Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-2326In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania KEVIN B. GANTZ VS. RONALD R. LLOYD, Defendant, NOTICE CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. AVISO Usted ha sido demandado/a en corte. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacidn de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defenses de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Plaintiff, No. Q S- ? RJ ( fit, r? I ` crx USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER CONTACT: CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania KEVIN B. GANTZ Plaintiff, No. d VS. ; CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, , Defendant, COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, KEVIN B. GANTZ, by and through his attorneys, Saidis, Flower & Lindsay and respectfully represents as follows: 1. Plaintiff Kevin B. Gantz is an adult individual residing at 442 W. Main Street, Walnut Bottom, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Ronald R. Lloyd is an adult individual residing at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania. 3. Blue Mountain Cabinet is a Pennsylvania general partnership which owns and operates a wood milling and cabinet making facility at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. 4. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are the two general partners of Blue Mountain Cabinet. 5. The partnership was formed pursuant to a partnership agreement dated 1985 by and between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. A true and correct copy of the partnership agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 6. A signed copy of the partnership agreement is not attached since the Plaintiff does not have one in his possession. 7. The Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that a signed copy of the partnership agreement is contained with the files located at the partnership facility at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania. 8. Pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreement, Plaintiff and Defendant were equal partners in the partnership. 9. As set forth in Item 3 of the partnership agreement, the partnership was formed for the following stated purpose: "The partnership shall engage in the business of custom millwork and all functions incident thereto." 10. In furtherance and realization of these stated purposes, the partnership, acting through its partners, plaintiff and defendant, constructed and expanded a work shop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. 11. The partnership, also in furtherance and realization of the stated purposes and acting through the partners, purchased and obtained various materials, supplies and tools related to the operation of the partnership. 12. The pertinent obligations of the partners, including the Defendant, to the partnership and to each other partner are set forth in the partnership agreement as follows: a. Item 1 provides that the partnership was formed pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Uniform Partnership Act. b. Item 5 provides that the partners "shall be entitled to the capital, property and good will of the partnership business in equal shares." c. Item 11 provides that "[t]he partnership books shall be maintained at the principal place of business of the partnership or at the office of the partnership's accountant, and each partner shall at all times have access thereto." d. Item 12 provides as follows: Voluntary Termination. The partnership may be dissolved at any time by agreement of Partners in which event the partners shall proceed with reasonable promptness to liquidate the business of the partnership. In such event the net assets of the partnership business, after the payment of all partnership liabilities, obligations and liquidating expenses, shall be distributed to the partners in the same proportion as their capital accounts in the partnership bear to the aforesaid net assets of the partnership business. 13. Section 8335 of the Uniform Partnership Act provides that any partner shall have the right to a formal account as to the partnership affairs. 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 8335. 14. Section 8313 of the Uniform Partnership Act provides that "[a]11 property brought into the partnership stock or subsequently acquired, by purchase or otherwise, on account of the partnership is partnership property." 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 8313. 15. On or about October 28, 2006, Defendant declared to Plaintiff that he was not permitted back onto the partnership property being the shop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, effectively excluding the plaintiff from accessing the partnership property. 16. By these acts, the Defendant terminated and dissolved the partnership. 17. The Plaintiff has not returned to the property other than to conduct an inventory of tools, materials and supplies and to recover personal property. 18. The Plaintiff has compiled a list of assets that were present during an inventory of the partnership conducted on or about which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 19. This list does not represent all of the assets that Plaintiff believes is owned by the partnership as the Defendant reported that many items were stolen during a burglary of the partnership and therefore, many items are not included on Exhibit B. 20. The Defendant had been utilizing partnership funds for his own benefit after having excluded Plaintiff from the partnership building. 21. The Plaintiff closed and removed $13,747.52 from the partnership checking and savings accounts and has since placed such funds in an interest bearing escrow account. 22. The Plaintiff has made one payment (as of this date) from these partnership funds in order to continue the insurance coverage for the partnership property located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania. 23. By virtue of his conduct, the Defendant has, to the detriment and irreparable injury of the partnership and the Plaintiff, willfully breached and otherwise performed acts contrary to and in violation of the partnership agreement and statutory and common law. 24. By failing and refusing to provide access to the books and records of the partnership within his control, the Defendant has breached his obligation to the partnership and the plaintiff under Item 11 of the partnership agreement. 25. By excluding the Plaintiff from the partnership building and assets, the Defendant has breached his obligation to the partnership and the Plaintiff under Item 5 of the partnership agreement. 26. By utilizing partnership funds for expenses not related to the partnership, the Defendant has breached his obligation to the partnership and to the Plaintiff. 27. By virtue of Plaintiff's being excluded by the Defendant from the partnership and the possession of its property and by the Defendant's other improper conduct as aforesaid, Plaintiff and the partnership are entitled under 15 Pa.C.S.A. § 8335 to an accounting by Defendant of the partnership monies and property. 28. The Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff's fair share of the partnership's monies and property as is required by Item 12 of the partnership agreement. 29. No settlement of the partnership accounts, property and assets has ever been made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant although the Plaintiff has made repeated requests to come to a final settlement. 30. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands an accounting of the partnership accounts, property and assets and a judgment in his favor and against the Defendant for Plaintiff's proportional monetary share of the partnership including interest, costs of suit and such other relief as may be deemed appropriate by this Honorable Court. Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, FLOWER & 4 /10 By: Dae Attorney for Plaintiff 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-3405 Exhibit A J.J-/'-4/ZUU'S U9:4,1 YA-1 'I1Y 249UU15 PARTM txtr? E:= : $l3A?LPi1':E#s ?:il: ,.1?,..'?3?I.-,(?$?ZE',?_`,?.-fr3?I....;C,??' :.':7?•::;-'8?' ... premises hdre-iri tlTsCi ?Y 3 1 to lbe fa Y. cxurrtr hereby, to pakxties hereby agr6e . as f6l asws : . 1 _ . 4erera I Par?rk?rsh? ... Puri aant ta. the Uniform Partnership Act of...g?r is tlvai?; _ ?. aid. s.uhj_ct to the. xc??€isionia .o it And thls atgrit , the parties heresy . --.ate ' ttio?" v" together 111 ger?eraI . I*rtzxersh p. . ..2lQtEA stn s 79. -v" VJ.YG rMA I _L 44UVVIO CARLISLE TIRE & MIEEL 0003 A 44 Iii, :.eC?c3:'hI? -a qua. • ?n t 1' t. a er.. h v, v fi its ? ? ??>??' 2E?"t?. :.";._ .. ? ,n• *^7 aq4 eo €? ?: Ad, `..pro€t 34FRe xi[ Y+AL7. r .r , I t: I r e to hi' :: cv x e ?z??t s' - ...: O?h ' '? :???-?•; mow- ..- ?. t P+ItirttE!?cI Pt. ??frL?@T11 r ,CnC1. Critin:%u? EfZUISL t?: CUM t r? .t is set any n ?urca' _:.er r rr'c')ertg - .C2= ax ta the a txr r "hip par sbal l , withc-4;t t.-Js' ?t 6f t ? ?.Rart r F rtc?2 cart a security interest in, ar sell ship er in his 4.h.are zn tie gars Gs capital assets or nzppertor eaten r±tc gree ent: ,as a res`ajt of wh? ch an-y ge?son a1 f co a r*ti e e s tY? hit in the. t^ez~s-?ia; Or. tc a'.e a.r}?? amt i r cSriat :.te hest ie sts f tl e.. artness?i??. •cr ich Would ir:gc?ss?b:I.e. . arr rx trite r i y cxs i :c Me O? xh b. ax e I %1V 4k. 1 s707'7.77T yes sa ii_ tot A : r- x?1 Agy Ift $rre? ?p:1,A. a= ter its ?$et c'I0 lansn icrti?i ee:sr s? = u?the3 .tie `, Ate. _ V?.f" r?? r1r z4`JUulo UARLISLE TIRE & WHEEL I A004 the •"? = :ear - : ?? ?, _ _ ? _??' :c?p?• r? ???, ???.:? e tea :'- •?t?;??s? ip': ,dS du 10 U. f-W S iv* ,. "the r, Z. vg z 4w .4 NO 01? .0 r, Alim .? r.•, :.:.. a.rvS . ?? ?..?? ... M-A 0- Pw ' .. . rt' lkll, 3t ?. :.._ Q ?S L - `Y :, i aIFZ"- net. tem6t 46e yet g pa ger ?.n' to .par sal g;'.: - irc a-Be Price •fcz ':'sue ci r.te st s L. det6*.*' b u is agree merit yr rt the r,emaing p4rer and -h re r _x?g partner e r€tan*?r? pextzer :'any the:._ retrlizg pert: csrinot acxe.r?ie gurcn4ise pti.ce: sh.a1 be cde`ter ir?ed by each partner select .ng . an ap ,ra +er for: the : Bart ship real data c and, the pt x " hAkc r e Bali teased can the atge of tiesafl apRr?sas g°Iiese P: =ee ha 1 be: pa it . fu-11 in c_"h 6n tle date tifte retjreme ht s eacv? } `s q mot '?'•_r,.??. -,,y -+x -? - I a ?,' ?•''• ,, r i t. r?_ ':fi..'c. yr''*•... - ^{._Mt) }u Ake-f ,? ?a f-•. R~,iiY. :'L - ?. "{fN C :tY f P ? ? y 4 NOW 1, •'•y 1, i4 . `???yGa,^+`... F .y ?'LIm::r. f:,_ f•, 4f'. - •,.:'p?,{? i, '?'ii?T Y-. Q? tr •:MM ?r _-•. u. - :,.__ _ -J.t T -'?i?M. j?yy]_y ! ,. }?, ?,iay'+:?3a ????+?+ rY?'?,tr•` _T4ty? ^a? ON POP t +?€ "t H- -t AL lQ OPT I., t r ple x oFr # tt C. a JctI rcc pe a©xaZ reeiz?e tieserrg€rter, cF? as Qe': c'f a Iii :'1 d, tner f vp 0, *01 F" C W. XW- ese NT 0 -k -4: e"'.- m t ux -.6,00 , i-cp 94d '.,bat-tvd L-Or 0 -4k -Y, 0- T I 04. 14i?,?, U, a., So -.?v ?m ;? p VAi 7P '. ft INT, , ? i, ice -1.0 "old i ;F t4rast T". A. J? wl 4,- h rei -pr a sona 4 N&A 100 ?h ahl, Or t.4 ha:re: joqual.1-1., ?y fS, -airid- I o 4.. 0 thp-Mi-si- 60a.s 4na ri-n. g e ti -h r -b e,.-Vto?rt?t ttat 'the ....e.ceased e?-,,-'ate shall no t be 114h, le for 5ses ih* axce,66'Of the ?4pi?6?ged pa P?r,-G : ihtsra.,?t La t, -e. p?r tnex.phip :a r t the fdme- Of his No ?cc Oms:atlon- s-hall bi --aid e ko the -Survi.vi-img. parthdr for jo I iq dat ag he. -tee da ?A :ibutl Of, X-St-; -e ts of -AA Kk M A-0-41,10 tAw t - 6- W, h- 'Em W: Y- q- ow. R Or, P AJF4 A X, -V7;2 K t5,1-1- A: M-P 1?0 A PT. V3;:qa ?7 78 ft Wpg"--. M. Agh -7.7 T., 13. 1ui cvrJO r 3:44 J"AA '117 1490015 CARLISLE TIRE & WHEEL 1006 006 k-` ?,,?•? '0 .. - ..y?? Od 64, WT• '? - his so - :.1.. T - _ - -1 y 111-3 ry! of 3 icy ?F l T.,. l Vo 0 MOT", :,flow t n. Jrc _ Z.;. 41t : any off .: - - - - - . VIA aphKAW :-mss •J 2"" . . . s? My Lost Tti "P= it." N -z '- _ na!? - yea ?'••• ?-r ern , • . f : z ^ -: C e s ' r ` , 4 whom- - i '- zF 5 • e , R, 170 V r y. : 3 . 5 T- C. x Y ni Off , Exhibit B BLUE MOUNTAIN CABINET INVENTORY LIST OF ITEMS PRESENT DATE: 8/8/2007 ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY 1 RIGID PIPE THREADING STAND 1 2 LONG HANDLED PAINT ROLLER AND PAN 1 3 TELESCOPING LIMB SAW 1 4 275 GAL. OIL TANK (FULL) 1 5 3 DRAWER WOODEN FILE CABINETS 2 6 DELL COMPUTER 1 7 LEXMARK PRINTER 1 8 CANON SCANNER 1 9 15 HORSE POWER PHASE CONVERER 1 10 75 HORSE POWER PHASE CONVERTER 1 11 10 HORSE POWER AIR COMPRESSOR 1 12 6 FT JOHNSON BAR 1 13 FISH TAPE 1 14 AIR DRYER 1 15 4 FT STEP LADDERS 2 16 REFRIGERATOR / FREEZER 1 17 MICROWAVE OVEN 1 18 BLUE HESTON & ANDERSON SWING SAW 1 19 CABINET, ROLLER BED AND QUICK STOP - H&S 1 20 FURNITURE PADDING (APPROX. 40) 1 LOT 21 8 FT STEP LADDER 1 22 MISC. NAILS FOR NAIL GUNS (APPROX. 6 BOXES) 1 LOT 23 MISC. WIRE OF VARIOUS SIZES AND LENGTHS 1 LOT 24 MISC. ELECTRICAL BOXES & CUT OFF SWITCHES 1 LOT 25 MISC. WOOD VENEERS 1 LOT 26 8 FT FLOURESENT LIGHTS 1 LOT 27 DELTA 12-14 INCH TABLE SAW & ACCESSORIES 1 LOT 28 CABINET AND EXPANDED TABLE - DELTA SAW 1 29 8 FT BIESMEYER FENCE - DELTA SAW 1 30 POWERMATIC KNIFE SETTING GUAGE 1 31 12" JOINTER KNIVES (3 PER SET) 2 SETS 32 18" POWERMATIC PLANER 1 33 12" NEWMAN JOINTER 1 34 35 AIR KING FLOOR FAN FORKS & ATTACHMENT FOR TRACTOR LOADER 1 1 36 PORTER CABLE PORTABLE AIR COMPRESSOR 1 37 POWERMATIC BELT / DISC SANDER 1 38 RED HESTON & ANDERSON SWING SAW 1 39 2'X 4' SHOP CARTS 5 40 V X 5.5' SHOP CARTS 6 41 DIEHL STRAIGHT LINE RIP SAW 1 42 DELTA TWO HEAD BORING MACHINE 1 43 36" BAND SAW 1 44 SHOP VAC 1 45 2 SPINDLE PROFILE SANDER 1 46 SMITHWAY XL MOLDER AND 6 HEADS 1 47 6" CROWN MOLDING KNIVES IN MOLDER 8 48 SINGLE SPINDLE PROFILE SANDER 1 49 WALKER TURNER 2 HEAD DRILL PRESS & STAND 1 50 MISC. MOTORS 1 LOT 51 MISC PLYWOOD, 1/4 - 6,112 - 6, 3/4 - 6 1 LOT 52 PALLET RACKING - 3 SECTIONS - 22 BAYS 1 LOT 53 PORTER PIN ROUTER 1 54 2A POWERMATIC SINGLE END TENONER 1 55 CRAFTSMAN 6" PLANER & STAND 1 56 OLIVER SHAPER 1 57 6" HEAD & KNIVES IN POWERMATIC SHAPER 1 LOT 58 POWERMATIC STOCK FEEDER 1 59 LOCK EDGE SHAPER COLLARS 4 60 2" SHAPER HEADS 2 61 FIXED WING SHAPER CUTTERS 7 62 DELTA SHAPER & STYLE KNIVES & ACCESSORIES 1 63 GIANT "C" CLAMPS 8 64 POWERMATIC SHAPER & ACCESSORIES 1 65 HOLZHER STOCK FEEDER 1 66 HEAVEY DUTY BAR CLAMPS 2 67 DELTA SHAPER & ACCESSORIES 1 68 FIXED WING SHAPER CUTTERS 1/2 & 3/4 SPINDLE 17 69 DEWALT 14" RADIAL ARM SAW 1 70 HAMMOND DK1450 DUST COLLECTOR 1 71 DUCT WORK TO ALL MACHINES 1 LOT 72 30" YATES BAND SAW 1 73 AMERICAN STROKE SANDER 1 74 CRESENT MORTISER & ACCESSORIES 1 75 DOWN DRAFT TABLE 1 76 WYSONG EDGE SANDER 1 77 JAY FAYE & EGAN SCROLL SAW 1 78 LARGE DISC SANDER ON STAND 1 79 DANDUX CARTS 7 80 ORBITAL AIR SANDER 1 81 DEWALT CUT OFF SAW 1 82 MISC. IRRIGATION EQUIP. - HOSES & SPRINKLERS 1 LOT 83 5 HORSE POWER GAS MOTOR AND PUMP 1 84 36" DRAWER GLIDES 3 SETS 85 POWERMATIC SCROLL SAW 1 86 YATES OSCILATING SPINDLE SANDER 1 87 POWERMATIC WIDE BELT SANDER 1 88 SANDING BELTS FOR WIDE BELT SANDER 1 LOT 89 DELTA DRILL PRESS & STAND 1 90 CRAFTSMAN 6" PLANER PARTS 1 LOT 91 SMALL U.S. POSTAL DANDUX CART 1 92 SMALL CRAFTSMAN LATHE & ACCESSORIES 1 93 WALKER TURNER LATHE & ACCESSORIES 1 94 PINCH CLAMPS VARIOUS SIZES APPROX. 12 1 LOT 95 MISC. CABINET HARDWARE & DRAWER GLIDES 1 LOT 96 LARGE LOT OF MISC SCREWS 1/2" TO 3 1/4" 1 LOT 97 MISC. WOOD ITEMS 1 LOT 98 MORTISE ATTACHMENT FOR DRILL PRESS 1 99 MISC. NAIL GUNS 1 LOT 100 MISC. HARDWARE & HINGES 1 LOT 101 MISC. SANDING BELTS 1 LOT 102 CIRCULAR SAW 1 103 MISC. OLD POWER HAND TOOLS 1 LOT 104 POWERMATIC 45 LATHES & ACCESSORIES 2 105 VEGA LATHE COPIER 1 106 DEWALT STAND FOR CUT OFF SAW 1 107 PORTABLE SHOP BENCH WITH 2 VISES 1 108 PALLET JACK 1 109 LEIGH DOVE TAIL JIG & ACCESSORIES 1 110 PORTER CABLE BAMMER NAIL GUN 1 111 PEDESTAL FAN 1 112 10" POWERMATIC TABLE SAW & BIESMEYER FNC 1 113 HITACHI CUT OFF SAW 1 114 DEWALT CUT OFF SAW 1 115 LARGE BAR CLAMPS 2 116 PORTER CABLE POCKET CUTTER 1 117 PAINTERS LIGHT AND STAND 1 118 DEWALT RADIAL ARM SAW, SHAPER HEAD 4 KNV 1 119 DEWALT CUT OFF SAW 1 120 MISC. AIR HOSES 1 LOT 121 MISC. SAW BLADES 1 LOT 122 MISC. ELECTRICAL CORDS 1 LOT 123 CRAFTSMAN DRILL PRESS 1 124 WALKER TURNER 14" BAND SAW 1 125 MISC. DRILL BITS 1 LOT 126 MISC. HOLE SAWS 1 LOT 127 STARRET PROTRACTOR 1 128 STACK-ON TOOL CHEST (3 PCS) 1 129 MISC. JUNK TOOLS 1 LOT 130 SK 1/2" DRIVE SOCKET SET (1/2" TO 1 1/4") 1 131 FLEET WOOD BENCH DRILL PRESS 1 132 DELTA RIBBON SANDER 1 133 PARRALEL CLAMPS 41 134 MAKITA SCREW GUNS & BATTERIES 3 135 MISC. DRAWER GLIDES 1 LOT 136 PORTER CABLE SANDER 1 137 CRAFTSMAN BENCH GRINDER 1 138 PIPE CLAMPS 24" TO 96" 65 139 MISC. HAND SAWS, SQUARES & SCREW DRIVERS 1 LOT 140 MISC. HAMMERS, STRAIGHT EDGES & PLANES 1 LOT 141 MISC. CUTTERS, CHISELS & GLUE BOTTLES 1 LOT 142 MISC. SMALL SCREWS & BRADS 1 LOT 143 ROUTERS 3 144 ROUTER BITS 1 LOT 145 SMALL LOCKERS 1 146 FLAMABLE STORAGE CABINET 1 147 1 GAL PRESSURE POT 1 148 DEVILBISS SPRAY GUN & CUP 1 149 5 GAL PRESSURE POTS AND DEILBIS GUNS 2 150 DAVID WHITE TRANSIT 1 151 DEVILBISS SPRAY BOOTH 7'X 8' 1 152 WALNUT LUMBER 250 BD FT I LOT 153 MAPLE LUMBER 400 BD FT I LOT 154 POPLAR LUMBER 530 BD FT I LOT 155 FIMCO 50 GAL SPRAYER ON TRAILER 1 156 IALLIS CHALMERS 5020 TRACTOR 1 157 CEDAR LUMBER 400 BD FT 1 LOT 158 20' PACE ENCLOSED CARGO TRAILER 1 159 TRAIL CAMERAS 4 160 CHARGER & "C" BATTERIES 1 LOT 161 10' WORK BENCH & 2 VISES 1 162 WALNUT LUMBER 400 BD FT (BARN) 1 LOT 163 KNOTTY PINE LUMBER 630BD FT (BARN) 1 LOT 164 RED ELM LUMBER 240 BD FT (BARN) 1 LOT 165 ENGLISH WALNUT LUMBER160 BD FT (BARN) 1 LOT 166 BIRCH LUMBER 180 BD FT (BARN) 1 LOT 167 MAPLE LUMBER 190 BD FT (BARN) 1 LOT 168 WALNUT LUMBER 200 BD FT (BARN) 1 LOT 169 SASAFRASS LUMBER 180 BD FT (BARN) 1 LOT 170 MISC. ELM, CHERRY, POPLAR LUMBER 150 BD FT 1 LOT 171 WHITE OAK LUMBER 500 BD FT (BARN) 1 LOT 172 IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT - HOSES & SPRINKLERS 1 LOT 173 5 HP GAS MOTOR AND PUMP 1 174 HUNTING TRIPOD, SEAT & CANOPY 1 175 3 POINT SPREADER 1 176 CLEAR PINE LUMBER 35 BD FT (BARN) 1 LOT 177 INGERSOL RAND AIR COMPRESSOR 1 178 MISC. DELTA & POWERMATIC LATHES 4 179 DELTA MILWAKIE SAW & JOINTER COMBO 1 180 SMALL BENCH SAW 1 181 SMALL FIELD DISC 1 182 RED OAK LUMBER 160 BD FT (BARN) 1 LOT 183 12' TRANSPORT HARROW & HYDROLIC CYLINDER 1 184 FARM WAGON 1 185 KEROSENE STOVE 1 VERIFICATION I, Kevin B. Gantz hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Dated: March Vi , 200% - "0' U Kevi B. G ? N x -0 up 0 R- •- `• In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania KEVIN B. GANTZ Plaintiff, No. 08-2326 VS. CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, Defendant, PRAECIPE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY Please file the attached Acceptance of Service of record. A'N Date Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY B, Saidis, Flower & Lindsay 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-3405 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, April, 2008, I, DEAN E. REYNOSA, Esquire, of the law firm of SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Mr. No Otto, III, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3015 ean E. osa A y I. .80 40 Attorney for ntiff 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-3405 r-j r -Tj In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania KEVIN B. GANTZ Plaintiff, No. 08-2326 Civil Term VS. CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, , Defendant, ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, No Otto, III, Esquire accept service of the Complaint on behalf of Ronald R. Llolyd, Defendant in the above-referenced matter. Date: Z 2008 Respectfully Submitted, SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY By: No Otto, III, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3015 , lqq a PC, FARLESThents\12252 Lloyd\12252.1.ans/jmt 12252.1 No V. Otto III, Esquire I.D. No. 27763 Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire I.D. No. 203046 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA a? V. NO. 08 -CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, Defendant DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT TO: KEVIN B. GANTZ, Plaintiff, and his attorney, DEAN E. REYNOSA, ESQUIRE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. AND NOW, comes Defendant, Ronald R. Lloyd, by and through his attorneys, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, and hereby answers the Complaint as follows: 1-2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Blue Mountain Cabinet is a Pennsylvania general partnership which operated a wood milling and cabinet making facility at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. It is denied that Blue Mountain Cabinet owns a wood milling and cabinet making facility at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. 4-9. Admitted. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that the partnership, acting through its partners, constructed the original work shop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania. To the contrary, the materials used to construct the original building were purchased by Defendant's father. Plaintiff and Defendant supplied the labor to construct the building. As of the date of completion of the original building, however, the partnership had not been formed. It is admitted that the original workshop was expanded by the partnership. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied. The Partnership Agreement is a document which speaks for itself. 13. Denied. Section 8335 of the Uniform Partnership Act is a statute which speaks for itself. To the extent that a response is required, the averment contained in this paragraph is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that this paragraph contains an accurate quotation of subsection (a) of Section 8313 of the Uniform Partnership Act. Any inference attributed to this quotation by Plaintiff is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant declared to Plaintiff that he was not permitted back onto the partnership property. Any inference that this was an unsupported unilateral declaration is denied. To the contrary, Defendant's declaration was precipitated by Plaintiff's failure to assist Defendant in finishing a kitchen project. 16. The averments of this paragraph are a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 17. Admitted. 18. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff compiled a list of assets and attached it to his Complaint as Exhibit B. It is denied that this list constitutes an accurate list of assets. 19. Admitted. 20. Denied. Defendant has not used any partnership funds for his own benefit. To the contrary, Plaintiff has used partnership funds for his personal benefit. 21-22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in these paragraphs. 23-28. The averments of these paragraphs are conclusions of law to which no responses are required. 29. Admitted, with clarification. Plaintiffhas been equally contentious with regard to the completion of a settlement of the partnership accounts, property and assets of the partnership. 30. The averments of this paragraph are a conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice and enter Judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff together with an award of such costs, interest and other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and reasonable. NEW MATTER 31. Defendant incorporates paragraphsl through 30 of his Answer as if fully set forth herein. 32. Defendant's father purchased all the materials used to construct the original building. 33. The original building was completed and electrical service inspected on January 14, 1985. 34. Plaintiff and Defendant signed the Partnership Agreement on April 3, 1985. A copy of the signed Partnership Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit "A." 35. The Partnership Agreement was signed after construction ofthe original building was completed. 36. The commencement of the partnership occurred after construction of the original building was completed. 37. Contemporaneously with the commencement of the partnership, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral agreement whereby the partnership was permitted to use the original building without paying rent to the owner of the real property, and in exchange, the parties agreed that the original building would remain an asset of the owner of the real property to which the building attached. 38. When the partnership commenced, Defendant's father was the owner of the real property located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania. 38. Based on the oral agreement of the parties, at the commencement of the partnership, Defendant's father was the owner of the original building. 39. On December 19, 1989, Defendant purchased the real property located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, from his father. 40. Upon Defendant's purchase of the above-described real property from his father and based upon the oral agreement of the parties, Defendant became the owner of the original building utilized by the partnership. 41. There has never been any intention by Defendant to contribute the original building as an asset of the partnership. 42. The additions to the original building were begun in the Spring of 1997. 43. The additions to the original building were completed in November 1998. 44. On or about October 28, 2006, Plaintiff refused to assist Defendant in completing a kitchen project for a client. 45. Plaintiff's refusal to assist Defendant was a violation of the Partnership Agreement. 46. Plaintiffterminated the partnership by refusing to assist in the completion of a client's kitchen. 47. Plaintiff's exclusion from the partnership's premises was precipitated by Plaintiff's refusal to assist in the completion of partnership business. 48. The partnership does not own any real estate. 49. In the absence of any real estate to which the additions to the original building attach, the additions to the original building are valueless. WHEREFORE, Defendant, respectfullyrequests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice and enter Judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff together with an award of such costs, interest and other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and reasonable. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By_,?l J , No V. Otto III, Esquire I.D. No. 27763 Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire I.D. No. 203046 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3093 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Dated: August 8, 2008 VERIFICATION The foregoing Defendant=s Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff=s Complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. onald R. Lloyd F:OUS\Clients\12252 Lloyd\12252.1.ans CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jacqueline A. Decker, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Defendant's Answer with New Matter To Plaintiff's Complaint was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 MARTSON LAW OFFICES By / I M Price Ten E 9t High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: 01NQU1111 G r»? C -n 00 ??},rte '"•+ FAF1LES\Clients\12252 L10yd\12252.1.pra1jmt 12252.1 No V. Otto III, Esquire I.D. No. 27763 Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire I.D. No. 203046 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08 -.2336--CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, Defendant PRAECIPE To the Prothonotary: Please attach Exhibit "A" to the Defendant's Answer with New Matter filed on August 8, 2008. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By_ No V. Otto III, Esquire V I.D. No. 27763 Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire I.D. No. 203046 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3093 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Dated: August 20, 2008 EXHIBIT "A" PA TNEERSLIP AGREEMENT THIS PARTNLRShIP AGREEMIENT made the 9 10' '6 day of in the year nineteen hundred and eighty-five (1935). BETWELN Revin B. Gantz, of P.O. Box 123, Walnut Bottom, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, AND Ronald R. Lloyd, of R. D. 1, Box 349, 2,ewville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 1--,h.L-1REAS, the parties hereto desire to ::ecome partners for the purpose of engaging in the custom millwork business and all functions incident thereto. WHEREAS, each partner is initially investing an equal amount of capital with which the partnership shall begin business. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. General Partnership. Pursuant to the Uniform Partnership Act of Pennsylvania, and subject to the provisions of it and this agreement, the parties hereby associate themselves together in general partnership. 2. Finn Name and Place of Business. The partnership stall have its principal of ice at R. D. , Box 349, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and shall transact business under the partnership name of "Blue Mountain Cabinet." 3. Character of Business. The partnership shall engage in the business o custom mill work and all functions incident thereto. 4. Term. The partnership shall begin on March 1, 1955 for an indefinite period. 5. Capital. The partners shall be entitled to the capital, property and good will of the partnership business in equal shares. The beginning capital of the partnership shall be contributed iby tihe partners in equal amounts. Separate capital accounts shall be maintained for each partner. hone of tike partners shall withdraw any part of his capital account without the consent of the other partner. Upon the demand of any partner, the capital ac(2ounts of partners shall be maintained at all times in the proportions in w licil the partners share in the profits and losses of the partnership. - 1 - 6. Additional Capital. If any additional capital shall at any time or time be considered by the partners to be necessary or desirable for the efficient carrying on of the business, it shall be contributed by the partners in the shares in which they are entitled to the existing capital of the partnership. 7. Profit and Loss. The net profits of the partnership shall be divide equally between the partners and the net losses shall be borne equally by them. A separate income account shall be main- tained for each partner. Partnership profits and losses shall be charged or credited to the separate income account of each partner. If a partner has no credit balance in his income account, losses shall be charged to his capital account. 3. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the partnership shall begin on January 1 and end on December 31 of each year. 9. Management, Duties and Restrictions: No partner shall on behalf of the partnership, borrow or lend money, or make, deliver or accept any commercial paper, or execute any mortgage, security agreement, or bond or purchase or contract to purchase, or sell or contract to sell any property for or of the partnership. No partner shall, without the consent of the other partner, assign, mortgage, grant a security interest in, or sell his share in the partnership or in its capital assets or property,'or enter into any agreement as a result of which any person shall become interested with him in the partnership, or to do any act detrimental to the best interests of the partnership or which would make it impossible to carry on the ordinary business of the partnership. 10. Banking: The partnership bank account shall be maintained at Farmers National Bank, Newville, Pennsylvania, or such other bank as the partners may, from time to time, agree upon. All funds of the partnership shall be deposited in its name in such checking accounts as shall be designated by the partners. 11. Books. The partnership books shall be maintained at the principal -place of business of the partnership or at the office of the partnership's accountants, and each partner shall at all times have access thereto. 12. Voluntary Termination. The partnership --cay be (.1issolveet at any time by agreement of Partners in which event the artners shall proceed with reasonable promptness to liquidate the business of the partnership. In such event the net assets of the partnar- ship business, after the payment of all partnership liabilities, obligations and liquidating expenses, shall be distriuuted ti--c t:.e - 2 - partners in the same proportion as their capital accounts in the partnership bear to the aforesaid net assets of the partnership business. 13. Retirement. Partners shall have the right to retire from the partnership at any time, provided, however, that written notice of intention to retire shall be served upon the other partner at the principal place of business of the partnership at least ninety (90) days prior to the date the retirement becomes effective. The retirement of any partner shall have no affect upon the continuance of the partnership business. The remaining partner shall have the right either to purchase the retiring partner's interest in the partnership or to terminate and liquidate the partnership business. If the remaining partner elects to purchase the interest of the retiring partner, he shall serve notice in writing of such election upon the retiring partner at the principal place of business of the partnership within forty-five (45) days after receipt of said notice of intention to retire. A. If the remaining partner elects to purchase the interest of the retiring partner in the partnership, the purchase price for said interest shall be determined by mutual agreement between the remaing partner and the retiring partner. If the remaining partner and the retiring partner cannot agree, the purchase price shall be determined by each partner selecting an appraiser for the partnership real estate and the purchase price shall be based on the average of the two appraisals. The purchase price shall be paid in full in cash on the date the retirement becomes effective. B. If the remaining partner does not elect to purchase the interest of the retiring partner in the partnership, all partners shall proceed with reasonable promptness to liquidate the business of the partnership. The procedure as to liquidation and distribution of the assets of the partnership shall be the same as stated in paragraph 12 with reference to voluntary termination. 14. Death. Upon the loath of any partner, the surviving partner sheave the right to purchase the interest of the de- ceased partner in the partnership or to terminate and liquidate the partnership business. If the surviving partner elects to purchase the deceased partner's interest, he shall serve notice in writing of such election, within forty-five (45) days after the death of the deceased partner, upon tie 'personal representative of tine ce- ceased partner, or, if at the time of such election ro personal representative has been appointed, upon any one of the known legal - 4 - heirs of the deceased partner at the last known address of such heir. A. If the surviving partner elects to purchase the interest of the deceased partner in the partnership, the purchase price for said interest shall be determined by mutual agreement between the surviving partner and the deceased partner's personal representative. If the surviving partner and the deceased part- ner's personal representative cannot agree, the purchase price shall be determined by having the surviving partner and the de- ceased partner's personal representative elect an appraiser to appraise the partnership real estate with the value of said part- nership real estate being established by an average of the two (3) appraisals. The purchase price shall be paid in full in cash by the surviving partner within ninety (90) days from the date of the deceased partner's death. B. If the surviving partner does not elect to purchase the interest of the deceased partner in the partnership, he shall proceed with reasonable promptness to liquidate the business of the partnerhhip. The surviving partner and the estate of the deceased partner shall share equally in the profits and losses of the busi- ness during the period of liquidation, except that the deceased partner's estate shall not be liable for losses in excess of the deceased partner's interest in the partnership at the time of his death. No compensation shall be paid to the surviving partner for his services in liquidation. Except as herein otherwise stated, the procedure as to liquidation and distribution of the assets of the partnership business shall be the same as stated in paragraph 12 with reference to voluntary termination. 15. Amendment of Partnership A reement. If at any time during the continuance of the partners ip, partners deem it necessary or expedient to make any changes or additions to this agreement, such changes or additions shall be made by a written agreement supplemental to this agreement, executed by all of the partners, and all such changes or additions shall be adhered to, and have the same effect as if the same had been originally provided for in this agreement. 16. Agreement Binding On Heirs And Personal Representatives. This agreement shall extend to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives and assigns of the respective parties hereto. - 5 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the abcve named partners have hereunto set their hands and seals the day, month and year first above written. WITNESS: (SEAL) (SEAL) - 6 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by facsimile and by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 MARTSON LAW OFFICES By_/IJ4444 J ?? -C;? M Price Ten E st High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: ? 149 c ^=7 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania KEVIN B. GANTZ Plaintiff, 07-A31? No. CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY VS. RONALD R. LLOYD, Defendant, PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, KEVIN B. GANTZ, by and through his attorneys, Saidis, Flower & Lindsay and respectfully represents as follows: 31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 30 of his Complaint as if they were fully set forth at length herein. 32. Admitted upon information and belief. It is further noted that the original building was primarily constructed by Plaintiff and Defendant. 33. Denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. To the extent a response is required, it is Plaintiff's recollection that construction on the original building began in or about the Spring of 1985. Furthermore, the first electric bill for the original building was paid on behalf of the partnership on or about July 23, 1985, in the amount of $13.46. 34. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the partnership Agreement was signed on April 3, 1985. It is denied that a signed copy of the Partnership Agreement was attached to Plaintiff's copy of Defendant's Answer with New Matter. 35. Denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff does not recall specifically when the original building was completed by the partners. It is further noted that even if the Partnership Agreement was signed after construction of the original building had been completed, Plaintiff offered his assistance in constructing the original building for the benefit of the partnership. Plaintiff and Defendant were working as partners and for the benefit of the partnership when they constructed the original building. 36. Denied. The averments stated in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Plaintiff incorporates his response to Paragraph 35, supra, as if fully set forth at length herein. 37. Denied. Plaintiff specifically denies that he entered into an oral agreement with the Defendant affecting the partnership's interest in the original building in lieu of the partnership's obligation to pay any rent and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 38. Admitted with further explanation. It is admitted that the Defendant's father was the prior owner of the real estate upon which the original building was constructed. However, the partnership possesses an interest in the original building as a result of the labor invested by the partners in constructing the original building. 38. [sic] Denied. Plaintiff specifically denies that he entered into any oral agreement with anyone affecting the partnership's interest in the original building and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 39. Admitted with further explanation. It is admitted that the Defendant is the record title holder of the real estate located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, the same having been transferred to him on December 19, 1989. However, the partnership has an interest in the original building since it was primarily constructed by the two partners. Plaintiff incorporates his response to the first Paragraph 38, supra, as if fully set forth at length herein. 40. Denied. The averments in this paragraph state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Plaintiff never entered into any oral agreement with the Defendant or anyone else absolving the partnership's interest in the original building. 41. Denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 42. Admitted. 43. Admitted with further explanation. It is admitted that the additions to the original building were substantially completed in November of 1998. Renovations and upgrades to the building continued up to point when the partnership dissolved on or about October 26, 2006. 44. Denied. The Plaintiff never refused to complete any project for any client. In fact, Plaintiff was told by the Defendant that he was not to come back to the property. 45. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state legal conclusions to which no response is required. 46. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant dissolved the partnership by excluding the Plaintiff from the property thereby preventing Plaintiff to work on any partnership projects. 47. Denied. Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. To the extent that a response is required, it is believed that Defendant's exclusion of Plaintiff from the property was precipitated by a disagreement between the two partners concerning the amount of time spent by each on client projects. 48. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the partnership does not own any real estate in its name. However, it is denied that that the partnership does not have an interest in the improvements on the real estate in question; namely, the original building and the improvements made on said original building as noted in the preceding paragraphs. 49. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph contain legal conclusions to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Defendant together with interest and such other relief as this Court deems just and reasonable. Respectfully submitted, & LIlVDSAY ?-Z-C)<? By: Date an E. Rey osa Attorney I.D. Attorney for Plaintiff 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-3405 VERIFICATION I, Kevin B. Gantz hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: August ?? , 2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, September 3 , 2008, I, DEAN E. REYNOSA, Esquire, of the law firm of SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Reply to New Matter upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Mr. No Otto, III, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3015 ilv Ye ah ynosa. Attorney I.D. 80440 Attorney for Plaintiff 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-3405 ?7 Y". , ,.. ? a`? _,,t ,;?; r-- ? 1 r.-, -? ??': -*-. .: k.. `,? _ j'1 ? `t ?`r 1 F_ TILESVClientO2252 LloydA12252.1 ans2. wpd/jmt 12252.1 No V. Otto III, Esquire I.D. No. 27763 Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire I.D. No. 203046 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA .23.-t1- v. NO. 08 -2r3 6 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, : Defendant DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH AMENDED NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT TO: KEVIN B. GANTZ, Plaintiff, and his attorney, DEAN E. REYNOSA, ESQUIRE YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED AMENDED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. AND NOW, comes Defendant, Ronald R. Lloyd, by and through his attorneys, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, and hereby answers the Complaint as follows: 1-2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Blue: Mountain Cabinet is a Pennsylvania general partnership which operated awood milling and cabinet making facility at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. It is denied that Blue Mountain Cabinet owns a wood milling and cabinet making facility at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. 4-9. Admitted. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that the partnership, acting through its partners, constructed the original work shop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania. To the contrary, the materials used to construct the original building were purchased by Defendant's father. Plaintiff and Defendant supplied the labor to construct the building. As of the date of completion of the original building, however, the partnership had not been formed. It is admitted that the original workshop was expanded by the partnership. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied. The Partnership Agreement is a document which speaks for itself. 13. Denied. Section 8335 of the Uniform Partnership Act is a statute which speaks for itself. To the extent that a response is required, the averment contained in this paragraph is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that this paragraph contains an accurate quotation of subsection (a) of Section 8313 of the Uniform Partnership Act. Any inference attributed to this quotation by Plaintiff is denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant declared to Plaintiff that he was not permitted back onto the partnership property. Any inference that this was an unsupported unilateral declaration is denied. To the contrary, Defendant's declaration was precipitated by Plaintiff's failure to assist Defendant in finishing a kitchen project. 16. The averments of this paragraph are a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 17. Admitted. 18. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff compiled a list of assets and attached it to his Complaint as Exhibit B. It is denied that this list constitutes an accurate list of assets. 19. Admitted. 20. Denied. Defendant has not used any partnership funds for his own benefit. To the contrary, Plaintiff has used partnership funds for his personal benefit. 21-22. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in these paragraphs. 23-28. The averments of these paragraphs are conclusions of law to which no responses are required. 29. Admitted, with clarification. Plaintiffhas been equally contentious with regard to the completion of a settlement of the partnership accounts, property and assets of the partnership. 30. The averments of this paragraph are a conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice and enter Judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff together with an award of such costs, interest and other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and reasonable. AMENDED NEW MATTER 31. Defendant incorporates paragraphsl through 30 of his Answer as if fully set forth herein. 32. Defendant's father purchased all the materials used to construct the original building. 33. The original building was completed and electrical service inspected on January 14, 1985. 34. Plaintiff and Defendant signed the Partnership Agreement on April 3, 1985. A copy of the signed Partnership Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit "A." 35. The Partnership Agreement was signed after construction of the original building was completed. 36. The commencement of the partnership occurred after construction of the original building was completed. 37. Contemporaneously with the commencement of the partnership, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral agreement whereby the partnership was permitted to use the original building without paying rent to the owner of the real property, and in exchange, the parties agreed that the original building would remain an asset of the owner of the real property to which the building attached. 38. When the partnership commenced, Defendant's father was the owner of the real property located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania. 38. Based on the oral agreement of the parties, at the commencement of the partnership, Defendant's father was the owner of the original building. 39. On December 19, 1989, Defendant purchased the real property located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, from his father. 40. Upon Defendant's purchase of the above-described real property from his father and based upon the oral agreement of the parties, Defendant became the owner of the original building utilized by the partnership. 41. There has never been any intention by Defendant to contribute the original building as an asset of the partnership. 42. The additions to the original building were begun in the Spring of 1997. 43. The additions to the original building were completed in November 1998. 44. On or about October 28, 2006, Plaintiff refused to assist Defendant in completing a kitchen project for a client. 45. Plaintiff's refusal to assist Defendant was a violation of the Partnership Agreement. 46. Plaintiff terminated the partnership by refusing to assist in the completion of a client's kitchen. 47. Plaintiff's exclusion from the partnership's premises was precipitated by Plaintiff's refusal to assist in the completion of partnership business. 48. The partnership does not own any real estate. 49. In the absence of any real estate to which the additions to the original building attach, the additions to the original building are valueless. 50. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of frauds. WHEREFORE, Defendant, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice and enter Judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff together with an award of such costs, interest and other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and reasonable. MARTSON LAW OFFICES 3? 'IN / J v ; By No V. Otto Iii, Esquire I.D. No. 27763 Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire I.D. No. 203046 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3093 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Dated: August 17, 2009 EXHIBIT "A" • s PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT THIS PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT made the 3 4?;c day of / in the year nineteen hundred and eighty-five (1985). BETWEEN Kevin 3. Gantz, of P.O. Box 123, Walnut Bottom, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, AND Ronald R. Lloyd, of R. D. 1, Box 349, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to become partners for the purpose of engaging in the custom millwork business and all functions incident thereto. WHEREAS, each partner is initially investing an equal amount of capital with which the partnership shall begin business. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. General Partnership. Pursuant to the Uniform Partnership Act of Pennsylvania, and subject to the provisions of it and this agreement, the parties hereby associate themselves together in general partnership. 2. Finn Name and Place of Business. The partnership shall have its principal office at R. D. 1, Box 349, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and shall transact business under the partnership name of "Blue Mountain Cabinet." 3. Character of Business. The partnership shall engage in the business o custom millwork and all functions incident thereto. 4. Term. The partnership shall begin on March 1, 1985 for an indefinit ?e eriod. 5. Capital. The partners shall be entitled to the capital, property and good will of the partnership business in equal shares. The beginning capital of the partnership shall be contributed by the partners in equal amounts. Separate capital accounts shall be maintained for each partner. None of the partners shall withdraw any part of his capital account without the consent of the other partner. Upon the demand of any partner, the capital accounts of partners shall be maintained at all times in the proportions in which the partners share in the profits and lcsses of the partnership. - 1 - 6. Additional Capital. If any additional capital shall at any time or times be considered by the partners to be necessary or desirable for the efficient carrying on of the business, it shall be contributed by the partners in the shares in which they are entitled to the existing capital of the partnership. 7. Profit and Loss. The net profits of the partnership shall be divided equally between the partners and the net losses shall be borne equally by them. A separate income account shall be main- tained for each partner. Partnership profits and losses shall be charged or credited to the separate income account of each partner. If a partner has no credit balance in his income account, losses shall be charged to his capital account. 3. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the partnership shall begin on January 1 and end on December 31 of each year. 9. Management, Duties and Restrictions: No partner shall on behalf of the partnership, borrow or lend money, or make, deliver or accept any commercial paper, or execute any mortgage, security agreement, or bond or purchase or contract to purchase, or sell or contract to sell any property for or of the partnership. No partner shall, without the consent of the other partner, assign, mortgage, grant a security interest in, or sell his share in the partnership or in its capital assets or property, or enter into any agreement as a result of which any person shall become interested with him in the partnership, or to do any act detrimental to the best interests of the partnership or which would make it impossible to carry on the ordinary business of the partnership. 10. Banking: The partnership bank account shall be maintained at Farmers National 1 Bank, Newville, Pennsylvania, or such other bank as the partners may, from time to time, agree upon. All funds of the partnership shall be deposited in its name in such checking accounts as shall be designated by the partners. 11. Books. The partnership books shall be maintained at the principal --l - ace of business of the partnership or at the office of the partnership's accountants, and each partner shall at all times have access thereto. 12. Voluntary Termination. The partnership may be dissolved at any time by agreement of Partners in which event the partners shall proceed with reasonable promptness to liquidate the business of the partnership. In such event the net assets of the partner- ship business, after the payment of all partnership liabilities, obligations and liquidating expenses, shall be distributed to the - 2 - partners in the same proportion as their capital accounts in the partnership bear to the aforesaid net assets of the partnership business. 13. Retirement. Partners shall have the right to retire from the partnership at any time, provided, however, that written notice of intention to retire shall be served upon the other partner at the principal place of business of the partnership at least ninety (90) days prior to the date the retirement becomes effective. The retirement of any partner shall have no affect upon the continuance of the partnership business. The remaining partner shall have the right either to purchase the retiring partner's interest in the partnership or to terminate and liquidate the partnership business. If the remaining partner elects to purchase the interest of the retiring partner, he shall serve notice in writing of such election upon the retiring partner at the principal place of business of the partnership within forty-five (45) days after receipt of said notice of intention to retire. A. If the remaining partner elects to purchase the interest of the retiring partner in the partnership, the purchase price for said interest shall be determined by mutual agreement between the remaing partner and the retiring partner. If the remaining partner and the retiring partner cannot agree, the purchase price shall be determined by each partner selecting an appraiser for the partnership real estate and the purchase price shall be based on the average of the two appraisals. The purchase price shall be paid in full in cash on the date the retirement becomes effective. B. If the remaining partner does not elect to purchase the interest of the retiring partner in the partnership, all partners shall proceed with reasonable promptness to liquidate the business of the partnership. The procedure as to liquidation and distribution of the assets of the partnership shall be the same as stated in paragraph 12 with reference to voluntary termination. 14. Death. Upon the death of any partner, the surviving partner sh IT- ave the right to purchase the interest of the de- ceased partner in the partnership or to terminate and liquidate the partnership business. If the surviving partner elects to purchase the deceased partner's interest, he shall serve notice in writing of such election, within forty-five (45) days after the death of the deceased partner, upon the personal representative of the cle- ceased partner, or, if at the time of such election no personal representative has been appointed, upon any one of the known legal - 4 - heirs of the deceased partner at the last kncwn address of such heir. A. If the surviving partner elects to purchase the interest of the deceased partner in the partnership, the purchase price for said interest shall be determined by mutual agreement between the surviving partner and the deceased partner's personal representative. If the surviving partner and the deceased part- ner's personal representative cannot agree, the purchase price shall be determined by having the surviving partner and the de- ceased partner's personal representative elect an appraiser to appraise the partnership real estate with the value of said part- nership real estate being established by an average of the two (3) appraisals. The purchase price shall be paid in full in cash by the surviving partner within ninety (90) days from the date of the deceased partner's death. B. If the surviving partner does not elect to purchase the interest of the deceased partner in the partnership, he shall proceed with reasonable promptness to liquidate the business of the partnerhsip. The surviving partner and the estate of the deceased partner shall share equally in the profits and losses of the busi- ness during the period of liquidation, except that the deceased partner's estate shall not be liable for losses in excess of the deceased partner's interest in the partnership at the time of his death. No compensation shall be paid to the surviving partner for his services in liquidation. Except as herein otherwise stated, the procedure as to liquidation and distribution of the assets of the partnership business shall be the same as stated in paragraph 12 with reference to voluntary termination. 15. Amendment of Partnership Agreement. If at any time during the continuance of the partnership, partners deem it necessary or expedient to make any changes or additions to this agreement, such changes or additions shall be made by a written agreement supplemental to this agreement, executed by all of the partners, and all such changes or additions shall be adhered to, and have the same effect as if the same had been originally provided for in this agreement. 16. Agreement Binding On Heirs And Personal Representatives. This agreement shall extend to the benefit of and shall be binding upon tine heirs, axecutors, administrators, personal representatives and assigns of the respective parties hereto. - 5 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above named partners have hereunto set their hands and seals the day, month and year first above written. WITNESS: (SEAL) (SEAL) - 6 - VERIFICATION The foregoing Defendant=s Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff=s Complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. onald R. Lloyd F:TILESTlients\12252 Lloyd\12252.I.ans CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Defendant's Answer with Amended New Matter To Plaintiff's Complaint was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 MARTSON LAW OFFICES By i . M Price Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: ?(???? RLEO-:)',,rtCE OF THE F' C; I i4 iIOT,ARY 2009 Al"Go 17 PM 3: 55 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania KEVIN B. GANTZ Plaintiff, No. 08-2326 VS. CIVIL ACTION-EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, Defendant, PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, KEVIN B. GANTZ, by and through his attorneys, Saidis, Flower & Lindsay and respectfully represents as follows: 31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 30 of his Complaint as if they were fully set forth at length herein. 32. Admitted upon information and belief. It is further noted that the original building was primarily constructed by Plaintiff and Defendant. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. To the extent a response is required, it is Plaintiff's recollection that construction on the original building began in or about the Spring of 1985. Furthermore, the first electric bill for the original building was paid on behalf of the partnership on or about July 23, 1985, in the amount of $13.46. 34. Admitted. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of this paragraph. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiff does not recall specifically when the original building was completed by the partners. It is further noted that even if the Partnership V Agreement was signed after construction of the original building had been completed, Plaintiff offered his assistance in constructing the original building for the benefit of the partnership. Plaintiff and Defendant were working as partners and for the benefit of the partnership when they constructed the original building. 36. Denied. The averments stated in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Plaintiff incorporates his response to Paragraph 35, supra, as if fully set forth at length herein. 37. Denied. Plaintiff specifically denies that he entered into an oral agreement with the Defendant affecting the partnership's interest in the original building in lieu of the partnership's obligation to pay any rent and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. To the extent that this response suggests that the parties entered into an oral lease agreement, such claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds. 38. Admitted with further explanation. It is admitted that the Defendant's father was the prior owner of the real estate upon which the original building was constructed. However, the partnership possesses an interest in the original building as a result of the labor invested by the partners in constructing the original building. 38. [sic] Denied. Plaintiff specifically denies that he entered into any oral agreement with anyone affecting the partnership's interest in the original building and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 39. Admitted with further explanation. It is admitted that the Defendant is the record title holder of the real estate located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, the same having been transferred to him on December 19, 1989. However, the partnership has an interest in the original building since it was primarily constructed by the two partners. Plaintiff incorporates his response to the first Paragraph 38, supra, as if fully set forth at length herein. 40. Denied. The averments in this paragraph state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Plaintiff never entered into any oral agreement with the Defendant or anyone else absolving the partnership's interest in the original building. 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in this paragraph and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 42. Admitted. 43. Admitted with further explanation. It is admitted that the additions to the original building were substantially completed in November of 1998. Renovations and upgrades to the building continued up to point when the partnership dissolved on or about October 26, 2006. 44. Denied. The Plaintiff never refused to complete any project for any client. In fact, Plaintiff was told by the Defendant that he was not to come back to the property. 45. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state legal conclusions to which no response is required. 46. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant dissolved the partnership by excluding the Plaintiff from the property thereby preventing Plaintiff to work on any partnership projects. 47. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and the same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. To the extent that a response is required, it is believed that Defendant's exclusion of Plaintiff from the property was precipitated by a disagreement between the two partners concerning the amount of time spent by each on client projects. 48. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the partnership does not own any real estate in its name. However, it is denied that that the partnership does not have an interest in the improvements on the real estate in question; namely, the original building and the improvements made on said original building as noted in the preceding paragraphs. 49. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph contain legal conclusions to which no response is required. 50. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph contain legal conclusions to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Defendant together with interest and such other relief as this Court deems just and reasonable. Date Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, FA OWER & LINDSAY By: Attorney I.D. 80440 Attorney for Plaintiff 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-3405 VERIFICATION I, Kevin B. Gantz hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to Defendant's Amended New Matter are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: August Z ?,_, 2009 A fin 2 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, August A , 2009, I, DEAN E. REYNOSA, Esquire, of the law firm of SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant's Amended New Matter upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Mr. Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams, Otto, Gilroy & Faller 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3015 2 an E. Reynosa , ttorney I.D. 80440 Attorney for Plaintiff 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-3405 OF THE v,-,, ?,IDTAPIY 2009 SEP -2 Pr'l I : S 1 ; PEN 1 Fl ~-r,.~.,- „~ ~,F TuC c.,c ~Tw~?Y PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL ~~ ~~ JJ' ~ ~ ~i~.~ ~ ~ ; 39 (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) CUt',~F;~_: , , ~~!`~ ~~~: `~i~ t~..~~r~ ~v ~~ TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: ^ for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. X^ for trial without a jury. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in fuln (check one) Kevin B. Gantz (other) vs. Ronald R. Llyod (Plaintiff) vs. (Defendant) The trial list will be called on 8-31-2010 and Trials commence on 9-20-2010 Pretrials will be held on 9-8-2010 (Briefs are due S days before pretrials No. 2326 2008 X^ Civil Action -Law ^ Appeal from arbitration Term Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Dean Reynosa Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: No Otto This case is ready for trial. Signed: Print Name: Dean Date: ~ r 1~ ~ Z~ ~~ ~~~p~•~ Attorney for: Kevin B. Gantz ~i(2~ 3y~ ~ ~ ys ~~3 ,~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, July ~, 2010, I, DEAN E. REYNOSA, Esquire, of the law firm of SAIDIS SULLIVAN LAW, hereby certify that 1 did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe For Listing Case For Trial upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Mr. No Otto, III, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams, Otto, Gilroy & Faller 10•East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3015 .~`/ ~/ /" Dea#ti E. Reynosa Attorney I.D. 80440 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17011 (717) 243-6222 Attomey for Plaintiff KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. RONALD R. LLOYD, DEFENDANT 08-2326 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1 ~ ~ day of July, 2010, a non jury trial shall commence at 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, September 15, 2010, in Courtroom Number 5, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Dean Reynosa, Esquire For Plaintiff Otto, Esquire For Defendant Court Administrator _ ~]vaY 1 :sal 1 ~.S' rr~c~ 7ltc~~v ~ ~ c~ c c , ~~ T; i_; T '~ ~ ~ : ~- _ _ ~. _. ~~_ © ~,,, .. KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. RONALD R. LLOYD, : DEFENDANT 08-2326 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this i? day of September, 2010, the non-jury trial scheduled to commence this date is rescheduled to commence at 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 2, 2010, in Courtroom Number 5, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. _--15'e-an Reynosa, Esquire For Plaintiff - -1 eorge Faller, Jr., Esquire For Defendant Court Administrator :sal g t s/r v I ?' `. ? LT F KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • ?G V. NO. 08 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2;? day of November, 2010, after hearing testimony in this matter and with the concurrence of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The escrow account may be closed after the amount of $5,451.83 is paid to Plaintiff and the balance of $3,772.79 is paid to Defendant. 2. All personal property located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, shall be sold at auction at a time agreeable to the parties. 3. The proceeds from the auction of the personal property shall be distributed equally between the parties. 4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any disputes concerning the inventory of personal property to be sold. 5. The Plaintiffs proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be due and provided to the Court on November 23, 2010. 6. Defendant's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be due and provided to the Court by December 7, 2010. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, Jude C) g Distribution: .,o °' George B. Faller Esquire Z i Jr. -rt r - , , .c ? Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire s " a 9T W &Ples At&- le,9f 3 ?? ? aco ?a oC) r l . p Ln KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, DEFENDANT 08-2326 CIVIL TERM IN RE: ADJUDICATION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of January, 2011, after non jury trial and upon consideration of plaintiffs and defendant's proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is entitled to an accounting of the assets of the Partnership, which was formalized by an agreement signed on April 3, 1985. As noted in our Order of November 23, 2010, plaintiff and defendant are entitled to share equally in the proceeds generated by the Partnership's personal property including, but not limited to, the tools, equipment, materials and accounts. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the workshop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, is a Partnership asset with value. Defendant is directed to state an accounting of the workshop within thirty (30) days of this order, to which plaintiff may file exceptions within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the account. Thereafter, the court will determine the appropriate manner to proceed towards a final resolution. By the Court, Albert . Masland, J. := 08-2326 CIVIL TERM /Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire For Plaintiff 'George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire For Defendant :saa le? CoP (I pKB -12- KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, DEFENDANT 08-2326 CIVIL TERM IN RE: ADJUDICATION OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., January 12,2011:-- On April 14, 2008, plaintiff, Kevin B. Gantz, instituted this complaint in equity against Ronald R. Lloyd. Plaintiff alleges that he and defendant were general partners in Blue Mountain Cabinet pursuant to a Partnership Agreement entered into in 1985. Plaintiff now seeks an accounting of his share of the partnership assets due to the dissolution of the partnership in 2006. A trial was held on November 2, 2010 at which the parties and plaintiff's expert, Steven W. Barrett, testified. On November 23, 2010, upon the concurrence of the parties, the court issued an order distributing the balance of the escrow account ($5,451.83 to plaintiff and 3,772.79 to defendant) and directing that the personal property located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania be sold at auction with the proceeds distributed equally between the parties. The remaining issue before the court is whether the workshop situated on land not owned by the partnership should be considered a partnership asset, and, if so, what is the appropriate value of that asset. Focusing on this issue, plaintiff submitted findings of fact and conclusions 08-2326 CIVIL TERM of law on November 23, 2010, and defendant submitted the same on December 7, 2010. 1. Stipulation of the Parties Prior to the commencement of the trial the parties presented the court with the following stipulations: 1) The parties signed a partnership agreement dated April 3, 1985. 2) Plaintiff and Defendant were two general partners of Blue Mountain Cabinet ("Partnership"), a cabinet company located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania. 3) The materials used to construct the original workshop out of which the Partnership operated were purchased by Defendant's father. 4) The workshop out of which Blue Mountain Cabinet operated was located on land initially titled to Defendant's father. 5) Plaintiff and Defendant, along with Defendant's nephew, supplied the labor to construct the original workshop. 6) On December 19, 1989, the land on which the workshop is constructed was transferred from Defendant's father to Defendant. 7) The balance of the escrow account is $10,903.66. This balance consists of $9,224.62 remaining in the escrow account and $1,679.04 of partnership funds expended by Defendant before the creation of the escrow account. 8) In 1997, the partnership obtained a $10,000.00 loan for the purpose of applying towards the workshop expansion. 9) The Partnership repaid the loan with partnership funds. 10) In 1997, the Partnership spent $29,235.00 of partnership funds for the purpose of purchasing materials and supplies towards the workshop expansion project. -2- 08-2326 CIVIL TERM 11) In 1997, the partners contributed their labor to the workshop expansion project. 12) Beginning in 1997, the Partnership annually included $19,482.00 on its tax return as a depreciable asset of the Partnership. 13) The Partnership annually provided funds to pay for the insurance on the workshop. 14)The Partnership annually provided funds to maintain the workshop. 15)The partners agree that each is an equal owner of the Partnership personal property and assets. 16)The partners are entitled to share equally in the Partnership assets. 17) It was stipulated that Steven W. Barrett was qualified as an expert certified general appraiser. II. Findings of Fact In addition to the aforesaid stipulations, plaintiff and defendant have respectively proposed 62 and 28 findings of fact. Just as we instruct juries not to base their decision on the number of witnesses or the volume of evidence presented by each party, we did not reach our decision by weighing the documents. Counsel are commended for their thoroughness in arguing this matter in the light most favorable to their positions; however, without minimizing other facts, we will distill the proposed findings to their essence. The parties had known each other for many years, dating back to high school, when they began discussions about a woodworking business in early 1984. These discussions resulted in the Partnership Agreement dated April 3, 1985. After engaging in multiple projects over the ensuing years, the parties determined that there was a -3- 08-2326 CIVIL TERM need to expand the workshop in 1996. In 1997, the original 960 square foot workshop was expanded to 4,320 square feet. Defendant contends that the parties considered two options to the 1997 expansion -- either defendant would take out a loan to pay for the expansion and collect rent from the business or the partnership would pay for the addition and would not be required to pay rent. In defendant's mind, "either way the building was mine." When asked on cross-examination as to whether the plaintiff had agreed to give up any partnership interest in the building, the defendant replied "[the plaintiff] never had one" but admitted "we never had a conversation about it." Ultimately, it was the plaintiff who selected the option of having the partnership pay for the expansion of the workshop. Plaintiff argues that he emphatically rejected the proposal that the defendant pay for the building with the partnership paying rent thereafter, just as defendant emphatically rejected plaintiffs proposal to find other land on which to build. From plaintiff's perspective, the parties simply agreed to use partnership funds to construct the addition and never discussed whether the workshop was a partnership asset in return for the non-payment of rent. In support of plaintiffs position, as noted in the aforesaid stipulations, the partnership tax returns, beginning in 1997, included $19,482 as a "non-residential real property" depreciable item. This is a significant indication that the workshop was considered to be a partnership asset. Similarly, the depreciable asset was carried forward through the partnership 2005 tax return, wherein the building was in its eighth -4- 08-2326 CIVIL TERM year as a depreciable asset. Other indications that the workshop was treated as a partnership asset include the fact that the partnership paid the insurance for the workshop and that no business other than partnership business was conducted in the workshop. Regarding the value of the workshop, plaintiff's expert, Steven W. Barrett testified that at the time of dissolution of the partnership the building was worth $196,669. He based this upon the Marshall Swift cost estimator, which is a generally accepted appraisal method in the appraisal industry. Defendant cross-examined Mr. Barrett fairly extensively regarding other methods that could have been used to appraise the building, but presented no evidence concerning its value. Although that is consistent with defendant's position that the workshop was not a partnership asset, arguing in the alternative would have given the court more guidance as to how it might use its equitable powers if it includes the workshop as a partnership asset. Instead, defendant merely contends that he has "no use for [the building]" and cannot sell it because it is situated on his land. Defendant argues that, at best, the workshop should be valued at the depreciated value on the tax return of $14,916.00. 111. Discussion and Conclusions Although there is some question as to precisely when this partnership was initiated, there is no dispute that (1) the partnership existed; (2) during the term of the partnership the parties built a workshop; and (3) the partnership has ended. Pursuant to the Uniformed Partnership Act, 15 Pa.C.S. § 8335, and the Partnership Agreement, -5- 08-2326 CIVIL TERM plaintiff is entitled to an accounting of the partnership assets. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the workshop is a partnership asset and that defendant is required to provide an accounting of its value just as he would any other partnership asset. The Pennsylvania Uniform Partnership Act identifies partnership property as follows: (a) General rule - All property originally brought into the partnership, stock or subsequently acquired, by purchase or otherwise, on account of the partnership is partnership property. (b) Acquisition with partnership funds - Unless the contrary intention appears, property acquired with partnership fund is partnership property. (c) Property in partnership name - Any estate in real property may be acquired in the partnership name. Title so acquired can be conveyed only in the partnership name. (d) Extent of interest acquired - A conveyance to a partnership in the partnership name, though without words of inheritance, passes the entire estate of the grantor unless a contrary intent appears. 15 Pa.C.S. § 8313. In seeking an accounting of his prorated portion of the workshop pursuant to 8313, plaintiff relies heavily on Gauldin v. Com, 595 S.W.2d 329 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980), wherein the court held that a building constructed by a partnership on land owned by one partner was partnership property pursuant to Missouri law. Important for the instant matter is the fact that, in relevant part, the Missouri Uniform Partnership Act is identical to the Pennsylvania statute. Although not controlling herein, we find the reasoning of -6- 08-2326 CIVIL TERM the Missouri Court of Appeals to be eminently persuasive with respect to the dispute before us. Therefore, we summarize hereafter its salient points. In Gauldin, the buildings at issue were constructed while the property was owned by defendant partner's parents. The partnership never paid any rent for the use of the land or buildings. The defendant contended that the partners had an agreement that the partnership would pay no rent for the buildings in lieu of the landowner retaining ownership of the structures; however, plaintiff denied the exsistence of such an agreement. Although the trial court found in favor of the defendant partner property owner, the Court of Appeals reversed and held "the rule is well-established that improvements made upon lands owned by one partner, if made with partnership funds for purposes of partnership business, are the personal property of the partnership, and the non-landowning partner is entitled to his proportionate share of their value." Id. at 335. We will not recite the compelling and persuasive review of similar laws in other jurisdictions which the Missouri Court of Appeals conducted. Rather, we submit that the interpretation of our sister state is "entitled to even greater deference where consistency and uniformity of application are essential elements of a comprehensive statutory scheme like that contemplated by the Uniform Commercial Code." Commonwealth v. National Bank & Trust Co. of Cent. Pennsylvania, 364 A.2d 1331, 1335 (Pa. 1976). Similar deference is appropriate here where we interpret the Uniform Partnership Act, and, thus, we concur fully with the "Show Me" state's interpretation of the law. In particular, we find that there was no agreement between the parties with respect to the -7- 08-2326 CIVIL TERM payment of rent or the foregoing of any rent in lieu of a financial interest in the workshop. Specifically, plaintiff never agreed to give up his interest in the building in lieu of paying rent to the defendant. Given the fact that it was plaintiff who decided how the expansion would be paid for, it is ludicrous to assume he would select an option that would nullify his financial interest in the workshop. In addition to Gauldin we find guidance in time-worn Pennsylvania decisions. In Miller v. Miller, 88 A.2d 784 (Pa. 1952), the court looked to the surrounding circumstances to find that an oral agreement for a partnership existed where brothers had agreed to form a Pennsylvania shop after one of the brothers had closed his New York shop. In the instant controversy, the surrounding circumstances clearly show that the parties operated a woodworking partnership for several years and that they agreed to use partnership funds to expand their workshop. The partnership records show that they obtained a loan for $10,000 to pay for the expansion and also spent $19,482.40 on materials for the project and $9,752.67 for labor and incidentals. They not only used that workshop until the termination of the partnership but also identified it as a depreciable item on the partnership tax returns. In sum, there is no credible evidence to show that the parties did not consider the workshop to be a partnership asset. The case of Eck v. Eck, 6 Lycoming 38, (C.P. Lycoming 1957), is also illustrative. In that case, the dispute focused on a garage built with partnership funds on land not owned by the partnership. There, the court held the garage was intended to be a partnership asset. The court found that "the garage was built with partnership funds, -8- 08-2326 CIVIL TERM the building was used for partnership business, rentals were collected by the partnership, repairs were made by the partnership, taxes and insurance premiums paid by the partnership[.] ... Confirmation also appears in income tax returns filed by the partnership[.]" Id. at 48. As in Eck, we look to the intent of the parties and not merely the location of the asset in determining whether it is partnership property. Other than the defendant's vague assertion that the building was on his land so "either way it was mine," there was clearly no understanding between the parties that defendant would get the full benefit of the value of the building. To the contrary, all of the evidence points to the fact that both parties treated the workshop as a partnership asset. In finding that the plaintiff is entitled to his one-half interest in the workshop, we decline to join in the parties' all-or-nothing standoff as to its value. We agree with plaintiff that "to not award plaintiff his portion of the workshop value would amount to a windfall to defendant." However, we are not satisfied that merely utilizing the valuation provided by plaintiffs expert results in an equitable resolution of this matter. Conversely, we do not agree with defendant that the 4,320 square foot workshop constitutes an albatross around his neck. The value of the workshop is somewhere between a windfall and an albatross, but we are chary to chart a course between those ethereal objects. Equity demands that, initially, we shift the burden back to the defendant to provide an accounting of this significant asset. Following such accounting, plaintiff may file exceptions and bring the matter back to the court for a final resolution. -9- 08-2326 CIVIL TERM Accordingly, we enter the following order: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this _day of January, 2011, after non-jury trial and upon consideration of plaintiffs and defendant's proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is entitled to an accounting of the assets of the Partnership, which was formalized by an agreement signed on April 3, 1985. As noted in our Order of November 23, 2010, plaintiff and defendant are entitled to share equally in the proceeds generated by the Partnership's personal property including, but not limited to, the tools, equipment, materials and accounts. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the workshop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, is a Partnership asset with value. Defendant is directed to state an accounting of the workshop within thirty (30) days of this order, to which plaintiff may file exceptions within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the account. Thereafter, the court will determine the appropriate manner to proceed towards a final resolution. By the Court, Albe H. Masland, J. Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire For Plaintiff George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire For Defendant :saa -10- FAClients\12252 Lloyd Ron\12252.Laccountlmpd George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire _ ?LLL) tali ?l' +^ p}x ?. r .,F L3 ' j r$ '. p, k, • '' I.D. No. 49813 FEB 10 AM 11 s 0 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES CUMBERLAND OUN # Y 10 E. High Street PENNSYLVANIA Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant KEVIN B. GANTZ, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. N0.08 - 2;4CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, Defendant ACCOUNTING AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Ronald R. Lloyd, by and through his attorneys, Martson Law Offices, and hereby files this accounting of the workshop as directed by the Order of Court dated January 12, 2011, as follows: 1. The Defendant has secured an appraisal that indicates the value of the workshop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, is valued as follows: 960 square foot original building: $6,000.00 3,360 square foot building addition: $54,000.00 4,320 square foot entire building: $73,000.00 2. Defendant, as the owner of the real estate on which the building is located, does not want the building and believes the fairest way to determine the value of the building would be to sell it at the public sale along with the personal property of the partnership. A true and correct copy of the Appraisal Report completed by Diversified Appraisal Services is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A." Date: MARTOO, AW OFFICES By George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire I.D. No. 49813 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3093 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant SELF-CONTAINED APPRAISAL REPORT COMMERCIAL BUILDING 2035 PINE ROAD NEWVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA PREPARED FOR RONALD R. LLOYD BY LARRY E. FOOTE DIVERSIFIED APPRAISAL SERVICES 35 EAST HIGH STREET, SUITE 101 CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3052 (717) 249-2758 COPY TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. Table of Contents ........................................................................................................2 Letter of Transmittal ...................................................................................................3 Summary of Important Facts and Conclusions ......................................................... ..4 The Valuation Process ....................................................................... ..5 Appraisal Certificate ................................................................................................. ..8 Intended Use of the Appraisal ...............................................,................................... ..9 Location Analysis ..................................................................,................................... 10 Ownership History ..................................................................................................... 13 Estimated Marketing Time ........................................................................................ 13 Economic Trends ...................................................................................................... 13 Improvements ........................................................................................................... 14 Highest and Best Use ................................................................................................ 16 Cost Approach .......................................................................................................... 20 Sales Comparison Approach ..................................................................................... 23 Income Approach ...................................................................................................... 40 Reconciliation and Final Value Estimate .................................................................. 41 Underlying Assumptions and Limiting Conditions .................................................. 42 Certificate of Appraisal ............................................................................................. 45 Privacy Notice ........................................................................................................... 46 APPENDIX Qualifications of the Appraiser Photographs Location Map 2 Diversified Appraisal Services Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants February 4, 2011 TO: Ronald R. Lloyd FM: Larry E. Foote RE: Self-contained Appraisal Report Commercial Building 2035 Pine Road Newville, Pennsylvania 35 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3052 (717) 249-2758 FAX (717) 258-4701 At your request, I have appraised the captioned building. The appraisal report, which follows this letter, is submitted in support of my opinion of Market Value of the Fee Simple Interest in the building, as of October 28, 2006. I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the data, facts, and opinions set forth therein, are accurate, subject to the Statement of Assumptions and Lim- iting Conditions that is also made a part of the report, and that the indicated Market Value of the subject building, as of October 28, 2006 is: 960 square foot original building: $ 6,000 3,360 square foot building addition: $54,000 4,320 square foot entire building: $73,000 This appraisal has been made in conformity with the standards of professional practice of the National Association of Realtors Appraisal Section. I appreciate your hav- ing considered me for this assignment and trust that you find the report entirely satisfac- tory. Respectfully submitted, Larry E. Foote Pa. Certified General Appraiser GA-000014-L SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS LOCATION: 2035 Pine Road Nevwille, Pennsylvania TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 31-12-0330-001 OWNERSHIP: Ronald R. Lloyd. LAND SIZE: No land is included in this appraisal assignment. ZONING: Agriculture District. PROPERTY RIGHTS: Fee simple interest. SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT: The scope of the assignment included an analysis of the subject's area, an inspection of the subject property, an es- timation of the property's highest and best use, considera- tion of all three approaches to value, and the application of those relevant to the valuation of the subject. IMPROVEMENTS: One-story detached frame building. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the market value of the subject property as un- encumbered. USE OF THE APPRAISAL: To assist in the valuation of partnership assets. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 28, 2006. HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Use as a farm equipment storage building. COST APPROACH: SALES APPROACH: INCOME APPROACH: N.A. 960 sq. ft. original building: 3,360 sq. ft. building addition: 4,320 sq. ft. entire building: $ 6,000 $54,000 $73,000 N.A. VALUE CONCLUSION: 960 sq. ft. original building: 3,360 sq. ft. building addition: 4,320 sq. ft. entire building: $ 6,000 $54,000 $73,000 4 THE VALUATION PROCESS The valuation process is defined in The Appraisal of Real Estate as published by the Appraisal Institute, as "a systematic set of procedures an appraiser follows to provide answers to a client's questions about real property value." It consists of a series of steps that are appropriate to a specific and particular ap- praisal assignment that begins with a client engaging a real estate appraiser to develop an opinion of value for a specific property as of a given effective date and ends when the appraiser communicates and reports the final conclusions and opinions to the client. Definition of the Appraisal Problem: The first step in the appraisal process includes the presentation of the following: 1. Identification of the client, the intended use, and the intended users of the ap- praisal report. 2. The purpose of the appraisal, including a definition of the value being reported. 3. Determination of the effective date of the appraisal report. 4. Extraordinary assumptions that are applicable to the appraisal assignment. 5. Hypothetical conditions that are applicable to the appraisal assignment. Scope of Work: Scope of work is defined in the Uniform Standards of Professional Practice as be- ing "the type and extent of research and analyses in an assignment." This includes the 5 degree and extent of research and the data that is deemed as necessary to develop a credi- ble opinion of value for the property being appraised. Data Collection and Analysis: The appraiser must gather and analyze market area data, subject property data, and comparable property data that is relative and relevant to the appraisal assignment. Development and Application of Traditional Approaches to Value: The appraiser must consider which of the three traditional approaches to value are applicable, relevant, and necessary for developing a credible opinion of value for the sub- ject property. These three traditional approaches to value include the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach, and Income Capitalization Approach. When two or more of these approaches to value are developed, the appraiser must determine the amount of emphasis and consideration to be given to each of those approaches to value, since one or more may have greater significance in the appraisal of a specific property. Reconciliation of Value Indications and Final Opinion of Value: The final step in the valuation process is the reconciliation of the value indications developed by the appraiser. Reconciliation is the analysis of alternative conclusions to arrive at a final value estimate. Reconciliation is required because different value indica- tions result from the use of multiple approaches to value and within the application of a single approach. The final value estimate is not derived simply by applying technical and 6 quantitative procedures, rather, it involves the exercise of judgment, and the value con- clusion reached must be consistent with market thinking. APPRAISAL CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that upon application for valuation by: RONALD R. LLOYD the undersigned personally inspected the following described property: All that certain building consisting of a one-story detached frame structure, con- taining a total of approximately 4,320 square feet, constructed upon a concrete slab. To the best of my knowledge and belief the statements contained in this report are true and correct, and that neither the employment to make this appraisal report nor the compensation is contingent upon the value reported, and that in my opinion the Market Value as of October 28, 2006 is: 960 square foot original building: $ 6,000 3,360 square foot building addition: $54,000 4,320 square foot entire building: $73,000 The property was appraised as a whole, subject to the contingent and limiting conditions outlined herein. Larry E. Foote Pa. Certified General Appraiser GA-000014-L 8 INTENDED USE OF THE APPRAISAL The intended use of this appraisal is to estimate the Market Value of the subject building as of October 28, 2006. Market Value is defined as the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a speci- fied date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: a. Buyer and seller are typically motivated. b. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest. c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market. d. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of fi- nancial arrangements comparable thereto. e. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. Source: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 12 CFI §34.42(f). 9 LOCATION ANALYSIS The subject building is located in the south central part of Pennsylvania in Cum- berland County, which is part of the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which consists of Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon and Perry counties. Cumberland County has pronounced boundaries. The Susquehanna River forms the east- ern boundary shared with Dauphin County and the state capitol, Harrisburg. The Yellow Breeches Creek forms the southeastern boundary with York County. The boundary then extends to the southwest following the Paney and South Mountains. That line also con- stitutes the southern boundary with Adams County. The southwestern boundary with Franklin County is traced by Laughlin Run, Middle Spring Creek, Gum Run, and Maines Run while the ridge line of Blue Mountain forms the northern boundary with Perry County. This region is one of the most strategically located areas in the Eastern United States and the major center for food distribution in the Middle Atlantic market region which contains over 40 million people. Based upon statistics from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry Bureau of Research and Statistics, Pennsylvania's seasonally adjusted civilian labor force - the number of people working or looking for work - declined by 30,000 residents in August, 2010 to 6,363,000. Resident employment dropped by 25,000 in August, 2010 accounting for all of the labor force growth. Unemployment was down by 8,000 people. The civilian labor force was down 34,000 from August 2009, with un- employment up 42,000 during the same time period. 10 Pennsylvania's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate fell to 9.2 percent in Au- gust, down one-tenth of a percentage point from July. Pennsylvania's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate remained below the United States' rate of 9.6 percent in August. Cumberland County's seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment dropped from 7.5 percent in July to 7.3 percent in August, placing it in fourth position from the lowest unemployment rate in Pennsylvania. Centre County has the lowest unemployment rate, at 6.4 percent. Major east-west transportation links serving the general area are U.S. Route 22 and 322, Interstate Route 78, and Interstate Route 76. Major nearby north-south arteries include Interstate Route 81, Interstate Route 83, and U.S. Routes 11 and 15. Rail service is provided by Amtrak on ConRail's line. The rail terminal is located in downtown Har- risburg. Air transportation includes four airports with Harrisburg International Airport serving the major carriers of U.S. Air, American, and Pennsylvania Commuter Air Lines. General aviation is also served by Capital City Airport and the Carlisle Business Airport. Higher education is offered through the Harrisburg Area Community College, the University Center at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg, Dickinson College and Dickinson Law School. Millersville State University, Shippensburg State University, Susquehanna University, Franklin and Marshall College, and York College, among others, are all within a one hour drive of the general area. Newville is located in the southeast section of central Pennsylvania, approxi- mately thirty miles from Harrisburg, the state capitol. The town itself is presently under- going a considerable degree of renovation and restoration of older properties. Employment opportunities are good, with Commonwealth of Pennsylvania em- ploying approximately 35,000 area workers, Harrisburg being the State Capital. The United States Government employs approximately 14,000, most of which serve two large supply depots, the Army Supply Depot at New Cumberland and the Ship's Parts Control Depot in Mechanicsburg. Some of the largest employers in the Harrisburg area include the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the United States Government; United States Postal Service; Hershey Foods Corporation; Naval Support Activity, Mechanicsburg; Pennsyl- vania Blue Shield; Hershey Medical Center; Defense Distribution Center, New Cumber- land; Pinnacle Health System; Electronic Data Systems; PPG Industries; Giant Food Stores; Ross Distribution; United States Army War College and Carlisle Barracks; Capi- tal Blue Cross; and Fry Communications, Inc. The economic base of the area is diversified and extends from strong government, service related and transportation facilities, and commercial and industrial uses. Unem- ployment rates are consistently some of the lowest reported in the area. This is due for the most part to high State and Federal Government employment, as well as expanding private sector uses of distribution and office facilities. 12 OWNERSHIP HISTORY The subject property is owned by Ronald R. Lloyd. The last sale of this property was in 1989. ESTIMATED MARKETING TIME It is estimated that if the subject property were offered for sale at the indicated Market Value, a reasonable marketing time would be one to two years. This estimate is based upon quarterly sales figures published by Central Penn Multi List, Inc. ECONOMIC TRENDS Historically, property values for similar properties have steadily increased, with vacancy rates remaining stable. However, the recent lag in the economy has resulted in a leveling of appreciation rates and longer marketing times. Financing is readily available to qualified purchasers at reasonable rates and terms. 13 IMPROVEMENTS The subject building consists of a one-story detached vacant building, previously utilized as a woodworking shop. This building, which is constructed upon a concrete slab, contains a total of approximately 4,320 square feet of gross building area. This building was originally constructed as a 960 square foot storage building in 1984, with a 3,360 square foot addition being constructed in 1997 by the business owners. The exterior walls of this building are of wood framing, covered with vinyl sid- ing. Roofing is of the gable type, covered with fiberglass shingles. There are no gutters or downspouts on the building. The exterior passage doors are of metal, and there is a wooden garage door as well as a metal overhead garage door the provide access to the building. Windows are of the wood-framed single-glazed type. The interior of the building is divided into an assembly room that was the original building, a production room, a finish room, a mechanical room, a small office and a small restroom. The interior flooring is of unpainted concrete throughout. Interior walls are covered with unpainted drywall and painted particle board. The interior ceilings are also covered with unpainted drywall and painted particle board. The interior doors are of un- painted wood and there is no baseboard or other interior trim. The building is heated by an oil-fired hot water heating system, with auxiliary baseboard electric heating units in the office and restroom. Water is heated by the fur- nace and plumbing is of iron, plastic and copper. There is a wall-mounted air conditioner in the original part of the building. Electricity is distributed by a 200-ampere circuit breaker electrical system. 14 The building is considered to be in fair condition on the interior and on the exte- rior, having unpainted finishes on the interior and rusty metal doors on the exterior. The mechanical systems appear to be adequate for the previous use of the building. 15 HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and Best Use is defined by the Appraisal Terminology and Handbook, published by the Appraisal Institute, as "the most profitable likely use to which a prop- erty can be put". The opinion of such use may be based on the highest and most profit- able continuous use to which the property is adapted and needed, or likely to be in de- mand, in the reasonable near future. However, elements affecting value that depend upon events or a combination of occurrences which, while within the realm of possibility, are not fairly shown to be rea- sonably probable, should be excluded from consideration. Also, if the intended use is dependent on an uncertain act of another person, the intention cannot be considered. The following tests must be passed in determining the highest and best use of the subject property. a. The use must be physically possible. The size., shape, and topography of the site affect possible uses for which it can be developed. b. The use must be legal, i.e., permitted under zoning and other municipal, county, state, or federal regulations. c. The use must be financially feasible, probable, and not speculative. There must be an economic, social, or market demand for the existing or proposed use. All uses that are expected to produce a positive return are regarded as fi- nancially feasible. d. Finally, the highest and best use must be that which produced the highest pos- sible net return for the longest period of time. 16 The highest and best use of the site as vacant may be different from the highest and best use as currently improved. This is most likely to occur with older properties, where physical condition, market changes, and neighborhood changes have been signifi- cant since the period when originally constructed. HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS IMPROVED: The analysis of highest and best use of a property as improved addresses what use should be made of the current improvements. Possible choices include renovation, ex- pansion, demolition, or maintaining its current use with no changes. Considering the physical characteristics of the property, neighborhood uses, current zoning, location, and financial parameters, it is my opinion that the highest and best use of the subject property, as improved, is for use as a farm equipment building, since commercial uses are not per- mitted in the Agriculture District. 17 THE APPRAISAL PROCESS Three approaches to value are generally included in an appraisal report. These techniques include the cost approach, sales comparison approach, and income approach to value. The cost approach to value is based on the assumption that the reproduction cost of a building plus land value, tends to set the upper limit to value. A key assumption is that a newly constructed building would have advantages over the existing building, therefore an evaluation focuses upon disadvantages or deficiencies (depreciation) of the existing building compared to a new facility. The sales comparison approach to value assumes that under normal conditions, a given number of parties acting intelligently and voluntarily, tend to set a pattern from which value can be estimated. Application of this approach relies on a comparison of the subject with a sufficient number of recent transactions of comparable properties in the market, based on a common unit, such as price per square foot of building area. The income approach concerns itself with present worth of the future potential benefits of a property. The initial estimate involves the net income, which a fully in- formed person is justified in assuming the property will produce during its remaining use- ful life. This estimated net income is then capitalized into a value estimate, based upon the level of risk as compared with that of a similar type and class. Information for the application of the three approaches to value is obtained from the market through research verification and analysis. It should be noted that, although the approaches are interrelated, separate indications of value are usually derived from 18 each approach. The reconciliation of these three approaches to value involves an attempt to explain the apparent differences and to determine which approach, or combination of approaches, should be given the greatest consideration. These approaches to value are considered, and those being appropriate are fully analyzed and presented in the following sections of this appraisal report. 19 THE COST APPROACH The cost approach to value is based on the principle of substitution, which pro- poses that an informed buyer will pay no more than the cost of providing a substitute property with similar utility. In estimating the value of the subject property by the cost approach, the following steps must be completed: a. Estimate the value of the site to its highest and best use as though vacant, which we have done. b. Estimate the reproduction or replacement cost of the improvements on the ef- fective date of the appraisal. This includes direct and indirect costs. c. Estimate other costs incurred after construction to bring the new, vacant build- ing up to market conditions and occupancy levels. d. Estimate entrepreneurial profit, when appropriate, from an analysis of the market. e. Add estimated replacement or reproduction cost, indirect costs, and entrepre- neurial profit, often expressed as a percentage of total direct and indirect costs to arrive at the total replacement or reproduction cost of the primary structure. f. Estimate the amount of accrued depreciation in the structure, which is divided into three major categories; physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and external obsolescence. 20 g. Deduct the estimated depreciation from the total. reproduction or replacement cost of the structure to derive an estimate of the structure's depreciated repro- duction or replacement cost. h. Estimate reproduction or replacement costs and depreciation for any acces- sory buildings and site improvements, and then deduct estimated depreciation from the reproduction or replacement costs of these improvements. Site im- provements and minor building improvements are often appraised at their net value, i.e., directly on a depreciated cost basis. i. Add the depreciated reproduction of replacement costs of the structure, the accessory buildings, and the site improvements to obtain the estimated total depreciated reproduction or replacement cost of all improvements. j. Add the land value to the total depreciated reproduction or replacement cost of all improvements to arrive at the indicated value of the fee simple interest in the property. k. Adjust the indicated fee simple value to reflect the property interest being ap- praised, if necessary, to produce an indicated value for the interest in the sub- ject property. Comparison is the essence of the cost approach to value, similar to the sales com- parison and income approaches. Construction costs, plus land values, are compared to the values of existing improved properties. The four principles used for the sale compari- son approach (substitution, supply and demand, balance, and externalities), are also ap- plicable to the cost approach. 21 So the cost approach to value can be derived and equitably compared with the other approaches to value, adjustments for accrued depreciation from all causes are de- ducted from the reproduction cost, including: a. Physical Deterioration: Physical wearing out of property. b. Functional Obsolescence: Lack of desirability in terms of layout, style and design as compared to that of a new property, serving the same func- tion. c. External Obsolescence: Loss of value from causes outside the property it- self. The cost approach to value is most applicable for new properties, where the com- ponents of physical deterioration and functional and external obsolescence are small. The Marshal Valuation Service is used in this approach with actual costs for the subject property. The Marshall Valuation Service is a complete, dependable appraisal guide for de- veloping replacement costs, depreciated values, and insurable values of buildings and other improvements. Modifiers are applied to make the cost applicable to any size build- ing in any locality. Known costs for locally constructed properties are also analyzed and compared with derived cost estimates. The land value is based on comparable land sales using the same techniques as applied in the sales comparison approach. Due to the age and condition of the subject building, the cost approach to value is considered to be inappropriate and has not been included in the development of this ap- praisal report. 22 THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The sales comparison approach is a process of comparing market data, that is, the prices paid for similar properties, prices asked by owners, offers made by prospective purchasers willing to buy, and rents and leases. In applying the sales comparison approach, various appraisal principles are ap- plied, ensuring that all relevant issues have been included in the analysis. The principles of primary importance are supply and demand, balance, substitution, and externalities. Additionally, a fundamental premise of the sales comparison approach is the concept, that from analysis of sales of reasonably similar properties, an appraiser has a factual basis upon which to estimate the value of the subject. Proper application of the sales compari- son approach requires that: a. Only market transactions be weighed, and the date of each transaction be con- firmed to the greatest extent possible. b. The degree of comparability of each sale to the subject be considered. c. The value conclusion be consistent with the analysis of the sales data. A definition of market value is: "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: a. Buyer and seller are typically motivated. 23 b. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest. c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market. d. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial ar- rangements comparable thereto. e. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone asso- ciated with the sale. The degree of comparability that exists between a sale and the subject is often a function of the volume of sales activity in a market. For any class of real estate, if sales are infrequent, the market area must be expanded in scope of time and or geography to whatever extent is necessary to accumulate sufficient data on which to base a judgment. To judge the degree of comparability between a sale and the subject, several guidelines can be applied. a. The sale should be in the same market as the subject. To the extent that a market is a meeting place for buyers and sellers of real estate of a given type, the boundaries of the market are set by the participants in merchandising and absorbing competitive properties. The boundaries of a market area are conse- quently economic in character, and not purely physical or geographic. b. Physical characteristics of the sale and subject should be as similar as possible in terms of size and amenities customarily found within the applicable class of real estate. c. Real estate price trends over time must be taken. into consideration. 24 d. The functional adequacy of the sale property and the subject should be com- petitive in terms of the ability of each to support similar functions. In arriving at this conclusion of the value of the subject property, your appraiser made a survey of properties that have been sold recently or are now offered for sale within the general area. Sales, terms of sale, price, and exterior, as well as interior appointments, were verified by a personal examination and/or interview with the sales brokers. As it was impossible to find an identical property to that of the subject, since no two properties are ever identical, it was necessary to make adjustments on each compara- ble sale and offering for sale as related to the subject property. Consideration was given and adjustments were made on each comparable sale, of- fering for sale as to time of sale, size, location, age, and utility, as well as all other factors that might affect value. A resume of some of the sales and offerings for sale considered by your appraiser are listed on the following pages: 25 BUILDING WITH LAND SALE NO. 1: Location: 700 Forge Road Carlisle, Pennsylvania Tax Parcel Number: 40-09-0533-006A Date of Sale: April 20, 2006. Deed Reference: Deed Book 274, Page 534. Type: One-story detached concrete block commercial garage building. Building Size: 5,392 square feet, including 352 square feet of of- fice space. Lot Size: .73 acre. Parking: On-site parking lot. Grantor: Levi W. and Carole K. Tanger. Grantee: Robert L. and Marilyn T. McCanna. Sale Price: $195,000 Unit Price: $36.16 per square foot. Data Source: Cumberland County Assessment Office records and exterior inspection. 26 BUILDING WITH LAND SALE NO. 2: Location: 8 Front Street Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania Tax Parcel Number: 40-29-2482-005 Date of Sale: March 28, 2006. Deed Reference: Deed Book 273, Page 3636. Type: One-story detached concrete block commercial garage building. Building Size: 2,400 square feet, including 540 square feet of of- fice space. Lot Size: 1.00 acre. Parking: On-site parking lot. Grantor: William L. Gouse. Grantee: Gerald M. Christopher. Sale Price: $150,000 Unit Price: $62.50 per square foot. Data Source: Cumberland County Assessment Office records and exterior inspection. 27 BUILDING WITH LAND SALE NO. 3: Location: 1130 Harrisburg Pike Carlisle, Pennsylvania Tax Parcel Number: 21-18-1363-055 Date of Sale: August 27, 2007. Deed Reference: 200733352 Type: One-story detached steel siding commercial garage building. Building Size: 2,304 square feet, including 768 square feet of office space. Lot Size: .92 acre. Parking: On-site asphalt lot. Grantor: Robert D. and Mary Taylor. Grantee: Jeffrey L. and Daryl L. Heiges. Sale Price: $250,000 Unit Price: $108.51 per square foot. Data Source: Cumberland County Assessment Office records and exterior inspection. 28 Your appraiser, in addition to the sales listed, also considered several additional sales in arriving at his final opinion of value. After making all of the necessary adjust- ments, as explained in the opening paragraphs under this approach to value, it is your ap- praiser's considered opinion that the Market Value of the subject building by the Sales Comparison Approach is best estimated at: 960 square foot original building: $ 6,200 3,360 square foot building addition: $54,000 4,320 square foot entire building: $73,000 29 SALES ADJUSTMENTS 960 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING The appraiser has analyzed comparable sales and has developed dollar adjust- ments, reflecting market reaction to those items of significant variation between the sub- ject and comparable properties. If a significant item in the comparable property is supe- rior to, or more favorable than the subject property, a minus (-) adjustment is made, thus reducing the indicated value of the subject; if a significant item in the comparable is infe- rior to, or less favorable than the subject property, a plus (+) adjustment is made, thus in- creasing the indicated value of the subject. Sale Price Construction Quality Building Size Building Condition Land Net Adjustment Indicated Value: SALE #1 SALE #2 SALE #3 195,000 150,000 250,000 -19,500 -15,000 -25,000 -88,640 -28,800 -26,880 -25,000 -73,000 -100,000 -138,000 -181,140 -143,800 -214,880 13,860 6,200 35,120 Since comparable sale number 2 has the smallest net adjustment, it is considered to be most similar to the subject building, and has therefore been given the most consid- eration in arriving at my final opinion of value of $6,000. 30 EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS COMPARABLE SALE NO. 1: A 10 percent negative adjustment was made for the inferior quality of construction of the subject building. A. $20 per square foot negative adjustment was made for the smaller size of the subject building. A $100,000 per acre negative adjustment was made for the subject's lack of land. COMPARABLE SALE NO. 2: A 10 percent negative adjustment was made for the inferior quality of construction of the subject building. A $20 per square foot negative adjustment was made for the smaller size of the subject building. A $100,000 per acre negative adjustment was made for the subject's lack of land. COMPARABLE SALE NO. 3: A 10 percent negative adjustment was made for the inferior quality of construction of the subject building. A $20 per square foot negative adjustment was made for the smaller size of the subject building. A 10 percent negative adjustment was made for the subject building's inferior condition. A $150,000 per acre negative adjustment was made for the subject's lack of land. 31 SALES ADJUSTMENTS 3,360 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING The appraiser has analyzed comparable sales and has developed dollar adjust- ments, reflecting market reaction to those items of significant variation between the sub- ject and comparable properties. If a significant item in the! comparable property is supe- rior to, or more favorable than the subject property, a minus (-) adjustment is made, thus reducing the indicated value of the subject; if a significant item in the comparable is infe- rior to, or less favorable than the subject property, a plus (A-) adjustment is made, thus in- creasing the indicated value of the subject. SALE #1 SALE #2 SALE #3 Sale Price Construction Quality Building Size Building Condition Land Net Adjustment Indicated Value: 195,000 150,000 250,000 -19,500 -15,000 -25,000 -40,640 +19,200 +21,120 -25,000 -73,000 -100,000 -138,000 -133,140 -95,800 -166,880 61,860 54,200 83,120 Since comparable sale number 2 has the smallest net adjustment, it is considered to be most similar to the subject building, and has therefore been given the most consid- eration in arriving at my final opinion of value of $54,000. 32 EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS COMPARABLE SALE NO. 1: A 10 percent negative adjustment was made for the inferior quality of construction of the subject building. A. $20 per square foot negative adjustment was made for the smaller size of the subject building. A $100,000 per acre negative adjustment was made for the subject's lack of land. COMPARABLE SALE NO. 2: A 10 percent negative adjustment was made for the inferior quality of construction of the subject building. A $20 per square foot positive adjustment was made for the larger size of the subject building. A $100,000 per acre negative adjustment was made for the subject's lack of land. COMPARABLE SALE NO. 3: A 10 percent negative adjustment was made for the inferior quality of construction of the subject building. A $20 per square foot positive adjustment was made for the larger size of the subject building. A 10 percent negative adjustment was made for the subject building's inferior condition. A $150,000 per acre negative adjustment was made for the subject's lack of land. 33 SALES ADJUSTMENTS 4,320 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING The appraiser has analyzed comparable sales and has developed dollar adjust- ments, reflecting market reaction to those items of significant variation between the sub- ject and comparable properties. If a significant item in the comparable property is supe- rior to, or more favorable than the subject property, a minus (-) adjustment is made, thus reducing the indicated value of the subject; if a significant item in the comparable is infe- rior to, or less favorable than the subject property, a plus (+) adjustment is made, thus in- creasing the indicated value of the subject. SALE #I SALE #2 SALE #3 Sale Price Construction Quality Building Size Building Condition Land Net Adjustment Indicated Value: 195,000 150,000 250,000 -19,500 -15,000 -25,000 -21,440 +38,400 +40,320 -25,000 -73,000 -100,000 -138,000 -113,940 -76,600 -147,680 81,060 73,400 102,320 Since comparable sale number 2 has the smallest net adjustment, it is considered to be most similar to the subject building, and has therefore been given the most consid- eration in arriving at my final opinion of value of $73,000. 34 EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS COMPARABLE SALE NO. 1: A 10 percent negative adjustment was made for the inferior quality of construction of the subject building. A $20 per square foot negative adjustment was made for the smaller size of the subject building. A $100,000 per acre negative adjustment was made for the subject's lack of land. COMPARABLE SALE NO. 2: A 10 percent negative adjustment was made for the inferior quality of construction of the subject building. A $20 per square foot positive adjustment was made for the larger size of the subject building. A $100,000 per acre negative adjustment was made for the subject's lack of land. COMPARABLE SALE NO. 3: A 10 percent negative adjustment was made for the inferior quality of construction of the subject building. A $20 per square foot positive adjustment was made for the larger size of the subject building. A 10 percent negative adjustment was made for the subject building's inferior condition. A $150,000 per acre negative adjustment was made for the subject's lack of land. 35 LAND SALE NO. 1: Location: 1243 Holly Pike, Carlisle. Tax Parcel Number: 40-09-0529-048 Date of Sale: December 19, 2006. Deed Reference: Deed Book 278, Page 465. Type: Vacant commercial land. Zoning: General Commercial District. Size: 1.01 acres. Topography: Level Utilities: Water, sewer, electricity, gas and telephone. Sale Price: $100,000 Unit Price: $99,010 per acre. Grantor: Joseph D. and Karen K. Buckley. Grantee: Bernard C. and Patricia S. Farrell. 36 LAND SALE NO. 2: Location: 1796 W. Trindle Road, Carlisle. Tax Parcel Number: 21-22-0119-019 Date of Sale: November 24, 2008. Deed Reference: 200837988 Type: Vacant commercial land. Zoning: Village Center District. Size: 2.46 acres. Topography: Level Utilities: Water, sewer, electricity and telephone. Sale Price: $570,000 Unit Price: $231,707 per acre. Grantor: Paul R. and Patricia Teitrick. Grantee: Robert A Frey and Linwood B. Phillips. 37 LAND SALE NO. 3: Location: Lot No. 10 Westminster Drive, Carlisle. Tax Parcel Number: 40-23-0594-063 Date of Sale: August 22, 2007. Deed Reference: 200732684 Type: Vacant commercial land. Zoning: General Commercial District. Size: .73 acre. Topography: Level Utilities: Water, sewer, electricity and telephone. Sale Price: $120,000 Unit Price: $164,384 per acre. Grantor: Michael A. and Stacy A. Foreman. Grantee: William P. and Carol J. Brown. 38 The locations of each of the land sales presented of the previous pages were com- pared with the locations of the comparable sales of buildings on land that have been used in this appraisal report. After analyzing each of these locations, it has been determined that the location of Land Sale No. 1 is most similar to the locations of the comparable building sales. Therefore, it is my considered opinion that the value of the tracts of land upon which the comparable building sales are situated is best estimated at an adjustment value of $100,000 per acre for comparable building sale numbers 1 and 2, and an adjust- ment value of $150,000 per acre for comparable building sale number 3, which are being used as the land adjustments in the sales adjustment grids for these properties. 39 THE INCOME APPROACH The income approach is a method of converting income streams into present worth. The income approach is most applicable for properties purchased for income pro- ducing capabilities. Using this approach, the net operating income should be sufficient to cover total mortgage payments and offer a return on equity investment. The net operat- ing income is capitalized to obtain an estimate of value by income approach. The first step in this process is the determination of the appropriate annual in- come. Market rent and contract rent must both be considered. Market rent is used when the property rights being appraised represent the unencumbered fee simple real estate. Contract rent represents the actual rental income specified in the lease. When the effects of the lease on the value of the property are to be considered, it is necessary to take into consideration the terms of the lease. After selection of the appropriate rent, stabilized operating expenses must be de- ducted from the effective gross income to arrive at an estimate of the net operating in- come. The next step in this process is the capitalization rate selection. Upon completion of these steps, the net operating income is capitalized to arrive at an indication of value. Due to the lack of comparable rental data for similar buildings that are con- structed upon someone else's land that is located in a rural area, zoned Agriculture Dis- trict, the income approach to value could not be included in the completion of this ap- praisal report. 40 RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE Reconciliation is the analysis of alternative conclusions to arrive at a final value estimate. Reconciliation is required because different value indications result from the use of multiple approaches to value and within the application of a single approach. The final value estimate is not derived simply by applying technical and quantita- tive procedures; rather, it involves the exercise of judgment. The value conclusion reached must be consistent with market thinking. The parts of this appraisal report are the following approaches to value your ap- praiser used: Value Indicated by Cost Approach N.A. Value Indicated by Sales Comparison Approach: 960 square foot original building: $ 6,000 3,360 square foot building addition: $54,000 4,320 square foot entire building: $73,000 Value Indicated by Income Approach N.A. These approaches are representative of the market value of the property. I have carefully examined each step in each method, and I believe the conclusions accurately reflect the attitude of typical purchasers of this type property in this neighborhood. It is my belief that this reexamination has confirmed the original conclusions. As a result of this appraisal and analysis, it is this appraiser's considered judgment and opinion that the Market Value of the subject property, as of October 28, 2006 is: 960 square foot original building: $ 6,000 3,360 square foot building addition: $54,000 4,320 square foot entire building: $73,000 41 UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS SUBJECT TO THIS APPRAISAL 1. I assume no responsibility for matters legal in nature, nor do I render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be marketable. The property is appraised as though under responsible ownership. 2. The legal description used herein is correct. 3. 1 have made no survey of the subject property, and the boundaries are taken from records believed to be reliable. 4. I assume that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil or structures which would render it more or less valuable. I assume no responsi- bility for such conditions or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors. 5. The information, estimates, and opinions furnished to me and contained in this re- port were obtained from sources considered to be reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy can be assumed by me. 6. This appraisal report is to be used in its entirety and only for the purpose for which it was rendered. 7. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this appraisal report, (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser or the firm with which he is connected) shall be reproduced, published, or disseminated to the public through advertising media, public relations media, sales media, or any other public means 42 of communication, without the prior written consent and approval of the ap- praiser. 8. Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous material, includ- ing without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, petroleum leakage, or agricultural chemicals, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed by the appraiser. The appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea- formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, or for any expertise or engi- neering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an ex- pert in this field, if desired. 9. I do not have knowledge or experience required to evaluate whether physical changes have to be made to existing facilities to conform to the Americans With Disabilities Act regulations or whether alterations or new construction meets the requirements. Therefore, the value reported is based upon the assumption that the subject property conforms to the ADA regulations. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. 10. Acceptance of and/or use of this appraisal report constitutes acceptance of the foregoing assumptions and limiting conditions. 43 11. Adherence to the confidentiality requirement of the Uniform Standards of Profes- sional Appraisal Practice requires that, prior to making any copies of the appraisal report or having discussions related to this appraisal assignment with anyone other than the client, approval from the client be obtained in writing. Upon re- ceipt of said written authorization, copies of the appraisal report shall be produced or discussions with a third party may be held. Fees for these additional services shall be mutually agreed upon and are payable in advance. 12. This appraisal was prepared under the extraordinary assumption that any ease- ments or rights of way of record have no adverse impact upon the highest and best use or value herein reported. A title search was not requested nor included in the scope of work for this assignment. 13. This appraisal was prepared for the exclusive us of the client identified in this ap- praisal report. The information and opinions contained in this appraisal set forth the appraiser's best judgment in light of the information available at the time of the preparation of this report. Any use of this appraisal by any other person or en- tity, or any reliance or decisions based on this appraisal are the sole responsibility and at the sole risk of the third party. The appraiser accepts no responsibility for damages suffered by any third party as a result of reliance on or decisions made or actions taken based on this report. 44 CERTIFICATE OF APPRAISAL Your appraiser hereby certifies that: 1. I have no present or contemplated future interest in the subject property. 2. I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of this ap- praisal report or the parties involved. My findings are not based on the employ- ment to make the restricted appraisal, a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan. 3. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the statements of fact contained in this appraisal report, upon which the analyses, opinions, and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. 4. This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting conditions (imposed by the terms of my assignment or by the undersigned) affecting the analyses, opinions, and conclusions contained in this report. 5. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation, and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Profes- sional Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct of the Appraisal Section of the National Association of Realtors. 6. No one other than the undersigned prepared the analyses, conclusions, and opin- ions concerning real estate that are set forth in this appraisal report. Larry E. Foote Pa. Certified General Appraiser GA-000014-L 45 PRIVACY NOTICE Pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act of 1999, effective July 1, 2001, apprais- ers, along with all providers of personal financial services are now required by federal law to inform their clients of the policies of the firm with regard to the privacy of client nonpublic personal information. As professionals, we understand that your privacy is very important to you and are pleased to provide you with this information. In the course of performing appraisals, we may collect what is known as "nonpub- lic personal information" about you. This information is used to facilitate the services that we provide to you and may include the information provided to us by you directly or received by us from others with your authorization. We do not disclose any nonpublic personal information obtained in the course of our engagement with our clients to nonaffiliated third parties, except as necessary or as required by law. By way of example, a necessary disclosure would be to our independent contractors, and in certain situations, to unrelated third party consultants who need to know that information to assist us in providing appraisal services to you. All of our inde- pendent contractors and any third party consultants we engage are informed that any in- formation they see as part of an appraisal assignment is to be maintained in strict confi- dence within the firm. A disclosure required by law would be a disclosure by us that is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction with regard to a legal action to which you are a party. We will retain records relating to professional services that we have provided to you for a reasonable time so that we are better able to assist you with your needs. In or- 46 der to protect your nonpublic personal information from unauthorized access by third par- ties, we maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with our professional standards to insure the security and integrity of your information. 47 LARRY E. FOOTE REAL ESTATE APPRAISER EXPERIENCE: 1979-Present: Chief Appraiser, Diversified Appraisal Services, Carlisle, Pa. Principal Broker, LaRue Development Company, Carlisle, Pa. 1976-1979: Associate Broker, Colonial Realty, Carlisle, Pa. 1972-1976: Realtor Associate, Jack Gaughen Realtor, Carlisle, Pa. Appraisal experience included undeveloped land, farms, building lots, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, medical centers, nursing homes, motels, apartment buildings and complexes, office buildings, service stations, veterinary clinics, rehabilitation centers, retail buildings, day- care centers, warehouses, and manufacturing facilities. EDUCATION: Bachelor of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University, 1976. Associate Bachelor of Business Administration, Harrisburg Area Community College, 1974. Diploma, Carlisle Senior High School, 1965. Certificate, Pennsylvania Realtors Institute, GRI I, GRI 1:I, GRI III. Certificate, Realtors National Marketing Institute, Cl 101, CI 102, Cl 103, Cl 104, Cl 105. Standards of Professional Practice, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. Real Estate Appraisal Principles, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. Residential Valuation, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers. Appraisal Procedures, Appraisal Institute. Principles of Income Property Appraising, Appraisal Institute. Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation, Appraisal Institute. Report Writing and Valuation Analysis, Appraisal Institute. PROFESSIONAL LICENSES: General Appraiser #GA-000014-L, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Real Estate Broker #RB-029729-A, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS EARNED: GRI: Graduate of the Pennsylvania Realtors Institute, awarded by the Pennsyl- vania Association of Realtors. CRS: Certified Residential Specialist, awarded by the Realtors National Market- ing Institute of the National Association of Realtors. CCIM: Certified Commercial Investment Member, awarded by the Realtors National Marketing Institute of the National Association of Realtors. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFILIATIONS: National Association of Realtors Appraisal Section. Greater Harrisburg Association of Realtors. Pennsylvania Association of Realtors. National Association of Realtors. Realtors National Marketing Institute. 48 PAST CLIENTS: Borough of Carlisle Keystone Financial Mortgage Cornerstone Federal Credit Union Pennsylvania State Bank Commerce Bank Cumberland-Perry Association for Retarded Citizens Carlisle Suburban Authority Members I' Federal Credit Union Pennsylvania National Bank Evans Financial Corporation Greenawalt & Company, CPA Smith's Transfer Corporation Carlisle Department of Parks and Recreation Executive Relocation Services Carlisle Area School District Messiah Homes, Incorporated ERA Eastern Regional Services Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Chase Home Mortgage Corporation Defense Activities Federal Credit Union Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union PNC Mortgage Corporation F&M Trust Company National City Mortgage Corporation Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc. Prudential Relocation Services Lender's Choice Market Intelligence, Incorporated United Telephone Employees Federal Credit Union Cumberland County Commissioners Allstate Enterprises Mortgage Corporation Dickinson College PPG Industries, Incorporated Gettysburg College Redevelopment Authority of Cumberland County Record Data Appraisal Services, Incorporated First United Federal Savings Association Fulton Bank United States Marshall Service GMAC Mortgage Corporation Orrstown Bank Letterkenny Federal Credit Union BancPlus Mortgage Corporation Coldwell Banker Relocation Services, Incorporated Central Pennsylvania Savings Bank Mellon Bank Provident Home Mortgage Corporation Various law firms and individuals 49 OWN - PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT IMPROVEMENTS 50 51 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT IMPROVEMENTS PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT D PROVEMENTS 52 PHOTOGRAPH OF COMPARABLE SALE NUMBER 1 53 PHOTOGRAPH OF COMPARABLE SALE NUMBER 2 54 PHOTOGRAPH OF COMPARABLE SALE NUMBER 3 55 iF. (174 Dickinson r? Rsr.. ?-d lut Bottom mapguest Subject 2s3) o2oi1 Rq0LurA Portions 02011 HAYTEQ, Intermap SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION MAP 56 Hays Groveo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Shelly R. Brooks, an authorized agent of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, hereby certify that a copy of the Accounting, was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire SAIDIS SULLIVAN LAW 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 MARTSON LAW OFFICES 7 i By. 1 S elly R. Bj?oks Ten East H?jh Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341. Dated: KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAIA V. CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY:- RONALD R. LLOYD, -_ Defendant NO. 08-2326 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S ACCOUNTING AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2011, comes Plaintiff Kevin B. Gantz, by a nd through his attorney, Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire, and hereby states his objections as follows: 1. Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to cross examine Defendant's appraiser. Defendant's appraiser states as follows: Marshall Valuation Service is a complete, dependable appraisal guide for developing replacement costs, depreciated values, and insurable values of buildings and other improvements. Modifiers are applied to make the cost applicable to any size building in any locality. Known costs for locally constructed properties are also analyzed and compared with derived cost estimates. Defendant's appraisal report at 22. Plaintiff's appraiser Steven W. Barrett utilized the Marshall Swift Cost Approach. Plaintiffs appraisal considered the structure, its depreciation and its life expectancy. Plaintiff's appraisal also considered the unique features of the building. Defendant's accounting does not include an appraisal based upon the cost approach. Additionally, for the 2006 - 2007 year, the partnership elected to maintain insurance for the replacement cost of the workshop in the amount of $148,366.00. A true and correct copy of the Declaration Page of the 2006 - 2007 Penn National Insurance policy is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The annual cost for such coverage was $1,096.00. Id. For the 2010 - 2011 year, the partnership elected to maintain insurance for the replacement cost of the workshop in the amount of $180,340.00. A true and correct copy of the Declaration Page of the 2010 - 2011 Penn National Insurance policy is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The annual cost for such coverage was $1,087.00. Id. The replacement value of insurance for both policy periods was T offered at an 80% coinsurance ratio. Id. Steven W. Barrett opined that the workshop's value at the time the partnership terminated in October of 2006 was $196,669.00. Mr. Barrett's appraisal is more consistent with the value that the parties represented to their insurance carrier concerning the replacement cost. Additionally, it is respectfully submitted that the cost approach is the most appropriate way to determine the workshop's value at the time of the partnership dissolution. The building is relatively new with the majority having been constructed in 1997. Additionally, the partners continued to make additions to the workshop during the remaining term of the partnership. The comparable sales approach performed by Defendant's appraiser does not accurately reflect the value of the workshop since there were no similar scenarios nor localities compared. The workshop at issue is located in Newville, Penn Township, Pennsylvania, and Defendant's appraiser's comparables were from Carlisle and Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania. Additionally, the proposed comparables were located in South Middleton Township and Middlesex Township. It is respectfully submitted that the markets are substantially different. 2. The Court has stated that "we do not agree with defendant that the 4,320 square foot workshop constitutes an albatross around his neck." The workshop has value as a partnership asset. The value of the workshop should be based on the fact that it is a workshop constructed on Defendant's land with partnership funds. The workshop is not a readily movable partnership asset. Defendant acquiesced in the partnership's construction of the workshop on his land. Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS; t1JLLIVAN,&-ROGERS D€an E. Reynasa, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 80440 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Counsel for Plaintiff PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO COMMERCIAL LINES POLICY FORMS INVENTORY POLICY NUMBER CL9 0043919 11 RENEWAL OF CL9 0043919 10 NAMED INSURED: BLUE MOUNTAIN CABINET RONALD R POLICY PERIOD: 04/10/08 TO 04/10/07 POLICY LEVEL FORMS: 710442 07/96 710477 711061 02/03 711106 IL0021 07/02 IL0246 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY FORMS: 710218 01/05 711101 CP0010 04/02 CP0090 IL0020 11/85 IL0186 IL0935 07/02 IL0952 GENERAL LIABILITY FORMS: 710188 01/03 710543 710741 01/05 710882 711148 01/05 711153 711230 11/05 * 711233 000001 10/01 000062 CG2150 09/89 CG2161 CG2170 11/02 C62176 CG2426 07/04 STAMPING REQUIREMENT CLAD 05/93 710576 01/06 01/06 * IL0017 11/98 07/02 IL0910 07/02 01/05 711147 01/05 07/88 CP1030 04/02 07/02 IL0172 07/02 11/02 IL0995 05/04 05/00 710680 07/02 05/99 * 711146 01/05 01/05 711229 11/05 * 11/05 * 711234 11/05 * 12/02 C02147 07/98 04/98 C62167 04/02 11/02 C62187 05/04 XXX FORM NO. FORMSINV 1/86 ISSUED 02/22/06 PENN NATIONAL INSURANCE Penso"niaNational 611ioalCawallylnmw ceCompany Penn Nalioal Sewiily Insuame Company P.O. Box 2351- Hanisbwg, PA 11105 IUC]IU-ASRFSSARI F COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COVERAGE PART DECLARATIONS RENEWAL OF CL9 0043919 POLICY NUMBER POLICY PERIOD FROM TO COVERAGE IS PROVIDED IN AGENCY BR CL9 0043919 04/10/06 104/10/07 PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO 001565 6 NAMED INSURED AND ADDRESS AGENCY BLUE MOUNTAIN CABINET RONALD R MECHANICSBURG INS LLOYD & KEVIN B GANTZ PO BOX 900 2035 PINE RD CAMP HILL PA 17011 NEWVILLE PA 17241 POLICY PERIOD: POLICY COVERS FROM: 12:01 A.M. STANDARD TIME AT THE ADDRESS OF THE INSURED STATED ABOVE. FORM OF BUSINESS: PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS DESCRIPTION: CABINET MAKING IN RETURN FOR PAYMENT OF THE PREMIUM, AND SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS OF THIS POLICY, WE AGREE WITH YOU TO PROVIDE THE INSURANCE AS STATED IN THIS POLICY. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES AND COVERAGES PROVIDED INSURANCE AT THE DESCRIBED PREMISES APPLIES ONLY FOR THE COVERAGES SHOWN: PREMISES NO. 1 : 2035 PINE RD CUMBERLAND CO NEWVILLE PA 17241 DEDUCTIBLE: $1,000 BUILDING NO.: 1 PROTECTION CLASS: 09 CONSTRUCTION: FRAME OCCUPANCY: CARPENTRY , CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT STORAGE COVERAGE: BUILDING LIMIT OF INSURANCE: $148,366 COINSURANCE: 80% REPLACEMENT COST COVERED CAUSE OF LOSS: SPECIAL FORM SEE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS, FORM 71-0027S FORMS APPLICABLE TO THIS COVERAGE PART: 710218 01 /05 711101 01 /05 711147 01/05 CP0010 04/02 CP0090 07/88 CP1030 04/02 IL0020 11/85 IL0166 07/02 IL0172 07/02 IL0935 07/02 IL0952 11/02 IL0995 05/04 COMPANY USE Y RISK TYPE RISK CLASS TMC SIC CODE INwmN UND. TEAM 2 2 99 N 007 COUNTERSIGNED BY: Authorized Representative THESE DECLARATIONS TOGETHER WITH THE COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS, COVERAGE PART COVERAGE FORM(S), AND FORMS, IF ANY, ISSUED TO FORM A PART THEREOF, COMPLETE THE ABOVE NUMBERED POLICY. FORM 71-0027 (Ed. 03/91) ISSUED 02/22/06 POLICY NUMBER FROM POLICY PERIOD TO COVERAGE IS PROVIDED IN AGENCY BR CL9 0043919 04/10/06 04/10/07 PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO 000156 06 ENDORSEMENT SCHEDULE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY FORMS: 710218 01/05 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PENNPAC ENDORSEMENT 711101 01/05 CRIME COVERAGE ENDORSEMENT 711147 01/05 NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS CP0010 04/02 BUILDING AND PERSONAL PROPERTY COVERAGE FORM CP0090 07/88 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS CP1030 04/02 CAUSES OF LOSS - SPECIAL FORM IL0020 11/85 EFFECTIVE TIME CHANGES IL0166 07/02 PENNSYLVANIA CHANGES - ACTUAL CASH VALUE IL0172 07/02 PENNSYLVANIA CHANGES IL0935 07/02 EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN COMPUTER - RELATED LOSSES IL0952 11/02 CAP ON LOSSES FROM CERTIFIED ACTS OF TERRORISM IL0995 05/04 CONDITIONAL EXCLUSION OF TERRORISM FORM 71-1084 (ED. 04/03) ISSUED 02/22/06 PENN NATIONAL ® INSURANCE Penrsylvafia National Mutual Cas ky Irsura Company Penn Wfioral Security Insueroe Comparry P.O. Box 2361 - Henistiurg, PA 17105 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART DECLARATIONS OCCURRENCE POLICY RENEWAL OF CL9 0043919 Blrlfll-ACCFCSARI F THIS POLICY IS SUBJECT TO A GENERAL AGGREGATE LIMIT POLICY NUMBER FROM POLICY PERIOD COVERAGE IS PROVIDED IN AGENCY OR CL9 0043919 04/10/06 04/10/07 PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO 0001565 06 NAMED INSURED AND ADDRESS AGENCY BLUE MOUNTAIN CABINET RONALD R MECHANICSBURG INS LLOYD & KEVIN B GANTZ PO BOX 900 2035 PINE RD CAMP HILL PA 17011 NEWVILLE PA 17241 POLICY PERIOD: POLICY COVERS FROM: 12:01 A.M. STANDARD TIME AT THE ADDRESS OF THE INSURED STATED ABOVE. FORM OF BUSINESS: PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS DESCRIPTION: CABINET MAKING IN RETURN FOR PAYMENT OF THE PREMIUM, AND SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS OF THIS POLICY, WE AGREE WITH YOU TO PROVIDE THE INSURANCE AS STATED IN THIS POLICY. LIMITS OF INSURANCE General Aggregate Limit (Other than products - completed operations) $ 600 , 000 Products - Completed Operations Aggregate Limit $ 600 , 000 Personal and Advertising Injury Limit - Any one person or organization $ 300 , 000 Each Occurrence Limit $ 300 , 000 Damage to Premises Rented to you Limit - Any one premises $ 100 , 000 Medical Expense Limit - Any one person $ 5 , 000 PREMIUM INFORMATION PREMISES NO. 1 : 2035 PINE RD CUMBERLAND CO NEWVILLE PA 17241 RATES CODE PREMIUM BASIS PER PREMS/OPS PRODUCTS 91341 10,400 PAYROLL 1000 VARIOUS VARIOUS CARPENTRY - INTERIOR ADVANCE PREMIUM PREMS/OPS PRODUCTS INCLUDED INCLUDED =ORMS APPLICABLE TO THIS COVERAGE PART: SEE ATTACHED FORMS SCHEDULE, FORM 71-1084 COMPANY USE ONLY RISK TYPE RISK CLASS TMC SIC CODE INSMUN UND. TEAM 2 2 99 N 007 Authorized Representative THESE DECLARATIONS TOGETHER WITH THE COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS, COVERAGE PART COVERAGE FORM(S), AND FORMS, IF ANY, ISSUED TO FORM A PART THEREOF, COMPLETE THE ABOVE NUMBERED POLICY. COUNTERSIGNED BY: 71 0029 0500 ISSUED 02/22/06 POLICY NUMBER FROM POLICY PERIOD TO COVERAGE IS PROVIDED IN AGENCY BR CL9 0043919 04/10/06 04/10/07 PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO 000156 06 FORMS SCHEDULE GENERAL LIABILITY FORMS: 710188 01/03 710543 05/00 710680 07/02 710741 01/05 710882 05/99 711146 01/05 711148 01/05 711153 01/05 711229 11/05 711230 11/05 711233 11/05 711234 11/05 CG0001 10/01 000062 12/02 CG2147 07/98 C62150 09/89 CG2161 04/98 C62167 04/02 CG2170 11/02 C62176 11/02 C62187 05/04 C62426 07/04 FORM 71-1084 (ED. 04/03) ISSUED 02/22/06 POLICY NUMBER FROM POLICY PERIOD TO COVERAGE IS PROVIDED IN AGENCY BR CL9 0043919 04/10/06 04/10/07 PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO 000156 4 1, ENDORSEMENT SCHEDULE GENERAL LIABILITY FORMS: 710188 01/03 ASBESTOS ENDORSEMENT (EXCLUSION)- PA 710543 05/00 EXCLUSION-LEAD CONTAMINATION 710680 07/02 EXTENDED COVERAGE ENDORSEMENT GENERAL LIABILITY 710741 01/05 AUTOMATIC ADDITIONAL INSUREDS - OWNERS, CONTRACTORS AND 710882 05/99 NOTICE TO INSURED 711146 01/05 NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS 711148 01/05 NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS 711153 01/05 PRODUCTS-COMPLETED OPERATIONS REDEFINED 711229 11/05 SILICA OR SILICA-RELATED DUST EXCLUSION 711230 11/05 POLICYHOLDER NOTICE- SILICA OR SIILICA-RELATED DUST EXCL 711233 11/05 VIOLATION OF STATUTES 711234 11/05 POLICYHOLDER NOTICE- VIOLATION OF STATUTES CG0001 10/01 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM 000062 12/02 WAR LIABILITY EXCLUSION CG2147 07/98 EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES EXCLUSION CG2150 09/89 AMENDMENT OF LIQUOR LIABILITY EXCLU CG2161 04/98 YR 2000 COMPUTER EXCLUSION C62167 04/02 FUNGI OR BACTERIA EXCLUSION CG2170 11/02 CAP ON LOSSES FROM CERTIFIED ACTS OF TERRORISM CG2176 11/02 EXCLUSION OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES RELATED TO A CERTIFIED ACT CG2187 05/04 CONDITIONAL EXCLUSION OF TERRORISM C62426 07/04 AMENDMENT OF INSURED CONTRACT DEFINITION FORM 71-1084 (ED. 04/03) ISSUED 02/22/06 PENN NATIONAL ® INSURANCE Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company Pam National Security Insurance Company P.O. Box 2981 • Harrisburg, PA 17105 NON-ASSESSABLE COMMERCIAL LINES POLICY COMMON DECLARATIONS RENEWAL OF CL9 0043919 POLICY NUMBER FROM POLICY PERIOD COVERAGE IS PROVIDED IN AGENCY BR CL9 0043919 04/10/10 04/10/11 PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO 0001134 DS NAMED INSURED AND ADDRESS AGENCY BLUE MOUNTAIN CABINET RONALD R GUNN-MOWERY LLC LLOYD AND KEVIN B GANTZ PO BOX 900 2035 PINE RD CAMP HILL PA 17001 NEWVILLE PA 17241 POLICY PERIOD: POLICY COVERS FROM: 12:01 A.M. STANDARD TIME AT THE ADDRESS OF THE INSURED STATED ABOVE. FORM OF BUSINESS: PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS DESCRIPTION: CABINET MAKING IN RETURN FOR PAYMENT OF THE PREMIUM, AND SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS OF THIS POLICY, WE AGREE WITH YOU TO PROVIDE THE INSURANCE AS STATED IN THIS POLICY. THIS POLICY CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING COVERAGE PARTS FOR WHICH A PREMIUM IS INDICATED. THIS PREMIUM MAY BE SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT. PREMIUM COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COVERAGE PART $ 1,087.00 COMMERCIAL CRIME COVERAGE PART $ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART $ 372.00 COMMERCIAL INLAND MARINE COVERAGE PART L S S S S S FORMS APPLICABLE TO ALL COVERAGE PARTS: 710442 07/96 710477 05/93 711061 02/03 711286 01/07 IL0017 11/98 IL0021 09/08 IL0246 09/07 IL0910 07/02 QQMPAN -- V u.SE ONLY RISK TYPE RISK CLASS TMC SIC CODE EINSURANCE UND. TEAM 2 2 99 Y 007 COUNTERSIGNED BY: Author THESE DECLARATIONS TOGETHER WITH THE COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS, COVERAGE P AND FORMS, IF ANY, ISSUED TO FORM A PART THEREOF, COMPLETE THE ABOVE NUMBER FORM 71-0025 (ED. 03/91) INSURED POLICY NUMBER FROM POLICY PERIOD TO COVERAGE IS PROVIDED IN AGENCY BR CL9 0043919 04/10710 04/10/11 PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO 0001134 06 ENDORSEMENT SCHEDULE POLICY LEVEL FORMS: 710442 07/96 IMPORTANT BILLING INFORMATION 710477 05/93 MULTI PURPOSE JACKET 711061 02/03 TERRORISM DISCLOSURE NOTICE 711286 01/07 IMPORTANT NOTICE IL0017 11/98 COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS IL0021 09/08 NUCLEAR ENERGY LIABILITY EXCLUSION IL0246 09/07 PENNSYLVANIA CHANGES - CANCELLATION IL0910 07/02 PENNSYLVANIA NOTICE ENDORSEMENT AND NONRENEWAL FORM 71-1084 (ED. 04/03) INSURED ISSUED 02/22/10 PENN NATIONAL ® INSURANCE Pennsylvania National 6lutual Casualty Insurance Company Perm National Security Insurance Company P.O. Box 2361 • Harrisburg, PA 17105 lUnlu-ASSFCSARI F COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COVERAGE PART DECLARATIONS RENEWAL OF CL9 0043919 POLICY NUMBER FROM POLICY PERIOD COVERAGE IS PROVIDED IN AGENCY BR CL9 0043919 04/10/10 04/10/11 PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO 000113 06 NAMED INSURED AND ADDRESS AGENCY BLUE MOUNTAIN CABINET RONALD R GUNN-MOWERY LLC LLOYD AND KEVIN B GANTZ PO BOX 900 2035 PINE RD CAMP HILL PA 17001 NEWVILLE PA 17241 POLICY PERIOD: POLICY COVERS FROM: 12:01 A.M. STANDARD TIME AT THE ADDRESS OF THE INSURED STATED ABOVE. FORM OF BUSINESS: PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS DESCRIPTION: CABINET MAKING IN RETURN FOR PAYMENT OF THE PREMIUM, AND SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS OF THIS POLICY, WE AGREE WITH YOU TO PROVIDE THE INSURANCE AS STATED IN THIS POLICY. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES AND COVERAGES PROVIDED INSURANCE AT THE DESCRIBED PREMISES APPLIES ONLY FOR THE COVERAGES SHOWN: PREMISES NO. 1 : 2035 PINE RD DEDUCTIBLE: $1,000 NEVVILLE CUMBERLAND CO PA 17241 BUILDING NO.: 1 PROTECTION CLASS: 06 CONSTRUCTION: FRAME OCCUPANCY: CARPENTRY , CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT STORAGE COVERAGE: BUILDING LIMIT OF INSURANCE: $180,340 COINSURANCE: 80% REPLACEMENT COST COVERED CAUSE OF LOSS: SPECIAL FORM SEE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS, FORM 71-0027S =ORMS APPLICABLE TO THIS COVERAGE PART: 710218 01 /05 711101 01 /05 711147 12/07 711252 01/06 711355 03/10 CP0010 04/02 CP0090 07/88 CP1030 04/02 IL0166 09/07 IL0172 09/07 IL0935 07/02 IL0952 03/08 COMPANY USE ONLY RISK TYPE RISK CLASS TMC SIC CODE INSUIIANC UND. TEAM 2 2 99 Y 007 Authorized Representative THESE DECLARATIONS TOGETHER WITH THE COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS, COVERAGE PART COVERAGE FORM(S), AND FORMS, IF ANY, ISSUED TO FORM A PART THEREOF, COMPLETE THE ABOVE NUMBERED POLICY. COUNTERSIGNED BY: FORM 71-0027 (Ed. 03/91) INSURED ISSUED 02/22/10 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COVERAGE PART SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS POLICY NUMBER FROM POLICY PERIOD TO COVERAGE IS PROVIDED IN AGENCY BR CL9 0043919 04/10/10 04/10/11 PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO 0001134 06 DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES AND COVERAGES PROVIDED INSURANCE AT THE DESCRIBED PREMISES APPLIES ONLY FOR THE COVERAGES SHOWN: BUILDING NO.: 1 CONSTRUCTION: FRAME PROTECTION CLASS: 06 COVERAGE: YOUR BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY LIMIT OF INSURANCE: $52,500 COINSURANCE: 80% REPLACEMENT COST COVERED CAUSE OF LOSS: SPECIAL FORM ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PREMIUMS: INCLUDED FORM 71-0027S (Ed. 03/91) INSURED ISSUED 02/22/10 POLICY NUMBER FROM POLICY PERIOD To COVERAGE IS PROVIDED IN AGENCY BR CL9 0043919 04/10/10 04/10/11 PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO 0001134 06 ENDORSEMENT SCHEDULE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY FORMS: 710218 01/05 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PENNPAC ENDORSEMENT 711101 01/05 CRIME COVERAGE ENDORSEMENT 711147 12/07 POTENTIAL RESTRICTIONS OF TERRORISM COVERAGE 711252 01/06 EQUIPMENT BREAKDOWN COVERAGE 711355 03/10 EXCLUSION OF LOSS DUE TO VIRUS OR BACTERIA CP0010 04/02 BUILDING AND PERSONAL PROPERTY COVERAGE FORM CP0090 07/88 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS CP1030 04/02 CAUSES OF LOSS - SPECIAL FORM IL0166 09/07 PENNSYLVANIA CHANGES - ACTUAL CASH VALUE IL0172 09/07 PENNSYLVANIA CHANGES IL0935 07/02 EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN COMPUTER - RELATED LOSSES IL0952 03/08 CAP ON LOSSES FROM CERTIFIED ACTS OF TERRORISM FORM 71-1084 (ED. 04/03) INSURED ISSUED 02/22/10 PENN NATIONAL ® INSURANCE Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company Penn National Security Insurance Company P.O. Box 2361 - Harrisburg, PA 17105 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART DECLARATIONS OCCURRENCE POLICY RENEWAL OF CL9 0043919 NON-ASSESSABLE THIS POLICY IS SUBJECT TO A GENERAL AGGREGATE LIMIT POLICY NUMBER FROM POLICY PERIOD COVERAGE IS PROVIDED IN AGENCY BR CL9 0043919 04/10/10 F04_/10/11 PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO 0001134 06 NAMED INSURED AND ADDRESS AGENCY BLUE MOUNTAIN CABINET RONALD R GUNN-MOWERY LLC LLOYD AND KEVIN B GANTZ PO BOX 900 2035 PINE RD CAMP HILL PA 17001 NEWVILLE PA 17241 POLICY PERIOD: POLICY COVERS FROM: 12:01 A.M. STANDARD TIME AT THE ADDRESS OF THE INSURED STATED ABOVE. FORM OF BUSINESS: PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS DESCRIPTION: CABINET MAKING IN RETURN FOR PAYMENT OF THE PREMIUM, AND SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS OF THIS POLICY, WE AGREE WITH YOU TO PROVIDE THE INSURANCE AS STATED IN THIS POLICY. LIMITS OF INSURANCE General Aggregate Limit (Other than products - completed operations) $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 Products - Completed Operations Aggregate Limit $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 Personal and Advertising Injury Limit - Any one person or organization $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 Each Occurrence Limit $ 300,000 Damage to Premises Rented to you Limit - Any one premises $ 10 0 , 0 0 0 Medical Expense Limit - Any one person $ 5,000 PREMIUM INFORMATION PREMISES NO. 1 : 2035 PINE RD NEWVILLE CUMBERLAND CO PA 17241 RATES CODE PREMIUM BASIS PER PREMS/OPS PRODUCTS 91341 10,400 PAYROLL 1000 VARIOUS VARIOUS CARPENTRY - INTERIOR ADVANCE PREMIUM PREMS/OPS PRODUCTS INCLUDED INCLUDED =ORMS APPLICABLE TO THIS COVERAGE PART: 710188 01/03 710543 0 5 / 0 0 710680 09/09 710741 09/09 711146 01/05 711148 01/08 711153 01/05 711397 09/09 CG0001 12/07 CG0068 05/09 CG2147 12/07 CG2150 09/89 CG2161 04/98 CG2167 12/04 C02170 01/08 C62176 01/08 CG2196 03/05 CG2426 07/04 COMPANY USE 11NIV L I RISK TYPE RISK CLASS TMC SIC CODE REINSWAIC UND. TEAM COUNTERSIGNED BY: 2 2 9 9 N 1 007 Authorized Representative THESE DECLARATIONS TOGETHER WITH THE COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS, COVERAGE PART COVERAGE FORM(S), AND FORMS, IF ANY, ISSUED TO FORM A PART THEREOF, COMPLETE THE ABOVE NUMBERED POLICY. 71 0029 0500 INSURED ISSUED 02/22/10 POLICY NUMBER FROM POLICY PERIOD TO COVERAGE IS PROVIDED IN AGENCY BR CL9 0043919 04/10/10 04/10/11 PA NATIONAL MUTUAL CAS INS CO 0001134 06 ENDORSEMENT SCHEDULE GENERAL LIABILITY FORMS: 710188 01/03 ASBESTOS ENDORSEMENT (EXCLUSION)- PA 710543 05/00 EXCLUSION-LEAD CONTAMINATION 710680 09/09 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PENNPAC ENDORSEMENT 710741 09/09 AUTO ADD INSUREDS-OWNERS, CONTRACTORS, AND SUBCONTRACTOR 711146 01/05 NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS 711148 01/08 POTENTIAL RESTRICTIONS OF TERRORISM COVERAGE 711153 01/05 PRODUCTS-COMPLETED OPERATIONS REDEFINED 711397 09/09 GENERAL LIABILITY NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS CG0001 12/07 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM CG0068 05/09 RCRDNG AND DISTRI OF MATERIAL OR INFO IN VIOL OF LAW EXC CG2147 12/07 EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES EXCLUSION C62150 09/89 AMENDMENT OF LIQUOR LIABILITY EXCLU CG2161 04/98 YR 2000 COMPUTER EXCLUSION CG2167 12/04 FUNGI OR BACTERIA EXCLUSION C62170 01/08 CAP ON LOSSES FROM CERTIFIED ACTS OF TERRORISM CG2176 01/08 EXC OF PUNITIVE DAMAGE REL TO CERTIFIED ACTS OF TERR CG2196 03/05 SILICA OR SILICA-RELATED DUST EXCLUSION CG2426 07/04 AMENDMENT OF INSURED CONTRACT DEFINITION FORM 71-1084 (ED. 04/03) INSURED ISSUED 02/22/10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 24th day of February, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the party listed below, via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 SAIDIS, SULLIVAN & ROGERS D eyno?a, Esquire Attorney Id. 80440 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-6222 I r KEVIN B. GANTZ, PLAINTIFF V. RONALD R. LLOYD, DEFENDANT AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT 6) day of June, 2011, after consideration of the full record in this case, the court determines that the workshop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania is a partnership asset with a value of $110,000. Accordingly, defendant is directed to compensate plaintiff for his one-half share of the value of that building within 90 days of the date of this order. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. 'Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire _ For Plaintiff George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire ''"" - . -,, Defendant t?? I u - {- For U?' ? 7) CD c?a aaa .-tom, CD <. ra --C '`INAIASNN3d "'110-0 O?PV1836!Wn?j IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY 08-2326 CIVIL TERM KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, DEFENDANT 08-2326 CIVIL TERM MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., June 20, 2011:-- On January 12, 2011, after a non jury trial to determine, inter alia, the parties' respective interest in the workshop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, the court found that the workshop was a partnership asset with value, and directed defendant to state an accounting of the workshop within thirty days. On February 10, 2011, the defendant submitted his accounting to which the plaintiff filed objections on February 24, 2011. On March 23, 2011, we set a hearing date for June 2, 2011, at which time the parties were given the opportunity to supplement the record with respect to the value of the workshop. At that hearing, defendant presented the expert testimony of Larry E. Foote with respect to the value of the building, following which, plaintiff testified briefly regarding the value of the workshop. The court is now faced with the task of assigning a value to the workshop based on the original record, which included the testimony of plaintiffs expert, Steven W. Barrett, and the supplemental record. Plaintiff's expert assigned a value of $196,669, having used the Marshall Swift cost approach. In contrast, defendant's expert used a market value or comparable sales approach and 08-2326 CIVIL TERM determined the value to be $73,000. Finally, plaintiff provided supplemental testimony on June 2, 2011, in the form of the partnership's insurance policy for the year 2006-2007 in which the replacement cost for the workshop was listed at $148,366. The problem, as recognized by everyone involved in this case, is that the workshop rests on real property that is owned by the defendant and not by the partnership. To compound matters, the defendant testified previously that he had no interest in using the building. His solution, as related in his accounting and in argument on June 2, 2011, is to sell the property at a public sale along with the personal property of the partnership. Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that plaintiffs expert felt compelled to use several adjustments in comparing the value of the workshop to other properties, all of which involved a building and land. Ultimately, as with a marriage that has gone sour, we can no more easily satisfy the parties herein than we could if they were bitterly estranged spouses. But, cutting the "baby" in half at a public sale is too Solomonesque for our tastes. As facile as this approach would be, it ignores the fact that the defendant has "custody" of the building no matter what we order. Defendant may not want to use the building, but he should have considered that before he allowed the building to be "birthed" on his property. This is especially true because, as we previously found, defendant did not want to purchase a separate tract of land on -2- 08-2326 CIVIL TERM which to build the partnership workshop but insisted that it be built on his property. Furthermore, defendant decided to "terminate the parental rights" of the plaintiff by excluding him from the workshop. Having, made his bed, defendant is constrained to sleep in it. Before beating this metaphor to death, we conclude with this final thought - it is not for the court to determine what defendant should do with his child. Defendant must choose whether to put him to work, have him adopted or allow him to wither from neglect. Although we value the opinion of both esteemed experts, under all of the circumstances of this case, we find the more conservative valuation by defendant's expert to be slightly more persuasive. Nevertheless, we find that he overly discounted the value of this improvement on defendant's real estate. A workshop on an unrelated third-party's property may only be worth $73,000, but we cannot overlook defendant's ownership of the real property where the workshop is situated. To do so would be to accord him a windfall. Therefore, we determine that the value of this partnership asset is $110,000 and enter the following order. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ,_-Z day of June, 2011, after consideration of the full record in this case, the court determines that the workshop located at 2035 Pine Road, Newville, Pennsylvania is a partnership asset with a value of $110,000. -3- 08-2326 CIVIL TERM Accordingly, defendant is directed to compensate plaintiff for his one-half share of the value of that building within 90 days of the date of this order. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire For Plaintiff George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire For Defendant :saa -4- FAFILESTlients\12252 Lloyd Ron\12252.1.petI Revised 9/9/11 9 54AM 12252.1 HE P T ROT4O?,TI George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire 2011 SEP _ 9 PM I.D. No. 49813 3? !? 5 Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire CUMBERLAND COUNT I.D. No. 203046 Y PENNSYLVANIA MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08 - 23?6 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, Defendant PETITION TO WITHDRAW 1. Petitioner is counsel for the Defendant in the above-referenced matter. 2. A hearing has been held and a final Order entered by The Honorable Albert H. Masland. 3. On August 25, 2011, the undersigned counsel and his firm received a communication from Ronald R. Lloyd, indicating that counsel was being discharged. (See Exhibit "A.") 4. Ronald Lloyd has indicated that he would like to proceed in this matter by representing himself. 5. Counsel for Plaintiff concurs in this request. WHEREFORE, undersigned counsel requests permission to withdraw. MARTSO LAW OFFICES By George-B. Faller, Jr., Esqui I.D. Number 49813 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: 9/9/11 ti VERIFICATION George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire, of the firm of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, attorneys for Defendahnt in the within action, certifies that the statements made in the foregoing Petition are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. FAFILESTlients\12252 Lloyd Ron\12252. Lpetl Fram Ron Uoyd.[mailtD maHinart_17241@yahoo.com] Sa ' ursdayr, Augpst A 20118:37 AM` To: SMW t. Moset Subjs Re Auction status Seth, Dean and or Kevin will have to deal with me directly from here on out. As of your receipt of this email your firm no longer represents me. Ron Exhibit "A" W CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Nichole L. Myers, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Petition was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire SAIDIS SULLIVAN & ROGERS 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Mr. Ronald R. Lloyd 2035 Pine Road Newville, PA 17241 MARTSON LAW OFFICES By 1 1 Nichole L. Myers Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: 9/9/11 5 eorge B. Faller, Jr., Esquire C-) = - C? 1 -+ I.D. No. 49813 =M - - Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire v r V a V rr, -Vo I.D. No. 203046 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER ?? v ` ° MARTSON LAW OFFICES C-) c? rn 10 E. High Street .z, PA 17013 Carlisle 47 , (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN IA 08 - 2,9AW ?4*4 CIVIL TERM NO V. . CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this day of 011, upon consideration of the Petition to Withdraw, it is hereby ordered that JARTSON LAW OFFICES, counsel for Defendant, is permitted to withdraw. BY THE COURT, J. ?. F&11er,jr Mil nald R. Uoyd E ?i eynosa,, 000 q? ?arg F. TILESThents\12252 Lloyd RonA12252.I.pra2 12252.1 L7' hw] -f? CX3 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire XM ? Mme I.D. No. 49813 7n o , 7D Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire r-2-' -+ i I.D. No. 203046 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER C) , MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA og - a3a& V. NO. N - 336 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, Defendant PRAECIPE To the Prothonotary: Please withdraw the appearance of Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller as attorneys for the Defendant, Ronald R. Lloyd. Dated: 71020% MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: George B. Faller, Jr., Esq re I.D. No. 49813 Seth T. Mosebey, Esquire I.D. No. 203046 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3093 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, hereby certify that a copy of the Praecipe to withdraw appearance, was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire SAIDIS SULLIVAN LAW 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 170123 MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: tl' (?L- M . Price Ten Cst High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: 710,10111 2 t, Kevin B. Gantz vs Ronald R. Lloyd Case No. 08-2326 STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED To the Court: Kevin B. Gantz intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire Print Name Sign Name Date: 10/28/2014 C) M Attorney for Kevin B. Gantz IMPORTANT NOTE In the event that this is a second or subsequent filing of a Statement of Intention to Proceed, this matter will be referred to the President Judge for the purpose of conducting a status conference involving all counsel. The goal of the status conference will be to set the matter for trial or other final disposition within a time certain. Prior to the status conference, Counsel will be expected to submit to the court, in writing, a proposed schedule for the completion of discovery, the filing of dispositive motions and a report as to whether alternative dispute resolution has been used or discussed. KEVIN B. GANTZ, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY RONALD R. LLOYD, Defendant NO. 08-2326 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE hereby certify that on this 28th day of October, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the party listed below, via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Ronald R. Lloyd, pro se 2035 Pine Road Newville, PA 17241 SAIDIS, SULLIVAN & ROGERS a, Esquire ttorney Id. 804 0 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-6222