Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-5781 STEVEN HOWELL, Plaintiff vs. JULIA Y. DYCKMAN, Defendant NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. 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. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 0- s-M CIVIL ACTION - LAW Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 By: Steve owell, Esgttfre ell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-1277 Supreme Court ID 62063 STEVEN HOWELL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. O$ 5 g l J JULIA Y. DYCKMAN, ; Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Steven Howell, Esquire (hereinafter Attorney Howell) is an attorney with a principal place of business located at 619 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 2. Defendant Julia Y. Dyckman (hereinafter "Defendant") is an adult individual residing at 1505 Pine Hollow Road Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17109. 3. On January 18, 2008 Defendant retained the services of Attorney Howell in a Dauphin County divorce captioned as Julia Y. Dyckman v. Dennis V Dyckman, No. 2007 - 7759 DV. 4. Defendant's divorce is a complex matter involving secured and unsecured debt, valuable pension plans and real estate located in Dauphin County and two parcels of land in Colorado and New Hampshire. Defendant and her husband are the owners of various retirement benefits with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States Government. 6. Defendant's divorce case involves a multitude of complex legal and factual issues. 7. On Friday, August 1, 2008 Defendant discharged Attorney Howell and retained new counsel in the Dauphin County divorce action and support case. 8. Defendant utilized the services of Attorney Howell for approximately 61/2 months. 9. On January 18, 2008 Defendant discharged Bryan Walk, Esquire when she retained Attorney Howell. 10. Defendant utilized the services of Bryan Walk, Esquire from early August 2007 through January 18, 2008, a period of approximately 6'/2 months. 11. Defendant's husband has utilized Darren Holst, Esquire during the same period of time as the three (3) counsel employed by Defendant between August 2007 and August 2008. 12. Defendant executed a Fee Agreement with which required the payment of a Five Thousand and 00/100 ($5,000.00) Dollar retainer and set forth the hourly rate of Three Hundred and 00/100 ($300.00) Dollars for all work performed by Attorney Howell. 13. Defendant paid the $5,000.00 retainer. 14. Defendant acknowledged receiving a copy of the Fee Agreement. 15. A true and correct copy of the Fee Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The document has been redacted to eliminate the Defendant's social security number, birthdate and phone numbers. 16. The Fee Agreement specifically authorizes the imposition of Eighteen Percent Interest at the rate of 1 1/2 percent per month on all unpaid balances. See Page 2 of Exhibit "A". 17. The Fee Agreement specifically authorizes the reimbursement of Attorney Howell's legal fees incurred in filing this collection action. See Page 3 of Exhibit "A". Count I: Breach of Contract 18. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant engaged in discovery which had not been initiated by former counsel. 19. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant examined thousands of pages of financial records at the specific request of the Defendant. 20. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant represented her in the division of the parties' 2007 tax refund. 21. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant obtained Husband's signature on a joint motor vehicle title so she could trade in a vehicle which constituted marital property for a new car. 22. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant contacted dozens of creditors to locate documents regarding joint marital debt which her husband may have fraudulently applied for over the course of the marriage. 23. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant prepared a detailed spread sheet analyzing deposits and withdrawals from multiple financial accounts over the last two years. 24. Defendant is using Attorney Howell's financial analysis in her divorce case as set forth in Wife's Pre-Trial Statement filed September 19, 2008 in which the Defendant claims "Wife has discovered over $50,000.00 worth of withdrawals and questionable transactions in their joint Commerce Bank account. " (Page 1 of Julia Dyckman's Pre-Trial Statement filed 9/19/08 in Case Number 2007-CV-7759). 25. Attorney Howell discovered these withdrawals and questionable transactions during his review of the records obtained in discovery which he requested and Attorney Howell prepared a detailed and exhaustive spreadsheet including attachments for the $50,000.00 referenced in Defendant's Pre-Trial Statement. 26. Defendant uses Attorney Howell's work product in the form of the detailed spreadsheets in the divorce litigation but refuses to pay for the work product. 27. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant drafted a new will and revised her insurance beneficiary designations. 28. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant drafted a detailed Inventory and Appraisement. 29. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant drafted a detailed Income and Expense Statement which included seventeen (17) exhibits outlining Defendant's special needs and expenses. 30. Defendant uses Attorney Howell's Income and Expense Statement in her divorce case as set forth in Wife's Pre-Trial Statement filed September 19, 2008 in which the Defendant attaches the entire Income and Expense Statement prepared by Attorney Howell as Exhibit "H" to her Pre-Trial Statement filed by new counsel. 31. Defendant uses Attorney Howell's work product in the form of the Income and Expense Statement but refuses to pay for the work product. 32. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant engaged in negotiations with counsel for the Defendant's husband on an interim order for support along with other issues regarding insurance and the listing contracts for real estate. 33. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant appeared at a Domestic Relations Conference. 34. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant paid the filing fee and drafted a Motion for Separate Listing and De Novo Support Appeal following the Domestic Relations Conference. 35. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant reviewed medical records regarding the Defendant's disability. 36. Attorney Howell at the specific request of the Defendant provided her new counsel on Monday, August 4, 2008 with thousands of pages of correspondence, pleadings and discovery. Attorney Howell seeks no recovery for any costs in reproducing these documents. 37. On Monday, August 4, 2008 Attorney Howell provided a detailed three page letter to Defendant's new counsel fully advising her of the status of the case and apprising her of all outstanding issues. Attorney Howell seeks no recovery for his time in preparing this letter. 38. On July 22, 2008 Defendant was sent a detailed invoice showing a total outstanding balance due of Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Five and 20/100 ($13,205.20) Dollars. 39. On August 4, 2008 Defendant was sent a detailed invoice showing a total outstanding balance due of Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Five and 20/100 ($13,595.20) Dollars. 40. On August 21, 2008 Defendant was sent a detailed invoice showing a total outstanding balance due of Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety and 56/100 ($13,790.56) Dollars. 41. On September 17, 2008 Defendant was sent a letter requesting payment arrangements with a deadline of September 22, 2008 for a response. 42. Defendant has made no payments on the outstanding invoice nor made any arrangements to pay the outstanding invoice. 43. Defendant agreed to the imposition of Eighteen Percent (18%) annual interest on all outstanding balances under the express terms of the Fee Agreement. 44. The per diem in interest on the outstanding balance of $13,595.20 is $6.70 45. Defendant agreed on Page 3 of the Fee Agreement that in the event of a collection suit she would be responsible for the payment of all collection costs including counsel fees. 46. Plaintiff's counsel fees to draft this Complaint are $300.00. 47. As of September 22, 2008 the outstanding balance due Attorney Howell after crediting the $5,000.00 retainer is $13,991.56 with a per diem interest charge of $6.70 from September 23, 2008 calculates as follows: Balance as of 8/4/08 $13,595.20 (Final Bill after Discharge; No Interest Included) Interest 7/23/08 - 8/21/08 $ 195.36 ($6.512 per diem on $13,205.20 balance from 7/22/08 invoice) Interest 8/22/08 - 9/22/08 201.00 ($6.70 per diem on $13,595.20 balance from 8/4/08 invoice) $13,991.56 48. Defendant has requested in her divorce case that she be awarded counsel fees and at Page 12 of her Pre-Trial Statement filed September 19, 2008 she wrote: "[Wife] has expended extensive counsel fees in this case. [Wife] will supply an updated statement of counsel fees expended at time of trial." 49. Defendant refuses to pay Attorney Howell his legal fees but simultaneously seeks an award of such fees in her Pre-Trial Statement filed September 19, 2008. 50. Defendant's actions constitute a breach of contract with Attorney Howell. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests entry of judgment in his favor in the amount of $13,991.56 at eighteen percent (18%) interest or $6.70 per diem from September 23, 2008 until the balance is paid in full along with an award of counsel fees of $300.00 as of September 261h and thereafter at $300.00 per hour and court costs. Respectfully submitted, By: Steven owelf, Esquire Ho 1 Law Firm p49 Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Supreme Court ID 62063 (717) 770-1277 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: September 26, 2008 Verification I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unswgp falsification to authorities. BY: September 26, 2008 J u\%-e g?k'lS?\ OCk _k)yc\Cm A-/I FEE AGREEMENT r So S Q.%n-t 1?I1?w R 6" 1A-pwi ?s 4,J r1 D A-1-10 `i C.e \%.) 6k?5 -IN=& Rule 1.5 (b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct governing a lawyer's professional responsibilities that was adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania o October 16, 1987, and is effective on April 1, 1988, as amended from time to time by spgZ? Order' oep provides: (Q 5 r1 "When the lawyer has not regularly represented the client, the basis or rate of the fee shall be communicated to the client, in writing, within a reasonable time after commencing representation." The undersigned, 7a I i'A 109 S f i C 6 c 14, byc k M 2n hereinafter referred to as, "client," hereby retains and employs STEVEN HOWELL, Esquire, to be my attorney for me and in my name, place and stead, to represent me and provide legal services, including all required appropriate research, investigation, conferences, interviews, negotiation, searches, correspondence, telephone conferences, drafting, advice and litigation in the following matter: 00 ,.5 00, 0p / / SP1200 J, g ?/dr?c? ©-?` ?, Soo . U c? o o i year t /? /'ur,Vy a 0 2.00 0 STEVEN HOWELL, Esquire, will maintain time records and the client may request an itemized bill at any time. The billing rate is Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) per hour. You will be billed for the time expended by me relating to your case with the minimum charges in twelve (12) - minute intervals (0.2 Hours) for all work performed, including, but not limited to, office consultations, telephone conversations with ou and any attorneys, correspondence, drafting of ti STEVEN HOWELL, ESQUIRE Fee Agreement/Page 2 documents, research, negotiations, court time, travel, and any other work performed on client's behalf. In the event of an emergency (i.e. a matter which requires immediate attention by Steven Howell, Esquire such as a hearing, deadline, or filing requirement with less than 48 hours from the time he is retained until the deadline or hearing date) the hourly rate for that emergency is $400.00 per hour. Thereafter, the rate will return to $300.00 per hour. It is our policy to receive a retainer from all clients, which is placed in an escrow account and billed against while pursuing your case. Further, client agrees that the retainer is non-refundable. During the course of the particular matter for which representation has been accepted, if the billing charges exceed the amount in the retainer, client will be asked to replenish the retainer in the amount of 500.00 as well as to pay the periodic billing in full. You willbe charged interest on any unpaid balance which is more than thirty (30) days overdue. Interest will be computed at the rate of 1 1/2% per month (18% per annum). A $25.00 service fee will be charged for any check returned because of insufficient funds. We reserve the right in case of unpaid billing statements, upon notification to you, to withdraw from further representation of you and the expenditure of time on your behalf. All bills as submitted are to be paid IN FULL Promptly upon receipt. Legal costs and expenses incurred are always the obligation of and are to be paid by the client. It is our policy to require all clients to pay in advance on account of known court costs and/or filing fees. Unused costs may be applied to any balance due for legal fees. STEVEN HOWELL , Esquire, shall have the authority to make advanced payments on client's behalf of such amounts as they shall determine best in representing client in these proceedings which STEVEN HOWELL, ESQUIRE Fee Agreement/Page 3 advanced payment shall be for expenses, including, but not limited to, toll telephone charges, photocopies, excess postage, Federal Express mail, travel expenses, deposition expenses, Court costs, accounting and appraisal fees, and fees and expenses of other experts, which are deemed necessary to assist in the preparation and trial or the proper handling of the client's case in the matter for which they are being retained. Our clients are encouraged to discuss our fee arrangements, the progress of their legal matter or the detail of a particular bilL We try to do what is proper and fair. We base our relationship with you on mutual confidence and respect. Client acknowledges that no guarantees have been made as to the final disposition of any phase of this matter or matters for which STEVEN HOWELL, Esquire, has been retained. I/We hereby authorize Steven Howell, Esquire, or any credit bureau or other investigative agency employed by him, now or at any time in the future, to order and obtain a credit report from a reporting bureau or from any source supplying credit information pert aining to my/our credit and financial responsibility. Fax Statement: This Document and any amendments thereto, may be executed in multiple counterparts by the parties and delivered by way of transmission through a facsimile (FAX) machine and such counterparts shall have the same legal enforceability and binding effect as though it were signed by all parties in original form. In the event that client fails to make payments for costs and expenses and a collection suit is commenced, client agrees that Attorney Howell shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees as well as court costs incurred as a result of the collection suit. Client hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of this Agreement. STEVEN HOWELL, ESQUIRE Fee Agreement/Page 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound, I have hereunto set my ,> STEVEN HOWELL, ESQUIRE BY: ?t°even,LHomo ll, Esquire 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-1277 (717) 770-1278 FAX hand and seal this l day of ?! At u 206?f. AWOL Client's Date of Birth (Seal) Client's Social Security Number Client's Date of Birth The above appointment and Agreement is hereby approved and accepted this le day of 20 O, Client's Social Security Number \J L) l T" SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-05781 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HOWELL STEVEN VS DYCKMAN JULIA Y R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and DYCKMAN JULIA Y and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT but was unable to locate Her deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE County, Pennsylvania, to On October 10th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Dauphin County 47.25 Postage 1.93 86.18 ? 10/10/2008 STEVEN HOWELL So answers•_ . Thomas Kli e Sheriff of Cumberland County > o/l G /b 7 ?-, Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of to wit: in his bailiwick. He therefore A. D. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvarila Steven Howell vs. Julia Y. Dycknan No. 08-5781 civil Now, octob-. r 1, 2008 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. -3, Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, . within 20 , at o'clock M. served the upon at by handing to a copy of the original and made known to - the contents thereof. So answers, Sworn and subscribed before me this day of , 20, Sheriff of COSTS SERVICE a MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT County, PA r (j)t# r.t of the ltprfrf Ma%Jane Snder R Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 780-6590 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin Charles E. Sheaffer Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy STEVEN HOWELL VS JULIA Y DYCKMAN Sheriffs Return No. 2008-T-2100 OTHER COUNTY NO. 085781 And now: OCTOBER 6, 2008 at 10:26:00 AM served the within COMPLAINT upon JULIA Y DYCKMAN by personally handing to JULIA Y DYCKMAN 1 true attested copy of the original COMPLAINT and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 1505 PINE HOLLOW ROAD HARRISBURG PA 17109 Sworn and subscribed to before me this 7TH day of October, 2008 Aoi NOTARIAL SEAL MARY JANE SNYDER, Notary Publi Highspire, Dauphin County M Co 'on Expires S !t i 2010 So Answers, ye'??7L Sheriff of Daunlg B Deputy: W CONWAY Sheriffs Costs: $47.25 10/3/2008 STEVEN HOWELL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY : PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JULIA Y. DYCKMAN DEFENDANT NO. 08-5781 TO: Julia Y. Dyckman 1505 Pine Hollow Road Harrisburg, PA 17109 DATE OF NOTICE: October 28, 2008 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONA AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 (717) 249-3166 AVISO IMPORTANTE A: Julia Y. Dyckman 1505 Pine Hollow Road Harrisburg, PA 17109 FECHA DEL AVISO: October 28, 2008 USTED STA EN EBELDIA PORQUE HA FALLADO DE REGISTRAR COMPARENCENCIA ESCRITA POR SI MISMO O A TRAVES DE UN ABOGADO Y SOMETER CO LA CORTE SUS DEFENSAS U OBJECCIONES A LOS CARGOS QUE SE HAN PRESETADO CONTRA LISTED. A MEMOS QUE USTED ACTUE DENTRO DE DIEZ EN CONTRA SUYA SIN TENER DERECHOS A UNA VISTA Y USTED PUEDE PERDER SU PROPIEDAD U OTRO S DERECHOS IMPORTANTES. USTED DEBE LLEVAR EST DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LAW SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE. INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDE PROVEER 1NFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CALIFICAN. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Date: By: Respectfully submitted, Stev owelr, 9squi're 711 ell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 (717) 770-1277 Supreme Court ID 62063 Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the party/parties set forth below by postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: Julia Y. Dyckman 1505 Pine Hollow Road Harrisburg, PA 17109 By: Date: ko 2 ?-/06* t-.? r ?---? ?-_ r_ _, `art '' c? :--? -? _? f.. ? ; ?'t"f ?-?. 6 „ ?? ?9 '? ;i?. "".°;t ', ? ?-?h L`J -i " "- , ARCHER & ARCHER, P.C. By: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire 2515 North Front Street P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 233-8676 STEVEN HOWELL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, DOCKET NO.: 08-5781-Civil Term V. JULIA Y. DYCKMAN, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant. NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Steven Howell, Esquire Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Dated: November 6, 2008 By: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire PA Attorney ID # 73293 2515 North Front Street P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0056 717.233.8676 ARCHER & ARCHER, P.C. By: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire 2515 North Front Street P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 233-8676 STEVEN HOWELL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, DOCKET NO.: 08-5781-Civil Term V. JULIA Y. DYCKMAN, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant. DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINITFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant's divorce included real estate located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, as well as Colorado and New Hampshire. The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute subjective opinions of the Plaintiff and/or legal conclusions which are, accordingly, denied. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required, and are accordingly denied. 7. Admitted. 8. Denied. Defendant does not recall the exact date she discharged Attorney Walk. 9. Admitted. 1 10. Denied as stated. Defendant denies the allegation that she "utilized" the services of Bryan Walk, Esquire as stated in Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff did retain Attorney Walk on or about August 1, 2007 and Mr. Walk was Ms. Dyckman's attorney until around the time she retained Attorney Howell. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, which are accordingly denied. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. Denied as stated. Defendant does, however, agree that she received the agreement. 15. Admitted. 16. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph as denied as a conclusion of law. The terms of the fee agreement speak for themselves. 17. Denied as stated. The fee agreement attached to Plaintiff's Complaint refers to reasonable attorney's fees incurred in a collection action. Plaintiff specifically denies that a rate of $300.00 per hour is a reasonable rate in a collection action. COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT Defendant incorporates herein by reference her Answer to paragraphs 1-17 of Plaintiff's Complaint as though set forth herein at length. 18. Denied as stated. Plaintiff retained Attorney Howell to represent her interests in her divorce matter, relying upon the expertise of Attorney Howell in performing those tasks that would be reasonably necessary to best represent the interests 2 of the Defendant. Implicit in that relationship was the mutual understanding that Attorney Howell would execute his duties in a reasonably prudent and cost effective manner, which Defendant denies was done. Defendant denies that she specially requested Attorney Howell to engage in any specific activity. 19. Denied as stated. Plaintiff retained Attorney Howell to represent her interests in her divorce matter, relying upon the expertise of Attorney Howell in performing those tasks that would be reasonably necessary to best represent the interests of the Defendant. Implicit in that relationship was the mutual understanding that Attorney Howell would execute his duties in a reasonably prudent and cost effective manner, which Defendant denies was done. Defendant denies that she specially requested Attorney Howell to engage in any specific activity. 20. Denied as stated. Plaintiff retained Attorney Howell to represent her interests in her divorce matter, relying upon the expertise of Attorney Howell in performing those tasks that would be reasonably necessary to best represent the interests of the Defendant. Implicit in that relationship was the mutual understanding that Attorney Howell would execute his duties in a reasonably prudent and cost effective manner, which Defendant denies was done. Defendant denies that she specially requested Attorney Howell to engage in any specific activity. 21. Denied as stated. Plaintiff retained Attorney Howell to represent her interests in her divorce matter, relying upon the expertise of Attorney Howell in performing those tasks that would be reasonably necessary to best represent the interests of the Defendant. Implicit in that relationship was the mutual understanding that Attorney Howell would execute his duties in a reasonably prudent and cost effective manner, which Defendant denies was done. Defendant denies that she specially requested Attorney Howell to engage in any specific activity. 22. Denied as stated. Plaintiff retained Attorney Howell to represent her interests in her divorce matter, relying upon the expertise of Attorney Howell in performing those tasks that would be reasonably necessary to best represent the interests of the Defendant. Implicit in that relationship was the mutual understanding that Attorney Howell would execute his duties in a reasonably prudent and cost effective manner, which Defendant denies was done. Defendant denies that she specially requested Attorney Howell to engage in any specific activity. 23. Denied as stated. Plaintiff retained Attorney Howell to represent her interests in her divorce matter, relying upon the expertise of Attorney Howell in performing those tasks that would be reasonably necessary to best represent the interests of the Defendant. Implicit in that relationship was the mutual understanding that Attorney Howell would execute his duties in a reasonably prudent and cost effective manner, which Defendant denies was done. Defendant denies that she specially requested Attorney Howell to engage in any specific activity. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, as the pre-trial statement was prepared by Defendant's current divorce counsel. 25. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the factual allegations contained in this paragraph, which are, accordingly, denied. By way of further response, Defendant denies the allegation that "Attorney Howell prepared a detailed and exhaustive spreadsheet," as a conclusion of law. 4 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, as Defendant relies on her current divorce counsel with respect to the divorce litigation. 27. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant requested Attorney Howell to draft a will on her behalf. By way of further response and denial, Attorney Howell charged Defendant excessive and unreasonable fees for the preparation of this instrument. 28. Denied as stated. Plaintiff retained Attorney Howell to represent her interests in her divorce matter, relying upon the expertise of Attorney Howell in performing those tasks that would be reasonably necessary to best represent the interests of the Defendant. Implicit in that relationship was the mutual understanding that Attorney Howell would execute his duties in a reasonably prudent and cost effective manner, which Defendant denies was done. Defendant denies that she specially requested Attorney Howell to engage in any specific activity. 29. Denied as stated. Plaintiff retained Attorney Howell to represent her interests in her divorce matter, relying upon the expertise of Attorney Howell in performing those tasks that would be reasonably necessary to best represent the interests of the Defendant. Implicit in that relationship was the mutual understanding that Attorney Howell would execute his duties in a reasonably prudent and cost effective manner, which Defendant denies was done. Defendant denies that she specially requested Attorney Howell to engage in any specific activity. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, as Defendant relies on her current divorce counsel with respect to the divorce litigation. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, as Defendant relies on her current divorce counsel with respect to the divorce litigation. 32. Denied as stated. Plaintiff retained Attorney Howell to represent her interests in her divorce matter, relying upon the expertise of Attorney Howell in performing those tasks that would be reasonably necessary to best represent the interests of the Defendant. Implicit in that relationship was the mutual understanding that Attorney Howell would execute his duties in a reasonably prudent and cost effective manner, which Defendant denies was done. Defendant denies that she specially requested Attorney Howell to engage in any specific activity. 33. Denied as stated. Plaintiff retained Attorney Howell to represent her interests in her divorce matter, relying upon the expertise of Attorney Howell in performing those tasks that would be reasonably necessary to best represent the interests of the Defendant. Implicit in that relationship was the mutual understanding that Attorney Howell would execute his duties in a reasonably prudent and cost effective manner, which Defendant denies was done. Defendant denies that she specially requested Attorney Howell to engage in any specific activity. 34. Denied as stated. Plaintiff retained Attorney Howell to represent her interests in her divorce matter, relying upon the expertise of Attorney Howell in performing those tasks that would be reasonably necessary to best represent the interests 6 of the Defendant. Implicit in that relationship was the mutual understanding that Attorney Howell would execute his duties in a reasonably prudent and cost effective manner, which Defendant denies was done. Defendant denies that she specially requested Attorney Howell to engage in any specific activity. 35. Denied as stated. Plaintiff retained Attorney Howell to represent her interests in her divorce matter, relying upon the expertise of Attorney Howell in performing those tasks that would be reasonably necessary to best represent the interests of the Defendant. Implicit in that relationship was the mutual understanding that Attorney Howell would execute his duties in a reasonably prudent and cost effective manner, which Defendant denies was done. Defendant denies that she specially requested Attorney Howell to engage in any specific activity. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, which are accordingly denied. 37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, which are accordingly denied. 38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, which are accordingly denied. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to either admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, which are accordingly denied. 7 40. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendant admits that she received an invoice from Attorney Howell dated August 21, 2008, which to the best of Defendant's information and belief, was the first invoice Attorney Howell sent to Defendant in nearly eight (8) months of representation. Prior to that time, Plaintiff provided Defendant with no itemized statements as to the work performed by Plaintiff on Defendant's behalf. By way of further response and denial, Defendant denies that the August 21, 2008 invoice contains sufficient detail so as to reasonably advise the Defendant of the nature of the work performed. 41. Admitted. 42. Admitted. 43. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required, which are accordingly denied. 44. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required, which are accordingly denied. 45. Denied. The fee agreement attached to Plaintiff's Complaint refers to reasonable attorney's fees. 46. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph, which are accordingly denied. By way of further response, Defendant denies that a rate of $300.00 is reasonable for collection of fees. 47. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required, which are accordingly denied. 8 48. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required, which are accordingly denied. 49. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required, which are accordingly denied. 50. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required, which are accordingly denied. NEW MATTER 51. Paragraphs 1 though 50 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein as though set forth at length. 52. Plaintiff's Complaint and each cause of action referenced or incorporated therein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 53. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 54. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the Statute of Frauds. 55. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Doctrines of Latches, Waiver and/or Estoppel. 56. Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the Doctrine of Unclean Hands. 57. Plaintiff's claims are barred for lack of consideration. 58. Even if Plaintiff can make out any cause of action as alleged against the Defendant, the amounts claims by the Plaintiff are excessive for the scope and type of work which Defendant authorized Plaintiff to perform on Defendant's behalf 9 59. Defendant specifically disputes the charges contained in Attorney Howell's August 21, 2008 invoice, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A," as not being authorized, being excessive, being unreasonable and/or not supported by contemporaneous billing records, including, but not necessarily limited to, all meetings and teleconferences referenced therein, as well as the preparation of Defendant's will. 60. Defendant disputes the amount of time reflected in the August 21, 2008 invoice is accurate and disputes that the time reflected therein was in all cases necessary to Plaintiff's representation of Defendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Julia Y. Dyckman, demands that judgment be entered in her favor against the Plaintiff, Steven Howell, together with costs of suit, attorney's fees and any other relief that the Court deems just or to which the Defendant is entitled as a matter of law. Date: November 6, 2008 Respectfully submitted, ARCHER & ARCHER, PC By: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire Atty ID No.: 73293 2515 North Front Street PO Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-233-8676 10 Exhibit "A" HovmLL Lsw FiRac 619 BM V Smm New Curebedm& PennWhTmik 17470 Tdephoee 717-T70-lZl! • .. :Fa?717T1a1278 Julia Y. Dydumm P.O. Box 6084 Harrisburg, PA 17112 For Prefwimal Sa view (VIM - WNW. V August 21, 2008 January 18, 2008 Meeting w/dieat; review pW wmk (2-0 Horns) January 24, 2008 Tebcat wlPralbosvv an eaaalirrgt pleedima;_ draft ltr to Afty Hoist; We= to Auy Holed WNW to Atty Walls; &,a ft Raqueet for Production of Docu masts: First ft draft Entry of Apps review pleadings file (2.0 Haas) January 25, 2008 Review Ur and fwd to client (A Hours) Fdx umy 4, 2008 Mooting w/dient (2.0 Hours) Faimmy 6, 2008 Draft ltr, tolecon w/dient (1.0 Hour) February 11, 2008 Review Ur and fwd to client (.2 Hours) February 15, 2008 Telecon w/ciient (.25 Hours) Fdxu y 27; 2008 Telecon w/Atty Hoist (.5 Hours) February 29, 2008 Meeting w/dient (1.0 Harr) . March 4, 2008 Review daces nwb and kr fi+om Arty Hobe (1.0 Hour) March 13, 2008 Meeting w/dient (2.0 Hours) March 14, 2008 Review discovery responses (2.0 Hours) March 26, 2008 Meeting (1.5 Hours) April 14, 2008 Review hr and Gstiog contract (.S Hours) April 15, 2008 Tdeoon w/ciart (25 Hours) April 17, 2008 Review discovery mgtm is amd drdt responses (4.0 Hours) April 22,2W8 Teleoon fiam that (.1 Hour) May 14, 2008 Review fil records; prepare Excd spreadsheet (4.0 Hours) May 19, 2008 Teleoon w/dint ; Wecon w/Atty Hoist; draft discovery responses (4.0 Hours) May 22, 2008 Meeting w/Arty Hobs, prepare sgarda; rnosting w/client (230 PM-7:00 PM); draft $ n; (7.0 Hours) May 23, 2008 Telecairrs w/client; draft emergency will; meeting w/client; telecon to VA, (3.0 Hogs) May 28, 2008 Telecon w/dieut (.25 Hours) May 29, 2008 Telecoa w/dieat (.5 Hours) June 4, 20¢8 Draft km tieieeoa I w/dieoty review email (1.0 Hour) June 5, 2008 Meeting w/dieot; deft km to OOSK W draft hr to Atty Hoist review Itr from Atty Hoist (3.0 Hours) June 9, 2008 Telecon to Atty Hoist (.2 Hours) June 10, 2008 Telecon to Atty Hobt; telecon w/davit telecon w/Atty Hoist (A Hours) Page 2 (Invoke 81Z11PS) June 11, 2008 Review hr from Atty Hoist; telecon to client (.3 Hours) June 17, 2008 Telecon w/cliart (.1 Hour) June 24, 2008 Meeting w/cliart; review Invenuxy ad inc m tit Expense Ststetrtent fiaom Ddendant; review Motion for Master (2.0 Hours) June 26, 2008 Meeting w/clmt; draft Income tit Expanse Steam tebcon w/client; review file; prepare for conference (2.0 Howe) June 27, 2008 Domestic Relations Conference; review hr &= creditor (3.0 Hours) July 1, 2008 Draft Inventory; research file; resewch disability pay as it relates to its mduaion from marital assets sad equitable distribution pursuant to USFSPA and Ma= W decision (4.0 Hours) _ July 2, 2008 Meeting w/client to discos inventory and Income A Expense Statement (1.0 Hour) July 9, 2008 Review Ordr appointing Mader mid fWd to cl aat (2• Hoiua) July 14, 2048 Review I r fmm Drrom Master and fwd to ciiont; telecon from Divorce Mader oxf draft Itr to Atty Hoist (3 Hours) July 16, 2008 Review Order, tebeon to client; draft de novo appeal; telecon to DRO; draft Motion for Special Listing (1.0 Harr) July 17, 2008 Td own wdblienq drab hr to Any Hobe (1 A Hour) July 21, 2008 Revise Motion for Special L.iat M review ltr (3 Hours) July 22, 2008 Telecon wkliemt; draft hr to client; draft hr to Atty Hoist (1.0 Hour) July 23, 2008 Telecon to client (.2 Hours) July 25, 2008 Review Order and serve (.1 Hour) July 28, 2008 Review ltr (.I Hour) July 31, 2008 Telecou w/client (A Hans) August 1, 2008 Draft hr, review motion; teleoon to Holly/J. Twpon's assistant teleeon from client (.5 Hours) Legal Fees $18,465.00 (61.55 Hours at $300.00 Per Hour) Costs S 5.25 (US Priority Mail -1/24/08) S 15.00 (Domestic Relations Appeal - 7/160) S 9520 (476 Copies at .20 each) 14.75 (P) Subtotal $18,595.20 Retainer $ 2,500.00 (1/18/08) (215/1)8) Subtotal S 5,000M 81010tstd 513.591120 Interest S 195.36 (18'/6 on S 13,205.20 balance from 7/22/08 Invoice) TOTAL NOW DUE $13,790.56 Payu?ant Optbas 512 11.34 (10% Diseesrnt lbr Lumrp Sm widdm 30 Dap); or S 3M.N ter Mamie by are 1r of em& m 9w* at *% basest with the 1" payment due by September 22.29N on balance of 513,790.56 U r psymmemt anammmtr are oak by Sept nbw 22, 2W tram the aoooumt wE pneeed to satire ea0eed wM& ¦mty b ft& dw 1l11111mg eta bwenk to reeww fees. VERIFICATION I, Julia Y. Dyckman, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: November 6, 2008 ulia Y. Dyckm CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jessica R. Porter, Paralegal, hereby certify that on the date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint upon the person(s) stated below, via facsimile 717-770-1278 and U.S. First Class Mail, addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 DAA l Date: November 7, 2008 Jessica R. Porter, Paralegal c- ? 0 Co ?rn STEVEN HOWELL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 08 - 5781 CIVIL TERM JULIA Y. DYCKMAN, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW REPLY TO NEW MATTER 51. DENIED AS STATED. No response is necessary. If a response were necessary Plaintiff incorporates by reference as though fully set forth ¶1 through ¶50 of the Complaint as though fully set forth. 52. DENIED. This paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. If a response were necessary the Complaint states a cause of action with specificity. 53. DENIED. This paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. If a response were necessary Defendant and her counsel know this paragraph is interposed with no legitimate purpose as the applicable statute of limitations in Pennsylvania for a breach of contract is four (4) years. 54. DENIED. This paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. If a response were necessary Defendant and her counsel know this Complaint is not barred by the Statute of Frauds as the written contract between the parties is attached to the Complaint. 55. DENIED. This paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. If a response were necessary Defendant and her counsel know this Complaint is not barred by the Doctrine of Latches, Waiver and/or estoppel as the written contract between the parties is attached to the Complaint and the time between breach and filing of the underlying suit is not untimely. 56. DENIED. This paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. If a response were necessary Defendant and her counsel know this Complaint is not barred by the Doctrine of Unclean Hands as Plaintiff provided excellent legal advice. 57. DENIED. This paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. If a response were necessary Defendant and her counsel know this Complaint is founded upon a written contract with the consideration set forth therein. 58. DENIED. Defendant authorized work by the Plaintiff under the terms of an express written contract. By way of further explanation, Defendant received copies of each and every letter, correspondence, attachment, fax, pleading or other document issued by Plaintiff or received from her husband's attorney. Defendant participated in multiple meetings which addressed a complicated divorce fact pattern. Defendant authorized every action undertaken by Plaintiff. 59. DENIED. Defendant authorized work by the Plaintiff under the terms of an express written contract. By way of further explanation, Defendant received copies of each and every letter, correspondence, attachment, fax, pleading or other document issued by Plaintiff or received from her husband's attorney. Defendant participated in multiple meetings which addressed a complicated divorce fact pattern. Defendant authorized every action undertaken by Plaintiff. The time reflected on the invoice is accurate in every detail with the exception that a letter issued by Attorney Howell to Defendant on April 25, 2008 was inadvertently omitted from the itemization of charge. 60. DENIED. Defendant authorized work by the Plaintiff under the terms of an express written contract. By way of further explanation, Defendant received copies of each and every letter, correspondence, attachment, fax, pleading or other document issued by Plaintiff or received from her husband's attorney. Defendant participated in multiple meetings which addressed a complicated divorce fact pattern. Defendant authorized every action undertaken by Plaintiff. The time reflected on the invoice is accurate in every detail with the exception that a letter issued by Attorney Howell to Defendant on April 25, 2008 was inadvertently omitted from the itemization of charge. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests entry of judgment in his favor in the amount of $13,991.56 at eighteen percent (18%) interest or $6.70 per diem from September 23, 2008 until the balance is paid in full along with an award of counsel fees of $300.00 as of September 26th and thereafter at $300.00 per hour and court costs. Respectfully submitted, By: Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Supreme Court ID 62063 (717) 770-1277 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: November 10, 2008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below one true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Service upon Opposing Counsel by First Class, Postage Prepaid U.S. Mail Thomas A. Archer, Esquire Archer & Archer P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0056 Date: November 10, 2008 Verification I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: 1, November 10, 2008 rr J Q' '• fv ` V ? n a to STEVEN HOWELL, Plaintiff VS. JULIA Y. DYCKMAN, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08 - 5781 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM THE DEFENDANT 1. On November 10, 2008 the Plaintiff served Defendant's Counsel with a "Interrogatories to Defendant: First Set" which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". United States Postal Form 152 (Delivery Confirmation Receipt) bearing a mailing date of November 10, 2008 with a delivery date of November 12, 2008 is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 2. The thirty (30) days to respond to the "Interrogatories to Defendant: First Set" expired on December 13, 2008. No response, objections or request for additional time has been received from Defendant's counsel as of February 2, 2009. 3. On December 17, 2008 the Plaintiff served Defendant's Counsel with a "Interrogatories to Defendant: Second Set" (sans Exhibits) which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". United States Postal Form 152 (Delivery Confirmation Receipt) bearing a mailing date of December 17, 2008 with a delivery date of December 18, 2008 is attached hereto as Exhibit "D". 4. The thirty (30) days to respond to the "Interrogatories to Defendant: First Set" expired on January 19, 2008. No response, objections or request for additional time has been received from Defendant's counsel as of February 2, 2009. 5. Plaintiff has sent two letters dated December 17, 2008 and January 23, 2009 requesting the Defendant to answer the outstanding discovery. No answers have been served. 6. A draft copy of this Motion was faxed to opposing counsel on February 2, 2009 and the Defendant: concurs with the relief requested; or does not concur with the relief requested; or yam" failed to respond by 11:00 AM on February 3, 2009 and should be assumed to oppose the requested relief. 7. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006 (a)(2) requires a party to serve "answers, and objections if any, within thirty days after the service of the interrogatories". 8. Defendant's failure to respond to the original discovery request within 30 days constitutes a waiver to object to the production at this time. Our Supreme Court in Nissley v. Pa. R.R. Co., 435 Pa. 503, 259 A.2d 451 (1969) would not allow a party to object to interrogatories outside the time limits prescribed by the rules. A party's failure to timely object to discovery constitutes a waiver. See Mountain View Condominium Owners' Association v. Mountain View Associates, 9 Pa. D. & C. 4th 81 at 83 (1991), Burda v. Cesare, 50 Pa. D. & C. 3d 354 at 357 (1988), Bonk v. Block, 12 Pa. D. & C. 3d 749 (1980), Frank v. Philadelphia, 38 Pa. D. & C. 2d 487 (1965), and Construction of Vine Street Extension, 18 Pa. D. & C. 2d 115 (1959). In 1991 the Chester County Court of Common Pleas summarized the rule as: "[WJe hold that an objection to interrogatories or other discovery or an application for a protective order must be filed before the party seeking discovery has filed a motion for sanctions, or other motion seeking to enforce compliance with the discovery request, or else such objection or the grounds upon which the protective order is sought shall be waived." 9 Pa. D. & C 4th at 83. 9. Since Defendant has waived any objections by not responding in any fashion to the discovery request, she is required to provide full and complete responses to each Interrogatory. Furthermore, Defendant is not entitled to object at this time to any of the interrogatories because the objection is untimely. 10. Defendant is obligated to reimburse Plaintiff's legal fees calculated at Three Hundred and 00/100 ($300.00) per hour in drafting this Motion since Plaintiff failed to respond to two letters on December 17th and January 23ra 11. Defendant should pay a sanction for failing to answer, object or respond in any way to the interrogatories and two letters. 12. This case has not yet been assigned to any judge. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to direct the Defendant to provide full and complete answers to the Interrogatories: First and Second Set within thirty (30) days and award counsel fees and a sanction against Defendant. Respectfully submitted, By: '#6well Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Supreme Court ID 62063 Attorney for Plaintiff Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the party/parties set forth below by postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire Archer & Archer P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0056 By: Date: February 2, 2009 STEVEN HOWELL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 08 - 5781 CIVIL TERM JULIA Y. DYCKMAN, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT: FIRST SET To: Defendant Julia Y. Dyckman c/o Thomas A. Archer, Esquire Archer & Archer P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0056 AND NOW, this 10th day of November 2008 pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4005, as amended, the Plaintiff Steven Howell, Esquire of 619 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070, hereby request that Defendant serve upon the undersigned a copy of your individual answers and objections, if any, in writing and under oath to the following First Set of Interrogatories within thirty (30) days after service of the Interrogatories. The Answers shall be inserted in the space provided. If there is insufficient space to answer and Interrogatory, the remainder of the Answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet. The term "document" includes the definition set forth in Pa. R.C.P. 4009.1 as amended. These shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories. If, between the time of your Answer and the time of the trial of this case, you or anyone acting on your behalf, learn of any further information not contained in your Answers, you shall promptly furnish said information to the undersigned by Supplemental Answers. The term "identify" means to explain essential factual allegations. Respectfully submitted, By: ell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Supreme Court ID 62063 Attorney for Plaintiff Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the party/parties set forth below by postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire Archer & Archer P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0056 B, Date: November 10, 2008 1, Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 51 of the New Matter you filed in this case? 2. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 52 of the New Matter you filed in this case? 3. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 53 of the New Matter you filed in this case? 4. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 54 of the New Matter you filed in this case? 5. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 55 of the New Matter you filed in this case? Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 56 of the New Matter you filed in this case? 7. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 57 of the New Matter you filed in this case? 8. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 58 of the New Matter you filed in this case? 9. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 59 of the New Matter you filed in this case? 10. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 60 of the New Matter you filed in this case? 11. Did the Defendant ask Attorney Howell to examine the banking records of herself and her husband to uncover transfers and withdrawals by Mr. Dyckman? 12. Did the Defendant ask Attorney Howell to examine the records for various credit cards of herself and her husband to uncover charges, payments and balance transfers by Mr. Dyckman? Did the Defendant bring banking records to Attorney Howell and ask him to review the records? Did the Defendant bring her congressional testimony about her medical condition and her medical records to Attorney Howell so he could review them and use them in the divorce case? Did the Defendant ask Attorney Howell to obtain her husband's execution of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Title for a Chrysler PT Cruiser so she could trade that vehicle in for a new car? Did the Defendant ask Attorney Howell to obtain for her one half of the 2007 U.S. Federal Income Tax Refund check made payable to herself and her husband? Did the Defendant ask Attorney Howell to represent her at a Domestic Relations conference on June 27, 2008? Did the Defendant wait until Friday, August 1, 2008 to terminate Attorney Howell as her counsel after he had paid for the de novo support appeal and filed a request for a special hearing? 19. Did the Defendant make a telephone call on Friday, May 23, 2008 to Attorney Howell and demand an immediate meeting to execute a new will and change her life insurance beneficiaries? 20. Identify by amount and name of attorney all legal fees that Defendant Julia Dyckman is requesting the Divorce Master to consider in Dyckman v Dyckman, No. 2007 - 7759 (Dauphin County) under the Pennsylvania Divorce Code (see Part IX Counsel Fees at Page 12 of the Pre-Trial Statement drafted by Laurie Saltzgiver, Esquire and filed on September 18, 2008 prior to denying that you have made such a request). 21. Identify (name, address and phone number) all persons with whom Defendant Julia Dyckman has discussed the present litigation and fee collection dispute between yourself and Attorney Howell? 22. Identify (date and amount of time) all charges which appear on the invoice attached to Defendant's Answer with New Matter which Defendant Dyckman disputes? 23. Identify the reasons Defendant Julia Dyckman has made no payments since July 22, 2008 to present on the invoice from Attorney Howell? 24. Identify the date Defendant Julia Dyckman first met Laurie Saltzgiver, Esquire for a consultation on the divorce matter? 25. Did the Defendant Julia Dyckman give Laurie Saltzgiver the spreadsheet attached to the Request for Admissions as Item #15? 26. Identify the name, address, and phone number any person you intend to call as an expert witness at the trial of this matter. VERIFICATION I/we verify that the statements made in the foregoing response to Plaintiff s Interrogatories are true and correct. I/we understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: Julia Y. Dyckman Date: USPS - Track & Confirm Page 1 of 1 Z UNITEDSTATES POST4L SERVIC& Home I Help Track & Confirm Track & Confirm Search Results Label/Receipt Number: 0308 0730 0000 6071 4087 Status: Delivered `rack f ontiria Your item was delivered at 9:25 am on November 12, 2008 in Enter Label/Receipt Number HARRISBURG, PA 17110. Additional information is stored in files offline. A request to restore this information has been submitted and is currently pending. Site Man contact us Forms Gov't Services Jobs Privacy Policy Terms of Use National -& Premier Accounts Copyright) 1999-2007 LISPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA http://trkcnfrml .smi.usps.com/PTSIntemetWeb/InterLabellnquiry.do 2/2/2009 STEVEN HOWELL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 08 - 5781 CIVIL TERM JULIA Y. DYCKMAN, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT: SECOND SET To: Defendant Julia Y. Dyckman c/o Thomas A. Archer, Esquire Archer & Archer P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0056 AND NOW, this 17th day of December 2008 pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4005, as amended, the Plaintiff Steven Howell, Esquire of 619 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070, hereby request that Defendant serve upon the undersigned a copy of your individual answers and objections, if any, in writing and under oath to the following Second Set of Interrogatories within thirty (30) days after service of the Interrogatories. The Answers shall be inserted in the space provided. If there is insufficient space to answer and Interrogatory, the remainder of the Answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet. The term "document" includes the definition set forth in Pa. R.C.P. 4009.1 as amended. These shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories. If, between the time of your Answer and the time of the trial of this case, you or anyone acting on your behalf, learn of any further information not contained in your Answers, you shall promptly furnish said information to the undersigned by Supplemental Answers. The term "identify" means to explain essential factual allegations. The Interrogatory Numbers are a continuation from the First Set of Interrogatories which ended at #26. Respectfully submitted, By: well Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Supreme Court ID 62063 Attorney for Plaintiff", Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the party/parties set forth below by postage prepaid, first class United States Mail addressed as follows: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire Archer & Archer P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0056 By Date: December 17, 2008 r Postage and DWKVY w" im mom fees must be PW before meainp, ora. C3 PWAL CM M Rost `:. Keep this receipt For uirba: Acresstrrtemetweb at www.uepe.com • N j or call 1-800-222-1811 rbray 1?f1"sNVice M opercei 27. Defendant Julia Dyckman has denied in Request for Admission No. 40 that she received an Invoice dated July 22, 2008 showing a balance of $13,205.20 ;arguing that the "first invoice [she] received was dated August 21, 2008", however, does the Defendant deny receiving an envelope containing a three (3) page cover letter dated July 22, 2008 (attached as Interrogatory Exhibit 27a) which states on Page 3 "I also enclose an itemized invoice showing all services to date" and a two (2) page invoice dated July 22, 2008 (attached as Interrogatory Exhibit 27b)? 28. Did Defendant Julia Dyckman receive on the morning of July 23, 2008 a large envelope weighing 8.70 oz bearing a July 22, 2008 postmark printed at 3:42:21 PM from the post office located in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania containing: (a) the three (3) page cover letter dated July 22, 2008, (b) a two (2) page invoice dated July 22, 2008; (c) a one (1) page letter dated July 22, 2008 to Attorney Darren Holst (Interrogatory Exhibit 28a) with six (6) pages of enclosures;. (d) a one (1) page letter dated July 21, 2008 (Interrogatory Exhibit 28b) from Attorney Holst; (e) twenty three (23) page exhibit titled "Medical Reports"; and (f) fourteen (14) page exhibit titled "Medical/Dental/Optical Receipts? 29, On July 23, 2008 did Defendant Julia Dyckman place a telephone call to Attorney Howell at 8:00 AM immediately after receiving the package bearing the July 22, 2008 postmark printed at 3:42:21 PM and identified in Interrogatory No. 28 and leave a message for Attorney Howell to call back about "Bill - $13,0000.00 ... figures on cover [letter]? 30. On July 23, 2008 did the Defendant Julia Dyckman and Attorney Howell have a telephone conversation as set forth in the Invoice date August 4, 2008 (attached as Interrogatory Exhibit 30) for .2 hours (approximately 12 minutes) discussing the three (3) page cover letter dated July 22, 2008 and its support calculations and the Invoice dated July 22, 2008? 31. Did Defendant Julia Dyckman receive a three (3) page letter (attached as Interrogatory Exhibit 31) dated August 4, 2008 to her new counsel (Laurie A. Saltzgiver) which stated at Page 3 "I will be sending Mrs. Dyckman a final invoice. I wish you the best of luck on the case"? 32. Did Defendant Julia Dyckman receive an Invoice dated August 4, 2008 (attached as Interrogatory Exhibit 30)? L 33. In light of Interrogatory Exhibit 27a, Exhibit 27b, Exhibit 30, Exhibit 31, the 8.70 oz package mailed from New Cumberland, Pennsylvania at 3:42:21 PM on July 22, 2008 and Defendant Dyckman's telephone message at 8:00 AM on July 23, 2008, identify all facts which support Defendant Julia Dyckman's verified statement that the "first invoice [she] received was dated August 21, 20081'? 34. Why did Defendant Julia Dyckman chose to file a complaint for support with Dauphin County Domestic Relations on May 30, 2008 instead of accepting the terms of the proposed "Stipulation for Entry of Interim Order (Request fore Admission Item #20) which she reviewed on May 22, 2008 at Attorney H6well's office? 35, On Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 11:12:25 PM did Defendant Julia Dyckman receive an e-mail from her husband stating "If the home equity loan, a total of $2,800 (you are two months behind) is not paid by Thursday, then I will notify the Hyundai dealer that the title WILL NOT be signed and you will be required to return the car ... In addition, to have the title signed, you will present to me a typed, signed and notarized letter stating that you will continue to pay the home equity loan until a court order or other written and signed agreement is reached"? 36. On May 30, 2008, when Defendant Julia Dyckman executed the sales contract for a 2008 Hyundai Sonata sedan and an odometer disclosure statement and Pennsylvania motor vehicle title for a 2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser, did she know that her husband as co-owner of the 2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser would also ;have to sign the Pennsylvania motor vehicle title? 37, In Defendant Julia Dyckman's complaint to the Cumberland County Bar Association she writes" "Even towards the end of our relationship [referring to Attorney Howell's representation], I still didn't know his [husband's] annual salary and income from the Navy, and what he's been doing with the money", did Defendant Julia Dyckman receive a copy of the documents described in "Defendant Dennis V, Dyckman's Response to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents - First Set" dated March 7, 2008 (Interrogatory Exhibit 37 which references husband's pay statements and other financial records) prior to March 31, 2008? 38. In Defendant Julia Dyckman's complaint to the Cumberland County Bar Association she writes" "Even towards the end of our relationship [referring to Attorney Howell's representation], I still didn't know his [husband's] annual salary and income from the Navy, and what he's been doing with the money", did Defendant Julia Dyckman receive a copy of the documents described in "Defendant Dennis V. Dyckman's Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents - First Set" dated May 22, 2008 (Interrogatory Exhibit 38) prior to June 5, 2008? 39. If Defendant Julia Dyckman's response to Interrogatory 37 or Interrogatory 38 is "no" then why has she placed post it notes bearing her own handwriting (see Interrogatory Exhibit 39) on documents provided by her husband in his discovery responses found in Interrogatory Exhibit 37 and Exhibit 38 which were forwarded by Attorney Howell to Defendant Julia Dyckman for her review and comment? 40. At the time Defendant Julia Dyckman's filed her complaint to the Cumberland County Bar Association and wrote the phrase "Never saw pay stubs" on Page 2 of a 8/4/08 letter from Attorney Howell to her new counsel, Defendant Julia Dyckman had received copies of her husband's pay stub from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dated 2/15/08, 1/4/08, 12/21/07, 6/22/07, 1/5/07, 12/22/06 and her husband's military retiree account statements for January 2006, December 2007 and February 2008? VERIFICATION I/we verify that the statements made in the foregoing response to Plaintiff s Interrogatories are true and correct. I/we understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: Julia Y. Dyckman Date: USPS - Track & Confirm ? R Page 1 of 1 UNl7IwDSWES ZIPOSTAL SEWS.: Home I Help Track & Confirm Track Confirm Search Results Label/Receipt Number: 0308 0730 0000 6071 4162 rick ???r?..?a Detailed Results: • Delivered, December 18, 2008,10:22 am, HARRISBURG, PA 17110 Enter Label/Receipt Number • Arrival at Unit, December 18, 2008, 7:34 am, HARRISBURG, PA 17110 • Processed, December 17, 2008, 9:23 pm, HARRISBURG, PA 17107 • Acceptance, December 17, 2008, 4:15 pm, NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070 < Bac* ' Elated? to USPS.com Herne ± x Site a Q?ontact Us Forms Gov't Services Jobs Privacy Pal ICY Terms of Use National & Prernier Accounts Copyrightt) 9398-2007 USPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA http://trkcnfrml.smi.usps.com/PTSIntemetWeb/lnterLabelDetail.do 2/2/2009 n ca ..,% 47- Fed 0 5 STEVEN HOWELL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 08 - 5781 CIVIL TERM JULIA Y. DYCKMAN, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW RULE TO SHOW CAUSE C 4 AND NOW, this 7 day of , 200fit is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant shall show cause if any she might have why the relief requested in the foregoing Motion to Compel should not be granted. Rule returnable within 30 days of service by postage prepaid, first class United States Mail upon the Defendant's counsel. BY TOTE COUR Judge Certified Copies To: AAKen Howell, Esquire (Plaintiff's Counsel) owell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 0as A. Archer, Esquire (Defendant's Counsel) rcher & Archer P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0056 J 3 ZZ :1 Ind 6- 83A 6DOZ 301:1-Acl- c_ 3lu I,/ ARCHER & ARCHER, P.C. By: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire 2515 North Front Street P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 233-8676 STEVEN HOWELL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, DOCKET NO.: 08-5781-Civil Term V. JULIA Y. DYCKMAN, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE 1. Ob or about February 4, 2009 Plaintiff, Steven Howell, filed a Motion to Compel discovery from the Defendant, Julia Dyckman. 2. Plaintiff's Motion was filed as a result of Defendant's failure to respond within thirty (30) days to "Interrogatories to Defendant: First Set" and "Interrogatories to Defendant: Second Set." 3. On February 12, 2009, Defendant's counsel hand delivered Defendant's responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories. 4. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel should be denied as moot. 5. Plaintiff's request for legal fees should be denied because Plaintiff has provided no support for the contention that he is entitled to legal fees for preparing a motion to compel and Plaintiff has, in any event, not retained an attorney to represent him in this matter. 6. Plaintiff's request that Defendant should pay a sanction for failing to answer Plaintiff's Interrogatories in a timely manner should be denied because Defendant 1 has, in fact, responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests; has not been overly dilatory in proceeding with this litigation; the Defendant did previously respond to Plaintiff s Requests for Admissions and Requests for Production of Documents in a timely manner; Plaintiff has not been prejudiced by any delay; Plaintiff has provided no legal support for the contention that Defendant should pay a sanction under the circumstances. 7. A true and correct copy of the Interrogatory responses of Defendant and transmittal letter thereto is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Respectfully submitted, ARCHER & ARCHER, PC Date: February 12, 2009 By: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire Atty ID No.: 73293 2515 North Front Street PO Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-233-8676 Attorney for Defendant 2 Exhibit "A" LAW_ OFFICES ARCHER & ARCHER, P.C. ARCHER & ARCHER, P.C. By: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire 2515 North Front Street P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 233-8676 STEVEN HOWELL, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, DOCKET NO.: 08-5781-Civil Term V. JULIA Y. DYCKMAN, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES: FIRST SET Defendant, Julia Y. Dyckman ("Defendant"), responds to Plaintiff's first set of Interrogatories as follows: I. GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND LIMITATIONS Defendant, Julia Y. Dyckman, submits the following objections, which apply to each and every one of Plaintiffs Interrogatories. For convenience, those objections are set forth below, and are not necessarily repeated after each Interrogatory. The assertion of the same, similar or additional answers or responses and the specific answers to these Interrogatories does not waive any of Defendant's general objections as set forth below. Additionally, Defendant reserves the right to amend, supplement, and/or modify these answers to Interrogatories, as permitted by the Rules of Civil Procedure. 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require the identification or production of information or documents protected 1 from discovery by any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Interrogatories to the extent that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and seek information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Interrogatories to the extent that they are vague and ambiguous. 4. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant's obligations and responsibilities different from or in addition to those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Defendant objects to Plaintiff s Interrogatories to the extent that they seek legal conclusions or request opinions or statements that require the application of law to facts. 6. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information within the possession or control of any person or entity other than Defendant, and information not within Defendant's personal knowledge. 7. Each response is subject to all objections as to relevance and materiality (or any other objection) that would require the exclusion of any state herein, if such statement were to be made by a witness present and testifying in Court. 8. A response to any Interrogatory is not intended, and should not be construed to be a waiver by Defendant of all or any part of any objection to any request. 9. The following responses contain all or part of these general objections and limitations. The use of all or any part of these general objections and limitations in such 2 manner does not constitute nor is it intended to constitute a waiver of any of Defendant's rights herein. 10. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's requests to the extent that they exceed the number permitted by local rule. Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement these responses. In providing the following responses, Defendant has undertaken a reasonable effort to locate records, and to provide the information requested, to the extent that the requested information is not subject to objection. Subject to the foregoing, Defendant responds to the Interrogatories as follows: H. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES 1. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 51 of the New Matter you filed in this case? ANSWER: Paragraph 51 is an incorporation paragraph and needs no support. 2. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 52 of the New Matter you filed in this case? ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks the mental impressions of Plaintiff s attorney and disclosure of attorney work product. Subject to objection, Defendant relies upon the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint. 3. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 53 of the New Matter you filed in this case? ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks the mental impressions of Plaintiff's attorney and disclosure of attorney work 3 product. Subject to objection, Defendant relies upon the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint. 4. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 54 of the New Matter you filed in this case? ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks the mental impressions of Plaintiff's attorney and disclosure of attorney work product. Subject to objection, Defendant relies upon the allegations contained in Plaintiffs Complaint. By way of further response, Plaintiff's retainer agreement does not sufficiently state the matters in which Plaintiff is to represent Defendant. 5. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 55 of the New Matter you filed in this case? ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks the mental impressions of Plaintiffs attorney and disclosure of attorney work product. Subject to objection, Defendant relies upon the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint. By way of further response, Plaintiff failed to send any invoice to Defendant for nearly eight months. 6. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 56 of the New Matter you filed in this case? ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks the mental impressions of Plaintiff's attorney and disclosure of attorney work product. Subject to objection, Defendant relies upon the allegations contained in Plaintiffs Complaint. By way of further response, Plaintiff failed to send any invoice to Defendant for nearly eight months. 4 7. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 57 of the New Matter you filed in this case? ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks the mental impressions of Plaintiffs attorney and disclosure of attorney work product. Subject to objection, Defendant relies upon the allegations contained in Plaintiff s Complaint. By way of further response, Plaintiff's retainer agreement does not sufficiently state the matters in which Plaintiff is to represent Defendant. 8. Identify each and every fact which support Paragraph 58 of the New Matter you filed in this case? ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks the mental impressions of Plaintiffs attorney and disclosure of attorney work product. Additionally, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to objections, Defendant intends to provide expert testimony regarding the fees charged by the Plaintiff after continuing discovery. Additionally, many of the services purportedly provided by the Plaintiff in its invoices were not authorized by the Defendant. 9. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 59 of the New Matter you filed in this case? ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks the mental impressions of Plaintiffs attorney and disclosure of attorney work product. Additionally, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to objections, Defendant intends to provide expert testimony regarding the fees charged by the Plaintiff after continuing discovery. 5 Additionally, many of the services purportedly provided by the Plaintiff in its invoices were not authorized by the Defendant. 10. Identify each and every fact which supports Paragraph 60 of the New Matter you filed in this case? ANSWER: Objection. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it seeks the mental impressions of Plaintiff s attorney and disclosure of attorney work product. Additionally, Defendant objects to this Interrogatory because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Subject to objections, Defendant intends to provide expert testimony regarding the fees charged by the Plaintiff after continuing discovery. Additionally, many of the services purportedly provided by the Plaintiff in its invoices were not authorized by the Defendant. By way of further response, Defendant disputes the length of the various meetings between Plaintiff and Defendant alleged in Plaintiff s Complaint and invoices. 11. Did the Defendant ask Attorney Howell to examine the banking records of herself and her husband to uncover transfers and withdrawals by Mr. Dyckman? ANSWER: No. 12. Did the Defendant ask Attorney Howell to examine the records for various credit cards of herself and her husband to uncover charges, payments and balance transfers by Mr. Dyckman? ANSWER: No. 13. Did the Defendant bring banking records to Attorney Howell and ask him to review the records? 6 ANSWER: Attorney Howell requested Defendant to bring any and all documents in her possession to his office. Defendant complied. 14. Did the Defendant bring her congressional testimony about her medical condition and her medical records to Attorney Howell so he could review them and use them in the divorce case? ANSWER: Attorney Howell requested said documents from Defendant. Defendant did comply with Attorney Howell's request. 15. Did the Defendant ask Attorney Howell to obtain her husband execution of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Title for a Chrysler PT Cruiser so she could trade that vehicle in for a new car? ANSWER: Yes. 16. Did the Defendant ask Attorney Howell to obtain for her on half of the 2007 U. S. Federal Income Tax Return check made payable to herself and her husband? ANSWER: Yes. 17. Did the Defendant ask Attorney Howell to represent her at a Domestic Relations conference on June 27, 2008? ANSWER: Defendant did not specifically request that Attorney Howell represent her at a Domestic Relations conference. 18. Did the Defendant wait until Friday, August 1, 2008 to terminate Attorney Howell as her counsel after he had paid for the de novo support appeal and filed a request for a special hearing? ANSWER: Attorney Howell did not obtain Defendant's permission prior to filing the de novo support appeal or requesting a special hearing. Defendant was notified 7 by correspondence that Attorney Howell had known that the Defendant would want to appeal and filed the appeal on her behalf. Prior to this communication, Defendant was unaware that Attorney Howell had filed the appeal on her behalf. 19. Did the Defendant make a telephone call on Friday, May 23, 2008 to Attorney Howell and demand an immediate meeting to execute a new will and change her life insurance beneficiaries? ANSWER: Defendant did not demand an immediate meeting with Attorney Howell to execute a new will. Defendant had requested Attorney Howell to draft a new will for her several times and it had not yet been completed. Defendant requested again that Attorney Howell draft a new will for her and he responded that he had an open appointment the next day, Defendant took the appointment. 20. Identify amount and name of attorney all legal fees that Defendant Julia Dyckman is requesting the Divorce Master to consider in Dyckman v. Dyckman, No. 2007 - 7759 (Dauphin County) under the Pennsylvania Divorce Code (see Part IX Counsel Fees at Page 12 of the Pre-Trial Statement drafted by Laurie Saltzgiver, Esquire and filed on September 18, 2008 prior to denying that you have made such a request). ANSWER: The Pre-Trial Statement noted that a statement of counsel fees would be provided at the trial of the divorce matter. The divorce matter was settled previous to trial and no attorney's fees were awarded. 21. Identify (name, address and phone number) of all persons with whom Defendant Julia Dyckman has discussed the present litigation and fee collection dispute between yourself and Attorney Howell? 8 ANSWER: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire, Laurie Saltzgiver, Esquire and the Cumberland County Bar Association Fee Dispute Committee. 22. Identify (date and amount of time) all charges which appear on the invoice attached to Defendant's Answer with New Matter which Defendant Dyckman disputes? ANSWER: See attached list. 23. Identify the reasons Defendant Julia Dyckman has made no payments since July 22, 2008 to present on the invoice from Attorney Howell? ANSWER: Defendant disputes the amounts charged by Attorney Howell, who sent no invoices to her for nearly eight months. Defendant disputed the amount due on the invoices and submitted a questionnaire to the Cumberland County Bar Association Fee Dispute Committee on September 5, 2008. Plaintiff refused to take part in the fee dispute proceedings. 24. Identify the date Defendant Julia Dyckman first met Laurie Saltzgiver, Esquire for a consultation on the divorce matter? ANSWER: Defendant refuses to respond to this Interrogatory as the information requested therein is protected by attorney client privilege. 25. Did the Defendant Julia Dyckman give Laurie Saltzgiver, Esquire the spreadsheet attached to the Request for Admissions as Item #15? ANSWER: Defendant did not provide Attorney Saltzgiver any documentation. Attorney Saltzgiver obtained copies of my file from Attorney Howell. 26. Identify the name, address, and phone number of any person you intend to call as an expert witness at the trial of this matter? 9 ANSWER: Defendant has not yet identified any expert witnesses that will testify on her behalf at the trial of this matter. Defendant reserves the right to identify expert witnesses at a later date and will supplement her response as necessary. Submitted by: Date: February 12, 2009 By: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire Atty ID No.: 73293 2515 North Front Street PO Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-233-8676 10 Disputed charges: January 18 - No paperwork was exchange between the parties at this initial meeting. Attorney Howell spent approximately an hour speaking with Defendant about things that pertained to her case. The remaining one hour was spent talking about personal things. January 24 - Attorney Howell informed that he was unable to reach Attorney Walk and was waiting for a return call. I was later instructed to pick up my file from Attorney Walk because Attorney Howell was unable to reach him. The remainder of the meeting could not have taken two hours to complete. January 25 - I am not sure what letter Attorney Howell is referring to. I did not receive a copy of a letter and I do not remember discussing the preparation of any letters with Attorney Howell on this date. February 4 - I do not remember what was discussed at this meeting with Attorney Howell but I do not remember meeting with him for two hours on this date. March 26 - This entry states "Meeting (1.5 Hours)". The invoice does not provide who the meeting was with and I am unaware of any meetings taking place on this date. May 19 - Discovery responses were drafted on April 17 (2.0 Hours). There should not have been more discovery to respond to at this time. May 23 - Attorney Howell did meet with me on this date for the execution of my new will. However, he was meeting with other clients during the same time period and did not spend three hours with me on this date. July 2 - Attorney Howell supplied me with a copy of the inventory and income & expense statement on this date but he did not discuss its contents with me. This meeting did not last an hour. July 17 - On this date Attorney Howell was working on rescheduling a hearing. It did not take him an hour to speak with me regarding new dates and draft a letter to Attorney Holst regarding the same issue. July 28 - This entry does not provide me with enough information for me to be able to distinguish the work that was completed. I do not recall any letters at this time. I, Julia Y. Dyckman, acknowledge that the foregoing are my responses to the Interrogatories. Date: February 12, 2009 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jessica R. Porter, Paralegal, hereby certify that on the date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) stated below, via hand delivery, addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Date: February 12, 2009 Jessica R. Porter, Paralegal ARCHER & ARCHER, P.C. By: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire 2515 North Front Street P.O. Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 233-8676 STEVEN HOWELL, Plaintiff, V. JULIA Y. DYCKMAN, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO.: 08-5781-Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW DEFENDANT'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES: SECOND SET Defendant, Julia Y. Dyckman ("Defendant"), responds to Plaintiff's first set of Interrogatories as follows: 1. GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND LIMITATIONS Defendant, Julia Y. Dyckman, submits the following objections, which apply to each and every one of Plaintiffs Interrogatories. For convenience, those objections are set forth below, and are not necessarily repeated after each Interrogatory. The assertion of the same, similar or additional answers or responses and the specific answers to these Interrogatories does not waive any of Defendant's general objections as set forth below. Additionally, Defendant reserves the right to amend, supplement, and/or modify these answers to Interrogatories, as permitted by the Rules of Civil Procedure. 1. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to require the identification or production of information or documents protected 1 from discovery by any privilege, including the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. 2. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Interrogatories to the extent that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and seek information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Interrogatories to the extent that they are vague and ambiguous. 4. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to impose upon Defendant's obligations and responsibilities different from or in addition to those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs Interrogatories to the extent that they seek legal conclusions or request opinions or statements that require the application of law to facts. 6. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information within the possession or control of any person or entity other than Defendant, and information not within Defendant's personal knowledge. 7. Each response is subject to all objections as to relevance and materiality (or any other objection) that would require the exclusion of any state herein, if such statement were to be made by a witness present and testifying in Court. 8. A response to any Interrogatory is not intended, and should not be construed to be a waiver by Defendant of all or any part of any objection to any request. 9. The following responses contain all or part of these general objections and limitations. The use of all or any part of these general objections and limitations in such 2 manner does not constitute nor is it intended to constitute a waiver of any of Defendant's rights herein. 10. Defendant objects to Plaintiff's requests to the extent that they exceed the number permitted by local rule. Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement these responses. In providing the following responses, Defendant has undertaken a reasonable effort to locate records, and to provide the information requested, to the extent that the requested information is not subject to objection. Subject to the foregoing, Defendant responds to the Interrogatories as follows: II. RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES 27. Defendant Julia Dyckman has denied in Request for Admission No. 40 that she received an Invoice dated July 22, 2008 showing a balance of $13,205.20 arguing that the "first invoice [she] received was dated August 21, 2008", however, does the Defendant deny receiving an envelope containing a three (3) page cover letter dated July 22, 2008 (attached as Interrogatory Exhibit 27a) which states on Page 3 "I also enclose an itemized invoice showing all services to date" and a two (2) page invoice dated July 22, 2008 (attached as Interrogatory Exhibit 27b)? ANSWER: Defendant does not remember receiving an invoice dated July 22, 2008 and does not have a copy in her files. 28. Did Defendant Julia Dyckman receive on the morning on July 23, 2008 a large envelope weighing 8.70 oz bearing a July 22, 2008 postmark printed at 3:42:21 PM from the post office located in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania containing: (a) the three (3) page cover letter dated July 22, 2008, (b) a two (2) page invoice dated July 22, 2008; 3 (c) a one (1) page letter dated July 22, 2008 to Attorney Darren Hoist (Interrogatory Exhibit 28a) with six (6) pages ANSWER: Defendant does not remember receiving a package on the morning of July 23, 2008. 29. On July 23, 2008 did Defendant Julia Dyckman place a telephone call to Attorney Howell at 8:00 AM immediately after receiving the package bearing the July 22, 2008 postmark printed at 3:42:21 PM and identified in Interrogatory No. 28 and leave a message for Attorney Howell to call back about "Bill - $13,000.00 ...figures on cover [letter]?" ANSWER: Defendant admits that she spoke with Attorney Howell regarding the amount of an invoice she received but she does not recall when that phone call took place. 30. On July 23, 2008 did the Defendant Julia Dyckman and Attorney Howell have a telephone conversation as set forth in the Invoice date August 4, 2008 (attached as Interrogatory Exhibit 30) for.2 hours (approximately 12 minutes) discussing the three (3) page cover letter dated July 22, 2008 and its support calculations and the Invoice dated July 22, 2008? ANSWER: Defendant admits that she spoke with Attorney Howell regarding the amount of an invoice she received but she does not recall when that phone call took place. 31. Did Defendant Julia Dyckman receive a three (3) page letter (attached as Interrogatory Exhibit 31) dated August 4, 2008 to her new counsel (Laurie A. Saltzgiver) which stated at Page 3 "I will be sending Mrs. Dyckman a final invoice. I wish you the best of luck on the case"? 4 ANSWER: Yes. 32. Did Defendant Julia Dyckman receive an Invoice dated August 4, 2008 (attached as Interrogatory Exhibit 30)? ANSWER: Yes. 33. In light of Interrogatory Exhibit 27a, Exhibit 27b, Exhibit 30, Exhibit 31, the 8.70 oz package mailed from New Cumberland, Pennsylvania at 3:42:21 PM on July 22, 2008 and Defendant Dyckman's telephone message at 8:00 AM on July 23, 2008, identify all facts which supports Defendant Julia Dyckman's verified statements that the "first invoice [she] received was dated August 21, 2008"? ANSWER: This is the first invoice Defendant recalls having received. 34. Why did Defendant Julia Dyckman chose to file a Complaint for support with Dauphin County Domestic Relations on may 30, 2008/ instead of accepting the terms of the proposed "Stipulation for Entry of Interim Order (Request for Admission Item #20) which she reviewed on May 22, 2008 at Attorney Howell's office? ANSWER: Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it requests information protected by attorney client privilege which has no relevance to this matter. 35. On Tuesday, June 2, 2008 at 11:12:25 PM did Defendant Julia Dyckman receive an e-mail from her husband stating "If the home equity loan, a total of $2,800 (you are two months behind) is not paid by Thursday, then I will notify the Hyundai dealer that the title WILL NOT be signed and you will be required to return the car...In addition, to have the title signed, you will present to me a typed, signed and notarized letter stating that you will continue to pay the home equity loan until a court order or other written and signed document is reach"? ANSWER: Yes. 36. On May 30, 2008, when Defendant Julia Dyckman executed the sales contract for a 2008 Hyundai Sonata sedan and an odometer disclosure statement and Pennsylvania motor vehicle title for a 2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser, did she know that her husband as co-owner of the 2002 Chrysler PT Cruiser would also have to sign the Pennsylvania motor vehicle title? ANSWER: No. 37. In Defendant Julia Dyckman's Complaint to the Cumberland County Bas Association she writes "Even towards the end of our relationship [referring to Attorney Howell's representation]. I still didn't know his (husband's] annual salary and income from the Navy, and what he's been doing with the money", did Defendant Julia Dyckman receive a copy of the documents described in "Defendant Dennis V. Dyckman's Response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents - First Set" dated March 7, 2008 (Interrogatory Exhibit 37 which references husband's pay statements and other financial records) prior to March 31, 2008? ANSWER: Defendant cannot comprehend this Interrogatory. 38. In Defendant Julia Dyckman's Complaint to the Cumberland County Bas Association she writes "Even towards the end of our relationship [referring to Attorney Howell's representation]. I still didn't know his (husband's] annual salary and income from the Navy, and what he's been doing with the money", did Defendant Julia Dyckman receive a copy of the documents described in "Defendant Dennis V. Dyckman's Supplemental Response to Plaintiff s Request for Production of Documents - First Set" dated May 22, 2008 (Interrogatory Exhibit 38) prior to June 5, 2008? ANSWER: Defendant cannot comprehend this Interrogatory. 6 39. If Defendant Julia Dyckman's response to Interrogatory 37 or Interrogatory 38 is "no" then why has she placed post it notes bearing her own handwriting (see Interrogatory 39) on documents provided by her husband in his discovery responses found in Interrogatory Exhibit 37 and Exhibit 38 which were forwarded by Attorney Howell to Defendant Julia Dyckman for her review and comment? ANSWER: Defendant does not know who to respond to this Interrogatory. Attorney Howell requested Defendant to sit down and go through a stack of documents and tell him what she believed the documents reflected. Defendant did place post-it notes on certain documents stating what she believed the documents reflected. Defendant cannot recall on what documents she placed the post-it notes. 40. At the time Defendant Julia Dyckman filed her Complaint to the Cumberland County Bar Association and wrote the phrase "Never saw pay stubs" on Page 2 of a 8/4/08 letter from Attorney Howell to her new counsel, Defendant Julia Dyckman had received copies of her husband's pay stub from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania dated 2/15/08, 1/4/08, 12/21/07, 6/22/07, 1/5/07 and her husband's military retiree account statements from January 2006, December 2007 and February 2008? ANSWER: Interrogatory # 40 is a statement, not a question. Date: February 12, 2009 Submitted by: By: Thomas A. Archer, Esquire Atty ID No.: 73293 2515 North Front Street PO Box 5056 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-233-8676 7 I, Julia Y. Dyckman, acknowledge that the foregoing are my responses to the Interrogatories. Date: February 12, 2009 !.? a Y. Dyckm CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jessica R. Porter, Paralegal, hereby certify that on the date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) stated below, via hand delivery, addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Date: February 12, 2009 '14Ab - -puo-? U Jessica R. Porter, Paralegal CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jessica R. Porter, Paralegal, hereby certify that on the date set forth below I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) stated below, via hand delivery, addressed as follows: Steven Howell, Esquire Howell Law Firm 619 Bridge Street New Cumberland, PA 17070 Date: February 12, 2009 DAA?---9. T--1111Y?v Jessica R. Porter, Paralegal N ? C?7 ? _ -•- '` -n _ ? ; ?,:-? (?F"i _ '"?s ? _? Ck1 --; ?.? .. r? ? ...,. -G