HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-05402Q?
z
v
f'
SANDRA AND ROBERT
CORNMAN,
Plaintiffs
vs.
IDA AND"HOWARD STEAGER,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 1999- Sokf o ?-
EiLL-kAV !Y 2y-1
IN EQUITY
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the
claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days
after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance
personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or
objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do
so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by
the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any
other claim or relief requested by the 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, PA. 17013
(717) 249-3166
1-800-990-9108
SANDRA AND ROBERT
CORNMAN,
Plaintiffs
vs.
IDA AND HOWARD STEAGER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1999- -57/C-2 Oyu, ??. 76'v-,--
IN EQUITY
AND NOW, this 2nd day of September, 1999, comes the Plaintiffs, Sandra
and Robert Comman, by their attorney, Arthur K.Dils, Esquire, and respectfully avers
the following:
The Plaintiffs are Sandra and Robert Cornman, adult individuals, husband and
wife, who currently reside at 416 Reno Avenue, New Cumberland, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendants, Ida and Howard Steager, are adult individuals, husband and
wife, who currently reside at 411 Reno Avenue, New Cumberland, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
3. On November 30, 1983, the Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into an Agreement
attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A". Said Agreement provided for the purchase
of the premises at 416 Reno Avenue, New Cumberland, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
4. The price set forth was $38,500.00, and the purchase was tentatively set on July
1, 1984.
5. The Agreement provided $4,500.00 shall be paid to the parties of the first part and
a sales agreement would be entered into for $34,500.00 at the interest rate of 12%.
6. The Agreement also contemplated that there would be a rental period for six (6)
months in the amount of $400.00 per month. The Agreement specifically provided
that the lease shall not be renewed.
-2-
7. The Plaintiffs had difficulty in obtaining $4,500.00 in cash and the Defendants,
Harold P. and Ida L. Steager, agreed that the time frame for payment would be
extended.
8. In November of 1984, Robert H. Comman and Sandra K. Cornman began to
renovate the property. Kitchen renovations were started, which entailed installing
underground plumbing and additional electrical work.
9. A coat closet was also installed in the living room area of the property.
10. In 1985, the entire electrical service in the house was replaced with 200 AMP
service, because the 30 AMP service was inadequate.
11. After this, many other improvements were made to the property, See Exhibit "B"
attached hereto and made apart hereof.
-3-
12. These renovations were conducted from November of 1984 until November of
1996.
13. Throughout this period of time, the Defendants were aware of the extensive
repairs and renovations, and at no time did they indicate that these repairs and
renovations should not be conducted.
14. Throughout this period of time, the Defendants continually indicated that the
property would be conveyed to the Plaintiffs, and that the property was theirs and that
they should not be concerned; Mrs. Steager specifically stated, "this is your house to
do whatever you want as you will ultimately be the owners because of the payments
you have made."
15. Said representations as to ultimate ownership by the Defendants were made
repeatedly over the years to the Plaintiffs.
16. It addition to the detailed list which is Exhibit "B", there was approximately
-4-
fifteen hundred to two thousand dollars worth of additional work performed by adding
insulation, trim for windows and door, ceiling tile, floor tile and drywall for the
kitchen and attic.
17. Paragraphs one (1) through sixteen (16) of the foregoing Compliant are
incorporated herein and made apart hereof by reference.
18. The actions of the Defendants through repeatedly indicating that the property was
the Plaintiffs and permitting them to make over $40,000.00 worth of renovations and
repairs has created, by operation of law, a constructive trust for the benefit of the
Plaintiffs.
19. The representations by the Defendants and their acts as set forth in the preceding
paragraphs constitutes abuse of confidence and unconscionable conduct, which
-5-
requires in equity and good conscience, that they now be required to execute a deed
conveying the said premises into the name of the Plaintiffs.
20. The Defendants, through their actions as set forth above, and the underlying sales
agreement, places upon them an equitable duty to convey to the Plaintiffs said real
estate and failure to convey the real estate to the Plaintiffs would unjustly enrich the
Defendants in that they have collected approximately $60,000.00 to $70,000.00 in
payments.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray your Honorable Court to declare by operation
of law and in equity that there was a constructive trust created by the acts and
representations of the Defendants and require the subject property to be conveyed and
titled to the Plaintiffs.
-6-
20. Paragraph one (1) through twenty-one (21) of the foregoing complaint are
incorporated herein and made apart hereof by reference.
21. The representations and actions of both Howard P. Steager and Ida L. Steager,
his wife, were conveyed to the Plaintiffs repeatedly from the years 1984 until 1999,
that the property would be theirs, and it was theirs, and they could do with it what
they wanted.
22. These representations were reasonably and justly relied upon by the Plaintiffs,
Sandra and Robert Cornman, and because of said just reliance, the Plaintiffs have
been harmed in that they have paid almost double the original purchase price of the
property through periodic monthly payments, and have not received a deed, which
was basically agreed to in the contract dated November of 1983, which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A".
-7-
23. The statements made by the Steagers as to the ultimate ownership of the
property in the Cornmans was false and misleading. The fact that the Steagers knew
and permitted the extensive repairs and remodeling further bolstered the reasonable
reliance by the Plaintiffs that the property would ultimately be theirs.
24. The Plaintiffs have been misled by the statements and actions by the Defendants
and have suffered substantial harm in that they paid monthly payments in the amount
of $400.00 from January of 1984 through June of 1986, and then the Defendants
required additional payments in the amount of $475.00 through 1996, when the
Defendants required payments in the amount of $500.00 per month. All said
payments have been made in the amount of $500.00 per month until August of 1999.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that your Honorable Court
compel and enjoin an Order that the Defendants convey their right, title and interest
-8-
in the real estate located at 416 Reno Avenue, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania to the
Plaintiffs as they are estopped from doing otherwise.
Respectfully submitted,
BY:
Arthur K. Dils, squire
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA. 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
Attorney for Plaintiffs
-9-
?J t o
a
a
z
a Q
z z
o a ? o
C
H ws
E K F ,
H ?
O 5 LC R'. H y o f
O O Q Q > ?z
a u H `? > c ? ? °
a ?
o ° a z o f =_
z
U iQ Q D U a ?m
a r a '?
w Q
E ? C ?
2 Q
? Z Q
Z D W Q H
H v a ?
361'.X.... L.u.a
k'lade this
ALL STATE LEGAL SUPPLY CORP.
1316 ARCII ST., PIIILAOELPInA, PA. 19101
? jib greet at
3v c1'( day of Ala4r4776
between HWARD P. S117AGFR and IDA L. SlEAGER, his wife,
: 1. U. 10 d4j
hereinafter styled the Putty of the first pat, and ROBER'r ii. CORwAN and SMIDRA K. CORNMAN, his wife,
hereinafter styled the party of the second part.
3fliturn0e111, flint Ilse said party of the first pat, in rosideation of the roars and rave.rartr Inn'rhr•
Offer mentioned, dolly demise and lease undo the slid party of the serond part to be used of a dt3ellin
?. J - - ,_ . ._ ^elrr-prami:ersiOmtr to she 6:prC LtgFrof.
New Curnberland Connly of Cuntdserlal d aid Coninioawrolfh of Pcup.
sylvapin, described as follows:
Being premises Icnomi as 416 Reno Street, New Cumberland, Peruisylvania.
011 lIaIIP I111t1 ILI i11111l pasta the said party of the second pad, subject to fine conditions of this agree.
ment for the le,ra beginning oil the Ist
dap of
Decentaer 19 83, aid ending all fire 3001
day of June 19 84,
Jo Tattathminolt of 1111irll the said turfy of the second pall agrees fd;pay to Ilse said party of the
first part for the use and occupancy of the said promises, (lit said of Two 1Thousand Four Hundred
($2,400.00) dollars, payable as follows, vie: Four Hundred ($1100.00) Dollars each month,
) ec ulirho Jaaulaty 1,. 1?84.... 'illere_shall. *;)c _no 1M;1 paid o', Dece4er 1., ?- .-
A9 u 3$1Ir"1i'r (IL11110PI'allali for Ilse use and occupancy of said premises the said party of Ilse second
part hereby agrees to faithfully keep mud be bound by she following ce've O"Is. conditions, and agienments,
viz:
The said premises are to be kept and maintained in as good repair and condition as of present and
at the expiration of this lease, they are to be surrendered in like repair and candilion, cal ral wear aid
damages happening by fsre,'sforw or other casualties only excepted.
The
may Promilate ses are dlrinkg9c Che it: a clean and
form are to be sanitary removed, condition aid in case of failure to reanove alhe gsomelrIlse
early. of Ilse firs! part play cot(ecf as rent due and in art-ears double Ilit cost of removal: (lie tvaler, lighting
or other service for lute rise of slue occupants of the said preltisu furnished by any Public Service Company
diming the said Win shall be. paid for by the said party of file second part muless ofherwise provided herein,
or the sortie may, be collected by the said party of the first part as real due and in arrears.
Nothing shall be done upon said premises contrary to the conditions of the policies of insurance upon
the building ther9an whereby she hazard may be increased or the insurance invalidated: neither the whale
nor any portion of the said promises shall be sublet, -nor shall this lease or oily interest Unerein be assigned,
nor shall lute party of Ilse second part remove or attempt to remove from said premises during Ili, ternn
of this lease, tuillsout Ilia 20, Weir contend Of Ilia said party of the first tort, and no unlawful business stall at
oily little be carried on upon said premises.
n The parly of the first part expressly reserves the right to enter upon the Premises at rcasoable states.
for tie purpose of making necessary inspection, repairs or to show the saute to prospective purchasers or
lessees, and may display "for red" or "for sale" cards thereon,
The rentoval of ally goods front flee premises, waefrier by day or oyy nngat, tnotaoul tae written consent
of flit partyy of (Ito first part, shall be deemed a clandestine and fraudulent removal and such goods shall
renainJiable to distress for a period of thirty days after, such retrieval, wherever they may be found.
If default shall be made inn the payment of oily part of flit said Total after the sortie becomes due, or in
case o/ a breach or evasion or Doty attempt to break or evade any of Ilse covenants or conditions of this
agreement, the entire red rose, °ed for Use full lernt of Ihis lease renainino unpaid shall become due and
payable at once and Imay forth vitll be. collected by distress or otherwise, and at the satire lime the party of
the firs, purl may forfeit and -nrnisl the mexpirid portion of this lease and enter upon and repossess Ile
said promises tvislt or wdllsod process of haw, and willow giving oily notice tulalsoever.
Acreplance by the party of Ili first part of oily of the said led at oily linse after tine some shall become
due, after default Itas been made in Ike payment thereof, or any faihmv to adore. city of Ilse ri' ahes heroin
reserved to flit party of file firs( part, or oily of flit penalties, forfeitures or conditions herein codained,
shall not in any wise be conndered a tuniver of the tight to enforce she some at oily Gene without any
notice whatsoever, and oily oftempl to collect (he rod by one proceeding shall not be ronstde,'ed as a tuoiver
i
of the right to collect file same by any other proceearrg, but all of the rights of the pa.rfy of the first fart,
and all forfeitures, penalties and conditions any be enforced together or successively of the option of the'
party of the first part.
It is further agreed that if the party of the secand part shall become insolvent, rake an assignment
for the benefit of creditors, canmif any act of honkruplcy, file a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, or if
any judgment shall be entered or amp involuntary petition in bankruptcy fled against the lair! party of the
second par(, all flee rent reserved for file full sera of this lease. shall become due and collectible inunedi-
alely by distress or othersvise.
The Prothonotary or any attorney of any Court of Rrrord of Pennsylvania is hereby outhorfaed to
appear for and to confess a judgment against the said party of file second part and in favor of flit, mid party
of the, first part for the whale announl of sa trt rent us he,einbefore set forth and %, adoreryr nnrunissiorr.
And fife said party of file second part hereby •aaivrs the usual notice to quit, and agrees to surrender
said premises at fire expiration of said term, or the termination of this lease without any entice wholsoeve.r.
And upon any proceeding instituted for flip recovery of said rent, either by distress or otherudse, floe said
party) of the second Pail waver the benefit of all approisernent, stay and exemption laws' the right of in-
quisition on real estate, and all bankruptcy or insolvency laT.r nnsv in force or hereafter passed.
Upon the breach of any of Ih,• covenants err a, rerrnrnts of ship Irnsr of upon its Ier'muatan by for-
feiture, default at, e.rpirnlion the P,olhonotrry or any alsnrnry as aforesaid is h,veby oubovired to apprar
for and to confess indgonv,f in an amicable firtion of ejertnent against the said patty of the second part
and in fnvor of she said pails, of the first part fo' Ihr Inemises hc?'Oo dr.snibr•d, and to direr( the innunedt-
ule issuing of Twits of po.ue.rsloft and execution far assts, sonivinp fill irrrgulnrilirs, without notice and
I ilhout asking Irnsr of rourf.
It is further agreed that the lernns and conditions of this agrecnon•and learn shall in no may be clanged
or altered except by a writing signed by all of the parties hoelo; and if fine said party of floe second part
shall continue in possession of the said premises after the expiralio r of point term, of the option of the said
party of the first part such fin/ding over may be held and droned a reneuvt of this agreennernt for another
like term, the same as though a new agrerunent of lensing, identical with thus, had been exerdrd and de-
livered by Ihr saint parties hereto /fir n .sucreeding lean, the nbm,r authorizations In appear find envlrer.judgorrnl ngniarl
the party n/ the second purl shall ins be r.rknusled hr one eyerri.se tbrrrnf, bus um r he repratedl n• ererri.sed friar lirnr
to little.
And Lhe lessors shall. retain a one hundred ($1.00.00) dollar security
deposit- wlti.ch shall be paid by the lessees to Lhe lessors nt the signing of this
lease.
It: is hereby agreed that Hie parties of the second part: will purchase the
aforesaid premises on July 1, 19£34 rot Lhe following terms: Price - $38,500.00.
Four thousand five hundred ($4,500.00) dollars shall. be paid to the parties
of the first part in cash and a sales agreement will be entered into for thirty-four
thousand ($34,000.00) dollars providing for interest at: the rate of Lvelve (12%)
per ceft= pee. annum and mmthly payments in the atnomt of 'three hundred ninety-nine
and 07/100 ($399.07) dollars, by Che further pravi.slon that Lhe price shall be paid
in full no later than five (5) years after the date of the aforesaid apreement.
the atrt:eement shall. also provide LhaL (:here wi1J. be no peualLy Car prep yrents.
the $x(,500.00 dorm payfenL shall be rnide no later than Juc.•y If, 1984, and
if the said payment is not made, the parties of the first part shall be relieved of
their obligation to sell the premises to the parties of the second part.
The Collr7t1d n lh ;aagrreeni?t s/fall exteund tothe heirs. e.rerusors, administrators, ssurcessors nor/ assigns
of all the parties herein,
.3111 JU1111roo 1911preaf, the parties afaresnid have hereunto sot their hands and seals lire day and year
first above avrilten.
a
v fuss;
1 n
d
ru curt rn rtarturn nn ..a
•: lD
n J:
cci
c?r?: emu; ;f::• I,
a Z9i tai i n
Z91 Cis C:, ?i
•a . N. c O
9M ;
R b
Vl; j p R
F C u
•A ?.J A9 n 17 7 7 (7 17 ,n •7
i•, A _
h ` O t O
Z. a o .o ,` u 9 A
.y
a
total cost of renovations
Underground pipe $367.24
drainage p ipe $761.51
front porch and walk $1,848.44
Kitchen 8 dining room P9,897,33
Bathroom $5,282.98
Replacement windows
? $4,979.00
ctlatclezur $824.90
Attic $3,511.94
chain link fence $600.00
Bedroom #2 $1,337.60
Front door and lock $445.25
200 amp Electric service $1,575.16
Water Heater $357.00
hnerlorvmUront to top of steps $509.67
Sidewalk (reposition) $805.97
Privacyfence $1,916.56
6ryer hook u
p
aca a
arage $394.81
Miscellaneous repairs $1,726.02
total $38,319.87
approximately 1,500.00 to 2,000.00 have been
misplaced or lost for insulation, trim for
windows and doors, ceiling tile, floor tile,
and drywall for kitchen and attic
!/ a /To .
Ckl?JH/ T //5"
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this COMPLAINT
are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are
made subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S. Section 4904 relating
to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATE: SEPTPMBF,R 2, 1999 SANDRA K. CORNMAN AND ROBERT H. CORNMAN
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 1999-05402 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
CORNMAN SANDRA ET AL
vs.
STEAGER IDA ET AL
CPL. TIMOTHY REITZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according
to law, says, the within COMPLAINT - EQUITY was served
upon STEAGER IDA the
defendant, at 18:28 HOURS, on the 7th day of September
1999 at 411 RENO ST
NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 CUMBERLAND
County, Pennsylvania, by handing to IDA STEAGER
a true and attested copy cf the COMPLAINT --EQUITY
together with NOTICE
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs: So answers:
Docketing 18.00
Service 10.54
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 8.00 M.7r. e`er` $er
RT0UR K. DILS -
4 A
09/8/1999
by
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this tt day of
19 CI(? ?A.D.
w 7"pro o ar *
e y er
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 1999-05402 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
CORNMAN SANDRA ET AL
VS.
STEAGER IDA ET AL
CPL. TIMOTHY REITZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according
to law, says, the within COMPLAINT - EQUITY was served
upon STEAGER HOWARD the
defendant, at 18:28 HOURS, on the 7th day of September
1999 at 411 RENO ST
NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 CUMBERLAND
County, Pennsylvania, by handing to HOWARD STEAGER
a true and attested copy of the COMPLAINT - EQUITY
together with NOTICE
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
6.00 So answers:
.00C
.00
6.00 1.I7 a? Aline, 5 er
? ARTH R K. DILS
09/08/1999
by
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this b& day of
19 9,9 A. D.
ro ono azy?
u en
SANDRA AND ROBERT CORNMAN,
Plaintiffs
vs.
IDA AND HOWARD STEAGER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS -M
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1999-5402
EQUITY TERM
IN EQUITY
NOTICE TO PLEAD TO NEW MATTER
AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO: Robert and Sandra Cornman
c/o Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
DILS & RUPICH
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER AND
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE.
October 8, 1999
Peter B. Foster
Attorney for Defendants
PINSKEY & FOSTER
121 South Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717)234-9321
SANDRA AND ROBERT CORNMAN,
Plaintiffs
vs.
IDA AND HOWARD STEAGER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1999-5402
EQUITY TERM
IN EQUITY
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER
AND NOW, this 8th day of October, 1999, come the Defendants Ida and Howard Steager,
by their attorney, Peter B. Foster, Esquire, and answer the Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:
Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that the parties signed an Agreement
on November 30, 1983. Denied that said Agreement was a Purchase Agreement for the premises.
On the contrary said Agreement was a Lease Agreement with an option to purchase the property.
4. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that the option price was $38,500.
Denied that the purchase was tentatively set on July 1, 1984. On the contrary the option to purchase
the property could be exercised by making a $4500.00 payment by July 1, 1984 and the balance over
an ensuing period and the signing of a Sales Agreement.
5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that the Agreement was a Sales
Agreement. On the contrary said Agreement was a Lease Agreement with an option to buy.
Admitted that the terms of the option are set forth in said averment.
6. Admitted in part and denied in part. Denied that said Agreement was a Sales Agree-
ment. On the contrary said Agreement was a Lease Agreement with an option to buy. Admitted that
said written rental period was for six months. Admitted that the Agreement provided that the lease
would not be renewed.
7. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that the Plaintiffs had difficulty in
obtaining $4500.00 in cash. Denied that the Defendants Harold P. and Ida L. Steager agreed that the
time frame for payment would be extended. Defendants never stated that the time frame for payment
would be extended.
8. Denied. Denied that in November of 1984, Robert H. Cornman and Sandra K.
Comman began to renovate the property. Denied that the kitchen renovations were started, which
entailed installing underground plumbing and additional electrical work. On the contrary Defendants
generally knew that the improvements were being made through discussion with the Plaintiffs.
Defendants were not aware of what the specific improvements were and when they were made.
9. Denied. Denied that a coat closet was also installed in the living room area of the
property. This averment is denied for the reasons stated in Paragraph 8 of this Answer.
10. Denied. Denied that in 1985, the entire electrical service in the house was replaced
with 200 AMP service, because the 30 AMP service was inadequate. This averment is denied for the
reasons set forth in Paragraph 8 of this Answer.
11. Denied. Denied that after this, many other improvements were made to the property
and that these improvements are set forth in Plaintiffs' Exhibit "B". This averment is denied for the
reasons set forth in Paragraph 8 of this Answer.
2
12. Denied. Denied that these renovations were conducted from November of 1984 until
November of 1996. Defendants have not specific knowledge of when the renovations were
conducted and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
13. Admitted in part and denied in part. Denied that the Defendants were aware of the
extensive repairs and renovations. On the contrary , Defendants were not aware of the extensive
repairs and renovations that were made. Admitted that at no time did Defendants indicate that the
repairs and renovations should not be conducted.
14. Denied. Denied that the Defendants continually indicated that the property would be
conveyed to the Plaintiffs, and that the property was theirs and that they should not be concerned,
Mrs. Steager specifically stated, "This is your house to do whatever you want as you will ultimately
be the owners because of the payments you have made". On the contrary Defendants never made
said alleged statements.
15. Denied. It is denied that said statements as to ultimate ownership by the Defendants
were made repeatedly over the years to the Plaintiffs. On the contrary said alleged statements were
never made.
16. Denied. It is denied that in addition to the items in Exhibit "B", there was
approximately Fifteen Hundred to Two Thousand Dollars worth of additional work performed by
adding insulation, trim for windows and door, ceiling tile, floor tile and drywall for the kitchen and
attic. This averment is denied for the reasons stated forth in Paragraph 8 of this Answer.
17. Admitted.
3
18. Denied. Denied that the actions of the Defendants through repeatedly indicating that
the property was the Plaintiffs and permitting them to make over $40,000.00 worth of renovations
and repairs has created, by operation of law, a constructive trust for the benefit of the Steagers. On
the contrary Defendants never indicated that the property was the Plaintiffs'. Furthermore,
Defendants did not permit Plaintiffs to make over $40,000.00 worth of renovations and repairs
because they were unaware of said renovations and repairs. Also, said renovations and repairs do not
have a value of over $40,000.00. Additionally, a constructive trust for Plaintiffs has not been created.
Under the State of Frauds contracts for sale of land must be in writing. No such contract existed in
this case.
19. Denied. It is denied that the representations by the Defendants and their acts as set
forth in the preceding paragraphs constitute abuse of confidence and unconscionable conduct, which
requires in equity and good conscience, that they now be required to execute a deed conveying the
said premises into the name of the Plaintiffs. Said averments state conclusions of law to which no
response pleading is required.
20. Denied. Denied that the Defendants, through their actions as set forth above, and the
underlying Sales Agreement, places upon them an equitable duty to convey to the Plaintiffs said real
estate to the Plaintiffs which would unjustly enrich the Defendant since they have collected
approximately $60,000.00 to $70,000.00 in payments. On the contrary said averments state
conclusions of law to which no response is required. Furthermore, there was no Sales Agreement
but merely an option to buy which was never exercised. Also, the collection of rents from Plaintiffs
4
forms no legal basis for a claim of unjust enrichment. Additionally, no written or oral Sales
Agreement ever existed. Contracts for the sale of land must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request that this Court deny Plaintiffs' claim for the creation of
a constructive trust and deny the Plaintiffs' claim that the subject property be conveyed to them.
20. Admitted.
21. Denied. Denied that the representations and actions of both Howard P. Steager and
Ida L. Steager, his wife, were conveyed to the Plaintiffs repeatedly from the years 1984 until 1999,
that the property would be theirs, and it was theirs, and they could do with it what they wanted. On
the contrary , Defendants never made such alleged statements. All that Defendants indicated was their
willingness to negotiate a Sales Contract.
22. Denied. Denied that these representations were reasonably and justly relied upon by
the Plaintiffs, Sandra and Robert Cornman, and because of said just reliance, the Plaintiffs have been
harmed in that they have paid almost double the original purchase price of the property through
periodic monthly payments, and have not received a deed, which was basically agreed to in the
contract dated November of 1983, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". On the contrary no such
statements were made by the Defendants to Plaintiffs so that there could not be any reliance by
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not been harmed by the periodic monthly payments that they have made
since these are simply rental payments made in compliance with the original lease and the carryover
month-to-month lease which followed. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not received a deed because no
Sales Agreement was ever consummated. The contract of November of 1983 was a Lease Agree-
5
ment with an option to buy. The option was never exercised by Plaintiffs.
23. Denied. Denied that the statements made by the Steagers as to the ultimate ownership
of the property in the Cormans was false and misleading. Denied that the Steagers knew and
permitted the extensive repairs and remodeling which further bolstered the reasonable reliance by the
Plaintiffs that the property would ultimately be theirs. On the contrary the Steagers never made any
representations to the Plaintiffs that the property would ultimately be theirs. Through discussions
with Plaintiffs, Defendants were made aware that Plaintiffs were undertaking some items of work.
It is denied that Defendants were aware of each itemized improvement or that they were consulted
prior to the initiation of any work or even consulted regarding the nature of the work prior to the
initiation of any work or even consulted regarding the nature of the work being performed.
Defendants never authorized or granted permission for this work to be done. There was no reliance
by Plaintiffs because Defendants never made said alleged statements and never granted said alleged
permission.
24. Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiffs have been misled by the statements and actions
by the Defendants and have suffered substantial harm in that they paid monthly payments in the
amount of $400.00 from January of 1984 through June of 1986, and then the Defendants required
additional payments in the amount of $475.00 through 1996, when the Defendants required payments
in the amount of $500.00 per month. Denied that all said payments have been made in the amount
of $500.00 per month until August of 1999. On the contrary Plaintiffs have not been misled by the
statements and actions of Defendants since said alleged statements and actions never occurred.
6
Plaintiffs have not been harmed by the payments made to Defendants since said payments were rental
payments made pursuant to the written lease and subsequent carryover, month-to-month oral lease.
Denied that all rental payments have been made up to August of 1999. Plaintiffs are delinquent in
rental payments in the amount of $3250.00 as of September 7, 1999.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request this Court to deny Plaintiffs' claim to require conveyance
of a deed under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
NEW MATTER
25. Defendants and Plaintiffs negotiated a lease with an option to purchase the property
on November 30,1983.
26. Plaintiffs did not meet the terms of the option to purchase since they did not make the
$4500.00 down payment required by July 1, 1984.
27. No Sales Agreement was ever executed between the parties as required by the terms
of the 1983 option attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit "A".
28. There was no other agreement by the parties on the material terms of the purchase.
29. Plaintiffs' Complaint is barred by lathes.
30. Plaintiffs' Complaint is barred by the Statute of Limitations.
31. Plaintiffs lacked the finances to complete any purchase transaction.
32. Defendants never agreed to reimburse Plaintiffs for any work performed by them on
the property.
33. Plaintiffs never sought consent from Defendants to undertake any repair or
improvement.
34. Plaintiffs never gave notice to Defendants prior to commencing any repair or
improvements.
35. All payments made to Plaintiffs by Defendants were rent payments.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
36. The Complaint is barred by the Statute of Frauds in that contracts for the sale of land
must be in writing and there was no written Sales Agreement for the purchase of the property in
question.
37. The Complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata in that the claims raised by
Plaintiffs in the Complaint have previously been litigated and decided in the civil action docketed at
99-2894 Civil Term in Cumberland County.
39. The Complaint is barred by the doctrine of compulsoryjoinder in that all claims arising
out of the same civil action must be brought together. The Plaintiffs cannot fragment claims in their
Counterclaim at 99-2894 Civil Tenn and their Complaint in this case.
9
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,
October 8, 1999 U
Peter B. Foster
Attorney for Defendants
PINSKEY & FOSTER
121 South Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 234-9321
VERIFICATION
I, Ida Steager, hereby certify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer to Complaint
with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief I under-
stand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relat-
ing to unsworn falsification to authorities.
October 8, 1999
V"?
IDASTEAGER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this date, October 8, 1999,1 served a copy of the foregoing Answer
with New Matter on the Plaintiffs by mailing said copy by U. S. Mail at Harrisburg, PA to counsel for
Plaintiffs the following address:
October 8, 1999
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
DILS & RUPICH
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Peter B. Foster
>.
: ?,
?
; ?:
??., ..
.:?
(Y?
' ..
`
,
I1 F
1
j 1
1 • L.
-
L? rid
l. ? J
..)
L?
L i
Ll !
1
1 i
En
Pt
W
a z
a
a v;
E w
O
W
V)
W
N xm
u o
G W (: C H W w
E
U
•.I
¢
b
Q W
3 4
z z
o N E C F C 7-* g rn J
H Ix .1 En w ,_ W ?
J ¢ z y
O O C a-I to C Cl W > ? i M i
O C Z z X n
Q
E+ U 0. K E+
c a o
a H
5 C I
Z
C H ._.
? G
i D
r ?? a 'm
Uaa c a? vy °wr
c. w
?woi a 2 Wa
E[MZ C W
c
Q Z
20 W ?d O Q
H U W V7
SANDRA AND ROBERT CORNMAN,
Plaintiffs
Vs.
FDA AND HOWARD STEAGER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 1999-5402
IN EQUITY
REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
AND NOW, this Day of October, 1999, comes the Plaintiffs,
by their attorney, Arthur K. Dits, Esquire, and respectfully replies as follows:
25. Paragraph twenty-five (25) under the heading of New Matter is admitted.
26. Paragraph twenty-six (26) under the heading of New Matter is denied. The
agreement of November 30, 1983, indicated that a lease would not be renewed. Ida
Steager indicated the property would be the Plaintiffs and that she would accept the
monies toward the purchase price.
27. Paragraph twenty-seven (27) under the heading of New Matter is denied in that
the Agreement for sale of the real estate was modified when it was indicated by the
Steagers that there was no longer a lease arrangement, but a purchase installment
arrangement for the purchase of said real estate.
28. Paragraph twenty-eight (28) is denied. See responses to the above paragraphs.
29. Paragraph twenty-nine (29) is denied in that any delay, if there be any, was
caused by the Steagers.
30. Paragraph thirty (30) is denied in that the period of statute of limitations did not
begin to run until there was an action to evict, and for further answer, see answer to
Paragraph twenty-nine.
31. Paragraph thirty-one (31) is denied that the Commans have paid sufficient funds
to purchase the realty.
-2-
32. Paragraph thirty-two (32) is denied in that the Defendants repeatedly indicated
to the Plaintiffs that they were aware of the work being performed, and that the house
would be theirs.
33. Paragraph thirty-three (33) is denied. The Defendants knew of each and every
repair and improvement that was made to the premises, and never objected, and
indicated they approved because, the Defendants would convey the property to the
Plaintiffs.
34. Paragraph thirty-four (34) is denied. The Plaintiffs gave notice to the
Defendants each and every time as to the improvements.
35. Paragraph thirty-five (35) is denied, as the payments were not rent payments, but
were payments for the purchase of the property as the initial agreement indicated that
the lease would not be renewed, and hence, the only other interpretation could be that
the payments were for purchase.
-3-
36. Statute of Frauds is not an issue in that there was no lease under the original
agreement when it was stated the lease could not be renewed and improvements were
made throughout the years to the premises and because of this and other factors, the
Steagers should be compelled to convey a deed by estoppel.
37. There is no res judicata, as deed by estoppel was not raised in the prior
proceedings.
38. Paragraph thirty-eight under Affirmative Defenses was not listed and therefore,
cannot be answered.
39. There was no fragment claims presented in that the Cornmans responded to an
ejectment action after paying $80,000.00 to the Steagers plus close to $40,000.00 in
improvements. This action was initiated after the Court had indicated at the hearing
-4-
either a constructive trust or estoppel by deed would seem appropriate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Defendants' New
Matter and Affirmative Defenses be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
BY
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
1017 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, Pa. 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
-5-
I verify that the statements made in this Reply
are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are
made subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S. Section 4904 relating
to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATE: October 26, 1999 Sandra K. Cornman
I verify that the statements made in this Reply
are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are
made subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S. Section 4904 relating
to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATE: October 26, 1999 Robert H. Cornman
1, Arthur K. Dils, Esquire hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
within Reply to New Matter and Affirmative Defenses have been served upon the
following individuals by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, First
Class Mail, on the day of October, 1999, to the following address:
Peter B. Foster, Esquire
121 South Street
Harrisburg, PA. 17101
submitted,
B
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
Date: October '1999
SANDRA AND ROBERT CORNMAN,
Plaintiffs
V.
HOWARD AND IDA STEAGER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 1999-5402
IN EQUITY
PRAECIPE FOR DISCONTINUANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY
Please mark this action discontinued.
November 15, 2000
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiffs
i
? ?
C; _
i.\.
'
_ .;.':
)
?. '?
? ?
?I tl
?. (L
_i
:: :J