The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-3533AB OM &' j?i'I'iILAKIS Wayne Melnick, Esquire Attorney I.D. #: 53150 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ELMER L. LAY Plaintiff Vs. GARY L. LAY and VONNIE M. LAY, husband and wife, STEVEN A. LAY and REBECCA A. LAY, husband and wife, KEVIN G. LAY and LAURA A. LAY, husband and wife, BRIAN K. LAY and JULIE D. LAY, husband and wife Defendants DOCKET NO.: OS -3x'3.3 ACTION IN EJECTMENT, , ADVERSE INTEREST, and TRESPASS NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 for relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 OR (800)990-9108 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ELMER L. LAY Plaintiff DOCKET NO.: 0- 3 3 3 C,?v.l T Vs. GARY L. LAY and VONNIE M. LAY, husband and wife, STEVEN A. LAY and REBECCA A. LAY, husband and wife, KEVIN G. LAY and LAURA A. LAY, husband and wife, BRIAN K. LAY and JULIE D. LAY, husband and wife Defendants : ACTION IN EJECTMENT, : ADVERSE INTEREST, and : TRESPASS COMPLAINT COUNT 1-ACTION IN EJECTMENT 1. Plaintiff is an individual residing at 227 Roxbury Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendants Gary L. Lay and Vonnie M. Lay are husband and wife residing at 775 Roxbury Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendants Steven A. Lay and Rebecca A. Lay are husband and wife residing at 483 Meadows Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Defendants Kevin G. Lay and Laura A. Lay are husband and wife residing at 493 Centerville Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. Defendants Brian K. Lay and Julie D. Lay are husband and wife residing at 110 Maple Lane, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. Plaintiff is the owner of real property, a tract of wooded or mountain land situated in Lower Mifflin Township, Cumberland County and described as follows: Beginning at a post thence by land of Samuel Stewart, South 48° West 8 1/10 perches to a post, thence North 26 1/2° West 215 perches to a post, thence by lands of John M. Wood born North 46° East 8 3/4 perches to a post, thence by lands formerly of Wm. S. McDaniel South 26 1/4° East 215 7/10 perches to the place of beginning (hereinafter "Plaintiff s Property"). 7. Plaintiff's Property is the same tract of land which John M. Williams by deed dated February 25, 1903 and entered May 29, 1916 and recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "J", Volume 8, Page 576, granted and conveyed to Henry D. Lehman. (See Attached Title Report - "Exhibit A.") 8. Plaintiff's Property is the same tract of land which Henry D. Lehman attempted to convey to Wilbur G. Lay Sr. by deed dated August 29, 1949 and entered September 1, 1949 and recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "F", Volume 14, page 153. 9. Following the conveyance in deed dated August 29, 1949 and entered September 1, 1949 and recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "F", Volume 14, page 153, Wilbur G. Lay Sr. believed he had been granted ownership of the parcel known as Plaintiffs Property. 10. At all times following the conveyance in deed dated August 29, 1949 and entered September 1, 1949 and recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "F", Volume 14, page 153, until April 1977, Wilbur G. Lay Sr. treated the parcel known as Plaintiff's Property as his own property and maintained actual, continued, open, notorious, and hostile possession of the property. 11. Henry D. Lehman's August 29, 1949 deed to Wilbur G. Lay Sr. incorrectly described the property to be transferred. 12. The deed dated August 29, 1949 and entered September 1, 1949 and recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "F", Volume 14, page 153, does not describe any known property in Lower Mifflin. 13. The deed dated August 29, 1949 and entered September 1, 1949 and recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "F", Volume 14, page 153, instead describes a tract of land in Upper Mifflin Township at one time acquired by one Henry Lehman by deed recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "X", Volume 3, page 460. 14. On or about April 1976, Plaintiff's father, Wilbur G. Lay Sr., met with his daughter, Helen Lay Negley, and his three sons: Plaintiff; Wilbur G. Lay Jr.; and Oscar Lay. 15. The purpose of the April 1976 meeting was to divide Wilbur G. Lay Sr.'s assets to his children. (See Attached Affidavits - "Exhibits B & C.") 16. As a result of the April 1976 meeting, Wilbur G. Lay Sr. gifted half the value of his property in cash to his daughter, Helen Lay Negley. 17. As a result of the April 1976 meeting, Wilbur G. Lay Sr. gifted the house he was presently living in to his son, Oscar Lay. 18. As a result of the April 1976 meeting, Wilbur G. Lay Sr. gifted approximately 42 acres of wooded or mountain land to his son, Wilbur G. Lay Jr. 19. As a result of the April 1976 meeting, Wilbur G. Lay Sr. gifted approximately 11 acres of wooded or mountain land and some savings bonds to his son, Plaintiff. 20. On or about April 14, 1977, Wilbur G. Lay Sr. transferred the approximately 42 acres of wooded or mountain land to Wilbur G. Lay Jr. by deed recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "C", volume 27, page 716. 21. On or about April 14, 1977, Wilbur G. Lay Sr. attempted to transfer the approximately 11 acres of wooded or mountain land referred to herein as Plaintiff's Property to Plaintiff by deed recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "C", volume 27, page 719. 22. Wilbur G. Lay Sr.'s April 14, 1977 deed to Plaintiff incorrectly described the property to be transferred to Plaintiff as discussed in the April 1976 meeting. 23. Wilbur G. Lay Sr.'s April 14, 1977 deed to Plaintiff incorrectly describes Plaintiff's Property that Wilbur G. Lay Sr. intended to convey to Plaintiff. 24. Wilbur G. Lay Sr.'s April 14, 1977 deed to Plaintiff instead describes that tract of land in Upper Mifflin Township at one time acquired by one Henry Lehman by deed recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "X", Volume 3, page 460. 25. Wilbur G. Lay Sr. was never the owner of the tract of land in Upper Mifflin Township at one time acquired by Henry Lehman by deed recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "X", Volume 3, page 460. 26. Wilbur G. Lay Sr. at no time subsequent to his April 14, 1977 attempt to deed Plaintiffs Property to Plaintiff executed any other deed to that described tract of land in Upper Mifflin. 27. Following Wilbur G. Lay Sr.'s April 14, 1977 attempt to deed Plaintiff s Property to Plaintiff, Plaintiffs father, Wilbur G. Lay Sr., Plaintiff s sister, Helen Lay Negley, and Plaintiff's brothers Wilbur G. Lay Jr.; and Oscar Lay all recognized and treated Plaintiff s Property as belonging to Plaintiff. 28. Since April 14, 1977, Plaintiff has treated Plaintiffs Property as his own. 29. Since April 14, 1977, Plaintiff has paid the taxes on Plaintiff s Property. (See Attached tax documents - "Exhibit D.") 30. Since April 14, 1977, Plaintiff has hunted on Plaintiff's Property. 31. Since April 14, 1977, Plaintiff has timbered and sold timber from Plaintiff's Property and has allowed his sons and daughter to cut timber from Plaintiff s Property. 32. Since April 14, 1977, Plaintiff has parked an automobile owned by and titled to Plaintiff on Plaintiffs Property. 33. At some time subsequent to April 14, 1977, Plaintiff built a shed on Plaintiff's Property and has maintained that shed to the present time and used it to house Plaintiff's personal property. 34. Wilbur G. Lay Jr. by virtue of the deed recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "C", volume 27, page 716 came to own property abutting Plaintiff s Property. 35. At all times subsequent to April 14, 1977, Wilbur G. Lay Jr. treated Plaintiffs Property as belonging to Plaintiff. 36. Wilbur G. Lay Jr., when timbering the adjacent property, stopped his own timbering at the border with Plaintiff s Property. 37. Wilbur G. Lay Jr. offered Plaintiff compensation when Wilbur G. Lay Jr. set a portion of Plaintiff s Property ablaze. 38. At some time subsequent to April 14, 1977, Plaintiff shared with Wilbur G. Lay Jr., the cost of Gypsy Moth spraying for Plaintiffs Property and the adjacent property, each paying a share of the cost based upon the size of Plaintiff's Property compared to the size of Wilbur G. Lay Jr.'s adjacent property. 39. Wilbur G. Lay Jr. died intestate on January 21, 1995 survived by his spouse Betty J. Lay. 40. Wilbur G. Lay Jr.'s ownership of the wooded or mountain land adjoining Plaintiff s Property passed to Betty J. Lay through intestate succession. 41. Betty J. Lay conveyed her ownership of the wooded or mountain land adjoining Plaintiff s Property to Defendants by deed dated May 10, 1996 and recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book 139, Page 807. 42. Title to the wooded or mountain land Defendants have thus acquired through Wilbur G. Lay Sr.'s chain of title does not include Plaintiff s Property. 43. At some time during the fall of 2006, Defendants caused a chain barrier to be erected barring vehicular access to Plaintiff s Property. 44. Since the fall of 2006, Defendants have maintained the chain barrier denying Plaintiff access to Plaintiffs Property without the right or authority of law. 45. Since the fall of 2006 Defendants have exercised and continue to exercise exclusive possession and control of Plaintiff's Property and have at all times subsequent withheld and continue to withhold the possession thereof from Plaintiff. 46. Despite Plaintiff's repeated requests, Defendants have failed and refused to remove the above-described chain barring access to Plaintiff's Property. 47. Defendants' actions in denying access to Plaintiff's Property have denied Plaintiff the ability to survey the property. 48. Despite being deprived access to conduct a survey of the property at issue, Plaintiff has caused map overlays to be plotted using the most recent technology available to him. (See Attached Map Overlays - "Exhibit E.") 49. Plaintiff's map overlays reveal that Plaintiff's Property and Defendant's property acquired through the estate of Wilbur G. Lay Jr. exist as separate and distinct tracts of land. 50. Defendant's have no right or authority of law to claim ownership of Plaintiff's Property. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants restoring possession of the above-described real property to Plaintiff, for costs, and such further relief as may be just. COUNT II- ADVERSE POSSESSION 51. Paragraphs 1-50 inclusive of Count I are incorporated herein by reference as though here set forth at length. 52. Plaintiff has been in actual, continued, open, notorious, and hostile possession of the real property described in the complaint herein since April 14, 1977, holding adversely to Defendants. 53. On April 14, 1977, Plaintiff entered into exclusive possession of Plaintiffs Property, asserting title thereto in good belief that Wilbur G. Lay Sr. intended to and had conveyed said property to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants recognizing and granting Plaintiff ownership of Plaintiff s Property through Adverse Possession, and such further relief as may be just. COUNT III- TRESPASS 54. Paragraphs 1-53 inclusive of Count I and Count II are incorporated herein by reference as though here set forth at length. 55. As a result of maintaining the above-described chain barrier Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of the use and the enjoyment of his property to Plaintiffs damage in an amount to be determined. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants for money damages in an amount in excess of $20,000 dollars. Respectfully Submitted, ABOM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P. Dat Wayn Melnick, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. 53150 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Ejectment Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ?e- S" 2-00 9 Date lmer hay ABSTRACTOR'S REPORT Research: Deed Book 8-J-576 John M. Williams, Grantor Henry D. Lehman, Grantee Dated February 25, 1903 Recorded May 29, 1916 Cover Date: February 25, 1903 through May 30, 2008 Findines: Tract #1 was not conveyed out. Tract #2 was conveyed to James G. Ginter by Deed Book 9-Z-73 Dated May 23, 1924 Recorded June 4, 1924 Notes: Henry D. Lehman died March 21, 1931 survived by his spouse Salome E. Lehman (found no estate) Salome E. Lehman died December 30, 1948 survived by her children: Ralph C. Lehman; C. Lee Lehman; R. Russell Lehman; and Florence Hoover Florence Hoover died survived by her spouse Daniel T. Hoover and children: Delmar L. Hoover and Dorothy S. Negley Henry D. Lehman was searched from March 21, 1903 through his death March 21, 1931 Salome E. Lehman was searched from March 21, 1931 through her death December 30, 1948 The sons and daughters were searched from December 30, 1948 through May 30, 2008 A&A Abstract & Settlement Services, LLC 21 S Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0020 Fax(717)249-0026 office@AAabstract.com Certificate The undersigned hereby certifies that an examination of title to the above-described property was performed through the date so indicated on this report and that this report accurately sets forth the matters revealed by that examination. Insofar as the land records for the jurisdiction in which the property lies are properly kept and indexed, and subject to the period of this examination, title to the subject property is vested in the Record Owners shown herein, subject to the liens, conditions and other matters hereinabove set forth. Liability assumed hereunder is limited to the sum paid for this report. Date: & Abstractor AFFIDAVIT I, Oscar R. Lay, hereby swear and affirm that the below information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief: On or about April of 1976, Wilbur Lay Sr., Helen E. Lay Negley, Wilbur Lay Jr., Elmer L. Lay, and I met in Wilbur Lay Sr.'s trailer for the sole purpose of dividing up Wilbur Lay Sr.'s assets to his children. Helen E. Lay Negley was gifted, in cash, %2 the value of the land and house being gifted to Oscar R. Lay. Wilbur Lay Jr., was gifted mountain land, formerly known as the "Stum Tracks." Elmer L. Lay was gifted mountain land, referred to as the "Lehman Track." The approximately 11 acres of mountain land, the "Lehman Track", gifted by Wilbur Lay Sr. to Elmer L. Lay, was located between George W. Lay's land, and the "Stum" land gifted to Wilbur Lay Jr. This land was deeded to Elmer L. Lay on April 14, 1977 and has been in his possession and control since that date. I have observed Elmer and his family and friends using this same property continually over the past 30 years. It is my understanding that this tract of land was gifted to Elmer L. Lay, my brother, by my father, Wilbur Lay Sr. on this date. Also discussed at this meeting was the ownership of the family Farmall tractor owned by Wilbur Lay Sr. It was agreed by all present that the tractor would remain as community property and would be owned jointly by all of the siblings and would be available for all to use when needed. I believe this statement to be a true and accurate account of that meeting and I am making this statement of my own free will. 22 S4 Date: ? ? 1. (21 Oscar R. Lay to and subscribed before me this --/)&y of Mav-2008.z---1 NOTARY PUBLIC My commission exT NOTAKAL SM LISA A DUr6RT N01ary hrbNe E CUMKRftLAN C My Commission Commissio mluion Expifes rOt . Apr MD g2012 JAW JAMA10" TN"UG A A8l3 addU'4 V100" a.QM;Alaei++M. x O , 0200 >+zzimrn3Jr'j. lV i WI & (OS a qA yf AFFIDAVIT I, Helen E. Lay Negley, hereby swear and affirm that the below information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief: On or about April of 1976, Wilbur Lay Sr., Wilbur Lay Jr., Oscar R. Lay, Elmer L. Lay, and I met in Wilbur Lay Sr.'s trailer for the sole purpose of dividing up Wilbur Lay Sr.'s assets to his children. I was gifted, in cash, '/2 the value of the land and house being gifted to Oscar R. Lay. Wilbur Lay Jr., was gifted mountain land, formerly known as the "Stum Tracks." Elmer L. Lay was gifted mountain land, referred to as the "Lehman Track." The approximately 11 acres of mountain land, the "Lehman Track", gifted by Wilbur Lay Sr. to Elmer L. Lay, was located between George W. Lay's land, and the "Stum" land gifted to Wilbur Lay Jr. This land was deeded to Elmer L. Lay on April 14, 1977 and has been in his possession and control since that date. I have observed Elmer and his family and friends using this same property continually over the past 30 years. It is my understanding that this tract of land was gifted to Elmer L. Lay, my brother, by my father, Wilbur Lay Sr. on this date. Also discussed at this meeting was the ownership of the family Farmall tractor owned by Wilbur Lay Sr. It was agreed by all present that the tractor would remain as community property and would be owned jointly by all of the siblings and would be available for all to use when needed. I believe this statement to be a true and accurate account of that meeting and I am making this statement of my own free will. Date '99, Helen E. Lay Negley Swo to,apd subscribed bef a this ??tt y of M 20 N PUBLIC ?/? My commission expi NOTARAL SM USA A DUPERT Notary Public Nr*'i E TORO.. CIMMKKAND My Cou n*ftn ExptrN Ap? 6, 2012 AR AlOAYOM 10"W A A41J alkhA vlotoM ? O MAlUIMUO . omm iJJIVMViM I(OS ,6 +qA mii;4x3 noitximmol VM Aug 20 07 05:51a L&A Advertising I 'r Cumberland County Assessment Office Old Courthouse, First Floor One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Board of Assessment Appeals Uoyd W. Bucher R. Fred Hefelfoger. Sarah Hughes 717-233-8331 p.2 (717) 240-6350 (717) 240-6354 (fax) BONNlEM. MAHONEY Chief Assessor STEPHEN 0. TILEY Assistant Solidtor LAY, ELM ER LEROY 227 ROXBURY ROAD NEWVILLE PA 17241 THIS IS NOT A BILL - CHANGE OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE TO YOUR PREVIOUS REASSESSMENT NOTICE MAILING DATE: August s, zoo? parcel Idantffier: 25-04-0393-023A '? District: 15 - LONER MIFFLIN TK School..: BIG SPRING SD New Assessed Va u® indicated below gill take elfeet for 2000 County/Library/Municipal 2nnn-7nnQ Sn hr.,.'I Location: S MAPLE LANE LAND APPROX 12 ACRES TAXABLE Land size....: 11.74 acres Property Type: V Vacant Land Currently Enrolled in Clean & Careen REASON FOR CHANGE: PA DEPT OF AG C&G REVISED RATES RIGHT TO FORMAL APPEAL: If you feel that the appraised value of your property is more or less than Fair Market Value, you may file a formal appeal with the Board of Assessment Appeals. The appeal must be filed in writing within 40 days from the mailing date of this notice. The notice of appeal must specifically designate the parcel number(s) in question and your address so that the notice of the time and location of the appeal hearing may be sent to you. Appeal forms and appeal rules and regulations may be found at the web site listed below or at the Cumberland County Assessment Office, Old Courthouse, First Floor, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013. Internet Access/Review: If you would like to review this property's assessment records, you may do so at no cost by accessing ccaa.net. QUESTIONS? Property owners may call an assessor at (717) 240-6350, or (717) 532-7286, or (717) 697-0371. Calls will be taken from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Old New Total Assessed Value Assessed Value Change of Assessment Land 30,000 30,000 0 Buildings 0 0 0 TOTAL 30,000 30,000 0 Clean and Green Valdes Land 4,000 4,020 20 Buildings 0 0 0 TOTAL 4,000 4,020 20 Clean and Green values become effective only upon application and approval. All applications must be received by the Assessment Office by 4:00 p.m. on June 1 of each year to take effect the following year. Those previously approved for Crean and Green do not need to reapply. Aug 20 07 05:51a L&A Advertising MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: Shelby Winter, Tax Collector 529 Shed Road Newville, PA 17241 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED THIS TAXIS WE AND PAYABLE, YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO MAKE PAYMENT THEREOF LAY, ELMER LEROY 227 ROXBURY ROAD NEWVILIE, PA 17241 717-233-8331 p.3 BIG SPRING ' SCHOOL DISTR ICT 200708 PEAL ESTATE 1 NOTICE TAXPAYER'S COPY • KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS MUNICIPAL CODE 15 BILL DATE: 07101/07 T • a MAPLE LANE BILL NO.: 471 MAP CODE: 1844.0393.023A -? TAXES PAYABLE TO: 14.194 ShelbylMrdar, Tex Collector ASSESSED VALUE: 4000 11593-1779 CASH CHECKB ALWV-. 3%DISCOUNT TO 031107 FACE 094147 Tp 1001147 PENALTY 114147 To 12/91107 555.64 456.78 $62.46 FIRST PAYMENT =PAYMENTFRAL NO DISCOUNT N/A A R Pid Or a Before &3147 ........... _.............. .._..... ........... ...._..............................I—— ........._............_.............._..........»....._._.......,..._..._.._..... ........................ ..... .... .............. .... .... ............ ..... ........._. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: Shelby Winter, Tax Collector 529 Shed Road BIG SPRING ARF-A SCHOOL DISTRICI 11 1/ ESTATE NOTICE Newville, PA 17241 RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT FOR FINAL INSTALLMENT RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED PROPERTY LOCATION 0 MAPLE LANE LAY, ELMER LEROY 0 APPX. 10 ACRES 227 ROXBURY ROAD W BILL #: 471 Vacant Land NEWVILLE, PA 17241 N Please indicate: D FINAL INSTALLMENT 0 FINAL INSTALLMENT WITH PENALTY MAI L TO: Shelby Winter, Tax Collector 529 Shed Road Newville, PA 17241 Iaa.IllaaaLd11d1?1111111 CASH CHECK0 AMOUNTS NO DISCOUNT If "On or Belle 10/31/07 N/A If Raid Afbr 10/31/07 N/A E R MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: _ ............._.............._.._..._._._..._....... ....................................... _............ ...... ................ .. ..- - -? -Shelby Wihter, ax o rector -` - 529 Shed Road SCHOOL DIST RICT 201-117108 Newville, PA 17241 RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT FOR SECOND INSTALLMENT RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED PROPERTY LOCATION 0 MAPLE LANE APPX. 10 ACRES LAY, ELMER LEROY w BILL #: 471 Vacant Land 227 ROXBURY ROAD P'leasaindicale- NEWVILLE, PA 17241 N ? 2ND INSTALLMENT ] 2ND INSTALLMENT WITH PENALTY E R MAILTO: CASH CHECK a AMOUNT { Shelby Winter, Tax Collector 529 Shed Road Newville, PA 17241 111.1115 al la llalalaa11 11111 MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: Shelby Winter, Tax Collector 529 Shed Road Ne-wvllle, PA 17241 RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED Please Indic efe: BILL #: 471 0 FULL PAYMENT 0 1ST INSTALLMENT MAIL TO: Shelby Winter, Tax Collector 529 Shed Road Newville, PA 17241 lualllnf ?1,lalala,lnalll I??II?I???IAlll NO DISCOUNT B Petd fM a aaforo 9/30/07 N/A B Ped Mier 9/30/07 N/A BIG SPRING AREA II DISTRICT 11 I NOTICE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT IN THE ENCLOSED RETURN ENVELOPE PROPERTY LOCATION 0 MAPLE LANE LAY, ELMER LEROY 0 APPX. 10 ACRES 227 ROXBURY ROAD W Vacant Land NENVILLE, PA 17241 N E CASH CHECK* __. AMOUNT: R :17f.OP.•000NT TO fXY8147 FACE 0W0147 To 1(131107 PENALTY 1141M7T012/3I)D7 555.64 556.78 562.46 e Pald 0n - e.1o. 8/31/07 N/A 11582-I77a THIS IS NOT A TAX BILL MAILING DATE: July 1, 2000 District: 15 - LOWER MIFFLIN TWP School..: BIG SPRING SD Location: MAPLE LANE APPX. 10 ACRES TAXABLE ;^,Land' S'ize.:' i+5 10.00 acres Property Type: V Vacant Land Not Enrolled in Clean & Green Control No: 15000232 CUPFWOAK Pennsylvania law requires that all real estate be valued as of the most recent county-wide reassessment. The last reassessment, or tax base year, was 1974. Since the last reassessment in 1974, properties have been assessed at 25% of the 1974 value (the "Pre-Determined Ratio'). The new tax base year will be the Year 2000, with the new assessed values becoming effective for the 2001 tax year. The Pre-Determined Ratio has been changed to 100%. Your new assessed value equals your Year 2000 market value. It is very important for you to know that when the new 2000 tax base is determined after this reassessment, all taxing districts are required by law to lower the millage rate by the same proportion that the tax base went up. The law provides that in the first year after reassessment (2001), the county and all townships and boroughs may not increase overall revenue by more than five percent (5%) and school districts may not increase overall revenue by more than ten percent (10%). The county and the other taxing bodies will make these decisions next year, and may choose not to increase overall revenue. Of course, some individual's taxes will go up or down by more than those percentages. The essential point is that an increase in market values does not necessarily mean a corresponding increase in taxes. Individual changes in taxes will depend upon a specific property's change as compared to the overall change for the taxing district. The ESTIMATED impact statement printed below is our best estimate of change, based on 2000 COUNTY tax figures. This estimate does not include any borough, township, or school district impact. ESTIMATED COUNTY TAX IMPACT: Current 2000 County mills 27.500 Adjusted 2000 County mills 1.858 $ 14 : 2000 County Tax BEFORE Reassessment. $ 108 : 2000 County Tax AFTER Reassessment based on above Market Value. $ 7 : 2000 County Tax AFTER Reassessment based on above Clean & Green. Parcel identifier: 15-04-0393"Q"&- 2000 Assessed Value Old Assessed Value Market Value (2000 Market x 100%) (1974 Market x 25%) Land 58,130 58,130 500 Buildings 0 0 0 TOTAL 58,130 58,130 500 2000 Clean and Green Values Land 4,000 4,000 NOT Buildings 0 APPLICABLE 4,000 4,000 Clean and Green values apply to some farm and forest land. Such values become effective only upon application and approval. All applications must be received by the Assessment Office by 4:30 p.m. on October 15, 2000. Those previously approved for Clean and Green do not need to re-apply. e- • As of (date), I/we have requested an appeal of our assessment. • As of the above date, I/we have met with an official assessment representative to discuss my/our property assessment in question. • The parcel/account number of the subject property is as follows: Parcel/Account Number • The current Market Value of this property is $ • The current -dean and Green value (if applicable) of this property is Review Appraiser's Recommendation: Property Owner's Decision: ,ll/we accept the recommendation of the review appraiser and understand-that if the Board approves the recommendation, a formal appeal hearing will not be scheduled,_and any previous request for a formal appeal will b0considered to be withdrawn. Checking this box constitutes an appeal of my/our assessment itid a withdraw of that appeal by my/our acceptance of the recommendation. I/we further understand that if the Board does not approve the recommendation, an appeal hearing will be scheduled: O I/we reject the_ recommendation of the review appraiser and, understand that if I/we have filed a request for a formal hearing by the appeal deadline, as stated on the notice, an appeal hearing will be scheduled. Property Own4r(s) Signature(s): Review Appraiser's g 're. 7 a,: Certification Number I/we acknowledge receipt of ,a duplicate signed copy of this-form.A! (initials) Form 216 (v.1.2) Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals t APPLICATION ?? A/aeeetaOatefi:li'arat 1.aad agtl,3+efest - 3,Ntd Vader Ad 136 tlf 3988' Clean antl.flreen pA Department of Agriculture Vann AA0-9h CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA unrlum USE 0141aY :Q A4trlM1tM*1 tlR?rs g?oout N"e?? _. r e ,? FoieQt.)jleeerrs .? ----------r?- ?? Any questions regarding the proper ,completion at this application an to be directed to the Cumberland County Assessment Office by callinj (717) 240.8560. 1. This application must be completed and executed by all owners of the property for which application is being made. Should the property be titled in. the name of a corporation, the application must be executed by the f xMdual authorized by corporate resolution to do no. Should the property be titled to an entity other than a corporation, the application must be executed by an individual duly authorized to act on behalf of that entity. A'copy of the appropriate corporate resolution or authorization must be attached to this application. 2. All signatures on this application must be notarized. This application may be filed in person or by mail Carte with ith the Penasylv umb mberland County Assessment Office. The office address is: Old Courthouse, First Floor, One Courthouse Squarar..e 17013. on or 3. Ad 319 of 1974 Js was amended by Act 156 ge e1998, and din requires f that whlch the property owner wants to enroll tthhe prenoperty. Exception: before June ist of the year immediately preceding the tax year tins year when -a county implaenta-a wurrY,>atde rceaxs.-mmt, or a county-wide rel:a6eaarnent of ersr!ledlaed. the application deadline shall be extended to either a date 30 days after the ffnaf order of the county f whether r of Mae )Judicial reeler ?thes. or b is sotobe 15 of the same year. whichever date is sooner. M93 deadline is applicable regardless order ght. 4. A one-time application a fee of 62 must be remitted with this application, payable to" C'Ot'LDEl2 r)F'DPl<73?. and recording ' the use to an ineligible use, the roll-back tax, plus six percent interest (compounded annually) will be ' 6. c if landowner the e against 11 pares of their lard to be declared and boo dari?enthe proposed ineligible lard. • charged against e asassseedeedsssment t included in must a attach ffa the s site appllcs map p showing ng the location ca who due frteltgtble for Use Value 8. Qualification for enrollment of your property . into the Clean and Green preferential assessment program is determined by meeting the minimum requirements established for any one of three landuse categories: Agricultural Use: Agricultural Reserve, or Forest Reserve. the Clean and The n Program." m T eligibility rogr em as are deer by to the county. ALL L QM y Clean ?8r BE Green ?WERED U? m tach separate Green grom•" The program is is administered ed by the county. g explanatory sheets should you. feel your responses require additional detail. This appymtion complies udth the unt(orm standards developed for use value assessment applications by the Commonwealth of peroasyioania Department of Agrkufture - Fbrm AAO.82. For more information, refer to Ad 156 of 1998 and the Department of and Regulations., You may obtain these documents from the Department of Agriculture. Agricutturc a Rules ,. Property Identification Number (district, map, and parcel) Daytime Telephone 037 3._ 0QL ( ) Last Name (Individual or entity representative) First Initial CJ r Home Telephone CP • nrr) ayes in = b Last me (Individ or entity representative) First Initial e g .. tand for which application is made is owned by (?): r 1j . ": Flint Last Name (individual or entity representative) Initial. . {K Individual -p partnership. 3. - _ . C3 Corporation tit ti ..... .. LasC Name (individual or entity representative) First. initial u on ..Ins O 13 Cooperative C>a . p Other (explain) erative, or othe coo n ti tit r name (if applicable) p , u o Entity: partnership, corporation, Ins ?0 c owE Milling Address - Street 00' 1 1 2000 ,,o 4? P-6X50P-Y QORD, AfE)\JV/L I7a U Mailing Address - City,; State, Z11 6 >. " Rf1?lY ': °1fe t;rr '"I,f+_ Location Address - Street, City, Town/Borough County School District l"'_ r' 7 r'r -C C7 i U7 J I,. 1. Ust the total number of acres represented on this application fir known). 2. Is the land currently assessed uresist' Act SJS (1966 P.L. 1292, No. 616)116 P.S. i 11941 et seq.)?- _ Yea - No S. Is the land in this applkavon lased for minerals? _ Y a No ?.. .... 4. - Under which category do you intend to apply (cheek all that apply)? Agricultural We pond in agricultural production for at least three years Preceding the application for use-value assessment, and is more conuguilus acre or (2) if less than 10 acres, Is an individual trad of iand contiguous to an eligible f 10 or etdw (n comprised o tract of land to acre or more in ire or he anticipated y+ary gross Arieukural production Inneums of at least 12AW ) land taws be at last 10 cankW xm arse in are, oen- th lif r e y. is qua Agrtoattmml RAMIN (Laud that IS open space 1". In orde ublic for outdoor recreation or alcymert of the land's scenic or natural beauty. The owner may . en to On b o p e op t eommerdsl.and m not charge for public atom to his or her properly.) Forest Rasarse (Land that is presently stacked with trees such that the land is capable of producing annual growth of 26 cubic feet per . res; t2) If Was than 10 acres. U an tndtvidual tract of land a ? c acre, and the land It either (1) comprised of 10 or more contiguous 7 t: of land 10 acres or more in sim or let If Ian than. 10 contiguous acre, to used as a farm woodlot and t bl rac e contiguous to an eligi land that Is in agricultural use and has the same owner an the form woodlot3 ,. i d 6. jo ns a il types or timber types; such u a conservation plan ora forestry management plan. please supply Z, ng m ts tlon ith yo you have d a requirement for submitting an application. ver horv hi i t imeo c g , s s no , ppSeuen. T °Ples of this mkruatfm with your s a but for which you do not Intend to apply, list amount of , t a 6. , ssessmen For any addlti=A land you own which might be eligible for use-value 7. acreage Ia d which application been actively devoted to agricultural use for uerl d6sfmodi y or ls> de voted to and`meets the Has the land represented on l pled drag ngl' hich Is used for the purpose d ith : io w an an use de9nad as under an agreement w to a sell U conservation program ments or other compensation pursuant a f [ f1 - i p y o acrd d 9t!v1? requirements N 0 The applicant for use value WWeWMWt hereby agrees, if the application is approved for uee-Valtte assessment, to submit 30 days written notice to the County Assessor of a proposed change in use of the land, a change in ownership of any portion of the land. . of the land. or commencement of direct mrnmer'nttd sales of agriculturaRY-related products and any type of division or conveyance ' that: if the application is approved for use activities on the enrolled laid.' The applicant for use-value assessment acknowledges; until value asaeastnenL It wilt remain In effect continuously until the land owner changes the ass from the approved category or an i e saes split I separation occurs. At that time, a roll-back tax, plus, interest (72P.S. $ 5490.64 shall be paid for a Period not to exceed seven (7) yearn. All owners of record must sign this application in the presence of a notary. The understgned declares tlnat tits plfcatto fncludbno all occonwarwtm schedules and statements, has been examined bu him mud to lfte of his knotdedpe belief true and correct Date r Signature (indhvid vl'tS Of Aeons ur} )Eri?ltdj Owner Signature (Individual) Date `-..d in tit:, f+:; ' ill aMCe fo n'to r for the reC 1O0; uOUnPdr}t? owner signature (individual) - 1to" ;,hind a l S - Fags Ii Of Ofti •r owner Signature (Individual) ay of tq` Signature (Frailty: Patin , dnstitutkm, cooperative. 01= other) ' k•°ti Lie $ ,= corporation -hip. lh6cer , ?.,;q tfi? erg,:: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : ?? ?A j 1 r dfl? ' n . t^c.y o= ry ? K tlc( Ir r. CoUrMoFCum BERLAND ss. GOi1K V mu cif j/ h of}?f 20 00 before me, a Notary Public, the herelnb did 1 On this, the day ?mer appear 1.`.'• 4.... '+ir w5aata..? 'worienl t0 be the person whose name III ItWom And subscribed and executed the same for the purpoa" ei' fe' IN VMT4 sS WIIEREOF, I have hereunto set my hnnd and notarial seal, Nelary llitbil My til,iitntlsolmt xphtlWiNNil:f4fitTL)NTtb7R i AN. I., I ?nin?a 9 02/17/05 16:18 FAX 17172343730 H. B. McClure Co 2002 ., r. At ^?" ? ''< <?? r?Ri P.u:NI NQS ],O?Q iqp ANL1'1 q9 !7' i ' O Z 1 N "Rp (J7 ? m 40 " r a rn r-1 n s y roc i, ,a ?• ? r• , .r, 'n c.3 I'll -.4 T ,` t = Ott r i - ' r . .. t 1 . %n r) I C r P , r" ( T 71 A U, 1 ?I r 11-tor aw r •rrL.? f.? 7. rj gig to p N -1 --t In iT r ?' to ?ti 'C to pit [' w d ? a Z' b n v 3 ' Dr"kU ri ' o 517 T c +c-• ? <:. rmr ') cif n1 _ t/1 S'J 1_.. ' ic f 7 11 T° ], C 1] m V? 111 Z r, 71 r. r, r r •-!0m Ca U 1 L x, rn K• Y T T r. 1 ^ _ C= 17 e?i r 1 A U d tt; rrt J?1 :? s r n r*, ?? TTt P- C c, -' , r1 71 C1* C m G V. : .r, r , J' U mac ? F y • fTj ?n m A ? . .Zl , 1 ? ? Z y g? OR i 42M zimoo 9)-4 mm vom-nD oimam aFa U-' ? r-a -_ZM90 K9)9) OD --I z po g? Z25-. Dw ? D 0 Cl) r m ZN2 r mm PXK 3 0 -ZigT m Z ?MOm fA r-m-< m2m r S-7 T CLM 5 z m mo- O* n? -MM a Q = ? -4 cn T a -q 4 m NOO a 1 N pp O W? v N m A io a n A m w a NN cn m a n v o to Q O g V_ 8 C m n H A o O I., 0 N N - M CD ?O O b 9 M N O 0 ' a a s aa C no .04 e? m i ? c I .n W o 1 o > r ' N N 'O - 0 0 y N N 3 ? aDm rar r.r • m m? wo .? o r I ` -. N N O C. Rl co 0,0 ? N \O r lD 1 v ? J 1 c r ° ?p O c N m sp or o < D T S CO ? m O m !z O tmi> m0 M* z v ?o ao a O m 8 D S' m 0 8 ?yW W o R 01 N o? m I SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-03533 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LAY ELMER L VS LAY GARY L ET AL MICHAEL BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Penns lvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT was served upon LAY BRIAN K the DEFENDANT at 1900:00 HOURS, on the 1st day of July 2008 at 110 MAPLE LANE NEWVILLE, PA 17241 by handing to BRIAN K LAY a true and attested copi, of COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT together with and at the same time d4ecting His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 0.00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 0.00 1'o7lpQ 6.00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this ay of , So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 07/02/2008 ABOM & KUTULAKIS BY : ty Sherif A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-03533 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LAY ELMER L VS LAY GARY L ET AL MICHAEL BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Penns lvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT was served upon LAY JULIE D the DEFENDANT at 1900:00 HOURS, on the 1st day of July 2008 at 110 MAPLE LANE NEWVILLE, PA 17241 by handing to JULIE D LAY a true and attested c of COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT together with and at the same time d4ecting Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 0.00 71b7/o& 6.0000 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this ay of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 07/02/2008 ABOM & KUTULAKIS By: Eputy Sheri f A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-03533 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSY VANIA: + COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LAY ELMER L VS LAY GARY L ET AL KENNETH GOSSERT Cumberland County,Pen says, the within COMP LAY VONNIE M Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of ;ylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, DINT - EJECTMENT was served upon the DEFENDANT , at 1348:00 HOURS, on the 24th day of June 2008 at 775 ROXBURY ROAD NEWVILLE, PA 17241 by handing to VONNIE LAY a true and attested c of COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 7/07` 0 F So Answers: 6.00 f? .00 .00 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 16.00 07/02/2008 ABOM & KUTULAKIS r Sworn and Subscibed to before me this ay of By: A. D. ' eri SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-03533 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LAY ELMER L VS LAY GARY L ET AL KENNETH GOSSERT Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Penns lvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT was served upon LAY GARY L the DEFENDANT at 1348:00 HOURS, on the 24th day of June 2008 at 775 ROXBURY ROAD NEWVILLE, PA 17241 by handing to VONNIE LAY, WIFE a true and attested cop of COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit 8.00 6 . 0 0 .00 So Answers: 7 Surcharge 0.00 R. Thomas Kline Postage 4 .76 4.76 07/02/2008 i ABOM & KUTULAKIS Sworn and Subscibed to By: before me this ay ut eriff of A.D. i SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-03533 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLI VANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LAY ELMER L VS LAY GARY L ET AL WILLIAM CLINE Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Penns lvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLA INT - EJECTMENT was served upon LAY STEVEN A the DEFENDANT at 170 9:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of June 2008 at 483 MEADOWS ROAD NEWVILLE, PA 17241 by handing to STEVEN LAY a true and attested cop of COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT together with and at the same time dir ecting His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing 6.00 Service 1 5.0 0 Affidavit .00 ` Surcharge 1 0.00 R. Thomas Kline n 7 -- ' .00 V 1/07f 3 1.00 07/02/2008 ABOM & KUTULAKIS Sworn and Subscibed to By: before me this d ay Deputy Sheriff of A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-03533 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LAY ELMER L VS LAY GARY L ET AL WILLIAM CLINE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Penns lvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT was served upon LAY REBECCA A the DEFENDANT at 170 :00 HOURS, on the 16th day of April 2008 at 483 MEADOWS ROAD NEWVILLE. PA 17241 STEVEN LAY, HUSBAND by handing to a true and attested cop of COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT together with and at the same time di?ecting His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 '7111-71 07 ?., 00 16.00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 07/02/2008 ABOM & KUTULAKIS By. Deputy Sheriff A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-03533 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LAY ELMER L VS LAY GARY L ET AL WILLIAM CLINE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Penns lvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT was served upon LAY KEVIN G the DEFENDANT , at 1750:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of June 2008 at 493 CENTERVILLE ROAD NEWVILLE, PA 17241 by handing to LAURA A LAY, WIFE a true and attested c of COMPLAINT - R,TPrTMRMT together with and at the same time di?ecting Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 1 0.00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 1 0.00 7/b7/D 8 2 .00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this c of So Answers: s R. Thomas Kline 07/02/2008 ABOM & KUTULAKIS By ?- Deputy Sheriff A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-03533 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LAY ELMER L VS LAY GARY L ET AL WILLIAM CLINE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Penns lvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLA NT - EJECTMENT was served upon LAY LAURA A the DEFENDANT , at 175):00 HOURS, on the 16th day of June 2008 at 493 CENTERVILLE ROAD NEWVILLE, PA 17241 by handing to a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT together with and at the same time di?ecting Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 0.00 .00 7107)0? 6.00 Sworn and Subscibed to ' before me this ay of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 07/02/2008 ABOM & KUTULAKIS By: Deputy Sheriff A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-03533 P Amended COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LAY ELMER L VS LAY GARY L ET AL WILLIAM CLINE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT was served upon LAY REBECCA A the DEFENDANT at 1709:00 HOURS, on the 16th day of July , 2008 at 483 MEADOWS ROAD NEWVILLE, PA 17241 by handing to STEVEN LAY, HUSBAND a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT - EJECTMENT together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Amended Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 / .00 //-I/o ? l 16. 00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of , So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 07/07/2008 ABOM & KUTULAKIS By Y Deputy Sheriff A. D. Defendants : DOCKET NO: 08-3533 ACTION IN EJECTMENT, ADVERSE INTEREST, and TRESPASS NOTICE TO PLEAD ELMER L. LAY, VS. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GARY L. LAY and VONNIE M. LAY, husband and wife, STEVEN A. LAY and REBECCA A. LAY, husband and wife, KEVIN G. LAY and LAURA A. LAY, husband and wife, BRIAN K. LAY and JULIE D. LAY, husband and wife, To: Elmer L. Lay, Plaintiff and Wayne Melnick, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter as contained in Defendants' Answer to Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered upon you. William S. Daniels, Esquire and Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C. By: 42z;?t ichar C. Snelbaker Attorneys for Defendants LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER 8C BRENNEMAN. P.C. Date: August 4, 2008 S ELMER L. LAY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. DOCKET NO: 08-3533 GARY L. LAY and VONNIE M. LAY, husband and wife, STEVEN ACTION IN EJECTMENT, A. LAY and REBECCA A. LAY, ADVERSE INTEREST, and husband and wife, KEVIN G. LAY TRESPASS and LAURA A. LAY, husband and wife, BRIAN K. LAY and JULIE D. LAY, husband and wife, Defendants ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants by their attorneys, William S. Daniels, Esquire, and Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C., and respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: COUNT I - ACTION IN EJECTMENT 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. It is denied that Plaintiff owns the land described in paragraph 6 of the LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. Complaint. On the contrary, the land as described in the Complaint was never conveyed to Plaintiff and Plaintiff has no recorded deed therefor. Further, the only relevant land owned by Plaintiff is described as follows: ALL that certain tract of land situate in the Township of Lower Mifflin, County of Cumberland, and State of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to wit: BEGINNING at a post by land of Samuel Myers, thence by the same, North Seventy-eight and one-half (781/2) degrees East Twenty-six (26) perches to a point; thence by land now or formerly of John C. Mowery, North Twenty and three-fourths (203/4) degrees West Seventy-seven (77) perches to a point; thence by land of same, South Seventy-three and one-fourth (731/.) degrees West, Twenty-three and nine tenths (23.9) perches to a point; thence by land now or formerly of U.V.B. Hoover, South Nineteen and one-half (19'/2) degrees East Seventy-four and six tenths (74.6) perches to the place of BEGINNING. CONTAINING Eleven (11) acres and One Hundred Eighteen (118) perches. Said Tract being the same premises which Plaintiff acquired from Wilbur G. Lay by deed dated April 14, 1977, and recorded on April 19, 1977, in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book "C", Volume 27, Page 719. 7. It is denied that the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property" is the same as that conveyed by John M. Williams to Henry D. Lehman as recorded in Deed Book "J", Volume 8, Page 576. On the contrary, the only land conveyed by Henry D. Lehman or his heirs to Plaintiff is the property recorded in Deed Book "F", Volume 14, Page 153, the description of which is more fully set forth in paragraph 6 hereinabove and incorporated herein by reverence thereto. There is no similarity of location, area or dimensions between the property described in Deed Book "J", Volume 8, Page 576 and that described in Deed Book "F", Volume 14, Page 153. 8. It is denied that Henry D. Lehman attempted to convey any property to Wilbur LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. G. Lay, Sr. on August 29, 1949. On the contrary, Henry D. Lehman was dead at said date, having died on or about March 28, 1931. It is further denied that the heirs of Henry D. Lehman "attempted" to convey the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff s Property" in paragraph 6 of the Complaint by deed recorded in Deed Book "F", Volume 14, Page 153. On the contrary, the land described in Deed Book "F", Volume 14, Page 153 is clearly described as 2 land other than "Plaintiff s Property" and was/is in fact the clearly described property quoted in paragraph 6 hereinabove. 9. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment as to what Wilbur G. Lay, Sr., may have "believed" as to his ownership and, therefore, the averment is deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of this case by competent and admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. The allegation of Wilbur G. Lay, Sr.'s belief is patently unbelievable and, therefore, untrue, since the description of the land in Deed Book "F", Volume 14, Page 153, is wholly different from the description of the land wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property" as set forth in paragraph 6 of the Compliant. 10. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning the alleged possession of the land wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property", and therefore, the averments are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. 11. The statement in paragraph 11 is an unsupported allegation as the capstone of a LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C pyramid of unwarranted conclusions to which no response is required and, therefore, is deemed to be denied. Alternatively, after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of what the grantor(s) may have intended or otherwise mistakenly used as a description in the "1949 deed to Wilbur G. Lay, Sr." and, therefore, said allegations are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. 12. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12, and, therefore, are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. On the contrary, the land described in Deed Book "F", Volume 14, Page 153, clearly describes property located in Lower Mifflin Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The apparent fact that Plaintiff may not have physically located said land does not establish its non-existence. 13. Except for the words "instead" and "Upper", the allegations of paragraph 13 are admitted. It is denied that the deed recorded in Deed Book "X", Volume 3, Page 460, describes lands in "Upper Mifflin Township". On the contrary, the property described in said deed was located in the "Township of Mifflin", which in 1885, was the predecessor to both Upper and Lower Mifflin Townships. It is further averred that rather than "instead", the deed recorded in Deed Book "X", Volume 3, Page 460, was in fact the predecessor conveyance of the land described in Deed Book "17", Volume 14, Page 153, and is not "Plaintiff's Property" as wrongly characterized and described in paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 14. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph 14, and, therefore, all of said averments are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which are demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence, if otherwise relevant. 15. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph 15, and, therefore, all of said averments are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof 4 of which is demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence, if otherwise relevant. Further, the content of affidavits marked Exhibits "B" and "C" are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(d) inasmuch as said attachments fail to comply with Pa. R.C.P. 1019 and 1022 and are otherwise not properly pleaded as averments of facts as required in a Complaint and should be stricken as impertinent material. 16. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph 16, and, therefore, all of said averments are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which are demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence, if otherwise relevant. 17. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph 17, and, therefore, all of said averments are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which are demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence, if otherwise relevant. 18. It is admitted that Wilbur G. Lay, Sr., gifted approximately 43 acres (not 42 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. acres) of wooded or mountain land to his son, Wilbur G. Lay, Jr. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that the gift was "[a]s the result of the April 1976 meeting", and, therefore, said averment is deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. 5 19. It is admitted that Wilbur G. Lay (Sr.) conveyed 11 acres and 118 perches of wooded or mountain land to Plaintiff (Elmer Leroy Lay) (see deed recorded in Deed Book "C", Volume 27, Page 719), being the same premises which Wilbur G. Lay (Sr.) acquired from the heirs of Henry D. Lehman by deed recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book 'T", Volume 14, Page 153. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other averments in paragraph 19, and, therefore, all said other averments are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of this case by competent and admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. 20. It is admitted that Wilbur G. Lay, Sr., conveyed approximately 43 acres (not 42 acres) of wooded or mountain land to Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., by the conveyance recited in paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 21. It is denied that Wilbur G. Lay, Sr., attempted to convey the property described and wrongly characterized in paragraph 6 of the Complaint as "Plaintiff's Property", to Plaintiff. On the contrary, Wilbur G. Lay, Sr., unequivocally conveyed the clearly described property as set forth in paragraph 6 hereinabove which bears no likeness to "Plaintiff's Property". 22. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as to what was discussed at an alleged meeting in April 1976 and any alleged error of description, and, therefore, are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. By way of further 6 response, it is averred that Wilbur G. Lay, Sr., conveyed the property which he acquired via conveyance recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "F", Volume 14, Page 153 to Plaintiff. 23. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as to the intention of Wilbur G. Lay, Sr., and the alleged error in description and, therefore, are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which are demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. By way of further response, it is averred that Wilbur G. Lay, Sr., conveyed the property which he acquired via conveyance recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book "F", Volume 14, Page 153 to Plaintiff. 24. It is denied that the land described in the deed recorded in Deed Book "X", Volume 3, Page 460, was situated in Upper Mifflin Township. On the contrary, the deed clearly described land being in the "Township of Mifflin", being the predecessor municipality to both Upper Mifflin and Lower Mifflin Townships. It is admitted that the land described in Deed Book "X", Volume 3, Page 460, is the same tract conveyed to Plaintiff in Deed Book "C", Volume 27, Page 719, being the land acquired by Wilbur G. Lay, Sr., by deed recorded in Deed Book "F", Volume 14, Page 153, from heirs of Henry D. Lehman. 25. It is denied that the land described in Deed Book "X", Volume 3, Page 460, LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. is/was located in Upper Mifflin Township. On the contrary, the land is clearly described as being in the "Township of Mifflin", being the predecessor municipality to both Upper and Lower Mifflin Townships. It is further denied that Wilbur G. Lay, Sr., was never the owner of the property described in Deed Book "X", Volume 3, Page 460. On the contrary, Wilbur G. Lay, Sr., acquired said land from the heirs of Henry D. Lehman by deed recorded in Deed Book "F", Volume 14, Page 153. 7 26. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief to all the averments in paragraph 26, and, therefore, are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. 27. All of the averments in paragraph 27 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, it is averred that from and after Wilbur G. Lay, Sr.'s conveyance of subject land to Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., and Betty J. Lay by deed dated April 14, 1977 and recorded April 19, 1977, in Cumberland County Deed Book "C", Volume 27, Page 716, the persons identified in said paragraph 27 occasionally used limited portions of said premises owned by Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., and Betty ht-Lay and Defendants, first, with the consent and permission of Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., and Betty J. Lay and, subsequently, the Defendants, all such persons having recognized and treated said premises as belonging to Wilbur G. Lay, Jr. and Betty J. Lay and later by Defendants. 28. It is denied that Plaintiff treated the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property" as his own since April 14, 1977. On the contrary, Plaintiff recognized and treated said premises as property of Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., and Betty J. Lay and later of the Defendants. 29. It is denied that Plaintiff has paid taxes at any time on the premises wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property". On the contrary, any taxes paid were assessed and levied on the property described in Cumberland County Deed Book "C", Volume 27, Page 719, being Tax Parcel No. 15-04-0393-023A, said parcel having no connection with Defendants' land. 30. It is admitted that Plaintiff has hunted on the property wrongly characterized as LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER 8C BRENNEMAN, P.C. "Plaintiff's Property" (as well as on other lands owned by Defendants), but it is denied that he hunted thereon as the owner of the property. On the contrary, Plaintiff hunted on the subject 8 property with the consent and permission of Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., and Betty J. Lay and later with the consent and permission of the Defendants. 31. It is admitted that Plaintiff has cut timber from the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property", but it is denied that he did so as the owner of said property. On the contrary, Plaintiff (along with other members of the Lay family) was granted permission to do so by Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., and Betty J. Lay. The averment of Plaintiff- s alleged allowance of his sons and daughter to cut timber is denied insofar as Plaintiff appears to imply that he had the right to do so, since Plaintiff was not the owner of said property. 32. It is admitted that Plaintiff has stored a car on the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property", but it is denied that he did so as the owner of said property or in derogation of the rights of the owners thereof. On the contrary, Plaintiff was granted permission to do so by Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., and Betty J. Lay (as were other members of the Lay family similarly granted permission to store material at limited locations). 33. It is denied that Plaintiff built a shed on the land wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property". On the contrary, it is averred that Plaintiff moved a shed onto the subject property, which move and subsequent use for storage was done and continued with the consent and permission of Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., and Betty J. Lay. 34. It is denied that Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., acquired property "abutting" the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property". On the contrary, it is averred that the conveyance cited as recorded in Deed Book "C", Volume 27, Page 716, included the land wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property". LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 9 35. It is denied that Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., at any time treated the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property" as belonging to Plaintiff. On the contrary, Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., at all times treated said property as belonging to himself and Betty J. Lay. 36. It is denied that Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., stopped timbering the lands owned by himself and Betty J. Lay at any "border" of the lands wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff s Property". On the contrary, Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., conducted timbering operations on the subject property, stopping his timber removal at a marked line coinciding with the eastern line of property of John Lay, later and now George Lay. 37. It is denied that Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., paid or offered to pay Plaintiff for any brush fire damage to any property owned or claimed by Plaintiff, including the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiffs Property". On the contrary, it is averred that there was no actual damage caused to any land, and that the only "compensation" was a voluntary donation made by Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., and Betty J. Lay to the local fire company which assisted in suppressing the brush fire. 38. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 38 and, therefore, the same is deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence, if otherwise relevant. 39. It is denied that Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., died intestate. On the contrary, Wilbur G. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. Lay, Jr., died testate, although his Will was not probated. It is admitted that Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., died on January 21, 1995, survived by his wife, namely, Betty J. Lay. 10 40. It is denied that the ownership of any land passed by intestate succession to Betty J. Lay upon the death of Wilbur G. Lay, Jr. On the contrary as readily revealed by the real estate records of Cumberland County, the title to any lands relevant to this case were vested in Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., and Betty J. Lay, his wife, as tenants by the entireties, pursuant to deed from Wilbur G. Lay (Sr.) (Also known as Wilbert G. Lay) dated April 14, 1977, and recorded on April 19, 1977 in Deed Book "C", Volume 27, Page 716, and upon the death of Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., became vested in Betty J. Lay by operation of law as surviving tenant by the entireties. 41. It is denied that the property wrongly described as "Plaintiff s Property" adjoined lands owned by Betty J. Lay and that she conveyed her lands to the Defendants by deed recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book 139, Page 807. On the contrary, the land conveyed to Defendants included the property which Plaintiff wrongly characterizes as "Plaintiff s Property" and the deed was recorded in Deed Book 139, Page 813. 42. It is denied that Defendants had not acquired ownership of the alleged "Plaintiff s Property" as averred. On the contrary, it is averred that at all times relevant to the facts averred in the Complaint, Defendants understood, believed and contended that they owned said property. 43. It is admitted that Defendants erected a "chain barrier" (which replaced an earlier "chain barrier" erected by Wilbur G. Lay, Jr.) which barred vehicular access to the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff s Property". 44. It is admitted that Defendants have maintained the "chain barrier" which denied LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. Plaintiff s access to the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff s Property". The statement that Defendants maintained the chain barrier without right or authority is a 11 conclusion of law to which no response is required and is deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(d). 45. It is admitted that Defendants have exercised exclusive possession and control over the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff s Property" and that they have withheld possession from Plaintiff, at all times understanding, believing and contending that they owned the subject property. 46. It is admitted that Defendants have failed and refused to remove the chain barring access to the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiffs Property". 47. It is admitted that Defendants have denied Plaintiff unauthorized access to the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property" which necessarily includes the survey of any property. By way of further response, it is averred that Plaintiff never requested the opportunity to survey. 48. It is admitted that Plaintiff has caused a picture with alleged property lines on it to be attached as "Exhibit E". After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments as to how the picture was prepared and technology employed, and therefore, the same are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which is demanded at the trial of the case by competent and admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. By way of further response, it is emphasized that Plaintiff admits that the picture was not prepared by traditional land survey. 49. While it is admitted that "Exhibit E" indicates what paragraph 49 states, it is LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. denied that the property lines are properly located and that the property wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property" exists as shown thereon. On the contrary, the property lines shown on "Exhibit E" are improperly located (without survey) with unjustified liberties taken to create the area of land claimed by Plaintiff as that wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property". 12 50. The statements in paragraph 50 are conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(d). WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and enter judgment herein in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. COUNT II - ADVERSE POSSESSION 51. No response is required to paragraph 51 of the Complaint; however, Defendants incorporate herein their responses in paragraphs 1 through 50 hereinabove and the New Matter hereinbelow by reference thereto. 52. All of the averments in paragraph 52 are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs occasional entry upon the subject property was not with dominion over the property nor with acts signifying permanent occupation of said lands. Any such entries were sporadic and temporary, and with the consent and permission of Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., and Betty J. Lay. Further, it is averred that Plaintiff did not enclose the subject property with a fence and he did not reside on the property. Further, the averments contained in New Matter hereinbelow are incorporated herein by reference thereto by way of further answer and defense. 53. It is denied that Plaintiff at any time entered into exclusive possession of the LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. subject property. On the contrary, the averments contained in paragraph 52 hereinabove and in New Matter hereinbelow are incorporated herein by reference thereto. It is denied that Plaintiff could have a good belief that he obtained ownership of said property from Wilbur Lay, Sr., since Wilbur Lay, Sr., never had title to said property and because the property conveyed to Plaintiff was that described in Paragraph 6 hereinabove which bears no likeness in location, area or dimensions to that which he has wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property". 13 WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and enter judgment herein in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. COUNT III - TRESPASS 54. No response is required to paragraph 54 of the Complaint; however, Defendants incorporate herein their responses in paragraphs 1 through 53 hereinabove and the New Matter hereinbelow by reference thereto. 55. It is denied that Plaintiff is the owner of the property in issue and, therefore, has not been deprived of the use and enjoyment as alleged. On the contrary, Plaintiff is the owner of the property more fully described in paragraph 6 hereinabove which bears no likeness in location, area or dimension to that which he has wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property". Moreover, Defendants have not deprived Plaintiff the use and enjoyment of the property as described in paragraph 6 hereinabove. WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and enter judgment herein in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER 8C BRENNEMAN, P.C. 14 NEW MATTER The Defendants aver the following new Matter in further response to the Complaint and in defense of this action, which New Matter is incorporated by reference into the responses to Counts I, II and III hereinabove: 56. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state causes of action upon which the relief sought can be granted. 57. The relief sought by Plaintiff's Complaint requires the creation of an oral conveyance which is in violation of the applicable statute of frauds. 58. Any possession, entry upon or other use of the property wrongly characterized by Plaintiff as "Plaintiff's Property" was done with the consent and permission of Wilbur G. Lay, Jr., and Betty J. Lay and/or the Defendants. 59. Plaintiff's ownership is limited to the land described in his deed as more fully described in paragraph 6 of the foregoing Answer which is incorporated herein by reference thereto. 60. Defendants' property extends westwardly so as to adjoin the lands now of George Lay. 61. The property in issue wrongly characterized as "Plaintiff's Property" (hereinafter called "Subject Property") is woodland or mountain land. 62. The Subject Property has never been enclosed by a fence. 63. Neither the Plaintiff nor his predecessors in title have cultivated the Subject LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. Property. 15 07/28/2008 08:51 7176977681 SNELBAKER BRENNEMAN PAGE 18/18 65. The tau reap records of the Cumberland County Assessment Office fail to show a tract of land containing the dimensions, area or location of the "Subject Property" as described in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 66. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 67. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court to enter judgment on all Counts in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. c ., R. William S. Daniels, Esquire 1 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 And SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By 42izoftz? C. Snelbakcr, Esquire Attorney I.D. No: 06355 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorneys for Defendants Date: August 4, 2008 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. 16 VERIFICATION We, GARY L. LAY and VONNIE M. LAY, husband and wife, do hereby certify that we are Defendants in the foregoing Answer to Complaint and New Matter, that the facts in the foregoing Answer to Complaint and New Matter within our personal knowledge are true and correct and that with regard to facts received from others, we believe to be true and correct. We understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 PA C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Gary L. Lay 4 Vonnie M. Lay Dated: Aug. 4, 2008 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. VERIFICATION We, STEVEN A. LAY and REBECCA A. LAY, husband and wife, do hereby certify that we are Defendants in the foregoing Answer to Complaint and New Matter, that the facts in the foregoing Answer to Complaint and New Matter within our personal knowledge are true and correct and that with regard to facts received from others, we believe to be true and correct. We understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 PA C.S. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Steven A. y ?' ?" 4? C?? Rebecca A. ay Dated: Aug. 4 , 2008 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. VERIFICATION We, KEVIN G. LAY and LAURA A. LAY, husband and wife, do hereby certify that we are Defendants in the foregoing Answer to Complaint and New Matter, that the facts in the foregoing Answer to Complaint and New Matter within our personal knowledge are true and correct and that with regard to facts received from others, we believe to be true and correct. We understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 PA C.S. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Kevin G. Jay f ?f Laura A. Lay Dated: Aug. 4 , 2008 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. VERIFICATION We, BRIAN K. LAY and JULIE D. LAY, husband and wife, do hereby certify that we are Defendants in the foregoing Answer to Complaint and New Matter, that the facts in the foregoing Answer to Complaint and New Matter within our personal knowledge are true and correct and that with regard to facts received from others, we believe to be true and correct. We understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 PA C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Aela?v ?e e4:<z Brian K. krry' /VV60 r-,\ Julie D. L Dated: Aug. 4, 2008 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of Answer to Complaint with New Matter upon the person and in the manner indicated below: Service by First Class Mail, Postage Paid, Addressed as Follows: Wayne Melnick, Esquire Abom & Kutulakis, L.L.P. 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Plaintiff) 42"4 Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire (Attorney I.D. No: 06355) 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (Attorneys for Defendants) Dated: August 5 , 2008 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. ABOM ?' 1?[,iTLILAKIS Wayne Melnick, Esquire Attorney I.D. #: 53150 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ELMER L. LAY Plaintiff Vs. GARY L. LAY and VONNIE M. LAY, husband and wife, STEVEN A. LAY and REBECCA A. LAY, husband and wife, KEVIN G. LAY and LAURA A. LAY, husband and wife, BRIAN K. LAY and JULIE D. LAY, husband and wife : DOCKET NO.: 08-3533 : ACTION IN EJECTMENT, : ADVERSE INTEREST, and : TRESPASS Defendants PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND NOW, this 4?6r-day of August, 2008, Plaintiff, Elmer L. Lay, answers the following to Defendant's New Matter. 1. The assertion contained in paragraph 56 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegation is Denied. 2. The assertion contained in paragraph 57 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegation is Denied. 3. The assertion contained in paragraph 58 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegation is Denied. By way of further answer, such possession, entry upon, and other use of the property was hostile and without the consent and permission of Wilbur Lay, Jr., Betty J. Lay, and/or the Defendants. 4. The assertion contained in paragraph 59 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegation is Denied. 5. The assertion contained in paragraph 60 of Defendants' New Matter is Denied. By way of further answer, Defendant's property extends westward only so far as to adjoin the land identified as "Plaintiffs property." 6. The assertion contained in paragraph 61 of Defendants' New Matter is Admitted in Part and Denied in part. It is admitted that the property is woodland or mountain land. It is Denied that the property is mischaracterized as "Plaintiffs Property." 7. The assertion contained in paragraph 62 of Defendants' New Matter is Admitted. 8. The assertion contained in paragraph 63 of Defendants' New Matter is Admitted. 9. The copy of Defendants' New Matter served upon Plaintiff lacks a paragraph 64. 10. The assertion contained in paragraph 65 of Defendants' New Matter is Admitted in part and Denied in part It is admitted that at times the tax map records of the Cumberland County Assessment Office fail to show a tract of land contained the dimensions, area or location of the "subject property" as described in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff s Complaint. It is denied that the tax map records of the Cumberland County Assessment Office have always failed to show such tract. The tax map records of Cumberland County Assessment Office have in the past shown such an area but that office has revised those records in response to requests by one or more of the Defendants. 11. The assertion contained in paragraph 66 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegation is Denied. 12. The assertion contained in paragraph 67 of Defendants' New Matter is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the allegation is Denied. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against all named Defendants. Respectfully submitted, Date: a 8 ABOM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P, By: Wayne Melnick, Es ire Attorney I.D. No. 53150 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Plaintiff s Response to Defendants' New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. /4 -,? /J6 /Jel Date Elmer Lay CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON THIS, the 22"d day of August, 2008, I, Wayne Melnick, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I have caused the original and one copy of the above captioned PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER to be served upon the following individuals, by U.S., first-class mail: FIRST CLASS MAIL William S. Daniels, Esquire 1 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire Snelbaker & Breneman PC 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ABOM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P. By: C ?L odluC,c Wayne Me c , Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 53150 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 C' - C -D ? ? a ri r CD +• - -W N AB OM ?' j?tI-T'LILAKLS Wayne Melnick, Esquire Attorney I.D. #: 53150 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ELMER L. LAY Plaintiff Vs. GARY L. LAY and VONNIE M. LAY, husband and wife, STEVEN A. LAY and REBECCA A. LAY, husband and wife, KEVIN G. LAY and LAURA A. LAY, husband and wife, BRIAN K. LAY and JULIE D. LAY, husband and wife Defendants DOCKET NO.: 08-3533 ACTION IN EJECTMENT, ADVERSE INTEREST, and TRESPASS PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE, AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark this case setded, discontinued, and ended with respect to the above named defendants. Count II (Adverse Possession) is discontinued with prejudice with respect to the named Defendants. Counts I (Ejectment) and Count III (Trespass) are discontinued with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, ABOM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P. Date: Off' By: 911 - Wayne Me 'ck, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 53150 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 +? -- "k CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON THIS, the 6th day of November, 2008, I, Wayne Melnick, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I have caused the original and one copy of the above captioned PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE, AND END to be served upon the following individuals, by U.S., first-class mail: FIRST CLASS MAIL William S. Daniels, Esquire 1 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire Snelbaker & Breneman PC 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ABOM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P. By Wayne Melni , Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 53150 36 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 LITIGATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of 2008, by and between: ELMER L. LAY, parry of the first part, hereinafter called "Plaintiff', AND GARY L. LAY, VONNIE M. LAY, STEVEN A. LAY, REBECCA A. LAY, KEVIN G. LAY, LAURA A. LAY, BRIAN K. LAY and JULIE D. LAY, parties of the second part, hereinafter called "Defendants" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Plaintiff claims ownership of certain unimproved mountain or woodland situated in Lower Mifflin Township, Cumberland County, located generally between lands of the Defendants on the northeast and lands of George Lay and others on the southwest (hereinafter called "Claimed Land"); and WHEREAS, Plaintiff has commenced a civil action against Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County docketed to No. 2008-3533 (hereinafter called "Civil Action") in which Plaintiff sought various relief concerning the Claimed Land; and WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated a compromise and settlement of the Civil Action which they intend to document by these presents; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these presents and the mutual promises, terms and conditions set forth herein, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties mutually agree as follows: The foregoing preamble and paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 2. Attached hereto as "Exhibit A" is a drawing intended to represent the location of Defendants' proposed southwest property line, which drawing depicts a straight line approximately 3,560 feet in length extending between two property corners each presently marked by an orange post. All parties acknowledge the existence of the orange posts and the line extending between them. Defendants further agree that said line properly describes their southwesterly boundary and that said boundary does not adjoin lands owned by George Lay. Defendants hereby terminate their claim of ownership to all land located between the line shown on "Exhibit A" on the northeast and land now of George Lay on the southwest, which includes the "Claimed Land" located southwest of the above referenced line. Contemporaneously herewith Defendants along with Betty Lay have executed and delivered to Plaintiff a quit-claim deed for recording which recites the foregoing to formally release any claims of ownership to said land. 3. Plaintiff hereby acknowledges the existence of a mountain road extending generally in a northwardly direction across the Claimed Land from a local road known as "Maple Lane" on the south to lands of Defendants on the north, and Plaintiff further acknowledges Defendants' right to use fully said road in common with others, who may claim or have rights of use. Defendants agree to hold harmless, indemnify, and defend Plaintiff against any claim, action, loss, damage, injury, liability, cost and expense of whatsoever kind or nature (including, but not by way of limitation, attorney's fees and court costs) arising out of injury to persons, including, but not limited to death, or damage to property, arising out of or incidental to 2 l Defendants' use of said mountain road, unless due to or caused by gross negligence of Plaintiff or intentional acts of Plaintiff. 4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this agreement, Defendants agree to .- y remove a chain barrier with posts and an earth barrier across the road mentioned in paragraph 3 at their sole cost and expense. The earth barrier shall be graded in such fashion as to permit vehicular traffic on the road with run-off and drainage from the road. 5. The parties acknowledge that deer exist on the Claimed Land and on Defendants' adjoining land. All parties agree to limit their stalking and shooting of deer to the line shown on "Exhibit A", (Plaintiff to the southwest of said line, and Defendants to the northeast of said line); however, all parties shall have the right to retrieve a wounded deer which traverses said line provided that the retriever can establish pursuit along a fresh blood trail. 6. An executed original counterpart of this agreement shall be filed in the Civil Action. 7. Contemporaneously with the execution of this agreement, Plaintiff shall terminate the Civil Action with prejudice against all Defendants, which discontinuance shall constitute a release of all of Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused these presents to be duly executed as of the day and year first written above. WITNESSED BY: SEAL) ( Vonnie M. Lay (SEAL) Steven A. Lay ,, ??, ?) (SEAL) Rebecca A. Lay Aog-ovff?- (SEAL) Brian K. Lay Aj-I:j -C---) /1, (SEAL) U Julie D. Lay Y •- N EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A C.F cx? --1 Ai ZD i ?_y; CsJ ? : rv ~