Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-1752.LYDE L. STROCK and MABEL L . iTROCK, husband and wife, Plaintiffs V. BERT L. SIGNOR, III, Defendant PRAECIPE FOR WRITS OF SUMMONS THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons against Defendant Robert L. Signor, III who has an address of 426 West Winding Hill Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. C. ate: March 20, 2009 O: Robert L. Signor, III IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2009- "7s oZ &Ud CIVIL ACTION BY. Keith (. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Attorney ID No. 47077 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Clyde L. Strock and Mabel L. Strock YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that Clyde L. Strock and Mabel L. Strock ave commenced an action against you. CIJRTIS R. LONG, PROT (NOTARY March 20, 2009 By: LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. C> ? 4 0 1 c7 j , GIN _O rn Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County R Thomas Kline "?,xr of £iamberh Edward L Schorpp Solicitor Sher Ronny R AndersonJody S Smith Chief Deputy OFF+CE of THE SKRIFF Civil Process Sergeant SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 03/25/2009 08:30 PM - Mark Conklin, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on March 25, 2009 at 2030 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Robert Signor III, by making known unto Robert Signor, III, at 426 West Winding Hill Road Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055, its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $38.32 March 30, 2009 SO ANSWERS, 0-1 R THOMAS KLINE, SHERIFF Deputy Sheriff Docket No. 2009-1752 Clyde L. Strock v Robert L. Signor, III OF 4MM"LARY -NPAPR-1 F"* 24 CLYDE L. STROCK and MABEL L. STROCK, Plaintiffs V. ROBERT L. SIGNOR, III, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 2009-1752 : CIVIL ACTION 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 a court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other 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 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3302 (717) 249-3166 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. C. By: Vv?-- Attorneys for Plaintiffs LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. CLYDE L. STROCK and MABEL L. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF TROCK, husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 2009-1752 CIVIL V. ROBERT L. SIGNOR, III, : CIVIL ACTION Defendant COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Clyde L. Stock and Mabel L. Strock, by their attorneys, Snelbaker & Brenneman, P. C., submit this Complaint and in support thereof state the following: 1. Plaintiffs Clyde L. Strock and Mabel L. Strock, husband and wife, are adult individuals residing at 791 Williams Grove Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Robert L. Signor, III, is an adult individual residing at 426 West Winding Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiffs are the owners of a certain piece or parcel of land containing in excess of 83 acres improved with their residence and various farm-related structures commonly known as 791 Williams Grove Road, Mechanicsburg, having obtained ownership thereof by Deed dated and recorded May 6, 1959 in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book "C"; Volume 19, Page 240 (hereinafter "Plaintiffs' Property"). 4. Defendant is the owner of a certain piece or parcel of land improved with a residential dwelling commonly known as 426 West Winding Hill Road, Mechanicsburg, having obtained ownership thereof by Deed dated June 13, 2003 and recorded June 19, 2003 in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book 257, Page 3298 LAW OFFlCES SNELBAKER a BRENNEMAN, P.C. (hereinafter "Defendant's Property") 5. A portion of the southern boundary of Plaintiffs' Property borders the rear or northern ?oundary of Defendant's Property. 6. The southern boundary of Defendant's Property adjoins West Winding Hill Road. 7. Since 1959 Plaintiffs and their invitees have regularly utilized a gravel drive that ? onnects to and provides access to and from Plaintiffs' Property to West Winding Hill Road. 8. Portions fo the gravel drive providing access to and from Plaintiffs' Property from est Winding Hill Road are located on and beside Defendant's Property. 9. Beginning in 2005 or 2006 Defendant blocked Plaintiffs' use of the gravel drive by or placing one or more barriers on or across the gravel drive, thereby preventing ' access to West Winding Hill Road, which access Plaintiffs and their invitees had regularly since 1959. 10. By blocking use of the gravel drive at one or more locations near West Winding Hill Defendant has blocked access to and from the historic Lincoln Cemetery. 11. The use by Plaintiffs of the gravel drive has been open and continuous for a period in of 21 years commencing in 1959. 12. The use by Plaintiffs of the gravel drive has been adverse, notorious and for more than 21 years commencing in 1959. 13. Plaintiffs never received or sought permission of Defendant or any other person to the gravel drive for access to and from West Winding Hill Road. 14. Plaintiffs and their invitees have used the gravel drive without asking leave to do so without objection for a period in excess of 21 years commencing in 1959. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. 2 15. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs have established a prescriptive easement across portions of Defendant's Property for access to and from Plaintiffs' Property and West Winding Hill Road. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court to: A. Enjoin Defendant from erecting any barrier or obstruction of any kind or nature over, in or across the gravel drive; B. Enjoin Defendant from impeding and interfering with Plaintiffs' use and passage over, in and across the gravel drive; C. Find and declare that Plaintiffs have and enjoy a prescriptive easement for the benefit of Plaintiffs' Property from and to Plaintiffs' Property and to and from West Winding Hill Road by way of the gravel drive; D. Award Plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs of this action; and E. Grant Plaintiffs such additional and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Attorney ID No. 47077 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs April 6, 2009 Clyde L. Strock and Mabel L. Strock LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section relating to unworn falsification to authorities. ?- lrk-C-4 Clyde L. trock Date: April 6, 2009 I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Mabel L. Strock : April 6, 2009 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint to be served upon the person and in manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL, POSTAGE PREPAID, ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Robert L. Signor, III 426 West Winding Hill Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By. ?YYL-? Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Clyde L. Strock and Mabel L. Strock April 6, 2009 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. t HLED-CIFF CE OF THE y O r {;OTARY Z009 APR -5 AM I1: 48 CLYDE L. STROCK and MABEL L. STROCK, husband and wife Plaintiffs V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2009-1752 CIVIL ACTION ROBERT L. SIGNOR, III, Defendant NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Respectfully submitted, REAGER & ADLER, P.C. Date: May // , 2009 W;6- Thomas . Williams, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 67987 Wayne S. Martin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 208078 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4642 (717) 763-1383 Attorneys for Defendant REAGER & ADLER, P.C. BY: THOMAS O. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 67987 Email: TWilliamskRealzerAdlerPC com BY: WAYNE S. MARTIN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 208078 Email: WMartingReagerAdlerPC com 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 763-1383 Facsimile: (717) 730-7366 Attorneys for Defendant CLYDE L. STROCK and MABEL L. STROCK, husband and wife Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ROBERT L. SIGNOR, III, Defendant : No. 2009-1752 CIVIL ACTION DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER And now comes Defendant, Robert L. Signor, III, by his undersigned attorneys, Reager & Adler, PC, and submits this Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint with New Matter and in support thereof states as follows: Admitted on information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. To the contrary, it is believed that the certain piece or parcel of land known as 791 Williams Grove Road, Mechanicsburg, containing the Plaintiffs residence contains approximately 5 acres not "in excess of 83 acres." 4. Admitted. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted on information and belief that Plaintiffs own property that borders the rear or northern boundary of Defendant's Property. It is denied that the property is "Plaintiffs' Property" as that term is defined in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 6. Admitted on information and belief. 7. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs and their invitees have regularly utilized a gravel drive that connects to and provides access to and from Plaintiffs' property to West Winding Hill Road since 1959. To the contrary, it is believed and therefore averred that the portion of the gravel drive that connects to Plaintiffs' property did not exist until after 1970. 8. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that there is a gravel drive extending from West Winding Hill Road to Plaintiff's property. It is believed and therefore averred that a majority of the gravel drive is located on the neighboring landowner's property and that portions of the gravel drive are located on Defendant's property and that portions of the gravel drive are located on the property comprising the Lincoln Cemetery. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs' access to Plaintiffs' property necessitates traveling over the gravel drive, therefore this allegation is specifically denied and strict proof is demanded. 9. Denied as stated. To the contrary, Defendant, with the permission of the neighboring landowner, has erected a gate on the neighboring property to deny access to persons who use the driveway as a turnaround in conjunction with a nearby auto auction. 10. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant has blocked access to and from the historic Lincoln Cemetery, particularly with regard to the Plaintiffs whose property borders the Cemetery. Further, the Cemetery is maintained by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and Defendant and the neighboring landowner gave the VFW a key to the gate that was erected. It is believed and therefore averred that the VFW continues to access the cemetery and allow cemetery visitors access to the cemetery using said gate key. 2 ?- 11. The allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the use of the gravel drive has been open and continuous for a period in excess of 21 years commencing in 1959. To the contrary, it is believed and therefore averred that the portion of the gravel drive that connects to Plaintiffs property did not exist until after 1970. 12. The allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs' complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs' use of the gravel drive has been adverse, notorious and uninterrupted for more than 21 years commencing in 1959. To the contrary, all access to the piece or parcel of land now owned by the Defendant has been by permission. Further, Plaintiffs farmed the piece or parcel of land now owned by the Defendant by agreement with Defendant's predecessors in title and paid rent to Defendant's predecessors in title from 1984 through 2005. 13. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs never received or sought permission to use the gravel drive for access to and from West Winding Hill Road. To the contrary, all access to the piece or parcel of land now owned by the Defendant has been by permission. Further, Plaintiffs farmed the piece or parcel of land now owned by the Defendant by agreement with Defendant's predecessors in title and paid rent to Defendant's predecessors in title from 1984 through 2005. 14. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs and their invitees have used the gravel drive without asking leave to do so and without objection for a period in excess of 21 years commencing in 1959. To the contrary, all access to the piece or parcel of land now owned by the Defendant has been by permission. Further, Plaintiffs farmed the piece or parcel of land now owned by the Defendant by agreement with Defendant's predecessors in title and paid rent to Defendant's predecessors in title from 1984 through 2005. 15. The allegations contained in paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' complaint are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, the allegations in this paragraph are insufficiently plead in that Plaintiffs never quantify or locate with any measurable specificity what "portions of Defendant's Property" Plaintiffs claim to have established a prescriptive easement, thus Defendant is unable to answer the allegations contained in this paragraph and strict proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and costs. NEW MATTER 16. Defendant incorporates by reference the averments of Paragraphs 1 through 15 above as if set forth fully herein. 17. Plaintiffs have access to their property by means other than the gravel drive that is the subject of the complaint. 18. Plaintiffs can access their property and have done so for a period in excess of 50 years without traveling across Defendant's property. 19. Most of the gravel drive that is the subject of the Complaint, including the gate, is located on property owned by Linden and Lois Gates, not by the Defendant. 20. Plaintiffs' claim is barred by their failure to join an indispensable party. 4 21. George W. Strock and Ruth A. Strock, husband and wife, obtained a vested interest in title to the piece or parcel of land now owned by the Defendant by virtue of an Installment Sales Agreement on December 12, 1973 recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania in Miscellaneous Book 213 Page 70. 22. George W. Strock and Ruth A. Strock, husband and wife, acquired fee simple ownership of the piece or parcel of land now owned by the Defendant by Deed dated July 15, 1977 recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book H27 Page 779. 23. George W. Strock and Ruth A. Strock, husband and wife, held title to the piece or parcel of land now owned by the Defendant until October 7, 1981 when they conveyed ownership to Robert L. Signor and Nancy C. Signor by Deed recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book 029 Page 764. 24. George W. Strock and Ruth A. Strock are relatives of the Plaintiffs. 25. It is believed and therefore averred that George W. Strock and Ruth A. Strock granted Plaintiffs permission to use and cross the piece or parcel of land now owned by the Defendant. 26. George W. Strock and Ruth A. Strock are Defendant's grandparents. 27. Robert L. Signor and Nancy C. Signor are Defendant's parents and predecessors in title. 28. Plaintiffs farmed the land now owned by the Defendant by permission of Defendant's predecessors in title and paid rent to Defendant's predecessors in title from 1984 through 2005. 5 29. Any use by the Plaintiffs of the property now owned by the Defendant has been with the permission of the Defendant or Defendant's predecessors in title and not adverse to Defendant. 30. Plaintiffs have not had access to their property by way of the gravel road that is the issue in this lawsuit since 2005. 31. Plaintiffs' claim is barred by laches. 32. Plaintiffs' claim is barred by all applicable statutes of limitations. 33. Plaintiffs' claim is barred by estoppel. 34. Plaintiffs' claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. 35. Plaintiffs' claim is barred by waiver. 36. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs and to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and costs. Respectfully submitted, Date: May 11 , 2009 REAGER & ADLER, P.C. Thoma . Williams, squire Attorney I.D. No. 67987 Wayne S. Martin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 208078 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4642 (717) 763-1383 Attorneys for Defendant 6 VERIFICATION I, Robert L. Signor, III, hereby verify that the factual averments in the foregoing Answer and New Matter are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: May 8, 2009 By: l( / Robert L. Sign , III REAGER & ADLER, P.C. BY: THOMAS O. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 67987 Email: TWilliams(a?ReagerAdlerPC.com BY: WAYNE S. MARTIN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 208078 Email: WMartinaRea eg rAdlerPC.com 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 763-1383 Facsimile: (717) 730-7366 Attorneys for Defendant CLYDE L. STROCK and MABEL L. STROCK, husband and wife Plaintiffs V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2009-1752 CIVIL ACTION ROBERT L. SIGNOR, III, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the date set forth below a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Answer and New Matter was served via first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 47077 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Dated: May 11, 2009 Cpl J ica Shull F1LED-01 r K- J OF THE 7009 MAY i 9 ? M 2: 22 ?.y tR v CLYDE L. STROCK and MABEL L. STROCK, husband and wife, Plaintiffs V. ROBERT L. SIGNOR, III, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2009-1752 CIVIL ACTION PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER Plaintiffs, by their attorney, Snelbaker & Brenneman, P. C., submit this Reply to Defendant's New Matter as follows: 16. Paragraph 16 of Defendant's New Matter should be stricken as improperly requiring a reply to an answer which is not a recognized pleading under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil The allegations of fact set forth in Defendant's Answer are denied in their entirety to the extent they include facts contrary to the averments of Plaintiffs' Complaint or facts not contained in Defendant's New Matter not specifically denied in this Reply. 17. Admitted with the qualification that necessity is a matter of law irrelevant to the establishment of a prescriptive easement. 18. Admitted in part; denied in part. Although it is admitted that Plaintiffs can access it property without traveling across Defendant's property, Plaintiffs have accessed their in excess of 50 years by use of the gravel drive that crosses portions of Defendant's 19. Admitted, with the qualification that Defendant, not Linden or Lois Gates erected various barriers across the gravel drive blocking the access of Plaintiffs and their invitees. LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER a BRENNEMAN. P., 20. Denied. Paragraph 20 of Defendant's New Matter contains an unwarranted conclusion of law to which no response is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). To the extent a response is deemed necessary, there are no parties indispensable to this action are not already party to this action. 21. Recording information concerning the referenced Installment Sales Agreement is :d. The remaining allegations contain unwarranted conclusions of law to which no oe is required by Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d). 22. Admitted, based upon information and belief. 23. Admitted, based upon information and belief. 24. Admitted on the basis that George W. Strock was the brother of Plaintiff Clyde L. Strock. 25. Denied. It is denied that at any time George W. Strock and/or Ruth A. Strock granted Plaintiffs permission to use and cross the piece or parcel of land now owned by . On the contrary, no such permission was ever granted or asked to be granted by Plaintiffs having used the gravel drive access without anyone's permission or consent since prior to 1959 and thereafter. 26. Admitted. 27. Admitted. 28. It is admitted only that Plaintiffs farmed land, part of which land is now owned by and paid rent to Ruth Strock from 1984 through 1988. It is denied, to the extent it is that rent paid to farm land had any relationship to the access drive or its use. 29. Denied. Paragraph 29 contains unwarranted conclusions of law to which no response LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN. P.C. required by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d); therefore, same are deemed to be -2- denied. In addition, it is denied that use of the property now owned by Defendant has been with of either the Defendant or Defendant's predecessors in title. On the contrary, (Plaintiffs before and after 1959 never sought or obtained permission from anyone to use the laccess drive, such use by Plaintiffs having always been adverse to the title owners of Defendant's 30. It is admitted only that Plaintiffs have not had access to their property by use of the Igravel road since either 2005 or 2006 as a result of the gravel drive access being blocked by 31. - 36. Paragraphs 31 through 36 of Defendant's New Matter each contain unwarranted of law to which no response is required by Plaintiff pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d); same are deemed to be denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request this Court to enter judgment in their favor and against in accordance with the demands for relief set forth in their Complaint. SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P. C. BY: (&--^ Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 June 1, 2009 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Clyde L. and Mabel L. Strock LAW OFFICES 11 -3- SNELBAKERfC BRENNEMAN, P.C. VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. a4a?Y'J&? Clyde L. trock Date: June 1, 2009 I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Mabel L. Strock Date: June 1, 2009 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. I . . % CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KEITH O. BRENNEMAN, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have, on the below date, caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter to be served upon the and in the manner indicated below: FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: Thomas O. Williams, Esquire Wayne S. Martin, Esquire 2331 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. By: I /[/I, Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire 44 W. Main Street P. O. Box 318 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 697-8528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Clyde L. Stock and Mabel L. Strock June 1, 2009 LAW OFFICES SNELBAKER & BRENNEMAN, P.C. R -ED 4?. Ge%itt, ` ?.n auc rs2oos~, CLYDE L. STROCK and MABEL L. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF STROCK, husband and wife :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v No.2009-1752 CIVIL ACTION ROBERT L. SIGNOR, III, Defendant RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this ~ 3 r day of /,1-v~~. ~ , 2009, upon consideration of the foregoing petition, it is hereby ordered that: (1) A rule is issued upon the respondent to show cause why the petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested; (2) The respondent shall file an answer to the petition within twenty (20) days of service upon the respondent; (3) The petition shall be decided under Pa.R.C.P. No. 206.7; (4) Notice of the entry of this order shall be provided to all parties by the petitioner. .!Thomas O. Williams, Esquire Reager & Adler, P.C. 2331 Market St. Cam ill, PA 17011 eith O. Brenneman, Esquire Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C. 44 West Mam Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 obert L. Signor III 426 West Winding Hill Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Y~~~~ kU6 14 AM 9~ 38 ~€~~`~~u C'~~1'I1l P~iVi~1.YAE~t CLYDE L. STROCK and MABEL L. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF STROCK, husband and wife :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v, No. 2009-1752 CIVIL ACTION ROBERT L. SIGNOR, III, Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this ~ day of 4d's (yv , 2009, upon consideration of Movant's Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Robert L. Signor, III in the above captioned matter, the lack of any response thereto, and good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Movant Wayne S. Martin, Esquire and the law firm of Reager & Adler, P.C., are hereby granted leave to withdraw as counsel for Robert L. Signor, III, in the above captioned matter. '' Wa e S. Martin, Es uire Yn q Reager & Adler, P.C. 2331 Market St. Camp Hill, PA 17011 ~/ Keith O. Brenneman, Esquire Snelbaker & Brenneman, P.C. 44 West Main Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ./Robert L. Signor III 426 West Winding Hill Rd. Mechanicsburg, PA 17,055 W l ~' !'fi't `~ ~ ~Gl_. ~o ~~~~ ~i/l ~ _, i_ ~~LCi.1" ,., ., n_. ~} ~Ci9 Of~~ ° ~~ ~'i ''~ Ri;:; i ,.`-.