Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-5840~:~ i,~~' PRt~T~O~~CiE~~~`~' ~~lz s~P z ~ ate s= ca ~UMBERLAPIfl CC1UI#TY P~NNSI~LYANlA ALLIED EXTEIORS, INC., Plaintiff vs. ROBERT SCO'O'T BURAN and ANN BtTRAN, his wife, Defendants TO DEFENDANII''S NAMED HEREIN: YOU HA~ CLAIMS SET F+ WITHIN TWEN BY ENTERING FILING IN WRI CLAIMS SET F+ SO, THE CASE ENTERED AG? MONEY CLATII~ REQUESTED B OTHER RIGHT IN THE COURT ~OF COMMON PLEAS OF CE~~ERLAND COL)I+TTY, F SYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION ~ LAW NO. ~ c~ E BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFENI ELTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKI 'Y (20} DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTIC WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY A3 CNG WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJET NTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF ~ [AY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU, AND A JUDGMENT ~ST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NEJ' ~D IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAI] THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PRa IMPORTANT TO YOU. AGAINST THE ACTION ARE SERVED, 'OONEY AND TIONS TO THE ~IJ FAIL TO DO gAY BE [CE FOR ANY f OR RELIEF ERTY OR YOU SH ULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONt~E. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TEL PHONE THE OFFICE SET FO~iTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 TELEPHONE: (717) 249-3166 ~~~. R\ 03.75 ~ A. e~~ ~ b` b qS ALLIED EXTE~tiORS, INC., Plaintiff vs. ROBERT SC07I"t' B[JRAN and ANN BUItAN, ~is wife, Defendants IN THE COiJRT COMMON PLEAS OF C ERLAND COUNTY, P SYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION ~ LAW NO. AND NO''~ comes the above-named Plaintiffby its attorney, Samuel ~,. Andes, and files the following Caint in this matter: 1. The Pl~intff is Allied Exteriors, Inc., a c~pairation organized und~r the Taws of the Commonwealth did Pennsylvania with its principal office at 340 Pleasant Vie~av Road in Ne Cumberland, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendants aze Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, his wife, adult individuals who reside at 11 ~ South College Street in Cazlisle, Cumberland County, Persylvania. 3. Plainti~f is and has been, at all times relevant to this action, engag~ in the business oaf home remodeling, repair, and roof repair and replacement. 4. At ali dimes relevant to this suit, Defendants owned the property a1k 111 South Colleg$ Street in Carlisle. 5. By an ~~reement dated 21 May 2011, Plaintiff and Robert S. Burn, on behalf of both Defendants, entercl into an agreement whereby Plaintiff was to do certain r work on Defendants' property, including the replacement of the roof, and Defendants agreed to pay $42,870.00 for those services. A copy of the agreement signed by the partie~, and dated 21 Mai 2011, is attached ~ hereto and mazked as EXHIBIT A. 6. Durin~ the course of Plaintiff s work on Defendants' property, Defendants asked Plaintiff to do so~ie additional work, which is described on a letter from Plai~ttiff to Defendants', dated 2 Novemb$r 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto and mazked as E~HIBIT B. 7. After receiving Plaintiff s letter (EXHIBIT B), Defendants authorized and instructed' Plaintiff to do additional work described in that letter. 8. Pl~inti~ well and truly performed its obligation to Defendants und~r the contract, as modified b y the fetter dated 2 November 2011. It completed all of its work except for a few minor repairs wh~¢h the Defendants refused to permit Plaintiff to return and make. However, with the exception of those minor repairs, which would be corrected easily apd at little or no expense, Flaintif~' performed all of its obligations under the agreement, as modified by the order of 2 November 2'11, and furnished the requirement warranty. for the roof. 9. Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff for the work P~aintiff did on their) PY'oP~Y• 10. Defepdants, by their conduct, have injured Plaintiff in the amounlt of $42,870.00, plus interest after 30 June 201 1, plus costs of suit. WHEREiE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in tl~e amount of $47,580.00, plus interest after 30 June 2012, plus costs of suit. Samue . Andes Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 12~' Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, Fa 17043 . ~ .• I verify th ,the statements made in this document are true and corrects I understand that any false stg~+~~ts in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.15.49I14 (unsworn falsification to authorities). ALLIED EXTERIORS, INS., by: Date: ~- !~ / 2 C L RNE ~XMIBIT A .,..~ ' l~XT!'~Rf+~R~' /IVC, //off ! 340 PLEASANT VIEW IR~OAD NEW CUMBERLAND PEA 17070 ~~T~n m wnor m ~ oFQCnoMm eT• May 21, 2011 Scott 111 South St. 111 Sarrth St. PA ' Car~sle PA ' i. Remove the existing ng system. Shingles, felt, nails, and drip edge. 2. Clean roof deck and inspect for deterioration of the deck. 3. All deteriorated be replaced. 4. Install drip edge on raves and rakes. 5. Irutall Glacer Guard. the eaves, hips, ridges, rakes, and in the center of the valleys. 6. Iretall Agra Guard on rerrraining roof deck: 7. It~all new vaNey ng. '_j~_„I_' 8. All per>etration5 (pipes; chimneys, skylights, aril vent stacks) will have stops of Giacer' Guard, 12" wkfe " on or around the penetratlons. 9. Install Eco Star 12" Tr~tlonal Majestic and beveveled slate shingles. (75% federal Gray, 2096 Smoke Gray, ~.5% Earth Green, and 2.596 Mfdrtigttt 10. Install cap shingles on it peaks. 11. Install 6" half round ! 4"round downspouts. 12. Inspect the roof for ~ ~etxfs left from the installation, dean all gutters completely, and check all ~i far proper quaking. 13. Furnish a Ecostar 50 warranty. I 1. In~alF blod©ng along the perimeter. z. Apply one layer of 1/2 insulation over the entlre area mechanicaly attached with screws and plates at a rate ~ one per two square. feet. 3. Install reinforced re sensible stripping along all transitions. 4. Adpgr a fatly adhered ! rrdi EPDM roof syst>ern. 5. Fabricate and install 24ga. pre-Ar>ished edge metal. 6.. Flash :alt kx~bs, pipes new edge metal to manufacture's spedticatlons. 7. Famish a 15 year t-rarte warranty. 1. All roof decking replacement will be an extra $3.00 a square foot. 1. The txmR in grAter and khe front and side porch Ailmateriai ~ guaranteed to_be _ and the above wank to be ptxfOnn~d in a walvnan ~e m~n~ for the sum aac~PTE of The above prices, spedflcadons conditions are ~ and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to this contract as dj- mfr rlt+e taNarw, I.E1ai~ hsenN~ A11ied Rootrlln~ and ~ Inc. and its rsas, owrws ane~ t~aMs, fbr amy w ri.li.~r... L..._.u._.__ CUStortler iVame: ` ~""", " Customer 5 nature: Aflied PHONE (717) 774-8476 FAX t~~7j 77#-6477 ~XHiBIT B ALLt EXTEI~iO~S NMC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW IROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 November 2, 2011 Scott 8uran 111 S. Colk~ge St. Carlisle, PA RE: Crown and Dormer Skiing We propose to famish ail labor, material and equipment to: 1. Remove the ex~ing-crown molding. (Top n~of/bw sbp~ed n~ perimeter.) 2. Install 5/4x4 bas~'trim. 3. Install 5/4x6 fao~ board. 4. Install 4 5/8ti' crdvwn molding. Mefiai cost: $1,145 '' t.~Or cost: $745 I~t b:a : $1,8'~fJ 1. Renx~ve existing skim and trim boards from five dormers. The sides only. 2. InstaN Azek 5/41 firkn around the perimeter. 3. Instaq Pre-finish~ci 5 i/4" Hanife siding. (5" Reveal tea matcfi existitx~ and Navajo Beic~) Material cost: $1830 L~o~' cost: $960 t!rMot ~: ~ ~2> Reslaectfully submitted, / ~~v Mike Fleet .v~ 20 Estin/Project Manager ~d ~~~ V~~~ ~~ /~' ~? ~ t~-~71 r~4~7~ F~ ~~1'> rr4~n IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PElv`1V~SYLVANIA ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., Plaintiff : °, s. : ROBF:KT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, his wife Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAV6~ CASE NO. 12-840 Civil PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ~~ ~ ~ ~ { ---r _ ti~ Please enter my appearance on behalf of Robert Scott Buran and Ann. B~~ran. the Defendants in this matter: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire Supreme Court L D. # 38444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 JoeBLawnaol.com Thank you. 1---~. Date: 10/19/12 (/ 1 '~. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire, do hereby verify that I have served a true and correct copy of the Fntrv of Appearance upon the person indicated below, which service satisfies the requirement of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid as follows: Samuel L. Andes, Esquire 525 North 12th Street P. O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Date: October 19, 2012 ~;.~ , J ~ 1vL). Buckley ,~. SHERIFF'S ~FFIGE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTI( Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor ~'~,3~'..; . _ . ., ,., ~'I~EU-4FFIC. 7of~ocr 23 ~n = 4~ Cl1t~BERl.AND CUUNT'Y 1'ENNSYLYANIA Allied Exteriors, Inc. Case Number vs. Robert Scott Buran (et al.) 2012-5840 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 10/01/2012 06:26 PM -Shawn Gutshall, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 1, 2012 at 1826 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Robert S. Buran, by making known unto Ann Buran, Wife of Robert S. Buran at 111 S. College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. ~~ i ..~ -, H GUTSHALL. DEPUTY 10/01/2012 06:26 PM -Shawn Gutshall, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 1, 2012 at 1826 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Ann Buran, by making known unto herself personally, at 111 S. College Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. P ~ r GUT ALL DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $50.45 October 10, 2012 SO ANSWERS, ~~17 /~L .-~. RON R ANDERSON.. SHERIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC. Plaintiff v. ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, Defendants CJ~ ~.~ ~,r~, Ilbv ~.4 Prr~ a.y/ eu.-~-6 . ~ . ~~ No. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION -LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, NEW MATTERS AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, this 28'" November, 2012, come Defendants, by and through their counsel, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire, and Answer Plaintiff's Complaint raising New Matters and Counterclaim as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part. Robert S. Buran did sign the agreement attached to the Complaint; however for reasons set forth below in the New Matter and the Counterclaim, the agreement did not comply with the requirements of Commonwealth's Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq. 6. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Robert S. Buran did request additional work be performed; however for reasons set forth below in the New Matter and the Counterclaim, the agreement and change request did not comply w7th the requirements of Commonwealth's Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), and neither Robert S. Buran or Ann Buran signed any change request. ?. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants cannot ascertain the truth or falsity of this averment and therefore specific proof is demanded. 8. Denied. For reasons more fully set forth below, Plaintiff and its agents did not perform the work, improperly installed the roof on two occasions. Had to remove the same and then reinstalled it improperly and against the specific dictates of the manufacturer of the roof and could not provide a manufacturer's 50 year warranty as promised. The roof continues to fail in areas and the gutter work was installed improperly causing additional issues. 9. It is admitted that Defendants did not and have not paid Plaintiff for the inferior work performed on their property and as more fully set forth below, we directed not to do so by Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's admission of its inferior work. 10. This averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. NEW MATTERS 1 l .Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 10, above, as though set forth herein at length. l 2. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. I :. Plaintiff s claim is barred and/or limited by the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), 73 P.S. § ~ 17.1 et seq. 1.4. Defendants are homeowners residing in the single family home located at 111 South College Street, Carlisle, PA 17013. 15. Defendants sought to improve their home through the use of a residential home improvement contractor. l6. Plaintiff is a home improvement contractor and is presumed to be registered and licensed as such. 17. Plaintiff is required to follow HICPA in its dealings with residential consumers such as Defendants. 18. Plaintiff and its agents and employees were to install a fifty year warranted roof using the EcoStar brand roofing shingles on Defendants single family residence and such was a home improvement covered by HICPA. 19. Plaintiffs agreement and change order do not contain Plaintiff's home improvement registration number of the performing contractor. 20. Plaintiff s agreement and change order do not contain the signature of Plaintiff or any of its agents or employees. 21. Plaintiff s agreement and change order do not contain nor have attached all required notices of the HICPA including the toll free telephone number of Pennsylvania's Attorney General and the office's respective consumer protection department, and the required notice of a three (3) day right of rescission. 22. Plaintiff's agreement and change order do not contain the Plaintiff s telephone number and does not contain the name address and telephone number of all subcontractors to be used and their respective contractor registration information. 23. Plaintiffs agreement contains a hold harmless clause for Plaintiff or its subcontractors or affiliated companies. 24. Plaintiff s agreement and change order is neither valid nor enforceable as against Defendants. 25. Plaintiff and Defendants reached an accord and satisfaction of anv and all claims of Plaintiff against Defendants. COUNTERCLAIM A. Improper Installation 26. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, above, as though set forth herein at length. 27. Plaintiff and its agents and employees improperly installed the roof on one occasion and had to remove it causing delays. 28. Plaintiff and its agents and employees improperly installed the roof a second time and were informed by EcoStar inspectors and regional representatives and then admitted by Plaintiff that Plaintiff, its agents or employees had not properly installed asub-roof and as a result, EcoStar would not issue a warranty. 29. Plaintiff offered Defendants a limited, revised warranty which Defendants would not agree to accept. 30. Having learned of the improper second installation and with discussions with EcoStar representatives, Defendants desired the roof t:o be removed and the proper sub-roofing installed and new roof installed. 31. Plaintiff and its agents and employees also installed gutters and downspouts and as a result, Defendants began having a number of problems due to the improper installation of these gutters and downspouts. 32. Since the second improper installation of the roof, Defendants have experienced additional problems with the roof including leaks, and other problems with the installation. 33. Defendants have no confidence in the ability, skill and workmanship of Plaintiff, its agents and employees based on its admitted two improper attempts to install the roof and its failure to properly install the gutters and downspouts. 34. Defendants met with Plaintiff and its President to discuss this matter, and after the discussion, Plaintiff admitted it had improperly installed the roof; that it was wrong and made an offer to Defendants to settle the matter. 35. Defendants accepted the settlement and began seeking another company to remove the second roof Plaintiff and its agents and employees had installed and to have it replaced and properly installed with an EcoStar or equivalent 50 year warranted roof. 36. Defendants will have to expend in excess of $43,000.00 to correct the problems caused by Plaintiff s improper installations and will have to bear the burden of the inconvenience, interruption and additional problems associated with atear-off and reinstallation of the roof. B. Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices 37. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 36, above, as though set forth herein at length. 38. Plaintiff held itself out as an approved and competent installer of residential roofing, including the ability and knowledge to install an EcoStar roof in accordance with installation requirements as set forth by EcoStar. 39. Plaintiff made one improper installation of the roof which it removed and then began reinstalling. 40. Plaintiff made a second attempt at a proper installation but after inspection Plaintiff was placed on notice and also admitted it had not installed the proper sub-roof. 41. Plaintiffs representations as to its ability were deceptive and induced Defendants into permitting Plaintiff to install the EcoStar roof which was installed improperly on two occasions. 42. Defendants shall be required to now have the roof removed, the sub-roof removed and all replaced in accordance with EcoStar requirements at a cost exceeding $43,000.00. 43. Plaintiffs deceptive actions violate the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 44. Defendants are entitled to treble damages. 4~. Defendants are entitled to reasonable attorney fees. WHEREFORE Defendants request a judgment in their. favor in an amount in excess of $43,000.00 together with treble damages, costs of this suit and reasonable attorney fees. Respectfully submitted, ~--~ 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 VERIFICATION We, Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, the named Defendants. hereby verify that the statements made herein are true and correct to our knowledge and belief. We understand that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. --> -, r Date: November 28. 2012 ~~~~°-~-~-~~ ~ -~ ~~; ~`'>.~~ ~,~ Robert Scott Buran ~~~ ~ ~~.~~~~ r l~Z ~~_~ Ann Buran _. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matters and Counterclaim was served by means of United States First Class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following person: Samuel L. Andes, Esquire 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Date j ~ ~ ~-~ - J 7i` 1 seph D. Buckle ,Esquire L _ ~ , j { IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~ r ~ ~ f~`~'r` ~ 9 ~~~ Z~ 1 I ~~UMB~ sl.`;~u CAE:,: o ~r. ~'E!f!~SY!..'~%~'~'.1lia ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC Plaintiff ~. No. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and CIVIL ACTION -LAW ANN BURAN, Defendants IMPORTANT NOTICE Following your filing of a Complaint ,New Matters and Counterclaims have been made against you in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty days (20) days after the Answer with New matters and Counterclaims and notice are served, by having your attorney or by you personally 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 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 A'T 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 LEUAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 n i I 3 1LYf-'.i� r� ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ) j; ANN BURAN, his wife, NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Defendants ) PETITION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff, by its attorney Samuel L. Andes, and j petitions the court for leave to amend its Complaint in this matter, based upon the following: I 1. The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff. The Respondents are the Defendants. I 2. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint on 21 September 2012. The basis of Plaintiff's claim was an alleged contract between Plaintiff and Defendants. i 3. On 29 November 2012, Defendants filed an Answer with New Matter and i Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Complaint. In their pleading, Defendants raised the claim that the alleged contract between Plaintiff and Defendants was invalid and unenforceable because of the i Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (73 PS 517 et sea). 4. Plaintiff performed substantial construction work on Defendants' home for an agreed price of$47,580.00. Defendants now seek to avoid paying Plaintiff for any of that work on the basis of the said Act. 5. Plaintiff wishes to amend its Complaint to add an additional count seeking recovery j under a theory of unjust enrichment. Plaintiff believes that, if the agreement between the parties is invalid or unenforceable, Plaintiff should be compensated for the benefit it conferred upon Defendants by doing the requested construction work at Defendants' home. 6. The contract between the parties was dated 1 June 2011 and Plaintiff's construction work was all completed after that date. As a result, Plaintiffs claim for unjust enrichment is not barred by any applicable statute of limitations. �I i �I, 1 7. Attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT A is a copy of Plaintiff's original i Complaint. I I 8. Attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT B is a copy of Plaintiff's proposed Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this court to grant it leave to file an Amended Complaint to raise the additional claims of unjust enrichment. I V r.k�j Samuel L. An As Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 12`h Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, Pa 17043 i i i i i i i II i I I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities). I i Date: .� �,�� w i i i i i I i i i i I , i i I i i� I I � i I �I it i i i III I I j I I i I i i I i EXHIBIT A 1EP CUNF;r Rr Ai°j,D ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ) ANN BUR.AN, his wife, ) NO. Defendants ) NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN: ( YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION "( WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO ( SO, THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU, AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ( ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY I MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF fREQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. ,i I YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO i NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE f OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION f 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET ( CARLISLE, PA 17013 ( TELEPHONE: (717) 249-3166 .i �I ALLIED EXTERIORS,INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION -LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN,his wife, NO. Defendants COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff by its attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and files the following Complaint in this matter: 1. The Plaintiff is Allied Exteriors, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal office at 340 Pleasant View Road in Ne Cumberland, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendants are Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran,his wife, adult individuals who reside at 111 South College Street in Carlisle, Cumberland County,Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is and has been, at all times relevant to this action, engaged in the business of home remodeling, repair, and roof repair and replacement. 4. At all times relevant to this suit, Defendants owned the property at 111 South College Street in Carlisle. 5. By an agreement dated 21 May 2011,Plaintiff and Robert S. Buran, on behalf of both Defendants, entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiff was to do certain repair work on Defendants' property, including the replacement of the roof, and Defendants agreed to pay $42,870.00 for those services. A copy of the agreement signed by the parties, and dated 21 May 2011, is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT A. 6. During the course of Plaintiff's work on Defendants' property,Defendants asked Plaintiff to do some additional work,which is described on a letter from Plaintiff to Defendants dated 2 November 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT B. i 7. After receiving Plaintiff's letter(EXHIBIT B), Defendants authorized and instructed Plaintiff to do the additional work described in that letter. 8. Plaintiff well and truly performed its obligation to Defendants under the contract, as modified b y the letter dated 2 November 2011. It completed all of its work except for a few minor repairs which the Defendants refused to permit Plaintiff to return and make. However, with the exception of those minor repairs, which would be corrected easily and at little or no expense, Plaintiff performed all of its obligations under the agreement, as modified by the order of 2 November 2011, and furnished the requirement warranty for the roof. 9. Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff for the work Plaintiff did on their property. 10. Defendants, by their conduct, have injured Plaintiff in the amount of$42,870.00, plus interest after 30 June 2011, plus costs of suit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of I $47,580.00, plus interest after 30 June 2012, plus costs of suit. l k i Samue . Andes Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 12th Street I P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, Pa 17043 s E i S f I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities). ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., by: Date: lldidKEL r41ORNE j 1 I� I I I i If i� I f I i EXHIBIT A ALLIED EXTERIORS INC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 May 21,2011 SUBMITTED TO WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT. Scott Buran 111 South College St. ill South College St Carlisle, PA carilsle,PA Ecostar Scope 1. Remove the existing roofing system. Shingles,felt,nails,and drip edge. 2. Clean roof deck completely and inspect for deterioration of the deck, 3. All deteriorated decking will be replaced. 4. Install drip edge on the eaves and rakes. 5. Install Glacier Guard on the eaves,hips,ridges,rakes,and in the center of the valleys. 6. Install Aqua Guard on the remaining roof deck., 7. Install new valley flashing. 8. All penetrations(pipes,chimneys,skylights,and vent stacks)will have strips of Glacier Guard, 12"wide installed on or around the penetrations' 9. Install Eco Star 12"Traditional Majestic and beveveled slate shingles. (75%Federal Gray,206/b Smoke Gray,2.5%Earth Green, and 2.5%Midnight Gray) 10. Install cap shingles on all peaks. 11. Install 6"half round and 4"round downspouts. 12. Inspect the roof for all debris left from the installation,dean all gutters completely,and check all penetrations for proper caulking. 13. Fumish a Ecostar 50 year warranty, EPDM Scop 1. Install blocking along the perimeter. 2. Apply one layer of 1/2"insulation over the entire area mechanically attached with screws and plates at a rate of one per two square feet. 3. Install reinforced pressure sensitive stripping along all transitions. 4. Apply a fully adhered 60 mil EPDM roof system. 5. Fabricate and Install new 24-ga.pre-finished edge metal. 6.. Flash ail curbs,pipes and new edge metal to manufacture's specifications. 7. Furnish a 15 year membrane warranty. General notes: 1. All roof decking replacement will be an extra$3.00 a square foot. Exclusions: 1. The built in gutter and the front and side porch All material is guaranteed to be as specified and the above work to be performed In a workman like manner for the sum of FOURTY-TWO I THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY DOLLARS($42A70)with payment to be according to terms below. ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT: The above prices,specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to complete this contract as specified. By my signature below,I hold harmless Allied Roofing and Sheetmetal Inc.and its employees,owners and heirs,for any current or future mold rellited.problems. Date of Acceptance: A h loq Payment Terms: Upon Completion Customer Name: iin Asagir aueAAI OfS"?r� Customer Signature: Allied Representative: PHONE(717) 774-6476 FAX(717)774-6477 it I I i `1 I f 4 I 2 1 I i EXHIBIT B ALLIED EXTERIORS INC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 November 2, 2011 Scott Buran 111 S. College St. Carlisle, PA RE: Crown and Dormer Siding We propose to furnish all labor, material and equipment to: Crown Molding Scone 1. Remove the existing crown molding. (Top roof/low sloped roof perimeter.) 2. Install 5/4x4 base trim. 3. Install 5/4x6 face board. 4. Install 4 51e crown molding. Material cost: $1,145 Labor cost: $745 Not to exceed: $1,890 Dormer Siding Scog'_e 1. Remove existing siding and trim boards from five dormers.The sides only. 2. Install Azek 5/4x4 trim around the perimeter. 3. Install Pre-finished 5 1/4"Hardie siding. (5"Reveal to match existing and Navajo Beige) Material cost: $1830 Labor cost: $960 Not to exceed: $2,820 Respectfully submitted, Mike Fleet Estimator/Project Manager �v r., PHONE (717)774-6476 FAX(717)774-6477 i. i I�II I ii j it i I i I I EXHIBIT B I' I ! ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ) i ANN BURAN, his wife, ) NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Defendants ) NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN: YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY(20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU, AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 TELEPHONE: (717) 249-3166 I ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ) i ANN BURAN, his wife, ) NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Deifendants ) AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff by its attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and makes the following Amended Complaint in this matter: 1. The Plaintiff is Allied Exteriors, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal office at 340 Pleasant View Road, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendants are Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, his wife, adult individuals who reside at 111 South College Street in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is and has been, at all times relevant to this action, engaged in the business of residential and other construction, repair, and roof repair and replacement. 4. At all times relevant to this suit, Defendants owned the property at 111 South College � Street in Carlisle. 5. By an agreement dated 21 May 2011, Plaintiff and Robert S. Buran, on behalf of both Defendants, entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiff was to do certain repair work on Defendants' property, including the replacement of the roof, and Defendants agreed to pay $42,870.00 for those services. A copy of the agreement signed by the parties, and dated 21 May 2011, is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT A. 6. During the course of Plaintiff s work on Defendants' property, Defendants asked Plaintiff to do some additional work, which is described on a letter from Plaintiff to Defendants dated 2 November 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT B. i I I 7. After receiving Plaintiff s letter (EXHIBIT B), Defendants authorized and instructed Plaintiff to do the additional work described in that letter. 8. Plaintiff well and truly performed its obligation to Defendants under the contract, as modified b y the letter dated 2 November 2011. It completed all of its work except for a few minor repairs which the Defendants refused to permit Plaintiff to return and make. However, with the exception of those minor repairs, which would be corrected easily and at little or no expense, Plaintiff performed all of its obligations under the agreement, as modified by the order of 2 November 2011, and furnished the requirement warranty for the roof. 9. Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff for the work Plaintiff did on their property. 10. Defendants, by their conduct, have injured Plaintiff in the amount of$47,580.00, after 30 June 2011, plus costs of suit. COUNT I—CONTRACT 11. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 10 above are incorporated herein by reference. 12. Plaintiff well and truly performed its obligations under the contract with Defendants. 13. As a result of the conduct of the parties, described above, a contract came into existence between them whereby Plaintiff agreed to do certain specified construction work on Defendants' property for which Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff$47,580.00. I 14. Defendants have breached the contract between the parties by failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff for the work Plaintiff completed on Defendants' property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of $47,580.00, plus interest after 30 June 2012, plus costs of suit. I i i i COUNT II—UNJUST ENRICHMENT I Defendants contend that the agreement between the parties pursuant to which Plaintiff performed work on Defendants' property is invalid or unenforceable under the terms of the Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act. In the event that this court deems that contract to be invalid or unenforceable, Plaintiff sets forth the following alternative claim for relief: 15. Plaintiff incorporates herein, by reference, the averments set out in Paragraphs 1 through 10 above. 16. Plaintiff performed substantial construction work on Defendants' property at the request and direction of Defendants. 17. The work performed by Plaintiff on Defendants' property is described in EXHIBITS A and B which are attached to this Complaint and which are incorporated herein by reference. 18. The work done by Plaintiff on Defendants' property conferred a substantial benefit on Defendants by improving that property. 19. Defendants were fully aware of the work done on their property by Plaintiff, directed that work in some instances, and fully appreciated the significant benefits conferred upon Defendants by Plaintiff for that work. 20. Defendants received and have retained the benefit of Plaintiff's work on their property and the benefit conferred upon Defendants by virtue of that work. The value of the benefit conferred upon Defendants upon Plaintiff is $47,580.00, that being the price which the Defendants acknowledged Plaintiff's work to be worth when Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff that amount for Plaintiff's work. 21. If this court does not uphold and enforce the agreement between the parties, in accordance with Count I hereof, Defendants will be unjustly enriched in the amount of $47,580.00 because they have retained that benefit conferred upon them by Plaintiff. 22. Plaintiff did the work on Defendants' property at considerable expense and detriment to Plaintiff. i i I 23. It would be inequitable, unfair, and unjust to allow Defendants to retain the benefit conferred upon them by Plaintiff's work without paying reasonable and fair compensation to Plaintiff for that work. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of $47,580.00, plus interest after 30 June 2011, plus costs of suit. SamM L. Andes Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 12`x' Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-5361 i I i I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (unworn falsification to authorities). ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., by Date: C L RNE i i i i EXHIBIT i ALLIED EXTERIORS INC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 May 21,2011 SUBMITTED TO WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT: Scott Buran 111 South College St. 111 South College St. Carlisle PA Carlisle PA Ecostar Scope 1. Remove the existing roofing system. Shingles,felt,nails,and drip edge. 2. Clean roof deck completely and inspect for deterioration of the deck. 3. All deteriorated decking will be replaced. 4. Install drip edge on the eaves and rakes. S. Install Glacier Guard on the eaves,hips,ridges,rakes,and in the center of the valleys. 6. Install Aqua Guard on the remaining roof deck: 7. Install new valley flashing. 8. All penetrations(pipes,chimneys,skylights,and vent stacks)will have strips of Glacier Guard, 12"wide installed on or around the penetrations. 9. Install Eco Star 12"Traditional Majestic and beveveled slate shingles. (75%Federal Gray,209/b Smoke Gray,2.5%Earth Green, and 2.5%Midnight Gray) 10. Install cap shingles on all peaks. 11. Install 6"half round and 4"round downspouts. 12. Inspect the roof for all debris left from the installation,dean all gutters completely,and check all penetrations for proper caulking. 13. Furnish a Ecostar 50 year warranty. EPDM Scope 1. Install bloddng along the perimeter. 2. Apply one layer of 1/2"insulation over the entire area mechanically attached with screws and plates at a rate of one per two square feet. 3. Install reinforced pressure sensitive stripping along all transitions. 4. Apply a fully adhered 60 mil EPDM roof system. 5. Fabricate and install new 24-ga.pre-finished edge metal. 6.. Flash all curbs,pipes and new edge metal to manufacture's specifications. 7. Furnish a 15 year membrane warranty. General notes: 1. All roof decking replacement will be an extra$3.00 a square foot. Exclusions: 1. The built in gutter and the front and side porch All material is guaranteed to be as specified and the above work to be performed in a workman like manner for the sum of FOURTY-TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY DOLLARS($42,870)with payment to be according to terms below. ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT: The above prices,specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to complete this contract as specified. By my signature below,I hold harmless Allied Roofing and Sheetmetal Inc.and its employees,owners and heirs,for any current or future mold m1pted problems. Date of Acceptance: h , Payment Terms: • / U n Completion Customer Name: 4 S ps Customer Signature: Allied Re presentative: PHONE (717)774-6476 FAX (717)774-6477 I�I I� �I EXHIBIT B ALLIED EXTERIORS INC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 November 2, 2011 Scott Buran 111 S. College St. Carlisle, PA RE: Crown and Dormer Siding We propose to furnish all labor, material and equipment to: Crown Molding Scog_e 1. Remove the existing crown molding. (Top roof/low sloped roof perimeter.) 2. Install 5/4x4 base trim. 3. Install 5/4x6 face board. 4. Install 4 51e crown molding. Material cost: $1,145 Labor cost: $745 Not to exceed: $1,890 Dormer Siding o e 1. Remove existing siding and trim boards from five dormers.The sides only. 2. Install Azek 5/4x4 trim around the.perimeter. 3. Install Pre-finished 5 1/4"Hardie siding. (5"Reveal to match existing and Navajo Beige) Material cost: $1830 Labor cost: $960 Not to exceed: :$2,$20 Respectfully submitted, Mike Fleet Estimator/Project Manager ( v /1A �F PHONE(717)774-6476 FAX(717)774-6477 i i i i EXHIBIT B ALLIED EXTERIORS INC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 97070 ' May 21,2011 SUBMITTED TO WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT: Scott Buran 111 South College St. 111 South College St. Carlisle PA Carlisle PA Ecostar ScoRe 1. Remove the existing roofing system. Shingles,felt,nails,and drip edge. 2. Clean roof deck completely and inspect for deterioration of the deck. 3. All deteriorated decking will be replaced. 4. Install drip edge on the eaves and rakes. 5. Install Glad&Guard on the eaves,hips,ridges,rakes,and in the center of the valleys. 6. Install Aqua Guard on the remaining roof deck. 7. Install new valley flashing. 8. All penetrations(pipes,chimneys,skylights,and vent stacks)will have stops of Glacier Guard, 12"wide Installed on or around the penetrations. 9. Install Eco Star 12"Traditional Majestic and beveveled slate shingles. (75%Federal Gray,206/6 Smoke Gray,2.5%Earth Green, and 2.5%Midnight Gray) 10. Install cap shingles on all peaks. 11. Install 6"half round and 4"round downspouts. 12. Inspect the roof for all debris left from the Installation,dean all gutters completely,and check all penetrations for proper caulking. 13. Fumish a Ecostar 50 year warranty. EPDM Score 1. Install blocking along the perimeter. 2. Apply one layer of 1/2"insulation over the entire area mechanically attached with screws and plates at a rate of one per two square feet. 3. Install reinforced pressure sensitive stripping along all transitions. 4. Apply a fully adhered 60 mil EPDM roof system. 5. Fabricate and Install new 24-ga.pre-finished edge metal. 6.. Flash all curbs,pipes and new edge metal to manufacture's spedfications. 7. Furnish a 15 year membrane warranty. General notes: 1. All roof decking replacement will be an extra$3.00 a square foot. Exclusions: 1. The built in gutter and the front and side porch All material is guaranteed to be as specified and the above work to be performed In a workman like manner for the sum of FOURTY-TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY DOLLARS($42,870)with payment to be according to terms below. ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT: The above prices,spedfications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to complete this contract as specified. By my signature below,I hold harmless Allied Roofing and Sheetmetal Inc.and its employees,owners and heirs,for any current or future mold relaite4problems. Date of Acceptance: f Payment Terms: , Upon Completion Customer Name: iin S Customer Signature: Allied Representative: NAME Aar PHONE (717) 774-6476 FAX (717)774-6477 i i i EXHIBIT B ALLIED EXTERIORS INC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 November 2, 2011 Scott Buran 111 S. College St. Carlisle, PA RE: Crown and Dormer Siding We propose to furnish all labor, material and equipment to: Crown Molding Scone 1. Remove the existing crown molding. (Top roof/low sloped roof perimeter.) 2. Install 5/4x4 base trim. 3. Install 5/4x6 face board. 4. Install 4 Sle crown molding. Material cost: $1,145 Labor cost: $745 Not to exceed: $1,890 Dormer Siding SCORe 1. Remove existing siding and trim boards from five dormers.The sides only. 2. Install Azek 5/4x4 trim around the.perimeter. 3. Install Pre-finished 5 1/4"Hardie siding. (5"Reveal to match existing and Navajo Beige) Material cost: $1830 Labor cost: $960 Not to exceed: �$2,820 Respectfully submitted, Mike Fleet Estimator/Project Manager PHONE (717)774-6476 FAX(717)774-6477 c ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., wee Plaintiff &00' V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, his wife, Defendants 2012-05840 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION TO AMEND COMPLAINT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 15th day of April 2013, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Petition to Amend Complaint, a RULE is issued upon Defendants to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. PLAINTIFF shall effectuate service of this Rule upon Defendants. RULE RETURNABLE twenty (20) days from the date.of service by Defendants. BY THE COURT, Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. Distribution: ,/eamuel L. Andes, Esq. TO D. Buckley, Esq. -�al t MF —<> ; _ =CD � a l O pi-C 4�FtOTN01�0;��t� ; rte SERLAWD GOUT 11' ' ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., RENH�yt-%4"'a IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLAINTIFF ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN ) NO. 2012-05840 CIVIL TERM BURAN, his wife, ) DEFENDANTS ) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AND NOW comes Samuel L. Andes, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says as follows: 1. He is the attorney for Allied Exteriors, Inc. the Plaintiff in the above matter. 2. On 9 April 2013 he served upon Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire, the attorney for the Defendants in this matter, by regular mail, a copy of his Petition to Amend Complaint which had attached to it a copy of the Amended Complaint which the Plaintiff proposed to file. 3. Thereafter, he filed the said Petition to Amend with the court and this court, by the Honorable Thomas A. Placey, issued a Rule to Show Cause upon the Defendants, dated 15 April 2013, which Rule was returnable 20 days from the date of service by the Defendants. 4. Thereafter, on 25 April 2013, he served a copy of Judge Placey's Order of 15 April 2013, issuing a Rule to Show Cause upon Mr. Buckley, by regular mail. 5. He knows that Mr. Buckley received the Petition and the order of 15 April 2013 from discussions he and his staff subsequently had with Mr. Buckley regarding those documents. Samuel L. An es i I Sworn to and subscribed before me thisay Of a , 2013. ��Ai SEAti . May, Notary 5� ;Cumberf�id Tres Febru 7 Nota Public E 0 F ,n 7 C 13 Al! 29 CtAITERLA !D PEHNSYLWkWA ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, his wife, NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Defendants MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff by its attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and moves the court to make absolute its Rule on Plaintiff's Petition for Leave to file Amended Complaint, based upon the following: 1. The moving party herein is the Plaintiff. The Respondents herein are the Defendants. 2. On 5 April 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Petition to Amend Complaint. A copy of that Petition is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT A. 3. On 15 April 2013, this court, by the Honorable Thomas A. Placey, issued a Rule upon the Defendants to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. A copy of that Rule is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT B. 4. On 25 April 2013, Plaintiff served a copy of the Court's Rule upon Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire, Defendants' counsel. Attached hereto, and marked as EXHIBIT C is a copy of the letter which accompanied the Rule. 5. On 25 June 2013, Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Service verifying that the Rule had been served upon the Defendants. Attached hereto, and marked as EXHIBIT D is a copy of that Affidavit of Service. 6. In June of 2013 Plaintiff s counsel was advised by Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, that Mr. Rominger now represents the Defendants. In response to that, Plaintiff, by its counsel, served a copy of the Court's Rule and Plaintiff's Petition upon Mr. Rominger. A copy of the letter which accompanied those documents is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT E. 7. To date, Defendants have filed no Answer or other response to Plaintiff's Petition or this court's Rule. 8. Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this litigation so it can be resolved and needs to amend its complaint to do so properly. 9. Plaintiff's counsel has inquired as to whether Defendants concur in the relief requested in this Motion but has not received an answer. 10. Prior orders in this matter were entered by the Honorable Thomas A. Placey, Judge. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this court to make absolute its Rule of 15 April 2013 and grant Plaintiff leave to file its Amended Complaint. &auL. Andes Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 126 Street P.O. BOX 168 Lemoyne, Pa 17043 I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities). Date: 2-3 C�tS 91�.\�_ SAM�A L. A14DIN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served an original of the foregoing document upon counsel for the Defendants herein by regular mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: 29 July 2013 Amy 0. Harkins Secretary for Samuel L. Andes EXHIBIT A vre } ! itV I €i�l '4 vi iff„rti.� Anil I CUNSC1iL/'ND '00U K, `4' PENk''3YL!At,,i A .ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff } PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and } ANN BURAN, his wife, ) NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Defendants } PETITION TO.AMEND COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff, by its attorney Samuel L. Andes, and petitions the court for leave to amend its Complaint in this matter,based upon the following: 1. The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff. The Respondents are the Defendants. 2. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a Complaint on 21 September 2012. The basis of Plaintiff's claim was an alleged contract between Plaintiff and Defendants. 3. On 29 November 2012, Defendants filed an Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Complaint. In their pleading,Defendants raised the claim that the alleged contract between Plaintiff and Defendants was invalid and unenforceable because of the Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act(73 PS 517 et se 4. Plaintiff performed substantial construction work on Defendants' home for an agreed price of$47,580.00. Defendants now seek to avoid paying Plaintiff for any of that work on the basis of the said Act. 5. Plaintiff wishes to amend its Complaint to add an additional count seeking recovery under a theory of unjust enrichment. Plaintiff believes-that, if the agreement between the parties is invalid or unenforceable, Plaintiff should be compensated for the benefit it conferred upon Defendants by doing the requested construction work at Defendants' home. 6. The contract between the parties was dated 1 June 2011 and Plaintiff s construction work was all completed after that date. As a result, Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment is not barred by any applicable statute of limitations. 7. Attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT A is a copy of Plaintiff s original Complaint. 8. Attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT B is a copy of Plaintiff s proposed Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this court to grant it leave to file an Amended Complaint to raise the additional claims of unjust enrichment. S f f Samuel L. Ands Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, Pa 17043 I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities). Date: w- 2 EXHIBIT A. E. E. 12 SEP 21 AM 9: 01 C,U146ER( A,.PiD C. PENN-51 EVANI.A�d i Y ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. ) CIVIL ACTION-LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ) ANN BURAN,his wife, ) NO. Defendants ) NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN: YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY(20)-DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR.OBIECTIONS 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 TELEPHONE: (717)249-3166 ALLIED-EXTERIORS, INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) CIVIL ACTION -LAW ROBERT SCOTT BUR.AN and ) ANN BUR.AN, his wife, ) NO. Defendants ) COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff by its attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and files the following Complaint in this matter: 1. The Plaintiff is Allied Exteriors, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal office at 340 Pleasant View Road in Ne Cumberland,Pennsylvania. 2. -The Defendants are Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran,his wife, adult individuals who reside at 111 South College Street in Carlisle, Cumberland County,Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is and has been, at all times relevant to this action, engaged in the business of home remodeling, repair, and roof repair and replacement. 4. At all times relevant to this suit, Defendants owned the property at 111 South College Street in Carlisle. 5. By an agreement dated 21 May 2011, Plaintiff and Robert S.Buran, on behalf of both Defendants, entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiff was to do certain repair work on Defendants' property,including the replacement of the roof, and Defendants agreed to pay $42,870.00 for those services. A copy of the agreement signed by the parties, and dated 21 May 2011, is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT A. 6. During the course of Plaintiff s work on Defendants' property,Defendants asked Plaintiff to do some additional work, which is described on a letter from Plaintiff to Defendants dated 2 November 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT B. 1 7. After receiving Plaintiff s letter(EXHIBIT B),Defendants authorized and instructed Plaintiff to do the additional work described in that letter. - 8. Plaintiff well and truly performed its obligation to Defendants under the contract, as modified b y the letter dated 2 November 2011. It completed all of its work except for a few minor repairs which the Defendants refused to permit Plaintiff to return and make. However, with the exception of those minor repairs, which would be corrected easily and at little or no expense,Plaintiff performed all of its obligations under the agreement,,as modified by the order of 2 November 2011, and fin-nished the requirement warranty for the roof. 9. Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff for the work Plaintiff did on their property. 10. Defendants, by their conduct,have injured Plaintiff in the amount of$42,870.00, plus interest after 30 June 2011,plus costs of suit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of $47,580.00,plus interest after 30 June 2012, plus costs of suit. amuerL.-Andes V Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID# 17225 525 North 12' Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne,Pa 17043 I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities). ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., by: Date: WgkfL ORNE EXHIBIT A A. ALLIED EXTERIORS INC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 May 21,2011 SUBMITTED TO WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT: Scott Buran . 111 South College St. 111 South College St. Carlisle PA I Carlisle PA Ecostar Scope 1. Remove the existing roofing system. Shingles,felt,nails,and drip edge. 2. Clean roof deck completely and inspect for deterioration of the deck. 3. All deteriorated decking will be replaced. 4. Install drip edge on the eaves and rakes. S. Install Glacier Guard on the eaves,hips,ridges,rakes,and In the center of the valleys. 6. Install Aqua Guard on the remaining roof deck: 7. Install new valley flashing. 8. All penetrations(pipes,chimneys,skylights,and vent stacks)will have strips of Glacier Guard, 12"wide installed on or around the penetrations. 9. Install Eco Star 12"Traditional Majestic and beveveled slate shingles. (75%Federal Gray,20%Smoke Gray,2.5%Earth Green, and 2.5%Midnight Gray) 10. Install cap shingles on all peaks. 11. Install 6"half round and 4"round downspouts. 12. Inspect the roof for all debris left from the installation,dean all gutters completely,and check all penetrations for proper caulking. 13. Furnish a Ecostar 50 year warranty. EPDM Scope 1. Install blocking along the perimeter. 2. Apply one layer of 1/2"insulation over the entire area mechanically attached with screws and plates at a rate of one per two square feet. 3. Install reinforced pressure sensitive stripping along all•transitions. 4. Apply a fully adhered 60 mil EPDM roof system. S. Fabricate and install new 24-ga.pre-finished edge metal. 6.. Flash all curbs,pipes and new edge metal to manufacture's specifications. 7. Furnish a 15 year membrane warranty. General notes; 1. All roof decking replacement will be an extra$3.00 a square foot. Exclusions: 1. The built in gutter and the front and side porch All material is guaranteed to be as specified and the above work to be performed in a workman like manner for the sum of FOURTY-TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY DOLLARS($42,870)with payment to be according to terms below. ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT: The above prices,specifications and conditions are.satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to complete this contract as specified. By my signature below,I hold harmless Allied Roofing and Sheetmetai Inc.and its employees,owners and heirs,for any current or future mold relptecL problems. Date of Acceptance: Payment Terms: • , U on Com letion Customer Name: 0n e Customer Signature: Allied Re resentative: PHONE (717) 774-6476 FAX(717)774-6477 EXHIBIT B ALLIED EXTERIORS INC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 November 2, 2011 Scott Buran 111 S. College St. . Carlisle, PA RE: Crown and Dormer Siding We propose to furnish all labor, material and equipment to: Crown Molding Scope 1. Remove the existing crown molding. (Top roof/low sloped roof perimeter.) 2. Install 5/4x4 base trim. 3. Install 5/4x6 face board. 4. Install 4 5/r crown molding. Material cost: $1,145 Labor cost: $745 Not to exceed: $1,890 Dormer Siding Scope 1. Remove existing siding and trim boards from five dormers.The sides only. 2. Install Azek 5/4x4 trim around the.perimeter. 3. Install Pre-finished 5 1/4"Hardie siding. (5"Reveal to match existing and Navajo Beige) Material cost: $1830 Labor cost: $960 Not to exceed: :$2,$20 Respectfully submitted, Mike Fleet 2° Estimator/Project Manager 'V0 a �� PHONE (717)774-6476 FAX(717)774-6477 EXHIBIT B ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BUR.AN and ) ANN BURAN, his wife, ) NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Defendants ) NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN: YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY(20)DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, . BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU,AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 TELEPHONE: (717) 249-3166 ALLIED EXT)PRIORS, INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) CIVIL ACTION-LAW ROBERT SCOTT B,URAN and ) ANN BURAN, his vvife, ) NO. 12-5840 CIVIL, TERM Defendants ) AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff by its attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and makes the following Amended Complaint in this matter: 1. The Plaintiff is Allied Exteriors, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal office at 340 Pleasant View Road,New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendants are Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, his wife, adult individuals who reside at 111 South College Street in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is and has been, at all times relevant to this action, engaged in the business of residential and other construction, repair, and roof repair and replacement. 4. At all times relevant to this suit, Defendants owned the property at 111 South College Street in Carlisle. 5. By an agreement dated 21 May 2011, Plaintiff and Robert S. Buran, on behalf of both Defendants, entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiff was to do certain repair work on Defendants' property, including the replacement of the roof, and Defendants agreed to pay $42,870.00 for those services. A copy of the agreement signed by the parties, and dated 21 May • 2011, is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT A. 6. During the course of Plaintiffs work on Defendants' property, Defendants asked Plaintiff to do some additional work, which is described on a letter from Plaintiff to Defendants dated 2 November 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as EXMIT B. 7. After receiving Plaintiff's letter(E)CHIBIT B), Defendants authorized and instructed Plaintiff to do the additional work described in that letter. 8. Plaintiff well and truly performed its obligation to Defendants under the contract, as modified b y the letter dated 2 November 2011. It completed all of its work except for a few minor repairs which the Defendants refused to permit Plaintiff to return and make. However, with the exception of those minor repairs,which would be corrected easily and at little or no expense, Plaintiff performed all of its obligations under the agreement, as modified by the order of 2 November 2011; and furnished the requirement warranty for the roof. 9. Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff for the work Plaintiff did on their property. 10. Defendants, by their conduct, have injured Plaintiff in the amount of$47,580.00, after 30 June 2011,plus costs of suit. COUNT I—CONTRACT 11. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 10 above are incorporated herein by reference. 12. Plaintiff well and truly performed its obligations under the contract with Defendants. 13. As a result of the conduct of the parties, described above, a contract came into existence between them whereby Plaintiff agreed to do certain specified construction work on Defendants' property for which Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff$47,580.00. 14. Defendants have breached the contract between the parties by failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff for the work Plaintiff completed on Defendants' property. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of $47,580.00, plus interest after 30 June 2012, plus costs of suit. i COUNT II—UNJUST ENRICHMENT Defendants contend that the agreement between the parties pursuant to which Plaintiff performed work on Defendants' property is invalid or unenforceable under the terms of the Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act. In the event that this court deems that contract to be invalid or unenforceable, Plaintiff sets forth the following alternative claim for relief- 15. Plaintiff incorporates herein, by reference, the averments set out in Paragraphs 1 through 10 above. 16. Plaintiff performed substantial construction work on Defendants' property at the request and direction of Defendants. 17. The work performed by Plaintiff on Defendants' property is described in EXIIIBITS A and B which are attached to this Complaint and which are incorporated herein by reference. 18. The work done by Plaintiff on Defendants' property conferred a substantial benefit on Defendants by improving that property. 19. Defendants were fully aware of the work done on their property by Plaintiff, directed that work in some instances, and fully appreciated the significant benefits conferred upon Defendants by Plaintiff for that work. 20. Defendants received and have retained the benefit of Plaintiff s work on their property and the benefit conferred upon Defendants by virtue of that work. The value of the benefit conferred upon Defendants upon Plaintiff is $47,580.00, that being the price which the Defendants acknowledged Plaintiffs work to be worth when Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff that amount for Plaintiff s work. 21. If this court does not uphold and enforce the agreement between the parties, in accordance with Count I hereof, Defendants will be unjustly enriched in the amount of $47,580.00 because they have retained that benefit conferred upon them by Plaintiff. 22. Plaintiff did the work on Defendants' property at considerable expense and detriment to Plaintiff. 23. It would be inequitable, unfair, and unjust to allow Defendants to retain the benefit conferred upon them by Plaintiff s work without paying reasonable and fair compensation to Plaintiff for that work. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of $47,580.00,plus interest after 30 June 2011,plus costs of suit. Sam L. Andes Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 12' Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-5361 I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (unworn falsification to authorities). ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., by r� Date: C. C L . RNE r EXHIBIT A ALLIED EXTERIORS INC, 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 ' May 21,2011 SUBMITTED TO WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT. Scott Buran •. 111 South College St 111 South College St Carlisle PA Carlisle PA Ecostar Scone 1. Remove the existing roofing system. Shingles,felt,nails,and drip edge. 2. Clean roof deck completely and inspect for deterioration of the deck. 3. All deteriorated decking will be replaced. 4. Install drip edge on the eaves and rakes. S. Install Glader Guard on the eaves,hips,ridges,rakes,and In the center of the valleys. 6. 'Install Aqua Guard on the remaining roof deck: 7. Install new valley flashing. 8. All penetrations(pipes,chimneys,-skylights,and vent stacks)will have strips of Glader Guard, 12"wide installed on or around the penetrations. 9. Install Eco Star 12"Traditional Majestic and beveveled slate shingles. (75%Federal Gray,206/6 Smoke Gray,2.5%Earth Green, and 2.5%Midnight Gray) 10. Install cap shingles on all peaks. 11. Install 6"half round and 4"round downspouts. 12. Inspect the roof for all debris left from the installation,'cean all gutters completely,and check all penetrations for proper caulking. 13. Furnish a Ecostar 50 year warranty. EPDM Scone 1. Install bloddng along the perimeter. 2. Apply one layer of.1/2"insulation over the entire area mechanically attached with screws and plates at a rate of one per two square feet. 3. Install reinforced pressure sensitive stripping along all'transitions. 4. Apply a fully adhered 60 mil EPDM roof system. 5. •Fabricate and install new 24-ga.pre-finished edge metal. 6..' Flash all curbs,pipes and new edge metal to manufacture's specifications. 7. Furnish a 15 year membrane warranty. General notes; 1. All roof decking replacement will be an extra$3.00 a square foot Exclusions; 1. The built in gutter and the front and side porch All material is guaranteed to be as spedfied and-the above work to be performed in a workman like manner for the sum of FOURTY-TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY DOLLARS($42,870)with payment to be according to terms below. ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT: The above prices,specifications and conditions are.satisfad:ory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to complete this contract as specified. By my signature below,I hold harmless Allied Roofing and Sheetmetal Inc.and its employees,owners and heirs,for any current or future mold relpted,problems. Date of Acceptance: Payment Term A ® , Upon Completion ' Customer Name: �n e 15 7aa Customer Signature: ' Allied Re resentative: • PHONE (717)774-6476 FAX(717)774-6477 J EXHIBIT B ALLIED EXTERIORS INC. , 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 November 2, 2011 Scott Buran 111 S. College St. . Carlisle, PA RE: Crown and Dormer Siding We propose to furnish all labor, material and equipment to: Crown Molding Scope 1. Remove the existing crown molding. (Top roof/low sloped roof perimeter.) 2. Install 5/4x4 base trim. 3. Install 5/4x6 face board. 4. Install 4 5/86'crown molding. Material cost: $1,145 Labor cost: $745 Not to exceed: $1,890 Dormer Siding Scope 1. Remove existing siding and trim boards from five dormers.The sides only. 2. Install Azek 5/4x4 trim around the.perimeter. 3. Install Pre-finished 5 1/4"Hardie siding. (5"Reveal to match existing and Navajo Beige) Material cost: $1830 Labor cost: $960 Not to exceed: :$2,820 Respectfully submitted, Mike Fleet Estimator/Project Manager o PHONE (717)774-6476 FAX(717)774-6477 EXHIBIT B ALLIED EXTERIORS INC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 97070 May 21,2011 SUBMITTED TO WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT: Scott Buran . 111 South College St 111 South College St Carlisle PA I Carlisle PA Ecostar Scone 1. Remove the existing roofing system. Shingles,felt,nails,and drip edge. 2. Clean roof deck completely and inspect for deterioration of the deck. 3. All deteriorated decking will be replaced. 4. Install drip edge on the eaves and rakes. S. Install Glacier Guard on the eaves,hips,ridges,rakes,and in the center of the valleys. 6. 'Install Aqua Guard on the remaining roof deck. 7. Install new valley flashing. 8. All penetrations(pipes,chimneys,-skylights,and vent stacks)will have strips of Glacier Guard,12"wide Installed on or around the penetrations. 9. Install Eco Star 12"Traditional Majestic and beveveled slate shingles. (75%Federal Gray,20%Smoke Gray,2.5%Earth Green, and 2.S%Midnight Gray) 10. Install cap shingles on all peaks. 11. Install 6"half round and 4"round downspouts. 12. Inspect the roof for all debris left from the instailation,'cean all gutters completely,and check all penetrations for proper caulking. 13. Furnish a Ecostar 50 year warranty. EPDM Scope 1. install blocking along the perimeter. 2. Apply one layer of 1/2"insulation over the entire area mechanically attached with screws and plates at a rate of one per two square feet 3. Install reinforced pressure sensitive stopping along all-transitions. 4. Apply a fully adhered 60 mil EPDM roof system. 5. Fabricate and install new 24-ga.pre-finished edge metal. 6..' Flash all curbs,pipes and new edge metal to manufacture's specifications. 7. Furnish a 15 year membrane warranty. General!notes: 1. All roof decking replacement will be an extra$3.00 a square foot FWusiong: 1. The built In gutter and the front and side porch All material is guaranteed to be as specified and the above work to be performed in a workman like manner for the sum of FOURTY-TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY DOLLARS($42,870)with payment to be according to terms below. ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT: The above prices,specifications and conditions are.satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to complete this contract as specified. By my signature below,I hold harmless Allied Roofing and Sheetmetai Inc,and its employees,owners and heirs,for any current or future mold relpted,problems. Date of Acceptance: Payment Terns: MAI ® ! Upon Completion ' Customer Name:(pfln Customer Signature: Allied Representative: PHONE (717) 774-6476 FAX(71,7)774-6477 i EXHIBIT B ALUED ExrE i® ma 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 November 2, 2011 Scott Buran 111 S. College St. . Carlisle, PA RE: Crown and Dormer Siding We propose to furnish all labor, material and equipment to: Crown Molding Scope 1. Remove the existing crown molding. (Top roof/low sloped roof perimeter.) 2. Install 5/4x4 base trim. 3. Install 5/4x6 face board. 4. Install 4 5/8''crown molding. Material cost: $1,145 Labor cost: $745 Not to exceed: $1,890 Dormer Siding Scope 1. Remove existing siding and trim boards from five dormers.The sides only. 2. Install Azek 5/4x4 trim around the.perimeter. 3. Install Pre-finished 5 1/4"Hardie siding. (5"Reveal to match existing and Navajo Beige) Material cost: $1830 Labor cost: $960 Not to exceed: :$2,820 Respectfully submitted, Mike Fleet y� _ Estimator/Project Manager r o PHONE(717)774-6476 FAX(717)774-6477 EXHIBIT B ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., � t Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, his wife, Defendants 2012-05840 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION TO AMEND COMPLAINT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 15th day of April 2013, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Petition to Amend Complaint, a RULE is issued upon Defendants to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. PLAINTIFF shall effectuate service of this Rule upon Defendants. RULE RETURNABLE twenty (2 0) days from the date of service by Defendants. BY THE COURT, Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. Distribution: Samuel L. Andes, Esq. Joseph D. Buckley, Esq. rnm M Cn't> ��:; CD I EXHIBIT C I SAMUEL L. ANDES ATTOENEY AT LAW 525 NORTH TWELFTH STREET P. O.BOX 166 MAILING ADDRESS: - LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17093 TELEPHONE P.O.BOX 166 (717) 761-5361 LEMOTNE,PA 17043-0166 FAX E-MAIL:LawAndesVaol.com 25 April 2013 (717) 761-1435 Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Buran Dear Joe: I enclose, and serve upon you, a copy of Judge Placey's Rule to Show Cause issued on my Petition for Leave to Amend. Before you left on your recent vacation, we were going to meet with our clients to see if we could resolve this matter. My client and I are still willing to do that. If you think such a meeting will be productive, we can agree to extend your time to respond to the Rule while we try to discuss settlement. I do not want to do that,however, if the meeting is not going to be productive and move us close to agreement. If you think such a meeting would be helpful, please call my office and speak to me or my secretary to arrange such a meeting. Please call within the next few days. Sincerely, Samuel L. Andes amh/Enclosure cc: Allied Exteriors, Inc. EXHIBIT D s m!'LE0-0 F iL' r�i T HE : . i HE PR0THGN.0"fr .A!:" l!: 2013 JUN 25 APB 10: 06 ALLIED EXTERIORS IN��C,,�++ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLAINTIWMBERLASD COU ,��, PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND �'E�1NSYl.VA�iI ) COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN ) NO. 2012-05840 CIVIL TERM BURAN, his wife, ) DEFENDANTS ) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AND NOW comes Samuel L. Andes, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says as follows: 1. He is the attorney for Allied Exteriors, Inc. the Plaintiff in the above matter. 2. On 9 April 2013 he served upon Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire, the attorney for the Defendants in this matter, by regular mail, a copy of his Petition to Amend Complaint which had attached to it a copy of the Amended Complaint which the Plaintiff proposed to file. 3. Thereafter, he filed the said Petition to Amend with the court and this court, by the Honorable Thomas A. Placey, issued a Rule to Show Cause upon the Defendants, dated 15 April 2013, which Rule was returnable 20 days from the date of service by the Defendants. 4. Thereafter, on 25 April 2013, he served a copy of Judge Placey's Order of 15 April 2013, issuing a Rule to Show Cause upon Mr. Buckley, by regular mail. 5. He knows that Mr. Buckley received the Petition and the order of 15 April 2013 from discussions he and his staff subsequently had with Mr. Buckley regarding those documents. t Samuel L. An es Sworn to and subscribed bef re me this 4ay Cow : WiMMA Of 2013. MOT RAC SEAL AMMlb'!`IA�i!W. ;�S,Notary Pu em f:Gumberlan& n i::''s February 4 7 No Public EXHIBIT E SAMUEL L. ANDES ATTORNEY AT LAW 525 NORTH TWELFTH STREET P0. BOX 168 MAILING ADDRESS: LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17043 TELEPHONE P.O.BOX 168 (717) 761-5361 LEMOYNE,PA 17043-0168 PAX E-MAIL:LawAndes�aol.com 27 June 20113 (717) 761-1435 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 IRE: Allied Exteriors vs. Buran Dear Karl: I enclose a Petition to Amend Complaint which I filed in the above matter back in April, a copy of the Rule to Show Cause on that Petition entered by Judge Placey, and an Affidavit of Service I filed recently to confirm that copies of those documents were served upon Joe Buckley in early April. I assume that you have Joe's file. If you do, all of these documents should be in them. However, in case you do not, I am sending them to you so you are aware of this procedural matter. Sincerely, Samuel L. Andes amh/Enclosures cc: Allied Exteriors, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served an original of the foregoing document upon counsel for the Defendants herein by regular mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: '11R A3 AIM�V7 Amy M. Harkins Secretary for Samuel L. Andes ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT BURAN, his wife, Defendants 2012-5840 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ay of July 2013, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion to Make Rule Absolute, and it appearing that Defendants have failed to file a response to the Rule issued on 15 April 2013 directing Defendants to file such a response, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted leave to file its Amended Complaint. G—G) Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. Distribution: 4,✓/Samuel L. Andes, Esq. ---✓-Joseph D. Buckley, Esq. /Karl E. Rominger, Esq. MW c- rn (2n-,zi LL -<> CDC� -4 (7-D TK' 20,13 A U 03 12 A i, CUMBERLAW (," ( Y TY PEMSYLVANIA ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, his wife, NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Defendants NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN: YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY(20)DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU, AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 TELEPHONE: (717) 249-3166 ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION -LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, his wife, NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Defendants AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff by its attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and makes the following Amended Complaint in this matter: 1. The Plaintiff is Allied Exteriors, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal office at 340 Pleasant View Road,New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendants are Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, his wife, adult individuals who reside a t 1 1 1 South College Street in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is and has been, at all times relevant to this action, engaged in the business of residential and other construction, repair, and roof repair and replacement. 4. At all times relevant to this suit, Defendants owned the property a t 1 1 1 South College Street in Carlisle. 5. By an agreement dated 21 May 2011, Plaintiff and Robert S. Buran, on behalf of both Defendants, entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiff was to do certain repair work on Defendants' property, including the replacement of the roof, and Defendants agreed to pay $42,870.00 for those services. A copy of the agreement signed by the parties, and dated 21 May 2011, is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT A. 6. During the course of Plaintiff s work on Defendants' property, Defendants asked Plaintiff to do some additional work, which is described on a letter from Plaintiff to Defendants dated 2 November 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT B. 7. After receiving Plaintiff s letter(EXHIBIT B), Defendants authorized and instructed Plaintiff to do the additional work described in that letter. 8. Plaintiff well and truly performed its obligation to Defendants under the contract, as modified b y the letter dated 2 November 2011, It completed all of its work except for a few minor repairs which the Defendants refused to permit Plaintiff to return and make. However, with the exception of those minor repairs,which would be corrected easily and at little or no expense, Plaintiff performed all of its obligations under the agreement, as modified by the order of 2 November 2011, and furnished the requirement warranty for the roof. 9. Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff for the work Plaintiff did on their property. 10. Defendants, by their conduct, have injured Plaintiff in the amount of$47,584.00, after 30 June 2011,plus costs of suit. COUNT I—CONTRACT 11. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 10 above are incorporated herein by reference. 12. Plaintiff well and truly performed its obligations under the contract with Defendants. 13. As a result of the conduct of the parties, described above, a contract came into existence between them whereby Plaintiff agreed to do certain specified construction work on Defendants' property for which Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff$47,580.00. 14. Defendants have breached the contract between the parties by failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff for the work Plaintiff completed on Defendants' property. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of $47,580.00,plus interest after 30 June 2012, plus costs of suit. COUNT 11—UNJUST ENRICHMENT Defendants contend that the agreement between the parties pursuant to which Plaintiff performed work on Defendants' property is invalid or unenforceable under the terms of the Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act. In the event that this court deems that contract to be invalid or unenforceable, Plaintiff sets forth the following alternative claim for relief- 15. Plaintiff incorporates herein, by reference, the averments set out in Paragraphs I through 10 above. 16. Plaintiff performed substantial construction work on Defendants' property at the request and direction of Defendants. 17. The work performed by Plaintiff on Defendants' property is described in EXHIBITS A and B which are attached to this Complaint and which are incorporated herein by reference. 18. The work done by Plaintiff on Defendants' property conferred a substantial benefit on Defendants by improving that property. 19.- Defendants were fully aware of the work done on their property by Plaintiff, directed that work in some instances, and fully appreciated the significant benefits conferred upon Defendants by Plaintiff for that work. 20. Defendants received and have retained the benefit of Plaintiffs work on their property and the benefit conferred upon Defendants by virtue of that work. The value of the benefit conferred upon Defendants upon Plaintiff is $47,580.00,that being the price which the Defendants acknowledged Plaintiff's work to be worth when Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff that amount for Plaintiff s work. 21. If this court does not uphold and enforce the agreement between the parties, in accordance with Count I hereof, Defendants will be unjustly enriched in the amount of $47,580.00 because they have retained that benefit conferred upon them by Plaintiff. 22. Plaintiff did the work on Defendants' property at considerable expense and detriment to Plaintiff. 23. It would be inequitable, unfair, and unjust to allow Defendants to retain the benefit conferred upon them by Plaintiff's work without paying reasonable and fair compensation to Plaintiff for that work. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of $47,580.00, plus interest after 30 June 2011, plus costs of suit. Sam L. Andes Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 12t' Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-5361 I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities). ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., by Date: �. � 4CCL RNE } t EXHIBIT A r ALLIED EXTERIORS INC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070, May 21,2011 SUBMITTED TO WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT: Scott Buran ill South College St. ill South College St. Carlisle,PA Carlisle,PA Ecostar Scope 1. Remove the existing roofing system. Shingles,felt,nails,and drip edge. 2. Clean roof deck completely and inspect for deterioration of the deck. 3. All deteriorated decking will be replaced. 4. Install drip edge on the eaves and rakes. S. Install Glacier Guard on the eaves,hips,ridges,rakes,and in the center of the valleys. 6. Install Aqua Guard on the remaining roof deck; 7. Install new valley flashing. 8. All penetrations(pipes,chimneys,-skylights,and vent stacks)will have strips of Glacier Guard, 12"wide installed on or around the penetrations, 9. Install Eco Star 12"Traditional Majestic and beveveled slate shingles. (75%Federal Gray,206/o Smoke Gray,2.5%Earth Green, and 2.5%Midnight Gray) 10. Install cap shingles on all peaks. 11. Install 6"half round and 4"round downspouts. 12. Inspect the roof for all debris left from the installation,dean all gutters completely,and check all penetrations for proper caulking. 13. Furnish a Ecostar 50 year warranty. EPDlM Scope 1. install blocking along the perimeter. 2. Apply one layer of 1/2"insulation over the entire area mechanically attached with screws and plates at a rate of one per two square feet. 3. Install reinforced pressure sensitive stripping along all'transitions. 4. Apply a fully adhered 60 mil EPDM roof system. S. Fabricate and install new 24-ga,pre-finished edge metal. 6..' Flash all curbs,pipes and new edge metal to manufacture's specifications. 7. Furnish a 15 year membrane warranty. General notes: 1. All roof decking replacement will be an extra$3.00 a square foot. Exclusions: 1. The built in gutter and the front and side porch All material is guaranteed to be as specified and-the above work to be performed in a workman like manner for the sum of FOURTY-TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY DOLLARS($42,870)with payment to be according to terms below. ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT: The above prices,specifications and conditions are.satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to complete this contract as spedfied. By my signature below,I hold harmless Allied Roofing and Sheetmetal Inc.and its employees,owners and heirs,for any current or future mold reliatecL problems. Date of Acceptance: h /#*/ Payment Terms: Upon Completion 4�e e 01- -5. 1? A/ Customer Name: (phn. -, Customer Signature: Allied Re resentative: PHONE (717) 774-6476 FAX(717)774-6477 i EXHIBIT B ' LLIED EXTERIORS I 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 November 2, 2011 Scott Buran 111 S. College St. Carlisle, PA RE: Crown and Dormer Siding We propose to furnish all labor, material and equipment to: Crown Molding Scope 1. Remove the existing crown molding. (Top roof/low sloped roof perimeter.) 2. Install 5/4x4 base trim. 3. Install 5/4x6 face board. 4. Install 4 5/80 crown molding. Material cost: $1,145 Labor cost: $745 Not to exceed: $1,890 Dormer Siding Scope 1. Remove existing siding and trim boards from five dormers.The sides only. 2. Install Azek 5/4x4 trim around the perimeter. 3. Install Pre-finished 5 1/4" Hardie siding. (5"Reveal to match existing and Navajo Beige) Material cost: $1830 Labor cost: $960 Not to exceed: :$2,820 Respectfully submitted, Mike Fleet Estimator/Project Manager PHONE (717)774-6476 FAX(717)774-6477 EXHIBIT B ALLIED EXTERIORS INC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 SUBMITTED TO WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT: May 21,2011 Scott Buran 111 South College St. 111 South College St. Carlisle PA Carlisle PA Ecostar Scope 1. Remove the existing roofing system. Shingles,felt,nails,and drip edge. 2. Clean roof deck completely and inspect for deterioration of the deck. 3. All deteriorated decking will be replaced. 4. Install drip edge on the eaves and rakes. S. Install Glacier Guard on the eaves,hips,ridges,rakes,and in the center of the valleys. 6. Install Aqua Guard on the remaining roof deck.. 7. Install new valley flashing. 8. All penetrations(pipes,chimneys,skylights,and vent stacks)will have strips of Glacier Guard, 12"wide installed on or around the penetrations. 9. Install Eco Star 12"Traditional Majestic and beveveled slate shingles. (75%Federal Gray,206/o Smoke Gray,2.5%Earth Green, and 2.5%Midnight Gray) 10. Install cap shingles on all peaks. 11. Install 6"half round and 4"round downspouts. 12. Inspect the roof for all debris left from the installation,clean all gutters completely,and check all penetrations for proper caulking. 13. Furnish a Ecostar 50 year warranty. EPDM Scope 1. Install blocking along the perimeter. 2. Apply one layer of 1/2"insulation over the entire area mechanically attached with screws and plates at a rate of one per two square feet. 3. Install reinforced pressure sensitive stripping along all transitions. 4. Apply a fully adhered 60 mil EPDM roof system. 5. Fabricate and install new 24-ga. pre-finished edge metal. 6.. Flash all curbs,pipes and new edge metal to manufacture's specifications. 7. Furnish a 15 year membrane warranty. General notes: 1. All roof decking replacement will be an extra$3.00 a square foot. Exclusions: 1. The built in gutter and the front and side porch All material is guaranteed to be as specified and the above work to be performed in a workman like manner for the sum of FOURTY-TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY DOLLARS($42,870)with payment to be according to terms below. ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT: The above prices,specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to complete this contract as specified. By my signature below,I hold harmless Allied Roofing and Sheetmetal Inc.and its employees,owners and heirs,for any current or future mold relaitecL problems. Date of Acceptance: Pa me it Terms: , Upon Completion Customer Name: I'n e Customer Signature: Allied Representative: PHONE (717) 774-6476 FAX (717)774-6477 i EXHIBIT B ALUED EXTERIORS INC. 340 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 November 2, 2011 Scott Buran 111 S. College St. Carlisle, PA RE: Crown and Dormer Siding We propose to furnish all labor, material and equipment to, Crown Molding Scope 1. Remove the existing crown molding. (Top roof/low sloped roof perimeter.) 2. Install 5/4x4 base trim. 3. Install 5/4x6 face board. 4. Install 4 51e crown molding. Material cost: $1,145 Labor cost: $745 Not to exceed: $1,890 Dormer Siding Scope 1. Remove existing siding and trim boards from five dormers.The sides only. 2. Install Azek 5/4x4 trim around the perimeter. 3. Install Pre-finished 5 1/4"Hardie siding, (5"Reveal to match existing and Navajo Beige) Material cost: $1830 Labor cost: $960 Not to exceed: :$2,820 Respectfully submitted, Mike Fleet Estimator/Project Manager a, PHONE(717)774-6476 FAX(717)774-6477 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff F ILEQ`O1: ICE k ,titixr �t mr�r�t, } 10 THIS' PROTHONOTr,4t Jody S Smith � ,�, Chief Deputy a 2013 AUG 23 FM —2125 Richard W Stewart Solicitor O,MCCOFTPES PIPx CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Allied Exteriors, Inc. vs. Case Number Robert Scott Buran (et al.) 2012-5840 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 08/15/2013 06:46 PM - Deputy Shawn Harrison, being duly sworn according to law, served the re ested Complaint &Notice by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Ann B an,wife, who accepted as"Adult Person in Charge"for Robert Scott Buran at 111 S. C I S eet, arlisle Borough, Carlisle, PA 17013. SH HA , DEPUTY 08115/2013 06:46 PM- Deputy Shawn Harrison, being duly sworn according to law, ed t ere uested Complaint &Notice by"personally" handing a true copy to a person representing a es to a the Defendant, to wit:Ann Buran at 111 S. College Street, Carlisle Borough, Carlisle, 1 0 3. SH N R N, DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $51.24 SO ANSWERS, August 20, 2013 RONNr4"( R ANDERSON, SHERIFF tcl CountySulte Sheriff,Telemft,Inc. ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION-LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and : NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM ANN BURAN,his wife Defendants rn� Z NOTICE TO PLEAD ► �_ TO: Allied Exteriors, Inc. :;u c/o Samuel-L. Andes, Esquire b - _ 525 North 12th Street :'C-. P.O. Box 168 ha c c Lemoyne, PA 17043 v You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections within twenty(20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Date: September 24, 2013 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Defendants ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : CIVIL ACTION-LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and : NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM ANN BURAN, his wife Defendants PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, his wife by and through their counsel Karl E. Rominger, Esquire and provides the following Preliminary Objections to Amended Complaint: 1. Plaintiff brought this claim against Defendants to seek redress for a contract dispute over the installation of a roof to Defendant's residential home. 2. Defendants are not happy with the how the construction proceeded nor with the quality of the construction itself, and said construction was not in compliance with the manufacturers' explicit installation guidelines. 3. Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint, adding in addition to the original allegations for a Breach of Contract, an additional count for Unjust Enrichment. 4. The purported written contract was attached to both complaints. 5. The written contract fails to comply with the requirements of the Commonwealth's Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), 73 P.S. 517.1 et seq. (Hereinafter"The ACT") 6. The ACT was passed to protect consumers such as Defendants and includes certain statutory protections which are applicable here. 7. Plaintiff is a home improvement contractor, and entered into dealings with residential consumers, the Defendants. 8. Neither the initial agreement nor the change order complied with The ACT, in that; a. Neither contain Plaintiff's home improvement registration number of the performing contractor; b. Neither contains the signature of the Plaintiff or any of its agents or employees; c. Neither includes any of the required notices under The ACT, including the toll free number of the Attorney Generals Office, nor the required notice of a three (3) day right of rescission; d. Neither document contains Plaintiff's telephone number and further does not contain the name and address of all subcontractors to be used, nor their respective contractor registration numbers and information; e. The agreement further has a hold harmless clause for Plaintiff or its subcontractors or affiliates; 9. The ACT reads: § 517.7. Home improvement contracts (a) Requirements.--No home improvement contract shall be valid or enforceable against an owner unless it: (1) Is in writing and legible and contains the home improvement contractor registration number of the performing contractor. (2) Is signed by all ofthe following: . (i) The owner,his agent or other contracted party. (ii) The contractor or.a salesperson on behalf of a contractor. (3) Contains the entire agreement between the owner and the contractor, including attached copies of all required notices. (4) Contains the date of the transaction. (5) Contains the name, address and telephone number of the contractor. For the purposes of this paragraph, a post office box number alone shall not be considered an address. (6) Contains the approximate starting date and completion date. (7) Includes a description of the work to be performed, the materials to be used and a set of specifications that cannot be changed without a written change order signed by the owner and the contractor. (8) Includes the total sales price due under the contract. (9) Includes the amount of any down payment plus any amount advanced for the purchase of special order materials. The amount of the down payment and the cost of the special order materials must be listed separately. (10) Includes the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all subcontractors on the project known at the date of signing the contract. For the purposes of this paragraph, a post office box number alone shall not be considered an address. (11) Except as provided in section 125, agrees to maintain liability insurance covering personal injury in an amount not less than $50,000 and insurance covering property damage caused by the . work of a home improvement contractor in an amount not less than $50,000 and identifies the current amount of insurance coverage maintained at the time of signing the contract. (12) Includes the toll-free telephone number under section 3(b)6. (13) Includes a notice of the right of rescission under subsection (b). (e) Voidable clauses.--If a home improvement contract contains any of the following clauses, the home improvement contract shall be voidable by the owner: (1) A hold harmless clause. 10. Plaintiff thus cannot now seek redress in this Court, as it is a matter of law that the agreement is unenforceable, and all its claims must fail. 11. Further the Unjust Enrichment claim is similarly barred, as it was the plain intent of the Legislature to make nonconforming contracts unenforceable. 12. To allow a contractor such as Plaintiff to sidestep these Statutory protections by styling a claim as Unjust Enrichment,would effectively gut The ACT as any non-complying contract would still be enforceable. 13. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. WHEREFORE Defendants request their Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demur be granted and the Complaint dismissed as to all counts. Date: September 24, 2013 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER& ASSOCIATES Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Defendant ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and : NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM ANN BURAN, his wife Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Karl E. Rominger, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the Preliminary Objections upon the following by depositing same in.the United States mail,postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Samuel L. Andes, Esquire 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Date: September 24, 2013 Respectfully submitted, ROMINGER & ASSOCIATES Ka'r'I'E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court ID # 81924 Attorney for Defendants ;',1! O n^F , r , PEt NSYLVA IA ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC•, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND ) COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ) ANN BURAN, his wife, ) NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Defendants ) NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO RESPOND TO THE ENCLOSED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Date: 1 October 2013 Samuel L. Andes' Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID 17225 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-5361 ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND ) COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ) ANN BURAN, his wife, ) NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Defendants ) PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER, WITH NEW MATTER, TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW comes Allied Exteriors, Inc., by its attorney Samuel L. Andes, and makes the following Answer, with New Matter, to Defendants' Preliminary Objections: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted, although Defendants have not made any detailed statement of their objections or dissatisfaction with Plaintiff's work. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. The averments in Paragraph 5 are not averments of fact but conclusions of law, to which no answer is required. 6. The statements in Paragraph 6 are conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 7. Admitted. 8. The statements in Paragraph 8 are conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, Plaintiff incorporates herein, by reference, the averments in its Amended Complaint. 9. The statements in Paragraph 9 are conclusions of law to which no answer is required. 10. Denied. Plaintiff may seek redress from this court for the extensive work it did on Defendants' home, and the substantial benefit that work conferred upon Defendants, under the theories set forth in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 11. The statements in Paragraph 11 are conclusions of law, and not accurate conclusions as well, to which no answer is required. Plaintiff denies that its claim for unjust enrichment is barred as claimed by Defendants. 12. Denied. The contract between the parties contained provisions that operated significantly to Plaintiff's advantage and, if the agreement is not enforceable, Plaintiff loses those advantages. However, plaintiff is entitled to recover the reasonable value of the benefit which Plaintiff conferred upon Defendants, outside of the contract. To allow Plaintiff to recover the reasonable value of the benefits conferred does not "gut" the statue. 13. Denied. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint sets forth two claims, in the alternative. If the court determines that, under the appropriate statute, the contract between the parties is not enforceable, there is no contract and Plaintiff may then recover on its claim for unjust enrichment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this court to deny Defendants' Preliminary Objections. NEW MATTER In addition to the averments set forth above, Plaintiff sets out the following New Matter in response to Defendants' Preliminary Objections: 14. To the extent that the contract between Plaintiff and Defendants is invalid, as contended by Defendants, there was no contract between the parties. 15. In the absence of an agreement between the parties, Plaintiff is entitled to recover, on its theory of unjust enrichment, for the substantial benefit conferred upon Defendants in the absence of a contract. 16. Plaintiff's Complaint was served upon the Defendants, by the Sheriff of Cumberland County, on 15 August 2013. 17. Defendants did not file their Preliminary Objections until 24 September 2013. As a result, their Preliminary Objections are barred as not timely filed. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this court to deny Defendants' Preliminary Objections. AO IP. Samuel L. Andes Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, Pa 17043 (717) 761-5361 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served an original of the foregoing document upon counsel for the Defendants herein by regular mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: Id I I 13 anutirnxii-4kin° Amy M Harkins Secretary for Samuel L. Andes (17,Z PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., rris t VS. r, rV ROBERT SCOTT BURAN & ANN BURAN No. 12-5840 C I V Ic Tera 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: SAMUEL L. ANDES 525 NORTH 12TH STREET, LEMOYNE, PA 17043 (Name and Address) (b) for defendants: KARL E. ROMINGER 155 SOUTH HANOVER STREET, CARLISLE, PA 17013 (Name and Address) 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: NOVEMBER 8,2013 SAMUEL L. ANDES Print your name PLAINTIFF Date: 10/17/2013 Attorney for ►./9. 7 / INSTRUCTIONS: 1.Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT C ��e ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary)before argument. %V 97/-5- 2 2.The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argumen . 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. #17. ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. • ROBERT SCOTT BURAN AND : NO. 2012–5840 CIVIL TERM ANN BURAN, his wife, Defendants • • IN RE:DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE GUIDO, EBERT,PLACEY,JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 251-H day of NOVEMBER, 2013, Defendants' Preliminary Objections are SUSTAINED in part in that the claim for breach of contract is DISMISSED. In all other respects the Preliminary Objections are OVERRULED. Byth- • _ r Edward E. Guido,J. E-17)::*';-:- "—SAMUEL L. ANDES, ESQUIRE KARL E. ROMINGER, ESQUIRE =c3. fi >C7 N COURT ADMINISTRATOR :sld dtcp;es ,vta,l Pd /1/.?-7A3 ,P/ti pR0T� O N3 1r��',`i 1, � t 201It JAN 30 PM 3: 3 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND ) COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ) ANN BURAN, his wife, ) NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Defendants ) PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff Allied Exteriors, Inc. and against the Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, his wife, in the amount of$47,580.00, plus interest at the lawful rate after 30 June 2012, plus costs of suit, all in accordance with Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Judgment should be entered because of the Defendants' default. Defendants failed to file an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by 16 December 2013, pursuant to Plaintiff's agreement to extend the time for Defendants to file such Answer, as set forth in the letter dated 15 December 2013, from Plaintiff's counsel to Defendants' counsel, a copy of which is attached hereto. X16, y iib �1 amuel L. An.es £ * vo ' I l Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 Mr/4.e/ 4.e �c4,'1' 525 North 12th Street V`l P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, Pa 17043 (717) 761-5361 SAMUEL L. ANDES ATTORNEY AT LAW 525 NORTH TWELFTH STREET P 0.BOX 168 MAILING ADDRESS: LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17043 TELEPHONE P.0.BOX 168 (717) 761-5361 LEMOYNE,PA 17043-0168 FAX E-MAIL:LawAndespaol.com 5 December 2013 (717) 761-1435 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Allied Exteriors, Inc. vs. Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran Dear Karl: I assume you have a copy of Judge Guido's Order dismissing your Preliminary Objections. As a result of that, your Answer to my Complaint is now long over due. I agreed to give you until 16 December2013, which is twenty days after Judge Guido's order, to file your answer. Please do that so we can proceed with the case. If you have not filed your Answer by that date, I will proceed with a default judgment against your client. You may consider this letter notice of my intention to do that if your Answer is not filed by 16 December 2013. Sincerely, Samuel L. Andes amh/Enclosure cc: Allied Exteriors, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC. • T' Plaintiff • • • No. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM ;, x v. r> _o_ a F. ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and • CIVIL ACTION—LAW • ANN BURAN, • Defendants DEFENDANTS' PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND NOW, Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, by and through their attorneys, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby file the following Petition for Relief from Default Judgment, as follows: 1. On September 21, 2012, Plaintiff Allied Exteriors, Inc., commenced this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, for damages with respect to a roofing project at the residence of Defendant Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran. A true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's Complaint without attachments or notices is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Defendants thereafter retained the legal services of Joseph Buckley to represent them in this matter. 3. On November 29, 2012, Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran filed their Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to the Complaint. A true and correct copy of the Defendants' Answer is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Allied Exteriors filed an amended complaint pursuant to leave of Court. A true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint without attachments or notices is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 5. Defendants' counsel, Joseph Buckley, sustained injuries in an accident and subsequently retired from the active practice of law in or prior to August of 2013. 6. Accordingly, Joseph Buckley was unable to continue his representation of Defendants due to his health problems and retirement. 7. Joseph Buckley transferred his caseload to the offices of Karl Rominger, who then undertook the representation of Defendants. 8. Defendants filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint on September 24, 2013. 9. The Court issued an Order sustaining the Preliminary Objections as to Count I breach of contract, and denied the Preliminary Objections as to Count II unjust enrichment on November 25, 2013. 10. Although Plaintiffs counsel purportedly sent a letter dated December 5, 2013, to Karl Rominger extending the time to answer the Amended Complaint until December 16, 2013, Karl Rominger failed to notify Defendants of the alleged letter or the deadline to respond to the Amended Complaint, even though Defendant Robert Scott Buran met with Karl Rominger on December 20, 2013. 11. Karl Rominger failed to notify Defendants of the filing of the Praecipe to Enter Default Judgment filed by Plaintiffs counsel on January 30, 2014, even though Defendant Robert Scott Buran met with Karl Rominger on March 4, 2014. 12. Defendants did not become aware of the filing of the Praecipe to Enter Default Judgment filed by Plaintiff's counsel until March 13, 2014, when they received a letter from Plaintiff's counsel, which letter was dated March 12, 2014. 13. Subsequent to the Court Order of November 25, 2013, Plaintiffs never issued a Notice of Praecipe to Enter Judgment by Default in the form set forth in Pa. R. Civ. P. 237.5 as required by Pa. R. Civ. P. 237.1(a)(2). 14. The parties never entered into an Agreement to Extend Time in the form set forth in Pa. R. Civ. P. 237.6 as required by Pa. R. Civ. P. 237.2. 15. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the filing of Praecipe to Enter Default Judgment. 16. Defendants did not receive a copy of the Praecipe to Enter Judgment by Default until March 13, 2014. 17. Karl Rominger surrendered his license to practice law on or about March 13, 2014. 18. Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran bring this petition seeking an Order to open or vacate the Praecipe to Enter Default Judgment filed by Plaintiff's counsel on January 30 and allowing the Defendants to file their preliminary objections to plaintiff s complaint attached hereto and marked as Exhibit E. 19. It is well settled that a Petition to Open a Default Judgment "is addressed to the equitable powers of the Court and is a matter of judicial discretion." Schultz v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 505 Pa. 90, 477 A.2d 471. 20. Similarly, Pennsylvania Courts have recognized that Default Judgments are not favored at law or in equity, and a standard of liberality, not strictness, should be used in deciding a Petition to Open a Default Judgment. Duckson v. Pietropaolo, 423 Pa. Super. 251, 261 (1993). 21. Defendants are filing this Petition seeking to open or vacate the Default Judgment within ten (10) days of their receipt of the Praecipe to Enter Default Judgment filed by Plaintiff's counsel on January 30, 2014. 22. To the extent that this Petition is filed more than ten (10) days after the filing of the Praecipe to Enter Default Judgment filed by Plaintiffs counsel on January 30, 2014, Defendants satisfy the standards articulated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Schultz, supra. 23. The Court will only exercise its judicial discretion when: the Petition has been promptly filed; a meritorious defense can be shown; and the failure to appear can be excused. Schultz at 93. 24. In this case, the Petition has been promptly filed given the chronology of events referenced above. 25. Defendants have a meritorious defense in this matter as the Defendants as shown by their Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim filed on November 29, 2012, (see Exhibit B) to Plaintiffs Complaint. 26. The Petitioners have attached hereto as Exhibit E their Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to the Amended Complaint. 27. Accordingly, Defendants have satisfied the standards to open or vacate the Praecipe to Enter Default Judgment filed by Plaintiff's counsel on January 30, 2014. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran respectfully request that this Honorable Court open or vacate the Praecipe to Enter Default Judgment filed by Plaintiff's counsel on January 30, 2014 and permit the filing of the attached Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to the Amended Complaint. Respectfully Submitted, I MAS, HOMAS & HAFER, LLP Q 1 1 1 � Date: 3"1 8 + t', s• David L. Schwalm, Esquire PA Attorney I.D. #32574 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 255-7643 Attorney for Defendants 1468585.1 VERIFICATION We,Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran,the named Defendants,hereby verify that the statements made herein are true and correct to our knowledge and belief. We understand that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: /7 Robert Scott Buran Ann Buran CERTICATE OF SERVICE I, David L. Schwalm, Esquire, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition was served by means of United State First Class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following person: Samuel L. Andes, Esquire 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Date 3 -18 . L L . • walm ALLIED EXTERIORS,ZIORS,INC., ) IN THE COURT COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF C ERLAND COUNTY,P SYLVANIA vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 4, LAW ROBERT SCOT BURAN and ) ANN BURAN, is wife, ) NO. Defendants ) COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff by its attorney, Samuel Andes, and Mesi the following Coplaint in this matter: 1. The P1jntiff is Allied Exteriors,Inc.,a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth&Pennsylvania with its principal office at 340 Pleasant Viefv Road in Ne Cumberland,Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendants are Robert Scott Buren and Ann Buren,his wife,adult individuals who reside at 1111 South College Street in Carlisle,Cumberland County,Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is and has been,at all times relevant to this action,engagd in the business of home remodelingl,repair, and roof repair and replacement. 4. At all#il nes relevant to this suit,Defendants owned the property at 111 South College Street in Carlisle. S. By an agreement dated 21 May 2011,Plaintiff and Robert S.Burakn,on behalf of both Defendants, entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiff was to do certain repair work on Defendants' property,including the replacement of the roof,and Defendants agreed to pay $42,870.00 for those services. A copy of the agreement signed by the parties,and dated 21 May 2011,is attached ihereto and marked as EXHIBIT A. 6. During the course of Plaintiff's work on Defendants' property, Defendants asked Plaintiff to do sortie additional work,which is described on a letter from Plai tiff to Defendants; dated 2 November 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as EIT B. 11 I I 7. After receiving Plaintiffs letter(EXHIBIT B),Defendants authorized and instructed Plaintiff to do thee,additional work described in that letter. 8. Plaintiff well and truly performed its obligation to Defendants under the contract, as modified b y the letter dated 2 November 2011. It completed all of its work except fora few minor repairs which the Defendants refused to permit Plaintiff to return and make. However, with the exception of those minor repairs,which would be corrected easily and at little or no expense,Plaintit 'performed all of its obligations under the agreement,as modified by the order of 2 November 2011,and furnished the requirement warranty for the roof. 9. Defennts have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff for the work Plaintiff did on them PAY. 10. Defendants,by their conduct,have injured Plaintiff in the amount of$42,870.00, plus interest aft*30 June 2011, plus costs of suit. WHEREPORE,Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of $47,580.00,plus'interest after 30 June 2012,plus costs of suit. Samue .Andes Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID# 17225 525 North 12th Street P.O.Box 168 Lemoyne,Pa 17043 . ff. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA 751? N?^`F 29 PM 2: t I CUMBERLAND COUNT i" PENNSYLVANIA ALLIED EXTERIORS,INC. Plaintiff • v. No. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and • CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANN BURAN, Defendants • IMPORTANT NOTICE Following your filing of a Complaint ,New Matters and Counterclaims have been made against you in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages,you must take action within twenty days(20)days after the Answer with New matters and Counterclaims and notice are served, by having your attorney or by you personally 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 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 CSC -wE_ 4241.1 Abv •19 Prn a.y/ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC. Plaintiff • v. • No. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM • ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and • CIVIL ACTION- LAW ANN BURAN, • Defendants • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT;NEW MATTERS AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, this 28th November, 2012, come Defendants, by and through their counsel, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire, and Answer Plaintiffs Complaint raising New Matters and Counterclaim as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part. Robert S. Buran did sign the agreement attached to the Complaint; however for reasons set forth below in the New Matter and the Counterclaim, the agreement did not comply with the requirements of Commonwealth's Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq. 6. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Robert S. Buran did request additional work be performed; however for reasons set forth below in the New Matter and the Counterclaim, the agreement and change request did not comply with the requirements of Commonwealth's Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), and neither Robert S. Buran or Ann Buran signed any change request. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants cannot ascertain the truth or falsity of this averment and therefore specific proof is demanded. 8. Denied. For reasons more fully set forth below, Plaintiff and its agents did not perform the work, improperly installed the roof on two occasions. Had to remove the same and then reinstalled it improperly and against the specific dictates of the manufacturer of the roof and could not provide a manufacturer's 50 year warranty as promised. The roof continues to fail in areas and the gutter work was installed improperly causing additional issues. 9. It is admitted that Defendants did not and have not paid Plaintiff for the inferior work performed on their property and as more fully set forth below,we directed not to do so by Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's admission of its inferior work. 10. This averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. NEW MATTERS 11. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 10,above,as though set forth herein at length. 12.Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 13. Plaintiffs claim is barred and/or limited by the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act(HICPA), 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq. 14. Defendants are homeowners residing in the single family home located at 111 South College Street, Carlisle, PA 17013. 15. Defendants sought to improve their home through the use of a residential home improvement contractor. 16. Plaintiff is a home improvement contractor and is presumed to be registered and licensed as such. 17. Plaintiff is required to follow HICPA in its dealings with residential consumers such as Defendants. 18. Plaintiff and its agents and employees were to install a fifty year warranted roof using the EcoStar brand roofing shingles on Defendants single family residence and such was a home improvement covered by HICPA. 19. Plaintiffs agreement and change order do not contain Plaintiff's home improvement registration number of the performing contractor. 20. Plaintiffs agreement and change order do not contain the signature of Plaintiff or any of its agents or employees. 21. Plaintiffs agreement and change order do not contain nor have attached all required notices of the HICPA including the toll free telephone number of Pennsylvania's Attorney General and the office's respective consumer protection department, and the required notice of a three (3) day right of rescission. 22. Plaintiffs agreement and change order do not contain the Plaintiff's telephone number and does not contain the name address and telephone number of all subcontractors to be used and their respective contractor registration information. 23. Plaintiff's agreement contains a hold harmless clause for Plaintiff or its subcontractors or affiliated companies. 24. Plaintiff's agreement and change order is neither valid nor enforceable as against Defendants. 25. Plaintiff and Defendants reached an accord and satisfaction of anv and all claims of Plaintiff against Defendants. COUNTERCLAIM A. Improver Installation 26. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 25, above, as though set forth herein at length. 27. Plaintiff and its agents and employees improperly installed the roof on one occasion and had to remove it causing delays. 28. Plaintiff and its agents and employees improperly installed the roof a second time and were informed by EcoStar inspectors and regional representatives and then admitted by Plaintiff that Plaintiff; its agents or employees had not properly installed a sub-roof and as a result, EcoStar would not issue a warranty. 29. Plaintiff offered Defendants a limited, revised warranty which Defendants would not agree to accept. 30. Having learned of the improper second installation and with discussions with EcoStar representatives, Defendants desired the roof to be removed and the proper sub-roofing installed and new roof installed. 31. Plaintiff and its agents and employees also installed gutters and downspouts and as a result, Defendants began having a number of problems due to the improper installation of these gutters and downspouts. 32. Since the second improper installation of the roof, Defendants have experienced additional problems with the roof including leaks, and other problems with the installation. 33. Defendants have no confidence in the ability, skill and workmanship of Plaintiff, its agents and employees based on its admitted two improper attempts to install the roof and its failure to properly install the gutters and downspouts. 34. Defendants met with Plaintiff and its President to discuss this matter. and after the discussion, Plaintiff admitted it had improperly installed the roof, that it was wrong and made an offer to Defendants to settle the matter. 35. Defendants accepted the settlement and began seeking another company to remove the second roof Plaintiff and its agents and employees had installed and to have it replaced and properly installed with an EcoStar or equivalent 50 year warranted roof. 36. Defendants will have to expend in excess of $43,000.00 to correct the problems caused by Plaintiffs improper installations and will have to bear the burden of the inconvenience, interruption and additional problems associated with a tear-off and reinstallation of the roof. B. Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices 37. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 36,above,as though set forth herein at length. 38. Plaintiff held itself out as an approved and competent installer of residential roofing, including the ability and knowledge to install an EcoStar roof in accordance with installation requirements as set forth by EcoStar. 39. Plaintiff made one improper installation of the roof which it removed and then began reinstalling. 40. Plaintiff made a second attempt at a proper installation but after inspection Plaintiff was placed on notice and also admitted it had not installed the proper sub-roof. 41. Plaintiff's representations as to its ability were deceptive and induced Defendants into permitting Plaintiff to install the EcoStar roof which was installed improperly on two occasions. 42. Defendants shall be required to now have the roof removed, the sub-roof removed and all replaced in accordance with EcoStar requirements at a cost exceeding$43,000.00. 43. Plaintiff's deceptive actions violate the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 44. Defendants are entitled to treble damages. 45. Defendants are entitled to reasonable attorney fees. WHEREFORE Defendants request a judgment in their favor in an amount in excess of $43,000.00 together with treble damages, costs of this suit and reasonable attorney fees. Respectfully submitted, „. r D. Buck17,Esquire orney for the Plaintiff ID #38444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)249-2448 VERIFICATION We. Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, the named Defendants, hereby verify that the statements made herein are true and correct to our knowledge and belief. We understand that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Date: November 28. 2012 L-t.dR Robert Scott Buran Ott t()it Ann Buran -- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matters and Counterclaim was served by means of United States First Class mail,postage prepaid,upon the following person: Samuel L.Andes, Esquire 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne,PA 17043 Date /1 '• eph D.Buckle ,Esquire • • ALLIED EXTERIORS,INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND ) COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) ) CIVIL ACTION-LAW ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ) ANN BURAN,his wife, ) NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Defendants • ) AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff by its attorney, Samuel L.Andes, and makes the following Amended Complaint in this matter: 1. The Plaintiff is Allied Exteriors,Inc.,a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal office at 340 Pleasant View Road,New Cumberland,Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendants are Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran,his wife,adult individuals who reside at 111 South College Street in Carlisle,Cumberland County,Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is and has been,at all times relevant to this action, engaged in the business of residential and other construction,repair, and roof repair and replacement. 4. At all times relevant to this suit,Defendants owned the property at 111 South College Street in Carlisle. 5. By an agreement dated 21 May 2011,Plaintiff and Robert S.Buran, on behalf of both Defendants, entered into an agreement whereby Plaintiff was to do certain repair work on Defendants' property, including the replacement of the roof,and Defendants agreed to pay $42,870.00 for those services. A copy of the agreement signed by the parties, and dated 21 May 2011, is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT A. 6. During the course of Plaintiffs work on Defendants' property,Defendants asked Plaintiff to do some additional work, which is described on a letter from Plaintiff to Defendants dated 2 November 2011, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT B. 7. After receiving Plaintiff's letter(EXHIBIT B), Defendants authorized and instructed Plaintiff to do the additional work described in that letter. 8. Plaintiff well and truly performed its obligation to Defendants under the contract,as modified b y the letter dated 2 November 2011. It completed all of its work except for a few minor repairs which the Defendants refused to permit Plaintiff to return and make. However, with the exception of those minor repairs,which would be corrected easily and at little or no expense, Plaintiff performed all of its obligations under the agreement, as modified by the order of 2 November 2011,and furnished the requirement warranty for the roof. 9. Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff for the work Plaintiff did on their property. 10. Defendants,by their conduct,have injured Plaintiff in the amount of$47,580.00, after 30 June 2011,plus costs of suit. COUNT I—CONTRACT 11. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 10 above are incorporated herein by reference. 12. Plaintiff well and truly performed its obligations under the contract with Defendants. 13. As a result of the conduct of the parties,described above,a contract came into existence between them whereby Plaintiff agreed to do certain specified construction work on Defendants' property for which Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff$47,580.00. 14. Defendants have breached the contract between the parties by failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff for the work Plaintiff completed on Defendants' property. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of $47,580.00,plus interest after 30 June 2012,plus costs of suit. MEV COUNT II—UNJUST ENRICHMENT Defendants contend that the agreement between the parties pursuant to which Plaintiff performed work on Defendants' property is invalid or unenforceable under the terms of the Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act. In the event that this court deems that contract to be invalid or unenforceable,Plaintiff sets forth the following alternative claim for relief: 15. Plaintiff incorporates herein, by reference,the averments set out in Paragraphs 1 through 10 above. 16. Plaintiff performed substantial construction work on Defendants' property at the request and direction of Defendants. 17. The work performed by Plaintiff on Defendants' property is described in EXHIBITS A and B which are attached to this Complaint and which are incorporated herein by reference. 18. The work done by Plaintiff on Defendants' property conferred a substantial benefit on Defendants by improving that property. 19: Defendants were fully aware of the work done on their property by Plaintiff,directed that work in some instances, and fully appreciated the significant benefits conferred upon Defendants by Plaintiff for that work. 20. Defendants received and have retained the benefit of Plaintiffs work on their property and the benefit conferred upon Defendants by virtue of that work. The value of the benefit conferred upon Defendants upon Plaintiff is$47,580.00,that being the price which the Defendants acknowledged Plaintiff's work to be worth when Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff that amount for Plaintiffs work. 21. If this court does not uphold and enforce the agreement between the parties, in accordance with Count I hereof,Defendants will be unjustly enriched in the amount of $47,580.00 because they have retained that benefit conferred upon them by Plaintiff. 22. Plaintiff did the work on Defendants' property at considerable expense and detriment to Plaintiff. 23. It would be inequitable,unfair, and unjust to allow Defendants to retain the benefit conferred upon them by Plaintiffs work without paying reasonable and fair compensation to Plaintiff for that work. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in the amount of $47,580.00,plus interest after 30 June 2011,plus costs of suit. San . Andes Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID# 17225 525 North 12,h Street P.O.Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-5361 il . Mk JAN 30 PM 3: 35 1 COMRLANa C4l3tiTY pENNSY4.VANIA I, ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON j Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND ) COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA I vs. ) I ) CIVIL ACTION- LAW 1 ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ) I ANN BURAN,his wife, ) NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM Defendants ) PRAECIPE I TO THE PROTHONOTARY: !f Please enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff Allied Exteriors,Inc. and against the ii Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, his wife, in the amount of$47,580.00,plus I interest at the lawful rate after 30 June 2012,plus costs of suit, all in accordance with Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Judgment should be entered because of the Defendants' default. Defendants failed to file an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint by 16 December 2013, pursuant to Plaintiff's agreement to extend the time for Defendants to file such Answer,as set forth in the letter dated 15 December 2013, from Plaintiff's counsel to Defendants' counsel, a copy of which is attached hereto. i I II _ II �/ y/ is b 7 7 I rte_, ►.i_l_ . l el L. An u es I, E* 30/ i ii< Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 1 ��,,e it-44' 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 II Lemoyne,Pa 17043 I (717) 761-5361 I 1 k G IIIII !I SAMUEL L.ANDES ATTORNEY AT LAW 525 NORTH TWELFTH STREET P.0.BOX 168 NAILING ADDRESS: LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA. 17043 TELEPHONE P.O.BOX 1e6 (7171 791-5391 x.EHOTRB,PA 17043-0{69 PAX (717)761-1435 E-MAIL:LawAndeapaOl.com 5 December 2013 Karl E. Rominger, Esquire 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA Carlisle,PA 170I3 RE: Allied Exteriors,Inc. vs. Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran Dear Karl: I assume you have a copy of Judge Guido's Order dismissing your Preliminary Objections. As a result of that,your Answer to my Complaint is now long over due. I agreed to give you until 16 December2013, which is twenty days after Judge Guido's order,to file your answer. Please do that so we can proceed with the case. If you have not filed your Answer by that date, I will proceed with a default judgment against your client. You may consider this letter notice of my intention to do that if your Answer is not filed by 16 December 2013. Sincerely, Samuel L. Andes amh/Enclosure cc: Allied Exteriors, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC. Plaintiff • • No. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM v. • ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and • CIVIL ACTION—LAW • ANN BURAN, • Defendants ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, NEW MATTERS AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, by and through their counsel, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, Answer Plaintiff's Complaint raising New Matters and Counterclaim as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part. Robert S. Buran did sign the agreement attached to the Complaint: however for reasons set forth below in the New Matter and the Counterclaim, the agreement did not comply with the requirements of Commonwealth's Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq. By way of further answer, by Order of Court dated November 25, 2013, Plaintiffs breach of contract claim was dismissed. 6. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Robert S. Buran did request additional work be performed; however for reasons set forth below in the New Matter and the Counterclaim, the agreement and change request did not comply with the requirements of Commonwealth's Home 1468572.1 Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), and neither Robert S. Buran or Ann Buran signed any change request. By way of further answer, by Order of Court dated November 25, 2013, Plaintiffs breach of contract claim was dismissed. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants cannot ascertain the truth or falsity of this averment and therefore specific proof is demanded. 8. Denied. For reasons more fully set forth below, Plaintiff and its agents did not properly perform the work, improperly installed the roof on two occasions. Plaintiff had to remove the same and then reinstalled it improperly and against the specific dictates of the manufacturer of the roof and could not provide a manufacturer's 50 year warranty as promised. The roof continues to fail in areas and the gutter work was installed improperly causing additional issues. 9. Although it is admitted that Defendants did not and have not paid Plaintiff for the inferior work performed on their property and as more fully set forth below, on or about June 13, 2012, Defendants were directed not to do so by Plaintiff based on Plaintiffs admission of its inferior work and inability to provide a manufacturer's 50 year warranty as promised. 10. This averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. By way of further answer, Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff sustained damages in the amount indicated. COUNT I—CONTRACT 11 — 14. By way of further answer, by Order of Court dated November 25, 2013, Plaintiffs breach of contract claim was dismissed and no answer is required. COUNT II—UNJUST ENRICHMENT 1468572.1 15. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 14, above, as through set forth herein at length. 16. Denied. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff performed substantial construction work. To the contrary, the work performed by Plaintiff was improper, not in accordance with manufacturer's requirements, and resulted in problems with the roof, gutters and downspouting. 17. Denied. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff performed substantial construction work in accordance with the work described in Exhibits A and B of the Amended Complaint. To the contrary, the work performed by Plaintiff was improper, not in accordance with manufacturer's requirements and resulted in problems with the roof, gutters and downspouting. 18. Denied. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff performed substantial construction work. To the contrary, the work performed by Plaintiff was improper, not in accordance with manufacturer's requirements and resulted in problems with the roof, gutters and downspouting. Furthermore, Defendants will be required to now have the roof removed, the sub-roof removed and all replaced in accordance with EcoStar requirements at a cost exceeding $43,000.00. 19. Denied. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff performed substantial construction work. To the contrary, the work performed by Plaintiff was improper, not in accordance with manufacturer's requirements and resulted in problems with the roof, gutters and downspouting. Furthermore, Defendants will be required to now have the roof removed, the sub-roof removed and all replaced in accordance with EcoStar requirements at a cost exceeding $43,000.00. 1468572.1 20. Denied. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff performed substantial construction work. To the contrary, the work performed by Plaintiff was improper, not in accordance with manufacturer's requirements and resulted in problems with the roof, gutters and downspouting. Furthermore, Defendants will be required to now have the roof removed, the sub-roof removed and all replaced in accordance with EcoStar requirements at a cost exceeding $43,000.00. 21. Defendants specifically deny that they were unjustly enriched. By way of further answer, by Order of Court dated November 25, 2013, Plaintiffs breach of contract claim was dismissed. 22. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover for the improper installation of the materials and work that it performed. 23. Defendants specifically deny that they were unjustly enriched because of Plaintiffs improper installation of the materials and the improper work that it performed since Defendants will be required to now have the roof removed, the sub-roof removed and all replaced in accordance with EcoStar requirements at a cost exceeding $43,000.00. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran respectfully request that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in their favor. NEW MATTERS 24. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 23, above, as through set forth herein at length. 25. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 1468572.1 26. Plaintiff's claims is barred and/or limited by the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act(HICPA), 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq. 27. Defendants are homeowners residing in the single family home located at 111 South College Street, Carlisle, PA 17013. 28. Defendants sought to improve their home through the use of a residential home improvement contractor. 29. Plaintiff is a home improvement contractor and is presumed to be registered and licensed as such. 30. Plaintiff is required to follow HICPA in its dealings with residential consumers such as Defendants. 31. Plaintiff and its agents and employees were to install a fifty year warranted roof using the EcoStar brand roofing shingles on Defendants single family residence and such was a home improvement covered by HICPA. 32. Plaintiff's agreement and change order do not contain Plaintiff's home improvement registration number of the performing contractor. 33. Plaintiff's agreement and change order do not contain the signature of Plaintiff or any of its agents or employees. 34. Plaintiff's agreement and change order do not contain nor have attached all required notices of the HICPA including the toll free telephone number of Pennsylvania's Attorney General and the office's respective consumer protection department, and the required notice of a three(3) day right of rescission. 1468572.1 35. Plaintiffs agreement and change order do not contain the Plaintiffs telephone number and does not contain the name address and telephone number of all subcontractors to be used and their respective contractor registration information. 36. Plaintiffs agreement contains a hold harmless clause for Plaintiff or its subcontractors or affiliated companies. 37. Plaintiffs agreement and change order is neither valid nor enforceable as against Defendants. 38. Plaintiff and Defendants reached an accord and satisfaction of any and all claims of Plaintiff against Defendants. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran respectfully request that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in their favor. COUNTERCLAIM A. Improper Installation 39. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 38, above, as though set forth herein at length. 40. Plaintiff and its agents and employees installed the roof on the west and north side of the home with improper pattern design, which had to be removed, causing delays in completion. 41. Plaintiff and its agents and employees improperly installed the roof a second time and were informed by EcoStar inspectors and regional representatives and then admitted by Plaintiff that Plaintiff, its agents or employees had not properly installed a sub-roof and as a result, EcoStar would not issue a warranty. 1468572.1 42. Plaintiff offered Defendants a limited, revised warranty which Defendants would not agree to accept. 43. Having learned of the improper second installation and with discussions with EcoStar representatives, Defendants desired the roof to be removed and the proper sub-roofing installed and new roof installed. 44. Plaintiff and its agents and employees also installed gutters and downspouts and as a result, Defendants began having a number of problems due to the improper installation of these gutters and downspouts. 45. Since the second improper installation of the roof, Defendants have experienced additional problems with the roof and other problems with the installation of the gutters and downspouts. 46. Defendants have no confidence in the ability, skill and workmanship of Plaintiff, its agents and employees based on its admitted two improper attempts to install the roof and its numerous failures to properly install the gutters and downspouts. 47. Defendants met with Plaintiff and its President to discuss this matter, and after the discussion, Plaintiff and its President directed Defendants not to make any payment based on Plaintiffs inferior work and inability to provide a manufacturer's 50 year warranty as promised. 48. Defendants accepted the settlement and began seeking another company to remove the second roof Plaintiff and its agents and employees had installed and to have it replaced and properly installed with an EcoStar or equivalent 50 year warranted roof. 49. Defendants will have to expend in excess of$43,000.00 to correct the problems caused by Plaintiff's improper installations and will have to bear the burden of the 1468572.1 inconvenience, interruption and additional problems associated with a tear-off and reinstallation of the roof and repair and replacement gutters and downspouting. B. Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices 50. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 49, above, as though set forth herein at length. 51. Plaintiff held itself out as an approved and competent installer of residential roofing, including the ability and knowledge to install an EcoStar roof in accordance with installation requirements as set forth by EcoStar. 52. Plaintiff made one improper installation of the roof which it removed and then began reinstalling. 53. Plaintiff made a second attempt at a proper installation but after inspection Plaintiff was placed on notice and also admitted it had not installed the proper sub-roof. 54. Plaintiff's representations as to its ability were deceptive and induced Defendants into permitting Plaintiff to install the EcoStar roof which was installed improperly on two occasions. 55. Defendants shall be required to now have the roof removed, the sub-roof removed and all replaced in accordance with EcoStar requirements at a cost exceeding $43,000.00. 56. Plaintiff's deceptive actions violate the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 57. Defendants are entitled to treble damages. 58. Defendants are entitled to reasonable attorney fees. 1468572.1 WHEREFORE Defendants requires a judgment in their favor in an amount in excess of $43,000.00 together with treble damages, costs of this suit and reasonable attorney fees. Respectfully Submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: David L. Schwalm, Esquire PA Attorney I.D. #32574 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 255-7643 Attorney for Defendants 1468572.1 VERIFICATION We,Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran,the named Defendants,hereby verify that the statements made herein are true and correct to our knowledge and belief. We understand that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S.4904 relating to=sworn falsification to authorities. Date: / MIRe%( ,20 Robert Scott Buran (114( Ann Buran g4 CERTICATE OF SERVICE I, David L. Schwalm, Esquire, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim was served by means of United State First Class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following person: Samuel L. Andes, Esquire 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Date David L. Schwalm 1468572.1 THE PR � 11�1,JNC,' 20114 11AR 18 AM I : 1 is CUMBERLAND C3UN"; `a' PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and, ANN BURAN, No.: 12 -5840 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter the appearance of David L. Schwalm, Esquire of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, for Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran. Date: 3 -k$ -1‘k THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP David L. Schwalm, Esquire I.D. Number: 32574 305 North Front Street, P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 255 -7643 Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David L. Schwalm, Esquire of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document(s) was served upon all counsel of record in the manner and on the date set forth below: Dated: cAy Via Regular Mail: Samuel L. Andes, Esquire 525 North 12th Street P. 0. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP David L. Schwalm ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., Plaintiff v. ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, his wife, Defendants Countp ot Cumberlant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2012-05840 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this `D% day of March 2014, upon consideration of Defendants' Petition for Relief from Default Judgment, a RULE is issued upon Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants' motion should not be granted. DEFENDANTS shall effectuate service of this Order upon Plaintiff. A motion to make this Rule absolute will not be entertained until proof of service is filed. RULE RETURNABLE twenty (20) days from the date of service. URT, Distribution: ,X)avid L. Schwalm, Esq. .4amuel L. Andes, Esq. es rib.I.LEct, 2 1/ Thomas A. Placey C.P.J. ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., Plaintiff vs. ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, his wife, Defendants :. 201' FT: 1 cf PH r�ji�lt3�L rr. iNSYL',at IA's 1 r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STIPULATION AND NOW this \\ day of [rte CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 12 -5840 CIVIL TERM , 2014, the above parties, by their counsel hereby stipulate and agree that the court shall enter the attached order to resolve the matters raised in Defendants' petition for relief from default judgment. The undersigned represent to the court that they are authorized to enter into this Stipulation on behalf of their clients. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned have set their hands and seals the date first above written. Samuel L. And Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 David L. Schwalm, Esquire Attorney for Defendant 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17101 ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., Plaintiff vs. ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, his wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 12 -5840 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this 91-k day of 91 8 , 2014, upon the Stipulation of counsel for both arties � we hereby order and decree as follows: P 1. The Judgment previously entered in this case against the Defendants is hereby opened because of the malfeasance of their prior counsel, Karl Rominger, Esquire. 2. Defendants shall file their Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim with the Prothonotary and serve a copy of that on counsel for Plaintiff. 3. Plaintiff is hereby granted an extension of time to respond to Defendant's Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim while the parties attempt to resolve this matter through negotiation. Plaintiff shall have twenty days after their counsel receives written notice to proceed from Defendants' present counsel, David Schwalm, Esquire. Distribution: BY THE Thomas • . Placey Common Pleas Judge ,4amuel L. Andes, Esquire (Attorney for Plaintiff) 525 North 12th Street, P.O. Box 168, Lemoyne, PA 17043 Zavid L. Schwalm, Esquire (Attorney for Defendant) 305 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 +r� JoZ rvi co 2rn tnr"' <C3 >C� zo —f IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ''F• t'i O fHDCO`?;Vr . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA! ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC. CUPIDERL AND Plaintiff �'ENNS YLVAN!A ��'' No. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM v. ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, Defendants CIVIL ACTION — LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiff You are hereby notified that you are required to respond to the enclosed Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days of service or a judgment may be entered against you. Date: May 1, 2014 1468572.1 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP David L. Schwalm, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 32574 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7643 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC. Plaintiff v. ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, Defendants No. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION — LAW ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, NEW MATTERS AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, by and through their counsel, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, Answer Plaintiff's Complaint raising New Matters and Counterclaim as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part. Robert S. Buran did sign the agreement attached to the Complaint: however for reasons set forth below in the New Matter and the Counterclaim, the agreement did not comply with the requirements of Commonwealth's Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq. By way of further answer, by Order of Court dated November 25, 2013, Plaintiff's breach of contract claim was dismissed. 6. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Robert S. Buran did request additional work be performed; however for reasons set forth below in the New Matter and the Counterclaim, the agreement and change request did not comply with the requirements of Commonwealth's Home 1468572.1 Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), and neither Robert S. Buran or Ann Buran signed any change request. By way of further answer, by Order of Court dated November 25, 2013, Plaintiffs breach of contract claim was dismissed. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants cannot ascertain the truth or falsity of this averment and therefore specific proof is demanded. 8. Denied. For reasons more fully set forth below, Plaintiff and its agents did not properly perform the work, improperly installed the roof on two occasions. Plaintiff had to remove the same and then reinstalled it improperly and against the specific dictates of the manufacturer of the roof and could not provide a manufacturer's 50 year warranty as promised. The roof continues to fail in areas and the gutter work was installed improperly causing additional issues. 9. Although it is admitted that Defendants did not and have not paid Plaintiff for the inferior work performed on their property and as more fully set forth below, on or about June 13, 2012, Defendants were directed not to do so by Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's admission of its inferior work and inability to provide a manufacturer's 50 year warranty as promised. 10. This averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. By way of further answer, Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff sustained damages in the amount indicated. COUNT I — CONTRACT 11 — 14. By way of further answer, by Order of Court dated November 25, 2013, Plaintiffs breach of contract claim was dismissed and no answer is required. COUNT II — UNJUST ENRICHMENT 1468572.1 15. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 14, above, as through set forth herein at length. 16. Denied. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff performed substantial construction work. To the contrary, the work performed by Plaintiff was improper, not in accordance with manufacturer's requirements, and resulted in problems with the roof, gutters and downspouting. 17. Denied. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff performed substantial construction work in accordance with the work described in Exhibits A and B of the Amended Complaint. To the contrary, the work performed by Plaintiff was improper, not in accordance with manufacturer's requirements and resulted in problems with the roof, gutters and downspouting. 18. Denied. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff performed substantial construction work. To the contrary, the work performed by Plaintiff was improper, not in accordance with manufacturer's requirements and resulted in problems with the roof, gutters and downspouting. Furthermore, Defendants will be required to now have the roof removed, the sub -roof removed and all replaced in accordance with EcoStar requirements at a cost exceeding $43,000.00. 19. Denied. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff performed substantial construction work. To the contrary, the work performed by Plaintiff was improper, not in accordance with manufacturer's requirements and resulted in problems with the roof, gutters and downspouting. Furthermore, Defendants will be required to now have the roof removed, the sub -roof removed and all replaced in accordance with EcoStar requirements at a cost exceeding $43,000.00. 1468572.1 20. Denied. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff performed substantial construction work. To the contrary, the work performed by Plaintiff was improper, not in accordance with manufacturer's requirements and resulted in problems with the roof, gutters and downspouting. Furthermore, Defendants will be required to now have the roof removed, the sub -roof removed and all replaced in accordance with EcoStar requirements at a cost exceeding $43,000.00. 21. Defendants specifically deny that they were unjustly enriched. By way of further answer, by Order of Court dated November 25, 2013, Plaintiff's breach of contract claim was dismissed. 22. Defendants specifically deny that Plaintiff is entitled to recover for the improper installation of the materials and work that it performed. 23. Defendants specifically deny that they were unjustly` enriched because of Plaintiffs improper installation of the materials and the improper work that it performed since Defendants will be required to now have the roof removed, the sub -roof removed and all replaced in accordance with EcoStar requirements at a cost exceeding $43,000.00. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran respectfully request that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in their favor. NEW MATTERS 24. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 23, above, as through set forth herein at length. 25. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 1468572.1 26. Plaintiff's claims is barred and/or limited by the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA), 73 P.S. § 517.1 et seq. 27. Defendants are homeowners residing in the single family home located at 111 South College Street, Carlisle, PA 17013. 28. Defendants sought to improve their home through the use of a residential home improvement contractor. 29. Plaintiff is a home improvement contractor and is presumed to be registered and licensed as such. 30. Plaintiff is required to follow HICPA in its dealings with residential consumers such as Defendants. 31. Plaintiff and its agents and employees were to install a fifty year warranted roof using the EcoStar brand roofing shingles on Defendants single family residence and such was a home improvement covered by HICPA. 32. Plaintiff's agreement and change order do not contain Plaintiffs home improvement registration number of the performing contractor. 33. Plaintiffs agreement and change order do not contain the signature of Plaintiff or any of its agents or employees. 34. Plaintiffs agreement and change order do not contain nor have attached all required notices of the HICPA including the toll free telephone number of Pennsylvania's Attorney General and the office's respective consumer protection department, and the required notice of a three (3) day right of rescission. 1468572.1 35. Plaintiff's agreement and change order do not contain the Plaintiff's telephone number and does not contain the name address and telephone number of all subcontractors to be used and their respective contractor registration information. 36. Plaintiff's agreement contains a hold harmless clause for Plaintiff or its subcontractors or affiliated companies. 37. Plaintiff's agreement and change order is neither valid nor enforceable as against Defendants. 38. Plaintiff and Defendants reached an accord and satisfaction of any and all claims of Plaintiff against Defendants. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran respectfully request that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed and that judgment be entered in their favor. COUNTERCLAIM A. Improper Installation 39. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 38, above, as though set forth herein at length. 40. Plaintiff and its agents and employees installed the roof on the west and north side of the home with improper pattern design, which had to be removed, causing delays in completion. 41. Plaintiff and its agents and employees improperly installed the roof a second time and were informed by EcoStar inspectors and regional representatives and then admitted by Plaintiff that Plaintiff, its agents or employees had not properly installed a sub -roof and as a result, EcoStar would not issue a warranty. 1468572.1 42. Plaintiff offered Defendants a limited, revised warranty which Defendants would not agree to accept. 43. Having learned of the improper second installation and with discussions with EcoStar representatives, Defendants desired the roof to be removed and the proper sub -roofing installed and new roof installed. 44. Plaintiff and its agents and employees also installed gutters and downspouts and as a result, Defendants began having a number of problems due to the improper installation of these gutters and downspouts. 45. Since the second improper installation of the roof, Defendants have experienced additional problems with the roof and other problems with the installation of the gutters and downspouts. 46. Defendants have no confidence in the ability, skill and workmanship of Plaintiff, its agents and employees based on its admitted two improper attempts to install the roof and its numerous failures to properly install the gutters and downspouts. 47. Defendants met with Plaintiff and its President to discuss this matter, and after the discussion, Plaintiff and its President directed Defendants not to make any payment based on Plaintiff's inferior work and inability to provide a manufacturer's 50 year warranty as promised. 48. Defendants_ accepted the settlement and began seeking another company to remove the second roof Plaintiff and its agents and employees had installed and to have it replaced and properly installed with an EcoStar or equivalent 50 year warranted roof. 49. Defendants will have to expend in excess of $43,000.00 to correct the problems caused by Plaintiff's improper installations and will have to bear the burden of the 1468572.1 p inconvenience, interruption and additional problems associated with a tear -off and reinstallation of the roof and repair and replacement gutters and downspouting. B. Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices 50. Defendants incorporate by reference their allegations or responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 49, above, as though set forth herein at length. 51. Plaintiff held itself out as an approved and competent installer of residential roofing, including the ability and knowledge to install an EcoStar roof in accordance with installation requirements as set forth by EcoStar. 52. Plaintiff made one improper installation of the roof which it removed and then began reinstalling. 53. Plaintiff made a second attempt at a proper installation but after inspection Plaintiff was placed on notice and also admitted it had not installed the proper sub -roof 54. Plaintiff's representations as to its ability were deceptive and induced Defendants into permitting Plaintiff to install the EcoStar roof which was installed improperly on two occasions. 55. Defendants shall be required to now have the roof removed, the sub -roof removed and all replaced in accordance with EcoStar requirements at a cost exceeding $43,000.00. 56. Plaintiff's deceptive actions violate the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 57. Defendants are entitled to treble damages. 58. Defendants are entitled to reasonable attorney fees. 1468572.1 WHEREFORE Defendants requires a judgment in their favor in an amount in excess of $43,000.00 together with treble damages, costs of this suit and reasonable attorney fees. Date: May 1, 2014 1468572.1 Respectfully Submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP David L. Schwalm, Esquire PA Attorney I.D. #32574 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 255-7643 Attorney for Defendants VERIFICATION We, Robert Scott Buran and Ann Buran, the named Defendants, hereby verify that. the statements made herein arc true and correct to our knowledge and belief. We understand that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C, S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: % ? fifAizcl( 2u / 4 - Robert Scott Buran Ann Buran CERTICATE OF SERVICE I, David L. Schwalm, Esquire, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint with New Matter and Counterclaim was served by means of United State First Class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following person: Date: May 1, 2014 1468572.1 Samuel L. Andes, Esquire 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 HOM THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By David L. Schwalm, Esquire R ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC., Plaintiff vs. ROBERT SCOTT BURAN and ANN BURAN, his wife, Defendants OF THE PRO UIOHo ;.. 2514 JUN -2 PH (2:Pz CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVAN1A ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 12-5840 CIVIL TERM PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff, by its attorney Samuel L. Andes, and makes the following Reply to Defendants' New Matter and Counterclaim: 24. No answer required. To the extent a factual response is necessary, Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, the averments set out in its Amended Complaint. 25. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no answer is required. To the extent a factual answer is necessary, Plaintiff denies that its Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 26. The statements in Paragraph 26 state a conclusion of law to which no factual answer is required. To the extent that a factual response is appropriate, Plaintiff denies that its claim is barred or limited by the said statute. 27. Admitted. 28. Admitted. 29. Admitted. 30. The statements in this Paragraph are conclusions of law to which no factual response is required. To the extent that a factual response is appropriate, Plaintiff states that it has followed the requirements of Pennsylvania law in dealing with Defendants. 31. There is and was no agreement between the parties as to what work was to be done because, as Defendants averred and argued in earlier pleadings in the case, the contract originally signed by the parties was invalid and unenforceable. This court has confirmed as N much by dismissing Plaintiff's first count which was based upon the contract. 32 through 37. No answer required because these averments relate to the contract and this court has previously dismissed the claims based upon that contract. To the extent that any answer is required, the documents speak for themselves and no further factual answer is required. 38. Denied. There was no accord and satisfaction between the parties and Plaintiff did not agree to withdraw or limits its claims. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this court to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff in accordance with its Amended Complaint. COUNTERCLAIM A. Improper Installation. 39. No answer required. To the extent that a factual response is necessary, Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, the averments set out in its Amended Complaint and its Reply to Defendants' New Matter. 40. Denied as stated. Plaintiff installed the roof and Defendants objected to the pattern of installation and so Plaintiff removed and reinstalled the roof to meet Defendants' demands. 41. Denied as stated. Because there was no contract between the parties, Defendants were not entitled to any warranty. By way of further answer, however, Plaintiff acknowledges that it did not install a sub roof under the EcoStar system but that EcoStar accepted Plaintiff's installation without condition and issued a warranty to be effective when Defendants pay for the roof installation. 42. Denied as stated. At one point Plaintiff offered a limited warranty to Defendants but, when Defendants did not accept that warranty, Plaintiff obtained a full warranty of the roof as originally agreed by the parties. 43. Plaintiff admits that Defendants wished to have the roof removed and reinstalled but denied that such a measure was necessary or appropriate. Plaintiff installed the roof to the full satisfaction of the manufacturer and the manufacturer issued its unconditional warranty for the roof and Plaintiff's work to install it. 44. Admitted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff admits that there were problems with the installation of the gutters and downspouts. However, Plaintiff offered to return to the property and correct the problems and Defendants refused to allow Plaintiff to do that corrective work. 45. Denied. There was no "second improper installation" of the roof. In fact, there was no improper installation of the roof. Plaintiff admits that Defendants have complained about unspecified problems but states that Defendants refused to allow Plaintiff to return to the property to correct any alleged problems. 46. Denied. Plaintiff cannot state whether Defendants have confidence in Plaintiff and its ability to install the roof. Plaintiff denies, however, that it improperly installed the roof or failed to complete the proper installation of gutters or downspouts. After Defendants complained about the gutters and downspouts, Plaintiff offered to return to the property and correct those problems that the Defendants claim to have, but Defendants refused to allow Plaintiff to return and do that corrective work. 47. Denied. It is admitted that Defendants met with Plaintiff to discuss Defendants refusal to pay Plaintiff for the work. It is denied, however, that Plaintiff, at that meeting or at any other time, directed Defendants not to pay Plaintiff, stated that Plaintiff's work was inferior, or stated that Plaintiff was not able to provide the 50 -year warranty. To the contrary, Plaintiff obtained the 50 -year warranty from the manufacturer and is prepared to deliver it when Plaintiff is paid for its work. 48. Denied. There was no "settlement" between Plaintiff and Defendant. Plaintiff cannot admit or deny whether Defendants sought another company to remove and reinstall the roof because that information is within the exclusive control of Defendants and so Plaintiff denies those averments and demands proof thereof at trial. 49. Denied. Plaintiff denies that it improperly installed the roof or any part of it. Defendants' averment that it will incur costs of $43,000.00 to remove and reinstall the roof is denied by Plaintiff because that information is within the exclusive control of Defendants and so Plaintiff denies those averments and demands proof thereof at trial. B. Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices 50. No answer required. To the extent an answer is required, Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, the averments in its Amended Complaint and the foregoing paragraphs of this Reply. 51. Admitted. By way of further answer, Plaintiff states that it is so qualified. 52. Denied. The original installation made by Plaintiff was not improper. Plaintiff changed that installation to meet the demands of Defendants who were dissatisfied with the pattern of the roof. 53. Denied as stated. Plaintiff states that it reinstalled a portion of the roof on Defendants' property to address Defendants' complaints about the pattern of the roof. Defendant admits that it did not install a wood decking under the new roof but denies that Plaintiff's installation was improper. Plaintiff never admitted that it had improperly installed the roof. To the contrary, the roof was installed properly. 54. Denied. All representations made by Plaintiff were accurate and truthful. Plaintiff denies that the EcoStar roof system was not installed properly. 55. Denied. The roof installed by Plaintiff is proper, was installed properly, and is backed up by a 50 -year warranty issued by EcoStar. It is not necessary for Defendants to remove the roof 56. Denied. Plaintiff did not engage in any deceptive actions and did not violate the said statute. 57. Denied for the reasons set forth in the Answer to Paragraph 56 above. 58. Denied for the reasons set forth in the Answer to Paragraph 56 above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in its favor and against the Defendants in accordance with Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Samuel L. Andes Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 12th Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-5361 I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities). Date: ALLIED EXTERIORS, INC. MICHAEL'. HOTE resident