HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-12IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ~o
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~, x
IN RE:
ESTATE OF DAVID H. CLOUSER
ci
~~ :.
~~G-,'-:
ORPHAN'S CO~
NO. 21-2009-02.
~ '-'i
~'
STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
The issues before the court on March 21, 2012, were:
a. the payment of rent which the court had previously ordered to be held in
abeyance until resolution of other estate issues;
b. a request for contributions to the rental of storage units;
c. an unnecessary request for a Notice deadline since Debra Houseman had
already agreed to put the house on the market; and
d. a request for attorney fees.
2. Without a hearing the court ordered Debra Houseman to vacate her residence on
or before July 2, 2012.
3. Over objection of Debra Houseman's counsel to the order to vacate, the court
simply stated that it was the only way this estate would ever be settled.
4. Under the laws of descent in Pennsylvania, and by virtue of the Will of David H.
Clouser, Debra Houseman is a joint owner of the property where she resides.
5. As the legal owner of the residence, even if a joint owner, she cannot be deprived
of that property, or the beneficial use thereof, without due process of law.
6. Debra Houseman was never given an opportunity to be heard. Even in the last
hearing, the court stopped the proceedings and issued an order before Debra
Housemen had an opportunity to testify or introduce evidence.
1`.. j
i~~~Y
-.1
c__.
c
r
N
ca
-~
~r
W
W
w
i I ~,.
~-, ~-~
l~
1[f 1
,Cs
!-~ r~
t;,l~ O
~.~
,~
7. The deprivation of Debra Houseman's property rights without due process of law
violates both the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
8. Even a tenant, under Pennsylvania's Landlord Tenant Act, has more rights
regarding due process than those afforded to Debra Houseman b y the court.
9. The Petitioner, Douglas Clouser, has legal remedies he could pursue through
Partition of the property. He never sought that remedy, nor did he request that Debra
Houseman be removed from the property.
10. The court's order of March 21, 2012, is unconstitutional, and is an abuse of the
court's discretion.
11. Pa. Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 313, allows appellant to appeal this order
because of the irreparable harm it will cause appellant.
Respectfully submitted,
R. Mark Thomas, Esquire