Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-3954NATHAN C. WOLF, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 87380 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE Husband and wife, Plaintiffs VS. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2011- '395 H CIVIL TERM IN EQUITY Defendants WSW, NOTICE ?m co r-?- 0 o ? e -0 =. You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth i t e%llo? pages you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are sZ?.ve y gjtering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses br 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 plaintiffs. 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 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 CS) aMk s92.? pd aH.t ?r??3isa r?+?asg5?3 LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE Husband and wife, Plaintiffs VS. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 2011- CIVIL TERM IN EQUITY COMPLAINT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF COVENANTS AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND NOW come the plaintiffs, Lawrence L. Cole and Kimberly R. Cole, by and through their attorney, Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire, and file this Complaint and Request for Injunctive Relief, and in support thereof set forth the following: 1. Petitioners, Lawrence L. Cole and Kimberly R. Cole, hereinafter "Plaintiffs," are adult individuals who reside at, and are the owners of the property at, 1271 Kuhn Road, Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17007, which property abuts the property that is the subject of this action. 2. Respondents, T. Paul Rast and Robyne G. Rast, hereinafter "Defendants," are adult individuals who reside at, and are the owners of the property at, 1265 Kuhn Road, Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17007, which property is the subject of this action. 3. The Defendants' property identified as 1265 Kuhn Road is a lot within the White Rock Acres Development, hereinafter referred to as "White Rock Acres," subject to Revision No. 4 of the Covenants, Restrictions and Reservations Applicable to White Rock Acres Development, effective November 15, 1999 and filed with the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on November 15, 1999, hereinafter referred to as "the Covenants." A true and correct copy of the Covenants is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. COUNT I - ACTION TO ENFORCE DEVELOPMENT COVENANTS 4. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 5. Plaintiffs bring the instant action seeking enforcement of the pertinent Covenants and injunctive relief to prevent further harm as a result of future violations of said Covenants. 6. The preamble to the Covenants states as follows: Penn Products Corporation, being the Owner and Developer of the White Rock Acres Development, does hereby declare that the following covenants, restrictions, and reservations shall be applicable to lots as hereinafter designated by the Corporation according to plans already of record or hereafter to be filed, unless otherwise exempted specifically from the following covenants, restrictions, and reservations by the Developer. The grantees of each and every lot hereafter conveyed by Penn Products Corporation from said plans, by acceptance of such deed, do hereby acknowledge that said covenants restrictions and reservations shall be binding upon themselves, their heirs, personal representatives and assigns for the period hereinafter set forth. 7. Paragraph 21 of the Covenants provides, in relevant part, that "These covenants, restrictions and reservations shall run with the land perpetually ...." 8. Paragraph 3 of the Covenants provides, in relevant part, that "No structure shall be erected on any lot without the written approval of the Developer concerning the location, design, and materials of the said structure." 9. Paragraph 5 of the Covenants provides, in relevant part, that "No building or part of building shall be located nearer than 50 feet from the adjacent road right-of-way, nearer than 50 feet from the back property line, nor nearer than 30 feet from any otherpropent line of said lot" (emphasis added). 10. Paragraph 11 of the Covenants provides, in relevant part, that "No trees shall be cut or removed from any lot except what is necessary for the erection of buildings, and the installation of driveways, parking areas or swimming pools on said lot." 11. Paragraph 23 of the Covenants provides that "The Developer as well as each lot owner shall have the right to enforce these covenants, restrictions and reservations either at law or in equity for the promotion of a stable, attractive or healthful residential area. Any person or persons found to be in violation of one or more of these covenants, restrictions or reservations shall be liable for any and all expenses incurred by the Developer or other party who enforces such" (emphasis added). 12. In the summer and early fall of 2009 Defendants clear-cut all of the live trees in an area measuring approximately 40 feet deep and 150 feet wide across the portion of their lot located behind their home and their additional detached garage as well as their two retaining walls that they had previously constructed on their lot. 13. In September 2009 Plaintiffs observed workers cutting down additional trees on Defendants' property and contacted Sandra L. McCorkel, the President of Penn Products Corporation, Developer of White Rock Acres, to request that she, as the representative of the Developer of White Rock Acres, enforce Paragraph 11 of the Covenants, as provided for in Paragraph 23 of the Covenants, and direct Defendants to cease any further tree removal in violation of Paragraph 11 of the Covenants. 14. On or about September 21, 2009, Ms. McCorkle went to the Defendants' property, spoke with the workers who were cutting down trees, and was assured by Defendants' workmen "that as of today, no more trees would be cut down." Ms. McCorkle sent the Defendants a letter, dated September 21, 2009, referencing the restrictions on tree removal in Paragraph 11 of the Covenants and requesting that if the Defendants "feel that any further tree removal is necessary, please contact me in advance, so that we may review the situation." A true and correct copy of Ms. McCorkel's September 21, 2009 letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 15. On September 23, 2009, Ms. McCorkle sent a letter to Defendant T. Paul Rast stating: "As per our conversation of this morning, we discussed the tree cutting on your property. You informed me that no further tree cutting would be done, with the exception of dead trees from time to time." A true and correct copy of Ms. McCorkel's September 23, 2009 letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. 16. Subsequent to the events described in Paragraphs 12-15 above, Defendants began construction of a permanent structure, namely a prefabricated greenhouse on their property in an area less than 10 feet from the property line adjacent to Plaintiffs' property. 17. Plaintiffs observed that the foundation preparation for the greenhouse was located only a few feet from their property line, and therefore the erection of a greenhouse in that location would violate the provision in Paragraph 5 of the Covenants that "No building or part of building shall be located nearer than 50 feet from the adjacent road right-of-way, nearer than 50 feet from the back property line, nor nearer than 30 feet from any otherproperty line of said lof' (emphasis added). 18. Plaintiffs informed Ms. McCorkel of the construction underway on Defendants' property which was occurring "nearer than 30 feet" from their property line and requested that she, as the representative of the Developer of White Rock Acres, enforce Paragraph 5 of the Covenants, as provided for in Paragraph 23 of the Covenants, and direct Defendants to cease any construction within 30 feet of the Plaintiffs property line. 19. Upon information and belief, prior to Plaintiffs informing Ms. McCorkee of the construction of the greenhouse nearer than 30 feet from their property line, Ms. McCorkle had not been informed that Defendants were constructing a greenhouse in that location, and Defendants had not obtained "the written approval of the Developer" prior to erecting the structure as is required by Paragraph 3 of the Covenants. 20. In response to the Plaintiffs notification of the situation, Ms. McCorkel visited Defendants' property and directed Defendants to relocate the greenhouse so that no part of the building was nearer than 30 feet from the Plaintiffs' property line. 21. On the morning of Sunday, April 3, 2011, Plaintiffs observed workers cutting down live trees in the area directly behind the greenhouse on Defendants' property; Plaintiffs immediately telephoned Ms. McCorkel and asked her to go to Defendants' property and investigate whether live trees once again were being removed in violation of Paragraph 11 of the Covenants. 22. Ms. McCorkel had not been provided advance notice by Defendants, as Defendant T. Paul Rast had previously expressly promised her the Defendants would provide, prior to the cutting down of live trees on April 3, 2011. 23. Ms. McCorkel visited Defendants' property on Sunday, April 3, 2011; the events of her visit are set out in her April 4, 2011 letter to Defendants: On Sunday, April 3`d, I received a call regarding tree removal on your property. This is approximately my third visit to your property regarding this matter. On this date I observed a tree trimmer already in the process of cutting down a tree. Neither of you had informed me of your intent to remove trees, as had been previously agreed upon. Upon my arrival on site, Mrs. Rast stated that there were dead limbs on this tree, however, my inspection of same revealed new growth at the tips of the branches. If there were dead limbs, evidently they were removed before I arrived. Because of the time of year that this cutting took place; I was unable to determine that the tree was in fact dead. A true and correct copy of Ms. McCorkel's April 4, 2011 letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D. 24. Plaintiffs observed at least three live trees cut down on April 3, 2011 prior to the arrival of Mrs. McCorkel and after she departed Defendants' property, in violation of Paragraph 11 of the Covenants. 25. As demonstrated by the facts set out in Paragraphs 1-24 of this Complaint, Defendants have repeatedly violated the requirements of the Covenants by: a. Removing live trees in 2009 the removal of which were not necessary for the erection of buildings or the installation of driveways, parking areas or swimming pools, in violation of Paragraph 11 of the Covenants; b. Failing to obtain prior written approval of the Developer before commencing erection of a greenhouse in 2009, in violation of Paragraph 3 of the Covenants. c. Attempting to erect the greenhouse nearer than 30 feet from the property line abutting Plaintiffs' lot, in violation of Paragraph 5 of the Covenants. d. Removing additional live trees in April 2011, without prior notice to the Developer despite Defendant T. Paul Rast's express prior promise to provide such notice, in violation of Paragraph 11 of the Covenants. 26. Plaintiffs have initiated this action to have this Court issue an Order directing enforcement of the Covenants governing White Rock Acres. 27. Plaintiffs maintain that without such relief, the Defendants have, through their actions, demonstrated that they will continue to violate the Covenants. 28. Plaintiffs have incurred expenses associated with bringing the instant action against Defendants seeking enforcement of the Covenants by this Court. 29. Plaintiffs aver that they have attempted to avoid bringing the instant action to cure the repeated violations of the Covenants by the Defendants, by requesting the Developer take action to enforce the Covenants, without success. 30. Plaintiffs submit that upon adjudicating the Defendants in violation of the Covenants as set forth herein, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their expenses associated with bringing the instant action, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 23 of the Covenants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court issue an Order finding that the Defendants have violated the Covenants governing White Rock Acres by their prior conduct, directing the Defendants not to violate said Covenants in the future, directing payment by Defendants of Plaintiffs' expenses associated with the instant action, upon receipt of certification of expenses by counsel for Plaintiff, along with any additional relief the Court may deem appropriate and just. COUNT II - REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 31. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 32. Plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed by Defendants' repeated unnecessary and unlawful removal of live trees in violation of Paragraph 11 of the Covenants, which has adversely affected the view from Plaintiffs' property, substantially reduced the privacy previously afforded by Plaintiffs' property, negatively impacted the sylvan character of Plaintiffs property by removing trees from property immediately adjacent thereto and materially diminished the market value of Plaintiffs' property. 33. Defendants' consistent pattern of violating the Covenants and refusing to notify the Developer in advance of construction and tree removal on their property, notwithstanding specific requirements in the Covenants and an express prior promise by Defendant T. Paul Rast to do so, demonstrates that Defendants are likely to engage in further activities in violation of the Covenants and cause additional irreparable harm to Plaintiffs, necessitating the filing of this Complaint and the instant request seeking Injunctive Relief. 34. Plaintiffs aver that without injunctive relief they will be unable to obtain relief before any additional irreparable harm occurs, in addition to that which they already have suffered, and without injunctive relief the Plaintiffs will be harmed in a manner that cannot be addressed adequately by any subsequent award of monetary damages. 35. The relief requested by Plaintiffs in the nature of an injunction against any further violation of the Covenants provides the least intrusive restriction against Defendants and is in effect a request for an Order of the Court to maintain the status quo under the Covenants that are already applicable to Defendants' property. 36. Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enjoin Defendants from any further violations of the Covenants that are already applicable to Defendants' property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court: issue an Order enjoining the Defendants from undertaking any further construction, excavation, landscaping, or tree removal without first obtaining the written permission of the Developer, confirming that any such activity is permitted under the Covenants; award costs, expenses, and interest to Plaintiffs; and award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just. Respectfully submitted, Dated: Apri, 2011 WOLF F, Attorneys at Law Na an C olf, Esquire 1 es igh Street sle, PA 17013 Supreme Court I.D. No. 87380 (717) 241-4436 Attorney for Plaintiffs 1, the undersigned, hereby verify that I am a plaintiff in the foregoing action and that the facts stated in the above pleading are true and correct to the best of my information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 54904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. r? 2F, 2011 -qp(A.-2zl 2011 Lawrence L. Cole OOV jam,Or `''?--- Kimberly R. Cole b It •G 0LER P,OBE:^?r??. .??EDS RECORLJ" 0; „E CUJABERLA11D COUNTY-PA REVISION NO.4 COVENANTS, RESTRICITONS AND RESERVATIONS APPLICABLE TO WHITE ROCK ACRES DEVELOPMENT PENN PRODUCTS CORPORATION, DEVELOPER' EFFECTIVE November 15, 1999 Penn Products Corporation, being the Owner and Developer of the White Rock Acres Development, does hereby declare that the following covenants, restrictions, and reservations shall be applicable to lots as hereinafter designated by the Corporation according to plans already of record or hereafter to be filed, unless otherwise exempted specifically from the following covenants, restrictions and reservations by the Developer. The grantees of each and every lot hereafter conveyed by Penn Products Corporation from said plans, by acceptance of such deed, do hereby acknowledge that said covenants, restrictions and reservations shall be binding upon themselves, their heirs, personal representatives and assigns for the period hereinafter set forth. 1. No commercial enterprise of any nature shall be conducted on the premises at any time, except at the Developer's sole discretion. 2. No tent, trailer, mobile home, basement, shack, barn or any temporary habitation, except as hereinafter provided, shall be placed on any of the said lots, either temporarily or permanently, and no residence of a temporary character shall be erected or permitted= on any lot. No trailers, buses, trucks over one (1) ton capacity, or junk motor vehicles shall be parked or maintained on any said lot or street within "White Rock Acres." A "junk motor vehicle" shall mean any motor vehicle that does not have a current Pennsylvania Inspection sticker and for which one cannot then be obtained. Recreational vehicles, travel trailers, camper's, boats and boat trailers may be stored and/or maintained on any said lot as long as the same are appropriately "camouflaged" and are not used for living purposes. 3. No structure shall be erected on any lot without the written approval of the Developer concerning the location, design, and materials of the said structure. A dwelling house shall be custom built, and may Include a chalet ty Exterior surfaces of dwellings shall consist of wood, masonry, either brick orstone, or artificial products if aesthetically pleasing, or a combination of them, aluminum or other siding as may be approved by the Developer. block or asphalt material of any kind (except fIn no event shall exterior or roofs) be used. No buildshes of concrete ing be used in the exterior wall or any building above the finished grade of the grou blocks sha nd unl ss faced or covered with--the above approved signed by two officers of the Developer Corporation. A copy of h ulse house plans must be the office. Any alterations or amendments of said plan must be appro ed by thelDevelot per prior to the construction thereof. A Pxh',b,-t A 4. All one-story dwellings shall have a minimum or gooosquare feet of living area, exclusive of porches, patios and basements; all two-story dwellings shall have a minimum of.?yoosquare feet of living area, exclusive of porches, patios and basements. All dwellings shall have a two-car attached garage. 5. No building or part of building shall be located nearer than 50 feet from the adjacent road right-of-way, nearer than 50 feet from the back property line, nor nearer than 30 feet from any other property line of said' lot. The Developer, may at its sole discretion, waive, modify or exempt these setbacks, as may be indicated, i.e., terrain of lot or design of house. 6. It shall be the responsibility of the general contractor or builder to secure from the White Rock Water Corporation, its successors or assigns, both a water meter and an, external meter reading device, or a meter pit, as supplied by the water company; and to install the same in good working order before delivery of possession of dwelling to the owner or purchaser thereof, and before occupancy of the dwelling by any person. 7. Before the contractor or builder connects the dwelling's water service lateral to the aforementioned water facilities, a scheduled inspection must be arranged and construction of service lateral approved. If approval is not obtained from the water company, connection shall not take place until said approval is acquired. The water company requires new service lines to be installed no less than three feet from any other utilities. The Service line shall be properly bedded with 6" of either sand or '/. inch screening, both top and bottom of service line for a total of 12" minimum. Quarterly rentals shall then be collected, as are currently on file at the Public Utility Commission. 8. All dwellings shall be connected to the sanitary sewer lines; contractor shall contact the local township officials for further specifications, Inspections, etc. Only kitchen and bathroom waste water and laundry waste water shall be discharged Into the sanitarv sewer line. All roof drainage, surface waters, water from floor drains, sump pumps and all other drainage shall be disposed of within the confines of the lot, and the discharge of any such waters or drainage Into the sanitary sewer lines or onto another lot is strictly prohibited. 9. No open fires shall be permitted on any lot. Burning of any nature is strictly prohibited. 10. Regular trash disposal services shall be used for the disposal of all garbage and all other trash, weekly or more frequently, so that the same is not permitted to accumulate. No garbage; refuse or rubbish shall be deposited on any lot, street, sidewalk or parking area excep.t..temporarily when necessary for collection and shall otherwise be kept regularly in a location on the lot which Is unobtrusive to view from any other portion of the land in "White Rock Acres." H. No trees shall be cut or removed from any lot except what is necessary for the erection of buildings, and the installation of driveways, parking areas or swimming 2 Pools on said lot. Dead trees and trees under four inches in diameter at the base may be removed at the option of the property owner to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the lot. 12. No hunting or target practice with firearms shall be permitted on any lot, or within the boundaries of the development, except as hereafter designated by the Developer. 13. Due to the necessity of maintaining the natural beauty of the entire woodland tract upon which the lots are situated, all minerals, clays, sand, etc., located under the surface of the ground are reserved by Penn Products Corporation and shall not be mined or used for any commercial purpose or any other purpose whatsoever by any lot owner. 14. All driveways shall be constructed of hard-surfaced concrete and/or macadam during the construction phase of each dwelling. Each driveway shall so be paved from the abutting street to any garage on the lot. If the homeowner fails to have said driveway paved, the Developer has the option to have said driveway paved and shall be reimbursed for all costs, Including legal fees. 15. Except as otherwise stated within this paragraph, a lot shall not be vacant for more than two years from the date of settlement of said lot. Building of home must begin prior to expiration of said two year period. The prohibition against lots being vacant for more than two years from the date of settlement shall not apply in the event adjacent lots are purchased by the same owner or owners and a premises Is constructed on at least one such lot within the two year time provision. No lot may be used for a right-of-way to any adjoining property. 16. All lots shall be maintained at all times in a clean condition and all lawns shall be kept mowed. Except during actual construction of the dwelling house, no trash, open excavations, piles of earth, or building materials shall be permitted on any lot. During construction of the dwelling house, all debris shall be kept contained within the lot ` and disposed of on a regular basis. 17. No sign shall be erected or displayed on any lot or structure except realtors' signs, realtors' open house signs or necessary signs Incident.to the sale or resale of homes or the sale or resale of building lots. Such signs may not be illuminated. 18. No animals of any kind, other than domesticated house pets, shall be kept or maintained on any lot. Such pets may not be kept, bred or maintained for any commercial use or purposes. Each lot owner shall be responsible for the -control of domesticated household pets and shall,be responsible for cleaning up after such pet. No pet shall be housed outside the dwelling house, 19. No noxious, unsightly or offensive activity, including vehicle repairs, shall be conducted on a lot or on the streets of "White Rock Acres," nor shall anything be permitted to be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the residents of "White Rock Acres." 3 '.x 20, An accessory utility shed for the housing of domestic yard tools equipment may be constructed or maintained on a lot provided that the architecture and of shed is compatible with the dwelling house and only upon prior written a roval the Developer, pp by the 21. These covenants, restrictions and reservations shall run with the l and perpetually, and may be amended from time to time as the Developer deems necessary, 22, The Developer for the approval of plans, materials and shall be Penn Products Corporation or Its successor and assigns holding th of dwelling unsold lots of said development, g the remaining 23. The Developer as well as each lot owner shall have the right to enforce restrictions and reservations either at law or in equity for the promos onthese stable, attractive and. healthful residentfal area. Any person or persons found to be in violation of one or more of these covenants, restrictions or reservations of a any and all expenses incurred by the Developer or other party who enforces such. fable for 24• Invalidation by a court of law or equity of the provisions of one o these covenants, restrictions or reservations shall not operate to Invalidate r more of remaining covenants, restrictions and reservations, any of the IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Perm Products Corporation, the Owner and D and through its duly authorized representative and intending thereby to le all b` eveloper, by successors, grantees and assigns, has caused this instrument to be duly executed y nd itself and its year first above written. uted as of the day and ATTEST: i Secr tary PENN PRODUCTS CORPORATION 4 M ? . COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA . COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND :SS: On this, the 16tday of A&D)b , 1999, before personally appeared, JOYCE L, SWOPE, know tome (or satisfactorily proven) e to be the President of PENN PRODUCTS CORPORATION and being authorized to do so, executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing her name on behalf of the corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires Notarial Seal Betzi A. Morrison, Notary Public Carlisle BorO, Cumberland Coon ttyy My Commission Expires Dec. 15, 2b00 Memaer, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries ? to Public (SEAL) 4 l 3 JOYCE L. SWOPE, PRESIDENT RICHARD L SWOPE, VICE PRESIDENT PENN PRODUCTS CORPORATION DEVELOPERS OF WHITE ROCK ACRES 1399 SWOPE DRIVE, SOILING SPRINGS, PA 17007 PHONE: (O) 717.2594481 PHONE: (R) 717.258.8659 Mr. & Mrs. T. Paul Rast 1265 Kuhn Road Boiling Springs, PA 17007 September 21, 2009 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Rast: SANDRA L. McCORKEL, SECRETARY-TREASURER Hi. First, let me introduce myself. My name is Sandy McCorkel, and I am the developer for Penn Products Corporation. Second, I am writing, as I have received several phone calls regarding the cutting of trees on your property. This morning around ten o'clock, I went to your home to talk to the gentlemen who are working there. The excavator operator assured me that as of today, no more trees would be cut down. He said there were a few dead trees that may be taken down, but no more living trees would be removed. If you would refer to paragraph eleven of the development's covenants, you will see that no more trees than is absolutely necessary should be cut during the erection of buildings, installation of driveways, etc. If you feel that any further tree removal is necessary, please contact me in advance, so that we may review the situation. Thanking you in advance. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 258-6481. Sincerely yours, L. McC rke President Exh'1 b?t B JOYCE L. SWOPE, PRESIDENT RICHARD L, SWOPE, VICE PRESIDENT PENN PRODUCTS CORPORATION DEVELOPERS OF WHITE ROCK ACRES 1389 SWOPE DRIVE, BOILING SPRINGS, PA 17007 PHONE: (O) 717.2588481 PHONE: (R) 717.258.8959 Mr. T. Paul Rast 1265 Kuhn Road Boiling Springs, PA 17007 September 23, 2009 Dear Mr. Rast: SANDRA L. MCCORKEL, SECRETARY-TREASURER As per our conversation of this morning, we discussed the tree cutting on your property. You informed me that no further tree cutting would be done, with the exception of dead trees from time to time. We also spoke of the fencing that you will be installing around your lot, and agreed that no trees would be cut for this project. I appreciate your time in discussing this matter with me. Sincerely yours, Sandra L. McCorkel President E x h', b") t C_ JOYCE L. SWOPE, PRESIDENT RICHARD L SWOPE, VICE PRESIDENT PEN44 PRODUCTS CORPORATION DEVELOPERS OF WHITE ROCK ACRES 1389 SWOPE DRIVE, BOILING SPRINGS, PA 17007 PHONE: (O) 717.25841181 PHONE: (R) 717.2588959 Mr. & Mrs. T. Paul Rast 1265 Kuhn Road Boiling Springs, PA 17007 April 4, 2011 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Rast: SANDRA L. McCORKEL, SECRETARY-TREASURER On Sunday, April 3rd, I received a call regarding tree removal on your property. This is approximately my third visit to your property regarding this matter. On this date, I observed a tree trimmer already in the process of cutting down a tree. Neither of you had informed me of your intent to remove more trees, as had been previously agreed upon. Upon my arrival on site, Mrs. Rast stated that there were dead limbs on this tree, however, my inspection of same revealed new growth at the. tips of the branches. If there were dead limbs, evidently they were removed before I arrived. Because of the time of the year that this cutting took place; I was unable to determine that the tree was in fact dead. On September 2151, 2009, I sent you a letter regarding the conversation wQ had at that time, and I was assured that no more living trees would be taken down. It was further discussed, that if you felt any further tree removal was necessary, you were to contact me in advance to review the situation. I was not called in advance of the tree removal that you carried out on April 3rd In addition, on September 23`d, 2009, it was confirmed by Mr. Rast that no further tree cutting would be done, with the exception of dead trees from time to time. I am enclosing a copy of Revision No. 4 regarding our Covenants for the development. I believe I may have provided a copy of this document previously. Please refer to Paragraph I I which states: "No trees shall be cut or removed from any lot except what is necessary for the erection of buildings, and the installation of driveways, parking areas or swimming pools on said lot. Dead trees and trees under four inches in diameter at the base may be removed at the option of the property owner to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the lot". By this letter, I am once again requesting that no further tree removal be performed on your property without sufficient advance notice to me as was previously agreed upon. Sincerely, San ra L. McC ke President o' LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE Husband and wife, Plaintiffs VS. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants AND NOW, this ?l Injunctive Relief, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 2011-3954 CIVIL TERM - W -? r - IN EQUITY e n r ' _4J RULE TO SHOW CAUSE day of -0-, 2011, upon consideration of the attached Motion for e g -hearing is scheduled for the I ID T^day of , 2011 at 1-3b- &.m., in Courtroom`3 on the 4`" Floor of the Cumberland County Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013. r excavation, landscaping or removal o trees rom their property wit ou st rk. BY ' COU J. Distribution: I Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire, for Plaintiffs ? T. Paul Rast and Robyne G. Rast, Pro Se Defendants P 4f i/ ? W _ r iLED-OF iCE7 lip, PRII? 20 11 JUN -7 PM 2: 5? CUMBERLAN i,av1J? T-PENNSYLVANIA David J. Lanza Attorney I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendants LAWRENCE L. COLE, and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 2011-3954 Civil Term T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Defendants : PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 1. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges violations related to the construction of a greenhouse, even though the Complaint fails to allege specifically that any greenhouse was actually constructed in or is located in a prohibited area. 3. Plaintiffs have alleged no facts tending to show that an injunction is necessary to prevent harm resulting from any greenhouse. 4. While Plaintiffs make allegations of damage in conclusory terms, Plaintiffs do not specify the relationship between the conduct alleged and the alleged harm. 5. Plaintiffs' Complaint requires speculation as to the alleged damages that would flow from the loss of trees on Defendants' premises. 6. Plaintiffs preliminary Motion requests an Order that goes beyond the requirements of the Covenants at issue. 7. Plaintiffs seek an order prohibiting violations of the covenants, which violations are prohibited in any case. 8. The relief requested by Plaintiffs would not maintain the status quo, as such order would result in damage to Defendants' property. 9. The Order requested by Plaintiffs includes prohibition on "landscaping," which bears no relation to the Covenants for the development at issue. Wherefore, Defendants demand that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon'', which relief can be granted. Respectfully submitted, Dated: David J. Lanza Attorney I.D. #55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendants 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 7`h day of June, 2011, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing 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: Nathan Wolf 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 By: 4? David Lanza IL 10 'nil LJ 1 1 ., 7 1: 1 2 , ly, David J. Lanza Attorney I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendants LAWRENCE L. COLE, and KIMBERLY R. COLE Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Defendants NO. 2011-3954 Civil Term ANSWER TO MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint. It is denied that Plaintiff's are entitled to the relief requested 4. Denied. The Order sought by Plaintiffs would not maintain the status quo and would create the risk of irreparable harm by preventing Defendants from clearing dead trees and protecting the structures on their property. Defendants have already received the developer's approval for the removal of two additional trees. By way of further denial, Plaintiffs' Motion seeks to prevent Defendants from engaging in "landscaping," an activity that the Covenants do not address. Plaintiffs have inserted this language into their pleadings and proposed Order for the purpose of further harassing and controlling Defendants and their property. 5. Denied. Plaintiffs have suffered no harm from any actions of Defendants. 6. Denied. This averment is irrelevant to the issues of this case, as Defendants received approval for all structures on the premises. 7. Denied. This averment is irrelevant to the issues of this case, as no building on Defendants' premises violates this provision. 8. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. Plaintiffs omit the relevant portion of this section, which states: Dead' trees and trees under four inches in diameter at the base may be removed at the option of the property owner to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the lot. By way of father denial, the tree removal of which Plaintiffs complain was necessary for the construction and preservation of structures on the premises. 9. Denied. It is denied that this provisions is applicable in this case, as Defendants have not violated any covenants. 10. Denied. The relief requested by Plaintiffs would not maintain the status quo, as Plaintiffs would use such an order to prevent Defendants from "landscaping" and from protecting structures on their premises from falling limbs and/or dead trees. By way of further denial, Plaintiffs have suffered no harm. 11. Denied. Defendants removed only dying and rotting trees that constituted an imminent threat to structures on the premises. On April 3`d, 2011, Defendants removed only 3 trees, the removal of which did not create any harm to Plaintiffs. Two of the trees removed on April P, 2011 were dead and the third was 4 inches in circumference. By way of further denial, 2 the developer's investigation did not indicate that Defendants had removed live trees. Developer specifically stated in her letter of April 4, 2011, that she was unable to make such a determination. Attached hereto as Exhibits A and B are photographs of the stump of one such tree showing the proximity to the greenhouse and the ant infestation in the center of the trunk of the base of said tree. 12. Denied. Defendants have not violated the covenants. a. All trees were removed for the purpose of erecting and protecting structures on the premises. In response to Plaintiffs' complaints, the Township informed Plaintiffs, in October 2009, that "the cutting of trees was necessary for the installation of structures and other work authorized under Zoning Permit 2009-39." A true and correct copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Plaintiffs' have attempted to deceive this Court by pleading facts inconsistent with the Township's findings. Plaintiffs' are attempting to obtain an order from this Court that is inconsistent with the Township's findings. Defendants have removed only three trees since the Township sent this letter to Plaintiffs in October 2009 - all of which were either dying and rotting or were 4 inches in circumference. b. All structures, including the greenhouse, were built with the approval of the developer as to location and other elements. . c. Defendants did not erect a greenhouse nearer than 30 feet to the property line. d. The trees removed in April 2011 were dying and rotting. 13. Denied. Defendants have not violated the covenants. 14. Denied. Plaintiffs have not alleged violations with specificity. Plaintiffs have attempted to 'create the impression that Defendants erected a greenhouse within 30 feet of the boundary, which implication is false. Plaintiffs have been intentionally vague as to the number of trees that have been cut down and have misrepresented their condition and the developer's assessment of their condition. By way of further denial, it is Plaintiffs that have repeatedly cut 3 down live trees in violation of the covenants, despite the absence of any potential harm or proximity to any structures. Exhibits D and E constitute photographs of numerous trees that Plaintiffs cut down illegally on Plaintiffs' premises. These exhibits also reveal a large gap where no trees exist on Plaintiffs' property due to Plaintiffs' own cutting activity. Exhibit F constitutes a photograph of a stump of a live tree that Plaintiffs cut down on Plaintiffs' premises. 15. Denied. It is denied that 3 trees removed in April 2011 diminished the market value of Plaintiffs' home or created the other items of harm referenced by Plaintiffs. By way of further denial, this action is motivated not by the harm alleged by Plaintiffs, but by Plaintiff's desire to obtain a portion of Defendants' real estate and Plaintiffs' attempt to coerce such control through these proceedings. Exhibit G constitutes a photograph taken from Defendants' residence that points directly at Plaintiffs' residence at a time during Spring 2011 when the leaves had not fully matured. 16. Denied. All three trees removed in April 2011 were substantially less than 50 feet tall, with the smallest being 4 inches in circumference. 17. Denied. Plaintiffs' intentions and motivations are beyond Defendants' knowledge, except for those stated intentions referenced in ¶ 15. 18. Denied. The removal of three trees, two of which were dead and one of which was only 4 inches in circumference, does not violate the purpose and intent of the Covenants. 19. Denied. Plaintiffs have not violated the Covenants. There has been no harm to Plaintiffs. 20. Denied. There has been no harm to Plaintiffs. On the contrary, granting the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs would open the door to this Court micromanaging the landscaping in this neighborhood. Numerous residents, including Plaintiffs, have removed trees without permission of the developer, all of which would result in an injunction should the Court 4 adopt Plaintiffs arguments. 21. Denied. Plaintiffs are using these proceedings to harass and annoy Defendants for the purpose of forcing Defendants to give to Plaintiffs a portion of their real estate. Such relief would not maintain the status quo, as it would prevent Defendants from removing dead trees for the purpose of protecting structures on the premises. Plaintiffs' proposed order would prevent Defendants from "landscaping," despite the absence of such prohibitions in the covenants. 22. Denied. Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief requested herein. Wherefore, Defendants demand that Plaintiff's Motion be denied and that attorney fees be awarded to Defendants. Respectfully submitted, Dated: Lill David I Lanza Attorney I.D. #55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendants 5 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B i EXHIBIT C MONROE TOWNSHIP 1220 Boiling Springs Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-9794 Phone: (717) 258-6642 - (717) 697-4613 - Fax: (717) 258-9311 - E-Mail: Monroetwp@mycomcost.com MNTP 090 ? .020 October 13, 2009 Lance and Kim Cole 1271 Kuhn toad Boilding S ngs, PA 17007 RE: Coinplaint Investigation and Response 1265 Kuhn Road - Rast Residence Monroe Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Dear Mr. and Mrs. Cole: In accordance with your letter dated September 28, 2009, please find the responses to your questions below: 1. Height of second retaining wall measured at requested point: 3'-4" 2. Width of clear cut area from top of wall to tree line: 34' 3. Rise in grade from top of second retaining wall to tree line: 7' 4. The length of the clear cut area above the second retaining wall: 158' 5. Based on the information available to me at the time of the permit submission and subsequent site visits, it is my opinion that the existing average grade in the area of the installed improvements was approximately 15%. 6. Based on the information available to me at the time of the permit submission and subsequent site visits, it is my opinion that the cutting of trees was necessary for the installation of structures and other work authorized under Zoning Permit 2009-39. If you have any further questions, please contact me at the Township office at 697-4613 or my office at 9751481. Very truly yo rs, PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC. Figalskli, Grego R. I P Monroe Township Zoning Officer G:\MNTP\0801 \00\ 1265 Kuhn Road Complaint ResponseUoc GRR/grr cc: Monroe Township Board of Supervisors Captain Paul Rast (E-mail) A-File File EXHIBIT D i EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT G ?? t?iye,5a?1 I u 4 II r? t i i? ? • ? 3 'S`a Q, rte' xA •? .. yam., I v , Ok, ?" ?- ?tse y. 3 .W Y ?`pFj.. i y Y +r, A VERIFICATION I, Paul Rast, verify that I am authorized to make the statements herein and that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand th?t false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Dr. Paul Rast . • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this I? day of June, 2011, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mai at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: Nathan Wolf 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 By: - "..9Z David Lanza LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE, Plaintiffs T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE BAST, Defendants IN RE: PR IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2011-3954 CIVIL TERM IN EQUITY ELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2011, the Defendants are ORDERED AND DIRECTED to comply with the Covenants, Restrictions, and Reservations Applicable to White Rock Acres as found with the Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds on November 15, 1999. Said preliminary injunction shall be in effect upon the posting of a bond of $2,500 and shall remain in effect until further order of this Court. By the Cho Edward E. Guido, J. ,"'Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire - Flan' Cmetive eJ For Plaintiffs ? David J. Lanza, Esquire- For ?rn? rnai?ed Defendants '`?' q4[1 :ml c b P? ; ca : C-1 ; NATHAN C. WOLF, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 87380 10 W. HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS IL EID-0F „?. P'T 4 '011 JU 27 PH 2: r'UMBE`?' t`'fs- f 6..dMf?l.I PENNSYLVANIIA4 LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE Husband and wife, Plaintiffs VS. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 2011- 3954 CIVIL TERM INEQUITY PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW COME Plaintiffs, Lawrence L. Cole and Kimberly R. Cole, and set forth the following Preliminary Objections to Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint, representing as follows: PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Plaintiffs initiated this action by Complaint on April 28, 2011. 2. Defendants were served with Plaintiffs' Complaint with a notice to defend by Sheriff on May 5, 2011. 3. Defendants filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint on or about June 7, 2011, which were served upon Plaintiffs' counsel on June 9, 2011. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION -MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FOR FAILURE TO CONFORM TO RULE OF LAW OR RULE OF COURT 4. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length herein. 5. Defendants did not file their preliminary objections in a timely manner. 6. Pa.R.C.P. 1026(a) provides that "every pleading subsequent to the complaint shall be filed within twenty days after service of the preceding pleading..." Pa.R.C.P. 1026(a). 7. Defendants had twenty (20) days from May 5, 2011, or until May 25, 2011, to file any preliminary objections. 8. Defendants failed to file any preliminary objections until June 7, 2011, which was clearly not timely and not in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1026(a). 9. Defendants have failed in their preliminary objections to specifically identify the grounds relied upon. 10. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a) identifies the grounds for preliminary objections. See Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a). 11. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(b) provides that all preliminary objections "shall state specifically the grounds relied upon..." See Pa.R.C.P. 1028(b). 12. As such, any objections that fail to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure must be stricken. 13. Defendants' failure to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure in not timely filing objections and in not specifically identifying the grounds relied upon justifies striking all Preliminary Objections raised. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order striking Defendants' Preliminary Objections, along with any additional relief the Court deems appropriate and just. Respectfully WOLF & Wi June, 2011 By;/,.-/ NATIW WOLF, Esquire Sucre a ourt I.D. No. 87380 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 Attorney for Plaintiffs NATHAN C. WOLF, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 87380 10 W. HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE Husband and wife, Plaintiffs VS. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2011- 3954 CIVIL TERM INEQUITY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I have this date served a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Preliminary Objections to Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint upon the following person by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: June -?7 Z, 2011 DAVID J. LANZA, ESQUIRE 2132 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA 17011 David J. Lanza I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 (717) 730-3775 LAWRENCE L. COLE, and KIMBERLY R. COLE Plaintiffs Attormyt Vp(?ents OF THE PROTHONOTARY 2011 AUG 22 PM 4*- OG CU PENNSYLVANIA TY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2011-3954 Civil Term V. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Defendants DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED SUBPOENAS UPON MONROE TOWNSHIP, GREGORY ROGALSKI AND PENNONI ASSOCIATES, INC. 1. Plaintiffs has proposed to serve subpoenas upon various entities, including (1) Monroe Township, (2) Gregory Rogalski, P.E. and (3) Pennoni Associates, Inc. 2. The proposed subpoenas would serve no purpose other than to harass and intimidate Defendants. 3. The proposed subpoenas seek information that was already made available to Plaintiffs during the permit process for the buildings constructed by Defendants. 4. Plaintiffs did not appeal or otherwise challenge decisions of the Township related to the matters that are sought in the subpoenas. 5. The appeal period has expired for any such matters. 6. Plaintiffs, by virtue of this action and these subpoenas, seek to reopen decisions of the Township related to construction lawfully completed by Defendants prior to 2011. 7. Plaintiffs, by virtue of this action and the discovery that Plaintiffs pursue, seeks to have this Court examine decisions of the Township related to matters that are now closed. Wherefore, Defendants request that this Court quash the proposed subpoenas prepared by Plaintiffs. David J. Lanza Attorney I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 22°d day of August, 2011, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing 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: Nathan Wolf 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 By: David Lanza .11 NATHAN C. WOLF, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 87380 WOLF & WOLF, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE Husband and wife, Plaintiffs VS. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIsA _ -- rn CO No. 2011- 3954 CIVIL TERM zrn d X M-`? z? ? ter' C? • - -cc:) c > IN EQUITY ZZ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TO OVERRULE OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA Plaintiffs, Lawrence L. Cole and Kimberly R. Cole, by and through their attorney, Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire, hereby set forth the following motion to compel Defendants, T. Paul Rast and Robyne G. Rast, to produce documents in response to Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents and to overrule Defendants' Objections to Subpoenas directed to Monroe Township, Gregory Rogalski, and Pennoni Associates, Inc. averring as follows: Movants are Plaintiffs Lawrence L. Cole and Kimberly R. Cole, and Respondents are Defendants T. Paul Rast and Robyne G. Rast (hereinafter "Movants" and "Respondents") 2. On August 2, 2011, Movants served their Request for Production of Documents upon Respondents, specifically requesting copies of documents related to their complaint for enforcement of development covenants and request for injunctive relief involving certain real estate owned by the Respondents. A true and correct copy of Movants' Request for Production of Documents is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 3. Pursuant to Pa.R..C.P. 4009.12, a response to Movants' Request for Production was due within thirty (30) days, on or before September 1, 2011. 4. On or about September 16, 2011, Movants' Counsel wrote to Respondents' Counsel inquiring as to the status of the responses to the Requests for Production of Documents and requesting a response on or before September 23, 2011 so that any further Court intervention could be avoided. A true and correct copy of the September 16, 2011 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B " 5. Respondents' counsel did not respond to the letter of September 16, 2011. 6. On or about October 13, 2011, Movants' counsel was able to speak to Respondents' counsel by telephone, after several attempts, and Respondents' counsel indicated that he could not locate the Requests for Production of Documents and asked that an additional copy be faxed to him. 7. Such request was accommodated and the information was faxed to Respondents' counsel on or about October 13, 2011. On October 19, 2011, well beyond the thirty (30) day period for required response pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4009.12, Respondents served Objections to Document Production Request that failed to identify all documents or things not produced with reasonable particularity as required by Pa.R.C.P. 4009.12. A true and correct copy of the Objection is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." Respondents' objections include an averment that the Movants' Complaint in this matter remains subject to Preliminary Objections, filed on or about June 7, 2011. 10. Respondents fail. to note that Movants filed Preliminary Objections to Respondents' Preliminary Objections on or about June 27, 2011, raising, inter alia, the timeliness of the Respondents' Preliminary Objections. 11. The filing of Preliminary Objections does not prohibit a party from obtaining discovery. 12. Movants are entitled to discover any relevant, non-privileged material concerning the subject matter of the litigation. 13. Movants aver that they have sought discoverable, non-privileged information to assist in the presentation of their claims to the Court. 14. Respondents have not, to date, filed a Motion for a Protective Order pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4012. 15. Movants submit that Respondents' failure to serve a timely or sufficient response justifies the imposition of sanctions as authorized under Pa.R.C.P. 4019. 16. Movants have incurred additional counsel fees specific to their attempts to obtain the sought-after discovery, including the preparation of the instant motion. 17. Movants cannot proceed with the underlying litigation until discovery is complete. 18. Movants have been attempting to further this litigation by serving discovery requests and giving a reasonable opportunity for the Respondents' to respond. 19. Movants have also been without access to the sum of $2,500.00 since posting the bond with the Prothonotary as required by the Court on or about June 10, 2011 as a condition of the preliminary injunction entered against the Respondents following a hearing on the same date. 20. Movants submit that pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019(a)(2), Respondents' failures may not be excused on the basis of their assertion that they have served objections to the Request for Production of Documents when Respondents have not filed a Motion for a Protective Order. 21. Movants request sanctions in the form of an Order directing the Respondents to produce the sought-after documents within twenty (20) days of the Court's Order, to award counsel fees in the amount of $500.00 for the failure to produce the requested documents and to reduce the amount of the bond in this matter from $2,500.00 to $500.00. 22. On August 2, 2011, Movants served a Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena to Produce Documents and Things on non-parties, Monroe Township, Gregory Rogalski, and Pennoni Associates, Inc., pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4009.21, on Respondents. A true and correct copy of Movants' Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit "D." 23. On August 22, 2011, Respondents filed Objections to Subpoenas stating that the subpoenas are intended to harass and intimidate Defendants, seek information that was already made available to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs did not appeal or otherwise challenge the decisions of the Township. See Objections attached hereto as Exhibit "E." 24. On or about September 16, 2011, in the letter previously attached hereto as Exhibit B, Movants' counsel indicated to Respondents' counsel that the information sought by the subpoenas relates to Movants' claims under the applicable White Rock Acres development covenants and was, in no way, designed to attack the validity of the Township's building permit or to challenge the municipal permitting process, and that the information would not be used for any such purpose. 25. Movants' counsel received no response to the foregoing proffer from Respondents' counsel. 26. Pursuant to Rule 4019 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may award sanctions for a party's failure to comply with discovery requests. 27. Rule 4003.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure directs that a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, relevant to the subject matter in a pending action which relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery. 28. Production of the requested documents is necessary to evaluate and litigate all claims Movants have against Respondents. 29. This matter was previously assigned to the Honorable Edward E. Guido, J. 30. Movants have sought the concurrence of Respondents' counsel in the filing of this motion and such concurrence was not given. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue an Order directing Defendants T. Paul Rast and Robyne G. Rast to produce the requested documents pursuant to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production of Documents within twenty (20) days, to issue an Order overruling Defendants' Objections to Subpoenas and permitting Plaintiffs to serve their subpoenas on Monroe Township, Gregory Rogalski, and Pennon Associates, Inc., to direct Respondents to pay counsel fees to Movants in the amount of $500.00 and to modify the Court's Order of June 10, 2011, reducing the bond required of Movants from $2,500.00 to $500.00, along with any additional relief the Court deems appropriate and just. Respectfully submitted, WOLF & WOLF November .' 2011 By: WOLF, Esquire •t I.D. No. 87380 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 Counsel for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, do hereby verify that the facts set forth in this motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge 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. November 17-52011 NATHAN C. WOLF, F.SQL IRE' ATTORNEY II) NO. 87380 WOLF & WOLF, ATTORNEYS AT LAW IO WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 24I-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE Husband and wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 2011- 3954 CIVIL TERM vs. T. PAUL RAST and IN EQUITY ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants PLAINTIFFS) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS ADDRESSED TO DEFENDANT I'O: T. Paul Rast and Robvne Rast coo David J. Lanza, Esquire 2132 'Market Street Camp I fill, PA 17011 Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4009, as amended, Plaintiffs request you to produce copies of the following documents witlun thirty (30) days after service of this Request. INSTRUCTIONS If you object to the production of am, document ou the grounds that the arrornc\, clicut, artornc? yv m-k-product or . m other privilege is applicah1c thereto, t (Al shall, with respect to that docunlcrnt: gate its (late; (1)) Idcnrif? its author; C [demify each person from whom the document w?u recei? ed; d; lduiink, each person who recer ed it, e) Identify each person from v%hom dic document was received; f, State the present location of the document and all copies thereof; (g? Identify each person who has ever had possession, custody or control of it or a cope thereof, and (Ii) Prov ide sufficient information concerning the document and the circumstances nccreof to explain the claim of privilege and to per-tnit the adjudication of the propriety- of that claim. As referred to herein, "document" includes written, printed, typed, recorded, or graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, including correspondence, telegrams, other written communications, data processing storage units, tapes, contracts, agreements, notes, memoranda, anah-ses, projections, indices, work papers, studies, reports, survevs, diaries, calendars, films, videotapes, photographs, diagrams, drawings, minutes of meetings, or any other -,vriting (including copies of any of the foregoing) regardless of whether you, your former or present counsel, agents, employees, officers, insurers, or anv other person acting on your behalf, are now in possession, custody, or control. DOCUMENTS REQUESTED \11 document, acid records, whether in paper or electronic form, that refer, relate, ( it pertain to, the- application of Nlonroe Township zoning requirements to ativ construction, landscaping, ??r tree remo? al at 12(15 hulin Road, V'hite Rock .Acres. 2. all documents and records, whether in paper or electronic form, that refer, relate, or pertain to the application of White Rock Acres subdivision covenants to ativ construction, landscaping, or tree removal at 1265 Kuhn Road, White Rock Acres. 3. All documents and records, whether in paper or electronic form, that refer, relate, or pertain to cutting, trimming, pruning, or removing trees at 1265 Kuhn Road, White Rock Acres. 4. All documents and records, whether in paper or electronic form, that refer, relate, or pertain to the construction of a greenhouse at 1265 Kuhn Road, White Rock acres. 5. All records, whether in paper or electronic form, of any correspondence, memoranda, email messages, or other communications witli Penn Products Corporation or Sandra 1\1cCorkel. 6. All records, whether in paper or electronic forum, of am- correspondence, memoranda, cumin messages, r>r other communications with Nfonroc 't'ownship %oning ( )fhcer Grcgorv Rogalski, whether in his official or personal capacity. \11 records, wticther in paper or electronic form, of ativ correspondence, inenu?randa, email t1]e„aI Y(-,S, or other con]tilt nicatiolis 'xith anv 1\Ionroe Tmvn,hip official or (m1)1( ee, ??Iwthcr in hi, Ut her ()flicial or pcrsoual cap acit.\. ?. A11 records, whether in paper or electronic form, of any- correspondence, riiemorauda, email messages, or other communications with anv person that refer, relate, or pertain to La,, rencc l.. Cole (or Lance Cole), hinaberIv R. Cale (or him Cola), or the real property Ir 12-1 Kuhn Road, fit. lilt(: Rock Acres. If any, documents or records responsive to this request are withheld on the basis of a claim of privilege, please identify the general nature of the document or record (e.g., `letter to counsel"), the date (if dated), the number of pages, and the privilege that is being asserted «ith respect to that particular docutnent or record (e.g., "attorney-client privilege"). Respectfully submitted, WOLF & WO.LP Date: August 2, 2011 By: NAT11ANK.WOLF, ESQUIRE SUPREM COURT ID NO. 87380 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013-2922 717-241-4436 Attorney for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, the- undersigned, do herebm- ccrrih rliv 1 hav(2 this elate sc n-ed a co p\- of the foregoing doctuncnr upon ncu following bY first cla:> mail, addressed as follows: ?13? 'darker ?trccr (:amp 1 611, 1)_1 17()l 1 ,August ?, 2011 WOLF & WOLF NATHAN C. WOLF ATTORNEYS AT I-xv, 1U ??-1_;?I I1[GIr ?"11t1-;F?:1??_1RT_I?LI. PFINX?,Yt V-_ANJ l 17()13 «c,lfiu?d???,1f(ti.?uiba?nlail.ccnn STACY B. WOLF ,1-- 241-4436 September 16, 2011 David J. Lanza, Esquire 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: Cole v. Rast Docket No 2011-3954 Dear Mr. Lanza: I' \? ?Iv111,1 1 -241-4437 On august 2, 2011 I mailed to you several discovery items, including a request for production of documents and notices of intention to serve subpoenas. I received your objections to those proposed subpoenas but I have not received any responses to the Requests for Production addressed to your clients. Please advise by September 23, 2011 whether responses will be rorthcorning or whether I will have to file a motion to compel production. As to the proposed subpoenas, it appears from your response that you misunderstood the rationale for the request. I am only seeking this information for reasons relevant to our claims and not to challenge the Township action in any way. I would like to avoid having to engage in any unnecessary litigation to obtain these documents and I hope that you will accept as sufficient my characterization to you that there will not be a collateral attack on the Township permitting process that results from the production of the sought-after information. Please advise by September 23, 2011 whether, on that basis, you are willing to withdraw your objections and thus avoid having to involve the Court further in this matter. Thank ?-ou for your time and attention in this matter. Very trulq y6 C. Wolf cc: Mr. & Mrs. L. Lance Cole Ex?,-?,,? 6 David T. Lanza I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 (717j 730-3775 LAWRENCE L. COLE, and KIMBERLY R. COLE Plaintiffs Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2011-3954 Civil Term T. PAUL -AST and RO'BYNE G. PAST Defendants DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT PRODUCTION REQUEST 1. Plaintiff's document production request seeks information beyond the scope of discovery. 2. Plaintiff's Complaint remains subject to Preliminary Objections. 3. The document production request seeks information that was already made available to Plaintiffs during the permit process for the buildings constructed by Defendants. 4_ Plaintiffs did not appeal or otherwise challenge decisions of the Township related to the matters that are sought in the subpoenas, 5. The appeal period has expired for any such matters. 6_ Plaintiffs, by virtue of this action, related subpoenas and discovery, seek to reopen decisions of the Township related to construction lawfully completed by Defendants prior to 2011. 7. Plaintiffs, by virtue of this action and the discovery that Plaintiffs pursue, seeks to have this Court examine decisions of the Township related to matters that are now closed. E V ?, " I,+ C, 8. Plaintiffs seek discovery that is overbroad and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the issue of whether Plaintiffs need an injunction to enforce the covenants of the community. _Z4 David J. Lanza Attorney I.D_ No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW. this 18`x' day of October, 2011, I hereby certify that 1 i ave ser?,,ed a copy of the foregoing document on the following by depositing a true and correct cop} of the saute in the US. Mail at Harrisburg, Permsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: Nathan Wolf, Esquire 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17413 f By: David Lanza NATHAN C. WOLF, ESQ. SUPREME COURT ID NO. 87380 %t'OLF & VX OLF 10 V EST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 717-241-4436 ATTORNEY" FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE Husband and wife, Plaintiffs vs. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 2011- 3954 CIVIL TERM IN EQUITY NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 4009.21 "1'0:"I'. Paul Rast and Robyne Rast clo David 1. Lanza, Esquire 21 )2 i\Iarket Street Camp Hill, Pal 17011 The plaintiffs, Lawrence L. Cole and himberly R. Cole, intend to sen-e subpoenas identical to those that are attached to this notice. You have mventy (20) da\rs from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoenas. If no objections arc made, the subpoenas maN- be son-ed. Date: - Respectfully subred, WOLF & WO?F/ NATH C. WOLF, ESQUIRE SUPREME COURT ID NO. 87380 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 717-241-4436 Attorney for Plaintiffs f COMMON?k'EALTII OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND I awlcnci- L bole and liimherk R Cole_ hu,hand and wits Plaintiff vs. I. Paul Rast and Rohvne G. Rasa husband and wife Defzndant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Monroe Township, c/o James D. Bogar, Esquire, Solicitor (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: (SEE ATTACHMENT) at 10 West High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013-2922 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. TINS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Nathan C Wall. lisquirc ADDRESS: w•, ii s,ee•t TELEPHONE: -,I-, SUPREME COURT ID # ti7;s, ATTORNEY FOR: I ile No. 201 1-3951 BY TIII: COURT : Prothonot r . CIv°II Division Date: Seal of the Court Deputy LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE Husband and wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants No. 2011- 3954 IN EQUITY CIVIL TERM ATTACHMENT TO DOCUMENT SUBPOENA ISSUED TO MONROE TOWNSHIP 1. _A11 documents and records, whether in paper or electronic form, that refer, relate, or pertain to anv building permits issued to T. Paul and/or Robvne G. Rast, 1265 Kuhn Road, ?x'hite Rock Acres since januan- 1, 200)9. 2. All documents and records, whether in paper or electronic form, that refer, relate, or pertain to the 1\Ionroe Trnvnship Complaint Report filed by Lawrence (Lance) and K riberly Cole in September 2(109 alleguig zoning violations at 1265 Kuhn Road, White Rock Acres. 3. 'A11 records, wliether in paper or electronic form, of anv correspondence, memoranda, email messages, or other communications since januarv 1, 2009, between 1\lonroe Township Zoning Officer Gregor- Rogalski and T. Paul or Robvne G. Rast or any of the Rasts' agents, attornevs, contractors, employees, or workers. 4. .A11 records, %vhether in paper or electronic form, of any correspondence, memoranda, email messages, or other communications since January 1, 2009, between Monroe Township Zoning Officer Gregor- Rogalski and any other Monroe Township officials, employees, and agents, including but not limited to Township Super-l-isors, pertaining to: ??. 1. Paul or Robvne Rast; b. Lawrence (Lance) or KinlberlvT (:Ole; C. 1 265 Kuhn Road, White 1Zock.Acres, Nlotiro(,'J ownship, Pennstilv.ulia; d. Sections 200.6 of the ;Alonroc Tmvinship Official Zorling Ordinance, entitled \\-'??<xlland Prescrvatiotl Rcyuinments" (including stihsccti()ns 2((O.G.l through ?1 u).6.5 Of that sccrion of ncc' '/,Oniu(; Ordinancc, ?. _A11 rec??rrls, whethcr M paper Or electronic form, of ;111v c0>rrespo11de11ce, mem(Wr11ula, email messages, or Otbcr c()uuntunications since 1:111utlrv 1, ?_'n09, bctwcetl A1o111-oc f()«nship /( )11111'g Otttcur (,iv-()r\ IZO,,:ikki and elm 4ficel's, Cnlplmccs Ur tI?;CRC,, r>f PCtlnont _A??OClaic> 1nC., Or any 4 its suhsidiarics Or affiliates, that refer, relate or pertain tf): .11? a. I . Paul or Rob,-Ile Rasr. b. l.a«rcuce (Lancei r I>;tnherly? Cale; C. 1-1G-) halm Road, White Rock _lcres, Monroe Township, Penus.? h ania; d. ?cction ?OO.0 of the Monroe Twviislhip Official toning Urdinancc, entitled " Woodlaiid Preservation Requirements" (including subsections 20H.G.1 1111-o_igli 6. .111 records, v? lie tlier in paper or electronic form, of any- correspondence, memoranda, email messages, or other communications since Januar 1, 2009, between Monroe Tovvnsliip Zoning )Ricer Gregorti Rogalski and anv other person that refers, relates, or pertains to a. T. Paul or Robvne Rast; b. La«-rence (Lance) or Kimberly- Cole; C. 1265 Kuhn Road, White Rock Acres, Monroe Township, PerinsvIvania; If any documents or records responsive to this request are withheld on the basis of a claim of privilege, please identity- the general nature of the document or record (e.g., "letter to counsel'), the date (if dated), the number of pages, and the privilege that is being asserted with respect to that particular document or record (e.g., "attorney-client privilege"). i e C'ONIMONWEAI-TH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND 1_ttAACCnLC L Culc and Kintberh R Co lc_ Ii uhand and \N i I c Plamdll File No.'01 1-39?4 VS. T. Paul Rast and Robyne G. Rast. husband and wife Detendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Oregorv R. Rogalski. P.E.. Pennoni Associates. Inc. 1215 Manor Drive 9100 Mechanicsburg. PA 17055 (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena. You are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: (SEE ATTACHMENT) at 10 West High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013-2922 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance. to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (-20) days after its service. the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON NAME: Nathan ( wolf. I-Mire ADDRESS; Iii eat Hi_h street (arli,L.',A 1701; )" FFLEPHONF SUPREME COURT ID # A I'lORNI.Y FOR: r1?,???t?17 1W TFIF, COURT: Prothonotary Civil Division Date: Seal of the Court Deputy LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE Husband and wife, Plaintiffs vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants No. 2011- 3954 IN EQUITY CIVIL TERM ATTACHMENT TO DOCUMENT SUBPOENA ISSUED TO GREGORY R. ROGALSKI, P.E. 1. ill documents and records, whether in paper or electronic form, that refer, relate, or pertain to any building permits issued to T. Paul and Robvne Rast, 1265 Kuhn Road, White Rock :Acres, since January 1, 2009. 2. All documents and records, whether in paper or electronic form, that refer, relate, or pertain to the,Monroe Township Complaint Report filed by Lawrence (Lance) and Kimberly Cole in September 2009 alleging zoning violations at 1265 Kuhn Road, White Rock Acres. 3. All records, whether in paper or electronic form, of any correspondence, memoranda, email messages ('including email from any Monroe Township email account, your grogalski &pennoni.com email account or any other Petuioni Associates, Inc. email account, and anv personal email accounts you maintain or did maintain since January 2009, including but not limited to email accounts with 01" Gmail, Yahoo, 1-lotmail, or other private email service providers), or other communications since Ianuar 1, 2009, with T. Paul or Robvne Rast or any- of the Rasts' agents, attorneys, contractors, employees, or workers. 4. .A11 records, whether in paper or electronic form, of any correspondence, memoranda, email messages, or other communications since (anuarv- 1, 2()()91 with ali Ntonroe Township officials, emplm'(2cs, and agents, including but not limited to Tmvnship Supervisors, pertaining to: J. T. Paul Or Robvne Rast; h. I,a«rencc (Lance) or Kimberly Cole: 1265 Kuhn Road, A`v'hite Rocl; Acres, Monroe'I Owilship, Penns lv.]nia: J. ?ecri??n 'O(1.0 of the Monroe l'?>wushil? Official %oning Otdinaucc_ entitled \? OOdland Preservation FZcyuireil1Ctlts' (including subsections 21 ?i ?.G.1 through of that section of the '/,OUiug Ordinanc(_,). 5. A11 recw-ds, vv Ilcther in paper Or elccn-onic form, Of any corrrspOndencc, numOranda, enuti.l (lle<sa;?CF, OI- other cOmmunlc. irio tls ,ti1Ce lanuarV' 1, 2((((9, with anV- OfficcrS, CnlplOV-eel Ur ag(2Uts of l)etltloill \SSt?Cltltes 1110., Or MW Ot its subRidlal'les Ol' aftihate?, tllat refer, 1-chic Or pcrtaln IO: J. 1 . Paul or Rob\'ne Rast, I?. I. iwruncc (Lance) ?)r 1,'imber1 (;'ole: c. I -Y D- [?uhiu Road, Whitc Rock Acres, 'Monroe I o%vnship, Pennsvlvania; J. Section ?OO.6 of the Monroe Township Official Zoning Ordinance, entitled -Woodland Prescrvation Rcyuircmentn" (including subsections 2uO.0.1 through 2( )(),6.5). 6. _111 records, v,-bcther in paper or electronic form, of any correspondence, memoranda, email messages, or other communications kith any person since lanuarv 1, 2OO9, that refers, relates, or pertains to a. T. Paul or Robvne Rast; b. Lawrence (Lance) or Kimberly Cole; C. 1265 Kuhn Road, White Rock Acres, Monroe Township, PennsvI aria; If am- documents or records responsive to this request are withheld on the basis of a claim of privilege, please identi6, the general nature of the document or record (e.g., "letter to counsel'), the date (if dated), the number of pages, and the privilege that is being asserted with respect to that particular document or record (e.g., "attorney-client privilege"). t COMMONWEAL"I H OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND 111N 1'Ci?? 1_. Cole and himberl% R. Cute. husband and %?ifc Plaintiff `'S. T. Paul Rast and Robvne G. Rast. husband and wife ---- Ucfundant File No.-'O1 1-395-} SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Pcnnoni Associates. Inc.. One Drexel Plaza 3001 Market Street. Second Floor Philadelphia. PA 19104-2897 (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: (SEE ATTACHMENT') at 10 West High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013-2922 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Nathan C Wolf. kqt im .ADDRESS: r . u _, st« t CI',v 17017_1021 TELEPHONE: 1-44,e SUPREME COURT ID # ATTORNI---:Y FOR: 1 i1:i ,tirl BY THE COURT: Prothonotary. Civil Divis<on Datc: Seal ol,thc Court Deputy LAWRENCE L. COLE and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Husband and wife, Plaintiffs No. 2011- 3954 CIVIL TERM VS. T. PAUL RAST and IN EQUITY ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants ATTACHMENT TO DOCUMENT SUBPOENA ISSUED TO PENNONI ASSOCIATES, INC. 1. all documents and records, whether iii paper or electronic form, that refer, relate, or pertain to anv- building permits issued to T. Paul and Robyne Rast, 1265 Kuhn Road, White Kock acres, since January 1, 2009. 2. All documents and records, whether in paper or electronic form, that refer, relate, or pertain to the ?Monroe Township Complaint Report filed by Lawrence (Lance) and Kimberly Cole in September 2009 alleging zoning violations at 1265 huhn Road, White Rock Acres. I all records, whether in paper or electronic form, of any correspondence, memoranda, email messages, or other communications since January 1, 2009, between Gregon- Rogalski and T. Paul or Robvne Rast or any of the Rasts' agents, attorneys, contractors, employees, or workers (including email from ',\Ir. Rogalski's grogalski Ct pennoni.com email account or anv- other Pennoni Associates, Inc. email account). 4. All records, whether in paper or electronic form, of any correspondence, memoranda, email messages, or other communications since lanuary 1, 2009, between Gregon, Rogalski (including email from '\1r. Rogalski's grogalski a)pennoni.com email account or anV, other Pennoni Associates, Inc. email account) and any 1\lonroe Township officials, employees, and agents, including but not limited to 't'ownship Supervisors, pertaining to: a. I'. Paul or Robyne Rast; b. Lawrencc (Lance) or Kimberly Cole; r. 1265 huhn Road, White Rock ;Acres, Monroe '1'own"111p, Pcnnsv h ania: 1. ?rction '(0.0 ufthc 1IOnroc Jovtreship Ofticial %Oning ()rdinalncc, ctltirlcd " \l'%oO(1land Preservath)n Rcgwrrmcnts° (including suhsecti<>ns 2(1?i.6.1 rhrough -'()().6.5 of that section of the XOiiing Ordinance). \11 rccOrds, whcrher in paper or electronic form, (A arnv correspondence, mcnzOranda, email ?1lC?Sa:?CS, O1' Other C()n]mtlmC16011S s111ce 1anuarv 1, 2()()0, hetlFCen GI-c" on, an\ I , >fficcrs, cnrpl?>? ees or agents of Pennoni .lssociatcs Inc.,>r am >f it, ub;idiaries ()r itriliares, that refer, rclatc ?)r pertain to: a. 1 . Paul or Robvne Past; b. I a« rune(, (Lance) ()r himberk- (_OIc, c. 1205 huhn Road, White Rock acres, Monroe AOv? tlship, Pennsylvania; d. Section 200.6 of the Monroe Township Official Zoning Ordinance, entitled Voodland Preservation Requirements" (inchrding subsections 2(10.0.1 through 6. All records, whether in paper or electronic form, of any correspondence, memoranda, email messages, or other communications since (anuaiy 1, 2009, bemeen Gregory Rogalski (including email from _Ntr. Rogalski's grogalski «pennoni.com email account or any other Pennoni _?ssociates, Inc. email account) and any other person that refers, relates, or pertains to a. T. Paul or Robvne Rast; b. Lawrence (Lance) or himberly Cole; C. 1265 Kuhn Road, White Rock Acres, Monroe Township, PennsvIvarlia. If anv documents or records responsive to this request are withheld on the basis of a claim of privilege, please identify the general nature of the document or record (e.g., "letter to counsel"), the date (if dated), the number of pages, and the prillrilege that is being asserted with respect to that particular document or record (e.g., "attorucy-client privilege"). J I David J. Lanza I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 ('717) 730-3775 LAWRENCE L. COLE, and KIMBERLY R. COLE Plaintiffs Attofri0jDFW0()gants UE THE PROTHnNOTAPy 2011 AUG 22 PPS 4: 05 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PEwisYLVANIA ?au Acj T::p IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2011-3954 Civil Term V. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Defendants DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED SUBPOENAS UPON MONROE TOWNSHIP, GREGORY ROGALSKI AND PENNONI ASSOCIATES, INC. 1. Plaintiffs has proposed to serve subpoenas upon various entities, including (1) Monroe Township, (2) Gregory Rogalski, P.E, and (3) Pennoni Associates, Inc. 2. The proposed subpoenas would serve no purpose other than to harass and intimidate Defendants. 3. The proposed subpoenas seek information that was already made available to Plaintiffs during the permit process for the buildings constructed by Defendants. 4. Plaintiffs did not appeal or otherwise challenge Hel icinns of the Tcv.- hlp nz1atsu to the matters that are sought in the subpoenas. 5. The appeal period has expired for any such matters. 6. Plaintiffs, by virtue of this action and these subpoenas, seek to reopen decisions of the Township related to construction lawfully completed by Defendants prior to 2011. 7. Plaintiffs, by virtue of this action and the discovery that Plaintiffs pursue, seeks to have this Court examine decisions of the Township related to matters that are now closed. Wherefore, Defendants request that this Court quash the proposed subpoenas prepared by Plaintiffs. Davi J. Lanza Attorney I.D. No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendants f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 22nd day of August, 2011, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing 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: Nathan Wolf 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 By: G' David Lanza NATHAN C. WOLF, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 87380 WOLF & WOLF, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE Husband and wife, Plaintiffs VS. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2011- 3954 IN EQUITY CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I have this date served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following person by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: DAVID J. LANZA, ESQUIRE 2132 MARKET STREET CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA 17011 November, 2011 Nathan olf, Esquire 3 LAWRENCE L. COLE and KIMBERLY R. COLE Husband and wife, Plaintiffs VS. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 2011- 3954 IN EQUITY -^- A rrl CO r-' N `- ,? - -f wry ? CD 3a W ORDER -' NOW this AAA r4 aay of /YTJ??Zl?•, 2011, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) Defendants shall produce the requested documents identified in Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiffs within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order; (2) Defendants' Objections to Subpoena are overruled and Plaintiffs are permitted to serve their Subpoenas on Monroe Township, Gregory Rogalski, and Pennoni Associates, Inc.; (3) Defendants are hereby directed to pay the sum of $500.00 as counsel fees to Plaintiffs' counsel within 20 days of this Order; and, (4) This Court's Order of June 10, 2011, requiring the Plaintiffs' to post bond in the amount of $2,500.00 is hereby amended and the bond required of the Plaintiffs' is reduced to $500.00, and the Prothonotary is directed to release the sum of $2,000.00 to Plaintiffs' counsel. B THE , J CIVIL TERM Distribution: Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire David J. Lanza, Esquire Check Date: 11/30/2011 X 20-07 Case No. Defendant Descriptions Amt Released Receipt 11-03954 COLE LAWRENCE L REFUND 2000.00 267944 fl c : 1 F r T 1 C-) rri CD r= ?? ma Check Amount: 2000.00 INFOCON CORPORATION[L1S58HBj 3385603 David D. Buell, ORRSTOWN BANK SHIPPENSBURG, PA OTHONOT_ARY OFFICE CUINIBERLAND COUNTY P 60-15031313 F GENERAL ND 1 COURTHOUSE SQUARE, SUITE 100 'CARLISLE, PA 17013 x CHECK DATE CHECK NUMBER PAY THIS AMOUNT o 11/30/2011 2097 $2,000.00 0 Two Thousand And 00/100 Dollars m TO THE ORDER OF = WOLFE, NATHAN m 11-3954` 10 W. HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 t - A HORIZED SIGNATURE ii'0020970 I:03131503611: 108 LLLL7LII' RECEIPT FOR TRANSFER -------------------- -------------------- Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Receipt Date 11/30/2011 Carlisle, Pa 17013 Receipt Time 15:21:52 Receipt No. 267944 COLE LAWRENCE L 1271 KUHN ROAD BOILING SPRINGS, PA 17007 Case Number 2011-03954 Remarks PER ORDER OF COURT DATED 11-22 11 RELEASE 2000.00 ---------------------- Distribution Of Adjustment --------------------------- Transaction BOND REFUND Payee PROTHONOTARY ESCROW WOLFE, NATHAN This Adj 2,000.00- 2,000.00 15250511302011 Cumberland County Prothonotary's C)"-_ce Pace: PYS380 Check Register Costs & Fees Tran Receipt Case Trans Check Check Check Payee Name - Rel Date Desc No No Amount Date No Amount WOLFE, NATHAN REFUND 11/30/2011 TRNS ESC IN 267944 11-03554 2,000.00 11/30/2011 2097 2,000.00 ** Total Amount Released 2,000.00 --------------------- -----------------------------------End of Listing ------------------------------------------------ LAWRENCE L. COLE and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Husband and wife, Plaintiffs : No. 2011-3954 CIVIL TERM -,r acv X mar= vs. ? Irl :;UQ T. PAUL RAST and IN EQUITY < Z-1 ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants -RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this- ^'day 4 4"40 2013, upon consideration of the attached Motion for Extraordinary Relief and Enforcement of Court Order, a Rule is hereby issued upon the Defendants to show cause, if any exists, w the relief sought should not be granted. A hearing is scheduled for the day of 2013 at / :jO .m. in Courtroom Son the 4`h Floor of the Cumberland County Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013. are g rty is `kso 1` -I.QXPOR«'•60 i*° r -- "cccivc i x -'--" `LQ ton /1 f11 ? e?r? tn tl,P ?nmmPr, t?Yln npmPflt of , , . . BY THE COURT: 4;;; Edward E. Guido, J. Distribution: Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire, for Plaintiffs ? David J. Lanza, Esquire for Defendants ?P,es t?a.l? 31G???3 gV1 (:; . K i ra P ROT},i�6 fi'i'� 2013 AFB, 16 x'11 I I David J.Lanza PE=NN S Y1 ERLAND f At j Attorney I.D.No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill,PA 17011 (717)730-3775 Attorney for Defendants LAWRENCE L. COLE, and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 2011-3954 Civil Term T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Defendants DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER and for SANCTIONS 1. On March 11, 2013, this Court held a hearing related to a Motion for Extraordinary Relief filed by Plaintiffs. 2. At issue at this hearing was Defendants' removal of two trees from Defendants' real estate in October 2012. 3. At the conclusion of this hearing, this Court found as a fact that both trees were dead at the time that Defendants removed them. 4. The Court further found that Plaintiffs' Motion was "frivolous" and awarded sanctions to Defendants (which sanctions Plaintiffs ultimately paid late). 5. On April 10, 2013, Plaintiffs communicated to Defendants, via e-mail between counsel, that if Defendants did not waive the sanction award, Plaintiffs would undertake further discovery that would include "preparing and serving a notice of intention to enter and having an arborist examine what is left of the trees cut in October." 6. Plaintiffs have no basis for any such action, as the Court has found as a fact that such trees were dead in October at the time that Defendants cut them down. 7. Plaintiffs' threat was made for the purpose of further harassing Defendants and intimidating Defendants into waiving the sanction award. 8. Defendants notified Plaintiffs on April 12, 2013 that Plaintiffs were in violation of the Order of March 11, 2013 due to Plaintiffs' failure to pay the sanction award. 9. In response, Plaintiffs' Counsel, on April 15, 2013, informed Defendants' Counsel (via e-mail) that Plaintiffs "would be serving a Motion" for Plaintiffs' expert to examine the aforesaid trees and stumps. 10. Any such Motion or attempt to enter Defendants' real estate or examine the aforesaid trees would be frivolous and inconsistent with this Court's Order and findings of March 11, 2013. 11. On April 161h, 2013, Defendants wrote to Plaintiffs to provide an opportunity for Plaintiffs to withdraw their threat to seek such improper relief. A true and correct copy of the aforesaid correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit"A." 12, In response, Plaintiffs have failed and refused to withdraw the aforesaid threat. 13. Plaintiffs have demonstrated their contempt for prior Orders of this Court by their conduct set forth above as well as their prior attempt to obtain prohibited relief despite a previous rejection by this Court. 14. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they shall continue to harass Defendants with no provocation. 9 15. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that this case is not about trees, but about their attempts to use this Court and this case for the purpose of harassing and intimidating Defendants. 16. Defendants have incurred and are expected to incur attorney fees, solely attributable to Plaintiffs' threat to seek improper relief. 17. Plaintiffs' conduct has been vexatious and obdurate, thus entitling Defendants to Attorney fees. 18. Defendants have sought concurrence pursuant to Rule 208 and have provided an advance copy to Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs have not concurred in this Motion. 19. Previous Orders in this case have been entered by the Honorable Judge Guido. Wherefore, Defendants request a protective Order that Plaintiffs shall not be permitted to examine, via expert or otherwise, the trees in question and that attorney fees in the amount of $500.00 be awarded to Defendants. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 9-6�4- David J. Lanza Attorney I.D. #55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendants 10 VERIFICATION I, David Lanza, verify that I am authorized to make the statements herein and that the statements made in the foregoing Motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The aforesaid statements constitute legal conclusions, matters of record and facts known exclusively to counsel. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsfication to authorities. Dated: David Lanza 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 16th day of April, 2013, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mail at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: Nathan Wolf 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 And also via facsimile to 241-4437 By: LW David Lanza 13 LAW OFF ICES David J. Lanza 2132 Market Street TELEPHONE 717-730-3775 Camp Hill,PA 17011 FACSIMILE 717-730-3778 April 16, 2013 Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire 10 West High.Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Via facsimile to 241-4437 Re: 2011-3954 Dear Nathan: Within the past week you have twice threatened, via e-mail, to have an expert examine the trees that we cut down in October 2012. In yesterday's e-mail you stated that you would seek Court intervention for the purpose of arranging f6r such inspection. You have made this threat despite the Court's factual finding of March 11, 2013 that those trees were dead at the time of their removal. Those messages leave us with no choice but to seek a protective order at this time. We write to provide to you the opportunity to withdraw this threat at this time. If you do not provide written confirmation that Plaintiffs shall not seek expert review of the trees that Defendants have cut down, we shall file the attached Motion today. We need any such confirmation to be unequivocal and not contingent on Defendants' acceptance of additional terms. Please also allow this correspondence to serve as notice pursuant to Rule 208, by which we seek your concurrence. If we do not hear from you to the contrary, we shall inform the Court that you do not concur in this Motion. Please do not hesitate to call me if you wish to discuss this matter. Very truly yours, David J. Lanza cc: Dr. Paul Rast 1I_r0-Q FF ICE NATHAN C.WOLF,ESQUIRE j ATTORNEY ID NO.87380 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717)241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and IT-4 Thv- COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Husband and wife, Plaintiffs No. 2011-3954 CIVIL TERM vs. T. PAUL RAST and CIVIL ACTION- IN EQUITY ROBYNE G. BAST Husband and wife, Defendants REPLY TO DEFENDANTS'MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS AND NEW MATTER AND NOW come the plaintiffs,Lawrence L. Cole and Kimberly R. Cole,by and through their attorney, Nathan C.Wolf,Esquire,and file this reply to Defendants'Motion for Protective Order and for Sanctions, and in support thereof aver the following: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part, denied in part. Plaintiffs alleged that they had obtained evidence of several violations of the restrictive covenants applicable to Defendants'property,which did include the cutting down of two trees in October of 2012. 3. Admitted with clarification. The Court made a finding based on the facts presented of record on March 11,2013,which did not include the presentation of any expert testimony. 4. Admitted with clarification. The Court ordered sanctions were paid after counsel for Defendants had failed to respond as he had promised to do after Plaintiffs' counsel had initiated settlement discussions on Match 28,2013. 5. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs'counsel indicated that one of the proposed terms of settlement included a waiver of the court-ordered counsel fees and that if settlement efforts were unsuccessful, Defendants should be aware that additional discovery efforts would be undertaken,including the serving of the described notice of intent to enter,but that it was hoped that such discovery could be avoided by resolving the dispute. 6. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,Plaintiffs submit that they included the possibility of serving the notice of intent to enter in order to place Defendants and their counsel on notice that a considerable amount of relevant and non-privileged discovery needed to be gathered to permit Plaintiffs to fully develop their case for presentation at trial,which included being able to test the veracity of the Defendants'witnesses who testified on March 11,2013. 7. Denied. Plaintiffs'reference to possible areas of discovery was neither a threat nor was it intended to harass or intimidate Defendants in any way. Radler,Plaintiffs saw the current state of the action as an opportunity to resolve the dispute without either party having to devote any additional resources to further discovery in preparation for trial,and as stated previously which Plaintiffs believed to be necessary to fully develop their case for presentation at trial if a settlement could not be reached. 8. Admitted with clarification.Defendants' counsel sent an email on Friday,April 12,2013 at 10:13 p.m. to Plaintiffs'counsel that Defendants considered Plaintiffs to be in violation of the Court's Order,but only after Plaintiffs' counsel's repeated attempts at communication in an effort to resolve the dispute. Unfortunately, after waiting for a promised response from Defendants' counsel that did not come,Plaintiffs counsel was informed by email that Defendants were taking the position that Plaintiffs' had not made an offer to settle and were simply waiting for payment to arrive to engage in any settlement discussions. 9. Denied as stated. The undersigned informed Defendants' counsel that it was likely that a motion to enter would be forthcoming in light of the Defendants'refusal to engage in good faith settlement negotiations. 10. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,Plaintiffs submit that if they sought to engage in discovery concerning evidence that is not privileged and which is believed to be relevant to Plaintiffs' claims and which could be used at trial, inter alia, to directly attack the credibility of the Defendants'witnesses. 11. Admitted in part,denied in part. It is admitted that such correspondence was sent,however it is denied that the informal notice of potential discovery was a"threat" and it is denied that such discovery,if conducted would be improper. 12. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs'notification to Defendants of possible discovery requests did not constitute a"threat". By way of further response Plaintiffs incorporate their response to paragraph five above and the averments set forth in New Matter below. 13. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegation that Plaintiffs'have demonstrated contempt for this Court's Orders is specious and misrepresents the actual dealings of the parties. Moreover, the suggestion that the discovery information sought has been previously prohibited is entirely meritless without any basis in fact. 14. Denied. Plaintiffs conduct informing Defendants of possible discovery requests does not constitute harassment. 15. Denied. Plaintiffs have repeatedly demonstrated that their actions have been designed to ensure compliance with the recorded covenants and restrictions which apply to the Defendants' property and which have a direct impact on Plaintiffs use and enjoyment of their own property including the value of Plaintiffs'property. 16. Denied as stated. Defendants'preparation and filing of the instant Motion for a Protective Order and Sanctions before Plaintiffs had even prepared and/or served Defendants with a discovery request cannot serve as the basis for relief when application for such relief is clearly premature. Moreover, for the reasons set forth in paragraph five above,Plaintiffs submit that their conduct does not constitute a "threat." 17. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,Plaintiffs submit that their actions have been designed to try to resolve the litigation by means of settlement and in that context have simply sought to inform the opposing party of possible areas of discovery to consider if a settlement could not be reached. 18. Admitted. 19. No response required. NEW MATTER 20. The responses set forth in preceding paragraphs are hereby incorporated by reference. 21. On or about Thursday,March 28,2013,Plaintiffs'counsel contacted Defendants' counsel by telephone,in two separate calls, and communicated general terms of settlement for Defendants' consideration,which included,inter alia, a proposal that Defendants waive the Court ordered counsel fees imposed following the hearing on March 11, 2013. 22. Plaintiffs' counsel was informed that Defendants' counsel would communicate the offer to his clients and would respond the following week. 23. On Friday,April 5, 2013,Plaintiffs'counsel saw Defendants' counsel in Court during the session of Argument Court in Courtroom 3 and inquired briefly about the Defendants'response and Plaintiffs' counsel was informed that he would be contacted on Monday or Tuesday of the following 24. When no response came by Tuesday,April 9 from Defendants' counsel, the undersigned called Defendants' counsel's office and was informed that Defendants'counsel had been ill and was out of the office. 25. On Wednesday,April 10,2013, the undersigned sent an email to Defendants'counsel informing him that Plaintiffs had provided him with the Court-ordered funds,but that due to the pending settlement discussions, they bad not been sent out as waiver of payment of same was a term of the proposed agreement but that Plaintiffs were prepared to comply if settlement was not reached. A true and correct copy of the email sent from Plaintiffs'counsel to Defendants' counsel on April 10,2013 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 26. In the course of the communications,the undersigned had informed Defendants'counsel that if settlement could not be reached, further discovery would need to occur including the scheduling of at least six depositions of possible witnesses and that entry onto Defendants'property by a certified arborist,but not by the Plaintiff(so as not to violate the trespassing provisions of the _ Court's-Order of March 11) to inspect trees that had been cut down might be necessary in preparation for trial. 27. On April 11,2013, Defendants' counsel sent an email to the undersigned which was not received until April 12, 2013 indicating that it was imperative that the court ordered fees be received and that the Defendants would be willing to entertain any settlement offer made by Plaintiffs. 28. On April 12,2013, the undersigned responded and requested an opportunity to speak to Defendants' counsel by phone in order to resolve what was believed to have been a misunderstanding as Plaintiffs believed they had tendered terms of an offer but had not received a response. The undersigned requested an opportunity to speak on the following Monday,April 15, so that he could complete several tax returns for a number of estates by the tax deadline. 29. On Friday,April 12, 2013 at 10:15 p.m.,Defendants' counsel finally responded and conveyed that Defendants considered Plaintiffs to be in violation of the Order and suggesting that no offer for settlement had been tendered and indicated that he would not be available to speak until Tuesday because he would be out of his office most of the day on April 15, 2013. 30. On Monday morning,April 15, 2013, the undersigned issued a check from his IOLTA account to Defendants' counsel and sent it in the morning mail so that payment would not be delayed any longer. The undersigned also sent an email on April 15, 2013 informing Defendants' counsel that the funds were on the way so that he would not be under the mistaken belief that Plaintiffs were trying to avoid their court mandated obligation. 31. It is submitted that Defendants' failure to respond as promised to Plaintiffs' settlement offer constituted bad faith and despite Plaintiffs' efforts to obtain a response prior to the deadline imposed by the Court, none was forthcoming until the deadline had nearly passed and Plaintiffs' counsel was unable to forward the court ordered funds within the time remaining. Nonetheless, said funds were transmitted Monday April 15, 2013 which fact.was communicated by email to Defendants' counsel on the same date. 32. On Tuesday,April 16, 2013, the undersigned received the draft motion and Defendants' counsel's letter attached to the motion as Exhibit A via facsimile at 9:33 a.m., seeking concurrence in the same. 33. The undersigned communicated the information to his client and communicated with him about the same and authored correspondence in response and attempted to transmit the s. ame by fax,on April 16,2013 at 3:43 p.m.indicating that while a request to enter could not be ruled out, Plaintiffs were not prepared to proceed with the same and could not even be certain, at that point, one would be forthcoming. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' counsel's letter of April 16 and the facsimile confirmation sheet are attached hereto as Exhibit B. 34. In the letter, the undersigned indicated that Defendants'motion was premature as a notice of request to enter had not been yet drafted,let alone served and that the motion was therefore meridess. 35. Plaintiffs'counsel explained that if such motion had to be defended before a decision had even been made, that Plaintiffs would seek sanctions from Defendants for filing a motion which was not even ripe. 36. Despite the fact that Plaintiffs' counsel had responded the same day as a response was sought,Defendants' counsel filed the motion on April 16, 2013 at 4:11 p.m. 37. It is respectfully submitted that Defendants'request for Protective Order was premature when filed and the matter would not be ripe for determination until a request for entry was served. 38. It is further submitted that the Defendants request for sanctions is entirely baseless as the underlying matter was premature when filed. 39. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that based on the timeline and failure to respond when promised that Defendants purposely failed to negotiate in good faith to be able to paint Plaintiffs' behavior as being in contempt of the Court's Order while delaying any substantive response until the deadline for payment had nearly passed. 40. It is important to note that this Court has previously awarded counsel fees to Plaintiffs because their requests for discovery had gone unanswered until a motion to compel was filed and granted following Defendants' failure to respond or file objections with the Court. 41. It is conceded that the Court made certain findings of record concerning the status of the trees cut in October of 2012. 42. As a result,Plaintiffs believed that in order to prevail at trial, they would need to engage the services of an expert witness who could offer testimony concerning the veracity of the Defendants' witnesses and who could provide testimony that would call into question the truthfulness of the Defendants and their witnesses. 43. It was anticipated that Defendants would again offer the testimony of Robert Zies, the tree cutter who testified on March 11,2013 that he never cut down any tree on the property that was not already dead. 44. Plaintiffs anticipated taking the deposition of Mr. Zies in preparation for trial. 45. While the Court's finding that trees cut in October 2012 were dead might be a matter the Court would not revisit without Lyood cause to do so, the veracity of a witness to be called at trial is certainly a matter for discovery to attempt to resolve. 46. Furthermore, the original complaint filed by Plaintiffs in June 2011 alleged live tree cutting by Mr. Zies, an alleged fact about which this Court has not yet made findings. 47. On April 4, 2011, Sandy McCorkel,then President of Penn Products Corporation authored a letter to Defendants after they had been observed removing live trees in violation of the restrictive covenants,and memorializing the Defendants'agreement to provide advanced notice before removing any additional trees. A true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 48. The observations of Ms. McCorkel included a refutation of the claim by Defendants that only dead trees or limbs were being removed while Ms. McCorkel observed new growth on limbs already cut by Mr. Zies on April 3,2011. 49.,The Plaintiffs have now identified an expert witness whom they are prepared to have examine the remaininR portions of a number of trees cut on the property including trees which were not the subject of the hearing on March 11,2013. 50. The expert that Plaintiffs propose to perform the examination is a certified arborist by the name of Eric Vorodi. 51. Mr.Vorodi has performed a preliminary investigation and has memorialized the results of the same in correspondence authored on May 2,2013. A true and correct copy of said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 52. Based upon this preliminary investigation, the results of which were not available on April 16,2013 when Defendants'counsel demanded a response and prior to the filing of Defendants' motion,Plaintiffs have drafted the attached notice of intent to enter pursuant to Rule 4009.32. A true and correct copy of the proposed notice of intention to enter is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 53. Said notice of intent to enter is being served upon Defendants through their counsel contemporaneously with the instant pleading. 54. Plaintiffs submit that Defendants cannot show good cause why they would be entitled to a protective order and that their actions have solely been designed to frustrate the attempts of Plaintiffs to resolve this matter by agreement or to permit this matter to proceed so that a conclusion to the litigation might be reached. 55. As such,it is respectfully submitted that the filing of a Motion for Protective Order and for Sanctions when no request to enter had been prepared or served was meritless, and an award of counsel fees for responding to same is appropriate. 56. Finally,it is respectfully submitted that in light of the notice attached hereto and the Court being aware of the Defendants'position with regard to the request to enter they anticipated would be forthcoming,that summary relief is appropriate and Plaintiffs should be permitted to have their ' expert enter onto the property of Defendants to examine the remaining portions of trees which have been cut during the time relevant to the actions alleged to have been in violation of the covenants in the instant action. 57. Plaintiffs request an Order granting permission to proceed with such an examination and to prohibit Defendants from taking any action which would change the remaining tree stumps from their current condition until such an examination can be completed. 58. Plaintiffs likewise request that the Court find the actions of the Defendants to be obdurate and vexatious and to award counsel fees to Plaintiffs in the amount of$525.00. 59. The Honorable Edward E. Guido is the Judge assigned to this case. WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court: issue an Order denying the Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order, denying their Request for Sanctions,and granting permission to Plaintiffs to proceed to have Eric Vorodi accompanied by Plaintiffs' counsel enter upon Defendants' property before June 30, 2013 and awarding counsel fees in the amount of$525.00 as a result of Defendants obdurate and vexatious conduct,along with any additional relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just. Respectfully s itted, WOLF & F,Attorneys at Law Dated: May ,2013 By: -7- N n C. Wolf, Esquire 10 est High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Supreme Court I.D. No. 87380 (717) 241-4436 Attorney for Plaintiffs 5/0612013 From: NCW To: djlaw@pa.net Sent: 4/10/2013 2:42PM Subject: Cole v. Rast Dear Dave: I called your office this morning and they have informed me that you have been out due to illness. I hope that you are feeling better. I wanted to try to reach out to you because of the deadline for payment of counsel fees per Judge Guido's Order is rapidly approaching. I have received the funds from my client and want to assure you that he is not, in any way, acting to avoid the Order. However, when we last spoke at length on March 28, 2013, we discussed a possible settlement agreement wherein those funds would not be paid but the case would be resolved by making each of the existing Orders (i.e. compliance with covenants and no trespassing) permanent Orders by stipulation and otherwise discontinuing the litigation. Otherwise, we discussed the need to begin scheduling depositions and proceeding with other discovery matters. Please note that that would include my preparing and serving a notice of intention to enter and having an arborist examine what is left of the trees cut in October. My client would not be present on your client's property but we would need to have our expert given the opportunity to enter. We really did not want to make this tree central to the issue but that has been somewhat forced upon us now. In any event, when I saw you last Friday in Courtroom 3, 1 asked about the status of your communications with your client and you would need to speak with me early this week. I am assuming that would have happened by now if not for your illness. In the meanwhile, I have not forwarded payment due to the on-going nature of our settlement discussions but have those funds available to do so if we are unable to reach a resolution. Please confirm your receipt of this email so that I know you have received an explanation for why you have not seen a check and to avoid any unnecessary litigation related to enforcement of the Order. I am attempting to avoid having the Court again be,involved in matters which could be avoided if we had been communicating more. I remain hopeful that we can resolve this dispute permanently without the need for costly and time-consuming litigation. I look forward to hearing from you. I will be in the office this afternoon and all afternoon tomorrow if you are able to try to contact me. Thank you and again, I hope you are feeling better. Very truly yours, WOLF &WOLF By: Nathan C. Wolf Attorney at Law 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-241-4436 717-241-4437(Fax) Page 1 5/06/2013 The contents of this e-mail are confidential, and intended only for the use of the individual(s) and /or entity(ies) named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that the law strictly prohibits any dissemination, disclosure, copying, or distribution of the contents of this e-mail message. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender. Thank you. Page 2 WOLF & WOLF ATTORNEYS AT LAw NATHAN C.WOLF 10 WEST HIGH STREET STAGY B.WOLF CARLISLE,PENNSYLVANIA 17013 PHONE wolfandwolfnembargmail.com FACSIMILE 717-241-4436 717-241-4437 April 16, 2013 VIA FAX ONLY 717-730-3778 David J. Lanza, Esquire 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: Cole v. Rast Docket No 2011-3954 Dear Mr. Lanza: I received your fax and spoke with my client about the same. I cannot state that we are prepared to withdraw the informal notice I have given you of possibly issuing a request to enter the property with an arborist. However, I cannot state with certainty that one will even be forthcoming. Of course,if I do prepare such a notice,you will have 30 days to file for relief with the Court including seeking a protective Order. However, I believe that anything you would file now is premature,would.not be ripe for determination and if it is filed,noting that I have not made the formal request yet, then I may seek sanctions for having to defend against your motion. Certainly there can be no sanctions for something that has not happened yet. My statement to you about the possibility of having this occur is the same as discussing the possibility of depositions. But until we would proceed formally, I would suggest to you that the motion you provided to me in draft form is meritless. Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. Very truly yours, Natha olf P. 1 TRANSMISSION REPORT (TUE) APR 18 2013 15,48 User/Account DOCUMENT# 8301851-188 DESTINATION 7303778 TIME STORED : APR 18 15:43 DEST.NUMBER : 7303778 TX START APR 18 15:47 DURATION 40sec F-CODE COMMODE ECM PAGES 1page RESULT OK WOLF & WOLF ATTORNEYS Al'LAW NATHAN C.WOLF 10 WEST HIGH STREET STAGY B.WOLF CARLISLE,PENNSYLVANIA 17013 >i rONF wolfandwolfnembargmail.com FACSIMILE 717-241-4436 717-241-4437 April 16,2013 VIA FAX ONLY 717-730-3778 David J. Lanza, Esquire 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Re: Cole v. Rast Docket No 2011-3954 Dear Mr. Lanza: I received your fax and spoke.with my client about the same. 1 cannot state that we are prepared to withdraw the informal notice I have given you.of Possibly issuing a rcgucst to enter, the property with an arborist. However,T cannot state with certainty that one will even be forthcoming. Of course,if I do prepare such a notice, you will have 30 days to file for relief with the Court including seeking a protectivc Qrdcr. i luwcvcr, I believe:that anything you would file now is premature,would not be ripe for determination and if it is filed,noting that I have not made the formal request yet, then 1 may seek sanction; for having to defend against your motion. Certainly there can be no sanctions for something that has not happened yet. My statement to you about the possibility of having this occur is the same as discussing the possibility of depositions. But until we would proceed formally, I would suggest to you that the motion you provided to ine in draft Conn is meridess. j W JOYCE L.SWOPE,PRESIDENT SANDRA L,McCORKEL, RICHARD L.SWOPE,VICE PRESIDENT SECRETARY-TREASURER PENN. F-IRCIDUCTS DEVELOPERS OF WHITE ROCK ACRES 1369 SWOPE DRIVE,BOILING SPRINGS,PA 17007 PHONE:(0)717.25&6481 PHONE:(R)717-258-6959 i Mr. & Mrs. T. Paul Rast 12.65 Kuhn Road Boiling Springs, PA 17007 April 4, 2011 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Rast: On Sunday, April P, I received a call regarding tree removal on your property, This is approximately my third visit to your property regarding this matter, On this date, I observed a tree trimmer already in the process of cutting down a tree. Neither of you had informed me of your intent to remove more trees, as had been previously agreed upon. Upon my arrival on site, Mrs. Rast stated that there were dead limbs on this tree, however, my inspection of same revealed new growth at the tips of the branches. If there were dead limbs, evidently they were removed before I arrived. Because of the time of the year that this cutting took place; I was unable to determine that the tree was in fact dead. On September 21", 2009, I sent you a letter regarding the conversation wQ had at that time, and I was assured that no more living trees would be taken down. i It was further discussed, that if you felt any further tree removal was necessary, you were to contact me in advance to review the situation. I was not called in advance of the tree removal that you carried out on April 3`d In addition, on September 23rd, 2009, it was confirmed by Mr. Rast that no further tree cutting would be done, with the exception of dead trees from time to time. I am enclosing a copy of Revision No. 4 regarding our Covenants for the development. I believe I may have provided a copy of this document previously. Please refer to Paragraph 1 I which states: "No trees shall be cut or removed from any lot except what is necessary for the'erection of buildings, and the installation of driveways, parking areas or swimming pools on said lot. Dead trees and trees under four inches in diameter at the base may be removed at the option of the property owner to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the lot". By this letter, I am once again requesting that no further tree removal be performed on your property without sufficient advance notice to me as was previously agreed upon. Sincerely, 7 San ra L. McC Ake �� - President RECEIVF9 MAY ° 6 IN about- -,.-trees i C0NSULTIING May 2,2013 Mr. Nathan Wolf, Esq. Wolf&Wolf 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dear Mr. Wolf. On Wednesday,April 24, 2013, at their request, I visited the residence of Lance and Kim Cole at 1271 Kuhn Road, Boiling Springs, PA, which is located in White Rock Acres. I was asked to look at several tree stumps on the neighbor's property to determine if the trees were live or dead at the time they were cut in the fall of 2012. From within the Cole's property, and approximately 30 feet away, I observed three stumps located in the area to the north of the neighbor's recently built greenhouse, and to the west of their residence.The stumps appear to range from about 6 to 9 inches in diameter at the cut surface.These three stumps were left with significant portions of trunk extending above ground,presumably for future use. Two of the stumps are approximately three feet high, while the third stump is approximately seven feet high. One of the two shorter stumps has been modified for use as a garden hose rack. The taller stump has a bracket attached to it from which a potted plant or other object can be hung. From a distance, it appears that all of the trees may have been alive at the time they were removed in the fall of 2012. The bark on each tree appears firmly attached to the trunk. There is no flaking or shedding of loose bark from anywhere on the trunks including the area directly next to the cut surface. The wood visible on the cut surface does not appear decayed or punky. It does not appear that any of the stumps has leaned over or shifted its position due to loss of decayed roots. Based on my 25 years of experience in the green industry, including time as: a horticultural extension specialist with Penn State University; a commercial arborist with the Bartlett Tree Expert Company; and the last ten years as a consulting arborist with About Trees Consulting; and based on observations made on the day of my visit, my professional opinion is that these trees were likely alive at the time they were cut in the fall of 2012. A more detailed assessment and a greater degree of certainty may be gained by being able to observe the stumps first hand from within the neighbor's property. It may also be helpful to do some sampling in the form of removing small areas of bark in order to observe the cambium 25 Sheeley Lane Boiling Springs, PA 17007—Tel:717.241.2814 Cel:717.576.4398—www.abouttrees.net ,s located under the bark; removing a small amount of soil from around the base of the trees; and handling the tree stumps. Should you want to make further observations and are able to obtain permission to enter the neighbor's property, let me know and we'll take another look at the stumps. Briefly,my credentials include: BS Biology, Penn State University, 1986 MAgr Horticulture, Penn State University, 1988 ISA Certified Arborist,PD-347A ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#521 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Questions, don't hesitate to call or email. Respectfully, V Eric Vorodi Registered Consulting Arborist#521 Certified Arborist,PD-347A 25 Sheeley Lane Boiling Springs, PA 17007—Tel:717.241.2814—Cel:717.576.4398—www.abouttrees.net ,r NATHAN C.WOLF,ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO.87380 WOLF&WOLF,ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717)241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Husband and wife, : Plaintiffs : No. 2011-3954 CIVIL TERM VS. T. PAUL RAST and IN EQUITY ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON PROPERTY HELD BY DEFENDANTS FOR PURPOSES OF INSPECTION, TESTING AND SAMPLING (PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 4009.321 To: T. PAUL RAST AND ROBYNE G. RAST c/o DAVID J. LANZA, ESQUIRE 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Pursuant to the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 4009.32,you,T. PAUL RAST AND ROBYNE G. RAST, are required to allow the entry requested herein unless you object to the request in writing within thirty (30) days of service of this request and serve the objections on Plaintiffs' counsel,in which event the reasons for the objection shall be stated. If objection is made to part of a request, that part shall be specified. 1. Plaintiffs through their designated agent(s) request entry upon the property having an address of 1265 Kuhn Drive,Boiling Springs,PA 17007. Said designated agent will be a certified arborist and/or counsel for Plaintiffs, but in compliance with the Court's Order of March 11, 2013, neither Plaintiff will enter onto such property. 2. Plaintiffs request entry upon the above-mentioned property in order to inspect and/or sample tree stumps and logs that have been cut down by Defendants during their e*MI/ + a ' ownership of the property that have been the subject of prior testimony,pleadings or exhibits offered in this case. Respectfully submitted: WOLF &WOLF May 1,2013 BY: ;f-'NS AT C. WOLF, ESQUIRE P Sup erne Court ID #87380 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-241-4436 Attorney for Plaintiffs NATHAN C.WOLF,ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO.87380 WOLF&WOLF 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE,PA 17013 (717)241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF LAWRENCE L. COLE and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Husband and wife, : Plaintiffs : No. 2011-3954 CIVIL TERM VS. T. PAUL RAST and IN EQUITY ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on the date indicated below, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Request for Entry Upon Property to be mailed,by U. S. Mail, to the below-listed party,in the instant matter, addressed as follows: DAVID J. LANZA, ESQUIRE 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for Defendants) Xf' Dated: May�7-,2013 Nathan C olf, Esquire Attorn or Plaintiffs VERIFICATION I, the undersigned,hereby verify that I am a plaintiff in the foregoing action and that the facts stated in the above pleading are true and correct to the best of my information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. C, 7 ,2013 Lawrence L. Cole NATHAN C.WOLF,ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO.87380 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717)241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Husband and wife, Plaintiffs : No. 2011- 3954 CIVIL TERM VS. T. PAUL RAST and : CIVIL ACTION - IN EQUITY ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned,hereby certify that on the date indicated below, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply and New Matter to be served upon the below-listed party, addressed as follows: David J. Lanza, Esquire 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for Defendants) Dated: May 2013 Na C. Wolf, Esquire .-'��AtWrney for Plaintiffs LAWRENCE L. COLE and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. NO. 2011 —3954 CIVIL TERM RAST, `. Defendants ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 16TH day of MAY, 2013, after reviewing Defendants' Motion for Protective Order and for Sanctions as well as Plaintiffs' reply thereto, a hearing is scheduled before this Court on FRIDAY, AUGUST 2,2013, at 9:30 a.m. It further appearing that the disputed issues of fact will require the testimony of current counsel, it would appear that Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7 may require the parties to secure alternate counsel for said proceeding. By the<ou , Edward E. Guido, J. t," David J. Lanza, Esquire ✓Nathan Wolf, Esquire :sld DES 1'77 k c x' rj ry 0 I E RRU-T 11000 ,, 2013 JU -3 PM l:: 1 .7 1'UMBERLANJ COUNTY David J. Lanza PENNSYLVANIA Attorney I.D.No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill,PA 17011 (717)730-3775 Attorney for Defendants LAWRENCE L. COLE, and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 2011-3954 Civil Term T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Defendants DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ENTRY UPON PROPERTY 1. On or about March 11, 2013, this Court held a hearing in the above matter, in which the Court found as a fact that two trees cut down by Defendants on Defendants' own property were dead at the time of the cutting (in October 2012), thus rendering the cutting of those trees permissible under the neighborhood covenants. 2. This Court also awarded attorney fees to Defendants and found that Defendants' Motion regarding those two trees was frivolous. 3. Plaintiffs did not appeal from that decision. 4. At the above referenced hearing, Plaintiff Lawrence Cole admitted that one of the two trees was dead at the time it was cut down. 5. Despite this Court's findings and Plaintiff's admission, Plaintiffs now seek to enter upon Defendants' property for the purpose of inspecting the two trees cut down in 2012 and all trees cut down since the inception of this litigation. 6. Any attempt to inspect the trees cut down in 2012 is frivolous, as Plaintiffs seek to contradict a prior Order of this Court. 7. A hearing is currently set in this Court for August 2, 2013 regarding Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order regarding this issue. 8. In addition to this Court's findings on March 11, 2013, this Court has already twice rejected, in effect, the approach that Plaintiffs now attempt to impose through other means. 9. This Court has rejected, on two occasions, proposed orders that would have prohibited all tree cutting (as well as all "landscaping") absent further order of Court. 10. Plaintiffs' attempt to inspect Defendants trees would place similar limitations on Defendants' landscaping activities. 11. For Plaintiffs to subject Defendants to inspection (and conflicting stories of competing arborists) every time Defendants cut down a tree would be the equivalent of the proposed orders that this Court has rejected. 12. For the Court to allow Plaintiffs to inspect Defendants' trees at each cutting would place this Court in the position of reviewing each act of landscaping performed by Defendants. 13. After more than two years of litigation and two hearings, Plaintiffs have proven no covenant violations on the part of Defendants (and have even been sanctioned as a result of false accusations in the hearing of March 2013). 9 14. Plaintiffs' approach would open the door to Court review of tree cutting activities of other homeowners within the development (including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs), all of which have a direct bearing on Plaintiffs' selective enforcement of the covenants and true motivations for harassing Defendants with this lawsuit. 15. Photographic evidence submitted by Defendants in prior pleadings and hearings (including exhibits admitted on March 11, 2013) establish that Defendants' property retains its wooded characteristics, notwithstanding the allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint and subsequent motions. One such photograph is attached hereto as Exhibit"A." 16. Plaintiffs' request (and this litigation) is not motivated by a desire to preserve the wooded nature of the neighborhood, but by the desire to harass Defendants and limit Defendants' use and enjoyment of their own real estate. Wherefore, Defendants request a protective Order that Plaintiffs shall not be permitted to examine, via expert or otherwise, the trees in question and that attorney fees be awarded to Defendants. Respectfully su mitted, Dated. o David J. Lanza Attorney I.D. #55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendants 10 VERIFICATION I, David Lanza, verify that I am authorized to make the statements herein and that the statements made in the foregoing Motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The aforesaid statements constitute legal conclusions, matters of record and facts known exclusively to counsel. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsfication to authorities. Dated: David Lanza 12 Exhibit A r.•� y , .• "�, .J, Ilk yr, Y• Y .3y - �, r `� ij r _ a � 1 .f4t. 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 3rd day of June, 2013, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mail at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: Nathan Wolf 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 By: David anza 1.3 NATHAN C.WOLF,ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO.87380 WOLF&WOLF,ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717)241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Husband and wife, Plaintiffs : No. 2011- 3954 CIVIL TERM VS. c _ ; T. PAUL RAST and : IN EQUITY ROBYNE G. RAST r Husband and wife, r--z: Defendants >C, =C) - >C- MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE NOW comes the Plaintiffs,Lawrence and Kimberly Cole, by their attorney,Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire, and presents the following motion for continuance of the August 2,2013 hearing,representing as follows: 1. Lawrence L. Cole and Kimberly R. Cole,hereinafter"Plaintiffs," are adult individuals who reside at, and are the owners of the property at, 1271 Kuhn Road, Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17007,which property abuts the property that is the subject of this action. 2. T. Paul Rast and Robyne G. Rast,hereinafter"Defendants," are adult individuals who reside at, and are the owners of the property at, 1265 Kuhn Road,Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17007,which property is the subject of this action. 3. A hearing is scheduled for August 2, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in this matter. 4. The undersigned will not be available do to a vacation that has been scheduled since early May 2013 and will be out of state on August 2,2013. 5. Therefore,the Plaintiffs are requesting that this hearing be continued to a date as soon as possible which does not present a scheduling conflict for their counsel. 6. Concurrence in the foregoing motion was sought from Counsel for Defendants,David Lanza, Esquire, on June 27,2013 and Attorney Lanza indicates that the Defendants oppose the request because they have already taken off of work for the scheduled hearing date. WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs,Lawrence and Kimberly Cole,respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order continuing the August 2, 2013 hearing, along with any additional relief that the Court may deem appropriate and just. Respectfully submitted) WOLF &WO torneys at Law Dated:July 3,2013 Bv- �— Natiaw4�— �fEsquire 10 We 4Higb(Street CarliX717013 Supreme Court I.D. No. 87380 (717) 241-4436 Attorney for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION I,the undersigned, do hereby verify I am counsel for defendant, and the facts set forth in this motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge 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. July 3,2013 Nathan olf Couns or Plaintiffs NATHAN C.WOLF,ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO.87380 WOLF&WOLF,ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717)241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Husband and wife, : Plaintiffs : No. 2011- 3954 CIVIL TERM VS. T. PAUL RAST and IN EQUITY ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,Nathan C. Wolf,Esquire, attorney for Plaintiffs,do hereby certify that this date)I have served a copy of the foregoing Motion to Continue, upon the following person,by United States Mail, addressed as follows: David J. Lanza, Esquire 2132 Market Street Camp Hill,PA 17011 (Counsel for Defendants) Respectfully submitted,, WOLF &WOLF July 3313 By: AT WOLF, Esquire I.D.up em ourt I. Na. 87380 Jokt OuI7 es Street et 10 est High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-4436 Counsel for Plaintiffs r _ or HE P1�,s , ti c T'I�t �i 0 TA,L, ., 2013 JUL 19 Ali 8: CUMBERLAND COUNTY David J. Lanza PENNSYLVANIA Attorney I.D.No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill,PA 17011 (717)730-3775 Attorney for Defendants LAWRENCE L. COLE, and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 2011-3954 Civil Term T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST Defendants DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 1. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The property that is the subject of this action is more than the property owned by Defendants, and includes Plaintiffs' property. 2. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The property that is the subject of this action is more than the property owned by Defendants, and includes Plaintiffs' property. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. Defendants have no direct knowledge of the facts set forth in this averment. By way of further denial, the facts giving rise to the hearing and Defendants' Motion related thereto occurred in April, 2013 — immediately prior to the events set forth in Plaintiffs' averment #4 regarding the scheduling of their vacation. It was foreseeable to Plaintiffs at that time that the conduct of which Defendants' complained would result in a hearing. 5. Denied. Defendant Paul Rast had already arranged for time off from his place of employment (prior to Plaintiffs' request) so that he could attend the hearing on August 2nd, 2013. Rescheduling the hearing at this time would create another hardship for Mr. Rast related to such work issues. 6. Admitted. By way of further answer, Paul Rast has already taken time off from work for this hearing. Wherefore, Defendants request that Plaintiffs' Motion be denied. Respectfully submitted, Dated: David J. Lanza Attorney I.D. #55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendants 9 Y � u CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this (111-day of July, 2013, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mail at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: Nathan Wolf 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 By: David Lanza 12 NATHAN C.WOLF,ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO.87380 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717)241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEVS CW-, KIMBERLY R. COLE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYgA�A :7: M Husband and wife, Plaintiffs No. 2011-3954 CIVIL TERM VS. T. PAUL RAST and CIVIL ACTION- IN EQUITY ROBYNE G. RAST CD Husband and wife, Defendants PETITION FOR RELEASE OF BOND AND NOW come the plaintiffs,Lawrence L. Cole and Kimberly R. Cole,by and through their attorney,Nathan C.Wolf,Esquire,and file this Petition to Release Bond and in support thereof avers the following: 1. Lawrence L. Cole and Kimberly R. Cole,hereinafter"Plaintiffs,"are adult individuals who reside at,and are the owners of the property at, 1271 Kuhn Road,Boiling Springs, Cumberland County,Pennsylvania 17007,which property abuts the property that is the subject of this action. 2. T. Paul Rast and Robyne G. Rast,hereinafter"Defendants," are adult individuals who reside at,and are the owners of the property at, 1265 Kuhn Road,Boiling Springs,Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17007,which property is the subject of this action.. 3. On or about April 28,2011,Plaintiffs filed Complaint in Equity against the Defendants for violations of the restrictive covenants pertaining to White Rock Acres Subdivision. 4. On or about May 10,2011,Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Injunctive Relief seeking a temporary injunction against Defendants. 5. The Court held a hearing on June 10,2011 and issued an Order granting a preliminary injunction directing the Defendants to comply with the covenants restrictions and reservations applicable to White Rock Acres. 6. Plaintiffs posted bond as required by the Court as a condition of the temporary injunction. 7. Following the hearing, discovery requests were sent to Defendants which went unanswered until after Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery and award sanctions and the Court granted such motion in its Order of November 22, 2011,reducing the bond from$2500.00 to $500.00. 8. Contemporaneous with the filing of the instant petition,Plaintiffs have filed a praecipe to discontinue and end this litigation. 9. In light of the end of the litigation, Plaintiffs now request the Court issue an Order releasing the bond in the amount of$500.00 held by the Prothonotary. 10. The Honorable Edward E. Guido is the judge assigned to this case. WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court: issue an Order directing the Prothonotary to release the amount of$500.00 held as bond in this matter in light of the discontinuance of the pending litigation, along with any additional relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just. Respectfully submi , WOLF &WOL torneys at Law Dated:July 23,2013 By: Nathan .i { If, Esquire 10 Wes High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Supreme Court I.D. No. 87380 (717) 241-4436 Attorney for Plaintiffs NATHAN C.WOLF,ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO.87380 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717)241-4436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L. COLE and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Husband and wife, Plaintiffs No.2011-3954 CIVIL TERM VS. T. PAUL RAST and CIVIL ACTION - IN EQUITY ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned,hereby certify that on the date indicated below,I caused a true and correct copy of the-foregoing Petition for Release of Bond.to be served upon the below-listed party, addressed as follows: David J. Lanza,Esquire 2132 Market Street Camp Hill,PA 17011 (Counsel for Defendants) Dated:July 2013 Na a *olf, Esquire Na a Atto y for Plaintiffs NATHAN C.WOLF,ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO.87380 WOLF&WOLF,ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717)2414436 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS LAWRENCE L.COLE and :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R.COLE :CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Husband and wife, Plaintiffs :No.2011-3954 CIVIL TERM V. c T. PAUL RAST and IN EQUITY T ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, ' Defendants rte-Z ©c) A� CD-i PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark this action discontinued and ended. July ,2013 NAT40Kt. WOLF, ESQUIRE WOL & OLF 10 We igh Street Carlisle, PA 17013-2922 717-241-4436 SUPREME COURT,ID #87380 Attorney for Plaintiffs _ David J. Lanza ry Attorney I.D.No. 55782 r: cn C `; 2132 Market Street -•: Camp Hill,PA 17011 c (717)730-3775 1 4.-- Attorney for Defendants LAWRENCE L. COLE, and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiffs : PENNSYLVANIA • v. : NO. 2011-3954 Civil Term T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST : Defendants • • DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR RELEASE OF BOND 1. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The property that is the subject of this action is more than the property owned by Defendants, and includes Plaintiffs' property. 2. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. The property that is the subject of this action is more than the property owned by Defendants, and includes Plaintiffs' property. 3. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. It is denied that Defendants have committed violations. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in Part. Denied in Part. By way of further answer, the Order speaks for itself. 6. Admitted. By way of further answer, the bond was required as security for Defendants' costs in the event of circumstances similar to those that have arisen in recent days and weeks in this case. 7. Denied. The discovery requests did not go unanswered. Defendants served objections, which objections were overruled. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiffs are entitled to the return of the bond. This Court conducted a telephone conference with counsel for both parties on June 22, 2013, at which time the Court indicated its willingness to require Plaintiffs to compensate Defendant Paul Rast for his costs associated with cancelling a work day to attend the hearing of August 2nd 2013. Defendants communicated their costs associated with missing work for the August 2nd hearing to Plaintiffs prior to discovering that the case would be withdrawn. A true and correct copy of said correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." As set forth in the attached correspondence, Defendant Paul Rast's expenses exceed the amount of the bond. Defendants are entitled to be reimbursed for this expense due to Plaintiffs' failure to withdraw this action until 10 days before the hearing and two months after Defendant Paul Rast rescheduled his work to accomodate the hearing. 10. Admitted. 9 Wherefore, Defendants request that Plaintiffs' Petition be denied and that the bond be delivered to Defendants. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 2�1l 3 David J.`Lanza Attorney I.D. #55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendants 10 VERIFICATION I, David Lanza, verify that I am authorized to make the statements herein and that the statements made in the foregoing Motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The aforesaid statements constitute legal conclusions, matters of record and facts known to counsel. Additional information has been provided by Defendant Paul Rast. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsfication to authorities. Dated: `l 12‘I David Lanza 12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 26atiday of July, 2013, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mail at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: Nathan Wolf 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 By: /// David Lanza 13 S LAWRENCE L. COLE and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Husband and wife, Plaintiffs : No. 2011-3954 CIVIL TERM vs. T. PAUL RAST and IN EQUITY ROBYNE G. RAST Husband and wife, Defendants ORDER OF COURT y of AND NOW, this X044 day ,,r/ , 2013,upon consideration of the attached Petition, the Prothonotary is directed to release to Plaintiffs' counsel the amounts of$500.00 held as bond in the above-captioned matter. BY THE OURT: Edward E. Guido,J. Distribution: Nathan C.Wolf,Esquire,for Plaintiffs David J.Lanza,Esquire for Defendants Prothonotary -0 a w rn co G_ ice_ . i (.J) r c-) <C �a Tom}.c- c. Cf Check Date: 07/29/2013 2248 * Case No. Defendant Descriptions Amt Released Receipt 11-03954 COLE LAWRENCE L REFUND 500 . 00 293700 JD L r--s) 7.2 Check Amount INFOc51QCQRP@ATION[L1558HB]4681375 David D. Buell ORRSTOWN BANK SHIPPENSBURG,PA CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY OFFICE 60-15031313 GENERAL FUND 1 COURTHOUSE SQUARE.SUITE 100 CARLISLE,PA 17013 CHECK DATE CHECK NUMBER FAY THIS AMOUNT .§ 5 07/29/2013 2248 $500 . 00 -6 Five Hundred And 00/100 Dollars ' TO THE ORDER OF WOLF NATHAN C ESQ WOLF & WOLF 10 WEST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 A 4 .TL.710RIZED SIG ATURE 000 2 2 148111 1:0113 SO 3 61: 108 1L117 111' RECEIPT FOR TRANSFER Cumberland County Prothonotary' s Office Receipt Date 07/29/2013 Carlisle, Pa 17013 Receipt Time 11 : 24 : 05 Receipt No. 293700 COLE LAWRENCE L 1271 KUHN ROAD BOILING SPRINGS, PA 17007 Case Number 2011-03954 Remarks RELEASE BY 0 OF C DATED 07-26 13 - J. GUIDO Distribution Of Adjustment Transaction Payee This Adj BOND PROTHONOTARY ESCROW 500 . 00- REFUND WOLF NATHAN C ESQ 500 . 00 11260707292013 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page: 1 PYS380 Check Register Costs & Fees Tran Receipt Case Trans Check Check Check Payee Name - Rel Date Desc No No Amount Date No Amount WOLF NATHAN C ESQ REFUND 7/29/2013 TRNS ESC IN 293700 11-03954 500.00 07/29/2013 2248 500.00 ** Total Amount Released 500.00 End of Listing - 'Q 111iJi :!3 J _ 29 P�j • �,��i°1!-��.taL� l4��v�4t David J. Lanza P EHHSY L;A Attorney I.D.No. 55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill,PA 17011 (717)730-3775 Attorney for Defendants LAWRENCE L. COLE, and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KIMBERLY R. COLE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiffs : PENNSYLVANIA v. • : NO. 2011-3954 Civil Term T. PAUL RAST and ROBYNE G. RAST : Defendants • • DEFENDANTS' PRAECIPE TO ADD VERIFICATION and EXHIBIT "A" To the Prothonotary: Please file the attached verification page and Exhibit "A" as part of Defendants' Answer filed on July 26th, 2013. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 1-14 13 David J. Lanza Attorney I.D. #55782 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 730-3775 Attorney for Defendants LAW OFF ICES David J. Lanza 2132 Market Street TELEPHONE 717-730-3775 Camp Hill,PA 17011 FACSIMILE 717-730-3778 EMAIL djlaw @pa.net July 23, 2013 Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Via facsimile to 241-4437 Re: 2011-3954 Dear Mr. Wolf: In response to our discussion yesterday morning, the following is relevant to your request for a continuance. Dr. Paul Rast, in May, scheduled time off from work to be at the hearing of August 2nd. He has been replaced at work for that day and will lose the income from that day in the amount of$ 1,470.00. We request this amount in exchange for any continuance that may be granted. The following dates are available for Dr. Rast, my co-counsel and me: August 22, 26, 29, September 10 and 18. I am attached for a lengthy jury trial in October and am unavailable at that time. Please do not hesitate to call me if you wish to discuss this matter. Very tru lours, David J. Lanza cc: Dr. Paul Rast Emily Hoffman, Esquire VERLFWATION 1, Pau} Rest. verify that 1 am authorized to make the statements herein and that the statements made in the foregoing Motion are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of IR PaC.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: "1-?iii //3 Dr. Paul Rast 1 I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this IA/day of July, 2013, I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mail at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, addressed to: Nathan Wolf 10 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 By: David Lanza 9