The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-6124 COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT ,JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. 63 - '-1:2..,-/ {7, u ~v., NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appel/ant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case mentioned below. NAMI! OF API'~I.I.ANT I M;;~O{:O ~O~ o~ :;~ O~~:~en t STATE Z'" CODlE Lisa and Edward Dukes ADDRESS OF APPEr..I.ANT CITV 55 Idle Rd. Marysville PA 17053 10/23/03 I'N;:~~: o~:~';~ and Irwin, DATe OF J>JPGMES:NT (O"i,,'''Ij',,) Cheryl v.. Dukes. Edward ~ and Lisa Cr..A'M NO. 1(IlQ[IlX ~XIlX CV-0000439-03 This block will be signed ONLY when this R.C.P.J.P. No. 1008B. This Notice of Appeal. when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPE RSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. T OR HIS ATTO"Nev OR AQl<:NT Bradford Dorrance, Esquire notation is required under Pa. If appellant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No, 1001(6) in action before District Justice, he MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20J days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. Signature of Prothonotarv or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of farm to be used oNL Y when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.?J.P. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee). PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin . appelleels), to tile a complaint in this appeal Nare of appellee(s) (!; tll.L ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. I~ y...a.,~ur: ::ap:',;;;'t or his attorney or agent RULE: To Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin . appellee Is) Bradford Dorrance, Esquire Nameofappeaee~ 210 Walnut St., P.O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 (717) 255-8014 (11 You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to fife a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20J days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service Of. by certified or registered mail. (Cammon Pleas No.N -Io/;;.'--{ (21 it you do not tile a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WI LL BE ENTERED AGAiNST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of mailing. )ate:A'bU::J( ,~ ~~p '~1:;:,:;,[J.oeput )C 312-84 COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY t '->' .~ j . (This proof of sen.-Ice MUST BE FILED WITHIN FIV{ (~',;i D.-', ,~ I PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ,'is AFFIDAVIT: 11H.'leby SIiV\~(11 01 a\ hllll ,hill \ S(_~lv(~d I J copy of till' NotlCl.; of ;-\ppCcJ!, Comrno\1 Pkd'; Nu __J (({aw o(servicv). ___. 19______, ~ I 1)'1 pl:'~:'I\ I(~C(~lpt dttdclwd IWICID, dtld UpUIJ thl'IP!II'III'I'. 11I;JII'l'j .~. E) ilV P"I ',url;!: '(; ,,\! 'Iii'!/. ')i';,/ JIJ/c' !)fi\/!::' \i\' 'I'! n t: ! j, 1'-."\ 1(:1' II,' i;;',;l,.ti ',"\," 11)1 icr~!t;\;i>I~' Ilf'!] :;II'II~d'l I11di!, 'i~IHI,~; \1'''';<.:' ',';ll(kl '" '(~\T',P\ J t;ld1\~d lWli~t() mail, sender's recl~ipt Jttached hereto. and fur the! that 1 !;erved the null.: (0 hie (j COfll(Jiiilflt dCCU!llp3ny!nq the 6bo'",-, 1\JoLC>:.' of AppcJI Uporl d11 vvhom tflf~ Rulr~ \"}dS dddp:SSI~d (\11 19 \-"1 \H~l'\)!iit; ,I'~'""C' d\l\)(;<II'i" SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SU'l3SCRI8EDSEFO!{E ME THIS_____~_ DAY OF_________nnn___. 19_.__ SI.f/rJiJtUf(' uf offlciar before whorn affidavit was nJiJ((e Title of offiejiJl My commission 8xpil-cs DI1_______,__ lD~___ i-\~ ~,., Iv {,( -z:) P- t r --- .J:::: ...J::: "'\;) (j "() I' ~ i,l \ Q ,-- ~ o ("-- ::-~ ; Si'jl/d!U/' ,.,' dU!<H!t C", n ;, ::J ~ ,-' ,....j l.,,/ '",,) 0":. COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTV OF: ctlIIBl!RLlIND i \.laQ,JtSl"" i ::'. '.a'~$ ,..,o~ I 1m... I CHARLIlS A. CLBHIlIlT . 400 B1UDGB STIUlIlT OLDB TOWN!! COJIHONS NIlW ctlIIBl!RLlIND. PA ~~e~"CM 1717 J 774.5989 JR. NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT CIVIL CASE PLAINTIFF: NNoIEUldAODAESS fiRWIN. HAZBL. IlT AL. 'l 2 ARDKORIl crR NllW ctlIIBl!RLlIND. PA 17070 ~ ~ VS. 09-1-01 -surTE 3 17070 DEFENDANT: NAME.I",,"OOAES$ 'DUDS. BOWARD HR Ii HRS 421 IIBADOW AVE SI!llIIIIANS DALB. PA 17090 L Docket No.: cv- 0000439 - 03 Dale Filed: 8/28/03 'l BOWARD HR Ii HRS DUDS 421 MIlADOW AVI! SHERMllNS DALB. PA 17090 ..I . THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment FOR pr.A TlfI'TJl'P r-', Judgment was entered for: (Name) Lb TRIiITN, HA?:RT., "'" U. LX. Judgment was entered against: (Namel ntnrR~, lmWlIRn "" "- MR~ in the amount 01 $ A, 1 'i7 42 on: (Dale of Judgment) 10/2l/0l Defendants are jointly and severally Hable. (Date & Time) Damages will be assessed on: I Amount at Judgment I Judgment Costs Ilnferest on Judgment I Attorney Fees iTotal $ 8.000.00 $ 157.42 $ .00 $ .00 $ 8.157.42 ThiS case dismissed without prejudice. Amount of Judgment Subiect to A:tachment42 Pa.C.S. 9 8127 $ ---., Portion 01 Judgment for physical - damages arising Qut 01 reSidential le3se S : Post Judgmer1l Credits 5 Post Judgment CostS S ------------ ------------ I Certified Judgment Total S ..N'( ;:1ARTY H';S ThE ",GHT TO A.PPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFli::R THE ENTRy OF JUDGMENT flY fiLING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE' PROTHONOTARY,CLE"RK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PL.EAS, CIVil DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COpy OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT, TRANSCRIPT FOAM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RUL.ES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTICES. IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COUAT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE IssueD BY THE DISTRICT JUSTICE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REOUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES. OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT, 'C 1 '~03 Dale ~Q~.~. District Justice I certify that thiS is a true and correct copy of [he record of the proceedings containing the Judgment. Date District Justice My commission expires first Monday of January, 2008 . SEAL AOPC 315-03 DATE PRDiTBO: 10/24/03 9:10,20 AM 7099 3400 c), C/): ::\) ~i~~~M ~ ib: \! " -": :;f ~ t::!: :z :z. ! Jl: 0 ~ " ~i ~~ '"' :~i:~l : i Ji \ i ~ ~. .0 ~j : ~ : ~ Q $: , . " ~ 0016 3672 9[1' 0016 ~672 w- "' . <1 " ~ mOD m Q~ Q , g 3~ 11 '. Q 00 g.;4 n .. ~[ .0 .. " 0 ,- 0 .u . ro' 0 . ~~ ; '0 ,,, . i -. ;~ ~ .' 0 <g ::0= C 0 ;?;? ;~ . ~{ij ., . . ~ l~ it ~ c~ .g-g Q ~ ~ ~!!!. . .. ~ ,~ ~$ ~ i' . .. 0 . . . . Q & o~ '" Q a . Q. . ~~ [OJ ~ . . . .. " . ~ . ~ ~. ~$ . . . '" ~ ...:. <> . \ ~<'".._--- ./{ /;,..\":" . -"""<''-1 ~"? <? .~ () \.. :.Lj u_ 6' ' \ if~-'c I C <ii ~<t?~ /; tp^?n ~ _:::-j, ~ , u ~--.;>./ '< 90\."/ '~~ " o PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL Mm RUl.E TO FILE COMPLAI (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN FIVE (5) OA YS ,LlFTEr:.,' filing tiu.' notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF DAUPHIN '" AFFIDAVIT: I hereby svveal" or affirm that I served . '. . ,. . 03-6124 Civil. TelCm a copy of the Notice of Appeal, ComrTlOn'Pleas No.___. upon the DisHict justice desigllated th(~It~!11 un (date ofserviceJ ~1/24/03 ,U_, D by pf~rsonal service, [!J by (certifi(~d} (registered) mail, srndcl\ receipt attached hereto, and upon the <Jppellee, (name}___ _----.Haze.LIrw5n' ;:Inn Cheryl rrwin _________ Oil 11/24/01 ,m [] by personal service [:K.J bl (ccrtifie:i) (registered) mail, sender's receipt <IUi-IChed hereto. 1!1 [!] and further that served the Rule to File a Complaint accomr)~mying tre above Notice of Appeal upon the dppcllce(sl lu whom the Rule was addressed on 11/24/03 ____~JC.9---, [~] by personal set-vice pq by (cCI"tificrll (I(~Uisj(~!cd) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. ~-<a~ Bradford Dorrance, Esquire My commission expires on /d-d~.e--S ~ . -. '. NorM l SEAL , PAMEl.A S.WQlFE,.Notaly Public Cltv Of HlIrr,sb@j,Dauphin County Mv Commission Expires Dec. 22, 2003 SI:qlliJtun} of affianl a ~ I ~ il ~ ... :3 is} N -.I ~ ":::;cm.".... COMMONWEAL TH OF PEltm;V~NIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ~ ...~ NOTICE OF APPEA.....,_ FROM JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. 03 - '-I;J,LJ . t (?/u tIEA-.." NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case mentioned below. NAME OF API'IU.L.ANT MAG. l:HST. NO. Oil NAM. 0.. D.J. 'IflI.x..-.-,.__..... ADDRl!!S. 0.. AP~~L.L.ANT 55 Idlli~. _....1 ..D... lit__ Lisa and Edward Dukes 09-1-01. D.J. Clement CITY IITATE ZIP CODK Marysville PA 17053 10/23/03 rN;~~:o~~:~'and '--' (O.fen</~nrJ DATE OF IUDGMKNT Irvin, Cheryl v.. $IGNA'L'? 0." A~P~OR HIli ATTOIINI!Y Oil AGI!NT ~v~ Bradford Dorrance. Esquire Dukes. Edward ""..,.. ~f ~ IIIlI t;1sa CL.AIM NO. IJ[JlI"ft'Y CV-0000439-03 This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1008B, This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. IXlK Z\l:X If appellant . was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. No. 1001(6) in action before District Justice, he MUST FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after filing his NOTICE of APPEAL. Signature of Prothonotarv or Deputy PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONL Y when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. R.C.?J.P. No., 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee). PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin ,appelleels), to file a complaint in this appeal , Nare of appellee(s) {!, (J I l ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or $uffer entry of judgment of non pros. /€fi.-"1 Y I (J ~'-'-"--- ;_-SignatOI'e<Q'f/JppeIl8nt or his atiornily.or agent RULE: To Hazel Irvin and Cheryl Irvin ,appelleels) Bradf9:rd' Dorr.neei._'ii:~quire Name of appellee Is I ~-, 2 t.~.. ~.: ~'l19i.3 / I M sbu ,PA 17108-1963 (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to ~~~m~t~~pea 14 enty (20' days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certifiedq~tered mail.~> (Common Pleas No.~ - !e,/J4 (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS WI LL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Date: o ,~~ (3) The d. of sWice ~his rule if service was by mail is the date of mailing. ,j} h. :I.~ ,g.oc..3 ,,-&r ~-'-" P ?~~ .~~ ~~]. C,t ~'~ ' . 'A~'71 L Sign ureofProthon&o eput . , ;';'. "'. . , :":'t. !:~. Vl '<-~'" AOPC 312-84 COURT FILE LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE II HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 2003-6124 CIVIL TERM EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and wife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with a court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3302 (717) 249-3166 SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C. By: ~ Attorneys for Plaintiff LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE II HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 2003-6124 CIVIL TERM EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and wife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin, by their attorneys, Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P. C., file this Complaint against the Defendants identified above and in support thereof state the following: I. Plaintiff Hazel Irwin is an adult individual residing at 2 Ardmore Circle, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff Cheryl Irwin is an adult individual residing at 2466 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant Edward Dukes is an adult individual with his last known residence at 55 Idle Road, MarysvilIe, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendant Lisa Dukes is an adult individual and wife of Defendant Edward Dukes with her last known address at 55 Idle Road, MarysvilIe, Pennsylvania. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were the owners and operators of a business that purported to provide maintenance, repair and improvement services for residential and other structures which business was known as Dukes Property Services. LAW OFFICES SNEL8AKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE II 6. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Hazel Irwin was the owner of multi-family buildings containing apartment units located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania identified as 2464 and 2466 Market Street, Harrisburg. 7. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Cheryl Irwin, daughter of Plaintiff Hazel Irwin, was the rnanager of the apartment units identified in Paragraph 6, above, and had full authority on behalf of Hazel Irwin to contract with and engage the services of persons and individuals for maintenance, repair and improvements to the apartment units. 8. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Edward Dukes had authority to enter into contracts and agreements with persons on his behalf and on behalf of Defendant Lisa Edwards, as an agent or otherwise, with respect to matters involving the business owned and operated by them under the name of Dukes Property Services. COUNT I Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin, Plaintiffs v. Edward Dukes and Lisa Dukes, husband and wife, individually and doing business as Dukes Property Services, Defendants Negligence, 9. The averments of Paragraphs I through 8, inclusive, of this Complaint are incorporated in this Paragraph as if fully set forth herein in their entirety. 10. In March 2003 Plaintiff Cheryl Irwin entered into an oral agreement with Defendants, through Defendant Edward Dukes, whereby Defendants agreed to provide the -2- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE II , il following services and work with respect to a vacant apartment unit at 2464 Market Street for the total price of $1,300.00: paint the entire apartment; repair closet and wall in second bedroom; repair closet in dining room; replace 3 broken windows; paint and repair all storm windows and screens; replace floor in kitchen; paint back and front door; shampoo the entire carpet; remove carpet in the master bedroom and clean wood floors. 11. During the course of purportedly performing the work identified in Paragraph 10, above, Defendants without prior authorization or permission, performed various work which was not discussed or agreed to by either Plaintiff. 12. Among the work performed by Defendants was the removal and replacement of the flooring in the apartment unit's bathroom. 13. During the work performed by Defendants in the apartment unit's bathroom, Defendants negligently, recklessly and carelessly removed and lost or failed to replace the supporting leg original to the existing bathroom sink. 14. As a direct, factual and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness and carelessness of the Defendants described in Paragraph 13, above, the bathroom sink is separating from the wall and is not properly supported. 15. As a direct, factual and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, recklessness and carelessness described above and the separation of the sink and its lack of proper support, Plaintiffs are required to expend the sum of $400 to replace and install a sink and related faucets. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants jointly and/or severally, in the amount of $400.00, plus interest and costs of this action. -3- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE II II ill COUNT II Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin, Plaintiffs v. Edward Dukes and Lisa Dukes, husband and wife, individually and doing business as Dukes Property Services, Defendants Breach of Contract. 16. The averments of Paragraphs I through 15, inclusive, of this Cornplaint are incorporated in this Paragraph as if fully set forth herein in their entirety. 17. Defendants materially breached the parties' agreernent described in Paragraph 10, above, by failing to repair two window panes in the apartment unit. 18. Defendants were paid the total sum of $3,422.86 representing the amount agreed to be paid for the work done as described in Paragraph 10, above, ($1,300.00) together with additional amounts for work which was not authorized or agreed to be done. 19. The cost to Plaintiffs to repair the two window panes for which Defendants were paid but failed to repair is $20.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants jointly and/or severally, in the amount of $20.00, plus interest and costs of this action. -4- LAW OFFICES SNEL8AKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE II !i II COUNT 1II Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin, Plaintiffs v. Edward Dukes and Lisa Dukes, husband and wife, individually and doing business as Dukes Property Services, Defendants Breach of Contract, 20. The averments of Paragraphs I through 8, inclusive, of this Complaint are incorporated in this Paragraph as if fully set forth herein in their entirety. 21. In April 2003 Plaintiff Cheryl Irwin entered into an oral agreement with Defendants, through Defendant Edward Dukes, whereby Defendants agreed to rernove and replace the back porch, upper and lower stairs and a concrete pad, all at the rear of 2464 - 2466 Market Street, Harrisburg, for a price of $7,600.00. 22. By May 19,2003 Plaintiffs had paid to Defendants the total sum of$12,000.00, representing payment rnade on account of the work performed by Defendants on the apartment unit as noted in Paragraph 18, above, and an advance on account of the work to be performed under the agreement described in Paragraph 21, above. 23. In May 2003 Defendants rernoved the porch and attempted to rernove the concrete pad described in Paragraph 21, above, by use of a skid loader. Although Defendants cracked the concrete pad, they removed none of it, but in the process damaged a drainpipe connected to the apartment building. -5- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE II , , ,I I 24. In spite being paid in full in advance for the work described in Paragraph 21, above, Defendants made no effort to do the work agreed to in Paragraph 21, above, beyond their removal of the porch and their failed attempt to remove the concrete pad. 25. In August 2003 Defendants advised Plaintiffs that they were done with the job, thereby indicating they would not be doing the work agreed to be done as described in Paragraph 21, above. 26. Defendants' failure and refusal to perform the work agreed to be done by them as described in Paragraph 21, above, constitutes a rnaterial breach of the parties' agreement. 27. As a direct, factual and proximate result of Defendants' breach of the parties' agreement, Plaintiff have been caused to secure the services of another contractor to perform the work left incomplete and not performed by Defendants. 28. As a direct, factual and proximate result of Defendants' breach of the parties' agreement, Plaintiffs have been caused to incur and will incur the following losses and damages: a. Overpayment to Defendants for work never performed: $8,055.70 b. Additional costs to complete work above contract price with Defendants and accounting for value of removal of porch: $6,797.00 Total: $14,852.70 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants jointly and/or severally, in the amount of $14,852.70, plus interest and costs of this action. The amounts claimed as damages against Defendants, exclusive of interest and costs, do -6- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN 8: SPARE II ,I 'j I not exceed the amount for mandatory arbitration in this jurisdiction. SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C. (~ BY: Keith O. Brennernan, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin Date: December 12, 2003 -7- LAW OFFICES SNEL8AKER. BRENNEMAN a: SPARE II !il, VERIFICA nON I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. H~n-~~ Date: fk-;a 02oD3 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and COrrect. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: A-/4 c2oQ.3 L'-{rL~ LAW OFFICES SNEL8AKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE II Ii :J , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, caused a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Complaint to be served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Date: December 12,2003 Bradford Dorrance, Esquire Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1963 SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C. II7i1/vL---. By: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PAl 7055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin !~,'- ,. E:~ ;'""1.., (' , ..~':: i. "1:1 , ~ o <;- '. ---\ -< ,--- i, :'.,) r:- lO , ~.1 -< HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and wife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendants No. 2003-6124 Civil Term NOTICE TO DEFEND TO: Plaintiffs, Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin, and their attorney, Keith 0, Brenneman You are hereby notified to file a written response to Defendants'/Counterclaimants' enclosed New Matter and Counterclaim within 20 days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. KEEFER, WOOD, ALLEN & RAHAL LLP Dated: ~/sj Dtf BY:~' Bradford Dorrance 1.D, #32147 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 (717) 255-8014 (Attorneys for Defendants/ Counterclaimants) HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and wife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendants No. 2003-6124 Civil Term DEFENDANTS' ANSWER. NEW MATTER. AND COUNTERCLAIM ANSWER 1-2. Admitted on information and belief. 3-4. Admitted. 5. Denied. Defendants, Edward and Lisa Dukes ("the Dukeses"), never registered any business known as Dukes Property Services. In their initial dealings with the Irwins, Mr. Dukes had discussed the possibility of forming such a company. However, after the Irwins defaulted on their contractual obligations, the Dukeses abandoned the idea. 6, Denied. After reasonable investigation, defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the stated allegation. Accordingly, such allegation is deemed denied and proof thereof is demanded. 7. Admitted in part; denied in part. During the initial stages of the projects, plaintiff, Cheryl Irwin, daughter of plaintiff, Hazel Irwin, had actual or apparent authority on behalf of her mother to contract with and to engage the services of the Dukeses for maintenance, repairs, and improvements to the apartment units. However, after a few weeks of work on the inside of the apartments, Hazel Irwin instructed Mr. Dukes to solely receive direction and approval from her for all work performed on her behalf. 8, Denied. Mr. Dukes did not have authority or permission to enter into contracts on behalf of his wife, Lisa Dukes, including with respect to the nonexistent entity which allegedly operated under the name of Dukes Property Services. WHEREFORE, defendants request that Count I be dismissed with prejudice with all costs taxed against plaintiffs, COUNT I Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin, Plaintiffs v. Edward Dukes and Lisa Dukes, husband and wife, individually and doing business as Dukes Property Services, Defendants Negligence 9. Paragraphs 1 through 8 of this answer are incorporated by reference herein. 2 10. Admitted in part; denied in part. On April 11, 2003, Mr, Dukes and Cheryl Irwin entered into an oral contract for an itemized list of work including: minor wall patching; painting interior walls; front door exterior repainting; and replacement of three panes of glass. The contract price of $1,900 was paid by Ms. Irwin's check. It was further understood and agreed that any work outside the scope of the agreement would be done on a time and material basis after approval, An additional contract was consummated for the shampooing of carpets and was paid for by Ms. Irwin's $100 check. 11. Denied. After the initial projects authorized by Cheryl Irwin, Hazel Irwin approved all projects before any work proceeded. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied and proof demanded. The floor had to be replaced as a result of a cracked toilet which required the replacement of the sub-floor. While replacing the new toilet, Cheryl Irwin asked that a new sink, vanity, and faucets be installed at the same time. Cheryl Irwin approved Mr. Dukes's purchase of a unit from Lowes priced at $145. Mr. Dukes removed the old sink and placed it in the scrap pile, That evening, Mr. Dukes provided Hazel Irwin with an update of the work that had been performed pursuant to her daughter's authorization. Hazel Irwin then overruled her daughter's instructions and stated that 3 the sink should not be replaced. However, by that time, the legs to the sink had already been removed by the garbage collectors before they could be retrieved by Mr. Dukes. Hazel Irwin then visited the apartment and said that she still did not want the old sink to be replaced. Mr. Dukes then stated that any further work would have to be approved by her (Hazel Irwin) and that he would no longer take any direction from Cheryl Irwin. 14-15. Denied as stated. Mr. Dukes complied with his contractual obligations and removed the sink pursuant to the actual or apparent authorization of Cheryl Irwin. Any alleged damage was caused by the negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, defendants request that Count I be dismissed with prejudice with all costs taxed against plaintiffs. COUNT II Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin, Plaintiffs v. Edward Dukes and Lisa Dukes, husband and wife, individually and doing business as Dukes Property Services, Defendants Breach of Contract 16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of this answer are incorporated by reference herein. 4 17-19. Denied and proof demanded. Mr. Dukes purchased glass and left it on site for repair of the two window panes in the apartment unit. However, Mr. Dukes was unable to gain access to the two panes of glass in the apartment bedroom due to a mountain of boxes and furniture being placed there by the new tenant. Mr. Dukes's labor for installing the two panes of glass was never invoiced; however, Mr. Dukes did install an unrelated pane at the cost of $10, which has yet to be invoiced. WHEREFORE, defendants request that Count II be dismissed with prejudice with all costs taxed against plaintiffs. COUNT III Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin, Plaintiffs v. Edward Dukes and Lisa Dukes, husband and wife, individually and doing business as Dukes Property Services, Defendants Breach of Contract 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 incorporated by reference herein. 21-28, Denied. The stated allegations are specifically denied and proof is demanded, if relevant. Hazel Irwin approved an oral contract change order for $465.97 for work 5 performed at Apartment Unit 2466 and a separate change order for $55.47 for work done at Unit 2464A. On or about May 1, 2003, Mr. Dukes entered into an oral agreement with Hazel Irwin for the sum of $3,128 to repaint the four front doors; paint all exterior windows; and replace all four rear doors. Hazel Irwin provided Mr, Dukes with a check in the amount of $5,000, of which $1,944.30 was used to the pay the balance for work completed on Apartments 2464, 2464A, and 2466. The $3,055.70 balance of Ms. Irwin's payment was applied to the contract entered into on May 1, 2003. Cheryl Irwin and Mr. Dukes did not enter into any agreement relating to the deck. To the contrary, on or about May 19, 2003, Mr. Dukes and Hazel Irwin entered into an oral agreement for the price of $11,500 to perform the following work at her home: replacement of the concrete pad, which had cracked and sunk six inches from where it had been attached to the house; replacement of the existing deck with an eight-foot deck with a center staircase to the second floor; and replacement of the railing on the second floor porch. Hazel Irwin further understood and agreed that the roofing around the posts on the second floor porch had to be repaired by a contractor of her choice before Mr. Dukes would be able to replace the second floor railing. This complication was the result of loose posts going through the existing roofing. Mr. Dukes spend several 6 uncompensated hours at Hazel Irwin's home reviewing the design, material, and labor requirements. Ms. Irwin gave Mr. Dukes a check in the amount of $5,000 for a deposit to purchase materials on that day. On May 20, 2003, Mr, Dukes and Hazel Irwin entered into an oral agreement for the price of $2,700 to complete work on Apartment 2464A that had been left unfinished when the original contractor had quit. The remaining work included: installation of suspended ceilings in the bedrooms, kitchen, and dining room; and repairing and painting the walls in the hallway and dining room. Materials were purchased and arrangements were made with the tenant in this unit for Mr. Dukes to begin work on or about May 26, 2003. On or about May 25, 2003, Cheryl Irwin called Mr. Dukes at home and asked him to come to her apartment that evening, Mr. and Mrs, Dukes thereafter arrived at Cheryl Irwin's home. Cheryl Irwin told the Dukeses that she had called her mother's banker and decided to break the construction contracts that had been entered into between Hazel Irwin and Mr, Dukes on or about May 1, 2003 and May 19, 2003. Mr. Dukes called Hazel Irwin on May 26, 2003 to confirm this change of plans. Mr. Dukes told Hazel Irwin that he would investigate the possibility of installing the deck at a lower price by using materials purchased through auctions and by doing more of the work himself rather than subcontracting 7 portions of that project, Since the deck had become an economic drain on his time, Mr. Dukes emphasized that additional work would have to be assigned to him to make up his losses. Mr, Dukes never agreed or offered to return any portion of the money paid by Hazel Irwin before she elected to breach the parties' contracts. Mr. Dukes never billed for his time on various projects. His unbilled time amounted to several thousand dollars in work benefiting the Irwins, On May 28, 2003, the tenant in 2464A asked Mr. Dukes why he had not begun work on her apartment. Mr. Dukes informed the tenant that Hazel Irwin had abruptly stopped all work and had decided to have her daughter and the tenant do the work themselves. WHEREFORE, defendants request that Count III be dismissed with prejudice with all costs taxed against plaintiffs. NEW MATTER 29. Counts I, II, and III fail to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 30. Contrary to plaintiff's assertions, Mr. Dukes and his employees and subcontractors performed all work in a good and workmanlike manner. 8 31. Plaintiffs unilaterally elected to rescind the remaining work on the contracts and breached their obligations by failing to pay the Dukeses in excess of $4,000 for work performed, lost profits, and equipment and materials purchased. 32. Ed Dukes performed several thousand dollars of uncompensated work which benefited the Irwins. Additionally, Mr. Dukes incurred at least $2,400 in equipment which was unique to the Irwins' unfinished projects; and incurred significant unliquidated expenses in attempting to return or sell the unused materials for the aborted projects. 33. The Dukeses assert claims in the nature of setoff or recoupment for all sums owed to them by plaintiffs under the parties' express and implied (and quantum meruit) contracts. The amount of such claims is currently unliquidated but is within the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration. 34. Plaintiffs' claims and causes of actions are barred by the following affirmative defenses: accord and satisfaction; consent, waiver, and estoppel; failure of consideration; impossibility of performance; and statute of frauds, 35. Plaintiffs were contributorily negligence and are barred from pursuing their claims under the Comparative Negligence Act. 9 WHEREFORE, defendants request that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice with all costs taxed against plaintiffs. COUNTERCLAXM EDWARD AND LXSA DUKES V. HAZEL AND CHERYL XRWXN 1. Counterclaimants, Ed and Lisa Dukes ("counterclaimants") are married adult individuals who currently reside at 421 Meadow Lane, Shermans Dale, Pennsylvania 17090. 2. Defendant, Hazel Irwin, is an adult individual residing at 2 Ardmore Circle, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 3. Defendant, Cheryl Irwin, is an adult individual residing at 2466 Market Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 4. The Dukeses and the Irwins entered into various express and/or implied agreements, as averred more fully in paragraphs 1 through 35 above, which are incorporated by reference herein. 5. Based on the parties' written and oral promises and course of dealing, the Dukeses agreed to perform certain work in exchange for a total contract price in excess of $21,777. 10 6, The Irwins breached the parties' express and implied-in-fact agreements by unilaterally terminating the remaining work and by failing to pay the Dukeses in excess of $4,000 for work performed, lost profits, and equipment and materials purchased. 7. Mr. Dukes performed several thousand dollars in uncompensated work which benefited the Irwins and their projects. 8. Acting in reasonable reliance on the Irwins' promises, Mr. Dukes purchased at least $2,400 in equipment solely for the Irwins' projects. 9. Alternatively, assuming there was no express or implied contract, the Dukeses are entitled to receive in excess of $10,000 on a quantum meruit basis, representing the reasonable value of work performed and expenses incurred on behalf of the Irwins. 10. It would be unjust and inequitable if the Irwins were permitted to retain the benefits of the Dukeses' work (and materials) without making restitution to them in excess of $10,000. WHEREFORE, counterclaimants, Edward and Lisa Dukes, request judgment against defendants, Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin, in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00, thus requiring referral to arbitration under local rule. The Dukeses request 11 such other relief as the court, in its discretion, deems appropriate and just. KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP Date: 7-J.S/DLf By: ~. Bradford Dorrance LD. No. 32147 210 Walnut Street P.O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 (717) 255-8014 (Attorneys for Defendants/ Counterclaimants) 12 VERIFICATION \'1e, Ed',vard Dukes and Llsa Dukes, hereby verity dlld state that: 1. We are defendants/counterclaimants in the foregoing m2tter and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth therein. 2. The facts contained in the foregoing answer, Dew matter, and counterclaim are true and correct to the best ot our knowledge, information and belief. 3. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 pa. C.S. 14904, relatlng to ~11SWGrll falsific~ation to duthorlties. Dated: lJ-/lui ~~(Jc- Edward Du . a Dated: d.-.. - '-I- 0 1 ~"D~ . 1-- .--.--.---- Lisa Dukes GO-d gSOO-GBS L~L sa~na p~~MP3 dLS:gO ~o-~O-qa~ 9S00 G8S I.. 1:1.. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: First-Class Mail. postaqe Prepaid Addressed as Follows: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C. 44 W. Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Dated: 2/dO~ 63. Bradford Dorrance )> ,,~ C'-'::> ~~ ~ "TJ r~" ; w I oc) :;:J j.:il::!1 ,- -orn :-,' '1J ~.~C) -:- ,.' is:::! :,~M :::~'l "~'J :< :Q -.-'" - .. C..:J -J II :! [I i HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. : NO. 2003-6124 CIVIL TERM EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and wife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Edward Dukes and Lisa Dukes, Defendants and Bradford Dorrance, Esquire Keffer Allen Wood & Rahal, LLP 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PAl 71 08-1963 You are hereby notified that you have twenty (20) days in which to plead to the enclosed New Matter or a Default Judgment may be entered against you. SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C. ~ Date: February 25, 2004 By: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN 8: SPARE II HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2003-6124 CIVIL TERM EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and wife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM WITH NEW MATTER Plaintiffs Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin, by their attorneys, Snelbaker, Brenneman & Spare, P. C. submit this Reply to Defendants New Matter and Answer with New Matter to Defendants' Counterclaim as follows: REPL Y TO NEW MATTER 29. Denied. Paragraph 29 of Defendants' New Matter contains unwarranted conclusions of law to which no response is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. I 029( d). 30. Denied. Paragraph 30 of Defendants' New Matter contains unwarranted conclusions oflaw to which no response is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). To the extent a response is required, Defendants' failure to perform work, the specifics of which are contained in the averments set forth in the Complaint and incorporated by reference herein, does not constitute performance of work or work performed in a good and workmanlike manner. 31. Denied. Paragraph 31 of Defendants' New Matter contains unwarranted conclusions LAW OFFICES SNEL8AKER. BRENNEMAN 8: SPARE of law to which no response is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.c.P. 1029(d). To the extent a response is required, it is denied that Plaintiffs unilaterally rescinded any work or 'ontracts. On the contrary, Defendants failed to perform the work agreed to be done and for hich payment was made as more fully set forth in the Complaint, the averments of which are ncorporated by reference herein. It is further denied that Plaintiffs owe Defendants any amount or work performed, lost profits and equipment and materials purchased. 32. Denied. It is denied that Ed Dukes performed "several thousand dollars" of compensated work which benefited the Plaintiffs. On the contrary, the only persons benefited ere the Defendants who were paid in advance for work they never did or performed. It is enied that Mr. Duke "incurred at least $2,400 in equipment" although it is admitted the efendants left projects unfinished. Finally, it is denied that Defendants incurred "significant liquidated expenses" in attempting to return or sell any unused materials for projects. 33. Denied. Paragraph 33 of Defendants' New Matter contains unwarranted conclusions flaw to which no response is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.c.p. 1029(d). To the xtent a response is required, it is denied there were express or implied contracts (including uantum meruit contracts) between the parties of the nature alleged by Defendants in their nswer, New Matter and Counterclaim. Accordingly, Defendants' claim of setoff, recoupment d unliquidated damages is patently baseless. 34. Denied. Paragraph 34 of Defendants' New Matter contains unwarranted conclusions flaw to which no response is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 35. Denied. Paragraph 35 of Defendants' New Matter contains unwarranted conclusions flaw to which no response is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). LAW OFFICES 5NEL8AKER BRENNEMAN & SPARE WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Defendants' Answer, New Matter and ounterclaim be dismissed with prejudice and judgment be entered in their favor in accordance ith the demands set forth in their Complaint. -2- II ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM I. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. Paragraph 4 of Defendants' Counterclaim should be stricken as being in violation ofPa.R.C.P. 1020 and Pa.R.C.P. 1022 which are applicable to Defendants' purported pleading of a counterclaim. To the extent a response is necessary, it is denied: A. There was an oral agreement entered into on or about May I, 2003 as alleged in Paragraphs "21-28" of Defendants' Answer; B. There was an oral agreement entered into on or about May 19,2003 as alleged in Paragraphs "21-28" of Defendants' Answer; C. There was an oral agreement entered into on or about May 20, 2003 as alleged in Paragraph "21-28" of Defendants' Answer. Defendants presented a written proposal for work on Apartment 2464A on May I, 2003 which was expressly rejected; and D. There was any "implied agreement", the basis for which being conspicuously absent in any allegations in Defendants' Answer, New Matter or Counterclaim. On the contrary, the agreements entered into by the parties are accurately set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, the averments of which are incorporated by reference herein. 5. Denied. Paragraph 5 of Defendants' Counterclaim contains unwarranted conclusions of law to which no response is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). By way of further response, the averments of Paragraph 4 ofthis Answer are incorporated by reference herein. 6. Denied. Paragraph 6 of Defendants' Counterclaim contains unwarranted conclusions LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN 8: SPARE -3- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN 8: SPARE II oflaw to which no response is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). By way of further response, it is denied that Plaintiffs owe Defendants any amounts for work allegedly performed, lost profits, equipment and materials purchased. 7. Denied. Paragraph 7 of Defendants' Counterclaim is denied for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, Reply to New Matter and Answer to Counterclaim, the averments of which are incorporated by reference herein. 8. Denied. Paragraph 8 of Defendants' Counterclaim contains unwarranted conclusions oflaw to which no response is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). By way of further response, it is unknown what equipment, if any at all, Defendants purchased for any work actually performed for Plaintiffs. Finally, Defendants' claim for his equipment purchases is preposterous and unsupported by any agreement by the parties and certainly not one of the "contracts" alleged by Defendants. 9. Denied. Paragraph 9 of Defendants' Counterclaim contains unwarranted conclusions of law to which no response is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). By way of further response, it is denied that there was any express or implied contract of the nature claimed by the Defendants. It is further denied that Defendants are entitled to any "quantum meriut" recovery of any amount for the reason they were paid far in excess for the value they actually conferred due to their abject failure to complete their agreements and work. 10. Denied. Paragraph 10 of Defendants' Counterclaim contains unwarranted conclusions oflaw to which no response is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). By way of further response, Defendants receiving advance payment without performing their agreements and work is unjust and inequitable. -4- LAW OFFICES 5NELBAKER. BRENNEMAN 8: SPARE II WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Defendants' Answer, New Matter and ~ounterclaim be dismissed with prejudice and judgment be entered in their favor in accordance ith the demands set forth in their Complaint. NEW MATTER TO DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM II. Defendants' Counterclaim fails to state a claim or claims upon which relief may be ranted. 12. Defendants' alleged purchase of equipment for use on work to be performed for laintiffs was never agreed to be paid or reimbursed by Plaintiffs and was never a term of any ontract entered into by the parties. 13. On or about May I, 2003 Defendants presented an estimate to Plaintiffs for work roposed to be done at 2464A Market Street, Harrisburg. 14. The estimate made reference to in Paragraph 13, above was rejected by Plaintiffs. 15. All estimates and invoices presented by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs were . dentified as being from "Dukes Property Services". A true and correct copy of one of the . nvoices submitted by Defendants to Plaintiffs is attached hereto and incorporated by reference erein as "Exhibit A". 16. Defendants in Paragraph 5 of their Answer stated that the Defendants "never egistered any business known as Dukes Property Services". 17. Defendants have neither jointly nor individually registered or properly registered the ssumed or fictitious name of "Dukes Property Services". -5- LAW OFFICES SNElBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE II 18. As a matter of law, Defendants are precluded from maintaining the counterclaim in the Commonwealth until such time as Defendants have complied with the provisions of the fictitious names registration act. 19. Defendants are required to pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Pennsylvania Department of State pursuant to 54 Pa.C.S.A. 33l(b) prior to instituting its counterclaim against Plaintiffs. 20. Defendants have not paid a $500.00 civil penalty to the Pennsylvania Department of State prior to instituting its counterclaim against Plaintiffs. 21. For the reasons set forth above, Defendants' Counterclaim should be stricken. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that Defendants' Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim be dismissed with prejudice and judgment be entered in their favor in accordance with the demands set forth in their Complaint. SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P. C. (;~ BY: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin Date: February 25, 2004 -6- LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN 8: SPARE II VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to New Mater and Answer to Counterclaim with New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~ 1.__ ~ ..' - ..,~- -' - -~-"- - .---.-j / ..":~ C -' ~!-C', Hazel in , Dme: February 25, 2004 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN 8: SPARE II ,I ! VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to New Mater and Answer to Counterclaim with New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. , Date: February 25, 2004 Dukes Property Services 55 Idle Road Marysville, P A 17053 Invoice Date Invoice # 5/l/2003 2 Bill To Hazel Irwin 2 Ardmore Circle New Cumberland P A 17070 For 2466 MaIket St Harrisburg P.O. No. Terms Project Due on receipt Item Description EstAmt Prior Amt Prior % Qty Rate Curr % Total % Amount Flooring ... Underlaymenl 4x8 9.97 I 1 9.97 100.00% 100.00% 9.97 Plmnbin... American Standard Toilet 98.00 I 98.00 100.00% 100.00% 98.00 Remodel... Remove bathroom floor, install 180.00 6 30.00 100.00% 100.00% 180.00 underlayment and customers floor tiles. Plmnbin... Remove and install new toilet 98.00 I 98.00 100.00% 100.00% 98.00 Plmnbin... Install bathroom vanity, mirror 80.00 2 40.00 100.00% 100.00"10 80.00 and cabinet Total $465.97 Payments/Credits $0.00 Balance Due $465.97 EXHIBIT A " CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, iicaused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter and Answer to i! " iiCounterclaim with New Matter to be served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: I, Ii Ii II d Ii I ,I , " !I II I I I ! FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Bradford Dorrance, Esquire Keefer Allen Wood & Rahal, LLP 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C. By: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin Date: February 25, 2004 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER. BRENNEMAN & SPARE (') "> 0 = , <_:.J -n ...;- " -r, '-j "1 ~r~ J] t:l - fn r,., "'2 (oij ~,~;~ ~:~ ; r , (5 ~ , - ~:)rt'j ...:.,. c'::: U) -I .' ". =2 .c- .~! -<. HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and wife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendants No. 2003-6124 Civil Term REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' NEW MATTER TO DEFENDANTS' COUNTERCLAIM 11. Denied. Paragraph 11 of plaintiffs' new matter is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 12. Denied. The parties orally agreed that Mr. Dukes would perform services on a time and material basis. Acting in reasonable reliance on the Irwins' promises, Mr. Dukes purchased at least $2,400.00 in equipment solely for the Irwins' projects. 13 . Admi tted. 14. Denied. Hazel Irwin authorized Mr. Dukes to perform various services which he had proposed in his estimates. Ms. Irwin further authorized additional work outside the scope of Mr. Dukes's proposals, and Mr. Dukes performed those services and incurred out-of-pocket expenses in reliance on the Irwins' actions. 15. Admitted in part; denied in part. Admitted that Exhibit A is one of the invoices submitted by defendants to plaintiffs. Denied that all estimates, invoices, and work were performed under the name Dukes Property Services. 16. Admitted in part; denied in part. Paragraph 5 of defendants' answer speaks for itself. Mr. Dukes has yet to register any business known as Dukes Property Services, because that entity was to be formed in anticipation of the completion of the Irwins' project. After the Irwins breached their obligations and ordered Mr. Dukes to stop performing services, Mr. Dukes elected not to register any tradename. 17. Admitted in part; denied in part. Paragraph 17 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. If a responsive pleading is deemed necessary, defendants incorporate by reference paragraph 16 above. 18-19. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 20. Admitted in part; denied in part. Mr. Dukes has yet to pay any civil penalty to the Pennsylvania Department of State and has not been informed that any civil penalty is owed. 21. Denied. Paragraph 21 is a request for relief to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, defendants specifically deny the stated allegation and aver to the contrary that no civil penalty 2 is owed and any established violation can be cured upon payment of any sum claimed by the Commonwealth. WHEREFORE, counterclaimants, Edward and Lisa Dukes, request judgment against defendants, Hazel Irwin and Cheryl Irwin, in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00, thus requiring referral to arbitration under local rule. The Dukeses request such other relief as the court, in its discretion, deems appropriate and just. KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP Date: 3/ "It) '1 BY:~~~ adford Dorrance I.D. No. 32147 210 Walnut Street P.O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 (717) 255-8014 (Attorneys for Defendants/ Counterclaimants) 3 VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, hereby verify and state that: 1. I am counsel for defendants/counterclaim plaintiffs in the foregoing matter, and I am signing this verification in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1024(c). 2. The facts contained in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. 3. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. s4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ~ J, 1--/c, '-( t t ~~-=r-<-. ,- ~ ~ Bradford Dorrance CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: First-Class Mail. postaqe PreDaid Addressed as Follows: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire SNELBAKER, BRENNEMAN & SPARE, P.C. 44 W. Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 } I Dated: 3i 1'--1 b Lf I 1.-. , ~ <ct=~~ - Bradfor Dorrance . ----- ,.<'1 c;:") S? o -n ".-i tT~ :c~l t"n C"t , ~':;j :;:::: ::;':"J , , ;.l'l Ul -;:::1 -on t::) C) _,.J HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN, Plaintiffs v. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and wife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendants : NO. 2003-6124 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION .- LAW PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Keith O. Brenneman, counsel for the Plaintiffs in the above action, respectfully represents that: I. The above-captioned action is at issue. 2. The claim of the Plaintiffs in this action is $15,252.701. The counterclaim of the Defendants in this action is less than $25,000.00. The fOllowing attorneys are interested in this case as counselor are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire, Philip H. Spare, Esquire and Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire. WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Date: ::i"'7';' "I, /kJ{) i Respectfully Submitted, ~--... Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, 3d ,2004, in consideration of the foregoing P'"';o. , Su ' ,~ ,&q., ~ /''''' 7iV ,E~.,"" fll/ ,J -9{} b ''1~ ~q. are appointed arbitrators in the above-captioned action as prayed for. P. J. ~ *- - Vl v-l .....:) vJ --..c .'11NV;\1)\~~~~N3d I "!n~r (.,. "",,""\ ,"'C''''~'' 1\.,U'\1 tJ,_,J ',j-:-,' ;f:'~':~::''1! 1...; L~ :2 ~ld OS lflf ~OOl A\:N1ONOH10Bd 3Hl :10 38H:lQ-{l3l1:1 o '" ~ ~ uJ o V1 ~ ---., 1'-- '^" (") ~; 92 tf~. 0~;:: ~~: ~~,." -....~ ~;~ ~3 -,. "CP '" ::> ~ ~ .:> ,...., = c"'" o "n .... ffi:n :gFn 96 .-1-,., .I:,'l ~o C)m ;:;~J :n -< (.... c= .- N W -0 :x ~'? ~ V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN : NO. 03-6124 CIVIL TERM EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and wife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES IN RE: ARBITRATION PANEL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, August 20, 2004, the Court having been informed that John Porter, Esquire, is unavailable for the above-captioned arbitration hearing, Andrew Shaw, Esquire, is appointed in his stead. By the Court, ~;~e Shade, Esquire Chairman Court Administrator 6~-/).3-OY "'..1 '.I! 1....,.....1 n.. .,',' '.. .., "07 ::' ' '. .r >; ~;.:U(, LAW OFFICES SNEL6AKER & BRENNEMAN HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 2003-6124 CIVIL TERM EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and wife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Hazel Irwin and against Defendants Edward ukes and Lisa Dukes, individually and trading and doing business as Dukes Property Services, 'n the amount of$14,852.70 plus costs and interest from September 1,2003 on $8,055.70 hrough November 3, 2004 and interest on $14,852.70 from November 3, 2004 in accordance ith the Arbitrators' Award dated November 3, 2004. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. C. 0~ ate: January 13, 2005 BY: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff " ,...:> = C:~:) (.;.H '- ~ w o .1 ..-\ :L-y-r r"r::" -r':1 l~.~ ;~:~} ~~ i~f'): -0 ..c.- r;? c::) C) "L) --<... LAW OFFICES SNELSAKER 8< 3RENNEMAN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to be served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Date: January 13, 2005 Bradford Dorrance, Esquire Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP 210 Walnut Street P. O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. ~ By: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, P A 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff .-' () ..:.:.'l ~:::':'J ...., ."s ~ \;.on -\ \~. '- -c.-,. ~ "i$ := f'\1'l~~ ;:'~ -,J\I:. .uc; ~ W \~~S~l (A, ~ '..---' ~ ~::; i~:-_:{;~ ~ -':.~ ,,"', ~ ~"I::- ~l or', ~ )::; V\, . 0 ",:,< ~ C> ..,j - HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and wife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendants No. 2003-6124 Civil Term NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM AWARD OF BOARD OF ARBITRATORS TO THE PROTHONOTARY, Notice is given that defendants, Edward Dukes and Lisa Dukes, i/t/d/b/a Dukes Property Services, appeal from the arbitrators' award, which was dated NoveruJer 3, 2004, and which was mailed to defendants' undersigned attorney on January 20, 2005. I hereby certify that the compensation of the arbitrators has been paid. ~~ I.D. No. 32147 KEEFER WOOD ALLEN & RAHAL, LLP 210 Walnut Street P.O. Box 11963 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963 (717) 255-8014 (Attorneys for Appellants) () AJ~ \l -:t - '\) ~ lr{ o 0- C> ~ ~ -------- -<<:;i. '/--l -0 C) ~ \) ~ ~ ( ~ ~?i , ",) 'co r:-? ()\ (""J - SNELBAKER BRENNEMAN, HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN, Plaintiffs v. EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and wife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendants TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2003-6124 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE Please mark the judgment entered in the above-captioned action satisfied upon your docket and indices. Date: May 2, 2005 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. C. BY: III!!~ Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to be served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL. POSTAGE PREPAID. ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Bradford Dorrance, Esquire Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP 210 Walnut Street P.O.Box 11963 Harrisburg, P A 117108-1963 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.c. 11~ By: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Date: May 2, 2005 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER BRENNEMAN, f'-:I ....., c.;:;> c;.;) en o -n --4 :C-n fnr:- ,~:?) _.:~ ::]"~: :-:~F(~ '-:-<-! -~ ~.: :-<. , r.....' ~ 9 c!~ , .-< - . . ... ~~ HAZEL IRWIN and CHERYL IRWIN, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v, : NO, 03-6124 CIVIL TERM EDWARD DUKES and LISA DUKES, husband and \\ife, individually and trading and doing business as DUKES PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendants OATH We do solemnly swear (or affinn) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. .. , ' # d./'J~ r Sluu~ /}#~/c:::- Wayne iI' Shade, Chainnan An rew H. Shaw ~osh 53 West PomtTet Street 61 West Louther Street P.O. Box 368 Carlisle,PA170J3 Carlisle,PAl7013 CWlpHill,PAI70q I(), " C- /.2';<;:1 Ir./ </;.. J\1J...Lv C~ c--f ~ AWARD /07'7<) ~ We, the undersigned arbitraTOrs, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affinned), make the following award: (Note: If damages )(Jr delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) .x~ Fe'" "6 p~ KJV ~ ~~ r}~ G~vJ. bfi- A Cv (~b" " JJ'aL2~ c~~ c4~ ~.w (\..!. D ~ A~"1;J ~''-v-<--<'...,f; .-^-^^- -tt.::( C.l.""<"<<-v-t IF I <t! "7; 'J ..). 7 () ..::i O. LA t kI..ctA ~ J...v....--Uufl i\.q--........ ~..u,' I ;) e., C:) <ZJ'F I ~.l.~':tJ A' '3' f I" / <Y'^..,Ll U I U).:5 -: 7 0 (~, --"-N\.'\'< \.. ,'- c.1-v"'-~ ~ I d (j C 't, CA..-"",,-,,,-^,,c\JL,,-,AJ G'--"'.. t'f ("t ii);;; 7 u .'t......'-... Iv (I~~ v LW,,-> '5. J. u Co <t . ) " ,Arbitrator, dissents. (lnsert name if applicable.) 1\> .. Date of Hearing: November 3, 2004 r-. '-J-i~ Date of Award: November 3, 2004 ~ ~ NOTlCE OF ENTRY OF A WARD NOW, the day of November, 2004, at _:_ _.M., the above award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrator's compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ By: Prothonotary Deputy