Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-3649i 1 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court 'ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: lsaylor@pjrlaw.com MICHAEL AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MARIANNE BEERS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. 09- 31. Yp l.. ICS i L J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER AND CIVIL ACTION - LAW KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, . Defendants To the Prothonotary: Please issue Writ of Summons in Action of Ejectment in the above-captioned action. Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Sheriff. LAW CES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID # 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire ID # 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 PH: (717) 591-1755 FX: (717) 591-1756 O t ti To the Sheriff of the County of Cumberland: You are directed to notify J.S. Investments, Inc., Paula Sheffer and Kenneth and Jill Mays, the defendants, that Michael and Marianne Beers, the plaintiffs, have commenced an action of ejectment which said defendants are required to defend. This action concerns the land here described: ALL THAT CERTAIN tract or parcel of land situate in Lower Allen Township, County of Cumberland, and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the center of State Highway, Route No. 15, commonly known as the Gettysburg Pike, at the intersection of land now or formerly of George and E. Joann Forbes, 11, which point is 368.5 feet East of the intersection of said Route No. 15 and land of Zimmerman and 32nd Street; thence along said centerline of Highway Route No. 15, North 77 degrees 30 minutes East 23.76 feet to a point at lands now or formerly of Patrick G. O'Connor, thence along lands now or formerly of Patrick O'Connor, Edward Q. Allison, Sr. and Keith Peiffer, South 1 degree 17 minutes East 700 feet more or less, to a point in the center of a stream along lands of now or formerly of George and E. Joann Forbes, H; thence along said stream North 34 degrees 59 minutes West, 25 feet, more or less to a point along last mentioned lines of George and E. Joann Forbes, U; thence along said land North 1 degree 17 minutes West 691.9 feet to the Place of BEGINNING. If this land is in possession of anyone not a party, you are directed to notify him that he has been added as a defendant and is required to defend this action. ?-izmal a othonotar Ci Division Date: Seal of the Court BY: Deputy r L LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: lsaylor@pjrlaw.com MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS, Plaintiffs V. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER AND KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09- 3L?[q el-u CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of Writ of Summons upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: Service by Sheriff: J.S. Investments, Inc 1615 Countryline Road York Springs, PA 17372 Paula Sheffer 6 Forest Lane, Carlisle, PA 17015 Kenneth and Jill Mays 783 S. Saguaro Dr. Apache Junction, AZ 85220 /14 Amber L. outhard, Paralegal Date: Coq F\ 4 } 2 X91 1_3 2: tU Pd- 41 f ,2? ??uvg Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County R Thomas Kline "1r sf clfsnb" Edward L Schorpp Sheriff Solicitor 4;. Ronny R Anderson Jody S Smith Chief Deputy OFF) CE OF -"E "fERIFF Civil Process Sergeant Michael Beers Case Number vs. J.S. Investments, Inc. 2009-3649 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 06/04/2009 R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: J.S. Investments, but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of York County, PA to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 06/04/2009 On this date R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff mailed the within complaint and notice by certified mail, return receipt requested to Kenneth and Jill Mays. 06/11/2009 04:35 PM - York County Return: And now June 11, 2009 at 1635 hours I, Richard P. Keuerleber, Sheriff of York County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: J.S. Investments by making known unto Jennifer Barnhart, President at 1615 Countyline Road York Springs, PA 17372 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 06/12/2009 Certified Mail Return: And now June 23, 2009 1, R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, do herby certify and return that I served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Kenneth & Jay Mays by making known unto Jill Logan Mays by certified mail, its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 07/01/2009 12:53 PM - Noah Cline, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on July 1, 2009 at 1253 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Paula Sheffer, by making known unto herself personally, defendant at 2925 Glenwood Road Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $88.04 July 02, 2009 SO ANSWERS, R THOMAS KLINE, SHERIFF Deputy Sheriff C"? N C7 ri- cr- • YORKTOWNE BUSINESS FORMS, INC. Ph. (717) 845-5955 Fax (717) 848-8936 email: ybi@blazenet.net L-i COUNTY OF YORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF 45 N. GEORGE ST., YORK, PA 17401 SERVICE CALL (717) 771-9601 SHERIFF SERVICE NSTRUCTIONS PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN PLEASE TYPE ONLY LME 1 TH2U 12 DO NOT DETACH ANY COPES 1 PLAINTIFF/S/ MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS 2 COURT NUMBER ?. 1 T rt Ur vvn1 1 Un liVmr Vin. 3. DEFENDANT/S/ WRIT OF SUMMONS J. S. INVESTMENTS, INC. SERVE 5 NAME OF INDIVIDUAL, COMPANY. CORPORATION. ETC TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLO J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC. 6 ADDRESS (STRE T OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT NO, CITY, BORO. TWP. STATE AND ZIP CODE) AT 1615 COUNTjrYLINE ROAD YORK SPRINGS, PA 17372 7 INDICATE SERVICE (3PERSONAL L7 PERSON IN CHARGE V DEPUTIZE , CERT MAIL Ll 1 ST CLASS MAIL V POSTED -1 OTHER NOW 3 1NE, 4 , 2002_ I, SHERIF UNTY FIA o hereby deputize the sheriff of YORK COUNTY to execute ' male urn. ;according to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff., SHERIFF Or-*- 6. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE AFA'r FEE PAID BY CUMBFl(L, kNI) CC) SHERIFF OUT OF a) CUMBERLAND NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction. or removal of any property before sheriff's sale thereof 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR and SIGNATUREPF Firm J. RUSSO, ESQ. 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11 DATE FILED ELIZABETH J. SAYLOR, ESQUIRE 717-591-1755 06/03/2009 5006 E. TRINDLE ROAD. SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG. PA 17050 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW (This area must be completed 6 notice 1s to be mailed) CUMBERLAND COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE CUMBERLAND CC SHERIFF SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF THE SIAMff - DO NOT WRITE BELOW THS LIPS 13. 1 acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED 15 Expiration/Hearing Date or complaint as indicated above. UT enrr-TTT <-_.4_no -1-12-An 22. 23. Advance Costs 24 Service Costs 25 N/F 26 Mileage 27 Postage 28 Sub Total 29. Pound 30 Notary 31. Surchg. 32 Tot. Costs 33 s Due Refund Check No $100.00 <Vj rod). 60 7 ' 34. Foreign County Costs 35. Advance Costs 36 Service Costs 37 Notary Cert. 38. Mileage/Postage/Not Found 39. Total Costs 40 Costs Due or Re and 41. AFFIRMED and subscribed to bef a me this'. 6g1 SO ANSWEFJG 42 day of J / 4i1?16 431 M 44. Signature of p. Sheriff s . D •• ?- c to 46. Signature of r _ 47. DATE ?! t; PUBLIC County sheriff 9 KED RICHARD P WZ?4 j ;_ S I F ZEL -26-09 L K; OUNTY . , VI _.UG. 12, 2009 48 Signature of Foreign 49 GATE County Sheriff W. I AGRNUVVLtUbt Ktl.t11'1 Ur' 1 Ht JHtKIFh-J Kt I UKN WUNA I UKt I51 DAiERECEIVED OF AUTHORIZED ISSUING AUTHORITY AND TITLE . 1. WHITE - Issuiing Authority 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY - Sheriff's Office 4. BLUE - Shenfrs Office 16. HOW SERVED PERSONAL( ) RESIDENCE ( ) POSTED( ) POE ( ) SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER SEE REMARKS BELOW 17. O hereby certify and return a NOT FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, etc named above. (See remarks below.) ANILTME 05 INDIVI V / LIST ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE elationship to fends t) 1? Dal o gf Se 20 T f $ep?l E? t? C 2 . A M S T Date Time Int Date Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. Date Time Miles Int. N > x j ¦ ¦ ¦ o 0 00M D oDyv;:1; C) w 3 ' m cn to o - 3 m :3 0 w t? tD ? c <D S m cl) owo L C4 :3 CD ;:W 90 -? el 0000M w :03 3 St 3 m rt A Q o; 6 0CD1 -0 C: M o.- w 0 53 a ON W CD CD _ MC) ro p ?'C . m w? a m a C) to ? 77 (A U) CL CA C w 00 O so3No Ul CD -< E; T. o o C3 N o. m 0F o C3 O 'R. CD m @ m 3 O 0 m y C3 W m ?] c 3 ? p w w D Ln [I ? y ?. ' CD `~ y m o Z' CL • m D 02 fG• CD m R m m a @ Ul a4 w?3? m as m m < = fD a m ??? 070 a Z a O O =°^ o te. 3 m ° 3 w N W 7o m 3 m - o cn Q? m w 3 n N N ? ` ? ? ` m ? ? m N ° T CL . N 0 m W C7 a CD N CD o @ N G N CD m ca (L co o cU CD U C7 ,n °ts p cu a, z mU) :_E Q` Z5 u) a, iia?a W U W U) J F N 0 Q_ U) w a U) 0 w z D • x 0 L C CL N c co cfU) a) co O O E " O ??., CT M CL .L: *. A~ Q. O O O -° U ` a) Ur?OU U HALBERSTADT CURLEY LLC By: Scott M. Rothman / Kelle A. Kilgarriff Attny I.D. Nos: 201478 / 205976 1100 E. Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, PA 19428 (610) 834 8819 (610) 834 8813 (fx) Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays 2~lJF~'B 2b F;i !~ 47 ~,~~ ~ ,1j<4 r ~ ~ . ~': MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS Plaintiffs, v. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC. PAULA SHEFFER AND KENNETH AND JILL MAYS Defendants. HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-3649 CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiffs Michael and Marianne Beers c/o Peter J. Russo, Esquire You are hereby notified to plead to the following New Matter and Counterclaim filed by Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays within twenty (20) days or else you may suffer the entry of judgment against you.. Date: 2 ' 2 S '2 ~~ HALBERSTADT CURLEY LLC By: Scott M. Rothman Kelle A. Kilgarriff Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays HALBERSTADT CURLEY LLC By: Scott M. Rothman / Kelle A. Kilgarriff Attny 1.D. Nos: 201478 / 205976 1100 E. Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, PA 19428 (610) 834 8819 (610) 834 8813 (fx) Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS Plaintiffs, v. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC. PAULA SHEFFER AND KENNETH AND JILL MAYS Defendants. HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-3649 CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Defendant J.S. Investments, Inc. c/o Evan C. Pappas, Esquire You are hereby notified to plead to the following New Matter and Cross Claim filed by Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays within twenty (20) days or else you may suffer the entry of judgment against you. Date: Z' Z5'?.u 1 ~/ HALBERSTADT CURLEY LLC By: Scott M. Rothman Kelle A. Kilgarriff Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays HALBERSTADT CURLEY LLC By: Scott M. Rothman / Kelle A. Kilgarriff Attny I.D. Nos: 201478 / 205976 1100 E. Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, PA 19428 (610) 834 8819 (610) 834 8813 (fx) Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS Plaintiffs, v. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC. PAULA SHEFFER AND KENNETH AND JILL MAYS Defendants. HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-3649 CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. c/o Enrico Tufano, Esquire You are hereby notified to plead to the following New Matter and Cross Claim filed by Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays within twenty (20) days or else you may suffer the entry of judgment against you. Date: Z-Z 5 ~Zc, ~ v HALBERSTADT CUR~,EY LLC By: ~F~,~ Scott M. Rothman Kelle A. Kilgarriff Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays HALBERSTADT CURLEY LLC By: Scott M. Rothman / Kelle A. Kilgarriff Attny I.D. Nos: 201478 / 205976 1100 E. Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, PA 19428 (610) 834 8819 (610) 834 8813 (fx) Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS Plaintiffs, v. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC. PAULA SHEFFER AND KENNETH AND JILL MAYS Defendants. HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.09-3649 CIVIL ACTION -LAW DEFENDANTS KENNETH AND JILL MAYS' ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER, COUNTER-CLAIM, AND CROSS-CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC. AND HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. 1. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 2. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendants are adult individuals. It is denied that they reside at the address stated. 5. Denied. Strict proof of this allegation is demanded at time of trial. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. l 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 20. Admitted. 21. Denied. It is denied that any portion of Lot 4 is on the Subject Property and therefore is the property of Plaintiffs. 22. Admitted. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further response, this averment is directed to parties other than Answering Defendants. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 26. Denied. It is specifically denied that any portion of the cul-de-sac is on the Subject Property and therefore on the property of Plaintiffs. Strict proof of this allegation is demanded at time of trial. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 28. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, it is denied that there was a second conveyance of the Subject Property. COUNTI EJECTMENT 29. Denied. The corresponding averment is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. 30. Denied. The corresponding averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that this averment refers to and purports to characterize documents of record, the characterization isdenied. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Byway of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 32. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that on or about May 29, 2008, J.S. Investments sold a parcel of land to Answering Defendants. It is denied that the parcel of land included a portion of the Subject Property and that Plaintiffs owned the Subject Property. 33. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendants are in wrongful possession of the Subject Property. It is further denied that the Subject Property is the property of Plaintiffs. To the contrary, Answering Defendants obtained title to the property through a deed recorded as Instrument Number 200818455 in the Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office. 34. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendants have exercised and continue to exercise exclusive possession and control of the property. It is denied that any portion of the property is the Subject Property and that the Plaintiffs own the Subject Property. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 38. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Byway of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Byway of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 40. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Byway of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 41. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 42. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendants have refused to remove themselves from certain property. It is denied that the property is Plaintiff's property. To the contrary, Answering Defendants obtained title to the property through a deed recorded as Instrument Number 200818455 in the Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office. WHEREFORE, Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays, and against Plaintiffs together with costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. COUNT II TRESPASS 43. Denied. The corresponding averment is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. 44. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 45. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 46. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Byway of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 47. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further response, this averment is directed to a party other than Answering Defendants. 48. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendants have entered upon the property which they purchased from J.S. Investments, which is recorded as Instrument Number 200818455 in the Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office. The implication that they entered the property wrongfully is denied. 49. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs have been unable to use or enjoy their property. Strict proof of this allegation is demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays, and against Plaintiffs together with costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. NEW MATTER 50. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if set forth at length. 51. It is believed and therefore averred that the documents which Plaintiffs rely upon in paragraphs eight through eleven of the Complaint describe a parcel of property that is separate and distinct from the Property at issue. 52. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant J.S. Investments acquired title to a large tract of land which it subsequently subdivided. 53. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant, J.S. Investments, LLC, subdivided land and incorporated the Final Subdivision Plan for Greenwood Terrace, which said plan was recorded in the Recorder of Deeds in Cumberland County and recorded on November 28, 2006 in Plan Book 93, Page 75. 54. It is believed and therefore averred that as early as October 30, 1975, the legal description in the deed which ultimately transferred the Property at issue was identical to the description of property transferring title from Ada Snyder to Lenker and Williams Real Estate. 55. It is believed and therefore averred that as early as October 30, 1975, Plaintiffs and their predecessors had notice of the extent of the property owned and occupied by Lenker and Williams Real Estate, predecessors in title to Answering Defendants. 56. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiffs and their predecessors had notice that their property description purportedly conflicted with the property which is now claimed by Answering Defendants. 57. It is believed and therefore averred that since approximately June 10, 2002, Plaintiff Michael Beers has owned a lot adjacent to the Property in question. 58. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiffs acquired title to the Property at issue on or about February 5, 2007, through a quitclaim deed purporting to convey title from Allen Allison to Plaintiffs. 59. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiffs occasionally visited the Property at issue after February 5, 2007. 60. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant J.S. Investments Inc. constructed the road for the subdivision known as Greenwood Terrace in the summer of 2007. 61. It is believed and therefore averred that construction, clearing, and removal of shrubbery in the Glenwood Terrace subdivision began in or around summer of 2007. 62. It is believed and therefore averred that since February 5, 2007, Plaintiffs had notice that multiple houses were being constructed within Glenwood Terrace subdivision, and they did not notify Answering Defendants that their land was allegedly being encroached upon. 63. On May 29, 2008, Answering Defendants purchased a lot known as Lot 4 of Glenwood Terrace, Camp hill, Pennsylvania. 64. Construction on Answering Defendants' real property began subsequent to the acquisition of title. 65. Answering Defendants later moved into the house built on this real property. 66. Plaintiffs had a duty to notify Answering Defendants of the purported encroachment of Answering Defendants' property onto the Property at issue before the construction of their home. 67. Instead, Plaintiffs watched construction of Answering Defendants' house, and waited for Answering Defendants to move into the Property. 68. Plaintiffs failed to notify Answering Defendants of their supposed ownership claim. 69. The failure to notify Answering Defendants was entirely the fault of the Plaintiffs. 70. Plaintiffs' claims are therefore barred by laches. 71. Plaintiffs' claims are therefore barred by unclean hands. 72. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by estoppel, as Plaintiffs were aware of the purported overlap of the properties before construction began on Answering Defendants' property. 73. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by waiver. 74. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of acquiescence. COUNTERCLAIM (v. PLAINTIFFS) Count I -Adverse Possession 75. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if set forth at length. 76. Answering Defendants, together with their predecessors in title, have been in actual possession of the portion of the property which Plaintiffs seek to eject Answering Defendants from for a period of more than 21 years. 77. Answering Defendants, together with their predecessors in title, have exhibited continuous possession of the portion of the property which Plaintiffs seek to eject Answering Defendants from for a period of more than 21 years. 78. Answering Defendants, together with their predecessors in title, have exhibited open possession of the portion of the property which Plaintiffs seek to eject Answering Defendants from for a period of more than 21 years. 79. Answering Defendants, together with their predecessors in title, have exhibited exclusive possession of the portion of the property which Plaintiffs seek to eject Answering Defendants from for a period of more than 21 years. 80. Answering Defendants, together with their predecessors in title, have exhibited visible possession of the portion of the property which Plaintiffs seek to eject Answering Defendants from for a period of more than 21 years. 81. Answering Defendants, together with their predecessors in title, have exhibited notorious possession of the portion of the property which Plaintiffs seek to eject Answering Defendants from for a period of more than 21 years, in such a manner that others were put on notice that the property was possessed by Answering Defendants. 82. Answering Defendants, together with their predecessors in title, have exhibited hostile possession of the portion of the property which Plaintiffs seek to eject Answering Defendants from for a period of more than 21 years. 83. It is believed and therefore averred that other than Plaintiffs, no other individuals or entities have used or claimed to use the Property from which Plaintiffs now seek to eject Answering Defendants for a period of more than 21 years. 84. Answering Defendants may tack periods of time that their predecessors have adversely possessed the land to satisfy the 21 year adverse possession period. 85. It is believed and therefore averred that other than this lawsuit, neither Plaintiffs nor any other individuals have filed an action within the past 21 years which would have stayed the 21 year statute of limitations period for adverse possession. WHEREFORE, Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays, and against Plaintiffs and to quiet title to the referenced portion of the Property in the name of Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays, based on the adverse possession of the referenced portion of the Property together with such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. Count II -Acquiescence (in the alternative) 86. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if set forth at length. 87. Since May 29, 2008, Answering Defendants have owned and controlled the property set forth in the legal description of their deed. 88. Plaintiffs, with their predecessors in title, were on notice of the boundaries of Answering Defendants' property, as such information was on record for more than 21 years. 89. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs, with their predecessors in title, acquiesced to the boundary line for more than 21 years. 90. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs, with their predecessors in title, have taken no action within the past 21 years contrary to Answering Defendants' ownership, or the ownership of their predecessors in title. 91. To meet the 21 year requirement under the acquiescence doctrine, Answering Defendants may tack the years of Plaintiff s acquiescence to the prior property owners' acquiescence to the property lines. WHEREFORE, Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays, and against Plaintiffs and to quiet title to the referenced portion of the Property in the name of Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays, based on the acquiescence of boundary together with such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. CROSS CLAIM (v. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC.) Count I - Negligent Misrepresentation 92. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if set forth at length. 93. It is believed and therefore averred that, prior to transferring title of Lot 4 to Answering Defendants, J.S. Investments had reason to know that Plaintiffs' property overlapped with Answering Defendants' property. 94. Prior to transferring title to Answering Defendants, J.S. Investments should have informed Answering Defendants of the overlap. 95. This omission constituted a negligent misrepresentation. 96. Answering Defendants reasonably relied upon J.S. Investments' negligent misrepresentation to their detriment. 97. Answering Defendants aver that if the Plaintiffs establish any right to relief under the Complaint (which Answering Defendants specifically deny Plaintiffs are entitled to), then J.S. Investments should be found liable to Answering Defendants for the damages resulting from the negligent misrepresentation. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of Answering Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays and against J.S. Investments, Inc., in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. Count II -Intentional Misrepresentation (in the Alternative) 98. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if set forth at length. 99. It is believed and therefore averred that, prior to transferring title of Lot 4 to Answering Defendants, J.S. Investments knew that Plaintiffs' property overlapped with Answering Defendants' property. 100. Upon discovery of the overlap, and prior to transferring title to Answering Defendants, J.S. Investments should have informed Answering Defendants of the overlap. 101. This omission constituted an intentional misrepresentation. 102. Answering Defendants reasonably relied upon J.S. Investments' intentional misrepresentation to their detriment. 103. Answering Defendants aver that if the Plaintiffs establish any right to relief under the Complaint (which Answering Defendants specifically deny Plaintiffs are entitled to), then J.S. Investments should be found liable to Answering Defendants for the damages resulting from the intentional misrepresentation. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of Answering Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays and against J.S. Investments, Inc., in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. Count III -Breach of Warranty 104. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if set forth at length. 105. J.S. Investments conveyed Lot 4 to Answering Defendants by a special warranty, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 106. Pursuant to the special warranty deed, J.S. Investments warranted that no defects arose during the period of its ownership, and that it was not aware of defects, liens, or encumbrances on the Answering Defendants' title at the time of the conveyance. 107. At the time of the conveyance, however, it is believed and therefore averred that J.S. Investments knew, or should have known that a portion of Answering Defendants' property overlapped with Plaintiffs' property. 108. Therefore, J.S. Investments should be found liable to Answering Defendants for breach of warranty, in the event that Plaintiffs prevail on their claim. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter Judgment in favor of Answering Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays and against J.S. Investments, Inc., in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. CROSS CLAIM (v. ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.) 109. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if set forth at length. 110. Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. is a corporation with an address of 658 Gauiner Road, Suite 100, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070. 111. Plaintiffs Michael and Marianne Beers instituted this action against Answering Defendants among others, seeking to have Answering Defendants ejected from certain property which Plaintiffs claimed title to, as well as damages resulting from purported trespass on the property. 112. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, they hold title to a piece of property identified as Tax Parcel 13-23-0551-151 ("Subject Property"). 113. On or about May 29, 2008, Answering Defendants acquired title to a property identified as Tax Parcel 13-23-0551-156 from J.S. Investments, Inc. 114. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, a portion of Answering Defendants' property overlaps with the Subject Property. 115. Prior to May 29, 2008, Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. was retained to perform a subdivision plan for Glenwood Terrace, in Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 116. It is believed and therefore averred that Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. surveyed the proposed subdivision, and created a survey that it knew would be relied upon by J.S. Investments, Inc. and subsequent purchasers of the property. 117. It is believed and therefore averred that J.S. Investments, Inc. and subsequent purchasers of property at Glenwood Terrace relied upon Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc.'s survey. 118. It is believed and therefore averred that Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. intended to induce the reliance of J.S. Investment, Inc. and subsequent purchasers of property in Glenwood Terrace subdivision upon the survey. 119. It is believed and therefore averred that Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. was aware that the survey was an inaccurate depiction of the property lines, and/or had reason to know that the survey was an inaccurate depiction of the property lines of Glenwood Terrace. 120. Answering Defendants therefore aver that, if Plaintiffs establish any right to relief under the Complaint (which Defendants Mays specifically deny Plaintiffs are entitled to), then Answering Defendants aver that the damages were caused by the negligence of Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. in subdividing the property, and/or its failure to discovery that the property now claimed by Plaintiffs overlapped with the property of J.S. Investments, Inc. and that Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. is solely liable, jointly liable and/or liable over to Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants Kenneth and Kill. Mays demand judgment in their favor and against Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc., judgment that if there is any liability to Plaintiffs, that Additional Defendants are solely liable, jointly liable and/or liable over to Plaintiffs, and in the event that a verdict is recovered by Plaintiffs against Defendants Mays that they may have judgment over and against the Additional Defendants by way of indemnification and/or contribution for the amount recovered by Plaintiffs against Defendants, together with attorneys fees and costs. Date: 2 HALBERSTADT CURLEY LL By: Scott M. Rothman Kelle A. Kilgarriff Spring Mill Corporate Center 1100 E. Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, PA 19428 (610) 834 8819 (610) 834 8813 (fx) Attorneys for Kenneth and Jill Mays EXHIBIT A ~~ Yom' `~-~ Prepared By: ~"~ Law Office of Darrell C. Dethlefs 2132 Mazket Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Return to: Tax Parcel #13-23-0551-156 SPECIAL WA~2:RANTY DEED This Indenture Madethis - ~~~ day of ~'~ ~~ ~.. 2008. Between J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., (hereinafter called the Grantor) AND KENNETH MAYS and JILL LOGAN-MAYS, husband and_wife, (hereinafter called the Grantees), wltneSSet~l That the said Grantor for and in consideration of the sum of FIFTY- NINE THOUSAND ($59,000.00) DOLLARS lawful money .of the United States of America, unto them well and truly paid by the said Grantees, at or before the sealing and delivery hereof, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bazgained and sold, released and confirmed, and by these presents does grant, bazgain and sell, release and confirm unto the said Grantees, heirs and assigns, SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A" BEING PART OF THE SAME PREMISES which Noble Ventures, a Pennsylvania General Partnership, by Deed dated June 21, 2006 and recorded June 28, 2006 in the Office of t(ie Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County; Pennsylvania, in Book 275, Page 1775, granted and conveyed unto J.S. Investments, Inc., GRANTOR herein. f, Together with all and singular the buildings and improvements, ways, streets, alleys, driveways, passages, waters, water-courses, rights, liberties, privileges, hereditaments and appurtenances, whatsoever unto the hereby granted premises belonging, or in any wise appertaining, and the reversions and remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, property, claim and demand whatsoever of the said Grantor, heirs and assigns as well at law as in equity, of, in, and to the same. TO have and t0 hold the said lot(s) or piece(s) of ground as described on Exhibit "A" with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, hereditaments and premises hereby granted, or mentioned, and intended so to be, with the appurtenances, unto the said Grantee, heirs and assigns, to and for the only proper use and behoof of the said Grantee, heirs and assign's forever, And the said Grantor does hereby covenant and agree that it will W~~I~RANT SPECIALLY the property hereby conveyed. In Witness Whereof, the said Grantor has caused these presents to be duly executed dated the day and year first above-written. Sealed and Delivered IN THE PRESENCE OF US A ,! J Barnhazt, President COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SS COUNTY OF ~1~~ i On this, the day of C~%" ~ ~~ 2008, before me, a Notazy Public, the undersigned officer, persoL~ally appeazed JENNIFER BA-RNHART, who acknowledged herself to be the President of J.S. Investments, Inc., and that she as such President being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument for. the purposes therein contained by signing the name of the said Corporation by herself as such President. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I here set my hand and official seal. ~/ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVAN{A Plotsrial Seat Eric D. ylfibner, Notary Public CartoN Twp., Yolk County My Commission Expires MsY 24, 2012 Member. Pennsylvania Assodation of Notaries EXHIBIT "A" ALL THAT CERTAIN parcel of land located in Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows, to wit: BEGINNING at a point, that point being the northwest corner of Lot No. 3 and the northeast corner of Lot No. 4 as shown on the hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots; thence South 02 degrees 17 minutes 00 seconds East along the western boundary line of Lot No. 3, a distance of 107.65 ,feet to a point; thence on a curve to the left having a radius of 50.00 feet and an arc length of 103.71 feet along the cul-de-sac of Glenwood Road to a point; thence North 08 degrees 36 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 153.00 feet to a concrete monument; thence North 82 degrees 53 minutes 00 seconds East, along lands now or formerly of Edward G. Allison and Janet L. Allison, a distance of 86.01 feet to the place of BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.2017 acres or 8,786.23 square feet. BEING known as Lot No. 4 of the Subdivision Plan of Glenwood Terrace recorded at the Recorder of Deeds Office in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on November 28, 2006 in Plan Book 93, Page 75. UNDER AND SUBJECT to a drainage easement as set forth in Plan Book 93, Page 75-B. .. , VERIFICATION I, Jill~.ogan Mays, Defendant in the foregoing action, hereby verify the factual statements contained in the foregoing Answer with New Matter and Joinder are true and correct to the best of my present knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~ ~ ~ ~ Jill Lo n Ma .. HALBERSTADT CURLEY LLC By: Scott M. Rothman / Kelle A. Kilgarriff Attny I.D. Nos: 201478 / 205976 Spring Mill Corporate Center 1100 E. Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, PA 19428 (610) 834 8819 (610) 834 8813 (fx) Attorneys for Kenneth and Jill Mays MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS Plaintiffs, v. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC. PAULA SHEFFER AND KENNETH AND JILL MAYS Defendants. v. HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.09-3649 CIVIL ACTION -LAW Additional Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 25, 2010, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matter, Counter-Claim, Cross-Claims with Notices to Plead on the following, by first class mail, postage prepaid: Anthony L. DeLuca, Esquire 113 Front Street P.O. Box 358 Boiling Springs, PA 17007 Attorneys for Defendant Paula Sheffer Evan C. Pappas, Esquire Anthony J. Foschi, Esquire Shumaker Williams, P.C. 3425 Simpson Ferry Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorneys for Defendant J.S. Im~estments, Inc. Enrico C. Tufano, Esquire Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman, & Dicker, L.P. Independence Square West The Curtis Center Suite 1130 East Philadelphia, PA 19106-3308 Attorneys for Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. Peter J. Russo, Esquire Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. 2006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorneys.for Plaintiffs HALBERSTADT CURLEY, LLC By: Scott Rothman (2014 ) Kelle A. Kilgarriff (205976) 1100 E. Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, PA 19428 610 834 8819 610 834 8813 (fax) Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth Mays and Jill Mays Date: Z"ZS Z of J MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 09-3649 Civil Term MAYS, :CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendants `'n NOTICE TO PLEAD ~ ~ ~=~ ;~, ,~,_ ~- T ~ ~~ ,:- TO: Kenneth and Jill Mays, Defendants ~ - `- ' -~, `~ :~,~ ...j,,, -i.: (- _n '1 ~ r and Kelle A. Kilgarriff, Esquire, their attorney '- ~ ~a ~' i -< <J ,C- `G 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. SHU LLIA , P.C. Dated: ~j I ~ Z[~,v By Anthony J. Foschi, I.D. #55895 Evan C. Pappas, I.D. #200103 P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)763-1121 J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER and KENNETH AND JILL MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS, Plaintiffs v. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER and KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 09-3649 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW DEFENDANT J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC.'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS KENNETH AND JILL MAYS' CROSS CLAIMS AND NOW COMES Defendant J.S. Investments, Inc. ("Defendant J.S."), by and through its attorneys, Shumaker Williams, P.C., to state the following Preliminary Objections pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2),(3), and (4) to Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays' Cross Claims: I. Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(2) (Failure of Pleading to Conform to Law or Rule of Court) Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays (the "Mays Defendants") filed an Answer with New Matter, Counterclaims and Cross-Claims alleging three causes of action against Defendant J.S., intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty. 2. The count for breach of warranty is not the subject of these Preliminary Objections. 3. A claim for intentional misrepresentation must set forth the following elements: (a) a representation; (b) which is material to the transaction at hand; (c) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (d) with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; (e) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and (f) the resulting injury was proximately caused by the reliance. Gibbs v. Ernst, 538 Pa. 193, 647 A.2d 882 (1994). 4. A claim for intentional misrepresentation is the same cause of action as fraud and, accordingly, contains the same elements. Id. 5. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b) requires that claims for fraud be pled with particularity. 6. The Mays Defendants have not pled fraud with particularity as there is no allegation regarding how Defendant J.S. "knew Plaintiff's property overlapped with the [Mays'] property," regarding the materiality of the representation, and regarding what representation was made by Defendant J.S. 7. Furthermore, no allegation is made by the Mays Defendants about what damages they suffered, and how such "representation" caused these damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant J.S. Investments, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain the above Preliminary Objections and enter an Order striking the Mays Defendants' count for intentional misrepresentation. II. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) (Insufficient Specificity) 8. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 7 above are incorporated herein as if fully set forth below. 9. As stated above, the Mays Defendants were required to plead fraud with particularity and have failed to include the requisite specificity that is required under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(b). 10. Such lack of specificity also makes it impossible for Defendant J.S. to respond because Defendant J.S. is unable to determine what representations were alleged to have been made, how Defendant J.S. knew or should have known such alleged misrepresentation was false, why the Mays Defendants' reliance was justified, and also what damages have been suffered by the Mays Defendants which were proximately caused by the alleged misrepresentation. 11. Such insufficient specificity is also found in the Mays Defendants' count against Defendant J.S. for negligent misrepresentation because the allegations contained in both causes of action are almost identical. 12. "Negligent misrepresentation differs from intentional misrepresentation in that to commit the former, the speaker need not know his or her words are untrue, but must have failed to make reasonable investigation of the truth of those words." Id. at 210. 13. In the Mays Defendants' negligent misrepresentation count against Defendant J.S. they fail to set forth that Defendant J.S. failed to undergo any investigation of the matter prior to the alleged misrepresentation. WHEREFORE, Defendant J.S. Investments, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain the above Preliminary Objections and enter an Order striking the Mays Defendants' count for intentional and negligent misrepresentation. III. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) Leal Insufficiency 14. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 13 above are incorporated herein as if fully set forth below. 15. The elements for pleading a claim for intentional misrepresentation are set forth above. 16. The elements for pleading a claim for negligent misrepresentation are: (1) a misrepresentation of a material fact; (2) the representor must either know of the misrepresentation, must make the misrepresentation without knowledge as to its truth or falsity or must make the representation under circumstances in which he ought to have known of its falsity; (3) the representor must intend the representation to induce another to act on it; and (4) injury must result to the party acting in justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation. Id. 17. The Mays Defendants have failed to sufficiently plead the elements of either intentional misrepresentation or negligent misrepresentation as they have failed to allege facts to satisfy each element of the respective causes of action. WHEREFORE, Defendant J.S. Investments, Inc., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain the above Preliminary Objections and enter an Order striking the Mays Defendants' count for intentional and negligent misrepresentation. SH LLIAM .C. Dated: March 17, 2010 B Anthony J. Foschi, I. D. #55895 Evan C. Pappas I.D. #200103 P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)763-1121 :229524 Attorneys for Defendant J.S. Investments, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L, Evan C. Pappas, Esquire, of the law firm of Shumaker Williams, P.C., hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of Defendant J.S. Investments, Inc.'s Preliminary Objections to Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays' Cross Claims on this date via United States mail, first- class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorneys for Plaint Anthony L. DeLuca, Esquire 113 Front Street P.O. Box 358 Boiling Springs, PA 17007 Attorneys for Defendant Paula Sheffer Scott Rothman, Esquire Kelle A. Kilgarriff, Esquire 1100 E. Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Attorneys for Kenneth and Jill Mays Enrico Tufano, Esquire Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, L.P. Independence Square West The Curtis Center Suite 1130 East Philadelphia, PA 19106-3308 SHUMAKE IAMS, P Dated: March 17, 2010 By van C. Pappas P.O. Box 88 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717)763-1121 IC LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: lsaylor ~pirlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS, Plaintiffs v. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER, AND KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, Defendants v. HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. SERVICES, INC. Additional Defendant CIS Ep-Oi-rt~~ ~~ ~ °~° ' ~=''s~~~:`~?CRY ZOl'14~~te~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~$ ,. ,~,.~: i'' 1. .~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA N0.09-3649 CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Kelle A. Kilgarriff, Esquire Counsel for Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Plaintiffs' Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment maybe entered against you. ~ LAW F S OF PETER J. O, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID # 72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire ID # 200139 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: lsa.lor irlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS, Plaintiffs v. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER, AND KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, Defendants v. HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. SERVICES, INC. Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA N0.09-3649 CIVIL ACTION -LAW PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER and NEW MATTER TO DEFENDANT KENNETH AND JILL MAYS' NEW MATTER and COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, COMES the Plaintiffs, Michael and Marianne Beers (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"), by and through their attorneys, Law Offices of Peter J. Russo, P.C. and files the herein Answer and New Matter to Defendant Kenneth and Jill Mays' New Matter and Counterclaim: 50. Denied. The Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a response to the averment contained in paragraph 50. 51. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 51 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 52. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 52 is a summary of legal documents that control and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly denied. By way of further response, strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 53. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 53 references legal documents that control and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly denied. Byway of further response, strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 54. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 54 references legal documents that control and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly denied. By way of further response, strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 55. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 55 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiffs deny that they were placed on notice of any alleged interest in the disputed property by Answering Defendants and/or their predecessors as early as October 30, 1975, and strict proof of said averment is demanded at the time of trial. 56. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 56 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiffs deny that they and their predecessors had notice that their property description purportedly conflicted with the property which is now claimed, and strict proof of said averment is demanded at the time of trial. 57. Admitted in part and denied in part. The averment contained in Paragraph 57 references legal documents that control and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly denied. By way of further response, Plaintiffs admit that they own neighboring land to the property in question. It is denied that all of said property was purchased on June 10, 2002. 58. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 58 references legal documents that control and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly denied. By way of further response, strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 59. Denied. Plaintiffs, after reasonable investigation, are without sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny the averment set forth in Paragraph 59, as Plaintiffs are unaware of the definition assigned by Answering Defendants' to "occasionally visited." By way of further response, the land at issue is visible from the Plaintiffs' residence, as well as other neighboring parcels of land owned by the Plaintiffs'. Further, the Plaintiffs, as well as their relatives and agents have openly used the land at issue. 60. Denied. Plaintiffs, after reasonable investigation, are without sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny the averment set forth in Paragraph 60. By way of further response, the Plaintiffs were aware of construction taking place at the subdivision behind their neighboring property. The encroachments were unknown until after searching and surveying conducted in the spring of 2008. 61. Denied. Plaintiffs, after reasonable investigation, are without sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny the averment set forth in Paragraph 61. By way of further response, the Plaintiffs were aware of construction taking place at the subdivision behind their neighboring property. The encroachments were unknown until after searching and surveying conducted in the spring of 2008. 62. Denied. Plaintiffs, after reasonable investigation, are without sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny the averment set forth in Paragraph 62. By way of further response, the Plaintiffs were aware of construction taking place at the subdivision behind their neighboring property. The encroachments were unknown until after searching and surveying conducted in the spring of 2008. 63. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 63 references a legal document which controls and any interpretational gloss placed thereon is strictly denied. 64. Admitted. 65. Admitted. 66. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 66 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiffs did provide Defendants reasonable notice, but clearing and construction continued thereafter upon the property at issue, and Answering Defendants did not respond to said notice for months. 67. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs watched construction of Answering Defendants' house, and waited for Answering Defendants to move into the Property. Plaintiffs provided notice to Answering Defendants immediately upon learning that they were encroaching upon Plaintiffs' land, but Answering Defendants' agents continued construction following said notice. 68. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 68 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiffs provided reasonable notice to Answering Defendants that Answering Defendants were encroaching upon the land owned by Plaintiffs. 69. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 69 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 70. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 70 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 71. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 71 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 72. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 72 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 73. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 73 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 74. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 74 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. Plaintiffs deny all other allegations in Paragraphs 50 through 74 of Defendants Mays' New Matter that are not specifically admitted. DEFENDANT MAYS' COUNTER CLAIM (v. PLAINTIFFS) COUNT I --ADVERSE POSSESSION 75. Denied. The Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a response to the averment contained in Paragraph 75. By way of further response, Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the responses in Paragraphs 50 though 74 by reference herein. 76. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 76 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 77. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 77 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 78. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 78 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 79. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 79 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 80. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 80 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 81. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 81 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 82. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 82 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 83. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 83 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 84. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 84 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 85. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 85 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. Plaintiffs deny all other allegations in Paragraphs 75 through 85 of Defendants Mays' Counterclaim, Count I, Adverse Possession that are not specifically admitted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to deny Defendants Mays' Counterclaim for Adverse Possession and dismiss the same. COUNT II-ACQUIESCENCE 86. Denied. The Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a response to the averment contained in Paragraph 86. By way of further response, Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the responses in Paragraphs 50 through 85 by reference herein. 87. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 87 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 88. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 88 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 89. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 89 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 90. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 90 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 91. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 91 is a legal conclusion to which no response is required and strict proof of the same is hereby demanded at the time of trial. Plaintiffs deny all other allegations in Paragraphs 86 through 91 of Defendant Mays' Counterclaim, Count II, Acquiescence that are not specifically admitted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to deny Defendants Mays' Counterclaim for Acquiescence and dismiss the same. DEFENDANT MAYS' CROSS CLAIMS 92. through 120. of Defendants Mays' Answer sets forth Cross Claims directed to defendants, to which no response is required by Plaintiffs. PLAINTIFFS' NEW MATTER 121. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate the responses in Paragraphs 50 through 91 by reference herein. 122. Defendants Mays have failed to set a claim upon which relief maybe granted. 123. Defendants Mays have failed to join an indispensable party. 124. Defendants Mays have failed to mitigate their damages, if any. 125. Defendants Mays' claim for recoverable damages is contrary to the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 126. Defendants Mays maybe barred in whole or in part by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 127. Defendants Mays maybe barred in whole or in part by the principle of res judicata. 128. Defendants Mays' causes of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Statute of Frauds. 129. Defendants Mays' causes of action may be barred in whole or in part by Parol Evidence Rule. 130. Defendants Mays' claim(s) may be barred by the doctrine of estoppel, waiver and/or laches. 131. Defendants Mays' claim(s) may be barred by the Principles of Accord and Satisfaction. 132. Defendants Mays' claim(s) maybe barred by the doctrine of payment/release. 133. Defendants Mays' claim(s) may be barred in whole or in party by the doctrine of economic loss. 134. Defendants Mays voluntarily assumed the risk of the facts set forth in its New Matter and Counterclaim and accordingly their claim(s) is barred. 135. Defendants Mays' claim may be barred and limited by the doctrines of contributory negligence, comparative negligence and/or assumption of the risk. 136. No conduct of the Plaintiffs or agent of the Plaintiffs resulted in or is the proximate cause of any injury or damage sustained by the Defendants Mays. 137. Any injuries and/or damages claimed by Defendants Mays, if proven, were caused by persons other than Plaintiffs and not within the control of Plaintiffs. 138. At all material times hereto Plaintiffs acted reasonably, appropriately and caused no injuries or damage to Defendants Mays. 139. Any harm suffered by the Defendants Mays arose out of its own non- performance of the essential obligations. 140. If Defendants Mays sustained damages alleged in its New :Matter and Counterclaim, which damages are strictly denied, then the damages were caused by the acts or omissions of entities or individuals over which Plaintiffs had no control, or legal duty to control. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that Defendants Mays' New Matter and Counterclaim be dismissed and judgment entered in their favor and against the Defendant Mays without costs to them, but together with such costs, expenses and attorney's fees as authorized bylaw in which the Court deems necessary, just and appropriate under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, LAW ES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID # 72897 ~o Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire ID # 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 PH: (717) 591-1755 FX: (717) 591-1756 VERIFICATION We, Michael Beers and Marianne Beers, verify that the statements made in the foregoing document(s) are true and correct. We understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 3° ~ lo- ~ ~ Date: - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ichael Beers G---- ~. ~ ~u~ ~~~~ Marianne Beers MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS, Plaintiffs v. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER, AND KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, Defendants v. HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. SERVICES, INC. Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA N0.09-3649 CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Amber L. Southard, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of Plaintiffs' Answer and New Matter to Defendant Mays' New Matter and Counterclaim upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: REGULAR US MAIL ADDRESSED TO: Anthony L. DeLuca 113 Front Street P.O. Box 358 Boiling Springs, PA 17007 Attorneys for Defendant Paula Sheffer Evan C. Pappas, Esquire Anthony J. Foschi, Esquire Shumaker Williams P.C. 3425 Simpson Ferry Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorneys for Defendant J.S. Investments, Inc. Kelle A. Kilgarriff, Esquire Scott M. Rothman, Esquire Halberstadt Curley LLC 1100 E. Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays Enrico C. Tufano, Esquire Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman, & Dicker, L.P. Independence Square West The Curtis Center Suite 1130 East Philadelphia, PA 19106-3308 Attorneys for Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. ,-. (~ ~~~,~~I~L~~~:LT~ ~~il Amber L. Southard, Paralegal Date: WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP Enrico C. Tufano, Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendant Identification No. 88435 Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. The Curtis Center, Suite 1130 East Independence Square West Philadelphia, PA 19106 215 627 6900 MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS, Plaintiffs VS. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER and KENNETH and JILL MAYS, Defendants VS. HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC., COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 09-3649 ;m r- c-) ca -< CO Additional Defendant : PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE JOINDER COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: In accord with Rule 1037(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, please enter a rule upon Defendant Paula Sheffer to file a Joinder Complaint in the above-captioned case within twenty (20) days or suffer the entry of a judgment of non pros. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKE "LLP By: Enrico C. Tufano, Esquirle) Attorney for Additional efendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. Date: March 31, 2011 RULE AND NOW, this 1 day of k , 2011, a rule is hereby granted upon Defendant Paula Sheffer to file a Joinder Complaint within twenty (20) days after service hereof or a judgment of non pros may be entered. BY: Pro onotary CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Enrico C. Tufano, Esquire, attorney for Additional Defendant, Hoover Engineering Services, Inc., hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of Additional Defendant, Hoover Engineering Services, Inc.'s Praecipe for Rile to File Joinder Complaint to the attorneys listed herein via United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, on the date referenced below. Anthony L. DeLuca, Esquire 113 Front Street P.O. Box 358 Boiling Springs, PA 17007 Attorney for Defendant, Paula Sheffer Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, ESQUIRE 5006 e. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorney for Plaintiffs Evan C. Pappas, Esquire Anthony J. Foschi, Esquire SHUMAKER WILLIAMS, P.C. 3425 Simpson Ferry Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorneys for Defendant, J.S. Investments, Inc. Kelle A. Kilgarriff, Esquire Scott M. Rothman, Esquire HALBERSTADT CURLEY LLC 1100 E. Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Attorney for Defendants, Kenneth and Jill Mays BY: Enrico C. Tufano, Date: March 31, 2011 RUE-0-OFFICE ZCt I ;APP 20 PPS 4: l p CUMBERLAM) r, MICHAEL AND : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MARIANNE BEERS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 09-3649 VS. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER AND CIVIL ACTION -LAW KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Hoover Engineering Services, Inc., Additional Defendant NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. You are hereby notified to plead to the following Complaint to Join Hoover Engineering Services, Inc as an additional Defendant filed by Defendant, Paula Sheffer, within twenty (20) days or else you may suffer the entry of a judgment against you. Dated 62- Anthony L. DeLuca, Esquire 113 Front Street P. O. Box 358 Boiling Springs, PA 17007 (717) 258©6844 ID#18067 Attorney for Paula Sheffer principal place of business at 658 Gaumer Road, Suite 100, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. 4. The Plaintiffs, Michael and Marianne Beers, instituted this action against Paula Sheffer and others seeking to have Paula Sheffer ejected from certain property which Plaintiffs claimed title to, as well as damages resulting from purported trespass on the property. 5. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, they hold title to a piece of property identified as Tax Parcel 13-23-551-151 ("Subject Property"). 6. On or about May 13, 2008, the defendant, Paula Sheffer, acquired title to a property identified as Tax Parcel 13-23-0551-157 from J.S. Investments, Inc. 7. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, a portion of Paula Sheffer's property sits on the Subject Property and therefore on the property of the Plaintiffs. 8. Prior to May 13, 2008, Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. was retained to perform a subdivision plan for Glenwood Terrace, in Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 9. Paula Sheffer believes and therefore avers that Additional Defendant, Hoover Engineering Services, Inc., surveyed the proposed subdivision, and created a survey that it knew would be relied upon by J.S. Investments, Inc. and subsequent purchasers of the property. 10. Paula Sheffer believes and therefore avers that J.S. Investments, Inc. and subsequent purchasers of property at Glenwood Terrace relied upon Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc.'s survey. 11. Paula Sheffer believes and therefore avers that Additional Defendant, Hoover Engineering Services, Inc., intended to induce the reliance of J.S. Investment, Inc. and subsequent purchasers of property in Glenwood Terrace subdivision upon the survey. 12. Paula Sheffer believes and therefore avers that Addition Defendant, Hoover Engineering Services, Inc., was aware that the survey was an inaccurate depiction of the property lines, and/or had reason to know that the survey was an inaccurate depiction of the property lines of Glenwood Terrace. 13. Paula Sheffer therefore avers that, if Plaintiffs establish any right to relief under the Complaint (which Defendant, Paula Sheffer, specifically denies Plaintiffs are entitled to), then Paula Sheffer avers that the damages were caused by the negligence of Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. in subdividing the property, and/or its failure to discover that the property now claimed by Plaintiffs overlapped with the property of J.S. Investments, Inc. and that the additional Defendant, Hoover Engineering Services, Inc., is solely liable, jointly liable and/or liable over the Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, the Defedant, Paula Sheffer, demands judgment in her favor and against addition Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc., judgment that if there is any liability to Plaintiffs, that additional Defendant, Hoover Engineering Services, Inc., is solely liable, jointly liable and/or liable over to Plaintiffs, and in the event that a verdict is recovered by Plaintiffs against the Defendant, Paula Sheffer,that she may have judgment over and against the Additional Defendant, Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. by way of indemnification and/or contribution for the amount recovered by Plaintiffs against Paula Sheffer, together with attorneys fees and costs. Date: o zcT (Z,?? o>".- /tA10 Anthony L. D ca, Esquire Z VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the facts and information set forth in the foregoing Complaint to Join additional Defendant, Hoover Engineering Services, Inc are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Paula Sheffer ?' -` MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS, Plaintiffs VS. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER AND KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, Defendants HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC., Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-3649 CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Anthony L. DeLuca, Esquire, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the defendant, Paula Sheffer's Complaint to Join Additional Defendant, Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. upon the persons and in the manner indicated below: REGULAR US MAIL ADDRESSED TO: Peter J. Russo, Esquire Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Evan C. Pappas, Esquire Anthony J. Foschi, Esquire Shumaker Williams, P.C. 3425 Simpson Ferry Road Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Attorneys for Defendant J.S. Investments, Inc. Kelle A. Kilgarriff, Esquire Scott Rothman, Esquire Halberstadt Curley LLC 1100 East Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428 Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays Enrico C. Tufano, Esquire Wilson,Elser,Moskowitz,Edelman,& Dicker,L.P. Independence Square West The Curtis Center Suite 1130 East Philadelphia, PA 19106-3308 Attorney for Hoover Engineering, Inc. Date c o?Q 97-d r Antho . DeLuca, V LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: prusso a)yjrlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS, Plaintiffs V. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER AND KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, Defendants V. HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Additional Defendant -a3 rnCo r z '- O z ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN IA NO. 09-3649 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO AMEND Q Kindly amend the above caption as follows: MICHAEL AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MARIANNE BEERS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. 09-3649 J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER AND CIVIL ACTION - LAW KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, Defendants V. HOOVER ENGINEERING JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SERVICES, INC. Additional Defendant 7 Respectfully sub fitted, Date: / 11f11 LAW ES OF ETER J. RUSSO, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Peter J. Russo, Esquire ID #72897 Elizabeth J. Saylor, Esquire ID # 200139 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 PH: (717) 591-1755 FX: (717) 591-1756 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. BY: Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Facsimile: (717) 591-1756 Email: prusso(a,pirlaw.com Attorneys for. Plaintiffs MICHAEL AND MARIANNE BEERS, Plaintiffs V. J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER AND KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, Defendants V. HOOVER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-3649 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Derek M. Strouphauer, hereby certify that I am on this day serving a copy of the Praecipe to Amend upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: REGULAR US MAIL ADDRESSED TO: Anthony L. DeLuca, Esquire 113 Front Street P.O. Box 358 Boiling Springs, PA 17007 Attorney for Defendant Paula Sheffer Evan C. Pappas, Esquire Shumaker Williams, P.C. 3425 Simpson Ferry Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorneys for Defendan, J.S. Investments, Inc. Kelle A. Kilgarriff, Esquire Scott M. Rothman, Esquire Halberstadt Curley LLC 1100 E. Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Attorneys for Defendants Kenneith and Jill Mays Enrico C. Tufano, Esquire Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP The Curtis Center, Suite 1130 East Independence Square West Philadelphia, PA 19106 Attorneys for Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. Derek 1T. Date: 0 LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO P.C. BY: Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 MAR -7 Mi l : 1;2 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 w n Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 `2UMBERLAND CCU # 1 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 PENNSYLVANIA Attorneys for Plaintiff's MICHAEL AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MARIANNE BEERS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs • v. NO. 09-3649 J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER AND CIVIL ACTION - LAW KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, . Defendants v. HOOVER ENGINEERING JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SERVICES,INC.) • Additional Defendant . ORDER TO SETTLE,DISCONTINUE, AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter an Order to Settle, Discontinue, and End the above-captioned matter with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. By: Peter J. Russo, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID: 72897 5006 E. Trindle Road, Suite 203 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Telephone: (717) 591-1755 Attorneys for Plaintiff's r MICHAEL AND • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MARIANNE BEERS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs • v. NO. 09-3649 J.S. INVESTMENTS, INC., PAULA SHEFFER AND CIVIL ACTION-LAW KENNETH AND JILL MAYS, . Defendants • v. HOOVER ENGINEERING • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SERVICES,INC.) Additional Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Derek M. Strouphauer, Paralegal hereby certify that on this 4th Day of December, 2013, I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons, in the manner indicated: US FIRST CLASS MAIL Kelle A. Kilgarriff, Esquire Halberstadt Curley, LLC 1100 E. Hector Street, Suite 425 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth and Jill Mays Evan C. Pappas, Esquire Shumaker Williams P.C. 3425 Simpson Ferry Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorneys for Defendant J.S. Investments, Inc. Anthony L. DeLuca, Esquire 113 Front Street P.O. Box 358 Boiling Springs, PA 17007 Attorneys for Defendant Paula Sheffer Enrico C. Tufano, Esquire Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman& Dicker, LLP The Curtis Center, Suite 1130 East Independence Square West Philadelphia, PA 19106 Attorneys for Additional Defendant Hoover Engineering Services, Inc. Date: J9i579i) 4■"" •ere . S ':`!!fie , 'ar