Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-3537
SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants NO. CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff Vo ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : : NO. Ol~ 3537 .' : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICIA Le ban demandado a usted en la core. Si usted quiere defenders¢ de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguicntes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted Debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y pucde entrar una orden contra usted sin previo a viso o notificacion, y pot cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dincro o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff Vo ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. .' . .- : CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Sally Atwater, by and through her attorneys, Caldwell & Keams, and files the within Complaint, and in support thereof avers the following: 1. The Plaintiff, Sally Atwater, is an adult individual residing at 5201 State Route 38-A, Auburn, New York 13021. 2. The Defendants, Roger Bruce Kelly and Jody L. Kelly, husband and wife, are adult individuals with a last known address of 123 Beetem Hollow Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. 3. On or about September 1, 2000, the Defendants entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to purchase Plaintiff's real property located at 120 West Big Spring Avenue, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. A tree and correct copy of the Agreement of Sale is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference. 4. Pursuant to the written terms of the Agreement of Sale, settlement on the property was to be made on or before September 29, 2000. On or about September 29, 2000, the Plaintiff attended settlement at the law office of James Flower, Jr., 26 West High Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, ready, willing and able to transfer title of the property to the Defendants. The Defendants, without reason or to no fault of the Plaintiff, did not appear at settlement. The Defendants are in breach of the Agreement of Sale and pursuant to the terms of the Agreement of Sale the Plaintiff is entitled to $4,000.00 as liquidated damages for Defendants' breach. In the alternative, the Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in the amount of $5,309.27 as follows: a. Resale price of $3,000.00 less than agreement with Defendants; b. Additional taxes paid on the property until resale two months later - $246.50; c. Attorney fees for settlement payable to James Flower, Jr. on September 29, 2000 - $150.00; d. Additional insurance paid on the property for liability and fire - $380.34; e. Travel expenses incurred by Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff attending settlement on September 29, 2000 - $482.11; f. Loss income for attending settlement - $560.00; and g. Additional maintenance of the property before resale of the property - $367.50 Despite demands, the Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiff her rightful damages. The Plaintiff at all times performed her obligations under the Agreement of Sale. 11. The Defendants have materially breached the contract and the Plaintiff is entitled to her damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffrespectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Defendants in the amount of $5,309.27 or in the amount of the liquidated damages of $4,000.00 plus accrued interest, costs of suit, and any other relief the Court may deem appropriate. Respectfully submitted, CALDWELL & KEARNS Dated: 00-684/22061 ~~I arsi~6~qui A~ey ID# 69804 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 (717) 232-7661 Attorney for Plaintiff, Sally Atwater Sep 02 O0 10: l~a Mar,~ B ~,itts 717-245-2121 -:. __ ' r~__ ,:... - ...... ~ :~. ~ ~..~ ~ S~hr Itdlklk; ~ p.t JACK. G,5,UGV-~M 09./~I/2000 i,~: 45 PAGE i 1 09/.0172~00 !~: 45 PAGE : 2 ~9/,01/2000 I~: 45 VERIFICATION I, Sally Atwater, verify that the averments in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. By: SallytAtwater W 0 02: ~o z~ T SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-03537 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ATWATER SALLY VS KELLY ROGER BRUCE ET AL BRIAN BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon KELLLY ROGER BRUCE the DEFENDANT at 123 BEETEM HOLLOW ROAD , at 1811:00 HOURS, on the 12th day of June , 2001 NEWVILLE, PA 17241 by handing to JODY KELLY, WIFE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 8.06 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 36.06 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 2g~ day of ~ 2~! A.D. tP~othonot ary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 06/13/2001 CALDWELL AND KERNS By: Deputy Sheriff ' SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-03537 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ATWATER SALLY VS KELLY ROGER BRUCE ET AL BRIAN BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon KELLY JODY L the DEFENDANT at 123 BEETEM HOLLOW ROAD , at 1811:00 HOURS, on the 12th day of June , 2001 NEWVILLE, PA 17241 by handing to JODY KELLY a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 2 ~ ~-- day of ~_, ~ f A.D. ~z~othonotary ~, So Answers: R. Thomas Kline o6/13/2OOl CALDWELLBy: g_lXlD~~r ~ Deputy Sheriff BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4 NORTH HANOVER STREET CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 717-243-4574 766-1690 SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff V. ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA _. : NO. 01-3537 CIVIL TERM : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance on behalf of Roger Bruce Kelly and Jody L. Kelly, Defendants in the above captioned matter. July 6, 2001 c: Douglas K. Marsico, Esquire Atto'mey I.D. No. 06268 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 717/243-4574; 717/766-1690 FAX 717/243-8227 SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff V. ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 01-3537 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Defendants Roger Bruce Kelly and Jody L. Kelly, through their attomey John H. Broujos of Broujos & Gilroy, P.C., set forth the following preliminary objection: IN ACCORDANCE WITH PaRCP 1028 (a) 2, FAILURE OF COMPLAINT TO CONFORM WITH LAW OR RULE OF COURT AND WITH PaRCP (a) 6, AGREEMENT FOR ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 1. The Agreement of Sale between the parties, as set forth in Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Complaint provides in paragraph 29 for compulsory mediation: 2. "Buyer and Seller will try to resolve any dispute or claim that may arise from this Agreement through mediation, in accordance with the Rules and Procedures of the Home Sellers/Home Buyers Dispute Resolution System. Any agreement reached through a mediation conference and signed by the parties will be binding." 3. This provision constitutes a condition precedent to filing a complaint. Plaintiff has not attempted to resolve the dispute through mediation prior to filing complaint WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Courvt ~ dials the complaint. R~su[b~itted/[~ Jo~ln~Esqu~ Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 717/243-4574; 717/766-1690 Date: July 12, 2001 SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff V. ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-3537 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John H. Broujos, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a tree and correct copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objection on the following person and at the following address by United States, First Class Mail, on July 12, 2001 to: Douglas K. Marsico, Esquire Caldwell & Keams 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 Ju~ 12,2001 Attogney for Defendants BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 243-4574 (717) 243-8227 FAX SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff V. ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 01-3537 CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : PRAECIPE TO PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Issue writ to join Julie A. Lesh, of Jack Gaughen ERA, R.R.2, Box 17, New Bloomfield, PA 17068, as Additional Defendant under Pa. RCP 2252. . John fendants BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C. 4 N. Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717/243-4574; FAX 243-8227 PaBar 06268 CCi Julie A. Lesh Jack Gaughen ERA RR 2, Box 17 New Bloomfield, PA 17068 Douglas K. Marsico, Esquire Caldwell & Keams 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 Cumberland County, ss: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to atomy. Ao LESH OF JACK GA~ ~..RA, (,Ns, me of Add~tion-,d Defendant) R.R. 2 BOX 17, NEW BLOCMFIELD, PA 17068 You are notified that ROGER BRUCE KELLY AND JODY L. KELLY (Name. (~) of Defendant (s) ) has (have) joined you as an additional defendant in this action, which you are re- quired to defend. Date AUGUST 8, 2001 CURTIS R. LONG (SEAL) JULIE A. LESH OF JACK GAUGHENERA, R.R. 2. BOX 17, NEW B~IELD PA 17068 SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2001-03537 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COITNTY OF CUMBERLAND ATWATER SALLY VS KELLY ROGER BRUCE ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named ADD'L DEFENDANT , to wit: LESH JULIE A but was unable to locate Her deputized the sheriff of PERRY in his bailiwick. He therefore County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within WRIT TO ADD'L DEFEN. On August 24th , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from PERRY Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Perry County 24.00 .00 61.00 08/24/2001 BROUJOS & GILROY R. ~Fhomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this 2~ ~ day of ~ A.D. Q. , / ;-- Pr0th-on6~-~S~' In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Sally Atwater VS Roger Bruce Kelly VS. Julie A. Lesh serve s~ne No. 01 3537 civil Now,. Au~[ust 9, 2001 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of per~y County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, August 21 ., 20 01 , at 1: 00 within Writ to Join Additional Def. o'clock p M. served the upon Julie A. Lesh RR2 Box 17 Centre Twp New Bloomfield, Pa. 17068 by handing to Julie A. Lesh True & Attested and made known to Her copy of the original Writ to Join Additional Def. the contents thereof. Sworn and subscribed before me thiso2c~, day of/n~x~-x-- , 20o/ I~'COIm~on EXPmES F[t~. ~6 2004 g,;~ So answers, Wilson D e pu t/~" Sheriffof COSTS SERVICE 18,00 MILEAGE 4. O 0 AFFIDAVIT ~ ,~,~ County, PA $ 24.00 SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff V. ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants and JULIE A. LESH, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 01-3537 CIVIL TERM To: Roger B. Kelly and Jody L. Kelly c/o John H. Broujos, Esquire Broujos and Gilroy, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO SUE THE ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT AND THEREBY LOSE PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP: CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Date of Notice: August 29, 2001 Respectfully Submitted, Paige l~cdonald-Matthes, Esquire Attorney ID No. 66266 SAUL EWING LLP 2 North Second Street, 7~ Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Additional Defendant SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff V. ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants V. JULIE A. LESH, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-3537 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Defendants. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 249-3166 SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff V. ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants V. JULIE A. LESH, Additional Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 01-3537 CIVIL TERM : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS KELLY AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT LESH Defendants Roger Bruce Kelly and Jody L. Kelly, through their attorney John H. Broujos ofBroujos & Gilroy, P.C., set forth the following complaint against Additional Defendant: 1. Plaintiff in the principal case filed to the above number is Sally Atwater, an adult individual residing at 5201 State Route 38-A, Auburn, NY 13021. Copy of original complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Defendants Roger Bruce Kelly and Jody L. Kelly, husband and wife, are adult individuals residing at 123 Beetem Hollow Road, Newville, PA 17241. 3. Additional Defendant is Julie A. Lesh, an adult individual who place of work is Jack Gaughen ERA, R.R.2, Box 17, New Bloomfield, PA 17068. 4. Additional Defendant was at the time of events herein an employee, servant, and agent of Jack Gaughen ERA, a licensed Pennsylvania broker with office at New Bloomfield, Pennsylvania. 5. Additional Defendant was a real estate for sale of real property located at 120 Big Spring Avenue, Newville, Cumberland County, PA 17241, herein referred to as Premises. 6. Additional Defendant showed the above premises to Defendants. 7. On or about August 30, 2000, Additional Defendant presented to Defendants a Standard Agreement for the Sale of Real Estate, herein referred to as Agreement, copy of which is attached to Exhibit A. 8. Prior to the signing of the Agreement of Sale by Defendants, Defendants discussed additional terms which they wanted in the Agreement, advising Additional Defendant "not to put the contract through" until Additional Defendant had obtained for Defendants specific answers to questions about the house, including structure, shutters, and other house problems. 9. At no time subsequent to such direction by Defendants to Additional Defendant did Additional Defendant obtain answers to the questions asked. 10. In addition, Defendants did not make payment of the $4,000 down payment set forth in the Agreement, which was to be paid "upon acceptance" of the terms of the Agreement. 11. At all times, Defendants intended that the Agreement include terms relating to the questions left unanswered by Additional Defendant relating to structure, shutters, and other house problems, as set forth above. 12. Additional Defendant advised Defendants that the Agreement of Sale would not be binding on the parties until the $4,000 down payment was made. 13. Defendants heard nothing from Additional Defendant thereafter. 14. On or about September 4, 2000 Defendant Roger Bruce Kelly called Additional Defendant and left a message that they did not want to go through with the sale. 15. Thereafter, Additional Defendant called Defendants and informed them that the offer to buy was accepted. 16. There was no offer to buy made by Defendants, since they did not receive the additional information that they had requested as set forth above and since they had not paid the $4,000 down payment. 17. Even if the document was construed to be an offer, that offer was revoked by Defendants prior to the representation by Additional Defendant that the offer was accepted by Plaintiff. 18. Subsequently, on June 8, 2001, Plaintiff filed a complaint for liquidated damages in the amount of $4,000.00 on the theory that there was a valid contract existing and Defendants had failed to appear for settlement. 19. There was no valid and binding Agreement of Sale. 20. Defendants have been subjected to a civil action in assumpsit for breach of the alleged Agreement, with a claim alternative to the $4,000.00 liquidated damages, consisting of actual damages in the amount of $5,309.27, as set forth in paragraph 8 of the Plaintiff's original complaint, consisting of loss from resale, additional real estate taxes, attorney fees, insurance costs, travel expenses, and loss of income for attending settlement, and additional maintenance on the property before resale. 21. Plaintiff treated the Agreement as an offer purportedly accepted by Plaintiff on August 30, 2000, by an undecipherable signature on page 8 of 8 in Exhibit A. 22. At no time prior to the communication on or about September 4, 2000 from Defendant to Additional Defendant by phone, indicating that Defendants did not want to go through with the purchase, did Additional Defendant communicate to Defendants of any purported acceptance of the offer. 23. Additional Defendant's conduct was coercive, tortious, and negligent, placing Defendants under duress, and consisted of the following: a. Delivery to Plaintiff of the Agreement as a bona fide and unconditional offer to buy; when Defendants never intended the Agreement to be an unconditional offer. b. Delivery of the Agreement was not complete as an offer, since Defendants had told Additional Defendant "not to put the contract through" until Additional Defendant had gotten answers to questions about the house, including the structure, shutters, and other house problems. c. Additional Defendant failed to get the answers to the questions of Defendants prior to presenting the Agreement as a purported offer to Plaintiff, which had a coercive effect on Defendants. d. Additional Defendant failed to complete another condition for the Agreement to be valid by receipt and delivery of payment of the $4,000 down payment as agreed by Defendants and Additional Defendant prior to presentment of the Agreement to Plaintiff. e. Additional Defendant presented Defendants with a number of documents at the time of signing of the Agreement by Defendants including, among other documents, a Buyer Agency Agreement. f. Additional Defendant did not explain the significance or effect of the Buyer Agency Agreement, particularly the authority of Additional Defendant to receive the signed Agreement as an acceptance, thereby binding Defendants; g. Additional Defendant did not tell Defendants of the right or advisability to consult with or to obtain counsel, before or after signing, which constituted duress; did not give an opportunity to review the Buyer Agency Agreement prior to signing. h. Additional Defendant failed to assist or accommodate Defendants in understanding the significance and effect of signing any of the documents presented for signature. i. Additional Defendant was aggressive and insistent upon signing of the documents by Defendants. 24. During the~events related, Additional Defendant knew of the procedure of offer and acceptance creating a binding contract and failed to tell Defendants of the effect of her actions. 25. This conduct misled Defendants into relying on Additional Defendant without contacting legal counsel. 26. Defendants lacked any technical or legal training and knowledge of real estate transactions and were at the mercy of Additional Defendant. 27. The conduct of Additional Defendant in proceeding to deliver the Agreement as a final and unconditional offer constituted a failure to advise Defendants of the effect of their actions and constituted a violation of the fidelity and good faith required of a real estate salesperson. 28. Additional Defendant failed to make full, fair, and prompt disclosure of all facts affecting the transaction, particularly if she were to become a buyer's agent. 29. Defendants considered the role and authority of Additional Defendant as an agent of the Plaintiff Seller. Additional Defendant did not explain the difference between Seller's agent and Buyer's agent. 30. As a result of the failure of Additional Defendant to comply with the instructions and conditions of Defendants as set forth above, the principal Plaintiff Sally Atwater apparently improperly relied upon the Agreement with the signature of Defendants as a bona fide and unconditional offer and proceeded to file an action in assumpsit as referred to above. 31. As a result of the conduct of Additional Defendant, Defendants are the subject of a complaint which should not have been filed and which imposes upon Defendants a risk of liability for damages as set forth above. 32. As a result of the conduct of Additional Defendant, Additional Defendant is liable for Defendants for all costs of defending the suit brought by Plaintiff, including: a. legal fees, which at the time of this complaint are $1,700, and for undetermined future legal fees; b. Lost time from pursuing the job of Defendants; c. Any liability imposed as a result of the complaint of Plaintiff against Defendants; d. And such other costs unknown at the present time, which may be incurred as a result of the conduct of Additional Defendant. 33. As a result of the conduct of Additional Defendant, Additional Defendant is liable over to Defendants, individually, jointly, or severally, for any liability which may be imposed on Defendants under the original Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Court to enter judgment in favor of Defendants against Additional Defendant in the amounts as set forth above, plus interest, costs of suit, and other relief the Court may deem appropriate. Attorney for Defendants BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 717/243-4574; FAX 717/243-8227 September 14, 2001 I verify that the statements made in this pleading are true and correct. 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. Date: September 14, 2001 Roger Bruce Kelly TO ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT: NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE PLEADING WITHIN 20 DAYS FROM THE DATE C ;'~'~~OF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST 'oujos, Attorney f~-r-l~fendants SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff Vo ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 TRUE C~,,,PY FROM RECORD m l'o.gt~oe.y w~ffsof, 1 ~ere un~ set my hanO and the~s~,) ,~ sakJ Cou[t at Carlisle. Pa. ~rot~onotarv SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff Vo ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Sally Atwater, by and through her attorneys, Caldwell & Keams, and files the within Complaint, and in support thereof avers the following: 1. The Plaintiff, Sally Atwater, is an adult individual residing at 5201 State Route 38-A, Auburn, New York 13021. 2. The Defendants, Roger Bruce Kelly and Jody L. Kelly, husband and wife, are adult individuals with a last known address of 123 Beetem Hollow Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. 3. On or about September 1, 2000, the Defendants entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to purchase Plaintiff's real property located at 120 West Big Spring Avenue, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. A true and correct copy of the Agreement of Sale is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference. Pursuant to the written t¢~ms of the Agreement of Sale, settlement on the property was to be made on or before September 29, 2000. On or about September 29, 2000, the Plaintiff attended settlement at the law office of James Flower, Jr., 26 West High Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, ready, willing and able to transfer title of the property to the Defendants. The Defendants, without reason or to no fault of the Plaintiff, did not appear at settlement. The Defendants are in breach of the Agreement of Sale and pursuant to the terms of the Agreement of Sale the Plaintiffis entitled to $4,000.00 as liquidated damages for Defendants' breach. In the alternative, the Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages in the amount of $5,309.27 as follows: a. Resale price of $3,000.00 less than agreement with Defendants; b. Additional taxes paid on the property until resale two months later - $246.50; c. Attorney fees for settlement payable to James Flower, Jr. on September 29, 2000 - $150.00; d. Additional insurance paid on the property for liability and fire - $380.34; e. Travel expenses incurred by Plaintiff as a result of Plaintiff attending settlement on September 29, 2000 - $482.11; f. Loss income for attending settlement - $560.00; and g. Additional maintenance of the property before resale of the property - $367.50 Despite demands, the Defendants have failed to pay the Plaintiff her rightful damages. The Plaintiff at all times performed her obligations under the Agreement of Sale. 11. The Defendants have materially breached the contract and the Plaintiff is entitled to her damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Defendants in the amount of $5,309.27 or in the amount of the liquidated damages of $4,000.00 plus accrued interest, costs of suit, and any other relief the Court may deem appropriate. Dated: 00-684/22061 Respectfully submitted, CALDWELL & KEARNS ~arsi~o,~squire AtiOmey ID# 69804 3631 North Front Street Hamsburg, PA 17110-1533 (717) 232-7661 Attomey for Plaintiff, Sally Atwater p.1 .03/.01/2000. i.~: ,15 717-2~3-02B~; J~C~ G~U~PEN 115 Sep,02 O0 09:~2a ,Mar~ ~ Fi. tts ?17-245-2121 ,, , p.1 ,.. st. il 09/07./21)00, '_F:,: ,15 ,~ o ':?...,,'..5~, m 717-243-0268 :2 09/8'1/2000' 16:45 ,71'7-2~3-82SB J~C~< G .~.J~-~N ,' PAGE. 13 "4 VERIFICATION I, Sally Atwater, verify that the avemients in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. By: - Sally/Atwat~r- '- SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff Ye ROGER BRUCE KELLY and, JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants V. JULIE A. LESH, Additional Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 01-3537 CIVIL TERM :CIVIL ACTION-LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Roger B. Kelly and Jody L. Kelly c/o John H. Broujos, Esquire Broujos and Gilroy, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Additional Defendant's New Matter And Counter Claim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Date: November 20, 2001 SAUL EWING LLP Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire Attorney ID No. 66266 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 Attorney for Additional Defendant, Julie Lesh 85660.1 11/20/01 SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff ROGER BRUCE KELLY and, JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants V. JULIE A. LESH, Additional Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 01-3537 CIVIL TERM :CIVIL ACTION-LAW : ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO THE ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT COMPLAINT OF ROGER BRUCE KELLY AND JODY L. KELLY, TOGETHER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTER CLAIM AND NOW, comes Additional Defendant, Julie A. Lesh, by and through her counsel, Saul Ewing, LLP, and files her Answer to the Additional Defendant Complaint filed by Defendants Roger Bruce Kelly and Jody L. Kelly, Together with New Matter and Counter Claim, and in support thereof avers as follows: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT A. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 11 of the underlying Complaint filed by Plaintiffs on or about June 6, 2001, are directed to parties other than Additional Defendant Lesh and no answer is thereby required. 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT COMPLAINT 85660.1 11/20/D1 4. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that Additional Defendant was at the time of the events an agent of Jack Gaughen ERA, a licensed Pennsylvania broker with an office at New Bloomfield, Pennsylvania. It is denied that Additional Defendant was an "employee" or "servant" of Jack Gaughen ERA. 5. Denied as pleaded. It is denied that "Additional Defendant was a real estate [sic] for sale of real property located at 120 Big Spring Avenue, Newville, Cumberland County, PA 17241, herein referred to as Premises." 6. Admitted. By way of further reply, Defendants requested that Additional Defendant show them the Premises no less than three (3) different times prior to their executing the Agreement of Sale and each visit to the Premises lasted no less than three (3) hours. 7. Denied as stated. It is denied that "on or about August 30, 2000, Additional Defendant presented to Defendants a Standard Agreement of Sale of Real Estate..." (emphasis added). By way of further reply, on or about August 30, 2000, Additional Defendant met with the Defendants to prepare a Standard Agreement of Sale of Real Estate and spent four (4) hours with Defendants preparing the Agreement and reviewing the same. 8. Denied. It is denied that prior to the signing of the Agreement of Sale by Defendants, Defendants discussed additional teims which they wanted in the Agreement. It is further denied that the Defendants advised Additional Defendant "not to put the contract through" until Additional Defendant had obta'med for Defendants specific answers to the questions about the house, including structure, shutters and other house problems. By way of further reply, Defendants advised Additional Defendant not to "put the contract through" because they were unsure about Defendant Bruce Kelly's employment. 85660.1 11/20~1 -2- 9. Denied. It is denied that any direction was given to Additional Defendant regarding obtaining answers to questions regarding house problems prior to presenting the Agreement. It is further denied that Additional Defendant did not obtain answers to questions asked by the Defendants prior to the Defendants' execution of the Agreement. 10. Admitted. By way of further reply, Defendants failed to return any of Additional Defendant's telephone calls, and refused to provide Additional Defendant with a home telephone number such that Additional Defendant could inform Defendants that their offer had been accepted and that their $4,000. deposit was due per the terms of the Agreement. 11. Denied. It is denied that "at all times, Defendants intended that the Agreement include terms relating to the questions left unanswered by Additional Defendant relating to the structure, shutters and other house problems, as set forth." By way of further reply, at no time during the four (4) hours that Additional Defendant spent with Defendants preparing the Agreement of sale request that additional tenns be included in the Agreement concerning the structure, shutters and "other house problems." Finally, and by way of further reply, Defendants had the Agreement in their possession for several days before it was presented to the Plaintiff such that Defendants had ample time to review and make changes to the same, if any were needed, before the Agreement was presented to the Plaintiff. 12. Denied. It is denied that Additional Defendant advised Defendants that the Agreement of Sale would not be binding on the parties until the $4,000. down payment was made. By way of further reply, the Agreement of Sale clearly states that the $4,000. deposit was due at the time the Agreement was accepted. 13. Denied. It is denied that Defendants "heard nothing from Additional Defendant thereafter." By way of further reply, Additional Defendant repeatedly tried to contact Defendants 85660.1 11/20~01 -3- to let them know that their offer had been accepted and that their deposit was due, however, Defendants never returned Additional Defendant's calls. Finally, and by way of further reply, Defendant Bruce Kelly refused to give Additional Defendant his home telephone number and insisted that she call him at work. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants called Additional Defendant. It is denied that Defendants called Additional Defendant on 9/4/00. By way of further reply, the Defendants called Additional Defendant on 9/12/00 and requested to be released from the Agreement. 15. Denied. Additional Defendant advised Defendants that the Agreement had been accepted on 9/2/01. 16. The averments set forth in p~agraph 16 of the Additional Defendant Complaint state conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event that an answer is so required, the averments set forth in paragraph 16 are denied. 17. The averments set forth in paragraph 17 of the Additional Defendant Complaint state conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event that an answer is so required, the averments set forth in paragraph 17 are denied. 18. Admitted. 19. The averments set forth in paragraph 19 of the Additional Defendant Complaint state conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event that an answer is so required, the averments set forth in paragraph 19 are denied. 20. Admitted. 85(~0.1 11/20~1 -4- 21. Answering Additional Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 21 of the Additional Defendant Complaint and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied. It is denied that Defendants telephoned Additional Defendants on or about September 4, 2000 stating that they did not want to go through with the purchase. It is further denied that Additional Defendant did not communicate the acceptance of the offer by Plaintiff to the Defendants. 23. The general avemient set forth in paragraph 23 of the Additional Defendant Complaint states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that answer is so required, Additional Defendant responds as follows: a. Denied. It is denied that Additional Defendant delivered to Plaintiff an Agreement of Sale that was "never intended to be an unconditional offer. "; b. Denied. It is denied that the Defendants instructed Additional Defendant "not to put the contract through" until Additional Defendant had gotten answers to questions about the house. By way of further reply, at the time the Defendants prepared the Agreement of Sale, all of their questions regarding the house had been answered by Plaintiffs agent and were communicated to the Defendants by Additional Defendant; c. Denied. It is denied that Additional Defendant failed to get the answers to Defendants' questions. By way of further reply, at the time the Defendants prepared the Agreement of Sale, all of their questions regarding the house had been answered by Plaintiffs agent and were 85660.1 11/20~1 -5- communicated to the Defendants by Additional Defendant; d. Denied. It is denied that Additional Defendant failed to complete any condition for the Agreement to be valid. By way of further reply, Defendants had in their possession a copy of the Agreement of Sale and had ample oppommity to review the same and contact Additional Defendant if they felt that the Agreement was incomplete; e. Admitted; f. Denied. It is denied that Additional Defendant "did not explain the significance or effect of the Buyer Agency Agreement."; g. Denied. It is denied that Additional Defendant did not tell Defendants of the fight or advisability to consult with or obtain counsel, before or after signing the Agreement. By way of further reply, Defendants advised Additional Defendant that Defendant Bruce Kelly's father is an attorney. It is denied that Additional Defendant did not give Defendants an opportunity to review the Buyer Agency Agreement prior to signing; h. Denied. It is denied that Additional Defendant was "aggressive and insistent upon signing of the documents by Defendants; and i. Denied. It is denied that Additional Defendant "failed to assist or accommodate Defendants in understanding the significance and effect of signing any of the documents presented for signature. 24. Admitted and part and Denied in part. It is admitted that Additional Defendant knew of the procedure of offer and acceptance creating a binding contract. It is denied that 85660.1 11/20zBI -6- Additional Defendant "failed to tell Defendants of the effect of her actions." By way of further reply, the Defendants made the offer with the intent that the same would be accepted by Plaintiff. 25. Additional Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 25 of the Additional Defendant Complaint and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 26. Additional Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averments set forth in paragraph 26 of the Additional Defendant Complaint and strict proof of the same, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 27. Denied. It is denied that Additional Defendant failed to properly advise Defendants. It is further denied that Additional Defendant in any way violated her "fidelity and good faith required of a real estate salesperson." 28. Denied. It is denied that Additional Defendant failed to make full, fair and prompt disclosure of all facts affecting the transaction. 29. Denied. It is denied that Defendants considered the role and authority of Additional Defendant as an agent of Plaintiff Seller. To the contrary, Defendants executed an Agency relationship agreement which expressly defined and delineated the duties of a Seller and Buyer Agent. In addition, Defendants executed a Buyer Agency Agreement such that they could not have in any way not understood that Additional Defendant was their agent. 30. The averments set forth in paragraph 30 of the Additional Defendant Complaint state conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that an answer is so required, the averments set forth in paragraph 30 are denied. 31. Denied. It is denied that Additional Defendant is the reason why Defendants are the subject of Plaintiffs Complaint. 32. The averments set forth in paragraph 32 of the Additional Defendant Complaint state conclusions of law to which no response is required. 33. The avemients set forth in paragraph 33 of the Additional Defendant Complaint state conclusions of law to which no response is required. In the event that it is later judicially determined that an answer is so required the averments set forth in paragraph 33 are denied. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant, Julie Lesh, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants, and dismiss Defendants Additional Defendant Complaint with prejudice, and further award Additional Defendant all such other relief as is proper and just. NEW MATTER 34. The averments set forth in paragraphs A, and 1 through 33 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth at length. 35. At all relevant times relevant to the matters complained of, Additional Defendant executed her duties as Buyer's agent with fidelity and in a matter corresponding with the duties attendant. 36. Additional Defendant fully explained the significance of executing the Agreement of Sale to Defendants and the Defendants had the opportunity to read the Agreement in its entirety prior to executing the same, including the Notice directly above their signatures which clearly states" NOTICE TO PARTIES, WHEN SIGNED THIS AGREEMENT IS A BINDING CONTRACT." 85660.1 11/20/0l -8 - 37. Defendants never advised Additional Defendant that they could not read or could not understand the terms set forth in the Agreement of Sale. 38. Defendants specifically granted Additional Defendant permission to present the Agreement to Plaintiffs agent on September 1, 2000, three (3) days after the Agreement was originally executed by Defendants on August 30, 2000. 39. Defendants instructed Additional Defendant to hold on to the Agreement of Sale because they knew that it would be binding upon them at such time that the Agreement was presented and accepted by Plaintiff. 40. Defendants themselves created the terms of the Agreement of Sale, including, but not limited to the provision that a deposit of $4,000. would be due and payable "upon acceptance" of the Agreement. 41. Defendants were duly advised by the Additional Defendant that the Agreement had been accepted on September 2, 2000 when Additional Defendant telephoned Defendant Roger Kelly at his place of business. 42. Defendant Roger Kelly on more than one occasion advised Additional Defendant that his father was an attorney. 43. Defendants did not have any concerns with the shutters on the property other than that they would be included as fixtures that would remain with the property. 44. While preparing the Agreement of Sale, Defendants had the oppommity to include "Special Clauses," in paragraph 5 of the Agreement which would make the sale contingent upon certain events, or conditions being met. Defendants failed to advise Additional Defendant of any specific contingency that the offer to purchase the property was conditioned upon. 85660.1 11/20t01 -9- 45. Defendants had the opportunity to review the property on at least three (3) occasions prior to writing a contract for the same and had ample time to consider (a) whether they wanted the property; (b) how much they were willing to pay for the property; and (c) what conditions precedent, if any, were to be included in the Agreement. 46. Additional Defendant believes and therefore avers that during the time that Defendants were reviewing the subject premises they were also interested in another property located on Beetem Hollow Road, which was not for sale at the time. 47. Shortly after the Defendants executed the Agreement of Sale for the subject property, the other property located at Beetem Hollow Road that Defendants were interested in purchasing was placed on the market. Upon information and belief, Defendants ultimately purchased that property. 48. Additional Defendant believes and therefore avers that Defendants detemfined not to comply with the terms of the Agreement of Sale because they wanted to purchase another property instead. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant, Julie Lesh, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendants, and dismiss Defendants Additional Defendant Complaint with prejudice, and further award Additional Defendant all such other relief as is proper and just. COUNTER CLAIM Julie A. Lesh v. Roger Bruce Kelly and Jody L. Kelly 49. The avcmients set forth in paragraph A and paragraphs 1 through 48 are incorporated herein by reference as if more fully set forth at length. 50. At all times relevant, Additional Defendant/Counter Claim Plaintiffwas an agent of Jack Ganghen Realtor, ERA CGaughen"). 51. The $4,000. deposit that was to have been paid by Defendants/Counter Claim Defendants was required to be deposited in Gaughen's escrow account pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the State Real Estate Commission. 49 Pa Conn. Stat. Ann. Section 36.327. 52. The Complaint filed by Plaintiff against the Defendants/Counter Claim Defendants arises out of Defendants'/Counter Claim Defendants' failure to pay over to Plaintiff the sum of $4,000. which was to be deposited into an escrow account pending final settlement. 53. Pursuant to paragraph 21(B) of the Agreement of Sale, "Buyer and Seller agree that in the event any broker or affiliated licensee is joined in litigation for the return of deposit monies, the attorneys' fees and costs of the broker(s) and licensee(s) will be paid by the party joining them." 54. Defendants/Counter Claim Defendants have joined Additional Defendant Lesh/ Counter Claim Plaintiff, a licensee of Gaughen (Broker), as a party to the litigation for the return of the deposit money and accordingly are obligated to pay the attorneys' fees and costs of the broker and licensee arising out of the defense of this action. 55. Both Gaughen and Additional Defendant Lesh/Counter Claim Plaintiff are represented by Saul Ewing, LLP and Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire. As of the date of the filing of this pleading, Additional Defendant Lesh / Counter Claim Plaintiff and Gaughen have incurred legal fees and costs in the approximate sum of $1,502.84. 56. Additional Defendant Lesh/Counter Claim Plaintiff and Gaughen will continue to incur legal fees arising out of Defendants'/Counter Claim Defendants' Joinder Complaint. A complete accounting and verification of the legal fees incurred will be presented to the Court at such time that this matter is adjudicated, or at such time that this matter may be settled and an agreement as to the amount of attorneys fees and costs to be paid cannot be reached. WHEREFORE, Additional Defendant/Counter Claim Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendants/Counter Claim Defendants, and that Defendants/Counter Claim Defendants pay Additional Defendant/Counter Claim Plaintiff the total amount of counsel fees and costs incurred in the defense of the Complaint to Join Additional Defendant, and further award Additional Defendant/Counter Claim Plaintiff all such other relief as is proper and just. Date: November 20, 2001 Respectfully submitted, SAUL EWING LLP Paige I~t~'cdonald-Matthes Attorney ID No. 66266 2 North Second Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 238-7675 Attorney for Additional Defendant, Julie Lesh Received 11/20/2001 11:29AM in 00:50 on Line [10] for 4023 140RKSRVl printed B009C565 on 11/20/2001 11:31AM * Pg 1/1 FROH : .TRCK C~qUGHE-N REI:tLTOR PI-II3hlE NO. : 717+582+40F:>4 Nou. 2~ 2081 12:11PM P1 ~ VERIFICATION l, ~Iulie A. Lcsh, being subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, hc'reby state that the facts set forth in thc forcgoin$ attach~l Additional Defendant's Answer To The Additional Defendant Complaint Of Roger Bruce Kelly And $ody L. Kelly, Together With New Matter And Courtier Claim are tree and vorr~t to the best of my knowl~lge, information and belief. Dated: Novcmberc--_'](~ 2001. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Paige Macdonald-Matthes, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 20* day of November 2001, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Additional Defendant's Answer To The Additional Defendant Complaint Of Roger Brace Kelly And Jody L. Kelly, Together With New Matter And Counter Claim, via United States Mail upon the following: John H. Broujos, Esquire Broujos and Gilroy, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Douglas R. Marsico, Esquire 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 aige l~acd6nald-Matthes 85660.1 11/20/01 ©c) ~ ~ SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff V. ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants V. JULIE A. LESH, Additional Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 01-3537 CIVIL TERM : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW _. ._ .. DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER Defendants Roger Bruce Kelly and Jody L. Kelly, through their attorney John H. Broujos ofBroujos & Gilroy, P.C., set forth the following: 34. Paragraphs 1 through 33 do not require a responsive pleading. 35. Averment is conclusion of law. Denied that Additional Defendant executed her duties with fidelity and with duties attendant. 36. Denied Additional Defendant fully explained the significance. Admitted Defendants had opportunity to read Agreement of Sale in its entirety, including the Notice. In spite of the Notice, Defendants understood that the matters set forth in paragraphs 8 through 13 were part of the offer, the answers to which were to be communicated to Defendants before the agreement was binding. Under the pressure of Additional Defendant and in light of the large number of documents presented to Defendants, Defendants hastily reviewed the Agreement of Sale and documents. Denied that the Agreement was the total agreement as a binding agreement in that the document was not complete. There were additional conditions as set forth in paragraph 8 through 13. Additional Defendant insisted that the Agreement of Sale and other documents be signed by Defendants before they were presented to Seller. 37. Admitted. By way of further answer, the document as an Agreement of Sale was conditioned by the averments set forth in paragraphs 8 through 13, particularly the requirement for shutters to remain. 38. Admitted. By way of further answer, in addition to presentation of the Agreement of Sale, Defendants expected Additional Defendant to obtain the information requested in paragraphs 8 through 13, which requirement was concurred with by Additional Defendant. That is one of the reasons Defendants did not pay the $4,000 contemporaneously with signing the Agreement of Sale. Defendants anticipated a response to their inquiries and conditions as averred in paragraphs 8 through 13. 39. Denied. On the contrary, Defendants did not instruct Additional Defendant to hold on to the Agreement of Sale because they knew that it would be binding upon them when presented and accepted by Plaintiff. Defendants expected a response to their requests for additional information as set forth in paragraphs 8 through 13. Further, Additional Defendant insisted upon and pressured Defendants to sign the Agreement of Sale and other documents. 40. Denied that Defendants created the terms of the entire Agreement of Sale. They were asked by Additional Defendant to give her the purchase offer, settlement dates and a few other provisions for vacant lines. The Agreement was a form recommended by the Pennsylvania Association of Realtors and provided by additional Defendant, who offered no other alternative forms. Further, Defendants intended and told Additional Defendant that the deposit of $4,000 was to be paid upon acceptance of terms including resolution of issues set forth in paragraphs 8 through 13. 41. Denied. Defendant Roger Kelly received no phone call from Additional Defendant on September 2 at any location or on any date prior to Defendant Brace's phone call to Additional Defendant on September 4, when he left a message that Defendants did not want to go through with the agreement. 42. Admitted. 43. Denied. On the contrary, Defendants were so concerned with shutters and other items that they made their inclusion in the agreement a verbal condition of the sale and Additional Defendant knew thereof. 44. Admitted that there was a paragraph 5 "Special Clauses". Denied that Defendants had any duty to list any items in Special Clauses, since the document was created by Additional Defendant's real estate association and prepared by and filled in by Additional Defendant who took infoimation from Defendants and decided where in the form she would include information. In addition, Additional Defendant had a duty to fill in the items referred to in paragraphs 8 through 13. Defendants expected Additional Defendant to comply with their requirement of communicating Defendants' conditions to Seller. Defendants did not consider the document as a final agreement of sale until the outstanding items were resolved. 45. Admitted that Defendants saw the property 3 times, for substantially less time than averred. Admitted that Defendants had ample time to consider the purchase and price, but not all the terms, and during such consideration concluded that they wanted the conditions set forth in paragraphs 8 through 13 to be communicated to Seller. Additional Defendant agreed to discuss the conditions with Seller. 46. Denied. On the contrary, Defendants themselves lived in Beetem Hollow Road, where they had lived for eleven years. They had looked at a Penn Township property in November 2000, after the events of this action, which was not for sale. 47. Denied. As averred there was absolutely no such interest in a Beetem Hollow Road property and Defendants did not purchase such property or any other property. 48. Denied. Defendants did not say they were not interested in the property because of the desire to purchase another property, which did not occur. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request the Court to dismiss the Answers to New Matter. DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT'S COUNTER CLAIM 49. Defendants' answers to averments 34 through 48 are incorporated herein by reference. 50. Admitted. 51. Admitted. 52. Admitted. Denied that Defendants were obligated to pay the sum of $4,000 into an escrow account since there was no agreement; and any offer that would have been found in this case was not timely accepted. 53. Admitted that paragraph 21(B) of the Agreement of Sale contains, among other provisions, the sentence averred. However, that provision is not applicable, since there is no escrow fund; it applies to a deposit in limbo by disagreement of Seller and Buyer and had its origin in the state real estate and broker regulations. Further, it applies to the situation where a party joins a real estate firm as the escrow holder. This was not done in this case as a matter of courtesy and simplicity; nor was the broker joined, but could have been joined. By way of further answer, Defendants aver this provision is unconstitutional if it is intended to apply to the joinder of a salesperson as an additional defendant since it is unconscionable. Finally, the interpretation of the agreement is to be construed strictly against the maker Additional Defendant and her principal. 54. Denied. The provision does not apply to the facts of this case and is unconstitutional, as allerred above. By way of further answer, no money was paid into escrow. A sine qua non for enforcement of this provision, even if it were constitutional, is the creation of an escrow by deposit of monies into an escrow held by a broker. This condition has never been averred. Further, this is not litigation for the remm of monies, since not were paid. Defendants have elected to raise the constitutional issue in this pleading and later motions in lieu of Preliminary Objections, to reduce costs of litigation. 55. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the troth of the averment. Nor are any facts alleged to justify the fees. 56. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to fomta belief as to the troth of the averment. Nor are any facts alleged to justify the fees. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests the C~x~o/djsmiss.the Counterclaim. ~H. B~oujos, ~Squire #6268 x : Atlmm.e,~o r Defendants BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 717/243-4574; 717/766-1690 FAX# 717/243-8227 I verify that the statements made in this pleading are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: I verify that the statements made in this pleading are true and correct. 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. Date: Jody L.~ell~~ 'l ~ TO ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT: NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE PLEADING WITHIN 20 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. John H. Broujos, Attorney for Defendants SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff Vo ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants Vo JULIE LESH, Additional Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-3537 CWIL ACTION - LAW ORDER AND NOW this / Petition, ~ Esquire and ~~ captioned act~6n as prayed for. ,200__, in consideration of the foregoing , Esquire, , Esquire are appointed Arbitrators in the above- BY THE COURT: J' (~/ygg[) SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants JULIE LESH, Additional Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ; : : : : NO. 01-3537 : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS To the Honorable Judges of Said Court: Douglas K. Marsico, counsel for the Plaintiff in the above action respectfully requests that: (1) the above-captioned is at issue; (2) the claim of Plaintiffin this action is $4,000.00; (3) the counter-claim of Additional Defendant in this action is $1,502.84, plus additional counsel fees and costs; and (4) the following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as Arbitrators: Andrea C. Jacobsen, Samuel W. Milkes, James D. Flower, John H. Broujos, Paige, McDonald-Matthes, any attorney in the law firm of BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C., any attorney in the law firm of JACOBSEN & MILKES, any attorney in the law firm of SAUL EWING, any attorney in the law firm of CALDWELL & KEARNS. WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three Arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submitted, CALDWELL & KEARNS Dated: 00-684/33453 6arsico, Esquire 9804 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1533 (717) 232-7661 Attorney for Plaintiff Sally Atwater CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this l /3d/} day of December, 2001, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the within document on the following by depositing a tree and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mails at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: John H. Broujos, Esquire BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Paige F. MacDonald-Matthes, Esquire 2 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 CALDWELL & KEARNS SALLY ATWATER · THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 01-3537CIVIL TERM: ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, Husband and: Wife, JULIE LESH IN RE: ARBITRATION PANEl · CIVIL ACTION- LAW ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, January 14, 2002, the Court having been informed that Jennifer Deitchman, Esquire, is unavailable for the above-captioned arbitration hearing, Carol Cingranelli, Esquire is appointed in her stead. By the Court, Stephen Hogg, Esquire Chairman of Arbitration Panel 19 South Hanover Street Suite 101 Carlisle, PA 17013 Court Administrator SALLY ATWATER, Plaintiff V. ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife, Defendants JULIE A. LESH, Additional Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 01-3537 CIVIL TERM : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ; ; ; PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE WITH PREJUDICE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above case settled and discontinued with respect to the Defendants' Complaint against Additional Defendant, with prejudice. March 1, 2002 Jo ' ~ Defend~ats 4 N. F/~mover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717/243-4574; FAX 243-8227 PaBar 06268 Douglas K. Marsico, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Paige F. MacDonald-Matthes, Esquire Attorney for Additional Defendant SALLY ATWATER Plaintiff ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 01-3537 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned matter settled, discontinued and ended. CALDWELL & KEARNS ~"~las K. Marsico, Esquire Attorney I.D. #69804 Attorney for Plaintiff 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7661 Dated: 00-684~36768 AND NOW, this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE day of March, 2002, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the within document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mails at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: John H. Broujos, Esquire BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Paige F. MacDonald-Matthes, Esquire 2 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 CALDWELL & KEARNS 00-684/36769 SALLY ATWATER Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 01-3537 ROGER BRUCE KELLY and JODY L. KELLY, husband and wife Defendants .~7 ~m~J,~ PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned matter settled and discontinued with prejudice. CALDWELL & KEARNS Dated: ~/6/~Z ~./-~s K. Marsico, Esquire ~ttorney I.D. #69804 Attorney for Plaintiff 3631 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7661 00-684/36768 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~ L~ AND NOW, this/~ c~ay of March, 2002, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the within document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: John H. Broujos, Esquire BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C. 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Paige F. MacDonald-Matthes, Esquire 2 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 CALDWELL & KEARNS 00-684/36768