HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-2329COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NOTICE OF APPEAL
Judicial District, County Of FROM
DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT
COMMON PLEAS No. 04-229 Civil
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on
the date and in the case referenced below.
NA E OF APPELLANT MAG. DIST. NO. NAME F D.J.
1J IEi- L. ?NINE1{t? 109 3 0 1 I k9olo E 3eNOe2
ADDRESS OF APPELLANT CITY STATE ZIP CODE
ZtS 21pGe -..t SNI PPEN56V(aG . ?q 11 S I
DA OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF (Pla WN) ,/ (Derentlanl'
gIL -2r 0 2Di'R CF-11kN F eei221 s IGHINEN 1 Y nC? L
DOCKET No. SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT OR ATTORNEY OR AGENT
CV -000OOgSS-O`I
This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under P lant was Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(6) in action
R.C.P.D.J. No. 1008B.
This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty
SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case.
(20) days after (ling the NOTICE of APPEAL.
Sgnefuro&Profhm coy or DspNy
PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE
(This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF
NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee.
PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary
Enter rule uponDp4-jIf k. L- _R1-11 IVc t.(0-7 appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal
Name or appellee(s)
(Common Pleas No. 03-2329 Civil ) within twent (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros.
Signatureofappellantoraft-A ra ent
RULE: To A,AE.. L_?l11*?Et'lik-ii" appellees) J
Name or appellee(s)
(1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service
of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail.
(2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
(3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing.
r -
Date: May 24, 20 04 k - ?l
-- - - -- -- - --- - Signature of thonotery o
YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTI TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL.
AOPC 312-02
COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY
PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT
0i1rs proe; of sc,o,ce MUs7- SE FILED kNt t HIN TEN (tit?) DAYS Ai- r ER Flung 0f the rrcxice r ap??eat- Checi< apptre,tdle? boxrs.,
COMMONWEAL-rH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY nF ss
AFFIDAVIT: ! hereby (arxear) (aifinn) that I served
a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Gammon Fleas No. anon the D
{aafe of service) . 20 011 by person w service
senrr r s repaint aaached herelo, and upon the appellee, (name;
2u j oy oereonai service
ser oe , recmpi tt ;he-d here tc,
(SWORN) (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME
THIS DAY OF , 20
signaitro ofoNlc'I velm whom afr"0 It was m[a4,
MyMy ofonmet
commission r.xpires nn . 20
1
strict Justice designated therein or
by (?ertibeJitregRisredl ;aai!
o.
by (certified) (regisiered) mad.
rqn '??e ofzflr,nt
? v
o
x
S
? .'..:. IV a
y
?1
r
T
C_ -
f rQ
AOPC 312A 02
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF: CUMBERLAND
Mag. Dist. No.:
09-3-01
DJ Name: Hon.
HAROLD E. BENDER
Add`ess: 81 WALNUT BOTTOM ROAD
P.O. BOX 361
SHIPPENSBURG, PA
Telephone: (717 ) 532-7676 17257-0361
DANIEL L. RHI
215 RIDGE AVE
PA 17257
THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT:
Judgment:
Judgment was entered for:
NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT
PLAINTIFF: CIVIL CASE
NAME and ADDRESS _
FBARD, ROMAN & TERRI
22 MIDDLESPRING RD
SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257
L
VS.
DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS
FRHINEHART, DANIEL L
215 RIDGE AVE
SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257
L
DocketNo.: CV-0000098-04
Date Filed: 4/08/04
DEFAULT JUDGMRNT PLTF
(Name) RARTI, ROMAN Jr, TRRRT
Judgment was entered against: (Name) RRTNERART, DANTEI. I.
in the amount of $ 1 , 271 _00 on: (Date of Judgment)
1-1 Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
El Damages will be assessed on:
E] This case dismissed without prejudice.
Amount of Judgment Subject to
Attachment/42 Pa.C.S. § 8127 $
Portion of Judgment for physical
damages arising out of residential
lease $
(Date & Time)
4/2A/O4
Amount of Judgment $ 1,200.00
Judgment Costs $ 71.00
Interest on Judgment $ .00
Attorney Fees $ .00
Total $ 1,271.00
Post Judgment Credits $
Post Judgment Costs $
Certified Judgment Total $
ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE
OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON' PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU
MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL.
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTICES, FjHE JUDGMENT HOLDER
ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST-COME FROM THE COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUSTICE.
UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE
A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES,
OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT"
e?
"61L,0-41 0??l a ..glum
ate /Ff Ct -ustic .
D Ud
I certif
y that this i a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings Yonthe gNgnt
J 0r
r Date Dlstriot usttoe
My commission expires first Monday of January, 2006. SEAL-'
I
J
N t;X w
CA\
?? U
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTICE OF APPEAL
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FROM
Judicial District, County Of
DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT BA?
COMMON PLEAS No. 04-2429 Civil
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is given that the appellant has fled in the above court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on
the date and in the case referenced below.
MAG. DIST. N0. NAM OF D.J.
OF APPELLANT
?tf L ?Mlti?tilrl?97 09 3 4 ?RaLO E e?ve12
? STATE ZIP CODE
GIN
ADDRESS OF APPELLANT y'
? l< 1???G f ?Rt, ePEr'- Jjx P??. 112 I
DA E OF JUDGMENT NT:z OF (Plaintill) ? (Delonq?p?(??
`Vitt 21F 6y p }2pM f\t r 'PU?t vs FN,Nt1l L/p,« L.
DOCKET NO. SIGNATURE OF APPEL'1?NT OR ATTORNEY OR AGENT
r
This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under P e//ant was Claimant (see Pa. R. C. P. D.J. No. 1001(6) in action
R.C.P.D.J. No. 10088.
This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty
SUPERSEDERS to the judgment for possession in this case. (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL.
Sgnetureo/Prdhorrotary wDepury
PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE
(This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF
NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee.
PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary
Enter rule upon Per t E L - --Pp, k E N kit appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal
Name of appellee(s)
(Common Pleas No. 03-2329 Civil within.UlQnty 20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros.
) -- L-
Signature ofappetlantorattor yo agent
RULE: To L. Y?>at?+Erl appellees
Name of eppellee(s)
(1) You are notifledthata rula is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service
of this rule upon you by personal sei0ce, or by certified or registered mail.
(2) If yoy dd•not file 'a complaint wlli n tpis time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
. r
(3) The. dole of service of this rule if serr ipe was by mail is the date of the mailing.
Date. May 24 . 20 0 4 k t 4 L. __
i Signature of thonotary or D4 ty
3)
YOU MUST INCL,'PE A COPY, OP4rHE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL.
AOPC 312-02
COURT FILE
nj
ru
Crb
o
ll
?
Q D
O
FE 5C
N .
,
.Z
cV
J r
--X +- y
F Sl i1
0
N
?- Pnetagn
C3 Certified Fee
til
Return Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
A
C3 Restricted Delivery Fee
C3 (Endorsement Required)
O Total Postage & Fees g
3
e rpient's ame IPlease P
R^ r . roman I
PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT
(This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicubto boxes
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND as
AFFIDAVIT; I hereby (swear) (affirm) that 1 served
® a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas No. 04- 232,Qpon the District Justice designated therein an,
(date of service) May 2 7 , 2004 , [I by personal service ® by (certified) (r
Q4X6VA) mail,
sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name)
Roman Bard & Terri Bard°f
May 2 7 , 20 04 ? by personal service by (certified) *Pj104W mail,
sender's receipt attached hereto.
(SWORN>> ttAFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME
T 27th DAYOF May 20 04 .
S(gnature of , iclot before when
affrdevif was made
Notary Public
Title of official
My commission ex it c 20
AOPC 312A - 02
Notarial Seal
Connie J. Tritt Notary Public
Carlisle, Cumberland County
My Commission Expires Oct. 5, 2004
4n
a
Co
She t, t No. ar PO Box No. ---"""---""------'----
v? 21 iNddlespring Road
O Cit State, ZIP.4"-"--"
hippensbura. PA 17257
37_
2.30.. Poslmed.
1.75 ere
May 27, 2004
Srgn hire cfutGenf
Pnstage & 37
C3 Certified Fee 2.30
Return Receipt Fee Here
co (Endorsement Required) 1.75
Restricted Delivery Fee
o° (Endorsement Required) 3.50 May 27, 2004
C3 Total Postage & Fees ,$ 7 C?'2
O
Rxip/enr's Name (Please Print Clearly) (to be completed by mailers
^' Ms . Ter ? ,?,ard
0 --"'-
r- ?"Ciippensburg, PA 17257
LdI2I?SAIV2IL/LN?WOQ11f 90 21allON 3HI 30 O[00 VO QfI iNIIISf1 fl OA
Satlou qlo d X1 da[
b00Z `LZ ,?uW :mu
-Sug!tm agl3o alup aql si [itu Xq stm Oil uas3i a[ng sigl Io aoiAZas J0 OMP 3T41 -E
110A ISNIVJV GALE LN1 gg
AVW 908d NON 30 ,LNffNDaflf e `auzil siql uipm lusn[duioj e ah3 lou op no,t3I 'Z
•Titux p3101si50z io pagiuao ,Cq io
aoiASas [euosaad , q not uodn sing sigl jo aoiAaas 3o amp aql JOT j! s,fup (OZ) ,iluaml uiglim Ieaddu
ssgl ui luiuldwo:) e al!j of no,C uodn pai0ua ,fgazaq si aing e lugl pagilou we noA , I
saa[laddV `ping iaiaZ puu pmg ueuzog oZ :g-lf1N
luulioddV io3 XaujollV
azmbsg `apugS au,ium
•soid uou jo luaut3pnl3o
, JIIJa Pips ao oing3o aaiAias cage sXtP (OZ) Xluaml uiglim (p,u-) 6Z£Z b0 'oN seo[d uocuuzoD)
iuaddu sigl ui luit[dwoD t o[g of `saailaddt `pmg iu3l put Pxuit utuxog uodn oing zalug
,'J'210uogloid 01 :UdIDHVgd
a'IIci 01 THIN (INV
INIV IdWOD 91Id O.I. glfl2I XHINI 01 gdlDHV-Hd
WUHJ, 'IIAIO 6Z£Z170 'ON :
A W1 - NOLLOV -IIAID
VINVA'IASNNgd `AINflOD QNVJHHffWflD
10 SVE[ld NOWWOD 30 LMflOD alll NI
saalladdV
CfHVH R[ al
pup Q2IVg NVWOW
A
lutlloddV
`.LNVH'ANIH-d "I'IgINVQ
p
e?_ ,?-?_
G,
O .rS ?
?L ti
1 :
3 s
Y }?' ? .._T In
FLU ? Cl C.t
:
w
O N ?
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Roman Bard, and Civil Action - Law
Terri Bard, Plaintiffs
Vs.
Daniel L. Rhinehart,
Defendant
No. 04-2:329 Civil Term
NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice
are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with
the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that
if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against
you b 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. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT
HIRING AN ATTORNEY.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL
SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA
Telephone: 717-249-3166
a
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
Roman Bard, and
Terri Bard, Plaintiffs Civil Action - Law
Vs.
Daniel L. Rhinehart,
Defendant
No. 04-23:29 Civil Term
COMPLAINT
Now come the plaintiffs, Roman Bard and Terri Bard, by their attorney,
Barbara B. Townsend, Esq., and complain against Defendant Daniel L. Rhinehart
and say:
1• Plaintiffs Roman Bard and Terri Bard are adults residing at 22 Middlespring
Road, Shippensburg, Cumberland County, PA 17257.
2. Defendant Daniel L. Rhinehart is an adult individual residing at 215 Ridge
Ave., Shippensburg, PA 17257.
3. At all times hereunder defendant, hereinafter Landlord, was the owner of
premises located at 331 E. Fort Street, Shippensburg, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, hereinafter Property.
4. During the summer of 1997, plaintiffs, hereinafter Tenants, the
Property from Landlord. rented
5. On or before August 31, 1997, Tenants paid Landlord a security deposit of six
hundred ($600.00) dollars at the commencement of their lease of the Property.
6. As part of the leasehold, the Property was equipped with working appliances,
including, but not limited to a refrigerator.
7. Tenants continued to occupy the Property until April 16, 2004.
8• Landlord, knowing that Tenants were planning to buy the residence where
they currently reside, gave Tenants a formal notice to quit the Property on April 16,
2004.
9. On or before May 31, 2004, Landlord had secured the address of the property
which Tenants intended to occupy.
10. Tenants surrendered the Property to Landlord on or about June 12, 2004.
I
11. On or about June 11, 2004, Landlord physically appeared at Tenants'
residence and reminded them to quit the Property, current
12• Shortly after Tenants quit the Property, Landlord pursued litigation against
Tenants, using their current residential address, demanding that Tenants pay a
water, sewer and refuse bill to the Borough of Shippensburg. Landlord secured
judgment and has executed on the judgment.
13. Landlord accepted surrender of the Property on or about June 12, 2004.
14. Landlord has failed to date to give Tenants written notice of how the security
deposit has been applied.
15. Landlord has failed to provide Tenants with the interest earned on the security
deposit since at least September 1, 1999.
16. Commencing in the winter of 1998, the bathroom on the first floor of the
residence would be inoperable because of the water pipes freezing during the
extreme cold weather for periods of up to five days at ai time three to five times per
winter. This would also disable Tenants' clothes washer and the kitchen sink.
17. Tenants notified Landlord on numerous occasions about the difficulty with
frozen water pipes and the apparent cause of a hole in the floor of the bathroom
allowing severely cold weather to markedly chill the water supply in the bathroom.
18. As a result of the frozen water pipes, Tenants were unable to properly use
one bathroom [of two] in a household of two adults and four children, unable to use
their clothes washing machine and unable to use the kitchen sink for periods lasting
several days three to five times each winter.
19. Tenants finally got Landlord to agree to allow them to deduct the cost of
materials to correct the condition which allowed the water to freeze.
20. Tenants installed new sub flooring, the flooring, and other repairs in the
bathroom.
21. Landlord never compensated Tenant for labor for the repairs to the floor.
22. In 2003, the refrigerator failed.
23. Tenants notified Landlord immediately that the refrigerator needed to be
repaired.
24• Landlord, after a period in excess of twenty-four hours, notified Tenants that
the refrigerator would not be repaired.
25. Landlord demanded that Tenants pay half the cost of a new refrigerator and
Tenants paid Landlord four hundred twenty-five ($425.00) for the new refrigerator.
26• When Tenants quit the Property, Landlord refused to
value of the refrigerator and refused to allow Tenants.
Pay half the fair market
27• Tenants request double the security deposit or judgment move the refrigerator.
the sum of $1,200 pursuant to Landlord and Tenant, i8 P S ent against Landlord in
28. In addition Tenants request the unpaid interest at the legal rate (of six (6%
per cent for Landlord's failure pursuant to Landlord and Tenant, 68 P'S. 250
in the amount of $180.00
[$600 X .06 X 5 years to September 2004], .511b)
29. Tenants request that Landlord reimburse them for half the value of the
refrigerator in the amount of three hundred ($300.00) dollars.
30. Tenants filed an action against Landlord to recover their security deposit
before Magistrate Bender and paid costs of seventy-one ($71,00) dollars.
$1,68 00 a EFO eE Plaintiffs
ureq dunst judgment against Defendant in the amount of
behalf expended, and
costs, such other relief as the Coue magistrate matter, in their
deems appropriate.
Barbara B. To
send Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs,,
Roman Bard and Terri Bard
S.Ct.# 23174
32 West Queen Street
Chambersburg, PA 17201-2121
(717)267-32',44
I hereby verify that the facts set forth in the fore oin
to the best of my knowledge instrument and belief, and that I make this
correct
to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unworn falsits veri Aukodnty as
authorized by the Judicial Code and verification subject
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure,
Date: j
I?
c? 6
-n
., r
L
t C7
n
r
C
t;. ? ._ ca 7
G
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE '9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Roman Bard, and Civil Action - Law
Terri Bard,
Plaintiffs
Vs.
No. 04-2329 Civil Term
Daniel L. Rhinehart,
Defendant
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
: SS
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN
Barbara B. Townsend, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says that
she served a true and correct copy of the Complaint upon Wayne Shade, Esquire, by
regular mail on June 16, 2004, from the United States Post Office in Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania.
/-Barbara B. Tiw?n -Zd
Notary Public
NOTARIAL SEAL
RENEE D. BRENEMAN, NOTARY PUBLIC
CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 9, 2007
c~, ? o
o T
7-1
r
=`
Mr
z
_
P
d r
«
? -Om
t:r p
1
S L= P`J O m
„4r O :iJ
ROMAN BARD and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
TERRI BARD, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION -LAW
V. : NO. 04-2329 CIVIL TERM
DANIEL L. RHINEHA RT,
Defendant
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Barbara B. Townsend, Esquire and
Roman Bard and
Terri Bard
You are hereby notified that you have twenty (20) days in which to plead to the
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West P"a"re[ Stree[
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
within New Matter and Counterclaim or a Default Judgment may be entered against you.
Date: July 6, 2004
Attorney for Defendant
Wayn .Shade, Esquire
Supreme Court No. 15712
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone;: 717-243-0220
ROMAN BARD and
TERRI BARD,
Plaintiffs
V.
DANIEL L. RHINEHART,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 04-2329 CIVIL TERM
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
L-3.
Admitted.
4.
The averments of ¶4 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, Landlord avers
that Tenants leased the subject premises from Landlord on August 1, 1993.
5.
The averments of ¶5 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, Tenants were
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
not required to pay a security deposit at the urging of the Cumberland County Housing
Authority due to the dire financial straits of Tenants as evidenced by the fact that Tenants
were required to pay only $15 of the $600 monthly rent. Further on the contrary,
Landlord avers that 16(C) of the contract among the Cumberland County Housing
Authority and the parties hereto provided for reimbursement to Landlord by the
Cumberland County Housing Authority for damages where a security deposit was not
paid to Landlord.
6.
The averments of ¶6 of the Complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is
admitted that the subject premises were equipped with working appliances including a
refrigerator, but it is denied that such appliances were part of the leasehold. On the
contrary, Landlord avers that appliances were not required under the provisions of the
contract among the Cumberland County Housing Authority and the parties hereto or
under any other agreement among the parties hereto.
7.
The averments of ¶7 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, Landlord avers
that Tenants continued to occupy the property until June 20, 2003.
8.
The averments of ¶8 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, Landlord avers
that he had no knowledge that Tenants were planning to purchase the residence where
they currently reside. Further on the contrary, Landlord avers that the Notice to Quit was
not given to Tenants on April 16, 2003, but rather was hand-delivered to them on April
10, 2003. By way of further answer, Landlord avers that the residence in which Tenants
currently reside was nol listed on the Real Estate Multi-List until after April 10, 2003.
9.
Admitted.
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
-2-
10.
The averments of ¶10 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, Landlord
avers that Tenants surrendered the premises to Landlord on June 20, 2003, although rent
was paid only through June 15, 2003.
11.
The averments of ¶11 of the Complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It
is admitted that Landlord appeared at Tenants' current residence and inquired as to when
they would have their personal effects out of his property, but it is denied that the visit
took place on or about June 11, 2004. On the contrary, Landlord avers that the visit took
place in June of 2003.
12.
It is admitted that Tenants defaulted with respect to the water and sewer bill for
the subject premises resulting in a judgment in favor of Landlord and against Tenants in
the amount of $911.
13.
The averments of ¶13 of the Complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It
is admitted that Landlord accepted surrender of the premises, but it is denied that
Landlord accepted surrender of the premises on or about June 12, 2004. On the contrary,
Landlord avers that Landlord accepted surrender of the property on June 20, 2003. By
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
-3-
way of further response, Landlord avers that Plaintiff Terri Bard was observed exiting the
property on several occasions after June 20, 2003.
14.
The averments of ¶14 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, Landlord
avers that Landlord was unable to account for the security deposit because Tenants never
made a security deposit. By way of further response, the averments in response to 15
above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
15.
The averments of 115 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, the averments
in response to ¶14 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
16.
The averments' of ¶16 of the Complaint, being barred by the applicable statute of
limitations, are denied. By way of further response, Landlord avers that Tenants advised
Landlord that Tenants bad a friend who was a plumber who would reroute the pipes to
avoid future problems. Landlord consented to that resolution suggested by Tenants.
Tenants purchased supplies from McCune Lumber Company which were charged to and
paid by Landlord. Thereafter, Tenants made no further complaints with regard to the
water pipes in the subject premises.
WAYNE F. SHADE
At omey at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
-4-
17.
The averments of ¶17 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, the averments
of ¶16 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
18.
The averments of ¶18 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, the averments
of 116 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
19.
The averments of 119 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, Landlord
avers that the materials were charged directly to Landlord from McCune Lumber
Company.
20.
Admitted. By way of further response, Landlord avers that Tenants requested
permission to make the alterations which were not. necessary to habitability of the subject
premises but were optional and that Landlord paid. for all of the materials.
21.
Admitted. By way of further response, Landlord avers that Tenants never
requested compensation for labor for repairs to the bathroom floor either before or after
the work was performed.
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
-5-
22.
The averments of 122 of the Complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It
is admitted that the refrigerator failed, but it is denied that the refrigerator failed in 2003.
On the contrary, Landlord avers that the refrigerator failed on December 30, 2001.
23.
The averments' of ¶23 of the Complaint to the effect that Tenants notified
Landlord immediately that the refrigerator needed to be repaired, being within the
exclusive knowledge of Tenants, are denied; and proof thereof is demanded. By way of
further response, Landlord avers that there was nothing in the lease among the parties
which placed a legal duty upon Landlord to provide or maintain appliances.
24.
The averments of ¶24 of the Complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
is admitted that Landlord notified Tenants that the refrigerator could not be repaired, but
it is denied that Landlord waited more than twenty-four hours to respond to Tenants. On
the contrary, Landlord avers that Tenants notified Landlord of the problem with the
refrigerator while Landlord was at work. Upon his departure from work on the same day
of being so notified, Landlord proceeded directly to the subject premises. Although
having no legal obligation to do so and as an accommodation to Tenants, Landlord and
Plaintiff Roman Bard drove immediately to the Sears & Roebuck store at the
Chambersburg Mall where a new refrigerator was purchased.
-6-
25.
The averments of ¶25 of the Complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It
is admitted that Tenants agreed to pay half the cost of a new refrigerator because
Landlord was not required to maintain appliances in the subject premises, but it is denied
that Tenants paid Landlord $425 on account of the; new refrigerator. On the contrary,
Landlord avers that Landlord paid the full cost of $430 for the refrigerator at the time of
purchase and that Tenants reimbursed Landlord in the amount of $215 in installment
payments thereafter as additional rent.
26.
The averments of ¶26 of the Complaint are denied. On the contrary, Landlord
avers that Tenants never mentioned the refrigerator when they vacated the subject
premises. By way of further response, Landlord avers that the door handles were broken
off the two year old refrigerator and that the property to which Tenants moved after
vacating the subject premises was equipped with a refrigerator.
27.
Admitted. By way of further response, Landlord denies that Tenants are entitled
to damages with respect to a security deposit, and the averments of ¶5 above are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully sett forth.
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
-7-
28.
Admitted. By way of further response, Landlord denies that Tenants are entitled
to damages with respect to a security deposit, and the averments of 15 above are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
29.
Admitted. By way of further response, Landlord denies that Tenant is entitled to
anything in connection with the refrigerator, and the averments of ¶25 above are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth.
30.
Admitted. By way of further response, Landlord avers that liability for costs of
suit will not be determined until final disposition of these proceedings.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that the Complaint be dismissed and
that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs.
NEW MATTER
31.
Landlord avers that averments by Tenants concerning events that occurred more
than four years prior to the April 8, 2004, filing of Tenants' Complaint in the office of the
District Justice are barred by the statute of limitations.
WAYNE F. SHADE
Anomey at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
-8-
32.
Where Tenants agreed to pay for half the value of the replacement refrigerator, any
claims with respect thereto are barred under the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that the Complaint be dismissed and
that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs.
COUNTERCLAIM
33.
When Tenants took possession of the subject premises on August 1, 1993, the
premises were in like new condition having been completely redecorated.
34.
Among the appointments of the property were beautiful, freshly finished hardwood
floors.
35.
In violation of the terms of their lease, Tenants kept domestic animals in the
property.
36.
When Tenants vacated the subject premises, the odor of animal excrement in the
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
subject premises was so overpowering that it was necessary to paint over the beautiful
hardwood floors with an oil base paint in order to seal the odors into the wood, and it was
necessary to replace carpeting for the same reason..
-9-
37.
The drywall in the subject premises that had not been destroyed by Tenants was
covered with writing.
38.
As a result of the severe damage inflicted upon the subject premises by Tenants, it
was necessary for Landlord to make the following expenditures to repair the premises:
Carpet $1,568.00
Materials 1310.89
TOTAL $2,878.89
39.
When Tenants vacated the subject premises, they left the property littered with
trash which required an expenditure of $95.20 to the Borough of Shippensburg for
removal.
40.
When Tenants vacated the subject premises on June 20, 2003, they had paid rent
only through June 15, 2003, leaving them liable for rent in the amount of $100 at $20 per
day.
WAYNE P. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
41.
From the time that Landlord issued his notice to quit to Tenants on April 10, 2003,
he made it known that the apartment would be becoming available so that by the time that
Tenants vacated the premises on June 20, 2003, Landlord had parties who wanted to rent
the subject premises.
42.
Due to the extensive repairs required for the damage inflicted upon the subject
premises by Tenants, Landlord was unable to rent the subject premises until August 1,
2003, as a result of which he lost an additional forty-one days of rent in the amount of
$820.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment against Plaintiffs in the amount of
$3,894.09 plus costs and interest from August 1, 2003.
Wayne . Shade, Esquire
Supreme Court No. 15712
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone: 717-243-0220
Attorney for Defendant
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
_11_
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter and
Counterclaim are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to
authorities.
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
Date: July b, 2004
b
- y
-Ti
c? -r
rn F-_
- r Z:rn
? J
!- -
j
lTfn
cn
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
Roman Bard, and Civil Action - Law
Terri Bard, Plaintiffs
Vs.
Daniel L. Rhinehart,
Defendant
TO: Wayne F. Shade, Esquire
Daniel L. Rhinehart
No. 04-2329 Civil Term
NOTICE TO PLEAD
You are hereby notified that you have twenty (20) days in which to plead to
the within New Matter or a Default Judgment may be entered against you.
Date: July 29, 2004
Barbara B. Town nd, Esq.
4Aey ttfor PI ntiffs,
Roman Bard and Terri Bard
S.Ct.# 2.;174
32 West Queen Street
Chambersburg, PA 17201-2121
(717)267-3244
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
Roman Bard, and Civil Action - Law
Terri Bard, Plaintiffs
Vs. No. 04-2329 Civil Term
Daniel L. Rhinehart,
Defendant
Reply to New Matter
31. Denied. Tenants neither admit or deny the allegation as it is a conclusion of
law to which no response is required. Not withstanding the foregoing, Landlord's
actions have been continuous and have occurred within the past four years.
32. Denied. Tenants neither admit or deny the allegation as it is a conclusion of
law to which no response is required.
Answer to Counterclaim Containingi New Matter
33. Denied. To the contrary, the Property was accepted by Terri Lindsey, now
Terri Bard under two leases, one lease in her sole name with Landlord, guaranteed
by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, herein HUD,
and a simultaneous lease with Landlord in her name and the name of John Bard,
herein Father-in-law, for the benefit of herself, her four children and her dog. At
the time of the signing of the lease, the Property had not been remodeled or
redocorated. It looked reasonable, but nothing was brand new. At the time Tenant
vacated the property, the Property remained, at least on the ground floor, in the
same condition as when Terri Lindsey took possession.
34. Denied. To the contrary, although there were hardwood floors, these, at the
time the Property was rented to Terri Bard, formerly Terri Lindsey, the floors had
not been refinished. Except for slight additional wear and tear to be expected in a
ten year occupancy, the floors were, at the time Terri Lindsey surrendered the
Property in June, 2003, in the same condition as they were at the beginning of her
occupancy.
35. Denied in part. To the contrary, when Terri Lindsey looked at the Property,
and moved into the Property in August, 1993, she was accompanied by her dog
together with her four infant children. While it is true that at least one of the two
written leases containted a covenant that Terri Lindsey was not to maintain any
pets on the property, commencing in August 1993 until she surrendered the
Property in June, 2003, Landlord knew or should have known that pets were
maintained in the Property and in the house. Landlord did not object at any time
during that ten year period regarding the animals, and diid, on occasion, enter the
Property with his own dog. Further, said leases expired about eight or nine years
ago, as Terri Lindsey began working full time and was no longer eligible for HUD
benefits. Terri Lindsey subsequently married Roman Bard. Roman Bard has
occupied the premises, but was never place on any lease.
36. Denied. To the contrary, the Property's floors suffered from ordinary wear
and tear as would be expected in a house occupied by two adults and four young
children, now teenagers. Landlord frequently came into the Property and did not, at
any time prior to the surrender of the property, suggest that Tenants had to clean
up animal excrement from the interior, refinish the floors or replace carpeting.
Landlord frequently observed pets in the house and never mentioned that the
animals had to be removed or Tenants would lose the Property. When he gave
Tenants notice to quit, Landlord failed to give Tenants any notice that the floors
need to be repaired or replaced. There was no excrement left on the floors.
37. Denied. To the contrary, in one bedroom on the second floor, the teenagers
had written on the painted walls. A gallon of paint applied was all that was needed.
It had been previously painted by Tenants. However, Landlord refused to permit
Tenants to perform any maintenance on the property after Tenants had cleared the
Property of their belongings. As to dry wall, Landlord had to have the premises
inspected by the Borough of Shippensburg on an annual basis. Two days before the
inspector was scheduled to arrive, Landlord would come to the Property and place
patching plaster or pieces of dry wall in the downstairs hallway, upstairs hallway
and master bedroom as the old plaster wall were deteriorating and would crumble
without trauma. Landlord would do the minimum to pass inspection and would then
leave the Property unfinished until the following year, when he'd do a little more.
He never primed, painted or preserved the patches. The horsehair plaster was not
intact because of age, not abuse and needed to be repaired. No wall was ever
finished.
38. Denied. To the contrary, Tenants are without sufficient information to form a
belief as to the averment and demand strict proof thereof at trial. Further, as
Landlord has failed to report how he applied the security deposit, he cannot claim
damages from Tenants.
39. Denied. To the contrary, Landlord contacted the Borough of Shippensburg
and had a dumpster unit installed on the Property before Tenants vacated the
Property. When Tenants inquired as to the reason for the dumpster, Landlord
volunteered that Tenants could use it for their trash. Tenants had other means of
disposing of belongings or trash that had accumulated during the ten years that one
or more of them occupied the Property and would have disposed of their discards
elsewhere but for Landlord volunteering that he would pay for the removal.
40. Denied in part. To the contrary, Tenants purchased their new home on
Wednesday, June 11, 2003 and immediately began vacating the Property.
However, since repairs were needed to the real estate they purchased, they moved
a pickup truck load at a time. On or about June 14, 2003, Landlord arrived at
Tenants new home and told Roman Bard to finish moving as Landlord was painting
at the Property and might be getting Tenants belongings dirty. Roman Bard
removed the rest of Tenants' personal property, except for several new trash cans
from the Property on June 14, 2003 and June 15, 2003. Rent was paid through
June 15, 2003 by agreement with Landlord. Roman Bard left the new trash cans on
the Property on Sunday, June 15, 2003, because trash collection by the Borough of
Shippensburg for the Property is on Mondays. On or before June 18, 2003, Terri
Bard entered the premise to pick up the trash cans. Landlord had assumed control
of two or more of the cans. Terri Bard was only able to secure one. Landlord
invited Terri to enter the house on the Property while she was there. Landlord sued
Tenants in late July 2003 for unpaid rent and secured judgment. Landlord has had
the judgement executed and has had Tenants personal property seized and sold.
Landlord has stated to Tenants that he could have sued for more rent, but he
waived it.
41. Denied. To the contrary, Tenants had told Landlord in February that they
were attempting to purchase a property and had a contract which was scheduled to
close in early April, 2003. This purchase failed. Upon the failure, Landlord
presented notice to quit to Tenants. At no time in the argument that followed
Landlord's announcement, did Landlord notify Tenants that he had already
committed the Property to others. After Landlord gave Tenants notice to quit, but
before they had had an opportunity to quit the Property, Landlord began advertizing
that the Property was available for rent. Tenants did not know of any prospective
tenants who were delayed possession of the premise arid, if that is a damage for
which Tenants are liable, demand strict proof thereof.
42. Denied. To the contrary, Tenants did not damage the Property other than
normal wear and tear as Landlord had not performed any maintenance other than
the minimium required to secure a rent license from the Borough of Shippensburg
since Tenants occupied the Property. Further, the Property is in an area where
there a numerous student rentals. If students haven't rented a property by June 1,
they normally rent in August. It is believed and therefore averred that Landlord
could have had the premise available by July 1. When Terri Bard entered the
Property at Landlord's request, she noted that he had done painting and the
premise appeared ready. Further, since Tenants' or Terri Lindsey's lease expired no
later than August, 1995, Tenants at best had a month to month lease and are not
liable for an period of vacancy.
Wherefore Plaintiffs request that Defendant's Counter Claim be dismissed.
New Matter
43. Landlord filed suit against Tenant for unpaid rent on July 21, 2003, as will
more fully appear in the records of Magistrate Harold E. Bender docketed to
CV-0000198-03. Judgment was entered for Landlord on August 13, 2003 and was
a final judgment. As to any claim for additional rent the matter is res judicata.
44. Plaintiff Terri Bard, formerly Terri Lindsey, was required by Landlord to sign a
separate lease and have a guarantor in addition to her lease through HUD. Terri
Bard secured Father-in-law's guarantee of the lease for a year in 1993.
Father-in-law, on Terri's behalf, advanced the security deposit.
45. Landlord has failed to account for the security deposit within thirty days of
the surrender of the Property as required in the Landlord and Tenant Act, 68 P.S.
250.512.
46. Prior to Tenants moving from the Property, they entered a contract for the
purchase of real estate.
47. Landlord contacted the real estate broker through whom Tenants were
securing the new residence on several occasions to request information as to the
status of the contract that Tenants had to purchase real estate.
48. Two or three days after Tenants purchased their new real estate, Landlord
appeared in person at their new address.
49. On July 21, 2003, when Landlord filed suit against Tenants, he supplied
Tenants' new address to Magistrate Bender.
46. Pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act, 68 P.S. 250.512(b), Landlord is
barred from filing suit for damages to the Property.
47. Tenants incorporate paragraphs 16 through 21 of the complaint herein by
reference.
48. The bathroom would be frozen an average of three times a winter for an
average of five days at a time.
49. Landlord was repeated notified about the problem and refused for years to
correct the situation.
50. Because of the loss of the use of the washing machine, bathroom and kitchen
sink, the Property was not habitable for an average of fifteen days each year over a
period of four months each year.
51. Tenants request refund of rent at $600 per mo th for 4 months each year for
ten years or $24,000 for Landlord's failure to provj habitable prejfiise-/-
4
arbara B. Tow end, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiffs,
Roman Bard and Terri Bard
S.Ct.# 23174
32 West Queen Street
Chambersburg, PA 17201-2121
(717)267-3244
I hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing instrument are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and that I make this verification subject
to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unswom falsification to Authority, as
authorized by the Judicial Code and Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Date: U D I k a u
' F
L
r=
S.
-; N
cn
-1
T
r-
_r.? m
a
C?
T
jrn
?? ITi
ROMAN BARD and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
TERRI BARD, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION -LAW
V. : NO. 04-2329 CIVIL TERM
DANIEL L. RHINEHA.RT,
Defendant
CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
As a prerequisite to service of a Subpoena for documents and things pursuant to
Rule 4009.22, Daniel L. Rhinehart certifies, as follows:
1. A Notice of latent to Serve the Subpoena with a copy of the Subpoena attached
thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to the date on
which the Subpoena is sought to be served.
2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed Subpoena, is attached to
this certificate.
3. No objection to the Subpoena has been received.
4. The Subpoena which will be served is identical to the Subpoena which is
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena.
Date: August 4, 2004
Supreme Court No. 15712
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone: 717-243-0220
Way Shade, Esquire
-?? nc? F.
Attorney for Defendant
ROMAN BARD and
TERRI BARD,
Plaintiffs
V.
DANIEL L. RHINEHA.RT,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 04-2329 CIVIL TERM
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA
TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21
DANIEL L. RHINEHART intends to serve a Subpoena identical to the one that is
attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to
file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the Subpoena. If no
objection is made, the Subpoena may be served.
Date: July 12, 2004
Wayne . Shade, Esquire
Supreme Court No. 15712
53 West Pomfret Street
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone: 717-243-0220
Attorney for Defendant
ROMAN BARD and
TERRI BARD,
Plaintiffs
V.
DANIEL L. RHINEHART,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 04-2329 CIVIL TERM
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: Douglas W. Moyer
1101 Claremont Road
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Within twenty (20) days after service of this Subpoena, you are ordered by the
court to produce the following documents or things: Any recordings of telephone calls
from Roman Bard or Terri Bard to Cumberland County Communications from January 1,
2004, through the date of this Subpoena, at 53 West Pomfret Street, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania 17013.
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things
requested by this Subpoena, together with the Certificate of Compliance, to the party
making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the
reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this Subpoena within
twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this Subpoena may seek a court order
compelling you to comply with it.
This Subpoena was issued at the request of the following person:
Wayne F. Shade.. Esquire
Supreme Court No. 15712
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone: 717.243-0220
Attorney for Defendant
Date: August 4, 2004
By the Court:
By:
Deputy Prothonotary
Seal of the Court
N
f?
L? c
r
,l;i K'I' Ts
I
.L'
T1
3' N
Z
ill =?
-17 fT1
7C)
IT1
=c
ROMAN BARD and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
TERRI BARD, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V. NO. 04-2329 CIVIL TERM
DANIEL L. RHINEHA RT,
Defendant
LANDLORD'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF TENANTS
TO LANDLORD'S COUNTERCLAIM
43.
The averments of ¶43 of Tenants' New Matter are denied. On the contrary,
Landlord avers that the Complaint filed by Landlord against Tenants at CV-0000198-03
in Magisterial District No. 09-3-01 was not for rent but rather was for Tenants'
delinquent water, sewer and recycling charges.
44.
The averments of ¶44 of Tenants' New Matter are denied. On the contrary,
Tenant Terri Bard was never required to sign a lease in 1993 to guarantee the HUD
assisted lease.
45.
The averments of ¶45 of Tenants' New Matter are denied. On the contrary,
Landlord avers that neil her Tenants nor anyone on their behalf ever paid a security
11 deposit to Landlord for the leased premises.
WAYNB F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
46.
The averments' of the first ¶46 of Tenants' New Matter, being within the exclusive
knowledge of Tenants, are denied and proof thereof is demanded.
47.
The averments of the first ¶47 of Tenants' New Matter are denied. On the
contrary, Landlord avers that Landlord never contacted any real estate broker in reference
to the status of any contract of the Tenants to purchase real estate.
48.
The averments of the first ¶48 of Tenants' New Matter are admitted in part and
denied in part. It is admitted that Landlord appeared at the residence of Tenants in June
of 2003, but the averment's that the appearance would have been within two or three days
after June 11, 2003, being within the exclusive knowledge of Tenants is denied and proof
thereof is demanded.
49.
The averments of the first ¶49 of Tenants' New Matter are admitted.
46.
The averments' of the second ¶46 of Tenants' New Matter, being conclusions of
law, no response is required.
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
-2-
47.
The averments' of the second ¶47 of Tenants' New Matter, being at issue, no
response is required.
48.
The averments' of the second ¶48 of Tenants' New Matter, being within the
exclusive knowledge of Tenants, are denied and proof thereof is demanded.
49.
The averments of the second ¶49 of Tenants' New Matter are denied. On the
contrary, Landlord avers that Landlord was never notified by Tenants of any problems
with the water pipes after Tenants advised Landlord that Tenants had the pipes rerouted
in 1998.
50.
The averments' of ¶50 of Tenants' New Matter, being within the exclusive
knowledge of Tenants, are denied and proof thereof is demanded.
51.
The averments of ¶51 of Tenants' New Mailer are admitted in part and denied in
part. It is admitted that Tenants request refund of gent, but it is denied that Tenants are
entitled to any refund of rent. On the contrary, Landlord avers that, to the extent that
Tenants' claims are not barred by the statute of limitations, Tenants are not entitled to
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
-3-
refund of rent for failure to timely notify Landlord of the alleged incidents of
uninhabitability.
WHEREFORE, Landlord respectfully prays that Tenants' New Matter be
dismissed and that judgment be entered in favor of Landlord and against Tenants.
Way Shade, Esquire
Supreme Court No. 15712
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone: 717-243-0220
Attorney for Landlord
WAYNE F. SHADE
Attomey at Law
53 West Pomfret Stree
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
-4-
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to New Matter and
Counterclaim are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to
authorities.
W AYNF F. SHAD[
Attorney at Law
53 West Pomfret Scree
Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013
Date: August
< 1 r....?
.. ,;,
r
r
t
:4_ ;;
: -r:
.
,.: _.
?n:.
..; -c,? ;
?.;> ? ?-
?'
1 c.r?
Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
office of the Protbonotarp
Cumber[anb Countp
Renee K. Simpson
Deputy Prothonotary
John E. Slike
Solicitor
0J( _ d2.3 29 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES
AND NOW THIS 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007 AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE - THE ABOVE
CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA
R. C P 230.2.
BY THE COURT,
CURTIS R. LONG
PROTHONOTARY
One Courthouse Square • Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 • (717) 240-6195 • Fax (717) 240-6573