The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About98-03499 '.' U ,I ~ ~ ~ \. ~ '" \I ~ I I I I i I 1 -1 I , <! I~l 1'1 1 ,) . ' ,oj ~I .... :1 ~i J j i 0-..1 ~I ~i CV\! . ~. ~' .;:; ~, , "/' ;:,.-: ',i, '.:" '. I LAURI A, BECKER Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 2000-4505 DAVID J. BECKER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on this 17th day of April, 2001, that a copy of the foregoing Statement of Matters Complained Of was mailed, first-class, postage pre-paid to: Samuel Andes, Esquire 525 North Twelfth Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Hand-Deli vered The Honorable Edward Guido Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Laurie s~~ire Attorney for Defendant, David J. Becker MEYERS, OESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17100 (717) 236.9428 . FAX (717) 236.2817 ~ :: il I ~.; I: ~l ,r-:! t~.:' [f.i}: ~' , ,/".' 1-"':.',' il':~<,' I~ '" ',1,( " ~<:. c.; ~~.:; -;:]l',:', S}L'-; ~~~;:. ~~C_'t 1~2 :?~ =< ,..() 'D on :-"1 .0 N G) U :..... '::;'1 --.f . >;,;TI ''-;:;~9 ~';l~~ ';;'( ) (j;~I~' ...., ~5 -< W ''0 0:> '1 I,)~,,: r,' , ,~' t t: i~~~ !~ )~. t\, \ UP~ j6' ' , I ' ~ ... , l LAW orrlCES MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER 0. BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STRt.tT P.O, DOX 1002 I. t.MANUE:L Mt.yt.RS (1915-19701 BRUCE: D. DE:SFOR LAURIE: A. SALTZGIVER CATHERINE: A. BOYLE: HARRISBURG, PA 17108 11171236.94.26 F"AX 1111) 236..2017 April 28, 1999 The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 , t . 'j 1r7/1 ------.. . '] /)J {; ~,~,aJ iJ ' )f1 Becker v. Becker NO. 98-3499 // ~.-/ Dear Judge a y: Enclosed please find the redacted copy of Defendant's Exhibit number 5 from the hearing on Monday, April 26, 1999 in the above-captioned action. As you may recall, with the Court's consent as well as the consent of Attorney Milkes, I did not submit the exhibit, but obtained a redacted copy which I am now submitting to the Court. Thank you for your attention and the for the Court's indulgence in this regard. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the above. (~I CS.. .. LAS/clw Enclosures ce: Samuel Milkes, Esquire (w/ enclosure) David Becker (w/out enclosure) ~ ~ JACK BECKER 703 JOAN M. BECKER 329 SOMERSET DR I? Z' / __ 9e; 60.1230'2313 SHIREMANSTOWN, PA 17011.6539 P.It,. __,._~.-:.:..... ~O n~:I~;~\:,,-ke._f:.4t_we__&clef___.___.J $ .5btJ;-.o ~. . - L" '""'" , V-. ~ r.,""'"'''''''' ." .~- ).L:.J'''''''. - Yl--Qe-~ '&'-k..-'fc__%_m_1 "II.,,, "......." M~!H~!~ . IIAKMlNHLJMO. .-" mal ;, For I: 2 3 ~ 3 7238 71: ~8ooo 208 H,li' --~~ooo; .:l...Ut...<1n.. JACK BECKER JOAN M. BECKER 329 SOMERSET DR SHIREMANSTOWN. PA 17011.6539 693 60-7238/2313 ? . tf-I<Jf!& $ -:'J <Xl ...J ",0. "4- ~4 - D.,II"" UHARRIS D SAVINGS BANK !HKISUlIKCi. PA. 171UI For I: 2 3 ~ 3 7238 71: ~8ooo 208 3bll' o 93 OHARW<OI'l'Jol 670 JACK BECKER JOAN M. BECKER 329 SOMERSET DR SHIREMANSTOWN. PA 17011.6539 60-7238/2313 " ," 'f.' EXHIBIT "'J)e'1~noo.nt'~ 1",-, "5' """""'- ". ,:i:<-::;:<':'"- . .... .'ie........, ........ ;\y: ,/ .1 f t'c.' (.~' - / 1<JLc.--' hI. / / &"l ./;~ I $ '7/-ff./' tti p"y,,"ho !jiliN J i" t:-,f . I 01\10",1 r.'. " I~/ ~~Q lc'U., I~,,/),Q ~~~" -{- ./cCV '~m mHARRIS Iil SAVINGS BANK !.KKISUI'KG. I',' I7IlIl Fnr:bNf d.,,,U ': 2 3 ~ :172:18 71: ~8000 20B :11;11' ~~ //"., ~~ o b'~ ,'(00007 L,B ~ bB." ..AH,..,l) ,~... -, ,'" ~ .', .. . ... ',.- ..... ,- -, ....".. . . " .' ;; " !I .:; f ii N~E~ JACK DECKER Account # 1000020836 Page # 3 Mombor rDIC I I I =:fiU~ 791 :--=.AnPlUI>> 0.. ?"J!J.,PP ....... ~ a,~v; ~ulir -I- .f}IU!~ $~p"" ~Zr ~ =--=-.m<:::.,::" ""--. . O:lJI37/387Ia8000/083~~ 07Ql IOOOOlsqOOIU - 2/25/99 791 ".-. 1,500,00 :.~;~ ~ ':',-:"~';' ~..-:-:-. ~,;,::",,-::~,\ '::.....: ..... .~..~ ',- ..'-:..'....::;.. ~:',,,,,:,,,,....,.:., ..' . ~. . _.~ -;.. -:~~~:.~:"'t':~7',.?::"'~~?'i~:'.~7"': ....., JACK OECKER Account I 1000020836 Page I 5 MCIC'lfetmt .IOoUIM.nclllUl .....,.ID't """""1'ClIllIl&M'lWff_ t1- 781 -- $so.... 'M.;7i:ra= 50,00 I I 2/02/99 778 -------. JJ/ 100.00 =~=... 779 ~~~';':I'l\rm..... D-. ,Z...3-P' _ ..,... ~ ~...$.-u) ~r~. ...~~ $JS'~.'" ~@~_'JK.~ """'''l!!'_,::" .. ,g.....'u' __ _ ':BIi?/38?CI8000/083&. 07 "0000 Hoooo.. -=--.-- 779 3,500.00 JACK BECKER Accoun t # 1800020836 Page # 3 Member FDIC . 1/19/99 \. =~ 760 '" ..",--- ~ /- ~ ~ - ~A~~~~~ S~~ ~ ~. ... /"P'(9~99 ~.,;J!Wz.t. . I O:UUHiil7O:;GOOO,Oili... 07 0 ;'oocco~~q:;o..- 1/12/99 760 429,60 b 11 Ir I} (.) , ,i ~ \ I .1r 'r :5 ~,' . '/'.1\ ' 'f , !r,:,:^\:' 1"/',. i 1\:/' "I"..' ! ".," :il'.. [i ',:, ~ "1,, I', I", '1/ if:_ :r I" 1\' ) :~ , .' -I i ; i,<'~ ! .~ J~ ";".~ r ;:11,::::,:: ir>d'ii: II\...........~ ~<- \~ . .1_. ..... '._.. , , . . '...".... .. ..~._. .- . . .j ~ ., ..' .; ......_.:............:...... '.. ~ ... - ~ . '. NIi~~gg!? JACK BECKER Account # 1800020836 Page # 2 oIACK..acn oIOAN ... .ICKDI "'............ ~"''fm.... -. "'" 11-/J.1l ~;; I' 1'1'" ~m.. r .. 'A~.j Viti'. ~'p')~~~9f> ~a_ 9iRmlQ;l.'::' m1t~~ ' ~ut If /m'~9f ' .: BUH3B7': IBCCCICB3&r 11/25/98 747 429.60 oIACKII!CUlI 148 JOAN'" IICK!R -.-.a r~~.A",U'" 0. I/-//-'S l:l::'rJ~>lSI=~.A.Ie tl .'581' $1~'D." ~$.~"iL % ---- """,,1llQ;l.'::' I\IH~RIS SAVlIOGS ..... "- J;- .: I3U7I3B7.: IBCOOICB3&r f~ ' .",-. C 'f!I1 io<'lXlOOIlOOClJ.<' 11/19/90 748 1,100,00 \to .IACIl"""'" """'...- mlOlWf.-rr:-. ._u. ",_1"101,..10831 ~!f .(J;1IP. g~(.fu @~ I-< I!..d... ~ ~. J(/L~- . ~riC~ ~ 11-1'. fiB - -- I $ ..500." - rw..tIIC?= "" .: n U 7 I3B 7': IBCCC 1CB3&r 11/19/98 746 -' 500.00 141 . I!U HAKt{l~ ... SAVINGS BANK Mambor FDIC ~. .... ....... .tOAH II. ncua MltlIIINItDfll .- __PAl,...... n... 1.9-1$<'-)'8 -- rg~~::I1.~~~ ~I $::~; ~:! fI/~~ . _O:UU7Ua7I:1BCCCICB1'~ !C /CCCCC5CCCC/ 10/16/98 730 600.00 .....- 731 .IOM".8KIIDI :-..;::::g.:Mfm..- 0.. /"-/';"18 ..... ~:'l. -4.~ ~ IS/{"/'. ~ ~'f/...cr:l~~~ .J. ~ --- -.1lI5'."= qlf!~ID~ : "-. . "'tOl~4t~ .00' .. "Z15 ... /i?9'''-?L.f? l:nU7nB7I:1BOCCICBl'~ 31 10/22/98 731 429.60 JACK BECKER Accoun t # 1800020836 Page # 2 730 '-, .' .~... "..,-...".'~ ,-,-,,--' .', ......,~.,... . .'.. .~ .. 'r. ".'~<$~ ~t (.. . .' :"'<.'. expense is a true business expense necessary to the operation of his business. This depreciatiun e;-:pense largely reElects costs which Husband incurs in purchasing and replaCing equipment. Husband uses extensive equipment in his business including tow trucks, dump trucks and other snow removal vehicles and trucks. In light of the substantial use of these vehicles, Husband generally replaces this large equipment every five years. Accordingly, Husband's depreciation expenses are true expenses which he incurs in replacing various vehicles and equipment used in the business. Whether this depreciation expense is a valid business expense which decreases Husband's overall income is the issue of the within memorandum of law. II. ISSUE WHETHER THE DEPRECIATION EXPENSE TAKEN BY HUSBAND'S BUSINESS SHOULD BE ADDED BACK INTO HUSBAND'S INCOME FOR SUPPORT PURPOSES? Proposed Answer: No. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT The Superior Court in Labar v. Labar, 434 Pa. Super. 612, 644 A.2d 777 (1994) formulated a two prong test to be applied to each case to determine if depreciation expenses are true expenses or merely "paper deductions" which should be added back into a party's income to calculate support, Under the Labar test, depreciation expenses will not be added into the determination of income if, (1) the depreciation and depletion expenses reflected an actual reduction in the parties personal income; and (2) the capital outlays underlying the reduction were necessary and not an attempt to shelter income for purposes of avoiding spousal and child support obligations. Labar v. Labar, 644 A.2d 780.781. In applying this rule, each part of the test must be examined separately based on the facts. Id. The rationale for the rule in Labar, is to prevent a spouse from sheltering actual personal income by making unreasonable or unnecessarily large expenditures so as to decrease income and in turn decrease the parties support obligations. See generally Meltzer v. Witsberqer, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (Pa. 1984). A. Husband's depreciation expenses must reflect an actual reduction in his personal income. The first part of the test states depreciation expenses must reflect an actual reduction in a parties personal income. The court has indicated that depreciation expenses reflect an actual reduction in personal income when "any such marginal income created through tax savings was reinvested in the business or distributed to the Husband directly." Labar, 434 Pa. Super. at 619, 644 A.2d at 781. Por instance, in Labar, $34,000 wo~th of depreciation expenses clilillled by Husbillld Wil~; added back u, his income by the triul court. The Superiot' Court: disCigt'ced with tl1if3 determination finding that Mr. Labar's income had been reduced because, "the marginal income made available through Husband's depreciation expenses was actually expended on [his business] in the satisfac~ion of principal on business loans which were due in that year, as well as on the purchase of new equipment." Labar, 434 Pa. Super. at 621- 622, 644 A.2d at 782. Conversely, in Cunninqham v. Cunninqham, 378 Pa. Super. 280, 548 A.2d 611 (1988), a case relied on by the Labar court, $17,000 in depreciation and depletion expenses were added back into the calculation of Husband's income to determine his support obligation. The Cunninqham court held that these expenses did not reduce husband's income because none of his income had been used to replace worn equipment or purchase new reserves. See Cunninqham, 548 A.2d at 613. In our case, the depreciation expenses are composed of various loans and expenses for the purchase and replacement of trucks and equipment used in the business. Husband pays debt service of approximately $5,300.00 per month on loans used to purchase trucks, vehicles and equipment. B. Husband's capital outlays and expenditures underlying the reduction must be necessary, and /lot clll attempt to shel tel:' illcome. The second part of the r,ab<lL' test requires that the capital outlays underlying the reduction must be necessary and not an attempt to shelter income. Labar, 644 A.2d at 782. The case law indicates that "capital outlays" include both the "the expenditures on the particular assets at issue," or even "the initial purchase of the assets for which the depreciation expense was later taken." rd. The standard for determining whether a party's actions were necessary varies based upon the circumstances of each case and the specific type of business interest involved. For instance, in McAUliffe v. McAUliffe, 418 Pa. Super. 39, 613 A.2d 20 (1992), HUsband claimed equipment expenditures in 1989 in the amount of $66,046. The following year, Husband claimed $201,894 for new equipment and $98,836 in depreciation, arguing this should decrease his income as well as his support obligations. The Superior Court upheld the lower court opinion stating that the expenses were not "necessary for the continued operation and smooth running of the business." McAUliffe, 613 A.2d at 22. The Superior Court found that because the purchase of new equipment and depreciation expenses had so significantly increased from similar expenditures in past years, that these expenditures were not necessary to the continued operation and success of the business and had merely been expended by the Husband to reduce his support obligation. Furthermore, in determining whether a capital expenditure is necessary and not an att0.tnpt t'.o r;l1(llt0r inc()!llj:}, t-hl~"> r:~Olll.t r.::quires that there be specific evidence of such an intent 011 the record. In Labar, tile court stated ttlat II [~l]bs~llt specific evi,clcncc of intent to shelter income in the l'Bconl, it must be presumed from the facts that the expenditure on the assets mentioned were legitimate and necessary." Labar at 783. In our case, the depreciation expense is in line with previous depreciation deductions and consistent with the debt service on the equipment loans. The 1996 Superior Court case, Calabrese v. Calabrese, 452 Pa. Super. 497, 682 A.2d 393 (1996), applies the Labar standard. In Calabrese, Wife claimed that the depreciation deductions taken by the corporation should have been considered as income by the trial court because the deductions translated into a benefit for the corporation and created additional cash in the company which was available to increase husband's income. The Superior Court disagreed with wife's argument and found that the trial court did not err in failing to include depreciation allowances in the calculations of husband's available income. The Superior Court noted the Labar two- part test to determine whether a business's depreciation deductions should be considered income: (1) was there an actual increase in the party's income and (2) was the depreciation expenditure necessary for the ongoing business concerIl 01: a met'e attempt 1:0 uhielcl income for the purpose of avoiding support obligations. Applying this test to the facrs i~ Calabrese, the Superior Court concluded that the depreciation deductions taken by husband's corporation were not includable in his income, for purposes of determining his ability to pay spousal and child support, where restructuring of the corporation's finances was necessary to the continued long- term viability of the corporation and husband was not attempting to shield income to avoid his obligations. In this case, Husband's depreciacion expenses are necessary and not an attempt to shelter income because they are true business expenses incurred to purchase and replace his tow trucks and equipment. Furthermore, because his depreciation expenses are consistent with past years, there obviously has been no attempt to shelter his income. IV. CONCLUSION Husband's depreciation expense is a true business expense and should not be added back into his income for support purposes. The businesses monthly debt service is approximately $5,300.00 and if this expense is annualized it very nearly equals the yearly depreciation deduction. Clearly, by following the two prong cest of Labar, the depreciation in this case should not be added back into Husband's income. In the wi thin case, (1) Husband's depreciation and depletion expenses reflect an actual LAURI A. BECKER Plaint iff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, NO. 98-3499 DAVID J. BECKER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r\\ i\--r' I hereby certify on this q~ay of \.::) ~~ 1998, that a copy of the foregoing Answer and Counterclaim was mailed, first-class, postage pre-paid to: Joanne Clough, Esquire 845 Sir Thomas Court HmiS~ PA ~~ A .~. Laurie A. Saltzgiver, Esquir. Attorney for Defendant Ii I' I i MEYERS, DES FOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P,O, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236.9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 'I" ~I , t, , I ! ~ ,. " , , I if i II h':,-: I ...: l.,'.:m:;", LAURI A. BECKER Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 98-3499 DAVID J, BECKER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE MEMORANDUM OF LAW I. BACKGROUND The parties to this action were married on March 28, 1989. Wife filed a Complaint in Divorce on or about June 23, 1998 and an Amended Complaint in Divorce on October 5, 1998. The parties are the parents of two minor children namely Kaitlen Becker, date of birth 11/16/89 and Jordan Becker, date of birth 3/25/94. Wife has requested Husband pay her child support and alimony pendente lite. Since prior to the parties marriage, Husband has been self-employed by Becker's Service Center which engages in auto repair, towing, and snow removal. Husband operates thp business as a sole proprietorship and the income and expenses from said business are shown on Husband's personal income tax return. Husband's income tax returns consistently show a depreciation expense which is deducted from tile income of the business. Wife claims that this depreciation expense should be added back to Husband's income for support Husband believes that the depreciation deduction purposes. should not be added back to his income, as the depreciation be added back into R party's income to calculate support. Under the Labar test, depreciation expenscs will not be added into the determination of income if, (1) the depreciation and depletion expenses reflected an actual reduction in the parties personal income; and (2) the capital outlays underlying the reduction were necessary and not an attempt to shelter income for purposes of avoiding spousal and child support obligations. Labar v. Labar, 644 A.2d 780-781. In applying this rule, each part of the test must be examined separately based on the facts. Id. The rationale for the rule in Labar, is to prevent a spouse from sheltering actual personal income by making unreasonable or unnecessarily large expenditures so as to d8crease income and in turn decrease the parties support obligations. See generally Meltzer v. Witsberqer, 505 Pa. 462, 480 A.2d 991 (Pa. 1984). A. Husband's depreciation expenses must reflect an actual reduction in his personal income. The first part of the test states depreciation expenses must reflect an actual reduction in a parties personal income. The court has indicated that depreciation expenses reflect an actual reduction in personal income when "any such marginal income created through tax savings was reinvested in the business or distributed to the Husband directly." Labar, 434 Pa. Super. at 619, 644 A.2d at 781. , For instance, in Labar, $34,000 worth of depreciation expenses claimed by Husband was added back to his income by the trial court. The Superior Court disagreed with this determination finding that Mr. Labar's income had been reduced because, "the marginal income made available through Husband's depreciation expenses was actually expended on [his business] in the satisfaction of principal on business loans which were due in that year, as well as on the purchase of new equipment." Labar, 434 Pa. Super. at 621- 622, 644 A.2d at 782. Conversely, in Cunninqham v. Cunninqham, 378 Pa. Super. 280, 548 A.2d 611 (1988), a case relied on by the Labar court, $17,000 in depreciation and depletion expenses were added back into the calculation of Husband's income to determine his support obligation. The Cunninqham court held that these expenses did not reduce husband's income because none of his income had been used to replace worn equipment or purchase new reserves. See Cunninqham, 548 A.2d at 613. In our case, the depreciation expenses are composed of various loans and expenses for the purchase and replacement of trucks and equipment used in the business. Husband pays debt service of approximately $5,300.00 per month on loans used to purchase trucks, vehicles and equipment. B. Husband's capital outlays and expenditures underlying the reduction must be necessary, and not an attempt to she1.ter income. The second part oE the Labar test requires that the capital outlays underlying the reduction must be necessary and not an attempt to shelter income. Labar, 644 A,2d at 782. The case law indicates that "capital outlays" include both the "the expenditures on the particular assets at issue," or even "the initial purchase of the assets for which the depreciation expense was later taken." rd. The standard for determining whether a party's actions were necessary varies based upon the circumstances of each case and the specific type of business interest involved. For instance, in McAuliffe v. ~lcAuliffe, 418 Pa. Super. 39, 613 A.2d 20 (1992), Husband claimed equipment expenditures in 1989 in the amount of $66,046. The following year, Husband claimed $201,894 for new equipment and $98,836 in depreciation, arguing this should decrease his income as well as his support obligations. The Superior Court upheld the lower court opinion stating that the expenses were not "necessary for the continued operation and smooth running of the business." McAuliffe, 613 A.2d at 22. The Superior Court found that because the purchase of new eqt;ipment and depreciation expenses had so significantly increased from similar expenditures in past years, that these expenditures were not necessary to the continued operation and success of the business and had merely been expended by the Husband to reduce his support obligation. Furthermore, in determining concern or a mere attempt to shield income for the purpose of avoiding e~'.pport obligations. Applying this test to the facts in Calabrese, the Superior Court concluded that the depreciation deductions taken by husband's corporation were not includable in his income, for purposes of determining his ability to pay spousal and child support, where restructuring of the corporation's finances was necessary to the continued long- term viability of the corporation and husband was not attempting to shield income to avoid his obligations. In this case, Husband's depreciacion expenses are necessary and not an attempt to shelter income because they are true business expenses incurred to purchase and replace his tow trucks and equipment. Furthermore, because his depreciation expenses are consistent with past years, there obviously has been no attempt to shelter his income. IV. CONCLUSION Husband's depreciation expense is a true business expense and should not be added back into his income for support purposes. The businesses monthly debt service is approximately $5,300.00 and if this expense is annualized it very nearly equals the yearly depreciation deduction. Clearly, by following the two prong test of Labar, the depreciation in this case should not be added back into Husband's income. In the within case, (1) Husband's depreciation and depletion expenses reflect an actual -_~_' _h~__";'_._,~.: ....,...."..'"__,..".,.:..,..~...~',..,.":'""'R,.'! jt LAURI A. BECKER Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 98-3499 DAVID J. BECKER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAt'/ IN DIVORCE CERTIF'ICATE OF' SERVICErf\ i\.---r. _ I hereby certify on this Ci~ay of ~ ~ 1998, that a copy of the foregoing Answer and Counterclaim was mailed, first-class, postage pre-paid to: Joanne Clough, Esquire 845 Sir Thomas Court H"rri'~ " ~~ Laurie A. Saltzgiv r, Esquir. Attorney for Defendant MEYERS, DESFOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 1710B (717) 236.9428 . FAX (717) 236,2817 LAURI A. BECKER, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW DAVID J. BECKER, Defendant NO. 98-3499 IN DIVORCE WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Please wiLhdrc:w the appeal:'ance of Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire on behalf of the Plaintiff in the above referenced matter. Dated: ~(- ~ - (,fi He'peetfuIIy SUbmitted~~ Joan e Harrison Cl 845 Sir Thomas Cou HarriSburg, PA 171 (717) 540-5100 Id. No. 36461 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter the appearance of Samuel W. Milkes, Esquire on behalf of the Plaintiff in the above referenced matter. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: ~ \1-\~ ~~:: '.I) .~ ....;) -, 1 " -~'," -) ~:; j fl.: :;.J -Tl , , . :J , j':;: i",,) , '~q '.- r ., , ~) , . .. " , i~~ [o-A '...' , ~: .:2 " ::g ..J -''-. \ D ., ~. l~~ if' ,~ 1 r ;- f .r ~ >. LJ'I (:: cr, LJ'; r~. .. ,', C": lJJ.. . , <.', , _.:, , ~.. .: I~ " i.:-. ,', ; (') ~ : " 1 '. c:.:, C::", LJOi ~ \: I .,f ("'1 " G:.:.ll ".j r...' Lel i' I ~.:.. L,_ '.L r;:.... ~:') 0 l..'" U ::>-." <: ..t:: :s::: ~t:c.:!a-. ~ tIl ':; 0 :::I ~ v: r:: g ~..J - ~~ 1J.l"" Irl ~ 5~ 0 ~ "'u..,. 8 '" ..'" ~~~ ~ E.E r-- f"""l ~ 0 <.fl ..... - "'""'..... on,. ..... t: ~ :::1 ~.= = 0"'''' ....... ~ ~ Ul;:oo " ',/ ,.".~.. / .,;'j _!< " Clough & Murphy /.;rroRNEYs,& COUNSj,UlRS AT LAW 845 Sir 111Oma!i Cuurt: Suite 11 A lIarrisburg, PA n 1 09 (717) 540.5100 F~I;,-~ 199~ ,..,.... . ~ <II Lo~r\ /\., B~clGt: (' Plaintiff : IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. <II \:::n\l.6 J, &c.Le\ Defendant : CIVIL ACTION LAW :' NO. ,Y-\99 CIVIL 19 C?B : CUSTODY VISITATION ORDER OF COURT And now, this..8..Li.:JJ:l:i, upon consideration ofthc attached complaint, it is hereby directed that the above parties and their respective counsel appear before 't--hc 110 L 1 L . \<in':} ~ , Esquire, the conciliator at \'~CJ~ ...\, \ 'iZ'~ ~t-.) error ~ \ \ .. ' , Pennsylvania, on the :;}S day of \-lv,\( h , 1999, at i-I., ('lD AM.! P.Kt"J for a Pre-hearing Custody Conference, At such conference, an cffort will be made to resolve'tJie" issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order. All children age five or older may be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for the entry of a temporary or penn anent order. FOR THE COURT: By: 11~~ oQ.cJ '~i~ ' Custody Conciliator (\ .) 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. THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 1-800-990.9108 ... 3scffi .:;> -f -rj' 3'S:t';i!.J /, '" "., , , . ~:: i;',: .~':) \ ',.. I, t!!c:/ r!~~ ~t,;,~ ~ dlt t7 >z.ifce /1P?<h.Y '~d1. 0."21/t;U?e~ 7"~ ~&.t:~.y(--t:N ';% 4 - ;/10 ." ' ..d.. "/.!'J. w _~ .-' 2,' ~_.~.~ /.~ .xj'''o/~.' c' . ,/ /' r' . .f. '\/ -, LAURI A. BECKER, PIa intiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. \' NO. 98-3499 DAVID J. BECKER, Defendant IN CUSTODY CIVIL PETITION TO ENFORCE CUSTODY ORDER OF DECEMBER 14. 1998 AND HOLD DEFENDANT DAVID J. BECKER IN CONTEMPT OF SAID ORDER AND NOW, this 5,/,11 day of fpbrU(IOj , 1999 comes the Petitioner, Lauri A. Becker, by and through her attorney, Joanne Harrison Clough and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Lauri A. Becker is an adult individual who currently resides at 1453 Hillcrest Court, Apt. 410, camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 2. David Becker is an adult individual who currently resides at 3500 Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, 17055. 3. Pursuant to paragraph 4 of the December 14, 1998 Court Order, the parties are required to submit themselves to a custody evaluation to be performed by Pennsylvania Guidance Associates and Dr. Stanley Schneider. A true and correct copy of said Court Order is attached hereto, made part of an incorporated by reference as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. 4. Paragraph 4 of said Order specifi.cally orders Respondent, David J. Becker to advance all of the monies for the cost of said custody evaluation. '. 5. Since December 14, 1998, Petitioner, Lauri A. Becker has repeatedly scheduled appointments with Pennsylvania Guidance Associates to commence the evaluation process in direct compliance with the December 14, 1998 Court Order. 6. Pennsylvania Guidance Associates has canceled each of Petitioner Lauri A. Becker's scheduled appointments because of Respondent David J. Becker's repeated failure to deposit the required funds for the evaluation with said office. 7. Respondent, David J. Becker made false statements to Pennsylvania Guidance Associates and told them that he and Petitioner were reconciling and that the custody evaluation was no longer necessary. 8. Counsel for Petitioner has forwarded several letters to counsel for Respondent requesting David J. Becker to comply with the December 14, 1998 Court Order and deposit the required monies so the custody evaluation can be started and completed. A true and correct copy of Petitioner's attorney's correspondence of January 25, 1999 to Respondent's attorney is attached hereto, made part of and incorpo~ated by reference as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. 9. Respondent, David J. Becker, has also repeatedly violated this Court's Order of December 14, 1998 as follows: a. Respondent has repeatedly violated paragraph 2B of said Order by refusing to take the children to their scheduled activities; 2 b. Respondent has repeatedly failed to permit Kaitlin to attend her regular church with her maternal grandparents on Sunday mornings. Petitioner only agreed to Respondent having partial custody of the parties children every Saturday afternoon to Sunday (instead of every other weekend) because Respondent agreed that Kaitlin could go to her regular activities while in his care including continue to attend church each Sunday morning with her grand- parents. c. Respondent has repeatedly failed to return the children "ready for bed" in violation of paragraph 2 of said Order. 10. Petitioner is of the belief and therefore avers that Respondent is intentionally repeatedly violating the Court Order in a blatant attempt to cause her to incur additional substantial attorneys fees, costs and expenses. 11. Respondent, David J. Becker, repeatedly taunts Petitioner and asks her if "she's had enough" or "paid enough attorneys fees" and if she is ready to "give up" and "come home." 12 . Petitioner believes Respondent I s repeated intentional violations of the Court Order of December 14, 1998 are not in the best interest of the children and that said behavior is in fact harmful to the parties children. 3 13. As a direct result of Respondent's violation of the Court Order of December 14, 1998, Petitioner has incurred substantial counsel fees, costs and expenses. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Lauri A. Becker, respectfully requests this Honorable Court schedule a hearing, and thereafter hold Respondent in Contempt of Court and direct him to pay Petitioner's counsel fees, costs and expenses and direct Respondent to immediately comply with the Court Order and/or modify the partial custody schedule for Respondent. Respectfully Submitted, i on 84 Sir Thomas Harrisburg, PA (717) 540-5100 Id. No. 36461 4 LAURI A. BECKER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO. 98-3499 , , f .! i DAVID J. BECKER, Defendant IN DIVORCE VERIFICATION I, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Jo Dated: .)- 5-=-1'1 '. and Mother shall advise him irthere arc ,my activities, Mother shall also attempt to advise Father in advance before scheduling any activities lor the children during these custodial periods of time, Father shall also ensure that the children are ready lor bed upon their return to Mother on Sunday, 3. The parties shall share the Christmas holiday such that Father shall have the children on Christmas Eve from 4:00 ;:J.rn. until II :00 p,m. Mother shall have the children from Christmas Eve at II :00 p.m. until 2:00 p,m, on Christmas Day. Father shall have the children from Christmas Day at 2:00 p,m. until 9:00 p,m, on Christmas Day. 4, The parties agree to cooperate and submit themselves and their minor children to a custody evaluation to be performed by Guidance Associates, The parties shall evenly share the cost of the evaluation but Father will advance all costs initially. The portion of the costs that are attributable to Mother shall be credited to Father in any equitable distribution in this case, 5, This Order in no way prejudices either party from waiving any of their rights that they otherwise have as it relates to an overall custodial arrangement in this case, " I.' . LAURI A, BECKER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, I'ENNSYL VANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) i. ) vs. NO. 98-3499 CIVIL TERM DA VID J, BECKER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LA W JUDGE PREVIOUSL Y ASSIGNED: None CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUMBERLAND COUNTY RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1915J-8(b). the undersigned Custody Conciliator submits the following report: 1. The pertinent information concerning the chi1d(ren) who is(are) the subject of this litigation is as follows: NAME B[RTHDATE CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY OF Kaitlin Ann Becker Jordan Becker November 16,1989 March 25,1994 Plaintiff Plaintiff 2. A Conciliation Conference was held on December 3. 1998, and the following individuaI:, were present: the Plaintiff and her attorney. Joanne H, Clough, Esquire; the Defendant appeared with his attorney, Laurie A. Saltzgiver, Esquire, 3, Items resolved by agreement: See attached Order. 4, Issues yet to be resolved: See attached Order. 5, The Plaintiffs position on custody is as follows: See attached Order, ,II,; r: I; " II I, I! r, " I,: 6, The Detendant's position on custody is as tallows: See attached Order. 7, Need for separate counsel to represent ehild(ren): Neither party requested, 8, Need for independent psychological evaluation or cOllnseling: See attached Order, 9, Other mattcrs or comments: The parties shall reconvene before Michael L. Bangs, , ' Esquire, for a custody conciliation on Thursday, Mllrch -I, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. : ,.; , ; .i::"" l~...) L !"I, '!.~I ;,/ 'i._' f' Date: December 9. 1998 '.':::1 \ I ; n\i~O r ( I" . J L-\.\ \ /-0' Michael L. Bangs Custody Conciliator ,": I ... 'j I t;L\.l~42-~ h'" bL~; ll- t ,j: ~> " jOt 11",0 ~, 1" I! ",J" .,.,) 1.... " 11.1...'.',:.'..':... I" ~': I ('.'.'.'. ~':'~' I".'..'.'. I"',':' ,:,. \~:';: .~... ,j', f....,.'." i.'''' ~;:;; ..;_,;o:.~.,,,".~:~,.,'!',,::. 'r Clough & Murphy Jo.nne H, Clough, Esqu"e Maryann Murphy, Esquire AITORNEYS &: COUNSELORS AT LAW 845 Sir Thomas Court, Suite ItA Harrisburg, PA 17109 (717) 540.5100 Tcl,cop"r (717) 540-9199 January 25, 1999 Laurie A. Saltzgiver, Esq. 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 RB: BBCKER V. BBCKER DAVID BBCKER'S CONTINUBD VIOLATION OF THE DSCBMBER 14, 1998 CUSTODY ORDER Dear Laurie: I am again writing to you regarding your client's persistent failure to abide by the Court's Order entered on December 14, 1998 regarding the custody of our respective client's children. More specifically, Paragraph 4 of that Court Order specifically directs that the parties shall submit themselves and the minor children to a custody evaluation to be performed by Pennsylvania Guidance Associates. My client has had two separate appointments scheduled at Pennsylvania Guidance Associates which have been canceled by Pennsylvania Guidance Associates because of your client's failure to abide by the Court Order and his refusal to forward the necessary funds to Pennsylvania Guidance Associates to commence the evaluation process. I am particularly appalled at your client's persistent refusal to cooperate in the custody evaluation process since it was at your insistence that we use Pennsylvania Guidance Associates instead of Arnold Shienvold's office to do the evaluation because you wanted it done immediately and you advised both the Conciliator and myself that you believe Pennsylvania Guidance Associates could complete the evaluation much more quickly than Dr. Shienvold's office could. Salzgive, 8~ EXHIBIT 2 MYERSTOWN OFFICE: 349 Wesl Main Avenue, Mycrstown, PA 17067' (717) 866.2196 By Appoinlmenl Only " Laurie A. Saltzgiver, Esquire January 25, 1999 Page 2 In your letter of January 6, 1999, in addition to numerous other false claims both you and your client make regarding my client, you insist that my client contacted Mr. Becker and advised him that she "wanted both of them to speak with a counselor at church regarding custody." Please be advised at no time did Lori request that Dave meet with her with a minister or any other church official to resolve their custody issues. In fact, Dave had requested she go with him to a minister on st. John's Road. She refused. When Pennsylvania Guidance Associates canceled Mrs. Becker's second appointment, they advised her that David Becker had informed them that he and his wife were reconciling and that an evaluation was no longer necessary. Quite frankly, I think it is time you stop accusing my client of continuous and blatant lies and accept the fact that your client is continuing to give you false information regarding his behavior in this matter. If a check is not tendered by your client to Pennsylvania Guidance Associates in the amount requested by that entity for the parties custody evaluation on or before Wednesday, January 27, 1999 at 5:00 p.m., I will have no choice but to petition the Court to find Mr. Becker in contempt and to request that an immediate hearing be scheduled to rectify this matter. In addition to your client's refusal to tender the evaluation monies as specifically required by Paragraph 4 of the Court's Order, he has also repeatedly violated Paragraph 2 of the Court Order, in that the children have only been ready for bed upon return to their mother's home on ~ occasion. Your client is also in violation of Paragraph 25 of the Order in that he has repeatedly refused to take the children to their scheduled activities as specifically required by the Court Order and has refused to let Kaitlin's grandparents take her to church. You were present at the Conciliation Conference and are aware that Lori ~ agreed to your client having custody every Sunday because he agreed Kaitlin could continue her activities, including regular church attendance. Satzgive,e~ \ . , " Laurie A. Saltzgiver, Esquire January 25, 1999 Page 3 'I , , In short, I find it laughable that your client insists he wishes to have shared physical custody of these children when he is not willing to follow the Court Order he negotiated and agreed to at the Custody Conciliator I s office and is in fact not even exercising many of the time periods of partial custody he is entitled to under the current Court Order. I expect to receive a response from you with proof that payment has been tendered to Pennsylvania Guidance Associates before 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 27, 1999 or I will take further action through Court. JHC/kah cc: Lauri Becker Salzgive, 8~ ,\ 'I' , ., , and MOlher shall advise him if there arc any activities. Mother shall also attempt to advise Falher in advance before scheduling any aClivities Ii>r the children during thesc cuslodial periods of time, Falher shall also ensure that the children arc ready Jor bed UpOll their return to MOlher 011 Sunday. 3, The parties shall share the Christmas holiday such that Father shall have the children on Christmas Eve from 4:00 p.m. until II :00 p,m. Mother shall have the children from Christmas Eve at 11:00 p,m, until 2:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, Father shall have the cbildren Irmll Christmas Day at2:00 p.m, until 9:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, 4. The parties agree to cooperate and submit themselves and their minor childrellto a custody evalualion to be performed by Guidance Associates. The parties shall evenly share the cost of the evaluation but Father will advance all eosts initially, The portion of the costs that are attributable to Mother shall be credited to Father in any equitable distribution in this case, 5. This Order in no way prejudices either party from waiving any of their rights that they otherwise have as it relates to an overall custodial arrangement in this case, ;1 7, Need lor separate counsel to represent ehild(r('n): Neither party requested. 8, Need lor independent psychological evaluation or counseling: See attached Order. 9, Other matters or comments: The parties shall reconvene before Michael L. Bangs, Esquire, for a custody conciliation on Thursday, March 4, 1999, at 9:00 a,m. Datc: Deccmbcr 9, 1998 {~ z Michacl L. Bangs Custody Conciliator LAURI A. BECKER Plaintif f vs. TN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 98 .34 9 9 DAVID J, BECKER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE BILL OF PARTICULARS the above referenced action, the Defendant, David J, Becker, In compliance with the Rule entered by the Prothonotary in submits the following Bill of Particulars: 1. There were problems in our marriage almost since the time we were married, however, since 1995, our marital problems have escalated. In 1995, my wife had an unplanned pregnancy and didn't want the baby, I was fine with the pregnancy and would have been happy to have another child. There were major problems with the pregnancy and it had to be terminated, as the baby had no heartbeat. My wife turned the situation around and blamed the baby's death on me, it and that is why it died. This was when my wife started claiming that I never wanted the baby and that the baby knew calling me "baby killer". She constantly calls me this name, both in front of our children and other individuals. 2. After the above-referenced occurrence in 1995, my wife and I just could not be together any more. My wife would not let me near her and did not even want to sleep in the same bedroom as me. My wife did not want me in our bedroom or in our bed, She would tell me to stay at work until she and the children had gone to bed and when I did come home I was MEYERS, DESFOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P,O, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236,9428 . FAX (717) 236,2817 ':!,;.'::,~,":'~,-,., : to sleep on the couch, 3. My wife frequently flew into uncontrollable rages and would get angry and yell at me for no apparent reason: a. Nothing I ever did was ever good enough for her. She demeaned everything I did and told me I couldn't do anything right, including everything from running my business to painting a room. b. When my wife did fly into an uncontrollable rage, she would curse and swear at me using the foulest of language, She didn't care where we were when she verbally abused me. She would call me names and use vulgar language in front of the children as well as family members, employees, and friends. c. My wife would scream and curse into my voice pager, knowing that others could hear her. 4. The longer we were married, the more my wife came to dislike anything involved with our marriage. We picked our house out together before we purchased it, however, after we were living there for a number of years, she decided that she didn't like the house and that it was my fault. Our home is an exposed ranch house which has two bedrooms upstairs and three bedrooms and two full bathrooms downstairs on the lower level, which is partially underground, After we had our second child, my wife refused to move the bedrooms to the lower level and our son slept in 2 MEYERS, DESFOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P,O, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236'9428 . FAX (717) 236.2817 ! , '..' our room, even though each of the children could have had their own bedroom if my wife would have agreed to move the bedrooms to the lower level. My wife frequently tells our son that he doesn't have his own room because of his father. 5. No matter what I did, I could never please my wife. Although I love my children very much and try to be a good father and spend time with my children, my wife would frequently tell me that I am not a good father. She would also tell the children this. My wife complained that I did not spend enough time with the children or give them enough attention despite the fact that I am self-employed and my schedule is flexible enough 30 that I can spend more time with the children than the average father can. I am self-employed with an automobile service garage and towing service, I used to drive the tow truck in the evenings, to save the business money, and my wife would complain because I wasn't at home. As a result of her complaints, I hired someone to drive in the evenings so that I could be at home with my family. Shortly after I hired someone to drive in the evenings, my wife then complained that I was home too much and that she wanted me out of the. house. 6. My wife frequently belittled me in front of my children and would try to persuade my children that I was a bad father. If I bought something, my wife would say to our children, 3 MEYERS, DESFOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P,O, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236'9428 . FAX (717) 236,2817 , ~ > lA' ,I " ~' . I .~~} II i Ii L ~\ 1)' Ib:. tf I . , I "look at what dad spent Y-OUI: money on now." She also told th8 ('h ildren t:lwt they didn't have a father and that just the three of them were a family, 7. While my wife would complain that [ wasn't a part of the family, she would do nothil\(j to ilfwifJt 1118 in my efforts to do things as a family, T wouLd bog her to wait until I got home to have dinner, fJO thilt T wOlild hilVI~ dinner with she and the children, She refuned to make dinner for me and refused to wait when I wanl:ed to have dinner as a family; I would return home and flhe would have already fAd the children and there would be no dinner for me. My wife woul complain if I missed the ch.l.ldren's school functions, however, if I was able to attend, then she would tell me that I wasn't a man and that she should be the one to attend. 8. My wife frequently demeaned and belittled me and spoke rudely to me, calling me vulgar names in front of friends, my employees and my children. 9. It got to the point where my wi Ee so blamed me for everything negative which occurred, that one time when we were going into the Farm Show building, and I was nowhere close to her, she [ell on the ice in the parking lot and sh blamed me for her fall. 10. During our marriage, [ wafJ employed full-time and my wife did not work a[t:ol: t:Iw birth o[ our first child in 1989, 4 MI;YEI1S, DESFOR & SALTZGIVER 41011011111 SECOND sml;u . PO, [lOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 ('117)230,9,120 . fAX (717) 236'2617 She had seen it previously and had liked it, so I bought it to surprise her. She got angry with me for buying it because she thought she should have a brand new automobile, 17. My wire would do anything to avoid having sex with me or to keep me out of our bed. In early 1992, she started working out and running and would go to bed sweaty and smelly,so I would stay away from her. 18. If I was called out to work in the middle of the night, she would lay toys, etc. in my path back to bed so I would fall over them, which I did many times. 19. My Wife created a lot of strife and ill will between herself and my family, She hated my family and called them names, She would refuse to permit our children to visit my family hOlidays, My Wife would take the children to her parents home for holidays, and I would have to go with them or go to my family's home alone. In Christmas of 1997, my wife refused to permit the children to go to my parent's home and the children picked their gifts up from my parent's over a week after Christmas, 20. Our sexual relationship was basically non-existent wife refused to have sex with me on most occasions until she throughout our entire marriage. Since the early 1990's, my decided that she wanted to have a baby. We virtually did 7 MEYERS. DES FOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. p,o, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236,9428 . FAX (717) 236.2817 call my wife and the children at hom6, and my wife took the phone of[ the hook so tha t I couldn't call them, On the day that I was discharged from the hospital, my wife called me to see when I would be released and told me that I was not there anymore and she would not take care of me or the dogs moving back into the house because she didn't want me living when I returned. My wife also told my mother that since I had cancer now, that I was my mother's problem and that she (my wife) was washing her hands of me. Upon my release from the hospital I needed care because, due to the bursting of my appendix and the infection that was in my chest cavity as a result, they could not stitch my chest shut and I had to clean and repack lived with my parents. When I could cook for myself and my chest wound twice a day. During this period of time, I pack the wound on my own, I then returned to the marital she would not taken care of me. residence. Before I returned, my wife did advise me that From this point on, my wi.fe frequently called me these things to me even in front of our children. "cancer boy" and told me I was going to die, My wife said During this period of time my wife hurt my business because she told my employees that I would be unable to work, or return to work, and that I was going to die. Also, 9 MEYERS, DESFOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P,O, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (7171236,9428 . FAX (717) 236,2617 while I was in the hospital in January of 1998, my Wife went to my business and recruited one of my employees to help her use a crow bar to pry my desk open. She pried open every one of my desk drawers, in front of my employees, and searched my desk. She took money from the desk and left confidential information out for public view which was not appropriate for my employees to see. It was humiliating to me to have her take such action in front of my employees, After my release from the hospital, I did research on my health options because the doctors were concerned that the cancer may have spread throughout my body. My wife refused to support me in my research and refused to go along or to participate when I sought second opinions from doctors. My wife would even print out negative articles about my condition from the internet and leave these articles by my keys and wallet, During this period of time, my wife also engaged in discussions with me in which she would tell me about other people who had my same disease and all of them had died from the same condition that I had. 22. While I was in the hospital in January of 1998, on one of the rare occasions that my wife did visit me with the children, I requested that she bring the children in to see me more often. Upon hearing this request from me, my wife became belligerent and we started arguing. We were arguing right in front of the children at the time. During this 10 MEYERS, DES FOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P,O, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 ('/17) 236,9428 . FAX (7171236,2617 argument, and despite the open wound in my chest, my wife threatened to punch me in the stomach. 23. I went into the hospital on April 1, 1998 for surgery to remove a part of my colon. I was in the hospital for 12 or 13 days and my wife only came in to visit me two times with our children. When I tried to call the children at home, she would take the phone off the hook, or if he did get through to the house, she would hang up on me and wouldn't let me speak to my children, Again my wife advised me that I would not be coming home and that she was refusing to take care of me. Upon my release from the hospital, I again went to my parent's home to recuperate. I spent a few weeks at my parents home and then I returned to the marital residence. Upon my return, my wife expressed her displeasure in having me home and there was lots of i , " :1.. ,Ii , -',: ; >'.> ,: .::, , ;j.'! fighting, screaming, yelling, carrying on, and her calling. me vulgar names, et cetera. 24. My wife went on vacation with the children and when she returned to the marital residence, sometime in August of 1998, she was a raving lunatic. She hit me and scratched me and threw things at me and was screaming and yelling and carrying on. She wanted me to w.ove out of the marital home and was very insistent and physically attacked me in front of the children, She also threatened to destroy my clothes and personal items if I did not move out of the marital 11 MEYERS, DES FOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P,O, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236,9428 . FAX (717) 236,2817 , residence, The situation was so bad, with the children there, that I moved out of the residence. 25. My wife h~s hurt me emotionally by the way she has treated our children, One of our dogs was sick and had to be put to sleep, when we took the dog to the vet and said our goodbyes, I wanted the children to return to our automobile, however, my wife refused to permit the children to return to the automobile and made them stay and watch the veterinarian put the dog to sleep. The children were visibly upset by this, and seeing their reaction to this tragic scene upset me as well. 26. There have been several instances when my wife flew into an uncontrollable rage and would accuse me of having affairs with other women. She had no basis for these allegations and would call me names and claim I had affairs in front of the children, She would tell the children that daddy had girlfriends and did not love them. 27. Wife created a lot of strife and ill will between herself and my family. 28. I feel I did my best to make the marriage work, yet all my wife seemed to do was verbally and physically abuse me. She publicly humiliated me and damaged my self-esteem in the process. I had to be the bread winner as well as the homemaker as my wife was unemployed and did little to make our house a home. 12 MEYERS. DES FOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . p,o, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236,9428 . FAX (717) 236'2817 .~:T::RtPICNrIOH I, ~ I ; " l J ' I" l .'.... , ',~ f " ,I II " tiTJ, !i ~ I ~ 4 : \' I:: t , I " 1.1 I~':'; i. ,~' ;) ..1'1'..').., , I : ,I' ~ l i , J' 1 I 1 .~ t , ~ :':( ~{ .F fl.... 'I".'.' I..;' ie;',! Ii, , ' , (i'. .. I ! i,i, I 'J,"" '\ I; . ..I.'.~ 1'1";' : 11,~ ':, " k<~ :t.;, !;::~,~1 David J. Becker , verify that the statements made in this Bill of Particulars are true and correct to the best of my l<nOl,lledge, information and belief, I understand that false stacements herein are made subject to the penalties of 16 Pa. c.S, Section 4904, relating to unsworn I I I I , I II :alsification ~o authorities. Dated: 11/4/98 /-LlI~ , I II () Plai.ntiff (x) Defendant MEYERS & DESFOR 410 NORTH SECOND S7REET . PO 80\ 1062 . M.1RRISBURG p~ lil()tl 1717123&90:28 . F,.\X 1717J 23&2617 15: ltl E <? c:: ....-. ,-- ':)..!: w~? C"': ( .1 l~.. (.)....- :r.: ():? c:L'l ~5c.: u,. Cl,::j 2;'", r,'" :!~;~ I:.. t.L.JC.. N _JL,. I- ," ,,' LC " t:'uJ F!-' (,J ':-:.ILL C ...;,,; I.t. C~ :) 0 0", 0 ::>-.~ ..: ..t::,.J ;:: ~~ .::!O\ ...... Ill':; 0 ;:::::S " en r:: 0 ~ 0 .~ 0 ..I _. _ "' ~ '" ~ g ~ 0 Q(3 '" U ..,. 8 Ill, f!llrl ~::l- .:.:l E.c l' ..c::: - Vl ,g .~ r::: 0l)~E-~- ;::j z .J:: :r: 0"'" 0", -.1-.,. U!<'" .:. :.' . ,j LAURI A. BECKER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO. 98-3499 DAVID J. BECKER, Defendant IN DIVORCE PLAINTIFF LAURI A. BECKER'S ~L OF PARTICULARS FOR A FAULT DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 33011al 1610F THE DIVORCE CODE AND NOW, this ~day of October, 1998, comes the above Plaintiff, Lauri A. Becker by her attorney, Joanne H. Clough, Esquire, and respectfully files this Bill of Particulars and avers as follows: 1. During the course of the parties marriage, Defendant David J. Becker, has offered such indignities to the Plaintiff Lauri A. Becker, who is the innocent and injured spouse as to render Plaintiff's condition intolerable and life burdensome as follows: A. On or about the calendar year of 1994, Defendant Husband commenced a romantic and sexual relationship with another woman during Plaintiff's pregnancy with the parties son; B. Through the calendar year of 1995, Defendant Husband continued the sexual and romantic relationship with the other woman; C. During the year 1995, Plaintiff wife became pregnant with the parties third child, and Defendant Husband ridiculed and belittled her about becoming pregnant, was nasty and hostile regarding her pregnancy, "blamed her for the pregnancy" and repeatedly spoke to her in a disparaging and derogatory manor, calling her names, telling her she was fat, and telling her he refused to appear in public with her due to her condition, all of which caused her extreme emotional pain, stress and embarrassment; D. In the year 1995, when plaintiff learned that her in utero baby had died, Defendant Husband was completely non- supportive and verbally abusive to her and blamed her for the death of their unborn child; E. During recent years of the parties marriage, Defendant would repeatedly take action against Plain'tiff in an attempt to control and limit her behavior by, on numerous occasions: 1. Disconnecting wires to her automobile so that she could not leave the home or drive the car; 2. Disconnect the telephone lines so that she could not use the telephone for incoming or outgoing calls; 3. Take all of the parties joint credit cards from her purse to prevent her from purchasing any items for their children, herself or the household. F. During the years of 1994 and 1995, Defendant Husband totally ignored the parties son and refused to assist in cooperating in any manor with parenting their child during his infancy; G. After the parties lost their child in utero in 1995, Defendant Husband refused to go through the labor process with 2 .' Plaintiff Wife and then belittled her for having a D&E. On the date of plaintiff Wife's discharge from the hospital, Defendant Husband left her home alone with two small children and did not return to the residence until after 3:00 a.m. H. commencing in 1995 after the parties child died in utero, Defendant Husband would leave the residence at approximately 11:00 a.m. and return in the evening for an hour or two, leave again at 11:00 p.m. and not return until 6:00 a.m. the next morning. I. Since 1995, Defendant Husband repeatedly ignored Plaintiff Wife and the children and refused to go to most family activities. J. In the summer of 1997, when Plaintiff Wife and the children were on vacation with her family, Defendant Husband had another woman over to the marital residence for a romantic and/or sexual encounter. K. During the past few years of the parties marriage, Defendant Husband has repeatedly called Plaintiff Wife a "pig", "asshole", "trailer trash", "stupid", and other humiliating and nasty names and on many occasions has called her said names in the presence of the parties minor children. L. In 1994, and thereafter, Defendant Husband repeatedly belittled Plaintiff Wife for breast-feeding the parties children and for being a breast-feeding counselor for other new mothers. 3 M. From 1995 to the present, Defendant Husband has repeatedly belittled Plaintiff Wife's involvement with school activities and belittled her participation as a room parent, a team mom, and her vice president position with the parenti teacher organization. N. During the past two years, Defendant Husband has repeatedly been absent from the marital residence without any explanation and has failed to answer his telephone or pager numbers when Plaintiff Wife has repeatedly tried to contact him. o. During the past two years, Defendant Husband has repeatedly told Plaintiff Wife that if she left him or filed for a divorce, "someone is going to die". said comments caused Plaintiff Wife terrible fear for her safety and welfare of her children. P. During the past several years, Defendant Husband has repeatedly advised Plaintiff Wife that if she separated from him he would take their son Jordan "and she would never see him again". Q. During the past several years of the parties marriage, Defendant Husband has repeatedly shaken his fists in Plaintiff Wife's face and repeatedly threw mock punches at her face, all of which behavior terrorized and humiliated Plaintiff Wife. R. During the past several years, Defendant Husband repeatedly physical cornered Plaintiff Wife and would push and shove her around the house. 4 S. During the past several years, Defendant Husband has repeatedly taken Plaintiff Wife's purse and searched it, hidden it or removed her money and other items from her purse, all in an attempt to control her, humiliate and embarrass her. T. In May of 1998, Defendant Husband told Plaintiff Wife that she "better not go to sleep that night or he would kill her". u. During the past several years, Defendant Husband has repeatedly promised Plaintiff Wife he would terminate his extra marital relationship with the other woman, would be home more often, and would act better as a husband and father, but has repeatedly failed to take any corrective measures regarding his indignant behavior. V. In May of 1998, Plaintiff Wife woke up to find Defendant Husband standing over her staring at her, at which time Defendant Husband told her, "do not go back to sleep, or you won't wake lJp", and that if she went to sleep, "someone is going to die tonight". W. In the past year, Defendant Husband has monitored Plaintiff Wife I s telephone calls at the marital residence through some electronic means without Plaintiff Wife's knowledge or permission. x. During the past two years, Defendant Husband installed video equipment secretly in the house to record Plaintiff Wife's movements and behavior. 5 Y. During the past several years on numerous occasions, Defendant Husband has taken Plaintiff Wife's incoming and outgoing mail without her knowledge or permission. Z. During the past several years on numerous occasions, Defendant Husband has run up debt on Plaintiff Wife's credit card account so she could not use that account for other purposes. AA. During the last several years during the parties marriage, Defendant Husband repeatedly interrupted Plaintiff Wife when she was on the telephone with her friends or family and would belittle her and call her names all of which insults could be overheard by Plaintiff Wife's friends and relatives. BB. In early 1998, when Defendant Husband had surgery, his girlfriend/paramour would repeatedly call the hospital when Plaintiff Wife was visiting and Defendant Husband listed himself as separated on all of his hospital information records, when the parties were not separated. CC. During the parties marriage, Defendant Husband repeatedly belittled Plaintiff Wife and told her she was a bad mother, and would criticize her approach to medicine and health care. DD. During the parties marriage, Defendant Husband was physically abusive to wife as follows: 1. He would push her, on one occasion, he threw her in the bathtub and in the process ripped the shower curtain down; 6 2. On numerous occasions he grabbed and shook Plaintiff Wife. EE. During the past two years, on one occasion, Defendant Husband took Plaintiff Wife and the children's passes to Hershey Park so that she could not take the children to Hershey Park for summer activities. FF. During the parties marriage, Defendant Husband repeatedly refused to permit Plaintiff Wife to participate in outside activities and he refused to participate in any social life with Plaintiff Wife's friends and very little social life with her family. GG. During the parties marriage, Defendant Husband repeatedly spent large sums of money of boats, cars, jet skies and other substantial purchases without every discussing these purchases with Plaintiff Wife prior to making them. HH. During the parties marriage, Defendant Husband admitted he had an affair with another woman and claimed he had the affair because Plaintiff Wife "paid too much attention to their children". II. After the birth of each of the parties children, Defendant Husband repeatedly refused to be seen in pUblic with Plaintiff Wife telling her that she was fat and wore baggy clothes and was not attractive. 7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorabl'e Court to dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim for a divorce pursuant to Section 3301(a) (6) of the Divorce Code. . II. COUNSEL FEES. COSTS AND EXPENSES 29. Paragraphs one through twenty-eight of Plaintiff's Answer are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 30. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted the Defendant Husband may incur considerable expense in the preparation of this case, employment of counsel and the payment of costs. It is specifically denied that the Defendant is not able to pay said expenses incurred for his representation in this case. 31. Denied. It is specifically denied Defendant is without sufficient funds to support himself and/or to meet the cost and expenses of this litigation or is unable to appropriately maintain himself during the pendency of this action. To the contrary, Defendant's gross is in excess of $5,000.00 a month in income and has substantial assets at his sole disposal and is able to support himself . 32. Denied. It is specifically denied Defendant is without sufficient funds to SUpport himself and/or to meet the cost and expenses of this litigation or is unable to appropriately maintain himself during the pendency of this action. To the contrary, Defendant's gross is in excess of $5,000.00 a month in income and has substantial assets at his sole disposal and is able to support himself. 2 .. 33. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff has adequate earnings to provide support and Alimony Pendente Lite for the Defendant or to pay his counsel fees, costs and expenses. To the contrary, throughout the parties marriage Plaintiff Wife was a stay at home mother and has a gross monthly earnings of $125.00 per month. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny Defendant Husband's request for an award of counsel fees, costs and expenses incurred in this action. III. CUSTODY 34. Paragraphs one through thirty-three of this Complaint and Answer are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full here below. 35. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted the parties have two parties of this marriage, namely Kaitlin Ann Becker and Jordan Becker. It is specifically denied that Kaitlin Ann Becker was born on November 16, 1990. To the contrary, she was born on November 16, 1989. It is further averred that the child Jordan's legal name is Jordan David Becker and that he was born on March 25, 1994. 36. Admitted. 3 " 37. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted the Defendant has requested shared legal and physical custody of the minor children. It is specifically denied he is capable of giving them the necessary parental care and proper and healthful environment as a shared physical custodial parent. To the contrary, Plaintiff is and has always been the primary physical care taker of these children and it is in their best interest and permanent welfare that she continue to have primary physical custody of the children. 38. Admitted. During said entire time Plaintiff was the primary care taker of said children. 39. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Wife respectfully requests this Honorable Court to deny Defendant's request for shared physical custody of the children and to confirm physical custody of the children to the Plaintiff Wife. Plaintiff Wife further requests the Court grant shared legal custody of the parties children. Respectfully Submitted, By: Dated: \ C) -'1-\c -'\CA 4 " LAURI A. BECKER Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO, 98-3499 DAVID J, BECKER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ORDER OF' COURT AND NOW, ...Ja.1~:+\-::(b ,upon consideration of the attached complaint, it is hereby directed that the parties and respective counsel appear before . ~ , the conciliator, at _.:', ,,,\,....G:m.~\ I \J/~ on the day of \,E-\rl\\\'-N>(= , 19:t.'6.., at \ \', 00 a.m" for a Pre- Hearing Custody Conference. At such conference, an effort will be made to resolve the issues in dispute; or if this cannot be accomplished, to define and narrow the issues to be heard by the court, and to enter into a temporary order, All children age five or older may also be present at the conference. Failure to appear at the conference may provide grounds for entry of a temporary or permanent order. F'OR THE COURT, BY:~oQ~'m~J _ Custody Conciliato I~~) The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by la to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE, IF YOU DO NO HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AF'FORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFIC SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE 1 COURTHOUSE SQUARE, 4TH FLOOR CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 MEYERS, DES FOR & SALTZGIVEA 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . p,o, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG. PA 17108 (717) 236,9428 . FAX (717) 236,2817 : ; ti il )j :1 i~ 1\ i \1. H- . (;'i . ~. "I I,'; . ; . /i';;JJ . 9~ {~c1 {~/J1/Z~ & "Z:Z{ c::r:~~ /&';;JJ. Yy i]/}AJ, _ d , ,z, a~ C&r~ (l/Zcco_ /I/!~L~ 0.'7 7/1 /0 c.,.JJ '7Y 6,/7 ~ce.,-/ _/.~ /7/, &l)b y...A . .' .' LAURI A, BECKER Plaintif E IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs, NO. 98-3499 DAVID J, BECKER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Laurie A. Becker c/o: Joanne Clough, Esquire 845 Sir Thomas Court Harrisburg, PA 17109 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Date: CJ ~. ~ Laurie Sartzg'ver, LD.#61382 MEYERS, DESFOR & SALTZGIVE 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 Attorney for the Defendant , 1998 MEYERS, DESFOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . p,o, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717}236'9426 . FAX (717) 236,2817 ,.....~,....~.... ....--'".-.,....__._._..,~ ., COUNT I 11, No answer required. 12. Denied. It is absolutely denied that the Defendant has offered any indignities whatsoever to the Plaintiff, The Defendant however, believes that the Plaintiff has offered such indignities to the Defendant, who is the innocent and injured spouse, so as to render his condition intolerable and life burdensome. 13. No answer required. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully request this court deny Plaintiff's request for Divorce pursuant to 3301(a) (6) of the divorce code. COUNT I I 14, No answer required. 15. Admitted. 16, Admitted. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests this Honorable Court to enter an order devising the equitable distribution of all marital property, COUNT I II 17. No answer required. 18. Denied. Plaintiff is in good health and fully capable of obtaining and maintaining full-time employment sufficient t support herself during the pendency of this litigation. 19, Denied, Plaintiff is in good health and fully capable of 4 MEYERS, DES FOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET' P,O, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236.9428 . FAX (717) 236.2817 obtaining and maintaining full-time employment sufficient t support herself during the pendency of this litigation. 20, Denied. Plaintiff is fully capable of obtaining and maintaining full-time employment sufficient to support herself and has no need for alimony pendente lite, nor alimony from the Defendant. 21. Denied. Plaintiff is in good health and fully capable of obtaining and maintaining full-time employment sufficient t support herself during the pendency of this litigation. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this court to deny Plaintiff's request for alimony pendente lite and alimony. COUNT IV 22. No answer required. 23. No answer required, 24. Denied. Plaintiff is in good health and fully capable of obtaining and maintaining full-time employment sufficient t support herself during the pendency of this litigation. 25. Denied. Plaintiff is in good health and fully capable of obtaining and maintaining full-time employment sufficient t support herself during the pendency of this litigation. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Plaintiff's request for counsel fees, costs and expenses from the Defendant, COUNTERCLAIM 1. INDIGNITIES 5 MEYERS, DESFDR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.O, BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236,9428 . FAX (717) 236,2817 reasonable needs and pay his attorneys' fees and the costs of this litigation. 33. Plaintiff has adequate earnings to provide support and alimony pendente lite for the Defendant and to pay his counsel fees, costs and expenses. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court compel the Plaintiff to pay Defendant counsel fees, costs and expenses incurred in this action. III CUSTODY 34. Paragraphs one through thirty-three of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 35. There are (2) children born of this marriage, namely Kaitli Ann Becker, born on November 16, 1990 and Jordan Becker, born on March 25, 1994. 36. The parties' minor children are currently residing with the plaintiff at 1453 Hillcrest Court, Apartment 410, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. 37. Defendant desires shared legal and physical custody of the minor children and is capable of giving them the necessary parental care and a proper and healthful environment, 38. The parties' minor children lived with both parents in the marital residence at 3500 Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 throughout most of their lives. Since 7 MEYERS, DESFOR & SALTZGIVER 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P,O, BOX 1062 . HARR'SBURG, PA 17108 (717)236'9426 . FAX (717) 236'2817 " '0 , ~~ Yr .,- \11 (:: l~ U~ " '- :-)..~ ",. .. ,(; - ( :1'" U 'j<~ <".I" ..,., i',:'C.: u.. ~ir": ?,\~i 2:, .:', ...' .. II: l.1Ju. 'e ;< _..1'11 1-- 'lllU O::L: L' .:~10_ I'" C: ..~'.; u_ c.~ ':':-1 0 C' U ...~ :.. ., >.~ <C ...c:: :s::: ~!< ~O'I - CIl '50 ~::3 ~ cnt::o ...J ..1".... C OJ ~ ~ Vl ~.... II") z 0 ~ ' _0.,) '" U 0 \o"Q 8 ~ ~;?; 1""'1 '":i E.E r::-- ~ 0 l,/l- "''' "'..= ,. .... \,J.I.,J>- ~ t:-- = ~ 1.0 C':l o 0:c:;;:I: .....1"", U ~;:1; . " -/ , , LAURI A. BECKER, Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW DAVID J. BECKER, Defendant NO. 98-3499 IN DIVORCE CIVIL PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon Defendant to file a Bill of Particulars as to the count for divorce under Section 3301(a) (6) of the Divorce Code. Proposed Rule is attached hereto. Submitted, Joanne Harrison Clou , Esquire 845 Sir Thomas Court uite llA Harrisburg, PA 1710 (717) 540-5100 Id. No. 36461 Dated: \ " _ \'-, _f.'\,~ '~' -g 1 "- '- ]. Cr; -" !'-' d ...:.:.. ,-- .. ", 8 IJ.I~: llJ , 10 , ,. , (1J ~~() ~. f .. .' r6 fg , .1- .1 ::r, ','"):,:.i \.() ();) .ob-r (. )j-::; ,>~ -.:t .8 ~ r- 6(;. (f) , U/'_ I J...:'. .~ j I- !.L ~'.~ tt ff::"; i:-ltlJ 11- J......r. LJ ttlfL 1=,: C> " oj c:L '-l.. 0.:: ::j 0 CT\ () "'2 u rf) ::>-." ~ ..t:: :s::: ~t;: .~g 5--l Vl ::s...... 0 =' ~V:~~ ~..Jt: '" w = , VI 0 ~ 0 z: u' o:t Q(j. 8 ~E ~~ ," .0 ~ ,.... ..... O.':!a t-- -"'''=t:~ on,. ..... ~ :::s ~ .:: ::c OD:~ _I".,. U ~'" " I' " 6. The Plaintiff and Defendant are both citizens of the United states of America. 7. There have been no prior actions in divorce between the parties with the exception of the Divorce Complaint filed on June 23, 1998. 8. The Plaintiff and Defendant are not members of the Armed Services of the United States or any of its allies. 9. Plaintiff has been advised of the availability of counseling and that she may have the right to request that the Court require the parties to participate in counseling. Plaintiff does not desire marriage counseling. 10. The causes of action and sections of Divorce Code under which Plaintiff is proceeding are: A. section 3301(d). The marriage of the parties is irretrievably broken. COUNT I REOUEST FOR A FAULT DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 3301lal161 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 11. Paragraphs one through ten of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 12. Defendant has offered such indignities to the Plaintiff, who is the innocent and injured spouse, as to render Plaintiff's condition intolerable and life burdensome. 13. This action is not collusive, as defined by section 3309 of the Divorce Code. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter a Decree of Divorce, pursuant to section 3301(a) (6) of the Divorce Code. COUNT II SEOUEST FOR EOUITABLE DISTRIBUTION UNDER SECTION 3502 OF THE DIVORCE CQUE 14. Paragraphs one through thirteen of this Complaint are incorporated by reference thereto. 15. Plaintiff and Defendant have acquired property, both real and personal, during their marriage. 16. Plaintiff and Defendant have been unable to agree as to an equitable distribution of said property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order distributing all of the aforementioned property, real and personal, as the Court may deem equitable and just, plus costs. COUNT III REQUEST FOR ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE 7~D ~LIT~ONY UNDER SECTION 3701 AND SECTION 3 2 0 E DIVORCE CODE 17. The prior paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 18. Plaintiff is unable to sustain herself during the course of litigation. 19. Plaintiff lacks sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs and is unable to sustain herself through appropriate employment. 20. Plaintiff requests the Court to enter an aware of alimony i~ ) ; ~ . ~J , I, '11 ,I', :11 ,11<:;' ': ~",' \ !;,-: ii.':' 'i' II' 1\ I J, j' , ':'t ('/:1. I, . I' ,If!'~'~ pendente lite until final hearing and thereupon to enter an Order of alimony in her favor, pursuant to Section 3701 and 3702 of the Divorce Code. 21. Plaintiff requires reasonable support to adequately maintain herself in accordance with the standards of living established during the marriage. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to enter an award of alimony pendente lite until final hearing and thereupon to enter an Order of alimony in her favor, pursuant to Section 3701 and Section 3702 of the Divorce Code. COUNT IV REOUEST FOR COUNSEL FEES. COSTS AND EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 3104. SECTION 3323 AND SECTION 3702 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 22. Paragraphs one through twenty-one of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 23. Plaintiff has employed Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire to represent her in this matrimonial cause. 24. Plaintiff is unable to pay the necessary counsel fees, costs and expenses and Defendant is more than able to pay them. 25. Reserving the right to apply to the Court for temporary counsel fees, costs and expenses, prior to the final hearing, Plaintiff requests that, after final hearing, the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiff's reasonable counsel fees, costs and expenses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that, pursuant to Section 3104, Section 3323 and Section 3702 of the Divorce Code, the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to pay Plaintiff's reasonable counsel fees, costs and expenses. " VERIF'ICATION I, Lauri A. Becker, verify that the statements made in this Amended Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S,A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn ~alsification to authorities. c4~LvLc> jL ~~~ Lauri A, Becker Date: t\ / 't" '\\.J) >- c> '>- I,.. rr; lr: , .;'\,. ~-~ .< ..... C~ LJJ~:! 0,.., ~.., ..., : 8'" 1_::; u.. I J ~;:! c.i':" r-., ,'? .';1) 6(;,; " L:.Jtl.. N , ,,- ~::~.: ~ll.J ."~ , 'jlO '-f- ~~.i ~) ~ :.1- I ::5 u... 0..'1 0 CI' U rJ f> N> ~ld f' ............ ~ d t - ri N) l'() ~ ~ \"- ~ ^\l' f:'.. ~ ~~ ::>-." <: ..t:: :s::: o...l::~O'I ....., .... .- 0 =:s lQ ~r: 8 ~ 9 ..J'....._ Ul ,; ~ '1 VI 0 Q.; 0 Cd ~u...,. 8 . "'''' ~ ... ;...... E " .... " "'~ ..t:: '" !:':O ,~ .... '"''',. t:~ ~t.:.l t'\l ::s Z .!:::r:: 00:", ....... "on U ~01i ., NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. 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 a lasdemandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medi.das y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion do demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importanates para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 " , ')1 LAURI A. BECKER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 9 J'. 3 II ? '1 (!~:r:.J. J..l.."",- v. DAVID J. BECKER, Defendant IN DIVORCE COMPLAINT IN DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 3301(0) OR SECTION 3301(d) OF THE DIVORCE CODE AND NOW comes the above Plaintiff, Lauri A. Becker by her attorney, Joanne H. Clough, Esquire, and seeks to obtain a decree in divorce from the above-named Defendant, upon the grounds hereinafter set forth: 1. The Plaintiff, Lauri A. Becker, is an adult individual who resides at 3500 Lisburn Road, Mechanicsburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17055. 2. The Defendant, David J. Becker, is an adult individual who resides at 329 Somerset Drive, Shiremanstown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17011. 3. The Plaintiff has been a bona fide resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for at least six (6) munths immediately prior to the filing of this Complaint. 4. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on March 28, 1989, in Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Plaintiff avers that there are two children to the parties under the age of 18, Kaitlin Becker, DOB November 16, 1989