Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-5378SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson FILED-OFF ICLs tat.. O i Sheriff r THE PRO ? HQ .CR??t??a ?? Clrttl?IPr???t * 22 Jody S Smith ? C01IJULt 1 AM11. Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart CUMBERLAND ? I CT Solicitor PENNSYLVANIA Guenther W. Reitter vs. Betsy C. Neilson Case Number 2011-5378 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 07/07/2011 04:50 PM - Amanda Cobaugh, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on July 7, 2011 at 1650 hours, she served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Betsy C. Neilson, by making known unto herself personally, at 5257 Terrace Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $38.44 July 08, 2011 AMANDA COBAUGH, DEP4jjY SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF Cou-ya tc Sren'i Te . uq Irc DELANO M. LANTZ & ASSOCIATES By: Delano M. Lantz, Esquire Identification No. 21401 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-422-5874 717-422-5879 (fax) GUENTHER W. REITTER, Plaintiff V. BETSY C. NEILSON, VICKI P. AYCOCK, Defendants i? ILED`?i i` iCE C'7 THE PRO TI IIf3Tr 2011 JUL 26 PM 2: 47 CUMBERLAND COUN ` PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 11-5378 CIVIL ACTION PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please reinstate the Complaint in the above-captioned matter for service on Defendant Vicki P. Aycock. Dated: July 26, 2011 DELANO MAANTZ & ASSOCIATES By; Delano M. Lantz ` (/ I.D. No. 21401 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-422-5874 717-422-5879 (fax) %It}eoW6 0-I eviA, laos 1?4- SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson _ r k Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor y ` t? ' i ar;:G?ti Guenther W. Reitter Case Number vs. 2011-5378 Betsy C. Neilson (et al.) SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 08/01/2011 Ronny R. Anderson, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Vicki P. Aycock, but was unable to locate her in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of York County, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint and Notice according to law. 08/02/2011 Richard P. Keuerleber, Sheriff of York County, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on August 2, 2011 this Complaint and Notice upon defendant Vicki P. Aycock is returned not served per request from Attorney Delano M. Lantz. SHERIFF COST: $37.44 August 08, 2011 SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF DELANO M. LANTZ & ASSOCIATES By: Delano M. Lantz, Esquire Identification No. 21401 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-422-5874 717-422-5879 (fax) GUENTHER W. REITTER, Plaintiff v. BETSY C. NEILSON, VICKI P. AYCOCK, Defendants 2011 AUG 16 PM 3: P! rUMBERLAWD ?.+?JU , PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 11-5378 CIVIL ACTION ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I hereby accept service of the Complaint in the above matter on behalf of Defendant Vicki P. Aycock and certify that I am authorized to do so. SAIDIS SULLIVAN LAW By: I.D. No. SOUC 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Vicki P. Aycock Dated: "?-y .'- ( , 7-') kl GUENTHER W. REITTER, V. BETSY C. NEILSON, VICKI P. AYCOCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff Docket No.: 11-5378 Civil Action - Law 0 ;zm C= -?? © (:D ° ?- 4o ?, C)` ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance in the above-captioned matter on behalf of Defendant, Betsy C. Neilson. Please direct all future correspondence regarding this matter to the undersigned. Date: 2011 Craig I. Adler, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 52970 Capozzi & Associates, P.C. 2933 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1250 (717) 233-4101 GUENTHER W. REITTER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. BETSY C. NEILSON, VICKI P. AYCOCK, Defendant Docket No.: 11-5378 Civil Action - Law NOTICE TO PLEAD b n Iz- TO: Plaintiff, Guenther W. Reitter: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE O ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE 4N HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Date: / Craig I. Adler, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 52970 Capozzi & Associates, P.C. 2933 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1250 (717) 233-4101 Attorney for Defendant Betsy C. Neilson GUENTHER W. REITTER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. Docket No.: 11-5378 BETSY C. NEILSON, VICKI P. AYCOCK, Defendant Civil Action - Law DEFENDANT, BETSY C. NEILSON'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Defendant, Betsy C. Neilson, by her attorneys, Capozzi & Associates, P.C., to answer and further respond to Plaintiffs Complaint in this matter; and, as to Plaintiffs' allegations therein, states: 1. After a reasonable investigation the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 2. Admitted. 3. After a reasonable investigation the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph. Strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. COUNTI 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. By way of further response, Exhibit "A" is a written document which speaks for itself. 8. Admitted. By way of further response, Exhibit "B" is a written document which speaks for itself. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson entered into the Agreement, attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "C", on November 1, 1979. By way of further response, Exhibit "C" is a written document which speaks for itself. Further, pursuant to the Doctrine of Merger, the November 1, 1979 Agreement is superseded by the Deed dated June 22, 1988, and recorded on October 7, 1988, and since none of the terms of the November 1, 1979 Agreement were incorporated in the Deed recorded on October 7, 1988, it is denied that the terms of said November 1, 1979 Agreement are still controlling regarding Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson. 11. Denied. Exhibit "C" is a written document which speaks for itself. 12. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff moved into the property in March 1980. As for the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Complaint, it is denied that Defendant Neilson moved out of the property in March 1989, but instead, such action took place in the later part of 1989. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded thereof. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on June 22, 1998, Plaintiff conveyed the property to Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson, through the Deed attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "D". It is specifically denied that said action was pursuant to the November 1, 1979 Agreement, but said action was instead based on a new agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson related to their engagement status at the time. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded thereof. By way of further response, Exhibit "D" is a written document which speaks for itself. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Deed is dated June 22, 1988, and that said Deed was recorded on October 7, 1988. As for the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the remaining allegations in this paragraph. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded thereof. By way of further response, Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson. agreed not to file the deed until Plaintiff was satisfied that it was accurate, and when he informed Defendant Neilson of his approval of accuracy of the deed in October 1988, Defendant Neilson recorded the deed on October 7, 1988. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Neilson moved out of the home located on the property in 1989. It is denied that Defendant Neilson moved out of the property in March 1989, but instead, such action took place in the later part of 1989. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded thereof. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Defendant Neilson has never been excluded from the property by Plaintiff. 16. Admitted. 17. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of Defendant's New Matter are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that Plaintiff is required to answer, Plaintiff specifically denies the allegations contained in this paragraph and demands strict proof thereof. By way of further response, pursuant to the Doctrine of Merger, the November 1, 1979 Agreement was superseded by the Deed dated June 22, 1988, and recorded on October 7, 1988, and since none of the terms of the November 1, 1979 Agreement were incorporated in the Deed recorded on October 7, 1988, the terms of said Agreement are no longer controlling regarding Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson. 18. Denied. Exhibit "E" is a written document which speaks for itself. 19. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a dispute exists between Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson, as to any alleged obligations Defendant Neilson may have regarding any expenses addressed in Exhibit "E" to Plaintiff's Complaint. It is further admitted that a dispute exists between Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson, as to any alleged obligations Defendant Neilson may have regarding any expenses pursuant to a November 1, 1979 Agreement, as, pursuant to the Doctrine of Merger, the November 1, 1979 Agreement was superseded by the Deed dated June 22, 1988, and recorded on October 7, 1988, and since none of the terms of the November 1, 1979 Agreement were included in the aforementioned Deed, the terms of said Agreement are no longer controlling regarding Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson. As to the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the remaining allegations in this paragraph. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded thereof. 20. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a dispute exists between Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson, as to the proper allocation of net proceeds from a future sale of all or portions of the property. By way of further response, pursuant to the Doctrine of Merger, the November 1, 1979 Agreement was superseded by the Deed dated June 22, 1988, and recorded on October 7, 1988, and since none of the terms of the November 1, 1979 Agreement were included in the Deed dated June 22, 1988, and recorded on October 7, 1988, said Agreement is no longer controlling regarding Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson. As to the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the remaining allegations in this paragraph. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded thereof. 22(sic). Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Defendant's New Matter are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that Plaintiff is required to answer, Plaintiff specifically denies the allegations contained in this paragraph and demands strict proof thereof. 23(sic). Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth or veracity of the remaining allegations in this paragraph. Therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded thereof. By way of further response, pursuant to the Doctrine of Merger, the November 1, 1979 Agreement was superseded by the Deed dated June 22, 1988, and recorded on October 7, 1988, and since none of the terms of the November 1, 1979 Agreement were included in the Deed dated June 22, 1988, and recorded on October 7, 1988, said Agreement is no longer controlling regarding Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Betsy C. Neilson, demands that Plaintiff's cause of action be dismissed, and that judgment be entered for Defendant Neilson and against Plaintiff, along with Defendant Neilson's costs and attorneys' fees. NEW MATTER Defendant Neilson, pursuant to Pa. R.Civ.P. Rule 1030, as a further defense against each of the Counts of Plaintiff's Complaint, pleads the following Affirmative Defenses: 24(sic). Answering Defendant incorporates the averments of her Paragraphs 1 through 23(sic) as if set forth herein in their entirety. 25(sic). Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands. 26(sic). In 2008, Camp Hill Borough negotiated the acquisition of rights-of- way in connection with the 27th Street Pedestrian Underpass Rehabilitation Project, and the Solicitor was in communication with Plaintiff in connection with the acquisition of property owned by Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson, but Plaintiff never communicated any of the information with Defendant Neilson. 27(sic). Plaintiff acknowledged Defendant Neilson's fifty percent (50%) ownership of the property when Plaintiff agreed to split the proceeds for the 27th Street Pedestrian Underpass Rehabilitation Project fifty percent-fifty percent (50%150%), after the Solicitor of Camp Hill Borough subsequently notified Defendant Neilson of the acquisition of the property owned by Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson. 28(sic). Plaintiff took out a second mortgage on the property owned by Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson, but Defendant Neilson was never notified of said mortgage, was never asked to sign off on it, and said mortgage was never agreed to by Defendant Neilson. Further, there is no indication that Fulton Bank approved of, or agreed to, said second mortgage. 29(sic). Pursuant to the Doctrine of Merger, a deed will supersede previous legal documents governing the transfer, including the real estate contract. 30(sic). In this matter, pursuant to the Doctrine of Merger, the Deed dated June 22, 1988, and recorded on October 7, 1988, supersedes the November 1, 1979 Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson, and since none of the terms of the November 1, 1979 Agreement were included in the Deed dated June 22, 1988, and recorded on October 7, 1988, the terms of said Agreement are no longer controlling regarding Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson. 31(sic). When more than one person owns an interest in Pennsylvania real estate, and the owners cannot agree on the management or sale of the property, a special type of equity proceeding called a Partition Action is the way to resolve the issues in court. 32(sic). The respective rights of the parties to the net proceeds from the sale of all or any portion of the property should be addressed through a Partition Action, and since Plaintiff and Defendant Neilson are joint tenants, and therefore share equal ownership of the property and have the equal, undivided right to keep or dispose of the property, they should equally divide the proceeds of the sale. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Betsy C. Neilson, demands that Plaintiff's cause of action be dismissed, and that judgment be entered for Defendant Neilson and against Plaintiff, along with Defendant Neilson's costs and attorneys' fees, or in the alternative, Defendant, Betsy C. Neilson, requests that this matter be referred to a panel for disposition, pursuant to the Rules of Court regarding Partition. Respectfully submitted, Date: Craig I. Adler, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 52970 Capozzi & Associates, P.C. 2933 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1250 (717) 233-4101 Attorney for Defendant Betsy C. Neilson GUENTHER W. REITTER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. Docket No.: 11-5378 BETSY C. NEILSON, VICKI P. AYCOCK, Defendant Civil Action - Law VERIFICATION I, Betsy C. Neilson, do hereby verify that the facts made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements therein are subject to the penalties contained in Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: Betsy C. N lson GUENTHER W. REITTER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. Docket No.: 11-5378 BETSY C. NEILSON, VICKI P. AYCOCK, Defendant Civil Action - Law CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that, on the date below written, he served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matter, upon the persons listed below, at the addresses below, by First Class, Prepaid U.S. Mail: Delano M. Lantz, Esquire 4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Dean E. Reynosa, Esquire Saidis, Sullivan & Rogers 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Vicki P. Aycock Date: Craig I. A er, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 52970 Capozzi & Associates, P.C. 2933 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1250 (717) 233-4101 Attorney for Defendant Betsy C. Neilson GUENTHER W. REITTER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. Docket No.: 11-5378 BETSY C. NEILSON, VICKI P. AYCOCK, Defendant Civil Action—Law PRAECIPE FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Kindly enter the new mailing address of Capozzi &Associates, P.C. and Craig I. Adler, Esquire, counsel for Defendant Betsy C. Neilson, as follows: Capozzi Adler, P. C. P.O. Box 5866 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Z -'t1= Should the Court require a street address, it is as follows: Co r_ Capozzi Adler, P.C. V}. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 ' CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. Date: ul R. Van Fleet, Esq. Supreme Court ID: 312135 P.O. Box 5866 Harrisburg, PA 17011 Phone: (717) 233-4101 Fax: (717) 233-4103 GUENTHER W. REITTER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. BETSY C. NEILSON AND VICKI P. AYCOCK, DEFENDANTS 11-5378 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this "o day of April, 2013, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. Nos. 212.3 and 212.5 counsel shall appear for a pretrial status/scheduling/settlement conference on the 29th day of May, 2013, at 8:30 a.m., in chambers. Prior to the conference, counsel shall discuss and attempt to resolve any outstanding discovery/evidentiary issues, and shall discuss with their clients not only settlement options, but also prospects for a mediated resolution. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. /elano M. Lantz, Esquire For Plaintiff /Craig I.Adler, Esquire C For Betsy C. Neilson Aean E. Reynoza, Esquire • For Vicki P. Aycock Court Administrator :sal < GUENTHER W. REITTER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. BETSY C. NEILSON AND VICKI P. AYCOCK, DEFENDANTS 11-5378 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of May, 2013, following a pretrial/settlement conference with counsel, based upon the representation that the parties intend to proceed with mediation, the court refrains from further scheduling. If the mediation proves unsuccessful, the court will schedule an additional conference or trial at the request of a party. By the Court, ,�-- Albert H. Masland, J. Delano M. Lantz, Esquire For Plaintiff �aig I. Adler, Esquire For Betsy C. Neilson ,,15ean E. Reynosa, Esquire For Vicki P. Aycock Court Administrator - Lgcrxl- t,J 40t tc- :sal Z s to CD t£S SAO-; . CD