Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-0289BRYAN L. BRADLEY and DENISE L. BRADLEY, his wife, OHIO BLENDERS, INC., An Ohio Corporation d/b/a ALFAGREEN SUPREME, Plaintiffs V. SUZANNE G. WHITE and STEPHEN T. BLAIR, Husband and wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA ACTION TO QUIET TITLE NO. 2009- v781 CIVIL TERM NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 717-249-3166 1-800-990-9108 BRYAN L. BRADLEY and DENISE L. BRADLEY, his wife, OHIO BLENDERS, INC., An Ohio Corporation d/b/a ALFAGREEN SUPREME, Plaintiffs V. SUZANNE G. WHITE and STEPHEN T. BLAIR, Husband and wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ACTION TO QUIET TITLE NO. 2009- CIVIL TERM COMPLAINT TO QUIET TITLE The Plaintiffs, by their attorney, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, of Irwin & McKnight, P.C., complains against Defendants named herein and all persons unknown claiming any right, title estate, lien or interest in the real property described herein adverse to plaintiffs' title, and for a cause of action alleges: 1. The Plaintiffs are Bryan L. Bradley and Denise L. Bradley, his wife, adult individuals residing at 1864 Walnut Bottom Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. 2. The Plaintiff is Ohio Blenders, Inc, an Ohio Corporation, d/b/a Alfagreen Supreme, of 2404 N. Summit Street, Toledo, Ohio 43611 3. The Defendants are Suzanne G. White and Stephen T. Blair, of 319 Chestnut Street, Mount Holly Springs, Pennsylvania 17065. 2 4. The lands which are the subject of this action consists of a 60 foot street, situate in the Borough of Mount Holly Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and set forth in Cumberland County Deed Book 259, Page 1176. A copy of the legal description is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A". 5. The deed of Suzanne G. White and Stephen T. Blair dated September 11, 2003 and recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book 259, Page 1176 is without basis in fact or in law. No claim for quiet title or adverse possession has been filed by them. 6. The Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title own said sixty (60) feet wide tract in fee simple and/ or by adverse possession which has been open and notorious for a period in excess of twenty one (21) years and now own said tract in fee simple. 7. Any claim of the Defendants is without basis and the Plaintiffs seek reasonable attorney fees together with the costs of this action together with a degree awarding plaintiffs title in fee simple to said tract. 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays that Defendants and also all other persons unknown, claiming any right, title estate, lien or interest in the real property described in the Complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' ownership, or any cloud upon Plaintiffs' title thereto, may be required to set forth the nature of their claims, that all adverse claims of Defendants or any of them may be determined by a decree of this Court, that by said decree it be declared and adjudged that Plaintiffs are the owners of said premises and that Defendants, thier heirs and assigns, successors and assigns have no estate or interest whatever in or to said land and premises; that Defendants, thier heirs, successors and assigns be forever barred from asserting any claim whatever in or to said land and premises adverse to Plaintiffs and for such other and further relief as to equity shall seem meet together with the reasonable attorney fees and the costs of this action. Respectfully Marcus A. McKnight, Esquire IRWIN & MCKNIGHT, P.C. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Date: January 21, 2009 4 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL that certain tract of land situate in the Borough of Mt Holly Springs, County of Cumberland, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the northerly line of forty (40) foot wide street (unopened) and a westerly line of sixty (60) foot wide street (unopened), said point in the easterly line of lands now or formerly of Suzanne G. White and Stephen T. Blair; thence along the said easterly line of land now or formerly of Suzanne G. White and Stephen T Blair, North 20 degrees 52 minutes 22 seconds East, a distance of 1,010.00 feet to a post; thence along lands now or formerly of Henry E. Goshorn, South 46 degrees 37 minutes 52 seconds East, a distance of 64.94 feet to a point; thence along the westerly line of land now or formerly of Bryan L. Bradley and land now or formerly of John D and Rabam Bitner, South 20 degrees 52 minutes 22 seconds West, a distance of 985.15 feet to a point in the northerly line of forty (40) foot wide street (unopened); thence along the said northerly line of a forty (40) foot wide street (unopened) North 60 degrees 07 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 60.00 feet to the Point of BEGINNING SAID tract containing 59,855 square feet of land, more or less. 5 VERIFICATION The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by counsel and us in the preparation of this action. We have read the statements made in this document and they are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. BRYAN L. BRADLEY r DENISE L. LEY Date: January 16, 2009 7 r'> t?` ?? .c? ? ? _ _ ; '' N V r DA-_] ? i. .?_ `1 J :.? ?r? --. ; rt C.? 1 ? ?t T L ° ? 1? "'? Y '"<.. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2009-00289 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BRADLEY BRYAN L ET AL VS WHITE SUZANNE G ET AL ROBERT BITNER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT -QUIET TITLE was served upon BLAIR STEPHEN T the DEFENDANT at 101 E PINE STREET MOUNT HOLLY SPRINGS, PA 17065 by handing to STEPHEN BLAIR a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT -QUIET TITLE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00'`x, r Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 16.00 01/28/2009 MARCUS MCKNIGHT Sworn and Subscibed to By•. before me this day ??--? Deputy Sheriff of A.D. at 2030:00 HOURS, on the 27th day of January , 2009 Lij Olt C us rv C?J OWN SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2009-00289 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BRADLEY BRYAN L ET AL VS WHITE SUZANNE G ET AL ROBERT BITNER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT -QUIET TITLE was served upon., WHITE SUZANNE G the ?_- DEFENDANT at 2030:00 HOURS, on the 27th day of January .... 2009 mob war. at 101 E PINE STREET MOUNT HOLLY SPRINGS, PA 17065 by handing to SUZANNE WHITE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT -QUIET TITLE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing 18 00 Service Affidavit . 16.20 00011, .00 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline r .00 44.20 01/28/2009 MARCUS MCKNIGHT Sworn and Subscibed to By-; before me this day eputy Sheriff of A. D. r ,r - Z (31 I l.l.; LZ CL C-4 l...> BRYAN L. BRADLEY and DENISE L. BRADLEY, his wife, OHIO BLENDERS, INC. An Ohio Corporation d/b/a ALFAGREEN SUPREME, Plaintiffs v SUZANNE G. WHITE and STEPHEN T. BLAIR, Husband and wife, Defendents TO Marcus McKnight, III: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ACTION TO QUIET TITLE : NO. 2009-289 CIVIL TERM NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully Submitted TURO LAW OFFICES Dt Brian O. Williams, Esquire 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Defendants BRYAN L. BRADLEY and DENISE L. BRADLEY, his wife, OHIO BLENDERS, INC., An Ohio Corporation d/b/a ALFAGREEN SUPREME, Plaintiffs V. SUZANNE G.WHITE and STEPHEN T.,BLAIR Defendants COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ACTION TO QUIET TITLE NO. 09 - 0289 CIVIL TERM PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW, come the Defendants Suzanne G. White and Stephen T. Blair., by and through their attorneys, Turo Law Offices, and file Preliminary Objections 1. Demurrer 1. Plaintiffs' Bryan Bradley, Denise Bradley and Ohio Blenders filed a Quiet Title Action in the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County on January 21St, 2009. 2. Plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and Defendants demur to the Plaintiffs' complaint. 3. Plaintiffs' complaint lacks any assertion of rights over the property. 4. Paragraph 4 is a legal description of the property taken from Cumberland County Deed Book 259, Page 1176 that deeds the property to Defendant's Suzanne G. White and Stephen T. Blair. 5. Paragraph 5 is a bold assertion without proof or averment for support. 6. Paragraph 6 claims title in fee simple but provides no prior deeds or chain of title to support the averment. 7. Paragraph 6 claims title by adverse possession but provides no conduct by Plaintiffs to support the averment. Wherefore, for all the above reasons the Plaintiffs' have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. U. Motion for a More Specific Pleading 8. Plaintiffs' Quiet Action Complaint is vague and insufficiently specific. 9. Paragraphs 1-3 are descriptions of the parties. 10. Paragraph 4 is a description of the property taken from the deed as recorded in Cumberland County Deed Book 259, Page 1176. 11. Paragraph 5 is a bold assertion of ownership without sufficient specificity as to the basis of ownership for Defendants' to answer. 12. Paragraph 6 lacks sufficient specificity for Defendant's to Answer. 13. Paragraph 7 lacks sufficient specificity for Defendant's to answer. WHEREFORE, for the all above reasons, the Defendants should be require to plead with specificity. Respectfully submitted, 2)6)6 Date Brian Oliver Williams, Esq. Attorney ID 209610 Turo Law offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Preliminary Objections of Defendants to Complaint on Markus A. McKnight, III, Esq., by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, on the 6 ^ _ day of February, 2009, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Markus A. McKnight, III, Esq. Irwin & McKnight, P.C. 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 TURO LAW OFFICES rian O. Williams, Esq. 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688; FAX 717.245.2165 Attorney for Defendants VERIFICATION I, Brian O. Williams, Esquire, counsel for the Defendants in this matter, do hereby depose and state that the statements contained in the foregoing Preliminary Objections are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, as provided by Defendant Suzanne G. White. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. D to Brian O. Williams, Esq. N .? C -n rTi n? L' t cis w F l3..Fu-0 F11 CF I 1,1 9 0, IBRAY-2 Phi l,.!I "o CUMBERLAND COUNT`' PENNSYLVANIA BRYAN L. BRADLEY and DENISE L. BRADLEY, his wife, OHIO BLENDERS, INC., An Ohio Corporation d/b/a ALFAGREEN SUPREME, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ACTION TO QUIET TITLE NO. 2009 - 0289 CIVIL TERM V. SUZANNE G. WHITE and STEPHEN T. BLAIR, Husband and Wife, Defendants ANSWER TO NEW MATTER AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, P.C., and make the following Answer to the New Matter of the Defendants, Suzanne G. White and Stephen T. Blair: 8. The averments contained by reference in Paragraph Eight (8) of the New Matter and answered by reference to the averments of the Plaintiffs' Complaint in Paragraphs One (1) through Seven (7) are incorporated herein. 9. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Nine (9) of the New Matter are admitted. 10. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Ten (10) of the New Matter are admitted. 11. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eleven (11) of the New Matter are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Deed recorded on September 11, 2003 had no legal basis for claiming lands, which had been used by the Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title to the property. A Quiet Title Action is required, which the Defendants never sought or pursued. 12. The averments contained in Paragraph Twelve (12) of the New Matter are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiffs have never acquired any ownership of the entire tract. Only the Plaintiffs and the predecessors in title asserted title to the property by their open use of the tract. 2 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered by the Court against the Defendants and that title in the tract be vested in the Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. By: Date: May 2, 2011 3 Carlisle, PA 17013-3222 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Bryan L. and Denise L. Bradley VERIFICATION The foregoing document is based upon information, which has been gathered by my counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BRYAN L. BRADLEY Date: May 2, 2011 BRYAN L. BRADLEY and DENISE L. BRADLEY, his wife, OHIO BLENDERS, INC., An Ohio Corporation d/b/a ALFAGREEN SUPREME, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ACTION TO QUIET TITLE NO. 2009 - 0289 CIVIL TERM V. SUZANNE G. WHITE and STEPHEN T. BLAIR, Husband and Wife, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of the attached Answer to New Matter was served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows: Lorin Andrew Snyder, Esquire TURO LAW OFFICES 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. By: z /( / ?' 60 WeAt P mfret Str et Carlisle, ft 1701 222 (717) 249-2T5-5- Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476 Date: May 2, 2011 uire 4 Bryan Bradley / Denise Rrradley — Ohio Blenders vs Suzanne White and Stephen T. Blair To the Court: The Plaintiff intends to procee • with the a ve captioned matter. Case No. Statement of Intention to Proceed Print Name Marcus A. McKnight, III Sign Name Date: October 71, 7014 Attorney for plaint; ff Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. I. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Ru1e230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. Utile petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty -day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a showing to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty -day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.