The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-4892.~ ~ - .- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLE~-S OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSY~r~1/~1NIA,, - ~oro Joj~~~ P-h 3~: DAWN NELSON, `~ „ _ : - .. f,, . ':~ ,~ Plaintiff - v. Docket No. ~~ - ~~l~',,~ ~'~ MARK NELSON, Defendant NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with 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 by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE. OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. ~~ - D~ p,~ ~~' ~~~ ~3 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 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania Telephone Number 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dial despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania Telephone Number 249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAWN NELSON, Plaintiff v. Docket No. ~ - ~f S9a MARK. NELSON, Defendant COMPLAINT FOR REPLEVIN OF PERSONAL PROPERTY WRONGFULLY DETAINED 1. Plaintiff, Dawn Nelson, resides at 1712 N. 3~d Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102-1817. 2. Defendant, Mark Nelson, resides at 1385 Armitage Way, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 3. Between November 23, 2009 and March 23, 2010, Plaintiff and Defendant resided together at Defendant's home with Plaintiff's three children. 4. When Plaintiff and her three children moved into Defendant's home on November 23, 2009, many of their personal possessions were placed in Defendant's home and in a storage unit at Capital Self Storage, 5160 Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. The storage unit was registered in Defendant's name. 5. When Plaintiff and her three children moved out of Defendant's home on March 23, 2010, most of their personal possessions were left in Defendant's home and the Capital Self Storage storage unit. 1 6. When Plaintiff and her three children moved out, Defendant changed the locks to Defendant's home so that Plaintiff could not retrieve the personal property belonging to her and her children and to otherwise prevent Plaintiff and her children from entering the premises. 7. Because the storage locker is registered in Defendant's name, Plaintiff and her three children cannot retrieve their possessions from the storage locker without Defendant's authorization or a Court Order. 8. Defendant's actions to detain the personal property of Plaintiff, by preventing her and her three children from obtaining access was wrongful and without Plaintiff's consent. 9. Plaintiff and her three children own and are entitled to the immediate possession of the following property, which was acquired by Plaintiff through purchase or gifts from others ("Plaintiff Owned") or as a gift from Defendant ("Gift from Defendant"): Plaintiff's Property In Storage Unit Description a. Denim Slip-covered Couch with Matching Chair and Ottoman Source of Ownership Plaintiff. Owned Estimated Value $2,000 b. Large TV Stand c. Large Console N d. Large Pottery Barn Mirror Plaintiff Owned Plaintiff Owned Plaintiff Owned e. Large Sailboat Picture Plaintiff Owned $ 350 $ 400 $ 300 $ 650 2 f. Queen Sleigh Bed Plaintiff Owned $3,000 With Mattress and Box Spring, Matching Nightstand, Tall Chest g. Bunk Bed Bedroom Plaintiff Owned $3,000 (Full Bottom Twin Top) With Matching Chest h. Book Shelf Plaintiff Owned $ 300 i. Bookshelf in Box Gift from Defendant $ 300 j. Tall Lingerie Chest Gift from Defendant $ 200 k. Boxes of books Plaintiff Owned $ 200 I. Boxes of toys Plaintiff Owned $ 300 m. Boxes of clothes Both Plaintiff Owned $ 500 And Gifts from Defendant n. Boxes of toiletries Plaintiff Owned $ 200 o. Crib with Matching Plaintiff Owned $2,500 Dresser p. Rocking Slip-covered Plaintiff Owned Chair w/matching Ottoman q. Kitchen items (Plates, Plaintiff Owned Glasses, pots-pans, Coffee pot, blender, toaster) r. Bed Linens Plaintiff Owned s. Coach Bags - 2 Plaintiff Owned TOTAL OF PROPERTY IN STORAGE Plaintiff s Property in House Descriation Source of Ownership a. Dining Room Table Plaintiff Owned With 4 chairs $ 600 $ 500 $ 400 $ 500 $16,200 Estimated Value $ 500 3 b. Desk Plaintiff Owned $ 600 c. Green Fabric File Box Plaintiff Owned $ 50 d. Kitchen Items Plaintiff Owned $ 300 (crock pot, glasses, Pampered chef items) e. Clothing and Uggs Gift to Plaintiff $2,000 Boots - 2 pairs From Defendant And Plaintiff Owned f. Undergarments Plaintiff Owned $ 200 g. Bathroom Items Plaintiff Owned $ 200 h. Kid's Toys Gifts from Defendant $ 500 and Plaintiff Owned i. Vacuum, Dirt Devil Gifts from Defendant $ 400 Carpet Cleaner j. Linens (Towels, bedding, Plaintiff Owned $ 200 Kids' shower curtain w/ Towels) k. Boys Bikes - 2 Gifts from Defendant $ 600 Razor Scooters - 2 I. Televisions - 2 (1 Gifts from Defendant $ 750 Flat Screen large, 1 Small Flat Screen) m. Moon Bounce Plaintiff Owned $ 300 n. Couch with Matching Gift from Defendant $3,000 Rocking Chair with Ottoman, End Tables, Sofa Table o. Children's Framed Plaintiff Owned $2,200 Portraits p. DVD Player Gift from Defendant $ 50 q. Dell Notepad Computer Plaintiff Owned $ 600 4 r. Chanel Sunglassess s. Chanel Eye Glasses Gift from Defendant $ 300 Plaintiff Owned $ 400 TOTAL OF PROPERTY IN HOUSE $13,150 Plaintiff s Other Property in Personal Possession of Defendant (Unsure of Location) a. Rolex Watch Gift from Defendant $4,500 b. Louis Vuitton (Speedy 20) c. Gucci Bag d. Kate Spade Clutch e. Other Clothing Items f. Earrings -Tiffany - Lima Bean Motif Gift from Defendant Gift from Defendant Gift from Defendant $ 700 $ 800 $ 200 $ 500 $ 250 $ 400 $7,350 Gift from Defendant Gift from Defendant g. Cannon Digital Camera Gift from Defendant TOTAL OTHER PROPERTY GIFTED BY DEFENDANT AND IN DEFENDANT'S POSSESSION 10. The total value of Plaintiff's property in Defendant's possession and control is $29,350. 11. Defendant claims that he is retaining Plaintiff's personal property because he claims that Plaintiff owes him money from use of a credit card. 12. Plaintiff disputes Defendant's claim that Plaintiff owes Defendant money for use of a credit card for which he specifically authorized the charges and understood that he would be responsible for them. 5 13. In either event, Defendant's self-help tactics are without justification and Plaintiff should be given possession of the personal property that belongs to her and her three children which is now in Defendant's possession and/or control. 14. Defendant has wrongfully detained Plaintiff's and Plaintiff's children's property without Plaintiff's consent since March 23, 2010. 15. On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff, through her attorney, demanded in writing that Defendant return said property to Plaintiff, but Defendant refused and still refuses to comply with said demand, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. 16. Defendant's wrongful detention of said property has prevented Plaintiff and her three children from using same, all to their damage in the sum of $500 per month. 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays in this replevin action for judgment against Defendant: A. For the recovery of said personal property or for damages of $29,350; B. For $500 per month damages for the detention of said property from March 23, 2010 forward; C. For costs of this action; and D. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and July 26, 2010 Edmund J. Berger Attorney I.D. #53407 Attorney for Plaintiff 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-920-8900 Fax: 717-920-8901 E-mail: tberger ~,bergerlawfirm.net 7 VERIFICATION I, Dawn Nelson, affirm that 1 am the Plaintiff in this action and that the statements of fact made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: July 23, 2010 Dawn Nelson BERGER LAW FIRM, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW 2104 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 TELEPHONE: (717) 920-8900 FACSIMILE: (717) 920-8901 EMAir.: tberger(a~bergerlawfirm.net CERTIFIED MAIL May 11, 2010 Mark Nelson 1385 Armitage Way Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Re: Personal Possessions of Dawn Nelson and Her Children Dear Mr. Nelson: I am writing to you on behalf of Dawn Nelson to demand that you return her personal possessions, which are listed below with the approximate value of the items. Please call my office to schedule a time when Ms. Nelson's possessions may be picked up or delivered to her at a mutually agreeable time and location. If I. do not hear from you by Monday May 17, 2010, we will file a Complaint in Replevin before the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas in order to repossess these items. Based on Ms. Nelson's recollection, her personal possessions, and whether the item(s) were either owned by Ms. Nelson prior to her moving in with you or acquired by her since moving in with you (Owned) or were acquired as gifts from you (Gift) are as follows: Dawn Nelson's Personal Possessions in Mark Nelson's Home 1. Dining room table with 4chairs-$500.00 OWNED 2. Desk-$600.00-OWNED 3. Green fabric file box-$50.00-OWNED 4. Kitchen items (crock pot, glasses, pampered chef items)-$300.00-OWNED 5. Clothes; Ugg boots (2 pairs)-$2000.00-BOTH GIFTS< AND OWNED 6. Under wear-$200.00-OWNED 7. Bathroom items-$200.00-OWNED 8. Kid's toys-$500.00-BOTH GIFTS AND OWNED 9. Vacuum, dirt devil, carpet cleaner-$400.00-GIFTS 10. Linens (towels, bedding, kids shower curtain w/ towels)-$200.00-OWNED 11.2 boy' bikes, 2 boy's razor scooters-$600.00-GIFTS ~ Mark Nelson May 11, 2010 Page 2 12.2 TV's (one big screen flat screen, one small bedroom flat screen)-$750.00- GIFTS 13. Moon bounce-$300.00-OWNED 14. Couch w matching rocking chair with ottoman, end tables and sofa table- $3000.00-GIFT 15. Children's framed portraits-$2200-OWNED 16. DVD player-$50.00-GIFT 17. Dell note pad computer-$600.00-OWNED 18. Chanel sunglasses=$300.00-GIFT 19. Chanel eye glasses-$400.00-OWNED Dawn Nelson's Personal Possessions in Capital Self Storage 1. Denim slip covered couch w/matching chair and ottoman-$2000.00-OWNED 2. Large TV stand-$350.00-OWNED 3. Large console.TV-$400.00_OWNED 4. Large pottery barn mirror-$300.00-OWNED 5. Large sailboat picture-$650.00_OWNED 6. Queen sleigh bed w mattress and box pring, matching nightstand and tall chest- $3000.00-OWNED 7. Bunk bed (full bottom twin top) w/ matching chest-$3000.00-OWNED 8. Book shelf-$300.00-OWNED . 9. Book shelf in box-$300.00-GIFT 10.Tall lingerie chest-$200.00-GIFT 11. Boxes of books-$200.00-OWNED 12. Boxes of toys-$300.00-OWNED 13. Boxes of clothes-$500.00-BOTH GIFTS AND OWNED 14. Boxes of toiletries-$200.00-OWNED 15. Crib w/ matching dresser-2500.00 OWNED 16. Rocking slip covered chair w/ matching ottoman-$600.00-OWNED 17. Kitchen items (plates, glasses, pots-pans, coffee pot, blender, toaster)-$500.00- OWNED 18. Bed linens-$400.00-OWNED 19.2 Coach bags-$400.00-OWNED Other Possessions of Dawn Nelson Received As Gifts From Mark Nelson (Unsure of Location) 1. Rolex-$4500.00 2. Louis Vuitton (speedy 20)-$700.00 3. Gucci bag-$800.00 4. Kate spade clutch-$200.00 5. Several Clothing items-$500.00 6. Tiffany's Bean earrings-$250.00 7. Cannon digital camera-$400.00 Mark Nelson May 11, 2010 Page 3 I look forward to hearing from you in an attempt to resolve this matter and would request that you refrain from contacting my client directly. Edmund "Tad" Berger cc: Dawn Nelson IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAWN NELSON, v. Plaintiff MARK NELSON, Defendant ~~ . Docket No. ~o~ ~lc~ L~G~c.~ PROPOSED ORDER AND NOW, this ~~day of , 2010, the Court issues a writ of seizure upon Defendant, Mark Nelson, for the return to Plaintiffs possession of the items identified in Plaint''ifJJfs--Complaint as belonging~to/Plaintiff.~ / P P ,J. Cam' J t E,$' /7'L~.l. ~.G~ ~~I ~ ~ .~ ~, ~ ~ N~C~ ~ ~~. Lw~ 7fzS~~v N rc~ .. O c~ 't ~_ C r - ~' ~- ~.... - ~~ C„ s -.= ~ t~. _ f- i 2~to,,~t, ~ PM 3.:a5- CU;:~. ~~- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAWN NELSON, Plaintiff v. MARK NELSON, Defendant Docket No. /Q - 1~~q~ ~~G~-d' MOTION FOR A WRIT OF SEIZURE WITH RESPECT TO COMPLAINT IN REPLEVIN AND NOW COMES PLAINTIFF, by her attorney, Edmund "Tad" Berger of BERGER LAW FIRM, P.C. and requests that the Court issue a Writ of Seizure, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1075.1, ordering Defendant to immediately return the possessions identified in Plaintiffs Complaint. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff respectfully submits as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Dawn Nelson, resides at 1712 N. 3~d Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102-1817. 1 2. Defendant, Mark Nelson, resides at 1385 Armitage Way, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 3. Between November 23, 2009 and March 23, 2010, Plaintiff and Defendant resided together at Defendant's home with Plaintiffs three children. 4. When Plaintiff and her three children moved into Defendant's home on November 23, 2009, many of their personal possessions were placed in Defendant's home and in a storage unit at Capital Self Storage, 5160 Trindle Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. The storage unit was registered in Defendant's name. 5. When Plaintiff and her three children moved out of Defendant's home on March 23, 2010, most of their personal possessions were left in Defendant's home and the Capital Self Storage storage unit. 6. When Plaintiff and her three children moved out, Defendant changed the locks to Defendant's home so that Plaintiff could not retrieve the personal property belonging to her and her children and to otherwise prevent Plaintiff and her children from entering the premises. 7. Because the storage locker is registered in Defendant's name, Plaintiff and her three children cannot retrieve their possessions from the storage locker without Defendant's authorization or a Court Order. 8. Plaintiff has filed a Complaint in Replevin requesting the return of the possessions of Plaintiff and her three children and damages for their detention. 9. Among the items detained by Defendant are the children's beds and other possessions which are necessary for the comfort of the children. 2 10. Plaintiff can ill afford to purchase new beds and new clothing for she and her three children while Plaintiff's Complaint is pending before the Court. 11. Plaintiff's children are currently sleeping on the floor and/or a sofa because Plaintiff does not have the resources to acquire new beds. 12. Defendant claims that he is retaining Plaintiff's personal property because he claims that Plaintiff owes him money from use of a credit card. Defendant's self-help tactics are without justification and Plaintiff should be given immediate possession of the personal property that belongs to her and her three children which is now in Defendant's possession and/or control. 13. On May 11, 2010, Plaintiff, through her attorney, demanded in writing that Defendant return said property to Plaintiff, but Defendant refused and still refuses to comply with said demand. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a Writ of Seizure providing for the immediate return to Plaintiff of the prope Complaint. July 26, 2010 Edmund J. Bergely' Attorney I.D. #53407 Attorney for Plaintiff 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 in Plaintiff's Phone: 717-920-8900 Fax: 717-920-8901 E-mail: tberger(c~bergerlawfirm.net 3 VERIFICATION I, Dawn Nelson, affirm that I am the Plaintiff in this action and that the statements of fact made in the foregoing Motion for A Writ of Seizure With Respect to Complaint In Replevin are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: July 23, 2010 Dawn Nelson 3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAWN NELSON, Plaintiff Dockeet? No. 10-48/92 V. L.. i ?? ' Lam. MARK NELSON, Defendant PROPOSED ORDER AND NOW, this day of 4C , 2010, the Court schedules a hearing on Plaintiff's Amended Motion For A Writ of Seizure for the day of , 2010, at ; Q apae/p:m. in Courtrpom No. • J. C'?'f 1?&s maL LZ?L 044-?. a? -r 8l zc???o Zryl C=) tj j'K ` ? M L ti I I c ? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAWN NELSON, Plaintiff V. Docket No. 10-4892 Civil MARK NELSON, Defendant NOTICE OF HEARING FOR SEIZURE OF PROPERTY TO: MARK NELSON You are hereby notified that: (1) Plaintiff has commenced an action of replevin and has filed a Motion for Seizure of the property described in the complaint. A copy of the Complaint and Motion are attached to this Notice. (2) There will be a hearing on this Motion on at ?•06 (3) You may appear in person or by a lawyer at the time and place set forth or file written objections setting forth your reasons why the property should not be seized; (4) Your failure to appear at the hearing may result in the seizure of the property claimed by Plaintiff before a final decision in this case. Dawn ns Plai i r ? 1 i- Y Edmund "Tad" Berger Attorney I.D. #53407 Attorney for Plaintiff 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-920-8900 Fax: 717-920-8901 E-mail: tberger bergerlawfirm.net IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAWN NELSON, Plaintiff V. MARK NELSON, Defendant Docket No. 10-4892 Civil NOTICE TO PLEAD TO- MARK NELSON, DEFENDANT C t_, Fl Q C v {; i * s, You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter of Plaintiff Dawn Nelson within twenty (20) days after service thereof. Your failure to do so may cause you to lose the opportunity to contest the issues raised by such New Matter, and may result in the dismissal of Counterclaims asserted in this action. Dated- August 25, 2010 PERGE A F r By: dmund J. Berger Attorrney I.D. 53407 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAWN NELSON, Plaintiff V. MARK NELSON, Defendant Docket No. 10-4892 Civil PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's damages were a result of her own acts or omissions or those of third parties or that they were the result of conditions which were beyond the control of Defendant. 18. Denied. Plaintiff's damages are the result of Defendant's refusal to return the items that are owned by Plaintiff or to provide Plaintiff access to such items. 19. This paragraph states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed to be required, the allegation is denied. 20. This paragraph states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed to be required, the allegation is denied. 1 21. This paragraph states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed to be required, the allegation is denied. 22. This paragraph states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed to be required, the allegation is denied. 23. This paragraph states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed to be required, the allegation is denied. 24 This paragraph states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed to be required, the allegation is denied. 25. This paragraph states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed to be required, the allegation is denied. 26. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's darnages were a result of her own acts or omissions or those of third parties. 27. Denied. Plaintiff is entitled to damages and costs as set forth in Plaintiff's complaint and may be entitled to other relief as the Court deems appropriate. PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM 28. Admitted. 29. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was to be responsible for all charges incurred on the credit card. Rather, Plaintiff was not to be responsible for charges 2 incurred which were associated with household expenses or which were associated with the basic necessities of Plaintiff and her children. With respect to items purchased by Plaintiff that are reflected on the list of possessions included in Plaintiff's complaint as items purchased by Plaintiff, these are items for which Plaintiff was responsible for payment. 30. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant authorized Plaintiff to use a Slate Credit Card from Chase. It is denied that Plaintiff was responsible for all charges made on the card and the response to Paragraph 29 is incorporated into this response by reference. 31. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that the indicated charges were incurred during the indicated period. However, Plaintiff's responsibility for all of such charges is specifically denied, consistent with the response to Paragraphs 29 and 30. 32. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that, with Defendant's authorization, the charges set forth in paragraph 31 were incurred on the Slate Credit Card from Chase. However, as per the response to paragraph 29 and 30, it is specifically denied that the charges were the sole responsibility of Plaintiff. 33. Plaintiff is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the claim asserted in this paragraph. 34. It is admitted that Plaintiff has not made payment to the credit card company since March, 2010. 35. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff, in March 2010, issued a check to Mr. Nelson in the amount of $1,000.00 and that such funds 3 were not actually received by Defendant. However, it is denied that this payment was made as acknowledgment of an obligation to pay the credit card charges. Rather, Plaintiff agreed to pay this amount while Defendant permitted Plaintiff to maintain possession and use of the 2009 Yukon. As Defendant re-possessed the vehicle on March 27, 2010, (and, in fact, stranded Plaintiff away from her children), Plaintiff no longer had use of the vehicle and therefore placed a stop payment on said check as Defendant had breached the agreement. 36. This is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. 37. Denied. As per the response to Paragraph 29, Plaintiff was not responsible for the payment of all charges incurred on the credit card. 38. Denied. Plaintiff has not acknowledged and does not acknowledge responsibility for all of the charges incurred on the credit card. 39. It is denied that Plaintiff is responsible for all of the charges. Further, because of Defendant's actions in evicting Plaintiff without her possessions and in causing her to leave her employment, Plaintiff is without the resources to pay the amounts she owes currently. 40. Denied. As per the response to paragraph 29, Plaintiff is not liable for all of the charges on the card. 41. Denied. Absent Defendant's showing that he has paid the charges on the card and any interest charged, Defendant has failed to show that he has suffered damages. Further, even if such amounts have been paid by the Defendant, Plaintiff is only responsible for a portion of the charges in accordance with Paragraph 29. 4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF: This paragraph states a prayer for relief to which no response is required and which should be dismissed in light of Defendant's failure to show Plaintiff's liability for damages to him. 42. This is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. 41 Denied. As per Plaintiff's response to Paragraph 29, Plaintiff only agreed to pay for certain charges and not for other charges. 44. Denied. Plaintiff fully intended to comply with the parties' agreement. However, Plaintiff was unable to do so because of Defendant's actions as specified in the response to paragraph 39, and Defendant's failure to bear a portion of the charges as he had agreed to. 45. Denied. Plaintiff made no material misrepresentations or warranties. 46. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff made any false and materially misleading representations and warranties or that Defendant relied on same. 47. Denied. To the extent any "injustice" has occurred, the Court should recognize the mutual obligations and commitments made by the parties and that Defendant has been equally harmed. 48. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant has been damaged by any false or materially misleading representations by Plaintiff as Plaintiff made no such false and materially misleading representations. PRAYER FOR RELIEF: This paragraph states a prayer for relief to which no response is required and which should be dismissed in light of Defendant's failure to show Plaintiff's liability for damages to him. 49. This is an incorporation paragraph to which no response is required. 5 50. It is admitted that Plaintiff received some benefit from use of the credit card. However, it is denied that Plaintiff failed to perform as required by the terms of the parties' agreement. 51. Denied. It is denied that Defendant has sustained damages as he has not shown that he made payment of the credit card charges. Further, Defendant has failed to acknowledge his responsibility for a portion of those charges. 52. Denied. It is denied that Defendant has sustained damages as he has not shown that he made payment of the credit card charges. Further, Defendant has failed to acknowledge his responsibility for a portion of those charges. 53. Denied. It is denied any injustice will result if recovery is denied as a portion of the charges are the responsibility of Defendant and he has not shown that he has made payment of any portion of the charges. 6 PLAINTIFF'S NEW MATTER TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM 54. Defendant's claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds. 55. Defendant's claim for unjust enrichment is barred by his assertion of a contract claim as a contract claim and unjust enrichment claim cannot both lie. August 25, 2010 Edmund J. Berger Attorney I.D. #53407 Attorney for Plaintiff 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-920-8900 Fax: 717-920-8901 E-mail: tber erAbergerlawfirm.net 7 03/11/2006 22:39 VERIFICATION #0633 P.002/002 1, Dawn Nelson, affirm that I am the Plaintiff in this action and that the statements of fact made in the foregoing Reply to New Matter and Answer to Counterclaim are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. } Date.- August 25, 2010 wn Nelson IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAWN NELSON, Plaintiff V. MARK NELSON, Defendant Docket No. 10-4892 Civil CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document, Plaintiffs Reply to New Matter and Answer and New Matter to Counterclaim, upon the following person and in the manner indicated. FIRST CLASS MAIL Stephanie E. DiVittore, Esq. Rhoads & Sinon One South Market Square 12th Floor, P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1146 ? C Date: August 25, 2010 Edmund J. Berger Attorney I.D. #53407 Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: (717) 920-8900 Fax: (717) 920-8901 E-Mail: tberger@bergerlawfirm.net Todd J. Shill, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 69225 Stephanie E. DiVittore, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 85906 BROADS & SINON LLP One South Mazket Squaze, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1146 Hazrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717)233-5731 Attorneys for Mark Nelson DAWN NELSON, v. Plaintiff MARK NELSON, Defendant ~~~ ~~ ~~~*~:n~,?C)TARY ~~ SAP - i AM IQ~ 44 PEN~vSYLVANIA 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 10-4892 Civil Term REPLY TO NEW MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIM NOW COMES Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Mark Nelson by and through his attorneys, Rhoads & Sinon LLP, and files the following Reply to New Matter stating as follows: 54. The allegation contained in Plaintiff s New Matter to Counterclaim Paragraph 54 constitutes a conclusion of law and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent any allegation is deemed not to be a conclusion of law, it is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 55. The allegation contained in Plaintiff s New Matter to Counterclaim Paragraph 54 constitutes a conclusion of law and, therefore, no answer is required. To the extent any allegation is deemed not to be a conclusion of law, it is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 790607.1 .,I WHEREFORE Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Mark Nelson respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Dawn Nelson. By: Respectfully Submitted, BROADS & SINON LLP ~' ~ f-~.- Todd J. Shill Stephanie E. DiVittore One South Market Square P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Mark Nelson -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this ~~' day of August, 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Edmund J. Berger, Esquire Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Mark Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 ara Whistler IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAWN NELSON, Plaintiff v. MARK NELSON, Defendant Docket No. 10-4892 Civil PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ~~ ~ ~~ -v ~~ r-rt ~ ~ r G7 __ C -- j :::~ L C "L7 3~ N AND NOW COMES Plaintiff, through her attorney, Berger Law Firm, P.C., and answers the Motion for Continuance of Hearing filed by Defendant as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Plaintiff is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted, specifically whether Defendant has apre-paid vacation scheduled for a weekend trip to Kansas or whether Defendant would be able to reach Carlisle in time for the hearing. The claim is, therefore, denied. Plaintiff is also without information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Defendant could reschedule his return flight at an earlier time to allow for his return prior to the hearing or what other arrangements could be made to provide for his timely arrival at the hearing. 4. Plaintiff is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted, and it is, therefore, denied. Furthermore, Plaintiff is without 1 information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Defendant would be required to cancel his vacation or whether he could return on an earlier flight, or a flight. into Harrisburg, to be available for the hearing. 5. Plaintiff is without information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Defendant is the only witness to be called by the defense in this case. It is denied that Defendant is not able to attend the hearing. Rather, it would appear that the Defendant would rather take his vacation than have a hearing with respect to Plaintiffs and her children's property that he has unlawfully detained for almost six months at the scheduled date of the hearing. 6. It is admitted that this matter was not previously continued. 7. It is denied that it is necessary to continue this hearing in order for Defendant to attend. 8. Admitted. 9. Plaintiff is without information sufficient to form a belief as to Defendant's motives and, therefore, denies this allegation. However, based on Defendant's refusal to return Plaintiff's possessions previously notwithstanding her demands to return such possessions, Plaintiff reasonably believes that Defendant's actions are designed to delay relief to Plaintiff. PLAINTIFF'S FURTHER RESPONSE 10. Defendant's choice to unlawfully detain Plaintiff's property, including her children's beds, is at issue in this proceeding. Any delay in relief harms Plaintiffs children in that they do not currently have beds that they can sleep on and both Plaintiff 2 and her children lack other personal items that are essential to daily living because of Defendant's unlawful detention of such property. 11. Furthermore, Plaintiff's efforts to obtain relief from Defendant have been ongoing since Defendant originally detained Plaintiff's property in March 2010. On May 11, 2010, Plaintiffs counsel sent a written demand for the property to Defendant. Notwithstanding this demand, Defendant returned no property to Plaintiff or her children. 12. On July 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Writ of Seizure and then, on August 2, 2010, an Amended Motion for a Writ of Seizure to ensure that a hearing was held prior to execution on the Writ of Seizure signed by the Court. Plaintiff was subsequently advised that the earliest a hearing could be scheduled was September 13, 2010. 13. Plaintiff would emphasize that any further delay in holding a hearing and providing relief is harmful to Plaintiff and her children and Defendant's travel plans, even if truthful, do not justify further delay in addressing these issues. 14. Finally, Plaintiff would emphasize that Defendant provided no verification of his claims and submits that Defendant should, at a minimum, have provided a showing that there were no alternative travel arrangements that could have been made, which would have allowed him to be at the September 13 hearing at 1:00 p.m. Having failed to do so, his request should be denied. 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant's requested continuance be denied and the hearing of August 31, 2010 Edmund J. Berger Attorney I.D. #53407 Attorney for Plaintiff 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 to proceed. Phone: 717-920-8900 Fax: 717-920-8901 E-mail: tbergerCa~bergerlawfirm.net 4 0$/19/2006 02:25 #0666 P.401I401 V~RIFICATlUN 1, Dawn Nelson, affirm that 1 am the Plaintiff in this action and that the statements of fact made in the foregoing Answer to Motion for Continuance are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. & 490A~ relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: August 31, 2Q1 D p n Nelson IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAWN NELSON, Plaintiff v. MARK NELSON, Defendant Docket No. 10-4892 Civil CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document, Plaintiff s Answer to Motion for Continuance of Hearing, upon the following person and in the manner indicated. FIRST CLASS MAIL Todd Shill, Esq. Stephanie E. DiVittore, Esq. Rhoads & Sinon One South Market Square 12th Floor, P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1146 Date: August 31, 2010 Edmund J. Berger ~ Attorney I.D. #53407 Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: (717) 920-8900 Fax: (717) 920-8901 E-Mail: tberger@bergerlawfirm.net . ~ • i 3 SEP U 12010 DAWN NELSON, v. MARK NELSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 10-4892 Civil Term Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this ~-- day of September, 2010, upon consideration of the Defendant's ~~~ED Motion for Continuance of Hearin, it is ---- ------ -a ------~_- _.,_ ..,-r---__.. __ _.,, -., _. s ~•~---~~ that said THE C J. D'stribution: ~[nsel for Plaintiff: Edmund Berger, Esquire, 2104 Market Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 /Counsel for Defendant: Stephanie DiVittore, Esquire, P.O. Box 1146, Harrisburg, PA 17108 t EsS vyla~~ ~, g ~/~o ~~ ~~ a~bi~ ~ ~~t r-o to ~c-P - 2 DAWN NELSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. MARK NELSON, Defendant NO. 10-4892 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2(;10, after hearing, the Plaintiff's motion is granted for all of the property listed in the complaint except for the Rolex watch and the Cannon camera. With regard to the items listed in the complaint that are in storage, Defendant may comply with the order to deliver the property by granting Plaintiff access to the storage unit-Is. By the Court, Edward E.4 Guido, J. --- Tad Berger, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff ,---Stephanie E. DiVittore, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Sheriff srs ff ? l Es /'Yt? t l?c? 1 J w i Todd. Shill, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 69255 Stephanie E. DiVittore, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 85906 RHOADS & SINON LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1 146 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1 146 Attorneys for Defendant DAWN NELSON, V. Plaintiff MARK NELSON, Defendant p. FlLEU-+?' --r 17 'Nlry IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA No. 10-4892 Civil Term DEFENDANT'S REPLY" TO NEW MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIM NOW' COMES Defendant Mark Nelson, by and through leis attorneys. Rhoads & Sinon LLP, and files the within Reply to Plaintiff's New Matter to the Counterclaim, as follows: 54. Denied. The allegations contained in this Paragraph constitute conchusions of law and, therefore, no answer is required. In the event and to the extent any allegation is deemed not to be a conclusion of law, it is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of hearing. 55. Denied. The allegations contained in this Paragraph constitute conclusions of law and, therefore, no answer is required. In the event and to the extent any allegation is deemed not to be a conclusion of law, it is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of hearing. WHEREFORE Defendant Mark Nelson demands judgment in his favor, and against Plaintiff Dawn Nelson with respect to the Counterclaim filed with this Court on August 6, 2010. Respectfiilly submitted, By: RHOADS & S1NON LLP Todd J. Shill Stephanie E. DiVittore One South Market Square, 12`x' Floor P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Mark Nelson -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 15th day of September, 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Edmund J. Berger, Esquire 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Dara Whistler Edmund J. Berger 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone:(717) 920-8900 Fax: (717) 920-8901 tberger@bergerlawfirm.net IIr pRi)TNOIi :Eli! Jfk,!? 24 1 10? 49 CCf 3:- RLAHD COO T `'EMSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAWN NELSON, Plaintiff V. Docket. No. 10-4892 Civil MARK NELSON, Defendant PETITION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE Petitioner, Edmund J. Berger, petitions this Court for leave to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent, Dawn Nelson, in the above-captioned matter and, in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. This is an action commenced by Plaintiff/Respondent to recover possessions unlawfully detained by Defendant. 2. The Plaintiff (Respondent in this Petition) in this case is Dawn Nelson, P.O. Box 85, Enola, PA 17025. 3. A Counterclaim in this case has been filed by the Defendant for amounts which Defendant claims are due to him related to a credit card debt. 4. Petitioner's request to withdraw is made pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.16(b)(5), which provides for 1 withdrawal where the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled. 5. Plaintiff/Respondent has been given reasonable warning that Petitioner will withdraw unless Plaintiff/Respondent fulfills her obligations. However, Plaintiff/Respondent has not indicated when, if ever, she will be able to fulfill such obligation. 6. Petitioner cannot reasonably continue his representation without Plaintiff/Respondent's fulfillment of such obligations. 7. Defendant has indicated his desire to depose Plaintiff/Respondent and to move this matter forward in the near future. 8. Unless this Petition is granted, Petitioner will be put in the difficult position of having to represent Plaintiff/Respondent without Plaintiff/Respondent substantially fulfilling her obligations to Petitioner. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant his Petition to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent. Dated: January 21, 2011 Edmund J. Berger Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-920-8900 Fax: 717-920-8901 tberger@bergerlawfirm.net 2 VERIFICATION I, Edmund J. Berger, affirm that I am the Petitioner in this action and that the statements of fact made in the foregoing Petition to Withdraw of Counsel are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: January 21, 2011 =1i.1- I~luL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIS T E $;, OTH0N0TAR, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAWN NELSON, Plaintiff V. MARK NELSON, Defendant 2011 AN 24 A,r 10: - Ci ME-RLANC COUNTY , ENN5YLVANIA Docket No. 10-4892 Civil CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing documents, Petition to Withdraw Appearance upon the following persons and in the manner indicated. FIRST CLASS MAIL Dawn Nelson Stephanie E. DiVittore P.O. Box 85 Rhoads & Sinon Enola, PA 17025 One South Market Square, P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 1710-1146 Date: January 21, 2011 Edmund J. Berger Attorney I.D. #53407 12th Floor t i Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: (717) 920-8900 Fax: (717) 920-8901 E-Mail: tberger@bergerlawfirm.net Edmund J. Berger 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone:(717) 920-8900 Fax: (717) 920-8901 tberger@bergerlawfirm.net P -) to h3 C,=3 "Y9 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS W zr m _n M FTI F OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ? M , } _ DAWN NELSON, TX, Plaintiff : V. Docket No. 10-4892 Civil MARK NELSON, Defendant AMENDMENT TO PETITION TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE Petitioner, Edmund J. Berger, amends his Petition for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel for Plaintiff/Respondent, Dawn Nelson, in the above-captioned matter and, avers as follows: 1. Petitioner sought the concurrence of Dawn Nelson, Stephanie E. DiVittore, Esq. and Todd Shill, Esq. to this petition via electronic mail. 2. Dawn Nelson, Stephanie E. DiVittore, Esq. and Todd Shill, Esq. concurred. 3. Judge Edward E. Guido previously ruled on a Writ of Seizure regarding this matter. Dated: February 9, 2011 Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-920-8900 Fax: 717-920-8901 tberger@bergerlawfirm.net