HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-4085IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the
claims: set forth in the enclosed, 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 OR KNOW A LAWYER, THEN YOU SHOULD GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU
CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Lawyer Referral Service of
the Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone No. (717) 249-3166
1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. CJ3
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
61 Ashton Street
Carlisle, PA 17013 CIVIL ACTION-LAW
Plaintiffs
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
V. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES
BREACH OF CONTRACT
VIOLATION OF PA. U.T.P.C.P.L.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
a Pennsylvania Corporation,
9 Rapuano Way JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Carlisle, PA 17013
Defendant
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Eric Romanucci and Rebecca S. Romanucci, by and
through their attorneys, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire of Broujos & Gilroy, P.C. and Frank A.
Nardo, Jr., Esquire of Stock and Leader, Attorneys at Law, bringing this action against
Peter Them Builders, Inc. and aver as follows:
1. Plaintiffs are Eric Romanucci and Rebecca S. Romanucci,
("Romanuccis"), adult individuals and husband and wife residing at 61 Ashton Street,
Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
2, Defendant is Peter Them Builders, Inc. ("Them"), a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and having a
principal place of business at 9 Rapuano Way, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17013.
2
3. Them is a builder/vendor of new homes holding itself out to the public, and
Them specifically held itself out to the Romanuccis, as a professional and expert in the
business of residential construction.
4. On or about July 25, 2002, Romanuccis and Them entered i nto a written
agreement of sale ("Agreement of Sale") for the purchase of property known as, and
located at, 61 Ashton Street, Dickinson Township, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, which included a two story residence under construction on the said date
("Property").' A true and correct copy of the Agreement of Sale is attached hereto,
marked as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference.
5. The Agreement of Sale at Article 7(F) incorporated building specifications
("Specifications") as part of the Agreement of Sale. A true and correct copy of the
Specifications is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "B", and incorporated herein by
reference.
6. The Agreement of Sale at Article 7(F) incorporated a new construction
warranty ("Warranty') as part of the Agreement of Sale. A true and correct copy of the
Warranty is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "C", and incorporated herein by
reference.
7. Settlement on the Agreement of Sale occurred on August 27, 2002
("Settlement').
' At the time of entering into the Agreement of Sale, the Romanuccis were not
yet married and contracted as Eric Romanucci and Rebecca S. Robbins.
3
8. Pursuant to agreement between the parties, the work on the Property was
to be finished by August 27, 2003.
9. At the time of Settlement, substantial work remained incomplete on the
Property.
10. Due to incomplete work on the Property, Romanuccis' lender required the
sum of Three Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($3,500.00) of the purchase price for the
Property to be held in escrow pending completion of certain work, which is more
specifically detailed in an Incomplete Work Agreement, ("Incomplete Work Agreement"),
a copy of which is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "U', and incorporated herein by
reference.
11. Further due to incomplete work on the Property, on August 27, 2002,
Them and Romanuccis entered into an Escrow Agreement ("Escrow Agreement")
pursuant to which the parties agreed to hold in escrow the additional sum of $1500 of
the purchase price of the Property. A true and correct copy of the Escrow Agreement is
attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "E", and incorporated herein by reference.
12. Pursuant to the Escrow Agreement, Them, inter alia, agreed to complete
certain items, more specifically described therein, "in a reasonable and good
workmanlike manner and of new and good quality ... within 30 days" from the date of
the Escrow Agreement.
13. Further pursuant to the Escrow Agreement, Them, inter alia, agreed to
"complete all construction in a good and workmanlike manner". [Emphasis added.]
4
14. Them has failed to complete all of the work described in the Incomplete
Work Agreement and the Escrow Agreement, specifically including the carpeting in the
Property and planting trees as described in the Agreement of Sale; furthermore, Them
has failed to complete the items specified in the Escrow Agreement in a reasonable and
good workmanlike manner and of new and good quality within the time period specified,
further, numerous items in the Property, which are more specifically described
elsewhere herein, were completed, and presently remain, in a less than good and
workmanlike manner.
15. Romanuccis have fully performed all of their obligations under the
Agreement of Sale, as defined, modified and/or amended by the Incomplete Work
Agreement and Escrow Agreement.
16. Romanuccis took possession of the Property after Settlement.
17. In addition to the problems with the Property that have become apparent,
Romanuccis are concerned that latent defects exist which may not have become
manifest and which may not become manifest for some time.
18. Pursuant to the Agreement of Sale, Romanuccis were not provided a
Seller's Property Disclosure Statement, as Them represented to Romanuccis that a
one-year written warranty was to be provided to Romanuccis by Them, that the Property
would comply with a nationally recognized model building code, and that a Certificate of
Occupancy would be issued for the Property.
19. Romanuccis believe and therefore aver that the Property fails to comply
with any nationally recognized model building code.
5
20. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, Them was to provide a Certificate of
Occupancy to Romanuccis by August 27, 2002, or Them is obligated to pay
Romanuccis the sum of $100 per day penalty for every day until a Certificate of
Occupancy is provided to Romanuccis.
21. Romanuccis have yet to be provided with a Certificate of Occupancy to
the Property by Them.
22. Them has performed Them's obligations under the Agreement of Sale, as
amended and modified, in a poor and unworkmanlike manner and contrary to generally
acceptable standards of construction in this geographic area,
23. Some of Them's workmanship on the Property rises to the level of being
hazardous to persons and property.
24. While not exhaustive of the problems, Them's inadequate and improper
workmanship includes:
(a) The primary steel I-beam supporting the Romanucci home is
severely over-stressed due to its being undersized and/or its having insufficient support
posts, resulting in severe deflection of the beam;
(b) Various steel I-beams have insufficient bearing on the concrete
foundation walls, resulting in the likelihood of spalling of the foundation wall and thereby
creating the potential for failure of the support for the beams;
(c) The center steel I-beam is spliced in an improper and inadequate
fashion, as the splice is of questionable structural integrity;
6
(d) A poured concrete lintel above an exterior basement door is
cracked, sagging, and severely compromised, apparently due to a lack of adequate
reinforcing steel, or to frost heaving the footings underneath, or both;
(e) Numerous interior and exterior doors are misaligned and otherwise
improperly hung, some of which will not close or latch properly;
(f) Several floor joists have been cut excessively, impairing the
structural integrity of the joists creating the possibility of a structural failure of the joists;
(g) The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system of the Property
is inadequately designed and installed, resulting in inadequate heating and cooling of
the Property;
(h) The rear exterior deck is designed and installed in a substantially
structurally deficient manner, resulting in significant and unacceptable deflection of the
joists and beams supporting the deck, thereby creating a hazardous condition for
persons and property;
(i) A portion of the brick veneer bears, not on a foundation, but on a
concrete porch which, upon belief, has no direct frost and settlement-proof foundation,
which will most likely result in significant settlement of the brick veneer at this location;
Q) Portions of the electrical system are under-designed and improperly
constructed;
(k) The main stair railing system is improperly designed and installed,
for example, the spacing of the balusters is inconsistent, some of which are spaced
more than 4" apart causing the potential for a child's head to become lodged between
7
balusters; further, the newel posts of the railing are inadequately anchored presenting
the possibility that, if leaned on, the rail could fail;
(1) The carpeting throughout the Property is a mosaic of various mill
runs and dye lots which is installed very poorly; some of the installation problems
constitute a trip hazard, as Plaintiff Rebecca Romanucci has tripped and fallen on the
main stairs due to the improper installation of the carpeting;
(m) The smoke detectors throughout the house are battery operated
only, and have not been wired into the house wiring system, as required by national
codes and which is standard practice in new home construction, causing the potential
for the smoke detector system to not function fully and properly in case of a fire;
(n) The Exterior Insulation and Finish System ("EIFS") is improperly
installed and fails to meet manufacturer specifications, presenting the likelihood of
moisture penetration and, ultimately, rotting and destruction of the wood framing of the
Property;
(o) The septic system has insufficient topsoil coverage, creating the
possibility of sewage percolating to the surface of the ground;
(p) Several areas of buried organic material are present on the
Property, thereby creating the potential for termite and wood-destroying insect
infestation and sinkholes developing on the Property, as the organic material decays;
(q) Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that the footings of the
foundation of the Property, in places, have insufficient frost coverage; specifically, in the
area of the basement patio, Plaintiffs believe and aver that the frost protection is less
8
germination, inadequate rough grade resulting in standing water and ponding,
inadequate fine grading resulting in numerous rocks and stones throughout the lawn,
and numerous rock out-croppings present throughout the lawn;
(ii) Fractured stone veneer and cracks throughout mortar joints
of the same;
(iii) Numerous concrete splatters over other exterior finishes;
(iv) Excessive tilt to air conditioning compressor pads;
(v) Irregular brick spacing and cutting;
(vi) Improper fit at various locations of the vinyl siding;
(vii) Poor workmanship and fit of front porch railing and damaged
porch post;
(viii) Soil settlement at various areas around house and under
deck;
(ix) Irregular shingling on roof and damaged drip edge at
numerous locations;
(x) Improper placement of downspouts and/or improper slope to
gutter resulting in standing water in gutter;
(xi) Inadequate paint coverage on many areas within the
Property, as well as, paint spatters over other interior finishes and hardware;
(xii) Grout joints in the ceramic tile throughout the Property
remain unsealed throughout home;
(xiii) Holes, nail pops, and irregular finishing in drywall work
throughout the Property;
9
(ix) Irregular shingling on roof and damaged drip edge at
numerous locations;
(x) Improper placement of downspouts and/or improper slope to
gutter resulting in standing water in gutter;
(xi) Inadequate paint coverage on many areas within the
Property, as well as, paint spatters over other interior finishes and hardware;
(xii) Grout joints in the ceramic tile throughout the Property
remain unsealed throughout home;
(xiii) Holes, nail pops, and irregular finishing in drywall work
throughout the Property;
(xiv) Screws and hardware missing on various cabinets;
(xv) Poor fit and workmanship of countertops in kitchen areas;
(xvi) Trim panels and moulding missing on the cabinets in the
kitchen.
(xvii) Poor mitering and general installation of trim work in various
areas of the Property; and
(xviii) Closet shelving installed in places without sufficient support
bracket and no clothes bar installed in any closets.
25. The amount sought by Romanuccis in this action is more than Twenty
Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), the jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory
arbitration in Cumberland County.
26. As a direct and proximate result of Them's incomplete, inadequate and
10
improper performance of Them's obligations under the Agreement of Sale, as defined,
amended and/or modified, specifically including Them's poor workmanship on the
Property, Romanuccis have suffered, or will suffer, significant direct economic damages
in the estimated amount of $157,692.27, as well as, indirect and consequential
damages, including but not necessarily limited to attorneys fees and costs incurred in
prosecuting this action, which will be proven with specificity at trial. A true and correct
copy of an estimate of the cost to complete, correct and repair the deficiencies in
Them's workmanship, as stated herein, is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "F", and
incorporated herein by reference.
COUNT I - ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
27. Paragraphs 1 through 26 above are incorporated herein by reference as
though textually set forth at length.
28. Relying upon the terms of the Warranty, Them informed Romanuccis that
the sole remedy available to Romanuccis for Them's incomplete and deficient
workmanship on the Property is for Them to repair and replace such workmanship at
Them's discretion.
29. Despite being placed on notice of said incomplete and deficient
workmanship by Romanuccis, Them has failed to make any reasonable or good faith
attempt to correct such problems for more than 12 months since the date the Property
was to have been completed; furthermore, Them has been provided, through counsel,
11
a detailed report of such defects and incomplete work, after which, Them has taken no
action to respond to the problems.
30. By the very nature of Them's workmanship, as more specifically described
elsewhere herein, Romanuccis believe and therefore aver that Them is incompetent
and unable to correct the problems with the Property.
31. The Agreement of Sale is ambiguous as to Romanuccis rights in this
respect, which ambiguity should be interpreted by the Court before this case proceeds
further.
WHEREFORE, Romanuccis respectfully request this Honorable Court to
promptly schedule a hearing to take evidence on the preliminary issue of whether
Romanuccis sole remedy for Them's poor and inadequate workmanship is repair or
replacement at Them's discretion.
COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
OF HABITABILITY AND GOOD WORKMANSHIP
32. Paragraphs 1 through 26, above, are incorporated herein by reference as
though textually set forth at length.
33. Pennsylvania law imposes upon Them an implied warranty of habitability
and duty to perform its work on the Property in a good and workmanlike manner, and
according to standard industry practices ("Implied Warranty of Habitability and Good
Workmanship").
34. Them breached its duties under the I mplied Warranty of Habitability and
Good Workmanship by completing Them's obligations under the Agreement of Sale, as
12
defined, modified and amended, and, hence, Them's work on the Property, in a
careless, negligent, less than good and workmanlike manner and contrary to standard
industry practices, as more specifically described in, but not necessarily limited to, the
averments contained at Paragraph 24, above, which are incorporated herein by
reference as though textually set forth at length.
35. Them's breach of its duty to perform its work in a good and workmanlike
manner and in conformity with standard industry practices has directly and proximately
caused Romanuccis to incur damages in the nature of costs incurred, or to be incurred,
to repair, correct, complete or replace the deficiencies in Them's materials and
workmanship, which are more specifically described in paragraph 24, above, and which
damages are more fully set forth at Paragraph 26, above.
36. Them's breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability and Good
Workmanship is material and is fundamental to the essence of the bargain entered into
by the Romanuccis, further, the said breach defeats the object of the parties' contract.
37. Romanuccis believe and therefore aver that Them will not cure Them's
breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability and Good Workmanship.
38. Them has failed, and continues to fail to deal with Romanuccis in good
faith; in fact, Them's conduct in dealing with Romanuccis has been outrageous and in
utter disregard for the Romanuccis' rights.
39. Because of Them's said breach and, consequently, the condition of the
Property, Romanuccis believe they will have substantial difficulty in selling the Property
and that they can never be made whole simply by recovery of the said damages.
13
WHEREFORE, Romanuccis respectfully request this Honorable Court enter
judgment in favor of Romanuccis and order rescission of the Agreement of Sale and
restitution by Them to Romanuccis. In the alternative, Romanuccis respectfully request
this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Romanuccis Them and against Them in
an amount equal to Them's damages in the nature of the cost to rectify Them's deficient
materials and workmanship, the cost incurred by Romanuccis in pursuit of this action,
interest on the judgment from the date of Them's breach, and any other relief deemed
just by this Court.
COUNT III - BREACH OF CONTRACT
40. Paragraphs 1 through 26 and 31 through 39, above, are incorporated
herein by reference as though textually set forth at length.
41. Them breached the Agreement of Sale, as more specifically defined,
modified and/or amended by the Incomplete Work Agreement and Escrow Agreement
by including but not necessarily limited to:
(a) failing to complete the work on the Property, despite Them's
obligation to do so;
(b) failing to complete the work on the Property in a good and
workmanlike manner and according to standard industry practices, despite Them's
obligation to do so;
(c) failing to provide Romanuccis with a Certificate of Occupancy,
despite Them's obligation to do so;
14
(d) failing to provide Romanuccis with a certificate of potability for the
well water, despite Them's obligation to do so;
(e) failing to provide Romanuccis with a certification of the septic
system, despite Them's obligation to do so;
(f) failing to provide Romanuccis with all manufacturers' warranties,
despite Them's obligation to do so;
(g) failing to construct the Property in a manner, which meets an
applicable building codes or a nationally recognized model building code, despite
Them's obligation to do so;
(h) failing to complete all aspects of the work on the Property as
detained in the Specifications, despite Them's obligation to do so; and
(i) failing to comply with Them's obligations under the Warranty,
despite Them's obligation to do so.
42. Them's breach of the Agreement of Sale has directly and proximately
caused Romanuccis to incur damages in the nature of costs incurred, or to be incurred,
to repair, correct, complete or replace the deficiencies in Them's materials and
workmanship, which deficiencies and damages are more specifically described in
paragraphs 24 and 26, above, and elsewhere herein.
43. Them's breach of the Agreement of Sale is material and is fundamental to
the essence of the bargain entered into by the Romanuccis, further, the said breach
defeats the object of the parties' contract.
15
44. Romanuccis believe and therefore aver that Them will not cure Them's
said breach.
45. Them has failed, and continues to fail to deal with Romanu ccis in good
faith; in fact, Them's conduct in dealing with Romanuccis has been outrageous and in
utter disregard to the Romanuccis' rights.
46. Because of Them's said breach and, consequently, the condition of the
Property, Romanuccis believe they will have substantial difficulty in selling the Property
and they can never be made whole.
WHEREFORE, Romanuccis respectfully request this Honorable Court enter
judgment in favor of Romanuccis and order rescission of the Agreement of Sale and
restitution by Them to Romanuccis. In the alternative, Romanuccis respectfully request
this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Romanuccis Them and against Them in
an amount equal: to Them's damages in the nature of the cost to rectify Them's
deficient materials and workmanship; the amount of $100 per day starting from August
27, 2002 until the date that Them provides Romanuccis with a certificate of occupancy
for the Property; the costs incurred by Romanuccis in pursuit of this action; interest on
the judgment from the date of Them's breach; and any other relief deemed just by this
Court.
COUNT IV - FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
47. Paragraphs 1 through 26 and 31 through 46, above, are incorporated
herein by reference as though textually set forth at length.
16
48. At the time of entering the Agreement of Sale, Them represented to
Romanuccis that the work on the Property was, or would be, completed in a good and
workmanlike manner and consistent with standard industry practices.
49. At the time of entering the Agreement of Sale, Them represented to
Romanuccis that the work on the Property was, or would be, inspected for compliance
with an applicable building code or a nationally recognized model building code.
50. Them made the aforesaid representations with the intent that Romanuccis
would rely upon the said representations, causing Romanuccis to enter into the
Agreement of Sale.
51. Romanuccis reasonably relied upon the aforesaid representations and
entered into the Agreement of Sale.
52. The aforesaid representations were false.
53. Had Romanuccis known the aforesaid representations were false,
Romanuccis would not have entered into the Agreement of Sale.
54. Romanuccis were harmed by their reliance upon the aforesaid
representations, as Romanuccis have directly and proximately incurred substantial and
significant damages in the form of costs to correct and complete Them's faulty and
deficient workmanship, as well as, cost and attorneys fees incurred in pursuing the
instant litigation.
55. Them knew, or should have known, that the aforesaid representations
were false.
17
56. Them's conduct was outrageous and committed with utter disregard for
the rights of the Romanuccis.
WHEREFORE, Romanuccis respectfully request this Honorable Court enter
judgment in favor of Romanuccis and order rescission of the Agreement of Sale and
restitution by Them to Romanuccis. In the alternative, Romanuccis respectfully request
this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Romanuccis Them and against Them in
an amount equal to Them's damages in the nature of the cost to rectify Them's deficient
materials and workmanship, the attorneys fees and costs incurred by Romanuccis in
pursuit of this action, punitive damages in an amount deemed appropriate by the Court,
interest on the judgment from the date of Them's misrepresentation, and any other relief
deemed just by this Court.
COUNT V - PRIVATE ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW
(73 P.S. 201-1 et seq.)
57. Paragraphs 1 through 26 and 31 through 56, above, are incorporated
herein by reference as though textually set forth at length.
58. The Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,
73 P.S., 201-1, et seq., ("Consumer Protection Law'), provides that unfair methods of
competition and unfair deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce are unlawful.
(73 P.S.. 201-3.)
59. Romanuccis purchased goods and services from Them for personal,
family and household purposes.
18
60. Them violated the Consumer Protection Law by:
(a) Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard,
quality or grade when they were another. (73 P.S., 201-2) (4) (viii).)
(b) Failing to comply with the terms of any written guarantee or
warranty given to the Buyer at, prior to or after a contract for the purchase of goods or
services is made. (73 P.S.. 201-2) (4) (xiv).)
(c) Making repairs, improvements or replacements on tangible, real or
personal property, of a nature or quality inferior to or below the standard of that agreed
to in writing. (73 P.S.. 201-2) (4) (xvi).)
61. As a direct and proximate cause of Them's actions, Romanuccis have
incurred, or will incur, significant damages in the form of costs to correct and complete
Them's faulty and deficient workmanship, as well as, attorneys fees and costs incurred
in pursuing the instant litigation.
62. Pursuant to the Consumer Protection Law at 73 P.S.. 201-9-2,
Romanuccis have a private right of action against Them to recover up to three times
their actual damages, plus their costs and attorney's fees incurred in pursuing this
action.
WHEREFORE, Romanuccis respectfully request this Honorable Court enter
judgment for Romanuccis against Them in an amount equal to the damages incurred by
Romanuccis as a result of Them's actions, punitive damages in an amount equal to
three times Romanuccis' actual damages and amount equal to Romanuccis'. attorney's
fees and costs incurred in pursuing this action; further, Romanuccis ask the Court to
19
award them interest on any judgment from the date of Them's violation of the Consumer
Protection Law, and any other relief deemed just by this Court.
20
Respectfully submitted,
BROUJOS!!& GILROOY,?P.C
By: Z( ?/ "7,/
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esqu' e
I.D. #29943
4 North Hanover Str t
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-4574
(Attorney for Plaintiffs)
STOCK DLEAD
By:
Frank . ardo, Jr., Esquire
I. D. #80108
Susquehanna Commerce Center East
Suite 600
221 W. Philadelphia Street
York, PA 17402
(717) 846-9800
(Attorney for Plaintiffs)
FAUSERS\FAWROMAN UCC\COMPLAIN
8/5/03
21
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO.
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
VERIFICATION
it hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: The attached Complaint is
based upon information which has been furnished to counsel in the preparation of this
document. The language of the Complaint is that of counsel and not mine. I have read
the Complaint and to the extent that the same is based upon information which I have
given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief. To the extent that the content of the Complaint is that of counsel, I have relied
upon counsel in making this Verification, I hereby acknowledge that the averments of
fact set forth in the aforesaid Complaint are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C. S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsificati to authorities.
Date ecca korr r
U TAMROMANUCOVERIFICA
arch UV tUll..libbl lI.IU (11,111101. I. LIh,JI.h d IJ U6IIIII.J 111,1! I I II I IIIU ) I.UuJ1UIU
07/31/2002 10:09 PAX 717 295 2255 RI(/UAX 511111ANG ASSOC. 101002/000
STANDARD AGRFErALNT FOR THE SALE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION Af5-NC
Th;. Imv nramrnaea •aa ggrvwa I'. hu. m..ml..?r unag. m..?.ann d rti tawrll.mla N.raMM al tIBALIV1Ua lYNtl.
IA I.ICRNSM) B?iOKk3t
LLSTMG BBUKBR ICo•upa.•y). nFno IFr11/k
ADDRESS5
Fix YS ccbOP VAX-.- ._-
)I 9r.NATRD AGFNr F(]R SF]f iF.-R (U nppurnbla)
FA Ll(:F7%'SED RR KRR
SELLING BROKER (CamM ny) . ?? e-rJlrr ?' ?SS Q4
ADDlDYJS
pit 2.`l 3-A3l 9 S - FA](
DIAIGNJ)1'KD AGRNf YOR 111Mill (it npp4taW)r)
f_ ir?18 QI'CQIDeTIl d.mJ --7 1S o2 ---- ------•b between h ?- -- I
SF.LLRI000ILD1,:1:_ pelerS)?p^t duel ^srLey^am1 )
q QAPUq o wa Cwrui?V
I Drr_1.8_PLk; 7 i. yl -- - A
BUYERLS): +C Q (_C ANO__ {4.)JU_G? S- ?O JI11 ,5...
1 Na H11?I-It ?latr:- Brow dD? f^) S_39° ?-?? -- aylaf "Brryn^ I
a
2 PROrmm (11-00) )
SrU" hcraby opted w,,U and muaq' in Bnyrn whu hc.eb f aC,,, lu poriluee:
'ALLTKAT CERTAIN r Pipac"2°ee V ^bulldln?+md improrrmcop 9u Warr,' il U+ueon, ifany, kua nth: t
Name or S. d.(rlon__..J--
Lot f Modual ,
oP
?_ 71 }Of?__ J11ee"'T --C S1_._
SI.LAddaa. ^_ 1
/? }, _ _, In lbc _?". aJ.x)-0 5?'1'• P of _?J??h • n.50 •y ? lx
County of .-l.UmJeC1R^C?_ __ Wlbt Comownwsslth nfPa.d9ylnnly, Tap CuJe._)7 DI 3- 13
IdmNOewtinn (a -11u 1119; Pared 01 tat nerd Rlnek; Plan Bask Volume, Pat.; Dmd Rink, Pate. ltaunknp Dale) - N
u
3. 141RCRA_SE MIX (11-00) PAO,pO tk
(A) W-,-y91l'u.rnaaa Price I v t YI U fl A r f cl 4 W RA v C ? uJ $.QI ? ?`_'Jt• t7
(31 Oo _Dollum Is
which JI ba paid w$cU" by Mayer a fullwa: 19
(B) Bare Fill' - $ _- M
(C) Lot 6c.nhun. it any f --
(D) Ibul Oprianrrlstra./All"ation. Pcr. anarl.wl nldcud.) S i2
TOTAL PURCUASE PRICE f S) ?I,)_Qo_cnA
9. PAYMMT 1'LI MS (11-00) 21
(A) Cz b u ebeek al .iyp(aY. Onn Aprcrmrnl ?-_,.. f t-' C)o O 20
03) C" w rio k wdhm lU- Aayr of Ibr, carlbtinp n( Otia Aptzmenl:.______.... f S O-Q D
(1,7 Non ralondeblc pra-paid oPti-d4eitra.fabaratlouc[land Io SIUW o0 or Winnf -' ._- 27
$ 21
29
)0
(M rarh ashlar', or emtlDeJ chock at time of aeti emrnr f 31
Warm. PIREMIASR PRILE f^ S Cat I, PO 0 M
(h) Ocpowu pmd on aecaool 01 PmrAlu, (nlrc In lIn hold by Llstlne Broker, udw owawac stlod hoc -_----- D
(GI sill,:". wti. xPprv.al In he on or hr.fu'. I, p? ] i (J 0` _?. ))
(If) Co."ne. P... Sell" will he by Ice ample Aced al .prd l ..day aol"a Mha.ri.o muted here: la
(I) Nymrntnruamlat laxes wW be digdnJOq..L, tIowcon Reya axl Scup weld. mhp wl.e stated luxe: _. _.___.__.___. ere
(1) Alwnau(,r1Ukucal.rbofo0owinewillkadiostW Pm Isla m+a Jaily 4ui,Mrvcnn Huyer and SCOn, ¢Im4waiud w4°c ryp4caDlc. here,; c0
,tole; mnMmlpltim fV.1 and bdrob+w4v arsue u... feet, if May; warn lwVor.ewer fcn., if way, rnrelbef u'Irb any athcr h°uble .nwuei- at
pd.enmo 11c chau,co arc to be p.0-raled for rba reriW(s) eovacJ. Sella will pay op in and Inch.dlnp.ha dale of.eN®eol; Buy" will p
pay for all day. fulluwlnc ursl"uaY, morn" utheawlrc naoA here y
.9
S. SC11FJ)111.F. OF CON.57RUCTION (11-00)
(A) Cammaao-mrn9 nale_ Selb,rnlm.rn.dI.tSeller wiU oummence wn.uvaion on or .Lour (•Un in ly unfld'r WSella aF
ranm .bc 6'10 W JrJ•y rga.?uc...-?.n....rc of comwotian wain fl..ynt b.. i aY.r r and dp.rd a vaM mnngYnpn cauuuibwu. ill tt :... aurv ./
with Famyfapa K. kho-Zl'1 dim
?(a p fpm ?a.Fwa?
(0) Cumplsliod Doe 5cOc. wtiuuha wwyldm. of camhucdnn o0 or tonal - 3D da C _e•_?_ nor- -
_?y Buyer as
MthlyWut,t.nddo.lot wr aW, cvtuwaanot.ur°nnplndm on Om port ofS.U°ia Iule. to, w:mmuodabon to lhryy mason Ruy° so
mfmmuingnA futarc plan. .l(owatt,awmA.cKtmrnl. rmnplebon, sldlor malanan art ddl yW Junin iucl,rotou uthn, sh.kcs, delays et
In hlu.nc t of pamiu,....ilabilty of law, at m.IU(da, nrany other reason beyond SaUcrt romml ter" time, and andanen.b5'
will L. m.omniedly "rradvl accordinr)y, ..it time. u not ACemed to b^ of the e..mee. b [I p16 1 y s
(C) SeUnm nl: SaUwmuJmuw•Jn will be LrJd au • Jaw wh¢L i, within 10 dgyt (mien m4nwirc ayu:Utul Laic [avvQ.pµ Jr'O JO?r •6f
ale".SrLrr mppuct ?byat W W a wrier uutiee of .vaNcu.enl. Iluwnv". at rho Dine of scultmmt the Lumc a.d mu.uve. w^II Wave Wren 69
n.L..vWdly romplco- 1. It Inc, .mulclpolly or povao omcd authority, requhe.. Use, A Occupancy p"mil ScUrr will pm.fde, into d s
mnll.itt err
b. 61+ECIAL PROVISIONS Ilk' ANY) )a
aJ 69
u
17-11111, .4
Ala
Bu Kr witiab. ?^ - . . AAS ML Val a or 6 F Lei
1
e
l
9
a
s
ro
u
v.
t)
la
.s
IY
P
u
19
)0
at
v
Ice
is
!f
•r
10
In
0
m
9
a
)
a
9
)
t
If UV IIJ LU IIa I I L L I I'I. II ULVillllI. Al, 11,11 .) :IJJUL I:IILJ !I IId I II I-I IhU); I. lie it U I U
0713112002 10_00 FAX 717 245 2264 RF./11AX STEALING ASSOC. 101003/000
7. SPEL71AI LAUSILSOI-VU) it
(A) ff.. n and 5dln taco rrcn.ul ILe Cnruumq Nam. u aJvplul by We Slmp Red PJtUIp Cammleuop el9Y 1'a. CuJa 4AJ76. V
(11) tsn u)q nod Scllu love rr¢ivcd a swuaul of lbeir lcvj <hvr. mliw.IN doai., rnnc before" piing Ihia Aglccmu¢ of
(L) 1 IBllya Lora trcnvd dm Ucpoail Man, NoriDe (Iw cappcnairc cola wucu LiannO Wuhcr a Uu1Jbg d,.Paue nw„ry) Wom aipdng Wlc )0
Ahlermeal. n
(D) krrym fun I.iv.d III. ScBci 6 Ph.poty Diwlucutc Sl.kmeul buforc leafing WL AClccmma, if mRuilral Ily law Nine. TLr ldln'a E
f9a0nry OL,WN,r. Aer dnu nut trguim. A dimWram blum when, a
1. A OU.1ycu aTlnep waRmly e0vaing lbe .,if be 71
2. TIv: boiMbig will br Iaapee" for cnmplhnco w h Ihr apphcablo building cMe or. W none. a naeemby r"utauaul nlWcl building N
code; AND 76
3. A anbWw of occupancy or a cendicxto of coda CompOloco will but Lsucd for We dwellufO. if
(F7 1110 fp0orriag mv punt of Wu Agmenanl if cLecl ed: 71
? 5•Ic a 5.,nkmem of OJ,w Pr.pmy Q 4nlcaumn ail OWg 1'mpeny CuaiuCmcy Addmd„m (1'AR Purm 133) la
C eiuRcu y MLlmduul (PAR Vnrm 130) ? _ W
? sal. At sow..., or Ow. lhopoty COnliacelly If _ _ .. _. _. m
zoilh RICld m C..fiouo MOkeene Add.ndwn ?
(PAR Form 171) a1
(F) Thplnllno RaalliLi4l are male Dart e[INc AKttemrnt JcLtthvd: W
1 t Pi.,. nl l.ml ? OPU amdAlrudiuuv oa
L}lOmuc MaJNpnr Pl:uJl;kaalw.?L/aYp.r+- -.l-rim warranty 16
Q floor Plm Rcm,ed I/ tilaivc Cnvrmuta/DaJ Prndulmu A
Uur , - ?
bldidlna spcoolicahom ? ._. _. .._ u
Q Swndnrd P,AYnel ? _.. m
01
a MOkTGAG9CONTING NCV(I-0)) 02
_ J }YAM-3). TL s ..I... NOT rmllingrnl ... mw I,.,. (m.ncing, q7
(T IaA-.LlYL m
(A) The, Sale to conliuger up. Buyq ub........ malpil. ll„als.ng.v lnlbwa: _ 95
1. Amount of mori la.,, 5 L4 0 96
4f- 2. Muiunum Ttrm BO. y1earn 27
6 3 7}m of coal ace
/' InkRn ram %;I poOmBYJqu W.c¢pl Weiul,rgsl-11!--ybe.w,n.Jlled by III, m.,io,r. Inulq poi, 0a
X m{Zal I pYYlllanp tnlrfrll tear of /}y N?.?, 1W
ti DlagwY IaNlq I1YY1 YI17{InWOn, 10m play a,, u and nWU feq e)Wyw We lmda W A pe.u4ge air We wong.ye IuN (eadlldlllg tot
1 any --C-C- imYr aq meniwn u VA fwWivg lo,,) not m rari n _[%tj If
._%n1 Wo uni.q.gc I... la7
14
"/l.r il,ba.ar r.k. and It. p....O; rvaplluad M Ray, w, .a,Idrru d if a morlgagc Icndu infirm ova0ablo (a Buyer ILe Iiot W flu ,,,,a en not
ietnmt mu: u or b J. We Mlaiw„n I........ R., apl+.:C al hwr5n wiW ew Pr mulgr (airs at nl below Lb, amount pttiLed herein Buyer IDa
grvm Belkl de nyJy m Selle i mac option and m pumuled Irv the tr enit IvtlWgm, wvl •pplir?IJr fit". to rmWbme G.... J By, wlWoul 105
pronfile of "'Meutuntenl, In Ian: BOY1 aadror lmdl rn molar: the abna2lgmr ")able to 0.,, . 109
(B) tMdun lO day. of dm eaaldm of Ilia A9tccsncnl, Buy. w)0 mate a cnmpenad, miw nant'.g,.yybra,tmnm n aapneYblc mnnpc'. lord- 107
ing inWCleon TLe SeQWp Bmkm, If Any, pWetwiee the CltWrg Rruk.r. L auUmricN I. auuumriuk wilb Bar Iulde& foe Bar pulp vvt 194
or aleilling in the morppate limit pwaeea for
(C) 1. Upon receipt of aTOrtgugr.canmiollult, Iluyrr anNOr Sellmg llmatr will lanmPUy deliva a cupy of the mnmllrmrm in lJning Rorke, 110
if any. aLgwiw 10 ScOcc All '1 l I l l
2 Warltc mmrrdfmrad dak 9 U5t- O/ p.QO p?__ . 11 n worm cumawtmcot u Ilot ngivcJ by 112
lining hmaq. if so .. nUvwlm by Sr er. by to, Ibova dne, guy. And Selltr agaty ba rxleuJ B,. e,.nam:LOrw dak uwllt ScjIe 7q. 119
mlmkx lhk Awns Irrt le .riling. Il•
3. Scbq Lao Um uplm w Inudnul. Win Apcen.yt k w1UnC, an of alter the manpge cOulad rmnl dale, if tee morlitst c eo"Oure., n5
Is cot land 'IQ III the nor. Of wllqumL OR ne
b. kcaadldopcd upon We tale and mWanan of orgy oWQyrupmy, UR t17
Cuotaipc my qhq mn0itiun not cpxlLW m Ud. Apamuwc
4.
W We coon Sally Jim con luaaiuak this J:, v na pmw0al ue
aLOVC. BuYU has the option to IenNmlc Ill;- Apnenaun In wtlaLlg b 110
We nwflg.gc muuw WaaIL
120
a L cot ubuL,N LY u> v.liJ uuw We dale u/ mllrwrnr, UAL R1
K b condldonu0upon U. we and utUmunl of any nano-yaoye.ly Wieldy en uvl uclvl by du dak of >culcmm14 OR III
c. "0"'any'ru".,a......... 1r rrlW Wi.Almw.nnnl111ch lLryrl la ..hl. I. a,y by Wa data of wW..L to
5. If U¢a ACruemcm in MelmleJ .. apceifiwl in pampa)du 0 ((7 (7). (3) m (4), all A:pnsa ,a0u.r: pn6l on.,,anf nt of Im ell. )nice ,If 121
ba ROaInd to BUyae Buyer wW be Iaplnahle la w yIr "uw? ru, urDla.i. lim Lumarae. anNlr tide Q, IDk air Ice for cle cella0oo In
Or AUK B any: ANDIUR any pteainw. fm Dune formapm coif" hrr, maumv ,, wllh smnMA crmrag .. ;-none, bindot dwRW air 120
r.,.rellenm (cq If toy, AND70R my apprai> d km tUd c1mLCI paid I drwu:c W nmlly,.lp: Lnd¢ IN
(I)) Sebm will cot be tmpoRlible to Oarq W Burly i modgega Idldet to Ogbw any lenel5 fm any tru'm M aM rant Buyer's )mpgngr Iealq 121
Irgnircc m co-aow of furyll aS a m4d160d to avmpkm StIU®uW Wm buyer V. In yluviak melI am, bwdn oral gnnplru: s Am., 129
]coquina xa a(Qihul in Ilea Aprcmrnl. Th' P1111ph will IuMvO arC II=L
.n
(10 6 A49lst 170
III
NO(APlld(?VIIY,
li
? A[>1'Ll(:AH1L-' ScOq 1iB Vry, lap
? S --. - .- __ .._ . Iwalolum, mwyJ Luyu'1 co.o w ymzawd try a.e mvngage lu,dec va
)'IINVA, IM A 1M
\ PPI.I(:AUtS: n}
(F) It ie enylvt art+aJ that amt+iWemWra war uWca wu•Lmm airlW> mr :ICCBuyq will nail b` ubbl-" Iu wuaplae We nncLnw. of n.r.
A n0
oynly data W b vac. 'no ya.l[Y Ly IVIIkilwr qr nwnry duynuen ua urhgwin.,..Jgz B,.ym La b,-I. IV•a,, m aunr 1f9
rLnu wi1L IIUD27NaewA aauiteuglk. a Iuumr by W, 1'Nm111nuvirU: Caarlivaone. Ywgwu AWWuubntiun. oI • lluml 110
Ivduecmcm Ienlq >midK a Ihr' 1nnn, zed value If life 14opvly of a,, Im. Uuu 5 _ (lam duWv .coon. Io be 111
wa,I l lz 0, a•Im pain a>I m Apa,ma10.ltay.r will have We l.i>'d•gaand.14u.of ploccWmO wW rormwmmUaa of We con- 14
tract u Wout regard m t mount nr the a ¢J valuarlnn. 71, 4M.,ed valuadoa 11 AM,,ad a to dokmdoe lea mamma. wal - W,: L/
Dcpvmnml n(1(o dUlhan pcwlnpmcm Ilnmrc IRM0.not w.nam din v.brc an, 0m con.liuue,d pc lln,ul flu K•b,
I Y Ya :JWIJ 1N
6]
61
al
]I
n
n
ra
l
n
is
17
n
to
10
11
17
u
Y
n
as
19
Ip
I
a
n
u
V
r
1
1
a
a.u Ile _IIb.1?l:, it-I. bLUtl Ji. i. Lill, .l"1, , _-.;ll'.I.II L: 1, k''.1 l-I:Il llli 1.1141,111(1
- 07/01/2002 10:10 FAA 717 246 2260 NF.'/RAA S'1'!vl(I.IN6 ASSUC. b1004/008
1a Warcelog: Section 1010 of TIIIts 18. U.S.C, Dcpatdrcel of Howlag end Urban Deoalopm.a slid I Werd How nt Adowillntiun IN
119 T.n.a.... pmvidet, -Wlnx,n Int Ilan'up., a... IN)ueoUog b aoY way me.r.;nn nf,aeh nrpal,.,,rnt ranker. pe[[m. u1rcrY. orpub, 1x
fv 4sbrs ally ml[u,ud, knowing ,Lc ..roc m La lJSe . slurs be lu,et,a.des Wit tide a,m)ni.aaen our Issue. lMu twu ycm. u, bash" ISO
III (G) US. Ucpwlvmr ac llom{og and Urban)ICydopmant (HUD) NO'CICR TU PURCDASHRS: uI
,sr 11 '[ Aclecoull"12ccacm ,az
,W nIsy[,b.[[r.e1..db,litmNow,,-lMrraarp%auseins:c2talmmrb,tpr<riaa°f[?Nrw:e[t.mudo[n,waoonPmpeny?rwmon in
,v fecp timr) NUYV wnlr.wmde W: i,,.pnl.xsim OdnnO all unktenJenl bums. ins"von and rut WnugLtul+o1111hi lclore Jeaiog Unix IN
As
1% Agrem..I.C' ? [?(
duY.'a inlLLab _-_-_------ ?_- note -1 OZ 1]h
160
167 (lU Creifiutsml We We ourkragucJ. ScUrgJ end Ouyu(q ryrty to Wu..... linn-rli Cralily rbe[ the wa0u of du, contract for pasdwe we 167
I:I Iwc b lb'. bear ul our kmmkJgc end relief, ru d Uwr any ids. ryprcarcnl rail-A mm by ury of Wrvc peairs w camccdoo wiN 04, dlwle, 101
M I,. is uciclcd W Ii.e. AG•t u-p[nl. 141
16a 9. INSTIi(:nom(»-DO) tit
[fit (AI SrL. h.cLy agl.a to IrtanW inapedmne by tlnyrr aesaunpmi M Ly a Sdkl. repruenladvn, and Ly oUlna u slay be tu)uyeU Ly ILe IoWis,? 101
m7 Lunmoon..l:omum Aral mNuhdvs,m inau.iryr apu,r.'va. 5d1m 1un1vi apjcu topmlul OOY Olbrr ire{,tu)Ons to{nitol Ly or ptwidM (w 1o fi0
ILA Wclnomnlrhu Ag..ancnl 101
IS" (B) ITC-.dllun.,r lospcclian 164
1W 1. Buym "Las-' We dl)d w ..... ac s pm.auudi.. I weak daoayy imOmcums fit., I spray whin an pmputy is substantially COMPIcic. loss
in sell. wW Isaa'fy )I.,. (arm to n[olunmr of 16. d.w.ad Issue of ilvy,i c {xcneWea-cr walk-1lucwga (no)rrlhm ,d the ITOlulty. its
ID 7 At the p11s.nlrmcel"P7.lno, Bayu aW Seder wW wwplw unduca as Lialeloccla ••„d 1.9 to be„...... aL m,.IWrq nr replaced 1e7
In widwl 0wty C rip d.y..IL.a autTI.I I. II.M'bar ranml has unryderrA, mradAcd, a replaced wld,iu JU days ducmcmcnt J-: mocoss tx
nI bryuwl Scutari, r<aeur ald. cmNOl will IreCumpkkJ by Ndler as read, x Is mnvwlWAy r sr"hk. nn, m otced ono year a _ Jays III
170 afro sudemml. That pmag.ph will uumue wnf.rea. 170
71 3. Buys, I f.U-.fo Impact the property un the date W We . JWW pre-Ieninumt uu)nusino of 1lvycr h 6u1um to coropirm soul nterl'be 17,
11 fnn.¢Wennal inlpecdou form cmmdm¢s a walver 11&7., ei(da m hAYcce dm Nu(s[ay, .,nl Ih[yrs wdl amps W[ Psapeny m mare- In
n meal luits Wan proem concildan without ah6pdna of Modification ar rg,taeluwt. In
1. 4. Buy.'c right to nuke Win incpechon b uo1 wJvcd by any uW. ryovai,m of Wi[ A lcuulc A III
1: scull will haw. Lr•ns,g and.11 Iloilo'. (L•J,Wiap fuel($)) on for W Inc-mNCweut emlk-nnau6h wpuhuu. 110
16 10. WUUUINklYIAITUNCOK17NGt:NtY(11-UU) III
V Seger uW plovide cs,iacnm it., a.. use no woad hunng ..I, uu We Aopcrry, If rr ruhed by Ieodcr. U n woad )Wasmuu. uuWtiuo B ul
le realWrtd, Bdyea glees to mileborie Sdhl for the cwt of use tageaswa it .,"tare issI blanml(s) uisM, Shcra stye.. at Seger a MiscNC and Its
70 before acNcwcoc W trot for tadvc h1umisun(6), ill auusLmr< will, aypbrable, laws. 17,
[0 11. RADONCOKirNC,FNCY(Il-0U) in
u ? F) >0911 w(1 not ms CJ( pmpweWSy wusk (.I . turns.111,dnn ryrlrm. (Scc AodaO Nouca) 1 101
If SWI. will mewl plcp:aalwy wink W. a nJOn mmgannu syurm (.Fe Rndun Not.,) rc_)V C A:1 `'?C Y?1 102
94
-------.??------._.... 2-.:+Y-&
x ? ltI
I; la sTAivs OF WATER (11-00) in
Sellcn?yglvescuu dut.lu,sm ul'nuduuca tail )mq,m.y.,U Ian.vnsw by: Its
UER fl c Wvlcr N.smv Ill Sxerj, ttuvidc lm
!I qu-.im Wvll Watcc wlutls meat :yq,lic,Lk gmnwacusal tmhJa,11 pc '1 ABU- kl- S!{41QU(o.i (--- x
sv Car.mmi,y Wul.__ 1b
1 19a
n SOFSEWER (11-00) '
101
o ?$rJ12 ,r;„` a d,nt pmp.,y us eclvul by: lot
or i.) )asOC Scwsc - Name n(ScMm Pre ide,
• @' luA.i4.4 Uu-lw S-.,. Vi"" Sy[tccn 103
(San Sewage Nmm q --- 1N
a ? Cnem,ml,y Swag" Ola(.svl Sys u, to
6 11. •sk(SCCScwnge Nahkc l)
/1 y We
1 MO ,(Qrl,sV.t-r-eiC- J?.rfi.url?i,_, rf./ A?{itt.9(??p}l A?,__.__._ 191
s OT'ICES,A.tiSFStiM11RM?ti4(:OVHRNM1lL7YI'fll(p1 IR4:MMMS(11-OUI r} ! ? `-' 100
9 I(A) Scum ICplcacutn v of Shcul ucedbou of lea Agleca)eo1. that can public w(xovusurt, a ndnminiud, m homeosvn4 a[co4v0oo lueesecles 109
0 fe"e ben mule ng,unu We Pmpuly wlurhr,olus unpaid and der on uilke. by any gn..mtcat as public Authority gas been served upon Seger too
I w -Y" al the Sc)le"i W"', Furl"'...9 rohres alabnA Its violaerms of [own hod,in
G g. ), aJlildin ry, ie fee 5sca, ace, waked renew m1
1 emsmsaraQ wd rims Scdc Wa••s e(„ocundino0 din wmJd ,w,wdmc v.nlmien .[my mach nurce, anm. whirl,mmn• wheuneet
eq uta[t tax
I mbs•U. 7padflM floc: lo)
IN
i O1) SeJI. U,av or nu nWm pmcvdal ache, (iecbufiny uiol.UOw) and are.wasU ramYl u foUow'n' -
(U Sell. will 706
I
)nn any nm,. „( iruptwcmenh m ne .mu.,u, utei•ed uo u, bcfine Ibe Ma: of vmi.nmd tar
(111 buycn, advmud toss swea6 w e public mW may ccgnbe i[[amue of n IuRbway tcabpa,vy ).sells hen, We D,.mf.md.d llampasgom, m
1 (H) All amaa,y prlmila will Ie N,uinnl:uW paid far by Sl d.pr o, m rem[wenl, /0a
(F) Scum will •an,yly wdL ulI vaend,n.n and lsrj%-nIrnm i•nl•o[odi by say Govcmoeaa auWoNde6 710
Is. T1111ASURVY.YS, 10 COns (11-00)
T1
(A) 'ILe Ovynry is to Lc Wu.eYul L¢ and cot 11 all b"n, „uauab,aam, onA PsnfnAnU, BXCEPIWU J1OWkvF.R dm fouowiog: ,c;,uu0 zu
,Iced rutri.iun; hutmq prcw vanuu re.ssia,iau m onliwtea, lmih6ol: r.eictrom. adtris-c.,.nemoo, of read3. CIUMMU v61We upon 213
We formed. "telecast of ItcoN. p0vilcgra or rsglw of public WvICC co ilparna, If soy, wbcswivc use title to 0. vbovr. nryathnl mil edam n4
w)R be good and mmkelpbbe and such As will be ussmcJ try a sglucibk 110" luemaoea Clmrymy y We crgulat rn1., 71h
(R) In We .rent Sdicr in oo4de 1o grve.1:-111 and werkombla truss and seen u wW be owned y A rgmlable'Jule Compmry at We Iq;ulu IIWa, HO
m [pecdtut in )wmg.pb I i(A), nuye, will luwe IIm "Pit00 of cities! such cuts "Sides ran Sluo w1Wad rhanyiag the price or of being repaid tU
all nmra- lead by Duyc:, w Sclles a,.nuu,u of por JIser. poa end SrJfrr -411 redosbel. n.ye, fur mY ustrt b umexi by Puyi,, for them deem, ire a
.Imisedusp aa.pl•IS(C):aul in swill(1•p1.Ii(D)dran•O). OJ. N.+•,,"s the Isom [vcnr Jere ill te•v, bud'" habbym WillgnWm an 219
eiWer of We pule[ Is..m and WI Apeccrvnt rill beta re vU1U.
no
(n Any surrey a.mryy[ al7ieh ,buy be ergtdmd by U. 110. Itwwartm elm,"w,ya Use abanxdpg .-w7vy. Iw• d.: ).gwur:un of au ar6apyfe 12,
word doccOYWm or Wn A•n'.ry (sirloin crested-n Jumaq, wW be ." mW pled lm by scum an
(D) Buyer wig Iwy lo, ow eJlnwa,g: (t)'1 be (d[adaW fur n,ube,uhb dell u." n¢ awem tall[ .reel[ u, rata far Isar Jbhnn of .mac, if •uy; 271
(2) 7M piers urm /a flood cries"..uWOt de. Ilrmldea: wilds .'cuJol uw.ade. smmaas u.• I." :I I I umdlavln fm. If any; V.
(7) Appnivl I. and clur0es pidd In .dwOra to nuvgA6o kmk7, if an, (4) Daya'. whammy ammruu. mda and .ww.l., f5) Inlnahon m
tau IIU LIIu:II LI,i 111 1) UI, II IAU I. I, I, 11111,JI UL I,t 11.3 ,,I;Li'll._IIb U'll I. II U 0I U I U
07/31/2002 10:10 FAA 717 245 2255 REIKAA STERLING ASSOC. 10JOOS/00U
u9 G7 Wryer Ion. mvoraul it. final eubdlvfilun Plot and h (ampler w)d, We (pu4nG Jan., nhowu,g rbe Ineabon and eonmur ail the Jut brine put- m
no dOned. Rmm drainage Pbu, and iltux p,pu,g..it ov,ewcW AU..W .its, eon¢rvauou raermcnty, wedv,tla. or InO year flood plain rnMi- era
nl don. on eat .mmuud'unt Rtayo'. Ina no
Jz 1. 7ANING CTASSD7C 770N (II-RU) 732
y Failure of Wi, Apemcnt An conma the w,unl; 0 sifau,u (tuocpt in ra.u wane the pmP.xy I.,.a each P.rval Wuruf,:f rubdlOol bra) u wted M
qa .oldy ra lniu,u JY on l'nnat.,ocle-fau,Jydwelling.)voll ttmd.IW;A(/mmrnl Ockatdc I WCuPGuu sane U.,ma.d. J wIOW, eny depodUUrr nt
drscd by the OuYV will he mtumcd to die Buyer wlWuur airy Ivluilcmcnl [it[ ,nun wine. Sys ,
Z sing rlr urioUnn:
Ile 17. LANDSCAPING&DRLVJt WAY(71-00) .____.-._.__-_ n1
Jl Sillywill +huuPt w p,exlw as many of the cxlruug Irtc. w aluuln xmarwnhly pnwiLle Wwig We romunctlaO o(We iulpm.wcal..wl 731
(A)
ve lunuceMdRPmW{rJ hla r+pmsaly npcW nhe[SoUrrdou nut l;muudr<nrw-nrmlrhr.n,.i.?(NVry urumrluu4.oriWa((oo dm pruruw:a all
Prim to m.Roie4ett Any enauag tmn err ehNbt WR my die after Xul mva ate AIR sole tvPonliblllty or Duyv. Seller will k .upoaubb, no
Ito I. pule :toil aLed Ihr. dieouLrd .te.a Milo. Any wU whshouk Joint r.i. or richuo; snow OR b,uuouta M. in dn...ON al>er midemat Are U. See
role regmusibdJry or hays As in the ou.bny or qu"city of the (pomp n( Gran. it will he 0uyu i ... utuio I,ty ,, moil. (eMlxe ..I maetd oil
!k u nrreavy ells eeNeuar tl all
'u (I)) Ouycr ncaul"IWuc.that. duc to:Nruac+rathea cuodi6un&And Other menu beyond Seller'iitwonablr. muuo( derru mduJnp, uu dr:•cw.y an
m rwfue p/edwc ..it arrding, "Older painting of tniwyg. And rstrnm conrnar. :w f.W4 tray nil be emupletcd at twm of arnlcrocuc Udu. pN
a odlutviae q.14 vtiOnti not tLcpwdtuclwim or Option poymauU wJl bcplacWutan c•crow account er wiWhcld 1. Seller or teNCZpeyt xac
y to m.jAn.Lale fur :ueuwplete il..t Scily .It enuiplcw dv. i,...)thin A m.,,O. lc lime at,. awl ant .aa wealhrr cnnldlinew PmNL am
.1 (C) This Puagnph will autq.c
v.NvuvA 2O
All 1d. 6unsmiri ON!; ii-0U)
' BUYER AND SELUIR. AU NOWUiDGI: 111Ar TOF. BUILDINGS AND 1AWROWMFNIS ON IHE 1•IIFAILSP_S WILL RR SOB. ]el
S-rANf1ALLYSIMILORY10'ILe:F.\IMILISllkn 11CUDMC SPRCJFICATIONS.DUYfi7(AISUACIWOW)JCOGYS'I7 N'r SF]1,PA S"1
D0 IIAS TDE UIGW TO MAKE Sl1DbITEUT1UNS OF MATh1U&t,S OR PRODUCTS OF SUILSTAM'NLLY CQUAL OR RICTTF.R a.e
SI QUAMI-YA'I'SF.LIXIIIS SOLE DISC(EITON, AND TIIAYACIUALMATIOUALS AND PRODOCCS MAY VARYHROh(SAWLE nl
5i MATKRIAI.ti AND PRODUCTS. Paz
U If. CON.NOTICI; 7h,
94 11115 DOCUNIFNf MAY N(A' SID.L, CONVEY. IRANS11%. INCIAJDli ()I( INSORE 1116 TITLU TO THE COAL AND RIO)FIS OF SUP- 251
?. PORT UNDERNIA711 TUE. SURFACE LAND UbSCI(WI:U UK WIJT-JUUiu 1U InrRuhf. AND nth OWNER OR OW14WU OF 51101
Pe COAL MAY I IAVI! 111P. COM(YJM, LROAL R)Gtrr TO REMOVE ALL SUCH COAL- AND IN VIAT CONNECTION. DAMAGE MAY ycg
52 kaSULT'10'I1I2SUKPACE Of 17011 AND AND ANY IIOUSR BUO.DING OR OIIU!R STRUCIUIUIONOR INSIICII[AND (Dom articc 20
c1 IS sot (brut ill Wa ammrcl pnm6J«l'o, Yrcoua I of du Act of July 11. 19Y1, PI_ 994.1 -Iluyv artno.IWZcl W.l be any twI lm obW Woe Ihr nCIA z
51 of prowellon gairlo, Nb ,dencc,v%nIo.,g fora .,,I Nilar., epetali.... And lbit the protgty tlebrdbCd herein may be pjvcc lnl flVla l(aitlagf. 141e W 5a
mina subsldeam by a pdvae cuahaCl will, ii, twoea.nf We cennmrue intveul to ttv.coal. 'Dailahmwbdgalnew la made Surthe PmPo.e N eom >SI
w
nl plYle6 wIW We pmiainm of 9«vuu 14td tLc Ud,nm,mm Mrnc Snbodcna Mud Ov.l+nd C.r,mnvnlinn Au ail Ap,J 27,196G:*
Duycr slyer w ]ee
.Ipy, rk decd (mm Shcy wWdt deed wN couuiu tlw du,mrd lamuiun ice
o ]R. i[ISSFSSION (n-OU)
.'? Pnuu no is w In JcErunl Ly Arc A, tray: wW pLyciol ponauen m a rem buOdioC.TAr. her wJ wuhWy;(a) wJl Le lire of tbdai? alloy and Ran, 20
41 ail yallcmrnl
All 21. RECUlu)Nn; all
(3-851 is AI'lumn,A..,d,,.tr.•rrrn'tlyd in the OfOcoforabe RecuNinU dfDLeJs or iu.,7 oWvnlfice m place uI Foblic rcronl x.a
ll said if?uyu cm.a ar y«rtuk Wie A(penAU:W W be ttcm Jul, Shcy may der m arm .uch av n . bteudt.f tW, A V eetwnt. Sl:e
,1 22 Ai5IGNMRNI'(3-0e) 7164 Agreeuenl will W b lding orlon dm ya.lim. lhev , pmive hero. pool--, I ,rvntml r, p,a ilnn. And nueuuot; nr
ea oW m d¢ slat ueilwbin, air Ihr, utl C. tit OR. PArdr+ Iwrcta. It being vquveny twd a io AL h,w-.. rant Ituy., will no hu.vln err miry Ibh
Ap..r wid u., it, -ill. ..,nl of Seller. zee
59
l0 27. DEPOSTPA RIiCOYFJ1Y FlJnn (I-0p) 169
II (A) Iklna+u µnA by Ituyv mfwo 30 Ahya of rJ1lrnAep will 6o by cW,, rainier'( or wn:OLJ J,t>:k. Uquu¢, mgadlu. u1 tlvaum d paymevl DP
and dc)araua'J.C.tcd u Faym.will U.,nd Wrnd.nd„d,rMml.nl In panlpztph A(F),.ho win mlWl them to an am. w ulaur unWLVU an
awma.don or tmauln.Uuu of Win A rva,.ran
7 p :n aa.Ju..wry w.th .dl aPplv+hle 6w. sad ,q;.IVlnnt. Any tmushW dock wnJvcJ u dapmll in
uuy m LNd pending We acceptance vl this olhn zn
1 (O) In Alm mcnl ofn dispute ova erddmem w drilmil maolrA A LrokarbolU:ug do depuut u tCow 'lW ill I6,.R„tr+.m1 Iteguluiau. of dir. St+o-. air
5 Rral Gvw Cnmmi.eipt (a7 Pa CoJC 971.727) m nails tm modv Lt wvuw uoW We,li pu¢ i• ,ceolvcJ. W n,e error oI L4rt+4au fm We era
u Joann of dgronit musing ebmkv ndO WmiWw Jte muuiv as tluecndLyahad m,La nl mtw ado mi"^•,Apcvuac of WC putira. Item Le
I and ScOer OF. think in the event any broker e1118a-led llmaare i,)mnad in li Gyauun lw 14e.rtmn nl deal In nnnuea. We m uu,,, KCa and ll7
s cnR.of -b:brnku(a)Red llmdm(c).W be paid byline Party joining Ww
9 in A Kcal 2illic Wcmc,7 Fund txh4 le feimbunn 271
nay persum win, Ww nbeartcd .. fault dull IuJyw«d rani,,.I ., 711
Ihvmylvanra n-al c rata
o Ilrm.rcowing la Lauri lo4R(nucnudoR no dc¢IIWa reAl mN raw¢uamactivn .,it wba Wrc bra uunLlcwmUCer On:putgW.,after ehauai-
m$$$$$aq legal and egduhlr. rrsnrdlca. For complete denllr about W Fund, all O17) 781-Kill, w (8W) $22 2111 (widtin Peoinylvtma) sad tea
1) 791+1{Y1 (mn•Ide P nraylwolQ. 211
z 1A• ONDOMINRIM/PCANNEO COMMUNrrY(IIOMROWNUR ASSOCIATION) PUBLIC OkkY.KInG SIAIFMKNT(1-00) 292
NOTAPFUCABLE on
t f] APMJUOIr. CONDOM MUM to
(A) Buyeca O-IWM Utlt the ltuprrty uaumal A eandemrmum ere tkUnr.l by 161It(fmmCandouuNuen Aa Seliv U s doelnnntnfib,.. enn. 2O
I JoOUNum And u INuin,I W provide ljuya with apubbc OUrrang ewac,rem, (.Sc eLAtndomLluo"Oril111fuN PI...W Cmmmmdy Nnhu lrv lief- nA
A (n)dom of dcdu.1, pubbe off'Wg rleteammA, trod Condominium.)
I (R) T,e ddlvrry of Ili,. p,AbOc eQmng and
sUlcmmt bull be nl.dc no bler Wur dm dde ILc ]JOIN .1c, dun AlFCVUaL Duty may cauwl Wu La
t AGnzmml within fa0aw(15)thp Area rv:uvinp Utc Fublic nOv(ng unc,nmt bid Within ?fbcn(15) drym ofieccl lot of tiny Ancen Aotw Wo
Sul«nat a.. out«:ally aid .&. Illy ellmv Our, 740
APPLICA?L11 PIANNUD CUMMUNII'Y(IIGMDUWNk](ASSOf WK)N) all
(A) ?uyec arJrmawledges WU WeltayutY i. out ail n ylew,W cmawmmty err Jrfinnl Ly We Ihtifmu I'la,W W Cununnury An. Shcrs is a Ardar- IDt
ant or dm pinioned cooumudty and le requi,W W Pm.iJc Ouyv ,.:16 A pubic offence ataluuua (See CadouuotvMUmlutm I'ltmW
Ct MCI Notice for dcfinjdooe of drrlannt, public ollerlne .memml. Rua 014, W cnm,mwry ) >m
(U) TLa dm)uw emu laovldc BUY- wIW a uvPy .1 Um public earring mama, and 00 a.,mWnenu no I.., duo der: J.u: Buyer a¢cutu thie err
Apccnaal-Our. Cony cancer. du.Ar,.l.1thin ae0.(7)day. Aft. acv:Iring d,epublie oQraing n.Innml uul WUda uc..(O day. after all. ceciviur. any -- -mar to the cl utlacl than would m+te"y and alrvacly alitaa U.,,,
M. MAINS NANCK A WSI( 04 Why (I I-001 toe
tnl
S.Ucr ,rill b R uA u( It,, f Un, roc m uu,ct cnaualum until nwr. al v dntvat. W de mat nl damadc. by bm. err other wwLiea W vtY pmpertY 271
RiduJwA-1heA.Inlwnn not tnrylmJ uncyl.mJ Una to acelvrcu(Buyrs-111 have the apt:un u(.4,11 SMIA AG,remenun.Ij_eRdy,eerly_ Sal
in, all aiomo .,it nn.w-cuner u(ywcLarc Inim.ailr-Ltmdmq¢nl,.nrni until arch"inc.n S"th ran""n" tlo. P,n1,11, in ramPlcrW caWhmt.
lluyv a hereby u.41(W lint U,•yn nay uuue Uuyv i « ryiubic uuvev in dun Aoltrary, a. ifdu:.......t- b.. of Wll Ag.clanot coo
2n RVLF' K(1 1-0U) buy.' slid Srora' turdq rdraq 9uitelaon, ad cyer&wJ1.10c A1J.OROK1'.RS. tiw,r Ur.FW.WFS. KMPLOYEES, am
awl any OITICKl1 at PAICINFI,a wO US Of Weru and vv oilerPERSON. fIRA(,., CORPORAI)ON who uuy be liable hyvrchroogh
Wa4 E.R. ,my ..a ad ala„w, I,- err JrnweN, 1 J.deng, sun ant hn, " W, 1"--W hole ea aMd Proyn Iy and ail of the an-
Aerlucnm Uno'..r. Till. r .e wW Curl.. wtdm,., a..
27. RF.PRISRNCAIIONS ill-00) aoe
m, .............
..n. d,a .n. ,..... u m.AA,.na rlrbna xmnr,t•Inr mmm?uV,tol m:dvblo. In,xhumr. aloe. drddum :u,i4L:,tiuu4 m wananltc tau
,ILV Ill, i9UL(I01,1 I'I.II V L V IIU I. I. I, 1) 1, ILli 1 All:.`. UL 1 it l Ld ( III A) I I I VI 1110 I/ I. IIU I/016
07/71/2002 18:10 FAX 717 24G 2255 HE/NAX STERLING ASSOC. ®000/00 0
310 of) Buy. aAauwldgn W.Rmkraa, Ibcir li E-was, aluployea, theen.,we.l.vemmn.wlc on i4csiOcol of theploAdrawln[I,11praG- •]10
]n .6.a, m..J dwuwOu u hart bn..mg ..U. ..boo End quality Uf We ewnme. An he Will by sdln.! 14am.a lbokern, U." It., 31,
31? ranPhym. nfu.. ead pauuaa make m Icylrarnlaunn with m1+nr m paatiu ur..ch whe? widener of Cnvan.•a-nt appronl fords.,... all
313 ahncM- Of we [Eruct.. tois built by sal,,, or a.. unvv,uneu0l auJ•hnnr, IW p,.tnlad Veer, dl! Iivon.,J rnadiliw, of Seller, rv IlsC C&o- 312
31, dldeae exuliep N uM Irtdc unbar. the ptupvlY a sua.ht nor love Noy Iwde AM Wpmtion Of We co.punuM. tryl•Ianrev..aY.tauy ad core eda
315 EMU% pl Odndr (Ube LUILLUd in or ebOUL NO Properly. 315
.11 (C) it. A.... NJ VndCRMOd lh.11),M A1[.e Y,ayl.AYala9 doe wWln ARCO„nY I14wf. SOII4 nod Bnyq.oJ d,f c YC nV nlhq lCmr. n111I P,adaer, Aid
31l vuu.•,M, reprcrep6lioue, rtaVnlcnYar rondid....al Orotherudra Ed., kind whGYavel ewRlnlny, this M)e F1uWKwoR, pu./ypf Anent I13
m WU od fin rllahpf, edlo,hf..l chanL•N, m naahheA id in wnbnC eAE o loA by Ole p.rtim 31l
31a (D) MM n.dlac., -,6eM., and fine Mumbo. in dda ftnoMe l ue m.ra.d only la .aka it .d.. 11AM1 a. VMOCupIo- 319
An 39. WARRANTIES (11-00) sea
]n (A) Audgnmrot of Manofarh vr'O Wr Lies: SrJlcr Ludy brigna w Iluycl ILc mavm4cmmr s wananuu ou aG a19dm.at nrvipmml and All
3a oWrano.uma prdu<U wbcimWld Wor un du Puq,cOy. t?ryq nfWne warlmllq vdH be delivaedm Uuya Shcn u.ka on UV.auba, 331
Atli tepmRoa4dou of gporu11ta, will despea to the sppGaam, al.pmenl and comfudu prod"t, add all mile wanuuq, .cprtswWt.M and 331
309 goaaotde amhrrchy tliaelaim[A The Role tem.ly of Buys U6 to ay ...h oeme will be w makes such J-I- oa oe aM.Prialc.,drs Ole man. 274
ALAN onal..11,21, Ail
ur fill x1od ad Wamµy: Ficcyl A. act 1a1h In any ho d wal.Wy UAU.... y be proVldrA betmidt, SELL" MAIO',S NO OTIIHR RUPRP. M
Ali SRNTATIONS OR WARRANTIVS OF ANY NAIVN$ FJLPRIiSS OR IMP]IAkO, ]INCLUDING BUT NOT LBNf7'EI) TO, TUOSE All
1211 OF WOWAANLU1E UINSIRDCr/ON, OARrrABMXrY, DYS14;N, fONDMON, 0(IAi,iTY OR OT1ffItIV=AS TO TuL R4
In PROPERTY AND Y1D"a Rua nE3.1CR AND OTellat 7hII'BOYHA'Di.N3S wKsTRucalI nrKHEON, AND SELLER UREBY lid
All, J0WREIS1.V DLSC.A3MS ANY SUUI RtI11W'51INTATIONS OR WARRANTW. BOye Iweby a'kmawir.lgm and AaCp's Edell dl,- Me
m nail.: aal of,. to wa6e.ey end W rights bnycuvy, bare by vitwe d aud.rmo,-UnAwdoM and wao+nLn. f,AeM W, the lralaWira pm. all
All rtdd by Shcc. Rays amhmra it.. dtk of my and all dao.cc limit Ibe daw uf.cWrmrnl• occvldnl; in or aNnmmu onsLc PA,,, ny.el'Thd).a• ayes
333 W if. cause duaead. Boyd" "IdirvbtM of W r dAk L pubNly An cv Llidlrahu. of We om..I of the pocl.u pdc0 u( dun P. Upuy chid, is aaa
All Iowa dun it.-All to, if Set. w.. to be field 1.pn,dblc 1w my eM;O n.ks by .ewe nLaW capmmd m lmpllyd mplgmudone a loalmndes. 3A
ras 250. TIMROP'ARE PSSI:NI?NIFFAU]IT(11410) 3H
3R Rleapl o uwm•ile .vWJ m d,,. AW.uahl Ibr. aald time for eoufemcm and all tdha dwcr tdnmi in foa the pafnn.hnw of my of ti. oblip. SR
337 6.uo(WOAVi mcnt.chv by aWxArotcaf Wres.,,,.ofnda AC.sanc.L lbr ll. pwpow of lWv Ap/CCO1nu,n.nlKtof days Wil hoc unlad 337
sv torn d. ore of rarcud.n, by e.clu,Unp trot Jay tiU. ACtmrdnu wu uw•1d wd 6cludiaC Wes ten J.y of Nc duhc• tnatM Should ll.,w. all
319 (A) Pal w nwkc May AdWIIAna1 pnyM=W as sped(led at pnnpyd, n, OR me
us (D) Fnuab told to Wnuaplde )ldnnwdon to Selkv, lblwC Woka, Shcmy, Ihola• M it. mclrq;aac I-de, If clay, eoncmuo[ Utya i fecal or Alan
U7 BNar;"t dldw, Of lul w cdopervlc to Ihn (nKR_ RImL m(dK IIIOfI(,•ab'O idld appllaanmq wly[A a[La wuulJ lmntt in 1hr fob,? In nhtafil tllm 341
34 approval of a murtm. lum wm.Wtmml; OR w
U3 (C) Vthdlt or Gil w lulWJ And varM,aynAder I.A. or ..96001 of Ode Agtanneol; 343
IM dlen ill d xb Odle. S.Urr had the uloiuu of ¢LL [one all suuh pod by Days. Including d¢ diepagl wollia ad., Rows pool for dgdwao. attar, 14
rte and/. d =uold. 1) ., ism a of pinto. N.r+, or 21 ea andoi. An be Uppild to S.Ua's dwdlgu, or 3) u UgddaMd damages f.111[1 3O
1G6 bre00h. N SOUra mly aIK aV Ins. Off-- - e ebedlad 61.- 343
In ?Shcer is IWt'd w tnaiWng sums paid by Days,.rbtdog depoeit Muni.. Awl wotda paidfoo options, extras. mWor Alailiom,. h,. NI
14 dated dtlnagm a4
10 If Sella cl 1s 1u mG6.H $..A pa,d by Boy.. ioJwLng depmLL maW. ad MrAniaa paid for gz,als. "ON. n.u- aIfiaalooR w lihp.idatd duo- 344
to am. BUY= and Sella will k tdeo.al bout f.dwhabWty or obltplmn and this Apoasent wilt be VOID. 3m
hl 30. RRORPRS(1-(B) - a1
152 TLe 11u..eati ltdaiumhip. W-vt.o me Rreke.(d) and Shca.od nuycr am u WE., WtIL SS Al dolaent mlab.ublp a Node d [EAM, 3u
IN (A) 111. U.6.g R.kaeis Arpin IM Seder a13
154 (B) The Shciog OoJeais AscMfMUuya. 354
153 (C) when tJK L1id0[ Blokrr and Sc1koC 0.4r .. We Sawa Wes Rmkler u a Dual Ap,m1, oral Agency oppllnl to nH Btemgs, UN)fi55 Wrle All. 359
all Al D.1[oatd Ag.gal f.6 Jler and . O.iO,med AOmtU) for Duyn. H lhr..me Uewsee u rbllpalnl for SeUn and Bum. We Umni ee Is 336
T7 A Owl ACent. 337
50 A Hadnas Relndendal, mmdr dal 6 diffedm111om ahmn, u foll.; ass
LB ? TLC SeUingHmka id We ALwUSnWl;tmr lnr se0u. 3A
to ? 7111 Shcind HmkaT is altanvactiuu Luny 310
or l l 7/.Iiidry; llmkq na7Jmaauino Lixaaa. h Sal
R (U) Hroka(s)doty pnfo.w mrvlraa fn earn uNrplgwkd parllK In rumplyW[wiUt li. vmu of Uds Aylttmml 312
O 31. MKI) ATTON(7-96) - 363
w L7 NOPAVAl1a01Y. m
a IWAIVI'll. Ruyan AM) SJ11- ,wlr taod that they may dtwae An wedia4 at a Isla loo- should a di pule ow. not out Were will be no obli- 3115
Is pdnnoan,epanof mypnryw.W. 34
.q
if p Pd CTM 3(y
is (A) soya mad SNIu wW my M I.ulve my ,h.pule u. Jaiw Wat may nit nom INS Ap¢manl dUOUkh .ed4tian, in xeanGU. wi0. de ltWq ass
Is eld Pmcedurra of Ule Hdme SeLldlnlm"_ Uuym fhapum I iallmt Syst n Any a icenhwt reachod through a mcdiedon eoofate w and 391
to ugond by the putfea will be binding. 3"
fl (1I) Buy. and Sell. w.lvowlydgr. Wes they I.,..ceeifiL crud, and ondenWd we P.W. and 1lucdhyM of 11. Iluwc Setl.ylluun Boyce 3n
Q Despot Hrmluhnn Svclban(•S. Mduuon Nmitz) m
9 (C) 'Ll" 2Voo d t M W wWialn d.ymtd arid.; lived due AVc,Imnl will lwr'ive eat)cmenL 373
374
a>G
no
In
AI
An
330
Y1
an
30
n
30
Sal
nhu UO LU I)LI I fI,) 11 .'IU UI; U ItU 1, I. '.. II I. Q It I AJ J UL I A II.J I I' Adiil f:1111U'li I. UU 011110
01/3l/2002 10:10 FAX 717 245 2255 HUMAX STFRIANC ASSOC. ®007/ 000
let ar and StllvarYnoxrldLc III lbey heir rn.d and und.1mnd the Ilodw and capia,Nlory inrormminn bet fnrlb in Ihb, AylnvnwL
B. 301
, 11
3
iu
m
BUr, uiium.lydunrccci•ing a wily of Able ALTlnnrnl.1 We 11 me el dfninp 353
]11
Ve
05
NOT7[:L 7L VA ItTIB1:WHEN 51G3NFD, T7O$ACRk:LMnYf LtiA /DNUSNC COM'RAC3. Return by faced "Be nzlmntbulee (FAX)e[1111e 40
'fe ANrrswcn4 and ell addeatla,bnviuL Abe psural0s<aofdl paNti.wmBlut4s aanq,baauf dlA4A);nclucul. l'u.de wsldr lre,liecd.n alv advusd 30
iu to nRinitan aiwm.1 bv.m siNninN d they dcvre lcpd edvim 15l
311
1A /
z'/QZ
7`
N'I(
D
3117YF:li _ _
2a
K
LU
R
e
WZME55
t
,V1
r^^
d
1 311
?7a
roe .
?,
?v
(1
--_
1
? _
o
Q
n
,?
?
,.
n
Buya NvN (µw0 ?R(? ruilrKrv?CC( 5]a?.?.R1 --2 ??•5 eoa
at M4um[Addlm. 431
o: RR4,gU9iMS_.34?L AM
4 6oh_5=41 -'-1 rn bo1- ?Z?=oo?r _
phnnr.A.PO Iw
N _
rAX N_,_ _ eM:li1 - --
m
as
N7rNESS.u!1'V1ZL_- f _.. RUYF+y'C?? JLn'•"?'1/"?--?. UACE ?-Z7^o2 Nr
4l
`f (0
3 '3'8 Uq
o/ ...
A
CC? AID tiSN
q
Dvyn Nvne (pool
f
? .
1e ? .r?/
?
(5
?L
Maine OAJ.Lrv
" Qf-v>L-C vt - - - - 4"
., /
?arlT4en 5 `1 - - -
?
' 4tl
la k??
??I?..?LO_f?3 (??a
phlraeNlclgSaO?G1?q /,o
11 - PAX0 _ F.M4i1 All
12 412
D WCiNFSS .... .. .. BUYER DATE m
14 Buys M.. (p1in0 - ss x- All
1s MaIIaNAddme 413
14 ub
u Me.,r. A. Dp 417
u FAXtl .__? DAfml_ _ 411
Ie 111
N 5c0a hacby yganxos the vlrovrt ruvlrul thin (,hlc) _ __ --.--
420
.
? hod in walillnaddn or We lmlea lenllnd W ylwuiu); the Dnyq 5r0n y!m IO paY de luowl LxML Ilmka a ur. N _ _. _ , _,. _ 41
• aODom dm hucia Apr fled sale ptlee, in the evmn uuyu dc[=IU hclelllda, any nvniu p41d oe acv L uM he euvidui @
• Sd1M . Lladnp Bmka. but in Iw e,mt vau are culli pa 0. 1- tb Dlok. be , ucue of.bl, U., epe,.rd Dlolvv'a fu. R3 04
g/`-p?
7-
e
k /
m
j L ??_UAIl(
,
WrINRSS. .. SEfLER
l
435
s Seller Nnm..(5e,n0 S50...-
v MaiO.LAddlal 437
173
Yba¢Na DU (W) OR
a PAX t OR
It 431
A WITNR.SS nAT7{ 47
3 seLU N. (3nie0 s5 a _ ._ _ --'-- AM
4 Ma ling AJdrexe W
• ._. ..-_ _. ... as
e Yhane 6UD- -- (W) _ 41
I PAX! 1;-Mail_ _ 137
A 41
f W17NE5S _ _ _.. - 071T.r.E'R Di u3
1 &A. Naluc (prop _ ssN -.. 44
MailinLAdlNC9r 411
M. AAA,
PAX N _ F.MaR to
' 413
Brvbm'Dieeu eea' C fifi.da,*(dccA all thalea a3,Uublc): 4Y
0 Rrnardlna FRA MerllpNn. "'he wxl Coal f lccerce5 iuvnlved ti dd1 in,ne lion, un bdL"uI dlclud+n and 1brlc nmtrn, cwlfy died 147
the lama of W r canReR fur p•W,.,r.... U.. to oe III of th it YmW odpa and LrGcr, u,d the, any nthv apcnnrul m d men by ney of Am
d" I'll" in lts4.CCdOd With due aauaNtine la OlprLd W Ibis Attlrf'^ , 144
? RqWdli Mdub. Tbc undgyiped (] ).)song Bmtr ? SrSNnC n,d=, apr04 to 5nbmil I. wcdudun in 41.uidincr, will a3
41
pvlNlaph 30 of But, AXmcmcnl 07
157
1157TNG BROKER (Cmpmhy
A(X:6Yl I) BY DA'fT: _ ..._ tee
61
SELLING B)WRIiR (Cnnq,my NNne)
ACCE14b)D BY DA'fb: 4e
450
4N
411
c4
40
aN
N3
411
{n ///? `nom" 4R
Oil
.rt?u Ub ?pn_Ii?L) Ii. IV Ul.lllrti 1. I. L.11..1Lh 1 .I?JUII:IILJ Il d.i'II I_IIIIU71 I. IIII 11111U
07/31/2002 10;11 FAX 717 245 2266 Rli/HAX STERLING ASSOC. 11008/000
ADUFNDUMIF.NDORSL.MENT TO AGREEMENT OF SALE ?•tiA'2•
PROPER77' bl 9.Sh+00 s+t-ee_f Carlfsle en 17013
_.--
AUYXR
DATE OF AG"Yll"T_
J ALIr4wocI4 noor- '1-o be .ins+allellA In f AM;Lj
Room 'Fr o ,n o, t- s Se1PCfionS -?annviIIe pre=Rv)che?
Corian +o be I rlsrALL- Cd i n K4-ehen t roe,, b.?;lders
S-lec+ion incivc)- A13 4 C So. r, e9 - CoriQ.ti sif4
ge_lec+ o n 48-so bo.:bl e. si NK - color Q Set ed70
ALL TR ry, "ro 13e wh ?e , j3uyer fr se(ec{-
Y SX08 C 010 r_sFoe- W 1 ALL rS^ ° C e'i l i11 n q s --- F L n 7"
iauyCr' - sdec+ 6,).1cLer.j' S¢Iee
A NY fnJC CTS
1cwel 6ar- o'loI holder ve
and 1 a- br OS '11 z Pe si Ihe r
K,?ch?n ArpliA,A/Le5 - Serail- S'roVe Piodel K Teel 8030
Z3011 or j v d sa3o Wi f o?t> JNA( Ye.a 9 1 a o
131adc 1?o?61e oxen S-t- f'' d"711A 30" L310,k, IJaL)bIC oven
self: ales, Nipper ?YtANOala? )owcr Cf,
lac,..laiA on b^.mx-
4f1,5-00 Ji jh? ins fFf Law?.vCe - (4 Q^^ti
3:f.i3.. v r pfrc*-
•?h;n bJl 1 cr'S
AI e c-? , ?l 1-i 1 1 n CI CIf /1 q
7D ?,v- eri0r Cj?or S- {-2a?'JIeS Lo Sclecl;Dn oT C,11IQ
R{? : J , 10,y
br shed ?ew-4en
1 ?iM- Ye IN it-2li-AAfr Rq ree^'F r?tT
'
y ear 1 ? 1?ders r l
See- AT'Twc 1-IP 4/
Bail rae- r 1 o 5>7 -j buyer +f?Na? i ?<I dC I ,?.
?anr) s[npIN6 A1-L-o , iC$-
- 1 7-
J??? 4--s
aO- 4. 1n? Vo Nor?t'1 Sf?e
d lace r7 end- A reea6le
11 i 9h 1'I a n ? )'r sl -pa r4" - P 5
b?ye? /b itlLer - b„Ildar world ?rezer -)-o pIa-3 f- i n
mL_ ?0i t? DrH,4?.+ condN)? f s I
'? 11C.?t I y?u? stun SC?Q -Fb--l.nd s -( bv; ?del,
?r a? u-- . ?',?f'>.e'e`.'.?."_` f.f/j?wti[r ",•rl.`''•`"`"?P,f.>,-?-? . a`lt`
5el[c ?nG a? b?„,Aae SaTJ"ov I):oonM 7?a? ??
All lath. I.au ..d mndiuw. nFthe A6gcmm/ of Sale remain unchanged and in fall Fmee awl dial.
WIINILSS A?.? .. G? OUYER UA'1'L.
?'P.r."C,.. .
WffNYS$_ -`. !.f BKFSCrk__. IIATE 7-•z?_
M'I7NIL5S _[//7 HIM.A _ DAl'A ??-
W[7Mg55//w.?7`? SELLER DAII:
V INESS SILLHA DAM_ mrrvccc _. .SLLLLEA _._ -_-_ - ._ IIATF: _.
61AR-2!'-NRjgt1? I§A(0 EEME E HEM' & ASEJCMH
I 7 re era rrtyro au wwca i,•,?
pefer Them auRdmInc
pad Way
cWX PA 17eta
(M)-A c,W3o
9sabral91pee$is Ousts
X46?4*"S"d
CHIMP Yv.11013
(P,a.:???1;24`1 M P.0NIAH
J41. Is -'M ai.2?m P1
1. 2s6 Oftier weft wl* 1-19 imVheiao
2. Andmon WlsdvwsvM amm stilts bdmta flats iaetuded and wood eaci w Seat doss with
leadnf slma
3. Vtayiatarivrsddiasbahdda,endserafbaee.
s. Sri* bent of flame attisbt dpwdt veldt aaas oa remoinirf f Boas of bmnawnllsmd e?esed paeeh
tbwdrmoa.
5. Wood lumen fireplamtobobaudWtowel oltfiasuersndr?admanailaFaet!(yRoam.
6. tlaeporcbtobavaviayitafG?tgatkwoodahtnm
7. Fsyv daiiaiq to be epamod Sao ddo M& oak dWeods.tas and pea end pa brad okkeu and risen.
I' ?r -r w• 14 bars one 16'a g' dear and am M I' dew. bolt with I,
10. ,ALArim?o ? aecaatlsl rsia.Yyr,...? .,._ r.
11. Sir smeadw dtyall b aD attic aide and Passe to livitAg spoon Dos moettare.a....
bade v+rlls
12 R 14 btNLtioawslkwidtK-? kt aA ems apsotaad1-19 beasant a iAng.
+ 13. Tea Dads Sban4a WOtiaas flea pain rolled an vwlls and a aft rdb semiskes as aim tsios
btdtderSWbxaodadr .
taoscMolddtdsmAio'k 0,ar4tbwld?9lpecdkadaae.
13. lalt Woe %in to beraWidu edpaWAWe w01r Railhead dews ra"aw 3K O 5 Guag aad W 5
1 pEU7'R 16. C wM vacidtas end d imA far dltrAng mind only.
?(vSrIFD'_ S C2 x-17, itaiadbarmdl"nohaiaw*smbsiwmsidatinadtbdbeuom C.1w CO eD ?'C.??
lf, PN1pbmLaspu011mvios >peMadm
t9. Wpk*ebbadlyredAirparopecidsemimt wihA7flossesand2SOpLa1tark
20. Qespal aknq she. *h r.,mW kefae moving is
1. All down taws Leva lbrdova fimi bwWWS Wooden. ?p.F.oi Cr v ?- GN?e+plrql<
22 Aee!,,?& dadtattarefbaaae
23. taofttvetsynap
24. Roaeasl usktirai inopalaits lnllaaq and ldtakaq tseUt lien, smkedelemars, a bttdtlol far afipe
%m it ttemue hedtoa® wad 5mtiy rt= wigs S15MOO uyttbrs suoeoaxe fa usbm
iacbicb btdba Fsaeeiar Noting anens end fWi pas u*1ad ay-uTr9.7 _
25. As
26. lwaed aaaeaa raid wetopmfins, fwtatnnydrsW sad Smog pmaippil in baaem sera tab
wltlt pensiveradaa taudinda sysono w w to roof.
27. Sus! Seams owed gW plyweed sitars Aafr syatwo'gau out baste.
73. Chw7 ashimi t+n'tbov Medan; ao per pho in Wdten end baft - r
--24. cmmaamptobgjNWOosbtilddssaleMomandsllossoos.
,?_--+?,,?51,1 30, la aA6m?.lagltdti.6takfac l? and io kiteirat asd fiardxasd'ra?naiag rma„ foyer, a F?.? J°u, .
lam" -dWFUFMV*Wu per bnidldtYeaiecdousaadArAstaaes
91. C?tobef?a botldet's talaMent is aeataivios kaana aa1 wRMia alieaaaeaL
12. 200 mIlecoicalseviat,wicksttundapradhookopa.heiwfbgdrait}yawn,talephmaend
ahk ptr wimd blot batrowa; &ofry now. wdkkd a. With wdmw~&.
33. Vdadas k toe1cufed sanded yar4 wilt 2bad was ow 12 buskin -:. i ct r
30. 17tiwrrrayto 6amectdra vrlllr r biadcasd 1' top.
t r 0
M4R ?1 2003iTRl') 15,41 GEORGE E EEENER N pSS)NC TES (P?N.j91?Z450699 P,?03i009
LT }I"F?? YJWGJC? t.a?r J-Iv bQ sk ?lLu cd
LT
/Jt?V•M ^"-` `PVr? 7e(-.Pc-Fiun,s- - ?R,Jn1?•W? prc-??1lstvc?
O CUIIIRJ Tb T3e inc ?Aiu?( ?h Ki4-ch i
1-_ y Ji 1 c4?`? ^ ?^
r7oM $Q?.Q r4 T? l] + c JQC? S
U54L D? bl? K-
C o ? v+ Tj 5v.1 « 4 ,,,1
pp, mT Aw rnlm p,h4c ? ,1r,t
/J'tti w?(<S
Buyer' +o se(ej Ong Cv/U!1 7-.t-
+ CC1?`^? % 1 ?Ai WALK 5cittn?,
OU? t rt 5 IvcIL af??
Au Tu(3s + 5 hewers I i n c TvA J,
( Pcv?-V- ? r S-', t ??
.I,, o f bPr a.,c( j rt o', 1 e+ ho l ctoc br)skpA
;>>Sl7wojj?- GsD uoao ggc,C - Gc ProF)La-
S S-r-DVe 9y3v
v 1?u,61v o?tt,. _ i31 IL J p a-? 13A - 3011 T31AOc DJ ,? u w? Lilt-" O(xj",-4A?
(7 It
?? ' SYti :?1! Au-ov/,.J (Q lJ ?J rl j - ir.._Srnnon
.? I7ll? J J J
'., P uc. r7r •Y? h
r-.
i , -1-e r ; UP
bbo'! GiCw ouS W y-rfn ;n ?1 (?(rte Sept E(i /t nC l ' n?
fi Cite C/-,LC- f ? b rl ? f't •,J1f' /`_
•, '>„t urt? t ?Opl. n.?t.?tt Cf a ?4- n°rr•Aci?.?r .
Jlt Wl f S -I p <-A. ., f Ci C. ? 0- JSC^G•V I*{l? ?v "? ?-
J bJ;1 CJ w7 Mti.o...a.ui --6 b? Sc1eoE r ct b b.l
1( X
?1?R L1 20G3i!,Il'ij l')Al GEORGE L EMER & ASSOCIATES (FMK 11172 MM
rLuk is A r Hv us¢
11 S ?''i'u2Gl.f??
c .
(3<< nCb a nrd lj, 11%h t4-?_
1 ..
N
V
4
n
Peter .Them Builders Inc.
9 Rapaaao Way
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717).186-8430
Builder's United Warranty Agreement
This limited warranty agreement is extended by Peter Them Builder's Inc., (the builder) whose address
is 9 Rapuano Way Carlisle, PA 17013, to Eric Romanuoci and Rebecca Robbins (the buyer), who is the
original buyer of the property at the following address: 61 Ashton Street , Carlisle, PA 17013
1. Wbat is covered by the Warranty?
The builder warrants that all construction related to the house substantially conform to the plans and
specifications and change orders for this job. The builder warrants that during the first 30 days after
the buyer moves in, the builder will adjust or correct minor defects, omissions, or malfunctions, such
as missing equipment or hardware; dripping faucets; and other minor malfunctions reported by the
buyer upon inspection of the property.
Within one (1) year from the dare of closing or occupancy by the buyer, whichever is first, the builder
will repair or replace, at the builders option, any !stern defects in material or workmanship by the
standards of construction. A latent defect is defined as one, which was not apparent or ascertainable at
the time of occupancy. The buyer agrees to accept a reasonable toatch in any tapir or replacement in
the event the original item is no longer available.
2. What is not covered?
A. Damage resulting from fires, floods, storms, electrical malfunctions, accidents, or acts of Bm
B. Damage from a@eratioma, misuse, or abuse of the covered items try any person
C. Damage resulting from the buyer's failure to observe any operating instructions furnished by the
builder at the time of installation
D. Damage resulting from a malfunction of equipment or lines of the telephone, gas, puv or water
companies.
E. Any items listed as Non-warrantable Conditions on the list that is incorporated in this contract;
the btrya acknowledges receipt of the list of Nan-warrantable Conditions (buyer's
iuitials)
F. Any item furnished or installed by the buys
G. Any appliance, piece of equipment, or other item that is a consumer product for the p.upases of
the Magauson•Moss Warranty Act, 15 United States Code 2301 et seq., installed or included in
the buyer's property.
The only warranties on items listed below are those that the manufacturer provides to the buyer:
Appliances
Clothes dryer Kitchen center Refrigerator
clothes washer Microwave Range, stove, cooktop
Dishwasher Oven and ovenhood Trash compactor
Freezer Garbage dispuW Ice maker
fleabag and Ventilation
Air-conditioning Exhaust fan Space heater
Boiler Furnace Thermostat
Electronic air cleaner Heat Pump Namidifier
Mechanical and/or Electrical
burglar alarm Fire extinguisher Smoke detector
central vacuum system Garage door openers water meta
water pump
Chimes Gas mater
Gas or electric barbecue grill fire alarm
Electric meta
Tntercom stereo system
Plumbing
Garbage diapoaei water heater Whirlpool bath
sump pump water softener
The following items are act consumer products wader the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act when sold as
part of a now home:
Heating add Ventilation
Duct Register /radiator
Mechanical and/or Electrical
Circuit treaker Electrical paml box Garage door
Electrical switck?outlet Fuses Wiring
Plumbing
sides Shower stall Faucet, trap, drain
)Bathtub Sprinkler head Laundry tray
Plumbing fittings shower head Toilet
Vanity Sink Medicine cabinet
M1aceWweoas Items
Cabinet Floor covering Shelving
Ceiling (includes tnrpcting, Shingle
Chimney/fireplace linoleum, tile Walliwall covering
poor parquet) Windows
Fencing Outler
If the item has a function separate and apart from the house, it is likely w be considered a consumer
product (such as a water beater, stove, or refrigerator); wltereas other items (such as floorboards and
trusses) are not.
1. The builder has decade any such warranties available to the buyer far the buyer's inspection and the
buyer acknowledges receipt of copies of any warranties requested. (buyer's initials)
2. The builder hereby assigns (to the extent that they are assignable) and conveys to the buyer all
warranties provided to the builder on any manufactured items that have been installed or included in
the buyer's property. The buyer accepts this assignment and acknowledges that the builder's only
responsibility relating to such items is to lend assistance to the buyer in settling any claim resulting
from the installation of these products. (buyer's initials) _ (builder's initials)
3. Remedies and Limitations
A. The buyer understands that the 3010 renodies under this limited warranty agreement are repair and
replacement as se forth. - (buyer' initials)
B. With respect to any claim whatsoever asserted by the buyer against the builder, the buyer
understands that the buyer will have no right to rocover or request compensation fox, and the
builder shall not be liable for:
1. Incidental, oensequential, secondary, or punitive damages.
2. Pameges for aggravation, mental anguish, emotional distress, or pain or suffering
3. Attorney's foes or costs (buyet's initials)
C. The builder hereby limits the duration of all implied warranties, including the implied warranties
of habitability, and workmanlike construction to one (1) year from the date of sale or the date of
occupancy, whichever comes first. (buyer's initials)
D. These limitations stall be enforceable to the extent permitted by law.
E. This warranty is personal to the original buyer and does not run with the property or the items
contained in the house. The original buyer may not assign, transfer, or convey this warranty
without the prior written consent of the builder. _(buyer's initials)
4. now to Obtain Service
if a problem develops during the warranty period, the buyer should notify the builder ul writing at the
address given show of the specific problem. The written statement of the problem should include the
buyer's came, address, telephone number, and a description of the nature of the problem. The builder will
begin performing the obligations under this warranty within a reasonable time of the builder's receipt of
such a request and will diligently pursue these obligations.
Rapair work will be date during the builder's normal working hours except where delay will cause
salditional damage. The buyer agrees to provide the builder or builder's representative access to the house.
The buyer also agrees to provide the presence (during the wank) of a responsible adult with the authority to
approve the repair and sign an acceptance of repair ticket upon completion of the repair.
S. Where to Get Help
If the buytr'a wants help or information conotrni ig this warranty, the buyer should contact the builder.
G Tie Warranty Given by the Sut'lder
The buyer acknowledges (a) that he or she has thoroughly examined the property to be conveyed, (b)
the buyer has read and understands the limited warranty, and (c) the builder has made no guaranties,
warranties, understandings, nor representations (nor have any been made by any representatives of the
builder) that are not set forth in this dotumaot.
I acknowledge having read, understood, and received a copy of this limited warranty agreement
(Buyyerr)'
``?--?? (guYe7?
PC-7ZVf- Tr/Uh+ /3otc?drrs
(Budd
By
Title .
Date_ - J'J'U 2 --
a, a? JJ i iaua +eanna inn nuMt ttd:\.:\. A. 0001/002
vu?? ? 1J.1J ?-?-?
NCO'vIPLETE WORK AGREEMENT
DATE: AUGUST 27,':002
LOAN ID: 0000007542
BORROWER(S): ERIC ROMANUCCI
REBECCA S IOPANUCCI
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 61 ASITON STREET, CARLISLE, PA 17013
Certain work in connection with the above property, as recited in the Schedule below, is incomplete. In order to induce.American
Home Bank, N.A. (Lender) to close the loan notwithstanding the incomplete work, the undersigned Borrower(s) and
Builder(s) agree with each other ane with the Lender, as follows:
1. Upon signing of the Agreement. American Home Bank N.A. shall deposit the sum of S 3,500.00 and shall hold that
stem in escrow and apply the same as provided herein.
2. The work shall be completed b} SEPTEMBER 27 , 2002 The work shall not be deemed to be complete until the
same has been approved by Dmder and a final inspection has been made by a Lender approved irspectoriappraiser.
3. When the work has been fully completed and approved and a final inspection has been made and all contractors have been paid in
full, the remaining escrowed furtds (if any) shall be disbursed to Borrower(s).
4 If the work is not fully completed and approved by the date specified, Lender is authorize& at its election but without obligation
on its pan to do so, either (a) to have the work completed and to charge related costs, together with all related expenses, against
the funds in escrow, or (b) to apply the remaining escrow funds to reduce the indebtedness owed by Borrower(s) to Lender.
If such costs and expenses exceed the amount of funds held in escrow, the undersigned borrower shall pay the excess to Lender
on Demand.
5. Lender shall not be liable for an;i mistakes of factor error of judgment, or for any actor omission of any kind undertaken
pursuant to this Agreement, unless caused by its gross negligence, intentional misconduct or failure to perform as specifically
required by this Agreement. This Agreement is applicable only to the work described on schedule below.
A"(PCL) ARNIM 6W) 03/2002
i
Ub127/2UU2 13:10 C.-Lk 11175374101
Item(s) to be finished or completed
AMERICAN HOME BAN.N.A.
SCEIEDULE OF WORK TO BE COMPLETED
Amounts retained in Escrow:
1. CARPET IN DEN & 2 BEDROOMS &
2. CARPET IN HALLWAY & !,-EAR STEPS
3. RAILING ON THE STAIRS IN FOYER
4. HARDWARE ON THE DOORS.
5. ALL MUST BE COMPLETE WITH A
6. FINAL INSPECTION,
7.
8.
9.
10.
Total amount retained in escrow:
Inspection Fee(s):
Inspection Admin Fee(s):
Total
Dated:
S
S
$
S
$
$
$
S
S
5
5
®002/002
3.500.00
3.500.00
50.00
3.550.00
?• /mot-C'C.CR/? ?LG^') Qr,?000 t
?.vnr,rucr _ ?pneqG??C.?e.?•?4wrzu?G,
ERIC ROMANUCCI REBE S Cl
*GIi:eUlr BUILDERS 'ZNC,
Qf_TeR "Cf7 ENS
By:
Tide:
AHB(pcl) AHhN 6w) 03R002
LOAN TO- onnn007549
ESCROW AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 1T"' day of ao-31• , 2002, by and
between Peter Them Builders, Inc., (hereinafter Seller) and Eric Romanucci and
Rebecca Romanucci, husband and wife, (hereinafter Buyer), and DOUGLAS,
DOUGLAS, & DOUGLAS, hereinafter called Escrow Holder,
WITNESSETH:
The parties hereto intending to be legally bound do hereby agree as
follows:
(1) Seller has conveyed to Buyer the house and lot situate in
Dickinson Township, Cumberland County, known as bl Ashton Street, Carlisle.
PA 17013.
(2) The following items are to be done in a reasonable and good
SAIDIS
iUFE, FLOWER
LINDSAY
1 TTORNEYS•AT•IAW
26 W. High Street
Carlisle, PA
workmanlike manner and of new and good quality by Seller within 30 days
from the date hereof, to wit:
Second coat of paint on doors; areas of lawn to be graded and
seeded where will be damaged by truck; planting trees (as per
contract) by October 15, 2002; repaint office and lay carpet; hole
in wall in downstairs bathroom; complete baseboard in kitchen;
repair of baseboards where damaged; clean house and vacuum;
and complete all construction in a good and workmanlike manner.
(3) Seller has deposited with Escrow Holder the sum of $1,500.00 to
secure performance as aforesaid within the said time, time being of the
essence, and upon failure of the Seller to perform this work, the Escrow Holder
shall pay this money to Buyer to allow Buyer to complete the work, and Buyer
shall be entitled to recover damages for the cost to Buyer of having the work
f I?
completed by other contractors, plus reasonable attorney's fees incurred in
a -e Z .c c t cZ.l? 7?'? c 9 cc -t?- ?^ ee t
collection. W -
(4) The parties hereto agree not to institute or commence any action or
suit whatsoever against the Escrow Holder for repayment of this money as
aforesaid and further agree to indemnify and save Escrow Holder harmless
from any and all liability including costs, expenses and attorney fees. All legal
actions shall be directly between Seller and Buyer for any items not properly
done or for nonpayment therefor.
(5) This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs
assigns,
In witness whereof, the partie hereto set their hand and seals the day
4
SAIDIS
-WFF, FLOWER
& LINDSAY
ATMRN -AT•LAW
26 W. High Stmet
Grtiflc, PA
and year first above written.
Seller
Buyer
Escrow Holder:
DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS & DOUGLAS
By: r?u ?10?L 7 -4.4-q
?` `,vYy?;nA,?C,C
I Nu ?c,, i,,r G-? cc P 'A (n-YLz?vrnu
Buyer
_,. 08/05/2003 09:19 7172438227 BROUJOS & GILROY, PC PAGE 02
July 29, 2003
Dr. and Mrs. Eric Romanucol
61 Ashton St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUBJECT: REVISED Cost Allocations to limited Scope of Corrective Repairs
61 Ashton Street, Carlisle, PA
Dear Dr. and Mrs. Romanucci:
We are pleased to provide you with this revised proposal on making corrective repairs to your home as outlined
below. This proposal supersedes our original proposal dated February 13, 2009. 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.
1. Provide Remedial Structural Steel Repairs
Provide the required remedial structural steel repairs as outlined in sections njL and II.B. of the
Report on Construction Obsefvait/oA4 February 13, 2001- (see Attachment 1)
Beam Reinforcement Rods and Post Cap Plate
Angle Clips
Lentil Repair and Door Remounting Total Price 56,630
2. Provide Remedial Repairs to Manufectured Wooden I-Joists
Provide the required remedial structural repairs as outlined in section II.C. of the Report on
Consbuction Observations, February 19, 2003 (sae Attachment 2).
3. Provide Remedial Root Structural Repairs 1,8J3 8
Provide the required remedial structural repairs as outlined in sections II.D. of the Report on
Conserucdon Observations, February 13, 2003 (see Attachment 3).
Provide Additional Roof Repairs
Provide additional roofline and surface repairs as outlined In section N.C. of the Report on
Con4tructlon Observations, February 11, 2001. (This does NOT Include the total replacement
of the roof, nor does R Include any gutter or downspouting rework.) (see Attachment 3)
4. Provide Remedial HVAC Modifications 25,942A
Provide the required remedial HVAC Modifications as outlined in sections Ill. of the Report on
Consftcftn Ohservayona, February 13, 2003 (Including equipmant stab/rrzaHan) (see
Attach )•
S. Provide an Allowance for General Exterior Repairs 8,34012
Provide an allowance to perform some exterior repairs as outlined in sections IVJ\ of the Report
on Construction Observations, February 13, 2009 (see Attachment 5).
(continued) 17,05&&
RESTORATION, INC.
12 Stover Drive
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-7052 Fox (717) 249-3078
08/05/2003 09:19 7172438227 BROUJOS & GILROY, PC PAGE 03
B. Provide an Allowance for Porch & Deck Repairs
Provide an allowance to perform some porch and deck repairs as outlined in sections N.B. of the
Rapport on Construction Observations, February 12, 2003 (sae Attachment 0).
2,499.8
7. Provide an Allowance for Basement Interior Repairs
Provide an allowance to perform some basement interior repairs as outlined in sections VA of
the Report on Construedon ObaarvaBons, February 13, 2002 (see Attachment 7).
358.12
8. Provide an Allowance for Flrst Floor Interior Repairs
Provide an allowance to perform some first floor interior repairs as outlined in sections N.B. of
the RopW on Construction Observatons, February 13, 2003 (a" Attachment a).
1s,a4bP
8. Provide an Allowance for Stair Repairs
Provide an allowance to perform some stair repairs as outlined in sections N.C. of the Report on
Construction Observations, February 13, 2002 (see Attachment 9).
4,881.0
10. Provide an Allowance for Second Floor Interior Repairs
Providle an allowance to perform some second floor interior repairs as outlined in sections IV.D. of
the Report on Construction Observations, February 13, 2003 (see Attachment 10).
1b,447.8
11. Provide a detailed Report on Construction Observations and Concerns
A comprehensive document with photographs (in hardeopy and electronic forms), a licensed
structural engineer's evaluation, an HVAC evaluation and summary, general conditions and
allocated overhead.
4,284A
12. Provide Remedial Repairs to the Yard Conditions
Providle the required repairs as outlined in section VIA. of the Addendum A Report on
Construction Observations, June 4 2003
16,200 92
13. Provide Remedial Repairs to the Septic System
Provide the required repairs as outlined in section VI.B. of the Addendum A Report on
Constructlon Observations, June 2,200
9'U.8
14. Provide Remedial Repairs to the Front Porch
Provide the required repairs as outlined in section VLC. of the Addendum A Report on
Construction Observations, June 2, 2002
3,97'6.8
15. Provide a Frost Wall
Add a ;frost wall 38' deep with footer, 38' high block wall and a total of 3o I.f. including excavation
and backfill. (see Attachment f1)
3,207.8
18. Provide complete EIFS as detailed below:
a. Installation to be performed under the installation details provided by the
manufacturer and E.I.M.A.
b. Demolition provided as required.
C. Install 1 W E.P.S. base foam,
d. Install I Ys' trim bands around windows and doors.
e. Expansion joint to be provided at floor plate and caulked.
f. Tryflex' to be provided at grade to protect substrate.
9. Colors to be approved by owner prior to ordering material.
h. Samples to be provided upon request.
I. Protection of all exposures (I.e., concrete, windows, shingles, etc.).
1. All caulking to be performed where deemed necessary per E.I.M.A. specifications,
k. All caulking to be performed with approved manufacturer sealant.
I. No painting is included. (see Attachment 12)
28,s18.'?
(Continued)
08/05/2003 09:19 7172438227 BROUJOS & GILROY, PC PAGE 04
17. Provide services to remove and replace lumber
Remove Y x 6" lumber and replace with 2" x 10" lumber consisting of 42 I.f. and related work
activities. isea Attachment 1J)
288.E
1e. Provide services to remove and reinstall concrete
Remove and reinstall segling concrete on porch area consisting of detail on estimated
allowances (concrete - remove and replace only). (see Attachment 14)
6,Y88 ?
Total Allowance (Estimate Only). $187,992.27
The above cost allowance is a sampling of items of concem for the Romanuccl's. should alterations occur,
additional items may be added and costed out.
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:
By:
TUCKEy RESTORATION, INC.
Kenneth L Tuckey, President
f. 03TR,Am nahuod,Rwmr ,Aw1cW,0729.doe
- Tuckey Restoration, Inc. Is an Equal Opportunity Employer -
(???
'?v\ ? ? ? ?
} ? ,.'
\ yJ
v. ?
? ??
V. ?. _
v m
O ?.
?..' ... c _--? -
L
G
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2003-04085 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
ROMANUCCI ERIC ET AL
VS
PETER THEM BUILDERS INC
KENNETH GOSSERT
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
PETER THEM BUILDERS INC
the
DEFENDANT , at 2118:00 HOURS, on the 5th day of September, 2003
at 9 RAPUANO WAY
CARLISLE, PA 17013
DEBBIE THEM, PETER'S WIFE,
by handing to
ADULT IN CHARGE
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Service 4.14
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
.00
32.14
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this i? day of
a &a3 A.D.
OM-thonotary
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
09/08/2003
BROUJOS & GILROY
By:
Dep ty er'f
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE
ENCLOSED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
By
lane M. To arsky
Attorney I.D. No. 44369
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
(717) 232-8000
Attorneys for Defendant,
Peter Them Builders, Inc.
Dated: September 26, 2003
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.
NOW COMES, Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. ("Them"), by and through its
counsel, McNees Wallace & Nurick, LLC, and makes the following preliminary objections to the
Complaint.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PA.R. CIV. P. 1028(a)(4)
IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER TO COUNT It OF THE COMPLAINT
In Count II, Plaintiffs assert a claim of breach of implied warranty of habitability
and good workmanship in connection with a purchase under a Pennsylvania Realtor's Standard
Agreement for the Sale of New Construction (hereinafter "Agreement of Sale", Exhibit "A" to
the Complaint").
2. Pursuant to Paragraph 28 of the Agreement of Sale, Defendant disclaimed any
warranties, express or implied, including those of workmanlike construction, habitability, design,
condition, quality or otherwise and Plaintiffs agreed to waive any and all rights which they might
have by virtue of such warranties and in lieu thereof, accepted a limited warranty which was
executed by the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' claims of breach of implied warranty of habitability and good
workmanship are barred by the express language of the Agreement of Sale.
4. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Count IT.
5. In its prayer for relief clause under Count II, Plaintiffs request that this Court
order rescission of the Agreement of Sale.
6. Plaintiffs have failed to plead or meet the elements of rescission.
7. Rescission is an equitable remedy not available in an action at law.
8. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for rescission under Count II.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. respectfully requests this Honorable
Court to dismiss Count II of the Complaint or in the alternative, dismiss Plaintiffs' demand for
rescission under Count II.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PA.R. CIV. P. 1028(a)(4)
IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER TO COUNT IV OF THE COMPLAINT
9. Count IV of the Complaint is a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation alleged to
have occurred at the time of entering the Agreement of Sale.
10. Plaintiffs' allegations of fraud relate to the quality of workmanship of the home,
which is the subject of the Agreement of Sale.
11. Plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages related to the cost to rectify the
alleged deficiencies or rescission of the Agreement of Sale.
12. As set forth above, Plaintiffs have neither plead nor met the elements of
rescission.
13. Rescission is an equitable remedy not available in an action at law.
2
14. To the extent Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages, Plaintiffs' sole claim is for
monetary damages.
15. Plaintiffs' claims arise out of the Agreement of Sale and, therefore, Plaintiffs'
claim of fraudulent misrepresentation is barred by the economic loss doctrine.
16. The gist of the action doctrine likewise bars Plaintiffs' fraudulent
misrepresentation claim as the parties obligations arise out of the Agreement of Sale.
17. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Count: IV of the Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. respectfully requests this Honorable
Court to dismiss Count IV of the Complaint or in the alternative, dismiss Plaintiffs' demand for
rescission under Count IV.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PA.R. CIV. P. 1028(a)(4)
IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER TO COUNT V OF THE COMPLAINT
18. In Count V of the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek to bring a private action for an
alleged violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73
P. S. 201-1 et seq.
19. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the law by representing that the good and
services, i.e., the home, where of a particular standard, quality or grade when they were another.
(Complaint, ¶60)
20. Although Plaintiffs further contend that Defendant has failed to comply with the
terms of any written guarantee or warranty and that Defendant made inferior repairs or
improvements or replacements, such statement is contrary to Count I of the Complaint wherein
Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment as to whether they have to allow Defendant to remedy
the alleged deficiencies under the Limited Warranty contained in the Agreement of Sale.
(Complaint, ¶¶60 (b)(c)).
21. Plaintiffs' claim under the Unfair Trade Practices Act again relate to allegedly
fraudulent representations in connection with the Agreement of Sale.
22. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages under Count V of the Complaint.
23. Plaintiffs' claims under Count V are barred by the economic loss doctrine and gist
of the action doctrines as the claims origin is the Agreement of Sale.
25. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Count V.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. respectfully requests this Honorable
Court to dismiss Count V of the Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
McNEES WALLA.CE & NURICK LLC
By
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
(717) 232-8000
Attorneys for Defendant,
Peter Them Builders, Inc.
Dated: September 26, 2003
4
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 26th day of September, 2003, a true and
correct copy of the foregoing document was served via United States Mail, First Class, postage
prepaid, upon the following individuals:
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
BROUJOS & GILROY
4 N. Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Frank A. Nardo, Jr., Esquire
STOCK and LEADER PC
35 S. Duke Street
P. O. Box 51167
York, PA 1741
0
?. 'n
*j
_
t
,
J rn
l 1
-
.c '
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
pi ease list the within matter for the next Argument Court.
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
Eric Romanucci and Rebecca S. Romanucci
(plaintiff)
VS.
Peter Them Builders, Inc.
(Defendant)
No. 03-4085 Cavil
1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's mption for new trial, defendant's
denurrer to complaint, etc.):
Defendant's Preliminary objections
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
Frank A. Nardo, Esquire
(a) for plaintiff: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Stock & Leader
Address: Broujos & Gilroy, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street 221 W. Philadelphia St., Ste 6C
York, PA 17404
Carlisle, PA 17013
(b) for defendant: Diane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
Address: McNees, Wallace & Nuri.ck
100 Pine St.
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108 that this case has
3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days
been listed for arynme-nt.
4. pent Court Date: October 22, 2003
??a?a 3 Attorney for P a nt
Dated:
mac- .:.,
c!' r
=ii
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
NOW COMES Plaintiffs, Eric Romanucci and Rebecca S. Romanucci, by and through
their attorneys, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire of Broujos & Gilroy, P.C. and Frank A. Nardo, Jr.,
Esquire of Stock and Leader, without waiving the defense that an Answer to the Preliminary
Objections is not necessary pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028; and file this Answer as follows:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PA.R. CIV. P. 1028(a)(4)
IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER TO COUNT II OF THE COMPLAINT
1. ADMITTED.
2. DENIED. Defendant restates the contents of a writing which speaks for itself
and to which no response is necessary; further, Defendant states a conclusion of law also to
which no response is required. By way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the
averment.
3. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is required;
I Defendant's counsel has endorsed Defendant's Preliminary Objections with a Notice to Plead suggesting that
Judgment may be entered for failing to file a response thereto.All Defendant's Preliminary Objections fall squarely
within Pa.R.C.P. 1028(4) which, by comment to the Rule, "may be determined from facts of record so that further
evidence is not required." Plaintiffs' counsel assumes this is simply an oversight, however, without waiving this
defense, Plaintiffs' counsel files this Answer, so as not to impair Plaintiffs' rights or defenses to the Objections.
by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
4. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is required;
by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
ADMITTED. By way of further answer, in addition to rescission of the
Agreement of Sale, Plaintiffs seek restitution; in the alternative. Plaintiffs seek damages.
Plaintiffs also seek costs, interest and any other relief deemed just by the Court.
6. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is required;
by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
7. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is required;
by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
8. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is required;
by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court deny Defendant's
Preliminary Objections and Order Defendant to file an Answer to the Complaint or have default
judgment entered against Defendant.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PA.R. CIV. P. 1028(a)(4)
IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER TO COUNT IV OF THE COMPLAINT
9. ADMITTED.
10. DENIED as stated. At the time of entering the Agreement of Sale, Them
represented to Romanuccis that the work on the property was, or would be, completed in a good
and workmanlike manner and consistent with standard industry practices. Further, Them
represented to Romanuccis that the work on the property was, or would be, inspected for
compliance with an applicable building code or a nationally recognized model building code.
Plaintiffs believe the aforesaid representations were false.
11. DENIED as stated. Plaintiffs seek rescission of the Agreement of Sale and
restitution; in the alternative, Plaintiffs seek damages. Plaintiffs also seek costs, interest and
any other relief deemed just by the Court.
12. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required; by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
13. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required; by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
14. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required; by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
15. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required; by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
16. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required; by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
17. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required; by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court deny Defendant's
Preliminary Objections and Order Defendant to file an Answer to the Complaint or have default
judgment entered against Defendant.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PA.R. CIV. P. 1028(a)(4)
IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER TO COUNT V OF THE COMPLAINT
18. ADMITTED.
19. ADMITTED. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs believe Defendant violated
the Consumer Protection law also by failing to comply with the terms of any written guarantee
or warranty given to the Buyer at, prior to or after a contract: for the purchase of goods or
services as made; as well as, by making repairs, improvements or replacements on tangible,
real or personal property, of a nature or quality inferior to or below the standard of that agreed
to in writing.
20. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required; by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment, as Plaintiffs
believe Defendant is unwilling and incapable of complying with said warranty.
21. DENIED as stated. Defendant violated the Consumer Protection law by
representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality or grade when they are
another; by failing to comply with the terms of any written guarantee or warranty given to the
Buyer at, prior to or after a contract for the purchase of goods or services as made; as well as,
by making repairs, improvements or replacements on tangible, real or personal property, of a
nature or quality inferior to or below the standard of that agreed to in writing.
22. ADMITTED. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages,
attorneys fees and costs, interest and any other relief deemed just by the Court.
23. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required; by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
24. [No averment made by Defendant in Preliminary Objections.]
25. DENIED. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no response is
required; by way of further response, however, Plaintiffs deny the averment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court deny Defendant's
Preliminary Objections and Order Defendant to file an Answer to the Complaint or have
default judgment entered against Defendant.
Respectfully submitted,
BROUJOS && GI:LROY, P.C.
By:
/
ubert X. Gilroy, Es ire
I.D. #29943
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-4574
(Attorney for Plaintiffs)
VERIFICATION
Pursuant to Rule 1024(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, I have
executed this verification based on information supplied to me by Plaintiffs and it is true to
the best of my knowledge, information and belief, further, the Answer is based upon
averments contained in the Complaint, and I have sufficient knowledge or information and
belief concerning the matters alleged to make this verification. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating
to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
/(/ -:) -a5
Date
L?-K 2
Hubert X. Gil y, Esquire
Attorney for laintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this a nJ day of October, 2003, I, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, of the
law firm of Broujos & Gilroy, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I served the
within Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendant's Preliminary Objections this day by depositing the
same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Diane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
McNees, Wallace & Nurick
100 Pine Street
P. O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17105-1166
(Attorney for Defendant)
BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C.
By
Hubert X. Gilroy squire
I.D. #29943 G
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-4574
(Attorney for Plaintiffs)
e
r
f]
#22.
ERIC ROMANUCCI and
REBECCA ROMANUCCI
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS,
INC.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2003-4085 CIVIL TERM
IN R*: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
BEFORE HOFFER, P.J.. GUIDO J
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW this 28TH day of OCTOBER, 2003, after reviewing the briefs filed by
each party, and ha
DISMISSED.
Plaintiffs'
proceed concurrer
amended to read "
heard argument thereon, Defendant's Preliminary Objections are
claims for recession are hereby transferred to equity and may
with the claims of law. The caption of this shall be and is hereby
- Law and Equity."
Edward E. Guido, J.
%/Hubert X. Gilroy, E
&--Frank A. Nardo, Jr.,
yDiane M. Tokarsky,
:sld
7O? ?-
RKs
10-30'x3
vlor"1101,91tK(tJ
)IN)OI)
pE'J, 60
A0
NOV 2 0 2003 )'
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
NOTICE TO PLEAD
To: Eric Romanucci and Rebecca S. Romanucci
C/O Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
Broujos and Gilroy, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New matter within twenty (20)
days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you.
Respectfully submitted,
McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
BY
I lane M. sky
.D. Nc.44 T 369
James W. Kutz
I.D. No. 47245
Garrett H. Rothman
I.D. No. 88471
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
(717) 237-5354
Attorneys for :Defendant
Dated: November)9, 2003 Peter Them Builders, Inc.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER
OF DEFENDANT PETER THEM BUILDERS. INC.
COMES NOW, Defendant, Peter Them Builders, Inc., ("Them Builders") by and
through its counsel, McNees Wallace & Nurick, LLC, and files this Answer with New
Matter as follows:
1. Admitted upon information and belief.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Them Builders is a
builder of new homes, which are sold to the public. It is specifically denied that Them
Builders held itself out to be a "professional and expert in the business of residential
construction". Them Builders acted in a manner and consistent with the standard and
level of care of a residential contractor in the Carlisle community. By way of further
response, Plaintiffs did not purchase a custom built home, but a "spec" home which was
already well under construction at the time which Plaintiffs executed the Agreement of
Sale. Plaintiffs entered the Agreement of Sale following their own inspection of the
home under construction. Plaintiffs had every opportunity to examine the home and have
it inspected prior to entering into the Agreement of Sale or settling on the Property itself.
4. Denied. The Agreement of Sale, being a writing, speaks for itself and any
characterization thereof by Plaintiffs is denied.
5. Denied. The Agreement of Sale, together with the Specifications are
writings, and as such, speak for themselves and any characterization thereof by Plaintiffs
is denied.
6. Denied. The Agreement of Sale, together with the Warranty are writings,
and as such, speak for themselves and any characterization thereof by Plaintiffs is denied.
7. Admitted.
8. Denied. The Agreement of Sale, being a writing, speaks for itself and
any characterization thereof by Plaintiffs is denied.
9. Denied. It is denied that "substantial" work remained to be completed at
the Property at the time of Settlement. Rather, the only items which needed to be
completed were punchlist items identified in the incomplete Work Agreement and
Escrow Agreement, which Them Builders made a good faith effort to complete. Them
Builders, however, was not permitted to complete the items because Plaintiffs did not
provide access to the Property in order to give Them Builders the opportunity to perform
its work.
10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the parties entered
into an agreement entitled "Incomplete Work Agreement" which provided for the escrow
of $3,500 and inspection fees of $50. The Incomplete Work Agreement is a writing that
speaks for itself, and any characterization regarding the Incomplete Work Agreement by
Plaintiffs is denied.
2
11. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that following an
inspection of the Property by the Plaintiffs and their realtor, a list of minor punchlist
items was generated which formed the basis of the Escrow .Agreement which is attached
to Plaintiffs Complaint as Exhibit "E". The Escrow Agreement is a writing that speaks
for itself, and any characterization regarding the Escrow Agreement by Plaintiffs is
denied.
12. Denied. The Escrow Agreement, being a writing, speaks for itself and
any characterization thereof by Plaintiffs is denied.
13. Denied. The Escrow Agreement, being a writing, speaks for itself and
any characterization thereof by Plaintiffs is denied.
14. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 14 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. By way of further response, Them Builders made a good
faith attempt to make repairs of the carpeting as identified in the Incomplete Work
Agreement and the Escrow Agreement. Specifically, shortly after closing, Them
Builders offered to replace all of the carpeting in question with brand new carpeting.
Two weeks after offering to replace said carpeting with new carpeting, Them Builder's
employers went to Plaintiffs' house to install the new carpeting. The employees,
however, were forced by Plaintiffs to leave the house before having the opportunity to
perform the installation of the carpet. As to the tree planting identified in paragraph 14,
as per the Escrow Agreement, Them Builders was fully willing and prepared to plant
trees on the Property by October 15, 2002. Because Plaintiffs denied Them Builder's
access to the property, however, Them Builders has never been given the opportunity to
plant the trees as agreed upon. Any suggestion that the work of Them Builders was not
performed in a good and workmanlike manner is specifically denied.
15. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 15 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. By way of further response, the Plaintiffs had a duty
under the Agreement of Sale, Incomplete Work Agreement and Escrow Agreement to
provide Them Builders with access to their home in order to perform the punchlist work
identified in said documents. By refusing to allow Them Builder to have access to the
Property, Plaintiffs prohibited Them Builders from performing under the above-
mentioned agreements.
16. Admitted upon information and belief.
17. Denied. It is denied that there exists latent: defects in the Property. To
the extent that the Plaintiffs are "concerned that latent defects exist which may not have
become manifest and which may not become manifest for some time" is purely
speculative and as such, said averments are denied. Proof thereof is demanded at trial.
18. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Them Builders
provided the Plaintiffs with a Limited Warranty covering the one year period after
settlement. It is further admitted that Them Builders told the Plaintiffs that a Certificate
of Occupancy would be issued for the Property. In fact, Plaintiffs' prior counsel was
provided with a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy at closing on the Property. It is
denied that Them Builders represented that the Property would comply with a nationally
recognized model building code. To the contrary, Dickinson Township had not adopted
any such building code at the time of construction of the Property. With respect to the
Agreement of Sale, such is a written document and as such, speaks for itself. Any
characterizations of its terms by the Plaintiffs are denied. By way of further response,
Them Builders did issue a one-year warranty covering the construction; the building was
inspected by the local authority; and a certificate of occupancy was issued for the
Property.
19. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 19 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further
response, the Property was inspected by a local authority and a Certificate of Occupancy
was issued.
20. Denied. The agreement referenced in paragraph 20, being a writing,
speaks for itself and any characterization thereof by Plaintiffs is denied. By way of
further explanation, Them Builders did provide a Certificate of Occupancy to Plaintiffs,
through Plaintiffs' prior counsel, at settlement on August 27, 2002.
21. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs have yet to be provided
with a Certificate of Occupancy to the Property by Them Builders. To the contrary,
Them Builders did provide Plaintiff, through Plaintiffs' prior counsel, with a Certificate
of Occupancy to the Property at settlement on August 27, 2002.
22. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 22 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further
response, Them Builders performed all work in a good and workmanlike manner and in
accordance with the generally acceptable standards of construction in this geographic
area.
23. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 23 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further
response, Plaintiffs examined the home under construction and again, with their realtor,
prior to settlement.
24. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 24 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. By way of further response, Them Builder responds as
follows:
(a) Denied. It is specifically denied that the primary steel I-beam
supporting the Plaintiffs' home is severely over-stressed, is undersized or has insufficient
support posts which results in severe deflection of the beans. To the contrary, the beam
was installed in a good and workmanlike manner and is sufficient for its intended
purpose. By way of further response, the exposed beam was inspected by Plaintiffs and
their realtor prior to settlement on the Property and was not identified as deficient in any
manner.
(b) Denied. It is specifically denied that various steel I-beams have
insufficient bearing on the concrete foundation walls, which results in the likelihood of
spalling of the foundation wall. It is further denied that there is a potential for failure of
the support for the beams. To the contrary, the exposed beams were installed in a good
and workmanlike manner and are sufficient for their intended purpose. After reasonable
investigation, Them Builders is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 24(b) and the same are,
therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded at trial.
(c) Denied. After reasonable investigation, Them Builders is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of
Paragraph 24(c) relating to "questionable structural integrity" and the same are, therefore,
6
denied. Proof thereof is demanded at trial. It is specifically denied that the center steel I-
beam is spliced in an improper and inadequate fashion. To the contrary, the beam was
installed in a good and workmanlike manner and is sufficient for its intended purpose.
(d) Admitted in part and denied in part. it is admitted that the lintel is
cracked on the side, but such crack does not impair the structural integrity of the lintel. It
is specifically denied that the "poured concrete lintel above an exterior basement door is
sagging and severely compromised, apparently due to a lack of adequate reinforcing
steel, or to frost heaving the footings underneath or both." To the contrary, the poured
concrete lintel was constructed in a good and workmanlike manner. By way of further
response, the concrete lintel was inspected by Plaintiffs and their realtor prior to
settlement on the Property and was not identified as deficient in any manner.
(e) Denied. It is specifically denied that numerous interior and
exterior doors are misaligned or improperly hung or that they will not close or latch
properly. Byway of further response, the doors used at the Property were factory pre-
hung by the manufacturer, and thus are covered by a manufacturer's warranty. Moreover,
the Plaintiffs and their realtor inspected the doors prior to settlement on the Property and
the doors were not identified as deficient in any manner.
(f) Denied. After reasonable investigation, Them Builders is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of
Paragraph 24(f) as they relate to "excessively" or "the possibility of a structural failure of
the joists" and the same are, therefore, denied. Proof thereof is demanded at trial. It is
specifically denied that several floor joists are cut excessively or that any cuts impair the
structural integrity of the joists. To the contrary, the floor joists were installed in a good
and workmanlike manner and are sufficient for their intended purpose. By way of further
response, the floor joists are exposed and were inspected by the Plaintiffs and their realtor
prior to settlement on the Property and were not identified as deficient in any manner.
(g) Denied. It is specifically denied that the heating, ventilation and
air conditioning systems of the property is inadequately designed and installed or that
there is inadequate heating and cooling of the Property. To the contrary, the heating,
ventilation and air conditioning systems were adequately designed and were installed in a
good and workmanlike manner.
(h) Denied. It is specifically denied that the rear exterior deck is
designed and installed in a substantially deficient manner, or that there is a significant
and unacceptable deflection of the joists and beams supporting the deck. It is further
denied that there is a hazardous condition for persons or property. To the contrary, the
deck was adequately designed and was installed in a good and workmanlike manner. By
way of further response, the deck is exposed and was inspected by Plaintiffs and their
realtor prior to settlement on the Property and was not identified as deficient in any
manner.
(i) Denied. After reasonable investigation, Them Builders is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of
Paragraph 24(i) as such are speculative and incomplete and the same are, therefore,
denied. Proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further response, the brick veneers
on the concrete porch are fine. Moreover, the brick veneer is exposed and was inspected
by Plaintiffs and their realtor prior to settlement on the Property and was not identified as
deficient in any manner.
0) Denied. It is specifically denied that any portion of the electrical
system is underdesigned or improperly constructed. To the contrary, the electrical system
was properly designed and installed by Them Builders and was inspected and approved
by a local authority.
(k) Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the railing
on the stairs in foyer needed to be completed and is identified on the Incomplete Work
Agreement. It is specifically denied that the main rail system is improperly designed and
installed as set forth by Plaintiff. It is further denied that newel posts of the railing are
inadequately anchored or present a possibility of a failure. After reasonable
investigation, Them is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 24(k) and the same are, therefore,
denied. Proof thereof is demanded at trial.
(1) Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that additional
work needed to be performed in connection with the carpeting in the home which resulted
in the Incomplete Work Agreement. It is denied that all of the carpeting throughout the
Property was installed poorly or constitutes a trip hazard. The remaining averments of
Paragraph 24(1) are specifically denied. By way of further response, Them Builders has
made a good faith effort to make repairs to the carpeting at the Property or replace the
carpeting, but Plaintiffs have refused to allow Them Builders to make such repairs or
replacement.
(m) Denied. It is specifically denied that the smoke detectors are not
hard wired. The smoke detectors were hard-wired in the house with battery back-up.
The smoke detectors are not battery-operated only. The remaining averments of
9
Paragraph 24(m) are denied as conclusions of law or are merely speculative by the
plaintiff. Proof thereof, if relevant and material, is demanded at trial.
(n) Denied. It is specifically denied that the Exterior Insulation and
Finish System was improperly installed by Them Builders or fails to meet the
manufacturer's specifications. To the contrary, the Exterior Insulation and Finish System
was properly installed and has not exhibited any signs of failure.
(o) Denied. It is specifically denied that the septic system has
insufficient topsoil coverage. The remaining averments are speculation on the part of
Plaintiffs and are specifically denied. The septic system has 6" topsoil coverage, which is
sufficient coverage, as evidenced by the issuance of the Permit for Installation of Sewage
Disposal System issued by Dickinson Township Supervisors, which was subsequently
inspected and approved by the Sewer Enforcement Officer of Dickinson Township.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not identify any problems that have already occurred with the
septic system, instead alleging only that there is a "possibility of sewage percolating to
the surface of the ground."
(p) Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that there are
limited areas of buried organic material present on the Property. It is specifically denied,
however, that this organic material would "create the potential for termite and wood-
destroying insect infestation." The Property backs up against a tree line and farm.
Considering the proximity of the Property to this wooded area, there is always the
potential for termite or other insect activity. The presence; of buried organic material
could in no significant way contribute to the possibility o F termite or other insect activity
10
on the Property. Additionally, it is denied that the organic material could cause
sinkholes.
(q) Denied. Paragraph 24(q) as written is illogical and appears to be
the combination of two different paragraphs. As such, Defendant is unable to respond
and denies all averments. Moreover, while the page numbers of the Complaint are
consecutive, it appears that a portion of the Complaint is missing. The Complaint goes
from Paragraph 24(q) on page 8 to a partial, seemingly unrelated paragraph on page 9,
followed by subparagraph (ii). As to the averments that exist in Paragraph 24(q), it is
denied that the footings of the foundation of the Property have insufficient frost coverage.
To the contrary, adequate frost coverage exists and over a year after construction, the
Property does not exhibit any problems with the foundation.
(ii) Denied. It is specifically denied that there is fractured
stone veneer and cracks throughout the mortar joints. To the contrary, the stone veneer
was installed properly and is functioning properly. By wavy of further response, Plaintiffs
and their realtor inspected the Property prior to settlement and the stone veneer was not
identified as being deficient in any manner.
(iii) Denied. It is specifically denied that there are numerous
concrete splatters over other exterior finishes. To the contrary, the concrete was installed
in accordance with the standards in the industry. By way of further response, the
concrete and the exterior was inspected by Plaintiffs and their realtor prior to settlement
on the Property and the concrete and exterior were not identified as deficient in any
manner.
11
(iv) Denied. It is specifically denied that the air conditioning
compressor pads are tilted excessively. To the contrary, such pads were installed in
accordance with the standards in the industry. By way of further response, the air
conditioning compressor pad was inspected by Plaintiffs and their realtor prior to
settlement on the Property and was not identified as deficient in any manner.
(v) Denied. It is denied that there is irregular brick spacing and
cutting. To the contrary, the brick spacing and cutting was performed in a good and
workmanlike manner and in accordance with the standards in the industry. By way of
further response, the brick was inspected by Plaintiffs and their realtor prior to settlement
on the Property and was not identified as deficient in any manner.
(vi) Denied. It is specifically denied that there is improper fit at
various locations of the vinyl siding. To the contrary, the vinyl siding was properly fitted
throughout the Property and installed in accordance with the standards in the industry.
By way of further response, the vinyl siding was inspected by Plaintiffs and their realtor
prior to settlement on the property and was not identified as deficient in any manner.
(vii) Denied. It is specifically denied that there is poor
workmanship and fit of front porch railing or a damaged porch post. The front porch
railing was constructed and installed in a proper and workmanlike manner. By way of
further response, the front porch railing and post was inspected by Plaintiffs and their
realtor prior to settlement on the Property and was not identified as deficient in any
manner.
(viii) Denied. It is specifically denied that there is soil settlement
at various areas around house and under the deck. If any such settlement exists, it is the
12
result of natural forces and not any improper performance by Them Builders. By way of
further response, the property was inspected by Plaintiffs and their realtor prior to
settlement on the Property and was not identified as deficient in any manner.
(ix) Denied. It is specifically denied that there is irregular
shingling on roof and damaged drip edge at numerous locations. The shingles and drip
edge were installed in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with standards
in the industry. By way of further response, the shingles and drip edge were inspected
by Plaintiffs and their realtor prior to settlement on the Property and were not identified
as deficient in any manner.
(x) Denied. It is specifically denied that there is improper
placement of downspouts and/or improper slope to the gutter resulting in standing water
in gutter. To the contrary, the gutters and downspout were installed in a good and
workmanlike manner and in accordance with standards in the industry. By way of further
response, the gutters and downspouts were inspected by Plaintiffs and their realtor prior
to settlement on the Property and were not identified as deficient in any manner.
(xi) Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that
Them Builders was to repaint the office as identified on the Escrow Agreement. It is
denied that there is inadequate paint coverage on many areas within the Property or paint
splatters over other interior finishes and hardware. To the: contrary, the painting of the
Property was performed in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with
standards in the industry. By way of further response, the painting was specifically
inspected by Plaintiffs and their realtor prior to settlement and the office was found to be
13
acceptable. Plaintiffs have denied Them Builders access to the Property to complete the
work under the Escrow Agreement.
(xii) Admitted. It is admitted that the grout joints are unsealed
in the house. Them Builders was under no obligation to seal the grout joints.
(xiii) Denied. It is denied that there: are "holes, nail pops and
irregular finishing in the drywall work throughout the Property." By way of further
response, the drywall was installed in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance
with the standards in the industry.
(ix) - (xiii) Plaintiffs appear to have inadvertently repeated these
paragraphs from page 9 of the Complaint. Accordingly, these paragraphs are denied for
the reasons stated above.
(xiv) Denied. It is denied that screws and hardware are missing
on various cabinets. The General Specifications of the Property call for the cabinets to be
without handles. By way of further response, the cabinets were inspected by Plaintiffs
and their realtor prior to settlement on the Property and were not identified as deficient in
any manner.
(xv) Denied. It is denied that the countertops in the kitchen area
are of poor fit and workmanship. To the contrary, the kitchen cabinets were installed in a
good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the standards in the industry. By
way of further response, the countertops in the kitchen were inspected by Plaintiffs and
their realtor prior to settlement on the Property and were not identified as deficient in any
manner.
14
(xvi) Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that
completion of the baseboard in the kitchen and repair of baseboards is identified in the
Escrow Agreement. It is denied that all trim panels and moulding are missing on the
cabinets in the kitchen. To the contrary, the kitchen cabinets were installed in a good and
workmanlike manner and in accordance with the standards in the industry. By way of
further response, the Plaintiffs have denied Them Builders access to the Property to
complete the work identified in the Escrow Agreement.
(xvii) Denied. It is denied that there is poor mitering or general
installation of trim work in various areas of the Property. To the contrary, the trim work
was installed in a good and workmanlike manner and in accordance with the standards in
the industry. By way of further response, the trim work was inspected by Plaintiffs and
their realtor prior to settlement on the Property and were not identified as deficient in any
manner.
(xviii) Denied. It is denied that the closet shelving was installed in
places without sufficient support brackets and no clothes bar installed in any closets. To
the contrary, the closet shelving was sufficiently supported and no clothes bars were
required under the Specifications.
25. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs
seek more than $25,000. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs are entitled to any
damages.
26. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 26 constitute a legal
conclusion and the same are, therefore, denied.
15
COUNT I - ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
27. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 26 above are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
28. Admitted in part and denied. To the extent that Paragraph 28 constitutes a
legal conclusion, it is denied. Any suggestion that incomplete or deficient workmanship
exists is further denied. It is admitted that counsel for Them Builder's advised Plaintiffs
prior counsel that to the extent that there are items which need to be corrected or
completed such as those on the Escrow Agreement or fall within the Limited Warranty,
Them Builders was prepared to return to the home and correct conditions in accordance
with the Builder's Statement of Nonwarrantable Conditions and Builder's Limited
Warranty Agreement which were executed by both Dr. and. Mrs. Romanicci. Plaintiffs,
however, have denied Them Builders access to the Property to perform said work.
29. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 29 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. By way of further answer, Them Builders has made a
good faith effort to complete all work on the Project, but was prohibited from doing so by
the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, through their various counsel, have advised Them Builders that
unless Them Builders commits to remedy all of the items which Plaintiffs unilaterally
claim are the responsibility of Them Builders and/or are deficient, Plaintiffs will not
allow Them Builders to perform the work. Moreover, as stated in Paragraph 31 of the
Complaint, Plaintiffs have precluded Them Builders from completing its work due to
their wrongful belief that "Them is incompetent and unable to correct the problems with
the Property".
16
30. Denied. Them Builders is unable to form a belief as to the truth of the
averments of Paragraph 30 relating to Plaintiffs beliefs and the same are, therefore,
denied. It is specifically denied that Them Builders are incompetent or unable to correct
any alleged problems with the Property. By way of further response, Plaintiffs have
precluded Them Builders from completing its work. The answering averments of
Paragraphs 28 and 29 above are incorporated herein by reference.
31. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 31 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. By way of further response, the Plaintiffs signed the
Limited Warranty and should be bound by the terms thereof. There is no ambiguity. The
answering averments to Paragraphs 28 through 30 above are incorporated herein by
reference.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to enforce the Limited Warranty executed by the Plaintiffs and enter
judgment in favor of Them Builders and against Plaintiffs together with costs, expenses
and such other relief the Court deems just.
COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
OF HABITABILITY AND GOOD WORKMANSHIP
32. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 31 above are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
33. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 33 constitutes a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied.
34. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 34 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
17
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference. By way
of further response, Plaintiffs have inhabited the Property for well over one year.
35. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 35 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated. herein by reference.
36. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 36 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference.
37. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 37 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference.
38. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 38 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference. By way
of further response, as stated throughout this Answer, Them Builders has attempted to
make repairs of the Property in good faith, but, contrary to Plaintiffs' averments,
Plaintiffs have refused in bad faith and in breach of the Agreement to cooperate with
Them Builders in allowing Them Builders to perform punchlist and warranty work on the
Property.
39. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 39 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference. By way
of further response, as stated throughout this Answer, Them Builders has attempted to
18
make repairs of the Property in good faith, but, contrary to Plaintiffs' averments,
Plaintiffs have refused in bad faith and in breach of the Agreement, to cooperate with
Them Builders in allowing Them Builders to perform punchlist and warranty work on the
Property.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and deny Plaintiffs'
demand for rescission and award Defendant costs, expenses and such other relief the
Court deems just.
COUNT III -BREACH OF CONTRACT
40. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 39 above are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
41. Denied. The averments of Paragraphs 41(a)-(j) constitute legal
conclusions and the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs
1 through 30above and Paragraph 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by
reference. By way of further response, a Certificate of Occupancy was provided to
Plaintiffs' prior counsel at settlement. Moreover, Plaintiffs have refused and denied
Them Builders the right to enter the Property and complete its work. The septic system
was inspected and certified.
42. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 42 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference.
19
43. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 43 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference.
44. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 44 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. By way of further response., as stated throughout this
Answer, Plaintiffs have denied Them the opportunity to cure any alleged defects or
incomplete work on the Property. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Pargraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference.
45. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 45 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. By way of further response:, it is Plaintiffs who have
failed to act in good faith, refusing to allow Them Builders to perform warranty and
punchlist work on the Project. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference.
46. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 46 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and deny Plaintiffs'
demand for rescission and award Defendant costs, expenses and such other relief the
Court deems just.
COUNT Iv -FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
47. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 46 above are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
20
48. Denied. It is denied that Them Builders made any express representations
as to industry practices or manner of construction. No such express representations were
made. By way of further response, the home was not a custom home and was well under
construction when Plaintiffs and their realtor inspected the home and signed the
Agreement of Sale.
49. Denied. It is denied that Them Builders made any representations relating
to an applicable building code or nationally recognized model building code. The local
municipality has not adopted any building codes and no such representations were made
by Them Builders.
50. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 50 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference. By way
of further response, Plaintiffs chose to enter into the Agreement of Sale based on their
own inspection of the Property along with that of their realtor.
51. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 51 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference. By way
of further response, Plaintiffs chose to enter into the Agreement of Sale based on their
own inspection of the Property along with that of their realtor.
52. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 52 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference. By way
21
of further response, Plaintiffs chose to enter into the Agreement of Sale based on their
own inspection of the Property along with that of their realtor.
53. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 53 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference. By way
of further response, Plaintiffs chose to enter into the Agreement of Sale based on their
own inspection of the Property along with that of their realtor.
54. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 54 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference. By way
of further response, Plaintiffs chose to enter into the Agreement of Sale based on their
own inspection of the Property and that of their realtor.
55. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 55 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference. By way
of further response, Plaintiffs chose to enter into the Agreement of Sale based on their
own inspection of the Property and that of their realtor.
56. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 56 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below are incorporated herein by reference. By way
of further response, Plaintiffs chose to enter into the Agreement of Sale based on their
own inspection of the Property and that of their realtor.
22
WHEREFORE, Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and deny Plaintiffs'
demand for rescission and award Defendant costs, expenses ;and such other relief the
court deems just.
COUNT V - PRIVATE ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF
THE PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
57. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 56 above are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
58. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 58 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. By way of further response, Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below above are incorporated by reference.
59. Admitted upon information and belief.
60. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 60, including subparagraphs (a), (b)
and (c) constitute legal conclusions and the same are, therefore, denied. By way of
further response, Paragraphs 1 through 30 above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below
above are incorporated by reference.
61. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 61 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. By way of further response, Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below above are incorporated by reference.
62. Denied. The averments of Paragraph 62 constitute a legal conclusion and
the same are, therefore, denied. By way of further response, Paragraphs 1 through 30
above and Paragraphs 64 through 86 below above are incorporated by reference.
23
WHEREFORE, Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs together with costs,
expenses and such other relief the Court deems just.
NEW_MA'TTER
63. The answering averments of Paragraphs 1 through 62 above are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
64. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action upon which relief
can be granted.
65. If Plaintiffs have sustained damages and injury as alleged, which is
expressly denied, such damages were caused by or contributed to by actions of Plaintiffs
or others over whom Them Builders had no control and for whom Them Builders is not
responsible.
66. Plaintiffs acted in bad faith in failing to give Them Builders the
opportunity to complete warranty work and punchlist items at the Property.
67. Plaintiffs breached their agreement with Them Builders by asking Them
Builders to leave the Property while Them Builders was performing work at the Property
shortly after settlement.
68. Subsequently, although Them Builders has been willing and capable of
performing punchlist and warranty work at the Property, Plaintiffs have refused to allow
Them Builders to perform any such work.
69. Plaintiffs breached their agreement with Them Builders be refusing to
allow Them Builders to return to the property and perform its work.
24
70. To the extent Plaintiffs have failed to give Therm Builders the opportunity
to perform punchlist and warranty work on the Property, Plaintiffs are estopped from
bringing some or all of the claims made against Them Builders.
71. To the extent Plaintiffs have failed to give Them Builders the opportunity
to perform punchlist and warranty work on the Property, Plaintiffs' claim is barred by the
doctrine of justification.
72. To the extent Them Builders is willing to and capable of performing
punchlist and warranty work on the Property, but has been prevented from doing so by
Plaintiffs' refusals to allow Them Builders to perform such work, Plaintiffs' claim is
barred by the doctrine of waiver.
73. Prior to entering into the Agreement of Sale„ Plaintiffs were provided an
opportunity to inspect the Property.
74. Prior to settlement on the Property in August of 2002, Plaintiffs and their
realtor inspected the Property.
75. Many, if not all, of the alleged defects were obvious from a visual
inspection of the Property.
76. Plaintiffs waived any claims for defective, incomplete or deficient work
that was not included in the incomplete Work Agreement or Escrow Agreement.
77. All work was performed by Them Builders in a good and workmanlike
manner.
78. Them Builders fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement and
General Specifications.
25
79. Plaintiffs seek to have Them Builders perform work outside of the scope
of its obligations under the Agreement.
80. Plaintiffs' claims for fraudulent misrepresentation are barred by the gist of
the action doctrine.
81. Plaintiffs' claims for fraudulent misrepresentation are barred by the
economic loss doctrine.
82. Plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty of habitability and good
workmanship are barred because the Agreement of Sale disclaims all other warranties
other than the Limited Warranty executed by the Plaintiffs.
83. Plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty of habitability is barred as
Plaintiffs have resided in the residence for over one year and the alleged defects have no
had an impact on the habitability of the Property.
84. Plaintiffs' claims for rescission are barred and Plaintiffs have failed to
plead the elements of a rescission claim.
85. Plaintiffs' claim under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law are barred by the gist of the action doctrine.
86. Plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law are barred by the economic loss doctrine.
26
WHEREFORE, Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs and the parties
responsible to Plaintiffs and award Peter Them Builders, Inc. costs, expenses and such
other relief the Court deems just.
Respectfully submitted,
McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
By Diane . T karsky
/ ar?
I.D. No. 44369
James W. Kutz
I.D. No. 47245
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
(717) 237-5354
Attorneys for Defendant
Peter Them Builders, Inc.
Dated: Novemberd, 2003
27
P.02
7174868430 ya YVa
._. .. RM PETER THEM BAW10 0 w aaea:a s nw•yua
NOV-20-2003 04:25 w &?
Subject to the
authorities, I hereby
tttcta got forth in the
of 1S Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to ttnawom 1lai1ication 60
that I am Peter Thant, President of Peter Theta 8uilden, Inc., and that the
ng dooumm are true and cormet to the beat of my ttltbrmation and belief.
Pates' ham
1-112
Dated: // /k "d
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Diane M. Tokarsky, Esquire, the undersigned, do hereby certify that on this
day of November, 2003, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served
via U.S. Mail, First-Class, postage prepaid upon the individual(s) listed below:
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
Broujos and Gilroy, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Frank A. Nardo, Jr., Esquire
Stock and Leader
Susquehanna Commerce Center East
Suite 600
221 W. Philadelphia Street
York, PA 17402
i
Di e . To arsky
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER
Plaintiffs Eric Romanucci and Rebecca S. Romanucci, by and through their attorneys,
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire of Broujos & Gilroy, P.C. and Frank A. Nardo, Jr., Esquire of Stock
and Leader, Attorneys at Law, file this Reply to Defendant's New Matter, averring as follows:
63. No reply required. Should a reply be deemed necessary, to the extent that
Defendant's answering averments numbered Paragraphs I through 62 are contrary to or
inconsistent with Plaintiffs' averments, Defendant's averments are denied.
64. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary,
however, Defendant's averment is specifically denied.
65. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary,
however, Plaintiffs specifically deny the averment that Plaintiffs' damages were "caused by or
contributed to by actions of Plaintiffs or others over whom Them Builders had no control and for
whom Them Builders is not responsible", as all damages averred and sustained by Plaintiffs were
caused by Them Builders ("Them") or those acting on Them's behalf.
66. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary,
however, Plaintiffs deny the averment that "Plaintiffs acted in bad faith in failing to give Them
Builders the opportunity to complete warranty work and punchlist items at the Property", as it is
denied that Plaintiffs have ever acted in bad faith as to Plaintiffs' dealings with Them, further,
Plaintiffs, on numerous occasions, attempted to work with Them in an attempt to have Them
correct the problems with the Property, however, Them refused to work with Plaintiffs in good
faith to correct the problems, instead, Them, by Them's words, actions and inaction, made it clear
to Plaintiffs that Them was incompetent and/or unwilling to complete Them's incomplete work
and correct the defects in the Property. For example, on a visit to the Property, Them appeared in
an attempt to complete the carpeting, but Them stated to Plaintiffs that Them "did not have the
right carpet". Plaintiffs suggested that Them leave and come back with the "right carpet", after
which, Them refused to come back to the Property unless and until Romanuccis agreed to waive
certain rights as to punchlist and warranty items. In fact, by letter from Them's counsel dated
October 21, 2002, Them's counsel enunciated Them's demand, in writing, that Romanuccis agree
to Them's "remedial plan" before Them would return to the Property. A copy of said letter is
attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference. Despite repeated
pleas made to Them, Them refused to come back to the Property. This stalemate resulted in
Romanuccis, through counsel, commencing the instant action to seek the Court's assistance,
which, in part, includes a request that the Court determine whether Romanuccis must accept the
strict and unreasonable demands being imposed upon Romanuccis by Them. Any inferences by
Them to the contrary, specifically but not including that Plaintiffs have breached the Agreement,
are specifically denied.
67. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, Plaintiffs deny that they breached their agreement with Them Builders for
any reason whatsoever. Further, Plaintiffs incorporate their reply at Paragraph 66, supra, herein
by reference as though textually set forth at length.
68. Denied. It is denied that Them "has been willing and capable of performing
punchlist and warranty work at the Property", to the contrary, Plaintiffs incorporate their reply at
Paragraph 66, supra, herein by reference as though textually set forth at length.
69. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, however, Plaintiffs deny that they breached their agreement with Them for
any reason whatsoever. Further, Plaintiffs incorporate their reply at Paragraph 66, supra, herein
by reference as though textually set forth at length.
70. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, however, Plaintiffs deny that they are estopped from bringing any claims
which Plaintiffs have asserted against Them, to the contrary, Plaintiffs incorporate their reply at
Paragraph 66, supra, herein by reference as though textually set forth at length.
71. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, Plaintiffs deny that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of
justification. Them's behavior is not justified, to the contrary, Plaintiffs incorporate their reply at
Paragraph 66, supra, herein by reference as though textually set forth at length.
72. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, however, Plaintiffs deny Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of
waiver. To the contrary, Plaintiffs incorporate their reply at Paragraph 66, supra, herein by
reference as though textually set forth at length.
73. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that, at the time of entering into the
Agreement of Sale, Plaintiffs were permitted to walk-through and view the Property, however,
Plaintiffs were encouraged to not seek a professional inspection of the Property, as they were
assured by Them, and/or those acting on Them's behalf, that the Property was new, properly
constructed, would comply with a nationally recognized building code, and that a professional
inspection was unnecessary and not done by buyers of new houses; and any averment or
inference to the contrary is denied. Any averment or inference that the Plaintiffs' own inspection
of the Property would have or should have revealed the defects in the Property is specifically
denied, as many, if not all, of the defects were latent or exist in work completed after the date of
the Agreement of Sale. Furthermore, as typical consumer purchasers of residential houses,
Plaintiffs were not sufficiently competent in construction matters to enable Plaintiffs to conduct a
thorough inspection of the Property, instead, Plaintiffs relied upon the representations made by
Them.
74. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that, prior to settlement, Plaintiff
Rebecca Romanucci walked through the Property with the selling agent. Any averment or
inference that the Rebecca Romanucci's own visual inspection of the Property would have or
should have revealed the defects in the Property is specifically denied, as many, if not all, of the
defects were latent or exist in work completed after Plaintiffs walk through. Additionally, the
Property was full of workers, materials and debris, as Them scrambled to complete the Property
in time for settlement, which Them demanded not be postponed. Furthermore, as typical
consumer purchasers of residential houses, Plaintiffs were not sufficiently competent in
construction matters to enable Plaintiffs to conduct a thorough inspection of the Property or to
recognize construction problems through a "visual inspection" of the Property, instead, Plaintiffs
relied upon representations made by Them, as Plaintiffs were encouraged to not seek a
professional inspection of the Property, as Plaintiffs were assured by Them and/or those acting
on Them's behalf, that the Property was new, properly constructed, would comply with a
nationally recognized building code, and that a professional inspection was unnecessary and not
done on new houses; and any averment or inference to the contrary is denied.
75. Denied. Many, if not all, of the defects in the Property, were not obvious from a
visual inspection of the Property, and some exist in work completed after the date of the
Agreement of Sale and after the pre-settlement walk-through; and the averment is therefore
denied. Furthermore, as typical consumer purchasers of residential houses, Plaintiffs were not
sufficiently competent in construction matters to enable Plaintiffs to conduct a thorough
inspection of the Property, instead, Plaintiffs relied upon representations made by Them and did
not engage the services of a professional inspector because Plaintiffs were encouraged by Them,
or those acting on Them's behalf, not to do so.
76. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, however, Plaintiffs did not waive any claims for defective, incomplete or
deficient work in the Incomplete Work or Escrow Agreements; further and to the contrary, in the
Escrow Agreement, Them specifically agreed to complete all work in a good and workmanlike
manner.
77. Denied. Plaintiffs deny that "all work was performed by Them Builders in a good
and workmanlike manner", to the contrary, much of Them's work was performed in a less than
good and workmanlike manner, as more specifically described in Plaintiffs' Complaint.
78. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, however, Plaintiffs deny that Them fulfilled all of Them's obligations under
the Agreement and General Specifications and, to the extent that Them completed its work,
elements of Them's workmanship are woefully inadequate and completed in a less than good and
workmanlike manner.
79. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, Plaintiffs deny that they seek to have Them Builders perform work outside
of the scope of its obligations under the Agreement, to the contrary, Plaintiffs seek only that for
which Plaintiffs bargained, that is, a one-half million dollar home which is fully, completely and
properly constructed.
80. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, however, Plaintiffs deny that their claims for fraudulent misrepresentation
are barred by the gist of the action doctrine. Furthermore, Defendant raised this issue in its
Preliminary Objections and this Court determined that the gist of the action doctrine does not bar
Plaintiffs' claims for fraudulent misrepresentation.
81. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, however, Plaintiffs deny that their claims for fraudulent misrepresentation
are barred by the economic loss doctrine. Furthermore, Defendant raised this issue in its
Preliminary Objections and this Court determined that the economic loss doctrine does not bar
Plaintiffs' claims for fraudulent misrepresentation.
82. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, however, Plaintiffs deny that their claims for breach of the implied
warranties of habitability and good workmanship are barred, in fact, the Agreement of Sale does
not disclaim all other warranties other than the limited warranty and actually affirms the implied
warranties. Furthermore, Defendant raised this issue in its Preliminary Objections and the Court
has ruled against Defendant.
83. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, however, Plaintiffs deny that their claims for breach of implied warranty of
habitability are barred because Plaintiffs have resided in the residence for over one year, as the
implied warranty of habitability does not require that the home be rendered completely
uninhabitable. Furthermore, Defendant raised this issue in its Preliminary Objections and the
Court has ruled against Defendant.
84. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, however, Plaintiffs' claims for rescission are not barred. Further, Plaintiffs
have pled elements necessary for a claim of rescission, and Defendants averments to the contrary
are denied. Furthermore, Defendant raised this issue in its Preliminary Objections and the Court
has ruled against Defendant.
85. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, however, Plaintiffs deny that their claims for Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law are barred by the gist of the action doctrine, furthermore, this Court
has already ruled on this issue and determined that the gist of the action doctrine does not bar the
claims.
86. Denied. Defendant states a conclusion of law to which no reply is necessary. By
way of further reply, however, Plaintiffs deny that their claims for Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law are barred by the economic loss doctrine, furthermore, Defendant
raised this issue in its Preliminary Objections and this Court determined that the economic loss
doctrine does not bar the claims.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Eric Romanucci and Rebecca S. Romanucci, respectfully
requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant, Peter
Them Builders, Inc., as requested in Plaintiffs' Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C.
/_1 4-6 j By: L--, /'/-6 /`" "V-1-
Dated Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq
I. D. N 29943
(Attorney for Plain iffs
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-4574
2?
By:
Dated
(Attorney for Plaintiffs)
Susquehanna Commerce Center East
Suite 600
221 W. Philadelphia Street
York, PA 17404
Telephone: (717) 846-9800
8
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this IF y14 day of December, 2003, I, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, of the law
firm of Broujos & Gilroy, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I served the within
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO THE NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT PETER THEM
BUILDERS, INC. this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Diane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
McNees, Wallace & Nurick
100 Pine Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(Attorney for Peter Them Builders, Inc.)
BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C.
By: ?W -7/4
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esqe
(Attorn ey for Plaintif s)
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone: (717) 243-4574
F\USERS\FAN\ROMANUCC\REPLY.NM 12/8103
717-243-6486 SAIDIS SNUFF MPGA-AND
I?WN?
McNees Wallace & Nur Cck Lic
October 21, 2002
V FACSIMILE AND _FIR $T GLA S MA L
James D. Flower, Jr., Esq.
Saldis, Shull, Flower & Lindsay
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Residence of Dr. & Mrs. Romanicci
61 Ashton Street
Carlisle, PA
012 P02/05 OCT 22 102 09:46
p,4w M. 70u1113M'
0111ECT ONU' (717) 2V-5351
F.Muk. ADORESS. DFC"RS"Ql~i COw
Dear Mr. Flower:
I have had an opportunity to review with Peter Them the various lists prepared by
your clients and the inspection report prepared on their behalf. The response of Peter
Them Builders, Inc. is set forth In the enclosed Punchlist Response. As you can see, the
builder is prepared to return to the home and correct conditions which are believed to be the
responsibility of the builder. Other items are covered in the Builders Statermni of
Nonwarrantable Conditions and Builders Limited Warranty Agreement which were
ecuted
executed by both Dr and Mrs. Romanicni. Such legally binding documF is ea ex
the
s i g the homeowners' inspection ofthe
of premises prior to olosing. being in accordance with Code, please be
items identified in the inspectors report
advised that South Middletown Township has not adopted the BOCA Code. The home has
been constructed in accordance with generally acceptable residential construction means
and methods.
We believe that the attached response evidences the good faith teffort
rto f Peteris hem
Builders, Inc. to satisfy its customers. However, it must be recognized
perfect. So that there are no further "lists" or miscommunications, we propose that the
parties agree to the remedial plan in writing and that It represents the fulfillment of Peter
Them Builders Inc. 's responsibility for punchlist and warranty items. Of coutse, acltints'
manufacturers warranties would remain in place. Kindly confirm in writing your
acceptance of the foregoing Peter Them Builders. Inc. will then coordinate entry into the
home with Mrs. Romanicci .
100 PNE SyntE1 • HARRIssuRG, PA 17106.1166 • TE, 717.232.80DO • Fr.Y 717 237.5300 • ww?' MwN cow
PO 1309 1166 • _ ---_---_. __ ? --
-_. J COWLISuS, OH • HAZtE10N. PA • WASF4140.TON. QC
EXHIBIT
D
9
717-243-6486 SRIDIS SFLJFF MASLPND 012 P04/05 OCT 22 '02 09:47
PUNCIY UE RESPONSE
CARPET large anon h to
As previously stated a month ago, we will purchase
t oni StToll Of cael eps "A arpel for the rear stain.
,.Per the entire upstairs and both the runner supposedly a different
We will remove the piece of padding in the master bedroom that is a W tIl install
thickness and rep?a,cc with padding comparable to that which isadj
Tear pI stairway On the first floor , we Will re stretch and correct installation o
after installation is a manufacture"s
padding down
existing carp et. Any and all disputes about color and Pahem a,reed 10
for obligation to correct Money I released upon co nplet on of second floor t and staars it1 accordance
previously at closing
with the terms of the escrow agreement.
EXTERIOR
We will repair all facia, roofing that is dcelned 3 need of amen d will Screcusthalarc
on an
missing will be installed. Screens that homeowner alleged arc damag
individual basis and rectified as warranted.
TREES
will mark possible planting location of 20 trees. Trees will be planted but if
Horn eowner as possible*
location is unacceptable due to rock, builder will relocate frets to location es close r hom owners
Trees MS Dot warranted. Any failure due to planting, weather, m
responsibility.
EXTERIOR DOORS
All exterior doors will be adjusted to lock and close as per industry stalidards. Any
will be addressed including removal of paint drops.
adjustments or alignment and reyarrs
INTERIOR DOORS
Interior doors will be adjusted after carport is reinstalled to close propcxly. Master
bedroom door as per builders spec does not lock. However, builder will install A 'V&" strip on
roar of one door to cover '/." standard crack . 2 slide bolts will be installed to sccut?: doors from
entry, Staining of door Item #1 l will be pursuant builder warranty
Hardwood floors
air floor where we ntrarl and arc deem installation problems did occur hRuidldet is not
warranty. We will rep My have
by MOVMS nsible lteogrout whoerc c ackeduwill be rcpaired.nrBuilder dog not seal R out anedrttem #6 of builder's
warranty applies.
717-243-6486 SRIDIS SHUFF MASLAND 012 P05/05 OCT 22 '02 09:47
PAINT
please refer to Items N 11, 12 and particularly, 13 of builder's warranty. We will go in
afler reinstallation of carpet and touch-u areas room by room. If necessary, builder will skim
coating drywall. All area that are damaged by removal of stickers, general living in house,
movers and or glue residue will be addressed as a repair item and possibly charged to
homeowner.
All punch list items that are the responsibility of the builder will be completed in the normal
process. Builder will coordinate with the homeowner. Please see paragraph 4 of the Buyer's
Limited Warranty Agreement executed by the parties
717-243-6486 SRIDIS SNl1FF MRSLRND 012 P03/05 OCT 22 '02 09:47
James D. Flower. Jr., Esq.
October 21. 2002
Page 2
Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed or a particular punchlist item,
please call.
Very truly yours,
McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
Diane M. Tokarsiv
Ics
Enclosure
C. Mr. Peter Them (w/end.)
12/03/2009 19:57 FAX STOCK AND LEADER [ 010
V P;RTBICA=
T hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: The attached Plaintiffs' Reply to
the New Matter of Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. is based upon information which has
been furnished to counsel in the preparation of this document. The language of the Reply is
that of counsel and not thine. 1 have read the Reply and to the extent that the same is based
upon information which 1 have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the Reply is that of
counsel, I have relied upon couusel in making this Verification- T hereby acknowledge that
the averments of fact set forth in the aforesaid Reply are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa. C.S. §4904 rclating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
o3 bK 2063
Date L7ric Romanucci
?-, ?-
? -t,
-1. ,
_
F fA- {
It
?y?-; e. c:?L7
r1
?c_
v r="_ rn
'i
? -?
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
NOW COMES Plaintiffs, Eric Romanucci and Rebecca S. Romanucci, by and through
their attorneys, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire of Broujos & Gilroy. P.C. and Frank A. Nardo, Jr.,
Esquire of Stock and Leader, who file this Motion to Compel Defendant's Answers to Plaintiffs'
Interrogatories and Request for Documents (First Set), as follows:
On September 11, 2003, Plaintiffs' counsel served Plaintiffs' First Set of
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on Defendant's counsel. Copies of
the Interrogatories and Request for Documents, and the accompanying Certificates of Service,
are attached hereto, collectively marked Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference.
2. On or about October 10, 2003, Defendant's counsel served Plaintiffs' counsel
with Defendant's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories, as well as Defendant's
Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents. Copies of
Defendant's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories are attached hereto, marked
Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. Copies of Defendant's Responses and
Objections to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents are attached hereto, marked
Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference.
Plaintiffs seek an Order directing the Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' said
discovery requests for the following reasons:
a. Most of Defendant's responses were entirely non-responsive, specifically,
Defendant's answers to Interrogatories nos. 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and Defendant's responses to
Request for Production of Documents nos. 2(b)-(d), 4, 6, 8, 10(.a)-(f), I I (a)-(c), 12(a)-(c); and
the answer to Interrogatory no. 5 is less than fully responsive;
b. Defendant's objections or reasons why it should not respond to the
Interrogatories or produce the documents requested are inappropriate or otherwise insufficient
and are made simply for purposes of delay;
C. The information sought and documents requested by Plaintiffs are
discoverable;
d. The requests for information and documents are not vague, overbroad,
burdensome, harassing, and oppressive, resulting in unnecessary and undue expense to
Defendant; and
e. The information sought and documents requested is information which
cannot be obtained from any other source other than Defendant.
4. Plaintiffs' counsel, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq., corresponded with Defendant's
counsel in an attempt to obtain the information sought and documents requested and to inform
Defendant's counsel of the intent to file this motion, however, Defendant's counsel has failed to
provide Plaintiffs' counsel with any further response to Plaintiffs' said discovery requests.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request your Honorable Court schedule a discovery
conference to resolve this discovery dispute.
Respectfully submitted,
n BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C.
J By:_
Date Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
I.D. #29943
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-4574
(Attorney for Plaintiffs)
Z Z? 200 By:
Dat F do,
'gusquehanna Commerce Center East,
221 West Philadelphia Street
York, PA 17404
(717) 846-9800
(Attorney for Plaintiffs)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
f' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This day of /l ? c 2004, I, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, of the law
firm of Broujos & Gilroy, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I served the within
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant's Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents this day by causing the same to be deposited in the
United States mail, postage prepaid, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Diane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
McNees, Wallace & Nurick
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
(Attorney for Defendant)
By:
BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C.
Hubert X. GilroyAsqui
LD. #2994
4 North Hano er Street
Carlisle, P 17013
(717) 243-4574
(Attorney for Plaintiffs)
UAFAMROMANUMmotion to compel 2-17-04.doc
T
J f u_ 'f'it
? tFQ?Z
n?=?V U???;.7
FILE COPY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT - FIRST SET
To: Peter Them Builders, Inc.
c/o Diane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
McNees, Wallace & Nurick
100 Pine Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you are hereby required, pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure No. 4001, et. seq., to serve upon the undersigned
within thirty (30) days after service of this Notice, your verified Answers in writing under
oath to the following Interrogatories.
To the extent these Interrogatories directly address the identity and location of
persons having knowledge of discoverable matters, you are under a duty to supplement
your responses to include after acquired information, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No.
4007.4(1).
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
As used in these Interrogatories, the words and terms as set forth below shall be
defined as follows:
PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
y A
a
1. "You", "your" or "yourselves" shall mean and include Defendant, Peter
Them Builders, Inc., its officers, employees and agents, at both Corporate and Division
levels, its attorneys-in-fact, its attorneys-at-law, and all other persons having possession,
care, custody or control of any documents, knowledge or information of or on behalf of
said Defendant.
2. The term "knowledge" means not only actual knowledge, but also includes
constructive knowledge, information and/or belief (in the disjunctive or conjunctive).
3. The term "document" is an all-inclusive term referring to any writing and/or
record or graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, including electronic media.
The term "documents" includes, without limitation, correspondence, e-mail, memoranda,
interoffice communications, minutes, reports, charts, schedules, analyses, drawings,
diagrams, tables, graphs, books of account, ledgers, invoices, purchase orders, pleadings,
questionnaires, contracts, bills, checks, drafts, diaries, logs, proposals, telegrams, tax
returns, financial statements, and any and all other documents tangible or retrievable of
any kind.
"Documents" also include any preliminary notes and drafts of all the foregoing, in
whatever form, for example, printed, typed, longhand, shorthand, on paper, paper tape,
tabulating cards, ribbon blueprints, magnetic tape, microfilm, film, motion picture film,
phonograph records, computer disks, or any other form.
4. The term "property" shall be defined as the dwelling at the property located at
61 Ashton Street, Dickinson Township, Carlisle. Cumberland County. PA.
5. Whenever in these Interrogatories there is a request to identify a document,
(a) state the type of document letter, etc.);
(b) set forth its date;
(c) identify the signer or signers and the addressee or addressees;
(d) set forth the title, heading or other designation, numerical or otherwise,
of the document;
(e) identify the person (or, if widely distributed, set forth the organization
or classes of persons) to whom the document was sent; and
(f) set forth the present or last-known location of the document and of each
copy thereof having notations or markings unique to such copy.
6. Whenever in these Interrogatories there is a request to identify any oral
communication,
(a) state the type of communication (e g , conversation, telephone call, etc.)
(b) state where and when such communication occurred;
(c) identify by full name, title and job description, all persons who
participated in such communication or who observed or heard such communications at the
time of their occurrence and setting forth which person effected such communication and
which person received the same;
(d) identify all documents embodying or in any way relating to such
communication, if any; and
(e) state the substance of any such communication.
3
7. Whenever in these Interrogatories there is a request to identify any
individual,
(a) state the name of the individual;
(b) when referring to a person, state title or Job classification at the time of
the accident referred to in these Interrogatories.
(c) when referring to a business, state whether it is incorporated and/or is
operating under a registered or unregistered fictitious name;
(d) state the present address if known or last known address and the name
and address of the individual's current or last known employer; and
(e) "individual" shall mean any person, individual, partnership, firm,
corporation, trust, governmental agency or other entity and, also, any relevant individual
representing such "individual".
8. These Interrogatories are deemed to be continuing and the answers thereto
are to be supplemented promptly upon acquisition of further additional information. If
between the time of your answers hereto and the time of trial in this action, you or any
one acting on your behalf obtain or learn of additional or new information requested by
said Interrogatories and not supplied in your answers, then you shall promptly furnish
supplemental answers thereof in writing, and wider oath, containing the same.
4
INTERROGATORIES
Identify the names, titles, addresses and phone numbers of all persons assisting
in the preparation of the answers to these Interrogatories.
Please list each state in which Defendant is incorporated and the date of
incorporation in each state.
Please state fully Defendant's principal place of business.
4. Please state the names and addresses of all shareholders of Defendant.
5. Please state the names and addresses of the corporate officers of Defendant.
6. Please state the names and addresses of the Board of Directors of Defendant.
Identify the names, addresses, phone numbers, and positions of all persons,
either employed by Defendant, a subcontractor of Defendant, or on behalf of Defendant, who
performed work at the Property.
8. For those individuals identified in the preceding Interrogatory, state the nature
of work they performed at the property.
9. State the names, business and home addresses, and business and home
telephone numbers of any person, persons, or entities who have, or which you believe have
any knowledge of any facts regarding the work that is the subject of this litigation.
10. Identify all exhibits on which you will rely upon or introduce at trial of this
litigation.
11. Identity all witnesses you intend to call at the trial of this litigation.
12. Set forth the facts to which each witness is expected to testify.
13. Identify any witness, not identified above, who has knowledge of or
information as to the facts pertaining to this litigation. Also provide a summary of the
information which each witness has concerning this lawsuit.
14. Identify all experts who Defendants expects to call at the trial of this case, and
pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5(a)(1)(b), state the substance of the facts and opinions to which
any Defendant's expert will testify and the summary of the grounds for each opinion. The
facts, opinions and grounds of the expert may be contained in an expert report which may be
attached to your answers. Such reports or answer to this interrogatory should be signed by
any Defendant's expert.
STOCK
Dated
Fr ik-A-. Nardo, Jr., Esquire
I. 80108
Attorney for Defendants
Susquehanna Commerce Center East
Suite 600
221 W. Philadelphia Street
York, PA 17404
Telephone: (717) 846-9800
U WAN\ROMANUMINTRRROG.I
9/11/03
10
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 11* day of 0ember , 2003, I, Lynn B. Lowe, as
secretary for Frank A. Nardo, Jr., Esquire, of the law firm of Stock and Leader, attorneys for
Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I served the within PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES TO
DEFENDANT-FIRST SET this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, in York, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Diane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
McNees, Wallace & Nurick
100 Pine Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(Attorney for Peter Them Builders, Inc.)
STOCK AND LEADER
By: & rpnI &
Lynn .Lowe, Secretary for
Frank A. Nardo, Jr., Esquire
I.D. #80108
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Susquehanna Commerce Center East
Suite 600
221 W. Phaadelphia Street
York, PA 17404
Telephone (717) 846-9800
FILE COPY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT - FIRST SET
To: Peter Them Builders, Inc.
c/o Diane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
McNees, Wallace & Nurick
100 Pine Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 4009, as amended, the Plaintiffs, Eric Romanucci and Rebecca
S. Romanucci, by their attorneys, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire of Broujos & Gilroy, P.C. and Frank
A. Nardo, Jr., Esquire, of the law firm of Stock and Leader, request you to produce copies of the
following documents, at their expense, within thirty (30) days of service of this Request:
INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
If you object to the production of any document on the grounds that the attorney-client,
attorney work-product or any other privilege is applicable thereto, you shall, with respect to that
document:
1. State its date;
2. Identify its author,
3. Identify each person who prepared or participated in the preparation of the
document;
Identify each person who received it;
Identify each person from whom the document was received;
State the present location of the document and all copies thereof;
Identify each person who has ever had possession, custody or control of it or a
copy thereof; and
8. Provide sufficient information concerning the document and the circumstances
thereof to explain the claim of privilege and to permit the adjudication of the propriety of that
claim.
"Document" shall mean any printed, typewritten, handwritten or otherwise recorded
matter of whatever character, whether original, master or copy, that is or has been in the
possession or control of you or all other persons acting in your behalf or of which any such
person has knowledge, including, but not limited to, letters, communications, computations,
estimates, correspondence, evaluations, studies, reports, projections, work papers, journals, plans,
drawings, specifications, notebooks, surveys, graphs, articles, magazines, newspapers, press
releases, telegrams, e-mails, notes, memoranda, summaries, minutes, records of telephone
conversations, meetings and conferences, including lists of persons attending such, summaries
and records of personal conversations or interviews, books, manuals, publications, diaries, logs,
charts, financial records and/or summaries of financial records, reports and/or summaries of
investigations and/or surveys, statistical compilations, audio or visual recordings, computer or
other magnetic or digital records, computer memory, hard or "floppy" disks, compact disks or
CDS, reports or summaries of negotiations, drafts of original or preliminary notes on and
marginal comments appearing on any documents, every copy of such writing or record where the
original is not in the possession, custody and control of the aforementioned persons, and every
copy of every such writing or record where such copy contains any conunentary or notation
whatsoever that does not appear on the original. If any document requested to be produced is no
longer in the possession or control of the aforementioned persons, or is no longer in existence,
state whether it is (1) missing or lost, (2) destroyed, (3) transferred voluntarily or involuntarily to
others and, if so, to whom or (4) otherwise disposed of; and explain the circumstances
surrounding an authorization of such disposition thereof and state the approximate date thereof.
9. The term "Property" shall be defined as the dwelling at the Property located at 61
Ashton Street, Dickinson Township, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
10. This Request for Documents is deemed to be continuing and the answers thereto
are to be supplemented promptly upon acquisition of further additional information or
documents. If between the time of your answers hereto and the time of trial in this action, you or
any one acting on your behalf obtain or learn of additional or new information requested by said
Request for Documents and not supplied in your answers, then you shall promptly furnish
supplemental answers thereof in writing, and under oath, containing the same.
DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
I . Produce all statements, signed statements, transc-ipts of recorded statements or
interviews, recorded statements if not transcribed or any summary of recorded statements if not
transcribed verbatim, of any person relating to, referring to or describing any of the events in the
Complaint.
2. Produce all documents in your possession relating to construction at the Property,
including but not limited to:
a. Permits;
b. Work records relating to the time and scope of work performed by anyone
employed by or subcontracted by Defendant;
C. invoices for goods and materials used at the premises; and
d. Copies of all canceled checks or deposits slips in any way related to
payments made or expenses incurred for work on the Property.
Produce all expert opinions, reports, summaries, or other writings in your custody
or control, or in the custody or control of your attorney or insurers, which relate to the subject
matter of this litigation.
4. Produce all drawings, sketches, diagrams, measurements or blueprints in your
custody or control or in the custody or control of your attorney or insurers, which relate to the
subject matter of this litigation.
5. Produce all photographs in your possession, custody or control, or the custody and
control of your counsel, or any other person or entity acting on your behalf showing,
representing, or purporting to show any work done at the Property and any and all other matters
related to the subject matter of this litigation.
Produce all contracts with persons or entities, other than the parties, for work or
materials to be performed or supplied on the Property.
Produce all written change orders for work or materials.
8. Produce all documents which you intend to rely upon or introduce at trial of this
litigation.
9.
Defendant.
Produce all documents requested in Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories to
10. Produce the following documents for the corporation, Peter Them Builders,
Inc.:
a. Articles of Incorporation;
b. Corporate By-Laws;
C. Resolutions;
d. Consents;
C. Amendments; and
f. Minutes of Shareholders and/or Board of Directors Meetings.
11. Produce corporate tax returns for Peter Them Builders, Inc. for the following tax
years:
a. 2001;
b. 2002;and
c. 2003.
6
12. Produce corporate financial statements for Peter Them :Builders, Inc. for the following
years:
a. 2001;
b. 2002; and
c. 2003.
I U- 2--'?5
Dated
By
Fran A. Nardo, Jr., Esquire
I.D.#8 108
Attorney for Defendants
Susquehanna Commerce Center East
Suite 600
221 W. Philadelphia Street
York, PA 17404
Telephone: (717) 846-9800
I I.V°A N\ROM AN LICORf OU 13STTDOC
4/10/03
7
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this I i day of 2003, I, Lyme B. Lowe, as
secretary for Frank A. Nardo, Jr., Esquire, of the law firm of Stock and Leader, attorneys for
Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I served the within PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT-FIRST SET this day by depositing the saute in the United
States mail, postage prepaid, in York, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Diane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
McNees, Wallace & Nurick
100 Pine Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(Attorney for Peter Them Builders, Inc.)
STOCK AND LEADER
By:
Lynn . Low , Secretary for
Frank A. Nardo, Jr., Esquire
I.D. #80108
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Susquehanna Commerce Center East
Suite 600
221 W. Philadelphia Street
York, PA 17404
Telephone: (717) 846-9800
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT - FIRST SET
i+
Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc., by and through its attorneys, McNees Wallace
Coln
& Nurick LLC, responds to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories Directed to Defendant as follows:
(0) GENERAL OBJECTIONS
...... 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' interrogatories to the extent that they are
vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, oppressive, irrelevant, and will result in
unnecessary and undue expense. Moreover, nothing herein shall be construed as an
admission by Defendant respecting the admissibility or relevance of any fact or documents,
or as an admission of the truth or accuracy of any characterization or document of any kind.
2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' interrogatories to the extent that they seek
information not within the possession, custody or control of Defendant.
3. Defendant objects generally to Plaintiffs' interrogatories to the extent that they
seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product
doctrine, or by any other privilege available under federal or state statutory, constitutional or
common law.
4. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' interrogatories to the extent they impose on
Defendant obligations that exceed or are inconsistent with obligations imposed by the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
N
Q
5. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' interrogatories to the extent that they seek
information as readily available to Plaintiff as to Defendant.
6. Defendant objects to the definitions and instructions appended to Plaintiffs'
interrogatories to the extent they: (1) impose on Defendant obligations inconsistent with the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) extend the individual interrogatories so as to
encompass information not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party; or (3) are unduly
burdensome to Defendant.
7. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' interrogatories to the extent that they purport
to require Defendant to gather and produce information from any agent or representative of
Defendant, or from any former officer, director, employee, or agent of Defendant, on the
ground that such a request is unduly burdensome, inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Rules
of Civil Procedure, and not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party.
8. These general objections are hereby incorporated into each and every
response to the individual requests for production of documents as if fully set forth herein.
Defendant's responses to the interrogatories are provided subject to and without waiver of
the foregoing general objections, whether or not repeated herein, and any other specific
objection thereto.
9. All responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories are made without in any way
waiving or intending to waive, but on the contrary preserving and intending to preserve:
a. all objections to the competence, relevance, and admissibility of any
documents or information produced in response to Plaintiffs' interrogatories as evidence for
any purpose in subsequent proceedings in this or any other action or at the trial of this or
any other action, arbitration, proceeding or investigation;
b. the right to object on any ground at any time to the use of any of the
information produced in response to Plaintiffs' interrogatories, or the subject matter thereof,
2
in any subsequent proceedings or at the trial of this or any other action, proceeding or
investigation; and
c. the right to object on any ground at any time to a demand for further
responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories or any other request, or to other discovery
proceedings involving or relating to the subject matter of this request.
3
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES
Without waiving the objections set forth above, Defendant responds to the
interrogatories as follows:
1. Identify the names, titles, addresses and phone numbers of all persons
assisting in the preparation of the answers to these Interrogatories.
ANSWER:
Peter Them, President
Debbie Them
Peter Them Builders, Inc.
9 Rapuano Way
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 486-8430
2. Please list each state in which Defendant is incorporated and the date
of incorporation in each state.
ANSWER:
Pennsylvania; October 10, 1994.
3. Please state fully Defendant's principal place of business.
ANSWER:
9 Rapuano Way
Carlisle, PA 17013
4
4. Please state the names and addresses of all shareholders of Defendant.
ANSWER:
Objection. The information sought in Interrogatory 4 is beyond the scope of
discovery permitted under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, as it is neither
relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, producing the information
sought would cause unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden or expense to
Defendant.
5. Please state the names and addresses of the corporate officers of
Defendant.
ANSWER:
Peter Them, President
Peter Them Builders, Inc.
9 Rapuano Way
Carlisle, PA 17013
5
6. Please state the names and addresses of the Board of Directors of
Defendant.
ANSWER:
Objection. The information sought in Interrogatory 6 is beyond the scope of
discovery permitted under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, as it is neither
relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, producing the information
sought would cause unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden or expense to
Defendant.
6
Identify the names, addresses, phone numbers, and positions of all
persons, either employed by Defendant, a subcontractor of Defendant, or on behalf
of Defendant, who performed work at the Property.
ANSWER:
Emplovees o_f Defendant Who Performed Work at the Propert
Greg Calomon
1 Bellaire Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
(laborer)
Dennis Snyder
2060 Spring Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
(plumbing/electric/heating)
Terry Dick
15 West Main Street
Walnut Bottom, PA 17266
(carpenter)
Donald Thomas
1030 Burnt House Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
(carpenter)
Joshua Thomas
1030 Burnt House Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
(no longer employed by Defendant)
Chad Thomas
1030 Burnt House Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
(laborer)
Michael George
361 East Garfield Street, Apt. 1
Chambersburg, PA 17201
(electric laborer, carpenter/laborer)
James Thomas
Lot 76, B.S.T.
Newville, PA 17241
William Burdick
197 Big Spring Terrace
Newville, PA 17241
(carpenter)
(no longer employed by Defendant)
Gary Wiser
475 Mt. Rock Road
Newville, PA 17241
(carpenter)
(no longer employed by Defendant)
Subcontractors who Worked on the Project:
Foundation Wells:
Unifoundation
5543 Orrstown Road
Orrstown, PA 17244
Steel Beams:
Ritner Steel
131 Stover Drive
P.O. Box 615
Carlisle, PA 17013
(supplied and installed)
Garage Doors/Openers:
Central State Dis.
P.O. Box 60577
Harrisburg, PA 17106
(supplied and installed)
Corion Countertop Kitchen:
Krehling
1399 Hagy Way
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(supplied and installed)
Dryvit
White Wolf
4250 Conewago Road
Dover, PA
8
Cleaner:
Lesa Jackson
P.O. Box 173
Walnut Bottom, PA 17266
Well:
Larry Adams Well Drilling
3430 Waggoners Gap Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
Spouting/Gutters:
Century Spouting
2147 South Market Street
Elizabethtown, PA 17022
(installed and supplied)
Paving:
North Mountain Paving
4707 Enola Road
Newville, PA 17241
Carpet:
supplied by:
J.J. Haines
installed by:
Damian Batson
P.O. Box 135
Loysville, PA 17047
John Norman
355 Saw Mill Road
Newville, PA 17241
Tile:
supplied by J.J. Haines; installed by Peter Them Builders
Kitchen Cabinets:
AristoKraft
Lumber Yard
North Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(supplier; installed by Peter Them Builders)
Septic Tanks:
Monarch Systems
385 Sipe Road
York Haven, PA 17370
(supplier; installed by Peter Them Builders; approved by SEO - Dickinson Township)
Electric:
Middle Department Electrical Inspection
3901 Hartzdale Drive
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(inspection)
8. For those individuals identified in the preceding Interrogatory, state the
nature of work they performed at the property.
ANSWER:
See response to Interrogatory 7 for a description of the nature of the work performed
by individuals at the Property.
9. State the names, business and home addresses, and business and
home telephone numbers of any person, persons, or entities who have, or which you
believe have any knowledge of any facts regarding the work that is the subject of this
litigation.
ANSWER:
All individuals Defendant believes may have any knowledge of any facts regarding
the work that is the subject of this litigation are identified in answers 5 and 7. Furthermore,
Plaintiffs, along with any witnesses that may be identified by Plaintiffs, have knowledge of
facts regarding the work that is the subject of this litigation. Defendant reserves the right to
supplement this answer at a later date.
10
10. Identify all exhibits on which you will rely upon or introduce at trial of
this litigation.
ANSWER:
Objection. Interrogatory 10 seeks information that is protected under the attorney-
client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Defendant reserves the right to introduce
at the trial of this matter all documents and demonstrative evidence obtained in discovery.
11. Identify all witnesses you intend to call at the trial of this litigation.
ANSWER:
Objection. Interrogatory 11 seeks information that is protected under the attorney-
client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Notwithstanding this objection, Defendant
reserves the right to introduce at trial the admissible testimony of any witness.
12. Set forth the facts to which each witness is expected to testify.
ANSWER:
Objection. Interrogatory 12 seeks information that is protected under the attorney-
client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.
11
14. Identify all experts who Defendants expects to call at the trial of this
case, and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5(a)(1)(b), state the substance of the facts and
opinions to which any Defendant's expert will testify and the summary of the
grounds for each opinion. The facts, opinions and grounds of the expert may be
contained in an expert report which may be attached to your answers. Such reports
or answer to this interrogatory should be signed by any Defendant's expert.
ANSWER:
No experts have been identified by Defendant at this lime. Defendant reserves the
right to supplement this answer at a later date.
McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
0
B v
Esquire
Garrett H. Rothman, Esquire
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
900 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
(717) 232-8000
Attorneys for Defendant
Date: October 10, 2003
13
Subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 14904 relating to unmorn fhlaification to
authorities, I hereby certify that I am Peter Them. Pmsidrnl of Peter Than Builders, Inc., and that the
facts set forth in the farogoing docOlnent ate true end comet W tho beat of my information and belief.
Peter Them
Dated: lb - pt - O 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
GS4
I, Garrett H. Rothman, Esquire, hereby certify that on this day of October, 2003,
true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by first-class, United States mail,
postage prepaid, upon the following:
Frank A. Nardo, Jr., Esq.
STOCK and LEADER PC
Susquehanna Commerce Center East
221 W. Philadelphia Street -Suite 600
York, PA 17404
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq.
Broujos & Gilroy, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Garrett H. Rothman
13. Identify any witness, not identified above, who has knowledge of or
information as to the facts pertaining to this litigation. Also provide a summary of
the information which each witness has concerning this lawsuit.
ANSWER:
Objection. Interrogatory 13 seeks information that is protected under the attorney-
client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.
12
10i1bl2003 0'3:b9 71/243822/ bKUUJUS & a1LKUY, rt, rHuG uc
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
.i , DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
i' PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc., by and through its attorneys, McNees Wallace
& Nurick LLC, respond to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents as follows:
Q
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' request for production of documents to the
extent that they are vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, oppressive,
irrelevant, and will result in unnecessary and undue expense. Moreover, nothing herein
shall be construed as an admission by Defendant respecting the admissibility or relevance
of any fact or documents, or as an admission of the truth or accuracy of any
characterization or document of any kind.
2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' request for production of documents to the
extent that it seeks the production of documents or information not within the possession,
custody or control of Defendants.
3. Defendant objects generally to Plaintiffs' request for production of documents
to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of documents or information protected from
disclosure or production by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine,
or by any other privilege available under federal or state Statutory, constitutional or common
a PLAINTIFF'S
w EXHIBIT
C
N
JJ
Q
10/1,5/2003 09:bg 7172438227 EFKUUJUb & h1LKUY, 1'U rH?t us
law. Inadvertent production of any such information shall not constitute a waiver of any
privilege or any other ground for objecting to discovery with respect to such information or
documents, nor shall inadvertent production waive Defendant's right to object to the use of
any such information or documents in any proceedings.
4. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' request for production of documents to the
extent it imposes on Defendant obligations that exceed or are inconsistent with obligations
imposed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. Defendants object to Plaintiffs' request for production of documents to the
extent that it seeks production of documents or information as readily available to Plaintiffs
as to Defendant.
Defendant objects to the definitions and instructions appended to Plaintiffs'
request for production of documents to the extent they: (1) impose on Defendant
obligations inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) extend the
individual requests for production of documents or information so as to encompass
information not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party; or (3) are unduly
burdensome to Defendant.
7. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs' request for production of documents to the
extent that it purports to require Defendant to gather and produce documents and
information from any agent or representative of Defendant, or from any former officer,
director, employee, or agent of Defendant, on the ground that such a request is unduly
burdensome, inconsistent with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and not relevant
to the claims or defenses of any party.
These general objections are hereby incorporated Into each and every
response to the individual requests for production of documents as If fully set forth herein.
Defendant's responses to the request for production of documents are provided subject to
10115/2003 09:59 7172438227 SRUUJOS & GILROY, PC PAGE 04
and without waiver of the foregoing general objections, whether or not repeated herein, and
any other specific objection thereto.
9. All responses to Plaintiffs' request for production of documents are made
without in any way waiving or intending to waive, but on the contrary preserving and
intending to preserve:
a. all objections to the competence, relevance, and admissibility of any
documents or information produced in response to Plaintiffs' request for production of
documents as evidence for any purpose in subsequent proceedings in this or any other
action or at the trial of this or any other action, arbitration, proceeding or investigation.
b. the right to object on any ground at any time to the use of any of the
documents or Information produced in response to Plaintiffs' request for production of
documents, or the subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceedings or at the trial of
this or any other action, proceeding or Investigation; and
c. the right to object on any ground at any time to a demand for further
responses to Plaintiffs' request for production of documents or any other request, or to other
discovery proceedings involving or relating to the subject matter of this request.
3
10/151,2003 09:59 7172438227 SROU.IUS & GILROY, PC HAfat 05
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC REQUESTS
Without waiving the objections set forth above, Defendant responds to the document
request as follows:
Produce all statements, signed statements, transcripts of recorded
statements or Interviews, recorded statements if not transcribed or any summary of
recorded statements if not transcribed verbatim, of any person relating to, referring
to or describing any of the events in the Complaint.
ANSWER:
There are no documents that are responsive to this request. Defendant reserves
the right to supplement this answer at a later date.
2. Produce all documents in your possession relating to construction at
the Property, including but not limited to:
a. Permits;
Copies of documents that are responsive to this request are attached hereto.
b. Work records relating to the time and scope of work performed
by anyone employed by or subcontracted by Defendant;
Defendant is currently reviewing documents that may be responsive to this request.
To the extent Defendant gathers documents that are responsive to this request, Defendant
will supplement its response to Include such documents.
4
111, 15/1U03 U7:L'J 7172438227 SROUJUS & GiLRO'Y, PC PHGt db
c. Invoices for goods and materials used at the premises; and
Defendant is currently reviewing documents that may be responsive to this request.
To the extent Defendant gathers documents that are responsive to this request, Defendant
will supplement its response to include such documents.
d. Copies of all canceled checks or deposits slips in any way
related to payments made or expenses incurred for work on the Property.
Objection. The information sought in document request 2d is beyond the scope of
discovery permitted under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, as checks and
deposit slips relate not just to this project, but to other projects and thus contain proprietary
information. Furthermore, the request is objectionable on the grounds that producing the
information sought would cause unreasonable burden to Defendant. Checks or deposit
slips in the possession of Defendant related to payments made or expenses incurred for
work on the Property would not relate solely to the Project, but instead would relate to
multiple projects. Determining which checks and deposit slips, or which portion of checks
and deposit slips, pertain specifically to the Project would cause undue burden to
Defendant, and therefore this request is objectionable.
10/15/2003 09:59 7172439227 $RUUJUS & GILROY, PC PAGE 07
3. Produce all expert opinions, reports, summaries, or other writings in
your custody or control, or in the custody or control of your attorney or Insurers,
which relate to the subject matter of this litigation,
ANSWER:
There are no documents that are responsive to this request. No expert opinion,
report, summary or other writing has been completed to date. Defendant reserves the right
to supplement this answer at a later date.
4. Produce all drawings, sketches, diagrams, measurements or blueprints
In your custody or control or In the custody or control of your attorney or Insurers,
which relate to the subject matter of this litigation.
ANSWER:
Defendant is currently reviewing documents that may be responsive to this request.
To the extent Defendant gathers documents that are responsive to this request, Defendant
will supplement its response to include such documents.
10/15%2003 09:59 7172438227 EROUJOS & GILRuV, PC PAGE 08
5. Produce all photographs in your possession, custody or control, or the
custody and control of your counsel, or any other person or entity acting on your
behalf showing, representing, or purporting to show any work done at the Property
and any and all other matters related to the subject matter of this litigation.
ANSWER:
There are no documents that are responsive to this request. To the extent an
expert's evaluation of the Property may include photographs of the Property, Defendant
reserves the right to supplement this response by providing such photographs to Plaintiff
upon completion of the evaluation.
6. Produce all contracts with persons or entities, other than the parties,
for work or materials to be performed or supplied on the Property.
ANSWER:
It is unclear what documents are sought in document request 6. To the extent this
request seeks contracts to which Peter Them Builders, Inc. was not a party, Defendant has
no documents that are responsive to this request. To the extent this request seeks
contracts entered into between Defendant and entitles other than Plaintiffs, Defendant Is
currently reviewing documents that may be responsive to this request. To the extent
Defendant gathers documents that are responsive to this request, Defendant will
supplement its response to include such documents.
7. Produce all written change orders for work or materials.
ANSWER:
10/15/2003 09:59 7172438227 bKWJUS & 61LRU'Y, PC PAGE 09
There are no documents that are responsive to this request. There are no written
change orders for work or materials associated with the Project.
8. Produce all documents which you Intend to rely upon or Introduce at
trial of this litigation.
ANSWER:
objection. Document request 8 seeks information that is protected under the
attomey-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.
9. Produce all documents requested in Plaintiffs' First Set of
interrogatories to Defendant.
The only Interrogatory which seeks documents from Defendant is Interrogatory 14,
which seeks information regarding all experts Defendant expects to call at the trial of this
case, and directs that an expert report may be attached to Defendant's answer. Because
no experts have been identified by Defendant at this time, there is no such expert report to
produce. Defendant reserves the right to supplement this answer at a later date,
8
, PC HA6E ie
10/15/ 2003 09:59 7172439227 BROOMS S GILROY,
10. Produce the following documents for the corporation, Peter Them
Builders, Inc.:
a. Articles of Incorporation;
b. Corporate By-Laws;
G. Resolutions;
d, Consents;
e. Amendments; and
f Minutes of Shareholders andfor Board of Directors Meetings.
Objection. The information sought in document request 10 is beyond the scope of
discovery permitted under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, as it Is not relevant to
the subject matter involved in the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, the information sought would cause
unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden or expense to Defendant.
9
10/15/2003 10:11 7172438227 SROUJOS & GILROY, PC PAGE 01
11. Produce corporate tax returns for Peter Them Builders, Inc. for the following
tax years:
a. 2001;
b. 2002; and
c. 2003,
Objection. The information sought in document request 11 is beyond the scope of
discovery permitted under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, as it is not relevant to
the subject matter involved in the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, the information sought would cause
unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden or expense to Defendant.
10
10;1.5%2003 10:11 7172438227 SROUJOS & GILROY, PC PAGE 02
12. Produce corporate financial statements for Peter Them Builders, Inc. for
the following years:
a. 2001;
b. 2002;and
c. 2003.
Objection. The information sought in document request 12 is beyond the scope of
discovery permitted under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, as it is not relevant to
the subject matter involved in the pending action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, the information sought would cause
unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden or expense to Defendant.
McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
Mane M. Tokarsk*, Esquire
By-(
Garrett H. Rothman, Esquire
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
(717) 232-8000
Attorneys for Defendant
Date: October 10, 2003
11
, PC
10115%2003 1:11 7172439227 SROJJOS & GILROY. PAGE e3
Subjeot to the pcnaltloa of 18 Pa. C.'JA. 14904 routing to unworn talai9eatioa to
audwddea, I hareby coAity that I am Pow 7hoM Pmaidool cf Peter Thom Buildaaa, lac., and flW the
liwta gat forth in the fmgoing dootat tM ate true ad Connor to the beat OE MY mfoamation and bolid.
Apr Thaw
Dated: `b - 9 - D 3
10/15/2003 10:11 7172438227 BROUJOS & GILROY, PC PAGE 04
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Garrett H. Rothman, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 10 day of October, 2003, a
true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by first-class, United States mail,
postage prepaid, upon the following:
Frank A. Nardo, Jr., Esq.
STOCK and LEADER PC
Susquehanna Commerce Center East
221 W. Philadelphia Street -Suite 600
York, PA 17404
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq.
Broujos & Gilroy, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Garrett H. Rothman T-
1
?a
oz
: IE=?
o
z
N
v
w
a
0
L ?
Z ?
I v
O
N
Y
CC
N_
S
O ?
W ^'
N
m\
V U3
1)
A&
I
7
'O
Q
U
Q
c
0
N
T
8 0
O
Ef
W
V 0
•a0
O W
C
V ?
YZ
C W
•t- W
Y_Z
? C
E?
p`
c p
O p
p Y
w i
w t
t ?
r
•? W
Y N
co
?w
i
•O LL
M O
p W
C
J
?CC W
i
Y C
-? Y
Y
O *i
EY
? c
a
Ye E
W
d Y=
Te
Z •)
M
u po p
L
-CC ;o
s p?
a?<
? p0
Y _
Y H
a<
DICKINSON TOWNSHIP
USE 8t OCCUPANCY PERMIT
DATE: 8.21.02
NAME: MR AND MRS ROMANUCCI(PETER THEM BUILDERS _
ADDRESS: 61 ASHTON STREET SUBDIVISION: CLAD RENDON LOT: 44
DATE ISSUED: 12.07.01
ZONING/BUILDING PERMIT #: 01-10--
OCCUPANCY IS GRANTED AS OF THIS
DATE: AUGUST 21 2002
(SEAL)
,JONATHAN E. W. REISINGER
ZONING OFFICER
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for
himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." - Abraham Lincoln
p-BWn-291: R.v- 1o+89
Fomnerfy ER-BCE-129)
*SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION
PERMIT
for
INSTALLATION OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
pursuant to Application for Sewage Disposal System number
a permit is hereby issued to:
NAME OF APPLICANT V
ADDRESS OF APPLICANT TELEPHONE NUMBER
-1 o \,\,/A \1" I Co-!FL\S?
PROPERTY ADDRESS OF SITE FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
This Permit issued under the provisions of the "Pennsylvania Sewage FaciUl:ies Act", the Act of January 24, 1966
(P.L. 1535), as amended is subject to the following conditions:
1. Except as otherwise provided by the Act or regulations of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental .
Resources, no part of the installation shall be covered until inspecled by the approving body and approval to l\..
cover is granted in writing below.
s
2. This Permit may be revoked for the reasons set forth in Section 7(b)(6) of the Act. -'?
3. If constructicn or installation of an individual sewage system or community sewage system and of any building
or structure for which such system is to be Installed has not commenced within three years after the issuance of a permit for such system, the said permit shall expire, and a new permit shall be obtained prior to the com-
mencement a`. said construction or installation. ,
ADOITIONAL CONDITIONS: DO NOT BEGIN CONSTRUCTION UNTIL AUTHORIZED BY S.E.O.
1. NOTIFY S.E.O. 24 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF SEWAGE SYSTEM.
2. DO NOT INSTALL SYSTEM IN WET OR FROZEN SOIL COVDITIONS (SEE S.E.O.)
3. PLEASE REQUEST INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO DESIRED TL*SE.
4. ANY CHA-qGE TO DESIGN REQUIRES PRIOR APPROVAL OF S.E.O.
5. SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT_ OFFICER IS: JONAT_H-\ REISINGER TELEPHONE: 486-7424 or
249. 5526
ALL INSTALLATIONS MUST MEET ALL PA DEP REGULATIONS
KEEP THIS PERMIT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
kporovel m Ca.?
S;gnature of Enforcement Otfioer
Oa:e of Innuenee of permit 12 -1-j - 01
DICKINSON TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS
Approving Body
S.gnature of Entorcemene Officer
-he basis for the issuance of this Permit is the informz:ion supplied in the Application for Sewage Disposal System and other pennen'.
late concerning soil absorption tests, topography, lot size, and sub-soil groundwater table elevations. The permit only indicates than
he issuing authority is satisfied that the installation of the Sewage Disposal System is in accordance with the Rules, Regulations arc
3andards adopted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilhies
act, the Act of January 24, 1966 (P.L. 1 335), as amended. The issuance of a Permi': shall not preclude the enforcement of orherhealu.n
aws, ordinances or regulations in the case of malfunctioning of the system.
TO BE POSTED AT THE BUILDING :3;TE
r? d a
l?
1 _3•J
te'.1
L)
'p w
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
v
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 03-4085 Civil Term *R T` 2004
G
: CIVIL ACTION -LAW
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this _Lai day of March, 2004, upon consideration of the attached
Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents, oral argument is scheduled on Plaintiffs motion for Court Room 4
on the (4 Ml day of ")itQ 2004 at .3 0 0. m•
BY THE COURT,
By:
Ju a Kevin A. Hess
cc: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
Diane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
C 1 :016! l C f UN
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. Ai.6602-
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife, D3- yCPS
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of the :Plaintiffs, Eric Romanucci and
Rebecca S. Romanucci, in the above matter.
1 I 2-CD? By
Date
r f ardo, Jr., Esquire
reme Court I.D. #80108
Su ehanna Commerce Center
East Building, 6th Floor
221 West Philadelphia Street
York, PA 17404
Telephone: (717) 846-9800
U:\FAN\ROMANUCC\Praecipe Withdraw APpeamce.dm
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 02-5592
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this -jj? day of 2004, I, Frank A. Nardo, Jr.,
Esquire, of the law firm of Stock and Leader, attorneys for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that I
served the within Praecipe for Withdrawal of Appearance this day by depositing the same in
the United States mail, postage prepaid, in York, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
Broujos & Gilroy, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Diane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
McNees, Wallace & Nurick
100 Pine Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
By
Wardo, Jr., Esquire
for Plaintiffs
T.D80108
Susquehanna Commerce Center
East Building, 6th Floor
221 West Philadelphia Street
York, PA 17404
Telephone: (717) 846-9800
N
n o ?
t T
'? a --44
?? ? nrii
??::
?L: N ??
C ? U m
.. -?
'?
w
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA NO. 03-4085 Civil Term
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
ACTION - Law and Equity
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through its attorneys,
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, hereby responds to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Defendant's Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents:
Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3a.-e. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs have requested an Order directing the
Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' discover requests. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are
entitled to such an order. Defendant denies that its responses were inadequate, denies
that its objections were inappropriate, insufficient, or made for purposes of delay, and
denies that the information requested by Plaintiffs is discoverable.
By way of further answer, Defendant responses as folllows to the specific
discovery requests in dispute:
Interrogatory #4 - This Interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify its shareholders. This information is entirely
irrelevant to the Plaintiffs' claims and is not likely to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs have
provided no explanation of any reason why the names and
addresses of the shareholders are relevant to what is
essentially a breach of contract & breach of warranties
case. Defendant believes that this interrogatory is an
attempt to discover the assets of Defendant which is not a
proper subject of inquiry at this time. See Pa. Stand. Prac.,
§ 34.66 - 67.
Interrogatory #5 - This Interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify its corporate officers. Although this information
does appear to be relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims, the
Defendant has supplemented its Interrogatory responses to
provide Plaintiff with the name and address of :Defendant's
President and Secretary/Treasurer. Defendant's
supplemental Interrogatory Responses are attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
Interrogatory #6 - This Interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify its Board of Directors. This information is entirely
irrelevant to the Plaintiffs' claims and is not likely to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff's have
provided no explanation of any reason why the names and
addresses of the directors are relevant to what is essentially
a breach of contract case.
Interrogatory #10 - This Interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify the exhibits it will use at trial. Defendant has
answered this Interrogatory, see Ex. A, indicating that
Defendant cannot yet specify what exhibits it will use at
trial. Defendant will supplement its answer to this
Interrogatory as the case progresses.
Interrogatory #11 - This Interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify the witnesses it will call at trial. Defendant has
answered this Interrogatory, see Ex. A, indicating that
Defendant cannot yet specify what witnesses it may call at
trial. Defendant will supplement its answer to this
Interrogatory as the case progresses.
Interrogatory #12 - This Interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify the facts that to which its witnesses will testify.
Defendant has answered this Interrogatory, see Ex A,
indicating that Defendant cannot yet specify what witnesses
it may call at trial. Defendant will supplement its answer to
this Interrogatory as the case progresses. As
Interrogatory #13 - This Interrogatory asks Defendant to
identify other witnesses with relevant information.
Defendant has answered this Interrogatory, see Ex. A,
indicating that to the best of its knowledge, the 27 people
identified in other interrogatory responses are the ones with
relevant information. Defendant need not conduct an
investigation to determine whether other persons have
relevant knowledge. See Pa Stand. Prac., § 34:33.
Request for Production #2(b) - (d) - These Requests
seeks documentation of the labor and materials incurred at
the Property. Defendant has responded to subsections (b)
and (d) indicating that it has no responsive documents.
Defendant objects to subsection #2(c) because the
information sought is entirely irrelevant to the Plaintiffs'
claims. See Ex. A.
Request for Production #4 - This Request seeks the
drawings, sketches, diagrams, measurements, and
blueprints of the Property. Defendant has answered this
Request, see Ex. A, indicating that he has no such
documents.
Request for Production #6 - This Request seeks
contracts for the work or materials supplied at the Property.
Defendant has answered this Request, see Ex. A.,
indicating that he has no such documents.
Request for Production #10 - This request seeks the
production of Defendant's corporate records, including
resolutions, amendments, and minutes of shareholders and
board of directors' meetings. This information is entirely
irrelevant to the claims asserted in the Complaint, which
are claims related to the alleged faulty construction of a
home. Plaintiffs have provided no explanation of any
reason why this information is relevant to its claims.
Request for Production #11 - This request seeks the
production of Defendant's tax returns. This information is
entirely irrelevant to the claims asserted in the Complaint.
Plaintiffs have provided no explanation of any reason why
this information is relevant to its claims. Defendant
believes that this interrogatory is an attempt to discover the
assets of Defendant which is not a proper subject of inquiry
at this time. See Pa. Stand. Prac., § 34.66 - 67.
Request for Production #12 This request seeks the
production of Defendant's financial statements. This
information is entirely irrelevant to the claims asserted in
the Complaint. Plaintiffs have provided no explanation of
any reason why this information is relevant to its claims.
Defendant believes that this interrogatory is an .attempt to
discover the assets of Defendant which is not a proper
subject of inquiry at this time. See Pa. Stand. Prac., § 34.66
-67.
4. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs'
counsel communicated his intent to file this motion to compel. Defendant denies the
remaining averments of this paragraph. By way of further answer, Defendant has
provided Plaintiffs' with supplemental responses to the Interrogatories and Request for
Production. See Ex. A.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that Plaintiffs' motion to compel be denied.
McNEES WALLACE &: NURICK LLC
By 9 J-t n
Diane M. Tokarsky
I.D. No. 44369
Kimberly M. Colonna
I.D. No. 80362
100 Pine Street, :P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
(717) 237-5278
Attorneys for Defendant, Peter Them Builders, Inc.
Dated: April as, 2004
4
c?
?= N
d
n
zu
G) m??
?
{
r N ??rn
O i
6 -C
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC ROMANUCCI AND REBECCA
S. ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
NO. 03-4-085 Civil Term
Plaintiffs
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
ACTION - Law and Equity
DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY RESPONSES
Defendant Peter Them Builders, Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through its attorneys,
McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, hereby supplements its responses to Plaintiffs'
Interrogatories and Request for Production Directed to Defendant as follows:
INTERROGATORIES
5. Please state the names and addresses of the corporate officers of
Defendant.
President: Peter D. Them
Peter Them Builders, Inc.
9 Rapuano Way
Carlisle, PA 17013
Secretary/Treasurer: Peter D. Them
Peter Them Builders, Inc.
9 Rapuano Way
Carlisle, PA 17013
10. Identify all exhibits on which you will rely upon or introduce at trial
of this litigation.
ANSWER: Defendant has not yet determined what exhibits it may rely upon
or introduce at the trial of this litigation. Defendant will supplement this response as
appropriate under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
11. Identify all witnesses you intend to call at the trial of this litigation.
ANSWER: Defendant has not yet determined what witnesses it may call at the
trial of this litigation. Defendant will supplement this response as appropriate under the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
12. Set forth the facts to which each witness is expected to testify.
ANSWER: Defendant has not yet determined what witnesses it may call to
testify at the trial of this litigation. Defendant will supplement this response as
appropriate under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
13. Identify any witness, not identified above, who has knowledge of or
information as to the facts pertaining to this litigation. Also provide a summary of
the information which each witness has concerning this lawsuit.
ANSWER: To the best of Defendant's knowledge, the persons who have
knowledge or information as to the facts relevant to this litigation are identified in
2
Defendant's Answer to Interrogatories #5 and #7. Defendant has not yet determined what
persons it may call as witnesses in this litigation. Defendant will supplement this
response as appropriate under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIOl\I
2. Product all documents in your possession relating to construction at
the Property, including but not limited to:
Responsive documents are produced herewith.
b. Work records relating to the time and scope of work performed by
anyone employed by or subcontracted by Defendant.
ANSWER: Defendant does not maintain records of the specific times worked
by its employees or its subcontractors at each project. Therefore, Defendant is presently
aware of no documents that reflect the time worked by its employees or subcontractors at
the Property that is the subject of Plaintiffs Complaint.
C. Invoices for goods and materials used at the premises; and
ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Request as it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome and because the information requested is not relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims
and is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs purchased a
"spec" house, not a custom home. Furthermore, the invoices from Defendant's suppliers
include materials for a number of projects and the invoices do not specify which
materials were used at the Property that is the subject of the Complaint.
d. Copies of all canceled checks or deposits slips in any way related to
payments made or expenses incurred for work on the Property.
ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request as it is overly broad
and unduly burdensome and because the information requested is not relevant to the
Plaintiffs' claims and is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Further answering, Defendant has no responsive documents.
4. Produce all drawings, sketches, diagrams, measurements or
blueprints in your custody or control or in the custody or control of your attorney
or insurers, which relate to the subject matter of this litigation.
ANSWER: Defendant has no responsive documents.
6. Produce all contracts with persons or entities, other than parties, for
work or materials to be performed or supplied on the Property.
ANSWER: Defendant has no responsive documents.
4
8. Produce all documents which you intend to rely upon or introduce at
trial of this litigation.
ANSWER: Defendant has not yet determined what documents it may rely
upon or introduce at the trial of this litigation. Defendant will supplement this response
as appropriate under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
McNEES WALLACE & NURICK LLC
By
Diane M. Tokarsky
I.D. No. 4.4369
Kimberly M. Colonna
I.D. No. 80362
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
(717) 237-5278
Attorneys for Defendant
Peter Them Builders, Inc.
Dated: April ;, 2004
APR-28-2004 06:06 PM PETER THEM BUILDERS INC 7174868430 P.02
C0041004
Subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. CA.A. $ 4904 relating to unswom falsification
to audwlftles,1 hereby certify that I am Peter Them, Presltleet Of ]Peter Them Build&%
Inc., and that the facts set forth in the ibrogoing doounv= are true and correct to the bent
of my intbrmation and belief.
1? + SC
Pater^--'?
Dated: April _, 2004
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this ;j?' day of April 2004, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served via U.S. Mail, First-Class, postage prepaid upon the
individual(s) listed below:
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
Broujos and Gilroy, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Kimberl M. Colonna
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this X *day of April 2004, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served via U.S. Mail, First-Class, postage prepaid upon the
individual(s) listed below:
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
Broujos and Gilroy, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Kimberly X4. Colonna
C-)
(_
?- N
b O
T
r
-
c>
O 13
3
-
o .?
v ?
ERIC ROMANUCCI and
REBECCA S. ROMANUCCI,
husband and wife,
Plaintiffs
VS.
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
03-4085 CIVIL
IN RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of May, 2004, the defendant is directed to comply with
the plaintiffs' request for production of documents with respect to any documentation of labor or
materials incurred at the subject property to the extent that said documents are specific to that
particular project. In all other respects, the motion of the plaintiff to compel discovery is
DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
.jlubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
Xiane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
For the Defendant
1
:rlm /
a
MIN F
61, :zi pd i i HR 40Z
nd'dAJ]013.40-MIIAHj0
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the (following case:
(Check one) ('? ) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
( ) for trial without a jury.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
CAPTION OF CASE (check one)
(entire caption must be stated in full)
ERIC ROMANUCCI and REBECCA S. ROMANUCCI,
husband and wife,
(X ) Civil Action - Law
( ) Appeal from Arbitration
(other)
VS.
(Plaintiff)s
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
The trial list will be called on 8-10-2004
and
Trials commence on 9-132004
VS.
( Defendant )
Pretrials will be held on 8-18-2004
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.)
(The party listing this case for trial shall
provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to
all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.)
No. 4085 Civil Action ]a 2003
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire and Frank A. Nardo, Jr_
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:
Diane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
This case is ready for trial
signed:
Print Name:
Xert X. Gilroy, Esc
Date: ??? 7 Attorney for: Plaintiff
C7 o O
C-
r O
Y
r_=
77
4.
Eric Romanucci and Rebecca S. Romanucci, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Husband and Wife
V
Peter Them Builders, Inc. NO. 03-4085 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, August 10, 2004, by agreement of counsel, the above captioned case
is hereby continued from the September 13, 2004 trial term. Counsel is directed to relist the case
when ready.
By the Court,
eo o er, P.J.
bert X. Gilroy, Esquire
Rank A. Nardo, Jr., Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Mane M. Tokarsky, Esquire
For the Defendant
Court Administrator
,.l
OS- I z-o
Id
_w
C3.
?- i
LLt r-?-
'?LIJ Gh
LL-
4..+ T a
C1 /...Y7
?
CV 4.
F \FILES\Firm\HXG\Romanucci\Praecipe
Created: 9/20/04 0:06PM
Revised: 1112/07 1:48PM
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
I.D. 29943
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ERIC ROMANUCCI and REBECCA
ROMANUCCI, husband and wife,
Plaintiff
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2003-4085
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PRAECIPE
TO THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY:
Please withdraw the appearance of Broujos & Gilroy, P.C. on behalf of the above Plaintiffs
and enter the appearance of Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller on behalf of the
Plaintiffs.
ubert X. G' roy, Esquire
Supreme Co rt I.D. No. 29943
Broujos & Gilroy, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(7173-4574 ./7
Ebert X. Goy, Esquire
Supreme urt I.D. No. 29943
Martso eardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller
10E
t High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
C'! ? ?r
.-m-
?f ? F ?.
c*? -
_ --c? ?}
+"fi _ ? i F
""" ,.` ')
J (.' Aa j7
r V...
n^? ?.Z
ERIC. ROM NUU1 and REBECCA OMANU ..T, husband and wife,
PLAINTIFFS
vs
PETER THEM BUILDERS, INC.,
Case No. 2503-4085
DEFENDANT
Statement of Intention to Proceed
To the Court:
Plaintiffs
intends to proceed with the
Print Name Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquir%ignName
Date: November 2, 2007
Attorney for Plainti fs
Explanatory Comment
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of
inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit
comment.
1. Rule of civil Procedure
New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the
scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously
governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is
tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting
local rules.
This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d
1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required
before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901."
Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The
general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable.
II Inactive Cases
The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the
court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties.
If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of
course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she
will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue.
a. Where the action has been terminated
If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed
under Rulc230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination
of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file
the notice of intention to proceed.
The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of
the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and
reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff
must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or
legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of
termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2).
B. Where the action has not been terminated
An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may
have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a
common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.
captioned matter.
??:? ??
-? -.y.7
' ^r^{
y ? .?_? 17
__ .'..?
---, -
_._? F .
__ a,,,7
C?3
.. .. ':S
??f ?'?