Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-55140 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRLEY A. THOMAS t/d/b/a, THOMAS SEW AND VAC Plaintiffs V. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant . CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend agai nst the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days af ter this Complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by alto ey and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth agai nst you. You are warned that ff you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a udgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money "ed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the PhdatiffE Yo u may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT NCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFI SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATI ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGE OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A RE] FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 E MAYBE THAT MAY FEE OR NO f a 9.2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND CO". PENNSYLVANIA DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRLEY A. THOMAS t/&%/a, THOMAS SEW AND VAC Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY V. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant NO.: AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO EN LA CORRE. Si usted desea defenderse de las quejas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, debe toma accion dentro de veint (20) dias a partir de la fecha en que recibio la demanda y el aviso. Usted debe presentar com arecencia escrita en persona o por abogado y presentar en lat Corte por escrito sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en su contra. Se le avisa que si no se defienda, el caso puede proceder sin usted y 1 Corte puede decidir en su contra sin mas aviso o notificacion por cualquier otra queja o c mpensacion reclamados por el Demandante. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO, O ROPIEDADES U OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES PARA USTED. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIAT . SI USTED NO TIENE O NO CONOCES UN ABOGADO, VAYA O LLAME A O][I EN LA DIRECCION ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUED OBTENER ASISTENCIA LEGAL. i Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTYj, PENNSYLVANIA DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRLEY A. THOMAS t/d/b/a, THOMAS SEW AND VAC Plaintiffs V. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY NO.. COMPLAINT AND NOW, this day of ws? , 2010, come the Plaintiffs, Dennis E. Thomas and Shirley A. Thomas, by and through their attorney, Andrew I. Shaw, Esquire and file the instant Complaint and in support thereof state as follows: I 1. Plaintiffs are adult individuals residing at 21-23 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Larry J. Devlin is an adult individual, residing at 27-31 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiffs purchased the property located at 21-23 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania from Jack N. Thomas and Verall M. Thomas by deed dated February 7, 2001, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder off Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at Deed Book 239, Page 263. 4. Plaintiff Dennis Thomas has resided continuously at #his residence since approximately 1981. 5. Defendant purchased the property located at 27-31 North Hanover Street, i Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania from Dennis E. Yeingst and Susan M. Yeingst by deed dated July 14, 2005, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder Of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at Deed Book 269, Page 4759. 6. Access to the rear of Plaintiff's property and parking leads over and through Defendant's property. 7. Plaintiffs use this access in whole or in part for ingress is from an alley that and regress to their property by vehicle and by foot. 8. Plaintiffs use this access in whole or in part as the sole an? exclusive means of ingress, egress and regress to the rear of their property. 9. Plaintiff Dennis Thomas has used this access since 1981 to the present, a period in excess of 21 years. 10. On or about June 1, 2010 and August 19, 2010, Defendant along the boundary line between Plaintiffs' and Defendant's property; Plaintiffs from accessing the rear parking area of their property. 11. Upon Plaintiffs' request that Defendant remove the cind refused. at the property from placed cinder blocks thereby preventing blocks, Defendant 12. Defendant has continued to place cinder blocks along the property line of Plaintiffs and Defendant, thereby continuing to prevent Plaintiffs from area of their property. COUNT I- ADVERSE EASEMENT 13. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all averments more fully set forth hereinafter. the rear parking this pleading as if 2 14. The means of access for ingress, egress and regress to a rear of Plaintiffs' property have been in existence for more than twenty-one (21) years. 15. Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have enjoyed a fr e and uninterrupted easement or right of way across Defendant's property for the purpose of ingress, egress and regress by vehicle and by foot to enter and enjoy their respective lands for more than twenty-one (21) years. 16. The use by Plaintiffs of Defendant's land was open, visible, notorious, uninterrupted and adverse for a period well exceeding twenty-one (21) years.) 17. Through the use of access over Defendant's property, by emselves and their predecessors in title, Plaintiffs have thereby acquired a prescriptive easement or right of way over the portion of Defendant's property. 18. Solely as a result of Defendant's actions, reasonable and pen passage across Defendant's land has been impeded, obstructed and otherwise altered. 19. Defendant's actions in obstructing Plaintiffs' easement ?r right of way and depriving Plaintiffs of the reasonable use thereof has caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm by preventing open, passable and unobstructed use of said 4ght of way. 20. By reason of Defendant's actions, Plaintiffs have ben deprived of the reasonably open and unobstructed passage across Defendant's property to gain ingress, egress and regress to their respective lands. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment in against Defendant as follows: favor and 3 1. Declare an express and enforceable right of way for the benefit of ingress, egress and regress over Defendant's land by Plaintiffs and their successors in interest; 2. Order Defendant to remove any blocks or other it ms that have been placed across the right of way by reason of Defendant's actions; 3. Enjoin and restrain Defendant and his employees, gents, assigns and successors in interest from further interfering with or obstructing Pl 'ntiffs' easement or right of way existing over Defendant's land; 4. Alternatively, award Plaintiffs damages for deprivation of the reasonable use of their properties; 5. Retain jurisdiction of this matter to ascertain that a Court's decree is obeyed; and 6. Award such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate and just under the law. Respectfully Date: kla?qllo By: Pa. Supreme Ct. I. D. No. 87371 200 S. Spring Garden Street Suite 11 Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-7135 4 VERIFICATION We verify that the statements made in this Complain understand that false statements herein are made subject to 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: Date: 9 2J9 ) JO SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY ~n~1~~ r Ronny R Anderson ~~,CUL ~'~'~-~~~,~1~ Q~ ~`~ ~~ Sheriff ;,i ~;, , ;.. , , :,~~"~ ` ~ ~~.~~ ~ 2 .3 Jody S Smith = ,` c~c, ~~ 3~ Chief Deputy ' ~"` ~~ '° Richard W Stewart C,~~~~Fh~. `'~ ,'~ ~~ Solicitor 'P~~~',l`~~~1A Dennis E. Thomas Case Number vs. 2010-5514 Larry J. Devlin SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 08/31/2010 08:11 PM -Gerald Worthington, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on August 31, 2010 at 2011 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Larry J. Devlin, by making known unto himself personally, at 27-31 N. Hanover Street, Apartment 1, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $33.84 September 01, 2010 GE LD WORTHINGTO EPUTY SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA t DENNIS E. THOMAS and ;-, '~°'-4-fl ''fir ~~fl~ { t SHIRLEY A. THOMAS t/d!bla, ~ ~ ~`• ~'"i~ f's'vdOTA~i"( THOMAS SEW AND VAC Plaintiffs ~~il~ E ~ ~Q ~,a~~ ~' ~ ~ : CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY NO.: 10 - 5514 Civil 'E~~~~S`t'LVANIA LARRY J DEVLIN, ~ ,,j_ Defendant ~ eS p ~'n S~- ~ C O N^ PI `~ • ~ I AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2010 Larry Devlin files a response to the Plaintiffs Complaint against him and his points of contention with Plaintiffs statements and in support thereof states as follows: 1) Referring to the Plaintiffs complaints numbered 7 and 8, the Plaintiffs access to their outdoor area is NOT the sole and exclusive means of ingress, egress and regress to their property: Access to the rear of Plaintiffs property is from a public alley that is adjacent to the Plaintiffs property. There are two means of access to the Plaintiffs outdoor area. The first is from an alley that leads over and through the Defendant's property. The second is from a doorway that leads to one of the Plaintiffs buildings that has public access from the front of the property on N Hanover Street. For foot traffic the Plaintiffs have access to all areas of their property from public streets and alleys. 2) Referring to the Plaintiffs complaints numbered 10, 11 and 12, the Defendant did NOT place cinder blocks along the boundary of his property on or about August 19 2010 preventing the Plaintiffs from accessing the outdoor area of their property. On or about June 1 2010 the Defendant did place cinder blocks along the boundary of his property and when confronted by the Plaintiffs, asked the Plaintiffs not to cross the Defendants property. There were many considerations that led the Defendant to that decision. They are enumerated as follows: A) The Defendant would like to minimize interactions between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's Life Partner as they do not get along together (this is the primary reason). Almost immediately after the Defendant and his life partner moved into the Defendant's building in August of 2005, the Defendant's life partner and the Plaintiffs began to argue. Then there was a period of about a year where the Defendant's life partner and the Plaintiffs befriended each other which abruptly ended in July of 2009 when the Defendant's Life Partner asked the Plaintiffs Daughter's Son and his group of teenage friends not to loiter on the Defendant's property and they did not comply. They were skateboarding and throwing rocks in the Defendant's parking lot potentially harming vehic{es parked there at the time. Just after that, the Plaintiffs Daughter accused the Defendant's Life Partner of lode behavior and took him to court. On or about 2009-JUL-13 the Plaintiffs Daughter had the Defendant's Life Partner's truck ticketed and towed for partially obstructing the boundary between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's properties. The ticket was contested and thrown out in court. The Plaintiffs Daughter threw a Beer can onto the Defendant's building hitting one of the Defendant's tenants. The Defendant's Life Partner believes that the Plaintiffs Daughter keyed his truck as the incident occurred just after her car was ticketed for parking in the Defendant's parking lot. Right wrong or indifferent, there has been continued contention between the P{aintiffs and the Defendant's Life Partner. ~ c 4 `i- B) The Defendant's Fire Escape was blocked by the owner of the building and property on the Defendant's Northernmost property boundary. The owner then notified the Carlisle Borough that the Defendant did not have a Fire Escape and the Borough took the Defendant to court. The Defendant argued that the existing Fire Escape was 'Grandfathered' in since it had been there for decades and was the only rear Fire Escape access the Defendant had, but the judge said that there was no such right for something being 'Grandfathered' in. Upon having his Fire Escape blocked, the Defendant decided to begin plans for building a new Fire Escape (prior to the law suit mentioned above} that would change the usage pattern of his parking lot putting more demand on the parking area since the Fire Escape would take up parking space. 3) Referencing the Plaintiffs complaints numbered 18, 19 and 20. After receiving a letter from the Plaintiffs dated June 7th (a copy is enclosed) and doing some research on the matter, the Defendant, changed his mind (from his actions on or about June 1, 2010) and promptly removed the cinder blocks that were blocking vehicle passage through his property. The Defendant currently has cinder blocks along the boundary of his property adjacent to the Plaintiffs property, but they do not prevent the Plaintiffs from accessing the outside area of their property via vehicles. There has always been since just after the June 7th letter a space of approximately 12 feet wide along the property boundary between the Plaintiffs' property and the Defendant's property that allows vehicle access to the Plaintiffs' outside property area from the public alley way. WHEREFORE, if the Defendant is asked by the court to continue to allow access, then the Defendant would request that this court enter a judgment in favor of the Defendant for fair compensation hereinafter of rental on one parking space (to be determined via current Municipal parking rates and to be paid by the Plaintiffs if they wish to maintain current access) for the investment, upkeep, maintenance and taxes paid by the Defendant on the Defendant's property since maintaining a clear spot for through traffic uses up one of his parking spaces in which he has a vested interest. Also, in order to maintain distance between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's Life Partner, the Defendant asks that the court limit access to the Plaintiffs property from the alley over and through the Defendant's property to vehicle traffic only, as the Plaintiffs already have access by foot to every part of their property directly from public streets and alleys without the need to trespass on the Defendants property. Respectfully submitted, f~ Date: 2010-SEP-18 By: (~-~ C~ Larry J Devlin 29 N Hanover St Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2378 .Z `~. L C.~'F~S' LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW H. SHAW, P.C. 200 S. Spring Garden Street, Suite 11, Carlisle. PA 17013 Telephone (717) 243-7135 Fax (717) 243-7872 www.ashawlaw.com ANDREW H. SHAW, EsQuIRE andrew@ashawlaw.com ANDREA L. SHAW, EsQuIRE andrea@ashawlaw.com June 7, 2010 Larry Devlin 27 N. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Dennis and Shirley Thomas Thomas Sew & Vac Dear Mr. Devlin: Please be advised this office represents Dennis and Shirley Thomas, and Thomas Sew & Vac, regarding their rights at 21-23 North Hanover Street. It is my understanding that you blocked access to the Thomas' to their parking area owned by my clients at 23 N. Hanover Street. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas, through an easement, have the right to pass through the rear of your property to gain access to their pazking area. You are hereby on notice that should you, or anyone acting on your behalf, make any further attempts to block access to the Thomas', they will pursue any and all legal means, including but not limited to instituting a civil action seeking injunctive relief and asking the court to award attornPy's fees and sane±ions against you. Based upon my experience in these types of matters, I would anticipate the court ordering you to pay all of the Thomas' fees, and also ordering you to pay sanctions for any future violations. Further, in the past, you and a resident of yours, Bryan, have interfered with the Thomas' business, their customers and their tenants. Should you or anyone acting on your behalf, interfere any further with the Thomas' business, their customers or their tenants, they will pursue any and all legal means, including but not limited to instituting a civil action seeking injunctive relief, and asking the court to award attorney's fees and sanctions against you. Similar to the real estate matter above, I would anticipate that the court would order you to pay all of the Thomas' fees, and also order you to pay sanctions for any future violations. Larry Devlin June 7, 2010 Page 2 If you should have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Dennis and Shirley Thomas Thomas Sew & Vac Carlisle Police Department Very truly yours, i'1 f '; rr r ;- ~: ~^ -~ ~~•. _., ; Andrew'H. Shaw, Esquire u I~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENI~TSYLVANIA DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRI.EY A. THOMAS t/d/b/a, THOMAS SEW AND VAC Plaintiffs v. LARRY J. DEVLIN, . Defendant . NOTICE CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the taaims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this ~~omplaint 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 judgmexit 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. Yom 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 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, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 } ~- ~~;, TRUE C~~FR~ ~~n secDR M testimony ~ said C~ ~ ~. pa. and the se~1 rf~ 20 !'~°'_... ~ ~."' day of _~~i~ p~ottw'notasY _ ~~- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DENIMS E. THOMAS and SHIRLEY A. THOMAS t/d/b/a, THOMAS SEW AND VAC Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY NO.: LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant COMPLAINT AND NOW, this ~' '` "~ day of ' ws'~ , 2010 come the Plaintiffs Dennis a~ , E. Thomas and Shirley A. Thomas, by and through their attorney, Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire and file the instant Complaint and in support thereof state as follows: 1. Plaintiffs are adult individuals residing at 21-23 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Larry J. Devlin is an adult individual, residing at 27-31 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiffs purchased the property located at 21-23 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania from Jack N. Thomas and Vera M. Thomas by deed dated February 7, 2001, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at Deed Book 239, Page 263. 4. Plaintiff Dennis Thomas has resided continuously at this residence since approximately 1981. 5. Defendant purchased the property located at 27-31 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennst lvania from Dennis E. Yeingst and Susan M. Yeingst by deed dated July 14, 2005, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at Deed Book 269, Page 4759. 6. Access to the rear of Plaintiff s property and parking area is from an alley that leads over and through Defendant's property. 7. Plaintiffs use this access in whole or in part for ingress, egress and regress to their property by vehicle and by foot. 8. Plaintiffs use this access in whole or in part as the sole and exclusive means of ingress, egress and regress to the rear of their property. 9. Plaintiff Dennis Thomas has used this access since living at the property from 1981 to the present, a period in excess of 21 years. 10. On or about June 1, 2010 and August 19, 2010, Defendant placed cinder blocks along the boundary line between Plaintiffs' and Defendant's property, thereby preventing Plaintiffs from accessing the rear parking area of their property. 11. Upon Plaintiffs' request that Defendant remove the cinder blocks, Defendant refused. 12. Defendant has continued to place cinder blocks along the property line of Plaintiffs and Defendant, thereby continuing to prevent Plaintiffs from accessing the rear parking area of their property. COUNT I-ADVERSE EASEMENT 13. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all averments of this pleading as if more fully set forth hereinafter. 14. The means of access for ingress, egress and regress to the rear of Plaintiffs' property have been in existence for mae than twenty-one (21) years. 15. Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have enjoyed a free and uninterrupted easement or right of way across Defendant's property for the purpose of ingress, egress and regress by vehicle and by foot to enter and enjoy their respective lands for more than twenty-one (21) years. 16. The use by Plaintiffs of Defendant's land was open, visible, notorious, uninterrupted and adverse for a period well exceeding twenty-one (21) years. 17. Through the use of access over Defendant's property, by themselves and their predecessors in title, Plaintiffs have thereby acquired a prescriptive easement or right of way over the portion of Defendant's property. 18. Solely as a result of Defendant's actions, reasonable and open passage across Defendant's land has been impeded, obstructed and otherwise altered. 19. Defendant's actions in obstructing Plaintiffs' easement or right of way and depriving Plaintiffs of the reasonable use thereof has caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm by preventing open, passable and unobstructed use of said right of way. 20. By reason of Defendant's actions, Plaintiffs have been deprived of the reasonably open and unobstructed passage across Defendant's property to gain ingress, egress and regress to their respective lands. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment in Plaintiffs' favor and against Defendant as follows: 1. Declare an express and enforceable right of way for the benefit of ingress, egress and regress over Defendant's 1ac~d by Plaintiffs and their successors in interest; 2. Order Defendant to remove any blocks or other items that have been placed across the right of way by reason of Defendant's actions; 3. Enjoin and restrain Defendant and his employees, agents, assigns and successors in interest from further interfering with or obstructing Plaintiffs' easement or right of way existing over Defendant's land; 4. Alternatively, award Plaintiffs damages for deprivation of the reasonable use of their properties; 5. Retain jurisdiction of this matter to ascertain that the Court's decree is obeyed; and 6. Award such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate and just under the law. Date: /~~ Respectfully submitted, / / ---~~ _ ~~i.,~,.,~--- By: drew .Shaw, Esquire Pa. Supreme Ct. LD. No. 87371 240 S. Spring Garden Street Suite 11 Carlisle, PA 17413 717-243-7135 VERIFICATION We verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. •C•S. Section Date: ~ /~ V' `~ ~ Dennis E. Thomas Date: / / y 1~ 1 ~ / Shirley A. homas IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRLEY A. THOMAS t/d/b/a, THOMAS SEW AND VAC Plaintiffs v. CIVII. ACTION -EQUITY c~ "'r'i NO.: 2010-5514 ~ ~ ° • ,~' : --i ~, LARRY J. DEVLIN, ~ _~ ~:- PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADING$~ ~ ^~'~ ~ ~=, J :,., Plaintiff s, Dennis and Shirley Thomas t/d/b/a Thomas Sew and Vac, by their undersigned ~` counsel, Andrew H. Shaw, respectfully move this Court, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1034 for judgment on the pleadings as follows: 1. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant on August 23, 2010, seeking the Court to grant an Adverse Easement in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant. A copy of the Complaint is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A. 2. On September 20, 2010, Defendant filed an answer, labelled Response To Complaint. A copy of the Answer is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit B. 3. Defendant failed to deny Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs' Complaint that Plaintiffs purchased the real estate on February 7, 2001. 4. Defendant failed to deny Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs' Complaint that Plaintiff Dennis Thomas has resided continuously at the residence since approximately 1981. 5. Defendant failed to deny Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs' Complaint that Defendant purchased the property on July 14, 2005. 6. Defendant failed to deny Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Complaint that access to the reaz of Plaintiff s property and parking area is from an alley that leads over and through Defendant's property. 7. Defendant failed to deny Pazagraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint that Plaintiff Dennis Thomas has used this access since living at the property from 1981 to the present, a period in excess of 21 years. 8. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1029(b) "Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required aze admitted when not denied specifically or by necessary implication." 9. Because Defendant did not deny the averments made in Pazagraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, said Paragraphs are deemed admitted. 10. Further, although addressed by Defendant, Defendant did not deny the averments made in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 11. Because Defendant did not deny the averments made in Pazagraphs 7 and 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, said Paragraphs aze deemed admitted. 12. Further, although addressed by Defendant, Defendant did not deny the averments made in Paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 13. Because Defendant did not deny the averments made in Paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, said Paragraphs are deemed admitted. 14. Defendant fails to set forth any defense in his response, nor does Defendant set forth any facts that could be construed as a defense to relief requested by Plaintiffs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIItLEY A. THOMAS t/d/b/a, THOMAS SEW AND VAC Plaintiffs v. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant C1VIL ACTION -EQUITY NO s 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 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, PA 17013 - ; (717) 249-3166 __. EXHIBIT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRI.EY A. THOMAS t/d/b/a, THOMAS SEW AND VAC Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY v. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant NO.: AVISO LISTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO EN LA CORRE. Si usted desea defenderse de las quejas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, debe tome action dentro de veinte (20) dial a partir de la fecha en que recibio la demanda y el aviso. Usted debe presenter comparecencia escrita en persona o por abogado y presenter en let Corte por escrito sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en su contra. Se le avisa que si no se defienda, el caso puede proceder sin usted y la Corte puede decidir en su contra sin mas aviso o notification por cualquier otra queja o compensation reclamados por el Demandante. LISTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO, O PROPIEDADES U OTROS DERECHOS IlVIPORTANTES PARA LISTED. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI LISTED NO TIENE O NO CONOCES UN ABOGADO, VAYA O LLAME A LA OFICINA EN LA DIRECCION E5CRTI'A ABAJO PARR AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE OBTENER ASI5TENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249 3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAI~TIA DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRLEY A. THOMAS tid/b/a, THOMAS SEW AND VAC Plaintiffs v. . LARRY J. DEVLIN, . Defendant COMPLAINT CIVII. ACTION -EQUITY NO• AND NOW this ~~~da of ~-s~' , 2014, come the Plaintiffs, Dennis E. Thomas and Shirley A. Thomas, by and through their attorney, Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire and file the instant Complaint and in support thereof state as follows: 1. Plaintiffs are adult individuals residing at 21-23 North Hanover Street, Cazlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Larry J. Devlin is an adult individual, residing at 27-31 North Hanover Street, Cazlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiffs purchased the property located at 21-23 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania from Jack N. Thomas and Vera M. Thomas by deed dated February 7, 2001, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at Deed Book 239, Page 263. 4. Plaintiff Dennis Thomas has resided continuously at this residence since approximately 1981. 5. Defendant purchased the property located at 27-31 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania from Dennis E. Yeingst and Susan M. Yeingst by deed dated July 14, 2005, and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at Deed Book 269, Page 4759. 6. Access to the reaz of Plaintiffs property and parking area is from an alley that leads over and through Defendant's property. 7. Plaintiffs use this access in whole or in part for ingress, egress and regress to their property by vehicle and by foot. 8. Plaintiffs use this access in whole or in part as the sole and exclusive means of ingress, egress and regress to the reaz of their property. 9. Plaintiff Dennis Thomas has used this access since living at the property from 1981 to the present, a period in excess of 21 years. 10. On or about June 1, 2010 and August 19, 2010, Defendant placed cinder blocks along the boundary line between Plaintiffs' and Defendant's property, thereby preventing Plaintiffs from accessing the rear parking azea of their property. 11. Upon Plaintiffs' request that Defendant remove the cinder blocks, Defendant refused. 12. Defendant has continued to place cinder blocks along the property line of Plaintiffs and Defendant, thereby continuing to prevent Plaintiffs from accessing the rear parking area of their property. COUNT I- ADVERSE EASEMENT 13. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all averments of this pleading as if more fully set forth hereinafter. 2 14. The means of access for ingress, egress and regress to the rear of Plaintiffs' property have been in existence for more than twenty-one (21) years. 15. Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title have enjoyed a free and uninterrupted easement or right of way across Defendant's property for the purpose of ingress, egress and regress by vehicle and by foot to enter and enjoy their respective lands for more than twenty-one (21) years. 16. The use by Plaintiffs of Defendant's land was open, visible, notorious, uninterrupted and adverse for a period well exceeding twenty-one (21) years. 17. Through the use of access over Defendant's property, by themselves and their predecessors in title, Plaintiffs have thereby acquired a prescriptive easement or right of way over the portion of Defendant's property. 18. Solely as a result of Defendant's actions, reasonable and open passage across Defendant's land has been impeded, obstructed and otherwise altered. 19. Defendant's actions in obstructing Plaintiffs' easement or right of way and depriving Plaintiffs of the reasonable use thereof has caused and continues to cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm by preventing open, passable and unobstructed use of said right of way. 20. By reason of Defendant's actions, Plaintiffs have been deprived of the reasonably open and unobstructed passage across Defendant's property to gain ingress, egress and regress to their respective lands. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment in Plaintiffs' favor and against Defendant as follows: 3 1. Declare an express and enforceable right of way for the benefit of ingress, egress and regress over Defendant's land by Plaintiffs and their successors in interest; 2. Order Defendant to remove any blocks or other items that have been placed across the right of way by reason of Defendant's actions; 3. Enjoin and restrain Defendant and his employees, agents, assigns and successors in interest from further interfering with or obstructing Plaintiffs' easement or right of way existing over Defendant's land; 4. Alternatively, awazd Plaintiffs damages for deprivation of the reasonable use of their properties; 5. Retain jurisdiction of this matter to ascertain that the Court's decree is obeyed; and 6. Award such other relief as this Court may deem appropriate and just under the law. Respectfully submitted, Date• ~o~ ~ By: 4 Pa. Supreme Ct. I.D. No. 873? 1 200 S. Spring Garden Street Suite 11 Cazlisle, PA 17013 717-243-713 5 VERIFICATION We verify that the statements made in this Complaint aze true and correct. We understand that false statements herein aze made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~ ~ V O Dennis E. Thomas i Date: ~ / 9 l~ A • /~~t,~'7Y~61___ Shirley A. omas IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DENNIS E. THOMAS and 1=1l.rD-OFFICE SHIRLEY A. THOMAS Ud/b/a, i~~' TAE ~'ROTI'10~IOTARY THOMAS SEW AND VAC : Plaintiffs 1010 SE;' 20 dM $~ ~ 3 CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY v. ~'!.:*iBERLAlfd COUNTY NO.: 10 - 5514 Civi! t'E?i?~~SYLVANIA LARRY J DEVLIN, Defendant (~ eS P , ~ SA ~ D (p vr~ P~ ~ • Ul'~' AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2010 Larry Devlin files a response to the Plaintiffs Complaint against him and his points of contention with Plaintiffs statements and in support thereof states as follows: 1) Referring to the Plaintiffs complaints numbered 7 and 8, the Plaintiffs access to their outdoor area is NOT the sole and exclusive means of ingress, egress and regress to their property: Access to the rear of Plaintiffs property is from a public alley that is adjacent to the Plaintiffs property. There are two means of access to the Plaintiffs outdoor area. The first is from an alley that leads over and through the Defendant's property. The second is from a doorway that leads to one of the Plaintiff's buildings that has public access from the front of the property on N Hanover Street. For foot traffic the Plaintiffs have access to ail areas of their property from public streets and alleys. 2) Referring to the Plaintiffs complaints numbered 10, 11 and 12, the Defendant did NOT place cinder blocks along the boundary of his property on or about August 19 2010 preventing the Plaintiffs from accessing the outdoor area of their property. On or about June 1 2010 the Defendant did place cinder blocks along the boundary of his property and when confronted by the Plaintiffs, asked the Plaintiffs not to cross the Defendants property. There were many considerations that led the Defendant to that decision. They are enumerated as follows: A) The Defendant would like to minimize interactions between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's Life Partner as they do not get along together (this is the primary reason). Almost immediately after the Defendant and his life partner moved into the Defendant's building in August of 2005, the Defendant's life partner and the Plaintiffs began to argue. Then there was a pertiod of about a year where the Defendant's life partner and the Plaintiffs befriended each other which abruptly ended in July of 2009 when the Defendant's Life Partner asked the Plaintiffs Daughter's Son and his group of teenage friends not to loiter on the Defendant's property and they did not comply. They were skateboarding and throwing rocks in the Defendant's parking lot potentdalty harming vehicles parked there at the time. Just after that, the Plaintiffs Daughter accused the Defendant's Life Partner of lode behavior and took him to court. On or about 2009-JUL-13 the Plaintiffs Daughter had the Defendant's Life Partners truck ticketed and towed for partially obstructing the boundary between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's properties. The ticket was contested and thrown out in court. The Plaintiffs Daughter threw a Beer can onto the Defendant's building hitting one of the Defendant's tenants. The Defendant's Life Partner believes that the Plaintiff s Daughter keyed his truck as the incident occurred just after her car was ticketed for parking in the Defendant's parking lot. Right wrong or indifferent, there has been continued contention between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's Life Partner. EXHIBIT ~, B) The Defendant's Fire Escape was blocked by the owner of the building and property on the Defendant's Northernmost property boundary. The owner then notified the Carlisle Borough that the Defendant did not have a Fire Escape and the Borough took the Defendant to court. The Defendant argued that the existing Fire Escape was 'Grandfathered' in since it had been there for decades and was the only rear Fire Escape access the Defendant had, but the judge said that there was no such right for something being 'Grandfathered' in. Upon having his Fire Escape blocked, the Defendant decided to begin plans for building a new Fire Escape (prior to the law suit mentioned above} that would change the usage pattern of his parking lot putting more demand on the parking area since the Fire Escape would take up parking space. 3) Referencing the Plaintiff's complaints numbered 18, 19 and 20. After receiving a letter from the Plaintiffs dated June 7th (a copy is enGosed) and doing some research on the matter, the Defendant, changed his mind (from his actions on or about June 1, 2010) and promptly removed the cinder blocks that were blocking vehicle passage through his property. The Defendant currently has cinder blocks along the boundary of his property adjacent to the Plaintiffs property, but they do not prevent the Plaintiffs from accessing the outside area of their property via vehicles. There has always been since just after the June 7th letter a space of approximately 12 feet wide along the property boundary between the Plaintiffs' property and the Defendant's property that allows vehicle access to the Plaintiffs' outside property area from the public alley way. WHEREFORE, if the Defendant is asked by the court to continue to allow access, then the Defendant would request that this court enter a judgment in favor of the Defendant for fair compensation hereinafter of rental on one parking space (to be determined via current Municipa) parking rates and to be paid by the Plaintiffs if they wish to maintain current access) for the investment, upkeep, maintenance and taxes paid by the Defendant on the Defendant's property since maintaining a clear spot for through traffic uses up one of his parking spaces in which he has a vested interest. Also, in order to maintain distance between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's Life Partner, the Defendant asks that the court limit access to the Plaintiffs property from the alley over and through the Defendant's property to vehiGe traffic only, as the Plaintiffs already have access by foot to every part of their property directly from public streets and alleys without the need to trespass on the Defendants property. Respectfully submitted, Date: 2010-SEP-18 By: Lary J Devlin 29 N Hanover St Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-2378 ., ~ , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the following document, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, was served this date on the below named, by placing same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid thereon, addressed as follows: Larry J. Devlin 29 N. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendant Date: ~Q ~- 7`- ~Gl ~' Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 87371 200 S. Spring Garden Street, Suite 11 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7135 (phone) (717) 243-7872 (facsimile) Attorney for Plaintiffs _. ,. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRLEY A. THOMAS t/d/b/a, THOMAS SEW AND VAC Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION -EQUITY v. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant NO.: 2010-5514 PRAECIPE TO LIST CASE FOR ARGUMENT To the Prothonotary: List the within matter for the next Argument Court. 1. Matter to be azgued: Plaintiffls Motion for Judgment On the Pleadings 2. Identify all counsel who will azgue case: R- ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ ---- *.'~~ rat --~.~ ~1 ~~ f"" ~ "J -..,~ i~~ :~„{ ca --eJ - ~ -r7 ~~ -~~ _,~_... v ca ;.:, r~ ~. -,~ -~ _~ ~~, t°r; c~~ V} "'" .~ ,i,. ~:.ya ,_~, r-a ~~ ~~> a. For Plaintiffs: Andrew H. Shaw, 200 S. Spring Garden St., Suite 11, Carlisle, PA 17013 b. For Defendants: None. Defendant is pro se 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for azgument. 4. Argument Court date: December 15, 2010 Date: /~ ~- 7~ ~a~0 By: Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 87371 200 S. Spring Garden St., Suite 11 Cazlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7135 Attorney for Plaintiffs Y ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the following document, Praecipe To List Case for Argument, was served this date on the below named, by placing same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid thereon, addressed as follows: Larry J. Devlin 29 N. Hanover Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 Defendant Date: ~Q ". `~--~(.~/(J Andrew H. haw, Esquire Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 87371 200 S. Spring Garden Street, Suite 11 Cazlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7135 (phone) (717) 243-7872 (facsimile) Attorney for Plaintiffs 5011 _!1;H 19 Ali 10, ?s r,t„IMBER1..ANO` (,QtlQk I DENNIS E. THOMAS and IN THE COURT MKPLEAS OF SHIRLEY A. THOMAS, t/d/b/a, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS SEW AND VAC, Plaintiffs V. LARRY J. DEVLIN, NO. 2010 - 5514 CIVIL TERM Defendant IN RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BEFORE OLER, GUIDO, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 18TH day of JANUARY, 2011, after reviewing the pleadings as well as the briefs filed by the parties in support of their respective positions, we are not satisfied that "the case is so free from doubt that trial would clearly be a fruitless exercise."' Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED. B ourt, rollo" Edward E. Guido, J. Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire 200 S. Spring Garden Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Larry J. Devlin 29 North Hanover Street Carlisle, Pa. 17013 Court Administrator -in bill ed oopiles D? 1 Minto v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 971 A.2d 1280, at 1281 (Pa.Super. 2009). I PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: ? for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. X? for trial without a jury. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) Dennis E. Thomas and Shirley A. Thomas t/d/b/a Thomas Sew and Vac vs. Larry J. Devlin Trials commence on vs. (Plaintiff) (Defendant) (other) The trial list will be called on and Pretrials will be held on (Briefs are due S days before pretrials No. 5514 2010 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Andrew H. Shaw Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: None. Defendant is pro se. This case is ready for trial. Date: 4 C)S. 06 ,,r , a,? Signed: Print Name: Andrew H. Shaw rnc? ? rn? cat .._a?. -------- -- 7 (check one) ? Civil Action - Law ? Appeal from arbitration ?X Equity Term Attorney for: Plaintiffs 411 .# / S5-20/1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the following document, Praecipe For Listing Case For Trial, was served this date on the below named, by placing same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid thereon, addressed as follows: Larry J. Devlin 29 N. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendant Date: / ?CD(1 A drew H. Shaw, quire Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 87371 200 S. Spring Garden Street, Suite 11 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7135 (phone) (717) 243-7872 (facsimile) Attorney for Plaintiffs DENNIS E. THOMAS and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SHIRLEY A. THOMAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA t/d/b/a THOMAS SEW AND VAC, Plaintiff : V. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 10-5514 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2011, a pretrial conference in the above matter is scheduled for Wednesday, March 30, 2011, at 11:15 a.m., in chambers of the undersigned judge, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Pretrial memoranda shall be submitted by counsel in accordance with C.C.R.P. 212-4, at least five days prior to the pretrial conference. A NONJURY TRIAL in the above matter is scheduled for Wednesday, May 18, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. drew H. Shaw, Esq. 200 South Spring Garden Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff -- Larry J. Devlin 29 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendant, pro Se J Court Administrator :rc C-Orks mut v/r r C.i -? -? ,,,..f r-D F , _T. F\) CD BY THE COURT, DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRELY A. THOMAS, t/d/b/a THOMAS SEW AND VAC, Plaintiffs V. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN IA C: : c N CIVIL ACTION - LAW rnm = zm ? r DOCKET NO.: 10-5514 CIVIL TERM ??-a 3> n ::c The Honorable J. Wesley Oler ;zC --z cn ORDER OF COURT -= -' AND NOW, this day of y L4, 2011, upon consideration of the withir, -t x rn? rn -u? m0 C) 41 =-n C)n Motion to Continue Pre-trial, said Motion is GRANTED. Counsel is directed to appear for a pre-trial conference in Chambers of the undersigned judge, on the )S# day of/, 2011, at // 3" o'clock ?.M. Pre-trial memorandums shall be submitted by counsel in accordance with C.C.R.P. 212-4, at least five (5) days prior to the pre-trial " CJ J. Distribution: /Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 ? Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire 200 south Spring Garden Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Cod' 31a9far8 DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRLEY A. THOMAS t/d/b/a, THOMAS SEW AND VAC, Plaintiffs V. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 10-5514 CIVIL TERM PRETRIAL CONFERENCE A pretrial conference was held in the chambers of Judge Oler in the above-captioned case on Friday, April 15, 2011. Present on behalf of the Plaintiffs was Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire. Present on behalf of the Defendant was Karl E. Rominger, Esquire. This is an action for a prescriptive easement across Defendant's rear parking lot to access a parking area on Plaintiffs' property. Defenses may include the allegedly non-hostile use of the access. This will be a nonjury trial of an estimated duration of one-half day. By separate order of Court, the nonjury trial has been scheduled for May 18, 2011, commencing at 9:30 a.m. With respect to settlement negotiations, counsel have expressed some hope that the matter may be resolved short of trial. c M CD A - ?t. Z - ? 0 :U ? "CP : "(D : Dc) CD c:) 'Tt N C)M cn C.a? By the Court, Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire 200 S. Spring Garden Street, STE 11 Carlisle, PA 17013 For the Plaintiff Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For the Defendant pcb DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRLEY A. THOMAS, t/d/b/a THOMAS SEW AND VAC, Plaintiffs V. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 10-5514 CIVIL TERM DECISION AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2011, upon consideration of the complaint filed in the above-captioned matter, and following a non jury trial held on May 18, 2011, and the submission of briefs by the parties, the court finds in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant, and it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows: 1. Defendant's property at 27-31 North Hanover Street, Carlisle Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, is subject to a prescriptive easement for the benefit of Plaintiffs' adjacent property at 21-23 North Hanover Street, Carlisle Borough, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, said easement consisting of a right-of-way across the rear of Defendant's property between Alexander Avenue and the rear of Plaintiffs'property of sufficient width to permit the convenient passage of pedestrian and vehicular traffic to and from the parking area of Plaintiffs'property; 2. Defendant, his heirs, successors and assigns, are enjoined from depriving Plaintiff's property of the benefit of this easement, or permitting such a deprivation; and 3. No other relief is afforded to any party. Andrew H. Shaw, Esq. 200 S. Spring Garden Street Suite 11 Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Karl E. Rominger, Esq. 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant :rc cop;&5 m o o l ead Gl-?9l/, )eel n Zm t7t x? CAI- k 'Orn N c) o c .? Z? Z =8 D vrr vn BY THE COURT, f- _ DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRLEY A. THOMAS t/d/b/a/, THOMAS SEW AND VAC, Plaintiff v. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant a" or !r? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THE NINTH JUDICIAL COURT CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY CIVIL ACTION NO: 2010-5514 IN RE: PETITION FOR CONTEMPT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 9"' day of March 2012 upon consideration of Plaintiff's Petition for Contempt, a Rule is issued upon defendant, Larry J. Devlin, to show cause why Plaintiff's Petition should not be granted. This Rule is returnable in 20 days. A hearing will be held 29 March 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 6 of the Cumberland County Courthouse. B the C rt mh Distribution List: Andrew H. Shaw, Esq. 200 S. Spring Garden Street Suite 11 Carlisle, PA 17013 ? Karl E. Rominger, Esq. 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Placey W.] f-0 c P-j .:, r r ? co CD , e, vl t, DENNIS E. THOMAS and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SHIRELY A. THOMAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA t/d/b/a THOMAS SEW AND VAC, Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. - DOCKET NO.: 10-5514 CIVIL TERMS- LARRY J. DEVLIN,rn Defendant ?-C ANSWER TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ON 57f PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR CONTEMPT. AND NOW, comes Larry J. Devlin, by and through his counsel, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, and in support of his Answer avers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted by way of further answer. The order speaks for itself. 3. Admitted by way of further answer. The order speaks for itself. 4. Denies the strict proof is the same as demanded. 5. Denies the strict proof is the same as demanded. 6. Denies the strict proof is the same as demanded. 7. Denied by way of further answer. Defendant did not knowingly, purposely or intentionally violate the order. 8. Denied by way of further answer. Defendant did not knowingly, purposely or intentionally violate the order. 9. Admitted. WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully requests judgment in his favor. Date. Respectfully Submitted, Rominger & Associates arl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Larry J. Devlin DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRELY A. THOMAS, t/d/b/a THOMAS SEW AND VAC, Plaintiffs V. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW DOCKET NO.: 10-5514 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, certify that I served a copy of the within Answer to Rule To Show Cause on Plaintiff's Petition for Contempt on the following by depositing the same in the United State Mail, postage pre-paid, via first class mail, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire 200 South Spring Garden Street, Suite I 1 Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Respectfully Submitted, Rominger & Associates C Date: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Larry J. Devlin . DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRLEY A. THOMAS t/d/b/a/, THOMAS SEW AND VAC, Plaintiff V. CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant CIVIL ACTION NO: 2010-554 IN RE: PETITION FOR CONTEMPT r 5 ...+gY ORDER OF COURT c AND NOW, this 5th day of April 2012, after a hearing on Plaintiff's Petition for-' Contempt, the court finds that Plaintiff has met their burden and Defendant is adjudicated in contempt. Sanctions are imposed upon Defendant in the amount of $283.75, which reflects the total legal fees incurred by Plaintiff on their Petition, as presented in evidence at the hearing. No further sanctions are afforded at this time. The parties are encouraged to resolve any outstanding issues either amongst themselves or with their attorneys. The Decision, dated 29 June 2011, finding that the property is subject to a prescriptive easement, remains in full force and effect. By the Thomas lacey C.P.J. mh dll A7 AINn00 C` Distribution List: WV IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THE NINTH JUDICIAL COURT ? Andrew H. Shaw, Esq. 200 S. Spring Garden Street Suite 11 Carlisle, PA 17013 v Karl E. Rominger, Esq. 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 AiI DENNIS E. THOMAS and SHIRLEY A. THOMAS t/d/b/a/, THOMAS SEW AND VAC, Plaintiff V. LARRY J. DEVLIN, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS THE NINTH JUDICIAL COURT CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY CIVIL ACTION NO: 2010-5514 IN RE: PETITION FOR CONTEMPT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of July 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Petition for Contempt, a Rule is issued upon Defendant to show cause why Plaintiff's Petition should not be granted. This rule is returnable in twenty days. A hearing will be held on Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom Number Six of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. B Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. Distribution List: /Andrew H. Shaw, Esq. < j 200 S. Spring Garden Street Suite 11 rnm ' Carlisle, PA 17013 _WM C= Karl E. Rominger, Esq. rc -?, 155 South Hanover Street r, Carlisle, PA 17013 = ' AVI