The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-1405GERALDINE HOCKENBERRY, Executrix of the Estate of WALTER BELCHER, Plaintiff V. TANISHA GRANDBERRY, TANISHA GRANDBERRY-TURNER and TURNER PERSONAL CARE HOME, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2010 - CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW n N C M Q N CTt w C5 C) c J rn PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons against the defendants, TANISHA GRANDBERRY, TANISHA GRANDBERRY-TURNER, and TURNER PERSONAL CARE HOME, and enter my appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, GERALDINE HOCKENBERRY, Executrix of the Estate of WALTER BELCHER. Please direct the Sheriff to serve the defendant as follows: Tanisha Grandberry Tanisha Grandberry-Turner Turner Personal Care Home 404 Silver Spring Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. By: Marcus A. cKni t, 114, Esq 60 West Pomfret S et, Carli, A 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No: 25476 February 26, 2010 To: TANISHA GRANDBERRY, TANISHA GRANBERRY-TURNER, AND TURNER PERSONAL CARE HOME You are hereby notified that GERALDINE HOCKENBERRY, Executrix of the Estate of WALTER BELCHER, plaintiff, has commenced an action against you which you are required to d end or a default judgment may be entered against you. pct9a Agy Ahynr PROTHONOTARY c a3& 17 By: DEPUTY Date:_? fr` __2010 GERALDINE HOCKENBERRY, Executrix of the Estate of WALTER BELCHER, Plaintiff v. TANISHA A. GRANDBERRY, TANISHA GRANDBERRY-TURNER and TURNER PERSONAL CARE HOME, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2010 -1405 CIVIL TERM C-S C. K.Y ~;,;_,,. ,~ ,. ~= _ "- `:, ~; c„- -~ e.~ _o O ~: ~. --~: t uj ~_: .,_. ^~ rsi ~,~;~ _ , ~-, T --~: CIVIL ACTION -LAW PRAECIPE FOR REISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: ~.. c„ Please issue a Writ of Summons against the defendants, TANISHA A. GRANDBERRY, TANISHA GRANDBERRY-TURNER, and TURNER PERSONAL CARE HOME, and enter my appearance on behalf of the plaintiff, GERALDINE HOCKENBERRY, Executrix of the Estate of WALTER BELCHER. Please direct the Sheriff to serve the defendant as follows: Tanisha A. Grandberry 1619 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Respectfully submitted, IRWIN cKNIG T, P.C. By: Marcu A. McKni ,III, Esquire 60 Wes Pomfret Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court I.D. No: 25476 May 4, 2010 ~~v. pp ~c~rt~-~~~' C K~ l.. ~{ t~--a~fl SQL To: TANISHA A. GRANDBERRY, TANISHA CRANBERRY-TURNER, AND TURNER PERSONAL CARE HOME You are hereby notified that GERALDINE HOCKENBERRY, Executrix of the Estate of WALTER BELCHER, plaintiff, has commenced an action against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. PROTHONOTARY By: DEPUTY Date: , 2010 Geraldine Hockenberry Executrix of Estate of Walter Belcher vs Case No. 2010 — 1405 Tanisha Grandberry, Tanisha Granberry—Turner and Turner Personal Care Home Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: The Plaintiff intends to proceed with the above caption ;matte . Print Name Marcus A. McKnight, III Si Name �� s -- y Date: October 21, 2013 Attorney for Plaintiff >c. -7' — Explanatory Comment - �"': �� The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. I.Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v.Eagle,551 Pa.360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b)has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision(a)of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity,the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and"the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter,he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Ru1e230(d)for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket,subdivision(d)(2)provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period,subdivision(d)(3)requires that the plaintiff must make a showing to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision(d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.