Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25249 CCOMMZ)NWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 09-3-05 Judicial District, County Of Cumberland FROM MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE JUDGMENT _ COMMON PLEAS No. D?'-aS?Y /yc l? L NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the Magisterial District Judge on the date and in the case referenced below. Sheila McGinnis NOTICE OF APPEAL Mark Martin 335 Sheely Lane Mechanicsburg PA 17050 DATE OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF (Plaintiff) (Defendant)' 04/03/2007 Chris Seifert VS Sheila McGinnis DOCKET No. SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT OR ATTORNEY OR AGENT CV-0000052-07 C406?- '?? a. This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. R.C.P. D.J. No. 1008B. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the Magisterial District Judge, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. was Claimant (see Pa. R J. No. 1001(6) in action before a Magisterial District Judge, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. Signature of Prothonotary or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE ('t'his section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before Magisterial District Judge. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon CHRIS SEIFERT appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Name of appellee(s) (Common Pleas No. /? ,? S2(? ?lu?^) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. vu-rl ignature of appell t r attorney or agent LINDA A. CLOTFE R, ESQUIRE RULE: To CHRIS SEIFERT , appellee(s) Name of appellee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date:Ampil 08. 26 , -OP- - 1 11 -F ffx I Siqnature of Prot on tare r out? YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AC PC 312-05 ?. Sl, ? ? ? N C : "'} _ _ '?? '? ?` .? -t ?, ? ,'a . ? y ' .. -; ..,?, '? ` ?? :.{ . r COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND Mag. Dist. No.: 09-3-05 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF: NAME and ADDRESS rSEIFERT CHRIS 7 , 106 S GEORGE ST MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 L J VS. DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS rM-CGINNIS, SHEILA 395 SHEELY LANE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 L J Docket No.: CV-0000052-07 Date Filed: 2/08/07 MDJ Name: Hon. MARK MARTIN Address: 507 N YORK ST MECHANICSBURG, PA Telephone: (717 766-4575 17055 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF : CLOTFELTER, LINDA A 5021 E TRINDLE STE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: FOR PLAINTIFF (Date of Judgment) 4/03/07 ® Judgment was entered for: (Name) SEIFERT, CHRIS ® Judgment was entered against: (Name) MCGINNIS, SHEILA in the amount of it 6,546.05 1-1 Defendants are jointly and severally liable. Damages will be assessed on Date & Time F This case dismissed without prejudice. Amount of Judgment Subject to Attachment/42 Pa.C.S. § 8127 Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease $ Amount of Judgment $ 6,361.45 Judgment Costs $ 184.5 Interest on Judgment $ .00 Attorney Fees $ .00 Total $ 6,546.03 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ Certified Judgment Total $ ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGEMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. Date`?;I f ' vU G% Magisterial District Judge I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment. Date My commission expires first Monday of January, 2012 AOPC 315-06 DATE PRINTED: 4/04/07 11:13:00 AM , Magisterial District Judge SEAL PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ; ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that 1 served ® a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No.07-2524, upon the Magisterial District Judge designated therein on (date of service) Mav g , 2007, ® by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) CHRIS SEIFERT, on May 7, 2007 ?by personal service ® by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORN) (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS J DAY OF May, 2007 X+'P Ak Sign fume of o EW fame whom davit made No tz.ry Plt bll c Title of of iciai My commission expires onj",tU20 (1) NDM?fW t?t?A CIi011? NOW pdit WAOM 10 CIMI?MIO OW Mr t.?011NIWM011 b+1rM Jf/? Iti. ?!? Signature of affiant Sheila McGinnis 395 She* Lane Mechanicsbwy, PA 17050 (Appellant) AOPC 312A - 05 ?ANML"Nt fANARKMO A ARMS ~ vow ?1',',?I;i lMNt I?MMN •1? .K AA. ?? r101111AMno3 ? ¦ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired. ¦ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ¦ Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Chris. 3IOU S . Cam- ?( ?V1,echan? , ? A. Signature . +, L X . =d? Address 8. Received by Pr1Med Name) Date of Delivery a D. Is delivery address different from 14Yes If YES, enter delivery address be : ? No 4. Restricted Delivery? ftft Fee) 2. Article Number (rransfer from service Aftq 7001 2 510 0003 4439 8133 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Retum Receipt 102595-o2-M-1540 c? -TI t JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, PC BY: JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 36461 24 N. 32°d Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 737-5890 CHRIS A. SIEFERT, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 07-2524 CIVIL TERM SHEILA MCGINNIS. : CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY Defendant : CIVIL ACTION NO. NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complain 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 YOU LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 CHRIS A. SIEFERT, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 07-2524 CIVIL TERM SHEILA MCGINNIS. CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO. COMPLAINT AND NOW, this I6th day of May, 2007, comes the Plaintiff Chris A. Siefert, by and through his attorney, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire and respectfully files this Complaint and in support thereof avers: 1. Plaintiff Chris A. Siefert, is an adult in dividual who currently resides at 106 S. George Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland Count, PA 17055. 2. Defendant Sheila McGinnis, is an adult individual who current resides at 395 Sheely Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, PA 17050. 3. Plaintiff and Defendant were previously romantically involved and were engaged. Plaintiff terminated the parties' engagement on or about November of 2005. 4. During the course of the parties' relationship, Defendant requested Plaintiff to add her as a authorized signature on his Visa credit card account with her own credit card on his Member's First Bank Account number 23382. 5. Plaintiff agreed and added Defendant as an authorized signature on said account and requested and received Defendant's own credit card for this particular account. 6. From the date that Defendant was added to Plaintiff's Visa account with Member's First, the parties would take each monthly credit card statement and each initial or otherwise mark and designate his or her individual charges on the card for that month and each party would pay his or her portion of the Visa credit card bill each month for a number of years preceding the termination of the parties' romantic relationship 7. Plaintiff solely owns the residence located at 106 South George Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, PA and Defendant moved into the residence and cohabitated there with Plaintiff from approximately August 1999 until February of 2006. 8. In November of 2005, Plaintiff advised Defendant that he was terminating the engagement and romantic relationship and informed Defendant he no longer wished to have any romantic relationship with Defendant and requested that she make arrangements to vacate Plaintiff's residence. 9. Plaintiff requested Defendant return the credit card that bore her name for his Member's First account prior to Defendant vacating his residence but she failed to return the card. 10. In November and December of 2005 and through January 15th of 2006, Defendant and Plaintiff continued to each mark charges on Plaintiffs Member's First Visa card and each pay his or her actual charges on those invoices. 11. In February of 2006, Defendant failed to and refused to pay Plaintiff for charges that she had made on the card and still refused to return the Visa card to Plaintiff. 12. On March 13, 2006, Plaintiff contacted Defendant and advised her that he had contacted Member's First and notified them that he was removing Defendant as an authorized signature on his account and advised Defendant that she could no longer use the Visa card. 14. On March 13, 2006, after receiving direct notice from Plaintiff that she would be removed from this account, Plaintiff went and charged $ 1,992.75 at Circuit City in Mechanicsburg, and charged $ 1,058.94 on merchandise at Lowe's in Mechanicsburg, PA. 15. Defendant continued to use the card despite Plaintiff s specific direction to her to cease using the card and charged additional items for approximately thirty (30) days until Member's First removed her as a signature on the account. 16. Despite repeated demands from Plaintiff, Defendant has failed and/or refused to reimburse him for the personal charges she made on this account in February and March of 2006 as follows: a. From January 16 through February 15, 2006 $1,106.90 b. From February 16 through March 15, 2006 3,754.09 C. From March 16 through April 15, 2006 2,149.34 d. From April 16 through May 15, 2006 766.69 TOTAL $7,777.02 17. Despite repeated demands Defendant has refused to repay said amount to Plaintiff. COUNT I -BREACH OF CONTRACT 18. Paragraphs 1 through 17 are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herebelow. 19. Plaintiff and Defendant had a contractual agreement that Defendant could use Plaintiff s Member's First Visa Card provided that she paid for each and every charge she made on the account each month as the parties had for more than five (5) years prior to the termination of their romantic relationship. 20. Defendant used the Member's First Visa Card and charged $7,777.02 on goods and services for which she has only ever tendered to Plaintiff one payment of $250.00 which was part of a $500.00 check she gave him to use toward the Visa account and an additional $250.00 she owed him for other items. 21. Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $7, 777.02 in that he had to pay the Defendant's charges on the account when she failed to do so, so as to avoid incurring any additional interest charges, service fees, or other charges to his Member's First acount. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Chris A. Siefert respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendant Sheila Marie McGinnis in the amount of $7,777.02 plus legal interest at the rate permissible by law and grant any further relief this Court deems appropriate. COUNT II- UNJUST ENRICHMENT 22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herebelow. 23. Defendant Sheila McGinnis has been unjustly enriched in the amount of $7,777.02 in that she purchased goods and services on the Member's First Visa Account of Plaintiff and has failed and/or refused to reimburse Plaintiff for these charges that he has subsequently paid to keep his Visa account in good standing. 24. Defendant Sheila McGinnis specifically purchased approximately $3,000.00 immediately after receiving specific notice from Plaintiff that her name was being removed from this account. 25. On April 26, 2003, Plaintiff Chris A. Siefert was purchasing a Toyota pickup truck and the Defendant lent him the sum of $10,000.00 to be used toward the purchase of said truck. By agreement of the parties, the truck was titled in both parties name with the specific understanding that Plaintiff would reimburse Defendant for the $10,000.00 she loaned him and that the truck would then become his sole and separate property. 26. Plaintiff Chris A. Siefert tendered three (3) checks to Defendant in or on her behalf in an amount of $10,000.00 and fully reimbursed her for the monies she had lent him for the purchase of the Toyota truck and Defendant refuses to sign the title transferring any ownership interest she may have had in the vehicle to Plaintiff. Defendant received three (3) checks on the following dates and in the following amounts: a. After April 26, 2003 a first check in the amount of $5,000.00 made payable to Defendant and; b. On December 24, 2003, a check payable to the church on behalf of Defendant Sheila McGinnis in the amount of $1,000.00 and; C. On February 20, 2004, in the amount of $4,000.00 made payable to Defendant. 27. Defendant has been unjustly enriched in that her name remains on the title to the Toyota vehicle when Plaintiff has completely reimbursed Defendant for the monies she loaned to him for the purchase of the vehicle. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Chris A. Siefert requests this Honorable Court direct Defendant to immediately sign the title transferring the ownership of the Toyota from Plaintiff and Defendant to Plaintiff, and direct her to tender the sum of $7,777.02 to Plaintiff for the goods and services she received for charges she made on the Member's First Visa Account and grant any further relief this Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, HARRISON Date: 5j /-G JoannelHarrison Clough, Attorney ID No.: 36461 24 N. 32nd Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for VERIFICATION I, Chris A. Seifert, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 34904 relating to unworn verification to authorities. DATE: 5/, /' J Chris A. Seifert C? ? CJ c:' ? -n _ RiT LT ? ? -, . .. _ --i. _€?? ?: -C 3 CHRIS A. SEIFERT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-2524 CIVIL VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW AND EQUITY SHEILA MCGINNIS, Defendant NOTICE TO PLEAD: To: Chris A. Seifert c/o Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 32 N. 32°d Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PLEAD TO THE NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Dated: 1P 0-7 B LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER j Lin a A. Clotfelter, Esquire Att rney ID No. 72963 1 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile CHRIS A. SEIFERT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-2524 CIVIL VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW AND EQUITY SHEILA MCGINNIS, Defendant ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS AND NOW, comes Defendant, Sheila McGinnis, by and through her counsel, Linda A. Clotfelter, who respectfully responds to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Admitted in part denied in part. The general allegations of this paragraph are admitted, however it is denied that Mr. Seifert's name is spelled "Siefert" as it is be spelled "Seifert." 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the parties were romantically involved and were engaged. However, it is denied that the relationship was effectively terminated in November 2005. In further answer hereof, it is acknowledged that Plaintiff raised the issue of separating in November, 2005; however, the parties continued to reside together and have intimate relations and Defendant thought any separation would be a possible trial separation with the relationship continuing. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. 4. Denied. It is denied that Defendant asked Plaintiff to add her as an authorized user on Plaintiff's Visa credit card. In further answer hereof, the parties jointly discussed the fact that they had two (2) Visa cards and that consolidating their purchases would benefit both dueto account rewards. Furthermore, it was Defendant's understanding and impression that the account was joint and in fact, Defendant had requested changing the joint arrangement prior to her relocation from the property but Plaintiff denied her request. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. 5. Denied. See response to paragraph 4, above. In further answer hereof, the subject account does appear on Defendant's credit report. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. 6. Denied. The implication of this paragraph that the parties regularly designated his or her individual charges on the account and that each party would pay his or her portion is specifically denied. In further answer hereof, there were times when the parties purchased items jointly and they were sometimes paid individually or jointly. The parties were somewhat casual in the manner in which they handled the account, particularly with respect to general household items. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that legal title to the residence at 106 South George Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania rests solely in Plaintiff's name. However, the remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied. At Plaintiff's request, Defendant moved into the property in December 1998. Since that time, Plaintiff had repeatedly and consistently indicated to Defendant that the home is to be "our home" and he regularly referred to it as "our house" when speaking to Defendant and third parties. He also informed Defendant that he changed his Last Will and Testament to ensure that Defendant would retain her interest in the property that he intended her to have permanently. In reliance upon Plaintiff's statements Defendant invested large amounts of time, labor and money to make what she believed to be the joint home more valuable. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that Plaintiff terminated the engagement and romantic relationship in November, 2005. Although it is admitted that Plaintiff asked Defendant to make alternative housing arrangements, Plaintiff never stated that he was terminating the relationship. In further answer thereof, see response to paragraph 3, above. 9. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are denied in that Plaintiff never asked Defendant to return the credit card and accordingly, Defendant never refused to return the card. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. 10. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are denied as Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to determine if each was treated as stated, therefore same are denied and strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. 11. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff for charges and further denied that Plaintiff requested the return of the Visa card. Therefore, strict proof of these allegation are demanded at trial. 12. Denied. It is specifically denied that on March 13, 2006 Plaintiff informed Defendant that he would be removing her from the account or canceling the card. Therefore, strict proof of this allegation is demanded at trial. 13. (There is no allegation number 13.) 14. Denied. See response to paragraph 12, above. In further response, on March 13, 2006, when Defendant attempted to retrieve personal property from the residence she thought was partly hers due to Plaintiff's representations, Plaintiff refused to permit her to obtain her items and informed her that he will not be returning any of the fixtures and other items that Defendant contributed to the home based on Plaintiff's representations and the anticipated marriage of the parties. Furthermore, prior to that time Plaintiff told Defendant he preferred to keep the 53" high definition Hitachi television, purchased by Defendant as an engagement gift, and offered to purchase a television for Defendant. The television was charged to the account. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant continued to use the charge card, but it is denied that Plaintiff instructed her to cease using it. In further answer hereof, Defendant had significant expenses replacing her personal property that no longer existed due to Plaintiff pushing for that Defendant to get rid of much of her personal property when the parties combined households; as well as replacing property she purchased and installed in the home for which Plaintiff refused to compensate her. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. 16. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant has refused to reimburse Plaintiff for charges she made on the account. In further answer hereof, Defendant repeatedly attempted to discuss these issues with Plaintiff, but Plaintiff refused to address the outstanding issues between the parties and in the process refused to permit Defendant to have access to the home and her personal property. In fact, Plaintiff was hostile to the point that Defendant was sobbing and despite that conduct, Defendant tendered him a check for $500.00 which he cashed. Defendant also denies subparagraphs a, b, and c as the sums are incorrect. Defendant does agree that d, the sum charged for April through May is correct. 17. Denied. Defendant has not refused to pay, in fact Plaintiff has refused to discuss the open issues between the parties with Defendant. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. COUNTI BREACH OF CONTRACT 18. Denied to the extent that no response is required. 19. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff and Defendant had a valid contract regarding the charges made to what Defendant believed to be a joint Visa account. In further answer hereof, the couple planned to be married and often jointly and casually paid bills during the ten (10) years they were together. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. 20. Denied. It is denied that Defendant charged $7,777.02 and the payments alleged therein are also denied. In further answer hereof, Defendant's calculations total $7,618.86. Moreover, Defendant compensated Plaintiff in both cash and in other manners, including but not limited to personal property that was purchased for him based upon his misrepresentation that the parties would be married; and significant increased value to his home by approximately $18,000.00 due to Defendant's efforts of remodeling and landscaping at her own expense for the sum, for which Plaintiff refused to compensate Defendant, and thereby unjustly enriching Plaintiff. Plaintiff was also unjustly enriched by the household items now affixed to the property and the expensive gifts from the Defendant given in anticipation of marriage, which will not occur due solely to Plaintiff's conduct. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. 21. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff has suffered damages. In further answer hereof, Plaintiff has been significantly unjustly enriched by Defendant's efforts and contributions to Plaintiff's real and personal property, which exceed any amount that may be claimed by Plaintiff. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Sheila McGinnis, respectfully requests this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's claim and enter a judgment for Defendant Sheila McGinnis, in the sum of $18,000.00 and grant any other relief this court deems just and improper. COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT 22. Denied to the extent no response is required. 23. Denied. It is denied that Defendant has been unjustly enriched. Also, see response to paragraph 21, above. 24. Denied. See response to paragraph 9, above. 25. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that the parties jointly purchased a Toyota pick-up truck. It is specifically denied that the truck was purchased solely by Plaintiff and that the parties agreed that the truck would be Plaintiff's sole and separate property. In further answer hereof, the parties agreed to purchase the truck jointly with rights of survivorship based upon their intent to marry and in the interest of ensuring the asset would go to the other upon one's demise. The parties also agreed at that time that the next car purchased by the parties would also be jointly titled with rights of survivorship and both parties had use of the truck as needed. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. 26. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff tendered funds to Defendant, for funds she had paid toward the vehicle, however, it is denied that Plaintiff paid the sum of $10,000.00. In further answer hereof, Defendant received $9,000.00 from Plaintiff and relied on Plaintiff's representation that the marriage was imminent, so Defendant permitted Plaintiff to retain the other $1,000.00 in anticipation of the marriage. a. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that some payments were made but Defendant lacks sufficient knowledge or information to determine if the details of the allegations are true and correct and therefore same are denied and strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. b. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff made a check payable to a church solely for the benefit of Defendant. In further answer hereof the parties coordinated the funds tendered to charities to ensure the best tax benefit from which Plaintiff specifically benefited in the form of a tax refund. Therefore, strict proof of these allegations are demanded at trial. C. Denied. The Defendant specifically denies the allegations of this subparagraph and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 27. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant has been unjustly enriched due to the joint title of the Toyota pick-up truck. In further answer hereof, it was the intent of the parties to hold title to the truck jointly in anticipation of their marriage and their intent to ensure that both parties have rights in the truck upon the demise of the other. Therefore, strict proof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Sheila McGinnis, respectfully requests this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's claim and enter a judgment for Defendant Sheila McGinnis, in the sum of $18,000.00 and grant any other relief this court deems just and improper. NEW MATTER WITH COUNTERCLAIMS 28. Defendants responses to paragraph 1 through 27 are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth. 29. Plaintiff proposed marriage to Defendant, the proposal was accepted by the Defendant and Plaintiff presented Defendant with an engagement ring. 30. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant acted in reliance upon the completion of the marriage between the parties. 31. In December, 1998, upon Plaintiff's request Defendant moved into Plaintiff's home. 32. After Defendant moved in with Plaintiff, Plaintiff convinced Defendant that in consolidating their personal property she should give or throw away many of her household items, which Defendant did. 33. The parties resided together until February 2006. 34. During the time that the parties resided together, Plaintiff repeatedly and consistently referred to the real property situate at 106 South George Street as "our home" when speaking with Defendant and third parties. 35. Plaintiff consistently and repeatedly represented to Defendant that he would take the steps necessary to ensure that the home would be hers should anything happen to him. 36. Plaintiff informed Defendant that he changed his Last Will and Testament so that the home would legally be Defendant's upon Plaintiff's death and Plaintiff was aware that Defendant would not have spent money on the home otherwise as discussed by the parties on a number of occasions. 37. The parties purchased a Toyota Tacoma that was jointly titled. 38. Upon purchasing the Toyota Tacoma truck the parties discussed their intent to title the vehicle jointly to ensure that the asset would legally be the other partie's asset upon one partie's death. 39. Consistently both parties had access to use the truck, although Plaintiff used it as his primary mode of transportation. 40. The parties specifically discussed that the next vehicle to be purchased by them would be jointly titled. 41. Until January 2006, Defendant acted in reliance upon Plaintiff's repeated representations that the parties would be married and that they would forever share the residence at 106 South George Street and the other assets acquired by them during their relationship. 42. While the parties resided together they purchased items jointly and shared expenses. 43. The parties did at times make purchases individually, however, in reliance upon their impending marriage, their methods of paying for the purchases was casual. 44. After a joint discussion between the parties, Defendant obtained from Plaintiff a Visa charge card, which she believed was jointly titled. 45. Plaintiff has alleged that the Visa account was not joint but that Defendant was solely an authorized user. 46. The subject Visa credit account appears on Defendant's credit account. 47. The parties jointly used this account to facilitate bill payment and household purchases. 48. In contemplation of the parties' marriage, Defendant completed significant renovations to the home situate at 106 South George Street. 49. The renovations and upgrades completed by Defendant significantly increased the value of Plaintiff's residence. Defendant did much of the work personally and contributed her own funds to some of the renovations and upgrades to the property. 50. Defendant's conduct in increasing the value in Plaintiff's home was in reliance upon Plaintiff's repeated and consistent statements that the home was "our home" and it would legally be Defendant's home if something was to happen to Plaintiff. 51. In relying on the parties' future marriage, Defendant permitted Plaintiff to utilize her charitable contributions from which Plaintiff benefited financially. 52. During the period of December 1998 through January, 2006 the parties continued to reside together and Defendant believed that the marriage would be consummated. 53. Plaintiff did not give express notice to Defendant that the engagement was broken. 54. Plaintiff had asked Defendant to find alternative housing, but Defendant had been given hope that the parties might continue their relationship and spend time together. 55. When Defendant moved from the home she was permitted to take some but not all of her personal property. 56. When Defendant attempted to obtain additional personal property in March, 2006, Plaintiff refused her request for her personal property and prevented her from obtaining same from the residence. 57. In March, 2006, the Defendant attempted to discuss the significant contributions resulting in an increasing value to Plaintiffs residence, Plaintiff refused and demanded only that the issue of reimbursement of expenses incurred by Defendant on the Visa account be discussed. 58. Plaintiff continues to refuse to discuss the items in the house purchased by Defendant in anticipation of their marriage and in reliance upon Plaintiff's repeated representations that the home would be hers. On March 13, 2006, Plaintiff specifically stated to Defendant "you are not getting any of that stuff'. 59. Defendant did permit Plaintiff to retain a 53" high definition Hitachi television purchased by Defendant as an engagement gift in exchange for Plaintiff's purchase of a television for Defendant and Defendant's retention of the engagement ring. 60. Defendant purchased the television on the Visa account on the date of the discussion between the parties. At no time did Plaintiff inform Defendant that she was not to use the Visa account which she believed to be joint. 61. Defendant repeatedly requested that Plaintiff address the fixtures and upgrades to the home, yet Plaintiff refused. 62. Upon Plaintiff's refusal to compensate Defendant for the significant labor and funds provided to him in contemplation of marriage upon his representation, Defendant used the Visa account as an alternative compensation. 63. Upon Plaintiff's request, Defendant had disposed of much of her personal property when she moved into Plaintiff's residence and upon meeting his request, had incurred significant expenditures in replacing the items that were disposed of. COUNTERCLAIM I PARTITION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY 64. Paragraphs 1 through 63 above are incorporated herein as if fully set forth verbatim. 65. At all times relevant, Defendant completed significant renovations and landscaping at the property known as 106 South George Street only as a condition transaction in contemplation of marriage. 66. At all times relevant, Defendant acted in reliance on the statements of Plaintiff that the home would be joint and that in the future the home would be Defendant's. 67. Defendant relied upon Plaintiff's statements to her detriment. 68. Defendant purchased fixtures, garage doors, vanities, and other items for Plaintiff's home in reliance upon the occurrence of the marriage. 69. Defendant contributed to the household expenses in reliance upon the contemplated marriage and Plaintiff's statement that the home was considered to be joint by Plaintiff and would be Defendant's in the future. Plaintiff continues to retain the personal property, fixtures and tangible upgrades made to Plaintiff's home. 70. Plaintiff has refused Defendant's repeated requests to be compensated for her contributions to the value of his home made solely in contemplation for marriage and based upon Plaintiff's representation that the home was considered to be joint by Plaintiff and would be Defendant's in the future. 71. Plaintiff unequivocally stated to Defendant that he has taken the steps necessary to ensure that the real property would be Defendant's sole property upon his death. 72. At all times relevant, Plaintiff induced Defendant to act towards making his property more valuable in contemplation of their alleged marriage and sharing the home. 73. The condition of marriage did not occur due to the withdraw of Plaintiff from the relationship. 74. Defendant should be compensated for any and all fixtures, personal property, and other tangible items retained by Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Sheila McGinnis, requests that this honorable court find for Defendant and against Plaintiff; order that Defendant be compensated for her labor, and other contributions that increased the value of the home; and granting such other relief as this court deems just and proper. COUNTERCLAIM II UNJUST ENRICHMENT 75. Paragraphs 1 though 74 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth verbatim. 76. At all time relevant, Defendant acted solely in contemplation of the parties' marriage. 77. Defendant's contribution to the maintenance, renovations, and upgrades to the property were made based upon Plaintiff's representations. 78. Plaintiff clearly represented to Defendant that the parties would be married and that the real property would be Defendant's in the future. 79. Personal property purchased by the parties and for joint use was purchased solely in contemplation of the marriage. 80. The condition of marriage did not occur due to the withdraw of Plaintiff from the relationship. 81. Plaintiff has refused to discuss with Defendant the improvements made to the subject real property. 82. Plaintiff has refused to compensate Defendant in any way for her significant efforts in which increased the value of Plaintiff's property. 83. Plaintiff has been unjustly enriched from the fruit of Defendant's labor, expenditures for fixtures, and personal property and other items/improvements made to the real estate without compensation to Defendant for these items. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Sheila McGinnis, requests that this honorable court find for Defendant and against Plaintiff; Order that Defendant be compensated for her labor, and other contributions that increased the value of the home; and granting such other relief as this court deems just and proper. COUNTERCLAIM III WRONGFUL CONVERSION 84. Paragraphs 1 though 83 are incorporated herein as if fully set forth verbatim. 85. During the parties' relationship Plaintiff dictated what personal property belonging to each party individually would be retained or disposed of. 86. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff pressured Defendant to throw or give away a number of her personal items. 87. When Plaintiff asked Defendant to remove herself from the residence, Defendant had to replace many of the household items that were lost when the parties combined there residences. 88. Defendant had to spend significant funds to purchase items necessary to live. 89. Plaintiff, by his conduct, has wrongfully converted some of Defendant's personal property. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Sheila McGinnis, respectfully requests this Honorable Court find for Defendant and against Plaintiff, and this Court enter an Order that partitions the parties personal property such that the Defendant is given the property to which she is entitled; finds that Plaintiff has been unjustly enriched by Defendant's efforts in reliance upon statements from the Plaintiff; finds that Plaintiff has wrongfully converted Defendant's property; awards Defendant sums in which she is entitled, and grants any further relief this Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, Dated: l d Y. LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER Lia A. Clotfelter, Esquire At rney ID No. 72963 1 East Trindle Road, Suite Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile CHRIS A. SEIFERT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-2524 CIVIL VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW AND EQUITY SHEILA MCGINNIS, Defendant VERIFICATION I, SHEILA MCGINNIS, verify that the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: 20-1 SHEILA MCGINNIS s W ? CHRIS A. SEIFERT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-2524 CIVIL VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW AND EQUITY SHEILA MCGINNIS, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 15 " day of June, 2007, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER was served upon the opposing party by United Stated First Class Mail addressed as follows: Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 24 N. 32nd Street Camp Hill, Pa 17011 Dated: ?t 4 >y: LAW FIRM OF LINDA A. CLOTFELTER Li da A. Clotfelter, Esquire A orney ID No. 72963 21 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 796-1930 telephone (717) 796-1933 facsimile ? o vJ C-3 i JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, P.C. Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Pa. Id. No.: 36461 Counsel for Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert CHRIS A. SEIFERT, Plaintiff V. SHEILA MCGINNIS. Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-2524 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance to represent Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert, in the above captioned action. Respectfully submitted, JOANNE HARRISON C DATE: 10, 22 -'O Joanne Harrison Clough; Attorney ID No.: 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 GH, PC C? ? Cl - ul JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, PC BY: Joanne Harrison Clough, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff CHRIS A. SEIFERT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 07-2524 CIVIL TERM SHEILA MCGINNIS. CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY Defendant NOTICE NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE HAS INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGLIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO CHARGE. Taryn Dixon, Court Administrator One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17011 (717)240-6200 R JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, P.C. Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Pa. Id. No.: 36461 Counsel for Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert CHRIS A. SEIFERT, Plaintiff V. SHEILA MCGINNIS. Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-2524 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY COMPLAINT AND NOW, this day of October, 2007, comes the Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert, by and through his attorney, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire and respectfully files this Complaint and in support thereof avers: 1. Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert, is an adult individual who currently resides at 106 S. George Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland Count, PA 17055. 2. Defendant Sheila McGinnis, is an adult individual who current resides at 395 Sheely Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, PA 17050. 3. Plaintiff and Defendant were previously romantically involved and were engaged. Plaintiff terminated the parties' engagement on or about November of 2005. 4. During the course of the parties' relationship, Defendant requested Plaintiff to add her as an authorized signature on his Visa credit card account on his Member's First Bank Account number 23382. 5. Plaintiff agreed and added Defendant as an authorized signature on said account and requested and received for Defendant, a second credit card for this particular account. 6. From the date that Defendant was added to Plaintiff's Visa account with Member's First, the parties would take each monthly credit card statement and each initial or otherwise mark and designate his or her individual charges on the card for that month and each party would pay his or her portion of the Visa credit card bill each month for each party's individual charges for a number of years preceding the termination of the parties' romantic relationship. 7. Plaintiff solely owns the residence located at 106 South George Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, PA and Defendant moved into the residence and cohabitated there with Plaintiff from approximately August 1999 until February of 2006. 8. In November of 2005, Plaintiff advised Defendant that he was terminating the engagement and romantic relationship and informed Defendant he no longer wished to have any romantic relationship with Defendant and requested that she make arrangements to vacate Plaintiffs residence. 9. Plaintiff requested Defendant return the credit card that bore her name for his Member's First account prior to Defendant vacating his residence but she failed to return the card. 10. In November and December of 2005 and through January 15th of 2006, Defendant and Plaintiff continued to each mark charges on Plaintiff's Member's First Visa card account statement and each pay his or her actual charges on those invoices each month.. 11. In February of 2006, Defendant failed to and refused to pay Plaintiff for charges that she had made on the card and still refused to return the Visa card to Plaintiff. 12. On March 13, 2006, Plaintiff contacted Defendant and advised her that he had contacted Member's First and notified them that he was removing Defendant as an authorized signature on his account and advised Defendant that she could no longer use the Visa card. 14. On March 13, 2006, after receiving direct notice from Plaintiff that she would be removed from this account, Plaintiff went to Circuit City in Mechanicsburg, and charged $ 1,992.75 for merchandise and went to Lowe's in Mechanicsburg, PA and charged $ 1,058.94 on merchandise. 15. Defendant continued to use the after Plaintiff told her that her access to the card was being cancelled despite Plaintiff s specific direction to her to cease using the card and Defendant charged additional items for approximately thirty (30) days until Member's First removed her as a signature on the account. 16. Despite repeated demands from Plaintiff, Defendant has failed and/or refused to reimburse him for the personal charges she made on this account in January, February and March of 2006 as follows: a. From January 16 through February 15, 2006 $1,106.90 b. From February 16 through March 15, 2006 3,754.09 C. From March 16 through April 15, 2006 2,149.34 d. From April 16 through May 15, 2006 766.69 TOTAL $7,777.02 17. Despite repeated demands Defendant has refused to repay said amount to Plaintiff. r COUNT I -BREACH OF CONTRACT 18. Paragraphs 1 through 17 are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full here below. 19. Plaintiff and Defendant had a contractual agreement that Defendant could use Plaintiff's Member's First Visa Card provided that she paid for each and every charge she made on the account each month as the parties had for more than five (5) years prior to the termination of their romantic relationship. 20. Defendant used the Member's First Visa Card and charged $7,777.02 on goods and services for which she has only ever tendered to Plaintiff one payment of $250.00 which was part of a $500.00 check she gave him to use toward the Visa account and an additional $250.00 she owed him for other items. 21. Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $7, 777.02 in that he had to pay the Defendant's charges on the account when she failed to do so, so as to avoid incurring any additional interest charges, service fees, or other charges to his Member's First account. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Defendant Sheila Marie McGinnis in the amount of $7,777.02 plus legal interest at the rate permissible by law and grant any further relief this Court deems appropriate. COUNT II- UNJUST ENRICHMENT 22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herebelow. s 23. Defendant Sheila McGinnis has been unjustly enriched in the amount of $7,777.02 in that she purchased goods and services on the Member's First Visa Account of Plaintiff and has failed and/or refused to reimburse Plaintiff for these charges that he has subsequently paid to keep his Visa account in good standing. 24. Defendant Sheila McGinnis specifically purchased approximately $3,000.00 worth of merchandise on March 13, 2006 immediately after receiving specific notice from Plaintiff that her name was being removed from this account. 25. On April 26, 2003, Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert was purchasing a Toyota pickup truck and the Defendant lent him the sum of $10,000.00 to be used toward the purchase of said truck. By agreement of the parties, the truck was titled in both parties name with the specific understanding that Plaintiff would reimburse Defendant for the $10,000.00 she loaned him and that the truck would then become his sole and separate property. 26. Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert tendered three (3) checks to Defendant in or on her behalf in an amount of $10,000.00 and fully reimbursed her for the monies she had lent him for the purchase of the Toyota truck and Defendant refuses to sign the title transferring any ownership interest she may have had in the vehicle to Plaintiff. Defendant received three (3) checks on the following dates and in the following amounts: a. After April 26, 2003 a first check in the amount of $5,000.00 made payable to Defendant and; b. On December 24, 2003, a check payable to the church on behalf of Defendant Sheila McGinnis in the amount of $1,000.00 and; C. On February 20, 2004, in the amount of $4,000.00 made payable to Defendant. 27. Although Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert tendered three (3) checks to Defendant in or on her behalf in an amount of $10,000.00 and fully reimbursed her for the monies she had lent him for the purchase of the Toyota truck and Defendant refuses to sign the title transferring any ownership interest she may have had in the vehicle to Plaintiff. 28. Defendant has been unjustly enriched in that her name remains on the title to the Toyota vehicle when Plaintiff has completely reimbursed Defendant for the monies she loaned to him for the purchase of the vehicle. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert requests this Honorable Court direct Defendant to immediately sign the title transferring the ownership of the Toyota from Plaintiff and Defendant to Plaintiff, and direct her to tender the sum of $7,777.02 to Plaintiff for the goods and services she received for charges she made on the Member's First Visa Account and grant any further relief this Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, HARRISON CLOUGH, Date: (n Z_?J \--? I Joanne Harrison Clough, Es urel Attorney ID No.: 36461 24 N. 32°d Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert VERIFICATION I, Chris A. Seifert, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn verification to authorities. DATE. 1 !?? b Chris A. Seifert CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the foregoing document by United States First Class Mail to the following individual set forth below: Sheila McGinnis c/o Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire 5021 E. Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Date: J-- 2 (D? JoanAe Harrison C Attorney ID No. 36 3 820 Market Street Esquire Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert t"`? C==; _ --mt t !,, f h.? ??e .: F -._ _ ? C,_ ?? hJ ,v;j':?? ?. .. ,? ?. t --C JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, P.C. Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Pa. Id. No.: 36461 Counsel for Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert CHRIS A. SEIFERT, Plaintiff V. SHEILA MCGINNIS. Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-2524 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Sheila McGinnis c/o Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire 5021 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO PLEAD TO THE NEW MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIMS WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Respectfully submitted, JOANNE HARRISON CLOUG DATE: 'j- \, - 0'y Joanne Harrison Clough Attorney ID No.: 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, P.C. Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Pa. Id. No.: 36461 Counsel for Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert CHRIS A. SEIFERT, Plaintiff V. SHEILA MCGINNIS. Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 07-2524 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY PLAINTIFF CHRIS A SEIFERT'S REPLY/ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, this lp" day of February, 2008, comes the Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert, by and through his attorney Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, and files this Reply/Answer to Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim as follows: 28. No responsive pleading is required to this averment. 29. It is admitted that the parties were previously engaged. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that at all times relevant to this action, Defendant acted in reliance upon the completion of marriage as alleged by Defendant. To the contrary numerous actions which are the subject of this litigation were taken by Defendant after the parties' engagement was terminated. Some of the actions taken by Defendant prior to the termination of the engagement were not actions taken in reliance upon the completion of marriage, and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 31. Admitted in part. It is admitted the parties commenced cohabitation on or about December of 1998. It is specifically denied that the cohabitation was solely upon the request of Plaintiff. 32. Denied. It is specifically denied that after cohabitation, Plaintiff convinced Defendant to consolidate their personal property or convinced Defendant to give or throw away many of her household items and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 33. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Defendant refused to vacate Plaintiff's home until February 2006. The parties' engagement terminated in November of 2005 and Plaintiff asked Defendant to vacate his residence, but she asked to stay and did stay until she purchased a home and relocated in February of 2006. 34. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff ever told Defendant the home would be hers if their relationship ended. 35. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff ever told Defendant the home would be hers if their relationship ended. 36. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff changed his Will to provide that Defendant would receive his home if he died while the parties were still in a relationship. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff was aware that Defendant would not have spent money on the home otherwise. To the contrary, Defendant lived in Plaintiff's home rent and expense free from approximately December 1998 to February 2006, and Defendant did from time to time spend monies or purchased items for the Plaintiff's home where she continued to reside for free. 37. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff wanted to purchase the Toyota Tacoma and that Defendant advanced him some monies to purchase the vehicle, which Plaintiff has subsequently repaid to Defendant. It is also admitted the truck title was placed in joint names. 38. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the Toyota truck was purchased in joint names. It is specifically denied that the truck was for the parties. To the contrary, the truck was purchased for Plaintiff and Defendant lent monies to Plaintiff to purchase the truck and all of said monies were repaid by Plaintiff to Defendant in full. 39. Admitted in part, denied. It is admitted that the truck was kept at Plaintiff's residence when he was home; it is specifically denied that it both parties had access to use of the truck; to the contrary said truck was always intended to be and was used as Plaintiff's sole vehicle. 40. Denied. It is specifically denied that the parties had specifically discussed that the next vehicle would be a jointly titled vehicle. To the contrary, when Plaintiff went to purchase the Toyota Defendant offered to lend him some money to use towards the vehicle purchase with the clear agreement that Plaintiff would repay Defendant for the monies she loaned him, which agreement Plaintiff honored and repayed Defendant in full. 41. Denied. It is specifically denied that until January of 2006 Defendant acted in reliance upon Plaintiff's repeated representations that the parties would be married and that they would forever share Plaintiffs residence located at 106 South George Street. 42. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that while the parties resided together on some occasions they purchased some items jointly and that they from time to time share some joint expenses. 43. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the parties made most purchases individually, it is specifically denied said purchases made during said 7 plus years were in reliance upon "an impending marriage", or that their methods of paying for said things was casual. 44. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant asked to have her name added to Plaintiff's Visa account and Plaintiff added her to said account. It is denied that this was a "joint account" or that said account was jointly titled. 45. Admitted. Plaintiff has this Visa account as his sole account and at the Defendant's urging, he added her as an authorized user to his account. 46. Plaintiff does not understand this averment and it is therefore specifically denied. 47. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that both parties charged items on this account once Defendant was added to the account as an authorized user/signor. It is specifically denied that the parties jointly used this account to facilitate bill payment and household purchases. To the contrary, each month the parties would mark which purchases on the card were Defendant's and she would provide Plaintiff with the monies for the purchases and charges she made on his Visa account until January of 2006. 48. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant completed significant renovations to Plaintiff's home in contemplation of marriage. To the contrary, Defendant resided at said property rent free for seven plus years and any renovations she made were not made in contemplation of marriage. 49. Denied. It is specifically denied that the renovations and upgrades alleged to have been completed Defendant significantly increased the value of Plaintiff's residence. It is admitted that Defendant did some renovation work at said property and from time to time used some of her own funds for said renovations. 50. Denied. It is specifically denied that the renovations, alleged upgrades or other work performed by Defendant increased the value of Plaintiff's residence, or that said work was done by Defendant in reliance upon any alleged repeated or consistent promise by Plaintiff that the house "was our home" or that the house would be Defendant's if something happened to Plaintiff. To the contrary, throughout the course of the parties' seven plus year cohabitation, Defendant, who resided in Plaintiff's home rent free, would offer to and perform maintenance, make repairs or improvements to the residence from time to time. 51. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant permitted Plaintiff to use her charitable contributions from which he benefited financially. 52. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the parties continued to reside together from approximately December of 1998 to November of 2005, at which time the parties romantic relationship ended and Plaintiff asked Defendant to vacate his residence, and she subsequently moved in February of 2006. It is specifically denied that Defendant throughout this entire time could have always believed that the marriage would be consummated. 53. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff did not give express notice to Defendant that the engagement was terminated. To the contrary, when Plaintiff specifically informed Defendant that the engagement was over, she returned the engagement ring to him. At all times after Defendant returned the ring to Plaintiff he continued to tell her the engagement was over, although Defendant continued to hope he would reconsider. Defendant asked Plaintiff if she could keep the engagement ring despite the fact the romantic relationship was over and Plaintiff agreed she could keep the ring and he returned it to her, but not as a promise to marry her. 54. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff simply asked Defendant to find alternative housing or that he gave her hope that the parties might continue their relationship. To the contrary, Plaintiff terminated the relationship and Defendant continued to try to stall and delay and attempt to get Plaintiff to reconsider, and Defendant repeatedly refused to accept the end of this relationship. 55. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant was not permitted to take all of her personal property when she vacated the residence. To the contrary, Plaintiff asked her to take all of her personal property, but Defendant also wanted to take and did take some of Plaintiff s personal property and Defendant continues to seek personal property of Plaintiff s. 56. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff prevented Defendant from taking her personal property from the residence, but rather Plaintiff had to prevent Defendant from having access to the residence so she would not take Plaintiff's personal property. 57. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff tried to discuss Defendant's obligation to pay for the personal expenses she charged on his Visa account including approximately $ 3,000.00 worth of items she charged at Lowes and Circuit City in March of 2006 after vacating Plaintiff's residence. It is specifically denied that the Defendant wanted to discuss the improvements she claims she made to Plaintiff's residence, rather Defendant repeatedly refused to discuss the outstanding charges she made on Plaintiff's Visa unless he would agree to discuss the parties' relationship and her desire to continue in the relationship. 58. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff has refused to discuss these matters; to the contrary Plaintiff has tried repeatedly to address these issues through the parties' respective legal counsel but Defendant has repeatedly refused and will only agree to meet with Plaintiff alone to discuss these issues. Defendant has acted erratically and irrationally on numerous occasions since the date the parties' relationship was terminated, including on one occasion when Defendant discharge a fire arm in Plaintiff's residence. Plaintiff refuses to have any unsupervised contact with the Defendant. 59. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant agreed that Plaintiff could keep the Hitachi television. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff agreed Defendant could purchase a television. To the contrary, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed Defendant could keep the $ 6,000.00 engagement ring and Plaintiff could keep the Hitachi television. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff ever agreed that Defendant could keep his credit card and then charge a television on said credit card. 60. Denied. It is specifically denied that any such discussion ever took place as alleged by Defendant, or that Plaintiff ever authorized Defendant to purchase a television at Circuit City on his charge card. To the contrary, Defendant went and purchased the television at Circuit City and the other item(s) at Lowes immediately following a conversation at Plaintiff's home when Plaintiff made it clear to Defendant again that he would not reconcile with her and he would not let her back in his home. Said purchases were made by Defendant out of spite after Plaintiff had again requested Defendant return his credit card. 61. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant repeatedly demanded Plaintiff to remove everything she ever affixed to Plaintiff's residence during the time she resided there rent free. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff had or has any legal obligation to remove said fixtures or reimburse Defendant for the items she from time to time purchased for Plaintiff's residence. No monies were due from Plaintiff to the Defendant; to the contrary, when she moved in to his residence she contributed no monies, and had $ 20,000.00 in student loan debt which she paid off and when she moved from his residence she had $ 75,000.00 in savings, an $ 8,000.00 IRA and a $ 6,000.00 hot tub which she took with her, all of said assets she was able to acquire because she lived rent free at Plaintiff' s residence for approximately seven years. 62. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant used Plaintiff's Visa account as an "alternative compensation" or that Plaintiff was under any obligation to reimburse Defendant for any labor or funds she used to purchase items for Plaintiff's residence where she resided rent free from 1999 through February of 2006. To the contrary, Defendant was furious that Plaintiff terminated their engagement and charged items on his Visa account out of spite after her repeatedly asked her to return the Visa card. 63. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant disposed of or was caused to lose any personal property as a result of any actions by Plaintiff. To the contrary, when Defendant moved in to Plaintiffs home she had an old bed and a chair from her apartment at school and when she left she had a bed and two couches, and she also asked for and Plaintiff agreed to give her his oak dresser and his oak end table. ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM I PARTITION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY 64. Paragraphs 28 through 63 are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full here below. 65. Denied. It is specifically denied that at all times relevant Defendant completed the allegedly significant renovations and landscaping at Plaintiff's property only as a "condition transaction in contemplation of marriage". To the contrary, Defendant from time to time during the seven years she resided at Plaintiff's home planted flowers or bushes or replaced light fixtures voluntarily and usually when Plaintiff asked her not to. Any alleged improvements made by Defendant were made unconditionally and/or in exchange for residing at said property rent free for seven plus years. 66. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff made repeated statements to Defendant that the home would be joint and/or in the future the home would be Defendant's home. To the contrary, when Defendant moved in Plaintiff told her that he already bought his home twice, because he had to buy out his wife from his prior marriage and that he would not ever have to buy his house again. At no time did Defendant ever contribute to the mortgage, taxes or homeowners insurance expenses during the seven years she resided at Plaintiff's property. 67. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff made such statements or that Defendant relied upon Plaintiff's statements to her detriment. To the contrary, there was no financial detriment to Defendant for residing in Plaintiff's home rent free for seven years. When Defendant moved in with Plaintiff she owed $ 20,000.00 in student loans and had no savings and contributed not monies to Plaintiff for mortgage, real estate taxes or homeowners insurance. Defendant, as a result of residing expense free in Plaintiff's home for seven years, paid off $ 20,000.00 in student loan debt, saved $ 75,000.00, purchased a $ 6,000.00 hot tube and lost $ 8,000.00 in a real estate deal and saved $ 6,000.00 in an IRA. 68. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that at times during the seven plus years that Defendant resided in Plaintiff's residence she from time to time purchased certain items for the home. It is specifically denied that said items were purchased "in reliance upon the occurrence of the marriage". It is further averred that said items became fixtures of the residence and as such are the sole and separate property of the Plaintiff.. 69. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant contributed to the household expenses in reliance upon the contemplated marriage and/or any alleged statements Defendant's claims Plaintiff made that the house would be joint or would be the Defendant's in the future. It is denied that the Plaintiff continues to retain personal property of the Defendant's; to the contrary, Plaintiff has returned all of Defendant's personal property, but has rightfully refused to return fixtures that are now attached to his real property, despite her repeated demands that he dig up and return plants, garage doors, vanities and other fixtures. Defendant contributed to household expenses because she was residing in the home rent free and was personally benefiting from and/or using the utilities and other household expense items. 70. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff has refused Defendant's repeated demands to be retroactively compensated for any item that Defendant can recall that she paid for, or helped pay for or fix during the seven plus years she lived with Plaintiff. It is denied that Plaintiff has any legal obligation to reimburse Defendant for any of these claims. It is further denied that said Defendant contributed to said items or expenses in reliance upon the contemplated marriage or that Plaintiff made any statement promising Defendant his home would be joint or was considered joint by Plaintiff. 71. It is admitted that Plaintiff did take steps to assure that in the event that Plaintiff died while the parties were still engaged, he would leave her the property in his Last Will and Testament. It is specifically denied that he ever promised to give Defendant any ownership interest or to make such a property transfer in the event of a termination of the parties' relationship. 72. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff induced Defendant to act towards making his property more valuable' in contemplation of their alleged marriage and/or sharing of the home. To the contrary, from time to time during the parties' seven plus years of cohabitation Defendant voluntarily performed certain home maintenance or improvements to Plaintiff's house and landscaping, usually against the wishes of Plaintiff. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff ever induced Defendant to contribute to make the property more valuable, to the contrary, Plaintiff solely paid for the central air installation, mortgage, taxes and home owner's insurance expenses without contribution by Defendant because he had always clearly indicated that the house was and would remain his sole property. 73. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted the marriage did not occur. It is specifically denied that there was a condition of marriage or that said condition did not occur due to the withdraw of Plaintiff from the relationship. To the contrary, the relationship ended as a result of Defendant's deteriorating behavior, emotional issues and depression and depression related issues. 74. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant should be compensated for any and all fixtures, personal property and other tangible items she claims Plaintiff retained. To the contrary, Defendant assumed the risk of loss by making any improvements or renovations that became fixtures to a property that she did not own and where she resided rent free for seven plus years. It is further denied that any of the personal property that Defendant has demanded be returned is her personal property; rather Defendant has demanded the return of each and every gift that she can remember giving to the Plaintiff during their 7 plus year relationship, all of said items became the personal property of Plaintiff at the time of the gifting. Defendant benefited greatly by residing in Plaintiffs home rent free for seven plus years by paying off her student loan debt in the amount of $ 20,000.00 and saving $ 75,000.00, plus contributing $ 8,000.00 to an IRA during said time period. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court deny Defendant's Counterclaim and grant the relief requested in Plaintiffs Complaint. COUNTERCLAIM II UNJUST ENRICHMENT 75. Paragraphs 28 through 74 are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full here below. 76. Denied. It is specifically denied that at all times relevant Defendant acted solely in contemplation of the parties' marriage, or that any reliance of Defendant on contemplation of the parties' future marriage was reasonable, or entitles her to any relief. At all times related Defendant assumed the risk that any items she attached as fixtures to the property would be lost if her relationship with Plaintiff ended. 77. Denied. It is specifically denied that any contributions to the maintenance, renovation, or upgrades of Plaintiffs real property by Defendant were made by Defendant based upon Plaintiffs representations. To the contrary, said contributions by Defendant were voluntarily made because she was residing in Plaintiff s residence rent free. 78. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff ever represented to Defendant that his real property would be hers in the future if their relationship ended. To the contrary, Plaintiff only promised to leave the property to Defendant if he died while they were still involved in a relationship by making a bequest to Defendant of the property to her in his will. 79. Denied. It is specifically denied that personal property purchased by the parties was purchased solely in contemplation of marriage. To the contrary, the parties made these decisions and purchased as do many couples who are cohabitating, not in contemplation of marriage. 80. Denied. The marriage did not occur because the engagement ended as a direct result of Defendant's behavior, mood swings, behavioral changes, depression and other characteristics that made continuing a relationship with her not possible. 81. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff has refused to discuss Defendant's claims regarding the improvements she believes she made to his residence. To the contrary, Plaintiff has repeatedly offered to meet with Defendant and the parties' attorneys to discuss Defendant's claims, but Defendant has repeatedly refused to meet with Plaintiff unless Plaintiff would agree to meet with her alone, or in her car or under other questionable conditions that cause Plaintiff great concern since on one prior occasion Defendant discharged a firearm in Plaintiff's home after Plaintiff made it clear he would not consider any further romantic relationship with her. Any such conversations Defendant has initiated with Plaintiff always consist of Defendant trying to get Plaintiff to discuss their relationship and her desire to resume the terminated relationship. 82. Admitted. It is admitted that Plaintiff has repeatedly refused to compensate Defendant because she is not entitled to any such compensation from Plaintiff. To the contrary, she resided rent free in Plaintiff's residence for approximately seven years. 83. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff has been unjustly enriched from the fruit of Defendant's labor, expenditures for fixtures, personal property or other items/improvements she allegedly made to the real estate or that any compensation is due Defendant for any such improvements. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff specifically requests this Honorable Court dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim for Unjust Enrichment and enter judgment against Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff. COUNTERCLAIM III WRONGFUL CONVERSION 84. Paragraphs 28 through 83 are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full here below. 85. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff dictated what personal property Defendant could own or what property she must dispose of during the course of the parties' relationship. To the contrary, at all times related herein Defendant was an adult who made her own decisions regarding what property she owned or would dispose of. 86. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff pressured Defendant to throw away or give away a number of her personal items. At all times related herein Defendant was an adult who made her own decisions regarding what property she would keep, give away or throw away. 87. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant had to replace many household items that were lost when the parties combined their residences. It is further denied that Plaintiff has any legal obligation to provide compensation to Defendant for items of property she threw away or gave away when she moved in to his residence. 88. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant had to spend significant funds to purchase items necessary to live and/or that any items Defendant purchased were the result of any wrongful conversion of Plaintiff. 89. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff, by his conduct, ahs wrongfully converted any of Defendant's personal property and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant's count for Wrongful Conversion, and enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant and dismiss said Counterclaim. NEW MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIMS 90. Defendant's Counterclaims are barred by the Statute of Frauds. 91. Defendant's Counterclaims are barred by the statute of limitations. 92. Defendant assumed the risk of any loss she perceives she suffered for each and every item she may have helped pay for or paid for, and any labor she expended at Plaintiff's residence during the seven plus years she resided at his residence. 93. Defendant repeatedly voluntarily and unconditionally made repairs and improvements to Plaintiff's residence during the seven plus years she resided there. 94. Defendant assumed the risk of losing any monies she expended to improve the home of Plaintiff during the period of time she cohabitated and enjoyed the use of said home. 95. Defendant consented to any repair or improvement she made to Plaintiff's residence. 96. Defendant assumed the risk that she may need to reacquire personal property she gave away or threw out after she moved in with Plaintiff in the event the parties subsequently broke up. 97. Defendant assumed the risk of any loss she perceives she suffered for each and every item she may have helped pay for or paid for, and any labor she expended in maintaining, repairing or renovating anything at Plaintiff's residence during the seven plus years she resided there. 98. All of the maintenance, repairs, renovations or alleged improvements Defendant made to Plaintiff's residence were made voluntarily and became fixtures to said real property for which Defendant is not entitled any compensation or reimbursement. 99. Defendant consented to the improvements she made to Plaintiff s residence becoming part of his real estate each and every time she made any such improvement. 100. Defendant was already appropriately compensated for any perceived losses she claims to have suffered in this action by Defendant residing rent free in Plaintiffs home for approximately seven years without contributing any monies to the mortgage, homeowners insurance or real estate taxes and she was able through the generosity of Plaintiff to pay off her $ 20,000.00 in student loan debt and acquire a $ 8,000.00 IRA and $ 75,000.00 in savings and an $ 6,000 hot tub. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court dismiss all three of Plaintiff s Counterclaims and grant the relief requested in Plaintiff s Complaint. Respectfully submitted, JOANNE HARRISON CLOU DATE: - `, Joanne son Clough, Attorney ID No.: 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 PC VERIFICATION I, Chris A. Seifert, hereby verify and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn verification to authorities. DATE: 23' clk? 6- 14:1: Chris A. Seifert CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the foregoing document by United States First Class Mail to the following individual set forth below: Sheila McGinnis c/o Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire 5021 E. Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Date: - 0 Jo a arnson ough, t"Sul ire Attorney ID No. 36461 3 820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert , Ce 7 fTj r7 JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, PC BY: Joanne Harrison Clough, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff CHRIS A. SEIFERT, Plaintiff V. SHEILA MCGINNIS. Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-2524 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY Rule 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially in the Following form: PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT; Joanne Harrison Clough, counsel for the Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert in the above action (or actions), repectfully represnts that: 1. The above captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue. 2. The claim of Plaintiff in the action is $ 7,777.02. The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is $ 18,000.00. The following attorneys are interested in the case (s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire: counsel for Defendant WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Harrison Clough Respectfully submitted, JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, PC Date: `7J- - ? fl \,-A Joanne arrison Clouhl Attorney ID No.: 3646 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, PC BY: Joanne Harrison Clough, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 36461 W iml Atc 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff CHRIS A. SEIFERT, Plaintiff V. SHEILA MCGINNIS. Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 07-2524 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 3M day of L4,??j , 2008, in consideration of the foregoing petition, 1.1 dd 'Esquire, and Esquire, and , Esquire, are 0 appointed arbitrators in the above captioned action (or actions) as prayed for. BY C URT v? C' WN. J. ,?- ??r to a L; qua pat6d 11, h I E6t jwrw c1oi,Jet4e'' ?i nda 4/1/oB aa CHRIS A. SEIFERT, : IN THE Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ' NO. 07-2524 CIVIL TERM SHEILA MCG Defendant : CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY Defend . PLAINTIFF CHRIS SEIFERT AND DEFENDANT SHEILA McGINNIS PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE WITH P REdIJDICE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark as discontinued with Prejudice the above Civil Action ComPlaint and Counter Claims and mark said action settled and discontinued with Prejudice. submitted, Joann& Harrison Clough q Attorney ID. No. 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-737-5890 Counsel for Plainti Chris Sei ert, Plaintiff DATE J1inda A. Clotfelter, Esquire ey Jr No. 72963 5021 Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 717-796-1930 DATE:1 0 Counsel for Defendant Sheila McGinnis, Defendant DATE ?? ^?:rg v? ?~ '*.'.'`T .? ^?(_ n i ?.1' ?` ?,_?;? - =? `-? JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, PC BY: Joanne Harrison Clough, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff CHRIS A. SEIFERT, Plaintiff V. SHEILA MCGINNIS. Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 07-2524 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATORS AND NOW, this day of June, 2008, comes Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert, by and through his attorney Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire and respectfully files this Petition to Vacate Arbitrators and in support thereof avers as follows: Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert and Defendant Sheila McGinnis settled the above action on May 29, 2008 by executing a Mutual and Final Release thereby settling Plaintiff's claim and Defendant's Counterclaims in said action. 2. On May 29, 2008, Plaintiff and Defendant filed a Joint Praecipe to Discontinue Action with Prejudice with the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. A true and correct time stamped copy of said Praecipe is attached hereto. 3. 4. Petition. This action has not been previously assigned to any Judge. Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire, counsel for Defendant Sheila McGinnis joins in this WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested the Honorable Court vacate the appointment of Arbitrators and dismiss this action as settled and discontinued. Date: b- q, , (J? Respectfully submitted, JOANNE HARRISON CLOUGH, Joanne' Harrison Clough, Attorney ID No.: 36461 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff CHRIS A. SEIFERT, Plaintiff V. SHEILA MCGINNIS. Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 07-2524 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW AND EQUITY PLAINTIFF CHRIS SEIFERT AND DEFENDANT SHEILA ReGINNIS PRAECIPE TO DISCONTEWE WITH PREJUDICE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark as discontinued with prejudice the above Civil Action Complaint and Counter Claims and mark said action settled and discontinued with prejudice. c? C R ly submitted ? i- , , f" V:3 Joann son Clough, ulw Attorney No. 36461 IN. ==: 3820 Market Street "-= Cam Hill PA 17011 p f 717-737-5890 Counsel for Plaintiff Chris Sei eM Plaintiff DATE -ta cy ?.v -61-a 191 $" s/?q/oe 4titnd4aA.y Clotfelter, Zuire ID No. 725021 Trindle Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 717-796-1930 Counsel for Defendant DATE: ?.. Sheila McGinnis, Defendant DATE d -rt -n tiJ 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of the foregoing document by United States First Class Mail to the following individual set forth below: Sheila McGinnis c/o Linda A. Clotfelter, Esquire 5021 E. Trindle Road Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 1 Date: G, Co 'e Lee '` 'c, S e for Joanne Harrison Clough, Esquire Attorney ID No. 36461 3 820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 Attorney for Plaintiff Chris A. Seifert t. CYN CHRIS A. SEIFERT, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. SHEILA MCGINNIS, DEFENDANT 07-2524 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT D day of June, 2008, the appointment of a Board of Arbitrators in the above-captioned case, IS VACATED. Samuel L. Andes, Esquire, Chairman, shall be paid the sum of $50.00. By the Court Edgar B. Bayley, J. Samuel L. Andes, Esquire Court Administrator :sal 4.