HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-0031
Vernon GRAHAM, et al.,
Plaintiffs
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Edward E. STAMBAUGH and
Ronald WALLACE, individually
and t/d/b/a SOUTH MOUNTAIN CIVIL ACTION - IN EQUITY
DRAGWAY
now
Stanley N. DYE, individually
and t/b/d/a QUARTER ACES
DRAG-O-WAY, Inc.
Defendants NO. 31 EQUITY 1992
PETITION FOR CONTEMPT
AND NOW, come Petitioners, Vernon Graham, Archie Burton and Iris Burton, by
and through their attorneys, Turo Law Offices, who aver the following:
1. Petitioners are Vernon Graham, an adult individual who resides at 1110
Petersburg Road, South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania; and
Archie Burton and Iris Burton, adult individuals who reside at 255 Red Tank Road,
South Middleton Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2. Respondent is Stanley N. Dye, owner of an approximately 39.5-acre tract
of land located at 1107 Petersburg Road, South Middleton Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania, on which he operates a one-eighth (1/8) mile drag strip known as
the Quarter Aces Drag-O-Way, also Respondent, formerly known as the South
Mountain Dragway, at which occur races of various vehicles of different classifications.
3. Petitioners all reside in close proximity to said drag strip, and were
plaintiffs in a cause of action versus Edward E. Stambaugh and Ronald Wallace,
individually, and doing business as the South Mountain Dragway, predecessor of the
current Respondent.
4. An Order of Court was issued on April 20, 1995 by the Honorable Kevin A.
Hess (hereinafter, "the Order"). (Exhibit A, the 1995 Order of Court, is attached and
incorporated herein as if fully set forth.)
5. The Order was designed with imperative, express limitations to preclude
operation of the dragway in a manner that would constitute a nuisance to the
surrounding community.
6. The Order directed that, "This Order of Court shall be recorded in the
Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and
indexed against the parties hereto."
7. The Order was recorded on June 5, 1995 in the Recorder of Deeds in and
for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at 1995-12258, and said Order is indexed
individually against: South Mountain Dragway, Edward E. Stambaugh, Ronald Wallace,
and the plaintiffs in the original cause of action.
8. Respondent purchased the dragway and the 39.5 acres from Edward E.
Stambaugh and wife Kay and Ronald Wallace and wife Ethel, on November 19, 2007.
9. A rudimentary search by Respondent at the Recorder of Deeds should
and would have uncovered the existence of the Order, even had the grantors in the
2007 transaction failed to disclose it.
10. Respondent assumed all responsibilities contained in the Order when he
purchased the real property and the dragway.
11. Respondent is bound to abide by the terms of the Order and accordingly
to operate the Dragway in accordance with its regulations.
12. Among other matters, the Order mandates the following:
a. Section 1-c of the Order states, in part, that, "During the racing
season, there may be up to three (3) Friday special racing events, which must
appear on the yearly schedule."
b. Section 1-c of the Order states, in part, that, "There will be no
Sunday or Holiday racing immediately following a scheduled Friday racing
event."
C. Section 1-c of the Order states, in part, that, "Should a Friday
racing event begin and then be cancelled, the Friday racing event may be
continued on the Saturday immediately following to finish the event."
d. Section 1-f of the Order states that, "On Sundays, race cars will not
be started before 10:30 a.m., and on Fridays, race cars will not be started before
1:00 p.m."
e. Section 2 of the Order states that, "The public address system at
the South Mountain Dragway will not be operated except on those days on which
racing is allowed with the exception of those times necessary to test and/or repair
the system."
f. Section 3 of the Order states that, "South Mountain Dragway will
notify a previously designated representative of the Residents of any intention to
secure any state, local or Federal permit(s)."
g. Section 4 of the Order states that, "South Mountain Dragway will
issue schedules and complimentary passes, annually, to al parties to this
Agreement who wish them. In this regard, it shall be the responsibility of the
Residents to provide, annually, a list of those who wish schedules and/or passes
to the Defendants. The said complimentary passes shall not be assigned or
transferred to any person not a party to this Agreement."
13. Section 9 of the Order states, "This Agreement and subsequent Order of
Court shall be binding on the parties and their heirs, successors and/or assigns."
14. Although this Honorable Court has an inherent right to police its own
orders, section 6 of the Order was included to make the fact unmistakably clear that,
"Should any party violate this agreement, the other party shall have the right to pursue
compliance either [sic] through the Court's contempt power. The prevailing party in
such contempt action shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any other remedy, its
reasonable attorneys' fees and/or costs."
15. In April of 2008, Petitioners discovered that Respondent intended to
violate Section 1-c of the Order by scheduling four (4) Friday special event races during
the 2008 racing season.
16. In April of 2008, Petitioners discovered that Respondent intended to
violate Section 1-c of the Order by scheduling races for both Friday and Sunday on
various weekends.
17. In April of 2008, Petitioners discovered that Respondent had violated
Section 3 of the Order by failing to give notice of application for permits for work
conducted on the property.
18. On April 17, 2008, undersigned counsel directed a letter to Respondent
Stanley N. Dye, the owner and operator of Respondent Quarter Aces Drag-O-Way,
which explained the existence of the Order in case Respondent was ignorant of the
same (a copy of which was enclosed, identical to Exhibit A herein), explained its terms,
explained Respondent's past violations, requested action to rectify those violations, and
requested action on Respondent's part to avoid future violations. (Exhibit B, the April 17,
2008 letter, is attached and incorporated herein as if fully set forth.)
19. On April 22, 2008, undersigned counsel received a letter from Joseph D.
Buckley, Esquire, who identified himself as counsel for Respondent. (Exhibit C, the
April 22, 2008 letter, is attached and incorporated herein as if fully set forth.)
20. On April 25, 2008, undersigned counsel directed a letter to Respondent's
counsel succinctly reiterating the issues concerning Respondent's past and possible
future violations of the Order. (Exhibit D, the April 25, 2008 letter, is attached and
incorporated herein as if fully set forth.)
21. In May of 2008, Petitioners discovered via Respondent's online schedule
that Respondent maintained his intention to violate the Order by scheduling races on
Friday, May 16, 2008 and Sunday, May 18, 2008.
22. On May 19, 2008, undersigned counsel directed yet another letter to
Respondent's counsel, requesting that he advise Respondent to abide by the Order.
(Exhibit E, the May 19, 2008 letter, is attached and incorporated herein as if fully set
forth.)
23. On May 20, 2008, Respondent's counsel responded with a letter indicating
that he had counseled Respondent not to violate the Order as discussed in the May 19,
2008 letter. (Exhibit F, the May 20, 2008 letter, is attached and incorporated herein as if
fully set forth.)
24. Notably, the weekend of May 16-18, 2008 was so rainy as to have likely
prevented Respondent from violation.
25. On May 30, 2008, undersigned counsel directed a letter to Respondent's
counsel indicating that Respondent must abide by the Order, or Petitioners would
pursue violations in Court to prevent the occurrence of the nuisance conditions which
the Order was created to avoid. (Exhibit G, the May 30, 2008 letter, is attached and
incorporated herein as if fully set forth.)
26. Respondent has not changed the racing schedule which indicates ongoing
plans to violate the Order.
27. Respondent conducted races at the Dragway on Friday, June 6, 2008.
28. Respondent also conducted races at the Dragway on Sunday, June 8,
2008, in violation of Section 1-c of the Order.
29. Not only did Respondent conduct races on an impermissible Sunday,
Respondent arranged the starting of engines an hour before the acceptable 10:30 a.m.
start-time on June 8, 2008, in violation of Section 1-f of the Order.
30. Respondent operated the public address system on Sunday, June 8, 2008
- a day on which racing was not allowed - in violation of Section 3 of the Order.
31. Respondent has to date failed to supply Petitioners with notice as to the
permits previously obtained without notice and in violation of Section 2 of the Order.
32. Petitioners supplied a list of those who wish schedules and/or passes for
the dragway events, and to date Respondent has failed to issue those schedules and/or
passes, in violation of Section 4 of the Order.
33. Petitioners have given Respondent significant consideration in this matter,
with the courtesy of explanation, notice, fair warning of the consequences, and an offer
to examine Respondent's written requests in the matter.
34. Respondent has responded only with a failure to cooperate.
35. Respondent has willfully and intentionally violated the Order in an attempt
to substitute his will for that of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County.
36. Respondent intends imminently to continue to willfully and intentionally
violate the Order, as evidenced by Respondent's current schedule to race on Sunday,
June 22, 2008.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests your Honorable Court to schedule
a hearing and thereafter adjudge Respondent in Contempt of Court, compel
Respondent to hereafter comply with the Order, to pay Petitioners' attorneys' fees and
costs associated with the pursuit of compliance with the Order, to pay a fine for each
and every violation of the Order, and any other sanctions this Honorable Court sees fit
to impose.
Respectfully Submitted,
O LAWOKICES
0 C/i 316
Date Lori ndrew yder, Esq.
Ca %wre, PA 17013
(717) 245-9688
Attorney for Petitioners
VERNON GRAHAM, BETSY GRAHAM
WIL111" BOLLDOSSER, JOANN
BOLDOSSER, ARCIM BURTON, IRIS
BURTON, ANTHONY'DRANZO, JOHN
DUNCAN, ROC1.I.E DUNCAN,
GREGORY J. on ESr CHARITY
GIL 3% HAROLD (BUY, KATHERINE
GUY. JOHN HEISER, MARY HEISER
GENE A. HORTON, BLTff HORTON,
JEANNIE M. KI KPATWM
PATRICIA KUHN, RICHARD
MvCALISTER. DEITY WCALISTER,
GLENN McCL.AW, JEAN McCL A IN,
RICHARD MYEM VALUIE MYERS,
DORM ROBS SUB ANN
ROOM DONALD RYNARD, RICHARD:
STOUHFER, DIANNE STOUFFER,
RICHARD BLUEBAUGH,
Plahltm
IN WE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
EDWARD E. STAMBAUGH and
RONALD WALIACE, iodividwlly
avd t/&Wn SOUTH MOUNTAIN
DRAGWAY.
Defendants
NO. 31 EQUITY 1992
CIVIL ACTION - IN EQUITY
AND NOW, tbis day of v . .199S, Pursuant to the request of
the parties as set &flh is their Settlement Agreement cxccated on Harch 31, 1995 it is
hereby Ordered and Decreed as foilowr
1. The Settlement Agreement is hereby approved as a reasonable resolution to the
dispute giving rise to this action as if a full hearing had been bdd oa the werits.
r
k
2. The South Mountain Dragway may continue to operate its facility as m- drag strip
or lot a similar purpose under the expressed Canitations contained in the above-mentioned
Settkoaaart Agt+ee?eat.
3. So bog as the South Mountain Dragway.is operated pursuant to paragraph 2 of
this Order, it is hereby decreed that the South Mountain Dragway it is not a naii um is law or in
fact.
4. All of the other terms of the Settlement Agreement are incotpomo iioto this
Order by refeeence as if filly set forth herein.
S. This Order of Court shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in
and for Cumberland County. Pennsylvania and indexed against the parties hereto.
6. A co" of the Sdtletneat Agreement shall be on Me in the Office of the
Prothonotary of Cun b ad County, Pamsylvania.
BY THE COURT:
Aq kea,n () - 11=
Honorable Kevin A. Hew
TRUE COPY FROM RECM
inTadmonywhmm. I mmw to nt my himl
ad ft lid TM?r. soil Court At Cubk. PL
Room lmry
2
i
VERNON GRAHAM, et A., IN TILE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PlaintitU OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
V. PENNSYLVANIA
EDWARD E. STAMBAUGH, et al., NO. 31 EQUITY 1492
Defendants CIVIL ACTION - IN EQUITY
SCMEMENT AGREEMENT
This Agmernent made thin 3! day of /?,?[:?` 1993 by and between the above-
captioned PlahaM (hateaite r sometimes referred to as "Reaidente) sod Defendants (heraRer
sometimes referred to as "South Mountain Dmgway").
W 1TNESSETII:
WHEREAS, the Defendants, Edward E. Stambaugh and Ronald Wallace, are cc-owom
of an approximate 39.5 acne tract of land in South Middleton Township, Cumberland County,
Penasylvanls, which they operate as a on"ghth (1/8) ndle drag strip known as the South
Mountain Dragway and at which race a variety of vehicles of dirt classifications; and
WHEREAS, the PlaintiM.. are residents of South Middleton Township, Cunnbcdand
County, Pennsylvania, who live in close proximity to the South Mountain bragway; and
WHEREAS, on July 1, IM, the Residents filed s civil action in Equity in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumbmtand County, Pennsylvania, sotmdfng In public nuisance and seeking a
pteli mi ary and pwmanent injunction against the Defendants and theit sucxeum preventing the
Bother use of the said property as a drag strip and seeking monetary damages for alleged
diminution of property vahres and iocreaaeid costs of naiotenanee, etc.; and
WHEREAS, the defendants have defended against such action; and
WHEREAS, am patties wish to settle their dispute and bave negotiated a fair sad
4 reasonable settlement of this action and wish to set forth the acme in a written Settlement
Asreemrne.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and intending to legally
1
bound hereby, the patties agree as foluws:
1. The South Mountain Dngway will continue to operate its facility as a drag strip or for
similar purpose under the following express limitations:
IL Beginning January 1, 1995, the South Mountain Draiway will operate its rseiog
season Rom Apt V through October 3 t.
b. Subject to subpangraphs c and d below, there will be racing activities on
Sundays only during the racing sesson with the exception otEsstet Sunday what
theca will be eo racing events held.
c. During the racing season, there any be up to three (3) Friday special racing
events, which mu# appear on the yearly schedule. ?here will be so Sunday or
Iloi'iday racing bnaiedistely following a scheduled Friday racing event. Should a
Friday racing event begin and then be canceled, the Friday racing event may be-0
continued on the Saturday huunhediately following to finish the event. d. During the racing saison, there any be two (2) Holiday racing events on
Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends. These Ilolday racing events will be
fanned to two (2) days only, Sunday and Monday. There will be no racing on the
4th of)*, except as h may dal on a Sunday.
e. With the exception of subparagrapa c, above, there will be no Saturday racing
events and no "test and tunes" except on those days when racing is allows!.
JC On Sundam race can will not be started before 10:30 a.m.. and on Fridays,
race cars will not be started before 1:00 p.m
2. Ile public address system at the South Mouuutsin Dragmy will not be operated except
on those days on which racing is allowed with the exception of those tinees necessary to test
and/or repair the "em
3. South Mountain Dragway will notify a previously designated reprewntative of the
Residents of any intention to secure any state, local or Federal permit(s).
k 4. South Mountain Dragway will issue schedules and complimentary passes, annually, to
all patties to this Agreezoent who wish them. In this regard, it shall be the responsibility of the
Residents to provide, annually, a lint of those who wish schedules and/or panex to the
Defendants. *Me said oompGtneatary passes shell not be assigned or transferred to any person not
a party to this Agreewuatt.
5. 1Ue parties, through their attonseys, shall submit this agreement along with the
attached proposed Order of Court for the Court's approval and signature. It is specifically agreW
that the Court may enter an Order, as if ¦ full heating was held on the unfits, that the South
Mountain Dragwey is not a Public Nuisance. in fact or at law, provided that it is operated within
the limits of this Agreement.
6. Should any party violate this agreement, the other patty shed hm a right to panne
compliance either through the Court's contowt power. The pmva mg party in arch contempt
action shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any other remedy, its reasonable attom* fees
and/or costs.
7. It is aped mVy agreed that the currant noise Wd is aeoeptable to the NNW &
provided that the Dragway operates within the fimitstions imposed by paragraphs I and 2, above.
Should there be any Puttute mbsW ial increase in noise levels, PlaioM reserve the right to bring s
like action on account of such future substantial increase in Bobo levek However, should any
such Mum substantial Increase in noise levels occur, it shall not be considered breach of thus
Agreement-and Paragraph 6, above, shall not apply.
S. Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 6 and 7, above, the Plaintitlh do fidly
release and discharge the Defendants, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and
assigns, sod their respective agents, Vom any or all causes of action, claims and demands of
`.
k whatsoever kind on account of A known and wdvtow n injuties, loam and dantages allegedly
sustsined by the PlaintIM arising out of the instant action and on account of which legal action
was kwituted_by the undersigned Plaintiffs in the coot of Common Pleas of Cumberland County-
9. 't'his Agreement and subsequent order of Court shall be binding on the patties said
their heirs, successors and/or assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the respective parties have set their hands and awls, and do
execute these pteewts the date NU written abot e.
`6
Wdu
goooe
Wiliness
Wien
Witness
r.
Wkneaa
Vernon Oralunti
4
B Graham
ttie on
a?? ) 06 -
Archk Burton
ory I. Giles
Turo Law Offices
RON TORO, Esquire - Of Counsel
GALEN R. WALTZ, Esquire
JAMES M. ROBINSON, Esquire
MICHAEL R. SMITH, Esquire
LORIN A. SNYDER, Esquire
JOHN M. SHUGARS, Esquire
April 17, 2008
ATTN: Stanley Dye
D&D Septic
35 W. North Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: South Mountain Dragway
Dear Mr. Dye:
www.TuroLaw.com
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 245-9688
(800) 562-9778
Fax (717) 245-2165
I represent a group of concerned citizens living in the neighborhood adjoining the South
Mountain Dragway property. These citizens were formerly plaintiffs in litigation to assert specified
operation of the South Mountain Dragway in a manner free of nuisance to the local community. The
result of this litigation was and is an April 20, 1995 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. This Order goes into significant detail in creating guidelines
which bind the owner(s) of the South Mountain Dragway to particular methods of operation, the
contravention of which renders the owner(s) liable for contempt of this Order, with all of the legal
ramifications and consequences that may arise there from, including recovery of attorney's fees. This
Order is binding upon you, as the current owner, and any subsequent owners. In that vein, my clients
have discovered certain concerns that they desire to raise immediately. I have enclosed a photocopy
of the Order for your benefit.
My clients observe that you have scheduled four (4) Friday races throughout the 2008 season.
Please note Section 1-c of the Order, which plainly limits the scheduling of Friday races to three (3)
special events: "During the racing season, there may be up to three (3) Friday special racing events,
which must appear on the yearly schedule."
My clients further observe that you have created a new entry in the yearly schedule labeled
"Raceday Rain Date" for potential rescheduling of Friday races on the following Sundays: May 18,
June 8, June 22 and July 13. The former owner scheduled no such Sunday "Rain Dates" and for
good reason - this is not permissible under the Order. I refer you again to Section 1-c of the Order,
which clearly states:
"There will be no Sunday or Holiday racing immediately following a scheduled Friday
racing event. Should a Friday racing event begin and then be cancelled, the Friday
racing event may be continued on the Saturday immediately following to finish the
event."
This clause was designed and intended to allow local residents to schedule their own family events
for open days during racing weekends. Both a Friday and Sunday race - rain date or otherwise -
cannot be scheduled on the same weekend. The only permissible make-up of a rained out event
may occur when a Friday race has already begun and, as the above section indicates, said make-up
may only occur on the Saturday immediately following the Friday race.
It has also come to the attention of my clients that a significant amount of work has occurred
on the property since your acquisition of the business, including: clearing trees, pouring a cement
starting pad, rebuilding structures, moving in an old trailer, installing a two-lane road access to Red
Tank Road, and digging up to the property line. It. is highly probable that portions of these projects
require or required the attainment of a permit, yet my clients have received absolutely no notice of
your intention to acquire permits. Please direct your attention to section 3 of the Order, which states,
"South Mountain Dragway will notify a previously designated representative of the Residents of any
intention to secure any state, local or Federal permit(s)."
Please take the necessary steps to promptly rectify all of your violations of the Order of Court.
To summarize: eliminate one scheduled Friday event, eliminate all Sunday "Raceday Rain Dates"
from your schedule, provide future notice of your intent to obtain any and all state, local or Federal
permits involved with the South Mountain Dragway, and provide immediate notice of any and all
permits you have already acquired or for which you have already applied. Furthermore, cease any
and all work which may have already begun under the auspices of a permit or permits until my clients
have receive the required notice of these permits and a reasonable opportunity for review. Please
direct said notice to my office, at the above address. My clients will also submit a list of requested
schedules and complimentary passes pursuant to section 4 of the Order.
My clients wish the Dragway and the local residents to enjoy an ongoing, harmonious
coexistence; however, the Dragway will be held to the letter of the enclosed Order of Court, which
operates as a lien on the property - a lien that you purchased with the Dragway.
My clients request the courtesy of a telephone number and other contact information where
you can be reached should they have any urgent issues. At times it was necessary in the past to
contact the former owner when individuals surreptitiously entered the track to race on prohibited days.
Please contact my office as soon as possible to communicate your intention to rectify the
issues addressed in this correspondence. Please also provide a copy of the revised schedule when it
is generated. I look forward to your response.
>q.
Enclosure
c.c. Clients
THE LAW OFFICES OF
JOSEPH D. BUCKLEY
1237 HOLLY PIKE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
TELEPHONE (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaw@aol.com FAX (717) 2494103
April 22, 2008
Lorin A. Snyder, Esquire
Turo Law Offices
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: South Mountain Dragway
Dear Lorin:
Please be advised that my office represents Stanley N. Dye, owner of the property
located on Petersburg Road, Boiling Springs, and also Quarter Aces Drag-O-Way, Inc.,
the operator of the dragway.
Prior to addressing your concerns raised in your letter of April 17, 2008, to Mr.
Dye, please identify your client or clients so that my office can determine any standing
they may have to raise certain questions. Thank you.
re
JDB/clb
cc: Stanley N. Dye
Quarter Aces Drag-O-Way, Inc.
Very sincerely yours,
Turo Law Offices
RON TURD, Esquire - Of Counsel
GALEN R. WALTZ, Esquire
JAMES M. ROBINSON, Esquire
MICHAEL R. SMITH, Esquire
LORIN A. SNYDER, Esquire
JOHN M. SHUGARS, Esquire
April 25, 2008
Joseph Buckley, Esq.
The Law Offices of Joseph D. Buckley
1237 Holly Pike
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: South Mountain Dragway
Dear Joseph:
www.TuroLaw.com
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 245-9688
(800) 562-9778
Fax (717) 245-2165
Thank you for your letter, dated April 22, 2008, advising me that you represent
Stanley N. Dye and Quarter Aces Drag-O-Way, Inc.
Your letter indicates that you are in possession of my April 17, 2008 letter to Mr.
Dye, so I will refrain from repeating myself in detail. Suffice to reiterate that your client
is currently in violation of the April 20, 1995 Order of Court. My clients therefore request
at this time the following actions to ensure that Mr. Dye and the operator of the dragway
do not continue to be contempt of the Order: the removal of one Friday race from the
schedule, to trim from four (4) to the (3) allowed; the elimination of all Sunday "Raceday
Rain Dates" from the schedule, with make-ups of Friday rain-outs to be completed on
Saturday only for those races having already commenced on Friday; provision of a list
of all local, state and federal permits acquired for work on the dragway since the change
in ownership, and the provision of notice of intent to apply for local, state or federal
permits now and the future.
I acknowledge your request for identification. At this time, however, I will
respectfully refrain from identifying my clients by name. They prefer to remain
anonymous until such time as it may become necessary to bring this matter once again
before the Court. However, I can assure you that they are, one and all, named
Plaintiffs in the former litigation, with the standing to raise the issues discussed herein.
look forward to your response. Thank you.
>q.
c.c. Clients
Turo Law Offices
RON TURO, Esquire - Of Counsel
GALEN R. WALTZ, Esquire
JAMES M. ROBINSON, Esquire
MICHAEL R. SMITH, Esquire
LORIN A. SNYDER, Esquire
JOHN M. SHUGARS, Esquire
May 19, 2008
Joseph Buckley, Esq.
The Law Offices of Joseph D. Buckley
1237 Holly Pike
Carlisle, PA 17013
AND VIA FACSIMILE: 717-249-4103
Re: Stanley Dye / Dragway
Dear Joseph:
www.TuroLaw.com
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 245-9688
(800) 562-9778
Fax (717) 245-2165
My clients respectfully decline your client's request for a meeting. Instead, my clients ask that
Mr. Dye submit to my office a written proposal of the terms he desires, should he wish to present
them.
In the interim, Mr. Dye is expected to fully comply with the Order of Court. My clients have
alerted me to a proposed violation of the Order that was to occur this past weekend, with races
scheduled for both Friday the 16th and Sunday the 18th, although rain apparently forestalled the
occurrence of this willful violation. (A copy of the Dragway's announcement is attached). Please
reiterate to your client that the Order remains in full force and effect, and any violation thereof will
render him in contempt of Court.
My clients are prepared to review Mr. Dye's proposal once it is received. Thank you for your
cooperation in this matter.
,q.
c.c. Clients
Enclosure
THE LAW OFFICES OF
JOSEPH D. BUCKLEY
1237 HOLLY PIKE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
TELEPHONE (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaw@aol.com FAX (717) 2494103
May 20, 2008
Lorin A. Snyder, Esquire
Turo Law Offices
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: South Mountain Dragway
Dear Lorin:
In previous letters you have not identified your "clients". My client informs me
that the majority of the individuals who signed the former agreement are not represented
by your office. My client also informs me that he had discussed the schedule with all the
neighbors and with the exception of one, who may or may not be your client, they had no
problem with the changes.
Nevertheless, I had discussions with Mr. Dye last week and notified him of the
problem of the Friday scheduling, and he canceled the Friday scheduling based on my
communications with him. Whether or not that information reached his web master on
time, I am uncertain.
In light of this new information from my clients, Stanley N. Dye and Quarter
Aces Drag-O-Way, Inc., I am asking that you please identify your client so that we can
ascertain whether he speaks for the group or does, in fact, have a standing. Thank you.
JDB/clb
cc: Stanley N. Dye
Quarter Aces Drag-O-Way, Inc.
9 9
Turo Law Offices
RON TURD, Esquire - Of Counsel
GALEN R. WALTZ, Esquire
JAMES M. ROBINSON, Esquire
MICHAEL R. SMITH, Esquire
LORIN A. SNYDER, Esquire
www.TuroLaw.com
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 245-9688
(800) 562-9778
Fax (717) 245-2165
May 30, 2008
Joseph Buckley, Esq.
The Law Offices of Joseph D. Buckley
1237 Holly Pike
Carlisle, PA 17013
AND VIA FACSIMILE: 717-249-4103
Re: Stanley Dye I Dragway
Dear Joseph:
I have discussed with my clients the contents of your letter dated May 20, 2008. They feel that
whatever conversation Mr. Dye may or may not have had with neighbors is irrelevant to the matter at
hand. Furthermore, my clients' conversations with various neighbors reveals a decidedly different
opinion than that which you discuss in your letter.
Our prior correspondence was a courtesy, designed merely to notify Mr. Dye that my clients
are aware of his violations and proposed violations of the Order of Court, and to provide him with the
opportunity to rectify the situation without having to take the matter before the Court.
My clients will now cease all discussion or negotiation in this matter. We will petition the Court
of Common Pleas of Cumberland County at the first violation of the Order. Mr. Dye has had sufficient
explanation, notice, and fair warning.
My clients choose to remain anonymous, but again I assure you that they are all named
plaintiffs in the litigation that resulted in the 1995 Order of Court, and therefore possess the requisite
standing to enforce the Order.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
.q.
c.c. Clients
111{: _\VDLI: Y.lAt%-M
VERIFICATION
I, Archie Burton, verify that the statements contained in the Petition for Contempt
are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. §4904 relating to
unswom falsification to authorities.
Da a Archie Burton
Petitioner
• I • I r
VERIFICATION
I, Iris Burton, verify that the statements contained in the Petition for Contempt are
true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. §4904 relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
(?G- /3wf
Date
Iris Burton
Petitioner
VERIFICATION
I, Vernon Graham, verify that the statements contained in the Petition for
Contempt are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. §4904
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
/3 08
Date Vernon Graham
Petitioner
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Petition for Contempt
upon Stanley N. Dye and the Quarter Aces Drag-O-Way, by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage pre-paid, and by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first
class, postage pre-paid on the Thirteenth day of June, 2008, from Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Stanley N. Dye
35 West North Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Quarter Aces Drag-O-Way
ATTN: Stanley N. Dye
1107 Petersburg Road
Boiling Springs, PA 17007
Joseph D. Buckley, Esq.
1237 Holly Pike
Carlisle, PA 17013
(First Class mail only)
TURO L6W P f CES
Lorin r, Esq.
28 Street
Car isle, PA 17013
Phone: (717) 2459688
Attorney for Petitioners
(.y r,,
r`::
r-.ka
?t:?
"f7
__ r.. ???? r-?
t ' "„
.. --,-?. f 4. 1
I ..a I
..
' q.."'? .3
c f`i7
5
..
?'?;? ta_? z_,?
??
Vernon GRAHAM, et al.,
Plaintiffs
V.
Edward E. STAMBAUGH and
Ronald WALLACE, individually
and t/d/b/a SOUTH MOUNTAIN
DRAGWAY
now
Stanley N. DYE, individually
and t/b/d/a QUARTER ACES
DRAG-O-WAY, Inc.
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - IN EQUITY
NO. 31 EQUITY 1992
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE/ORDER
AND NOW, this day of , 2008, upon presentation of
the within Petition for Contempt, it is hereby ordered and decreed that: A rule is hereby
issued upon the Respondents, Stanley N. Dye and Quarter Aces Drag-O-Way, to show
cause, if any they have, as to why Petitioners are not entitled to the relief requested.
1. Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within " days of service
upon the Respondent.
2. A hearing shall be held on the ;/-ht day of ?-' 2008, at &.M.
in courtroom number of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania.
Petitioner shall provide notice of entry of this Order to all parties.
By the Court,
r, 4
c.c. ?Lorin Andrew Snyder, Esquire
,,'Stanley N. Dye
?• &A.k LC %f, lay .
t'?.s rn a c ?Fc?
??tQ foa
Kevin A. Hess, J.
yV;V
A sNN j d
c 6 :C Wd 81 Nnr 0001
AtidiMD" II.W d 3 Hi 3O
GRAHAM, et. al.
Plaintiffs
V.
STAMBAUGH, et. al., now STANLEY
DYE, et. al.,
Respondents
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERAND COUNTY, PNNSYLVANIA
NO. 31 EQUITY 1992
CIVIL ACTION IN EQUITY
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR CONTEMPT
And now, this 8th day of July, 2008, comes Respondents, Stanley N. Dye and Quarter
Aces Drag-O-Way, Inc., by and through their counsel, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire and Answers
Petitioner's Petition for Contempt as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted in part denied in part Respondent Stanley N. Dye ("Dye") is the owner of the
land identified in the averment; however, Dye is not the operator of the quarter mile
drag strip operation on said property. Quarter Acres Drag-O-Way, Inc, a Pennsylvania
corporation, leases the said property and is the operator of the drag way and associated
business.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied as stated. The Order speaks for itself and was an agreement to discontinue the
former action and by no means did the Agreement or Order by this Honorable Court
state that which is averred in this paragraph.
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted but by way of explanation, Respondent leased the property to a Pennsylvania
Corporation.
9. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is needed.
10. Admitted in part, but by way of further explanation as stated above, Respondent Dye is
not the owner and operator of the drag way operations.
11. Admitted in part, but by way of further explanation as stated above, Respondent Dye is
not the owner and operator of the drag way operations.
12. The Order speaks for itself; however, the Order does not address a situation, specifically
Sunday rain dates for canceled Sunday race dates, which has arisen, and which is more
fully set forth below.
13. The Order speaks for itself.
14. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is needed and the Order
speaks for itself.
15. Respondent cannot ascertain the truth or falsity of this averment as he does not know
when Petitioners discovered anything; however, Respondent Dye is not the operator of
the drag way and, neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way
has ever intended to violate any Order.
16. Respondent cannot ascertain the truth or falsity of this averment as he does not know
when Petitioners discovered anything; however, Respondent Dye is not the operator of
the drag way and, neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way
has ever intended to violate any Order.
17. Respondent cannot ascertain the truth or falsity of this averment as he does not know
when Petitioners discovered anything; however, Respondent Dye is not the operator of
the drag way and, neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way
has ever intended to violate any Order.
18. Respondent cannot ascertain the truth or falsity of this averment as he does not know
when Petitioners discovered anything; however, Respondent Dye is not the operator of
the drag way and, neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way
has ever intended to violate any Order.
19. Admitted.
20. Counsel's letter speaks for itself.
21. Respondent cannot ascertain the truth or falsity of this averment as he does not know
when Petitioners discovered anything; however, Respondent Dye is not the operator of
the drag way and, neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way
has ever intended to violate any Order. When Respondent was advised that his schedule
had inadvertently contained four (4) rather than three (3) Friday race dates, one of the
Friday race dates was canceled.
22. It is admitted that Respondent received the letter; however, neither Respondent Dye nor
the corporation operating the drag way has ever intended to violate any Order and has
not violated the Order.
23. Denied as stated as the letter from the undersigned speaks for itself.
24. Neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way has ever intended
to violate any Order and has not violated the Order.
25. It is admitted that counsel for the Petitioners' counsel sent the undersigned the letter
noted in this averment; however, at no time did or would counsel for the Petitioners
identify his client nor did counsel present any information that the alleged complainer
was the person designated by the former group of plaintiffs to speak for the group. The
undersigned at the request of the Respondent Dye and Drag-O-Way, Inc. requested a
meeting with counsel for the undisclosed party or parties and his undisclosed clients to
discuss any issues or problems.
26. Denied. Neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way has ever
intended to violate any Order and has not violated the Order.
27. Admitted.
28. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that races were conducted on Sunday
June 8, 2008, but denied that such is a violation of the Order. By further explanation, the
original agreement contemplated 30 or 31 days of racing during the race season
depending on whether or not Easter Sunday fell within the months designated for racing.
Under the agreement racing is permitted every Sunday except Easter Sunday, on three
(3) selected Friday evenings and on certain holidays. The agreement discusses rain dates
for Friday rain-outs, but does not address the situation where Sundays have been rained-
out. During the current year, because of the inordinate amount of rain, the operator of
the drag way lost six consecutive race days. In anticipation of Sunday rain outs, the
operator scheduled potential make-up days for the Sunday rain-dates.
29. Denied. Neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way has ever
intended to violate any Order and has not violated the Order.
30. Denied. Neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way has ever
intended to violate any Order and has not violated the Order.
31. Denied. Neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way has ever
intended to violate any Order and has not violated the Order.
32. Denied as stated. Neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way
has ever intended to violate any Order and has not violated the Order. By way of further
explanation it has been the custom of the drag way operators for the past eighteen
years, not to issue any passes, but only to require those Plaintiffs and neighbors entitled
to free admission to races under the Agreement and Order to show a driver's license or
other form of identification at the gate for admission.
33. Denied as stated. Respondent Dye and the corporation operating the drag way, as well as
the undersigned have made attempts and will continue to make attempts discuss and
address concerns of any neighbor and address all legitimate concerns with hopes of
amicably resolving the same.
34. Denied. To the contrary Respondents have been the uncooperative party.
35. Denied. Neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way has ever
intended to violate any Order and has not violated the Order.
36. Denied. Neither Respondent Dye nor the corporation operating the drag way has ever
intended to violate any Order and has not violated the Order. By further explanation, the
original agreement contemplated 30 or 31 days of racing during the race season
depending on whether or not Easter Sunday fell within the months designated for racing.
Under the agreement racing is permitted every Sunday except Easter Sunday, on three
(3) selected Friday evenings and on certain holidays. The agreement discusses rain dates
for Friday rain-outs, but does not address the situation where Sundays have been rained-
out. During the current year, because of the inordinate amount of rain, the operator of
the drag way lost six consecutive race days. In anticipation of Sunday rain outs, the
operator scheduled potential make-up days for the Sunday rain-dates.
WHEREFORE, Respondents hereby humbly requests that the Petitioner's Petition for
Contempt be dismissed and that Petitioner be assessed Respondents' reasonable
attorney fees and costs associated with these proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
I.D. #38444
1237 Holly Pike
Carlisle, PA 17103
(717) 249-2448
Attorney for the Respondents
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, Stanley N. Dye, President of Quarter Aces Drag-O-Way, Inc., a
Pennsylvania corporation hereby swears or affirms that the statements made in the
foregoing Answer to Petition for Contempt are true and correct to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that statements made herein are subject to the penalties set forth in
18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
QUARTER ACES DRAG-O-WAY, INC.
Date: July 8, 2008 By:
Stanley N. e, Presi(ferno'
VERIFICATION
The undersigned, Stanley N. Dye, hereby swears or affirms that the statements
made in the foregoing Answer to Petition for Contempt are true and correct to the best of
his knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that statements made herein are subject to the penalties set forth in
18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: July 8, 2008
Stanley N. ye
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire, do hereby verify that I have served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing Answer to Petition for Contempt upon the person indicated below, which
service satisfies the requirement of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by
depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid as
follows:
Lorin Andrew Snyder, Esquire
Turo Law Offices
28 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: July 8, 2008
{
OD
VERNON GRAHAM, ET AL., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs. CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
EDWARD E. STAMBAUGH and
RONALD WALLACE, individually
and t/d/b/a SOUTH MOUNTAIN
DRAGWAY NO. 31 EQUITY 1992
now
STANLEY N. DYE, individually
and t/d/b/a QUARTER ACES
DRAG-O-WAY, INC.,
Defendants
IN RE: PETITION FOR CONTEMPT
ORDER
AND NOW, this Zd day of August, 2008, after hearing, it appearing that races have
been scheduled on both Friday and Sunday of the same weekend in violation of the existing
order, and that adequate measures have not been taken to assure that race cars will not be started
before 10:30 a.m. on Sundays, a contempt citation is issued. An adjudicatory hearing in this
matter is set for Thursday, October 9, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland
County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA.
BY THE COURT,
Ai?/"
Kevin . Hess, J.
,Orin Andrew Snyder, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
,/roseph Buckley, Esquire
For the Defendants
J
0$
c"I
VERNON GRAHAM, ET AL., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. : CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
EDWARD E. STAMBAUGH and
RONALD WALLACE, individually
and t/d/b/a SOUTH MOUNTAIN
DRAGWAY
now
STANLEY N. DYE, individually
and t/d/b/a QUARTER ACES
DRAG-O-WAY, INC.,
Defendants
NO. 31 EQUITY 1992
IN RE: PETITION FOR CONTEMPT
ORDER
AND NOW, this / 7' day of September, 2008, hearing in the above-captioned matter
set for October 9, 2008, is continued to Monday, November 24, 2008, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom
Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA.
BY THE COURT,
Kevin : Hess, J.
zLorin Andrew Snyder, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
?Joseph Buckley, Esquire
For the Defendants
:rlm
?op t ?S /h?. t
l
q ?z??
9Z .C Wd L ! d3S 8082
Awi rUdiow .ELI. jo
33?-JO-031W