HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-04269¦
Z
¦
1
r'
PNC BANK, NATIONAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.
Plaintiff : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DEN-NIS G
DORSEY and GLENDA K. : CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES:
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION does hereby grant, bargain, sell, convey, transfer, assign and make over
unto LAND HOLDING, INC., its successors and assigns any and all right, title and
interest it may have in and to a certain judgment recovered by PNC Bank, National
Association in the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania to
docket number 99-4269 Civil against Jean 0. Dorsey, Dennis G. Dorsey and Glenda K.
Maxton, Individually and as Co-Partners d/b/a Dorsey/Maxton Associates, for the sum of
One Hundred Twelve Thousand Twenty-Six and 94/100 Dollars ($112,026.94), together
with interest thereon and costs of suit and for foreclosure and sale of the property
described in Plaintiff's Complaint, and together with all the benefits and advantages that
may be obtained thereby, and full power to enforce and recover the judgment to its own
and their own use. I further authorize and empower the prothonotary or any attorney on
behalf of the assignee to mark the judgment to the assignee's use.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed in its name by its duly authorized officer, on the Z 'td' ay of d, 1999.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
By: .r?
Eric D. Krimmel
Assistant Vice President
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF
On this, the ay day of/I/AQj;9h,L11, 1999, before me, the undersigned officer,
personally appeared Eric D. Krimmel, who acknowledged himself to be an Assistant Vice
President of PNC Bank, National Association, and that he, as such officer, being authorized to do
so, executed the within instrument on behalf of such Bank for the purposes therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
C (SEAL)
Not y Public
My Commission Expires:
Sherry Notarial Seal
M. Baney. Notary Publla
Hampden Twp., Cumberland County
My Commission Expires Juno 2d• ORI
Member. Pennsylvania AII00161100 of NOtlries
J
C
TJC_ ..?i
G
O
?
U ISL.
\ ??
Q
e
v
,.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
DB/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the authority contained in the warrant of attorney, the original or a copy of which is
attached to the complaint filed in this action, I appear for the Defendants and confess judgment in favor
of the Plaintiff and against Defendants as follows:
Principal
$106,489.19
Other authorized items:
Interest to June 29, 1999
Mortgage satisfaction fee
Attorney's Commission
TOTAL
$ 189.29
$ 24.00
$ 5.324.46
$112,026.94
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
I [? l
Date: By:
l ( Ka M. Le ebohm,Esquire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
Q ? r-
J ? LL
CJ rn U
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
D/B/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
NO. C ,/ - e ?
CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
COMPLAINT FOR CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
UNDER RULE 2951
The name and address of the Plaintiff is PNC Bank, National Association,
Successor by Merger to CCNB Bank, N.A., 4242 Carlisle Pike, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. The last known address of the Defendants Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey is
322 West Green Street, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011-6521.
3. The last known address of the Defendant Glenda K. Maxton is 413 16th Street, New
Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070-1318.
4. The last known address of the Defendant Dorsey/Maxton Associates is 320 Rear
Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070 and 322 West Green
Street, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011-6521.
5. Defendants executed and delivered to Plaintiff a Mortgage Note ("Note"), a true and
correct photostatic reproduction of the original of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made
a part hereof.
6. Defendants are in default of Defendants' obligations to make payment to Plaintiff as
required in the Note, as modified, and Plaintiff has demanded payment in full of all outstanding
principal and interest as provided in the Note, as modified. A copy of Plaintiffs demand is attached
hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof.
7. Judgment is not being entered by confession against a natural person in connection
with a consumer credit transaction.
8. There has not been any assignment of the Note.
9. Judgment has not been entered on the Note in any jurisdiction.
10. Defendants are in default of their obligations to make payment to Plaintiff as
required in the Note, as modified. The amount due to Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' default is
as follows:
Principal $ 106,489.19
Interest to June 29, 1999 $ 189.29
Mortgage satisfaction fee $ 24.00
Attorney's Commission $ 5.324.46
TOTAL $ 112,026.94
11. Interest continues to accrue at the rate provided in the Note, as modified, in the
amount of Twenty-Three and 661100 Dollars ($23.66) per day.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, Jean O. Dorsey,
individually, Dennis G. Dorsey, individually, and Glenda K. Maxton, individually and Jean O.
Dorsey, Dennis G. Dorsey and Glenda K. Maxton, co-partners d/b/a Dorsey/Maxton Associates, as
authorized by the warrant of attorney contained in the Note for One Hundred Twelve Thousand
Twenty-Six and 94/100 Dollars ($112,026.94), plus interest from and including the date of this
Complaint and judgment entered hereon at the rate of Twenty-Three and 66/100 Dollars ($23,66)
per day, and costs of suit.
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
Date: c? Q By:
KArI M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
Mortgage Note
US-S_140,000.00 November 21,
__. .,1991
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned (hereinafter called the "Borrower") promises to pay CCNB [lank,
N.A., a national banking business association created by and existing under the laws of the United States havin
its principal place of business at 4242 Carlisle pike, Camp Ifill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, (hereinafter
called the " (lank") or to its order, the principal sham of One hundred Forty Thousand
and 00/100 ----------------------------------- (,$140,000.00 )DOLLARS
together with interest on the unpaid principal balance at the rate of _10-1/2 percent per annum, said prin-
cipal and interest to be paid at the times and in the manner set forth as follows, to wit:
One Hundred Forty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($140,000.00), lawful
money as aforesaid, payable five (5) years from date hereof, com-
mencing on the twenty-second (22nd) day of December, 1991, and
thereafter on the twenty-second (22nd) day of each month, said
principal and interest, at the rate of ten and one-half percent
(10-1/23) per annum, to be paid in monthly'instaliments of One
Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Seven and 74/100 Dollars ($1,397.74)
until the principal and interest are fully paid.
It is understood and agreed that the provision for the payment of
principal and interest shall not alter or change the term and
maturity of this obligation.
Borrowers to pay real estate taxes and present receipts to bank
for verification prior to December 1st of each year,
The Loan is payable in full at the end of five (5)' years. At
maturity you must repay the entire principal balance of the loan
and unpaid interest then due. The bank is under no obligation
to refinance the loan at that time. You will, therefore, be
required to make payment out of other assets that you may own or
you will have to find a lender, which may be the bank you have this
loan with, willing to lend you the money. If you refinance this
loan at maturity, you may have to pay some or all of the closing
costs normally associated with a new loan even if you obtain
refinancing from the same bank.
Mortgagor shall have the right to make pre-payment on the principal
in whole or in part to the mortgagee without penalty or additional
cost.
at the office of said Bank (or such other place as designated in writing by the holduhereof) and shall also, from lime to
time, until said debt and interest be filly paid, renew and keep alive, by paying the necessary premiums and charges on
such policy or policies of lire, storm, explosion insurance, war d;unage insurance, or on any and all other insurance,
which the Hank, its successors or assigns, may demand liar thither security ol'said debt upon [lie buildings and
improvements described in the Mortgage accompanying and securing this present obligation, or any which may be
hereallererceled thereon, said policies of insurance ofwhatsoeverkind to be deposited with the Bank, its successors or
assigns, and transferred by properly registered and approved assignments with non-contributing mortgagee clauses
lunched, and any renewals ol'said policies ill be furnished to said llank at least seven (7) days before the expinnion of
said policies; in the event of loss or damage, the proceeds ol'said insurance shall he paid to hank alone. Bank is
authorized to adjust and compromise such loss without the consent of Borrower, l0 collect, receive and receipt forsuch
proceeds in the name of Bank and Borrower, and to endorse Borrowers name upon tiny check in payment thereof.
Such proceeds shall he applied toward reimbursement ol'adl costs and expenses of Bank in collecting said proceeds,
and luward the payment of all anrnmts payable by Borrower Io Bank hereunder, and Inward the payment of the
indebledness secured hereby or any portion thereof, whether or not then due or payable, or Bank at its option, may
apply said insurance proceeds or any pan thercoflo the repair orrebuilding ul'said premises. In the event of sale ol'lhe
premisesun foreclosure, lheownership uf all puliciesul'insurance shall pass in the purchaseral said sale and Borrower
hereby appoints Bank its attorney-in-I'net, in Borrower's name to assign and transfer all such policies to such
pur,hiocc. The Burnrwershail also pay, from time m tulle, until saiddebt and interest be fully paid,;dl taxes, water and
sewer rents and all charges and claims assessed or levied at any time, present or insure, by any lawful authority upon
the mortgaged premises, which by any present or I'uture law or laws shall have priority in lien or payment to the debt
represented by this obligation, and secured fly snit! M"rigage, when and as the same shall become due and payable,
and shall also exhibit to said Bank, its successors orassigns, receipts for all taxes, water and sewer rents assessed upon
orchargeable to thi mortgaged property, at the office ol'said Bank, or at sucholherplace as may be designated by said
honk in writing, within twenty( 20) days allersuch taxes or watcrorsewer rents have last been payable al face without
the imposition of interest or penalties, as well as receipts fir all other taxes or charges or claims of every kind and
nature which by any present or future law or haws may be or hecome a lien upon the mortgaged property, priorin lien to
said Mortgage, or which may be or become, by any present or future law or laws, first distributable or allowableorpay-
able before said debt, out of tale proceeds of anyjudiciol sale for collection of saiddebt, orsodistributable or allowable
or payable out Mahe proceeds of any nlherjudicial sale, without any fraud or future delay, then this obligation to he
void; otherwise to remain in lull force and virtue; it being understood and agreed, however, that upon the failure ol'lhe
Borrower, Borrower's heirs or ;assigns, to maintain said insurance upon the building, or to pay the taxes, water and
sewer rents, orothercharges, clainhs or liens;ls;d'uresaid, the Bank, its successors orassigns, may insure the buildings,
or pay such taxes, water and sewer rents or other charges, clainhs or liens, and the sums so advanced by the Bank, its
successors and assigns, shall be payable by the Borrower, Borrower's heirs and assigns, to the Bank, its successors and
assigns, and shall he added In and become it part ofthe principal debt hereby secured and shall bear interest thereon at
the rate set lixth above until paid.
rxhibit "A"
The Burrower covenants find agrees: 'fh;U wish the payments of principal and e will ply to Bank n pm
rata po'illh vesutaxes, nssessmenls:ual insurance Preto 111111, nextt(I hecnmc due as intesferest imat lie fly [lie B:m It so t ha t t he
Bankwilllerc l'Anydefifucit ndsonhand
due date topay[axes,assessmemsandinsurance premiumsthirty (30)days heloreIle
ss of erwise Any d shall nd, edia[ely be paid to [lank by Ilorrower. Moneys so held shall not hear interest,
11 shall otherwise required by law, and upon default, only be applied by Bank on account of the mortgage indebtedness'
II sally of the responsibility nl' (hc Borrower to furnish Hank with hills in sufficient time to pay taxes before the
penalty ;leaches.
The Ilorrowerhereinarisesfr in the event of the paate of[his Note, ofany law ol'theComllon.
Wealth of I'ennsylvunb 4 deducting from the value nfthe ssage,alter the date fur h
te purpose of lax;lion, any lien thereon, or changing
in ;any why the laws new in force liter the taxation ol'mongages or debts secured thereby, for sane or local purposes,
tic secured byanner this N orate
or
Note, collection together of any with the i such lazes nterest so (life asto Iherenn, affect tshhae ll, at the interest of the option ofth Banke, [[lie Bank, whole immediately principal become d sum
and payable. ,
ue
The Borrower herein further agrees that if any installment of interest be no paid when due, such installment shall
hear ill ,resl a the nee scl forth above until paid. In [lfc event Thal nny payment provided liv herein shall hccomc ovcr-
a[?fa•G,•.ah••?indmrcress nl'liltcenl151 laws. Bnrnnver+a tees it) pa
so nwerdue for [lie purpose of defy ling expenses incident ao handling the delinquent Payment And former, borrower
agrees not In convey or otherwise transfer lityc (either legal or equitable
securing this Note Without prior written consent by the ) to the premises described in the mortgage
Borrower to the specific transfer. A transfer to the survivoror
devisees or heirs of the Borrower in the event of Borrower's death shall not come within the prohibition of this
covenant. 11 saidprincipalstill) ordol'anyV press inle
days, orol'any taxes, water and sewer rents, municipal assessments urcharges assessed against orupon the mortgaged
premises as alt rc%aill, or any pan thereof, or in lane exhibition of the receipts for taxes and water find sewer rents and all
other taxes or charges or claims aforesaid, on or before the lime hercinnFier specified f'or the ex If ihit ion thereof', fort lie
spaceol evenly (?(f) days, the whole ofsaid principal debt or sum together with all premiumsofinsurance, taxes, water
and sewer rents Paid shall thereupon become (line and payable, and judgment rally be entered and execution may issue
Forthwith for the collection of the same, and all interest thereon, together with all fees, costs and expenses of collecting
the same, including an attorney's commission of five per conlum (5'%), anything herein contained to the contrary,
notwithstanding.
In the event of the takingof:ill or any portion ofthe premises described in the mortgage securing [his Note in any
proceedings under the power ofemincnl domain, the entire award rendered in such proceedings shall he paid to Bank,
to he applied toward reimbursement orall costs and expenses ol'Bank in connection with said proceedings and toward
paynhca[ of all amnums payable by Borrower to Bank under the mortgage securing this Note and toward the
of Unc indebtedness hereby secured, or any portion payment
thereof, whether or not then due or payable, or Bank at its option,
may apply said award, or any pan thereof, to the repair or rebuilding of said premises described in said mortgage.
And it is hereby declared that this obligation is accompanied by Indenture of Mortgage, of even date herewith,
made between Borrower and said Bank, secured upon real estate situated in the IIOroUgh Of
New Cumberland County, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
(320 Rear Bridge Street)
m said Indenture of Mortgage more particularly described,
Mortgage. and is subject to all the terms and conditions of said thereb BorruANDoralOVID nnal,fCo ditioon for agreement of this obligation sor of said Mthat in
event l(bcnh ()Fall), w [)reach
For nlhc
Bank In enter upon all and singular the lands, buildings and premises granle(I by said Mortgage Insecure this obliga-
I if xh, rogellfer with the hereditamenls and appurtenances, and each laid everypart thereof, and to lake Possession of the
same and of the fixtures, appliances and equipment [herein contained and to have, hold, m, eno th
llorroweu or any other person or persons, use and operate the same in such Parcels and on such termanages atndfort
sesuche
perinds of time as Bank may, in the sole discretion of Bank, deem proper, the Borrower agreeing lhm Borrower shall
;full will, whcneverreque.sled by Ilankso lode, assign, Ir nsFer at ldelivernmb, (lank any such lease orsublease; andlo
every part
thereof, orwldchlhisohligaimntshallfheasldlicienllwarrant whetherornotsuch leaseorsuhlealse( hasbeen .ssignedto
Modgagee, and to make from time to lime all alterations, renovations, repairs and replacements therc[o as may seem
judicious to Bank, and aherdeducting [he cost ofany orall such allerations, renovations, repairs and replacements and
expenses incident t, taking and retaining possession of the said property and the management and operation thereof,
and keeping the same propeny insured, to apply the residueol'such rents, issues and proff[s, any, arisingas aforesaid,
to the p;lymenl of all taxes, charges, claims, assessments, water and sewer rents and any other liens that may be prior in
lien or payment to said Mortgage or this obligation and premiums for said insurance, with interest thereon, or in the
interest and principal due under this obligation and secured by said Indenture of Mortgage, with all costs and attor-
ney's fees, in such oryeror priority, as flank, in the sole discretion of Bak, unity determine any st luteI law, custom or
use In fife contrary not wit listanding; it being expressly agreed, however lull (lie taking of possession by Bank, under
this provision, shall not relieve any default which may have been made by Borrower, orprevent [lie enforcemem ofany
of the remedies by this obligation or accompanying Warrant ofAeorneyfir ofsaid Mortgage provided in case of such
default; and it is further expressly understood and agreed that the remedies by this obligation and Warrant ufAunrney
and said Indenture provided for file enforcement of fine payment of the principal sum secured by said Mnngage,
logelher with interest thereon, as hcreinbetore specified, and fo- da: performance of the convents, conditions and
agreements, matters and things herein contained, or in said Mortgage referred in, ire cumulative and concurrent and
may be pursued singly or successively or together at the sole discretion of the Bank and may be exercised as often as
occasion tferelor shall occur.
AND for rife Purpose of securing said possession of said mortgaged premises to Bank, in (he even( orally breach
as;doresaid, Bunruwerdocs hereby aulhnrize and empo verany arlurney of any court ofComrnon Pleas in any County
of the Commonwealth of I ennsylvania, or orally other court there or elsewhere, as attorney for Borrower, as well as
For all Persons claiming under, by, or through Borrower, to sign an agreement for entering in any competent court an
amicahle action in ejecument forpossession oflhe premises granted by said Mortgage, together with the heredifainenrs
and appurtenances, as well as all fixtures, appliances and equipment of any nature whatsoever, now or hereafter
insudled upon fir in said mortgaged premises (wit hout any slaty (11 execulion or appeal) against said Borrower and all
persons claiming under, by or through Borrower and therein confess judgment for the recovery by the Bank of the
possession of the said mortgaged premises together with the heiedilaments and appurtenances, as well as all fixtures,
appliances find eq a ipment of any nature whatsoever, now or hereafter installed if Pon or in said mortgaged premises, for
':Yr:
which II I is ohIiga lion (or a copy Ihereol-verilicd b
desires, ;t l Writ of Poss
Y allid;ivit)
hereby ession "lily be issued lihnhwitlt, wilhoshh;lll 11
be n su0icient warrant-. whereupon if the Bank so "rever rccasing:md agreeing to release the hank, from all errotit
rs aany nd dor writ or
orjudgmenl and in causing such writ or writs to be ol
whatsoove er in dientering such action and
Ilmrcby agrecin6t mt nowrit ol'crror orobjecton
issued, and in any t rocce<ling dhereon on?on timing the ton/
insuch actionanen. madeHankeu smconehall on be beh made or I;rkall'ofBankcn settingf Ihcrcio, orththe providedfactsdhat the Dannecessaryk Inau $111111 thor haveize filed
even try ofidence. such Judgmgmentt, according to the Ierms of this obligation, of which facts such affidavit shall be conclusive
the
And Borrower does hereby empower Attorney of an
elsewhere, to appear for Borrower in any Court, any and with or without it declaration tiled, confess'ud
•Igainst Borrower, Borrower's heirs and assigns, in favor of the said Hank, r its
Li Ruccessorstorassigns, as ofa or
liter the above principal sum, together with costs ol'suit, and mtorncy's commission ol'five per centu signs 5 as o f
ny term
on, on whichjudghuent, execution orexecutionsmuy issue forthwith, on failure to comply with any of tile conditions
ofthis Note; hereby waivi ng inquisition and condemnation ofan ang term
ion, and also waiving all exemption from levy and safe ml any under any Act of the Assembly, and with a release of all rs.y property levied upon by
virtue of any such execu-
Property that now is or that hereafter may be exempted
there is more than one pa pa URTHER,
AND PROVIDED and it is hereby and crn> thereby expressly covenanted find agreed That in tile event
rty named herein as a Borrower, the singu
shall be deemed and taken to mean the plural, lar wont, "Borrower", wherever Occurring herein,
agr AND PRDVIDfiD rUR'I'lll'sR, that all cuven:uus. waivers, options, stipulations, promises, undertakings
eements, and rights and benefits given lo , and obligations or liabilities imposed upon, each and all of said parties
her shall inure to and bind thcmjointly andseverally and its,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns his, her, and their, and eachoftheir, respective heirs,
.
WITNESS:
D076Ty/NAXTON ASSOCIATES
(SEAL)
s P tner &(lndwid8a
K• 11»CrCN as partner (SEAL) city
r & Individ a11
(SEAL) Napacity
-- (SEAL)
PNC CAPITAL RECOVER" CORP.
4242 Carlisle Pike
Camp Hill, PA 17011
E-mail: eric.krimmel@pncbank.com
June 29, 1999
Darsey/Maxton Associates
322 West Green Street
Shiremanstown, PA 17011
Eric D. Krimmel
Assistant Vice President
(717) 730.2492 Tel
(717) 730.2373 Fax
PNC Capital Recovery Corp,
Mr. Dennis G. Dorsey Mrs. Glenda Kituniller Maxton
Mrs. Jean O'Donnell Dorsey 413 W Street
322 West Green Street New Cumberland, PA 17070
Shiremanstown, PA 17011
In re: Commercial Loan Number 88-0255099
Dear Dorsey/Maxton Associates:
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Dorsey:
Dear Mrs. Maxton:
In connection with your obligation to PNC Bank, National Association ('PNC") evidenced by a certain Promissory
Note dated November 21, 1991 in the original amount of S 140,000, as subsequently modified, and Commercial
Guaranties dated December 14, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as the "Loan Documents"), notice is hereby given that
you are in default under the terms of the Loan Documents by virtue of your failure to payoff the above-referenced
loan account when it matured on December 22, 1998. As a result of such default, all liabilities and obligations under
the Loan Documents have been accelerated and demand is hereby made for immediate payment in full of all
liabilities and obligations due to PNC. As of this date the amount due under the Loan Documents is as follows:
Principal balance $106,489.19
Accrued and unpaid interest as of 06/29/99 189.29
Mortgage satisfaction fee 24.00
Total $106,702.48
Per Diem $23.66
Demand is hereby made for ifnmediate payment to PNC Bank, National Association of all sums due and owing
under the Loan Documents, plus accrued interest and hereafter accruing, as set forth above, and any additional costs
which may become due, from the date of this letter. Please be advised that unless payment in full is immediately
delivered to PNC Bank, National Association at 4242 Carlisle Pike, Camp Hill, PA 17011, in the form of a cashiers
check, certified check or money order, PNC shall take all action it deems appropriate to collect the above sums due
and owing, preserve, protect and enforce its rights under the Loan Documents.
Sincerely,
PNC Capital Recovery Corp.
Eric D. Krimmel
Assistant Vice President
Certified Mail Nos.: Z 077 330 622
Z 077 330 623
Z 077 330 624
cc: Regular Mail
Geoffrey S. Shuff, Esquire
Exhibit "B"
7177373407 SRIDIS SHUFF MRSLRZ 893 P02 JUN 30 '99 13:29
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
NO.
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, : CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS :
DB/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW
VERIFICATION
1, Eric Krimmel, Assistant Vice President, for PNC Bank, National Association, being
authorized to do so on behalf of PNC Bank, National Association, hereby verify that the statements
made in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and
belief 1 understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.
Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Date: ? JJO /9 S By: . /ice ?lC
Eric Kritttmel
Assistant Vice President
Q
LL -
LL -y_
V
o?
G?
cn
CP
i
i. C 71
If)
Q
a
{
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SS.
I, _________Robert_ P_Zie?ler ____
-------------------------- Recorder of
Deeds in and for said County and State do hereby certify that the Sheriff's Deed in which
Dennis G & Jean I Dorsey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------is the grantee
8th
the same having been sold to said grantee on the ______________________________________ day of
December 99
---------------------------------------- A. D., 19 --------- under and by virtue of a writ --------------
Execution
issued on the12
--------------------------------------- Augu day of __ _ ---------------
---- ---- - - - A. D., 19_99 _
__, out of the Court of Common Pleas of said County as of
------------ Ciyil -------------------------------------------------------------- Tenn, 19_99- -
Numbe{t269----------- atthesuit of...... PNC Bank _N_ A sbm CCNB Bank A
-----------------------_N_ -----------------------
----------------------------------- against- Jean 0 & Dennis G Dorsey Glenda K Maxton,
n
Dorsey/Mei[oti AssoaIWUi3 ------------------
duly recorded in Sheriffs Deed Book No._225-------- Page __470 -------
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand and seal of said office this ___ Z??day
of -------- - -- - ---A.D., f9 2a v
--------- ---------- -=----------- --
Record 'of Deeds rlisle My Commission Expires he First Mond,y of An. 2002
PNC Bank, National Association In the Court of Common Pleas of
Successor by merger to CCNB, N.A. Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
-vs- No. 99-4269 Civil Term
Jean 0. Dorsey Dennis G. Dorsey and Glenda Maxton
Co- Partners DB/A Dorsey/Maxton Associates
Shannon M. Sunday, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly swom according to law, says on
October 1,1 999 at 1:04 o'clock P.M. EDST, she posted a copy of Real Estate Writ Notice
Poster and Description in the above entitled action upon the property of Jean O. Dorsey,
Dennis G. Dorsey and Glenda K. Maxton individually and as Co-partners D/B/A Dorsey
Maxton Associates located at 320 Real Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania according to law.
Kenneth E. Gossert, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says on
August 17, 199 at 7:55 o'clock P.M. EDST, he served true copy of Real Estate Writ
Notice Poster and Description in the above entitled action upon one of the within named
defendants to wit: Jean O. Dorsey by making known unto Jean Dorsey at 322 West Green
Street, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents at the same time
handing to her personally the said true and attested copies of the same.
Kenneth E. Gossert, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly swom according to law, says on
August 17, 1999 at 7:55 o'clock P.M.EDST, he served a true copy of Real Estate Writ
Notice Poster and Description in the above entitled action upon one of the within named
defendants to wit: Dennis G. Dorsey, by making known unto Jean Dorsey, wife at 322
West green Street, Shiremanstown Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at
the same time handing to her personally the said true and attested copies of the same.
Brian Barrick, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says on August
19, 1999 at 5:09 o'clock P.M. EDST, he served a true copy of Real Estate Writ Notice
Poster and Description in the above entitled action upon one of the within named
defendants to wit: Glenda K. Maxton, by making known unto Glenda Maxton at 320 Rear
Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at
the same time handing to her personally the said true and attested copies of the same.
Brian Barrick, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says on
August 19, 1999 at 5:09 o'clock P.M. EDST, he served true copy of Real Estate Writ
Notice Poster and Description in the above entitled action upon one of the within named
defendants to wit: Dorsey /Maxton Associates, by making known unto Glenda Maxton at
320 Rear Bridge Street, New Cumberland County, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its
contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and attested copies
of the same.
Shawn Harrison, Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says on
October 4, 1999 at 2:20 o'clock P.M. EDST, he served a copy of Real Estate Poster in the
above entitled action upon the within named defendants to wit: Jean 0. Dorsey and
Dennis G. Dorsey, by making known unto Dennis Dorsey for himself and Jean Dorsey at
322 West Green Street, Shiremanstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents
and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and attested copies of the
same.
Shannon M. Sunday, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says on
October 4, 1999 at 7:13 o'clock P.M. EDST, she served a copy of Real Estate Poster in
the above entitled action upon one of the within named defendants to wit: Glenda
Maxton, by making known unto John Maxton husband at 413 16°i Street, New
Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at the same time
handing to him personally the said true and attested copies of the same.
Kenneth E, Gossert, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says on
October 11, 1999 at 1:50 o'clock P.M. EDST, he served a copy of Real Estate Poster in
the above entitled action upon one of the within named defendants to wit: Dorsey/Maxton
Associates by making known unto Glenda Maxton at 320 rear Bridge Street, New
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at the same time handing to her
personally the said true and attested copies of the same.
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says he served the
above Real Estate Writ Notice Poster attd Description in the following manner: The
Sheriff mailed a notice of the pendency of the action to the within named defendants to
wit: Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G.Dorsey by first class mail to their last known address
322 West Green Street, Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania. This letter was mailed under the
date of October 5, 1999 and never returned to the Sheriffs Office.
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says he served the
above Real Estate Writ Notice Poster and Description in the following manner: The
Sheriff mailed a notice of the pendency of the action to one of the withinnamed
defendants to wit: Glenda K.Maxton by first class mail to her last known address 413
10h Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. This letter was mailed under the date of
October 5, 1999 and never returned to the Sheriffs Office.
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says he served the
above Real Estate Writ Notice Poster and Description in the following manner: The
Sheriff mailed a notice of the pendency of the action to one of the within named
defendants to wit: Dorsey/Maxton Associates by first class mail to their last known
address, 320 rear Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. This letter was mailed
under the date of October 5, 1999 and never returned to the Sheriffs Office.
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says that after due
and legal notice had been given according to law, exposed the within described premises
at public venue or outcry at Court House, House, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania on December 8, 1999 at 10:00 o'clock A.M. EDST and sold the same for
the sum of $ 211,000.000 to Dennis G. and Jean O. Dorsey. It being the highest bid and
best price received for the same Dennis G. and Jean O. Dorsey of 322 West Green Street,
Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania being the buyers in this execution paid to Sheriff R.
Thomas Kline the sum of $ 222,222.36 it being sheriffs costs transfer taxes etc.
Sheriffs Costs:
Docketing 30.00
Poundage 4,220.00
Posting Bills 15.00
Advertising 15.00
Acknowledging Deed 30.00
Auctioneer 10.00
Law Library .50
County 1.00
Mileage
Certified Mail
Levy
Surcharge
Law Journal
Patriot News
Share of Bills
Distribution of Proceeds
Sheriff's Deed
Sworn and Subscribed To Before Me
59.52
3.34
15.00
48.00
256.25
311.25
23.63
25.00
27.50
$ 5,090.99 Pd By Jean Dorsey
1/18/00
So answers:
This jy !5' Day of?
2000, A.D. e2Q?
Prothonotary
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
By 1
Real Estate Deputy
3a vo61?
1}v
ck ?5i9y
?. 9J'99J
Sale # 30
Schedule of Distribution
Date filed January 6, 2000
Writ No. 99-4269 Civil
PNC Bank, National Association
Successor by merger to CCNB Bank, N.A.
-vs-
Jean O. Dorsey, Dennis G. Dorsey
And Glenda K. Maxton, individually
And as Co-Partners DB/A Dorsey Maxton
Associates
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA
Sale Date December 8, 1999
Bid Price
Buyer: Jean O Dorsey
$ 211,000.00
Real Debt
Interest 6/29/99 at $ 23.66 per day
Atty Writ Costs
Total Collected
DISTRIBUTION
Sheriffs Costs
Legal Search
Transfer Taxes Local
Transfer Taxes State
Credit Writ No. 99-4269 Civil with
Credit Lien file No.98-6834 with
Refund to defendants
Refund to attorney advance costs
$ 112,026.94
3,832.92
32.00
$ 115,891.86
$ 222,222.36
$ 5,090.99
200.00
3,401.18
3,401.18
115,891.86
3,324.07
90.913 fDJ?-.21
$ 000,000.00
1,000.00
So ?
R. Thomas Kline. Sheriff
By
Real Estate Deputy
TITLE REPORT
THE PREMISES ENDORSED HEREON ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS, WHICH WILL BE EXCEPTED IN THE POLICY UNLESS SATISFACTORY
EVIDENCE PERMITTING THEIR REMOVAL IS PRODUCED.
SHERIFF SALE NO. 30
Held Wednesday, December 8, 1999
Date: December 14, 1999
TAXES: Receipts for all taxes for the years 1996 to 1998 inclusive. Taxes for the current
year 1999.
WATER RENT: Company assumes no liability for private supply of water or sewer.
SEWER RENT Receipts to be produced if services are lienable.
MECHANICS' AND Possible unfiled Mechanics Liens and Municipal Claims.
MUNICIPAL CLAIMS
MORTGAGES: Listed Under Other Exceptions Below.
JUDGMENTS: Listed Under Other Exceptions Below.
INSTRUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED: Deed from Cumberland County Sheriff to
dated , and recorded
in Cumberland County Deed Book Page
RECITAL: Being the same premises which CCNB Bank, N. A. by Deed dated November 20,
1991 and recorded November 22, 1991 in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for
Cumberland County at Carlisle, Pennsylvania in Deed Book "W', Volume 35, Page 202 granted
and conveyed to Dorsey/Maxton Associates.
OTHER EXCEPTIONS:
The identity and legal competency of parties at the closing of this title should be
established to the satisfaction of the closing attorney acting for this Company.
Rights or claims of parties in possession, if any, other than the owner.
Unrecorded easements, discrepancies or conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area
and encroachments which an accurate and complete survey would disclose.
4. Payment of State and local Real Estate Transfer Taxes, if required.
Public and private rights in the roadbeds of Locust Avenue, Ruby Avenue, Cedar Alley
and River Avenue.
Conditions, easements and restrictions as shown on or set forth on the Plan for George
Buttorff's addition to New Cumberland recorded in Cumberland Deed Book "N",
Volume 5, Page 500.
7. Mortgage in the amount of $140,000.00 given by Dorsey/Maxton Associates, a
Pennsylvania Partnership, to CCNB Bank N.A. dated November 21, 1991 and
recorded in Mortgage Book 1036, Page 620. Assigned to Land Holding, Inc. by
assignment of mortgage dated November 24, 1999 and recorded December 1, 1999
in Miscellaneous Record Book 632, Page 41.
Confession of Judgment and Complaint filed by Land Holding, Inc. as Plaintiff against
Jean O. Dorsey, Dennis G. Dorsey, Glenda K. Maxton, and Dorsey/Maxton Associates
on July 14, 1999 in the Office of the Prothonotary of Cumberland County to
File No. 99-4269.
8. Certified copy of lien filed by the Bureau of Compliance as Plaintiff against Glenda
Maxton in the Office of the Prothonotary of Cumberland County to File No. 98-6834 in
the amount of $6,522.49.
9. Satisfactory evidence to be produced that proper notice was given to the holders of all
liens and encumbrances intended to be divested by subject Sheriffs Sale.
10. Satisfactory evidence to be produced that the advertisement of the property for sale is
satisfactory in spite of the absence of any reference to the improvements on the subject
property,
11. Real estate taxes accruing on and after January 1, 2000, not yet due and payable.
12. Names of all the members of the Partnership known as Dorsey/Maxton Associates to
be furnished. Possible additional exceptions for each partner.
It is to be noted that no search of Domestic Relations Records has been
made to determine support arrearages regarding House Bill 1412, Act 58 of 1997,
nor has any search been made for environmental liens in Federal District Court.
Robert G. Frey, Agent -T-
Note: This Title Report shall not be valid or t
until countersigned by an authorized signatory.
REAL ESTATE SALE NO. 30
Wilt No. 99-4269 Civil
PNC Bank. Natlonal Association.
Successor By Merger To
CCNB Bank, N.A.,
Vs.
Jean O. Dorsey, Dennis G. Dorsey
and Glenda K. Maxton. Individually
And As Co-Partners, D/B/A
Dorsey/Maxton Associates
Atty.: Karl M. Ledebohm
ALL T19AT CERTAIN lot or piece of
ground, lying and situate in the Bor-
ough of New Cumberland, County of
Cumberland. and Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, more particularly de-
scribed as follows:
TRACT NO. 1: BEGINNING at a
point on the Southwest corner of Lo.
cust Avenue and Ruby Avenue:
thence Westwardly along Ruby Ave-
nue, one hundred fifteen (115( feel,
more or less, to Cedar Alley: thence
Southwardly one hundred forty-seven
(147) feet, more or less, to River Ave-
nue: thence Eashvardly along River
Avenue, one hundred fifteen (115)
feet, more or less, to Locust Alley,
thence Northwardly along said Lo-
cust Alley one hundred forty-seven
(147) feet, more or less, to Ruby Ave-
nue, the place Of BEGINNING.
BEING Lots Nos. 29 to 34 Inclu.
sive, Block "K", in the General Plan
of George W. Buttorfrs Addition to
New Cumberland, as recorded in the
Cumberland County Recorder's Or.
flee in Deed Book "N", Volume 5, Page
500.
P.EAl=SIAI__ALct?1O 30
51,000.DDAdti'ance1_-ostsPaid 8/16/99 rn Karl Ledebohm
Assessed Valuation S 22450.00
«RLt IN 0• 99-4269 Civil
PNC Bank, National Association, Successor by
merger to CCNB Bank N.A
VS
Jean 0. Dorsey, Dennis G. Dorsey and Glenda K. Maxton
individually and as Cp Partners D/B/A Dorsey Maxton
Associates
• 32.0 Real .Bridge Street, New Cumberland,Pa.
REAL. DEBT
$ 112,026.94
INTEREST 6/29/99 @ 23.66 per day 3,832.92
.°.r'S FEES
«IW COSTS?.TT1'
ESCROW 32.00
LATE CHARGE
SHERIFF'S COSTS
Docketing 30.00
Poundal- 4,220.00
Posing Bills 15.00
Adtie^isiaLy 15.
Acknowledging Dee_ 30.00
Aucuoretr 10.00
Law r ibrar•
.50
Counr: 1.00
,vIilea^- 59.52
Cen Mail 3.34
Le 15.00
Postpone Sale
Surcharge 48.00
Legal Seat-cb 200.00
L_•.c Journal 256.25
Patriot 311.25
Share of Sills 23.63
Distribution of Procee_s 25.00
See;;:; s Dee:_ 27.50
ST.-MPS
Pa Transfer T.IX
Twp or 3oro Trarsf_: T,,
TA X'ES
Sewer 354.79
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF NOTICE
IN CUMBERLAND LAW JOURNAL
(Under Act No. 587, approved May 16, 1929), P. L.1784
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND :
SS.
Roger M. Morgenthal, Esquire, Editor of the Cumberland Law Journal, of the County
and State aforesaid, being duly sworn, according to law, deposes and says that the Cumberland
Law Journal, a legal periodical published in the Borough of Carlisle in the County and State
aforesaid, was established January 2, 1952, and designated by the local courts as the official legal
periodical for the publication of all legal notices, and has, since January 2, 1952, been regularly
issued weekly in the said County, and that the printed notice or publication attached hereto is
exactly the same as was printed in the regular editions and issues of the said Cumberland Law
Journal on the following dates,
NOVEMBER 5, 1999
Affiant further deposes that he is authorized to verify this statement by the Cumberland
Law Journal, a legal periodical of general circulation, and that he is not interested in the subject
matter of the aforesaid notice or advertisement, and that all allegations in the foregoing
statements as to time, place and character of publication are true.
REAL ESTATE BALE NO. 90
Writ No. 99-4269 Civil
PNC Bank, National Association,
Successor By Merger To
CCNB Bank. N.A..
vs.
Jean O. Dorsey. Dennis G. Dorsey
and Glenda K. M=ton. Individually
And As Co-Partners, D/B/A
Dorsey/Ma ton Associates
Atty.: Karl M. Ledebohm
ALLTHATCERTAIN lot or piece of
ground, lying and situate In the Bor-
ough of New Cumberland, County of
Cumberland. and Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, more particularly de-
scribed as follows:
TRACT NO. 1: BEGINNING at a
point on the Southwest corner of Lo-
cust Avenue and Ruby Avenue;
=?4 L-
Roge . Morgenthal, Editor
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this
5 day of NOVEMBER. 1999
NUFAR1ALSEAL "
LOIS E. SNYDER, Nolary Public
Carlisle Bom, Cumbedor,d County, PA
Aty Commhsim Expires Moreh S, 2001
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF NOTICE
IN CUMBERLAND LAW JOURNAL
(Under Act No. 587, approved May 16, 1929), P. L.1784
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA :
ss.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND :
Roger M. Morgenthal, Esquire, Editor of the Cumberland Law Journal, of the County
and State aforesaid, being duly sworn, according to law, deposes and says that the Cumberland
Law Journal, a legal periodical published in the Borough of Carlisle in the County and State
aforesaid, was established January 2, 1952, and designated by the local courts as the official legal
periodical for the publication of all legal notices, and has, since January 2, 1952, been regularly
issued weekly in the said County, and that the printed notice or publication attached hereto is
exactly the same as was printed in the regular editions and issues of the said Cumberland Law
Journal on the following dates,
1999
Afflant further deposes that he is authorized to verify this statement by the Cumberland
Law Journal, a legal periodical of general circulation, and that he is not interested in the subject
matter of the aforesaid notice or advertisement, and that all allegations in the foregoing
statements as to time, place and character of publication are true.
REAL ESTATE aALE NO. 30
Writ No. 99-4269 Civil
PNC Bank. National Association,
Successor By Merger To
CCNB Bank, N.A..
V3.
Jean O. Dorsey, Dennis G. Dorsey
and Glenda K. Maxlon. Individually
And As Co-Partners, D/B/A
Dorsey/Maxton Associates
Atty.: Karl M. Ledeboltm
ALLTHAT CERTAIN lot or piece of
ground, lying and situate In the Bor-
ough of New Cumberland, County of
j Cumberland, and Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. more particularly de-
scribed as follows:
TRACT NO. 1: BEGINNING at a
point on the Southwest corner of Lo.
! cusl Avenue and Ruby Avenue;
thence Westwardly along Ruby Ave-
nue, one hundred fifteen (115) feel,
more or less, to Cedar Alley; thence
Southwardly one hundred forty-seven
I; (147) feet, more or less, to River Ave-
nue: thence Eastwardly along River
Avenue, one hundred fifteen (115)
feet, more or less, to Locust Alley.
thence Norlhwardly along said Lo-
cust Alley one hundred forty-seven
(147) feet, more or less, to Ruby Ave-
nue, the place of BEGINNING.
BEING Lots Nos. 29 to 34 inclu.
sive, Block "K", in the General Plan
of George W. Butlorffs Addition to
New Cumberland, as recorded in the
Cumberland County Recorder's of.
fice in Deed Book "N", Volume 5, Page
500.
HAVING THEREON ERECTED a
storage shed, a one-story brick office
building, a one-story cinder block
building, a one-story stucco block
building, and other improvements.
Known and numbered as 320 Rear
Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA
17070.
BEING the same premises which
CCNB Bank, N.A., Executor of the
Estate of Clarence G. Kaznrlller, by
Its iced dated November 20. 1991.
and recorded in the office of the Re-
corder of Deeds in and for Cuutber-
land County, Pennsylvania, on No-
vember22, 1991, in Book K-35, Page
202, granted and conveyed unto
Dorsey Maxlon Associates.
_??72 Z
RogeyM. Morgenthal, Editor
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this
--L -day of NOVEMBER, 1999
NOTARIAL SEAL V
LOTS E. SNYDER, Notary public
Corti" Eora, Cumbrrdond County. PA
My Commission Enpir?s Morch 3, 2001
F
Er
Lt
THE PATRIOT NEWS
THE SUNDAY PATRIOT NEWS
Proof of Publication
Under Bet No. 587, Bonroued May 16. 1929
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Dauphin) as
Michael Morrow being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says:
That he is the Assistant Controller of THE PATRIOT-NEWS CO., a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal office and place of business at 812 to 618 Market Street, in
the City of Harrisburg, County of Dauphin, State of Pennsylvania, owner and publisher of THE PATRIOT-NEWS and
THE SUNDAY PATRIOT-NEWS newspapers of general circulation, printed and published at 812 to 818 Market Street,
in the City, County and State aforesaid; that THE PATRIOT-NEWS and THE SUNDAY PATRIOT-NEWS were established
March 4th, 1854, and September 18th, 1949, respectively, and all have been continuously published ever since;
That the printed notice or publication which is securely attached hereto is exactly as printed and published in
their regular daily and/or Sunday and Metro editions/issues which appeared on the 26th day of October and the 2nd
and 9th day(s) of November 1999. That neither he nor said Company is interested in the subject matter of said
printed notice or advertising, and that all of the allegations of this statement as to the time, place and character of
publication are true; and
That he has personal knowledge of the facts aforesaid and is duly authorized and empowered to verify this
statement on behalf of The Patriot-News Co. aforesaid by virtue and pursuant to a resolution unanimously passed and
adopted severally by the stockholders and board of directors of the said Company and subsequently duly recorded in
the office for the Recording of Deeds in and for said County of D 'phin in,Miscellaneous Book "M",
Volume 14, Page 317.
PUBLICATION ?I
COPY
SALE N30
30
Member, i'annsy,vau:a Association of Noia!RS
My commission expires June 6, 2002
CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE
COURTHOUSE
CARLISLE, PA. 17013
County of
I a Rena
to
to and suhWfu before th 18th td Q ve lfe 9 A.D.
Tony L. Russell, Notary Public U
Hamsburg, Dauphin County
My Crnnmisslon [xohos JUnr. G. NOTA PUBLIC
mane, more
a
at a point on
GW Avenue
westwardly
4w Bhsen'
Cedar Aft
ndred
% to h
slap Rher
M11 1Urer oe
t Alley one
t, more or
Waco of
m Statement of Advertising Costs
3+?"I To THE PATRIOT-NEWS CO., Dr.
For publishing the notice or publication attached
hereto on the above stated dates $ 309.75
Probating same Notary Fee(s) $ 1.50
Total $ 311.25
O
of
aer's Receipt for Advertising Cost
of THE PATRIOT-NEWS and THE SUNDAY PATRIOT-NEWS, newspapers of general
eipt of the aforesaid notice and publication costs and certifies that the same have
THE PATRIOT-NEWS CO.
By .............................................
,
Sylvania, on
I K-35, Papa
unto Donm
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, : CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
DB/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NOTICE OF SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
PURSUANT TO
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 3129
TAKE NOTICE:
That the Sheriffs Sale of Real Property (real estate) will be held:
DATE: December 8, 1999
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
LOCATION- Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
THE PROPERTY TO BE SOLD is delineated in detail in a legal description mainly
consisting of a statement of the measured boundaries of the property, together with a brief mention
of the buildings and any other major improvements erected on the land.
(SEE DESCRIPTION ATTACHED)
THE LOCATION of your property to be sold is: one tract of land situate in the Borough of
New Cumberland, County of Cumberland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, known and
numbered as 320 Rear Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070.
THE JUDGMENT under or pursuant to which your property is being sold is docketed in
the within Commonwealth and County to: PNC Bank, National Association, Successor by Merger
to CCNB Bank, N.A. v. Jean O. Dorsey, Dennis G. Dorsey and Glenda K. Marton, Individually
and as Co-Partners d/b/a Dorsey Manton Associates. No. 99-4269 Civil, in the amount of One
Hundred Twelve Thousand Twenty-Six and 94/100 Dollars ($112,026.94) plus interest from and
including the date of the Complaint and judgment entered thereon at the rate of Twenty-Three and
66/100 Dollars ($23.66) per day, and costs of suit and for foreclosure of the mortgrged premises
until the Sheriff Sale.
THE NAMES OF THE OWNERS OR REPUTED OWNERS of this property are:
Dorsey Maxton Associates.
A SCHEDULE DISTRIBUTION, being a list of the persons and/or governmental or
corporate entities or agencies being entitled to receive part of the proceeds of the sale received and
to be disbursed by the Sheriff (for example, to banks that hold mortgages and municipalities that are
owed taxes) will be filed by the Sheriff of this County thirty (30) days after the sale and distribution
of the proceeds of sale in accordance with this schedule will, in fact, be made unless someone
objects by filing exceptions to it within ten (10) days of the date it is filed.
Information about the Schedule of Distribution may be obtained from the Sheriff of the
Court of Common Pleas of the within County at the Courthouse address specified herein.
THIS PAPER IS A NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE SALE OF
YOUR PROPERTY.
IT HAS BEEN ISSUED BECAUSE THERE IS A JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU.
IT MAY CAUSE YOUR PROPERTY TO BE HELD TO BE SOLD OR TAKEN TO
PAY THE JUDGMENT.
You may have legal rights to prevent your property from being taken away. A lawyer can
advise you more specifically of these rights. If you wish to exercise your rights, YOU MUST ACT
PROMPTLY.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN
GET FREE LEGAL ADVICE.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
THE LEGAL RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE ARE:
1. You may file a petition with the Court of Common Pleas of the within County to
open the judgment if you have a meritorious defense against the person or company that has entered
judgment against you. You may also file a petition with the same Court if you are aware of a legal
defect in the obligation or the procedure used against you.
2. After the Sheriffs Sale, you may file a petition with the Court of Common Pleas of
the within County to set aside the sale for a grossly inadequate price or for other proper cause. This
petition MUST BE FILED BEFORE THE SHERIFF'S DEED IS DELIVERED.
3. A petition or petitions raising the legal issues or rights mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs must be presented to the Court of Common Pleas of the within County. The petition
must be served on the attorney for the creditor or on the creditor before presentation to the Court
and a proposed order or rule must be attached to the petition.
If a specific return date is desired, such date must be obtained from the Court
Administrator's Office - Civil Division, of the within County Courthouse, before a presentation to
the Court.
A copy of the Writ of Execution is attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SHUYF & MASLAND
Date: By: N '044
1 K 1 M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground, lying and situate in the Borough
of New Cumberland, County of Cumberland, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, more
particularly described as follows:
TRACT NO. 1: BEGINNING at a point on the Southwest comer of Locust
Avenue and Ruby Avenue; thence Westwardly along Ruby Avenue, one hundred fifteen
(115) feet, more or less, to Cedar Alley; thence Southwardly one hundred forty-seven
(147) feet, more or less, to River Avenue; thence Eastwardly along River Avenue, one
hundred fifteen (115) feet, more or less, to Locust Alley, thence Northwardly along said
Locust Alley one hundred forty-seven (147) feet, more or less, to Ruby Avenue, the
place of BEGINNING.
BEING Lots Nos. 29 to 34 inclusive, Block "K", in the General Plan of George
W. Buttorff s Addition to New Cumberland, as recorded in the Cumberland County
Recorder's Office in Deed Book "N", Volume 5, Page 500.
HAVING THEREON ERECTED a storage shed, a one-story brick office
building, a one-story cinder block building, a one-story stucco block building, and other
improvements. Known and numbered as 320 Rear Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA
17070.
BEING the same premises which CCNB Bank, N.A., Executor of the Estate of
Clarence G. Kitzmiller, by its deed dated November 20, 1991, and recorded in the Office
of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on November 22,
1991, in Book K-35, Page 202, granted and conveyed unto Dorsey Maxton Associates.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
D/B/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO RULE 3129.1
PNC Bank, National Association, Successor by Merger to CCNB Bank, N.A., Plaintiff in
the above action, sets forth as of the date the Praecipe for the Writ of Execution was filed the
following information concerning the real properly consisting of all that certain lot or piece of
ground, lying and situate in the Borough of New Cumberland, County of Cumberland, and
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania more particularly known as 320 Rear Bridge Street, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070.
1. Name and address of owners or reputed owners:
Dorsey/Maxton Associates Dorsey/Maxton Associates
320 Rear Bridge Street and 322 West Green Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070 Shiremanstown, PA 17011-6521
2. Name and address of defendants in the judgment:
Jean O. Dorsey and
Dennis G. Dorsey
322 West Green Street
Shiremanstown, PA 17011-6521
Glenda K. Maxton
413 16th Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070-1318
Dorsey/Maxton Associates
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Dorsey/Maxton Associates
and 322 West Green Street
Shiremanstown, PA 17011-6521
3. Name and address of everyjudgment creditor (other than the Plaintiff herein) whose judgment is
a record lien on the real property to be sold:
None
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 102 Tenant/Occupant
320 Rear Bridge Street Apartment 104
New Cumberland, PA 17070 320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 106
320 Rear Bridgc Sti eet Apartment
108
New Cumberland, PA 17070 320
Ne Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
1, Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff, PNC Bank, National Association,
Successor by Merger to CCNB Bank, N.A., verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true
and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. section 4904 relating to unswom
falsification to authorities.
Respectfully submitted
SAIDIS, SHUE & MASLAND
Date: ?`( By: (wi, % JC7 ?-
( /{arl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
4. Name and address of the last recorded holder (other than the Plaintiff herein) of every mortgage
of record:
None
5. Name and address of every other person who has any record lien on the property:
None
6. Name and address of every other person who has any record interest in the property and whose
interest may be affected by the sale:
None
7. Name and address of every other person of whom the plaintiff has knowledge who has any
interest in the property which may be affected by the sale:
Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau New Insights
Inc.
Cumberland County Courthouse ,
Suite 96/98
One Courthouse Square 320 Rear Bridge Street
Carlisle, PA 17013 New Cumberland, PA 17070
John E. Perry, Esquire Betsy Kahley and M. George Marburger
Suite 200 Apartment 204
320 Rear Bridge Street 320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070 New Cumberland, PA 17070
Jean Jacobs
Apartment 100
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
H.B. Zane
Apartment 106
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 204
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 208
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Binder Construction
Apartment 108
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 202
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 206
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 100
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) NO 99-4269 CIVIL 19
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) CIVIL ACTION - LAW
TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due PNC Bank, National Association, successor by
merger to CCNB Bank, N.A.
PLAINTIFF(S)
from Jean 0. & Dennis G. Dorsey, individually and as Co-Partners d/b/a Dorsey/
Maxton Associates, 320 Rear, Bridge St., New Cumberland PA 17070 and 322 W.
Green St., Shiremanstown PA 17011-6521 and Glenda K. Maxton, 413 16th St. `vcw
r _ 'DEFENDANT(S)
(1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant(s) and to sell ]Real estate t ocared
at 320 Rear Bridge St., New Cumberland PA 17070. (See attached legal
(2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of
as follows:
and to notify the gamishee(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) Itproperlyof the defendant(s) not leviedupon an subject to attachment is found inthe possession of anyonecither
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 $112,026.94 LL $.50
Interest fmm 6/29/99@ $23.66 per day _ Due Prothy.
Atty's Comm
Atty Paid _
Plaintiff Paid
Date:
$32.00
August 12, 1999
REQUESTING PARTY:
Name Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Address: 21089 Market St.
Attorney for:
Telephone:
Camp Hill PA 17011
Plaintiff _
(717) 761-1881
Other Costs
$1.00
CURTIS R. LONG
Proth ofary? Civil Division
by: u r? V
J Deputy
Supreme Court ID No. 59011
MKON REA1_ 707TE ?A
E Na 3
c=
L
On 6?w-?` ??? 9 S 9 the sheriff levied upon the defendants
interest in the real property situated in,dlu.,
"- Cumberland County, Pa., known 3n.1 numbered as: 3a° ,?./
'IV..?.?? nd inure ful desc,ibe d on Exhibit "A" filed with
this writ and by this reference incorporated herein.
(Tate: l?_?a=? i P99
By:
YINv?I?SNN38
V -)
661 Nd ZT £ EI'IV
A:1. Mao
1AWBHS 3H1AO 311dlo
DEC .3 0 199
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of upon consideration of
the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate and
the Respondents' Answer thereto, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that the Petition is Denied;
and counsel fees are awarded to Respondent to be paid by Petitioner in the amount of
BY THE COURT,
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Cumberland County Sheriff
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ___ day of
upon consideration of
the allegations in the Petition ol'Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate and
the Respondents' Answer thereto, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that a hearing is scheduled
for the day of _ , 2000, in Courtroom No. at _M. to
address the issues in the Petition and Answer thereto.
Petitioner Glenda Maxton shall place a bond with the Court in the amount of $4,495.80
for payment of the monthly mortgage while the petition is pending for compensation of lost
income of the subject property pending disposition.
BY THE COURT,
Distribution:
Craig A. Dichl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M, Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Cumberland County Sheriff
Michael S. Travis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-9502
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ANSWER TO PETITION TO SET ASIDE
SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
NOW COMES Defendants Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey, by and through their
attorney, Michael S. Travis, and responds to Glenda Maxton's Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's
Sale of Real Estate as follows:
1 - 6. Admitted.
ANSWER TO
I. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE FOR GROSS INADEQUACY OF PRICE
7. Denied. It is denied that the fair market value of the property is in excess of
$330,000.00; Competitive bidding at the Sheriff's Sale on December 8, 1999, establishes a value
of $221,000.00.
8. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that an appraisal was performed in
September 1998, by George Clauser, SRA. By way of further answer, the valuation assumes a
fully leased, non-distressed property. The property in question is neither.
9. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted
$145,000.00 to buy out their partnership interest. By way of further answer, the $145,000.00
figure dates back to October 25, 1999. (A copy of the October 25, 1999, Dorsey counteroffer,
and the Maxton Offer of October 22, 1999, are attached hereto as Exhibit A.) The $145,000.00
number was also conveyed to Glenda Maxton's counsel by telephone on September 14, 1999, in
response to an oral offer of $95,000.00 by petitioner. Denied that disputes in the amount of
$45,000.00 are unrelated to partnership issues. By way of further answer, all disputed sums
derive from issues at the heart of partnership disputes. Denied that a net demand of
$100,000.00 creates a presumption that the property is valued at approximately $320,000.00. By
way of further answer, a demand by the Dorseys against Glenda Maxton is no indication of price.
Approximately $70,000.00 is owed for back rents by Glenda Maxton and her husband John
Maxton for space occupied by the Maxtons in the building, a larger share of any partnership
interest is therefore due the Dorseys.
10. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted
$137,500.00 to settle all issues before Sheriff's Sale.
The Dorseys worked tirelessly to settle all
partnership issues before the sale of the property. Denied that the demand for cash was last
minute in nature. The demand was always for cash (See Exhibit A). By way of further answer,
the unacceptable offer by Glenda Maxton, and subsequent offers through counsel, did not end all
litigation, which was a condition before acceptance by the Dorseys. Glenda Maxton vowed
through her counsel, and through her husband's counsel, that if the Dorseys did not agree to sell
the property at the price the Maxtons wished to pay, that sale by the Sheriff would be only the
beginning of litigation related to the partnership dispute.
11. Denied. Through counsel, Glenda Maxton's position was that she could raise some
of the money, but only by postponing the sale, in addition to setting other conditions which were
not agreeable to the Dorseys. By way of further answer, Glenda Maxton had promised a buyout
and resolution to these issues for more than a year prior to the sale.
12. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Glenda Maxton claimed to have
)btained a third-party offer. Denied that the offer was for $350,000.00 cash. The offer was not
acceptable, and included terms not acceptable to the Dorseys. Principally, there was no written
offer by the third party, the third party did not have a financing commitment, the offer required
hat an additional appraisal be made and that Glenda Maxton receive payoff of her perceived
artnership value through a complicated note from the third party, none of which were certain.
WHEREFORE, Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey, respectfully request that this
Court dismiss the petition of Glenda Maxton, and order conveyance of the deed by Sheriff
pursuant to the valid Sheriffs Sale, or such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
ANSWER TO
II. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE
DUE TO OPPRESSIVE AND BAD FAITH
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF DEFENDANTS
JEAN O. DORSEY AND DENNIS G DORSEY
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that three separate suits exist docketed at
99-3179, 99-4983, and 99-4984. Denied that the implication that the respondents are the cause
of said suits. By way of further answer, the principal issues in dispute stem from the non-
payment of rent for use of the partnership building by the petitioner, and her husband, John
Maxton. It is the non-payment of the rents which has left the partnership insolvent and caused
PNC Bank to foreclose on the building mortgage, to the financial detriment of the Dorseys.
15. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys wished to sell the
building to Glenda Maxton, and/or her husband. Denied that Glenda Maxton detrimentally relied
or was lead to believe that negotiations would be successful before Sheriffs Sale. By way of
further answer, the Dorseys made several offers, as early as May of 1999, both to buy the
building from the partnership or to allow the Maxtons to buy the building from the partnership.
None of these negotiations bore fruit. The Sheriff's Sale was the only calendar item which
expedited any negotiation.
16. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted a
buyout of $145,000.00. Denied, the implication that the counteroffer to settle disputed matters
had nothing to do with partnership issues. By way of further answer, the Dorseys were obliged to
put forth a counteroffer for cash settlement on the demand of Glenda Maxton's counsel. The
cash payment of $145,000.00 was an amount acceptable to the Dorseys to settle all disputed
issues arising out of the partnership. The $145,000.00 counteroffer was in response to the
ridiculously low offer by Glenda Maxton to purchase the Dorsey partnership interest for
$95,000.00 on September 14, 1999, and the subsequent written offer of Maxton for $107,000.00
dated October 22, 1999 (See Exhibit A). The Maxtons' financial situation speaks for itself,
which was the cause of the partnership's inability to pay its mortgage and has no relevance to an
agreeable price for purchase of the partnership interests at issue.
17. It is specifically denied that a reduction in the amount the Dorseys would accept to
settle all partnership issues is oppressive. To the contrary, the willingness to reduce the amount
needed to resolve all partnership issues demonstrates the utmost good faith in dealing. By way of
further answer, cash was the only method put forth by the Dorseys to settle all disputes. Glenda
Maxton's remedy for partnership miscount, if any, is found in the partnership agreement, not in a
petition to set aside a Sheriff's Sale.
18. It is specifically denied that the discrepancy, if any, between the actual value of the
property and the sum paid at Sheriffs Sale by the Dorseys raises a presumption of bad faith
dealings. By way of further answer, a distressed property rarely commands a dollar value of a
property not subject to Sheriffs Sale in mortgage foreclosure. Gross inadequacy of price not
established where building appraised at $657,000.00 sold at Sheriffs Sale for $365,000.00 (56%
of value), Dalessio v. Dalessio 429 Pa. Super. 282 (1993), or property valued at $10,000.00 sold
for $2,250.19 at Sheriffs Sale (22.5% of value) J.B. Van Sciver Co. V. Smith 328 Pa Super. 487,
477 A.2d 550 (1984).
19. Denied. It is denied that Glenda Maxton is able to tender the amounts paid by the
Dorseys on sale, or in the alternative, fair market value. By way of further answer, Robert P.
Kline, Esquire, stated that the Maxtons could not raise even the lesser $137,500.00 to settle all
issues before the sale. Even if true that the Maxtons could raise an amount of cash between
$211,000.00 and 332,000.00 which they now claim they have, it is irrelevant. The Dorseys have
gone through the expense of obtaining financing, title insurance, counsel fees, distress and
embarrassment of having the partnership property sold at Sheriffs Sale. The last offer of
settlement was a negotiated value before the property went to sale, and to avoid it. The Maxtons
were aware of the pending sale and were able to bid on the property themselves if they had
financing.
Further, the petition of Glenda Maxton on the whole appears to state that she had no idea
that the Dorseys intended to bid on the property at sale. To the contrary, her counsel warned that
if the Dorseys did not accept the offer of Glenda Maxton, that others would be there on the day of
the sale to bid against the property. There were up to twenty bids before the property sold to the
Dorseys, which is the best indication of a fair price at the sale.
WHEREFORE, and because the Respondents have gone through the expense of sale, and
have the obligation to pay a note on the property pending the petition while delaying title to the
property without income from the property, the Respondents request the following relief:
a) That the petition of Glenda Maxton be dismissed and that counsel fees in the amount
of $500.00 be paid for filing a baseless petition, or in the alternative;
b) Should the Court determine that a hearing on the matter is in order, that Petitioner post
a bond in the amount of $ 4,495.80 (3x monthly mortgage) for payment of the monthly mortgage
of the loan obtained by the Dorseys, for lost income pending a hearing should the Dorseys prevail
on the petition;
c) or such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
' is ael S. Travis
ID No 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Date: ZZI-5 (717)731-9502
Attorney for Respondents,
Dennis and Jean Dorsey
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4076 MARKET STREET, SUITE 209
CAMP MILL, PA 17011
TELEPHONE 1717) 731.9502
FAX (717) 731.9511
October 25, 1999
VIA FACSIA ILE AT 770-2553 AND US MAIL
Robert P. Kline, Esquire
331 Bridge Street, Suite 350
P.O. Box 461
New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461
RE: Dorsey/A4axton Associates, Offer of Settlement
Dear Robert:
Thank you for your letter dated October 22, 1999. Your client's offer of $107,000.00 as
settlement has been rejected by my, clients. The Dorsey's counteroffer for a cash settlement is
$145,000.00.
The following is a list of problems with the settlement terms, other than the price, which
are not necessarily exhaustive. My clients agree that Dorsey/Maxton Associates will pay for
one-half of settlement costs, but if there is a shortfall in funds available from the partnership, the
parties would share that amount, which is reflected in the counteroffer price. The failure of New
Insights to pay rents caused the insolvency of the partnership. It is also not agreeable that there
be a future adjustment for expenses in the partnership checking account. All expenses are
legitimate. If a lump sum cash settlement is proposed, then any amounts disputed would also be
reflected in the purchase offer as part of the deal.
Settlement of all outstanding suits, and waiver of claims by New Insights are agreeable
terms. Ifa deal is reached at this point, please be prepared for your client to provide a
commitment letter from her lender that the purchase funds are available. An escrowed deposit
will also be required. Lastly, no extensions beyond the December 8, 1999 Sheriffs Sale date
will be accepted. If your client wishes to purchase the property, arrangements must be made for
settlement prior to that date.
My client's position is unchanged in that it was clear for sometime that the partnership
would be terminated. My clients did not believe the mortgage could be renewed with PNC.
EXHIBIT
A
Robert P. Kline, Esquire
October 25, 1999
Page 2
We welcome any further discussions regarding settlement.
Very truly yours,
Michael S. Travis
MST/lun
Distribution:
James M. Bach, Esquire (via facsimile only)
Mr. and Mrs. Dorsey (via facsimile only)
ROBERT PETER IFLLU 1E
Attorney & Counsellor at Law
331 Bridge Street, Suite 350
Post Office Box 461
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-0461
(717) 770.2540
tax (717) 770-2553
October 22, 1999
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
D
Re: Dorsey/Maxton Associates
Dear Mike:
My client believes she can obtain financing sufficient to pay off PNC Bank and pay to
your clients the sum of 5107,000.00 as full satisfaction for: (a) your clients' interest in the
partnership: (b) any claims against the partnership, my client, her husband, New Insights, Inc. or
320 Management brought by Gary Dorsey, Jeannie Dorsey, or either of them in their role as
partners in Dorsey/Maxton Associates, specifically including all claims for rent due from New
Insights, Inc. or 320 Management and Gary Dorsey's claim against the partnership; and (c) any
other interests your clients may have in any partnership claims against New Insights or any other
tenant of the partnership real estate.
This proposal presumes that your clients will be obligated to assume 50% of any
expenses incurred to formally terminate the partnership, including the preparation of any final
returns that may be required, and 50% of the usual and customary seller's expenses at settlement
on the sale of the real property in the event that these expenses are not available in the
partnership checking account. This proposal is valid only if the partnership has no other
outstanding past due liabilities and no commitment for future liabilities beyond those specifically
addressed in this correspondence, and that any tenant security deposits are in escrow and would
be transferred to the new owner.
In addition, I have been advised that in the event your clients agree to this proposal, John
Maxton and New Insights, Inc. will waive any right they have to further litigate the issue of the
Dorseys' breach of the oral partnership agreement involving 320 Management.
This offer is further subject to adjustment after my client has had the opportunity to
review the year-to-date financial statement that I had just received in my office and forwarded to
her, for any Dorsey/Maxton checking account disbursement made since January 1, 1998 that is
not a legitimate Dorsey/Maxton expense.
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
October 22, 1999
Page Two
This proposal is made in hope that we can reach an amicable and reasonable compromise
in order to resolve this partnership. As you are well aware, time is running short and action
needs to be taken as quickly as possible to set the wheels in motion to have any transaction
progress to a level that will satisfy PNC Bank to the point where it will be willing to postpone the
sheriff s sale of the real property pending settlement. Both parties need to realize that they must
be flexible in order for any realistic hope of resolution prior to the sale of the partnership's only
substantial asset. I sincerely believe that my client and her husband, in making this proposal,
have taken a substantial step in that direction. At this late date, if progress is not made toward
reaching a resolution, I have recommended to my client that she institute legal action regarding
the partnership which will not only raise the issues regarding her concerns with the expenditure
of partnership funds by your clients, but will also raise the issue regarding your clients' refusal to
renew the partnership loan with PNC Bank which has placed the only significant asset of the
partnership in jeopardy.
I ask that you please request that your clients give this matter their immediate attention
and provide me with a response at the earliest possible time.
my yours,
ROBERT PETER KLINE, ESQUIRE
RPK/srf
cc: Glenda K. Maxton
Gregory J. Katshir, Esquire
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael S. Travis, certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the following person, addressed as
follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Petitioner)
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Post Office Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0737
(Attorney for PNC Bank)'
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attorney for Partnership)
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(Hand-delivered)
Dated: Bv'
iel . raves
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-9502
Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Answer to Petition are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
C?
DATED:
DATED: /?
FEB 1 0 20001W
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
2000, upon
consideration of Respondent/Defendant(s), Dennis and Jean Dorsey's motion for judgment on
the pleadings, the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of
Real Estate and the Respondent(s) Answers and Responses thereto, it is hereby Ordered and
Decreed that the Petition is Denied; and that judgment is entered in favor of
Respondent/Defendant Dennis and Jean Dorsey, and against Petitioner Glenda Maxton.
By the Court:
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
J.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Edward L.Schorpp, Esquire, for the Sheriff
Michael S. Travis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-9502
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
: NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
DEFENDANTS JEAN O. DORSEY AND DENNIS G. DORSEY'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
OF PETITION TO SET ASIDE SHERIFF'S SALE
PURSUANT TO PA RCP 206.7
Defendants, Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey, by their undersigned counsel,
respectfully move this Court, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. Nos. 206.7 and 1034 forjudgment on the
pleadings as follows:
1. Petitioner Glenda Maxton commenced this action against defendants, Jean O. Dorsey
and Dennis G. Dorsey, husband and wife (hereinafter "Dorseys"), on December 17, 1999,
seeking to set aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate on December 8, 1999, a true and correct copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
2. On December 29, 1999, The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., issued a Rule upon any
party interest to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted.
3. On December 30, 1999, the Dorseys filed an Answer to the Petition to Set Aside
Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
4. On January 6, 2000, R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff of Cumberland County, filed a
Response to the Petition to Set Aside Sale of Real Estate, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "C."
5. On January 2, 2000, a Schedule of Distribution was issued by the Sheriff's office,
ng to Rule 3136.
6. On or about January 14, a response of PNC Bank to the Petition to Set Aside the
s Sale with New Matter was received by the Dorseys, a true and correct copy of which is
hereto as Exhibit "D."
7. On February 2, 2000, Petitioner did file a response to PNC's New Matter.
8. Paragraph Six of the Petition, admits that the Dorseys were the successful bidder at the
for the sum of $211,000.00.
9. Petitioner has failed to state a cause of action that the Sheriffs Sale should be set aside
gross inadequacy of price.
10. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate oppressive conduct and bad faith on the part of the
11. The pleadings are closed and time exists within which to dispose of this motion so as
to delay trial.
12. There are no genuine issues of material fact to be tried.
13. James M. Bach, Esquire, counsel for the partnership concurs that the matter may be
on the pleadings.
14. Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire, counsel for PNC bank, does not concur that the matter
be determined on the pleadings, as he objects to PNC's involvement as a party.
15. Edward L. Shorpp, Esquire, counsel for the Sheriff's Office, does not concur that the
.r may be heard on the pleadings, as he objects to the Sheriff s involvement as a party.
16. Craig A. Deihl, Esquire, counsel for Glenda Maxton, does not concur that the matter
be heard on the pleadings.
17. Defendant/Respondent(s), Jean and Dennis Dorsey are entitled to judgment as a matter
law on the pleadings.
WHEREFORE, defendants/respondents, Jean and Dennis Dorsey, respectfully request
that this Court enter a judgement in their favor, granting the relief requested in their answer to the
petition and dismiss the petition of Glenda Maxton.
is ael Attorney for DefendantiRespondent
Dennis and Jean Dorsey
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street
Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
I
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/9IAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PETITION TO SET ASIDE
SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
AND NOW COMES Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton, individually, respectfully petitioning
this Court to set aside the sheriff's sale of real estate situate and known as 320 Rear Bridge
Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070 for the following reasons:
Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton, (hereinafter "Marton") is an adult individual
residing at 413 16th Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-1318.
2. Defendants, Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey, (hereinafter "Dorseys") are
adult individuals residing at 322 West Green Street, Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania 17011-6521.
3. Defendant, DorseyMaxton Associates, is a Pennsylvania general partnership with
a business address at 320 Rear Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070.
4.
premises.
Defendant, Dorsey/Maxton Associates, is the legal fee simple owner of the subject
EXHIBIT
5. Plaintiff, PNC Bank, N.A., pursuant to a Writ of Execution issued out of the Court
of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, foreclosed on the subject premises by
having the subject property exposed at a Sheriffs Sale on December 8, 1999.
6. Defendants, Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey, were the successful bidder at
the sale for a sum of $211,000.00.
1. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE FOR GROSS INADEQUACY OF PRICE
7. Maxton avers that the fair market value of the property is in excess of
$330,000.00.
8. Defendant, Jean O. Dorsey, had the property appraised in September, 1998 which
set forth an appraised value of $332,000.00.
9. A week before the scheduled Sheriff Sale, the Dorseys demanded a buy-out of
$145,000.00 from Maxton for their 50% partnership interest in the subject property which
included unrelated, disputed amounts of $45,000.00 that pertain to other litigation set forth
hereinafter. This net demand for approximately $100,000.00 creates a presumption that they
believe the fair market value of the property to be approximately $320,000.00.
10. A day before the Sheriff Sale, the Dorset's orally agreed to accept $137,500.00
from Maxton with a last minute condition that the money be paid within twenty-four (24) hours.
IL Maxton had secured financing to pay off PNC Bank, N.A. and the Dorseys but
could not settle within this time frame and prior to the scheduled Sheriff Sale.
2
12. Maxton had previously received a bona fide written offer from a third party to
purchase the property for S350,000.00.
1VHEREFORE, Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton, respectfully requests that this Court set
aside the sheriffs sale for gross inadequacy of the sale price, order a resale of the property, or
award such other reasonable relief as it deems appropriate.
It. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE
DUE TO OPPRESSIVE AND BAD FAITH
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF DEFENDANTS
JEAN O. DORSEY AND DE\NIS G DORSEY
13. The individual Defendants were partners in a partnership known as Dorsey/Niaxton
Associates.
14. The respective parties have been embroiled in some lengthy disputes which have
resulted in three (3) separate civil lawsuits being docketed at 99-3179, 99-4983, and 99-4984.
15. Notwithstanding the noted litigation, counsel for the Dorseys led Maxton to believe
that the Dorseys truly wanted Maxton to have the property as set forth in correspondence dated
December 1, 1999. Said letter caused Maxton to detrimentally rely or believe that negotiations
would be successful prior to the actual sale date.
16. However, the Dorseys, prior to the Sheriff's Sale, demanded a buy-out price of
$145,000.00 which included $45,000.00 of disputed amounts that was the crux of the
aforementioned lawsuits. By demanding that the disputed amounts be paid to avoid a sheriff's
sale, said negotiations raise a presumption of oppressive and bad faith dealing that exploited
3
Maxton's financial condition, jeopardized Maxton's husband's place of business, and jeopardized
his source to make a living that resulted in unfairness to Maxton.
IT Furthermore, the Dorseys' last minute condition of requiring cash within one day
after dropping their accepted buy-out figure to $137,500.00 further creates a presumption of
oppressiveness and bad faith dealing.
18. The gross discrepancy between the actual value of the property and the sum paid
by the Dorset's raises a presumption of bad faith dealings.
19. Maxton is ready, willing, and able to tender to the Dorseys and PNC Bank, N.A.,
the sum paid by the Dorseys at the execution sale, plus interest, or in the alternative, the fair
market value of the property as determined by this Court.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court for proper cause set aside
the Sheriff's Sale for oppressive and bad faith conduct by the successful bidders prior to the sale,
order a resale of the property, or require Maxton to pay the successful bidders based on the fair
market value of the property, or order such further relief as this Court in its broad discretion
believes is just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
Dated: December 16, 1999 By: 0".wQ. h,ut
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney ID No. 52801
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
Attorney for Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton
4
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
AIAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY111IAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that 1 have on this date served the Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of
Real Estate on the person and in the manner directed below, which satisfies the requirements of
Pa.R.C.P. 440.
Service by first class, postage paid, United states mail addressed as follows:
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for PA'C Bank, N.A.)
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Jean O. Dorsey
and Dennis G. Dorsey)
Sen•ice by hand delivery as follows:
Cumberland County Sheriff
Cumberland County Courthouse
3 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: December 17, 1999
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
By: ?-
Helen E. Rasmussen, Legal Assistant
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
Michael S. Travis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-9502
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 994269 CIVIL
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ANSWER TO PETITION TO SET ASIDE
SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
NOW COMES Defendants Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey, by and through their
attorney, Michael S. Travis, and responds to Glenda Maxton's Petition to Set Aside Shcriffs
Sale of Real Estate as follows:
I - 6. Admitted.
ANSWER TO
1. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE FOR GROSS INADEQUACY OF PRICE
7. Denied. It is denied that the fair market value of the property is in excess of
$330,000.00; Competitive bidding at the Sheriffs Sale on December 8, 1999, establishes a value
of $221,000.00.
8. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that an appraisal was performed in
September 1998, by George Clauser, SRA. By way of further answer, the valuation assumes a
full)' leased, non-distressed property. The property in question is neither.
9. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted
$145,000.00 to buy out their partnership interest. By way of further answer, the $145,000.00
figure dates back to October 25, 1999. (A copy of the October 25, 1999, Dorsey counteroffer,
and the Maxton Offer of October 22,1999, are attached hereto as Exhibit A.) The $145,000.uv
EXHIBIT
E
number was also conveyed to Glenda Maxton's counsel by telephone on September 14, 1999, in
response to an oral offer of $95,000.00 by petitioner. Denied that disputes in the amount of
$45,000.00 are unrelated to partnership issues. By way of further answer, all disputed sums
derive from issues at the heart of partnership disputes. Denied that a net demand of
$100,000.00 creates a presumption that the property is valued at approximately $320,000.00. By
way of further answer, a demand by the Dorseys against Glenda Maxton is no indication of price.
Approximately $70,000.00 is owed for back rents by Glenda Maxton and her husband John
Maxton for space occupied by the Maxtons in the building, a larger share of any partnership
interest is therefore due the Dorseys.
10. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted
5137,500.00 to settle all issues before Sheriffs Sale. The Dorseys worked tirelessly to settle all
partnership issues before the sale of the property. Denied that the demand for cash was last
minute in nature. The demand was always for cash (See Exhibit A). By way of further answer,
the unacceptable offer by Glenda Maxton, and subsequent offers through counsel, did not end all
litigation, which was a condition before acceptance by the Dorseys. Glenda Maxton vowed
through her counsel, and through her husband's counsel, that if the Dorseys did not agree to sell
the property at the price the Maxtons wished to pay, that sale by the Sheriff would be only the
beginning of litigation related to the partnership dispute.
11. Denied. Through counsel, Glenda Maxton's position was that she could raise some
of the money, but only by postponing the sale, in addition to setting other conditions which were
not agreeable to the Dorseys. By way of further answer, Glenda Maxton had promised a buyout
and resolution to these issues for more than a year prior to the sale.
12. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Glenda Maxton claimed to have
obtained a third-party offer. Denied that the offer was for $350,000.00 cash. The offer was not
acceptable, and included terms not acceptable to the Dorseys. Principally, there was no written
offer by the third party, the third party did not have a financing commitment, the offer required
that an additional appraisal be made and that Glenda Maxton receive payoff of her perceived
partnership value through a complicated note from the third party, none ofw•hich were certain.
Vl'IEREFORE, Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey, respectfully request that this
Court dismiss the petition of Glenda Maxton, and order conveyance of the deed by Sheriff
pursuant to the valid Sheriffs Sale, or such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
ANSWER TO
19. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE
DUE TO OPPRESSIVE AND BAD FAITH
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF DEFEl?DANTS
JEAN O. DORSEY AND DENINIS G. DORSEY
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that three separate suits exist docketed at
99-3179, 99-4983, and 99-4984. Denied that the implication that the respondents are the cause
of said suits. By way of further answer, the principal issues in dispute stem from the non-
payment of rent for use of the partnership building by the petitioner, and her husband, John
Maxton. It is the non-payrnent of the rents which has left the partnership insolvent and caused
PNC Bank to foreclose on the building mortgage, to the financial detriment of the Dorseys.
15. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys wished to sell the
building to Glenda Maxton, and/or her husband. Denied that Glenda Maxton detrimentally relied
or was lead to believe that negotiations would be successful before Sheriffs Sale. Byway of
further answer, the Dorseys made several offers, as early as May of 1999, both to buy the
building from the partnership or to allow the Maxtons to buy the building from the partnership.
None of these negotiations bore fruit. The Sheriffs Sale was the only calendar item which
expedited any negotiation.
16. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted a
buyout of $145,000.00. Denied, the implication that the counteroffer to settle disputed matters
had nothing to do with partnership issues. By way of further answer, the Dorseys were obliged to
put forth a counteroffer for cash settlement on the demand of Glenda Maxton's counsel. The
cash payment of $145,000.00 was an amount acceptable to the Dorseys to settle all disputed
issues arising out of the partnership. The $145,000.00 counteroffer was in response to the
ridiculously low offer by Glenda Maxton to purchase the Dorsey partnership interest for
$95,000.00 on September 14, 1999, and the subsequent written offer of Maaton for $107,000.00
dated October 22, 1999 (See Exhibit A). The Maxtons' financial situation speaks for itself,
which was the cause of the partnership's inability to pay its mortgage and has no relevance to an
agreeable price for purchase of the partnership interests at issue.
17. It is specifically denied that a reduction in the amount the Dorseys would accept to
settle all partnership issues is oppressive. To the contrary, the willingness to reduce the amount
needed to resolve all partnership issues demonstrates the utmost good faith in dealing. By way of
further answer, cash was the only method put forth by the Dorseys to settle all disputes. Glenda
Maxton's remedy for partnership miscount, if any, is found in the partnership agreement, not in a
petition to set aside a Sheriff's Sale.
18. It is specifically denied that the discrepancy, if any, between the actual value of the
property and the sum paid at Sheriffs Sale by the Dorseys raises a presumption of bad faith
dealings. By way of further answer, a distressed property rarely commands a dollar value of a
property not subject to Sheriff s Sale in mortgage foreclosure. Gross inadequacy of price not
established where building appraised at 5657,000.00 sold at Sheriff s Sale for $365,000.00 (56%
of value), Dalessio v. Dalessio 429 Pa. Super. 282 (1993), or property valued at $10,000.00 sold
for $2,250.19 at Sheriffs Sale (22.5110 of value) J.B. Van Sciver Co. v. Smith. 328 Pa Super. 487,
477 A.2d 550 (1984).
19. Denied. It is denied that Glenda Maxton is able to tender the amounts paid by the
Dorseys on sale, or in the alternative, fair market value. Byway of further answer, Robert P.
Kline, Esquire, stated that the Maxtons could not raise even the lesser $137,500.00 to settle all
issues before the sale. Even if true that the Maxtons could raise an amount of cash between
$211,000.00 and 332,000.00 which they now claim they have, it is irrelevant. The Dorseys have
gone through the expense of obtaining financing, title insurance, counsel fees, distress and
embarrassment of having the partnership property sold at Sheriff's Sale. The last offer of
ettlement was a negotiated value before the property tivent to sale, and to avoid it. The Maxtons
were aware of the pending sale and were able to bid on the property themselves if they had
financing.
Further, the petition of Glenda Maxton on the whole appears to state that she had no idea
that the Dorseys intended to bid on the property at sale. To the contrary, her counsel warned that
if the Dorseys did not accept the offer of Glenda Maxton, that others would be there on the day of
the sale to bid against the property. There were up to twenty bids before the property sold to the
Dorseys, which is the best indication ofa fair price at the sale.
NNT EREFORE, and because the Respondents have gone through the expense of sale, and
have the obligation to pay a note on the property pending the petition while delaying title to the
property without income from the property, the Respondents request the following relief:
a) That the petition of Glenda Maxton be dismissed and that counsel fees in the amount
of $500.00 be paid for filing a baseless petition, or in the ahemative;
b) Should the Court determine that a hearing on the matter is in order, that Petitioner post
a bond in the amount of S 4,495.80 (3x monthly mortgage) for payment of the monthly mortgage
of the loan obtained by the Dorseys, for lost income pending a hearing should the Dorseys prevail
on the petition;
c) or such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Iic aID No 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Cam Date: 3.? (717)731-9502 17011
Attorney for Respondents,
Dennis and Jean Dorsey
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
Arrop NEY AT Liw
4076 MARKET STREET. SVITC too
CAMP WILL, PA 17011
TELEPHONE 47171731-6502
FAX MM 731.9511
October 25, 1999
VIA FACSDvME AT 770-2553 AND US MAIL
Robert P. Kline, Esquire
331 Bridge Street, Suite 350
P.O. Box 461
New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461
RE: Dorsey/Alazton Associates, Offer of Settlement
Dear Robert:
Thank you for your letter dated October 22, 1999. Your client's offer of 5107,000.00 as
settlement has been rejected by my clients. The Dorsey's counteroffer for a cash settlement is
514:,000.00.
The following is a list of problems with the settlement temts, other than the price, which
are not necessarily exhaustive. My clients agree that Dorsey/Maxion Associates wtill pal for
one-half of settlement costs, but if there is a shortfall in funds available from the partnership, the
parties would share that amount, which is reflected in the counteroffer price. The failure of New
Insights to pay rents caused the insolvency of the partnership. ]t is also not agreeable that there
be a future adjustment for expenses in the partnership checking account. All expenses are
legitimate. If a lump sum cash settlement is proposed, then any amounts disputed would also be
reflected in the purchase offer as part of the deal.
Settlement of all outstanding suits, and waiver of claims by New Insights are agreeable
terms. If a deal is reached at this point, please be prepared for your client to provide a
commitment letter from her lender that the purchase funds are available. An escrowed deposit
will also be required. Lastly, no extensions beyond the December 8, 1999 Sheriffs Sale date
Will be accepted. If your client wishes to purchase the property, arrangements must be made for
settlement prior to that date.
My client's position is unchanged in that it was clear for sometime that the partnership
would be terminated. My clients did not believe the mortgage could be renewed with PNC.
EAXHIBIT
A
D
Robert?. Kline, Esquire
October 25, 1999
Page 2
We welcome any further discussions regarding settlement.
Very truly yours,
ASichael S. Travis
]ASTIm
Distribution:
James M. Bach; Esquire (via facsimile only)
Mr. and Mrs. Dorsey (via facsimile only)
ROBERT PETER IffLI 'E
Attorney & Counsellor at Lew
331 Bridge Street, Suite 350
Post Office Box 461
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070.0461
(717) 770.2540
fax (717) 770-2553
October 22, 1999
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
VIA FACSIIv13LE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
aURB
Re: Dorsey.'Maxton Associates
Dear Mike:
My client believes she can obtain financing sufficient to pay off PNC Bank and pay to
your clients the sum of 5107,000.00 as full satisfaction for: (a) your clients' interest in the
partnership; (b) any claims against the partnership, my client, her husband, New Insights. hrc. or
320 Management brought by Gary Dorsey, Jeannie Dorsey, or either of them in their role as
partners in Dorsey/Maxton Associates, specifically including all claims for rent due from New
Insights, Inc. or 320 Management and Gary Dorsey's claim against the partnership; and (c) any
other interests your clients may have in any partnership claims against New Insights or any other
tenant of the partnership real estate.
This proposal presumes that your clients will be obligated to assume 50% of any
expenses incurred to formally terminate the partnership, including the preparation of any final
returns that may be required, and 50% of the usual and customary seller's expenses at settlement
on the sale of the real property in the event that these expenses are not available in the
partnership checking account. This proposal is valid only if the partnership has no other
outstanding past due liabilities and no commitment for future liabilities beyond those specifically
addressed in this correspondence, and that any tenant security deposits are in escrow and would
be transferred to the new owner.
In addition, I have been advised that in the even! your clients agree to this proposal, John
Maxton and New Insights, Inc. will waive any right they have to further litigate the issue of the
Dorseys' breach of the oral partnership agreement involving 320 Management.
This offer is further subject to adjustment after my client has had the opportunity to
review the year-to-date financial statement that 1 had just received in my office and forwarded to
her, for any Dorsey ,Marton checking account disbursement made since January 1, 1998 that is
not a legitimate Dorsey/Maxton expense.
r
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
October 22, 1999
Page Two
This proposal is made in hope that we can reach an amicable and reasonable compromise
in order to resolve this partnership. As you are well aware, time is running short and action
needs to be taken as quickly as possible to set the wheels in motion to have any transaction
progress to a level that will satisfy PNC Bank to the point where it will be willing to postpone the
sheriffs sale of the real property pending settlement. Both parties need to realize that they must
be flexible in order for any realistic hope of resolution prior to the safe of the partnership's only
substantial asset. I sincerely believe that my client and her husband, in making this proposal,
have taken a substantial step in that direction. At this late date, if progress is not made toward
reaching a resolution, I have recommended to my client that she institute legal action regarding
the partnership which will not only raise the issues regarding her concemb with the expendihse
of partnership funds by your clients, but will also raise the issue regarding your clients' refusal to
renew the partnership loan with PNC Bank which has placed the only significant asset of the
partnership in jeopardy.
I ask that you please request that your clients give this matter their immediate attention
and provide me with a response at the earliest possible time.
h' yours,
7Z2 qDl?l
ROBERT PETER KLINE, ESQUIRE
RPK!srf
cc: Glenda K. Maxton
Gregory J. Katshr, Esquire
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUIIIBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CINIIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael S. Travis, certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the following person, addressed as
follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attomey for Petitioner)
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SNUFF R MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Post Office Boa 737
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0737
(Attorney for PNC Bank)'
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attorney for Partnership)
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(Hand-delivered)
Dated: ,? ? Bps 'mss
rays
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-9502
Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : W THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 994269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Answer to Petition are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
DATED:4=?2: 2
DATED: I y
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K,
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A/
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
n
IN THE COURT OP CGtAINON',PLEAS Ut] t 7 oo
CUMBERLAND COOi\n , PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
RESPONSE OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF
TO PETITION TO SET ASIDE SA OF FA ESTATE
AND NOW, comes R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff of Cumberland County, by and through his
Solicitor, Edward L. Schorpp, Esq., and responds to the petition to set aside Sheriff's sale as
follows:
1-4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, respondent is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of these paragraphs and the
same are therefore denied.
5-6. Admitted.
7-19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, respondent is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of these paragraphs and the
same are therefore denied.
NEW MATTER
20. The Sheriff's sale of the subject property was in all respects lawful and valid, as
the Sheriff complied with all applicable procedural and substantive law in exposing the property
for sale and in "knocking down" the property to the highest bidder. Petitioner has not averred
any procedural or substantive defect in the sale.
21. Under the circumstances of this sale, gross inadequacy of price is not
EXHIBIT
i
basis for setting it aside, nor for ordering a resale.
22. To the extent that oppressive and bad faith conduc! b the sucrtSsful bidders.prior
to the sale is a lawful basis to set aside the sale, which is denied, the Sheriff was not a participant
in any such conduct.
23. To the extent that Petitioners have alleged any basis upon which relief could be
granted, no such basis has been averred against the Sheriff and he should be dismissed as a party
in the within action.
WHEREFORE, the Sheriff respectfully requests that the petition be dismissed and that he
be dismissed as a party in the within action.
Very Respectfully Submitted,
Edward L. Schorpp, E S4.
Solicitor, Sheriff of Cumberland County
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-9258
TRUE COPY FROM REOORD
to Tastirmxty arhare0f, I tr*re unto set rtty Aano
and the seal a sad at Garth, Pa
ihls ay
-
/ . a 71' P/? AfGn?^
2 _T prothonotary
VERIFi ATION
I verify that the statements contained herein are true and correct. I understand that
false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to
unswom falsification to authorities.
R. Thomas Kline,• heriff
Dated: eq- %? % -rlofe?
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMt IGN PLKAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PFF44SYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A/
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
1 hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response was served this date by depositing same in
the Post Office at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Glenda K. Maxtor)
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Post Office Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0737
(Attorney for PNC Bank)
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attorney for Partnership)
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey)
Dated:
-ro-00 B3=j??!?\
Edward L. Schorpp
?1.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON.
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
D/B/A DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
NO.99-4269
CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
RESPONSE OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A. TO PETITION TO SET ASIDE
SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
AND NOW, PNC Bank, National Association, successor by merger to CCNB Bank,
N.A., through its attorneys Saidis, Shuff & Masland, and responds to the Petition To Set
Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this Paragraph, and
the same are therefore denied.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
EXHIBIT
7-19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of these Paragraphs,
and the same are therefore denied.
NEW MATTER
20. The Sheriffs sale of the subject property was in all respects lawful and valid, as
the Sheriff and Respondent complied with all applicable procedural and substantive law in
exposing the property for sale and the Sheriff complied with all applicable procedural and
substantive law in "knocking down" the property to the highest bidder. Petitioner has not
averred any procedural or substantive defect in the Sheriffs sale.
21. Respondent bid the property at the Sheriff s sale to approximately $120,341.00.
A third party unknown to Respondent and Jean O. Dorsey bid the property up to
$211,000.00.
22. Under the circumstances of this sale, gross inadequacy of price is not a lawful
basis for setting aside the Sheriff s sale, nor for ordering a new Sheriff s sale of the property.
23. To the extent that oppressive and bad faith conduct by the successful bidders
prior to the Sheriffs sale is a lawful basis to set aside the Sheriff s sale, which is denied,
Respondent was at all times without knowledge of any such conduct and was not a
participant in any such conduct nor has Petitioner alleged that Respondent was in any way
involved in such conduct.
2
24. Petitioners' allegations of bad faith conduct are strictly confined to the partners
of Dorsey/Maxton Partnership and arise entirely out of a dispute between those partners
concerning their tights under the relevant partnership agreement, and are not in any way
relevant to the legal validity of the Sheriffs sale. Therefore, the dispute between the
partners of Dorsey/Maxton Partnership is not properly before this Court in the form of a
Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate.
25. To the extent that Petitioners have alleged any basis upon which relief could be
granted, no such basis has been averred against Respondent and Respondent should
therefore be dismissed as a party to the within action.
WHEREFORE, PNC-Bank, National Association, successor by merger to CCNB
Bank, N.A., respectfully requests that the Petition be dismissed and that Respondent be
dismissed as a party to the instant action.
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SNUFF & MASLAND
Date: BY:
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Supreme Court ID 459012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for PNC Bank, National
Association
3
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON,
INDMDUALLY AND AS CO-
PARTNERS D/B/A DORSEY/NMTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 99-4269
: CIVIL ACTION-LAW
CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
VERIFICATION
I, Eric D. Krimmel, Assistant Vice President, being authorized to do so on behalf of PNC
Bank, National Association, hereby verif;- that the statements made in the foregoing pleading are
true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom
falsification to authorities.
PNC BAINK,,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
s
Date: I?ii?o0 By:
Eric D. Krimmel
Assistant Vice President
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
D/B/A DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.99-4269
CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this I Ith day of January, 2000, I, Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire, of the first of
Saidis, Shuff & Masland, hereby certify that I this day served a true and correct copy of PNC Bank,
National Association's Response to Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate upon the
parties listed below via United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Petitioner)
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attorney for Partnership)
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey)
Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(Solicitor for Cumberland Co. Sheriff)
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SH /'FF & MASLAND
By: l '^ r I ?vr?
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael S. Travis, certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the following person, addressed as
follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Petitioner)
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Post Office Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0737
(Attorney for PNC Bank)
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attorney for Partnership)
Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(Solicitor, Cumberland County)
a /..s?/ate
Michael S. Travis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-9502
Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey
'YI
L _
• • V
FEB ] 0 2000W
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
2000, upon
consideration of Respondent/Defendant(s), Dennis and Jean Dorsey's motion for judgment on
the pleadings, the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of
Real Estate and the Respondent(s) Answers and Responses thereto, it is hereby Ordered and
Decreed that the Petition is Denied; and that judgment is entered in favor of
Respondent/Defendant Dennis and Jean Dorsey, and against Petitioner Glenda Maxton.
By the Court:
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
J.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Edward L.Schorpp, Esquire, for the Sheriff
FEB 1 0 2000
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
2000, upon
consideration of Respondent/Defendant(s), Dennis and Jean Dorsey's motion for judgment on
the pleadings, the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of
Real Estate and the Respondent(s) Answers and Responses thereto, it is hereby Ordered and
Decreed that the Petition is Denied; and that judgment is entered in favor of
Respondent/Defendant Dennis and Jean Dorsey, and against Petitioner Glenda Maxton.
By the Court:
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Edward L.Schorpp, Esquire, for the Sheriff
J.
FEB 1 0 20000'
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of , 2000, upon
consideration of Respondent/Defendant(s), Dennis and Jean Dorsey's motion for judgment on
the pleadings, the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of
Real Estate and the Respondent(s) Answers and Responses thereto, it is hereby Ordered and
Decreed that the Petition is Denied; and that judgment is entered in favor of
Respondent/Defendant Dennis and Jean Dorsey, and against Petitioner Glenda Maxton.
By the Court:
J.
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Edward L.Schorpp, Esquire, for the Sheriff
FEB 1 0 20001
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of 2000, upon
consideration of Respondent/Defendant(s), Dennis and Jean Dorsey's motion for judgment on
the pleadings, the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of
Real Estate and the Respondent(s) Answers and Responses thereto, it is hereby Ordered and
Decreed that the Petition is Denied; and that judgment is entered in favor of
Respondent/Defendant Dennis and Jean Dorsey, and against Petitioner Glenda Maxton.
By the Court:
J.
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Edward L.Schorpp, Esquire, for the Sheriff
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4076 MARKET STREET, SUITE 209
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
33?sa
EDWARD L. SCHORPP, ESQUIRE
127 WEST HIGH STREET
CARLISLE, PA 17013
1111111111111111111111 ? 11 ? 111111
I' ra
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4076 MARKET STREET, SUITE 209
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
1
1
i
CRAIG A. DIEHL, ESQUIRE
3464 TRINDLE ROAD
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
11,111111,1111111111111111111111
s
4
1
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
9076 MARKET STREET, SUITE 209
CAMP HILL, PA I7011
JAMES M. BACH, ESQUIRE
352 S. SPORTING HILL ROAD
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
33U5A
j
?1
I
1
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4076 MARKET STREET, SUITE 209
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
KARL M. LEDEBOHM, ESQUIRE
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 MARKET STREET
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
111111,111111,11111111,111111,1
C..
1
t -y
a?
r
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of
2000, upon consideration of the
written briefs and having heard oral arguments from each party, it is hereby Ordered that
Defendants Dorseys' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied.
BY THE COURT:
J.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL,
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERCER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAX'rON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
AND NOW, this day of
IN 'riw COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
ORDER
2000, upon consideration of the
written briefs and having heard oral arguments from each party, it is hereby Ordered that
Defendants Dorseys' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied.
BY THE COURT:
J.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR 13Y
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
AND NOW, this day of
IN TIIE COURT OF COMI140N PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
: CIVIL ACTION -LAW
ORDER
2000, upon consideration of the
written briefs and having heard oral arguments from each party, it is hereby Ordered that
Defendants Dorseys' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied.
BY THE COURT:
J.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THu', COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
v.
.JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAxTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
AND NOW, this day of
: NO. 99-7269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
ORDER
2000, upon consideration of the
NTitten briefs and having heard oral arguments from each party, it is hereby Ordered that
Defendants Dorseys' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied.
BY THE COURT:
J.
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4076 MARKET STREET, SUITE 209
CAMP MILL, PA 10011
TELEPHONE (7101731-9602
FAR (717) 731.9311
March 31, 2000
CUR77S R. LONG
PROTHONOTARY
ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
Re: PNC Bank v. Dorsey, et al., No. 99-4269
Defendants/Movant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Dear Mr. Long:
Enclosed for filing, please find the defendant(s)/movant(s), Dennis and Jean Dorsey's
memorandum of law in support of their motion for judgment on the pleading of petition to set
aside sheriff's sale.
Please contact me should you have any questions or concerns.
Very truly yours,
Michael S. Travis
for defendant/movants
MST/hm
Encl.
PC: Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Lion, J. Wesley Oler, Jr.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire, for PNC bank
APR
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire, for Glenda Maxton ` 3 ZOpp
Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire for the sheriff
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS JEAN 0. DORSEY AND DENNIS G. DORSEY'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
OF PETITION TO SET ASIDE SHERIFF'S SALE
PURSUANT TO PA RCP 206.7
Michael S. Travis, Attorney for Defendant/Movants
Dennis and Jean Dorsey
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-9502
Date of Argument: April 10, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Citations ............................................................................................ (ii)
1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................ 1
H. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................. 3
III. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED ................................... 6
IV. LEGAL DISCUSSION ...................................................................... 7
A. Price at Sheriff's Sale was Adequate ............................................ 7
B. No Bad Faith has been Demonstrated by Petitioner .................... 10
V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 13
(i)
TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASES
PAGE
Continental Bank v. Frank, 343 Pa. Super. 477, 495 A.2d 565 (1985)......... 7
Dalessio v. Dalessio, 429 Pa. Super. 282; 632 A.2d 566 (1993) ................. 8,9
Fidelity Bank v Pierson, 437 Pa. 541, 264 A.2d 682 (1970) ........................ 7,10
Greater Pittsburgh Business Development Corporation v Braunstein,
390 Pa. Super. 454,458; 568 A.2d 1261 (1989) ............................................ 7
Hettler et al. v. Sheppard, 326 Pa. 165; 191 A. 581 (1937) ........................... 9
Miner's National Bank of Wilkes-Barre M. Bowman, 334 Pa. 534;
6 A.d 286 (1939) ........................................................................................... 7
Van Sciver Co. V. Smith, 328 Pa. Super. 487; 477 A.2d 550 (1984) ............. 7
Weissman v. Henkin, 154 Pa. Super. 12, 15; 34 A.2d 907 (1943) ................ 10,12
(ii)
Michael S. Travis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-9502
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
: NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS JEAN 0. DORSEY AND DENNIS G. DORSEY'S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
OF PETITION TO SET ASIDE SHERIFF'S SALE
PURSUANT TO PA RCP 206.7
At the request of the presiding Judge, defendants Dennis and Jean Dorsey, submit this
memorandum of law in support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings.
1. Procedural History
On July 8, 1999, plaintiff PNC Bank, filed a complaint for Confession of Judgment under
Rule 2951 to foreclose on its mortgage against the defendant partnership. On August 3, 1999,
the bank filed a Praecipe for a Writ of Execution Upon Confessed Judgment. Having otherwise
complied with the notice requirements under the rules of civil procedure, the property was listed
for Sheriffs Sale on December 8, 1999.
Defendant(s)/Respondent(s) Dennis and Jean Dorsey were the successful bidders at the
Sheriff's Sale on December 8, 1999, for the real estate located at 320-R Bridge Street, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania.
On December 16, 1999, defendant Glenda Maxton, co-partner in Dorsey/Maxton
Associates, filed a Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate. On December 29, 1999,
the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., issued a Rule upon PNC Bank, Jean Dorsey, Dennis Dorsey,
or any other party in interest to show cause, why the relief requested should not be granted.
On December 30, 1999, defendants Dennis and Jean Dorsey filed an Answer to the
Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate. On January 6, 2000, the Sheriff filed a
Response to the Petition to Set Aside Sale of Real Estate and New Matter. Also on January 6,
2000, the Sheriff issued a Schedule of Distribution and Title Report regarding the sale property.
On or about January 11, 2000, PNC Bank filed a Response to the Petition to Set Aside the
Sheriff's Sale. On February 1, 2000, defendant Glenda Maxton filed a Reply to PNC Bank's
New Matter.
On or about February 5, 2000, defendants Dennis and Jean Dorsey filed a Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings of Petition to Set Aside the Sheriff s Sale under Rule 206.7. On
February 15, 2000, Glenda Maxton filed a Response to the Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings. On February 29, 2000, Judge Oler issued an Order setting the matter for a hearing on
April 10, 2000.
On March 6, 2000, the Sheriff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On March
15, 2000, the Sheriff filed a Motion to Consolidate, and Judge Oler issued an Order setting both
motions for argument on April 10, 2000. This brief is filed in support of Dennis and Jean
Dorsey's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
II. Statement of Facts
The parties Dennis and Jean Dorsey, husband and wife (hereinafter the "Dorseys") and
Glenda Maxton, (hereinafter "Maxton") are partners in Dorsey/Maxton Associates. Mr. and Mrs.
Dorsey are a one-half partner with Glenda Maxton, who is also one-half partner, The
partnership's principle asset is the real property located at 320 Rear Bridge Street, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania.
The partnership building is operated as rental units, both for individuals and businesses.
Glenda Maxton's husband, John Maxton, operates a drug and alcohol rehabilitation business,
"New Insights," housing rehabilitation patients in a number of the units of the building. Glenda
Maxton and her husband also occupy administrative units in the building for New Insights, Inc.
The partners pay business expenses, and any profits remaining are equally divided
between Glenda Maxton and the Dorseys. Conversely, partners are equally responsible for any
shortfall. Glenda Maxton and her husband, who is not a partner, currently owe approximately
$70,000.00 in back rents for space occupied in the building. The Maxtons repeatedly promised
full payment of back rents in exchange for forbearance in any action for either breach of the
partnership agreement or non-payment of rent. Nonpayment of rents for space occupied by the
Maxtons made it impossible for the partnership to pay the mortgage to PNC bank, mortgage
holder of the real estate.
On July 8, 1999, PNC bank, successor to CCNB, sought a judgment by confession when
it was no longer willing to accept sporadic mortgage payments from the partnership. The matter
was listed for a Sheriffs Sale on December 8, 1999.
For at least one year before the Sheriffs Sale, it was clear that the partnership would not
continue. Glenda Maxton repeatedly promised to find a buyer or new business partner willing to
buy out the Dorsey business interest and give the Dorseys a satisfactory return on their
investment. No offer materialized from Maxton. To this end, an appraisal of the property value
was prepared by George Clauscr, SRA, on September 10, 1998. The appraisal estimated the
property value at $332,000.00. This value estimated a fully leased, non-distressed property. In
April of 1999, the Dorseys became concerned because no suitable buyer was located for the
property and PNC was threatening suit to foreclose on the mortgage. At this time, the Dorseys
obtained counsel and demanded payment of the back rents, as well as other money issues for
services provided by Gary Dorsey and Jean Dorsey to the partnership or the Maxtons.
Mr. Dorsey sought payment for renovation services he provided to the partnership, and
Mrs. Dorsey sought payment for supplies she provided to the Maxtons for New Insights. The
Dorseys filed suit for the supplies provided to the partnership and New Insights and demanded
$4,000.00 by suit from at the District Magistrate. The Honorable Charles A. Clement, Jr.,
District Magistrate, found the case too complex for small claims court, and the parties stipulated
the matter would remain pending while a comprehensive resolution was sought. Mr. Dorsey's
suit against the partnership is captioned 99 - 3179, for the services he provided to the partnership.
That matter is also pending. Both of these suits relate to matters the individuals sought from the
partnership, and not between partners. The partnership agreement provides that disputes among
partners are to be resolved by arbitration, through the American Arbitration Association.
James M. Bach, Esquire, was retained as counsel for the partnership's interests, as
Maxton's actions conflicted with partnership interest. On behalf of the partnership, Attorney
Bach filed suit for the back rents owed either by the Maxtons, or New Insights. Those actions
are captioned No. 99- 4983 and 99- 4984.
In an effort to resolve all outstanding partnership issues, on May 12, 1999, the Dorseys
made a comprehensive offer of purchase of the partnership building which would provide enough
funds to pay the mortgage and pay equity to the partners after the sale. While the Dorseys were
not especially interested in purchasing the property from Maxton, after more than a year without
an offer from Maxton, the Dorseys became concerned that their partnership investment might be
lost at a sheriffs sale. Maxton neither accepted nor rejected the Dorseys offer.
Glenda Maxton continued to promise that an acceptable buyout package for the Dorseys
interest would be made shortly. As the sheriff's sale date drew closer, it was apparent to the
Dorseys that no acceptable offer would be forthcoming, and they arranged for purchase of the
property at sale to protect their investment. Several attempts through Maxton's counsel were
made to buyout the Dorseys interest, none of which were acceptable to the Dorseys. Importantly,
see Attorney Kline's letter offer of October 22, 1999, attached to Answer to Petition to Set Aside
Sheriffs Sale as Exhibit A, which summarized the status of the matter as the sale approached.
It was apparent to the Dorseys that Maxton was either not serious about raising the funds
for sale, or could not raise the funds on time. At the District Magistrate on August 9, 1999,
Attorney Kline was not concerned about the sheriff s sale, believing that the sheriffs sale could
be easily postponed. The Dorseys were completely against any change in the date for the
sheriff's sale, and wanted all matters with the Maxtons resolved, before the sale, including all
suits for all matters arising out of the partnership relationship. For their part, the Maxtons
wanted to resolve all issues piecemeal, and believed up until the week before the sale that the
Dorseys would accept what the Maxtons offered, and that the Dorseys would stipulate to take
their chances on the amounts owed for the smaller suits.
Until the very end, the Maxtons, through counsel, promised that if the Dorseys did not
accede to the price they offered to purchase the partnership interest, that the pending suits would
be "only the beginning" to the litigation.
No resolution was reached prior to December 8, 1999, and the Dorseys purchased the
property at sale for $211,000.00. The property was competitively bid upon at the sale. After
approximately twenty-three (23) separate bids at the sale, the property was "knocked down" to
the Dorseys, as the successful bidder.
Sheriff s Sale.
The bid price made by the Dorseys was $211,000.00. The debt plus interest on the PNC
loan and real estate transfer tax came to $222,222.36. During the sale, the bank, by its counsel,
Karl Ledebohm, Esquire bid the price up to the mortgage amount. The Dorseys bid against
several other unknown bidders who took the price above $200,000.00, until finally being
knocked down to the Dorseys.
III. Statement of Ouestions Involved
WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE SOLD FOR AN ADEQUATE
PRICE AT SHERIFF'S SALE. Suggested answer in the affirmative.
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER HAS DEMONSTRATED OPPRESSIVE
CONDUCT AND BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF THE BUYERS AT SHERIFF SALE.
Suggested answer in the negative.
6
IV. Legal Discussion
A. Price at Sheriy s Sale was Adequate.
Mere inadequacy of the sale price of real estate is not a sufficient basis to set aside a
sheriffs sale. Fidelity Bank v. Pierson, 437 Pa. 54i, 264 A.2d 682 (1970). It has long been
established that "gross inadequacy" of price is the basis for setting aside such a sale. Continental
Bank v. Frank, 343 Pa. Super. 477, 495 A.2d 565 (1985). Maxton has failed to show that the
$211,000.00 sale price is grossly inadequate.
It is the petitioner's burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence the material
allegations of the petition that sale price is inadequate. Greater Pittsburgh Business Development
Corporation v. Braunstein, 390 Pa. Super. 454, 458; 568 A.2d 1261 (1989).
Where gross inadequacy of price at sheriffs sale was alleged, one of the lowest sale
prices to alleged property value in reported cases was in Van Sciver Co. v. Smith, 328 Pa. Super.
487; 477 A.2d 550 (1984). There, the owner of the property subject to sale believed the value of
his property prior to sale to be at least $26,100.00, three times the assessed value for tax
purposes. The Court disagreed, finding $6,300.00 (24% of the claimed value) was not grossly .
inadequate.
In Miner's National Bank of Wilkes-Barre v. Bowman, 334 Pa. 534; 6 A.d 286 (1939) the
petitioner alleged the property to be valued at $15,000.00. After no competitive bidding, the
property sold for $2,250.19 at sheriffs sale, subject to a mortgage of $6,317.00. The Court did
not find the ratio of fair market value to sale price to be so disproportionate as to be an abuse of
discretion causing the sale to be set aside. The Court also noted that the petitioner had the
opportunity to bring his own bidders to the sale, as did Maxton in the case at bar.
Gross inadequacy of price is that which "shocks the conscience." Dalessio v. Dalessio,
429 Pa. Super. 282; 632 A.2d 566 (1993). In Dalessio, the petitioner claimed the property
subject to sheriffs sale had an appraised valued of $657,000.00, the Court found that the sale
price of $375,000.00 was not grossly inadequate. Recognizing the large discrepancy between
the appraised value and the sale price, the Court found no error. Id at 288. Like the case at bar,
the Dorsey/Maxton partnership property is a business property, and the bank foreclosed under a
confession of judgment.
Dalessio instructs a two part test in a determination of whether or not a price at sale is
adequate. The amount realized at the sale first must not be grossly inadequate when compared to
its purported value. Maxton here states that the value is up to that of $350,000.00 from a "bona
fide" buyer. An examination of the offer from the third party however, reveals that the offer only
loosely had anything to do with the price of the real estate. Maxton's buyer did not have a
financing commitment and required an additional appraisal of the property through a
complicated buy out of Dorsey's interest. Essentially, she was asking the buyer to underwrite
her debt for the back rents, and making the new "offer" as the only way to come up with money
to pay to the Dorseys to avoid the sale. If Maxton had really obtained a potential cash buyer,
they easily could have appeared at sale to bid on the property herself. Glenda Maxton was not
even present at the sale, nor was her counsel. The fact that the Kline offer looked to pay the
Dorseys first $95,000.00 and later $107,000.00, shows Maxton was not interested in fairly
resolving partnership accounts if she believed the property was worth $332,000.00. Even as far
back as August, 1999, Maxton's counsel was not concerned about the December sale, and
believe it could be moved back. The Dorseys were always opposed to any change in the sale
date, and wanted all matters resolved by then.
The second part of the Dalessio approach instructs that the appraisal value should be
considered in determining whether or not the sale price shocks the conscience of the Court.
Here, the value of the appraiser is helpful. $332,000.00 was the value set by the appraiser in
September 1998. The appraisal was requested for the specific purpose of establishing the
partnership share at dissolution. It was drafted with an eye toward showing a lender what a fully
leased property might be worth. The property had not been fully leased for well over a year
because the Maxtons occupied the building, and did not pay rent. It would be purely speculative
to say that the building could be fully leased if the Maxtons vacated the property. Additionally,
it was found after July 1999, that the property had termites. Even if the value could be found to
be $332,000.00, the Dorsey purchase price of $211,000.00 is not an amount which shocks the
conscience.
In Hettler v. Shephard the Court found a sale price $989.76 which covered only taxes and
costs on a property assessed for $3,080.00 to be grossly inadequate. Hettler et al. v. Sheppard,
326 Pa. 165; 191 A. 581 (1937). In the case at bar, the bid price far exceeded both the sale costs
and mortgage on the property by nearly $100,000.00.
The price paid by the Dorseys at the sale on December 8, 1999, was not only adequate,
but also a fair price. All parties were aware of the sale, as PNC properly filed its complaint for
confess judgment. The sale was fair in procedure. There was substantial bidding, and the
property commanded the offer of $211,000.00. Maxton has failed to establish that there was any
gross inadequacy in price. Maxton simply now wants another opportunity to raise the money.
This defeats the goal of a sheriffs sale. No buyer knows what a property will sell for, each buyer
must be prepared to have all funds available in place the day of the sale. It is this aspect of a
sheriff's sale which sets market price.
Lastly, on March 13, 2000, Maxton made yet another offer to purchase the property from
Dorsey, after her petition to set aside the sheriffs sale. This offer again only offered
$225,000.00 as the building's value. If she believes the value of the property is $332,000.00, her
offer is again $107,000.00 short.
B. No Bad Faith has been Demonstrated by Petitioner.
Glenda Maxton makes the argument that they were led to believe that the sheriffs sale
would not take place by the actions of the Dorseys. However, it is undisputed that the
Dorsey/Maxton Partnership was in arrears on the mortgage payment. The bank had the option of
calling the entire loan, which it did. The bank never gave any indication that the sale would or
could be moved to a date later than December 1999. The Dorseys would not agree to such a
change. Maxton could not believe under these circumstances that the sale would not take place
on December 8. Fidelity Bank at 543.
Upon dissolution of a partnership, it is the right of each partner to have the property
converted into money by a sale. Weissman v. Henkin, 154 Pa. Super. 12, 15; 34 A.2d 907
(1943). While it was unfortunate that the property was sold at sheriffs sale, neither partner
could produce an acceptable offer to the other partner. The sheriffs sale did nonetheless afford
an opportunity to provide a resolution of the partnership accounts. It was the inactivity of
Maxton which caused the sale to take place. Maxton could have paid the rents due which would
have prohibited the sale. Alternatively, Maxton could have accepted the Dorsey offer of
10
purchase, made earlier, or she could have made her own acceptable offer to the Dorseys.
None of these events took place, which left no alternative but to Lave the property sold at
sale. Maxton alleges the negotiations of the Dorseys amounted to bad faith. There is simply no
validity to this argument. The crux of the Maxton argument is that the Dorseys demanded
$137,500.00 before the sale to prevent the sale. The willingness of the Dorseys to accept an
amount less than the full $145,000.00 sought the month before, demonstrates the utmost good
faith attempt to allow Maxton an opportunity to buy the property before sale, at a cost of
$7,500.00 less than previously demanded.
Maxton also states that she is now willing to tender the funds which she would not
before. This is not now relevant. The offer of $145,000.00 was to prevent sale, and avoid it.
The Dorseys have now incurred substantial fees, costs, and expenses both to acquire the property
and defend against the Maxton motion. Further, because no deed was issued by the sheriff,
Maxton and New Insights, Inc., remain in the building without payment of rent.
It was Maxton's financial position which did not allow her to buy the property from the
Dorseys. Maxton's financial position also prevented her from accepting a reasonable offer from
the Dorseys. It was also her financial situation which did not even allow her to come up with a
reasonable amount of money prior to the sale to prevent it. These are all conditions of the
Maxton, none of which relate to the Dorseys.
Finally, Maxton seems to argue that the she was somehow not aware that the Dorseys
intended to buy at sale. However, Maxton was aware that the Dorseys made an offer of
settlement through counsel some months earlier. Her counsel also knew that the Dorseys
intended to bid at sale, and promised that there would be other bidders at sale, presumably the
new partner which Maxton sought to take on. Additional bidding was made on the building at
the sale both by the bank and by the unknown group of bidders. The final offer of the Dorseys at
sale was simply the highest value the property would fetch. The property in question was being
sold by PNC Bank, not the Dorseys, the Dorseys simply stepped into rescue their investment.
The unwillingness of Maxton to either make an acceptable offer or bid at the sale herself only
demonstrates that negotiations failed between the parties.
The conduct of Glenda Maxton raises issues of bad faith on her part. Maxton did not
provide any offer of settlement until shortly before the sale was to take place. Her offer did not
even come close to the $145,000.00 which the Dorseys sought. Maxton could have brought her
buyer to sale but failed to do so. Maxton's counsel stated up to the date and time of sale that if
the property was sold, that they would compound litigation thereafter without any basis. It was
the Dorseys who wished to settle all litigation and reach a fair settlement of all issues.
Valuation of the partnership property should not allow a defaulting partner a means for
benefiting from her own misconduct. Weissman at 16. It was Maxtons financial condition
which led to the sale, and the cause of it. The appraisal put forth was to allow the property to be
bought out by one partner or another, not the value at sheriff's sale which the Dorseys were
required to purchase. Dorsey decreased their demand before the sale in an effort to allow
Maxton to come up with the money for the sale. Maxton simply could not raise the funds. No
bad faith is demonstrated by the Dorseys in any of this. Maxton should not be able to benefit
from her own misconduct.
12
V. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Dennis and Jean Dorsey, respectfully request that this
Honorable Court find that the sale price of $211,000.00 was adequate, that there was no bad faith
on the part of the Dorseys, and order that the sheriff issue a deed to the property in question.
Respectfully submitted,
ichael S. Travis
Attorney for Defendants/Movants
Dennis and Jean Dorsey
13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael S. Travis, certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the following person, addressed as
follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Petitioner)
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Post Office Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0737
(Attorney for PNC Bank)
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 1705.`
(Attorney for Partnership)
Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(Solicitor, Cumberland County)
By:
} iael S. Travis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-9502
/?? /a/JQaQ Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of March, 2000, upon consideration of the Motion for
Consolidation for Argument by the Cumberland County Sheriff, and upon relation by the
Sheriff's Solicitor that all counsel concur in the motion, an argument is hereby scheduled for
Monday, April 10, 2000, at 2:30 P.M. in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Argument is hereby consolidated with the argument previously
scheduled in this matter. Briefs are to be submitted at least 7 days before the date of argument.
BY THE COURT,
11 11-V
. ?1
r
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MOTION BY THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ARGUMENT
NOW COMES, R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff of Cumberland County, by his Solicitor, Edward L.
Schorpp, Esquire, and respectfully moves this Court to consolidate argument upon the following:
1. On March 6, 2000, the Sheriff of Cumberland County moved for judgment on the
pleadings in the within matter and requested that, he be dismissed as a party.
2. On the same date, this motion was listed for argument court.
3. Thereafter, the Sheriff's Solicitor was furnished a copy of the Order of this Court dated
February 29, 2000, scheduling argument for defendants Dorseys' motion for judgment on the pleadings
for Monday, April 10, 2000, at 2:30 P.M. in Courtroom No. 1.
4. The Sheriff's Solicitor thereupon contacted counsel for all parties and obtained
concurrence from each that the Sheriff's motion could be heard at the argument scheduled for April 10,
2000.
WHEREFORE, the Sheriff requests your honorable Court to order argument upon his motion for
judgment on the pleadings for Monday, April 10, 2000, at 2:30 P.M. in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland
County Courthouse.
n
9
Very Respectfully submitted, ?r ; 3
:y .
t a c
- 0 3?
Edward L. Schorpp, Es
q )
Jrn
Solicitor for Sheriff of Cumberland County
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-9258
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document, Motion by the Sheriff of
Cumberland County for Consolidation of Argument, was served this date by depositing same in
the Post Office at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Saidis, Shuff & Masland
2109 Market Street
P.O. Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Edward L. Schorpp, Esq.
Dated:
PNC BANK, NATIONAL,
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
DEFENDANT GLENDA K. MAXTON'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OF
DEFENDANTS JEAN O. DORSEY AND DENNIS G. DORSEY
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
Defendant, Glenda K. Moreton (hereinafter "Maxton") initiated the immediate proceeding
by the filing of a Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate against Jean O. Dorsey and
Dennis G. Dorsey (hereinafter "Defendant Dorseys") on December 17, 1999. Maxton seeks to
set aside the Sheriffs Sale, which took place on December 3, 1999, based upon the gross
inadequacy of the price and the oppressive and bad faith conduct of Defendant Dorseys. Those
allegations were specifically raised in the Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale and were based
upon recent events between Maxton and Defendant Dorseys.
More specifically, Maxton and Defendant Dorseys were partners (hereinafter collectively
referred to as the "Partners"), in a partnership known as Dorsey/Maxton Associates. Said
partnership was the legal fee simple owner of certain real property located at 320 Rear Bridge
Street, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, (hereinafter the "Subject Property").
The Partners have been embroiled in various lengthy business disputes that have resulted in
litigation between the parties to three (3) separate civil dockets. As a result of the inability of
the Partners to resolve the various disputes, PNC Bank. who had a mortgage lien on the Subject
Property, initiated a mortgage foreclosure proceeding and executed upon its civil judgment by
Sheriff s Sale on December 8, 1999, same being the sale that is the subject of Maxton's Petition
to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale.
Maxton has based her Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale on specific unreasonable,
oppressive, and bad faith conduct of Defendant Dorseys as well as the gross inadequacy of the
sale price of the Subject Property at the Sheriffs Sale. On multiple occasions Maxton and
Defendant Dorseys, through counsel, attempted to resolve their business disputes prior to the
subject Sheriff`s Sale. Moreover, Maxton believed through counsel that settlement negotiations
of the various disputes between the Partners would be resolved prior to the Sheriff s Sale and that
it was Defendant Dorseys' intent to have Maxton retain the Subject Property. Despite the specific
representations of Defendant Dorseys through counsel and Maxton's reliance upon same to her
detriment, Defendant Dorseys refused to agree to a delay of the Sheriffs Sale to permit
settlement. PNC Bank had agreed to the postponement of the Sheriffs Sale if a valid agreement
of sale had been entered into by all partners and the buyer had a financing commitment with
settlement to occur in 30 to 45 days. An offer equal to the appraised value had been presented,
however, Defendant Dorseys would not agree to the distribution of the excess funds unless other
pending litigation, which they did not prevail in at the District Justice level, was paid to them.
Accordingly, the Dorseys utilized the impending nature of the Sheriffs Sale to their advantage
2
in attempts to force Maxton to make certain financial concessions to resolve their outstanding
business issues. Just one day before the Sheriffs Sale, Defendant Dorseys superficially dropped
their monetary demand slightly, however, they demanded an unrealistic contingency of one day
to obtain the financing. Defendant Dorseys did this knowing that settlement prior to the sale
would be logistically impossible, despite the Buyer's approved financing sufficient to pay PNC
Bank and Defendant Dorseys in full within the Bank's requested time period.
At the time of the Sheriffs Sale, with knowledge that the appraised value of the Subject
Property pursuant to Defendant Dorseys' appraisal of September 1998, was $332,000.00,
Defendant Dorseys bid on the property at the Sheriffs Sale and were successful for the sum of
$211,000.00, thereby obtaining the Subject Property for a grossly inadequate price.
Thereafter, in compliance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 3132, Maxton's filed
here Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale on December 17, 1999, and the Honorable Judge J.
Wesley Oler, Jr. issued a Rule to any party in interest to show cause why the relief requested
should not be granted on December 29, 1999. Defendant Dorseys filed an Answer thereto on
December 30, 1999, and R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff of Cumberland County, and PNC Bank, also
responded to said Rule by filing their respective Answers to Maxton's Petition to Set Aside
Sheriffs Sale.
On or about February 2, 2000, Defendant Dorseys filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings of Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale. A hearing for argument of same was scheduled
for April 10, 2000, and this Brief follows in accordance with the Order of the Honorable Judge
J. Wesley Oler, Jr.
3
II. STATEMENT OF OUESTIONS INVOLVED:
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
B. WHETHER DEFENDANT DORSI YS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS MUST BE DENIED UNDER THE FACTS OF THIS
CASE.
Suggested Answer: [Yes]
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT:
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
It is well-established in Pennsylvania that a motion for judgment on the pleadings will
succeed only "in cases free from doubt inhere there are no issues of fact, and only where the
cause is so clear that a trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise." Beck v. Minestrella, 264
Pa.Super 609, 401 A.2d 762 (1979), emphasis added. Procedurally, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 1034 governs such motions wherein it states:
(a) After the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay
the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings.
(b) The court shall enter such judgment or order as shall be proper on
the pleadings.
Pa.R.C.P. 1934.
Because a motion for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a demurrer, upon a
review of the allegations of the pleadings, it is clear that Defendant Dorseys' Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings must be denied. As a demurrer, "[a]II material facts set forth in the
Complaint as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom are admitted as true for the
purpose of this review". Kyle v. McNamara & Criste, 506 Pa. 631, 634, 487 A.2d 814, 816
4
r..
(1985). In addition, "[tjhe party moving for the judgment on the pleadings admits for the
purpose of his motion ... the untruth of any of his allegations which may have been denied by
his adversary. Beck v. Minestrella, 264 Pa.Super. 609, 401 A.2d 762 (1979).
Defendant Dorscys' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings may be granted only if the law
dictates with certainty that the facts as averred permit no possible recovery. Kj, c, 487 A.2d at
816. Accordingly. because Maxton has properly alleged the requisite facts necessary for review
by this Court, as more specifically explained, infra, and has acted in compliance with
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1332 in filing her Petition, Defendant Dorseys' Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings must be overruled.
It is also well-established in Pennsylvania that "[w]here doubt exists as to whether a
demurrer should be sustained, this doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling it." Id. Thus,
in consideration of the nature of the pending motion as one for judgment on the pleadings, and
in compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure regarding same that permit only
the consideration of the well-pleaded statements of fact, specific admissions, and those documents
properly attached thereto, Defendant Dorseys' motion must be denied.
B. DEFENDANT DORSEYS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS MUST FAIL BECAUSE JUST CAUSE EXISTS FOR
THIS COURT TO SET ASIDE THE SHERIFF'S SALE AND
DISPUTED FACTS EXIST THEREBY PROHIBITING THE ENTRY
OF JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS.
Upon review of the factual allegations of Maxton's Petition for Setting Aside Sheriff's
Sale, and accepting the allegations as admitted for the purposes of a determination of the Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings, it is clear that Defendant Dorseys' Motion for Judgment on the
5
Pleadings must fail. More specifically, Maxton filed her Petition pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule
of Civil Procedure 3132 which states that:
Upon petition of any party in interest before delivery of the personal property or
of the sheriffs deed to real property, the court may, upon proper cause shown, set
aside the sale and order a resale or enter any other order which may be just and
proper under the circumstances.
Pa.R.C.P. 3132.
In addition, Maxton's Petition was timely filed pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 3135 which provides, infer cilia:
(a) When real property is sold in execution and no petition to set aside the sale
has been filed, the sheriff, at the expiration of ten days after the filing of the
schedule of distribution, shall execute and acknowledge before the prothonotary
a deed to the property sold ...
Pa.R.C.P. 3135.
In her Petition, Maxton has met her burden because she has properly pleaded the requisite
facts regarding the sale of the Subject Property for a grossly inadequate price as well as the
oppressive and bad faith conduct of Defendant Dorseys, which both constitute just cause to set
aside the sale by this Court as permitted by Pennsylvania law. As stated above, because
Defendant Dorseys' motion is for ajudgment on the pleadings, Maxton's factual allegations must
be admitted as true, thereby preventing the entry of a judgment on the pleadings under the facts
of this case.
In Pennsylvania, it has long been established that gross inadequacy of price is the basis
for setting aside a sheriff's sale of real property. Continental Bank v. Prank, 343 Pa. Super. 477,
484, 495 A.2d 565, 568 (1985). Nfaxton, who is clearly a party in interest, has properly plead
this issue by including factual averments of the sales price, value of the property including
6
specific allegations of Defendant Dorseys' appraisal, the mortgage balance, and the estimated
value of the property. (See Maxton's Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9
and 12). A petition to set aside sheriff's sale is left to the discretion of the court, and the true
value, sales price and mortgage balance are all items to be considered in making a determination.
Id., Vend-a-Matic. Inc. v. Prankford "trust Co., 296 Pa. Super. 492, 442 A.2d 1 158 (1982). 'T'hus,
upon review of the pleadings, it is evident that Maxton has plead the requisite information and
that the parties clearly dispute whether the sales price was grossly inadequate. This Court's
review of appraisals should be undertaken to determine the value of the property. Because the
immediate proceeding is in the nature of a motion for judgment on the pleadings and the requisite
factual allegations have been made by Maxton, in considering that the well pleaded allegations
are admitted and the untruth of the moving party's averments are denied, judgment on the
pleadings cannot be entered since material issues of the facts are in dispute. Tate v. Pennsylvania
Board of Probation and Parole, 40 Pa.Conmmonwcalth Ct., 4. 396 A.2d 482 (1979).
There are additional disputed facts that justify the denial of Defendant Dorseys' Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings. More specifically, Maxton alleged certain oppressive and bad
faith conduct on the part of Defendant Dorseys that resulted in unfairness to Maxton thereby
justifying the setting aside of the Sheriff's Sale. tvt. f3armann and Sons v. Dice, 74 DKC.2d 608
(1976). The Dorseys refusal to sign a full price offer of the appraised value of the property
created a "financial hostage" situation to Maxton unless she gave in on the other business
disputes. Such methods of dealing clearly constitute bad faith and oppressive conduct which this
Court needs to be the Ultimate fact finder on in determining whether said conduct justifies setting
aside the Sheriff Sale. This issue is also disputed by the p.uticS, and as Stated above, such a
7
disputed issue is sufficient reason for this Court to deny Defendant Dorseys' Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings. As explained above, it is well-established in Pennsylvania that "[w]here doubt
exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, this doubt should be resolved in favor of
overruling it." Kyle, 487 A.2d at 816. Thus, in consideration of the nature of the pending
motion as one for judgment on the pleadings, and in compliance with the Pennsylvania law
Defendant Dorseys' motion must be denied.
IV. CONCLUSION:
For the above-stated reasons, Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton, respectfully requests that
Defendant Dorseys' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be overruled.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
Date: April 3, 2000 By:
Craig Pi. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 52801
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
8
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICAI'F._OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 3rd day of April, 2000, the undersigned hereby cerlilies that a true and
correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT, 6LF.NDA K. \9AX'I'ON'S BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JLJDG\11?N'1' ON TI Ili PI.FADINGS OF 1)[3FF.NDANTS,
JEAN O. DORSEY AND DENNIS G. DORSEY was served upon the parties listed below by
way of United States first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Karl M. Ledebolmi, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for PNC Bank, N.A.)
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Ilill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Jean O. Dorsey
and Dennis G. Dorsey)
Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(Solicitor for Cumberland
Co. Sheriff)
James M. Bach, Esquire
.152 South Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attorney li,r Partnership)
LAWOFFIC'ES Oh CRAIG A. DIEHL
BY: -- XU F'
llelcn I:. asmtssen, Legal Assistant
3.164 '1'rindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATIGN, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
RESPONSE OF GLENDA K. MAXTON
TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Defendant/Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton, by her counsel, Law Offices of Craig A. Diehl,
respectfully responds to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Jean O. Dorsey and
Dennis G. Dorsey as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Denied, Petitioner has set forth several allegations as to the true value of the
property. It has been long established that gross inadequacy of price is the basis for setting aside
of a sheriff sale. The value of the property must be considered by the Court as a factual issue
through demonstrative evidence, appraisals, etc., in making its determination of whether the sale
price is grossly inadequate.
10. Denied. The allegations set forth in Petitioner's Petition create a factual dispute
that this Court needs to hear prior to making its decision whether the Dorseys' conduct is
oppressive and in bad faith.
11. Admitted.
12. Denied. Petitioner has alleged several disputed factual issues which would be
sufficient grounds to deny the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
13. Denied. Counsel for Petitioner has no knowledge of Attorney Bach's position on
this matter.
14. Denied. Counsel for Petitioner has no knowledge of Attorney Ledebohm's position
on this matter.
15. Denied. Counsel for Petitioner has no knowledge of Attorney Schorpp's position
on this matter.
16. Admitted.
17. Denied. Sufficient material factual issues have been timely raised such that this
Court should set the matter for a hearing to decide the dispute.
2
WHEREFORE, Petitioner/Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton, respectfully requests that this
Court deny the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and set the matter for a hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
Dated: February 2000 By:
Craig k Diehl, Esquire
Attorney ID No. 52801
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
Attorney for Defendant/Petitioner,
Glenda K. Maxton
3
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this L"' day of February, 2000, the undersigned hereby certifies that a
true and correct copy of the foregoing RESPONSE OF GLENDA K. MAXTON TO MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS was served upon the parties listed below by way of
United States first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire Michael S. Travis, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND 4076 Market Street, Suite 209
2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011
Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Attorney for Jean O. Dorsey
(Attorney for PNC Bank, N.A.) and Dennis G. Dorsey)
Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire James M. Bach, Esquire
127 West High Street 352 South Sporting Hill Road
Carlisle, PA 17013 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Solicitor for Cumberland (Attorney for Partnership)
Co. Sheriff)
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
By
Helen E-. 'Rasmussen, Legal Assistant
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
`J
¢ 0
q?
J
W N a A
p w
F
a?
a
U
r n n
O o a ?
?
z
5 ~=F
U
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
REPLY TO NEW MATTER
AND NOW COMES, Glenda K. Maxton, hereby responding to the New Matter filed by
PNC Bank, N.A., as follows:
20. Admitted.
21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Glenda K. Maxton is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments.
22. Denied. Gross inadequacy of price is a proper cause for setting aside of a sheriff
sale.
23. Denied. It is admitted that PNC Bank, N.A., was not a participant in any
oppressive and bad faith conduct between Petitioner and the Dorseys. Any further averments are
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required.
24. Denied. The averments contain conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading is required. Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton, has set forth valid reasons to request that the
sheriff sale be set aside.
25. Admitted.
WHEREFORE, Glenda K. Maxton respectfully requests that the sheriff's sale be set aside
or order such further relief as this Court believes is just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
Dated: January 31, 2000 By: l ?, wQ L );,'t
Craig . Diehl, Esquire
Attorney ID No. 52801
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
Attorney for Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton
2
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this -L5-1- day of February, 2000, the undersigned hereby certifies that a
true and correct copy of the foregoing REPLY TO NEW MATTER was served upon the parties
listed below by way of United States first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire Michael S. Travis, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND 4076 Market Street, Suite 209
2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011
Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Attorney for Jean O. Dorsey
(Attorney for PNC Bank, N.A.) and Dennis G. Dorsey)
Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire James M. Bach, Esquire
127 West High Street 352 South Sporting Hill Road
Carlisle, PA 17013 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Solicitor for Cumberland (Attorney for Partnership)
Co. Sheriff)
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
By. j
elen tasmussen, Legal Assistant
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
C1
C.=
t
- 5
cn i
W ¢ i to
p
w uiLb
2y
Q F
x ? C
V a
m
LL
y C
W a
LL
V n
?
LL
a
3
F x n
U
1
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4016 MARKET STREET, SUITE 209
CAMP HILL, PA 11011
JAMES M. BACH, ESQUIRE
352 S. SPORTING HILL ROAD
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
I'll III II l111a„I,11
? USA
? ? 55
1.
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4076 MARKET STREET, SUITE 209
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
I,
o' S
d
""WUSA
SJ
KARL M. LEDEBOHM, ESQUIRE
2109 MARKET STREET
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
1111111111111?1??11111111111?111
111I11r''
l;
nFC o 19sk
v
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of
, upon consideration of
the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate and
the Respondents' Answer thereto, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that the Petition is Denied;
and counsel fees are awarded to Respondent to be paid by Petitioner in the amount of
BY THE COURT,
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Cumberland County Sheriff
J.
,0-
19R, S 0
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CC" BANK
N : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
,
.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G
.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A :CIVIL ACTION -LAW
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES
,
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
upon consideration of
the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate and
AND NOW, this day of
the Respondents' Answer thereto, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that the Petition is Denied;
and counsel fees are awarded to Respondent to be paid by Petitioner in the amount of
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
BY THE COURT,
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Cumberland County Sheriff
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of upon consideration of
the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate and
the Respondents' Answer thereto, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that a hearing is scheduled
for the day of 2000, in Courtroom No. at _M. to
address the issues in the Petition and Answer thereto.
Petitioner Glenda Maxton shall place a bond with the Court in the amount of $4,495.80
for payment of the monthly mortgage while the petition is pending for compensation of lost
income of the subject property pending disposition.
BY THE COURT,
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Cumberland County Sheriff
Michael S. Travis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-9502
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ANSWER TO PETITION TO SET ASIDE
SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
NOW COMES Defendants Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey, by and through their
attorney, Michael S. Travis, and responds to Glenda Maxton's Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs
Sale of Real Estate as follows:
1 - 6. Admitted.
ANSWER TO
I. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE FOR GROSS INADEQUACY OF PRICE
7. Denied. It is denied that the fair market value of the property is in excess of
$330,000.00; Competitive bidding at the Sheriff's Sale on December 8, 1999, establishes a value
of $221,000.00.
8. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that an appraisal was performed in
September 1998, by George Clauser, SRA. By way of further answer, the valuation aRsumes a
fully leased, non-distressed property. The property in question is neither.
9. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted
$145,000.00 to buy out their partnership interest. By way of further answer, the $145,000.00
figure dates back to October 25, 1999. (A copy of the October 25, 1999, Dorsey counteroffer,
and the Maxton Offer of October 22, 1999, are attached hereto as Exhibit A.) The $145,000.00
number was also conveyed to Glenda Maxton's counsel by telephone on September 14, 1999, in
response to an oral offer of $95,000.00 by petitioner. Denied that disputes in the amount of
$45,000.00 are unrelated to partnership issues. Byway of further answer, all disputed sums
derive from issues at the heart of partnership disputes. Denied that a net demand of
$100,000.00 creates a presumption that the property is valued at approximately $320,000.00. By
way of further answer, a demand by the Dorseys against Glenda Maxton is no indication of price.
Approximately $70,000.00 is owed for back rents by Glenda Maxton and her husband John
Maxton for space occupied by the Maxtons in the building, a larger share of any partnership
interest is therefore due the Dorseys.
10. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted
$137,500.00 to settle all issues before Sheriff's Sale. The Dorseys worked tirelessly to settle all
partnership issues before the sale of the property. Denied that the demand for cash was last
minute in nature. The demand was always for cash (See Exhibit A). By way of further answer,
the unacceptable offer by Glenda Maxton, and subsequent offers through counsel, did not end all
litigation, which was a condition before acceptance by the Dorseys. Glenda Maxton vowed
through her counsel, and through her husband's counsel, that if the Dorseys did not agree to sell
the property at the price the Maxtons wished to pay, that sale by the Sheriff would be only the
beginning of litigation related to the partnership dispute.
11. Denied. Through counsel, Glenda Maxton's position was that she could raise some
of the money, but only by postponing the sale, in addition to setting other conditions which were
not agreeable to the Dorseys. By way of further answer, Glenda Maxton had promised a buyout
and resolution to these issues for more than a year prior to the sale.
12. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Glenda Maxton claimed to have
obtained a third-party offer. Denied that the offer was for $350,000.00 cash. The offer was not I
acceptable, and included terms not acceptable to the Dorseys. Principally, there was no written I
affer by the third party, the third party did not have a financing commitment, the offer required
hat an additional appraisal be made and that Glenda Maxton receive payoff of her perceived
artnership value through a complicated note from the third party, none of which were certain.
WHEREFORE, Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey, respectfully request that this
Court dismiss the petition of Glenda Maxton, and order conveyance of the deed by Sheriff
pursuant to the valid Sheriffs Sale, or such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
ANSWER TO
II. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE
DUE TO OPPRESSIVE AND BAD FAITH
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF DEFENDANTS
JEAN O. DORSEY AND DENNIS G. DORSEY
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that three separate suits exist docketed at
99-3179, 99-4983, and 99-4984. Denied that the implication that the respondents are the cause
of said suits. By way of further answer, the principal issues in dispute stem from the non-
payment of rent for use of the partnership building by the petitioner, and her husband, John
Maxton. It is the non-payment of the rents which has left the partnership insolvent and caused
PNC Bank to foreclose on the building mortgage, to the financial detriment of the Dorseys.
15. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys wished to sell the
building to Glenda Maxton, and/or her husband. Denied that Glenda Maxton detrimentally relied
or was lead to believe that negotiations would be successful before Sheriffs Sale. By way of
further answer, the Dorseys made several offers, as early as May of 1999, both to buy the
building from the partnership or to allow the Maxtons to buy the building from the partnership.
None of these negotiations bore fruit. The Sheriffs Sale was the only calendar item which
expedited any negotiation.
16. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted a
buyout of $145,000.00. Denied, the implication that the counteroffer to settle disputed matters
had nothing to do with partnership issues. By way of further answer, the Dorseys were obliged to
put forth a counteroffer for cash settlement on the demand of Glenda Maxton's counsel. The
cash payment of $145,000.00 was an amount acceptable to the Dorseys to settle all disputed
issues arising out of the partnership. The $145,000.00 counteroffer was in response to the
ridiculously low offer by Glenda Maxton to purchase the Dorsey partnership interest for
$95,000.00 on September 14, 1999, and the subsequent written offer of Maxton for $107,000.00
dated October 22, 1999 (See Exhibit A). The Maxtons' financial situation speaks for itself,
which was the cause of the partnership's inability to pay its mortgage and has no relevance to an
agreeable price for purchase of the partnership interests at issue.
17. It is specifically denied that a reduction in the amount the Dorseys would accept to
settle all partnership issues is oppressive. To the contrary, the willingness to reduce the amount
needed to resolve all partnership issues demonstrates the utmost good faith in dealing. By way of
further answer, cash was the only method put forth by the Dorseys to settle all disputes. Glenda
Maxton's remedy for partnership miscount, if any, is found in the partnership agreement, not in a
petition to set aside a Sheriffs Sale.
18. It is specifically denied that the discrepancy, if any, between the actual value of the
property and the sum paid at Sheriff s Sale by the Dorseys raises a presumption of bad faith
dealings. By way of further answer, a distressed property rarely commands a dollar value of a
property not subject to Sheriff s Sale in mortgage foreclosure. Gross inadequacy of price not
established where building appraised at $657,000.00 sold at Sheriff s Sale for $365,000.00 (56%
of value), Dalessio v. Dalessio. 429 Pa. Super. 282 (1993), or property valued at $10,000.00 sold
for $2,250.19 at Sheriffs Sale (22.5% of value) J B Van Sciver Co. v. Smith 328 Pa Super. 487,
477 A.2d 550 (1984).
19. Denied. It is denied that Glenda Maxton is able to tender the amounts paid by the
Dorseys on sale, or in the alternative, fair market value. By way of further answer, Robert P.
Kline, Esquire, stated that the Maxtons could not raise even the lesser $137,500.00 to settle all
issues before the sale. Even if true that the Maxtons could raise an amount of cash between
$211,000.00 and 332,000.00 which they now claim they have, it is irrelevant. The Dorseys have
gone through the expense of obtaining financing, title insurance, counsel fees, distress and
embarrassment of having the partnership property sold at Sheriffs Sale. The last offer of
settlement was a negotiated value before the property wen/ to sale, and to avoid it. The Maxtons
were aware of the pending sale and were able to bid on the property themselves if they had
financing.
Further, the petition of Glenda Maxton on the whole appears to state that she had no idea
that the Dorseys intended to bid on the property at sale. To the contrary, her counsel warned that
if the Dorseys did not accept the offer of Glenda Maxton, that others would be there on the day of
the sale to bid against the property. There were up to twenty bids before the property sold to the
Dorseys, which is the best indication of a fair price at the sale.
WHEREFORE, and because the Respondents have gone through the expense of sale, and
have the obligation to pay a note on the property pending the petition while delaying title to the
property without income from the property, the Respondents request the following relief:
a) That the petition of Glenda Maxton be dismissed and that counsel fees in the amount
of $500.00 be paid for tiling a baseless petition, or in the alternative;
b) Should the Court determine that a hearing on the matter is in order, that Petitioner post
a bond in the amount of $ 4,495.80 (3x monthly mortgage) for payment of the monthly mortgage
of the loan obtained by the Dorseys, for lost income pending a hearing should the Dorseys prevail
on the petition;
c) or such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Ic aeh lSis
ID No 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Date: 3.2 (717)731-9502
Attorney for Respondents,
Dennis and Jean Dorsey
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
ATTORNEY AT LAw
4076 MARKET STREET, SVITE 209
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
TELEPHONE 1717) 731.9502
r" 17171 731.9611
October 25,1999
VIA FACSIMILE AT 770-2553 AND US MAIL
Robert P. Kline, Esquire
331 Bridge Street, Suite 350
P.O. Box 461
New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461
RE: Dorsey/Alarton Associates, Offer ofSerrlemenr
Dear Robert:
Thank you for your letter dated October 22, 1999. Your client's offer of 5107,000.00 as
settlement has been rejected by my clients. The Dorsey's counteroffer for a cash settlement is
$145,000.00.
The following is a list of problems with the settlement terms, other than the price, which
are not necessarily exhaustive. My clients agree that Dorsey/Maxton Associates will pay for
one-half of settlement costs, but if there is a shortfall in funds available from the partnership, the
parties would share that amount, which is reflected in the counteroffer price. The failure of New
Insights to pay rents caused the insolvency of the partnership. It is also not agreeable that there
be a future adjustment for expenses in the partnership checking account. All expenses are
legitimate. If a lump sum cash settlement is proposed, then any amounts disputed would also be
reflected in the purchase offer as part of the deal.
Settlement of all outstanding suits, and waiver of claims by New Insights are agreeable
terms. If a deal is reached at this point, please be prepared for your client to provide a
commitment letter from her lender that the purchase funds are available. An escrowed deposit
will also be required. Lastly, no extensions beyond the December 8, 1999 Sheriff's Sale date
will be accepted. If your client wishes to purchase the property, arrangements must be made for
settlement prior to that date.
My client's position is unchanged in that it was clear for sometime that the partnership
would be terminated. My clients did not believe the mortgage could be renewed with PNC.
EA
Robert P. Kline, Esquire
October 25, 1999
Page 2
We welcome any fiuther discussions regarding settlement.
Very truly yours,
?C Michael S. Travis
MST/]m
Distribution:
James M. Ba;.h, Esquire (via facsimile only)
Mr. and Mrs. Dorsey (via facsimile only)
r
ROBERT PETER HLEVE
Attorney & Counsellor at Law
331 Bridge Street, Suite 350
Post Office Box 461
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070.0461
(717) 770-2540
fax (717) 770.2553
October 22, 1999
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
VIA FACSBVME AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
E rl? ' 2D
Re: Dorsey/Maxton Associates
Dear Mike:
My client believes she can obtain financing sufficient to pay off PNC Bank and pay to
your clients the sum of S 107,000.00 as full satisfaction for: (a) your clients' interest in the
partnership; (b) any claims against the partnership, my client, her husband, New Insights. Inc. or
320 Management brought by Gary Dorsey, Jeannie Dorsey, or either of them in their role as
partners in Dorsey/Maxton Associates, specifically including all claims for rent due from New
Insights, Inc. or 320 Management and Gary Dorsey's claim against the partnership; and (c) any
other interests your clients may have in any partnership claims against New Insights or any other
tenant of the partnership real estate.
This proposal presumes that your clients will be obligated to assume 50% of any
expenses incurred to formally terminate the partnership, including the preparation of any final
returns that may be required, and 50% of the usual and customary seller's expenses at settlement
on the sale of the real property in the event that these expenses are not available in the
partnership checking account. This proposal is valid only if the partnership has no other
outstanding past due liabilities and no commitment for future liabilities beyond those specifically
addressed in this correspondence, and that any tenant security deposits are in escrow and would
be transferred to the new owner.
In addition, I have been advised that in the event your clients agree to this proposal, John
Maxton and New Insights, Inc. will waive any right they have to further litigate the issue of the
Dorseys' breach of the oral partnership agreement involving 320 Management.
This offer is further subject to adjustment after my client has had the opportunity to
review the year-to-date financial statement that I had just received in my office and forwarded to
her, for any Dorsey/Maxton checking account disbursement made since January 1, 1998 that is
not a legitimate Dorsey/Maxton expense.
i
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
October 22, 1999
Page Two
This proposal is made in hope that we can reach an amicable and reasonable compromise
in order to resolve this partnership. As you are well aware, time is running short and action
needs to be taken as quickly as possible to set the wheels in motion to have any transaction
progress to a level that will satisfy PNC Bank to the point where it will be willing to postpone the
sheriffs sale of the real property pending settlement. Both parties need to realize that they must
be flexible in order for any realistic hope of resolution prior to the sale of the partnership's only
substantial asset. I sincerely believe that my client and her husband, in making this proposal,
have taken a substantial step in that direction. At this late date, if progress is not made toward
reaching a resolution, I have recommended to my client that she institute legal action regarding
the partnership which will not only raise the issues regarding her concerns with the expenditure
of partnership funds by your clients, but will also raise the issue regarding your clients' refusal to
renew the partnership loan with PNC Bank which has placed the only significant asset of the
partnership in jeopardy.
I ask that you please request that your clients give this matter their immediate attention
and provide me with a response at the earliest possible time.
my yours,
ROBERT PETER KLINE, ESQUIRE
RPK/srf
cc: Glenda K. Maxton
Gregory J. Katshir, Esquire
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOC
dams ES,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael S. Travis, certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the following person, addressed as
follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Petitioner)
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SNUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
post office Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0737
(Attorney for PNC Bank)'
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attomey for Partnership)
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(Hand-delivered)
B ,
Dated: ravts
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-9502
Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Answer to Petition are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATED:
DATED: l y
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, : CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS :
D/B/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
RETURN OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO
PA. R.C.P. 3129.2(c)(2) (L1 Cjt 4 0v I-6 C, &5)
AND NOW, this I Ith day of August, 1999, I, Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire, of the firm of
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND, attorneys for PNC Bank, National Association, Plaintiff, hereby
certify that I served the persons listed below whose names appear in the Affidavit filed in this
proceeding pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 3129.1 with the Notice to Lienholders Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P.
3129.2 and legal description in the United States Mail, first class, with certificates of mailing
(postal forms 3817) and contained within envelopes bearing my return address. Copies of these
certificates of mailing are attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A".
PNC Bank, National Association
4242 Carlisle Pike
Camp Hill, PA 17011
John E. Perry, Esquire
Suite 200
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Jean Jacobs
Apartment 100
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
H.B. Zane
Apartment 106
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Betsy Kahley and M. George Marburger
Apartment 204
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Binder Construction
Apartment 108
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 202
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 204
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 208
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 106
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 206
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 100
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 108
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
New Insights, Inc. Tenant/Occupant
Suite 96/98 Apartment 102
320 Rear Bridge Street 320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070 New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 104
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SH FF & MASLAND
By: IM P, )a
arl . Lede ohm, Esquire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF_N?AI?1_NO_
MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC ANO INTEflNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTER
Reaelved From:
71
One piece of ordinary mall addressed to:
r
PS Form 391 i, mar. itroo
Racelved From
YI
1
i
17
Ono piece of ordin ry mail addraesed to: A
??,•.? 11:4 __ ?i
PS Form 3817, Mar. 1
GPO : 1993 0 - 15:
,i
i b-
V/I , J
Exhibit "A"
g
% y M
y@
5 in mwv as ""o. FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES 1
PROVIDE
FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTEfl
yy y
mm0
3
n' O 1
3 3
3 Received From:
°
^ OmD
.. -
`7
.
pp
t 3 ?o g .?_?\ ?:
2
3 A
- D
IA I
O
m
in
h0:
_.}
a D One piece of dinary mall addressed to: -
-.
zm (^1 1
C 0
? PS Form 3817, Met. 1989
GPO
1993 0 - 3:
O D
0 f_
m
V
m
N
0
m
0
N
ON
1 <j l I
a
0 .0
m
m 0
" Cm
Om>
.'3 s O
j is
..3
20m
F ° 00
(? 0
r y
6 020
???
I m2 ?
_
V ? m 2 n
.
- Y T
3:
?3
0 F=
z
o G)
0
0
m
J
s
as
m
b
O
u
W
O
U
U. S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONA1,M?IL, DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR INSURANCF•-POSTMASTER
Received From:' I {?,?1? fl ir::;
1
One piece of ordinary mail addressed to:
P$ Farm 3817, Mar. 1989 GPO : 1993 O - 151-
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILI
MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL. DOES
PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTER
Received From:
One piece of ordinary mail addressed to:
Ir.
1
PS Form 3817, Mar. 1989 GPO : 1993 0 - 1:
' ? _ Ya Yq•.YS
eDe
no
of
an?
3
m
v
m
t0
0
e
a
w
N
0 a
I
p}
p 1 T
R 3
33
r.,
a -
Y
S -
p "
I I
U. S. POSTAL RVICE reRTIFICATE OF h AILI
ems
< to NG .
MAY SE USED Ftlfl DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAI
mm 09
N L. DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-PDSTMASTER
lJ
C m
>
a 1
Rectlved From:
'
ni r
N
N \
O
y Z M One Fiece of ordinary mail addnseed to:
Cam
s
y
.
T .
J
o D PS Form 3817, Mar. 1989 CPO : 1993 0 - 15
0 F=
in
- I Received From:- -• • _ "
N
m
3
m
m
m
T
O
u
e
W
O
M
N
n
PS Form 3 817, Mar . 1989 CPO 1993 0 - 151-(
One Piece of ordinary mail addressed to:
w _
(t I . I ?A nc,-7
PS Form 3817, Mar. 1989 CPO 1993 0 - 151-
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL. DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTER
Received From:
One oiece of ordinary mail addressed to:
to
% -
1
?a tl F. IU <<
?..
T
O
m
V
9
m
e
00
I-
W
0
I
.r ? 1 I
a
O
tV
m
V
m
IJ
0I? Ir
8
3
o v
6
a
of
=,n°w
PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTER" ANAL mnLL, DOES NC ^p r.w ':;,e a,r,iaee
Peealved From: uji
"?iC.S, it (T l l .!G-r. i^;1
i_I
n 1_r.11 1.11 1=111'1 rya:''
----------------- .; -. -..
---
One Plaes of ordinary mail addressed to:
?f?•, 0 1
Form 3817, Mar. 1989 CPO 1993 O - 151
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFIC ATE OF MAILING
MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTER
Received From:
r •I"I
One piece or ordinary mail addressed to:
11
a C
m
a
0
•3 N
c
y
- n
„ m
PS Form 3817, Mar. 1989 CPO : 1993 0 - 151
Tj .
4
!FI
,•ti
T rnuvNE FOR INSURANCE-POSTMASTER
3 Received From:
aD
a?
N Z
2 ^
One Piece of ortlin(ary mail addressed ta:
PS Form 3817, Mar. 1989 CPO 1993 0 - 1
,
7 J
C1F
tOd
m C)
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
: NO. all _?' ?F
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, : CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS :
DB/A/ DORSEY/MAY.TON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
Please enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of PNC Bank, National
Association, Successor by Merger to CCNB Bank, N.A., Plaintiff in the above captioned matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: ?l?lgI
?wl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
r o? l
j_
CJ T ??
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
: NO. 99 y? 9
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
D/B/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
AFFIDAVIT OF NON-MILITARY SERVICE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
I do certify to the best of my knowledge that the Defendants, Jean 0. Dorsey, Dennis G.
Dorsey and Glenda K. Maxton, in the above-captioned action are not presently on active or
nonactive military status.
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
Date: By:
! K M. Ledebo , Esquire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
Cc;
LU
C3;=.
4
LLal. (ZZ
u"C ? i.:]Cl
(? Ql U
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
NO. 94- 4D & 9 -?
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, : CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
DB/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
CERTIFICATE OF ADDRESSES
I hereby certify that the precise address of Plaintiff, PNC Bank, National Association,
Successor by Merger to CCNB Bank, N.A., is 4242 Carlisle Pike, Camp Hill, PA 17011; that the
last known address of the Defendants Jean 0. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey is 322 West Green
Street, Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania 17011-6521; that the last known address of the Defendant
Glenda K. Maxton is 413 16th Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-1318; and that the
last known address of the Defendant Dorsey/Maxton Associates is 320 Rear Bridge Street, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070 and 322 West Green Street, Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania
17011-6521.
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
Date: ) cI By
azl M. Ledebo-f
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
WU
.? p
"
O
i cn
UJ
_
W..
.'
c t
.1 LLD
_ -J
LL.
V m
rn
U
4 *4
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, : CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
D/B/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION
UPON A CONFESSED JUDGMENT
To the Prothonotary:
Issue a writ of execution upon a judgment entered by confession in the above matter.
(1) directed to the sheriff of Cumberland County;
(2) against Jean O. Dorsey, Dennis G. Dorsey and Glenda K. Maxton, Individually and
as Co-Partners d/b/a Dorsey/Maxton Associates, defendants; and
(3) against N/A garnishee;
(4) and index this writ
(a) against Jean 0. Dorsey, Dennis G. Dorsey and Glenda K. Maxton,
Individually and as Co-Partners d/b/a Dorsey/Maxton Associates,
defendants; and
(b) against N/A , as garnishee
and levy upon and attach as required the following:
(a) All that real estate of the Defendants situate and known and numbered as
320 Rear Bridge Street, Borough of New Cumberland, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, also known as Lot Numbers 29 to 34 inclusive, Block K, Plan of
General Plan of George W. Buttorff s Addition, recorded in the Cumberland County
Recorder of Deeds Office at Plan Book N-5, Page 500, and as further described in
the legal description attached hereto.
(5) Amount due:
Interest from June 29, 1999
Attorneys fees
Costs
$112,026.94 t/
at $23.66 per day (to be added)
(to be added)
(to be added)
Certification
I certify that
(a) This praecipe is based upon a judgment entered by confession; and
(b) Notice will be served with the Writ of Execution Pursuant to Rule 2958.2.
Date:
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, S FF & MASLAND
ay
Kazl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 761-1881
Attorney for Plaintiff
ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground, lying and situate in the Borough
of New Cumberland, County of Cumberland, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, more
particularly described as follows:
TRACT NO. 1: BEGINNING at a point on the Southwest corner of Locust
Avenue and Ruby Avenue; thence Westwardly along Ruby Avenue, one hundred fifteen
(115) feet, more or less, to Cedar Alley; thence Southwardly one hundred forty-seven
(147) feet, more or less, to River Avenue; thence Eastwardly along River Avenue, one
hundred fifteen (115) feet, more or less, to Locust Alley, thence Northwardly along said
Locust Ailey one hundred forty-seven (147) feet, more or less, to Ruby Avenue, the
place of BEGINNING.
BEING Lots Nos. 29 to 34 inclusive, Block "K", in the General Plan of George
W, Buttorff s Addition to New Cumberland, as recorded in the Cumberland County
Recorder's Office in Deed Book "N", Volume 5, Page 500.
HAVING THEREON ERECTED a storage shed, a one-story brick office
building, a one-story cinder block building, a one-story stucco block building, and other
improvements. Known and numbered as 320 Rear Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA
17070.
BEING the same premises which CCNB Bank, N.A., Executor of the Estate of
Clarence G. Kitzmiller, by its deed dated November 20, 1991, and recorded in the Office
of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on November 22,
1991, in Book K-35, Page 202, granted and conveyed unto Dorsey Maxton Associates.
L _•
r•
". k?s-
CS,
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, : CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS ;
DB/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NOTICE UNDER RULE 2958.2 OF JUDGMENT
AND EXECUTION THEREON
NOTICE OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS
TO: Jean 0. Dorsey, Dennis G. Dorsey and Glenda K. Maxton, Individually and as Co-Partners
d/b/a Dorsey/Maxton Associates
A judgment in the amount of $112,026.94 has been entered against you and in favor of
the plaintiff without any prior notice or hearing based on a confession of judgment contained in a
written agreement or other paper allegedly signed by you. The court has issued a Writ of
Execution which directs the sheriff to levy upon and sell certain real property owned by you to
pay the judgment. The sheriff' sale has been scheduled for December 8, 1999 at 10:00 a.m.
You may have legal rights to defeat the judgment or to prevent or delay the sheriffs sale.
YOU MUST FILE A PETITION SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE JDUGMENT
OR DELAY OF THE SHERIFF'S SALE PRIOR TO THE SHERIFF'S SALE OR
YOU MAY LOSE YOUR RIGHTS.
II. YOU MUST FILE A PETITION SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE JUDGMENT
AND PRESENT IT TO A JUDGE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE
DATE ON WHICH THIS NOTICE IS SERVED ON YOU OR YOU MAY
LOSE YOUR RIGHTS.
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
ti
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
Date: By: Zjy? ? oW' -
arl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
upreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
r.
n:
r;
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
DB/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW
AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO RULE 3129.1
PNC Bank, National Association, Successor by Merger to CCNB Bank, N.A., Plaintiff in
the above aciion, sets forth as of the date the Praecipe for the Writ of Execution was filed the
following information concerning the real property consisting of all that certain lot or piece of
ground, lying and situate in the Borough of New Cumberland, County of Cumberland, and
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania more particularly known as 320 Rear Bridge Street, New
Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070.
1. Name and address of owners or reputed owners:
Dorsey/Maxton Associates Dorsey/Maxton Associates
320 Rear Bridge Street and 322 West Green Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070 Shiremanstown, PA 17011-6521
2. Name and address of defendants in the judgment:
Jean O. Dorsey and
Dennis G. Dorsey
322 West Green Street
Shiremanstown, PA 17011-6521
Glenda K. Maxton
413 16`s Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070-1318
Dorsey/Maxton Associates
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Dorsey/Maxton Associates
and 322 West Green Street
Shiremanstown, PA 17011-6521
3. Name and address of every judgment creditor (other than the Plaintiff herein) whose judgment is
a record lien on the real property to be sold:
None
4. Name and address of the last recorded holder (other than the Plaintiff herein) of every mortgage
ofrecord:
None
5. Name and address of every other person who has any record lien on the property:
None
6. Name and address of every other person who has any record interest in the property and whose
interest may be affected by the sale:
None
7. Name and address of every other person of whom the plaintiff has knowledge who has any
interest in the property which may be affected by the sale:
Cumberland County Tax Claim Bureau
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
New Insights, Inc.
Suite 96/98
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
John E. Perry, Esquire
Suite 200
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Jean Jacobs
Apartment 100
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
H.B. Zane
Apartment 106
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 204
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 208
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Betsy Kahley and M. George Marburger
Apartment 204
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Binder Construction
Apartment 108
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 202
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 206
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 100
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 102
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 106
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 104
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Tenant/Occupant
Apartment 108
320 Rear Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
I, Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff, PNC Bank, National Association,
Successor by Merger to CCNB Bank, N.A., verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true
and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. section 4904 relating to unswom
falsification to authorities.
Respectfully submitted
Date: v!,/ l
SAIDISKSHHUUE & MASLAND
J
By: _% .
ebohm E
Attorney for Plaintiff
squire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
? ?''
r ?
;
c?
?..
? ?
? ?
.
i
-
f `_.
?),
(?' ? ?"? 1
i .' ? ..
- i
.
t
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, : CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
D/B/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NOTICE OF SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
PURSUANT TO
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 3129
TAKE NOTICE:
That the Sheriffs Sale of Real Property (real estate) will be held:
DATE: December 8, 1999
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
LOCATION: Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
THE PROPERTY TO BE SOLD is delineated in detail in a legal description mainly
consisting of a statement of the measured boundaries of the property, together with a brief mention
of the buildings and any other major improvements erected on the land.
(SEE DESCRIPTION ATTACHED)
THE LOCATION of your property to be sold is: one tract of land situate in the Borough of
New Cumberland, County of Cumberland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, known and
numbered as 320 Rear Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070.
THE JUDGMENT under or pursuant to which your property is being sold is docketed in
the within Commonwealth and County to: PNC Bank, National Association, Successor by Merger
to CCNB Bank, N.A. v. Jean O. Dorsey, Dennis G. Dorsey and Glenda K. Maxton, Individually
and as Co-Partners d/b/a Dorsey Maxton Associates, No. 994269 Civil, in the amount of One
Hundred Twelve Thousand Twenty-Six and 94/100 Dollars ($112,026.94) plus interest from and
including the date of the Complaint and judgment entered thereon at the rate of Twenty-Three and
66/100 Dollars ($23.66) per day, and costs of suit and for foreclosure of the mortgaged premises
until the Sheriff Sale.
THE NAMES OF THE OWNERS OR REPUTED OWNERS of this property are:
Dorsey Maxton Associates.
A SCHEDULE DISTRIBUTION, being a list of the persons and/or governmental or
corporate entities or agencies being entitled to receive part of the proceeds of the sale received and
to be disbursed by the Sheriff (for example, to banks that hold mortgages and municipalities that are
owed taxes) will be filed by the Sheriff of this County thirty (30) days after the sale and distribution
of the proceeds of sale in accordance with this schedule will, in fact, be made unless someone
objects by filing exceptions to it within ten (10) days of the date it is filed.
Information about the Schedule of Distribution may be obtained from the Sheriff of the
Court of Common Pleas of the within County at the Courthouse address specified herein.
THIS PAPER IS A NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE SALE OF
YOUR PROPERTY.
IT HAS BEEN ISSUED BECAUSE THERE IS A JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU.
IT MAY CAUSE YOUR PROPERTY TO BE HELD. TO BE SOLD OR TAKEN TO
PAY THE JUDGMENT.
You may have legal rights to prevent your property from being taken away. A lawyer can
advise you more specifically of these rights. If you wish to exercise your rights, YOU MUST ACT
PROMPTLY.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE. OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN
GET FREE LEGAL ADVICE.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
THE LEGAL RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE ARE:
I. You may file a petition with the Court of Common Pleas of the within County to
open the judgment if you have a meritorious defense against the person or company that has entered
judgment against you. You may also file a petition with the same Court if you are aware of a legal
defect in the obligation or the procedure used against you.
2. After the Sheriffs Sale, you may file a petition with the Court of Common Pleas of
the within County to set aside the sale for a grossly inadequate price or for other proper cause. This
petition MUST BE FILED BEFORE THE SHERIFF'S DEED IS DELIVERED.
3. A petition or petitions raising the legal issues or rights mentioned in the preceding
paragraphs must be presented to the Court of Common Pleas of the within County. The petition
must be served on the attorney for the creditor or on the creditor before presentation to the Court
and a proposed order or rule must be attached to the petition.
If a specific return date is desired, such date must be obtained from the Court
Administrator's Office - Civil Division, of the within County Courthouse, before a presentation to
the Court.
A copy of the Writ of Execution is attached hereto.
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SHU))! F & MASLAND
Date: By:
1 K 1 M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground, lying and situate in the Borough
of New Cumberland, County of Cumberland, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, more
particularly described as follows:
TRACT NO. 1: BEGINNING at a point on the Southwest comer of Locust
Avenue and Ruby Avenue; thence Westwardly along Ruby Avenue, one hundred fifteen
(115) feet, more or less, to Cedar Alley; thence Southwardly one hundred forty-seven
(147) feet, more or less, to River Avenue; thence Eastwardly along River Avenue, one
hundred fifteen (115) feet, more or less, to Locust Alley, thence Northwardly along said
Locust Alley one hundred forty-seven (147) feet, more or less, to Ruby Avenue, the
place of BEGINNING.
BEING Lots Nos. 29 to 34 inclusive, Block "K", in the General Plan of George
W. Buttorff's Addition to New Cumberland, as recorded in the Cumberland County
Recorder's Office in Deed Book "N", Volume 5, Page 500.
HAVING THEREON ERECTED a storage shed, a one-story brick office
building, a one-story cinder block building, a one-story stucco block building, and other
improvements. Known and numbered as 320 Rear Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA
17070.
BEING the same premises which CCNB Bank, N.A., Executor of the Estate of
Clarence G. Kitzmiller, by its deed dated November 20, 1991, and recorded in the Office
of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on November 22,
1991, in Book K-35, Page 202, granted and conveyed unto Dorsey Maxton Associates.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
NO. 994269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, : CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
DB/A/ DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
WAIVER OF WATCHMAN
Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within Writ may leave
same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of
such levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff
herein for any loss, destruction or removal of any such property before sheriffs sale thereof.
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SNUFF & MASLAND
Date: I 6 cy BY: Ll'
C, v"l
Karl W. Ledebo , Esquire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
_ r-
?' i `
i
C
.
,. ..
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff s motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to
complaint, etc.): Motion of the Sheriff of Cumberland County for Judgment on the
Pleadings
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
(a) for plaintiff: Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Address: 4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(b) for defendants: Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Address: 3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Saidis, Shuff & Masland
P.O. Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17011
James S. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for
argument.
4. Argument Court Date: April 26, 2000
Dated: .3-ro -C%>
Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire
Solicitor for Sheriff of Cumberland County
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document, Praecipe for Listing Case for
Argument, was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Saidis, Shuff & Masland
2109 Market Street
P.O. Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
BY. x1
Edward L. Schorpp, Esq.
Dated: .3- 6o 100
a?
_. i
'
uiL- -_
:?:.
i"
?
`-='
?r?' a
--?, ?,
,
u_?, .
?_ --
i:_ : -?
C.' G V
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff of Cumberland County, by his Solicitor, Edward L. Schorpp,
Esquire, respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1034 for judgment on the
pleadings on the following:
The Sheriff was never joined as a party in the within action by any of the other
parties.
2. On December 29, 1999, the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, issued a rule upon certain
named parties, "or any other party in interest;" the Sheriff of Cumberland County was copied on
that rule.
3. Because of the ambiguity and uncertainty created by the rule of December 29,
1999, the Sheriff filed a response to the Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale.
4. No party has averred any facts which evidence any impropriety in the Sheriff's
sale which is the subject of this action, or in the performance of the duties of the Sheriff and his
employees under applicable law.
5. The Sheriff of Cumberland County has not properly been made a party to the
within proceedings and should be dismissed from it.
6. To the extent that the Sheriff was joined as a party, which is denied, he is entitled
to judgment on the pleadings, as no facts averring a cause of action been averred with respect to
the Sheriff's sale which is the subject of this action.
7. The pleadings are closed and disposition of this motion will not delay trial.
8. There are no genuine issues of material fact to be tried concerning the actions of
the Sheriff, or his employees in this matter.
WHEREFORE, the Sheriff of Cumberland County respectfully requests that this Court
enter a judgment in his favor dismissing him as a party to the within action.
Respectfully submitted,
'=mss%g? .
Edward L. Schorpp, Esq.
Solicitor, Borough of Carlisle
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-9258
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document, Motion by the Sheriff of
Cumberland County for Judgment on the Pleadings, was served this date by depositing same in
the Post Office at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Saidis, Shuff & Masland
2109 Market Street
P.O. Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
By:-/? - ??
Edward L.Schorpp, Esq.
Dated: _7 G -00
i;? u? -
?_ _
' ?D
I
r:
i
l_ f.?
lJ ?J ?-?
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ! `: { 4 day of March, 2000, upon consideration of the Motion for
Consolidation for Argument by the Cumberland County Sheriff, and upon relation by the
Sheriff's Solicitor that all counsel concur in the motion, an argument is hereby scheduled for
Monday, April 10, 2000, at 2:30 P.M. in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Argument is hereby consolidated with the argument previously
scheduled in this matter. Briefs are to be submitted at least 7 days before the date of argument.
BY THE COURT,
T. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
Ingo
l? 3 05
4
rig=n-,:??c:
CO K'• I;i N:2:1!
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NOW COMES, R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff of Cumberland County, by his Solicitor, Edward L.
Schorpp, Esquire, and respectfully moves this Court to consolidate argument upon the following:
1. On March 6, 2000, the Sheriff of Cumberland County moved for judgment on the
pleadings in the within matter and requested that he be dismissed as a party.
2. On the same date, this motion was listed for argument court.
3. Thereafter, the Sheriff's Solicitor was furnished a copy of the Order of this Court dated
February 29, 2000, scheduling argument for defendants Dorseys' motion for judgment on the pleadings
for Monday, April 10, 2000, at 2:30 P.M. in Courtroom No. 1.
4. The Sheriff's Solicitor thereupon contacted counsel for all parties and obtained
concurrence from each that the Sheriff's motion could be heard at the argument scheduled for April 10,
2000.
WHEREFORE, the Sheriff requests your honorable Court to order argument upon his motion for
judgment on the pleadings for Monday, April 10, 2000, at 2:30 P.M. in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland
County Courthouse.
c-
_- C)
?i
Very Respectfully submitted, n y
t
ur
X
Cr 'p
-
Edward L. Schorpp, Es (f. rn
Solicitor for Sheriff of Cumberland County
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-9258
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document, Motion by the Sheriff of
Cumberland County for Consolidation of Argument, was served this date by depositing same in
the Post Office at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Saidis, Shuff & Masland
2109 Market Street
P.O. Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
By?c=s2??2??- /?
Edward L. Schorpp, Esq.
Dated: s= ?s -n
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY,
DENNIS G. DORSEY
AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS CO-PARTNERS
D/B/A DORSEY/
MAXTON ASSOCIATES,:
Defendants
IN COURT THE OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL TERM
PleoQSe place
in Q(,t,
`Tho.nLyev-1.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, thisG j Iday of February, 2000, upon consideration of (a) Defendants
Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey's motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Petition
To Set Aside Sheriff's Sale Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 206.7, and (b) the response of Glenda
K. Maxton to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, an argument is hereby scheduled for
Monday, April 10, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County
Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Briefs are to be submitted at least 7 days before the
date of argument.
BY THE COURT,
J Wesley Oler,,Jr'
3 -,,? -oo
RK3
OF rrFiLFI3-CLFlCNARY
00 MAR - I PH I'll
CUA4PENNSYLVMV NlY
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esq.
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Plaintiff
Michael S. Travis, Esq.
4076 Market Street
Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Defendants
Dennis Dorsey and
Jean Dorsey
Craig A. Diehl, Esq.
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Defendant
Glenda K. Maxton
:rc
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court.
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB
BANK, N.A.,
(Plaintiff)
VS.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K. MAXTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
D/B/A DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
(Defendant)
/999
No, 4269 Civil ACTION-LAW por-2'&&e
1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's
demurrer to conplaint, etc.):
Defendants Dennis and Jean Dorsey's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings of the Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale filed by Glenda
Maxton, Defendant.
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
(a) for pjajfft=: Movant/Defendant: Michael S. Travis
Address: 4076 Market STreet, Suite 209, CAmp Hill, PA 17011
(b) forte: REspondent/Defendant: Craig A. Diehl
Address: 3464 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011
3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has
been listed for argument.
4. Argument Court Date: April 19, 2000, which has been changed to
April 26, 2000.
Dated: 2/25/00 or Movant/Defendant
-,
?
;,
,,
1
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY,
DENNIS G. DORSEY
AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS CO-PARTNERS
D/B/A DORSEY/
MAXiON ASSOCIATES,:
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PJPPk p /a ?C ? 1n
- _,_._.. .......... 6,0
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 1' day of April, 2000, upon consideration of (a) the Motion by
the Sheriff of Cumberland County for Judgment on the Pleadings and (b) Defendants
Jean 0. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of
Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale Pursuant to PA R.C.P. 206.7, and following oral
argument held on April 10, 2000, it is ordered and directed as follows:
1. The motion by the Sheriff of Cumberland Countv for judgment
on the pleadings is granted;
2. The motion by Defendants Jean 0. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey
for judgment on the pleadings is denied.
A HEARING on the merits of Plaintiffs' Petition To Set Aside Sheriff's Sale
of Real Estate is scheduled for Thursday, June 29, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in
Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esq.
2 Market Street
amp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Plaintiff
Michael S. Travis, Esq.
4076 Market Street
Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Defendants
Dennis Dorsey and
Jean Dorsey
Craig A. Diehl, Esq.
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Defendant
Glenda K. Maxton
Edward L. Schorpp, Esq.
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Solicitor for Cumberland
County Sheriff's Office
-? ? oa
.
a,`i
o,
:rc
BY THE COURT,
Michael S. Travis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-9502
Attorney for Defendants
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
: NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF PNC BANK, N.A.,
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please take notice that defendants, Dennis and Jean Dorsey, have served a Request for
Production of Documents to Plaintiff PNC Bank, N.A., Successor by Merger to CCNB Bank,
N.A., upon Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire, SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND, 2109 Market Street,
Post Office Box 737, Camp Hill, PA 17011-0737
tchael Str
sAttorney for Defendants
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-9502
Date: AprildV, 2000
???
?;,
Law Offices of
Craig A. Diehl
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
Telephone(717)763-7613
Telecopier (717) 763-8293
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire, C.P.A.
Linda A. Ciotfelter, Esquire
May 31, 2000
Cumberland County Courthouse
Office of the Prothonotary
3 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
In Spring Grove. Pennsylvania
119 West Hanover Street
Spring Grove, PA 17362
Telephone: (717) 225-1929
RE: PNC Bank v. Dorsey, et al.
No. 99-4269 Civil
VIA UPS NEXT DAY AIR
Dear Representative:
Please find enclosed for filing an original and two copies of a Petition for Continuance
and a proposed Order for same. Please time-stamp the copies and return them to our office in
the enclosed envelope.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Helen E. Rasmussen
Legal Assistant
/her
Enclosures
Cie
cc: Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
James M. Bach, Esquire D
Michael S. Travis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-9502
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR CONTINUANCE
To the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr.:
AND NOW COMES, Dennis and Jean Dorsey, by and through their attorney Michael S.
Travis, and files the following in response to the Defendant Glenda K. Maxton's petition for a
continuance:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that defendant Maxton filed a petition.
Denied the implication that the petition was emergency in nature. No irreversible
harm has been demonstrated to defendant Maxton.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. Answering defendants are without knowledge or information to admit or
deny the allegations of the corresponding paragraph of the petition and the same is
denied.
5. Admitted.
6-9. Admitted on information and belief.
10. Denied. Answering defendants are without knowledge or information to admit or
deny the allegations of the corresponding paragraph of the petition and the same is
denied.
11. Admitted.
12. Denied. It is specifically denied that counsel for Glenda Maxton has not had
ample time to engage in discovery to prove the merits of the allegations in her
petition. By way of further answer, petitioning defendant and counsel have had
nearly six months to engage in discovery and have taken no discovery.
13. Denied. Answering defendants are without knowledge or information to admit or
deny the allegations of the corresponding paragraph of the petition and the same is
denied. Further, any information belonging to PNC bank has no bearing on the
value of the property at the sale, or petitioner's claim of bad faith against the
answering defendants.
14. Denied. Petitioning counsel stated to answering defendants counsel that he had
just met with the individuals mentioned in Paragraph 14 on May 25, 2000, more
than a month after the Court set the pending hearing for June 29, 2000.
15. Denied. Answering defendants are without knowledge or information to admit or
deny the allegations of the corresponding paragraph of the petition and the same is
denied.
16 - 17.Denied. Answering defendants have produced copies of all documents requested
by petitioning defendant.
18. Denied. Answering defendants are without knowledge or information to admit or
deny the allegations of the corresponding paragraph of the petition and the same is
denied. By way of further answer, because of the action taken by the petitioner,
answering defendant has caused detrimental harm to the financial net worth of the
answering defendants. Additional delay will only exacerbate the problem.
Further, petitioning defendant has had substantial time to engage in discovery.
19. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that answering defendants have
requested a list of witnesses, summary of testimony and exhibits. Denied that the
petitioner cannot reasonably provide this information. Nearly a month was
provided to comply with the request. By way of further answer, a simple list of
the witnesses, a brief summary of their testimony and exhibits is not a time
consuming matter.
20. Admitted. By way of further answer, petitioner promised that if the Dorseys' did
not acceed to her demands prior to the Sheriff's Sale, that she would compound
litigation causing substantial delay. Petitioner's request, demonstrates an
unwillingness to timely resolve the pending claim.
21. Admitted.
WHEREFORE, answering defendants, Dennis and Jean Dorsey respectfully request that
the petitioner's request for a continuance of the June 29, 2000 hearing be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
i ae . raves
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-9502
Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey
VERIFICATION
I veriftyy that the statements made in Answer to Petition for Continuance are true and
correct. [understand that false statements heroin are made subject to the penalties of 19 Pa.C.S.
Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
DATED:,, // y
DATED:*9A00Q
Roe ILLY SIOU H TT46 TCL LTL YYd te:eo 00/zo; sa
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael S. Travis, certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the following person, addressed as
follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Post Office Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0737
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Dated: Ohob
B - i raves ,
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-9502
Fax 731-9511
Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Y
!; C'l
ti r
f
x.
F- C
j y
C
U
p p
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY,
DENNIS G. DORSEY
AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS CO-PARTNERS
D/B/A DORSEY/
MAXTON ASSOCIATES,:
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION- LAW
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of June, 2000, upon consideration of Defendant Glenda
K. Maxton's Petition for Continuance, and of the Answer to Petition for Continuance
filed on behalf of Dennis and Jean Dorsey, Glenda K. Maxton's Petition for Continuance
is denied.
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esq.
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Plaintiff
141di
-8.00
phi
G
BY THE COURT,
nrt p- I?, •-3 ,'! 10: LS
. n„
r?id'i??YL?L
Michael S. Travis, Esq.
4076 Market Street
Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Defendants
Dennis Dorsey and
Jean Dorsey
Craig A. Diehl, Esq.
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Defendant
Glenda K. Maxton
James M. Bach, Esq.
352 South Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Attorney for the Partnership
Edward L. Schorpp, Esq.
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Solicitor for Cumberland
County Sheriffs Office
:rc
)UN - 5 2
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
: CIVIL ACTION -LAW
ORDER
Upon consideration of the Petition for Continuance filed by Craig A. Diehl, Esquire, on
behalf of Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED;
That the hearing scheduled for June 29, 2000 at 9:30 A.M. is continued until
, 2000 at
discovery as described in said Petition.
M. to allow sufficient time to conduct
Judge
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
PETITION FOR CONTINUANCE
To The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr:
AND NOW COMES Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton, by and through her counsel, Law
Offices of Craig A. Diehl, and respectfully presents this petition for continuance of the hearing
scheduled for June 29, 2000, setting forth the following reasons and facts relied upon to justify
a continuance:
1. Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton, filed her Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real
Estate on December 17, 1999. -
2. Said Petition was an emergency filing by the undersigned counsel to comply with
the time deadlines set forth at Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 3132 and 3135.
3. Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton, prior to the sheriff sale was represented by Robert
P. Kline, Esquire.
4. Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton, substituted counsel following the sheriff sale to
retain counsel experienced in technical real estate matters.
5. A Rule was granted by The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. on December 29, 1999
as to why the relief requested should not be granted.
6. Answers to the Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate were received
by the undersigned counsel from Defendants Dorseys on or about January 3, 2000, from the
Sheriff of Cumberland County on or about January 10, 2000, and from PNC Bank on or about
January 14, 2000.
7. Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton, filed her reply to PNC Bank's New Matter on
February 3, 2000.
8. Two days later, on February 5, 2000, counsel for Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton,
received Defendants Dorseys' motion for judgment on the pleadings of petition to set aside
sheriffs sale pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 206.7.
9. On or about March 15, 2000, an Order was entered by The Honorable J. Wesley
Oler, Jr., scheduling argument for April 10, 2000 and briefs to be submitted at least seven days
before the date of argument.
10. Counsel for Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton, concentrated his efforts from March
15, 2000 until April 10, 2000 on the motion filed for judgment on the pleadings.
11. On April 17, 2000, an Order was entered denying the motion for judgment on the
pleadings filed by Defendants Dorseys and setting a hearing date for June 29, 2000.
12. Counsel for Glenda K. Maxton has not had ample time to engage in discovery
necessary to prove the merits of the allegations set forth in her petition.
2
13. Information necessary to substantiate Defendant Maxton's case is in the hands of
PNC Bank and Defendants Dorseys.
14. Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton, has been diligent in pursuing information needed
for the hearing by interviewing prior counsel, Robert P. Kline and Gregory J. Katshir, and by
interviewing prior PNC Bank employees.
15. Counsel for Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton, has been informed that due to the
turnover of several key personnel at PNC Bank that were involved in this dispute, records and
files are not readily accessible.
16. Pursuant to interviews with prior counsel, it has been learned that financial records
of the partnership which are critical to the merits of the case are in the possession of Defendants
Dorseys.
17. Counsel for Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton, seeks adequate time to request for
inspection the production of partnership documents held exclusively by Defendants Dorseys.
18. Due to the substantial amount of equity that exists in the subject property and its
impact on Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton's financial net worth, it is imperative that she have
sufficient time to undertake timely discovery efforts.
19. Counsel for Defendants Dorseys has informally requested a list of witnesses
together with a summary of their testimony and a list of exhibits that was received by the
undersigned counsel on May 22, 2000 imposing a deadline of June 15, 2000. Defendant, Glenda
K. Maxton, reasonably cannot provide this information without the opportunity to complete her
discovery.
20. This is the first continuance requested by Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton.
rll. cc a 4j,/ 10r D[ f"J h Adf ne t e,Nfer.GeJ t4r I
e cb,'t-n tlsaL t.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton, respectfully requests that this Honorable
Court grant a continuance of this action and that all proceedings stay meanwhile.
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
Dated:M-Y 34 2000
Craig . Diehl, Esquire
Attorney ID No. 52801
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
Counsel for Defendant, Glenda K. Maxton
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
: NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this %31 51? day of 2000, the undersigned hereby certifies
that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PFOR CONTINUANCE was served upon
the parties listed below by way of United States first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire Michael S. Travis, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND 4076 Market Street, Suite 209
2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011
Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Attorney for Jean O. Dorsey
(Attorney for PNC Bank, N.A.) and Dennis G. Dorsey)
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 South Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attorney for Partnership)
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
By:
elen E. Rasmussen, Legal Assistant
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
?17
C
LLI
cl U
J
W a b
p w u j
w ? G
m
LL.
F
?
W
W
V ?
' LL
?
g
LL
a ?
U
a
.? w
H
Q Q
Q C7 ?
V ? _ H rf
U H
U
u % _ O Q
C) W
w
z
? _ 7
2 cn ?
Y W W O
W
C a U Z a
L [v K H
LL. wEx
O O
z v a
E
? E Q c Q
? Q a r+t U
n
DFr 10 199
y1
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of
upon consideration of
the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate and
the Respondents' Answer thereto, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that the Petition is Denied;
and counsel fees are awarded to Respondent to be paid by Petitioner in the amount of
BY THE COURT,
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Cumberland County Sheriff
V
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of
upon consideration of
the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate and
the Respondents' Answer thereto, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that a hearing is scheduled
for the day of 2000, in Courtroom No. at M. to
address the issues in the Petition and Answer thereto.
Petitioner Glenda Maxton shall place a bond with the Court in the amount of $4,495.80
for payment of the monthly mortgage while the petition is pending for compensation of lost
income of the subject property pending disposition.
BY THE COURT,
DisLibution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Cumberland County Sheriff
Michael S. Travis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-9502
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ANSWER TO PETITION TO SET ASIDE
SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
NOW COMES Defendants Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey, by and through their
attorney, Michael S. Travis, and responds to Glenda Maxton's Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs
Sale of Real Estate as follows:
1 - 6. Admitted.
ANSWER TO
1. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE FOR GROSS INADEQUACY OF PRICE
7. Denied. It is denied that the fair market value of the property is in excess of
$330,000.00; Competitive bidding at the Sheriff's Sale on December 8, 1999, establishes a value
of $221,000.00.
8. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that an appraisal was performed in
September 1998, by George Clauser, SRA. By way of further answer, the valuation assumes a
fully leased, non-distressed property. The property in question is neither.
9. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted
$145,000.00 to buy out their partnership interest. By way of further answer, the $145,000.00
figure dates back to October 25, 1999. (A copy of the October 25, 1999, Dorsey counteroffer,
and the Maxton Offer of October 22, 1999, are attached hereto as Exhibit A.) The $145,000.00
number was also conveyed to Glenda Maxton's counsel by telephone on September 14, 1999, in
response to an oral offer of $95,000.00 by petitioner. Denied that disputes in the amount of
$45,000.00 are unrelated to partnership issues. By way of further answer, all disputed sums
derive from issues at the heart of partnership disputes. Denied that a net demand of
$100,000.00 creates a presumption that the property is valued at approximately $320,000.00. By
way of further answer, a demand by the Dorseys against Glenda Maxton is no indication of price.
Approximately $70,000.00 is owed for back rents by Glenda Maxton and her husband john
Maxton for space occupied by the Maxtons in the building, a larger share of any partnership
interest is therefore due the Dorseys.
10. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted
$137,500.00 to settle all issues before Sheriffs Sale. The Dorseys worked tirelessly to settle all
partnership issues before the sale of the property. Denied that the demand for cash was last
minute in nature. The demand was always for cash (See Exhibit A). By way of further answer,
the unacceptable offer by Glenda Maxton, and subsequent offers through counsel, did not end all
litigation, which was a condition before acceptance by the Dorseys. Glenda Maxton vowed
through her counsel, and through her husband's counsel, that if the Dorseys did not agree to sell
the property at the price the Maxtons wished to pay, that sale by the Sheriff would be only the
beginning of litigation related to the partnership dispute.
11. Denied. Through counsel, Glenda Maxton's position was that she could raise some
of the money, but only by postponing the sale, in addition to setting other conditions which were
not agreeable to the Dorseys. By way of further answer, Glenda Maxton had promised a buyout
and resolution to these issues for more than a year prior to the sale.
12. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Glenda Maxton claimed to have
obtained a third-party offer. Denied that the offer was for $350,000.00 cash. The offer was not
acceptable, and included terms not acceptable to the Dorseys. Principally, there was no written
offer by the third party, the third party did not have a financing commitment, the offer required
that an additional appraisal be made and that Glenda Maxton receive payoff of her perceived
partnership value through a complicated note from the third party, none of which were certain.
WHEREFORE, Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey, respectfully request that this
Court dismiss the petition of Glenda Maxton, and order conveyance of the deed by Sheriff
pursuant to the valid Sheriffs Sale, or such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
II. SHERIFF'S SAANSWER TO
LE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE
DUE TO OPPRESSIVE AND BAD FAITH
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF DEFENDANTS
JEAN O. DORSEY AND DENNIS G DORSEY
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that three separate suits exist docketed at
99-3179, 99-4983, and 99-4984. Denied that the implication that the respondents are the cause
of said suits. By way of further answer, the principal issues in dispute stem from the non-
payment of rent for use of the partnership building by the petitioner, and her husband, John
Maxton. It is the non-payment of the rents which has left the partnership insolvent and caused
PNC Bank to foreclose on the building mortgage, to the financial detriment of the Dorseys.
15. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys wished to sell the
building to Glenda Maxton, and/or her husband. Denied that Glenda Maxton detrimentally relied
or was lead to believe that negotiations would be successful before Sheriffs Sale. By way of
further answer, the Dorseys made several offers, as early as May of 1999, both to buy the
building from the partnership or to allow the Maxtons to buy the building from the partnership.
None of these negotiations bore fruit. The Sheriff s Sale was the only calendar item which
expedited any negotiation.
16. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted a
buyout of $145,000.00. Denied, the implication that the counteroffer to settle disputed matters
had nothing to do with partnership issues. By way of further answer, the Dorseys were obliged to
rut forth a counteroffer for cash settlement on the demand of Glenda Maxton's counsel. The
ash payment of $145,000.00 was an amount acceptable to the Dorseys to settle all disputed
issues arising out of the partnership. The $145,000.00 counteroffer was in response to the
ridiculously low offer by Glenda Maxton to purchase the Dorsey partnership interest for
$95,000.00 on September 14, 1999, and the subsequent written offer of Maxton for $107,000.00
dated October 22, 1999 (See Exhibit A). The Maxtons' financial situation speaks for itself,
which was the cause of the partnership's inability to pay its mortgage and has no relevance to an
agreeable price for purchase of the partnership interests at issue.
17. It is specifically denied that a reduction in the amount the Dorseys would accept to
settle all partnership issues is oppressive. To the contrary, the willingness to reduce the amount
needed to resolve all partnership issues demonstrates the utmost good faith in dealing. By way of
further answer, cash was the only method put forth by the Dorseys to settle all disputes. Glenda
Maxton's remedy for partnership miscount, if any, is found in the partnership agreement, not in a
petition to set aside a Sheriffs Sale.
18. It is specifically denied that the discrepancy, if any, between the actual value of the
property and the sum paid at Sheriffs Sale by the Dorseys raises a presumption of bad faith
dealings. By way of further answer, a distressed property rarely commands a dollar value of a
property not subject to Sheriff s Sale in mortgage foreclosure. Gross inadequacy of price not
established where building appraised at $657,000.00 sold at Sheriffs Sale for $365,000.00 (56%
of value), Dalessio v. Dalessio. 429 Pa. Super. 282 (1993), or property valued at $10,000.00 sold
for $2,250.19 at Sheriffs Sale (22.5% of value) J.B. Van Sciver Co. v. Smith. 328 Pa Super. 487,
477 A.2d 550 (1984).
19. Denied. It is denied that Glenda Maxton is able to tender the amounts paid by the
Dorseys on sale, or in the alternative, fair market value. By way of further answer, Robert P.
Kline, Esquire, stated that the Maxtons could not raise even the lesser $137,500.00 to settle all
issues before the sale. Even if true that the Maxtons could raise an amount of cash between
$211,000.00 and 332,000.00 which they now claim they have, it is irrelevant. The Dorseys have
gone through the expense of obtaining financing, title insurance, counsel fees, distress and
embarrassment of having the partnership property sold at Sheriffs Sale. The last offer of
settlement was a negotiated value before the proper0• went to sale, and to avoid it. The Maxtons
were aware of the pending sale and were able to bid on the property themselves if they had
financing.
Further, the petition of Glenda Maxton on the whole appears to state that she had no idea
that the Dorseys intended to bid on the property at sale. To the contrary, her counsel warned that
if the Dorseys did not accept the offer of Glenda Maxton, that others would be there on the day of
the sale to bid against the property. There were up to twenty bids before the property sold to the
Dorseys, which is the best indication of a fair price at the sale.
WHEREFORE, and because the Respondents have gone through the expense of sale, and
have the obiigation to pay a note on the property pending the petition while delaying title to the
property without income from the property, the Respondents request the following relief:
a) That the petition of Glenda Maxton be dismissed and that counsel fees in the amount
of $500.00 be paid for filing a baseless petition, or in the alternative;
b) Should the Court determine that a hearing on the matter is in order, that Petitioner post
a bond in the amount of $ 4,495.80 (3x monthly mortgage) for payment of the monthly mortgage
of the loan obtained by the Dorseys, for lost income pending a hearing should the Dorseys prevail
on the petition;
c) or such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
'tic ael S. Travis
ID No 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Date: 3.? (717)731-9502
Attorney for Respondents,
Dennis and Jean Dorsey
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4076 MARKET STREET. SUITE 209
CAMP HILL. PA 17011
TELEPHONE 17171 771.9602
1" 17171 7319611
VIA FACSII ME AT 770-2553 AND US MAIL
Robert P. Kline, Esquire
331 Bridge Street, Suite 350
P.O. Box 461
New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461
October 25, 1999
RE: Dorseyfhlaxton Associates, Offer of Serrlemew
Dear Robert:
Thank you for your letter dated October 22, 1999. Your client's offer of $107,000.00 as
settlement has been rejected by my clients. The Dorsey's counteroffer for a cash settlement is
5145,000.00.
The following is a list of problems with the settlement terms, other than the price, which
are not necessarily exhaustive. My clients agree that Dorsey/Maxton Associates will pay for
one-half of settlement costs, but if there is a shortfall in funds available from the partnership, the
parties would share that amount, which is reflected in the counteroffer price. The failure of New
Insights to pay rents caused the insolvency of the partnership. It is also not agreeable that there
be a future adjustment for expenses in the partnership checking account. All expenses are
legitimate. If a lump sum cash settlement is proposed, then any amounts disputed would also be
reflected in the purchase offer as part of the deal.
Settlement of all outstanding suits, and waiver of claims by New Insights are agreeable
terms. If a deal is reached at this point, please be prepared for your client to provide a
commitment letter from her lender that the purchase funds are available. An escrowed deposit
will also be required. Lastly, no extensions beyond the December 8, 1999 Sheriffs Sale date
will be accepted. If your client wishes to purchase the property, arrangements must be made for
settlement prior to that date.
My client's position is unchanged in that it %vas clear for sometime that the partnership
would be terminated. My clients did not believe the mortgage could be renewed with PNC.
EIOIIBIT
A
A
Robert P. Kline, Esquire
October 25, 1999
Page 2
We welcome any further discussions regarding settlement.
Very truly yours,
Michael S. Travis
MSTIm
Distribution:
James M. Bach, Esquire (via facsimile only)
Mr. and Mrs. Dorsey (via facsimile only)
r
ROBERT PETER SLII1iE
Attorney & Counsellor at Law
331 Bridge Street, Sufte 350
Post Office Box 461
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-0461
(717)770.2540
fax (717) 770.2553
October 22, 1999
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
H rl~ ?D
Re: Dorsey.Maxton Associates
Dear Mike:
My client believes she can obtain financing sufficient to pay off PNC Bank and pay to
your clients the sum of $107,000.00 as full satisfaction for: (a) your clients' interest in the
partnership; (b) any claims against the partnership, my client, her husband, New Insights, Inc. or
320 Management brought by Gary Dorsey, Jeannie Dorsey, or either of them in their role as
partners in Dorsey/Maxton Associates, specifically including all claims for rent due from New
Insights, Inc. or 320 Management and Gary Dorsey's claim against the partnership; and (c) any
other interests your clients may have in any partnership claims against New Insights or any other
tenant of the partnership real estate.
This proposal presumes that your clients will be obligated to assume 50% of any
expenses incurred to formally terminate the partnership, including the preparation of any final
returns that may be required, and 501/6 of the usual and customary seller's expenses at settlement
on the sale of the real property in the event that these expenses are not available in the
partnership checking account. This proposal is valid only if the partnership has no other
outstanding past due liabilities and no commitment for future liabilities beyond those specifically
addressed in this correspondence, and that any tenant security deposits are in escrow and would
be transferred to the new owner.
In addition, I have been advised that in the event your clients agree to this proposal, John
Maxton and New Insights, Inc. will waive any right they have to further litigate the issue of the
Dorseys' breach of the oral partnership agreement involving 320 Management.
This offer is further subject to adjustment after my client has had the opportunity to
review the year-to-date financial statement that I had just received in my office and forwarded to
her, for any Dorsey/Maxton checking account disbursement made since January 1, 1998 that is
not a legitimate Dorsey/Maxton expense.
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
October 22, 1999
Page Two
This proposal is made in hope that we can reach an amicable and reasonable compromise
in order to resolve this partnership. As you are well aware, time is running short and action
needs to be taken as quickly as possible to set the wheels in motion to have any transaction
progress to a level that will satisfy PNC Bank to the point where it will be willing to postpone the
sheriffs sale of the real property pending settlement. Both parties need to realize that they must
be flexible in order for any realistic hope of resolution prior to the sale of the partnership's only
substantial asset. I sincerely believe that my client and her husband, in making this proposal,
have taken a substantial step in that direction. At this late date, if progress is not made toward
reaching a resolution, l have recommended to my client that she institute legal action regarding
the partnership which will not only raise the issues regarding her concerns with the cxpenditure
of partnership funds by your clients, but will also raise the issue regarding your clients' refusal to
renew the partnership loan with PNC Bank which has placed the only significant asset of the
partnership in jeopardy.
1 ask that you please request that your clients give this matter their immediate attention
and provide me with a response at the earliest possible time.
13. yours,
ROBERT PETER KLINE, ESQUIRE
RPK/srf
cc: Glenda K. Maxton
Gregory J. Katshir, Esquire
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael S. Travis, certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the following person, addressed as
follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Petitioner)
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Post Office Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0737
(Attorney for PNC Bank)
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attorney for Partnership)
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(Hand-delivered)
Dated: ,,'Is,?j jo0y 0 . ravis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-9502
Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Answer to Petition are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
DATED: `-L:!i
Q /c
DATED: ? ? ? y
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
D/B/A DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.99-4269
CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NOTICE
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the
enclosed Response of PNC Bank, National Association, Successor by
Merger to CCNB Bank, N.A. to Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale
of Real Estate within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a
judgment may be entered against you.
SAIDIS, SNUFF & MASLAND
Attorney for PNC Bank,
National Association
arl Ledebohm Esquire
Supreme Court ID,#59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
NO.99-4269
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, : CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS
DB/A DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION-LAW
RESPONSE OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A. TO PETITION TO SET ASIDE
SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
AND NOW, PNC Bank, National Association, successor by merger to CCNB Bank,
N.A., through its attorneys Saidis, Shuff & Masland, and responds to the Petition To Set
Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this Paragraph, and
the same are therefore denied.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7.19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of these Paragraphs,
and the same are therefore denied.
NEW MATTER
20. The Sheriff's sale of the subject property was in all respects lawful and valid, as
the Sheriff and Respondent complied with all applicable procedural and substantive law in
exposing the property for sale and the Sheriff complied with all applicable procedural and
substantive law in "knocking down" the property to the highest bidder. Petitioner has not
averred any procedural or substantive defect in the Sheriffs sale.
21. Respondent bid the property at the Sheriff's sale to approximately $120,341.00.
A third party unknown to Respondent and Jean O. Dorsey bid the property up to
$211,000.00.
22. Under the circumstances of this sale, gross inadequacy of price is not a lawful
basis for setting aside the Sheriffs sale, nor for ordering a new Sheriffs sale of the property.
23. To the extent that oppressive and bad faith conduct by the successful bidders
prior to the Sheriffs sale is a lawful basis to set aside the Sheriff's sale, which is denied,
Respondent was at all times without knowledge of any such conduct and was not a
participant in any such conduct nor has Petitioner alleged that Respondent was in any way
involved in such conduct.
2
24. Petitioners' allegations of bad faith conduct are strictly confined to the partners
of Dorsey/Maxton Partnership and arise entirely out of a dispute between those partners
concerning their rights under the relevant partnership agreement, and are not in any way
relevant to the legal validity of the Sheriffs sale. Therefore, the dispute between the
partners of Dorsey/Maxion Partnership is not properly before this Court in the form of a
Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate.
25. To the extent that Petitioners have alleged any basis upon which relief could be
granted, no such basis has been averred against Respondent and Respondent should
therefore be dismissed as a party to the within action.
WHEREFORE, PNC Bank, National Association, successor by merger to CCNB
Bank, N.A., respectfully requests that the Petition be dismissed and that Respondent be
dismissed as a party to the instant action.
Date: r /I Z- /G o
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
By: A--rl-4
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for PNC Bank, National
Association
3
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-
PARTNERS DB/A DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 99-4269
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
VERIFICATION
I, Eric D. Krimmel, Assistant Vice President, being authorized to do so on behalf of PNC
Bank, National Association, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing pleading are
true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unworn
falsification to authorities.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Date: /111100 By: t'e'?'J
Eric D. Krimmel e
Assistant Vice President
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
NO.99-4269
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY and GLENDA K. MAXTON, CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS :
D/B/A DORSEY/MAXTON
ASSOCIATES,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2000, I, Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire, of the firm of
Saidis, Shuff & Masland, hereby certify that I this day served a true and correct copy of PNC Bank,
National Association's Response to Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate upon the
parties listed below via United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Petitioner)
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey)
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attorney for Partnership)
Edward L. Schorpp, Esquire
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(Solicitor for Cumberland Co. Sheriff)
Respectfully submitted,
Supreme Court ID #59012
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
SAIDIS, SH F & MASLAND
By. f4 ??
KazI?M. Ledebohm, Esquire
z
co
`d
' 11 :: T: X111
CCCL
a
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A/
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
RESPONSE OF THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFF
TO PETITION TO CF.T ASIDF SAi OF REAL ESTATE
AND NOW, comes R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff of Cumberland County, by and through his
Solicitor, Edward L. Schorpp, Esq., and responds to the petition to set aside Sheriff's sale as
follows:
1-4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, respondent is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of these paragraphs and the
same are therefore denied.
5-6. Admitted.
7-19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, respondent is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of these paragraphs and the
same are therefore denied.
NEW MATTER
20. The Sheriff's sale of the subject property was in all respects lawful and valid, as
the Sheriff complied with all applicable procedural and substantive law in exposing the property
for sale and in "knocking down" the property to the highest bidder. Petitioner has not averred
any procedural or substantive defect in the sale.
21. Under the circumstances of this sale, gross inadequacy of price is not a lawful
JAN - 7 2000
basis for setting it aside, nor for ordering a resale.
22. To the extent that oppressive and bad faith conduct by the successful bidders prior
to the sale is a lawful basis to set aside the sale, which is denied, the Sheriff was not a participant
in any such conduct.
23. To the extent that Petitioners have alleged any basis upon which relief could be
granted, no such basis has been averred against the Sheriff and he should be dismissed as a party
in the within action.
WHEREFORE, the Sheriff respectfully requests that the petition be dismissed and that he
be dismissed as a party in the within action.
Very Respectfully Submitted,
Edward L. Schorpp, Es q.
Solicitor, Sheriff of Cumberland County
127 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-9258
I verify that the statements contained herein are true and correct. I understand that
false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to
unswom falsification to authorities.
R. Thomas Kline, heriff
Dated: e ?; -rr1,1V
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A/
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response was served this date by depositing same in
the Post Office at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Glenda K. Maxton)
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Post Office Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0737
(Attorney for PNC Bank)
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attorney for Partnership)
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey)
Dated: I-C-00
Edward L. Schorp" p /
i. ,.. ..i
?' ii
DEC 1 0 199
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of
, upon consideration of
the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate and
the Respondents' Answer thereto, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that the Petition is Denied;
and counsel fees are awarded to Respondent to be paid by Petitioner in the amount of
BY THE COURT,
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Cumberland County Sheriff
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of
, upon consideration of
the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate and
the Respondents' Answer thereto, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that a hearing is scheduled
for the day of 2000, in Courtroom No. at M. to
address the issues in the Petition and Answer thereto.
Petitioner Glenda Maxton shall place a bond with the Court in the amount of $4,495.80
for payment of the monthly mortgage while the petition is pending for compensation of lost
income of the subject property pending disposition.
BY THE COURT,
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Cumberland County Sheriff
Michael S. Travis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731.9502
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ANSWER TO PETITION TO SET ASIDE
SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
NOW COMES Defendants Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey, by and through their
attorney, Michael S. Travis, and responds to Glenda Maxton's Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs
Sale of Real Estate as follows:
1 - 6. Admitted.
ANSWER TO
1. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE FOR GROSS INADEQUACY OF PRICE
7. Denied. It is denied that the fair market value of the property is in excess of
$330,000.00; Competitive bidding at the Sheriffs Sale on December 8, 1999, establishes a value
of $221,000.00.
8. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that an appraisal was performed in
September 1998, by George Clauser, SRA. By way of further answer, the valuation assumes a
fully leased, non-distressed property. The property in question is neither.
9. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted
$145,000.00 to buy out their partnership interest. By way of further answer, the $145,000.00
figure dates back to October 25, 1999. (A copy of the October 25, 1999, Dorsey counteroffer,
and the Maxton Offer of October 22, 1999, are attached hereto as Exhibit A.) The $145,000.00
number was also conveyed to Glenda Maxton's counsel by telephone on September 14, 1999, in
response to an oral offer of $95,000.00 by petitioner. Denied that disputes in the amount of
$45,000.00 are unrelated to partnership issues. Byway of further answer, all disputed sums
derive from issues at the heart of partnership disputes. Denied that a net demand of
$100,000.00 creates a presumption that the property is valued at approximately $320,000.00. By
way of further answer, a demand by the Dorseys against Glenda Maxton is no indication of price.
Approximately $70,000.00 is owed for back rents by Glenda Maxton and her husband John
Maxton for space occupied by the Maxtons in the building, a larger share of any partnership
interest is therefore due the Dorseys.
10. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted
$137,500.00 to settle all issues before Sheriffs Sale. The Dorseys worked tirelessly to settle all
partnership issues before the sale of the property. Denied that the demand for cash was last
minute in nature. The demand was always for cash (See Exhibit A). By way of further answer,
the unacceptable offer by Glenda Maxton, and subsequent offers through counsel, did not end all
litigation, which was a condition before acceptance by the Dorseys. Glenda Maxton vowed
through her counsel, and through her husband's counsel, that if the Dorseys did not agree to sell
the property at the price the Maxtons wished to pay, that sale by the Sheriff would be only the
beginning of litigation related to the partnership dispute.
11. Denied. Through counsel, Glenda Maxton's position was that she could raise some
of the money, but only by postponing the sale, in addition to setting other conditions which were
not agreeable to the Dorseys. By way of further answer, Glenda Maxton had promised a buyout
and resolution to these issues for more than a year prior to the sale.
12. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Glenda Maxton claimed to have
obtained a third-party offer. Denied that the offer was for $350,000.00 cash. The offer was not
acceptable, and included terms not acceptable to the Dorseys. Principally, there was no written
offer by the third party, the third party did not have a financing commitment, the offer required
that an additional appraisal be made and that Glenda Maxton receive payoff of her perceived
partnership value through a complicated note from the third party, none of which were certain.
WHEREFORE, Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey, respectfully request that this
Court dismiss the petition of Glenda Maxton, and order conveyance of the deed by Sheriff
pursuant to the valid Sheriff's Sale, or such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
ANSWER TO
H. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE
DUE TO OPPRESSIVE AND BAD FAITH
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF DEFENDANTS.
JEAN O. DORSEY AND DENNIS G. DORSEY
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that three separate suits exist docketed at
99-3179, 99-4983, and 99-4984. Denied that the implication that the respondents are the cause
of said suits. By way of further answer, the principal issues in dispute stem from the non-
payment of rent for use of the partnership building by the petitioner, and her husband, John
Maxton. It is the non-payment of the rents which has left the partnership insolvent and caused
PNC Bank to foreclose on the building mortgage, to the financial detriment of the Dorseys.
15. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys wished to sell the
building to Glenda ? 4axton, and/or her husband. Denied that Glenda Maxton detrimentally relied
or was lead to believe that negotiations would be successful before Sheriffs Sale. By way of
further answer, the Dorseys made several offers, as early as May of 1999, both to buy the
building from the partnership or to allow the Maxtons to buy the building from the partnership.
None of these negotiations bore fruit. The Sheriff s Sale was the only calendar item which
expedited any negotiation.
16. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted a
buyout of $145,000.00. Denied, the implication that the counteroffer to settle disputed matters
had nothing to do with partnership issues. By way of further answer, the Dorseys were obliged to
put forth a counteroffer for cash settlement on the demand of Glenda Maxton's counsel. The
cash payment of $145,000.00 was an amount acceptable to the Dorseys to settle all disputed
issues arising out of the partnership. The $145,000.00 counteroffer was in response to the
ridiculously low offer by Glenda Maxton to purchase the Dorsey partnership interest for
$95,000.00 on September 14, 1999, and the subsequent written offer of Maxton for $107,000.00
dated October 22, 1999 (See Exhibit A). The Maxtons' financial situation speaks for itself,
which was the cause of the partnership's inability to pay its mortgage and has no relevance to an
agreeable price for purchase of the partnership interests at issue.
17. It is specifically denied that a reduction in the amount the Dorseys would accept to
settle all partnership issues is oppressive. To the contrary, the willingness to reduce the amount
needed to resolve all partnership issues demonstrates the utmost good faith in dealing. By way of
further answer, cash was the only method put forth by the Dorseys to settle all disputes. Glenda
Maxton's remedy for partnership miscount, if any, is found in the partnership agreement, not in a
petition to set aside a Sheriff's Sale.
18. It is specifically denied that the discrepancy, if any, between the actual value of the
property and the sum paid at Sheriff s Sale by the Dorseys raises a presumption of bad faith
dealings. By way of further answer, a distressed property rarely commands a dollar value of a
property not subject to Sheriffs Sale in mortgage foreclosure. Gross inadequacy of price not
established where building appraised at $657,000.00 sold at Sheriffs Sale for $365,000.00 (56%
of value), Dalessio v. Dalessio.429 Pa. Super. 282 (1993), or property valued at $10,000.00 sold
for $2,250.19 at Sheriffs Sale (22.5% of value) J.B. Van Sciver Co. v. Smith. 328 Pa Super. 487,
477 A.2d 550 (1984).
19. Denied. It is denied that Glenda Maxton is able to tender the amounts paid by the
Dorseys on sale, or in the alternative, fair market value. By way of further answer, Robert P.
Kline, Esquire, stated that the Maxtons could not raise even the lesser $137,500.00 to settle all
issues before the sale. Even if true that the Maxtons could raise an amount of cash between
$211,000.00 and 332,000.00 which they now claim they have, it is irrelevant. The Dorseys have
gone through the expense of obtaining financing, title insurance, counsel fees, distress and
embarrassment of having the partnership property sold at Sheriffs Sale. The last offer of
settlement was a negotiated value before the property Trent to sale, and to avoid it. The Maxtons
were aware of the pending sale and were able to bid on the property themselves if they had
fmancing.
Further, the petition of Glenda Maxton on the whole appears to state that she had no idea
that the Dorseys intended to bid on the property at sale. To the contrary, her counsel warned that
if the Dorseys did not accept the offer of Glenda Maxton, that others would be there on the day of
the sale to bid against the property. There were up to twenty bids before the property sold to the
Dorseys, which is the best indication of a fair price at the sale.
WHEREFORE, and because the Respondents have gone through the expense of sale, and
have the obligation to pay a note on the property pending the petition while delaying title to the
property without income from the property, the Respondents request the following relief:
a) That the petition of Glenda Maxton be dismissed and that counsel fees in the amount
of $500.00 be paid for filing a baseless petition, or in the alternative;
b) Should the Court determine that a hearing on the matter is in order, that Petitioner post
a bond in the amount of S 4,495.80 (3x monthly mortgage) for payment of the monthly mortgage
of the loan obtained by the Dorseys, for lost income pending a hearing should the Dorseys prevail
on the petition;
c) or such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
.?
tic ael S. Travis
ID No 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Date: 3. (717)731-9502
Attorney for Respondents,
Dennis and Jean Dorsey
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
?076 MARKET STREET, SUITE !OD
CAMP MILL, PA 17011
TELEPHONE )717) 731•9302
/A% 1717) 731.9511
VIA FACSUv= AT 770-2553 AND US MAIL
Robert P. Kline, Esquire
331 Bridge Street, Suite 350
P.O. Boa 461
New Cumberland, PA 17070-0461
October 25, 1999
RE: Dorsey/B7axton Associates, Offer ofSetrlemew
Dear Robert:
Thank you for your letter dated October 22, 1999. Your client's offer of $107,000.00 as
settlement has been rejected by my clients. The Dorsey's counteroffer for a cash settlement is
5145,000.00.
The following is a list of problems with the settlement terms, other than the price, which
are not necessarily exhaustive. My clients agree that Dorsey/Maxton Associates will pay for
one-half of settlement costs, but if there is a shortfall in funds available from the partnership, the
parties would share that amount, which is reflected in the counteroffer price. The failure of New
Insights to pay rents caused the insolvency of the partnership. It is also not agreeable that there
be a future adjustment for expenses in the partnersMp checking account. All expenses are
legitimate. If a lump sum cash settlement is proposed, then any amounts disputed would a'.so be
reflected in the purchase offer as part of the deal.
Settlement of all outstanding suits, and waiver of claims by New Insights are agreeable
terms. If a deal is reached at this point, please be prepared for your client to provide a
commitment letter from her lender that the purchase funds are available. An escrowed deposit
will also be required. Lastly, no extensions beyond the December 8, 1999 Sheriff's Sale date
will be accepted. If your client wishes to purchase the property, arrangements must be made for
settlement prior to that date.
My client's position is unchanged in that it was clear for sometime that the partnership
would be terminated. My clients did not believe the mortgage could be renewed with PNC.
EO1181T
A
C
Robert P. Kline, Esquire
October 25, 1999
Page 2
We welcome any further discussions regarding settlement.
Very truly yours,
Michael S. Travis
MST/hm
Distribution:
James M. Bach, Esquire (via facsimile only)
Mr. and Mrs. Dorsey (via facsimile only)
r
ROBERT PETER SLIIm
Attorney & Counsellor at Law
331 Bridge Street, Suite 350
Post Office Box 461
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070.0461
(717) 770.2540
tax (717) 770.2553
October 22, 1999
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
VIA FACSUV13LE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
nrIC 2D
Re: DorseyMaxton Associates
Dear Mike:
My client believes she can obtain financing sufficient to pay off PNC Bank and pay to
your clients the sum of 5107,000.00 as full satisfaction for: (a) your clients' interest in the
partnership; (b) any claims against the partnership, my client, her husband, New Insights. htc. or
320 Management brought by Gary Dorsey, Jeannie Dorsey, or either of them in their role as
partners in Dorsey/Maxton Associates, specifically including all claims for rent due from New
Insights, Inc. or 320 Management and Gary Dorsey's claim against the partnership; and (c) any
other interests your clients may have in any partnership claims against New Insights or any other
tenant of the partnership real estate.
This proposal presumes that your clients will be obligated to assume 50% of any
expenses incurred to formally terminate the partnership, including the preparation of any final
returns that may be required, and 50% of the usual and customary seller's expenses at settlement
on the sale of the real property in the event that these expenses are not available in the
partnership checking account. This proposal is valid only if the partnership has no other
outstanding past due liabilities and no commitment for future liabilities beyond those specifically
addressed in this correspondence, and that an), tenant security deposits are in escrow and would
be transferred to the new owner.
In addition, I have been advised that in the event your clients agree to this proposal, John
Maxton and New Insights, Inc. will waive any right they have to further litigate the issue of the
Dorseys' breach of the oral partnership agreement involving 320 Management.
This offer is further subject to adjustment after my client has had the opportunity to
review the year-to-date financial statement that I had just received in my office and forwarded to
her, for any Dorsey/Maxton checking account disbursement made since January 1, 1998 that is
not a legitimate Dorsey/Maxton expense.
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
October 22, 1999
Page Two
This proposal is made in hope that we can reach an amicable and reasonable compromise
in order to resolve this partnership. As you are well aware, time is running short and action
needs to be taken as quickly as possible to set the wheels in motion to have any transaction
progress to a level that will satisfy PNC Bank to the point where it will be willing to postpone the
sheriffs sale of the real property pending settlement. Both parties need to realize that they must
be flexible in order for any realistic hope of resolution prior to the sale of the partnership's only
substantial asset. I sincerely believe that my client and her husband, in making this proposal,
have taken a substantial step in that direction. At this late date, if progress is not made toward
reaching a resolution, I have recommended to my client that she institute legal action regarding
the partnership which will not only raise the issues regarding her concerns with the cxpendit4re
of partnership funds by your clients, but will also raise the issue regarding your clients' refusal to
renew the partnership loan with PNC Bank which has placed the only significant asset of the
partnership in jeopardy.
I ask that you please request that your clients give this matter their immediate attention
and provide me with a response at the earliest possible time.
ly yours,
ROBERT PETER KLINE, ESQUIRE
RPK/srf
cc: Glenda K. Maxion
Gregory J. Katshir, Esquire
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : IN TIM COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A., ,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/AMTON ASSOCLATES
,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael S. Travis, certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the following person, addressed as
follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Petitioner)
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Post Office Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0737
(Attorney for PNC Bank)'
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attorney for Partnership)
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(Hand-delivered)
Dated: g ?
'' '? IO?tel + ravels `
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-9502
Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Answer to Petition are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
DATED. - o-?
DATED:C / r7
tic
Dennis G. Dorsey
J n 0. Dorsey
DEC 2 o 199
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
RULE
AND NOW, to wit, this 7 01 day of December, 1999, upon consideration of the
foregoing Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate, a Rule is granted upon PNC Bank,
National Association, Jean O. Dorsey, and Dennis G. Dorsey, or any other party in interest to
show cause, if any be had, why the relief requested should not be granted.
Rule Returnable twenty (20) days from service. , r?
BY THE COURT,
J.
,?o?2tt/aJ ?xat.
Jd-19.9 9
RKS
cc: Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Cumberland County Sheriff
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
AND NOW, to wit, this day of
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER
2000, upon consideration of
the foregoing Petition to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate, it is hereby ORDERED and
DECREED that the Petition is granted; and the parties are directed to:
BY THE COURT,
,J.
cc: Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Cumberland County Sheriff
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PETITION TO SET ASIDE
SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
AND NOW COMES Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton, individually, respectfully petitioning
this Court to set aside the sheriff's sale of real estate situate and known as 320 Rear Bridge
Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070 for the following reasons:
I. Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton, (hereinafter "Maxton") is an adult individual
residing at 413 16th Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-1318.
2. Defendants, Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey, (hereinafter "Dorseys") are
adult individuals residing at 322 West Green Street, Shiremanstown, Pennsylvania 17011-6521.
3. Defendant, Dorsey/Maxton Associates, is a Pennsylvania general partnership with
a business address at 320 Rear Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070.
4. Defendant, Dorsey/Maxton Associates, is the legal fee simple owner of the subject
premises.
5. Plaintiff, PNC Bank, N.A., pursuant to a Writ of Execution issued out of the Court
of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, foreclosed on the subject premises by
having the subject property exposed at a Sheriffs Sale on December 8, 1999.
6. Defendants, Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey, were the successful bidder at
the sale for a sum of $211,000.00.
1. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE FOR GROSS INADEQUACY OF PRICE
7. Maxton avers that the fair market value of the property is in excess of
$330,000.00.
8. Defendant, Jean O. Dorsey, had the property appraised in September, 1998 which
set forth an appraised value of $332,000.00.
9. A week before the scheduled Sheriff Sale, the Dorseys demanded a buy-out of
$145,000.00 from Maxton for their 50% partnership interest in the subject property which
included unrelated, disputed amounts of $45,000.00 that pertain to other litigation set forth
hereinafter. This net demand for approximately $100,000.00 creates a presumption that they
believe the fair market value of the property to be approximately $320,000.00.
10. A day before the Sheriff Sale, the Dorseys orally agreed to accept $137,500.00
from Maxton with a last minute condition that the money be paid within twenty-four (24) hours.
11. Maxton had secured financing to pay off PNC Bank, N.A. and the Dorseys but
could not settle within this time frame and prior to the scheduled Sheriff Sale.
2
12. Maxton had previously received a bona fide written offer from a third party to
purchase the property for $350,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton, respectfully requests that this Court set
aside the sheriff's sale for gross inadequacy of the sale price, order a resale of the property, or
award such other reasonable relief as it deems appropriate.
II. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE
DUE TO OPPRESSIVE AND BAD FAITH
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF DEFENDANTS.
JEAN O. DORSEY AND DENNIS G. DORSEY
13. The individual Defendants were partners in a partnership known as Dorsey/Maxton
Associates.
14. The respective parties have been embroiled in some lengthy disputes which have
resulted in three (3) separate civil lawsuits being docketed at 99-3179, 99-4983, and 99-4984.
15. Notwithstanding the noted litigation, counsel for the Dorseys led Maxton to believe
that the Dorseys truly wanted Maxton to have the property as set forth in correspondence dated
December 1, 1999. Said letter caused Maxton to detrimentally rely or believe that negotiations
would be successful prior to the actual sale date.
16. However, the Dorseys, prior to the Sheriff's Sale, demanded a buy-out price of
$145,000.00 which included $45,000.00 of disputed amounts that was the crux of the
aforementioned lawsuits. By demanding that the disputed amounts be paid to avoid a sheriffs
sale, said negotiations raise a presumption of oppressive and bad faith dealing that exploited
3
Maxton's financial condition, jeopardized Maxton's husband's place of business, and jeopardized
his source to make a living that resulted in unfairness to Maxton.
17. Furthermore, the Dorseys' last minute condition of requiring cash within one day
after dropping their accepted buy-out figure to $137,500.00 further creates a presumption of
oppressiveness and bad faith dealing.
18. The gross discrepancy between the actual value of the property and the sum paid
by the Dorseys raises a presumption of bad faith dealings.
19. Maxton is ready, willing, and able to tender to the Dorseys and PNC Bank, MA.,
the sum paid by the Dorseys at the execution sale, plus interest, or in the alternative, the fair
market value of the property as determined by this Court.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court for proper cause set aside
the Sheriff's Sale for oppressive and bad faith conduct by the successful bidders prior to the sale,
order a resale of the property, or require Maxton to pay the successful bidders based on the fair
market value of the property, or order such further relief as this Court in its broad discretion
believes is just and equitable.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
Dated: December 16, 1999 By: l ,.-VL1 C),tZ
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney ID No. 52801
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
Attorney for Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton
4
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have on this date served the Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of
Real Estate on the person and in the manner directed below, which satisfies the requirements of
Pa.R.C.P. 440.
Service by first class, postage paid, United states mail addressed as follows:
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for PNC Bank, N.A.)
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Jean O. Dorsey
and Dennis G. Dorsey)
Service by hand delivery as follows:
Cumberland County Sheriff
Cumberland County Courthouse
3 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: December 17, 1999
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
By:
Helen E. Rasmussen, Legal Assistant
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
i'
j
r _
J
W Na?
,
p w
(7
V' C
U ^ EEC
n
LL
O ?
N
W < o
LL
a
O i
5 FZ
U
DEC 1 0
?gqo V
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA X
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of
upon consideration of
the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate and
the Respondents' Answer thereto, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that the Petition is Denied;
and counsel fees are awarded to Respondent to be paid by Petitioner in the amount of
BY THE COURT,
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attomey for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Cumberland County Sheriff
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of
upon consideration of
the allegations in the Petition of Glenda Maxton to Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate and
the Respondents' Answer thereto, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed that a hearing is scheduled
for the day of 2000, in Courtroom No. at M. to
address the issues in the Petition and Answer thereto.
Petitioner Glenda Maxton shall place a bond with the Court in the amount of $4,495.80
for payment of the monthly mortgage while the petition is pending for compensation of lost
income of the subject property pending disposition.
BY THE COURT,
Distribution:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
Attorney for Petitioner
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
Attorney for Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
Attorney for Respondent PNC Bank, N.A.
James M. Bach, Esquire, for the partnership
Cumberland County Sheriff
Michael S. Travis
1D No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-9502
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
:NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
ANSWER TO PETITION TO SET ASIDE
SHERIFF'S SALE OF REAL ESTATE
NOW COMES Defendants Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey, by and through their
attorney, Michael S. Travis, and responds to Glenda Maxton's Petition to Set Aside Sheriff's
Sale of Real Estate as follows:
1 - 6. Admitted.
ANSWER TO
I. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET
ASIDE FOR GROSS INADEQUACY OF PRICE
7. Denied. It is denied that the fair market value of the property is in excess of
$330,000.00; Competitive bidding at the Sheriff's Sale on December 8, 1999, establishes a value
of $221,000.00.
8. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that an appraisal was performed in
September 1998, by George Clauser, SRA. By way of further answer, the valuation assumes a
fully leased, non-distressed property. The property in question is neither.
9. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted
$145,000.00 to buy out their partnership interest. By way of further answer, the $145,000.00
figure dates back to October 25, 1999. (A copy of the October 25, 1999, Dorsey counteroffer,
and the Maxton Offer of October 22, 1999, are attached hereto as Exhibit A.) The $145,000.00
number was also conveyed to Glenda Maxton's counsel by telephone on September 14, 1999, in
response to an oral offer of $95,000.00 by petitioner. Denied that disputes in the amount of
$45,000.00 are unrelated to partnership issues. By way of further answer, all disputed sums
derive from issues at the heart of partnership disputes. Denied that a net demand of
$100,000.00 creates a presumption that the property is valued at approximately $320,000.00. By
way of further answer, a demand by the Dorseys against Glenda Maxton is no indication of price.
Approximately $70,000.00 is owed for back rents by Glenda Maxton and her husband John
Maxton for space occupied by the Maxtons in the building, a larger share of any partnership
interest is therefore due the Dorseys.
10. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted
$137,500.00 to settle all issues before Sheriffs Sale. The Dorseys worked tirelessly to settle all
partnership issues before the sale of the property. Denied that the demand for cash was last
minute in nature. The demand was always for cash (See Exhibit A). By way of further answer,
the unacceptable offer by Glenda Maxton, and subsequent offers through counsel, did not end all
litigation, which was a condition before acceptance by the Dorseys. Glenda Maxton vowed
through her counsel, and through her husband's counsel, that if the Dorseys did not agree to sell
the property at the price the Maxtons wished to pay, that sale by the Sheriff would be only the
beginning of litigation related to the partnership dispute.
11. Denied. Through counsel, Glenda Maxton's position was that she could raise some
of the money, but only by postponing the sale, in addition to setting other conditions which were
not agreeable to the Dorseys. By way of further answer, Glenda Maxton had promised a buyout
and resolution to these issues for more than a year prior to the sale.
12. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that Glenda Maxton claimed to have
obtained a third-party offer. Denied that the offer was for $350,000.00 cash. The offer was not
acceptable, and included terms not acceptable to the Dorseys. Principally, there was no written
offer by the third party, the third part), did not have a financing commitment, the offer required
that an additional appraisal be made and that Glenda Maxton receive payoff of her perceived
partnership value through a complicated note from the third party, none of which were certain.
WHEREFORE, Respondents, Dennis and Jean Dorsey, respectfully request that this
Court dismiss the petition of Glenda Maxton, and order conveyance of the deed by Sheriff
pursuant to the valid Sheriff's Sale, or such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
ANSWER TO
II. SHERIFF'S SALE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE
DUE TO OPPRESSIVE AND BAD FAITH
CONDUCT ON THE PART OF DEFENDANTS
JEAN O. DORSEY AND DENNIS G DORSEY
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that three separate suits exist docketed at
99-3179, 99-4983, and 99-4984. Denied that the implication that the respondents are the cause
of said suits. By way of further answer, the principal issues in dispute stein from the non-
payment of rent for use of the partnership building by the petitioner, and her husband, John
Maxton. It is the non-payment of the rents which has left the partnership insolvent and caused
PNC Bank to foreclose on the building mortgage, to the financial detriment of the Dorseys.
15. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys wished to sell the
building to Glenda Maxton, and/or her husband. Denied that Glenda Maxton detrimentally relied
or was lead to believe that negotiations would be successful before Sheriffs Sale. By way of
further answer, the Dorseys made several offers, as early as May of 1999, both to buy the
building from the partnership or to allow the Maxtons to buy the building from the partnership.
None of these negotiations bore fruit. The Sheriffs Sale was the only calendar item which
expedited any negotiation.
16. Admitted in part, denied in part. Admitted that the Dorseys would have accepted a
buyout of $145,000.00. Denied, the implication that the counteroffer to settle disputed matters
iad nothing to do with partnership issues. By way of further answer, the Dorseys were obliged to
)ut forth a counteroffer for cash settlement on the demand of Glenda Maxton's counsel. The
:ash payment of $145,000.00 was an amount acceptable to the Dorseys to settle all disputed
issues arising out of the partnership. The $145,000.00 counteroffer was in response to the
ridiculously low offer by Glenda Maxton to purchase the Dorsey partnership interest for
$95,000.00 on September 14, 1999, and the subsequent written offer of Maxton for $107,000.00
dated October 22, 1999 (See Exhibit A). The Maxtons' financial situation speaks for itself,
which was the cause of the partnership's inability to pay its mortgage and has no relevance to an
agreeable price for purchase of the partnership interests at issue.
17. It is specifically denied that a reduction in the amount the Dorseys would accept to
settle all partnership issues is oppressive. To the contrary, the willingness to reduce the amount
needed to resolve all partnership issues demonstrates the utmost good faith in dealing. By way of
further answer, cash was the only method put forth by the Dorseys to settle all disputes. Glenda
Maxton's remedy for partnership miscount, if any, is found in the partnership agreement, not in a
petition to set aside a Sheriffs Sale.
18. It is specifically denied that the discrepancy, if any, between the actual value of the
property and the sum paid at Sheriffs Sale by the Dorseys raises a presumption of bad faith
dealings. By way of further answer, a distressed property rarely commands a dollar value of a
property not subject to Sheriffs Sale in mortgage foreclosure. Gross inadequacy of price not
established where building appraised at $657,000.00 so;d at Sheriffs Sale for $365,000.00 (56%
of value), Dalessio v. Dalessio 429 Pa. Super. 282 (1993), or property valued at $10,000.00 sold
for $2,250.19 at Sheriffs Sale (22.5% of value) J.B. Van Sciver Co. v. Smith. 328 Pa Super. 487,
477 A.2d 550 (1984).
19. Denied. It is denied that Glenda Maxton is able to tender the amounts paid by the
Dorseys on sale, or in the alternative, fair market value. By way of further answer, Robert P.
Kline, Esquire, stated that the Maxtons could not raise even the lesser $137,500.00 to settle all
issues before the sale. Even if true that the Maxtons could raise an amount of cash between
$211,000.00 and 332,000.00 which they now claim they have, it is irrelevant. The Dorseys have
;one through the expense of obtaining financing, title insurance, counsel fees, distress and
embarrassment of having the partnership property sold at Sheriff's Sale. The last offer of
ettlement was a negotiated value before the property went to sale, and to avoid it. The Maxtons
were aware of the pending sale and were able to bid on the property themselves if they had
financing.
Further, the petition of Glenda Maxton on the whole appears to state that she had no idea
that the Dorseys intended to bid on the property at sale. To the contrary, her counsel warned that
if the Dorseys did not accept the offer of Glenda Maxton, that others would be there on the day of
the sale to bid against the property. There were up to twenty bids before the property sold to the
Dorseys, which is the best indication of a fair price at the sale.
WHEREFORE, and because the Respondents have gone through the expense of sale, and
have the obligation to pay a note on the property pending the petition while delaying title to the
property without income from the property, the Respondents request the following relief:
a) That the petition of Glenda Maxton be dismissed and that counsel fees in the amount
of $500.00 be paid for filing a baseless petition, or in the alternative;
b) Should the Court determine that a hearing on the matter is in order, that Petitioner post
a bond in the amount of $ 4,495.80 (3x monthly mortgage) for payment of the monthly mortgage
of the loan obtained by the Dorseys, for lost income pending a hearing should the Dorseys prevail
on the petition;
c) or such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
'Ivvhcchael S. Travis
ID No 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Date: 3.? (717)731-9502
Attorney for Respondents,
Dennis and Jean Dorsey
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4076 MARKET STRCET, SUITE !OD
CAMP MILL, PA 17011
TELEPHONE 4717) 731-9502
FAX 17171 731.6611
VIA FACSIMILE AT 770-2553 AND US MAIL October 25, ] 999
Robert P. Kline, Esquire
333 Bridge Street, Suite 350
P.O. Boa 461
Nev, Cumberland, PA 17070-0461
RE: Dorsey/111a:ton Associates, Offer ofSettlemenr
Dear Robert:
Thank you for your letter dated October 22, 1999. Your client's offer of $107,000.00 as
settlement has been rejected by my clients. The Dorsev s counteroffer for a cash settlement is
5145,000.00.
The following is a list of problems with the settlement terms, other than the price, which
are not necessarily exhaustive. My clients agree that Dorsey/Maxton Associates will pay for
one-half of settlement costs, but if there is a shortfall in funds available from the partnership, the
parties would share that amount, which is reflected in the counteroffer price. The failure of New
Insights to pay rents caused the insolvency of the partnership. It is also not agreeable that there
be a future adjustment for expenses in the partnership checking account. All expenses are
legitimate. If a lump sum cash settlement is proposed, then any amounts disputed would also be
reflected in the purchase offer as part of the deal.
Settlement of all outstanding suits, and waiver of claims by New Insights are agreeable
terms. If a deal is reached at this point, please be prepared for your client to provide a
commitment letter from her lender that the purchase funds are available. An escrowed deposit
will also be required. Lastly, no extensions beyond the December 8, 1999 Sheriff's Sale date
will be accepted. If your client wishes to purchase the property, arrangements must be made for
settlement prior to that date.
My client's position is unchanged in that it was clear for sometime that the partnership
would be terminated. My clients did not believe the mortgage could be renewed with PNC.
E El isrr
A
l
Robert P. Kline, Esquire
October 25, 1999
Page 2
We welcome any further discussions regarding settlement.
Very truly yours,
i.
Michael S. Travis
MST1tm
Distribution:
James M. Bach, Esquire (via facsimile only)
Mr. and Mrs. Dorsey (via facsimile only)
r
ROBERT PETER ]FLUM
Attorney 6 Counsellor at Low
331 Bridge Street, Suite 350
Post Office Box 461
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-0461
(717) 770-2540
fax (717) 770-2553
October 22, 1999
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
VIA FACSUVME AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
u ?+rl y ' 2D
Re: Dorsey/Maxton Associates
Dear Mike:
My client believes she can obtain financing sufficient to pay off PNC Bank and pay to
your clients the sum of $107,000.00 as full satisfaction for: (a) your clients' interest in the
partnership; (b) any claims against the partnership, my client, her husband, New Insights, Inc. or
320 Management brought by Gary Dorsey, Jeannie Dorsey, or either of them in their role as
partners in Dorsey/Maxton Associates, specifically including all claims for rent due from New
Insights, Inc. or 320 Management and Gary Dorsey's claim against the partnership; and (c) any
other interests your clients may have in any partnership claims against New Insights or any other
tenant of the partnership real estate.
This proposal presumes that your clients will be obligated to assume 50% of any
expenses incurred to formally terminate the partnership, including the preparation of any final
returns that may be required, and 50% of the usual and customary seller's expenses at settlement
on the sale of the real property in the event that these expenses are not available in the
partnership checking account. This proposal is valid only if the partnership has no other
outstanding past due liabilities and no commitment for future liabilities beyond those specifically
addressed in this correspondence, and that any tenant security deposits are in escrow and would
be transferred to the new owner.
In addition, I have been advised that in the event your clients agree to this proposal, John
Maxton and New Insights, Inc. will waive any right they have to further litigate the issue of the
Dorseys' breach ofthe oral partnership agreement involving 320 Management.
This offer is further subject to adjustment after my client has had the opportunity to
review the year-to-date financial statement that I had just received in my office and forwarded to
her, for any Dorsey/Maxton checking account disbursement made since January 1, 1998 that is
not a legitimate Dorsey/Maxton expense.
l
MICHAEL S. TRAVIS 'E
ATTORNEY AT LAW
V4
4076 MARKET STREET, SUITE 209
CAMP MILL, PA IJOII b?S
"SA
S
CRAIG A. DIEHL, ESQUIRE
3464 TRINDLE ROAD
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
I?IIIII???IIIIIIIIIIII?IIIII?I?I
i
.:r.
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
October 22, 1999
Page Two
This proposal is made in hope that we can reach an amicable and reasonable compromise
in order to resolve this partnership. As you are well aware, time is running short and action
needs to be taken as quickly as possible to set the wheels in motion to have any transaction
progress to a level that will satisfy PNC Bank to the point where it will be willing to postpone the
sheriffs sale of the real property pending settlement. Both parties need to realize that they must
be flexible in order for any realistic hope of resolution prior to the sale of the partnership's only
substantial asset. I sincerely believe that my client and her husband, in making this proposal,
have taken a substantial step in that direction. At this late date, if progress is not made toward
reaching a resolution, I have recommended to my client that she institute legal action regarding
the partnership which will not only raise the issues regarding her concerns with the expenditure
of partnership funds by your clients, but will also raise the issue regarding your clients' refusal to
renew the partnership loan with PNC Bank which has placed the only significant asset of the
partnership in jeopardy.
I ask that you please request that your clients give this matter their immediate attention
and provide me with a response at the earliest possible time.
my yours,
ROBERT PETER KLINE, ESQUIRE
RPK/srf
cc: Glenda K. Maxton
Gregory J. Katshr, Esquire
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. :NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michael S. Travis, certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document by first class mail, postage prepaid, on the following person, addressed as
follows:
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Petitioner)
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esquire
SAIDIS, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Post Office Box 737
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0737
(Attorney for PNC Bank)'
James M. Bach, Esquire
352 S. Sporting Hill Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
(Attorney for Partnership)
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(Hand-delivered)
Dated: B vjs
VIII raves
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-9502
Attorney for Dennis and Jean Dorsey
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 994269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Answer to Petition are true and correct. I
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
DATED:
DATED: /? 9
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR
BY MERGER TO CCNB BANK,
N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.:
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,:
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
No. 99-4269 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
,?d lPr
Pjzrf-<.c ?rlv
AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2000, upon
consideration of the Petition To Set Aside Sheriff's Sale
of Real Estate filed on behalf of Glenda K. Maxton, and of
the Answer to Petition To Set Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real
Estate filed on behalf of Jean 0. Dorsey and Dennis G.
Dorsey, and following a hearing, the record is declared
closed, and the matter is taken under advisement.
Craig A. Diehl, Esquire
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
For the Petitioners
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
'??
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
For the Respondents
wcy
By the Court,
rr . ? .
Pc:VNSYLYG.?d?'
Michael S. Travis
ID No. 77399
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-9502
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
HEARING MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON THE ISSUE OF BAD FAITH
In her petition to set aside sheriff's sale, Glenda Maxton raises two issues. The first that
the sheriff's sale should be set aside for gross inadequacy of price. Defendants Dennis and Jean
Dorsey have addressed this issue in their memorandum in support of their motion for judgment
on the pleadings. Defendants incorporate their response and legal discussion herein by reference
as though set forth in full.
Petitioner also raises the issue that the sheriffs sale should be set aside due to oppressive
conduct and bad faith on the part of Dennis and Jean Dorsey, this memorandum further addresses
that issue.
Petitioner argues that the failure to reach a resolution of partnership disputes prior to the
sheriffs sale demonstrates oppressive or bad faith conduct. Even if the defendants had
committed acts of oppressive negotiations or bad faith, which is denied, such conduct is an
insufficient basis to set aside a sheriffs sale.
Legal Discussion
In the instant case, negotiations between the two parties failed, forcing the sale of
partnership real estate. The real estate foreclosure was brought about by a third party, PNC Bank
over which the defendant Dorseys had no control. By appearing at sheriffs sale to bid on the
property, the Dorseys were in the same position as any stranger or bidder who arrived at the sale.
The simple fact that the property did not command the price which the Maxton petition alleges
does not show bad faith or oppressive conduct.
It is hornbook law that bad faith and oppressive dealings are topics for common law
contracts. Every contract imposes an obligation of good faith in the performance or enforcement.
These provisions leave untouched the "negotiation" stage.' It is denied that the Dorseys
employed oppressive or bad faith tactics at any stage leading up to the sale of the property,
however, no deal was reached with respect to the negotiations, thus making the purchase at
sheriffs sale an improper forum for a bad faith claim.
In this instance Glenda Maxton simply could not raise the funds necessary to buy out her
partner's interest. The Dorseys even reduced their demand amount from $145,000.00 to
$137,500.00 to allow the Glenda Maxton to obtain funding to avoid the sale. This act
demonstrates the utmost good faith in attempting to resolve the pending sheriff s sale.
Nonetheless, negotiations failed, and the building went to the highest bidder. Each party was free
to competitively bid the property to its fair market value. Glenda Maxton now claims that she
has sufficient funds to buy out the Dorsey interest, however this has no bearing on the conduct
leading up to and including the sale.
Petitioner has failed to provide any law for the proposition that bad faith is a valid basis
to set aside a sheriff s sale. The sheriffs sale was lawful in all respects and should be upheld.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Dennis and Jean Dorsey request that the petition to set aside
the sheriffs sale be denied, and that Sheriff be ordered to convey a deed to the Dorseys.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael S. Travis
Attorney for Defendants
Dennis and Jean Dorsey
John P. Dawson, William Bumet Harvey, Stanley Henderson, Contracts. pp. 697.
There appears to be no law on the issue of a bad faith or oppressiveness claim in the setting of a
sheriffs sale. The term "bad faith" is not defined by statute. Doylestown Elec. Supply Co. v.
M_arvland Cas. Ins. Co., E.D.Pa..1996, 942 F.Supp. 1018. The UCC does define "Good Faith" as
honesty in fact, in the conduct or transaction concerned. 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 1201.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS DB/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
LEGAL MEMORANDUM
Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton, has raised two issues in her Petition to Set Aside the
Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate located at 320 Rear Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania,
set forth as follows:
1. Should the Sheriff Sale be set aside for the gross inadequacy of the sales
price; and
H. Should the Sheriff Sale be set aside due to oppressive and bad faith
conduct on the part of Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey?
1. The Sheriff Sale should be set aside for the gross inadequacy of the sales price.
The evidence presented at trial set forth the fair market value of the subject property at
a range from $332,000 to $350,894. Opposing counsel has cited two cases in an earlier brief
suggesting examples of cases whereby the courts have held the sales price not to be grossly
inadequate. In both cases, Continental Bank v. Frank, 343 Pa. Super. 477, 495 A.2d 565 (1985)
and Van Sciver Co. v. Smith, 328 Pa. Super. 487, 477 A.2d 550 (1984), a careful analysis will
indicate why these courts held that the sales price was not grossly inadequate. In Continental
Bank v. Frank, the property was sold for $245,000, while appellant claims that its value was in
excess of $400,000. However, the court held, "Appellant failed to support this allegation of value
by providing an accurate appraisal by experts or other competent evidence." Id. at 568. It
further noted that mere assertion of value of property by party is not enough. Id. at 568. Thus,
the court did not really decide the issue of gross inadequacy of price since no credible evidence
was presented to establish fair market value. Likewise, in Van Sciver Co. v. Smith, the subject
property was assessed for $8700 and sold at sheriff sale for $6300. Appellants therein argued
that their property was worth three times that amount. However, once again, no evidence was
before the court below to sustain that claim. The court noted, "We will not assume, as appellants
ask us to do, that the property was worth any specific amount based upon its assessed value."
Id, at 551. Accordingly, the court decided while gross inadequacy of price may be grounds to
set aside such a sale, if equity compels such a result, we cannot set aside a sale for that reason
when the appellant has produced no more evidence of the value of the real estate than was
produced here. Id. at 551.
Interestingly, the case most focused on by opposing counsel in his prior brief, Dalessio
v. Dalessio, 429 Pa. Super. 282, 632 A.2d 566 (1993) provides this court with the substantive
basis to set aside the sheriff sale in the case sub judice. In the Dalessio case, the property sold
at sheriff sale for $375,000 when the appellant had an appraisal of $657,000. However, the
appellee's appraiser set the fair market value of the property at $365.000. This court held,
2
the sale price is closely in line with the $365,000 value assigned by appellee's appraiser. Thus,
the sale price here is within a reasonable, acceptable range as established by the evidence before
the trial court." Id. at 569. The court further stated that the sale price, when compared to
appellee's appraiser's valuation, certainly does not "shock the conscience." Id. at 569. However,
the court was quick to point out that had the court not been presented with evidence other than
that given by appellant's appraiser, a different result may have been warranted. Thus, it is clear
that the court would not have made the same decision if it considered $657,000 to $375,000.
(Ratio of 57%: sale price _ fair market value).
In the case at bar, the only evidence of value is a range of $332,000 to $350,894. Taking
an average of the two values results in a fair market value of $341,447. Accordingly, the ratio
in our case is 61.8°/x. Petitioner, Glenda K. Maxton, submits that the sales price is grossly
inadequate. She further argues that when you combine the fact that on three separate occasions
the sale could have been avoided with some cooperation on the part of the Dorseys, this certainly
does shock the conscience of a reasonable, prudent person.
II. The Sheriff Sale should be set aside due to oppressive and bad faith conduct on the
part of Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey.
The beginning premise in the instant case is that Glenda K. Maxton and the Dorseys were
partners in a partnership known as Dorsey Maxton Associates. It is basic partnership law that
partners stand in fiduciary relationship to copartners, each being under a duty to act for the
benefit of all and if the partnership has terminated, assets must be handled in accordance with
such fiduciary principle. Bracht v. Connell, 313 Pa. 397, 170 A. 297 (1933). To suggest that
3
this occurred in our instant proceeding is the furtherest thing from the truth. Not only did Jean
0. Dorsey fail to act in accordance with the partnership agreement, she intentionally and willfully
in bad faith breached said agreement. Specifically, at trial, testimony revealed that she failed to
turn over business records when requested by Glenda K. Maxton, she paid for personal expenses
out of the partnership account without consulting Glenda K. Maxton, she hired an attorney, James
M. Bach, to represent the partnership without consulting with Glenda K. Maxton, she disbursed
checks in excess of $200 without approval of her partner, and she purposely refused to settle
other pending disputes which resulted in her tacticly using the sheriff sale to gain a substantial
windfall to the detriment of her partner, Glenda K. Maxton. However, the most oppressive
conduct determined at trial was when Jean O. Dorsey admitted that she took the approximate
$90,000 in excess proceeds following the sheriff sale. It has been held that oppressive and bad
faith conduct on the part of the judgment creditor that results in unfairness to defendant may
justify setting aside a sheriff sale. M. Barmann & Sons v. Dice, 74 D&C 2d 608 (1976). This
same principle should be extended to a copartner that engages in such conduct that results in
unfairness to another partner.
The court heard testimony about a March 17, 1999 letter sent to the Dorseys' address
whereby the bank agreed to refinance the loan to the partnership. This Court must determine the
credibility of the two different stories from each respective witness. Glenda K. Maxton testified
that Mr. Dorsey brought the letter to her and informed her that he and his wife would not agree
to sign new loan documents. Mrs. Dorsey testified that the letter was given to Glenda K. Maxton
unopened and she had no knowledge that PNC Bank had agreed to refinance the balloon note.
However, it is undisputed that an April 16, 1999 letter from Attorney Kline to the Dorseys
4
notified them that their refusal to refinance was a breach of the partnership agreement. Mrs.
Dorsey testified that she did not believe it and thought it was "attorney talk."
Closer to the sheriff sale, the Dorseys refused to execute an agreement whereby a full
price offer of the appraised value was offered by Mr. Daniel Boreneman. At that time, unless
financial concessions on other disputed items were resolved favorably to the benefit of the
Dorseys, they again refused to sign the full price offer. Said actions clearly reflect the Dorseys'
self interests and the deceptive scheme used to hold Ms. Maxton as a financial hostage in breach
of the good faith duty required by their partnership agreement. Finally, a week before the sheriff
sale occurred, PNC Bank was still willing to postpone the sale as long as an agreement was
reached between the parties resolving their disputes and a valid financing commitment was in
place. The financing commitment was in place, however, the Dorseys again refused to cooperate
because now they could see the "windfall" awaiting them at the sheriff sale.
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 3132 states:
"Upon petition of any party in interest before delivery of the
personal property of the sheriffs deed to real property, the court
may, upon proper cause shown, set aside the sale and order a resale
or enter any other order which may be just and proper under the
circumstances."
The term proper cause is not set forth in the Rules. Furthermore, this Court has broad discretion
to determine an equitable result. Glenda K. Maxton submits that an equitable result when
considering the totality of the facts presented, would be that proper cause exists to order a resale
or to enter any other order which may be just and proper under the circumstances.
5
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
Dated:_ TT3 10oo
By: l.w,., d. C 1
Craig . Diehl, Esquire
Attorney ID No. 52801
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
Attorney for Defendant Glenda K. Maxton
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN O. DORSEY, DENNIS G.
DORSEY AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
: CIVIL ACTION -LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 5 day of July, 2000, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true
and correct copy of the foregoing LEGAL MEMORANDUM was served upon the parties listed
below by way of United States first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Michael S. Travis, Esquire
4076 Market Street, Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(Attorney for Jean 0. Dorsey
and Dennis G. Dorsey)
LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL
B
Helen E. Rasmussen, Legal Assistant
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 763-7613
JUL 0 5 2000
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO CCNB
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V.
JEAN 0. DORSEY,
DENNIS G. DORSEY
AND GLENDA K.
MAXTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS CO-PARTNERS
DB/A DORSEY/
MAXTON ASSOCIATES,:
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 99-4269 CIVIL TERM
(? ORDER OF O iRT
AND NOW, this (2' ""day of July, 2000, upon consideration of the Petition To Set
Aside Sheriff's Sale of Real Estate filed on behalf of Glenda K. Maxton, and of the
Answer to Petition To Set Aside Sheriffs Sale of Real Estate filed on behalf of Jean 0.
Dorsey and Dennis G. Dorsey, and following a hearing at which Glenda K. Maxton was
represented by Craig A. Diehl, Esq., and Jean O. Dorsey and Dennis g. Dorsey were
represented by Michael S. Travis, Esq., the petition to set aside the Sheriffs sale is
denied.
NOTHING IN THIS ORDER is intended to represent a finding as to the proper
distribution of partnership proceeds of the sale.
BY THE COURT,
.rJ II': t . .., ..: ^t:
1
Craig A. Diehl, Esq.
Attorney for Petitioner
(Glenda K. Maxton)
Michael S. Travis, Esq.
4076 Market Street
Suite 209
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Respondent
(Jean O. Dorsey and
Dennis G. Dorsey)
Karl M. Ledebohm, Esq.
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for PNC Bank, N.A.
7.1-4-04
:rc
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CCNB CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff
V. : NO. 99-4269 CIVIL
JEAN 0. DORSEY, DENNIS G. DORSEY :
and GLENDA K. MAXTON, : CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
CO-PARTNERS D/B/A
DORSEY/MAXTON ASSOCIATES,
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please mark the judgment entered in the above-captioned action satisfied.
Respectfully submitted,
SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY
Date: January 25, 2005 By: %
eoffiy Shuff, Esquire
Supreme ourt ID #24848
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 737-3405
Attorney for Plaintiff
y
[?{ L7
N
?
? _..
tJJCJ
CV
-?.-?
UCH
F? -,
Qn
C? ? ?
-
wci
N
?LUJ K ,[i
LL
CJ }J
N `'
U