~:z~~~~~%t~j;;yi\~f:QJi:JB/i~llii[&t@j:6;:L;~
PYS510
1998-03426
Cumberland County prothonotary's orrJco
...... C I vii C,1sn I nqlll ry ~"..
---- ,..,.
GOME7. 140NIC^ DEI. CAIlMEN (vs) MlEL ~",I.ANNI,
Page
Ho(orence No..:
Case '!'ype.....: WIlI'r OF' SUMMONS
Judgment......: .00
,Judge ^ss 19ned: HESS KEV I N A
DIsposed Desc.:
------------ Case Comments ------
6/l9/19!
2:1,
O/OO/OO(
O/OO/OO(
".
,
,
,
\lJ3
12/04/1998
{J..lfv:f'b 12/23/1998
54 - IoL 12/23/1998
~~.-- CjD
Cit
ti1...
2/25/1999
3/04/1999
3/30/1999
(j3 - Il/ 4/12/1999
/1)/ fl.<l 4/12/ 1999
IHi --/l, L. 4/12/1999
Ie,,> - /11.. 4/22/1999
(l.). 4/22/ 1999
i~? 4/22/1999
i7.s- ofp 4/23/1999
/77 5/07/1999
nr 5/27/1999
17q 6/10/1999
1'(0 -lrIP 10/04/1999
rS'7- fry 10/11/1999
(S'l- (11 10/29/0099
d...Ur '"-(; 1/27/2000
Filed........ :
11111\0. . . . . . . . . :
Execution Dato
.Jury TrIal....
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
1.ItJqont.: ABEL SU7.MlNE S
SI,RVEIJ : 12/02/98 HEINS'I' NO'I'I " Cor4Pl. ORDEIl OF COUll'!'
~~~~~:::~:_!~~:~~-~~-~~:_~~~~~~-~-~~~~~:~:~~-~~~~~~:~~~-----------
OIWEH OF COURT - ONI'ED 12/3/98 - IN RE MO'l'ION FOR SANCTIONS -
PE'I'I'I'ION IS DEFERIlED - DEn:NDAN'!, '1'0 SUBMIT HERSELF TO A DEPOSITlm
BV KEVIN A IIr;SS ,J - COPlr;S ~lAILED 12/:/98
----- ------------------------------------------------------------.
ANSWr;1l W l1'1I NEW MNI''I'ER ^ND COUNTERCI,A IMS
------------------------------------------------------------------
PIlM:CIPE FOR WRI'I' '1'0 JOIN MJDI'l'lONAI, DEFEND^NT - REVEREND DOCTOR
m;RM,D GINGRICH - BY SUZANNE MlEL PRO sr;
-----------..------------------------------------------------------
PLAIN1'1 Ff" S ^NSWlm '1'0 NEW MAT'!'ER ^ND COUN'I'ERCI,AIMS
------------------------------------------------------------------
PR^I,CTPE FOil I~IS1'ING C^SE FOR TRIAL BY JOHN JAMES MOONEY III ESQ
-------.-----------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - D^TED 3/30/99 - IN RE NONJURY TRIAL - PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
4/22/99 9 ^M - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 3/31/99
------------------------------------------------------------------
PR^ECIPE FOR REINSTATEMENT OF PROCESS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------~
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REOUES'I' FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS FOR DISCOVERY AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANT'S MOTION
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 4/22/99 - IN RE MO'l'ION FOR CONTINUANCE - DENIED - B\
KEVIN ^ HESS J - COPIES MIALED 4/22/99
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 4/22/99 - IN RE MOTION '1'0 QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PE'I'ITION FOR CH^NGE OF VENUE - RUL
IS ISSUED ON PLAINTIFF RETURNABLE 20 D^YS AFTER SERVICE - ARGUMEN1
5/26/99 3 PM CR 4 - TRIAL 6/16/99 9:30 AM - BY KEVIN A HESS J -
COPIES MAILED 4/22/99
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litiqant.: GINGRICH GERALD DR REV
SERVED : 4/16/99 THOMASVILLE PA YORK COUNTY
Costs....: $5B.72 Pd By: SUZANNE ABEL 04/23/1999
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 5/7/99 - IN RE MOTION TO OUASH PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PETITION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE -
ARGUMENT 5/26/99 3 PM IS RESCHEDULED 5/26/99 1:30 PM CR 4 - BY
KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 5/10/99
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 5/26/99 - IN RE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF
VENUE - DENIED - 'I'RI^L 6/16/99 9:30 AM - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIE
MAILED 5/27/99
------------------------------------------------------------------
PR^ECIPE TO WITHDRAW THE COMPL^INT AGAINST REV DR GERALD GINGRICH
WITII PREJUDICE BY SUZ^NE ABEL
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - D^TED 10/4/99 - IN RE NONJURY TRIAL - WE FIND ON THE
PL^IN'I'IFF'S CLAIMS IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT - COUNTERCLAIMS OF TH
DEFENDANT HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED
10/5/99
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY BY STEVEN P MINER ESQ
------------------------------------------------------------------
No'rICE OF APPEAL 1'0 SUPERIOR COURT FROM ORDER ENTERED 10/4/99 BY
WALTER WILTSCHEK
-------------------------------------------------------.-----------
SUPERIOR COURT OF P^ NOTICr; OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 141 MDA 2000
- - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - -
,-.,
r,
rn n ~ 0 " z z
~
::l 0 0 " ~ ? ?
;; " 3 :< 0
~ V; 3
"
Co ,..,
" X
::l ,..,
Co ...
:!1 ~
":l
;,- "-
Co
::l <
Vl "
~ ~
"
0 "
"
"
,..,
.., n -i ;;i
a Cl n
;. " ~ ~
0 0 3 3
0 ~ n
0
" I 0 '" ~
.;! " I I
;: '"
'<
1
i
I
I
i
,
!
I
I
I
I
"
,
1
:\
.'~c"'~.'-:-r-._."
-f
. .- ('J , d
(3) (-: ,.
'. -" i . --0
I 0.- ()
tJJ( C-J
();' , 0
I., . \),
I' I... In
(~J ~, t:\ It) r
(" "
,. -:r: '..
" -..!
" \.{)
" , " ~ J $ -,
" , . - ::t- ..1.1
-',
'" -. CL
c.... )
U \.J\ U jj
f1)
",
L~,--
--------
!
I
,
!
I
I.
,.
il
;i
ii
II
II
__II
rJ);:
~w.:l5
CD~:
ZU>-
oo~
orJ)a:
~~~
.
~
~
,,~
"QQ'"
~~~s
5~;,:<:i
ton -"'~
.fI 0 <5-
...."7....r-.
~
~o;~
:::~-~
':~~.~
.......""
i;:5! ~ ~
~;: ~ ~
:I:N:J:h
.~,
~ W
-
. . .
-
U - .
V ..
PA-~ 7 7)
.U-
~
. ~
u _'
~..-
o~~.,
~~'8:g
;Si~~
uo~
!"'~~
z=zr::
",~.. '~::-:"..
_...i....
'---"
i:;;;C,I\
r''''''~.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAlIIA
CIVIL DIVISION
MONCA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ,
by her Power of Attorney,
WALTER WILTSCHEK,
Plaintiff,
NO.
q ~ - .'3 cj. d lo C~LL,j) ")tr iY\
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 Moonev~ IIi!3'3Eisquire
Mooney & Associates. 230 York Street. Hanover. PB _1__
Counsel for the Defendant (if
Unknown
Date:
i I. ': j-r'-
_" I I /,
Signature
Print N
Address:
WRIT OF SUMMONS TO DEFENDANT
TO: Suzanne S. Abel
5029 E. Trindle Road. Apt. #1
Mechanicsbura. PA17055
YOU ARE
HAS NAMED YOU AS A DEFENDANT
REQUIRED TO DEFEND.
Date: ,jl..\.I'JL \q4\\ , \qq8
By:
rAUE COPY FROM RECORD
n TeGlImony whereof, Ili~re umo set my t!ano
nd the seal oi said COUrl ell Ct:rlls~), Pa.
llis---1'J-tli\ day 1'5- ?JJ:!:.':1L 190,.9. 8
I I NJ I 011~1,1;1.Li1.1Y$
Pro:~Gnotmy
Deputy
4-
r.o.
0 '0 0
,--. ::'~I -11
'.'> -r
;'/ I :.:;;='1
[", .'U
r" "IITl
-. ~~-- ';'i'
C:.' ~.). .,
-- - ._-l~i-,
, ~. \, ~~o .'- -11
( '-.J(')
~rn
.....' .- r-) ~
.", -.,.
.'; r;- 5~
:<: r", -...
~- \"
n:
," e...
" te ~ "J r
C',.,
t. (
" II..
C)'
T'
C (,_0.1
WI.. ,
__t,
l.I_ , ~o 0'
j t
W ,,-
l.L C~ :')
c; t.n U
--.------......- r "'0' ... -
il
, I
Ii
II
:1
II
, ,
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
i
i
II
.____J ,___
._---~--_._.__._-._.._.._~---~--
'-1
!
I
,
I
I
i
1
I
I
I
I
I
H_~L
. -- -......-..- ~_...~-_._.._-.,--'~.__._,----_._--
C/) 3:
~~ <(
...J
~~ ;-
<(
~U UJ
>- >
20 llJ .
~ :;:
z . ~ ::!
OC/) ~ ~
0: ~
,,~ ~ is I!~
-CON !:::O
OC/) 0 '::!t!~ ~'2 ~ ;€:f:
;- f-:t ..:'~ -" ~"
~~ ?J~~ 5 "~
.~ O!;j
;- '0
~i~ ~~ . ''''
<( z .-
..,:2;: ~, ""
--~~-_...~------_.,..- ._-~-._- _.._-~-..- -..--- - ----- --.__..._-----~~- -- ----..--.---.---.-----..---.-.
w w
.
.
~
"- t.O
n-
;-1; C "
1.1 t ~ , (;1
( ,
fL- ,
,. '.
.f ,
c- .....:1
II,: I
_I
u: I-
f c.
(,...
(.1. (.::
() U'
,."
. ,
(,)
~
-- "1----
.'},
<-,'
",",'-:(
-rr
~
-
()
....
1
.';
~
~
,J
1
r-
.I'
. .... [I
'I
It
Ii
I
i
I!
Ii
II
II
II
II
I
_ _._ __________.l__~_ .____ J L____=:-:-_---:--=-:=:==:=:-=-~=_===:=_===_..::=====:=____==___
- -~--~~--~- - ---- --- ---
ri
II
It
I
I
i VJ 3:
II <<3~ <:
.J
~~ f-
It <:
I en
I ~u >-
w ~ ~
00 ~
z ~ ;; ~_r--
a: M 5~~
oVJ ,,~ ~ ~
~~~s 'Q<Il .~
0 5 ~ ~~~~
~~ f- 2:;f-=a . " oao~
O~~;6 > ~
f- 0 ~ '" ~ r:;-
~~-g!:: c
<: . " ~=~r:::
>-"1':'-1'- x
l:;;
~
.'
.
.
-.'
-, OCT .1 6 199~
JJHI lo..S..98
,...,
~
4. On or about August 3, 1998, Plaintiff's attorney
received a letter from Hubert x. Gilroy, Esquire, indicating
that Defendant would be retaining his services and that he would
not be able to attend Defendant's deposition scheduled on August
5, 1998.
5. Defendant's counsel never contacted Plaintiff's counsel
to reschedule said deposition and accordingly, Plaintiff's
counsel rescheduled the deposition of Defendant for September
22, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. Said letter confirming same is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "B".
6. Defendant did not appear for the deposition rescheduled
for September 22, 1998.
7. Defendant's failure to attend her deposition
constitutes willful contempt of the Subpoena dated July 14,
1998.
8. Plaintiff respectfully requests a hearing be held
regarding this Petition at the next available day before the
Court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable
Court adjudicate Defendant in contempt and impose the following
sanctions upon Defendant:
a) Order Defendant to attend her deposition which was
originally scheduled for August 5, 1998;
b) Order Defendant to pay to Plaintiff's counsel
$350.00 for counsel fees;
II
I'
t
L
( ,
1'''',
('.
I ~
t
t
,
,
<.
Ii
li __
)
',i
l,
~: ~:H
~o~ii'
o\W~i<
--~ db
:~
: !9i'\.: 0
:~:::J:
. W '!-
: ct(\ ': 0
~ I- \J<!1' a:
~z 0.
: -. ,
:J~~~
~ a. ~{ >J!d
~rn
~ - 7 I
I
I
!
i
I
!
!
!
I
,
i
i
,
I
I
,
~ ~. J
V) 5:
~u..J ..:
..J
~~ f-
..:
u..J t/)
ZU >- ~
00 w ~ 5\
Z i . ~
a: ~ .!:!o;!::
oV) .~ 'E~o g ~~.,
00
0 .~ .5;::~ ~~i~
~~ f- .f!::: ~ ~~ -~..2t::
~~ .. ~ .."T
f- ~" o.~ ~~~~
..: 0- -"- "-"'-
"T~ ",::::" z_z....
~
v
.
.
J
j
']
,I
..
......
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ,
by her Attorney-in-Fact,
WALTER WILTSCHEK,
Plaintiff,
NO. 98-3426
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, Ilsted 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 demanda. 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 DON DE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Cumberland County Lawyer Referral'
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone: (717) 249-3166
/7
~
",;~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ,
by her Attorney-in-Fact,
WALTER WILTSCHEK,
Plaintiff,
NO. 98-3426
vs.
.
.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SUZANNE S. ABEL,
Defendant.
C 0 M P L A I N T
AND NOW, this qY1L day of October, 1998, comes the
Plaintiff, Monica Del Carmen Gomez, by her Attorney-in-Fact,
Walteil~iltschek, 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 Monica Del Carmen Gomez, by her Attorney-
in-Fact, Walter Wiltschek, an adult 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. Walter Wiltschek, is attorney-in-fact for Monica Del
Carmen Gomez, by reason of a Power of Attorney dated July 14,
1997, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit
"A" and incorporated herein by reference.
4. On or about August 15, 1997, Plaintiff, Monica Del
Carmen Gomez, acquired ownership of real property located at 119
South Duke Street, York City, York County, Pennsylvania, a true
1
/0:
, .,
r.....-:;,.,
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.
B. 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
/q.
..'<~~
,..--'"
10-5-98
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, Morlica Del Carmon
Gomez, by and through her attorney-in-fact, Gerald I. Gingerich,
conveyed the property to Defendant. A true and corroct copy of
said deed is attached hereto as Exhibit "CD 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 refused 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 Buit and any other relief,
equitable or otherwise, including recision of the transfer to
Defendant.
3
;<0,
,....,~
t"'""'~
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.
lB. 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 wiltochek, 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
cJJ
~
,,"~
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff reapecl:fully rUCJuentn thin Honorable
Court enter jUdgment againat Defendllnt in tho 11Inonnt of
$40,000.00 plus interest, coutu of Duit, lIttorney foos, punitive
damages and any other relief, equitablu or otherwise, including
recision of the transfer to Defendant.
Respectfully submitted,
MOONEY & ASSOCIATES
By:
~~~~
John James ~ ley, III, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
230 York Street
Hanover, PA 17331
(717) 632-4656
I.D. # 39137
5
d<J.,
Ii
I;
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, 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 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 shall 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)
EXHIBIT
A
CJ.3.
i
,
,'-''''''.
Alan Kim Palrono, Eaq,
:lU W.'I Mlddlo 01'001
nOIlYIIIIIlU, r"'"llyl,.II. \'r.J~:
717_134000110
#2-
.
, '
"
\
(I
\/
..:"
THIS DEED
MADE THE ~8" day of January in tha rtw 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 TrindJ.e Road, Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania 17055, GRANTEE,
WITNESSETH, that in consideration of the sum of FORTY THOUSAND
AND NO/100 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 ~outh 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 hereil..oefor'e mentioned alley.
~ 1I<-1/1s-
~'~7"7":-"''''''~',' "',' ',..' "," ..
BEING THE SAME which Edna. E. Leidig, widow, by her At torney-
in-Fact, Theodora B. Waltermyer, by rneir 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 WGman in said deed, the GRANTOR
herein. ~HIBrr
C
dS
~
-". ...-..,".~.~"."'.''''-'
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
mJ4A/1(. g~
,
()h..v // eht-,.",~
WITNESSES
t I
Received
FEB 2 6 1998 '.
City of y~
! j
,
en '" 10 01 l(") 0 '"
co '" u; ..~ ~ ~ '"
'" it;
w a: '" b1 0'lE: '" _ 0 r"J 0:
'" ...... _...... 0 "J
w>-..... ~CU 0'lCl. ~ ... ... ~ '"
"'....z ... ... ...
~tns'1"'4 '"
za: :z:
.....:::l:> '" co ",' co ..... ...J
OO...! on c
~O~ "CU :::J >< en c:::J
u>- c<Z:li!::C
"" en ~OB.-l .. "'.... l;l
l.LJ~:Z: '" ex"-,, .-l O'l . "'....
~u:;:z "-l_eJ>-O
Cl::OW tnQ'lCt:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ti
O>-Cl. ;:; err .c II CI Q c.J_
~ ~ :s ~r= a!
JrJ~PJ('~
MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ
by her attorney-in-fac
I. GINGRICH
?
EJ~~
GI
1 Certify This Decument 'lb Be
Recorded Ip. York County, Pa.
.........
...~-j.. Rfco;"".
"~iI<Jf-'''':''''''~f!l~''
:Jtl ..,'" ':a
. .. .0-
I (,J: 1 .:-'"'-
.~. ::.'J.
. .. . .n-
~-... . .."":
. ,J.:o, .,~..-
..:ll,f: 'h..:~ 1~.."
-" itcOUt\,~...
. .........
e2fo.
. ',~:~ ,
,~;~.,. rl
" ,~.~' .
I ":~ ~s::
.;f"", ~":i
.- \!j\~
.,)";,"'/"'", ;'"
l'l,~'!-:'I I,"
c)
-.;,.~
('"" .-
.)
,
-I;.-
~~~.~:::",y~ '--,-:''\\
;'~":'j'
~.,
,
/~tt.~
.,.f .~~...,.
'"..
~/;.". , :1.
'f'c'" '}l,'.
,.. .~~
,
r
~'
'f
"
-. ......
';';'''''/;{~.'': ~(
"1",1 ,
,'_ ,'i'';'
~f' . ,. :0
~. I ~.. ,~~
,-' "~'/I ,.:
,j. ""~::
~'
"";,;~\ i ':'\...
I)';,; v
\.
. p. "~
,1'J ~ .~;.t .
j' ~,'
s~ , :,.:
:-, I.
, .
'r,
,
)/
<
.
~p.
'"',fl"'
~~~;
{if I
.;.:.
,.
',-t;
,
-;:.:.
'",'!
1:,:#1~:.
",',l "', ')
" ,{'f'
J
{'
,
"
~"I! .'
.,,';<<. "-,.
, ""...~?:
",'
r!:
'.
(/.
:.rJ.
r"'~'''.'..
MONCA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ.
hy her Powcr of Attorney.
WALTER WILTSC/IEK.
:IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CLJMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYL V AN/A
;1
PlainlilT
v
:CIV/L ACTION - LAW
SUZANNE S. ABEL.
:NO. 98 - 3426
Dcfendant
COURT ORDER
AND NOW, Ihis z (,.... day of October, 1998. upon consideration of the attached Petition to
Withdraw as Counsel. a Rule to show cause is hereby isslled upon Defendant Suzanne S. Abel,
directing that she show eause as to why Huberl X. Gilroy. Esquire and the firm of Broujos &
Gilroy. P.C. should not be allowed to wilhdraw as her legal counsel inlhe above case. This Rule
is relurnable within 10 days from service of Ihis Order upon the Defendant
BY THE COURT:
cc:
/tL
J,
Hubert X. Gilroy. ESqUir8
John James Mooney, Esquire f',o..,:Q...,!
Suzanne S, Abel, Defendant I\j "t, ',_<
loj"\';?
3f.
09/01/1998 14:13
717-243-8227
BROUJOS GILROY PC
PAGE 02/0::1
,'-\
,-"".,
BROUJOS B GILR.OY, p.e.
AITORNEYS AT LAW
JOJ.n~ H. IlROUJOS
HUIlERT X. CILROY
4 NORm t-V\lJO~R. :st"RBE'(
CARLISLe. P~NI~SYLV^NIA 17013
717-243...4574
NON..TOLL fOp,. ~RJ.saUflC AI\(^;
"7.766-1690
fJVC 24)"6227
1
August 3, 1998
Ms. Suzanne Abel
P.O. Bolt 1032
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
f
RE: FEE AGREEMENT
f
Dear Ms. Abel:
We are pleased that you have asked our finn to represent you. This letter sets forth the Agreement
concerning our representation of you and will become effective upon our receipt of a countersigned
copy of.this letter and the retainer fee.
1. We request that you pay to our linn a: retainer in the amount of$2,000.00. We will apply yow-
retainer against time exp,ended on your behalf; and at such time as that amount is exhausted, you will
be billed regularly for additional time expended.
2. Our representation oryou will be charged at an hourly rate. OUf hourly rate is $125.00 per
hour. These rates may be modified over time, although at this moment, we do Dot anticipate any
changes. Our monthly statements to you will reflect the rates in effect at the time the service was
perfonned. We do not ordinarily notifY our clients of changes in the rates. We will keep you advised
of all time expended by us in representing you. It is impossible to determine in advance the amount of
time that will be needed to complete your case. We will keep you fully infonned oftime used for
conferences, drailing documents, research, court time, and any other time spent on your case.
3. We will bill you periodically on a t~e expended basis. We reserve the right to terminate our
attomey/client relationship for non-payment offees or costs. We expect you to keep current with our
billings. We will charge a finance charge of one per cent (1%) per month (annual rate of 12%) to any
account balance which remains outstanding for more than 30 days from the date of such balance is
invoiced.
A
i
~.
i
i.
,
i.
,
j,'
i
EXHIBIT
RECEIVED TlMESEP,!. I: I aPM 3].
PRINT TIMESEP. I. 1:11PM
("" ;.~
-, ,-I
') 'Cl
" \
,)
~::~:~
, ,
.-In
" ,
,~,.:J " !
"
( ,) ~-
'.'--,;'.:~~-.~<;;.::.~
(?
.......
,
.'l..
:-1
(,,)
-.,
),
",
:.'\
.:<
I .
t-
I
, , , I- -
,
,
1 ,
, ,
"
I , ,
.- , _I
@
- \
LL
I-
i!
II
II
,.
II
\
I
,
,
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I i
_cc~-.lcl-c=
U)5
<X5u..l~
>-,t2~
~HUl
ZU>-
OO~
OU)a:
~U) ~
~<C~
~
1.;.....'
.
.
.
.
"
.
~
.~
"ON
~~t!~
.- if -.,.
g...<Q
.>c.2~!!
5 0 ~!::
>O"7:;:!'"
;;;
~~2~
o~<E'2
.. .:!.
..t: :;;"1
j;;S. ~~
Co .:r:::
:i::::l:i!;::
S\
. ~
u_~
1::"'-
Ot:<E
'E'2..o:A
~~~~
000""
~"'~~
z=zr::
1"""1
,-..'.-
, -,
,
. , ;'l
, i\
c:-: CJ
c~)
"
" -,'I
{-.:;
C , \'-;'1
u
i
'0 ~~
> . ...!
-.I
',.,. ., ~~:
~ ,~.....
-'"
r "
MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ,
by her Attorney-in-Fact,
WALTER WILTSCHEK,
PlaintH f
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V
SUZANNE S. ABEL,
Defendant
NO. 98-3426 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 3rd day of December, 1998, action
on the within petition is deferred, and it is ordered and
directed that the defendant submit herself to a deposition to be
held at the York office of plaintiff's counsel. It is noted
that the defendant, while willing to make her best efforts to
clear her calendar, has indicated that anytime during the period
of December 28 through December 31, 1998, is acceptable.
Katrina M. Leudtke, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
By the Court,
~(~ 411
Ke~. Hess, J.
Suzanne S. Abel, Pro Se
P.O. Box 1032
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
:bg
) C"-F /h'l.l~
/J-1-?P
..tv.
43,
f""\
f1"'\
MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ,
by her Attorney-in-Fact,
WALTER WIL TSCHEK,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
Defendant
No. 98-3426
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SUZANNE ABEL,
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
ANSWER
AND NOW, thi~,.d 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. Attorney in Fact for Plaintiff testified on November 25, 1998, before
District Justice Farrell of York County, that he no longer resides at the averred
address. Attorney in Fact's current residence is unknown.
2. Admitted.
3. Denied. By title transferred on January 28, 1998, Plaintiff represented to
Defendant that The Reverend Doctor Gerald I. Gingrich was Plaintiff's Attorney in
Fact.
4. Denied. Exhibit B was not attached to Defendant's copy of the Complaint.
Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 6. Said averments are therefore
denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial.
5. Admitted.
6. Denied in part, admitted in part. Plaintiff and Defendant were involved in a romantic
relationship pursuant to Plaintiff answering Defendant's classified ad for dates.
Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 6. Said averments are therefore
denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial.
7. 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 7. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof
thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial.
8. Denied. Defendant has never represented to Plaintiff, or anyone else, that she is
an attorney. Defendant informed Plaintiff Wiltschek during their first conversation
that Defendant was a law school graduate, and that she was planning to take the
4-fr
..., ~ j ,;//~..~_.
'-,
r-"'~
July 1998 bar exam. 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 6. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof
thereof, if admissible, is demanded at trial.
9. 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 8. 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 1: BREACH of CONTRACT
10. No answer is deemed necessary. However, if somehow an answer is deemed
necessary, the responses to Paragraphs 1 through 9 above are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
11. Denied. Defendant never entered into any agreement with Plaintiff Wiltschek for
any money or for any property. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
of Paragraph 11. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if
admissible, is demanded at trial.
12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph
12. Said averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is
demanded at trial.
13. Denied. Exhibit "C" was not included with Defendant's copy of the Complaint.
Therefore, 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, Plaintiff, not Defendant, terminated the
relationship. Upon Plaintiffs termination of the relationship, Defendant demanded
Plaintiff return all Defendant's key which Plaintiff had legitimately andlor
surreptitiously procured. Defendant also requested Plaintiff to pay for utility and
housing costs at 119 South Duke Street, which Plaintiff refused to pay and
threatened to harm Defendant's person and property. After Plaintiff vacated the
property on or about April 28, 1998, Defendant changed the property locks. 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. Defendant never entered into a contract with Plaintiff Wiltschek. 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. By
way of further response, the New Matter below is incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein.
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
16. No answer is deemed necessary. However, if somehow an answer is deemed
necessary, the responses to Paragraphs 1 through 15 above are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
17. Denied. Defendant never entered into any agreement with Plaintiff Wiltschek to
purchase the real property. Further, Defendant never intended to defraud Plaintiffs.
After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraph 17. 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.
18. Denied. 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. By way of further response, the New Matter and Counterclaims
below are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
19. Denied. Defendant honestly represented herself to Plaintiff Wiltschek. Defendant
never intended to deceive Plaintiff Wiltschek. After reasonable investigation,
Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 19. 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.
20. Denied in part, admitted in part. The averments of Paragraph 20 are
Conclusions of Law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a
response is deemed required, Defendant avers that following Plaintiff Wiltschek's
termination of the relationship, Plaintiff Wiltschek repeatedly demanded Defendant
re-convey Plaintiff Wiltschek's gifts, including the instant real property. Defendant
has been unable to re-convey due to a security interest on the property. After
reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 20. Said
~.
.
.......
,.....
averments therefore are denied and strict proof thereof, if admissible, is demanded
at trial.
21. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 21 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 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. 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.
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 MATTER
23. Paragraphs 1 -22 are incorporated by reference and re-alleged as affirmative
defenses.
22. The Complaint and each of its counts fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
23. Plaintiffs' causes of action are barred by the Statute of Frauds.
24. Defendant avers that she is not liable to Plaintiffs because the transfer of title to the
real property was a gift whereby Plaintiff Wiltschek intended to transfer title to
Defendant, and in fact conveyed and delivered title of the real property to
Defendant.
25. Defendant avers that she is not liable to Plaintiffs because Plaintiff Wiltschek had
knowledge of, and voluntarily assumed the risks out of the transaction from which,
the alleged injuries and damages arose.
26. Defendant avers that she is not liable to Plaintiffs because the intentional andlor
wrongful acts of persons other than Defendant constituted an intervening and
superseding cause of Plaintiffs' alleged injuries and damages.
27. Plaintiffs' claims must be reduced andlor barred as a result of the intentional andlor
wrongful acts of persons other than Defendant in the course of legally transferring
title to the real property,
28. In the event the Court finds Defendant Abel liable to Plaintiffs, Additional Joined
Defendant Reverend Doctor Gerald Gingrich is liable over to Defendant Suzanne
Abel.
4-1
~'.
; ,
29. In the event the Court finds Defendant Abel liable to Plaintiffs, Additional Joined
Defendant Reverend Doctor Gerald Gingrich is jointly and severally liable to
Defendant Suzanne Abel.
30. Defendant avers that she is not liable to Plaintiffs because Plaintiff Wiltschek freely,
knowingly, and intentionally gifted to, and delivered to, Defendant legal title relative
to the donative 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
31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 are hereby incorporated by reference.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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 'j 988 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.
35. 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).
36. 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.
37. 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.
4t.
,-"":"
,:.- \
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Defendant told Plaintiff Wiltschek 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.
41. Defendant told Plaintiff Wiltschek that Defendant was active in counseling to help
cope with the stress inherent in the child custody litigation.
42. Defendant and Plaintiff Wiltschek eventually became romantically involved, which
caused Defendant to place a great deal of trust in Plaintiff Wiltschek.
43. Pursuant to their trusting relationship, Defendant allowed Plaintiff Wiltschek 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.
44. 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 Wiltschek's living
expenses including dining out, gas for his Mercury Sable car, food, and household
furnishings.
45. 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 Wiltschek 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
in.
"
p'.
,
48. 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.
49. Further pursuant to their trusting relationship, Defendant accepted Plaintiff
Wiltschek'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
Wiltschek'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.
50. Defendant subsequently learned that Plaintiff Gomez was also Plaintiff Wiltschek's
third, and bigamous, wife: Monica del Carmen Gomez Perez Wiltschek.
51. 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 Wiltschek's credibility, and
further increasing Defendant's trust in Plaintiff Wiltschek.
52. Upon Alan Kim Patrono, Esq.'s inquiry, Plaintiff Wiltschek asserted, and Dr.
Gingrich confirmed, that Plaintiff Wiltschek has already paid cash for the property,
necessitating Mr. Patrono's office to re-write the Property Settlement Sheet
confirming receipt of the cash payment.
53. 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 Wiltschek 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.
54. 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.
55. 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).
56. 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.
(7).
~"
,,.,..,....
57. 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.
58. 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, In!'1. since 1994 when he fled the United States to
hide in Europe with the minor child, Tierra Lenker, whom the York County Courts
had ordered be returned to her biological parents.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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
0;'
.~
,
r~i-
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.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. Plaintiff Wiltschek's conduct and course of action were intended to induce
Defendant into permitting Plaintiff Wiltschek 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.
69. Because of Plaintiff Wiltschek's actions and course of conduct preceding the title
transfers, Defendant trusted Plaintiff Wiltschek and detrimentally relied upon
Plaintiff Wiltschek's assertions when Defendant accepted Plaintiff Wiltschek's
generous gifts.
70. Plaintiff Wiltschek's conduct was fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby
supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff Wiltschek.
71. 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
72. Paragraphs 1 through 71 are hereby incorporated by reference.
73. Between January 1998 and March 1998, Plaintiff Wiltschek had unsupervised
access to Defendant's apartment of residence at 5029 East Trindle Road,
Mechanicsburg,
74. 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.
s~
'"'
-',
,--~--.
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.
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.
75. 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
i 'j 9 South Duke Street, York, PA while taking inventory after Plaintiff Wiltschek
vacated the premises.
76. 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).
77, 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.
78. Because of PlaintiffWiltschek'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
79. Paragraphs 1 through 78 are hereby incorporated by reference,
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. 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.
53.
-',
r -
83. 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,
84. On July 5,1998, Defendant returned home to find the property damaged.
Defendant called York City Police, who responded and filed a report.
85. 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.
86. Plaintiff Wiltschek's conduct was fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby
supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff Wiltschek.
87. Defendant has suffered monetary damages caused by Plaintiff Wiltschek's trespass
to repair andlor 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
88. Paragraphs 1 through 87 are hereby incorporated by reference.
89. 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 l1"etric 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.
~~
-
r'-
f) Three rolls of Charmin triple-roll toilet paper (plastic wrapping of toilet paper
was left at the property).
90. Defendant has suffered monetary damages to replace all items in the amount of
$2500.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit.
91. 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.
92. Plaintiff Wiltschek's conduct was fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby
supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff Wiltschek.
93. Defendant has suffered monetary damages to replace the chattel Plaintiff Wiltschek
took and kept without consent 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
94. Paragraphs 1 through 93 are hereby incorporated by reference.
95. Through his actions and course of conduct detailed in the preceding paragraphs
and incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiff Wiltschek intentionally andlor
recklessly defrauded Defendant into trusting him, and accepting his gifts.
96. 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 conduct were extreme and outrageous.
97. Because of Plaintiff Wiltschek's extreme and outrageous conduct, Defendant has
suffered severe emotional distress.
98. 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,
99. 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.
100. Plaintiff Wiltschek's conduct was fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby
supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff Wiltschek.
101. Defendant has suffered emotional damages in the amount of $1 00,000.00, 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.
j6~
.
."'''-
"'-~'.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests Judgment in the amount of
$105,000.00 plus interest and costs of this suit, and punitive damages.
COUNT 6: DEFAMATION
102. Paragraphs 1 through 101 are incorporated by reference.
1 03.ln the course of setting forth his allegations in his Complaint, Plaintiff WiIlschek
asserted in Paragraph 7 that "Defendant further represented to Plaintiff that she
was an attorney, which also caused Plaintiff to place a great deal of trust in
Defendant."
104.As Answered in Paragraph 7, Defendant never asserted to anyone, including
Plaintiff Wiltschek, that she was an attorney andlor 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
WiIlschek that she was qualified to do so.
105. 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 WiIlschek had filed against a previous employer, (2)
handle a slander/libel/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,
106. Defendants refused each repeated request, reminded Plaintiff Wiltschek each time
that Defendant was not authorized to practice law, and each time recommended
Plaintiff Wiltschek contact an attorney.
107. 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.
108. Defendant has suffered public humiliation and reduced credibility in the Courtroom
of District Justice William Farrell where Plaintiff Wiltschek publicly reiterated his
defamatory allegation.
109. Defendant has suffered public humiliation and an inability to procure legal counsel
due to Plaintiff Wiltschek's defamatory allegation.
110. Plaintiff WiIlschek's allegation against Defendant has adversely affected
Defendant's reputation.
111. Plaintiff Wiltschek's conduct was fraudulent, outrageous and malicious, thereby
supporting the imposition of punitive damages against Plaintiff Wiltschek.
~.
.
-
r~'
112. Defendant has suffered severe emotional damage due to Plaintiff WiIlschek's
extreme and outrageous conduct 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.
Respectfully Submitted,
Suzanne Abel, Pro Se
By ~J)jJJ
Box 1032
E. Trindle Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
791-9904 (H)
783-9276 (W)
67
.
.
(0) \1:\ n
'.. :'J " 1
., :~"J -..I
f_.,~ I ,.
'- " , ~1 -n
F:
; l t',) ,-1"1
f..) J ".-,
, ;r
, ,,)
.. ;',
.; -q
2)
~? ,j rn
....
_=.i ',~) 1":~
C) '_~'J
-..:
, I
n~
"Of
r ;"1
. )>.
: -r--
"Or~:
~~:
~;: r-
:r. .
. .
. .
O . '
.' :
o. :
~t~
~:. l
.,1
,
n
f:
.)
~
(
i
'\\\:
\\ ~
'\. -
,..:-'
::,)
n
'il
-.,
-,-
~lfg
:,n
19
t~\
.:,../1"'1
:-""1
.,
.~
''71
"
.-,
-.)
C~J
.' l~
C)
'D
\
.'
,--
pi ;0 en :;: CJ' :;: ~
> CD C III '< 0
0.... <: N ,.. ::l
. III .... ::r 1-'" \0
0< ::l CD CD 0 <Xl
.~ ~ ~::= " ::l '1 '1 III I
tj~ '1 CD w
. :;: :>- " ...
j~ :t> 1-'" .... CD N
0 Gl CJ' ,.. .... ,.. '"
W. ~~ 'CD CD .... 0
N '1 ,.. en '1 () ()
& III 0 ::l III 1-'"
t"",- ,.. ~ ::r CD '1 <:
~ 0. (t, '< 3 1-'"
~ 00 ;.; , ro ,..
t':!~ ;,. Gl 1-'" ::l
I-' "!jZ c.. 1-'" ::l
oJ t':!t':! e: ::l I Gl
0 e. 1.O ":I 0 ;;l
UI ZO o '1 III 3
UI ii I 1-'" 0 ro j
0> - 0 .... N
;,. >Z t:l ::r t -
"
" ~ g' r
s
3 c.. ~
..
" ::;1
..., ..
place a great deal of t~ust into Defendant. Defendant and
Plaintiff, Walter Wiltscl~k, agreed that Defendant would purchase
the real property at 119 South Duke Street, York, Pennsylvania,
for the sum of $40,000.00. On January 28, 1998, Plaintiff, Monica
Del Carmen Gomez, by her Attorney-Tn-Fact, Gerald T. Gingerich,
conveyed the property to Defendant, for the sum of $40,000.00.
After the conveyance, Defendant terminated the relationship with
Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, and refused to pay the $40,000.00.
Accordingly, Defendant breached the contract for the sale of the
property 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 $40,000.00.
II. STATEMENT OF BASIC FACTS AS TO DAMAGES:
Defendant agreed to pay $40,000.00 for the purchase of the
property located at 119 South Duke Street, York, Pennsylvania.
Due to Defendant's breach of contract and fraudulent conversion,
Plaintiff, Walter Wiltschek, has suffered monetary damages in the
amount of $40,000.00, as well as interest and costs of this suit.
2
t\Hl./hm ,/;'Cl/l}'l
make valuable improvements on the property for which compensation
in damages would be inadequate. fu:vnold v. Slanaker, 16 Beaver
97, (1954), In re Yarnall's Estate, 103 A.2d 753,376 Pa. 582
(1954), Rarrv v. Shimek, 62 A.2d 46, 360 Pa. 315 (1949).
Further, for a parol gift of real estate to be taken out of
requirements of Statute of Frauds, requiring all contracts to be
in writing, must be definite and certain, possession must be taken
by donee in consequence of oral agreement and valuable
improvements must have been made on land by donee. Ford v.
Vernon, 30 Luz. 121, (1935).. Book' s Adm'r v. Book, 45 Lane. 253,
50 York 113 (1936).
Additionally, a confidential relationship, the showing of
which will rebut presumption of gift, exists if the parties do not
deal on equal terms, but rather have a relationship in which there
is overmastering influence on one side or dependence on the other
side; if it is established that a confidential relationship
existed at the time of the making of the gift, burden shifts to
the donee to establish that the alleged gift was free of any taint
of undue influence or deception. Banko v. Malanecki, 451 A.2d
1008, 499 Pa. 92 (1982).
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
7
....;0....,.
~:ML/hm /29/~(J
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.
Further, Defendant never initiated any valuable improvements
on the property at all. The only evidence in this case concerning
the real estate which is credible is Plaintiff's testimony that it
was an oral contract wherein she promised to repay him the sum of
$40,000.00. There was other evidence presented that the real
estate was not a gift, which was direct, positive and unambiguous.
Defendant did take possession of the property, but admitted she
did not pay the deed consideration. Defendant testified that she
has only been residing there on the weekends. Therefore,
Plaintiff has overcome the presumption that the real estate was a
gift to Defendant.
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
8
~
p.
t:~L/h:r, ,/ ;"'1 'l'l
parties cia not deal on equal lerms, but on lit" 011(' :;it!" t1wre I:;
an overmastering influence, or, on Lite oLher, iI wI),d:n0.ss,
dependence or trust. Id at 1010, citing Estate of Dziersf:i, 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,
at the time the alleged gift was made, the burden shifts to the
Defendant 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
9
~~J./hrn ./;''1; qq
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.
V. CONCLUSION:
The testimony produced at trial established that there were
three (3) separate oral contracts between Plaintiff and Defendant.
The first, concerning real estate, which fell out of the Statute
of Frauds, but for which Plaintiff is still entitled to recover
monetary damages since Defendant fraudulently induced him to enter
by creating a confidential relationship.
The second contract was for Plaintiff to lend Defendant the
sum of $5,500.00 for which she promised to repay Plaintiff.
Defendant created a confidential relationship by telling Plaintiff
she was an attorney which means that it was a valid oral contract.
Defendant also now has the burden of establishing the alleged gift
was free of any taint of undue influence or deception.
The third contract was a contract for Plaintiff to give
Defendant his car, worth over $18,000.00 in exchange for her
promise to repay him. Defendant created a confidential
relationship with Plaintiff which caused him to rely on her word
10
'..,1
. "'~'_.'-"-'-:'~"."--
MOONEY &
ASSOCIATES
JUt - fj 1999rJ'
".
. ....... . '<';;;'=~-~':-.'-'
,'-,,-'-:,' :\
· . . <\fJ:l/' ^ \ .
. '~I/.) ~
.... ........." .L_
'I ".'
t. . . I
.J1....n-- ru '1
"'~'__u,_""",:, _
o.:r.""'""~'Uo: ',.
,-;~?:.~-:~=:~~::-~l~:~~~\ .
'':--'''\-'-"-~''--f-- '/;-
~.:~:I''', '-'~'-r- _"........_..~.. _'
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Jolin Jamcs Mooncy, '"
Judith Kopcr Morris
Katrina 1\1. Lucdtke
July 1, 1999
Office of the Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: Walter Wiltschek vs. Suzanne S. Abel
No. 98-3425
Monica Del Carmen Gomez, by her AttorneY-in-Fact,
Walter Wiltschek vs. Suzanne S. Abel
No. 98-3426
Dear Sir/Madam:
Enclosed herewith for filing, please find an original and
three (3) copies of each of the above-captioned Plaintiff's Trial
Memorandums. Kindly file the original and forward to the
Honorable Kevin A. Hess for his review. Please time-stamp the
copies and return to me in the self-addressed stamped envelope I
have provided.
If you should have any questions, please contact my office.
Best regards,
MOONEY & ASSOCIATES
JOhn Iil.nv.4- (17cv!t?/, 'TiT 111M
John James Mooney,Jrr, Esquire
JJM/hm
Enclosures
cc~ Walter Wiltschek
-------,
\
c.62:i0 York Street
Hanover, PA 1733 i
717/632/4656
CJ 115 Carlisle Street
New Oxford, PA 17350
717/624/7054
=-1 40 East Philadelphia Street
York, PA I 7403
71 7/846/4722
Facsimile: 717.632-3612 e.mail: mooneylawl[lhotmail.com
Address all correspondence to the designated office.
..
I
'/ I
(LU'
,
.,. '
~J
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
MONCA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ, by her
Power of Attorney, WALTER WIL TSCHEK
NO. 98-3426 Civil term
vs.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SUZANNE S, ABEL
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
TO: SUZANNE S. ABEL
5029 E. Trindle Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Rule
4007, the Piaintiffin the above captioned matter will take your deposition, upon oral
examination, for the purposes of discovery, before a Notary Public, or other person authorized
to administer oaths, at the Law Office of Mooney & Associates, located at 230 York Street,
Hanover, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday, August 5, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. on all matters involved in
the above action, and that the above named persons are requested to appear at the aforesaid
time and place and submit to examination under oath.
Date:
! I
, ..
1 i', ,"-1:<
II I.J I I ~
M~lONEY & A~lS0C)1A TES
. "I' '1."
/: r ,'1, , 1_-
~. '/,,_>! L-~() ui....., /'/;/1..._/
, - \, ,,' /" ' - ~ ~
B . ,,~-- 1-'
, John James)Vfooney, 1II, Esquire, /
( Att0"ney/or flaintiff ~ . I
. 230 York Street
\ I:Ianover:-P~nnsylvania 17331
~..-
(717) 632-4656
I.D. # 39137
'/
i
CLIENT'S COPY
BROU]OS & GILROY, P. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4 NORTII HANOVER STREET
CARLISLE. PENNSYl.V.\NJA 17013
717-243-4574
NON. TOLL FOR HARRlSDURC AREA
717-766-1690
JOliN H. BROUJOS
HUOERT X. GILROY
FAX: 243-8227
August 18, 1998
John James Mooney, III, Esquire
Mooney & Associates
230 York Street
Hanover, PA 17331
Re: Del Carmen Gomez v Abel
Dear John:
You had called concerning the scheduling of a deposition in the above matter.
Ms, Abel called my office today and left a message that she would have arrangements
completed to formally retain us by the end of the week. I should be in touch with you by
that time,
Yours sincerely,
Hubert X, Gilroy
dch
cc: Suzanne Abel
to
.
(
:
John James Mooney, Esq,
September 4, 1998
Page 2
I will look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
dch
Enclosures
cc: Suzanne Abel
'i
;
,
i
,
"
I'
i!.
I:
,
/I,
n
I,' ,
, "
',':, ,
""f'
"",'
:"','4,
I' ".<,
\"~7i.
r~>,::""":"' _,' ~ ~r..."" :;;"
j
('
(
;
MONCA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ,
by her Power of Attorney,
WALTER WfLTSCHEK,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
V
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SUZANNE S, ABEL,
Defendant
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
PURSUANT to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1 037(a), please enter a Rule upon
the Plaintiff to file a Complaint within 20 days after service of the Rule,
Respectfully Submitted,
r /:<;;./ q~
Date
qtyf-
JJMI la-s-IS
Uv I 1 U 1,J,J
,.
CLIENT'S COpy
.
.
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MON!CA DEL CARMEN GOMEZ,
by her Attorney-in-Fact,
WALTER WILTSCHEK,
Plaintiff,
NO. 98-3426
VB.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SUZANNE S. ABEL,
Defendant.
..
.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this
d.,...it--
,
~
day of
1998, upon consideration of the within Petition for Contempt, it
is hereby ordered and directed that a.~s scheduled for
the
':?.nd. day of
PJH~
, 1998, at
J: 30
4-
p.m. in Courtroom Number
of the
Cumberland County Courthouse.
BY THE COURT,
/.3/ 'k.AH'~" fJ.. ~
J.
CETlFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C)
To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed:
fA-
Qu.-l~ti/ (c) r
The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and
correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required
by P A RAP. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the
proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter:
MCJYt.L tee. Df.J.J ~rw~ ~) lYll~Z-
by N..v a-O:-M'l\.-~I-;n ---/hc.f-
YJa{h~ /AI il tsdt e.. I(
(
~.tl-L.a1-1 H e. /~~I
C!~uIf
at
ILjI
;1,.[ Jj A-- dvO-O()
qt-3/t4
The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No, 1 to 2Ic/;'and
attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and
identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the
number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is c{ -(f.p_ 0 Q
~ -
(S ( A...I/l- tu
Curtis R, Long, Prothonotary
Jane H. Sparling, Dpty.
An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby
acknowledging receipt of this record.
Date
Signature & Title
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
Civil Case Inquiry
1998-03426 GOMEZ MONICA DEL CARMEN (vs) ABEL SUZANNE
Reforence No,,: Filed..""..: 6/19/19'
Case Type.....: WHI'1' OF SUMMONS Time.. .. . .. .. : 2:'
Judgment, , . , , . : ,00 Execution Date 0/00/001
Judge Assigned: !lESS KEVIN A DJuiSrY~0~er~a6a' te: 0/00/001
Disposed Desc,:
____________ Case Comments ______u_____ Hig er Crt 1.: itft fA.OIr ),.D"
Higher Crt 2,:
I. \
PYS510
Page
,
, **..**..**...*******************************************************...*****.,
"'\ General Index Attorney Info
,
., GOMEZ MONICA DEL CARMEN PLAINTIFF MOONEY JOHN J II I
WILTSCHEK WALTER POWER OF PLAINTIFF MOONEY JOHN JIll
ATTORNEY
ABEL SUZANNE S DEFENDANT PRO SE
5029 E TRINDLE ROAD APT #1
MECHANICS BURG PA 17055
GINGRICH GERALD REVEREND DEFENDANT Y
DOCTOR
773 KREITZ CREEK ROAD
YORK PA 17406 8719
Amount
Date Desc
6/10/1999 WITHDRAWN
Judgment Index
GINGRICH GERALD REVEREND
DOCTOR
*************************************************************************.....
* Date Entries
************************************************************************.****.
~=~ 6/19/1998
6/23/1998
S 9110/1998
~ 9/24/1998
"{.- 8' 10/08/1998
q -/'" 10/08/1998
n-3O 10116/1998
3c-3+ 10/21/ 1998
1 10/21/1998
31 10/27/1998
?Ii - 3~ 11117/1998
1;5 11117/1998
3q - L{.o 11/19/1998
tJ-i 11/20/1998
If.), 12/03/1998
_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION-WRIT OF SUMMONS ISSUI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED.
Litiqant,: ABEL SUZANNE S
SERVED : 6/23/98 WRIT OF SUMMONS
Costs. ...: $30.20 Pd By: MOONEY & ASSOCIATES 06/23/1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDANT BY HUBERT X GILHOY
ESQ
----------------------------------------------------------------.-.
PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE ISSUED - CURTIS R LO~
PROTHONOTARY ,
_________________________________________________________________r
PRAECIPE TO AMEND CAPTION - MONICA DEL CARMEN GOMES - BY JOHN JAMI:
MOONEY II I ESQ
-----------------------------------------------------------------~
PETITION FOR CONTEMPT
_________________________________________________________________w
COMPLAINT
-----------------------------------------------------------------.
PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
------------------------------------------------------------------'
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 10/21/98 - IN RE PETITION FOR CONTEMPT -
ARGUMENT IS SCHEDUI,ED FOR 12/3/98 1:30 PM CR 4 - BY KEVIN A HESS ,]
NOTICE MAILED 10/22/98
------------------------------------------------------------------
COURT ORDER - DATED 10/26/98 - IN RE PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS
COUNSEL - RULE IS ISSUED UPON DEFENDANT RETURNABLE 10 DAYS FROM
DATE OF SERVICE - BY KEVIN A HESS J - NOTICE MAILED 10/27/98
-----------------------------------------------------------------.
PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE
------------------------------------------------.------------------
ORDER - DATED 11/17/98 - IN RE PETITION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE -
GRANTED - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED 11/17/98
------------------------------------------,------------------------
~~~~~:~~_:~_~~:~~:~:~_~~~~~~:~:_~:_~~~~_~~~~~_~~~~~:_:::_~~9_____.
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE FOR DEFENDAN'l' BY HUBERT X
GILROY ESQ
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
· :;~~'!!~;it~l!t~h~~i~~;i/'.;.',"/,'!ti~it~;,;!>?:ii_iAi.,~;,.,:..:..:,'~!,!:',3j.:,;~~~\~1ij~~;'.,......:i+i~f~&%~,!:\Jjj:,.:..;i....\:l\);i:~:;!ii~#.~[~,~~~i~\iMf:~;.J~iW;Yfj'~' ~Y;~~N;I,ti
\
1990-0342G
GOMEZ MON ICA DEI. CAIlMI':N (vs) AIIEI. :-;UZANNE
F'I 1 ",J, . , , , , . , :
'l'ilue. . . . . . . . . :
!';XCClI Lion Do Ln
Jury'l'dill....
D!5!'Osec! Dilte.
1IlglC!r Crt I.:
lIigher CrL 2,:
LiLiqnnL.: ADEL SUZANNE :-;
SI"lVED : 12/02/90 HE:INST NO'l'I & COMPI. OHDEH OF COUll'!'
CosLS",.: $31.44 I'd By: MOONEY & ASSOCIA'I'ES 12/03/1998
-----_.._--~--------_._--_._----------------------------------------
OHDEll OF COUIl'1' .. DA'I'Ell 12/3/98 - IN RE MO'l'lON [o'OIl SANC'I'IONS --
PE'I'I'1'ION IS DEFEHHEll -- DEFENDAN'I' '1'0 SUDMIT lIEHSELF '1'0 A DEPOSI~'lOl
f1Y KEVIN A 1I1,SS J- COPIES MAILED 12/7/98
---------------------.------------------------..----'..---------."
ANSWEH WITlI NE:W MNl"['EH AND COUNTEHCLAIMS
------.------.-------..-----.-------'--------------------------------
PHAECIPE FOH WH1'1' '1'0 JOIN ADDITIONAL DI,F'ENDAN'I' - HEVEREND DOC'l'OR
GERALD GINGRIClI - DY SUZANNE ADEl.. PRO SE
--------..--..-----------------------------------------------------
PLAtN'I'IFF'S ANSWEH '1'0 NEW MA'I"I'ER AND COUN1'ERCI,AIMS
--------,---------------------------------------------------------.
PRAI,CIPP. FOH LlSTING CASE FOR 'rIllA!, DY 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
______________________________________________________---J--------
PRAECIPE FOR REINSTA~'EMENT OF PROCESS
HO (cronen No..:
Case Typo,.,..: WRI'I' OF SUMMONS
JudgmenL...".: .00
Judge Assigned: IIESS KEVlN A
lliflpo5ed Dose.:
____________ CilHO Commonts ------
G119119'
2: '
0/00/001
0/00/001
'.
\
'0/> 12/0411998
t..flf- 6-" 12/23/1998
,)'I -' (p;l 12/23/1990
~'3 - qo 1./25/1999
ql ]/04/1999
q).. 3/30/1999
93.... 1J...1 411211999
IP"- I~ 4112/1999
l).(j - IG'J.. 4/12/1999
11o~- f7J-. 4/22/1999
I;),).., 4/22/1999
/{~3 4/22/1999
:1, -l1fp 4/23/1999
(17 5/07/1999
nr 5/27/1999
t'1,q (,/10/1999
18"0' {~ 10/04/1999
1<67- 1'G<t 10/ i1/ 1999
(flq -' Iq1 10/29/0099
).,.00- ;}..( 3 1/27/2000
------------------------------------------------------------------
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF' VENUE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEF'ENDAN'r'S MOTION '1'0 QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST F'OR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS FOR DISCOVERY AND IN TilE ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANT'S MOTION
F'OR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
-----------------------------------------------------------------.
ORDER - DATED 4/22/99 - IN RE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - DENIED - B'
KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MIALED 4/22/99
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DA'l'ED 4/22/99 - IN HE MOTION '1'0 QUASH PI,AIN'I'IFF'S REQUES'l'
FOR PRODUCTION OF' DOCUMENTS AND PETITION F'OR CHANGE OF' VENUE - RUI
IS ISSUED ON PLAINTIFF RETURNADLE 20 DAYS AFTEH SEHVICE - ARGUMEN~
5/26/99 3 PM CR 4 - TRIAL 6/16/99 9:30 AM -- BY KEVIN A HESS J -
COPIES MAILED 4/22/99
--------------------------------------..---------------------------
SHERIF'F'S RETURN FILED
Litiqant.: GINGRICH GERALD DR REV
SERVED : 4/1G/99 THOMASVILLE PA YORK COUNTY
Costs..,.: $58.72 I'd By: SUZANNE ABEL 04/23/1999
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 5/7/99 - IN RE MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PETITION F'OR CHANGE OF VENUE -
ARGUMENT 5/26/99 3 PM IS RESCHEDULED 5/26/99 1:30 PM CR 4 - BY
KEVIN A HESS 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 - COPIE
MAILED 5/27/99
------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW THE COMPLAINT AGAINST REV DR GERALD GINGRICH
WITH PREJUDICE BY SUZANE ABEL
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 10/4/99 -- IN RE NONJURY TRIAL - WE FIND ON THE
PLAINTIFF" S CLAIMS IN FAVOR OF' THE DEF'ENDAN'l' - COUNTERCLAIMS OF '1'1
DEFENDANT HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN - BY KEVIN A HESS J - COPIES MAILED
10/5/99
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUGGESTION OF BANKRUPTCY BY STEVEN I' MINEH ESQ
----------.--------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF' APPEAL TO SUPEHIOH COURT F'HOM OHDER ENTERED 10/4/99 BY .
WALTER WILTSCHEK
-----------------------------------------------------------------~
SUPERIOH COURT OF' PA NOTICE OF' APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 141 MDA 2000
_ _ _ _ - - - -- - - -- LAST ENTHY - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cumuorlnnd County I'rottlOIlULtll. y " v.. --
Civil Cnno Inquiry
1998-03426 GOM!';: MONIClI IJr~r. ClI\lMEN (VH) lIm:l. SU;:fINN!'
PYS5l0
Ileferonco No,.:
Caso Type"",: WIlT'I' OF SUMMONS
~JtldgmQnt... I": .00
.Tudge lIssigned: !lESS KEVIN II
IHsposed Dosc,:
------------ Cnse Comments ------------.
FJ lod........:
'rimo..... I. ..:
r';xecutlon Dnte
Jury'I'rlnl,.,.
Disposed Dnto.
Higher Crt 1,:
Highor Crt 2,:
6/19/1998
2: 42
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
.*********.*.*......**Ah***A.*.*...*....*A****************************...*******
. Escrow Informntlon ·
. Fees & Debl ts 130q l3ill I'vmts I lid i (~nd HilI ·
k*******************************t********~******~********t*k..*...*.**..*.......
WRIT OF SUMMONS
TAX ON WRIT
SETTLEMENT
JCP FEE
SETTLEMENT
APPEAL
35,00 35.00
,50 ,50
5.00 5,00
5.00 5.00
5,00 5.00
30,00 30,00
------------------------
80,50 80,50
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
------------
.00
*********************.**********.**********.************************************
* End of Case Information *
****i*****.*******************************.*************************************
. \~'ifJ~r;~':[;h!~,i,\ '~;;;'.;l,:,:",,';,:i~:;;i:.J~~1;~;;~ ~;' ,
.,.'"
."..-,-'." '.'.
. ... ";:t.r;;ri;~;:'-:.'-';,,,
-.;),'.'!}jt~~&j;~i:' ....-
...,--.....,.,.--.-.-.-'..-,---- -
..,.,....