HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-7306 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Ronny R Anderson '"off '
C:JJ
-n
Sheriff ?t,, of ??cu,t?C;f -,r=
Jody S Smith =ap
Chief Deputy N - 4cD
Richard W Stewart ' c7 c,n
Solicitor CD
(=
ors :Z- F5
`~
rn
__.? rya
Samir Halabi
vs.
Major Earl G. Mitchell
Case Number
2010-7306
SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE
11/24/2010 02:00 PM - Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on November
24, 2010 at 1400 hours, he was unable to serve a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the
within named defendant, to wit: Major Earl G. Mitchell, Post Advocate Judge, US Army on Behalf of
Defendant, Dureid Zahrddine. Post Advocate Judge Major Earl Mitchell advised Deputies Attorney Doug
Loveless Jr. is handling the case for defendant Dureed Zahrddine.
SHERIFF COST: $33.84
November 29, 2010
SO ANSWERS,
RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF
jot GounfySuif- Shenff 7eleosxt. Inc.
JAM1K HALABI, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DUREID ZAHRDDINE, NO. 2010 - 7306 CIVIL TERM
DEFENDANT
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
I, DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR., ESQ., counsel for the defendant, Dureid
Zahreddine, in the above-captioned action, hereby verify that I accepted service of the Complaint
on *F 2011 which was filed on November 22, 2010 and reinstated on January
26, 2011.
A 1 ??V (r i r
DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR., ESQ.
Date:
rv S
g.%
7-4 -
"7
is
l
SAMIR HALABI
Plaintiff
V.
DUREID ZAHREDDINE
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW
CIVIL TERM
NO. 2010-7306
NOTICE TO PLEAD
To: Samir Halabi, through his attorney, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, Irwin and
McKnight, P.C., 60 West Pomfret Street, Carlisle, PA 17013.
You are hereby notified to plead to the within New Matter and Counterclaims, within
twenty days from service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you.
Very respectfully,
4 e.,
Date: March 8, 2011 DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR., Esquire
Attorney Identification Number: 83889
36 Donegal Drive
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 385-1866
Attorney for Defendant
41
DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR., Esquire
Attorney I.D. No. 83889
36 Donegal Drive
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 385-1866
SAMIR HALABI
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA
DUREID ZAHREDDINE
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW
CIVIL TERM
NO. 2010-7306
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER
AND COUNTERCLAIMS
AND NOW comes Defendant Dureid Zahreddine, by and through his undersigned
attorney, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire, and respectfully represents as follows in support of
Defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaims:
BREACH OF CONTRACT
1. Admitted.
2. Denied. Defendant is an International Fellow at the United States Army War College.
Defendant denies he is assigned to the U.S. Army War College c/o Major Earl G. Mitchell, Post
Judge Advocate, US Army Installation Management Command, Headquarters US Army
Garrison, 22 Ashburn Drive Carlisle, PA 17013-5000.
3. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits to entering into an agreement
with Plaintiff by which Defendant would rent the real property known as 111 Susan Lane,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, beginning on or about June 18, 2010. Defendant denies Exhibit "A" of
Plaintiffs Complaint is a copy of the agreement into which Defendant and Plaintiff entered.
Defendant further denies Exhibit "A" of Plaintiffs Complaint sets forth the terms of the
agreement into which Plaintiff and Defendant entered.
4. Denied as stated. Defendant denies he volitionally removed himself from the property
known as 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. On the contrary, Plaintiff constructively
evicted Defendant from the aforementioned property by gross and reckless breaches of the
warranty of habitability imposed upon landlord Plaintiff by Commonwealth law, to the great
distress of and injury to Defendant's spouse, Defendant's handicapped son, and Defendant.
5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is
demanded, if relevant. By way of further answer, the document presented as Exhibit "B" to
Plaintiffs Complaint speaks for itself and Defendant specifically denies Plaintiffs
characterization of the document as an "inspection report."
6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is
demanded, if relevant. By way of further answer, the document presented as Exhibit "C" to
Plaintiffs Complaint speaks for itself and Defendant specifically denies Plaintiffs
characterization of the document as a "professional" "inspection report."
2
7. Denied. Defendant denies Plaintiff's incoherent and irrelevant claim that Defendant's
family incurred bills that were unpaid. Exhibit "D" of Plaintiffs Complaint is a document that
speaks for itself and Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the said document as a
receipt for unpaid items. Upon information and belief, Defendant avers that Plaintiff deceptively
created Exhibit "D" of Plaintiffs Complaint and never presented it to Defendant or any member
of Defendant's family as a receipt. By way of further answer, no other member of Defendant's
family is a party to this action.
8. Denied. Plaintiffs averment is an incorrect conclusion of law for which no response
is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil procedure. In the event and to the extent
Plaintiffs averment is determined not to be a conclusion of law, Defendant specifically denies he
owes Plaintiff any amount of unpaid rent. On the contrary, Defendant avers Plaintiff owes
Defendant monies paid by Defendant to Plaintiff, in good faith and induced by Plaintiff's
fraudulently false misrepresentation that the aforementioned property was a very nice home in
excellent condition, when in fact the home was in squalidly defective condition.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, assess all costs and attorney fees against Plaintiff, and
provide Defendant such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate, an amount that does
not exceed the ceiling for compulsory arbitration set by local rule.
NEW MATTER
9. Defendant incorporates by reference his responses contained in paragraphs 1 through
8, as though set forth herein at length.
10. Defendant is a citizen of Lebanon and of Lebanese ethnicity.
11. Defendant learned that Plaintiff had a home to rent through Colonel Hany Nahkleh,
3
an officer of Lebanon's armed forces who previously attended the U.S. Army War College as an
International Fellow.
12. Plaintiff is of Syrian ethnicity.
13. Plaintiff misrepresented himself to be Lebanese, in order to gain the confidence of
Colonel Nahkleh and Defendant.
14. Plaintiff knew Defendant was a stranger to the United States and had to find a place
to live for his family and himself immediately upon arrival in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
15. Plaintiff told Defendant that he had a very nice house, in excellent condition, to rent
to Defendant, namely 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
16. Plaintiff purchased the property known as 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
approximately one month before renting it to defendant.
17. Plaintiff purchased the property known as 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle, Pennsylvania for
the purpose of renting it.
18. The home located on the property known as 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
is residential housing.
19. The home located on the property known as 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
was built in the year 1967 and, therefore, is residential housing covered by the Residential Lead-
Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4851-4856) (hereafter "the Act").
20. Defendant informed Plaintiff and Plaintiff knew at all times relevant to this action
that Defendant's son, Arz, recently had his leg amputated and required a living environment free
of infectious conditions.
21. On or about July 13, 2010 Defendant's wife, Nidia, and son, Arz, began residing in
the aforementioned home with Defendant.
4
22. The aforementioned property Plaintiff leased to Defendant, from the time Defendant
occupied the property up until at least the time Defendant and his family were forced out of the
property, was characterized by squalid conditions which included:
a. Rodent and insect infestation;
b. Hazardous mold in the living area, closets, basement and garage;
c. Rodent feces;
d. Rodent urine;
d. Rodent poison and traps;
e. Structural defect that allowed rodent entry into the home;
L Structural defect that allowed water entry into the house;
L Very high humidity levels in the house conducive to mold growth;
g. Large amounts of millipedes and water bugs;
h. Exterior grading that channeled water into the house;
i. Improper downspouts that failed to distribute rain water away from the house.
23. Defendant's son, Arz, was bitten in the leg and testicles by either insects or rodents
while living in the home.
24. Defendant's son, Arz, developed an infection in his amputated leg, as a result of the
squalid conditions present in the aforementioned property.
25. Defendant's wife and son were forced to sleep in Defendant's automobile due to the
squalid conditions in the aforementioned property.
26. As a result of Plaintiffs refusal to properly correct the squalid conditions in the
home, Defendant was forced to send his wife and son back home to Lebanon.
5
27. Defendant's dress uniform kept in the home was eaten through by insects or rodents
and rendered unusable, resulting in a replacement cost to Defendant of $225.00.
28. The squalid conditions of the house Plaintiff rented to Defendant were of such a
substantial nature and so injurious to Defendant as to deprive him of the beneficial enjoyment of
the house.
29. Defendant informed Plaintiff of the squalid conditions of the house on four separate
occasions, over a period exceeding one month.
30. Plaintiff had reasonable opportunity, exceeding a month in length, to correct the
squalid conditions reported to Plaintiff by Defendant.
31. Notwithstanding Defendant's reports of the aforementioned squalid conditions of the
home, Plaintiff refused to correct the conditions.
32. As a result of the squalid conditions of the house Plaintiff rented to Defendant,
Defendant was forced to abandon possession of the house to Plaintiff shortly after renting it from
Plaintiff because Plaintiff refused to correct the squalid conditions.
33. Plaintiffs refusal to correct the squalid conditions of the house, after repeated pleas
from Defendant, constructively evicted Defendant and his family from the house.
34. Defendant engaged a professional home inspection firm, JEM Environmental
Construction and Consulting, LLC, to inspect the aforementioned property on August 11, 2010.
35. JEM Environmental Construction and Consulting, LLC's inspection report of the
aforementioned property is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
36. JEM Environmental Construction and Consulting, LLC collected mold samples from
the aforementioned property and laboratory analysis confirmed the presence of dangerous levels
6
of Aspergillus/Penicillium in the aforementioned property, while Defendant and his family
occupied the property.
37. JEM Environmental Construction and Consulting, LLC's inspection concluded that
the aforementioned property was not fit for human or pet habitation and advised Defendant that
he should leave the house as soon as possible.
38. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a cause of action, upon which relief may be
granted because Plaintiff unlawfully evicted Defendant from the home Plaintiff leased to
Defendant.
39. The Residential Lead-Based Pain Hazard Reduction Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4851-4856)
(hereafter "the Act") applies to housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly
or persons with disabilities (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is
expected to reside in such housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities) or any 0-bedroom
dwelling.
40. The Act applies to the aforementioned house Plaintiff leased to Defendant, since said
house was constructed prior to 1978, is not housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities,
and is not a 0-bedroom dwelling.
41. The Act provides that before a lessee is obligated under a contract to lease housing,
the lessor shall provide the lessee with a lead hazard information pamphlet, as prescribed by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter EPA) under section 406 of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USCS § 2686), disclose to the lessee the presence of any
known lead-based paint, or any known lead-based paint hazards, in such housing, and provide to
the lessee any lead hazard evaluation report available to the lessor.
7
42. Plaintiff failed to provide Defendant with a lead hazard information pamphlet, as
prescribed by the Administrator of the EPA, under section 406 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C.S. §), did not disclose to Defendant the presence of any known lead-based paint or
any known lead-based paint hazards, and did not provide to the Defendant any lead hazard
evaluation report available to Plaintiff.
43. Since Plaintiff failed to provide Defendant with a lead hazard information pamphlet,
as prescribed by the Administrator of the EPA, under section 406 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S.C.S. §) or did not disclose to Defendant the presence of any known lead-
based paint or any known lead-based paint hazards or provide to the Defendant any lead hazard
evaluation report available to Plaintiff, the lease agreement Plaintiff claims to have had with
Defendant does not obligate Defendant in any way, by operation of law.
44. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action, upon which relief may be
granted because the lease agreement Plaintiff claims to have entered into with Defendant is
invalid, under the provisions of the Act, because Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with a
pamphlet, as prescribed by the Administrator of the EPA, under section 406 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.S. §) or did not disclose to Defendant any known lead-based
paint or lead-based paint hazards present in the aforementioned home, including any lead hazard
evaluation report available to Plaintiff, as required by the Act.
45. Plaintiff's claim is barred or limited by the doctrine of unclean hands.
46. Plaintiffs claim is barred or limited by the doctrine of laches.
47. Plaintiff's claim is barred or limited by the doctrine of duress.
48 Plaintiff's claim is barred or limited by the doctrine of justification.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss
8
Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice, assess all costs and attorney fees against Plaintiff, and
provide Defendant such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate, an amount that does
not exceed the ceiling set for compulsory arbitration by local rule.
COUNTERCLAIMS
COUNTI
VIOLATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION
ACT (42 U.S.C. H 4851-4856)
49. Defendant incorporates by reference his responses contained in paragraphs 1 through
48, as though set forth herein at length.
50. The Residential Lead-Based Pain Hazard Reduction Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4851-4856)
(hereafter "the Act") applies to housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly
or persons with disabilities (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is
expected to reside in such housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities) or any 0-bedroom
dwelling.
51. The Act applies to the aforementioned house Plaintiff leased to Defendant, since said
house was constructed prior to 1978, is not housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities,
and is not a 0-bedroom dwelling.
52. The Act, (42 U.S.C. § 4852d(c)(3) and (4)) provides for civil liability as to any
person who violates the provisions of the act. Such person shall be jointly and severally liable to
the lessee in an amount equal to 3 times the amount of damages incurred by the lessee and in any
civil action brought for damages pursuant to paragraph (3), the appropriate court may award
court costs to the party commencing such action, together with reasonable attorney fees and any
expert witness fees, if that party prevails.
53. Plaintiff violated the Act, because Plaintiff did not provide Defendant a pamphlet, as
9
prescribed by the Administrator of the EPA, under section 406 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (15 U.S.C.S. §) or did not disclose to Defendant any known lead-based paint or lead-based
paint hazards present in the aforementioned home, including any lead hazard evaluation report
available to Plaintiff, as required by the Act.
54. As a result of Plaintiffs violation of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act, Defendant suffered damages in the amount of $7,325.00.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment
in his favor and against Plaintiff on Count II, for damages in the amount of three times
$7,325.00, award Defendant reasonable attorney fees and costs, and grant such other relief as the
Court deems necessary or proper, an amount that does not exceed the jurisdictional amount for
compulsory arbitration in accordance with local rule.
COUNTII
PLAINTIFF'S PRIVATE ACTION FOR DEFENDANT'S VIOLATION OF
PENNSYLVANIA CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
73 P.S. §201-9.2 AND 73 P.S. § 201-2 (4) (VII).
55. The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the averments contained in paragraphs
1 through 54, inclusive, as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
56. At all time relevant to this action, Plaintiff was a landlord offering residential
housing for rent or lease.
57. Plaintiff leased to Defendant a residential housing unit known as 111 Susan Lane,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
58. Defendant, pursuant to his agreement with Plaintiff, occupied 111 Susan Lane,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania as his principal residence.
59. Pennsylvania Title 73, "Trade and Commerce," "Chapter 4, Fair Trade and Business
10
Practices Unfair Competition, Acts or Practices," 73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq., short title, "Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law," (hereafter "UTPCPL") applies to residential
leases.
60. Pennsylvania UTPCPL provides a private cause of action against a commercial entity
that engages in unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
61. Pennsylvania Title 73 P.S. § 201-9.2 provides a private cause of action for any
person who purchases or leases goods or services primarily for personal, family or household
purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as
a result of the use or employment by any person of a method, act or practice declared
unlawful by section 3 of the act. Such person may bring a private action to recover actual
damages or one hundred dollars ($ 100), whichever is greater.
62. The UTPCPL declares "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any
trade or commerce" unlawful; 73 P.S. § 201-3.
63. Under the UTPCPL, unfair or deceptive acts or practices are defined to include
representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality or grade, or that goods are
of a particular style or model, if they are of another. 73 P.S. § 291-2(4)(vii).
64. Plaintiff represented to Defendant that the home Plaintiff rented to Defendant, 111
Susan Lane, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was a fine home in excellent condition, while knowing it
was not, but also knowing that Defendant needed to find a place to live immediately.
65. The aforementioned property Plaintiff claims to have leased or rented to Defendant,
from the time Defendant occupied the property up until at least the time Defendant and his
family were forced out of the property, was characterized by squalid conditions which included:
a. Rodent and insect infestation;
11
b. Hazardous mold in the living area, closets, basement and garage;
c. Rodent feces;
d. Rodent urine;
d. Rodent poison and traps;
e. Structural defect that allowed rodent entry into the home;
f. Structural defect that allowed water entry into the house;
f. Very high humidity levels in the house conducive to mold growth;
g. Large amounts of millipedes and water bugs;
h. Exterior grading that channeled water into the house;
i. Improper downspouts that failed to distribute rain water away from the house.
66. By fraudulently and deceptively representing to Defendant that 111 Susan Lane,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was a fine home in excellent condition, while knowing it was not, but
also knowing that Defendant needed to find a place to live immediately, Plaintiff violated the
UTPCPL, specifically, 73 P.S. § 201-2 (4) (vii).
67. As a result of Plaintiffs violation of 73 P.S. § 201-2 (4) (vii), Defendant suffered
damages of $7,325.00.
68. Under the provisions of 73 P.S. § 201-9.2 (a), the Court may award to Defendant up
to three times the actual damages sustained, Defendant's costs and reasonable attorney fees, plus
additional relief as the Court deems necessary or proper.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment
in his favor and against Plaintiff on Count II, for damages in the amount of three times$7,325.00,
award Defendant reasonable attorney fees and costs, and grant such other relief as the Court
12
deems necessary or proper, an amount that does not exceed the limit set for compulsory
arbitration by local rule.
COUNT III
PLAINTIFF'S PRIVATE ACTION FOR DEFENDANT'S VIOLATION OF
PENNSYLVANIA CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
73 P.S. §201-9.2 AND 73 P.S. § 201-2 (4) (XXI).
69. Defendant incorporates herein by reference the averments contained in paragraphs 1
through 68, inclusive, as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
70. Pennsylvania Title 73, "Trade and Commerce," "Chapter 4, Fair Trade and Business
Practices Unfair Competition, Acts or Practices," 73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq., short title, "Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law," (hereafter "UTPCPL") provides a private cause
of action against a commercial entity that engages in unfair methods of competition or unfair or
deceptive acts or practices.
71. Pennsylvania Title 73 P.S. § 201-9.2 provides a private cause of action for any
person who purchases or leases goods or services primarily for personal, family or household
purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as
a result of the use or employment by any person of a method, act or practice declared
unlawful by section 3 of the act. Such person may bring a private action to recover actual
damages or one hundred dollars ($ 100), whichever is greater.
72. The UTPCPL, 73 P.S. § 201-1, et seq., applies to protect Defendant regarding his
agreement with Plaintiff to lease residential housing, specifically 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, since Defendant leased the property as principal residence for himself and his
family.
13
73. The UTPCPL declares "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any
trade or commerce" unlawful; 73 P.S. § 201-3.
74. Under the UTPCPL, unfair or deceptive acts or practices are defined to include
engaging in any fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates likelihood of confusion or
misunderstanding. 73 P.S. § 291-2(4)(xxi).
75. Plaintiff fraudulently and deceptively told Defendant that the home Plaintiff rented to
Defendant, 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was a fine home in excellent condition,
while knowing it was not, but also knowing that Defendant needed to find a place to live
immediately.
76. The aforementioned property Plaintiff leased to Defendant, from the time Defendant
occupied the property up until at least the time Defendant and his family were forced out of the
property, was characterized by squalid conditions which included:
a. Rodent and insect infestation;
b. Hazardous mold in the living area, closets, basement and garage;
c. Rodent feces;
d. Rodent urine;
d. Rodent poison and traps;
e. Structural defect that allowed rodent entry into the home;
f. Structural defect that allowed water entry into the house;
f. Very high humidity levels in the house conducive to mold growth;
g. Large amounts of millipedes and water bugs;
h. Exterior grading that channeled water into the house;
14
i. Improper downspouts that failed to distribute rain water away from the house.
77. By fraudulently and deceptively representing to Defendant that 111 Susan Lane,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was a fine home in excellent condition, while knowing it was not, but
also knowing that Defendant needed to find a place to live immediately, Plaintiff violated the
UTPCPL, specifically, 73 P.S. § 201-2 (4) (xxi).
78. As a result of Plaintiff's violation of 73 P.S. § 201-2 (4) (xxii), Defendant suffered
damages of $7,325.00.
79. Under the provisions of 73 P.S. § 201-9.2 (a), the Court may award to Defendant up
to three times the actual damages sustained, Defendant's costs and reasonable attorney fees, plus
additional relief as the Court deems necessary or proper.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment
in his favor and against Plaintiff on Count II, for damages in the amount of three times$7,325.00,
award Defendant reasonable attorney fees and costs, and grant such other relief as the Court
deems necessary or proper, an amount that does not exceed the jurisdictional amount for
compulsory arbitration in accordance with local rule.
COUNT IV
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
80. Defendant incorporates herein by reference the averments contained in paragraphs 1
through 79, inclusive, as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
81. Plaintiff induced Defendant into paying rent and a security deposit in the amount of
$6,500.00, by falsely representing to Defendant that Plaintiff would lease to defendant a fine
home in excellent condition located on the property known as 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, while Plaintiff knew the home was not in fine and excellent condition, but also
15
knew that Defendant could be easily induced because Defendant needed to find a place to live
immediately.
82. In making the foregoing false representation. Plaintiff did not disclose to Defendant
that the aforementioned home was in squalid condition in that it had:
a. Rodent and insect infestation;
b. Hazardous mold in the living area, closets, basement and garage;
c. Rodent feces;
d. Rodent urine;
d. Rodent poison and traps;
e. Structural defect that allowed rodent entry into the home;
f. Structural defect that allowed water entry into the house;
f. Very high humidity levels in the house conducive to mold growth;
g. Large amounts of millipedes and water bugs;
h. Exterior grading that channeled water into the house;
i. Improper downspouts that failed to distribute rain water away from the house.
83. Defendant was induced by Plaintiffs misrepresentations of material facts, as
described above, to pay Plaintiff $6.500.00 in rent and a security deposit.
84. But for Plaintiffs misrepresentations, Defendant would not have paid Plaintiff the
aforementioned $6.500.00.
85. Because of Plaintiffs misrepresentations, Defendant incurred an inspection cost of
$600.00 and a uniform replacement cost of $225.00.
86. Plaintiff willfully schemed to cause, and did in fact cause, the wrongful conveyance
of Defendant's funds to Plaintiff, with no intention of providing Defendant the fine home in
16
excellent condition Plaintiff promised Defendant.
87. Plaintiffs fraudulent conduct, as described above, evinced a high degree of moral
turpitude and demonstrated such wanton dishonesty as to imply a complete indifference to civil
obligations.
88. As a result of Plaintiffs fraudulent misrepresentations, Defendant has suffered
substantial harm.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests judgment be entered in his favor and
against Plaintiff on Count IV of Defendant's Counterclaims and that Defendant be awarded
compensatory damages, costs and interest, punitive damages, attorney fees, expert witness fees,
and such other relief deemed just and proper, an amount within the compulsory arbitration limit
set by local rule.
COUNT V
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
89. Defendant incorporates herein by reference the averments contained in paragraphs 1
through 88, inclusive, as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
90. Pennsylvania law implies a warranty of habitability given by the lessor to the lessee
in a residential lease.
91. On or about June 18, 2010, Plaintiff leased the premises at 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania to Defendant pursuant to a residential lease agreement at a rental rate of $2,500.00
per month.
92. On or about June 18, 2010 Defendant took possession of the aforementioned premises
as his principal residence and duly paid Plaintiff the rent and security deposit demanded by
Plaintiff.
17
93. While in possession of the premises, Defendant found that the same were in a grossly
defective condition and were unsanitary, unsafe, and unfit for habitation in that the house had:
a. Rodent and insect infestation;
b. Hazardous mold in the living area, closets, basement and garage;
c. Rodent feces;
d. Rodent urine;
d. Rodent poison and traps;
e. Structural defect that allowed rodent entry into the home;
f. Structural defect that allowed water entry into the house;
f. Very high humidity levels in the house conducive to mold growth;
g. Large amounts of millipedes and water bugs;
h. Exterior grading that channeled water into the house;
i. Improper downspouts that failed to distribute rain water away from the house.
94. The squalidly defective condition of the leased premises constitutes a breach of
Plaintiffs implied warranty of the habitability of the leased premises.
95. During the period of June 21, 2010 until August 13, 2010, Defendant notified
Plaintiff of the squalidly defective conditions on four separate occasions. A copy of the final
notification to Plaintiff, given by defendant on August 13, 2010, is attached hereto as Exhibit
11B
96. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff not only failed but affirmatively refused
to correct the squalidly defects in the premises, as reported to him by Defendant.
97. On or about August 11, 2010, after waiting patiently and suffering hardship for more
than a month after first giving the aforementioned notice to Plaintiff, and after receiving expert
18
advice that he must vacate the uninhabitable premises because of the hazardous conditions
therein, Defendant was forced to surrender possession of the premises to Plaintiff and requested
return of the monies Defendant had paid Plaintiff.
98. Plaintiff refused and continues to refuse to refund any monies paid to him by
Defendant.
99. Because of Plaintiffs refusal to correct the squalidly defective conditions rendering
the leased premises totally unfit for habitation, Defendant was forced to return his family to
Lebanon prematurely, at substantial additional expense to Defendant.
100. By reason of the squalidly defective conditions rendering the leased premises totally
unfit for habitation, from the day Defendant took possession of the premises until the day he
surrendered possession to Plaintiff, Defendant is entitled to a return of all rent and security
deposit funds Defendant paid to Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant in the amount of
$7,325.00, plus interest, costs of suit, and any other relief deemed just and appropriate, an
amount within the limit for compulsory arbitration set by local rule.
COUNT VI
BREACH OF CONTRACT
101. Defendant incorporates herein by reference the averments contained in foregoing
paragraphs 1 through 100, inclusive, as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
102. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant by which Plaintiff would lease
Defendant a fine house in excellent condition, namely the property known as 111 Susan Lane,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, beginning on or about June 18, 2010, for a period of twelve months.
103. The agreement into which Plaintiff and Defendant entered is a valid and binding
19
contract between Plaintiff and Defendant.
104. Pursuant to the valid and binding contract Plaintiff entered into with Defendant,
Defendant paid Plaintiff rent and a security deposit in the amount of $6,500.00.
105. Pursuant to the valid and binding contract Plaintiff entered into with Defendant,
Plaintiff agreed to maintain the house at 111 Susan Lane such that it would be in good and
habitable condition.
106. The premises Plaintiff leased to Defendant was not a fine house in excellent
condition but a house in squalidly defective condition, in that it had:
a. Rodent and insect infestation;
b. Hazardous mold in the living area, closets, basement and garage;
c. Rodent feces;
d. Rodent urine;
d. Rodent poison and traps;
e. Structural defect that allowed rodent entry into the home;
f. Structural defect that allowed water entry into the house;
f. Very high humidity levels in the house conducive to mold growth;
g. Large amounts of millipedes and water bugs;
h. Exterior grading that channeled water into the house;
i. Improper downspouts that failed to distribute rain water away from the house.
107. During the period of June 21, 2010 through August 13, 2010, Defendant notified
Plaintiff of the squalidly defective conditions present in 111 Susan Lane on four separate
occasions. A copy of the final notification to Plaintiff, given by defendant on August 13, 2010,
is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
20
108. Notwithstanding repeated demands by Defendant, Plaintiff refused to correct the
squalidly defects in the premises he leased to Defendant.
109. By refusing and failing to correct the squalidly defects in the premises he leased to
Defendant, Plaintiff breached his binding contract with Defendant.
110. Plaintiffs breach of his contract with Defendant forced Defendant to surrender
possession of 111 Susan Lane to Plaintiff.
111. Plaintiffs breach of his contract with Defendant forced Defendant to return his
family to Lebanon prematurely, and by doing so imposed substantial additional expense on
Defendant.
112. Plaintiffs breach of his contract with Defendant imposed additional costs on
Defendant including a $600.00 inspection fee and a $225.00 uniform replacement cost.
113. Up until the time Plaintiff forced Defendant to surrender possession of 111 Susan
Lane to Plaintiff, Defendant performed fully under the terms of his contract with Plaintiff.
114. As a result of Defendant's breach of his contract with Plaintiff, Plaintiff suffered
damages of $7,325.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this honorable Court to enter judgment in
his favor and against Defendant, on Count VI, in an amount of $7,325.00 plus accrued interest,
reasonable attorney fees, costs, and grant other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate, an
amount that does not exceed the jurisdictional amount for compulsory arbitration in accordance
with local rule.
COUNT VII
PROMMISSORY ESTOPPEL
(Plead in the Alternative to Count VI)
21
115. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the averments contained in foregoing
paragraphs 1 through 114, inclusive, as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
116. The doctrine of Promissory Estoppel, as set forth in § 90 of the Restatement
(Second) of Contracts, has been adopted in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
117. Promissory estoppel arises when a party relies to his detriment on the
representations or promises of another party such that, to prevent the relying party from being
harmed, the inducing parry will be estopped from showing that the facts are not as the relying
party understood them to be.
118. Promissory estoppel is applicable to enforce a promise which may not otherwise be
supported by consideration or be otherwise enforceable in contract.
119. Plaintiff represented to Defendant that the premises Plaintiff leased to Defendant,
namely 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was a fine home in excellent condition.
120. Plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known that such promises and
representations would and did induce Defendant to pay advance rent and security deposit monies
to Plaintiff.
121. Based on Plaintiffs promises and representations that 111 Susan lane was a fine
house in excellent condition, Defendant paid Plaintiff $6,500.00.
122. Injustice can only be avoided by enforcement of the promises and representations
made by Plaintiff to Defendant that Plaintiff would rent Defendant a fine home in excellent
condition.
WHEREFORE, should the Court determine, for whatever reason, that the agreement
Plaintiff entered into with defendant is not enforceable in contract, Defendant respectfully
requests, in the alternative, that judgment be entered in his favor and against Plaintiff on Count
22
VII of Defendant's Counterclaims, and that the promises and representations made to Defendant
by Plaintiff that 111 Susan Lane was a fine house in excellent condition be enforced under the
doctrine of promissory estoppel, and Defendant be awarded compensatory damages in the
amount of $7,325.00, as well as cost, interests and such other relief as the Court deems just and
appropriate, an amount that does not exceed the limit set for compulsory arbitration by local rule.
COUNT VIII
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Plead in the Alternative to Count VI)
123. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the averments contained in foregoing
paragraphs 1 through 122, inclusive, as fully as though the same were set forth herein at length.
124. The doctrine of unjust enrichment, as set forth in the Restatement of Restitution, has
been adopted in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
125. Under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, a party receiving a benefit from another
party is required to pay the value of such benefit to avoid the party being unjustly enriched at the
expense of the other party.
126. Plaintiff received from Defendant the sum of $6,500.00 in return for Plaintiff
renting Defendant a home promised to be in excellent condition, namely 111 Susan Lane,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
127. Notwithstanding his taking of Defendant's payment of $6,500.00, Plaintiff did not
rent to Defendant a home in excellent condition. To the contrary, 111 Susan Lane was in
squalidly defective condition in that it had:
a. Rodent and insect infestation;
b. Hazardous mold in the living area, closets, basement and garage;
23
c. Rodent feces;
d. Rodent urine;
d. Rodent poison and traps;
e. Structural defect that allowed rodent entry into the home;
f. Structural defect that allowed water entry into the house;
f. Very high humidity levels in the house conducive to mold growth;
g. Large amounts of millipedes and water bugs;
h. Exterior grading that channeled water into the house;
i. Improper downspouts that failed to distribute rain water away from the house.
128. By soliciting and accepting payment from Defendant of $6,500.00, but failing and
refusing to rent to Defendant a fine home in excellent condition as promised, Plaintiff improperly
received a benefit of $6,500.00.
129. In failing and refusing to rent Defendant a fine home in excellent condition,
Plaintiff knew he would realize the benefit of the $6,500.00 Defendant paid to Plaintiff.
130. Plaintiffs acceptance and retention of the $6,500.00 paid by Defendant, under the
circumstances described in the foregoing paragraphs, would be inequitable, unless Plaintiff
refunds the $6,500.00 Defendant paid to Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, should the Court determine, for whatever reason, that the agreement
Plaintiff entered into with defendant is not enforceable in contract, Defendant respectfully
requests, in the alternative, that judgment be entered in his favor and against Plaintiff on Count
VIII of Defendant's Counterclaims, and that Plaintiff be compelled to compensate Defendant the
full value of the enrichment conveyed upon Plaintiff, as well as cost, interests and such other
24
relief as the Court deems just and appropriate, an amount that does not exceed the limit set for
compulsory arbitration by local rule.
Respectfully submitted,
an!!? Yr
DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR., Esquire
Attorney for the Defendant
Attorney Identification Number: 83889
36 Donegal Drive
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 385-1866
Dated: March 8, 2011 Attorney for Defendant
25
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "A"
r
JEM Environmental Construction & Consulting, LLC
Certified Mold Inspection & Certified Mold Remediatien Contractor's
HIC Reg #PA032280
141 West Louther St., Carlisle, PA 17013
717-245-8543 (o) 360-461-3715 (c)
erickciensennu,gmail.com
Mold Inspection Report
Date of Inspection: August 11, 2010
Provided For: Mr. and Mrs. Dureid Zehreddine
Address of Property: 111 Susan Drive, Carlisle, PA 17015
Telephone: 717-245-4830
Contact: Kevin Bremer
Backeround•
JEM Environmental was contacted by Kevin Bremer to conduct a mold investigation at the
property located above.
The occupants of the property are:
1. Dureid Zehreddine, age 52
2. Nidia Zehreddine, age 50
3. Arz Zehreddine, age 11
It has been reported that the above property was rented by Mr. Zehreddine over the internet,
sight unseen. No disclosure statement was available on the internet. Mr. Zehreddine signed the
lease on June 18, 2010 and moved in 4 days later.
Mrs. Zahreddine and their son, Arz, arrived to the U.S. on July 13, 2010 and have lived in this
property for approximately 30 days.
It has also been reported that Arz, the son, is an amputee and Mr. Zahreddine has respiratory
issues, allergies and high blood pressure.
The Zahreddines reported seeing visible mold in the basement and smelling a musty/moldy odor
in the basement, closets and garage. Rodent and insect infestations were also reported to the
landlord.
Between July 14, 2010 and July 20, 2010 it was reported that the landlord placed rodent poison
throughout the residence after repeated complaints from the Zahreddines. It has also been
reported that on or about July 24, 2010, Mr. Zahreddine informed the landlord that the odors,
rodent, insect and mold issues were not resolved and the residence was unaccceptable.
Visual Inspection:
Garage:
The concrete slab floor has cracked from the house to the garage door. The concrete slab floor
has begun to buckle and sink. This may be due to a void beneath the concrete slab.
In the area of the garage floor where it meets the house there is a space created by the sunken
slab that allows for rodents to access the house. Light can be observed between the garage
concrete slab and the seal at the bottom of the garage door. The garage has a urine odor caused
by the rodents.
First Floor:
The smell of rodent urine and mold permeates the first floor. Mouse bait traps are visible
throughout the house.
Humidity on the first floor is 54.2% RH.
The moisture levels at the plumbing end of the tub, located in the bedroom bathroom, were very
high at 40% RH, especially at the base of the tub wall. Another rodent bait trap is located in this
bathroom.
Basement:
There is a heavy urine odor and mold odor. Mouse droppings can be seen beneath the basement
steps and in most corners of all basement areas. Bait traps for rodents are placed throughout the
basement.
Water stained ceiling tiles were observed.
Moisture meter levels obtained from the base of the front foundation walls exceed 60%. A
moisture reading of 60 or more % is unusually high.
Visible mold can be seen on the basement walls and ceiling tiles. Most notable in the basement
front bedroom area. Large amounts of millipedes and other water bugs were observed.
Relative humidity in this basement is 71% which would be conducive to mold growth.
Exterior:
Sunken grading was observed next to the foundation. Over grown bushes and weeds are close to
the foundation.
The downspouts are not sufficiently extended away from the foundation. A rear downspout is
connected to plastic drain tile, but where the downspout meets the plastic drain tile there are
holes that allow moisture to escape onto the ground. next to the foundation. This elevates the
amount of moisture intrusion into the interior concrete slab and foundation.
Opinion:
Due to the obvious high rodent infestation and the mold growth, it is my professional opinion that
this house is not a healthy environment for humans.
The necessary use of rodent bait at this time would also prohibit house pets, such as dogs and
cats, from safely occupying this house.
The rodent, mold and water bug problems are all related to the high moisture and humidity
levels found in the basement foundation and basement concrete slab floors. The cracked and
sinking garage concrete slab may also contribute to the moisture intrusion. At the least, the
sunken concrete allows an entry way for rodents.
Laboratory Analvsis:
A direct swab sample was collected in the basement and was sent for Laboratory analysis. The
Laboratory analysis has revealed the presence of Aspergillus/Penicillium molds occurring at
High spore count levels. High being over 1000 cfu's (colony forming units).
Aspergillus/Penicillium are known allergens with some species being toxin producing. These
molds are typically found in water damaged buildings. Information directly from the Laboratory
on Aspergillus/Penicillium has been provided.
Recommendations:
1. Eliminate and correct all moisture intrusion issues.
2. Contract with a competent rodent and bug exterminator.
3. Remediate the mold in the basement.
4. Hire a plumber to fix all leaks from the bathroom plumbing.
5. Any person who has occupied this house that feels any health issues they have been
experiencing may be related to the rodent and mold issues in the house should provide a copy of
this report to their personal health care provided for a proper diagnosis.
Respectfully Submitted,
Erick C Jensen
President, JEM Environmental
Certified Mold Inspector & Certified Mold Remediation Contractor
Graduate of The United States Army Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Warfare School
Contract Expert Consultant for bacteria and mold to the forensic engineering firm ARCCA Inc.
Consultant to Chadbourne - Parke, LLP, Rockefeller Center, NY, NY and Lamp, O'Dell,
Huntington, WV
Author of "Mold Inspection and Remediation- A Guide from Start to Finish" copyright 2003 the
Library of Congress.
Co-author Lorman Educational Services Seminar "Mold Induced Personal Injuries and
Commercial Losses".
Inventor, designer and developer of advanced technologies for the remediation of toxic mold and
bacteria. "High Intensity UV -C Bio Gun and Methods of Use" US Patent No# 7,211,813
Consultant to television news programs in Pennsylvania and West Virginia
Over thirty five years of commercial and residential experience in all phases of the construction
trades industry.
EMSL Analytical, Inc.
4 Fairfield Boulevard Wallingford, CT 06492
Phone: 203-2845948 Fax: (203) 2845978 Web: http:/twww.emal.com Email:wallingfofdlab(Memsl.com
Attn: Denise Jensen EMSL Order: 241003136
JEM Enterprise, L.L.C. Customer ID: JEME64
141 West Louther Street Collected: 8/11/2010
Carlisle, PA 17013 Received: 9/07/2010
Analyzed: 9/07/2010
Proj: 111 Susan Drive
Test Report: Microscopic Examination of Fungal Spores, Fungal Structures, Hyphae, and Other
Particulates from Swab Samples (EMSL Method: M041)
Lab Sample Number. 241003136-0001
Client Sample ID: 81
Sample Location: Basement
Spore Types Category
r nus
Ascospores
Aspergillus/Penicillitun 'High';
Basidiospores -
ipolaris
Chaetomium
Cladospgrium :: -
Cutvularia
F_picoccum
Fusarlum
Ganoderma -
Myxomycete
Rust
Scopulafiopsis.
Stachybotrys
'Tortda
Ulocladium
Unid6FW4 0?Spores
z o Cetes
F?t?3tr#?irti?late _ ,,
Hyphal Fragment High
Jr»#ect Fragment
Pollen
Initial report from: 09/09/2010 08:16:36
Category: CounVper area analyzed
Rare: 1 to 10 Low: 11 to 100 Medium: 101 to 1000 High: >1000
No discemable field blank was submitted with this group of samples.
' Sample contains fruiting structures and/or hyphae associated with the spores.
Gloria V. Oriol, Laboratory Manager
Samples analyzed by EMSL Analytical, Inc. 4 Faybeld Boulevard, vWangfad CT AIHA-UP, LLC-EMLAP Lab 165118 or Other Approved Signatory
Samples were received in good condition unless otherwise noted on this report. EMBL Analytical maintains liability limited to cost of analysis. Interpretation of the data contained In this reportIs the responsibility
of the client. This report mates only to the samples reported above and may not be reproduced, except In full, without written approval by EMSL Analytical. EMBL Analytical beers no responsibility for the
sample collection actlvllies or analytical
For Information on the fungi listed in this report please visit the Resources section at www.emsl.com
Test Report DEVERI-7.21.0 Printed: 9/09/2010 08:23:26AM Page 1 of 1
EMSL Analytical, Inc.
4 Fairfield Boulevard Wallingford, CT 06492
Phone: 203-2845948 Fax: (203) 2845978 Web: http:/Awm.emsl.com Emailmallingfordlab@emsl.com
Attn: Denise Jensen EMSL Order: 241003136
JEM Enterprise, L.L.C. Customer ID: JEME64
141 West Louther Street Collected: 8/11/2010
Carlisle, PA 17013 Received: 9/07/2010
Analyzed: 9/07/2010
Proj: 111 Susan Drive
Test Report: Microscopic Examination of Fungal Spores, Fungal Structures, Hyphae, and Other
Particulates from Swab Samples (EMSL Method: M041)
Lab Sample Number. 2410031384001
Client Sample ID: #1
Sample Location: Basement
Spore Types Category
grocy opnnus -
Alteinaria -
Ascospores
Aspergillus/Penicillium 'High`
Basidiospores
Bipolaris -
Chaetomium
Cladosporium
Curvularia
Epicocx:um
Fusanum
Ganoderma
Myxomycete
Paecifomyces
Rust -
Scopulariopsis
Stachybotrys
Torula
Ulocladium
Unidentiflable: Spores
Z om cetes
Fibrous Particulate
Hyphal Fragment High
Insect Fragment. 1
Pollen
Initial report from: 09/09/2010 08:16:36
Category: Count/per area analyzed
Rare: 1 to 10 Low: 11 to 100 Medium: 101 to 1000 High: >1000
No discernable field blank was submitted with this group of samples.
Sample contains fruiting structures and/or hyphae associated with the spores.
ovl? . ? /-)
Gloria V. Oriol, Laboratory Manager
Samples analyzed by EMSL Ansly1 cal, Inc. 4 FairfieM Boulevard, Wallingford CT AIHA-LAP, LLC-ENLAP Lab 155118 or Other Approved Signatory
Samples were received in good condition unless otherwise noted on this report. EMSL Analytical maintains liabaty, linked to coal of analysis. Interpretation of the data contained in this report is the responsbvdy
of the event. This report relates only to the samples reported above and may not be reproduced, exept in full, without written approval by EMSL Analytical. EMSL Analytical boon no responsibility for the
sample collection acti rives or analytical
For Information on the fungi listed in this report please visit the Resources section at www.emsl.com
Test Report DEVER1-7.21.0 Printed: 9/09/2010 08:23:26AM Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
US ARMY INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAND
HEADQUARTERS, US ARMY GARRISON, CARLISLE BARRACKS
22 ASHBURN DRIVE
REPLY TO CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-5000
ATTENTION OF
Office of the Post Judge Advocate 13 August 2010
Mr. Samir Halabi
608 Devonshire Dr.,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Dear Mr. Halabi:
This letter is to inform you that your former tenant, Brigadier General Dureid
Zahrddine and his family vacated the house you leased to them on 111 Susan Lane, in
Carlisle, PA. on the 11th of this month. Enclosed you will find all keys the family was
given for your dwelling.
As you know, the residence was professionally inspected and determined to be
uninhabitable based upon the mold as well as rodent and bug infestations. These
conditions existed at the time you chose to rent your dwelling and remain today.
Because of these conditions, you placed General Zahrddine and his family's health in
jeopardy. This is especially true of the General's son who you know is a recent
amputee. The conditions at the house caused the Zahrdinne family to sleep in the car.
Based upon these conditions, General Zahrddine and his family have appropriately
terminated their lease. Additionally, the General is requesting that you pay the amount
of $6,500.00 for all rent paid by him to you thus far and the costs of the official
inspection. Said payment as well as any communication with Gen. Zahrddine should
be made through this office. Should said payment not be received by 1 September
2010, this office and the command will forward the copy of our litigation report to the
Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office as well as the appropriate health agencies for
initiation of applicable legal and / or collection proceedings.
I can be reached telephonically at (717) 245-4940.
Sincerely,
arl G. Mi hell
Major, Un ted States Army
Post Judge Advocate
SAMIR HALABI
Plaintiff
v.
DUREID ZAHREDDINE
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW
CIVIL TERM
NO. 2010-7306
VERIFICATION
Dureid Zahreddine hereby states that he is the Defendant in this action and that the
statements of fact made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter and Counterclaims are true
and correct to the best of his personal knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned
understands that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: , 2011
Dureid Zahreddine
Defendant
SAMIR HALABI IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW
DUREID ZAHREDDINE
CIVIL TERM
Defendant
NO. 2010-7306
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., attorney for Defendant, Dureid Zahreddine, hereby certify
that on March 8, 2010, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Answer
with New Matter and Counterclaims upon the below named individual by depositing the same in
the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
SERVED UPON:
Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire
Irwin & McKnight, P.C.
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for the Plaintiff
s4719.,401 ,Qia.
Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire
Attorney Identification Number: 83889
36 Donegal Drive
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 385-1866
rn M1
t
Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire
Attorney Identification Number: 83889
36 Donegal Drive
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 385-1866
SAMIR HALABI : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Plaintiff : PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW
DUREID ZAHREDDINE
CIVIL TERM
Defendant
NO. 2010-7306
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE
To The Prothonotary:
Kindly enter my appearance as attorney for the Defendant in the above captioned matter.
Date: March 8, 2011
Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SAMIR HALABI y
Plaimiff NO. 2010 - 7306 `= --?
?
rna'' ? i
r=
v5.„r-- ,. 7?
DUREID ZAHRDDINE
Defendant r s
RULE 1312-1 The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substantially-m- thd`'
Following form:
PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
MARCUS A. McRNIGHT. III, ESQ counsel for the plaintiffidabndut in the above
action (or actions), respectfully represents that:
1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue.
2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $ 27,944. 00
The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is $6,500-00
The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit
as arbitrators: ALL ATTORNEY WITH THE FIRM OF IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C.
DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR., ESQ.
WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to
whom the case shall be submitted.
OVA 3 x1.00 fd a J
C?? 7oay .l
?-? as8oy y
ORDER C
AND NOW,
petition,
Esq., and
200 , in consideration of the foregoing
Esq., and
Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above
captioned action (or actions) as prayed for.
By the Court,
Kevin A. Hess, P.J.
T
r
?lL??'Ur f f??
oF THE
iuL- + .:
SAMIR HALABI, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DUREID ZAHRDDINE,
DEFENDANT
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2010 - 7306 CIVIL TERM
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO NEW MATTER AND
COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT
AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, SAMIR HALABI, by and through her attorneys, Irwin
& McKnight, P.C., and makes the following Answers to New Matter and Counterclaim of the
Defendant, DUREID ZAHRDDINE, as follows:
9. The averments of fact contained in Paragraphs One (1) through Nine (9) of the Complaint
of Samir Halabi are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Answer to
Paragraph Nine (9) of the New Matter.
10. The averments of fact contained in Paragraphs One (1) through Ten (10) of the New
Matter are admitted.
11. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eleven (11) of the New Matter are
admitted.
12. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twelve (12) of the New Matter are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff is Lebanese. The averments are specifically
denied and proof thereof is demanded.
13. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirteen (13) of the New Matter are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff is of Lebanese citizenship and descent. The
averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
14. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fourteen (14) of the New Matter of the
Defendant are beyond the knowledge of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically denied and
proof thereof is demanded.
15. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fifteen (15) of the New Matter are
admitted.
16. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Sixteen (16) of the New Matter are
admitted.
17. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Seventeen (17) of the New Matter are
admitted.
18. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eighteen (18) of the New Matter are
admitted.
19. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Nineteen (19) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which an answer is not required. They are therefore denied.
20. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty (20) of the New Matter are
admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant had a son named Arz. It is
denied that the Plaintiff was notified that he required any special conditions for living. On the
contrary, the Defendant examined the dwelling and was very pleased with it.
21. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty-One (21) of the New Matter are
admitted.
2
22. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty-Two (22) of the New Matter are
specifically denied. On the contrary, there were several flies but no insect infestation. There
were no water problems. The home came with a sump pump in the basement which the
Defendant refused to operate. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is
demanded.
23. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty-Three (23) of the New Matter are
beyond the scope of knowledge and information of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically
denied and proof thereof is demanded.
24. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty-Four (24) of the New Matter are
beyond the scope of knowledge and information of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically
denied and proof thereof is demanded.
25. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty-Five (25) of the New Matter are
beyond the scope of knowledge and information of the Plaintiff. Where the Defendant slept was
a matter of rational choice, but the conditions were not squalid. The averments are specifically
denied and proof thereof is demanded.
26. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty-Six (26) of the New Matter are
beyond the scope of knowledge and information of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically
denied and proof thereof is demanded.
27. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty-Seven (27) of the New Matter are
beyond the scope of knowledge and information of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically
denied and proof thereof is demanded.
28. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty-Eight (28) of the New Matter are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the alleged conditions were highly exaggerated in order for
the Defendant to move to a less expensive dwelling. The averments are specifically denied and
proof thereof is demanded.
29. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty-Nine (29) of the New Matter are
specifically denied. On the contrary, every attempt by the Plaintiff to respond to inquiries was
denied by the Defendant. The Plaintiff was unable to gain access to the residence until after the
Defendants left the residence. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is
demanded.
30. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty (30) of the New Matter are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff was never given access by the Defendant to the
residence in order to inspect or remedy any problems. The averments are specifically denied and
proof thereof is demanded.
31. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty-One (31) of the New Matter are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff was never given access by the Defendant to the
residence in order to inspect or remedy any problems. The averments are specifically denied and
proof thereof is demanded.
32. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty-Two (32) of the New Matter are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff was never given access by the Defendant to the
residence in order to inspect or remedy any problems. The averments are specifically denied and
proof thereof is demanded.
33. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty-Three (33) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which an answer is not required. They are therefore denied.
4
34. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty-Four (34) of the New Matter are
admitted.
35. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty-Five (35) of the New Matter are
admitted in part and denied in part. There was a small area of mold in the basement which JEM
tested. No testing was done in the remainder of the house. There was no fining of dangerous
levels throughout the house.
36. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty-Six (36) of the New Matter are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff's experts' report by Jeffrey Gilbert on August
17, 2010 found no evidence of rodent problems. The report by the Defendant's expert, New
Beginnings, found that no testing had been performed in the living room of the home. The
averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
37. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty-Seven (37) of the New Matter are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the opinion of Defendant's expert was that he had health
concerns. The report never stated "not fit for human habitation". The averments are specifically
denied and proof thereof is demanded.
38. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty-Eight (38) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
39. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty-Nine (39) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
40. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Forty (40) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
41. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Forty-One (41) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
5
42. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Forty-Two (42) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
43. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Forty-Three (43) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
44. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Forty-Four (44) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
45. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Forty-Five (45) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
46. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Forty-Six (46) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
47. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Forty-Seven (47) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
48. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Forty-Eight (48) of the New Matter are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests entry of judgment against the Defendant in the
amount of $27,944.00 with the costs of this action.
COUNTERCLAIMS -COUNT I
49. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference averments of fact contained in Paragraphs One (1)
through Forty-Eight (48) of Plaintiff's Complaint and Answers to New Matter as though set forth
herein.
50. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fifty (50) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
6
51. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fifty-One (51) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
52. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fifty-Two (52) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
53. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fifty-Three (53) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
54. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fifty-Four (54) of the Counterclaim are
beyond the scope of knowledge and information of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically
denied and proof thereof is demanded.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests entry of judgment against the Defendant in the
amount of $27,944.00 with the costs of this action.
COUNTERCLAIMS - COUNT II
55. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference averments of fact contained in Paragraphs One (1)
through Fifty-Four (54) of Plaintiff's Complaint and Answers to New Matter and Counterclaim -
Count I as though set forth herein.
56. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fifty-Six (56) of the Counterclaim are
admitted.
57. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fifty-Seven (57) of the Counterclaim are
admitted.
58. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fifty-Eight (58) of the Counterclaim are
beyond the scope of knowledge and information of the Plaintiff. The Defendant is a resident of
the Country of Lebanon and maintains his residence in Lebanon. The averments are specifically
denied and proof thereof is demanded.
7
59. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fifty-Nine (59) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
60. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Sixty (60) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
61. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Sixty-One (61) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
62. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Sixty-Two (62) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
63. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Sixty-Three (63) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
64. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Sixty-Four (64) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Defendant indicated to the Plaintiff that he was satisfied
with the property located at 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle, Pennsylvania when he inspected it and was
very grateful to have it. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
65. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Sixty-Five (65) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the rental property leased to the Defendant was not
characterized by squalid conditions. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is
demanded.
66. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Sixty-Six (66) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, it was the Defendant who decided to leave the property.
The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
8
67. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Sixty-Seven (67) of the Counterclaim are
beyond the knowledge of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof
is demanded.
68. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Sixty-Eight (68) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests entry of judgment against the Defendant in the
amount of $27,944.00 with the costs of this action.
COUNTERCLAIMS - COUNT III
69. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference averments of fact contained in Paragraphs One (1)
through Sixty-Eight (68) of Plaintiff's Complaint and Answers to New Matter and Counterclaim
Count I and Count II as though set forth herein.
70. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Seventy (70) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
71. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Seventy-One (71) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
72. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Seventy-Two (72) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
73. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Seventy-Three (73) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
74. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Seventy-Four (74) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
9
75. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Seventy-Five (75) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff rented the home located at 111 Susan Lane,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania to the Defendant knowing that it was in good condition. The Defendant
refused the Plaintiff access to the property and left the property with any notice. The averments
are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
76. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Seventy-Six (76) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Defendants were not forced out of the home located at
111 Susan Lane due to squalid conditions. The home remained habitable at all times. The
averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
77. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Seventy-Seven (77) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
78. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Seventy-Eight (78) of the Counterclaim are
beyond the knowledge of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof
is demanded.
79. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Seventy-Nine (79) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests entry of judgment against the Defendant in the
amount of $27,944.00 with the costs of this action.
COUNTERCLAIMS-COUNT IV
80. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference averments of fact contained in Paragraphs One (1)
through Seventy-Nine (79) of Plaintiff's Complaint and Answers to New Matter and
Counterclaim - Count I, Count II, and Count III as though set forth herein.
10
81. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eighty-One (81) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff did not falsely represent that the property
located at 111 Susan Lane was in excellent condition. The property was in good condition. The
averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
82. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eighty-Two (82) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the property located at 111 Susan Lane did not have squalid
conditions. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
83. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eighty-Three (83) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff did not misrepresent the condition of 111 Susan
Lane to the Defendant. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
84. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eighty-Four (84) of the Counterclaim are
beyond the knowledge of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof
is demanded.
85. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eighty-Five (85) of the Counterclaim are
beyond the knowledge of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof
is demanded.
86. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eighty-Six (86) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff did not willfully scheme to wrongful
conveyance of Defendant's funds to Plaintiff. The averments are specifically denied and proof
thereof is demanded.
87. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eighty-Seven (87) of the New Matter are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff was honest and evidenced a high degree of
moral turpitude in the representation of the property to the Defendant.
11
88. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eighty-Eight (88) of the New Matter are
beyond the knowledge of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof
is demanded of any harm claimed by the Defendant.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests entry of judgment against the Defendant in the
amount of $27,944.00 with the costs of this action.
COUNTERCLAIMS - COUNT V
89. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference averments of fact contained in Paragraphs One (1)
through Eighty-Eight (88) of Plaintiff's Complaint and Answers to New Matter and
Counterclaim - Count I, Count II, Count III, and Count IV as though set forth herein.
90. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Ninety (90) of the Counterclaim are
conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
91. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Ninety-One (91) of the Counterclaim are
admitted.
92. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Ninety-Two (92) of the Counterclaim are
admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant took possession of 111
Susan Lane. At that time, the Defendant also maintained a principal residence in the Country of
Lebanon.
93. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Ninety-Three (93) of the Counterclaim are
beyond the knowledge of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof
is demanded.
12
94. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Ninety-Four (94) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the property was not in a condition which violated the
implied habitability of the property. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is
demanded.
95. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Ninety-Five (95) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Defendant refused all access to the property until
Defendant left without advance notice or a forwarding address. The averments are specifically
denied and proof thereof is demanded.
96. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Ninety-Six (96) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the conditions at 111 Susan Lane were no squalidly
defective and therefore did not need corrected by the Plaintiff. The Defendant never permitted
access to the property. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
97. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Ninety-Seven (97) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Defendant repeatedly would not permit the Plaintiff
access to the property. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
98. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Ninety-Eight (98) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, the Defendant is not entitled to any refund where he vacates
the property without notice and fails to provide a forwarding address.
99. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Ninety-Nine (99) of the Counterclaim are
beyond the knowledge of the Plaintiff. The averments are specifically denied regarding why the
Defendant's wife and son returned to Lebanon. Proof thereof is demanded.
13
100. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred (100) of the Counterclaim are
specifically denied. On the contrary, there can be no refund of the funds the Defendant paid to
Plaintiff since he left the premises without warning or without sending a forwarding address.
The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests entry of judgment against the Defendant in the
amount of $27,944.00 with the costs of this action.
COUNTERCLAIMS - COUNT VI
101. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference averments of fact contained in Paragraphs One (1)
through One Hundred (100) of Plaintiff's Complaint and Answers to New Matter and
Counterclaim - Count I, Count II, Count III, Count IV, and Count V as though set forth herein.
102. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Two (102) of the
Counterclaim are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the home was in good
condition when it was inspected by Defendant and he moved into the property. It is denied that
the Plaintiff did anything to make the home inhabitable
103. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Three (103) of the
Counterclaim are admitted.
104. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Four (104) of the
Counterclaim are specifically denied. On the contrary,
105. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Five (105) of the
Counterclaim are admitted.
14
106. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Six (106) of the
Counterclaim are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff's rental property located at
Susan Lane was in good condition. There were no squalid conditions. The averments are
specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
107. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Seven (107) of the
Counterclaim are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant notified the
Plaintiff but also refused him a chance to inspect or correct any problems during the period of
June 21, 2010 through August 13, 2010. It is specifically denied that there were squalidly
defective conditions at 111 Susan Lane, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
108. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Eight (108) of the
Counterclaim are specifically denied. On the contrary, there were no squalid defects in the
premises leased to the Defendant that required correction. The Defendant would not permit the
Plaintiff access while he resided there. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof
is demanded.
109. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Nine (109) of the
Counterclaim are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff did not fail or refuse to
correct squalid defects in the premises leased to the Defendant as he was not permitted access to
the property. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
110. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Ten (110) of the
Counterclaim are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Defendant looked for an excuse to
move to a property for less rent. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is
demanded.
15
111. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Eleven (111) of the
Counterclaim are beyond the scope of knowledge and information of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
does not know why the Defendant's wife and son returned to Lebanon. The averments are
specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
112. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Twelve (112) of the
Counterclaim are beyond the scope of knowledge and information of the Plaintiff. The
averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
113. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Thirteen (113) of the
Counterclaim are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Defendant failed to permit the Plaintiff
access to the property. He failed to notify the Plaintiff that he was leaving the property and still
has not provided a forwarding address. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof
is demanded.
114. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Fourteen (114) of the
Counterclaim are beyond the scope of knowledge and information of the Plaintiff. The
averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests entry of judgment against the Defendant in the
amount of $27,944.00 with the costs of this action.
COUNTERCLAIMS - COUNT VII
115. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference averments of fact contained in Paragraphs One (1)
through One Hundred Fourteen (114) of Plaintiff's Complaint and Answers to New Matter and
Counterclaim - Count I, Count II, Count III, Count IV, Count V, and Count VII as though set
forth herein.
16
116. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Sixteen (116) of the
Counterclaim are conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
117. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Seventeen (117) of the
Counterclaim are conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
118. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Eighteen (118) of the
Counterclaim are conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
119. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Nineteen (119) of the
Counterclaim are admitted in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff provided a residence in good
condition adequate for the needs of the Defendant.
120. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Twenty (120) of the
Counterclaim are admitted in part. It is admitted that the Defendant knew he needed to pay rent
and a security deposit.
121. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Twenty-One (121) of the
Counterclaim are admitted in part. It is admitted that the Defendant knew he need to pay rent
and a security deposit.
122. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Twenty-Two (122) of the
Counterclaim are conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests entry of judgment against the Defendant in the
amount of $27,944.00 with the costs of this action.
COUNTERCLAIMS - COUNT VIII
123. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference averments of fact contained in Paragraphs One (1)
through One Hundred Fourteen (114) of Defendant's New Matter and Counterclaim - Count I,
Count II, Count III, Count IV, Count V, Count VII, and Count VIII as though set forth herein.
17
124. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Twenty-Four (124) of the
Counterclaim are conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
125. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Twenty-Five (125) of the
Counterclaim are conclusions of law to which no Answer is required. They are therefore denied.
126. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Twenty-Six (126) of the
Counterclaim are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff provided a home in good
condition for the Defendant. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is
demanded.
127. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Twenty-Seven (127) of the
Counterclaim are specifically denied. On the contrary, the home located at 111 Susan Lane rented
to the Defendant by the Plaintiff was in good condition. There were no squalid conditions. The
averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
128. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Twenty-Eight (128) of the
Counterclaim are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff rented 111 Susan Lane to the
Defendant in good condition. The squalid conditions listed were not present during the time in
which the Defendant rented said property.
129. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Twenty-Nine (129) of the
Counterclaim are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff rented to the Defendant a
home in good condition. The averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded.
18
130. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One Hundred Thirty (130) of the
Counterclaim are specifically denied. On the contrary, the Plaintiff has been unable to rent the
property since the Defendant never properly vacated the residence or provided a forwarding
address for the Plaintiff. The Defendant remains responsible for payment of the rent for the
entire year.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests entry of judgment against the Defendant in the
amount of $27,944.00 with the costs of this action.
Respectfully submitted,
IRWIN & McJKNIGHT,
By:
Marcus A. Mc fight, III Esquire
Supreme Court #2547
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2353
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Date: April 15, 2011
19
VERIFICATION
The foregoing document is based upon information, which has been gathered by my
counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this
document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I
understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section
4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities
Date: April 15, 2011
SAMIR HALABI, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DUREID ZAHRDDINE, NO. 2010 - 7306 CIVIL TERM
DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached document was
served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States
mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and
addressed as follows:
Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esq.
36 Donegal Drive
Carlisle, PA 17013
By:
60 West Pomfr&,_feet
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2353
Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476
Date: April 15, 2011
20
IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C.
Plaintiff
Dld,6?-e/ 2zk w, We
Defendant
In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania No.?,c /U- 7 -3 L%<
Civil Action - Law.
Oath
Av,rc li S Ede lefe i;1
Law Fit
z, s-I G ?K i L)d /e
Address
that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United
Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office
Law Firm
3800 /4,z d St, 1 ?? ? 1,L uD" ? SIA- C,
Address Address /
o:!74 A NIVt???'ur?S
t
/t U
City, Zip City Zip city, zip
Award
We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the
following award: (Note: If damages for del are awarded, they shall be eparately stated.)
^,c A ?c? d a 3/ ?rtd 4 n=
9 // 1?-l>/2 -) d71?,4- C
name if applicable.
Date of Hearing: Id Ld/l_ IL 4-L-L,
(Chairman)
Date of Award: G ?
Notice of Entry of Award
Now, the o2 / `S#- day of , 20 it , at C/ /4 , A .M., the above award was
entered upon the docket and notice t ereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys.
Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $.350.00
Prothonot Deputy
h1 e'kae1 Tarnow" i TOEr ,t/. p "a(r;S
Name (Chairman) Name
Law F'
-IF THE PROTHON IAA,,.
2011 JUN 21 AIM 9' 1
MBERLANO Cook ;
PENNSYLVANIA
t?e t
SAMIR HALABI,
PLAINTIFF
V.
DUREID ZAHRDDINE,
DEFENDANT
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2010 - 7306 CIVIL TERM
PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT
FROM ARBITRATION AWARD
TO THE PROTHONTARY:
Please enter judgment on the attached arbitration award in favor of the plaintiff, SAMIR
HALABI, against the defendant, DUREID ZAHRDDINE, in the amount of $11,500.00.
IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C.
By.
Date: August 9, 2011
Marcus A. Mc gh , ,
Supreme Court I.D. 6
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2353
Attorney for the Plaintiff
2
s r T+? .:.-.?
` TI n --
-y
?r
Vic?
<- -T1
1q. LAC ??? ` al
ek-
?i ,
Plaintiff
Dit ge-14
Defendant
We /do o?
Stand tl
elity,
Signature
In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania No.-2,cqk 661,
Civil Action - Law.
Oath
Signdfiire that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United
Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office
re-1-
Sid are
l )`I (k&, 1 ? do ws? t.
Name (Chairman)
Law Fi n
4
Address
MW city, T Zip
??Jou 'sis
4 Al.
Name T
Law Firm
3 LToo Pa,-Lt .5 f,
Address
Cam A'11, )9A / 70//
City, 11 Zip
LiU L{?J. I
Rzyn?
Law F'
Address'
City, zip (/ID 7
Award
We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the
following award: (Note: If damages for Bela fare awarded, they shall be eparately stated.)
. Arbityat?r, dissents. (Insert name if applicable.)
Date of Heaiiing: l W i _1L..
b
01/ / (Chairman)
0 r
Date of Award:;
?.z -- - /-
Notice of Entry of A
Now, the o? I s? day of , 20 It , at /la fl .M., the above award was
entered upon the docket and notice `ereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys.
Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ X3-,0 . ego
!?Z4-4,a *4:r,9
Prothonota Deputy
SAMIR HALABI, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
?• CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DUREID ZAHRDDINE, NO. 2010 - 7306 CIVIL TERM
DEFENDANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of the Plaintiff's Praecipe
to Enter Judgment of Arbitration Award was served upon the following by depositing a true and
correct copy of the same in the United States mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and addressed as follows:
Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esq.
36 Donegal Drive
Carlisle, PA 17013
IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C.
By: Marcus A. McKni h , , Esquire
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2353
Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476
Date: August 9, 2011
SAMIR HALABI,
PLAINTIFF
v.
DUREID ZAHRDDINE,
DEFENDANT
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2010 - 7306 CIVIL TERM
NOTICE
PURSUANT TO RULE 236 OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, YOU ARE
HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A JUDMENT BY DEFAULT HAS BEEN ENTERED AGAINST
YOU IN THE ABOVE PROCEEDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,500.00. IF YOU HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NOTICE, PLEASE CALL IRWIN & McKNIGHT,
P.C. AT 717-249-2353.
By:
Date: August 9, 2011
Date:
IRWIN &,)IcKNIGHT, P.C.
Marcds A. Mc-Taight, III, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. #25476
60 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2353
Attorney for the Plaintiff