HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-0569i
STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, JR. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs. : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
SHAU DONG WONG, NO. 08-.C1.? Civil Term
JIN MUH HWANG, and
SHIAO SHENG CHEN ACTION IN EJECTMENT
Defendants
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 the
court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you
fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the
court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
TELEPHONE: 717-249-3166
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990
The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County is required by law to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and
reasonable accomodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please
contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any hearing or
business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing.
STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, JR.
Plaintiff
VS.
SHAU DONG WONG,
JIN MUH HWANG, and
SHIAO SHENG CHEN
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NO. 08- $`? Civil Term
: ACTION IN EJECTMENT
COMPLAINT IN EJECTMENT
AND NOW, comes STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, Plaintiff, by and through Frey & Tiley
Attorneys at Law and respectfully states as follows:
1. Plaintiff is STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, an adult individual, having his office and
principal place of business at 5005 East Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050.
2. Defendants are SHAU DONG WONG, JIN MUH HWANG, and SHIAO SHENG
CHEN, adult individuals, having their place of business and mailing address at 5001 East Trindle
Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050.
3. Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant to the within action was, the owner in fee simple
and entitled to possession of real property situate in Hampden Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, known as 5005 East Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, by virtue of a
deed from Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr. and Anna M. Rydesky, his wife to Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr.
and Anna M. Rydesky, his wife, dated May 10, 1985, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder
of Deeds in and for Cumberland County at Carlisle, Pennsylvania in Deed Book "G", Volume
31, Page 361. A true and correct copy of said deed is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit "A."
4. Anna M. Rydesky subsequently died thereby vesting title to the real estate referenced
in Paragraph 3 solely in her suriving spouse, Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr., the Plaintiff.
5. Defendants are the owners in fee simple and entitled to possession of real property
situate in Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, known as 5001 East Trindle
Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, by virtue of a deed from Don R. Stehman and Patsy H.
Stehman to Shau Dong Wong, Jin Muh Hwang and Hsao Sheng Chen, dated December 1, 1989,
and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County at Carlisle,
Pennsylvania in Deed Book "H", Volume 34, 653. A true and correct copy of said deed is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "B".
6. On or about May 1, 1985, Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr. and Anna M. Rydesky, his wife
entered into a written Agreement For Easement and Right-of-Way with Don H. Stehman and
Patsy H. Stehman, his wife (Defendant's predecessors in title), said agreement being recorded on
May 2, 1985 in Cumberland County Miscellaneous Record Book 305, Page 88. A copy of said
Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "C."
7. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, and in consideration of the promises,
covenants, and agreements contained therein, Defendants' predecessor in title did grant an
easement to Plaintiff as follows:
2. Provided Stehman otherwise has the legal right to do so, Stehman grants to
Rydesky an easement in favor of Tract B [Plaintiff's real estate described in
Paragraph 3] and over and through Tract A [Defendants' real estate described in
Paragraph 41 of width not to exceed twenty (20) feet at a location generally in the
northern one-quarter portion of Tract A (the exact location to be more specifically
agreed upon) for ingress and egress from Tract B on to and from Sporting Hill
Road. The rights and privileges created by this paragraph shall not come into
existence until such time as the area upon which the right-of-way and easement is
macadamized or otherwise surfaced so as to adequately support the traffic
intended to be borne by the easement or right-of-way herein granted.
8. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Plaintiff and Defendants' predecessor in title
agreed upon the location of the right-of-way and demonstrated their agreement by paving the
right-of-way area with macadam extending from the parking lot on Defendants' property to a
gravel extension over a portion of Plaintiff's property. A photograph showing the location of the
right-of-way is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "D".
9. The terms of the Agreement are binding on Defendants as the current owners of the
land pursuant to paragraph 4:
4. This agreement shall be deemed to run with Tract A and Tract B so that the
rights and privileges herein created and the burdens hereby imposed shall inure to
the benefit of and the be responsibility of subsequent owners.
10. Defendants have breached the terms of the Agreement For Easement and Right-of-
Way and continue to be in breach of the Agreement by allowing cars to be parked in the right-of-
way, by placing their trash dumpster in the right-of-way, and by erecting and maintaining a fence
blocking access to Plaintiff's property over the right-of-way. The blocking of the right-of-way is
shown on Exhibit "D" and by further photographs attached as Exhibit "E".
11. On October 3, 2007, Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, made written demand on
Defendants for possession and use of the aforementioned right-of-way. A copy of said demand
is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "F."
12. Defendants have failed and refused to allow Plaintiff to use the right-of-way and have
further refused to provide any basis for their blocking of the right-of-way.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment in favor of Plaintiff and
against Defendants granting to Plaintiff possession and uninterrupted use of the right-of-way
over the lands of Defendants, requiring the removal of the fence, trash dumpsters and other
obstacles from the right-of-way, prohibiting the parking of cars in the right-of-way and for costs
of suit and such further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Frey & Tiley,
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: %II'-J- -??
R bert G. Frey, Esquire
Supreme Court Number 46397
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 243-5838
I verify that the statements made herein are true and correct and understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. A. § 4904 relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
Dated: 11/15/07
EPHE M. RYDESK/f
'"
WAaMN:T DEED
ffiI?qo P eeb,
TY PlrWes a%
Wmb.q.4 h Irml
MADE the / a'& day of
in the yeu ninetam hundred and Eighty-five
BETWEEN STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, JR. and ANNA M.
RYDESKY, his wife, of R.D. #5, Dillsburg,
York County, Pennsylvania,
Grantors
TO
STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, JR., and ANNA M.
RYDESKY, his wife, of R.D. #5, Dillsburg,
York County, Pennsylvania,
Grantees
WITNESSETH, Thu in mndd=d= of
ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) -------------------------------------------Daum
in head paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the said grantor s do hereby grant
and convey to the aid grantee s, their heirs and assigns.
ALL
that certain piece or parcel of land situate in the Township
of Hampden, County of Cumberland, and State of Pennsylvania, bounded
and described as follows, to wit:
BEGINNING at a point on the old center line of the public road
leading from Mechanicsburg to Camp Hill, known as the Trindle Road,
at corner of lands now or formerly of John Deavens; thence by said
lands, North 24 degrees West, a distance of three hundred twenty and
five-tenths (320.5) feet to a pipe; thence by lands now or late of
Robert P. Becker, et ux., North 66 degrees 19 minutes East, a
distance of one hundred (100) feet to a pipe; thence by lands now or
late of Don R. Stehman, et ux., South 24 degrees East, a distance of
three hundred nineteen and eight-tenths (319.8) feet to a point in
the old center line of the public road aforesaid; thence by the
center line of said road, South 66 degrees West, a distance of one
hundred (100) feet to a point, the place of BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 0.74 acres.
BEING a lot shown on the plan of lots of Annie L. Heiges, which
plan is of record in the Cumberland County Recorder's Office in Plan
Book 1, Page 23.
BEING the same premises which John S. Heiges and Mary E.
Heiges, his wife, by their deed dated 31 July 1970 and recorded in
the office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, in Deed Book S, Vol. 23, Page 969, granted and
conveyed unto Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr., single man. The said Stephen
M: Rydesky, Jr., thereafter married Anna M. Rydesky, who joins in
this conveyance
THIS CONVEYANCE is exempt from the imposition of Pennsylvania
realty transfer tax in that it is a conveyance from husband and
wife to husband and wife.
BOOK 31 FACE 361
SMOT W
t:
L
i.:
F'.
Ft
is
i 5
I.
I F=
F I`
< ?s
I 7:
-r>
I
AND the said grantor will generally WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the property
! hereby conveyed
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said grantors have hereunto set their hands and seals the
day and year first above written.
Soled and delivered In the proem of
..... ........................................................•.... x ??....?' nat. I;
II . ............... C )
!? te? en M. R esky, Jr.
Anna M. Rydesky
I ................................................................_.................... .............................................................................................. (asas )
I
....... ...................................................... _....... ...... ...... ........................................................................
..................................................................................................... (w.t )
............................................ ..................... _................... T
............................................. _.........................
.?,............... . Eiuc)
ti
Cbtarrntcera OF Rasticamm -,:
I hereby certify, that the precise residence of the grantees .s
he ro is
Saor 7,Q,..a.E ?,rp ?iii?olabws:
G% - c•' -
6,At?L, 1124 - ? Attorney or Agent for
cnantea
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of .. Daup 1 SS:
hin.......
.
it
On this. the 10th day of May 1985, before me !!
the undersigned office, personally appeared Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr. -and i!
Anna M. Ryydesky, his wife,
known to me Cor satisfactorily proven) to be the person s whose name s subscribed to the within
ii
instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same for the purpose therein
contained. !I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand official} i j
0?
AUCY U. TRAM S. KTARY PUBLICS
........................ 11111" L.^.:wxeaa+).S.tC.3llxcaBL?j.:.....f ?........ ?.
- ? My CAmmittioRt?uess:ea lxr1Rfs :IPT. 17. iSY7f?, ?' , ,'?
Member, Pennsylvania Association of Nata?kaf..?:':Y:_:..;.?c 1!
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
SS:
I
County of ...........................
.................................
i
On this, the day of. 19 , before me
?j
the undersigned offimr, personally appeared
i
]mown to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name subscribed to the within jj
instrument, and acknowledged that executed the same for the purpose therein
contained li
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal,
i
S
3.
i
N.
FEE Snn'T.S-PZIOM DEm-1910 R. Pkkmkun Co. Wmi-rcat P. ii
l .;mss t
Cmwv Pared No. E
This ? nb.enfurje,
MADE the ' ? day of 4'4'Z'4'
in the year niastem hundred and eighty-nine (1989(.
BETWEEN DON R. STEHMAN and PATSY H. STE2D•fAN, of the Township of Hampden,
County of Cumberland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Parties
of the First Part,
A
N.
D
SHAD DONG WONG, JIN MUH HWANG and HSIAO SHENG CHEN, of the same
place, Parties
of the second part, WITNESSETH, That said parties of the first part, for and in consideration of the
sum of Four Hundred Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($435,000.00) .
Dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, well and truly paid by the said part ies of the
second part to the said part ies of the first part, at and before the seating and delivery of these
pn:unts, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained,
sold, aliened, enfeoffed, released, conveyed and confirmed, and by these presents do grant, bargain,
sell, alien. enfeoff, release, convey and confirm unto the said part ies of the second part, their
heirs and assigns.
ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or tract of land situate in the Township of Hampden, County
of Cumberland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, more particularly bounded and
described as-follows, to wit:
BEGINNING at a point in the center of Trindle Road (PA Route 641) at the inter-
section of said road and Sporting Hill Road (L.R. 21016); thence North 29
degrees 35 minutes West, a distance of 221.00 feet to a point at lands now or
formerly of Brian J. Cunningham; thence along said lands Sotith 66 degrees 13
minutes West, a distance of 228.90 feet to a point at lands now of Stephen M.
Rydesky. Jr.; thence along said lands South 24 degrees 00 minutes East, a distan
of 219.80 feet to a point in the said Trindle Road;, thence along said Road North
BOOK 34 PAGE 693 continued......
t
i
f
i
I
66 degrees 00 minutes East, a distance of 250.95 feet to a point, the place of
BEGINNING.
HAVING thereon erected a two-story frame structure know and numbered as 5001
Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
BEING the same premises which Stephen M. Rydeaky, Jr. and Anna M. R deaky by deed
dated May 1, 1985 and recorded in Deed Book 'Y'. Volume 31, Page 901 conveyed to
Don R. Stehman and Patsy H. Stehman.
CC"-'rJICNWEALTH C)= PENi,ryLV•4NiA
' Ui "`RWryT Of P.i•VE!•HIE
CC:NIMONWEALT-1 OF f _t
°' 4.,PP M n JFds1.YnWi,,
WC .1-32
r.? _j
Townshb of ' cc--
Cu
4
m
I_%Res' FsuMST,ansfarTau Schoo! Dist Cumb. Co., Pa.
D f ?t /75-oo -!7%Re.1EstateTranearT.
-/?4 :.r N.
- Date.. IF j'9 Amtai 7S?u
C
1 Co. Dirt. Col
A
.
pt. ?4:?
Cu nb. Co. Dist Col. Apt.
en
11"L Al T' I
11,
Q 1
'?-?_y t f .?TMl1 (OF P. VF FJUC _
"3j
I F - _ = : / •'- ;? i -
ta=i: `?
'
,
? O Gy
C•OMMONWEA;TH or
PfNi:;YLVI.NIA
WR R 34 PACE. 654
ee
to v
n ?
c r.r
r M
omo
n, rToO
mss, rn
?o
w 1v, u, _
I`
T<
s
t
f
J?
5
i
i
1
l
i
C
ij .
E6
A
i
f
1
i
AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
THIS AGREEMENT, is made this 1st day of May, 1985, by and
between:
DON R. STEHMAN and PATSY H. STEHMAN, his wife, of Hampden
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter referred to as
"Stehman"); and
STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, JR. and ANNA M. RYDESKY, his wife, of Hampden.:
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter referred to as
"Rydesky").
WITNESSETHt -
WHEREAS, Stehman is the owner of certain real estate described in
Exhibit A attached hereto which is hereinafter referred to as "Tract
A"; and
WHEREAS, Hydesky is the owner of certain real estate described in,
1
Exhibit B attached hereto and hereinafter referred to as "Tract B"; i
and
I
i
WHEREAS, Tract A and Tract B adjoin each other; and
WHEREAS, there is not now presently installed a municipal sewer
system to service either Tract A or Tract B; and
WHEREAS, Tract A fronts upon Trirdle Road and Sporting Hill Road
and Tract B fronts only upon Trindle Road; and
WHEREAS, Stehman and Rydesky wish to provide for certain rights
and privileges with respect to Tracts A and B.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals herein and the
mutual covenants hereinafter made and to be kept, the parties,
intending to be legally bound hereby and to legally bind' their heirs,
personal representatives, and assigns, do agree as follows: is
1 L"a u l PAGE tib
i
"Err
ivt S_
I •
i
•
1
I. Provided that Rydesky otherwise has the legal right to do so,
Stehman grants to Rydesky an easement in favor of Tract B and over and 1
j.
through Tract A, at such location as may be agreed.upon by the l
parties, for the purpose of making a sewer'conniction to any municipal
sanitary sewer system along Sporting Hill Road when and if such system
i
is installed. Provided,, however, that at all times during any work in
connection with the construction, reconstruction, or repair of any
such sewer connection, Rydesky shall restore Tract A to the condition
in which it was found before such work was begun. And provided
further.that Rydesky will not in the use of the rights or privileges
herein granted create.a nuisance or do any act detrimental.to Tract A.
2. Provided Stehman otherwise has the legal right to do so,
Stehman grants to Rydesky an easement in favor of Tract B and over and
through Tract A of width not to exceed twenty (26) feet at a location
generally in, the northern one-quarter portion of Tract A (the exact
location to be more specifically agreed upon) for ingress and egress
from Tract B on to and from Sporting Hill Road. The rights and
privileges created by this paragraph shall not come into existence
until such time as the area upon which the right-of-way and easement
is macadamized or otherwise surfaced so as to adequately support the
traffic intended to be borne by the easement or right-of-way herein
granted.
3. Rydesky grants to Stehman an easement and right-of-way over,
upon, and through Tract B and in favor of Tract A for ingress and
egress from and on to Trindle Road to Tract A (at an exact location to
be determined later) so as to connect with the macadamized area now
1 i
2 ES7( .:iJ i'ALE C??1 II j
r
f 4
f
i
t
i
:i
i
i
1
existing on Tract B and extending over, upon, and through such
i
macadamized area to the existing access or curb cuts from Tract B and ?.
on to Trindle Road.
. r
4. This agreement shall be deemed to run with Tract A and Tract
B 4o that the rights and privileges herein created and the burdens
hereby imposed shall inure to the benefit of and be the responsibility
of subsequent owners.
I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and
i
seals the day and year first above written.
/• I
tness Don R. Steh#n
i
Witness Patsy H. Stehman
i.
Witness ty hen M. $ deskSv', r.
4k] mx
Witness Anna. M. Ryde y:
I
I
I f
i
I?
, !
J
EXHIBIT A
ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or tract of land situate in the Township of
Hampden, County of Cumberland, State of Pennsylvania, bounded and
described as follows, to wit:
BEGINNING at a point in the center of Trindle Road (Pa. Route
641) at the intersection of said road and Sporting Hill Road (L.R.
21016); thence North 29 degrees 35 minutes West a distance of 221.0
feet to a point at lands now or formerly of Brian J. Cunningham;
thence along said lands South 66 degrees 13 minutes West, a distance
of 228.9 feet to a point at lands now of Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr.;
thence along said lands South 24 degrees 00 minutes East a distance of
219.8 feet to a point in the said Trindle Road (Pa. Route 641); thence
along the said Trindle Road (Pa. Route 641) North 66 degrees 00
minutes East a distance of 250.95 feet to a point, the place of
BEGINNING.
HAVING thereon erected a two story frame structure known and
numbered as 5001 Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
BEING the premises which Annie L. Heiges, Widow, by her deed
dated 3 September 1975 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of
Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book F, Vol.
28, Page 834, granted and conveyed unto Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr.
AND BEING the same premises which Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr., and
Anna M. Rydesky, his wife, by their deed dated 1 May 1985 and intended
to be contemporaneously recorded herewith, granted and conveyed unto
Don R. Stehman and Patsy H. Stehman, his wife.
5
i
t.
3
EXHIBIT B .
ALL THAT CERTAIN piece or parcel of land situate in the Township 1
of Hampden, County of Cumberland, State of Pennsylvania, bounded and
described as follows, to wit:
r
BEGINNING at a point on the old center line of the public road j
leading from Mechanicsburg to Camp Hill, known as the Trindle Road, at
corner of lands now or formerly of John Deavens; thence by lands of
the said John Deavens, North 24 degrees West 320.5 feet to a pipe; !
thence by lands now or late of Robert P. Becker, et ux., North 66 j
degrees 19 minutes East, 100 feet to a pipe; thence by lands now or {
late of Brian J. Cunningham, et ux., South 24 degrees East, 319.8 feet I
to a point in the old center line of the aforesaid Trindle Road; I
thence by the center line of said road, South 66 degrees West, 100 1
feet to a point, the place of BEGINNING. i
CONTAINING 0.74 acres.
BEING'a lot shown on the plan of lots of Annie L. Heiges, which j
plan is of record in the Cumberland County Recorder's Office in Plan Y
Book 1, Page 23.
BEING the same premises which John S. Heiges and Mary E. Heiges,
his wife, by their deed dated 31 July 1970 and recorded and in the K
Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, in Deed Book S, Vol. 23, Page 969, granted and conveyed f
unto Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr.
g
HAYING thereon erected a one-story structure known and numbered
as 5005 East Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
3
en ,
cn ?:
E2 ?. J
State of Pennsylvania )SS < i
County of Cumberland _ ,)
Recorded in the office for the ncoidln0,d QN? rv ; '
etc., in and for Cumberland County, Pa
1?? G V
l
S n C ta
' =
o
.
In Bw
W
' c,
.•
we,wss my hand and seal of oHfm at "?
'.: r ,? n y
Cmiwle. Pa. this ifl.? - ,?, '? ??, _• `
,
600K 1305 RICE 93
6
?-?%Mlfaff IT
.?t 1'x31 ? g' r 1.i' fat.
_ V
} YROT
FREY & TILEY
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
5 SOUTH HANOVER STREET
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
ROBERT M. FREY
OF COUNSEL
STEPHEN D. TILEY
ROBERT G. FREY
October 3, 2007
Shau Dong Wong
Jin Muh Hwang
Shiao Sheng Chen
5001 East Trindle Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Re: Right-of-Way in Favor of
Property of Stephen Rydesky
Gentlemen:
n
TELEPHONE (717) 243-5838
FACSIMILE (717) 243-6441
I am writing to you in regard to the 20-foot wide easement
that Dr. Rydesky owns over the northern portion of your property
for access to the rear of his property. This easement was established
by Agreement dated May 1, 1985 and recorded May 2, 1985 in the
Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office in Miscellaneous
Record Book 305, Page 88. I am enclosing a copy of that Agreement
for your information. As you will see
paragraph number 2 creates a
20-foot wide easement over the northern portion of your property
in favor of Dr. Rydesky.
You have recently blocked, or allowed to be blocked, this
right-of-way by first placing a trash dumpster over the right-of-way,
at the precise location where the previous owner of your property
had placed a paved access point for the easement. You thereafter
erected a fence. The fence and dumpster prevent Dr. Rydesky from
making use of his right-of-way and must, therefore, be removed
immediately. If you fail to have these impediments removed by the
' ISIT "F"
Shau Dong Wong
An Muh Hwang
Shiao Sheng Chen
Re: Right-Of-Way in Favor of
Property of Stephen Rydesky
October 3, 2007
Page 2
Frey and Tiley
Attorneys-At-Law
end of October, Dr. Rydesky is prepared to bring legal action to
enforce his rights since previous requests to you have been ignored.
I would appreciate it if you would give this matter your
immediate attention.
-Sincerely yours,
Robert G. Frey
RGF/tl
Encl.
cc: Dr. Stephen Rydesky
IBIT IT"
a O
1
. . -%
CASE NO: 2008-00569 P
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
RYDESKY STEPHEN M JR
VS
WONG SHAU DONG ET AL
MICHAEL BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT was served upon
WONG SHAU DONG the
DEFENDANT
at 1946:00 HOURS, on the 29th day of January , 2008
at 5001 E TRINDLE RD
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050-3622 by handing to
SHAU DONG WONG
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT
together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Service 11.52
Postage .58
Surcharge 10.00
00
?/?510? ?+ 40 . 10
Sworn and Subscibed to
before me this day
of
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
01/30/2008
FREY & TILEY
By:
eputy heri f
A. D.
CASE NO: 2008-00569 P
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
RYDESKY STEPHEN M JR
VS
WONG SHAU DONG ET AL
MICHAEL BARRICK
Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT
HWANG JIN MUH
was served upon
DEFENDANT
the
at 1946:00 HOURS, on the 29th day of January , 2008
at 5001 E TRINDI,F RD
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050-3622 by handing to
SHAU DONG WONG, BUSINESS PARTNER, ADULT IN CHARGE
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
So Answers:
6.00
.00 ?-s
.00
10.00 R. Thomas Kline
16.00
Sworn and Subscibed to
before me this
day
01/30/2008
FREY & TILEY
By:
eputy her ff -
of A.D.
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2008-00569 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
RYDESKY STEPHEN M JR
VS
WONG SHAU DONG ET AL
MICHAEL BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT was served upon
CHEN SHIAO SHENG the
DEFENDANT , at 1946:00 HOURS, on the 29th day of January , 2008
at 5001 E TRINDLE RD
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050-3622 by handing to
SHAU DONG WONG, BUSINESS PARTNER, ADULT IN CHARGE
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
a/06,by
So Answers:
6.00
.00
s
.00
10.00 R. Thomas Kline
00
16.00 01/30/2008
FREY & TILEY
Sworn and Subscibed to B - V
I
before me this day eputLyS 4ei
of A.D.
Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C.
By: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 200139
3800 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17013
(717)591-1755
(717) 591-1756 Facsimile
Attorneys for Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr., CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, NO. 2008-569 CIVIL TERM
V.
Shau Dong Wong, Jin Muh Hwang,
and Shiao Sheng Chen,
Defendants ACTION IN EJECTMENT
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Robert G. Frey, Esquire
Counsel for Plaintiff
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed
Defendants' Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint in Ejectment
within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered
against you.
LAW OFFICES OF PJ.
Attorneys for Defendants
Peter J. Russo, Esquire
ID No. 72897
Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire
ID No. 200139
Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C.
By: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 200139
3800 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17013
(717)591-1755
(717) 591-1756 Facsimile
Attorneys for Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2008-569 CIVIL TERM
V.
Shau Dong Wong, Jin Muh Hwang,
and Shiao Sheng Chen,
Defendants
ACTION IN EJECTMENT
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
IN EJECTMENT
AND NOW, Defendants, Shau Dong Wong, Jin Muh Hwang and Shiao
Sheng Chen (collectively referred to as "Defendants"), by and through their
attorney, The Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. for Defendants' Answer state:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted in part and denied in part. The averment in Paragraph 3
references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed
thereon by Plaintiff is strictly denied.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted in part and denied in part. The averment in Paragraph 5
references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed
thereon by Plaintiff is strictly denied.
6. Admitted in part and denied in part. The averment in Paragraph 6
references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed
thereon by Plaintiff is strictly denied.
7. Admitted in part and denied in part. The averment in Paragraph 7
references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed
thereon by Plaintiff is strictly denied.
8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 and strict proof is demanded at the time of
trial. By way of further response the averment contained in Paragraph 8
references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed
thereon by Plaintiff is strictly denied.
9. Admitted in part and denied in part. The averment in Paragraph 9
references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed
thereon by Plaintiff is strictly denied.
10. Denied. The averment in Paragraph 10 is a legal conclusion to which no
response is required. By way of further response, the averment in Paragraph 10
references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed
thereon by Plaintiff is strictly denied.
11. Admitted in part and denied in part. The averment in Paragraph 11
references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed
thereon by Plaintiff is strictly denied.
12. Denied. The averment in Paragraph 12 is a legal conclusion to which no
response is required. By way of further response, the averment in Paragraph 12
references a document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed
thereon by Plaintiff is strictly denied.
Defendants deny all other allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 12 of
Plaintiff's Complaint in Ejectment that are not specifically admitted.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand that Plaintiff's Complaint
in Ejectment be dismissed and judgment be entered in their favor and against the
Plaintiff without costs to them, but together with such costs, expenses and
attorney's fees as authorized by law in which the Court deems necessary, just
and appropriate under the circumstances.
DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER
13. Defendants incorporate their foregoing answers in Paragraphs 1 through 12
by reference.
14. Plaintiff has failed to set a claim upon which relief may be granted.
15. Plaintiff has failed to join an indispensable party.
16. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate their damages, if any.
17. Plaintiff's claim for recoverable damages is contrary to the law of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
18. Plaintiff may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable Statute of
Limitations.
19. Plaintiff may be barred in whole or in part by the principle of res judicata.
20. Plaintiff's causes of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Statute of
Frauds.
21. Plaintiff's causes of action may be barred in whole or in part by Parol
Evidence Rule.
22. Plaintiff's claim(s) may be barred by the doctrine of estoppel, waiver and/or
laches.
23. Plaintiff's claim(s) may be barred by the Principles of Accord and
Satisfaction.
24. Plaintiff's claim(s) may be barred by the doctrine of payment/release.
25. Plaintiff's claim(s) may be barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of
economic loss.
26. Plaintiffs voluntarily assumed the risk of the facts set forth in his Complaint
and accordingly his claim(s) is barred.
27. Plaintiff's claim may be barred and limited by the doctrines of contributory
negligence, comparative negligence and/or assumption of the risk.
28. No conduct of the Answering Defendants or agent of the Answering
Defendants resulted in or is the proximate cause of any injury or damage
sustained by the Plaintiff.
29. Any injuries and/or damages claimed by the Plaintiff, if proven, were caused
by persons other than Answering Defendants and not within the control of
Answering Defendants.
30. At all material times hereto Answering Defendants acted reasonably,
appropriately and caused no injuries or damage to Plaintiff.
31. Any harm suffered by the Plaintiff arose out of his own non-performance of
the essential obligations.
32. If the Plaintiff sustained damages alleged in his Complaint, which damages
are strictly denied, then the damages were caused by the acts or omissions of
entities or individuals over which Answering Defendants had no control, or legal
duty to control.
33. Plaintiff is estopped from denying reliance on representations of Answering
Defendants and/or their predecessor(s) in interest not set forth in writing.
34. Defendants have provided Plaintiff an easement in the northern portion of
Tract A for ingress and egress to Sporting Hill Road, and thus are in compliance
with the Agreement for Easement and Right-of-Way referenced in Plaintiff's
Complaint.
35. Defendants have had trash dumpsters on the portion of their property which
Plaintiff alleges to have an easement interest in for a period of approximately
nineteen (19) years.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand that Plaintiff's Complaint
in Ejectment be dismissed and judgment be entered in their favor and against the
Plaintiff without costs to them, but together with such costs, expenses and
attorney's fees as authorized by law in which the Court deems necessary, just
and appropriate under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C.
Peter J. Russo, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 72897
Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 200139
Attorneys for Defendant
3800 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Telephone: (717) 591-1755
Facsimile: (717) 591-1756
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr., CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, NO. 2008-569 CIVIL TERM
V. .
Shau Dong Wong, Jin Muh Hwang,
and Shiao Sheng Chen,
Defendants ACTION IN EJECTMENT
VERIFICATION
We, Shau Dong Wong, Jin Muh Hwang and Shiao Sheng Chen, verify that
the statements made in the foregoing document(s) are true and correct. We
understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: --, Zec?
au Dong Wong, Defendant
? , (4r
Date: ?
Muh Hwang, Defendant
Date: 2 Z Z a 6
? Lq-?-,
Shiao Sheng Chen, Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr., CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, NO. 2008-569 CIVIL TERM
V.
Shau Dong Wong, Jin Muh Hwang,
and Shiao Sheng Chen,
Defendants ACTION IN EJECTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of
the Defendants' Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint in Ejectment
documents upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below:
US Mail addressed as follows:
Robert G. Frey, Esquire
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013
alw ci ALLaad
Amber L. Southard
Date: 2122.1 Of)
P i
4*.r MI T?
ui
,
1
rIO
STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, JR.
Plaintiff
VS.
SHAD DONG WONG,
JIN MUH HWANG, and
SHIAO SHENG CHEN
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 08-569 Civil Term
ACTION IN EJECTMENT
REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS
AND NOW, comes STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, Plaintiff, by and through Frey & Tiley
Attorneys at Law and respectfully answers the New Matter of Defendants as follows:
13. No responsive pleading is required.
14. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required.
15. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required. Furthermore, Defendants have failed to allege what indispensable has
failed to be joined.
16. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required.
17. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required.
18. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required.
19. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required.
20. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required.
21. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required.
22. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required. By way of further answer, Defendants have failed to allege any factual
basis for the allegations contained in this paragraph.
23. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required. By way of further answer, Defendants have failed to allege any factual
basis for the allegations contained in this paragraph.
24. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required. By way of further answer, Defendants have failed to allege any factual
basis for the allegations contained in this paragraph.
25. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required.
26. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required. By way of further answer, Defendants have failed to allege any factual
basis for the allegations contained in this paragraph.
27. Denied. The allegation of Defendants is a legal conclusion to which no responsive
pleading is required. By way of further answer, Defendants have failed to allege any factual
basis for the allegations contained in this paragraph.
28. Denied. As set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, the conduct of Defendants in blocking
Plaintiff's right of way and refusing to remove the impediments is the direct and proximate cause
of the damage sustained by Plaintiff.
29. Denied. As set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, the conduct of Defendants in blocking
Plaintiff's right of way and refusing to remove the impediments is the direct and proximate cause
of the damage sustained by Plaintiff. Defendants in their New Matter have failed to allege any
facts to sustain this allegation.
30. Denied. Defendants purchased the real estate subject to an existing right of way in
favor of Plaintiff. Despite the existence of this right of way, Defendants have blocked the right
of way and have refused to remove the impediments after request by Plaintiff. This conduct in
blocking the right of way without the legal right to do so is unlawful, unreasonable and
inappropriate and has caused the loss of the use of a portion of the real estate owned by Plaintiff,
for which Plaintiff now seeks relief.
31. Denied. Plaintiff performed all his obligations under the terms and conditions of the
right-of-way agreement.
32. Denied. The damages suffered by Plaintiff are the direct result of Defendants
blocking the right of way over their property thereby preventing Plaintiff's use of the right of
way for access to his property.
33. Denied. Plaintiff's right of way is set forth in a recorded document and
unambiguously states Plaintiff's right to use the right of way over Defendants' property. Any
representations made by Defendants or their predecessor in title are irrelevant.
34. Denied. Plaintiff has been completely prevented from using his right of way by the
actions of Defendants. Defendants have not provided any means of access over their property to
the property of Plaintiff. Strict proof at trial is demanded.
35. Admitted in part; Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants have periodically
located dumpsters in the area where they are currently located, which placement interfered with
Plaintiff's access to his property via the right of way. In fact as early as December, 1990,
Plaintiff notified Defendants that the placement of the dumpster interfered with his use of his
right of way and should be removed. Despite repeated requests to remove the various
impediments that Defendants placed in the right of way, Defendants have refused to allow
continual and uninterrupted access to Plaintiff to his property over the right of way over their
property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment in favor of Plaintiff and
against Defendants granting to Plaintiff possession and uninterrupted use of the right-of-way
over the lands of Defendants, requiring the removal of the fence, trash dumpsters and other
obstacles from the right-of-way, prohibiting the parking of cars in the right-of-way and for costs
of suit and such further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Frey & Tiley,
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: V \*-" A.
Robert G. Frey, Esquire
Supreme Court Number 46397
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 243-5838
A
I verify that the statements made herein are true and correct and understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. A. § 4904 relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
Dated: March 16 , 2008
STEPHE M. RYD KY /Or
c`:?
?? -,?
T? t:J?
?
?
???
w
?
;
ry
r"l ? Y
.-? - ',
?,
STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, JR.
PLAINTIFF
VS.
SHAU DONG WONG,
JIN MUH HWANG, and
SHAIO SHENG CHEN,
DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2008-569 CIVIL TERM
ACTION IN EJECTMENT
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, JR.
TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please ENTER the appearance of Steven Howell, Esquire
as Plaintiff's new counsel of record.
Respectfully submitted,
BY:
Steve Nowell, sq ire
ell Law Firm
Z °
.?
rn
933
.11
i Fn
619 Bridge Street rl-
New Cumberland, PA 1707 t
(717) 770-1277 96
Supreme Court ID 62063
f
D
f
Att
d
t CID
OWN
or
en
orney
e
an .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies
the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (first class United States Mail).
Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire
Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C.
Suite 100, 5006 East Trindle Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
Robert G. Frey, Esquire
Frey & Tiley
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: February 4, 2010
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
PA Attorney License No. 81924
Rominger&Associates
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 241-6070
Attorney for Stephen M. Rydesky Jr
STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, JR. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. : CIVIL ACTION LAW
SHAU DONG WONG, : -—
JIN MUH HWANG, and : NO. 08-569 Civil Term rnC� --
SHIAO SHENG CHEN : ACTION IN EJECTMENT a `
en..7^ -
--7 .
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE C
C (-.")
TO THE PROTHONOTARY: -J ,w-
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr in the above captioned
matter.
0 Date: c� /� Z6/3
Respectfully submitted,
ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES
Kar E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle,PA 17013
(717) 241-6070
Supreme Court ID # 81924
Attorney for Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr
PA Attorney License No. 81924
Rominger&Associates
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 241-6070
Attorney for Stephen M. Rydesky Jr
STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, JR. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. : CIVIL ACTION LAW
SHAU DONG WONG,
JIN MUH HWANG, and : NO. 08-569 Civil Term
SHIAO SHENG CHEN : ACTION IN EJECTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, certify that I this day served a copy of the within Praecipe
to Enter Appearance upon the following by depositing the same in the United States Mail,
postage pre-paid, via first class, and facsimile, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, Esquire
3800 Market Street
Camp Hill PA 17011
Date: 6 (.4 /( 26/3
Respectfully submitted,
ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES
)
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 241-6070
Supreme Court ID # 81924
Attorney for Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr.
STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, JR. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. : CIVIL ACTION LAW
SHAU DONG WONG,
JIN MUH HWANG, and : NO. 08-569 Civil Term
SHIAO SHENG CHEN : ACTION IN EJECTMENT
rn
m
)
STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please note that the Plaintiff, Stephen M. Rydesky, Jr., intends to proceed with the above
captioned matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Rominger& Associates
G� l( Z ) 7
Date: �
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 241-6070
Supreme Court I.D. #81924
Attorney for Plaintiff
STEPHEN M. RYDESKY, JR. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. : CIVIL ACTION LAW
SHAU DONG WONG,
JIN MUH HWANG, and : NO. 08-569 Civil Term
SHIAO SHENG CHEN : ACTION IN EJECTMENT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Intention to
Proceed upon the following by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, Esquire
3800 Market Street
Camp Hill PA 17011
Respectfully submitted,
ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 241-6070
Supreme Court ID # 81924
Dated:()C--
// d /3 Attorney for Plaintiff
w r .
STEPHEN M. RYDESKY,
PI
PLAINTIFF 08-569
,f1r.
vs Case No.
SHAU DONG WONG, JIN MUH HWANG and c ,
SHAIO SHENG CHEN
Statement of Intention to Proceed
To the Court:
PLAINTIFF STEPHEN M. RYDESKY
intends to proceed with the above c.: on-: matter.
Print Name STEVEN HOWELL, ESQUIRE Name
Date: OCTOBER 28, 2013 Attorneyfo PLAINTIFF
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.
I.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 Ru1e230(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 showing 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.