HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-036375
1-
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF: CIIMBERLAND NOTICE OF JVuDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT
Nap. D51. No.: PLAINTIFF: CI, IL CASE
09-3-OS rRETINA/OCULOPLASITIC?R
OJNama: Mon. CONSULTANTS
220 GRANDVIEW AVE
ELDER CAMP HILL, PA 17011
Pdereee:
507 GAYLE N. A. YORK ST.
MECHANICSBURG, PA L J
DEFENDANT: anS'
b•. Telephone: (717) 766-4575 17055 NAME and AODR'E55
ALLEMAN, LORI A, ET AL.
219 COCRLEY$s DRIVE
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
RETINA/OCDLOPLASTIC CONSULTANTS L J
220 GR1lNDVIEW AVE FDOcletNo.: CV-0000097-99
CAMP HILL, PA 17011 d: 4/09/99
1 1 X%
THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT:
Judgment: DELAU?m .tTanim pr mP
® Judgment was entered for: (Name) RRTTNE /Ar'rTT npT LRmT(' r•nnem maT?
® Judgment was entered against: (Name) ar.T.mrTarr RRRnTtRreR
in the amount of $ a 029 sn on:
F 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 $
Levy is stayed for days or ? generally stayed.
Objection to levy has been filed and hearing will be held:
Date:
Time:
Place:
(Date of Judgment) s//qq
(Date & Time)
Amount of Judgment
Judgment Costs
Interest on Judgment
Attorney Fees
Total
Post Judgment Credits
Post Judgment Costs
Certified Judgment Total $
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 OFFJJUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL.
1 D Date L' Y ,,//
(?-4-- - , District Justice
I certify thatZhi; is a true and correct copy of the rec rd of the? toceedings containing the judgment.
t? C)Cl(Date ?? _ C/) f ?- , District Justice
My commission expires first Monday of January, 2002 SEAL
AOPC 915-99
i L;
t
r? CL
Cl
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
vvuiN, T vr- 11, .
09-3-05
DJNaina: Hon. ,
GAYLE A. ELDER
A'"fe" 507 N. YORK ST.
MECHANICSBURG, PA
Teieohona: (717) 766-4575 17055
)NOTICE OF UD CASE /TRANSCRIPT
PLAINTIFF: NAME and ADDRESS "
r- NAME CONSULTANTS , -
220 GRANDVIEW AVE
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
i
L J
VS. e,
DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS -
rALLEMAN, LORI A,-HT AL.
219 COCKLEY'S DRIVE
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC CONSULTANTS L J
220 GRANDVIEW AVE DocketNo.: CV-0000097-99
CAMP HILL, PA 17011 Date Filed: 4/09/99
N
THIS IS TO_NOTIFY , YOU THAT: -
Judgment: DRPAULT JIIDGMKNT PUP '
® Judgment was entered for:
® Judgment was entered ag i
in the amount of $
(Name) uumTXA/n=,OPT.AC'r'T(' CnNgT7T.mANIn
(Name)
on: - ( (Date
Defendants..are jointly'ahd $elerall? liable.
^'
i
? Damages will be asses°s4di bP.
This case dismissed witho -pr jddice.
Amount of Judgment Subject to
Attachment/Act 5 of 1956 $'
Levy is stayed for days or generally stayed.
0 Objection to levy has been filed and hearing will be held:
W dgment) S/Ta/qq
& Time)
of Judgment
nt Costs
on Judgment
Fees
Post Judgment Credits $
Post Judgment Costs
Certified Judgment Total $
Date: Place:
Time:
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/TRANS RIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL.
ate District Justice
I certify that thi is a true and correct copy of the re0 d of th oceeedings containing the judgment.
Date - l 2 a , District Justice
My commission expires first Monday of January, 2002 SEAL
AOP0 315-99
J (1.
U3
Ur
cV
ti:
L1.
to
.:J
Ql
_l
TIZ,
J
U
d
0
J O
?! GO
V
RETINA/OCULOPASTIC CONSULTANTS:
VS.
LORI A. ALLEMAN
FREDERICK ALLEMAN
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
Notice is hereby given that a judgment in the above-captioned
matter has been entered against you in the amount of $6,029.50 on
/5_ , 1999.
Copies of all documents filed with the Prothonotary in support of
the within judgment are enclosed.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 4Wf - 2G3 7 Cu l-O
/s/ /;w ?6 .eq uhf'
ProthonotaryI;e,,
By:
If you have any questions regarding this Notice, please contact
the filing party:
Richard E. Guida, Esquire
503 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
717-236-6440
This Notice is given in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 236.
NOTICE SENT TO:
Lori and Frederick Alleman
219 Cockley's Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLFAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL DIVISION
Caption:
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF ELUTION
Retina/Ocu loplastic Consultants
( ) Confessed Judgment
( ) Other
VS. File No. 9q '?( ?7 ui?f'
.
: Amount Due 6,029.50
Lori Alleman
Frederick Alleman
219 Cockley's Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
TO THE PRCRHONOTARY OF THE SAID COURT:
. Interest
. Atty's Comm
. Cos
The undersigned hereby certifies that the below does not arise out of a retail
installment sale, contract, or account based on a confession of judgment, but if it does,
it is based on the appropriate original proceeding filed pursuant to Act 7 of 1966 as
amended; and for real property pursuant to Act 6 of 1974 as amended.
Issue writ of execution in the above natter to the Sheriff of Cumberland
County, for debt, interest and costs upon the following described property of the
defendant(s)
all personal property at 219 Cockley's Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
PRAE)CIPE FOR ATTACt? EImCUTION
Issue writ of attachment to the Sheriff of County, for debt,
interest and costs, as above, directing attachment against the above-named garnishee(s) for
the following property (if real estate, supply six copies of the description; supply four
copies of lengthy personalty list)
and all other property of the defendant(s) in the possession, custody or control of the
said garnishee(s).
(Indicate) Index this writ against the garnishee(s) as a lis pendens against
real estate of the defendant(s) described in the attached exhibit.
DATE; 6/11/1999 Signature:
Print Name: Richard E. Guida
Address: 503 N. Pront St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
.,.:oc-iev for:
Plaintiff
717-236-6440
;^ ;r ,, 62405
i=
u, r?
u_
L?
ko
L:
h.
z_
?Cq
-::1 CL
7
O
^ V
0 w
r.
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC
CONSULTANTS,
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
V.
LORI A. ALLEMAN,
DEFENDANT and
FREDERICK ALLEMAN,
DEFENDANT/PETITIONER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-3637 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 22n° day of July, 1999, upon consideration of the foregoing
petition, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) A Rule is issued against respondent, Retina/Oculoplastic Consultants, to
show cause why the petition to open default judgment should not be granted.
(2) Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within fifteen (15) days of
service.
(3) The petition shall be decided under Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 206.7.
(4) Any depositions shall be completed within thirty-five (35) days of service.
(5) Briefs shall be filed in chambers and argument shall be held on Tuesday,
September 21, 1999, at 10:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. II of the Cumberland County
Courthouse.
(6) Notice of the entry of this order shall be provided to all parties by petitioner.
(7) All proceedings shall stay pending further order of coyrt. J
By the Court,,/
yl r
Richard E. Guida, Esquire
For Plaintiff/Respondent
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
For Defendant/Petitioner, Frederick Alleman
:saa
/7?L= I9ti.
-2-
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC s IN THE COURT OF CONNOR PLEAS OF
CONSULTANTS, i CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff/Respondent s
s
Vs. i NO. 99-3637 CIVIL
i
i
LORI A. ALLEMAN, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant and i
FREDERICK ALLEMAN, i
Defendant/Petitioner I
PETITION TO OPEN DEFAULT JUDGMENT
AND NOW, comes Petitioner, Frederick Alleman (hereinafter
referred to as "Petitioner"), by and through his counsel, Law
Offices of Craig A. Diehl, and files this Petition, respectfully
stating in support thereof the following:
1. Petitioner is Frederick Alleman, an adult individual who
resides at 219 Cockley's Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17055.
2. Petitioner is one of the defendants in the above-
captioned matter.
3. Respondent is Retina/Oculoplastic Consultants with a
business address of 220 Grandview Avenue, Camp Hill, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania 17011, upon information and belief.
4. Respondent is the Plaintiff in the above-captioned
matter.
5. The other defendant in the above-captioned matter is Lori
A. Alleman, who is the estranged wife of Petitioner. Said
defendants have been estranged and have lived separate and apart
within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Divorce Code since 1994.
6. Upon information and belief, a Complaint was filed
against Petitioner and his estranged wife, to docket number CV-
0000097-99 before District Justice Gayle A. Elder on or about May
13, 1999.
7. The Complaint was not served upon Petitioner personally.
To the contrary, it is believed that said Complaint was served upon
Petitioner's minor stepson.
8. Upon information and belief, a default judgment for the
sum of $8,029.50 was entered against Petitioner and his estranged
wife to docket number CV-000097-99 on or about May 13, 1999.
9. Petitioner had no notice of the filing of the aforesaid
Complaint, the entry of a default judgment to CV-0000097-99, nor
the entry of a judgment to the above-referenced docket number until
July 6, 1999, when he found correspondence from the Cumberland
County Sheriff's office at his residence which included a Writ of
Execution and/or Attachment to levy his personal property.
10. Petitioner has meritorious defenses to the claims of
Respondent's Complaint as follows:
a. Petitioner is not a party to any contract with
Plaintiff /Respondent, nor is Petitioner liable for any
contract between Plaintiff /Respondent and Petitioner's
estranged wife.
b. Petitioner and his estranged wife have lived separate and
apart within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Divorce Code
since 1994. Petitioner had no information or notice of the
existence of the claims of Respondent/Plaintiff prior to
Petitioner's receipt of the Writ of Execution on July 6, 1999,
as described above.
C. Petitioner owes no duty to Respondent/Plaintiff.
Petitioner asserts that any contract upon which
Plaintiff/Respondent's claims were based, of which Petitioner
had no knowledge, was not for "necessaries" as defined in
Pennsylvania law.
d. In the alternative, if a contract between Petitioner's
estranged Wife and Plaintiff /Respondent exists and was for a
service or product determined to qualify under the concept of
"necessaries" as defined in Pennsylvania law, Petitioner is
not liable for the payment of same.
e. The Domestic Relations Section of the Court of Common
Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania has determined that
Petitioner is not responsible for supporting his estranged
wife and has so terminated any existing spousal support order.
f. Applying to this case the statute making both spouses
liable for contracts by either spouse for necessaries serves
no purpose. The underlying purpose of the statute is to
safeguard the support and sustenance of the family and the
individual members thereof. However, the Domestic Relations
Section of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania has determined by court order that Petitioner is
not responsible for supporting his estranged wife.
g. Petitioner is not personally liable for the full payment
of Respondent/Plaintiff's claims because Petitioner has
effective medical benefits through Pennsylvania Blue
Cross/Blue Shield that would pay such a claim.
h. Petitioner was improperly named as a defendant in the
Complaint because Petitioner did not contract with
Plaintiff/Respondent. Furthermore, Petitioner has no legal
obligation to make any payments on behalf of his estranged
wife, Lori A. Alleman, a defendant in this matter, and the
party who allegedly contracted with Plaintiff /Respondent.
i. In the alternative, if it is determined that Petitioner
is a proper defendant in this matter, the Writ of Execution
described above was improperly issued against Petitioner.
Under Pennsylvania law, any writ of execution must first issue
against the contracting party, and the contracting party's
property must first be exhausted before recourse can be
initiated against the spouse.
11. Petitioner sought relief in this matter with due
diligence. If Petitioner had timely notice of the filing of
Respondent's Complaint, Petitioner would have asserted his defenses
as required by Pennsylvania law.
12. Petitioner is in no way responsible for the failure to
file an answer within the time limitations permitted by law.
13. Unless the judgment is opened and Petitioner is allowed
to interpose his defenses, a great injustice will result.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Frederick Alleman, respectfully
requests that the Court grant a rule upon the Respondent/Plaintiff,
Retina/Oculoplastic Consultants, to show cause why the judgment
entered June 15, 1999, for the sum of $8,029.50, should not be
opened and Petitioner/ Defendant, Frederick Alleman permitted to
make a defense.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
Date: T lr? 19, 1999 By: Q Url ??
Crai A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 52801
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CONSULTANTS, s CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff /Respondent
Vs. NO. 99-3637 CIVIL
s
s
LORI A. ALLEMAN, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant and ,
FREDERICK ALLENAN, ,
Defendant/Petitioner
I, the undersigned, hereby verify that the statements made in
the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.
$ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: 9 9 ?nuQ,.,J? d CQ,
FREDERICK ALLEMAN
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CONBULTANTS, s CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff/Respondent s
vs. NO. 99-3637 CIVIL
i
LORI A. ALLEMAN, CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant and :
FREDERICK ALLENAN, s
Defendant/Petitioner
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on this date, a true
and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
opposing parties by way of United States First Class Mail, postage
prepaid, addressed as follows:
Richard E. Guida, Esquire
503 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(Counsel for Respondent/Plaintiff)
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
Date: July ?o, 1999
3 64 Trindle Road
amp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
L C
r :
LI: - ? U J
jL. ? _111
O
a• U
n a
Lu
A
La -
V a
LL w
F
O
M
? o a
3 Z?"
JUL 2 2 191'
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC
CONSULTANTS,
Plaintiff /Respondent
V'S
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
,.
LORI A. ALLEMAN
Defendant and
FREDERICK: ALLENM
Defendant /Petitioner
99-3637 CIVIL TERM
TO THE HONORABLE EDGAR B. BAYLEY, JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In April 1996, Plaintiff provided medical services to
Defendant Lori Alleman. The services were rendered in an effort
to prevent deterioration of Ms. Alleman's eyesight. The bill for
the services was $7,212.00. An insurance card in the name of
Defendant Frederick Alleman was provided to Plaintiff. The
insurance company sent at least $3,200.00 to Frederick Alleman
for the medical services. Despite repeated requests, Plaintiff
received no payment whatsoever for the services.
On April 9, 1999, Plaintiff filed a Civil Complaint
against Defendants at District Court 9-3-05, indexed at CV-97-99.
Plaintiff paid for service by constable. The total paid by
Plaintiff for filing the Complaint and service was $117.50. On
May 13, 1999, District Court 9-3-05 entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $8,029.50. No
appeal was filed by Defendants. On June 15, 1999, Plaintiff
filed the district justice judgment at the Cumberland County
Courthouse, indexed at 99-3637
A writ of execution was also
created and given to the Sheriff
On June 25, 1999, the
Cumberland County Sheriff served the writ of execution on
Defendants and performed a levy at their residence. On July 21,
1999, Defendant Frederick Alleman filed a Petition to Open
Judgment.
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES
The Petition to Open Judgment should be denied because
Defendant Frederick Alleman does not have a valid excuse for
failure to defend against the Complaint. On April 16, 1999,
Constable Edmond Gagliardi went to Frederick Alleman's residence
and served the Complaint on Frederick Alleman's son who appeared
to Constable Gagliardi to be at least eighteen years of age.
District Court 9-3-05 notified Defendant Frederick Alleman of the
district justice judgment by sending him of copy of such by First
Class U.S. Mail. Next, when the judgment was filed at the
courthouse, Defendant Frederick Alleman was again notified by
First Class U.S. Mail.
The Petition to Open Judgment should also be denied
because Defendant Frederick Alleman does not have a meritorious
defense. The Legislature authorizes creditors to institute suit
against both spouses to obtain payment for "necessaries" provided
to one spouse. 23 Pa.C.S. section 4102. There is no question
that the medical treatment obtained by Lori Alleman was a
"necessary" because it protected her eyesight. Since Frederick
Alleman was married to Lori Alleman when she received the
treatment and continues to be married to her, the plain meaning
of section 4102 provides that Frederick Alleman can be sued for
payment of the services.
Likewise, case law provides a basis for the Complaint
against Frederick Alleman. In denying Preliminary Objections in
a similar case, Judge Oler stated:
[M]arriage creates a single financial
unit. The reasonable expectations of
the marital partners and their creditors
are that each partner's income and
assets are held for the benefit of the
marital partnership.
Harrisbirg Manacement Inc v Arnold, 25 D&C 342, 347
(Cumberland County 1995). Even where the spouses are separated
and the spouse not receiving the service is unaware of it,
creditors can sue both spouses. Porter v Karivalis, 718 A.2d 823
(1998).
Defendant Frederick Alleman's contentions about the
lack of any support order from the Domestic Relations Office are
unavailing. Frederick Alleman'a health insurance carrier was the
guarantor for the services provided to Lori Alleman.
Furthermore, Frederick Alleman'a health insurance carrier sent
him a check of at least $3,200.00 for the services obtained from
Plaintiff.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully
requests that Defendant Frederick AllemanIs Petition to open
Judgment be denied.
AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON
Porter v Xarivalis, 718 A. 2d 823 (1998).
Harrisburg Medical Management, Inc. v Arnold, 25 D&C 4th 342
(Cumberland County 1995).
23 Pa.C.S. section 4102.
Respectfully submitted,
?.
Richard E. Guida
503 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
717-236-6440
Identification #62405
Attorney for Plaintiff
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC
CONSULTANTS,
Plaintiff /Respondent
VS
LORI A. ALLEMAN
Defendant and
FREDERICK ALLENAN
Defendant/Petitioner
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-3637 CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, Richard E. Guide, Esquire, hereby certify that a
true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT was served upon the
following parties by regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 10
day of September 1999, addressed as follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Richard E. Guida
-7 F
W
c O
O z
g
3 O a
m
Q o
Z z
n <
? o =
V
GUIDA LAW OFFICES
503 NORTH FRONT STREU _
HARRISBURG, PA 17101 7 I? I?n
(717) 2 36-6440
JJ
SEP 10 19990
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC
CONSULTANTS,
Plaintiff/Respondent
VS
LORI A. ALLEMAN
Defendant and
FREDERICK ALLEMAN
Defendant/Petitioner
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-3637 CIVIL TERM
TO THE HONORABLE EDGAR B. BAYLEY, JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In April 1996, Plaintiff provided medical services to
Defendant Lori Alleman. The services were rendered in an effort
to prevent deterioration of Ms. Alleman's eyesight. The bill for
the services was $7,212.00. An insurance card in the name of
Defendant Frederick All-An was provided to Plaintiff. The
insurance company sent at least $3,200.00 to Frederick Alleman
for the medical services. Despite repeated requests, Plaintiff
received no payment whatsoever for the services.
On April 9, 1999, Plaintiff filed a Civil Complaint
against Defendants at District Court 9-3-05, indexed at CV-97-99.
Plaintiff paid for service by constable. The total paid by
Plaintiff for filing the Complaint and service was $117.50. On
May 13, 1999, District Court 9-3-05 entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $8,029.50. No
appeal was filed by Defendants. On June 15, 1999, Plaintiff
filed the district justice judgment at the Cumberland County
Courthouse, indexed at 99-3637. A writ of execution was also
created and given to the Sheriff. On June 25, 1999, the
Cumberland County Sheriff served the writ of execution on
Defendants and performed a levy at their residence. On July 21,
1999, Defendant Frederick Alleman filed a Petition to Open
Judgment.
DISCUSSION OF HE ISSUES
The Petition to Open Judgment should be denied because
Defendant Frederick Alleman does not have a valid excuse for
failure to defend against the Complaint. On April 16, 1999,
Constable Edmond Gagliardi went to Frederick Alleman's residence
and served the Complaint on Frederick Alleman's son who appeared
to Constable Gagliardi to be at least eighteen years of age.
District Court 9-3-05 notified Defendant Frederick Alleman of the
district justice judgment by sending him of copy of such by First
Class U.S. Mail. Next, when the judgment was filed at the
courthouse, Defendant Frederick Alleman was again notified by
First Class U.S. Mail.
d
I
The Petition to Open Judgment should also be denied
because Defendant Frederick Alleman does not have a meritorious
defense. The Legislature authorizes creditors to institute suit
against both spouses to obtain payment for "necessaries" provided
to one spouse. 23 Pa.C.S. section 4102. There is no question
that the medical treatment obtained by Lori Alleman was a
"necessary" because it protected her eyesight. Since Frederick
Alleman was married to Lori Alleman when she received the
treatment and continues to be married to her, the plain meaning
of section 4102 provides that Frederick Alleman can be sued for
payment of the services.
Likewise, case law provides a basis for the Complaint
against Frederick Alleman. In denying Preliminary Objections in
a similar case, Judge Oler stated:
[M)arriage creates a single financial
unit. The reasonable expectations of
the marital partners and their creditors
are that each partner's income and
assets are held for the benefit of the
marital partnership.
Harrisburg Medical Management, Inc. v Arnold, 25 D&C 342, 347
(Cumberland County 1995). Even where the spouses are separated
and the spouse not receiving the service is unaware of it,
creditors can sue both spouses
Porter v Karivalis, 718 A.2d 823
(1998) .
d
k Defendant Frederick Alleman'a contentions about the
lack of any support order from the Domestic Relations Office are
unavailing. Frederick Alleman's health insurance carrier was the
guarantor for the services provided to Lori Alleman.
Furthermore, Frederick Alleman's health insurance carrier sent
him a check of at least $3,200.00 for the services obtained from
Plaintiff.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully
requests that Defendant Frederick Alleman'a Petition to open
Judgment be denied.
AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON
Porter v Karivalis, 718 A.2d 823 (1998).
23 Pa.C.S. section 4102.
, 25 D&C 4th 342
Respectfully submitted,
Richard E. Guida
503 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
717-236-6440
Identification #62405
Attorney for Plaintiff
t
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC
CONSULTANTS,
Plaintiff /Respondent
VS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
LORI A. AT.LEMAN
Defendant and
FREDERICK ALIM4AN
Defendant/Petitioner 99-3637 CIVIL TERM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Richard E. Guide, Esquire, hereby certify that a
true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT was served upon the
following parties by regular U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, this 30
day of September 1999, addressed as follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Richard E. Guida
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC
CONSULTANTS,
Plaintiff/Respondent
VS
LORI A. ALLEMAN
Defendant and
FREDERICK ALLEMAN
Defendant/Petitioner
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 99-3637
ANSWER TO PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT
AND NOW, this 6 day of August 1999 comes
Retina/Oculoplastic Consultants, above-named
Plaintiff /Respondent, by and through its attorney, Richard E.
Guida, Esquire, and respectfully avers the following:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted that the other defendant in the above-
captioned matter is Lori A. Alleman, the wife of Petitioner
The
rest of the averment is neither admitted nor denied.
6. Admitted that the Complaint was filed on April 9,
1999 at District Court 9-3-05.
7. Neither admitted nor denied. In filing the
Complaint at District Court 9-3-05, Plaintiff paid the fee for
the Complaint to be served on the Defendants by constable.
8. Admitted that on May 13, 1999, District court 9-3-
05 entered a default judgment against the Defendants in the
amount of $8,029.50.
9. Denied.
a. Complaint was served by constable.
b. Notice of Judgment/Transcript was mailed to
Defendants at 219 Cockley's Drive, Mechanicsburg,
PA 17055.
c. Notice of Entry of Judgment at the Cumberland
County Courthouse was mailed to Defendants at 219
Cockley's Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055,
pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 236.
10. Denied. Since Petitioner is married to his co-
defendant, statute (23 P.S. section 4102) and caselaw (Porter v
Karivalis, 718 A.2d 823 (Pa. Super. 1998)) make Petitioner liable
for medical services recieved by his co-defendant wife. The
medical services were rendered to prevent the co-defendant wife
from losing her eyesight. Petitioner received at least $3,200.00
from his health insurance company for the medical services which
Plaintiff provided to his codefendant wife, and Petitioner failed
to give the insurance payment to Plaintiff.
11-12. Denied.
a. Complaint was served by constable.
b. Notice of Judgment/Transcript was mailed to
Defendants at 219 Cockley's Drive, Mechanicsburg,
PA 17055.
c. Notice of Entry of Judgment at the Cumberland
County Courthouse was mailed to Defendants at 219
Cockley's Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055,
pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 236.
13. Denied. Petitioner was aware of the lawsuit and
he has no meritorious defense.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff /Respondent respectfully requests
that Petition to open Default Judgment be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard E. Guida
503 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
717-236-6440
Identification #62405
Attorney for Plaintiff
Jul-30-99 11 :.42A Guida Law Offices 236 9699' p,pg
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC
CONSULTANTS,
Plaintiff/Respondent
VS
LORI A. ALLZNM
Dafandant and
FMRRICK ALLEWW
Dafendant/petitioner
IN THE COURT OF comadoN pLzAB
CU?tRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 99-3637
V- MIFICATICN
I VERIFY THAT THE STATE548NTS MDE IN THIS ANSWER ABOUT
T9S NMDICRL SERVICES ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE
STATZkWCTS HERBiN ARE DWDE SUBJECT TO THE PENALTIES OF 1S
PA.C.B.A. SECTION 4904 RELATING TO UNSWORN FALSIFICATION TO
AMORITIES.
Sion re
printe4 Name
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC
CONSULTANTS,
Plaintiff /Respondent
VS
LORI A. ALLEMAN
Defendant and
FREDERICK ALLEMAN
Defendant/Petitioner
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 99-3637
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Richard E. Guide, Esquire, hereby certify that a
true and correct copy of ANSWER TO PETITION TO OPEN DEFAULT
JUDGMENT was served upon the following parties by regular V.S.
Mail, postage prepaid, this 6 day of August 1999, addressed as
follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
/M ?
Richard E. Guida
1
1
H
v W
O
o
a
LL u
m
K
Q Z
Y
O =
N
U
1
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC
CONSULTANTS,
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
V.
LORI A. ALLEMAN,
DEFENDANT and
FREDERICK ALLEMAN,
DEFENDANT/PETITIONER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-3637 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 21" day of September, 1999, based upon the within stipulation
of the parties, the judgment entered at this docket IS DISMISSED without prejudice.
Richard E. Guida, Esquire
For Plaintiff/Respondent
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
For Defendant/Petitioner Frederick Alleman
9/'P'F?F 9 ,
.B • zP•
:saa
cot"-a (,
OF ''•
99 SF.P ?.'l p17 9. S 1
CUIv'?'` ?Nt15Y?? UM
t
Y ?
RETINA/OCULOPLASTIC
CONSULTANTS,
Plaintiff /Respondent
V.
LORI A. ALLEMAN,
Defendant and
FREDERICK ALLEMAN,
Defendant/Petitioner
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-3637 CIVIL TERM
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
AND NOW, this /2 day of 46,v'--T
1999,
it is hereby STIPULATED and AGREED by Petitioner, Frederick Alieman
(hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner"), and Respondent,
Retina/Oculoplastic Consultants (hereinafter referred to as
"Respondent"), that --
?E G
.? i.led-to-?Bocket-No--OV--08 00?9?-= 99'- Civil-before.. Diat^s?ct-?aet-ice
'trf,:rae? >o 'f'?J4Eao?t.-ra_{?ftn? Q,cka? No. ; S •
oe3cer.--are-relreby dismissed, without prejudice.
_Sh _i c_ floaFt L_- n ..r17 i1TL+Tl ri T/'D Pt• M .i
the ludgmmit- of re 11 CiQL
d--with-respect--tb e i
-s Ade=.01E A21eman.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
Date: ?f 9 By: (I'd-Z:.4,
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant /Petitioner,
Frederick Alleman
Date: 8 /t 4 By: /A__-f J.
Richard E. Guida, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff /Respondent
AUG 2 0 1999 c
BY
:
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn
according to law, states this writ is returned STAYED per
instructions from the atty.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing $18.00
Poundage 1.25
Law Library .50
Prothonotary 1.00
Service 6.82
Surcharge 16.00
Levy 20.00
$63.57
Sworn and subscribed to before me
This /ya' day of Ott.
1999, A.D.(..,,.
Advance costs: $150.00
Sheriff's Costs: 63.57
$ 86.43
Refund to atty on 9/24/99
S;00..4 i 4; ?
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
BY? ?1JrVt ?
D uty Sheriff
`J
w
J
Cie- .?scliy
P( 73'7
WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) NO. 99-3637 CIVIL Term
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) CIVIL ACTION -LAW
TO THE SHERIFF OF Ctnnberland COUNTY:
To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due Retina/Oculoplastic Consultants
from Lori Apeman and Frederick Apeman PLAINTIFF(S)
212 cocklev's Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
DEFENDANT(S)
(1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant(s) and to sell
all personal property at 219 Cockley's Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of
GARNISHEE(S) as follows:
and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued; (b) the garnishee(s) is/are enjoined from paying any
debt to or for the account of the defendant(s) and from delivering any property of the defendant(s) or otherwise disposing
thereof;
(3) If properlyof the defenclant(s) not levied upon an subject to attachment isfound in the possession of anyoneother
than a named garnishee, you are directed to notify him/her that he/she has been added as a garnishee and is enjoined as above
stated.
Amount Due $8.029.50
Interest
Atty's Comm %
Arty Paid
Plaintiff F
$31.75
Date: June 15, 1999
REQUESTING PARTY:
Name _ Richard E. Guida Esq
Address: 503 N. Front St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Attorney for: Plaintiff
Telephone: (717) 236-6440
Supreme Court ID No. 62405
L. L. $.50
Due Prothy $1.00
Other Costs
Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary, Civil Division
by: OAG g
?? Deputy