The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About99-05162C. ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff, V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individiually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 9q. ti /6-t- (2cu,' T? CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL BY TWELVE DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above matter on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendants, JR. Construction, Inc. and Joseph S. Ruda. BRIEN, B.9Jt,I S RER David A. Baric, Esquire ID#44853 17 W. South St. Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6873 SUMMONS TO: JR CONSTRUCTION, INC.; JOSEPH S. RUDA You are hereby notified that C&' r"1- .2"/ 1,7 9 J the plaintiffhalce- commenced an action, civil action-law, agginst you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. C'? Ut'i /r a"h-4 , L l Prothonotary ?? m ? ? A U`? , P a ?" d T O c- c.! r- tr. ?li^ r.'?-.? N .`jam `ice I -} J n• ?. _'_ C? - j r L) ? V Robert L. O'Brien David A. Boric Michael A. Scherer August 24, 1999 Thomas Kline - Sheriff of Cumberland County 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6873 Fax (717) 249-5755 E-mail. obs@obslaw.com direct: dbaric@obslaw.com RE: Adams and Adams v. JR Construction, Inc. and Joseph Ruda Dear Sheriff Kline: Please serve the summons issued in the above matter upon the defendants via personal service at the following addresses: JR. Construction, Inc. 42 E. Locust St., #3 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Joseph Ruda 65 Derbyshire Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER David A. Baric, Esquire Law Offices O'BRIEN, BARK & SCHERER 17 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 cc: Mary Adams SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 1999-05162 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ADAMS AND ADAMS PTNR ET AL vs. JR CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL TIMOTHY REITZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS upon RUDA JOSEPH was served defendant, at 1450:00 HOURS, on the 14th day of September the 1999 at 335 ALLEN STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 County, Pennsylvania, by handing to TERRI RUDA, SECRETERY,1BMANAGER a true and attested copy of the WRIT OF SUMMONS and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 So answers- /• .00 .00 8.00 omas ine, eri $=.-IIII-09%RIEN BARIC & SCHERER 15/1999 by Sworn and subscribed to before me this 1,1'er_ day of ? 199_ A.D. -mow. Q no i I rro o ary? u erl. f, A SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 1999-05162 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ADAMS AND ADAMS PTNR ET AL VS. JR CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL Timothy Reitz CUMBERLAND County, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon JR CONSTRUCTION INC the defendant, at 1450:00 HOURS, on the 14th day of September 1999 at 335 ALLEN STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, by handing to TERRI RUDA SEVRETARY MANAGER a true and attested copy of the WRIT OF SUMMONS and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs. Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So answers: 18.00 .00 8.00 omas Kline, eri u09/1R5?1999RIC & SCHERER by Sworn and subscribed o before me this /S day of IAV„ 1999 A.D. ?/?/?IL I.L n 00 ??ro ono ar e y eri ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff, V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR. Construction, Inc., Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE You have been sued in court. If YOU wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the court, your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and ajudgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff, V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT NOW, comes plaintiff, Adams and Adams d/b/a Adams and Gardner, by and through its attorneys, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER, and files this complaint and, in support thereof, sets forth the following: Plaintiff is a partnership with a principal place of business located at 901 Hillside Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, JR Construction, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with a principal place of business located at 335 Allen Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendant, Joseph S. Ruda, is an adult individual with a residence address of 335 Allen Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At all times relevant hereto, Joseph S. Ruda was the president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc. 5. Since at least 1994, plaintiff has been the record owner of the following two properties: 313 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania and 400 South College Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 6. The property at 400 South College Street consists of a three story, multiple unit apartment building ("Mooreland Building"). The property at 313 South Hanover Street consists of a multi-story commercial building. 8. Since 1994, plaintiff has had in effect residential leases for apartment units in the Mooreland Building and commercial and residential leases for space in the 313 South Hanover Street property. 9. As of 1994, the roof on the Mooreland Building consisted of a flat multi-layer built up roof. 10. As of August, 1996, the roof on the South Hanover Street property consisted of several roof levels including a flat section of roof over an area leased by plaintiff to a dental practice and a flat section of roof over an area currently leased to a tax and accounting firm. 11. In August, 1994, JR Construction, Inc. provided to plaintiffa proposal for the reroofing of the Mooreland Building. This proposal included the attachment of a rigid woodfiberboard insulation board to the exposed roof deck over an existing asphaltic built up roof, adhering and seaming of a single layer of rubber membrane to the insulation and installation of new aluminum flashing. A copy of this proposal is appended hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated. 12. The quoted price for the work proposed by JR Construction, Inc. for the Mooreland Building was $16,015.00. 13. JR Construction, Inc. represented that the work to be performed on the Mooreland Building would be "in a substantial workmanlike manner" and that there would be a "Twenty Year Warranty". 14. Plaintiff accepted the proposal ofJR Construction, Inc. for the work to be performed on the Mooreland Building and JR Construction, Inc. commenced the work in September, 1994. The remainder of the work and installation of the roof took place in the Spring of 1995. 15. JR Construction, Inc. increased the price for the roof installation by $325.00 to include new flashing materials. 16. Plaintiff made the following payments to JR Construction, Inc. for the roof installed on the Mooreland Building: 8/29 /94- $3,500.00; 9/27/94-$5,500.00; 11/4/94- $1,500.00;12/5/94- $1,000.00; 1/11/95-$1,000.00; 3/14/95-$450.00; 6/22/95- $750.00; 6/29/95- $1,000.00; 7/17/95- $2,140.00 for a total of $16,840.00. JR Construction, Inc. failed to properly credit the account of plaintiff resulting in a $500.00 overpayment by plaintiff. 17. In April, 1997, plaintiff became aware that water was leaking through the roof system installed by JR Construction, Inc. on the Mooreland Building. 18. Plaintiff demanded that JR Construction, Inc. repair the roof system to stop the intrusion of water through the roof and into the building. JR Construction, Inc. returned to the building on several occasions to "repair" the roofing system. These repair attempts were ineffective. 19. As a consequence of the workmanship defects in the roof system as installed by JR Construction, Inc. on the Mooreland Building, the roof continued to leak causing plaintiff to incur damages to the interior of the building. 20. As a consequence of the workmanship defects in the roof system as installed by JR Construction, Inc., the plaintiff has been forced to replace approximately one-third of the roof installed by JR Construction, Inc. at a cost of $5,400.00 and, upon information and belief, is required to replace the remainder of the roof installed by JR Construction, Inc. at an estimated cost of $15,168.00 to prevent further damage to the building and its contents. 21. As a consequence of the workmanship defects in the roof system as installed by JR Construction, Inc., the plaintiff has been required to pay another rooting contractor to make repairs to the remainder of the roof to minimize damages to the building and its contents. The cost of these repairs is, at the time hereof, $1,872.00. Additionally, plaintiff has paid $250.00 for repairs to the interior of the property arising from water leaks through the roof. 22. In August, 1996, JR Construction, Inc. provided the plaintiff with a proposal for the reroofing of a portion of the roof on the property known as 313 S. Hanover Street. A true and correct copy of this proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated. 23, The price quoted for the work proposed by JR Construction, Inc. for 313 S. Hanover Street was $4,500.00. 24• JR Construction, Inc. represented that the work to be performed on 313 S. Hanover Street would be "in a substantial workmanlike manner" and that there would be a "Twenty Year Warranty" 25. Plaintiff accepted the proposal ofJR Construction, Inc. for the work to be performed on 313 S. Hanover Street and JR Construction, Inc. commenced the work in the fall of 1996. 26. Plaintiff made payments to JR Construction, Inc. totaling $3,500.00 for work performed on the roof of 313 S. Hanover Street. 27. The work as stated in the proposal of JR Construction, Inc. was never completed by JR Construction, Inc. 28. In September, 1997, plaintiff became aware of water leaking through the roof system installed by JR Construction, Inc. on 313 S. Hanover Street. 29. As a consequence of the workmanship defects in the roof system as installed by JR Construction, Inc. on 313 S. Hanover Street, the roof continued to leak causing plaintiff to incur damages to the interior of the building. make temporary repairs to the roof to reduce the entry of water into the building. Additionally, plaintiff has incurred costs of $387.50 to 30. As a consequence of the workmanship defects in the roof system as installed by JR Construction, Inc., the plaintiff has been forced to replace part of the roof system installed by JR Construction, Inc. at a cost of $3,860.00 and, upon information and belief will be required to repair and/or replace another section of the roof at a cost estimated to be $5,820.00. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT ADAMS and ADAMS v. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. 31. Plaintiff incorporates by reference thereto paragraphs one through thirty as though set forth at length. 32. JR Construction, Inc. agreed that it would install roofs on the Mooreland Building and 313 South Hanover Street in a substantially workmanlike manner. 33. JR Construction, Inc. agreed that it would warranty the roofs installed for a period of twenty years. 34. The roofs installed by JR Construction, Inc. on the Mooreland Building and 313 South Hanover Street were not installed in a substantially workmanlike manner in breach of the contract. 35. The breaches of JR Construction, Inc. included, but were not limited to, the following: a. failing to follow standard roofing practices in the installation of a membrane roofing system; b. failing to properly prepare and seam the rubber roofing membrane sheets together to form a waterproof membrane; C. failing to properly fasten the woodfiberboard insulation to the roof deck; d. failing to install a proper perimeter detail for the roof membrane so as to prevent the infiltration of water into the building; e. improperly flashing the chimney extending up from the roof on the Mooreland Building; f. failing to properly install pipe seals around pipes extending up from the roof on the Mooreland Building so as to prevent the entry of water; g. failing to properly flash the skylight on 313 South Hanover Street h. making inadequate repairs to cuts in the membrane sheets; 1. failing to provide a roof system which performs its intended functions; j. failing to provide warranty services for the roofing systems to render them fit and operable. 36. As a direct and proximate result of this breach of contract, plaintiffs have incurred the following damages: Mooreland Building: Original roof installation- $16,840.00 Repair cost- $2,122.00 Replacement cost- $19,568.00 I TOTAL: $38,530.00 313 South Hanover St.: Original roof installation- $3,500.00 Repair costs- $ 542.50 Replacement cost- $9,680.00 TOTAL: $13,722.50 7 Moreover, these replacement costs are for only partial replacement of the defective roofs installed by defendant and plaintiff will be required to undertake additional repairs and replacement of the roofs at a cost and expense yet unliquidated. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment in its favor and against IR Construction, Inc. for $52,252.50 plus interest and costs, plus the costs to repair and replace additional sections of the roofs on the properties and to repair interior damages and in an amount in excess of the amounts requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES ADAMS and ADAMS v. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. 37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference thereto paragraphs one through thirty-six as though set forth at length. 38. JR Construction impliedly warranted to plaintiff that the roof systems installed by JR Construction would be fit for their intended purposes. 39. At all times relevant hereto, JR Construction was aware of and knew the intended use of the roof systems by plaintiff. 40. JR Construction impliedly warranted to plaintiff that the roof systems were merchantable and otherwise fit. 41. JR Construction has breached its implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose by failing to provide plaintiff with roofing systems which were operable and which could fulfill there intended purposes. 42. JR Construction has breached its implied warranty of merchantability by failing to deliver and install roof systems which would function as intended. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid breaches of the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability, plaintiff has incurred the following damages: Mooreland Building: Original roof installation- $16,840.00 Repair cost- $ 2,122.00 Replacement cost- $19,568.00 TOTAL: $38,530.00 313 South Hanover St.: Original roof installation- $3,500.00 Repair costs- $ 542.50 Replacement cost- $9,680.00 TOTAL: $13,722.50 WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment in its favor and against JR Construction, Inc. in the amount of $52,252.50 together with consequential and incidental damages, costs and interest and costs to repair and replace additional sections of the roofs on the properties and costs to make interior repairs to the properties and in an amount in excess of the amounts requiring compulsory arbitration. 9 r COUNT III NEGLIGENCE ADAMS and ADAMS v. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. 44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference thereto paragraphs one through forty-three as though set forth at length. 45. JR Construction owed a duty of reasonable care to plaintiff in installing the roof systems on the properties. 46. JR Construction has breached its duty of reasonable care owed to plaintiff in the following respects: a. failing to properly install the roof systems using the skill and care required to provide a roof system which would not leak; b. failing to use good roofing practices in the installation of membrane roof systems; C. failing to install the roof systems in a substantially workmanlike manner. 47. As a direct an proximate result of the aforesaid negligence of JR Construction, plaintiff has been damaged and sustained the losses set forth hereinabove as well as consequential and incidental damages. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment in its favor and against JR Construction together with interest, costs and expenses and in an amount in excess of $25,000,00. 10 COUNT IV ADAMS and ADAMS v. JOSEPH S. RUDA NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 48. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs one through forty-seven as though set forth at length. 49. Joseph Ruda knew or should have known that the roofing systems as installed on the Mooreland Building and 313 S. Hanover Street would not perform there intended functions. 50. Joseph Ruda had a duty to disclose to plaintiff that the roofing systems installed by JR Construction would not perform their intended functions. 51. Joseph Ruda represented to the plaintiff that JR Construction was able to and would install roofing systems on the plaintiffs buildings which would be installed in a workmanlike manner and would, when completed, be functional as roofing to protect the buildings and contents thereof from the elements. 52. Joseph Ruda represented to the plaintiff that each of the roofing systems would be warranted for a period of twenty years against leaks. 53. Plaintiff relied upon these representations of Joseph Ruda. 54. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations of Joseph Ruda, plaintiff entered into the agreements for installation of the roofing systems and continued to pay for the installation of the roofing systems. 55. Joseph Ruda breached his duty to disclose to plaintiff that the roofing systems would not perform their intended functions and that the roofing systems were not installed in a workmanlike manner. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment in its favor and against Joseph Ruda for rescission of the contracts and restitution of all payments, interest, costs and expenses. Alternatively, plaintiff requests judgment in its favor and against Joseph Ruda for an amount in excess of $25,000.00 together with interest, costs and expenses. Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHE R David A. Baric, Esquire ID#44853 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6873 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. M Adams DATED: I C ()`? lo, q Proposal . Proposal No. 2143 , FROM J. R. CONSTRUCTIONJ Sheet No. 54 42 E. Locust St. N3 945 Doubling Gap Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 OR Newville, PA 17241 Dote 3/7/94 (717) 697-8814 (717) 776-4107 Proposal Submitted To Work To Be Performed At Nams Street 400 Snu h oll a 4t p p Street P_O. Box 273 Carlisle Cit Penna City. Carlisle y._ . State Data of Plans State Penna. Architect Telephone Number 243-2217 We hereby propose to furnish all the materials and perform all the labor necessary for the completion of New Rubber Roof Svstem Remove stones level off roof. Install " Hiclh Density Board - screw down with galvanized metal Plates Install Carlisle SYntec rubber olu down Rubber be 045 Install new aluminum flashing Price 060 Rubber 9 115.0 " 1 ff 1 n /r --/[ ? r _2n Ypar Warrantv_n45 / 25YPar Warran V 060 Mpmhpr Rpttpr R++sinpaa Rurpau All material i` rlt. ? . "1-tc ..ttc CL.1s L tT. /c{ ,c guaranteed to be ,qs speyj'Red, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the d?tswings p and specifications submitted for'llab.V work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of Dollars IS 1 5r 300. 00 1. with payments to be made as follow 1 r-11 1% ? 4 fell q r n-com letio 14 4,44 C toe cc l'? strfvd-. ?. Vtt}tna Crv.xr.i?cl.L:rr?rl.vvC Any alteration or deviation from above spVc t ions invol ii) g extr'alcosts, will be executed Jonl?r pan written orderfand will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry Are, tornado and other necessary insurance upon above work. Workmen's Compensation and Public Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by C' = I e Respectfully submitted --t Per Note - This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 60 days EXHIBIT "A" rcri LITHO IN Y. S. A. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Proposal Proposal No. 315 FROM A CONSTRUCTION, INC. Sheet No. 35 P.O. Box 866 Carlisle, PA 17013 Dale 8-1 6-96 249-0313 or 6897-8814 Proposal Submitted To Work To Be Performed At Name Adams & Gardner 313 South Hanover St. Street Box 273 Street._. Carlisle City Carl i aT a City state enna. Date of Plans Slat - Penna. Telephone Number 243-2217 Architect We hereby, propose to furnish all the materials and perform all the labor necessary for the completion of Remove a roximatel one ton of stones from roof haul awa and dum . Install 1 2" hi h densit board install skrews and steel latex and adhere .060 Carlisle Shullar rubber wit bonding ad esiv1: Insta _r__waTjE- mats. Remove ductwork and machiner from roof and au awa . Install alcoa aluminum face cap aroun per>me er. Extra $325.00 TWENTY YEAR WARRANTY MP.MERR RPTTPR RUS"INPRC BUREAU All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of with payments to be made as follows: Dollars154r175.00 j. Paid in 1'1111 upon emmpl Yion Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs, will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements corslingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance upon above work. Workmen's Compensation and Public Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by. Ohio Casualty $2,000,000, n Respectfully(ssubmitted •? Pcr /i Note-This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within -IC days ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Accepted __ Signalure _ Dale __,Signalwe_ EXHIBIT "B" TOPS FORM 3450 Q U[La ra u. G. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 5, 1999, I, David A. Baric, Esquire, of O'Brien, Baric & Scherer, did serve a copy of the Complaint, by first class U. S. mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below, as follows: JR Construction, Inc. 335 Allen Road Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Joseph S. Ruda 335 Allen Road Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 David A. Baric, Esquire ?- ?:- _: ,.:? _ - ,. ., ?. ?. ?? ,., _;" ?; ?, ? ;? ?, o U ? < , „ Z ? ? ? j V r ? c V ? N x d Z Q ?+ u ! J ? . G ? Z 3 cu _ C c ? v ^J ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff/Respondent vs. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and ns president and chief executive ollicer ol'JR Construction, Inc., Defendants/Petitioners IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after the New Matter and Counterclaim are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone(717)249-3166 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990 The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing. James J. Kayer, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Liberty Loft 4 E. Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-7922 ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff/Respondent VS. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendants/Petitioners IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 99-5162 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTER CLAIM COMES NOW, Defendant Joseph S. Ruda, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR. Construction, Inc., by and through his attorney, James J. Kayer, Esquire, who files this Answer, New Matter and Counter Claim, and in support thereof, sets forth the following: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the Plaintiffs averment. 2. Admitted in part. It is admitted that JR Construction, Inc., is a corporation. However, the corporation's address is 945 Doubling Gap Road, Newville, PA 17241. 3. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Joseph S. Ruda is an adult individual, however his address is 945 Doubling Gap Road, Newville, PA 17241. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the Plaintiffs averment. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the Plaintiff's averment. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the roof on the Hanover Street property consists of several roof levels including a flat section. Defendant is without information as to what entities are located below certain particular portions of the roof. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the payments as detailed by the Plaintiff in their averment is correct. It is denied that the Defendant was overpaid in the amount of $500.00 and that the Plaintiff was not properly credited for and alledged overpayment. 17. Admitted. 18. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff contacted JR. Construction on two separate occasions requesting follow-up service after the installation of the roof system. It is also admitted that JR. Construction responded to both of those requests for repairs, came out to the site and effectuated repairs on the roofing system. It is specifically denied that those repair requests were ineffective. 19. Denied. It is denied that any workmanship defects in the roof system existed on the Mooreland Building. By way of further answer, Defendant had alerted the Plaintiffs of the need to conduct regular maintenance on the building including the roofing system and specifically directed them to ensure that all gutters were cleaned out and all other reasonable efforts to maintain proper drainage were followed by the Defendants. 20. Denied. It is denied that any workmanship defects existed in the roof system. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Plaintiffs averments. 21. Denied. It is denied that any workmanship defects existed in the roof system. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Plaintiffs averments. 22. Admitted. 23. Admitted. 24. Admitted. 25. Admitted. 26. Admitted. 27. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the work was not completed by JR. Construction due to the Defendant's failure to fully satisfy the contract. By way of further answer, the only work that was left uncompleted by JR. Construction was to "terminate" the drains and Defendant advised Plaintiff on repeated occasions that this work would be completed upon satisfactory arrangements for final payment of $1,000.00 still owing and due to Defendant under the proposal and contract signed by the parties. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the Plaintiff s averment. 29. Denied. It is denied that any workmanship defects existed in the roof system. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Plaintiffs averments. 30. Denied. It is denied that any workmanship defects existed in the roof system. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Plaintiffs averments. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT ADAMS and ADAMS v. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. 31. Defendant incorporates by reference thereto paragraphs 1-30 as thus set forth fully at length. 32. Admitted. 33. Admitted. 34. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant did not install roofs on the Mooreland Building and 313 South Hanover Street Building in a substantially workman like manner. 35. a. Defendant specifically denies failing to follow standard roo9fing practices in the installation of the membrane roofing system: b. Defendant specifically denies failing to properly prepare and seam the rubber roofing membrane sheets together; c. Defendant specifically denies failing to properly fasten the woodfiberboard insulation to the roof deck; d. Defendant specifically denies failing to install a proper perimeter detail for the roof membrane; e. Defendant specifically denies improperly flashing the chimney extending from the roof on the Mooreland Building; f. Defendant specifically denies failing to properly install pipe seals around pites extending from the roof on the Mooreland Building; g. Defendant specifically denies failing to properly flash the skylight on 313 South Hanover Street; It. Defendant specifically denies making inadequate repairs to cuts in the membrane sheets; i. Defendant specifically denies failing to provide a roof system which performed its intended functions; j. Defendant specifically denies failing to provide warranty service for the roofing systems. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the Plaintiff's averment. COUNT 11 BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES ADAMS and ADAMS v JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. 37. Defendant incorporates by reference thereto paragraphs 1-36 as thus set forth fully at length. 38. Admitted. 39. Admitted. 40. Admitted. 41. Denied. Plaintiff s averment is a legal conclusion that does not require a response. 42. Denied. It is specifically denied that JR. Construction breached any implied warranty of merchant ability. 43. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the Plaintiff s averment. COUNT III NEGLIGENCE ADAMS and ADAMS v. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. 44. Defendant incorporates by reference thereto paragraphs 1-43 as thus set forth fully at length. 45. Admitted. 46. a. Defendant specifically denies failing to properly install the roof systems using the skill and care required to provide a system which would not leak; b. Defendant specifically denies failing to using good roofing practices in the installation of membrane roof systems; C. Defendant specifically denies failing to install the roof systems in a workmanlike manner. 47. Denied. Plaintiffs averment is a legal conclusion that does not require a response. COUNT IV ADAMS and ADAMS v. JOSEPH S. RUDA NEGLEGENT MISREPRESENTATION 48. Defendant incorporates by reference thereto paragraphs 1-47 as thus set forth fully at length. 49. Denied. It is specifically denied that Joseph Ruda knew or should have know that the roofing systems installed on each building would not perform their intended functions. 50. Denied. Plaintiffs averment is a legal conclusion that does not require a response. 51. Admitted. 52. Admitted. 53. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the Plaintiffs averment. 54. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into the agreements for installation and that substantial payments were made by Plaintiff to Defendant pursuant to that agreement. It is denied that the Defendant made any misrepresentations to the Plaintiff with regard to the entry of the agreements or the performance of the agreements. 55. Denied. Plaintiff s averment is a legal conclusion that does not require a response. WHEREFORE, Defendant seeks judgement in his favor. NEW MATTER 56. Defendant incorporates by reference thereto paragraphs 1-55 as thus set forth fully at length. 57. At the time the Defendant first performed work on the Mooreland and the building at 313 South Hanover Street, he noted that problems existed with regard to drainage on the buildings. Specifically, water pulled on the roofs due to the gutters failing to be properly cleaned. 58. Defendant advised the Plaintiff of the condition of the uncleaned gutters and the strict necessity that these gutters be maintained properly. Failure to properly clean the gutters would result in continued pulling of water on the roof. 59. During the two return visits the Defendant made to the Mooreland building, he noted that the gutters had not been cleaned, and that water had been allowed to pull on the roof. He also noted infiltration of the water along the side of the building, which was likely to cause damage to the interior and exterior portions of the building. 60. Defendant again advised Plaintiff of the need to adequately maintain the building after discovering that the gutters were not being cleaned by Plaintiff. 61. Plaintiffs failure to adequately maintain the building was the direct and proximate cause to the water damage that the Plaintiff sustained in each structure. 62. Plaintiff never fully compensated Defendant for the work completed on the Hanover Street property despite the job being completed but for the termination of the drains. 63. Plaintiff's at no time contacted the Defendant for problems that allegedly existed on the Hanover Street property and therefore never provided Defendant with notice that defects allegedly existed or that repairs were necessary. 64. Plaintiffs failure to notify the Defendant of water leaking at the Hanover Street property caused the Defendant to assume that no difficulties were experienced and that there was no need for any warranty repairs to be made. WHEREFORE, Defendant seeks judgement in his favor. COUNTER CLAIM 65. Defendant incorporates by reference thereto paragraphs 1-64 as thus set forth fully at length. 66. Pursuant to the parties' August 16, 1996 Agreement, Plaintiff was to pay Defendant a total of $4500.00. 67. Plaintiff actually paid the Defendant and amount of $3500.00. 68. Despite repeated requests by Defendant for satisfaction of this contract, Plaintiff has refused to pay any additional sums. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests judgement in its favor and against Plaintiff for breach of the August 16, 1996 contract in the amount of $1,000.00 together with interests, costs and expenses. Respectfully submitted, K er and( ro n, P.C. 4 st L- erty Ave. C lisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7922 Date: WHEREFORE, Defendant requests judgement in its favor and against Plaintiff for breach of the August 16. 1996 contract in the amount of $1,000.00 together with interests, costs and expenses. Respectfully submitted, er, n, P. Jat 04 B ron, P.C. yer ast iberty Ave. Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7922 Date: /1// ? /(? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT was served on Plaintiffs Counsel by First-class mail, postage prepaid, by forwarding a true and correct copy unto: David Baric, Esquire 17 W. South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date CI Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7922 ?? l71 C.j r O mm ? Y N (D N 1 A N A m d ? - a co m r o N - 4 O O i , W > C N ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff, V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 CIVIL ACTION-LAW PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIM REPLY AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, by and through its counsel, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER, and files the within Reply to New Matter and Answer and New Matter to Counterclaim and, in support thereof, sets forth the following: 56. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs one through fifty-five of its complaint as though set forth at length. 57. Denied. By way of further answer, incidental ponding on a membrane roofing system is an acceptable industry standard and, further, any incidental ponding on the roofing membrane did not cause the leaks into the building. 58. Denied as stated. Plaintiff incorporates by reference its answer to paragraph 57 as though set forth at length herein. It is further denied that Defendant advised plaintiff as stated or that the gutters caused the leaks into the building. 59. Denied. Plaintiff incorporates by reference its answer to paragraph 57 as though set forth at length herein. It is further denied that the conditions alleged existed on the building or that such conditions could cause the leaks into the building. It is further denied that water entered from the wall of the building causing the injuries sustained. 60. Denied. Plaintiff incorporates its answer to paragraphs 57 and 59 as though set forth at length herein. 61. Denied. Plaintiff incorporates its answers to paragraphs 57 through 60 as though set forth at length. 62. Denied. Plaintiff denies that Defendants were not compensated in full for the work actually performed. After reasonable investigation, plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Defendants completed the termination of the drains on the roof of the 313 South Hanover Street building. 63. Denied. To the extent these averments imply that plaintiff was required to notify defendants that the work defendants performed was unworkmanlike and otherwise defective, the averments are denied. It is further denied that defendants were unaware of the unworkmanlike and/or defective manner in which they had installed the roofing system on the building at 313 South Hanover Street. 64. Denied. Plaintiff incorporates by reference its answer to paragraph 63 as though set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment in its favor and against defendants as set forth in Plaintiff's complaint. ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 65. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs one through sixty-four as though set forth at length. 66. Denied. To the extent these averments attempt to state a written document, the document speaks for itself. 67. Denied. 68. Denied. It is denied that defendants made requests or demands upon the plaintiff. It is denied that plaintiff owes defendants any additional sum of money. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against defendants in accordance with plaintiffs' complaint. NEW MATTER 69. Plaintiff incorporates the averments of its complaint in response to the counterclaim of defendants. 70. Plaintiff was justified in refusing to pay defendants any additional sums of money. 71. Defendants are estopped from seeking recovery of any amount allegedly due. 72. Defendants never completed the work required by the agreements entered into by the parties. 73. Defendants breached the agreements of the parties by failing to perform. 74. Defendants have failed to state a cause of action. 75. Defendants were paid all amounts due them. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against the defendants. Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER A14 '- ?z David A. Baric, Esquire IN 44853 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6873 Attorney for plaintiff dab.diMitigatioNadams/document/newmatter. rep VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Plaintiff's Reply To New Matter And Answer And New Matter To Counterclaim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to autho David A. Baric, Esquire DATED: IZ 7 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 10, 1999, 1, David A. Baric, Esquire, of O'Brien, Baric & Scherer, did serve a copy of the Plaintiff's Reply To New Matter And Answer And New Matter To Counterclaim, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the party listed below, as follows: James J. Kayer, Esquire Kayer and Brown Liberty Loft 4 East Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 A?V?z David A. Baric, Esquire ., ?,, em ?? . j f ` h ?i ? ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff/Respondent vs. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendants/Petitioners IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER TO COUNTER CLAIM COMES NOW, Defendant by and through its counsel, James J. Kayer, Esquire and who files the within reply to Plaintiffs New Matter to Counter Claim and, in support thereof, sets forth the following. 69. Defendant incorporates the averment so its counterclaim. 70. Denied. Plaintiffs averment is a conclusion of law and requires no response. 71. Denied. Plaintiffs averment is a conclusion of law and requires no response. 72. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant's never completed the work required by the agreements entered by the parties. 73. Denied. Plaintiffs averment is a conclusion of law and requires no response. 74. Denied. Plaintiffs averment is a conclusion of law and requires no response. 75. Denied. Defendants were not paid all amounts due them under the existing contracts. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that Plaintiffs complaint be dismissed and that Judgement be entered in favor against the Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, Jam "s J. , Euir Kr anwn, P.C. 4 t LiAve. Ca?+ sle, 013 (717)243W2 Date: 1z / 1 7/ L q CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER TO COUNTER CLAIM was served on Plaintiffs Counsel by First-class mail, postage prepaid, by forwarding a true and correct copy unto: David Baric, Esquire 17 W. South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date /" / 9 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)243-7922 u.?S c•: c? r• i r Oc N r fD O ? O x m <D A N A m w l C,) .i d r - o d N 13 W N O O A 0 W C fD ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION-LAW ANSWERS TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES OF PLAINTIFF PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANTS AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Adams and Adams, and files the following Interrogatories to be answered by the above named defendants under oath within thirty (30) days from the date of service hereof. These Interrogatories are continuing and any additional information which becomes known to the party or party's counsel after answers are filed shall be set forth in supplementary answers which are to be filed, without demand by the defendant's attorneys, as soon as the additional information is known. DEFINITIONS A. The term "document" as used herein shall mean the original and any copy, marked up copy, revision, amendment, modification, non-identical copy and/or draft, or any written, printed, typed, drawn or other graphic matter of any kind or nature, however, produced or reproduced, whether or not sent or received, including without limitation; memoranda, reports, computations, estimates, communications, financial reports orstatements, notes, transcripts, letters, correspondence, intra or inter office communications, envelopes, telegrams, cables, telephone messages, messages, summaries or records of telephone conversations, summaries or records of personal conversations or interviews, minutes, notes, notations, tabulations, studies, analyses, reports, evaluations, projection, work papers, summaries, journals, statistical records, calendars, appointment books, diaries, plans, drawings, blue prints, modules, specifications, data, sketches, maps, boring logs, soil tests, soil charts, soil reports, sketch books, quantity books, material books, time log sheets, purchase orders, invoices, checks, receipts, payroll records, summaries or records of meetings or conferences, minutes or tape recordings of meetings or conferences, summaries or reports of investigations, opinions or reports of consultants, questionnaires, surveys, charts, graphs, books, notebooks, note charts, articles, magazines, newspapers, booklets, circulars, bulletins, press releases, notices, instructions, manuals, photographs, schedules, network diagrams, bar-charts, line-charts, motion picture film, microfilms, photographs, tapes or other recordings, punch charts, computer programs, magnetic tapes, discs, data cells, drums, printout and otherdata computations from which information can be obtained, and marginal comments appearing on any documents, and all other writings in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiffs or their agents, officers, employees or attorneys. B. "Defendants" shall mean J R Construction, Inc. or Joseph S. Ruda. C. "Person" or "Persons" shall mean any natural individual or corporation, firm, partnership, proprietorship, association, joint venture, governmental entity or any other business or government organization. D. "Meeting" shall mean any assembly, convocation, encounter or coincidence oftwo or more persons for any purpose, whether or not planned, arranged or scheduled in advance. E. "Communication" shall mean any utterance made, human speech heard, overheard, or intended to be heard by any person, whether in person, by telephone, by means of sounding recording, or otherwise. F. "Identify" means: (a) When used in reference to a document, describe with sufficient particularity to form the basis for a Request for Production under Pa. R.C.P. 4009, including but not limited to the date it was prepared or created, the identity of its author or originator, the type of document (eg, letter, telegram, chart, photograph, sound recordings, etc.), the identity of its addressee, its present location and the identity of its present custodian(s). If such document was, but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it; (b) When used in reference to a natural person or business entity, "identify" means to state his or her or its full name, present or last known home address, present or last known business address, present or last known home telephone number, present or last known position or affiliation. G. "Accident," "incident" or "occurrence" mean the transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences giving rise to the matters for which Plaintiff is seeking damages as indicated in the Complaint. H. "You" means J R Construction, Inc. or Joseph S. Ruda, or any representative, agent, servant, officer, or employee thereof. INSTRUCTIONS If you object to the production of any documents on the grounds that the attorney-client, attorney work product or any other privilege is applicable thereto, with respect to that document: (a) State its date; (b) Identify its author; (c) Identify each person who prepared or participated in the preparation ofthe documents; (d) Identify each person who received it (e) Identify each person from whom the documents were received; (f) State the present location of the document and all copies thereof; (g) Identify each person who has ever had possession, custody or control of it or copy thereof; and (h) Provide sufficient information concerning the document and the circumstances thereof to explain the claim of privilege and to permit the adjudication of the propriety of that claim. INTERROGATORIES Please identify all persons having knowledge of any documents, communications, meetings, acts or other information which relate to the installation of the roofing systems by JR Construction on the buildings known as the Mooreland Building and/or 313 South Hanover Street as further identified in the complaint filed in this matter and for each person identified, please describe in detail the substance of such person's knowledge regarding the installation of the roofing systems. ANSWER: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. January 15th 2000 Joseph S. Ruda Terri L. Ruda, Joseph Terri 1. Ruda, Joseph Terri L. Ruda, Joseph 945 Doubling Gap Road Joseph S. Ruda Terri S. Ruda S. Ruda S. Ruda NewvillE L. Ruda 2. For each person whom you intend to call as a fact witness at the trial of this action, please identify each person and for each person identified describe in detail the substance of each person's testimony and any documents which may be relied upon by that person when testifying. ANSWER: Anthony Bagois Jason Ruda Shawn Mackie Joseph S. Ruda Terri L. Ruda S & T Roofing 3. Identify each document you may introduce into evidence or utilize to refresh your witness' recollection at the trial of this matter. ANSWER: Pictures of 8" water on roof, seams and work Pictures of unmaintenanced drains blocked Ponding water 4. Identify each person whom you intend to call as an expert witness at the trial of this matter and, for each expert identified, please produce a copy of the expert report as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. ANSWER: Anthony Bagios Jason Ruda S & T Roofing Joseph S. Ruda Terri L. Ruda 5. Please identify any person who performed any work on either the Mooreland Building or 313 South Hanover Street by or on behalf of JR Construction. ANSWER: Sam Cassel Angel Neives Joseph S. Ruda 6. Please identify any and all records or other documents which refer, reflect or relate to any condition of the drainage system(s) for the roofs on either the Mooreland Building or 313 South Hanover Street. ANSWER: Pictures Please identify any and all records or other documents in your possession, custody or control which reflect, refer or relate to the estimating, installation or repair of the roofing systems on the Mooreland Building or 313 South Hanover Street by 1R Construction. ANSWER: Defendant has no records or other documents in its possession other than those photographs referred to in the Answers to Interrogatories #3 and 6 previously. Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHER David A. Baric, Esquire I.D. # 44853 17 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 dab.dir/litigationladams/document/adams.int CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November & 1999, I, David A. Baric, Esquire, of O'Brien, Baric & Scherer, did serve a copy of the First Set of Interrogatories of Plaintiff Propounded Upon i Defendants, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the party listed below, as follows: James J. Kayer, Esquire Kayer and Brown Liberty Loft 4 East Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 David A. Baric, Esquire VERIFICATION OF PLEADINGS The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. The language of the document may, in part, be the language of my counsel and not my own. I have read the statements made in this document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the statements are that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S. § 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: ??'" a ,1999 ?G Q?G?? 1:'?JJ ---- -------- f?r?Y yVya F a K t,. $i f1 `tom e. rr ,.y t ?J? r• - 1 ? ? LI lc_ r Om N V d 0 N 0 K N• A N A y m CL C) 0 ,z o O 7 0c 0 CD w c m PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the following case: ( ) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. (xx) for trial without a jury. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, (XX) Civil Action - Law Plaintiff ( ) Appeal From Arbitration V. ( ) (other) JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendant The trial list will be called on June 13. 2000 and Trials commence on July 10. 2000 Pretrials will be held on June 21. 2000 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials) (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 219.1.) No. 99-5162 Civil Action - Law Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: David A. Baric. Esquire Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: James J. Kayer, Esquire This case is ready for trial. Signed: Date: Print Name: David A. Baric. Esquire Attorney For: Plaintiff LT'. _J L 111c?:. CO N •.?II c-: `7 u U o ?j Richard J. Pierce Court Administrator TO: FROM: DATE: IN RE: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 1 Courthouse Square • Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone (717) 240-6200 (717) 697-0371 (717) 532.7286 (717) 240-6462 FAX Taryn N. Dixon Assistant Court Administrator The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley ` Taryn N. Dixon, Assistant Court Administrator 17 ! l? March 29, 2000 5162 Civil 1999 ADAMS & ADAMS V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. The above case is assigned to you for a non jury trial. Please provide me with copies of your scheduling orders and final disposition date so that I can monitor the case for statistical purposes. Attachment MAR 2 9 2000 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the following case: ( ) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. (xx) for trial without a jury. ----------------------------- --------------------------------------- ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, (XX) Civil Action - Law Plaintiff ( ) Appeal From Arbitration V. ( ) JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and (other) JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendant The trial list will be called on June 13. 2000 and L ? - Trials commence on Jul 10 2000 L:I' Pretrials will be held on June 21 . 2000 (Briefs are due 5 days before = pretrials) CT Fj (The party listing this case for - =", trial shall provide forthwith a copy =, U of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.) No. 99-5162 Civil Action - Law Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: David A. Baric. Esquire Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: James J. Kayer, Esatlira This case is ready for trial. Signed: Date: Print Name: David A. Baric Esquire Attorney For: Plaintiff ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, PLAINTIFF V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., DEFENDANTS 99-5162 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1J+-- day of March, 2000, a non-jury trial on the within case is scheduled for Thursday, May 4, 2000, at 8:45 a.m., in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. i David A. Baric, Esquire For Plaintiff James J. Kayer, Esquire For Defendants Court Administrator :sea dpw4atLtO?- 3.3111-00 W-9 _, ? _I'» C., `r ? /. ,g` r. MN - s zogp,? ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff/Respondent VS. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendants/Petitioners IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER AND NOW, this <9? day of June, 2000, it is ordered that the official court reporter in this matter produce, certify and file the transcript of the May 4, 2000, trial in conforming with Rule 1922 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. cc: James J. Kayer, Esquire Attorney for Defendant David A. Baric, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff BY THE COURT, LPL-s-do OKs r I. .. ??' NA" ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff/Respondent VS. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendants/Petitioners IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT To the Clerk of the Trial Court: A notice of appeal having been filed in this matter, the official court reporter is hereby Ordered to produce, certify and file the transcript of the May 4, 2000 trial in conforming with Rule 1922 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. Respectfully submitted, J. K and 4 E'ist Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-7922 Attorney I.D. # 50838 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT was served on Plaintiffs Counsel, by First class mail, postage prepaid, by forwarding a true and correct copy unto: David A. Baric, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff O'Brien Baric & Scherer 17 West South Street Carlisle PA 17013 and The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle PA 17013 and Trial Court Reporter Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle PA 17013 Dated: Z" 1996 J. irlisle, GSA 17013 17) 243-7922 r r• !1 ?i N ' =i r Q m D N 0 d _ r CD c V N • y. ~ A N d rn m W a C n N W ° GG V a.. C < O O W ? C fD COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Superior Court of Pennsylvania David A. Szewczak. Esq. Middle District Fulton Building, 200 N. Third Street, 9th Floor Prothonotary Harrisburg, PA 17101 Patricia A. Whittaker, Esq. June 26, 2000 717-772.1294 Chief Clerk www.superior.court.state.pa.us Notice of Discontinuance of Action RE: ADAMS & ADAMS V. JR CONSTRUCTION Appeal of: Joseph S. Ruda Type of Action: Notice of Appeal No.: 1221 MDA 2000 Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas Agency Docket Number: 99-5162 The above-captioned matter has been marked "Discontinued" with this court Certification is being sent to the lower court below. Attorney Name Party Name Party Type David Allen Baric, Esq. James J. Kayer, Esq. Adams & Adams Partnership d/b/a Adams Appellee & Gardner JR Construction Appellant James J. Kayer, Esq. Joseph S. Ruda Appellant r IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA SITTING AT HARRISBURG No. 1221 MDA 2000 ADAMS & ADAMS PARTNERSHIP D/B/A ADAMS & GARDNER Appeal from the : ORDER ENTEREDCourt V. JR CONSTRUCTION INC of COMMON PLEAS : for the County of CUMBERLAND & JOSEPH S. RUDA, INDIVIDUALLY : No. 99-5162 & AS PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. 6/22/00 - The above appeal is hereby withdrawn and discontinued by order of: JAMES J. KAYER Attorney for Appellant 6/22/00 - DISCONTINUED TRUE COPY FROM RECORD IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of said Court, at Harrisburg, this 26th day of, iune 2000 L r,0. .I6l?Ye?.E. 'r Chief Clerk M u.?C: C)? N ps CJ ? C? r = V- J ?7- i t: iu N jr O d r 1:17 P.M. Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 1221 MDA 2000 Page 1 of 3 June 14, 2000 Superior Court of Pennsylvania ADAMS & ADAMS PARTNERSHIP D/B/A ADAMS & GARDNER, APPELLEE V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. & JOSEPH S. RUDA, INDIVIDUALLY & AS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFICER OF JR CONSTRUCTION, INC., APPELLANTS Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal Case Status: Active Case Processing Status: June 6, 2000 Journal Number: Case Category: Civil Awaiting Original Record CaseType: Civil Action Law Consolidated Docket Nos.: Related Docket Nos.: SCHEDULED EVENT Next Event Type: Case Initiation Next Event Type: Docketing Statement Received Next Event Type: Original Record Received Next Event Due Date: Next Event Due Date: June 28, 2000 Next Event Due Date: July 12, 2000 COUNSEL INFORMATION Appellant JR Construction Pro Se: IFP Status: No Attorney: Kay er, James J. Bar No.: 50838 Address: Kayer & Brown, P.C. Four E. Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone No.: (717)243-7922 Receive Mail: Yes Appoint Counsel Status: Law Firm: Kayer & Brown, P.C. Fax No.: (717)243-0946 Appellant Ruda, Josep Pro Se: Appoint Counsel Status: IFP Status: Attorney: Kayer, James J. Bar No.: 50838 Law Firm: Kayer & Brown, P.C. Address: Kayer & Brown, P.C. 1011/99 3023 1:Y7 P.M." Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 1221 MDA 2000 Superior Court of Pennsylvania Page 2 of 3 June 14, 2000 VIM Four E. Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone No.: (717)243-7922 Fax No.: (717)243-0946 Receive Mail: Yes Appellee dams Adams Partnership a dams Gardner Pro Se: Appoint Counsel Status: IFP Status: Attorney: Baric, David Allen Bar No.: 44853 Law Firm: Address: O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHRERER 17 WEST SOUTH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 Phone No.: (717)249.6873 Fax No.: Receive Mail: Yes FEE INFORMATION Receipt No.: TRIAL COURVAGENCY INFORMATION Court Below: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas County: Cumberland Division: Civil Date of Order Appealed From: May 2, 2000 Judicial District: 9 Dato Documents Received: June 6, 2000 Date Notice of Appeal Filed: June 2, 2000 Order Type: Order Entered OTN: Judge: Bayley, Edgar B. Lower Court Docket No. 99-5162 Judge ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENTS Original Record Item Filed Date Content/Description Date of Remand of Record: BRIEFS 1011199 3023 1:11'P.M.- Appeal Docket Sheet Docket Number: 1221 MDA 2000 Superior Court of Pennsylvania Page 3 of 3 June 14, 2000 WW'TM E-k DOCKET ENTRIES Filed Date Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type Filed By June 6, 2000 Notice of Appeal Filed Notice of Appeal Appellant JR Construction June 14, 2000 Docketing Statement Exited (Civil) Middle District Filing Office 10/1/99 3023 -" 11 Li U J ? ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff/Respondent vs. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendants/Petitioners IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE OF APPEAL To the Clerk of the Trial Court: Notice is hereby given that Defendant, Jr. Construction, Inc., and Joseph S. Ruda, hereby appeals to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in this matter on the 4th day of May, 2000. This Order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the attached copy of the docket entry. Respectfully submitted, Kayer Ind Brop}? Liberty Loft U 4 East Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7922 Attorney I.D. # 50838 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT was served on Plaintiffs Counsel, by First class mail, postage prepaid, by forwarding a true and correct copy unto: David A. Baric, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff O'Brien Baric & Scherer 17 West South Street Carlisle PA 17013 and The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley Cumberland County Courthouse I Courthouse Square Carlisle PA 17013 and Trial Court Reporter Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle PA 17013 Dated: Z ,199 7zaa A6-:11 L// Al ulislq PA 17013 17) 243-7922 PYS5I0 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Inquiry Page 1 1999-05162 ADAMS AND ADAMS PTNR ET Al, (vs) JR CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL Reference No..: Case Ty(,e..... : W Judgmen. : RIT OF SUMMONS Filed........: Time 8/24/1999 ....... Judge A:aiyncd: 00 .... .....: Execution Date 2:52 0/00/0000 Disposed Dns ,: Jury Trial.... --` C'a5r, Comments -- - Dis osed Date. ? 0/00/0000 Hig ier Crt 1.: Higher Crt 2 *******k-k*********i**k*****************k*kk************************************ General Tndex Attorney Info ADAMS AND ADAMS PLAINTIFF BARIC DAVID A ADAMS AND GARDNER PLAINTIFF JR CONSTRUCTION INC DEFENDANT KAYER JAMES J 42 EAST LOCUST STREET N3 MF;CHANI1:Sf31IRC: 1'A 17055 RUDA JO..EPJ DEFENDANT KAYER JAMES J 65 DERB'1SHIRE URIV1; CARLISLx PA 17013 J.Idgmunt index Amount Date Desc JR CONS',RUC'I'ION INC 21,440.59 5/05/2000 VERDICT RUDA JO:;EPH 21,440.59 5/05/2000 VERDICT JR CONS'.'RUCT:ON INC: 5,434.8E 5/05/2000 VERDICT **k***k* ***n' Date Fntr.i rie*#***#*#**#***#*********#********************#*****#********** * s 8/24/19'!9 PRAECTPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONSIINTCIVILYACTION-WRIT OF SUMMONS ISSUED - - ------- --------- 9/15/19;: I:IiRTFF"S RETURN FILED -------------------------------------------- SL,ITIGANT RUDA JOSEPH SERVED 9/14/99 COSTS $14.00 O'BRN-ON BAItIC k SCHERER 9/15/99 9/15/1919 -------------------------- SFERlYF'S R ETURN FILED i,i'i'(C;ANT JR CONSTRUCTION INC SLI1VED 9/14/99 'STS $35.30 O'BRir,'N BARIC & SCHERER 9/15/99 10105/19;9 C'OMPLAIN'T -..-..----- -------- ---- - -- . -------------------------------- - ---- -- - ------ ---- l/11/91'a9 ANBWF.R NEW MATTER AND COUNTF.RCLAI:N. -------- - - - - ---------------------- - -- --------------- ----------- 12/10/19,)9 P1,AIN''IFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO C'C`JNTF ifl,CLA IM 12/17/15,1k 1..-:NUANT'S REPLY TO -PLA ------PF'S NEW MATTER TO COUNTER CLAIM ---------------------------------- ------------------ 20 '0 .NSWE;: TO FIRST SE'T' OF INTERROGATORIES OF PLAINTIFF PROPOUNDED :rON ?:E E'ENDANTS --- - -- - - ------------------ 28/2010 !)1 1. '7 PE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL BY DAVID A BARIC ESQ -PLFF ATTY ----- ------------------...--------------------------- 3/30/20n0 ORDc:R OF COURT - DA'Z'ED 3/30/00 - NON-JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 5/4/00 AT 8:45 AM CF 2 CUMBF:RLIINU COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE PA HV EIAVAR B BAYL,EY J COPIES MAILED 3/31/00 - - ---- 5/05/20o) L;:iOICT - DA'T'ED MAY 4, 2000 ON THE CONTRACT _ DATED _ MARCH 7, 1994 IN FA'30R OF THE PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST JOSEPH S RUDA AND JR C('Nti'P?'_C:TION IN THE AMOUNT Oz' gg21 440.59 THE CON'T'RACT DATED AIIGUST l6 , 1996 IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ,'•?.') AGAINST JR CONSTRUC:T.TGiJ IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,434.88 BY THE COURT RDC;AR B EIAYLEY J i:OPrES MAILED 1,A•;T ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - **#****A f*w:i kA**k#**k**#*#*****#1***Yi;k*I.***#****##w##*******#*******#**#*** * * Pees h Debi LS Escr(;,i l.ifDrmation Reg Ral Pyi;ts/Adj Find Bal. PYS' 0 .:?M11Ai1 Cumber] and County Prothonotary's Office JI1 • Civi] (:,Ise Inquiry Page 2 1999-051,2 \i.AP1 AND ADAMS PTNR F,T AL (vs) JR CONSTRUCTION INC' ET AL Referon--o No.. : Cuse Ty w...... tJR1'r OF FUMMON:, Filed........: 8/24/1999 Judomen .. Iudge A.; e!;,,,?; (gyp Execution Date 0/00 2: 52 /0000 ll]spose i p ;, Jury Tr.ial.... ?• Comments - - - - Di s[f?1osed Date. 0/00/0000 Hivher*Crt 2.: WRIT Uj•' SU'Ih , AX ON WRL'p V, 35•UJ 3:1.00 00 tETTLU H;:NT •5'? 00 5 .50 . JCP FE, : • 5.(Jr) `,. 00 00 :0? .00 d5. 50 45.50 - --- - 00 **I****l' ;Ant.ir***** **************v***k J?f01'm tl :aA*?****** . ****H *x*************** ******** ***?A*,*?k#* . a On *1.k*.k********* ****** i**** ****#****** ****#************** *******#** TRUE (:COPY FROM REOOAD Is TaOmW whereof, I here um w my had wd thl aural of said Cq4sl CarM, pL R fl dqj # d C?S?f ?a a L? C J i ?.- Ll it I.L M O mm } N r N 0 O Q? N • N 1 A N A m d wp ?y r - d N • ry •p W j N N `G} p ? d C N I?11 i 1 • n i I i ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff/Respondent VS. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendants/Petitioners IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PR:AECIPE TO TRANSFER DOCKET ENTRIES TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please transmit to the Superior Court the record in this case and a copy of the docket entries, the accompanying record is complete for the purposes of appeal. Respectfully submitted, J. K and 4 East Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-7922 Attorney I.D. # 50838 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO TRANSFER DOCKET ENTRIES TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA was served on Plaintiffs Counsel, by First class mail, postage prepaid, by forwarding a true and correct copy unto: David A. Baric, Esq. Counsel for Plaintiff O'Brien Baric & Scherer 17 West South Street Carlisle PA 17013 and The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle PA 17013 and Trial Court Reporter Cumberland County Courthouse I Courthouse Square Carlisle PA 17013 Dated: [; (,L 2000 t"-, A? Jams J. K r, E 4 Last Lib y A enue Ca `lisle, 17013 (777) 243-7922 'pI[I r2 I Illl r? ' 'n v` 1 irl ro "j J7 N C (h 0 >° 3 O co N m o m M U n fC c -t c N 23 cu F y G? m xai 0 2 -1 N Vl Y¢ a J n ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR. CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-5162 CIVIL TERM IN RE: TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS NONJURY TRIAL Proceedings held before the HONORABLE EDGAR B. BAYLEY, J., Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on May 4, 2000, at 8:54 a.m. in Courtroom Number Two. APPEARANCES: DAVID A. BARIC, Esquire For the Plaintiff JAMES J. KAYER, Esquire For the Defendants 0 INDEX TO WITNESSES FOR THE PLAINTIFF DIRECT CROSS RECROSS REDIRECT 1. Mary Adams 4 34 37 -- 2. Joseph S. Ruda as on cross 38 -- -- 3. William H. Clarkson qualifications 41 -- -- -- William H. Clarkson 43 69 74 76 4. Kevin Mark Hollowell 76 91 96 -- FOR THE DEFENDANTS 1. Joseph S. Ruda 98 115 122 -- 2 a Ah INDEX TO EXHIBITS FOR THE PLAINTIFF IDENTIFIED ADMITTED 1. Deed 5 98 2. Proposal from JR Construction 7 98 for Mooreland Building 3. Invoice from JR Construction 12 98 4. List of costs for repairs to 17 98 Mooreland Building 5. Estimate from Kevin Hollowell 23 98 to replace wing sections at 400 South College 6. Proposal from JR Construction 25 98 for 313 South Hanover Street 7. Invoice dated 10/28/96 27 98 8. Cost sheet for 313 South 30 98 Hanover Street 9. Estimate from Kevin Hollowell 37 98 for 313 South Hanover Street 10. Articles of Incorporation for Profit 39 98 11. NOT IDENTIFIED/NOT ADMITTED 12. Photographs of Mooreland Building 48 98 13. NOT IDENTIFIED/NOT ADMITTED 14. Estimate for interior repairs 33 98 to Mooreland Building FOR THE DEFENDANT 1 to B. Photographs of Mooreland 112 123 Building 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IAN 0% May 4, 2000, 8:54 a.m. Carlisle, Pennsylvania (Whereupon, the following proceedings were held:) THE COURT: I have read the pretrial memorandums. Either party wish to make an opening? MR. BARIC: No, Your Honor. MR. KAYER: No, sir. THE COURT: You may proceed. MR. BARIC: Plaintiffs would call Mary Adams. Whereupon, MARY ADAMS, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: MR. BARIC: Your Honor, I've taken the liberty of premarking exhibits that we'll be using. I've prepared packets for the Court as well as opposing counsel. THE COURT: Good. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BARIC: Q Give us your full name, please. A Mary Adams. Q Where do you live, Mary? A 901 Hillside Drive. Q Mary, we're here about a case involving two 4 M'. i ? b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Aft roofing systems on two properties in Carlisle, one known as 400 South College Street, the other as 313 South Hanover Street. Could you describe for the Court generally what those properties consist of? A 400 South College Street is a 24 unit apartment building, and 313 South Hanover Street is a mix of commercial offices and apartments with three offices and three apartments. Q During the period that's really at issue in this case, principally from 1994 through 1997, have you been the principal owner of those two properties? A I am a partner of the partnership that is the principal owner, and I am the managing partner. Q And what is the name of the partnership? A We are officially Adams and Adams partners now. Q And was there a prior name for that partnership? A Yes, we also did business -- we do business as. Q What do you do business as? A Adams and Gardner partners. Q If you take a look at Exhibit 1, it is a packet that I have placed in front of you. It is a certified copy of a deed from the Recorder of Deeds Office 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to here in Cumberland County. Does this deed include upon it the ownership interest in both the properties we're dealing with, 400 South College Street and 313 South Hanover Street? A Yes. Q And this deed indicates that it was executed June 30th, 1988. Since that time, you've had ownership interest in those properties, correct? A Yes. Q Did there come a time, Mary, that you considered replacing the roof over the structure at 400 South College Street? A Yes. Q And what brought that about? A Well, we were having problems with the old roof. I believe it was the original roof dated from the early 501s, and we were getting leakage problems with it. It was, I think what they call, a built-up roof. Q 400 South College Street is the residential apartment building? A That's right. Q And it is a three story structure? A That's correct. Problems were in the third floor apartments. Q Is that also referred to in some of your 6 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 01 1??1 documentation as the Mooreland Building? A Yes, it is. Q What did you do when you believed that you were having a problem with leaks in the existing built-up roof on the Mooreland Building? A Well, after trying stopgap measures for awhile, we finally decided to get proposals for replacement of the roof. I had to wait a couple years until I was able financially to, I thought, swing it because I knew it was going to be a substantial amount, and I went out and got three proposals. I went to one person that I knew and got two other people out of the yellow pages in the phone book. Q Was one of those people JR Construction? A Yes. Q Let's take a look at what's been marked as Exhibit 2. Is that a copy of a proposal you received from JR Construction regarding the Mooreland Building roofing? A Yes. Q What was your understanding as to what JR Construction proposed to do in terms of reroofing that building at 400 South College Street? A Exactly what's marked here. Instead of having the old stone roof or built-up roof, as I was told it was called, he was going to put on a new rubber roof. Q Did he indicate in that proposal who the 7 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 e r2 manufacturer would be? A Well, it says in here that it was Carlisle -- MR. BARIC: Excuse me, Your Honor, I -- THE COURT: You have got to keep your voice down so he can concentrate. Next question. Go ahead. MR. BARIC: I'm sorry. BY MR. BARIC: Q Did it indicate who the manufacturer would be? A Yeah, it says install Carlisle SynTec Rubber. So Carlisle SynTec was a company in town. I know them, you know. I figured I was going to get a Carlisle roof. I didn't figure -- to me I was going to get a Carlisle rubber roof, and he was going to take off the stones from the old roof and put on a new roof. That's about as much as I knew about roofs at the time. Q Was it important to you when you looked at this proposal that it indicated that it was going to be a Carlisle SynTec roof? A Sure. Q Why was that important? A Well, because I know the company. I know it's good material. Q Did this proposal also include information 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A a regarding warranties that you had received regarding the roofing system? A Well, yeah. There were two different warranties offered, and they depended on the material that was used in the roof. One was a thinner material and one was a thicker material, and having had my fill of roof problems, I opted for the thicker material with the longer warranty. Q And that was referred to as what on this proposal sheet? A It's referred to as 25 year warranty .060. Q Your understanding was that related to the thickness of the membrane sheet? A Well, I didn't know that. I had to call and ask that question, what's .045 and what's .060. I was told it was the thickness, and I opted for the heavier thickness with the longer warranty. Q You'll notice at the top was a date on this proposal 3/7/94. Was it at or about that time you would have been obtaining bids for the reroofing? A Yes. Q And to the best of your recollection, you received this proposal at or about the time that it was dated? A To the best of my recollection. 9 e 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 I?1 A% Q Did you then have discussions with anyone at JR Construction regarding the actual proposal? A Well, as I say, I called about the fact the .095 and the .060 because I didn't understand what those two terms referred to and was told that they referred to the thickness of the rubber. I also asked questions about the way in which I could pay because I was still financially strapped, and so I asked if I could give some money at the beginning and then pay in installments; and, yes, that was agreed to. So I had those discussions. Q And you'll see in here there is some handwritten notations. Is that your handwriting that appears on there? A That is my handwriting. Q And it would appear that, starting at the bottom, highlighted portion 1999, remainder 1995. A Yes. Q What does that relate to? A Excuse me, what? Q What does that relate to? A Well, that relates to the order in which he was going to put on the -- install the roof sections because there's actually three sections to that roof, and he was going to install one portion in 1999 and then the 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to a second portion in 1995, or the remaining portions in 1995. Q Perhaps we should clarify that. The entire roof surface is one flat surface, correct? A Yes. Q When you say sections, you are referring to, in essence, almost the wings of the building? A Right, it's the configuration. There's a center section and two wing sections, and although it's all one roof it's broken up into distinct areas. Q And the other handwritten notation, moving up the page, indicates for highlighted area 8,000 at completion. Does that relate to your request to break down the payments? A Okay, 8,000 -- no, I think that just relates to -- I'm not sure why the breakdown of 8 and 9. Oh, no, I remember. I'm sorry. I can't recall exactly what the breakup up there was for. Q Do you recall then what the contract price was going to be under this proposal for the 060, 25 year warranty roof? A Yeah, it was going to be $16,015.00. It's listed on there. And I think we added a small amount for some kind of flashing, new flashing. There was a material charge for it so -- Q Did you -- 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Go ahead. Q Did you sign this proposal and return it to JR Constructio n? A Yes. Yes, I did. That's my signature. Q Did they subsequently begin work after you returned this proposal? A Yes. Q When do you recall the work being completed on 400 South C ollege Street approximately? A All of the work? Q All of the work. A It would probably have been around the time -- I know it was in 195. I don't remember exactly what time in 1 95 it was. Q And at the time that the roof was completed and JR left th e building, had you at that point and time paid them for their services? A I think that I had a few installment payments left to make. Q Did you subsequently make those payments? A Yes. Q If you will take a look at what's been marked as Exhi bit 3, please. You indicated just a few moments ago in your testimony that there was an add-on for some flashing. Is that reflected on this invoice from JR 1 12 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Construction? A Yes, it's $325.00. Q And this document indicates that there was a balance owed of $3,890.00, correct? A Yes. Q And is that your handwritten notation at the bottom in terms of payments? A Yes. Q And that shows that you paid off the remaining balance? A That's right. Q The last payment being 7/17/95? A That's correct. Q Now, subsequent to July of 1995, do you recall a time when it was brought to your attention that the roof on the Mooreland Building was again leaking? A Yes. Q And how did that come to your attention? A It was tenants from the third floor, and I don't remember what particular tenant it was because it was more than one. It was either the tenants who brought it to my attention or me going through one of their apartments as I was going to rerent it that brought to my attention that there were problems with the ceiling. Q What did you notice? 13 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a A I noticed plaster -- you can tell marks of water in plaster, and I noticed watermarks in plaster that had not previously been there in new sections where there had been no leaks before. And then I noticed peeling paint. It kind of like bubbles up and then peels. Q What did you do when you first noticed -- let me go back. Approximately when was this happening after July of 1995? A It's probably right at the end of '96 or at the beginning of '97 that I started to notice problems, and at first, you know, I thought to myself, are these from the original roof leaks. But then after review of my repair bills, et cetera, I realized that they weren't. Q You realized it was new damage to the interior of the building? A Yes. Q What did you do then? A Well, in and around that same period I called in Kevin Hollowell who had done work for me before, and we looked at it together, and I think together we kind of determined that this was new damage instead of old damage because he had worked on the old damage for me. And when I realized it was new damage, I asked -- we had to check out what was going on on the roof. You'll have to excuse me. I don't recollect perfectly what 14 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 w 0 happened and in what order because this was an extremely difficult period of life for me with a lot of family medical difficulties. But I know that I contacted JR about it. I told him we were having problems. I know that I had Kevin working with me on it. Basically I was trying to find out what was going on, and I was trying to determine whether it was something that needed fixed or finished. I know I spoke with JR, and I asked him if he could go up and rectify problems which we had found on the roof, and he agreed to do so. Q What kind of conditions were occurring in terms of the rental units on the third floor of that building as this was going on? A Well, the conditions were mainly ceiling problems, bubbling and cracking in the ceilings. And in one apartment, there was significant paint peeling in the kitchen. There was one apartment where there was a cei 1 ing that actually caved in at one point and plaster falling. Now, this was a section, not the entire ceiling, but, you know, it was difficult -- the current tenants were upset, and it made it almost impossible to rerent an apartment without repairing it; and yet you knew that if you repaired it you were going to be doing it again anyway 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 A because the problem on the roof wasn't fixed. Q Did you ask JR Construction to return to the site to make repairs? A Yes. Q Did they come out and attempt to make repairs? A Yes. Q Did that alleviate the problems? A No. Q Did you do anything else after that? Did you call on anyone else to investigate the problem? A Yes. Well, JR told me when he got out there that the problem wasn't the roof, that the problem was that my drainpipes were stopped up. So I had Kevin Hollowell come out and clean out my drainpipes. But Kevin told me, well, it's not your drainpipes that's the problem, it's the roof. So when Kevin told me that the roof itself was the problem, then I contacted Bill Clarkson and asked him to come up and investigate the roof because at that point I'm like, okay, I have no idea what's going on. I don't understand the problem. Let's get an expert in here and look at this roof and tell me what should be done. Q Was that the first time that you had heard anything from anyone at JR Construction about the drainage? 16 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 A Yes. Q Had anyone prior to the point that you are now experiencing leaks from JR Construction talk to you about ponding water on the roof? A No. Q When the proposal was presented to you from JR Construction for the Mooreland Building and you called them to talk to them about questions you had on the thickness of the rubber sheeting and the warranty period, did they at that point and time say anything to you about ponding conditions on the building? A No. Q Take a look at what's been marked as Exhibit 9, please. A Yes. Q Could you describe for the Court what that document is? A This is a list of the costs involved with the roof for the Mooreland apartment building. The first section has the cost of installation, and these are the dates and the check numbers paid to JR for his original installation of the roof. Q Let me stop you right there. How was this information maintained by you? How did you keep this information? 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A A I keep it on a Lotus program. I'm an accountant, so I make my own Lotus programs up, and I pulled my invoices and my checks and I just made a program to put the information in. Q Would you input that basically when you're making the payment you then input it into your system? A No. Actually I made this up after the fact when I started incurring all of the costs. I would have originally input his information into another Lotus program that I used to do my taxes. Q And then you took that information and put it over onto this sheet? A Yes. Q So the first series of entries are the amounts paid to you -- by you to JR Construction, correct? A Yes, that's correct. Q That was for $16,840.00 for the roof on the Mooreland Building? A Yes. Q Now, based upon the invoice we saw earlier from JR Construction was there an overpayment to JR? A Yeah, it appears there is a $500.00 overpayment, and being an accountant I feel very bad that that occurred because believe me I don't normally overpay things. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did you ever bring that to the attention of JR Construction? A I think that I didn't realize that this $500.00 overpayment occurred until after I had already gone beyond trying to work with JR and that I was actually working with Bill Clarkson and Kevin Hollowell trying to fix the problems. So I never realized at a time when I still had congenial relationships with JR that I had this problem. Q What's the next category of items? A The next category is a series of four different things. There's the inspection costs that I had to pay Bill Clarkson to come up and look at the roof. There's repair costs for temporary repairs to the roof the first time Kevin got up there and said you've got a big problem and you're going to have water running into these places if I don't do some resealing. And there's a third section which is insurance estimate for inside damage. I actually got my insurance company to come up and check the inside damage, and I had to pay a deductible off of that. And then there's a fourth section which is additional interior repairs that had to be made after the insurance estimate was filed and that those repairs were completed. These are additional repairs above and beyond 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. And finally -- Q Did you attempt -- let me just stop you for a moment. Did you attempt to submit those additional insurance -- those additional interior repair costs of $658.56 to your insurer? A Yes. Q What was -- A I was told that I couldn't because they had already dealt with the problem, this was no longer something that I could remedy through insurance. Q Then you have an estimate for interior repairs yet to be done. What did that relate to? A That's -- well, there's still damages out there that are existing, and some of the tenants didn't want me to work on the ceiling while they were in it because they were able to live with the bubbling and the cracking, you know. They just said, well, wait until we're gone and then you can repair it. And another one of them -- at least two of them are because I know there's going to be additional damage because I haven't been able to fix the roof in those sections yet. Q Then you have the total of the temporary outside work, inside repairs and inspection costs. That is a cumulative total for the last five items, correct? 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Yes, exactly. The $4,659.00 includes all of those temporary outside and inside repairs and the inspection. Q And we go on to replacement costs for middle section. Can you describe that? A Well, I already paid to replace the middle section which was one where the worst difficulties was occurring, and now I have an estimate to repair the two other wing sections. Q So you've actually paid out of pocket 5,400 to replace the middle section of the roof? A That's correct. Q That being replacing the JR Construction roof that was on the middle section? A Yes. Q And who have you obtained the estimates from to replace the remaining two sections? A Kevin Hollowell. Q And the total for replacing the two remaining sections is? A $14,168.00. Q And then you have a cumulative total would appear to be for the replacement cost that you have already incurred for the middle section and the estimate to replace the two other wings, correct? 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A That's correct. Q For a total of 19,568? A Yes. Q Then you have total repair and replacement cost. What does that relate to? A Well, that 24,000 is in addition to the 4,659, and the 19,000, I believe, 568 -- I forgot to bring my glasses up -- but that's a total of what I had to do in repairs and what I have already had to do in replacement and what I still have to do in replacement and also what I still have to do in repairs interior. MR. BARIC: Without belaboring it at this point and time, Judge, I will submit to the Court that the documents which follow the first page of Exhibit 4 are supporting the invoices that relate to all of the items that are accounted for on the first page except for I believe you are missing a $300.00 invoice from William Clarkson, and we'll have him testify to that. BY MR. BARIC: Q Let's continue on to Exhibit 5, please, Mary. A Yes. Q Describe for the Court what that document is. A Okay. You want to go to Exhibit 5. I seem 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r? to have lost it. Okay. You want me to describe this? Q Well, what is it? A This is the estimate from Kevin Hollowell for replacing the outer sections or the wing sections on 400 South College, and I think that it indicates that it's $7,084.00 for each wing. He was trying to give me the amounts in sections because since I had financial difficulty putting the roof on in the first place and now I have to replace the entire roof again, I'm still having financial difficulty. Q So this $7,084.00, is that related to one? A One wing. Q And there are two wings? A There are two wings. Q And it indicates on here double since both sides are basically identical, correct? A That's correct. Q So when you did your calculations for Exhibit 4, you doubled that 7,084? A That's exactly right, and I came up with 14,168. Q Are you still experiencing leaks out there in the two sections of the building that have not been replaced? 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to a A Yes. Q Are you experiencing leaks in the section that was replaced? A No. Q And that would be the center section? A Yes. THE COURT: So it would be one section done and two sections to be done? THE WITNESS: That's correct. BY MR. BARIC: Q If you will continue on to Exhibit 6, please. 313 South Hanover Street you indicated was a mix of residential and commercial leased property, correct? A Yes. Q Could you describe for the Court if you are standing on Hanover Street looking at the building give a general description of how it's situated in terms of the roof levels? A Okay. It was originally a house, and the center portion of the building is the original house. It goes up two floors, and it has a regular slanted roof with, I think, an aluminum or a metal roof on it. And then around it, when Dr. Masland purchased the building, he built sections onto it which were designed to go up two floors if they ever wanted to 24 71 1 raise the building. 2 And so you have a one story level built 3 around this original house, and it all had a flat roof, a 4 flat built-u p roof on it. There's one long section on the 5 side towards the square, and then there's one, two, three 6 sections of roof on the side towards Wendy's. 7 Q Did there come a time that you believed that 8 roofing work needed to be done on sections of that 9 building? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And approximately when would that have been? 12 A Excuse me? 13 Q When would that have been, do you recall? 14 A Well, it was at the same time -- let's put 15 it this way, I needed roofs on both buildings and knew it, 16 but the Mooreland was a worst difficulty than South Hanover 17 was. So basi cally I got proposals for South Hanover 18 Street after Mooreland because I had to get that roof on 19 first, 20 Q And if you look at Exhibit 6, is that the 21 proposal that you received from JR Construction relating to 22 the reroofing at 313 South Hanover Street? 23 A Yes. 24 Q What was your understanding from this 25 proposal as to what they intended to do out at that 25 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 building? A It was to -- there were two sections that needed to be done, one -- there had been two sections done already when I first purchased the building because they were in such bad condition. That was back in the 80's. But at this time he was going to do two sections of roof, two of those flat roof sections, and he was going to remove the stones from the roof and put on a flat rubber roof. Q And did he indicate in this document who the manufacturer of the material would be? A It says Carlisle Shullar here. I'm just noticing that. I don't know at the time that I ever questioned that. Q And did this document indicate that you would be receiving a warranty for the roof? A Yes, it did. Q And what period of time would be the warranty be? A It was a 20 year warranty. Q And I don't have or have not seen a signed copy of this document. Do you recall whether you ever signed this document? A Oh, I know I signed it, yes, because he started the work. Q That was my next question. They did begin 26 ... plpl A £ Yf 4A' ^t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PU a the work subsequent to -- this document is dated 8/16/96? A Yes. Q It would have been the work subsequent to that date? A Yes. Q Were you ever present on either one of the buildings when the actual installation was taking place? A I don't think so. Like I said, there was a tot- going on in my life right then. I was dealing with big family medical problems. Q Did anybody at JR Construction ever come to you during the installation of either one of these roofing systems and talk to you about how the installation was going? Did they report to you? A I don't think so. Q Take a look at Exhibit 7, please. Do you recall receiving this document from JR Construction? A This is the invoice? Are we on the right one? Yes, yes. Q And that indicates a total of $4,500.00, correct? A Yes. Q And this is dated October 28th, 1996. Down below we see handwritten notations as to three payments, is that correct? 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A a A That's correct. That's mine. Q It shows the last payment being 2/18/97, correct? A Yes. Q These amounts add up to $3,500.00, correct? A That's correct. Q Now, there's contention raised by JR Construction in this case that you never paid him the last thousand dollars. Can you tell the Court why you didn't pay him the last thousand dollars? THE COURT: What did you say that added up to? THE WITNESS: The payments add up to 3,500. THE COURT: Okay. I got you. THE WITNESS: And the total of the invoice was 4,500. Well, there were two reasons why I didn't finish the payment. In the first place, the job wasn't completed because if you look back at Exhibit 6 it says in the middle of the paragraph, install walk mats, because this is a roof that was accessible by tenants and that went out to a fire escape. And so I had wanted there -- I was told that for tenants to be able to get out on the roof without damaging it there had to be walk mats. The walk mats were never installed. So the roof wasn't completed in the first 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1""1 place, and that's the first reason. The second reason why I didn't pay it is that the Mooreland problems started appearing at the same time as this roof was being worked on and I was paying for it. As you can see, it spanned the end of '96 into 197, and, you know, by the time we got towards this last payment, I had determined with Kevin that the problems in the Mooreland were not residual ones from the old roof but were, in fact, new problems from the new roof, and I'm sitting there starting to say, okay, you know. Q Are you getting any response on the Mooreland problems? A Well, he came back two different times, I believe. It could have been once. It could have been twice, I don't know, to come back to the Mooreland. And the response I was getting from JR was that it wasn't the roof that was the problem, it was in fact my clogged drains that were the problems. I was getting other signals from other people who were experts who were telling me, no, that's not the problem, the roof is the problem. So I didn't pay the remainder. The work wasn't completed, and I was starting to say, man, have I lost my shirt here or what. Q Can you turn to Plaintiff's Exhibit 8, please. 29 IrA ? 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 A Yes. Q This appears to be a similar cost sheet that you have developed for 313 South Hanover Street, correct? A Yes. Q Will you go down through that sheet and describe to the Court the different categories and how you calculate these amounts? A Well, they are the same categories as were in the other sheet. The first section is the original cost of installation of the roof. Now, I did not include 9,500 because I didn't pay it. I included the 3,500. The next three sections include the roof inspection cost with the damages by Mr. Clarkson. They include temporary repair costs by Kevin Hollowell, and they include inside repair costs from water damage, some of which yet have to be completed, especially in one office which I now have to rent because the tenant is leaving. He says he's leaving because of the water damages. In any case, the total cost there is $1,939.88 for inspection, inside and outside temporary repairs. Q Then you have replacement cost for one section of roof. Would that be one of the sections that was reroofed by JR Construction? A It's one of the two sections that was reroofed. I had to do this one because there was a dentist 30 A A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 11 I I 12 i 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 office underneath of it, and it continually leaked right over top of the dentist chair onto the patients that he was working on. So in order to keep my tenant of long-standing I had to reroof it. Q And the bill for that was 3,000 -- A $3,860.00. All of the old stuff had to be ripped off, and it had to be completely replaced. Q And had you made attempts before having it reroofed to have JR Construction come out and fix it? A No. Q Why was that? A Because he -- the attempts that I made to have him fix the Mooreland roof resulted in they didn't help the roof, and the second reason was that by that time I knew that the roof had been installed wrong to begin with. I learned a whole lot about roofs I didn't want to know, and there was no sense in having somebody who didn't know how to do the work come out and do it wrong again. I mean, that was my attitude. Q And then you have an item estimate for remaining roof section to be replaced, correct? A Yes. That's the roof part out there above the office that I have to rerent now that still has to be replaced. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q And who did you obtain that estimate from? A Kevin Hollowell. Q So the total of actual and estimated remaining replacement cost 9,680? A That's correct. Q And you've added that to your -- A $1,934.88 which is the temporary repairs, inspection, interior and outside damage, and I come up with $11,614.88. That's the total to replace the roof and to repair, do the inside and outside temporary repairs. MR. BARIC: Again, Your Honor, in order to expedite things, I will submit that the documents which follow the first page of Exhibit 8 are the supporting invoices that relate to the amounts that you see on the first page. BY MR. BARIC: Q I believe we have one additional invoice, is that correct, Mary? A No. That one additional invoice was for the Mooreland. I was going to mention that. Q Is this in your total? A It's in my total for the Mooreland Building. So that actually that invoice refers to section 4, yes, 4. That one relates to section 4, if you want to give him a copy of it. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Yes. (Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 14 was marked for identification.) BY MR. BARIC: Q Mary, what we've marked as Exhibit 14 is already included in your totals, correct, on the cost sheet for the Mooreland Building, correct? A Yes. Let me just check. It is, and it's marked estimate for interior repairs yet to be done. THE COURT: The cost sheet was exhibit what? THE WITNESS: The cost sheet was Exhibit 4. THE COURT: And that is Exhibit 14? MR. BARIC: Correct. THE COURT: Hold on. Go ahead. BY MR. BARIC: Q Mary, as it relates to 313 South Hanover Street, did anyone from JR Construction talk to you about drainage on that roof prior to installing the two roof sections for you? A Not to my recollection. Q Did anyone from JR Construction prior to installing those two roof sections talk to you about ponding water on those roof sections? A No, not to my recollection. MR. BARIC: I have nothing further at this 33 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 A time except that I would move admission of Exhibits 1 through 8. THE COURT: I will defer on all exhibits until the end of your case, plaintiff's case. Cross. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KAYER: Q Ma'am, I noticed in your exhibits that you had a Mr. Clarkson inspect both roofs? A Yes. Q And did Mr. Clarkson pass both roofs after his inspection? A No. He sent a detailed report of the problems on the roof. Q Let's deal with each roof one at a time then. With regard to the Mooreland roof, you indicated that in Exhibit 9 that you paid Mr. Clarkson in May and July of 1997. Do you recall when he actually performed that inspection? A It would have been right at that time. Q And he issued his report to you at about that time? A Yeah. I think I paid him right at about the same time I got the report. There were two different reports actually. There was one report that he gave me, and then JR was asked to come in and make good on the 34 i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 A fP problems. And then Bill Clarkson was sent back up on the roof after JR came in to make good on it and gave the second report which, in effect, said that the problem still existed. Q Did you provide Mr. Ruda with a copy of that) report? A Yes, I did. Q And with regard to the Hanover building, did Mr. Clarkson pass that building or not? A No, no, he did not. Q But on the Hanover building you never gave Mr. Ruda an opportunity to satisfy the warranty, you never called him back with problems? A I had called him back with the problems on the Mooreland Building. He had not satisfied the warranty on that one, and, in fact, he kept telling me that the problem was -- THE COURT: Wait. Wait. The question is pretty simple. Did you ever ask him to satisfy the warranty on the other building, on the Hanover Street building? THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. KAYER: Q Directing your attention back to the Mooreland Street Building. When you first were 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 encountering difficulties, Mr. Ruda did come back to attempt to do repairs once you reported difficulties? A Yes. Q He was fully cooperative in his efforts to do that? A Yes. Q When he first came back to do those repairs, did he indicate to you that he believed the problem was due to maintenance of the gutters rather than a problem with the roof system? A Yes. Q And I believe it's your testimony that at that time you had had Mr. Hollowell clear the gutters? A Yes. Q Did Mr. Ruda indicate even after that first attempt of clearing the gutters that there was still a problem with drainage occurring on the roof? A He told me that the gutters were the problem. Q After that initial clearing of the gutters by Mr. Hollowell, did you take any other efforts -- undertake any other efforts in that Mooreland Building to change the drainage system or to clear out the gutters or anything else? A No. I had the gutters regularly cleared but 36 ¦ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r7 not at that point. Q Did you add any drains from the roof to the gutter system? A No. Q Did Mr. Ruda indicate to you that that would be a repair that would take care of the difficulties with the ponding of the water and the leaks adding additional drains? A No. MR. KAYER: I have nothing further. THE COURT: Any redirect? MR. BARIC: Just two quick points. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BARIC: Q Mary, going back to the proposal for the Mooreland Building from JR Construction, you indicated it was a Carlisle SynTec roof, you indicated you would be getting a 25 year warranty. What was your understanding as to where that warranty was coming from? A I believed it was for the materials, that it was from Carlisle SynTec, and for the workmanship, of course, it would have been from JR. Q One last point. If you look quickly at Exhibit 9, is that the estimate referred to in your cost sheet for 313 South Hanover Street that you received from 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kevin Hollowell for the remaining replacement that needs to be done at 313? A That's correct. MR. BARIC: Nothing further. THE COURT: Any further cross? MR. KAYER: No, sir. THE COURT: Ma'am, you may step down. Next. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. BARIC: We call Joseph Ruda as on cross examination. Whereupon, JOSEPH S. RUDA, having been duly sworn, testified as follows as on cross examination: EXAMINATION BY MR. BARIC: Q Mr. Ruda, have you always been the sole shareholder of JR Construction, Inc.? A That's correct. Q And are you the sole -- or have you always been the sole officer of JR Construction, Inc.? A Yes, sir. Q Did you prepare the proposal that went to Mary Adams for 400 South College Street? A Yes, sir, for Carlisle Rubber, not system. 38 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 a Q Did you prepare the proposal that went to Mary Adams from JR Construction for 313 South Hanover Street? A Yes, sir. Q Did you actually perform any of the work on either one of those roofing systems when they were being installed? A Yes, I was personally there for both installations. Q Did you actually physically -- A Yes, I did. Q Sir, if you'll take a look at what's been marked as Exhibit 10. THE COURT: You are going to have to show it to him. BY MR. BARIC: Q Do you recognize that document? A Yeah. Q And these were the Articles of Incorporation for Profit that were filed with the Secretary of State for JR Construction, Inc., correct? A Correct. Q And the second page indicates -- there is a signature. Is that your signature? A Yes, it is. 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a C Q And what is the specified effective date on the bottom of the first page of that document? A April of '94. Q I'm sorry, the specified effective date is Section 6. Do you see that at the bottom? A June 1st, '94. Q June 1st, 1994, was the specified effective date for this incorporation, correct? A Yes, sir. Q And the proposal that you provided to Mary Adams for 400 South College Street was dated 3/7/94, correct? A That's right, yes. Q So approximately three months before the effective date for your incorporation you prepared the proposal that went to Mary Adams, correct? A Yes. Q Did you do business as JR Construction as a sole proprietorship before it became incorporated? A Yes. Q For what period of time did you do that, do you recall? A I would say about five years. MR. BARIC: Nothing further at this time, Your Honor. 40 A ? I THE COURT: You may step down. 2 MR. BARIC: Call William Clarkson. 3 Whereupon , 4 WILLIAM H. CLARKSON , 5 having been duly sworn, testified as follows: 6 DIRECT EXAMINATION AS ON QUALIFICATIONS 7 BY MR. BARIC: B Q Bill, what do you do for a living? 9 THE COURT: Let's get his name and address 10 first. 11 MR. BARIC: I'm sorry. 12 BY MR. BARIC: 13 Q What is your name and address please? . 19 A My name is William H. Clarkson. 15 Q Your address? 16 A 192 East Chapel Avenue, Carlisle. 17 Q And do you operate a business? 18 A I do. 19 Q What's the name of that business? 20 A The name of the business is William H. 21 Clarkson and Associates Roofing Consultants. 22 Q How long have you had that business? 23 A I've been in that business since the summer 29 of 1993. 25 Q What does that business involve in general? 41 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 A A& A That business involves investigating roofing problems, writing specifications for repairs, managing bid lists, doing roof evaluations for other problems or just conditions of a roof to see how they're weathering and what repairs might be needed to increase their longevity. Q And prior to starting that business in 1993, did you have any roofing experience prior to that? A I worked with Carlisle SynTec Systems from 1981 until 1993 at the time I started my own business. I was a technical representative traveling around the country teaching roofers to install the roofing systems, inspecting systems for confirmation to warranty specifications. I was investigating problems with warranty roof systems to determine what the problems were and how it could be corrected. Q So you had done that for, what, ten years? A Twelve years. Q Twelve years. And then you began Clarkson Roofing Consultants? A Yes, sir. MR. BARIC: At this point I would offer Mr. Clarkson as an expert regarding the installation of rubber roofing systems, determining leak causes involving rubber roofing systems, investigating and rendering opinions as to the failure of the roofing systems. 42 i?11 A& 1 THE COURT: Any questions on qualifications? MR. KAYER: No, sir. 3 THE COURT: He may testify. MR. BARIC: Thank you. DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. BARIC: 4 Mr. Clarkson, do you recall when you were first contacted by Mary Adams regarding the roofing systems at 400 South College and 313 South Hanover Street? A Yes, I do. 4 What did you do? If you could, please, try to keep your answers in response to one particular roof and then switch to the other roof. THE COURT: What date were you contacted? THE WITNESS: I was contacted the week of April 28th, 1997. THE COURT: Go ahead- BY MR. BARIC: 4 What did you do in regards to 400 South College Street? A I went up to the roof hatch, and as I normally do when I start a roof inspection, I felt around for termination around the roof hatch. The flashing was not there. I noticed an awful lot of ponding on the roof. I had looked at different other conditions 43 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 n dh of the roof just as I had been trained in Carlisle SynTec, looking at the perimeter, see how it was installed, see whether it conformed to specifications. The first thing I noticed was it did not. There was no manufacturer that had ever written a spec that I had seen installed that way. Not only had I been an inspector for Carlisle SynTec, but when I started my business, GenFlex hired me as an outside inspector for some of their installation work and their warranty inspections. Q So you were finding technical deficiencies in the installation of the rubber membrane system? A I did. Q What was your understanding in general what the system consisted of out there? A This system was intended to be an adhered system. Q And how is an adhered system put together? A The adhered system is put down where the insulation is screwed down to a specification usually by the insulation manufacturer, and there are specifications established by various institutions. Factory Mutual is one, they are the primary, where they required fasteners be put in a certain pattern on the boards in order to maintain uniform resistance to 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A A wind uplift. Q What type of insulation was used on this project by JR Construction? A This project had wood fiberboard. Q Do you recall the thickness of it? A Half inch, nominal half inch. Q And was that to be the surface that the membrane then went over top of? A Yes, that would be the surface to which the membrane was adhered to with the contact adhesive. Q When you say adhered, they use an adhesive? A Yes, sir. Q What happens in terms of the seams, that is where sheets of rubber would meet on a roof? A I noticed many splices were open, and when I investigated this particular condition, I noticed that a lot of the sheets still had their factory applied mica and talc protective surface still on the sheet. In order to make a field splice, this product must be removed and cleaned 100 percent in order for the splice to begin to function. Q Why is that important to the integrity? A It's important because the talc and mica allows the transfer of water from the outside to the inside of the roof systems, and it would begin to deteriorate and 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 04 7-2 lift the roof splice if it's not addressed in the beginning of the installation. Q Could you describe for the court physical acts that are necessary to make proper seam where two rubber sheets come together on a roof, for a Carlisle SynTec roof? A The beginning of a splice starts out with the placement of the sheet. The sheet is lined up according to what you need and the conditions of the building. The one edge is laid back to expose the sheet underneath. Both surfaces are cleaned using a specialty cleaner. Q What's that referred to as? A Carlisle calls theirs splice cleaner, a rather simple and direct term. Q Then what? A Other manufacturers use other products, but each manufacturer has a certain product that they would either specify or manufacture for that particular purpose. It's used to remove the talc and the mica from the sheet and perhaps any other contaminants that may have found its way onto the sheet during its placement period. Q What do you do next? A You allow it to dry, and then you apply a splicing adhesive. A Carlisle splicing adhesive is 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1?1 M purposely designed to work in rubber to rubber splices. It's black in color. During the time this roof was put on, the product was called EP-95. It was a two part butyl and other products in the splicing content. Q What do you do after you put the glue on? As I understand it both seams -- A Both sides are coated -- Q Both sides are rubber, both sheets are rubber. A Both sides are coated, and then you allow it to dry to a certain degree of tackiness. When that is achieved and you close the splice and you roll it together with a hand roller, usually steel about two inches wide, put quite a bit of pressure on it, positive pressure in order to push them together, and that way you eliminate gas bubbles and air bubbles and it stays tight. When that's completed, you wait for the splice to cure and vent a little bit. There are some gases that come off during this particular process, and then you go back and with a relatively damp rag, it's not wet, but just damp, enough to remove any of the contaminants on the edge of this peel splice, and then you apply and tool in a lap sealant. This protects the edge from any kind of physical damage during the curing period of the splicing so there is no foreign materials getting inside. 47 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 Q From your investigation in April of 1997 of the roof on the Mooreland Building, did you come to a conclusion as to whether the seams had been made in accordance with the procedures you've just described? A They were not. Q Did you see indications of actual seam failure when you were on the roof? A Several. Q If you'll flip to Exhibit 12, please, which are a series of photographs. Are these photographs -- at least beginning with page one, are these photographs that you took on or about April 28th, 1997? A Yes. My camera has a date capacity, and it prints the date right on the print. Q And if you want to flip through all of these pages just for a moment to confirm that these are photographs that you took. A There are several conditions that were noted during -- Q Just a minute. A -- my inspection. Q Do these pictures fairly and accurately depict what you were seeing when you were taking the pictures? A Yes. 48 S 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 iMl r2 Q Let's start with the first page. Will you describe for the Court what those three photographs represent? A Photograph A is a general overview from the south wing of the apartment building looking toward the north, giving you an idea of the general layout of the building and some of the minor ponding that I noticed up on that building. Photograph B is taken from the other direction looking south, so that again you have a better view as to how the building was laid out and where some of the problem areas are. Photograph C is more of a center period that didn't get -- the center section of the building which didn't get addressed very well by the first two pictures. Q At the point in time that you were up there in April of 197, was it your understanding that no replacement activity had yet taken place in terms of replacement of the JR Construction work, correct? A That's correct. Q If you would flip to the next page, please. What are we seeing in these photographs? A Picture D shows the access hatch and the conditions surrounding it, the general conditions. Q And you earlier referred to in your 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 r, testimony a problem with the installation around the hatch.) What did that relate to? [I A Underneath the built-in counter flashing on the hatch, there should have been placed a material called a caulking rope which holds the flashing in place up underneath this particular area to keep it from falling down and allowing water to enter into the roof system, and that was not there. Q And Exhibit E, what does that show us, photograph E? A Photograph E shows the general condition of a roof scupper, a perimeter scupper. Q These are, for lack of a better word, these are drains? A This is a drain. This is a perimeter edge drain. Q Did you find anything out in terms of the general condition of the scuppers when you were up there? A They were not installed according to any specification that I was aware of. Q Why were they not installed according to specification? A What's missing is a support tray underneath the membrane. There's also no nailer securing the membrane into the location of the scupper. The metal was improperly 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 04 installed around the header box. There were open joints. There were nothing actually holding the flashing in place either on the outside of the scupper. Q Would that permit the entry of water into the roofing system? A Under certain conditions it would, especially during the winter when the scupper had froze up water would be driven back underneath the membrane. Q And photograph F? A Photograph F is just a general condition shot showing the conditions on the roof looking toward the hatch from the center section of the roof. Q Flip to the next page, page 3, photograph G. A Photograph G shows where the membran•? was pulled out from underneath the perimeter metal because there was insufficient membrane installed. It was not wrapped up and over the perimeter nailer and down over the face of the building which is required by every manufacturer that I am aware of. Q So literally this is the edge of the roof pulling back? A This is the roof membrane itself pulling out from the edge, yes. Q Is that going to permit water to enter underneath the roofing system? 51 00 a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A The position of the metal it would act as a funnel. It would direct water into the roof system. Q Did you see that condition, that membrane pulling back from the edge, at just one location on the roof? A There were several. In fact, photograph H shows part of it and photograph I shows it. Q Other sections where the membrane has pulled back? A Yes. Q And as I understand it, what you are talking about is the membrane is supposed to go out and down over the side of the building? A That's correct. Q And there is a specification that says how far it should go down? A Yes, it does. Q And is there a specification that indicates what you are supposed to do to nail that off? A Yes, there is. Q Did you see when you were out there in April of 197 that any of those specifications were followed? A I knew that they were not followed when I saw the membrane being pulled out from underneath the i,;?,tal. 52 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fib Q This is not a condition you normally see on a two-year-old roof, correct? A That's correct. Q If you will flip to the next page, please, photograph J. A Photograph J shows another incompetent installation of perimeter metal. The joints are open on the metal. There is no closure. You can see the exposure in the corner. Photograph K shows how the rubber was cut and exposing the interior of the roof system as well as the open joint in the metal. That too would allow water to enter into the roof system in a building. Q Is that actually -- it's hard for me to see -- but is the membrane actually looped up there with an open space? A That's correct. It's an open space. Q To the outside elements? A Yes. Q Photograph L, please. A Photograph L shows where some kind of foreign caulking was used in an attempt to secure the membrane and seal it against the metal. That caulking does not adhere to the rubber. It's not its intended purpose, and my pen is showing the loose edge in it which also 53 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ah a allows water to get inside. 4 Photograph M. A Photograph M shows an improperly made field splice that is open. My pen is inserted into it to show the depth of the opening, the fact that it goes all the way into the insulation. 4 Permitting the entry of water? A Water would enter into the entire system, again into the building. 4 Photograph N. A Photograph N, I am pressing on a seam at a T intersection, and water is being extruded out from underneath my foot indicating that water is in the splice and also underneath the roof system. 4 You mean you stepped on it and water -- A Water squirts out like a squirt gun. 4 Photograph 0, please. A Photograph 0 shows another field splice. This one is missing the water -- I'm sorry, the lap sealant. It is also starting to open, and it shows water ponding against it. In a properly made field splice, that would not have been a problem. Photograph P shows an open splice with water flowing along the length of the splice. 4 Flowing? 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Flowing. Q This is a splice that was open? A That's correct. Q Could you merely pick it up? A It was already opened, and I just opened it to see how far back it went and what kind of water was in it. Q And we're actually looking at water underneath the membrane next to the wood fiberboard? A That's correct. Q Let's take a moment and talk about wood fiberboard. What are wood fiberboard's characteristics when exposed to water for extended periods of time? A It absorbs a significant amount of water, and then eventually it loses its physical integrity. It becomes a suppurating or a deteriorating mass, organic mass. It becomes rather smelly, soft, like a wooden mud. It has no resistance to thermal transfer at all. It becomes something that has to be removed in order to make any additional repair work because there's so much water in it it will contaminate any attempts to make a splice. Q Now, earlier you talked about in terms of the general conditions of the system that wood fiberboard is used as a surface to adhere to membrane system, correct? 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 04 A A It also has a minor amount of thermal resistance. Q But if the wood fiberboard deteriorates, is it going to continue to perform its function of keeping the rubber membrane on the roof? A No, it has no more physical integrity. It can be moved around by foot pressure. There's no more reason for the adhesion. There might be some fiber still stuck to the bottom of the sheet, but none of the other fibers in the balance of the board are stuck to any part together. Q It basically disappears or disintegrates? A Oatmeal is a good consistency comparison. Q Looking back at ;,hotograph P, if the wood fiberboard is exposed to the amount of water that you saw in that picture or in that open seam, would you anticipate that the wood fiberboard will disintegrate? A Yes. Q Would you go on to photograph Q, please. A Photograph Q shows a dry splice that's also open. I can see the presence of the splicing adhesive. The lower sheet does not show any cleaning whatsoever. Q So now we're looking at that mica or talc that you talked about earlier? A Yes, plus additional contaminants on top of 56 t 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Oft 1 it because of the splice being open and allowing foreign ? materials to be introduced into the splice by water. 3 4 The next page, please, photographs R, S, and T all appear to relate to the same thing. Could you describe Generally what that condition is? A What I was showing there was the fact that the flashing on the chimney was installed up and over the existing counter flashing put into the masonry. When a masonry counter flashing is put in, it's set up so that there is a piece of metal oftentimes going behind the brick coming across the brick course and then down out over the face. However, most commonly what's happened is just a regular was cut, the metal goes in parallel to the joint and the metal is dropped out over the side. The flashing is supposed to go up underneath this, and this keeps water from running down into the roof system. In this particular system, what JR Construction had done was put rubber flashing over the top of this, over the top of this counter flashing, and what that does is because masonry absorbs water for a significant distance inside the face of the brick, say this was the face of the brick, we would have perhaps an inch and a half of water being absorbed in the brick; and it flows down because of gravity, and because the flashing 57 IMF w 1 being up on top of the metal or extended above it, it would 2 act as a funnel forcing water into the roof system. 3 Q That was a condition you were seeing 4 present? 5 A That was a condition I saw there. 6 4 If you will flip to the next page, please, 7 photograph U. 8 A Photograph U shows the use of flashing 9 material as a membrane repair, and the reason that this is 10 improper is the flashing material is uncured. It does not 11 have the same properties as a field membrane. It's soft. 12 It tears easy. 13 When it's exposed to ultraviolet, especially 14 on the flat like this, it becomes brittle faster, much 15 faster than the cured -- factory cured membrane. The 16 factory membrane is vulcanized in the factory to where it's 17 sent out. 18 Flashing material is uncured when it's sent 19 out meant to form in place against a total support, at 20 least two layers if you're going to use flashing material 21 only. 22 This particular item is an attempt to repair 23 a tear or a cut in the field membrane with a single piece. 24 No manufacturer accepts that as a proper repair just 25 because of the damage that can happen when that piece 58 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 N A fails. Q Photographs V and W. A V and W shows a misapplication of factory molded pipe boots. The first misapplication is the fact that the copper jackets were left in place on the pipe. No manufacturer wants to be responsible for the failure of someone else's metal work. So therefore they require that these jackets be remove or at least cut above where their boot is going to be installed. The second failure to install correctly was the lack of a mastic between the boot -- the upper edge of the boot and the metal penetration. The third improper installation was the lack of a compression band to hold the boot in constant tight compression against the penetration. Q And that's, as I understand, basically a clamp ring? A It's a -- if you remember radiator hose clamps, it's very similar, just larger. Q Will these conditions permit water to enter next to those pipes? A It would eventually if the metal fails, and you can already see the corrosion on the copper and folded joints up at the top. So it's really not a one hundred percent waterproof installation. Q Now, the next page, there is a date showing 59 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on the picture, picture X, indicates it was taken February 26th of 2000. Do you recall taking that picture? A Yes, I do. Q And what section of the building at Mooreland does this relate to? A This appears to relate to the center section. Q And at the time that you took this photograph, had that center section been replaced to your knowledge? A It had been. Q And is it evident from this photograph that even after replacement as of February 28th, 2000, water continued to pond on that center section of that roof? A That's correct. Q If you will flip to the next page, please, these photographs then also appear to have been taken February 28th, 2000. Which building do these photographs relate to? A This is 313 South Hanover Street. Q And what conditions are depicted in photograph Y? A Photograph Y shows, again, an improperly installed perimeter scupper, edge scupper. The membrane is not secured into the scupper. It's not fastened down. We 60 Am 1 have a cut in the membrane allowing the membrane to sag ? down in, and that's repaired with a single layer of uncured 3 flashing. There is no scupper box, metal box supporting the flashing. It's laying free subject to stress and tear. 4 Is that going to permit water to enter? F i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Oh, that one already has because the membrane doesn't even turn down over the face. It just stops at an edge; and surface tension to water brings it back in underneath the membrane. 4 So that's wide open at the end? A Yes, sir. 4 Photograph Z. A Photograph Z shows a similar metal installation as we saw at 400 South College Street. It's an open joint. The rubber is open. The metal is open. Water enters the building at that point. 4 And photograph double A. A Photograph double A shows the general ponding of that particular roof area. 4 And the last page, photograph double B? A Double B shows an open corner, a flashing corner which in the vernacular of the industry is called a fish mouth, and that is actually a water entry point into the roof. 4 This is 313? 61 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 A Yes, at 313. Q Mr. Clarkson, from your experience, prior experience with Carlisle SynTec Systems, have you come to a conclusion as to whether either one of these roofing systems was installed in accordance with the Carlisle specifications and details? A None of them were. Q Would this roof -- and let's first go to 900 South College Street, the Mooreland Building, would that roof as installed have been eligible for a warranty from Carlisle SynTec Systems? A No. Q Why not? A Because of the items I mentioned in my report. These are all items that do not conform to Carlisle specifications. Carlisle prints -- takes a great deal of time to print out a large specification manual for every one of its authorized roofers to use in installing a roof. These are available at no cost to the authorized applicator. In fact, when I contacted Carlisle in 1997 and again this year, they have no record of JR Construction as being an authorized applicator. Q What is an authorized applicator in terms of Carlisle SynTec? 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r A An authorized applicator is an applicator that meets minimum financial qualifications and professional reputation qualifications and skill, training. Members of that particular firm that's being a candidate for authorization need to be either taught in a class at Carlisle in the factory or have a Carlisle factory rep go out and teach their people how to install the roof. Q Are warranties only issued by Carlisle SynTec for projects installed by Carlisle authorized roofing applicators? A Yes, they are. Q And you have concluded from contacts with Carlisle SynTec that JR Construction was not a Carlisle authorized roofing applicator, is that correct? A That too is correct. Q If a Carlisle warranty would be issued for a Carlisle SynTec roof, what would the manufacturer do if the building owner called and said they had a leak? A During the first two years, they would send the initial installing contractor back out to correct his mistakes. There would also have been a technician sent from Carlisle to do an investigation to see why the problem occurred, and a specification would have been written to make sure that it was followed up. There are also institutions -- they also 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 /KM to institute follow-up inspections to make sure the repairs were done correctly. This is done all the time, not necessarily. In this particular case, Carlisle would not have responded to it because they had no record of the project. Q When you inspected the roof at 400 South College Street, did you conclude that all of the materials that had been installed were manufactured by Carlisle SynTec Systems? A I came to the conclusion that it was a mixture. Some were manufactured by Carlisle, but the majority of them were not. Q Did you come to any conclusion as to whether the sheet membrane that was installed on 400 South College Street was -- strike that. Does Carlisle SynTec Systems manufacture rubber sheeting material in specified widths? A Yes, they do. Q And did they do it in specified lengths? A Yes, they do. Q When you were on the roof at 400 South College Street, did you come to any conclusion as to whether standard Carlisle sheeting had been used on that roof? A It was my impression looking at the sizes of the sheets and the unusual dimensions that these were 64 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Ab scraps from some other system. Somebody else had made scraps available. Q During your investigation at 400 South College Street, did you notice water collecting on top of the roof? A Yes, I did. Q And that is referred to as ponding, isn't it? A Yes, it is. Q In your experience, is it unusual to have ponding on a flat roof? A No. In fact, it's almost expected. Q Does ponding of water typically affect the watertight integrity of a rubber membrane roofing system? A When it's properly installed according to specifications, there is no damage from ponding water. In fact, this material was originally designed as a liner for reservoirs and settling ponds. Q Did ponding water on this roof, that being 400 South College Street, cause it to fail? A No. Q Did ponding water on 313 South Hanover Street cause that roof to fail? A No. Q You're familiar with the design criteria as 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ih set forth in the proposals of JR Construction for each installation, correct? A Yes, sir. Q Did that design criteria, in terms of the new roof that was to be installed, did that change the drainage characteristics of either one of those roofing systems? A No. In fact, it would probably exacerbate the ponding problem. Q Why is that? A Because, number one, the problem -- rubber is holding more water. It's holding it back. When he put his perimeter on, that makes sure the water is being held back. He's got a higher gravel stop because more water should be held back in there just because of the profile of the perimeter. So when we have -- this would show up more in the winter than it does in a more temper climate just because of the ice -- buildup of ice around the perimeter. Q Did you find that the roof deck, and now I'm referring to the Mooreland Building, had deflected? A It had. It's been in existence almost 50 years, and that would be expected over concrete. Q Would that cause the roofing system to fail? A No, no. In fact, the selection of a rubber 66 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A • roof was probably the one good part for this installation. 4 Based upon your experience in rubber roofing, your investigation of the roofing system, have you come to a conclusion to a reasonable degree of roofing -- of certainty as a roofing consultant as to why the roof on 400 South College Street failed? A Yes, I have. 4 And what is your conclusion? A That reason is a lack of workmanship and quality control. 4 Would that relate back and incorporate the testimony you gave us earlier about from the photographs? A The primary failure was in the failure to properly clean the field splices. 4 To properly make seams? A Um-hum. 4 Let me just add very quickly. Did you go back and perform a second inspection on the building at 400 South College Street? A Yes, I did. I was informed by Mrs. Adams that some attempts at repairs had been made, and I made a second report. In that report, I indicated the number of items that still remained from my first report that hadn't been addressed. Q Had the overall condition of the roof 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A changed from the first time you were out in April to June after the purported repairs were made? A Essentially no changes. Q Was the system -- let me ask you this. Did you conclude as of April of '97 that the roof on 400 South College Street needed to be replaced? A From my initial inspection, yes. It was the only way you are going to make a repair because of the condition of the insulation underneath it. Q Did you also conclude at that point and time that the roof on 313 South Hanover Street needed to be replaced? A Yes. Q In June when you went back out on the Mooreland Building at 400 South College, did you conclude at that point or did your conclusion remain the same as to the need to replace the roof? A I saw no reason to change my initial evaluation. Q The time you inspected these roofs in April of 1997, was either roof performing its intended function to keep the elements out of those buildings? A No, they had both failed. MR. BARIC: I have nothing further. THE COURT: We are going to take a break 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 00% A until 20 after. You may step down. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) (Whereupon, Defendants' Exhibits 1 through 8 were marked for identification.) THE COURT: Cross-examine. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KAYER: Q Mr. Clarkson, you indicated that there was ponding that was present on the Mooreland Building's roof when you first examined it, is that correct? A That's correct. Q You also indicated in your testimony that on a flat roof ponding is expected, is that right? A Pretty much. Q Is there any specification that Carlisle indicates is appropriate for the duration of ponding or how much water would be allowed to pond on a roof before the integrity of the roof might have some difficulties? A There is a specification, but it doesn't refer to the integrity of the roof. The specification is for 48 hours, and the reason the manufacturers have established this and also the National Roofing Contractors Association established this particular limit is that if you have to go up and make a repair on a roof you are going to be paying a lot of extra dollars just to remove the 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 L;? r1 water in order to get to the site of the repair, and that's why they made a recommendation. It was not for the integrity of the roof. Q Now, as I understand it, your testimony is that the selection of using a rubber roofing system was appropriate for both of these buildings? A Because of the condition of the building, yes. Q And what was the specific condition of the building that made it appropriate to use this kind of system? A It ponded a lot of water. Q Okay. And that's true for both buildings in question? A Yes. Q So as far as the selection of the type of system proposed by Mr. Ruda, that was correct? A That was correct. Q Your only complaint about it is the manner in which he installed the system? A That's correct. Q Now, you weren't present during any of the times that Mr. Ruda and his company installed the system, were you? A No, I was not, though that is a service I 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 7.0 21 22 23 24 25 04 provide if a roofer wants it. Q So your conclusion that appropriate procedures were not followed is based upon your observations after the fact? A Yes. My experience indicated that there was a lot of lack of attention. Q The fact that you cited the many procedures that were used on this roof that were not in accordance to specification, does that mean that those procedures inherently were flawed or would cause a problem? Isn't it possible to vary specifications and still have an effective roof system? A It's rare. Q Well, for example, in photograph D you indicated that the flashing around the hatch was not per specification. A That's correct. Q Was there signs of leaking at that hatch? A No. The consideration there is not from immediate leak. The consideration in photograph B for the hatch is that the flashing will fall down and then cause a leak problem. Q In either of your inspections, did you see any sign that the flashing was falling down? A Yes, it was curling at the top. 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 db 4 You also indicated that there were some -- in the two reports you did for the Mooreland roof, that there were some corrective measures taken, is that correct, between the time of the first and the second report? A There were some but they were inadequate. I don't find it in my report in this part here. I'll bring out my own report so I can refer to it while you are examining. My report dated June 23rd, 1997, has an asterisk in the text to indicate which ones are repeats, and that carries up to item number 15. Item number 16 I indicated that several field splices were, quote, repaired, unquote, with an uncured splice tape material which is a misapplication of the product. Seventeen refers to screws installed in the perimeter metal as an improper application. Eighteen was lap sealant /caulking was installed at the bottom of perimeter metal as an attempt to secure. That's a misapplication. Nineteen. Stainless steel clamping bands to be installed on some of the vent pipe stacks. The lap sealant was unbroken which indicated mastic was not applied. Item number 20, materials left uninstalled upon the roof indicated the installer intended to install a 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 M?1 termination or compression bar in each of the roof scuppers. This is not an acceptable securement of the membrane in these areas nor is it an acceptable termination inside the scuppers without the proper installation of the water cut-off mastic between the membrane and scupper materials. That was an item that was noted just as improperly installed in the initial report, and I went into more detail in the second report as to why it was incorrect. Q Do you recall that during the winter of 1996 with all of the snowfalls that occurred that there was an inordinately high number of roofing system failures due to the accumulated snow? A Most of those failures were roofing structure failures, not roofing system failures. Q So that the hard winter that we had in 196 you don't think it was a cause or exacerbated the problems that occurred on this roof? A No. The installation quality was what the original problem was on this roof, and anything that happened subsequent to that was a result of that. Q Was the use of half inch fiberboard appropriate in terms of the material for the system to adhere to? 73 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 A On a properly installed roof, yes, it works fine. Q During your inspection of the roofs on both buildings, did you notice any problems with the drainage system, the scuppers, the gutters and that type of thing? A Oh, yes, photographic evidence showing they were improperly installed. The scuppers were improperly installed. Drainage problems would have existed in the original roof before JR Construction addressed it. Most competent roofers address the building owners do they want this condition resolved and corrected before they install a new roof. Q But you weren't present for any conversations that occurred between Mr. Ruda and the building owner as far as whether the gutters and drainage system was to be taken care of, were you? A I didn't become involved in this project until after the fact. MR. KAYER: I have no further questions. THE COURT: Any redirect? MR. BARIC: Just a few. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BARIC: Q Mr. Clarkson, in terms of the ponding issue, the drainage issue, based upon your experience in the 74 04 A 1 roofing industry, when you go out to look at a built-up 2 roof on a building in place, can you determine when you go 3 on that roof whether that roof ponds water or not? 4 A Absolutely. 5 4 How do you determine whether that roof has a 6 history of ponding water or not? 7 A There's several different signs you look 8 for. You look for sediment ponds, sediment deposits in 9 concentrated areas or general areas. You look for 10 indications at least with built-up. 11 You'll see materials have been leached out 12 of the basic bituminous material. It becomes a little 13 crumbly and dry. It changes color when it's exposed to 14 water over long periods of time. Some of that's the result 15 of sediment, but in any case, indications are there that 16 ponding is a problem. 17 4 In your testimony a few moments ago, you 18 indicated that there was -- was there a problem with the 19 scuppers or drainage out there, your testimony was, as I 20 understand it, related to the actual installation of the 21 rubber to those scuppers or drains, is that correct? 22 A That's the problem, yeah. 23 4 So you are referring to -- when you say, 24 yes, there was a problem with the drainage, you are 25 referring to the way the material -- membrane material was 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is placed into the scuppers? A That's correct, the workmanship and lack of specification completion. MR. BARIC: I have nothing further. THE COURT: Anything else? RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KAYER: Q So if I understand the clarification in your testimony now, you're not saying that the roof drains improperly, are you? A It's a condition of the roof. It's a condition that can be addressed and corrected, but it's not there to make the roof work better. If the roof was installed properly, the presence or absence of the water would not change the function of the roof. MR. KAYER: I have nothing further. THE COURT: You may step down. You are excused if you wish to be. Next. MR. BARIC: We'll call Kevin Hollowell. Whereupon, KEVIN MARK HOLLOWELL, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BARIC: Q Name and address, please. 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A A Kevin Mark Hollowell, 111 Chestnut Avenue, Carlisle. THE COURT: Spell that last name for me. THE WITNESS: H-o-1-1-0-w-e-1-1. BY MR. BARIC: Q Mr. Hollowell, are you employed? A Yes. Q What do you do? A I'm self-employed. I'm a contractor in Carlisle. Q What is the name of your business? A Hollowell Restorations. Q How long have you been so employed? A Over fifteen years. Q In that 15 year period, have you ever been called upon to install a rubber membrane roof? A Yes, many times. Q And have you ever installed a Carlisle SynTec membrane roof? A Yes, I have. Q Do you have any other experience with Carlisle SynTec? A I worked for Carlisle SynTec Systems as a technical representative for two years. Q And when would that have been? 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ot r7 A That was back in 184 and 185. Q And what did you do for Carlisle SynTec as a technical representative? A I was called to make inspections. I was called to offer technical advice in the field, to assist roofers, and just to look for problems and that's basically it. Q Do you recall being contacted by Mary Adams about the roof at 400 South College Street? A Yes, I do. Q And approximately when would that have been? A I had done work for her for quite awhile. I actually worked on the old roof trying to seal up the leaks on the old built-up roof. So it's been, like, back in the 80's. Q Let me ask you, when you were on that roof back in the 80's when it was the old built-up roof, was there evidence of ponding up there then? A Yes. Q When you walked up on the roof, could you see either standing water or debris that there had been ponding on the roof? A Yes. Q Go ahead, if you want to continue with your first contact with Mary. 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Okay. Well, like I said, I had worked for her for quite awhile. I had done some work on the old built-up roof, and then she did talk to me about putting a rubber roof on the Mooreland Building. Q And did you prepare a proposal? A Yes, I did. Q Ultimately you were not selected to install that roof? A That's correct. Q Subsequent to the installation of a new rubber membrane roofing system on the Mooreland Buildings, were you contacted again by Mary Adams with regard to that building? A Yes, I was. Q Approximately when was that? A It was in, I believe, '96, 196, 197, something like that, approximately the same time that Mr. Clarkson was contacted. Q And do you remember going out to the building? A Yes. Q What did you see? A Well, the first thing I noticed when I got through the roof hatch was that some of the rubber was pulled back off the southwest corner. It apparently had 79 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Is M blown back. Q What do you mean by that? A It was just laying in a pile about 15 feet from the edge of the roof. Q The actual membrane sheet had folded back? A Yes. Q What did it expose underneath? A I saw the fiberboard. Q Was it raining then when you were up there? A No, no, it was just windy. Q How far back had it torn back? A It was about 12 or 15 feet. Q What did you do there? A I pushed it back over in the corner, and then I told her about it. And I went around and did an inspection of the roof. Apparently I had been there after Bill Clarkson because I noticed some chalk marks on the rubber that he apparently had been making some marks and notifications on the roof itself with some problems. Q If you'll take a look at Exhibit 4, please, particularly 4B that follows. A 4B. Q Do you see that? A Yes. Q Is this a statement that you prepared 80 ® • 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 regarding the College Street property? A Yes. Q And it's dated December 18th, 1997. Does that refresh your recollection as to when you were out there? A Yes, it does. Q Was it about that period of time? A No, this was later than that. This was after we -- she had started having a lot of problems with it. This was done as a stopgap measure to try to seal over the seams that had been leaking, that had opened up and had been leaking. This was stripped -- the rubber was stripped over -- the seams were stripped over with new rubber to try to keep them from popping open and letting water in. Q Let me take you back then. I don't want to get you off course here. If you had been there prior to December of '97, you were talking about what you saw on the roof when you first went up there, what else did you see other than the membrane being pulled back from the one corner? A Well, she sent me up there because there was a major problem in one of the apartments with a leak in the ceiling that we had noticed, and I went up to see if I could figure out what it was. And the first thing I 81 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 A noticed was that the rubber into the scupper, the drain, was not terminated, that it was just loose in the scupper. Q What do you mean by terminated? A Well, there was no termination. It was just laying loose, and I could feel the fiberboard underneath it with my fingers. Q So the fiberboard was at the edge of the rubber exposed to -- A In the scupper. Q So any water coming down the drain is going to -- A Back up. Q -- back up. What was the condition at that point and time, if you recall, as to the wood fiberboard insulation? A Well, that area it was starting to get kind of moist, and a couple areas where the seams had opened up I noticed a little bit of mushiness. But originally it wasn't totally damaged, you know, over all of it, but that happened through an amount of time. Q If you look at what had been premarked as Plaintiff's Exhibits 13A through G. Do you recognize those photographs? A Yes. This is apartment 302, I think. This was damage to the ceiling and walls. i 82 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 a Q And there appears to be a date code in the corner. A Yes. Q 12/8/97, correct? A Yes, which is about the same time I did the work on the roof. Q That is the scooping in of the seams, correct? A Yes. And this shows what happens after an amount of time with water coming through the roof and wetting the plaster that starts to release and fall. Q So these were conditions inside one of the apartments at -- A Actually this is two different apartments. Q Two apartments? A Um-hum. I can tell because the one has a drop ceiling that was put in from prior repairs -- that was a stopgap type of thing because the plaster was coming off the ceiling so they put a drop ceiling in there, and that was a different apartment. Q Let me ask you this, Mr. Hollowell, out of all of the times that you've been out there, have you ever actually seen water coming into the apartments? A Yes. Q Could you describe for the Court what that ':fa 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ED appears to be? A Well, it usually happened around the perimeter, so it was around windows and walls that I was seeing water coming in. Although last year prior to reroofing the center section, there was actually water streaming down the walls from the third floor right down to the first floor. Q Inside the building? A Inside the building. Q That takes me to my next point which is at some point in time did you recommend to Mary Adams that she replace a portion of the roofing system? A Well, when I went up that time and I walked over to an area that looked like it was becoming delaminated, I found out when I walked on it that it was water underneath the roof membrane. Q What do you mean by -- A It was like a water bed. There was water underneath the rubber. Q What do you mean by delaminated? A Well, the rubber delaminates. If it's an adhered system and the water is delaminating off of the insulation, then it's not really attached to anything anymore. I went over to look at it, and I stepped on it and there was water underneath. 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 Q Where was this on the roof? A That was in the center section right near the one scupper. Q And did you subsequently undertake any repairs? A Well, I opened it up just to see what was going on, and I noticed that the insulation was just totally turned to mush. So I told her about it, and I took a picture of it. But then we went ahead and patched over the place where I opened it up. But that's when we started to do the splicing of the seams just as a stopgap measure, and we realized that that probably wouldn't hold forever because if there's already water underneath the rubber once the sunlight in the summer hits it steam would probably blow the seams back open eventually. Q Did you subsequently reroof the center section of the roof on Mooreland? A Yes, last year. Q And you've heard testimony, you were in the courtroom, as to the amount that was paid to you by Mary to do that work. Is that a fair and reasonable amount of money to pay for the replacement of that center section^: A Yeah, it was a fair price. Q What did you see when you actually started 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 C`7 taking the membrane back to replace that section? A There were no fiberboards that weren't wet. There was no dry fiberboard. I guess it eventually had just turned into a big sponge and just sucked everything up. Actually I likened the removal as to, like, mucking out a horse stall because it was just totally mush. We had to shovel it off, and all the rubber had to be thrown away because it still had pieces of wet fiberboard stuck to the back of it. Q If you'll look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, please. A Okay. Q Is that a document that you prepared? A Yes. Q An what is that proposal? A This is a proposal for one section of the remaining two sections that are still with JR's roof. This is for one side, but essentially they are mirror images so it would be the same for both sides. This would be to reroof the other sections. Q And is that a fair and reasonable price for the reroofing of those sections of the building? A Pretty much so. The insulation we are using now we're not using fiberboard we're using an isocyanate 86 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that water would not affect, but it's a little more expensive than -- it is more expensive than fiberboard. Q If you'll turn to Exhibit 9, please. A Okay. Q Do you recall going out to 313 South Hanover Street at Mary's request? A Yes. Q What did you see when you went out to 313 South Hanover Street? A Well, we had been having a continual problem in the doctor's office, the dentist office, and when it still happened after it was reroofed, we went up to look and see what the problem was. I noticed right off the bat, and I showed it to Mary, she was with me at the time, that I reached up under the counter flashing on the brick wall and pulled the rubber down, that it was loose. Q Nothing holding it up? A It wasn't terminated. Q What do you recall as being the condition, if you could tell, of the wood fiberboard when you were out there? A At that point in time it wasn't too bad except in the one area in the corner where it was leaking and then it was kind of mushy. 87 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q What condition did you observe as to the drains, termination to the drains? A On that roof I can't recall because it's just a single through wall drain. Q Did you replace a section of the JR work on 313 South Hanover Street? A Yeah, I replaced a section over top of the dentist office. Q And the cost for that replacement was it fair and reasonable? A Yeah, it was reasonable. Q And at Exhibit 9 did you prepare a proposal for Mrs. Adams regarding the additional replacement that is required at that building? A Yes, this is the proposal for doing the final section of it. Q Is that a fair and reasonable price to replace that roof section? A Yes, it is. Q Not to belabor things but, Mr. Hollowell, if you will go to Exhibit 4. A Four? Q Yes. And flip through the documents, a number of which appear to be invoices from you. If you will just review those and let me know whether those are 88 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 a a documents that were prepared by you in the ordinary course of your business? A Yes. 4B was the bill for stripping off the roof at Mooreland. 9D was repairs inside Mooreland because of the plaster. 9E was repairs to Mooreland, the patching. Q That's the last one on that invoice, correct? A Right. 9F, patching in 302. That was one of the pictures with the cow on it. I guess that's it. Q Then if you will flip to Exhibit 9, please. There are a series of invoices that follow that. A Okay. Q Beginning with 8B, I believe. A Well, Exhibit 9 is -- Q I'm sorry, Exhibit 8, correct me. A That's the estimate. Eight, okay. Q Yes, 8B. A 8B is a bill to inspect the roof. Q These all relate to 313, correct? A Yes, yes. Yeah, this is for 313 South Hanover. Okay. This is -- 8C was repair to the rubber roof and adding a scupper through the wall. 8D is a bill for 313 South Hanover, the back roof that hasn't been redone yet. I state there that water is in the seams ands 89 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 A in the flashing. We had to strip off some of the areas there to try and keep the seams from blowing open or letting more water in. BE is for 313. That's a bill for taking snow and ice off the back roof because every time it gets any moisture now it's going inside the building. So that's what 8F is also. With all of the rain we've had this spring, every time it rains I have to get up there and clean the water off so it doesn't irritate the tenant anymore than it already has. 8G is a bill for repairing the ceiling in the dentist office after we did the -- reroofed over that area. 81f is also -- it's a quotation for repairs to be done in the -- or it is actually repairs, repairs to 313 in the rear office replacing ceiling tiles and a drywall area. 8I is the bill for reroofing that area over the dentist office. Q Mr. Hollowell, based upon your review of the roofing systems when you were there both at 900 South College Street as well as 313 South Hanover Street, did you conclude that the roofing systems installed by JR Construction needed to be replaced? A Yes. Q In your experience in roofing, have you 90 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A r? worked on flat roofs before? A Yes, I have. Q Have you ever noticed ponded water on flat roofs? A Yes. Q Is it unusual in your business to see ponded water on a flat roof? A Not really. A lot of the roofs were designed to hold a certain amount of water so you don't have the shedding problem, the water runoff. Q Too much water too fast? A Um-hum. MR. BARIC: I have nothing further at this time, Your Honor, except I would again move for admission of my exhibits. THE COURT: I will hold. Cross. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KAYER: Q Mr. Hollowell, would you consider yourself a roofing specialist? A I don't know if I would say specialist. I do a lot of different kind of roofs. Q Are you what the last witness indicated as an authorized applicator for Carlisle Systems? A No, I'm not. 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A • Q Have you been regularly employed by Ms. Adams as her maintenance man over the course of these many years at these buildings? A I'm not really a maintenance man per se. I do repairs for her whenever she needs work done. Q In looking in Exhibit 8C, one of the items of work there that was listed by you was the installation of an additional scupper. Why was that needed? A Well, I determined that the original roof only had one drain, and I thought that it would be a lot better if we put a second one in there to keep the water off of that, evacuate the water quicker if there was two drains. Q Why is it important to evacuate the water quicker? A There is a doorway out onto that roof, and if we didn't the water may back up into the house. Q So at least as far as that goes you did have a concern about ponding that was occurring on that roof and it had to be alleviated. Is that a fair assessment? A Yes. THE COURT: That was 313 South Hanover? THE WITNESS: Yes. Because of the proximity of the tenant's door, I thought it would be a good idea not to have water laying on it. 92 A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. KAYER: Q And, in fact, the invoices for BE and 8F those pertain solely to the removal of water and snow and so forth from that same building? A The back roof. Q So you were removing the accumulated water, the ponding and the other snow and so forth at that time? A Yes. Q Did you have an opportunity to speak with Mr. Ruda over the course of time that he was contracted to do the work on both buildings? A I saw him at one of the times when Mary had called him back to go take care of some of those things. I saw him out there on the roof with some of his guys. Q Did you discuss with Mr. Ruda his concern about the improper drainage on both roofs? A He did mention to me that she needs to fix the drains. That's what he said. Q Did you concur with him at that time that that was a necessary repair? A I just said that I had cleaned them out. I don't remember actually the whole conversation. When I did talk to him the first time when we had some water coming into one of the corner apartments, he did mention to me he 93 a a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thought it was not the roof, he thought it was the drainpipe itself. That's when I had to go up and take a look at it, and that's when I found out that the rubber wasn't terminated in the scupper. Q During the period of time that you had this conversation and you cleared out the drains, did you notice that there was a back up of water in the drains? A No. Q You don't remember indicating to Mr. Ruda that you had to clear them out because there was 8 inches of water in those drains? A No, I don't remember that. Q Or on the roof? A No. Q Do you recall over the course of your working on the Mooreland Building water backing up over the side of the roof and running down the side of the building? A I had seen that happen before. Q That's along the side of the building where gutters exist? A There's scuppers all around the building. Q Okay. What actions did you take to correct that problem? A Well, myself and Mary's husband, Mark, had both gone up there several times and cleaned the drains out 94 A ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to make sure -- she does maintain the drains because as any other building, you know, you have to keep the drains open or you'll have a lot of problems. Q Did you have an opportunity to inspect the installed roof systems just after they were installed by Mr. Ruda? A Yes. Q Did you notice any difficulties or problems with the insta llation at that time? A Yes. Q Who did you tell? A I told Mary. Q You tol d Mary? A Um-hum. And she said that she had somebody else going out to take a look at it, and that was Mr. Clarkson. Q When did you first observe these difficulties with the installation? A Right before he was called to do the necessary repairs I noticed some of the improper installations. Q But you don't have any documentation or report or even an estimate that you wrote up about what it would take to correct that when you first noticed the problems? 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i A I didn't mark anything down other than just telling her verbally, just a verbal report to her. MR. KAYER: I have nothing further. THE COURT: Anything else? MR. BARIC: Just a few. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BARIC: Q Kevin, as in the building at 313 South Hanover Street, one of the invoices indicates that you added a scupper to that roof. Did you subsequently replace that roof? A Yeah, we turned around and ended up having to replace the roof. Q And, in fact, you replaced that roof -- if I continue through the documents to Exhibit 81, you replaced it within one month of adding the scupper. Is that true? A Yes. Q So what condition was the roof in when you added the scupper? A Well, it was -- it had apparently been leaking into the dentist office, and I thought by adding the scupper we would at least keep the water from leaking into that office. We would get it off the building. But as I found out later on that the insulation was saturated underneath the rubber, and anytime any water would sit on 96 1 it it would squeeze the moisture out of the insulation out 2 into the rooms below. 3 Q So your conclusion was that the water was 4 already in there before the scupper was added, is that 5 correct? 6 A Um-hum. And after we took the rubber off, 7 we found out it was a worse problem than I had originally 8 thought. 9 Q As to 400 South College Street, the 10 Mooreland Building, through your investigations was it your 11 conclusion that there was some drainage characteristic 12 there that had actually caused the water to get into the 13 underlying wood fiberboard? 14 A Well, the failure to terminate scuppers, let 15 the rubber loose, let the water back up. 16 Q So when you are talking about the drainage 17 aspect of that problem, it is the water running into the 18 drain and finding exposed to fiberboards? 19 A Yeah. It wasn't the water in the drains 20 that was causing the problem, but, you know, it was 21 actually the rubber installation itself. 22 MR. BARIC: Thank you. I have nothing 23 further. 24 MR. KAYER: No recross. 25 THE COURT: Sir, you are excused. 97 A I THE WITNESS: Thank you. 2 THE COURT: Next. 3 MR. BARIC: Plaintiffs rest, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: Now, you move for all of your 5 exhibits? 6 MR. BARIC: I do, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Any objection? 8 MR. BARIC: I would note on that point that 9 Exhibit 11, while I had it included, I did not make 10 reference to which was a resume for Mr. Clarkson since he 11 was offered and accepted as an expert. 12 THE COURT: All right. 13 MR. KAYER: No, I have no objection. 14 THE COURT: All of plaintiff's exhibits are 15 admitted. Def ense. 16 MR. KAYER: We'll call Joseph Ruda to the 17 stand. 18 THE COURT: You are already sworn. 19 Whereupon, 20 JOSEPH S. RUDA, 21 having been previously sworn, testified as follows: 22 DIRECT EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. KAYER: 24 Q Mr. Ruda, can you state your name for the 25 record, please. 98 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 WOW 1'"1 A Joseph S. Ruda. Q Where do you live, sir? A 995 Doubling Gap Road, Newville, PA. Q And you are self-employed? A That's correct. Q How long have you been self-employed? A Approximately 10, 11 years. Q Now, do you do business as a particular entity? I know, for example, you've already had Articles of Incorporations for JR Construction. A That's correct. Q Were you doing business on your own prior to the corporation of JR Construction? A Yes. Q Was that as a sole proprietor? A Correct. Q And do you use the name JR Construction or did you use your own name? A JR Construction. Q Now, can you give us an idea of your background as far as what training and experience you've had in roofing work? A Well, I would say about 20 years, 10 years before I started a business, and 10 years after as a roofer. 99 c 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 II?p 4 Before you started the business, who were you employed by? A I worked for a bunch of different roofing companies, Myers and Myers, Black and Son, you know, it goes back a long way. Q And the work that you do at JR Construction, is that strictly working on roofs or do you work on other elements of construction? A Other elements but mainly roofing. I believe we did the old courthouse over here, the gutters and when the snow blows on them. 4 How long have you been working with Carlisle Rubber products in your roofing work? A Well, Carlisle Rubber, actually they supply all of the rubber for most of the other corporations today like Shullar, Firestone. They make, you know, most of the product for everyone. Q So how long have you been working with Carlisle products whether they have been designated as Carlisle or Shullar or one of these other products? A Ten years. Q How many -- during the time, say, during the ten years that you have been operating on your own -- A Fifty, 50 roofs. Q Fifty roofs you have done? 100 a 1 A Yes, sir. 2 Q How many of those have been flat roofs 3 similar to the two that you worked on for Adams and Adams? 4 A I would say about 45. 5 Q Now, have you ever attended any courses or 6 classes or received any specific training on how to handle 7 Carlisle roofing products? 8 A No, I didn't, but my guys work for a company 9 and actually they went through the SynTec course so they 10 could work for whatever the company was. 11 Q When you say your guys, this is the crew you 12 had working on -- 13 A Right. I think it's CV Roofing. 14 Q Okay. How did you first come to know Miss 15 Adams? 16 A Well, she called up to get an estimate and 17 said she only wanted to get half the roof installed during 18 194 and the rest in '95, and she said she was having a 19 problem there was a lot of leaks on the roof, the existing 20 roof, and she wanted it on ASAP. 21 Q What was the condition of the roof on the 22 Mooreland Building, which is the first one you worked on, 23 at the time that you first prepared the estimate? 24 A Well, it was leaking bad. There was a lot 25 of water on it. We had to shop vac it up, and I think she 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Art had told me she turned in two insurance claims already and the exhibit of the one apartment, whatever it is. So she had a lot of problems with the roof leaking before. Q How much time passed from the time that you drew up that estimate until you commenced work? A Probably about three months, three months, something like that. Q Now, you indicated that she was in a hurry to get this done? A Yes, sir. Q Can you describe in more detail why you say that? A Well, she had said there was a lot of apartments that were leaking very bad and that she needed to get the roof on ASAP no matter what. Q ASAP and no matter what. What do you mean? A Well, there was dampness on there. There was a little bit of water we had to shop vac up, and I told her you might have some problems with your gutters, that you do not want ponding water on there, and we would add them at an additional cost. Otherwise, there might be some maintenance repairs that would need to be done, but we will hold the manufacturer's warranty with JR Construction. Q Now, the extra witness that was here earlier indicated that Carlisle SynTec would not honor a warranty 102 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 ?M by someone who had put this on that was not an authorized applicator. A We did not do a Carlisle SynTec System installation. Q What did you do? A We did a JR Construction system installation, but we used Carlisle Rubber. Q So in both the proposals you made, you did confirm that Carlisle Rubber was to be used? A Yes, sir. Q And in references to the warranty, there were references to your own warranty not the product's warranty? A Exactly. Q Now, the fact that Mrs. Adams expressed concern to get this done quickly, did that impact on your ability to install the material properly? A No, not at all. Q How long did it take for you to complete the job on the Mooreland Building? A Well, there was two different times we went there. I think it took a week for the first application, and about a week and a half for the second, the second two-thirds of the building which was seven months down the road, whatever. 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 C rl Q You mentioned earlier that you had a crew going out to help you. Was it the same crew that helped in both projects? A Yes. Q And what steps do you take to insure that the men that you hired to do a job are properly trained to do the job? A I was personally on the job and inspect everything myself. Q Are you aware of what kind of background your crew has in terms of experience of installing these kind of roofs? A Yes, I am. Q How did you become aware of that background? A They work for CV Roofers which they have to go through the Carlisle SynTec course to be trained as roofers. Q Were you personally on the job site, on the Mooreland site, when both projects were done? A Yes, I was. Q For each day that the work was done? A Yes, sir. Q Upon completion of the job, did you indicate to Miss Adams that she may still run into some difficulties because of the drainage? 104 a 1 A The first call I ever got was there was a 2 roof leak and actually water -- 3 THE COURT: That is not the question. When 4 you completed the job, did you tell her she would have 5 future drainage problems? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. 7 BY MR. KAYER: 8 Q What actions did you recommend that she take 9 at that time? 10 A I said she should install at least three to 11 five more drains in the center of the building to keep 12 water from ponding. 13 Q In your experience, what are the 14 difficulties that an owner can anticipate if water ponds on 15 the top of the roof? 16 A Water ponding? The warranty is voided after 17 three to four days. I thought Mr. Clarkson would know 18 that. 19 Q Which warranty are you talking about? 20 A It voids the warranty of the roof. You 21 cannot have ponding for more than three to four days on any 22 rubber roof or it voids the warranty. 23 THE COURT: What warranty? 24 THE WITNESS: A warranty for any rubber 25 roof. 105 ar 1 THE COURT: What warranty in this case? 2 BY MR. KAYER: 3 Q Are you talking about the -- 4 A The roof itself. 5 Q -- product's warranty or your personal 6 warranty for -- 7 A No, the manufacturer's warranty, plus my 8 own. 9 Q Now, you indicated that you were contacted 10 by Miss Adams after the roof was installed? 11 A About two years later when she was short on 12 money. 13 Q Well, did she contact you about any 19 complaints about leaks? 15 A It was approximately two years after the 16 winter of 195, '96, and she said some of the rubber had 17 blown back on the one edge but there was nothing leaking, 18 and her mainte nance man, Kevin, just happened to notice it. 19 Q Did you take any steps to correct the 20 problems once she reported that to you? 21 A Yes, we did. 22 Q What did you do? 23 A We retucked the rubber down underneath. 29 That was the first call back. Like I said, there was no 25 water at all coming in anywhere in the building. 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a s Q Now, you said that was the first call back. Were there others? A Yes, there was one more, and that was in '97, I believe it was. We went out and did all of the necessary repairs. I got a call back from her said everything was fine, the roof wasn't leaking. Q You say you did all of the necessary repairs on the second callback. A Yes, sir. Q Do you recall what specific repairs were done at that time? A Well, actually it looked like somebody had pulled one of the seams up on one section, and that might have been Mr. Clarkson doing his report. But other than that, that was about it. There was one splice that had failed or had been pulled up or whatever. Q In your two trips back to the Mooreland Building, did you notice ponding that you had concerns about that had occurred? A Okay. Actually the first time I was called out there was water coming in on the one apartment, and we went up on the roof and there was 8 inches of water standing there for who knows how long, a year, six months, I don't know. All of the drains were clogged. We told her at that point that the water was 107 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 G 0 actually coming over the top of the building and coming in the window, and that's exactly what was happening so we -- Q Go ahead. A We went up and actually opened the drains up for them at no cost. Q The scope of your work on the Mooreland Building, was that to include reinstalling gutters or doing anything with the drainage system? A No, it wasn't, no. Like I said, we had suggested that, you know, you need more gutters and downspouts up there, that they should be installed to get your full warranty out of the roof. Q Let me direct your attention then to the Hanover Street building. A Okay. Q When were you first contacted by Miss Adams about that building? A Well, when was it, '96? The contract is here. Oh, about a leak? Q No, to actually do the work, when she first contacted you to do an estimate. A I think it was 1996. Q And at that time what step did you take when she first contacted you? A Well, she was happy about the other job and, 108 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 04 you know, decided she wanted to hire us to do that roof too. Q So did you go out and inspect the site? A Yes, I did. Q What did you observe when you first inspected the site? A Nothing really. You know, it was a built-up roof. Apparently it was leaking, you know. You can't really see them, visualize them, but, you know, I guess she was in need of a roof replacement. Q Was there ponding visible on the roof at the time that you first inspected it? A I don't think so, no. Well, if there was ponding, I guess there wouldn't be a leak so I don't know. Q Now, did you hire a crew to do the work on that building as well? A Yes, and I was personally there everyday. Q Was this the same crew again that you had employed on the Mooreland Building? A I think I had a couple new guys working for us then, but I know her husband personally inspected the job and so did Mr. Hollowell before she paid us, minus a thousand dollars that is. Q We'll get to the payment situation in a second. 109 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 a A Okay. Q After you had completed work on that building, were you ever contacted by the owner as far as any additional problems or leaks or difficulties with the installation? A No, never, never called back for anything. Q Now, for the first project that you did on the Mooreland Building -- A Right. Q -- were you fully paid for that? A Yes, we were. Q The second project on the Hanover Street building, were you fully paid for that? A No, we were not. She was, well, as she said, having a lot of financial difficulties and something with her son or, you know, health problems or whatever. Q You had made special arrangements with her to take installments for the first project? A Yes, we did. Q And she paid through on that just fine? A Yes, she did. Q The second project you also allowed for installments? A Yes, I did. Q And the last. installment wasn't paid? 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 w r? .? A No, it was not. Q Did you ever contact Miss Adams regarding the reason why she didn't pay you the final thousand dollars? A Yes, many times. She had financial difficulties, and she didn't have the money. Q The fact that you weren't fully paid on that job, did that impact on your willingness or ability to do any additional follow-up work or make good on the warranty? A No. First of all, I was never called back for any roof leak on that building, particular one, and I did go out and make all of the necessary repairs on the other one even though I never had my thousand dollars anyway. Q Now, based upon your observations on both of the buildings, do you have a theory as to why you believed there were continuing leakage problems, sir? MR. BARIC: Your Honor, is this expert testimony? THE COURT: He can testify in that capacity. He is the roofer. He did the work. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Like I said, the first time we were called back water was coming up over the building into the window. In fact, if you go out and take a look at it, you can see all of the rust there where there 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 n W 4 was no maintenance done on their drains, never unclogged, so there was 8 inches of water on there. How long will a roof last? Personally I would say about five years before you are going to have to do maintenance on it or two or three or whatever, but our word is our word, and we always back up our warranty. BY MR. KAYER: Q Mr. Clarkson indicated that ponding in and of itself is not a problem with a properly installed rubber roof. Do you disagree wiLh him? A I definitely disagree, and personally I know three to four days is the maximum amount. I think he did say 48 hours at one point. But they will not hold their warranty up if there's ponding more than that, especially a month, two months, six. Q Over the course of time that you worked on these roofs, did you have an opportunity to take any photographs of the conditions that you found? A Yes, I did. Unless that's a river -- Q Let me show you these photographs which have been designated Defendants' Exhibit 1 through 8. Do you recognize those photographs? A Yes, I do. It looks like the Mooreland Building. Q Are those pictures that you took? 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • s A Yes, they are. Q Now, taking a look at -- if you can look at the back of the picture to tell us what picture you are looking at. Is that -- what defendants' exhibit number is that? That's number 1. A Okay, number 1. Q What is that picture depicting? A This picture depicts where the first initial leak was, well, the only that I know of personally where the water was coming over the top of the building and running into the brick and the window. Q Okay. What's the next picture show on this? What's that designated? A This is -- Q That's number 5? A Yeah, Defendant's Exhibit 5. This is Letort Creek and now it's the roof. Q Well, now, keep the humor out of it. A Okay. Q What is that showing us? A It's showing you that there is, you know, 5 to 6 inches of water on the roof. Q When did you take this picture? A Actually I took that one, I would say, about a month ago. 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A a Q What number is that picture that you are looking at? A Six. Q What is that depicting? A A lot of water on the roof. Q Is this also taken approximately a month ago? A Yes, it was. Q This is on the Mooreland Building again? A Yes, sir. Q What are we looking at now? A Number 7, the same thing. Q More pooling. And this again is a picture that was taken approximately one month ago? A Exactly. I think it was about four or five days since the last rain. I'm an amateur meteorologist so I keep track of the weather being in the roofing business. Q Okay. What is the next one showing us? A Number 2 shows the rust on the side of the building where the water has been continuously running over top from non-maintenance drains. This is number 8. It shows the Carlisle logo of the rubber. Q And this is the water that's still ponding over it again? A Sure. 114 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q This is, again, taken about a month ago you said? A Yes, sir. The same thing here, number 4, more water. Q And the final picture? A Number 3, a lot of water. Q The ponding depicted in these pictures, is that the condition that you found each time that you were going up on the roof of the Mooreland Building? A I'll put it this way, this is the least amount of water. The first time I was up there there was 8 inches. Now, like I said, this is a month ago here, I don't know, there's about 3 or 4 or 5, whatever, but the first time I was there you couldn't even step out of the hatch because, you know, unless you had boots on. Q Directing your attention back to the Hanover Street project. If you had been provided the opportunity to do corrective work on there, on that project, would you have done it despite the fact that you hadn't been paid the final thousand dollars? A Yes, sir. My word is my word. MR. KAYER: I have no further questions. THE COURT: Cross. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BARIC: 115 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 • Q Mr. Ruda, your testimony was that these photographs were at least -- as I understand it, most of these photographs were taken just a month ago, is that correct? A Around that, yes. Q And these photographs include -- particularly I'm looking at Defense Exhibit 7. That would include water ponding over the center section of that roof, wouldn't it? A That's the whole roof looking out of the hatch. Q So the entire roof is ponded in your photographs? A Exactly. Q And you are aware that the center section of the roof had been replaced by Mr. Hollowell's business? A Well, that's what he said. Q Could you tell that when you were up there? A Could I tell? Q Could you tell that the center section had been replaced? A No, I couldn't. Q Were you aware when you went up there a month ago that the center section hasn't been leaking since it's been replaced? 116 c 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Oft dMl A No. 4 Yet it was ponding in the area that had been replaced, isn't that true? A For how long? 4 Let's talk about the warranty. Where is the warranty? Where is the written piece of paper that says warranty on top of it? A It is on the contract. 4 Well, it says that you are going to get a 25 year warranty. Where is the warranty that says JR Construction at the top? A It's on the contract. 4 You never provided Mrs. Adams with any piece of paper that said here's your warranty document, did you? A No, no certification because it's not a Carlisle SynTec System if you read the contract correctly, sir. 4 Well, if you look at the proposal -- A Carlisle Rubber it says. 4 -- Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2, your proposal, take a look at that, please. There is your proposal. That's your proposal, right? A Yes, sir. 4 It says install Carlisle SynTec Rubber, right? 117 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Right. Q Does it say anywhere on there Firestone? A No. Q Does it say anywhere on there, sir, Manville? A No. Q Does it say anywhere on there Shullar? A No, but it does not say system either. Q It says install Carlisle SynTec Rubber, correct? A Rubber, exactly. Q Now, you indicated in your testimony that your warranty, as I understand it, would be voided if water stayed on that roof for more than three days? A I think any corporation's would too. I'm not saying it would be voided, but there would have to be maintenance done and drains added. Q Well, your testimony was that it was voided. Now you are saying that's not your testimony, it's not voided by three days of water on the roof? A Personally, no, we're not going to void the warranty. I'm just saying there's going to have to be maintenance done if you have ponding like that. Q As I understand your testimony, when you went up on that roof to prepare your proposal, you were 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 N r2 aware that the roof ponded water, weren't you? A There was some up there. Q Well, you said in your testimony you went to Mary Adams and you said add more drains? A Right. Q And you did that before you prepared your proposal, correct? A Yes. Q Then why in your proposal didn't you indicate that one of two things needed to happen, either add more drainage and here's your price to do it, or your warranty is voided in three days if you don't add those extra drains? A We never said that, and we always backed up our warranty. And I asked her about buying drains at an extra price verbally, and she decided not to. Q But you didn't include it on your proposal? A No. Q You didn't make it as an alternate, add drains X dollars per drain? A No, it was a verbal -- Q Have you ever done that on a proposal on any of the 45 or 50 roofing projects that you have done? A No, it's usually a verbal agreement. Q So you've never said to an owner here's what 119 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A G it would cost to add additional drains to your roof? A Yes, I did, many times. Q And you've never put that into writing on a proposal that JR Construction has submitted to a building owner? A No. Well, maybe once, twice, I don't know. Q Take a loo k at Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, please. Do you have that in front of you? A Yeah. Q This is an invoice from your company, right? A Hold on a second. Okay. Q Is th at an invoice from your company to Mary Adams? A Yes, it is. Q And that relates to the Mooreland Building, correct? A Right. Q And you did break out on that invoice a special category for flashing, didn't you? A Excuse me? Q You did break out on that invoice a special category for flashing, didn't you? A Yes. Q You indicated that you believe Carlisle SynTec makes Firestone Rubber. How are you aware of that? 120 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 A I think they make Firestone, Shullar. Q Do you know that? A Yes. Q How do you know that? A How do I know? Q Sure. A From our distributors. Carlisle makes it for everybody pretty much. It might not be Firestone, but Shullar, GenFlex, a lot of the corporations. They bought them out. Q Did you ever install the walkway paths on 313 South Hanover Street? A No, I didn't. Q You know that was part of the underlying contract? A Well, actually, yes, but there was a verbal agreement she was going to pay extra for that. Q That wasn't part of the underlying contract? A It's written in there, but it was a verbal agreement like I trusted her to pay me my money. Q You indicated that some of the photographs you had there was rust on the metal work on the side of the building. Do you know how old the building is? A I have no idea. Q Do you know whether that metal work has ever 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A? been painted from the day that it was installed -- originally installed on the building? A I'm sure it was. That's my point. It was fresh rust from a continuous problem. Q You don't know when the rust started and ended? A And ended, no. Q You don't know if that could have been rust from when it was the existing building? A When I saw the water come down over the side of the building running in the window, that's one of the sides I took the picture on. If you look at the whole building itself, that's the only place on the whole building where you will find that rust. Q At that one location at the one drain? A That one window, yes, the whole side of the building. MR. BARIC: I have nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any redirect? REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KAYER: Q It seems that you're making a distinction between Carlisle SynTec Rubber and a Carlisle SynTec System. 122 o< 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 4 • A Exactly. Q What's the difference? A The difference is alls we said is we're buying Carlisle Rubber to install on your roof. Q Okay. What does the term Carlisle SynTec System mean to you? A The Carlisle SynTec System is what Mr. Clarkson used to perform, or whatever, sells. That's an exact system that has to be done per, you know, screws, this, that, whatever. MR. KAYER: I have nothing further. THE COURT: Anything else? MR. BARIC: Nothing further. THE COURT: You may step down. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. KAYER: Your Honor, we'll move for the admission of Defendants' Exhibits 1 through 8. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. BARIC: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: They are admitted. MR. KAYER: And we will close. THE COURT: Defense rests. Any rebuttal? MR. BARIC: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: The record is closed. Let's take a five minute break, and I will have oral argument. 123 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 A w We will not need the stenographer for that. Reconvene at five of. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken at 11:49 a.m.) (Whereupon, oral argument was held off the record.) (Whereupon, the trial was concluded.) 124 4 a 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of same. i Pamela R. Sheaffer Official Court Reporter ----------------------------- The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. Date Edgar B. Bayl y, J. Ninth Judici 1 District 125 ?l :I:fY U `.J LL (CI C.L-6 '- (:;2u 54.4 G 1 1 Name Street /`//,?'l h city `-?C`-<--<<S C.C2 Phone ' `7 3 sss At-)? 1 7 013 CL 51 6Z PROPOSAL 9 State T ?- `? l J No. __.... _ Date Sheet No. Street U069.1' City State pl¢- Date of Plans Architect We hereby propose t furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of / Iif1.? 5? f1LS 'rte C-M/ l?E? ?Cm ? Gc Sib oQ.T.KIF?W'S : ?j/. ,Cc?`CFEFaJ ?? cc? T Clc?? .Qzs?? ?Zrl c.c?aJ6 ' aY&<4 01r <:Xr 44•---. w?L.S `?3Fs'srO-Q. je.Z a2c C-7 l ?R` ' '`' 7 ?TT'YJ ?? r!?(z ?? 31? 'tea ?? o oa.? cF?c_? t c 6L--o3V6 ? 41FC? All material is guaranteed to be as specified. and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of ?l Dollars f$ 1. with payments to be made as follows: toff l 1?s <ZX4'4T7z(J'-1 Any alteration or deviation from abow specdmaorns involmng e.Lra costs, will be executed only upon written oWec;, and wdl became an Respectfully submitted extra chalge over and shove the estimate All rol On u, upon stnkee. accidents above Lhys beyna our eontpntrol a mner er Lo m cu ry r fire, tornado and other necessary insurance upon above wurl.. wurk Per men' s Compensation and Public Lidbia'y In1wance on abase wart La he takenout by Note This props al may oe withdrawn by us if not accepted within rD days. I ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The ahpve prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the ied. Payment will be made as outlined above. Signature - OC) S - Date _ Signature 10 iwIW FORM 31350 ORIGINAL MADE IN U S A. ADAMS and ADAMS, Plaintiff V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH RUDA, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1999-05162 PRAECIPE TO REDUCE VERDICT TO JUDGMENT TO: Curtis Long, Prothonotary Please reduce the verdict of May 4, 2000 by Bayley, J. to judgment as follows: On the contract dated March 7, 1994 in favor of the Plaintiff and against Joseph S. Ruda and JR Construction, Inc. in the amount of $21,440.59 On the contract dated August 16, 1996 in favor of the Plaintiff and against JR Construction, Inc. in the amount of $5,434.88. Respectfully submitted, EN, BARIC SCI 77VIAIV 8c CI I2?R ' David A. Baric, Esquire I.D. 44853 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 da b. d i r/litigation/ad a ms/do c u men t/verd icti udgm ent. p ra CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May L , 2004, I, David A. Baric, Esquire of O'Brien, Baric & Scherer, did serve a copy of the Praecipe To Reduce Verdict To Judgment, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below, as follows: JR Construction, Inc. 42 East Locust Street # 3 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055 Joseph Ruda 65 Derbyshire Drive Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 David A. Baric, Esquire V r- LL I ? ? W L Cyr ? Ll- Q T p ? V ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff, V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS ON ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, V. : NO. 99-5162 JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S, RUDA, individually and : CIVIL ACTION-LAW as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. EXHIBITS LIST 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Certified copy of Deed. J.R. Construction proposal for Mooreland building. J.R. Construction account statement for Mooreland building. Cost sheet for Mooreland building with supporting invoices. K. Hollowell proposal for replacement of North and South sections. J.R. Construction proposal for 313 S. Hanover Street. J.R. Construction account statement for 313 S. Hanover Street. Cost sheet for 313 S. Hanover Street with supporting invoices. K. Hollowell proposal for replacement of remaining section on 313 S. Hanover Street. Articles of Incorporation for J.R. Construction, Inc. Clarkson resume. Clarkson photographs. K. Hollowell photographs. 4 0 0 • COMMONWEALTH of PENNSYLVANIA County of CUMBERLAND SS I Robert P. Ziegler, Recorder, do hereby Certify that the foregoing lsa true and rrget ropy as rain (??? 1 Vd _ - t2 Page Witness " b hard kiall "I thle 14 Day of . w Explree, THIS DEED MADE THIS 30th day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred eighty-eight (1988). BETWEEN GEORGE F. GARDNER, of the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, hereinafter referred to asr Grantor, and MARK E. ADAMS and MARY ANNE ADAMS, husband and wife, of West Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, hereinafter referred to as: Grantees, WITNESSETH, that in consideration of ONE and 00/100 ($1.00) Dollar in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the said Grantor does hereby grant and convey to the said Grantees, their heirs and assigns, all the said Grantor's right, title and interest in the following described real estate: Tract No. 1: ALL THAT CERTAIN tract of land with the improvements thereon erected situate in the First Ward of the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and described in accordance with Subdivision Plan for the Female Benevolent Society of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, prepared by Stephen G. Fisher, Registered Surveyor, dated February 15, 1982, a copy of which was recorded on April 13, 1982, in the hereinafter named Recorder's Office in Plan Book 41, Page 108, which Plan is incorporated herein by reference, as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the northern line of 80-feet wide East High Street at the dividing line between properties numbered 169 and 175 East High Street, which point at the Place of Beginning is in line of the face of the eastern wall of the two-story brick building known as 169 East High Street; thence from said point at the Place of Beginning, along said dividing line, North 18 degrees 10 minutes East, a distance of 95.00 feet to an iron pin; thence North 71 degrees 50 minutes West, a distance of 24.13 feet to an iron pin in line of land now or formerly of Benedict B. Randolph, at al., known as 165 East High Street; thence along line of said land known as 165 East High Street, North 18 degrees 10 minutes East, a 5:?:;h33 r 959 1-o1`ru:- -a ulrsne. ov Allo- 6P. au.u.ws a urro PLARMFPS8 -EXHlOff rr i i I distance of 87.51 feet to a point on the northern line of a 12-feet wide private right-of-way; thence along the northern line of said 12-feet wide private right-of-way, South 71 degrees 50 minutes East, a distance of 1.13 feet to an iron pin; thence along the eastern line of said 12 feet wide private right- of-way, North 18 degrees 10 minutes East, a distance of 16.16 feet to an iron pin set at an existing railroad spike at corner of land now or formerly of Ralph L. Slotten; thence along line of said land now or formerly of Ralph L. Slotten and wife, the following three (3) courses and distances: (1) South 71 degrees 50 minutes East, a distance of 31.50 feet to an iron pin; (2) South 18 degrees 10 minutes West, a distance of 66.67 feet to an iron pin; and (3) South 71 degrees 50 minutes East, a distance of 35.65 feet to an iron pin; thence crossing a 12-feet wide private right-of-way and continuing along line of land now or formerly of Pierson K. Miller, known as 177 East High Street, the following three (3) courses and distances: (1) South 18 degrees 10 minutes West, a distance of 102.75 feet to a point; (2) North 71 degrees 50 minutes West, a distance of 0.75 feet to a point; and (3) South 18 degrees 10 minutes West, a distance of 29.25 feet to a point on the northern line of 80-feet wide East High Street; thence along said northern line of 80-feet wide East High Street, North 71 degrees 50 minutes West, a distance of 43.40 feet to a point at the Place of Beginning. BEING all of Lot #1 as shown on said Subdivision Plan for the Female Benevolent Society of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, containing 8855.85 square feet and having thereon erected a two and one-half story frame and stone building known as and numbered 175 East High Street. TOGETHER with the privilege of a 12-feet alley lying between the northern line of said property known as 175 East High Street and said property now or formerly of Ralph L. Slotten and wife, which extends eastwardly from the above-described premises at a width of 12 feet a distance of 26 feet, more or less, to North East Street, in common with the owners of said properties adjoining said 12-feet wide private right-of-way as set forth in deed to Mrs. Mary D. Biddle dated July 1, 1884, and recorded July 1, 1884, in the hereinafter named Recorder's Office in Deed Book "W", volume 3, Page 225. eodk? 33 PACE 951 LAW'OFFICDR-MAMON. DEARDORFF. WILLIAMS • OTTO o • TOGETHER with the right to use the private right-of- way or alley 12 feet wide extending along the northernmost portion of the western line of the above-described property a distance of 16.16 feet and continuing along line of land now or formerly of Ralph L. Slotten and wife to mulberry Avenue, which 12-feet wide private right-of-way or alley has a total length to said Mulberry Avenue of 58 feet, more or less, as set forth in deed to Mary D. Biddle dated July 3, 1886, and recorded July 15, 1886, in the hereinafter named Recorder's office in Deed Book "A", Volume 4, Page 530. THE ABOVE described premises known as Street are conveyed under and subject, to the following rights in the owners and their respective heirs, assigns representatives, of the property adj West known as 169 East High Street. 175 East High nevertheless, and occupiers and personal )ining on the a. The right to use for the purposes of ingress, egress and regress, a 4-feet wide pedestrian walkway adjoining said property known as 169 East High Street on the East and extending northwardly from the northern line of 80-feet wide East High Street a distance of 33 feet, for the purpose of access to the rear portion of said building known as 169 East High Street, as shown on said Subdivision Plan recorded as aforesaid in Plan Book 41, Page 108, which 4-feet wide pedestrian walkway shall be subject to relocation from time to time by the then owner of the adjoining servient premises known as 175 East High Street including the right to substitute a 4-feet wide pedestrian walkway from North East Street across the property known as 175 East High Street to said premises known as 169 East High Street, which 4-feet wide pedestrian walkway shall continue to be subject to relocation from time to time in accordance with the wishes of the then owner or owners of the servient property known as 175 East High Street so long as such relocated pedestrian walkway is substantially similar in quality of construction to that walkway which was in use immediately prior to the relocation. b. The right to use the existing water supply line extending from North East Street westwardly across Lot #1 and then, extending southwardly along Lot #1 to Lot #2 known as 169 East High Street, as the same is shown on said Subdivision Plan recorded as aforesaid F65Y? 33 PAGE 952 LAS n/'!'1(1:1-NAN T11 IN. bVOI)iI FF.¦ II.I.144S auTrn ?? s F i in Plan Hook 41, Page 108, with the right to enter upon the premises of Lot M1 and the said 12-feet wide private right-of-way for the purposes of repairing and replacing, from time to time, said water line, which water line shall be subject to relocation by the then owner of the adjoining servient premises known as 175 East High Street by either relocating the same across said servient premises or making a connection to a public water supply line in East High Street. Should such a connection be made to East High Street and the same be connected to the plumbing system installed in the premises known as 169 East High Street, the existing water service line crossing said servient premises shall from that time forward be discontinued and the right to maintain same shall be extinguished. BEING the same premises The Female Benevolent Society of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, a non-profit corporation organized and existing under the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by Deed dated June 5, 1984 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County in Deed Book "S", Volume 30, Page 454, granted and conveyed unto George F. Gardner, Grantor herein, and Mary Anne Molls, now Mary Anne Adams, one of the Grantors herein. Tract No. 2: ALL THAT CERTAIN tract of land situate on the east side of South Hanover Street, in the Second Ward of the Borough of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the east side of South Hanover Street, which point is also a corner of lot of ground now or formerly of Blanche I. Ebener; thence along the eastern side of said South Hanover Street in a southwardly direction a distance of 106 feet 5 inches to a point.on the north side of an alley known as "Searight's Alley"; thence in a northeastwardly direction along the northern side of said "Searight's Alley", a distance of 230 feet 5 inches to a point on the western side of an alley known as "Cemetery Alley"; thence along the western side of said "Cemetery Alley" in a northwardly direction a distance of 63 feet 6 inches to a point in the southern side of lot of ground now or formerly of Blanche I. Ebener; thence in a westwardly W'kjh 33 MICE 953 LAW OFFICES- MANTSON. DEARDORFF. WILLIA WS 0 OTTo • direction along lot of the said Blanche I. Ebener, a distance of 226 feet to a point, the place of BEGINNING. BEING improved with a 2-1/2 story brick dwelling house and large frame stable, known as No. 313 South Hanover Street. BEING the same premises 313 South Hanover Street, Inc. by deed dated April 5, 1984, and recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County in Deed Book "P", Volume 30, Page 1010, granted and conveyed unto George F. Gardner, Grantor herein, and Mary Anne Molls (now Mary Anne Adams) one of the Grantees herein. UNDER AND SUBJECT to a mortgage dated April 5, 1984 naming First Bank and Trust Company of Mechanicsburg as Mortgagee, recorded in Cumberland County Mortgage Book 748, Page 206. Tract No. 3: ALL THAT CERTAIN tract of land, with the improvements thereon erected situate in West Pennaboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the Ritner Highway (U.S. Route 11) at corner of land now or formerly of H. L. Gilbert; thence by the same through an iron pipe and along a fence, North 23 degrees 28 minutes 40 seconds West, 400 feet to an iron pipe at line of land now or formerly of Paul E. and Elanore J. Boyles; thence by the same, North 60 degrees East, 300 feet to an iron pipe; thence still by the same, South 23 degrees 28 minutes 40 seconds East, 400 feet through an iron pipe to a point in the said Ritner Highway; thence by the same, South 60 degrees West, 300 feet to a point, the place of BEGINNING. CONTAINING 2.737 acres according to a survey by Thomas A. Neff, R.S., dated January 23, 1964. BEING the same tract of land which Martha J. Bosler, Executrix of the Estate of Anna Hutchinson, by deed dated October 5, 1983 and recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "K", Volume 30, Page 190, granted II and conveyed unto George F. Gardner, Grantor herein, eee;k 33 P,', 4E 954 LAS OFFICES -MARTS,,\, 11t:ANpu16i'. I II.I.IAMS A 11TT0 II and Mary Anne Molls (now Mary Anne Adams) the Grantees herein. one of Tract No.4: ALL THAT CERTAIN tract of land, together with the improvements thereon erected, to wits a e brick apartment building, situate in the Third Ward of the Borough of Carlisle Pennsylvania, more particularly bo ded anddd scribed as follows: BEGINNING at a stake, the northwest corner of South College and Willow Street streets; thence by the west side of South College Street, North 15 degrees East 276.3 feet to a stake, the southeast corner of land now or formerly of the School District of the Borough of Carlisle; thence by said land now or formerly of the School District of the Borough of Carlisle, North 75 degrees West 160 feet to an iron pipe; thence continuing along said land now or formerly of the School District of the Borough of Carlisle, South 15 side eof Willow Stre t, thence along theenorthhsiderof said Willow Street, South 75 degrees East, 160 feet to the Place of BEGINNING. UNDER AND SUBJECT, nevertheless, to building and use conditions and restrictions of record and being improved with a three-story brick apartment building. BEING the same property which B. R. Heineman, Louise J. Heineman, H. Robert Davis and Richard E. Barrett by deed dated December 31, 1986, and recorded in the office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County in Deed Book "L", Volume 32, Page 228, granted and conveyed unto George F. Gardner, Grantor herein, and Mary Anne Molls (now Mary Anne Adams) one the of the Grantees herein. UNDER AND SUBJECT to a certain mortgage dated December 31, 1986 naming Richard E. Barrett and H. Robert Davis as Mortgagees, recorded in Cumberland County Mortgage Book 849, Page 8. Tract No. 5: ALL THAT CERTAIN tract of land situate in South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and described according to the Final Subdivision Plan for Mary Molle and George Gardner, partners as prepared by Statler and Lahr, dated l ' 33 Fla 955 LAW OFFICES-MARTSON. DEARDORFF. WILLIAMS 6 OTTO • 0 November 12, 1986, and recorded in Cumberland County Plan Book 52, Page 66, as follows, to wits BEGINNING at an iron pin set on the right-of-way line of the Holly Pike, PA. 34, L.R. 41, which point is at corner of Lot No. 4 of the above referred to Plan of Lots; thence along said Holly Pike, North 09 degrees 59 minutes 18 seconds East 100.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence along Lot No. 5 of the above referred to Plan of Lots on a line curving to the left, and having a radius of 25.00 feet, an arc distance of 39.27 feet to an iron pine set, thence along Lot No. 5 above referred to, North 80 degrees 00 minutes 42 seconds West 245.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence along same, North 09 degrees 59 minutes 18 seconds East 187.36 feet to an iron pin set; thence along Tracts 1, 2 and 3 now or formerly of Joshua E. Sigman, at ux. and land now or formerly of Jeffrey Lynn Kerr, South 89 degrees 38 minutes 56 seconds East 789.34 feet to an existing pipe; thence along land of the said Jeffrey Lynn Kerr and land now or formerly of Robert J. Clark at ux., and land now or formerly of Charles E. Myers, Jr., North 09 degrees 22 minutes 47 seconds East 273.90 feet to an iron bolt set; thence along land now or formerly of Floyd Armolt, at ux., North 70 degrees 15 minutes 47 seconds East 253.05 feet to an iron bolt set; thence along land now or formerly of Union Quarries, Incorporated, South 64 degrees 14 minutes 34 seconds East 301.84 feet to a point in Bonnybrook Road; thence along land of the said Union Quarries Incorporated, South 80 degrees 27 minutes 10 seconds East 224.40 feet to an iron bolt set; thence along same and crossing over the Letort Spring Run, South 62 degrees 27 minutes 10 seconds East 129.75 feet to a Willow Tree; thence along the land of the said Union Quarries Incorporated, North 61 degrees 23 minutes 36 seconds East 34.65 feet to a "T" bar set; thence by land now or formerly of A. W. Baker, South 25 degrees 05 minutes 18 seconds East 105.60 feet to a "T" bar set; thence by a line crossing over the Letort Spring Run, South 34 degrees 54 minutes 42 seconds west 95.70 feet, to a 'IT" bar set; thence South 16 degrees 39 minutes 42 seconds West 99 feet to an iron bolt set; thence South 45 degrees 39 minutes 42 seconds West 181.50 feet to a parker kalon nail set in Bonnybrook Road; thence with the Letort Spring Run, South 46 degrees 24 minutes 42 seconds West 165.00 feet to an iron bolt set; thence within the said Letort Spring Run, South 31 degrees 48 minutes 58 seconds West 502.82 feet to a metal fence post; thence by land now or formerly of Richard R. e^er. A? 33 !d-E 9 rZ LAW II FFIC FS-%I A IITruc, I1 V. A IIIM III". 1111.1.11My 4 uTTa • 1 Burgoon, et ux., and crossing over the Letort Spring Run, South 62 degrees 20 minutes 31 seconds West 240.48 feet to an iron pin set; thence along Lot No. 1 of the above referred to Plan of Lots North 31 degrees 12 minutes 53 seconds West 512.69 feet to an iron bolt set; thence along same South 57 degrees 21 minutes 48 seconds West 190.00 feet to an iron bolt set; thence along Lot No. 1-A of the above referred to Plan of Lots North 80 degrees 38 minutes 12 seconds West 132.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence along same and passing through an iron bolt set 25.00 feet from Lindsay Lane T-479, South 09 degrees 21 minutes 48 seconds West 330.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence along Lindsay Lane, T-479, North 80 degrees 38 minutes 12 seconds West 269.00 feet to an point; thence along Lot No. 3 of the above referred to Plan of Lots and passing through an iron pin set; North 09 degrees 21 minutes 48 seconds East 421.67 feet to an iron pin set; thence along same North 80 degrees 00 minutes 42 seconds West 208.87 feet to an iron pin set; thence along Lot No. 4 of the above referred to Plan of Lots North 09 degrees 59 minutes 18 seconds East 150.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence along same, North 80 degrees 00 minutes 42 seconds West 245.00 feet to an iron pin set; thence along same and on a line curving to the left, having a radius of 25.00 feet, an arc distance of 39.27 feet to an iron pin set, the Point and Place of Beginning. BEING Lot No. 2 of the above referred to Plan of Lots and containing 1,262,185.813 square feet or 28.9758 acres. BEING part of the premises George F. Gardner by deed dated October 28, 1986 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County in Deed Book "G", Volume 32, Page 646, granted and conveyed unto George F. Gardner, Grantor herein, and Mary Anne Molle (now Mary Anne Adams), one of the Grantees herein. r i IT IS THE INTENTION of the Grantor herein to grant all the interest he may have in the foregoing realty, both individually and as tenant in partnership, ih a certain partnership created on December 30, 1983, the said partnership having been composed of two partners only from its inception through this date being George F. Gardner, the Grantor herein and Mary Ann Adams (formerly Mary Anne Molle) one of the Grantees herein. II AND the said Grantor hereby covenants and agrees that he will warrant generally the property hereby conveyed. THIS CONVEYANCE is exempt from realty transfer tax as a ocox 433 ?4E 957 LAW OMCE4- MON. DEARDORF?. WILLIAIIS A OWO • o 1 i e transfer from father to eon-in-law and daughter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF 11 f(l %t(s;'? 1 iGrdn SEAL) r COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) )f ea. COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ) On this, the 3o?h day of June, 1988, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared GEORGE F. GARDNER, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and O\ffpgi4'1 seal. ?y n Si 4?ll v 0 d . 611.1 KAC?-y6 :.((S;hL )'o 1mi;e L. Oi&erla+b:ay N"M t,A:•: vv $7+IS 11.041.:un ir.i.. F.1 L: a 1.6S69W,y I3.:991 Nre.n,i, Pawn''/ir+rO A:::ci+Gan of Nonlp, iJ..7.? ``, I hereby certify that the precise residence and complete post office address of the within Grantee is 313 . 00 e? w 0 6ou k 13 PAGE 958 S. LAW OFFICES - MARTSOR. DEARDORFF. WILLIAMS A OTTO a 0 0`11,1 Proposal 0% Proposal No. 2143 FROM J. R. CONSTRUCTION Sheet No. 54 42 E. Locust St. R? 945 Doubling Gap Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 OR Newville, PA 17241 Date 3/7/94 (717) 697-8814 (717) 776-4107 Proposal Submitted To Work To Be Performed At 1rdner MSAf N b d Street 400 South College St_ u ame_ a , Street P-0- Rox 273 City Carlisle State Penna. •_ Carlisle cit Date of Plans y. State Penna Architect Telephone Number 243-2217 We hereby propose to furnish all the materials and perform all the labor necessary for the completion of New Rubber Roof System. R move stones level off roof. Install +" High Density Board, screw down with galvanized metal plates. Install Carlisle Syntec rubber glue down Rubber to be .045 . Install new aluminum flashing. roof, 8,625.00 Price .060 Rubber 9 115.0 tall -A I 1 nAr . _I_t6 c' t ... 20 Year warranty 045 25Year Warran v .060 . Mpmhpr Better RI]Si Rp9 Rurpau Pri re { rlc ct ? lnc"?1',.L t< t'.,t r i C am, 0 2 n. "r< .c ! = 9f I :.,: G',_, r?r- , r# speified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the d?awings All material is guaranteed to be , and specifications submitted for ` abov work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of Dollars IS 15, 300.00 1. with payments to be made as to low 1 1 ?tkr. ' completion, Fi'KK bh-"v<V_ 1, blU tna \(.!•v,?--((t.t?i. i..!l--,ll rJtt 1 ?:"' ? C..l C .t G_ Any alteration or deviation from above spe iflcations involyitlg extralcosls, will be executed Jonl{ upon written orders) and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance upon above work. Workmen's compensation and Public Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by O Respectfully submitted Per l.j Note-This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 60 days ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. i ?? - Signature Accepted-. Date Signature PLAINTIFFS. V r! i Z x ? ? 4 J R CONSTRUCTION, INC. P.O. Box 866 Carlisle, PA 17013 249-0313 / 697-8814 Date 19 Adam & Gardner P.O. Box 273 Carlisle oa 17013 Your Order No. Work Description I Price 1. 2. 3. 4. Install new roof. $16,015.C Partial payment. 12-OlSo $12,450.C Balance owed. $3,565.0( Balance to install new flashing. $ 325.OC Sub Total Penna. Sales Tax Total 3,890.00 ghank you 750. 0-0 C,? P 9,35 /0M . Vv cA a93? '?-lYo ""Cl- a-q ys CIaaI9s 4la9/9-5 7// 7/?-5 PLAINTIFF'S y E9(HIBR ? ? Lists of costa ass ted with roof installation, repairs and reply 'ent 400 S. College St, Carlisle, PA As of May 4, 2000 Installation of roof at Moorland Apartment- 400 S. College St Date Ck# Vendor Amount 08/29/94 2059 JR Construction $3,500.00 09127/94 2696 JR Construction $5,500.00 11/04/94 2727 JR Construction $1,500.00 12105/94 2753 JR Construction $1,000.00 01/11/95 2773 JR Construction $1,000.00 03/14195 2841 JR Construction $450.00 06/22/95 2935 JR Construction $750.00 06/29/95 2936 JR Construction $1,000.00 07/17/95 2945 JR Construction $2,140.00 Total $16,840.00 Roof Inspection costs for damages at 400 S College St. 05/07/97 3527 William Clarkson $300.03 07/15/97 3589 William Clarkson $175.00 $lssao.oa $475.03 $475.03 Roof repair costs for temporary repairs to 400 S. College St 12/19/97 3730 Kevin Hollowell $1,872.00 $1,872.00 Insurance Estimate for Inside damage repair at Moorland Date of Loss: 5/15/97 Estimate $2,463.49 Less insurance pymt •$2,213.49 Deductible $250.00 $250.00 Interior repairs necessary in addition to Insurance reimbursement 7/99 4164 Kevin Hollowell $335.00 8/99 4232 Kevin Hollowell $110.00 2/00 4368 Kevin Hollowell $213.56 $658.56 Estimate for interior repairs yet to be done $1,345.00 $1,345.00 Total of temporary outside work, inside repairs and insp cost Replacement cost for middle section of roof at 400 S. College St 07/08/98 4198 Kevin Hollowell $2,000.00 07/14/98 4202 Kevin Hollowell $3,400.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 Estimate for remaining two sections of roof $14,168.00 Total of actual and estimated remaining replacement cost Total repair and replacement costs $4,600.59 $19,568.00 $24.168.59 INVOICE June 23, 1997 Ms. Mary Adams 901 Hillside Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: ROOF INSPECTION and RE-EVALUATION 400 SOUTH COLLEGE APARTMENTS 400 South College Street Carlisle, PA Date of Inspection: June 23,1997 FOR: Roof Consulting Services Roof Inspection, Evaluation and Report FEES: Base Daily Rate--$700.00 per 8 hour day. Actual time: 2.25 hours @ $87.50/hr -- $175.00 GRAND TOTAL: $175.00 TERMS: Net due in ten days. A rebilling fee of $4.50 is charged to all accounts after 30 days. N-/4 WILLIAM H. CLARKSON & ASSOCIATES INDEPENDENT ROOFING CONSULTANTS POST OFFICE BOX 41, CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013.0041 TEL/FAX: (717) 249.8067 TOLL FREE: 1.800.826-WHCA (9422) (Earliote, fa 17013 Zeltilbone (M) 258-4719 TERMS: 4 75, AMOUNT REMITTED DAI1: INVOICE No./DESCRIPTION OATE-s.L$C- 7- $ CHARGE CREDIT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE Q Gln al 2`rf-S o ?u SN.a Nl i of Apo r. cL. s s - S.p??e?s T i°f'a ou w vB ?C?Rrd ?y ? ?7 . L Au- 1,4,t7-,+C- 16 WV4 I Z' z??a>z? 2Jou Q PAY LAST AMOUNT IN THIS COLUMN /p WORN STATEMFENT IN PROOF O?aOSS <krd/s,h or Use With Replacement Cost Coverag. ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY AND WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD • :sy ANY INSURANCE COMPANY OR OTHER PERSON FILES A STATE. !RENT OF CLAIM CONTAINING ANY MATERIALLY FALSEJNFOR• seR '.IATION. OR CONCEALS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MISLEADING, .ralogs i INFORMATION CONCERNING ANY FACT MATERIAL THERETO, I / I COMMITS A FRAUDULENT INSURANCE'ACT WHICH IS A CRIME ""'•" •=''?" o the J,e insurance company Rgp.cc•FSs At the time of loss. oy the above ircicated policy of insurance you insured ?? ?,•? "? s'yye :rte _ZjbjMr`? ?• CJi9r•Tn 2. against loss by ILI :o the property described under Schedule A, according to terms and conaitlons of the said pollcy ana forms. ehporsements.: ansters and assignments attached thereto. Time & Origin: A a' :n the ass occurred about the hour of o clock ca} of t e `t sv 4 APL cause kAje• ana origin of the said loss were 1Ly1/?Pt-r?iJ lh e?jo? c w Occupancy: The building describec. cr conltaiirimc+ :rte property cescribed, was occupied at the time of the loss as follows. and for no other purpose whatever. ! )2d 1:7U1 lbA1y1 Interest(s): At the time of the loss the interest c' your insured :n the property described therein was . `lo other cerson or persons had any interest therein or encumbrance thereon, except Changes: Since the said policy was issued there has peen no assignment thereof, or change of interest, use, occupancy, possession, locati a on. of exposure of the property descrioed except total Insurance: The total amount ct insurance ucon the property, described by this policy was. at the time of the loss. as more particulariv soecifieo in ine apportionment attached under Schedule C. besides which :here was no policy or other ccnlract of insurance, written cr oral, valid or invalid. iecovery: _ 1. Full Replacement Cost of the said property at the time of the loss was ......... . .......... 3 h 2. The Full Cost of Repair or Replacement is 1 ,14 4g s?J ; Syr y 3. Applicable Depreciation or Betterment is s. Actual Cash Value is (Line 2 .minus Line 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5. Less Deductibles anclOr panicioauon by the insured ... 5 ..5 of 11 5. Actual Cash Value Claim is ,L.: a minus ?.?e _i ... %. Supplemental Claim, to be Thep in accordance with the terms and conoihons of the Replacement m oaf YY Cost Coveraoe within w cavs from ;rte care of ;oss as shcwn above. will not "?S FIGURE ql ae 7RR ECA• Ch Or rwf. •h•JUhiS 5r•TVh UN i.hFS J wU f wwiC•• iS RECOVERee exceed , CJ The said loss did not originate by any act. cesign. or procurement on the pan of your insured, or this alliant: nothing has bem do" by or with the pnvdy ur consent of your insured or this aMl+Itt. to violate the conditions of the oo11CV. or tender it void: no articles are mentioned herein or in annexed sche auks b4 Such as were destroyed or damaged at the time of said loss: no property saved has in any manner been concealed, and no allempt to deeense the uto company, as to 'he extent of said lose. na in any manner teen made. Any other information that may be redwrtd will be furnished and eoniMarad a part of this noon. ST he furnishing of this hunk or the pFepanuon of proofs by a representative of me soove msu nce n% Is of a waiver of any OI its rights ;aie of _ ('P rinSt??yrawy t \ ??1rL?' JIJ :.only of 4 82M bP r-I n ....P r'f17L ,Q /1 /?rnS /rs•F•A7700/ N I1I?11R , schCeo and sworn m:eio,e me tins 7.?r-, , _ QIIluAr /+ - •hF N•a?i,v. /? f4Lq8 Votary PdhhC Coin ss ia„ Cr p1rY+s t/zg/Z. i r Id. A joollowell 111 QCbegtnut gibenue ? arligle, V21 17013 I:eltAcIlt (717) 258-4719 ?90( «g? TERMS: -- STAI EMENT DATE $ 33S YJ ??[?.r Cabe AMOUNT REMMMO RETURN THIS STUB WITH REMITTANCE DATE I INVOICE NOMESCRIPTION CHARGE I CREDIT I BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE Q o0 r 11 JhQ.n? ?Ol[. PAY LAST OUNT IN THIS COLUMN y- D •'?•°??°?e« STATEMENT 111 ebtartut atnut Carliilt, iggi 17013 xtltPbont (717) 258-4719 _ DATE &, ,,^^ IUStD /l,CU? TERMS: AMOUNT REMITTED $ PLEASE DETACH AND aETURN THIS STUB WITH FeMrrrANCE DATE INVOICE NOJDESCRIPTION CHARGE CREDIT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE Q DAJ F;eo?O.F ?[cdcEV°o ? o0 ?- Nc C"e w 5-t t A-Ic i C,2[c[ug ? o V/Fb/Lavt /27l ?trcvl" ?(6-? ?12?' oa J"Q'nk (YOU PAY LAS MOUNT IN THIS COLUMN yF ,STATEMENT DATE TERMS: APT- I ' 3) AMOUNT REMITTED PLEASE DETACH ANO RETURN THIS STUB y REMITTANCE DATE INVOICE No./DESCRIPTION L/ i,u fc/c r CHARGE CREDIT PREVIOUS BALANCE Q BALANCE 9fia)2k (yoa. MPAY LAST AMOUN'r IN THIS COLUMN yF A a Name Street . Sbc City _ V`,,,iI Phone. . PROPOSAL a3P_Yr71V State /* Street city State . A Date of Plans I Architect _ _•_ propose to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for ?J('?-J"? k .S?4c„?&c.S ?' Gfcsbtr o m s x.9.0 ??d?- 4^ Soup. ?fbK?sr? l !?• °= lNSuC.t?s,,?t?F?g vFSc?wS -90? - - _ _ 400' 62 Wak Saoa-?__ All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications/.C?(uCbCmi??tytje?d for Bove work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of Dollars [$ PO* ? 1, with payments to he made as follows: Avu? 7X464( Any alteration or deviation above specifications will become costs. , will hdl only upon written orders, me an Respectfully submitted eats charge e over ver and executed onl and above the estimate. AJI ll agreements becor to carry [,`(/yi+, upon strikes, and other or delays beyond nsuraour control. Owner to carry /? me, to necessary n upon above work. Work Per ?L4 men's s Compensation Compensaother npacion arid Public insurance blic Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by Note-This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 60 days. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Signature._._. _ KAI Signature .. EX e FORM 3850 ORIGINAL ;, 04 a FROM ! Proposal ? dR COt,oTRUCTION, INC. P.O. Box 866 Carlisle, PA 17013 249-0313 or 6897-8814 Proposal Submitted To Telephone Proposal No. 315 Sheet No. 35 Date 8-16-96 Work To Be Performed At sitecl.-313 South Hanover St. Cily Carlisle enna. Dale of Plans Slate Architect We hereby propose to furnish oil the malerials and perform all Ilse labor necessary for the completion of Remove aoornsrimar•es., r um Lace ca eszve. es All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for Ilse sum of with payments to be made as follows: Dollars ($4,175.00 Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving oxtra costs, will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above Ilse estimate. All agreements cOlOingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and outer necessary insurance upon above work. Workmen's Compensation and Public Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by. Ohio Casualty $2,000,()00 nr? I Respectfully submitted -..>, 1. Per Note - This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within qC days ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and condilions are satisfactory and are Hereby accepted. YOU are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Accepted -- Signalur ..Sig TOPS FORM 3450 0 ?, a CONSTRUCTIOI, INC. P.O. Box 866 Carlisle, PA 17013 249-0313/697-8814 Daze October 28 Adams & Gardner P.O. Box 273 Carlisle, Pa. 17013 1996 Your Order Yo. Work Description Price 1• Install new Carlisle/Shuller .060 rubber roof for 313 South Hanover Street. 2. Install new metal cap. $4175.00 $325.00 Sub Total Penna. Sales Tax Total $4500.00 Thank You 6-) gib 1/ 5- Ian, 0--0 /-3--97 3y5s ? A PLAIWRFF8 i s EXHIBIT' 7 04 a Lists of co*W associated with roof installation, repairs and replacement 313 South Hanover St. As of May 4, 2000 Original cost of installation of Roof at 313 S. Hanover St Date Ck # Vendor Amount 3400 JR Construction $2,000.00 01/03/97 3415 JRConstruction $1,000.00 02118/97 3455 JR Construction $500.00 Total $3,500.00 Roof inspection costs for damages at 313 S. Hanover St. 10114/97 3679 William Clarkson $372.88 $372.88 372.88 Roof repair costs for temporary repairs to 313 S. Hanover St. 02/28/97 3460 Kevin Hollowell 02104/98 3762 Kevin Hollowell 01/30/99 4074 Kevin Hollowell 02/12/00 4367 Kevin Hollowell to be paid Kevin Hollowell $53.00 $75.50 $218.00 $204.00 $142.50 $693.00 $693.00 Inside repairs to 313 S Hanover St from water damage 02/04/98 3762 Kevin Hollowell $155.00 to be paid Kevin Hollowell $714.00 $869.00 Total of temporary outside work, inside repairs and insp cost Replacement cost for one section of roof at 313 S. Hanover 02121198 3773 Kevin Hollowell $1,500.00 03/05/98 3788 Kevin Hollowell $2,360.00 $3,860.00 $3,860.00 3 500.00 $1,934.88 Estimate for remaining roof section to be replaced $5,820.00 L- Total of actual and estimated remaining replacement cost $9,680.00 Total repair and replacement costs 11 614.88 "hkl) Y'l's WILLIAM H. CLARKSON & ASSOCIATES I N D E P E N D E N T R O OF[ NO C O N S U L T A N T S POST OFFICE BOX 41, CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013.0041 TEL/FAX: (717) 249.8067 TOLL FREE: 1.800.826-W HCA (9422) INVOICE September 5, 1997 Ms. Mary Adams 901 Hillside Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: ROOF INSPECTION and EVALUATION 313 South Hanover Street, South Office Carlisle, PA Date of Inspection: September3, 1997 FOR: Roof Consulting Services Roof Inspection, Evaluation, Photographs and Report FEES: Base Daily Rate--$700.00 per 8 hour day. Actual time: 4.25 hours @ $87.50/hr -- $372.88 GRAND TOTAL: $372,88 TERMS: Net due in ten days. A rebilling fee of $4.50 is charged to all accounts after 30 days. Thank you for your continuing business. Sincerely, William H. Clarkson, RCI 36 q C k14 ?• ?I. ?ollobteli ill(bbegtnutAbenue GrUgle, $2 17013 Telepbone (717) 258-4719 o" STATEMENT DATE v/?o i?! [ FJ TERMS: &. - I AJV.'Ct?s„v 6,giudu6 Tr6/1f/'htlZ AMOUNTREMITTED $ ? ?? PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN THIS STUB WITH REMRTANCE ----------- -- DATE I INVOICE NOJDESCRIPTION I CHARGE CREDIT PREVIOUS BALANCE Q 9! G cx> BALANCE -funk TOLL PAY LAST OUNT IN THIS COLUMN P-46 A"t F7? AL .ollotne[1 STATEMENT ill tr t5tnut Abenue QLarlizie, j9`J 17013 1gelepbone (717) 258-4719 l3 DATE 4; 5 p L_D ((CCU 5 (Lj ?.b?lrG56? ?4 ??•'F [ 2clr ? TERMS: S-kkguf- AMOUNT REMITTED PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN THIS STUB WITH REWTANCE DATE INVOICE No./DESCRIPTION CHARGE CREDIT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE Q Scv ? L FS u .:N dLJie ?7 th CvPP *20 ?u.14C ttir,?i- - l • 60 u? Ca -7 (o J flank (YOU PAY LAST AMOUNT a ' ? IN THIS COLUMN f-C R. 0. A)ollotvell 111(Cbegtnut 21benue CaTliSle, J)`j 17013 Telepryone (717) 258-4719 STATEMENT DATE A got TERMS: }?S 2S ?- AMOUNT REMITTED DETACH AND RETURN THIS STUB WITH REMITTANCE DATE I INVOICE NoJDESCRIPTION $ CHARGE I CREDIT I BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE Q m Y ? J:Mank (yoLL Q PAY LAST AMOUNT IN THIS COLUMN 8_ n n "? P"1 •A?0o«ome« STATEMENT 111 i0cotttut 21bentte dnrtiole, fill 17013 aelepl)one (717) 25S-4719 DATE o l u-sit2?,,QjOt L dTERMS: y,?KdL??_ Jo """ ?C? (wf? 1S/(AMOUNT REMITTED PLEASE DETACH AND RN-T}{IS STUB WITH REMITTANCE DATE INVOICE NO./DESCRIPTION CHARGE CREDIT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE C1L ALL S !GE AAA -1)44- /,4 (, rfiank (YOG. PAY LAST OUNT IN THIS COLUMN 8-r low% ALL! • ?•°??omeii STATEMENT Ut cWtnut'sbenue % Cadiolc, $2 17013 ?. getepbone (717) 258-4719 DATE _ Rlc Aftw 2cisc E TERMS: C /? Scn/ AMOUNT REMITTED $ PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN THIS STUB WITH REMITTANCE DATE INVOICE No.IDESCRIPTION CHARGE CREDIT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE Q W b ? D` Z S. C, It Std ????? P24 TOLL PAY LAST Ampupir IN THIS COLUMN GG .f rrw .DIIDIUeII STATEMENT 111 Cbegtnut Abenue Carlisle, 021 17013 ?elepfione (717) 258-4719 ` DATE ? ? C// c-GS? ??cc cf- . TERMS: j?- -jt 3/ AMOUNT REMITTED $ +j PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN THIS STUB WITH REMITTANCE DATE INVOICE No./DESCRIPTION CHARGE CREDIT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE I> A"CV 5 ovS ? G(-Cc. l?yt?,F(L s T sw o -- w O. 470• (JL? ?-tu gran r (YOLL PAY LAST OUNT IN THIS COLUMN 0 a _ +K. ?lli. ?iullmueQ 327 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 01 dep4ane (717) 249-9099 QUOTATION No.- Lt' DATE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INQUIRY WE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION Specializing in: Painting, Renovations, Old House Restorations, and Custom Building QUANTITY _ DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT l G ILe ?r ? Irrt_ t2? F'ra ? 2 s rLw k a- ' TOTAL tj -3 k-H ,•?) r"ki J6 . or?o?e?t STATEMENT 111 C1legtnut abenuc Cnrligle, ipq 1701,3 // melepllune (717) 258-4719 DATE //L?CC! 17 X LL, c?SrD? r2r ??? K12 Ll f-C Tor TERMS: ??Si CC c AMOUNT REMITTED $ s PLEASE DETACH AND RETURN THIS STUB WITH REMITTANCE DATE INVOICE No./DESCRIPTION CHARGE CREDIT BALANCE PREVIOUS BALANCE 4 Ec N 'xq?r ( ' I ` SoC ?+5?tr fw U? ?r.Etrl.l ! V. it av m 94ank Tou Q PAY LAST AMOUNT IN THIS COLUMN ?-I- 04 a /KA ?LGo c?? c? PROP X58-. (?E.2C15C..c ? ??NN? 17 013 Name /6XA4 3 Street Sol 4U 3 bz 2/1?v4 City (? ?L State Phone .2-7-0 hereby propose to furnish the materials and perform the labor necessary for the completion of -- / as lc- S£ctZa,:U . %r>j,VtV au S"c?t Tz o.? l2c?, - djsut,Fz'Z G/,?- M4 `44EW UN lfr- w i nx 1L€i?cac ?d ?,?a,!al??ava - .-._A04 7 J C? *2 12ooF Pins ? .sr??..S 6c.u? ? SF.tcat.tfi' cP.t ow vas Crt? s'Kkrrs? 00 90-^° L>D 1384 All material is guaranteed to be as specified. and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and spe?cifi ations submitted foabove work and o feted in a subsyantial workmanlike manner for the sum of Fi?- 7?66 6/kviJ _V Dollars [$ T-jn ep I, with payments to be made as follows: .?1..?- Any operation or demotion from above specifications involving extra cost;: F di sbe executed . aide only upon written orders, and will become Respectfully submitted [/ extra:: arge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon tornado n accidenis ts or delays beyond ouur con control. Owner to carry ry (ire, and other necessary insurance upon above work. Work- Per men's s ComCampensanon and Public Liability Insurance on above work to be taken out by Note-This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within ?.+ days. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices; specifications and conditions are satisfactory end are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Signature PLAINTIFF'S Date___.... EXHIBIT Signature 9 IIII&Pi FORM 3850 ORIGINAL 0% a MidroFllm NumbJr Fftd7h"; Department dI¢ule tint-' Entity Number / ? t • / PtS.?../ . . 0 C'r iNul Cwwary d trM CnmtorwmNw ARTICLES OF INCORPORATJMFOR PROFIT OF J.P. Construction. Inc. _ Name of Corporation A TYPE OF CORPORATION INDICATED BELOW Indicate type of domestic corppalI= Budirs tuck (15 Pa.C.S. 4 1305) _ Mar02WWI (15 PaC.S. S 2702) asNusatt,;nsic-r (IS PaC.S, d 2:07! - Prnfossbro' (Ir Ps C.S. S 29133) -A Butkra4tatuory doers (15 P&C.S. 4 2303) - kmsarca (15 PLC.S. 4 3101) _ CooperatMe (15 Pa.C.S. 17102) DSCB:15.1306/2102/2303/2702/290./3101/7102A (Rev 91) In Compliance with the requirements of the applicable provisions of 15 PAC.S. (relating to eoM"10rs and unincorporated associations) the underslCned. desiring to Incorporate a corporatlon for profit hereby, state(s) that: 1. The name of the corporation Is: J.R. Construction. Inc. 2 The (a) addraaa of this corporation's Initial registered office In this Commomveabh or (b) 13111718 d Ks commercial registered office provider and the count' of venue Is: (a) 945 Doubling Cap Road Newille PA 17941 Cumberland Number and Street CM sta. Z,p co-my (b) Go: Joseph S. Ruda Cumberland Naar m d:wmm,nal Heo,.w.u r.. F,ww.r Cpu,.r For a cowallon reprasenled by a uimrnerdal reg r eyed office ppvidar, 1M county In (b) anall W d"rok! nle county In which the corporation is Ioceled for venue and olhclal pubbcalion purposes. 3. The corporation Is Incorporated under the provisions of the Business Corporation Law or 1988. 4. The aggregate number of shares authorized is: 1 -non (wh.r ww,.ion., d mr..awh a in s n .h..0 5. The name and address, including number and street. it any, Of each Incorporator is: Name Address Joseph S. Ruda 945 Doubling Cap Road. Newllle Pa. 17241 6. The aglicilledSfAf" date, d arty, is: June 1 . 1994 PA Pon PACEPT. C54TATE m.mn day y.w Mu'. e.ay ow 261W PLAINTIFF'S JUN V 1754 Y EXHIBIT /D (Rev v1P2 AtlAbnal pvvislom d Via nk1a, a n7, edaoh an e 12 a l t rhea. & >3lMMT dloas mpon"n OW NoM w ft Celpenlin nor n7 ahardtokW -0 mak• an oflarilg d any of Its stores d n7 Chia tttal Would ConstAUtB a'Pubk dlereg Within the meaning of the Secure .a ACI d 1933 (15 U.S.C. 4 770 It sect.). CooPI" owpvilkrn sty: (Complete and strike wn aWlWkable lean) The conwrlon bond of llnbtm* amwgi its memberstsharelwlders is: IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the kwwpwalw(s) flea (have) signed lhm Annin of Incorporation alas dry of (Signature) OON A Building, NYC, NV (Leak Investigation): This firm has developed expertise in a broad World Trade Center, NYC, NV (Roof range of roofing systems. The roofiog ts.pes Inspection): York Senior Residence Centre, include: Toronto, ON, Canada (Leak Investigation & ? Built-Up (Asphalt and Cold=far Pitch) Remediation) ? Single-Ply (EPI1M. PVC, TPO, Modified BUR, etc.) • Metal ? Split Wooden Shake • Shingle (Commercial & Residential ? Slate and Tile ? The various building types include: ? Office/Educalion Complexes ? Manufacturing Complexes ? Correctional and other High Security Complexes including Nuclear Generation Facilities ? Single- and Multi-Family Residential Structures. ? High-rise Structures ? Availahle Services: ? Roof Specification & Detail Design ? Bid Solicitation and Review ? Installation Quality Control and Monitoring ? Inspection and Evaluation ? Investigation for Cause of Leak and/or 1 piss ? Roof Service Certification ? Maintenance Staff Training (Roof Specific) • Building Envelope Moisture Penen:dion Investigations ? Selected Past Projects: ? (With Carlisle SynTec Systems) Honda Motors Manufacturing Complex, Mar,isville, OH (Roof Inspection, Installation Pr.-eress Inspection): Veterans Administrotion Hospital. Seattle, WA (Wind IFumage Assessment); National Guard \rmory, Ketchikon. AK (Installation Insperlion); Pacific Gas & Electric Nuclear Genel ation Station. San Onofre. CA (Roof In%falhdion Assistance And Inspection); Empire Mate ? Cumberland Valley School District. Interim Roof Repair Specification. Good Hope Middle School, Mechanicsburg, PA • Building and Roof Leak Investigation. Repair Specifications and Recommendations for Regional Headquarters of nationwide communications company (Metal roof and Masonry Involvement) • Blue Ridge Country Club. Harrisburg. PA, Clubhouse Roof Leak Investigation (Cedar Shake), Specification Development. After the fact, retained to resolve installation problems within the replacement installation. (Not retained for installation quality control) ? Roof Leak Investigation. Specification Development and Installation Management for Wormleysburg. PA. Borough Hall Roof Replacement • Testified as Expert Witness in commercial and residential roof-related litigation ? Additional projects upon request ? Experience derived from over 18 years as: • Field Technical Representative, Carlisle SynTec Systems (1951-1988) ? Special Projects and Construction Technician. Carlisle SynTec Systems (1988-1993) ? Established WHC&A in 1993 ? Selected as independent participant in External Roof Inspection Program, GenFlex Roofing Systems 0994-19961 Program cancelled 1996 ? Selected as Carlisle SynTec Systems F'leece- BackT" Authorized Consultant (19981 Member: Greater Carlisle Area Chamber of Commerce WILLIAM H. CLARKSON & ASSOCIATES 1 N 1) E. P E N 1) E N I R O O F I N C C O N S 11 1. T A N •r S POST OFFICE BOX 41. CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-0041 TEIAFAX: (717) 249.806; 'roLL FREE: 1.81111.826-WHOA (9422) OW, A 12 /4 9 C D /- • • G N J I • • K v L : ?a Al s 0 p 0 e, 7 L% F x y \i 7 /? /+ 6 t ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership, d/b/a ADAMS AND GARDNER 901 HILLSIDE DRIVE CARLISLE, PA 17013 Plaintiff V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. 945 DOUBLING GAP ROAD NEWVILLE, PA 17241 Defendant AND THOMAS, THOMAS AND HAFER, LLP 305 NORTH FRONT STREET SIXTH FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 17108 Garnishee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1999-5162 t , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION Caption: *SEE ATTACHED COVER PAGE* ? Confessed Judgment ® Other File No. 1999-5162 Amount Due $21,440.59 Interest $10,615.54 - Atty's Comm Costs TO BE ADDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE SAID COURT: The undersigned hereby certifies that the below does not arise out of a retail installment sale, contract, or account based on a confession of judgment, but if it does, it is based on the appropriate original proceeding filed pursuant to act 7 of 1966 as amended; and for real property pursuant to Act 6 of 1974 as amended. Issue writ of execution in the above matter to the Sheriff of County, for debt, interest and costs, upon the following described property of the defendant (s) PRAECIPE FOR ATTACHMENT EXECUTION Issue writ of attachment to the Sheriff of DAUPHIN County, for debt, interest and costs, as above, directing attachment against the above-named garnishee(s) for the following property (if real estate, supply six copies of the description; supply four copies of lengthy personalty list) *SEE ATTACHED LIST OF PROPERTY TO BE GARNISHED* and all other property of the defendant(s) in the possession, custody or ? apdicate) Index this writ against the garnishee (s) as a lis described in the attached exhibit. Date 6 V/ /7 Signature: Print Name: Address: Attorney for: Telephone: of the said garnishee(s). ?q c li against r of DAVID A. BARIC, ESQUIRE 19 WEST SOUTH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 PLAINTIFF (717) 249-6873 Supreme Court ID No: 4 4 8 5 3 f { •' ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff, V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendant. PROPERTY TO BE GARNISHED: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 CIVIL ACTION-LAW You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street, Sixth Floor, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0999, (717) 255-7626 ATTN: Gordon Einhorn, Esquire: all sums due defendant(s) from garnishee; all property of defendant(s) possessed by garnishee; all accounts including all savings, checking, and other accounts, certificates of deposit, notes, receivables, collateral, pledges, documents of title, securities, coupons and safe deposit boxes :1Z -4A w CC??00 ?'°? R V w w V ^ Cz cs? _..} sr ? -rt WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT . A. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) TO THE SHERIFF OF DAUPHIN COUNTY: To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due ADAMS AND ADAMS, A PARTNERSHIP, DB/A ADAMS AND GARDNER, Plaintiff (s) From JR CONSTURCTION, INC. AND AND JOSEPH S. RUDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF JR CONSTRUCTION, INC., 945 DOUBLING GAP ROAD, NEWVILLE, PA 17241 (1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant (s)and to sell . (2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of THOMAS, THOMAS AND HAFER, LLP, 305 NORTH FRONT STREET, SIXTH FLOOR, HARRISBURG, PA 17108-0999,(717)255-7626 ATTN: GORDON EINHORN, ESQUIRE: ALL SUMS DUE DEFENDANT(S) FROM GARNISHEE; ALL PROPERTY OF DEFENDANT(S) POSSESSED BY GARNISHEE; ALL ACCOUNTS INCLUDING ALL SAVINGS, CHECKING, AND OTHER ACCOUNTS, CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT, NOTES, RECEIVABLES, COLLATERAL, PLEDGES, DOCUMENTS OF TITLE, SECURITITES, COUPONS AND SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES GARNISHEE(S) as follows: and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued; (b) the garnishee(s) is enjoined from paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant (s) and from delivering any property of the defendant (s) or otherwise disposing thereof; (3) If property of the defendant(s) not levied upon an subject to attachment is found in the possession of anyone other 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 $21,440.59 Interest $10,615.54 Atty's Comm % Atty Paid $167.30 Plaintiff Paid Date: AUGUST 26, 2008 L.L. Due Prothy $2.00 Other Costs Corti R. Long, Protho (Seal) NO 99-5162 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW By: Deputy REQUESTING PARTY: Name DAVID A. BARIC, ESQUIRE Address: 19 WEST SOUTH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 Attorney for: PLAINTIFF `? Telephone: 717-249-6873 Supreme Court ID No. 44853 ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership, d/b/a ADAMS AND GARDNER 901 HILLSIDE DRIVE CARLISLE, PA 17013 Plaintiff V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. 945 DOUBLING GAP ROAD NEWVILLE, PA 17241 Defendant AND PAUL BRADFORD ORR, ESQ. 50 EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 Garnishee AND SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI 2225 MILLENIUM WAY ENOLA, PA 17025 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1999-5162 Garnishee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION Caption: ? Confessed Judgment . ®Other *SEE ATTACHED COVER PAGE* File No. 1999-5162 Amount Due $21,440.59 Interest $10,615.54 Atty's Comm Costs TO BE ADDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE SAID COURT: The undersigned hereby certifies that the below does not arise out of a retail installment sale, contract, or account based on a confession of judgment, but if it does, it is based on the appropriate original proceeding filed pursuant to act 7 of 1966 as amended; and for real property pursuant to Act 6 of 1974 as amended. Issue writ of execution in the above matter to the Sheriff of County, for debt, interest and costs, upon the following described property of the defendant (s) PRAECIPE FOR ATTACHMENT EXECUTION Issue writ of attachment to the Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County, for debt, interest and costs, as above, directing attachment against the above-named garnishee(s) for the following property (if real estate, supply six copies of the description; supply four copies of lengthy personalty list) *SEE ATTCHED LIST OF PROPERTY TO ;o, GARNISHBD* and all other property of the defendant(s) in the possession, custody or cthe said garnishee(s). C ? dicate) Index this writ against the garnishee (s) as a lis g in st re of described in the attached exhibit. Date Signature: Print Name: DAVID A. BARIC,ESQUIRE Address: 19 WEST SOUTH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 Attorney for: PLAINTIFF Telephone: (717) 249-6873 Supreme Court ID No: 44 8 5 3 ' R a _ ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-5162 v. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION-LAW PROPERTY TO BE GARNISHED: You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of: Paul Bradford Orr, Esquire 50 East High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, (717) 258- 8558 and Shollenberger and Januzzi, LLP 2225 Millenium Way, Enola, Pennsylvania 17025, (717) 249-3200 as garnishees: all sums due defendant(s) from garnishee; all property of defendant(s) possessed by garnishee; all accounts including all savings, checking, and other accounts, certificates of deposit, notes, receivables, collateral, pledges, documents of title, securities, coupons and safe deposit boxes W ? ;h?, ? Ccc C w .. W tp r .. oc1 O? C? c? WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) NO 99-5162 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due ADAMS AND ADAMS, A PARTNERSHIP, DB/A ADAMS AND GARDNER, Plaintiff (s) From JR CONSTURCTION, INC. AND AND JOSEPH S. RUDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF JR CONSTRUCTION, INC., 945 DOUBLING GAP ROAD, NEWVILLE, PA 17241 (1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant (s)and to sell . (2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of PAUL BRADFORD ORR, ESQUIRE, 50 EAST HIGH STREET, CARLISLE, PA 17013,717- 258-8558 AND SHOLLENBERGER AND JANUZZI, LLP, 225 MILLENIUM WAY, ENOLA, PA 17025,717-249-3200 AS GARNISHEES: ALL SUMS DUE DEFENDANT(S) FROM GARNISHEE; ALL PROPERTY OF DEFENDANT(S) POSSESSED BY GARNISHEE; ALL ACCOUNTS INCLUDING ALL SAVINGS, CHECKING, AND OTHER ACCOUNTS, CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT, NOTES, RECEIVABLES, COLLATERAL, PLEDGES, DOCUMENTS OF TITLE, SECURITITES, COUPONS AND SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES GARNISHEE(S) as follows: and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued; (b) the garnishee(s) is enjoined from paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant (s) and from delivering any property of the defendant (s) or otherwise disposing thereof; (3) If property of the defendant(s) not levied upon an subject to attachment is found in the possession of anyone other 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 $21,440.59 L.L. $.50 Interest $10,615.54 Atty's Comm % Atty Paid $169.80 Plaintiff Paid Due Prothy $2.00 Other Costs Date: AUGUST 26, 2008 (Seal) REQUESTING PARTY: Name DAVID A. BARIC, ESQUIRE Address: 19 WEST SOUTH STREET z 210 ew4o 4 C is R. Long, Pr By: Deputy CARLISLE, PA 17013 . , . _ „ Attorney for: PLAINTIFF Telephone: 717-249-6873 Supreme Court ID No. 44853 ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership d/b/a ADAMS and GARDNER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR Construction, Inc., Defendants NO. 99-5162 CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE And now, this 16TAdaY of September, 2008, 1 hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer to Interrogatories have been served upon the following, via U.S. Certified Restricted Delivery Mail: David A. Baric, Esquire O'Brien, Baric & Scherer 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI, LLP By: Ti $?xol?nberger, Esf( 11#34343 s L Attorne cp SHERIFF'S RETURN - GARNISHEE 11 CASE NO: 1999-05162 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ADAMS AND ADAMS PTNR ET AL VS JR CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL And now KENNETH GOSSERT ,Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County of Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, at 0013:35 Hours, on the 12th day of September, 2008, attached as herein commanded all goods, chattels, rights, debts, credits, and moneys of the within named DEFENDANT , TT / ^'kTr4rf1T7TTlTT Tl1TT TATfT hands, possession, or control of the within named Garnishee SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI 2225 MILLENIUM WAY LLP . in the ENOLA, PA 17025 Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by handing to SHONDEL KREBS (LEGAL ASSISTANT) personally three copies of interogatories together with 3 true and attested copies of the within WRIT OF EXECUTION and made the contents there of known to Her . Sheriff's Costs: So answers: Docketing .00 ?? Service .00 adw Affidavit .00 R. Thomas Kline Surcharge .00 Sheriff of Cumberland County .0000 ? 1614vorc-)- 09/16/2008 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of By A.D SHERIFF'S RETURN - GARNISHEE CASE NO: 1999-05162 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ADAMS AND ADAMS PTNR ET AL VS JR. CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL And now KENNETH GOSSERT ,Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County of Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, at 0013:35 Hours, on the 12th day of September, 2008, attached as herein commanded all goods, chattels, rights, debts, credits, and moneys of the within named DEFENDANT , in the RUDA JOSEPH hands, possession, or control of the within named Garnishee SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI LLP 2225 MILLENIUM WAY ENOLA, PA 17025 Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by handing to SHONDEL KREBS (LEGA ASSISTANT) personally three copies of interogatories together with 3 true and attested copies of the within WRIT OF EXECUTION and made the contents there of known to Her . Sheriff's Costs: So answ s• Docketing .00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 R. Thomas Kline Surcharge .00 Sheriff of Cumberland County .00 00 09/16/2008 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of By A.D SHERIFF'S RETURN - GARNISHEE CASE NO: 1999-05162 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ADAMS AND ADAMS PTNR ET AL VS JR CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL And now ROBERT BITNER ,Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County of Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, at 0014:35 Hours, on the 5th day of September, 2008, attached as herein commanded all goods, chattels, rights, debts, credits, and moneys of the within named DEFENDANT , JR CONSTRUCTION INC hands, possession, or control of the within named Garnishee PAUL BRADFORD ORR ESQ 50 EAST HIGH ST CARLISLE, PA 17013 Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by handing to ROBIN STARNER (OFFICE MANAGER personally three copies of interogatories together with 3 and attested copies of the within WRIT OF EXECUTION the contents there of known to Her . in the true and made Sheriff's Costs: So •y/ ?'1?I Docketing .00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 R. Thomas Kline Surcharge .00 Sheriff of Cumberland County .00 00 ? /o?o.??e C?,,, 09/16/2008 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of By Deputy Sheri f A.D SHERIFF'S RETURN - GARNISHEE CASE NO: 1999-05162 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ADAMS AND ADAMS PTNR ET AL VS JR CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL And now ROBERT BITNER ,Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County of Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, at 0014:35 Hours, on the 5th day of September, 2008, attached as herein commanded all goods, chattels, rights, debts, credits, and moneys of the within named DEFENDANT RUDA JOSEPH hands, possession, or control of the within named Garnishee PAUL BRADFORD ORR ESQ 50 EAST HIGH ST CARLISLE, PA 17013 Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by handing to ROBIN STARNER (OFFICE MANAGER) personally three copies of interogatories together with 3 in the true and attested copies of the within WRIT OF EXECUTION and made the contents there of known to Her Sheriff's Costs: So Docketing .00 elevw<e-? Service .00 Affidavit .00 R. Thomas Kline Surcharge .00 Sheriff of Cumberland County .00 00 V 09/16/2008 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of By + !`WZd.4 D putt' Sheriff A.D 1 ADAMS and ADAMS, a partnership, d/b/a ADAMS AND GARDNER 901 HILLSIDE DRIVE CARLISLE, PA 17013 Plaintiff V. JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. and JOSEPH S. RUDA, individually and as president and chief executive officer of JR CONSTRUCTION, INC. 945 DOUBLING GAP ROAD NEWVILLE, PA 17241 Defendant AND PAUL BRADFORD ORR, ESQ. 50 EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 Garnishee AND SHOLLENBERGER & JANUZZI 2225 MILLENIUM WAY ENOLA, PA 17025 Garnishee AND THOMAS, THOMAS AND HAFER, LLP 305 NORTH FRONT STREET SIXTH FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 17108 Garnishee IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 1999-5162 PRAECIPE TO DISSOLVE ATTACHMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please dissolve the attachment filed in this matter against Shollenberger & Januzzi and Paul Bradford Orr, Esquire on August 26, 2008. Date: 6 A/0 ` Respectfully submitted, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERE t David A. Baric, Esquire I.D. # 44853 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May ( , 2009, I, David A. Baric, Esquire of O'Brien, Baric & Scherer, did serve a copy of the Praecipe To Dissolve Attachment, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below, as follows: Timothy A. Shollenberger, Esquire Shollenberger & Januzzi, LLP 2225 Millennium Way Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 Paul B. Orr, Esquire 50 East High Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17103 David A. Baric, Esquire PALED-OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY 2009 MAY -b PM 4: 0 cViY4?. ate' iJ fi f MEMINVIAINO F, I R*- -2- "-? y ?18? 3 Of- 1 R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states this writ is returned STAYED, WRIT IS EXPIRED. Sheriff s Costs: Docketing Poundage Law Library Prothonotary Mileage Surcharge Garnishee Levy Postage TOTAL 18.00 3.19 .50 2.00 20.00 60.00 18.00 40.00 .88 162.57 Advance Costs: 225.00 Sheriff s Costs: 162.57 62.43 Refunded to attorney 05-20-09 So Answers; 14) R. Thom Kline, She ' ff r B n N ? 'N " ? v C C_F v J I ': ? ti'u l ?r U ID Attorney for: PLAINTIFF Telephone: 717-249-6873 Supreme Court ID No. 44853 -t WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT e IL COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) NO 99-5162 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due ADAMS AND ADAMS, A PARTNERSHIP, DB/A ADAMS AND GARDNER, Plaintiff (s) From JR CONSTURCTION, INC. AND AND JOSEPH S. RUDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF JR CONSTRUCTION, INC., 945 DOUBLING GAP ROAD, NEWVILLE, PA 17241 (1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant (s)and to sell (2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of PAUL BRADFORD ORR, ESQUIRE, 50 EAST HIGH STREET, CARLISLE, PA 17013,717- 258-8558 AND SHOLLENBERGER AND JANUZZI, LLP, 225 MILLENIUM WAY, ENOLA, PA 17025,717-249-3200 AS GARNISHEES: ALL SUMS DUE DEFENDANT(S) FROM GARNISHEE; ALL PROPERTY OF DEFENDANT(S) POSSESSED BY GARNISHEE; ALL ACCOUNTS INCLUDING ALL SAVINGS, CHECKING, AND OTHER ACCOUNTS, CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT, NOTES, RECEIVABLES, COLLATERAL, PLEDGES, DOCUMENTS OF TITLE, SECURITITES, COUPONS AND SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES GARNISHEE(S) as follows: and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued; (b) the garnishee(s) is enjoined from paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant (s) and from delivering any property of the defendant (s) or otherwise disposing thereof; (3) If property of the defendant(s) not levied upon an subject to attachment is found in the possession of anyone other 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 $21,440.59 Interest $10,615.54 Atty's Comm % Atty Paid $169.80 Plaintiff Paid Date: AUGUST 26, 2008 (Seal) L.L. $.50 Due Prothy $2.00 Other Costs C s R. Long, ProjwNoU4 By: Deputy REQUESTING PARTY: Name DAVID A. BARIC, ESQUIRE Address: 19 WEST SOUTH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013