Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-6699~t ~ ...~;1~.1"°il~4:7 t COURTNEY ASKINS Plaintiff KRISTINE ASKINS ~'~' 2 OCT 3 I Pty 12~ cG n C~1MScrtL~~1l3 C~t~e PEh+~SYL'~Al~l,'~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant Civil Term NOTICE TO DEFEND 1'OU HAVE BEEN SUED 1N COURT. lF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST IHF. CLAI~ti9S SET FOR"FH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES. YOU MUST FAKE ACTION '~l1"IHIN~ TWENI Y (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NO'l~1CF ARF, SERVFll, BY ENTERING ,A ~'RI~'fEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY AN A"CTORNEY AND FILLING IN WR1lING W1~h11 THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJEC"F[ONS ~hO THE CLAIMS SET FOR~FH A~C~AINS~I~ YOU. Y'OU ARF WARNED THA'I' IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE Mf\Y PROCFJ~:D ~~ il~f 1Ol;~l YOU AND A JLDGEMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY T'HE COl1R"1 141"Il{OU"I FUR"fFIFR NO~FIC'E FOR ANY MON[;Y CLAIMED IN THE; COMPLAINT OR FOR ANl' U~I~FIER CLAIM OR REL11:F REQUES~FED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOS1=. MONEY OR PL:OPN~,R"l~Y OR Ol~l I[?R R.IGI P,'FS IMPORTANT TO YO[ I. YOU S}{OUI,D "TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE:. II~ `~"Ol DO NOT I IAV'L~ A L "~WYER OR CANNO"F AFFORD ONE,. GO TO'I'HE TELEPHONI OR ~I~f If'. 01~1~(CI~: SE~'d~ I~ORI"H BELOW TO FIND WHERE-. YOU CAN GET LEGAL FIFLP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 r~-- Keith I ~:. Kendall, Esq. P \ -ltrorne~- ID No. 42910 S(;~hINC:JI & SC~~RINCII, P.C. ~rrorn«~s for Plaintiff ?000 Lin~lestown Road, Suite 106 }-larrisl~ur~;, F'_~ 17110 (7l %) C~57-7770 (71.7) 657-7797 i F;:1Z) ~'l t{)~7J,. L'GIIZIZ~ZIQ1~'. G'01iZ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COURTNEY .ASKINS, Civil No. __ _____ 2fri~ Pl:~intiff vs. Civil Action -Law KRISTINE ASKINS, Defendant Jury Trial Demanded COMPLAINT" 1. 1'hc Plaintiff is Courtney ~~skins ("Plaintiff"), an adult indi~~idual currenth~ residin.~ at 20 Stephen Road, l~partment B-8, Carnp Hill, Cun-ibcrland Ct>unt>~, Pennsylvania, 17011. ?. 1'he Defendant is Kristine _~skins ("Defendant"), a~n adult individual currently residing at 301 Melbourne Lame, ~Iechanicsbur~, Cumberland C:ounty~, Penns-lvania, 17055. ~. "1'he Plaintiff and Defendant are first cousins. I. ~}~~proximatelti~ 2 years ago, the Plaintift~s mother died. ~, "I'he Plaintiff inherited approximatch- X4,000.00 from het' mother's estate. C~. On or about September 13, 2010, the Plaintiff critrusred 529,00 ).00 of her inheritance to the Defendant, for safekeeping. On one occasion, the Plaintiff requested that Defendat~ t return 5"x,000 00 to Phtintiff, for the purchase of a car. The Defendant complied with Plaintift~s request, and gave the Plaintiff the requested 59,000.00. ~. In I~ebruai-~~, 2011, the Plaintiff requested that the. I~cfe~idant return the balance of the mone~~, 520,000.00, to Plaintiff. ~). "I'1ie Defendant has failed or refused to return the monc~~ that she was holding for Plaintiff, to Plaintiff, since the request in Februar~~, ?~ 11 ? ,and repeated requests since then. I0. "I'he Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that the Defendant has spent fir otherwise disposed of the mone~~ entrusted to her by the 1'la~ntiff for safekeeping. COUNT I -REPLEVIN 11. Paragraphs 1 through 10 are incorporated herein, as the nigh set f. girth in full. 12. "1'he Defendant has wrongfully converted to her own use the propene of Plaintiff entrusted to her care, to wit 520,000.00 in cash. l 3. 13~° cones erring Plaintiff's monev to her own use, the Dc fondant has ~~~r~ ~ngfull~~ taken the Plaintiff s propert<~, to wit S20,000.00 in cash. l~. Despite repeated requests, the Defendant has detained ai-~d tail~~~d t<4 return to Plaintiff the mone~~ owned by Plaintifl~ and entr-usred ro Defendant's possession. ti~'HERI?FOR}~:, the Plaintiff requests that a ~X1rit of Seizure iss~.~e, after hearing; and that an award thereafter be entered in fa~~or of Plaintiff. and against Defendant, in the amount of X20,000.00, plus interest. COUNT II -UNJUST ENRICHMENT 1 ~. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are incorporated herein by- reference as though set forth at length. l6. The Defendant received monc~-~ from the Plaintiff and belon~nng to the ~I'laintiff, to wit: X20,000.00, and has failed or refused to repay- the money- tc:~ Plaintiff, upon demand. (7. ~1s a result of the Defendant's action in wrangfullv rct~urling the money- belonging to Plaintiff, Defendant has been unjustly enriched b~~ recei~~ing the benefit of Plaintiff's money, ~nthout malting pa~-ment for same. 1 S. _~s a result of Defendants' unjust enrichment, Plaintiff has been dama~cd in the amount of $20,000.00, plus interest since l~'~ebruarti~, 201 1. 3 '~~'HI~RIFOR7~;, Plaintiff demands judgment in her favor- and against Deft~ndant Kristine tlskins, in the amount of $20,000.00, plus interest from I~ebruar~-, 2011, and costs, in addition to an~T other relief this Honorable (;ours sees tit to a~~arc~l. COUNT III -BREACH OF CONTRACT l9. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are hereb~~ incorporated herein by= rc:~ference, as though fully set forth. ?0. C)n September 13, 2010, Plaintiff gave the Defendant X29,000.00 in cash, owned lbv Plaintiff, to hold in safekeeping for Plaintiff. ?1. `l"lzc Defendant agreed to hold Plaintiff's m~~ney for Plaintiff, in safekeeping, un~il such time as Plaintiff needed the money . ?2. I~~r:~m that amount held in trust by~ Defendant for Plaintiff, the Plaintiff requested and received X9,000.00 from Defendant for the purchase of a car. ?3. In I~'ebruai-y, 2011, the Plaintiff requested that Dcfenda.nt sl.irrender the balance of the mone~~ being held bj~ Defendant for Plaintiff, in the amount of x;20,000.00. ?4. Despite having agreed to do so, the Defendant refused t~> return the balance of the mone~~ she was holding for Plaintiff, to Plaintiff. ?5. Despite repeated requests, the Defendant has failed and refused to return Plaintiffs mone~~ to her. 4 ?6. ~1'o date, Defendant has not repaid the balance owed, or ~-n-or~~ided Plainriff with an accounting of the money being held for Plaintiff. ?7. Defendant's failure to repa~~ the. full amount due and ~~wing to Plaintiff constirtares a breach. of contract. ?8. .~s a result of Defendant's breach of contract, Plaintiff Leas suffered damages in the amount of 520,000.00, plus interest since l~ebs-uan~, ?(11 1. ~~'Hl~.RL,I~ORE, Plaintiff demands judgment in her favor anc~ against h>cfendant pristine ~lskins, in the amount of $20,000.00, phis intci~~est from Febniarv, 2011, and costs, in addition to any other relief this I-Ionorable ~;ourt sees fir to award. COUNT IV -PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 29. Paragraphs 1 through 28 arc hereby incorporated h~.~re~n b~= r~.~fercnce, as though fully set forth i0. Defendant promised to return to Plaintiff the balance ~~f the mone~~ that Defendant was holding in trust for Plaintiff, to wit: ~20,000~ 0(a ~1. In so doing, Defendant intended that Plaintiff would rep- ~>n the promise made. ?2. Plaintiff did, in fact, reasonabh~ reh~ on the Defendant's premise t~~~ return her money to her on demand, bti- entrusting the amount of X29,000.00 tt ~ Defendant care. 5 33. is a result, Plaintiff has suffered a detriment, in the amount of S?t),00~ 1.00, the balance of the money- entrusted to Defend~.~nt and being held I~~~ 1;)efendanr for Plaintiff, plus interest. \~'~-IF1ZI~:FC~RE, Plaintiff demands judnnent in her favor and against Defendant I~~ri~tine ,skins, in the amount of X20,000.00, plus interc~t from I~ebru~r~~, 2011, and costs, in addition to any- other relief this Honorab~c (:ourt s<.~cs fit to aw~arcl. bate: /4 ~~ eZa ! J- SC_~RINGI & SC~IRII~~GI, P.( `~~~' ------- Keith E. Kendall, I~,sq. .~ttornee for Plaintiff .~ttornev I:D No. 42910 2000 l,inglestown Road Harrisburg, P;~ 1 ~ 110 (717) 6.57-7 7 70 (717; 657-7797 (F?~Z) ,~eith~scc~riragilazv. co~~z 6 Verification i, Courtney Askins, the Plaintiff in the civil action, verif~~ that the aller,ari<~ns made in the fore~c~in~ Complaint are true and correct, to the bcsr of m~ la~t~~wlcd~;e, information and belief. I understand that false sra.tements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. X4904, rcl~,ating ro unsworn falsification to authorities. Dare: _ r' r -~ _ _.__ ~_~ f ;ourtnev l~skins, Plaintiff SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff ~Q,~~~S~' a[ ~un~b~~.f~~~ !~ S ~ ~y k ~` I`ol,tD-t~FEICE a~ `f FIE F'~OTNUNI~T~,4 'r Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor 2012 NOY -9 AM 8~ 36 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PEWNSYLVANIA Courtney Askins vs. Case Number Kristine Askins 2012-6699 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 11/01/2012 08:18 PM -Deputy Jason Kinsler, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice by "personally" handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be the Defendant, to wit: Kristine Askins at 301 Melbourne Lane, Upper Allen Township, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. J ON KINSLER, DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $38.00 November 07, 2012 SO ANSWERS, ... RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF ice? Ceuniy5uite She^'!i: Teiecso~, In. "p Melissa L. Kelso, Esquire c-) Attorney I.D.No. 306793 = -r, SALZMANN HUGHES,P.C. ran ` `,r- 354 Alexander Spring Road, Suite 1 Carlisle,PA 17015 ' 't° {717} 249-6333 tlf� r COURTNEY ASKINS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON-PL AS,`'4 Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO.2012-6699-CIVIL KRISTINE ASKINS, Defendant AMENDED PETITION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Defendant, Kristine Askins,by and through her counsel, Salzmann Hughes, P.C., and hereby moves this Honorable Court for leave to file an Amended Answer with New Matter as follows: 1. On or about October 30,2012,Plaintiff Courtney Askins filed a Complaint against Defendant. 2. After being served with the Complaint and acting pro se,Defendant timely filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. 3. Subsequent to Defendant's Answer, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Writ of Seizure on January 14,2013. 4. Defendant retained the undersigned counsel in early March 2013 and requested a continuance of the hearing scheduled for March 5, 2013 on Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Seizure. 5. The Court,by the Honorable Judge Christylee L. Peck continued the hearing until April, in order to permit Defendant time to retain counsel and investigate her legal rights and interests. 6. On or about March 12,2013,the undersigned filed an inadvertently erroneous Petition for Leave of Court to Amend Defendant's Answer with New Matter. Defendant is concurrently filing a Praecipe to Withdraw that Petition with this Amended Petition. 7. Defendant hereby petitions the Court for leave to file an Amended Answer with New Matter in accordance with the proposed Answer with New Matter attached hereto as Exhibit"A". 8. By way of a telephone call,the undersigned requested Plaintiff's consent in this Petition. Defendant avers that Plaintiff does not consent with Defendant's filing of an Amended Answer with New Matter. 9. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1033,a party, either by consent of any adverse parties or by leave of Court,may at any time change the form of an action or amend her pleading. 10. Generally,the Court should liberally allow a party's amendment of her pleading. Id.; Werner v. Vazygzny 681 A.2d 1331, 1338 (Pa. Super. 1995). 11. The Court should liberally permit an amendment at any stage of the proceedings, including before, during and after trial,unless it would result in an error of law or cause prejudice to an adverse party. Id.; Horowitz v. Universal Underwriters Ins., 581 A.2d 385 (Pa. Super. 1990). 12. Any prejudice claimed by the adverse party must constitute more than a mere detriment because any amendment will certainly strengthen the legal position of the amending party. Capobianchi v. Bic Corgi, 666 A.2d 344(Pa. Super. 1995). 13. The decision to permit a party's amendment of his pleading rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and an appellate court will not overturn this decision absent an abuse # 7 of discretion. Id. 14. Accordingly, an appellate court will reverse a trial court's denial of a defendant's request to amend a pleading where the trial court abused its discretion. 15. For example,the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court's denial of a defendant's request to amend her answer to correct general denials previously found inadequate and to assert defenses to the Plaintiff's cause of action where the Plaintiff had knowledge of the factual averments necessary for the defense prior to the commencement of litigation and where the plaintiff would suffer no undue surprise or prejudice; the trial court's denial constituted an abuse of discretion. Pilotti v. Mobile Oil Corp. 565 A.2d 1227 (Pa. Super. 1989). 16. Presently,Defendant's Amended Answer with New Matter will not cause any prejudice to Plaintiff 17. Plaintiff's assertion that the filing of this late pleading will prejudice her simply because she initiated these proceedings in October 2012 lacks merit and does not constitute actual prejudice. 18. Defendant seeks only to assert new matter and affirmative defenses based on Plaintiff's own conduct that gave rise to this suit. 19. Had Defendant filed objections to the legal deficiencies of Plaintiffs Complaint after its service in November 2412, such objections would most likely have been only recently disposed of by the Court. 20. Further, a mere couple month delay in receiving a Defendant's Answer cannot constitute the prejudice established as necessary by Pennsylvania case law. 21. Specifically,the parties have not engaged in any discover and no further litigation has been conducted besides Plaintiffs filing of the Motion for the Writ of Seizure, to which Defendant, acting pro se, did not file a response. 22. After receiving the notice of the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Seizure, Defendant promptly retained counsel,who now promptly requests permission for leave of Court to file an Amended Answer with New Matter to adequately and properly preserve Defendant's affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs claims. 23. Defendant will have filed her Amended Answer with New Matter prior to the party's hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for a Writ of Seizure and therefore Plaintiff cannot claim any undue surprise in this regard either. 24. For these reasons, given the Rules' liberal permission to amend a pleading and given that Plaintiff cannot establish any actual prejudice that would meet the burden to pen-nit the Court to deny Defendant's Petition, this Honorable Court should permit Defendant leave of Court to file an Amended Answer with New Matter in accordance with the proposed Answer with New Matter attached hereto as Exhibit"A." 25. The Honorable Judge L. Christylee Peck has previously issued an Order in this matter. WHEREFORE,Defendant, Kristine Askins,respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter the attached Order and grant her leave of Court to file an Amended Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint. Respectfully submitted, SALZMANN HUGHES,P.C. Melissa L. Kelso, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 306793 354 Alexander Spring Road Suite I Carlisle, PA 17015 (717)249-6333 Dated: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this day of A,, 2013, I, Melissa L. Kelso, Esq., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by United States first class mail,postage paid, and addressed as indicated below: Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff SALZMANN HUGHES,P.C. By: L�L Melissa L. Kelso, Esquire Melissa L. Kelso,Esquire Attorney I.D.No. 306793 SALZMANN HUGHES,P.C. 354 Alexander Spring Road, Suite 1 Carlisle,PA 17015 (717) 249-6333 COURTNEY ASKINS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, VS. PENNSYLVANIA NO.2012-6699-CIVIL "ISTINE ASKINS, Defendant DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Defendant, Kristine Askins by and through her counsel, SALZMANN HUGHES, P.C., and hereby Answers Plaintiff's Complaint and asserts New Matter as follows: I. It is averred,upon information and belief, that this averment is true. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant is aware that Plaintiff inherited an amount of money from her mother's estate. Defendant is not aware of the amount of that inheritance. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff requested that Defendant take possession of$29,000.00 and put it in Defendant's bank account. Defendant denies the characterization that Plaintiff"entrusted"her with Plaintiffs inheritance and was unaware of Plaintiff's intention or purpose for requesting that Defendant hold her inheritance. G � 7. It is admitted that Plaintiff requested portions of the money she put in Defendant's possession and that Defendant provided Plaintiff with the various sums requested. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that at a certain period of time,Plaintiff requested the balance of her inheritance. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff requested the balance of her inheritance that she put in Defendant's possession and that Defendant was unable to provide Plaintiff with the full balance at that time. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant incorporates her response to Paragraph 9. COUNT I—REPLEVIN 11. Defendant incorporates her responses to Paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set forth a length. 12. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading it required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Defendant converted Plaintiff's property and Defendant denies Plaintiffs characterization of the events giving rise to this suit. 13. Denied. Defendant incorporates her response to Paragraph 12. 14. Defendant denies Plaintiff s characterization of the events giving rise to this suit. By way of further response,Defendant incorporates her response to Paragraph 9. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT II—UNJUST ENRICHMENT 15. Defendant incorporates her responses to Paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set forth a length. 2 16. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits only that Plaintiff put a portion of Plaintiff's inheritance into Defendant's possession and that Defendant was unable to provide Plaintiff with a certain amount of that inheritance upon request. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the events giving rise to this suit. 17. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response,Plaintiff provided Defendant with a portion of her inheritance for her own benefit and not that of Defendant. Additionally,Defendant did not receive any benefit from her possession of Plaintiff s inheritance. 18. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Plaintiff provided Defendant with a portion of her inheritance for her own benefit and not that of Defendant. Additionally,Plaintiff has provided no basis for the imposition of interest charges and Defendant therefore specifically denies such charges. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT III—BREACH OF CONTRACT 19. Defendant incorporates her responses to Paragraphs 1-19 as if fully set forth a length. 20—28. Plaintiff's assertion that the parties entered into a contract is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Defendant specifically denies that the parties entered into any enforceable agreement,verbal or written, and asserts that Plaintiff has failed to establish that any consideration existed that would support the enforceability of any such agreement. Further,Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the events giving rise to this suit. Defendant did not hold Plaintiff s money in trust and to the 3 extent a trust would give rise to heightened duties on the part of Defendant,denies the existence of these duties. Defendant admits only that Plaintiff provided her with a portion of Plaintiff s inheritance and Defendant cannot admit or deny Plaintiffs intention for doing so. Defendant admits that, at some time, she was unable to provide Plaintiff with the full amount of money requested and that she has not returned the full amount to Plaintiff to date. Defendant received no benefit from the parties' course of dealings or from the money she held at Plaintiff s request. WHEREFORE,Defendant respectfully requests that Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT IV—PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 29. Defendant incorporates her responses to Paragraphs 1-19 as if fully set forth a length. 30. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits only that Plaintiff provided her with a portion of Plaintiffs inheritance. Defendant cannot admit or deny Plaintiff s intention for doing so. Defendant denies Plaintiff s characterization of the events giving rise to this suit and denies that she"promised"anything upon which Plaintiff relied. Rather, Defendant gratuitously held possession of a portion of Plaintiff s inheritance as requested by Plaintiff. 31. It is specifically denied that Defendant made any"promise"to Plaintiff upon which Plaintiff could reasonably rely or that Defendant intended to induce Plaintiff into relying on any of Defendant's actions or inaction. 32. After reasonable investigation,Defendant cannot admit or deny claim that she relied upon any actions or inactions on the part of Defendant. By way of further response, Defendant denies Plaintiffs characterization of the events giving rise to this suit. 33. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Defendant denies Plaintiff s characterization of the events giving rise to this 4 suit and denies that any actions on the part of Defendant caused Plaintiff damage. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff. NEW MATTER 34. Defendant incorporates her responses to Paragraphs 1-33 as if fully set forth as length. 35. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim against Defendant for replevin. 36. Defendant received and maintained possession of a certain sum of money as requested by Plaintiff gratuitously and not in exchange for the receipt of any benefit on the part of Defendant from Plaintiff. 37. Defendant did not convert Plaintiff s money for Defendant's benefit. 38. Defendant at no time used Plaintiffs money for Defendant's benefit. 39. Defendant did not hold Plaintiffs money in trust. 40. Defendant at no time entered into an enforceable agreement with Plaintiff regarding the events giving rise to this suit. 41. There was no consideration exchanged between the parties that would support an enforceable agreement. 42. Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the statute of limitations. 43. Some or all of Plaintiff s claims are barred by the defense of unclean hands. 44. Defendant at no time acted with the intent to induce Plaintiff to act or fail to act or to induce Plaintiffs reliance on Defendant's actions or inactions. 45. Defendant at no time made any promise to Plaintiff regarding the events giving rise to 5 this suit and therefore did not and could not have intended for Plaintiff to rely on any promise. 46. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for promissory estoppel because Plaintiff has failed to assert facts that give rise to mutual promises made amongst the parties. 47. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by her own actions of fraud. 48. Plaintiff's contract claim may be barred by Pennsylvania law in that the law will not enforce a contract entered into for an illegal purpose. 49. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of impossibility of performance. 50. Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the doctrine of substantial performance. 51. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim for unjust enrichment. 52. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim for breach of contract. 53. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim for promissory estoppel. 54. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of Cumberland County, Plaintiff s claims must be arbitrated. 55. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by.the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. 56. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. 57. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 58. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of laches. 59. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the doctrine of unconscionability. WHEREFORE,Defendant, Kristine Askins respectfully requests that Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, 6 SALZMANN HUGHES, P.C. Melissa L. Kelso, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 306793 354 Alexander Spring Road Suite 1 Carlisle, PA 17015 (717)249-6333 Dated: 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this day of , 2013, I, Melissa L. Kelso, Esq., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by United States first class mail,postage paid, and addressed as indicated below: Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff SALZMANN HUGHES,P.C. By: Melissa L. Kelso, Esquire 8 '0 H U M` Melissa L. Kelso, Esquire f Attorney I.D.No. 306793 SALZMANN HUGHES,P.C. 2013 MAR 15 AM 11: 45 354 Alexander Spring Road, Suite I CUMBERLAND COUNTY Carlisle, PA 17015 PENNSYLVANIA (717)249-6333 COURTNEY ASKINS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO.2012-6699-CIVIL KRISTINE ASK[NS, Defendant PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE AN AMENDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER To the Prothonotary: Kindly withdraw Defendant's Petition for Leave of Court to File an Amended Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint. Respectfully submitted, SALZMANN HUGHES,P.C. Melissa L. Kelso,Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 306793 354 Alexander Spring Road Suite I Carlisle,PA 17015 (717)249-6333 Attorney for Defendant Dated: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this�_day of , 2013, I, Melissa L. Kelso, Esq., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by United States first class mail,postage paid, and addressed as indicated below: Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff SALZMANN HUGHES,P.C. By: Melissa L. Kelso, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 306793 SALZMANN HUGHES, P.C. 354 Alexander Spring Road, Suite 1 Carlisle, PA 17015 (717) 249-6333 a 2111NAR 18 pt, 1, c 0 Keith E. Kendall,Esquire C U'k1 E 1 L A N Attorney for Plaintiff PENrNS YCVANIA t t` Attorney ID No.42910 Scaringi& Scaringi, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-657-7770 keithkscarin ig,law.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA COURTNEY ASKINS, Civil No. 12-6699 Plaintiff VS. Civil Action-Law KRISTINE ASKINS, IN REPLEVIN Defendant Jury Trial Demanded MOTION TO REQUEST CONTINUANCE NOW COMES Keith E. Kendall,Esq.,Attorney for the Plaintiff,Courtney Askins ("Plaintiff"),and respectfully moves the Court for a continuance of the Hearing on Writ of Seizure in the above matter,and in support hereof,avers that: 1. On January 14,2013 Plaintiff through her counsel filed a Motion for Writ of Seizure in the above-referenced matter. 2. A hearing on Plaintiff Motion for Writ of Seizure was originally scheduled for March 5,2013, 3. The Defendant requested a continuance of this Hearing in order to seek counsel in the above-captioned matter. 4. Defendant's unopposed motion for continuance was granted, and the matter is currently scheduled for a Replevin Hearing on April 11, 2013 at 9:30 A.M., in Courtroom No. 5, before the Han. Christylee L. Peck,Judge. 5. Plaintiff's counsel is scheduled for an all-day master's hearing in Juniata County on April 11, 2013, which hearing was scheduled well prior to the scheduling of the hearing in this matter. 6. Plaintiffs counsel is requesting a continuance of the Replevin Hearing due to this prior conflict. 7. Counsel has contacted Defendant's attorney, Melissa Kelso, Esq., seeking her concurrence of the grant of the relief requested herein. 8. Attorney Kelso concurs with the relief requested herein. WHEREFORE,Plaintiff requests that the hearing of Plaintiffs Motion for Writ of Seizure be continued to the next available hearing date. Respectfully submitted, 3 __2 geith E. Kendall Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID#42910 Scaringi&Scaringi,P C 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106 Harrisburg PA 17110 (717)657-7770 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA COURTNEY ASKINS, Civil No. 12-6699 Plaintiff VS. Civil Action-Law KRISTINE ASKINS, IN REPLEVIN Defendant Jury Trial Demanded CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary L. Snyder, Law Clerk for the Law Firm of Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C., hereby certify that I have this date served the foregoing Motion for Continuance on the Defendant, by placing a true and correct copy of the Motion in United States Regular Mail, postage prepaid, to the following person at the following address: Melissa Kelso, Esq. Salzman Hughes, P.C. 354 Alexander Springs Road, Ste 1 Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Date:��� �l� +Mary }der IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA rn COURTNEY ASKINS, Civil No. 12-6699 ink Plaintiff - : vs. Civil Action - Law KRISTINE ASKINS, IN REPLEVIN Defendant Jury Trial Demanded ORDER OF COURT AND NOW. this the - `"-riday of March, 2013, upon review of the within unopposed Motion for Continuance, the relief requested is GRANTED. The Replevin Hearing scheduled for April 11, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. is hereby continued to until ��?� /� /-��� , , 2013, in Courtroom No. at 2; o"clock . M., Cumberland County Courthouse, 1 I Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA, 17013. j BY THE COURT, I J. Distribution: Keith E. Kendall, Esq.. Attorney for Plaintiff, 2000 Linglestown Road, Ste 106, Harrisburg, PA 17110: 717-657-7770 Melissa Kelso, Esq., Attorney for Defendant, 354 Alexander Springs Road, Ste 1, Carlisle, PA 17013; 717-249-6333 COURTNEY ASKINS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION—LAW KRISTINE ASKINS, Defendant NO. 12-6699 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S AMENDED PETITION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2013, upon consideration of Defendant's Amended Petition for Leave of Court To Amend Answer with New Matter, a Rule is hereby issued upon Plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service. BY THE COURT, rE J, ChristAee L. Peck, J. Keith E. Kendall, Esq. tj 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff Melissa L. Kelso, Esq. 354 Alexander Spring Road Suite I Carlisle, PA 17015 Attorney for Defendant :rc Of rNER i NANO TA Keith E. Kendall, Esq. r Pa attorney ID No. 42910 2413 APR 'S AM 1j= 34 SCARINGI & SCARINGI, P.C. Ci"SERLAND COUNTY Attorneys for Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 657-7770 (717) 657-7797 (FAX) keith@scarin,gilaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COURTNEY ASKINS, Civil No. 12 - 6699 Plaintiff VS. Civil Action - Law KRISTINE ASKINS, IN REPLEVIN Defendant Jury Trial Demanded PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED PETITION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO AMEND ANSWER NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Courtney Askins ("Plaintiff'), by and through her attorneys, to Answer Defendant's Amended Petition for Leave of Court to emend Answer With New Matter, by evenly-numbered paragraphs therewith, as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted that Defendant is petitioning the Court for leave to amend her Answer, to include New Matter. Denied that Defendant should be granted leave to do so. S. Admitted. 9. Admitted that Rule 1033 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure allows the amendment of pleadings, upon a showing of justification therefore, by a party. Denied that Defendant is entitled, under the facts of this case, to amend her Answer. 10. The averment states a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 11. The averment states a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 12. The averment states a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 13. The averment states a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 14. The averment states a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 15. The averment states a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. 2 16. Denied. The amount of money at issue in this case (approximately $20,000), is not substantial. Therefore, any additional legal fees invested by Plaintiff — beyond those already devoted to the pleadings — will prejudice the Plaintiff by necessarily and dramatically increasing her legal fees and expenses in pursuing this civil action. Further, if her amendment is permitted, the Defendant seeks to plead 26 new legal and equitable defenses to Plaintiff's claims — many of which have already been waived by Defendant's failure to properly plead these defenses in her response to Plaintiff's Complaint. Finally, this matter is subject to mandatory arbitration, pursuant to Local Rules 1301-1, et seq., which rules are designed to assure the prompt and relatively uncomplicated resolution of matters involving unsubstantial amount in controversy, such as this one. Plaintiff's right to have this matter promptly arbitrated, by extending the pleadings and unduly complicating the matter with 26 new defenses, will cause real prejudice to the Plaintiff. 17. Denied. Plaintiff's assertion is based upon Plaintiff's right to a prompt resolution of this relatively uncomplicated matter, by arbitration, an outcome that will be denied to Plaintiff in the event that Defendant is permitted to add 26 legal and equitable defenses into the matter. 18. Denied. The Defendant seeks to overly complicate a relatively uncomplicated legal matter, by the introduction of new and, in many cases, 3 inapposite legal and equitable defenses to this matter, over 5 months after her initial Answer was filed. 19. Denied. The Defendant has no legally recognizable objections to Plaintiffs Complaint, but instead seeks to introduce novel legal and equitable defenses into this action by way of New Matter, over 5 months after her original Answer was filed. 20. Denied. The Defendant's delaying, obstruction and complicating tactics clearly reflect more than "a mere couple month delay in receiving Defendant's Answer." 21. Denied. The Plaintiff served her first set of discovery requests on the Defendant on or about March 15, 2013, with responses therefore due from the Defendant on or about April 15, 2013. 22. Denied. The Defendant has not demonstrated or argued any reason why she was unwilling or unable to procure legal counsel in November, 2012, when her Answer to the Plaintiffs Complaint was adequately and properly filed. Further, Defendant's "Answer to Complaint" reflects some level of legal sophistication in its form and averments. Plaintiff therefore submits that the Defendant could have, and should have retained legal counsel in November, 2012; and should not now be permitted to do so, at the expense of, and prejudice to Plaintiff, and the further delay in these proceedings. 4 23. Denied. The Defendant's filing of an Amended Answer with New Matter, containing spurious legal and equitable defenses, will prejudice the Plaintiff beyond any surprise that would inevitably result from the filing of such Amended Answer, as set forth in Paragraph 16 hereinbefore. 24. Denied. The Plaintiff will clearly be prejudiced by Defendant's delaying tactics; and by Defendant's attempt to complicate this matter well beyond the claims that are set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, and any cognizable or even apparent defenses thereto. 25. Admitted. WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, and upon the further arguments set forth in any briefing of this matter that the Court may direct, Plaintiff requests that the Defendant's Petition to Amend be denied; and that this matter be allowed to proceed to the prompt conclusion of discovery; and to the mandatory arbitration of Plaintiff's claims immediately thereafter. Respectfully submitted, Date: Keith E. Kendall, Esq. PA Attorney ID No. 42910 SCARINGI & SCARINGI, PC 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 657-7770 keith @scaringilaw.com 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Keith E. Kendall, Esq., hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Plaintiffs Answer to Defendant's Amended Petition for Leave of Court to Amend Answer upon counsel for the Defendant, by mailing a true and correct copy thereof, by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addresses as follows: Melissa Kelso, Esq. Salzman Hughes, P.C. 354 Alexander Springs Road, Ste 1 Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: /1-3 —Z� Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Attorney for Defendant OF THE OF FAQ` Melissa L. Kelso, Esquire T�i ;, Attorney I.D. No. 306793 J z& � SALZMANN HUGHES, P.C. 354 Alexander Spring Road, Suite 1 CUMBERLAN COUNT\, Carlisle, PA 17015 `'NSYLVANIA (717) 249-6333 COURTNEY ASKINS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, VS. PENNSYLVANIA KRISTINE ASKINS, NO. 2012-6699 - CIVIL Defendant DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Defendant, Kristine Askins by and through her counsel, SALZMANN HUGHES, P.C., and hereby Answers Plaintiff s Complaint and asserts New Matter in this Amended Answer with New Matter as follows: 1. It is averred,upon information and belief, that this averment is true. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant is aware that Plaintiff inherited an amount of money from her mother's estate. Defendant is not aware of the amount of that inheritance. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff requested that Defendant take possession of$29,000.00 and put it in Defendant's bank account. Defendant denies the characterization that Plaintiff"entrusted"her with Plaintiff's inheritance and was unaware of Plaintiff s intention or purpose for requesting that Defendant hold her inheritance. 7. It is admitted that Plaintiff requested portions of the money she put in Defendant's possession and that Defendant provided Plaintiff with the various sums requested. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that at a certain period of time, Plaintiff requested the balance of her inheritance. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff requested the balance of her inheritance that she put in Defendant's possession and that Defendant was unable to provide Plaintiff with the full balance at that time. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant incorporates her response to Paragraph 9. COUNT I—REPLEVIN 11. Defendant incorporates her responses to Paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set forth a length. 12. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading it required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Defendant converted Plaintiff's property and Defendant denies Plaintiff s characterization of the events giving rise to this suit. 13. Denied. Defendant incorporates her response to Paragraph 12. 14. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the events giving rise to this suit. By way of further response,Defendant incorporates her response to Paragraph 9. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT 11—UNJUST ENRICHMENT 15. Defendant incorporates her responses to Paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set forth a 2 length. 16. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits only that Plaintiff put a portion of Plaintiff's inheritance into Defendant's possession and that Defendant was unable to provide Plaintiff with a certain amount of that inheritance upon request. Defendant denies Plaintiffs characterization of the events giving rise to this suit. 17. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Plaintiff provided Defendant with a portion of her inheritance for her own benefit and not that of Defendant. Additionally,Defendant did not receive any benefit from her possession of Plaintiff s inheritance. 18. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Plaintiff provided Defendant with a portion of her inheritance for her own benefit and not that of Defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff has provided no basis for the imposition of interest charges and Defendant therefore specifically denies such charges. WHEREFORE,Defendant respectfully requests that Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT III—BREACH OF CONTRACT 19. Defendant incorporates her responses to Paragraphs 1-19 as if fully set forth a length. 20—28. Plaintiffs assertion that the parties entered into a contract is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Defendant specifically denies that the parties entered into any enforceable agreement, verbal or written, and asserts that Plaintiff has failed to establish that any consideration existed that would support the enforceability of any such agreement. Further,Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of 3 the events giving rise to this suit. Defendant did not hold Plaintiff's money in trust and to the extent a trust would give rise to heightened duties on the part of Defendant, denies the existence of these duties. Defendant admits only that Plaintiff provided her with a portion of Plaintiff s inheritance and Defendant cannot admit or deny Plaintiff's intention for doing so. Defendant admits that, at some time, she was unable to provide Plaintiff with the full amount of money requested and that she has not returned the full amount to Plaintiff to date. Defendant received no benefit from the parties' course of dealings or from the money she held at Plaintiff's request. WHEREFORE,Defendant respectfully requests that Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT IV—PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 29. Defendant incorporates her responses to Paragraphs 1-19 as if fully set forth a length. 30. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant admits only that Plaintiff provided her with a portion of Plaintiff's inheritance. Defendant cannot admit or deny Plaintiff's intention for doing so. Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the events giving rise to this suit and denies that she"promised" anything upon which Plaintiff relied. Rather,Defendant gratuitously held possession of a portion of Plaintiff s inheritance as requested by Plaintiff. 31. It is specifically denied that Defendant made any"promise"to Plaintiff upon which Plaintiff could reasonably rely or that Defendant intended to induce Plaintiff into relying on any of Defendant's actions or inaction. 32. After reasonable investigation,Defendant cannot admit or deny claim that she relied upon any actions or inactions on the part of Defendant. By way of further response,Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the events giving rise to this suit. 33. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way 4 of further response, Defendant denies Plaintiff's characterization of the events giving rise to this suit and denies that any actions on the part of Defendant caused Plaintiff damage. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff. NEW MATTER 34. Defendant incorporates her responses to Paragraphs 1-33 as if fully set forth as length. 35. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim against Defendant for replevin. 36. Defendant received and maintained possession of a certain sum of money as requested by Plaintiff gratuitously and not in exchange for the receipt of any benefit on the part of Defendant from Plaintiff. 37. Defendant did not convert Plaintiff s money for Defendant's benefit. 38. Defendant at no time used Plaintiff s money for Defendant's benefit. 39. Defendant did not hold Plaintiff's money in trust. 40. Defendant at no time entered into an enforceable agreement with Plaintiff regarding the events giving rise to this suit. 41. There was no consideration exchanged between the parties that would support an enforceable agreement. 42. Some or all of Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the statute of limitations. 43. Some or all of Plaintiff s claims are barred by the defense of unclean hands. 44. Defendant at no time acted with the intent to induce Plaintiff to act or fail to act or to induce Plaintiff's reliance on Defendant's actions or inactions. 5 45. Defendant at no time made any promise to Plaintiff regarding the events giving rise to this suit and therefore did not and could not have intended for Plaintiff to rely on any promise. 46. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for promissory estoppel because Plaintiff has failed to assert facts that give rise to mutual promises made amongst the parties. 47. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by her own actions of fraud. 48. Plaintiff s contract claim may be barred by Pennsylvania law in that the law will not enforce a contract entered into for an illegal purpose. 49. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of impossibility of performance. 50. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of substantial performance. 51. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim for unjust enrichment. 52. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim for breach of contract. 53. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim for promissory estoppel. 54. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of Cumberland County, Plaintiff s claims must be arbitrated. 55. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. 56. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of assumption of the risk. 57. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of estoppel. 58. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of laches. 59. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of unconscionability. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Kristine Askins respectfully requests that Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Plaintiff. 6 Respectfully submitted, SALZMANN HUGHES, P.C. Melissa L. Kelso, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 306793 354 Alexander Spring Road Suite 1 Carlisle, PA 17015 (717) 249-6333 Dated: 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 4-- day of ; 2013, I, Melissa L. Kelso, Esq., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by United States first class mail,postage paid, and addressed as indicated below: Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff SALZMANN HUGHES,P.C. By Melissa L. Kelso, Esquire 8 YEEW!; N I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document nxe true and correct. I understand that fa]se Statemc?ats herein are made subject to the penalties of 1.8 Pa. C.S. § 4904, xelatiztg to utiswom falsijacatiots to authorities. Date: ' Kristine XAms IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF @ ~<} CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA mm �... COURTNEY ASKINS, Civil No. 12 - 6699 cam`°°' Plaintiff VS. Civil Action - Law ' -; cn ' KRISTINE ASKINS, IN REPLEVIN Defendant Jury Trial Demanded PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION FOR WRIT OF SEIZURE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Seizure in the above- captioned matter, filed January 14, 2013. Respectfully submitted, Date: Keith E. Kendall, Esq. PA Attorney ID No. 42910 SCARINGI & SCARINGI, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 2000 Linglestown Rd., Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 657-7770 (717) 657-7797 (FAX) keith @scaringilaw coin " h CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Keith E. Kendall, Esq., hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Praecipe to Withdraw, Motion for Writ of Seizure, upon counsel for the Defendant, by mailing a true and correct copy thereof, by first class U.S..Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Melissa Kelso, Esq. Salzman Hughes, P.C. 354 Alexander Springs Road, Ste 1 Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: &> Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Attorney for Defendant COURTNEY ASKINS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW KRISTINE ASKINS, Defendant NO. 12-6699 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR WRIT OF SEIZURE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 18th day of May, 2013, upon consideration of the Praecipe To Withdraw Motion for Writ of Seizure, filed by Keith E. Kendall, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, and with no objection from Melissa Kelso, Esq., attorney for Defendant, the Motion for Writ of Seizure is hereby deemed withdrawn and the hearing previously scheduled for May 31, 2013, is cancelled. BY THE COURT, Christ e L. Peck, J. Z' Keith E. Kendall, Esq. 2000 Linglestown Road Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff ,,-,4elissa L. Kelso, Esq. 354 Alexander Spring Road Suite I Carlisle, PA 17015 -Z m 53. ;r::o -< Attorney for Defendant :rc C") CD Q) J Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Attorney ID 42910 23I 3 SIly 30 AM 6: 3 SCARINGI & SCARINGI, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106 C1I;SBEkL Al D Harrisburg, PA 17110 PENNSYLVANIA (717) 657-7770 (717)657-7797—facsimile Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COURTNEY ASKINS, Civil No. 12 - 6699 Plaintiff vs. Civil Action - Law KRISTINE ASKINS, • IN REPLEVIN Defendant Jury Trial Demanded PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND NOW comes Petitioner, Keith E. Kendall, Esq. of Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C., who respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant them permission to immediately withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff in the above-captioned action and in support thereof aver as follows: 1. Keith E. Kendall, Esq. and Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C., are presently counsel of record for Plaintiff, Courtney Askins, in the above-captioned matter. 2. Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b) permits withdrawal as counsel when: a. "the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client;"Pa.R.P.C. 1.16(b)(6); b. "other good cause for withdrawal exists."Pa.R.P.C. 1.16(b)(7). 3. Petitioners represented Plaintiff in a Civil action. 4. Your Petitioner seeks to withdraw as counsel for Defendant in this matter because it is believed that grounds exist pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16(b)(6) 5. Plaintiff is without funds sufficient to proceed in this matter. 6. No hearing or argument is requested. 7. Discovery is not necessary. WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that this Honorable Court order that Petitioners' request to withdraw as counsel on behalf of Plaintiff, Courtney Askins, in the above- captioned matter is granted. Respectfully submitted, SCARINGI & SCARINGI, P.C. By: Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Attorney ID No. 42910 Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone: 717.657.7770 Fax: 717.657.7797 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary L. Snyder, Law Clerk for Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Petition to Withdraw as Counsel in the above-captioned case has been duly served upon the following individual(s)by depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, addressed as follows: Melissa Kelso, Esq. Salzman Hughes, P.C. 354 Alexander Springs Road, Ste 1 Carlisle, PA 17013 Courtney Askins 20 Stephen Road Apt B8 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Uri ic A Date: Mary L. Snyde , Law Clerk( f IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA COURTNEY ASKINS, Civil No. 12 - 6699" Plaintiff C: VS. Civil Action -Law KRISTINE ASKINS, IN REPLEVIN -<> C'n Defendant Jury Trial Demanded { RULE co AND NOW, this day ofC-U.e-1- , 201.E , a rule is hereby issued upon both parties to show cause why the Petition To Withdraw As Counsel should not be granted. This rule is returnable 0Q days from date of service. BY THE COURT: J. Distribution: Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106, Harrisburg, PA 17110 �elissa Kelso, Esq., Salzman Hughes, P.C., 354 Alexander Springs Road, Ste 1, Carlisle, PA 1701.3 Courtney Askins, 20 Stephen Road, Apt B8, Camp Hill, PA 17011 l�rYj� �,S /raw t g s�i 3 Melissa L. Kelso, Esquire Attorney I.D.No. 306793 TA,il SALZMANN HUGHES, P.C. 354 Alexander Spring Road, Suite I A Carlisle, PA 17015 PENtj L (717)249-6333 COURTNEY ASKINS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. NO. 2012-6699- CIVIL KRISTINE ASKINS, Defendant RESPONSE TO PETITION TO WITHDRAW AND NOW, comes Defendant, Kristine Askins("Defendant")by and through her counsel, Salzmann Hughes,P.C.,who hereby responds to the Petition to Withdraw as follows: 1. Plaintiff s counsel,Keith E. Kendall, Esquire, filed a Petition to Withdraw as counsel. 2. Defendant does not oppose Attorney Kendall's Petition to Withdraw. Respectfully submitted, SALZMANN HUGHES, P.C. fVelissa L. Kelso, Esquire Attorney I.D.No. 306793 354 Alexander Spring Road Suite I Carlisle, PA 17015 (717) 249-6333 Dated: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this � da y of , 2013 I, Melissa L. Kelso, Esq.,, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by United States first class mail,postage paid, and addressed as indicated below: Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Scaringi & Scaringi, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff Courtney Askins 20 Stephen Road Apt. B8 Camp Hill,PA 17011 SALZMANN HUGHES,P.C. By. l Mel ssa L. Kelso, Esquire Attorney I.D.No. 306793 SALZMANN HUGHES, P.C. 354 Alexander Spring Road, Suite 1 Carlisle, PA 17015 (717) 249-6333 Pj�o TP 1<eith E. IsCendall, Esq. 0�i PA Attorney ID No. 42910 ?613 Srp S P/1 1. SCARlNG1 & SCARING1, P.C. . 12 C1j118E1?L,4N@p.4 N Attorneys for Plaintiff PEN S YL N/ T Y 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 657-7770 (717) 657-7797 (FAX) keitb@scafin ,gilaw.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COURTNEY ASKINS, Civil No. 12-6699 Plaintiff VS. Civil Action - Law KRISTINE ASKINS, IN REPLEVIN Defendant jury Trial Demanded MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE NOW COMES counsel for the Plaintiff, Courtney Askins ("Plaintiff), to move the Court to make absolute a Rule issued August 5, 2013 in the above matter, and in support thereof, avers that: 1. On July 30, 2013, Plaintiffs counsel filed and served a Petition to Withdraw as Counsel in the above matter. 2. On August 5, 2013, the Court issued a Rule to both parties, to show cause, within 20 days of the Rule, why the Petition to Withdraw should not be granted. 3. On or about August 12, 2013, the Defendant filed a Response to Petition to Withdraw, by which Defendant represented that she did not object to the grant of the requested relief. 4. The Plaintiff has not responded to the Petition, either by court filing, or by contacting her counsel to object. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that Rule issued August 5, 2013, be made absolute, and that counsel's Petition for Leave to Withdraw be granted.. SCARINGI & SCARINGI, P.C. Date: /4/// Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff PA Attorney 1D No. 42910 2000 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 657-7770 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Keith E. Kendall, Esq., hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Motion to Make Rule Absolute, upon counsel for the Defendant, by mailing a true and correct copy thereof, by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Melissa Kelso, Esq. Salzman Hughes, P.C. 354 Alexander Springs Road, Ste 1 Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Attorney for Defendant V IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COURTNEY ASKINS, Civil No. 12 - 6699 _ Plaintiff M _yf... • �.� ,�'..,7 Y, VS. (Judge Peck) -<y -- KRISTINE ASKINS, IN REPLEVIN Defendant Jury Trial Demanded �' ww ORDER AND NOW, this %4 day of September, 2013, upon review of Defendant's Motion to Make Rule Absolute, the Motion, and Plaintiffs counsel's Petition to Withdraw are granted. Counsel for Plaintiff will file his Praecipe to Withdraw as Counsel, with the Prothonotary, within 7 days of this Order. BY THE COURT: J. Distribution: Keith E. Kendall, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiff, 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 106, Harrisburg, PA 17110 Zmelissa Kelso, Esq., Attorney for Defendant, Salzman Hughes, P.C., 354 Alexander Springs Road, Ste 1, Carlisle, PA 17013 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Mtn COURTNEY ASKINS, Civil No. 12 - 6699 -ur Plaintiff VS. Civil Action - Law v KRISTINE ASKINS, IN REPLEVIN Defendant Jury Trial Demanded PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of counsel for Plaintiff in the above- captioned matter, pursuant to the Order attached hereto. Respectfully submitted, Date: Keith E. Kendall, Esq. PA Attorney ID No. 42910 SCARINGI & SCARINGI, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 2000 Linglestown Rd., Suite 106 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 657-7770 (717) 657-7797 (FAX keith @scaringilam.corn i Y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Keith E. Kendall, Esq., hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Praecipe to Withdraw Appearance upon counsel for the Defendant, by mailing a true and correct copy thereof, by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Courtney Askins 20 Stephen Road Apt. B-8 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Melissa Kelso, Esq. Salzman Hughes, P.C. 354 Alexander Springs Road, Ste 1 Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: d � Keith E. Kendall, Esq. Attorney for Defendant