HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-1611COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NOTICE OF APPEAL
Judicial District, County Of FROM
C?dck,
DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT
COMMON PLEAS No.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on
the date and in the case referenced below.
NAME OF APPELLANT MAG. DIET. NO. NAAAE OF D.J.
ADDRESS OF APPELLANT CnY STATE ZIP CODE
_7 0 A/- 5
DATE OF JUDGMENT
Av / 2d1 IN THE
C./ ?.? C.? / S/ ?? y? ??7 % L? G
DOCKET No. SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT OR ATTORNEY OR AGENT
zo Z --- G7`- !100 4 d
This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. If appeftant Wa Claimant (see Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(6) in action
R.C.P.D.J. No. 10088.
This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty
SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case.
(20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL.
d PtotGonotary nOpAAy
PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE
(This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF
NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee.
PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary
Enter rule upon 6,,,,i17 appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal
Name Of SAPOE S)
I' - l Lo ) I ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros.
(Common Pleas No. Gn^
7 / SlgnarureofappspanfarattomeyorageM
RULE: To appellee(s)
Name of appe#Ws)
(1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service
of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail.
(2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTER GAINST YOU.
(3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing.
Date: 20 1 Z_/
S0nM- ofProftvwftry or Dep0y
YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL.
AOPC 312-02
WHITE -COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY GREEN - COURT FILE YELLOW- APPELLANTS COPY
PINK -COPY TO BE SERVED ON APPELLEE GOLD -COPY TO BE SERVED ON DISTRICT JUSTICE
OAF THE PROTHON iAk-
2012 MAR 13 AM 10: 4'
W%6RLAND CUUNTY
103. so pal
R? a??33o
PROOF OF SERWCE' OF N07ICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT
(This proof of service MUST BEIFILED IMTHIIN TEN (t0) DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.)
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF : ss
AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served
? a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas , upon the District Justice designated. therein on
(date of service) 20 , ? by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail,
sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) , on
20 ? by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail,
sender's receipt attached hereto.
(SWORN) (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME
THIS DAY OF 20
Signature of affiant
Signature of official before whom affidavit was made
Title of official
My commission expires on 20
COMMONWEALTH OP PENNSYLVANIA Notice of Judgment/Transcript
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
0 1* Residential Lease
Mag. Dist. No: MDJ-09-2-02
MDJ Name: Honorable Jessica Brewbaker
Address: 18 North Hanover Street, Suite 106
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone: 717-240-6564
Paul J Grothe
4 E Louther St Apt #4
Carlisle, PA 17013-3020
Disposition Details
Grant possession.
Grant possession if money judgment is not satisfied by the time of eviction.
Disposition Summary
MJ-09202-LT-0000016-2012 Chris Petsinis Paul J Grothe
MJ-09202-CV-0000026-2012 Paul J Grothe Chris Petsinis
Judgment Summary
Participant Joint/Several Liability Individual Liability
Chris Petsinis $0.00 $0.00
Paul J Grothe $0.00 $2,623.99
Judgment Detail (*Post Judgment)
Chris Petsinis
V.
Paul J Grothe
Docket No: MJ-09202-LT-0000016-2012
Case Filed: 1/27/2012
Yes
No
Disposition
Judgment for Plaintiff
Judgment for Defendant
Disposition Date
02/13/2012
02/13/2012
Amount
$0.00
$2,623.99
In the matter of Chris Petsinis vs. Paul J Grothe on 2/13/2012 the disposition is Judgment for Plaintiff and judgment was awarded as
follows:
The amount of rent per month, as established by the Magisterial District Judge, is $500.00
Judgment Component Joint/Several Liability Individual Liability Deposit Applied
Rent in Arrears $0.00 $2,375.00
Costs $0.00 $124.33
Server Fees *
$0.00 $124.66
Grand Total:
Portion of judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease:
$2,623.99
$0.00
IN AN ACTION INVOLVING A RESIDENTIAL LEASE, ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION
WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF
COURT OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. THIS APPEAL WILL INCLUDE AN APPEAL OF THE MONEY JUDGMENT, IF
ANY. IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A SUPERSEDERS, THE APPELLANT MUST DEPOSIT WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF COURTS THE
LESSER OF THREE MONTHS RENT OR THE RENT ACTUALLY IN ARREARS ON THE DATE THE APPEAL IS FILED. HOWEVER, LOW-INCOME
AND/OR SECTION 8 TENANTS SHOULD REFER TO Pa.R.C.P,M.D.J. NO. 1008 OR 1013 FOR DIFFERENT PROCEDURES REGARDING THIS
DEPOSIT.
IF A PARTY WISHES ONLY TO APPEAL THE MONEY PORTION OF A JUDGMENT INVOLVING A RESIDENTIAL LEASE, THE PARTY HAS
30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN WHICH TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF
COURTS OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION.
THE PARTY FILING AN APPEAL MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THE NOTICE OF
APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE
JUDGMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME
FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE.
UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES,
OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT.
Am n
$2,375.00
$124.33
$124.66
MDJS 315A Page 1 of 3 Printed: 03/13/2012 10:33:39AM
rt
Chris Petsinis
w.
v.
r Paul J Grothe
Docket No.: MJ-09202-LT-0000016-2012
.t
A) t--
) 3 ) ?-
C611"
Date Magisterial District Judge Jessica Brewbaker
ct?
a,
14h i.1 k.
certify that is is a rue an correct copy o the record o the proceedings containing the judgment.
Date Magisterial District Judge
MDJS 315A Page 2 of 3 Printed: 03/13/2012 10:33:39AM
r
. , ,•.
, =
?- ?? I ? ,?; it ? ? C ??, II
rL i? V'
t.f
r
? Ret,rn R ? G'•,f '
_
C ;E idorsemeni !,e CA
ndorloeo0 f1 ui '? ?1,'
f ..
Total 'osT:ge h F
Sent To ...........................
i -
§ireet, APt. Nn.: --------------------
or Po Box No.
City Siaie,ZiP+4
l3lfl?lll?
. 1-1
?ILED-OFHCE
THE PROIHOWOTAR =
2812 MAR 13 AM 11' 14
CU Q NNSYLVAM A T
PROOF OF SERWCE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT
(This proof of serite MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.)
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF` ; ss
AFFIDAVIT. I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served
a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas ?, upon the District Justice designated therein on
(date of service) 1#4,2.6 h 13 , 20?, 6 by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail,
sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) L yt N A b 5 , on
/Yf?i1?[,G dj ?3 20 / Z ? by personal service aby (certified) (registered) mail,
sender's receipt attached hereto.
(SWORN) (AFFIRMED) ANCRIBED BEFORE ME
THIS L :3 DAY OF (20-J_Q.
Q .
Signature of official before whom aNdavit was made
Signature ofaKant
Title of official
NATHAN C. WOLF, ESQ. + 1 , !
SUPREME COURT ID NO. 87380
WOLF & WOLF, ATTORNEYS AT LAW #
10 WEST HIGH STREET 6L -4 p 1-H k :
CARLISLE PA 17013
717-241-4436 1 , + ( a i
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF -1113 C R L ! ,? i
CRISTON P. PETSINIS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO. 2012-1611
PAUL J. GROTHE, : LANDLORD TENANT
Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NOTICE TO DEFEND
i'OU 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
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-249-3166
NATHAN C. WOLF, ESQ.
SUPREME COURT ID NO. 87380
WOLF & WOLF, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
10 WEST HIGH STREET
CARLISLE PA 17013
717-241-4436
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CRISTON P. PETSINIS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. : NO. 2012-1611
PAUL J. GROTHE, : LANDLORD TENANT
Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMPLAINT
NOW, comes the plaintiff, Criston P. Petsinis, by his attorney, Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire,
and presents the following Complaint, representing as follows:
1. The plaintiff is Criston P. Petsinis (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff"), an adult individual
residing at 1127 Shannon Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
2. The defendant is Paul J. Grothe (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant"), an adult individual
residing at 70 W. South Street, Apartment 8, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
3. On or about November 1, 2006, Plaintiff purchased real property located at 37 North
Hanover Street and 4 East Louther Street, in which Defendant was residing as a tenant of the prior
owner.
4. No written lease existed and the Defendant's monthly rent was $500.00 per month.
5. In 2008, Defendant informed Plaintiff that he was going to be behind on his rent for several
months, but in 2010 had been making additional payments over and above his monthly rent until
such time as he was only one month in arrears.
6. In November 2011, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff indicating that he was having
problems with a mold condition in the apartment and that there was a roof leak contributing to the
moisture problems in the apartment and that he was moving by December 10, 2011 if the repairs
were not performed.
7. Despite this assertion, Defendant did not vacate the apartment as indicated.
8. Despite his allegations that the property was uninhabitable, Defendant did not move out of
the apartment until judgment of possession was granted by the Magisterial District Court and
possession was obtained through a Constable on or about March 4, 2012 but had ceased paying rent
due for October 2011.
9. Defendant had provided Plaintiff with a report from a building inspector who performed an
inspection for mold present in the apartment.
10. Plaintiff had the necessary repairs performed on the roof and any other deficiencies noted by
the Borough of Carlisle in its inspection by Michael A. Heyser on December 1, 2011.
11. Plaintiff contracted for the prompt repair of any deficient conditions and satisfied the
Borough in complying with the directive given to perform said repairs.
12. Despite the fact that the Borough Codes Officer did observe any mold conditions which
required action, Plaintiff nonetheless hired the inspector who performed the initial mold inspection
to likewise remediate the condition and resolve any issues raised by Defendant.
13. Plaintiff paid for the mold remediation, despite the fact that the inspector hired by
Defendant assured Plaintiff that the condition in the apartment did not present a health hazard.
14. Despite being notified of the repairs having being made, Defendant remained delinquent on
his rent and did provide any evidence of having escrowed his rental payments.
15. Plaintiff served the Defendant with notice to quit as required by law.
16. To date, Defendant has failed to pay $2,875.00 in rent, including rent for the month of
March.
17. Plaintiff has likewise incurred costs of litigation in connection with the collection of these
outstanding amounts due.
18. The total amount of rent and due includes $375.00 for rent remaining in arrears from
October 2011, plus $500 per month rent for the months of November 2011, December 2011,
January 2012, February 2012, and March 2012.
19. Plaintiff is entitled to rent due and owing when complaints raised by Defendant were
promptly addressed and rectified.
20. To date, Plaintiff has incurred attorney's fees in the amount of $500.00.
21. Defendant's failure to pay rent constitutes a breach of the parties' lease agreement.
22. Defendant has caused Plaintiff to incur costs in the amount of $248.99 to date.
23. Defendant's breach of the lease agreement in not paying rent, despite the timely remediation
of any necessary repairs has caused and continues to cause the damages suffered by Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court enter judgment against Defendant and for
Plaintiff in an amount of damages of not less than $2,875.00 for outstanding rent, plus costs of
litigation, attorney's fees, interest, and any other relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.
Respg&, tted,
WOLttorneys at Law
April 2012 By:
NAT F, ESQUIRE
WOLF & WOLF
10 West High Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 241-4436
Supreme Court I.D. No. 87380
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, hereby verify that I am the plaintiff in the instant action and that the facts
stated in the above complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.
§4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
- '-1 , 2012
TON P. PETSINIS
NATHAN C. WOLF, ESQ.
SUPREME COURT ID NO. 87380
WOLF & WOLF, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
10 WEST HIGH STREET
CARLISLE PA 17013
717-241-4436
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CRISTON P. PETSINIS
Plaintiff
v.
PAUL J. GROTHE,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2012-1611
LANDLORD TENANT
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I have this date served a true and correct copy of
the foregoing amended complaint upon the following person by U.S. mail, addressed as follows:
PAUL J. GROTHE
70 W. SOUTH STREET, APARTMENT 8
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
April , 2012
Nathan 9/?Wolf, Esquire
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRISTON P. PETSINIS,
Plaintiffs, i --
Case No.: 2012-1611 •'' 7--
t 1 a
.3 CD
PAUL J. GROTHE, LANDLORD TENANF' ?s= =^
CIVIL, ACTION - LAW> r
Defendant
.
ANSWER OF PAUL GROTHE
Pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1017(a), Defendant, Paul J. Grothe, answers Plaintiffs'
Complaint as follows:
1. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1.
2. Admitted.
3. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 3.
4. Defendant admits in part, denies in part. Defendant admits that he rented 4 East
Louther Street, Apartment 4 from William Costopoulos beginning approximately 2004 for $500
per month including water, trash and heat. It is further admitted that Defendant never executed a
written lease for the lease of 4 East Louther Street, Apt 4. With respect to the remainder of
Paragraph 4, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.
5. Defendant admits in part, denies in part. Defendant admits that in 2008 he missed
one rental payment that was made up within 60 days. The Defendant denies the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 5.
1
6. Paragraph 6 presents a sequence of events which is incomplete and inaccurate;
therefore, this paragraph is Denied.
7. Defendant admits in part, denies in part. Defendant admits that on March 6, 2012
he moved from the said Apartment. The Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph
7.
8. Defendant admits in part, denies in part. Defendant admits that on March 6, 2012
he moved from the said Apartment. The Defendant denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph
8.
9. Admitted.
10. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10.
11. Defendant denies that Plaintiff at any time performed any repair promptly while
Defendant resided at the said Apartment. Furthermore the Defendant denies Paragraph 11 to the
extent it alleges facts.
12. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12.
13. Defendant denies Plaintiff s allegation that the mold conditions presented a health
hazard. To the contrary, Defendant had lab reports from reputable mold testing companies
indicating that a mold levels were present in said Apartment that presente4d health hazards.
After reasonable investigation the Defendant denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph
in that the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13.
14. Denied. Defendant withheld rental payments when he was forced to move away
from the said Apartment because of the mold. Moreover, the Defendant clearly indicated to the
Plaintiff that he would return to the said Apartment and resume making rental payments when
the mold issued was resolved and the said Apartment was habitable.
15. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 15.
2
16. Denied. Defendant has paid all rent he legally owes to the Plaintiff.
17. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17.
18. Denied. Defendant has paid all rent he legally owes to the Plaintiff.
19. Denied. Defendant has paid all rent he legally owes to the Plaintiff.
20. Paragraph 20 contains a legal conclusion for which no response is required and
the Defendant specifically denies Paragraph 20 to the extent it alleges any facts.
21. Paragraph 21 contains a legal conclusion for which no response is required and
the Defendant specifically denies Paragraph 21 to the extent it alleges any facts.
22. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 22. To the extent that this
Paragraph alleges that the Defendant is responsible for any damages to the Plaintiff, such
allegations are denied.
23. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23. To the extent that this
Paragraph alleges that the Defendant is responsible for any damages to the Plaintiff, such
allegations are denied.
NEW MATTER
On information and belief and subject to further discovery and investigation, Defendants
set forth the following affirmative defenses. Defendants reserve the right to supplement these
defenses.
24. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
25. Plaintiff does not have standing to bring this action against Defendant because
Plaintiff has never owned the premises that Defendant leased.
26. Plaintiffs' claims are barred or limited by the doctrine of laches.
27. Plaintiffs' claims are barred or limited by the doctrines of waiver or estoppel.
3
28. Defendant's cessation of lease payments were justified under Pa Landlord-Tenant
law in that such rental payments were suspended when the said Apartment
became uninhabitable
29. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses after further
investigation and discovery.
4
COUNTERCLAIM OF PAUL GROTHE
Pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1031, Defendant, Paul J. Grothe files Counterclaim against
Plaintiff and avers as follows:
30. Paragraphs 1-29 are incorporated by reference as though they have been set forth
at length.
31. Plaintiff has resided at 4 East Louther Street, Apartment 4 since approximately 2002.
32. After Plaintiff and his wife purchased the building and became Plaintiff's landlords in
February, 2006, they decided to terminate the hot water radiator heating system in the
apartment and instead, install a single gas heater for the apartment.
33. After the heating systems were changed a moister problem quickly ensued which
existed to the day the Defendant moved from Apartment 4.
34. In late winter of 2007 the Defendant contacted Plaintiff and told Plaintiff that the
moisture problem developed into mold problem because of the heating system
changes and leaks in the roof/ceiling.
3 5. Following Defendant's complaint Plaintiff came to the apartment to inspect the
problems. After Plaintiff saw the mold on the ceilings, walls, closets and carpet, the
Plaintiff said that he would supply Defendant with the chemicals to clean the mold off
of the surfaces.
36. In addition to supplying Defendant with the cleaning supplies the Plaintiff also told
Defendant that he would have the leaks repaired so that the moisturelmold problems
would not reoccur.
37. Plaintiff did supply Defendant the chemicals and the Defendant completed the mold
removal as best he could. Despite the Plaintiff s assurances, he never rectified the
mold problems. Instead, the mold kept re-occurring every winter/spring and the
Defendant kept removing the mold through cleaning with the use of the chemicals
Plaintiff supplied to Defendant.
38. At the end of the winter of 2008 the Defendant stopped paying the gas bill and
terminated the gas heating system because of the consistent mold problems it was
causing.
39. At that point, instead of using gas heat to heat the apartment, the Defendant had to
resort to using a single electric heater. This change partly alleviated the mold problem
in several rooms; however, the Plaintiff continued to experience mold problems in the
bathroom and around windows in the apartment.
5
40. As these problems persisted the Defendant told the Plaintiff and showed him these
mold problem areas at the time and the Plaintiff again promised to correct these issues
and repair the roof and which you believed was causing the problems.
41. Despite these promises, you never made the necessary repairs to alleviate the mold
problems and the Defendant continued to live with these conditions for the last three
years.
42. Finally, the mold problems got so extreme that the Plaintiff became seriously sick for
over three weeks which eventually forced Plaintiff to move away from the apartment
on October 20, 2011.
43. On October 26, 2011 and on December 27, 2011 the Defendant was forced to seek
medical attention for mold related illnesses and was prescribed medications to
address the mold related symptoms that Defendant was suffering. A copy of the
Defendant's medical records from William I Phelan M.D. is attached hereto as
Exhibit #1.
44. From October 20, 2011 until March 1, 2012 the Defendant was forced to live with
friends and relatives until the problems in the apartment were repaired. In February,
2012 Plaintiff initiated eviction proceedings and on March 1, 2012, Plaintiff moved
permanently into his current address.
45. In December, 2011, the Defendant hired an independent building inspector (Stoner
Contracting Group LLQ to inspect the premises for mold and to perform mold
testing. Their preliminary results confirmed a positive finding for mold in the
apartment. A copy of this report is attached hereto as Exhibit #2.
46. When Defendant initially moved from the Apartment and throughout his stay away
from the Apartment the Defendant clearly communicated to the Plaintiff the reasons
why he moved out and that he would return and resume paying rent when the mold
problem was resolved. A copy of a letter sent by Defendant to the Plaintiff clearly
communicating this in December, 2011 is attached hereto as Exhibit#3.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
47. Paragraphs 1-46 are incorporated by reference as though they have been set forth at
length.
48. Plaintiff had a duty to make the Apartment that Defendant was residing at inhabitable.
6
49. Plaintiffs willfully disregarded his duty to make the apartment habitable by failing to
take corrective measures to alleviate the mold problems existing in the Apartment.
50. Plaintiffs willful disregard of his duties has caused severe and significant personal
injuries to the Defendant.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant demands that the Court finds in his favor and
against the Plaintiff for $50,000.
COUNT U - BREACH OF CONTRACT
51. Paragraphs 1-50 are incorporated by reference as though they have been set forth at
length.
52. As an owner of the Apartment the Plaintiff had a contractual obligation to ensure the
premises were habitable.
53. Beginning in the fall, 2011, the Apartment was inhabitable and caused the Defendant
to become sick and stay constantly sick.
54. In October, 2011, the Plaintiff breached his obligation to ensure the Apartment was
habitable.
55. As a result of this breach of contractual obligations, the Defendant has suffered
severe and significant personal injuries.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant demands that the Court finds in his favor and
against the Plaintiff for $50,000.
Dated: May 10, 2012 Respectfully submitted,
aulI oth
70 West Sotiffii Street, Apt 8
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone: 717-385-3067
7
VERIFICATION
I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: The attached Answer is based upon
information which is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I
hereby acknowledge that the averments of fact set forth in the aforesaid Answer are made subject
to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
,a
aulI
70 West Sof Street, Apt 8
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone: 717-385-3067
Dated:
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on May 10, 2012 true and correct copies of the Answer, New Matter, and
Counter-claim of Defendant, Paul J. Grothe, in the above captioned matter were served by hand delivery
to the following:
Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire
Wolf and Wolf
Attorneys at Law
10 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Paul J. oth
70 West South Street, Apt 8
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone: 717-385-3067
Dated:
9
O AM t U */-to -11 Bp T 7- . P 7e?- R LMP
WT ,;)a 7 HT HC ALLERGIES -??Y'?Z. AGE
1 0:
A:
P:
Paul comes in today for sinus pressure, drainage, cong x couple of days. Concerned about allergies and molds. Denies other complaints or
problems.
TM's clear; NT-NPMM; Neck supple; Lungs clear; heart reg; Abd; soft nontender, PBS, no organomegaly, etc; no CCE;
Skin; unremarkable.
Sinusitis, allergies.
Begin Cipro 500mg one po bid x 10 days. Prednisone 20mg bid x 5 days, once daily x 5 days. See pt back as needed. Contact if any p/c/d
in the meantime. The plan of treatment was discussed w/the patient and/or primary caregiver in detail and an understanding was
acknowledged. WJP/alm
DATE BP T.
I WT
HT HC ALLERGIES
AGE
zJa?l ..y°
Ie - /7c, 4 / j
90 ?
' vv
William J. Phelan, M.D.
2 Tyler Court
Carlisle, PA 1701.5
717-245-9101
P -R LMP
WS
Nd En Lo MME MISS MON au
-
NNIONA OF SEMCE
ONE D IMOOgWN INC. EEC10N5, [.
NOME IN
I Whole House Inspection - Radon Testing - Water Testing - Wood Boring Insect Inspections - Mold Testing & Asbestos Testing
Conventional, FHA, VA, USDA Financing Standards
Paul Grothe December 23, 2011
RE: Mold test results - 4 E Louther Street, Carlisle, PA
Dear Paul:
Enclosed you will find the certified lab test results of our mold samples done by MicroBac
Laboratories in Lingelstown, PA. Page 1 of 3 showed the results. Since most people are not
familiar with certified lab testing, a brief summary may be in order. Testing for every substance
is done using a specific testing protocol (method). In this instance, the protocol was BAM
CHI 8. This is the FDA approved test, as documented in the FDA Bacteriological Analytical
Manual. CHI 8 refers to the chapter in this manual that covers testing methods for Yeasts,
Molds, and Mycotoxins. By requiring all labs performing test on these organic agents to use the
same testing protocol, the results from one lab should be the same at another lab if they were
testing the same sample.
We took two samples at 4 E. Louther. The first sample was taken along the kitchen and
bathroom trim and walls where we observed visible water staining. The results of his test were
in excess of 57,000 CFU's.
The second sample was taken around the baseboard in the bedroom, again where visible water
staining was seen. The results of this test were 100 CFU's.
It is important to understand what this swab test shows. As you saw, we took a sterile sponge
swab, impregnated with a nutrient solution, out of a sterile packet. Using sterile gloves,
included in the packet, we wiped this sponge over the suspect area. We used a separate test
packet for each area to avoid cross contamination. We then identified the swab samples, placed
them back in their sterile containers, and took them to the lab. We provide the lab with a chain
of custody form which certifies that we had control of the sample from the time it was collected
until we turned it over to them. The signatures on this form document the turn-over. Leslie was
our delivery person so it's her signature on the form.
The lab divides the sponge (sponges in this case) into several identical sized samples and places
each in a nutrient solution. No individual species of mold will grow in a single nutrient solution
so the samples are placed in solutions that will support mold growth in all the different species
of mold.
706 Somerset Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Cell: (717) 395-6223 - Office (717) 766-7825 - FAX (717) 766-7825
These samples are then incubated for 4 days under a set temperature and humidity environment
as established in BAM CHI8 by the FDA. Since this is a certified lab, they are checked on a
regular basis by the FDA to assure they are following the appropriate testing methods.
After the 4 day incubation, the samples are removed from incubation, stained, and put under an
electronic counter that counts the individual mold colonies that grew out of the spores we
collected on the swab. It is this number of colonies that is on the report and noted as CFU's or
COLONY FORMING UNITS.
The purpose of this test is to amplify the original mold spores by forcing them to grow into
colonies. The number of individual mold spores means nothing in a natural environment but
given the right mix of temperature, humidity, and a suitable food source, the number of colonies
these spores can produce is important and the key finding of this testing method. Unlike air
quality sampling, only live mold spores will grow using the incubation method. We don't care
about dead spores as they represent no health hazard. What we care about is the number of
living spores and how fast they can develop into colonies that give off more spores, repeating
this cycle until they represent a health risk.
I also want to point out that we have instructed the lab to stop counting individual colonies when
the count gets to 57,000 and simply note that the actual count exceeds this number. We do this
because we are well into the area where we recommend corrective action (25,000 CFU's) and
numbers higher than 57,000 have no value in the determination if mold exist or not. At this and
higher levels, we know it exist and it exist at a level that represents a potential health risk. Your
actual results could have been much higher than the number reported.
Although the FDA does NOT specify what is a safe or unsafe CFU value, the University of
Minnesota has done testing and compiled data on the health risk associated with various levels
of mold contamination. Per their research:
less than 10,000 CFUs of mold per gram in a culture sample plate = low mold contamination level
10,000 to 100,000 CFUs of mold per gram in a culture sample plate = medium mold contamination level
100,000 to 1,000,000 CFUs of mold per gram in a culture sample plate = medium to heavy mold contamination level
> 1,000,000 CFUs of mold per gram in a culture sample plate = heavy
I need to point out that although one of your samples tested in excess of 57,000 CFU's which
puts it about mid-range within the MEDIUM MOLD CONTAMINATION LEVEL, this
represents the potential for the number of mold spores to form individual colonies within 4 days.
Given a week, the number goes up exponentially. Usually we recommend remediation of the
affected area when the CFU number exceeds 25,000 since this seems to represent normal mold
contamination levels found during the worse days outside the home. This occurs during fall
when leaves (a food source) fall to the ground and get rained on during a time of the year when
the sun can give daytime temperatures in the 60's and above. You have food, moisture, and
heat, all necessary for mold to grow.
Since your tested value exceeds our typical action level by at least 8 times, we would
recommend treatment in the area of the bath/kitchen where this sample was taken.
706 Somerset Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Cell: (717) 395-6223 - Office (717) 766-7825 - FAX (717) 766-7825
As we briefly discussed, remediation treatment can take many forms. One of the larger firms in
this area, Tuckey, takes the approach of removing all material even suspected as being
contaminated and rebuilding the area back to original condition. Our firm tends to take a less
invasive approach, using chemicals to kill the mold and coat the affected area with a substance
containing copper. Mold and mildew can not become established or survive where copper is
present. Our success rate using this approach is extremely high as can be seen on the separate
report showing the pre- and post- remediation test results in a highly contaminated house we did
in the past. We had the lab do a full count on that sample because it was going to be the basis
for a court case involving health issues. Their electronic counter can not read above 5.7 million
CFU's so that's where they had to stop counting. The important thing is to look at how low we
were able to reduce this number using a single treatment of the same chemicals we would be
using at your address.
I don't want you to think we will be applying dangerous chemicals to perform this work. We do
not use any chemicals that contain or act as a bleaching agent so there is no color changes or
spotting of textile materials we would treat. Although we're not completely sold on the value of
"green" treatment chemicals due to their extremely high prices, the chemicals we use are USDA,
FDA, EPA, and Hospital rated for use in and on food contact surfaces. I've attached a list of all
the agents we use in our remediation work. Our actual selection of which of these we would
apply at your address would be determined by the temperature at the time of our work since
some of our agents work better at certain temperatures ranges than others. We also switch
between chemicals based on the materials they will be applied to. Some of our agents work
better on materials that have solid surfaces and other chemicals work better or porous materials.
Please review this attached lab report, the copy of our report from a previous remediation we
performed using the same chemical approach we expect to use here, and let us know if you
would like a formal proposal for remediation. Based on my site-visit during the sample taking, I
would think we're somewhere around $700.00 and we would deal with any trim removal and
reinstallation to allow us access to the walls behind the trim. We use specialized spray wands
that allow us to treat the inside of wall cavities. We usually remove sections of wood trim, drill
a 3/8" hole into the wall cavity, insert our specialized flexible sprayer wands, and treat the wall
cavity. After we're done, we fill the hole with drywall joint compound and cover it with the
original trim.
Thank you for selecting BIS Home Inspection Services for your mold testing and if you find our
estimated price satisfactory, we will provide you with a formal proposal and detailed scope of
work for signatures.
Fred Stoner
BIS Home Inspection Services
706 Somerset Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA
706 Somerset Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Cell: (717) 395-6223 - Office (717) 766-7825 - FAX (717) 766-7825
Microbac Laboratories, Inc.
Central Pennsylvania Division
Certificate of Analysis
Laboratory ID: 1129839
Contact: FRED STONER
BIS HOME INSPECTION SERVICE Project Name: Home Inspection Testing
FRED STONER Project / PO Number: N/A
706 SOMERSET DRIVE Date Received: December 13, 2011
MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Time Received: 12:35 pm
Analytical Testing Parameters
Client Sample ID:Louther St Bath and Kitchen
Lab Sample ID: 1129839-01
Collection Date: 12/12/2011
Collection Time: 4:00 pm
Collected By: FRED STONER
MICROBIOLOGY
Parameter Result Units PQL Method Prepared Analyzed Analyst
Mold >57000 CFU/Swab 100 BAM CH18 12/13/2011 1830 12/1812011 1630 GLF
Analytical Testing Parameters
Client Sample ID: Louther St Baseboard Bedroom
Lab Sample ID: 1129839-02
MICROBIOLOGY
Parameter
Result
Collection Date: 12/12/2011
Collection Time: 4:00 pm
Collected By: FRED STONER
Units PQL Method Prepared Analyzed Analyst
Mold 100 CFU/Swab 100 BAM CH18 12/13/2011 1830 12/18/2011 1630 GLF
Laboratory Certifications:
Below is a list ofceltifigtions maintained by Microbac Laboratodes, Inc. All data induded in this report has been reviewed forand meets all projeatspedfic and
quality control requirements of the applicable atrredliabon, unless otherwise noted. A complete list of individual analytes pursuant to each certU3cahon below is
available upon request.
- NELAP (PA): 22-00578
- NELAP (N7): PAO19
- Delaware: DE-PA
- Indiana: C-PA09
- Kentucky: 90143
- Massachusetts: M-PA1401
- New York: 11650
- North Carolina: 42708
-Tennessee: TN02865
- Virginia: 00433
4359 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
www.microbac.com
Phone: 717-651-9700
Fax: 717-657-0752
Page 1 of 3
Microbac Laboratories, Inc
Central Pennsylvania Division
Certificate of Analysis
Report Comments:
The PQL is the Practical Quantitation Limit, which is defined as the lowest quantitation level of an analyte that can be readily achieved within the
specified limits of precision and accuracy of an analytical method during routine laboratory operating conditions. The value may be raised depending on the
characteristics or behavior of the target analyte.
All samples were analyzed "as received" from the client. Microbac Laboratories, Inc: Central Pennsylvania Division can only assume that all samples were
collected and submitted by the CLIENT following the appropriate protocols set forth by the regulatory requirements. This document shall not be reproduced,
except in full, without the written approval of Microbac Laboratories, Inc: Central Pennsylvania Division. If there are any technical questions pertaining to
this laboratory report please contact a Client Services Coordinator or the Laboratory Director at (717) 651-9700.
Reviewed and Approved By:
Samantha Y. Saultz
Quality Assurance Officer
For any feedback concerning our services, please contact Cherie Gudz, the Division Manager at 717.651.9700. You may also contact
both James Nokes, President at president@mkmbec.com and Sean Hyde, Chief Operating Officer at sean.hyde@microbac.com.
Please help us in meeting our Go Green initiative by selecting to have reports and invoices submitted via
email only. Please contact Cherie.Gudz@
Microbac.com to set up email reporting and invoicing options.
Date Reviewed and Approved:
12/21/2011
Labomtory ID: 1129839
4359 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
www.microbac.com
Phone: 717-651-9700
Fax: 717-657-0752
Page 2 o3
in
O
3
a
2
n
C)
`c
0
irnnnn
1129839
.. :4 -
? r .0
z
z z
• w
?p. =
I
'
S
II
> Ilk
3 _ D
i.A
1
? • 3
r
n
0
?
•
a a '? N L
• A
. I la
C 3.
CA)
8 c cc
-
• v
? c> c S $ ' n
4F r
?p
a
T s
q
' m
D , A
r
03
Y/
d g m .?
? r
v
w c
- ,
- s ? gm
mr ? m
m T
4°' N
o
•
9
0
.•
g
?m O ,
? m :
?C
?•
r
r
^ ..
D
?... N n
v
-4
m
T OW
# of
o
?' 8 4 a
"
o
n ?? N m
A-
?
S
T ample
1PB u i
?`
1 x u v
? S
3 3 z v O
?
c ran'Gor 1 s1
9 D
a rn t
...
^ Wet* Q6...r- c w.r is C
GdS
3
a 3
? 3
°
ya
fp ?'
m a
Y a
? _ ,
m _
M
tP A
?
s Is 19
8
-
• ?
° m ?
c o
s 3 ? y
? O •••
m O
S C,
y o
s ?
?
• ? z 2 Z z z z z
3-
D
D
D ZZ
D ZZ
D ACC
,,
v °
m :
v n
TM
mm"I NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
HOME INSPECTORS, INC.
BIB
BCE
706 Son I '
Mechanicsb A 1O55
Realty Firm I
1 East School Side Lane
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Invoice
Date Invoice #
12/10/2011 916
December 14, 2011
Criston P. and Sotiria P. Petsinis
1127 Shannon Lane
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: 4 East Louther Street, Apt 4, Carlisle, PA 17013
Dear Chris & Teri-
I have been living at 4 East Louther Street, Apartment 4 since approximately 2002. After
you purchased the building an&became my landlords in February, 2006, you decided
later in 2006 to terminate the hot water radiator heating system in the apartment and
instead, install a single gas heater for the apartment. After you changed heating systems a
moister problem quickly ensued which has existed to this day.
In late winter of 2007 I contacted you and told you that the moisture problem developed
into mold problem because of the heating system changes and leaks in the roof/ceiling.
Following my complaint you came to the apartment to inspect the problems. After you
saw the mold on the ceilings, walls, closets and carpet, you said that you would supply
me the chemicals to clean the mold off of the surfaces. In addition to supplying me with
the cleaning supplies you also told me that you would have the leaks repaired so that the
moisture/mold problems would not reoccur.
You did supply me the chemicals and I completed the mold removal as best I could.
Despite your assurances, you never rectified the mold problems. Instead, the mold kept
re-occurring every winter/spring and I kept removing the mold through cleaning with the
use of the chemicals you supplied me.
Eventually, at the end of the winter of 20081 stopped paying the gas bill and terminated
the gas heating system because of the consistent mold problems it was causing. Instead of
using gas heat to heat the apartment, I had to resort to using a single electric heater. This
change partly alleviated the mold problem in several rooms; however, I continued to
experience mold problems in the bathroom and around windows in the apartment. I told
you and showed you these mold problem areas at the time and you promised to correct
these issues and repair the roof and which you believed was causing the problems.
Despite these promises, you never made the necessary repairs to alleviate the mold
problems and I lived with these conditions for the last three years. Finally, the mold
problems got so extreme that I became seriously sick for three + weeks which eventually
forced me to move away from the apartment on October 20, 2011. Since that time I have
been forced to live with friends and relatives until the problems in the apartment are
finally repaired.
I have hired an independent building inspector (Stoner Contracting Group LLC) to
inspect the premises for mold and to perform mold testing. Their preliminary results
confirmed a positive finding for mold in the apartment. The final results will be provided
to me (and thus, to you) in a more detailed report in the next week or so.
I want to make it very clear to you that once you make the necessary repairs to the
apartment, I intend to return to living at the apartment and begin making my rental
payments. However, until I receive written confirmation/verification that the required
repairs were made to alleviate the mold problems, I will not be returning to the
apartment.
Below I have included two brief articles I found on the internet concerning mold health
issues and mold remediation projects for your review. I have also included a copy of the
PA Landlord and Tenant Law that provides an implied warranty of Habitability when a
tenant rents from a landlord in Pennsylvania.
Should you have any questions or would like to discuss anything in this letter, please
prepare your response in writing and send it to me at the apartment address - I have my
mail forwarded to my temporary address until you make the necessary repairs and I am
allowed to return to the apartment
Sincerely,
Paul I Grothe
PA IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
The implied warranty of habitability is probably the most used defense to payment of
rent in the residential setting. In Pennsylvania the warranty dates back to 1979, when it
was legislated into existence by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Pugh >>.
Holmes. The doctrine quickly became a fixture of the Commonwealth's landlord-tenant
law and gave the tenant a new and potentially powerful set of remedies against its
landlord.
Tenants frequently misuse the habitability doctrine on the flimsiest of pretexts.
However, a residential landlord can take heart from the fact that only a serious defect
should result in relief to a tenant. The Holmes court put it this way: "In order to
constitute a breach of the warranty, the defect must be of a nature and kind which will
prevent the use of the dwelling for its intended purpose to provide premises fit for
habitation by its dwellers . . . this means the premises must be safe and sanitary; of
course, there is no obligation on the part of the landlord to supply a perfect or
aesthetically pleasing dwelling."
The habitability analysis often has a subjective "beauty pageant" feel to it--whether
the apartment is fit for habitation is in the eye of the beholder (who is usually a district
justice). Some guidance, however, is provided by the judicial record which establishes
that the residence contains specific defects that, individually or collectively, may give rise
to the breach of the implied warranty of habitability; those defects include lack of heat,
broken windows, broken locks, lack of potable water, health code violations, fire code
violations, non-functional fire alarms, water intrusion, and mold.
MOLD
Health Concerns
One of the difficult challenges facing medical professionals involved with mold-related
health problems is establishing a dose-response relationship. Because airborne mold is
ubiquitous in indoor and outdoor environments, it is difficult to assess how much mold
causes adverse health effects. Adding to this complexity is the fact that health responses
and sensitivities vary in the human population and that other stresses can cause health
effects similar to mold exposure.
Most data on health problems from mold come from animal ingestion studies (such as
horses eating moldy hay) or from high doses of human exposure (such as farmers
pitching the moldy hay or silage). Less is known about lower dose exposure over time,
such as occupants in buildings where mold is contained in wall cavities. Epidemiological
studies by occupational physicians in landmark cases (the Polk County Courthouse, for
example) have shown links between occupant exposure to higher than normal
concentrations of mold and to atypical indoor mold types and development of asthma and
other immune-response diseases. However, the dose that causes these problems is not
easily determined.
All molds can cause health problems, since they produce allergens and irritants that cause
reactions in humans. Some molds also produce toxins (mycotoxins) as part of their
defense mechanisms. What is important to know in dealing with remediation of mold is
that it remains allergenic and toxigenic even in a non-viable state. Therefore; it is not
enough to kill mold by, for example, applying a biocide like bleach; the mold and the
materials on which it is growing need to be removed from the indoor environment. Such
removal work must be contained, like asbestos removal, to minimize contamination of
other parts of the building. Considering the cost and disruption of such remediation
activities, it is easy to see that the best policy is preventing mold in the first place by
control of moisture..
Another consideration in the control of mold growth is what it does to the building.
Uncontrolled mold growth can cause aesthetic problems, such as discoloration and odors,
deterioration of building materials, and, in wood frame buildings, structural failure.
The highest priority during a mold remediation should be to protect the health and safety
of the building occupants, the investigation team, and the remediation crew. A moisture
and mold remediation plan must be developed, which includes steps to remove the source
of the moisture, use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) by investigators
and remediators, and steps to contain and remove building materials contaminated by
mold. Assessing the Extent of the Mold Problem
Knowing the extent of mold growth is important because it establishes the levels of
remedial actions. The greater the extent of mold, the greater the need for engineering
controls, such as containments under negative pressure, during remediation. Both the
EPA and NYC DOH guidelines establish their remediation action guidelines based on the
extent of mold contamination. However, there is no single tool that can measure extent of
mold.
Visual Assessment
If the mold contamination is visible, visual assessment is the most important method of
determining the extent of mold contamination in a building. Fiber-optic borescopes with
a high-power light source are sometimes useful in surveying hidden spaces, such as wall
cavities; however, they are often difficult to use because of visual obstructions, such as
insulation, within the cavities. A visual survey can be supplemented with some direct
reading measurement tools, such as moisture meters, infrared thermography, and
temperature/relative humidity meters. Destructive testing such as cutting out small
sections of gypsum wallboard to examine the cavity side can be important as well.
However, information from these measurements should be considered as aids supporting
visual assessment and professional judgment.
Along with a visual survey, interviewing occupants and maintenance personnel can aid in
determining the extent of mold contamination. These eye-witnesses can provide valuable
information on past water incursion events (when, where, what type, and for how long).
They may also know where mold has been covered with paint or other coatings.
Sampling for mold, especially air sampling, is generally not helpful in determining the
extent of mold. In fact, the possibility of false negatives (and sometimes false positives)
can confound the assessment methodology. In addition, results from sampling are often
misinterpreted by the lay person, and may lead to unwarranted panic by building
occupants. Generally, if you can see mold, you don't need to sample it to determine the
extent, and if you cannot see mold, air sampling will not reveal the extent of hidden
mold.
Sampling for Mold
Mold sampling, with analysis by a laboratory accredited under the American Industrial
Hygiene Association Environmental Microbiology Proficiency Analytical Testing
program, may be needed in the following cases:
• When the medical professionals involved require the information to diagnose the
occupants' health problems and/or to determine if a link exists between the health
problems and exposure.
• To establish remediation protocols, including clearance criteria. It is often useful to
know the kinds of molds that are causing contamination so that those particular "marker"
fungi can be looked for during clearance sampling (if clearance sampling is justified). If
post-remediation clearance sampling indicates a significant reduction in the marker fungi
to a predetermined goal, then one can assume the remediation has been successful (as
long as other post-remediation clearance criteria are met).
• When required for litigation or insurance recovery, such as to confirm that the
visually observed "mold" is indeed mold or to help establish cause. The cause of mold, if
not readily apparent, can sometimes be deduced from the species identified in bulk
samples of materials analyzed by culture method. For example, presence of hydrophilic
(water-loving) fungi (e.g., Stachybotrys chartarum ) in bulk samples is indicative of
liquid water incursion, such as rainwater flooding or pipe bursts. The presence of
xerophilic (dry-loving) or xerotolerant (dry tolerant) species, including some Penicillium
and Aspergillus species, especially if the samples were collected significantly above floor
level, is more likely indicative of high relative humidity problems.
• To determine if hidden mold exists. While sampling cannot determine the extent of
hidden mold, dust or carpet dust sampling may be able to determine if hidden mold
exists, if it is not readily apparent on visible surfaces. For example, elevated
concentrations of a few species of atypical mold in carpet dust may indicate either growth
in the carpet (if the carpet has been wetted) and/or mold contamination in hidden
locations. In the latter case, the carpet dust can contain elevated concentrations of
atypical fungal spores that have come from another source in the building and settled out
from the air into the carpet. Air sampling is another methodology for determining if
hidden mold exists, but it is subject to false negatives. That is, mold spores may not be
present in the air, even if mold is growing on building materials. Air sampling for
microbial volatile organic compounds (MVOCs), which are responsible for mold odors,
is a newly developing method for determining if hidden mold exists; however, it is still
being developed, and firm correlations may not yet be established. In any case, if you can
detect mold odors by smell, mold is present somewhere in the building.
Critical to the success of mold sampling is first establishing a useful sampling strategy.
Determine what you want to know, and decide how to deal with unexpected answers. The
latter concern is important in determining whether sampling should be performed at all,
especially if the information can become public record or has the potential for being used
during litigation.
Mold remediation strategies have been developed from the work practices used in
asbestos abatement. These practices work well for containing airborne mold that is
aerosolized during demolition and for the protection of workers performing the
remediation. The biggest difference between mold and asbestos abatement is that, unlike
asbestos in work, water must not be used in mold work to control airborne particulate.
This would like be adding fuel to the fire.
The assessment of the extent of mold and the development of mold remediation plans
should generally be done by experienced professionals. The mold remediation should
then be done by experienced and certified mold remediation professionals. A number of
organizations offer certification programs for professionals involved in assessing and
remediating mold problems, including the American Board of Industrial Hygienists
(ABIH), and the American Council for Accredited Certification (ACAC). For ventilation
systems, the National Air Duct Cleaners Association (NADCA) provides a certification
program. 61
Planning Mold Remediation Strategies
The EPA and NYC DOH documents provide action levels for types of containment and
worker protection based on the amount of surface area affected by mold. The EPA
document sets these action levels for mold growth caused by clean water. Mold caused
by polluted water, including sewage backups, may require a different set of procedures
and worker protection. The three EPA action levels are set at affected areas of less than
10 square feet, between 10 and 100, and greater than 100 square feet.
In addition to the size of the affected area, the type of material to be remediated needs to
be considered. Generally, materials that are highly porous, such as books, gypsum
wallboard and fabric covered chairs, will need to be discarded if heavily contaminated.
This is because the fungal hyphae can become entwined in the matrix of the porous
material, making complete removal impossible. Nonporous metals and plastics can
generally be cleaned, because the mold growth on these surfaces is usually growth on
surface dust. However it's also possible for mold to grow on painted nonporous surfaces.
Table 2 of Mold Remediation in Schools and
Commercial Buildings presents the cleaning methods for different materials. In any case,
a key point is that biocides will generally not solve the mold problem, especially for
porous and semiporous materials. The biocides may not reach all of the mold growth, and
even if they do, mold remains allergenic and toxigenic after it dies. Complete removal of
the mold-contaminated porous material is the best strategy.
In addition to the amount of mold contamination and the type of material, the population
of the building must be considered when developing the remediation plan. Sensitive
populations include those with health deficiencies such as people with immune
deficiencies. Children in day care centers or senior citizens in nursing homes should also
be considered sensitive populations. For application to such sensitive facilities, the
requirements for clearance and verification of removal of mold contaminated materials
must be much more stringent than typical commercial projects.
Generally, remediation strategies include the following:
• Installing containments, generally using 6-mil polyethylene sheeting, to separate the
mold abatement wort: area from oiil & uncontaminated or occupied areas of the building.
Generally, containments are placed under negative pressure relative to the rest of the
building using air filtration devices (AFDs) equipped with high-efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filters. The air is discharged outside the containment, usually to the outdoor
atmosphere. Air handling systems must be isolated from the work area.
• Equipping remediation workers with PPE. The degree of protection can vary
depending on the size of affected area, but at a minimum the equipment should include a
respirator, gloves, and goggles. For larger containment work, workers should have full
skin, respiratory and mucous membrane protection, such as that provided by full Tyvek
suits, gloves and full-face respirators with HEPA filter cartridges. Workers in
containment are subject to very high concentrations of aerosolized mold spores, and other
mold parts, so full protection is advised. Skin protection is important because some molds
can cause dermatitis, and some mold toxins can be absorbed through the skin. Workers
wearing PPE must have proper training in its use, medical clearance, and fit testing.
• Providing proper tools for workers, including HEPA-filtered vacuums. Ideally, they
should be able to remove mold-contaminated gypsum wallboard in large pieces to
minimize aerosolizing mold spores.
• Sealing removed material in doubled 6-mil polyethylene bags or wrapped in
polyethylene sheeting, while in the containment, and then disposing in a landfill for
composting, not for recycling.
• Cleaning after removal work, usually after a dust settlement period, using HEPA
vacuums and damp wiping with clean cloths moistened with clean potable water or a
mixture of 9 parts water to 1 part bleach. The HEPA vacuuming and damp wiping should
not be construed as methods to remove mold growth. However, they can remove the
settled dust that contains loose mold spores aerosolized during demolition.
SUPRFAW COURT I NO. MW 2012 MA Y 2 3 PM 1: 13
WOLF & WOLF, AT ORNEYS AT LAW
nw rFIIGHSTREET
PA17013
CCA
R
L CUMBERLAND CQUN f y
7-
?
i? PENNSYLVANIA
AT ORMY FOR PLAIINTIFF
CRI N P. PET$INIS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : NO.2OU-1611
PAUL J. GROTHE, : LANDLORD TENANT
Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NOW, comes the plaintiff, Criston P. Petsinis, by his attorney, Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire,
and presents the following preliminary objections, representing as follows:
1. The plaintiff is Criston P. Petsinis (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff ), an adult individual
residing at 1127 Shannon Lane, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
2. The defendant is Paul J. Grothe (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant', an adult individual
residing at 70 W. South Street, Apartment 8, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
3. On or about April 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant complaint alleging damages for
violations of the Landlord Tenant Act of 1951, and seeking damages from the Defendant.
4. On or about May 10, 2012, Defendant filed an Answer, with New Matter and a
Counterclaim against the Plaintiff.
PRREUMINARY QMCTIONS TO
5. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully
6. Defendant attempts to raise, as affirmative defenses under the heading of new matter, the
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the lack of standing of the Plaintiff to
bring the instant action against the Defendant based on the allegation that Plaintiff did not own the
premises that Defendant leased.
7. Defendant also attempts to raise by general averment the defenses of laches, estoppel,
waiver, and justification under the New Matter heading.
8. Defendant's mere references to the affirmative defenses are insufficient establish said
defenses and the failure of Defendant to set forth a factual basis for these defenses as required under
Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) is violative of Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) and Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4).
9. Defendant's New Matter lacks sufficient information to enable the instant Plaintiff to
properly plead a reply and therefore lack sufficient specificity to conform to the requirements of a
proper pleading.
10. Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim was not endorsed with an Notice to
Plead as required by Rule 1026, and should therefore be stricken as it fails to conform to law or rule
of court, contrary to Pa. R.C.P. 1028 (a)(2)
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Criston Petsinis, requests your Honorable Court to dismiss the Answer
and New Matter of the Defendant along with any additional relief the Court deems appropriate and
just.
11. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporate by reference as if set forth fully herein.
12. Defendant attempts to raise a counterclaim for negligence against plaintiff arising out of the
landlord tenant relationship and claiming that Plaintiff breached some sort of duty to maintain the
Defendant's apartment.
13. Defendant fails to aver elements of the claim of negligence or sufficient facts to establish
such a claim.
14. As such that Defendant's claim for negligence is legally insufficient and should be dismissed
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (demurrer).
15. Defendant's claim also lacks sufficient specificity as it lacks sufficient facts to establish a
claim against the Plaintiff.
16. Defendant's counterclaim for negligence should be dismissed for violations of Pa.R.C.P.
1028(a)(3) and 1028(a)(4).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Criston Petsinis, requests your Honorable Court to dismiss the Count I -
Negligence of the Counterclaim of the Defendant along with any additional relief the Court deems
appropriate and just.
17. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporate by reference as if set forth fully herein.
18. Defendant attempts to raise a counterclaim for breach of contract against plaintiff arising
out of the landlord tenant relationship and claiming that Plaintiff breached some sort of duty to
maintain the Defendant's apartment.
19. Defendant fails to include sufficient facts in his counterclaim to establish a breach of the
landlord tenant agreement as it fails to establish that Plaintiff had notice of any defective condition
between 2007 and 2011.
20. Defendant omits from his pleading that Plaintiff did not have access to the Defendant's
apartment as Defendant had possession of the only keys to the apartment.
r
21. As such Plaintiff had no notice of any defective condition in the apartment between 2007
when repairs were made and 2011 when Defendant complained about conditions in the apartment.
22. As such that Defendant's claim for breach is legally insufficient and should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (demurrer).
23. Defendant's claim also lacks sufficient specificity as it lacks sufficient facts to establish a
claim against the Plaintiff.
24. Defendant's counterclaim for negligence should be dismissed for violations of Pa.R.C.P.
1028(a)(3) and 1028(a)(4).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Criston Petsinis, requests your Honorable Court to dismiss the Count II
- Breach of Contract of the Defendant along with any additional relief the Court deems appropriate
and just.
Ma, 2012
WOLF ELF, Attorneys at Law
NAT C. WOLF, ESQUIRE
,JAN Atto ey for Plaintiff
WOLF & WOLF
10 West High Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 241-4436
Supreme Court I.D. No. 87380
400
NATHAN C. WOLF, ESQ.
SUPREME COURT M NO. 87300
WOLF & WOLF, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
10 WEST HIGH STREET
CARL raL_LZ PA 17013
717-2414436
ATTORNW FOR PLAINTIFF
CRI8TON P. PETSIN15 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v. : NO. 2012-1611
PAUL J. GROTHE, : LANDLORD TENANT
Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I have this date served a true and correct copy of
the foregoing preliminary objections upon the following person by U.S. mail, addressed as follows:
PAUL J. GROTHE
70 W. SOUTH STREET
APARTMENT 8
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013
May _2012
CA jA
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate)-.
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matte- fpr.th?e,,next
Argument Court.) x"? .
1 ,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=-==-------
CAPTION OF CASE r r*a+)i ' `'
(entire caption must be stated in full
vs.
No. Z 0/Z , / 4 4Z Term
State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer toP-
complaint, etc.):-
2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases:
(a) for plaintiffs:
(Name and Address)
(b) for defendants: '
o L
V
(Name and Address)
62-
3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for
argument.
4. Argument Court Date:
D Attorney for
ate:
IN UCTIONS:
1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT
ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument.
2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument.
3. The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument.
4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT
ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted.
6,ak W q, 7S pI DP-4-
CD-Svi
Z4077uI l l
/3 z-0I Z-,
Print your name T'
CRISTON P. PETSINIS,
Plaintiff
v.
PAUL J. GROYNE,
Defendant
2012-01611 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND
COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT PAUL GROYNE
BEFORE GUIDO AND PLACEY, J.J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 13th day of November 2012, upon consideration of the
Preliminary Objections to Answer, New Matter, and Counterclaim of Defendant Paul
Grothe, and following argument held on 12 July 2012, Plaintiff's preliminary objections
are sustained in part and overruled in part as follows:
1. Plaintiff's preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer relating to
Defendant's New Matter is SUSTAINED as to paragraphs 24 through 27
and 29, but OVERRULED as to paragraph 28;
2. Plaintiff's preliminary objection in the form of a motion to strike New Matter
for failure to conform to law or rule of court is OVERRULED;
3. Plaintiff's preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to Count I -
Negligence is OVERRULED; and
4. Plaintiff s preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to Count II -
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Breach of Contract is SUSTAINED.
Defendant is granted leave to amend his answer consistent with the applicable
rules of law.
BY THE COURT,
Thomas lacey, C.P.J.
,~ Nathan C. Wolf, Esq.
Wolf & Wolf
10 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
'~ Paul J. Grothe
70 West High Street, Apt. 8
Carlisle, PA 17013
Defendant, pro se
(-gyp; es ~. lei r~ >~ ~a
/~
~~
~ ,~ ``"~
c. `'~ --~
~~
~ ~
T ~
... ~
u
N~
_,,,, Q
~G ^'i7 p..~y
T~ C7 ~ ~ c-s
p
~
~"'
~
. .-
,
CRISTON P. PETSINIS,
Plaintiff
v.
PAUL J. GROTHE,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2012-01611 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND
COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT PAUL GROTHE
BEFORE GUIDO AND PLACEY, J.J.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
Placey, CPJ, 13 November 2012.
In this landlord-tenant dispute, Landlord, Plaintiff Criston P. Petsinis, filed suit
against Tenant, Defendant Paul J. Grothe, in Magisterial District Court for unpaid rent,
this appeal followed. For disposition at this time are Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections to
Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim of Defendant Paul Grothe. For the reasons
stated in the following opinion, Plaintiffs preliminary objections will be sustained in part
and overruled in part.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The pertinent facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Defendant as the non-
moving party, can be summarized as follows: In November of 2006, Plaintiff purchased
two pieces of real property located at 37 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania and 4 East Louther Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.' Defendant was residing at the 4 East Louther Street property as a
tenant of the prior owner, and subsequent tenant of Plaintiff.2 No formal written lease
existed between Defendant and the prior owner;3 however, Defendant's monthly rental
payment was $500.00 per month.4
After Plaintiff purchased and took control of the leased property, Defendant
began experiencing a moisture problem due to the heating system and leaks in the
roof.5 A dispute exists as to when Defendant notified Plaintiff of the mold problem:
Plaintiff states that notification was not given to him until November of 2011,6 while
Defendant states that such notification was given to Plaintiff during late winter of 2007.'
Plaintiff provided cleaning supplies to Defendant in order to remedy the existing mold;
however, the mold continuously returned during the winter and spring months.s Plaintiff
made several promises to remedy the reoccurring mold issue, but never made such
arrangements.9
Plaintiff s Complaint, ¶ 3, filed 4 Apr. 2012 (hereinafter Complaint, ¶ _).
z Complaint, ¶ 3; Defendant's Answer of Paul Grothe, New Matter and Counterclaim of Paul Grothe, ¶ 4,
filed 10 May 2012 (hereinafter Answer, ¶ _).
s Complaint, ¶ 4. It is unclear from the record whether a lease was formally executed between Plaintiff
and Defendant. Plaintiff does make references to a lease agreement in paragraphs 21 and 23 of the
Complaint. Defendant admits in his Answer, however, that he never executed a written lease for the 4
East Louther Street apartment. Answer, ¶ 4.
a Complaint, ¶ 4; Answer, ¶ 4.
s Answer, ¶¶ 33-4.
s Complaint, ¶ 6.
Answer, ¶ 34. For the purposes of this decision, Defendant's averments will be viewed as true based
upon the applicable standard.
e Answer, ¶ 37.
e Answer, ¶¶ 36-7, 41.
2
Defendant continued to live with this mold problem for about three years, until he
vacated the residence on 20 October 2011.10 Defendant sought medical treatment for
illness related to mold exposure." On 14 December 2011, Defendant wrote a letter to
Plaintiff in an attempt to notify him that Defendant had moved out of the residence, but
would return and resume payment of rent when the mold problem was resolved.12
Defendant had an inspection completed of the premises by BIS Home Inspection
Service, which confirmed the presence of mold in the apartment.13
On 27 January 2012, Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant in the Magisterial
District Court for unpaid rent. Judgment in favor of Plaintiff was rendered by Magisterial
District Judge Brewbaker, to which Defendant filed a timely appeal. Plaintiff filed a
Complaint with this court on 4 April 2012. On 10 May 2012, Defendant filed his Answer,
New Matter and Counterclaim. Defendant alleged the following under New Matter:
24. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
25. Plaintiff does not have standing to bring this action against Defendant
because Plaintiff has never owned the premises that Defendant leased.
26. Plaintiffs' [sic] claims are barred or limited by the doctrine of laches.
27. Plaintiffs' [sic] claims are barred or limited by the doctrines of waiver or
estoppel.
28. Defendant's cessation of lease payments were justified under Pa
Landlord-Tenant law in that such rental payments were suspended when
the said Apartment became uninhabitable.
29. Defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses after further
investigation and discovery.14
t0 Answer, ¶¶ 41-2.
" Answer, ¶ 43.
12 Answer, ¶ 46.
13 Answer, ¶ 45.
14 Answer, ¶¶ 24-9.
3
Defendant also alleged two counterclaims, Count I for negligence15 and Count II for
breach of contract.'s
On 23 May 2012, Plaintiff filed Preliminary Objections to Answer, New Matter and
Counterclaim of Defendant Paul Grothe. Plaintiffs preliminary objections were in the
form of a demurrer or to strike Defendant's New Matter for failure to conform to law or
rule of court and failure to state a legally sufficient claim," and by way of a demurrer to
Counts I and II for failure to state cognizable claims or, alternatively, for lack of
specificity.18
DISCUSSION
Preliminary objections, generally. Preliminary objections may be filed by any
party to any pleading on grounds including failure to conform to law or rule of court,
insufficient specificity in a pleading, and legal insufficiency of a pleading. Pa.R.C.P. No.
1028(a). A court will only sustain preliminary objections when, "based on the facts
pleaded, it is clear and free from doubt that the complainant will be unable to prove facts
legally sufficient to establish a right to relief." Mazur v. Trinity Area School Dist., 961
A.2d 96, 101 (Pa. 2008). When reviewing preliminary objections, the court must accept
as true all well-pleaded allegations and material facts averred in the complaint, as well
as all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts. Bower v. Bower, 611
A.2d 181, 182 (Pa. 1992). The court, however, "need not accept as true conclusions of
15 Answer, ¶¶ 47-50.
's Answer, ¶¶ 51-5.
" Plaintiff's Preliminary Objections to Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim of Defendant Paul Grothe,
¶¶ 5-10, filed 23 May 2012 (hereinafter Preliminary Objections, ¶_).
t8 Preliminary Objections, ¶¶ 11-24.
4
law, unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations or expressions of
opinion." Myers v. Ridge, 712 A.2d 791, 794 (Pa. Commw. 1998).
Demurrers, generally. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(4), a
party may file a preliminary objection in the form of a demurrer for legal insufficiency of
a pleading. "The question presented by the demurrer is whether, on the facts averred,
the taw says with certainty that no recovery is possible. Where a doubt exists as to
whether a demurrer should be sustained, this doubt should be resolved in favor of
overruling it." Price v. Brown, 680 A.2d 1149, 1151 (Pa. 1996).
Demurrer to New Matter. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's New Matter should be
dismissed, claiming that it is legally insufficient. In order to sufficiently plead a defense,
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) requires that all material facts upon which
a defense is based must be pled in a summary and concise manner. All affirmative
defenses and material facts must be pled under the heading "New Matter." Pa.R.C.P.
No. 1030(a). Pennsylvania is afact-pleading state, meaning the pleading must
summarize the essential facts that each claim or defense relies upon so as to put the
opposing party on notice. Steiner v. Markel, 968 A.2d 1253, 1260 (Pa. 2009).
Based upon a review of Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaims in
its entirety, this court finds adequate factual averments to support Defendant's defense
under paragraph 28, relating to the justification of cessation of lease payments under
Pennsylvania's landlord-tenant law. Under the theory of breach of the implied warranty
of habitability, Defendant has averred the necessary facts in the following manner: (1)
Defendant notified Plaintiff of a continuing moisture and mold problem sometime in the
winter of 2007; (2) Plaintiff had a reasonable time to remedy the problem, as it has been
5
ongoing since Plaintiff was first notified late in 2007; and (3) Plaintiff failed to remedy the
mold problems. Taking these averments and all reasonable inferences as true, this
court finds that Defendant has averred sufficient facts to assert his defense of breach of
implied warranty of habitability.
Otherwise, it appears that Defendant has done nothing more than list generic
defenses without summarizing the essential facts. Without these essential facts,
Defendant's allegations are insufficient to allow Plaintiff to prepare a defense.
Accordingly, paragraphs 24 through 27 and 29 of Defendant's New Matter will be
dismissed, and Defendant will be given the opportunity to file an amended pleading.
Motion to strike New Matter for failure fo conform to !aw or rule of court. Plaintiff
also contends that Defendant's New Matter should be stricken based upon Defendant's
failure to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1026(a). Rule 1026(a)
states that an opposing party is not required to respond to a pleading unless it contains
"a notice to defend or is endorsed with a notice to plead." The remedy for failure to
include a notice to plead is not to strike the pleading from the record, but rather such a
failure relieves the opposing party from their duty to respond and all allegations of that
pleading will be deemed denied. See Pa. R.C.P. 1026(a); Lewandowski v. Crawford,
222 A.2d 601 (Pa. Super. 1966).
Defendant's failure to include a notice to plead with his Answer, New Matter and
Counterclaim is not cause to strike or dismiss the pleading. This oversight simply
relieves Plaintiff from his duty to file a responsive pleading. As such, Plaintiff's motion
to strike Defendant's New Matter for failure to conform to law or rule of court will be
overruled.
6
Demurrer to Count I -Negligence. Plaintiff has also filed a preliminary objection
in the nature of a demurrer to Defendant's Count I -Negligence based upon insufficient
specificity and legal insufficiency. A claim for negligence may be asserted in a landlord-
tenant dispute when the alleged negligence arises not from the lease agreement, but
from a landlord's awareness of a defect and subsequent promise to remedy the defect.
Reed v, Dupuis, 920 A.2d 861, 865-7 (Pa. Super. 2007). This subsequent promise
creates a duty, outside of those found within the lease agreement, on the part of the
landlord to take reasonable care to fulfill the promise and correct the defect that is
causing harm. Id.
Following a review of Defendant's pleading in its entirety, Defendant has pled
sufficient facts to support a claim for negligence under the above standard. Defendant
avers that he notified Plaintiff in the winter of 2007 of the persisting mold problem due to
the heating system and leaks in the roof. Plaintiff provided Defendant with cleaning
supplies, which only provided a temporary solution. Plaintiff made several promises to
remedy this reoccurring moisture problem, but failed to do so. Relying on Plaintiff's
promise, Defendant continued to reside in and pay rent for the apartment until October
of 2011, when he sought medical treatment for illness related to mold exposure. In
applying the foregoing standard, it appears that Defendant has pled sufficient facts to
support his counterclaim of negligence. Accordingly, Plaintiff's preliminary objection in
the nature of a demurrer to Count I -Negligence will be overruled.
Demurrer to Count /l -Breach of Contract. Plaintiff additionally requests a
demurrer to Defendant's Count I I -Breach of Contract based upon insufficient
specificity or, alternatively, for legal insufficiency. In order to successfully plead a cause
7
of action for breach of contract, a party must allege the following: (1) the existence of a
contract and the essential terms; (2) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract; and (3)
damages. CoreStates Bank, N.A, v. Cutillo, 723 A.2d 1053, 1058 (Pa. Super. 1999).
In landlord-tenant disputes, a breach of contract claim in the form of a breach of the
implied warranty of habitability is asserted as a defense to a claim for unpaid rent and
not as a separate cause of action. Pugh v. Holmes, 405 A.Zd 897, 907 (Pa. 1979).
In this case, Defendant has attempted to use the alleged breach of the implied
warranty of habitability as both a defense and a separate cause of action. Although this
breach may be properly pled as a defense to Plaintiff's claim, it cannot be presented as
a separate cause of action. As such, Plaintiff's preliminary objection to Count II -
Breach of Contract will be sustained.
For the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 13th day of November 2012, upon consideration of the
Preliminary Objections to Answer, New Matter, and Counterclaim of Defendant Paul
Grothe, and following argument held on 12 July 2012, Plaintiff's preliminary objections
are sustained in part and overruled in part as follows:
1. Plaintiff's preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer relating to
Defendant's New Matter is SUSTAINED as to paragraphs 24 through 27
and 29, but OVERRULED as to paragraph 28;
2. Plaintiff's preliminary objection in the form of a motion to strike New Matter
for failure to conform to law or rule of court is OVERRULED;
8
3. Plaintiff's preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to Count I -
Negligence is OVERRULED; and
4. Plaintiff's preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer to Count II -
Breach of Contract is SUSTAINED.
Defendant is granted leave to amend his answer consistent with the applicable
rules of law.
BY THE COURT,
Thomas A. PI cey, C.P.J.
V Nathan C. Wolf, Esq.
Wolf & Wolf
10 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
/ Paul J. Grothe
70 West High Street, Apt. 8
Carlisle, PA 17013
Defendant, pro se
~~~
:~
c ~ `~~
'
_
~ C "
~
C7
~~ ~o
r -~-~' °
'"C Q
'Z7
3 ~~
d fi
2q
w ~~'7
'~'
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
9
,:_ ~~ it
~~ ~,. (~ry: "i ~ 1 ~,
2~ C2 C~c -3 s ~ ~~ ~ `~
Ck1M$~f~L~P~L~ GC;~I~~ i ~'
PENf'~SYC.4~`i~~l,~,
f ~ 5--~-UVl ~ ~ -.~~~ ~ ~ S IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Defendant
NO. ~~D I ~ 20~_
Civil Term
NOTICE TO DEFEND
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE
CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN
TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A
WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY AN ATTORNEY AND FILLING 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 JUDGEMENT 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 PEOPERTY
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 THE TELEPHONE OR THE OFFICE
SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET
CARLISLE, PA 17013
1-800-990-9108
717-249-3166
e
t.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CRISTON P. PETSINIS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No.: 2012-1611
PAUL J. GROTHE, LANDLORD TENANT
CIVIL ACTION -LAW
Defendant.
AMENDED ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF PAUL J. GROTHE
Pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1017(a), Defendant, Paul J. Grothe, answers Plaintiffs'
Complaint as follows:
1. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1.
2. Admitted.
3. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraphs 3.
4. Defendant admits in part, denies in part. Defendant admits that he rented 4 East
Louther Street, Apartment 4 from William Costopoulos beginning approximately 2004 for $500
per month including water, trash and heat. It is further admitted that Defendant never executed a
written lease for the lease of 4 East Louther Street, Apt 4. With respect to the remainder of
Paragraph 4, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.
5. Defendant admits in part, denies in part. Defendant admits that in 2008 he missed
one rental payment that was made up within 60 days. The Defendant denies the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 5.
1
6. Paragraph 6 presents a sequence of events which is incomplete and inaccurate;
therefore, this paragraph is Denied.
7. Defendant admits in part, denies in part. Defendant admits that on March 6, 2012
he moved from the said Apartment. The Defendant denies the remaining allegations in this
Paragraph.
Defendant admits in part, denies in part. Defendant admits that on March 6, 2012
he moved from the said Apartment. The Defendant denies the remaining allegations in this
Paragraph.
9. Admitted.
10. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 10.
11. Defendant denies that Plaintiff at any time performed any repair promptly while
Defendant resided at the said Apartment. Furthermore the Defendant denies Paragraph 11 to the
extent it alleges facts.
12. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12.
13. Defendant denies Plaintiff's allegation that the mold conditions presented a health
hazard. To the contrary, Defendant had lab reports from reputable mold testing companies
indicating that a mold levels were present in said Apartment that presente4d health hazards.
After reasonable investigation the Defendant denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph
in that the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13.
14. Denied. Defendant withheld rental payments when he was forced to move away
from the said Apartment because of the mold. Moreover, the Defendant clearly indicated to the
Plaintiff that he would return to the said Apartment and resume making rental payments when
the mold issued was resolved and the said Apartment was habitable.
15. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 15.
2
16. Denied. Defendant has paid all rent he legally owes to the Plaintiff.
17. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17.
18. Denied. Defendant has paid all rent he legally owes to the Plaintiff.
19. Denied. Defendant has paid all rent he legally owes to the Plaintiff.
20. Paragraph 20 contains a legal conclusion for which no response is required and
the Defendant specifically denies Paragraph 20 to the extent it alleges any facts.
21. Paragraph 21 contains a legal conclusion for which no response is required and
the Defendant specifically denies Paragraph 21 to the extent it alleges any facts.
22. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 22. To the extent that this
Paragraph alleges that the Defendant is responsible for any damages to the Plaintiff, such
allegations are denied.
23. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23. To the extent that this
Paragraph alleges that the Defendant is responsible for any damages to the Plaintiff, such
allegations are denied.
NEW MATTER
On information and belief and subject to further discovery and investigation, Defendants
set forth the following affirmative defense. Defendants reserve the right to supplement this
defense.
24. Defendant's cessation of lease payments were justified under Pa Landlord-Tenant
law in that such rental payments were suspended when the said Apartment became uninhabitable
which caused the Defendant to seek medical treatment and cease inhabiting the said apartment.
25. Plaintiff does not have standing to bring this action against Defendant because
Plaintiff has never owned the premises that Defendant leased. Cumberland County Land Records
provide that the said premises leased by the Defendant is not owned by the Plaintiff; rather, the
property is owned by Criston P. Petsinis and Sotiria P. Petsinis, husband and wife. A copy of the
3
applicable deed and a current Cumberland County Tax Assessor Records to the subject property
is attached hereto as Exhibit #1.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Paul J. Grothe hereby demands that this Court find against the
Plaintiff and enter judgment in the Defendant's favor.
COUNTERCLAIM OF PAUL GROTHE
Pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1031, Defendant, Paul J. Grothe files Counterclaim against
Plaintiff and avers as follows:
26. Paragraphs 1-25 are incorporated by reference as though they have been set forth
at length.
27. Plaintiff has resided at 4 East Louther Street, Apartment 4 since approximately
2002.
28. After Plaintiff and his wife purchased the building and became Plaintiff's
landlords in February, 2006, they decided to terminate the hot water radiator heating
system in the apartment and instead, install a single gas heater for the apartment.
29. After the heating systems were changed a moister problem quickly ensued which
existed to the day the Defendant moved from Apartment 4.
30. In late winter of 2007 the Defendant contacted Plaintiff and told Plaintiff that the
moisture problem developed into mold problem because of the heating system
changes and leaks in the roof/ceiling.
31. Following Defendant's complaint Plaintiff came to the apartment to inspect the
problems. After Plaintiff saw the mold on the ceilings, walls, closets and carpet, the
Plaintiff said that he would supply Defendant with the chemicals to clean the mold off
of the surfaces.
32. In addition to supplying Defendant with the cleaning supplies the Plaintiff also
told Defendant that he would have the leaks repaired so that the moisture/mold
problems would not reoccur.
33. Plaintiff did supply Defendant the chemicals and the Defendant completed the
mold removal as best he could. Despite the Plaintiffls assurances, the Defendant
never rectified the mold problems. Instead, the mold kept re-occurring every
winter/spring and the Defendant kept removing the mold through cleaning with the
use of the chemicals Plaintiff supplied to Defendant.
4
34. At the end of the winter of 2008 the Defendant stopped paying the gas bill and
terminated the gas heating system because of the consistent mold problems it was
causing.
35. At that point, instead of using gas heat to heat the apartment, the Defendant had to
resort to using a single electric heater. This change partly alleviated the mold problem
in several rooms; however, the Plaintiff continued to experience mold problems in the
bathroom and around windows in the apartment.
36. As these problems persisted the Defendant told the Plaintiff and showed him these
mold problem areas at the time and the Plaintiff again promised to correct these issues
and repair the roof and which you believed was causing the problems.
37. Despite these promises, the Defendant never made the necessary repairs to
alleviate the mold problems and the Defendant continued to live with these conditions
for the last three years.
38. Finally, the mold problems got so extreme that the Plaintiff became seriously sick
for over three weeks which eventually forced Plaintiff to move away from the
apartment on October 20, 2011.
39. On October 26, 2011 and on December 27, 2011 the Defendant was forced to
seek medical attention for mold related illnesses and was prescribed medications to
address the mold related symptoms that Defendant was suffering. A copy of the
Defendant's medical records from William J. Phelan M.D. is attached hereto as
Exhibit #2.
40. From October 20, 2011 until March 1, 2012 the Defendant was forced to live with
friends and relatives until the problems in the apartment were repaired. In February,
2012 Plaintiff initiated eviction proceedings and on March 1, 2012, Plaintiff moved
permanently into his current address.
41. On or about December 1, 2011, the Borough of Carlisle Code Enforcement
Officer performed an in section of the subject premises and issued a report to Plaintiff
outlining the defective conditions present on the premises with instructions to
Plaintiff to immediately repair the said defects within ten (10) days. A copy of the
Code Enforcement Officer's Report is attached hereto as Exhibit #3.
42. In December, 2011, the Defendant hired an independent building inspector
(Stoner Contracting Group LLC) to inspect the premises for mold and to perform
mold testing. Their preliminary results confirmed a positive finding for mold in the
apartment. A copy of this report is attached hereto as Exhibit #4.
43. When Defendant initially moved from the Apartment and throughout his stay
away from the Apartment the Defendant clearly communicated to the Plaintiff the
reasons why he moved out and that he would return and resume paying rent when the
mold problem was resolved. A copy of a letter sent by Defendant to the
Plaintiff clearly communicating this in December, 2011 is attached hereto
as Exhibit #5.
COUNT 1-NEGLIGENCE
44. Paragraphs 1-43 are incorporated by reference as though they have
been set forth at length.
45. Plaintiff had a duty to make the Apartment that Defendant was
residing at inhabitable.
46. Plaintiff willfully disregarded his duty to make the apartment
habitable by failing to take corrective measures to alleviate the
mold problems existing in the Apartment.
47. Plaintiff willful disregard of his duties has caused severe and
significant personal injuries to the Defendant.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant demands that the Court finds in his
favor and against the Plaintiff for $25,000.00.
Dated: December 3, 2012 Respectfully submitted,
Paul J. Gro
70 West South Street, Apt. 8
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone: 717-385-3067
VERIFICATION
I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct: The attached Answer is based upon
information which is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I
hereby acknowledge that the averments of fact set forth in the aforesaid Answer are made subject
to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
aul J. Gr6
70 West South Street, Apt 8
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone: 717-385-3067
Dated: ~~
7
:j~~ Ito `~
R®~ `/~ D L E''LER
..~%j~R7 i v
..~.,r.;;.,t;~~D CCU;'; .
~ NOU 2 PPI .' ~~D
~~~
Parcel No.: 02-21-0320-069
MADE THE ~~ - dey of October in the year two thousand six (2006).
BETWEEN WII..LIAM C. C09TOr'UUlL03, martial status, of I~ddleaex Townslrip,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, hereinafter referred to as:
Grantor,
AND CRISTON P. PETSIN•LS said SiOTiRIA P. PETSII~IS, husband and wife, of
Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvarga, hereir>after refeared to as:
Grar-tees,
WITNESSETH, that in consideration of TW0 HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND
NO/100 (5275,000.OA) DOLLARS in hand paid, the recxipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the
said Grantor does hereby grant and convey to the said Grantees, their hairs and assigns:
ALL THAT CERTAIN tract of land situate in the First Ward of the Borough of
Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows:
ON THE West by 80 feet wide Noah I~iafnover Street; on the North by 6o feet wide
East Loather Street; on the East by Alexsnder Avenue; and on the South by property
now or formerly of Florence S. Wagner.
THE ABOVE described tract oflaad cxmra~s 30 feet, more or leas, in front along the
eastern line of North Hanover Street and extards eastvvardly ~ in depth a
di~arx;e of 240 feet, more or less, to Alexander Avenue, and has thereon aecled a
three-story brick bw7ding with storeroom and other irrrprovearents and which has the
mailing address of 37 North Hanover Street, Carli~e, Pennsylvania 17013.
BEING the same prerniaea which Jaarea C. Coatopouba amt Mafia S. Coatnpwdos,
husband and wife, and John C. Coatopoulos, single man, and Pau! C. C:aato~pouloa and
Peony Costopoulos, husband and wife, and Vn~ginia Schmitt and Douglas Scbnritt,
husband and wife, by their Deed dated Septaonber 7, 2006, and recorded Steer
1 S, 2006, in the Og'ice of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland Coum , Penmyh+~nia
in Deed Book 276, Page 3566, granted and corrv~eyed unto William C. Costopoulos,
nmartial status, Grantor herein. Jill Costopouloa joins in this G~ to trsas~ say
interest she may have in said property by virtue of her marriage to William C.
Costopoulos.
D00!( 2~~ PAGE,2~;~"~
COMMONV~-EALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
): ss.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND )
On tlris, the ~~ day of October, X006, before m~, the undersigned o~car, persooail5r appeared,
Till Costopoulos, known to me or satisfactorily proven to be the person whose name is wbscribed to the
within instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same for the puryweea there contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hexamto set my hand a~ offal sal.
I hereby y that the precise residence and complete post o~iee address of the within
Grantees is 37-39 North Hanpver Street, Carlisle, Pe+~ 17013.
Attorney for Grantees
°~~g~~~~~~~
,~~„
~~~ a~~ ~~
~ ~ ~
„L~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~.
Boox ~~~' r~~~,~ a
M N M M
tJ1 ~- N t+
~. r+~ Wr N ~+
ty y N t-- r+ .r1 ~ r
t~ ~pp4~~ pX a,,+ ~cpp.~ ~nppa pa -+ rcp~ii vpp~ o ~` h~i
O Q O r~ O O d~ d p 0 4~ rJf
~~
~rti fy this to be recorded
~ Cumberland County PA
r•
~'d
f~ ~'`-'
~r a
t.piii
Recorder of Deeds
CEitTilrICAT>l; OF l[iEE3ID)L~NCE
SUB7ECT, HOWEVER, to such recorded essements, restrictions and c~sditions that
~y apply to the afore~described tract of land.
A{ND~the said Grantors hereby covenant and agree that they will warrant specially the
property "°' 0"7 COiIYeyCd.
IN WITNESS WI~iEREOF, said Gramors have heraurto set their hands and seals the day and
year first shave written.
SIGNF~, SEALED AND DELIVERED
IN THE PRESENCE OF
_.
~~-)
' C. Costopoulos
rill os
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
): ss.
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
On this, tl~~~~ , day 006, bafgre me, the wadm^sigaed offxxr, PAY
appeared, William C. Coetopoulos, lknown to me or satis6ctorily proven to' be the parson whose
name is subscribed to the withia iostn~mant, and acknowledged that he exeaaed the a:ank for the
pwlwaes therein contained.
IN WITNESS Wf~REOF, t '
cq~MOpNyEl1LTH OF PENNSYI.YAwp-
Ndf~Md Sed
Tgmn~ ~- PNels. Notary ~~
day Gon~-~to" F~ ~ 9'~
~nper, Pennsylvania Asaodation Or ~~
900K , ~l~f PACE~~~.
Detailed f~esults f
._--- ir Parce102-21-0320
DistrictNo
~ 02
Parcel ID 02-21-0320-069.
MapSuffiz
HouseNo 37
Direction N
Street HANOVER STREET
Owuerl PETSIlVIS, CRISTON P
C/O & SOTIRIA P PETSIIVIS
PropType C3
PropDesc
LivArea
CurLandVal 108000
CurImpVal 199500
CurTotVal 307500
CurPref Val
Acreage .17
C1GrnStat
TaaEz 1
SaleAmt 275000
SaleMo 11
SaleDa 02
SaleCe 20
SaleYr 06
DeedBkPage 00277-02227
YearBlt
HF File Date
HF Approval_Status
~-069. in the 2010 Tax Assessment Database
gage t o`
http:/ltaxdb.ccpanebdetails.asp?id=02-21-0320-069.&dbselect=l 7/2/201;2
w~r ~ a 7 HT
fr
_BP T ' ~ p. , .~~ , ,. , R ~ ~ LMP
HC ALLERGIES ~'7~1~ AGE~_
S: Paul comes in today for sinus pressure, drainage, cong x couple of days. Concerned about allergies and molds. Denies other complaints or
problems.
~: TM's clear; NT-NPMM; Neck supple; Lungs clear; heart reg; Abd; soft nontender, PBS, no organomegaly, etc; no CCE;
Skin; unremarkable.
A: Sinusitis, allergies.
P: Begin Cipro SOOmg one po bid x 10 days. Prednisone 20mg bid x 5 days, once daily x 5 days. See pt back as needed. Contact if any p/c/d
in the meantime. The plan of treatment was discussed w/the patient and/or primary caregiver in detail and an understanding was
acknowledged. WJP/ahn
DATE BP T P R LMP
WT HT HC ALLERGIES AGE
~~ t,
~ ~~d ~ ~~~ ~~~ ,-~~-~~ ~ !,y}/vim/,~(.A'~`''I
William J. Phelan, M.D.
2 Tyler Court
Carlisle, PA 1701.5
717-245-9101
~~ ~ (o - {"
BOROUGH OF CARLISLE
"Committed,To Excellence In Community Service"
December 1, 2011
Mr. Criston P. Petsinis
37 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Re: 4 East Louther Street, 3rd floor apartment
Dear Mr. Petsinis:
The Code Enforcement Office of the Borough of Carlisle has recently received information
concerning conditions not in compliance with the Property Maintenance Code of the Borough of
Carlisle, Chapter 183, pertaining to conditions at the above referenced property. Please be advised
of the following sections of Borough Code:
PM-304.10 Stairways, decks, porches and balconies. Every exterior stairway, deck,
porch and balcony, and all appurtenances attached thereto, shall be maintained
structurally sound, in good repair, with proper anchorage and capable of supporting the
imposed loads.
PM-305.3 Interior surfaces. All interior surfaces, including windows and doors, shall
be maintained in good, clean and sanitary condition. Peeling, chipping, flaking or
abraded paint shall be repaired, removed or covered. Cracked or loose plaster, decayed
wood and defective surface conditions shall be corrected.
PM 304.7 Roofs and drainage. The roof and flashing shall be sound, tight and not have
defects that admit rain.
Rain water was observed leaking through the living room ceiling. Moisture damage was observed
in the living room, bathroom, and kitchen ceilings. Some areas of interior ceilings had been
improperly patched. Rain water was observed leaking through the rear porch ceiling. The exterior
fire escape is missing a tread.
Please have all leaks eliminated, all ceilings properly repaired, and the fire escape repaired. I am
asking that you provide me with a reasonable schedule for repairs within ten (10) days.
I thank you for your anticipated cooperation this matter. If you have questions or need additional
information, do not hesitate to contact me at 717-240-6640.
Sincerely,
~~~~~ ~.
r
Michael A. Heyser
Code Enforcement Officer
53 West South Street, Carlisle, PA 17013
~~~~~~~~
Tel. (7'17) 249-4422
a
1
4D
I Whole House Inspection -Radon Testing - Water Testing - Wood Boring Insect Inspectio»s -Mold Testing & Asbestos Testing
Conventional, FHA, YA, USDA Financing Standards
Paul Grothe December 23, 2011
RE: Mold test results - 4 E Lowther Street, Carlisle, PA
Deaz Paul:
Enclosed you will find the certified lab test results of our mold samples done by MicroBac
Laboratories in Lingelstown, PA. Page 1 of 3 showed the results. Since most people are not
familiaz with certified lab testing, a brief summary may be in order. Testing for every substance
is done using a specific testing protocol (method). In this instance, the protocol was BAM
CH18. This is the FDA approved test, as documented in the FDA Bacteriological Analytical
Manual. CH18 refers to the chapter in this manual that covers testing methods for Yeasts,
Molds, and Mycotoxins. By requiring all labs performing test on these organic agents to use the
same testing protocol, the results from one lab should be the same at another lab if they were
testing the same sample.
We took two samples at 4 E. Lowther. The first sample was taken along the kitchen and
bathroom trim and walls where we observed visible water staining. The results of his test were
in excess of 57,000 CFU's.
The second sample was taken azound the baseboazd in the bedroom, again where visible water
staining was seen. The results of this test were 100 CFU's.
It is important to understand what this swab test shows. As you saw, we took a sterile sponge
swab, impregnated with a nutrient solution, out of a sterile packet. Using sterile gloves,
included in the packet, we wiped this sponge over the suspect azea. We used a separate test
packet for each area to avoid cross contamination. We then identified the swab samples, placed
them back in their sterile containers, and took them to the lab. We provide the lab with a chain
of custody form which certifies that we had control of the sample from the time it was collected
until we turned it over to them. The signatures on this form document the turn-over. Leslie was
our delivery person so it's her signature on the form.
The lab divides the sponge (sponges in this case) into several identical sized samples and places
each in a nutrient solution. No individual species of mold will grow in a single nutrient solution
so the samples are placed in solutions that will support mold growth in all the different species
of mold.
706 Somerset Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Cell: (717) 395-6223 -Office (717) 766-7825 -FAX (,717)/766-7825
These samples aze then incubated for 4 days under a set temperature and humidity environment
as established in BAM CH18 by the FDA. Since this is a certified lab, they are checked on a
regulaz basis by the FDA to assure they are following the appropriate testing methods.
After the 4 day incubation, the samples are removed from incubation, stained, and put under an
electronic counter that counts the individual mold colonies that grew out of the spores we
collected on the swab. It is this number of colonies that is on the report and noted as CFU's or
COLONY FORMING UNITS.
The purpose of this test is to amplify the original mold spores by forcing them to grow into
colonies. The number of individual mold spores means nothing in a natural environment but
given the right mix of temperature, humidity, and a suitable food source, the number of colonies
these spores can produce is important and the key finding of this testing method. Unlike air
quality sampling, only live mold spores will grow using the incubation method. We don't care
about dead spores as they represent no health hazard. What we care about is the number of
living spores and how fast they can develop into colonies that give off more spores, repeating
this cycle until they represent a health risk.
I also want to point out that we have instructed the lab to stop counting individual colonies when
the count gets to 57,000 and simply note that the actual count exceeds this number. We do this
because we aze well into the area where we recommend corrective action (25,000 CFUs) and
numbers higher than 57,000 have no value in the determination if mold exist or not. At this and
higher levels, we know it exist and it exist at a level that represents a potential health risk. Your
actual results could have been much higher than the number reported.
Although the FDA does NOT specify what is a safe or unsafe CFU value, the University of
Minnesota has done testing and compiled data on the health risk associated with various levels
of mold contamination. Per their reseazch:
• less than 10,000 CFUs of mold per gram in a culture sample plate =low mold contamination level
• 10,000 to 100,000 CFUs of mold per gram in a culture sample plate =medium mold contamination level
• 100,000 to 1,000,000 CFUs of mold per gram in a culture sample plate =medium to heavy mold contamination level
> 1,000,000 CFUs of mold per gram in a culture sample plate =heavy
I need to point out that although one of your samples tested in excess of 57,000 CFU's which
puts it about mid-range within the MEDIUM MOLD CONTAMINATION LEVEL, this
represents the potential for the number of mold spores to form individual colonies within 4 days.
Given a week, the number goes up exponentially. Usually we recommend remediation of the
affected azea when the CFU number exceeds 25,000 since this seems to represent normal mold
contamination levels found during the worse days outside the home. This occurs during fall
when leaves (a food source) fall to the ground and get rained on during a time of the year when
the sun can give daytime temperatures in the 60's and above. You have food, moisture, and
heat, all necessary for mold to grow.
Since your tested value exceeds our typical action level by at least 8 times, we would
recommend treatment in the azea of the bath/kitchen where this sample was taken.
706 Somerset Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Cell: (717) 395-6223 -Office (717) 766-7825 -FAX (717) 766-7825
As we briefly discussed, remediation treatment can take many forms. One of the larger firms in
this area, Tuckey, takes the approach of removing all material even suspected as being
contaminated and rebuilding the area back to original condition. Our firm tends to take a less
invasive approach, using chemicals to kill the mold and coat the affected area with a substance
containing copper. Mold and mildew can not become established or survive where copper is
present. Our success rate using this approach is extremely high as can be seen on the separate
report showing the pre- and post- remediation test results in a highly contaminated house we did
in the past. We had the lab do a full count on that sample because it was going to be the basis
for a court case involving health issues. Their electronic counter can not read above 5.7 million
CFU's so that's where they had to stop counting. The important thing is to look at how low we
were able to reduce this number using a single treatment of the same chemicals we would be
using at your address.
I don't want you to think we will be applying dangerous chemicals to perform this work. We do
not use any chemicals that contain or act as a bleaching agent so there is no color changes or
spotting of textile materials we would treat. Although we're not completely sold on the value of
"green" treatment chemicals due to their extremely high prices, the chemicals we use are USDA,
FDA, EPA, and Hospital rated for use in and on food contact surfaces. I've attached a list of all
the agents we use in our remediation work. Our actual selection of which of these we would
apply at your address would be determined by the temperature at the time of our work since
some of our agents work better at certain temperatures ranges than others. We also switch
between chemicals based on the materials they will be applied to. Some of our agents work
better on materials that have solid surfaces and other chemicals work better or porous materials.
Please review this attached lab report, the copy of our report from a previous remediation we
performed using the same chemical approach we expect to use here, and let us know if you
would like a formal proposal for remediation. Based on my site-visit during the sample taking, I
would think we're somewhere around $700.00 and we would deal with any trim removal and
reinstallation to allow us access to the walls behind the trim. We use specialized spray wands
that allow us to treat the inside of wall cavities. We usually remove sections of wood trim, drill
a 3/8" hole into the wall cavity, insert our specialized flexible sprayer wands, and treat the wall
cavity. After we're done, we fill the hole with drywall joint compound and cover it with the
original trim.
Thank you for selecting BIS Home Inspection Services for your mold testing and if you find our
estimated price satisfactory, we will provide you with a formal proposal and detailed scope of
work for signatures.
Fred Stoner
BIS Home Inspection Services
706 Somerset Drive
Mechanicsburg, PA
706 Somerset Drive, Mech~icslwrg, PA 17055
Cell: (717) 395-6223 -Office (717) 766-7825 -FAX (717) 766-7825
Microbac Laboratories, Inc.
Central Pennsylvania Division
Certificate of Analysis
Contact: FRED STONER
Laboratory ID: 1129839
BIS HOME INSPECRON SERVICE Project Name: Home Inspection Testing
FRED STONER Project / PO Number: N/A
706 SOMERSET DRIVE Date Received: December 13, 2011
MECHANICSl3URG, PA 17055 Time Received: 12:35 pm
AnalyHpl Testing Parameters
tlient Sample ID:Louther St Bath and iGtchen
Lab Sample ID:1129839-01
Collection Date:12/~/2011
Collection Time: 4:00 pm
Cdlected By: FRED STONC-R
MICROBIOLOGY
Parameter Resuk Units PQL Method Prepared Analyzed Malyst
Mold >57000 CFU/Swab 100 BAM CH18 12/13/2011 1830 12/18/2011 1630 Gt F
Malytical Testier Parameters
Client Sample ID:Louther 9t Bsseboard Bedroom
Lab Sample ID:1129839-02
Collection Date:12/12/2011
Coaedion Time: 4:00 pm
Collected By: FRED STONER
MICROBIOLOGY
Parameter Resuk Unks PQL Method Prepared Analyzed Analyst
MOkI 100 CFU/Swab 100 BAM CH18 12/13/2011 1830 12!18/2011 1630 OlF
Laboratory CertiRcations:
Be~/ow is a btst ofcerb~a0bns maintained by M/a~ac laboratories, Inc. A/!data fnduded in this reQart has been rev/ewedlor and meets ad pm7eCt spedfc and
9u~KY ~n~ n~qu/remenl5 of bye app/kab/e accredibtbvn, unless obherwfse notE+d. A cnmp/e~e list ofindivxlua/ ana/ytes pursuant to each cerdlication bebw is
avallab/e upon request.
- NELAP (PA): 22-00578
- NELAP (NI): PA019
- Delaware: DE-PA
- Indiana: C-PA09
- Kentucky: 90143
- Massachusetts: M-PA1401
- New York: 11650
- North Carolina: 42708
-Tennessee: TN02865
- Virginia: 00433
4359 Linglestovrn Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
www.microbac.com
Phone:717-651-9700
Fax: 717-657-0752
Page 1 of 3
Microbac Laboratories, Inc
Central Pennsylvania Division
Laboratory ID: 1129839
Certificate of Analysis
Repoli Commerce:
The PQL is the Practical Quantitetion Limit, which is defined as the lowest quanttation level of an analyte that can be readily achieved witfiin the
speatied limits of precision and accuracy of an analytipt method during routne laboratory operating conditions. The value may be raised depending on the
chara~teristcs or behavior of the target analyte.
All samples were anay~d "as rem" from the dierrt. Mitrobac Laboratories, Inc.- Central Pennsylvania Division can only assume that all samples were
collected and submitted by the CLIENT fdlowing the appropriate protocols set forth by the regulatory requirements. This docurr~nt shah not be reproduced,
except in full, without the written approval of Microbac Laboratories, Inc: Central Pennsylvania Division. If there are any technical questions pertaining to
this laboratory report please contact a Gient Services Coordinator or the Laboratory Director at (717) 651-9700.
Reviewed and Approved ey:
Samantha Y. Saultz
Quality Assurance Offker
Dane Reviewed and Approved:
t2/zi/zoii
For any feedback conoeming our servrces, please ca-tact Cherie Gudz, the Division Manager at 717.651.9700. You may also contact
both James Nokes, President at president~microbac.com and Sean Hyde, Chief Operating Ofricer at sean.hyde~microbac.com.
Please help us in meeting our Go Green initiative by selecting to have reports and invoices submitted via
email only. Please contact Cherie.Gudz~a~.microbac.com to set up email reporting and invoicing options.
4359 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
www.microbac.com
Phone: 717-651-9700
Fax:717-657-0752
Page 2 of 3
~
g ~
~ ? 1 12 983 9 c ~.
~ ~ o ~
i
'
r
~
~
1
~
~ ~
~.
~
~
F w ~ ~
~ a
f ~Ia O
* > ^ „
~
t ~ ~
r O
1
i ~ n
I
1
'
`
O ~ ~~~11
L
F ~ .1
.
8 c ~, 3•
t~71
a S ~ ~
r ~
~
~~ _
o ~ ~
'
~~ _
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~g
~
;~
~~ c C~
F
g 3
~
L
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
r
r
.~
s Da ~ em ~
Z m ~
~
~~
t~
. g
7i
0
~
O O
~ ~ g C
i ~ Q_ ~
•
1~
~
~
rn v
~ D ~
i .~ ~
_
~ 3 , N ~ ~
f ' ~ ~
~ ~`w- c ~ o O
~, T
/
" dal ~ Of
~- 1~1-,~_-g
'""~""-
/~Yy y ~ y
Y ~ ~i ~G (/~
11
p
1~ ~ ~ ZZ o a, n ~ ~
a>D tl R 11 ~ ~'
N M (((mppp
Y
11 D
N M 11
~ ~
~ ~
X 1~
tl n 11
~~
~j
0
V ~ ~
J
~
V lil V ~ ~ ~a~1 6 1pp ~ gg
II 11 11 N VI
V
'
IA
RI
~ G ~vs . ~ ~" ~ ~ o
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~, ~
~
i
O
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ x
•
~
~ J
~ v
v
A ~ _
.
~
V <~
~ ~ g ~
N
!!~4 '~ ? y
J ~
~ ~ ~ j ~ ~
O 2 2 Z 2 Z 2 2
z ~Z
r a
"55 D Four
pp ea
It1 's
~ ~
'v
a°
~o
v A~~
MILK'
e
Page 3 of 3
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
HOME INSPECTORS, INC.
D
706 So ~''
Mechanicsb~ A 17055
~ Realty Firm ~
1 East School Side Lane
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Invoice
Date Invoice #
12/10/2011 916
t
December 14, 2011
Criston P. and Sotiria P. Petsinis
1127 Shannon Lane
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: 4 East Louther Street, Apt 4, Carlisle, PA 17013
Dear Chris & Teri:
I have been living at 4 East Louther Street, Apartment 4 since approximately 2002. After
you purchased the building and-became my landlords in February, 2006, you decided
later in 2006 to terminate the hot water radiator heating system in the apartment and
instead, install a single gas heater for the apartment. After you changed heating systems a
moister problem quickly ensued which has existed to this day.
In late winter of 2007 I contacted you and told you that the moisture problem developed
into mold problem because of the heating system changes and leaks in the roof/ceiling.
Following my complaint you came to the apartment to inspect the problems. After you
saw the mold on the ceilings, walls, closets and carpet, you said that you would supply
me the chemicals to clean the mold off of the surfaces. In addition to supplying me with
the cleaning supplies you also told me that you would have the leaks repaired so that the
moisture/mold problems would not reoccur.
You did supply me the chemicals and I completed the mold removal as best I could.
Despite your assurances, you never rectified the mold problems. Instead, the mold kept
re-occumng every winter/spring and 1 kept removing the mold through cleaning with the
use of the chemicals you supplied me.
Eventually, at the end of the winter of 20081 stopped paying the gas bill and terminated
the gas heating system because ofthe consistent mold problems it was causing. Instead of
using gas heat to heat the apartment, I had to resort to using a single electric heater. This
change partly alleviated the mold problem in several rooms; however, I continued to
experience mold problems in the bathroom and around windows in the apartment. I told
you and showed you these mold problem areas at the time and you promised to correct
these issues and repair the roof and which you believed was causing the problems.
Despite these promises, you never made the necessary repairs to alleviate the mold
problems and I lived with these conditions for the last three years. Finally, the mold
problems got so extreme that I became seriously sick for three + weeks which eventually
forced me to move away from the apartment on October 20, 2011. Since that time I have
been forced to live with friends and relatives until the problems in the apartment are
finally repaired.
r s ~ ~ ~
I have hired an independent building inspector (Stoner Contracting Group LLC) to
inspect the premises for mold and to perform mold testing. Their preliminary results
confirmed a positive finding for mold in the apartment. The final results will be provided
to me (and thus, to you) in a more detailed report in the next week or so.
I want to make it very clear to you that once you make the necessary repairs to the
apartment, I intend to return to living at the apartment and begin making my rental
payments. However, until I receive written confirmation/verification that the required
repairs were made to alleviate the mold problems, I will not be returning to the
apartment.
Below I have included two brief articles I found on the Internet concerning mold health
issues and mold remediation projects for your review. I have also included a copy of the
PA Landlord and Tenant Law that provides an implied warranty of Habitability when a
tenant rents from a landlord in Pennsylvania.
Should you have any questions or would like to discuss anything in this letter, please
prepare your response in writing and send it to me at the apartment address - I have my
mail forwarded to my temporary address until you make the necessary repairs and I am
allowed to return to the apartment
Sincerely,
Paul J. Grothe
ti ~~ ~ ~
PA IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY
The implied warranty of habitability is probably the most used defense to payment of
rent in the residential setting. In Pennsylvania the warranty dates back to 1979, when it
was legislated into existence by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the case of Pugh v.
Holmes. The doctrine quickly became a fixture of the Commonwealth's landlord-tenant
law and gave the tenant a new and potentially powerful set of remedies against its
landlord.
Tenants frequently misuse the habitability doctrine on the flimsiest of pretexts.
However, a residential landlord can take heart from the fact that only a serious defect
should result in relief to a tenant. The Holmes court put it this way: "In order to
constitute a breach of the warranty, the defect must be of a nature and kind which will
prevent the use of the dwelling for its intended purpose to provide premises fit for
habitation by its dwellers ...this means the premises must be safe and sanitary; of
course, there is no obligation on the part of the landlord to supply a perfect or
aesthetically pleasing dwelling."
The habitability analysis often has a subjective "beauty pageant" feel to it--whether
the apartment is fit for habitation is in the eye of the beholder (who is usually a district
justice). Some guidance, however, is provided by the judicial record which establishes
that the residence contains specific defects that, individually or collectively, may give rise
to the breach of the implied warranty of habitability; those defects include lack of heat,
broken windows, broken locks, lack of potable water, health code violations, fire code
violations, non-functional fire alarms, water intrusion, and mold.
..'
•~
MOLD
Health Concerns
One of the difficult challenges facing medical professionals involved with mold-related
health problems is establishing adose-response relationship. Because airborne mold is
ubiquitous in indoor and outdoor environments, it is difficult to assess how much mold
causes adverse health effects. Adding to this complexity is the fact that health responses
and sensitivities vary in the human population and that other stresses can cause health
effects similar to mold exposure.
Most data on health problems from mold come from animal ingestion studies (such as
horses eating moldy hay) or from high doses of human exposure (such as farmers
pitching the moldy hay or silage). Less is known about lower dose exposure over time,
such as occupants in buildings where mold is contained in wall cavities. Epidemiological
studies by occupational physicians in landmark cases (the Polk County Courthouse, for
example) have shown links between occupant exposure to higher than normal
concentrations of mold and to atypical indoor mold types and development of asthma and
other immune-response diseases. However, the dose that causes these problems is not
easily determined.
All molds can cause health problems, since they produce allergens and irritants that cause
reactions in humans. Some molds also produce toxins (mycotoxins) as part of their
defense mechanisms. What is important to know in dealing with remediation of mold is
that it remains allergenic and toxigenic even in anon-viable state. Therefore, it is not
enough to kill mold by, for example, applying a biocide like bleach; the mold and the
materials on which it is growing need to be removed from the indoor environment. Such
removal work must be contained, like asbestos removal, to minimize contamination of
other parts of the building. Considering the cost and disruption of such remediation
activities, it is easy to see that the best policy is preventing mold in the first place by
control of moisture.
Another consideration in the control of mold growth is what it does to the building.
Uncontrolled mold growth can cause aesthetic problems, such as discoloration and odors,
deterioration of building materials, and, in wood frame buildings, structural failure.
The highest priority during a mold remediation should be to protect the health and safety
of the building occupants, the investigation team, and the remediation crew. A moisture
and mold remediation plan must be developed, which includes steps to remove the source
of the moisture, use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) by investigators
and remediators, and steps to contain and remove building materials contaminated by
mold. Assessing the Extent of the Mold Problem
... '
r .
Knowing the extent of mold growth is important because it establishes the levels of
remedial actions. The greater the extent of mold, the greater the need for engineering
controls, such as containments under negative pressure, during remediation. Both the
EPA and NYC DOH guidelines establish their remediation action guidelines based on the
extent of mold contamination. However, there is no single tool that can measure extent of
mold.
Visual Assessment
If the mold contamination is visible, visual assessment is the most important method of
determining the extent of mold contamination in a building. Fiber-optic borescopes with
a high-power light source are sometimes useful in surveying hidden spaces, such as wall
cavities; however, they are often difficult to use because of visual obstructions, such as
insulation, within the cavities. A visual survey can be supplemented with some direct
reading measurement tools, such as moisture meters, infrared thermography, and
temperature/relative humidity meters. Destructive testing such as cutting out small
sections of gypsum wallboard to examine the cavity side can be important as well.
However, information from these measurements should be considered as aids supporting
visual assessment and professional judgment.
Along with a visual survey, interviewing occupants and maintenance personnel can aid in
determining the extent of mold contamination. These eye-witnesses can provide valuable
information on past water incursion events (when, where, what type, and for how long).
They may also know where mold has been covered with paint or other coatings.
Sampling for mold, especially air sampling, is generally not helpful in determining the
extent of mold. In fact, the possibility of false negatives {and sometimes false positives)
can confound the assessment methodology. In addition, results from sampling are often
misinterpreted by the lay person, and may lead to unwarranted panic by building
occupants. Generally, if you can see mold, you don't need to sample it to determine the
extent, and if you cannot see mold, air sampling will not reveal the extent of hidden
mold.
Sampling for Mold
Mold sampling, with analysis by a laboratory accredited under the American Industrial
Hygiene Association Environmental Microbiology Proficiency Analytical Testing
program, may be needed in the following cases:
• When the medical professionals involved require the information to diagnose the
occupants' health problems and/or to determine if a link exists between the health
problems and exposure.
• To establish remediation protocols, including clearance criteria. It is often useful to
know the kinds of molds that are causing contamination so that those particular "marker"
fungi can be looked for during clearance sampling (if clearance sampling is justified}. If
~'
t
post-remediation clearance sampling indicates a significant reduction in the marker fungi
to a predetermined goal, then one can assume the remediation has been successful (as
long as other post-remediation clearance criteria are met).
• When required for litigation or insurance recovery, such as to confirm that the
visually observed "mold" is indeed mold or to help establish cause. The cause of mold, if
not readily apparent, can sometimes be deduced from the species identified in bulk
samples of materials analyzed by culture method. For example, presence of hydrophilic
(water-loving) fungi (e.g., Stachybotrys chartarum } in bulk samples is indicative of
liquid water incursion, such as rainwater flooding or pipe bursts. The presence of
xerophilic {dry-loving) or xerotolerant (dry tolerant} species, including some Penicillium
and Aspergillus species, especially if the samples were collected significantly above floor
level, is more likely indicative of high relative humidity problems.
• To determine if hidden mold exists. While sampling cannot determine the extent of
hidden mold, dust or carpet dust sampling may be able to determine if hidden mold
exists, if it is not readily apparent on visible surfaces. For example, elevated
concentrations of a few species of atypical mold in carpet dust may indicate either growth
in the carpet (if the carpet has been wetted) and/or mold contamination in hidden
locations. In the latter case, the carpet dust can contain elevated concentrations of
atypical fungal spores that have come from another source in the building and settled out
from the air into the carpet. Air sampling is another methodology for determining if
hidden mold exists, but it is subject to false negatives. That is, mold spores may not be
present in the air, even if mold is growing on building materials. Air sampling for
microbial volatile organic compounds (MVOCs), which are responsible for mold odors,
is a newly developing method for determining if hidden mold exists; however, it is still
being developed, and firm correlations may not yet be established. In any case, if you can
detect mold odors by smell, mold is present somewhere in the building.
Critical to the success of mold sampling is first establishing a useful sampling strategy.
Determine what you want to know, and decide how to deal with unexpected answers. The
latter concern is important in determining whether sampling should be performed at all,
especially if the information can become public record or has the potential for being used
during litigation.
Mold remediation strategies have been developed from the work practices used in
asbestos abatement. These practices work well for containing airborne mold that is
aerosolized during demolition and for the protection of workers performing the
remediation. The biggest difference between mold and asbestos abatement is that, unlike
asbestos in work, water must not be used in mold wark to control airborne particulate.
This would like be adding fuel to the fire.
The assessment of the extent of mold and the development of mold remediation plans
should generally be done by experienced professionals. The mold remediation should
then be done by experienced and certified mold remediation professionals. A number of
organizations offer certification programs for professionals involved in assessing and
remediating mold problems, including the American Board of Industrial Hygienists
(ABIH}, and the American Council for Accredited Certification (ACAC). For ventilation
r '~
systems, the National Air Duct Cleaners Association (NADCA) provides a certification
program. t h.
Planning Mold Remediation Strategies
The EPA and NYC DOH documents provide action levels for types of containment and
worker protection based on the amount of surface area affected by mold. The EPA
document sets these action levels for mold growth caused by clean water. Mold caused
by polluted water, including sewage backups, may require a different set of procedures
and worker protection. Tlie three EPA action levels are set at affected areas of less than
10 square feet, between 10 and 100, and greater than 100 square feet.
In addition to the size of the affected area, the type of material to be remediated needs to
be considered. Generally, materials that are Highly porous, such as books, gypsum
wallboard and fabric covered chairs, will need to be discarded if heavily contaminated.
This is because the fungal hyphae can become entwined in the matrix of the porous
material, making complete removal impossible. Nonporous metals and plastics can
generally be cleaned, because the mold growth on these surfaces is usually growth on
surface dust. However it's also possible for mold to grow on painted nonporous surfaces.
Table 2 of Mold Remediation in Schools and
Commercial Buildings presents the cleaning methods for different materials. In any case,
a key point is that biocides will generally not solve the mold problem, especially for
porous and semiporous materials. The biocides may not reach all of the mold growth, and
even if they do, mold remains allergenic and toxigenic after it dies. Complete removal of
the mold-contaminated porous material is the best strategy.
In addition to the a-nount of mold contamination and the type of material, the population
of the building must be considered when developing the remediation plan. Sensitive
populations include those with health deficiencies such as people with immune
deficiencies. Children in day care centers or senior citizens in nursing homes should also
be considered sensitive populations. For application to such sensitive facilities, the
requirements for clearance and verification of removal of mold contaminated materials
must be much more stringent than typical commercial projects.
Generally, remediation strategies include the following:
• lnstalling containments, generally using 6-mil polyethylene sheeting, to separate the
mold abatement work area from ot'lier uncontaminated or occupied areas of the building.
Generally, containments are placed under negative pressure relative to the rest of the
building using air filtration devices (AFDs) equipped with high-efficiency particulate air
(HEPA) filters. The air is discharged outside the containment, usually to the outdoor
atmosphere. Air handling systems must be isolated from the work area.
• Equipping remediation workers with PPE. The degree of protection can vary
` ~ ~~ v
depending on the size of affected area, but at a minimum the equipment should include a
respirator, gloves, and goggles. For larger containment work, workers should have full
skin, respiratory and mucous membrane protection, such as that provided by full Tyvek
suits, gloves and full-face respirators with HEPA filter cartridges. Workers in
containment are subject to very high concentrations of aerosolized mold spares, and other
mold parts, so full protection is advised. Skin protection is important because some molds
can cause dermatitis, and some mold toxins can be absorbed through the skin. Workers
wearing PPE must have proper training in its use, medical clearance, and fit testing.
• Providing proper tools for workers, including HEPA-filtered vacuums. Ideally, they
should be able to remove mold-contaminated gypsum wallboard in large pieces to
minimize aerosolizing mold spores.
• Sealing removed material in doubled b-mil polyethylene bags or wrapped in
polyethylene sheeting, while in the containment, and then disposing in a landfill for
composting, not for recycling.
• Cleaning after removal work, usually after a dust settlement period, using HEPA
vacuums and damp wiping with clean cloths moistened with clean potable water or a
mixture of 9 parts water to 1 part bleach. The HEPA vacuuming and damp wiping should
not be construed as methods to remove mold growth. However, they can remove the
settled dust that contains loose mold spores aerosolized during demolition.
~ ~ ~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on December 2, 2012 true and correct copies of the Amended Answer, New
Matter, and Counter-claim of Defendant, Paul J. Grothe, in the above captioned matter were served by
hand delivery to the following:
Nathan C. Wolf, Esquire
Wolf and Wolf
Attorneys at Law
10 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
.~~'
aul J. o
70 West South Street, Apt 8
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone: 717-385-3067
Dated:~~~ ~~ ~~-
8
rt
'-ii lli NOV214 Pik 12: 2
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLA1 ii,1
tymi SYLVANIA
Criston P. Petsinis, : Civil Action—Landlord Tenant
Plaintiff
•
vs. .
Paul J. Grothe, : No. 2012-1611-CIVIL TERM
Defendant
THE PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS
TO THE HONORABLE,THE JUDGES OF THE SAID COURT:
Paul J. Grothe, Defendant in the above action, respectfully represents that:
1. The above-captioned action is at issue.
2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $2,850.00. The Counterclaim of the
defendant in the action is $25,000.00.
The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsel or are otherwise disqualified
to sit as arbitrators:
Nathan C. Wolfe, Esquire, 10 West High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
David R. Breschi, Esquire, 946 Lincoln Way East, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17201
WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3)
arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted.
Respectfully submitted,/ 4f.. .(7.
fP ul J. Gro e, i"dant
c.)S" SGl�,�(,c Y (6d
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Criston P. Petsinis, : Civil Action — Landlord Tenant
Plaintiff
vs.
Paul J. Grothe,
Defendant
: No. 2012 -1611 -CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, ,Z44 ,4n/A/ / 02'5 , 2014, in consideration of the
foregoing petition,NLI4f/)1 -
Esquire,
Esquire, and ` 7Z&/ d e‘/ /:
Esquire, are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned action as prayed for.
Pet4 44,4-i4
714/ ?.
4 a iva /f/244/
/eeG
By the Court,
`/ s 4
I� J.
H
Criston P. Petsinis
Paul J. Grothe
Plaintiff
Defendant
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania No. 12
Civil Action — Law.
-01611
Oath
We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution of this Commonwealth an hat we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity.
gnature
James M. Bach, Attorney
Name (Chairman)
Law Office of James M. Bach
Law Firm
352 South Sporting Hill Road
Address
Mechanicsburg 17050
City, Zip
x
Sixfature
Susan Confair, Attorney
Name
Reager & Adler, PC
Law Firm
2331 Market Street
Address
Camp Hill 17011
City, Zip
Signatur
Michael Carrucoli, Attorney
Name
Carrucoli and Associates
Law Firm
875 Market Street
Address
Lemoyne
City,
17043
Zip
Award
We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following
award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.)
.Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert naive if applicable.)
Date of Hearing: January 14th, 2015
Date of Award: January 14th, 2015
vrewe4g-r--e
Notice of Entry of Award
(Chairman)
Now, the /C day of Q , 20/5' , at /% `.S3 , A .M., the above
award was entered upon the docket aid notice given by mail to the parties or their attorneys.
Arbitrators' compensation to b- pa'd upon appeal: $ 1%/6 ..5)
Prothonotary
By:
Deputy