Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-0828 SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATI'ORNEI~*AT*IAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA DOUGLAS G. AND ROSEMARY M. MEALS, Plaintiffs Mo MICHAEL REIGLE and MELODIE REIGLE, Defendants · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · Civil Action - Law Jury Trial Demanded NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court· If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or 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 Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Dated: Ja{1j~n M. ~s~ith, Esquire Su~eme Court I.D. # 90166 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Plaintiffs SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A'I~ORNEYS,AT~,LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA DOUGLAS G. AND ROSEMARY M. MEALS, Plaintiffs MICHAEL REIGLE and MELODIE REIGLE, Defendants · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : .No. .. · Civil Act/on - Law . · Jury Trial Demanded COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Douglas G. and Rosemary M. Meals, as husband and wife, by and through their undersigned attorneys, Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay, and avers in support of their Complaint against Defendants as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Douglas G. and Rosemary M. Meals are adult individuals, who reside at 71 East Yellow Breeches Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. Defendant, Melodie Reigle, is an adult individual, who resides at 219 Central Avenue, Metuchen, New Jersey 08840. 3. Defendant, Michael Reigle, is an adult individual, who resides at R.D.2, Box 167, Landisburg, Pennsylvania 17040. 4. On or about December 1, 1998, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into an oral agreement in which Plaintiffs agreed to loan money to Defendants for the purpose of taking care of Defendants' past due bills and bad checks. 5. At all relevant times hereto, the majority of the transactions occurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORNEYS*AT*LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA 6. As part of the agreement, Plaintiffs advanced funds from their MBNA Credit Card Account, as evidenced by two checks written on December 7, 1998 and December 9, 1998 in the amounts of $1,050.00 and $1,100.00, respectively. Copies of the two checks are attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, and marked as Exhibit "A." 7. In return for the loan of money, Defendants paid approximately $30.00 to $75.00 per month to Plaintiffs to be applied to the balance on Plaintiffs' MBNA Credit Card Account each month. 8. Said payments began in January of 1999, and were to continue until the loan was paid-in-full. 9. On or about April 15, 1999, Defendants asked Plaintiffs to loan them money for the purchase of lawn mower, as Defendants were unable to secure credit to do so. 10. On or about April 15, 1999, Plaintiff Douglas G. Meals went to Sears in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, and purchased a lawn mower using his credit to do so. A true and correct copy of the sales receipt and maintenance agreement is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, and marked as Exhibit "B." 11. On or about April 20, 1999, the lawn mower was shipped to Defendants, who accepted delivery of the lawn mower. 12. At the specific request of Defendants as a loan, Plaintiffs advanced funds in the amount of $675.00 from their personal checking account to pay for an attorney SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATrORNEVS.AT*LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA required by Defendants. A copy of check #1344 is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, and marked as Exhibit "C.' 13. On or around January of 2000, Defendants made a payment to Plaintiffs in the amount of $120.00. 14. On or around February of 2000, at the specific request of Defendants, Plaintiffs loaned Defendants money for the purchase of a vehicle. 15. Plaintiff Douglas Meals picked out a minivan for Defendants at Cumberland Valley Motors located in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 16. Defendants went to Cumberland Valley Motors, inspected the vehicle and approved of it, at which time, Defendants took the vehicle and Plaintiffs advanced funds from their MBNA Credit Card account in the amount of $3,500.00 on or about February 14, 2000, for the purchase of the minivan. Said money was deposited into Plaintiffs' personal checking account, and check # 1530 was given to Cumberland Valley Motors in the amount of $3,500.00. A copy of check #1530 are attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference herein, marked as Exhibit "D." 17. Plaintiffs then advanced funds from their MBNA Credit Card account in the amount of $2,655.50 to pay-off the purchase price of the minivan on or about February 22, 2000, as evidenced by check # 6012. A copy of check # 6012 is attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, marked as Exhibit "E." SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A~iTORI~YS.AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA 18. In return for loaning Defendants money for the purchase of the minivan, Defendants agreed to pay $250.00 per month to be applied to Plaintiffs' MBNA Credit Card account, as a result of the increased obligation through MBNA. 19. In November of 2001, Plaintiffs transferred their MBNA Credit Card balance to a new credit card through First USA Bank. 20. Beginning on or around April of 2001, approximately three (3) months after Defendants separated, payments to Plaintiffs for the amount of money loaned to Defendants became sporadic. 21. Defendants made two (2) payments of $250.00 in May and June of 2001, and made only one additional payment after said date on or around March 29, 2002. 22. The March 29, 2002 payment constituted the last payment received by Plaintiffs from Defendants. 23. At the specific request of Defendants as a loan, Plaintiffs also wrote out several personal checks to cover miscellaneous bad check expenses incurred by Defendants in the amount of $101.19. Copies of checks # 1250 and # 1255 are attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, marked as Exhibit "F." 24. Defendants' failure to pay on the loan as agreed constitutes a material breach of the agreement entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendants. 25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to pay pursuant to the agreement, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer serious injury, including but not limited to loss of the monies owed to them by Defendants, loss of the SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORI~YS*AT~*LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA use of said monies, lost interest on the money and other such damages as may be discovered. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Douglas G. and Rosemary M. Meals demand that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants Michael Reigle and Melodie Reigle, in the amount of $10,489.49, together with costs and interest, an amount requiring submission before a Board of Arbitrators. SAIDIS, SHUFF FLOWER & LINDSAY Ja~ly~ M. l~knith, Esquire Su~rd~me Court I.D. # 90166 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Plaintiffs Exhibit A DOUGLAS G ~ 71 EtkST YLLOW BREECHES RD C.~.LISLE~ PA 17013 941 Exhibit B SEARS MA. IN NANCE AGREEMENT t,3 ~i~ :~ pf~t occ~ 1o ~e o~s fl~l ir~.ztto~L mst ~ed ~. ~m~ic ~ll~ns. to~. [~lt. fi~e. I~. wine. lighl,ifl~ M~rs.If "~f ~ ~ sa~' is e~ae~ of ~ dam~e m or Iota oi vo~ ~o~/~s ~l~d ~ ~rp~ f~ ~ ~e), ~ Seam d~s or~d~ replacement or ~rs wH~ ca~ce~ :~s MA and m~nd t~ T~ Price· Iff II ~s. ~r~uct 9mpe~s. ~[s ~1 ~.c~ ~is MA afld ~lt~ ~ T~I P~ ~r, imum ~flm~, pay.mM off s~fl c~r~ ~ ~ ~n~[, yo~ dob: ~ r6~i,,~ ~N-X~ d~ ~1~ ~ f~ ~f [kis ~A k ~t~n ~ (~) fla~ ~ ~ dare ~a~ C~RS DR LICk. S ~ ~ mR A~ mCl~m~ OR ~se~mL lO.~lfl~, ~; and $ clail~lS oi ~Spu~s along md i'.'~, I~..S P~u. IZ,85 Siar~. FIDilrls ~llar'~e rrltglt fl~rdar .el 1164 Rex,. Exhibit C Exhibit 153o / t, l,q ? .~,,' .~ 30 ,"OOOO :350000/ Exhibit E Exhibit F SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2003-00828 P COMMON-WEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MEALS DOUGLAS G ET AL VS REIGLE MICHAEL ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: REIGLE MICHAEL but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of PERRY County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On March 6th , 2003 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from PERRY Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Perry County 28.00 .00 65.00 03/06/2003 R f Thomas Sheriff of Cumberland County SAIDIS SHUFF FLOWER LINDSAY Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ day of~ ~%0OC~ A.D. I J Prothonot~r~ / SHERIFF'S RETURN - U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL CASE NO: 2003-00828 p COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MEALS DOUGLAS G ET AL VS. REIGLE MICHAEL ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law served the within named DEFENDANT ,REIGLE MELODIE by United States Certified Mail postage prepaid, on the 28th day of February ,2003 at 0000:00 HOURS, at 219 CENTRAL AVENUE METUCHEN, NJ 08840 and attested copy of the attached COMPLAINT & NOTICE with , a true Together receipt card was signed by MELODIE REIGLE 03/04/2003 The returned on Additional Comments: Sheriff,s Costs: Docketing 6.00 Cert Mail 5.34 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 21.34 Sheriff of Cumberland County Paid by SAIDIS SHUFF FLOWER LINDSAY an Sworn ~_ subscribed to before me this ~ day of~ ~ A.D. on 03/06/2003 ODE) In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Douglas. G. Meals et al VS. Michael Rei§le et al SERVE: Michael Rei§le No. 03-82R civil NOW, February 27, 2003 , i, SHERiFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the She}iffof Perry County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and r~sk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service'. Now, March 4, ,20 03,. at 8: 56 o'clock A M. served the within Notice & Complaint upon Michael Reigle Walnut Lane ( Spring Township) LandiSburg,Pa. 17040 by handing to Michael Reigle a True & Attested Notice & copy.of~e ofi~nal Complaint and made known to Him the contents thereof. So answers, James T. Bennett Deputy Sheriff of Perry County, PA Sworn and subscribed before me this.~P/3 day of ff~,'c/~ ,20 o_.3 I (:~ NOTARIAL SEAL ..... I MARIIAN~E FLICKINGER NOTARYPIJBLIC / BLOOMFIELD BORO., P~RRY COUNTY | MYCOMMISSION EXPIRES FEB. ]6, 2004 COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT NATHAN C. WOLF, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 87380 35 EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA t 70t 3 (717) 243-6090 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT DOUGLAS G. AND ROSEMARY M. MEALS, Plaintiffs ¥s. MICHAEL REIGLE AND MELODIE REIGLE Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMM~ON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA _. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : NO. 03 - 828 CIVIL TERM _. : ANSWER AND NEW MA TTER NOW, comes the defendant, Michael J. Reigle, by his attorney, Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire, and responds to the complaint, representing as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Michael J. Reigle entered into an oral agreement with plaintiffs wherein plaintiffs were to loan defendants money and defendants were to repay plaintiffs. On the contrary, Defendant Michael J. Reigle had no knowledge of funds being loaned by plaintiffs to defendants for any purpose until April of 1999, when Defendant Michael J. Reigle learned that defendants' were in financial trouble and that it was necessary for the defendants to file for bankruptcy. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Michael J. Reigle was party to any agreement wherein plaintiffs advanced funds on his behalf. On the contrary, Defendant Michael J. Reigle had no knowledge of funds being loaned by plaintiffs to defendants for any purpose until April of 1999, when Defendant Michael J. Reigle learned that defendants' were in financial trouble and that it was necessary for the defendants to file for bankruptcy. 7. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Michael J. Reigle was party to any agreement wherein plaintiffs advanced funds on his behalf. On the contrary, Defendant Michael J. Reigle had no knowledge of funds being loaned by plaintiffs to defendants for any purpose until April of 1999, when Defendant Michael J. Reigle learned that defendants' were in financial trouble and that it was necessary for the defendants to file for bankruptcy. 8. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Michael J. Reigle was party to any agreement wherein plaintiffs advanced funds on his behalf. On the contrary, Defendant Michael J. Reigle had no knowledge of funds being loaned by plaintiffs to defendants for any purpose until April of 1999, when Defendant Michael J. Reigle leaimed that defendants' were in financial trouble and that it was necessary for the defendants to file for bankruptcy. 9. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Michael J. Reigle ever asked plaintiffs to loan defendants money for the purchase of a lawn mower. It is denied that the Defendants approached plaintiffs for the purchase of a lawn mower. On the contrary, the plaintiffs voluntarily purchased a lawn mower for the defendants' use and informed defendants that the purchase price could be repaid over time. By way of further response, it is averred that rather that discussing the matter with Defendant Michael J. Reigle before action was taken, plaintiffs took matters into their own hands and purchased the lawn mower upon plaintiffs' belief that the lawn mower was necessary. Only after such actions were taken, plaintiffs informed of the purchase and explained that defendants could repay plaintiffs over time. 10. Ad miffed. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. The allegations in this paragraph are admitted to the extent that the mower was delivered to Defendants on or about April 20, 1999. It is denied that the lawn mower was accepted in accordance with any mutual agreement of the parties. 12. Ad miffed. 13. Denied as stated. It is denied that Defendant Michael J. Reigle has any knowledge as to the defendants' finances at the time any alleged paYment was made. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Michael J. Reigle is withoUt sufficient information to admit or deny the averment contained in paragraph thirteen of plaintiffs' complaint. Strict proof of payment history will be demanded at trial if necessary. 14. Denied. It is specifically denied that defendants requested plaintiffs to loan them money for the pumhase of a vehicle. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. The averment contained in paragraph fifteen of the complaint is admitted only to the extent that Plaintiff Doug Meals picked out the minivan, and that he did so at Cumberland Valley Motors and that Cumberland Valley Motors is located in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. It is specifically denied however, that Defendant Michael J. Reigle was aware of this action Until after it had occurred and it is further denied that the defendants had requested plaintiff to act for their benefit. 16. Denied. It is specifically denied that plaintiff contacted defendants before he had advanced funds to Cumberland Valley Motors for the minivan~ Contrary to plaintiffs' averments in paragraph sixteen, Defendant Michael J. Reigle had absolutely no knowledge that plaintiffs intended to pumhase a vehicle for the defendants or that the defendants would be entering into an agreement for said purchase until the point in time when defendants were contacted by the plaintiffs and told to come to Cumberland Valley Motors to sign the paperwork for the purchase of the minivan. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Michael J. Reigle is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averment contained in paragraph seventeen of plaintiffs' complaint. Strict proof of same will be demanded at trial if necessary. 18. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that defendants agreed to pay plaintiffs $250.00 per month for the pumhase of the minivan from Cumberland Valley Motors. It is however, specifically denied, that Defendant Michael J. Reigle had any knowledge of the purchase of the minivan by plaintiffs until after the transaction had already taken place. 19. Denied. Defendant Michael J. Reigle is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of paragraph nineteen of plaintiffs' complaint. 20. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that during the period of time immediately after the defendants' separation that payments made by Defendant Michael J. Reigle were not regular in the sense that they were not made by a certain date each month, however it is specifically denied that Defendant MiChael J. Reigle failed to make monthly payments to plaintiffs, but the frequency of said payments were not rigidly maintained. By way of further response, upon information and belief, plaintiffs informed Defendant Michael J. Reigle that between defendants' separation in January 2001 and June 2001, Defendant Melodie Reigle made no payments on her own to plaintiffs, as per the agreement. 21. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Michael J. Reigle made payments to plaintiffs of $250.00 in May and June of 2001 and a payment of $250.00 in March of 2002, however it is specifically denied that Defendant Melodie Reigle was responsible for, or contributed to, these payments in any fashion. Furthermore, Defendant Michael J. Reigle specifically denies that there were no other payments made by him, individually, on the amount due to plaintiffs. Strict proof of payment history will be demanded at trial if necessary. 22. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Michael J. Reigle did not make any payments to Plaintiffs after March, 2002. However, Defendant Michael Reigle is without sufficient knowledge or information to know whether or not Defendant Melodie Reigle ever made any payments On her own to Plaintiffs, either before or after March of 2002. 23. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Michael J. Reigle requested that Plaintiff make payments on his behalf to cover bad check expenses. 24. Denied. The averment contained in this paragraph legal conclusions to which no response would be required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that a breach occurred between the parties, due in large part to the fact that a complete agreement was never made between the plaintiffs and Defendant Michael Reigle, except for the repayment for funds expended for the purchase of the minivan, but that even that agreement occurred only after the minivan had been purchased from the dealership by plaintiffs. 25. Denied. The averment contained in this paragraph legal conclusions to which no response would be required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant Michael J. Reigle is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph twenty-five. Strict proof of the allegations is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Michael J. Reigle, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss plaintiffs' complaint and enter judgment for Defendant Michael J. Reigle and against the plaintiffs. NEW MA TTER 26. Defendant incorporates herein by reference his responses to Plaintiff's complaint, paragraphs one through twenty-five above, inclusive. 27. Defendant Michael J. Reigle did accept delivery of a lawn mower, purchased by the Plaintiff from Sears. 28. Despite his acceptance of the lawn mower, Defendant did not request the plaintiff to purchase the same. 29. Plaintiffs purchase of the lawn mower was at his own initiation and Defendant Michael J. Reigle accepted it for the sake of maintaining harmony between he, his wife, and his wife's parents. 30. After approximately three (3) weeks, the defendants moved from their residence and returned the lawn mower to the plaintiff. At that point it had been used fewer than ten times. 31. Plaintiff has had exclusive control of the lawn mower since its return by Defendant Michael J. Reigle and has been in a position to sell, use or otherwise dispose of it as he saw fit. 32. Defendant Michael Reigle has, through counsel, repeatedly offered no objection to Plaintiff's suggestion that he dispose of the lawn mower. 33. Plaintiff has claimed that Defendant Michael Reigle made only sporadic payments after Plaintiffs' daughter, Defendant Melodie Reigle, separated from Defendant Michael Reigle. 34. Defendant Michael Reigle has already provided plaintiffs with proof of over $1,000.00 in payments that he made by check after Defendant Melodie Reigle had left the marital home. 35. Defendant Michael J. Reigle also believes and therefore avers that he paid Plaintiffs approximately $1,000.00 in cash payments between June 2001 and March 2002, such payments have never been acknowledged by Plaintiff. 36. Defendant Michael J. Reigle believes and therefore avers that the actions of the plaintiffs in purchasing the lawn mower constitute a contract of adhesion to which defendant is not legally bound. t 38. Defendant Michael J. Reigle's payments to plaintiffs have not been accurately stated to the Court in that the plaintiffs' prayer for relief seeks an equal ? amount of recovery from both defendants. ,, 39. Because plaintiffs have failed to accurately state the damages owed by each defendant individually, and because their failure to do so infringes on Defendant Michael J. Reigle's ability to prepare an adequate defense to the claims raised therein, the plaintiffs claim should be dismissed for a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 40. Defendant Michael J. Reigle believes and therefore avers that the instant litigation represents an attempt by plaintiff to exert pressure on Defendant Michael J. Reigle with regard to the continuing cusmcly litigation involving both Of the Defendants and their three minor children, who are in the primary physical custody of Defendant Michael J. Reigle. WHEREFORE, Defendant Michael J. Reigle, respectfully requests that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered for Defendant iMichael J. Reigle and against the plaintiffs. April 7, 2003 NA'?-H~ F, ESQUIRE Attar Defendant MiChael J. Reigle Law Office of Harold S. IrWin, III Hitner House 35 East High Street, Suites 201/202 Carlisle, PA 17013-3052 (717) 243-6090 Supreme Court ID NO. 87380 CERTIFICATE OF SERV/CE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing answer to new matter was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: JACYLN M. SMITH, ESQ SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 April 7, 2003 t MiChael J. Reigle Law Office of Harold S. IrWin, III Hitner House 35 East High Street, Suites 201/202 Carlisle, PA 17013-3052 (717) 243-6090 Supreme Court ID NO. 873~80 VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, hereby verify that I am a defendant in this action and that the facts stated in the above Answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject tO the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 2003 MICHAEL J. REIGLE SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATrORNEYSeAT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA DOUGLAS G. AND ROSEMARY M. MEALS, Plaintiffs MICHAEL REIGLE and MELODIE REIGLE, Defendants · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · No. 03-828 : · Civil Action - Law · Jury Trial Demanded REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Douglas G. and Rosemary M. Meals, as husband and wife, by and through their undersigned attorneys, Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay, and aver to the New Matter raised by Defendant Michael Reigle as follows: 26. No response necessary. 27. Admitted. 28. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Michael Reigle did not request Plaintiffs assist him with the purchase of a lawn mower. It is further averred that Defendant Michael Reigle asked Plaintiffs to assist him in the purchase of a riding lawn mower due to his poor credit and inability to purchase one on his own. 29. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs purchased the lawn mower at their own initiation, and that it was accepted by Defendant Michael Reigle in order to maintain harmony between himself, his wife, and his in-laws. It is further averred that Plaintiffs purchased the lawn mower for Defendants at their request, due to their inability to purchase one on their own, due to their poor credit rating. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants moved from their SAIDIS SI-lUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATrORNI~VS*AT*LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA residence within three (3) weeks of accepting receipt of the lawn mower, that the mower was returned to Plaintiffs, and that the mower had only been used fewer than ten (10) times. It is further averred that Plaintiff Douglas Meals stated he would store the lawn mower in his shed, since Defendants did not know what they were going to do with the mower. 31. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs have stored the lawnmower in Plaintiffs' shed for approximately the last two years at the request of Defendant Michael Reigle. However, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs have had exclusive control over the lawn mower, and have been in a position to sell, use or otherwise dispose of it as they saw fit. It is further averred that Defendants never stated that they did not want the lawn mower anymore. 32. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Michael Reigle's counsel has recently offered no objection to Plaintiffs' sale of the lawn mower so that Plaintiffs may recoup a portion of the money owed to Plaintiffs by Defendants. However, it is denied that the lack of objection has been stated repeatedly. 33. Admitted. 34. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Michael Reigle's counsel has provided proof of three (3) payments that Defendant Michael Reigle made to Plaintiffs. However, it is denied that those payments have not already been deducted from the total amount due Plaintiffs. SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A'I'rORI~Y~eAT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA 35. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Michael Reigle has made any cash payments to Plaintiffs at any time. 36. Denied. The averment contained in this paragraph constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph thirty-six. Strict proof of the allegation is demanded at trial. 37. No response necessary. Number omitted in Defendant Michael Reigle's New Matter. 38. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is specifically denied that payments made to Plaintiffs by Defendant Michael Reigle have not been specifically stated to the Court. It is admitted that Plaintiffs' prayer for relief seeks an equal amount of recovery from both Defendants, because both Defendants entered into the oral contract with Plaintiffs while Defendants were still married, and are therefore jointly and severally liable for the debt. 39. Denied. The averment contained in this paragraph constitutes a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph thirty-nine. Strict proof of the allegation is demanded at trial. SAIDIS SHIJFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATrOP. I~VS*AT*LAW 26 W. High Slreet Carlisle, PA 40. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs' claim against Defendants represents an attempt by Plaintiffs to exert pressure on Defendant Michael Reigle in any other pending litigation in which he may be presently engaged. It is further averred that said allegation contained in paragraph forty (40) is scandalous and impertinent. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Douglas G. and Rosemary M. Meals request that this Court dismiss Defendant Michael Reigle's New Matter and enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants Michael Reigle and Melodie Reigle, in the amount of $10,489.49, together with costs and interest, an amount requiring submission before a Board of Arbitrators. SAIDIS, SHUFF FLOWER & LINDSAY Date · Sr~th, Esquire Court I.D. # 90166 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Plaintiffs SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATrOP. I~YS,AT*LAW 26 W. High Slreet Carlisle, PA DOUGLAS G. AND ROSEMARY M. MEALS, Plaintiffs MICHAEL REIGLE and MELODIE REIGLE, Defendants · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · No. 03-828 : Civil Action - Law · Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this I '7 day of April, 2003, I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter, upon all parties of record outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via United States Mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire Law Office of Harold S. Irwin, III Hitner House, 35 East High Street Suites 201/202 Carlisle, PA 17013 Melodie Reigle 219 Central Avenue Metuchen, New Jersey 08840 Jacly~. Smi~h, Esquire DOUGLAS G. AND ROSEMARY M. MEALS, Plaintiffs vi. MICHAEL REIGLE and MELODIE REIGLE, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : No. 03-828 : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of/'./~x i~~. ~ 2003, in consideration of the foregoing petition, ~/t~--~' ~/~,9.~_~' dd ,Esquire, ~-~ ~/..~ e_.~..,/ ~ , Esquire, and ~~ Esquire, are appointed arbitrators in the above-captioned action as prayed for. By the Court, SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W, High Street Carlisle, PA SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA DOUGLAS G. AND ROSEMARY M. MEALS, Plaintiffs MICHAEL REIGLE and MELODIE REIGLE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 03-828 Civil Action - Law Jury Trial Demanded PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Jaclyn M. Smith, Esquire, counsel for the Plaintiffs in the above action, respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action is at issue. 2. The claim of the Plaintiffs in the action is $10,489.49. The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Any member from the law firm of Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay. WHEREFORE, this petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Date SAIDIS, SHUFF FLOWER &..LINDSAY 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Plaintiffs DOUGLAS G. AND ROSEMARY M. MEALS, Plaintiffs MICHAEL REIGLE and MELODIE REIGLE, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 03-828 : Civil Action - Law : Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 4th day of August, 2003, I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators, upon all parties of record outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via first-class United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Melodie Reigle 219 Central Avenue Metuchen, New Jersey 08840 Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire Law Office of Harold S. Irwin, III Hitner House, 35 East High Street Suites 201/202 Carlisle, PA 17013 SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA Esquire DOUGLAS G. A1 ROSEMARY M. MICHAEL REIG MELODIE REIGI rD [EALS, Plaintiffs E AND In The Court of Common Pleas of C,~herl~d County, Pennsylvania No. 828 , Civil Term 2003 CIVIL ACTION-LAW Defendants GATH We do sol~wnly st the Constitution of t? wealth and :hat we wi] We, :he undersi~ (or affirmed), make t~ (Note: If separatel) Settled at the con( ear (or affirm) that we will support, o~v and defen_d United States end,he C~onstiL-uE&on ~f/~his Co~ou discharge ~he .du='~~~~ o~ f c ~h fidelity. Dav~ B~c Chai~n  mas S. D~ / ~us~n J ~H~tman' -- d arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn e following award: damages for delay are awar4ed, they shall be stated.) lusion of Plaintiff's case in chief. Praecipe To Discontinue With P]'ejudice to be filed by counsel for Plaintiffs. applicable.) DaTe of Hearing: Date of Award: 10/2 Now, the~9~ day award was entered upon parties or =heir attor Arbitrators ' compensa: paid upon appeal: leys. Lon ~o be By: Depu:y SAIDIS S/lUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA DOUGLAS G. AND ROSEMARY M. MEALS, Plaintiffs MICHAEL ~EIGLE and MELODIE REIGLE, ~ ' Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : No. 03-828 Civil Action - Law TO THE PRt Pleas, Date: Octob PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END ITHONOTARY: mark the above-captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended. r 31,2003 Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Jacly~ I~. Smiflj, E§quire Attorhoiy I.D. No.: 90166 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Plaintiff SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High Slreet Carlisle, PA DOUGLAS G. AND ROSEMARY M. MEALS, Plaintiffs vi. MICHAEI REIGLE, On ff copy of the record via I~EIGLE and MELODIE Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA : : No. 03~828 : Civil Action - Law CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC~ 31st day of October, 2003, I hereby certify that I served a true and co 'egoing Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End, upon all parties of tiled States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Melodie Reigle 219 Central Avenue Metuchen, New Jersey 08840 Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire Law Office of Harold S. Irwin, III 64 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013