Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-4494Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire Attorney ID # 78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen 1. Blair and Suzanne G. White, husband and wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMM CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PLEAS 1NSYLVANIA V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, Defendants NO. 6 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, Defendants 429 Chestnut Street Mount Holly Springs, PA 17065 and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis, Defendants l0A East Orange Street Mount Holly Springs, PA 17065 YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the c following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing witf defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if yc case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the C, Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Date: 7/p, A4ark W. Allshouse, Esq ii Attorney ID # 78014 4J 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs TERM [aims set forth in the nd Notice are served, the Court your i fail to do so the urt without honey or property or YOU DO NOT s OFFICE SET Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire Attorney ID # 78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, IN THE COURT OF COM ON PLEAS husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs ; V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, Defendants NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL ACTION -LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. their attorney, Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire, and respectfully file the fo support thereof, allege as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White are adult individuals having a current address of 101 East Pine Street, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065. CIVIL TERM , by and through it}g Complaint and in "Blair and White") Holly Springs, 2. Defendants, James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder (hereinafter individuals having a current address of 429 Chestnut Street, Mount Holly County, Pennsylvania 17065. 3. Defendants, Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica "Papamarkakis") are adult individuals having a current address of l0A East ( Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065. "Slyder") are adult Cumberland (hereinafter Street, 1 4. Plaintiffs are owners of certain real property located at the a re-mentioned address and known as tax parcel identification number 23-32-2336 as recor ed in Deed Book 216, Page 832 and pursuant to a Corrective Deed dated April 3, 2000 and r orded in Deed Book 219, Page 729. A true and correct copy of a survey of Plaintiffs' property i attached hereto and made a part hereof marked as Exhibit "A". 5. Defendants Slyder are the owners of certain real properties 1 cated to the northeast of Plaintiffs' property and identified as original tax parcel identifi ation number 23-32- 2336-092 as subdivided and recorded in Plan Book 92, Page 23 and known s Lots 1-6 on said Plan. A true and correct copy of the pertinent portion of Defendants' Subdi+ision Plan is attached hereto and made a part hereof marked as Exhibit "B" for reference. 6. Defendants Papamarkakis are the owners of certain real property located at the afore-mentioned address which adjoins Plaintiffs' property at the northeast comer and the Slyder property at the southwest corner and along its southern border and is known as tax parcel identification number 23-32-2336-093 and known as Lot 7 on Exhibit "B". 7. Since about 1911, a sixteen (16) foot wide unopened alley hai existed along the southern border of the Slyder property and northeasterly boundary of the Bl4ir and White property where it adjoins the properties of Defendants. 8. Defendants in 2007 exchanged and recorded Quit Claim Dees to the Borough of Mount Holly Springs, thereby acquiring ownership, each of one-half of the 16-foot unopened alley in return for a right of access easement for a sewer utility line. 9. Blair and White, together with their predecessors in interest, ave continuously and regularly used the unopened alley extending from Orange Street to thenortheast corner of their property since at least 1961 when the tract was owned by Hempt Broth rs and the alleyway easement was utilized to access the sand quarries contained upon Plaintiff's iroperty. Plaintiffs' 2 and their predecessors' use of the alleyway have been for a period in years. 10. Since receiving fee ownership of the alley, Slyder and refused and failed to permit Blair and White from continued use of the statement and physical obstruction. 1. Blair and White v. Slvder 11. Paragraphs 1 through 10 are hereby incorporated by forth herein. 12. Blair and White have maintained adverse, open, continuous of the 16 foot unopened alley extending from Orange Street to the northeast property for a period in excess of 21 years. of twenty-one (21) both have by both verbal as though full set uninterrupted use of their 13. Blair and White's use of the alley has been without license o permission. 14. Blair and White have used the alley to access the rear of their property for various uses, including but not limited to, moving of a thirty-one (31) foot R.V. trail r on and off of the property, hauling brush and materials to a local compost site, as a short-cut t get from one side of town to the other, as well as for the purpose of accessing the rear of the p perty. 15. Blair and White have maintained and improved the cartway along the easement by removing limbs or other debris falling onto the easement and placing store and gravel in and along the cartway. In fact, Blair and White have a verbal contact with Mount Holly Springs Sewer Authority to keep the cartway clear as well as the manholes, thereby roviding Blair and White control of when and how the roadway is maintained. 16 owners' rights. Blair and White's use of the easement is not inconsistent withl any other property 3 17. The easement existed at the time of purchase of the property of Slyder, with signs of tire indentations in the grass which were readily visible to any purchaser 18. It is believed, and therefore, averred that Slyder was aware o?the easement at the time of purchase of the property. 19. The easement does not constitute unenclosed woodlands. 20. Blair and White used all 16 feet of the easement at various of construction and delivery vehicles entering and exiting through the due to the width 21. As a result, Blair and White have obtained a legal prescriptive easement and right to continued use of the 16 foot unopened paper alley, eight (8) feet of which crosses over the Slyder property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court o enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Slyder and enter an Order confirm ng Blair and White's right to continued use of 8 feet of the easement located on the Slyder proper y. II. Blair and White v. Panamarkakis 22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 are hereby incorporated by referenc as though full set forth herein. 23. Blair and White have maintained adverse, open, continuous and uninterrupted use of the 16 foot unopened alley extending from Orange Street to the northeast ?orner of their property for a period in excess of 21 years. 24. Blair and White's use of the alley has been without license or permission. 25. Blair and White have used the alley to access the rear of their property for various uses, including but not limited to, moving of a thirty-one (31) foot R.V. trail r on and off of the property, hauling brush and materials to a local compost site, as well as fort e purpose of 4 accessing the rear of the property. In addition, the access provides the abili for emergency personnel and has been used by emergency to access emergencies not only on the Blair and White property, but across town in the event their access may be blocked. 26. Blair and White have maintained and improved the cartway long the easement by removing limbs or other debris falling onto the easement and placing sto e and gravel in and along the cartway. 27. Blair and White's use of the easement is not inconsistent wifl i any other property owners' rights. 28. The easement existed at the time of purchase of the property f Papamarkakis, with signs of tire indentations in the grass which were readily visible to any purchaser. 29. It is believed, and therefore, averred that Papamarkakis was ware of the easement at the time of purchase of the property. 30. The easement does not constitute unenclosed woodlands. 31. Blair and White used all 16 feet of the easement at various ti es due to the width of construction and delivery vehicles entering and exiting through the easem ent. 32. As a result, Blair and White have obtained a legal prescriptive easement and right to continued use of the 16 foot unopened paper alley, eight (8) feet of which crosses over the Papamarkakis property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants Papamarkakis and enter an Order confirming Blair and White's right to continued use of 8 feet of the easement located on the Pap arkakis property. 5 III. Blair and White v. Slyder Declaratory Relief/Request for Iniunction 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 are hereby incorporated by refe forth herein. 34. Despite notice by Blair and White to Slyder of his right of undertaken intentional steps to block Blair and White's access and use of 35. Specifically, Slyder has done the following: a. Placed large equipment within the easement on b. Dug trenches across the easement left open for c. Placed large piles of stone in the center of the e excess of twenty (20) days 36. Slyder's actions have been undertaken vexatiously and in attempt to prevent Plaintiffs' legal use of the easement and even occurred negotiations to resolve this dispute. 37. Slyder's actions have occurred despite prior acknowle during his land development and subdivision approval that he had no interfering with said easement. 38. Plaintiff is requesting a declaratory judgment and Order eni further blocking or obstructing Plaintiffs' use of the easement. 39. Plaintiff is further seeking punitive damages as a result of S bad faith conduct in an amount to be determined, but which shall include as though full set Slyder has easement. is occasions lately six (6) days for a period in faith in a deliberate ing attempted on public record i?n of blocking or Slyder from s vexatious and and attorney's fees expended in bringing this action to enforce Blair and White's legal righ s. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court t enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Slyder enjoining further action to block or prevent Plaintiffs' continued use of the easement together with punitive damages in than actual costs and attorney's fees. a amount not less 6 IV. Blair and White v. Papamarkakis Declaratory Relief/Request for Iniunction 40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 are hereby incorporated by refe forth herein. 41. Despite notice by Blair and White to Papamarkakis of his ri Papamarkakis has undertaken intentional steps to block Blair and White's easement. as though full set of use, and use of the 42. Specifically, Papamarkakis placed vehicles in the easement an more than one occasion. 43. Papamarkakis' actions have been undertaken vexatiously anin bad faith in a deliberate attempt to prevent Plaintiffs' legal use of the easement. 44. Plaintiff is requesting a declaratory judgment and Order enjo ning Papamarkakis from further blocking or interfering with Plaintiffs' use of the easement. 45. Plaintiff is further seeking punitive damages as a result of Papamarkakis' vexatious and bad faith conduct in an amount to be determined. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court #o enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Papamarkakis enjoining further acton to block or prevent Plaintiffs' continued use of the easement together with punitive dardages in an amount not less than actual costs and attorney's fees. Date: 1(4 ab Respectfully su M ,#k W. Allshouse, *s uire A orney ID # 78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs 7 Exhibit "A" 0 o °1... .... ... •.... SFQZa ?? ye. l N ?,°• ?• It 2- \ \ . r c ao me e rn ZXN 110 ' 9 or_ Z Z NA 0 Z YJ ? L p z? o ??=m e s? zx ?' a D ?a a N D O q 6 ? N g u I w ` wt 1 ti" tit I ? , t4, nn7 aj' 9a v}®Fm° l $ Exhibit "B" 02/19/2008 19:03 FAX 7174860165 r• , , .? to Ft 543. a Z 001 Coe +. , gyp' 3q+ BLOCK 1?AL ARE. ? r tF%?''• ,. UF_L IR£Ei WMN6 MM It)OYEAH FLOOD 546 %' ` f / 5ED SANtTA0i1' SE V" ---- ,k 5, °' - £)C15iIN6 SANITARY SEWER l EMIN6 PUBLIC WMER SEF . OF, IN V4 ?+t- alpl ?P ?? • ? - J, 0 gg? N HNI 0?ARTY -PLAN 100 f .-SITE DATA 1. 2014E-.0-1: FWOD PLAIN(Oxertar) 2- WrAL AREA- Q. 9195 Acre: 46,652.45 3, PUBLIC SEWER 4• PUBLIC WATER Al 114. ZONING DATA . Per .?! ??? t- ZONE: R-It FIOW PLAIN Wycriey) QS? 00NSi'RUC'T1QN'" too YEAR FL.CDD S47 rr THPO TMNHQUSF-S(For SiMIg-Fwne[r V-.e) B.? HFIEF UNIM PER -MWNHOUSE A 4(24) SfOAY FRAME CONSTRUCTION D•EACH UNIT, A'MINIMUM 16'FRONT, 32'DEPTH $ Y{rb, a+,? r-Tm PApikiNFa spAcFS PER VN1T ,ZONING RMUIREMENT (PER TOWNHOUSE) PaoeD 2. a SOT AREA MtN1?Jj1?M 7.600 SF f ?• 1 91727 fit; nt S• ?p3O 12"; zut & 2 1 oaf ?Q SSID£ A DEAR YARD 6•. -nag ST '?- U 5 ms's 7 - LO £BAGE : gut .%992 -PAR u6.3 ' AL,?TB 592 SFw 4 s ?' P VERIFICATION We, Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, verify that the document are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to Date: _ Z Z-O'b Date: - ZZ- CZ, Blair A--- in the foregoing belief under Mark Searched: WEBMETRICS Federal Search Strategy (cont'd) 16. 15&wc=(" I " or 'Y) 3465 6 17. webm* or webbm* or web adj m* or webb adj m* 510 0 18. web*csA or web*ksA or web*qsA or web*x or web*cz or web*kz or web*qz 237 0 19. (web or webb) adi (*csA or *ksA or *qsA or *x or *cz or *kz or *qz) 133 0 20. 17&gs=environment* 7 6 21. 18&gs=environment* 0 0 22. 19&gs=environment* 1 0 23. *metr-c* or *metr-k* or *metr--q* or *metr-x* or *mettr-c* or *mettr-k* or 2567 0 *mettr--q* or *mettr--x* or *metrr-^c" or *metrr-k* or *metrr-q* or *metrr-x* or *mettrr-c* or *mettrr-k* or *mettrr-q* or *mettrr-x* t" r-a 24. 23&5 915 0 .: c. 734 - (` 25. 23& 1 r 1:: $ 26. 24&wc="1" 634 I Ti O3 V%.? 27. w*metr* or w*mettr* or w* adi metr* or w* ad) mettr* 43 0 t ?1 28. *bmetr* or *bmettr* or *b adj metr* or *b adi mettr* 20 0 29. 27&5 24 6 30. 28&5 10 2 31. net* or internet* or online* 44474 0 32. 31&23 12 4 33. (*METRIC* OR *METRIX* OR *METRIK* OR *METRIQ*) AND (2 OR 3 OR 1) 199 0 34. (*METRIC* OR *METRIX* OR *METRIK* OR *METRIQ* OR *M-TR*) AND *WEB* 27 7 35. (*METRIC* OR *METRIX* OR *METRIK* OR *METRIQ*) AND gs=(enviro* or 45 23 regulation') 36. *METRIC* OR *METRIX* OR *METRIK* OR *METRI AND = software* or 626 0 m "T1 -n 3F ©2008, CT Corsearch. All Rights Reserved. Page 7 of 399 Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire Attorney ID # 78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, NO. Q$_ M4 4 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, William S. Daniels, Esquire, accept service of the Complaint on behalf of Defendants, James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder regarding the above-captioned action. Date: 8?2,, eo cq William S. Daniels, Esquire HUMER & DANIELS 205 Farmers Trust Building One West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendants Slyder ??.a ? ?-;r., x?. ? ? ? .?? ? ? ?;? _. :? fv -?c Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire Attorney ID # 78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, NO.$ _ l'1 1 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, William S. Daniels, Esquire, accept service of the Complaint on behalf of Defendants, Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis regarding the above-captioned action. Date: 6 ?uf•-c.t y ?ac8 William S. Daniels, Esquire HUMER & DANIELS 205 Farmers Trust Building One West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendants Papamarkakis `?` c?s: l V ? ? f ???.. ? h ' T . ? .:? ?? .?? ? ?'??r ' i l .? Y'" t r?? ? gy ..? mss, s` i '?J ?'?^?.-?} s4r ? STEPHEN T. BLAIR and SUZANNE G. WHITE, husband and wife, Plaintiffs V. JAMES H. SLYDER and MARY C. SLYDER, husband and wife, and EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS and JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, husband and wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL ACTION -LAW DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Defendants, James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis, by and through their attorney, William S. Daniels, Esquire, and respectfully file the following Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint and in support thereof, allege as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted; however, Cumberland County Instrument No. 200802138 of 1/22/2008, defendants' Exhibit "A," is applicable, and more specifically relevant to the within Action. Defendants Slyder are the owners of Lot 6 and Parcel A, Tax Parcel No. 23-32-2336-405. 6. Admitted 7. Denied. On the contrary, a stub of an alley was laid out on an unrecorded Plan of Town Lots for Mount Holly Springs in the 19`h century. Its description was carried forward as a boundary marker on subsequent deeds of conveyance, depicted as being sixteen (16) feet in width, and a segment of approximately 100 feet in length running between adjacent property to the west (not a part of the Plan of Town Lots) and Orange Street to the east. Having never been accepted by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs, this "paper alley" technically reverted to ownership in fee between its adjoiners (to the north and to the south) after 21 years. This is shown on Defendants' Exhibit "A." 8. Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendants exchanged quit claim deeds with each other to acquire ownership of the former "paper alley." Concurrently, they by Agreement with the Mount Holly Springs Borough Authority, granted a twenty feet (20') wide sewer easement along their lands per Cumberland County Instrument No. 2007- 12546 dated October 29, 2007 to formalize a right-of-way for repair and maintenance of said sewer line. 9. The statement in Paragraph 9 is an unsupported allegation and unwarranted conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore deemed to be denied. Alternately, after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether Plaintiffs and their predecessors satisfied the'elements for an easement by presumption for any period. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) proof of which is demanded at the trial of this case by competent admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. 10. Denied. Defendants Slyder and Papamarkakis have exercised reasonable rights of ownership of the former "paper alley;" Plaintiffs have no extant interest in or authority to use Defendants' land; there has been no oral contract to exercise their within claim, and any obstruction has been temporary and incident to ongoing construction work. Count I. Blair and White v. Slyder 11, Paragraphs 1 through 10 of Defendants' Answer are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 12. Denied. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c) proof of this statement is demanded at trial. 13. Admitted. 14. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore the averments are deemed 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. 15. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore the averments are deemed 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. 16. This statement in Paragraph 16 is a conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore deemed to be denied. 17. Denied. No easement has existed until the Agreement between Defendants and the Mount Holly Springs Borough Authority was made effective October 29, 2007 per Cumberland County Instrument No. 2007 42546, and no visible indications of usage were extant. 18. Denied. On the contrary, no easement existed. 19. Denied in part. Admitted in part. The "paper alley" does not constitute woodlands, but its trace is not an easement except for sewer line repair and maintenance.. 20. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore the averments are deemed 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. 21. The statement in Paragraph 21 is a conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore deemed to be denied. Alternatively, after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, and therefore said allegations are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which is demanded at the trail of this case by competent and admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and enter judgment in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs. Count II. Blair and White v. Papamarkakis 22. Paragraphs I through 21 of Defendants' Answer are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 23. Denied. 24. Admitted 25. After reasonable investigation, defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore the averments are deemed 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. By way of additional answer, the metal gate installed by westerly adjoiners is too narrow to accommodate emergency vehicles. 26. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore the averments are deemed 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. 27. This statement in Paragraph 27 is a conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore deemed to be denied. 28. Denied. No easement has existed until the Agreement between Defendants and the Mount Holly Springs Borough Authority was made effective October 29, 2007 per Cumberland County Instrument No. 2007 42546, and no visible indications of usage were extant. 29. Denied. No easement has existed until the Agreement between Defendants and the Mount Holly Springs Borough Authority was made effecting October 29, 2007 per Cumberland County Instrument No. 2007 42546, and no visible indications of usage were extant. 30. Admitted in part. Denied in part. The "paper alley" does not constitute woodlands, but its trace is not an easement except for sewer line repair and maintenance. 31. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore the averments are deemed 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. 32. The statement in Paragraph 21 is a conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore deemed to be denied. Alternatively, after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment, and therefore said allegations are deemed to be denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c), proof of which is demanded at the trail of this case by competent and admissible evidence if otherwise relevant. WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and enter judgment in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs. Count III. Blair and White v. Slyder Declaratory Relief/Request for Injunction 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 34. Denied. Plaintiffs have no right of use or access across Defendants' land. Defendant Slyder has exercised his right of ownership to implement the improvement of his land to a higher and better use by construction work. 35. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted that equipment and materials and excavations have been placed on his land, all according to need for purposes of building improvements and enabling the inspection of work performed. It is denied that this obstructed any easement except on a temporary basis for customary duration and that Plaintiffs' had any legitimate interest or authority to cross Defendants' land purportedly by use of an "easement." 36. This statement is a conclusion to which no response is required and is therefore deemed to be denied. On the contrary Plaintiffs have no entitlement to legal use of a non-existent easement over Defendants' land. 37. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Slyder acknowledged in public record during scrutiny of initial subdivision planning that he had no present intention of altering the status of the "paper alley." Pursuant to changed circumstances and subdivision revisions, Defendant Slyder sought to develop a higher and better use of his real estate. This mandated the formal acquisition of ownership of the "paper alley" under applicable law in order to comply with Borough requirements. There was never a formal easement until Defendant Slyder took the initiative to create one, which utility right-of-way and easement shall not block or interfere with due repair or maintenance of the underground sewer line by the Borough Authority. 38. The statement in Paragraph 38 is based on a conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the extent that an answer is warranted, Plaintiffs have not obtained an easement for which Defendants can be enjoined from interference with Plaintiffs trespass. Therefore, the request sought should be denied as unfounded. 39. Denied. Plaintiffs have a claim only, the supportability of which is to be determined. Therefore, Plaintiffs have no legal rights of enforcement against Defendants' proper use of real estate which they own, and over which Plaintiffs have established no entitlements to access. Defendants further deny vexatious and bad faith conduct for which they may be liable, and demand proof thereof. WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and enter judgment in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs. Count IV. Blair and White v. Papamarkakis Declaratory Relief/Request for Injunction 40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 41. Denied. Defendants have exercised their rights as owners of the land, over which Plaintiffs have no legal right to access by easement or otherwise. 42. Admitted in part. Denied in part. Defendants have placed vehicles temporarily on their land for convenience in loading and offloading items between home and car. Denied that Plaintiffs have any interest in an easement thereon. 43. Denied. Plaintiffs have established no legal right to use Defendants land, and Defendants' reasonable use and enjoyment of their own land, vis-a-vis trespassers, are not exercised in bad faith or vexatiously. 44 The statement in Paragraph 44 is based on a conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the extent that an answer is warranted, Plaintiffs have not obtained an easement for which Defendants can be enjoined from interference with Plaintiffs trespass. Therefore, the request sought should be denied as unfounded. 45. Denied. Plaintiffs have a claim only, the supportability of which is to be determined. Therefore, Plaintiffs have no legal rights of enforcement against Defendants' proper use of real estate which they own, and over which Plaintiffs have established no entitlements to access. Defendants further deny vexatious and bad faith conduct for which they may be liable, and demand proof thereof. WHEREFORE, Defendants request the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and enter judgment in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, William S. Daniels Attorney No. 27735 1 West High St., Ste. 205 Carlisle, PA 17013 Tel. 717-243-3831 Attorney for Defendants Dated: September '9 2008 VERIFICATION We, JAMES H. SLYDER and MARY C. SLYDER, husband and wife, do hereby certify that we are Defendants in the foregoing Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, that the facts in the foregoing Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents 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. J . SLYDER Dated: September 9 '2008 VERIFICATION We, EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS and JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, husband and wife, do hereby certify that we are Defendants in the foregoing Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, that the facts in the foregoing Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents 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. e?'l 4 EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS A .4 J SSICA PAPAN ARKAKIS Dated: September©?, 2008 .6y Q Cam! fP 0 M N v p r O O C t„ Z C J O C,? p??I A? SA. o?yh C)i MoO(?t by 6 pp S9 OS ,46 "? *r Al? 42,/3 C9 - 2irv8 STEPHEN T. BLAIR and SUZANNE G. WHITE, husband and wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JAMES H. SLYDER and MARY C. SLYDER, husband and wife, and EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS and JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, husband and wife, Defendants NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint upon the person and in the manner indicated below: Service by First Class Mail, Postage Paid Addressed as follows: Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (Attorney for Plaintiffs) William S. Daniels, Esquire (Attorney I.D. No. 27735) One West High St., Ste. 205 Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorney for Defendants) Dated: September 9 2008 i T.'1 '77 r? m er Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire Attorney 1D # 78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs FILED-OFFICE ! b i -tl d ?. . i i JUN 14 APB 8: 5 0 CUMBEREANID COUNT PENNSYLVANIA Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants MOTION FOR PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, by and through their attorney, Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire and respectfully file the following Motion for Pre- trial Conference: 1. Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter filed a cause of action asserting the right to prescriptive easement for a sixteen (16) foot easement running along the common boundary line of Defendants extending eight (8) feet onto each Defendants' property. 2. Plaintiffs had previously listed the matter for trial. 3. In the interim, Defendant Papamarkakis has obtained new counsel who wishes to conduct additional discovery on behalf of his clients. 4. Attorney Hubert Gilroy, who had previously represented both Defendants, also indicated that he may want to perform additional discovery. 5. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their Praecipe Listing for Trial in order to allow for said discovery. 6. This case was originally filed on the 28th day of July, 2008. 7. Plaintiffs request this case to be assigned to a judge and a status conference held for the purposes of setting a scheduling Order for the completion of discovery in this matter so that, thereafter, the matter can be listed for trial without further delay. 8. Counsel for Defendants, James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder is Hubert Gilroy, Esquire, who has no objection to this Motion. 9. Counsel for Defendants, Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis is Douglas Lovelace, Esquire, who has no objection to this Motion. 10. The undersigned has attached a proposed Order to be completed by the Court scheduling the status conference for discovery scheduling purposes. 11. No judge has previously been assigned to this matter nor made a rule on any issue regarding this matter. Respectfully submitted, Date: e011316wo/r ark W. Allshous Esquire Attorney ID # 78 4 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 (717) 582-7476 fax Attorney for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been duly served upon the following, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first-class, postage prepaid, as follows: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: _6 1 2.011 rk W. Allshouse, squire ja4torney I.D. # 7801 33 Spring Road Sherman Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire Attorney ID # 78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, husband and wife, Plaintiffs €!f= TI-IF PROTihC'hV_'` 1011 JUN 14 AM 8' CUMBERLAND CGU"- f PENNSYLVANIAN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, Defendants NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL ACTION -LAW PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW LISTING FOR TRIAL To the Prothonotary: Please withdraw the Praecipe to List the above-captioned action for trial at the next term of civil court which was previously filed on April 18, 2011 and kindly remove the case from the civil trial list. Respectfully submitted, Date: AA44?__ ark W. Allshouse, squire Attorney ID # 780 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 (717) 582-7476 fax Attorney for Plaintiffs 1 Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, husband and wife, Plaintiffs V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL ACTION -LAW ORDER OF COURT ?Y c? AND NOW, this -- day of , 2011, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Pre-trial Conference, it is hereby Ordered and Decreed r- .T1 that a Pre-trial Conference is scheduled for the day of 2011 in the Chambers of the Honorable Judge F6Aci- at the Cumberland County Courthouse, for the purposes of setting a scheduling Order for completion of discovery. 4et qt v -All- cc: ? Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire, 4833 Spring Road, Shermans Dale, PA M0, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire, 10 East High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 ,,'Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire, 36 Donegal Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013 e,oes r" b? (pt,arlN lob e.-- FILED-DFFICE Mark W.Allshouse,Esquire OF THE PROTHONOTARY Attorney ID#78014 4833 Spring Road 2013 MA Y _9 AN 1 . ,.i_14 Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717)582-4006 CUMBERLAND COUNTY Attorney for Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P 1033 AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, by and through their attorney, Mark W. Allshouse, and file this Motion to Amend Complaint and aver as follows: 1. On or about July 28, 2008 Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in the above-referenced matter against the above-named Defendants pleading causes of action for adverse possession of an unopened sixteen(16) foot alley, together with additional counts for declaratory relief, injunction and quiet title. 2. The remaining issue is Plaintiffs' right of possession/utilization of a 16-foot alley as set forth in the Complaint. 3. Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure allow parties to amend a pleading to conform to evidence offered and admitted. 4. Plaintiffs, in their original Complaint in paragraph 7, averred that, "Since about 1911, a sixteen(16) foot wide unopened alley has existed along the southern border of the Slyder 1 property and northeasterly boundary of the Blair and White property where it adjoins the properties of Defendants." 5. Def6ndants, in their Answer with New Matter, denied that allegation averring that the property was only laid out on a private plan and had never been accepted by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs. 6. Thereafter,the parties undertook discovery in this matter including, but not limited to numerous depositions, obtaining written statements of potential witnesses, extensive review of public record, which included deeds, agreements, easements, aerial photographs and taxing information, interviews of witnesses and exchange of numerous sets of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. 7. In addition,the parties also, on at least two occasions, attempted to negotiate settlement in this matter. 8. Currently, according to correspondence received from counsel for Defendant Papamarkakis, there is still extensive discovery to be done, including interviews of at least seventeen(17) different witnesses, only one (1)of which has deposed. 9. The procedural posture of this matter is continuing and on-going discovery. 10. Throughout and during the aforementioned discovery, Plaintiffs have,through the information provided by deposition witnesses and responses to Interrogatories,received leads which resulted in Plaintiffs obtaining approximately seventeen(17)pieces of additional evidence indicating that the 16-foot alley may, indeed, have been either formally or informally accepted by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs,thereby creating a public access easement. 11. Specifically, Plaintiffs have been able to uncover several maps of the Borough of Mount Holly Springs Planning Commission, Water and Sewer Authority and street maps dating 2 back as far as 1963 showing the location and utilization of the alleyway by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs. 12. The new information uncovered during the discovery process has given rise to an additional cause of action on behalf of Plaintiffs for their right to use of the public access easement,whether currently opened or abandoned,pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in Ferko v. Spisak, 373 Pa. Super. 303, 541 A.2d 327 (1988),which holds that once a public easement has been abandoned,the adjoining property owners retain rights to use of that abandoned public access easement. 13. Plaintiffs are seeking the Court's permission for the purpose of amending their Complaint to add this additional cause of action. 14. The addition of this count creates no prejudice toward any Defendant as discovery is on-going and all parties have the ability to continue to pursue discovery with regard to this matter. 15. Plaintiffs have proposed an Amended Complaint which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A". 16. Plaintiffs have already provided to counsel for all Defendants the recently discovered information which forms the basis of this new cause of action and Motion to Amend Complaint. 17. The information which is the basis of this cause of action was not known by any party hereto at the initiation of the proceedings and, as a result, could not have been brought as part of the original action in the original Complaint. 18. Counsel for Defendants has provided the undersigned their written objection to the filing of this Motion to Amend Plaintiffs' Complaint. 3 19. Plaintiffs are seeking leave of Court to amend their Complaint. A copy of the proposed pleading is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A". 20. No judge has ruled upon any other issue in the same or related matter to the best of the undersigned's knowledge. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter an Order granting leave of Court pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1033 to file an amended pleading attached hereto. Respectfully submitted, Date:5 2,013 � -v lark W. Allshouse Esquire ttorney ID # 780 4 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs 4 Mark W.Allshouse,Esquire Attorney ID#78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717)582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, by and through their attorney, Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire, and respectfully file the following Complaint and in support thereof, allege as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White (hereinafter"Blair and White") are adult individuals having a current address of 101 East Pine Street, Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065. 2. Defendants, James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder(hereinafter"Slyder") are adult individuals having°a current address of 429 Chestnut Street, Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065. 3. Defendants, Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis (hereinafter "Papamarkakis") are adult individuals having a current address of 1 O East Orange Street, Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065. 1 4. Plaintiffs are owners of certain real property located at the afore-mentioned address and known as tax parcel identification number 23-32-2336 as recorded in Deed Book 216, Page 832 and pursuant to a Corrective Deed dated April 3, 2000 and recorded in Deed Book 219, Page 729. A true and correct copy of a survey of Plaintiffs' property is attached hereto and made a part hereof marked as Exhibit"A". 5. Defendants Slyder are the owners of certain real properties locatedto the northeast of Plaintiffs' property and identified as original tax parcel identification number 23-32- 2336-092 as subdivided and recorded in Plan Book 92, Page 23 and known as"Lot` l-6 on said Plan. A true and correct copy of the pertinent portion of Defendants' Subdivision Plan is attached hereto and made a part hereof marked as Exhibit`B"for reference. 6. Defendants Papamarkakis are the owners of certain real property located at the afore-mentioned address which adjoins Plaintiffs'property at the northeast corner and the Slyder property at the southwest corner and along/its southem.border and is known as tax parcel � r identification number 23-32-2336-093 and_known as Lot 7 on Exhibit"B". 7. Since about 19�11,,a sixteen_(16) foot wide unopened alley has existed along the southern border of the Slyder property"and northeasterly boundary of the Blair and White property where it adjoins the properties of Defendants. .8 The six teen(16) feet unopened alley is also depicted on various other municipal maps adopted, utili)ed and made public by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs, including but not limited'to;the following: a. Mount Holly Springs Sewer Easement Map of 1963 b. Mount Holly Springs Planning Map of 1969 C. Mount Holly Springs Land Use Map of 1969 d. Mount Holly Springs Street Map 2 9. Until recently, the Borough of Mount Holly Springs had repeatedly utilized and maintained the 16 foot unopened alley for not only planning purposes but, likewise, for the installation and maintenance of water and sewer lines and access thereto. 10. The Borough of Mount Holly Springs took no formal action to adopt the municipal streets as laid out on its formal Plans referenced above within twenty-one.(2 1) years and ownership in fee of one-half of the 16 foot wide unopened alley reverted to the adjoining property owners on each side of the alley, being Slyder, Papamarkakis, Shildt, Stephen Blair and Suzanne White. /f` 11. Blair and White have taken no action to abandon their rights to.use of the unopened public right-of-way. 12. Defendants in 2007 exchanged'and recorded Quit Claim Deeds to the Borough of Mount Holly Springs, thereby acquiring ownership, each of one-half of the 16-foot unopened alley in return for a right of access easement fora sew6 I rutility line. 13. Blair and White, together with their predecessors in interest,have continuously and regularly used the unopened alley"ektending from Orange Street to the northeast comer of their property since at least 1961 1 when the tract was owned by Hempt Brothers and the alleyway easement was utilized.;�to access,the sand quarries contained upon Plaintiff's property. Plaintiffs' and their predecessors'p seof the alleyway have been for a period in excess of twenty-one (21) years. 14. "'8ince receiving fee ownership of the alley, Slyder and Papamarkakis both have refused and failed to permit Blair and White from continued use of the alley by both verbal statement and physical obstruction. 3 I. Blair and White v. Slyder 15. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are hereby incorporated by reference as though full set forth herein. 16. Blair and White have maintained adverse, open, continuous and uninterrupted use of the 16 foot unopened alley extending from Orange Street to the northeast corner.of their property for a period in excess of 21 years. 17. Blair and White's use of the alley has been without license..or permission. 18. Blair and White have used the alley to access the rear of their,property for various uses, including but not limited to,moving of a thirty-one(3 1) foot R.V. trailer on and off of the property,hauling brush and materials to a local compost site, as a short-cut to get from one side of town to the other, as well as for the purpose of accessing the rear of the property. 19. Blair and White have maintained and improved the cartway along the easement by removing limbs or other debris falling pinto the,easement and placing stone and gravel in and along the cartway. In fact, Blair and White have.-a verbal contact with Mount Holly Springs Sewer Authority to keep the cartway clear as well as the manholes,thereby providing Blair and White control of when and haw the roadway is maintained. 20. Blair and White's'use of the easement is not inconsistent with any other property owners' rights. f' 1 The easement existed at the time of purchase of the property of Slyder, with signs i of tire indentations in the grass which were readily visible to any purchaser. 22. It is believed, and therefore, averred that Slyder was aware of the easement at the time of purchase of the property. 23. The easement does not constitute unenclosed woodlands. 4 24. Blair and White used all 16 feet of the easement at various times due to the width of construction and delivery vehicles entering and exiting through the easement. 25. As a result, Blair and White have obtained a legal prescriptive easement and right to continued use of the 16 foot unopened paper alley, eight (8) feet of which crosses over the Slyder property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Slyder and enter an Order confirming Blair and White's right to continued use of 8 feet of the easement located on the Slyder property. II. Blair and White v. Papamarkakis 26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 are hereby incorporated by reference as though full set forth herein. 27. Blair and White have maintained adverse, open, continuous and uninterrupted use of the 16 foot unopened alley extending from Orange Street to the northeast corner of their property for a period in excess of 21 years. 28. Blair and White's use of the alley has been without license or permission. d 29. Blair and White have used the alley to access the rear of their property for various uses, including but not limited to, moving of a thirty-one (3 1) foot R.V. trailer on and off of the property, hauling brush and materials to a local compost site, as well as for the purpose of accessing the rear of the property. In addition, the access provides the ability for emergency personnel and has been used by emergency to access emergencies not only on the Blair and White property, but across town in the event their access may be blocked. 5 30. Blair and White have maintained and improved the cartway along the easement by removing limbs or other debris falling onto the easement and placing stone and gravel in and along the cartway. 31. Blair and White's use of the easement is not inconsistent with any other property owners' rights. 32. The easement existed at the time of purchase of the property of Papamarkakis, with signs of tire indentations in the grass which were readily visible to any purchaser. 33. It is believed, and therefore, averred that Papamarkakis was aware of the easement at the time of purchase of the property. 34. The easement does not constitute unenclosed woodlands. 35. Blair and White used all 16 feet of the easement at various times due to the width of construction and delivery vehicles entering and exiting through the easement. 36. As a result, Blair and White have obtained a legal prescriptive easement and right to continued use of the 16 foot unopened paper alley, eight(8) feet of which crosses over the Papamarkakis property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and;against Defendants Papamarkakis and enter an Order confirming Blair and White's right to continued use of 8 feet of the easement located on the Papamarkakis property. III. Blair and White v. Slyder Declaratory Relief/Request for Iniunction 37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 are hereby incorporated by reference as though full set forth herein. 38. Despite notice by Blair and White to Slyder of his right of use, Slyder has undertaken intentional steps to block Blair and White's access and use of the easement. 6 39. Specifically, Slyder has done the following: a. Placed large equipment within the easement on numerous occasions b. Dug trenches across the easement left open for approximately six (6) days C. Placed large piles of stone in the center of the easement for a period in excess of twenty (20) days. 40. Slyder's actions have been undertaken vexatiously and in bad faith in a deliberate attempt to prevent Plaintiffs' legal use of the easement and even occurred during.attempted negotiations to resolve this dispute. 41. Blair and White have done nothing to waive their rights and, as an abutting landowner to the abandoned Borough alleyway, continue to have the legal right to travel the alleyway as confirmed by Pennsylvania Superior Court's holding in the matter of Ferko v. Spisak, 541 A.2d 327 (1988). 42. Slyder's actions have occurred despite prior acknowledgment on public record during his land development and subdivision approval that he had no intention of blocking or interfering with said easement. 43. Plaintiff is requesting a declaratory judgment and Order enjoining Slyder from further blocking or obstructing Plaintiffs' use of the easement. 44. Plaintiff is further seeking punitive damages as a result of Slyder's vexatious and bad faith conductin an amount to be determined, but which shall include costs and attorney's A fees-expended in bringing this action to enforce Blair and White's legal rights. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Slyder enjoining further action to block or prevent Plaintiffs' continued use of the easement together with punitive damages in an amount not less than actual costs and attorney's fees. 7 IV. Blair and White v.Papamarkakis Declaratory Relief/Request for Injunction 45. Paragraphs I through 44 are hereby incorporated by reference as though full set forth herein. 46. Despite notice by Blair and White to Papamarkakis of his right of use, Papamarkakis has undertaken intentional steps to block Blair and White's access and,use of the easement. 47. Specifically,Papamarkakis placed vehicles in the easement on more than one occasion. 48. Papamarkakis' actions have been undertaken'vexatiously and in bad faith in a deliberate attempt to prevent Plaintiffs' legal use of the easement. 49. Blair and White have done nothing to waive their rights and, as an abutting landowner to the abandoned Borough alleyway, co'minue,to have the legal right to travel the alleyway as confirmed by Pennsylvania.,Stiperior,Court's holding in the matter of Ferko v. Spisak, 541 A.2d 327 (1988). 50. Plaintiff is'requesting,a declaratory judgment and Order enjoining Papamarkakis from further blocking,dr inteifenqg'with Plaintiffs' use of the easement. 51. Plaintiff is further seeking punitive damages as a result of Papamarkakis' vexatious and bad faith conduct in an amount to be determined. WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Papamarkakis enjoining further action to block or 8 prevent Plaintiffs' continued use of the easement together with punitive damages in an amount not less than actual costs and attorney's fees. Respectfully submitted, Date: Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire Attorney ID# 78014 \ 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale,PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 ri•-. Attorney for Plaintiffs_„,., 1 t\\ 9 Mark W.Allshouse,Esquire Attorney ID#78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale,PA 17090 (717)582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM_ husband and wife, and ; Emmanuel Papamarkakis and JURY TRIAL DEMANI)t Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, CIVIL ACTION- LAW Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been duly served upon the following, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first-class,postage prepaid, as follows: ..Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive >Carlisle, PA 17013 i Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street d Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: Mark W. Allshouse,Esquire Attorney I.D. # 78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale,PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs 10 Mark W.Allshouse,Esquire Attorney ID#78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717)582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been duly served upon the following, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first-class, postage prepaid, as follows: Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: 'X�4 - , n M k . Allshouse,Esgi re orney I.D. # 78014 833 Spring Road Shermans Dale,PA 17 90 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs 5 STEPHEN T. BLAIR AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SUZANNE G. WHITE, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HUSBAND AND WIFE, : PLAINTIFFS V. 0: - ; JAMES H. SLYDER AND MARY C. SLYDER,. ` , HUSBAND AND WIFE, AND : EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS AND ="} JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, DEFENDANTS NO. 08-4494 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2013, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1033; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule shall issue upon the Defendants to show cause why the Motion to Amend Complaint should not be granted; 2. Defendants shall file an Answer to the Motion to Amend Complaint on or before June 7, 2013; 3. Hearing/argument on the matter will be held on Wednesday, June 19, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom No. 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. v4'ark W. Allshouse, Esquire ZHubert X. Gilroy, Esquire ./Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire bas SP&I 3 t. +a E­0" Ic#_,.... s.:t I iJ (?v i01 ii+�+ 2013 U NN -6 P i 2: 47 'CUMBERLAND COUNT` PENNSYLV NW11 STEPHEN T. BLAIR and SUZANNE G. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WHITE, husband and wife CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW JAMES H. SLYDER and MARY C. SLYDER, husband and wife and CIVIL TERM EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS and NO. 2008-4494 JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, husband and wife ; Defendants ANSWER OF EMMANUEL AND JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1033 AND NOW come Defendants Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis, by and through their attorney, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire, and file this Answer to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint, setting forth as follows: 1. Admitted. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs'adverse possession claim, was in the form of a prescriptive easement. 2. Denied, as stated. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs continue to seek a prescriptive easement over the sixteen feet wide parcel of land, the southerly half of which is owned by Defendants. By way of further answer, in addition to claiming a prescriptive easement over the aforementioned land of Defendants, Plaintiffs also continue to seek declaratory relief, an injunction, and punitive damages. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. Defendants in their Answer and New matter averred that "a stub of an alley was laid out on an unrecorded Plan of Town Lots for Mount Holly Springs, in the 19th Century. Its description was carried forward as a boundary marker on subsequent deeds of conveyance, depicted as being sixteen(16) feet in width and a segment of approximately 100 feet in length running between adjacent property to the west (not part of The Plan of Town Lots) and Orange Street to the east. Having never been accepted by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs, this 'paper alley'technically reverted to ownership in fee between its adjoiners (to the north and to the south) after 21 years." 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs contacted Defendants on two occasions essentially asking Defendants to capitulate to Plaintiffs'demands. 8. Denied. As supplemental discovery, Defendants'counsel informed Plaintiffs'counsel, by letter, that Defendants intended to call ten additional witnesses to testify at trial of the case. Defendants have interviewed six of the additional witnesses and deposed one, who is in poor health, in order to preserve his testimony. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. The additional pieces of evidence to which Plaintiffs refer do not in any way indicate that the alleyway was either formally or informally accepted by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs nor do they create a public access easement. At best, the additional documents indicate the Borough of Mount Holly Springs maintained a sewer maintenance 2 easement over the land at issue, for the purpose of repairing a portion of the underground sewer line, should the need arise. When Defendants acquired ownership of half of the alleyway, Defendants conveyed a similar sewer maintenance easement to the Borough of Mount Holly Springs and such easement remains in effect today. Neither the original nor the replacement easement has ever been a public access easement. 11. Denied. The additional pieces of evidence to which Plaintiffs refer do not show use of an alleyway by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs. At best, the additional documents indicate the Borough of Mount Holly Springs maintained a sewer maintenance easement over the land at issue, for the purpose of repairing a portion of the underground sewer line, should the need arise. Such easement never created a public access easement over the land at issue. 12. Denied. Pennsylvania law provides that any street, lane or alley, laid out in a village or town plot or plan of lots that is not opened within 21 years for public use by the municipality shall have no force and effect and shall not be opened, without the consent of the owners of the land on which the street, lane or alley had been laid out. 36 P.S. § 1961 (2013) (Unopened ways or streets on towns plots). The Borough of Mount Holly Springs did not open the sixteen-foot alleyway,within 21 years of it being laid out; therefore, any public right of way that might have been created was extinguished. Pennsylvania case law provides that even where a street or alleyway had not been opened for over 21 years, the original owners of lots within the plan of lots that abut the street or alleyway, and their grantees, accrue a permanent right to use the unopened street or alleyway. The key point is the original owners and their grantees must have owned lots in the plan of lots; in this case, "The Plan of Town Lots." Rahn v. Hess, 378 Pa. 264, 106 A.2d. 461 (1954); Ferko v. Spizak , 373 Pa. Super. 303, 541 A.2d. 327 (1988); Riek and Mindyas v. Binnie, 352 Pa. Super. 246, 507 A.2d. 856 (1986). Plaintiffs'reliance on Ferko 3 appears misplaced, since the lands of Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs'grantors were never part of The Plan of Town Lots. Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of the rule established by Rahn and followed by Ferko and Riek. Consequently, Plaintiffs have no right of easement or any other use of the unopened alleyway. Pennsylvania law provides that for an amended pleading to be allowed, the amendment must have a reasonable chance of success. Glenn v. Point Park College, 441 Pa. 474, 272 A.2d. 895 (1971); Stempler v. Frankford Trust Co., 365 Pa. Super. 305; 529 A.2d. 521 (1987). Plaintiffs'proposed Amended Complaint does not plead that Plaintiffs'lands were ever part of "The Plan of Town Lots,'nor any other plan of lots, nor should it. Therefore, Plaintiffs'proposed Amended Complaint has no reasonable possibility of success, and should not . be allowed. 13: Admitted. 14. Denied. Pennsylvania law provides that for an amendment to a pleading to be denied on the grounds of undue prejudice to the opposing party, the prejudice must stem from the fact that the new allegations are offered late rather than in the original pleading, and not from the fact that the opposing party may lose its case on the merits if the pleading is allowed. Horowitz v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 397 Pa. Super. 473; 580 A.2d. 395 (1990). Undue delay alone is not a sufficient ground for disallowing an amendment to a pleading. However, eleventh hour surprise or loss of witnesses could constitute the prejudice required to disallow an amendment. Zummo v. City of Scranton, 2011 Pa. Dist. & Cnty.; 21 Pa. D. & C.5th 565 (2011). Plaintiffs'over four-year and nine-month delay in requesting amendment to their Complaint to assert an entirely new cause of action and legal theory unduly prejudices Defendants. Since Plaintiffs'filing of their Complaint, two of Defendants'key witnesses, Mr. William K. Peffer and Mr. Edward Blemler, have passed away. Although Defendants timely deposed these witnesses, 4 such depositions were structured around Plaintiffs'prescriptive easement cause of action and legal theory. Consequently, Defendants depositions of the two now deceased witnesses did not include inquiries structured around the new cause of action and legal theory that form the basis of Plaintiffs'proposed Amended Complaint. Since it is no longer possible for Defendants to depose those two key witnesses, in light of Plaintiffs'new cause of action and legal theory, Defendants would be unduly prejudiced, if Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their Complaint. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs elected to pursue amendment of their Complaint only after Defendants'deposition of a disinterested witness who testified convincingly that Plaintiffs' prescriptive easement claim is based on false allegations made by Plaintiffs. Granting of Plaintiffs'motion to amend its Complaint would further extend this almost five-year-long litigation and cause Defendants additional severe financial hardship. 15. Admitted. 16. Denied. The information Plaintiffs'claim they recently discovered and provided to Defendants, at best, show the longstanding existence of a Mount Holly Springs Borough sewer maintenance easement over Defendants'and their grantors'land--an easement that Defendants affirmed to Mount Holly Springs Borough, was formally accepted by Mount Holly Springs Borough, and was duly recorded. The information Plaintiffs provided Defendants in no way provides a basis for the new cause of action Plaintiffs seek to assert. 17. Denied. The information upon which Plaintiffs base their new cause of action are mostly aged documents known to, or easily discoverable,by the parties at the initiation of this litigation by Plaintiffs. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. 5 20. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter an Order denying leave of Court to file the Amended Complaint attached to Plaintiffs'motion. Respectfully submitted Date: June 6, 2013 Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 ID No. 83889 (717)385-1866 Attorney for Defendants Papamarkakis 6 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer of Emmanuel and Jessica' Papamarkakis to Motion to Amend Complaint Pursuant to Pa: R.C.P. 1033 are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904. Date: June 2013 lam`'� W G Emmanuel Papamarkakis 1 Jessica R . n kakis STEPHEN T. BLAIR and SUZANNE G. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WHITE, husband and wife CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW JAMES H. SLYDER and MARY C. SLYDER, husband and wife and CIVIL TERM EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS and NO. 2008-4494 JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, husband and wife Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas C. Lovelace,Jr., Esquire, certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer of Emmanuel and Jessica Papamarkakis to Motion to Amend Complaint Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1033, by placing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, PA, on the date below indicated, on the following individuals: TO: Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White c/o Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA PA 17090 Date: June b , 2013 Douglas C. Love ace,Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 ID No. 83889 (717)385-1866 Attorney for Defendants Papamarkakis Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO I.D. 29943 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendants STEPHEN T. BLAIR, and SUZANNE : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF G. WHITE, husband and wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. : NO. 2008-4494 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JAMES H. SLYDER and MARY C. SLYDER, • � 'r 3 and • s r EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS and • JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, : `u' husband and wife, • Defendants : ANSWER OF JAMES H. SLYDER AND MAY C. SLYDER TO MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT Defendants,James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, by their attorneys, Martson Law Offices, sets forth the following in response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint: 1. Defendants James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder join in and incorporate by reference thereto the allegations set forth in the Answer filed by Defendants Emanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint. Wherefore,Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint be denied. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By ert X. Gil'•y, Esquire 10 East Hig✓Street Carlisle, P 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendants Dated: June 7 , 2013 STEPHEN T. BLAIR AND : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SUZANNE G. WHITE, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HUSBAND AND WIFE PLAINTIFFS • • m� TT JAMES H. SLYDER AND : z� MARY C. SLYDER, • "'r iso '' HUSBAND AND WIFE, • r"2 AND • v EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS AND • n -a JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, co HUSBAND AND WIFE • �. DEFENDANTS : No. 08-4494 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2013, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1033, Defendant's Answer, the briefs filed by the parties, and after argument held on June 20, 2013; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the Amended Complaint on or before July 5, 2013. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire bert X. Gilroy, Esquire ../CfOuglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire bas Cori FS in.ascC G/2? L? • Mark W.Allshouse, Esquire Attorney ID#78014 THE U t 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 2r r3 JUL -2 Psi 1: C: (717)582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND AND Coin T.i PENNS YLV , Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, : IN THE CO t F COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs • v. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, : NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, • and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Emmanuel and Jessica Papamarkakis, James and Mary Slyder, Defendants Defendants c/o Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire c/o Douglas C. Lovelace,Jr., Esquire Martson Law Offices 36 Donegal Drive 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Carlisle, PA 17013 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 Amended 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 Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)249-3166 Date: 7#03 ✓�' ,,f ( / a--� ark W. All h s ouse, Esquire Attorney ID# 78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire Attorney ID#78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717)582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs • • v. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, : NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, • and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, by and through their attorney, Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire, and respectfully file the following Complaint and in support thereof, allege as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White (hereinafter`Blair and White") are adult individuals having a current address of 101 East Pine Street, Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065. 2. Defendants, James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder(hereinafter"Slyder") are adult individuals having a current address of 429 Chestnut Street, Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065. 3. Defendants, Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis (hereinafter "Papamarkakis") are adult individuals having a current address of 10A East Orange Street, Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17065. 1 4. Plaintiffs are owners of certain real property located at the afore-mentioned address and known as tax parcel identification number 23-32-2336 as recorded in Deed Book 216, Page 832 and pursuant to a Corrective Deed dated April 3, 2000 and recorded in Deed Book 219, Page 729. A true and correct copy of a survey of Plaintiffs' property is attached hereto and made a part hereof marked as Exhibit"A". 5. Defendants Slyder are the owners of certain real properties located to the northeast of Plaintiffs' property and identified as original tax parcel identification number 23-32- 2336-092 as subdivided and recorded in Plan Book 92, Page 23 and known as Lots 1-6 on said Plan. A true and correct copy of the pertinent portion of Defendants' Subdivision Plan is attached hereto and made a part hereof marked as Exhibit`B" for reference. 6. Defendants Papamarkakis are the owners of certain real property located at the afore-mentioned address which adjoins Plaintiffs' property at the northeast corner and the Slyder property at the southwest corner and along its southern border and is known as tax parcel identification number 23-32-2336-093 and known as Lot 7 on Exhibit"B". 7. The property owned by Defendant Papamarkakis was part of the subdivision done by Slyder and Defendant Papamarkakis' rights with regard to the property were derived from Slyer as successors in interest. 8. Since about 1911, a sixteen (16) foot wide alley has existed along the southern border of the Slyder property and northeasterly boundary of the Blair and White property where it adjoins the properties of Defendants. 9. The sixteen (16) feet alley is also depicted on various other municipal maps adopted, utilized and made public by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs, including but not limited to, the following: a. Mount Holly Springs Sewer Easement Map of 1963 2 o• b. Mount Holly Springs Planning Map of 1969 c. Mount Holly Springs Land Use Map of 1969 d. Mount Holly Springs Street Map 10. Until recently, the Borough of Mount Holly Springs had repeatedly utilized and maintained the 16 foot unopened alley for not only municipal planning purposes but, likewise, to provide for the installation and maintenance of water and sewer lines and access thereto by Mount Holly Springs Sewer Authority. 11. The Borough of Mount Holly Springs took no formal action to adopt the municipal streets as laid out on its adopted, land use, planning and street maps referenced above within twenty-one (21) years and ownership in fee of one-half of the 16 foot wide unopened alley reverted to the adjoining property owners on each side of the alley, being Slyder, Papamarkakis, Shildt, Stephen Blair and Suzanne White. 12. Blair and White have taken no action to abandon their rights to use of the unopened public right-of-way. 13. Defendants in 2007 exchanged and recorded Quit Claim Deeds to the Borough of Mount Holly Springs, thereby acquiring ownership, each of one-half of the 16-foot unopened alley in return for a right of access easement for a sewer utility line. 14. Blair and White, together with their predecessors in interest, have continuously and regularly used the unopened alley extending from Orange Street to the northeast corner of their property since at least 1961 when the tract was owned by Hempt Brothers and the alleyway easement was utilized to access the sand quarries contained upon Plaintiff's property. Plaintiffs' and their predecessors' use of the alleyway have been for a period in excess of twenty-one (21) years. 3 15. Since receiving fee ownership of the alley, Slyder and Papamarkakis both have refused and failed to permit Blair and White from continued use of the alley by both verbal statement and physical obstruction. I. Blair and White v. Slyder 16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 are hereby incorporated by reference as though full set forth herein. 17. Blair and White have maintained adverse, open, continuous and uninterrupted use of the 16 foot unopened alley extending from Orange Street to the northeast corner of their property for a period in excess of 21 years. 18. Blair and White's use of the alley has been without license or permission. 19. Blair and White have used the alley to access the rear of their property for various uses, including but not limited to, moving of a thirty-one (31) foot R.V. trailer on and off of the property, hauling brush and materials to a local compost site, as a short-cut to get from one side of town to the other, as well as for the purpose of accessing the rear of the property. 20. Blair and White have maintained and improved the cartway along the easement by removing limbs or other debris falling onto the easement and placing stone and gravel in and along the cartway. In fact, Blair and White have a verbal contact with Mount Holly Springs Sewer Authority to keep the cartway clear as well as the manholes, thereby providing Blair and White control of when and how the roadway is maintained. 21. Blair and White's use of the easement is not inconsistent with any other property owners' rights. 22. The easement existed at the time of purchase of the property of Slyder, with signs of tire indentations in the grass which were readily visible to any purchaser. 4 23. It is believed, and therefore, averred that Slyder was aware of the easement at the time of purchase of the property. 24. The easement does not constitute unenclosed woodlands. 25. Blair and White used all 16 feet of the easement at various times due to the width of construction and delivery vehicles entering and exiting through the easement. 26. As a result, Blair and White have obtained a legal prescriptive easement and right to continued use of the 16 foot unopened paper alley, eight (8) feet of which crosses over the Slyder property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Slyder and enter an Order confirming Blair and White's right to continued use of 8 feet of the easement located on the Slyder property. II. Blair and White v. Papamarkakis 27. Paragraphs 1 through 26 are hereby incorporated by reference as though full set forth herein. 28. Blair and White have maintained adverse, open, continuous and uninterrupted use of the 16 foot unopened alley extending from Orange Street to the northeast corner of their property for a period in excess of 21 years. 29. Blair and White's use of the alley has been without license or permission. 30. Blair and White have used the alley to access the rear of their property for various uses, including but not limited to, moving of a thirty-one (31) foot R.V. trailer on and off of the property, hauling brush and materials to a local compost site, as well as for the purpose of accessing the rear of the property. In addition, the access provides the ability for emergency personnel and has been used by emergency to access emergencies not only on the Blair and White property, but across town in the event their access may be blocked. 5 31. Blair and White have maintained and improved the cartway along the easement by removing limbs or other debris falling onto the easement and placing stone and gravel in and along the cartway. 32. Blair and White's use of the easement is not inconsistent with any other property owners' rights. 33. The easement existed at the time of purchase of the property of Papamarkakis, with signs of tire indentations in the grass which were readily visible to any purchaser. 34. It is believed, and therefore, averred that Papamarkakis was aware of the easement at the time of purchase of the property. 35. The easement does not constitute unenclosed woodlands. 36. Blair and White used all 16 feet of the easement at various times due to the width of construction and delivery vehicles entering and exiting through the easement. 37. As a result, Blair and White have obtained a legal prescriptive easement and right to continued use of the 16 foot unopened paper alley, eight (8) feet of which crosses over the Papamarkakis property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants Papamarkakis and enter an Order confirming Blair and White's right to continued use of 8 feet of the easement located on the Papamarkakis property. III. Blair and White v. Slyder Declaratory Relief/Request for Injunction 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37 are hereby incorporated by reference as though full set forth herein. 39. Despite notice by Blair and White to Slyder of his right of use, Slyder has undertaken intentional steps to block Blair and White's access and use of the easement. 6 40. Specifically, Slyder has done the following: a. Placed large equipment within the easement on numerous occasions b. Dug trenches across the easement left open for approximately six (6) days c. Placed large piles of stone in the center of the easement for a period in excess of twenty (20) days. 41. Slyder's actions have been undertaken vexatiously and in bad faith in a deliberate attempt to prevent Plaintiffs' legal use of the easement and even occurred during attempted negotiations to resolve this dispute. 42. Blair and White have done nothing to waive their rights and, as an abutting landowner to the abandoned Borough alleyway, continue to have the legal right to travel the alleyway as confirmed by Pennsylvania Superior Court's holding in the matter of Ferko v. Spisak, 541 A.2d 327 (1988). 43. Slyder's actions have occurred despite prior acknowledgment on public record during his land development and subdivision approval that he had no intention of blocking or interfering with said easement. 44. Plaintiff is requesting a declaratory judgment and Order enjoining Slyder from further blocking or obstructing Plaintiffs' use of the easement. 45. Plaintiff is further seeking punitive damages as a result of Slyder's vexatious and bad faith conduct in an amount to be determined, but which shall include costs and attorney's fees expended in bringing this action to enforce Blair and White's legal rights. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Slyder enjoining further action to block or prevent Plaintiffs' continued use of the easement together with punitive damages in an amount not less than actual costs and attorney's fees. 7 IV. Blair and White v. Papamarkakis Declaratory Relief/Request for Injunction 46. Paragraphs 1 through 45 are hereby incorporated by reference as though full set forth herein. 47. Despite notice by Blair and White to Papamarkakis of his right of use, Papamarkakis has undertaken intentional steps to block Blair and White's access and use of the easement. 48. Specifically, Papamarkakis placed vehicles in the easement on more than one occasion. 49. Papamarkakis' actions have been undertaken vexatiously and in bad faith in a deliberate attempt to prevent Plaintiffs' legal use of the easement. 50. Blair and White have done nothing to waive their rights and, as an abutting landowner to the abandoned Borough alleyway, continue to have the legal right to travel the alleyway as confirmed by Pennsylvania Superior Court's holding in the matter of Ferko v. Spisak, 541 A.2d 327 (1988). 51. Plaintiff is requesting a declaratory judgment and Order enjoining Papamarkakis from further blocking or interfering with Plaintiffs' use of the easement. 52. Plaintiff is further seeking punitive damages as a result of Papamarkakis' vexatious and bad faith conduct in an amount to be determined. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Papamarkakis enjoining further action to block or 8 prevent Plaintiffs' continued use of the easement together with punitive damages in an amount not less than actual costs and attorney's fees. Respectfully submitted, Date: 11(E- 2°1'1 �,; I Magi . Allshouse, E Iuire Attorney ID # 78014 483 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs 9 • Exhibit "A" —— ..i... ... , ... ..... .„ •... . -. . '- I I •- ... Ilk I ._. .. , .• Flq ;0§ ilail I' e,.. .. il / TAIL R AC`3..E 4N (,..„ '/ i - 'OV! ; •' •-• ‘ ,-.• - - 4i/ -c, •' .* .-' —41:....!-.±- .;:'' -...7-.,,.f.-:-.1:'!--:■-•,-"- .,._ .., :.1.......-,.pr, -'.... ,":-',. .,\ '-'"■, '..k\‘` ---- „4 4. I ,/ . ...----, /,i. -------...-- ,„ •`.. ., t,/ e',..*.> 1:',4/..' .......-\ 0 0 .,.” .-. 4." .- \ Z''‘,1.// • " <*<",' ,...----, \ . .s / f4 t c / .. •'.'?)/ . Th4 k\Ii(. ,',..:..,,,_ y.^0* 41".9.' :;/5"'' ' 11 ....., ••,.,. 9... O' IN \ 7'' ..Il 1' : \ ,. ( P.'.--,J gcm.., .,_,.,,_,\,„.,..., .ce, ,.,±,._, s:.:. , • ,. ,.:. .- -\-,_,, N, ..7 '-'fr' • • . 4.0.-/e,4,,fe•./ .,,, , A7-0' ---\ ., -.) • .0 I •=•:!: , \- ,_,_.,. ... :. _.,} r ,._,... ,3,r. -A.,1-. ,0„tf.,,4 ,,,..:, ,r\ 11 s 7°A a -1.. • (C"k .1 '). A 'N.ei ''f (,),. •'70-'.. eti •,-, ,e, 1 11 ,'." 1. 11 Ipez.-- <""et...."....... . '7.g.. • ■\ ,4" ,, ,, . A 4, i 'e..,„ .?„.:L(' -/ / • ( i -Fr-)--- ('-'-r- ii.. ,), ,,s,..,..., \\„.).1,?-rev - .---7 '...."-'..1 L.'5.- , VO ' 0 %1 ;',.1S. lel -'1 ,..12...... ..),*6" - Anzort--..."5,W000 fi -, ,,, ; :1% A • Ilict \ 1 — 4i ' 7,:, 4 IV, 1 it -...' 'I \ l% 7;4 \ r z 11 \ 4 i• 11 gt gil5 1 6. f 0 ww co° igiq I g2 0 • • . f z i N o4 0 = (-)P z 0 ,.., i -,:, T 3 1 roV , so .1.,Z 9 , v It'? 1%3r1 kW ''., - la7 ri•2 eig F,. 2-1., —0 zx 0 Exhibit "B" 112,.19/;006 19:03 FAX 7174860165 & JOf,B• { -*PI H''10•3}. ' ' ,'a x, _R 54`3,46,.x`, d-,9 -kj:= -624-SS• -cf.; ir-F. .... .1^ .:1 1., \��.z6 -.13'-',,, ,. �, BLOCK A O1AL AP`, cam, . ' •:,,,�, 1� , .vtY��'' `''". / OFFF_STREET PARKING SP.t r eOO YEA FLOOD 546 4 =-_.-'b 5 / / „f '"t P2 t i•'.•Ed3 SANITAGCf sRVER --- .4• �� f__.� _ / EXIslIN6 sorrARY SWEp l A` 4,:. o.b431`. � f fr ,- •, £XtSTlN6 PU81SC WATER SE ' • . ... ,,. ,t‘ If .c''•,6""R' ( lfr�'/', may i V "• K i \,'A t.6.,,, ' 417,t,44. 4 •. Aik a �� 4 t A_ 1 ! s / • `73 � , : • , : , � D c 'vJa , �� : % ; �rf Z5.3` �+ r e/ ,as \ r f .iz a • !f 9/ ti Q rg `\ f c 7, / N. r,, r' G., .....÷ ,,,, - PuTimar,arriai".. ---.,,, -',,. _ . .4..,;(3 -Jr I, ZONE'•R-L' FLOOD PLAIN �� . `� \ 'i -_,. 2- TOTAL AREA O. 818S Acre:3,652.45 +� • • \ ',, 0'F . � `.; -. PUSLI.0 SEWER 1 ,4•nyF Owl r%-` 4 PUSIiC WATER 7' b,- // q� �•: i ZONING Nv OATA -1.,,,` a % i /,(` sp � !; C- ?ONE: R-F'Ft.OcV PLAIN(Ovcriay) 7,_ ,'3' ` /7r 1Ct't -PR( PQS CONSTRUCTION- too YEAR FLQ:O 547"�',. 4 - \/\; _ 4r, ; A•:FHREt TOW OUSES(For Single-Fen-kill U%t) \ ,y'� '\ ,4, �°�r 8.11-14REE UNITS PER 3DWNi-tOUSE \ �s a // c (Z ) STORY FRAME COt35TRUCTION ,Qo-N. �a4 0 EACH UNIT,A MINIMUM lfa i RON1,32'OEE'TH ' E.TW0 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT -. ,>_ \ //' '1,,c ZONING REDUEREMENT(PER TIWNHOU°E) PROP¢SFt] _ —--\' 2. :LOT ARE&,M1J'MWM X6OO S _ (,A 2:1,9(7.27 F;1.4t 5•Z_Q3Q(2'f;At 8 2,t ai ` 2L .LOT WIDTM . ! 20 \\ /•4. a.���-tq02EAR YA7� 25. 5 4 5. I SIDE IAAP. 1 5 _ ._....-1.5 '+.D->- \ 6,- ('1 ST' P. •. •s T 0 s•,-, r5 • SPACES 7.- LO *tFRAGE: SW •: .r4,5•2 .-PARK!N6.3;'7 OrAL-8,592SF.' ?4'.X � ,v ,.. ' ; • • Mark W.Allshouse, Esquire Attorney ID#78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717)582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. • James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, : NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, • and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been duly served upon the following, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first-class, postage prepaid, as follows: Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: 20/3 if" ark W. Allshouse,Esquire Attorney I.D. # 7801 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs 10 HE 3 R5,, R r*, 'CUMBERLAND COU,t,-ry STEPHEN T. BLAIR and SUZANNE G. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WHITE, husband and wife CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW JAMES H. SLYDER and MARY C. SLYDER, husband and wife : and CIVIL TERM EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS and NO. 2008-4494 JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, husband and wife : Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White C/o Mark W.Allshouse, Esquire 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 You are hereby notified to plead to the within New Matter,within twenty days from service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. Very ry%e ssppe�ecctfull yy,, A 1i �r Date: July 22, 2013 DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE,JR., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 Attorney for Defendants Papamarkakis 3µ7-. ilt tlt' P}i L 5UMBERL/w@ C!iIU TY P�;NNSYLVAN 1A STEPHEN T. BLAIR and SUZANNE G. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WHITE, husband and wife CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW JAMES H. SLYDER and MARY C. SLYDER, husband and wife and CIVIL TERM EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS and NO. 2008-4494 JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, husband and wife Defendants DEFENDANTS EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS AND JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW come Defendants Emmanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis, by and through their attorney, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire, and file this Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'Amended Complaint, setting forth as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants Papamarkakis admit that Plaintiffs are owners of certain real property at the averred address. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. By way of further answer, Exhibit "A" of Plaintiffs'Complaint is a document that speaks for itself, is of insufficient resolution to permit Defendants Papamarkakis to form an opinion as to its accuracy; therefore, Plaintiffs'averment, as it pertains to such document, is denied and proof of its accuracy at trial is demanded. 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants Papamarkakis admit that Defendants Slyders are owners of certain real property abutting Shildts'property on the east. Defendants deny Slyders are the owners of Lots 1-6. As way of further answer, Defendant Slyder is the owner of one half of the parcel of land referred to as a former "paper alley," which is the subject of this litigation and which forms the southeastern border of the Slyder property. As way of further answer, Defendants Papamarkakis deny that the partial copy of Slyders'Subdivision Plan attached as Exhibit "B" to Plaintiffs'Amended Complaint is pertinent to this action, since it fails to depict Slyder's and Papamarkakis'ownership of the former "paper alley," which is the subject of this litigation . 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants Papamarkakis admit that their property touches Shildts'property only at Shildts'southeasterly corner. However, Defendants Papamarkakis disagree with Shildts, as to the location of the point at which the properties touch. Defendants Papamarkakis admit that their property abuts the Slyder property at its southern boundary. Defendants Papamarkakis deny that their property is accurately described as "Lot 7" of the Slyder Subdivision Plan. By way of further answer, Defendants Papamarkakis'property is accurately described as former "Lot 7" of the Slyder Subdivision Plan plus that land described in Quit Claim Deed executed on October 29, 2007 and identified by tax parcel number 23-32-2336- 093. 2 w 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants Papamarkakis admit that their property includes the former "Lot 7" of the Slyders'Subdivision Plan. However the Papamarkakis property also includes that land described in Quit Claim Deed executed on October 29, 2007 and identified by tax parcel number 23-32-2336-093. The remainder of Plaintiffs'averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the event, and to the extent the remainder of Plaintiffs'averment is not considered a conclusion of law, Defendants Papamarkakis deny their rights pertinent to this litigation were derived from their being a successor in interest to Defendants Slyder. 8. Denied. The former "paper alley" which is the focus of this litigation, is a stub of an alley laid out on an unrecorded Plan of Town Lots for Mount Holly Springs, in the 19th Century. The "paper alley's" description was carried forward as a boundary marker on subsequent deeds of conveyance, depicted as being sixteen (16)feet in width and a segment of approximately 100 feet in length running between adjacent property to the west and Orange Street to the east. The aforementioned adjacent property to the west, now the lands of Plaintiffs, was not part of the Plan of Town Lots and, therefore, the "paper alley" did not enter or affect Plaintiffs'land. By way of further answer, Defendants Papamarkakis and Slyders memorialized their respective ownership in fee of the said 16 feet wide "paper alley," by exchanging and recording the aforementioned quit claim deeds. 9. Denied. The former 16 feet wide "paper alley" was never opened nor made a public way by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs. By way of further answer, the Borough of Mount Holly Springs maintains only an underground sanitary sewer easement through the former "paper alley," such easement being memorialized and widened to a twenty-foot sewer easement at the 3 request of Mount Holly Springs Borough, as a condition to concurring with the aforementioned quite claim deeds exchanged by Defendants Papamarkakis and Slyders. By way of further answer, the Borough of Mount Holly Springs has not made and does not make any claim that the former "paper alley" has been made a public way or thoroughfare. In fact the Borough of Mount Holly Springs has affirmatively stated it has no interest in the former "paper alley" beyond the maintenance easement for the underground sanitary sewer that runs underneath the former "paper alley." By way of further answer, the maps listed by Plaintiffs show the location of the underground sanitary sewer line and specifically not the location of a public way or thoroughfare through the former "paper alley." 10. Denied. On the contrary, the Borough of mount Holly Springs only very infrequently exercised the sanitary sewer line easement it retains for the sewer line that runs beneath the former "paper alley." By way of further answer, the Borough of mount Holly Springs use of the said easement has been so infrequent that Plaintiffs Shildts installed a locked gate astride the sewer line easement on the southeast boundary of Plaintiffs'Shildts'property where it touches Defendants Papamarkakis'property. 11. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants Papamarkakis admit that the Borough of Mount Holly Springs has taken no formal action,within the required twenty-one year period of time, to adopt, accept dedication or open the former "paper alley," which is the subject of this litigation. Plaintiffs deny that Plaintiffs Shildts nor Blair and White obtained any interest in the former "paper alley," as adjoining landowners. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs or Shildts, nor their grantors, have ever been adjoining"property owners landowners with respect to the former "paper alley." On the contrary, Defendants Papamarkakis and Slyders are the adjoining landowners and formalized their respective acquisitions in fee of the said 16 feet wide 4 "paper alley," by exchanging and recording quit claim deeds in 2007,with the concurrence of the Borough of Mount Holly Springs. 12. Denied as stated. The never accepted or opened former "paper alley" is not a public right-of-way. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs have and never have had any rights with respect to the former "paper alley." Therefore it is sophistry for Plaintiffs to aver they have not abandoned rights they, in fact, never had. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants Papamarkakis admit they and Defendants Slyders memorialized their ownership of their respective portions of the former "paper alley." However, Defendants Papamarkakis aver their portion of the former "paper alley" reverted to their ownership by operation of law, and not in exchange for granting a sewer maintenance easement to the Borough of Mount Holly Springs. By way of further answer, the Borough of Mount Holly Springs explicitly disavowed any interest in the former "paper alley" and requested that Defendants Papamarkakis and Slyders grant the Borough a sanitary sewer easement, in executing their quit claim deeds. 14. Denied. Plaintiffs have not continuously and regularly used the former "paper alley" for a period in excess of twenty-one years. Deposition testimony of a longtime Hempt Brothers employee unequivocally established that Hempt Brothers never use the former "paper alley." Furthermore, the owner of Hempt Brothers affirmed the testimony of his longtime employee. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs averment fails to acknowledge that Hempt Brothers sold the land Plaintiffs now own to a third party, Daniel A. Garonzik, and not to Plaintiffs. Although Garonzik owned the property for several years, he never used the "paper alley." Garonzik failed to keep current on property taxes for the land, and lost the land via a delinquent tax sale to Plaintiffs. Subsequently, Plaintiffs acquired the land from the Tax Claim Bureau of Cumberland 5 County, as trustee for Garonzik, by deed dated February 25, 2000, recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County, at Deed Book 216, Page 831. Plaintiffs know of, but failed to plead, Garonzik's former ownership of Plaintiff's land,because Garonzik, as an intervening owner of the land for several years who never used the "paper alley" interrupted Plaintffs'claim of tacking-on to the falsely averred Hempt Brothers use of the former "paper alley." Therefore, by operation of law, Plaintiffs cannot tack-on to the Hempt Brothers use they falsely assert. 15. Denied. Defendants Papamarkakis and Slyders have acted independently toward their respective portions of the former "paper alley." On information and belief, Defendants Papamarkakis aver that Slyders temporarily blocked their portion of the former "paper alley," as necessary to construct town-homes adjacent to the former "paper alley." Defendants, Papamarkakis, as owners in fee, have appropriately denied and objected to Plaintiffs'trespass on their land. I. Blair and White v. Slvder 16. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses in paragraphs 1 through 15, as though set forth at length herein. 17. Denied. Plaintiffs have not maintained adverse, open, continuous, and uninterrupted us of the former "paper alley" which is the subject of this litigation. By way of further answer, Defendants Papamarkakis deny that the former "paper alley" adjoins Plaintiffs'property. By way of further answer, Defendants Papamarkakis aver that the former "paper alley" ceased to exist before Plaintiffs acquired their property. 18. Denied as stated. To the extent that Plaintiffs characterize "use" as that use averred in paragraph 17 of their Amended Complaint, Defendants Papamarkakis deny such use. 6 Defendants Papamarkakis admit that they have objected to Plaintiffs'trespasses on Defendants property. 19. Denied as stated. To the extent that Plaintiffs characterize "use" as that use averred in paragraph 17 of their Amended Complaint, Defendants Papamarkakis deny such use. By way of further answer, Defendants Papamarkakis admit that Plaintiffs, in an act of trespass, on one occasion,maneuvered a large recreational vehicle across Defendants Papamarkakis lawn, close to their residence, and leaving deep ruts that Defendants Papamarkakis had to have repaired. After Defendants Papamarkakis ordered Plaintiffs to never do so again, Plaintiffs complied with Defendants Papamarkakiss direction. Defendants Papamarkakis deny the remainder of this averment and demand proof of same at trial. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs presently access their property conveniently on the southwest side and such access is much more convenient and presents less danger than access across Defendants Papamarkakis'lawn. 20. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants Papamarkakis admit that Plaintiffs, in an act of trespass, might have spread a token amount of stone or gravel along a portion of the trace of the former "paper alley," in an illegal attempt to assert ownership of the former "paper alley." Defendant Slyder subsequently removed as much of such stone and gravel, as he was able. Defendants Papamarkakis deny that a cartway or any other public thoroughfare exists across Defendants Papamarkakis'property that was the former "paper alley." Defendants Papamarkakis deny that Plaintiffs have any arrangement with the Borough of Mount Holly Springs to keep clear Defendants Papamarkakis'property that was part of the former "paper alley." On the contrary, Plaintiffs, like all others who own lands under which the Mount Holly Springs sewer lines run, are prohibited from obstructing the land over the sewer lines. Defendants Papamarkakis deny that such a requirement posed by the Borough of Mount Holly 7 Springs affords Plaintiffs any control over the lands of Defendants Papamarkakis or Defendants Slyders that was part of the former unopened "paper alley." Defendants Papamarkakis deny all remaining aspects of this averment, in that no cartway or other public thoroughfare over the former "paper alley" has ever been created, and because any use of the former "paper alley" by Plaintiffs was infrequent, sporadic, and for less than twenty-one years. 21. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiffs'expressed purpose for using Defendants Papamarkakis'land,makes Plaintiffs'use intrusive to Defendants Papamarkakis, as the owners of the land and would deny Defendants Papamarkakis the quiet use and enjoyment of the immediate side-yard of their residential dwelling. 22. Denied. To the contrary, no public use easement existed at the time Slyders purchased the property, and no signs or indications of travel or traffic across the then vacant land were apparent to Seller or Purchaser. 23. Denied. Slyders were aware of the existence of the underground sewer line that ran beneath the former "paper alley;" however, Slyders could not have been aware of any public use easement over the former "paper alley" because none existed. 24. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit the former "paper alley" was not situated on enclosed woodland. Defendants deny the existence of any public use easement over the former "paper alley." 25. Denied. With no public right of way in existence and, therefore, none marked, Defendants Papamarkakis deny Plaintiffs used the entire sixteen feet of the former "paper alley," which was located in a large,vacant field. By way of further answer, since the former "paper alley" was not marked, Defendants Papamarkakis believe and therefore aver that Plaintiffs could not have known whether they traversed the entire former "paper alley" or some other portion of 8 the open field. By the way of further answer, Plaintiffs have not even averred that that construction and delivery vehicles used the former "paper alley." 26. Denied. Plaintiffs aver an incorrect conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. However, in the event and to the extent Plaintiffs'averment is not determined to be a conclusion of law, Defendants Papamarkakis aver that Plaintiffs are prescriptive easement claimants only. No prescriptive easement has been established, created, obtained, or acquired as a result of Plaintiffs'averments herein. In fact, neither municipal nor federal aerial photographs nor any other evidence reveal any indications of usage of the former "paper alley" beyond evidence of Mount Holly Springs'installation and one or two repairs of the underground sanitary sewer line running beneath the former "paper alley." Depositions of three separate, disinterested witnesses who continually viewed the field in which the former paper alley was proposed to be located confirmed that Plaintiffs did not use the former "paper alley," before Slyder purchased the field. Deponents included the previous owner of the field he sold to Slyders. He and his family owned the field for over 60 years, before selling it to Slyders. He managed the rooming house adjacent to the field, mowed the field, and was never aware of an adjacent owner's use of the vacant land. His testimony has been reinforced by information derived from the canvassing of other neighbors and the postman. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs and grant Defendants other relief, as the Court deems just and proper. I. Blair and White v. Papamarkakis 27. Defendants Papamarkakis incorporate by reference their responses in paragraphs 1 through 26, as though set forth at length herein. 9 28. Denied. Plaintiffs have not maintained adverse, open, continuous, and uninterrupted us of the former "paper alley" which is the subject of this litigation. By way of further answer, Defendants Papamarkakis aver that the former "paper alley" ceased to exist before Plaintiffs acquired their property and nor former owners used the former "paper alley." 29. Denied as stated. To the extent that Plaintiffs characterize "use" as that use averred in paragraphs 17 and 28 of their Amended Complaint, Defendants Papamarkakis deny such use. Defendants Papamarkakis admit that they have objected to Plaintiffs'trespasses on Defendants Papamarkakis'property. 30. Denied as stated. To the extent that Plaintiffs characterize "use" as that use averred in paragraph 17 and 28 of their Amended Complaint, Defendants Papamarkakis deny such use. By way of further answer, Defendants Papamarkakis admit that Plaintiffs, in an act of trespass, on one occasion, maneuvered a large recreational vehicle across Defendants Papamarkakis lawn. leaving deep ruts that Defendants Papamarkakis had to have repaired. After Defendants Papamarkakis ordered Plaintiffs to never do so again, Plaintiffs complied with Defendants Papamarkakiss direction. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs presently access their property conveniently on the southwest side and such access is much more convenient and presents less danger than access across Defendants Papamarkakis'lawn. Defendants Papamarkakis deny the remainder of this averment and demand proof of same at trial. 31. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants Papamarkakis admit that Plaintiffs, in an act of trespass, spread a token amount of stone or gravel along a portion of the trace of the former "paper alley," in an illegal attempt to assert ownership of the former "paper alley." Defendants Slyder subsequently removed as much of such stone and gravel, as he was able. Defendants Papamarkakis deny all remaining aspects of this averment, in that no cartway or 10 other public thoroughfare over the former "paper alley" has ever been created, and because any use of the former "paper alley" by Plaintiffs was infrequent and sporadic, if at all. 32. Denied. To the contrary,by Plaintiffs'expressed purpose for using Defendants' Papamarkakis'land, Plaintiffs'use would be intrusive to Defendants as the owners of the land and would deny Defendants the quiet use and enjoyment of the immediate side-yard of their residential dwelling and present a safety hazard to anyone in Defendants'yard. 33. Denied. To the contrary, no public use easement existed at the time Defendants Papamarkakis purchased their property, and no signs or indications of travel or traffic across the then vacant land were apparent to Seller or Purchaser. 34. Denied. Defendants Papamarkakis were made aware at some point of the existence of the underground sewer line that ran beneath the former paper alley;" however, Defendants Papamarkakis could not have,been aware of any public use easement over the former "paper alley" because none existed. 35. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants admit the former "paper alley" was not situated on enclosed woodland. Defendants deny the existence of any public use easement over the former "paper alley." 36. Denied. With no public right of way in existence and, therefore, none marked, Defendants Papamarkakis deny Plaintiffs used the entire sixteen feet of the former "paper alley," which was first located in a large, vacant field and later in an unmarked location running through Defendants Papamarkakis'side yard. By way of further answer, since the former "paper alley" was not marked, Defendants Papamarkakis believe and therefore aver that Plaintiffs could not have known whether they traversed the entire former "paper alley" or some other portion of the open field or Defendants Papamarkakis'side yard. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs have not 11 averred use of the former "paper alley" by construction and delivery vehicles. Defendants Papamarkakis, therefore, deny the remainder of Plaintiffs'averment and demand proof of same at trial. 37. Denied. Plaintiff aver an incorrect conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. However, in the event and to the extent Plaintiffs'averment is not determined to be a conclusion of law, Defendants Papamarkakis aver that Plaintiffs are prescriptive easement claimants only. No prescriptive easement has been established, created, obtained, or acquired as a result of Plaintiffs'averments herein. In fact, neither municipal nor federal aerial photographs nor any other evidence reveal any indications of usage of the former "paper alley" beyond evidence of the Borough of Mount Holly Springs' installation and one or two-time repair of the underground sanitary sewer line running beneath the former "paper alley." Depositions of three separate, disinterested witnesses,who continually viewed the field in which the former "paper alley" was proposed to be located, confirmed that Plaintiffs did not use the former "paper alley" before Slyder purchased the field. Deponents included the previous owner of the field he sold to Slyders. He and his family owned the field for over 60 years before selling it to Slyders. He managed the rooming house adjacent to the field, mowed the field, and was never aware of an adjacent owner's use of the vacant land. His testimony has been reinforced by information derived from the canvassing of other neighbors and the postman. WHEREFORE, Defendants Papamarkakis respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs'Amended Complaint, enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs and grant Defendants other relief, as the Court deems just and proper. 12 III Blair and White v. Slyder Declaratory Relief/Request for Injunction 38. Defendants Papamarkakis incorporate by reference their responses in paragraphs 1 through 37, as though set forth at length herein. 39. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiffs have no right to cross Slyders'land. No easement in favor of Plaintiffs has been established across Slyders'land. Any obstacles due to Defendant Slyder's activities have been the result of the exigencies of staging for ongoing construction work, vice interference with Plaintiffs intrusions. 40. Admitted in part, denied in part as related to Paragraph 39 above. Defendants Papamarkakis admit only that large equipment has been used on site for construction purposes; trenches have been dug for emplacing underground utility lines, and trenches left open temporarily for required inspection purposes; and piles of materials have been positioned on site for convenience in construction work. All remaining aspects of this averment are denied. 41. Denied. To the contrary, Slyder's activities have been in the line of business to achieve a higher and better use of his real estate, as approved by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs. Plaintiffs have not attained any legal use of any easement over Slyder's land, and Plaintiffs rejected Slyders'offer to furnish reasonable accommodation, at no expense to Plaintiffs, in the alternative to claimant's position. 42. Denied. Plaintiffs have not obtained any prescriptive interest in Slyder's land as a claimant. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs have no right of use of the former "paper alley" that Plaintiffs admit was never opened and actually abandoned by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs. By way of further answer, neither Plaintiffs nor their grantors were ever abutting landowners of the "paper alley," which was laid-out in the Plan of Town Lots and, therefore, never accrued any rights of use of the former "paper alley." Defendants Papamarkakis further 13 aver that Plaintiffs misapply Ferko v. Spisak, 541 A.2d. 327 (1988), since Ferko clearly provides that only lot owners in the original subdivision plan that laid-out the proposed street, who bought and owned lots that abutted the proposed street, and their grantees accrued a right to use the street, even if it was never accepted and opened by the municipality. The right of such abutting lot owners to use the street derives from contractual rights and obligations between Buyer and Seller, and not by prescription or action of the municipality. Since Plaintiffs'land was never part of the Plan of Town Lots, Plaintiffs cannot claim any right of use under Ferko, nor under its authoritative predecessors, Rahn v. Hess, 378 Pa. 264, 106 A.2d. 461 (1954) and Riek and Mindyas v. Binnie, 352 Pa. Super. 246, 507 A.2d. 856 (1986). By way of further answer, Plaintiffs have and never have had any rights with respect to the former "paper alley." Therefore it is sophistry for Plaintiffs to aver they have not abandoned rights they never had. 43. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that in the initial processing for subdivision approval, Defendant Slyder acknowledged in public forum that he had no present intention of blocking the "paper alley." Underlying this intention at that time and his subsequent performance in the establishment of a formal utility easement by agreement with the municipality forever ensured clear Mount Holly Springs Borough access to the underground sewer line to enable remedy of contingencies. Subsequent revisions of the subdivision plan, which have been duly approved, included some use of the "paper alley" for side yard setback allowances. By way of further answer, Defendants papamarkakis believe, and therefore aver, that Plaintiffs abetted Plaintiffs Shildt in installing a locked gate above the underground sewer line, thus inhibiting the Borough of Mount Holly Springs'access to the sewer line," all the while claiming that Defendants Slyders blocked the former "paper alley" that Plaintiffs now inconsistently claim extends along Plaintiffs'southern 14 4 boundary. Defendants Papamarkakis deny all remaining aspects of this averment, for the reasons previously set forth. 44. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendants Papamarkakis admit Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment. Defendants Papamarkakis deny Plaintiffs have any right to cross Slyder's land and deny that any public use easement across Slyder's land exists. Defendants Papamarkakis aver that the only easement that exists across Slyder's land is the sanitary sewer access easement he granted the Borough of Mount Holly Springs in 2007. 45. Denied. Defendants Papamarkakis deny any vexatious and bad faith conduct by either Slyder or Defendants Papamarkakis. To the contrary, Plaintiffs initiation and maintenance of this baseless litigation has been opportunistic, in keeping with Plaintiffs' reputation within the community,patently vexatious, and conducted in bad faith. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs and grant Defendants other relief, as the Court deems just and proper. III Blair and White v. Papamarkakis Declaratory Relief/Request for Iniunction 46. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses in paragraphs 1 through 45, as though set forth at length herein. 47. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiffs have asserted a right to use Defendants Papamarkakis'land, and that Defendants Papamarkakis have indeed exercised their ownership rights to quiet use and enjoyment, in preference to acceding to Plaintiffs'illegal demands. All other aspects of this averment as to Plaintiffs right of use are denied. 15 48. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant Papamarkakis has parked his car in his yard. All other aspects of this averment are denied. On the contrary, Defendant Papamarkakis has been exposed to loud and prolonged profane and obscene language directed toward him by Plaintiff and his family members. 49. Denied. Defendants Papamarkakis deny any vexatious and bad faith conduct by either Slyder or Defendants Papamarkakis. To the contrary, Plaintiffs initiation and maintenance of this baseless litigation has been opportunistically aggressive, in keeping with Plaintiffs' reputation within the community, patently vexatious, and conducted in bad faith. 50. Denied. Defendants Papamarkakis deny Plaintiffs have any right to cross Defendants'land and deny that any public use easement across Defendants Papamarkakis'land exists. Defendants Papamarkakis aver that the only easement that exists across Defendants Papamarkakis'land is the sanitary sewer access easement they granted to the Borough of Mount Holly Springs in 2007. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs have no right of use of the former "paper alley" that Plaintiffs admit was never opened and actually abandoned by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs. By way of further answer, neither Plaintiffs nor their grantors were ever abutting landowners of the "paper alley" which was laid-out in the Plan of Town Lots and, therefore, never accrued any rights of use of the former "paper alley." Defendants Papamarkakis further aver that Plaintiffs misapply Ferko v. Spisak, 541 A.2d. 327 (1988), since Ferko clearly provides that only lot owners in the original subdivision plan that laid-out the proposed street, who bought and owned lots that abutted the proposed street, and their grantees accrued a right to use the street, even if it was never accepted and opened by the municipality. The right of such abutting lot owners to use the street derives from contractual rights and obligations between Buyer and Seller, and not by prescription or action of the municipality. 16 Since Plaintiffs'land was never part of the Plan of Town Lots, Plaintiffs cannot claim any right of use under Ferko, nor under its authoritative predecessors, Rahn v. Hess, 378 Pa. 264, 106 A.2d. 461 (1954) and Riek and Mindyas v. Binnie, 352 Pa. Super. 246, 507 A.2d. 856 (1986). By way of further answer, Plaintiffs have and never have had any rights with respect to the former "paper alley." Therefore it is sophistry for Plaintiffs to aver they have not abandoned rights they never had. 51. Denied. Defendants Papamarkakis deny Plaintiffs have any right to cross Defendants'land and deny that any public use easement across Defendants Papamarkakis'land exists. Defendants Papamarkakis aver that the only easement that exists across Defendants Papamarkakis'land is the sanitary sewer access easement they granted to the Borough of Mount Holly Springs in 2007. 52. Denied. Defendants Papamarkakis deny any vexatious or bad faith conduct. To the contrary, Plaintiffs initiation and maintenance of this baseless litigation has been opportunistically aggressive, in keeping with Plaintiffs'reputation within the community, patently vexatious, and conducted in bad faith. By way of further answer, Defendant Papamarkakis has been exposed to loud and prolonged profane and obscene language directed toward him by Plaintiff Shildt and his family members. WHEREFORE, Defendants Papamarkakis respectfully request this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs'Amended Complaint, enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs and grant Defendants other relief, as the Court deems just and proper. NEW MATTER 53. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses in paragraphs 1 through 52 as though set forth at length herein. 17 54. The former "paper alley" which is the focus of this litigation is a stub of an alley laid out on an unrecorded Plan of Town Lots for Mount Holly Springs, in the 19th Century. The "paper alley's" description was carried forward as a boundary marker on subsequent deeds of conveyance, depicted as being sixteen(16) feet in width and a segment of approximately 100 feet in length running between adjacent property to the west and Orange Street to the east. 55 The aforementioned adjacent property to the west, now the lands of Plaintiffs,was not part of the Plan of Town Lots. 56. Since the aforementioned adjacent property to the west, now the lands of Plaintiffs, was not part of the Plan of Town Lots, the "paper alley" did not enter or abut Plaintiffs'land.55. The aforementioned property to the west, now the lands of Plaintiffs,was not part of the Plan of Town Lots and, therefore, the "paper alley" did not enter or abut Plaintiffs'land. 57. Having never been accepted nor opened by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs, this "paper alley," by operation of law, reverted to ownership in fee between its adjoiners, to the north and to the south, after 21 years. 58. Defendants Papamarkakis is the aforementioned adjoiner to the south and Defendants Slyders is the adjoiner to the north. 59. On or about October 29, 2007, the aforementioned adjoiners executed and exchanged quit claim deeds, each memorializing ownership of half of the former "paper alley." 60. In agreeing to the execution and exchange of the quit claim deeds, the Borough of Mount Holly Springs requested the aforementioned adjoiners to grant by deed a sanitary sewer easement in favor of the Borough of Mount Holly Springs,which the adjoiners did. 61. During a Mount Holly Springs Borough Council meeting conducted on or about December 12, 2005, in response to a question posed by Leroy Shildt, Plaintiff in a parallel 18 action, the Council informed all present, including Shildt, that the "paper alley" is not owned by the Borough, is private property, and is not a public street of the Borough. Shildt did not object to the Borough's determinations regarding the "paper alley." 62. By letter dated April 14, 2008, Plaintiffs'counsel informed Defendants that the Borough of Mount Holly Springs had abandoned the former "paper alley" and that ownership of the former "paper alley" was vested in Defendants Papamarkakis and Defendants Slyders. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs'counsel asserted that Plaintiffs had earned a prescriptive easement over the former "paper alley" through adverse, open, continuous notorious, and uninterrupted use for a period in excess of 21 years. 63. Pennsylvania law provides that any street, lane or alley, laid out in a village or town plot or plan of lots that is not opened within 21 years for public use by the municipality shall have no force and effect and shall not be opened, without the consent of the owners of the land on which the street, lane or alley had been laid out. 36 P.S. § 1961 (2013) (Unopened ways or streets on towns plots). 64. The Borough of Mount Holly Springs did not open the aforementioned "paper alley," within 21 years of it being laid out. 65. Since the Borough of Mount Holly Springs did not open the aforementioned "paper alley," within 21 years of it being laid out, any public right of way that might have been created was extinguished,by operation of Pennsylvania law. 66. Pennsylvania case law, Rahn v. Hess, 378 Pa. 264, 106 A.2d. 461 (1954); Ferko v. Snizak, 373 Pa. Super. 303, 541 A.2d. 327 (1988); Riek and Mindyas v. Binnie, 352 Pa. Super. 246, 507 A.2d. 856 (1986),provides that even where a street or alleyway had not been opened for over 21 years, the original owners of lots within the plan of lots that abut the street or 19 alleyway, and their grantees, accrue a permanent right to use the unopened street or alleyway. The key point is the original owners and their grantees must have owned lots in the plan of lots that laid out the street; in this case, "The Plan of Town Lots." 67. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held in In re City of Altoona, 479 Pa. 252, 258; 388 A.2d. 313, 315-16, (quoting Horsham Township v. Weiner, 435 Pa. 35, 41, 255 A.2d 126, 129 (1969)) that dedication of land occurs when an owner of property offers it for public use and it is accepted by or on behalf of the public. Superior Court has held, in Vendetti Appeal, 181 Pa. Super. 214, 124 A.2d. 448 (1956), for there to be a complete dedication, there must be an offer of dedication and acceptance. 68. Acceptance on behalf of the public must occur within 21 years of the offer of dedication, or the street may not be opened for use by the public without the consent of 51% of the abutting landowners,based on a front foot basis, in accordance with 53 P.S. § 46724 (2013). 69. Following the dedication of a street, there must be an acceptance by the municipality or use by the public within twenty one years; otherwise, the land reverts to the abutting landowners, as held by Pawlowski v. Borough of Barnesboro, 118 Pa. Commw. 375; 545 A.2d. 965 (1987). 70. Acceptance by the municipality may be express such as by resolution or implied such as actual opening of the street by actually grading and constructing the street, as provided in 53 P.S. § 46701 and held in Tobin v. Radnor Township Board of Comm'rs, 142 Pa. Commw. 567, 581; 597 A.2d. 1258, 1265 (1991). 71. Even an express dedication of a street and a formal expression of acceptance such as a resolution do not cause the street to become a public thoroughfare, unless they are accompanied by physical opening or unequivocal authoritative actions by the municipality 20 demonstrating its intention to accept the street, as the Court held in Tobin v. Radnor Township Board of Commissioners. 72. In Lillo v. Kay, 704 A.2d. 149 (1997), Pa. Super. LEXIS 3853, Superior Court stated that mere formal acceptance of the dedication of a street(or other area for that matter) that exists only on paper does not render the accepted area (street, sidewalk, etcetera)public. Rather, under _ such circumstances, offer and acceptance of the dedication is akin to a municipality plotting or laying out the street. 73. In . Lillo v. Kay, 704 A.2d. 149 (1997), Pa. Super. LEXIS 3853, Superior court held that in order for a dedicated paper street to become a public thoroughfare, it is necessary to demonstrate that the street is actually opened by the municipality or used by the general public. A paper street can become a public way where there has been evidence of substantial use by the general public, but mere occasional use or inconsequential acts, is not sufficient to convert a dedication into a public way. 74. The former "paper alley," which is the focus of this litigation,was not been used by the general public. 75. The laying out of a street, without opening same, shall create no right to public use of such street, in accordance with 53 P.S. § 46723. 76. Mere installation of a sewer line on a dedicated street does not constitute the opening of the street required to consummate dedication, as the Court held in Tobin v. Radnor Township Board of Commissioners. 77. Clearing trees and shrubbery and occasional mowing of grass does not constitute the opening of the street required to consummate dedication, as the Court held in Borou,jzh of Lehighton v. Katz, 75 Pa. Comrnw. 388, 462 A. 2d. 889 (1983). 21 78. In Shamokin v. Helt, 250 Pa. 80; 95 A. 2d. 385 (1915), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a street offered for dedication becomes a public street only to the extent to which it is actually used or opened. 79. The burden of proving the existence of a public way is on one claiming its existence to prove acceptance by the municipality by clear and convincing evidence. Where the facts are undisputed, the question of acceptance is one of law, as held in Elliott v. H. B. Alexander & Son, Inc., 41 Pa. Commw_ 184; 399 A.2d. 1130. 80. Hempt Brothers did not sell the land Plaintiffs now own to Plaintiffs,but to a third party, Daniel A. Garonzik--not to Plaintiffs. 81. Although Mr. Garonzik owned the property Plaintiffs now own for several years,he never used the former "paper alley." 82. Mr. Garonzik failed to keep current on payment of property taxes for the land, and lost the land via a delinquent tax sale to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs acquired the land from the Tax Claim Bureau of Cumberland County, as trustee for Garonzik,by deed dated February 25, 2000, recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County, at Deed Book 216, Page 831. 83. At all times relevant to this litigation Plaintiffs knew of,but failed to plead Mr. Garonzik's former ownership of Plaintiff's land. 84. Because Mr. Garonzik was an intervening owner of the land for several years prior to Plaintiffs'acquisition of the land and never used the "paper alley," his ownership of the land Plaintiffs now own interrupted Plaintffs'claim of tacking-on to the falsely averred Hempt Brothers use of the former "paper alley." 22 85. For the reasons herein stated,by operation of law, Plaintiffs cannot tack-on to the falsely asserted Hempt Brothers use of the former "paper alley." WHEREFORE, Defendants Papamarkakis respectfully request this Honorable Court add the foregoing information to the factual and legal bases for discounting Plaintiffs'erroneous justifications for taking Defendants'land, dismiss Plaintiffs'Amended Complaint, enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs and grant Defendants other relief, as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted Date: Tcc t y aa,2613 Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 ID No. 83889 (717)385-1866 Attorney for Defendants Papamarkakis 23 STEPHEN T. BLAIR and SUZANNE G. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WHITE, husband and wife CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. JAMES H. SLYDER and MARY C. SLYDER, : CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW husband and wife and : CIVIL TERM EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS and NO. 2008-4494 JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, husband and wife Defendants VERIFICATION The undersigned do hereby verify, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, that the facts and circumstances set forth in the foregoing Defendants'Papamarkakis'Answer to Plaintiffs'Complaint with New Matter are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Date: �3 Emmanuel Papamarkakis Defendant J efssica Papamarkakis ' endant STEPHEN T. BLAIR and SUZANNE G. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WHITE, husband and wife CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION—IN LAW JAMES H. SLYDER and MARY C. SLYDER, husband and wife and CIVIL TERM EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS and NO. 2008-4494 JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, husband and wife Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., attorney for Defendants Emanuel Papamarkakis and Jessica Papamarkakis hereby certify that on July 22, 2013 I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants'Papamarkakis'Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter upon the below named individual by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. SERVED UPON: Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire 4833 Spring Road Sherman Dale, PA 17090 Attorney for Plaintiff Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 Attorney for Defendants Papamarkakis \FILES\Clients\9965 Slyder\9965.2\9965.2.Preliminary Objections.wpd Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO I.D. 29943 F`R O # `,t ,N L. 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 ;1313 JUL 26 PM 2: P``' (717) 243-3341 CUMBER LAN S COURT`C` Attorneys for Defendants PENNSYLVANIA STEPHEN T. BLAIR, and SUZANNE : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF G. WHITE, husband and wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. : NO. 2008-4494 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JAMES H. SLYDER and MARY C. SLYDER, • • and • EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS and : JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, husband and wife, • Defendants • PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Defendants,James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder,by their attorneys, Martson Law Offices, sets forth the following: 1. The above action involves the ownership of and rights to a sixteen foot wide unopened alley. 2. Count I of the Complaint involves a claim against Defendants James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder (Defendants Slyder) requesting the Court to enter an Order confirming Plaintiffs' right to the unopened alley. 3. Count III of the Complaint is titled"Declaratory Relief/Request for Injunction"and seeks an Injunction to prevent Defendants Slyder from blocking or preventing Plaintiffs' use of the unopened alley"together with punitive damages." 4. Punitive damages are not an appropriate remedy in a Declaratory Judgment Action involving title to and use of property. 5. The allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint do not form the basis for awarding punitive damages. WHEREFORE,Defendants Slyder request Your Honorable Court to issue an Order striking the claim for punitive damages in this case. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By at Hubert X. Gilroy,,'squire 10 East High St; et Carlisle, PA 1 013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendants Dated: July 3 dC , 2013 Mark W.Allshouse,Esquire ;i Attorney ID#78014 4833 Spring Road GN13 N G "2 6 Shermans Dale,PA 17090 (717)582-4006 1 1 9, ERLfa�i�� ��ll Attorney for Plaintiffs1r1 �5� - 't'l� Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS PAPAMARKAKIS' NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, by and through their attorney, Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire, and respectfully file this Reply to New Matter to Amended Complaint as follows: 53. Denied. Paragraph 53 of Defendants' New Matter is a paragraph of incorporation to which no response is necessary. In the event a response is necessary, paragraph 53 and the incorporated paragraphs are denied. 54. Denied as stated. While it can be agreed that the alley is shown on the Plan of Town Lots for Mount Holly Springs and its description carried forward as boundary markers for deeds, thereafter, the Borough of Mount Holly informally adopted said alley for use by the Mount Holly Springs Borough and/or Mount Holly Springs Water Authority, which alley is clearly depicted on the adopted Mount Holly Springs Planning Map, Land Use Map and Street Map, as well as the Mount Holly Springs Sewer Easement Map. t 55. Denied. The paper alley or stub of alley clearly extends onto Plaintiffs' land and Defendants have presented no evidence that that parcel or tract was not part of the Plan of Town Lots. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed necessary. The fact that Plaintiffs' property was not part of the Plan of Town Lots is irrelevant. 56. Denied. The paper alley or stub of alley clearly extends onto Plaintiffs' land and Defendants have presented no evidence that that parcel or tract was not part of the Plan of Town Lots. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed necessary. The fact that Plaintiffs' property was not part of the Plan of Town Lots is irrelevant. 57. Denied. Paragraph 57 is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. By way of further response, while Mount Holly Springs may not have taken official action to open the alleyway and as a result, fee ownership would have reverted to the adjoining tracts after twenty-one (2 1) years; it is denied that the alleyway was not accepted and controlled by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs as is evidenced by the numerous official plans and maps adopted by the Borough and Mount Holly Springs Sewer Authority as set forth in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 58. Admitted. By way of further response, as the alley extended beyond the properties of Defendants Papamarkakis and Defendants Slyder as the alley as adopted and utilized by the Borough extended beyond the properties of Defendants Papamarkakis and Defendants Slyder, Plaintiffs Blair/White were additional adjoinders to the south and Shildt were an additional adjoinders to the north: 59. Denied as stated. On October 29, 2007 Defendants Papamarkakis and Defendants Slyder attempted to execute documents and exchange Quit Claim Deeds in an attempt to clarify ownership of the paper alley. By way of further response, it is denied that these actions in any way effected the rights of Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs were not a party to those Deeds. 60. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are without knowledge or belief as to the truth of the averment contained in paragraph 60. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed relevant. 61. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted at the time of the hearing, that the paper alley was not owned in fee by the Borough of Mount Holly Springs and that if the Borough never having taken formal action to open the paper alley, it reverted to private property. It is denied that any assertion by the Mount Holly Springs Borough Council in any way effected the rights of Plaintiffs to travel across:the private property, Blair and White having had their rights established by previous Borough actions. 62. Admitted. By way of further response, abandonment of Mount Holly Springs of the former paper alley investing a fee ownership by Defendants Papamarkakis and Defendants Slyder does not divest Plaintiffs of their rights of prescriptive easement, nor of their rights of law to continued use of the previous public access easement. 63. Denied. Paragraph 63 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, the statute cited applies to use by the public at large and serves in no way to extinguish the rights of the adjoining landowners of continuous use of a previously adopted public access easement. 64. Admitted. By way of further response, without formally opening,the Borough of Mount Holly Springs, did, in fact, informally adopt and utilize the aforementioned alley as a public access easement and, as such., established Plaintiffs' rights as an adjoining landowner for continued use thereof despite later abandoning said easement or executing documents with Defendants with regard to an access easement. 65. Denied. Paragraph 65 is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. By way of further response, the Borough of Mount Holly Springs informally adopted the access easement and utilized it. By way of further response, although the general public's right-of-way to use such access easement may have been extinguished by subsequent actions of Mount Holly Springs or Mount Holly Sewer Authority, those actions did not extinguish the separate rights of adjoining landowners to that previously adopted public access easement as established by Pennsylvania case law. 66. Admitted. By way of further response, the informal adoption and continued use by Mount Holly Springs Borough or Mount Holly Springs Sewer Authority is the basis for Plaintiffs' rights, and as a result, the case law cited herein is likely not relevant to determining Plaintiffs' rights which are derived from a wholly different legal concept. 67. Denied. Paragraph 67 is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. Strict proof is demanded if deemed relevant at the time of trial. 68. Denied. Paragraph 68 is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. Strict proof is demanded if deemed relevant at the time of trial. 69. Denied. Paragraph 69'is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. Strict proof is demanded if deemed relevant at the time of trial. 70. Admitted. 71. Admitted. 72. Admitted. 73. Admitted. 74. Admitted. 75. Admitted. 76. Admitted. By way of further response, however, additional actions, such as maintenance and continued utilization and control of said street would meet the definition as set forth by the Court tin the referenced case. 77. Admitted. By way of further response, these actions alone may not demonstrate adoption of the street as a public right-of-way; however, as numerous Courts have clearly laid out, there are several factors in reviewing that determination. 78. Admitted. 79. Admitted. 80. Admitted. 81. Denied. Paragraph 81 is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. Strict proof is demanded if deemed relevant at the time of trial. By way of further response, it is believed and, therefore, averred that the alley was continually used by all Plaintiffs' predecessors for a period in excess of twenty-one (21) years. 82. Admitted upon information and belief. 83. Denied as stated. By way of further response, Mr. Garonzik's former ownership of Plaintiffs' land is relevant only in the effect of Plaintiffs' ability to tack onto Mr. Garonzik's rights to use the disputed alley which were established during his ownership. By way of further response, it is admitted that his ownership was not plead. 84. Denied. Paragraph 84 is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. Strict proof is demanded if deemed relevant at the time of trial. 85. Denied. Paragraph 85 is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. Strict proof is demanded if deemed relevant at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants together with relief requested in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Respectfully submitted, Date: t/Zo 13 n . 1e833 W. Allshouse,E uire ey I.D. # 78014 Spring Road Sherman Dale, PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION We, Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, verify that the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief under penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: Ste en t. B air Date: za e hite Mark W.Allshouse, Esquire Attorney ID#78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale,PA 17090 (717)582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been duly served upon the following, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first-class,postage prepaid, as follows: Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: -r✓ Allshouse,Esq re �arkW. torney I.D. # 78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale,PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs � f• Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire Attorney ID#78014 4833 Spring Road1� Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717)582-4006 ^,t E 01140 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: In response to the Preliminary Objections filed by Defendants Slyder, kindly amend Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as follows: III. Blair and White v. Slyder Declaratory Relief/Request for Iniunction a. Paragraph 45 shall be omitted. b. The WHEREFORE clause shall omit any request for punitive damages. IV. Blair and White v. Papamarkakis Declaratory Relief/Request for In*unction a. Paragraph 52 shall be omitted. b. The WHEREFORE clause shall omit any request for punitive damages. Respectfully submitted, Date: 1-31-2-0 l3 ark W. Allshouse,E quire Attorney I.D. # 7801 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale,PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs i t � Mark W. Allshouse,Esquire Attorney ID#78014 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale, PA 17090 (717)582 4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen T. Blair and Suzanne G. White, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder, NO. 08-4494 CIVIL TERM husband and wife, and Emmanuel Papamarkakis and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Jessica Papamarkakis, husband and wife, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been duly served upon the following, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first-class, postage prepaid, as follows: Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 J Date: Gn�" k . Allshouse,E quire ttorney I.D. #7801 4833 Spring Road Shermans Dale,PA 17090 (717) 582-4006 Attorney for Plaintiffs • FiLEU—O F ICL: Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire f 'f C PRO `` ,1 ;'s f` i MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO 2013 OCT -3 PM 3: 35 I.D. 29943 10 East High Street CUMBERLAND COUNT Y Carlisle, PA 17013 PENNSYLVANIA (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendants STEPHEN T. BLAIR, and SUZANNE : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF G. WHITE, husband and wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. : NO. 2008-4494 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JAMES H. SLYDER and MARY C. SLYDER, and • EMMANUEL PAPAMARKAKIS and : JESSICA PAPAMARKAKIS, husband and wife, • Defendants • ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS JAMES H. SLYDER AND MARY C. SLYDER Defendants, James H. Slyder and Mary C. Slyder,by their attorneys, Martson Law Offices, sets forth the following in response to the Amended Complaint filed in the above matter: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Plaintiffs are owners of a certain parcel of land at the mentioned address. The exact scope and acreage of Plaintiffs' land is denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to truth or falsity of said allegation. Proof thereof is demanded. 5. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendants Slyder make claim to one half of a parcel of land referred to as a former "paper alley" which is the subject of this litigation. 6. Admitted that Defendants Papamarkakis own property at the mentioned address. Denied that the allegations set forth in the Complaint relative to the exact size of Defendants Papamarkakis' property are correct. 7. Admitted that Defendants Papamarkakis'property was part of a subdivision done by Defendant Slyder. Denied that Plaintiff's allegations include all of Defendants Papamarkakis' land as the allegations do not include land described in a Quit Claim Deed executed on October 29,2007,and identified as tax parcel number 23-32-2336- 093. 8. Denied. A 16 foot wide alley has never existed. On the contrary, what has existed is a 16 foot wide unimproved tract of ground that was rarely or sporadically used by Plaintiffs and was basically a "paper alley" that has reverted in ownership to both Defendants. 9. Denied. The former "paper alley" was never opened nor made a public way by the Borough of Mt. Holly Springs. 10. Denied. 11. Admitted that the Borough of Mt. Holly Springs took no formal action to adopt any municipal streets as laid out on the land in questions. Denied that such failure to act resulted in the Whites or the Shildts obtaining any interest in the property. 12. Denied that Blair and White have any interest in the unopened public right-of-way. 13. Admitted that Quit Claim Deeds were exchanged. Denied that the exchange of the Quit Deeds constituted the granting of Defendants' ownership of the alley. On the contrary, said alley had reverted to the Defendants by operation of law prior to execution of the deeds. 14. Denied. 15. Admitted that Defendant Slyder has denied Plaintiffs use of Defendant Slyders'land. I. Blair and White v. Slyder 16. No responsive pleading is required. 17. Denied. 18. Admitted that Defendant Slyder has not granted any license or permission. 19. Admitted that Plaintiffs used the alley sporadically. 20. Denied. 21. Denied. Any such use by the Plaintiffs of the alley that constitutes a trespass on Defendant Slyders' land. 22. Denied. 23. Denied. 24. Denied that there is any easement in existence. Admitted that the paper alley in question does not constitute unenclosed woodlands. 25. Denied. 26. Said allegation is a conclusion of law and no responsive pleading is required. In the alternative, said allegation is denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Slyders request Your Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. II. Blair and White v. Papamarkakis 27. Through 37. Defendant Slyders are under no obligation to respond to allegations relating to a Count solely against Defendants Papamarkakis. WHEREFORE, Defendant Slyder requests Your Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. III. Blair and White v. Slyder Declaratory Relief/Request for Injunction 38. No responsive pleading is required. 39. Denied that Plaintiffs have any right to use of the paper alley. Admitted that Defendant Slyder would not agree to Plaintiffs propose trespass on the paper alley. 40. Admitted that Defendant Slyder has placed equipment within the unopened alley. Denied it was done to keep the Plaintiffs from using the alley. Rather, said equipment was placed there in conjunction with construction on other lands owned by Defendant Slyder. 41. Denied, Defendant Slyders' actions have been taken in conjunction with his use of property that he owns. 42. Denied that Plaintiffs have any rights to waive in connection with the paper alley. Additional allegations concerning Pennsylvania judicial decisions constitute a conclusion of law and no responsive pleading is required. 43. Denied. Said discussions during the land development and subdivision approval were relating to a sewer line access and did not relate to any purported rights claimed by the Plaintiffs. 44. Admitted that Plaintiff is seeking declaratory judgment. Denied that Plaintiff has any meritorious claim. 45. Admitted that Plaintiff seeks punitive damages. Denied that said damages are appropriate as Plaintiffs have no meritorious claim. WHEREFORE, Defendant Slyder requests Your Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. IV. Blair and White v. Papamarkakis Declaratory Relief/Request for Injunction 46. Through 52. Defendant Slyders are under no obligation to respond to allegations relating to a Count solely against Defendants Papamarkakis. WHEREFORE, Defendant Slyder requests Your Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By Hubert X. ilroy, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendants.3 Dated: October , 2013 VERIFICATION The foregoing Answer is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer and to the extent that the document is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the document is that of counsel,I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. a,.- . Slyder