HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-2708 C~MMONWEALTI~ OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTICE OF APPEAL
COURT OF COMMON PLE&S
JU~ClAL DISTIUCT
DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT
NOTICE OF APPEAL
N°fice is gi~n fnat Ihe al~dc~ has fiiKI in the abQve Court OF Common plem an upped h~om the judgment M by ~ ~t~ ~ ~ fl~
dale and in Ihe case mentionecl below
1008B. appe NT (see Pa. R.C.P.J.P. Nc,.
T~s No~:e of ,~=1, Mt~n recked by h~ Oistrict J~e, will opeete m a lO01( 6 ) in action before Disb~ict Justice, he MUS~
FILE A COMPLAINT within twenb/ ( 20 ) G~ys after
filing his NOTICE of APPEAL.
PRAECi~~' TO Eh.=K RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE
(TtW b'ecf~n of fora? ~o be usecl ONLY when appella~ was DEFENDANT (Me Pa. RC.P.J.P. N~ 1001(7) in action before Disinct Justice.
PRAEClPE: To
(C~rmn Pl~s N=
RULE: To
(1) You am nofifiKI that a n~e/s hereby entered upen y~u to file a conIMzlnt in ih/s appBd within twenty (20) ~s ~ ~ ~ Of
(2) If You do not fib a camp~int within t~s thee, a AJDGMENT OF NON pROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAiNS? ~
(3) The date of seMce of this rule if service was by maff is the ckd~ of mcding.
Dale: ,19
COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY
C. QMMOWIALTH OF PL~INSYLVANIA N'O~E~0F APPEAL
COUilT OF ~.c..~,qGiql PLEAS
DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT
CQMMON PLEAS No. /_~., ~ .,.:. ?'
NOTICE OF APPEAL
N°lice is givm that the aK)Mlmt
dat~ and in #le has fi/ed in the above
case men#amd bek~ Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by fhe Disfff~ct Justice
ri. h. .
· ,,' ~ i,-I-
· " ', i. i . .j
:i :... ,.:j /" ~ ~ I~ ': ' [~' i · · · ,: .
MU~T
ol P~o~y o~ ty ~ his NOTICE of APPEAL.
PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE
(This section of foffn to be used ONLY when a~oellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. RC. RJ.P. N~ 1001(7) in action belore D~trict Jus~ce.
IF NOT USED, de, ch from co~y of no#ce of al~oeal to be sen, ed uDon al~oellee).
PRAEClPEz 1'o
(Common ~ I~ _ ~ = ~,~s) . =l:~:~s), ~o llb a
) ~tiin twenty (20) dey~ ~ ~'Yice of rule or suff~. ~ of judging, of n~,
RULE; 1'o_ --
s~ice ur -NS rub upon you k.. .... upon you Io lile a canmlalnt
(2) lf y°u d° n°t ~e a campk~ within t~ tlme, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS
(3) The date of service of fnis rub if service WIU. BE ENTERED AGA/NST YOU.
was bY mag is the date of mailing.
,19~.
COURT FILE
[~ EN (10l DAYS AFTE~ lilJng the notice OI appeal. Check appl,caDl,
'"~'"'~':'~:?~'~~;7'""~''=''':' ...............
n~l ~rwce ~ by (cemh~d) (registered) ma~l, sender's
~date of servce) ~. - eltee (name) -- ~ t .. , . reto.
't attached her to and upon the app .. . e.ified) (registered) ma,I, senders r~e,pt
rec~, I~ ~ ~a ~ by ~rsonal sewme ~by (c - ...~f AnnealupontheaPpeilee[s~
~ , .;~ '- ~ __.~ccompanyngtheabovemod~ ~" ~. =.,h~l (re. stared)
/~[
- --- _
.... 1~ ~
--~OTA.I~L~L' ~ ~C. -~ '~"
~,~, ,w,~.s~,.,o~,,cl ~ · ~-'~"-'
Ship~urg. Cumberlana gou ~y j
Plaintiff: Common Pleas No. 01-2708 Civil Term
Ricky ^. Snyder PL/
46 Walnut Dale Road
Shippensburg. PA 17257
Vs.
Defendant:
Ron Fink
20 West Orange Street
Country Comer Rental
Shippensburg, PA 17257
I am writing to file a complaint as instructed in the notice of appeal fi'om District Justice
Judgment. The situation is regarding Docket number CV-0000053-01 flied 3-20-01. We had our
ear repaired at Country Corner Rental on January 17 thru January 20, 2001. On February 26,
2001 the car broke down. It was towed by Country Comer to their shop where it sat until March
7, 2001. At this time I called Naugle Motors and asked them to get the car and find out what the
problem was. In my opinion I had every right to a second opinion and was also suggested to get
one by Country Comer. When the shop manager at Naugle Motors contacted me the next day he
said that in fact the person who installed the timing belt did not do so properly, this caused the
new belt that they had just replaced to fly apart and in doing so bent all the values and ruined the
top half of the motor. The mechanics a Naugle Motors even had Mr. Ron Fink come in and show
him what was wrong.
We decided to get the vehicle fixed and pursue legally to pay for the second garage bill as
instructed by Mr. Bender. Ron Fink had agreed to pay only what we spent at his garage the first
time back to him and then would have us sign papers reflecting no further court proceedings. We
declined and when to court. In court we had the mechanics testify and had written proof from a
certified mechanic that this damaged had been traced back to the work Country Comer did. After
Country Corner repaired the car in January, they had lost all mechanics and when it broke down
couldn't fit it.
As a result of the trial we lost. I called Mr. Bender personally and asked for his reasons. Here is
what I was told. There were some things that were not very clear, (He had 5 days to make his
decision and could have straightened it out in that time.) he stated that Ron Fink agreed to repair
the car in February at no cost ( He did not have a mechanic and it sat there over a week? When
was he going to fix it?) the worst reason was that he was sorry to say I got a very mechanically
inclined judge and he knew that engine. He said the holt in question should not have been
removed to replace the timing belt. I spoke with a few other Dodge certified m~hunies and their
reply was it is easier to replace the timing belt by removing this bolt but it must be replace or it
will break if it is tightened to hard.
I am very frustrated and upset with the way this was handled and feel that there is more behind
the case then Mr. Bender would let on. Everyone I have spoken with feels that I should have won.
I would like to seejustiee and a fair ending to this case.
Thank You,
Ricky A, Snyder