Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-7527MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, Plaintiff V. JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 0£3 - 7S Z7 e,U .l,`-rte.., CIVIL ACTION - LAW 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 judgement 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 at: The Office of the Prothonotary, Cumberland County Courthouse, One 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE NOTICIA LE HAN DEMANDADO A USTED EN LA CORTE. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomaro medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion do demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER 8, BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE COMPLAINT IN DIVORCE AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Mary E. Shotsberger, by and through her attorneys, Meyers, Desfor, Saltzgiver & Boyle and files the following Complaint in Divorce and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Plaintiff is Mary E. Shotsberger, an adult individual who currently resides at 3943 Brookridge Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Defendant is James A. Shotsberger, an adult individual who currently resides at 3943 Brookridge Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff has been a bona fide resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for at least six (6) months immediately previous to the filing of this Complaint. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on August 11, 1984 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. There have been no prior actions of divorce or annulment between the parties. The marriage is irretrievably broken. The Defendant is not a member of the United States Army or its allies. Plaintiff has been advised that counseling is available and that Plaintiff may have the right to request the court require the parties to participate in counseling, being so MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 advised, Plaintiff waives that right. 9. Plaintiff requests the Court to enter a Decree of Divorce pursuant to Section 3301(C) or 3301(D) of the Divorce Code. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mary Shotsberger, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter a Decree in Divorce pursuant to Section 3301(C) or 3301(D) of the Divorce Code. COUNTS COUNTI INDIGNITIES 10. Paragraphs one through nine of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 11. The grounds upon which this action is based are indignities pursuant to Section 3301(a)(6) of the Divorce Code. During the marriage, the Defendant has committed such indignities against the Plaintiff so as to make her life burdensome and intolerable. 12. Plaintiff requests the Court issue a Decree in Divorce based upon indignities pursuant to section 3301(a)(6) of the Divorce Code. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mary E. Shotsberger, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to issue a Decree in Divorce divorcing him from the bonds of matrimony pursuant to Section 3301(a)(6) of the Divorce Code. MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 COUNT II EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION 13. Paragraphs one through twelve of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 14. During the marriage, Plaintiff and Defendant have acquired various items of marital property, both real and personal, which are subject to equitable distribution under the Divorce Code. 15. Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court equitably distribute all marital property pursuant to the Divorce Code. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mary E. Shotsberger, respectfully requests this Honorable Court equitably distribute all property, both real and personal, tangible and intangible, acquired by the parties during their marriage. Respectfully submitted, Laurie A. Salt g>.ve Esqu>. Attorney I.D. 61382 Meyers, Desfor, Saltzgiver & Boyle 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)236-9428 Attorney for Plaintiff MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 VERIFICATION I, Mary E. Shotsberger , verify that the statements made in this Complaint in Divorce are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief., I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 12/29/08 (X ) Plaintiff ( ) Defendant MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER 6 BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 CA ? ? ? O 0 0 o? Rril N rn 5, ?? C.3 MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 08-7527 JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE PROOF OF SERVICE OF COMPLAINT IN DIVORCE MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET - P.O. BOX 1062 - HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 - FAX (717) 236-2817 t MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-7527 JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on this 22°d day of January, 2009, that a copy of the foregoing Proof I of Service of Complaint in Divorce was mailed, first-class, postage prepaid to: James A. Shotsberger 3943 Brookridge Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Laurie A. Salf i've Attorney for Plainti MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 r n.3 ?- Ct= - ' I TI W - W MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 08-7527 JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE PETITION FOR JOINDER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Mary E. Shotsberger, by and through her attorneys, Meyers, Desfor, Saltzgiver & Boyle, and files this Petition for Joinder pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1920.34 and in support thereof avers as follows: Petitioner is Mary E. Shotsberger, an adult individual currently residing at 3943 Brookridge Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania (hereinafter referred to as "Wife"). 2. Respondent is James A. Shotsberger, an adult individual currently residing at 2910 Morningside Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania (hereinafter referred to as "Husband") 3. The parties are husband and wife, having been lawfully married on August 11, 1984, and separated when Wife filed a Complaint in Divorce on or about December 30, 2008. 4. Wife's Complaint in Divorce included claims for support, alimony, and equitable distribution. 5. Wife's counsel has been unable to contact Defendant regarding the filing of this Petition. 6. A Judge has not previously been assigned to this action. MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 7. During the marriage, the parties acquired a fifty (50%) percent interest in Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. is a "S" Corporation which owns and operates five (5) Subway franchises in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area. The other fifty (50%) percent is owned by Wife's brother, Thomas Miller. The parties are both members of the Board of Directors and Husband serves as Vice President. 8. Husband has been employed by the corporation since its inception and Husband's income through his employment with Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. is Husband's only source of income. 9. The parties marital fifty (50%) percent interest in Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. is held in Husband's name alone. 10. Wife was not privy nor had access to any information regarding Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. throughout the marriage. 11. Wife believes and avers that Husband does not have access to various corporate documents including tax returns and financial statements. 12. Wife believes and avers that a Shareholders and Directors Meeting was held in October of 2008. Wife was not provided with notice of this meeting. The Shareholders and Directors Meeting was held without Husband and Wife. During said meeting the corporate attorney was named to the Board of Directors and the other shareholder, Thomas Miller, was offered an employment contract and an annual salary significantly greater than Husband's, which benefits were not provided to Husband. 13. The parties' marital interest in Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. is a marital asset with substantial value. The parties incurred substantial debt and liability during the MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 marriage in supporting and building equity in the corporation. 14. Wife believes and avers that the joinder of the corporation to the divorce action is necessary to protect her interest herein. Wife believes that the corporation's failure to notify her of the Shareholders and Directors Meeting is an indication of the corporations disregard for her interests therein. Accordingly, joining the corporation to the instant action will protect Wife's interests in the corporation. 15. Wife believes and avers that joining Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. into the divorce proceedings will provide her with the means to obtain information from the corporation which is necessary to value the marital interest therein. 16. Wife believes that Husband and the other shareholder, Thomas Miller, may be engaged in negotiations to buy out Husband's interest in the corporation in an effort to deprive Wife of her interest in this marital asset in equitable distribution. 17. Wife believes that the only way to protect her interest in Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. is to join the corporation to the divorce proceeding. 18. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1920.34, "[a]t any stage of an action the court may order the joinder of additional persons who could have joined or been joined in the action...." The note to this rule further states, "[t]he joinder of persons other than husband and wife may be essential in claims.... where persons other than the parties have an interest in property which is the subject matter of distribution." 19. In Wolf v. Wolf, 356 Pa. Super. 365, 370-1, 514 A.2d 901, 904 (1986), regarding joinder, the Superior Court noted, that "even in divorce actions, which for the most part involve a husband and wife, situations arise when the divorce affects.... MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG. PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 individuals with whom the parties own real estate or operate a business.... one spouse may not use the existence of these individuals on the periphery as a shield against fulfillment of this divorce obligation, such as child support, alimony, or equitable distribution." See also Van Buskirk v. Van Buskirk, 527 Pa. 218, 590 A.2d 4 (1991) overruling Wolf on other grounds, but following as to joinder of third parties to the divorce action. 20. Without joining Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. to this action, this Honorable Court is without authority to order the production of information or to prevent the corporation from purchasing, selling or dissipating the value of the parties' interests in the corporation. 21. Wife is without protection or access to crucial information needed to value the marital business interests for equitable distribution. 22. Further, Wife is without protection to prevent the corporation from purchasing, selling or dissipating the value of the fifty (50%) percent marital interest without her knowledge or consent. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Mary E. Shotsberger, respectfully requests this Honorable Court issue an Order stating that: Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. is joined as a party to this action; 2. Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. is enjoined from terminating Husband's employment or substantially reducing his salary; 3. Miller & Shotsberger, Inc., shall provide any documents or information requested by Wife; and MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 4. Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. and/or any individual shall be enjoined from purchasing, selling or dissipating the parties' corporate interests, or any portion thereof, without written consent of Husband and Wife or Order of Court. Respectfully submitted, Laurie AV al1tt giv#r Esk*re Attorney I.D. 61382 Meyers, Desfor, Saltz fiver & Boyle 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)236-9428 Attorney for Petitioner/Plaintiff MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 VERIFICATION I, Mary Shotsberger , verify that the statements made in this Petition for Joinder are true and correct to the bes of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that fals statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated 3/11/09 ( X) Plaintiff ( ) Defendant MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER 8, BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-7527 JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on this 11th day of March, 2009, that a copy of Plaintiff's Petition for Joinder was sent via certified mail, restricted delivery and first-class mail, postage prepaid to: James A. Shotsberger 2910 Morningside Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Thomas Miller 203 Centerwood Drive Venetia, PA 15367 Chester A. Dudzinski, Esquire 650 Washington Road, Suite 700 Pittsburgh. PA 15228 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 ? ?'' n '.?' ? ?? ;--? _ ? ? !V ?- ' :="R .: . + ?+ ? ,'1 ?.. f-..., .. - w> ?, P ' ,? ` I MAR 13 2000 MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-7527 JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this Oday of aM d4 j___ , 2009, a RULE is issued upon Miller & Shotsberger, Inc., to show cause why the within Petition for Joinder should not be granted. Said Rule returnable at hearing on the , an ok day of 2009 at /56L,m. o'clock in Courtroom No. Notice of this hearing shall be given to the parties and Miller & Shotsberger, Inc., both directly and through their attorneys of record. BY THE COURT: f4l J. Distribution: Laurie A. Saltzgiver, Esq., P.O. Bo 62, H 'sburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiff /ames A. Shotsberger, 2910 Morningside Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Al Defendant 4bomas Miller, 203 Centerwood Drive, Venetia, PA 15367 ester A. Dudzinski, Esq., 650 Washington Rd., Ste. 700, Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Corporate Counsel MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER 3 BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 A LED -0 ;-R(" O THr P" , 2009 MAR 20 AM 10: 2 o CUdd_w '°1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MARY E. S HOTSBERGER, Plaintiff, V. JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, Defendant. CASE NUMBER: No. 08-7527 PLEADING: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR JOINDER OF RESPONDENT CORPORATION IN THE NATURE OF THE CHALLENGE TO VENUE In the Alternative: RESPONSE OF MILLER AND SHOTSBERGER, INC. IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S RULE'CO SHOW CAUSE/PETITION FOR JOINDER CODE AND CLASSIFICATION: FILED ON BEHALF OF: MILLER AND SHOTSBERGER, INC. COUNSEL OF RECORD: CHESTER A. DUDZINSKI, ESQUIRE PA ID# 53456 E. RALPH GODFREY, ESQUIRE PA ID# 77052 CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. 650 Washington Road, Suite 700 Pittsburgh, PA 15228 (412) 563-2500 MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, Plaintiff, V. JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-7527 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR JOINDER OF RESPONDENT CORPORATION IN THE NATURE OF THE CHALLENGE TO VENUE In the Alternative: V RESPONSE OF MILLER AND SHOTSBERGER, INC. IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S RULE TO SHOW CAUSE/PETITION FOR JOINDER Respondent, Miller and Shotsberger, Inc., ("Respondent Corporation") by and through its attorneys, Cipriani & Werner, P.C., Chester A. Dudzinski, Esquire, hereby files its Preliminary Objections and Alternative Response to Petition for Joinder stating as follows: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR JOINDER OF RESPONDENT CORPORATION IN THE NATURE OF THE CHALLENGE TO VENUE Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Mary Shotsberger has filed a divorce action against her husband, James Shotsberger. This action is pending within this Honorable Court. 2. Plaintiff seeks to join in this action Miller and Shotsberger, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation. It is affirmatively asserted that this Corporation has appropriately filed .Articles of Incorporation with the Pennsylvania Corporation's Bureau. A true and correct copy of the Docketing Statement of said corporation is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 4. The principal place of business of the corporation and all registered offices of the corporation are located at 203 Canterwood Drive, Venetia, Washington County, Pennsylvania. 5. This business operates Subway Restaurant locations in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 6. This Corporation is a franchisee. 7. Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit this Honorable Court to exercise venue over this Corporation but, to the contrary, Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 2179 prohibit the exercise of said venue. 8. Specifically, Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 2179 states as follows: "Except as otherwise provided by an Act of Assembly, Rule 1006 (a.1) or by subdivision (b) of this rule, a personal action against a corporation or similar entity may be brought in and only in (1) the county where its registered office or principal place of business is located; (2) a county where it regularly conducts business; (3) the county were the cause of action arose; (4) a county where a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose, or (5) a county where the property or a part of the property which is subject matter of the jurisdiction is located provided that equitable relief is sought with respect to the property." 9. This Corporation at no time conducted any business within Cumberland County, is not involved in any direct cause of action related to this litigation, and possesses no property in Cumberland County out of which this matter arose or in any way is related to this divorce proceeding. 10. Any property that is the subject of this litigation is solely the shares of stocks owned by Mr. Shotsberger. 11. This Corporation has never otherwise availed itself to the jurisdiction of this court WHEREFORE, Respondent Corporation requests that this Honorable Court grant this Preliminary Objection to the Rule to Show Cause to Join this Corporation into this divorce action. 2 RESPONSE OF MILLER AND SHOTSBERGER, INC. IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S RULE TO SHOW CAUSE/PETITION FOR JOINDER Admitted. 2. Admitted. The averments of paragraph 3 contain legal conclusions for which no response is required. To the extent a response is necessary, it is admitted only that Mary E. and Jarnes A. Shotsberger are husband and wife and that Wife filed a Complaint in Divorce on December 30, 2008 as referenced by the Court's docket entries. 4. Respondent Corporation is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of paragraph 4 of the Petition for Joinder. 5. Respondent Corporation is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of paragraph 5 of the Petition for Joinder. 6. Respondent Corporation is without knowledge or information sufficient: to form a belief as to the averments of paragraph 6 of the Petition for Joinder. 7. The averments of paragraph 7 contain legal conclusions for which no response is required. To the extent a response is necessary, it is admitted only that Respondent Corporation owns and operates Subway franchises in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Respondent Corporation is a closely held corporation whose shares are owned 50% by Thomas Miller, Wife's brother, and 50% by Husband. Mr. Miller is President and Husband is Vice-President of Respondent Corporation and both are members of the Board of Directors. This paragraph is denied as stated. It is admitted only that Husband is a shareholder of the Respondent Corporation. It is admitted that from time to time shareholder distributions are received by the shareholders. For many years Mr. Shotsberger day traded stocks and as far as Respondent is aware, traded, bought and sold stocks until very recently. Respondent Corporation is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining averments of paragraph 8 of the Petition for Joinder. 9. The averments of paragraph 9 contain legal conclusions for which no response is required. To the extent a response is necessary, it is admitted only Respondent Corporation is a closely held corporation whose shares are owned 50% by Thomas Miller, Wife's brother, and 50% by Husband. 10. Denied as stated. Mr. Thomas Miller is personally aware of some instances where Mrs. Shotsberger, his sister, has had access to financial and tax information. Mr. Miller is also personally aware that at least to some extent Mrs. Shotsberger has participated in the creation of tax returns. As to the further averments and interpretations of said averments, Respondent Corporation is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of paragraph 10 of the Petition for Joinder. 11. Denied. By way of further response, Respondent Corporation complies in all respects with By-Laws, corporate formalities, and with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Business Corporation Law ("BCL") as to shareholder access to corporate information. 12. It is admitted only that Respondent Corporation's general counsel was named to the Board of Directors at a duly authorized and noticed meeting of Respondent Corporation, during which meeting other business of the Respondent Corporation was conducted. Husband received due notice of such meeting. Furthermore, it is affirmatively averred that this was the second scheduled Annual Meeting at which Husband did not appear despite actual notice of the meeting and of the agenda. It is further affirmatively asserted that the corporate business could not be stalled any further by the failure of Husband to appear. Furthermore, it is denied that Mrs. 4 Shotsberger is a shareholder of Respondent Corporation or had any right to receive notice of or to attend this meeting. To the contrary, non-shareholders possess no such rights under Pennsylvania law. 13. The averments regarding Husband and Wife's marital interest in Respondent Corporation are legal conclusions for which no response is required. The remaining averments are vague and/or undefined and are therefore denied. It is not contested that Husband has an ownership interest in Respondent Corporation and that this Court may determine that such interest is a marital asset that is subject to valuation. 14. Denied. It is initially denied that the wife has any shares of the corporation, nor has she ever been named to the Board of Directors and, accordingly, she has no right to participate in corporate affairs. Respondent Corporation specifically denies that the Court has jurisdiction to grant joinder and/or order the extraordinary relief requested in the Petition for Joinder which would amount to the exercise of control over the affairs of Respondent Corporation. Wife has not pled and cannot show the elements necessary to support her request for injunctive relief. See Blount v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 965 A.2d 226 (Pa. 2009)(injunction is extraordinary remedy that will not issue if the party seeking it does not show that the injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages). Further, as a closely held corporation, Respondent Corporation is precluded from taking any corporate action to create waste and/or otherwise dissipate corporate assets and is subject to restrictions on the sale or transfer of shares. Joinder of Respondent Corporation in this litigation is overly burdensome and will create unnecessary expense, and inconvenience to Respondent 5 Corporation without just cause. Such joinder will unnecessarily complicate the divorce proceedings and Husband has adequate remedies by virtue of the corporate By-Laws and at law under the BC:L, including information necessary to value his shares. 15. Denied. See Response to paragraph 14 above. 16. Denied. 17. Denied. See Response to paragraph 14 above. 18. The averments of paragraph 18 are legal conclusions for which no response is required. Petitioner has properly quoted the language of Rule 1920.34 and the note thereto. 19. The averments of paragraph 19 are legal conclusions for which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, it is denied that Wolf v. Wulf, 514 A.2d 901, 904 (Pa. Super. 1986) and VanBuskirk v. VanBuskirk, 590 A.2d 4 (Pa. 1991) are support for the joinder of Respondent Corporation in this divorce proceeding. In Wolf the parents of husband were joined because husband and wife were living in the marital residence and the marital resident was owned by husband's parents. Husband and wife had made all mortgage payments and substantial improvements, and joinder of the parents was necessary in such circumstances. In VanBuskirk, the parents of husband were not joined in the divorce proceedings but were determined by the Court to be indispensable parties where the marital home had been transferred by the parents to husband but no deed recorded regarding such transfer. Both cases are distinguishable. Further, in Ott v. Ott, 12 Pa. D&C 4`h 195, 1991 WL 424601 (Lycoming Cty 1991) the Court declined to join a corporation in a divorce action pursuant to Rule 1920.34. In that case, the basis for joinder was that husband previously owned shares in the corporation that were sold back to the corporation following separation and that the corporation held a mortgage on the 6 marital residence. The Court held that joinder would be improper, that issues regarding the shares and mortgage could be addressed without joinder, and that joinder would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings. (A copy of the decision is attached hereto as Exhibit `B") 20. Denied. It is initially noted that this court has no jurisdiction over this corporation but, will likely determine that it has jurisdiction over the shares owned by Husband. It is believed and therefore averred that the Court can fashion a remedy to ensure that information necessary to value Husband's shares in Respondent Corporation is available in the proceedings and Respondent Corporation is already subject to By-Laws and laws relating to closely held corporations that preclude the dissipation of corporate assets and restrict the sale or transfer of shares. 21. Denied. Wife's assertion is entirely premature and lacks foundation. Furthermore, any such information is available through Mr. Shotsberger, himself, who has access to the corporate books, financial information, and the like. Furthermore, any such information can be ordered to be produced by the court to Mr. Shotsberger, which is the appropriate manner in which such information should be obtained. 22. Denied. See Response to paragraphs 14, 19, and 20 above. WHEREFORE, Respondent Corporation, Miller and Shotsberger, Inc., respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order denying the Petition for Joinder in its entirety. Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: <i_ . ?` CHESTER A. DUDZINS , ESQUIRE Attorney for Respondent Miller and Shotsberger, Inc. 7 VERIFICATION I, Thomas Miller, on behalf of Miller and Shotsberger, Inc., hereby certify that the statements in this Response to Petition for Joinder are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, including information provided to me by other representative of the company. This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I knowingly make false statements, I may be subject to criminal penalties. 13 DATE Thomas Miller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE That counsel for Miller and Shotsberger, Inc. hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of its Response to Petition for Joinder has been served on all counsel of record, by first class mail, postage pre-paid, according to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on the day of April, 2009. Laurie A. Saltzgiver, Esquire Meyers, Desfor, Saltzgiver & Boyle 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Thomas Miller 203 Centerwood Drive Venetia, PA 15367 James A. Shotsberger 2910 Morningside Drive Camp Hill, PA 17011 Respectfully submitted, CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. BY: CHESTER A. DUDZINS , ESQUIRE Attorneys for Respondent Corporation Miller and Shotsberger, Inc. MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, Plaintiff, V. : JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-7527 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2009, upon hearing and consideration of Plaintiff, Mary E. Shotsberger's Rule to Show Cause/Petition for Joinder, and Respondent Miller and Shotsberger, Inc.'s Response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Petition for Joinder is denied. BY THE COURT: J. Distribution: Laurie A. Saltzgiver, Esq., P.O. Box 1062, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Plaintiff James A. Shotsberger, 2910 Morningside Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendant Thomas Miller, 203 Centerwood Drive, Venetia, PA 15367 Chester A. Dudzinski, Esq., 650 Washington Rd., Ste. 700, Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Corporate Counsel Business Entity M.in.a1 Page 1 of 1 Corporations Online Services ( Corporations ( Forms i Contact Corporations ( Business Services r,, rch ?;y 13-isines; Name By B_Esires Entity ID - rifv ,/enf? Certification Online Orders Register f(-r')nlina Orders Order Gooc, Standing viuci vcruncu vvcuiiicinS --rder Business List Mylmages Search for Images Business Entity Filing History Date: 3MM009 (Select the link above to view the Business Entity's Filing History) Business Name History Name Name Type MILLER AND SHOTSBERGER INC. Current Name Business Corporation - Domestic - Information Entity Number: 3078326 Status: Active Entity Creation Date: 6/18/2002 2:11:50 PM State of Business.: PA Registered Office Address: 203 CANTERWOOD DR VENETIA PA 15367-0 Mailing Address: No Address officers Name: THOMAS C MILLER Title: President Address: 203 CANTERWOOD DRIVE VENETIA PA 15367-63 Name: JAMES SHOTSBERGER Title: Vice President Address: 203 CANTERWOOD DRIVE VENETIA PA 15367-63 Home I Site Map I Site Feedback I View as Text Only I Employment 1,1yr?.'.? lac! PA Force CapyrigM a 2002 Pennsylvania Depwtment of State. All Rights Reserved. Commonwealth of PA Privacy Statement EXHIBIT https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/sos 3/26/2009 estlaw. 12 Pa. D. & CAth 195 1991 WL 424601 (Pa.Com.Pl.), 12 Pa. D. & CAth 195 C Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Lycom- ing County. Ott V. Ott No. 88-20,878. June 25, 1991 *1 **195 Objection to entry of bifurcated divorce decree. West Headnotes Divorce x'252.5(1) 134k252.5(1) Most Cited Cases Where a bifurcated divorce decree is entered and where husband relinquishes interest in the marital home, the marital home will be awarded to wife so as to avoid the consequences of ownership by tenancy- in-common and the master will be directed to con- sider the award in determining equitable distribution. D. Peter Johnson, for plaintiff. Anthony Grieco, for defendant. BROWN, J. Presently before the court are two issues presented by plaintiff. an objection to the entry of a bifurcated divorce decree and a motion to join certain third par- ties. First, plaintiff objects to the entry of a bifurcated decree as such a decree would convert the parties' ownership of the marital residence into a tenancy-in- common and thus subject half of it to certain judg- ments outstanding against defendant. Defendant has agreed, however, that plaintiff be awarded the resi- dence, with proper credit given to him therefore, **196 of course. If such an award is made, the entry of a decree will not convert the ownership into a ten- ancy-in-common, and plaintiff will therefore suffer no prejudice. This seems to be a logical solution as plaintiff has indicated that she does want the resi- dence. Therefore, we will award the residence to plaintiff and direct the master to begin his equitable distribution by noting such award. Page 1 With respect to the motion to join certain third par- ties, plaintiff seeks to join a corporation in which defendant previously held shares, but which shares he sold back to the corporation following separation. The corporation also has a loan secured by a mort- gage on the marital residence. Plaintiff wishes to join the corporation in order that the court might order it to refinance its loan and thus remove the mortgage, which, the court notes, was signed by plaintiff. We do not believe joinder would be proper. The is- sues presented respecting the sale of plaintiffs shares and the validity of plaintiffs liability for the mort- gage may be addressed without the joinder of the corporation, and such joinder would simply compli- cate things unnecessarily. ORDER And now, June 25, 1991, plaintiffs motion for join- der is hereby denied. Further, plaintiffs objection to entry of a bifurcated divorce decree is hereby over- ruled, with the proviso, however, that. the marital residence be, and is hereby, awarded to plaintiff. The master shall, in equitably distributing the property, provide that plaintiff retain possession of the resi- dence and that defendant be credited with the equita- ble value thereof. A divorce decree may thus be en- tered. 0 #3 2060 END OF DOCUMENT EXHIBIT © 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. RLHO OF THE t?+OT",I JOTAA°Y 2009 APP -3 PM l : 38 MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-7527 CIVIL TERM JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, IN DIVORCE Defendant IN RE: PETITION FOR JOINDER ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2009, on agreement of the parties, the within petition for joinder is dismissed without prejudice in accordance with the agreement of the parties as announced in open court and in their presence. By the Court, Laurie A. Saltzgiver, Esquire For Plaintiff ZE. Ralph Godfrey, Esquire Chester A. Dudzinski, Esquire For the Corporation - James A. Shotsberger, Pro se :bg i ¢r ?n5,t l£CL y?aY?o9 Go :@ ?jv ?z 88V 600Z Mary E. Shotsberger : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUM13ERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff Vs. James A. Shotsberger Docket No. 08-7527 Defendant MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MASTER Mary E. Shotsberger (Plaintiff) @)VfiK0X2X moves the court to appoint a master with respect to the following claims: ( Divorce Distribution of Property () Annulment () Support () Alimony () Counsel Fees () Alimony Pendente Lite () Costs and Expenses and in support of the motion states: (1) Discovery is complete as to the claims (s) for which the appointment of a master is requested. (2) The defendant (has) (l )h4q appeared in the action (personally) (13 KXXM y, , Esquire). (3) The Staturory ground (s) for divorce (1) (are) 3301(c) or 3301(d) and 3301(a)(6) (4) Delete the inapplicable paragraph(s): a. The action is not contested. b. An agreement has been reached with respect to the following claims: c. The action is contested with respect to the following claims: Date: raawauv? ava 1?i a u IAW9fAAMAW Print Attorney Name ......... Laurie a A. al giver, Esquire ORDER APPOINTING MASTER AND NOW, , 20 Esquire is appointed master with respect to the following claims: By the Court: All of the above. (5) The action (involves) (#?1 complex issues of law or fact (6) The hearing is expected to take 1) one 4& (days). (7) Additional information, if any, relevant to the motion: OF M P PV 2889 V 18 PM 2• Q7 ??&SYWANIA Mary E. Shotsberger . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff Vs. James A. Shotsber er Docket No. 08-7527 Defendant MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MASTER Mary E. Shotsberger (Plaintiff) X moves the court to appoint a master with respect to the following claims: ( Divorce ( Distribution of Property () Annulment () Support O Alimony O Counsel Fees () Alimony Pendente Lite () Costs and Expenses and in support of the motion states: (1) Discovery is complete as to the claims (s) for which the appointment of a master is requested (2) The defendant (has) (MU" appeared in the action (personally) (*KU ,Ky, . Esquire). (3) The Staturory ground (s) for divorce (1) (are) 3301(c) or 3301(d) and 3301(a)(6) (4) Delete the inapplicable paragraph(s): a. The action is not contested. b. An agreement has been reached with respect to the following claims: c. i-lie action is contested with respect to the following claims: All of the above. (5) The action (involves) (4MMj complex issues of law or fact (6) The hearing is expected to take (1) one 49 (days). (7) Additional information, if any, relevant to the motion: Date: ,' M Attorney for (PI lifgj Print Attorney Name Laurie A. al iver, Esquire AT71TT ? TTAr...w.r?.?.. ? . . ?.___ AND NOW, T8WM 1 q , 20 O 4 15. is appointed master with respect to the following claims: Esquire By Court: 1 J. ELF 1! SNOW 28$9 NOV 18 Pit 2: Q1 OJUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ul? . 1„ky'll, 27 0,1C0L cr% MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 08-7527 JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE Inventory of Mary E. Shotsberger Inventory of Mary Shotsberger Assets Marital Residence: M&T Line of credit - #4998 3943 Brookridge Drive Corporate liens Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. 50% interest (H) Wachovia Securities Account #7940-3263 Highmark 401(k) (W) Highmark Defined Benefit Plan (W) IBM 401(k) Wachovia IRA (W) 1992 Corvette 1989 Cadillac El Dorado Lincoln Navigator Wife received $3,500.00 on trade-in 1998 Chevy Lumina (H) 2002 Honda Civic (J) (Justin drives) Joint checking account - Sovereign Bank (Husband and Hilda M. Shotsberger) Joint Wachovia account (Husband and Hilda M. Shotsberger) IRA's husband cashed in Debts IRS 2006 & 2007 joint tax returns $25,000.00 Gambling debts/dissipation Forgery/Wife's M&T account Credit cards marital debts wife has paid since separation Discover card (J) $5,843.00 Satisfied by Wife VERIFICATION I, Mary Shotsberger , verify that the statements made in this Inventory of Mary Shotsberger are true and correct to the bes of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that fal statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. J ? 1 .1 - Dated: 11/16/09 ,xilt, I &A ( X) P aintiff ( ) Defendant MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 ftM? aF THE PPC I4 TARY 2H9 NOY 18 PM 2: 08 cu .; PE I ;?NSYLVMNIA MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-7527 JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant : IN DIVORCE INCOME & EXPENSE STATEMENT OF MARY E. SHOTSBERGER Submitted by: Laurie A. Saltzgiver, Esquire Meyers, Desfor, Saltzgiver & Boyle Date: November 1, 2009 Full Name of Client: Mary E. Shotsberger Age: 50 Present Address of Client: 3943 Brookridge Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone Number: (412)616-0596 _ Home Work Name of Employer: Highmark Blue Shield Employer's Address: Length of Service with this Employer: 16 years MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET - P.O. BOX 1062 - HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 - FAX (717) 236-2817 i Pay period (weekly, bi-weekly, etc.) See attached bi-weekly paystub. INCOME ANNUAL FIGURES PAY PER PERIOD Gross Pay: $ $ 1 Deductions: Federal: F.I.C.A.: State Income Tax: Local Income Tax: Hospital/Medical Insurance: Life Insurance: Pension/Profit Sharing: Credit Union: Savings Bonds: Other: (Specify) TOTAL DEDUCTIONS: NET PAY PER PERIOD: MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 OTHER INCOME: None. (Fill in appropriate column) WEEKLY MONTHLY YEARLY Interest: Dividends: Pension: Annuity: Social Security: Rents: Royalties: Expense Account: Gifts: Unemployment Compensation: Worker's Compensation: Other: (Specify) TOTAL OTHER INCOME: $ $ $ TOTAL NET INCOME: $ $ $ TOTAL NET & OTHER INCOME: $ $ $ MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 EXPENSES: MONTHLY YEARLY Home: Home Equity Line of Credit 400.00 4,800.00 Condominium fees Maintenance Vacation home/cabin Timeshare Repairs/maintenance (current) 35.00 420.00 Necessary repairs 500.00 6,000.00 Utilities: Electric 150.00 1,800.00 Gas Oil Water 47.31 567.72 Sewer & Trash 46.00 552.00 Telephone Cellular telephone 50.00 600.00 Security alarm Cable & Internet 58.19 698.28 Purchase cell phone 14.27 171.20 Employment: Public Transportation Lunch 130.00 1,560.00 Parking Taxes: Real Estate 169.60 2,035.16 Personal Property Income: Federal State 48.00 576.00 Local OPT MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 EXPENSES: MONTHLY YEARLY Automobile/boats/motorcycles/airplanes: Payments 375.67 4,508.04 Fuel 85.00 1,020.00 Inspection 273.42 3,281.00 Repairs/maintenance 20.84 250.00 Licensing & Registration 4.00 48.00 l Insurance: Homeowners 49.34 592.00 Renter's Automobile 333.34 4,000.00 Life (see paystub) Accident Disability Umbrella Health: Medical (See paystub) Dental Optical Medical & Dental: Doctors 250.00 3,000.00 Dentists 41.67 500.00 Orthodontist Hospital Medicine 20.00 240.00 Special needs (glasses, braces, etc.) 10.00 120.00 Psychologist/Therapist Personal: Clothing 350.00 4,200.00 Work Uniforms School Uniforms Sports clothing Costumes Food 200.00 2,400.00 Barber/Hairdresser 45.00 540.00 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 EXPENSES: Education: Private School Parochial School College College Savings Plan Religious School supplies Field Trips Tutoring Extra-curricular Activities: Music Art Dance Sports MONTHLY YEARLY Credit Payments: Credit Cards 486.92 5,843.00 Charge Accounts Other (Specify) Memberships: Clubs Gym Country Club Loans: Credit Union Other Child care: Day care After/Before school care Summer care Camp MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET - P.O. BOX 1062 - HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 - FAX (717) 236-2817 EXPENSES: MONTHLY YEARLY Household Help: Cleaning Snow removal Lawn care 80.00 960.00 Landscaping Pool Maintenance Kennel Entertainment: 340.00 4,080.00 Events 300.00 3,600.00 Movies Dining out 70.00 840.00 Other Child Support: Obligation/order or agreement Miscellaneous expenses College expenses/room & board Gifts: 550.00 6,600.00 Holidays Child(ren)'s birthday(s) Child(ren)'s birthday party gifts Wedding Baby shower gifts Bar/Bat Mitzvah Charitable Contributions 52.00 624.00 Church/tithe 41.67 500.00 Individual charities Support of non-dependent family 18.09 217.00 Legal expenses: Attorneys fees 291.67 3,500.00 Experts Accountants 208.34 2,500.00 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 EXPENSES: MONTHLY YEARLY Vacations: 292.00 3,504.00 Travel Lodging Meals Fees Expenses Souvenirs Other Expenses: Dry cleaning 50.00 600.00 Pet expenses 182.09 2,185.00 Postage 2.09 25.00 Allowances Home repairs/plumbing/electric/etc. Furniture replacement 75.00 900.00 Sports expenses/equipment/fees/coaches/travel Savings/retirement/college/miscellaneous News papers/books/magazines Alimony/other support or payments Back Taxes (State) 48.03 576.31 Credit Reports 7.56 90.65 TOTAL EXPENSES: $6,802.11 $81,624.36 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 1 11 V f- MARK. P. O. Box 890088 Camp Hill, PA 11089.0089 "Isis #6410, Pay Group: PSS 37.5 Exempt Check /: 0021075'8$ Pay B"w Data: 06/08/2009 Pa 'Ead Date 68/21/2149 Check Date: 08/28/2009 Shotsberger,Na" E 3943 Drookrldoo Dr Mechanicsburg PA 17050 Eupl" M. 012987 Cost Center: Application sys Architect Spt Lecatiea: ewell Job Title: Dir Application Development Marital Stitat» MARRIED Altowanevs: 1 AML Pot: SINGLE 0 Rate 125'9911.400000 Annual at., fr?rtentiMa fff?DMf Description Rite Nouns Eetai Hours unlugs' an Current YTV Regular Pay Personal Paid T Flex Time Dff Gift Certificat Incentive Comp Vacation 4,845.77 1252.58 8.60 30.88 6.06 45.86 8.06 6.06 0.00 6.66 0.00 22.56 79,967.61 1,928.52 2,156.72 316.19 19,50.31 11377.62 FED OASOT/Disob 286.54 FED FICA Had No 67.02 FED Withholding 685.46 PA Withholding 141.22 PA BAamploymen 2.35 PA HAMPDEN T 73.60 PA E PENNSI, T 2.00 6,347.12 1.484.41 16,804.30 3,131.16 62.71 1,631.84 36.00 4845:77 Wd 1?01wit IMMIft 1 258.63 IMP., 29,497.10 Desafi Moe . u Dental Supplemental Li 4111K Reg lieges NSA Employee Cn 6.73 121.14 80.14 1,369.52 145.37 4,671.03 164.58 2,633.28 Dependant Life Health PAC Legal United War Fund 4.29 18.18 11.52 24480 77.22 188.00 287.36 432.08 Life Of Dependent Life NSA Employer Cn 01K Reg Wages 21.61 383.62 S46 101480 41.67 666.72 87.22 2,312.91 Rift. Certificat 0.e0 198c34 441K Reg Wages 0. 414 1,043.84 TolaL 396.82 6,794.97 Total: 49.81 2,138.42 ' T.M. Cutrenr. 4,345.77 4,476.22 1,258.63 446.63 4 3,146.51 YTD: 106 011.96 97 781.89 29 497.46 10 33.39 65,561.09 Start Balance 75.00 State Balance 0.00 Start Balance: 6.06 ADVICE 0: + Available 112.50 + Available 37.58 + Available 30,80 =,.It - Takeo: 0.00 - Taken: 22.50 - Taken: 30.00 Total: + - Adjustmeats: 8.80 +/- Adjustoeats: 0.6 - sate: 0:00 End Balanc : 137.58 EadlWaoee 15.60 +/- Adjustoentz 4.80 Document 9 000000000519 Fad Balaad:e 0.60 MESSAGE: l lGH MAWK. P. O. Boyd 890089 Camp Hill, PA 11009.ODS9 DEPOSIT NOTICE ONLY - NON-NEGOTIABLE DATE 08/28/2009 NO. 002107588 DEPOSIT AMOUNT $ 5,140-51 Shotsborear,Mary E 3943 Brookridge Dr Mechanicsburg PA. 17050 BAG # 0015 LOCATION CH300 DEPT 1680 01 w0ir -112W 77-7,77"T', Acmunt Tne ACOOno NNINJIM Deposilt Amount Checking 1027459852 Checking 9346285998 100.00 3.940:52 Total 6 3,140.51 DEPOSI'T' NOTICE ONLY -- NON-NEGOTIABLE VERIFICATION I, Marv Shotsberger , verify that the statements made in this Income & Expense Statement are true and correct to the bes of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that fal statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 11/16/09 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET • P.O. BOX 1062 • HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 • FAX (717) 236-2817 ( ) Defendant FUD-ORU OF THE PFOTHM ARY 7009 NOY 18 FM 2: 0 $ MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSFLV?NIA ` NO. 08 - 7527 CIVIL =? 1 1? JAMES .A. SHOTSBERGER, Q Defendant IN DIVORCE rt NOTICE OF FILING MASTER'S REPORT rl The report of the Master has been filed this date and copies have been sent with this notice to counsel of record and the parties. In accordance with P.R.C.P. 1920.55 within twenty (20) days after the mailing of this notice and report exceptions may be filE?d to the report. by any party. If no exceptions are filed within the twenty (20) day period, the Court shall receive the report, and if approved, shall enter a final decree in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report. Date: 9/10/10 E. Robert Elicker, II Divorce Master NOTE: If exceptions are filed, file the original with the Prothonotary and a copy with the Master's office. At that time, the party filing the exceptions should notify the court reporter in the Master's office so ,arrangements can be made for a transcript. Upon completion of the transcript and receipt of payment, -:he entire file will be returned to the .Drothonotary's office for transmittal to the Court at -_ime of argument on the exceptions. ='f no exceptions are filed, counsel shall prepare an order of Court consistent with the recommendations and provide a proposed order of Court to the Master. Counsel shall also prepare and provide with the proposed order of Court a praecipe* to the Prothonotary directing the Prothonotary to submit the case to the Court for final disposition. The Master will then transfer the file with the proposed order of Court and praecipe to the Prothonotary's Office for docketing and transmittal by the Prothonotary to the Court. * Form available in the Prothonotary's office and the Master's Office. (NOT the praecipe to transmit the reccrd form as set out in P.R.C.P. 1920.73(b).) ?J MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08 - 7527 CIVIL JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, Defendant IN DIVORCE MASTER'S REPORT Proceedings held before ,i E. Robert Elicker, II, Divorce Master, of Cumberland County, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 and Tuesday, August 17, 2010, at 9 North Hanover street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania APPEARANCES: Laurie A. Saltzgiver Attorney for Plaintiff James A. Shotsberger Defendant (Pro se - Did not appear) 0 v?R'a E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JAVES A. SHOTSBERGER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant NO. 08--7527 CIVIL TERM (Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit No. i was marked for identification.) THE ]`MASTER: Today is Wednesday, June 23, 2010. This is the date set for a hearing on the co=t of nlignities raised in the divorce complaint for divorce. The complaint in divorce was filed on December 30, 2008, and ?. addition to grounds for divorce of indignities, the ccnglaint raised grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the 7nrriage ender Sections 3301(c) and 3301(4). This hearing today was set for the purpose of taking testimony on Lhe grounds for divorce of indignities. Notices were sent to the Defendant an three addresses, 3943 Broekridge Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17C50; care of Scott Watkins, 109 North Middlesex Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013; and 2910 Mornings.ide Drive, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011. We have not had any of the notices returned; therefore, notice of today's hearing was served on the Defendant by regular mail. The Defendant has nst appeAred. Present in the hearing room are the P1a_:` 'f, Mary A. Shotsberger, and her counsel, Laurie A. Sa tzgiver. • The complaint in divorce also raised a claim for ?-raitabie distribution. We have a hearing scheduled for eou_'Ltable distribution on August 17, 2010, at 9:00 a. n. The Plaintiff has marked as an exhibit her testimony today with respect to the grounds for divorce of indignities. Ms. Saltzgiver is going to have the. Plaintiff cestify as to the record which she prepared, and we will introduce that exhibit into this record as part of the ?.estimony on the grounds for divorce. Ms. Saltzgiver will also identify for the record hoA .he complaint in divorce was served on the Defendant. As noted, the economic claim will be heard in Augus:. The Mas-E'r's office, as indicated previously, sent notice of the Auq_Ist hearing to the Defendant along with the not ce for today's hearing on the grounds of indignities. The Master was appointed "n November 19, 2009. The accointment for the Master indicated that the ,natters rer__ir_a for the Master to hear were grounds for d-..vorce and egu21_able distribution. (Whereupon, the Plaintiff was sworn.` MS. SALTZGIVER: Than: you, Mr. Master. Let the record reflect that the complaint in divorce was served on t_-ie Defendant by certified mail, restricted delivery, on January 21st of 2009, and a proof of service of complaint in divorce has been filed with the Prothenotarv's Office. • BY CIS. SALTZGIVER: Q Mrs. Shotsberger, I'm going to show you the proof of service of the complaint in divorce, and can you ver__fy the signature indicated on that? A Yes, that's Jim's. Q Can you state your name and address for the reccrd, please. A Mary Shotsberger, 3943 Brookridge Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, 17050. Q And what's your date of birth? A January 14th, 1959. Q Are you employed? A Yes. Q where are you employed? A Highmark, Incorporated. Q And James Shotsberger is your husband? A Um-hum. Q And can you give me his date of b1foh? A November 16th, 1953. Q And do you know your husband's current address? A Yes, 3943 Brookridge Drive. Q And do you have any minor children? No. Q Mrs. Shotsberger, the address that yoL've • pr-o-,?ided for yourself and your husband, that's the same add_,fess, is that correct? A Yes. Q Are you and your husband stLll living together in a marital relationship? A No. Q But technically you are living under -the same roof at -he present time? A Yes. Q Was there a period of time when your husband resided outside of your home? A Yes. Q And can you tell us where he resided at that oo-nt. in time? A He was at his mother's house, 2910 Mor_ingside Drive, and when the electricity was turned off and the water was turned off, that's when he came back to our house to live. He lives on the first floor of the house, and I -i-r_ on the second floor of the house. The only Chino that is -- the kitchen is on the first floor, so when T get some:?hing -- if I get. something to eat, 1111 get it ready dow. there, then I take it up to my bedroom and eat_` up in bedroom., and then I take the dishes back down. He stays ?:n t .e first floor. 0 0 Q So then you're residing separate-y despite the fact that you're in the same home? A Yes. Q We have previously discussed that there are three locations where Mr. Shotsberger was served regarding notice for today's hearing and the future hearing. Those are the 3rookside Drive address, which is where he is . =entlv living, also 2910 -- THE MASTER: That's Rrookridge, =isn't it? MS. SALTZGIVER: Yes, I'm sorry. BY MS. SALTZGIVER: Q Also 2910 Mcrningside Drive. Is than his motner's address? A Yes. Q So that's where he was previously residing, is that correct? A Yes. Q We've also provided the Master with an address for Scott Watkins at 109 North Middlesex Road in Carlisle. Can you tell me who Scott Watkins is? A Yes, Scott was a gentleman That had his own tipsiness, and Jim was working with him for awhile. Q Okay. So you know that Jim had contact with Mr. Watkins for a period of time? A Actually we knew the Watkins. Their son • • played ice hockey with Justin, and Karen Watkins actually worked in the same division at Highmark that I was managing. Q And you do know that Jim was working for him for a period of time? A Yes. Q And had personal contact with him? A Yes, because they had actually at one time wanted to give me a check to give to him, and I said you Just need to mail it. I don't want to have anything to do WiTA it. And then Karen asked me one time, she came up to me and said, We haven't seem Jim for a long time. You know, he just stopped coming to work. You know, what's going on. And I said I really don't know. Q And since you filed the divorce complaint, __ave there been significant periods of time where you did not know where Jim was or where Jim was living or wnat Jim was doing? A Yes. Q Mrs. Shotsberger, I've given you what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1. Can you :identify shat for me, please? A Yes, this is something we put together to tactually talk about the history of the events, some of the ever -s that occurred in our marriage. Q And is this your testimony regarding the • • i nclignit:ies claim? A Yes, it is. Q And if I were to question you reaar_ding your ---aim of indignities today, would your testimony be ,den-ical to what is contained within Plaintiff's Exhibit Nc. 1? A Yes. Q And you assisted me in preparing Plaintiff's Exr-__,bit No. 1, is tnat correct? A Yes. Q And I want to draw your attention t., 7aragrapl,_s 12, 13, and 14 in Plaint.iffIs Exhibit No. _- In tl,_ose paragraphs you discussed some Terba- abuse by Jim towards you, and I just wondered if you could give me a ii.t7?le more information regarding the verbal abuse and give me some s-oecifics in that regard? A Yes, Jim would have little patie?-_ce for anything that he had difficulty doing or understanding, and it would often escalate into a very verbal, very verbal, ery oud yelling match with vulgarities and calling me -- ?it,tias not as if he would call me the same thing over and ove-_- again, he would use -- he would just use really bad ianguage. THE MASTER: Well, we need to know wla: that is. You've talked in these paragraphs about the verbal 0 0 abuse, but we need specifically to know what he was saying -_at constituted, in your mind, vernal abuse. THE WITNESS: It was -- MS. SALTZGIVER: You have to tell us what he said to you. THE WITNESS: You know, he would cail me a birch. He would use the F word quite a bit, in terms of as it would stet louder and louder and louder. That would occur a !on, and it would become very uncomfortable. He has called me a liar. He has -- he would actually not call me by my real name. He would call me Bev. He wouldn't call me by my name. And it would be over some really stupid rhings. Like if we didn't leave the house when he wanted to leave, for whatever reason it would escalate. If the, you know, if Jusnin was, you know, running around or not, you know, nhings that I would think were ins__anificant things would make him .'glow up. There was one time we were trying to get ready to go no Justin's hockey game, and we weren't, you know.;, we were trying to get the house cleaned up. And he started screaming and yelling about, you know, we're not leaving. That was the one time that my brother was there, and he actually got the sweeper and started vacuuming around the house to try to calm the situation down. There's been a number of times where other people havE: tried to calm him down. There was one time with Rich O'Brien and Sue 012rien, we would go out with them, and Jim got really, really verbally abusive, and he litera_iy took aside and had to calm him down. 9Y NS. SALTZGIVER: Q Who is he? A Rich O'Brien had to take Jim aside and get hir:, calmed down. Q Do you recall what Jim was saying to you and wh-:t -- how he specifically verbally abused you at that 7 ? me" A It was just more of this -- there was not a io-: of talking back_ and forth because I would learn not to argue back because it would just gets worse, so it was just a _ou cf yelling and screaming at me. And it just happened so much, it would be -- it was hard to deal with. I :Tlean it's hard to even pinpoint a time. At my sister's house one time, he was -- I mean he wou'l- say things like she's stupid and things of --hat .attire, and it was getting loud like that. And my sister said, Stop. You can't talk to her t-.7at way. That s not apprcpriate. And he slammed his han:? -- he had something in his `ian-d. He slammed it down on the table, and he d:_dn't talk -o her after that. He wouldn't talk to her. • • In terms of the business, it would be like I was try._ng to show him how to copy files from here to here, and if he didn't understand it or it didn't work the =ay he thought it would have to, I would be like I need no get in .-here and do it. And he would say, No, I'm sitting in the chair. You're not going to sit in the chair. You have to be over there, and, you know, you don't knew what you're talking about. Just leave me alone, and it would just get really, really loud. I know that my brother that he is in business with :rat seen that happen. His son saw that happen. In was just really more of a tone on how he would deal with me. It was very demeaning that I didn't -- I was not as smart as he was or = couldn't explain something properly for him to understand. And it was not -- it was always my issue over how I explained it. He was never wrong. And whenever he would get into a situation that someone would point out that he was Tong, he wouldn't talk to that person anymore like he aid with nay sister. He got very upset with our son because our son, even in his teenage years, he -- my husband was not a fan of Bill Clinton and said he was never wrong, and he would say nose things, and all of a sudden my son as a teenager said, • 0 Dad, you're a lot like Bill Clinton. You're never wrong. And that was, you know, he was very angry about that. Don't call me that. That's not the way it is. It was very demeaning, but it was also very frightening to me. It was -- it would be so loud and so angry, he literally would be spitting at me sometimes. It was just very frightening, and I Just learned that I needed to just take myself out of the situation and get away from him as much as possible. THE MASTER: I think that's a very good explanation of what we were addressing here in these paragraphs. MS. SALTZGIVER: Did you believe that there was anything that you did to Jim to cause him to treat you thai way? THE WITNESS: No. Nc. THE MASTER: All right. I think that's all we need. MS. SALTZGIVER: Okay. (Whereupon, the proceedings concluded.) MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The. Master finds, after review of the testimony offered br the Plaintiff, that the Defendant engaged in a course of conduce which made the Plaintiff's life int.olerab-le and bu-c'.ensome. Therefore, the Master recommends that Wife be or=:ed a decree in divorce under Section 33C1(a)(6 of the Dcmescic Relations Code. Respectfully submitted, 4?q?411 &??' -I E. Robert Elicker, II Divorce Master 0 MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, Plaintiff V. JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, Defendant • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-7527 CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN DIVORCE Plaintiff, Marv Shotsberger's Testimony Regarding Indignities 1. James Shotsberger and I were married on August 11, 1984. We separated on December 30, 2008 when I filed the divorce complaint. 2. We have one child, Justin Allen Shotsberger, date of birth January 7, 1985. Justin is currently 25 years old. 3. When Jim and I were married on August 11, 1984, I was approximately 5 months pregnant with our son. Approximately 3 weeks before our wedding, Jim stayed out all night and had no explanation for where he had been. At that time there were rumors that Jim was having an affair with a co-worker, however, Jim denied it. 4. I was aware that Jim had a history of drug use prior to our marriage. I was clear that after we were married, and since we were becoming parents, that I expected all of his drug use to cease. Approximately two years after we were married, Jim stayed out all night. When Jim returned home in the morning, he told me that he had run into some old friends and he had been using cocaine. I told Jim that if I found out that he was using drugs again that I would take Justin and leave him. I did not believe that this was responsible behavior and made this very clear to Jim. I was very upset by his behavior. 5. Approximately 3 years into our marriage, Jim was arrested for DUI. The local police called me at home and advised me that if I did not pick Jim up at the hospital that he EPLAmiTrims IBIT to i - would be taken to jail. I promptly got Justin, who was a toddler, out of bed, bundled him up and went to the hospital to pick Jim up. I told Jim that if he was ever pulled over for DUI again that I would leave him. As a result of this DUI, Jim lost his license for a month. He was ordered to attend classes, pay a large fine, and we had a Breathalyzer attached to our car. I had to use the Breathalyzer to start this car. It was embarrassing to have to do this every time I drove this car. I drove Jim to and from work and anywhere else he had to go while he had lost his license. Additionally, I went with him to his classes to support him and made sure that all the fines and fees were paid. 6. Jim continued to drink and he drank excessively whenever he was around alcohol. I was never a big drinker to begin with, but would have a few drinks socially. Because Jim became such an excessive drinker, I stopped drinking altogether as I always had to be the responsible designated driver. I also went out of my way to keep alcohol out of our home and to try to keep Jim away from it. I did not want our family life to revolve around drinking and drinking issues, and sought other healthier alternatives. I strove to have a family life that did not involve alcohol, however, if Jim went out with people from work or was in any sort of social situation where alcohol was served, he would just get bombed. This was very embarrassing for me. I also felt that this was not responsible behavior to show our son. Jim's drinking caused me a lot of heartache and concern and worry. 7. I recall another occasion when Justin was a baby and I left him with Jim to run some errands. Apparently Jim was drinking heavily while I was out, because when I returned to the house Jim was visibly drunk and reeking of alcohol. The baby was screaming and crying and was all rolled up in a ball in his blankets. I resolved at that point that I would i not leave the baby alone with him again. Accordingly, I had to take Justin with me everywhere, to the grocery store, running errands, et cetera, because I could not trust Jim with the baby. 8. I also recall a Superbowl party at my sister's house in Pittsburgh. I believe it was February 2006. The Steelers were in the Superbowl and it was the year that the Rolling Stones played at half-time. Jim drank himself into a drunken stupor, at the party. He was glassy eyed and stumbling around. There were family and friends there as well as some children and a number of my sister's friends whom we really did not know. This was a really embarrassing situation for me to have Jim be so visibly drunk around all of these people who were friends of my sister. Jim admitted that he did not remember anything about the game after the fist half. I was really upset and embarrassed about the whole situation. 9. Jim also went out drinking with Justin and his friends when Justin attended the University of Pittsburgh. Jim would go along with them to the bars in Oakland. I thought that this was embarrassing and inappropriate. That was not an appropriate thing for a parent to do. 10. In approximately 2005, Jim got his second DUI in Pittsburgh. Jim knew that I would leave him as I had warned if he got another DUI. On the night that he was pulled over, he called my sister to come and get him. She and her husband got out of bed and went to pick Jim and his car up. Jim told my sister that I was going to leave him due to a second DUI. Jim had my sister contact me to plead his case. I stayed with him again because of Justin. As a result of this second DUI, Jim was fined, we had excessive attorney fees and again he had to pay for and attend classes and go to AA meetings. Again, I really encouraged him to stop drinking, but it never worked. I again • • tried to keep alcohol and social events involving alcohol out of our lives, and I continued to refuse to drink with him. Jim did not drink alone in our home, however, when Jim was in a social drinking situation he would drink until he was intoxicated and I was always his designated driver. 11. There were times when I know that Jim treated Justin badly just because he knew that it would upset me. He knew that it would upset me more if he was nasty to Justin than if he was nasty to me. He would get angry with Justin and yell at him for little things that certainly did not warrant Jim yelling at him the way he did and I truly believe that Jim did this just to upset me. 12. Jim was extremely verbally abusive and belittling to me throughout our marriage. He was verbally abusive and disrespectful to me in front of our son many times. Additionally, my oldest brother, Paul Miller lived with us for a period of time and Jim was verbally abusive and belittling to me in front of Paul. Jim would yell at me if he didn't understand what I was telling him or showing him how to do something. Jim also yelled at me if he didn't agree with something, anything I was doing at the house. My brother has commented to me a number of times that he just could not believe how Jim would speak to me that he didn't believe anyone should speak to their wife in that mariner. If I wore a new outfit he would interrogate me and berate me about the outfit, how much it was, where I got it. It was embarrassing because I continually worked throughout our marriage, and even though Jim was generally the primary wage earner I felt that I was contributing as well and certainly could purchase a nice outfit for myself. When Jim was verbally abusive to me, I generally would just go upstairs and cry. 0 I realize! now that his verbal abuse and his disrespectful treatment and attitude towards me had a very negative effect on my self esteem, and probably kept me in the marriage and made me put up with him for a longer period of time. He had convinced me that I was a selfish person and that was the root of many of these problems. 13. When Jim was verbally abusive to me it seemed to "come out of the blue" and it often occurred in front of our friends and my family. He was verbally abusive to me in front of my sister, Maryann and her husband, and also in front of my brother, Tom. 14. I recall a. time when we were with our friends, Rich and Sue O'Brien, and Jim was so verbally abusive to me that Rich pulled him aside to calm him down. At one point, when Jim was verbally abusing me in front of my sister, Maryann, she told him to stop and Jim has never spoken to her since that time. 15. When Justin was approximately 11, Jim lost his job. As a result, although I loved my job at Highmark, I needed to make more money so I took a job with IBM. Jim remained unemployed for a period of time. At that point in time, he was investing in our various stock accounts. Jim decided that he was going to begin day trading rather than get a job. I continued to work and Jim was doing very well with the day trading and in the stock market. Prior to this time we had a viable stock account which was our savings. We had approximately $175,000.00 in stock. I can recall Jim calling me at work and telling me that he had just made $40,000.00 on Google stock. That he had purchased it the day before and sold it that day and that he had made the money to pay for Justin's college. I told Jim to put it away for college and not use it, however, I subsequently discovered that Jim lost that money as well as all of our other money. I did not know it at that time, but • • Jim was buying stocks on margin and he was also buying options. Jim over extended our account and was forced to sell all of the stocks to cover the items on margin. Jim did not discuss any of this with me, however, I recall I was home on a Saturday and our stock account statement came in the mail and I opened it. The statement reflected that all of our stocks were gone and that we still owed $14,000.00. I was shocked and hurt by the discovery of this. I also felt betrayed by Jim, that he could so blatantly play with our life savings. He had led me to believe that he was doing really well this entire time on the stock market. When I confronted him with the statement he admitted that he had been buying on the margin and that we had, in fact, lost the $175,000.00 in stocks that we started with and that we still owed $14,000..00. I was devastated by the discovery that we had lost what at that point was our life savings, and betrayed by the way that Jim had lied to me. I also found his attitude towards me to be overly cavalier in light of the fact that I was working on a daily basis and contributing to the household. Again, I was close to leaving Jim at that point in time, but Justin was still young and I did not want Justin to go through his parents divorce. I also had low self esteem and I was very insecure both in my marriage and personally, and I felt that there was no way out at that point in time. 16. I had always believed that marriage was a give and take, sharing, joint mutual relationship. I believed that we needed to support each other and help each other out and I feel that I tried really hard to make our marriage work. I feel that from Jim's point of view he tried very hard to get me to marry him, but once we were married, he really stopped working on the relationship, stopped communicating with me and stopped trying to make me happy and us a joint success. I felt very hurt and betrayed by this. • • Additionally, after we were married, I really discovered what Jim's temper was like and when he got angry he would be verbally abusive and take it out on me. 17. Jim took care of all of our family finances and taxes. I would ask him if he sent the taxes in because he generally just took care of it and sent them in and just signed my name to them. Ile would always tell me yes, I am taking care of it. Then one day the IRS contacted me at work. They advised that they were going to contact my employer and garnish my wages. I requested that they give me some time to look into the issue. I went home and confronted Jim and found out that he had not filed tax returns for a number of years. Accordingly, at that time, I took off work and collected and assembled the paperwork to do the taxes. I had to sit down and figure out what had gone on all those years with the stock accounts when Jim was day trading and determine the basis of the stocks. It was a very tedious process. We then took everything to the accountant to have the accountant prepare the tax returns. We lost a lot of money through all of this because we could only amend so many years worth of the tax returns, plus there were fines and fees. Again, I felt betrayed by Jim. I could not believe that he just blatantly lied to me regarding the taxes and regarding our financial situation. Apparently, the IRS had been contacting him and he intercepted everything at home because this was obviously not the first contact from the IRS. I just could not believe that he had kept all of this from me and caused me so much grief. This was yet another situation where Jim was avoiding something he found to be difficult. The situation blew up and I had to bail him out. 18. Jim would use foul, obscene language around me which he knew I did not like and which I asked him to stop on a number of occasions. He would also use this language in front of • other people. It made me extremely uncomfortable, embarrassed and humiliated, but he continued to use the language regardless of how many times I asked him to stop it. 19. Jim wanted to go out after work with co-workers on our anniversary. I had a reputation at Jim's place of employment for being a bitch because of the things he said about me and because I was discouraging him from going out with co-workers drinking. Accordingly, Jim told me that if I let him go out with people from work on our anniversary that it would help my reputation in his office (as a bitch). 20. Jim accused me of being selfish many times throughout our marriage. This was very infuriating for me because I felt that I was working constantly both out of the home and also within the home to care for Jim and for Justin. I worked very hard to be a good wife and a good mother. When Jim accused me of being selfish, I took it personally because I felt that I tried so hard to be a good wife and mother. Jim always questioned me regarding; what I spent on things even when I felt that we were in a good financial situation. He also would tell me I was selfish when I wanted something he did not. We never had a bedroom suit or furniture in our bedroom that matched. Throughout our marriage I really wanted a bedroom suit. Because Jim did not think it was important, he wouldn't let me get one and told me that I was selfish for wanting this. 21. Throughout our marriage, Jim tried to ruin my confidence and belittle me and bring me down. As Justin go older, Jim would ridicule me more in front of Justin. This was very humiliating and degrading to me. 22. Jim never got gifts for me or remembered me at holidays. He would never give me Christmas gifts and always forgot my birthday. I would buy him Christmas gifts and he would always make me return them. Additionally, I did all of the Christmas shopping for • • both of our families. On Christmas Eve when I got the presents out he would interrogate me as to what I spent and always complained that I had spent too much. His behavior made me think that I could not do anything right. I felt that he never appreciated anything that I did for him. 23. At one point I found out that Jim was emailing a woman in Pittsburgh. Jim saved the emails and I saw them. He claimed that she was an old friend, but I found out that he was telling this woman about our sex life and our personal relationship. I reviewed a number of the emails that showed that the two of them were emailing back and forth with Jim telling her about our sex life and our personal relationship. I suspected that there was an affair, but at a minimum, there was definitely some sort of infidelity and inappropriate relationship with this woman in light of the email discussions they engaged in. 24. Once we were married our sexual relationship was not important to Jim. After we were married, he really did not treat me well and did not try to make me happy anymore. This carried over into our sexual relationship and after we were married, Jim did not try in that arena either. I recall Jim telling friends that he either had to get married or get a cleaning lady, so lie decided to marry me. 25. At one point Jim threatened to make a scene at my work. He made a statement to me about getting me at work and about bringing a gun. I had to call Highmark security and they went to great efforts to keep my husband out of the building. This was very embarrassing to me. I had to call someone that I managed and who I knew was friendly with Jinn and tell her that I was having problems with him and that if he came by that she was not to let him in the building. This was very embarrassing for me to have to air this dirty laundry at work, and especially to someone that I was managing. • 0 26. When l traveled to Pittsburgh on work, Jim sometimes went with me to take care of business as well. I have since discovered that Jim was often not taking care of business, but was at the Meadows Casino near Pittsburgh. Likewise, when the Hollywood Casino in Grantville opened Jim was going there frequently. At one time he called me at work and told me he had won $160,000.00. I found out later that if he would have paid all of his gambling debt at that time, we would have still had $20,000.00 in debt. However, he did not do that, he continued to gamble at an increased rate. He lost the entire $160,000.00 and more. This was very upsetting to me as I had told Jim a number of times that security to me was based in financial security. I believe that Jim's behavior indicated to me that what I was concerned about was not important and therefore I was not important. 27. In June or July of 2008, I learned the extent of Jim's gambling. I had ordered a new car and when it arrived I called Jim to see if he had arranged the finances. Jim told me he needed a few days to arrange the finances and when I questioned him about this he told me that we could never afford the car. When I came home that evening he told me where we were financially and I was stunned. I discovered that he had run up our line of credit to support his gambling, as well as our credit cards and had used a significant portion of our savings. I have since discovered he has spent $554,936.94 of our marital funds on gambling. I was thoroughly shocked by this news and angry that I had been working so hard to build our financial future and he had gambled it away. We had planned for me to retire at 55, and now I would certainly have to work much longer. I just could not believe that he had spent our entire life savings, as well as incurred all this debt on gambling. I still feel ;shocked, betrayed and sick by all the money Jim gambled away. I advised Jim • 0 that he needed to stop gambling, get a job that he needed to go to every day, pay the debt back and get help for his drinking and his gambling issues. I told him that I would support him in all of this and stay in the marriage if he improved the situation. However, nothing changed by December and I filed a divorce complaint on December 30`h. Jim knew how I felt about being responsible for your debts and about financial security and this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 08-7527 JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE MASTER'S REPORT A hearing was held on August 17, 2010, Plaintiff, Mary E. Shotsberger appeared and testified. The Defendant, James A. Shotsberger did not appear. The Master makes the following findings: 2 3 'The parties were married on August 11, 1984, and separated on December 30, 2008, when Wife filed the Divorce Complaint. At the time of the hearing, the parties had been married for twenty-six (26) years. This was the first marriage for both parties. Wife was born on January 14, 1959. She was fifty-one (51) years old at the time of the hearing. Wife is in good health and has a Bachelor of Science, as well as a Masters of Information Science Degree from the University of Pittsburgh. Wife received her degrees prior to her marriage to Husband. At the time of the hearing, Wife was employed as a director at Highmark with an annual salary of $131,000.00. 4. Husband was born on November 16, 1953 and he was fifty-six (56) as of the date of the hearing. Husband graduated from high school and completed some college courses but does not have a college degree. During the marriage, Husband was employed as a Director for Kinney Shoe Corporation. Both parties' achieved the level of Director in their respective companies during the marriage. I find that the parties i • have similar earning capacities, although the status of Husband's employment, as of the date of the hearing, is unknown. Wife did not know whether Husband was employed and Husband did not appear for the hearing. I do not find a significant contribution by Husband to the education, training or increased earning power of Wife. Wife assisted Husband in acquiring the shareholder's interest in Miller and Shotsberger, Inc., and in acquiring the various Subway Restaurant franchises. Wife assisted the corporation in obtaining financing by both signing the loan agreements and by providing verification that she was employed in good standing and earning steady income. 6. Wife indicated to the Divorce Master that she expects to continue to climb the ladder at Highmark if she is able to move to the Pittsburgh area. Wife presented evidence that Husband is the sole heir of his mother's estate. The size of the estate is approximately $280,000.00. 7. Wife supplied extensive testimony regarding her efforts to preserve the marital assets as well as Husband's dissipation of the marital assets. 8. Wife presented evidence indicating that she was the primary homemaker during the parties' marriage. The Master finds this evidence sufficient to conclude that Wife was the primary homemaker and that her efforts to make a home for the family and for the parties' child was significantly greater than Husband's. 9. The standard of living established by the parties' during the marriage was difficult to determine. Wife maintained that she was frugal and that she was the saver during the marriage. Upon extensive review of the gambling and the Husband's dissipation of • L assets in this case, the Master concludes, and can only conclude, that in light of Husband's extensive dissipation that Wife must have been frugal for these parties to have any assets left for equitable distribution. 10. The parties only child, Justin Shotsberger, was born on January 7, 1985. He is an adult and not an issue in this case. DISCUSSION The Master finds that the Wife's efforts to preserve the marital assets are as follows: Wife was consistently employed on a full-time basis during the parties' marriage. Wife assisted Husband in acquiring the corporate interest in Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. and assisted the corporation in acquiring the franchises by executing the loan documents and providing verification of her stable and steady income. Additionally, the parties used the jointly titled marital residence as collateral for various corporate loans. Wife also preserved the stock interest in Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. by her efforts to join the corporation to the divorce action. Wife obtained an Order freezing the shares of stock and prohibiting the corporation from selling stores. Wife also obtained documentation and financial information to ascertain whether there was any inappropriate misuse of corporate funds. Wife continuously paid the line of credit, the real estate taxes, insurance, and utilities against the marital residence even though she frequently travels to Pittsburgh for her job, and even though Husband has been staying at the marital residence from time to time since their separation. Wife made all these payments in order to preserve the marital residence for equitable distribution. E i Husband's dissipation of the marital estate is as follows: Husband withdrew $12,000.00 from the line of credit at separation and made no efforts to repay same. Husband also withdrew $7,045.00 from the joint Wachovia Securities account after separation. Husband cashed in a Wachovia IRA around the time of separation in the amount of $3,474.00. Wife believes that Husband may have cashed in some additional IRA's but did not supply any documentation of this. Additionally, Wife :supplied extensive documentation (exhibit #3) regarding Husband's gambling debts and dissipation in the total amount of $556,444.00. The Master has extensively reviewed the information supplied by Wife and does find that Husband dissipated these funds. Husband also forged Wife's name on a check to her personal account at some time after separation for $2,000.00. Husband ran up Discover card 45203 to a balance of over $16,000.00. Additionally, the Master finds that the Husband did not satisfy any marital debt after the date of separation and, in fact, as indicated above increased this debt. RECOMMENDATIONS In light of Wife's testimony and the factors for equitable distribution in the Divorce Code, the Master makes the following recommendations regarding the distribution of assets. Husband has received or dissipated the following assets: $12,000.00 advance from the line of credit $7,045.00 from Wachovia account #1733 $-+,474.00 from his Wachovia IRA $556,444.00 gambling $2,000.00 forgery • • $3,000.00 unrepaid loan from Wife to Husband Additionally, Husband will be awarded the following automobiles: 1992 Corvette $11,395.00 1989 Cadillac El Dorado $2,310.00 1998 Chevy Lumina $1,500.00 'This provides Husband a total award of approximately $600,000.00. The Master finds that Wife should be required to satisfy all of the joint marital debt as well as the credit card debt which Husband has incurred. Accordingly, Wife is responsible for payment of the marital debt as follows: M&T Line of Credit against the marital residence balance approximately $92,812.00 Corporate liens against the marital residence total $182,178.00 2006 and 2007 joint IRS lien against the parties $25,000.00 Husband's Discover card #5203 $16,635.00. The Master orders that the credit card account be frozen, that Wife repay the debt and that the card be closed. Wife should also be credited for paying the following liens: PA State back taxes $500.00 Discover card 49148 $6,041.00 The assumption by Wife of marital debt is over $323,000.00. The following assets shall be awarded to Wife: The marital residence located at 3943 Brookridge Drive $265,800.00 Fifty (50%) percent interest in Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. $270,000.00 The following four (4) Wachovia Securities accounts ending in: #3263 $14.00 4:1733 $69,501.00 42588 $24,830.00 49671 $107,267.00 Highmark 401(k) in Wife's name $124,612.00 Highmark Defined Benefit Plan in Wife's name $166,973.64 IBM 401(k) in Wife's name $54,327.00 Wachovia IRA. #1803 in Wife's name $21,289.00 • In light of Husband's failure to attend either the pretrial conference or any of the hearings in front the Divorce Master, this Master has concerns regarding Husband's willingness to execute documents to transfer any assets. Any documentation which should be executed transferring the marital residence into Wife's name alone shall be executed on Husband's behalf by the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County. Any other documentation necessary to carry out the distribution of assets in this report may be executed on the Husband's behalf by the Prothonotary of Cumberland County. This includes the transfer of any accounts such as the Wachovia Securities accounts from joint names to Wife's name. The Prothonotary of Cumberland County shall be given Power of Attorney to execute the transfer of these documents on Husband's behalf to Wife. Additionally, any corporate documentation which may require Husband's execution in order to transfer the marital interest from Husband's name into Wife's name shall be executed by the Prothonotary of Cumberland County. The Master recommends that the Husband be ordered to vacate the marital residence located at 3943 Brookridge Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 by no later than ten (10) days after the date of the final Decree in Divorce. Respectfully submitted, E. Robert Elicker, II Divorce Master MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, Plaintiff VS. JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, Defendant 0 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08 - 7527 CIVIL IN DIVORCE THE MASTER: Today is Tuesday, August 17, 2010. This is the date set for a hearing on the claim by wife in the above-captioned divorce proceedings for equitable distribution. Present in the hearing room are the Pla-ntiff, Mary E. Shotsberger and her counsel Laurie A. Saltzgiver. The Defendant, James A. Shotsberger, has not appeared nor have we been contacted by any attorney on his behalf. Previously on Wednesday, June 23, 2010, we had a hearing on the grounds for divorce of indignities. That testimony has been transcribed and the Master's report regarding the indignities claim is attached as part of the report of the Master. We are going today to address as noted the claim of equitable distribution by wife. No claims have been raised by either for alimony or counsel fees and costs. Husband has been provided notice by regular mail from the Master's office at addresses at 3943 Brookridge Drive, Mechanicsburg; c/o of Scott Watkins, 109 North Middlesex Road, Carlisle; and 2910 Mor_ningside Drive, 1 0 0 Camp Hill. None of the notices of this hearing have been returned to the Master's office as not deliverable or that the addresses are not known. Attorney Saltzgiver has also advised that she has written. Mr. Shotsberger regarding today's hearing advising him that we changed the time from 9:00 to 9:30 a.m. It is now almost 10:00 a.m. and Mr. Shotsberger has not appeared so we are going to proceed with the testimony of wife. Wife's testimony ras been prepared by her attorney with numerous exhibits substantiating her claims and proposal regarding the distribution of the marital estate and allocation of debt. Would you please swear the witness. Whereupon, MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. SALTZGIVER: Q Please state your name and address for the record. A Mary Shotsberger, 3993 Brookridge Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050. Q Mary,, I'll show you what we have marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1. A Okay. Q Can you identify that for me, please? 2 0 • A Yes. This is the testimony that we worked on and reviewed numerous times with my tax returns and all the attachments related to income, debt, assets, and so forth. This document is the information from the Subway business attorney talking about -- let me look at the date on this -- Q Do you address all of these exhibits in your testimony? A Yes. Q And this written testimony -- if yo,-, were to testify today, is this written testimony representative of what you would testify to today in front of the Divorce Master? A Yes. Q I'll show you now what we have marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 2. A Okay. This is the inventory of our assets, our debt, and all the substantiating information related to the entities defined here. Q Okay. And, again, is this a document that you prepared with me? A Yes, it was. Q Okay. And, again, was this reviewed and revised a number of times by both of us? A Yes, it was. Q And then I'll show you what has been marked 3 • as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 3, which contains pages regarding -- indicating No. 18, and can you identify that for me, please? A This is the information on Jim's gambling activities and the supporting details from the various places that he took the money and where he spent it. Q Okay. Thank you. THE MASTER: Just for the record, to get to some numbers that are contained in these documents. Based on what you provided, could you give me a number as to how much money he dissipated with respect to gambling; just a total amount that you have developed through the evidence that you have provided? THE WITNESS: Yeah. It was over $500,000.00 between credit cards, between a home equity line that we had, between taking money out of a Wachovia account that we had. Until we actually started the divorce proceedings I never had access to this information and when I started -- when I did get access to the information and I started to go through it is when I started tracking down where all of the money and how he would transfer between different accounts, so it was very diff-cult to actually -- actually we had to trace money through, I think, it was three or four accounts as well as get information from -- -he two places he gambled most often that I knew about -- I know he has gambled in 4 0 LJ Atlantic City quite a bit and also in various casinos within the state. THE MASTER: And with regard to the debt that you are going to assume that is marital, can you give us a number on approximately how much debt you are left with to take over as far as responsibility for payment? THE WITNESS: I want to say it is over $300,000.00 that I would still be dealing with from a debt prospective. THE MASTER: So in addition to the over $500,000.00 of dissipation of assets, you are also looking at assuming a substantial amount of marital debt which is in excess of $300,000.00? THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE MASTER: Ms. Saltzgiver, you may proceed. I just wanted to clarify for myself some larger numbers here that we have identified in these exhibits. BY MS. SALTZGIVER: Q In your proposal, in your testimony, Mary, have you proposed that you will be responsible for 100° of the marital debt? A Yeah. I am just concerned that if I don't, it's not going to get paid and there is, as we know, there is a substantial amount outstanding. My name is on virtually all of that. I need to make sure that gets taken 5 • • care= of. MS. SALTZGIVER: Mr. Master, i would like to move for the admission of Plaintiff's Exhibit Nos I - 3. (Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit Nos. 1 - 3 have been identified and admitted into evidence.) THE MASTER: They are admitted and we are adjourned. (Whereupon, Court adjourned at 10:05 a.m.) 6 • • 0 1 MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 08-7527 JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE Plaintiff, Mary Shotsberger's Testimony Regarding Equitable Distribution 1. James Shotsberger and I were married on August 11, 1984. We separated on December 30, 2008 when I filed the Divorce Complaint. 2. We have one child, Justin Allen Shotsberger, date of birth January 7, 1985. Justin is currently 25 years old. 3. I previously testified before the Divorce Master regarding my claim for a divorce based upon indignities on June 23, 2010. That testimony outlines Jim's gambling habits and how I discovered them in July of 2008. A few months after that I filed for divorce. 4. This is the first marriage for both Jim and I. 5. My date of birth is January 14, 1959. I am currently 51 years old. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree, as well as a Masters of Information Science from the University of Pittsburgh. I received both of these degrees prior to my marriage. I am currently employed by Highmark. At the beginning of our marriage, I was emploved as a Programer by Computer Task Group. I then became employed by Highmark as a Programer and then a Team Leader. I later moved to IBM where I was employed as a Programer. I returned to Highmark in 2000. When I returned to Highmark I worked as a Senior Systems Consultant, then I worked my way up to become a Manager and then a Director. I am • 6-J currently a Director at Highmark and my annual salary is $131,030.00 (my current paystub and my 2009 income tax return are attached as Exhibits "A" and "B", respectively). I am currently in good health. 6. Jim's date of birth is November 16, 1953 and he is 56 years old. Jim completed high school and has taken some college courses. At the time of our marriage, Jim worked for Kinney Shoe Corporation as a Team Leader. He later worked his way up to a Manager and then a Director. For approximately the last six years of our marriage Jim was employed by Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. Jim appears to be in fair health. He has been treated for depression and has had issues with alcohol and illegal drugs in the past. I do not believe that Jim is currently under a doctor's care, nor do I believe that he is using drugs or alcohol. 7. Jim was unemployed in late 2001. At that point in time my brother, Tom Miller, was also looking for a partner to develop various Subway restaurant franchises. My brother is an approved franchisee of Subway Corporation and had previously owned several Subway restaurant franchises with another partner. Tom and his partner had broken up and Torn was looking for another partner. Jim and my brother discussed this and decided to create Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. They are equal 50 percent shareholders in the corporation which was incorporated in June 2002. Miller & Shotsberger. Inc. currently owns and operates Subway restaurant franchises for five Subways located in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area. Tom is the President of the Corporation and Jim is Vice- Presiden} . 2 • u The corporation acquired one Subway restaurant at a time. From the beginning, Jim was involved in finding the sites and negotiating the leases. Their first Subway was built In a strip mall on the Banksville Road in Carrick, a suburb of Pittsburgh. The second Subway was also built in a strip mall. Stores three and four are Subway sandwich shops that are contained within larger Walmart stores. Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. put the first Subway in a Walmart. "The fifth store is on Mount Washington above downtown Pittsburgh. Jim and my brother needed financing for each store. Both my brother's wife and I signed the documentation for the financing. We both had good jobs and provided verification of our income. Additionally, we each posted our homes as collateral. There are stili three existing corporate liens against the marital residence. Additionally, from time to time, Jim made some small personal loans to the corporation, but they have all been repaid. Jim was involved in the initial set up of the stores and provided all of the IT service. He installed the cash registers and computer software in all of the stores. Additionally, Jim networked all of the registers together so that they could be read on an overall master screen at the corporate offices. The corporate offices are in my brother's home. 8. Both Jim and I are members of the Board of Directors of Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. and Jim serves as the Vice-President. For the last six (6) years of our marriage, this was Jim's full-time employment and his only source of income. In late October 2008, I discovered that there had been a Shareholders and Directors meeting on October 7, 2008. 1 was not • • provided with notice of this meeting, and I subsequently found out that the meeting was held without me or Jim being present. During the course of this meeting they named the corporate attorney to the Board of Directors and my brother was offered an employment contract and an annual salary that was significantly greater than Jim's. These benefits were not provided to Jim. Additionally, the Corporate By-Laws were adopted at this meeting without my or Jim's input. I discovered that this meeting had been held when 1 received the minutes from the meeting and correspondence from the corporate attorney dated October 20, 2008. (See Exhibit "C") Also attached is a copy of the Corporate By- Laws that were adopted at that meeting. (See Exhibit "D") As I understand it, when the corporation was set up, Jim and Tom did not use an attorney to create the corporation. They filed the corporate documents themselves. A Shareholders Agreement was never executed, nor had there been any prior annual meetings of the Shareholders and Board of Directors. As a result of the discovery of this meeting and my concerns about what was going on with the corporation as well as what was going on between Jim and Tom without my knowledge, I filed a Petition for Joinder on March 12, 2009. I filed the Petition for Joinder to enjoin the corporation from dissipating our fifty percent interest and from selling any stock or stores. I also filed it to obtain discovery documents. A hearing was scheduled for April 22, 2009 in front of Judge Hess. We appeared for the hearing and subsequently reached an agreement with Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. and with Jim, which we placed on the record. This Order is part of the Court record in this action. In that agreement, we agreed that Jim's shares in the corporation would be 4 0 0 frozen, that I be included in any negotiations regarding the sale of our shares in the corporation or the sale of the overall corporation. Additionally, we agreed to a method with which to obtain discovery from the corporation. I firmly believe that filing this Petition was imperative to my case. I really believe that my brother was trying to go behind my back, and possibly Jim's, and attempting to dilute our corporate interests. It was also imperative that I obtain the corporate financial information so that I could have a valuation of our fifty percent: interest performed for the equitable distribution proceedings. My only source of income is through my employment with Highmark. Prior to our separation, Jim was employed by Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. Jim and my brother had some sort of falling out and Tom stopped paying Jim. I believe that Jim had become lax and apathetic toward his responsibilities to the corporation. When the corporation stopped paying Jim, he did nothing to pursue his salary or take any other action against the corporation. Jim basically became disinterested and stopped working. 10. Since our separation, Jim has largely been unemployed. For a period of time he was working under the table for a friend of his doing home repairs and construction work. I do not know if he is employed at this point in time. 11. During our marriage, I was the primary homemaker. I took care of our home and the family including doing all of the cleaning, the cooking, the raising of our son. purchasing the groceries, doing the laundry, doing all shopping and running errands for the family, decorating, painting and home repairs. I remodeled three bathrooms, and replaced the family room floor with Pergo. I took Justin to all of his activities and I was involved in all of his school and extracurricular activities and sports. Justin was very involved in hockey and I took him to all of his practices, games and activities. I also was involved in the parent's organization and the managing organization for his hockey league. During our marriage., Jim mowed the lawn at our home; both of us shoveled the snow in the winter. Since our separation, I have had to pay someone to mow the lawn. I entertained Jim's family for Thanksgiving, Christmas and other holidays. Additionally, when Jim's parents got older and were in the hospital, I was the one to meet with and deal with the doctors and to make all arrangements for their care. 12. At the time of our separation., Jim's mother was elderly. After separation, Jim moved in with her for a period of time. Jim's mother's name was Hilda Shotsberger. Hilda went into the nursing home in approximately September of 2009. I visited her there and took her gifts at the holidays. I also took Justin in to see her. I tried to go to visit her once every two weeks and then more at the end when she got sick. At the end, Hilda was not eating and slept the entire day. It was obvious that she would not be able to continue in this state for a long time. Jim did not visit his mother while she was in the nursing home. I was not on the HIPAA list with the nursing home so they were unable to tell me specifics about Hilda's health issues. When I discovered that Jim was not providing any direction for his mother, I requested that Jim contact the nursing home and add his cousin Judy and myself to the HIPAA list. He did do that and I then discovered that Hilda was on the Resuscitate list. This indicated that if she should stop breathing, the nursing home was required to perform CPR in an attempt to start her heart. I knew that she did not want that to happen, so I obtained a form from the nursing home to take to Jim to sign to 6 • change her status to DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). Hilda was doing so poorly that. I prearranged which funeral home we would use at the time of her death. We used the same funeral home that we used for Henry, Jim's father. Hilda died on May 11, 2010. Judy, Jim's cousin, accompanied me to make the arrangements for the funeral. Judy and I also went to Hilda's house to get clothes for her to be buried in. None of her clothes were suitable so I went shopping and bought an outfit for Hilda to be buried in. I went with Jim to the church to arrange for the funeral with the Pastor. We discussed Hilda's life with the Pastor and what he would say at the funera.. I also made the arrangements for flowers. I had Justin come in for the funeral and paid for his meals, et cetera. I made the photo boards for the funeral. I also signed to be financially responsible for the funeral, however, I know that the funeral has since been paid for out of Hilda's estate. I also went with Jim to the estate attorney. I got the paperwork together for Jim to establish the estate account and Jim signed the papers. I am currently working on Hilda's 2009 taxes. I helped Jim go through the house and clean up the house as best as we could at that point in time. Jim is the sole heir to his mother's estate. I have attached the estate information. (See Exhibit "E") I have attached a copy of Hilda's Last Will and Testament which lists Jim as her only heir. Also attached is a copy of the current tax assessment for Hilda's house. Hilda owned her home at 2910 Morningside Drive free and clear. The current tax assessment is $154,500.00. Also attached is Hilda's Wells Fargo financial account. This was the value of the account as of April 30, 2010. I note that Hilda's funeral expenses of 7 0 0 approximately $10,000.00 were paid out of this account, and the Department of Welfare has a claim for about $22,000.00 owed by Hilda while she was in the nursing home. Jim was not paying the bills that were sent to him from the nursing home on behalf of Hilda. The nursing home took Hilda to the bank to redirect her pension and Social Security Checks to assist in payment of her bill. At that time. the nursing home was not aware of the securities that she had so they were in the process of identifying her as a ward of the state. The state paid $22,000.00 to the nursing home. I believe this $22.000.00 is the amount that they believe they are owed. 13. A major issue in this case is Jim's dissipation of our marital assets. I have provided an exhibit (Exhibit #18) which outlines Jim's gambling habits and shows that he gambled a total of'$556,444.44. The bank statements attached to that exhibit show .Tim's withdrawals of funds at or near the casinos. None of these withdrawals of funds were made by me. Jim gambled primarily at Hollywood Casino and The Meadows and this is reflected in the exhibit. Additionally, during the last year of our marriage. when I traveled to Pittsburgh for work Jim went to Atlantic City and lost substantial amounts of our money. I am also aware that he gambled at the Mount Airy Lodge in the Poconos. After I advised Jim that I was moving forward with the divorce action he took $12,000.00 from our line of credit. Our existing credit card debt was largely incurred by Jim and his gambling habits. We had two Discover cards, both in joint names. one on which I was the primary. I have since paid off the balance of this card (99148) in the amount of $6,041.00. Jim has the card on which he was named as the primary person (#5203) and he has used the card since our separation. 'The current balance on that card is 8 0 $16.635.46. 0 After our separation, Jim forged my signature on one of my checks from my individual checking account. The check was for $2,000.00. I also loaned.lim $3,000.00 after separation. He advised me that he would pay me back, but he has failed to do so. 14. I have struggled to preserve our marital assets. I have continuously paid the line of credit, real estate taxes, insurance and utilities at the marital residence. Jim has been in and out of the marital residence since our separation, despite the fact that I have asked him to stay out of the house. I have been living on the top floor of our residence and Jim has been living on the main floor. I do not have any contact with him in the house. I frequently travel to Pittsburgh for business so I am not home often. When I am at home I stay in the second floor bedroom. I also pay Jim's car insurance because I am concerned about some liability coming back to me since we are married. I have been living under this arrangement and paying the line of credit because I know that if I went elsewhere, that Jim would not pay the line of credit and the value of our home would be dissipated as well. I should have moved to Pittsburgh to further my career, however, during our marriage I needed to stay in the area for Jim's parents, and since separation I have had to continue to stay here to pay on the line of credit against our home. I cannot afford to pay for all of the expenses at the marital residence and pay for rent in Pittsburgh. 15. I intend to move to Pittsburgh as soon as this divorce is completed and I can sell the house. I need to move to Pittsburgh so I can work out of the Corporate offices there. Highmark was created when Pennsylvania Blue Shield and Blue Cross of Western PA 9 C? 0 merged in December of 1996. The official corporate headquarters are in Pittsburgh. The President of the corporation and all of his direct reports are in the Pittsburgh facility. My customers within the Highmark Business area are in Pittsburgh. All of my managers that report to me are in Pittsburgh and everyone I report to within Highmark are located in Pittsburgh. I have been asked numerous times by the CIO and various Vice Presidents as to when I will be relocating to Pittsburgh. In short, many of the decision makers are located in Pittsburgh. The opportunity to interact with the decision makers is greater when you are located in Pittsburgh. I am currently a director. My next step would be Vice President. That step needs to be supported by the executive community. In addition to our joint line of credit, there are also three corporate liens against our home, the current balances of which total $182,177.91. Technically, since we own fifty (50%) percent of the corporation, only half of these loans are ours, however, our home serves as collateral for the whole amount. Additionally, Jim and I have personally signed for these loans and they are in our joint names. Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. is currently making the monthly payments on the corporate loans, but they continue to hinder the sale of my house. I am requesting that the Master award me the shares of stock in Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. so I have some control over these loans, so I can sell the house and move to Pittsburgh to further my career. 16. I was the saver during the marriage and the only existing retirement accounts are as a result of my employment and my savings. Additionally, I filed the Petition for Joinder of the Corporation to this divorce action. Again, this was to preserve the corporate interest, and to obtain the information necessary to value the corporation. 10 • 0 17. Our standard of living during the marriage was conservative, and fluctuated due to Jim's excesses and his spending habits. I feel that I have been frugal, I still have the first couch that we ever purchased as well as our first and only dining room set. If I purchased a car, I drove it until the wheels practically fell off. There was not a lot of joint spending during our marriage, however, Jim's spending has been documented in the Gambling Exhibit and in the testimony that I provided at the indignities hearing on June 23, 2010. 18. We owe approximately $25,000.00 in back taxes. I have listed this as item 417 in my Inventory. These are taxes owed on our 2006 and 2007 joint returns. Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. is an "S" Corporation and our portion of the income is reflected on our joint income tax returns. The accountant for Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. made bookkeeping errors in 2006 and 2007and thus, the amounts reported on our returns were incorrect. I understand that the corporation is attempting to negotiate the fees and penalties, however, since it was an error the taxes will ultimately be owed to the IRS. Again, I ask that I be awarded the shares of stock in Miller & Shotsberger, Inc., so I can have some control in the corporation and ensure that if fees are disbursed for the payment of these liens, that they are disbursed to me to satisfy our liens as well. 19. In light of Jim's irresponsible behavior, if any debts are going to be repaid, it will have to be me who pays them. All of are debts are in joint names. We have been unable to engage Jim in any sort of negotiations, and even unable to engage him in this litigation. Jim failed to appear at the indignities hearing before the Divorce Master in June. 20. In addition to my attorney fees, I also incurred all of the costs to value our assets for equitable distribution. I have attached as Exhibit "F" all of the fees I have paid to value • • assets as well as my attorney fees incurred in joining Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. to the divorce action. The joinder action froze Jim's shares of stock, as well as the sale of stores or corporate assets. The joinder was also necessary to obtain the corporate information which Jim claimed he did not have. I am asking the Divorce Master to consider my payment for these valuations, as well as my attorney fees and efforts to preserve marital assets in the overall equitable distribution. 21. Jim still sometimes temporarily resides in the marital residence. As part of these proceedings, I am requesting that the Divorce Master issue a date certain that Jim must vacate the marital residence. 22. The following is my proposal for equitable distribution and my reasons for same. Jim is irresponsible and accordingly, the payment of all debt should be assigned to me to ensure that it is satisfied and paid in full. Jim has dissipated a significant portion of our marital estate and has also received a significant portion of assets. Jim has received or dissipated the following: $12,000.00 from Line of Credit $7,045.00 from Wachovia account #1733 after separation $3,474.00 when he cashed in his Wachovia IRA 5556,444.00 gambling dissipation $2,000.00 forgery $3,000.00 - Unrepaid loan from me to him Additionally, Jim should be awarded his automobiles: 1992 Corvette $11,395.00 1989 Cadillac El Dorado $21310.00 1998 Chevy Lumina $1,500.00 Accordingly, this is a total award to Jim of $599,168.00 12 0 0 Additionally, since our separation, Jim has also continued to reside in the marital residence while I have paid all expenses at that residence including the line of credit, real estate taxes, utilities, maintenance and upkeep. This has provided an additional benefit to Jim. I have requested the marital residence and all debt be awarded to me and that the Divorce Master issue a date certain when Jim must vacate the premises. The remainder of the assets and all debts as listed in my Inventory should be awarded and/or assigned to me. As previously elaborated upon in my testimony. I need to move to Pittsburgh for my job. I have put this off and put this off for a number of years and at this point, it is imperative that I move to Pittsburgh. Accordingly, I need to sell the house in Mechanicsburg in order to move. The corporate liens against our home are over $182,000.00. I am requesting that the Master award our stock interest in Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. to me so that I have some control in ensuring that these corporate liens are repaid and/or transferring these corporate liens to any home that I may purchase in Pittsburgh. Also, as a Shareholder in Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. I could ascertain whether corporate distributions have been made, or should be made to satisfy the IRS lien. While this proposal affords me the balance of our marital assets, it also provides that I am assuming one hundred (100%) percent of the marital debt as follows: M&T Line of Credit against the marital residence $92,812.00 Corporate Liens $182,178.00 2006 and 2007 IRS lien $25,000.00 PA State back taxes previously paid $500.00 Discover card previously paid #9148 $6,041.00 .Tim's Discover card #5203 $16,635.00 (Account be frozen, debt paid and card closed) For a total of $323,166.00 in marital debt. 13 MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, Plaintiff v. JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-7527 CIVIL ACTION -LAW IN DIVORCE It appearing that the Master's report in the above stated case has been filed for twenty (20) days, that no exceptions have been filed thereto, that the costs have been fully paid and that all the requirements of law and Rules of Court have been met, you are hereby directed to submit the said case to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, at the next sitting thereof i TO: The Prothonotary 0 ~ i ~ "°3 o m= ~ ~ ~ ""' ~© Z r -- "'~~ ~ =~ Attorney for Plamti f •i ~v ss c~"n Z 2• v~ °D v ~ w ~ Dated: ~~ l I, ~ A ~ ~ ~'~ j a ,Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that the costs in the above stated case, have all been paid, including the Master's fee. rothonotary Mary E. Shotsberger IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. James A. Shotsberger ; Defendant NO 08-7527 DIVORCE DECREE AND NOW, (~~- ' g z °'° , it is ordered and decreed that Mary E. Shotsberger ~e+ntiff plaintiff, and James A. Shotsberger Defendant ,defendant, are divorced ftom the bonds of matrimony. Any existing spousal support order shall hereafter be deemed an order for alimony pendente lite if any economic claims remain pending. The court retains jurisdiction of any claims raised by the parties to this action for which a final order has not yet been entered. Those claims are as follows: (If no claims remain indicate "None.") None. By the Court, /~ Att t? J. rothonotary ~~ ~p i `t~ ~" I/. r f- !~ ~~a~it-~~ MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 08-7527 JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, :CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~9 ~ day of c9 c,~a bw , 2010, no exceptions having been filed to the report of the Master, the Master's recommendations are accepted and approved as an Order of Court, as follows: Husband has received or dissipated the following assets: $12,000.00 advance from the line. of credit $7,045.00 from Wachovia account #1733 $3,474.00 from his Wachovia IRA $556,444.00 gambling $2,000.00 forgery $3,000.00 unrepaid loan from Wife to Husband Additionally, Husband will be awarded the following automobiles: 1992 Corvette $11,395.00 1989 Cadillac El Dorado $2,310.00 1998 Chevy Lumina $1,500.00 This provides Husband a total award of approximately $600,000.00. Wife is responsible for payment of the marital debts as follows: M&T Line of Credit against the marital residence balance approximately $92,812.00 Corporate liens against the marital residence total $182,178.00 2006 and 2007 joint IRS lien against the parties $25,000.00 Husband's Discover card #5203 $16,635.00. This account shall be frozen, until Wife pays the full balance and then the card shall be closed. cola ~~~~G'o ~i~~ ~ ~~- G~ Wife has also paid the following liens: PA State back taxes $500.00 Discover card #9148 $6,041.00 The assumption by Wife of marital debt is over $323,000.00. The following assets shall be awarded to Wife: The marital residence located at 3943 Brookridge Drive $265,800.00 fifty (50%) percent interest in Miller & Shotsberger, Inc. $270,000.00 The following four (4) Wachovia Securities accounts ending in: #3263 $14.00 #1733 $69,501.00 #25.88 $24,830.00 #9671 $107,267.00 Highmark 401(k) in Wife's name $124,612.00 Highmark Defined Benefit Plan in Wife's name $166,973.64 IBM 401(k) in Wife's name $54,327.00 Wachovia IRA #1803 in Wife's name $21,289.00 Any documentation necessary to transfer the marital residence into Wife's name alone shall be executed on Husband's behalf by the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County. Any other documentation necessary to carry out the distribution of assets shall be executed on Husband's behalf by the Prothonotary of Cumberland County. The Prothonotary of Cumberland County shall be given Power of Attorney to execute any documents on Husband's behalf necessary to effectuate the transfer of assets in this Order. This shall include documentation necessary to transfer accounts and assets, as well as corporate documents. Husband is ordered to vacate the marital residence located at 3943 Brookridge Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 by no later than ten (10) days from the date of the final Decree in Divorce. BY THE COURT ~~ J. r~ES' .~~. c ~ !/~3~~p ~~'1~ i• MARY E. SHOTSBERGER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 08-7527 JAMES A. SHOTSBERGER, :CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ 9` day of Gti1'a ~ , 2010, no exceptions having been filed to the report of the Master, the Master's recommendation that the parties be divorced from the bonds of matrimony pursuant to section 3301(a)(6) of the Divorce Code is accepted and approved as an Order of Court. Wife is granted a Decree in Divorce pursuant to section 3301(a)(6) of the Divorce Code, as attached hereto. BY THE COURT: ~V Ad~- J. ~! l3 ~~~ ~.~ ~'-I~LoC~~. ~~~~~~~~ aa~ 0 4~ 19 ~M -t:3s ~. cow ~~~~7 l~s.~~~. •~~