HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-6524• COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTICE OF,.IUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT
CUMBERLAND CIVIL CASE
COUNTY OF:
Mao. Dist- No
09-3-04
MDJName : Hon.
THOMAS A. PLACEY
Address: 104 S SPORTING HILL RD
MECHANICSBURG, PA
Telephone: (717 ) 761-8230 17050
ROBERT ESSIS
40 GREENHILL ROAD
MECHANICSBURG, PA
PLAINTIFF' NAME and ADDRESS
FSSSIS, ROBERT
40 GREENHILL ROAD
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050
L_ J
VS.
DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS
I-MYERS, KEVIN L.
408 BRANDY LANE
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050
L J
Docket No.: CV-0000129-09
17050 Date Filed: 2/26/09
THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT:
Judgment: FOR PLAINTIFF
Fx1 Judgment was entered for: (Name)
(Date of Judgment)
ESSIS, ROBERT
8/06/09
® Judgment was entered against: (Name) MYERS, KEVIN L.
in the amount of $ 3, 673.2
Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
Damages will be assessed on Date & Time
F1 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 $
Amount of Judgment $ 3,500.00
Judgment Costs $ 173.23
Interest on Judgment $ -
Attorney Fees $ -
Total $ 3,673.25
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 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF ITHE
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 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE.
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 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL,
SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT.
d? A0 6? Date
, Magisterial District Judge
I certify that this is a true a correct the pr?dceedings containing the judgment.
Date Magisterial District Judge
64
0-66 tA
My commission expires first Monday of January, 2010
SEAL
AOPC 315-07
ROBERT ESSIS,
Plaintiff
V.
KEVIN L. MYERS
Defendant
*000j0('#."%00R
District Court 09-3-04
CV-0129-09
DISCUSSION
The burden in every civil case is on a plaintiff, as party seeking judgment, to
show a duty owed by a defendant that has been breached, which has resulted in
measurable damages. In this case Plaintiff seeks recovery for two contractual
breaches, one a vehicular loan and the other a lease/installment sale of a home.
Each will be dealt with separately.
It is without doubt that Plaintiff is the leinholder on the 2000 Dodge truck. It is
also clear that here was no formalized understanding between the parties beyond the
loan of money but no specific method or manner of repayment is found. A repayment
mechanism was never found and Plaintiff simply seeks to reduce it to "collectable"
judgment. Defendant counters that the mechanism was to work off the debt, which
Plaintiff adamantly refutes. It is found that the amount owed on the truck is $3,500.00,
which is the only supported amount between the parties.
The second verbal contract, equally ambiguous, involves real estate. Plaintiff
honestly testified that he was trying to help a former worker who had lost his way get
back on his feet. The unwritten agreement purportedly was that the sale price would
be $200,000.00 if Defendant made repairs/upgrades to the property and paid "rent" of
$635.00 every two weeks. The "rent" paid was to be applied in full against the
purchase price. Defendant paid $9,850.00 to Plaintiff but is in arrears some $7,400:00.
Defense again asserts that work performed by Defendant was to be credited against
the amount owed, what the credit amount should be is unknown.
What Plaintiff thought was going to happen in the real estate transaction is clear;
however, the real estate law does not support an unwritten and unilateral
understanding. If Plaintiff had truly wanted to assert his position of landlord without a
written lease this action would have been filed almost a year earlier when the rent first
went unpaid and then if in a generous mood Plaintiff could have withheld eviction for
up to six months. Plaintiff has not held himself out as landlord but as real estate
transferor who did not get paid. This Court is not authorized to handle land transfer
title disputes; therefore, no judgment can be awarded at this level. Moreover, the
transaction described would need to be in writing for it to be practically enforced.
Further, the equitable doctrine of quantum meriut is available if the title situation
results in uncompensated benefit to either party.
Judgment is in favor of Plaintiff in the first claim in the amount of $3,500.00
together with the costs of this action. All parties have been previously advised of their
appeal rights and the original exhibits have been returned to the presenting party.
By the Court
6 August 2009
Date Thomas . PI ey M.D.J.
Fib
-IF THE
n
1ir9 SEi' 29 Fp
,C?q I
PA ?7,25 A-/ 1 /I1tIn,eK-
014 10 6
?e? a 3? ao r