The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-3606CHRISTINE L. OTTO and BRANDON T. MADARANG, A Minor By his Parent and Natural Guardian, CHRISTINE L. OTTO Plaintiffs V. MARK S. MILLER and TERESA L. MILLER, Husband and Wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2004 - SLOL CIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO CURTIS R. LONG, PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons against the defendants, Mark S. Miller and Teresa L. Miller, and enter my appearance on behalf of the plaintiffs, Christine L. Otto and Brandon T. Madarang. Mark S. Miller Teresa L. Miller 284 Smith Road Shippensburg, PA 17257-9626 Respectfully submitted, By: IRWINN & McKNIGGH'T jA Douglas Miller, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No: 83776 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 July 23, 2004 (717) 249-2353 To: Mark S. Miller and Teresa L. Miller 284 Smith Road Shippensburg, PA 17257-9626 You are hereby notified that Christine L. Otto and Brandon T. Madarang, Plaintiffs, have commenced an action against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. r7///J Bye J,(/[a-y. D P.C;7 /r 9• DEPUTY Dater 14' / .2J 2004 lvl r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW CHRISTINE L. OTTO and BRANDON T. MADARANG, a minor By his Parent and Natural Guardian, CHRISTINE L. OTTO Plaintiffs v. MARK S. MILLER and TERESA L MILLER, Husband and Wife Defendants Civil Action JURY TRIAL DEMANDED No.: 2004-3606 PRAECIPE MR. LONG: Kindly enter the appearance of Wagman Kreider & Wright on behalf of Defendants in the above-captioned matter. All documents in the matter hereafter may be served upon me: 222 East Orange Street P.O. Box 1522 Lancaster, PA 17608-1522 WAGMAN KREIDER & WRIGHT BY: ! ,T,eff r ri t, Attorneys for Def aan 222 an a treet, P.O. Box 1522 Lan ster, 17608-1522 397-7000 S.Ct.ID. No.: 41495 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance on the person set forth below and in the manner indicated: First class mail, postage prepaid: Douglas G. Miller, Esquire Irwin & McKnight 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 WAGMAN KREIDER & WRIGHT Date: Ji t, Attorneys for _O S-0 BY: XPA - s 2ge Street, P.O. Box 1522 17608-1522 (717) 397-7000 S.Ct.ID. NO.: 41495 0 __ Grp /b - L 7 r T _J _< r Carolyn M. Andrews, Plaintiff Vs. William Chenoweth, Defendant Civil Action- Law RESPONSE In the court of common pleas of Cumberland County, Penna. Na. o 4tO - 36 o ? _ c`vll } Items 2,3 of complaint are correct. Item 4, we removed everything we thought we could sell, All items were not suitable for auction. Item 5, is correct. Item 6, there were no other locations. Item 7, I made a more detailed list as I unleaded the items At the auction. Item 8, we tried to sell the items, at different times. Item 9, is correct. Item 10, appears to be correct. Item 119 1 did not refuse, all items do not sell at auction. I do not always account for them. Item 12, the items were household items, sold at auction with no Reserve price. There was no mention of a 5400.00 market value. I do not know were this figure came from. Just because an item has a market value, it does not mean the Item will bring the value.I told Mrs. Andrews we Would try to sell all items,but some items just do not Sell, it is an auction.. Item 13, 1 have been doing auctions for 20yrs., I have never been Accused of this. If I knew there was a expected price Attached to the sale, I would have; never taken the sale. By fill Chenoweth 905 S. 29`f' St. Camp Hill, Pa. ?> ?. c, ;? t :'? ,; i;_,. ? ?: ,, ' ?. , ;c _? , ` SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-03606 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND OTTO CHRISTINE L ET AL VS MILLER MARK S ET AL SHANNON SHERTZER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS MILLER MARK S the DEFENDANT , at 1745:00 HOURS, on the 11th day of Auqust 2004 at 284 SMITH ROAD SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 by handing to TERESA L MILLER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18 .00 Service 8 .88 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10 .00 .00 36 .88 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 31,ad' day of Z#oLr A. D. 'P no alQ?y? rbthonotary c was served upon So Answers: d R. Thomas Kline Thomas Kline 08/12/2004 MARCUS MCKNIGHHT_ By: Deputy She riff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-03606 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND OTTO CHRISTINE L ET AL VS MILLER MARK S ET AL SHANNON SHERTZER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon MILLER TERESA L the DEFENDANT , at 1745:00 HOURS, on the 11th day of August 2004 at 284 SMITH ROAD SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257 by handing to TERESA L MILLER a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS 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 .3/nt- day of c2 fm `f, A. D. C ?? -- r thonotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 08/12/2004 MARCUS MCKNIGHT By. k. 2 Deputy Sheriff 4% CHRISTINE L. OTTO and BRANDON T. MADARANG, A Minor By his Parent and Natural Guardian, CHRISTINE L. OTTO Plaintiffs V. MARK S. MILLER and TERESA L. MILLER, Husband and Wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2004 - 3606 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED TO THE COURT: Plaintiff intends to proceed with the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & McKNIGHT October 23, 2007 By: Douglas .k. Miller, squire Supreme Court I.D. No: 83776 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 i 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by first class United States mail, postage paid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, on the date set forth below: JEFFREY D. WRIGHT, ESQUIRE 222 EAST ORANGE STREET P.O. BOX 1522 LANCASTER, PA 17608 Date: October 23, 2007 IRWIN & McKNIGHT ze. - Douglas . Miller, Esquire Supreme Court ID # 83776 West Pomfret Professional Building 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222 (717) 249-2353 c? ? a Cr ? "t7 r'T r ? i"li ??-_ F r, BENNETT, BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLP BY: Jeffery D. Wright, Esquire 222 East Orange Street Lancaster, PA 17602 I.D. No. 41495 (717) 397-7000 CHRISTINE L. OTTO and BRANDON T MADARANG, A Minor by his parent and natural guardian, CHRISTINE L. OTTO Plaintiffs vs. MARK S. MILLER and TERESA L. MILLER Husband and Wife Defendants ORIGINAL 2004-3606 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, Mark S. Miller and Teresa L. Miller COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW DOCKET No. 2004-3606 WITHDRAWAL/ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of Jeffery D. Wright, Esquire as counsel on behalf of Defendants Mark S. Miller and Teresa L. Miller and enter the appearance of Michael W. Wagman, Esquire. BENNETT, BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLP Dated: BY: U, opot Jeffe ri t, ttorneys for Defendants ark ille an Teresa L. Miller BENNETT, BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG, LLP Dated: 1 D? BY: ael W. Wag an, Attorneys Defendant k S. Miller and Teresa L. M' er a 2004-3606 BENNETT, BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLP BY: Michael W. Wagman, Esquire 222 East Orange Street Lancaster, PA 17602 I.D. No. 28690 (717) 397-7000 CHRISTINE L. OTTO and BRANDON T. MADARANG, A Minor by his parent and natural guardian, CHRISTINE L. OTTO Plaintiffs vs. MARK S. MILLER and TERESA L. MILLER Husband and Wife Defendants ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, Mark S. Miller and Teresa L. Miller COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW DOCKET No. 2004-3606 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the Withdrawal/Entry of Appearance on counsel listed below by first class mail, postage prepaid: Douglas G. Miller, Esquire Irwin and McKnight 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Attorneys for Plaintiffs) BENNETT, BRICKLIN & SALTZBURG LLP Dated: 114 1 BY: r , V 40C Or ael W. gman, Atto e for Defendants 7 Mi k S. Miller and Teresa L/Ailler C ? r -rt ell -,-t -ra Christine L. Otto and Brandon T. Madarang, A Minor by his Parent and Natural Guardian Christine L. Otto vs Mark S. Miller and Teresa L. Miller, Husband and Wife Case No. 2100444 .? r- M C7' ^°-1 CD FPM Statement of Intention to Proceed > ' C: CC7 W To the Court: - Plaintiffs, Christine Otto and Brandan Madarang, intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Douglas G. Miller Print Name Sign Name Date: 10/12/11 _ Attorney for Plaintiffs Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. 11 Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a showing to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. CHRISTINE L. OTTO and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BRANDON T. MADARANG, A Minor : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA By his Parent and Natural Guardian, . CHRISTINE L. OTTO . Plaintiffs r , v. : 2004 - 3606 CIVIL TERM cc r'' - MARK S. MILLER and :CIVIL ACTION -LAW -0-65 , n r ' TERESA L. MILLER, Husband and Wife, : x 7 c Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED J N C -r -n STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED TO THE COURT: Plaintiff intends to proceed with the above -captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. October 22, 2014 By: Douglas G. t° iller, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No: 83776 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353