Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-05699JIMMY L. MOONEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE NO. 00 - SL99 CIVIL TERM CAROLDEANE MOONEY, Defendant IN DIVORCE NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you by the Court. A judgment may also be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for the divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of the Prothonotary at the Cumberland County Court House, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY, LAWYERS FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DECREE OF DIVORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. 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, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 (717) 249-3166 SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By: Carol J. L?fic!Vlay, Esquire ID # 446 11 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5513 Date: JIMMY L. MOONEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vs. CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE NO. 00 - ,S'LQ7 CIVIL TERM CAROLDEANE MOONEY, Defendant IN DIVORCE COMPLAINT JIMMY L. MOONEY, Plaintiff, by his attorneys, SAIDIS, SNUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C., respectfully represents: 1. The Plaintiff is Jimmy L. Mooney, who currently resides at 27 West Main Street, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, where he has resided since 1985. 2. The Defendant is Caroldeane Mooney, who currently resides at 34 Chestnut Street, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, where she has resided since June 15, 1999. 3. The Plaintiff and Defendant both have been bona fide residents in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for at least six months immediately prior to the filing of this Complaint. 4. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on July 25, 1997, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 5. That there have been no prior actions of divorce or for annulment between the parties in this or in any other jurisdiction. COUNT I - DIVORCE PURSUANT TO 23 Pa. C.S.A. 3301(c) and 63301(d) 6. The marriage is irretrievably broken. 7. Plaintiff has been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and of the right to request that the Court require the parties to participate in marriage counseling, and does not request counseling. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court to enter a Decree in Divorce divorcing Plaintiff from Defendant. COUNT II - EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION 8. The averments of Paragraph 1- 7 are incorporated herein by reference as though set out in full. 9. In the course of their marriage, the parties acquired certain property both personal and real and also debt. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court to equitably divide their property and allocate their debt. Date: /-) SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff By arol J. Lind'fty.Esquire ID # 44693 11 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5513 VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, hereby verify that the statements made herein are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: -?5 1 B !'2 am r? {.i Wr ???'' u' G? i_ v 4. '?_`' `C'i '? 2?, ? r' ? ? 1 -cGr _? franciscus proof of service August 28, 2000 JIMMY L. MOONEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Vs. CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE NO. 00 - X99 CIVIL TERM CAROLDEANE MOONEY, Defendant IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND now, this cad -tom day of J.u .a,-L- 2000, I, CAROL J. LINDSAY, Esquire, of the law firm of SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, Attorneys, hereby certify that I served the Defendant, CAROLDENE J. MOONEY, on August 21, 2000 with the Complaint in Divorce by Certified Mail, Restricted Deliver, Addressee Only, Return Receipt Requested, addressed to: Caroldene J. Mooney 34 Chestnut Street Newville, PA 17241 and proof thereof, the signed Return Receipt Card, is attached hereto. SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff /'- Carol J. Lindsay, E; I D # 44693 26 West High Stree Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 franciscus proof of service August 28, 2000 JIMMY L. MOONEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE NO. 00 - CIVIL TERM CAROLDEANE MOONEY, Defendant IN DIVORCE PROOF OF SERVICE 4 TCOmglete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. 1- e Gomlikki items s; 4a; and 4b. following services (for am 41 Prim your.name:and address on the reveres of thie torn so that we can return this eXtra fee): card to you. eiAttach this form to the front of the mailoace, or on the back I apace does not 1. ? Addressee's Addislass t.. 1lWd,4,1%um Receipt Requadeor on the mailpiese below the article number. 2.'qp Restricted Deliyety 27he Return Receipt All Show to whom the article wee detivered and the date delivered. ?1. p Lt V c 1Z> A? S£ S ` Co suit postmaster for fee, 11, Article Addressed to! 0Le0nC (ncxvi M)e rtlcis Number 190,2, 5Zo8 3 g - ? 0' 4b Service Type . ? Registered 1A Cep ? Evress Mail ? Ins 1JJv t l l e t A ? Return Receiptfor Mercherldise ? COD 0etver W addriak* 7. Datebf Delivery a/ - ReceivedBy:(PrintName) - - - S.Addrissess'sAddress-(Onlyffreques- L'Ar O1en ?? and fee is paid) 0 c Z AC7 vs. No: 00- 5(099 C 1"it1 TerNt,, CARoL DEF1M J1AOOr1ey, Legal Caption De fe n cld n} 1 N V o P- C C Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: 3 i rrnmV L. Moony 4 Date: 10. a3, y3 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 23062 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule ofcivilProcedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has beenpromulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The temmnation of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local roles promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that parry may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. L; `-- ?? ??_ iC1 ?f4 [:i?-?. - s - f= y'?Ci" _ - i ?. Ls,. ?4 "' ", e.. : ?_'i 7 V ?i E:` -`` Jimmy L. Mooney vs Caroldeane Mooney Case No. Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: Plaintiff 00-5699 intends to proceed with the above cauriianed matter. Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire Sign Name Date: Attorney for Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. - This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(6) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter.-with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party. wishes' to. pursue the matter; he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. a ? -n 3 FT, N Jimmy L. Mooney vs Caroldeane Mooney Case No. 00-5699 Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: Plaintiff Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire Print Name Date: intends to proceed with-the abov apt' ed matter. Sign Name _ ?. Attorney for Plai Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. OF THE fl-"" NOTAPY 2019 SEP 15 i=`?? G: ?: 4