The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-3462 Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-341.2.- CIU-.L~~ CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE v. Anthony D. Notarfrancesco,: Defendant NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you by the court. A judgement may also be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available at: The Office of the Prothonotary, Dauphin County CoUrthouse, Front and Market Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR 4TH FLOOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 (717) 240-6200 I I MEYERS, DESFOR. SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 1710B (717) 236.9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. Anthony D. Notarfrancesco,: Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE NOTICIA LE RAN DEMANDADO A USTED EN LA CORTE. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomaro medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previa aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion do demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR 4TH FLOOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURTHOUSE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 (717) 240-6200 I I I 2 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STAEET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 2:36-2817 I Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04 - 31.J I.:L (? i()~C-T92..~ CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE v. Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant COMPLAINT IN DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 3301(C) OF THE DIVORCE CODE AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, by and through her attorneys, Meyers, Desfor, Saltzgiver & Boyle and files the following Complaint in Divorce and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff is Elizabeth Notarfrancesco an adult individual who currently resides at 2014 Mountain Pine Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is Anthony Dominic Notarfrancesco an adult individual with a business address of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 250 West Pratt Street, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Plaintiff has been a bona fide resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for at least six (6) months immediately previous to the filing of this Complaint. 4. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on June 10, 1972 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County. 5. There have been no prior actions of divorce or annulment between the parties. 6. The marriage is irretrievably broken. I I MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 7. The Defendant is not a member of the United States Army or its allies. 8. Plaintiff has been advised that counseling is available and that Plaintiff may have the right to request the court require the parties to participate in counseling, being so advised, Plaintiff waives that right. 9. Plaintiff requests the Court to enter a Decree of Divorce pursuant to Section 3301(C) or 3301(D) of the Divorce Code. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter a Decree in Divorce pursuant to Section 3301(C) or 3301(D) of the Divorce Code. COUNTS COUNT I INDIGNITIES 10. Paragraphs one through nine of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 11. The grounds upon which this action is based are indignities pursuant to Section 3301(a) (6) of the Divorce Code. During the marriage, the Defendant has committed such indignities against the Plaintiff so as to make her life burdensome and intolerable. 4 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVEA & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236.2817 I 12. Plaintiff requests the Court issue a decree in divorce based upon indignities pursuant to section 3301 (a) (6) of the Divorce Code. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to issue a Decree in Divorce divorcing her from the bonds of matrimony pursuant to Section 3301(a) (6) of the Divorce Code. COUNT II EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION 13. Paragraphs one through twelve of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 14. During the marriage, Plaintiff and Defendant have acquired various items of marital property, both real and personal, which are subject to equitable distribution under the Divorce Code. 15. Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court equitably distribute all marital property pursuant to the Divorce Code. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, respectfully requests this Honorable Court equitably distribute all property, both real and personal, tangible and intangible, acquired by the parties during their marriage. 5 MEYERS. DESFOR, SALTZG'VER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 COUNT III ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE, SUPPORT, COUNSEL FEES, AND EXPENSES 16. Paragraphs one through fifteen of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 17. By reason of this action, Plaintiff will be put to considerable expense in the preparation of this case, in the employment of counsel, and the payment of costs. 18. Plaintiff is without sufficient funds to support herself and to meet the costs and expenses of this litigation, and unable to appropriately maintain herself during the pendency of this action. 19. Plaintiff's income is not sufficient to provide for her reasonable needs and pay her attorneys' fees and the costs of this litigation. 20. Defendant has adequate earnings to provide support and alimony pendente lite to the Plaintiff and to pay her counsel fees, costs and expenses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, respectfully requests this Honorable Court compel the Defendant to pay Plaintiff alimony pendente lite, support, counsel fees, costs and expenses of this action. 6 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALlZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG. PA 1710B (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236.2817 COUNT IV ALIMONY 21. Paragraphs one through twenty of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 22. Plaintiff lacks sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs. 23. Plaintiff is unable to sufficiently support herself through appropriate employment. 24. Defendant has sufficient income and assets to provide continuing support and to pay alimony to the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, respectfully requests this Honorable Court compel Defendant to pay alimony to Plaintiff. COUNT V APPRAISAL AND ACCOUNTANT FEES 25. Paragraphs one through twenty-four of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 26. By reason of this action, Plaintiff will be put to considerable expense in the computation and estimation of the value of the parties' residence and various other assets acquired by the parties during the marriage. 27. In order to ascertain the value of the residence and other marital assets, Plaintiff requires the services of an appraiser and a certified public accountant. 7 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, F'A 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236.2817 28. Plaintiff is without sufficient funds to meet the costs and expenses of these services and is unable to comply with the Rules of Court requiring the filing of various income and inventory statements without the services of the above experts. 29. Defendant has adequate earnings to provide for these costs and expenses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant Plaintiff sufficient funds from Defendant to pay the expenses of an appraiser and a certified public accountant. / Respectfully submitted, C!bi;B:~le Meyers, Desfor, Sa zglver Attorney I.D. #76328 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 Attorney for Plaintiff Boyle 8 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVEA & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 VERIFICATION I, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco , verify that the statements made in this Complaint In Divorce are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 7/16/2004 ~ Defendant MEYERS, DESFOR. SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 r i,.. -(Q 7V ~ l) ~ W:. 7"~ ~ 9 ~ . 0 c, ;; ~ 8 c 0 W ]-J I I 1-J l -:cJ ~ r p: ~ -F~ ~ (. CI ~ :\;~ .. c.) L~- ELIZABETH NOTARFRANCESCO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. ANTHONY D. NOTARFRANCESCO, Defendant NO. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Emergency Petition for Special Relief, a hearing is scheduled for Thursday, August 19, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in Courtroom No.1, Cumberland County Courthous<e, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Pending the hearing, neither party shall encumber or otherwise diss.ipate marital assets. BY THE COURT, o " L L--, /\ eil J.)V~~ley Oler~Jr:: J. j Catherine A. Boyle, Esq. 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiff Anthony D. Notarfrancesco Price W aterhouseCoopers 250 West Pratt Street Baltimore, MD 21200 Defendant, pro se . ~ 1_;l/-O'f ~ cr. :rc VI>'!",/;y:",i\;::!\,:,;\,}_:' A1NnC':'~,' ! ''/H10 81 :01 H~ 1 C lnr 70az M:1\t:u,:,:rJOHLOCtd 3.41 :10 3J!:!:!O-O:J1I:l Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLANr) COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM Anthony D. Notarfrancesco,: Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) ) SS: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ) I, X(\V~ % ~1:;rvrv~'S')~ (Your name) ~ hereby certify that on 3"v L- -..J '\ C=\, , 2004, (Date) I at t?'. ~ (, o'clock'0. m. a copy of Complaint in Divorce and (Tim) T the Emergency Petition for Special Relief were served on the Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco a~(\\CE \.1 ~~l\\\I}J\\:: ~'l<~ ') S iJ \A ts, ~6\A~ ~t\Hnd'/;, ~~ (Location) ~~ Notary public ~~ Signa~,re \ NOTAR1rh\:c $~Al.- . M!\RK y". EJ}it;fIY, NotNY P:\bll~\ City p1 \\i!!fi,\jII~(J. Dcuphln ~3'~Jo7 My G~,ll\mi~'\~ Expires Jan, ~. Sworn to and subscribed before me this /)0 day of I)~I-I ' 2004. 1\ I MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIV'ER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 ::J ~~"" ::-::-1 -< '-:? ~ "-' c::::I (::::> ~ o -n ._~ I ril :T. r- -nfT! ;,-')(:1 :~,::~~.~) ,. ":~5. ;;~~ .<--".- CjIT"l - "~( 5-~.::: f"- N 1'0 j:l Elizabeth Notarfrancesco Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. No. 04-3462 Anthony D. Notarfrancesco Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE PETITION FOR COUNSEL FEES, APPRAISAL FEES, ACCOUNTANT FEES. COSTS AND EXPENSES AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, by and through her attorneys, Meyers, Desfor, Saltzgiver and Boyle, and files the following Petition for Counsel Fees, Costs and Expenses and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Petitioner is Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, an adult individual currently residing at 2014 Mountain Pine Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania (hereinafter known as "Wife"). 2. Respondent is Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, an adult individual with a current residence that he refuses to disclose (hereinafter known as "Husband"). 3 The parties were married on June 10, 1972 and separated on or about May 31, 2004. 4. Wife filed a Complaint in Divorce on July 16, 2004. Said Complaint in Divorce contained counts for Indignities, Equitable Distribution, Alimony Pendente Lite, Support, Counsel Fees, Costs and Expenses, Alimony, and Appraisal and Accountant Fees. 5. Throughout the marriage, Wife was a homemaker and primary care giver to the parties' three children. MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 6. Wife is currently employed at Carol Binck Creations, a drapery company, on a part-time basis, earning $8.00 per hour. 7. Husband was during the marriage and is currently the primary wage-earner, working as a corporate tax partner at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, earning an approximate gross income of $642,417.00 in 2002. 8. Wife has no access to Husband's 2003 earnings information because he removed same from the marital residence. However, Wife believes that Husband earned a comparable amount in 2003. 9. In light of the parties long marriage, they accrued various and significant marital assets. These assets include, but are not limited to, the following: Husband's partnership interest in PriceWaterhouseCoopers, investment accounts with PriceWaterhouseCoopers, including one which Wife estimates to be valued at approximately $850,000.00, the marital residence located at 2014 Mountain Pine Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, real property located in Ocean City, New Jersey, foreign investments, life insurance policies and pension accounts. 10. Wife does not have control over the majority of the parties' valuable assets including Husband's income, credit cards and other accounts. II. Wife has already incurred substantial legal fees as a result of Husband's actions in this case. On July 16, 2004, Husband returned to the marital residence and confronted Wife regarding the payment of household bills. During this dispute, Husband pushed Wife to the ground and told her that he would not provide any 4 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG. PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 money to her. As a result of Husband's actions, Wife filed an Emergency Petition for Special Relief requesting, among other things, exclusive possession of the marital residence. 12. Wife's Emergency Petition for Special Reliefwas assigned to Judge 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., who has scheduled a hearing on her Petition for Thursday, August 19, 2004. 13. In preparing for a Master's hearing, Wife will face extensive costs in conducting discovery and preparing her case. 14. Wife will incur appraisal fees in obtaining real estate appraisals of the marital real estate, as well as appraisals of the parties extensive furniture, furnishings and possessions. 15. Wife will incur accountant fees to value and evaluate Husband's various investments and his partnership interest in Price W aterhouseCoopers. 16. By reason of this action, Wife will be put to considerable expense in the preparation of her case and employment of counsel and the payment of costs and expenses. Wife will be engaged in discovery and deposition of Husband and various individuals involved in his business interests and expects to incur extensive counsel fees. 17. "The purpose of an award of counsel fees is to promote fair administration of justice by enabling the dependent spouse to maintain or defend the divorce action without being placed at a financial disadvantage; the parties must be 'on 5 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET.. P.O. BOX 1062 .. HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 .. FAX (717) 236-2817 par' with one another." Anzalone v. Anzalone, 835 A2d 773,785-786 (Pa. Super. 2003). "An award of counsel fees is warranted when it will promote the fair administration of justice by enabling the dependent spouse to maintain or defend the case without being placed at a financial disadvantage." Miller v. Miller, 744 A2d 778, 790 (Pa. Super. 1999). 18. Because of the vastly disparate earnings and earning capacity between the parties and Wife's lack of control over substantial marital assets, an award of counsel fees is warranted in this matter. 19. The undersigned counsel for Wife did seek concurrence from Husband's counsel prior to filing the instant Petition, as evidenced by the letter attached hereto as Exhibit "A". WHEREFORE, Petitioner/Wife, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, respectfully requests the court order Husband to pay her counsel fees, accountant fees, appraisal fees, costs and expenses in the amount of$50,000.00. Respectfully submitted, ~~LW~ Attorney LD. No. 76328 ~Yt~~ Attorney to. No. 77415 MEYERS, DESFOR, SAL TZGIVER & BOYLE 410 North Second Street PO Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 Attorneys for the Plaintiff 6 MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 LAW OFFICES MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET P.O. BOX loez I. EMANUEL ME.YERS (1915-1970) BRUCE D. DESFOR LAURIE A SALTZGIVER CATHERINE A. BOYLE HARRISBURG, PA. 17108 (717) 236-9428 FAX (717) Z3&ZSI7 WEBSITE W"NW.rneyersdesfof.com EMAIL IsaltzgiverOmeyersdesfor.com cboyleOrneyersdesfOf.com August 10, 2003 VIA FAX & U.S. MAIL Donald Kissinger, Esquire Howett, Kissinger & Conley, P.c. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 RE: Notarfrancesco v. Notarfrancesco Dear Don: I am writing to advise you that we intend to file a Petition for Counsel Fees, Costs and Expenses. We are requesting $50,000.00 towards these fees and expenses. Pursuant to the Local Rules, I am writing to seek your concurrence with our Petition. If! do not hear from you by close of business today, I will assume that you will not agree to have your client pay fees and expenses in this amount to my client. Thank you for your attention to this matter. CAB/vjh cc: Elizabeth Notarfrancesco . !HIW I t -A- .. VERIFICATION I, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco , verify that the statements made in this Petition for Counsel Fees, Appraisal Fees, Account Fees, Costs and Expenses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 8/10/2004 q/ld~ Defendant MEYERS, DESFOR1 SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.o. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 Elizabeth Notarfrancesco Plaintiff vs. Anthony D. Notarfrancesco Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 04-3462 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY on this /6'tjs, day of August, 2004, a copy of Petition for Counsel Fees, Appraisal Fees, Accountant Fees, Costs and Expenses was sent via U. S. Mail, postage paid to: Anthony D. Notarfrancesco c/o Donald Kissinger, Esquire Howett, Kissinger & Conley, P.e. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 ~~ Catherine A Boyle, Esq Attorney LD. #76328 Attorney for Plaintiff MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236.9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 ~3 Q -oil - --j -~- ;!i r I . , , ELIZABETH NOTARFRANCESCO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANTHONY D. NOTARFRANCESCO, Defendant NO. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2004, upon consideration ofthe attached letter from Laurie A. Saltzgiver, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, the hearing previously scheduled for August 19, 2004, on Plaintiff's Emergency Petition for Special Relief, is rescheduled to Monday, October 18, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No.1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. PLAINTIFF'S PETITION for Counsel Fees, Appraisal Fees, Accountant Fees, Costs and Expenses will be heard at the same time as the above-captioned matter. . BY THE COURT, ~therine A. Boyle, Esq. 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, P A 17108 Attorney for Plaintiff '/ ~mald Kissinger, Esq. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Defendant l1'O~ O'b,\1> :rc 11\" ,'\..1.. ' Cr" '" \..;C... :i) ,:-;:J ~D[lZ -1(\ ELIZABETH NOTARFRANCESCO, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANTHONY D. NOTARFRANCESCO, Defendant NO. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM AMENDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2004, the prior order of court entered in this matter on August 18, 2004, and mistakenly dated July 20, 2004, is amended to reflect a date of August 18,2004. In all other respects, the prior order shall remain the same. BY THE COURT, J. A:~';;herine A. Boyle, Esq. 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, P A 17108 Attorney for Plaintiff I ~onald Kissinger, Esq. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Defendant Jijwesley Oler, Jr., ~ .~ ~ Of,rY :rc 21 llj hj , fjOC:Z -In ""'-' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ELIZABETH NOT ARFRANCESCO, Plaintiff NO. 04-3462 ANTHONY D. NOTARFRANCESCO, Defendant DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, comes Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, by and through his counsel, Howett, Kissinger & Conley, P.c., who hereby files the following Response to Plaintiffs Emergency Petition for Special Relief and states as follows: 1. Admitted. By way of further response, Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "Wife") is currently residing exclusively in the parties' marital Jresidence, and since the parties' separation, Wife has had sole possession to the premises free from molestation by Defendant (hereinafter referred to as "Husband"). 2. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband admits he is employed by PricewaterhouseCoopers (hereinafter "Employer"). Husband denies Wife is not aware of his current residence. Husband was only recently transferred to Baltimore, Maryland for his employment, and up until very recently he has been in the process of securing an apartment in Baltimore. Husband has maintained an apartment in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for some time insomuch as for the last ten (10) years Husband has been stationed mainly in the Philadelphia office of Employer. Prior to that, he was stationed primarily in Harrisburg, close to the parties' marital residence. Since separation, Husband has been living in the Philadelphia apartment, to which Wife has the address. 3. Admitted. By way of further response, Husband and Wife have three children, of all whom are now emancipated, with the youngest still in college. Since separation, Husband has continued to pay the youngest child's college tuition and expenses. 4. Admitted. By way of further response, by filing the instant response on Husband's behalf, the undersigned counsel has formally entered his appearance on behalf of Husband. Counsel for Husband will freely sign an acceptance of service ofthe divorce complaint. Upon being retained, counsel for Husband contacted Wife's counsel and offered to provide voluntarily any and all information counsel needed to understand and evaluate the case. Counsel further suggested there was no reason for Wife to proc'~ed with her Petition for Special Relief insomuch as Husband was willing to cooperate with the I~xchange of information, had already began to pay voluntary monthly support, and there was no rational basis for believing Husband had, or intended to, secret, dissipate or alienate marital property; thus, there was no emergency. Wife's counsel rejected the offer of cooperation and stated she would proceed with the instant petition. 5. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband admits he vacated the marital residence on or about May 31, 2004 due to longstanding marital difficulties, and up until recently he has been residing at an apartment in Philadelphia, the location of which Wife was aware. For the last ten (10) years Husband's employment has been based in Philadelphia; both parties are originally from the Philadelphia area. In order to work in Philadelphia, Husband needed to maintain an apartment for use during the work week. Husband recently was transferred to Baltimore, Maryland at the request of Employer. Husband denies Wife is unaware of his location. Husband could not give Wife a residence address in Baltimore because he did not have one until very recently, after counsel for Husband had been retained. 6. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband admits he returned to the marital residence on July 16, 2004 to see Wife and make sure everything was okay with her, and he asked her at that time why certain household bills had not been paid since May 2004. Throughout the marriage it is Wife who was chiefly responsible: for payment of household bills and expenses, so Husband was uncertain as to why bills had not been paid. After Husband vacated the residence and spent the majority of his time in Philadelphia, he made certain to provide Wife with sufficient voluntary support to pay all household expenses and ensure her basic needs were met. Husband denies he pushed Wife to the ground. Husband does admit, however, that he became frustrated with Wife due to her refusal to communicate, and the fact that she withdrew or expended Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) from a joint marital account and would not disclose to Husband the location of the money, and as a result he made the spontaneous comment that he would not provide he with any additional money until she disclosed to the location ofthe $40,000.00. Since separation, Husband has voluntarily provided Wife with a monthly amount that Wife indicated she needed ev,en though the location of the $40,000.00 has not been disclosed. Moreover, Husband has contributed in paying the parties' joint obligations, including all of the youngest child's college expenses, and Husband recently provided Wife with an additional $8,000.00 to cover real estate taxes on the residence and other incidental medical expenses and costs. Thus, Husband's actions belie any allegation that either he has failed to, or continues to fail to, adequately support Wife: or that he ever intended to follow through with his spontaneous comment. 7. Neither admitted nor denied as Husband is without knowledge as to what Wife did. However, Husband denies he physically confronted Wife or that he put her in fear for her safety. Husband did try to speak to Wife concerning her withdrawal of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) from a marital account, but Wife attempted to avoid Husband, and as result she lost her balance and tipped over her chair in the process. 8. Admitted with clarification. Husband concedes that Wife was a homemaker and the primary care giver to the three (3) children throughout the marriage, but Husband himself contributed significantly to the care of the children and the maintenance of the house. Furthermore, all three (3) children are now emancipated. Husband maintains that Wife elected not to work throughout the marriage, a luxury afforded to Wife given Husband's employment. There is nothing that now prevents Wife from maintaining full-time employment. Furthermore, Husband consistently supported Wife financially during the marriage and encouraged her to pursue educational advancement to enhance her capabilities. Wife, however, rejected these encouragements. 9. Admitted. By way of furtherresponse, Husband believes, and therefore avers, that Wife is capable of working full-time and earning more than $8.00 per hour. 10. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband admits he was the primary wage earner during marriage and currently works as a tax partmlr at Employer. Husband further admits that his employment provided him and his family with a very comfortable lifestyle throughout the marriage, though at the expense of Husband having to work long hours and weekends. Husband denies, however, that he receives income of approximately $640,000.00 as a tax partner with Employer. While the parties' 2002 tax return may reflect $642,417.00 in gross taxable income, such amount is not truly reflective of Husband's actual salary or his income available for support purposes. Rather, the amount reflected on the return encompasses items that are not income for support purposes. 11. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband admits Wife does not currently have access to his 2003 earnings information inasmuch as he did remove them from the residence upon his vacation for tax preparation and filing purposes. Wife did have access to the parties' joint 2003 tax return at separation. Husband denies Wife was not aware of his income prior to separation. Moreover, Husband denies his 2003 earnings are consistent with an income of$642,000.00 per year. As stated above, the amount reflected on the parties' 2002 joint tax return is not indicative of Husband's actual income with Employer. 12. Admitted with clarification. During the later part of the parties' marriage Husband worked primarily in Philadelphia. Husband started his career with Employer in Philadelphia, and he was subsequently transferred to the Harrisburg area. When the parties moved to the current marital residence in Mechanicsburg, Husband was then employed in the Harrisburg area with Employer. Even when Husband was transferred to the Philadelphia area during the latter part of the marriage, he returned to the marital residence in Harrisburg whenever possible to see Wife and the children even as marital problems ilncreased. 13. Admitted with clarification. Insomuch as Husband was only in Philadelphia during the work week, his ability to return to the marital residence two to three days per week is significant. Husband had to maintain an apartment in Philadelphia given his employment, as Wife did not want to relocate the family away from the Harrisburg area. 14. Denied. Husband denies that he earns income from other sources, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. As a tax partner with Employer, Husband is required to put in long hours as well as bring work home on weekends. He simply does not have time to earn income from other sources, other than passive income from investment accounts. Such income is reflected on the parties' tax returns, and for purposes of support those items are marital assets, and not income to Husband. 15. Admitted with clarification. Husband admits to having a cash account with Employer, as maintaining said account was economically beneficial to the parties during marriage. Husband denies investing $10,000.00 - $12,000.00 per month in this account. Husband receives his monthly salary from Employer, and the net proceeds thereof are placed into this account or the parties' joint checking account with Mellon Bank. However, Husband routinely accessed said funds during the course of the marriage to pay joint expenses, particularly the parties' quarterly federal and state estimated tax payments. Consequently, said account was not merely for investment purposes, but, rather, it was used by Husband more as a "checking" account. The amount that was in the account at the time of separation, less necessary payments for marital obligations remains intact. Furthermore, Husband denies Wife has no access to information regarding this account. Throughout the marriage, and continuing up until separation, Wife was fully aware of said account and its approximate balance. Wife is named as beneficiary on said account. Moreover, Husband's counsel, upon entering the case, volunteered to provide Wife's counsel with any and all requested information to assist her in understanding the true facts of this case. Regrettably, such conciliatory overtures were flatly rejected by Wife's counsel. 16. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband admits the parties' joint tax return reflects other accounts. These other accounts are mainly small investment funds that Husband acquired during the 1980s as required by Employer, all of which have minimal value (approximately $10,000.00 or less at this time). Throughout the marriage, and continuing up until separation, Wife was fully aware of said accounts and their purpose. Moreover, Husband's counsel initially attempted to cooperate with Wife's counsel and provide documentation concerning said accounts. Regrettably, counsel's attempts to bf: conciliatory have been flatly rejected by Wife's counsel. 17. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband's admits their joint tax return appears to reflect foreign investments. Husband, however, denies that he or the parties do, in fact, have foreign investments. What is reflected on the parties' returns is Husband's share of Employer's international income and the foreign taxes paid on such income. Husband and his counsel made this fact known to Wife's counsel. 18. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband admits the parties have had to file tax returns in other states in order to be compliant with tax laws. Husband is required to file different state returns inasmuch as Employer operates and derives earnings from nearly every state in the union. Husband denies the implication that he is secreting funds in an effort to thwart any attempts of equitable distribution. Moreover, the only marital account that Husband has the present ability to access is his account with Employer. 19. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband admits that, as a CPA, he prepared the parties' tax returns and controlled any accounts with Employer. Husband denies, however, that Wife was not integrally involved in the household finances insomuch as it is Wife who was responsible for payment of all household bills and other expenses. Thus, Husband denies Wife has little to no information concerning the extent aad value of the marital estate. 20. Denied. Husband denies Wife has "very little access" to cash and virtually no income with which to support herself. To the contrary, Husband has voluntarily supported Wife since their separation, and Husband regularly d1eposits money into an account in which Wife has access. Also, Wife took Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) in marital funds after separation. Husband denies that Wife's reasonable needs have not been met since separation. Moreover, Husband denies that Wife cannot obtain full-time employment in which to partially support herself. 21. Denied. Husband denies he has concealt:d any assets from Wife throughout their marriage in an effort to defeat equitable distribution. Husband will provide Wife with whatever documentation Wife requests, provided said documentation exists and is in Husband's possession or control, but at this time no request for such documentation has been made. Rather, without even attempting to obtain the true facts, Wife filed the instant Petition for Emergency Relief. Even after Husband's counsel became involved and offered prompt voluntary disclosure, Wife has refused any attempt of cooperation. 22. Denied. Husband denies he will in any way attempt to dissipate marital assets. As a partner in a prominent accounting firm, Husband simply has no incentive to jeopardize the financial stability created by the parties during their marriage. Furthermore, it is ludicrous for Wife to make such an assertion when there is not one iota of evidence that Husband attempted to dissipate the estate upon separation. Wife's current demands are simply unreasonable in light of the true facts. 23. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband admits to having retirement benefits with Employer as well as life insurance policies, but he: adamantly denies that he has, or will, change the beneficiary designations. Husband has no intention of changing any beneficiary designations until this case is resolved. Moreover, Wife can obtain information on all assets through discovery. Wife's lack of documentation at this point does not constitute an emergency to support a petition for special relief. Furthermore, Wife's coumsel's refusal to accept counsel's offer of voluntary discovery belies any suggestion that Wife's petition has merit. Rather, said petition was filed merely to inflame and antagonize what had belen a fairly amicable relationship between Wife and Husband at the time of separation. 24. Denied. Husband denies that he has ever physically confronted Wife, and he certainly will not begin to do so at this time. Moreover, Husband is willing to concede exclusive possession of the marital residence to Wife pending further agreement of the parties order of court. Date: oj2.~c; Res ectfully submitted, =. ? ,. Donald T. Kissinger, Esq HOWETT, KlSSThrGER CONLEY, P.e. 130 Walnut Street/P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, P A 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco VERIFICATION I, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, hereby swear and affirm that the facts contained in the Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Emergency Petition for ~peclal Helle! are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and are made subject to foregoing the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 8/24/04 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ELIZABETH NOT ARFRANCESCO, Plaintiff v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CNIL ACTION - LAW IN DNORCE NO. 04-3462 ANTHONY D. NOTARFRANCESCO, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald T. Kissinger, Esquire, counsel for Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant in the above-captioned action, hereby certifY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Plaintiffs Emergency Petition for Special Reliefwas served upon Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, by via hand delivery on August 24, 2004, addressed as follows: Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGNER & BOYLE 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, P A 17108 Date: ~'T~7' , ::J ~;Y~'~ Donald T. Kissing1er, EsqUire HOWETT, KISSlllJ"GER & CONLEY, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, P A 17108 Telephone: 717-234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CNIL ACTION - LAW IN DNORCE ELIZABETH NOT ARFRANCESCO, Plaintiff NO. 04-3462 ANTHONY D. NOTARFRANCESCO, Defendant DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S PETlTlION FOR COUNSEL FEES. APPRAISAL FEES. ACCOUNTANT FEES. COSTS AND EXPENSES AND NOW, comes Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, by and through his counsel, Howett, Kissinger & Conley, P.C., who hereby files the instant Response to Plaintiffs Petition for Counsel Fees, Appraisal Fees, Accountant Fees, Costs and Expenses and in support thereof states as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part; denied in part. Respondent (hereinafter "Husband"), admits his identity, but he denies that he has refused to disclose his whereabouts to Petitioner (hereinafter "Wife"). Wife has long known the location of Husband's apartment in Philadelphia. 3. Admitted. By way of further response, since the parties' physical separation Husband has made voluntary support payments to Wife in an amount that not only permits Wife to meet her basic needs, but also fund her divorce litigation. Furthermore, at the time of the parties' separation, Wife surreptitiously withdrew or expended $40,000.00 from one of the parties' marital accounts and has heretofore refused to disclose the location of said monies. 4. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband admits that Wife filed a complaint for divorce on July 16, 2004 raising the counts referenced in Wife's petition. However, Husband denies the veracity of the averments supporting said counts, and he further denies the existence of grounds supporting some of the counts, particularly indignities. 5. Admitted. By way of furtherresponse, while Husband was the primary wage earner throughout marriage, he, too, contributed to the care of the parties' three children, all of whom are now emancipated. Husband continues to pay the youngest child's college expenses. 6. Neither admitted nor denied as Husband is without knowledge as to Wife's current employment status. To the extent a response is :required, Husband denies that Wife is only capable of working part-time, earning $8.00 per hour. Wife is physically capable of working full-time, and she has the intelligence and fortitude to (:arn significantly more than $8.00 per hour. Furthermore, Husband has consistently supported Wife financially and encouraged her to pursue educational advancement. In large part, Wife consist(mtly rebuffed these encouragements. 7. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband admits that during marriage he was the primary wage earner, working as a tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers (hereinafter "Employer"). Husband denies making an approximate gross in,:ome of $642,417.00 in 2002. While the parties' 2002 joint tax return indicates that amount adjusted gross income, said amount does not reflect Husband's actual income with Employer. In faGt, that amount is comprised partly of non-income items that are taxable under the Internal Revenue Code but were never, in fact, received by Husband. 8. Admitted in part; denied in part. Husband admits that, since the parties' separation, Wife has had no access to his earnings information. However, Husband denies that Wife did not have access to his earnings information prior to the:ir separation. Wife had possession ofthe parties' 2003 joint tax return after separation. Furthermore, Husband denies that his 2003 earnings are "comparable" to the gross income ref1lected on the parties' 2002 return. As stated above, the amount of gross income reflected on tax returns is not indicative of Husband's true income with Employer. 9. Admitted. By way of further response, neither the parties' long marriage, nor the assets they accumulated, support Wife's request for interim counsel fees, costs and expenses. Husband further denies that his cash account with Employer has a marital value of $850,000.00. Husband further denies that the parties have any foreign assets. To the extent that any foreign tax credit is reflected on the parties' joint returns, it represents pass through items from Employer, which represent Husband's share of international taxes on Employer's international operations. Husband and his counsel have already communicated this fact to Wife's counsel. 10. Admitted. By way of further response, Husband has not sought to prevent Wife from having access to the parties' assets, nor has he attempted to preclude Wife from obtaining documentation thereon. In fact, Husband's counsel, upon being retained, immediately sought to cooperate with Wife's counsel in exchanging docume:ntation and educate Wife's counsel on the make-up of the parties' estate. Although Husband's counsel attempted to be conciliatory, thereby obviating any need for hearing on Wife's petition for emergency relief, any and all overtures of cooperation were rebuked by Wife's counsd. 11. Neither admitted nor denied, as Husband is without knowledge as to what Wife has incurred in legal fees up to this point. To the extent a response is required, Husband adamantly denies that Wife has had to incur "substantial legal fees" as a result of his actions. To the contrary, Husband has sought to minimize attorney expense by trying to cooperate with Wife. Not only did he immediately begin to pay voluntary support upon separation, but when he retained counsel, his counsel sought to cooperate with Wife's counsel in exchanging documentation and educate each other as to the make-up and value of the estate. In fact, it is Wife's actions that have resulted in the parties incurring "substantial legal fees." Regrettably, Wife's counsel has elected to take an antagonistic approach from the outset, thereby precluding any attempts of cooperation. Furthermore, Husband denies that he physically assaulted or confronted Wife on July 16, 2004. Husband does admit to returning to the marital residence, as there was no legal impediment precluding such action, and he admits speaking to Wife regarding her failure to pay the household bills. In addition, he spoke to Wife as to her withdrawal or expenditure of $40,000.00 from the marital estate, and he asked her where the money had gone. In trying to avoid Husband's questions, Wife tried to turn away but lost her balance and tipped over her chair in the process. Wife refused to respond, and to date she had refused to disclose the whereabouts of the money. Husband did comment that he would not provide her with any money so lonll: as she refused to disclose the whereabouts of the $40,000.00. Husband denies pushing her to the ground and he further denies any failure to adequately support Wife since their separation. As stated in Husband's response to Wife's petition for special relie:f, he is willing to agree to grant her exclusive possession of the marital residence pending furth'~r order of court or agreement of the parties. 12. Admitted. Husband denies, however, that there is any merit to Wife's petition for emergency relief and he further denies any merit to Wife's instant petition. 13. Denied. Husband denies that Wife will have to face "extensive costs" in conducting discovery and preparing her case. Husband's counsd has already offered to cooperate in the exchange of documentation, as Husband understands that, the more the parties cooperate, the less expensive their divorce case will be. Husband remains willing to cooperate on all issues; however, it is Wife who has heretofore refused any level of cooperation. 14. Denied. Husband denies that Wife has to individually incur appraisal fees. The parties may certainly stipulate to values or hire mutual appraisers in the action. 15. Admitted with clarification. Husband admits that Wife may need to incur accountant fees, but he adamantly denies that said fees will approach Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). Wife has already taken Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) from the marital estate, some of which sums has been available for counsel and accountant fees. 16. Denied. Husband denies that Wife will be put to "considerable expense" in preparing her case and employment of counsel. Moreover, Wife has initiated an action in support and will have discretionary income available to pay counsel fees. 17. Neither admitted nor denied as said paragraph constitutes a prayer for relief to which no response is required. To the extent a respons'e is required, Husband denies that an award of interim counsel fees, costs and expenses is appropriate. To the extent such fees, costs and expenses should be awarded, the issue should be decided by a master at the time of an equitable distribution hearing. Moreover, Husband is willing to agree that both parties receive an advance on equitable distribution at this time, which the parties may use as they see fit, including payment of attorneys fees, costs and expenses. Husband admits that there is sufficient liquid assets in the estate that, upon equitable distribution, Wife will have the liquidity to pay any and all attorneys fees, expert fees, costs and expenses. Furthermore, inasmuch as the parties currently have sufficient liquid assets available, an advance on equitable distribution is the logical way to resolve both of Wife's pending petitions. 18. Denied. As stated above, Husband believes that an advance on equitable distribution to both parties is the proper way to resolve the instant petition, particularly when Husband has heretofore sought to cooperate with Wife in litigating the instant divorce action. 19. Denied. Husband adamantly denies that I;ounsel for Wife sought the concurrence of Husband's counsel prior to the filing of the instant petition. What is not evident on Wife's Exhibit "A" is that said letter was faxed to Husband's counsel at 1 :30 n.m. on August 10, 2004 (not August 10, 2003 as reflected on the letter). As clearly stated in her letter, counsel demanded a response by the close of business (a mere three and a half hours) before she was set to file her petition. Because Husband's counsel was unavailable up until approximately 3:30 p.m. that afternoon, he did not receive the letter until that time, but immediately upon receipt he tried to call counsel; she was unavailable. He then faxed a letter to counsel indicating both that he had not had time to talk to his client about the request and that he expected her to give him some time to speak to his client before he could be in a position to either concur or dissent to the petition. A copy of counsel's response is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and is incorporated herein by reference thereto as if set forth at length herein. Wife's counsel mailed her petition to the court for filing on August 10'h. Thus, Husband submits that Wife's counsel did not comply with local rules with her half-hearted notice attempt. In fact, Husband believes, and therefore avers, that Wife's counsel has acted in bad faith, and as evidem:ed in Husband's new matter, Husband seeks a request of attorneys fees' for having to respond to said petition. NEW MATTER 20. The prior paragraphs of this Petition are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 21. Since the outset of this case, Husband has endeavored to provide Wife with voluntary support and cooperate with her in the case. 22. Unfortunately, however, from the outset of this case Wife has endeavored to take an antagonistic approach and filed petitions before attempting to resolve interim issues amicably. 23. Rather than accept Husband's counsel's offer to afford full access to documentation concerning the parties' assets and work with one: another in understanding the estate, Wife elected to proceed with her petition for emergency relief even though there is not an iota of evidence to suggest the presence of an emergency or merit to her petition. 24. By filing her instant petition, Wife has once again demonstrated her unwillingness to try to resolve matters amicably between her and Husband. Moreover, Wife fails to mention in her petition that she has already taken Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000.00) from the marital estate shortly after separation. 25. Local Rule 206-2 requires counsel to seek the concurrence of opposing counsel before filing a petition for counsel fees; as evidenced by the facts surrounding counsel's letter, she failed to comply with the spirit of the said Rule. 26. By faxing her letter at I :30 p.m., and demanding a response by the close of business that day, Wife has acted in bad faith, thereby entitling Husband to attorneys fees under the Judicial Code. 27. As evidenced by Husband's counsel's responsive letter, he attempted to respond to Wife's counsel, but given her unavailability, he was not able to speak to her directly before leaving that day. Consequently, wife's act of filing the p<etition, in light of counsel's attempt to contact her regarding the matter, demonstrates Wife's vexatious behavior. 28. Pursuant to g2503(7) of the Judicial Code, the court may award a party counsel fees if the opposing party engages in vexatious, obdurate or oppressive behavior. 29. In light of Wife's actions to date, Husband believes, therefore avers, that she has acted vexatiously and in bad faith; thus, an award of attorneys' fees is appropriate under the Judicial Code. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully request the Court deny Petitioner's request for interim counsel fees, costs and expenses, and award him reasonable attorneys' fees under the Judicial Code for having to respond to Wife's petitions. Date: ~~~ , tI ~ll~litted, ./ Donald T. Kissinger, suire HOWETT, KlSSINGE & CONLEY, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco , VERIFICATION I, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, hereby swear and affirm that the facts contained in the foregoing Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Petition for Counsel Fees, Appraisal Fees, Accountant Fees, Costs and Expenses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 8/24/04 tlJ.~' Anthony D. Notar ranc co ~ HOI/'-E".. JR. DONALD T. K1SSt~GER CL'<DY S. COSLEY DARRES I. HOLST LAW OmCES OF Ht. ,ETT, K1SSL'l/GER & CONLEY,P.C. I JO WALS~ 'T STREET POST OFFlCE BOX 810 HAMlSBLRG. PE....~Sy1.VA....lA 17108 1717) 13+;616 FA...'(i;17)Z~540: DEBRA ~t SHL\lP Legal ASSlSUI1t August 10, 2004 HA FAX & MAIL (717) 236-2817 Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire MEYERS, DESFOR, SAL TZGIVER & BOYLE 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Re: Notarfrancesco v. Notaifrancesco Dear Cathy: I only received your letter regarding the counsel fee request upon my return to the office at approximately 3:30 p.m. today. I tried to call you regarding your letter, but you were unavailable. By the time I left the office today, you had not returned my call. I will consult with my client on the request at the earliest possible opportunity and provide a timely response. Do IlQ! represent to the court that my failure to respond to your non- emergency request made by fax at 1 :30 p.m. today constitutes a rejection of anything. Any representation by you that I have responded other than as set forth herein or that you have afforded reasonable time for any response is unconscionable. Sincerely, Donald T. Kissinger (DICTATED BUT NOT READ) DTKldjk cc: Anthony D. Notarfrancesco (w/encl) EXHIBIT I IlA \' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CNIL ACTION - LAW IN DNORCE ELIZABETH NOT ARFRANCESCO, Plaintiff NO. 04-3462 ANTHONY D. NOTARFRANCESCO, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald T. Kissinger, Esquire, counsel for Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant in the above-captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Plaintiffs Petition for Counsel Fees, Appraisal Fees, Accountant Fees, Costs and Expenses was served upon Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff Elizabeth Notarfrancesco by via hand delivery on August 24, 2004, addressed as follows: Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGNER & BOYLE 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 1710 lFft'/~5' . " -::;) ~~ Date: Donald T. Kissinger, Esqu' HOWETT, KISSINGER CONLEY, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, P A 171 08 Telephone: 717-234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE STIPULATION REGARDING SPECIAL RELIEF. COUNSEL FEES AND EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF THE MARlTAI, RESIDENCE Plaintiff, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco and Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco hereby stipulate and agree as follows: I. Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Divorce on July 16, 2004, which is currently pending before this Court. 2. On July 19, 2004, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Petition for Special Relief. 3. On August 11,2004, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Counsel Fees, Costs and Expenses. 4. The parties have reached an agreement that resolves the issues raised in Plaintiffs Petitions, as set forth herein. The parties agree that this Stipulation is not an admission or denial of any of the allegations raised in the aforementioned petitions. The parties agree that this agreement shall not prejudice either party in any way. 5. The parties separated on May 31, 2004, and they are specifically separated as defined by Pennsylvania law. 6. Plaintiff shall have exclusive use and possession of the marital residence located at 2014 Mountain Pine Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. MEYERS, OESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 7. Plaintiff shall receive an advance on equitable distribution in the amount of $100,000.00. This amount will be withdrawn from the PriceWaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program account, which is a marital asset. In addition, Defendant shall receive an advance on equitable distribution in the amount of$75,000.00 from the Pric:eWaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program account. Either party may withdraw their agreed advance distribution share, at their election, now or at anytime in the future pending further agreement or Order of Court. 8. Following this advance on equitable distribution to the parties, the Price Waterhouse Cooper's Partner Deposit Program account will be frozen and no further funds will be withdrawn or expended from that account without the express written agreement of the parties, or further order of Court, other than as provided for pursuant to paragraph 9, herein. Any and all interest accruing in this account shall remain in this account and shall not be paid to either party. 9. The parties acknowledge that their respective advances on equitable distribution shall be their sole and separat'e property pursuant to the pending divorce action, and the parties are free to expend or invest these funds at their discretion. 10. The parties acknowledge that the costs of college tuition, room, board and all other fees and costs payable to Catholic University, total approximately $17,000.00 per semester. The parties agree that they shall pay the semiannual tuition, room, board and fees and costs out of the Price WaterhouseCooper's MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGlVER lit BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 '-~:1 ::'38-9428 . FAX (717\ 2?G<?f!17 Partner Deposit Program account. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with verification of these payments. However, the parties acknowledge that their agreement is merely to pay for the expense, and they do not agree that college is a marital debt, nor that it should be paid equally. The parties agree that if they are unable to reach an agreement regarding the ultimate characterization and distribution of these payments, that th(~y shall submit this issue to the Divorce Master to determine which party gets credited for the advance and in what proportion. In the event that the master cannot or will not address the issue, the parties agree to submit the issue to mediation. Additionally, the parties agree that Defendant shall pay for all of Cara' s incidental living expenses, as well as her car payments, while she is in college. II. Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff $1 ,500.00 per month on or before the first of the month as his half of the mortgage payment on the parties' vacation home in Ocean City, New Jersey. Plaintiff shall pay the other half of the mortgage on the vacation home, as well as the utilities. 12. The parties agree that Plaintiff shall be permitted to use the 1999 Jaguar automobile as a trade-in against her purchase of a new automobile. The Plaintiff shall accept the amount of the trade-in as an advance on equitable distribution. The automobile which Plaintiff purchases with this trade-in shall be her own separate, non-marital asset free and clear of any claims or demand by Defendant. Defendant agrees to execute any and all documents necessary to give effect to the within paragraph. MEYERS, DESFOR, SAlTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236.9428 . FAX (717) 236.2817 .' 13. The parties have reached a separate agreement on spousal support docketed at 00642-S-2004. Pursuant to that separate support agreement, the parties have agreed that Defendant does not owe any arrearage on the spousal support order and the $13,000.00 which Plaintiff removed from their joint Mellon checking account at the time of separation, does not constitute an advance on equitable distribution to her. Additionally, the current balance in Price WaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program constitutes the cash available for equitable distribution and any prior withdrawals from this account shall not be deemed to be an advance on equitable distribution. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with monthly statements of the Price WaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program. MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 " HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (7171236-9428 . FAX (717\ 2'::,6-2817 ~ ." WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request this Honorable Court enter an Order adopting this Stipulation of the parties. Laurie . Saltz i r, Esquire Meyers, Desfor, Saltzgiver & 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg,PA 17108 Attorney for Plaintiff Anthony D. Notarfr Defendant ~ Donald T. Kissinger, Esq Howett, Kissinger & Co ,P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Defendant MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER Il. BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 '":"...\ 2?5-S'l428 . FAX 1717\ ?3E;-28~7 ~ .J;-- ,.....,~ c::J e.:':' () TI --.j :r f""":"' C --( ~,U c) ELIZABETH NOTARFRANCESCO, Plaintiff v. ANTHONY D. NOTARFRANCESCO, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2004, upon relation of the office of Plaintiffs counsel that the parties have resolved the issues raised by Plaintiffs petition for counsel fees, appraisal fees, accountant fees, costs and expenses, and Plaintiffs emergency petition for special relief, and scheduled for October 18, 2004, the hearing is cancelled. ~erine A. Boyle, Esq. 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 \ Attorney for Plaintiff /" ~nald Kissinger, Esq. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Defendant :rc BY THE COURT, 7 o Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAKD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this l2...,! dayof o ,-to~'<5 , 2004, upon consideration of the parties Stipulation Regarding Special Relief, Counsel Fees and Exclusive Possession of the Marital Residence, it is hereby Ordered: I. The parties separated on May 3 I, 2004, and they are specifically separated as defined by Pennsylvania law. 2. Plaintiff shall have exclusive use and possession of the marital residence located at 2014 Mountain Pine Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 3: Plaintiff shall receive an advance on equitable distribution in the amount of $100,000.00. This amount will be withdrawn from the PriceWaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposiit Program account, which is a marital asset. In addition, Defendant shall receive an advance on equitable distribution in the amount of$75,000 from the PriceWaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program account. Either party may withdraw their agreed advance distribution share, at their election, now or at anytime in the future pending further agreement or Order of Court. 4. Following this advance on equitable distribution to the parties, the MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.O. BOX 1062 " HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717\ 236-2817 IZ:l1L.l 9GJ:~:DijQOl PriceWaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program account will be frozen and no further funds will be withdrawn or expended from that account without the express written agreement of the parties or further order of Court, other than as provided for in paragraph 5, herein. Any and all interest accruing in this account shall remain in this account and shall not be paid to either party. 5. The advances on equitable distribution that the parties are receiving are their sole and separate property pursuant to the pending divorce action and the parties are free to expend or invest such funds at their discretion. 6. The parties acknowledge that the costs of college tuition, room, board and all other fees and costs payable to Catholic University, total approximately $17,000.00 per semester. The parties agree that they shall pay the semiannual tuition, room, board and fees and costs out of the Price WaterhouseCooper' s Partner Deposit Program account. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with verification of these payments. However, the parties acknowledge that their agreement is merely to pay for the expense, and they do not agree that college is a marital debt, nor that it should be paid equally. The parties agree that if they are unable to reach an agreement regarding the ultimate characterization and distribution of these payments, that they shall submit this issue to the Divorce Master to determine which party gets credited for the advance and in what proportion. In the event that the master cannot or will not address the issue, the parties agree to submit the issue to mediation. Additionally, the parties agree that Defendant shall pay for all of Cara's incidental living expenses, as well as her car payments, while she is in college. MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER 8. BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAY 17~7' ?:JE-2817 7. Defendant shall also pay to Plaintiffthe sum of$1,500.00 per month as Defendant's half of the mortgage, taxes and insurance on the vacation home located in Ocean City, New Jersey. Plaintiff shall pay the other half of the mortgage on the vacation home as well as the utilities. 8. Plaintiff shall be permitted to use the 1999 Jaguar automobile as a trade-in against her purchase ofa new automobile. The amount of the trade-in shall be an advance on equitable distribution to Plaintiff. The automobile which Plaintiff purchases with this trade-in shall be her own separate, non-marital asset free and clear of any claims or demand by Defendant. Defendant shall execute any and all documents necessary to give effect to the within paragraph. 9. The sum of$13,000 that was removed from the parties joint Mellon checking account and placed in Plaintiff's name alone at the time of separation shall not be deemed to be an advance on equitable distribution to her. Additionally, the current balance in Price WaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program constitutes the cash available for equitable distribution and any prior withdrawals from this account shall not be deemed to be an advance on equitable distribution. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with monthly statements of the Price WaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program. BY THE COURT: I 1)/'-7 t! 011. . 7' J. MEYERS, DESFOR. SALTZGIVEB & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LA W IN DIVORCE Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 00642 S 2004 PACSES Case No. 738106586 Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN SUPPORT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this.-l'ttL day ofJ 2>7 u;>) ) ~ . 20LL~, the attached Stipulation and Confidentiality Agreement is hereby entered as an Order of Court. BY THE COURT // ~4 > .. --- en (~:) c;-. l" ..., F'-: ~.:;-:; C::.::J "" fti D :-\ t -- "- eN ' J \u , 0 po . _1\ <> y_ I (r" . :2' '['J ~ Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff, v. No. 00642 S 2004 PACSES Case No. 738106586 Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN SUPPORT STIPULATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT THE UNDERSIGNED, having received certain personal and financial data relating to Elizabeth Notarfrancesco and Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, do hereby acknowledge that they shall utilize such information solely and exclusively in the litigation of the pending divorce and support actions between Elizabeth Notarfrancesco and Anthony D. Notarfrancesco presently pending in the Courts of Common Pleas of Cumberland County at Nos. 04-3462 and PACSES Case No. 738106586 and for no other purpose. Specifically, the undersigned do hereby agree that they shall not deliver, share with, cause to be delivered to, or shared with any person, partnership, corporation, other than an expert retained by them in connection with this litigation and who also sign a confidentiality agreement, or any other entity of any sort, other than PriceWaterhouseCoopers, any and all information supplied pursuant to this litigation. The undersigned hereby acknowledge that any and all information provided by either party will be kept and maintained in strict confidence. The undersigned agree that this Stipulation and Contidentiality Agreement shall become an Order of Court. a/.~"l#<r ~~y~~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ELIZABETH NOT ARFRANCESCO, Plaintiff v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM ANTHONY D. NOTARFRANCESCO, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO Pa.R.Civ.P. 1920.43 AND NOW, comes Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, by and through his counsel, Howett, Kissinger & Conley, P.C., who hereby files the instant Petition for Special Relief and in support thereof avers as follows: I. Petitioner is Anthony D. Notarfrancesco ("Husband"), Defendant in the above-captioned divorce action. 2. Respondent is Elizabeth Notarfrancesco ("Wife"), Plaintiff in the above- captioned divorce action. 3. Husband and Wife separated on or about May 31, 2004 when Husband vacated the parties' marital residence, 2014 Mountain Pine Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pelll1sylvania 17050 (hereinafter "Marital Residence"). 4. The parties' marital estate is estimated to have a gross value of several million dollars. 5. On July 16, 2004, Wife initiated a divorce action at the above-captioned action number requesting, inter alia, a no-fault divorce. On July 19, 2004, Wife filed a document styled Emergency Petition for Special Relief requesting, inter alia, a freeze of all assets, accounting of assets and liabilities, and exclusive possession of the Marital Residence. On August 11, 2004 Wife filed a Petition for Counsel Fees, Costs and Expenses. 6. Throughout the case, Husband has attempted to effect amicable resolution of all issues, and at the request of Husband' s counsel, a settlement conference was conducted resulting in a Stipulation resolving the interim issues in Wife's earlier filings, and specifically providing for exclusive possession ofthe residence and a $100,000.00 advance to Wife. 7. Upon the parties' separation Wife had taken the steps to seize approximately $20,000.00 from joint accounts; Husband has only recently learned that Wife also unilaterally, and surreptitiously, accessed in excess of $30,000.00 from a joint line of credit in July 2004. Wife has received advances of approximately $175,000.00 in value since separation. 8. Wife has had defacto exclusive possession and use of the Marital Residence since Husband's vacation therefrom on or about May 31,2004 and formal exclusive possession after October 22, 2004 when this Court entered an order incorporating the parties' Stipulation. A copy of the Court's October 22,2004 stipulated order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein by reference thereto. 9. Husband is a partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers (hereafter "PWC"), and as part of his employment during marriage he participated in a Partner Deposit Program ("PDP") account, which the parties agree is a marital asset. 10. Said account is comprised of post-tax monies, and the only unrecognized tax is on any interest, dividends or earnings within the account. II. The parties' October 22,2004 stipulation further directed that the marital PWC PDP account be frozen after each party receive a specific advance distribution therefrom with no further funds to be withdrawn, except to pay the youngest child's college expenses, absent agreement of the parties or further order of court; at the time the PDP account was frozen, it had a balance of approximately $650,000.00, all of which is marital. 12. Contemporaneously with the execution of the October 22, 2004 stipulation, the parties entered into a stipulated support order in which Husband pays Wife $11,500.00 per month in spousal support, which figure was calculated to include a mortgage assistance adjustment, per Rule 1910.6(e), based upon the understanding that Wife would pay all expenses associated with or attributable to the Marital Residence. 13. On January 25,2005, Husband unexpectedly received notice from Wife's counsel that Wife would be abruptly relinquishing possession ofthe Marital Residence, a mere six days later on January 31 ", to move to an undisclosed location. A copy of Wife's counsel's letter of January 25,2005 is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated herein by reference thereto. 14. While Wife provided January 31" as the date she would be relinquishing possession of the residence, Husband believes and therefore avers that Wife actually vacated the residence subsequent to January 31". 15. More significantly, Wife notified Husband that she would no longer be paying the monthly obligations associated with or attributable to the Marital Residence subsequent to her relinquishment of possession despite the prior understanding that she would be responsible for such costs while she has exclusive possession. 16. The monthly mortgage on the Marital Residence, exclusive of taxes and insurance, is $3,441.00. The mortgage, taxes and insurance are marital obligations. 17. The parties have agreed to list the residence for sale with Keith Sealover now that neither party resides therein. 18. Husband has filed a petition to modify support obligation in light of Wife's vacation from the residence and her refusal to pay the monthly mortgage as contemplated by the support stipulation. A copy of Husband's petition is attached hereto as Exhibit "e" and is incorporated herein by reference thereto. 19. After Wife vacated the marital residence, Husband's counsel sent a letter to Wife's counsel highlighting Husband's concern about payment of the mortgage and other bills associated with the residence during the time that the house was listed for sale. Said letter asked for confirmation as to the current status of all obligations. A copy of counsel's letter dated February 7, 2005 is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and is incorporated herein by reference thereto. 20. In a January 26th phone conversation with the undersigned, Wife's counsel requested that Husband abstain from entering the residence until counsel confirmed that Wife had vacated the premises, a request which Husband honored. However, Wife's counsel did not provide said confirmation for more than a week following the stated vacation date, which required Husband's counsel to send a follow-up letter dated February 9, 2005 asking again for confirmation ofthe status of all financial obligations related to the residence and requesting confirmation that Wife had vacated the house so Husband could enter the premises. A copy of counsel's letter dated February 9,2005 is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and is incorporated herein by reference thereto. 21. On February 11,2005, Husband's counsel sent another letter to Wife's counsel requesting Wife's position with respect to her continued payment ofthe expenses associated with the Marital Residence as contemplated by the original support order. Husband further renewed his suggestion that the expenses be paid from the marital PWC PDP account pending sale; Husband again requested confirmation of the state or repair on the house and verification that all expenses had been paid prior to her departure. A copy of counsel's letter of February 11, 2005 is attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and incorporated herein by reference thereto. 22. Husband's counsel also stated within his February 11 ,h letter that it was Husband's position to equally divide the proceeds of the Marital Residence upon sale, and to ensure that the house was in a state suitable for sale, Husband requested immediate access to the property. 23. Throughout marriage, it is Wife who handled most of the parties' finances, including payment of the mortgage on the Marital Residence and the mortgage on the parties' beach house in New Jersey, and following separation Husband made repeated requests for information concerning both mortgages in order to understand the parties' overall financial picture. Husband again renewed this request as part of Husband's counsel's letter of February 11,2005. 24. On or about February 15, 2005, Husband obtained access to the marital residence, and when he inspected the premises for the first time, he learned that Wife had left the residence in a ransacked state prior to leaving same. In addition, Wife had destroyed or rendered inoperable various items of Husband' s personalty, including but not limited to a commemorative clock, personal photographs, and the snow tires to Husband's vehicle. Wife also removed numerous items of personalty that reflected petty and malicious intent, including the removal of the remote controls for all televisions and stereos. 25. Moreover, after Husband surveyed the damage he determined that Wife removed other items of personalty and furnishings, some of which were Husband's property, including, but not limited to, his two clarinets, C.D.s, D.V.D.s, and other personal effects. 26. As the parties have agreed to sell the marital residence, and in light of Wife's disregard of the state ofthe premises, and the destruction of property, the parties will need to expend time, energy and possibly money to restore the premises to a condition suitable for sale. 27. Furthermore, Husband determined that Wife had left bills to the residence unpaid for the time she resided therein. 28. As to the parties' jointly titled beach property in Ocean City, New Jersey, over the weekend of February 19, 2005, Husband was in the area and attempted to access the property. 29. When Husband tried to gain entry to the beach property, he found that Wife had unilaterally changed the locks, thereby preventing Husband from using and e!\ioying a jointly titled piece of marital real estate. 30. Pursuant to Rule 1920.43 ofthe Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may, at anytime subsequent to the filing of a divorce complaint, enter any type of order that effectuates equity and justice within a pending divorce action. 31. Husband cannot maintain two residences with his current income and continue to pay Wife the current court ordered support. 32. Ifneither party continues to maintain the Marital Residence, the current mortgage will go into foreclosure, and the parties risk losing a significant marital asset. 33. Pending sale of the Marital Residence, there exists the need to pay all monthly expenses associated with or attributable to the Marital Residence; there further exists the need to expend sums to repair the Marital Residence for listing on the real estate market. 34. As there is a readily available source of marital funds that can be used to preserve a significant marital asset, without significant tax consequences to the parties, equity and justice require the Court to enter an order directing the payment of all costs and expenses associated with or attributable to the Marital Residence pending sale and the costs of sale from the PDP account. 35. As the existing stipulation affords Wife exclusive possession of the marital residence, which Wife has elected to forego, and given the fact that Wife left the marital residence in a ransacked state, equity and justice require the Court to enter an order permitting Husband to have access to the residence and excluding Wife from accessing the marital residence pending sale other than a permitted inspection prior to sale. 36. Husband has confirmed that Wife removed several items of his personal effects, and Husband therefore seeks an order compelling Wife to return those items back to the marital residence no later than twenty (20) days from the date of any order. 37. As Wife elected to ransack the residence prior to her departure, equity and justice requires Wife to be solely responsible for the cost of cleaning the residence and replacing those items destroyed by Wife. 38. Under the new amendments to the Divorce Code, specifically g3502(f), the Court has the clear authority to make advance distributions within a pending divorce action. 39. Husband seeks an advance on distribution in the amount of$ I 50,000.00 to purchase a new residence. 40. Husband is in the process of locating a new residence and he expects to identify same within 60 to 90 days. The mortgage interest rates remain low, though they are starting to increase. 41. An advance of $150,000.00 will not prejudice the parties given the estimated gross value of the marital estate; Husband has no objection to Wife receiving an identical distribution. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Court grant his Petition for Special Relief and order the following: A. Pending sale, further order of court or agreement of the parties, any and all expenses associated with or attributable to maintaining the parties' Marital Residence, 2014 Mountain Pine Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050, or preparing said residence for sale shall be paid from the parties' marital PWC PDP account; B. Pending sale, further order of court or agreement of the parties, Husband shall be permitted to access to the marital residence, and Wife shall be precluded from entering the premises. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Wife shall be permitted to inspect the residence upon forty-eight (48) hours advance written notice prior to sale provided she is accompanied by the listing agent. Husband shall have the right to be present at any inspection; C. No later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, Wife shall pay to Husband a sum representing the cost for cleaning the residence and repairing items destroyed during her departure from the residence; D. No later than ten (10) days from the date ofthis Order, Wife shall pay any and all outstanding bills associated with or attributable to the marital residence incurred during the time of her exclusive possession and use; E. To the extent Husband has had to pay expenses directly to clean up the residence or satisfy outstanding obligations on the residence, Wife shall reimburse Husband for such expenses within ten (10) days of the date of this order; F. No later than twenty (20) days from the date of this Order, Wife shall provide a detailed accounting of all items of personalty and furnishing removed from the residence upon her departure therefrom. Wife is also directed to return to the marital residence within ten (10) days from the date ofthis Order the following items: two clarinets; C.D.s, D.V.Ds, and personal effects. G. Pending final resolution of the economic issues in the instant action, neither party shall dispose of, dissipate, alienate or encumber any marital property absent the parties written consent of both parties. H. Each party shall receive an advance on equitable distribution in the amount of$150,000.00, which shall come from the PWC PDP account. Said advances shall become the sole and separate property ofthe receiving party, and each party hereby waives, relinquishes and releases any right to the monies received by the other, including any increase in value thereon or any property acquired or exchanged therefor. I. Husband shall be granted equal access to and use of and the beach house in Ocean City, New Jersey. Wife shall provide Husband a key to the house within ten (10) days of the date of this Order. J. Any additional relief that the Court deems to be just and equitable under the circumstances. ~4.rft5 I { R,""~.>~ D~d T. Kissinger, Esq . e HOWETT, KISSINGER & CONLEY, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco Date: VERIFICATION I, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, hereby swear and affirm that the facts contained in the foregoing Defendant's Petition for Sppri;ll Relief PUrSlli'lnt to p" R C'ju I? ]9;:>0.43 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. g4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 2/~05 (), Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT ANDNOW,thisL~aYOf (QJobef\ ,2004, upon consideration of the parties Stipulation Regarding Special Relief, Counsel Fees and Exclusive Possession of the Marital Residence, it is hereby Ordered: I. The parties separated on May 31, 2004, and they are specifically separated as defined by Pennsylvania law. 2. Plaintiff shall have exclusive use and possession of the marital residence located at 2014 Mountain Pine Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. 3: Plaintiff shall receive an advance on equitable distribution in the amount of $100,000.00. This amount will be withdrawn from the PriceWaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program account, which is a marital asset. In addition, Defendant shall receive an advance on equitable distribution in the amount of $75,000 from the PriceWaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program account. Either party may withdraw their agreed advance distribution share, at their election, now or at anytime in the future pending further agreement or Order of Court. 4. Following this advance on equitable distribution to the parties, the J EXHIBIT ,4- ER & BOYLE 2 . HARRISBURG. PA 171 08 410 NORTH PriceWaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program account will be frozen and no further funds will be withdrawn or expended from that account without the express written agreement of the parties or further order of Court, other than as provided for in paragraph 5, herein. Any and all interest accruing in this account shall remain in this account and shall not be paid to either party. 5. The advances on equitable distribution that the parties are receiving are their sole and separate property pursuant to the pending divorce action and the parties are free to expend or invest such funds at their discretion. 6. The parties acknowledge that the costs of college tuition, room, board and all other fees and costs payable to Catholic University, total approximately $17,000.00 per semester. The parties agree that they shall pay the semiannual tuition, room, board and fees and costs out of the Price WaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program account. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with verification of these payments. However, the parties acknowledge that their agreement is merely to pay for the expense, and they do not agree that college is a marital debt, nor that it should be paid equally. The parties agree that if they are unable to reach an agreement regarding the ultimate characterization and distribution of these payments, that they shall submit this issue to the Divorce Master to determine which party gets credited for the advance and in what proportion. In the event that the master cannot or will not address the issue, the parties agree to submit the issue to mediation. Additionally, the parties agree that Defendant shall pay for all of Car a's incidental living expenses, as well as her car payments, while she is in college. MEYERS, OESFOR. SALTZGIVER II. BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARR'S8URG. PA 17108 7. Defendant shall also pay to Plaintiff the sum of $1 ,500.00 per month as Defendant's half of the mortgage, taxes and insurance on the vacation home located in Ocean City, New Jersey. Plaintiff shall pay the other half of the mortgage on the vacation home as well as the utilities. 8. Plaintiff shall be permitted to use the 1999 Jaguar automobile as a trade-in against her purchase of a new automobile. The amount of the trade-in shall be an advance on equitable distribution to Plaintiff. The automobile which Plaintiff purchases with this trade-in shall be her own separate, non-marital asset free and clear of any claims or demand by Defendant. Defendant shall execute any and all documents necessary to give effect to the within paragraph. 9. The sum of $13,000 that was removed from the parties joint Mellon checking account and placed in Plaintiff s name alone at the time of separation shall not be deemed to be an advance on equitable distribution to her. Additionally, the current balance in Price WaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program constitutes the cash available for equitable distribution and any prior withdrawals from this account shall not be deemed to be an advance on equitable distribution. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with monthly statements of the Price WaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program. thonotary MEYERS, DESF , SALlZGIVER 6 BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. 80X 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE STIPULATION REGARDING SPECIAL RELIEF. COUNSEL FEES AND EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE Plaintiff, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco and Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Divorce on July 16, 2004, which is currently pending before this Court. 2. On July 19, 2004, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Petition for Special Relief. 3. On August 11,2004, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Counsel Fees, Costs and Expenses. 4. The parties have reached an agreement that resolves the issues raised in Plaintiffs Petitions, as set forth herein. The parties agree that this Stipulation is not an admission or denial of any of the allegations raised in the aforementioned petitions. The parties agree that this agreement shall not prejudice either party in any way. 5. The parties separated on May 31,2004, and they are specifically separated as defined by Pennsylvania law. 6. Plaintiff shall have exclusive use and possession of the marital residence located at 2014 Mountain Pine Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORlH SECONO STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG. PA 17108 7. Plaintiff shall receive an advance on equitable distribution in the amount of $100,000.00. This amount will be withdrawn from the PriceWaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program account, which is a marital asset. In addition, Defendant shall receive an advance on equitable distribution in the amount of$75,000.00 from tbe PriceWaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program account. Either party may withdraw their agreed advance distribution share, at their election, now or at anytime in the future pending further agreement or Order of Court. 8. Following this advance on equitable distribution to the parties, the Price Waterhouse Cooper's Partner Deposit Program account will be frozen and no further funds will be withdrawn or expended from that account without the express written agreement of the parties, or further order of Court, other than as provided for pursuant to paragraph 9, herein. Any and all interest accruing in this account shall remain in this account and shall not be paid to either party. 9. The parties acknowledge that their respective advances on equitable distribution shall be their sole and separate property pursuant to the pending divorce action, and the parties are free to expend or invest these funds at their discretion. 10. The parties acknowledge that the costs of college tuition, room, board and all other fees and costs payable to Catholic University, total approximately $17,000.00 per semester. The parties agree that they shall pay the semiannual tuition, room, board and fees and costs out of the Price W aterhouseCooper' s MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTlGIVER " BOYLE A1n tJncTI-l ~J:("':nN[) STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 Partner Deposit Program account. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with verification of these payments. However, the parties acknowledge that their agreement is merely to pay for the expense, and they do not agree that college is a marital debt, nor that it should be paid equally. The parties agree that if they are unable to reach an agreement regarding the ultimate characterization and distribution of these payments, that they shall submit this issue to the Divorce Master to determine which party gets credited for the advance and in what proportion. In the event that the master cannot or will not address the issue, the parties agree to submit the issue to mediation. Additionally, the parties agree that Defendant shall pay for all of Cara' s incidental living expenses, as well as her car payments, while she is in college. 11. Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff $1,500.00 per month on or before the first of the month as his half of the mortgage payment on the parties' vacation home in Ocean City, New Jersey. Plaintiff shall pay the other half of the mortgage on the vacation home, as well as the utilities. 12. The parties agree that Plaintiff shall be permitted to use the 1999 Jaguar automobile as a trade-in against her purchase of a new automobile. The Plaintiff shall accept the amount of the trade-in as an advance oil equitable distribution. The automobile which Plaintiff purchases with this trade-in shall be her own separate, non-marital asset free and clear of any claims or demand by Defendant. Defendant agrees to execute any and all documents necessary to give effect to the within paragraph. MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 4'0 NORTH SECOND STREET. P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG. PA 17108 13. The parties have reached a separate agreement on spousal support docketed at 00642-S-2004. Pursuant to that separate support agreement, the parties have agreed that Defendant does not owe any arrearage on the spousal support order and the $13,000.00 which Plaintiffremoved from their joint Mellon checking account at the time of separation, does not constitute an advance on equitable distribution to her. Additionally, the current balance in Price WaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program constitutes the cash available for equitable distribution and any prior withdrawals from this account shall not be deemed to be an advance on equitable distribution. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with monthly statements of the Price WaterhouseCooper's Partner Deposit Program. MEYERS, DESFOR, SALlZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request this Honorable Court cnter an Order adopting this Stipulation of the parties. Anthony D. Notarfr Defendant , 2~ " MEYERS, OESFOR, SAl12GIVER l!. BOYlE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 Donald 1. Kissinger, Esq 'i Howett, Kissinger & Co 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Defendant ( (- ,/" LAW OFFICES MEYERS, DESFOR. SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET P.O. BOX 1062 I. EMANUEL MEYERS (1915-1970) BRUCE D. OESFOR LAURIE A. SAL TZGIVER CATHERINE A. BOYLE HARRISBURG. PA. 17108 (717) 236-9428 January ~5. ~005 ~M(717\ 236-2&17 WEElSITE ~.meyersdesfor.com EMAII.. lsaltzglvEKOmeyersdesfoc,oom cboyIeOmeyersdesfor.com VIA FAX & U.S. MAIL Donald T. Kissinger, Esq. Howett, Kissinger & Conley 130 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PAl 71 0 I r::-,f' f''' \"~. .;" ~ --,-,,-.... rn! 'I ~ I . '.' - ~ I Re: Notarfrancesco v. Notarfrancesco Dear Don: Please be advised that Mrs. Notarfrancesco will be relinquishing possession of the marital home and all furniture and furnishings contained therein on January 31, 2005. Mrs. Notarfrancesco is prepared to execute a listing agreement to list the property starting February 1,2005. She would suggest using Keith Seal over to list the residence, who is a neighbor and friend to both parties. She also wishes to rely on Mr. Sealover to suggest a listing price. Would you kindly discuss this with your client and let me know his position as soon as possible. Very truly yours, CAB/vjh cc: Beth Notarfrancesco EXHIBIT 113 JOH:>; c. HOWETf JR. DO:>;ALD T KISSI~GER CI:>;DY S. CO:>;LEY DARRE:>; J. HOLST L-\wOFFlCESOf HOn'ETT, KISSINGER & CONLEY, P.c. 130 WAL:>;L T STREET POST OFFICE BOX S 10 H.-\RRISBl"RG. PES:-';SYLV,\:\IA 17108 1717) 13~.:;616 DEBRA M. SHI~IP Legal Assistant F.-\X (7]71 1J~-5~02 February 7,2005 VIA FAX & MAlL (7171 236-2817 Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGNER & BOYLE 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Re: Notarfrancesco v. Notarfrancesco Dear Cathy: I have attempted to contact you by phone on a couple of occasions since the middle of last week without success. There are certain issues that require immediate attention and should be clarified. You had indicated that Beth would be vacating the marital residence on or before January 31,2005, In our phone conversation immediately after your January 25th letter, Tony expressed concern regarding payment of the mortgage and other bills associated with the residence during the listing of the property. The existing support stipulation was based upon the assumption that your client would be responsible for those bills, and if you intend to adopt an alternative approach, the financial package requires review. Please confirm that Beth has vacated the property and the current status of all obligations. Tony has also become aware of an issue surrounding payment of the West Shore Country Club bills. At the recent deposition, the parties had reached an understanding that the membership would be preserved with an equal payment of dues and each party to be responsible for their own fee charges, etc. The enclosed letter from the West Shore Country Club to Tony at his current address seems to indicate that there is a significantly late dues installment that needs to be dealt with. In brief response to your January 26th letter, I enclose a PDP account statement reflecting activity from December 1" through January 31 it. Note that the only withdrawal was for the payment of Car a's college invoice, a copy of which is also enclosed. Tony is forwarding requested Sovereign Bank account statements to me by overnight mail and I expect tha statements will be available for you within the next couple of days. EXHIBIT Ie ( Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire February 7, 2005 Page Two I believe that the financial matters require immediate address and therefore ask that you get back to me within 48 hours regarding these issues. Sincerely, ... 7;; /?~ <J Donald T. Kissinger DTKldjk Enclosures cc: Anthony D. Notarfrancesco (w/encls) (via fax & mail) .' JOH:>; C HOWEIT. JR DO:>;ALD T KISSI\GER CI:>;DY S CO~LEY DARRE:>; J. HOLST LAW OFFICES OF ( HO'\'ETT, KISSINGER & CONLEY, p,c. 1)0 WAL~l'T STREET POST OFFICE BOX 810 H.-\RRISBL.RG. PE;.;;.;sYLVA.'.;IA 17] 08 0171 ::J.J-~6J6 DEBRA ~1. SHI~IP Leg:..d Assistant FAX 17\7) ~3~.S.m: February 9,2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGNER & BOYLE 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Re: Notarfrancesco v. Notarfrancesco Dear Cathy: Enclosed at this time please find copies of account statements for Tony's Sovereign Bank account from inception through closing. You are now in possession of all information that you had requested. Unfortunately, we still have not received your response to our repeated inquiries regarding several subjects. We were obviously quite surprised by your abrupt notification that your client intended to relinquish possession of the house less than a week from the date of notification. We have respected your request that Tony remain away from the residence until you confirmed for me that Beth had vacated, but we properly requested immediate information on the status of all financial obligations related to the residence, and we also formulated a practical proposal for dealing with ongoing payment of obligations, It has now been one week since we discussed these matters, and the delay in providing critical information related to one of the most significant assets in the case is disturbing at best. In light of the failure to timely forward the country club documentation to Tony, we are concerned about the forwarding of other essential documents including documents to assist in tax preparation. In addition, there are some other matters which I would like to discuss with you directly which require immediate address. EXHIBIT I'V .' ( Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire February 9, 2005 Paae Two '" I have advised Tony that he should take steps to modify the existing financial arrangements in the event that we have not received a definitive responsive from you on or before the close of business Friday. Sincerely, _ -nJ~~ Donald T. Kissinger DTKldjk Enclosures cc: Anthony D. Notarfrancesco (via fax & mail) (w/o encls) L\w OFI'ICES OF ( \ JOH:>; c. HOWETf. JR. DO:>;ALD T KISSI~GER CI:O<DY S CO:>;LEY DARRE:>; J HOLST HUWETT, KISSINGER & CONLEY, P.c. IJO WAL:>;n STREET POST OFFICE BOX S I 0 HARRISBlRG. PE:'-.'.,SYL\\.'.,I\ 1710S (717) 23.J-::t1l6 DEBRA ~L SHI~IP Leg:JI Assist:Jnl FAX 171712.~.J.5.JO: February 11,2005 VIA FAX & MAlL (717) 236-2817 Catherine A Boyle, Esquire MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGNER & BOYLE 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Re: Notarfrancesco v. Notarfrancesco Dear Cathy: I write in response to your letters of February 9 and February 10 in this case. To set the record straight surrounding contacts and/or attempts at contact, you and I discussed the issues created by your client's abrupt notification of her intent to vacate the marital residence in our phone conversation of January 26. You indicated that you would address the various issues I raised with your client and get back to me. Mr. Notarfrancesco contacted me on or about February 1 to alert me that he had received communication from the West Shore Country Club indicating the default status of the account, and I left a phone message for you that day. When I had not heard from you by February 4, I phoned your office late that afternoon and was advised by the receptionist that you were unavailable. When I stated that I had a matter to discuss with some time sensitivity and asked that you return the call as early as possible on Monday, February 7, I was advised that your calendar would likely prevent you from getting back to me on that day. I then proceeded to draft our letter of February 7. In our January 26 phone conversation, I conveyed Mr. Notarfrancesco's position with regard to the various issues created by your client's notice that she intended to "relinquish possession" of the residence, Specifically, we asked whether Ms. Notarfrancesco would continue to pay the expenses associated with the property as contemplated in the original support negotiations, and if not, suggested that those expenses related to the period after her departure be paid from the PDP account. I requested confirmation of the state of repair of the property and verification that all prior payments of mortgage and utilities had been currently made. I suggested that the monthly support amount be reduced to $10,000.00 if Ms. Notarfrancesco was no longer assuming individual responsibility for the home expenses since the support EXHIBIT I z- (' \ Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire February 11,2005 Paae Two " negotiations resulted in a significant bump based on the large mortgage. Laurie Saltgiver had argued strenuously in favor of the additional mortgage contribution at the three-party conference resulting in our interim stipulation. I also advised you that Mr. Notarfrancesco favored using Keith Sealover as a listing agent for the home and that he would speak with Sea10ver at the earliest opportunity. I stated our position that the proceeds of the home sale should be divided equally after an appropriate reimbursement to either party for expenses incurred in marketing and preservation of the property. I asserted that access to the property by Mr. Notarfrancesco on an immediate basis was necessary, and you asked that I make certain that Mr. Notarfrancesco not come to the property until your client had vacated but acknowledged that access by Mr. Notarfrancesco was anticipated. I suggested that clarification of the found record will require a new interim stipulation, particularly since the existing stipulation affords your client exclusive possession and a technical claim could be made that access by Mr. Notarfrancesco violates that order. You acknowledged that some adjustment to the stipulation would be appropriate, and you further acknowledged that your client would continue to abide by the provisions of the stipulation requiring payment of her appropriate share of the expenses related to the shore property on an on- going basis. Your February 9 letter does not address the majority of the issues raised in our January 26 phone conversation. I am quite certain that both parties are desirous of protecting their respective credit ratings and are not interested in seeing joint financial obligations go in significant arrears. Concern about the West Shore Country Club situation was raised by Laurie Saltgiver off the record at the December 15 deposition. We believed then that the parties reached agreement through Laurie that the membership would be preserved on an interim basis with equal payment of dues and each party to be responsible for their own fee charges, etc. We continue to feel that such an approach is appropriate. We assumed that Laurie had authority from Ms. Notarfrancesco to enter into those discussions on December 15, and since we heard nothing to the contrary thereafter, we expected to receive a request for our one-half share at the appropriate time. If you have not yet done so, I ask that you confer with Laurie regarding this matter. Obviously, significant questions remain unanswered. What provision has your client made for handling bills, maintenance and/or other matters relating to the house? Who has physical possession and how and when can my client be granted access? We have repeatedly asked informally for information surrounding the mortgage debts on both of the real estate parcels which information has been subject to the immediate access and control of your client, and this information is necessary to ascertain whether Beth has taken appropriate steps to discharge the joint obligations through the present. We had verbally agreed to permit Beth to hold onto a real estate tax refund for the New Jersey shore property in excess of $6,000.00 from \ Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire February 11, 2005 Page Three which she would subsequently pay all of the property's real estate tax. At this point, and in light of your February 9 and February 10 correspondence, we must insist on a written agreement documenting this understanding. You have not responded to our reasonable proposal regarding modification of the existing support stipulation on the basis of the change in circumstance. We had sincerely hoped to resolve this matter by mutual agreement without the necessity of court involvement, but your lack of response to this request would appear to leave no other option. As to the listing of the 2014 Mountain Pine Drive property, Mr. Notarfrancesco insists that he be afforded immediate non-restricted access to confirm that the property is in good condition, you clearly establish that all debts regarding the property have been appropriately satisfied by your client, and she agrees to emp loy a property manager for the period until sale. We also insist that the parties reach an agreement regarding the distribution of net proceeds from the sale. Until that time, we will not be in a position to discuss PWC's position regarding potential reimbursement of the costs of sale, and be advised that for these costs to be considered for reimbursement, it is customary for the firm to be involved from the time of original listing. Your February 10 letter encloses a list of documents you are currently requesting and are subject to discovery requests made to us or to PWC. I address those requests hereinafter by reference to the separately numbered items on your list: L Our formal response to your Request for Production of Documents clearly states that check registers for the referenced accounts have not been maintained and are not available; 2. Mr. Notarfrancesco already provided all credit card statements in his possession and control. Your client possessed the vast majority of the statements that you requested. Since we have not had access to the residence, we have no idea what documents remain at this time. We will immediately execute authorizations for the release of information to you from the credit card companies at your client's expense; 3. We have already formally stated that statements and plan documents for non- qualified retirement plans are not in Mr. Notarfrancesco's possession. Laurie Saltgiver had previously requested this information from the employer in conjunction with the postponed deposition. To the extent that the information is available, the employer must be the provider; 4. Mr. Notarfrancesco does not have any "copies of beneficiary designations" in his possession and control, although the employer is in a position to confirm beneficiary designation. We had formally stated in our response to your Request for Production of Documents that Mr, Notarfrancesco had made no changes to beneficiary designations since the parties' separation; \ Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire February 11, 2005 Page Four 5. Your Request for Production of Documents did not ask for annual memos concerning retirement accounts; b. You have already received the only documentary information in Mr. Notarfrancesco's possession with regard to the PDP account, and we note that such information is computer generated and not regularly transmitted on hard copy; 7. To the best of our knowledge, there has not been an appraisal conducted of the marital residence. The appraisal of contents has not yet been finalized; 8. The AICP A life insurance policy has been requested but not yet received. The policy will be promptly forwarded upon receipt; 9. The PWC Capital Account summaries for 1999 through 2002 are attached to the tax returns for those years which have been and remain in your client's possession and control. The 2003 Capital Account summary was provided to you without response to your Request for Production of Documents. The 2004 Capital Account summary has not yet been received; 10. You have already been provided with the only PWC Fiscal Year Statement of Settlement in Mr. Notarfrancesco's possession. It is his belief that such statements were not generated for prior years. If, however, his belief is inaccurate, these statements will only be available through PWC; 11. Statements for the Growth and Referral accounts were provided at the deposition. Statements for the Asset account have not yet been received and will be forwarded upon receipt; and 12. We have previously formally replied that no documents exist responsive to that request and no documents have been subsequently prepared, We have no responsibility for creating documents that do not exist. We feel that we have properly complied with all valid formal and informal discovery requests in the case, and any documents not yet supplied are either not in my client's possession, do not exist, or have already been requested of the employer. It is distinctly inaccurate to assert that we have been in anyway uncooperative in discovery. On the other hand, Mr. Notarfrancesco and I have repeatedly requested information surrounding mortgage debts on both real estate parcels for a period of several months. This critical information is required to understand the overalI financial picture and to ascertain whether Ms. Notarfancesco has taken appropriate steps to discharge joint debts. Ifwe are not provided this requested information on or before 2:00 p.m. \ ,." . Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire February 11,2005 Page Five on Monday, February 14, along with a key to the residence, we will proceed to file a request for special relief to the court late Monday to immediately secure the information, to secure access, to accomplish payment of expenses through the PDP account, and to govern disposition of sale proceeds. We are also filing an action to modify support. Finally, Mr. Notarafrancesco reports that he is being harassed by identity theft by someone registering him on the internet for various products, causing hundreds of companies to send e-mails to him re: "queries" he has supposedly made, and causing him and his firm to expend considerable time and resources to resolve, These actions are causing Mr. Notarfrancesco to take significant time away from employment obligations (during a recent 26 hour period, he received over 50 such e-mails), and the unidentified individual is also causing solicitations (both via the U.S. mail and the telephone) in his name to be delivered/received at Ms. Barry's house and vice-versa. In light ofthe confidentiality order in the matter, only the litigants in the case and the attorneys/consultants employed by such litigants are aware of the necessary personal information to permit this activity. Ms. Barry has an unlisted telephone number which your client clearly possesses through some means. The perpetrator has subscribed to certain products in the name of Ms. Barry and/or Mr. Notarfrancesco which have been delivered to his residence. If the activities continue, my client fully intends to contact the appropriate authorities next week to initiate an investigation. Please let me hear from you immediately regarding this case. Sincerely, ~~ Donald T. Kissinger DTKJglg cc: Anthony Notarfrancesco IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 04-3462 CNIL TERM ELIZABETH NOT ARFRANCESCO, Plaintiff ANTHONY D. NOTARFRANCESCO, Defendant CNIL ACTION - LAW IN DNORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald T. Kissinger, Esquire, counsel for Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant in the above-captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Petition for Special Relief Pursuant to Pa. R.Civ.P.1920,43 was served upon Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, by facsimile and depositing same in the United States mail, first class, on February 25,2005, addressed as follows: Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGNER & BOYLE 410 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 Date: ~)io S' ~~ ~/ - Donald T. Kissinger, Esqui HOWETT, KISSINGER & CONLEY, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: 717-234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco ",,~, r-) ,... , ,'\ ,,,'\ \,..,' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ELIZABETH NOTARFRANCESCO, Plaintiff v. ANTHONY D. NOTARFRANCESCO, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE PRAECIPE TO THE OFFICE OF PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw without prejudice the Petition for Special Relief filed by Defendant on February 25,2005. Date:~~5 Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ Donald T. Kissinger, Esqu' HOWETT, KISSINGER & CONLEY, P.C. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA ELIZABETH NOT ARFRANCESCO, Plaintiff v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 04-3462 CIVIL TERM ANTHONY D. NOTARFRANCESCO, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald T. Kissinger, Esquire, counsel for Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant in the above-captioned action, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served upon Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire, counsel for Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff, by depositing san1e in the United States mail, first class, on March 4, 2005, addressed as follows: Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Date: ,7/~~ ~ Donald T. Kissinger, Esquir HOWETT, KISSINGER & CONLEY, P.c. 130 Walnut Street P.O. Box 810 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: 717-234-2616 Counsel for Defendant, Anthony D. Notarfrancesco -" c,> -------- , Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. No. 04-3462 Anthony D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE PRAECIPE TO THE OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY Kindly withdraw without prejudice the Complaint in Divorce in the above-referenced matter filed by the PlaintitT on or about July 16.2004. Respectfully submitted, r: - C, V Catherine A. Boyle, Esquire Attorney I.D. 76328 Meyers, !)csfor, Saltzgiver & Boyle 410 North Second Street P.O. Box 1062 Harrisburg. PA 17108 (717)~36-l)428 Attorney Itll' Plaintiff MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 - Elizabeth Notarfrancesco, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. No. 04-3462 Anthony. D. Notarfrancesco, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LA W IN DIVORCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A~ 6 copy of the attached Praecipe was sent VIA facsimile and regular U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, I hereby certify that on this /046 day of ,2005, a to: Anthony Notarlranccsco c/o Donald T. Kissinger, Esq. Howett, Kissinger & Conley 130 Walnut Street Harrisburg. PAl 71 0 I -c:. Catherine A. Boyle, Esquir MEYERS, DESFOR, SALTZGIVER & BOYLE 410 NORTH SECOND STREET . P.O. BOX 1062 . HARRISBURG, PA 17108 (717) 236-9428 . FAX (717) 236-2817 t<~ , ~-, .;;..n c" -'I. .-. .., ; ~l ~' '" ,,"\:"\ .' -.1 :~ r<i en _.J _.~~_..,-,---_..