Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-6575KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. - ?? CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROLAND ROBERTSON, Defendant IN DIVORCE NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you by the Court. A judgment may also be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of the Prothonotary at the Cumberland County Court House, 1 Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE: Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3302 (717) 249-3166 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By 00, ttorneys for Plaintiff THLEEN EEVINE WHITE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. U F- 6 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW ROLAND ROBERTSON, Defendant IN DIVORCE COMPLAINT COUNTI DIVORCE 1. Plaintiff KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE is an adult individual, who resides at 1340 The Waterford, East Crestwood Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Defendant ROLAND ROBERTSON is an adult individual, who currently resides at 10 Braemar Place, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB 10 6EP, United Kingdom. 3. Plaintiff has been a bona fide resident in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for at least six (6) months immediately previous to the filing of this Complaint. 4. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on September 21, 1985, in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 5. There have been no prior actions of divorce or for annulment between the parties. 6. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant is in the military services of the United States or its allies within the provisions of the Soldiers' & Sailors' Civil Relief Act of the Congress of LAW OFFICES II SNELBAKER & 1940 and its amendments. BRENNEMAN, P.C. 7. There were no children born of this marriage. 8. The marriage is irretrievably broken. 9. Plaintiff has been advised that counseling is available and that Defendant may have the right to request that the court require the parties to participate in counseling. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter a decree of Divorce, divorcing the Plaintiff from the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing. COUNTII EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL PROPERTY 10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 11. Plaintiff and Defendant have acquired property, both real and personal, during their marriage. 12. The parties have acquired marital debt during their marriage. 13. Plaintiff and Defendant have not agreed to any equitable distribution of the marital property and debts. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter an order of equitable distribution of marital property and debts pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 3502. COUNT III ALIMONY 14. Paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. LAW OFMCES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 2 15. Plaintiff requires reasonable support and alimony to adequately maintain herself in accordance with the standard of living established during the marriage. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to order alimony pendente lite and alimony as it deems just and reasonable pursuant to Sections 3702 and 3701 of the Pennsylvania Divorce Code. COUNT IV COUNSEL FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES 16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 17. Plaintiff has employed the firm of Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C. as counsel in this case. 18. Plaintiff anticipates substantial litigation expense. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to allow her reasonable counsel fees, costs and expenses pursuant to Section 3702 of the Pennsylvania Divorce Code. THEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to: (a) enter a decree of divorce, divorcing Plaintiff from the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between Plaintiff and the Defendant; (b) order equitable distribution of marital property and debts; (c) order Defendant to pay alimony pendente lite and alimony to Plaintiff in such amounts as the Court deems just and reasonable; (d) order Defendant to pay to Plaintiff her counsel fees, costs and expenses as the Court deems just and reasonable; and LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 3 (e) order such other relief as the Court deems just and reasonable. SNELBAKER, & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By: Ric and . Attorney I.D. # 06355 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: November 6, 2008 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 4 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint in Divorce are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Z? -&r KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE Date: November G, 2008 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. o$- G 57 s CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW ROLAND ROBERTSON, Defendant IN DIVORCE AFFIDAVIT KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says: 1. I have been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and understand that I may request that the court require that my spouse and I participate in counseling. 2. I understand that the court maintains a list of marriage counselors in the Office of the Prothonotary, which list is available to me upon request. 3. Being so advised, I do NOT request that the court require my spouse and I Participate in counseling prior to a divorce decree being handed down by the court. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: NO(). 4p 2008 41? -? AL KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. n N ? _ J b w .Q -? a J ? a 0 w n L ? m N 4 ;'7 c.3J ca m N N ry rn s ??f -t COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No: 08 - 6575 Civil Term Civil Action - Law Between Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White, 1340 The Waterford, East Crestwood Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. And Defendant Roland Robertson, 10 Braemar Place, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB 10 6EP, United Kingdom IN DIVORCE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, ALAN DAVIDSON, Sheriff Officer, 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen, do hereby certify that, 1. Upon the Twelfth day of November Two Thousand and Eight years, I duly served the Notice, Complaint and Affidavit. 2. upon the therein designed Roland Robertson, DEFENDANT by delivering the same into his hands personally, at 10 Braemar Place, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB 10 6EP, United Kingdom, before and in presence of Louise Carson, 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen, Witness to the premises and hereto with me subscribing. Witness Sworn at (.Q.. Sheriff Officer 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen This oC a &,-/ day of November Two Thousand and Eight years before me NOTARY PUBLIC. David Ramsay Landsman Raeburn Christie Clark & Wallace, 12-16 Albyn Place, Aberdeen, AB10 1PS KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. Of- 6STS CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW ROLAND ROBERTSON, Defendant : IN DIVORCE NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you by the Court. A judgment may also be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of the Prothonotary at the Cumberland County Court House, 1 Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE: Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3302 (717) 249-3166 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By "- r,_ '_ -#-, . rRUE COPY FROM RE es for Plaintiff Tesftony whKAO, I herd into M rtty hard thf I of slid COW A CMI S, PL Of, ProthOndluf KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW ROLAND ROBERTSON, Defendant IN DIVORCE COMPLAINT COUNTI DIVORCE 1. Plaintiff KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE is an adult individual, who resides at 1340 The Waterford, East Crestwood Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Defendant ROLAND ROBERTSON is an adult individual, who currently resides at 10 Braemar Place, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB 10 6EP, United Kingdom. 3. Plaintiff has been a bona fide resident in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for at least six (6) months immediately previous to the filing of this Complaint. 4. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on September 21, 198 5, in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 5. There have been no prior actions of divorce or for annulment between the parties. 6. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant is in the military services of the United States or its allies within the provisions of the Soldiers' & Sailors' Civil Relief Act of the Congress of LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & 1940 and its amendments. BRENNEMAN, P.C. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 7. There were no children born of this marriage. 8. The marriage is irretrievably broken. 9. Plaintiff has been advised that counseling is available and that Defendant may have the right to request that the court require the parties to participate in counseling. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter a decree of Divorce, divorcing the Plaintiff from the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing. COUNT II EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL PROPERTY 10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 11. Plaintiff and Defendant have acquired property, both real and personal, during their marriage. 12. The parties have acquired marital debt during their marriage. 13. Plaintiff and Defendant have not agreed to any equitable distribution of the marital property and debts. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to enter an order of equitable distribution of marital property and debts pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 3502. COUNT III ALIMONY 14. Paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 2 15. Plaintiff requires reasonable support and alimony to adequately maintain herself in accordance with the standard of living established during the marriage. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to order alimony pendente lite and alimony as it deems just and reasonable pursuant to Sections 3702 and 3701 of the Pennsylvania Divorce Code. COUNT IV COUNSEL FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES 16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 17. Plaintiff has employed the firm of Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C. as counsel in this case. 18. Plaintiff anticipates substantial litigation expense. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court to allow her reasonable counsel fees, costs and expenses pursuant to Section 3702 of the Pennsylvania Divorce Code. THEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to: (a) enter a decree of divorce, divorcing Plaintiff from the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing between Plaintiff and the Defendant; (b) order equitable distribution of marital property and debts; (c) order Defendant to pay alimony pendente lite and alimony to Plaintiff in such amounts as the Court deems just and reasonable; (d) order Defendant to pay to Plaintiff her counsel fees, costs and expenses as the Court deems just and reasonable; and LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 3 (e) order such other relief as the Court deems jujt and reasonable. SNELBAKER, & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By: Ric and C. nelbaker, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 06355 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: November 6, 2008 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. 4 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint in Divorce are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE Date: November (, 2008 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plaintiff V. ROLAND ROBERTSON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW : IN DIVORCE AFFIDAVIT KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says: 1. I have been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and understand that I may request that the court require that my spouse and I participate in counseling. 2. I understand that the court maintains a list of marriage counselors in the Office of the Prothonotary, which list is available to me upon request. 3. Being so advised, I do NOT request that the court require my spouse and I participate in counseling prior to a divorce decree being handed down by the court. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: N o. '6, 2008 KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE LAW OFFICES SNELSAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. Cj) ro IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plaintiff NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM V. ROLAND ROBERTSON, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Kathleen Eevine White, Plaintiff c/o Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Petition for Special Relief in the Nature of Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction and Venue under Rule 1920.2 and Objection to Venue under Rule 1920.6 within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. 444L C. Howett, Jr., quire HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) Defendant ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE MOTION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE UNDER RULE 1920.2 AND OBJECTION TO VENUE UNDER RULE 1920.6 AND NOW, comes Defendant, Roland Robertson, by and through his counsel, John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire, and the law firm of Howett, Kissinger & Holst, P.C., who states the following in support of the within Motion: FIRST OBJECTION OBJECTION UNDER RULE 1920.2 AND 23 PA C S A § 3104 Defendant, Roland Robertson, is an adult individual who resides at 10 Braemar Place, Aberdeen AB 10 6EP, Scotland, United Kingdom. 2. Plaintiff, Kathleen Eevine White, is an adult individual who purports to reside at 1340 The Waterford, East Crestwood Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011, but who is believed to reside at 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, Scotland. 3. Defendant, Roland Robertson, was served with the above action on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at his residence in Aberdeen, Scotland. 4. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1026(b) a defendant served out of the United States has sixty (60) days from service of the complaint within which to plead. 5. Rule 1006(e) requires jurisdiction or venue to be raised by preliminary objections, hence this pleading. Said Rule states "If a preliminary objection to venue is sustained and there is a county of proper venue within the State, the action shall not be dismissed, but shall be transferred to the appropriate Court of that county." Since there is no county of proper venue "within the State" the action cannot be transferred to Scotland, but must be dismissed. 6. On December 9, 2008, Defendant herein initiated a Divorce Complaint in Aberdeen, Scotland which was properly served on Plaintiff herein (Defendant in the Scottish action) on December 12, 2008 by personal service. Attached hereto is a copy of the Complaint marked as Exhibit "A" and the Proof of Service marked as Exhibit "B". 7. Plaintiff herein averred in the instant action that she was a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a period of six (6) months preceding the date of the Complaint. 8. Plaintiff herein was not a resident of the state of Pennsylvania for said six (6) month period nor was she domiciled in Pennsylvania for said period as evidenced by the following: (a) Plaintiff and Defendant herein have resided in Aberdeen, Scotland for over nine years, and Plaintiff's residence at 119 Blenheim Place is the marital residence of the parties where she has continued to reside. (b) Plaintiff and Defendant herein participated in a collaborative divorce process with their respective counsel, Anne G. McTaggart for Roland Robertson and Marion McDonald for Kathleen White as evidenced by the minutes of collaborative divorce meetings held on June 24, 2008 and July 24, 2008, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". While no collaborative agreement had yet been signed, the minutes make it clear that she was then a resident of Aberdeen, Scotland and planned on continuing to reside at least for the immediate future in Aberdeen, Scotland. (c) Attached as Exhibit "D" is an e-mail of October 7, 2008 from Marion McDonald (Plaintiff's Scottish Solicitor) to Anne McTaggart (Defendant's Scottish Solicitor) saying that she had spoken to Plaintiff "today" and that she and her client were both available on November 11, 2008 for their next collaborative meeting (although Ms. McDonald canceled that meeting on the morning of November 11, 2008). The e-mail went on to talk about various times when Plaintiff would be available for Defendant to pick up books and other items of personal property on October 10', October 13th and October 14`h. Moreover, the e-mail spoke about Plaintiff intending to move some of her items that were in storage and relocate them into her own home at 119 Blenheim Place, thereby reducing her future need for storage costs, all of which indicate an intent to continue to reside at 119 Blenheim Place. (d) Attached as Exhibit "E" is the telephone bill for 119 Blenheim Place (in the name of Defendant, Roland Robertson, but for the telephone charges at Plaintiff's residence) for the period of 11 August 2008 through 3 November 2008 showing that she regularly made telephone calls from her residence throughout that entire period, including calls to her attorney's office on 26 September 2008 (to number 408-482) which is Marion McDonald's personal number) and four calls to that law firm from 7 October 2008 to 17 October 2008 (408- 408), which is the law firm's main number, the first of which on October 7, 2008, coincides with Marion McDonald's e-mail to Anne McTaggart saying that she had, in fact, spoken to her client "today" which is consistent with both the e-mail and the phone record. 9. On November 10, 2008 the day before the next scheduled collaborative divorce meeting on November 11, 2008, Defendant saw Plaintiff in Aberdeen, Scotland. 10. Plaintiff was present in Aberdeen, Scotland on December 12, 2008, the day she was personally served with the Scottish divorce pleading. 11. On the evening of December 17, 2008, Defendant spoke to Plaintiff by telephone, having called her at her residence in Aberdeen. 12. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3104 and Rule of Procedure 1920.2 provide that no spouse can commence an action unless at least one of the parties has been a "bona fide resident in this Commonwealth for a period of at least six (6) months immediately previous to the commencement of the action." WHEREFORE, Defendant herein prays this Honorable Court to dismiss the above- captioned action in divorce. SECOND OBJECTION OBJECTION UNDER RULE 1920.6 13. Defendant herein incorporates by reference thereto paragraphs 1-11 above. 14. Rule 1920.6 states that if within ninety (90) days of the service of the complaint a second action is "brought in another county" (and note that the Rules does not restrict the county to being "within the State" as done Rule 1006(e)) and one of the counties is the county in which the last "family domicile" was located and in which one of the parties continue to reside, then the court of the county of the last family domicile shall determine which action shall proceed and which action shall be stayed. 15. The last family domicile is 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, Scotland. 16. Defendant herein continues to reside in said county. 17. Defendant herein commenced, within ninety (90) days of the service of the Cumberland County proceeding, an action in the county in which Aberdeen, Scotland is located (see Exhibit "A"). 18. In the event that it would be argued that Rule 1920.6 should be interpreted as applying only to a second action which is filed "within the State," even though said Rule does not limit itself to such actions, the clear ose of the Rule, i.e., to avoid simultaneous actions dealing with the same parties and the same issues, is best achieved by honoring the Rule in this case. WHEREFORE, if this Honorable Court does not dismiss the above-captioned action pursuant to the first objection, Defendant herein requests in the alternative that this Court defer to the Scottish Court under Rule 1920.6 allowing said Court to determine which action is to proceed, and to stay the Pennsylvania action accordingly. Date: 1?-! Z 3 ! L v- Respectfully submitted, C,f Jo . Howett, Jr., Esq ire HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson VERIFICATION I, Roland Robertson, hereby swear and affirm that the facts contained in the foregoing Motion for Special Relief in the Nature of Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction and Venue Under Rule 1920.2 and objection to Venue Under Rule 1920.6 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: 12/23/08 R-C, K. ?, "t, ROLAND ROBERTSON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plaintiff ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM V. ) ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire, counsel for Roland Robertson, Defendant in the above- captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Special Relief in the Nature of Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction and Venue under Rule 1920.2 and Objection to Venue under Rule 1920.6 was served upon Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Kathleen Eevine White, by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, on December 23, 2008, addressed as follows: Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 Date: t4'k, J C. Howett, Jr., Esquire HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson { g41 I ob LAMPIAN HIGHLAND AND ISL ( -L RKS OFFICE LODGED AT ABERDEEN C-2 cc) £R-0 INITIAL WRIT 1 1'9-ftft 2008 r O e- C. in causa 3 F _N PROFESSOR ROLAND ROBERTSON residing at 10 Braemar Place, Aberdeen, AB10 6EP against PURSUER Dr KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE or ROBERTSON, residing at 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, AB25 2DL The Pursuer craves the Court; DEFENDER 1. To divorce the Defender from the Pursuer on the grounds that the marriage has broken down irretrievably as established by the parties' non-cohabitation for a period in excess of 2 years. 2. To grant an order for the sale of the property situated at 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen jointly owned by the parties and for that purpose to grant warrant to such person as the Court shall think fit to dispose of the said subjects heritably and irredeemably by public roup or by private bargain in such manner and under such conditions as the Court shall direct; to ordain the Pursuer and the Defender to execute and deliver to the purchaser of the said property such disposition and other deeds as shall be necessary for constituting full right thereto; failing which to dispense with such execution and delivery and to direct the Sheriff Clerk at Aberdeen to execute such Disposition and all deeds all as adjusted at his/her sight as shall be necessary and to find the Pursuer and Defender equally entitled to a share of the net proceeds off sale or in such other proportions as the court shall think fit. I?e r? I " aw-aw 2wD 3. To find the Defender liable in expenses. A I +tkL C®pi ik cJ\d U 30fMLnt . h CONDESCENDENCE 1. The parties are husband and wife having been married in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, USA on 21s` September 1985. There are no children of the marriage. A relevant entry from the Register of Marriages will be produced herewith. 2. The parties have been habitually resident in Scotland for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the raising of this action and within the Sheriffdom of Grampian Highlands and Islands at Aberdeen for a period of not less than 40 days immediately preceding the raising of this action. The Pursuer is not aware of any proceedings continuing in any other Court in Scotland or elsewhere in respect of the marriage or capable of affecting its validity or subsistence other than an action of divorce raised by the Defender against the Pursuer on 12`h November 2008 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Pennsylvania USA- (`the said action of divorce'). The Defender raised said action claiming falsely that she has been a bona fide resident in The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at 1340 The Waterford, East Crestwood Drive, Camp Hill Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011 USA for at least 6 months immediately previous to the filing of the said action of divorce. During said period and since at least 2004 the Defender has resided at 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen. In that period she met the Pursuer on a number of occasions and at joint meetings with their respective lawyers to negotiate settlement of the financial issues arising from their separation including discussion of possible aliment for the Defender based upon her needs as resident at 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen. 3. The marriage has broken down irretrievably as established by the fact that the parties' separated on 12`'' December 2004. They have not lived together since that date. There is no prospect of reconciliation between the parties. The Pursuer seeks decree of divorce. 4. The Pursuer seeks an order for the sale of the property jointly owned by the parties at 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen in terms of sections 8(2) and 14(2) (a) of The Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. In terms of said section the Pursuer is entitled to a fair share of the parties' matrimonial property. 12`h December 2004 is the relevant for the purposes of section 10(3) Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 being the date upon which the parties separated. There being no other method of dividing the matrimonial property between the parties the said property requires to be sold. Since the Pursuer left the former matrimonial home on 12'h December 2004 he has maintained payment of the joint mortgage in respect of the property with Skipton Building Society. Said mortgage is on an interest only basis. The Pursuer is due to retire from his employment with Aberdeen University in September 2009 and will be unable to meet the mortgage payments thereafter. It is essential that in the present uncertain economic situation that the house be placed upon the market for sale as soon as possible. PLEAS IN LAW 1. The marriage of the parties having broken down irretrievably as condescended upon the Pursuer is entitled to decree of divorce as craved. 2. The order for sale of the property and division of the free proceeds of sale sought in the Crave 2 being justified in terms of section 8(2) and 14 ( 2) (a ) of The Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 and being reasonable having regard to the resources of the parties should be granted as craved. Ann G McTaggart Solicitor 52-54 Albert Street Aberdeen AB25 1XS Tel: 01224 593100 Fax: 01224 593200 Agent for Pursuer Form F14 FORM OF WARRANT OF CITATION IN A FAMILY ACTION Court Reference: F841108 Case Type: Divorce At: Aberdeen on the 09 December 2008 Grants Warrant to cite the Defender by serving upon him a copy of the Writ and Warrant on a period of notice of 21 days and Ordains the Defender to lodge a Notice of Intention to Defend with the Sheriff Clerk at Sheriff Clerk's Office, Castle Street, Aberdeen, if he wishes to:- a) Challenge the jurisdiction of the Court; b) Oppose any claim made or order sought; c) Make any claim or seek any order; Aberdeen Sheriff Court Court Reference: F841108 2008. Certified that no Notice of Intention to Defend in terms of Rule 33.34 of the Sheriff Court (Ordinary Cause Rules) 1993 lodged. Sheriff Clerk Depute for the Pursuer having considered the evidence contained in the affidavits and the other documents all as specified in the Schedule below and being satisfied that upon the Insert any restrictions of crave evidence a motion for decree in terms of the crave of the Initial Writ' may properly be made, moves the Court accordingly, and elects to charge the inclusive fee of £ fixed by Statutory Instrument with £ of outlay in addition. SCHEDULE In respect whereof I? i Solicitor Pursuer's Agent Rule 33.11(2) FORM F16 FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF CITATION IN FAMILY ACTION CERTIFICATE OF CITATION ABERDEEN, SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT YEARS I, GARY McLEAN, Sheriff Officer, hereby certify that upon the Twelfth day of December Two Thousand and Eight years, I duly cited DR. KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE or ROBERTSON, DEFENDER to answer the foregoing Writ and Warrant. This I did by delivering a full just copy of the foregoing Writ and Warrant with Citation Form F15 prefixed thereto together with Form F26 and Form F23, to the said DR KATHLEEN EEVINE or WHITE, DEFENDER personally within her dwelling place at, 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, AB25 5DL in presence of Louise Mackland, Witness, hereto with me subscribing. Witness 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen Sheriff Officer 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen 1476661SM Rule 33.11(2) FORM F16 FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF CITATION IN FAMILY ACTION CERTIFICATE OF CITATION ABERDEEN, SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT YEARS. I, GARY McLEAN, Sheriff Officer, hereby certify that upon the Ninth day of December Two Thousand and Eight years, I duly cited Dr KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE or ROBERTSON, DEFENDER to answer the foregoing Writ and Warrant. This I did by depositing a full just copy of the Writ and Warrant with Citation Form F15 prefixed thereto together with Form F26and Form F23, for the said Dr KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE or ROBERTSON, by means of the letterbox in the most patent door of her dwelling place, at 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, AB25 2DL after making diligent enquiries and giving six several audible and distinct knocks on the said door as use is, as I could not gain access thereto, nor find anyone therein to receive the same, in presence of Gordon Mackie Witness, hereto with me subscribing. -*P1, Witness 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen Sheriff Officer 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen 147666/SM SHERIFFDOM OF GRAMPIAN HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS AT ABERDEEN AFFIDAVIT OF GARY JAMES MCLEAN in causa PROFESSOR ROLAND ROBERTSON residing at 10 Braemar Place, Aberdeen, AB10 6EP PURSUER against Dr KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE or ROBERTSON, residing at 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, AB25 2DL DEFENDER At Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom on the Seventeenth day of December 2008 , in the presence of Rowena Marie McIntosh, Solicitor and Notary Public, 52-54 Albert Street, Aberdeen, compeared GARY JAMES MCLEAN, Sheriff Officer having a place of business at 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen, Scotland who being solemnly sworn depones as follows: 1. I am aged 42 and employed as a Sheriff Officer by Scott & Company Sheriff Officers 16 Queens Road Aberdeen. I obtained my appointment as Sheriff Officer on 24 January 1991 and have been employed in that capacity on a full time basis since. 2. The function of a Sheriff Officer is to implement orders of the Sheriff Court and to effect service of Court writs or applications. A Sheriff Officer obtains a commission to execute citation and enforce court warrants. The commission is granted by the Sheriff Principal in the areas the Sheriff Officer is to work. Q Notary Public Deponent 3. My firm is regularly instructed by McIntosh McTaggart Family Lawyers in Aberdeen. On 90' December 2008 we received instructions in writing to effect service of an Initial Writ for divorce in the above case upon the Defender Kathleen Eevine White or Robertson at 119 Blenheim Place Aberdeen . The preferable method of service was to be personal service . We were advised that she had been out of the country since early November 2008 but was likely to be returning to Aberdeen around 13`h December as my instructing agents had evidence that she could be flying from Dyce Airport Aberdeen to Indonesia via Amsterdam on 14`h December 2008. 4. Under the law of Scotland service of an Initial Writ for divorce can competently be served by recorded delivery post , personally upon the Defender or by `keyhole' service Both personal and `keyhole' service have to be carried out by Sheriff Officers. The latter method requires the Sheriff Officer to attend at the address of the Defender and to make due enquiry as to whether the Defender resides at the property. This is done by ascertaining if anyone is within the house by knocking on the door, ringing the bell etc. If noone appears to be at home then the normal practice is to check with neighbours at the property. Once satisfied that the Defender does reside at the address a copy of the writ is posted into the letter box for the property. A Sheriff Officer and witness are in attendance for this procedure. On 9`h December 2008 my colleague Gordon Mackie and I attended at 119 Blenheim Place Aberdeen and having made due enquiries of neighbours who advised that the Defender definitely lived at the address but was often away from home travelling the world a copy of the writ was posted into the house via the letter box. It was reported to McIntosh McTaggart that service had been made and I attach a certified copy of the execution of service docquetted and signed as relative to this affidavit. e r wz6wl- Notary Public Deponent 5. As our instructions were to still to attempt personal service on the Defender we retained the papers and on Friday 12`h December my colleague Louise Mackland received a telephone call from Anne McTaggart of McIntosh McTaggart to the effect that the Defender was at the property at 119 Blenheim Place Aberdeen. My said colleague and I attended at the address where I saw the Defender. She confirmed her identity to us and we served the divorce initial writ upon her conform to the copy certificate of citation attached and docquetted and signed by me as relative hereto. When I left the property the Defender was telephoning her solicitors Ledingham Chalmers Rose Street Aberdeen. ALL OF WHICH IS THE TRUTH AS THE DEPONENT SHALL ANSWER XZD _V' ........ ...... ... Notary Public Deponent FORM F16 Rule 33.11(2) FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF CITATION IN FAMILY ACTION CERTIFICATE OF CITATION ABERDEEN, SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT YEARS. I, GARY McLEAN, Sheriff Officer, hereby certify that upon the Ninth day of December Two Thousand and Eight years, I duly cited Dr KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE or ROBERTSON, DEFENDER to answer the foregoing Writ and Warrant. This I did by depositing a full just copy of the Writ and Warrant with Citation Form F15 prefixed thereto together with Form F26and Form F23, for the said Dr KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE or ROBERTSON, DEFENDER by means of the letterbox in the most patent door of her dwelling place, at 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, AB25 2DL after making diligent enquiries and giving six several audible and distinct knocks on the said door as use is, as I could not gain access thereto, nor find anyone therein to receive the same, in presence of Gordon Mackie Witness, hereto with me subscribing. Witness Sheriff Officer 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen h Abu&ao Ir kD/-Abz-r. 2m ef Wv, ku- (*rQ-CA VIOLA rv?-l Ck D.'? 6? 147666/SM f Rule 33.11(2) FORM F16 FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF CITATION IN FAMILY ACTION CERTIFICATE OF CITATION ABERDEEN, SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT YEARS I, GARY McLEAN, Sheriff Officer, hereby certify that upon the Twelfth day of December Two Thousand and Eight years, I duly cited DR. KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE or ROBERTSON, to answer the foregoing Writ and Warrant. This I did by delivering a full just copy of the foregoing Writ and Warrant with Citation Form F15 prefixed thereto together with Form F26 and Form F23, to the said DR KATHLEEN EEVINE or WHITE, personally within her dwelling place at, 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, AB25 5DL in presence of Louise Mackland, Witness, hereto with me subscribing. Witness 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen h AW&-Q-A I R-- aJL?W?2WI 147666/SM Sheriff Officer 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen r*ro9\ \iD?A4m,? e? Z?? SHERIFFDOM OF GRAMPIAN HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS AT ABERDEEN AFFIDAVIT OF LOUISE MACKLAND in causa PROFESSOR ROLAND ROBERTSON residing at 10 Braemar Place, Aberdeen, AB10 6EP PURSUER against Dr KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE or ROBERTSON, residing at 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, AB25 2DL At Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom on the Seventeenth day of December 2008 , in the presence of Rowena Marie McIntosh, Solicitor and Notary Public, 52-54 Albert Street, Aberdeen, compeared LOUISE MACKLAND, Sheriff Officer having a place of business at 16 Queens Road Aberdeen Scotland who being solemnly sworn depones as follows: 1. My full name is Louise Mackland. I am aged 26 and employed as a Sheriff Officer by Scott & Company, Sheriff Officers, 16 Queens Road Aberdeen. I obtained my appointment as Sheriff Officer on 20 March 2008 and have been employed in that capacity on a full time basis since. 2. The function of a Sheriff Officer is to implement orders of the Sheriff Court and to effect service of Court writs or applications. A Sheriff Officer obtains a commission to execute citation and enforce court warrants. The commission is granted by the Sheriff Principal in the area the Sheriff Officer is to work. Notary Public Deponent 3. My firm is regularly instructed by McIntosh McTaggart Family Lawyers in Aberdeen. On 9th December 2008 we received instructions in writing to effect service of an Initial Writ for divorce in the above case upon the Defender Kathleen Eevine White or Robertson at 119 Blenheim Place Aberdeen. The preferable method of service was to be personal service. We were advised that she had been out of the country since early November 2008 but was likely to be returning to Aberdeen around 13th December as my instructing agents had evidence that she could be flying from Dyce Airport Aberdeen to Indonesia via Amsterdam on 14th December 2008. 4. Under the law of Scotland service of an Initial Writ for divorce can competently be served by recorded delivery post, personally upon the Defender or by `keyhole' service. Both personal and `keyhole' service have to be carried out by Sheriff Officers. The latter method requires the Sheriff Officer to attend at the address of the Defender and to make due enquiry as to whether the Defender resides at the property. This is done by ascertaining if anyone is within the house by knocking on the door, ringing the bell etc. If no-one appears to be at home then the normal practice is to check with neighbours at the property. Once satisfied that the Defender does reside at the address a copy of the writ is posted into the letter box for the property. A Sheriff Officer and witness are in attendance for this procedure. I was informed that keyhole service had been carried out at the address at 119 Blenheim Place Aberdeen. 5. As our instructions were to still to attempt personal service on the Defender we retained the papers. I was duty Sheriff Officer for out of hours work for the weekend of 12-14th December 2008 and just after 5pm on Friday 12th December 2008 1 received a telephone call from Anne McTaggart of McIntosh McTaggart to the effect that the Defender was at the property at 119 Blenheim Place Aberdeen. My colleague Gary/ Notary Public Deponent Gary McLean and I attended at that address where we saw the Defender Kathleen White. She confirmed her identity to us and we served the divorce initial writ upon her conform to the copy certificate of citation attached and docquetted and signed by me as relative hereto. When we left the property the Defender was telephoning her solicitors Ledingham Chalmers Rose Street Aberdeen about what had taken place. ALL OF WHICH IS THE TRUTH AS THE DEPONENT SHALL ANSWER TO GOD Notary Public Deponent Rule 33.11(2) FORM F16 FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF CITATION IN FAMILY ACTION CERTIFICATE OF CITATION ABERDEEN, SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT YEARS I, GARY McLEAN, Sheriff Officer, hereby certify that upon the Twelfth day of December Two Thousand and Eight years, I duly cited DR. KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE or ROBERTSON, DEFENDER to answer the foregoing Writ and Warrant. This I did by delivering a full just copy of the foregoing Writ and Warrant with Citation Form F 15 prefixed thereto together with Form F26 and Form F23, to the said DR KATHLEEN EEVINE or WHITE, DEFENDER personally within her dwelling place at, 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, AB25 5DL in presence of Louise Mackland, Witness, hereto with me subscribing. Witness 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen Sheriff Officer 16 Queens Road, Aberdeen 147666/SM V Minute Of First Collaborative Four-Way Meeting Between Professor Roland Robertson & Dr Kathleen E White Held in the Offices of Ledingham Chalmers 52-54 Rose Street, Aberdeen on 20 June 2008 In Attendance Anne McTaggart, Professor Roland Robertson, Marion McDonald and Dr Kathleen E White 1. Aims and Aspirations of the Collaborative Process Anne stated that the aims and aspirations of both lawyers were to ensure, to the best of their ability, that Roland and Kathleen's issues be resolved between them on an amicable and open basis. They did not envisage there being the requirement for litigation. They had both worked together successfully in both the Collaborative Process and m the ordinary negotiating process by way of joint meetings. They considered it far better for parties to resolve matters by way of discussion rather than correspondence. They wished to ensure that both Kathleen and Roland fully understood the implications of the Collaborative Process. If either party felt they could not meet the demands of the Collaborative Process they were still prepared to work together with both Roland and Kathleen at round the table meetings as advising lawyers to try to obtain resolution of the various issues arising out of their separation. Marion agreed with Anne's statement of their aims and aspirations. Roland stated that he wished matters to be resolved on as amicable a basis as possible and to discuss matters round the table. He was willing to be open and forthright about all aspects of his financial position and recognised the need to be open and honest throughout the process. Kathleen stated that she wished it acknowledged that it was not her wish to have been involved in any discussion regarding separation of herself and Roland and that she was still open to reconciliation. She wished recognition of the advantages that she felt that Roland had gained from their relationship both personally and on an academic level. She wished clarification about her role .? within the Robertson family regarding the children and grandchildren. She wished to come out of the Collaborative Process having financial security for herself and also feeling that she could be trusting of Roland again. She considered that she might require the assistance of counselling. She understood that in the American system of Collaborative Process counselling would be available. 2 Anne and Marion acknowledged that the parties' statements of their aims and aspirations had been helpful. Anne explained that while the American model of the Collaborative Process did wholly involve counsellors the Scottish system as yet did not do so but that would not be a bar to Kathleen obtaining counselling. Marion would be able to put her in touch with someone who understood the Collaborative Process in Scotland. It was acknowledged that the aim of the Collaborative Process was to achieve financial stability for both parties where that was possible. As neither Anne nor Marion had a full understanding of the whole financial picture of Roland and Kathleen no guarantees could be given. Roland stated that Kathleen had full access to the children and grandchildren. He had done nothing to dissuade any of them from having contact with Kathleen. 2. Discussion of Collaborative and Alternative Processes Anne and Marion explained that the Collaborative Process involved a 4 way process between the two solicitors and the 2 clients. All 4 participants required to. be fully open and honest in their dealings with one another. That meant Roland and Kathleen being wholly truthfid about their financial position and answering any questions that were raised in relation to that. There was a commitment not to raise contested litigation and that if the litigation did result following a breakdown of the Collaborative Process then neither Collaborative solicitor could continue to act for either party. All discussions had to be round the table discussions. If there were difficult areas to be discussed then these required to be aired in a calm and reasonable way. Anne and Marion would where necessary meet together between the 4 way meetings to plan the next meeting and/or discuss how the group might deal with difficult issues which were anticipated to arise. In the Collaborative Process the solicitors act as advising solicitors to their respective clients but also have to consider fully the impact which any suggestions fora settlement might have on the other party. Kathleen and Roland would also require to consider each other in discussions regarding settlement of issues and be prepared to make compromises to reach agreement. The alternative process which Marion and Anne were willing to engage with Roland and Kathleen was the more straight forward form of solicitor/client negotiations. This type of negotiation could still take place by way of joint round the table meetings. One difference was that there was not the absolute requirement for open discussion although full disclosure of assets would still be expected. Neither solicitor would be required to consider the other party's position and each would be seeking to achieve an outcome which was most beneficial for her own client. If the negotiations broke down both solicitors would still be in a position to continue to act for each parry if there was litigation. The solicitors would however strive to avoid litigation and the discussion process would still take place in a calm and as amicable environment as possible. Kathleen and Roland were asked to state if they felt that they were able to accept the demands of the Collaborative Process. Roland indicated he was still willing to do so and to be fully open and to make disclosure of assets. Kathleen acknowledged that she too was willing to be open and honest. 3. Discussion of Collaborative Agreement and Signature of Same The draft Collaborative Agreement was discussed clause by clause and explanations given where required. Certain alterations were agreed to be made in particular to Clause 6 which is to be amended in relation to family issues and the 14 day period in Clause 9 is to be changed to 30 days. Kathleen raised concern regarding payment of her legal costs. It was explained that normally each party would meet their own legal costs but if Kathleen wished to have Roland meet these costs then that could be an issue to be discussed in the Collaborative Process . Roland stated that he would not be agreeable to meeting Kathleen's legal costs. Both parties indicated they were willing to sign an amended Agreement. Unfortunately there was insufficient time to have the Agreement signed. Due to holiday periods for Anne, Marion and Roland the earliest date that was identified to meet again was 24th July at which meeting the final version of the Agreement would be checked and signed. 4. Interim Issues Kathleen had brought Roland's computer and various items of mail to the meeting and that was passed to him. Roland explained that he requires to arrange a redirection of mail and required two original utility bills for Blenheim Place to exhibit to the Post Office to effect that change. Kathleen stated that she anticipated that two such bills would be in the mail which she had brought for Roland. Agreed that some method would require to be arranged to deal with both parties having access to mail which was addressed to them jointly and that would be discussed at the next meeting. Roland advised Kathleen that she should contact Nancy Gilkes at the University of Pittsburgh regarding the cancellation of their medical insurance through the University. Kathleen stated that she was already aware of the issue as she has been in touch herself with Nancy Gilkes. During discussion it emerged that it was not entirely clear why the medical care should have ceased or altered. It seemed that it was perhaps a mistaken assumption by Nancy Gilkes that neither party was to be returning to Pittsburgh or perhaps it might be because Kathleen and Roland had separated. At the time Kathleen and Roland left the University of Pittsburgh to come to Scotland a special arrangement had been made with the University Medical Care to provide insurance for them both. Neither were entirely clear now as to what those arrangements were. Kathleen and Roland are to find out what the terms of that agreement had been, why the medical cover has ceased or altered and if there is any way of retrieving the situation. Kathleen stated that she had considerable doubts as to whether it was possible for the situation to be retrieved. Agreed that it was in both parties' interests to try and have the situation retrieved. Roland is to endeavour to find the e-mail which he initially sent to Nancy Gilkes. 5. Date of Neat Meeting Provisionally set for 24"' July at IOam in the Offices of McIntosh McTaggart, 52-54 Albert Street, Aberdeen. Kathleen to confirm her availability to Marion as soon as possible. Minute of Collaborative Four-Way Meeting between Professor Roland Robertson & Dr Kathleen E White Held in the offices of McIntosh McTaggart 52-54 Albert Street, Aberdeen on 24"' July 2008 In Attendance Anne McTaggart, Professor Roland Robertson, Marion McDonald and Dr Kathleen E White 1. Minutes of Previous Meeting The Minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved. 2. Collaborative Agreement The Collaborative Agreement was discussed again. A number of issues were raised:- (i) Roland raised the issue of whether or not, within the framework of the Collaborative Agreement, other solicitors could be consulted outwith the process and in particular could Kathleen consult an alternative solicitor. For example, could a solicitor in Pittsburgh be consulted. Discussion took place about this Issue which raised a concern as to whether or not that advice would be confidential which it would be on the basis of a solicitor outwith the process would not be a party to the Agreement. Kathleen was concerned as she would wish to be able to have available, should she require it, independent advice on issues relating to the complex matters which related to Pittsburgh. She might want to consult a qualified solicitor. It was discussed that the principle of the Collaborative Agreement were that other experts could be-consulted, but that was on the basis that advice would be discussed in the four way meeting. This would mean that in the context of the American issues, should they be raised, either Roland and Kathleen would jointly instruct a solicitor, or a solicitor would be instructed in America with the advice being fed back to the meeting. It was noted that this would cause a concern for Kathleen in following the process. Marion referred to the clause in the Agreement regarding solicitors being a reference to the solicitors who were in the process - this was in connection with each party meeting privately with their own collaborative solicitor. Kathleen would wish to meet privately with her own American solicitor as well. (ii) The issue of a confidentiality clause was also raised. Marion explained that Kathleen had two particular concerns. One is that the address of the email appeared to be that of Roland's partner, Judith. She was also concerned that Judith should not be involved in any meetings which Roland would be entitled to have separately with Anne - in other words, she would want a reassurance from Roland that Judith would not attend those meetings with him. Roland agreed to this. The second concern was that Kathleen had observed that Roland had been collected from the last four way meeting by Judith and she again wanted a reassurance that all matters contained within the process would not be discussed with Judith. Again, Roland gave her that G reassurance. Roland indicated that Judith had come into Anne's office previously but would not come any more. Anne volunteered the information that she was the third person that Kathleen had observed in the car and that she was simply receiving a lift back to her office. Roland explained that he had already told Judith that any conversations they were to have ( if any) about the case, once the Collaborative Agreement had been signed, would be very limited. (iii) Discussion also took place with regard to the costs as set out in the Agreement. Kathleen had drafted what she would like to see by way of a revised clause for the Collaborative Agreement and this was produced. Discussion took place and it was agreed that a revised clause would be included. The revised clause now read:- "We agree that the question of which party/parties will bear what proportion of the financial burden(s) for legal fees and other outlays which have been incurred by agreement and are associated with this Collaborative Law process is one of the subjects to be discussed and decided within the framework of the process itself and will be considered and agreed as part of the final financial settlement. In the interim, each party will be responsible for paying directly the fees of his/her own Collaborative Law solicitor, but each party will also be expected to keep full documentation of those costs so that these may be taken into account at the appropriate stage of the overall financial negotiations." This clause would replace the existing Clause 11. However, because of the concern that Kathleen had over private consultations with her American attorney, whom she explained was not only her attorney but a long standing family friend, it was decided to adjourn the meeting at this stage to consider whether or not it was appropriate for the Agreement to be signed. Whilst private consultations with lawyers under the process were agreed, it was on the basis that a collaborative lawyer, who was a party to the Agreement, would then deal with matters collaboratively - the difficulty was that other lawyers who were not part of the process would not have the same commitment. Adjournment. Following the adjournment, Marion explained to Roland and Anne that it was felt that at this stage Kathleen did not feel able to sign the Agreement and would require to consider further. However, it was agreed to continue with the meeting in relation to some of the other interim measures, although there was limited time available to discuss these in detail. 3. Interim Issues It was agreed that in the meantime the status quo would remain and a further meeting would be arranged but it was agreed that Kathleen would identify the various expenses which they had incurred in moving to Aberdeen University to enable the University to deal with the reclaiming of expenses. Kathleen would look for the receipts and Roland would advise the University that this exercise was being done. Roland explained that this now required to be done in anticipation of him no longer being employed with the University longer term. Roland had provided a number of items of income and expenditure to Anne which Anne would then prepare and communicate to Marion. Anne 3 advised that Roland had a concern at the moment in relation to his cash flow. As a result of Kathleen continuing to draw £500 per month from the account this had resulted in his having insufficient funds to meet rent and other payments. It was noted that £1,500 was paid into one of the parties' joint accounts by Roland. This was a standing order which covered various outgoings for the matrimonial home which included the mortgage, Council Tax and certain other bills. There were bank cards for the joint accounts but these were not used. Kathleen also took money out of the joint account on a regular basis. Anne expressed a view that as there were now two households rather than just the one it would be better and more clear cut if it was known what would be paid for the matrimonial home at Blenheim Place. Discussion therefore took place on the basis of what the Blenheim bills were. Blenheim Bills Mortgage Approx £800 Council Tax £174 Hydro Electric £40 Hydro Electric Gas £191 Telephone £50 Lawn care £12 Window washing £40 House & contents Insurance £300 - £400 (this item was per annum) Roland advised that it was originally £1,280 per month for Blenheim Place but that had now been increased. Roland's income was £4,122 total. He advised that occasionally he had money for royalties, and teaching. He indicated that his additional income over the year would be about £2,000. There were two sets of royalties. There were also some Director's fees which he had previously received, but Roland advised that these had now been cancelled. He explained that the various Director's fees, which he had previously received and which had been raised by Kathleen were cancelled because of the change of ownership of the journal from which these were paid. It was noted that Kathleen had various stocks and shares in the US. Some had stopped paying a dividend. She estimated that she probably had about £5,000 a year maximum from these. Roland had a state pension which he estimated at £1,700. There was also the rental income of the Pittsburgh house which was in joint names. Kathleen explained that the rent was $2,200 a month but the costs were about $2,000. The costs and the income were roughly equivalent. Pittsburgh account, from which the mortgage would be paid, received income from stocks. Discussion also took place about Roland's current property expenditure. It was as follows:- Share of rent (two thirds share) £460 Council Tax £100 Gas & Electricity £30 and £10 There was also a payment to joint credit cards of £1,170 for various items. These outgoings totalled approximately £3,112. These cards are joint between Roland and Kathleen. r 4 Kathleen explained that the royalties income also went into a joint savings account. It is a separate account to handle business income. Kathleen transferred £500 a month out of the joint account for other expenditure as she had done for some time. Roland had taken money out for Budapest expenses and confirmed that eventually £2,000 would be going back into the joint account for this. Roland explained that there was a difficulty in recovering costs in terms of the length of time that it took. Kathleen brought to the meeting an outstanding bill for Heat Connection of £512.18. She would see if this could be paid in instalments. She would arrange this. Both parties would agree not to have extraordinary expenditure between this meeting and the time of the next meeting, on the basis that the status quo would remain. The date of Monday 8 September was proposed as a possible date to meet. FW: Kathleen White/Roland Robertson DATE FOR NEXT MEETING AND COLLECTION OF ITEMS FROM BLENHEIM PL AND STORAGE 1 Anne [Anne@McIntoshMeTaggart.com] Sent: 07 October 2008 17:32 To: Robertson, Professor Roland Importance: High Roiana See email from Marion McD below. It is urgent to get back to them re the dates for your access to Blenheim PI and to the storage company . Please can you confirm if you are agreeable or not to what is suggested. It does seem sensible enough to me. Kind regards Anne G McTaggart Family Law Specialist 52-54 Albert Street Aberdeen AB25 IXS Tel • 01224 593100 Fax: 01224 593200 The contents of this message are confidential and fbr use by the addressee(s) only. It may also he privileged. If'you are not the intended recipient please notify its immediately and delete the message from your computer system entirely. You may not copy or forward this message, or use or disclose its contents to any other person. McIntosh AlcTaggart cannot guarantee that this e-mail and any attachment are virus free or have not been corrupted in any other way. Thank you for your cooperation. If you wish more information about McIntosh McTaggart please click on our website www_ rnchitoshmcta;gart -corn From: Marion McDonald [mallto:Marion.McDonald@ledinghamchalmers.com] Sot: 07 October 200816:26 To: Arne---_ Cc: (F81254).UVE@Icaberserverl0.iedinghamchalmers.com Subject: Kathleen White/Roland Robertson [IWOV-UVE.FID81254] Dear Anne, I have sunken to Kathleen 1,fv and both Kathleen and I are available on 11th November - I have pencilled into my calendar 10 am at the moment with the venue to be confirmed. Perhaps you would like the meeting to take place at your office but please confirm. In the meantime Kathleen has confirmed that if Roland would like to remove his books which he wished and his other personal items - clothing etc - then Kathleen will be able to accommodate this on either Friday 10 October, after 1 pm, or any time on Monday 13 October which appear to be dates that would fit in with Roland's availability. In addition, she has explalhed that she could also be available over this coming week-end https://mail.abdn.ac.uk/owa/?ae=Item&t =IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAcAvD6XtthRgpq... 07/10/2008 although those dates were not mentioned by you. She will try and pack the personal items into bags or boxes for him. In addition, Kathleen would be agreeable for Roland removing certain items of furniture which are his from Blenheim Place. She will have these ready to be uplifted as well. She is happy for him to be accompanied by a male friend or colleague and/or professional movers to achieve this. Kathleen points out that if Roland can relocate his items of furniture from Blenheim Place, then when the issue of the belongings in storage is dealt with, Kathleen may be able to remove some of her items from storage and relocate them meantime into Blenheim Place which will have the additional benefit, hopefully, of reducing the on-going storage costs. Kathleen is preparing a list of the items of furniture which could usefully be removed by Roland from Blenheim Place and this wiH be sent to you before the end of the week. Meantime, can you come back to Linda with regard to the dates as I will be out of the office later. As far as the storage is concerned, Kathleen has been in touch with the storage company. As long as the small individual boxes, situated within the crates, are not opened/unpacked/re-packed, they estimate that this operation could be accomplished in a day. If that were to be the Case they estimate that the cost of assembling the five crates/unpacking them/sorting the furniture etc and then re-packing them would be in the region of £175 to £250 plus VAT. This would at least allow the larger items of furniture etc to be relocated into individual boxes. If Roland is agreeable to incurring this cost, then Kathleen proposes that this can be scheduled either for Monday 13 October or Tuesday 14 October to make progress. As indicated above, however, it would be helpful if Roland could first remove his belongings from Blenheim Place so that some space would be free'd up for Kathleen to relocate items from the storage boxes into Blenheim Place. Kathleen has also prepared a list of the credit card numbers and this will be delivered shortly and I will forward this on to you. She has not, as yet, been able to trace the manifest for moving/storage but as soon as she can we will also let you have this. Can you revert, as a matter of urgency, in light of the timescale? Without prejudice. With kind regards, Marion N McDonald Partner Ledingham Chalmers LLP, Sollcibors Johnstone House 52-54 Rose Street Aberdeen A810 1HA (Registered Office) DX: A815 Aberdeen LP-39 Aberdeen-1 Tel: 01224 408408 Direct Dial; 01224 408482 Fax: 01224 408403 E-mail: marion.mcdonaidW dinghamchalmers.com www.ledingharnch3lmers.co{r https://mail.abdn.ac.uk/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAeAvD6XtthRgpq... 07/10/2008 Bringing it all togett er Illl40915639 MR R ROBERTSON Your account number 119 BLENHEIM PLACE NS 19019412 ABERDEEN Bill number AB25 2DL Q039 32 Date 10 November 2008 If you have a query please see reverse for our contact details. Your BT bill for 01224 634809 Total now due f 139.09 BT Total Broadband Anywhere Please make sure we rereive the total now due by Wireless broadband in and out of the 21 November 2008. home. n C NEW BT Broadband Anywhere comes with our top-of the range broadband at home and also with the new BT ToGo -a phone that You pay nothing extra for the phone -worth U50. Read your a-mails at home or on the train. For more information Save f18 a year visit www.bt.com/broadbandianywhere Paying by Direct Debit means you can relax as your bill will always be paid on time. For more details go to www.bt.com/directdebit • You can find details of how to pay ovedeaf. "? • If appropriate, fill in the details on this payment slip. BT • Please don't send cash bypost. bank giro credit 41 • Please quote quote'Your account number' below on correspondence or remittance advices. 4ABC Your account number Total now due N519019412 £ 139.09 c.,w•r• w M ir:ors F Signature Date 8944 0111 1901 9412 0391 7001 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 `ash L J BwAcdetaifs Cheques Barclays PLC N.. 6egxs Fee 2 5 - 7 5 - 6 8 Automated Bulk Credit Clearing f D El BT 00-00 Please do not fold, pin or staple this slip; or write below this line. 03 NS 19019412 Q039 32 139.09 bt. co m Your account number Bill number NS 1901 9412 Q039 32 Please ensure you have your account number to hand for reference when you contact us. Calls to and from BT All calls made to BT or from BT may be recorded to help us to give you a better service. Pricing information If you have a pricing enquiry, please visit our website at bt.com/pricing or call us between gain and Spin, Monday to Saturday, on Freefone 0800 800150. VAT information This is not a VAT invoice. Where applicable, all charges and credits an this bill are exclusive of VAT. Paler bill reminders RI reserves the right not to send further paper reminders for payment of this invoice. Late payment Late payment can incur a charge of £7.50 and possible restriction of your service. To avoid this, please pay by the due date on the front page or switch to paying by ni_. Debit - Monthly Pay.n.nt Plan (°ae b.low). t processing fee PZd If on't pay by ct Debit or Monthly Payment Plan, BT Pt Services Ltd (a BT Group company) charges a fee for processing your payment. This fee is one of the lowest in the industry. To Pay by Direct Debit or Monthly Payment Plan To pay this and future bills by Direct Debit or Monthly Payment Plan, visit bt.com/payments or call 0800 44 33 11 (automated service). You'll need your bank account details to hand. Direct Debit You can pay the whole amount of this and future bills by Direct Debit. We give the date on your bill when we'll collect payment (normally 10 days after the bill date). Monthly Payment Plan You can spread the cost of your bills over the year by paying a set amount each month by Direct Debit on the day you choose. Monthly Payment Plan is subject to status. aam .... .............................. .................................._.........._........................._._..._.............................. Fault reporting 0800 800 151 24 hours, 7 days a week C'800 44 33 1124 hours, automated line visit bt.com/faults ................ ....... ............_. _...... _..... -................................... ........... .................... ..__. Billing options and order tracking 0800 44 33 11 24 hours, automated line ............. ..... ........... ....... ....... ........... ............ - ....... ......... ....... .......... ..... ............. ......... ........ ..... r Customers with a textphone use BT TextDirect by dialling 18001 before the i number you want, eg 18001 150 or 18001 151 ............ .._........_........,...., ............ ...... _............. Viewing your bill or paying online visit bt.corn/billing-payments Our commitment to our customers We aim to give you an excellent service and our Code of Practice (available or www.bt.com or on request from 0800 800 150) sets out full details of what you can expect from BT. If you have a complaint 1 Please call us on 0800 800 150 (a free call) or visit us at bt.com/contactus. If you prefer to write to us, the address is BT Pic, Correspondence Centre, Durham. DH98 1BT. 2 If you are unhappy with our response, you can ask a Complaint Review Manager to investigate. 3 If we do not answer your complaint within 12 weeks, or if we write to you saying that we cannot agree an outcome, you can ask Otelo, the Office of Telecommunications Ombudsman, to investigate. Otelo's contact details are: Otelo, PO Box 730, Wilderspool Park, Warrington, WA4 6WU, www.otelo.org.uk, or you can call 0330 440 1614. If you have a complaint about premium rate services, please contact PhonepayPtus at PhonepayPlus, Freepost WC5468, London, SE12BR, or www.phonepaypius.org.uk. Premium rate numbers start with '09' for landline calls, '118' for directory enquiry services or four or five-digit numbers on mobile phones. Ofcom Ofcom regulates the telecommunications industry and approves the dispute resolution scheme run by Otelo. Ofcom's contact details are: Ofcom Contact Centre, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SEl 9HA, www.Qfcom.org.uk. British Telecommunications Pic Registered Office 81 Newgate Street LONDON ECIA 7A1 Registered in England number 1800000 To pay by debit or credit card You can view your latest bill summary and use your debit or credit card to pay online at bt.com/bitlinq- payments; or you can call our automated service on 0800 44 33 11. To pay by personal banking To pay your bill by personal banking please contact your bank or building society quoting the 8T Barclays bank account number 00375853, sort code 20400-00, and your account number shown at the top left-hand side of this page. This has 10-characters and starts with two letters followed by eight numbers. To pay by cheque Make your c ue payable to BT Payment Services Ltd, cross it A/Cpayee only and write the account number on the back. Send cheque and comppleted payment slip to BT I elephone Payment Centre, Durham, DH98 1BT (or use the envelope provided). We don't accept post-dated cheques. Don't send cash by post. To pay in cash You can use your BT Payment Card to pay your bill in full or make payments towards it, provided you pay the full balance by the date stated. You can pay at PayPoints in supermarkets, newsagents, stores or petrol stations displayins the yellow PayPoint sign. Ahematively, please take your bill and bamoded payment slip to any a oint outlet. Please retain your receipts. There is no need to call us to let us know you have paid your bill. Date Your account number Bill ruimber' Your phone number 10 November 2008 NS 1901 9412 Q039 32 01224 634809 I It', "? a . l+ you require a copy of your bill, or request calls to be itemised after the bill is produced, an administration charge will be raised. You can view your bill and all your calls online for free at www,bt.cotn, ........... ............................................... Bill totals ..-.................................................................... Cost of calls .......................... ........ .............................. . .............................----.--.---.............. £ 27.45 .............. --................................. ... Your benefits efit f 1.60 Aisisasummaryofyourmain Mtotok incbding VAT, %*ere applicably and ................. ................. .. ....................... Rental charges ......................... ..................................... ........................................ ........... £ 88.69 ...................................................... n*ere to find information of each tatat Payment charges ................................................................. £ 4.50 ...................................................... VAT £ 20.05 ................................................................. Totrrl now due ...................................................... f 139.09 Cost of calls TAese mrors rake account afyour reduced can rotas. Your five calls arc shown in the benefits section. This a your col detotl Seethe Phone Baok or mwu ht comlPi dog for definitions of type of cal Ifyou have a complaint about premium rote cols, please contact Phonepaypkis Seepage 2 for details. £ 27.45 TYPO ofcalr Totalnumber Total Total Qf cto? ... .........duration ... _ .................. cost Daytime 96 06:48:16 £ 21.500 Evening & Weekend , 12 . 01:54:26 £ 2.290 io To a mobile . 4 00:03:17 ............ £ 0.680 0870 Numbers ......................................... 3 ....................... 00:18:44 ............................. £ 1.150 ........ .. .. 0845 Numbers ....... ........ -........... ............. 5 .............. ....... . 00:11:07 ....... .......... . . . . . ............ £ 0.500 Other calls 5 . . .. ..... 00:23:45 ............ ............. . £ 1.330 see below see page 4 seepage 5 see page 5 Seepage 5 gills in next table calls in next table calls in next table calls in next table calk in next table calk in next table Date/petiod Destination Caled number Total number Todd Type of cal Total cost of calk duration 11 Aug-12 Aug Aberdeen 01224 200416 2 00:04:29 Daytime 0.320 11 Aug-13 Aug Mobile Phone 07968 821444 2 00:01:06 Mobile 0.320 11 Aug-20 Oct Aberdeen 01224 821050 6 00:09:10 Daytime 0.780 11 Aug-23 Oct 0845 Numbers 08453 376330 3 00:06:23 0845 Number 0.290 13 Aug-3 Nov Aberdeen 01224 311356 24 01:43:01 Daytime 5.300 14 Aug-6 Oct Aberdeen 01224 321408 3 00:02:21 Daytime 0.310 18 Aug Aberdeen 01224 327777 1 00:00:42 Daytime 0.090 18 Aug Aberdeen 01224 582220 1 00:00:07 Daytime 0.090 18 Aug Aberdeen 01224 625577 1 00:00:31 Daytime 0.090 18 Aug-3 Nov Banchory 01330 820887 12 02:20:48 Daytime 5.760 19 Aug-24 Oct Aberdeen 01224 647096 4 00:03:10 Daytime 0.370 20 Aug Aberdeen 01224 323540 1 00:03:30 Daytime 0.190 20 Aug-30 Sep Aberdeen 01224 596954 3 00:01:49 Daytime 0.280- 20 Aug-31 Oct Aberdeen 01224 311356 10 01:50:04 Eve/Weekend 2.090 27 Aug Aberdeen 01224 353535 1 00:01:05 Eve/Weekend 0.080 24 Sep 0870 Numbers 08703 334873 1 00:03:48 0870 Number 0.260 24 Sep-3 Nov Aberdeen 01224 353535 3 00:05:35 Daytime 0.440 26 Sep Aberdeen 01224 408482 1 00:04:43 Daytime 0.230 2 Oct Aberdeen 01224 634631 1 00:01:08 Daytime 0.130 2 Oct Aberdeen 01224 637730 2 00:02:42 Daytime 0.260 2 Oct London 020 7724 9796 1 00:02:01 Daytime 0.170 6 Oct Aberdeen 01224 311213 1 00:03:35 Daytime 0.200 7 Oct Aberdeen 01224 208949 1 00:01:01 Daytime 0.130 7 Oct Aberdeen 01224 733852 1 00:00:51 Daytime, 0.100 7 Oct-17 Oct Aberdeen 01224 4084081rJ 4 00:17:27 Daytime 0.940 13 Oct Aberdeen 01224 584549 1 00:00:41 Daytime 0100 13 Oct Aberdeen 01224 632266 1 00:00:10 Daytime 0.100 13 Oct Mobile Phone 07825 518255 1 00:00:12 Mobile 0.170 15 Oct Banchory 01330 820887 1 00:03:17 Eve/Weekend 0.120 20 Oct Aberdeen 01224 865865 1 00:04:42 Daytime 0.230 21 Oct 23 Oct Aberdeen 01224 483137 3 00:09:47 Daytime 0.600 table continues on next page Date Your account number Bill number Your phone number 10 November 2008 NS 19019412 Q03932 01224 634809 Cost of calls continued Datoedod Destination CoNed number Total number Total Type of cad Total cost ofco& duradan 23 Oct Aberdeen 01224 724789 1 00:00:51 Daytime 0100 23 Oct Glasgow 0141889 2272 1 00:05:31 Daytime 0.270 23 Oct 0845 Numbers 08450 899006 1 00:03:24 0845 Number 0.120 23 Oct 0845 Numbers 08450 899008 1 00:01:20 0845 Number 0.090 23 Oct 0870 Numbers 08702 429242 1 00:09:07 0870 Number 0.530 23 Oct 0870 Numbers 08705 074074 1 00:05:49 0870 Number 0.360 24 Oct Edinburgh 0131220 2655 2 00:24:36 Daytime 1.010 24 Oct-3 Nov Special Svice 0844 4930747 5 00:23:45 Other 1.330 27 Oct Alford (A) 01975 564558 1 00:00:37 Daytime 0.100 29 Oct Aberdeen 01224 641019 1 00:03:13 Daytime 0.200 30 Oct Aberdeen 01224 273429 1 00:05:47 Daytime 0.270 30 Oct Aberdeen 01224 633670 2 00:00:11 Daytime 0.200 30 Oct Aberdeen 01224 680473 1 00:08:31 Daytime 0.370 30 Oct Aberdeen 01224 707948 1 00:04:26 Daytime 0.230 30 Oct Aberdeen 01224 828808 1 00:04:47 Daytime 0.230 31 Oct Aberdeen 01224 640666 1 00:04:01 Daytime 0.230 31 Oct Aberdeen 01224 867121 1 00:07:10 Daytime 0.340 31 Oct Edinburgh 01312471000 1 00:07:00 Daytime 0.300 31 Oct Edinburgh 0131247 1279 1 00:00:08 Daytime 0.100 3 Nov Aberdeen 01224 625000 1 00:07:26 Daytime 0.340 3 Nov Mobile Phone 07712 238377 1 00:01:59 Mobile 0.190 Total 2Z45'0 -.-Your- enefits T ._?_ d?c is d from your bill _ _ _ .. unumlted Weekend Plae Type of benefit Total number Total Total 7besoon the benefits ....... o cam ............ d'mrti°n-...........darnundbrn you've receiued ........................................... ....... ....... ..............'fft in addwan to year reduced cal raw Free calls 25 02:36:59 Free no further detail ...................................................................................................................... Friends & Family Auto Update - £ 1.600 see page 4 Friends & Family Auto Update - f 1.600 Automatic 10% discount an cost of tails to your top S numbers, inairding UK Number Destination QuaNfying period Comb ?n noft miematlonal and UKmobilk numbers 01224 311356 Aberdeen all ? beAft 20% discount an the Best%nd number 01224 408408 Aberdeen ll 7.390 -0-739 nominated byyou. To make changes to your Bestfnend 01224 821050 Aberdeen a all 0.780 0.980 - 0.094 - 0 078 number; phone 0600 "T311 0131220 2655 Edinburgh all 1.010 . -0 101 01330 820887 Banchory all 5.880 . -0.588 BestFriend 01224 337070 Aberdeen all 0.000 0.000 Total -1.600 B , Date Your account number Bill number 10 November 2008 NS 1901 9412 Q03932 Rental charges These are the charges foryour products .,n<i RenzoJ. Rerftal s/ arges are charged in advance. Your phone number 01224 634809 £ 88.69 )ype of charge .........-. Calling Plans . .A 30.00 sae page 5 _.... _.. 5 Broadband services 158.69 seePage Calling Plans f 30.00 DoWprriod Description Quarterly charge Cost 1 Nov-31 Jan Charges in advance for Unlimited Weekend 30.00 30.00 Plan comprises Line rental Broadband services £ 58.69 DoWperiod D--O&n Quarterly charge cost 1 Nov-31 Jan Charges in advance for BT Broadband Option 2 58.69 58.69 Payment charges £ 4.50 ---_.??._---- ayment processing - fee £ 4.50 This charge has been mode by BT Paym.nt Scnoc= L V for processing yourpayment ' Descrymco Cast Payment processing fee 4.50 VAT is not applicabie to this charge VAT £ 20.05 This is the summary of your VAT. !f you require a ?MNi i VAT rate ex Ch !9M a V A * ? T mm ce for VATrecovery pM?O51? 17 5% -.i .. ... . . -....,_... otal VAT .. ........ please raNus flee an 080080D150. . ............................ 0% .......... £ 114.54 .................... ............. .......... . £ 20.05 ............ ,... . £ 4.50 £ 0.00 Total 1119.04 Tots/ f2Q0.5 Q _ C> fi 3 rp _ . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, ) Plaintiff ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM V. ) ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE SPECIAL ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire, hereby enters his appearance specially and for the sole purpose of objecting to jurisdiction and venue in the above-captioned matter. Date: Z 2 Jo eHowett, Jr., Esq re HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P. O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Roland Robertson m ,.i ? ? C. ?i ? 1,? a,y t' ,la.? . _ ^ ' w ? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) Defendant ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE MOTION TO REDACT ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Roland Robertson, by and through his counsel, Howett, Kissinger & Holst, P.C., who hereby files the instant Motion to Redact Attorney Work Product and in support thereof states as follows: 1. Movant is Roland Robertson, Defendant in the above-captioned divorce action. 2. Respondent is Kathleen Eevine White, Plaintiff in the above- captioned divorce action. 3. On December 23, 2008, Defendant's counsel filed a Motion for Special Relief in the Nature of Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction and Venue Under Rule 1920.2 and Objection to Venue Under Rule 1920.6. This motion had five exhibits. Defendant's counsel's Inter-Office Memorandum of December 8, 2008 was inadvertently attached to Exhibit "E" in error by a staff person in Defendant's counsel's office. 4. As the December 8, 2008 Inter-Office Memorandum is highly confidential and is protected attorney work product, it is imperative to Defendant and his counsel that this memorandum be redacted from the Court record. 5. Counsel for Plaintiff informed Defendant's counsel that he intends to return to Defendant's counsel the copy of the December 8, 2008 memorandum which was attached to his copy of the Motion. WHEREFORE, Defendant's counsel requests this Honorable Court order that the December 8, 2008 Inter-Office Memorandum be redacted from the Court record. Respectfully submitted, Date: 4: Jo C. Howett, Jr., Esquire OWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plaintiff ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM V. ) ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire, counsel for Roland Robertson, Defendant in the above-captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Redact Attorney Work Product was served upon Richard C. Snelbaker, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Kathleen Eevine White, by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, on December 29, 2008, addressed as follows: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 Date: f ?'a` b E? o C. Howett, Jr., Esquire HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson Iii ?? + i71 THLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plaintiff V, ROBERTSON, Defendant PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE THEPROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire as attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE Eevine White in the above action. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. C. BY: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 December 29, 2008 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER 8C BRENNEMAN, P.C. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to be served upon the person and in the indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire Howett, Kissinger & Hoist, P. C. 130 Walnut Street P. O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By. 1 Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White : December 29, 2008 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. fl? cD -N V} f= ' ?+ t ? s`•4 ?1 VF i X4 DEC ? ? tAe? John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire NO JUDGE HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, ) Plaintiff } } V. ) } ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) Defendant ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 31' day of :kC4. ,4? , 200ZL, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion to Redact Attorney Work Product, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Prothonotary's Office will take the steps necessary to redact the December 8, 2008 Inter-Office Memorandum, which was erroneously attached to the Motion for Special Relief in the Nature of Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction and Venue Under Rule 1920.2 and Objection to Venue Under Rule 1920.6, from the record as such information is privileged attorney work product. BY THE COURT: >a i Its f .t THLEEN EEVINE WHITE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM LAND ROBERTSON, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE - RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF Plaintiff Kathleen E. White, by her attorneys, Snelbaker & Brenneman, P. C., submits Response to Defendant's Motion For Special Relief as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff "purports" to reside at 1340 The Waterford, East Crestwood Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. It is further denied that Plaintiff resides at 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, Scotland. On the contrary, Plaintiffs domicile and residence is at 11340 The Waterford, East Crestwood Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. 3. Admitted with the qualification that Defendant was served with the Divorce IComplaint on November 12, 2008 after the divorce action was initiated by Plaintiff on ovember 6, 2008. 4.' Denied. Paragraph 4 contains an unwarranted conclusion of law to which no response Iis required by this party. 5. Denied. Paragraph 5 of Defendant's Motion For Special Relief (the "Motion") contains unwarranted conclusions of law to which no response is required by this party pursuant Ito Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). To the extent a response is required, it is denied that there is no county of proper venue in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On the contrary, Cumberland County is LAW oFMCES the proper venue for this action since Plaintiff has been a bona fide resident of the SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. th of Pennsylvania in Cumberland County for a period of six (6) months preceding date of the filing of this divorce action. Accordingly, this action should not be dismissed. 6. Admitted with the qualification that the Divorce Complaint filed by the Defendant in was filed more than one month after the initiation by Plaintiff of the divorce action in Court. 7. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff averred in this action that she was a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a period of six months preceding the date of the Complaint. On the contrary, Plaintiff averred in Paragraph 3 of the Divorce Complaint that she has been a "bona fide" resident in the Commonwealth for the six months immediately previous to the filing the Divorce Complaint. 8. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff is neither a resident nor domiciled in Pennsylvania the six month period prior to the filing of the Complaint. On the contrary, Plaintiff remains was a bona fide resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the requisite time period necessary properly to bring and maintain this divorce action. With respect to the allegations contained in Paragraphs 8(a) through (d) of the Motion, Plaintiff responds as follows: (a) Admitted in part; denied in part. Although it is admitted that Plaintiff and Defendant commenced living in Scotland at the end of 1999, it is denied that Plaintiffs residence or the marital residence for purposes of jurisdiction is at 119 Blenheim Place or that Plaintiff has continued to reside there. On the contrary, Plaintiffs residence and domicile is in Pennsylvania, a location to which whenever she was absent, she always had the intention of returning. (b) Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the parties participated LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. in a collaborative divorce process, which process included their respective 2 counsel. It is further admitted that no collaborative agreement had been signed. It is denied that either the June 24, 2008 or July 24, 2008 "minutes" attached to the Motion as Exhibit C represents an accurate or complete record of the meetings held for the reason that such minutes were not adopted by the parties as such. In addition, Defendant's use of the minutes in this action is contrary to the parties' and their counsels' express understanding that matters that took place during the collaborative process were not to be used in any subsequent proceeding. Further, Defendant's characterization of the meaning of the minutes is denied. Plaintiff was not a resident of Aberdeen, Scotland during the collaborative divorce process and had no intention of residing in Scotland in the future. On the contrary, Plaintiffs periodic presence in Scotland in 2008 was for purposes of attending legal meetings and negotiations and to address property matters initiated and necessitated by the actions of Defendant. At no time did Plaintiff abandon her Pennsylvania residence and domicile by her temporary presence in Scotland. Further, Plaintiffs intention at all times has been and is to remain in Pennsylvania permanently. (c) Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that Exhibit D is an email from Plaintiffs Scottish solicitor to Defendant's Scottish solicitor. Defendant's characterization of the content of that email as somehow indicating that Plaintiff intended to continue to reside at 119 Blenheim Place is denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff never intended to reside in Scotland permanently and was periodically present there for the purposes set forth in Paragraph 8(b) above, the averments of LAW OFFICES SNELSAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. which are incorporated by reference herein. 3 (d) Admitted in part; denied in part. Although it is admitted that Exhibit E to the Motion is a telephone bill noting charges for telephone service provided to 119 Blenheim Place, it is denied that such telephone charges are evidence of Plaintiffs "residence" for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 8(b) above, the averments of which are incorporated by reference herein. 9. Denied. On November 10, 2008 Plaintiff was at her residence and domicile in lvania. Accordingly, Defendant could not have seen Plaintiff in Aberdeen, Scotland. 10. Admitted, with the qualification that Plaintiff s presence in Scotland was for purposes Hof addressing property issues created by Defendant. 11. It is admitted only that on or about December 17, 2008 Defendant spoke to Plaintiff awhile Plaintiff was at the Aberdeen property. To the extent Defendant uses the word "residence" for purposes of suggesting Plaintiff s lack of a residence and domicile in Pennsylvania, same is I denied. 12. Admitted. By way of further response, Plaintiff has in fact and in law been a bona fide resident in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a period of at least six (6) months immediately previous to the commencement of this divorce action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to dismiss with prejudice Defendant's Motion For Special Relief and direct Defendant to pay all attorney's fees and costs incurred by I Plaintiff. 13. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 12, above, are incorporated by reference herein. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 4 14. Paragraph 14 of Defendant's Motion contains a series of unwarranted conclusions of to which no response is required by Plaintiff; therefore, same are deemed to be denied to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 15. Denied. It is denied that the last family domicile is 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, Scotland. On the contrary, Plaintiffs domicile is and has always been in Pennsylvania, while 's domicile has been recognized to likewise be outside of the United Kingdom. ttached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as "Exhibit A" is a true and correct copy of letter dated March 12, 2004 to Defendant from Ritson Smith confirming Defendant's domicile ide of the United Kingdom. 16. Defendant fails to specify what county in which he claims to continue to reside; , said allegation is denied. 17. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant commenced an action divorce in Scotland within 90 days of the service of the Divorce Complaint in this action upon him. It is denied, to the extent it is expressed or implied, that such action by Defendant in any way relates to or is relevant with respect to Pa.R.C.P. 1920.6. 18. Denied. Paragraph 18 of Defendant's Motion contains a series of unwarranted of law to which no response is required by Plaintiff; therefore, same are deemed to denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to dismiss with prejudice Defendant's LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. For Special Relief and direct Defendant to pay all attorney's fees and costs incurred by By January 9, 2009 Snelbaker & Brenneman, P. C. V11 I Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kathleen E. White 6 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Response to Motion for Special Relief are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Kathleen E. White Date: January 9, 2009 Our Ref L/AMP/Ft369lMK 12 March 2004 Mr R Robertson 119 Blenheim Place ABERDEEN AB25 2DL Dear Mr Robertson Domicile 16 Carden Place, Aberdeen AB 10 I TX Tel: 01224 643311, pax: 01224 624359 DX AB 15 E-mail: admin@ritson-smith.com I received a telephone call from the Inland Revenue and they have aonfmned that you are not UK. domicile for tax purposes. Tax Repayment We have received an Inland Revemme repayment statement showing you are clue a tax repayment of £548.40 for 200-3. However, we are unable to check whether this is correct as we did not prepare your 2003 tax return. 2004 Please let us know whether you want us to act for you in the preparation of your 2004 tax return or in any other matters Yours sincerely v Alan MacPherson Tax. Manager EXHIBIT A 14001 r-..- r i -4t... r,.. u.6- ra...t r u........ xz:..rr a c....r ..w r.__, a at.. ate. W1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Motion For Special Relief to be served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire Howett, Kissinger & Holst, P. C. 130 Walnut Street P. O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. BY I Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White Date: January 9, 2009 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. ?i ?, ??.; `? ; -? KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plain iff vs. ROLAND ROBERTSON, Wednesday, ? une 10, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Qarlisle, PA. BY THE COURT, "CTIONS TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE UNDER RULE 1920.2 AND OBJECTION TO VENUE UNDER RULE 1920.6 ORDER NOW, this Zo ` day of May, 2009, hearing on the within motion is set for IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-6575 CIVIL IN DIVORCE Keith O. For the I -100?n C. ] For the I Esquire Jr., Esquire Kevin A. Mess, J. Am lc'fIIE?s f -A IN 1 ?l2 :C 1"I'd 02 MfiouZ KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plaintiff vs. ROLAND ROBERTSON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-6575 CIVIL IN DIVORCE IN RE: MOTION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE ORDER AND NOW, this / if "' day of June, 2009, after hearing, the court being satisfied that the plaintiff has been a resident of Pennsylvania for the six months preceding the filing of her action and, moreover, that she is a domiciliary of Pennsylvania (and the court noting also that the defendant has taken the position in the past that he is not domiciled for tax purposes in the United Kingdom), the motion of the defendant for special relief in the nature of preliminary objections to jurisdiction and venue is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire For the Plaintiff John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire For the Defendant :rim COP I.9 S „1ZLLJxL ??l Sl DQ OF THL 2099 Jur- 18 Pch 1: Ii b r? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) Defendant ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF INTERLOCUTORY ORDER UNDER PA. R.A.P. 1311 AND NOW, comes Defendant, Roland Robertson, by and through his counsel, Howett, Kissinger & Holst, P.C., who hereby files the instant Application for Amendment of Interlocutory Order Under Pa. R.A.P. 1311(b), and in support thereof avers as follows: The parties to this action are Husband and Wife, having married on September 21, 1985. 2. From 1985 until 1999, the parties lived and worked in Pennsylvania, but in 1999, they moved to Aberdeen, Scotland where they purchased a residence. 3. Due to marital discord, the parties separated on December 12, 2004, but did not seek an immediate divorce. 4. From June until November of 2008, the parties undertook and participated actively in collaborative divorce proceedings in Scotland. On November 6, 2008, Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White (hereinafter "Wife") filed for divorce in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. On December 23, 2008, Defendant Roland Robertson (hereinafter "Husband") filed Preliminary Objections to Wife's divorce complaint, asserting that this Honorable Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case due to Wife's failure to meet the six month residency requirement of the Divorce Code. 7. On June 18, 2009, this Court entered an Order denying Husband's Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction, a copy of said Order is attached hereto, and incorporated by reference herein, as "Exhibit A". 8. An order sustaining subject matter jurisdiction is considered to be interlocutory in nature. See H.R. and R.R. v. Department of Public Welfare, 676 A.2d 755 (Pa. Cmwlth 1996). 9. Rule 1311(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, as promulgated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, provides that an appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order by permission. 10. Said Rule permits an application to this Honorable Court seeking an amendment to its June 18, 2009 order to add the words, as delineated in 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 702(b), that the "Order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the Order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the matter." 11. Husband believes and therefore avers that the decision of this Court concerning Wife's satisfaction of the residency requirement prior to filing her divorce complaint presents a mixed, and very close, question of law and fact. 12. Therefore, as more fully set forth in the supporting Memorandum of Law filed contemporaneously herewith (and attached hereto as Exhibit `B"), Husband asserts that Wife cannot be considered a bona fide resident of this Commonwealth due to her failure to actually be present in the jurisdiction for the six months immediately preceding the filing of her divorce action, and therefore, this case presents an issue upon which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, which requires its certification for an immediate appeal to the Superior Court. WHEREFORE, Husband respectfully requests this Honorable Court to amend its Order of June 18, 2009 by adding the requested language thereto in the form attached as a proposed Order. Date: '7 Respectfully submitted, "-? c (Larv Jo W. Howett, Jr., EsqIII LST, P.C. WETT, KISSINGER O 130 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson VERIFICATION I, Roland Robertson, hereby swear and affirm that the facts contained in the foregoing Application for Amr&ent of Interlocu y Cyder LYder Pa.R.A.P. 1311(b) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: 7/16/09 Ise" AL.,.. ROLAND ROBERTSON KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plaintiff vs. ROLAND ROBERTSON, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-6575 CIVIL : IN DIVORCE IN RE: MOTION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF IN THE NATURE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE ORDER AND NOW, this / B 3' day of June, 2009, after hearing, the court being satisfied that the plaintiff has been a resident of Pennsylvania for the six months preceding the filing of her action and, moreover, that she is a domiciliary of Pennsylvania (and the court noting also that the defendant has taken the position in the past that he is not domiciled for tax purposes in the United Kingdom), the motion of the defendant for special relief in the nature of preliminary objections to jurisdiction and venue is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Keith 0. Brenneman, Esquire For the Plaintiff John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire For the Defendant rlm John C. Howett, Jr. Esquire HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson Judge Hess IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, } Plaintiff ) V. ) ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) Defendant ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF 1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Kathleen Eevine White (hereinafter referred to as "Wife"), and Defendant, Roland Robertson (hereinafter referred to as "Husband"), were married on September 21, 1985 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. From the time of their marriage until 1999, the parties lived and worked in the Pittsburgh area. Thereafter, the parties moved to Scotland where they resided for the past nine (9) years. On or about December 12, 2004, the parties separated. Although the parties made an unsuccessful attempt at reconciliation, they ultimately determined to divorce, and collaborative divorce proceedings were initiated in Scotland. Both parties participated in this process from June to November of 2008. In point of fact, a collaborative divorce meeting had been scheduled for November 3, 2008, but on that very day, Wife abruptly canceled the meeting, boarded a flight bound for Pennsylvania, and within a few days of her arrival in the Commonwealth, filed for divorce in Cumberland County. Wife's actions manifest a bad faith attempt to manipulate this Honorable Court by feigning residence in Pennsylvania simply because she became disgruntled with the collaborative divorce process which she had previously, and willingly, undertaken in the United Kingdom. In this memorandum, Husband argues that Wife cannot be considered a bona fide resident of this Commonwealth, and that although this Honorable Court concluded otherwise, a substantial ground for a difference of opinion exists as to this issue such that an immediate appeal to the Superior Court would materially advance an ultimate determination of the matter. II. ISSUES PRESENTED (STATED AFFIRMATIVELY). A. This Honorable Court should certify the issue presented by this case to the Superior Court for an immediate, interlocutory appeal because it presents a question of law as to which a substantial ground for a difference of opinion exists, to wit, whether this Court erred by concluding that Wife was a resident of Pennsylvania for the requisite six. (6) months prior to the filing of her divorce complaint. B. This Honorable Court should certify the issue presented by this case to the Superior Court for an immediate, interlocutory appeal because such an appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the matter. III. DISCUSSION. A. This Honorable Court should certify the issue presented by this case to the Superior Court for an immediate, interlocutory appeal because it presents a question of law as to which a substantial ground for a difference of opinion exists, to wit, whether this Court erred by concluding that Wife was a resident of Pennsylvania for the requisite six (6) months prior to the filing of her divorce complaint. Pursuant to the Divorce Code of Pennsylvania, this Commonwealth has subject matter jurisdiction over a divorce proceeding, if and only if, the plaintiff was a "bona fide resident" of Pennsylvania for at least six (6) months prior to the time when the action was filed. "Bona fide 2 residence" is defined as being actual residence coupled with the intention to remain there as a "domiciliary," permanently or indefinitely. Zinn v. Zinn, 327 Pa.Super. 128, 475 A.2d 132 (1984), citing McKenna v. McKenna, 282 Pa.Super. 45, 422 A.2d 668 (1980). In this context, "actual residence" requires physical presence in the jurisdiction. Watson v. Watson, 243 Pa.Super. 23, 364 A.2d 431 (1976). "Domicile" is the principal establishment to which, whenever absent, a person always has the intention of returning. Bell v. Bell, 326 Pa.Super. 237, 473 A.2d 1069 (1984). "Domiciliary intent" is determined by the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Chidester v. Chidester, 163 Pa.Super. 194, 198, 60 A.2d 574, 576 (1948). "Mere absence from a domicile, however long continued, cannot effect a change of domicile; there must be an animus to change the prior domicile for another." Zinn, supra (emphasis added). "To accomplish a change of domicile there must be not only the animus to change but the factum as well. There must be an actual transfer of bodily presence from one place to the other." Bell, supra at 247-248, 473 A.2d at 1075 (emphasis in original). The proof of a change in domicile does not depend on any one particular fact, but whether all of the facts and circumstances viewed together as a whole tend to establish a new, fixed and permanent residence. Commonwealth ex rel Saunders v. Saunders, 155 Pa.Super. 393, 396, 38 A.2d 730, 731 (1944). In the instant matter, Husband contends that when the parties decided to move from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Aberdeen, Scotland in 1999, Wife actively exhibited an "animus" to change her domicile and that she never evidenced any intention to return to Pennsylvania. Rather, Husband maintains that, for all that time, Wife considered herself to be a resident of 3 Scotland. Further, Husband asserts that but for the fact that the collaborative divorce process was not progressing to her liking in the United Kingdom, Wife never would have thought to move back to Pennsylvania despite the existence of some historical ties from her childhood to this jurisdiction. The evidence adduced at the hearing on this matter establishes that Husband and Wife left Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1999 with the notion that they were "severing their domiciliary attachments" to Pennsylvania and were permanently relocating their domicile to the United Kingdom. See Bell, supra at 1077. "After a domicile is acquired, continuance is presumed." Id., quoting McKenna v. McKenna, supra. In support of this contention, Husband established the following facts: (1) that the parties initially rented a home upon arrival in Scotland, but later determined in 2002, some 7 years ago, to purchase the residence; (2) that Wife has always maintained and actively utilized her bank account in Scotland; (3) that Wife maintained approximately six (6) credit card accounts billed to the marital residence in Scotland; (4) that Wife owned, maintained and insured a vehicle in Scotland; (5) that Wife had a cellular phone in Scotland (which was billed to the marital residence in Scotland as recently as May of 2009); (6) that Wife is listed in the 2008/2009 telephone directory in Scotland; (7) that Wife was actively involved as an officer in an organization known as the "American Women's Association" and participated regularly in the planning and execution of its activities as recently as October of 2008; (8) that she had a doctor and dentist in Scotland; and (9) that Wife represented herself as a resident of Scotland to receive medical services. Wife did not, and cannot, refute these facts. Further, Wife did not and could 4 not show that she had any significant ties to this jurisdiction. In particular, Wife did not maintain a bank account in Pennsylvania, nor that she had any doctors or memberships here, nor was she even listed in a telephone directory in this Commonwealth. Nevertheless, at the hearing, Wife attempted to argue that she had always possessed the "domiciliary intent" to return to Pennsylvania such that it should now be considered her "bona fide residence" for purposes of this divorce action. In support of this claim, Wife relied heavily on the fact that she owns a condo in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania and that she maintains a Pennsylvania driver's license. Importantly, however, the condo was not purchased by Wife, but rather, was inherited by Wife and her brother upon their mother's death post-separation. Indeed, it was only just recently that Wife bought out her brother's interest in the property, presumably in order to bolster her otherwise weak claim, made solely for the purposes of this divorce action, that she "resides" in Pennsylvania. Moreover, in the past nine (9) years intervening between the parties'. move to Scotland and the filing of the instant divorce action, Wife admitted that she would "vacation" in the U.S. for a few weeks per year in order to visit with her mother in Pennsylvania and friends in California. Furthermore, and most importantly, in the past six (6) months immediately prior to filing her divorce complaint, Wife was physically present in Scotland more than half of that time. A review of Wife's passport, phone bills, shopping receipts and her own testimony, all of which were introduced at the hearing, unequivocally establishes this crucial fact. In particular, these documents reveal that Wife left Scotland for the United States in late April of 2008, went back and forth between Scotland and the U.S. several times over the summer, but was nevertheless present for collaborative divorce meetings on June 24, 2008 and July 24, 2008, and spent the bulk of August, September and October of 2008 in Aberdeen, Scotland. Wife filed for divorce in the U.S. on November 6, 2008. Clearly then, Wife has not, and cannot, show that in the past six (6) months immediately preceding the filing of the instant divorce action that she was a bona fide resident of Cumberland County because not only did she lack the requisite domiciliary intent to return here permanently, but what is more, she lacked the crucial element of continuous physical presence in this jurisdiction for the relevant period of time. In sum, although Wife has painted a very sympathetic self-portrait to this Honorable Court, the operative legal facts from which Wife has attempted to disuade this Court still remain as follows: (1) Wife did not intend to return to Pennsylvania prior to the unraveling of the collaborate divorce process in the U.K. in November of 2008; and (2) Wife was not actually present in Pennsylvania six (6) months prior to filing the subject action. Therefore, at the very least, Husband argues that there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion as to the controlling question of whether in the matter sub judice Wife has met the residency requirement as set forth in the Divorce Code. B. This Honorable Court should certify the issue presented by this case to the Superior Court for an immediate, interlocutory appeal because such an appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the matter. The issue of whether Wife has met the Divorce Code's residency requirement bears directly on whether this Honorable Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this divorce action. If this issue were certified to the Superior Court for an immediate interlocutory appeal, and such 6 court were to determine, as Defendant argues herein, that Wife's lack of physical presence in the Commonwealth for the entire six months immediately preceding the filing of the divorce action in and of itself defeats Pennsylvania jurisdiction, such an appeal would, of necessity, "materially advance the ultimate termination of the matter" as required by 42 Pa.C.S. Section 702(b) and Pa.R.A.P. 1311. Therefore, this Honorable Court should amend its Order of June 18, 2009 to so state. IV. CONCLUSION. Husband respectfully requests that this Honorable Court certify the issue of whether or not Wife met the residency requirement delineated in the Divorce Code for an immediate appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania by entering an Order stating, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Section 702(b), that it is one in which there is a "substantial ground for difference of opinion, the determination of which would materially advance the ultimate termination of this matter." Respectfully submitted, Date: 7 It b b Howett, Jr., Esquir HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson 7 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, ) Plaintiff ) V. } ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) Defendant ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire, counsel for Roland Robertson, Defendant in the above- captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support Of Motion for Special Relief was served upon Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Kathleen Eevine White, by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, on July 16, 2009, addressed as follows: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 Date: 7 /14 /0 L J Howett, Jr., Esqui HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) Defendant ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire, counsel for Roland Robertson, Defendant in the above- captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Application for Amendment of Interlocutory Order Under Pa. R.A.P. 1311(b) was served upon Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Kathleen Eevine White, by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, on July 16, 2009, addressed as follows: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 Date: 2th 4 A 4 ,__j , g6mk' - - John ett, Jr., Esquire HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson A LE E,OF 7-E 2CJ3 J UL U; N'I 2. 1 JUL 17 2009 John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire JUDGE HESS HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street, P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant Roland Robertson IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, ) Plaintiff ) V. ) ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) Defendant ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this day of , 2009, upon consideration of Defendant's Application to Amend Order of Court of June 18, 2009, a Rule is hereby issued on Plaintiff to show cause why said requested relief should not be granted. Said Rule is returnable no later than 20 days from service. BY THE COURT: Kevin AlHess, J. Distribution: ohn C. Howett, Jr., Esquire, P.O. Box 810, Harrisburg, PA 17108, 717-234-2616 Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire, P.O. Box 318, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-6249 717-697-8528 FILED' to REV OF ENE PRt?? -???TA 2009 JUL 21 Phi 1 t; 9 KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plaintiff V. ROLAND ROBERTSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF INTERLOCUTORY ORDER Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White, by her attorneys, Snelbaker & Brenneman, P. C., submits this Response to Defendant's Application For Amendment of Interlocutory Order ("Application") in accordance with the Rule issued July 20, 2009 by this Court as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted with the qualification that the move to Aberdeen Scotland was on a temporary basis and the purchase of a residence took place as a matter of convenience only almost three years after moving to Scotland, all of which was testified to by Plaintiff and unrebutted by Defendant in the hearing held June 10 and continued to June 11, 2009 (the "June hearing") in this matter. 3. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted only that the parties first separated in December, 2004, not for reasons of "marital discord" as characterized by Defendant, but due to Defendant's extra-marital affair with another woman, which affair caused him voluntarily to leave the home in Aberdeen. The parties later reconciled for a period of approximately five weeks until Defendant left the Aberdeen home again to live with his mistress in early June of 2006. 4. Denied. Defendant's characterization of the parties "actively" participating in a LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. collaborative divorce process in Scotland over a five-month period is a gross exaggeration. Even Defendant recognized in his Motion for Special Relief filed December 23, 2008 in this action that the parties met only two times - June 24, 2008 and July 24, 2008 - as part of the collaborative process. (See Defendant's Motion For Special Relief, Paragraph 8(b).) Although the parties engaged in the collaborative process (with Plaintiff doing so upon recommendation of her counsel) in an effort to address matters arising from Defendant's departure from the marriage, no agreement was ever reached and indeed, no agreement ever signed to establish the parameters of the collaborative process in the first instance. By way of further response, Plaintiff, as testified by her in the June hearing, was in Pennsylvania a number of times during ithe five-month period referred to by Defendant. 5. Admitted with the qualification that Defendant in response to the divorce complaint filed by Plaintiff, filed for divorce in Scotland more than 30 days after Plaintiff filed for divorce in Pennsylvania. The divorce action initiated in Scotland by Defendant was stayed by decision of the Scottish Court on July 17, 2009. A copy of the decision of the court staying the action in Scotland is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as "Exhibit A". 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted with the qualification that the June 18, 2009 Order was issued after a hearing held June 10 and June 11, 2009 at which hearing Defendant participated by telephone and presented no testimony whatever. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted in part; denied in part. Although it is admitted only that Paragraph 11 of LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. Defendant's Application purports to set forth what Defendant believes, the substance of what he June 18, 2009 presents very close questions of either law or fact for the reasons that follow: believes is erroneous and therefore denied. Specifically, it is denied that this Court's decision on 2 a. The Court's Order of June 18, 2009 specifically notes that the Court after hearing was satisfied the Plaintiff has been a resident of Pennsylvania for the applicable six-month period and moreover, that Plaintiff is a domiciliary of Pennsylvania. If this case presented "close questions", this Court would not have specifically noted its satisfaction with its conclusions. Similarly, if this case presented "close questions", the Court would have indicated in its Order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(b)(2) that in fact the case presented a substantial issue of jurisdiction, which the Court did not do. b. No "close questions" of fact exist. Plaintiff gave extensive, unrebutted testimony on numerous subjects relevant to the jurisdiction issue before this Court. Defendant identifies no "close questions" of law that exist in either his Application or Brief. Indeed, Defendant makes no argument or assertion whatever as to how the Court committed any error of law. d. Defendant, although he made special arrangements with the Court to participate in the June hearing by telephone, failed to testify and provided no explanation, let alone a satisfactory explanation, why he was not offering his testimony. Accordingly, the inference exists as a matter of law that his testimony would have been unfavorable to him. See Dommes v. Zuroski, 38 A.2d 73 (Pa. 1944); Edmonson v. McMillen, 112 A.2d 642 (Pa. 1955). e. The bases of Defendant's Application for an immediate interlocutory appeal rest entirely on Defendant's self-serving version of facts and Defendant's inference from LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. those facts, not upon the evidence and inferences provided by and favorable to Plaintiff. 3 f. Without assigning any legal error to the Court in its decision, Defendant is in essence contesting the exercise of the Court's discretion as the basis for his Application. g. Defendant sets forth no important issue of law in his Application or Brief. h. Defendant does not claim there is an issue of first impression requiring particular resolution by either this Court or an appellate court. Defendant does not claim that the applicable law is unsettled. Defendant identifies no controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion. 12. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff cannot be considered a bona fide resident of the for the reasons given and based upon the evidence presented at the June hearing. the contrary, Plaintiff is a bona fide resident of the Commonwealth as found by this Court. statement of facts and the conclusions reached by Defendant in his Memorandum of Law are as being self-serving, contrary to the evidence presented at the June hearing and ining statements of fact not of record. By way of further response, Defendant cites no legal rity for the implied assertion that Plaintiff must be a resident in Pennsylvania during the six-month period immediately prior to filing for divorce. For the reasons set forth above particularly in Paragraph 11 herein, no issue is or has been presented upon which a ial ground for difference of opinion exits. Defendant's opinion as to how the Court have resolved the jurisdiction issue is irrelevant. Accordingly, there is no basis to grant of an appeal to the Superior Court. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 4 Plaintiff requests this Court to deny Defendant's Application. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. V 0" By: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 August 6, 2009 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. F841/08 Prof Roland Robertson V Dr Kathleen Robertson Aberdeen 17 July 2009 Sheriff Cusine Act: A McTaggart Alt: Clark The Sheriff, on Defender's motion, Allows the 2"d and 3rd inventories of productions for the Defender to be received at Bar and form No's 6/2 and 6/3 of process respectively; Allows the Note of Authorities for the Defender to be received at Bar and form No 15 of process; on Pursuer's motion, Allows the inventory of productions for the Pursuer to be received at Bar and form No 5/3 of process; having heard parties procurator's on the opposed motion for the Defender No 8/1 of process, Grants the motion and thereafter Sists the cause to await the outcome of proceedings in the United States; on the opposed verbal motion for the Defender made at Bar, Finds the Pursuer liable to the Defender in the expenses of the motion as taxed; Allows an account thereof to be given in and Remits same when lodged to the Auditor of Court to tax and to report; on the opposed verbal motion for the Defender, in respect of certifying the cause as suitable for the use of Junior Counsel, Refuses same. EXHIBIT A Sheriff VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Response to Application are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Kathleen E. White Date: August 6, 2009 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have on the below date, caused a true and correct copy of Plaintiff s Response to Defendant's to be served upon the persons and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: John C. Howett, Jr., Esquire Howett, Kissinger & Holst, P. C. 130 Walnut Street P. O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 BY HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Kevin A. Hess Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. C. 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White Date: August 6, 2009 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 6 2 0 0 3 LU - , ?I 1: 24 KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plaintiff v. ROLAND ROBERTSON, Defendant Cz>r Y ?? y- U 6? iti1 •? i i IN 4HE COURT OF CO1kIMON PLEAS OF AND CUT`Y, PENNSYLVANIA LtN' CU NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN DIVORCE PETITION TO SCHEDULE ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE CONFERENCE Petitioner Kathleen Eevine White, by her attorneys, Snelbaker & Brenneman, P. C. submits this Petition and in support thereof states the following: 1. Plaintiff and Petitioner herein resides at 1340 The Waterford, East Crestwood Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant resides at 10 Braemar Place, Aberdeen, Scotland AB 10 6EP, United Kingdom. 3. Petitioner and Defendant were married September 21, 1985. 4. Petitioner and Defendant live separate and apart. 5. Petitioner filed a Complaint in Divorce on November 6, 2008 docketed to the above number seeking, inter alia, alimony pendent elite. 6. Petitioner has received no support from Defendant since prior to their separation. 7. No previous Order has been entered against Defendant in any action for support of 1 Petitioner. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests this matter be referred to the Domestic Relations lOffice for the scheduling of an alimony pendente lite conference and that an order be entered LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. against Defendant for Petitioner's reasonable support and medical coverage. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. &/L?? By. Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White Date: 4P•Q/l- /Sr 2491v LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 2 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Petition are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. -11;z? iA? Kathleen Eevine White Date: Wg?/? 15-1 20f4 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition to be served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL. POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Darren J. Holst, Esquire Howett, Kissinger & Holst, P. C. 130 Walnut Street P. O. BOX 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 By: 2ol6 Date: SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. C. 1// kl-?? Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Petitioner Kathleen Eevine White LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER SC BRENNEMAN, P.C. KATHLEEN E. WHITE, THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE NO. 575 CIVIL TERM ROLAND ROBERTSON, IN DIVORCE 4 5 Defendant/Respondent : ?r i - ,? PACSES NO: 683111640 -r ORDER OF COURT c.rs AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 2010, upon consideration of the Petition for Alimony Pendente Lite and/or counsel fees, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before R. J. Shadday on June 15, 2010 at 1:30 P.M. for a conference, at 13 N. Hanover St., Carlisle, PA 17013, after which the conference officer may recommend that an Order for Alimony Pendente Lite be entered. YOU are further ordered to bring to the conference: (1) a true copy of your most recent Federal Income Tax Return, including W-2's as filed (2) your pay stubs for the preceding six (6) months (3) the Income and Expense Statement attached to this order, completed as required by Rule 1910.1 IC (4) verification of child care expenses (5) proof of medical coverage which you may have, or may have available to you. If you fail to appear for the conference or bring the required documents, the Court may issue a warrant for your arrest. Copies mailed to: Petitioner Respondent Keith O. Brenneman, Esq. Darren J. Hoist, Esq. Date of Order: May 6.2010 BY THE COURT, N ut!?4 b - M. L: Ebert, Jr., dge YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO A LAWYER, WHO MAY ATTEND THE CONFERENCE AND REPRESENT YOU. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU MAY GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVE. CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 (717) 249-3166 cc361 n C? rv O -_ J, -T1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSi V A TA rr?,; KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plaintiff ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM V. ) CT f ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF DIVORCE MAST R AND NOW, comes Defendant, Roland Robertson, by and through his counsel, Howett, Kissinger & Holst, P.C., who hereby files the instant Motion for Appointment of Divorce Master and moves the Court to appoint the master with respect to the following claims: divorce; equitable distribution; alimony; and counsel fees, costs and expenses and in support thereof states as follows: Discovery is not complete as to the claims for which the appointment of a master is requested; however, Defendant believes, and therefore avers, that all necessary discovery can be completed within the next 30 to 60 days. 2. The non-moving party has appeared in this action by and through her Attorney, Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire of Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C., 44 West Main Street, P.O. Box 318, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 3. The statutory ground for divorce is §3301: irretrievable breakdown. 4. The action is not contested with respect to divorce; however, the action is contested with respect to the claims of equitable distribution, alimony and counsel fees, costs and expenses. The action does involve complex issues of law or fact, particularly, the date of final separation. M 6. A hearing on the matter is expected to take one (1) day. 7. Additional information, if any, relevant to the Motion: Defendant respectfully requests the master schedule a pretrial conference. Date: Respectfully submitted, Darren J. H st, Esquire HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Roland Robertson VERIFICATION I, Darren J. Holst, Esquire, hereby swear and affirm that the facts contained in the foregoing Motion for Appointment of Divorce Master are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief based upon information provided by Defendant and from my own first-hand knowledge and that said facts are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Defendant is outside the jurisdiction of this court such that his verification cannot be timely obtained. Date: Darren J. olst, Esquire IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plaintiff V. ROLAND ROBERTSON, Defendant NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Darren J. Holst, Esquire, counsel for Roland Robertson, Defendant in the above- captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Appointment of Divorce Master was served upon Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire, counsel for Kathleen Eevine White, Plaintiff, via hand delivery and by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, on June 15, 2010 addressed as follows: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 Date: Darren J. olst, Esquire HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Roland Robertson q Darren J. Holst, Esquire HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. JUN .j 6 2010 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Roland Robertson IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, ) Plaintiff ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM V. ) C-) o UT: ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW S rnr- Defendant 7 :z _. m IN DIVORCE ? `•, `- Z Z. ORDER APPOINTMENT DIVORCE MASTER' AND NOW, this 14-0 day of Y 2010, upon consid?tion of Defendant's Motion for Appointment of Divorce Master, the Court hereby appoints E. Robert Elicker, Esquire, as master with respect to the following claims: divorce; equitable distribution; alimony; and counsel fees, costs and expenses. BY THE COURT: J. 'n Par ame: Roland Robertson ttorney Name: Darren J. Holst, Esq Aoo? Attorney Address: 130 Walnut Street P.O. BOX 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney Telephone Number: (717) 234-2616 Attorney E-mail: dholstnapaonline.com Non-Moving Party Name: Kathleen Eevine White 1 e ttorney Name: Keith O. Brenneman, Esq. Attorney Address: 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 Attorney Telephone Number: (717) 697-8528 L N q f IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSCi UAMA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE .> s-- Plaintiff ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM 7! fir' V. 2__ ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF DIVORCE MASTER AND NOW, comes Defendant, Roland Robertson, by and through his counsel, Howett, Kissinger & Holst, P.C., who hereby files the instant Motion for Appointment of Divorce Master and moves the Court to appoint the master with respect to the following claims: divorce; equitable distribution; alimony; and counsel fees, costs and expenses and in support thereof states as follows: Discovery is not complete as to the claims for which the appointment of a master is requested; however, Defendant believes, and therefore avers, that all necessary discovery can be completed within the next 30 to 60 days. 2. The non-moving party has appeared in this action by and through her Attorney, Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire of Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C., 44 West Main Street, P.O. Box 318, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 3. The statutory ground for divorce is §3301: irretrievable breakdown. 4. The action is not contested with respect to divorce; however, the action is contested with respect to the claims of equitable distribution, alimony and counsel fees, costs and expenses. 5. The action does involve complex issues of law or fact, particularly, the date of final separation. .• 6. A hearing on the matter is expected to take one (1) day. 7. Additional information, if any, relevant to the Motion: Defendant respectfully requests the master schedule a pretrial conference. Respectfully submitted, l/ Date: Darren J. H st, Esquire HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Roland Robertson i VERIFICATION I, Darren J. Hoist, Esquire, hereby swear and affirm that the facts contained in the foregoing Motion for Appointment of Divorce Master are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief based upon information provided by Defendant and from my own first-hand knowledge and that said facts are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Defendant is outside the jurisdiction of this court such that his verification cannot be timely obtained. Date: ??/ Darren J. olst, Esquire IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, Plaintiff ) NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM V. ) ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Darren J. Holst, Esquire, counsel for Roland Robertson, Defendant in the above- captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Appointment of Divorce Master was served upon Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire, counsel for Kathleen Eevine White, Plaintiff, via hand delivery and by depositing same in the United States mail, first class, on June 15, 2010 addressed as follows: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN 44 West Main Street P.O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0318 Date: - / Darren J. 11651st, Esquire HOWETT, KISSINGER & HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Roland Robertson KATHLEEN E. WHITE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff/Petitioner CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM ROLAND ROBERTSON, IN DIVORCE Defendant/Respondent PACSES CASE: 683111640 n c d ? rl C__ T ORDER OF COURT x_ C= AND NOW to wit, this 30th day of June, 2010, it is hereby Ordered that the ainf's Petition for Alimony Pendente Lite is denied, without prejudice, pursuant to the Petitioner's separate estate and sufficient assets to meet the needs of the pending divorce litigation. This Order shall become final twenty (20) days after the mailing of the notices of the entry of the Order to the parties unless either party files a written demand with the Domestic Relations Section for a hearing de novo before the Court. BY THE COURT: M. L. Ebe t, Jr., J. DRO: R.J. Shadday xc: Petitioner Respondent Keith O. Brenneman, Esq.. Darren J. Holst, Esq.. Form OE-001 Service Type: M Worker: 21005 KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM C-, r.? C.a - --V C ROLAND ROBERTSON, CIVIL ACTION - LAW S: Defendant IN DIVORCE =r- ^' "0 CJ co ' PLAINTIFF'S PRETRIAL STATEMENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1920.33(b) TO: E. Robert Elicker, II, Divorce Master Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White, by her attorneys, Snelbaker & Brenneman, P. C., submits this Pretrial Statement at the direction of the Divorce Master as follows: A. Background. This divorce was initiated by Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White by Complaint filed November 6, 2008. Plaintiffs Complaint raises counts for divorce on the basis that the parties' marriage is irretrievably broken, equitable distribution, alimony, counsel fees, costs and expenses. In spite of being served with the divorce Complaint on November 12, 2008, Defendant LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. initiated a divorce action in Aberdeen, Scotland on December 9, 2008 which resulted in a series of hearings in 2009 at which the Plaintiff had either to appear herself or to be represented. On December 23, 2008, Defendant filed a Petition For Special Relief objection to jurisdiction and venue of the divorce action initiated by Plaintiff in Cumberland County. In response to the Scottish divorce action against her, on May 6, 2009 the Plaintiff raised a Motion to Sist the Defendant's divorce action in Aberdeen Sheriff's Court; arguments were presented and then all proceedings continued, pending the outcome of the Defendant's Petition for Special Relief in Cumberland County. After a hearing, Judge Kevin A. Hess denied Defendant's petition by Order dated June 18, 2009, finding that Plaintiff was a resident and domiciliary of Pennsylvania. On July 17, 2009 the case was called again in Aberdeen with an indefinite sist (stay) being granted, pending resolution of the Plaintiff's divorce case in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff was born October 23, 1947 in Carlisle, Pennsylvania and is 63 years of age. Defendant was born August 7, 1938 in Norwich, England and is 72 years of age. The parties were married on September 21, 1985 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and have no children of their marriage. Both parties were previously married and divorced. Plaintiff has not been formally employed since March 1998, when she ended her employment through the University of Pittsburgh, initially to attend to Defendant due to issues e associated with Defendant's health. The Defendant was likewise employed by the University of Pittsburgh at this time and took a medical leave of absence in 1998, followed by accepting an option for early retirement. In 1999, Defendant became Chair in Sociology in the Department of Sociology, University of Aberdeen, Scotland. Both parties subsequently moved to Scotland, where Plaintiff assisted the Defendant with the Defendant's professional endeavors, including collaborating with the Defendant in research and contracted publication projects. Defendant, although now recently retired from the University of Aberdeen, is engaged with visiting professorships and fellowships at various universities in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and remains actively involved in research, writing and other professional academic activities. There is a dispute as to the date of the parties' separation. Defendant contends that the LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. parties separated in December, 2004. Plaintiff believes their separation was in April, 2008. Although Defendant did leave the parties' house in Aberdeen in December, 2004 for purposes of living with another woman, he returned in May 2006, when the parties continued to live as husband and wife in all respects in an exclusive marital relationship until June 2006. Defendant never mentioned an intention to be divorced or to obtain a divorce from Plaintiff and on the contrary, his words and actions lead Plaintiff to believe it was Defendant's intention to remain 2 married. After June, 2006, the parties maintained personal, professional, economic, financial and emotional ties and relationships with each other, all based upon conversations dealing with Defendant's eventual return to their house in Aberdeen. It was not until April, 2008 when Defendant instructed an attorney to communicate with Plaintiff on financial and other concerns that the matter of the parties' marriage and their future as husband and wife was put into question. Based upon the above, an initial determination of separation will be required which in turn will assist in providing guidance in valuing the marital portions of certain non-marital property identified in the Pretrial Statement below. B. Statement Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1920.33(b) 1. ASSETS. A. Marital Assets. 1. Real Estate. The parties 'ointl own the following real estate: 119 Blenheim Place, Aberdeen, Scotland This residence was purchased in June, 2002 and is encumbered by a mortgage held by Skipton Building Society. It has been listed by mutual agreement of the parties for sale and as of January 25, 2011, an offer has been made in the amount of the listing price of 295,000 GBP.1 A separate written agreement of the parties addresses the disposition of funds upon sale. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C 'Although Plaintiff had offered to purchase the Aberdeen property for the listing price of $295,000 GBP, which would have been at considerable financial benefit to the parties as opposed to sale to a third party, Defendant has declined to approve the sale to Plaintiff. 3 6611 Kinsman Road, Pittsburgh This residence was purchased by the parties on April 22, 1987. It has been utilized as a rental property by tenants since the parties' move to Scotland. The property is encumbered by a mortgage to PNC Bank (formerly National City Mortgage) in an amount of $55882.60 as of December, 2009. Rents received have been used to pay the mortgage, insurance and taxes. The property has been appraised by an appraiser engaged by Plaintiff and has a fair market value of $375,000 as of July 28, 2010. 2. Household Goods, Furnishings and Miscellaneous Personal Property. The issues concerning the parties' personal property, furnishings and miscellaneous personal property are many and complicated. Although both parties have responded to interrogatories concerning identity and location of various items of personal property, neither believes the other has been accurate and complete in doing so. Neither party has had any personal property appraised, although there are many items of value, such as original art works, furniture, rugs and books. The parties' personal property in Scotland is found in at least four locations: (1) in storage at a rented storage facility of Team Relocations; (2) at Blenheim Place; (3) in locations accessible to the Plaintiff; and (4) in the possession of or at other locations accessible to Defendant. In the summer and early autumn of 2008 Plaintiff cooperated with and assisted the LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. Defendant on a number of occasions in the Defendant's removing from the Blenheim Place house nearly all his own personal property and certain agreed items of marital property. At or about the same time in the summer of 2008 some property belonging to the Plaintiff as well as a very small number of fragile items of marital property were 4 placed into safekeeping by the Plaintiff prior to her filing for divorce. Since December 2008 the Plaintiff has been unilaterally restricted by an Interdict contained within the Defendant's Scottish Divorce Complaint from removing items from the Blenheim Place house. In the period between November 2008 and August 2010 Defendant took large quantities of marital and Plaintiffs own personal property of value from the home at Blenheim Place at times when Plaintiff was out of the country. Due to Team Relocations being owed storage charges, neither party is able to remove both the marital and non-marital property at that location. The parties further have personal property in storage in the basement of the Kinsman Road property in Pittsburgh. Plaintiff reserves the right to have properly inventoried and appraised marital personal property in Defendant's possession (or accessible to Defendant) or elsewhere for purposes of equitable distribution, to request the return of property belonging solely to the Plaintiff which is now in the Defendant's control, and/or to identify and request the return of specific items or categories of items of marital property which she wishes to constitute a portion of her share of the equitable distribution. 3. Intangible Personal Property. A. Pension and Retirement Accounts Both parties have retirement benefits that are marital and non-marital. Those retirement benefits that are non-marital, having been acquired prior to marriage, but which contain a marital property components due to increases in value during marriage, are identified in I.B.2, infra., which addresses non-marital pension and retirement assets. Those retirement and pension benefits that are marital are described LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. below. 5 Plaintiff became vested in a TIAA-CREF retirement benefit as a result of her employment at the University of Pittsburgh during the parties' marriage. That retirement account had a value on December, 2004 and March, 2008 of $147,935.13 and $179,612.50, respectively. As noted below, that account is being valued by an expert engaged by Plaintiff. Defendant has a USS (Universities Superannuation Scheme) pension that began when he joined the University of Aberdeen in September 1999. That pension benefit is being valued by an expert engaged by Plaintiff. B. Bank Accounts. The parties, jointly or separately, held or hold the following bank accounts. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. The balances of the accounts at various times are noted in pages 12 through 14 of Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Interrogatories - First Set. In terms of equitable distribution, specific amounts or balances can be established upon identification of a date of separation. Joint Bank Accounts in United States of America: Dollar Bank, Pittsburgh, PA: checking account (home equity line on Kinsman Road property paid off 5/2006; closed 5/2009) Northwest Savings, Pittsburgh, PA Citizens Bank: checking and savings accounts checking and savings accounts Joint Bank Accounts in the United Kingdom: HSBC, Norwich, England: checking (2) and savings (2) accounts Bank Accounts in Plaintiffs name alone, in United States of America: 6 Northwest Savings, Pittsburgh, PA: Susquehanna Valley FCU, Camp Hill, PA: Orrstown Bank, Camp Hill, PA: checking and savings accounts checking (2) and savings (2) accounts checking and savings accounts Bank Accounts in Plaintiff s name alone, in United Kingdom HSBC, Norwich, England: HSBC, offshore, St. Helier, Jersey: checking (1) and savings (3) accounts checking and savings accounts Bank Accounts in Defendant's name alone, in United Kingdom Clydesdale Bank, Glasgow, Scotland: 4. Motor Vehicles checking account and possible savings and other accounts The parties own or have owned the following vehicles prior or subsequent to their separation: a. Vauxhall Vectra, 1996. This vehicle was purchased in 2000 and titled in Defendant's name. It was disposed of after June 2006 by Defendant. Defendant must account for its value at the time of disposition. b. Chevrolet Monte Carlo, 1976. Plaintiff was a co-owner of this vehicle as a gift from her mother and as a co-owner, became full owner upon her mother's death. This vehicle is inoperable, non-marital and has no known value. c. Volkswagen Lupo, 2003. This vehicle was purchased by and in Plaintiffs name in 2006 in the UK from Plaintiffs non-marital funds and is non-marital. d. Hyundai Sonata, 2005. This vehicle was purchased after separation in 2009 in the US by Plaintiff with non-marital funds and is non-marital. 5. Life Insurance LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. z This account was identified in documents provided by Defendant in response to a request for production of documents. 7 In addition to Defendant's TIAA-CREF retirement benefit, infra., Defendant as of December 31, 2004 had maintained Plaintiff as beneficiary of a $50,000 TIAA-CREF Term Life Policy and a $15,000 life insurance policy provided through the University of Pittsburgh. These policies will need to be considered for purposes of ensuring continued coverage for the benefit of Plaintiff. 6. Stock Defendant had stock in his name in an academic journal called Theory, Culture and Society, most or all of which he acquired during the parties' marriage. He sold the stock sometime in or around 2007. Defendant: must account for the value of the stock and its disposition or purposes of equitable distribution. B. Non-Marital Assets. 1. Real Estate. Plaintiff is unaware if Defendant owns any non-marital real estate. Plaintiff is the owner of the following non-marital real estate: 260 Herr Street, Harrisburiz Plaintiff acquired this property, which is improved with a residence, by purchase in 1976 for $9,000. It is in poor condition. An expert has been retained to determine its fair market value as of the date of the parties' marriage and upon separation. Those appraisals, and others, will be completed upon establishment of a date of separation. 1340 The Waterford Plaintiff received title to this condominium unit as part of her distributed LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. inheritance from her mother's Estate by Decree awarding real estate dated November 26, 2006. An expert has been retained to determine its fair market value as of the date 8 of Plaintiff s ownership to the date of the parties' separation. 2. Pension and Retirement Accounts. The parties have the following pension and/or retirement benefits: Defendant: a. TIAA-CREF. This retirement benefit arises due to Defendant's former employment through the University of Pittsburgh. Defendant's account balance at time of the parties' marriage was approximately $157,182.77. In December 2007, the account had a value of $1,962.911.15. Plaintiff has engaged Conrad Siegel to value the marital portion of this retirement benefit, Plaintiffs TIAA-CREF retirement benefit as well as Defendant's interest in his university pension and Plaintiffs PSERS retirement benefit. b. Defendant is eligible to receive a State Pension in the UK. It is uncertain if the Defendant is claiming and/or receiving that pension. That pension is also in the process of being valued. Details on its value have not been provided by the Defendant. c. Defendant receives United States Social Security. Plaintiff: a. As noted above, Plaintiff has a TIAA-CREFF retirement benefit due to her former employment through the University of' Pittsburgh. That retirement benefit is being valued. b. Plaintiff participates in PSERS retirement system due to her prior LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. employment as a teacher at East Pennsboro School District. The marital portion of this pension benefit is being valued. 9 c. It is understood by the Plaintiff that she is entitled to a small State Pension in the UK based on her age and her marriage to a UK citizen. However, the Plaintiff has encountered difficulty in ascertaining the value of this or in learning exactly how to claim the pension without the explicit cooperation of the Defendant. It is believed the Plaintiff may be able to claim back payments dating to her 60th birthday (October 23, 2007). 3. Investment Accounts, Stock and Inherited Property. In November, 2008 the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County decreed distribution in the Estate of Willa E. White, resulting in Plaintiff inheriting in cash, the condominium at 1340 The Waterford and other property, assets then valued at $1,020,980.36. All of these assets are non-marital. In addition to the inheritance from her mother's Estate, Plaintiff had been gifted and distributed funds as a beneficiary of the C.A. and Flo B. White Trust. Further, Plaintiff received stock from her grandfather when she was a child. All of her inherited non-marital estate totaled approximately $920,000 in 2010, excluding any value of 1340 The Waterford. Information concerning Plaintiffs inheritance and trust benefits was provided to Defendant in answers to interrogatories, documents produced and information and documents provided through the Domestic Relations Section. II. IDENTIFICATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES. Plaintiff identifies the following who may be called as expert witnesses in this matter: A. Matt Barone, Barone and Sons Real Estate Appraisal and Consulting, with respect to the value of the Kinsman Road property. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. B. RSR Appraisers & Analysts, with respect to values necessary for the Herr Street (Harrisburg) and 1340 The Waterford (Camp Hill) properties. 10 C. Conrad Siegel Actuaries, with respect to valuation of the TIAA-CREF retirement benefits, PSERS retirement and Defendant's USS retirement benefit, and his UK State Pension. Plaintiff reserves the right to call expert witnesses necessary to establish the value of personal property and to give an opinion or opinions on Plaintiffs loss of income and employment opportunities given her move to Scotland and assistance to Defendant in furtherance of his academic and professional career to her future financial detriment as well as the Plaintiff's loss of actual and future earnings, royalties and professional employment opportunities due to unfulfilled contractual obligations on the part of the Defendant or resulting from the Defendant's actions. III. IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER WITNESSES. In addition to Defendant and Plaintiff, Plaintiff identifies no additional witnesses other than possible experts identified above which she may call at time of the hearing. Plaintiff reserves the right to identify and call other witnesses to address matters raised in Defendant's pretrial statement and to authenticate any document or exhibit identified below or otherwise to be used in the hearing of this matter. IV. LIST OF EXHIBITS. Plaintiff identifies the following exhibits she may utilize at the time of trial: Current federal income tax returns of the parties and any UK tax returns filed by Defendant. 2. Bank and retirement account statements for all accounts from date of separation with respect to those accounts identified in this Pretrial Statement or any discovery documents. 3. Personal property appraisals, inventories, receipts, photographs and related documents LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. as necessary. 4. Vehicle valuation documentation. 11 5. Loan documents and debt account statements. 6. All documents provided to Defendant in discovery. 7. All documents provided to Plaintiff in discovery. 8. Counsel fee invoices and listing and invoices of costs and expenses. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement her list of exhibits with current statements and other documents to be made available prior to the hearing, including, but not limited to, the various reports and valuations made reference to in this Pretrial Statement. In accordance with a stipulation between the parties' counsel, documents are not being attached to this Pretrial Statement due to the personal, sensitive and extensive financial information such documents contain. V. PLAINTIFF'S INCOME. Plaintiffs income from all sources is set forth on her last federal income tax return (2009). Plaintiff s 2010 federal income tax return when completed will be provided. VI. PLAINTIFF'S EXPENSES. Current expenses for Plaintiff will be provided in an income and expense statement. VIII. COUNSEL FEES. Plaintiff has raised a claim for counsel fees, costs and expenses. Invoices noting legal fees LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C incurred will be provided. Those invoices will include attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff in Scotland due to Defendant initiating the divorce action in Scotland after being served with the divorce Complaint filed in this action in Cumberland County. Due to Defendant's actions in Scotland, the Scottish court ordered that Defendant pay Plaintiffs court costs and counsel fees associated with a matter heard by the court. Defendant has failed to pay those fees and they still remain payable by Defendant. Finally, the costs to Plaintiff for expert services, travel to participate in her cases in both Scotland and the United States will be provided. 12 VIII. TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY. See B.I.A, above. IX. MARITAL DEBT. The parties' marital debt is identified on pages 15 through 18 of Plaintiffs response to Defendant's Interrogatories - First Set. Certain debt associated with the Blenheim Place property will be paid upon closing that property. Among the parties' debt is a Note given by the parties to Plaintiffs mother, Willa E. White, in June, 2003, securing payment of a $50,000 loan given for the parties to make a downpayment on the Blenheim Place property. That Note was assigned by the Executor of the Estate of Willa E. White to Plaintiff as part of Plaintiffs distributive share of the Estate. Defendant therefore owes Plaintiff $25,000 plus accrued interest from June 2002 on that amount. X. PROPOSED ECONOMIC RESOLUTION. Plaintiff proposes that she receive 60% of the marital estate, that Defendant pay her attorney's fees and expenses (both incurred in the United States and Scotland) and reimburse her for the costs, including her experts' costs, of this action. Given that Plaintiff is unemployable due to her forgoing her own career to care for and then to assist her husband in his professional endeavors, the fact that Plaintiff will need health insurance coverage and in consideration of the parties' marriage which exceeds 20 years, alimony of an indefinite duration is requested. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By: LAW OFFICES SNELIZI ER & ,... Date: January 28, 2011 BRENNEMAN, P.C. Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 28th day of January, 2011, I served a true and correct copy of the forgoing Pretrial Statement by first-class mail or by hand delivery as noted below upon: E. Robert Elicker, II Divorce Master 13 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (By hand delivery) Darren J. Holst, Esquire 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (By regular mail) Dated: January 28, 2011 Keith O. Brenneman LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. KATHLEEN REVINE WHITE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM ROLAND ROBERTSON, : CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant : IN DIVORCE -v PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAW OF APPEARANCE .<7 CO rn Q r-z Ica TO THE PROTHONOTARY: zo Please withdraw the appearance of Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire, 44 W. Main4, e > PO Box 318, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 as counsel of record on behalf of Plaintiff, Kathleen Eevine White in the above captioned action. Respectfully submitted, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN DATE: r ?- Keith O. Brenneman 44 W. Main Street PO Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717)697-8528 PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance to represent Plaintiff Kathleen Eevine White in the above captioned action. submitted, DATE: //- // - / Z Joann f 'on Clo Attorney ID No.: 3 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 737-5890 UGH, 90/£0 39dd H9n010 3NNdOI' Z68SL£LLTL 9Z:£0 ZTOZ/80/TO 4 L. LN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, ) Plaintiff ) NO. 2008-6575 Civil Term c� V. -n ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) CIVIL ACTION-LAW -- `i Defendant ) IN DIVORCEi r:; =C:) r)`-f. NO'T'ICE �,C= ' If you wish to deny any of the statements set forth in this Affidavit, you must file a Counter-affidavit within twenty(20)days after this Affidavit has been served on you or the statements will be admitted. DEFENDANT'S AFFIDAVIT UNDER 3� 3010 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 1. The parties to this action separated in or about December,2004 and have continued to live separate and apart for a period of at least two (2) years. 2. The marriage is irretrievably broken. 3. I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses if I do not claim them before a divorce is granted. I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: M44 lr V-O I� Roland Robertson,Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, ) Plaintiff ) NO. 2008-6575 Civil Term V. ) ROLAND ROBERTSON, ) CIVIL ACTION- LAW Defendant ) IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Darren J. Holst, Esquire, counsel for Roland Robertson, Defendant in the above- captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Affidavit Under Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code was served upon Joanne H. Clough, Esquire, counsel for Kathleen Eevine White, Plaintiff, by depositing same.in the United States mail, first class, on June 17, 2013, addressed as follows: Joanne H. Clough, Esquire 3820 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4350 Date: 1 Darren J. H w'Esquire HOWETT,KISSINGER &HOLST, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Roland Robertson KATHLEEN EEVINE WHITE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 08-6575 CIVIL TERM c-} ' ROLAND ROBERTSON, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : IN DIVORCE u> COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT UNDER& 3301(d) OF THE DIVORCE CODE �CD ' I. Check either(a) or(b): ❑ (a) I do not oppose the entry of a divorce decree. ' (b) I oppose the entry of a divorce decree because: ❑ Check i, ii or both ❑ (i) The parties to this action have not lived separate and apart for a period of at least two(2)years. ❑ (ii) The marriage is not irretrievably broken. 2. Check either(a) or(b): ❑ (a) I do not wish to make any claims for economic relief. I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses if I do not claim them before a divorce is granted. (b) I wish to claim economic relief which may include alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses or other important rights. I understand that in addition to checking(b) above, I must also file all of my economic claims with the Prothonotary in writing and serve them on the other party. If I fail to do so before the date set forth on the Notice of Intention to Request a Divorce Decree, the divorce decree may be entered without further delay. I verify that the statements made in this counter-affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 041//3 � NOTICE IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO OPPOSE THE ENTRY OF A DIVORCE DECREE AND YOU DO NOT WISH TO MAKE ANY CLAIM FOR ECONOMIC RELIEF, YOU SHOULD NOT FILE THIS COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT.