Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-2408NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI Plaintiffs Robert D. Henry, III, an adult individual and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 61- ;40P 240'--L JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following Complaint, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Pennsylvania Lawyer Referral Service Pennsylvania Bar Association 100 South Street P.O. Box 186 Harrisburg, PA 17108 1-800-692-7375 (PA Only) or (717) 238-6715 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI Plaintiffs Robert D. Henry, III, an adult individual and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. D"J -,2q6P JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Nader Alajlouni and Angelic Alajlouni, by their attorney, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, and in support of this Complaint aver as follows: 1. Nader Alajlouni is an adult sui juds residing at 156 Oak Hill Road, Carlisle, PA 17013. 2. Angelic Alajlouni is an adult sui juds residing at 156 Oak Hill Road, Carlisle, PA 17222. 3. Robert D. Henry III, d/b/a Henry Construction is believed to be an adult individual residing and doing business at 43 Irish Gap Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17241. 4. On or about July 3, 2003, a contract was consummated between Defendant Henry and Plaintiffs. (Attached hereto as Plaintiffs Exhibit "A"). 5. Said contract called for the building of a substantial addition to Plaintiff's existing home at 156 Oak Hill Road, Carlisle PA 17013, hereinafter referred to as "residence". 6. Upon "completion" of the new addition which was tantamount to a new home, Plaintiffs noticed various structural, electrical and cosmetic problems with the residence, and made Defendant Henry aware of the same. 7. Defendant Henry failed to remedy those problems after Plaintiffs requests. 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 8. Previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 9. The Contract of the parties is attached as Exhibit "A". 10. Plaintiffs have fulfilled all provisions of the contract which were required of them. 11. The Defendant has not fulfilled the provisions of the contract in order to have fully completed the job; Defendant has breached the contract. 12. Specifically, Defendant Henry failured to complete the job they were hired to perform in a workmanlike manner in following ways: (a). plaintiffs pipes froze throughout the entire residence. (b). the heating system in the residence was not properly connected. (c). various drains throughout the residence were not properly installed or connected. (d). walls constructedtfinished were not properly sealed. (e). the central vacuum system is defective. (f). the electrical system is defective throughout the home. (g). the deck was improperly constructed. (h). the deck was improperly attached to the residence. (i). the tile floor in the bathroom is not level. (j). overhead support beams were improperly installed. (k). there are framing defects around numerous doorways (1). other numerous defects to be proven at the time of trial. 13. The above list of defects represents a continuing breach of the contract as Defendant Henry has refused to make repairs on the same, and/or complete them in a workman like manner. 14. Plaintiffs have lost faith in Henry's ability to make the repairs. 15. The failure to remedy these problems has created a home with significant damages as follows: (a). plaintiffs pipes froze throughout the entire residence. (b). the heating system in the residence was not properly connected. (c). various drains throughout the residence were not properly installed or connected. (d). walls constructedtfinished were not properly sealed. (e). the central vacuum system is defective. (f). the electrical system is defective throughout the home. (g). the deck was improperly constructed. (h). the deck was improperly attached to the residence. (i). the tile floor in the bathroom is not level. Q). overhead support beams were improperly installed. (k). there are framing defects around numerous doorways (1). other numerous defects to be proven at the time of trial. 16. The before mentioned damages have lowered the residences market value, and has created a lasting stigma to potential buyers which reduces the value of the home and its ability to be sold. 17. The costs of repairing or remedying the above defects in the property are very great and are likely to exceed forty-five ($45,000.00) Thousand Dollars. 18. Plaintiffs also have anticipated future damages related to incidental and consequential matters; as for instance, they will have to vacate the home due to the nature of some of the major renovations required and will incur future expenses and the like, including the costs associated with temporary quarters, along with other incidental and consequential damages arising from such temporary living conditions, packing, moving expenses, and the like. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment in their favor in an unliquidated amount to be proven at trial, along with costs and attorneys fees. COUNT II. BREACH OF CONTRACT UNWORKMANLIKE PERFORMANCE FAILURE TO COMPLETE IN WORKMAN LIKE MANNER 19. Paragraphs 1-15 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 20. On July 3, 2003, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into an agreement for the construction of an addition to their home, namely the building of a 6,000 square foot addition that was to be livable space for plaintiff and their children. 21. Plaintiffs have fulfilled all provisions of the contract which were required of them. 22. The Defendant has not fulfilled the provisions of the contract in order to have completed the job Defendant and is in breach of said contract. 23. Defendant has failed to perform under the contract in a workmanlike manner including performing certain things which were allegedly completed but discovered to be patently incorrect and improper, including but not limited to the following: (a). plaintiffs pipes froze throughout the entire residence. (b). the heating system in the residence was not properly connected. (c). various drains throughout the residence were not properly installed or connected. (d). walls constructedtfinished were not properly sealed. (e). the central vacuum system is defective. (f). the electrical system is defective throughout the home. (g). the deck was improperly constructed. (h). the deck was improperly attached to the residence. (i). the tile floor in the bathroom is not level. Q). overhead support beams were improperly installed. (k). there are framing defects around numerous doorways (1). other numerous defects to be proved at the time of trial. 24. Defendant has generally performed in a poor, improper, and unworkmanlike manner, including but not limited to Defendant's failure to build proper walls, properly install the residences electrical system, in addition to the deck being improperly constructed and attached to the residence, has created numerous hazardous conditions that requires extensive remedial measures to undo the shortcomings of Defendants workmanship. 25. Defendant has failed and refused to cure the aforementioned breaches, despite Plaintiffs repeated demands. 26. The reasonable cost of remedying the aforementioned breaches is in excess of $48,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendant in a liquidated amount of $60,000.00 together with costs and interest. Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Date: April 12, 2007 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Supreme Court ID # 81924 Michael 0. Palermo, Jr., Esquire Supreme Court ID # 93334 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Attorneys for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. G?---?-J DATE: q 07 Angelic jlouni, Plaintiff ALAJLOUNI 2-STORYADDITION CONSTRUCTION Roof sheathing 7/16 OSB Roof trusses @ 24" OC Flooring 3/4 T & G 2x6 constructed exterior walls with 8' ceiling Interior 2x4 walls @ 16" OC 2x10 floor joises @ 16"OC Exterior wall sheathing 7/16 OSB R19 ceiling insulation R19 exterior wall insulation Tyvek house wrap Optional R30 ceiling insulation @ $1.00/sq.ft Composite exterior decking with white vinyl railing EXTERIOR DOORS, WINDOWS, & TRIM White soffet, face metal, & roof trim White seamless gutter & spouting Vinyl siding Architectural 30 year shingle Schlage locks on all exterior doors Shutters on front windows 41?*?N RY's Construction Garages • Roofing • Decks • Siding - FREE ESTIMATES - - Henry office 486-8016 Robert D. Truck 226-1759 135 Irish Gap Road Nextel ID #38979 Newville, PA 17241 Double hung, tilt, all vinyl windows, & screens, with optional grids Steel insulated, 9-light front door, with 1 ft side lights Foam insulation around doors and windows Black torch style lights at all exterior doors French patio door in rear White, non-insulated, 9x7 solid, raised panel garage door KITCHEN Single lever facets by Sterling or Moen -?err>i}isa.rn??a? back splash ?E 36" refrigerator opening Hanging dining room light Kitchen facet with sprayer Base and wall cabinets INTERIOR DOORS & TRIM All doors and trim on first floor-stain grade (stained) All doors and trim on second floor-paint grade (painted white on white) 6-panel interior doors 6-panel bi-fold doors on closets Colonial molding Wood jams Wood kick board trim throughout Signature Date Exhibit "A," PLUMBING 1.6 gallon commode and water closet (4) 60" 1 piece fiberglass tub/shower (2) 48" shower (2) 42 gallon energy saver water heater Single porcelain lavatory bowls with vanity, medicine cabinet, & side light (1) Double porcelain lavatory bowls with vanity, medicine cabinet, & side light (3) AV, PVC drain lines CPVC hot & cold water lines Shut off valves throu utsl a water hookups (2 Washer ookups Dryer vent (2) ELECTRICAL Power vent fans with lights (4) 200 amp service GFI protection for bath, kitchen, outside, and garage Electric range receptacle and breaker ,-?--- Electric wire for dryer (2) Wire and switch for paddle fans in all bedrooms 8 phone jacks (additional jacks @ $20.00 each) 8 cable jacks (additional jacks @ $20.00 each) MISCELLANEOUS Half inch drywall, finished, painted white on white 2 gas fire boxes (living room and master bedroom) Gas heat with AC unit Flooring-Carpet with 61b padding -Vinyl with t/4" sub-flooring (allowance $22.00/yd) Base House Price: $327,000 I ? ?b G PAYMENT TO BE MADE AS FOLLOWS: 20% down -44'25% after completion of. excavation, foundation, slab work, sub-flooring, wall framing, 5i;15°.°": t 15v sheathing, roof framing, roof decking, & roofing 3°'r 11 . `20% after completion of set windows & exterior doors, siding, exterior trim, exterior --o ' " decks, & handrails 20% after completion of rough plumbing & wiring, insulation, set heat plant, & heating roughed in a le"I0% after completion of drywall, plumbing fixtures, interior trim, cabinets, interior l paint, & light fixtures' L? 'C,5% upon completion and final inspection Signature Date Robert D. enry III. Date 77 ? d may. 4 1 _. r-41 C:p u ) N) v-N f cry 9i W1 it 4 ABOM & KUMMKIS, LLP 36 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI PLAINTIFFS ROBERT D. HENRY, III and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANT IN ITHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.: 07-2408 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance on behalf of thee' , Robert D. Henry, III, and Robert D. Henry III, d/b/a Henry Construction, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, ABOM & KUTm4ms, LLP DATE Jasgh P. KutuTakis, Esquire 36 Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ID No. 80411 <"? t? ='v- ---' M .-d ,..,,- ?.- _ ?-? - ., ?. - ?;:, ? : c :} c,,? - _ .;- ? tom= - ::? r?.?, w ABOM&KUHAAMS IIP 36 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 NADER ALAJLOUNI and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA PLAINTIFFS NO.: 07-2408 ROBERT D. HENRY, III and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A CIVIL ACTION - LAW HENRY CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover St. Carlisle, PA 17013 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE WITHIN PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS PLEADING. ASOM&KUMEAUSLLP 36 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 NADER ALAJLOUNI and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA PLAINTIFFS ROBERT D. HENRY, III and NO.: 07-2408 ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A CIVIL ACTION - LAW HENRY CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Defendants, Robert D. Henry, III and Henry Construction., by and through their counsel, Abom & Kutulakis, L.L.P., preliminarily object to Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028 as follows: 1. On April 26, 2007, Plaintiffs, Nader and Angelic Alajlouni., (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff' or "Alajlouni") filed a Complaint which contained two causes of action for Breach of Contract and Breach of Contract Unworkmanlike Performance Failure to Complete in Workman Like Manner. The Complaint was served on Defendant on May 10, 2007. A true and correct copy of the Plaintiff s Complaint is attached hereto, and marked as Exhibit "A." I. FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD DAMAGES, pursuant to Title 42, Section 1028(a)(5) 2. Defendant incorporates paragraph 1 as though set forth throughout at length. 3. Paragraph 11 of the Complaint generally avers that Defendant has breached the contract. 4. Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts in paragraph 12 to establish that the alleged damages were caused by any breach of contract by the defendant. 5. Plaintiff has failed to allege facts with sufficient particularity to enable defendant to prepare a defense to Count I of the complaint. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a); General State Authority v. Lawrie and Green, 24 Pa.Cmwlth. 407, 356 A.2d 851 (1976) 6. The Complaint fails to set forth with particularity which work undertaken by the Defendant is specifically alleged to have been unworkmanlike. Moreover, the Complaint generally alleges breaches of contract and other standards of performance by Defendant, but fails to set forth with particularity any specifics with respect to the alleged breaches by the defendant. Id. 7. The Complaint fails to provide notice to defendant of the specific work performed by Defendant which is alleged to have been unworkmanlike, incorrect, improper or otherwise in breach of standards of performance and contract. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed. II. LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (DEMURRER) COUNT I AND COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF CONTRACT UNWORKMANLIKE PERFORMANCE FAILURE TO COMPLETE IN WORKMAN LIKE MANNER 8. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 7 as though set forth at length. 9. Plaintiff's complaint fails to properly state a cause of action against the Defendant for Breach of Contract. 10. Plaintiff has asserted a cause of action against Defendant based on breach of contract. 11. The three elements necessary to properly plead a cause of action for breach of contract include (1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract and (3) resultant damages. J.F. Walker Co. v. Excalibur Oil Group, Inc., 792 A.2d 1269, 1272 (Pa. Super. 2002). 12. The Plaintiff failed to allege what specific acts of commission or omission on the part of the Defendant were connected to the alleged damage of the property in question. General State Authority v. Sutter Corporation, 44 Pa.Cmwlth. 156, 403 A.2d 1022 (1979) 14. The Plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient averments and facts necessary to establish a claim for Breach of Contract and/or Breach of Contract Unworkmanlike Performance Failure to Complete in Workman Like Manner. 15. The Complaint fails to state any facts upon which the amount of damages may be calculated in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a), which requires that "the material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." 16. The Complaint fails to allege the time when the cause of action arose. The only date in the complaint is the start date and not the date when the alleged breach of contract occurred. Baker v. Ramos, 229 Pa.Super. 358, 324 A.2d 509 WHEREFORE, due to Plaintiff's failure to establish a legally sufficient claim in Breach of Contract, Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiff's Breach of Contract claim be stricken. WHEREFORE, defendants respectfully request that the Plaintiff's Complaint be stricken for lack of specificity. Respectfully Submitted, & KUM AMS; ILP P. Kutulakis, Esquire iev I.D. 80411 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 AM"iey forDeA" daW k , .. - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, I, Jason P. Kutulakis, of ABOM & KUTULAKIS, LLP, hereby certify that I did serve or cause to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections by First Class U.S. Mail at the following: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully submitted, ABOM &KUTULAIM LLP a3 DATE: MAY 25, 2007 Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire 36 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 C+? r- N CIL NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI Plaintiffs Robert D. Henry, III, an adult individual and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-2408 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Nader Alajlouni and Angelic Alajlouni, by their attorney, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, and in response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections Answers as follow: 1. Admitted. 2. No response required. 3. Admitted. By way of further answer Plaintiff has pled with sufficient particularity Defendant's actions or inaction that breached said contract. See Pa.R.C.P. 1019. 4. Denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiff has complied with Pa.R.C.P. 1019 by stating material facts on which their cause of action was based and further the Complaint is set forth in a concise and summary form. 5. Denied. 6. Denied. By way of further answer Plaintiff has set forth numerous areas and conditions of the residence where Defendant breached said contract by performing in an unworkmanlike, improper and incorrect manner. Defense counsel is directed to paragraph 12 of the Complaint, specifically (a) through (I). 7. Denied as stated. By way of further answer Plaintiff has provided sufficient notice to Defendant of said work performed by itemizing a litany of work that was performed in an unworkmanlike, improper and incorrect manner. Defense counsel is again directed to paragraph 12 of the Complaint, specifically (a) through (1). 8. No response required. 9. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 10. Admitted. 11. Statement of Law to which no response is deemed required. 12. Denied. Plaintiff states with particularity throughout said Complaint a litany of work that was performed in an unworkmanlike, improper and incorrect manner. Defense counsel is directed to paragraph 23 of the Complaint in particular subparagraphs (a) through (I). 13. Defendant's Preliminary Objections omit number 13 and therefore no response is required. In the event a response is required the same is DENIED. 14. Denied. 15. Denied. By way of further answer Plaintiffs base their damages upon estimates received by Tuckey Restoration, Inc or Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Said damages are in excess of $48,000. It is also noted that the Defendant is a contractor who regularly conducts business and is learned in the process of estimating costs. General damages are those that are the usual and ordinary consequences of the wrong done. Fort Washington Res Inc v Tannen 901 F. Supa. 932 (E.D. Pa. 1995); Parsons Trading Co v Dohan 312 Pa. 464,167 A. 310 (1933). General damages may be proven without specifically pleading them. Laing v. Colder. 8 Pa. 479 (1848). Boden v. Gen. Tel. Co., 32 Som. 128 (Pa. Com. PI. 1975). 16. Denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that the contract was entered into on or about July 3, 2003. Logically, the unworkmanlike performance and thus breaching conduct was committed during this time. It is also noted that as the unworkmanlike conduct and resulting damage to the residence has gone uncured - the breach is continuing and thus ongoing. Furthermore, specificity as to time and place is not required under Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(a). See Commonwealth v. TAP Pharm. Prods.. 885 A.2d 1127, 2005 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 651 (Pa Commw. Ct 2005). WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request Defendant's Preliminary Objections be DENIED. Plaintiffs further respectfully request judgment in their favor in an unliquidated amount to be proven at trial, along with costs and attorneys fees and liquidated damages. Date: q / 69 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Supreme Court ID # 81924 Michael O. Palermo, Jr., Esquire Supreme Court ID # 93334 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Attorneys for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION Michael O. Palermo, Jr., Esquire, states that he is the attorney for, Plaintiffs in this action; that he makes this affidavit as attorney because he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: dlisl6?- Michael O. Palermo,'JrA Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs d r ?__ J -D ABOM&KUTULAKTS, LLP 36 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI PLAINTIFFS ROBERT D. HENRY, III and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.: 07-2408 ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A CIVIL ACTION - LAW HENRY CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. 1. Matters to be argued: a. Plaintiffs failure to properly plead damages; b. Defendants demurrer - legal insufficiency of plaintiff's complaint (demurrer) to Count I and Count II - breach of contract and breach of contract unworkmanlike performance failure to complete in workman like manner. 2. Counsel who will argue: (a) For plaintiff: Michael O. Palermo, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (b) For defendants: Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire Abom & Kutulakis, L.L.P. 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: REQUESTED DATE: August 15, 2007 Dated: June 22, 2007 Jasoh P. for Defendant i 1 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI PLAINTIFFS ROBERT D. HENRY, III and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.: 07-2408 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this O '! day of February, 2006, I, Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire, by and through ABOM & KUTULAKIS, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument, upon the below listed counsel of record and/or parties by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the United States Mail, First-class mail, postage prepaid addressed to the following: Michael O. Palermo, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: June 22, 2007 ABOM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P. Jaso P. Kutulakis, Esquire Atto ev for Defendant C C ? ` rt7 r C T...? W -? SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR [ 'go' CASE NO: 2007-02408 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ALAJLOUNI NADER ET AL HENRY ROBERT D IIII KENNETH GOSSER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland Cou ty,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon HENRY ROBERT D III the DEFENDANT at 1900:00 HOURS, on the 10th day of May 2007 at 35 IRISH GA ROAD NEWVILLE, PA 11241 ROBERT D HENRYIIII by handing to a true and attosted copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the sam? time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Cost Docketing 18.00 Service 9.60 Postage .39 Surcharge 10.00 00 ?JZ9?o ? 37. 99 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of , So Answers:, R. Thomas Kline 05/11/2007 ROMINGER & WHARE ?f By: D7lty?heri` A. D. / CASE NO: 2007-06408 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMB RLAND ALAJLOUNI NADE ET AL HENRY ROBERT D IIII KENNETH GOSSER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland Cou ty,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the withn COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon HENRY ROBERT D III D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION the DEFENDANT at 1900:00 HOURS, on the loth day of May 2007 at 35 IRISH GA ROAD NEWVILLE, PA l V241 by handing to ROBERT D HENRY III OWNER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the sa* time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Cos Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 5 J.Zg1b1 s: So Answers: 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 R. Thomas Kline 00 16. 00 05/11/2007 ROMINGER & WHARE Sworn and Sub cibed to before me thi of By. day Deput S e if , A. D. ABOM & KUTULABUS, LLP 36 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI PLAINTIFFS ROBERT D. HENRY, III and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.: 07-2408 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. 1. Matters to be argued: a. Plaintiffs failure to properly plead damages; b. Defendants demurrer - legal insufficiency of plaintiff's complaint (demurrer) to Count I and Count II - breach of contract and breach of contract unworkmanlike performance failure to complete in workman like manner. 2. Counsel who will argue: (a) For plaintiff: Michael O. Palermo, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (b) For defendants: Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire Abom & Kutulakis, L.L.P. 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: REQUESTED DATE: October 3, 2007 Dated: August 14, 2007 Ja on P. Ku lakis, Esqu A orney for Defendant NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI PLAINTIFFS ROBERT D. HENRY, III and ROBERT D. HENRY III, DB/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.: 07-2408 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of August 2007, I, Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire, by and through ABOM & KUTULAKIS, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument, upon the below listed counsel of record and/or parties by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the United States Mail, First-class mail, postage prepaid addressed to the following: Michael O. Palermo, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: August 14, 2007 J tmn a P. Kutulakis, Esquire A ey for Defendant c 7:) G fn -ti F5 3 Nader Alajlouni and Angelic Alajlouni V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Robert D. Henry, III and Robert D. Henry, III d/b/a Henry Construction : NO. 07-2408 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, August 17, 2007, by agreement of counsel, the above-captioned matter is continued from the August 15, 2007 Argument Court list. Counsel is directed to relist the case when ready. Michael O. Palermo, Esquire For the Plaintiff Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire J For the Defendant Court Administrator kam By the Edgar B. Bayley, J. Z 1 -11 ',!J OZ 9,T21 LHI? r NADER ALAJLOUNI and : ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI, Plaintiffs V. ROBERT D. HENRY, III, and ROBERT D. HENRY, : III, d/b/a HENRY CONSTRUCTION, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-2408 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, OLER and EBERT, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of December, 2007, upon consideration of Defendants' preliminary objections to Plaintiffs' complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. Defendants' preliminary objections are sustained to the extent that Plaintiffs are directed to file a more specific complaint as to damages within 20 days of the entry of this order, in the absence of which their complaint shall be deemed dismissed without further order of court; and 2. Defendants' preliminary objections are otherwise denied. /arl E. Rominger, Esq. Michael O. Palermo, Jr., Esq. 155 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiffs A BY THE COURT, IVIN VAIASNN13d 6 Z =01 WV 81 030 LODZ A8Vi0ivUHl ud ?Hl 30 3011KI-03113 ?f v?ason P. Kutulakis, Esq. 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant NADER ALAJLOUNI and : ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI, Plaintiffs V. ROBERT D. HENRY, III, : and ROBERT D. HENRY, : III, d/b/a HENRY CONSTRUCTION, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-2408 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, OLER and EBERT, JJ. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, J., December 17, 2007. In this civil case, Plaintiffs have sued Defendants for breach of a construction contract with respect to an addition to Plaintiffs' home. For disposition as this time are preliminary objections filed by Defendants to Plaintiffs' complaint. Defendants' preliminary objections request dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint due to (a) "legal insufficiency of Plaintiff's complaint (demurrer) Count I and Count II- breach of contract and breach of contract unworkmanlike performance failure to complete in workman like manner" and (b) "failure to properly plead damages, pursuant to Title 42, Section 1028(a)(5)."l This matter was argued on October 3, 2007. For the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendants' preliminary objections will be sustained in part and denied in part. STATEMENT OF FACTS Count I of Plaintiffs' two-count complaint is entitled "Breach of Contract." The facts alleged in this count may be summarized as follows.2 Defendant Robert D. Henry, III, entered into a written contract with Plaintiffs in July of 2003 for the construction of a ' Defendants' Preliminary Objections, at 2. 2 In summarizing the complaint, the court is in no way expressing an opinion as to its factual accuracy. substantial addition to Plaintiffs' residence in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.3 Defendant thereafter breached the contract in the following respects: (a). plaintiff's pipes froze throughout the entire residence. (b). the heating system in the residence was not properly connected. (c). various drains throughout the residence were not properly installed or connected. (d). walls constructed/finished were not properly sealed. (e). the central vacuum system is defective. (f). the electrical system is defective throughout the home. (g). the deck was improperly constructed. (h). the deck was improperly attached to the residence. (i). the tile floor in the bathroom is not level. 0). overhead support beams were improperly installed. (k). there are framing defects around numerous doorways (1). other numerous defects to be proven at the time of trial.4 With respect to damages, Count I of the Complaint states as follows: 16. The before mentioned damages have lowered the residences market value, and has created a lasting stigma to potential buyers which reduces the value of the home and its ability to be sold. 17. The costs of repairing or remedying the above defects in the property are very great and are likely to exceed forty-five ($45,000.00) Thousand Dollars. 18. Plaintiffs also have anticipated future damages related to incidental and consequential matters; as for instance, they will have to vacate the home due to the nature of some of the major renovations required and will incur future expenses and the like, including the costs associated with temporary quarters, along with other incidental and consequential damages arising from such temporary living conditions, packing, moving expenses, and the like.' Damages "in an unliquidated amount" are sought in Count 1.6 Count II of Plaintiffs' Complaint is entitled "Breach of Contract Unworkmanlike Performance Failure To Complete in Workman Like Manner." The facts alleged in this count include those respecting liability recited in Count 1.7 It is further asserted that 3 Plaintiffs' Complaint, paras. 4-5. 4 Plaintiffs' Complaint, Count I, para. 12. 5 Plaintiffs' Complaint, paras. 16-18. 6 Plaintiffs' Complaint, Count I, ad damnum clause (emphasis added). 2 r Defendant has generally performed in a poor, improper, and unworkmanlike manner, including but not limited to Defendant's failure to build proper walls, properly install the residences electrical system, in addition to the deck being improperly constructed and attached to the residence, has created numerous hazardous conditions that requires extensive remedial measures to undo the shortcomings of Defendants workmanship.8 With respect to damages, Count II of the Complaint states the following: 26. The reasonable cost of remedying the aforementioned breaches is in excess of $48,000.00.9 Damages "in a liquidated amount of $60,000.00 are sought in Count II." DISCUSSION Demurrer. In reviewing a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer, which challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the court "must accept all material facts set forth in the complaint[,] as well as all the inferences reasonably deducible therefrom as true." Powell v. Drumheller, 539 Pa. 484, 489, 653 A.2d 619, 621 (1995) (citations omitted). A preliminary objection in the form of a demurrer should be sustained only when, "on the facts averred, the law says with certainty no recovery is possible." Id. To properly state a cause of action for breach of contract, a pleading must allege "('1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract and (3) resultant damages." J.F. Walker Co., Inc. v. Excalibur Oil Group, Inc., 2002 PA Super 39, ¶7, 792 A.2d 1269, 1272. In the present case, Plaintiffs have pled the elements of a cause of action for breach of contract, albeit nonspecifically in some respects. Accordingly, it can not be said with certainty that no recovery on the claim is possible, and a dismissal of the complaint pursuant to a demurrer would not be proper. Damages. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(5), cited in Defendants' preliminary objections in support of a request for dismissal of Plaintiffs' ' Plaintiffs' Complaint, paras. 19. S Plaintiffs' Complaint, para. 24. 9 Plaintiffs' Complaint, para. 26. 10 Plaintiffs' Complaint, Count II, ad damnum clause (emphasis added). 3 complaint due to a deficient pleading of damages, it is provided that "[p]reliminary objections may be filed by any party to any pleading [on the basis, inter alia, of a] lack of capacity to sue, nonjoinder of a necessary party or misjoinder of a cause of action." This rule would not appear to have any relevancy to the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' pleading of damages. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1021 (Claim for Relief. Determination of Amount in Controversy), "[a]ny pleading demanding relief shall specify the relief sought." Pa. R.C.P. 1021(a). Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(f), "averments of ... items of special damage shall be specifically stated." "Special damages are those that are not the usual and ordinary consequences of the wrong done but which depend on special circumstances." Hooker v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 880 A.2d 70, 77 (Pa. Commw. 2005). A complaint should be "sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare his defense." Rambo v. Greene, 2006 PA Super 231, ¶11, 906 A.2d 1232, 1236. In the present case, where Plaintiffs have demanded a monetary recovery for, inter alia, reconstruction work, a depreciation in the value of their home, temporary living quarters, packing, moving expenses, and "incidental" damages, and have variously referred to their losses as "likely to exceed forty-five ($45,000.00) Thousand Dollars," "in excess of 48,000.00," "$60,000.00," "liquidated" and "unliquidated," the averments as to damages in their complaint lack the appropriate specificity and clarity necessary to an informed defense. For the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17`h day of December, 2007, upon consideration of Defendants' preliminary objections to Plaintiffs' complaint, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, it is ordered and directed as follows: 1. Defendants' preliminary objections are sustained to the extent that Plaintiffs are directed to file a more specific complaint as to damages within 20 days of the entry of this order, in the absence of 4 which their complaint shall be deemed dismissed without further order of court; and 2. Defendants' preliminary objections are otherwise denied. BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Karl E. Rominger, Esq. Michael O. Palermo, Jr., Esq. 155 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiffs Jason P. Kutulakis, Esq. 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant 5 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI Plaintiffs Robert D. Henry, III, an adult individual and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-2408 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following Complaint, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Pennsylvania Lawyer Referral Service Pennsylvania Bar Association 100 South Street P.O. Box 186 Harrisburg, PA 17108 1-800-692-7375 (PA Only) or (717) 238-6715 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI Plaintiffs Robert D. Henry, III, an adult individual and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-2408 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Nader Alajlouni and Angelic Alajlouni, by their attorney, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, and in support of this Complaint aver as follows: 1. Nader Alajlouni is an adult sui juris residing at 156 Oak Hill Road, Carlisle, PA 17013. 2. Angelic Alajlouni is an adult sui juris residing at 156 Oak Hill Road, Carlisle, PA 17222. 3. Robert D. Henry III, d/b/a Henry Construction is believed to be an adult individual residing and doing business at 43 Irish Gap Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17241. 4. On or about July.3, 2005, a contract was consummated between Defendant Henry and Plaintiffs. (Attached hereto as Plaintiff's Exhibit "A"). 5. Said contract called for the building of a substantial addition to Plaintiffs existing home at 156 Oak Hill Road, Carlisle PA 17013, hereinafter referred to as "residence". 6. Upon "completion" of the new addition which was tantamount to a new home, Plaintiffs noticed various structural, electrical and cosmetic problems with the residence, and made Defendant Henry aware of the same. 7. Defendant Henry failed to remedy those problems after Plaintiffs requests. 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 8. Previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 9. The Contract of the parties is attached as Exhibit "A". 10. Plaintiffs have fulfilled all provisions of the contract which were required of them. 11. The Defendant has not fulfilled the provisions of the contract in order to have fully completed the job; Defendant has breached the contract. 12. Specifically, Defendant Henry's failure to complete the job they were hired to perform in a workmanlike manner in following ways: (a). plaintiff's pipes froze throughout the entire residence as a result of being improperly installed by Defendant. (b). the heating system in the residence was not properly connected. (c). various drains throughout the residence were not properly installed or connected in that leaks and drips can be found throughout the residence. (d). walls constructed/finished were not properly sealed and thus are exposed and or cracking. (e). the central vacuum system is defective as it was either improperly connected by Defendant or installed in an improper manner. (f). the electrical system is defective throughout the home. (g). the deck was improperly constructed. (h). the deck was improperly attached to the residence. (i). the tile floor in the bathroom is not level. 0). overhead support beams were improperly installed. (k). there are framing defects around numerous doorways (1). other numerous defects to be proven at the time of trial. 13. The above list of defects represents a continuing breach of the contract as Defendant Henry has refused to make repairs on the same, and/or complete them in a workman like manner. 14. Plaintiffs have lost faith in Henry's ability to make the repairs. 15. The failure to remedy these problems has created a home with significant damages as follows: (a). plaintiffs pipes froze throughout the entire residence. (b). the heating system in the residence was not properly connected. (c). various drains throughout the residence were not properly installed or connected. (d). walls constructed/finished were not properly sealed. (e). the central vacuum system is defective. ft the electrical system is defective throughout the home. (g). the deck was improperly constructed. (h). the deck was improperly attached to the residence. (i). the tile floor in the bathroom is not level. Q). overhead support beams were improperly installed. (k). there are framing defects around numerous doorways (1). other numerous defects to be proven at the time of trial. 16. The before mentioned damages have lowered the residences market value, and has created a lasting stigma to potential buyers which reduces the value of the home and its ability to be sold. 17. An estimate to repair or remedy the above defects in the property was obtained by Plaintiff from Tuckey Restoration, Inc., it is estimated to remedy and/or repair the defects to the residence to cost Forty-eight-thousand-five-hundred and ninety-seven dollars. ($48,597.00). See Tuckey Restoration Letter attached hereto as "Plaintiffs Exhibit B". This estimate is subject to changes in material and labor costs due to market factors. 18. Plaintiffs also request special damages due to Defendant's breach of contract. 19. Plaintiffs will have to vacate their residence due to the nature of some of the major renovations required and will incur future expenses and the like, including the costs associated with temporary quarters, along with other incidental and consequential damages arising from such temporary living conditions, packing, moving expenses, and the like. 20. Plaintiffs anticipate no less than thirty (30) days in a hotel in the area at a cost to exceed one-hundred dollars ($100.00) per night for a total to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). 21, Plaintiffs also anticipate packing fees and storage and meal expenses in their relocation to a hotel to be in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment in their favor in an unliquidated amount in excess of the statutory amount for compulsory arbitration along with costs and expenses of litigation. Additionally, Plaintiffs request special damages in an amount in excess of eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00). COUNT II. UNWORKMANLIKE PERFORMANCE FAILURE TO COMPLETE IN WORKMAN LIKE MANNER 22. Paragraphs 1-21 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 23. On July 3, 2005, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into an agreement for the construction of an addition to their home, namely the building of a 6,000 square foot addition that was to be livable space for plaintiff and their children. 24. Plaintiffs have fulfilled all provisions of the contract which were required of them. 25. The Defendant has not fulfilled the provisions of the contract in order to have completed the job Defendant and is in breach of said contract. 26. Defendant has failed to perform under the contract in a workmanlike manner including performing certain things which were allegedly completed but discovered to be patently incorrect and improper, including but not limited to the following: (a). plaintiff's pipes froze throughout the entire residence. (b). the heating system in the residence was not properly connected. (c). various drains throughout the residence were not properly installed or connected. (d). walls constructed/finished were not properly sealed. (e). the central vacuum system is defective. (f). the electrical system is defective throughout the home. (g). the deck was improperly constructed. (h). the deck was improperly attached to the residence. (i). the tile floor in the bathroom is not level. (j). overhead support beams were improperly installed. (k). there are framing defects around numerous doorways (1). other numerous defects to be proved at the time of trial. 27. Defendant has generally performed in a poor, improper, and unworkmanlike manner, including but not limited to Defendant's failure to build proper walls, properly install the residences electrical system, in addition to the deck being improperly constructed and attached to the residence, has created numerous hazardous conditions that requires extensive remedial measures to undo the shortcomings of Defendants workmanship. 28. Defendant has failed and refused to cure the aforementioned breaches, despite Plaintiffs repeated demands. 29. The reasonable cost of remedying the aforementioned breaches is in excess of $49,000.00. 30. Plaintiffs also request special damages due as a result of Defendant's unworkamnlike performance. 31. Plaintiffs will have to vacate their residence due to the nature of some of the major renovations required and will incur future expenses and the like, including the costs associated with temporary quarters, along with other incidental and consequential damages arising from such temporary living conditions, packing, moving expenses, and the like. 32. Plaintiffs anticipate no less than thirty (30) days in a hotel in the area at a cost to exceed one-hundred dollars ($100.00) per night for a total to exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). 33, Plaintiffs also anticipate packing fees and storage and meal expenses in their relocation to a hotel to be in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of the mandatory compulsory arbitration limits together with costs and interest and special damages in an amount in excess of eight thousand dollars ($8,000.00). Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Date: Karl E. Rominger, quire Supreme Court ID # 81924 Michael O. Palermo, Jr., Esquire Supreme Court ID # 93334 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Attorneys for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for, Plaintiffs in this action; that he makes this affidavit as attorney because he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: l? UV . . Karl E. Rommger, Michael O. Palermo, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI Plaintiffs Robert D. Henry, III, an adult individual and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-2408 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael O. Palermo, Jr. Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Amended Complaint upon the following by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire Abom & Kutulakis 36 S. Hanover St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES ?. ---- -A44 Michael O. Pale Jr., Esquire Dated: 2400 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID #93334 Attorney for Plaintiffs ALAJL O UNI 2-STOR Y ADDI TION CONSTRUCTION Roof sheathing 7/16 OSB Roof trusses @ 24" OC ; , N NR Ys S Flooring /4 T& G 2x6 constructed exterior walls with S' ceiling Construction Interior 2x4 walls @ 16" OC o a Decks - Siding Roofino 2x10 floor joises @ 16"OC Garages -FREE ESTIMATES - Exterior wall sheathing g 7/16 OSB Office 486-8016 d 81i Truck 226-1759 be ®' ` R 19 ceiling insulation Ro Roa ?lextel ID #38979 A R19 exterior wall insulation 17241 3em el . P Tyvek house wrap Optional R30 ceiling insulation @ $1.00/sq.ft Composite exterior decking with white vinyl railing EXTERIOR DOORS, WINDOWS, & TRIM White soffet, face metal, & roof trim White seamless gutter & spouting Vinyl siding Architectural 30 year shingle Schlage locks on all exterior doors Shutters on front windows Double hung, tilt, all vinyl windows, & screens, with optional grids Steel insulated, 9-light front door, with 1 ft side lights Foam insulation around doors and windows Black torch style lights at all exterior doors French patio door in rear White, non-insulated, 9x7 solid, raised panel garage door KITCHEN Single lever facets by Sterling or Moen vermin back splash 36" refrigerator opening Hanging dining room light Kitchen facet with sprayer ?_ Lt.- O» 1 f Base and wall cabinets INTERIOR DOORS & TRIM All doors and trim on first floor-stain grade (stained) All doors and trim on second floor-paint grade (painted white on white) 6-panel interior doors 6-panel bi-fold doors on closets Colonial molding Wood jams Wood kick board trim throughout Signature Date Exhibit "A" PLUMBING 1.6 gallon commode and water closet (4) 60" 1 piece fiberglass tub/shower (2) 48" shower (2) 42 gallon energy saver water heater Single porcelain lavatory bowls with vanity, medicine cabinet, & side light (1) Double porcelain lavatory bowls with vanity, medicine cabinet, & side light (3) PVC drain lines CPVC hot & cold water lines Shut off valves -ouch utsi a water hookups (2 Washer ookups Dryer vent (2) ELECTRICAL Power vent fans with lights (4) 200 amp service GFI protection for bath, kitchen, outside, and garage Electric range receptacle and breaker --?.-- Electric wire for dryer (2) Wire and switch for paddle fans in all bedrooms 8 phone jacks (additional jacks @ $20.00 each) 8 cable jacks (additional jacks @ $20.00 each) MISCELLANEOUS Half inch drywall, finished, painted white on white 2 gas fire boxes (living room and master bedroom) Gas heat with AC unit Flooring-Carpet with 61b padding -Vinyl with 1/4" sub-flooring (allowance $22.00/yd) Base House Price: $327,000 PAYMENT TO BE MADE AS FOLLOWS: 20% down ?o? ?f?uit 14; 1 1 so `- x'25% after completion of excavation, foundation, slab work, sub-flooring, wall framing, 91, sheathing, roof framing, roof decking, & roofing .;.. 20% after completion of set windows & exterior doors, siding, exterior trim, exterior --o decks, & handrails after completion of: rough plumbing & wiring, insulation, set heat plant, & heating roughed in JZ?is','10% after completion of drywall, plumbing fixtures, interior trim, cabinets, interior paint, & light fixtures >5% upon completion and final inspection Signature Date Robert D. eery [II. Lr "7V Date RESTORATION,1NC. 12 Stover Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-7052 Fax (717) 249-8370 July 29, 2005 Ms. Angela Alajiouni 156 Oak Hill Road Carlisle, PA 17013 SUBJECT: Repairs Dear Ms. Alajlouni: We are pleased to offer this proposal to provide the above-mentioned project with the required labor and material as outlined below. The price structure and job scope is as per our interpretation of the request of the owner as outlined verbally and in document form. Nothing beyond what is specifically mentioned should be assumed inclusive in this bid. JOB SCOPE: Family Room: 1. Perform minimal drywall repairs. 2. Paint ceiling and walls with two (2) coats of paint. 3. Detach and reset two (2) ceiling fans. 4. Remove and replace four (4) registers. 5. Reinstall existing carpet. 6. Content manipulation. Living Room: 1. Paint ceiling and walls with two (2) coats of paint. Dinina Room: 1. Remove and replace two (2) registers. Eating/Hail: 1. Remove and replace damaged tongue and groove floorboards. 2. Remove existing undersized beam and install new beam. 3. Provide temporary shoring during beam replacement. 4. Remove and replace necessary V drywall. 5. Paint ceiling and walls with two (2) coats of paint. 6. Content manipulation. Kitchen: 1. Properly install dishwasher. 2. Remove and replace recessed light. 3. Repair light circuit. 4. Remove, replace and stain window trim. 5. Remove and replace six (6) registers. (continued) Proposal to Ms. Angela Alajlouni July 29, 2005 Page 2 of 4 Laundry: 1. Remove and replace laundry tub. 2. Detach and reset sink faucet. 3. Install access face frames and doors. 4. Perform minimal drywall repair. 5. Perform touch up painting. 6. Install additional 200-amp breaker panel and 400-amp meter base. This does not include any subsurface work (excavation or exterior wiring). 2nd Floor: Bath/Laundry: 1. Install washing machine drain pan. 2. Install dryer vent. 3. Repair drywall edge around tub. 4. Perform touch up painting where repairs where made. 5. Remove and replace tile floor. 6. Repair hump on floor. 7. Remove and replace necessary 3/" tongue and groove sheathing. 8. Detach and reset necessary trim. 9. Repair toe kick. Bedroom #11, Bedroom #2 Bedroom #3 and Bedroom #4: 1. Detach and reset four (4) ceiling fans. 2. Remove and replace eight (8) registers. Bedroom #5: 1. Detach and reset two (2) ceiling fans. 2. Remove and replace four (4) registers. 3. Remove and replace access face frame and doors. 4. Perform touch up painting. 5. Repair tub overflow. 6. Repair toe kick. 7. Recaulk tub. 8. Detach carpet, screw subfloor down and reinstall carpet and pad. 9. Content manipulation. Hall: 1. Remove and replace two (2) registers. (continued) Proposal to Ms. Angela Alajlouni July 29, 2005 Page 3 of 4 Master Bedroom: 1. Detach and reset two (2) ceiling fans. 2. Remove and replace four (4) registers. 3. Perform minimal drywall repair. 4. Perform touch up painting of areas repaired. 5. Repair Jacuzzi faucet. 6. Detach and repair one (1) vanity sink. 7. Reattach pipe at toilet. 8. Recaulk tub and shower. 9. Cut down one (1) door. Basement: 1. Remove and replace one (1) interior door unit. 2. Stain and finish door and trim. 3. Detach and reset door lockset. 4. Inspect and replace necessary insulation in perimeter of room. Apartment Kitchen: 1. Minimal the repair. 2. Replace one (1) light cover plate. Apartment Family Room (removed skylight openings): 1. Install 2 x 4 framing. 2. Install tongue and groove paneling. 3. Stain boards to match as close as possible. Apartment Closet: 1. Minimal drywall repair. 2. Minimal insulation repair. 3. Prime and paint ceiling and walls. 4. Remove and replace vinyl flooring. 5. Detach and reset baseboard. 6. Content manipulation. (continued) Proposal to Ms. Angela Alajlouni July 29, 2005 Page 4 of 4 Exterior (Deck and Porch): 1. Detach and reset vinyl deck planking and handrail. 2. Re-slope rear joists away from house. 1 Caulk areas where stone meets the siding. 4. Repair leak in gutter and re-install one (1) piece of siding. 5. Install necessary treated lumber to support porch. 6. Install PVC drain line to extend downspout 30' away from the house. Total Price $ 48,597.00 Note: 1. The above listed price does not include removal of entire wood flooring or exterior subsurface work. If asbestos, lead, or any environmentally hazardous material is found, the project will be stopped immediately until the material is tested and/or removed. Tuckey Restoration, Inc. assumes no responsibility, either physically or financially, for the testing or removal of any such hazardous material. In the event that said asbestos, lead, or other hazardous material is not removed within 30 days, Tuckey shall have no further obligation to perform its duties set forth in the Agreement and the Customer shall pay Tuckey for all services performed prior to such discovery. Please take note to the special terms and conditions on the reverse side. ACCEPTED BY: Customer's Name: Signature: Signature: Date: TUCKEYAESTO?, INC. By: nom.. Don Stevens, Project Manager DS;hc File: P05TR,AiajlouniA,Repair,0728.doc - Tuckey Restoration, Inc. is an Equal Opportunity Employer - ? ?'7 . ..? c?... T"?. -*?a - , ?, r . ,-;? - } ., ? -,, .?r7 '?r ? ? ?- { .. ... ABW&KU1U Arm LLP 36 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI PLAINTIFFS ROBERT D. HENRY, III and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.: 07-2408 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Nader and Angelic Alajlouni c/o Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover St. Carlisle, PA 17013 AXmney fbrP"nd s You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Defendant's New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. DATE: IJ4 Ja n P. Ku lakis, Esquire A orney I.D. 80411 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney ffirDleAmda W AB0irr&KU ILP 36 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI PLAINTIFFS ROBERT D. HENRY, III and ROBERT D. HENRY III, DB/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.: 07-2408 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendants, Robert D. Henry, III and Henry Construction., by and through their counsel, Abom & Kutulakis, L.L.P., who respectfully answers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted 4. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 4 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, an estimate was signed by both parties on or about July 3, 2003. 5. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 5 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is deemed to be required, an addition was built in part by the Defendant. 6. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff was dissatisfied when Defendant finished the work. To the contrary, Plaintiff expressed satisfaction with the work done by the Defendant. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, Defendant does not know what the Plaintiffs noticed concerning various structural, electrical and cosmetic problems with the residence. It is also specifically denied that the new addition is tantamount to a new home. 7. Denied as stated. Defendant did not have an obligation to "remedy any problems." 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 8. No response required. 9. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 9 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 10. Admitted. 11. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 11 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 12. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 12 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. a. Denied that the pipes were improperly installed in the residence. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. The pipes were in proper working condition upon completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. b. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. The heating system was in proper working condition upon completion of construction. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendant has responsibility for the heating system as it was installed by Salisbury Mechanical. c. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the drains were in proper working order at completion of constructions. Strict proof at trial is demanded. d. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the walls were properly sealed and not cracked upon completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. e. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, defendant installed and connected the central vacuum system. The central vacuum system was in proper working condition upon completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. f. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the electrical system was in proper working order at completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. g. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the deck was properly constructed and in working order at completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. h. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the deck was properly constructed and in working order at completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. i. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof at trial is demanded. j. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the overhead support beams were properly installed and in proper working order at completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. k. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof at trial is demanded. 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof at trial is demanded. 13. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 13 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, Defendant does not know what the Plaintiffs faith in the Defendant's abilities are concerning repairs. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 12 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. a. Denied that the pipes were improperly installed in the residence. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. The pipes were in proper working condition upon completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. b. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. The heating system was in proper working condition upon completion of construction. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendant has responsibility for the heating system as it was installed by Salisbury Mechanical. c. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the drains were in proper working order at completion of constructions. Strict proof at trial is demanded. d. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the walls were properly sealed and not cracked upon completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. e. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, defendant installed and connected the central vacuum system. The central vacuum system was in proper working condition upon completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. f. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the electrical system was in proper working order at completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. g. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the deck was properly constructed and in working order at completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. h. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the deck was properly constructed and in working order at completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. i. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof at trial is demanded. j. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the overhead support beams were properly installed and in proper working order at completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. k. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof at trial is demanded. 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof at trial is demanded. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Defendant has no knowledge concerning the market value of the residence and none has been alleged in the complaint. Therefore, strict proof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, Defendant is without knowledge as to any stigma that has been created in potential buyers which would reduce the value of the home and its ability to be sold and strict proof is demanded at trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 18. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 18 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof is demanded at trial. COUNT IL UNWORKMANLIKE PERFORMANCE FAILURE TO COMPLETE IN A WORKMAN LIKE MANNER. 22. No response required. 23. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 23 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, an estimate was signed by both parties on or about July 3, 2003. 24. Admitted. 25. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 25 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 12 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. a. Denied that the pipes were improperly installed in the residence. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. The pipes were in proper working condition upon completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. b. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. The heating system was in proper working condition upon completion of construction. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that defendant has responsibility for the heating system as it was installed by Salisbury Mechanical. c. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the drains were in proper working order at completion of constructions. Strict proof at trial is demanded. d. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the walls were properly sealed and not cracked upon completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. e. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, defendant installed and connected the central vacuum system. The central vacuum system was in proper working condition upon completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. f. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the electrical system was in proper working order at completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. g. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the deck was properly constructed and in working order at completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. h. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the deck was properly constructed and in working order at completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. i. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof at trial is demanded. j. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. By way of further answer, the overhead support beams were properly installed and in proper working order at completion of construction. Strict proof at trial is demanded. k. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof at trial is demanded. 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof at trial is demanded. 27. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 27 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 28. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 28 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 30. Denied. The allegations contained in averment 30 are denied to the extent this averment contains conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. 'Strict proof is demanded at trial. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of these allegations. Strict proof is demanded at trial. NEW MATTER 34. All of the aspects of the construction work on the residence were completed to Plaintiffs' satisfaction. 35. Plaintiffs' assumed possession of the residence at completion of construction and paid the final invoice. 36. Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint references an estimate that includes the installation of additional 200 -amp breaker panel and 400 -amp meter base. 37. Plaintiffs' Exhibit A dated July 3, 2003, memorializes their request for a 200 amp service. 38. Plaintiffs' estimate is incorrect in that they are seeking an upgrade from what is in Plaintiffs' Exhibit A. 39. Plaintiffs failed to cover or mitigate any damage to the residence after the discovery of any alleged problems with the construction of the addition. 40. Plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of Warranties with various pieces of equipment that were installed. 41. Plaintiffs failed to notify other contractors of issues of their construction and/or installation. 42. Numerous items in the estimate attached to plaintiffs' complaint as Exhibit A are not alleged in the complaint itself 43. Plaintiffs' have attached to their Complaint as Exhibit B, an estimate by Tuckey Restoration. This estimate contains issues and items which are not identified nor plead in the Complaint. 44. Defendant is not liable for any matter related to the ceiling fans mentioned in Plaintiffs' Exhibit B. 45. Defendant is not liable for any matter related to the heating/cooling registers mentioned in Plaintiffs' Exhibit B. 46. Defendant is not liable for any matter related to the "Content manipulation" mentioned in Plaintiffs' Exhibit B. 47. Defendant is not liable for any matter related to the dishwasher mentioned in Plaintiffs' Exhibit B. 48. Defendant is not liable for any matter related to the washing machine drain pan mentioned in Plaintiffs' Exhibit B. 49. Defendant is not liable for any matter related to the dryer vent mentioned in Plaintiffs' Exhibit B. 50. Defendant is not liable for any matter related to the vanity sink mentioned in Plaintiffs' Exhibit B. 51. Defendant is not liable for any matter related to the light cover plate mentioned in Plaintiffs' Exhibit B. 52. Defendant is not liable for any matter related to the Apartment Family Room (removed skylight openings) mentioned in Plaintiffs' Exhibit B. 53. To the extent that discovery in this case and the facts produced at trial demonstrate the availability of any of the affirmative defenses preserved by virtue of the provisions of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, these defendants reserve the right to offer such facts in support of any affirmative defenses so preserved. 54. Defendants reserve the right to amend this Answer and New Matter to plead the existence of any additional affirmative defenses that may become available or known to the defendants or in the course of discovery of this case or subsequent to the time of filing of this Answer and New Matter. 55. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state any cause of action against the defendants. 56. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by Plaintiffs' comparative negligence and/or contributory negligence. These defendants assert the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §102, as an affirmative defense of Plaintiffs' claims. 57. Some or all of Plaintiffs' alleged injuries may have resulted from pre-existing conditions not related to the alleged acts and/or admissions of these defendants. 58. Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' claims were caused by intervening and/or by superseding causes not within the control of these defendants. 59. Plaintiffs failed to properly heat the residence. 60. The pipes were damaged, if at all, by Plaintiffs' failure to properly heat the residence. 61. Any alleged damages were caused by the carelessness, recklessness, and/or negligence of Plaintiffs. 62. Plaintiffs fail to allege causation for the alleged damages. 63. Special damages alleged by the Plaintiffs are not allowed since they are not foreseeable damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff along with costs, fees and other damages as the Court deems appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, AMO f&KUIUL s, UP Jaso p. K u?, Esquire Atto ev I.D. 80411 36 uth Hanover Street C isle, PA 17013 A&mwey fwDqfmdwt VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer axe true and correct I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S. 54904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date Robert D. Henry CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, I, Jason P. Kutulakis, of ABOM & KUTULAKIS, LLP, hereby certify that I did serve or cause to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer & New Matter to Plaintiff s Complaint by First Class U.S. Mail at the following: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Respectfully submitted, ABOM & KuTULA Kis, LLP DATE: - 6 4 A tz - Jn P. KutuINds, E 36 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 rt R'f `(? NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI Plaintiffs V. Robert D. Henry, III, an adult individual and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 07-2408 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, Michael O. Palermo, Jr., Esquire and files this Answer to Defendant's New Matter: 34. Denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 35. Admitted. By way of further answer the construction was not complete or adequate and replete with defects. 36. Admitted. 3 7. Admitted. 38. Denied. By way of further answer plaintiff is seeking the proper electrical circuits for the residence. 39. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. Should a response be deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 40. Denied. By way of further answer Plaintiff has alleged that improper construction and installation by Defendants resulted in damage to Plaintiffs residence. Plaintiff has not alleged the manufacturers of the products installed were at fault. By way of further answer Manufacturers warranty(s) assume the proper installation of their product, which plaintiff has alleged was absent in the present residence. 41. Denied. 42. Denied. By way of further answer the estimate from Tuckey is part of plaintiffs complaint. 43. See answer to paragraph 42. If a further answer is needed the same is denied. 44. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 45. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 46. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 47. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 48. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 49. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 50. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 51. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 52. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 53. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. By way of further answer this ad hoc attempt to include every defense known is improper and unambiguously vague. 54. Conclusion of law and no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied as this is a statement of Defendants prospective legal options. 5 5. Denied. 56. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial 57. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial 58. Denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 59. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 60. Denied. Strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 61. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial 62. Conclusion of law to which- no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial 63. Conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the event a response is deemed required the same is denied and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial by way of further answer plaintiffs damages were foreseeable. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment in their favor and against Defendants along with costs, fees and other damages as the Court deems appropriate. Date: February 22, 2008 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES W lal -- Michael O. Palermo Jr., quire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 93334 Attorney for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION I, Michael O. Palermo, Jr., Esquire, states that he is the attorney for, Plaintiffs in this action; that he makes this affidavit as attorney because he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: Feb 22, 2008 M"L Michael O. Palerm , ., Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI Plaintiffs Robert D. Henry, III, an adult individual and ROBERT D. HENRY III, DIBIA HENRY CONSTRUCTION Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 07-2408 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael O. Palermo, Jr., Esquire, attorney for Plaintiffs, do hereby certify that I this day served a copy of the Answer to New Matter upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire ABOM & KUTULAKIS 36 S. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated:February 222008 Z05 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Michael O. Palermo, squire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 93334 Attorney for Plaintiffs " " t ? ?-- {-? t =si _;:, r -*t ---? ? ?? ? ?' ? ? ' , r.? f'. _ -;> ,' _ ? _ .. ,?; ??s J-: ?: c?r? .?_ v IrAB OM & NuTULAKIS Wayne Melnick, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 53150 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-0900 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI PLAINTIFFS ROBERT D. HENRY, III and ROBERT D. HENRY III, DB/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.: 07-2408 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND NOW, this 3kA day of March, 2009, comes the Defendant, Robert D. Henry, III., d/b/a Henry Construction, by and through its counsel, Wayne Melnick, Esquire, of Abom & Kutulakis, LLP, moves this Honorable Court to compel the Plaintiff's, Nader and Angelic Alajlouni to produce the requested documents and as a reason therefore states: 1. On November 26, 2008, Defendant forwarded the attached Request for Production of Documents (Exhibit A) directed to counsel for Plaintiffs. 2. On December 10, 2008, Plaintiff's forwarded to Defendant Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories for Defendant and Request for Production of Documents. 3. Defendant responded to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories for Defendant and Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents on January 22, 2009. 4. On February 20, 2009, undersigned counsel wrote to counsel for Plaintiff's reminding him that Plaintiff's response to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents remained outstanding. 5. To date, Plaintiffs have provided no response to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff's. 6. The documents requested by Defendant are relevant to the subject matter of the litigation. 7. Plaintiff s have asserted no privilege with respect to these requested documents. 8. The documents requested in this Motion to Compel will substantially aide in the Trial of this case. 9. Defendant believes that Plaintiff, through its lack of response to the Request for Production, is opposed to this Motion. 10. No Judge has ruled upon any other issue in this matter. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays this Honorable Court to grant its Motion to Compel Production of Documents and order Plaintiff s, Nader and Angelic Alajlouni, to supply full and complete responses to the Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff s within ten (10) days of your decision. Respectfully Submitted, ABOM & KUTULAKIS, LLP Wayne Melnick, Esqui Attorney I.D. 53150 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Wayne S. Melnick, Esquire Attorney I.D. #: 53150 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI PLAINTIFFS ROBERT D. HENRY, III and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS Defendant, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby requests that EXHIBIT A Plaintiffs, produce the documents requested herein to the attorney for Defendants, Wayne S. Melnick, Esquire, ABOM & KUTULAKIS, LLP, 36 South Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, within thirty (30) days of service of this request, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. This request for production of documents is deemed to be continuing in nature and answers hereto shall be supplemented as necessary. NO.: 07-2408 CIVIL ACTION - LAW 0 0 DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 1. "Document(s)" is used in the broadest sense as defined in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and shall mean all original written, printed, typed, recorded or graphic matter whatsoever, however produced or reproduced, of any kind, nature and description, and all non-identical copies of both sides thereof. For purposes of this request, any document which contains any note, comment, addition, deletion, insertion, annotation, or otherwise comprises a non-identical copy of another document shall be treated as a separate document subject to production. 2. As used herein, the terms "relate to" or "related to" means relating to, referring to, pertaining to, consisting of, reflecting, evidencing, concerning or in any way logically or factually connected with the matter discussed. 3. The words "you" and "your" includes Nader Alajlouni and/or Angelic Alajlouni and the named parties herein responding to this request and all present and former attorneys, accountants, agents, representatives, employees and other persons acting or purporting to act for or on your behalf. 4. As used herein, "Contract" shall be deemed to refer to the contract executed between Plaintiffs and Defendant for work at the Project. 5. "And" as well as "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively, as necessary to bring within the scope of the interrogatory all responses which might otherwise be construed to be outside of the scope. "Each" shall be construed to include the word "every", and "every" shall be construed to include the word "each." "Any" shall be construed to include the word "all," and "all" shall be construed to include the word "any." 6. References to the singular shall include the plural, and references to the plural shall include the singular. 7. The use of a verb in any tense shall be construed as the use of the verb in the past or present tense, whenever necessary to bring within the scope of the interrogatory all responses which might otherwise be construed to be outside its scope. • • 8. These requests are continuing in nature and defendant is requested to supplement its responses in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure as additional information becomes available to it. 9. Any document responsive to this request which is not produced by reason of a claim of attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, or for any other reason shall be identified by (1) date (2) author, (3) recipient(s) (4) general subject matter, (5) identity of persons to whom the contents of the document have already been revealed, (6) the identity of the person or entity now in possession or control of the document or copies thereof and (7) the basis upon which it is being withheld. 10. As used herein, "the Project" shall mean the construction project described in the Complaint. 0 0 DOCUMENT REQUESTS 1. Any and all documents identified in Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories not previously provided. 2. All statements, signed statements, transcripts of recorded statements, or interviews of any person or witness relating to, referring to or describing any events described in the Complaint. 3. All correspondence in your possession to or from Defendants regarding any subject matter of the Complaint. 4. All records of actual costs incurred in and remedial work performed at your residence. 5. All records of actual costs incurred in seeking and/or maintaining an alternate residence. 6. Any and all documents, or correspondence, to or from any insurance company or agent regarding damages incurred in this case. 7. Any and all inspection and/or testing reports, including, but not limited to, reports or notes on any inspections or testing done by any parties other than you, any inspections or testing done by or on behalf of any parties retained by you. 8. All photographs or videotapes of or relating to any item or thing involved in this litigation that was not previously provided. 9. All statements as defined by Pa.R.C.P. 4003.4. 10. All statements and/or transcripts of interviews of fact witnesses obtained in this matter. 11. All resumes and qualifications of any and all experts who will testify at trial. 0 0 12. Reports, manuals, textbooks, policy sheets or other documents, or communications, with any expert, potential expert, witness, potential witness has consulted or reviewed as a result or in preparation of this litigation or will consult or review. 13. Reports, communications, and/or documents prepared by any and all experts who will testify at trial. 14. Any and all documents or communications containing the name, home and business addresses of all individuals contacted as potential witnesses. 15. Any and all documents or other tangible materials of any nature whatsoever which you plan to have marked for identification at a deposition or trial, introduce into evidence at a deposition or trial, or about which you plan to question a witness at deposition or trial. 16. This request is deemed to be continuing as far as any of the above is secured subsequent to the date herein for the production of same, said documents, photographs, statements, reports, etc. are to be provided to Defendant's counsel within thirty (30) days of receipt of same. Respectfully Submitted, ABOM & KUTULAKIS, LLP Wayne Melnick, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 53150 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 Attorney for Defendant 0 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Wayne S. Melnick, Esquire, of the law firm of ABOM & KUTULAKIS, LLP, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, as follows: Michael Palermo, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: ? 1 d (e lo a;6 . Wayne . Melnick CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, I, Emily J. Filiberti, of ABOM & KUTULAKIS, LLP, hereby certify that I did serve or cause to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel by First Class U.S. Mail at the following: Michael O. Palermo, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 lO?, DATE: 3/S / Emily J. ilibe r ice.. "?, M.t ?; A .? ? r, ??/? ? ?' ? '"Q ..? ti.)?.? C ? ?.? ? . 4.C ;;w ? x? ?w - N ? `,? ...% 47 .< 3 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI PLAINTIFFS ROBERT D. HENRY, III and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.: 07-2408 ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A CIVIL ACTION - LAW HENRY CONSTRUCTION DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT MAC i?JA , 2009, upon consideration of AND NOW, thiso?U ^ day of Defendant's Motion to Compel P.zcd?tiF.t .a? ?ti?mP^*?, it is hereby ordered mod e6emed that m A C4) ! J /Distribution: ./ Xayne Melnick, Esquire ichael Palermo, Esquire r/ n ci l.. 2/1 rl6T VINVIASM43u q 0 :g WV I I HVW 600Z AXONX01H Odd 3HL 30 OM ~' LILAKIS Jason P. Kutulakis, Esquire Attorney I.D. No: 80411 Melissa P. Tanguay, Esquire Attorney LD. No: 307155 2 West High Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-0900 NADER ALAJLOUNI and ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI Plaintiffs v. ROBERT D. HENRY, III and ROBERT D. HENRY, III, D/B/A HENRY CONSTRUCTION, Defendant 20l0,,~~.,L 22 I'~=1 ;~ u7 GU~dI _ ;iid'iY f r.1 .C v `f,.. ~ .ki..,, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.07-~ ~~d~ CIVIL ACTION LAW Please enter our appearance on behalf Defendant, Robert D. Henry, III and Robert D. Henry, III d/b/a Henry Construction, in place of Wayne S. Melnick, Esquire, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, DATE ~ ' U' " ~ D~TE~~ ~-~~ ~ 0 AaOM & SU7TlI.ARIS~ LLP ABOMd~SUTULASIS~ LLP Melissa P. Tanguay, Esquire 2 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 ID No. 307155 (717) 249-0900 ID No. 80411 AND NOW, this 22nd day of July, 2010, I, Sally Evans of Abom & Kutnlakis, LLP, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Substitute Counsel by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the United States Mail, first-class mail, postage prepaid addressed to the following: Michael Palermo, Esquire ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plainti~r) Sally Evans Karl E. Rominger, Esquire PA Attorney License No. 81924 Rominger&Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Attorney for Nader and Angelic Alajlouni NADER ALAJLOUNI and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. : CIVIL ACTION—LAW ROBERT D. HENRY III an adult individual and • ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A : NO. 07-2408 HENRY CONSTRUCTION Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED rr. CO STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please note that the Plaintiff, Nader Alajlouni and Angelic Alajlouni, intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Rominger& Associates arl E.2— Date: v ( / 2-10 ominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court I.D. #81924 Attorney for Plaintiff Karl E. Rominger, Esquire PA Attorney License No. 81924 Rominger& Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Attorney for Nader and Angelic Alajlouni NADER ALAJLOUNI and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ANGELIC ALAJLOUNI : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. : CIVIL ACTION—LAW ROBERT D. HENRY III • an adult individual and ROBERT D. HENRY III, D/B/A : NO. 07-2408 HENRY CONSTRUCTION Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Intention to Proceed upon the following by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Jason P. Kutulakis. Esquire Abom & Kutulakis 36 Hanover Street Carlisle , PA 17013 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Dated: Attorney for Plaintiff �C