Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-1557CCM4JV~'~IM~4.TH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT Of COMMON PLEAS JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF APPEAL DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT c MON P,.,AS No. ? NOTICE OF APPEAL '~'/~-~ Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice an the date and in the case mentioned belo~ cv 0 oooo i'~ .-0~ LT 1008B. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPERSEDEA$ to the judgment for possession in this case This block will be signed ONLY when this nototian is required under Pa. R.CJ>JJ>. No If appellant was CLAIMANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001 (6) in action before District Justice, he MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy I PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, de~ach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee). PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon. (Common Pleas No Neme o~ appe~ee(s) , appdlee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of nan pros~ RULE: To ~ of , amdlee(s). (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this role upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of mailing. AOPC 312-90 COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing the notice of appeal, Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF .................. ;SS AFFIDAVIT: t hereby swear or affirm that I served [] a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No. , upon the District Justice designated therein on date of serwce ................ ~'"'i~P-~'~'~'~e~ice [] by (certified) (registered/mail sender's ( ') 'i ' ' on receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name ................................................................................................ .......... ......... BI by personal servi'~ [] by (certt ed) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. [] a~ 'i'~i{hb-r~hat I"~erved the R'~le to File a Complaint accompanying the above Notice of Appeal upon the appellee(s) to whom the Rule was addressed on ..................................................................................... [] by personal service [] by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF ',¢;~i'i a7~7¢-~}" ~ ~i~,,; - Signature of o!fic/a~, before wt~om a~f;d, av~i was m,~de '-~i~"~T .................................................................................. My commission expires on ...... COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUHB~ Mag. Dist. No.: 09 -2-01 DJ Name: Hon, ~,~,o,s: i COURTHOUSE S~U2~RE CARLISLE, PA (717) 240-6564 17013-0000 ATTOHNEYFOR PLAINTIFF : JOHN'C. PORTEI~ 61 W LOOTm~R ST CAK~ISLE, PA 17013 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: ~] Judgment was entered for: (Name) Judgment was entered against: (Name) NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT PLA,NT,FF/JUDGME ASE NAME and ADDRESS FD-HEINZMAN %CARLISLE P, ENT-A-~CK -~ 1401 TPJlqDLE KD CAP, ISLE, PA 17013 L VS. DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT ChO~ ~DRESs 42?5 ]~]OLAKD NEWVILLE, PA 17241 L Docket No.: CV-0000013-03 Date Filed: 1/15/03 in the amount of $ _ 13~1 r--~ Defendants are jointly and severally liable. Damages will be assessed on: [~ This case dismissed without prejudice. --]Amount of Judgment Subject to Attachment/Act 5 of 1996 $. on: (Date of Judgment) (Date & Time) !Amount of Judgment Judgment Costs Interest on Judgment Attorney Fees Total Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ Certified Judgment Total $ $ · 00I $ . °°I $ .00 $ .oO ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTICES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUSTICE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. ' ,~,District JUstice ' ./.? '...*'.., ..-,'. 3/7/03 Date . tl~- ::J[~dgment, I certify that this is a true proceed~'~ontaining lj!'/fa, Date f~.~..._../~/~ ~i¢~_~V~_~__..~ ~"gist'rict Justice My commission expires first Monday of January, 2006 . SEAL AOPC 315-03 3/7/03 PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing the notice of appeal, Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ..................... ~ ~... ~,.~.,~.C~ ........................................ ;SS AFFIDAVIT: I herebyl~ ~d;~PeYo?::hrevi::~%~~~_:_;N°'--~O..,~-swear or affirm that I served rgceipl attached her~o, and upo-fl the appellee, (ha, me) A~;I ~ Z,~o ~ [] by personal serv ce ,I::~LDY {cer[lllea) ~regls~e~eu) m~,, ~uuu~, ~ ,~.:,v, ~.,~ . , ~ ~'~{"~er that ~ed th~ ~'~"~e to File a Complaint accompanying the above Notice of Appeal upon the appellee[s) [o wnom the Rule was addressed on , ~ by personal service ~ by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME "~Ja! before wh~ '. Title at o,,ici,,I / ' My corem ss 0n exp res on ........................................................................... NO'rARtAL SEAL Stephen B, 1. im~o~ h Notary Public My Ccm-~ Signature of affiant Postage Certified Fee r'l Return Receipt Fee .--"1(Endorsement Required) ~ Restricted Delivery Fee r-~ (Endorsement Required) r-~ Total Postage & Fees $2.30 t St .75 $ $~.¢2 CIIRLISLE PR 17011 Required)Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement , ':' Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF APPEAL DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS N& C~)~ ~ ~, ~.. NOTICE,OF APPEAL ~'/~ ~/~/~ Notice is given that the appe/lant has filed in the above Court' of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the DistFict Justice an the date and in the case mentioned below.  T~E ~ ~ ~ ~ A~ ~ ~T ~si~8E~ck ~11 ~ ~ ONW ~ ~s ~fi~ is mquipd[~ ~( *~u~- P~ RC~]~. ~ ff ~~ ~ CLAIMANT.~ (s~ ~. R.C.P.J.P. No. ~ ~ of A~. ~ ~ ~ ~ Dist~ ~S~e. ~11 ~ m o l~l(6)in~ti~f~eDis~ictJ~t~e,~MUST ~ER~DEAS ~ ~ j~ ~ ~sSi~ in ~is cas~-- FILE A C~PLAINT within ~ (20) da~ aft~ filing his ~E of A~EAL. Si~m of ~ot~y ~ PRAECIPE TO EN~ER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appel/ant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. lO01(~ ),in'action before Diski;t Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from Copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee). PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon (Common Pleas Nc~ ~rne o~ ~ee~s) , appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pro~ RULE: To Name of appellee(s) amalee(s (1) You am notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or r~istered mail (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of Service of this role if service was by maiHs the dote o~ mailing AOPC 312-90 I I i COURT FILE DWIGHT HEINZMAN d.b.a. CARLISLE RENT-A-WRECK Plaintiff TIMOTHY SHEELER Defendant and DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND CLAIMY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO. O ? - t COMPLAINT ON APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiffs. 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 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 DWIGHT HEINZMAN d.b.a. CARLISLE RENT-A-WRECK Plaintiff Vo TIMOTHY SHEELER Defendant and DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND CLAIMY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO. COMPLAINT ON APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE COMPLAINT ON APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE 1. Plaintiff is a Corporation located at 1401 Trindle Road Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013. 2. Defendant Timothy Sheeler (Defendant Sheeler) is an adult individual residing at 4275 Enola Road Newville, Pennsylvania, 17241. 3. Defendant Diller Mennonite Church (Defendant Church) is believed to be a Corporation located at Creek Road Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. 4. Defendant Sheeler is a Deacon of Defendant Church. 5. On or about August 3, 2002, Defendant Sheeler and one Tena Hazlett appeared at Plaintiff's place of business in order to rent a car for Tena Hazlett. 6. Tena Hazlett presented to Plaintiff a Colorado Driver's License with an address of 8750 Grant St. Thornton, Colorado 80229. 7. Tena Hazlett represented that she wished to rent the car for a trip to visit an ailing family member in Vermont. 8. Tena Hazlett represented that she would return the car on August 10, 2002. 9. Tena Hazlett never intended to pay for the rental, but intended, initially, to rely on funds from Defendant Church to pay for the rental of the vehicle, funds which she expected would release the vehicle into her custody. 10. Defendant Sheeler presented to Plaintiff Defendant Church's check, for rental of a car for Tena Hazlett. 11. Plaintiff could not accept the check as payment and deposit for the rental because it is Plaintiff's Company policy not to release vehicles to out-of-state residents who wish to rent a vehicle and wish to secure rental of the vehicle with a check. 12. It is Plaintiff's Company policy to accept only credit cards as security from, or on behalf of, out-of-state renters. 13. Even though Defendant Sheeler is a Pennsylvania resident and Defendant Church is a Pennsylvania Corporation, Plaintiff could not accept the check presented by Defendant Sheeler because an out-of-state resident was the primary renter -- Tena Hazlett was the individual who would drive and have sole physical possession of the vehicle. 14. When Plaintiff would not accept the check from Defendant Church, Defendant Sheeler produced his personal credit card as a voucher for payment and deposit for the rental. 15. Plaintiff required Defendant Sheeler to sign the Rental Agreement as an Additional Renter as security, and so as to secure funds, for the rental of the vehicle to Tena Hazlett. 16. Under the Rental Agreement, all signers are jointly and severally bound to the terms of the agreement. 17. Defendant Sheeler signed the vehicle Rental Agreement as an Additional Renter of the vehicle. 18. Plaintiff at no time forced, coerced, or cajoled Defendant Sheeler into signing the Rental Agreement, or into vouching his credit as a means to release the vehicle into Tena Hazlett's sole physical possession. 19. Defendant Sheeler signed the Rental Agreement of his own volition with the intent to empower Tena Hazlett to become the driver and sole physical custodian of the vehicle. 20. Tena Hazlett also signed the vehicle Rental Agreement, with no objection to the fact that the vehicle was now secured by Defendant Sheeler's credit, and not by Defendant Church's check. 21. Because Defendant Sheeler signed the vehicle Rental Agreement and used his credit card as a voucher, Plaintiff released a 1995 Ford Contour GL to Tena Hazlett. 22. Tena Hazlett left with the car, which was due to be returned on August 10, 2002. 23. To date, Tena Hazlett has not returned the 1995 Ford Contour GL at issue.~ 24. To date, Tena Hazlett has not paid any money or other consideration to Plaintiff. 25. Moreover, on or about October 17, 2002, Defendant Sheeler contacted his credit card Company and had them deny payments for continued rental for the vehicle. ~ The Carlisle Police Department has issued two warrants for Tena Hazlett's arrest. On or about April 15, 2003, the 1995 Ford Contour GL at issue was located by Scottsdale Police in Scottsdale, Arizona. The condition of the vehicle had not been reported at the time of the filing of this Complaint. Tena Hazlett is still at large, whereabouts unknown. Claim I 26. Paragraphs 1-25 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 27. As an Additional Renter of the Rental Agreement, Defendant Sheeler is jointly and severally bound to the terms of the agreement. 28. Defendant Sheeler's co-signer, Tena Hazlett, breached the Rental Agreement by: a) giving Plaintiff false and misleading information; b) failing to return the car on the date specified; c) failing to pay the full contract price; d) failing to reimburse Plaintiff for the value of the car; and e) failing to pay all attendant fees, costs, and expenses. 29. Because Defendant Sheeler's co-signer, Tena Hazlett, breached the Rental Agreement, Defendant Sheeler is jointly and severally responsible for damages caused by the breach. 30. Those damages include, but are not limited to: a) time for which the vehicle is considered to have been in the rental period; b) repairs to the car while it was in the rental period; c) replacement cost of the vehicle; d) Plaintiff's administrative expenses; e) a 2% per month late payment fee; f) a 1.5% per month interest fee; g) court costs; and h) attorney's fees. Claim II 31. Paragraphs 1-30 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 32. Defendant Sheeler breached the Rental Agreement by: a) giving Plaintiff false and misleading information; b) failing to pay the full contract price; c) failing to reimburse Plaintiff for the value of the car; and d) failing to pay all attendant fees, costs, and expenses. 33. Because Defendant Sheeler breached the Rental Agreement, he is responsible for damages caused by the breach. 34. Those damages include, but are not limited to: a) time for which the vehicle is considered to have been in the rental period; b) repairs to the car while it was in the rental period; c) replacement cost of the vehicle; d) Plaintiff's administrative expenses; e) a 2% per month late payment fee; f) a 1.5% per month interest fee; g) court costs; and h) attorney's fees. Claim III 35. Paragraphs 1-34 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 36. Plaintiff would not have rented and released the 1995 Ford Contour GL to Tena Hazlett, but for Defendant Sheeler's vouching his credit and co-signing the vehicle Rental Agreement as an Additional Renter. 37. As a result of Plaintiff's reliance on Defendant Sheeler's vouching his credit and his co-signing of the Rental Agreement as an Additional Renter, Plaintiff realized a detriment, including, but not limited to: a) time for which the vehicle is considered to have been in the rental period; b) repairs to the car while it was in the rental period; c) replacement cost of the vehicle; d) Plaintiff's administrative expenses; e) a 2% per month late payment fee; f) a 1.5% per month interest fee; g) court costs; and h) attorney's fees. Claim IV 38. Paragraphs 1-37 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 39. In the alternative, Defendant Sheeler was at all times an agent of Defendant Church. 40. Defendant Church, through this agency relationship authorized Defendant Sheeler to act on its behalf and bind Defendant Church with his actions and his signature on the Rental Agreement. 41. Through this agency relationship, Defendant Church is jointly and severally bound by the Rental Agreement. 42. Defendant Church breached the Rental Agreement by: a) giving Plaintiff false and misleading information; b) failing to pay the full contract price; c) failing to reimburse Plaintiff for the value of the car; and d) failing to pay all attendant fees, costs, and expenses. 43. Because Defendant Church breached the Rental Agreement, it is responsible for damages caused by the breach. 44. Those damages include, but are not limited to: a) time for which the vehicle is considered to have been in the rental period; b) repairs to the car while it was in the rental period; c) replacement cost of the vehicle; d) Plaintiff's administrative expenses; e) a 2% per month late payment fee; f) a 1.5% per month interest fee; g) court costs; and h) attorney's fees. WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment against all the Defendants on each claim jointly and severally in an amount within the jurisdictional limit for mandatory PA Sup. Ct. ID# 90152 Attorney for Plaintiff 61 W. Louther St. Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-1177 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Petition are true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties under 18 Pa. C. S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. -Plaintifff, Dwig~ - DWIGHT HEINZMAN d.b.a. CARLISLE RENT-A-WRECK Plaintiff Vo TIMOTHY SHEELER Defendant and DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND CLAIMY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO. ~'~ -- {~5 ~'~ COMPLAINT ON APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John C. Porter, Counsel for Dwight Heinzman and Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck, hereby certify that a copy of the Complaint Addressed to Defendant, Diller Mennonite Church was served this ?,.%~ day of ]~ri~; [ 2003, by mailing a copy Registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, t~hI addr s listed below: John C. Porter, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff PA Sup. Ct. ID# 90152 61 W. Louther St. Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-1177 Diller Mennonite Church Creek Road Newville, Pa 17241 DWIGHT HEINZMAN d.b.a. CARLISLE RENT-A-WRECK Plaintiff Vo TIMOTHY SHEEI~ER Defendant and DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND CLAIMY, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO. o3 - IsS ? COMPLAINT ON APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John C. Porter, Counsel for Dwight Heinzman and Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck, hereby certify that a copy of the Complaint Addressed to Defendant, Timothy Sheeler was served this Z.~}~day of _]3e~l:~c{ ! ,2003, by mailing a copy Registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, upon his Attorney of recor~d below: y - John C. Porter, Esq. Co-Counsel for Plaintiff PA Sup. Ct. ID# 90152 61 W. Louther St. Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-1177 Doug Miller, Esquire Irwin, McKnight & Hughes 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pa 17013 DWIGHT HEINZMAN d/b/a, CARLISLE RENT-A-WRECK, Plaintiff, TIMOTHY SHEELER, Defendant, and DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH, Additional Defendant. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : ._ NO. 03 - 1557 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Date: June 6, 2003 IRWIN, McKNIGHT & HUGHES Douglas ~. Miller,~Esqmre - Supreme ~Court I.D. No. 83776 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Attorney for Defendant and Additional Defendant DWIGHT HEINZMAN d/b/a, CARLISLE RENT-A-WRECK, Plaintiff, TIMOTHY SHEELER, De~ndan~ and DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH, Additional Defendant. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA .. ., NO. 03 - 1557 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW this 6th day of June, 2003, comes the Defendant, TIMOTHY SHEELER, and the Additional Defendant, DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH, by and through their attorneys, Irwin, McKnight & Hughes, and respectfully file this Answer with New Matter to the Plaintiff's Complaint, and in support thereof aver as follows: 1. The averments of fact contained in paragraph one (1) of the Plaintiff's Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 2. The averments of fact contained in paragraph two (2) are admitted. 3. The averments of fact contained in paragraph three (3) are denied as stated. Additional Defendant is a church with its principal place of worship located at Creek Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. The averments of fact contained in paragraph four (4) are admitted. 5. The averments of fact contained in paragraph five (5) are denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendant Sheeler brought Tena Hazlett to PlaintiWs place of business and that as an act of charity he agreed to loan her the funds for her rental of a vehicle for one week. The remaining averments in paragraph five (5) are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 6. The averments of fact contained in paragraph six (6) are denied as stated. It is admitted that Tena Hazlett presented a Colorado Driver's License to the agent at Carlisle Rent- A-Wreck. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in paragraph six (6), therefore they are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 7. The averments of fact contained in paragraph seven (7) are admitted. By way of further answer, Defendants did not know the truth or veracity of her statements, but had only agreed to provide her the funds necessary for her rental ora vehicle for one week. 8. The averments of fact contained in paragraph eight (8) are admitted. 9. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments contained in paragraph nine (9), therefore they are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 10. The averments of fact contained in paragraph ten (10) are denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendant Sheeler attempted to pay for Ms. Hazlett's rental of a vehicle for one week with a check from the account of Additional Defendant. The remaining averments contained in paragraph ten (10) are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. The averments of fact contained in paragraph eleven (11) are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the agent for Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck would not accept a check from Defendant Sheeler. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the remaining averments contained in paragraph eleven (11), therefore they are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph twelve (12), therefore they are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 13. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments contained in paragraph thirteen (13), therefore they are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, Additional Defendant is not a corporation. 14. The averments of fact contained in paragraph fourteen (14) are denied as stated. It is admitted that when the agent for Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck refused to accept the check from the account of Additional Defendant, Defendant Sheeler provided his personal credit card and authorized the stun of $250.00 to be placed on that card. This was the sum that the agent represented would be necessary to enable the rental of the vehicle for one week. The remaining averments contained in paragraph fourteen (14) are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 3 15. The averments contained in paragraph fifteen (15) are denied as stated. It is admitted that the agent for Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck required Defendant Sheeler to sign documentation which were not further explained or described to Defendant Sheeler. The remaining averments contained in paragraph fifteen (15), including any inference that Defendant Sheeler understood or agreed to be responsible for any sums in excess of the rental of the vehicle for one week, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at thai. 16. The averments contained in paragraph sixteen (16) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant Sheeler was not informed that he would be responsible for the vehicle beyond his act of charity and therefore the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. The averments contained in paragraph seventeen (17) are denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendant Sheeler signed the Rental Agreement. The remaining averments contained in paragraph seventeen (17), including any inference that Defendant Sheeler understood or agreed to be responsible for any sums in excess of the rental of the vehicle for one week, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 18. The averments contained in paragraph eighteen (18) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at thai. 19. The averments contained in paragraph nineteen (19) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 4 20. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments contained in paragraph twenty (20), therefore they are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 21. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments contained in paragraph twenty-one (21), therefore they are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, Defendant Sheeler and the agent for Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck discussed the fact that funds were being provided for the rental of the vehicle for one week. The agent did not disclose that Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck may seek to hold Defendants responsible for additional monies. 22. The averments of fact contained in paragraph twenty-two (22) are admitted. 23. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments contained in paragraph twenty-three (23), therefore they are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 24. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph twenty-four (24), therefore they are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 25. The averments contained in paragraph twenty-five (25) are denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendant Sheeler authorized a total of $435.04 to be charged to his credit card, and thereafter denied additional charges to be assessed by Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck. The 5 remaining averments contained in paragraph twenty-five (25) are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. CLAIM I 26. The answers of Defendants to paragraphs one (1) through twenty-five (25) of Plaintiff's Complaint are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference. 27. The averments contained in paragraph twenty-seven (27) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 28. The averments contained in paragraph twenty-eight (28) and all of its subparagraphs are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments contained in paragraph twenty-eight (23), therefore they are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 29. The averments contained in paragraph twenty-nine (29) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 30. The averments contained in paragraph thirty (30) and all of its subparagraphs are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 6 CLAIM II 31. The answers of Defendants to paragraphs one (1) through thirty (30) of Plaintiff's Complaint are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference. 32. The averments contained in paragraph thirty-two (32) and all of its subparagraphs are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 33. The averments contained in paragraph thirty-three (33) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict pro&thereof is demanded at trial. 34. The averments contained in paragraph thirty-four (34) and all of its subparagraphs are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. CLAIM III 35. The answers of Defendants to paragraphs one (1) through thirty-five (35) of Plaintiff's Complaint are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference. 36. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments contained in paragraph thirty-six (36), therefore they are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 7 37. The averments contained in paragraph thirty-seven (37) and all of its subparagraphs are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. CLAIM IV 38. The answers of Defendants to paragraphs one (1) through thirty-seven (37) of Plaintiff's Complaint are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference. 39. The averments contained in paragraph thirty-nine (39) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 40. The averments contained in paragraph forty (40) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendant Sheeler was authorized to provide funds for the rental of a vehicle for one week. The remaining averments contained in paragraph forty (40), including any inference that Defendants understood or agreed to be responsible for any sums in excess of the rental of the vehicle for one week, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 41. The averments contained in paragraph forty-one (41) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at thai. 8 42. The averments contained in paragraph forty-two (42) and all of its subparagraphs are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 43. The averments contained in paragraph forty-three (43) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 44. The averments contained in paragraph forty-four (44) and all of its subparagraphs are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 'Fo the extent that a response is required, the averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff in this matter, together with reasonable costs and attorney fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just. NEW MATTER 45. The averments of fact contained in the Answers to the Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference and are made part of this New Matter to the Complaint of the Plaintiff. 46. Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck is a fictitious name registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State by DSM, Inc. 9 47. Upon information and belief, DSM, Inc. is a registered Pennsylvania business corporation, but DSM, Inc. is not named as a party Plaintiff in this matter. 48. At all times relevant hereto, the individuals with whom Defendant Sheeler spoke held themselves out to be agents or owners of the business known as Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck. 49. Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the defense of lack of capacity to sue and/or the failure to join an indispensable party. 50. Upon information and belief, Tena Hazlett had ,ontacted Carhsle Rent-A-Wreck prior to August 3, 2002, in order to provide her initial information and inquire as to the vehicle which she desired to rent. 51. Defendants did not contact Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck, nor did Defendants assist with or otherwise pmticipate in the exchange of this information between Tena Hazlett and Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck. 52. Defendants sole contact with Tena Hazlett was to provide her transportation to Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck on August 3, 2002 and provide her the ftmds necessary for the rental of a vehicle for one week, with the understanding that those funds were intended to be repaid by Tena Hazlett once it was realized that Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck would not accept a check. 53. Both prior to and subsequent to August 3, 2002, Defendants have not had any direct contact with Tena Hazlett. 10 54. Hazlett. Defendants do not know the exact whereabouts or present location of Tena 55. Defendants actions were purely charitable and intended to assist Tena Hazlett in what was believed to be a time of personal hardship. 56. When the agent for Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck refi~sed to accept the check from the account of Additional Defendant, Defendant Sheeler provided his personal credit card and authorized the sum of $250.00 to be placed on that card, which was the sum that the agent represented would be necessary to enable the rental of the vehicle for one week. 57. Defendant Sheeler told the agent for Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck that the funds being provided were to charitably assist Tena Hazlett, and that the limit was for the rental of the vehicle for one week. 58. Defendant Sheeler had never rented a vehicle prior to August 3, 2002, and was not familiar with the procedures or business of vehicle rentals. 59. The agent for Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck did not further explain or describe to Defendant Sheeler the documents he was told he was required to sign. 60. On the next business day following the rental of the vehicle to Tena Hazlett, Defendant Sheeler approached Mr. Dwight Heinzman to discuss concerns raised following efendant s subsequent ~nformal ~nvestigation ofTena Hazlett. I1 61. Mr. Dwight Heinzman, holding himself out to be the owner of Carlisle Rent-A- Wreck, informed Defendant Sheeler that he would work wi.th Defendant Sheeler in order to resolve the matter, but requested that the personal credit card not be cancelled. 62. Defendant Sheeler ultimately allowed a total of $435.04 to be charged to his personal credit card, and thereafter denied additional charges to be assessed by Carlisle Rent-A- Wreck. 63. The alleged damages in Plaintiff's Complaint were caused by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck or by the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of its employees, agents, servants, or owners, or the alleged damages were not mitigated or reduced in that it failed to do the following: eo Obtain and/or check the social security number of Tena Hazlett which information was not included on the Rental Agreement even though provision is made for such information on the form; Check or confirm the drivers license and address information provided by Tena Hazlett to Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck; Check or confirm the motor vehicle information provided by Tena Hazlett to Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck; Prohibit Tena Hazlett from removing the vehicle from a repair shop in western Pennsylvania after that business contacted Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck for authorization for the repairs; Prohibit Tena Hazlett from extending the rental of the vehicle; Promptly pursue the location of the rented vehicle or Tena Hazlett despite the information voluntarily provided by Defendant Sheeler as he discovered the same; or Use reasonable prudence in the care and operation of the business known as Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck. 64. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state claims or causes of action upon which relief can be granted. 12 65. Plaintiff's Complaint may barred by the defense of laches. 66. All or some of Plaintiff's claimed damages are attributable to persons and/or causes other than Defendant Sheeler and Additional Defendant. 67. Plaintiff's claims may be barred and/or limited by the failure to mitigate or to properly mitigate damages WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff in this matter, together with reasonable costs and attorney fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just. Dated: June 6, 2003 By: Respectfully Submitted, IRWIN, McKNIGHT & HUGHES Douglas G(~Vliller, Esquire Supreme Court ID # 83776 West Pomfret Professional Building 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Attorney for Defendant and Additional Defendant 13 VERIFICATION The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: VERIFICATION The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by church counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this document and they are tree and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and beliefi I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH Date: ~/~?t. ,2003 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a tree and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by first class United States mail, postage paid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, on the date set forth below: John C. Porter, Esquire 61 West Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Date: June 6, 2003 IRWIN, McKNIGHT & HUGHES Douglas G.(~liller, Esquire Supreme Court ID # 83776 West Pomfret Professional Building 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 -3222 (717) 249-2353 Attorney for Defendant and Additional Defendant DWIGHT HEINZMAN d/b/a, CARLISLE RENT-A-WRECK, Plaintiff, Vo TIMOTHY SHEELER, Defendant, and DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-1557 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER 1 .-45. Plaintiff's paragraphs 1-45 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 46. Admitted. 47. Admitted. 48. Admitted. 49. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 50. Admitted. 51. Denied in that Defendants did contact Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the averment that Defendants did not assist with or otherwise participate in any pre-August 3, 2002, exchange of information between Plaintiff and Tena Hazlett. 52. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth or veracity of this paragraph and the averments contained within. 53. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this paragraph and the averments contained within. 54. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this paragraph and the averments contained within. 55. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth or veracity of this paragraph and the averments contained within. 56. Admitted except for the last three words of the sentence, "for one week." The $250.00 secured by Defendant Sheeler's credit was required as a deposit and a voucher for payment of all moneys that would, or might, and did come due under the terms of the contract. 57. Denied. 58. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of this paragraph and the averments contained within. 59. Denied. 60. Denied. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. Admitted. Admitted. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Furthermore, 63(d) - (g) are strictly denied. As to the lack ora social security number on the Rental Agreement, due to privacy laws, Plaintiff does not force individuals to disclose such information. Additionally, Defendants' reference to drivers license and address information provided by Tena Hazlett (63(b)) and then motor vehicle information provided by Tena Hazlett (63(c)) appears redundant and is therefore unclear and confusing. Plaintiff demands further articulation as to what Defendants are averring. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all the Defendants on each claim jointly and severally in an amount within the jurisdictional limit for mandatory arbitration. ]J~hn C.~orter PA Sup. Ct. ID# 90152 Attorney for Plaintiff 61 West Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-1177 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Answer are true and correct. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties under 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DWIGHT HEINZMAN d/b/a, CARLISLE RENT-A-WRECK, Plaintiff, TIMOTHY SHEELER, Defendant, and DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-1557 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John C. Porter, counsel for the Plaimiff, Dwight Heinzman d/b/a, Carlisle Rent- a-Wreck, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs Answer to Defendants' New Matter in the above captioned case was served by First Class Postage Prepaid to the Counsel of Record for the Defendant, Diller Mennonite Church, at: Douglas C. Miller, Esquire Irwin, McKnight, & Hughes 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 on this 30~ day of June, 2003. Co-Counsel for Plaintiff PA Sup. Ct. ID# 90152 61 W. Louther St. Carlisle, PA 17013 717-249-1177 DWIGHT HEINZMAN d/b/a, CARLISLE RENT-A-WRECK, Plaintiff, TIMOTHY SHEELER, Defendant, and DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-1557 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION Douglas Go Miller, Esquire, on behalf of his clients, the Defendants in this matter, and John C. Porter, Esquire, on behalf of his client, DSM, Inc., and on behalf of DSM, Inc.'s Primary Officer, Dwight Heinzman, hereby stipulate that the caption in this matter shall be amended to identify DSM, Inc. as the Plaimiffthat does business as Carlisle Rent-A-Wreck. The amended caption shall read: DWIGHT HEINZMAN on behalf of DSM, INC., d/b/a, CARLISLE RENT-A-WRECK, Plaintiff, TIMOTHY SHEELER, Defendant, and DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-1557 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jo C~. Porter, Esquire DWIGHT HEINZMAN d/b/a, CARLISLE RENT-A-WRECK, Plaintiff, TIMOTHY SHEELER, Defendant, and DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-1557 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPU!,ATION Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, on behalf of his clients, the Defendants in this matter, and John C. Porter, Esquire, on behalf of his client, DSM, Inc., and on behalf of DSM, Inc.'s Primary Officer, Dwight Heinzman, hereby stipulate that the caption in this matter shall be amended to identify DSM, Inc. as the Plaimiffthat does business as Carlisle Rem-A-Wreck. The amended caption shall read: DWIGHT HEINZMAN on behalf of DSM, INC., d/b/a, CARLISLE RENT-A-WRECK, Plaintiff, TIMOTHY SHEELER, Defendant, and DILLER MENNONITE CHURCH, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 03-1557 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE To the Prothonotary: Please discontinue the above-captioned matter with prejudice. Thank You. DSM, INC., d/b/a, Carlisle, Rent-A-Wreck, Plaintiff Jot~ C. Porter, Escluire Attorney for Plaintiff Sup. Ct. ID #90152 61 West Louther Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-1177