HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-4108LAW OFFICES OF DILS & DILS
ARTHUR K. DILS, ESQUIRE
Attorney I.D. No. 07056
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Telephone No. (717) 232-9724
Attorney for Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc.
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs. NO. 2004 - 7!O 1S Civil Term
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NOTICE TO DEFEND
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the
claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action within (20)
days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance
personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or
objections t the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do
so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you
by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for
any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lost money or
property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE,
GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO
FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-3166
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant
NO. 2004 - y/ O'i Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, this /&4ay of August 2004, comes the Plaintiff, Crockett
Log Homes of Pa., Inc., by his attorney, Arthur K. Dils, Esquire, and respectfully
avers the following:
COUNTI
BREACH OF CONTRACT
1. The Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania Business Corporation duly licensed by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its' principal place of business at 58
Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Silver Spring Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania 17050. G. Douglas Dodson is the President of said
Corporation.
2. The Defendants, Donald E. Vernet and Brenda L. Vernet, his wife, are
adult individuals residing at 3111 Enola Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania 17013.
3. The Defendants entered into a written contract with the Plaintiff
Corporation on July 31, 2003. A copy of said Contract is attached hereto
and marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
4. The Contract provided that the Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc.,
was to construct a high energy efficient log building for use as a residence.
5. The Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., and the Defendants
prepared and reviewed plans and specifications for the construction of the
building and the Defendants agreed to these construction specifications and
plans.
6. The Plaintiff was to perform all necessary labor and to furnish the required
materials as set forth in said specifications.
7. The consideration for this construction project was agreed upon, in that, the
Defendants agreed to pay the sum of $150,314.00 to the Plaintiff, Crockett
Log Homes of Pa., Inc.
8. Prior to the signing of the Contract, but in accordance with the formal
written agreement entered into on July 31, 2003, the Defendants paid
$1,500.00 toward the agreed upon construction price.
9. The Plaintiff also gave the Defendants credit for a $1,000.00 coupon
obtained at a sales seminar.
10. As a result of the aforesaid credits, the Defendants agreed to pay the
balance of the construction price amounting to $147,814.00. The parties to
the Agreement agreed to a draw schedule.
11. The Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., began construction on or
about August 23, 2003, and had performed approximately 99% of the
construction work by the first or second week of April 2004.
12. The Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., provided all the materials
as required by the Agreement.
13. The Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., consulted continually with
the Defendants to make any changes that they desired and to completely
satisfy them.
14. The Plaintiff completed all work in a proper, good, and workmanlike
manner.
15. Sometime in early April 2004, the Plaintiff appeared at the building site
and conferred with the Defendant, Donald E. Vernet, at which time the
Defendant indicated that the construction of the job was basically
completed and he was satisfied with same.
16. The next day, G. Douglas Dodson, the President of the Plaintiff
Corporation, went to the job site to check on the condition of certain
foundation posts and was ordered off of the job site by the Defendant,
Donald E. Verner. Mr. Verner said, "I don't want you to get any deeper
into this because I'm seeking legal help and it will be a long drawn out
court case." The Defendant, Donald E. Vernet, did not specify any reasons
nor give any complaints.
17. During the construction process, the Defendant, Donald E. Vernet,
approached G. Douglas Dodson, the President, of the Plaintiff Corporation
and asked for various changes and modifications to the aforesaid agreed
upon specification and plans. Among these requests were:
(a.) change a double window to a French door;
(b.) change a single door to a French door;
(c.) tongue and groove wall covering on bottom side of second floor porch
deck floor;
(d) helped with the electrical wires on the second floor, floor joists;
(e.) helped wire porches; and
(f.) put up a catwalk across the loft area.
18. The Defendants had constructed a foundation. The anticipated and
proposed foundation was to be 14 feet wide, but the Defendant caused it to
be reduced to a 12 foot wide foundation. The Plaintiff, because of this
change, had to redesign the construction project.
19. The Plaintiff had hired and subcontracted with a subcontractor, Bruce
Dunlavy. This subcontractor was to help in the building of the residence.
The Plaintiff was under the impression that the plans and specifications and
his construction responsibility was to be from the foundation up. In other
words, the Defendants were responsible for all foundation work. The
Defendants had the first floor system completed before the Plaintiff began
its construction work.
20. The Defendant, Donald E. Vernet, without the knowledge of the Plaintiff,
instructed the subcontractor, Dunlavy, to install foundation posts.
21. As a result, the subcontractor, Dunlavy, installed posts in the foundation.
22. At or about the time that the Defendants ordered the Plaintiff off of the job
site, Donald E. Vernet made a statement to the Plaintiff that he was
concerned about one of the foundation posts.
23. On the day that the Plaintiff was ordered off the job site, G. Douglas
Dodson went to the site to check the foundation posts, even though he was
not legally responsible to do so, because of the Defendant's, Donald E.
Vernet's, instructions to the subcontractor, Dunlavy.
24. The Defendants prevented the Plaintiff from accomplishing this inspection.
25. After being ordered off the job, the Plaintiff had his attorney write a letter
to the Defendants, Verret, in an attempt to resolve any problems between
the parties. Said letter is dated April 13, 2004, marked Exhibit "B" and
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
26. As a result of this letter, there was another meeting between the Plaintiff
and the Defendants in mid-May 2004, at which time access was permitted
to the foundation area and the Plaintiff observed a temporary post and
offered to rectify that problem. Donald E. Vernet indicated that he did not
want the Plaintiff to accomplish this and refused further payment.
Defendant stated they would let Plaintiff know about the past due payment
due the Plaintiff, but failed to communicate with Plaintiff after that time.
The Defendants have willfully refused to make any further payments.
27. In accordance with the contract, the Defendants have paid the Plaintiff the
sum of one hundred thirty thousand, four hundred eighty-five and no/100
dollars ($130,485.00) in the following installments: $25,000.00,
$64,060.00, $12,425.00, $12,000.00, $10,000.00, and $7,000.00.
28. The Defendants have failed to pay the balance of the agreed contract. The
amount due is seventeen thousand, three hundred twenty-nine and no/100
dollars ($17,329.00).
29. Repeated demands have been made upon the Defendants for this sum and
the Defendants have failed to make payment.
30. Said sum is due and owing to the Plaintiff and the Defendants have
indicated no just cause or reason why said sum should not be paid.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants in the
amount of seventeen thousand, three hundred twenty-nine and no/100 dollars
($17,329.00) and interest, all costs of suit, and attorney's fees, said amount
requires referral to a Board of Arbitration.
COUNT II
QUANTUM MERUIT
31. The Defendants requested additional work outside of the contract which
required labor and material.
32. The Defendants specifically requested that the Plaintiff change a double
window to a French door. The total cost for labor and materials for this
requested change is $300.00.
33. The Defendants specifically requested that the Plaintiff change a single
door to a French door. The total cost for labor and materials for this
requested change is $400.00.
34. The Defendants requested the Plaintiff to install railings. The total cost for
labor and materials for this requested change is $1,100.00.
35. The Defendants requested the Plaintiff to install a catwalk. The total cost
for labor and materials for this requested change is $800.00.
36. The Defendants requested the Plaintiff to build two additional doors. The
total cost for labor and materials for this additional work is $200.00.
37. The Defendants requested the Plaintiff to assist with electrical wiring on
the second floor and floor joists and assist in the wiring of the porches.
The total cost for labor and materials for this additional work is $500.00.
38. The Defendants requested the Plaintiff to assist in the tongue and groove
wall covering on bottom side of second floor porch and deck floor. The
total cost for labor and materials for this additional work is $600.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants in the
amount of Three Thousand Nine Hundred and no1100 ($3,900.00) Dollars
plus interest, attorney's fees, and all costs, said amount requires referral to
a Board of Arbitration.
Respectfully submitted,
BY:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
EXHIBIT "A"
Contract
THIS CONTRACT, made the 31st day of July 2003, between Brenda and Don
Vemet of 3111 Enola Drive, Carlisle, PA hereinafter called OWNER, and Crockett Log
Homes of PA, Inc. 58 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050, hereinafter
called CONTRACTOR, agree as follows:
The Owner represents that he is the real and registered Owner of the property
situated at 3111 Enola Drive, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
WHEREAS, the Contractor has agreed to do the work as indicated upon the said
plans and set forth in the specifications which are initialed by the parties.
In consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, it is agreed that each
party intending to be legally bound and the Owner desiring that the home be constructed
for private use, the parties hereby agree as follows:
(1) That the Contractor, for the consideration hereinafter mentioned and referred
to, hereby covenants and agrees with the Owner that he will do the work set forth in the
plans and specifications in a good and workmanlike manner, and in accordance therewith,
as well as with the rules and regulations of any city and county department, and of any
public service corporation supplying or which will in future supply services on the said
premises and does further agree to do and perform all of the work, supply and furnish all
of the labor and materials as set forth in the plans and specifications and necessary for the
proper performance of the said work which the Contractor does hereby undertake to
complete.
(2) That the Owner shall pay to the Contractor the sum of $150,314.00 as needed
with $1,500.00 Initial Deposit and $1,000.00 Coupon already paid.
(3) The total agreed construction price between the parties is that the Contractor
shall be paid the total remaining sum of $147,814.00 on a draw schedule,
(4) The Contractor hereby agrees that all construction shall be complete as set
forth within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of initial construction provided
that the Contractor is not delayed in the completion of this work by strikes, by failure of
the Owner to furnish funds or other matters, or other happenings beyond his control. If
such a delay is caused, the time of such delay shall not be included in the time during
which this contract is to be fully performed as herein provided, but such time shall be
extended for a period equal to the period of such delay.
(5) In the event that the Contractor is delayed in the performance and completion
of his work under this contract by any act, neglect, or default of the Owner or any
damage or delay caused by fire, delays in transportation, acts of God, acts of war, strikes
or any other casualty, vandalism, or calamity for which the Contractor is not responsible
or any event not under his control, the time herein fixed for the completion of the work
under this contract shall be extended for a period equal to the amount of time lost by
reason of any such causes, provided nevertheless the Contractor shall give Owner notice
of such delay and take reasonable steps to cure such delay.
(6) No changes or alterations in the work to be done under this contract shall be
made except by written contract of the parties hereto.
(7) The Owner shall pay for any additional costs in construction if there is any
rock or unfavorable building conditions, provided notice is first given to Owner and
Owner approves such additional costs.
(8) The Owner cannot move in until the Contractor is paid in full and Contractor
has substantially completed said construction excepting reasonable items of work undone
to affecting habitability.
(9) If there by any disagreement between the parties hereto concerning any
aspects of this contract, the Contractor shall have the option and the parties are bound by
this option, to either have the disagreement resolved through a Board of Arbitration or
through the ort of Common Pleas, under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
(10) It is understood and agreed that the Contractor does not assume any risks or
liability if the building is not erected within the time period set forth herein, unless such
delay is caused directly or indirectly by Contractor or Contractor's control.
(11) This Contract shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors,
administrators, and assigns of the respective parties hereto.
(12) The Owner will be responsible for but not limited to the following labor
and material:
Landscaping/seeding
Sanding, Painting and Polyurethaning the interior
Application of Exterior Weatherseal
Foundation
Plumbing and Fixtures
Heating
Air Conditioning
Electric and Fixtures
Kitchen, All Cabinets and Counters, Appliances
Floor Covering -- C?"?`( rd] ?? f,
Fireplace
s?pQl?'e? ?(I ?G?cn F/Oor
(13) Contractor is not responsible for permits and utility to house.
Signed and sealed the day and year first above wri n.
t tttTe(s wn r
?h?
w Owner
i W
Witness
D
C ntract0
Crockett g Homes of PA, Inc.
EXHIBIT "B"
_0? & 0141
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1017 NORTH FRONT STREET
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17102
ARTHUR K. OILS
DIANE M. DILS
April 13, 2004
Brenda and Don Vernet
3111 Enola Drive
Carlisle, PA 17013
Dear Brenda and Don:
PHONE: (717) 233-8743
FAX: (717) 233-2567
I represent Douglas Dodson, 58 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
17050, who is the President of Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. A contract was
entered into between the corporation and yourselves sometime in August 2003.
You recently have ordered Mr. Dodson and his employees, sub-contractors from
your premises. I have reviewed the blue prints, the contract, and the work
performed and it is my opinion that Mr. Dodson and the corporation are in
substantial compliance with the contract and that you have breached the contract
by failing to make final payments and by not permitting Mr. Dodson to finish the
minor items.
Brenda gave Mr. Dodson a list of things that needed to be completed. I have
reviewed that list and most of the items have been taken care of. Brenda
mentioned the sealer and kitchen flooring and Mr. Dodson is ready, willing, and
able to supply these items. The trim around the kitchen was not completed because
Don said to wait, but this work can also be accomplished. The two items were not
discernable, namely; beams that need to go into the basement and more support to
the stairway into the basement. We would need clarification of these items, but I
assure you that Mr. Dodson would perform what is needed.
Recently, Mr. Dodson asked to view the basement area to verify that Bruce
Dunlavy completed the necessary posts in a proper manner. You refused Mr.
Dodson to view the basement and the posts. Enclosed is a copy of a brief history
of the job and its problems. Mr. Dodson is willing to consider any just complaints
that you have as he believes that he wants to sustain his integrity in the building
profession and wants to satisfy you as long as you have reasonable requests. The
total due Mr. Dodson at this time is $18,529.00. The final draw is $17,329.00 plus
$1,100.00 for railings, $200.00 for two doors built by Mr. Dodson, $900.00 for the
ceiling under the deck, $800.00 for the catwalk, $300.00 for changing a double
window to a french door, and $400.00 for a single door to a french door. A credit
of $2,500.00 was included in the demand figure for trusses that were not utilized.
You may feel free to contact me concerning this matter; however, we do want to
see that your contractual obligations are fulfilled and that this matter can be settled
quickly and amicably to the satisfaction of both you and your wife and Mr.
Dodson.
Very truly yours,
Arthur K. Dils
AKD/daf
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and
correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
z yxd9'
G. DOU AS DCROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.
Date: August 19, 2004
IN
CASE NO: 2004-04108 P
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA INC
VS
VERNET DONALD E ET AL
CPL. MICHAEL BARRICK
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
VERNET DONALD E
the
DEFENDANT , at 1442:00 HOURS, on the 23rd day of August 2004
at 3111 ENOLA DRIVE
CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to
DONALD VERNET
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriffs Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Service 3.70
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
.00
31.70
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this 14,r-- day of
tro`? A . D.t'notary j
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
08/24/2004
DILS & DILS
By:
Deputy She iff
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2004-04108 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA INC
VS
VERNET DONALD E ET AL
CPL. MICHAEL BARRICK
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
VERNET BRENDA L
the
DEFENDANT , at 1442:00 HOURS, on the 23rd day of August 2004
at 3111 ENOLA DRIVE
CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to
BRENDA VERNET
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs
Docketing 6.00
Service .00
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
.00
16.00
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this 1 ,4 day of
tplroeonotary'
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
08/24/2004
DILS & DILS? T
By.
Deputy Sheriff
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Wtj HUNIES Ur PA, INC.,
Plaintiffs
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2004-4108
NOTICE TO PLEAD
To: Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Law Offices of Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer, New Matter and
Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against
you.
Dated: September 27, 2004
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
Supreme Court I.D. 32317
Attorney for Defendants
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
CROCKETT LOG
V.
Plaintiffs
PA, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant
NO. 2004-4108
ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
COUNTI
BREACH OF CONTRACT
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. Paragraph 4 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required.
By way of further answer, it is averred that the contract is a writing which speaks for
itself and any paraphrasing by the Plaintiff is denied as a true and accurate statement of
the terms of the contract.
Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is denied that the Plaintiff and the Defendants
prepared plans and specifications for the construction of the building. It is averred that
Plaintiff prepared the plans and specifications in consultation with the engineer from
National Building Systems, Inc. d/b/a Crockett Log Homes, which entity Defendants
believed were the principal for Plaintiff. It is admitted that Plaintiff and the Defendants
did in fact review an Appendix A referenced Crockett Ultra R Log home sheet and
certain residence schematics. However, Defendants never received any other specific
specifications. It is further averred that an actual blueprint for the home was not
provided to the Defendants until after the contract was executed and Plaintiff had already
commenced building of the home. When Defendants asked for the blueprint at the time
of executing the contract, Plaintiff assured them it would be forthcoming and that they
would get all features exactly as discussed. This did not occur. It is further averred that
Plaintiff failed to construct the building in accordance with the schematics, Appendix A,
or the blueprint finally presented.
6. Admitted with the clarification that the contract specifically provided that the Plaintiff
agreed "...to do and perform all of the work, supply and furnish all of the labor and
materials as set forth in the plans and specifications and necessary for the performance of
the said work which Contractor does hereby undertake to complete."
Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted with the clarification that Defendants never actually received the coupon and
had understood the credit was to be One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00).
10. Admitted.
11. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff began construction on or
about August 23, 2003. It is denied that Plaintiff had completed approximately ninety-
nine percent (99%) of the construction work by the first or second week of April, 2004.
By further answer, it is averred that the entire construction should have been completed
in February, 2004. It is further asserted that the work that was completed was not
completed in a workmanlike fashion.
2
12. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant provided all the materials required by the
Agreement. It is averred that many of the materials were provided directly from Crocket
Log Homes, the principal of Defendant. It is further noted that many materials as listed
on the Appendix A were never provided including, but not limited to, Therma Tru door,
double windows, metal posts and plates, etc. as outlined in the Counterclaim and
incorporated herein.
13. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff consulted continually with the Defendants to make
changes that they desired. It is averred that the only change which Defendants requested
was an upgrade to the front door entrance. A change order was issued. Defendants are
without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that Plaintiff desired to
completely satisfy them. By way of further answer, it is averred that Defendants only
expected that Plaintiff comply with the terms of their agreement, the Appendix A and
schematics and plans. It is noted that many changes made in the project were made due
to a design error by Plaintiff and his principal, Crockett Log Homes. Plaintiff's agents
proceeded with the construction despite the request that the errors be corrected. Those
changes asset forth in paragraphs 44 through 103 of the Counterclaim were never desired
or requested by the Defendants.
14. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff completed the work in a proper, good and workmanlike
manner. As set forth in Counterclaim, which paragraphs are incorporated by reference, it
is asserted that the work was performed in an unsatisfactory and negligent manner.
15. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, Donald E. Vernet at any time in April, 2004 told
Plaintiff that the construction job was completed and that he was satisfied with same. At
all times relevant, Defendants advised Plaintiff of the continuing problems with the
construction, including, but not limited to, the failure to meet the contract specification
and plans, the problems with water entering the home, and the faulty workmanship. It is
further averred that at this meeting concerning the problems, Defendants declined
Plaintiff's request for a draw. Plaintiff was emotionally distraught and indicated to the
Defendants that he was concerned that Bruce Dunlavy, another Crockett Log Homes
builder who was actually erecting the home on Plaintiffs and Crockett Log Homes
behalf, was "trying to bring him down" and stated that "none of this is worth it" and that
he thought he "should end it all". This was extremely upsetting to the Defendants.
16. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that at some time in April, 2004,
specifically on April 8, 2004, approximately a week after the conversation referenced in
paragraph 15 above, Plaintiff did return to the Defendants' property. At all times relevant
thereto, Defendants believed that Plaintiff had come to attempt to repair the existing
problem with the front door. It is denied that Defendants ordered Plaintiff from the site.
However, Defendants did tell Plaintiff not to put any more time into the project because
of the extensive repairs which were necessary and the poor quality of the construction as
it then existed. Defendants did not want any further work to continue until such time as
the structural integrity of the home was verified. It is admitted that Dodson was advised
that Defendants were seeking legal, as well as engineering assistance, to determine the
appropriateness of the Plaintiffs performance to date. It is denied that Defendants did
not specify any reasons or give any complaints.
17. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that of the items listed, only one change
as set forth in subsection d, was actually requested by Defendants. It is averred as
follows:
A. The French door was discussed by the parties, an agreement reached for its
inclusion in the design and was intended to be included in the original blueprint.
It was not included due to an administrative error by Plaintiff or design error by
Crockett Log Homes. This was not additional work by Plaintiff.
B. The French door was discussed by the parties, an agreement reached for its
inclusion in the design and was intended to be included in the original blueprint.
It was not included due to an administrative error by Plaintiff or design error by
Crockett Log Homes. This was not additional work by Plaintiff.
C. It is admitted that tongue and groove wall covering was required to be installed on
the bottom side of the second floor porch deck by the Defendants. It is denied
that said was an additional work since tongue and groove is required to be
installed pursuant to the contract for everything that is framed.
D. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff did personally assist
the Defendants with the installation of the electrical. It is averred that Plaintiff's
actual time was approximately one half hour. It is averred that this work was
required due to an error in installation of the logs by Mr. Dunlavy which made it
almost impossible to run wire for electrical service. Defendants could not even
hire an electrician who would take on the electrical construction work. To
remedy this, Plaintiff then illustrated to Defendant, Donald E. Vemet, how to run
the router to allow the wiring to run through the logs.
E. Admitted with the incorporation of subsection (D) above. It is estimated that
Plaintiff spent approximately an additional fifteen minutes (15) to punch the hole
through the wall for the extension of wiring to the porch.
F. It is admitted that during the initial negotiations of the scope of the contract work,
the catwalk across the loft was considered for deletion. However, at all times
relevant to the actual design of the home, the inclusion of the catwalk was
discussed by the parties, an agreement was reached for its inclusion in the design
and was intended to be included in the drawing. It should have been included and
was omitted only as an administrative error of the Plaintiff or a design error by
Crockett Log Homes. This was not additional work.
18. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that the foundation was a pre-existing
structural item which had been constructed by the Defendants prior to Plaintiffs contract.
Plaintiff and Crockett Log Homes were to design from that foundation upwards. The
only area where the actual foundation was not yet erected when the design was made was
in a designated foyer/entry area. It is averred that, at all times relevant to the
development of plans and specifications, the foundation and the contemplated area for
extension for the foyer were existing and readily available for field measure by Plaintiff
and the design engineer from Crockett Log Homes. However, Plaintiff s plan and
specification incorrectly incorporated the existing thirty-two feet (32) foundation wall as
a thirty feet (30) wall and estimated fourteen feet (14) rather than twelve foot (12) for the
foyer area. It is denied that at any time, the existing foundation was proposed to be
fourteen feet (14) wide.
19. Admitted in part. Denied in part. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment related to
Dunlavy and his responsibilities for construction. Proof of same is demanded at trial. It
is admitted that the preparation of the design and construction of the residence was to
utilize the existing concrete foundation work for all construction work. It is admitted that
the first floor system was completed before Plaintiff began his contract work. It is
further averred that all areas were readily available for field measure verification.
20. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, Donald E. Vernet instructed any subcontractor of
Plaintiff to install foundation posts. Said posts were required by the parties' contract. It
is averred that even the temporary posts, as were erected by Dunlavy, were not erected in
the appropriate locations and were placed in front of doorways and windows as a result of
Plaintiff's design error.
21. Denied. Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth of the averment and proof
thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is asserted that the subcontractor,
Bruce Dunlavy, was the subcontractor and agent for Plaintiff or Crockett Log Homes,
Inc. and acted at the direction of Plaintiff. Defendants had no control whatsoever over
his actions.
22. Admitted with the clarification that Defendants told Plaintiff on that and prior occasions
that he was extremely concerned about the posts and structural integrity of the building.
It is also averred that said posts, as installed by Plaintiff or his agents, were wood and
were required to be metal with plates pursuant to the specification Appendix.
23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth
of the matter and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the averments of
said paragraph are denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is due.
Defendants' response to paragraphs 20 and 21 are further incorporated herein by
reference.
24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth
of the matter and proof thereof is demanded.
25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth
of the matter and proof thereof is demanded. It is also denied that said exhibit includes
the entire correspondence record by Defendants.
26. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that an additional meeting between the
parties occurred on May 11, 2004. It is further averred that an individual from Crockett
Log Homes, whom Plaintiff did identify as "his boss," also attended. It is admitted that
Plaintiff was able to observe the temporary posts and all other problems with the project.
Defendants have no recollection of any offer to repair posts or any other construction
defect. A discussion did occur as to the failure of the Plaintiff to install trusses and/or
give Defendants credit for same. The representative of Crockett Log Homes indicated
that Crockett had already paid to Plaintiff a credit for the trusses. However, same was
never paid to or credited against the balance of Defendants. All problems were made
known both to Plaintiffs and Crockett Log Homes at said meeting.
27. Admitted.
28. Admitted with the clarification that since the work was not completed properly and costs
of construction, repair and replacement exceeds the contract sum, no further sums are due
to Plaintiff.
29. Admitted with the clarification that the work was not completed properly and costs of
construction repair and replacement exceeds any amount due to Plaintiff.
30. Denied. It is denied that any further sums are due to the Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's
total breach of the parties' contract and the necessary costs which will have to be incurred
by the Defendants to repair and replace the defective and improper work of the Plaintiff.
Said work is specifically set forth in the Counterclaim, which paragraphs are specifically
incorporated herein by reference.
WHEREFORE, Defendants requests judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff.
COUNT H
QUANTUM MERUIT
31. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that certain changes were requested. It is
denied that said work was outside the contract. It is averred that paragraph 6 of the
parties' contract provided the procedure by which Plaintiff was to secure changes to the
contract work. It is averred that said change order procedure was implemented between
the parties.
32. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants' requested a change
from a double window to French door as incorrectly depicted on the blueprint as a result
of Plaintiff's design error. It is further denied that the total costs for labor and materials
for the change was Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) since Defendants are without
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and said is denied. By way of
further answer, it is averred that from the total costs for labor and materials, Plaintiff was
required to offset, as credit, the monies saved for the failure of the Plaintiff to provide the
window and install same in exchange for the door.
33. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant's requested a change
from a single door to a French door as was incorrectly depicted on the plan due to a
design error. It is further denied that the total costs for labor and materials for the change
was Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00) since Defendants are without knowledge to form a
belief as to the truth of the averment and said is denied By way of further answer, it is
averred that if the total costs from labor and materials, Plaintiff was required to offset, as
credit, the monies saved for the failure of the Plaintiff to provide the single door and
install same in exchange for the French door.
34. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that the change was requested but avers
that Defendants' failed to make the request. The change in the stairs resulted from the
original design error in the plan which caused the house to be constructed with
insufficient space to accommodate the stairs as depicted on the blueprint produced by
Plaintiff or Plaintiffs agent. It is further denied that the total costs for labor and
materials for the change was One Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($1,100.00) since
Defendants are without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and
said is denied. It is further asserted that because Plaintiff deleted the landings and
otherwise modified the stair wells, the costs of his actual construction was considerably
less than the anticipated costs incident to construction of the stairs set forth in the
blueprint. Plaintiffs are thus entitled a credit to the contract price.
35. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that the change to the blueprint was
requested to re-insert the catwalk back into the design due to its erroneous error or
omission in the original design by Plaintiff or Crockett Log Homes. It is further denied
that the total costs for labor and materials for the change was Eight Hundred Dollars
($800.00) since Defendants are without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
averment and said is denied.
10
36. Admitted. It is admitted that the change was requested by Defendants and that said sums
are due as a credit in accordance with the parties' executed change order.
37. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff did assist Defendants in
wiring but avers that Plaintiff offered to do so without charge to mitigate the result of the
construction failures of Dunlavy which made it much more time consuming and difficult
for Defendants or their electrician to run the wiring. It is further denied that the total
costs for labor and materials for the change was Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) since
Defendants are without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and
said is denied. It is averred that the total labor time expended by Plaintiff did not exceed
one half (1/2) hour.
38. Denied. This work was required pursuant to the parties' contract. It is further denied that
the total costs for labor and materials for the change was Six Hundred Dollars ($600.00)
since Defendants are without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment
and said is denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request judgment be entered on their behalf and against the
Plaintiff.
NEW MATTER
39. Any reimbursement for alleged additional work set forth in Count II of Plaintiff s
Complaint are barred by the terms of the contract which require changes to be by written
contract.
11
40. Any reimbursement for alleged additional work set forth in Count II of Plaintiff's
Complaint are barred by the Statute of Frauds.
41. Any sums found to be due to Plaintiff must be offset against monies due to Defendants as
awarded pursuant to the Counterclaim set forth herein.
42. Plaintiff is responsible and liable for the actions and directions of his agents, including
specifically his subcontract, Bruce Dunlavy.
43. Plaintiff supplied a faulty blueprint for construction of Defendants' home.
COUNTERCLAIM[
44. Counterclaim Plaintiffs are Donald E. Verret and Brenda L. Vernet, adult individuals
residing at 3111 Enola Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
45. Counterclaim Defendant is Crockett Log Homes of Pa, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
with its principal place of business being 58 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania 17050.
COUNTI
BREACH OF CONTRACT'
46. Counterclaim Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendant entered into a written contract dated
July 31, 2003 for the construction of a Crockett Log Home upon their property located at
3111 Enola Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
47. Said contract required the work to be performed in accordance with the contract, plans
and specifications.
12
48. At all times relevant hereto and since July of 2002, Counterclaim Plaintiffs were residing
in the property in the basement concrete foundation which was in existence at the time of
contract with the Counterclaim Defendant.
49. At all times relevant hereto, Counterclaim Defendant was to plan, design, secure and
construct a Crockett Log Home on the existing foundation of Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
50. Crockett Log and Timber Homes is marketed nationally as a manufacturer and builder of
log homes and is a designated trademark of National Building Systems, Inc. It is
believed and therefore averred that National Building Systems, Inc., is the principal of
Counterclaim Defendant.
51. At all times relevant thereto, Counterclaim Plaintiffs believed that Counterclaim
Defendant was an agent or employee of Crockett Log Homes, now legally known to them
as National Building Systems, Inc.
52. At all times relevant, Counterclaim Plaintiffs knew that Counterclaim Defendant,
Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc, was working solely with Crockett Log Homes to
provide the building materials, design the home for erection on Counterclaim Plaintiffs'
foundation, complete specifications, drawings and building plans to construct
Counterclaim Plaintiffs' new home on their existing foundation.
53. Counterclaim Defendant, with the assistance of an engineer of Crockett Log Homes
named Matt Kocyba, were solely responsible for the design of the log home to be built on
the existing foundation.
54. At all times relevant thereto, Brad Dunlavy, was known to Counterclaim Plaintiffs to be
an agent or employee of Crockett Log Homes and Counterclaim Defendant.
13
55. Counterclaim Defendant's original design and construction were drawn in error since it
incorrectly measured the existing foundation as being two feet shorter than the thirty-two
feet (32) which actually existed and measured the area for an intended entry/foyer area as
two (2) feet larger than the twelve feet (12) that actually existed.
56. Counterclaim Defendant and/or the engineer from Crockett Log Homes improperly and
erroneously field measured the foundation or failed to measure same.
57. The result of this error was to severely skew and limit the planned construction area and
layout of the entire interior of Counterclaim Plaintiffs' home, causing loss of space and
repositioning of structural supports and other contracted for features.
58. Counterclaim Defendant's original design provided that certain support columns at the
first level were to be metal posts with top and bottom plates under each posts and were to
be set upon reinforcements in the existing foundation.
59. In lieu of the metal support columns and support plates, Counterclaim Defendant, or his
agents, subcontractors, installed eight (8) 8" x 8" wood posts and which, in many
locations, not accurately rest squarely or have bearing upon the existing footers or
masonry walls.
60. Also, at a main support beam integral to the first floor, an additional wood post was set in
order to transfer the roof load to the basement. This additional post must be replaced
with a steel post and concrete slab.
61. It is expected that approximately eight (8) posts must be replaced with steel posts and
seven (8) plates and (approximately 7) need to be reinforced with footers.
14
62. The cost of this repair work incident to each post replacement and repair is estimated to
be One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per metal post for a total of Eight Thousand
Dollars ($8,000.00).
63. Plaintiff constructed the support column for the roof and dining area to attach by a single
lag bolt although it does not abut or attached to adjoining supports. This is inappropriate
construction that may cause the entire roof system to collapse with additional load, such
as snow, fatigue, etc.
64. It is believed that a special support must be fabricated to reinforce this roof or after be
removed and replaced with a rafter that bears on the exterior wall. The cost is currently
unknown but it is estimated the support could be fabricated for One Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) in fabrication of said metal support, plus labor.
65. Other physical discrepancies from the contract, plans and specifications resulting from
the design error which include, but are not limited to, the following:
A) Loss of the walk-in closets depicted on the plan. Although Counterclaim
Defendant did construct two (2) smaller closets, they are so inadequate in size that
they cannot be used for the intended purpose due: to their width and depth.
B) No pantry was built.
C) The powder room was built smaller than expected.
D) No island was placed in the kitchen exists.
E) The stairway was shifted from the rear wall to the side wall and landings were
deleted.
F) Bedroom two was reduced in size from 171 square feet to 133 square feet.
G) No laundry room was included.
15
H) Limited space cause misalignment of roof lines and pitch and resulted in improper
drainage to handle gutter runoff.
I) Limited space for installation caused improper operation of doors.
J) Foyer window (which had been intended to be double window) became a single
window and installed approximately three feet towards the "corner of house." Its
present location has the window under the roof and this is causing major interior
and exterior water damage.
K) Window heights as installed prevent practical use throughout the home and must
be reconstructed with different size windows to allow use.
66.
67
These defects as set forth above have impacted the fair market value of the home and
have reduced its aesthetic appearance and practical use. The errors in design and
construction have prevented the Counterclaim Plaintiffs from securing the house for
which they contracted to pay for.
The costs for repair and replacement of the losses are not currently known but will be
ascertained and provided at trial. However, estimates of said costs known to date are as
follows:
A) Materials and labor for roof repairs, including alignment of
Valley, caps $1,800.00
B) Spouting/front of house (labor and materials) $ 350.00
C) Closest in foyer missing (materials and labor) $ 740.00
D) Pantry in kitchen (materials and labor) $ 740.00
E) Catwalk landings missing in both stairways (material and labor) $2,600.00
16
F) Closets in Master bedrooms were to be walk-in (material and labor $2,000.00
68.
69.
G) Plumbing wall needed correct by 2 x 6 (labor)
IT) Credit for bathroom
I) Credit for losing doorway openings and repositioning of posts
Space in powder room lost
K) Correct foyer entrance opening into kitchen area. Gable was to
Continuous to meet other ceiling
L) Windows in work area
M) Dormer off center, window height, tongue (groove alignment
and roof build to right side
N) Credit for changes in front exterior structural appearance. This
lost of costs thereof will be determined at hearing
Total
$ 800.00
$2,000.00
$2,500.00(plus labor)
$2,000.00
$4,500.00(plus labor)
$2,800.00
$2,200.00
$ To be detennined
$25,030.00
Pursuant to the contract, Counterclaim Defendant was to perform the work in a good and
workmanlike manner.
Counterclaim Defendant failed to perform said work. The following deficiencies are
noted:
A) Inappropriate insulation techniques which allow for water and air
infiltration;
B) Incorrectly installed ridge vent and shingles;
C) Inappropriate windows used and error in placement;
D) Improper nailing of logs using fasteners which are too short or
incorrect for the installation;
17
E) Improper construction of master deck gable;
F) Improper front door entry and damage to same. This has resulted
in Counterclaim Plaintiff's loosing warranty coverage for same;
G) Deletion of Hammer trusses;
H) Grids from French doors;
1) The floor joist on the stairwell need additional support to lessen the
bounce;
.l) The deck construction is not of adequate and must be reinforced by
the further installation of two (2) tap cons screws or thunderbolts
per bay.
K) Due to Counterclaim Defendant's error in the construction of the
kitchen step down, no chasis were drilled in plates and additional
corrections required.
L) The walls in the kitchen are not aligned and not frames.
1) The roof beams in kitchen needs repairs.
N) The sink area in kitchen needs repaired.
O) No handrail and steps out of line and loose.
P) Loose log to siding to be attached.
Q) Other problems to be revised.
70. The total costs of correction of this defective work is not yet ascertained and proof of
same will be made at hearing. Estimates known to date are set forth in Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference.
71. The areas of poor construction indicated in paragraph 69 above have also affected
Counterclaim Plaintiffs' practical use of the residence.
72. The areas of poor construction indicated in paragraph 69 have also allowed for the
introduction of water and moisture into the home.
18
73. Further, during the actual construction, Counterclaim Defendant failed to appropriately
protect the building site by erection of roofing system and reasonable care of stored
materials.
74. As a result thereof and the subsequent poor roof construction, the structure was exposed
to the elements, including especially heavy rainfall, for a period of approximately six (6)
months.
75. These acts resulted in the introduction of water into the property and onto the building
materials, including, but not limited to, the Styrofoam, the OSB board, windows, walls
and laminated floor joists.
76. This had given rise to the growth of mold and mildew in the home during construction
and which continues to the present.
77. These construction problems require correction of the construction defects, as
waterproofing of many of the building components.
78. Steps must also be taken to remediate the mold growth throughout the home (especially
around the perimeter walls); water staining on the walls; and extensive replacement of
actual wall and floor materials to eliminate the mold and deal with the high moisture
content in the home.
79. The moisture problems have caused Counterclaim Plaintiffs' ceiling to warp from high
humidity and moisture; insulation inside the logs is damp; and visible mold and moisture
damage exists to the sub floor, foundations and inside existing cabinets, destroying same.
80. After repair and replacement of faulty construction which allowed the introduction of
water and replacement of the damaged building materials in the property, an entire mold
19
remediation process must be undertaken in the estimated amount of Thirty-Eight
Thousand Dollars ($38,000.00), per estimate performed by JEM Environmental.
81. This water problem was further exasperated by Counterclaim Defendant's use of an
interior power washer in an attempt to deter the mold growth during construction. The
Counterclaim Plaintiffs have experienced health problems resulting from the mold,
including wheezing, aggravated eyes, sick, mucus and :muscle and joint aches as a result
of exposure to the mold.
82. Items damaged by the mold and water must also be replaced and/or repaired. These
include the following:
A) Interior beams and posts, as well as carrier beams, walls, floor joists, sub floors
and posts. The scope therefore costs of these repairs cannot be fully determined
until tear out of the building materials occurs and determine the actual extent of
loss.
B) It is estimated that these water stains on walls must be corrected at an estimated
cost of an additional Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($6,500.00), per
proposal of Joe Taggart of Capricorner Log Homes.
C) In addition to cleaning, all beams must be preserved and sealed for an estimated
cost of Seven Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($7,400.00), per proposes of Joe
Taggart of Capricorner Log Homes.
D) Counterclaim Plaintiffs will have to replace carpet, padding and other flooring
damaged by the water in the amount of Five Thousand Five Hundred Forty-six
Dollars and 58/100 ($5,546.58), per proposal of Fluss Flooring, Inc.
20
E) Counterclaim Plaintiffs will have to replace the cherry cabinets damaged by the
mold and water at a cost of Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifteen Dollars and
01/100 ($4,915.01), per proposal ofMcCarren Supply.
F) Counterclaim Plaintiffs will have to replace clothing and furniture damaged by
the mold at a value to be ascertained at Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00).
G) Counterclaim Plaintiffs' furnace is damaged at a, repair cost of Four Hundred Fifty
Dollars ($450.00).
83. In addition to the problems in design and construction, Counterclaim Defendant has
failed to provide Counterclaim Plaintiffs with items required pursuant to the contract.
84. Counterclaim Defendant has failed to provide Counterclaim Plaintiffs with kitchen
flooring, the costs for replacement of which is Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-seven
Dollars and 50/100 ($9,657.50).
85. Counterclaim Defendant has failed to perform the actual trash removal and cleanup
during the entire construction period for which Counterclaim Plaintiffs did perform. It is
estimated that this act saved Counterclaim Defendant approximately One Hundred
Dollars ($100.00) per month or Nine Hundred Dollars ($900.00) over the actual
construction period. This cost is continuing.
86. Counterclaim Defendant did install single windows in lieu of double winds as required by
the contract. The savings in labor and material costs are to be determined.
87. Counterclaim Plaintiffs expected possession and use of their home in accordance with the
parties' contract to be in February, 2004.
21
88. Counterclaim Plaintiffs had secured construction financing with interest only payments at
the rate of 3.99% until completion of construction. This was intended to be transferred to
a standard mortgage which had an expected rate of 4.35% in April, 2004.
89. Due to the failure to timely perform the contract and the poor workmanship and resulting
problems with the home, Counterclaim Plaintiffs have been unable to secure a permanent
mortgage financing arrangement to date.
90. As a result, Counterclaim Plaintiffs have had to pay Four Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars
and 11/100 ($467.11) for each month until the house is completed and able to be
transferred to permanent financing. As of October 1, 2004 (and continuing),
Counterclaim Plaintiffs have paid Four Thousand Sixty-seven Dollars ($4,067.00) in
additional interest expense.
91. Further, the mortgage interest rate available to Counterclaim Plaintiffs has now risen so
that in lieu of the 4.35% originally anticipated for a 15 year mortgage in April, 2004, the
rate they face currently is in excess of 6%. This will result in significant additional
interest expenses over the life of the mortgage and result: in further financial losses for
Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
92. Counterclaim Plaintiffs should be reimbursed for these additional financing costs related
to the failed construction.
WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek judgment in the amount of One Hundred
Twenty-Nine Thousand One Hundred Eleven Dollars and 09/100 ($129,111.09), plus costs to be
determined, interest, counsel fees and other costs of suit. This demand shall be modified once
the entire costs, losses and expenses are determined.
22
COUNT II
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
93. Paragraphs 1 through 92 of Counterclaim Plaintiffs' Answer, New Matter and
Counterclaim are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
94. Counterclaim Defendant failed to complete the construction on Counterclaim Plaintiffs'
home as contracted for.
95. Counterclaim Defendant performed the work in a shoddy and unworkmanlike manner.
96. The goods and services provided to Counterclaim Plaintiffs by Counterclaim Defendant
were primarily for Counterclaim Plaintiffs' personal, family and household uses.
97. Counterclaim Plaintiffs believed that they were purchasing a "Crockett Log Home" and
that Counterclaim Defendant was a "Crockett Log Homes" affiliate.
98. Counterclaim Plaintiffs later determined that no entity known as "Crockett Log Homes"
exists but that it was a trade name for Natural Building Systems, Inc. which was also
being used by Counterclaim Defendant Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc. to cause the
consumers to believe that it was party of a larger single entity, an agency association or
other cooperative affiliation existing between the parties for construction of a "Crockett
Log Home".
99. Counterclaim Defendant used a marketing and sales distribution network which caused
confusion and misunderstanding for Plaintiffs and the public in connection with the
association and affiliation of the goods and services.
100. Marketing by Counterclaim Defendant of "Crockett Log Homes" creates the
representation that the goods and services provided has a sponsorship, use or benefit that
they do not have, namely the endorsement of a single entity which stands behind its
23
product, its sale and construction.
101. Counterclaim Defendant fostered this misrepresentation by referencing affiliated
locations such as "Home Office" for Natural Building Systems, Inc., and "my boss" when
referencing the representative from National Building Systems, Inc. which inspected the
home with Plaintiffs in April, 2004. Such a marketing scheme is calculated to cause
confusion for the public.
102. The practices, failure and omissions of Counterclaim Defendant described in the
Counterclaim violate to Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law, 73 P.S. Section 201.1, et sec.
103. Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek treble damages and counsel fees in accordance with said
Act, attorney's fees plus interest, costs of suit and all other relief the Court determines
appropriate at trial of this case.
WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek compensation damages in the amount of
actual damages proven at trial, treble damages pursuant to Unfair Trade Practices, plus attorney's
fees, interest, costs of suit, including reimbursement of expert and litigation costs, and all other
relief the Court deems appropriate.
Dated: September 27, 2004
Respectfully SL
Esquire
24
` 549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
Supreme Court I.D. 32317
Attorney for Defendants
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "A"
Problem Current Estimate
A) Inappropriate insulation techniques
which allow for water and air infiltration; To be determined
B) Incorrectly installed ridge vent and shingles; Included in roof repairs
C) Inappropriate windows used and error in placement. Estimate in response
included in window estimated in response to paragraph 67; to paragraph 67
D) Improper nailing of logs using fasteners which are too To be determined
short or incorrect for the installation;
E) Improper construction of master deck gable. Included Estimate in response
in roof repair estimate in response to paragraph 67 to paragraph 67;
F) Improper front door entry and damage to same. To be determined.
This has resulted in Counterclaim Plaintiff's loosing Cost of repair $350.00;
warranty coverage for same; however loss of
warranty is not valued
G) Deletion of Hammer trusses. Estimated labor and
material credit; $5,000.00
H) Grids from French doors; $ 120.00
I) The floorjoist on the stairwell need additional To be determined
support to lessen the bounce;
J) The deck construction is not of adequate and must To be determined
be reinforced by the further installation of two (2) tap
cons screws or thunderbolts per bay;
K) Due to Counterclaim Defendant's error in the To be determined
construction of the kitchen step down, no chassis were
drilled in plates and additional corrections required;
L) The walls in the kitchen are not aligned and are not framed; To be determined
M) The roof beams in kitchen needs repairs. Included in roof Estimate in response
estimate in response to paragraph 67; to paragraph 67
N) The sink area in kitchen needs repaired. To be determined
O) No handrail and steps out of line and loose. To be determined
but estimate $725.00
P) Loose log to siding to be attached $ 450.00
Q) Other problems to be revised.
Total $6,645.00
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
CROCKETT LOG HOMES
V.
UP PA, INC.,
Plaintiffs
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2004-4108
VERIFICATION
We, Donald E. Vernet and Brenda L. Vernet, hereby certify that the facts set forth in the
foregoing ANSWER NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM are true and correct to the best
of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand than any false statements made herein
are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Dated: `1?a-?
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC
Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
DONALD E. VERNET and
BRENDA L. VERNET
Defendants
NO. 2004-4108
CIVIL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date, I served a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Answer, New Matter and counterclaim, in the above-captioned
matter upon the following individual by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
DATED: September 27, 2004
Barbara Su.mple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Attorney for Defendants
(717) 774-1445
r
n
U
3
ffl
rl) ?m
?J O
U rn
CJ ?
0
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC.,
Plaintiffs
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant
V..
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
Additional Defendant
IN THE COURT COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND CUNTY,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2004-4108
pRAECIPE FOR WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT
TO THE PROTHONOTARY: as an additional
Please issue a writ to join NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant in this action.
DATE:
Barbara
Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931
(717) '774-1445
Supreme Court I.D. 32317
Attorney for Defendants
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC.,
Plaintiffs
V.
DONALD E. VERNBT AND
BRENDA L. De ant
V..
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
Additional Defendant
IN THE COURT OFCOO?PN PLEAS ANIA
COUNTY,
CUMBERLAND
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2004-4108
CERTIFICATE OF SERV]:CE
do hereby certify that
I BARBARA SUMPLE-SUI-LIVAN> ESQU?E> on this date, I
served a true and correct copy of ?T TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT AND
h bove-captioned matter
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT TO JOIN
upon the following individual(s),
ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT, tot e ?bove-cantioned matter
by United States, First Class Mail, addressed as follows!
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Law Offices of Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
DATED: /??i r , 2004 ?garbara Sump e-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931
(717) 774-1445
Supreme Court I.D. No. 32317
Attorney for Defendants
?.?
?'
. ?.:
?:
- ?;
?,
,-
„; _??
r- ? ?- ; ,
?,-,
y ? `;
? ;;},
??
_? •• _'
n?
CD
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
LOG O -HONES OF PA,
Plaintiffs
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMVIN r1f'o
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2004-4108
WRIT TO JOIN ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT
TO: NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
35 OLD ROUTE 12 NORTH
WESTMORELAND, NH 03467
You are notified that DONALD E. VERNET and BRENDA L. VERNET have joined
you as an additional Defendant in this action, which you are required to defend.
I,? n . _ (i?pnq
Prothonotary
G
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DONALD E. VERNET AND NO. 2004-4108
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant
V..
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
Additional Defendant
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Writ to
Join Additional Defendant together with a filed copy of the Complaint and Answer, New
Matter and Counterclaim in the above-captioned matter by United States Mail, Return Receipt
Requested, Certified No. 7003 0500 0001 6564 0166, Return Receipt Requested, on the above-
named Additional Defendant, Natural Building Systems, Inc., on October 18, 2004 at Additional
Defendant's last known address: 35 Old Route 12 North, Westmoreland, NH 03467. The
original receipt and return receipt card are attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
I hereby certify that the facts set forth above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are
subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. A. §4904 relating to unSVJon ;plie-SSull ificati t o authorities.
Dated: Octobetz, 2004
ivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931
(717)-774-1445
Supreme Court ID #32317
Attorney fbr Defendant Vernets
-0 A&
i
_n Mt O id7
r-q Postage s f .44
Certified Fee
$2.30 G;?M6r9
M
Peg 'f.
C3 Rehm Redept Fee 11.75
(Entlorsemem Required)
co Rsatdded Delivery Fee t C 5
O (EMOrsemem Required) $0.00 'D
yta _ /,?
C3 Total Postage B Fe s $ "4!6.i9
m 99?
ED TO
M
r- ,:aaCi----- .................._F-_?!_-_--- -- -
aPoBoxNo. 'ti S--/1?.? ?._.. I _ rcl 11
Exhibit "A"
C
(`l
?lt(II
_??
? 4 t.? -
r"i C
?? ??
r' c
LAW OFFICES OF DILS & DILS
ARTHUR K. DILS, ESQUIRE
Attorney I.D. No. 07056
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Telephone No. (717) 232-9724
Attorney for Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa, Inc.
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS. NO. 2004-4108
DONALD E. VERNET AND CIVIL ACTION - LAW
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of November 2004, comes the Plaintiffs by their
attorney, Arthur K. Dils, Esquire, and respectfully answers as follows:
39. The work performed by the Plaintiff was outside of the contract for
construction and the work was performed at the specific request of the
Defendants and hence is not barred by the terms of the contract.
40. The charges for the work performed outside of the contract were incurred
on a piecemeal basis. The Defendants suggested and requested work items
to be performed by the Plaintiff. The piecemeal contracts did not require
writing as the said amounts did not violate the Statute of Frauds.
41. Paragraph 41 under the heading of New Matter contains a legal conclusion
and as such, no reply is required. However, if it is deemed necessary to
respond, the Plaintiff avers that the Defendants are not entitled to any
counterclaim relief and that the Plaintiff is entitled to full recovery as
averred in its Complaint.
42. Paragraph 42 under the heading of New Matter contains a legal
conclusion, i.e., respondeat superior. The Defendants have pled no facts
concerning this issue.
43. It is denied that the Plaintiffs supplied a faulty blueprint. The Plaintiff had
plans and specifications and a design was prepared by another party none
of which were faulty.
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
44. Paragraph 44 is admitted.
45. Paragraph 45 is admitted.
2
COUNTERCLAIM - COUNT I
46. Paragraph 46 under the heading Counterclaim - Count I, Breach of
Contract is denied. The Defendants have misinterpreted the contract by
averring the construction of a Crockett Log Home. The contract, which is
attached to the Complaint as Exhibit "A" indicates that the Plaintiff will do
work upon plans and specifications which were initialed by the parties.
47. Paragraph 47 is admitted.
48. The Plaintiff believes that the Defendants were residing in the property
and that portion of the averment is admitted.
49. It is admitted that construction work was to be performed on the
foundation of the Defendants; however, the designation of a Crockett Log
Home is not set forth in the contract. The construction work did involve a
log home.
50. Paragraph 50 is denied. It is denied that National Building Systems, Inc.,
is the principal of the Plaintiff.
51. Paragraph 51 is denied. It is denied that the Defendants believed that the
Plaintiff was an agent or employee of anyone. The Defendants entered
into the contract with Crockett Log Homes of Pa. Inc. It was made clear
3
that National Building Systems manufactured certain materials to be used
in the construction and that Crockett Log Homes of Pa. Inc., was a dealer
and/or seller of the manufactured materials.
52. The averments in Paragraph 52 are denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff
was working solely with Crockett Log Homes of Pa. Inc., to provide
building materials, etc. The Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes, of Pa. Inc.,
was the seller of Crockett materials and also the contractor to construct the
home.
53. Paragraph 53 is admitted.
54. Paragraph 54 is denied. It is denied that Dunlevy was known to the
Defendants as an agent or employee of Crockett Log Homes; however, he
did do certain construction of the home at the request of the Plaintiff.
55. Paragraph 55 is denied. The problem with the two feet variance was not
caused by design or construction, but was caused by the outline of the
foundation. The construction gave the Defendants more room than was on
the plans for the main section of the house.
56. It is denied that the Plaintiff improperly measured the foundation.
57. Proof is demanded for the allegations averred in Paragraph 57 of the
Counterclaim, in that, there was no known significant loss of space and/or
4
support to the knowledge of the Plaintiff and if there be such error, it is in
the exclusive control of the Defendants.
58. It is denied that the support columns were to be a metal post for the main
structure. Proof is demanded as to any alleged need for reinforcements.
59. It is averred that according to Appendix A, which was part of the Contract,
the Defendants were responsible for the post.
60. Proof is demanded for the allegations contained in Paragraph 60. If there
be a requirement for an additional post, this is in the exclusive knowledge
and control of Defendants and Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge of
the same. It is averred that according to Appendix A, which was part of
the Contract, the Defendants were responsible for the post.
61. Proof is demanded for the allegations contained in Paragraph 61. The
pleading is based on an expectation that a post must be replaced. The
Plaintiff is without knowledge of this requirement as it is in the exclusive
control of the Defendants. Again, the Contract did not provide for the
Plaintiff to place the posts, but at the request of the Defendants to the
person doing actual contract work at the time, the posts were put in.
62. Proof is demanded for the allegations contained in Paragraph 62 as to
estimated costs as they are within the exclusive control of Defendants. It
5
is denied that the Plaintiff is responsible for any costs concerning the posts
and proof is demanded as to the costs as set forth in Paragraph 62, if it is
relevant.
63. Proof is demanded for the allegations contained in Paragraph 63. This
averment contains a speculation, in that, it is averred that the entire roof
system may collapse. If there be a faulty construction design which would
lead to a collapse of the roof, this is in the exclusive control of the
Defendants and the Plaintiff is without such knowledge and avers that the
support for the roof and the roof were constructed in a proper and
workmanlike manner. It is denied that there is improper construction and
to the contrary, the hip rafters are notched onto the ridge beam. The
construction is structurally sound.
64. It is denied that a special support must be fabricated, in that, the roof
structure is sound and there is no need to reinforce the roof.
65. A. - It is denied that the closets cannot be used. The closets were
constructed at the specific request and direction of the Defendants. They
wanted it this way to have more room in the bedroom.
B. - Defendants indicated he would obtain a pantry cabinet to match the
kitchen. Per the contract, the Defendants were in charge of the kitchen
area.
6
C. - Proof is demanded for the allegations in 65(c) as the Plaintiff avers
that he constructed the powder room in accordance with the directions of
the Defendants and the plans.
D. - The Defendants were responsible for the kitchen area.
E. - The Defendants requested this construction be completed as they
directed so that they would have a cat walk.
F. - Proof is demanded for the allegations contained in paragraph 65(f) as
the Plaintiff avers that the construction was done in substantial
conformance to the request of the Defendants and of the plans and
specifications.
G. - The Defendants redesigned the interior of the home after construction
began eliminating the laundry room.
H. - It is denied that the construction caused any misalignment of the roof
lines. It is further denied that the construction caused any improper
drainage.
1. - Proof is demanded for any problems with the operation of doors. It is
averred that the doors were installed properly.
J. - Proof is demanded for the allegations concerning the foyer window.
K. - The Defendants determined the heights of the windows and the
Plaintiff followed the instructions of the Defendants.
66. It is denied that these alleged defects have impaired the market value of
the home and have reduced its appearance and use. The house was what
the Defendants contracted.
7
67. Paragraph 67 and its sub-paragraphs are denied, in that, it is denied that
any loss as set forth has occurred and proof is demanded for all alleged
losses and estimates of costs.
68. Paragraph 68 is admitted.
69. A. - It is denied there were improper insulation techniques. A
professional insulation company was utilized and insulation was properly
installed.
B. - It is denied that the ridge vent and shingles were improperly
installed.
C. - It is denied that inappropriate windows were utilized and placed.
D. - The averments are denied one-half inch zinc plated lag screws 12
inches long were utilized. The fasteners utilized are larger and longer than
were required.
E. - It is denied that there was improper construction of the master deck
gable.
F. - The front door was properly installed. The Defendants never sealed
or painted the door which caused it to leak and swell.
G. - Proof is demanded for the accusations that hammer trusses were
deleted.
H. - Proof is demanded for the accusations concerning grids from the
French doors.
1. - The floor joist and stairwell meet code requirements.
8
J. - Proof is demanded for the allegations in sub-paragraph J.
K. - Proof is demanded for the allegations in sub-paragraph K.
L. - Proof is demanded for the allegations in sub-paragraph L.
M. - Proof is demanded for the allegations in sub-paragraph M.
N. - Proof is demanded for the allegations in sub-paragraph N.
0.- Proof is demanded for the allegations in sub-paragraph O.
P. - Proof is demanded for the allegations in sub-paragraph P.
Q. - Proof is demanded for the allegations in sub-paragraph Q.
70. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 70.
71. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required.
72. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required. There was rain during construction and the Plaintiff
indicated what steps the Defendant should take to lessen moisture and the
Defendants failed to do so.
73. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required.
9
74. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required.
75. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required.
76. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required. Mold and mildew was caused by the Defendants' lack
of providing air circulation and dehumidification. The house was closed
up by the Defendants. Mold started in the basement which was the
Defendants responsibility. The Defendants did not open windows for
ventilation and provide heat to absorb moisture.
77. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required.
78. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required.
10
79. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required.
80. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required.
81. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required. It is averred a power washer was utilized to clean the
beams from dirt due to rain and areas being open to the weather.
82. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and its sub-paragraphs and the Plaintiff is without
knowledge of the same and proof is required. Sub-paragraph G is denied
as Defendants did the damage.
83. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required.
84. Averments in this paragraph are unclear. It alleges the Plaintiff failed to
provide flooring, but yet requests replacement of same. As previously set
forth, the Defendants were responsible for the kitchen.
11
85. Paragraph 85 is denied. The Defendants requested that some materials be
left behind. The Defendants, for example, indicated that they wanted to
keep the panels that were not utilized. The other trash was properly
removed.
86. The windows that were installed were per the contract.
87. Paragraph 87 is denied. The Defendants often interrupted and caused the
work to stop when they were making decisions as to how they wanted
certain construction accomplished. Such as, the fireplace and certain
interior walls, changes in plumbing, stairwell locations, electric light
fixtures, etc.
88. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required.
89. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required.
90. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required. If relevant, it is averred that the Vernets did nothing for
a period of six months which hindered completion of the job.
12
91. The Defendants have exclusive knowledge and control of the averments in
this paragraph and the Plaintiff is without knowledge of the same and
proof is required.
92. It is denied that the Defendants should be reimbursed and it is denied that
there was any failed construction.
COUNTERCLAIM - COUNT II
93. Paragraph 93 does not require an answer.
94. It is denied that the Plaintiff failed to complete the construction.
95. It is denied that there was shoddy and unworkmanlike construction.
96. The Plaintiff provided the materials for construction of a home for the
Defendants.
97. The Plaintiff is without knowledge as to what the Defendants believe. The
contract does not say Crockett Log Home. The contract does not say the
Plaintiff was a Crockett Log Homes affiliate. The contract provides that
one of the parties was Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., and that this entity
was the contractor and the contract outlines the various work to be
performed and the costs.
13
98. The Defendants were told and verified in writing that they were dealing
with the Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. The Defendants were
also told that Natural Building Systems produced and manufactured solid
wall homes. The Defendants knew that Natural Building Systems sold the
materials for the home construction and that they were utilized by Crockett
Log Homes of Pa., Inc., for the construction. There were no acts by the
Plaintiff to cause the Defendants to believe that there was a larger entity or
association.
99. It is denied that there was any confusion as to the marketing and sale of the
product. It is further denied that there was any confusion in the mind of
the Defendants. See Contract attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A".
100. The pleadings of the Defendants consistently speak of, "Crockett Log
Homes". There was never any contract involving Crockett Log Homes, it
dealt specifically with Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. The Plaintiff
never marketed Crockett Log Homes. The Plaintiff never misrepresented
the goods and services nor did he indicate any sponsorship or endorsement
of a single entity which stands behind its product. It was disclosed the
relationship of Natural Building Systems in the contract, attached as
Exhibit "A".
101. It is denied the Plaintiff had a marketing scheme and that he caused
confusion to anyone. The relationship of Natural Building Systems was
set forth in Exhibit A.
14
102. It is denied that the Defendants are entitled to relief under the Unfair Trade
Practices Act. It is denied that the Plaintiff violated said Act.
103. Paragraph 103 is denied for the reasons set forth in the answer of
Paragraph 102.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that the Counterclaims be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
BY: /Z z
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
15
EXHIBIT "A"
Crockett Homes: Log . Timber Frame a Ultra-R Energy Pant
Shell Material Package Order Agreement F!
When signed, this Agreement becomes a legal binding contract.
Program U1Lr u_Lug Model C1,rtgm This Agreement made this day of 20
30th Y J"?1 03 by and between
bon and Bnanda Verret Of 3111 Vnnta nr, rarli.qlo Phone 717-24-3-549% and
Ccccs---•rt T1x W-As of PA Tn- Of bla-hani-jab»rgs, FA, 17n50 Phone 717-697-819A
WHEREAS,&attral Building Systems ("NBS") is engaged in the business of producing and manufacturing materials to be used for the
construction of new solid wall homes and buildings ("Crockett Materials") and selling Crockett Materials and other materials through a
network of Master Dealers;
WHEREAS, NBS/Crockett Home Office ("Crockett") is a Master Dealer engaged in the business of selling Crockett Materials and other
materials through a network of Dealers;
WHEREAS, Crockett of PA , hereinafter referred to as SELLER is a Dealer engaged in the business of selling Crockett Materials
and other materials and desirous of selling same; and
WHEREAS, nnq/Areznda VarnNt , hereinafter referred to as BUYER, is desirous of purchasing Crockett Materials and other
materials set forth in Appendix A from SELLER;
NOW, THEREFORE, for the mutual consideration hereinafter set forth, SELLER and BUYER agree to the following terms and
conditions.
I. CROCKETT PACKAGE: SELLER shall furnish to BUYER all materials set forth in Appendix A, which is annexed hereto and
made a part hereof.
2. PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT: The price to be paid by BUYER to the SELLER for this Crockett Package is
f $84.750 plums $5085.00 PA State Sales Tax
PAYMENT TO BE MADE AS FOLLOWS:
89,835.00 Crockett Log Shell Material Package Price.
I , =ion, 00 5% Price Protection Binder (to be paid at time of execution of agreement)
25, 450.50 Processing Deposit (30% total deposit due 45-60 days before scheduled MILLING)
,?2 8V-50 Balance Due amount to be paid
(a) Cashier's Check after materials delivered and before unloading
X_ (b) Bank Check after materials delivered and inspected
(c) Bank Draw (the terms of which and the adequacy of the documentation therefore
shall be subject to the Seller's approval which shall not be unreasonably withheld.) Such
payment shall be subject to a surcharge of $ 150
Note: 1-1/2% interest per month will be charged for balance not paid within 30 days of
initial delivery.
NOTE: If BUYER'S order is conditional, a statement of the conditions must be included in this Agreement. CONDITIONAL
ORDERS are subject to a 5150.00 service charge and any charge for planstspecial materials, etc.
CONDITIONS: "
NOTE: if Buyer's order remains outstanding for a period of three (3) years or more after the date of this Agreement, such order shall
automatically be deemed null and void and of no further effect and Buyer shall automatically forfeit all deposits paid in connection therewith.
3. OPEN PRICE TERM: BUYER and SELLER agree that due to the instability of the market price of wood, SELLER may, at its
option, at any time up to sixty (60) days before delivery, make reasonable price increases consistent with the increased cost of wood to
SELLER.
4. TIME AND PLACE OF DELIVERY: Delivery of the materials identified in Appendix A shall be made on or before (estimated
date) to Town Carlisle , State pA Zip 17013 by BUYER's carrier. SELLER reserves the right to
make reasonable adjustments in the delivery date. If SELLER is unable to complete this order due to wars, floods, fire, acts of God or the
public enemy, acts of governments or the unavailability of materials or labor, breakdowns in machinery, or for any other unforeseeable cause
beyond its control and without its fault or negligence, the Agreement may be cancelled by SELLER on refund of all payments made by
BUYER.
5. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SALE:
(a) Warranties:
(i) Warranty: SELLER warrants to BUYER that Crockett Materials included in Appendix A shall be free from defect to
material or workmanship, and shall be of the kind and quality described herein for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of delivery.
BUYER expressly acknowledges that this warranty (the "Warranty") extends only to BUYER. SELLER'S obligations under this warranty
are limited to the repair or replacement, at the
SELLER'S option, of Crockett Materials, which may prove defective under normal use, installation, assembly, and construction within sixty
(60) days from the date of delivery and which, upon SELLER'S examination and satisfaction, are defective. Upon written request to
SELLER by BUYER, SELLER shall inspect Crockett Materials and at SELLER'S option, repair or replace any defective Crockett
Materials, as determined above, free of charge. In no instance shall the liability of SELLER with respect to the Crockett Materials, exceed
the purchase price of the Crockett Materials.
(ii) Ten Year Limited Warranty: SELLER warrants to BUYER that the solid pine logs, timbers, timber frames, and/or log
siding produced and manufactured by NBS and delivered to BUYER shall be free of any defect in quality and manufacture, and further
warrants that such materials shall be the kind and quality described herein for a period of ten (10) years from the original date of purchase.
This warranty (the "Ten Year Limited Warranty") shall not apply to the tendency of natural wood to check or twist unless the condition shall
cause a clear-through crack or structural weakness, nor shall this Ten Year Limited Warranty apply to defects arising from construction,
installation or assembly. Upon written request to SELLER, SELLER shall have such defective material inspected, and at SELLER'S
option, repaired or replaced free of charge.
(iii) Limitations: SELLER'S obligations under the Warranty and Ten Year Limited Warranty are expressly the exclusive
and sole remedies of BUYER.
The materials in Appendix A consist of Crockett Materials and materials manufactured and produced by others. Any materials, or part of any
materials, that are not Crockett Materials, are not warranted by SELLER in any way, or for any purpose.
The Warranty and Ten Year Limited Warranty shall not apply to this Crockett Package, or any part thereof, which has been subject to
damage, accr nt, negligence, alteration, abuse, misuse, or improper assembly, installation or construction.
,r, Page 1 of 2
Crockett Homes: Log - Timber Frame -Ultra-l? Energy Panel
Shell Material Package Order Agreement
When signed, this Agreement becomes a legal binding contract.
NOTE: MATERIALS THAT ARE NOT CROCKETT MATERIALS MAY BE WARRANTED BY OTHER MANUFACTURERS. THIS
AGREEMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO EFFECT OR ALTER THE VALIDITY OF OTHER MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTIES
RELATING TO THOSE MATERIALS. BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES BUYER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
ON MATERIALS THAT ARE NOT CROCKETT MATERIALS IS LIMITED TO SUCH OTHER MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTIES
THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES, WHICH EXTEND BEYOND DESCRIPTION ON THE FACE HEREOF. THE WARRANTY AND
TEN YEAR LIMITED WARRANTY ARE MADE EXPRESSLY IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR
STATUTORY, WHETHER WRITTEN OR ORAL, INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND THE WARRANTY
OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND ALL OTHER OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES ON THE PART OF THE
SELLER. SELLER NEITHER WARRANTS NOR GUARANTEES TO THE BUYER ANY PARTICULAR RESULT OR OUTCOME
FROM THE BUYER'S USE OF THIS CROCKETT PACKAGE. FURTHERMORE, THE WARRANTY AND TEN YEAR LIMITED
WARRANTY DO NOT EXTEND TO THE LABOR OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE CROCKETT PACKAGE, WHICH SHALL BE
INDEPENDENTLY CONTRACTED FOR SEPARATE AND APART FROM THIS AGREEMENT.
SELLER neither assumes nor authorizes any other person, representative, or agent of SELLER, to assume for it any liability in connection
with Crockett Package other than those stated herein. Any other collateral agreement or understanding, whether oral or in writing, in any way
purporting to alter or modify the Warranty or Ten Year Limited Warranty or this Agreement, shall not be binding upon SELLER, unless
made in writing and signed by Buyer and an authorized representative of SELLER.
(b) Inability to Furnish Items: In the event SELLER is unable to furnish any item for the Crockett Package as set forth in Appendix A-
SELLER reserves the right to delete the item and adjust the final price accordingly, or make substitutions, therefore, upon written notice to
BUYER.
(c) Shortages & Shipping Error: BUYER shall inspect all materials pursuant to this Agreement immediately upon their arrival
and shall, within five days thereof, give written notice to SELLER of any claim that the materials do not conform with the terms of this
Agreement. If BUYER shall fail to give such notice, the materials shall be deemed to conform to the terms of this Agreement and
Appendix A.
(d) Shipping: SELLER shall deliver all materials to a carrier for transportation to BUYER'S place of delivery, but all costs of
transportation shall be borne by BUYER, and all risks of loss shall pass to BUYER when the goods are delivered to the carrier.
Arrangements for payment of transportation charges shall be the responsibility of BUYER and carrier at the time the materials are loaded
Prices quoted for transportation charges to the building site are contingent upon the stutability of the roads for large tractor-trailer trucks, and
in no way shall be binding upon SELLER. Freight costs are set by bonded inter-state carriers and are subject to change without notice
(e) Postponement of Delivery: There will be a five (5) day leeway period after the scheduled delivery date. If BUYER has not properly
forwarded monies due to SELLER in proper form, an additional $50.00 per diem daily storage charge shall be paid before delivery by
SELLER to BUYER for each extra day of storage. Said $50.00 per days storage charge shall not be incurred if BUYER shall notify
SELLER, in writing, 18 days before delivery, of BUYER'S request for postponement of delivery date.
(f) Taxes, Fees, & Assessments: All sales taxes and import duties, if applicable, shall be paid by BUYER in addition to the price for this
Crockett Package.
(g) Unloading at Destination: BUYER shall be responsible for all unloading of materials from the carrier at the place of delivery and the
SELLER shall give notice to the BUYER prior to expected delivery.
(h) Modification of Materials: No addition, deletion or modification of materials by BUYER or SELLER, as provided in Appendix A.
shall be binding upon either party unless the same have been reduced to writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement.
6. CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES: In no event shall SELLER be liable for incidental or consequential damages, directly or
indirectly, arising from the use of this Crockett Package or the terms of this Agreement.
7. ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event of BUYER'S breach of this agreement, BUYER agrees to pay reasonable attorney's fees to
SELLER.
8. NO LIABILITY FOR LABOR AND CONSTRUCTION: Buyer acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement is for the
purchase of materials only and is not a contract for labor or construction and that SELLER is an independent contractor of Crockett, solely
for the purpose of selling the Crockett Package set forth in Attachment A. Buyer further acknowledges that neither Crockett nor NBS is
responsible or shall be liable for labor and construction, which shall be contracted for separate and apart from this Agreement.
9. APPLICABLE LAW: This Agreement shall be deemed entered into and shall be interpreted according to the laws of the date ul
r'.?nnsylvani?x .
to. REMEDY FOR BUYER'S BREACH: In the event that BUYER fails or refuses to comply fully with the terms of this Agreement
for any reason, in addition to paying SELLER'S reasonable attorneys' fees, BUYER shall forfeit all rights hereunder and all monies paid bN
BUYER to SELLER shall be retained by the SELLER and shall be treated as actual and liquidated damage in view of the difficulty of
establishing actual damages, and SELLER shall be released from all further obligations.
I l. ARBITRATION: Any controversy or claim relating to or arising out of this Agreement or the breach of this Agreement will be
submitted to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules (the "Rules") of the American Arbitration
Association (the "Association"). A single arbitrator or arbitrators shall be selected by the joint agreement of the parties, but if they do not
agree within twenty (20) days after written notice of the intent to arbitrate, the selection of the arbitrator(s) shall be made pursuant to the
Rules from the panels of arbitrators maintained by the Association. The arbitrator(s) shall render a decision within ninety (90) days of
appointment. Any award rendered shall be conclusive and binding upon all parties thereto. This provision for arbitration shall be specifically
enforceable by the parties and the decision of the arbitrator(s) in accordance herewith shall be final and binding and there shall be no right of
appeal there from. Judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered by any court having jurisdiction thereof. The
arbitrator(s) shall not be permitted to award consequential damages, punitive damages or similar types of damages under any circumstances
11 OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT AN ATTORNEY: BUYER acknowledges that he or she has had an opportunity to consult
with an attorney as to any terms and conditions of this Agreement that are unclear or difficult to understand.
13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; PRIOR REPRESENTATIONS, STATEMENTS & AGREEMENTS: All representations,
statements, and agreements heretofore made between the parties are merged and consolidated into this Agreement which above fully and
completely expresses their respective obligations. No terms or conditions, other than those stated herein, or other collateral agreement or
understanding, whether oral or written, in any way purporting to modify this contract shall not be binding on SELLER unless made in
writing and signed by an authorized representative of SELLER. This agreement is entered into by each party after opportunity for
investigation, neither party relying on any statements or representations not embodied in this Agreement made by the other party or on the
other party's behalf, including specifically oral statements or representations made by SELLER or SELLER'S agents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement executed the day and year first written above.
,J411 D111111 Z,.;,4?
Witness
Witness
Witness
Page 2 of 2
PLER
B1n.R / r -
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter
are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
G. DOUG 0r ON, President
CROCKET LOG HOMES OF PA. INC.
Date: November 9, 2004
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Arthur K. Dils, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
within Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter has been served upon the following
individual by first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, by depositing same at
the post office in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the fit day of November 2004,
addressed as follows:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Respectfully submitted,
BY.
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
Date: November 10, 2004
r; ?,
?,
.,. ,
... _?-- ?
n
.??
'":: f l ?j 'T'1
r, ?^7
?
:
,
%.:? ,?;j
t
h. y -
? ?-
. .:t
ti
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman, P.C.
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
717-234-4161
Attorneys for Counter-claim Defendant Crockett Log homes
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
INC., : CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
NO. 2004-4108
V.
DONALD E. VERNET and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
PRAECIPE
Please enter the appearance of Thomas E. Brenner of Goldberg Katzman, P.C.
on behalf of Crockett Log Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc. as a counter-claim defendant.
GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C.
By.
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Attorney ID #32085
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
717-234-4161
Attorney for Counterclaim Defendant
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.
Date: March 11, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire, hereby certify that on this date, I served the
foregoing document, via U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the persons set forth below,
namely:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C.
By:
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Date: March 11, 2005
119571.1
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman, P.C.
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
717-234-4161
Attorneys for Counter-claim Defendant Crockett Log homes
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
INC., : CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
NO. 2004-4108
V.
DONALD E. VERNET and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
PETITION FOR JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL
DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 2253
AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc., by its
attorneys, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., who state:
1. This action was initiated to collect monies from Defendants for failure to
on a construction contract for a new home erected for Defendants Vernet.
2. In their Answer, the Vernets asserted a counterclaim claiming numerous
damages relating to the construction of tine home, including handrails and stairways.
3. The construction of the home was performed by a subcontractor, Bruce
bunleavy of Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
?I
4. The installation of the steps and railing within the Defendants' home was
ii
pi?rformed by Roy Stoltzfus of Spring Mills, Pennsylvania.
5. Should Defendants be successful in establishing deficiencies in the
construction of the home or the steps and railing, the proposed Additional Defendants
would be responsible for these claims.
6. The joinder of these additional parties is in the interest of judicial economy
as additional litigation will be available as all necessary parties will be joined in this action.
7. This joiner will not delay the litigation as the pleadings have been
completed. Discovery of witnesses and the parties is to be scheduled.
8. Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, counsel for the Vernets, concurs in this Joinder
Petition.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Crockett Homes of PA, Inc. requests that the Court
a Rule to show cause why the subcontractors should not be joined as Additional
GOLDBERG KATZMAN, Y.C.
By:
jl
D?te:
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Attorney ID #32085
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
717-234-4161
Attorney for Counterclaim Defendant
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.
April 27, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire, hereby certify that on this date, I served the
foregoing document, via U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the persons set forth below,
namely:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Barbara Sumple-Sull ivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C.
1
By: ,'t s c yr-
Th-omas E. Brenner, Esquire
i Date: April 27, 2005
121299.1
h?
4 i
n ?y, '.1
j"
? _ ..
t
(_J
['::: '
RECEIVED MAY 0 5 20W"'
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
INC., : CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
NO. 2004-4108
V.
DONALD E. VERNET and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
AND NOW, this S' day of May, 2005, Defendants Vernet ate directed to show
cause why the subcontractors should not be joined as Additional Defendants.
Rule returnable zo days from service.
BY THE COURT:
?
0e3'6
':i
?r ?
,, ?:
? '^ ?,.
} , •,
CROCKEVF LOG HOMFS OF PA, : IN THE COURT Ol, COMMON PLEAS
INC., : CUMBEIZI,AND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
NO. 2004-4108
V.
DONALD E. VEIZNET and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW'
BRENDA L. VL;RNF: f,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this /9' day of May, 2005, as Defendant has not opposed the
Rule to Show Cause, the Kule is made absolute and the Plaintiffs request to join
subcontractors as Additional Defendants is GRANTED.
Oh
13Y TVIE COURT:
.`7 ?7 1.10 L' ?,?•ii 1L?;n
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzma,i, P.C.
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
717-234-4161
Attomeys for Plaintiff Crockett Log Homes
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
INC., : CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
NO. 2004-4108
V.
DONALD E. VERNET and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW - : _
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants -
rv
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc.,
by their attorneys, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., who state:
1. By Order of the Honorable Kevin A. Hess of May 5, 2005, this Court
directed Defendants to show cause why the subcontractors should not be joined.
2. Defendants' counsel does not object to the joinder. (See
Correspondence attached hereto as "Exhibit A")
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court enter an Order malting the Rule
Absolute and granting Plaintiff's request to join the subcontractors as Additional
Defendants.
G BERG KATZMAN, P.C.
????
BY:
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
ID # 32085
Carly J. Wismer, Esquire
Attorney ID #92598
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
(717) 234-4161
Attorney Iforngfor Plaintiff
Date: May, 18, 2005
wr?<a
LAW OFFICES
BARBARA SUMPLE-SULLIVAN
549 BRIDGE STREET
NEW CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA 17070-1931
PHONE (717) 774-1445
FAX (717) 774-7059
May 12 7, 2005
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman
P.O. Box 1268
320 Market Street, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Re: Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.
V.
Donald E. Vernet and Brenda L. Vernet
Docket No. 2004 - 4108 / Cumberland County
Dear Mr. Brenner:
I am in receipt of Judge Hess's Order dated May 5, 2005 to show cause as to why
the subcontractors should not be joined. I do not object to the joinder. Please proceed
appropriately to make the Rule absolute.
If you should have any questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.
f;
BSS/lh
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Donald E. Vernet
EXHIBIT
w F
7
kF-
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing document upon the
person(s) indicated below by depositing a copy of the same in the United States mail,
postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and addressed as follows:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Barbra Sump] e-SullWan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C.
BY: IIJzL !I! ./
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Date: May 18, 2005
122176.1
RECEIVED MAY 2310053
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
INC., : CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
NO. 2004-4108
V.
DONALD E. VERNET and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this Z'( `day of May, 2005, as Defendant has not opposed the
Rule to Show Cause, the Rule is made absolute and the Plaintiff's request to join
subcontractors as Additional Defendants is GRANTED.
BY THE COURT:
2
IN\
ti
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman, P.C.
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
717-234-4161
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2004-4108
V.
DONALD E. VERNET and
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
NATURAL BUILIDNG SYSTEMS, :
INC.,BRUCE DUNLEAVY, and ROY:
STOLTZFUS,
Additional Defendants
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims
set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this
Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by
attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set
forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without
you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for
any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the
Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF
YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR
TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU
CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Lawyer Referral Service
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166
NOTICIA
Le ban demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas
demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al
partir de ]a fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia
escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la cone en forma escrita sus defensas
o sus objections a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea adisado que si usted no
se defiende, la sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier quja o puede perder dinero
o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SINO
TIENE ABOGADO O ST NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DEPAGARTAL
SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA
CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR
DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Lawyer Referral Service
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman, P.C.
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
717-234-4161
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
INC., : CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
NO. 2004-4108
V.
DONALD E. VERNET and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
V.
NATURAL BUILIDNG SYSTEMS, :
INC.,BRUCE DUNLEAVY, and ROY:
STOLTZFUS,
Additional Defendants
COMPLAINT AGAINST ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS NATURAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. BRUCE DIUNLEAVY AND
ROY STOLTZFUS
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. by its
attorneys, Goldberg Katzman, P.C., who state:
1. Additional Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. is a corporation
located at 35 Old Route 12N, Westmoreland, New Hampshire, 03467.
2. Additional Defendant Bruce Dunleavy is an adult individual residing at
1217 Indian Peg Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Additional Defendant Roy Stoltzfus is an adult individual residing at 801
Penns Creek Road, Spring Mills, Centre County, Pennsylvania.
4. The present action was initiated by Complaint filed by the Plaintiff (See
Exhibit A).
5. Defendants Verner have filed an Answer, New Matter, and Counterclaim,
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
6. The Counterclaim avers that negligence in the design and construction of
the Defendants' home resulted in damages to the Defendants.
7. The Defendant's house was manufactured by Additional Defendant Natural
Building Systems, Inc.
8. According to the Dealer Contract between Plaintiff and Additional
Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc., Paragraph H, states that Natural Building
Systems, Inc. warrants its product for 10 years from the original date of purchase. The
contract is attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
9. Additional Defendant Bruce Dunleavy was a subcontractor of the Plaintiff
and performed the installation of the shell of the house averred in Defendants'
counterclaim.
10. Additional Defendant Roy Stoltzfus was a subcontractor of Plaintiff and
performed the installation of the steps and the railing of the Defendants' house averred
in the Defendants' Counterclaim.
2
11. The averments of Breach of Contract and Unfair Trade Practices as to the
design of the subject house in Paragraphs 44 to 92 of the Defendants' Counterclaim are
incorporated herein by reference.
12. Should the Defendants prevail on their counterclaim, then it is averred that
Additional Defendants Natural Building Systems, Inc., Bruce Dunleavy, and Roy
Stoltzfus are solely liable for the Defendants' Counterclaim. In the alternative, should
the Defendants prevail on their Counterclaim, it is averred that Additional Defendants
Natural Building Systems, Inc., Bruce Dunleavy, and Roy Stoltzfus are jointly and
severally liable on their claim. In the further alternative, should the Defendants prevail
on their Counterclaim, it is averred that Additional Defendants Natural Building Systems,
Inc., Bruce Dunleavy, and Roy Stolzfus are liable over to Plaintiff Crockett Log Homes
of PA, Inc. for indemnity or contribution on the Defendants' counterclaim.
WHEREFORE, Plaintff Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc requests that Additional
Defendants Natural Building Systems, Inc., Bruce Dunleavy, and Roy Stoltzfus be found
solely liable on the Defendants' Counterclaim; or in the alternative, jointly and severally
liable on the Defendants' Counterclaim; or in the alternative, liable over to Plaintiff
Crockett Log Homes, Inc. for indemnity or contribution on the Defendants'
Counterclaim.
3
GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C.
By: 1/J
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Attorney ID #32085
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
717-234-4161
Attorney for Counterclaim Defendant
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.
Date: June 21, 2005
4
VERIFICATION
I, Douglas Dodson, hereby acknowledge that I am an authorized representative
of Crockett Log Homes of Pennsylvania; that I have read the foregoing document and
that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the hest of my knowledge, information
and belief.
I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18
Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
CROCKET LOG HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA
By: 9-4- 4, &"
Dougl odson
Date:
122364.1
LAW OFFICES OF DILS & DILS
ARTHUR K. DILS, ESQUIRE
Attorney I.D. No. 07056
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Telephone No. (717) 232-9724
Attorney for Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc.
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs. NO. 2004 - 4Y I ep 9 Civil Term
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NOTICE TO DEFEND
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the
claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action within (20)
days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance
personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or
objections t the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do
so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you
by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for
any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff.
property or other rights important to you.
You may lost money or
? A
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR. LAWYER AT ONCE.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE,
GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO
FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Bar Association
2 Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-3166
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs. NO. 2004 - Civil Term
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, this ay of August 2004, comes the Plaintiff, Crockett
Log Homes of Pa., Inc., by his attorney, Arthur K. Dils, Esquire, and respectfully
avers the following:
COUNTI
BREACH OF CONTRACT'
1. The Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania Business Corporation duly licensed by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its' principal place of business at 58
Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Silver Sprint; Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania 17050. G. Douglas Dodson is the President of said
Corporation.
2. The Defendants, Donald E. Vernet and Brenda L. Verret, his wife, are
adult individuals residing at 3111 Enola Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania 17013.
3. The Defendants entered into a written contract with the Plaintiff
Corporation on July 31, 2003. A copy of said Contract is attached hereto
and marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
4. The Contract provided that the Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc.,
was to construct a high energy efficient log building for use as a residence.
5. The Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., and the Defendants
prepared and reviewed plans and specifications for the construction of the
building and the Defendants agreed to these construction specifications and
plans.
6. The Plaintiff was to perform all necessary labor and to furnish the required
materials as set forth in said specifications.
7. The consideration for this construction project was agreed upon, in that, the
Defendants agreed to pay the sum of $150,314.00 to the Plaintiff, Crockett
Log Homes of Pa., Inc.
8. Prior to the signing of the Contract, but in accordance with the formal
written agreement entered into on July 31, 2003, the Defendants paid
$1,500.00 toward the agreed upon construction price.
9. The Plaintiff also gave the Defendants credit for a $1,000.00 coupon
obtained at a sales seminar.
10. As a result of the aforesaid credits, the Defendants agreed to pay the
balance of the construction price amounting to $147,814.00. The parties to
the Agreement agreed to a draw schedule.
11. The Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., began construction on or
about August 23, 2003, and had performed approximately 99% of the
construction work by the first or second week of April 2004.
12. The Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., provided all the materials
as required by the Agreement.
13. The Plaintiff, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., consulted continually with
the Defendants to make any changes that they desired and to completely
satisfy them.
14. The Plaintiff completed all work in a proper, good, and workmanlike
mariner.
15. Sometime in early April 2004, the Plaintiff appeared at the building site
and conferred with the Defendant, Donald E. Vernet, at which time the
Defendant indicated that the construction of the job was basically
completed and he was satisfied with same.
16. The next day, G. Douglas Dodson, the President of the Plaintiff
Corporation, went to the job site to check on the condition of certain
foundation posts and was ordered off of the job site by the Defendant,
Donald E. Vernet. Mr. Vernet said, "I don't: want you to get any deeper
into this because I'm seeking legal help and it will be a long drawn out
court case." The Defendant, Donald E. Vernet, did not specify any reasons
nor give any complaints.
17. During the construction process, the Defendant, Donald E. Vernet,
approached G. Douglas Dodson, the President:, of the Plaintiff Corporation
and asked for various changes and modifications to the aforesaid agreed
upon specification and plans. Among these requests were:
(a.) change a double window to a French door:;
(b.) change a single door to a French door;
(c.) tongue and groove wall covering on bottom side of second floor porch
deck floor;
(d.) helped with the electrical wires on the second floor, floor joists;
(e) helped wire porches; and
(f.) put up a catwalk across the loft area.
18. The Defendants had constructed a foundation. The anticipated and
proposed foundation was to be 14 feet wide, but the Defendant caused it to
be reduced to a 12 foot wide foundation. The Plaintiff, because of this
change, had to redesign the construction project.
19. The Plaintiff had hired and subcontracted with a subcontractor, Bruce
Dunlavy. This subcontractor was to help in the building of the residence.
The Plaintiff was under the impression that the plans and specifications and
his construction responsibility was to be from the foundation up. In other
words, the Defendants were responsible for all foundation work. The
Defendants had the first floor system completed before the Plaintiff began
its construction work.
20. The Defendant, Donald E. Vernet, without the knowledge of the Plaintiff,
instructed the subcontractor, Dunlavy, to install foundation posts.
21. As a result, the subcontractor, Dunlavy, installed posts in the foundation.
22. At or about the time that the Defendants ordered the Plaintiff off of the job
site, Donald E. Vernet made a statement to the Plaintiff that he was
concerned about one of the foundation posts.
23. On the day that the Plaintiff was ordered off the job site, G. Douglas
Dodson went to the site to check the foundation posts, even though he was
not legally responsible to do so, because of the Defendant's, Donald E.
Vernet's, instructions to the subcontractor, Dunlavy.
24, The Defendants prevented the Plaintiff from accomplishirig this inspection.
25. After being ordered off the job, the Plaintiff had his attorney write a letter
to the Defendants, Verret, in an attempt to resolve any problems between
the parties. Said letter is dated April 13, 2004, marked Exhibit "B" and
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
26. As a result of this letter, there was another meeting between the Plaintiff
and the Defendants in mid-May 2004, at which time access was permitted
to the foundation area and the Plaintiff observed a temporary post and
offered to rectify that problem. Donald E. Verret indicated that he did not
want the Plaintiff to accomplish this and refused further payment.
Defendant stated they would let Plaintiff know about the past due payment
due the Plaintiff, but failed to communicate with Plaintiff after that time.
The Defendants have willfully refused to make any further payments.
27. In accordance with the contract, the Defendants have paid the Plaintiff the
sum of one hundred thirty thousand, four hundred eighty-five and no/100
dollars ($130,485.00) in the following installments: $25,000.00,
$64,060.00, $12,425.00, $12,000.00, $10,000.00, and $7,000.00.
28. The Defendants have failed to pay the balance of the agreed contract. The
amount due is seventeen thousand, three hundred twenty-nine and no/100
dollars ($17,329.00).
29. Repeated demands have been made upon the Defendants for this sum and
the Defendants have failed to make payment.
30. Said sum is due and owing to the Plaintiff and the Defendants have
indicated no just cause or reason why said sum should not be paid.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants in the
amount of seventeen thousand, three hundred twenty-nine and no/100 dollars
($17,329.00) and interest, all costs of suit, and attorney's fees, said amount
requires referral to a Board of Arbitration.
COUNT II
QUANTUM MERUIT
31. The Defendants requested additional work outside of the contract which
required labor and material.
32. The Defendants specifically requested that the Plaintiff change a double
window to a French door. The total cost for labor and materials for this
requested change is $300.00.
33. The Defendants specifically requested that the Plaintiff change a single
door to a French door. The total cost for labor and materials for this
requested change is $400.00.
34. The Defendants requested the Plaintiff to install railings. The total cost for
labor and materials for this requested change is $1,100.00.
35. The Defendants requested the Plaintiff to install a catwalk. The total cost
for labor and materials for this requested change is $800.00.
36. The Defendants requested the Plaintiff to build two additional doors. The
total cost for labor and materials for this additional work is $200.00.
37. The Defendants requested the Plaintiff to assist with electrical wiring on
the second floor and floor joists and assist in the wiring of the porches.
The total cost for labor and materials for this additional work is $500.00.
38. The Defendants requested the Plaintiff to assist in the tongue and groove
wall covering on bottom side of second floor porch and deck floor. The
total cost for labor and materials for this additional work is $600.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants in the
amount of Three Thousand Nine Hundred and no/100 ($3,900.00) Dollars
plus interest, attorney's fees, and all costs, said amount requires referral to
a Board of Arbitration.
Respectfully submitted,
BY
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
1017 North Front Street
Contract
THIS CONTRACT, made the 31st day of July 2003, between Brenda and Don
Vernet of 3111 Enola Drive, Carlisle, PA hereinafter called OWNER, and Crockett Log
Homes of PA, Inc. 58 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17050, hereinafter
called CONTRACTOR, agree as follows:
The Owner represents that he is the real and registered Owner of the property
situated at 3111 Enola Drive, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
WHEREAS, the Contractor has agreed to do the work as indicated upon the said
plans and set forth in the specifications which are initialed by the parties.
In consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, it is agreed that each
party intending to be legally bound and the Owner desiring that the home be constructed
for private use, the parties hereby agree as follows:
(1) That the Contractor, for the consideration hereinafter mentioned and referred
to, hereby covenants and agrees with the Owner that he will do the work set forth in the
plans and specifications in a good and workmanlike manner, and in accordance therewith,
as well as with the rules and regulations of any city and county department; and of any
public service corporation supplying or which will in future supply services on the said
premises and does further agree to do and perform all of the work, supply and furnish all
of the labor and materials as set forth in the plans and specifications and necessary for the
proper performance of the said work which the Contractor does hereby undertake to
complete.
(2) That the Owner shall pay to the Contractor the sum of $150,314.00 as needed
with $1,500.00 Initial Deposit and $1,000.00 Coupon already paid.
(3) The total agreed construction price between the parties is that the Contractor
shall be paid the total remaining sum of $147,814.00 on a draw schedule.
(4) The Contractor hereby agrees that all construction shall be complete as set
forth within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of initial construction provided
that the Contractor is not delayed in the completion of this work by strikes, by failure of
the Owner to furnish funds or other matters, or other happenings beyond his control. If
such a delay is caused, the time of such delay shall not be included in the time during
which this contract is to be fully performed as herein provided, but such time shall be
extended for a period equal to the period of such delay.
(5) In the event that the Contractor is delayed in the performance and completion
of his work under this contract by any act, neglect, or default of the Owner or any
damage or delay caused by fire, delays in transportation, acts of God, acts of war, strikes
or any other casualty, vandalism, or calamity for which the Contractor is not responsible
or any event not under his control, the time herein fixed for the completion of the work
under this contract shall be extended for a period equal to the amount of time lost by
reason of any such causes, provided nevertheless the Contractor shall give Owner notice
of such delay and take reasonable steps to cure such delay.
(6) No changes or alterations in the work to be done under this contract shall be
made except by written contract of the parties hereto.
(7) The Owner shall pay for any additional costs in construction if there is any
rock or unfavorable building conditions, provided notice is first given to Owner and
Owner approves such additional costs.
(8) The Owner cannot move in until the Contractor is paid in full and Contractor
has substantially completed said construction excepting reasonable items of work undone
to affecting habitability.
(9) If there by any disagreement between the parties hereto concerning any
aspects of this contract, the Contractor shall have the option and the parties are bound by
this option, to either have the disagreement resolved through a Board of Arbitration or
through the ort of Common Pleas, under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
(10) It is understood and agreed that the Contractor does not assume any risks or
liability if the building is not erected within the time period set forth herein, unless such
delay is caused directly or indirectly by Contractor or Contractor's control.
(11) This Contract shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors,
administrators, and assigns of the respective parties hereto.
(12) The Owner will be responsible for but not limited to the following labor
and material:
Landscaping/seeding
Sanding, Painting and Polyurethaning the interior
Application of Exterior Weatherseal
Foundation
Plumbing and Fixtures
Heating
Air Conditioning
Electric and Fixtures
Kitchen, All Cabinets and Counters, Appliances
Floor Covering Ca°yl-? ?G ?-O r
Fireplace
5upp/1'es kl ?G?,n ??Dor
'?? ??/2 3
(13) Contractor is not responsible for permits and utility to house.
Signed and sealed the day and year first abo,
MffAs
-;/V//Z-?
t ess
Witness
LOwner
Homes of PA, Inc.
JJ I& & -OW&
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1017 NORTH FRONT STREET
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 1710,2
ARTHUR K. OILS PHONE: (717) 233-8743
DIANE M. DILS FAX'. (717) 233-2567
April 13, 2004
Brenda and Don Vernet
3111 Enola Drive
Carlisle, PA 17013
Dear Brenda and Don:
I represent Douglas Dodson, 58 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania
17050, who is the President of Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. A contract was
entered into between the corporation and yourselves sometime in August 2003.
You recently have ordered Mr. Dodson and his employees, sub-contractors from
your premises. I have reviewed the blue prints, the contract, and the work
performed and it is my opinion that Mr. Dodson and the corporation are in
substantial compliance with the contract and that you have breached the contract
by failing to make final payments and by not permitting Mr. Dodson to finish the
minor items.
Brenda gave Mr. Dodson a list of things that needed to be completed. I have
reviewed that list and most of the items have been taken care of. Brenda
mentioned the sealer and kitchen flooring and Mr. Dodson is ready, willing, and
able to supply these items. The trim around the kitchen was not completed because
Don said to wait, but this work can also be accomplished. The two items were not
discernable, namely; beams that need to go into the basement and more support to
the stairway into the basement. We would need clarification of these items, but I
assure you that Mr. Dodson would perform what is needed.
Recently, Mr. Dodson asked to view the basement area to verify that Bruce
Dunlavy completed the necessary posts in a proper manner. You refused Mr.
Dodson to view the basement and the posts. Enclosed is a copy of a brief history
of the job and its problems. Mr. Dodson is willing to consider any just complaints
that you have as he believes that he wants to sustain his integrity in the building
profession and wants to satisfy you as long as you have reasonable requests. The
total due Mr. Dodson at this time is $18,529.00. The final draw is $17,329.00 plus
$1,100.00 for railings, $200.00 for two doors built by Mr. Dodson, $900.00 for the
ceiling under the deck, $800.00 for the catwalk, $300.00 for changing a double
window to a french door, and $400.00 for a single door to a french door. A credit
of $2,500.00 was included in the demand figure for trusses that were not utilized.
You may feel free to contact me concerning this matter; however, we do want to
see that your contractual obligations are fulfilled and that this matter can be settled
quickly and amicably to the satisfaction of both you and your wife and Mr.
Dodson.
Very truly yours,
Arthur K. Dils
AKD/daf
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and
correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
GOCROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.
Date: August 19, 2004
I
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF P
Plaintiffs
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2004-4108
ANSWER. NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
COUNTI
BREACH OF CONTRACT'
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. Paragraph 4 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required.
By way of further answer, it is averred that the contract is a writing which speaks for
itself and any paraphrasing by the Plaintiff is denied as a true and accurate statement of
the terms of the contract.
5. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is denied that the Plaintiff and the Defendants
prepared plans and specifications for the construction of the building. It is averred that
Plaintiff prepared the plans and specifications in consultation with the engineer from
National Building Systems, Inc. d/b/a Crockett Log Homes, which entity Defendants
believed were the principal for Plaintiff. It is admitted that Plaintiff and the Defendants
did in fact review an Appendix A referenced Crockett Ultra R Log home sheet and
certain residence schematics. However, Defendants never received any other specific
specifications. It is further averred that an actual blueprint for the home was not
provided to the Defendants until after the contract was executed and Plaintiff had already
commenced building of the home. When Defendants asked for the blueprint at the time
of executing the contract, Plaintiff assured them it would be forthcoming and that they
would get all features exactly as discussed. This did not occur. It is further averred that
Plaintiff failed to construct the building in accordance with the schematics, Appendix A,
or the blueprint finally presented.
6. Admitted with the clarification that the contract specifically provided that the Plaintiff
agreed "... to do and perform all of the work, supply and furnish all of the labor and
materials as set forth in the plans and specifications and necessary for the performance of
the said work which Contractor does hereby undertake: to complete."
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted with the clarification that Defendants never actually received the coupon and
had understood the credit was to be One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00).
10. Admitted.
11. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff began construction on or
about August 23, 2003. It is denied that Plaintiff had completed approximately ninety-
nine percent (991/o) of the construction work by the first or second week of April, 2004.
By further answer, it is averred that the entire construction should have been completed
in February, 2004. It is further asserted that the work that was completed was not
completed in a workmanlike fashion.
12. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant provided all the materials required by the
Agreement. It is averred that many of the materials were provided directly from Crocket
Log Homes, the principal of Defendant. It is further noted that many materials as listed
on the Appendix A were never provided including, but not limited to, Therma Tru door,
double windows, metal posts and plates, etc, as outlined in the Counterclaim and
incorporated herein.
13. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff consulted continually with the Defendants to make
changes that they desired. It is averred that the only change which Defendants requested
was an upgrade to the front door entrance. A change order was issued. Defendants are
without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that Plaintiff desired to
completely satisfy them. By way of further answer, it is averred that Defendants only
expected that Plaintiff comply with the terms of their agreement, the Appendix A and
schematics and plans. It is noted that many changes made in the project were made due
to a design error by Plaintiff and his principal, Crockett Log Homes. Plaintiffs agents
pi oceeded with the construction despite the request that the errors be corrected. Those
changes as set forth in paragraphs 44 through 103 of the Counterclaim were never desired
or requested by the Defendants.
14. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff completed the work in a proper, good and workmanlike
manner. As set forth in Counterclaim, which paragraphs are incorporated by reference, it
is asserted that the work was performed in an unsatisfactory and negligent manner.
15. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, Donald E. Vernet at any time in April, 2004 told
Plaintiff that the construction job was completed and that he was satisfied with same. At
all times relevant, Defendants advised Plaintiff of the continuing problems with the
construction, including, but not limited to, the failure to meet the contract specification
and plans, the problems with water entering the home, and the faulty workmanship. It is
further averred that at this meeting concerning the problems, Defendants declined
Plaintiffs request for a draw. Plaintiff was emotionally distraught and indicated to the
Defendants that he was concerned that Bruce Dunlavy, another Crockett Log Homes
builder who was actually erecting the home on Plaintiff s and Crockett Log Homes
behalf, was "trying to bring him down" and stated that "none of this is worth it" and that
he thought he "should end it all". This was extremely upsetting to the Defendants.
16. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that at some time in April, 2004,
specifically on April 8, 2004, approximately a week after the conversation referenced in
paragraph 15 above, Plaintiff did return to the Defendants' property. At all times relevant
thereto, Defendants believed that Plaintiff had come to attempt to repair the existing
problem with the front door. It is denied that Defendants ordered Plaintiff from the site.
However, Defendants did tell Plaintiff not to put any more time into the project because
of the extensive repairs which were necessary and the poor quality of the construction as
it then existed. Defendants did not want any further work to continue until such time as
the structural integrity of the home was verified. It is admitted that Dodson was advised
that Defendants were seeking legal, as well as engineering assistance, to determine the
appropriateness of the Plaintiffs performance to date. It is denied that Defendants did
not specify any reasons or give any complaints.
17. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that of the items listed, only one change
as set forth in subsection d, was actually requested by Defendants. It is averred as
follows:
A. The French door was discussed by the parties, an agreement reached for its
inclusion in the design and was intended to be included in the original blueprint.
It was not included due to an administrative error by Plaintiff or design error by
Crockett Log Homes. This was not additional work by Plaintiff.
B. The French door was discussed by the parties, an agreement reached for its
inclusion in the design and was intended to be included in the original blueprint.
It was not included due to an administrative error by Plaintiff or design error by
Crockett Log Homes. This was not additional work by Plaintiff.
C. It is admitted that tongue and groove wall covering was required to be installed on
the bottom side of the second floor porch deck by the Defendants. It is denied
that said was an additional work since tongue and groove is required to be
installed pursuant to the contract for everything that is framed.
D. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff did personally assist
the Defendants with the installation of the electrical. It is averred that Plaintiff's
actual time was approximately one half hour. It is averred that this work was
required due to an error in installation of the logs by Mr. Dunlavy which made it
almost impossible to run wire for electrical service. Defendants could not even
hire an electrician who would take on the electrical construction work. To
remedy this, Plaintiff then illustrated to Defendant, Donald E. Vernet, how to run
the router to allow the wiring to run through the logs.
E. Admitted with the incorporation of subsection (D) above. It is estimated that
Plaintiff spent approximately an additional fifteen minutes (15) to punch the hole
through the wall for the extension of wiring to the porch.
F. It is admitted that during the initial negotiations of the scope of the contract work,
the catwalk across the loft was considered for deletion. However, at all times
relevant to the actual design of the home, the inclusion of the catwalk was
discussed by the parties, an agreement was reached for its inclusion in the design
and was intended to be included in the drawing. It should have been included and
was omitted only as an administrative error of the Plaintiff or a design error by
Crockett Log Homes. This was not additional work.
18. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that the foundation was a pre-existing
structural item which had been constructed by the Defendants prior to Plaintiff's contract.
Plaintiff and Crockett Log Homes were to design from that foundation upwards. The
only area where the actual foundation was not yet erected when the design was made was
in a designated foyer/entry area. It is averred that, at all times relevant to the
development of plans and specifications, the foundation and the contemplated area for
extension for the foyer were existing and readily available for field measure by Plaintiff
and the design engineer from Crockett Log Homes. However, Plaintiff's plan and
specification incorrectly incorporated the existing thirty-two feet (32) foundation wall as
a thirty feet (30) wall and estimated fourteen feet (14) gather than twelve foot (12) for the
foyer area. It is denied that at any time, the existing foundation was proposed to be
fourteen feet (14) wide.
19. Admitted in part. Denied in part. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without
personal knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment related to
Dunlavy and his responsibilities for construction. Proof of same is demanded at trial. It
is admitted that the preparation of the design and construction of the residence was to
utilize the existing concrete foundation work for all construction work. It is admitted that
the first floor system was completed before Plaintiff began his contract work. It is
further averred that all areas were readily available for field measure verification.
20. Denied. It is denied that Defendant, Donald E. Vernet instructed any subcontractor of
Plaintiff to install foundation posts. Said posts were required by the parties' contract. It
is averred that even the temporary posts, as were erected by Dunlavy, were not erected in
the appropriate locations and were placed in front of doorways and windows as a result of
Plaintiff's design error.
21. Denied. Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth of the averment and proof
thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, it is asserted that the subcontractor,
Bruce Dunlavy, was the subcontractor and agent for Plaintiff or Crockett Log Homes,
Inc. and acted at the direction of Plaintiff. Defendants had no control whatsoever over
his actions.
22. Admitted with the clarification that Defendants told Plaintiff on that and prior occasions
that he was extremely concerned about the posts and structural integrity of the building.
It is also averred that said posts, as installed by Plaintiff or his agents, were wood and
were required to be metal with plates pursuant to the specification Appendix.
23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth
of the matter and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the averments of
said paragraph are denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is due.
Defendants' response to paragraphs 20 and 21 are further incorporated herein by
reference.
24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth
of the matter and proof thereof is demanded.
25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth
of the matter and proof thereof is demanded. It is also denied that said exhibit includes
the entire correspondence record by Defendants.
26. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that an additional meeting between the
parties occurred on May 11, 2004. It is further averred that an individual from Crockett
Log Homes, whom Plaintiff did identify as "his boss," also attended. It is admitted that
Plaintiff was able to observe the temporary posts and all other problems with the project.
Defendants have no recollection of any offer to repair posts or any other construction
defect. A discussion did occur as to the failure of the Plaintiff to install trusses and/or
give Defendants credit for same. The representative of Crockett Log Homes indicated
that Crockett had already paid to Plaintiff a credit for the trusses. However, same was
never paid to or credited against the balance of Defendants. All problems were made
known both to Plaintiffs and Crockett Log Homes at said meeting.
27. Admitted.
28. Admitted with the clarification that since the work was not completed properly and costs
of construction, repair and replacement exceeds the contract sum, no further sums are due
to Plaintiff.
29. Admitted with the clarification that the work was not completed properly and costs of
construction repair and replacement exceeds any amount due to Plaintiff.
30. Denied. It is denied that any further sums are due to the Plaintiff because of Plaintiff s
total breach of the parties' contract and the necessary costs which will have to be incurred
by the Defendants to repair and replace the defective and improper work of the Plaintiff.
Said work is specifically set forth in the Counterclaim, which paragraphs are specifically
incorporated herein by reference.
WHEREFORE, Defendants requests judgment in their favor and against the Plaintiff.
COUNT II
QUANTUM MERUIT
31. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that certain changes were requested. It is
denied that said work was outside the contract. It is averred that paragraph 6 of the
parties' contract provided the procedure by which Plaintiff was to secure changes to the
contract work. It is averred that said change order procedure was implemented between
the parties.
32. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants' requested a change
from a double window to French door as incorrectly depicted on the blueprint as a result
of Plaintiff s design error. It is further denied that the total costs for labor and materials
for the change was Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00) since Defendants are without
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and said is denied. By way of
further answer, it is averred that from the total costs for labor and materials, Plaintiff was
required to offset, as credit, the monies saved for the failure of the Plaintiff to provide the
window and install same in exchange for the door.
33. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant's requested a change
from a single door to a French door as was incorrectly depicted on the plan due to a
design error. It is further denied that the total costs for labor and materials for the change
was Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00) since Defendants are without knowledge to form a
belief as to the truth of the averment and said is denied. By way of further answer, it is
averred that if the total costs from labor and materials, Plaintiff was required to offset, as
credit, the monies saved for the failure of the Plaintiff to provide the single door and
install same in exchange for the French door.
34. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that the change was requested but avers
that Defendants' failed to make the request. The change in the stairs resulted from the
original design error in the plan which caused the house to be constructed with
insufficient space to accommodate the stairs as depicted on the blueprint produced by
Plaintiff or Plaintiff's agent. It is further denied that the total costs for labor and
materials for the change was One Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($1,100.00) since
Defendants are without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and
said is denied. It is further asserted that because Plaintiff deleted the landings and
otherwise modified the stair wells, the costs of his actual construction was considerably
less than the anticipated costs incident to construction of the stairs set forth in the
blueprint. Plaintiff's are thus entitled a credit to the contract price.
35. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that the change to the blueprint was
requested to re-insert the catwalk back into the design due to its erroneous error or
omission in the original design by Plaintiff or Crockett Log Homes. It is further denied
that the total costs for labor and materials for the change was Eight Hundred Dollars
($800.00) since Defendants are without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the
averment and said is denied.
36. Admitted. It is admitted that the change was requested by Defendants and that said sums
are due as a credit in accordance with the parties' executed change order.
37. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff did assist Defendants in
wiring but avers that Plaintiff offered to do so without. charge to mitigate the result of the
construction failures of Dunlavy which made it much more time consuming and difficult
for Defendants or their electrician to run the wiring. It is further denied that the total
costs for labor and materials for the change was Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) since
Defendants are without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and
said is denied. It is averred that the total labor time expended by Plaintiff did not exceed
one half (1/2) hour
38. Denied. This work was required pursuant to the parties' contract. It is further denied that
the total costs for labor and materials for the change was Six Hundred Dollars ($600.00)
since Defendants are without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment
and said is denied.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request judgment be entered on their behalf and against the
Plaintiff.
NEW MATTER
39. Any reimbursement for alleged additional work set forth in Count II of Plaintiff's
Complaint are barred by the terms of the contract which require changes to be by written
contract.
40. Any reimbursement for alleged additional work set forth in Count II of Plaintiff's
Complaint are barred by the Statute of Frauds.
41. Any sums found to be due to Plaintiff must be offset against monies due to Defendants as
awarded pursuant to the Counterclaim set forth herein.
42. Plaintiff is responsible and liable for the actions and directions of his agents, including
specifically his subcontract, Bruce Dunlavy.
43. Plaintiff supplied a faulty blueprint for construction of'Defendants' home.
COUNTERCLADI
44. Counterclaim Plaintiffs are Donald E. Vemet and Brenda L. Verret, adult individuals
residing at 3111 Enola Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
45. Counterclaim Defendant is Crockett Log Homes of Pa, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
with its principal place of business being 58 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania, 17050.
COUNTI
BREACH OF CONTRACT
46. Counterclaim Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendant entered into a written contract dated
July 31, 2003 for the construction of a Crockett Log Home upon their property located at
3111 Enola Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
47. Said contract required the work to be performed in accordance with the contract, plans
and specifications.
48. At all times relevant hereto and since July of 2002, Counterclaim Plaintiffs were residing
in the property in the basement concrete foundation which was in existence at the time of
contract with the Counterclaim Defendant.
49. At all times relevant hereto, Counterclaim Defendant was to plan, design, secure and
construct a Crockett Log Home on the existing foundation of Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
50. Crockett Log and Timber Homes is marketed nationally as a manufacturer and builder of
log homes and is a designated trademark o National Building Systems, Inc. It is
believed and therefore averred that National Building Systems, Inc., is the principal of
Counterclaim Defendant. f
w^
51. At all times relevant thereto, Counterclaim Plaintiffs believed that Counterclaim
Defendant was an agent or employee of Crockett Log Homes, now legally known to them
as National Building Systems, Inc.
52. At all times relevant, Counterclaim Plaintiffs knew that Counterclaim Defendant,
Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc, was working solely with Crockett Log Homes to
provide the building materials, design the home for erection on Counterclaim Plaintiffs'
foundation, complete specifications, drawings and building plans to construct
Counterclaim Plaintiffs' new home on their existing foundation.
53. Counterclaim Defendant, with the assistance of an engineer of Crockett Log Homes
named Matt Kocyba, were solely responsible for the design of the log home to be built on
the existing foundation. ``n V V ti
54. At all times relevant thereto,, tad Dunlavy, was known to Counterclaim Plaintiffs to be
an agent or employee of Crockett Log Homes and Counterclaim Defendant.
55. Counterclaim Defendant's original design and construction were drawn in error since it
1 t ,v incorrectly measured the existing foundation as being two feet shorter than the thirty-two
?.
L feet (32) which actually existed and measured the area for an intended entry/foyer area as
two (2) feet larger than the twelve feet (12) that actually existed.
56. Counterclaim Defendant and/or the engineer from Crockett Log Homes improperly and
erroneously field measured the foundation or failed to measure same.
57. The result of this error was to severely skew and limit the planned construction area and
layout of the entire interior of Counterclaim Plaintiffs' home, causing loss of space and
repositioning of structural supports and other contracted for features.
58. Counterclaim Defendant's original design provided that certain support columns at the
i , first level were to be metal posts with top and bottom plates under each posts and were to
p be set upon reinforcements in the existing foundation.
\1 ` 59. In lieu of the metal support columns and support plates, Counterclaim Defendant, or his
agents, subcontractors, installed eight (8) 8" x 8" wood posts and which, in many
locations, not accurately rest squarely or have bearing upon the existing footers or
masonry walls.
60. Also, at a main support beam integral to the first floor, an additional wood post was set in
order to transfer the roof load to the basement. This additional post must be replaced
with a steel post and concrete slab.
61. It is expected that approximately eight (8) posts must be replaced with steel posts and
seven (8) plates and (approximately 7) need to be reinforced with footers.
62. The cost of this repair work incident to each post replacement and repair is estimated to
be One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per metal post for a total of Eight Thousand
Dollars ($8,000.00).
63. Plaintiff constructed the support column for the roof and dining area to attach by a single
C? lag bolt although it does not abut or attached to adjoining supports. This is inappropriate
construction that may cause the entire roof system to collapse with additional load, such
as snow, fatigue, etc.
64. It is believed that a special support must be fabricated to reinforce this roof or after be
removed and replaced with a rafter that bears on the ex=terior wall. The cost is currently
unknown but it is estimated the support could be fabricated for One Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($1,500,00) in fabrication of said met=al support, plus labor.
65. Other physical discrepancies from the contract, plans and specifications resulting from
the design error which include, but are not limited to, the following:
A) Loss of the walk-in closets depicted on the plan. Although Counterclaim
Defendant did construct two (2) smaller closets, they are so inadequate in size that
they cannot be used for the intended purpose due to their width attd depth.
B) No pantry was built.
C) The powder room was built smaller than expected.
i
??` ? D) No island was placed in the kitchen exists.
E) The stairway was shifted from the rear wall to the side wall and landings were
deleted.
F) Bedroom two was reduced in size from 171 square feet to 133 square feet.
tik G) No laundry room was included.
,J?
H) Limited space cause misalignment of roof lines and pitch and resulted in improper
drainage to handle gutter runoff.
I) Limited space for installation caused improper operation of doors.
J) Foyer window (which had been intended to be double window) became a single
window and installed approximately three feet towards the "corner of house." Its
present location has the window under the roof and this is causing major interior
and exterior water damage.
K) Window heights as installed prevent practical use throughout the home and must
,-..
be reconstructed with different size windows to allow use.
66.
67
These defects as set forth above have impacted the fair market value of the home and
have reduced its aesthetic appearance and practical use. The errors in design and
construction have prevented the Counterclaim Plaintiffs from securing the house for
which they contracted to pay for.
The costs for repair and replacement of the losses are not currently known but will be
ascertained and provided at trial. However, estimates of said costs known to date are as
follows:
A) Materials and labor for roof repairs, including ;alignment of
Valley, caps
B) Spouting/front of house (labor and materials)
C) Closest in foyer missing (materials and labor)
D) Pantry in kitchen (materials and labor)
E) Catwalk landings missing in both stairways (material and labor)
$1,800.00
$ 350.00
$ 740.00
$ 740.00
$2,600.00
F) Closets in Master bedrooms were to be walk-in (material and labor $2,000.00
68.
G) Plumbing wall needed correct by 2 x 6 (labor)
IT) Credit for bathroom
n Credit for losing doorway openings and repositioning of posts
I) Space in powder room lost
K) Correct foyer entrance opening into kitchen area. Gable was to
Continuous to meet other ceiling
L)
M)
N)
Windows in work area
Dormer off center, window height, tongue (groove alignment
and roof build to right side
Credit for changes in front exterior structural appearance. This
lost of costs thereof will be determined at hearing
Total
$ 800.00
$2,000.00
$2,500.00(plus labor)
$2,000.00
$4,500.00(plus labor)
$2,800.00
$2,200.00
$ To be determined
$25,030.00
Pursuant to the contract, Counterclaim Defendant was to perform the work in a good and
workmanlike manner.
69. Counterclaim Defendant failed to perform said work. The following deficiencies are
A) Inappropriate insulation techniques which allow for water and air
infiltration;
B) Incorrectly installed ridge vent and shingles;
C) Inappropriate windows used and error in placement;
D) Improper nailing of logs using fasteners which are too short or
incorrect for the installation;
noted:
E) Improper construction of master deck gable;
F) Improper front door entry and damage to same. This has resulted
in Counterclaim Plaintiff's loosing warranty coverage for same;
G) Deletion of Hammer trusses;
H) Grids from French doors;
1) The floor joist on the stairwell need additional support to lessen the
bounce;
17 The deck construction is not of adequate and must be reinforced by
the further installation of two (2) tap cons screws or thunderbolts
per bay.
K) Due to Counterclaim Defendant's error in the construction of the
kitchen step down, no chasis were drilled in plates and additional
corrections required.
L) The walls in the kitchen are not aligned and not frames.
M) The roof beams in kitchen needs repairs.
N) The sink area in kitchen needs repaired.
O) No handrail and steps out of line and loose.
P) Loose log to siding to be attached.
Q) Other problems to be revised.
70. The total costs of correction of this defective work is not yet ascertained and proof of
same will be made at hearing. Estimates known to date are set forth in Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference.
71. The areas of poor construction indicated in paragraph (19 above have also affected
Counterclaim Plaintiffs' practical use of the residence.
72. The areas of poor construction indicated in paragraph 69 have also allowed for the
introduction of water and moisture into the home.
73. Further, during the actual construction, Counterclaim Defendant failed to appropriately
protect the building site by erection of roofing system and reasonable care of stored
materials.
74. As a result thereof and the subsequent poor roof construction, the structure was exposed
to the elements, including especially heavy rainfall, for a period of approximately six (6)
months.
e
75. These acts resulted in the introduction of water into the property and onto the building
materials, including, but not limited to, the Styrofoam, the OSB board, windows, walls
and laminated floor joists.
76. This had given rise to the growth of mold and mildew in the home during construction
and which continues to the present.
77. These construction problems require correction of the construction defects, as
waterproofing of many of the building components.
78. Steps must also be taken to remediate the mold growth throughout the home (especially
around the perimeter walls); water staining on the walls; and extensive replacement of
actual wall and floor materials to eliminate the mold and deal with the high moisture
content in the home.
79. The moisture problems have caused Counterclaim Plaintiffs' ceiling to warp from high
humidity and moisture; insulation inside the logs is damp; and visible mold and moisture
damage exists to the sub floor, foundations and inside existing cabinets, destroying same.
80. After repair and replacement of faulty construction which allowed the introduction of
water and replacement of the damaged building materials in the property, an entire mold
remediation process must be undertaken in the estimated amount of Thirty-Eight
Thousand Dollars ($38,000.00), per estimate performed by JEM Environmental.
81. This water problem was further exasperated by Counterclaim Defendant's use of an
interior power washer in an attempt to deter the mold growth during construction. The
Counterclaim Plaintiffs have experienced health problems resulting from the mold,
including wheezing, aggravated eyes, sick, mucus and muscle and joint aches as a result
of exposure to the mold.
82. Items damaged by the mold and water must also be replaced and/or repaired. These
include the following:
A) Interior beams and posts, as well as carrier beams, walls, floor joists, sub floors
and posts.' The scope therefore costs of these repairs cannot be fully determined
until tear out of the building materials occurs and determine the actual extent of
loss.
B) It is estimated that-these water stains on walls must be corrected at an estimated
cost of an additional Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($6,500.00), per
proposal of Joe Taggart of Capricorner Log Homes.
C) In addition to cleaning, all beams must be preserved and sealed for an estimated
cost of Seven Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($7,400.00), per proposes of Joe
Taggart of Capricorner Log Homes.
D) Counterclaim Plaintiffs will have to replace carpet, padding and other flooring
damaged by the water in the amount of Five Thousand Five Hundred Forty-six
Dollars and 5 8/100 ($5,546.58), per proposal of Fluss Flooring, Inc.
E) Counterclaim Plaintiffs will have to replace the cherry cabinets damaged by the
mold and water at a cost of Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifteen Dollars and
01/100 ($4,915.01), per proposal ofMcCarren Supply.
F) Counterclaim Plaintiffs will have to replace clothing and furniture damaged by
the mold at a value to be ascertained at Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00).
G) Counterclaim Plaintiffs' furnace is damaged at a repair cost of Four Hundred Fifty
Dollars ($450.00).
83. In addition to the problems in design and construction, Counterclaim Defendant has
failed to provide Counterclaim Plaintiffs with items required pursuant to the contract.
84. Counterclaim Defendant has failed to provide Counterclaim Plaintiffs with kitchen
flooring, the costs for replacement of which is Nine Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-seven
Dollars and 50/100 ($9,657.50).
85. Counterclaim Defendant has failed to perform the actual trash removal and cleanup
during the entire construction period for which Counterclaim Plaintiffs did perform. It is
estimated that this act saved Counterclaim Defendant approximately One Hundred
Dollars($100.00) per month or Nine Hundred Dollars ($900.00) over the actual
construction period. This cost is continuing.
86. Counterclaim Defendant did install single windows in lieu of double winds as required by
the contract. The savings in labor and material costs are. to be determined.
87, Counterclaim Plaintiffs expected possession and use of their home in accordance with the
parties' contract to be in February, 2004.
88. Counterclaim Plaintiffs had secured construction financing with interest only payments at
the rate of 3.99% until completion of construction. This was intended to be transferred to
a standard mortgage which had an expected rate of 4.35% in April, 2004.
89. Due to the failure to timely perform the contract and the poor workmanship and resulting
problems with the home, Counterclaim Plaintiffs have been unable to secure a permanent
mortgage financing arrangement to date.
90. As a result, Counterclaim Plaintiffs have had to pay Four Hundred Sixty-Seven Dollars
and 11/100 ($467.11) for each month until the house is completed and able to be
transferred to permanent financing. As of October 1, 2004 (and continuing),
• Counterclaim Plaintiffs have paid Four Thousand Sixty-seven Dollars ($4,067.00) in
additional interest expense.
91. Further, the mortgage interest rate available to Counterclaim Plaintiffs has now risen so
that in lieu of the 4.35% originally anticipated for a 15 year mortgage in April, 2004, the
rate they face currently is in excess of 6%. This will result in significant additional
interest expenses over the life of the mortgage and result in further financial losses for
Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
92. Counterclaim Plaintiffs should be reimbursed for these additional financing costs related
to the failed construction.
WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek judgment in the amount of One Hundred
Twenty-Nine Thousand One Hundred Eleven Dollars and 09/100 ($129,111.09), plus costs to be
determined, interest, counsel fees and other costs of suit. This demand shall be mo3ified once
the entire costs, losses and expenses are determined.
COUNT h
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
93. Paragraphs 1 through 92 of Counterclaim Plaintiffs' Answer, New Matter and
Counterclaim are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
94. Counterclaim Defendant failed to complete the construction on Counterclaim Plaintiffs'
home as contracted for.
95. Counterclaim Defendant performed the work in a shoddy and unworkmanlike manner.
96. The goods and services provided to Counterclaim Plaintiffs by Counterclaim Defendant
were primarily for Counterclaim Plaintiffs' personal, family and household uses.
97. Counterclaim Plaintiffs believed that they were purchasing a "Crockett Log Home" and
that Counterclaim Defendant was a "Crockett Log Homes" affiliate.
9$. Counterclaim Plaintiffs later determined that no entity }mown as "Crockett Log Homes"
exists but that it was a trade name for Natural Building Systems, Inc. which was also
being used by Counterclaim Defendant Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc. to cause the
consumers to believe that it was party of a larger single entity, an agency association or
other cooperative affiliation existing between the parties for construction of a "Crockett
Log Home".
99. Counterclaim Defendant used a marketing and sales distribution network which caused
confusion and misunderstanding for Plaintiffs and the public in connection with the
association and affiliation of the gbods and services.
100. Marketing by Counterclaim Defendant of "Crockett Log Homes" creates the
representation that the goods and services provided has a. sponsorship, use or benefit that
they do not have, namely the endorsement of a single entity which stands behind its
product, its sale and construction.
101. Counterclaim Defendant fostered this misrepresentation by referencing affiliated
locations such as "Home Office" for Natural Building Systems, Inc., and "my boss" when
referencing the representative from National Building Systems, Inc. which inspected the
home with Plaintiffs in April, 2004. Such a marketing, scheme is calculated to cause
confusion for the public.
102. The practices, failure and omissions of Counterclaim Defendant described in the
Counterclaim violate to Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law, 73 P.S. Section 201.1, et seq.
103. Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek treble damages and counsel fees in accordance with said
Act, attorney's fees plus interest, costs of suit and all other relief the Court determines
appropriate at trial of this case.
WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiffs seek compensation damages in the amount of
actual damages proven at trial, treble damages pursuant to Unfair Trade Practices, plus attorney's
fees, interest, costs of suit, including reimbursement of expert and litigation costs, and all other
relief the Court deems appropriate.
Dated: September 27, 2004
New Uumberlano, FA I MIU
(717) 774-1445
Supreme Court I.D. 32317
Attorney for Defendants
V VrrMT'r «e„
Problem Current Estimate
A) Inappropriate insulation techniques
which allow for water and air infiltration; To be determined
B) Incorrectly installed ridge vent and shingles; Included in roof repairs
C) Inappropriate windows used and error in placement. Estimate in response
included in window estimated in response to paragraph 67; to paragraph 67
D) Improper nailing of logs using fasteners which are too To be determined
short or incorrect for the installation,
E) Improper construction of master deck gable. Included Estimate in response
in roof repair estimate in response to paragraph 67 to paragraph 67;
F) Improper front door entry and damage to same. To be determined.
This has resulted in Counterclaim Plaintiff's loosing; Cost of repair $350.00;
warranty coverage for same; however loss of
warranty is not valued
G) Deletion of Hammer trusses. Estimated labor and
material credit; $5,000.00
H) Grids from French doors: $ 120.00
I) The floor joist on the stairwell need additional To be determined
support to lessen the bounce;
.l) The deck construction is not of adequate and must To be determined
be reinforced by the further installation of two (2) tap
cons screws or thunderbolts per bay;
K) Due to Counterclaim Defendant's error in the To be determined
construction of the kitchen step down, no chassis were
drilled in plates and additional corrections required;
L) The walls in the kitchen are not aligned and are not framed; To be determined
Ivl) The roof beams in kitchen needs repairs. Included in roof Estimate in response
estimate in response to paragraph 67; to paragraph 67
N) The sink area in kitchen needs repaired. To be determined
O) No handrail and steps out of line and loose. To be determined
but estimate $725.00
P) Loose loa to sidin, to be attached $ 450.00
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court 432317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DONALD E. VERNET AND NO.2004-4108
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant
VERIFICATION
We, Donald E. Vernet and Brenda L. Vemet, hereby certify that the facts set forth in the
foregoing ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLA IA are true and correct to the best
of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that any false statements made herein
are subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to
authorities.
Dated: ?I?t?
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Cowl #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.
Plaintiff,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
DONALD E. VERNET and
BRENDA L. VERNET
Defendants
NO. 2004-4108
CIVIL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, do hereby certify that on this date, I served a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Answer, New Matter and counterclaim, in the above-captioned
matter upon the following individual by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
DATED: September 27, 2004
Supreme Court I.D. No. 32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Attorney for Defendants
(717) 774-1445
a
DEALER rX..INTRAr l
For end in consideration of the m_;tuml cr"Prents arxi agrY*nrnt.s
.
hereinafter set forth, Natt.ral t'+.ri.l.dinq Sy.stens. Inc.. a New Hamp.,hir.
C'A-*-.ti.cn with a Usr.al ol.ax of br.isi.ne". in Westrrrel.and, C-M,.shire Canty,
New Hermshire, hereinafter referred to as arxi Dctaglas Dodson/Crrx*.ett Loa
Homes of PA., Inn., a Perm. Ylvania corporation with a usual place of Wsiness in
Lewisberry, Pernsylvanin hereinafter referrers to as "Dealer", do m_rtually
covenant and agree as follows:
Section 1 - Recitals
Al NR.S is in the business of designing, iwvrketi.ng and sL=Iyina
materials to be used for the construction of solid wall hones and
buildings t-rrIer the., traderarne of "Crockett Log & Timber Lixnes" ;
B) Dealer desires to rraricet Crr.)ckett Log & Timber Homes as an
independent distributor r.pon the terms and conditions hereinafter set
forth;
C) Both Per^ties wish to pu-sue a long term relationship that is
rrxatumlly beneficial.
Section 2 - Dealership
A) NESS grants to Dealer the right to mar<Aet and sell Crockett Log
& Timber Hones Prod.rcts of hBS, utulizing the Crockett Log & Timber Homes
traderen* and trademark. Dealer shall not use or ar.rthorize or permit the
use of the mark. "Crockett Log & Timber Fkvnes" or, any variation thereof m
any trademark or trraderxme owned by NESS except to designate Produots Wdow
C
- 2 -
p_YY '1aat:fi from W.S txr*r the terms of this Contract. Dealer .shrli. not
contest the right of NBS to the exclusive use of i.ts trJera+me or
trademarks.
B) Dealer will use its best efforts to promote and sell Crockett
Log & Timber Homes orock,rts and shall see to the proper m errA cmw nt and
v,pervision of its business and shall maintain the high nx+lity of
Crockett Log & Timt'xr Homes products trey close cxxxx", tion with and
satisfactory ccn%vier assistance to Dealer's nustomers.
C) Dealer will not modify any of N3S' Prods-lots withxlt written
permission of rBS in each instance.
D) All Crcckpctt. Log & Timmer Hrn -s ProH_icts will be. sold by W15 to
Dealer on the terms set forth in Appendix A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference and on such additional terms as PBS
shall establish from time to time. Resale prices .dull be set by Dealer.
Section 3 - Sales and Order Contracts
A) W o.4i selling NBS prvXIC.ts Dealer MEW use ita CUn OOnStriActi.on
contract for those log hone Packages it sells 1'or cxMtruction or
installation. Dealer shall use the Material Order list provided by NNS.
If Dealer does not use its own oonstnx,tion ccxitrart, Dealer shall use
the "Crockett Sales Agrv- - t", Provided by W-S. Dealer shall submit
all form to an attorney of Dealers' choice to assn-e that they meet the
- 3 -
requirements of State law of all. States in which Dealer uses them.
B) DEALER AGREES TO PROMS ALL C1-STCY'ER CR7RS WITHIN FIVE (5)
DAYS OF "ToMER'S EXECUTioN OF THE MATERIAL. ORDER LIST AND CRtX7 ETT
SALES AGREFJENT OR DEALER CrMTRIJCTICN CONTRACT AND SHALL DIKING THAT
PERIOD OF TIME SEND A COPY OF SAME WITH THE STANDARD DEPOSIT TO MS.
Dealer shall pay NBS promptly all amounts duer to NBS in ar.cordarce with
the terms of sale extended by NBS from time to time. SHIPMENTS MAY BE
,FENDED BY NBS IF DEALER FAILS TO rW<E SUCH PAYMENTS PROMPTLY.
Section 4 - General Conditions of Contraot
A) Adjustments in delivery date: NBS will Lee. its hest efforts to
complete Dealer's orders as accepted; however, NBS reserves the right to
make reasonable adjustments in the delivery date based on pros. tion
sdnedules. If NBS is fixable to camlete an 0&M cl-e to the uxKrvail-
ability of materials or labor, breakdowns in imdninery, or for any other
unfon-seeable cause, the ;xrrlnrrse order may txe ctr%-,gilled by NBS on refund
to Dealer of all payments received by NBS. This reftrrd will be the sole
renxecb of Dealer for such norrompletion of order.
B) Inability to furnish item: In the event NBS is unable to
furnish any item for an order, NBS reserves the right to delete this item
and adjust the final. contract pric+9 aocr"ingl.y, or make w.bstituti.cns
therefore upon notice to the Dealer.
C) Shortasxs and shipping errors: Dealer .shall inspect all
materials shipped pursuant to this contract iprmediately moon their
- 4 -
arrival, note any discrepanoies on the bill of lading and shall. within
five (5) days thereof, give written notioe to PBS of any claim that the
materials do not conform with the terms of this order. If the Dealer
shall fail to give such notice, the materials shall be deemed to conform
to the terms of this crder.
D) Shipping. PBS shall make arrergeme its for all mate ried.s to be
delivered to Dealer's place of delivery, but all costs for transportation
shall be born by Dealer and all risks of loss shall pass to Dealer when
the materials are loaded. Prices c0.xited for transportation otar^ges to
the building site are subject to change without notice.
E) Unloading at destination: Dealer is responsible for hnloeding
of materials from the carrier at the plate of delivery. PBS shell give
advance notice of expected time of delivery an. Dealer can arrange for
suitable machinery to be present to unload materials in a timely meinr'wr.
F) Postponement of delivery: Dealer may regxst a pastoonement of
milling date in writing l» to ten (10) days prior to milling date.
Dealer stall forward ell p rd#ase money in proper form at least seven (7)
days before the milling date. Finds stall be delivered in certified or-
tank, etiedc, irrevocable letter of ca e-dit, apprxrxed escrow acxxvnt, or in
any other way that in ttne opinion of PBS asst.res full payment on
shipment and has the prior written approval. of PBS. If Dealer has not
fa-warded all p rrtvsse money in appropriate form, an additional charge
for processing, handling and storage shall be paid by Dealer to PBS W-e n
billed by PBS.
- S -
0) Taxes, fees and assessments: All sales tax ald imnm^t d.aties,
if applicable, shall be paid by the Dealer in addition to the centred
price for materials.
. H) Wvi-arty Policies: PRS warrants the prod r is mmnufac:t1_red by
it against defects in q.xality and mV eK-'tLr:ing for a period of ten (10)
years from the original {late of ourcha.e;e.. This warrenty runs to the
original purchaser only, iJpon written request to PBS by the original
purchaser, PBS shall have its prod.Act inspected and in the event that
product is established to the satisfacation of PBS to have been defeotive
as aforesaid at the time of shipping. PBS will, at its option, repair or
replace the defective portion at its expense. PBS will not be
responsible for any comseq_+entiml damaKaes, C- .mayes f or loss of use, loss
of time, loss of profit or income, or any other incidental damages.
These warranties shall not apply to the tenderray of natural wood to
check, or twist unless this condition shall cause a clean through oreK* or
struotural weakness, nor shall they apply to defects arising from
construction which does not comply with all applicable building codes,
PBS' specificatiorm, or customary or Proper ct-rv-,truction practices.
Any product not mwanxfejo r^ed by PBS but sold by PFIS to Dealer is
sold only with the manuferbxers' warranty.
Any design change from PBS standard model structures or any problem
arising out of such a design ch ge. is the rresp. adbility of the Dealer
acid/or F.rrhaser.
Dealer shall give PBS immediate notice of any warranty problem or
- E -
claim arxi, at its expernae, shall crx?Det ate fr,lly with PETS in the harxi.ling
and resolution of warranty iss.tes. Any material or NBS ProdACt that is
aiestioned or is subject to a warranty claim shall be safely stored by
Dealer until the warranty i.sa_1e is resolved.
Il Dealer shall not install defective materials, and in cases
wtore Dealer is acting as a tA.iilder, Dealer shall. condact its business so
that no claims arise against NBS because of the sale, erection, or use of
WS Products.
DEALER AGREES TO PROTECT NPS AND H LD IT HAPo'1._ESS FROM ANY LC95.S OR
CLAIM ARISING OUT OF TFE NEGLIGENCE OF DEALER, ITS AGENTS, EL'PLOYEES, OR
REPRESENTATIVES IN TFE INSTALLATION, 11SE, SALE'. OR SERVICING OF NBS'
PRODUCTS OR ANY OTFPR SALES OR ACTIVITIES OF DEALER; DEALER ` AL-L
IMEDIATELY DISCFWW-F- ITS Cf?LIGATIONS- TO THE ORIGINAL r1 q .t1R P1.1RSI.IANT
TO TFE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PPS' PRODUCT WARRANTY APD CCINEA-MR SERdICE
POLICIES.
Dealer agrees to irrksmiify and hold NMS Vvwnless from any and all
claims, demands, actions and other liabilities arising from the
operation of Dealer's business. Dealer agrees to ?.rid.rtake the cost of
defending any such claims, including attorneys fees, and to reimtxrse PPS
for all cL- a -s a rd expenses including attorneys fes incurred by NBS in
connection with same.
Section 5 - Term
Al This Contract shall oontirti.re for a Period of ore.. Year from
7 -
date unless socrir terminated in axro re with Section 9.
B) Price for materials, Dealer area erxi sales performance
shall be reviewed by the parties at least arrually.
Section 6 - Marketing and Promotion
A) Dealer shall become familiar with NHS' my...d.xts, building
guides, office staff and ordering Prc >--d- e.
B) Dealer shall obtain appropriate Marketing materials from W.S.
Dealer will pay for same at tBM' cost.
C) NERS may offer .special advert i.si.ng/promotion opportunities to
Dealer and seasonal price or other sales i.rKx+itives.
Section 7 - Relationship Between Parties
A) IT IS UtUr5TOCD AND ACRES BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT DEA-ER IS
AN IN FM CONTRACTOR IN THE PERFrMAJ\ .:E OF EACH-{ AND EVERY PART OF
THIS CONTRACT AND IS SOLELY LIAA-E FOR ALL LjW-M AND E)FENSES IN
COMECTION HEREWITH AND FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MAY BE OCCASIONED
ON ACC? OF THE OPERATION OF THIS CONTRACT, WHETHER THE SANE BE FOR
PERSONAL. INJURIES OR DAMAGES OF ANY OTHER KIND.
NO Ef'Pt_OYNENT OR PARTNERSHIP IS CREATED BY THIS CONTRACT, DEALER'S
BUSINESS IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM ANY OPERATED BY MS. NEITHER PARTY
- 8 -
WI1L HAVE AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE OTHER, OR IN ANY MMPER CREATE
OBLIGATIONS OR DEBTS BINDING ON THE OTHER AND NEITHER PARTY WILL. BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OBLIGATIONS OR EXPENSES OF THE OTHER. NEITHER DEALER
NOR ANY PERSON PERFORMING WORK OR CUTIES FOR DEALER -%i4U. BE DEEfED AN
EMFLOYEE OR AGENT OF NBS. ,
B) The parties shall not discuss this contractual agreement with
the public; the parties may discuss this contractual agreement with their
respective employees and people employed by the parties for consultant or
business related purposes.
Section 8 - Insurance and Taxes
A) Dealer shall at its expense obtain and keep in force general
liability insuranoe in such aamoa.nts as are satisfactory to WS, insuring
both the Dealer and MS against any liability that may accrue against
them or either of them by reason of Dealer ownership, mainteror•ice, cm
operation of Dealer's business. Said insurancrx shall provide for
minimum ten (10) days notice to NBS of cancellation or any material change.
Dealer shall obtain and keep in force Workers Compensation insi..rance for
its employees. as required by the laws of Pemsylvania.
B) Dealer shall on request Provide NBS with certificates of
insurance necessary to establish the existence of all required insurance.
C) Dealer shall be responsible for and shall pay all federal,
state aand local taxes arising out of the operation of Dealer's business.
_c-
Section 9 - Termination
C) MS may terminate by notice given to Dealer. effective
imnediately, in any of the following events: (i) Failure of
Dealer to fulfill or perform any one or more of the d_aties,
obligations, or responsibilities undertaken by it pu^.a.ent to
this Contract; (ii) any assignment or attempted assigrmdnt by
Dealer of any interest in this Contract without ICES' written
consent; (iii) any sale, transfer or relinquishment, voluntary or
involt,nta^y, by operation of law or otherwise of any material
interest in the direct or indirect ownership rx^ any chaise in the
mere%wrrent of the Dealer which in the opinion of NES may affect
adversely the Performance of the Contract by [realer; (iv) failure
of Dealer for any reason to function in the ordinary omrse of
business; (v) a diet between or ano«-K; mena9ers, principals,
partners, officers or stockholders of Dealer whidi in the opinion
of NBS may affect adversely the Performance of this Contract by
Dealer; (vi) conviction of Dealer, or a mmrm;ker, partner, principal
officer or major stockholder of Dealer for any violation of
law tending, in NEW opinion
-1n-
to affect adversely the operation of busirrss of Dealer or the good name
Oxx9 will, nr- repitation of PBS, products of PBS, or Dealer; (vii.)
submission by Dealer to PBS of false or frel.*iAl.ent reports or .statements,
including, without limitation, claims for any refund, credit, r,*tete.
incentive, allowance, discount, reimbursement o, othe+^ payment by PBS; o-
(viii) failure to oooperatu^e fully with PBS in the resolution of any
warranty claim.
D) Upon termination, for whatever reason, Dealer shall forthwith
termirate the use of Cnockett Log & Timber Homes name and the use of all
signs, trademarks, tradermmes, service marks, symbols and telephone
listings associated with same or owned by PBS; Dealer shall forthwith
return all PBS Personal Property and contracts, ProdL#--t information,
sales materials end Proprietary information or materials and make Payment
of all s.ms owed PBS; Dealer shall Provide PBS with a list of names,
addresses, did telephone numbers of all customers.
E) Upon termination in accordance with the terms of this contract,
neither Party shall be liable to the other because of suoh termination
for compensation, reimbursement or damages on eocot-nt of the loss of
Prospective profits or anticipated sales. or on acxxx nt of expendib-"s.
investments, leases, or corrmitme+its in correction with the b_isiress or
good will of PBS or Dealer;
Sec=tion 10 - Proprietary Rights
A) All Plans, programs specifications, ap-)lications, Pri.ning data,
-11 --
sales tec-nicaues, or ideas utilized o^ develcped by WS in coot ertion
with this Crvitraot ere arxi shall. retrain the sole property of W9 arxi
shall not be disclosed by Dealer, to others or lased by Dealer in a way not
expressly allowed by NM.
Section 11 - Nort-Crmnetition Agremw?t
A) Dealer agrees for itself and its t_r!Xgsnrs and assigns and for
its corporate officers and stool hold rs that diving the life of this
contract end for a period of one year following the termination of this
contract for a cause specified in Section 9(C), neither it nor its
corporate officers will directly or indirectly sell or otherwise deal in
solid wall log buildings. or caxm>- eats of sevr!, Dealer will be
rYsoonsible to enforce this covenant against its corporate officers
erpd stor-kholders.
Seoticn 12 - Assignment
A) This contract contains the entire ac,r ent between thw parties
with respect to the sUb9ect matter of this contract. Except as herein
expressly provided to the cmtrary, ttx> provisicns of this contract are
for the benefit of the parties solely and not for thr benefit of any
other person, rkr-nms, or legal entities and this contract shall not be
assigned by Dealer to another party without the mitten oonsent of wS
nor shall Dealer subrontraot its performance wii.ttYxit the written consent
of MS.
- 12 -
Section 13 -General Terns
A) No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions
of this oontrect shall be, binding unless in ;citing arrd signed by a duly
authorized representative of both parties to this contract;
B) All communication regarding this contract should be sent to
Dealer at 878 Moores' Mountain Road, Lewisberry, PA. 17339 and to
N3S at PO Box 387, Keene, N1. W4il;
C) Any written notice hereut-der shall become effective as of the
date of mailing by certified mail and shill be deemed sufficiently given
if sent to the addressee at the address stated in this contract or such
other adct-eess as may hereafter be specified by notice in writing;
D) This contract shall be xaoverned by the laws of the State of
New Hampshire. On the expiration or termination of this contract for rum
cae.tw what.soe.vrr^, WS shall be entitled to iniirrtive annul eo.;itable
relief for any violation of this rxvntract. Dealer shall pay all costs
and expenses, including reasrxneble attcrrews' fees irxxrrwd by N3S in
enforcing any provision of this contract incluu*ying the provisions of
Section 9, 10 (,or- 11. The provisions of this Section and said Sections 9,
10 and 11 shall survive the termination of this contract.
E) Each party advxawledgcs that no rep er%-ntation or .statement,
and no understanding or agreement, has been made, cr exists, and that in
entering into this contract neither party has relied upon anything done
or said or upon any presumptions of fact or of law; M with respect to
- 13 -
the contract, or to the duration, termination, or rerr.,a.l of the
contract, or with respect to the relationship between the parties, other
than as expressly set forth in the contract; or (ii) that in any way
tends to c'mn3e or modify the terms, of this contract, or to prevent this
contract from becoming effective; or (iii) that in any way effects or
relates to the sbJect matter hereof. Dealer also acart444le.dges that the
terms and conditions of this contract, individually and as a whole are
reasonable and fair and equitable.
F) This contract terminates and sr_nersedes all prior seller-
distributor agreertrents, if any, between the parties hereto.
Section 14 - Personal Gueranty
A)
is a princiPal of Dealer; as such
does hereby CO-erahtee prompt and
satisfactory performaree of all Dealer's obligations i_"x this contract
and payment of all Dealer's liabilities herei.ncisr. If Dealer defaults in
the Performance or payment of any obligation hereunder,
will pay to PBS all such payments and sec to the
Performance of all such obligations and shall pay NBS all dwage-s, costs
and expenses that MS is entitled to recover by virtue of such default.
- 14 -
No written consent of
modification of this contract.
-4-el) bx remdred for any
NATIRA- BUILDING SY3M*n, INC.
Dated: By
CCO??
Th=rn.nto duly authorized
Dated: /
Dated:
DEA-ER
AA6 ?
Then.-nto dGly authorized
Ry
i3. rrantor
APPENDIX A
1) Classes of Dealers - PBS has different classes of dealers depending
upon sales activities by the dealer. Dealer is a MASTER DEALER. As such, all
Crockett Log & Timber Horns Products will be sold by PBS to Dealer, at PBS
suggested retail price less twenty two and one half percent (22.50. Pkw'r-
merLdactu^ed Products not included in a standerd Crockett log home package, will
be sold by ABS to Dealer at uniform wholesale prices. All CrrK*ett/Moreforless
Prr_tiducts will be sold by PBS to Dealer at PBS suggested retail price less
ninteen and one half percent (19.5%).
2) In addition, as a Master Dealer, Dealer has a minimum arriaal sales
expectancy of $500,000 net to PBS.
3) In order to give Dealer a sales incentive, PBS shall not, without the
consent of Dealer, enter into another Dealer contract, in the following
described area: The States of Pennsylvania and Mar^ylaxl.
Exclusive area is depetindent upon sales activity and will not be continued
in any future contracts if sales results are not .satisfactory.
4) If any person outside the area described in Paragraph 3 and referred
by Dealer to PBS enters into a Dealer contract with PBS, PBS will pay Dealer
two percent (2x) of PBS' net sales to such dealer, for one year.
5) Dealer shall have the authority to create s-xlealerships to perform
sales of PBS Prod.icts. Dealer shall have authority to enter into written
its with indeperxient legal entities on such terms and conditions and at
such motion as Dealer deems proper. Dealer, in contracting with sirkh
subdealers shall secure approval by PBS in writing prior to entering into vrh
contract. Any such contract between persons and Dealer shall provide
that any persons hired thereby are the employees or agents of Dealer and are
to be paid by Dealer alone, and that in employing or contrectirig with six#1
persons, Dealer is acting individ-iml.ly, anri that .y.bdealer has m mntracti.ral.
relationship with NBS.
The parties agree that the appointment of si.Axiealers shall be at Dealer's
own risk and Dealer shall. be liable for any expense and v pprvision it r+u r .
pi.rsi_rant thereto, and such persons shall have no claim against NB5 for
commissions, salaries, or other items of cost. The Parties agree that all
oontracts between Dealer and any su aler shall ocnform to the provisions of
this Agreement, and shall have incorporated in them all r.levent provisions of
this Agreement.
Dealer expressly agrees that all such si.bchealers shall be subordinate to
Dealer and sub.,lect to all the miles, restrictions and regulations set forth
in this Agrement and which are now or hereafter become applicable to Dealer.
Dealer shall. properly and erk•.tf_OtelY S-Pervise and train all its
assnriate s_bdealers and assure that all subdealers have program aryl prod rt
familiarity and can do proper buyer development, -i istcxner relations, and all
other things necessary to assure a v sore-ssful sales and product support
ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT DATED AUGUST 7, 1991
AND NOW, this S day of AL5 " 1992 comes the parties
named in the attached Agreement dated August 7, 1991, and intending
to be legally bound, hereby reaffirm, ratify, and modify said original
Agreement with the following provisions:
1. Section 5 - Term - This addendum shall continue for a period of
twenty-five (25) years, and shall be automatically renewed upon
failure of either party to give written notice of termination within
ninety (90) days of the termination date of this addendum to the
contract.
2. Section 9 - Termination - Under paragraph (iii) of this Section,
it is hereby agreed that Doug Dodson of Crockett Log Homes, Inc., may
hire any additional management he desires.in the future.
3. Section 14 - The parties hereby acknowledge that said section
was not assented to by the Dealer in the original Agreement, and tnat
said section is not assented to and does not form a part of this
Addendum.
Signed the day and year first above written.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire, hereby certify that on this date, I served the
foregoing document, via U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the persons set forth below,
namely:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C.
BY:
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Date: June 21, 2005
122363.1
n
C-Al
f:Yf?1
`
t:- =t
v
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman, P.C.
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
717-234-4161
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2004-4108
V.
DONALD E. VERNET and
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
NATURAL BUILIDNG SYSTEMS, :
INC. BRUCE DUNLEAVY, and ROY:
STOLTZFUS,
Additional Defendants
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is the certified mail receipt reflecting service of the
joinder Complaint which was served upon Natural Building Systems, Inc. on June 17,
2005.
GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C.
BThomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Attorney ID #32085
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
717-234-4161
Attorney for Counterclaim Defendant
Crockett Lod; Homes of PA, Inc.
Date: June 29, 2005
EXHIBIT "A."
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire, hereby certify that on this date, I served the
foregoing document, via U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the persons set forth below,
namely:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Natural Building System, Inc.
35 Old Route 12N
Westmoreland, NH 03467
GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C.
Y
Thomas I3. Brenner, Esquire
Date: June 29, 2005
123589.1
n r?
?'.?
v
_i
?a? n
"U C37 C.. "'?
rnm ' ?tT
w lj
d ? j?
?
i
-
i
?r C7
to rn
? v
?
v?
SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY
CASE NO: 2004-04108 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA INC
VS
VERNET DONALD E ET AL
R. Thomas Kli
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being
duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and
and inquiry for the within named ADD'TL DEFEND. to wit:
STOLTZFUS ROY
but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore
deputized the sheriff of CENTRE County, Pennsylvania, to
serve the within COMPLAINT JOINING ADDL
On July 14th , 2005 , this office was in receipt of the
attached return from CENTRE
Sheriff's Costs
Docketing 6.00
Out of County 9.00
Surcharge 10.00
Dep Centre County 23.00
.00
48.00
07/14/2005
GOLDBERG KATZMAN
-___,
1? Thomas Kline
Sheriff of Cumberland County
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this day of
-u2A.D.
Prothonotary
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2004-04108 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA INC
VS
VERNET DONALD E ET AL
DAVID MCKINNEY
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT JOINING ADDL was served upon
DUNLEAVY BRUCE
ADD'TL DEFEND.
the
at 2100:00 HOURS, on the 29th day of June , 2005
at 1217 INDIAN PEG ROAD
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to
JAMES A REYNA, ADULT IN CHARGE
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT JOINING ADDL together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Service 6.66
Postage .37
Surcharge 10.00
.00
35.03
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this a2 { )day of
A, at-6.s A. D.
rot+hootary I
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
07/14/2005
GOLDBERG KATZMAN
By: P
Deputy Sheri
In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Crokett Log Hanes of PA Inc
vs.
Donald E. Vernet et al
vs 04-4108 civil
Natural Building Systems Inc et a1 No.
SERVE: Roy Stoltzfus
Now, June 28, 2005
I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do
hereby deputize the Sheriff of Centre County to execute this Writ, this
deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff.
Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA
Affidavit of Service
Now,
within
upon
at
by handing to
a
and made known to
the contents thereof.
Swom and subscribed before
me this - day of 20
20_, at o'clock M. served the
_ copy of the original
So answers,
Sheriff of
County, PA
COSTS
SERVICE $
M1LEAGE
AFFIDAVIT
05HB-00105
LAW OFFICES OF JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
214 SENATE AVENUE, SUITE 503
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (717) 731-09$$
ATTORNEY FOR ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT, BRUCE DUNLAVY
(INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED As BRUCE DUNLEAVY)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc., ase No.: 2
Plaintiff xm- t//off'
vs.
Donald E. Vemet and Brenda L. Vemet,
Defendants RY TRIAL DEMANDED
vs.
Natural Building Systems, Inc., Bruce Dunleavy,
and Roy Stoltzfus,
Additional Defendants
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance in the above-captioned matter on behalf of the Additional
Defendant, Bruce Dunlavy (incorrectly identified in the caption as Bruce Dunleavy.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
By:
JoAnne E. Ki el, Esquire
Attorney for Additional Defendant, Bruce Dunlavy
Identification No. 55453
Date: August 17. 2005
05HB-00105
LAW OFFICES OF JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
214 SENATE AVENUE, SUITE 503
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (717) 731-0988
ATTORNEY FOR ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT, BRUCE DUNLAVY
(INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED AS BRUCE DUNLEAVY)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc., ase No.:
Plaintiff V4 . w?
vs.
Donald E. Vemet and Brenda L. Vernet,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants
VS.
Natural Building Systems, Inc., Bruce Dunleavy,
and Roy Stoltzfus,
Additional Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
JoAnne E. Kinzel, Esquire, hereby certifies that she is the attorney for the Additional
Defendant, Bruce Dunlavy herein, and that she caused a true and correct copy of the attached
Entry of Appearance to be served by regular first class mail upon:
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman, P.C.
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Date: August 17, 2005 JoAnne E, nzel, Esquire
Attorney tbt Additional
Defendant, Bruce Dunlavy
d on
? v. .a
r
<`{ G
`? N
05HB-00105
LAW OFFICES OF JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
214 SENATE AVENUE, SUITE 503
CAMPHILL,PA 17011
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (717) 731-0988
ATTORNEY FOR ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT, BRUCE DUNLAVY
(INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED AS BRUCE DUNLEAVY)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc., Case No.: 2004-4108
Plaintiff
vs.
Donald E. Verner and Brenda L. Verner,
Defendants
vs.
Natural Building Systems, Inc., Bruce Dunleavy,
and Roy Stoltzfus,
Additional Defendants
rirv ? w crc yr r?uui ¦ iviv eaa..?r.r ci. a.r?i.. , ,....,?... ,.., ..,., .. ,
TO COMPLAINT TO JOIN OF DEFENDANTS
AND NOW comes the Additional Defendant, Bruce Dunlavy, incorrectly identified as
Bruce Dunleavy in the caption, by his attorney, JoAnne E. Kinzel, Esquire, and files the
following Answer to join him as an Additional Defendant:
1. The allegations in paragraph 1 of the Complaint to Join are directed to another
Defendant. Therefore, no response is required of this Additional Defendant.
2. The allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint to Join are admitted.
3. The allegations in paragraph 3 of the Complaint to Join are directed to another
Y TRIAL DEMANDED
party. Therefore, no response is required of this Additional Defendant.
4.-6. The allegations in paragraphs 4 through 6 of the Complaint to Join are admitted
to the extent that the pleadings referenced therein were attached as Exhibits to the Complaint
Join. By way of further Answer, Additional Defendant avers that the pleadings speak for
themselves.
7. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 7 of the
Complaint to Join. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
8. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 8 of the
Complaint to Join. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of
further Answer, Additional Defendant avers that he was not a party to the "Dealer Contract"
referenced in paragraph 8 of the Complaint to Join.
9. Paragraph 9 of the Complaint to Join is admitted.
10. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint to Join is directed to another party. Therefore,
no response is required of this Additional Defendant.
11. Additional Defendant objects to paragraph 11 as a violation of Pa. R. C. P. §1022
which requires that individual factual allegations be set forth in separate paragraphs to provide
an orderly recitation of and response to the matters upon which the Complaint is based.
Without waiving said objection, Additional Defendant responds as follows:
A-44. Upon information and belief, paragraph 44 of original Defendant's
Counterclaim is admitted as it pertains to Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.
(hereinafter "Crockett Log Homes")
B-45. Upon information and belief, paragraph 45 of original Defendant's
Counterclaim is admitted as it pertains to Crockett Log Homes.
C-46. Upon information and belief, paragraph 46 of original Defendant's
Counterclaim is admitted as it pertains to Crockett Log Homes.
D-47. Defendant was not a party to the contract. After reasonable investigation,
Additional Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 47 of original Defendant's
Counterclaim. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
E-48. Upon information and belief, paragraph 48 of original Defendant's
Counterclaim is admitted.
F-49. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 49 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer,
Additional Defendant avers that original Defendant was the general contractor
and may have been involved in the planning and design process.
G-50. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 50 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
H-51. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 51 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
I-52. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 52 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of further answer,
Additional Defendant avers that original Defendant was the general contractor
and may have been involved in the planning and design process.
J-53. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 53 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of further Answer,
Additional Defendant, Bruce Dunlavy was not involved in designing the home or
providing the building materials. Additional Defendant believes and avers that
the original Defendant was also involved in designing the log home.
K-54. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 54 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of further Answer,
Additional Defendant was not an agent or employee of Crockett Log Homes.
L-55. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 55 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of further Answer,
Additional Defendant had no involvement in designing the log home or in
obtaining measurements for the design of said homes.
M-56. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 56 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of further Answer,
Additional Defendant had no involvement in measuring the foundation for the
design of the house.
M-57. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 57 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against Crocket
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of
further Answer, Additional Defendant believes, and therefore avers, that the
original Defendant was the general contractor for the building of his home and
may have changed certain specifications in the original plan.
0-58. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 58 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of further Answer,
Additional Defendant believes and therefore avers, that the original Defendant
was the general contractor for the building of his home and may have changed
certain specifications in the original plan.
P-59. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 59 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of further Answer,
Additional Defendant believes and therefore avers, that the original Defendant
was the general contractor for the building of his home and may have changed
certain specifications in the original plan.
Q-60. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 60 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of further Answer,
Additional Defendant believes and therefore avers, that the original Defendant
was the general contractor for the building of his home and may have changed
certain specifications in the original plan.
R-61. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 61 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of further Answer,
Additional Defendant believes and therefore avers, that the original Defendant
was the general contractor for the building of his home and may have changed
certain specifications in the original plan.
S-62. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 62 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
T-63. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 63 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
U-64. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 64 of original Defendant's Counterclaim. Therefore,
they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
V-65. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraphs 65(a) through 65(k) of original Defendant's
Counterclaim against Crockett Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict
proof is demanded. By way of further Answer, Additional Defendant believes,
and therefore avers, that the original Defendant was the general contractor for the
building of the log home and may have instituted various changes to the written
plans.
W-66. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 66 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against Crocket
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded. By way of
further Answer, Additional Defendant believes and therefore avers, that the
original Defendant was the general contractor for the building of his home and
may have changed certain specifications in the original plan.
X-67. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 67(a) through 67(n) of original Defendant's
Counterclaim against Crockett Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict
proof is demanded.
Y-68. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 68 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
Z-69. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraphs 69(a) through 69(q) of original Defendant's
Counterclaim against Crockett Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict
proof is demanded.
AA-70. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 70 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
BB-71. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 71 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
CC-72. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 72 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
DD-73. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 73 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded
EE-74. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 74 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
FF-75. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 75 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
GG-76. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 76 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
HH-77. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 77 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
11-78. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without ki
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
paragraph 78 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against Crockett Log Homes.
Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
JJ-79. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
paragraph 79 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against Crockett Log Homes.
Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
KK-80 After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 80 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
LL-81. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 81 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
MM-82. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraphs 82(a) through 82(g) of original Defendant's
Counterclaim against Crockett Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict
proof is demanded.
NN-83. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 83 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
00-84. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 84 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded
PP-85. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 85 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
QQ-86. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 86 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
RR-87. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 87 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
SS-88. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 88 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
TT-89. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 89 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
UU-90. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 90 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
VV-91. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 91 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
WW-92. After reasonable investigation, Additional Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations in paragraph 92 of original Defendant's Counterclaim against
Log Homes. Therefore, they are denied and strict proof is demanded.
12. In response to paragraph 12 of the Complaint to Join, Defendant denies that he is
liable to any party, in any amount, under any theory of law.
NEW MATTER
13. The Complaint to Join Bruce Dunlavy as an Additional Defendant fails to set
forth any specific factual allegations against this Additional Defendant and, therefore, fails to set
forth a cause of action against Additional Defendant upon which relief can be granted.
14. Any injuries or damages allegedly suffered by the Vernets as Counterclaim
Plaintiffs against Crockett Log Homes was due to the acts or omissions of Crockett Log Homes
as is more fully set forth in the Vemets' Counterclaim against Crockett Log Homes, all of which
are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
15. Any injuries or damages allegedly suffered by the Original Defendants were the
result of the negligence of Original Defendant, Donald E. Vemet in performing his duties as the
general contractor of the log home and in making design changes which he was not trained or
qualified to make.
16. Any injuries or damages allegedly suffered by the Counterclaim Plaintiffs were
the result of the acts or omissions of Natural Building Systems as is more fully set forth in
Plaintiffs Complaint to Join, which allegations are incorporated herein by reference as though
set forth at length.
17. Any injuries or damages allegedly suffered by the Counterclaim Plaintiffs were
the result of the acts or omissions of Additional Defendant Roy Stoltzfus, as is more fully set
forth in Plaintiff's Complaint to Join him as an Additional Defendant, all of which allegations
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO 2252(D) AGAINST CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC., NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. AND ROY STOLTZFUS
18. If anyone, other than the Original Defendants caused the injuries, damages and
losses allegedly sustained by the Original Defendants (as Counterclaim Plaintiffs), then said
injuries, damages and losses were directly and proximately caused by the Plaintiff and/or
Additional Defendants, Natural Building Systems, Inc. and Roy Stoltzfus as is more fully set
forth in the Original Defendant's Counterclaim and the Complaint to Join, which allegations are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length for purposes of these crossclaims
only.
19. If it is judicially determined that the Original Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs
are entitled to recover and Bruce Dunlavy is found liable, a liability which is expressly denied,
then Crockett Log Homes, Natural Building Systems, Inc. and Roy Stoltzfus are liable over to
Bruce Dunlavy for any and all sums which the Original Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs
recover.
20. Bruce Dunlavy hereby asserts a claim for contribution in the event that it is
judicially determined that he and Crocker Log Homes, Natural Building Systems, Inc. and/or
Roy Stoltzfus are jointly and severally liable to the Original Defendants/'Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
although the existence of any liability on the part of Bruce Dunlavy is expressly denied.
WHEREFORE, Crockett Log Homes, Natural Building Systems, Inc. and Roy Stoltzfus
are solely liable to the original Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs; or they are liable over to
Bruce Dunlavy for any and all sums which the Original Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs
recover; or they are jointly and severally liable.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
By: Cw/
JoAnne mze , quire
Identificati n No. 55453
Attorney for Additional
Defendant, Bruce Dunlavy
Date: October 25, 2005
05 HB-00105
LAW OFFICES OF JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
214 SENATE AVENUE, SUITE 503
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (717) 731-0988
ATTORNEY FOR ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT, BRUCE DUNLA VY
(INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED AS BRUCE DUNLEAVY)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.,
Plaintiff
vs.
Donald E. Verret and Brenda L. Vernet,
Defendants
vs.
Natural Building Systems, Inc., Bruce Dunleavy,
and Roy Stoltzfus,
Additional Defendants
No.: 2004-4108
TRIAL DEMANDED
TION
I, Bruce Dunlavv, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer of Addition
Defendant, Bruce Dunlavv, to Complaint to Join of Defendants, which are within the persor
knowledge of the undersigned, are true and correct, and as to the facts based on the information
others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believe them to be true. And further, this Verification
signed on the recommendation of my attorneys, who advise me that the allegations and language in it
document are required legally to raise issues for resolution at trial, by the Court, or by continuii
investigation and preparation for trial. I understand that some of these allegations may pro
inappropriate after investigation and trial preparation are complete and I leave the determination
these matters to my attorneys on their advice.
I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A.
relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
Dated: /01Zip1 3" Lv
Bruce Dunlavy
% "
OCR
1051113-00105
LAW OFFICES OF JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
214 SENATE AVENUE, SUITE 503
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (717) 731-0988
ATTORNEY FOR ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT, BRUCE DUNLAVY
(INCORRECTLY IDENTIFIED As BRUCE DUNLEAVY)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.,
Plaintiff
vs.
Donald E. Verret and Brenda L. Vemet,
Defendants
vs.
Natural Building Systems, Inc., Bruce Dunleavy,
and Roy Stoltzfus,
Additional Defendants
No.: 2004-4108
Y TRIAL DEMANDED
TE OF
JoAnne E. Kinzel, Esquire, hereby certifies that she is the attorney for the Additional
Defendant, Bruce Dunlavy herein, and that she caused a true and correct copy of the attached
Answer of Additional Defendant, Bruce Dunlavv to Complaint to Join of Defendants to be
served by regular first class mail upon:
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman, P.C.
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Date: October 25, 2005
JoAnne E?Kinzel, Esquire
Attorney for Additional
Defendant, Bruce Dunlavy
? '}
1't
-i
j'- I
.,.
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman, P.C.
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
717-234-4161
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CROCKET T LOG HOMES OF PA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
INC., : CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
NO. 2004-4108
V.
DONALD E. VERNET and : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
V.
NATURAL BUILIDNG SYSTEMS,
INC., BRUCE DUNLEAVY, and
ROY STOLTZFUS,
Additional Defendants
ANSWER OF CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC. TO
NEW MATTER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANT BRUCE DUNLAVY
AND NOW, comes Crockett Log Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc., by its attorneys,
Goldberg Katzman, P.C., who states:
13. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is
necessary.
14. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is
necessary. In further response, the Answer of Crockett Log Homes to the Verner
Counterclaim is incorporated herein by reference.
15. Admitted.
16. Admitted.
17. Admitted.
WHEREFORE, Crockett Log Homes requests that the New Matter of Additional
Defendant Bruce Dunlavy be dismissed, with prejudice.
2252(D) NEW MATTER
18. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is
necessary.
19. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is
necessary.
20. Denied. The paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is
necessary.
WHEREFORE, Crockett Log Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc. requests that the
2252(d) New Matter of Additional Defendant Bruce Dunlavy be dismissed, with
prejudice.
GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C.
B
T omas E. Brenner, Esquire
Attorney ID #32085
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
717-234-4161
Attorney for Plaintiff Crockett Log
Homes of PA, Inc.
Date: October 31, 2005
VERIFICATION
I, Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire, hereby acknowledge that I am the attorney for
Crockett Log Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc.; that I have read the foregoing document;
that there are no new facts of record contained in the document; and that the facts stated
therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. 54904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
E. Brenner, Esquire
Date: October 31, 2005
103407.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire, hereby certify that on this date, I served the
foregoing document, via U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the persons set forth below,
namely:
JoAnne E. Kinzel, Esquire
Jacobs & Associates
214 Senate Avenue, Suite 503
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
By
Date: October 31, 2005
Jennifer Rood, Esquire
Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson
PO Box 1120
Manchester, NH 03105-1120
Roy Stoltzfus
801 Penns Creek Road
Spring Mills, PA 16875
127938.1
GOLDBERG KATZMAN, P.C.
o
-„
.
?
rTlf
- (71
.
:
?' ?
"r
.r ??
1
?
1
J?. -T
.
:i
G N .
7
:
?_? .?
R ?
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Vs.
DONALD E. VERNET and
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
Vs.
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS,
INC., BRUCE DUNLEAVY and ROY
STOLTZFUS,
Additional Defendants
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
NO. 2004-4108 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PRAECIPE
Please withdraw the appearance of Arthur K. Dils, Esquire, as attorney for
Plaintiffs, Crocket Log Homes of PA, Inc., and enter the appearance of Thomas E.
Brenner, Esquire, as attorney for Plaintiffs, Crocket Log Homes of PA, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
Bk
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717) 234-4161
I.D. No.
Respectfully submitted,
BY: 111?10J'49
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
1400 North Second Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
0
Date: 4,x?o 0
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Arthur K. Dils, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
within Praecipe has been served upon the following individuals by first class,
United States mail, postage prepaid, by depositing same at the post office in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on th 4y of June 2006, addressed as follows:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Joanne E. Kinzel, Esquire
Law Offices of Snyder & Doter
214 Senate Avenue
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Mr. Roy Stoltzfus
801 Penns Creed Road
Spring Mills, PA 16875
Resp lly s bmitted,
Date: I n/.o I
Arthur K. Dils, Vsquire
1400 North Second Street
First Floor, Front
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
?1 ra
' ;J
c ?
C
?ti 'ri
?f ?
[v 1??i
rC
`i: fV °c? i tf
v
A
PRAMS FOR r ISTny[: CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
® for JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
for trial without a jury.
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full) (check one)
CROCI= LOG HOMES OF PA, INC.
(Plaintiff)
vs.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET
VS.
(Defendant)
® Civil Actton - Law
C1 Appeal from arbitration
(other)
The trial list will be called on
and
Trials commence on
Pretrials will be held on
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretriah
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC., No 4108 2004 Term
BRUCE DUNLEAVY, and ROY SIOLTZFUS
(Additional Defendants)
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this prwipe:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire 549 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA 17070
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:
t.
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire P.O. Box 1268 Harr' 108 (Plaintiff)
- sjfj 11, RA
17011 (Defendant
JaAruie E. Kinzel Es
fend4nt St ltz (None) !?unleavy)
This case is ready or tnaF Signed:
Print Name: Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Attorney for: Defendants Donald and Brenda Vernet
4
w
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiffs :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
V.
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS,
INC., BRUCE DUNLEAVY, and ROY
STOLTZFUS
Additional Defendants
: CIVIL ACTION -LAW
NO. 2004-4108
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, BARBARA SUMPLE-SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that on this date, I
served a copy of the foregoing Praecipe to List Case for Jury Trial, in the above-captioned matter
upon the following individual by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman
P.O. Box 1268
320 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Mr. Roy Stoltzfus
801 Penns Creek Road
Spring Mills, PA 16875
DATED: February 2, 2007
JoAnne E. Kinzel, Esquire
Law Office of Snyder and Dorer
214 Senate Avenue, Suite 503
Camp Hill, PA 17011
tarbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931
(717) 774-1445
Supreme Court I.D. No. 32317
Attorney for Defendants Vernet
rTi
A
-C
co
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA, INC.,
Plaintiff
v
DONALD E. VERNET and
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendant
v
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS,
INC., BRUCE DUNLEAVY and
ROY STOLTZFUS,
Additional Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
04-4108 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CASE STRICKEN FROM LIST
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2007, the
above-captioned case at No. 04-4108 Civil Term having not been
called for trial at the call of the civil trial list, it is
stricken from the list.
By the Court,
1 /
e s 1 e y 161?i Jr. , J.
V
omas E. Brenner, Esquire
320 Market Street
P.O. Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268
For Plaintiff
?/arbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931
For Defendants
Ann E. Kinzel, Esquire
???214 Senate Avenue .?
Suite 503
Camp Hill, PA 17011
For Additional Defendant
Court Administrator
:mae
V3
_
uaC era _
ck? :i
ta
Q
C _
C7
-k'
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
® for JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
? for trial without a j ury.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in fulo (check one)
CROCKEIT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC. , T Civil Action - Law
? Appeal from arbitration
(other)
(Plaintiff)
VS. The trial list will be called on May 22, 2007
DONALD E. VERNET and and
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Trials commence on week of June 18, 2007
(Defendant) Pretrials will be held on May 30, 2007
VS. (Briefs are due S days before pretrials
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC., No. 4108 2004 Term
BRUCE DUNLEAVY, and ROY STOLTZFUS,
(Additional Defendants)
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, 549 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA 17070
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire, P.O;: Box 1268,
JoAnne Kinzel, Esauire. 214 Senate Avenue_
Defendant Stoltzfus (None)
This case is ready for trial. Signed:
17108 (Plaintiff)
Hill, PA 17011 (Defendant
Dunleavy)
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Date: March 26, 2007
Attorney for: Defendants Donald E. and Brenda L.
Vernet
? i
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET, CIVIL ACTION -LAW
Defendants
V.
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS,
INC., BRUCE DUNLEAVY, and ROY
STOLTZFUS NO. 2004-4108
Additional Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, BARBARA SUMPLE-SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that on this date, I
served a copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Re-List Case for Jury Trial, in the above-captioned
matter upon the following individual by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman
P.O. Box 1268
320 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Mr. Roy Stoltzfus
801 Penns Creek Road
Spring Mills, PA 16875
JoAnne E. Kinzel, Esquire
Law Office of Snyder and Dorer
214 Senate Avenue, Suite 503
Camp Hill, PA 17011
DATED: March 26, 2007
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931
(717) 774-1445
Supreme Court I.D. No. 32317
Attorney for Defendants Vernet
r Cam? :3 *.?
ro 2Z
#13
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC.,
Plaintiff
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
V.
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS,
INC., BRUCE DUNLAVY AND
ROY STOLTZFUS,
Additional Defendants NO. 04-4108 CIVIL TERM
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
AND NOW, this 30th day of May, 2007, before Edgar B.
Bayley, Judge, present for the plaintiff was Thomas E. Brenner,
Esquire, for defendants, Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire, and
for Additional Defendant Bruce Dunlavy, JoAnne E. Kinzel,
Esquire.
This lawsuit was instituted by Crockett Log Homes of
Pennsylvania, Inc., for a $17,000.00 balance owed on a
$153,000.00 contract for the construction of a home.
Defendants, Donald and Brenda Vernet, filed a counterclaim
alleging defective construction, et al. The Vernets joined
Bruce Dunlavy who was a subcontractor for much of the work.
Natural Building Systems, Inc., and Roy Stoltzfus are also
additional defendants joined by the Vernets.
The parties agreed to try the case nonjury and will
coordinate with this Judge for the sett ing.of date .
By the.- our
Edgar B. Bayley, J
i
N
?
C Ic 1
J -
p ?
C47
??n 0-
Q
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
For Defendants
JoAnne E. Kinzel, Esquire
For Additional Defendant Bruce Dunlavy
Natural Building Systems, Inc., pro se
Roy Stoltzfus, pro se
prs
I 1
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC.,
PLAINTIFF
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
DEFENDANTS
V.
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC
BRUCE DUNLAVY AND
ROY STOLTZFUS,
ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
04-4108 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of June, 2007, a civil non jury trial shall be
conducted on Monday, August 20, 2007, Tuesday, August, 21, 2007, and Wednesday,
August 22, 2007, at 8:45 a.m., in Courtroom Number 2, Cumberland County
Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
homas E. Brenner Esquire
320 E. Market Street
Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17108
For Plaintiff
ABarbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
For Defendants
Cugaf D. Dayley, J.
p
?a
C C,
C.a CC
)
LO u
1 C?
ti
Anne E. Kinzel, Esquire
214 Senate Ave, Suite 503
Camp Hill, PA 17011
For Additional Defendant Bruce Dunlavy
.,Natural Building Systems, Inc., Pro se
35 Old Route 12 North
Westmoreland, NH 03467
A Stoltzfus, Pro se
801 Penns Creek Road
Spring Mills, PA 16875
Court Administrator
:sal
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
v.
t?AlSt -v -
BRUCE DUNLAVY AND
ROY STOLTZFUS,
Additional Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 04-4108 Civil
STIPULATION OF TUDGMFNT AND ASSIGNMENT
AND NOC WI the parties to this litigatic`n through th{ it Counsel state:
1. The Counterclaim of D(-inal.d - nd Bren ':1, ?''c.'r*7et 2?sserts deiic ncies in the
log Home materiels manufactured and provided by Natural Building Systems, IIic. and the
design and engineering services provided by Natural Building Systems, Inc.
2. The Vernets and the parties to this document agree that the value of the
log home kit. provided by Natural Buildil?;u Systems and uh,c coI seQ-1.tjenti<11 darnaues :arisi; {
from the problems with the kit, as well as design engineering services provided by Natural
Building Systems, Inc. have a value in excess of $100,000.00.
3. The parties acknowledge that purstuanu to _M Order of the Bankruptcy
CoL.,rt in the bankruptcy o Natural. djc) i:?`t I!llllii?t'6' 4?"?- i.'.3l 7 In
'-he mired States District Court for New Hanipshire h; .; -cc-ogni-re' a cta :a? t?ri il'?? r, it'll
this transaction in the name of Crockett Logy Homes of PA, Inc:. in the amount of
$100,000.00.
4. In consideration for the settlement of the underlying litigation by the
Vernets, Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. hereby assigns its claim in the bankruptcy of
Natural Building Systems, Inc. to Donald E. and Brenda L. Vernet.
5. Cr(-)cket Log Homes of PA, Inc., will take. all action necessary to record this
United States District Court of New Hampsl:iire.
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF P .A., INC
R
`X)N GLIB
BRENDA"'
-ET AND
By: hiimas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman, PC
PO Box 1268
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1265
BRUICE Dt.T.\TT.-EAVY
By: c n e` VKinzel, Esquire -
SAy r & Dorer
21 Senate Avenue., Suite 503
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
r._a
„c f? i t
r? zJ
-;
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
V.
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC
BRUCE DUNLAVY AND
ROY STOLTZFUS,
Additional Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 04-4108 Civil
ORDER
AND NOW, this 7,--ok day of k) 0;4 2007, pursuant to the
Stipulation of the parties, a judgment of $100,000.00 is entered against Natural Building
Systems, Inc. and shall. be forwarded to the Bankruptcy Court for the United States
District Court for New Hampshire to be docketed in that proceeding.
BY'
C\J
{3
t?
C\j
c I
t
23' j
f5
C
C.4 C-)
DEC o 3 2007,e/
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET,
Defendants
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 04-4108 Civil
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
BRUCE DUNLAVY AND
ROY STOLTZFUS,
Additional Defendants
ORDER
AND NOW, this '3Aday of 2007, pursuant to the
`stipulation of the parties, a Judgment of $100,000.00 is entered against Natural Build' 'L"
Systems, Inc. and shall be forwarded to the Bank:ruptc?, Court for the United Sates
Distr" t Cour- ??: New Hampshire to be docketed in dial proce-edlnlor.
.J
N
Q Cz
co 4 V
???
/
u.r ?' cam, -> ?
CZ)
7
n
0 r
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET, CIVIL ACTION -LAW
Defendants
V.
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS,
INC., BRUCE DUNLEAVY, and ROY
STOLTZFUS NO. 2004-4108
Additional Defendants
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please mark the above captioned matter settled and
DATE: December 5, 2007
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931
(717) 774-1445
Supreme Court I.D. 32317
Attorney for Defendants Donald and
Brenda Vernet
c .W
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
DONALD E. VERNET AND
BRENDA L. VERNET, CIVIL ACTION -LAW
Defendants
V.
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS,
INC., BRUCE DUNLEAVY, and ROY
STOLTZFUS NO. 2004-4108
Additional Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, BARBARA SUMPLE-SULLIVAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that on this date, I
served a copy of the foregoing Praecipe, in the above-captioned matter upon the following
individual by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Thomas E. Brenner, Esquire
Goldberg Katzman
P.O. Box 1268
320 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108
JoAnne E. Kinzel, Esquire
Law Office of Snyder and Dorer
214 Senate Avenue, Suite 503
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Mr. Roy Stoltzfus
801 Penns Creek Road
Spring Mills, PA 16875
DATED: December 5, 2007
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070-1931
(717) 774-1445
Supreme Court I.D. No. 32317
Attorney for Defendants Verret
c.? r c?
c,a