HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-0370Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a :
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF :
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS :
DODSON, individually and d/b/a :
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC., :
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF :
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING :
SYSTEMS, INC. :
Defendants :
: IN THE COURT OF ~2OMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND cOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.
CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
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.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-3166
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
BRADLEY FARNER, dgo/a :
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF :
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS :
DODSON, individually and dgo/a :
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC., :
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF :
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING :
SYSTEMS, INC. :
Defendants :
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
C,o' L
CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs are Stanley H. Grimwood and Jennifer L. Grimwood, husband and wife, residing
at 499 Sample Bridge Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025.
Defendant is Bradley Farrier, an individual residing at 304A Hillcrest Drive, New
Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. Mr. Farner transacts business under
the name "Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland".
Defendant is Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation doing business
at 58 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. Defendant
Crockett Homes of Pa, Inc. is the Mid-Atlantic Regional office of Defendant National
Building Systems, Inc.
Defendant Douglas Dodson is an individual residing at 58 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. Defendant Dodson represents he does business
as Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc.
Defendant is Natural Building Systems, Inc., a New Hampshire corporation located at 35
Old Route 12 North,Westmoreland, New Hampshire 03467. Defendant is doing business
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania but has no registered office in this state. Defendant
Natural Building Systems, Inc. is the manufacturer of certain log home systems, the owner
of certain trade names, including "Crockett Log Homes," and markets and sells said homes
as "Crockett Log Homes".
Defendant Crockett Log Homes of Pa, Inc. and Defendant Famer are the builders and dealers
for Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc.
Defendant Farner is the agent or ostensible agent of Defendant Crockett Log Homes of Pa.,
Inc. and Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc.
Defendant Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. is the agent or ostensible agent of Defendant
Natural Building Systems, Inc.
Plaintiffs became aware through various medias of the availability of log homes known as
"Crockett Log Homes".
10.
Plaintiffs desired to specifically build a "Crockett Log Homes" and telephoned Crockett Log
Homes as listed in the telephone book in July, 1999.
11.
Plaintiffs came in contact with Defendant Brad Famer, whom they believed to be an
employee, agent or authorized representative of "Crockett Log Homes".
12.
Defendant Famer worked with Plaintiffs to confirm the plans for their Crockett Log Home,
for ordering the Crockett building package manufactured by Defendant Natural Building
System, Inc., and for actual labor in erection of their Crockett Log Home.
13.
On or about August 31, 1999, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a contract for acquisition
and erection of the "Crockett Log Home". A copy of said contract is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference.
14.
It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant Famer secured the materials required for
the construction of the home from Defendant G. Douglas Dodson, d/b/a/Crockett Log
Homes of PA, Inc. and Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc.
15.
Pursuant to the parties' Agreement, Plaintiffs were obligated to pay to sum of ONE
HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($110,000.00) for their "Crockett Log Home".
Pursuant to Exhibit "A", all work related to the construction of the Crockett Log Home was
to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to local codes and standards.
3
17.
Pursuant to Exhibit "A", the Defendant Famer was responsible for completion of the job in
accordance with the agreed upon time schedule.
18.
It was the agreed to between Plaintiffs and Defendant Farner that the construction was to be
completed on or before December 6, 2000. Said work was not completed as of that date and
hindered relocation of Plaintiffs from their prior residence.
19.
Defendant Famer did not complete the work timely or in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement since much of the work was either left uncompleted or not completed in a
satisfactory fashion.
20. Defendant Famer's work was defective, including but not limited to, the following:
A) Defendant failed to erect a wall in the master bath, as required by the plans and
specifications for the home system;
B) Defendant also failed to complete or otherwise install the items set forth on Exhibit
"B" which is incorporated herein by reference.
21. When Defendant Farner failed to adequately, fully or timely complete the work, Plaintiffs
attempted to secure completion of the work by Defendant Crockett Log Homes of Pa, Inc.
22.
An agreement dated December 10, 2000 was reached between Defendant Crockett Log
Homes of PA, Inc. and Plaintiffs for completion of the work. A copy of said Agreement is
attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference.
23.
Despite receipt of payment of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($2,500.00) from Plaintiffs, Defendant Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. failed to complete
the work in a workmanlike manner.
24. Presently, the following problems have been identified to exist in their "Crockett Log Home"
as faulty installation or construction or failure of materials or manufacture of the "Crockett
Log Homes" provided by the Defendants.
A) Damaged Window sash in first floor bedroom;
B) Leakage through roof in Great Room and Living Room;
C) Failure of the Door to fit in the Master bedroom closet;
D) Sag in ceiling beams of the first floor master bedroom;
E) Chip in the master bedroom door;
F) Leakage through the front door;
G) Improper installation of log skirting;
H) Failure to install plugs in ends of logs;
I) Improper installation of living room baseboard;
J) Leakage through family room patio door;
K) Gaps in second floor pine flooring and bowing of the floor with need for replacement
and resurfacing;
L) Improperly installed fascia;
M) Failure to complete trim work;
N) Roof shingling nail heads to be replaced;
O) Calking of exterior surfaces;
p) Installation of ridge venting incomplete;
Q) Improper spouting installation;
R) Improper installation of metal flashing around the windows;
S) Failure to install plug in log indentations to prevent insect infestation;
T) Dirty condition of home and water marks on logs and bricks;
U) Purchase of supplies, including missing railing from upstairs, loft and steps; and
V) Improperly constructed donners.
25. It was estimated that the total costs of this work for replacement and repair of the above
referenced defects is TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND FORTY-SEVEN DOLLARS and
30/100 ($24,047.30).
26.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.
27.
Defendants have breached their agreement to provide a "Crockett Log Home", completed
in a workmanlike manner and free of defects. As a result of said breaches, Plaintiffs
have been damaged in the amount of $24,047.30. Plaintiffs request judgment in the
amount of TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND FORTY-SEVEN DOLLARS and 30/100
($24,047.30).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment in their favor and against the Defendants.
28.
UNFAIR TRADE pRACTICES
Paragraphs 1 through 27 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
29. Defendants failed to complete the construction as contracted for.
30. Defendants performed the work in a shoddy and unworkmanlike manner.
31. Alternatively, the goods provided to Plaintiffs were shoddy and of poor quality.
32.
The goods and services provided to Plaintiffs by Defendants were primarily for
Plaintiffs' personal, family and household uses.
33.
Plaintiffs believed that they were purchasing a "Crockett Log Home" and that Defendants
were agents of "Crockett Log Homes".
34.
Plaintiffs later determined that no "Crockett Log Homes" exists but that it was a trade
name for Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. which was being used by Defendant
Dodson, Defendant Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. and Defendant Famer, doing
business as Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland, to cause the consumer to believe
an agency association existed between all parties for construction of "Crockett Log
Homes".
35.
The practices, failure and omissions of Defendants described in the Compliant violate to
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. Section
201.1, et seq., as descriptive acts inter alia:
(xiii)
(i) Passing off goods or services as those of another;
(ii) Causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source,
sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services;
(iii) Causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation,
connection or association with, or certification by, another;
(iv) Using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in
connection with goods or services;
(v) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval,
characteristics, ingredients, uses benefits or quantities that they do not
have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or
connection that he does not have;
Engaging in any other fraudulent conduct which creates a likelihood of
confusion or of misunderstanding.
36.
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, Plaintiffs seek compensation damages in the amount of $24,047.30,
· rS
treble damages pursuant to Unfair Trade Practices, attorney fees, plus interest, costs of suit and
all other relief the Court deems appropriate.
Dated: January~__~_, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
~uire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
Supreme Court I.D. 32317
Attorney for Plaintiffs
EXHIBIT "A"
CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
PAGE 1 OF 2
OWNER:
STANLEY & JENNIYER GRiMWOOD
3173 SPRING RD
CARLISLE PA 17013
717-258-8134
CONTRACTOR: BRAD FARNER
OWNERS NAME: BRAD FARN'ER
ADDRESS: 304A HILLCREST DR
NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070
PHONE: 938-4337
FAX: 938-2028
WORKERS COMP LNSUP. ANCE NUMBER
LNSURANCE CARRIER
JOB ADDRESS: 499 SAMPLE BRIDGE RD ENOL4 PA
AMOUNT OF BID: $110,000.40
pA't .'MENT TERMS:
% UPON COIv~LETION OF
% UPON COMPLETION OF
% UPON COMPLETION OF
% UPON COMPLETION OF
% UPON COMPLETION OF
O'
20 ,'o 15 DAYS AFTER COIv[PLETION OF TOTAL JOB
JOB SPECIFICATIONS: SEE ADDENDL~I #1
JOBS TO BE SUBCONTRACTED BY CONTRACTOR:
SALE OF CROCKET HOME KIT, DRYWALL, LABOR TO INSTALL KiT,
iNSTALLATION QF SI-t_INGLES, ALSO SEE ADDENDU~I ~ 1.
PROI.?SIONS OF AGREEMENT
ALL WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED IN A WORKM,-MNLIT, LE MAN"NrER
ACCORDING TO LOCAL CODES AND STANDARDS. ALL MATERIAL AND
LABOR SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR A MINIlvIUIvl OF ONE Y'EAR. ALL
CHANGES REQUESTED SHALL BE AGREED TO BY PURCHASE ORDER.
CONTRACTOR AGREES TO MAINTAIN ALL REQUIRED LICENSES AND
INSURANCE, INCLUDING WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY
INSURANCE WIT:kI A MINIMI3M COVERAGE OF $500,000 PER OCCURRENCE.
AN'Y D.KIvIAOES CAUSED BY CONTRACTOR OR CONTRACTOR'S EIvlPLO ~'FEES
IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS CONTRACTOR AhrD SHALL BE REPAIRED AT
THIS CONTRACTORS EXPENSE. CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
COIv[PENSATION TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND HELPERS HIRED BY
CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO PROVIDE OWNER WITH RELEASE
CONTRACTOR ,4 GREEMENT
PAGE 2 OF 2
OF LIEN AFFIDAVITS PRIOR TO EACH PAYMENT( ATTACHMENT ~ 1 ).
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL SUBCONTRACTOR
PERMITS AND LICENSES, CON-HLa, CTOR WILL ENSURE CLEAN-LI-NESS OF
PROJECT AT ALL TIMES. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO~PROVIDE A
'SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL WOR.KERS. A PENALTY OF $200:00
PER DAY SHALL BE CHARGED TO THE CONTRACTOR IF CONTRACTOR
DEFAULTS ON THIS AGREEMENT OR STOPS WORK BEFORE THE PROJECT 1S
COIvlPLETED. oWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HIRE A REp,~,,~. oN. tENT
GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE CONTRACTOR'S CONTRACT IN THE
EVENT THE CONTRACTOR DEFAULTS.
THIS AGREEMENT IS CONTINGENT UPON 0 II,7~'ER 'S OB TA I~'~ING ALL
t~EQUIRED PERMITS AND FIN,4NCING TO ALLOW COMPLETION OF t HE
PROJECT,4$ BUDGETED.
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE
ENTIRE JOB DESCRIBED HEREIN ACCORDING TO THE AGREED-ON
TIME SCHEDULE. CONTRACTOR SHALL ACT AS OVERALL MANAGER,
SCHEDULING ALL LABOR AND NL&TERIAL FOR DELIYEPdES OF ,lOB
DESCRIBED HEREIN. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO COMPLETE
THE PROJECT 'WITI-ILN THE FINANCIAL BUDGET SET FORTH BY O~;~'-'NER.
~4DDENDUM #1 TO CONTRACTOR AGREEMEN~
· PAGE 1 OF 3
TIdE FOLOWING NOTATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN TIlE THE BID PRESENTED
BY THE CONTRACTOR AND WILL BE PERFOKMED WITHIN THE
SPECIFICATIONS AGREED TO IN THE CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT.
SPECIFICATIONS ARE DUALY NOTED ON A'FfACHMENTS 2 AND 3.
BLDG MATERIALS PER CROCKET BID
2 X 6 FRAMED WALLS WITH HOUSE WRAP/TYVEK
25 YEAR ACI-IITECTURAL SHINGLES INSTALLED
FRONT DOOR- STAINABLE FIBERGLASS WITH 2 SIDELIGHTS
DECKING- PRESSUq~E TREATED LUMBER 720 SQUARE FEET
RAILING- DECORATIVE FULL AND SPLIT LOGS IN CRIS CROSS DESIGN
ALL%I~N'UWI FACSIA AND SOFFITS
ALUqVrrlqLIM PORCH CE]LING --
ALUMINUM CLAD ANDERSON LOW E WINDOWS WIT44 GRILLS
GUTTERS WITH LEAF GUARDS INSTALLED
EXTRA LOGS TO RAISE CE]LING LEVEL IN UPSTAIRS LOFT .(REA
AND BEDROOMS/BATH
3 FIBERGLASS 9' GARAGE DOORS INSTALLED
1- FIBERGLASS DOOR REAR ENTANCE
SEPARATOR WALL IN GARAGE WITH WOODEN DOOR
2- 36 X 36 DH WINDOWS IN FRONT OF GARAGE
1- 36 X 36 DH ~q2NT)OW IN REAR
THiS AREA WILL BE STONE EXTERIOR
FIXE WALL PER TO~.%~SHIP CODES
2- 28 X 32 ~riNrlDOWS DH CENTERED IN FRONT SIDE BY SIDE
6" WINDOW SILL
THiS PdLEA 9~TLL BE FULL LOG EXTERIOR
LDINING ROOM:
WOODEN DOOR FOR GARAGE ENWRANCE
WOODEN DOOR FOR MASTER BEDROOM ENTRANCE AS CLOSE THE
BASEMENT ENTtLMNCE AS POSSIBLE
WOODEN DOOR BASEMENT ENTRANCE
FOYER:
sTAINABLE FIBERGLASS DOOR FRONT ENTRACE W/2 SIDELIGHTS
1- 36 X 36 DH WINDOW
WOODEN STEPS AND RAILING TO UPSTAIRS
CLOSET AND DOOR
~4DDENDUM #I TO CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
PAGE 2 OF 3
I- WINDOW 5' X 5' FRONT CENTER
2- WINDOWS RT SIDE FACING 36 X 48 DH
1- WOODEN DOOR ENTRANCE TO POWDER ROOM
1- FRENCH DOOR ENTRANCH TO SUN'ROOM
SUNROOM:
3-5' X5' WINDOWS OR 2-5 X 5 AND 2- DH 36 X48
1- SINGLE SWING FRENCH DOOR FOR EXTERIOR ENTRANCE LEFT
SIDE FACING
1- WOODEN DOOR ENT1LMNCE FRM GREAT ROONf
1- POCKET DOOR ENTRANCE FRM MASTER BATH AI?.A
M.4STER BA TH AREA: 1- WOODEN DOOR ENTReMNCE FRM MASTER BEDROOM
1- BUILT IN CLOSET WITH DOOR
MASTER BEDROOM: 2- CLOSETS WITH WOODEN DOORS
2- WINDOWS SIDE BY SIDE CENTERED IN BACK OF ROOM 36 X 48 DH
BASEMENT:
WOODEN STAIRS A.Nq) POlL PER LOCAL CODE
LOFT:
- WOODEN RAILING PER LOCAL CODE
I- WINDOW
RAISE CEI"~ING LEVEL AT LEASE 3 LOGS
BEDROOM #I
10 FM CLOSET FRONT X 14
CLOSET WITH FOLDING DOORS
1- WOODEN DOOR ENTRANCE FRM HALL
2- WINDOWS AT LEAST 36 X 36
RAISE CEILING LEVEL TO AT LEAST 7FT
BEDROOM #2
15X14
CLOSET WITH FOLDING DOORS
3- WINqZK)WS AT LEAST 36 X 36
1- WOODEN DOOR ENTRANCE
RAISE CEILING LEVE TO AT LEAST 7 FT
~DDENDUM gl TO CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
PAGE 3 OF 3
UPSTAIRS BATH:
l- WOODEN DOOR ENTRANCE
RAISE CEILING LEVEL TO AT LEAST 7FT
UPPER GREAT ROOM:
' TONGLrE AND GROOVE CEILING AND DORIV~{ERS
2- DORMER WINDOWS
1- HALF CIRCLE WINDOW
DRILL FOR ELECTRICITY 12',1 LOG WALLS
SUPPLY LIFT FOR DELIVERY OF KIT
HOUSE WRAP ALL 2 X 6 FRAMED WALLS
INSTALL ALL OOO~, ~O~S TO BE SW?Ln~ ~Y HO~OW'~-e~-
??LY AND INSTALL ALL ~,~
ALL SPECIFICATIONS NOTED ARE MINIMUMS AND ARE AGREED TO BY THE
CONTRACTOR:
(CON~I'ACTOR)
EXHIBIT "B"
hems not completed:
1) Ridge vent was not installed in main roof of house
2) Flashing was not installed on section of sunroom roof where it t, aeet~ the log wal! on
the back of the house.
3) ~ut~ers and doxx~ spouts were no~ ins;ailed
4) wood trim in hall aox completed
5) wood wire in kitchen not completed
6) trim around stairs nol compleled
7'1 trim around lo~ not completed ~
SI sides of stairs not complele~
9) screens for xxSndows are not installed and some are missing
101 exaerior railing not complexed
11) interior railing supplies not provided
12) fascia on garage and gables not finished properly and f~cia missigg from end of
porch.
13) trim around basement door not applied
kerns that need ~o be repaired
1') door from kitchen to garage is split
2) decoratix'e ~m comers not fmished properly, and blue i~ on edges not cut off, xx411
have to be remoYed on installed properl)'
3) dD,x~ll beside stairs is d~aged from removal of stair ailing (Brad w~ notified from
day one thax we may not want that ~?e of ~iling and his response w~ that it was no
prgblem, that would be one of the lat things to be completed. I then r~minded him
several times. It never should have been i~talled so early, especially when I s~dfically
made a point several times of telling him I w~n'x s~e what type of railing I wanted)
4) a bucker was left on the roof ~d the shingles R rested on are now mined.
5) there is no caul'king around the sky lights on the sunroom roof
6) *.he sunroom door to the outside leaks and will not open unless extreme force is used.
7) the trim in the downstairs bathroom is loose around the pocket door.
$) the door between the master bath and bedroom is split -.
9) the wood on the upstairs floor has very large gaps in some areas, you mn even see
light through the floor from the doxxmsmirs in one area.
10) french doors in IMng room do not close properly
11 ) trim in larger upstairs bedroom doorway doesn't line up
12) trim in kitchen by the bedroom doorway doesn't match
13) trim in upstairs hallway doesn't match
14) time in sunroom on 3 x~Sndows is not attached properly and is actually loose.
EXHIBIT "C"
Log & Timber Homes
Established 19 73
Agreement
Completion Contract between Jennifer and Stan Grimwood and Crockett. Log Homes of PA,
Inc., for completion of job at 499 Sample Bridge Road, Enola, Pennsylvania.
The attached two pages outlines the work to be completed by Crockett Log Homes of PA at the
above mentioned job site. As Doug mentioned his very busy schedule, every effort will be
hat Dou's 'ob takes him out of town
made to finish the job quickly. Homeowners are aware t g J
several days a week and cannot be at the job site everyday.
Some of the work to be completed such as gutters and ridge vent also require some work to be
completed by homeowner. In the case of these tasks, Doug will go as far as he can and then
leave the materials for homeowner to complete.
Once work is completed (as specified on attached pages), the homeowners will make payments
to Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. as work is being done. By completion, all payments should
Balance to be paid upon
" r
total $6,490.00 plus $~ 85.00 fo step railings for a total of $6,875.00.
completion. Any additional works above and beyond the contract will be done with written
and signed change orders and paid accordingly.
The above is agr;ed to and signed by_the following parties:
· Stan ffrimwood, H~9o.m~gSvnet
C ....... .---Y",-" .. a-.- - ' .
. e ii ifer Ho own r uate //
t~ ,ffJfft~l-/q /-'~ft~q'. · Date' ,/
~rrc~e"kett ~g Hc~mes of P& Inc.
G. Douglas Dodson, President
not completed:
Rid~ ve~ wzs not insiall=d i~ m~n roof of ho~e
Ft~shing x~s nol i~!led on ~e~i~n of s~o~m roof w~re it ~eas ~ log ~l on
ba~k of~ ho~m~.
gullets and do~ s~u~ ~':rc no~ ins~alt~d
wood~m ir, hall ~ol ~mpt~tad
~rim ~o~d 10~ no~ eomple~d
sides of~ no~ ~om~l~ed
serea~ for ~iaflo'~! ~ ~ in~ ~d !omc are mi~ing
ex~or r~}ing ne~ complied
inle~ior m~i~ ~ppti~ no: ~vid~d
~o~h.
~fim ~ou=fl b~men~ ~or not a~R~
14) ah~ ~ous ~m p~bl~ ~ ~ ~ils ~cMng out, ~, w~ch ~ ~ fle~iI in a
~!k ~rou~
1) door f~om ~.chcn to garage is split
2) ~0omtive ~m vomers not finished properly, ~n8 blue ink on edges v. ot cut of~ will
have to he rcmoved on inst.~Bed prop~r!y
3) drywall besld~ stairs is damaged from reanova!
~oblem, thru would b~ one or,lc I~n~
~oom ~oor to th~ ou~]~ l~ks and ~ll ~ o~
the ~o~s~s ~oom is loose ~ouad ~
b~ ~ ~r b~ ~d b~oom ~ split
~ou~ ~ floor flora the do~ in o~ ~. ~oo~ in ii~ room do not close p~op~flY
sun.om on ~ ~do~ is u~ l~c~ prop~fl)'
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
717~.~4-1445
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
STANLEY B. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, pENNSYLVANIA
NO.
CIVIL
BRADLEY FARNER, dgo/a :
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF :
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS :
DODSON, individually and dgo/a :
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC., :
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF :
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING :
SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants :
we, STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD, hereby certify
that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint 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. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATED:
STANLErY H. GRIMWOOD
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD, his wife,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a CROCKETT
LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
et al.,
Defendants.
No. No. 02-370
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of ,2002, upon consideration of the
Preliminary Objections of Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. and Plaintiffs' response
thereto,
It is hereby ORDERED THAT the Preliminary Objections are SUSTAINED, and
the Complaint against Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. is DISMISSED in its entirety
with prejudice.
ItBDATA:6788 vl
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD, his wife,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a CROCKETT
LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
et al.,
Defendants.
No. 02-370
YURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF
DEFENDANT NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(3) and 1028(a)(4),
defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. ("NBS") hereby preliminarily objects to plaintiffs'
Complaint as follows:
COUNT I FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
FAILS FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY
1. To state a claim for breach of contract, plaintiffs must prove (1) the existence of a
contract, including its essential terms; (2) breach; and (3) damages.
2. The Complaint fails to adequately plead these elements against NBS.
3. Count I of plaintiffs' Complaint therefore fails to state a claim against NBS.
WHEREFORE, defendant NBS respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Count
I of plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(4).
HBDATA:6788 vl
COUNT II FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW FAll,,q FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY
4. In order to adequately state a claim under this Act, plaintiffs must plead that they
purchased goods or services in reliance on a defendant's representations.
5. Plaintiffs fail to plead that they purchased goods or services in reliance on a
representation by NBS.
6. Plaintiffs also fail to allege any unfair or deceptive trade practices by NBS that are
actionable under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
7. Count II of plaintiffs' Complaint therefore fails to state a claim against NBS.
WHEREFORE, defendant NBS respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Count
II of plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(3) and
1028(a)(4).
Respectfully submitted,
· o~e'Reimann, I.D. No. 57707
Monica L. Rebuck, I.D. No. 78225
Attorneys for Defendant Natural Building
Systems, Inc.
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 231-4000
Dated: February 7, 2002
2
HBDATA:6788 vl
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD, his wife,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a CROCKETT
LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
et al.,
Defendants.
No. 02-370
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
To the Prothonotary:
Kindly enter my appearance for NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.,
defendant.
Dated: February 7, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
Attorney for Defendant
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 231-4000
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Monica L. Rebuck, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Notice of Appearance was served on February 7, 2002, via first class mail, postage prepaid to the
following:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Bradley Famer
Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland
304A Hillcrest Drive
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.
58 Sunset Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
G. Douglas Dodson
58 Sunset Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
M'oni~'~. Rebuck "
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
VS.
BRADLEY FAKNER, d/b/a
CROCKETTE LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND and;
DOUGLAS DODSON,
individually and d]b/a CROCKETT
LOG HOMES OF PA, INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2002-370 Civil Term
JURY TRLKL DEMANDED
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
of DEFENDANT, DOUGLAS DODSON~ INDIVIDUALLY and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PAr INC. CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PAr INC.
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, 1028(a)(2), 1028(a)(3),
and 1028(a)(4), Defendants Douglas Dodson, individually, and d/b/a Crockett Log
Homes of Pa, Inc., hereby preliminary object to Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:
COUNT I
FOR DAMAGES FOR FAULTY AND INCOMPLETE CONSTRUCTION
SALES FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY
Count I purports to state a claim against Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.,
and Dodson for faulty and incomplete construction (for clarification sake,
Douglas Dodson, individually, will be designated Dodson, and Crockett
Log Homes of PA, Inc., Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. will be
designated Crockett PA).
2. There are no allegations that Crockett PA or Dodson constructed the
Plaintiffs' residence.
Instead, Plaintiffs' faulty, incomplete construction claim is based upon a
theory of agency. The Complaint fails to plead facts that, if proved, would
demonstrate that Dodson or Crockett PA were in an agency relationship
and further if such alleged agency relationship existed, there are no factual
allegations which would legally produce liability against Crockett PA or
Dodson.
4. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claim for faulty, incomplete construction against
Crockett PA or Dodson is legally insufficient.
In the alternative, the Complaint alleges failure of materials, but there is not
one allegation of what material Crockett PA or Dodson is allegedly
responsible.
o
In the Plaintiffs' Complaint, Paragraph 7 recites that Defendant Farner is
the agent or ostensible agent of Defendant Crockett Log Homes of PA,
Inc., and Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc.
2
Paragraph 8 of the Complaint says that Defendant Crockett Log Homes of
PA, Inc., is the agent or ostensible agent of Defendant Natural Building
Systems, Inc.
There are no averment or pleadings of facts to indicate what authority
exists between the alleged principals and agents. Nor are there any
averments as to the grant of authority to the agents from the principals.
9. The Complaint is devoid of any factual averments concerning
responsibility as a result of any alleged agency relationships.
10. Paragraph 11 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint indicates that the Plaintiffs came
in contact with Defendant Brad Famer, whom they believe to be an
employee, agent or authorized representative of Crockett Log Homes.
There is no factual basis for this belief, nor is there any factual averment
stating why the Plaintiffs believed this to be a business relationship.
11. The Complaint alleges that Defendant Famer was the one who worked with
the Plaintiffs concerning the plans of the home construction and also
delivered the building and other materials. The Defendant Dodson and
Crockett Homes of PA, Inc., was not involved in this in any respects.
12. Paragraph 24 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to indicate in any factual
manner or basis what acts or omissions indicate liability on the part of
Dodson or Crockett Homes of PA, Inc.
13. Paragraph 22 and 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint allege liability under a
separate contact and agreement marked Exhibit "C" with Defendant
Dodson and Crockett Homes of PA, Inc.
14. Paragraph 22 refers to the Agreement and Paragraph 23 of the Complaint
states in broad conclusionary terms, "Defendant... failed to complete the
work in a workmanlike manner." There are no facts stating this
conclusion. How did the Defendants fail to complete the work? Did he not
do all the work? Did he do only part of the work? What part? What are
the Plaintiffs' specific complaints?
15.
The Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs are seeking damages of
$24,047.30 and at the same time, they allege that there was a separate
contract with Dodson and Crockett Homes of PA, Inc., in the amount of
$6,875.00; however, the Plaintiffs claim to have paid $2,500.00 and the
claims as to the Plaintiffs' alleged damages are inconsistent and legally
insufficient.
4
WHEREFORE, Defendants Dodson and Crockett PA respectfully request
that the Court dismiss Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania
Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(3), 1028(a)(4).
COUNT II
FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE
PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW FAILS FOR LEGAL
INSUFFICIENCY
16. Plaintiffs failed to allege any unfair or deceptive trade practices by
Crockett Homes of PA, Inc., or Dodson under the Pennsylvania Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
17. Paragraph 35 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint merely recites the provisions of
73 P.S. Section 201.1, et. seq., Definition section (4) and does not state any
facts that relate to acts of the Defendants Dodson or Crockett Homes of
PA, Inc., that bring them into violation of the Act.
5
WHEREFORE, Defendants Dodson and Crockett PA respectfully request
that the Court dismiss Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania
Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(3), 1028(a)(4).
Respectfully submitted,
BY:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Arthur K. Dils, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
within Preliminary Objections 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 /~tU"day of February 2002, addressed as
follows:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Respectfully submitted,
Date:
BY:
A~hur K. l~ils, E~squire
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
7
SHERIFF'S RETURN - U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL
CASE NO: 2002-00370 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
GRIMWOOD STANLEY H ET AL
VS.
FARNER BRADLEY ET AL
R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff of Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law served the
within named DEFENDANT ,NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS INC ,
by United States Certified Mail postage
prepaid, on the 23rd day of January ,2002 at 0000:00 HOURS, at
35 OLD ROUTE 12 NORTH
WESTMORELAND, NH 03467
, a true
and attested copy of the attached COMPLAINT & NOTICE
Together
with
The returned
receipt card was signed by GALE PAYNE
01/25/2002
on
Additional Comments:
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 6.00
Cert Mail 4.86
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
.00
20.86
So answers: t. J
Sheriff of Cumberland County
Paid by BARBARA SUMPLE SULLIVAN
Sworn and subscri~ped to before me
t~his~7~ day of L~L~.
"" U
on 02/15/2002
SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY
CASE NO: 2002-00370 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
GRIMWOOD STANLEY H ET AL
VS
FARNER BP~ADLEY ET AL
R. Thomas Kline , 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 DEFENDANT , to wit:
FARNER BRADLEY D/B/A CROCKETT
but was unable to locate Him
deputized the sheriff of YORK
LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
in his bailiwick. He therefore
County, Pennsylvania, to
serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE
On February 15th , 2002 , this office was in receipt of the
attached return from YORK
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Out of County 9.00
Surcharge 10.00
Dep York County 47.74
.00
84.74
02/15/2002
So ans~s: ~
Sheriff of Cumberland County
BARBARA SUMPLE SULLIVAN
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this ~7~ day of 3~
~0~ A.D.
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2002-00370 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
GRIMWOOD STANLEY H ET AL
VS
FARNER BRADLEY ET AL
BRIAN BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
DODSON DOUGLAS the
DEFENDANT
, at 1216:00 HOURS, on the 28th day of January , 2002
at 58 SUNSET DRIVE
MECFUtNICSBURG, PA 17055
by handing to
JODIE DODSON, WIFE
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 6.90
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
.00
22.90
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this ~.~ day of
f ~ A.D.
Prat ~onot a~
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
02/15/2002
BARBARABy: SUMPLE/~SULLIVAN~~/~
Deputy Sheriff
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2002-00370 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
GRIMWOOD STANLEY H ET AL
VS
FARNER BRADLEY ET AL
BRIAN BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
DODSON DOUGLAS D/B/A CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA INC the
DEFENDANT
, at 1216:00 HOURS, on the 28th day of January , 2002
at 58 SUNSET DRIVE
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
by handing to
JODIE DODSON, WIFE
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 ~7~ day of
PZ~ot~nono t a~
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
02/15/2002
BARBARA SUMPLE SULLIVAN
Deputy Sheriff
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2002-00370 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
GRIMWOOD STANLEY H ET AL
VS
FARNER BRADLEY ET AL
BRIAN BARRICK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA INC the
DEFENDANT
, at 1216:00 HOURS, on the 28th day of January , 2002
at 58 SUNSET DRIVE
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055
by handing to
JODIE DODSON, OFFICE MANAGER
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 ~74~ day of
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline
02/15/2002
BARBARA SUMPLE SULLIVANBy: ~/~~i~" ~-', ~~/
Deputy Sheriff
COUNTY OF YORK
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF
28 EAST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401
SHERIFF SERVICE
PROCESS RECEIPT, and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN
1. PLAINTIFF/S/
Stanley H. Grimwood et al
3. DEFENDANT/S/
Bradley Farner et al
SERVE
3641O
SERVICE CALL
(717) 771-9601
2. COURTNUMBER
02-370 civil
4. TYPEOFWRITORCOMPLAINT
Notice & C~,~laint
5. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, ATTACHED, OR SOLD.
Bradley Yarner d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New Ct~nberland
6. ADL;R,'-SS (STREET OR RFO WITH SOX NUMBER, APT. NO., CITY. BORO, "i%NE, STATE AND ZIP CODE
304A Hillcrest Drive New C~nberland, PA 17070
AT
7. INDICATE SERVICE: I~ PERSONAL O PERSON IN CHARGE ~ DEPUTIZE ~1 CERT. MAIL [~11ST CLASS MAIL [~ POSTED [~ OTHER
NOW Janua---'7 24 ,20 02 I, SHERIFF OF~,< COUNT~, PA.~ dg.~ereby deput, iz..~ tJ~ sheriff of
York COUNTY to execute t~~~ding
to law. This deputation being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. ~"'~ ~~.~- - ,~__~
' SHERIFF O1' ~. COUNTY
8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE:
OUT OF COUNTY
CUMBERLAND CO.
ADVANCED FEE PAID BY ATTY.
NOTE ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under within writ may leave same
without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff
herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any property before sheriff's sale thereof.
11. DATE FILED
1-22-02
9. TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER
BARBARASUMPLE-SULLIVAN 549 BRIDGE ST. NEW CUMBERLAND, PA ~t7070 774-1445
12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: (This area must be completed if notice is to be r~e~
CUMBERLAND CO. SHERIFF
13. I acknowledge receipt of the writ 14. DATE RECEIVED
or complaint as indicated above. R. AHRENS 1-25-02 vs.. 2-21-02Expiration/Hearing Date
16. HOW SERVED: PERSONAL (~ RESIDENCE~ POSTED ( ) POE ( ) SHERIFF'S OFF ( ) OTHER ( } SEE REMARKS
17. [~ I hereby certify and return ~ N~T~UND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, etc. named above. (See remarks below.) J
18. NAME'~AND TITLI~F INDJ~SERVED / LIST ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relationship to Defendant) I 1 ~: DaJe, o~lService 20. Time of Serv,[c§,
22,21'ATTEMPTSI~I~I ~n~ Date ITime L"~' IREMARKS ~' , Int. I DatelTimelMi,esl Int. TmelM esI ''tli Date I ,me I,i,eer Int. ,IDete , Time IMilesl! ! I.,,
~ ~l ~ ~ r~SO ANSWER '
~7'_~°untySh* 48. ATE/
-~ ~Z~,I~ N. ~OSB 2713/02
42. day of
, Sheriff 49. DATE
JRE 151. DATE RECEIVED
1. WHITE - Issuing Authority 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY - Sheriff's Office 4. BLUE - Sheriff's Office
· Complete items 1,2, and 3, Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
· Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
· Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. A~icle Addms~d to:
Natural ~uilding Systems Inc.
35 Old Route 12 North
Westmoreland, NH 03467
2..7001 2510 0009 1016 676~;
Print Clearly) Date of Delivery
? address d~femm [] Yea
If YES, enter delivery address below: I--i No
x) Service Type
Certified Mall [] Express Mai~ "-~les
[] Registered [] Return Receipt for Morcnan~
r-I Insurad Mail [] C.O.D.
[ 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) [] Yes
02-370 civ
102595-01 -M-1424
~. Mamh 2001 Domestic Return Receipt
· Sender. ~, .......... ?",__ - .. , ' '~
...... ~ ~--[ your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box · '
CUMBERLAND ......, :, ': ,~, ..... . F S DEPARTMENT
ONE CO~ ,1 ......,~. _,~,:u,,,:~
CARLISLE PA 170-i3 ,
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, dJb/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC., CROCKETT LOG HOMES
OF PA, 1NC. and NATURAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS, 1NC.
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-370 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO: Curt Long, Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013-3387
Enter the appearance of Robert P. Reed, Esquire, on behalf of Defendant, Bradley Famer,
d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED
BY:
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
717 909-6637
Attorney's I.D. No. 15624
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW on this /~day of March, 2002 1 Robert P. Reed, Esquire, hereby certify
that I served the within Praecipe for entry of Appearance this day by depositing the same
in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Crocket Log Homes of PA, Inc.
58 Sunset Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Douglas Dodson
58 Sunset Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Natural Building Systems, Inc.
35 Old Route 12 North
Westmoreland, New Hampshire 03467
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED
BY:
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
717 909-6637
Attorney's I.D. No. 15624
Counsel for Defendant, Bradley
Famer d/b/a Crockett Log Homes
of New Cumberland
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Pleurae ]ist the within matter for the next Arg~aent Court.
CAPTION OF CASE
(entir~ caption must be stated in fu]-~)
STANLEY H. ~IMW00D
JENNIF~K L. GRIMWDOD,
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKET ~ HCkMES OF
NEW~; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROC~SrI' LOG HOMES OF PA,, INC.,
CROCkery' LOG HOMES OF
SYSTOleS, INC.,
( P!a~ ntiff )
( Defendant )
No. 02-370
1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motio~ for new trial, defer~nt's
demu~=r to c~.l~nt, etc.): 's Objections dated
Defenaant Natural Building System, Inc. Preliminary
February 7, 2002 aD~ DefeD~mnts, DO~I~ DOdSon, Individually, and d/b/a
Crockett Log Homes of Pa, Inc. 's Preliminary Objections dated February 14, 2002.
2. Identify counsel who w4]l argue case:
(a) for p~a~ntiff: Barbara SumplerSullivan, Esquire
~a~vess: 549 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA 17070
(b) for deferment: Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
~a~ess: ~0~7 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
30 North Third Street, Ste 700, Harrisburg, PA 17101
Robert P...Reed,...E.squ'.Lre, .P.O.~B~_x~ 6034, Harrisburg, Pa 17112
I w411 notify ~l 1 [m~rties in writing w~rn~n two aays u~= t_his ~e has
been ]isted for aruJum~nt.
4. ~t Court Date:
Dated: March~ , 2002
March 27, 2002
~ Attorney for p~ntiffs
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and dgo/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC., CROCKETT LOG HOMES
OF PA, INC. and NATURAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02°370 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of ,2002, upon consideration of the
Preliminary Objections of Defendant Bradley Famer d/b/a/Crockett Log Homes of New
Cumberland, it is hereby ORDERED that the Preliminary Objections are SUSTAINED,
and the Complaint against Defendant Bradley Famer d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New
Cumberland, is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, for non-compliance with Rules
of Court.
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and dgo/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC., CROCKETT LOG HOMES
OF PA, INC. and NATURAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS, 1NC.
Defendants
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-370 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of ,2002, upon consideration of
the Preliminary Objections of Defendant, Bradley Famer d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of
New Cumberland, it is hereby ORDERED that the Preliminary Objections are
SUSTAINED and Plaintiffs are given leave to file an amended Complaint within twenty
days of the date of this Order stating each cause of action against each Defendant in a
separate count, attaching full and complete copies of any contracts on which their claims
are based, the actions of each Defendant constituting breaches thereof, and the damages
alleged to have been suffered thereby.
Count II of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRLMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC., CROCKETT LOG HOMES
OF PA, 1NC. and NATURAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-370 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, BRADLEY
FARNER, D/B/A CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
1. The Plaintiffs' Complaint, a copy ofwhieh is attached hereto as Exhibit A, asserts
claims against four separate entities, being Bradley Famer, d/b/a Crockett Log Homes
of New Cumberland; Douglas Dodson, individually and d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of
PA, Inc.; Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.; and Natural Building Systems, Inc.
2. Plaintiffs' claims arise out of the purchase and erection of a log home and assert the
existence of two separate contracts, one with Bradley Famer, d/b/a Crockett Log
Homes of New Cumberland, and a second with Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. and
breaches of said contracts. While said Complaint includes Defendant Natural
Building Systems. Inc. in their claim for breach of contract, no contract with said
Defendant is pleaded.
3. Additionally, Plaintiffs make claim against all Defendants under the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. Section 201-1 et seq.
4. Bradley Farner, dgo/a Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland presents his
Preliminary Objections as follows:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2)
5. PA R.C.P. 1019(i) provides:
(i) When any claim or defense is based upon a writing, the pleader shall attach a
copy of the writing, or the material part thereof, but if the writing or copy is
not accessible to the pleader, it is sufficient so to state, together with the
reason, and to set forth the substance in writing.
6. Paragraph thirteen of the Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that on or about August 31,
1999 the Plaintiffs and Defendant (Famer) entered into a contract for acquisition and
erection of the "Crockett Log Home". Said agreement was alleged to be attached as
Exhibit A to said Complaint.
7. Plaintiffs' further aver that under the agreement Plaintiffs were to pay $110,000 for
their "Crockett Log Home" (paragraph fifteen) and that construction was to be
completed on or before December 6, 2000 (paragraph eighteen).
8. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is defective, deficient, and incomplete as the Exhibit
attached by the Plaintiffs does not indicate the contract amount, any completion date,
and contains no execution by the Plaintiffs.
9. The Exhibit attached to the Complaint further contains blanks which are left unfilled
or uncompleted.
10. Plaintiffs have made no allegation that a full and complete copy of the contract,
setting forth all essential terms, was either too voluminous to attach to the Complaint
or not in their possession or under their control.
11. Pa. R.C.P. 1020(a) requires that the Plaintiffs state each cause of action they have in a
separate Count containing a demand for relief.
12. Although alleging the existence of a contract with Defendant Bradley Famer d/b/a
Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland dated August 31, 1999, and a separate
contract with Crockett Log Homes of PA dated December 10, 2000, said claims have
been pleaded collectively under Count I of the Plaintiffs' Complaint.
13. By reason of the Plaintiffs' inclusion of separate contract claims against separate
Defendants, the pleadings are unclear and uncertain as to which Defendant is claimed
to be responsible for uncompleted or improperly completed work.
14. Plaintiffs' failure to present their claims against the respective Defendants in separate
counts makes it impossible for the responding Defendant to plead knowingly and
effectively to the Plaintiffs' Complaint as it is now stated.
WHEREFORE, responding Defendant requests Your Honorable Court to enter an Order
directing the Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint to state their causes of action against the
Defendants in separate counts.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3)
15. Furthermore, Count II of the Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges a cause of action for Unfair
Trade Practices and asserts said cause of action on the grounds that the Defendants
failed to complete the construction as contracted for (paragraph twenty-nine); that the
Defendants performed the work in a shoddy and unworkman-like manner (paragraph
thirty) and alternatively that the goods provided to the Plaintiffs were shoddy and of
poor quality (paragraph thirty-one).
16. The aforesaid paragraph, and Count, failed to specify which Defendants failed to
complete what items under their respective contract, what Defendants performed
what element of work in a shoddy and unworkman-like manner, and what goods were
of shoddy or poor quality and which Defendant provided them.
17. Until Plaintiffs plead with particularity, in separate counts, the details comprising
their causes of action under paragraphs twenty-nine, thirty and thirty-one, responding
Defendant is unable to knowingly or effectively be informed of the claim being made
against him or to respond thereto.
18. Plaintiffs further claim that they were caused to believe an agency association existed
between all parties for construction of"Crockett Log Homes" (paragraph thirty-four)
and that goods were passed off as those of another or confusion was created as to the
source of said goods, the affiliation, connection or association between the parties,
that said goods had sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits
or qualities they did not have, etc.
19. Assuming that the Plaintiffs are claiming fraud, Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b) provides:
(b) Averments of fraud or mistake shall be averred with particularity. Malice, intent,
knowledge, and other conditions of mind may be averred generally.
20. Plaintiffs failed to state what representations were made, when they were made, by
which parties they were made, or how otherwise they came to be confused or
misinformed.
21. Plaintiffs nowhere state that they relied on any such representations or that any such
reliance was to their detriment.
22. Nowhere do the Plaintiffs state that had they known the true source of the goods or
the affiliation between the parties they would not have purchased said goods or dealt
with said parties.
23. Because of the aforesaid deficiencies in Count II of the Complaint the responding
Defendant is unable to know what claims are being made against him or to knowingly
and effectively plead thereto.
WHEREFORE, responding Defendant requests Your Honorable Court enter an Order
dismissing the Plaintiffs' Complaint for insufficient specificity in pleading.
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
24. Alternatively, responding Defendant submits he is entitled to a more specific pleading
for all the defects above cited if he is to knowingly and effectively respond to said
Complaint.
WHEREFORE, responding Defendant requests Your Honorable Court, alternatively, to
Order the Plaintiffs to file a more specific pleading curing the defects above cited.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P.
1028(4)(DEMURRER)
25. Plaintiffs have included in their Count for Unfair Trade Practices the claim that the
Defendants failed to complete the construction as contracted for. (paragraph twenty-
nine).
26. The purpose of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law is to
eradicate unfair or deceptive business practices and does not encompass simple
nonfeasance or the failure to complete a contract.
27. Plaintiffs allegations as to the associations between the parties, passing off of goods,
origin of goods, or the nature of the goods fails to state a cause of action as said
allegations:
a. Fail to state what beliefs the Plaintiffs held before entering into their contracts;
b. Fail to state the source of said beliefs;
c. Fail to state whether said beliefs were based on any representations made by the
parties, the nature of any such representations, by whom said representations were
made and when;
d. Fail to state that any representations made by any of the Defendants were in fact
false, deceptive, or misleading;
e. Fail to state that they relied on any information or representations made by
Defendants; and
f. Fail to state that any reliance on any representations or information was to their
detriment.
28. Paragraph thirty-five (xiii) alleges a cause of action against the Defendants for
"engaging in any other fraudulent conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or
of misunderstanding."
29. The aforesaid allegation is nebulous, does not inform the responding Defendant of
what conduct he must defend or plead to, and is in violation of Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a)
requiring that material facts on which a cause of action is based shall be stated in a
concise and summary form; and Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b) which requires that averments of
fraud or mistake shall be averred with particularity.
WHEREFORE, RESPONDING Defendant requests Your Honorable Court to issue an
Order striking Count II of the Plaintiffs' Complaint for legal insufficiency.
WHEREFORE, responding Defendant requests Your Honorable Court to issue an Order
dismissing Counts I and II of the Plaintiffs' Complaint for lack of specificity and non-
compliance with the Rules of Court. Alternatively, responding Defendant requests Your
Honorable Court to issue an Order directing Plaintiffs to file a more specific Complaint
correcting the aforesaid deficiencies and setting forth their causes of action in separate
counts. Finally, responding Defendant requests Your Honorable Court to dismiss Count
II in its entirety as failing to state a cause of action under the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.
Respectfully Submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED
Dated:
BY:
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
717 909-6637
Attorney's I.D. No. 15624
Counsel for Defendant Bradley Famer d/b/a
Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland
EXHIBIT A
0222/2002
............. STANLEY H. O~vlwOOD and
IENN~£P, L. GP, IMXVOOD,
Plaintiffs
BRADLEY FARN~R, Oh/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CLIMBERLA~'D; DOUGLAS
DOD$ON, individua/iy and cH~i
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOO HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDINO
SYSTEMS, INC. -
Defendants
: I~ THE COURT OF COMSMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COtJHTY, pENNSYLVANIA
JURY ~RIAL DEMANDED
You ,have bcen ~ued in court. Ifyou wish to defsnd!agaizst thc claims set for~h in .:%e ., :
following pages, you must take ~o~ wi~in ~¢n~ (20) ~ys a~r ~is ¢omplaim and no~[~c are ~,~
$~, by ent~n$ a ~Rcn appc~ce pe~o~lly or by aRom¢y and filing in ~ting w~ thc
cou~ ~o~ ~ofenses or ob~cctio~ to ~h~ claims s~t fo~ a~Mst you. You ar~ w~ed that if you
fail to'do so ~e case may pmce~ ~o~ you and a j~d~t ma~ be en~red against you by
~ co~ wi~om ~cr n~icc for any money clMmcd in ~c ~omp~int or for ~y oth~ claim or
relief ~qacst~ by ~e p~infiff. You ~y lose money or p~ or o~¢r fi~ ~po~ant to
you,
YOU SHOULD T~ T~S P~ TO YO~ ~%~R AT ONCE, IF YOU
DO NOT HA~ A LA~%~ OR C~OT ~O~ ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE
T~Z OFFICE SET FOR~ BELOW TO FIND O~ W~ YOU CAN GET LEG~
HELP.
7/7 - 5'fft4 - ~ 5"
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR A~SSOCL4,TION
2 LIBF-RTY AVF.2~E
Csrlisle, Pennsylvania 1~/013
(717) 249-3166
11qUE COo'y' F~OM RECO~'
'".~2 22/2~02 1~;31 717-781-5810 CHrIStIAN B~KE~ CO P,--,,3E 03
Barbara Sumpl~-Sulliva~. Bsqulre
Sup~m¢ Court
New Cumb~'land, ~A 17070
STANLEY H. OI~OOD and
.IENNIF F..'K L. oRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
: IN Tli~ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUIVIBERLAND COUNTY, pENIqSYLVANIA
NO.
CIVIL
BKADLEY FARNEK, d/b/a
CROCK. ETT LOG HOMES OF
~ CUM~EKLAND; DOUOLA$
DODSON, individually and d/'o/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA.,INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., IlqC. and NATURAL BUILDFblO
SYSTEMS,
Defendants
,TUP,.Y TRIAL DEIVLANDRD
~lai~tii~ a~ S~anley Il. Gtimwood a~d .~a~ife~ L. Grimwoo6, husband and ',,~f¢, r~$idi~g
at 499 Samgle Bridge Road, Enola, Cumb~land County, p~u~ylvania 170~$.
Defendant is Bradley Famer, an ind½vidu~l residing at 304A Hillcres! Drive, New
Cumberland, Cumberland County, pennsylvania 17070. Mr. Farner transacts business under
the name "Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland".
Defendant is Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation doing business
mt 58 Sunset D~ive, Mcchanicsbur$, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania' 170~5. Defendant
Crockett Home~ of Pa, Inc. is thc Mid-Atlantic Regional office of Defendant National
Building Systems, Inc.
02.:22."2002 la:3]. 717-7E,1-5810 .CNpT~TT,~I,I RA~'F'P CO F',~aE U~
Defendant Douglas Dodson is a~ individt~l residing at 58 Sun,et Drive, Mecha~icsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. Dt-r'~ndant Dodaon r~res~ms Itc does business
as Crockcl~ Log Homes of Pa., Inc.
Defendant is Natural Building Systems, Inc., a'New Hampshire corporatien located at 35
Old Route 12 North,.Wesl~noreland, New Hampshire 03467. Defendant i.s doing business
in the Commonwealth of P~mnsylYa~a but has no r~gist~red office in this ~'~i¢. Defendant
l~a~ral Building Systems, Inc. is thc manufacturer of c~'tain log home systems, the owner
of certain lrade~ames, including "Croclc~ Log Homes," and maxkets and sells~aid homes
aa "Cwckctt Log Homes".
Defendant Crockett Log Homes of?a, Inc. and Defendant Famex are the builders and dealers
for Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc.
Defeadant Famer is the agent ot ostendble agent of Defendant Crocket~ Log Homes of Pa.,
In~. and Def~ulant l'latutal Building Systm*n-, Inc.
Defendaat Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. is the agent or ostensible agent of DefeMant
Nant~l Building Systems, Inc.
Plaintiffs became aware through various medias of the availabi§ty of log homes known
"Crocketl Log Homes".
10.
Plaintiffs desired to specifically build a "Cmr. kcit Log Homes" and telephoned Crockett LoB
Homes ~ listed in the telephone book in ~uly, 1999.
11.
PlaLntiffs came in contact with Defendant Brad Famer, whom they believed to be an
employee, ageut or authorized representative of"Crocket~ Log Homes".
12.
Defendant Pamer worked with Plaintiffs to confirm the plans for their Crockett Log Home,
for ordering the_CrockeiI building package manufactured by Defendant Natural Building
System, Inc., a~d for sctoal labor in election of their Crockett Log Home.
13.
On or about Aught 31, 1999, Plaintiffs and Defendan~ enter~l, into a contract for acquisition
and erection of the "Crockett Log Home". A copy of said contract is attached hereto as
Bxhibit "A" and incorporated her~in by reference.
14.
It is believed and th~'~fo~¢ averred that D~fendan~ Farner s¢cu~d the materials required for
thc construction of the home from Defendant G. Douglas Dodson, d/b/a/Crockett Log
Homes of PA, Inc. end Defendant Natural Buildin§ Systems, Inc.
15.
Pursuant to the parties' Ag~eeraent, Plain~'Ts were obligated to pay to stun of ONE
I-IU'NDRED TEN THOUSAND DOLLAI~ ($110,000.00) fo~ their "Crockett Log Home".
Pursuant to Exl~i~it "A", all work related to the consiraction of the Crockett Log Home was
to be completed ia a workmanlike matmer accordin~ to local codes and staa~ards.
~ ~ ~ ~ .~ - CHRISTIAN B~KER CO P~GE
~£.,22/2002 l~:3i I -.~1
Pa'~uant to £xhibit "^", the llzfenda'~t l:aner was responsible for completion o[ the job in
accordance with the agreed u0on time schedule.
It was th= agr~d to between Plaintiffs and Defendant Famer that the construction wes to be
completed on or before December 6, 2000. Said work was not completed as of that date and
hinderecl relocation of Plaintiffs from their prior :csidence.
Defendant learner did not complete the work timely or in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement since much of the work wa~ either left uncompleted or not completed in s
satisfacto~ f~hion.
20.
Defendant Famer's work was defective, including but not limited to, thc following:
A) Defendant failed to erect a wall in the master bath, as required by the plans met
specifications for the home systera;
B) Defendant also fail~i to complete or otherwise install the items set forth on Exhibit
"B" which is incorporated her~in by reference.
21.
When Defendant Famer failed to adequately, fizlly or timely complete the work, Plaintiffs
altemptcd to secure completion of the work by Defendant Crockett Log Homes of Pa, Inc.
An a§recment gated December 10, 2000 was reachext between Defendant Crockett Loz
Homes of PA, ]Mc. and Pla~ttiffs for completion of the worm A copy of said Agreement is
attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference.
' 02/22,'"£~02 14:~1 ?17-761-§G10 CHRISTIAH BAKER CO PAG~ B?
23.
Despite recci, pt of payment of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLAIL5
($2,500.00) from Plaimtiffs, Defendant Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. failed to complete
the work in a workmanlike manner.
24.
Presently, the following problems have been identified to exist in their "Crockett Log Home"
as faulty installation or construction or failure of materials or manufactur~ of thc "Crockett
Log Homes" p~vided by ~he Defendants.
A) Damaged Window sash in first floor bedroom;
B) Leakage through roof in Great Room and Living Room;
C) Failure of thc Door to fit in the Master bedroom closet;
D) Sag in ceiling beams of thc firs! floor master bedroom;
E) Chip in ~e master bedroom door;
F) Leakage through thc front door;
0) Improper ins~llalion of los skirting;
H) Failure to iastall plugs in ends orlon;
I) Improper ins~llatinn of living room baseboard;
Leakage through family room patio door,
K) Gaps in second floor pllle flooring and bowing of the floor with need for replasemem
and ~esurfaci,~g;
L) Improperly ins~lled fascia;
M) Failure to complete ~m work;
N) Roof shingling nail heads to be replaced;
0) Calking of ex~6or surfaces;
P) Installation of ridge ventin§ incomplete;
Improper spouting installation;
R) Improper installation of metz[ flashing around the windows;
S) Failure to install plug in log indentations to prevent insect infestation;
T) Dirty condition of home and water marks on logs and bricks;
U) Purchase of ~pplies, including missin§ railing from upstairs, loft and steps; and
¥) Iml~operly eonslructed dormers.
25. k was es 'timate-d that the total costs of this work for replacement and repair of the above
referenced defects is TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND FORTY-SEVEN DOLLARS and
30/100 ($24,047.30).
26.
CTOI~NT I
~R~ACI~ OF CONTRACT
l"aragraphs 1 through 25 ara incorporated herein by refer~c¢ a~ if fully set forth herein.
27.
Defcndant~ have breached their agre~mant to provide a "Crockett Log Home", completed
~ a wor~ul~e m~or and ~ of d~f~, ~ a ~ult of said br~ach~, P[aintiff~
havc b~ ~gc~ ~ ~ ~o~ of $24,~7.30. Pla~tiffs ~que~t jud~nt in tll~
~o~t of~-FO~ ~OUSA~ FOKTY-SE~ ~LL~ and ~1~
($24,047.30).
WH~I~FORE, Plaintiffs request judgment in ~eir favor a~d asains! the Defendants.
28.
Ij"N'F~ TRADE PRACTLC.,~
Paragraphs 1 tkrough 27 are incorporated herein by referenoe as if fully set forth.
29. Defendauts failed ~o complete ~e ¢onsU'uction a~ con~acted for.
30. Defendmu~ ~rformed the work in a shoddy a~cl unworkrnanlik~ mann~.
~ 1. Alternatively, the ~oods provided to Plaintiffs wer~ shoddy and of poor quality.
14:3I ?17-761-5B10 CHRISTIAN ~KER CO PAGE
32.
The goods and services provided to Plaintiffs by De£enda~t~ were prim~rlt¥ (or
?laintiffs' personal, fiu~.il¥ and hcuacbold uacs.
33.
Plaintiffs believed that they wer~ purchz.6ng a"Crookett Log Home" and that Defendants
were agents of"Cro~kett Log flames".
Plaintiffs later determined that ua "Crockett Log Horee~" exists but that it wis a trade
name for Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. which was being used by Defendant
Dodson, Dcfen[lant Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. and Defendant Tamer, doir~g
business as Crockett Log Horees of New Cumberland, to cause the consumer to believe
an agency association existed between all parties for construction of "Crockett Log
Homes'.
35. The practices, failure ~nd omissions of De£endants degcribed in the Compliant violate to
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Comumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. Se~ion
201.1, et ll:ll-, as descriptive acts inter alfa:
(i) Passing off goods or services as those of another:
(ii) Causing likelihood ofcoufusiou or of misunderstanding as to thc sourr¢,
sponsorship, approval or certification otgoods or s~'vic~s;
(iii) Causing lik¢lib, ood of confuaion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation,
conn¢ctioll of a~soci~ioll with, or certification by, another,
(iv) Using d~ceptive representations or d~si~nations of geographic origin in
connection with goods or service;
(v) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, a{~proval,
charscterisiics, ingredients, uses benefits or quantities that they do not
have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, stares, affiliation or
connuction ~hat he does not have;
(xiii) Engaging in any other fraudulent conduct which creates a likelihood of
confusion or of mismldersmn, ding.
~ 02~.~', -. CHRI~TI-N B~KER ¢0 PAGE
36.
Plaintiffs seek ~rcble damages and counsel fees in accordanoe with said Act, altome¥'s
£e~s plus interest, cost~ of suit and all other relief the Court determines appropriate at ~ial
of this case.
WIII~.REFOR.F., Plaintiffs seek compensation damages in the amount of $24,047.30,
h-~ble damages pursuant to Unfair Trade Practic~, a~orn~y. 's fees, plus interest, costs of suit and
all other relief the Court deems approtniate.
Dated: January/.~, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
//B ar'~a~"Sumple-Sul liv an, Esquire
$49 Bridge Strut
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
Supreme Court I.D. 32317
Attorn~ for Plaintiffs
"' ~2 22/2~02 14:31 TIT-?61-5810 CHF~ISTI.iN BAKER CO P~C-~ ii
EXHIBIT "A"
~2~22t£~2
717-7G]-551~
CHRISTIAN BAKER 60
.~O:V'I'IE 4 fT~'OR .4 GR £EME~,T
PAGE 12
PAGE 1 OF 2
O~'ER:
STANLEY & .JIz'NrNII-I:;R GRIM'WOOD
3173 SPRING RD
CARLISLE PA 17013
717-25g-g[34
CONTRACTOR: BRAD FARN'ER.
OWNERS NAME: BRAD FAR.NER
ADDRESS: 30I. A HiLLCKEST DP.
NEW CU%IBERI,AND PA 17070
PltONE: 938-4337
F.,LX: 938-2028
3,MOUNT OF BID: $110,000.40
PA% .5,IENT TERMS:
% b'PON COMPLETION OF
% U?ON COMPLETION OF .
% U'PON COMPLETION OF
% UPON COMPLEIION OF
% U?ON CON~LET1ON OF
20% 15 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF TOTAL 3OB
JOg S~ECI'F/CAIION5: SEE ADDENDru.'~I #1
J'~'~$ TO g£ SUBCONTI~&CTED BY CONTB.~CTOR:'
SALE OF CROCK~T HOME KrF, DR~Wv'ALL, LABOR TO h~STALL KiT,
INSTALLATION Q~ SHINGLES, ALSO SEE ADDEND~,'M i 1.
PROf I~!ON~ OF A GREE..'vIE3'E
ALL WOKK 1S TO BE PERI:OI~MED
ACCOKDING TO LOCAL CODES AND STANDAILg$. ALL MAT. E. KI.AL AND
LABOR SI{.MJ.. B~ WARRANTED FOR A bl~rl3vlIa'M OF ONE YEAR. ALL
CHANGES REQUESTED SHALL BE AGRSED TO BY PURCHAS~ ORDF-R.
CONTRACTOR A~REE$ TO Ng%~qTA~N ALL REQb'~ED LIC~NSE~. AND
INSUR-~NCE, [NCLUDfNO '~VOR.kLER5' COMPENSATION .~.%qD L[ABLLITY
~SUR_4.NCE WT~{ A b~SN~vfUM COVERAOE OF $500,000 PER OC~CE.
~.N'Y DPu~£~.GES ~AUSED BY CONTRACTOR OR CON ,.'TRACTOR'S EM~LOTEES
IS TH~ KESPONSI~ILI ~'['Y OF THIS CONTR~C'tOR AND S]-L"¥LL BE R.EP~ AT
IH/S CONTRACTORS EXPENSE. CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY R~SPONSIBL~ FOR
CON~F. NSATION TO ALL ENLPLOYEES .~ND HELPERS F~ED BY
CON-FRACTOR_ CONTRACTOR AGREES TO PROVIDE O%~R WITH RELEASE
717-761-5~10 CHRISTIAN B~K[R uO
PAGE
PAGE 2 OF l
OF LIEN AFFIDAVITS PRIOR TO EACH PAYMENT( A'FFACHMENT
COIx'I'P~CTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VEKIFY~0 ALL SUBCONTKACTOP,
PERM.S AND LICH!qSES, CONSrKACTOR WILL ~NSUP, Z, CLEAN'LrN'ESS
PROJECT AT ALL TIMES. CON'TRACTOK 1S RESPONSIBLE TO'PROVIDE
'SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL WORKERS. A PENALTY OF S200:O0
PER DAY S'MALL BE CHARGED TO THE. CONTRACTOR IF CONTRACTOR
DEFAULTS ON THIS AGREEMENT OR STOPS WORK BEFORE THE PROJECT IS
CO~,L~LETED. OWNER KESERVES THE RIGHT TO HIRE A REPLACEMENT
GENEK.ad. CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE CONTRACTOR'S CONTPJ. CT iN THE
EVENT THE CONTRACTOR DEFAULTS.
Tf-IIS.4GRECM£AT IX CO:VT.f..'VG£:'~'F t:PON OI4X'KR '$ OBE4I_~_t:VG A[£
REQUIRED PER,II/TX AND FI,'~'.dNCI,YG T0 ALLOIt' CO~,[PLETION OF THE
PROJECT.a.$ BUDGEFED.
CO.X'TRACTOR SFL4,LL BE IR.ESPO~'$!BLE FOR TEE CO~IFLETION Of' T,qE
ENTIRE JOB DESCRIBED HEREIN ACCORDING TO TiIE AGREED-ON
TIME SCHEDULE. CONTRACTOR $'[.IALL AC'I' AS OVERALL MA. NAGER,
SCHEDULING. ALL LABOR ..~'~'D ~L~TERIAL FOR DELD,.'ERIES OF JOB
DESCRIBED HEREIN. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO COMPLETE
THE PROJ'ECI' vCrYHL'; THE FINA. NC£.~L BUDGET SET FORTH BY O~; ,~ER,
02/22/2002 ~4:3~ 717-761-5818 CH~,ISTI~N BAKER CO P,..GE ~4
ADDE:¥DU-~'~S~I 1'0 COiVTR.4CTOR AGREEMENt_
PAGE 1 OF 5
~ FOLOWING NOTATIONS A.RE INCLUDED IN THE TI-IE BID PRESEbl
BY TH~ CONTRACTOR A~D WILL BE pERfORMED WITHIN THE
SPECIFICATIONS AGREED TO LN THE CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT,
SPECgqCATIONS AR.E DUALY NO~ED ON A~fACI~vlENTS 2 A~'D 3.
BLDO MATERIALS PER CROCK]ET BID
2 X 6 FRAMED WAILS W1TM I-lOUSE WRAP;I'YVEK
25 YEAR ACHITECTU~al, SHINGLES INSTALLED
FRONT DOOR.- STAINABLE FIBERGLASS WqTH 2 SIDELIOHTS
DECKiNO- PRESSUR~ TREATED LUMBER 720 SQUARE FEET
RAILING- DECORATFv'E ~ AND SPLIT LOGS IN CF.1S CROSS DESiON
ALL%ffN'JM FAC$1A A.ND SOFFITS
ALUqv[IN/3M PORCH CE~.INO
ALUMINLrM CLAD A~NDERSO~ LOW E 9,TNDOWS W~!Tl-I GRILLS
GL l ~'~ WITH LEAF GUARDS INSTALL~.D
E. XTKA LOGS TO RAISE CI=IT lNG LEVEL Dl' UPSTAIRS LOlq'
AND BE1DROO~S/BATH
G.4R.4GE:
3 FIBERGLASS 9' GARAGE DOORS INSTALLED
1- FIBERGLASS DOOR REAR I~qYANC'I~
SEP.-~ATOR WALl. IN GARAGE WITH WOODEN DOoR
2- 36 X 36 DH w ,INDOWS IN FRON-f OF OA.KAGE
1- 36 X 36 DH ~,-INDOW IN REAR
THIS AR~.A WILL BE STONE EXTERIOR
FIRE W.~LL PER TO~SI-i~ CODES
KrfC~fE_¥:
2- 28 X 32 .~'rL~'DOWS DH CA-~"T1~ED LN FRONT SDE BY SIDE
5'~ WINDOW SILL
TI-tiS ~ V~/LL BE FLE. L LOO EXTERIOR
WOODEN DOOR FOR GARAGE E~'P.~NCE
WOODEN DOOR FOR MASTF_.R BEDROOM 5~-FRANCE AS CLOSE THE
BASElvfENT E~'RANCE AS POSSIBLE
WOODEN DOOR BA.,SEMENT ENTRANCE ', .
sYArNABLE I-IuEROLASS DOOR FRONT ENTR_.kCE W/2 SIDELIGHTS
1 - .%6 X 36 DH W]]qDOW
WOODF. N STEPS AND KAILINO TO UPSTAIRS
CLOSET A.ND DOOR
~2. ?2 2002 ] J: 31 71T-76t-5810 ChRISTi'AN BAKER CO
(4DD£NDUM #I 1"0 COI~TR~4CTOR .4GREEM'ENT
PAGE 2 OF 3
1- WINDOW 5' X 5' FROWr CENTER
2- WINDOWS RT SIDE FACING 36 X 48 D~
1- W~D~ D~K ~CE TO PO~R ROOM
1- ~ ~R ~CH TO S~M
3- $' X $' WINDOWS OR 2-5 X 5 AND 2- DH 36 X 48
l- SINGLE S~TNG i:R.EN~ DOOR l:OK EX-rERIOK EN'rRA~CE LEFT
SiDE F;~CING
1- WOODEN DOOR ENTRANCE FRaM GRF. AT ROOM
1- POCKET DOOR ENTRANCE FiLM MASTER BATH ~.
1- V,/OODI~N IX)OR EICTR..~'qCE FI~M MASTER BEDROOM
1- BUILT IN CLOSET '~n H DOOR
2- CLOSETS WITH WOODEN DOORS
2- WINDOWS SIDE BY SIDE CENTER. ED IN BACK OF ROOM 36 X 4S DM
WOODEN ST~"P.S .~N'D RAIL PER. LOCAL CODE
WOOD~',IF RA~[qG I~ER LOC.~L CODE
RAISE CEt,IL~'qG LEVEL AT LEASE 3 LOGS
10 FM CLOSET FRO?I' X 14
CLOSET WITH FOLDfNO DOORS
1- wOODEN .DOOR ENT"~,MNCE FRM HALL
2- WINDOWS AT LEAST 36 X 36
RAISE CElT h'qO ~VEL TO AT LEAMT TFT
15X14
CLOSET WITH FOLDINO DOORS
3- WIN'DOWS AT I.~AST 36 X 36
1- WOODEN DOOR ENTRANCE
RAISE CEILING LEVE TO AT 1 FA,ST 7 FT
82/22,"2882 14:.::1 7i?-761-5810 CHRiSTI4H E;~KER (.0 P~£ 1~
PAGE ~. OF 3
I- WOODEN DOOR b-b/Y'KANCE
RAISE CEILI.~G LEVEL TO AT LE~T 7~
' p J~ ,IT M':
· TONGUE AND ORO0~,~ CEILING AaND DOIL~,~fl~R$
2- DORMER W'INDOWS
1- I-IA.LF C'TRCLE WINDOW
DRILL FOR ELECTRICITY IN LOG WALLS
SUPPLY LI)-I' FOR DELIVERY OF YET
HOUSE WRAP ALL 2 X 6 FRAMED WALLS
INSTALL ALL DOOR K..NOBS TO BE SUPPLIED BY HOME, OWNER
SLq~PLY AND ~STAL~ ALL ~
ALL SP£CrHCATIONS NO i ~u AR~ M]N12vIUMS AND ARE A~REED TO BY
CONTRACTOP..:
(CONTACTOR)
82 22/?..eo2 14; ~1
717-761-5~t~
CHRISTIAN FeAt(ED 03
EXHIBIT "B" "
¢~ z~/~00~ ld:Sl 717-761-5810 CHRISTIAN BAKER CO
Items ~ot completed:
i) Rid~ ,,¢nt was not installed in main roof of house
23 Fiaihing was not installed on section ofsuaroom roof where
the back of the house.
S) gutters.and dox~'n spouts w~-re no~ installed
:il wood trim in hall not complelcd
5) woOg ~m ia kitche:t Itot completed
61 Mm around stairs not completed
7'~ trim around loft nO~ comgleted
8) iides of stairs not oompleted
g) scr~en~ for windo~ are not ~mlled and ~ome are missing
10} ,xnerior roiling not completed
l ! ) iht,flor r~i[ing ,upplles no~ prmfded
~3) t~m arou~t basement door not applied
Items that need to be repaired
1'1 door ~om kitchen to gauge is split
~) decor~ix'e mm comers not ~isb~d pro.fly, and blue i~ on e~ges nol
h~x,e to ~ removed on in.fled
~} dDa,~ll beside ~ks is d~aged ~om ~mo~ of stair roiling (Bnd wm not~fied from
pr~ble~ tha~ ~ul~ be one of ~e I~ things to b¢ complet~ 1 then remifldc6 him
' e~N, esp¢cially when I s~cifically
several time~ It never ~bould'~ve been i~Iled so . ·
made a point s~'~ times oftdling h~ I ~n'x s~e whal ~'~ of railing
q abuek~ ~x~ le~ on ~e mol md ~e shingl~ ~ ~aed on am now
0~,'22/2002 14; 31 CHRISTIAN BAKER CO =AGE i~
F
717-761-5818
5) there is no caulking :round ;he sk.'y lights on the surcoom roof
6) :he sunroom door to ~he outside leaks and will not open unless extreme force is used.
7) :he ~m ir. the do~vnstairs bathroom is loose aroand the pocket d~or.
8) the door bet~veen the master ba~h and bedroom is split
the wood on the upstairs floor h~ very large .~aps in some areas, you ~n even see
lighl tbrou~ the floor ~o~ the fiox~rs in oae area.
10) ~ench doon in li~in~ room do not close pToperly
1 ) ~dm in larger u;~taim be~oom doom~a)' doesn't line up
!2) ~im in kitchen by th~ bedroom doom'~y do~n't match
I~) ~m in ucs~airs hallway d~sn't match
14) time in sunroom on 3 ~dndow~ i~ not a~ached
14:];1 717- ]E.I-581B CHRISTI~I
EXHIBIT "C"
1~:31 71 7-76]-5S10
CHRISTIAN BAKER CO
Log & Timber Homes
Established 2 9 73
Agreement
Completlon.Contra~ betwee~ ~%nnifer and Stan C-firewood and Crockett. Log Homes of PA,
Inc., for compNn;on ofjob at 499 Swnple Bridge Koed, Enola, Pennsylvania.
The at~ached two pages outlines the work ~o be completed by Crocken L~g Homes of PA ~ ths
~ovc m~ntioned job sRe. ~ Doug ~doned ~s ve~ busy schedule, ~e~ e~a ~il be
made to ~nish the job ~uickly. Hom~s arc ~c that Doug's job t~ him out ofto~
sever~ days a w,~k and canno~ be at ~ejob s~e ev~dzy.
Some of the work to be completed such as ~utters and ridse vent also r~quire some work to be
completed b}' homeowner. In the case of these tasks, Doug will go as far as he can and then
leave thc malerials for homeowner to oomplcte.
Once work is completed (as specified on aaached pages), the homeowners wil) make payments
:o Crock~ Log Homes of PA, Inc. a~ work Ls being done. By completion, all payments should
:c;al $6,490.00 plus $35f00 for step railings for a total of $6,gT$.00. Balance to be paid upon
compleiion. Any additional works above ~.nd b~yond the contrac~ will be done with wfi'ct~n
and signed cl',an.c-- orders and p~id a~cordlngly.
The above i~ a~reed ~.o and sign~..~the following parries:
· ~ Date '
G. Doug~ Dodso~ ~eside~
Date ,/
C:O PAG£ 22
o ..... ~.~~ 1,~:21 71.--76]-5810 CHRISTIAN BAKEP..
~h~ ba~k o£'d~ boas*.
3) .,~u~.ters ~nd clo,~n ~,.Do~.'t$ w:r¢ not
14) ~ m~ous ~m ~blc~s ~ ~ -~3s ~ 0u% ~, ~b ~ ~q ~tI in a
3) d~r ~om ~ :o ~a~e {s
~obIem, Cna: woula bt one or~e l~
02, 22'20~2 ]4:31 717-¥~.1-5510 CHRISTIAN BAKER CO
1 ~ ) ~ in I~ upr~ ~o~ d~y ~.'l lJn~ ~p
]4) ~ in sunera on 3 ~ is ~ a~ ~ro~r~ ~ W ~ loo~.
02/2~'2802 l'h31 717-7%1-5~10 CHRISTIAN E'.~<ER CID P~"G;' 2~
Bm..bm-a Sumple-Sulliv~n, Esquire
Supre~ne Gour~ ~323 [7
N~w ~b~l~, PA 17070
(717) 7!4-t~5
ST~EY ~. G~OOD ~d
JEeR L. G~'~D,
Plaintiffs
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF :
N~V CUMBERL.M',rD; DOUGLAS :
DODSON, individually and d/bla :
CROCK.BTT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC., :
CI{OCICETT LOG I-IOIv[ES OF :
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING :
SYSTEMS, INC. :
Defendants :
: IN TI-Il: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COI.FNTY, PEI,,rNSYLVANIA
NO.
CIVIL
We, ST.~NLEY II. GRIS{WOOD and JENNI~-I~.R L GRIMWOOD, hereby c~i~
~t the fac~ ~t fo~ in ~e forego~i Complaint ~ ~e a~ ~ec~ to ~e ~st of o~
~owledge, ~o~afion ~dbelic[ W~ ~d~d ~at ~ fa~ stat~en~ made h~in
subject to p~alfles of 1~ P~ C.S.A. ~4904 rela~g ~ unswom f~fl~fi~ ~ authorities.
DATED:J~,,~' /~ ZO0.~.
STANLEY l{ GRII~OOD "
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW on this ~/Z~day of Mareh, 2002 1 Robert P. Reed, Esquire, hereby certify
that I served the within Preliminary Objections on Behalf of Defendant, Bradley Farner,
d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland this day by depositing the same in the
United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Nicole Riemann, Esquire
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Rupich
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED
BY:
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
717 909-6637
Attorney's I.D. No. 15624
Counsel for Bradley Famer d/b/a
Crockett Log Homes of New
Cumberland
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKE'I-I' LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKE'I-I' LOG HOMES OF PA.,
INC., CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.,
DEFENDANTS
· 02-0370 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF DEFENDANTS
TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
BEFORE BAYLEY. J. AND HESS. J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this r'[,~ day of May, 2002, the preliminary objection of
defendants to plaintiffs' complaint for a violation of Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(a),
IS GRANTED.~ Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of this
date.
~ Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(a) provides in pertinent part that, "Each cause
of action and any special damages related thereto shall be stated in a separate
count containing a demand for relief." In both Count I, Breach of Contract, and
Count II, Unfair Trade Practices, plaintiffs have alleged responsibility by all
defendants without setting forth separate causes of action against each
defendant by alleging how that defendant breached any contract, and violated
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. It
makes the complaint impossible to answer by each individual defendant. This
resolution makes it unnecessary to address the other preliminary objections to
the complaint that are raised by the various defendants.
Edgar B. Bay~
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
For Plaintiffs
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
For Bradley Farner, d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
For Natural Building Systems, Inc.
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
For Douglas Dodson, individually and d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. and
Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc.
:saa
.2. ~'.
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
Vo
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
NO. 02-370
CIVIL
.
;
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
.
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.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-3166
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-370
CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs are Stanley H. Grimwood and Jennifer L. Grimwood, husband and wife, residing at
499 Sample Bridge Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17025.
o
Defendant is Bradley Farner, an individual residing at 304A Hillcrest Drive, New
Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070. Mr. Farner transacts business
under the name "Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland".
3. Defendant Farner is a builder dealer of Crockett Log Homes.
4. Defendant is Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation doing business
at 58 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055.
o
Defendant Crockett Homes of PA., Inc. is the Mid-Atlantic Regional office of Defendant
National Building Systems, Inc.
o
Defendant Douglas Dodson is an individual residing at 58 Sunset Drive, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055.
o
Defendant Dodson represents he is the master dealer for Defendant Natural Building
Systems, Inc.
8. Defendant Dodson transacts business also as Crockett Homes of PA., Inc.
o
Defendant is Natural Building Systems, Inc., a New Hampshire corporation located at 35
Old Route 12 North,Westmoreland, New Hampshire 03467. Defendant is doing business
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania but has no registered office in this state.
10.
Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. is the manufacturer of certain log home systems,
the owner of certain trade names, including "Crockett Log Homes," and markets and sells
said homes as "Crockett Log Homes" through Defendant David Dodson "Master Dealer",
Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc., and Defendant Farner, d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of
New Cumberland.
2
11.
Defendant Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc. and Defendant Farner are the builders and
dealers for Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc.
12.
Defendant Farner is the agent or ostensible agent of Defendant Crockett Log Homes of
PA., Inc. and Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc.
13.
Defendant Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc. is the agent or ostensible agent of Defendant
Natural Building Systems, Inc.
14.
Defendant Dodson is the agent or ostensible agent of Defendant Natural Building Systems,
Inc.
15.
Plaintiffs became aware through various medias of the availability of log homes known as
"Crockett Log Homes".
16.
Plaintiffs desired to specifically build a "Crockett Log Home" and telephoned "Crockett
Log Homes" as listed in the telephone book in July, 1999.
17.
By calling "Crockett Log Homes", Plaintiffs came in contact with Defendant Brad Famer,
whom they believed to be an employee, agent or authorized representative of "Crockett
Log Homes".
3
18.
By calling "Crockett Log Homes", Plaintiffs intended to reach the company which was
advertising nationally for manufacture, sale and building of log homes established in 1973
and to contract with it for purchase and erection of such a log home.
19.
Plaintiffs have now learned that no entity known as "Crockett Log Homes" exists but that
it is a marketing and sales scheme utilized by the Defendants.
20.
Defendant Farner, whom Plaintiffs believed to be an agent and employee of "Crockett Log
Homes", worked with Plaintiffs for ordering the Crockett building package manufactured
by Defendant Natural Building System, Inc., and for actual labor in erection and
completion of their Crockett Log Home.
21.
On or about August 31, 1999, Plaintiffs and Defendant Farner d/b/a Crockett Log Homes
of New Cumberland entered into a contract for acquisition and erection of Plaintiff's
"Crockett Log Home". A copy of said contract is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference.
22.
It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant Farner secured the materials required
for the construction of Plaintiffs' log home from Defendant G. Douglas Dodson, master
dealer, d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc. and Defendant Natural Building Systems,
Inc. in accordance with the course of dealing existing between said Defendants.
4
23.
Pursuant to the Agreement dated August 31, 1999, Plaintiffs were obligated to pay the sum
of ONE HUNDRED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($110,000.00) for their "Crockett
Log Home".
24.
Pursuant to the contract attached as Exhibit "A", all work related to the construction of the
Crockett Log Home was to be completed in a workmanlike manner, according to local
codes and standards.
25.
Pursuant to the contract attached as Exhibit "A", Defendant Farner was responsible for
completion of the job in accordance with the agreed upon time schedule.
26.
Defendant Farner verbally represented to Plaintiffs that he was well experienced in the
construction of Crockett Log Homes.
27.
It was the agreed to between Plaintiffs and Defendant Farner that the construction was to
be completed on or before December 6, 2000.
28.
Said work was not completed as of that date and hindered relocation of Plaintiffs from their
prior residence.
29.
Defendant Farner did not complete the work timely or in accordance with the terms of the
5
Agreement since much of the work was either left uncompleted or not completed in a
satisfactory fashion.
30. Defendant Farner's work was defective and incomplete, including the following:
A)
Defendant failed to erect a wall in the master bath, as required by the plans and
specifications for the home system;
B)
Defendant also failed to complete or otherwise perform or install properly the items
set forth on Exhibit "B" which is incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit "B"
identifies fourteen (14) separate "Items not Completed" ("Completion Items") and
fourteen (14) "Items that need to be Repaired." ("Repair Items").
31. When Defendant Farner failed to complete the work, Plaintiffs attempted to secure
completion of the work by "Crockett Homes" master dealer, Defendant David Dodson,
also d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc.
32.
Defendant David Dodson was also designated as the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office for
"Crockett Log Homes."
33.
A Completion Contract dated December 10, 2000 was reached between Defendant
Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc. and Plaintiffs for completion of Crockett Log Homes
of New Cumberland's work. A copy of said Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit
"C" and incorporated herein by reference. The Completion Contract incorporated the
fourteen (14) Completion Items and fourteen (14) Repair Items identified in Exhibit
34.
Despite receipt of payment of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($2,500.00) from Plaintiffs, Defendant Dodson, also d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of
PA., Inc. failed to complete the work or completed the work in an unworkmanlike
manner.
35. Specifically, Defendant Dodson only completed:
36.
A)
B)
C)
Some trim work;
Coordination and installation of railing purchased by Plaintiffs for the interior
and certain exterior deck railing; and
Completed spouting, which spouting continued to leak.
After the attempts by "Crockett Homes" agents Defendant Brad Farner and Defendants
Dodson and Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc. to complete the work, Plaintiffs hired an
engineer to review the construction to determine what was necessary to complete the
work in accordance with the terms of the contracts with Defendants Farner and
Defendants Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc. and to correct existing defects such as
leaking and bowing of the floor.
37.
The following construction problems continued to exist and be in need of remedy as a
result of faulty installation or construction or failure of materials or manufacture of the
"Crockett Log Home" provided by the Defendants Natural Building Systems, Inc.,
Defendant Bradley Farner and Defendant Dodson and Defendant Crockett Log Homes
7
of PA., Inc.
A) Leakage through roof in Great Room. Leakage problems due to ridge venting,
flashing and the gutter issues and sash described as Completion Items 1, 2, 3 of
Exhibits "B" and "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof;
B) Failure of the door to fit in the Master bedroom closet;
C) Sag in ceiling beams of the first floor master bedroom;
D) Chip in the master bedroom door;
E) Leakage through the front door;
F) Improper installation of log skirting;
G) Failure to install plugs in ends of logs;
H) Improper installation of living room baseboard;
I) Inoperation of and leakage through doors such as listed in Repair Items 6 and 10 on
Exhibits "B" and "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof, including the family
room patio door;
J) Gaps in second floor pine flooring and bowing of the floor with need for
replacement and resurfacing which had been identified as Repair Item 9 on Exhibits
"B" and "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof;
K) Improperly installed fascia as listed on Completion Items 12 of Exhibits "B" and
"C" attached hereto and made a part hereof;
L) Failure to complete trim work as specifically listed on items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13 of
Completion Items and Items 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Repair Items as set forth
on Exhibits "B" and "C" attached hereto and made a part hereof;
M) Roof shingling nail heads to be replaced;
N) Calking of exterior surfaces such as listed on Item 5 of Repair Items on Exhibit
"B" and "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof;
O) Installation of ridge venting to complete a stated as Completion Item 1 of Exhibit
"B" and "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof;
P) Improper spouting installation as listed as Completion Item 3 of Exhibit "B" and
"C" attached hereto and made a part hereof;
Q) Improper installation of metal flashing around the windows and damage to the
window sash in the first floor and master bedroom and bedroom doors as set forth
as Completion Item 12 and Repair Item 8 on Exhibits "B" and "C" attached hereto
and made a part hereof;
R) Failure to install plug in log indentations to prevent insect infestation;
S) Dirty condition of home and water marks on logs and bricks;
T) Purchase of supplies, including missing railing from upstairs, loft and steps. Some
of these items were to replace railing purchased by Plaintiffs and were to be used in
basement; and
U) Improperly constructed dot mers.
38. It was estimated that the total costs of this work for replacement and repair of the above
referenced defects is TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND FORTY-SEVEN DOLLARS and
30/100 ($24,047.30).
39.
COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT vs. BRADLEY FARNER
d/b/a CROCKETT HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
Paragraphs 1 through 38 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
40.
Plaintiffs and Defendant Farner contracted for the purchase and erection of a Crockett
Log Home.
41. Defendant was responsible, pursuant to said contract, for purchase of all material to be
'utilized in the home as well as all labor and workmanship to be used in the home.
42.
Defendant's provision of material and workmanship were faulty in that the work was
not completed in a workmanlike or complete manner for the reasons set forth on
Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, as well as
for the additional failures in construction as set forth in paragraph 37.
43.
As a result of Defendant's breach of contract, Plaintiffs will be required to hire a third
party to properly repair and complete Defendant's work at a cost of TWENTY-FOUR
9
THOUSAND FORTY-SEVEN DOLLARS and 30/100 ($24,047.30).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment be entered against Defendant Farner in the
amount of TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND FORTY-SEVEN DOLLARS and 30/100
($24,047.30).
COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT vs. DAVID A. DODSON, INDIVIDUAI.I JY AND
d/b/a CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC. and
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.
44. All avemtents of paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated herein by. reference.
45.
After the failures of Defendant Bradley Farner to perfom, properly and complete the
construction work on their home, Plaintiffs contacted David Dodson, an individual who
represented himself as "Master Dealer" for Crockett Log Homes in Pennsylvania.
46.
As "Master Dealer", Plaintiff believed Defendant Dodson was the next in the corporate
change of command of Crockett Log Homes to seek proper completion of their home.
47.
Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that Dodson's use of a corporate entity, "Crockett
Log Homes of PA., Inc., is disregarded by Dodson himself.
10
48.
As "Master Dealer" for "Crockett Log Homes", Dodson agreed to complete Defendant
Farner's work and repair all work necessary to complete the work outstanding on
Plaintiffs' home which was not appropriately completed by Defendant Farner.
49.
Plaintiffs and Defendant Dodson agreed that, upon completion of their home, Plaintiffs
would make the final payment due and owing for their Crockett Log Homes directly to
Dodson.
50.
Defendants Dodson and Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc. did not complete or remedy
all the problems at Plaintiffs' home despite the fact that Plaintiffs paid $2,500.00 to
Dodson for completion of the work.
51.
The work not completed or items needed to be repaired or remedied even after
Defendant Dodson was on site are set forth in paragraph 37.
52.
Plaintiffs are now required to hire a third party to rectify the existing defects which
were not remedied by Defendant Dodson, individually or d/b/a Defendant Crockett Log
Homes of PA., Inc.
53.
Plaintiffs request judgment against Dodson and Defendant Crockett Log Homes of PA.,
Inc. in the amount of TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND FORTY-SEVEN DOLLARS and
11
30/100 ($24,047.30) to repair and remedy the work.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment in their favor and against the Defendants
Dodson, individually and doing business s as Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc.
COUNT III
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES vs. DEFEDANT NATURAl,
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC., DEFENDANT DODSON,
DEFENDANT CROCKETT HOMS OF PA., INC
AND DEFENDANT, BRADLEY FARNER, dfo/a CROCKETT
LOG HOMS OF NEW CUMBERLAND
54. Paragraphs 1 through 53 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
55.
Defendant Bradley Farner failed to complete the construction on Plaintiffs' home as
contracted for.
56. Defendant Bradley Farner perfo.iied the work in a shoddy and unworkmanlike manner.
57.
Defendant David Dodson failed to complete the construction on Plaintiffs' home as
contracted for.
58. Defendant David Dodson perfot-a~ed the work in a shoddy and unworkmanlike manner.
12
59.
Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. failed to complete the work contracted for by
its dealer and builders.
60.
Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. failed to complete the work contracted for by
its dealer and builders in an appropriate manner.
61.
Alternatively, the material goods provided to Plaintiffs by Defendant Natural Building
Systems, Inc., through it dealer and builders, were shoddy and of poor quality.
62.
The goods and services provided to Plaintiffs by Defendants were primarily for
Plaintiffs' personal, family and household uses.
63.
Plaintiffs believed that they were purchasing a "Crockett Log Home" and that
Defendants were all "Crockett Log Homes" affiliates.
64.
Plaintiffs later determined that no entity known as "Crockett Log Homes" exists but
that it was a trade name for Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. which was also
being used by Defendant Dodson, Defendant Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc. and
Defendant Farner, doing business as Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland, to
cause the consumer to believe that a single entity, an agency association or other
cooperative affiliation existed between all parties for construction of "Crockett Log
Homes".
13
65.
Defendant Natural Building Systems', Inc. created a system of marketing its goods and
services which constituted passing off goods and services under the name Crockett Log
Homes while no Crockett Log Homes, in fact, exists.
66.
Defendant Natural Building Systems', Inc. use of dealers and builders which
incorporate the "Crockett Log Home" name into the names of which they trade, such as
"Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc." for Defendant Dodson and "Crockett Log Homes
of New Cumberland" for Defendant Farner create the likelihood of confusion and
misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, and certification of goods.
67.
All Defendants 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.
68.
Marketing by all Defendants 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.
69.
Defendants foster this misrepresentation by referencing affiliated locations such as
"Home Office" for Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. and "Mid-Atlantic
Regional Office" for Crockett Log Homes of PA., Inc.
14
70. Such a marketing scheme is calculated to cause confusion for the public.
71.
The practices, failure and omissions of Defendants described in the Complaint's
paragraph 35 and 36 violate to Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, 73 P.S. Section 201.1, e__t seq.
72.
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 detemdnes appropriate at
trial of this case.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek compensation damages in the amount of TWENTY-
FOUR THOUSAND FORTY-SEVEN DOLLARS and 30/100 ($24,047.30), treble damages in
the amount of SEVENTY-TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY-ONE DOLLARS
($72,141.00) pursuant to Unfair Trade Practices, attorney's fees, plus interest, costs of suit
and all other relief the Court deems appropriate.
Dated: May 28, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
/~larbara Sumple Sullivan, Esqmr-'~
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
Supreme Court I.D. 32317
Attorney for Plaintiffs
15
EXHIBIT "A"
CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
PAGE 1 OF 2
OV~'ER:
STANff. EY & JENNIFER GRIMWOOD
3173 SPRING RD
CARLISLE PA 17013
717-2584134
CONTRACTOR: BRAD FAR.N'ER
OWNERS NAME: BRAD FARNER
ADDRESS: 304A Hll .LCREST DR
NEW CUIvfBERLAN'D PA 17070
PHONE: 9384337
F.&X: 938-2028
WORK~RS COMP L~SUILkNCE NUMBER
LNSUP,.kNCE C.kRRW, R
JOB ADDRESS: 499 SAMPLE BRIDGE RD ENOL4 P,4
A.MOUNT OF BID: $110,000.40
PA~.3,IENT TERMS:
% UPON COMPLETION OF
% UPON COMPLETION OF
% UPON COMPLETION OF
% UPON COMPLETION OF
% bPON COIvlPLETION OF
20% 15 DAYS AFTER COIvlPLETION OF TOTAL JOB
JOB SPECIFICATIONS: SEE ADDENDL.,~,I #1
JOBS TO BE SL,-BCONTtLACTED BY CON'TKACTOR:
SALE OF CROCICET HOME KIT, DP, YWALL, LABOR TO ~'STALL KiT,
INSTALLATION QF SHINGLES, ALSO SEE ADDENDb~! # 1.
PRO~.TSIONS OF AGREEMENT
ALL WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED iN A WORKMANLIKE bS~\~NER
ACCORDiNG TO LOCAL CODES AND STANDARDS. ALL MA!rERLAL AND
LABOR SHALL BE WARReN'TED FOR A MIN~Ib2vl OF ONE YEAR. AI_l.
CHANGES REQUESTED SHALL BE AGREED TO BY PURCHASE ORDER.
CONTRACTOR AGREES TO MAINTAIN ALL REQUqRED LICENSES AND
[NSUR. ANCE, iNCLUDING WORKERS' COMPENSATION .~NT) LIABILITY
iNSUR.~dqCE ~TL:H A MINIMUM COV'ERAGE OF $500,000 PEK OCCURRENCE.
AN~' D.~,L~.GES CAUSED BY CONTRACTOR OR CON-FiL, x. CTOR'S ElvlPLOTEES
IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS CONTRACTOR *,~NrD SHALL BE REPA.IKED AT
THIS CONTRACTORS EXPENSE. CONTRACTOR IS SORELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
COMPENSATION TO ALL EIvlPLOYEES AND HELPERS HIKED BY
CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO PROVIDE OWN'ER WITH RELEASE
G CO!~-fR~4CTOR:4GREEMEi~7~ ~ _ ~ ~ ,, ~
PAGE2OF2
OF L/EN AFFIDAVITS PRIOR TO EACH PAYMENT( ATTACHMENT ~ I ).
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VER/FY1NG ALL SUBCONTRACTOR
PERMITS AND LICENSES, CONTRACTOR WILL ENSLrfLE CLE.,~NI. rN'ESS OF
PROJECT AT ALL TIMES. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO'PROVIDE 'A
'SAFE WORKING ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL WORKERS. A PENALTY OF $200:00
PER DAY SHALL BE CHARGED TO THE CONTRACTOR IF CONTRACTOR
DEFAULTS ON THIS AGREE,~T OR STOPS WORK BEFORE THE PROJECT IS
COMPLETED. OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HIRE A REPLACEMENT
GENER,~J. CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE CONTRACTOR'S CONTRACT IN THE
EVENT THE CONTRACTOR DEFAULTS.
THIS.4GREEMENT IS CO:VTL'YGENT UPON O~4NER 'S OBT.4I~NG.4L I
REO_UIRED PERMITS.4ND FLX~4NCI. VG TO .4LLOR'COMPLETION OF THI
PROJECT:4$ BUDGETED,
CONTI~&CTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE
ENTIRE JOB DESCRIBED HEREIN ACCORDING TO THE AGREED-ON
TIME SCHEDULE. CONTRACTOR SHALL ACT AS OV'ERALL MANAGER,
SCHEDULING ALL LABOR AND .,XL,~TERLAL FOR DELIYERIES OF JOB
DESCRIBED HEREIN. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO CO31PLETE
THE PROJECT WITHLN THE FINANCL.~L BUDGET SET FORTH BY O'~,'.'NER.
ro cosr croR ' '"
PAGE 1 OF 3 -
THE FOLOWING NOTATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE THE BID PRESENTED
B Y THE CONTRACTOR AND WILL BE PER. FORMED WITHIN THE
SPECIFICATIONS AGREED TO IN THE CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT.
SPECIFICATIONS ARE DUALY NOTED ON ATTACHMENTS 2 AND 3.
BLDG MATERIALS PER CROCK.ET BID
2 X 6 FR. AMED WALLS WITH HOUSE WRAP/TYVEK
25 YEAR ACt-I/TEC~ SHINGLES INSTALLED
FRONT DOOR- STAINABLE FIBERGLASS WITH 2 SIDELIGHTS
DECKING- PRE, SSU'RE TREATED LUMBER 720 SQUARE FEET
RAILING- DECORATIVE FULL AND SPLIT LOGS IN CRIS CROSS DESIGN
ALL2vlL'q'U2vl FACSIA AND SOFFITS
ALUMI'NUM PORCH CEILING
ALLrMINLrM CLAD .a.NDERSON LOW E WINDOWS ~ GRILLS
GUTTERS WITH LEAF GUARDS INSTALLED
EXTRA LOGS TO RAISE CEILING LEVEL IN UPSTAIRS LOFT AREA
AND BEDROOMS/BATH
3 FIBERGLASS 9' GARAGE DOORS INSTALLED
I- FIBERGLASS DOOR REAR EN-i'AN'CE
SEP '/~.XTOR WALL IN G2~--~.GE W'ITH WOODEN DOOR
2- 36 X 36 DH WINDOWS IN FRONT OF GARAGE
I- 36 X 36 DH WqN'DOW IN* RE.,M.'.'.~
THiS AREA WILL BE STONE EXTERIOR
FIRE WALL PER TO~,¥~SFIIP CODES
2- 28 X 32 12?.._~rDOWS DH CEN ~.rI'ERED 12q FRONr'I'' SIDE BY S~E
6" WINDOW SILL
TI-I/S .aREA WILL BE FU~L LOG EXTERIOR
WOODEN DOOR FOR GARAGE EN~FRANCE
WOODEN' DOOR FOR MASTER BEDROOM ENTRANCE AS CLOSE TH]E
BASEIv[ENT ENrrRANCE AS POSSIBLE
WOODEN DOOR BASEMENT ENTRANCE
STAINABLE FIBERGLASS DOOR FRONT EN~RACE W/2 SIDELIGHTS
1- 36 X 36 DH WINDOW
WOODEN STEPS AND RAILING TO UPSTAIKS
CLOSET AND DOOR
PAGE 2 OF 3'
GRK4 I' ROOM;
1- WINDOW 5' X 5' FRONT CENTER
2- WINDOWS RT SIDE FACING 36 X 48 DH
1- WOODEN DOOR ENTRANCE TO POWDER ROOM
1- FRENCH DOOR ENTRANCH TO SUNROOM
3- 5' X 5' WINDOWS OR 2-5 X 5 AND 2- DH 36 X 48
1- SINGLE SWING FRENCH DOOR FOR EXTERIOR ENTRANCE LEFT
SIDE FACING
I- WOODEN DOOR ENTR.~NCE FRM GREAT ROOM
1- POCKET DOOR ENTRANCE FRaM MASTER BATH AR~- ~A
MASTER BA TH I- WOODEN DOOR ENTtLkNCE FRM NIASTER BEDROOM
1- BUILT IN' CLOSET WITH DOOR
MASTER BEDRO0.,1,[; 2- CLOSETS ~TTI-I,, WOODEN DOORS
2- WINDOWS SIDE BY SIDE CENTERED 1N BACK OF ROOM 36 X 48 DH
WOODEN STAIRS AND RAJZ PER LOCAL CODE
LOFT;
WOODEN RA_t%ING PER LOC.&L CODE
I- WINDOW
RAISE CEI ~ING LEVEL AT LEASE 3 LOGS
10 FM CLOSET FRONrT X 14
CLOSET WITH FOLDING DOORS
1- WOODEN DOOR ENTRANCE FRM HALL
2- WINDOWS AT LEAST 36 X 36
RAISE CErI.ING LEVEL TO AT LEAST 7FT
15X14
CLOSET WiTH FOLDING DOORS
3- WINDOWS AT LEAST 36 X 36
1- WOODEN DOOR ENTRANCE
RAISE CEILING LEVE TO AT LE,~ST 7 Fl'
PAGE 3 OF 3'
I- WOODEN DOOR ENTRANCE
RAISE CEILING LEVEL TO AT LEAST 7FT
UPPER GREAT ROOM;
' TONGUE AND GROOVE CEILING ~.a2q-D DOP~'~v[ERS
2- DORMER WINDOWS
1- FL~LF CIRCLE WINDOW
DR rr L FOR ELECTRICITY 13q LOG WALLS
SUPPLY LW'I' FOR DELIVERY OF KIT
HOUSE vooa, ~. 2 X 6 H~-~',~D WALLS
~STAU. A~L DOOR BOBS 'tO ~ S~kmD ~Y ~O~5~
~L SPECWICATIONS NOrD ~ ~S ~ A~ AG~ED TO BY ~
CONT~kCTOR:
(CON-FACTOR)
EXHIBIT. "B"
Items not completed: -
l) Ridge vent was not ins~lled in main roof of howe
2) Flashing was not installed on section of sunmom roof where it mee~s the log w.~l! on
the back of the house.
3) gutters and doxvn spouts were not insmIled "
4) wood trim in hall not completed
5) wood trim in kitchen not completed
6) u-ira around stairs not completed
?) trim around for not completed
8) sides of stairs not completed
9) screens tbr windows are not installed and some are missing
10) emerior roiling not completed
11 ) interior railing supplies not pro~Sded
12) fascia on garage and gables not finished properly ,~nd fascia missing from end of
porch.
13) trim around basement door not applied
Items that need to be repaired
1) door from kitchen to garage is split
2) decorative ~m comers not finished properly, and blue ink on ed=es not cut off.
have to be removed on inzalled properly
3) ci~..,~ll beside stairs is damaged from removal of stair roiling (Brad was notified from
day one that we ma5' not want that ?pe of railing and his response was that it w=s no
pr~)blem, that would be one of the last things to be completed. I then reminded him
several times. It never should have been installed so early, especially when I speqifically
made a point several times of telling him I x~=sn't sure what ~..'pe of railing I warned)
4) a bucket wa~ left on the roof and the shingles it rested on are now mined.
5) there is no cauI 'l~g around the sky Ifght~ on the sunroom roof -
6) the sunroom door to the outside leaks a~d will not open unless extreme force is med.
7) the trim in the downstairs bathroom is loose around the pocket door.
8) the door between the master bath and bedroom is split
9) the wood on the upstairs floor h~ ve~' large gaps in some areas, you mn even see
light through the floor from the do~m~airs in one area.
10) ~'rench doors in living room do not close properly
11 ) trim in larger upstairs bedroom doorx~%' doesn't line up
I2) u'im in kitchen by the bedroom doorway doesn't match
13) trim in upstairs hallway doesn't match
14) time in sunroom on 3 w/ndows is not attached properly and is actually loose.
EXHIBIT '" C"
Log & Timber Homes
Established 19 73
Agreement
Completion Contract between Jennifer and Stan Grimwood and Crockett. Log Homes of PA,
Inc., for completion of job at 499 Sample Bridge Road, Enola, Pennsylvania.
The attached two pages outlines the work to be completed by Crockett Log Homes of PA at the
above mentioned job site. As Doug mentioned his very busy schedule, every effort will be
made to finish the job quickly. Homeowners are aware that Doug's job takes him out of town
several days a week and cannot be at the job site everyday.
Some of the work to be completed such as gutters and ridge vent also require some work to be
completed by homeowner. In the ease of these tasks, Doug will go as far as he can and then
leave the materials for homeowner to complete.
Once work is completed (as specified on attached pages), the homeowners will make payments
to Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. as work is being done. By completion, all payments should
total $6,490.00 plus $385.00 for step railings for a total of $6,875.00. Balance to be paid upon
completion. Any additional works above and beyond the contract will be done with written
and signed change orders and paid accordingly.
The above is agreed to and signed b the following parties:
Stan Grimwood, Hgmeoj~r l~at~
.... n,,,.
_.-tei~iiif~r~Homeowner D~t~ -
~)f'oc"kett ~6~'i Homes ofl~ Inc. Date /
G. Dougl~as Dodson, President
2) M~h~ng ~ ~o: ins~d on s~i~n ofs~oom rao~w~re i~ ~eets ~ log ~I on
3) gutlers and olown spores v,':r¢ not
4) wood~m ir, hall not ~mple~
~ wo~ ~L~ ~ ~e~ not
9) scrc~ for ~ndo'~s ~e ~i fn~
1 O) ex~dor ~)ing not
I l) in~e~or mfli~ ~ppt;~ no: g~vjdcd
12) f~a on ~age ~d ~hl~ nm f~s~d pm~rlv ~ fa~ia mi~ing ~m end of -
14) ~h.r ~mdous Em problems such gq rra~ls s~ck4ng out, em, wh/~h we can de.ii in a
~J!r th. rougk
need to b= r~paimd
1) door Lorn/~.zhen to garage is spiiL
~vc to be r~oved on installed ~op~r!y
~) ~v~l b~id, ~rs is d~mag~ ~m rmnoval or.ir mil/rig (B~ ~m noticed from .m
. om~ ne one oF~e I~ ~n~ ~ be compI~t~ I t~n remi~d~ ~
_
7) t~ ~ j~ ~e flosses ~oom is 1oo~ ~uad ~ ~c~
t{~t ~ou~ ~ floor ~m thc do~ ~ O~ ~
1 O) ~ch d~m {n 1i~ room do not close properl~
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and ctro/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-0370
CIVIL
We, STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD, hereby certify
that the facts set forth in the foregoing Amended Complaint 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. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATED:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court 832317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a :
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF :
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS :
DODSON, individually and d/b/a :
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC., :
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF :
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING :
SYSTEMS, INC. :
Defendants :
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
NO. 02-370
CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
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 AMENDED COMPLAINT, in the above-captioned matter upon the
following individual by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Rupich
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Monica L. Rebuek, Esquire
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1713
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
DATED: May 28, 2002
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Es~uiee
Supreme Court I.D. No. 32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Attorney for Plaintiffs
(717) 774-1445
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV/
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD, his wife,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a CROCKETT
LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
et al.,
Defendants.
No. 02-370
JURY TRIAL DE5
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF
DEFENDANT NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEM1
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 10281
defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. ("NBS") hereby preliminarily
Amended Complaint as follows:
1. The only claim in the Amended Complaint brought again:
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (£
2. In order to adequately state a claim under this Act, plaintit
purchased goods or services in reliance on a defendant's representations.
3. Plaintiffs fail to plead that they purchased goods or service
representation by NBS.
2qlA
~ANDED
INC.
0(3) and 1028(a)(4),
~bjects to plaintiffs'
t NBS is a claim under
'ount III).
£s must plead that they
s in reliance on any
HBDATA:7283 vl
4. Plaintiffs also fail to allege any unfair or deceptive trad{
actionable under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consum
NBS is not responsible for the actions of the other defendants; plaintiff
plead any agency, ostensible agency or master/servant relationship upo:
liability.
o
Count III of plaintiffs' Amended Complaint therefore fai
6. Count III of plaintiffs' Amended Complaint also fails to
required to plead a claim against NBS under the Pennsylvania Unfair Ti
Consumer Protection Act.
WHEREFORE, defendant NBS respectfully requests that
prejudice the Amended Complaint against NBS in its entirety pursuant ~
Civil Procedure 1028(a)(3)and I028(a)(4).
Respectfully submitted,
Monica L. Rebuck, I.D. No.
Attomeys for Defendant Na
Systems, Inc.
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 231-4000
Dated: June 17, 2002
practices ~ that are
~'r Protection Act. And
have not adequately
which to base vicarious
Is to state a claim against
~rovide the specificity
adc Practices and
the Court dismiss with
, Pennsylvania Rules of
7O7
78225
aralBuilding
ItBDATA:7283 vl
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Monica L. Rebuck, hereby certify that a tree and corr,
Preliminary Objections of Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. w
first class mail, postage prepaid to the following:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
I 017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
~ct copy of the foregoing
as served on June 17, 2002, via
HBDATA:6789 vl
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETTE LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND and;
DOUGLAS DODSON,
individually and d/b/a CROCKETT
LOG HOMES OF PA, INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COIv
CUMBERLAND COUNT
NO. 2002-370 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDi
[MON PLEAS
¥, PENNSYLVANIA
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS
COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANT~ DOUGLAS DODSON
AND d/b/a CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC., £ ROCKETT LOG
HOMES OF PA~ INC.
AMENDED
, INDIVIDUALLY
d dPo/a Crockett Log
)mplaint as follows:
( .'ONSTRUCTION
FAILS FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENC3
Count II of the Amended Complaint purports to
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc., and Dodson for
construction (for clarification sake, Douglas Dodson,
rte a claim against
ulty and incomplete
individually, will be
COUNT I
FOR DAMAGES FOR FAULTY AND INCOMPLETE
Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, 1('28(a)(2), 1028(a)(3),
and 1028(a)(4), Defendants Douglas Dodson, individually, ar
Homes of Pa, Inc., hereby preliminarily object to Plaintiffs' C,
o
designated Dodson, and d/b/a Crockett Log Hon~
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. will be designated C
There are no allegations that Crockett PA or Do
Plaintiffs' residence, and is responsible for any fi
Bradley Farner. In addition as to the second contra,
remedial work of the Plaintiffs' residence, there are
as to exactly what the Defendants failed to do.
allegations of faulty and incomplete workmanship.
(34) of the Amended Complaint states, "failure to cc
unworkmanlike manner." Paragraph fifty (50) of the
states, Defendant, Dodson and Crockett PA did not
all the problems at Plaintiffs' home, despite the fa~
$2,500.00 to Dodson.
Instead, Plaintiffs' faulty, incomplete construction cl
theory of agency. Paragraph forty-six of the Amend,
that Dodson was next in the corporate chain of comr
Homes. There is no specific allegation alleging facts
Complaint fails to plead facts that, if proved, we
Dodson or Crockett PA were in an agency relationshi
alleged agency relationship existed, there are no factt
would legally produce liability against Crockett PA
performed by Famer.
2
es of PA, Inc., and
:ockett PA).
:lson constructed the
[ilures of Defendant,
:t entered into for the
.o specific allegations
Fhere are just broad
Paragraph thirty-four
nplete the work in an
Amended Complaint
:omplete and remedy
t that Plaintiffs paid
aim is based upon a
~d Complaint alleges
~and of Crocket Log
.s to this theory. The
tld demonstrate that
p and further if such
tal allegations which
~r Dodson for work
o
o
o
o
It is admitted that there is a separate contract entere
for completion of work, but this has nothing to d{
construction agreement between the Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs' claim for faulty, incomplete construction
Dodson is legally insufficient.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs
rectify the existing defects, which were not remedie¢
this rectification costs $24,047.00. There are no
prepared this work order and how the costs were sp
each item including material and labor.
The Amended Complaint attempts to allege individua
contract upon Defendant, Dodson, when the contr
Dodson, not as an individual, but as President of Ct
Pa., Inc.
Paragraph twelve (12) of the Amended Complaint a]
Farner is the agent of Defendant, Crockett Log Home
basis for this averment.
Paragraph nineteen (19) of the Plaintiffs' Amended
the Defendants were involved in a marketing and sal~
3
d into by Crockett Pa
with the underlying
rarner. Accordingly,
gainst Crockett PA or
hired a third party to
by Crockett PA, and
averments as to who
:cifically incurred for
liability for a second
,ct was executed by
ockett Log Homes of
leges that Defendant,
s. There is no factual
~.omplaint alleges that
scheme, and there is
o
10.
no factual basis for this allegation and its natm
impertinent.
COUNT II
e is scandalous and
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE FOR
DEMURRER TO COUNT III OF TIlE AMENDED
ALLEGING UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES BY D
CROCKETT PA
Plaintiffs failed to allege any unfair or deceptive trad~
and Crockett PA. that are required under the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer P
Paragraph sixty-four (64) of the Amended Ca
Paragraphs sixty-five (65) and sixty-six (66), sixty-s
eight (68) basically allege conclusions which do not r~
basically, indicate confusion and misunderstandi~
Complaint further alleges the Defendants foster~
through, "affiliated locations such as 'Home Office' fi
Building Systems, Inc., and 'Mid-Atlantic Regional
Log Homes of Pa., Inc." None of the allegations arc
claim. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to i~
provisions of the Statute on which they rely, and mo
has been insufficient pleading to show that there wa
Defendants perpetrated what amounts to a common
M OFA
COMPLAINT
DDSON AND
: practices by Dodson
Statute creating the
otection Act.
nplaint along with
even (67) and sixty-
:quire an Answer and
g. The Amended
d misrepresentation
.r Defendant, Natural
Office' for Crockett
sufficient to state a
lentify the particular
importantly, there
a fraud or that the
aw fraud upon the
Plaintiffs. For showing of fraud, there should be
deceptive or false representations were made, and th
upon said information, which caused harm or detrimex
WHEREFORE, Defendants Dodson and Crockett PA
that the Court dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.
Date: June 19, 2002
Respectfully submitted.
Arthur K. Dils,
1017 North Fronl
Harrisburg, PA
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
;verments as to what
;t the Plaintiffs relied
~t.
respectfully request
squire
Street
7102
CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC]
I, Arthur K. Dils, Esquire, hereby certify that a true
within Preliminary Objections has been served upon the fo]
first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, by deposit
office in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the 19th day of Jun,
follows:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Respectfully submitted.
BY: ~
Arthur K. Dils, 15
1017 North Fron
Harrisburg, PA
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
Date: June 19, 2002
6
.d correct copy of the
lowing individual by
[ng same at the post
2002, addressed as
;quire
:Street
7102
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC., CROCKETT LOG HOMES
OF PA, INC. and NATURAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-370 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT~ BRADLEY
FARNER D/B/A CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
The Plaintiffs Complaint asserts claims against four separate entities, being Bradley
Farner, d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland; Douglas Dodson,
individually and d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.; Crockett Log Homes of PA,
Inc.; and Natural Building Systems, Inc.
Plaintiffs' claims arise out of the purchase and erection of a log home and assert the
existence of two separate contracts, one with Bradley Farner, d/b/a Crockett Log
Homes of New Cumberland, and a second with Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc., and
breaches of said contracts. Said Complaint further asserts claims against all
Defendants trader the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S.
Section 201-1 et seq.
Bradley Famer, d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland presents his
Preliminary Objections as follows:
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2)
(nonconformity to law or rule of court)
4. Pa. R.C.P. 1019(i) provides:
(i) When any claim or defense is based upon a writing, the pleader shall attach a
copy of the writing, or the material part thereof, but if the writing or copy is
not accessible to the pleader, it is sufficient so to state, together with the
reason, and to set forth the substance in writing.
5. Paragraph twenty-one of the Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that on or about August 31,
1999 the Plaintiffs and Defendant (Famer) entered into a contract for acquisition and
erection of the "Crockett Log Home." Said agreement was alleged to be attached as
Exhibit A to the Complaint.
6. Plaintiffs further averred in paragraphs twenty-five and twenty-seven that the
construction was to be completed within "the agreed upon time schedule" and "was to
be completed on or before December 6, 2000."
7. The Plaintiffs' Complaint is defective, deficient and incomplete as the Exhibit
attached by the Plaintiffs as constituting the contract with Defendant Famer contains
no completion date and no execution by the Plaintiffs.
8. The exhibit attached to the Complaint by the Plaintiffs as constituting the contract
with Defendant Farner further contains blanks which are left unfilled or uncompleted.
9. Plaintiffs have made no allegation that a full and complete copy of the contract,
setting forth all essential terms, was either too voluminous to attach to the Complaint
or not in their possession or under their control.
WHEREFORE, responding Defendant requests Your Honorable Court to enter an Order
directing the Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint to comply with the mandate of Pa.
R.C.P. 1019(i) attaching a full and complete copy of the contract between the Plaintiffs
and Defendant Farner.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO
PA R.C.P. 1028(a)(3)(insufficient specificity in a pleading)
10. Count III of the Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges a cause of action for Unfair Trade
Practices against all Defendants alleging that said Defendants "cause(d) the consumer
to believe that a single entity, an agency association or other cooperative affiliation
existed between all parties for construction of 'Crockett Log Homes'" (paragraph
sixty-four); that they "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" (paragraph sixty-seven); and
that said Defendants "create(d) 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." (paragraph sixty-eight).
11. Assuming that the Plaintiffs are claiming fraud, Pa. R.C.P. 1019(b) provides:
(b) Averments of fraud or mistake shall be averred with particularity. Malice, intent,
knowledge, and other conditions of mind may be averred generally.
12. Plaintiffs failed to state what representations were made, who made them, when they
were made, to which parties they were made, or how otherwise they came to be
confused or misinfomsed.
13. Plaintiffs nowhere state that they relied on any such representations or that any such
reliance was to their detriment.
14. Nowhere do the Plaintiffs state that had they known the tree source of the goods or
the affiliation between the parties they would not have purchased said goods or dealt
with said parties.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Famer requests Your Honorable Court enter an Order
dismissing Count III of the Plaintiffs' Complaint for insufficient specificity in pleading.
MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING
15. Alternatively, Defendant Famer submits he is entitled to a more specific pleading for
the defects cited in Count III of the Complaint if he is to knowingly and effectively
respond to said Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Famer requests Your Honorable Court, alternatively, to Order
the Plaintiffs to file a more specific pleading curing the defects in Count III of their
Complaint.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS PURSUANT TO PA. 1LC.P. 1028(a)(4)(demurrer)
16. Plaintiffs have included in their Complaint Count III for Unfair Trade Practices the
claim that the Defendants failed to complete the construction as contracted for and
performed the work in a shoddy and unworkmanlike manner.
17. The purpose of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law is to
eradicate unfair or deceptive business practices and does not encompass simple
nonfeasance or the failure to complete a contract.
18. Allegations of poor goods or services will not support a claim under the Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection law unless they are below a standard agreed to in
writing.
19. Nowhere does the Plaintiffs' Complaint state or make references to what codes or
standards are alleged to have been violated or which remain unmet, and mere
allegations that work is shoddy or unworkmanlike is insufficient to declare such work
unfair or deceptive and therefore actionable under the UTPCPL.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Famer requests Your Honorable Court to issue an Order
striking Count III of the Plaintiffs' Complaint for legal insufficiency.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED
Dated:
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
717 909-6637
Attorney's I.D. No. 15624
Counsel for Defendant Bradley Farner
d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New
Cumberland
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW on this e.-~ay of June, 2002 1 Robert P. Reed, Esquire, hereby certify
that I served the within Preliminary Objections on Behalf of Defendant Bradley Famer
d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland this day by depositing the same in the
United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED
BY:
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
717 909-6637
Attorney's I.D. No. 15624
Counsel for Defendant Bradley
Famer d/b/a Crockett Log Homes
Of New Cumberland
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in-~uplicate)---
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
(Plaintiffs)
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
(Defendants)
No. 02__~37_0 Civil_ _ 19
1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new thai, defendant's demurrer to
complaint, etc.): Defendants, Natural Building System, Inc.'s Preliminary Objections
dated June 17, 2002, Defendant Douglas Dodson, individually, and d/b/a Crockett
Log Homes of Pa, Inc.'s Preliminary Objections dated June 19, 2002, and Defendant
Bradley Farner, d/b/a Crocket Lot Homes of New Cumberland,s Preliminary
Objections dated June 26, 2002.
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
(a) for plaintiff..Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Address: 549 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA 17070
(b) for defendant: Arthur K. Dils, Esquire, Dils & Rupich, 1017 North Front Street,
Address: Harrisburg, PA 17102
Robert p. Reed, Esquire, P.O. Box 6034, Harrisburg, PA 17112
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire, Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis,
LLP, 30 North Third Street, Suite 700, Harrisburg, PA 17101-1713
3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for
argument
4. Argument Court Date: October~
, ar umP~e-~ullivan, Esquire - -
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Dated: August 27, 2002
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
PLAINTIFFS
· IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKE'I-r LOG HOMES Of
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA.,
INC., CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.,
DEFENDANTS
02~0370 CIVIL TERM
AND NOW, this
objections of defendants to plaintiffs' complaint, ARE DISMISSED.
gar B. Bayley,,~
TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND HESS, J.
ORDER OF COURT
~ ~, ~'~' day of November, 2002, the preliminary
IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTR
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
For Plaintiffs
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
For Bradley Farner, d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
For Natural Building Systems, Inc.
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
For Douglas Dodson, individually and d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. and
Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc.
:sal
To: Stanley H. Grimwood and
Jennifer L. Grimwood, Plaimiffs, and
Bradley Farner, Defendant
You are hereby notified to f'de a written
response to the enclosed NEW MATTER
within twenty(20) days from service
hereof or a judgment may be entered
against., yp~,.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD, his wife,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a CROCKETT
LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
et al.,
Defendants.
No. 02-370
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc.("NBS"), by its undersigned counsel, Schnader
Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, files the following Answer and m~ers as follows:
1. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the troth or accuracy of the allegations of paragraph 1.
2. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without imowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the troth or accuracy of the allegations of paragraph 2.
HBDATA:7983
3. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to what plaintiffs mean by the phrase, "builder dealer of Crockett Log Homes." By
way of further answer, NBS states that Famer was designated as a "dealer."
4. Admitted.
5. NBS admits only that Crockett Log Homes of Pa, Inc. ("Crockett-PA") is designated
as the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office. NBS denies any allegation that Crockett-PA is an agent,
ostensible agent or employee of NBS as a conclusion of law. To the extent response is required, NBS
specifically denies that Crockett-PA is an agent, ostensible agent or employee of NBS and avers to the
contrary that Crockett-PA is not an agent, ostensible agent or employee of NBS.
6. Admitted.
7. NBS admits only that defendant Dodson ("Dodson") is a master dealer. The remaining
allegations constitute conclusions of law which require no response and are deemed denied. To the
extent response is required, NBS specifically denies that Dodson is an agent, ostensible agent or
employee of NBS and avers to the contrary that Dodson is not ma agent, ostensible agent or employee
of NBS.
8. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations of paragraph 8.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted that NBS is the manufacturer of material packages that can be used to
construct log homes, that it owns the trade name "Crockett," and that it has marketed and sold log
home material packages to Crockett-PA under the trade name "Crockett." Upon information and
belief, Crockett-PA has sold to Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland and/or Famer at least one
-2- HBDATA:7983
of the materials package that it had purchased from NBS. NBS denies that defendants Farner, Dodson
and Crockett-PA are agents, ostensible agents or employees of NBS and aver to the contrary that
defendants Farner, Dodson and Crockett-PA are not agents, ostensible agents or employees of NBS.
11. Denied as stated. NBS admits Crockett-PA is a master dealer and incorporates its
response to paragraph 3. After reasonable investigation, NBS ils without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to what plaintiffs mean by the term, "the builders."
12. The allegations in paragraph 12 constitute conclusions of law which require no response
and are deemed denied. To the extent response is required, NBS denies that Famer is the agent or
ostensible agent of NBS or Crockett-PA and avers to the contrary that Farner is not an agent or
ostensible agent of either of them.
13. The allegations in paragraph 13 constitute conclusions of law which require no response
and are deemed denied. To the extent response is required, NBS denies that Crockett-PA is the agent
or ostensible agent of NBS and avers to the contrary that Crockett-PA is not the agent or ostensible
agent of NBS.
14. The allegations in paragraph 14 constitute conclusions of law which require no response
and are deemed denied. To the extent response is required, NBS denies that Dodson is the agent or
ostensible agent of NBS and avers to the contrary that Dodson is not the agent or ostensible agent of
NBS.
15. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 15.
16. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 16.
-3- HBDATA:7983
17. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to whether plaintiffs called a number listed as "Crockett Log Homes," or if so with
whom they came in contact or what plaintiffs "believed," but specifically denies that Famer is an
employee, agent or authorized representative of NBS and aver, to the contrary, that Famer is not the
employee, agent or authorized representative of NBS.
18. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 18.
19. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to what plaintiffs believe they have "learned," but NBS specifically denies the
implication its use of its trademark and trade name was somehow improper, and avers to the contrary
that NBS' conduct was always proper and that plaintiffs always; understood the relationship between
the parties.
20. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding whether Famer and plaintiffs worked together to order a building package or to
provide the labor to erect plaintiffs' home. NBS specifically denies that Famer is the agent, ostensible
agent or employee of NBS, and avers to the contrary that Famer is not the agent, ostensible agent or
employee of NBS.
21. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 21. By way of further
answer, NBS states that the document attached as Exhibit A speaks for itself and is the best evidence
of its contents.
-4- HBDATA:7983
22. After reasonable investigation, NBS it is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 22, except that NBS admits that it delivered
materials pursuant to an order placed by Crockett-PA in response to an order Famer placed with
Crockett-PA.
23. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations :in paragraph 23. By way of further
answer, NBS states that the document attached as Exhibit A speaks for itself and is the best evidence
of its contents.
24. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 24. By way of further
answer, NBS states that the document attached as Exhibit A speaks for itself and is the best evidence
of its contents.
25. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 25. By way of further
answer, NBS states that the document attached as Exhibit A spe, aks for itself and is the best evidence
of its contents.
26. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 26.
27. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 27.
28. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without in,formation or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations itt paragraph 28.
-5- HBDATA:7983
29. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 29. By way of further
answer, NBS states that the document attached as Exhibit A speaks for itself and is the best evidence
of its contents.
30. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations m paragraph 30. By way of further
answer, NBS states that the document attached as Exhibit B speaks for itself and is the best evidence
of its contents.
31. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 31.
32. NBS specifically denies that Dodson was also designated as the Mid-Atlantic Regional
office for "Crockett Log Homes." By way of further answer, Crockett-PA not Dodson is designated
as the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office.
33. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 33. By way of further
answer, NBS states that the document attached as Exhibit C speaks for itself and is the best evidence
of its contents.
34. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 34.
35. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 35.
-6- HBDATA:7983
36. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 36.
37. NBS specifically denies that any of the materials it provided are defective, and avers to
the contrary that none of the materials were defective. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without
information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the remaining
allegations in paragraph 3 7.
38. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 38.
COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT VS. BRADLEY FARNER
d/b/a CROCKETT HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
39. The allegations in paragraphs 39 through 43 are not directed to NBS; therefore no
response is required.
COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT VS. DAVID A. DODSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND
d/b/a CROCKETT HOMES OF PA., INC. and
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.
44. The allegations in paragraphs 44 through 53 are not directed to NBS; therefore no
response is required.
-7- HBDATA:7983
COUNT III
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES VS. DEFENDANT NATURAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC., DEFENDA~NT DODSON,
DEFENDANT CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.
AND DEFENDANT BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a CROCKETT
LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
54. NBS incorporates by reference as though set forth herein its response to paragraphs 1
through 53 of this Answer to the Amended Complaint.
55. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 55.
56. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 56.
57. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without i~nformation or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 57.
58. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 58.
59. NBS denies as a legal conclusion any allegation that it had an obligation to perform any
construction work contracted for by any other party. To the extent a response is required, NBS denies
that it had any obligation to perform any construction work contracted for by any other party. NBS
further avers that it did not perform any construction work on plaintiffs' home.
60. NBS denies as a legal conclusion any allegation that it had an obligation to perform any
construction work contracted for by any other party. To the extent a response is required, NBS denies
that it had any obligation to perform any construction work contracted for by any other party. NBS
further avers that it did not perform any construction work on plaintiffs' home.
_8~ HBDATA:7983
61. NBS denies that the material goods provided to plaintiffs were shoddy and of poor
quality and avers, to the contrary, that the material goods were not shoddy and of poor quality.
62. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without/information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 62.
63. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth or accuracy of the allegations in paragraph 63.
64. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding what plaintiffs believe they have "determined." NBS denies the remaining
allegations as conclusions of law which require no response and are deemed denied. To the extent a
response is required, NBS specifically denies that the use of the tradename "Crockett" causes
consumers to believe that a single entity, an agency association or other cooperative affiliation existed
between defendants, and incorporates its response to paragraphs 19 and 65.
65. The allegations in paragraph 65 constitute conclusions of law which require no response
and are deemed denied. To the extent a response is required, NBS denies that it created a system of
marketing its goods which constituted passing off goods under the name Crockett Log Homes. By way
of further answer, NBS avers that "Crockett," is a registered trade name of NBS that is properly used
as such, and that NBS does not provide any services. NBS sells materials packages, it does not
construct homes.
66. The allegations in paragraph 66 constitute conclusions of law which require no response
and are deemed denied. To the extent a response is required, NBS denies that the use of the
"Crockett" name by builders and dealers creates a likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding as to
the source, sponsorship, approval and certification of goods. By way of further answer, NBS states
-9- HBDATA:7983
that the fact that the builders are independent contractors who purchase the materials packages from
dealers, who in turn purchase those packages from NBS is clearly explained to consumers. Also
clearly explained to consumers is the fact that they must contract with independent contractors to have
their homes built - NBS does not provide any construction sevAces.
67. The allegations in paragraph 67 constitute conclusions of law which require no response
and are deemed denied. To the extent a response is required, NBS denies that the marketing and sales
distribution network that was used caused confusion or misunderstanding for plaintiffs or the public in
connection with the association and affiliation of the goods and services. By way of further answer,
NBS incorporates by reference its response to paragraph 66.
68. The allegations in paragraph 68 constitute conclusions of law which require no response
and are deemed denied. To the extent a response is required, NBS denies that the marketing of
"Crockett Log Homes" creates the representation that the goods; and services provided have the
endorsement ora single entity which stands behind its product, its sale and construction. By way of
further answer, NBS incorporates by reference its response to paragraph 66.
69. The allegations in paragraph 69 constitute conclusions of law which require no
response and are deemed denied. To the extent a response is required, NBS denies that referencing
locations such as "Home Office" and "Mid-Atlantic Regional Office" fosters any misrepresentation. By
way of further answer, NBS incorporates by reference its response to paragraph 66.
70. The allegations in paragraph 70 constitute conclusions of law which require no response
and are deemed denied. To the extent a response is required, NBS denies that its marketing was
calculated to cause confusion for the public and incorporates its response to paragraph 66.
- 1 0- HBDATA:7983
71. The allegations in paragraph 71 constitute conc][usions of law which require no response
and are deemed denied. To the extent a response is required, NBS specifically denies the allegations in
paragraph 71.
72. Paragraph 72 is a request for relief to which no response is required. To the extent a
response is required, NBS denies that plaintiffs are entitled to tlhe relief they have requested.
WHEREFORE, NBS prays that the Court enter judgment for NBS and against plaintiffs on
Count III, together with attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief as the Court may deem
appropriate.
NEW MATTER
73. NBS incorporates by reference as though set forth herein its responses to paragraphs 1
through 72 of this Answer to the Amended Complaint.
74. Without admitting any of the allegations contained therein, NBS incorporates by
reference plaintiffs' Amended Complaint against Bradley Farner, d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New
Cumberland.
75. NBS denies any liability to plaintiffs. However, should NBS be found liable to
plaintiffs, it would be as a result of the conduct of its co-defend~mt Famer, d/b/a Crockett Log Homes
of New Cmnberland, as alleged in plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.
76. By reason of the foregoing, should NBS be found liable to plaintiffs, co-defendant
Famer is liable over to NBS by way of indemnity or jointly and severally liable to NBS for a
contribution for all or part of the claims asserted by plaintiffs against NBS.
77. Additionally, NBS is entitled to indemnification pursuant to the Dealer Contract entered
into by Dodson and Farner in or around April 1996 (hereinafter, "Dealer Contract'). A true and
- 1 1- HBDATA:7983
correct copy of relevant portions of that Dealer Contract are attached hereto as Exhibit "A." (The
terms of the Dealer Contract are protected by a confidentiality provision and will be the subject of a
confidentiality agreement in this litigation.)
78. NBS is a third party beneficiary of the Dealer Contract. See Exhibit A at p. 6.
79. Pursuant to the Dealer Contract, Famer agrees to "indemnify and hold NBS harmless
from any and all claims, demands, actions, and other liabilities arising from the operation of [Farner's]
business. [Farner] agrees to undertake the cost of defending any such claims, including attorney fees,
and to reimburse NBS for all damages and expenses including attorney fees incurred by NBS in
connection with same." See Exhibit A at ~ I.
80. In the event that plaintiffs should recover any award, verdict, judgment or damages
against NBS, then NBS is entitled to indemnification from Farner. NBS is further entitled to recover
expenses, including attorney's fees and costs as they are incurred.
81. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon whicl~ relief can be granted.
82. Plaintiffs have suffered no harm due to the NBS"s alleged actions.
83. Plaintiffs have failed to plead any agency relationship between NBS and Crockett Log
Homes of New Cumberland, Famer, Crockett-PA and/or Dodson.
84. Plaintiffs have averred a cause of action in the complaint for violations of the Unfair
Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law that arose more than two years prior to the institution of
this suit and is barred by the provisions of 42 Pa. C.S.A §5524.
WHEREFORE, defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. respectfully demands judgment in its
favor and against plaintiffs, together with attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief as the Court
- 12- HBDATA:7983
may deem appropriate, but in the event that plaintiffs recover damages from it, Natural Building
Systems, Inc. demands judgment by way of indemnification in its favor and against co-defendant
Bradley Farner together with costs, disbursements and attorney's fees incurred in the defense of said
action and such other costs and damages as may be had in connection thereto, as well as such other
relief as may be just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Moffica L.-l~ebuck, I.D. No. 78225
Nicole Reimann, I.D. No. 57707
Attorneys for defendant Natural Building Systems,
Inc.
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 231-4000
Dated: December 4, 2002
- 13- HBDATA:7983
DEALER CONTRACT
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants l~d agreem
forth, G. Douglas Dodson, d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc., w
business st 87S Moore's Mountain l~,oad; Lewisber~, Pennsylvania
referred to as '!Vlaster Dealer", and Brad Farrier, with a usual place
I-llllcres~ Drive; New Cumberland, Pennsylvlmia 17070,, hereina
"Dealer," do mutually covenant and a~ree as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
Natural Buildiug Systems, Inc., hereinafter referred W a.,; '~'B$,"
corporation with a usual place o£business in W=stmoreland, New
the business of designing, markeling, and supplying mate, rials to b~
fion of solid-wall homes and buiklin~s under the trade n~me of"Cr
b=r Frame Homes."
b) Master Dealer is in the business of marking mat~als m be use;{:
of solid-wall homes arid buildings as a Master D~ater tot NBS und~
"Crocle~t Lo8 & Timber Frame Hom~s,"
C) Dealer desires to market Crockett Log & T/tuber Frame Hom~s
Deal~r of Master Dealer upon ~he terms and conditions hereinafter
d) All pardes wish to pursue a lone-term r~lationsI~p thai/s 'mutually
~ a usual place of
17339; herein~er
f'business at 304A
;r r~ferred W as
a New Hampshire
ampshire, and is in
used/'or consh~c-
~ckett Log & Tim-
the oonstru~tion
~e trad= name of
is an ind~p~radem
forth,
eneficial.
Ma'~er Dealer
~,, Inc.
D~alor - Brai F~rner 1
Approved and ~ccepted by NATURAL BUILDDqG SYSTEMS, rNC
ficiary:
Dated:. ,
Third Pray Bene-
APP~,NDIX I
General Conditions of Contract
A) ADSUSTMENTS IN DELIVERY DATE. NBS will use its best
Dealer's orders as accepted; hover, NBS reserves the right to ~
' justments in the delivery date based on production schedules.
complete an order due to the unavallability of matefi~ls or labor,
chinerL or for any other unforeseeable cause, Ge purchase order'
NBS on refund to Dealer of ail payments reeelved by _NBS. Thi~
sole remedy of Dealer for such non-completion of order.
B) INABILITY TO FURNISH ITEMS. In the event NBS is 'unable
iefforts to complete
~ke reasonable ad-
NBS is unable to
~reakdowns in naa-
aay be canceled by
refund will be the
to furnish any item
for an order, NB $ reserves the right to delete this ffem ~cl adjust the fin~ contract
price accordingly or make substitutions therefore upon not, ce to th~De~ler.
C) SHORTAGES AND SHIPPING E .R~. 0RS. Dealer slaa~l in~pe~t ail materials
shipped pursuant to this contract immedmtely upon their, arrival, dote any discrepan-
ties on the bill oflading and shall, within ten (10) days thereof, git
NBS of any claim that the materials do not conform with the terms
Dealer shall f~ to give such notice, the materials shall be dleerne8
terms of this order,
D) SHIPPING, NBS sba[1 make arrangements for all materials
Dealer's place of dehvery, but all costs for tr~,_~portat[on shrill be
all risks of loss shall pass to Dealer when the materials are lo;aded.
tation charges to the buildhtg site are subject to change without nc
E) UNLOADING AT DESTINATION. Dealer is responsible for u
als f~om the carrier at the place of delivery. NBS shall giiw ad~
pected time of delivery so Dealer can arrange for suitable n~achin~
uaload materials in ~_ timely manner.
F)
POSTPOI~EMENT OF DELIVERY, Dealer ~nay request a po:
lng date in wrff[ng up to ten (10) days prior to milling da~e. Deal
purch~e men, ay in proper form at les~t seven days before the millinl
be dehvered m eerti.fied or bank check, irrevocable letter of credi~
accoun~, or in any other w~y that in the opinion of NBS assures fU
ment and has the prior written approval of NBS. I~'Dealer ihas not
chase money in appropriate form, an additional charge for proc, es
stors$e ~h~tt be paid by Dealer to NBS when billed by
(3) TAX_KS, FEES, AND ASSESSMENTS. All sales tax and[ impor
bio, shall be paid by the Dealer in addition to the contract price for t
'e wr~en notice to
~fthe order. If the
to conform to the
:o be delivered to
orne by Dealer and
~fices for transpor-
~lo~dlng of rnsteri-
anee notice of ex-
~ to be present
tponement of mill-
er shall forward all
; da~e. Funds shall
, approved escrow
I payment on shil~
forwarded all pur-
~ing, ~artdling, and
duties, if applica,.
~aterials.
I-I) V~'ARRA. NTY POLICIES.
r)
(1) NBS warrants the products manufactured by it ag~st de
manufacturing for a period of ten (10) years from the origins
This warranty runs to the original purchaser only. Upon writt
by the original purch~_aer, NB8 shill hs.ve its product kLspe~t,
that product ts established to the satis£actio~ of NBS to haw
aforesaid at ~e time of sh/pplng, NBS will, at its option, repai
fe~-tive portion at its expense. NBS will not be responsible fo
damage, damages for loss of use, loss of time, loss of profit
other incidental d~ges.
~cts in quality and
· date of purchase.
en request to NBS
~d and in the event
been def~tive as
or replace the de-
any ~nsequantial
or income, or any
(2) These warranties ~ not apply to the tendency of :natural wood to check or
tw/st unless this condition shall cause a clear-through c~ack or.s~mct~'al weakness,
nor shall they apply to defects ~'isin~ from c~nst~..ctlon whic~l does no~ ~omply
with all applicable building codes, NBS' specifications,, or ~stomary or proper
construction practices. ~
(3) Any product not menufactured by NBS but sold by ~;IBS tolDealer is sold only
with the manufacturer's warranty.
(4) Any design change ~rora NBS standard model structures or;
out of such a design change is the responsibility of the D,eaier ~
(5) Deaier shall give NBS immediate notice of any warranW pr~
at its expense, shell cooperate fully with NBS in the handlln~
warranty issues, Any material or NBS product that is question
warranty claim shall be safely stored .by Dealer until the warrant
Dealer shall r~t in~tall defectiv~ matcri~Is, and in ~ases 'where
building, Dealer shall conduct its business so tMt no claims i~rise ag~
the sale, erection, or use o£NB$ products.
DEALER AGREES TO PROTECT NBS AND MASTER DEALI
HARMLESS FROM ANY LOSS OR CLAIM ARISING OUT
GENCE Ol~ DEALER, ITS AGENT~ EMPLOYEES~ OI/i REPR
THE INSTALLATION~ USE~ SAI,E~ OR SERVICIN'G OF NItS
ANY OTHER SALES OR ACTIVITIES OF DEALER; DEALER
ATELY DISCHARGE ITS OELIGATIOICS TO THE ORIGII
PURSUANT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF N-Bi'
RANTY AND CONSUMER SERVICE POLICIF~,
Deaier agrees to ~ndemaify and hold NBS harmless from any
mands~ a~t[ons, and other liabilities arish~ fi:om ~he opera,ion of
De~ler asrees to undertake the cost of defendin$ ar~y such claims, Snell
and to reimburse NBS for all damages and expenses inctudi~ attom,
NBS in connection with same.
my problem arising
d/or Purcheser.
,blem or claim and,
and resolution of
· d or is subject to a
issue is rosolved,
lea~er is acting as
net NBS because o£
AND HOLD IT
OF THE NEGLI-
;SENTATIVES IN
' PRODUCTS OR,
SHALL IMMRDI..
CONSUMER
?RODUCT WAR-
md all claims, de..
Dealer's business.
ding attorney fees,
.y fees inourred by
falsifict~ion 1o
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Monica L. Rebuck, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Answer to Amended Complaint And New Matter of Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. was
served on December 4, 2002, via first class mail, postage prepaid to the following:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Mo~i~a ~. Rebuck
HBDATA:7983
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
Vs.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF NEW
CUMBERLAND AND DOUGLAS DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, INC., CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants
ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH COUNTERCLAIM
ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, DOUGLAS DODSON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND d/b/a CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA, ][NC., CROCKETT LOG
HOMES OF PA., INC.
NO. 2002-370 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire.
1017 North Front Street
Harrisbutrg, PA 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO:
Stanley H. Grimwood and Jennifer L. Grimwood
c/o Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
You are hereby notified to plead to the within Counterclaim within
twenty (20) days after date of service hereof.
Respectfully submitted,
BY:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
Date: December 6, 2002
1. Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint is admitted.
2. Paragraph 2 is neither admitted nor denied and proof is demanded as to the
allegations as to the exact method that Mr. Farner uses to transact business.
3. Paragraph 3 is neither admitted nor denied and proof is demanded as to the
allegations as to the exact method that Mr. Farner uses to transact business.
4. Paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint is admitted.
o
Paragraph 5 is admitted that Defendant Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., is
associated with Natural Building Systems, Inc. Crockett Log Homes of Pa.,
Inc., does purchase from Natural Building Systems, Inc., and distributes
same.
6. Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint is adrnitted. Douglas Dodson does
not admit any personal liability as alleged in the Amended Complaint.
Paragraph 7 is admitted that Defendant Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., is
associated with Natural Building Systems, Inc. Crockett Log Homes of Pa.,
Inc., does purchase from Natural Building Systems, Inc., and distributes
same.
8. Defendant Dodson is President of Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. and does
do business through that corporation.
9. Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint is admitted.
10. Paragraph 10 is denied in that it alleges that Defendant Dodson is a master
dealer. Dodson does not conduct business individually. It is denied that
Natural Building Systems, Inc., markets and sells Crockett Log Homes
through Dodson individually. There is a relationship between Crockett Log
Homes of Pa., Inc., and Natural Building Systems, Inc.
11. Paragraph 11 is denied. It is denied that Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., is
a builder. It is further denied that Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., is a
dealer. There is a business relationship between Crockett Log Homes of
Pa., Inc. and Natural Building Systems, Inc., but it is not one of agency.
12. Paragraph 12 is denied. It is denied that Defisndant Famer is an agent in
any form of Defendant Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc.
13. Paragraph 13 is denied. It is denied that Defendant Crockett Log Homes of
Pa., Inc., is an agent of Natural Building Systems, Inc.
14. Paragraph is 14 is denied. It is denied that Defimdant Dodson is an agent of
Natural Building Systems, Inc.
15. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 15, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
16. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 16, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
17. Proof is demanded for the allegations ~n Paragraph 17, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
18. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 18, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
19. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 19, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
20. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 20, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
21. Paragraph 21 is denied. The referenced contract, Exhibit "A", does not
state Farner d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland and the
contract provides for sale of a Crockett home kiit. The contract states Farner
is the contractor and by implication the agreement means supplier and
builder. The contract was signed by Farner as contractor only.
22. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 22, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments, as to the Plaintiffs' belief etc.
23. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 23, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
24. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 24, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
25. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 25, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
26. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 26, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
27. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragr.aph 27, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
28. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragr.aph 28, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
29. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 29, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
30. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 30, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
31. Paragraph 31 is denied. It is denied that Defendants filing an Answer to this
Amended Complaint are a master dealer. A contract was entered into
between Plaintiffs and Crockett Log Homes of IDa., Inc.
32. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 32, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments. T]his paragraph contains broad
conclusionary language. There are no facts 'that support the allegations.
Exhibit "B" of the Amended Complaint states, "Crockett Log and Timber
Homes."
6
33. Paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint is achxfitted in part. It is admitted
that Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., entered into a contract with Plaintiffs
for items that the Plaintiffs asked to be performed.
34. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 34, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments. Crockett Log Homes of Pa.,
Inc., avers that all work was performed and was performed in a
workmanlike manner and the Plaintiffs confirmed this. By answer to this
Paragraph, it is specifically denied that Dodson had any individual liability
as it is stated in the Amended Complaint that Defendant Dodson failed to
perform.
35. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 35, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
36. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 36, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments. The Plaintiffs failed to attach
7
the engineer report to their Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs failed to
identify the engineer.
37. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 37, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
38. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 38, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
39. Paragraphs 39 through 44 require no answer hy the Defendants filing this
Answer to the Amended Complaint, as the: averments apply to other
Defendant or Defendants.
40. Paragraphs 39 through 44 require no answer hy the Defendants filing this
Answer to the Amended Complaint, as the. averments apply to other
Defendant or Defendants.
41. Paragraphs 39 through 44 require no answer by the Defendants filing this
Answer to the Amended Complaint, as the averments apply to other
Defendant or Defendants.
42. Paragraphs 39 through 44 require no answer by the Defendants filing this
Answer to the Amended Complaint, as the averments apply to other
Defendant or Defendants.
43. Paragraphs 39 through 44 require no answer by the Defendants filing this
Answer to the Amended Complaint, as the averments apply to other
Defendant or Defendants.
44. Paragraphs 39 through 44 require no answer by the Defendants filing this
Answer to the Amended Complaint, as the averments apply to other
Defendant or Defendants.
45. Paragraph 45 is denied. It is denied that Farner failed to perform the
contract. It is denied that Dodson has any inclividual liability and that he
made any representations as to exact relationship between himself and
Crockett Log Homes in Pennsylvania. In prior paragraphs in the Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that the master dealer relationship existed
with Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc.
46. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 46, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments. The Defendants cannot
respond to an allegation as to the Plaintiffs' belief. It is further denied that
Dodson acted in any individual capacity.
47. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 47, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments. It is denied that Dodson
disregarded his corporate entity.
48. Paragraph 48 is denied. It is denied that Dodson individually agreed to
complete Farner's work. An agreement was entered into between Dodson's
corporation and the Plaintiffs to do work on Plaintiffs' home.
49. Paragraph 49 is denied. Dodson's corporation entered into a separate
agreement with Plaintiffs to perform work and Plaintiffs were to pay for this
work. They have made partial payment but funds are still due and owing
Dodson's corporation.
50. Paragraph 50 is denied. It is denied that Dodson had any individual liability
and it is further averred that Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., performed the
work contracted.
51. Paragraph 51 is denied. It is denied that Dodson is individually liable. It is
denied that work was not completed. The items listed in Paragraph 38 of
10
the Amended Complaint are inconsistent with the contract with is Exhibit
"C" attached to the Amended Complaint.
52. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 52, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
53. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 53, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
54. No answer is required.
55. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 55, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
56. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 56, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
11
57. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 57, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments. It is denied that Dodson had
any individual liability.
58. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 58, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments. The work was performed in a
workmanlike manner and completed.
59. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 59, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to detemfine the accuracy of the averments.
60. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 60, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
61. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 61, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
12
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
62. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 62, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments, if relevant.
63. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 63, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments, as to Plaintiffs' belief.
64. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 64, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments, as to Plaintiffs' belief and all
other averments in Paragraph 64.
65. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 65, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
13
66. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 66, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
67. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 67, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
68. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 68, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
69. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 69, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
70. Proof is demanded for the allegations in Paragraph 70, as the allegations are
in the exclusive knowledge and control of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filing answer to this Amended Complaint do not have knowledge or means
to determine the accuracy of the averments.
14
71. Paragraph 71 contains a conclusion and does not require an answer;
however, if an answer is deemed necessary, proof is demanded for the
allegations.
72. It is denied that the Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages and counsel
fees.
COUNTERCLAIM
73. The counterclaimant is Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. Said Corporation
is duly licensed and incorporated in accordance with the laws of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and maintains its office at 58 Sunset Drive,
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. A contract marked Exhibit "C" to the
Amended Complaint of Plaintiffs is hereby incorporated in this
Counterclaim by reference thereto.
74. The said contract is dated December 10, 2000, and subsequent thereto, the
Defendant Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., performed all the items listed
in the contract Numbers. 1 through 14 and a separate listing of items 1
through 14 attached to the contract.
75. Said work was done in a proper and workmanlike manner and all items
were completed and the Plaintiffs indicated this to the counterclaimant.
15
76. The Plaintiffs paid the counterclaimant the sum of twenty-five hundred
dollars ($2,500.00) and the agreed total contract price was six thousand
eight hundred seventy-five dollars ($6,875.00), leaving a balance due to the
counterclaimant of four thousand three hundred seventy-five dollars
($4,375.00).
77. The Plaintiffs were made aware of the balance due and have failed to make
payment to the counterclaimant, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc.
WHEREFORE, the counterclaimant, Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc., prays
your Honorable Court to grant judgment against Plaintiffs, Stanley H. Grimwood
and Jennifer L. Grimwood, in the amount of $4,375.00 plus interest and costs.
Respectfully submitted,
BY:
Arthur K. D]ls, l~sq~e
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 232;-9724
I.D. No. (}7056
16
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this t~,r~,*~- a,;~, C~,,~,~ e/~
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 unswom
falsification to authorities.
r)OUGL~,S DODSON
Date:/~ o2g 2~o ~ ~'
CERTIFICATE OF SERWICE
I, Arthur K. Dils, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
within Answer to Amended Complaint with Counterclaim 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 __ day of
December 2002, addressed as follows:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire (by hand delivery)
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Date: December 6, 2002
Respectfully submitted, . /'
~A~thur 1<2. Dils, Ese(uire"
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 232-9724
I.D. No. 07056
17
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
NO. 02-370 Civil Term
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC., CROCKETT LOG HOMES
OF PA, INC. and NATURAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Stanley H. and Jennifer L. Grimwood
c/o Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
And
Natural Building Systems, Inc.
c/o Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within
twenty (20) days from service hereof or judgment may be entered against you.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED
Dated:
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
717 909-6637
Attorney's I.D. No. 15624
Counsel for Bradley Farner d/b/a Crockett Log
Homes of New Cumberland
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, clPo/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC., CROCKETT LOG HOMES
OF PA, INC. and NATURAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
NO. 02-370 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION -. LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND CROSS CLAIM OF DEFENDANT~
BRADLEY FARNER, D/B/A CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF NEW
CUMBERLAND, TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Defendant, Bradley Famer, d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New
Cumberland (hereinafter "Farncr") and represents the following:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendant Farner also does business as "B. A.
Famer Custom Home Builder."
3. Admitted. By way of further answer Defendant Famer also is a builder and
contractor for homes other than those marketed by Crockett Log Homes.
Admitted.
Admitted that Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. is identified as the mid-Atlantic
regional office of Natural Building Systems, Inc.
Admitted.
Denied as stated. On information and belief Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and Defendant Dodson is its President. Defendant Famer believes and
therefore avers that Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. is a dealer for the product of
Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc.
8. Admitted that Defendant Dodson is President of Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. and
does business through that corporation.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted in part and denied in part. On information and belief it is admitted that
Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. (hereinafter "NBS") is the manufacturer of
certain log home systems, the owner of certain trade nmnes including, "Crockett Log
Homes", which it markets. NBS makes available log home kits through Crockett Log
Homes of PA, Inc., a master dealer, and Defendant Farner, who is a dealer in said
Crockett Log Homes. Said dealers are independent contractors, and not agents,
servants or employees of NBS.
11. Denied as stated. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant Crockett Log
Homes of PA, Inc. is a master dealer for "Crockett Log Homes" marketed by
Defendant NBS. Defendant Famer is a builder dealing with Crockett Log Homes. It
is denied that Defendant Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. and Defendant Farner are
builders and dealers for Defendant NBS, but are rather independent contractors.
12. Denied for the reasons set forth in paragraphs ten and eleven above, the averments of
which are incorporated herein by reference.
13. Denied for the reasons set forth in paragraphs ten and eleven above, the averments of
which are incorporated herein by reference.
14. Denied for the reasons set forth in paragraphs ten and eleven above, the averments of
which are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
15. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendant Faro.er is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to how the Plaintiffs became aware of
"Crockett Log Homes" and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is
demanded.
16. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendant Famer is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to what the Plaintiffs observed in the
telephone directory and is presently without a copy of any listings for his business as
they appeared in the 1999 directory. Proof is therefore demanded.
17. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs came in contact with
Defendant Farner, but said Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief as to what the Plaintiffs' "believed" or the basis for their belief, and
the remaining averments of this paragraph are therefore denied and proof thereof is
demanded.
18. Denied. Defendant Famer is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to what the Plaintiffs' "intended" or what they believed, or whether there
was any reasonable basis for such belief. The averments of this paragraph are
therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded.
19. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant Famer is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth ofxvhat the Plaintiffs have
"learned" and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded. By way
of further answer, it is averred that Defendant Farner never represented to Plaintiffs
that Crockett Log Homes was an "entity." Rather, all material made available to the
Plaintiffs clearly demonstrated that Crockett Log Homes was a registered trademark
of Natural Building Systems, Inc.
20. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Defbndant Famer worked with the
Plaintiffs for the ordering of a Crockett building package and for the erection of the
same. Defendant Famer never represented himself to the Plaintiffs as being an agent
or employee of Crockett Log Homes and is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to what the Plaintiffs believed his relationship with NBS
to be. By way of further answer, Defendant Famer could not have "completed" the
Plaintiffs' Crockett Log Homes as he was not the general contractor, was responsible
only for the erection of the shell, and many aspects of the work for the completion of
the home were retained by the Plaintiffs themselves and their subcontractors.
21. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the "Contractor Agreement"
attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint was part of the contract entered into between
Plaintiffs and Defendant Famer. In said "Contractor Agreement" the contractor is
identified as "Brad Farner" not Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland. By way of
further answer, it is averred that said contract was also comprised of the documents
attached hereto as Exhibit A, the approved plans for the house, which plans are too
voluminous to attach to this Complaint, and any verbal amendments made between
the parties as the work progressed.
22. Denied as stated. Rather, it is averred that on or about October 20, 1999, Defendant
Famer placed an order for the building package for which the Plaintiffs contracted
with Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. It is believed and therefore averred that
thereafter Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. transmitted an order for the same package
to Defendant NBS.
23. Admitted, except that the precise sum was $110,000.40..
24. Admitted.
25. Denied. Rather, no timeframe for the completion of Defendant Farner's portion of
the work was agreed upon or ever made part of a contract between the Plaintiffs and
Defendant Famer. Defendant Famer believes, and therefore avers, that Plaintiffs
imposed a deadline of December 6, 2000 when they sold their prior home and were
obliged to remove themselves from said prior home by December 6, 2000.
26. Denied. Defendant Famer is without any present recollection as to what he may have
informed the Plaintiffs and the same is therefore denied and proof thereof is
demanded. By way of further answer, Defendant Famer had erected or assisted in the
erection of prior "Crockett Log Homes" and was therefore experienced in their
construction.
27. Denied for the reasons set forth in paragraph twenty-five above, the averments of
which are incorporated herein by reference.
28. Admitted in art and denied in part. It is admitted that said work was not completed as
of December 6, 2000, the reason being that on November 21, 2000 the Plaintiffs
terminated their contract with Defendant Famer and informed him that he would
"...not be on the job." As to the allegation made by the Plaintiffs as to a completion
date Defendant Famer incorporates herein the allegations contained in paragraph
twenty-five above.
29. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that iDefendant Famer did not
complete the contract undertaken in August, 1999. By 'way of further answer, said
failure to complete the contract was due to the dilatory ,conduct of the Plaintiffs
and/or their subcontractors, their failure to complete work necessary for the
completion of Defendant Famer's work, Plaintiffs' conduct which caused certain of
Defendant Farner work to be redone, and finally the Plaintiffs' removal of Defendant
Famer from the contract and the job site. Said averments will be more completely
developed below.
30. Denied that Defendant Famer's work was defective and incomplete, and Defendant
Famer further responds as follows:
A) Denied that Defendant Famer failed to erect a wall in the master bath, as required
by the plans and specifications for the home system. Rather, while the original
plans and specifications called for such a wall, thereafter the Plaintiffs requested
that the vanity in the master bath be extended the entire length of one wall, which
request required the removal of the wall referenced in this subparagraph.
B) Denied for the reasons set forth more fully hereinafter, which averments are
incorporated herein by reference.
31. Denied as stated. Defendant Famer did not "fail" to complete the work but rather was
prevented from doing so for the reasons set forth in paragraph twenty-nine above, the
averments of which are incorporated herein by reference. It is further believed that
Defendants attempted to secure completion through Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.,
rather than Defendant Douglas Dodson.
32. Denied. It is believed, and therefore averred, that Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. is
designated as the mid-Atlantic regional office for "Crockett Log Homes."
33. Admitted, on information and belief.
34. Denied. Defendant Farner was not party to the contract between the Plaintiffs and
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc., and has no personal knowledge of the sums
exchanged or the results of the work undertaken. Said allegations are therefore
denied and proof thereof is demanded.
35. Denied. Defendant Famer was not party to the contract between the Plaintiffs and
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc., and has no personal knowedge of the sums
exchanged or the results of the work undertaken. Said allegations are therefore
denied and proof thereof is demanded.
36. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs hired an engineer as
Defendant Famer has received a copy of said engineer's report. Defendant Famer
disputes the conclusions reached by the engineer or any implications that any
deficiencies found were the fault of Defendant Famer. Proof thereof is therefore
demanded.
37. Denied. Defendant Famer categorically denies that any of the deficiencies cited
constituted faulty installation or construction and responds to each subparagraph as
follows:
A) Admitted that roof vent was left uncompleted but completion of the same could
not be effected before the Plaintiffs completed the chinmey which went up
through the roof vent. All masonry and stone work ~vas the obligation of the
Plaintiffs and Defendant Famer's inability to complete the roof vent was due to
the dilatory conduct of the Plaintiffs in constructing the chimney which was still
uncompleted as of Defendant Famer's last day on site.
B) Defendant Famer has no knowledge of the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the
door to the master bedroom closet and proof thereof is demanded.
C) Defendant Famer has no knowledge of any condition with sag in the ceiling
beams of the first floor master bedroom and proof thereof is demanded. By way
of further answer, should said beams be sagging excessively said condition would
indicate a structural defect and a problems with the beams obtained from
Defendant NBS.
D) The chip in the master bedroom door was not present when said door was
installed by Defendant Famer.
E) Defendant Famer has no knowledge of the circumstances leading to the leakage
through the front door and proof thereof is demanded. It is further averred that
said door is under an eight foot porch where it should, not be subject to water
penetration. It may be that final adjustment of the bottom is necessary which
would be a minor item.
F) The log skirting was correctly installed by Defendant Farner but was subject to
damage by persons involved with the masonry and stone work, which were
Plaintiff Stanley Grimwood himself and his agents, servants or employees.
Portions of said log skirting had to be redone by Defendant Famer even while he
was still on the job due to the damage caused by the Plaintiffs and their
employees.
G) Plugging of the ends of logs was one of the last tasks to be performed in the
completion of the house shell, and Defendant Famer was removed from the job
before said work could be completed.
H) Defendant Famer has no knowledge of any defective condition with the
installation of the living room baseboard and proof thereof is demanded.
I) If reference is being made to the patio door, said door worked well until the brick
work was installed around it, which brick work was done by Plaintiff Stanley
Grimwood and his agents, servants, and employees. Repair items six and ten of
Exhibits B and C refer to trim around the stairs and an exterior railing, and not to
any doors, and Defendant Famer is unable to make a meaningful response to said
allegations.
J) Defendant Famer has no knowledge of the cited conditions with gaps and bowing
of the floor with the need of replacement and resurfacing, and proof thereof is
demanded. Item nine on Exhibits B and C pertains to screens for the windows, so
Defendant Farner is unable to make meaningful response to said allegations. By
way of further answer, gaps in the second floor pine flooring and bowing of the
floor suggests drying or warping, which would indicate a structural defect and
defective materials obtained from Defendant NBS.
K) Denied that said fascia was improperly installed. Some fascia was damaged
through the conduct of others, unrelated to Defendant Famer, but which
Defendant Famer was compelled to repair. Repair of other portions of the fascia
was to be deferred until after the arrival of the new railing but Defendant Farner
was removed from the contract and job site before said work could be performed.
L) Defendant Famer completed the trim in the hall and then was compelled to
remove it when Plaintiffs decided to use a railing supplied from another source.
The posts for said railing had to be removed resulting in damage to the walls.
Repairs could not be completed as Defendant Farner was removed from the job
before the new railing arrived. These statements are equally tree regarding the
trim around the stairs, trim around the loft, trim around the sides of the stairs. If
Plaintiffs are referring to the trim on the bottom inside of the door said trim was
not the responsibility of Defendant Farner but was part of the doors purchased by
the Plaintiffs. The trim referred to as item number two of items to be repaired
was approved by Plaintiff Stanley Grimwood while Defendant Farner was on the
job. As to the remaining items of trim, Defendant Farner has no knowledge of
what conditions the Plaintiffs are complaining, and the same are therefore denied
and proof thereof is demanded.
M) Denied. Defendant Famer has no knowledge of this condition and proof thereof
is demanded.
N) Denied. Item five of the list of repair items refers to caulking around the skylights
on the sunroom roof. Defendant Famer avers that said skylights are sealed
underneath and are caulked when installed. No further caulking thereof is
necessary.
O) Denied that failure to complete the ridge venting is due to any conduct on the part
of Defendant Famer. As stated previously, said roof'venting could not be
completed due to the failure of Plaintiff Stanley Grimwood, his agents, servants,
or employees, to construct the chimney which went through the peak of the roof.
Said chimney had still not been constructed when Defendant Famer was removed
from the job.
P) Denied that any improper spouting installation was due to any misconduct on the
part of Defendant Famer. Defendant Famer was unable to install the spouting or
the gutters since Plaintiff Stanley Grimwood did not complete the masonry and
stone work. Said gutters and spouting would have been damaged had they been
installed prior to the completion of said brick and stone work and the spouting
was required to be attached to the stone work which was uncompleted before
Defendant Famer was taken off the job.
Q) Defendant Famer has no knowledge of the condition to which the Plaintiffs are
referring and proof thereof is demanded.
R) Installation of the plugs in log indentations is one of the final steps in the erection
of the house shell, and Defendant Famer was removed from the job and told to
stay offthe job site before said work could be completed.
S) Denied. Said dirt and staining may have resulted from the lack of gutters and
downspouts, and if so said condition was caused by the failure of Plaintiff Stanley
Grimwood, his agents, servants or employees to complete the brick work and
stone work so that said gutters and downspouts could be mounted. If said dirt and
staining resulted from the failure to clean and seal the outside of the house shell,
said obligation was that of the Plaintiffs and was not part of the duties undertaken
by Defendant Famer.
T) Denied. The railing from the upstairs, loft and steps had been constructed but had
to be removed, including the posts going into the walls, when Plaintiffs decided
they wanted to use a railing from another vendor. The pieces from the removed
railing, including the top and bottom were stored in the second floor back
bedroom when Defendant Famer was removed from the job. The pickets for said
railing had not yet been constructed.
U) Denied. Defendant Famer has no knowledge of what conditions the Plaintiffs are
complaining and proof thereof is demanded.
38. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendant Famer is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this
paragraph and the same are therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded.
COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT vs. BRADLEY FARNER
d/b/A CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
39. The averments contained in paragraphs one through thirty-eight above are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
40. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs and Defendant
Famer contracted for the purchase and erection of a kit home from Crockett Log
Homes. This paragraph is denied in so far as it implies Defendant Famer was
responsible for the construction of the entire home. Rather, Plaintiffs remained
responsible for the following: The obtaining of all permits; putting in the foundation,
footers, construction block and poured concrete; all brick and stone work; the
installation of the driveway; all insulation; all painting; finishing of the entire kitchen
including appliances; the final flooring surface on the main floor; the sanding and
sealing of the loft floor; installation of all plumbing, heating, electric, lights and
appliances; grading and seeding; and installation of the well and septic systems.
41. Denied as stated. Defendant Famer was responsible for putting up the house kit,
which was the shell of the house; the interior framing, stairs, railing and drywall;
interior trim and doors; the garage package, including framing, doors, windows and
roof system (meaning the trusses, plywood, shingles and peak vent); and installation
of the flooring, consisting of the sub-floor and plywood on the main floor and the
entire loft floor. Plaintiffs were responsible for all other work as stated in paragraph
number 40 above.
42. Denied for the reasons set forth above and as itemized in response to paragraph thirty-
seven and its subparts, which averments are incorporated herein by reference. All
proof to the contrary is demanded.
43. Denied for the reasons set forth in the foregoing paragraphs, including the details of
paragraph thirty-seven and its subparts, the averments of which are incorporated
herein by reference. Defendant Famer denies he had any further obligations to the
Plaintiffs and proof thereof is demanded.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Famer demands judgment in his favor and against the
Plaintiffs.
COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT vs. DOUGLAS A. DODSON
44-53. The averments of these paragraphs are directed to a Defendant other than
Defendant Famer, and no response by Defendant Famer is deemed necessary.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Famer demands judgment in his favor and against the
Plaintiffs.
COUNT III
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES vs. DEFENDANT NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, DEFENDANT DODSON, DEFENDANT CROCKETT HOMES OF PA
AND DEFENDANT BRADLEY FARNER d/b/a CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND
54. The averments contained in paragraphs one through fifty-three above are incorporated
herein by reference as though set forth at length.
55. Denied, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing paragraphs, the averments of which
are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
56. Denied, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing paragraphs, the averments of which
are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
57. The averments of this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than Defendant
Famer, and no response thereto by Defendant Famer is deemed necessary.
58. The averments of this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than Defendant
Famer, and no response thereto by Defendant Farner is deemed necessary.
59. The averments of this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than Defendant
Famer, and no response thereto by Defendant Famer is deemed necessary.
60. The averments of this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than Defendant
Farner, and no response thereto by Defendant Farner is deemed necessary.
61. The averments of this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than Defendant
Famer, and no response thereto by Defendant Famer is deemed necessary.
62. On information and belief that the house kit was intended to be the primary residence
of the Plaintiffs, Defendant Farner admits that the goods and services provided to the
Plaintiffs were primarily for the Plaintiffs' personal, family and household uses.
63. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to what the Plaintiffs believed, the source of
that belief, or whether said belief was justified. The allegations of this paragraph are
therefore denied and proof thereof is demanded.
64. Denied. After reasonable investigation and belief Defendant Famer is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to what the Plaintiffs
learned, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, all materials
made available to the Plaintiffs, including but not limited to the house plans,
promotional materials, documents signed by the Plaintiffs, clearly indicated that
Crockett Log Homes was not an "entity" but was a registered trademark belonging to
Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. By way of further answer Defendant
Famer made no representations which could be reasonably construed by the
Plaintiffs that the relationship between and among the Defendants was an agency
relationship or that Defendants Famer and Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc. were
anything other than independent contractors.
65. The averments of this paragraph are directed to a Defendant other than Defendant
Famer, and no response thereto by Defendant Farner is deemed necessary.
66. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendant Famer is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief regarding what Plaintiffs believe they have
determined or what impressions Plaintiffs may have held. The same are therefore
denied and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Defendant Famer
denies that the use of "Crockett Log Homes" can create confusion, can reasonably
lead persons to believe that Defendants were part of a single entity or arrangement,
and that a master-servant relationship existed between any of the Defendants. It is
further denied that the use of "Crockett Log Homes" can create confusion or
misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of the goods
involved.
67. Denied for the reasons set forth in paragraph sixty-six above, the averments of which
are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
68. Denied for the reasons set forth in paragraph sixty-six above, the averments of which
are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
69. Denied for the reasons set forth in paragraph sixty-six above, the averments of which
are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
70. Denied for the reasons set forth in paragraph sixty-six above, the averments of which
are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
71. The averments of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no response is
deemed necessary.
72. This paragraph is a request for relief to which no response is required. By way of
further answer, Defendant Famer denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief
requested.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Famer demands judgment in his fhvor and against the
Plaintiffs.
NEW MATTER WITH CROSS CLAIM
73. The averments contained in paragraphs one through seventy-two above are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
74. Defendant Famer was not responsible for the entire construction of the Plaintiffs'
home but rather only for that work detailed in the contracts and as stated in paragraph
forty-one above, the averments of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Plaintiffs remained responsible for all of the work listed :in paragraph number forty
above, the averments of which are incorporated herein by reference.
75. The Plaintiffs elected to be their own general contractors retaining responsibility,
direction and control over all aspects of the work except those assumed by Defendant
Famer.
76. Defendant Famer was unable to complete construction of the house shell in the
timeframe normally expected in such projects due to the failure of the Plaintiffs to
complete the work for which they retained responsibility.
77. Defendant never agreed, and the contract documents ma[ce no reference to, a
completion date of December 6, 2000. Rather, Defendant Famer believes and
therefore avers that said deadline was imposed by the Plaintiffs when they entered
into an agreement for the sale of their prior home, and were required to vacate said
home by December 6, 2000.
78. Plaintiffs made completion of the subject property by Defendant Famer impossible
when, by fax dated November 21, 2000, they removed him from the job.
79. Many of the items cited by the Plaintiffs as being improperly performed or left
uncompleted were due to the change of plans by the Plaintiffs themselves when they
elected to replace the railing supplied as part of the house kit with a railing from
another vendor, the placement of which required the removal of the posts with
consequent damage to the floor, walls and stairs of the posts erected for the original
railing.
80. Many items which the Plaintiffs complained could not be completed prior to
completion of the brick and stone work, which work was the sole responsibility of
Plaintiff Stanley Grimwood, his agents, servants, and employees. Said items were
either to be attached to said brick or stone work which was uncompleted, or would
have been damaged had they been installed prior to the completion of the brick or
stone work. These items include:
a. Erection of the outside railing due to the incomplete brickwork;
b. The ridge venting, due to the failure of Plaintiffs to timely construct the chinmey
which passed through the peak of the roof;
c. Gutters and downspouts as the downspouts attach to the brick or stone work and
gutters would have been damaged by the use of ladders and the movement of
supplies and materials necessary to construct the chinmey.
81. Plaintiffs wrongfully include as an item "not completed" the flashing on the section
of the sunroom roof where it meets the log wall on the back of the house (Item two
on Exhibits B and C to the Complaint). Said flashing is not necessary because the
section referred to is log siding and not full logs, and step flashing is situated behind
the siding.
82. As Plaintiffs remained their own general contractors, Defendant Famer was not in
exclusive possession and control of the premises and cannot be responsible for any
damage created by persons over whom he had neither control nor the right to control.
Some items including the split in the door from the kitchen to the garage (Item one of
"Items that need to be repaired" in Exhibits B and C to the Complaint) were caused
by such third persons as said door was undamaged when Defendant Famer was last
on the premises. In a number of instances work performed by Defendant Famer had
to be redone due to the conduct of others. Such work included, but was not limited
to:
a. Repair of skirting damaged due to conduct of brick and stone workers under
direct control of Plaintiff Stanley Grimwood;
b. A loosened log comer on the skirt board again damaged due to the action of brick
and stone workers;
c. Sections of flooring on the front porch had to be redone when holes were cut into
it by stone masons; and
d. One door complained of by the Plaintiffs was reset by Defendant Famer on two
occasions, and worked following each reset. On the occasion of the second reset
Defendant Famer found that the hinge screws had been replaced with cement
board screws, indicating to him that others had been meddling with the
completed work.
83. Defendant Famer warned the Plaintiffs to try and keep an even heat in the house
otherwise damage could result to the doors and trim. Defendant Farner believes, and
therefore avers, that Plaintiffs failed to heed his warnings which may have led to
some of the damage complained of.
84. Outside cleaning and sealing remained the obligation of the Plaintiffs, and Defendant
Farner believes and therefore avers that the staining of wood, stone and brick would
not have occurred had the Plaintiffs performed their obligation.
85. When, on November 21, 2000, the Plaintiffs removed Defendant Famer from the job,
they owed a balance of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) for the completion of the
house. Defendant Famer believes, and therefore avers, that as the work and costs of
work for which the Plaintiffs are presently suing would result in a completed house,
the damages should be reduced by the sum of $7,000 and offset therefore is hereby
claimed.
86. If any misrepresentations as to the source of any goods or services were made by
Defendant Famer, or any of the Defendants, or any misrepresentations made as to the
nature of the relationship between the Defendants, which misrepresentations are
specifically denied, then it is averred:
a. Said misrepresentation(s) was not material to the transaction at hand;
b. Said misrepresentation was not made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or
recklessness as to whether it was true or false;
c. Said misrepresentation(s) was not made with the intent of misleading another into
relying on it;
d. Plaintiffs did not justifiably rely on any such misrepresentation; and
e. Any such misrepresentation did not proximately result in injury to the Plaintiffs.
87. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state what written standards, regulations, codes, etc may
have been violated by Defendant Farner.
88. Plaintiffs were repeatedly informed through statements on contracts, warranties,
promotional and other materials that "Crockett Log Homes" was not an entity but a
registered trademark of Natural Building Systems, Inc.
89. Plaintiffs were further informed that "Crockett Classic Log Homes" was a product of
Natural Building Systems, Inc., including the statement appearing immediately
below the signatures of the Plaintiffs on the second page of Exhibit A attached
hereto.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Famer demands judgment in his favor and against the
Plaintiffs. Alternatively, should judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against
Defendant Famer, Defendant Farner demands an offset by the sum of $7,000 as stated in
paragraph 85 above.
CROSSCLAIM
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/d CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF NEW
CUMBERLAND vs. NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS~ INC.
90. The averments contained in paragraphs one through eighty-nine above are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
91. The "Crockett Log Homes" building shell, Vershire model, was ordered from and
supplied by Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. ipursuant to an order made by
Defendant Farner on October 20, 1999.
92. In their Complaint the Plaintiffs have cited several deficiencies including:
a. Missing screens for windows ("item not completed" number nine, Exhibits B and
C to the Complaint);
b. Sagging in the ceiling beams on the first floor master bedroom (paragraph thirty-
seven, subparagraph C of the Complaint); and
c. Gaps in second floor pine flooring and bowing of the floor with need for
replacement and resurfacing (paragraph thirty-seven, subparagraph J to the
Complaint)
93. The subject screens, ceiling beams and floorboards referred to in the foregoing
paragraph were all parts of the home kit supplied by Defendant NBS.
94. Should it be determined that screens were missing from the kit supplied by
Defendant NBS, or that the problems with the floorboards and ceiling beams were
due to defective materials supplied by Defendant NBS, then should judgment be
entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant Famer on account of said
defects or missing materials, Defendant Famer demands indemnity for the same
against Defendant NBS.
WHEREFORE, should Defendant Famer be found liable to the Plaintiffs for missing
screens, or defective floorboards or ceiling beams, which responsibility is specifically
denied, Defendant Famer hereby demands indemnity for the same against Defendant
NBS.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED
Dated:
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
717 909-6637
Attorney's I.D. No. 15624
Counsel for Defendant Bradley Famer dPo/a
Crockett Log Homes of New Cumberland
CROCKETT LOO HOMES OF CUM E AND
304A HJll~reg Drive, New Cumberland, Pa 17070
Brad Famer Buildor/de, alor
Phone; 71%938-4337 Fax; 717-935-2025 E-mail; Faxnerb(~a~l.¢om
1. Crockett shell package
2. Sun room option
3. Pa slles tax
4. Shil~ng
5. Kit labor
Discount
7. lat~rior package (interior framin~, stairs,
B s_ilings, labor.)
8. Interior trim a~d interior doors
9. T&G pine great room ceiling
REVISED ESTIMATE
FOR
THE 6RIMWOODS
8-27-99
1 O, Garage package with doors ,~.wind_0ws
- TOTAL
Window option grills inside windows add $1,000.00 to price above.
17,000.00
4,700.00
3,000.00
3,~,0~
$I09,000.40
Homeo
Date $-27-99 Date
~'~ RUG-2S- 1999
12:19
Crockett Log Homes
Gdmwood Residence
D alcr · Brad Father
STANDARD CLASSIC SHRIJ. MATERJALS PACKAGE
Ap~U~ A
P.01
Commun~ Pm~-am
Wall System: Roof System:
~I~MI~ ~ 1Mi ~mbexWall Lo~ 6" x 1~" Ridge Beam~)
~'x $" I~kLHC Gmde~mqn~l KD 2'x 12" Rat~Cmble Sofn~
~~ ~ ~ l~mt l~r~r 5/~' OSB Slma~n__gw/PlywoodCl~
25~6"X 10'fl'~mingwaU, 1/2' O513,
Tyvek
F~I ~oor S~:
2'x 12'~~~
3/4' ~T~G ~r
nd Floor System:
8' x 8' Po~s (surfaced)
8" x I0' Carry ]~ams (curacy)
2' x6'T&GKD Flooria~
$6.$00 gl~ndow Allowance(additional &
larger windows) included m quoted
sub~ecl to final window ~lection
g~m-htmg Exterior Fi~ ~[
I - 3 ~ x 6~" (9-~ C~)
2 - 6'0~ x 6~"(~ Sa~
Deck:
6'x6' ~ ~r
2'x 6" ~ ~ia, ~, & T~
~/4" x 6" ~ ~
MATERL4t~ I,~T SUB41~.g:T TO C~ PEM:NN~ PINt& Pl.&NS.
720sf Covered Porch/Deck per
Brad Far~r drawings submitted
Farner memo
#2 deleU~ zkyBght
wbedule(add SI~4JGO in~de grille,)
#4 replage R Cmm~l w c~mio~
~6 RL'plam wWJ w AJumbmm ~
po~ch Ce~Ju$
Notc: nmno said log siding frame!
wall, b~ ori~m~ quo~c had exterior
by ow~r **Pl~ase Adviz~ if you
want Log Sinh,~ calculated for
N~le: fx~t~tor wall on Olxional walls:
8Ytrage, suroom, trod undo,
porch will be cm, ered with stone by
Owner.
Cr~l~t Shd! Materi~b Package Price ......................
~u~ . ~ term z~ z ZZ' (Z~ ~ os~td fl~rl~f + 3
C~CI~ ~ H~ is~Nam~ B~l~g S~, ~c., 35 Old ~ 12N, ~ln~ ~ 03~7
TOTAL P.01
VERIFICATION
I, Bradley Famer, hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer
with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and
belief, and that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A.
Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities;.
Dated: /'2 - / '7- ~_ 00'2.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVIClr,
AND NOW on this _/~'~day of December, 2002 1 Robert P. Reed, Esquire, hereby
certify that I served the within Defendant, Bradley Famer's Answer with New Matter and
Crossclaim this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED
BY:
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
717 909-6637
Attorney's I.D. No. 15624
Counsel for Bradley Famer d/b/a
Crockett Log Homes of New
Cumberland
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, dPo/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
INC., CROCKETT LOG HOMES
OF PA, INC. and NATURAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-370 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
REPLY OF DEFENDANT BRADLEY FARNER, D/B/A CROCKETT LOG
HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND, TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT
NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
AND NOW, comes Defendant Bradley Farner, d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New
Cumberland, by his Attorney, Robert P. Reed, and respond,'; to the New Matter with
Crossclaim of Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. as follows:
73. Defendant Farner incorporates by reference all allegations contained in his Answer
with New Matter and Cross Claim filed in response to the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint, as fully as though said allegations were set forth herein at length.
74. Defendant Farner incorporates by reference all allegations contained in his Answer
with New Matter and Cross Claim filed in response to the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint, as fully as though said allegations were set forth herein at length.
75. Denied. Defendant Farner has denied any liability to the Plaintiffs for the reasons
more fully set forth in his Answer with New Matter and Cross Claim filed in
response to the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The averments of said Answer with
76.
77.
78.
79.
New Matter and Cross Claim are incorporated herein as fully as though set forth at
length.
Denied for the reasons set forth in paragraph seventy-five above.
Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a correct copy of portions of
the dealer contract are attached to the Answer of Defendant NBS as Exhibit A, but
the remaining averments of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no
response is deemed necessary and are denied.
Admitted that Defendant NBS approved said contract designating itself as a "third
party beneficiary."
The averments of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no response is
deemed necessary. By way of further answer, said contract speaks for itself and
Defendant Famer disputes the interpretation given by NBS to the provisions of said
Dealer Contract. Said provisions were not intended to apply to situations which arise
due to circumstances other than wrongdoing on the part of Defendant Famer.
Rather, as stated in Defendant Famer's Answer with New Matter and Crossclaim,
Defendant Famer's inability to complete the contract was due to the conduct of the
Plaintiffs themselves, their agents, servants or employees, and in the Plaintiffs'
cancellation of the contract and removal of Defendant Famer from the job as of
November 21, 2000. It is believed, and therefore averred that any liability of
Defendant NBS will most likely result from missing or defective materials supplied
by NBS as part of the Crockett Log Homes home package.
80. The averments of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no response is
deemed necessary. Should response be necessary the averments of this paragraph
are denied for the reasons stated in paragraph seventy-nine above.
81. Admitted.
82. Admitted, with the exception of those actions underlying the crossclaim of
Defendant Famer against Defendant NBS, the averments of which are incorporated
herein by reference as though set forth at length.
83. Admitted.
84. To the extent any two year statute of limitations may be applicable to the present
matter or to any conduct of any of the Defendants in the present Action, the
averments of this paragraph are admitted.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Famer demands judgment in his fhvor and against the
Plaintiffs. Alternatively, on the Crossclaim filed by Defendant NBS against Defendant
Famer, judgment is demanded in favor of Defendant Famer as~d against Defendant NBS.
Dated:
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED
BY:
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 117112
717 909-6637
Attorney's I.D. No. 15624
Counsel for Defendant Bradley Famer
d/b/a Crockett Log Homes of New
Cumberland
VERIFICATION
I, Bradley Famer, hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to
New Matter of Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. are tree and correct to the best
of my information, knowledge and belief, and that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Dated:
v ffr~c[ley~amer --
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW on this /~'2~ay of December, 2002 1 Robert P. Reed, Esquire, hereby
certify that I served the within Reply of Defendant Bradley Famer d/b/a Crockett Log
Homes of New Cumberland to New Matter of Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc.
this day by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. REED
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
717 909-6637
Attorney:'s I.D. No. 15624
Counsel for Bradley Famer d/b/a
Crockett Log Homes of New
Cumberland
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-37O
CIVIL
REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
73.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as though set forth herein, their response to
paragraphs 1 through 72 of their Amended Complaint.
74. Averment 74 is not directed at Plaintiffs and no response by Plaintiffs is required.
75.
Averment 75 is not directed at Plaintiffs and no response by Plaintiffs is required.
In further answer, this averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is
required.
76.
Averment 76 is not directed to Plaintiffs and no response by Plaintiffs is required.
In further answer, this averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is
required.
77.
Averment 77 is not directed to Plaintiffs and no response by Plaintiffs is required.
In further answer, this averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is
required.
78.
Averment 78 is not directed to Plaintiffs and no response by Plaintiffs is required.
In further answer, this averment is a conclusion of law to which no response is
required.
79.
Averment 79 is not directed to Plaintiffs and no response by Plaintiffs is required.
In further answer thereto, this averment is a conclusion of law to which no
response is required.
80.
Averment 80 is not directed to Plaintiffs and no response by Plaintiffs is required.
In further answer thereto, this averment is a conclusion of law to which no
response is required.
81. Denied. Paragraph 81 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
82.
Denied. Paragraph 82 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. It
is further averred that Plaintiffs have adequately plead the specific damages
suffered as a result of the actions of Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. and
its agents, the other named defendants.
83.
Denied. Paragraph 83 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive
pleading is due.
84.
Denied. Paragraph 84 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive
pleadings is due.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request judgment in their favor and against the named Defendants.
Dated: December ~ ~, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774.-1445
Supreme Court I.D. 32317
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Barbara Sumple-Sullivaa, Esquire
Suprern~ Court #3231 ?
549 Bridge Street
N~w Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
STANLEY H. GKLMwooD aad
JENNIFER L. G~OOD,
Plaintiffs
BRADLEY FAKNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATUKAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
IN THE COLrRT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN SYLVANIA
NO. 02-370
CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
yERIFICATION
We, STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and JENNIFER L,. G MWOOD, hereby certify
that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Matter of Natural Building Systems, Inc.
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.. 4904 relatin$ to unswom
falsification to authorities.
,2002
6GOJ.. '~,,L2. 2_I2.
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-370
CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
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 REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC., in the above-captioned matter upon the following individual by first class mail,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Rupich
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
30 North 'rhird Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1713
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
DATED: December 27, 2002
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Attorney for Plaintiffs
(717) 774-1445
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-370
CIVIL
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, DOUGLAS DODSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC., AND
CROCKET LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.
73. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Counterclaimant purports to
be Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiffs are
without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the corporate status of said
corporation. If duly incorporated, it is further averred that said corporation fails to
follow the formaiities required of a corporation i.n dealing with third parties and the
public. It is admitted that a contract attached as Exhibit "C" is included herewith.
74.
Denied. It is denied that Defendant Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. performed
all items listed in the contract. It is further averred that the work that was
performed was not adequately completed.
75.
Denied. For the reasons set forth in the Amended Complaint, which complaint is
incorporated herein by reference, it is denied that all work was done in a proper
and workmanlike manner or that Plaintiffs indicated this to the Counterclaimant.
76.
Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs paid to Defendant
Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. certain sums. It is further averred that Plaintiffs
made other payment directly to Defendant Dodson for the work. The remainder of
the paragraph is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is
due.
77.
Denied. Prior to the initiation of the counterclaim, no demand has been made on
Plaintiffs for payment of said sums.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request judgment in their favor and against the named Defendants.
Dated: December 27, 2002
Respectfully/////~:~
~~B~ :>le-Sul~quire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumbedand, PA 17070
(717) 774-.1445
Supreme Court I.D. 32317
Attorney for Plaintiffs
2
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NI~W CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,, INC,,
CKOCKI~TT LOG HOMES OF
PA,, INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
· IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
' CI. JMBE~ COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO, 02-370
CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
We, STANLEY Ii. GRIMWOOD and JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD, hereby certify
that the facts ,et forth in the foregoing Answer to the Counterclaim of Douglas Dodson,
individually and d/b/a Crocket Log Hom~ of ]PA, In~ 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.. 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
$(anl~ H. ~rri~wood - --
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
· IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JENNIFER L. G IM OOD,
Plaintiffs
· CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
NO. 02-370
CIVIL
IURY TRIAL DEMANDED
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 TO COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, DOUGLAS
DODSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC., AND
CROCKET LOG HOMES OF PA., INC., in the above-captioned matter upon the following
individual by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Rupich
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1713
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
DATED: December 27, 2002
Ba~ple-Sullivan, EsqUire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Attorney for Plaintiffs
(717) 774-1445
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD, his wife,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a CROCKETT
LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
et al.,
Defendants.
No. 02-370
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT NATURAL BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.'S
REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM
Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc.("NBS"), by its undersigned counsel, Schnader
Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, files the following Reply to the New Matter of Defendant Bradley Famer
and avers as follows:
1-18. NBS incorporates by reference as though set forth herein its response to paragraphs 1
through 18 in its Answer to Amended Complaint and New Matter.
19. NBS incorporates by reference as though set forth herein its response to paragraph 19
in its Answer to Amended Complaint and New Matter. By way of further response, NBS states that it
is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief concerning all of the materials made
available to Plaintiffs, and thus NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief
regarding what was contained in those materials.
HBDATA:8140 v 1
20. NBS incorporates by reference as though set forth herein its response to paragraph 20
in its Answer to Amended Complaint and New Matter. By way of further response, NBS states that it
is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief regarding the remaining allegations in
Famer's response to paragraph 20.
21-25. NBS incorporates by reference as though set forth herein its response to paragraphs 21
through 25 in its Answer to Amended Complaint and New Matter.
26. NBS incorporates by reference as though set fonth herein its response to paragraph 26
in its Answer to Amended Complaint and New Matter. By way' of further response, NBS states that
Famer had purchased prior materials packages supplied to Croclkett-PA by NBS, with which Farner
could have built log homes and from which Farner could have gained construction experience.
27-36. NBS incorporates by reference as though set forth herein its response to paragraphs 27
through 36 in its Answer to Amended Complaint and New Matter.
37. NBS incorporates by reference as though set forth herein its response to paragraph 37
in its Answer to Amended Complaint and New Matter. By way of further answer, NBS states that it is
without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief regarding whether ceiling beams in the
master bedroom are sagging (subparagraph C), or whether the pine flooring is gapping and/or bowing
(subparagraph j). To the extent a further response is required, NBS specifically denies that any of the
materials it provided are defective, and avers to the contrary that none of the materials were defective.
38-63. NBS incorporates by reference as though set forth herein its response to paragraphs 38
through 63 in its Answer to Amended Complaint and New Matter.
64. NBS incorporates by reference as though set forth herein its response to paragraph 64
in its Answer to Amended Complaint and New Matter. By way of further response, NBS states that it
-2- HBDATA:8140 vl
is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief concerning all of the materials made
available to Plaintiffs, and thus NBS is without information of knowledge sufficient to form a belief
regarding what was contained in those materials.
65-72. NBS incorporates by reference as though set fol~h herein its response to paragraphs 65
through 72 in its Answer to Amended Complaint and New Mal~er.
_NEW MATTER WITH CROSS CLAIM
73. NBS incorporates by reference the allegations contained in its Answer to Amended
Complaint and New Matter as though set forth herein.
74-85. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraphs 74 through 85.
86. The allegations of paragraph 86 are not directed to NBS and therefore no response is
required. To the extent that response is deemed to be required, the allegations constitute conclusions of
law and are deemed denied. By way of further answer, NBS deni. es that it made misrepresentations of
any kind, but admits the remainder of paragraph 86.
87. Admitted.
88. Admitted.
89. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth of the allegations in paragraph 89. By way of further answer, NBS
states that the document attached as Exhibit A speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents.
-3- HBDATA:8140 vl
CROSSCLAIM
BRADLEY FARNER d/b/a CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
CUMBERLAND vs. NATURAL BUILDING_ NEW
SYSTEMS, INC,
90. NBS incorporates by reference its Answer to A~rnended Complaint and New Matter
and Reply to New Matter of Defendant Bradley Famer.
91. Admitted that NBS delivered materials necessary to build a custom Vershire model
pursuant to an October 25, 1999 order placed by Crockett-PA in response to an order Farner placed
with Crockett-PA.
92. Plaintiffs' Complaint and the exhibits attached thereto speak for themselves and are the
best evidence of their contents. To the extent a further response is required, NBS admits that Plaintiffs'
Complaint alleges the deficiencies set forth in paragraph 92.
93. After reasonable investigation, NBS is without information or knowledge sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth of the allegations in paragraph 93.
94. NBS denies the allegations of paragraph 94 as conclusions of law which require no
response and are deemed denied. To the extent a further response; is required, NBS denies that Farner
is entitled to indemnification.
-4- HBDATA:8140 vl
WHEREFORE, NBS prays that the Court enter judgment for NBS and against Defendant
Famer on Defendant Famer's Crossclaim, together with attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief
as the Court may deem appropriate.
Respectfully subnfitted,
MoniL~L. Reb~uck, I.D. No. 78225
Nicole Reimann, I.D. No. 57707
Attorneys for defendant Natural Building Systems,
Inc.
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 231-4000
Dated: January 6, 2003
-5- HBDATA:8140 vl
VE!!3[FICATION -
I.verifytMt ~e stat,ment~ mado in tlli~ Answer etd true and correct, I understand
that false statement$. , ...her~/n are made subject to. penalties of'18 PA~ C.S. § ,*904 relating to
umworn' falsi'ficati'on ~o authorities.
"Dated: January ~_i 2003
Dgnnis Richmond
NatUral Building Systems, i~c. ·
_CERTIFICATE OF SERVI_C.__E_E
I, Monica L. Rebuck, hereby certify that a true .and correct copy of the foregoing
Answer to Amended Complaint And New Matter of Defendant Natural Building Systems, Inc. was
served on January 6, 2003, via first class mail, postage prepaid to the following:
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Robert p. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
HBDATA:8140 vl
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIM OOD,
Plaintiffs
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-370
CIVIL
REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM OF
BRADLEY FARNER, D/B/A CROCKET LOG
HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
73.
The averments in paragraphs 1 through 72 of the Amended Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as though set fbrth in length.
74. Admitted.
75.
Admitted with the clarification that Plaintiff's controlled completion of certain
components of the work and hired others to do the work. It is averred that they
had no control over the work to be completed by Farner and that the faulty nature
of his completion of items is the basis of PlaintifFs' cause of action.
76.
Denied. It is denied that Farner's inability to complete construction of the house
still in the time frame normally expected was due to Plaintiffs' failures. It is denied
that any work to be completed by the Plaintiffs impacted the timely completion of
Defendant Farner's work. To the contrary, it is further averred that Defendant
Farner's failure to timely proceed with the work adversely impacted the timely and
cost efficient completion of the total construction by Plaintiffs and others.
77.
Denied. It is averred that Farner agreed to complete the construction on or before
December 6, 2000. Said date was a material term for the construction completion.
The remainder of the paragraph is denied since after reasonable investigation,
Plaintiffs are without knowledge as to the nature or beliefs of Defendant Famer.
78.
Denied. Defendant Farner had every opportunity to complete the work prior to his
removal from the job. Said removal occurred orfly after Defendant Farner had
taken no active efforts for several weeks after repeated notices from Plaintiffs to
complete the job. Defendant Farner advised Plaintiffs he would not return to
complete the work until more monies were released. Plaintiffs advised him that no
further sums were due given the terms of the corttract.
79.
Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is denied that many items cited by Plaintiffs as
being improperly performed or left uncompleted were to due to change of plans by
Plaintiffs themselves. It is admitted that certain changes, specifically the railings,
were negotiated between Plaintiffs and Defendant Farner. Regarding said
negotiation, Plaintiffs advised Defendant Famer at or near the signing of the
contract that a substitute railing was desired. Defendant Farner indicated his
acquiesce. He advised them that the railing would be one of the last things to be
completed. When Plaintiffs asked about the cos, ts for the change, Defendant
Farner advised Plaintiffs they could either keep the supplies of the original railing
kit or some type of credit arrangement would be made. Plaintiffs' alternate railing
choice was discussed on several occasions and each time, Defendant Farner's
response was that this was no problem and would be implemented as one of the
last things to be done. Despite the agreement and representation, Defendant
Farner proceeded to erect the standard kit posts. These had to be removed to
accommodate the desired railing. Defendant Fa~rner left a huge hole in the dry wall
after removal of the standard posts.
80.
Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that the brick and stone work was
the sole responsibility of Plaintiffs Grimwood. It is denied that many items
Plaintiffs complained of could not be completed by Farner because of the brick and
stone work or would have been damaged had they been installed prior to the brick
or stone work. The brick work was 100% complete early in the building process.
Regarding the railing, the brick was the only thintg that the railing tied into and this
is in a single spot. It is denied that ridge venting was in any way affected by
Defendant Farner's work. The chimney did not ,come near the peak of the
roof/ridge vent. It is averred that Defendant Farner, in fact, installed the ridge vent
prior to the chimney being run through the roof. It is admitted that partial stone
work was not complete in two areas where the downspouts would need to be
attached. Plaintiffs instructed Defendant Farner to proceed to install the gutters
and Plaintiffs would attach the downspouts in those limited areas affected by that
stone work. Defendant Farner could have proceeded since there was no issue of
the spouting being damaged because the stone work was below the spouting.
Plaintiffs had pursued vigorously the spouting installation by Defendant Farner
because of the damage the lack of installation thereof was causing to the already
installed, very expensive powder coated brick on the house. In response,
Defendant Farner advised Plaintiffs that he had contracted someone to do the
spouting but they were just really delayed in getl:ing to Plaintiffs' job.
81.
Denied. It is denied that flashing was not required on the specified section of the
sunroom roof. It is averred that such was an area where there are full logs not log
siding.
82.
Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Farner was not in
exclusive possession or control of the premises and would not be responsible for
damages created by persons for whom he had neither control nor the right to
control. It is denied that Defendant Farner is nol: responsible for the doors.
Defendant Farner is liable for the doors since it was performed by his workers. It
is further averred that Defendant Farner was not frequently on the jobsite and
failed to adequately monitor or review said situation. Regarding work which
4
Defendant Famer had to rework due to conduct of others, it is responded to as
follows:
A) Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that a piece of
skirting was affected. It is denied that said was the result of brick or
stone work. However, this single piece was pulled up during backhoe
work and was fixed by Defendant Farner's workers;
B) Denied. The loose corner was not originally attached properly during
original installation. This faulty installation led to the requirement of
it being reattached. There was no brick or stone work done near the
corner;
C) Denied. It is averred that Defendant Farner's workers caused the
holes when they used the front porch to cut their materials; and
D) One door was reset by Farner's workers, and even after two attempts,
did not work. After receiving no satisfaction from Defendant Farner,
the matter was then turned over to. an actual company representative
from the supply company. That representative indicated the
installation needed to include set screws. The representative noted
that none of the doors had set screws in them, as were required. No
other party meddled with his completed work. Defendant Farner's
faulty construction evidenced itself early in the job progress.
83.
Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Farner told
Plaintiffs to try to keep even heat in the house. It is averred that Plaintiffs'
followed Defendant Farner's direction. It is denied that they did not heed his
warnings.
84.
Denied. It is denied that staining resulted from Plaintiffs' lack of sealing or
cleaning. It is further averred that there is no obligation to seal brick work.
staining resulted from Defendant Farner's failure to install gutters.
The
5
85.
Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted[ that thb remainder of the contract
balance should be offset by any outstanding contract balance. It is denied that said
balance was $7,000.00. It was further averred that a portion of the sum was paid
to Douglas Dodson and Crockett Log Homes of Pa., Inc. for remedial work.
86.
Denied. Paragraph 86 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive
pleading is due.
87.
Denied. Paragraph 87 is denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive
pleading is due.
88.
Denied. After reasonable investigation, Plaintift§ are without sufficient knowledge
to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. It is asserted that no express
representation was made to Plaintiffs to lead them to recognize that any entity to
this transaction was not affiliated as "Crockett Log Homes." In the course of
dealing between the parties, no reference or distraction was made known to
Plaintiffs.
89.
Admitted with the clarification that while pre-printed documents issued by
"Crockett" made various references to Natural Building Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs
aver that no express representation was made known to Plaintiffs concerning the
interrelationship of the parties. It is averred that said product was marketed and
believed to be a "Crockett Log Home."
6
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their faw~r.
90.-94. Paragraphs 90-94 are not directed at Plaintiffs and no responses by Plaintiffs are
required.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment in their favor and against the named
Defendants.
Dated: January 17, 2003
RespectfullTmitted
/~~( Barbara Su~mple_Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-11445
Supreme Court I.D. 32317
Attorney for Plaintiffs
7
Barbara Sumplc-Sulliv~u, Esquire
Supram¢ Cotul g32317
549 B~ S~
N~w C~b~l~, PA 17070
STAGEY H. G~O~D
JEeR L. O~WOOD,
Pl~n~ffs
BRADLEY F~LNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATUR,~ BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
Dei'endants
· IN THE COUR'r OF COMMON PLEAS
· CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 02-.,70
CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
V'gRIFI.CATION
We, STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD, hereby ~nify
that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Mat~er and Cross Claim of Bradley
Farner, d/b/a Crock, et Leg Homes of Nm~, Cumberland are mae and c, orreci to the best of our
knowledge, information and belief, We understand that any false statemems made herein are
subject to penalties of 18 Pa, C.S.A.. 4904 relating lo unswom falsification to authorities.
DATED: ,. / - c~ Ct
,20C~
Grimw~,od
Grsmwood '
t'O 'd
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court #32317
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 774-1445
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
· IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
· CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA., INC.,
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
PA., INC. and NATURAL BUILDING
SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
NO. 02-370
CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
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 REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND CROSS-CLAIM OF
BRADLEY FARNER, D/B/A CROCKET LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND, in the
above-captioned matter upon the following individual by first class mail, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Rupich
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
DATED: January 17, 2003
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1713
/Bar;}ra Su.mple-Sullivan, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 32317
549 Bridge: Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070
Attorney for Plaintiffs
(717) 774-1445
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD, his wife,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a CROCKETT
LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
et al.,
Defendants.
No. 02-370
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter the appearance of Nicole Reimann, Esquire, and Vincent A.
LaMonaca, Esquire, of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, LLP, as counsel for defendant
NATURAL BUILDiNG SYSTEMS, INC., and remove the appearance of Monica L. Rebuck,
Esquire.
WITHDRAWING COUNSEL: ENTERING COUNSEL:
Monica L. Rebuck (Pa. I.D. No. 78225)
Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1701
(717) 364-1030
Date: December 5, 2003
lqicole Reimarm (P~a. I.D. No. 57707)
Vincent A. LaMonaca (Pa. I.D. No. 82321)
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286
(215) 751-2295
21150-1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD, his wife,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
BRADLEY FARNER, d/b/a CROCKETT
LOG HOMES OF NEW CUMBERLAND
et al.,
Defendants.
No. 02-370
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 8th day of December, 2003, a true and correct
copy of Praecipe for Substitution of Counsel was sent via First Class Mail, postage
prepaid, to:
Monica L. Rebuck, Esquire
Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
30 North Third Street, Suite 700
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1701
Barbara Sumple-Sullivan, Esquire
549 Bridge Street
New Cumberland, PA 17070-1981
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
P.O. Box 6034
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Dils & Dils
1017 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Vincent A. LaMonaca --
CHDATA 21171_1
STANLEY H. GRIMWOOD and
JENNIFER L. GRIMWOOD,
Plaintiffs
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
NO. 02-370 Civil Term
BRADLEY FARNER, d/bid
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF
NEW CUMBERLAND; DOUGLAS
DODSON, individually and d/b/a
CROCKETT LOG HOMES OF PA,
1NC., CROCKETT LOG HOMES
OF PA, INC. and NATURAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR DISCONTINU3d'qCE
TO: Curt Long, Prothonotary:
Discontinue the above action in its entirety, marking the Doc~ttled and
Discontinued." ~~//
Dated: August 4, 2004 ////""
/ l~'~t[ Smnple-Sullivan, Esquire
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Dated:
Dated:~ /~) ~- ~/7
Robert P. Reed, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant Bradley
Farner, dgo/a (;rocket Log Homes
of New Cumberland
Arthur K. Dils, Esquire
Counsel for Defendam Douglas
Dodson, individually and dfo/a
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.,
Crockett Log Homes of PA, Inc.
Nicole Reimann, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant Natural
Building Syste. ms, Inc.