HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-076195`l
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON. INC., : CUMBERCOURT LLANDOCOUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
v.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
IIUTCI-I CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES I-IUTCHISON,
Defendants
INTEGRA PAINTING. INC..
Plaintiff
V.
I IUTCH CONSTRUCTION. INC.,
JAMES HU'railSON, individually
and t/a HUTCH CONSTRUCTION.
Defendants
CASE NO.: 99-7619 CIVIL
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
CASE NO.: 98-6857 CIVIL
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
) ss:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND )
1. 'JULE M. THOMAS-STANLEY, an employee of the law firm of Burgon Davis,
525 South Eighth Street. Lebanon. Lebanon Comity. Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Charles C.
Loose & Son. Inc.. Plaintiff. being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that I mailed
on March 10, 2000, by First Class nail, the original MOTION TO EXECUTE AGAINST
TRANSFERRED ASSETS PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNIFORM
FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT, COMPLAINT, PETITIONERS' MEMORANDUM
OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO EXECUTE AGAINST
TRANSFERRED ASSETS PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNIFORM
FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT and proposed ORDER, for filing in the Office of the
i Prothonotary of Cumberland County. Pennsylvania. and that I mailed a copy to John Van Eck,
Esquire. 2320 North Second Street. P.O. Box 60457, Harrisburg. PA 17106-0457
I
I'
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this 10th day
of March, 2000.
Z
'Notary Public
Notarial Seal
Helen L. G. Angelo, Notary Public
Lebanon, Lebanon County
My Commission Expires Aug. 5, 2003
Member PeOPS':•"J^ , .fSCVrnl Crni Nalanes
i`
('JUI.B M. THOMAS-STANLEY)
- - 2
CC
? r?
?
l
u o ci c
??1,
r C 3
CL-
'V
L7G Ln
=a
0 °o 5
Date: 11/26/99 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY Time: 12:53:14
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON9 INC.
Action No. 98-01220 CIVIL DIVISION
vs.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., HUTCH
CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES HUTCHINSON CERTIFICATION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: :as COUNTY OF LEBANON I I
I, Anita B. Haulman, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that the above and
foregoing pages contain a true copy and correct transcript of the
docket entries, which form the whole record in the foregoing suit, and
that Judgment has been entered and certified in favor of the Plaintiff
and against the Defendant(s) in the sum of $459262.57
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
Seal of the said Court at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, this Twenty-sixth
day of November, 1999.
Prothonotary
?. Vic...:
Date: 11/26/99 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY Time: 12:53:14
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.
Action No. 98-01220 CIVIL DIVISION
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., HUTCH Docket Entries 1 through 12
CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES HUTCHINSON
10/09/98 PRAECIPE TO ENTER THE APPEARANCE FOR PLAINTIFF, FILED.
580/0404
TIMOTHY J. HUBER
10/09/98 COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION LAW FILED.
580/0405
10/09/98 SHERIFF SERVICE
11/03/98 SHERIFF'S RETURN, FILED.
586/0366
11/17/98 ANSWER AND NEW MATTER, FILED.
587/0256
TIMOTHY J. HUBER
PAIGE F. MACDONALD
11/17/98 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
587/0256
11/24/98 REPLY TO NEW MATTER FILED.
588/0645
PAIGE F. MACDONALD
TIMOTHY J. HUBER
11/24/98 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
588/0645
2/16/99 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
606/0306
5/26/99 MOTION FOR NON-JURY TRIAL, FILED.
623/0570
TIMOTHY J. HUBER
5/27/99 ORDER SCHEDULING NON JURY TRIAL, FILED.
623/0570
/S/SAMUEL A. RLINE, J.
5/26/99 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
623/0570
Date: 11/26/99 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY Time: 12:53:14
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.
Action No. 98-01220 CIVIL DIVISION
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., HUTCH Docket Entries 13 through 24
CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES HUTCHINSON
5/27/99 PROTHONOTARY'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, ATTYS. HUBER AND MACDONALD-
623/0570 MATTHES, NOTIFIED.
7/26/99 SUGGESTION OF STAY IN BANKRUPTCY, FILED.
632/0370
PAIGE F. MACDONALD
7/28/99 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND SPECIAL RELIEF, FILED.
634/0015
PAIGE F. MACDONALD
7/28/99 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
634/0015
PAIGE F. MACDONALD
7/29/99 ORDER RE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE AND SPECIAL RELIEF IS DENIED, FILED.
634/0015
/S/SAMUEL A. KLINE, J.
7/30/99 PROTHONOTARY'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, ATTYS. HUBER AND MACDONALD
634/0015 MATTHES NOTIFIED.
8/03/99 HEARING HELD IN CURTROOM 3 BEFORE HON. SAMUEL A. RLINE, J., MARY ANN
634/0316 ALLWEIN, COURT REPORTER, FILED.
8/03/99 ORDER RE COUNSEL ARE DIRECTED TO FILE MEMORANDA OF LAW WITHIN 10 DAYS
634/0659 AFTER WHICH THE COURT WILL RENDER AN OPINION9 FILED.
/S/SAMUEL A. KLINE, J.
8/04/99 PROTHONOTARY'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, ATTYS. HUBER AND VANECK
634/0659 NOTIFIED.
8/09/99 FINDINGS OF FACT, MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, FILED.
635/0495
TIMOTHY J. HUBER
8/10/99 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
636/0204
8/13/99 FINDINGS OF FACT, MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, FILED.
636/0617
HENRY W. VAN ECK
Date: 11/26/99 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY Time: 12:53:14
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON9 INC.
Action No. 98-01220 CIVIL DIVISION
vs.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., HUTCH Docket Entries 25 through 36
CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES HUTCHINSON
8/13/99 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
636/0617
HENRY W. VAN ECR
8/18/99 CORRESPONDENCE RE POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM MISSING TWO PAGES ENCLOSED TO
637/0487 BE INCLUDED WITH THE ORIGINAL, F
HENRY ILED.W. VAN ECR
10/26/99 OPINION AND ORDER RE COURT FINDS FOR PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANT
649/0634 JAMES HUTCHINSON, DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS AF SUIT, FILED.
/S/SAMUEL . 9 J.
10/26/99 PROTHONOTARY'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, ATTYS. HUBER AND VAN ECR
649/0634 NOTIFIED.
11/09/99 PRAECIPE TO LIST FOR DECEMBER TERM OF ORAL ARGUMENT COURT,
652/0623 FILED.
HENRY W. VAN ECR
11/10/99 PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN THE AMOUNT OF
653/0125 $45262.57 IN ACCORDANCE WITH COURT ORDER. FILED. DEFENDANTS NOTIFIED.
TIMOTHY 11/10/99 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
653/0125
11/09/99 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED.
653/0370
HENRY W. VAN ECR
11/09/99 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
653/0370 HENRY W. VAN ECR
11/09/99 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, FILED.
653/0370
/S/SAMUEL A. RLINE, J.
11/12/99 PROTHONOTARY'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, ATTYS. HUBER AND VAN ECR
653/0370 NOTIFIED.
11/22/99 PETITION TO OPEN OR STRIKE JUDGMENT FILED.
655/0226
HENRY W. VAN ECR
Date: 11/26/99 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY Time: 12:53:14
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON9 INC.
Action No. 98-01220 CIVIL DIVISION
Vs.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., HUTCH Docket Entries 37 through 48
CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES HUTCHINSON
11/22/99 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
655/0226
HENRY W. VAN ECR
11/23/99 ORDER RE PETITION TO OPEN/STRIKE JUDGMENT SHALL BE LISTED ON THE
655/0226 DECEMBER TERM OF ARGUMENT COURT, FILED.
/S/SAMUEL A. KLINE, J.
11/23/99 PROTHONOTARY'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, ATTYS. VAN ECK AND HUBER
655/0226 NOTIFIED.
11/23/99 PRAECIPE FOR AN EXEMPLIFIED RECORD OF JUDGMENT TO BE FILED IN
655/0227 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, FILED.
TIMOTHY J. HUBER
11/23/99 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
655/0227
11/23/99 PRAECIPE FOR AN EXEMPLIFIED RECORD OF JUDGMENT TO BE FILED IN
655/0228 DAUPHIN COUNTY, FILED.
TIMOTHY J. HUBER
11/23/99 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
655/0228
11/23/99 MOTION FOR
655/0229
FILED.
TIMOTHY J. HUBER
11/23/99 MEMORANDUM OF LAW FILED.
655/0229
TIMOTHY J. HUBER
11/23/99 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
655/0229
11/23/99 PRAECIPE TO LIST FOR DECEMBER TERM OF ORAL ARGUMENT COURT,
655/0230 FILED.
TIMOTHY J. HUBER
11/23/99 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, FILED.
655/0230
Date: 11/26/99 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY Time:12:53:14
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.
Action No. 98-01220 CIVIL DIVISION
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., HUTCH
CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES HUTCHINSON COMPLETE CAPTION
Plaintiff(s) Attorney
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON9 INC. TIMOTHY J. HUBER
50 WEST STOEVER AVENUE
MYERSTOWN, PA 17067
Defendant(s)
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., HUTCH
414 SOUTH YORK ST., REAR
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17007
CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES HUTCHINSON
M
M
Date: 11/26/99 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY Time: 12:53:14
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON9 INC.
VS. Action No. 98-01220 CIVIL DIVISION
.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., HUTCH
CONSTRUCTION AND JAMES HUTCHINSON INDEX ENTRIES
Party Indexed as P. : LOOSE, CHARLES C. & SON, INC.
First Opposing Party: HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL
Comment . . . . . . : CIVIL ACTION
Filed on: 0/00/00 Microfilmed at: Judgment Amount:
I '- -
Party Indexed as D. : HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL
First Opposing Party: CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.
Comment . . . . . : CIVIL ACTION
Filed on: 0/00/00 Microfilmed at: Judgment Amount:
Party Indexed as D. : HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, ET AL
First Opposing Party: CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.
Comment . . . : CIVIL ACTION
Filed on: 0/00/00 Microfilmed at: Judgment Amount:
Party Indexed as D. : HUTCHINSON, JAMES, ET AL
First Opposing Party: CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON9 INC.
Comment . . . . . : CIVIL ACTION
Filed on: 0/00/00 Microfilmed at: Judgment Amount:
Party Indexed as : HUTCHINSON, JAMES, JR.
First Opposing Party: CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON9
Comment : JUDG BY ORDER/JUDG
Filed on: 10/26/99 Microfilmed at: 649/0634
INC.
Judgment Amount: $459262.57
46-
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON. INC.
PLAINTIFF
vs
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC..
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHISON
DEFENDANTS
KA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
) ss:
COUNTY OF LEBANON )
I, KAREN A. NEE, an employee of the law firm of Buzgon Davis, 525
South Eighth Street, Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that I filed on December 6, 1999, in
the Office of the Prothonotary of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, the original and one
true and correct copy of a CERTIFIED EXEMPLIFIED RECORD AND DOCKET
ENTRIES, and that I provided the Prothonotary with a stamped envelope addressed to
John Van Eck, Esquire, 2320 North Second Street, P.O. Box 60457, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, 17106-0457, Attomey for Defendant.
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this 6th day
of De ember, A.D., 1999.
??s.
Notary Public
Helen L. GNotanal Seal
ry Public
ALebnnota County
MY Com Lebanon mission Ex ices
Aug' S' 2003
Member, PennsylvanlaAS iat"'01NOlanes
C , )Le
(KAREN A. NEE)
N
V
V
67
U t.? iJ
U ?
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.
PLAINTIFF
vs
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
I-IUTCI 1 CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCH IISON
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION- LAW
NO. qf- 76Cif of Vt
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COUNTY:
Please enter the appearance of BUZGON DAVIS, whose address is 525 South Eighth
Street. P.O. Box 49. Lebanon Pennsylvania 17042, as attorneys for Charles C. Loose & Son
Inc., Plaintiff, in the above-captioned matter.
BUZGON DAVIS
By:
TIMOTHY J. HUBER, ESQUIRE
Attorney I.D. 447231
717/274-1421
Dated: / N/ Icr1
If _ __ _
?xs
ZIM
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC
PLAINTIFF
vs
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC„
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHISON
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
) ss:
COUNTY OF LEBANON )
I, KAREN A. NEE, an employee of the law firm of Buzgon Davis, 525 South
Eighth Street, Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Plaintiff, being duly
sworn according to law, depose and say that 1 tiled on December 6, 1999, in the Office of the
Prothonotary of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, the original ENTRY OF APPEARANCE,
and that I mailed a copy by first class mail to John Van Eck, Esquire, 2320 North Second Street,
P.O. Box 60457, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17106-0457, Attorney for Defendant.
A?t_,- 0-
(KAREN A. NEE)
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this 6th day
ofll ember: ;.C., 1999.
Notary Public
al
un ublic
oCo
ry
Membey P qup. 5, 2003
nationolpbtmtns
I
Y Cl.
H
u ,o. C•J
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
INC., CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
v. NO. 99-7619 CIVIL
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHINSON,
Defendants
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.,
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,-PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
V. NO. 98-6857 CIVIL
mac-: - ;-•.;
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMES HUTCHINSON,
individually and t/a r'
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants
NOTICE OF STAY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that James W. Hutchinson, Jr., the
above named Defendant, has filed a Petition under Chapter 7 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code to Case No. 1-00-0145-7 and
as a result thereof, the above captioned action is stayed
until further Order of the United States Bankruptcy Court.
The undersigned executes this Notice for purposes of giving
notice only and the providing of this Notice is not intended
to enter an appearance in the within case.
F, P.C.
Date: April 6, 2000 By: IL ?) L ?Cle-
Henry Van Eck, Esquire
I.D. #83087
2320 North Second Street
P. 0. Box 60457
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
Telephone: (717) 238-GS70
11
i?
I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Henry W. Van Eck, Esquire, hereby certify that on
April 6, 2000, I served the foregoing Notice of Stay by
depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Timothy J. Huber, Esquire
525 South Eighth Street
P. O. Box 49
Lebanon, PA 17042-0049
Date: April 6, 2000 By: LW/'au 6
Henry. Van Eck, Esquire
IOre.i.l farm 11 N4r1Wra,... a,..w.r., w
FORM 01 United States Bankruptcy Court
jffn)n Je District of 1x121H9YLVAHZ.I
Name of Debtor aw.e,.C.,,r, S..r. is.c M1ea.p Name of Join Debtor tap r )o.ac iht per
HOTC87SON, JAWS W. J
All Other Names used by the Debtor in the last 8 Ycaor
rncbW memM A9 Other Name used by the Joint Debtor In the Iaa 8 yeers
, rna ld.n, ant asst. ?unwY•
NXWS [named, maldw and bads name}
f/k/a Hutch Construction
Soc. SecJTax I.D. No. 8maa suit w, mn.p): Soc. SeeJTax I.D. No. p mars suit site
oats ay:
,
226-80-288-1
Sueet Address of Debtor N& a Se*K C4r Sbae a a9 cos.): Street Address of Joint Debtor pr, a Seaet City, sod a a9 Code):
114 SOUTH YORK STREET
)9CI0WcSBDRG PA 17055
County of Residence or of the
County of Residence or of the
Pdnci Piaeeof Buebms: CW®EREAN
D principal Plebe of Bustneoa:
Mailing Addresao Dahrar pae..amm e.enam«.k Moile+O Address of Jokt Debtor
axr
p
«.ne sent abaet soars[}
Location of principal Assets Of Buakneas Debtor
Qldaer.dbao w..s.dewsabvay NOT APPLICABLE
Venue (Chock any applicable box)
® Debtor has been domka7ed or has had a residence
pdncipal place of business
i
i
l
,
, or pr
pa
nc
assets in this District for 180 days Immediately
preceding the date or thb petition or for a kinger part of such 180 days than In any other District
? Thee is a bankruptcy case concerning debtors aPollate
eneral
art
, g
p
ner, or partnership pending In this District
Type of Debtor (Chock all boxes that apply) Chapter or Section of Bankruptcy Code Undcr Which
I ual(s) ? Railroad the Pofition is Filed (Check one boar)
O
? Stockbroker
? Partnershi ® Chapter? ? Chapteril ? Chapter 13
p ? Commodity Broker ? Chapter9 ? Chapter 12
? Other ? See. 364- Case anGitary to foreign
t ooedin
p
g
Natu
f0
bt
rso
e
s (Checkolnebox)
® Consumer/Non-Bushes; ? Busyness Flif
r?
pr?p?L?
C?ep?J?r Fyp)
Foie (
ed
a aa?5seliKO
® Fug Filing Fee attach
' ear `
?+
Chapter 11 Snug Business (Check at boxes that aP
apply) ? Filing Foie to be paid In
? Debtor Is a snug business as dented in 11 U.S.C. § 101 q1y)
Mat attach signed appgeatiern
? Debtor Is end else a to be considered a small business under aartloill Ust the debtor In unable to pay fee except In Installments.
11 U.S.C. § 1121(a) (OpUwQ Rule 1008(b). Soo Official Form No. 3. '
StallstlcalfAdminlstrative lnfomuUon (Estimates only) TKS SPACE its FOR COURT USrONLY
? Debtor estimates that funds will be available for di
t
ib
ti
s
r
u
on to unsecured creditors.
® Debtor estimates that, anus any exempt property Is excluded and administrative expenses
paid, there will be no funds available for distribution to unsecured creditors, „- Hzr;5burg, PA
Fj)
D
;?..
Tlyc
A
M
P
M
.-
.
.
.
_
Estimated Number of Creditors 1.15 1640 5040 100.199 200490 100x~
° ® ° ° ° ° [APR" 5 2000
E
ti
t
s
ma
ed Assets
550.0 00 $100.0000 fM0000b 530•me?ionb sloe sswrmmm sloo s11)(Imnroe Clark, v. 'rkn:c::.yCcurt
? ® ? ? ? ? ? ? Per _ ..:rub; Clark
Estimated Debts
sot 550.001 b $100.00110 3500,001 to 51,000,001 to $10.000.001 to 550.00).001 w Mora than
$50.000 510.000 =1000 fl minion S10 maim $50 mnw Stoomaeon 5100 million
? 9 ? ? ? ? ? ?
(Oek4r Fpm n WM Wes, enwa. Ro .W
Voluntary Petition Name of Debtor(s): FORM B1, Paget
OMPage must becanpefedsndOedhewrycass)
JAMES Y. MnlCUSOH
Location Where Filed: Case Number. =
NONE
a
Name of Debtor.
Case Number.
LDIneflwa:
NONE
District: Relationship: Judge:
i'
19
Signature(s) of Debtor(s) (IndIvIduaUJolnt) Signature of Debtor (CoriwatioNPartnership)
1 declare under penalty of perjury that the Information provided In this I declare under penally of perjury that the Infomadlon provided In this
petition Is true and cwrecL petition Is true and correct, and that I have been au0adzed to file this
[If petitioner is an Individual whose debts are prNrody consumer debts petition on behalf of the debtor.
and has chosen to file under chapter 711 am awars that 1 may proceed
under chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of t10e 11, United States Code, understand The debtor requests roper in accordance with the chapter or m 11,
the relief avalable under each such chapter, and choose to proceed United States Code, specified in this petition.
under chapter 7.
I request ilaf le sceordanu with the RS,pCer at We 1 nkod States
Coda, s cified le this petition.
X
sq wwa D.bmr sge.w,.ananwna bNMau,l
X
Sian,ww adds abmr PihNeme a AuftdM bkMEU,I
TeMgwne repuae,e by rionw4
tr(e na
1I The a Aaaaaee kWWUW
s
DOW aw
Signature of Attorney Signature of Non-Attomey Petition Preparer
/ /.
X ?WrM (A) • VQ," !?Lk -for I certify that I am a bankruptcy petition preparer as defined in 11 U.S.C.
spnewn a A yfor amnq § 110, that I Prepared tide document for compensation, and that l have
provided the debtor with a copy of this document.
ROBERT E
.
C
0
r 23380
torD bt
z)
PraiW Nuns
e
emayfa o,mvlq
a A
CONNZNGBAlf a CAEMaco , P.C.
FimlNUns
prwe,a cum. of e.nwvFwy pbrbn pwvuer
2320 NORTH SECOND STREET
AOam, same sK+erl' dumw
F. 0. BOX 60457
HARRISBURG PA 17106-0457 Ammo
_ f717) 238-6570 1((l5'I 6r)
Exhibit A Names and Social Security numbers of AN other Individuals who
(To be completed if debtor is required to file periodic reports prepared or assisted In preparing this document.
(e.g., forms 10K and 100) with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and is requesting railer under chapter 11)
? Exhibit A Is attached and made a pad of this petition.
Exhibit B
(To be competed If debtor is an Individual If more than one person prepared this document, attach additional
whose debts are primarily consumer debts) sheets conforming to the appropriate officW form for each person.
I, the attomey for the Petitioner named In the foregoing petition, declare
that I have Informed the Petitioner that [he or she] may proceed under X
chapter 7,11, 12, or 13 of title 11, United States Code, and have S.Gmwm a a,nwaeypa pmp r
explain the rellf
a
va
ilable under each such chapter.
•
//
''
X W• LLl 4, 96e,4 £. Lker...Le{ One
sgnm? for D,b"') A bankruptcy petAbn preparers failure to comply with the provisions
of title 11 and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure may result
Dow in lines or Imprisonment or both 11 U.S.C. § 110;18 U.S.C. § 158.
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., NO. 99-7619 CIVIL
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHISON,
DEFENDANTS
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC:., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., NO. 98-6857 CIVIL
JAMES HUTCHISON, individually
and Ua HUTCH CONSTRUCTION.
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this ?a "l' day of l NClt 2000, upon consideration of the
Motion by Petitioners pursuant to the Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, 12
Pa.C.S.A. §5101, et seq., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing be held on Petitioners'
Motion on the s( u` day of 41 1-12000, in Courtroom No. a beginning at
r __ o'clock. A copy of this Petition and Order fixing a hearing shall be
I
.*61 ,
J p0
r
j
i
r
personally served on Respondent, Cynthia G. Hutchison, by constable or any other competent
adult.
Pending further Order of Court, Respondents are directed not to transfer, withdraw or
otherwise modify the Fidelity Mutual fund account open through FMA Advisory, Inc.
t '
-ili =„
?
' ?°
.
•.'?
'?
2 Ft? L'
?.
.
.
.
;,:::
J?{
c-
r
}
C'v?;?T`
i?5?t1 ???
c\
?.
??
_.?---]
--k I
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.,
PLAINTIFF
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHISON,
DEFENDANTS
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC..
Plaintiff
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMES HUTCHISON, individually
and t/a HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this
M THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-7619 CIVIL
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 98-6857 CIVIL
day of , 2000, after hearing and upon
consideration of the Motion of Petitioners, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Mr. Hutchison's liquidation of the stock account formerly in the custody of
Commerce Bank and reinvesting of the proceeds of that account through joint ownership with his
wife was fraudulent as to Petitioners;
(2) The mutual fund account opened with the proceeds of the stock account previously
?df Y
held with Commerce are subject to execution by Petitioners pursuant to 12 Pa.C.S.A. §5107(b).
(3) Respondents arc directed not to transfer or withdraw any funds from the Fidelity
Mutual Funds account open through FMA Advisory, Inc., pending Petitioners' efforts to execute
against that account;
(4) Petitioners are authorized to issue a Writ of Execution against the aforesaid account
and pursue available remedies to utilize that account to satisfy their debts, together with any
docket costs incurred in pursuing those claims.
(5) Respondents may file an appeal or further proceedings relating to this Order only
upon the posting of sufficient bond.
..q. r
BY THE COURT,
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHISON,
DEFENDANTS
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC.,
Plaintiff
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMES HUTCHISON, individually
and t/a HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants
NO. 99-7619 CIVIL
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 98-6857 CIVIL
MOTION TO EXECUTE AGAINST TRANSFERRED
ASSETS PURSUANT TO
PENNSYLVANIA UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT
AND NOW, come Petitioners, Charles C. Loose & Son, Inc., and Integra Painting, Inc.,
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned actions, by their attorneys, Buzgon Davis Law Offices, and file
this Motion, averring as follows:
1. Respondent. James Hutchison, Jr., is an adult individual who resides at 414 South
York Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055.
2. Respondent, Cynthia G. Hutchison, is an adult individual who resides at 414 South
York Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055.
1. FACTS RELATING TO CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON INC.
3. Petitioner, Charles C. Loose & Son, Inc. ("LOOSE"), filed suit against Mr. Hutchison
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County to Civil Action No. 1998-01220; a true and
correct copy of the Complaint filed in the Lebanon County action is attached hereto and
designated Exhibit "I".
4. LOOSE's claim arose out of the supply of lumber and construction-related materials
to Mr. Hutchison in April, May, June and July of 1998, as reflected on Exhibit "B" attached to
the Lebanon County Complaint.
5. By adjudication of October 26, 1999, the Honorable Samuel A. Kline entered a
verdict in favor of LOOSE and against Defendant, James Hutchison, Jr., in the amount of Forty-
Five Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars and Fifty-Seven Cents ($45,262.57); a true and
correct copy of the Order and Opinion of the Honorable Samuel A. Kline is attached hereto and
designated Exhibit "2".
6. No appeal has been pursued relating to that judgment and it is a final adjudication of
the debt.
7. The Lebanon County judgment was registered in Cumberland County on December
21, 1999, to the above docket number.
11. FACTS RELATING TO INTEGRA PAINTING. INC.
8. Petitioner, Integra Painting, Inc. ("INTEGRA"), filed a Complaint against James
Hutchison. Jr., in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County on December 31, 1998; a
-4 ..
true and correct copy of the Complaint is attached hereto and designated Exhibit "3".
- .j
ql ?
11
9. On December 10, 1999, the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley entered a verdict in favor of
INTEGRA and against Defendant, James Hutchison, Jr., in the amount of Five Thousand Two
Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($5,219); a true and correct copy of the Verdict is attached hereto and
designated Exhibit "4".
10. According to the findings of Judge Bayley in his Opinion, the aforesaid debt arose out
of services provided by Integra in May, June and July of 1998.
11. No appeal has been pursued relating to that judgment and it is a final adjudication of
the debt.
III. FACTS REGARDING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER
12. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 11 are incorporated herein by reference as if
textually set forth at length.
13. The debts of both Petitioners were accrued, due and owing as of July, 1998.
14. As of July of 1998, Mr. Hutchison was the record owner of a stock portfolio in the
custody of Commerce Bank.
15. The aforesaid stock portfolio was titled solely in the name of Mr. Hutchison and had
been titled in that manner since its inception in the mid-1980's.
16. In or about August of 1998, Mr. Hutchison closed his custodian account with
Commerce Bank, liquidated the stocks and transferred the proceeds of the account
(approximately $80,000) to a Fidelity Mutual fund account.
17. Mr. Hutchison titled the Fidelity Mutual fund account jointly with his wife as tenants
by the entireties.
18. The Fidelity Mutual fund account was opened through FMA Advisory, Inc.
-3-
19. The stock account in the custody of Commerce Bank was, at the time of the transfer,
the only asset owned by Mr. Hutchison in his sole name that had any significant value.
20. A debtor's transfer, made following the accrual of the creditor's claim, is fraudulent if
it was made without adequate consideration and rendered the debtor insolvent. 12 Pa.C.S.A.
§5105.
21. The aforesaid transfer rendered Mr. Hutchison insolvent and was fraudulent to
Petitioners.
22. Further, Mr. Hutchison's transfer of the assets may have been made with the actual
intent to hinder, delay or defraud Petitioners. See 12 Pa.C.S.A. §5104(a)(1).
23. In the alternative, Mr. Hutchison's transfer of the stock account was fraudulent in that
he knew or should have known that he would not be able to pay Petitioner's claims, pursuant to
12 Pa.C.S.A. §5104(a)(2).
24. Pursuant to the Act, this Court is authorized to order execution against the assets
transferred or its proceeds. 12 Pa.C.S.A. §5107(b).
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request your Honorable Court to enter an Order:
(1) Finding that Mr. Hutchison's liquidation of the stock account formerly
in the custody of Commerce Bank and reinvesting of the proceeds of
that account through joint ownership with his wife was fraudulent as to
Petitioners;
(2) Finding that the mutual fund account opened with the proceeds of the
stock account previously held with Commerce are subject to execution
by Petitioners pursuant to 12 Pa.C.S.A. §5107(b).
-4-
-d
1
(3) Directing Respondents not to transfer or withdraw any funds from the
Fidelity Mutual Funds account open through FMA Advisory, Inc.,
pending Petitioners' efforts to execute against that account;
(4) Authorizing Petitioners to issue a Writ of Execution against the
aforesaid account and pursue available remedies to utilize that account
to satisfy their debts, together with any docket costs incurred in
pursuing those claims.
(5) Granting Respondents leave to file an appeal or further proceedings
relating to this Order only upon the posting of sufficient bond.
BUZGON DAVIS LAW OFFICES
BY:
Ti othy . Huber, Esquire
Attorney I.D. #47231
525 South Eighth Street
Post Office Box 49
Lebanon, PA 17042-0049
(717) 274-1421
Attorneys for Petitioners, Charles C. Loose & Son, Inc., and
Integra Painting, Inc.
-5-
C
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.,
PLAINTIFF
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHINSON,
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LEBANON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. ///1-6/-2-2 0
r a =
COMPLAINT W
° rn
_
,
x °
4+ m
v
az
NOTICE -; > -o m
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims se'dorR 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
r
Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief
'r
requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or other. rights important to you.
t? CF P ,q 1 °S ??
n;J
N
S
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.
Central Pennsylvania Legal Services
118 North Eighth Street
Lebanon, Pennsylvania 17042
(717) 274-2834
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Charles C. Loose & Son, Inc., by its attorneys,
Buzgon Davis, and files the within Complaint respectfully averring as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Charles C. Loose & Son, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation with
its principal place of business located at 50 West Stoever Avenue, Myerstown, Lebanon County,
Pennsylvania, 17067.
2. Defendant, Hutch Construction, Inc., is a corporation with offices located at
414 South York Street, Rear, P.O. Box 7, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
17007.
3. Defendant, Hutch Construction, is an unknown entity with offices located at
414 South York Street, Rear, P.O. Box 7, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
17007.
4. Defendant, James Hutchinson, is an adult individual who has a business
address of 414 South York Street, P.O. Box 7, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
17007.
-2-
5• Pursuant to an approved credit application, Plaintiff supplied, pursuant to an
open account, lumber and various building materials to Defendants; a true and correct copy of the
credit application is attached hereto and designated Exhibit "A".
6. The price and fair value of the aforesaid lumber and material is Thirty-Six
Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Six Dollars and Sixty-Nine Cents ($36,946.69); a true and correct
copy of the Account Summary is attached hereto and designated Exhibit "B".
7. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, interest on the aforesaid account accrued
at the rate of one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month.
COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT
8• The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 7 are incorporated herein by
reference as if textually set forth at length.
9. Plaintiff and Defendants herein entered into a valid contract for the sale of
materials.
10. Defendants are in breach of the contract by failing to pay the agreed-upon
amounts due.
11. Defendants' breach has caused damages as set forth herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to enter judgment in its
favor in the amount of Thirty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Six Dollars and Sixty-Nine Cents
($36,946.69), plus interest at one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month and costs of suit.
i
COUNT H - QUANTUM MERUIT
12. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 11 are incorporated herein by
reference as if textually set forth at length.
13. Plaintiff supplied the aforesaid materials with the expectation of
remuneration.
14. Defendants are unjustly enriched in that they received the use and value of
the aforesaid materials without payment.
15. Plaintiff has suffered damages as indicated herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to enter judgment in its
favor in the amount of Thirty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Six Dollars and Sixty-Nine Cents
($36,946.69), plus interest at one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month and costs of suit.
COUNT IH - BREACH OF GUARANTY AGREEMENT
16. The averments of Paragraphs I through 15 are incorporated herein by
reference as if textually set forth at length.
17. On or about February 8, 1996, Defendant, James Hutchinson, signed a
Guaranty Agreement; a copy of said Guaranty Agreement is attached hereto, incorporated herein by
reference and designated Exhibit "C".
18. Defendant, James A. Hutchinson, is in breach of said Guaranty Agreement
by failing to pay the agreed-upon amounts due.
19. Defendants breach has caused damages as set forth herein.
-4-
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to enter judgment in its
favor in the amount of Thirty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Six Dollars and Sixty-Nine Cents
($36,946.69), plus interest at one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month and costs of suit.
BUZGON AVIS
BY:
Timoth J. H ber, Esquire
Attorney I.D. #47231
525 South Eighth Street
Post Office Box 49
Lebanon, PA 17042-0049
(717)274-1421
Attorneys for Plaintiff
-5-
''pO,*0L? ?LOeJ r'/E? /
'LE PR!NT CRE T APPLICAT
v /4 s/ C!_.RLES C. LOOSE & SON INC. `SiLt?
(P.O. Box 437 • Myerstown, PA 17067
Phone: (717) 866-2167 FAX(717)866-5333 ?? [D
/fv 1 [ Float
APPLICANTS NAME: IH IU IT[ C I HI I Cl 01 NI SI TI RI U Cl 71 AO IN I I 1 1-1 1 1
BUSINESS ADDRESS:
Fiolda 2p Code Field/
?f 1 1 1111111 1 1 FPT
!'it Busfness Phone Fields
1111 1716191716)6)0) 71 1 1 U)
Code
N y ZZ•
'` ' ?.. FFICEUBEONLY r t ?• z_ >. ?r x x i
fiuQt x, r ?a Fed, Accountlj •' r5 gF ld Saesman
*Insert After Account #
? w INIdITiCa I •I I ? ? .z
?Y>
?
U
; ? ?
.
. ' x
Field /8 Fleur fa .
.. flald 15
- Field
I I I I .101 w.L I I//1 I
?3 I° ?,
O fhl V,
PM - MM <CN D „ ' J P , F;zC , LO ----Credit Limd -Rating Tax'Area
-ype of Organization: H Proprietorship ? Partnership ? Corporation ? Trust ? Other
low Long in Business Tax Exempt ? No ? Yes (Attach Exemption Form)
ype
? General Contractor ? Framing Contractor ? Building Own Home
M Contract House Builder ? Commercfal/Industrial ? Other
? Spec. House Builder ? Remodeling Contractor
? Sub-Contractor(Type)
Partnership or Corporation, Ust Partngga or Officers:
'NAME' HOME ADDRESS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER TELEPHONE NUMBER
) ( )
ink(s) Holding Mortgage(s)
I I ink Address
pe of Loan
count Number
:#Permanent
(1) Farmers Trust
(2)
(1) 3805 Trindle Rd. Camp Hill Pa 17011
(2)
? Construction ? Other
(2)
Ime of Mortgage Officer Mark Basehore Tel (71)-3 -230
( 71Y-
Durri
,,5:1. 119o5 star;**qt n Paint , ?. (711-761-17701 -C
0l - 95'
zu' 142 A4 '05 VA'Zs
,onslderation of Charles C. Loose setting to me. I agree to the following terms: -
1) To pay the monthly statement in full by the thirtieth (30th) of the month oolowing month of {
2) In the event of default of foregoing paragraph (1) 1 agree to pay a rn ce charge of 1 V2%
3) If this account is pieced In the hands of an attorney for collection, I e to pay all pasoN
112/8/96
(DATE)
SIGNATURE ON
all unpaid balances past due.
t for collecdon, inducing attorneys fees,
(APPLICAWS SIGNATURE)
SIDE IS ALSO REQUIRED
GUARANTY
In consideration of your extending credit to the applicant on the reverse side hereof, the undersigned hereby
unconditionally guarantees the timely payment to you of all sums, even if in excess of the established credit limit.
which may hereafter become due and payable by virture of your extension of credit to the applicant. Notice of
default is herebywaived and this guarantee shall not be affected byyourgranting extensions of time forpayment
orotherinduigencesto the applicant and shall remain in full force and effect untilyou have receivedwritten notice
of cancellation from the undersigned.
I have received, read and retained a copy of this guarantee and I request that credit be ex?s ed to the
applicant.
Date 2/8/96
Individually
I
)ATE 69/24/98 A 6 E G A C C O U N T S R E C E I V A B L E PAGE I
CHARLES C. LOGSE
GL I L'Ar 16 Y A M E - LAST 1-47 LAST PAY (TELEPHONE)
'RAN 4 LATE STS TC CURRENT 36 GAYS 60 GAYS 90 UAYS 120 GAYS OPEN FIN PREV BAL CUR DiS CUR PAY CUR FIN AMT OUF.
243 HIJM HUTCH il"XTRUMON 08/101'38 07/O6/98 1717 697.5607)
414 S YOM STREET
PO BOX 7
MF.CHi1N1CSBURG,PA 17007
:27741 04!'51?8 1 1:88.57
::751 a4/:5/?B 1 51.90
4: 84/.x/58 1 6275.58
43898 04/30/98 2 6 301.23
i4•l k/u /9B 1 3406.79
1 Y4Y/S M111198 1 7238.72
3.7877 0 !':1/98 l 10124.80
:3098 MOM 6 321.71
i651A• 1 06/01; 98 1 105S.0r
I `65191 M10% 1 126.14
11011 05;08/98 1 554.73
70131 0616!?8 1 2458.18
:793:1 05118198 1 113.19
2611 ?/98 1 60.55
21616 061'?.9/98 2 38.96-
?.1617 06129/98 2 188.7'_
63098 06130/08 6 32.12
•?3021 07/03/?B 1 1840.5_
:94091 07/07/98 1 40.11
21641 MOMS 2 45.42-
:97151 07/10/98 1 976.73
•74961 0'!!13/08 1 1063.71
x4981 07/15/98 1 135.15
•12971 07129!98 1 8.'i
•10401 07128/91 1 6.89
73198 07131/58 6 491.rr
•'.'•2521 08/10,198 1 49.87
931?8 08131198 6
00 89.87
4026.45
4144.'83 552.35
29586.28 Z 211E8 :9166.37 .00 .00 .00 39166.37
A9ED ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
DATE 09/24/98 ,,ipRLES C. LOOSE
'iRA,70 TOTALS
i
j :IaRENr
•00
•B z
30 OAYS 09.67 .2 %
;0 DAYS 4026.15 10.2 %
?0 OAYS 4144.09 10.5 %
120 DAYS 20606.20 T.2 %
'JPEN FIN 22I9.68 5.6 %
?KV BAL 39166.37
;IIR L•N0 .00
:AIR PAY •00
-.IJR FIN .00
--';NT DUE 391E6.37
1 CUSTOMERS PROCESSED. I CUSTOMERS PRINTED. NO CROWFOOT ERRORS
i
PAGE 2
GUARANTY
Inconsideration of your extending credit to the applicant on the reverse side hereof, the undersigned hereby
unconditionally guarantees the timely payment to you of all sums, even if in excess of the establish ed credit limit,
which may hereafter become due and payable by virture of your extension of credit to the applicant. Notice of
default is hereby waived and this guarantee shall not be affected by your granting extensions of time for payment
or otherindulgences to the applicant and shall remain in full force and effect until you have received written notice
of cancellation from the undersigned.
I have received, read and retained a copy of this guarantee and I request that credit be ex ed to the
applicant. /
Date 2/8/96
Individually
L C
VERIFICATION
Stephen Alley , does hereby verify that he is the
President of Charles C. Loose & Son, Inc. in the within action, and
that the facts
COMPLAINT ---
set forth in the foregoing
best of his personal knowledge or information and belief, and that he is authorized to and
makes this Verification for and on its behalf. I understand that false statements herein are
made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unswom
falsification to authorities.
Dated: 10/8/98
STEP EN ALLEY
are true and correct to the
i
X1.1
IN THE COURT OF COWNION PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, ,
INC.,
Plaintiff
V. No. 1998-01220
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
INC., HUTCH CONSTRUCTION
and JAII?IES HUTCHINSON,
JR.,
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, to wit, this 26th day of October, 1999, after bench trial
on the matter held August 3, 1999, and consistent with the attached Opinion,
the Court hereby finds for Plaintiff and against Defendant James Hutchinson.
Accordingly, on Plaintiffs complaint, judgment is entered in Plaintiffs favor
and against Defendant. Defendant to pay costs of suit.
BY THEE COURT
SAMUEL
/`r
U
EX C tl u
PURSUANT TO RULE 236
You are hereby notified
that this order has been
J.
? r
entered in this case.
IN THE COURT OF COiVI11NION PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON,
INC.,
Plaintiff
V. No. 1998-01220
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
INC., HUTCH CONSTRUCTION
and JAD4ES HUTCHINSON,
JR.,
Defendants
APPEARANCES:
Timothy J. Huber, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff
BUZGON DAVIS
Henry W. Van Eck, Esquire Attorney for Defendant
CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF,
P.C.
ADJUDICATION, KLINE, J., October 26, 1999.
On October 9, 1998, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants
alleging, inter alia., breach of contract for Defendants' failure to pay for lumber
and building materials, which were delivered on credit pursuant to an
approved credit application. As damages, Plaintiff seeks $45,262.57. We
conducted a bench trial on the matter on August 3, 1999 and directed counsel
1
I . ..
to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within ten days
thereafter. After careful review of said findings and conclusions, as well as
the testimony adduced at trial, we find for Plaintiff.
Findings of Fact
1. Plaintiff Charles C. Loose & Son, Inc. ("Loose"), is a wholesale
lumber and building materials business whose primary market is
contractors and home builders.
2. Defendant James W. Hutchinson, Jr. ("Hutchinson"), is an adult
individual who is engaged in the home building business.
3. Defendant Hutch Construction was a sole proprietorship created by
Hutchinson for the purpose of building custom homes. Hutchinson
registered Hutch Construction as a fictitious name.
4. Defendant Hutch Construction, Inc., is a corporate entity registered
under the laws of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business in
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, engaged in the
business of building custom homes.
5. It is a general practice in the wholesale lumber and building
materials business for contractors and builders to purchase goods
from suppliers on a credit basis. Accordingly, Loose extended credit
to a majority of its customers.
6. While Loose was in the practice of extending lines of credit, it did so
only upon an approved credit application. Moreover, Loose required
a personal guaranty on the credit account from the appropriate
principals before a line of credit was approved.
7. If at any time an entity, which had a line of credit at Loose,
underwent a change in business form or ownership, Loose required
that entity to submit a new credit application to reflect the change.
8. In February of 1996, Hutchinson, operating as Hutch Construction,
applied for a line of credit with Loose.
2
1? 1,
9. Hutchinson signed a personal guaranty on the Hutch Construction
credit account. In reliance thereof, Loose extended a line of credit to
Hutch Construction, designating said account as "Loose Account
#243.
10. Pursuant to the terms of the credit application, payment on the
account was due by the end of the month following the month of
purchase. Unpaid balances incurred a one and a half percent finance
charge per month.
11. On December 30, 1997, Hutchinson incorporated Hutch
Construction, thereby forming the entity Hutch Construction, Inc.
12. Once incorporated, the sole proprietorship known as Hutch
Construction ceased operations; however, Hutchinson never formally
withdrew the fictitious name Hutch Construction.
13. Though Hutchinson changed his business supplies to reflect the
incorporation, he failed to notify his suppliers and creditors,
including Loose, of the change in business form.
14. Unaware of the incorporation, Loose continued to extend credit to
Hutchinson under the credit account assigned to the sole
proprietorship Hutch Construction.
15. Hutchinson continued to accept goods from Loose, which had
invoices addressed to Hutch Construction, even after the
incorporation. He paid for said goods with checks that had both
"Hutch Construction" and "Hutch Construction, Inc." designated
thereon.
16. On July 1, 1999, Hutch Construction, Inc., filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, docket number 1-99-02876.
Discussion
As an initial matter, Hutchinson argues he is entitled to avail himself of
the automatic stay afforded to Hutch Construction, Inc., by virtue of its
bankruptcy filing.I Although Hutchinson himself has not filed for bankruptcy,
he believes all three Defendants are so closely intertwined that the
bankruptcy filing by Hutch Construction, Inc., necessitates a stay as to the
entire matter. We do not dispute that this matter is stayed as to Hutch
Construction, Inc., and that we have no authority to continue proceedings
against it. See 11 U.S.C.A. § 362(a) (1993). However, as we have concurrent
jurisdiction with the federal bankruptcy courts to determine the applicability
and scope of the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, In re
Jeffries, 191 B.R. 861 (Bankr. D.Or. 1995), we disagree that the matter must
be stayed as to Hutchinson and Hutch Construction.
Generally, the automatic stay provisions are available only to the
debtor, not non-bankrupt co-defendants, sureties or third party guarantors
even if they are in a similar legal or factual nexus with the debtor. See
McCartney v. Integra Nat'l Bank North, 106 F.3d 506 (3d Cir. 1997); see
also Maritime Elec. Co., Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.2d 1194 (3d
Cir. 1991). In "unusual circumstances," however, courts have extended the
automatic stay to non-bankrupt co-defendants "when there is such identity
Under Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. the filing for bankruptcy operates as a stay to
certain other judicial proceedings against the debtor. See I I U.S.C.A. § 362(a) (1993). All entities.
including creditors, are subject to stay. In re Claussen. 118 B.R. 1009 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1990). The
stay is automatic because it is triggered against all entities upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition,
regardless of whether the parties to the stayed proceeding are aware that a petition has been filed.
See NLT Computer Servs. v. Capital Computer Sys., 755 F.2d 1253. 1258 (6th Cir. 1985).
4
between the debtor and the third-party defendant that the debtor may be said
to be the real party defendant and that a judgment against the third-party
defendant will in effect be a judgment ... against the debtor." A.H. Robins
Co., Inc. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 999 (41h Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S.
876 (1986).
Hutchinson argues the case sub judice is such an "unusual
circumstance" that warrants the extension of the automatic stay. In support
thereof, he relies on Docu-Test Systems, Inc. v. National Medical
Services of Maryland, Inc., 1:CV-95-787 (slip op. M.D. Pa. March 4, 1997),
a memorandum opinion authored by the Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo, then
Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.
In Docu-Test, several plaintiffs, including Docu-Test Systems, Inc.,
filed suit against defendant National Medical Services of Maryland, Inc.
National Medical Services responded by filing a counterclaim. In granting
plaintiffs' motion for continuance, Chief Judge Rambo found unusual
circumstances present and stayed the entire action due to the Chapter 11
bankruptcy filed by Docu-Test Systems, Inc. Docu-Test was a named plaintiff
in the action, and the remaining plaintiffs were either controlling officers of
Docu-Test or under common control with Docu-Test. Thus, in that particular
case, Docu-Test was "inextricably interwoven" with all aspects of the
5
plaintiffs' case. Moreover, given there was such an identity between the
plaintiffs, any judgment against the remaining plaintiffs on the counterclaim
would in effect have been a judgment against Docu-Test. Docu-Test, 1:CV-
95-787, slip op. at 2.
We find the facts of the case at hand to be distinguishable from those
cases that have found unusual circumstances present and expanded the
automatic stay provisions to those other than the debtor. Most importantly,
Hutch Construction, Inc., is not "inextricably interwoven" with every aspect
of this case. It was Hutchinson, operating as the sole proprietorship Hutch
Construction, who entered into the credit agreement with Loose and who
signed a personal guaranty thereon. At that time, Hutch Construction, Inc.,
did not even exist.
Hutchinson then unilaterally changed the structure of his business and
continued to make purchases on the Hutch Construction credit account
without notifying anyone that his business had changed from a sole
proprietorship to a corporation. Loose gave the account to Hutch
Construction, with Hutchinson as the guarantor, and it continued to extend
credit to Hutchinson on that account because, relying on his objective
6
I.J
i
i}t
5
,,
manifestations,'- it believed Hutch Construction still existed. Though
Hutchinson subsequently changed the structure of his business and became
the sole controlling officer of the corporation, we find the defendants are not
so intertwined that we would violate the stay provisions - and thus frustrate
the congressional intent to provide
relief to debtors - by proceeding against
the remaining defendants.
The general rule is that only the debtor may take advantage of the
automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. In this case, Hutch
Construction, Inc., is the debtor, and we find no unusual circumstances
present which compel us to deviate from this established rule.
We next address whether the remaining defendants are liable to Loose
for the unpaid account. It is undisputed that Loose extended a credit account
to Hutch Construction and that Hutchinson became a guarantor thereon.
However, it is equally undisputed that all outstanding debts accrued
subsequent to the incorporation of Hutch Construction in December of 1997.
Accordingly, we must determine whether Hutchinson can be held liable on
the guaranty as to those debts incurred after the incorporation.
The guaranty that Hutchinson signed unconditionally guaranteed the
Such manifestations include failing to withdraw Hutch Construction as a registered fictitious
name, accepting goods addressed to Hutch Construction after it had ceased operations, and paying
for goods with checks that. confusingly had both Hutch Construction and Hutch Construction. Inc.
printed thereon.
7
. ,
timely payment of all sums that might become due by virtue of the extension
of credit on the credit account. Such language creates a contract of
suretyship, to which Hutchinson became primarily liable on the underlying
credit contract. See 8 P.S. § 1 (1999); see also Wurlitzer Co. v. Oliver, 334
F. Supp. 1009, 1012 (W.D. Pa. 1971) (contract is one of suretyship, although
the word "guaranty" is used, if agreement is one to pay in case of default by
the principal, and not simply to pay in case of principal's inability to pay;
surety is bound to the full extent that principal is bound). Thus, although the
agreement which Hutchinson signed is labeled "guaranty," we scrutinize it .
according to the law applicable to contracts of surety.
Suretyship contracts generally arise in situations where a creditor will
extend credit to the debtor only upon an agreement by a third party to
provide additional security for repayment of the debt. Absent repayment by
the debtor or the creditor's release of the debtor, a surety's liability may be
discharged when the creditor and the debtor materially modify the terms of
their relationship without first obtaining the surety's consent. Continental
Bank v. Axler, 353 Pa. Super. 409, 415-16, 510 A.2d 726, 729 (1986), allot.
granted., 516 Pa. 626, 532 A.2d 437 (1987), appeal dismissed, 518 Pa. 58, 540
A.2d 267 (1988). "A material modification in the creditor-debtor relationship
consists of a significant change in the principal debtor's obligation to the
creditor that in essence substitutes an agreement substantially different from
8
;r
i
t
f
f
f
the original on which the surety accepted liability." Id. at 416, 510 A.2d at
729. The surety will be contractually bound to material modifications,
however, if his consent is first obtained. Id. at 417, 510 A.2d at 730.
Instantly, we do not have a material modification in the terms of the
creditor-debtor relationship, for the incorporation did not create a credit
agreement substantially different from the one on which Hutchinson
accepted liability. Loose, the creditor, agreed to extend credit to Hutch
Construction, the debtor, so long as Hutchinson became a surety to the credit
agreement. Although subsequent to this agreement Hutchinson unilaterally
changed the composition of the debtor by incorporating, the obligations on the
credit account remained constant, in that, after incorporation, the same
obligations originally created in the credit agreement were still owed to
Loose, i.e., materials purchased on the credit account were required to be
paid within one month. Thus, the agreement was no different from that
which Hutchinson originally accepted surety liability.' As there was no
change in the manner of business after the incorporation and Loose was not
notified of the subsequent change in the identity of the debtor, Hutchinson's
obligation on the account as surety was not discharged by the debtor's change
in business form. Furthermore, Hutchinson was aware of the change and
9 We also base our holding upon the fact that Hutchinson permitted his corporation to use and make
payments on the Loose credit account. Therefore. Hutchinson. the surety on the credit account, was
cognizant of the changes in the debtor and consented to such changes.
9
acquiesced to the utilization of the credit account to which he became a
surety.
Moreover, we believe the facts warrant the finding that Hutch
Construction, Inc., assumed Hutch Construction's role as debtor and that
there technically was no change in the identity of the debtor. Therefore,
Hutchinson remains liable on the surety contract. Hutch Construction was a
one-man sole proprietorship, completely owned, dominated and controlled by
Hutchinson. After the incorporation-+, the business continued to be a one-man
operation, completely owned, dominated, and controlled by him. To his
creditors, the business remained completely identifiable with Hutchinson, for
nothing changed except the business' legal status. Moreover, Hutchinson
took no steps to notify his creditors that he had changed the structure of his
business, and he continued to purchase goods on the Hutch Construction
account and accept goods addressed to Hutch Construction. Therefore, public
policy and justice require us to disregard the corporate fiction so as to not
allow Hutchinson to become unjustly enriched by his actions. Accordingly, as
the nature and operations of the business did not change, there was no
change in the "debtor." As a result, Hutchinson's surety liability was not
discharged by the incorporation.
4 Hutch Construction. Inc.. is classified as an S corporation.
10
Consequently, for the above-stated reasons, we find that Hutchinsorfs
contract of suretyship was not discharged by virtue of the subsequent
incorporation of the debtor Hutch Construction. Hutchinson therefore
remains liable for all debts incurred on the account, regardless of whether it
was Hutch Construction, Inc., which incurred said debt. We therefore find
for Loose and hold that Hutchinson is liable in the amount of $45,262.57.5
Conclusions of Law
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.
2. The action is stayed as to Defendant Hutch Construction, Inc.,
pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, by virtue of its
bankruptcy filing.
3. Loose and Defendant Hutch Construction entered into a valid credit
contract. Moreover, Defendant James Hutchinson executed a valid
suretyship contract on the underlying credit contract.
4. Defendant James Hutchinson unilaterally changed the identity of
the debtor by incorporating Hutch Construction without notifying
Loose. James Hutchinson was aware that this new debtor was
utilizing the credit account to which he was a surety and permitted
such actions to continue.
R Our decision would not change even if we found Hutchinson's contract to be a contract of guaranty.
Generally. a material change in the principal debtor or creditor releases the guarantor in the
absence of an express assent to the change. Teledyne Mid-America Corp. o. SOS Corp.. 486 F.2d
987 (9th Cir. 1973). However. exceptions to this rule do exist, most notably the exception enunciated
in Massey-Ferguson u. Finocchiaro Equip. Co.. 496 F. Supp. 655 (E.D. Pa. 1980). With facts
similar to those present herein. the Massey Court held that a contract of guaranty to the obligations
of a sole proprietorship survived its subsequent incorporation. The sole proprietorship was a one-
man operation, completely owned. dominated and controlled by defendant. After incorporation, the
business remained completely identifiable with defendant, still owned, dominated and controlled by
him. Thus, despite the change in structure, the business remained constant. and the court held that
defendants wiles guaranty was not released because there was not a material change in her
liability. Massey-Ferguson, 496 F. Supp. at 661.62. Moreover, Hutchinson's knowledge and
acquiescence to the change in his business can be viewed as an express assent to change, which
would permit a material change in the debtor.
11
5. James Hutchinson's liability on the suretyship contract was not
discharged by the incorporation of the debtor, as such change was
not a material modification in the creditor-debtor relationship.
6. The debtor to the credit contract is in breach for failing to pay for
goods purchased on credit. Additionally, finance charges have
accrued on the unpaid balance. The total balance due is $45,262.57.
7. As surety to the credit contract, James Hutchinson is primarily
liable for the debt. Accordingly, James Hutchinson is indebted to
Loose in the amount of $45,262.57.
12
COMPLAINT
NOTICE
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC.,
Plaintiff
VS.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC., : NO. 98-6857
JAMES HUTCHISON, individually :
and t1a HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, :
Defendants
the following pages, you must take action within twenty (2o) 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
Courtwithout 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 other rights important to you.
F 911lii f..:? cel 3
,. ?U+a
F-
I
?t
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.
Court Administrator
Fourth Floor
Cumberland County Courthouse
I Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Integra Painting, Inc., by its attorneys, Buzgon
Davis, and files the within Complaint, averring as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Integra Painting, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal place of business located at 281 Hoy Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
17013.
2. Defendant, Hutch Construction, Inc., is a corporation with offices located at
414 South York Street, Rear, P.O. Box 7, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
17007.
3. Defendant, James Hutchison, individually and trading as Hutch
Construction, is an adult individual who has a business address of 414 South York Street, P.O. Box
7, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17007.
4. On or about April 21, 1998, Plaintiff issued to Defendant(s) an estimate
for work to be performed by Plaintiff, a true and correct copy of said estimate is attached hereto
and designated as Exhibit "A".
-2-
5. By fax transmission dated May 13, 1998, Defendant(s) accepted Plaintiffs
proposal; a true and correct copy of said acceptance is attached hereto and designated as Exhibit
"B„
6. Defendants have made payments of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000)
towards the aforesaid agreement.
7. The sum of Five Thousand One Hundred Nineteen Dollars ($5,119)
remains outstanding on the parties' agreement (Exhibits "A" and 'B").
8. In addition, at the request of Defendant(s), Plaintiff performed additional
work at the job site and billed Defendant(s) the fair and reasonable sum of One Hundred Dollars
($100).
9. Plaintiff incurred costs of One Hundred Thirteen Dollars ($113) before the
District Justice.
COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT
10. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 9 are incorporated herein by
reference as if textually set forth at length.
11. Plaintiff and Defendant(s) herein entered into a valid contract for painting '
work.
12. Defendant(s) are/is in breach of the contract by failing to pay the agreed-
upon amounts due.
13. Defendant(s)' breach has caused damages as set forth herein.
-3-
r•
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to enter judgment in its
favor in the amount of Five Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Two Dollars ($5,332), plus interest
at one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month and costs of suit.
COUNT II - QUANTUM MERUIT
14. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 9 are incorporated herein by
reference as if textually set forth at length.
15. Plaintiff supplied the aforesaid painting labor with the expectation of
remuneration.
16. Defendants are unjustly enriched in that they received the use and value of
the aforesaid painting labor without payment.
17. Plaintiff has suffered damages as indicated herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to enter judgment in its
favor in the amount of Five Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Two Dollars ($5,332), plus interest
at one and one-half percent (1-1/2%) per month and costs of suit.
BUZGON DAVIS
BY: ? II - -
Timothy J. Huber, Esquire
Attorney I.D. #47231
525 South Eighth Street
Post Office Box 49
Lebanon, PA 17042-0049
(717) 274-1421
Attorneys for Plaintiff
-4-
a ti•
ESTIMATE
NTEGRA PAINTING INCORPORATED
281 HOYROAD
CARUSLF, PA 17013
717-795-6250
pate: 4!21198
Hutch Construction
Atten: Kim Shadow
414 South York street. Rear
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
77» tokwingis submitted ror your approval
Job Description: Project : Consavetch Residence, Penisula
Jim Dymski
Ex. A
?Mt "ECrBnes,,:arc ;rannsylvania 17C?=
dF3,c (7471 F.?i-c '_C
FEM
To: • .. , Prom:
Fax: . '
Phone: -:.:??.;• Da '?, ._
CC:
Urgent El For Review _ Please comment C elease Reply D Pease Recycle
0 Comments:
Conse•.:age P3,n! P, Stain Colors
Wail Pam^. Flat Duron 5721"V - Clay oi?,ge
lnteri.•r Cccrs - Curon 3 20VV - Pang?? Tint
Stain Color - ;Matches Bruce G ?-k Hardwoodi - M,---,2:: ::,older.. Pecan
pli FR?ror man doors iNo garage doors) - Duron 80&:11 Xantucky Grass
Fa: yr.:::nfo - Trim is oeing 9ei vered •oda- •.:,j :an star, staining any time. ThanKS
Ex. B
r r r
? rs" r• s.? °J c
L
R. -
VERIFICATION
James Dymski, does hereby verify that he is the
President of Integra Painting, Inc. in the within
action. and that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAMT are true and correct to
the best of his personal knowledge or information and belief, and that he is authorized to
and makes this Verification for and on its behalf. I understand that false statements
herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
2/ll J /
JAMES DYM
Dated:
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC.,
PLAINTIFF
V.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMES HUTCHISON, individually
and t/a HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
98-6857 CIVIL TERM
VERDICT
.AND NOW, this LO 4- day of December, 1999, 1 find in favor of plaintiff and
award damages against James Hutchison, individually and Ua Hutch Construction, in
the amount of $5,219 with legal interest of six percent since August 1, 1998, and costs.
By the Court /
Edgar B.
Timothy J. Huber, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
For James Hutchison, individually and t/a Hutch Construction
:saa
E ,Y F..r
6L7
?l 6 Il (?i YG.1 9 FrJI
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC.,
PLAINTIFF
V.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMES HUTCHISON, individually
and t/a HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
98-6857 CIVIL TERM
VERDICT AND OPINION
Bayley, J., December 10, 1999:--
Plaintiff, Integra Painting, Inc., filed a complaint against James Hutchison,
individually and Ua Hutch Construction, and Hutch Construction, Inc., seeking $5,219,
plus legal interest and costs. Pursuant to Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1038, a trial
without a jury was conducted on December 6, 1999, only on plaintiffs claim against
James Hutchison, individually and t/a Hutch Construction.' We find the following facts.
Defendant, James Hutchison, individually and t/a Hutch Construction was a
builder of custom homes. Hutch Construction is a fictitious name filed by James
Hutchison with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. James Hutchison started his
business about twenty years ago. In 1977, plaintiff began painting some homes
constructed by Hutch Construction. On April 21, 1998, plaintiff sent written estimates
to "Hutch Construction Attn: Kim Shatto," for painting the Consevage home. One
' The claim against Hutch Construction, Inc., could not proceed to trial because
the corporation has filed for bankruptcy. A counterclaim by Hutch Construction, Inc.,
involving a dispute not related to plaintiffs claim in this case, also could not proceed to
trial for the same reason.
I ,
98-6857 CIVIL TERM
estimate was for a flat finish totaling $11,119, and the second for a satin finish totaling
$14,901. Kim Shatto was an assistant to James Hutchison. Plaintiff sent the estimates
after Kim Shatto had sent it blueprints in order to prepare the estimates. On a
letterhead titled "Hutch Construction," Kim Shatto sent a work order by fax to plaintiff
on May 13, 1998, regarding the Consevage home, which stated:
Consevage Paint & Stain Colors
Wall Paint - Flat- Duron 8721W - Clay beige
Interior Doors - Duron 8720W - Pongee Tint
Stain Color - (Matches Bruce Gunstock Hardwood) - Minwax Golden
Pecan
All Exterior man doors (No garage doors) - Duron 8084M Kentucky Grass
For your info - Trim is being delivered today, so you can start staining
any time. Thanks (Emphasis added.)
After receiving the work order, plaintiff, as authorized, started painting the
Consevage home based on the instructions regarding colors and the use of a flat finish.
On May 23, 1998, plaintiff submitted an invoice to "Hutch Construction" for $8,000 of
work it had completed on the Consevage home since May 13th. A second invoice was
sent on June 12, 1998, for $2,000 and a third invoice on June 30, 1998, for $1,119.
The three invoices totaled the estimate of $11,119 for the use of a flat finish. A fourth
invoice was sent on June 30, 1998, for an extra in the amount of $465. Two invoices
were sent for extras on July 5, 1998, each for $50. The total charged by plaintiff was
$11,684 for work that it performed in a workmanlike manner. Plaintiff was paid $6,465
leaving a balance of $5,219. The $6,465 was paid by several checks issued on an
account in the name of Hutch Construction, Inc. The checks were generated by a
-2-
- - ;rte-
98-6857 CIVIL TERM
computer program that would not process payment of any invoices without a purchase
order which was issued on May 22, 1998, for $11,119.
James Hutchison incorporated a business with the name of Hutch Construction,
Inc., as of December 31, 1997, when Articles of Incorporation were issued. Hutchison
never told James Dymski, the president of Integra Painting, Inc., that he had
incorporated, although he had told him in mid-1997 that he was planning to incorporate.
By May 13, 1998, Hutchison believed that Dymski knew of the corporation, although
Dymski did not know or have reason to know. Prior to May 13, 1998, when "Hutch
Construction sent the work order to plaintiff with the specifications for painting the
Consevage home, and instructions to start staining any time, Hutch Construction, Inc.,
had issued checks to plaintiff on January 19 and 30 and February 20, 1998, for _
payment of other painting projects that plaintiff had performed for Hutch Construction.
James Dymski processed these checks along with many other checks received from
other clients, and having no reason to take notice he did not see that the checks were
issued by Hutch Construction, Inc.
DISCUSSION
Defendant, James Hutchison t/a Hutch Construction, maintains that he did not
enter into the contract with plaintiff for painting the Consevage residence; rather, the
contract was with Hutch Construction, Inc. Therefore, he argues, because he was not a
party to the contract he cannot be liable for its breach. See Electron Energy
Corporation v. Short, 408 Pa. Super. 563 (1991). Defendants position is not
-3-
- ¦rFln71R IIA®I?BI?? i - -
98-6857 CIVIL TERM
rt d by the facts as found by this court.
In response to the request by James
suppo e
's assistant, Kim Shatto, for two estimates for painting the Consevage home,
Hutchison
and after having reviewed the blueprints sent to it by Shatto, plaintiff submitted the
estimates to Hutch Construction. Plaintiff did not know that at the end of 1997, Hutch
Construction, Inc., had been incorporated.
Construction, not Hutch Construction, plaintiff to start work
by Hutch Construction, not Hutch Construction, Inc., authorizing p
any time using the colors designated with a flat finish. The issuance of the work
9
at order was the acceptance of plaintiffs offer to paint the Consevage home for ruction
using a flat finish. Thus, the contract was between plaintiff and Hutch Construction
the work order. In the next ten days plaintiff performed and billed Hutch
which issued Construction for $8,000 of the work called for in the $11,119 contract. Plaintiff th completed all the work with extras for a total of $11,684 of which there is owing $5,219.
Defendant maintains that plaintiff has not met the requirements for piercing the
669 A.2d 893 (Pa.1995).
corporate veil. See Lumax Industries, Inc. v. Aultman, plaintiff. Plaintiff did
That is not an issue because no corporate veil is being pierced by p
not know that James Hutchison t/a Hutch Construction had incorporated when it made
an offer to provide painting to Hutch Construction which was accepted by Hutch
Construction, not Hutch Construction, Inc.
Hutch Construction, Inc.
After receiving the estimates sent to Hutch
Inc., a work order was issued on May 13, 1998,
in n
The contract was with defendant here, ot
-4-
I .
F; .;.1 I.
98.6857 CIVIL TERM
Defendant further maintains that because all checks totaling $6,465 issued to
plaintiff in partial payment for painting the Consevage home were issued on an account
of Hutch Construction, Inc., he cannot be held personally liable. Defendant has cited
no authority, nor have we found any, nor does it make any sense that partial payment
of a debt by a third party renders the obligation of the actual party to the contract
unenforceable against that party.
In conclusion, we find that plaintiff, Integra Painting, Inc., entered into a contract
to paint the Consevage home with Hutch Construction which was a fictitious name used
by James Hutchison. Plaintiff performed the contract on which there is $5,219 due and
owing since August 1, 1998. Plaintiff is entitled to legal interest since that date because
interest on money owed for breach of contract of the value of the promised
performance is a legal right. Fernandez v. Levin, 519 Pa. 375 (1988). Accordingly,
the following order verdict is entered.
VERDICT
AND NOW, this 10 ?' day of December, 1999, 1 find in favor of plaintiff and
award damages against James Hutchison, individually and t/a Hutch Construction, in
the amount of $5,219 with legal interest of six percent since August 1, 1998, and costs.
he Court;
Edgar B. Bayley, J.
-5-
98-6857 CIVIL TERM
Timothy J. Huber, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire
For James Hutchison, individually and tla Hutch Construction
:saa
-6-
-.1
I . , .
BERNERD A. BUZGON
HARRY W. REED. IR.
-nMOTHY I. HUBER
EDWARD J. COYLE
MARY H. BURCHIK
SCOTTL.GRENOBLE
CHAD M. TEMPLIN
JOHN W. DITZLER
March 10, 2000
Prothonotary's Office
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
[ZGON DAVIS
LAW OFFICES
1.rt IOMALCOV "=K
525 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 49
LEBANON. PA 17042
Re: Case No.: 99-7619 - Civil
Dear Prothonotary:
MAR 21 2000 ,
PHILIP S. DAVIS
(1942.1995)
RICHARD W. DAVIS
(1964 - 1997)
PHONE: (717)'74-1421
FAX: (717) 274-1752
E-MAIL: bagon (a? lebanet
Enclosed for filing is a Motion to Execute Against Transferred Assets Pursuant to
Penns lvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act with accompanying exhibits, Petitioners'
Memorandum of Law in Su ort of Their Motion to Execute A ainst Transferred Assets Pursuant
enclosed is
to Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and proposed order. Also an
additional copy that I would ask that you please return to Attorney Ditzler, in the postage paid
envelope provided, after the Order has been signed and the Petition has been date/time stamped.
If you have any questions regarding this filing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank
you for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
'Jule M. Thomas-Stanley
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION. INC.,
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHISON,
DEFENDANTS
NO. 99-7619 CIVIL
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMES HUTCHISON, individually
and t/a HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants
NO. 98-6857 CIVIL
PETITIONERS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION TO EXECUTE AGAINST TRANSFERRED
ASSETS PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA UNIFORM FRAUDULENT
TRANSFER ACT
Respondent, James Hutchison, Jr., was a construction contractor. Petitioners
supplied materials and services to Mr. Hutchison. The current debts of both Petitioners accrued
as of July, 1998.
Since the mid-1980's, Mr. Hutchison was the sole owner of a stock portfolio held
by Commerce Bank. In August of 1998, he liquidated the stock, closed the custodial account
with Commerce Bank and used the proceeds of the account to open a mutual fund account
through FMA Advisory. Inc. The funds are with Fidelity Investments. Mr. Hutchison titled the
accountjointly with his wife as tenants by the entireties.
This transfer was made without any consideration or payment by Mrs. Hutchison.
The account was the only meaningful asset owned by Mr. Hutchison in his individual name.
Thus, the transfer of the asset into joint ownership with his wife rendered him individually
insolvent as to his creditors.
Petitioners' claim is one under the Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer
Act, 12 Pa.C.S.A. §§5101, et seq. According to that Act:
A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as
to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the
obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred
the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in
exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was
insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of
the transfer or obligation.
12 Pa.C.S.A. §5105.
In establishing a fraudulent conveyance, the plaintiff need only establish the
existence of a debt at the time of the conveyance. Once a conveyance and the existence of the
debt at the time of the conveyance are established, the burden of proof shifts to the grantees to
establish, by clear and convincing evidence, either that the grantor:
(1) remained solvent and was not rendered insolvent by the
conveyance; or
(2) received fair consideration for the conveyance.
Coscia v. Hendrie, 427 Pa.Super. 585, 629 A.2d 1024 (1993); Soda Rental Service. Inc. v. Ford, 334
Pa.Super. 486, 483 A.2d 556 (1984); and Stinner v. Stinner, 300 Pa.Super. 351, 446 A.2d 651
(1982).
The facts of this case are simple, straightforward and fall squarely within the
Fraudulent Transfer Act. Mr. Hutchison owed a debt to the Petitioners. As of July 1998, it
-1) -
exceeded $50,000. After the debts had accrued. Mr. Hutchison transferred assets from the
Commerce Bank account (which was in his individual name) to a mutual fund account jointly
with his wife.
Once these admitted facts were established, Mr. Hutchison has the obligation of
proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the conveyance was made for a reasonably
equivalent value or that he was solvent following the transfer. He has been unable to offer proof
of either of these facts. He did not receive any reasonably equivalent for the transfer. Further,
since the stock account was the only meaningful asset in Mr. Hutchison's individual name, he
was rendered insolvent by the transfer.
Mr. Hutchison may argue that he is still an owner of the Fidelity account and,
therefore, he is not "insolvent". This very argument has been rejected by Pennsylvania law. In
Koffman v. Smith, 682 A.2d 1282 (Pa.Super. 1996), a partnership-debtor transferred certain of
the partnership assets to one of the partners and his spouse. The creditor of the partnership
sought to execute against the transferred asset owned jointly by the one partner and his spouse.
The partner contested his right to do so, contending that entireties property was not subject to
execution for the debt of the partner. The court disagreed. Although the court noted that
entireties property generally is unavailable to a creditor of one of the tenants, this is not true
when the entireties tenancy was created in fraud of creditors under the Uniform Act:
However, when a spouse conveys individual property to a tenancy
by the entireties in fraud of creditors, a creditor may nevertheless
execute against the conveyed property.
Id. 682 A.2d at 1288. In fact, the court specifically held that the creditor was not required to file
a separate action in equity to set aside the fraudulent conveyance. Instead, the Act authorized the
-3-
r
creditor to proceed directly against the conveyed property. Id., 682 A.2d at 1289.1 See also First
National Bank of Marietta v. Iioffines, 429 Pa. 109, 239 A.2d 458 (1968) (where transferring
spouse is rendered insolvent, transaction is presumptively fraudulent); Stinnner v. Stinner, 446
A.2d 651 (Pa.Super. 1982) (transfer by one spouse to both as tenants by the entireties can be
fraudulent as to creditors); and Patterson v. Hopkins, 371 A.2d 1378 (Pa.Super. 1977).
This transaction is presumptively fraudulent. It was made after the accrual of the
debt and without adequate consideration. Mr. Hutchison has not proven, by clear and convincing
evidence, that he remained solvent following the transfer. Therefore, the transferred asset is
subject to execution.
BUZGON DAVIS LAW OFFICES
BY:
Timothy J. Huber, Esquire
Attorney I.D. #47231
525 South Eighth Street
Post Office Box 49
Lebanon, PA 17042-0049
(717) 274-1421
Attorneys for Petitioners, Charles C. Loose & Son, Inc., and
Integra Painting, Inc.
t As the Superior Court in Koffman explained, that case was decided under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance
Act, which was repealed and reenacted by the Legislature as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The repealed Act
authorized execution against the transferred asset without the need to seek approval by the court. The current Act
does require court approval. See 12 Pa.C.S.A. §5107(6). However, subject to court approval, the statute was not
intended to change the availability of execution against the transferred asset. See Committee Comment (5) to §5107.
e This says nothing of the idea that the transfer is otherwise fraudulent under 12 Pa.C.S.A. §5104. The court should
certainly infer that Mr. Hutchison either made the transfer in an effort to hinder, delay or defraud creditors or
otherwise affected his business assets and the ability to meet ongoing debt. Such proof is not required under §5105.
However, it provides an alternate basis for relief in this case.
-4-
<, L t + N J
1
?Sy d
:
J7/1 ' 1 ? I
J
(n O'
wT W
U
O
s ?. o
o" a
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.,
Plaintiff
V.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and JAMES
HUTCHISON,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-7619 CIVIL
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. NO. 98-6857 CIVIL
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMES HUTCHISON, individually
and t/a HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants
DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXECUTE
AGAINST TRANSFERRED ASSETS PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA
UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT
NOW COMES James Hutchison, individually and t/a Hutch i.?
Construction, Defendants in the above captioned actions, by
and through their counsel, Cunningham & Chernicoff, P.C., and
i? ;
as their Reply to the Motion to Executive against Transferred
Assets Pursuant to Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer
Act (the "Motion") filed by Plaintiff Charles C. Loose & Son,
i
Inc. and by Plaintiff Integra Painting, Inc. avers as follows:
i,
1. Admitted. j
(
2. Denied. It is specifically denied that Cynthia G.
Hutchison formerly is or ever has been a party to the above
captioned proceedings. Ms. Hutchison has never been a named
Defendant in either of the above captioned actions and it is
inappropriate to refer to her as a Respondent in these
proceedings or in any subsequent pleading.
I. FACTS RELATING TO CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON INC.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
II. FACTS RELATING TO INTEGRA PAINTING INC.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted.
11. Admitted.
III. FACTS REGARDING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER
12. Defendants' answers to Paragraphs 1 through 11 are
incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth.
13. Admitted.
14. Admitted.
15. Admitted. As further answer, the portfolio referred
to in paragraph 15 of the Motion was inherited by Defendant
James Hutchison in two parts. The first part was inherited
from his mother in 1984, at a time when Mr. Hutchison was not
married. The second part of the portfolio mentioned in
paragraph i5 of the Motion was inherited by Defendant James
Hutchison when his grandmother passed away in 1991.
16. Admitted. As further answer Defendant James
Hutchison secured a business loan from Commerce Bank in the
amount of $400,000.00 sometime in the year 1997. Defendant
James Hutchison also secured a commercial line of credit in
the amount of $50,000.00 from Commerce Bank at approximately
the same time. Defendant James Hutchison used the stocks
inherited from his mother and grandmother, respectfully, to
secure repayment of the aforementioned business loan and
commercial line of credit. At the time of the loan, the value
of the stocks was approximately $675,000.00. The terms of the
business loan and line of credit advanced to Defendant James
Hutchison by Commerce Bank were that should the value of the
stocks securing the credit facilities drop below a certain
margin, then Commerce Bank could call such loans in. In or
about August of 1998 the value of the stocks dropped to
approximately $480,000.00, below the'margin. Commerce Bank
consequently accelerated payment on the loan and line of
credit, and Mr. Hutchison was forced to liquidate the stocks
in order to pay the business loan in accordance with the terms
of the original agreement. Mr. Hutchison then transferred the
remaining proceeds of the account (approximately $80,000.00)
to the Fidelity Mutual fund account.
17. Admitted. As further answer, as a matter of
practice, Defendant James Hutchison titles all of his accounts
and assets jointly with his wife as tenants by the entirety.
Moreover, the president of FMA Advisory, Inc., the entity
4pµ':'?s: :? .?_
through which the aforesaid Fidelity Mutual fund account was
maintained, suggested to Defendant Hutchison at the time he
opened the account to title such account jointly with his wife
as tenants by the entirety. Mr. Hutchison based his decision,
in part, on the advice he received from the President of FMA
Advisory, Inc.
18. Admitted.
19. Admitted. As further answer, Defendants' answers to
paragraphs 15, 16, and 17 of the Motion are incorporated
herein as if more fully set forth.
20. The averments contained in paragraph 20 of the
Motion represent conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading is required and such averments are therefore denied.
To the extent an answer may be required, Defendants
specifically deny that the transfer referred to in paragraph
20 of the Motion was fraudulent or that it rendered the Debtor
insolvent.
21. The averment contained in paragraph 21 of the Motion
represents a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading
is required, and such averment is therefore denied. To the
extent a response may be required, Defendants specifically
deny that the transfer referenced in Paragraph 21 of the
Motion rendered Mr. Hutchison insolvent or that it was
fraudulent to Plaintiffs/Petitioners.
22. The averment contained in paragraph 22 of
the Motion represents a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required, and such averment is
therefore denied. To the extent a response may be required,
Defendants specifically deny that the transfer referenced in
Paragraph 22 of the Motion was made with the intent to hinder,
delay or defraud Plaintiffs/Petitioners.
23. The averment contained in paragraph 23 of the Motion
represents a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading
is required, and such averment is therefore denied. To the
extent a response may be required, Defendants specifically
deny that Mr. Hutchison knew or should have known that he
would not be able to pay Petitioners' claims.
24. The averment contained in paragraph 24 of the Motion
represents a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading
is required, and such averment is therefore denied. As
further answer, Defendants incorporate their replies to
paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 23 of the motion herein
by reference as if more fully set forth.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this
Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss the
motion with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C.
vrc c..,,i
Date: I lllir{ l?l'? f)113? By: U ("
Henry W. Van Eck, Esquire
I.D. #811,d87
2320 North Second Street
P.O. Box 60457
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
(717) 238-6570
(Attorneys for Defendant)
VERIFICATION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA .
ss:
COUNTY OF DAUPHIN
I, Henry W. Van Eck, Esquire, being duly sworn according
to law, deposes and says that I am the attorney for Defendant,
in the within action; that the Defendant cannot make
verification to the Reply to Plaintiff's Motion to Execute
Against Transferred Assets Pursuant to Pennsylvania Uniform
Fraudulent Transfer Act because Defendant cannot timely come
to Harrisburg to sign this Verification; that the Defendant
cannot travel to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to execute this
Verification prior to the filing of this Reply to Plaintiff's
Motion to Execute Against Transferred Assets Pursuant to
Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act; that it would be
inconvenient for Defendant to travel to Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania to file the Reply to Plaintiff's Motion to
Execute Against Transferred Assets Pursuant to Pennsylvania
Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act personally; and that, based
upon statements made to me by Defendant James W. Hutchison,
who stated I may rely thereon and for purposes of this
Verification, and without independent investigation on my
part, the averments set forth in the foregoing Reply to
Plaintiff's Motion to Execute Against Transferred Assets
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
are true and correct to the best of•h}s knowledge, information
and belief. dv; CU•i "cL
H ry
SWORN and Subscribed to W. Van Eck, Esquire
before me this a9/Ai day
of rc 2 00.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Notar Seal
LJnoa B. Doevon. Notary Fublk I
Nantsbury, DauWn Canty
fAy Commisslon E,#,es Feb. 25.2002
:Ae!nl:n r, v;ngsRlVania Association of Notaflea
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Henry W. Van Eck, Esquire, do hereby certify that a
true and correct copy of the Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's
Motion to Executive against Transferred Assets Pursuant to
Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in the above-
captioned matter was placed in the United States Mail, first
class deliver, postage prepaid in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on
the following:
Timothy J. Huber, Esquire
525 South Eighth Street
P.O. Box 49
Lebanon, PA 17042-0049
Respectfully submitted,
CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C.
Date: AuU &(, " BY: l?ii. I ?r>, VcL( &
Henry Z -Van Eck, Esquire
I.D. #83087
2320 North Second Street
P.O. Box 60457
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
(717) 238-6570
(Attorneys for Defendant)
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.,
Plaintiff
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHISON,
Defendants
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC.,-------
Plainti ff
vs.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMES HUTCHISON, individually
and Ua HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-7619 CIVIL
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 98-6857 CIVIL ?
NOTICE TO ATTEND
TO: James Hutchison
And
Henry W. Van Eck, Esquire
2320 North Second Street
P.O. Box 60457
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
Attorney for Defendants
5 r
I• I
f
r
t i
i
1
l : r' ,
(1) You are directed to come to Courtroom 2 at the Cumberland County Courthouse,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on April 6, 2000, at 8:45 o'clock, A.M., to testify on behalf of Plaintiffs
in the above case, and to remain until excused.
(2) And bring with you the following: Documentation reflecting the account
number and other identifying data, together with the date the account was opened, for your
Fidelity mutual fund investments held through FMA Advisory, Inc.
If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this Notice To
Attend, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules
of Civil Procedure.
DAVIS LAW OFFICES
Date: -m
By:
1 imothhy J. Huber, Esquire
Attomey I.D. #47231
525 South Eighth Street
Post Office Box 49
Lebanon, PA 17042-0049
(717) 274-1421
Attomeys for Plaintiffs
h
q
7
Y ?
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.,
Plaintiff
vs.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHISON,
Defendants
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC.,
Plaintiff
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMES HUTCHISON, individually
and t/a HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-7619 CIVIL
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 98-6857 CIVIL
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
) ss:
COUNTY OF LEBANON )
I, KAREN A. NEE, an employee of the law firm of Buzgon Davis, 525 South
Eighth Street, Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, being duly
swom according to law, depose and say that on March 23, 2000, I filed a copy of the NOTICE
TO ATTEND in the office of the Prothonotary of Cumberland County and I mailed, by prepaid
first class mail, the original NOTICE TO ATTEND to Henry W. Van Eck, Esquire, P.O. Box
60457, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17106-0457, Attorney for Defendants.
7-e,-
(KAREN A. NEE)
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this 23rd day
Q oaf M- It A.D., 2000.
?l /O LJ /i
Notary Public
Mlen L. GNAngLebanon, Loommission EMember, FannsVi ani
li ? -
f=? U7 2
v U
F
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.,
Plaintiff
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHISON.
Defendants
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC.,
Plaintiff
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMES HUTCHISON, individually
and Ua HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-7619 CIVIL ?
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 98-6857 CIVIL
NOTICE TO ATTEND
TO: James Hutchison
And
Henry W. Van Eck, Esquire
2320 North Second Street
P.O. Box 60457
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
Attorney for Defendants
(1) • You are directed to come to Courtroom 2 at the Cumberland County Courthouse,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on April 6, 2000, at 8:45 o'clock, A.M., to testify on behalf of Plaintiffs
in the above case, and to remain until excused.
(2) And bring with you the following: Documentation reflecting the account
number and other identifying data, together with the date the account was opened, for your
Fidelity mutual fund investments held through FMA Advisory, Inc.
If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this Notice To
Attend, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules
of Civil Procedure.
DAVIS LAW OFFICES
Date: q A-3 -M By: -I V C?
Timothy J. Huber, Esquire
Attorney I.D. #47231
525 South Eighth Street
Post Office Box 49
Lebanon, PA 17042-0049
(717) 274-1421
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
r,1•:, .
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON, INC.,
Plaintiff
VS.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHISON,
Defendants
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-7619 CIVIL
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. NO. 98-6857 CIVIL
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMES HUTCHISON, individually
and t/a HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) ss:
COUNTY OF LEBANON )
1, KAREN A. NEE, an employee of the law firm of Buzgon Davis, 525 South
Eighth Street, Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, being duly
sworn according to law, depose and say that on March 23, 2000, I filed a copy of the NOTICE
TO ATTEND in the office of the Prothonotary of Cumberland County and I mailed, by prepaid
first class mail, the original NOTICE TO ATTEND to Henry W. Van Eck, Esquire, P.O. Box
60457, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17106-0457, Attorney for Defend ts.
(KAREN A. NEE)
Swom to and subscribed
before me this 23rd day
o f M V ch h, 2000.
Notary Public
Notarial Seal
EHelen L. G. Angelo, Notary Public
Lebanon, Lebanon County
Commission Expires Aug. 5, 2003
M1lembe4 enns}•NanwASOnaoonofNolarss
oil, 11
?- ?'
..
u?. ?
?? i`i := J
Gr,-? .r ?i U)
C ii. N -? ?-
?'u: ?== pia
_
;_
_?` ? U
,M
-. . .. ,. , ;? in,
fo
U
C
R
fC N
2
ld O '
L,? i'
;
? y
w
1 rn p
L TJ
d
wT W
w a
u ?
., f
T ? ?'
d G y
d
.?C ?
o
CHARLES C. LOOSE & SON,
INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION and
JAMES HUTCHINSON,
Defendants
INTEGRA PAINTING, INC.,
V.
Plaintiff
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
JAMES HUTCHINSON,
individually and t/a
HUTCH CONSTRUCTION,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99-7619 CIVIL ?
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 98-6857 CIVIL
NOTICE OF STAY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that James W. Hutchinson, Jr., the
above named Defendant, has filed a Petition under Chapter? of
the United States Bankruptcy Code to Case No. 1-00-oi45'7 and
as a result thereof, the above captioned action is stayed
until further order of the United States Bankruptcy Court.
The undersigned executes this Notice for purposes of giving
notice only and the providing of this Notice is not intended
to enter an appearance in the within case.
CUNNINGHAM & CHERNICOFF, P.C.
' /?? ??
Date: April 6 2000 By Henry Van Eck, Esquire
I. D. #83087
2320 North Second Street
P. 0. BOX 60457
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0457
Telephone: (717) 238-6570
K7S??F
k
(t
F.
I;
'.,`.I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Henry W. Van Eck, Esquire, hereby certify that on
April 6, 2000, 1 served the foregoing Notice of Stay by
depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Timothy J. Huber, Esquire
525 South Eighth Street
P. 0. Sox 49
Lebanon, PA 17042-0049
Date: April 6. 2000 By: k G/&"
Henry . Van Eck, Esquire
FORM 61 United States Bankruptcy Court
IffDDZZ District of D MSYZVANIA
None or Debtor p aaa.r «ertl.ae nine was.): Name of Joint Debtor k9vroy0a a fees score}
BUTCBrSON, JAWS Jr. ,1
All Ogler Names used by the Debtor In the last 6 years Ali OUnor Names used by the Joint Debtor In tine last a yeah
)Induce mmlae, malean, and two iumea): Ibckide manled, malean, and feria nerve):
f/k/a Hutch Construction
Soc.Sec.rraxi.D.No. erne eon cilia, sew alA: Soc.Sacfraxl.D.No. amore enn anr, se,ea.Iq:
226-80-2883
Street Addressor Debtor pe. a s"K car. snea a aoeo*): Sired Address of Joint Debtor Mo. a sent car. Stab a ay Cody:
414 SOOTS YORK STREET
HECS)WZCSBORG PA 17055
County of Residence or of the ResMerlea or of tie
County of
Principal Place of Business: CVHRERLAND
pal
of Bueltless:
Pisea
PrinrJ
Melling Address of Debtor aee«.neom m..e amass) MaUing Aaaresa of Jont Debtor pfeadnnteom ware address):
Loeatbn of Principal Asxla of Bushess Debtor m m®
(rdarrdeom aaast addnaab")c Nat APPLZCABZE
Venue (Cheek any applicable box)
® Debtor has been domkAed or has had a residence, principal place of business, orprincipal assets In this DWAd for 180 days immediately
preceding this date of this petition or for a longer part of such ISO days than In any other DWjIcL
? There is a bankruptcy ease eoneeming debtor's affiliate, general partner, or partnership pending In this DlstrIcL
Type of Debtor (Check all boxes that apply) Chapter or Section of Bankruptcy Code Under Which
® Individual(s) ? Railroad the Petition Is Fled (Chock one box)
? Corporation ? Stockbroker ® Chapter? ? Chaptefll ? Chapter 13
? Partnership ? Commodity Broker ? Chapter9 ? Chapter 12
? Other ? See. 304 - Case ancillary to foreign proceeding
Nature of Debts (Check one box) Filing Fee (C )
® Consumer/Non-Business ? Business ® Full Filing Fee attached `" ? ?®
Chapter 11 Small Business (Check an boxes that apply)
?f?
? Filing Fee to be paid In InstaUm??oNy)
[3 Debtor Is a small business as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101 C
Must glach signed application
? Debtor is and elecis to be considered a small business under cartltykg that the debtor is ratable to pay fee except In kmtallmeMa.
11 U.S.C. § 1121(0) (Optloreg Rub 1006(b). See OflkJal Form No. 3.
StallstiallAdministratIveInformation (Estimates only) THIS SPACE isFORCOl1RTUS9ONLY
? Debtor estimates that funds will be available for distdbulbn to unsecured creditors.
d
i
i
i
strat
ve expenses
m
n
® Debtor estimates that, after any exempt property is excluded and a
paid, there will be no funds available for distribution to unsecured creditors. Y C e"? Harrisburg, PA
+
TI'?E_A.M.•P.M.
fd
Estimated Number of Creditors 145 1849 50M 106190 2004= 1000anr
? ° E?PR-`5 2000
Estimated Assets
solo ss.001to $100.ro1m $501ZOMw $1.000.001 to stoowoole, $50,000.0010 w.lnan Clerk, nikrup:e Court
y
s$o,ow $100.000 M.000 $1 million stomimon sA minion $100 million $100 million Per out' Clerk
? ® ? ? ? ? ? ?
EsUmaled Debts
SOM sm.001to $10,00 to $50.001 lo s1.0o0,0oilo s10,0o0,001lo $$,00.001 lo More sun
$50,000 $100,000 $500,000 $l million $10miulan Mn1lion $100malon $100 million
® ? ? ? ? ? ?
?
`4
A
(Official Fann 1 % ee Gmep. acaaebr, nit
Voluntary Petition Name of Debtor(s): FORM B1, Pap 2
(This page must be compleled and Rod M every eau)
JAm8 M. 1301'CIII80N
Location Whom Filed: Can Number. Date Flbd:
NONE
Name of Debtor. Case Number. Date Filed:
NONE
District: Relationship: Judge:
Signature(s) of Debtor(s) (IndivlduaUJolnt) Signature of Debtor (Corporation Partnership)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the Information provided In this I declare under penalty of penury that the Information provided In this
petition is true and correct. petition Is true and correct, and that I have been authorized to file this
(If petitioner Is an individual whose debts are primarily consumer debts petition on behatf of the debtor.
and has chosen to file under chapter 7) 1 am aware that 1 may proceed
under chapter 7,11, 12, or 13 of ti0e 11, United States Code, understand The debtor request "-"In with the chapter of title 11.
the relief avalsbie under each such chapter, and choose to proceed United States Code, specified In this petition.
under chapter 7.
I request elief in eccordarae vMh the R er o(litb 1 nited States
Code, s cified In this petition.
X
s+a mnao.emr sig m of AaMr WW"
X
SpnenroaJda Dsupr Prro lame aAu
Taeprwr um
(e Mpesaded byIMNT44
? Tae WWMW
i)?
I S
Oen db
Signature of Attorney Signature
X 1/, &k for I cedify that l am al
-.au m a AIDW ror Depmgy § 110, that I prepared
provided the debtor with a copy of this document.
ROBERT E. Cffl3W
23380
($)
N.me a Am may W o.btwapgq
rvlm.d
WLI;La-d 6 CM=COFF. P. C.
Film Name PdMSO Nerro of Ba
2320 NORTN SECOND STREET
Addme so" sewer Nup
P. 0. BOX 60457
BARRISBDRG PA 17106-0457 Add,ae
_ (717) 238-6570 ?upnl
?
Teleplb,w, Nurser
Oeta
Exhibit A Names and Sac
prepared or assisted In preparing this document
(ro be completed If debtor Is required to file periodic reports
(e.g., forms 1 OK and 100) with the Securitles and Exchange
Commission pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Secudtiea
Exchange Act or 1934 and Is requesting relief under chapter 11)
? Exhibit Ala attached and made apart of this petition.
Exhibit B
(To be competed If debtor is an individual If more than one person prepared this document, attach additional
whose debts are primarily consumer debts) sleets conforming
I, the attorney for the petitioner named In the foregoing petition, declare
that I have informed the petitioner that (he or she) may proceed under X
chapter 7, 11. 12, or 13 of U& 11, United States Code, and have SVmWm a aenlwn
explained the relief available under each such chapter.
A
(
X G)
/
4)1? 4
2
6
4
er»,u
,GL(
-
E. e
r 1
6
r-
sgnawn nqroYroroeptap) Abanlwptcy petition
4 / <11 of title 11 and the Fe
pets in fires or imprisons