Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-0656HAROLD S. IRWIN, III, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 29920 35 EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA t 7013 (717) 243-6090 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF WILLIAM E. SNYDER and MARTHA K. SNYDER, his wife, Plaintiffs ¥S, RONALD BRICKER end MICHELLE BRICKER, his wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA _. .. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ::NO. 02- ~ CIVIL TERM ; : IN ASSUMPSIT NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entedng a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3166 WILLIAM E. SNYDER end MARTHA K. SNYDER, his wife, Plaintiffs RONALD BRICKER and MICHELLE BRICKER, his wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA .. ; : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ::NO. 02- ~ CIVIL TERM ; : IN ASSUMPSIT COMPLAINT NOWcome the plaintiffs, by their attorney, Harold S, Irwin, III, Esquire, and file this complaint, representing as follows: 1. The plaintiffs are William E. Snyder and Martha K. Snyder, his wife, adult individuals residing at 31 Betty Nelson Court, Lot 128, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. The defendants are Ronald Bricker and Michelle Bricker, his wife, adult individuals residing at 512 Poplar Church Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 3. On or about May 24, 2001, at the special insistence and oral request of the defendants, plaintiffs loaned to the defendants the sum of $75,000.00, which sum constituted the virtually all of the plaintiffs' remaining life savings. 4. The defendants' stated purpose for the loan was to payoff their existing mortgage on a property located at 2717 Buxton Road, Harrisburg, DauPhin County, Pennsylvania so that they could complete the purchase of a new home prior to the settlement on the sale of the Buxton Road property to third parties. 5. Under the terms of the loan agreement, defendants agreed to repay the entire $75,000.00 upon the settlement on the sale of the Buxton Road property. 6. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that in September or October, 2001, defendants did complete settlement on the sale of the Buxton Road property for a selling price of $86,900.00. 7. Since the time of final settlement as aforesaid, plaintiffs have made several requests of the defendants to repay the $75,000.00, but the defendants have failed and refused to make payment of this sum or any part thereof to the plaintiffs and continue so to refuse. 8. Plaintiffs believe that since defendants have failed and refused to repay the loan to them as agreed, defendants should be required to pay not only the entire principal sum of $75,000.00, but that in addition, interest and attorneys fees should be assessed against the defendants. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants in the sum of Seventy-five Thousand and no/100 ($75,000.00) Dollars, plus interest from the time of the sale of the Buxton Road property, the costs of this action and attorney fees. February_~, 2002Att~H~OLD S IRWIN, III ~' 35 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court ID NO. 29920 VERIFICATION We hereby verify that we are the plaintiffs in this action and that the facts in stated in the above complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. February __ ;_,2002 WILLIAM E. SNYDE 'M~RTHA K. SNYDER ~/'''' 02FEB-7 P~i PENNSYLV; 'AN1A' ' ~ ' ~ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CAS~ NO: 2002-00656 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVA/qIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SNYDER WILLIAM E ET AL VS BRICKER RONALD ET AL DOUGLAS DONSEN , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon BRICKER RONALD the DEFENDANT at 512 POPLAR CHURCH ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 at 1740:00 HOURS, on the 19th day of February , 2002 by handing to MICHELLE BRICKER, ~_DULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 10.35 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 38.35 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~7~ day of P~ot/h~otary// So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 02/20/2002 HAROLD IRWIN III Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASK NO: 2002-00656 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SNYDER WILLIAM E ET AL VS BRICKER RONALD ET AL DOUGLAS DONSEN , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon BRICKER MICHELLE the DEFENDANT at 512 POPLAR CHURCH ROAD , at 1740:00 HOURS, on the 19th day of February , 2002 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to MICHELLE BRICKER a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~7~ day of ~~~ .~0~ A.D. So Answers: R. Thomas Ktine 02/20/2002 HAROLD IRWIN III Deputy Sheriff WILLIAM E. MARTHA K. VS. SNYDER and SNYDER, his wife, Plaintiffs RONALD BRICKER and MICHELLE BRICKER, his wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 02-656 CIVIL TERM : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : IN ASSUMPSIT NOTICE TO PLEAD To: William E. Snyder and Martha K. Snyder You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed new matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. YOFFE & YOFFE, P.C. ~e~re~/N. Yoi~e~'Esquire Attorney for Defendants 214 Senate Avenue, Suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-1838 Attorney ID No. 52933 WILLIAM E. MARTHA K. VS. SNYDER and SNYDER, his wife, Plaintiffs RONALD BRICKER and MICHELLE BRICKER, his wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 02-656 CIVIL TERM : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : IN ASSUNPSIT ANSWER 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. On or about May 24, 2001 it was Plaintiffs who suggested to Defendants loaning to Defendants the sum of $75,000.00 so that Defendants could purchase a large enough home for both the Defendants and Plaintiffs to live in. 4. Denied. Defendants never asked for money to pay off the loan on the Buxton Road property. Defendants initially indicated that if Plaintiffs wanted Defendants to purchase the Poplar Church Road property, then the Defendants would need additional money for the down payment on the Poplar Church Road property. After learning that debts on Ron Bricker's credit report were going to create problems getting a loan, the Defendants told Plaintiffs that money was needed to pay off those debts if Plaintiffs still wanted Defendants to purchase the Poplar Church Road property. 5. Denied. The time of repayment of the $75,000.00 was not upon the settlement and sale of the Buxton Road property. The time of repayment of the $75,000.00 was to be at such times that the Defendants could reasonably afford to repay Plaintiffs the money. 6. Admitted that settlement occurred in early September 2001. Although still looking for the settlement sheet, at the present time, after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the exact sales price of the Buxton Road property. was $86,900.00. 7. Denied. Defendants never refused to pay back the $75,000.00. have always indicated to Plaintiffs, It is admitted the approximate sales price indicated to Plaintiffs they Consistent with what Defendants even before litigation began, Defendants maintained they would pay the $75,000.00 back to Plaintiffs when they could afford to do the same. At the time of filing this response, Defendants have put their home located at 512 Poplar Church Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania up for sale. It is anticipated that most if not all of the net proceeds from the sale of that piece of real estate will be transferred from Defendants to Plaintiffs in partial satisfaction of the debt owing. By way of further response, on several occasions in October, November and December 2001, Defendants offered to begin making monthly payments to Plaintiffs of between $300.00 and $500.00, however, these offers were rejected. 8. It is denied that any interest or attorney fees should be assessed against Defendants for the reasons more specifically set forth in new matter and incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to file another lawsuit against Defendants at such time as Defendants become unreasonable in their efforts to pay back Plaintiffs. NEW MATTER 9. Paragraphs 1 through 8 are incorporated herein by reference. 10. Ronald Bricker is the grandson of the Plaintiffs. 11. Prior to this litigation Ron Bricker had an excellent and close relationship with his grandparents. 12. Prior to this litigation Michelle Bricker had an excellent relationship with the grandparents of Ronald Bricker. 13. Prior to the sale of the Buxton Road property and at the present time, Plaintiffs lived in a trailer at 31 Betty Nelson Court, Lot 128, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 14. For a period of time beginning on July 14, 2001 and lasting approximately 4 weeks for William E. Snyder and 5 weeks for Martha K. Snyder - both Plaintiffs moved in and were living with the Defendants at the Poplar Church Road property. 15. Thereafter, Plaintiffs moved back into their trailer at 31 Betty Nelson Court. 16. At all relevant times, of themselves in the trailer Plaintiffs had difficulty taking care and both Plaintiffs and Defendants believed it would be a much nicer living arrangement for Plaintiffs if they could live in a house as opposed to a trailer. 17. The initial plan of Defendants was they were going to sell their Buxton Road property and purchase a home which was affordable to them. 18. After discussions between Plaintiffs indicated they did not like the trailer and they offered Defendants and Plaintiffs, their living arrangements in to loan Defendants $75,000.00 to assist them in purchasing a larger home in which the Plaintiffs could live $33,000.00 acted as a at 512 Poplar Church Road, Camp went towards paying off debts of could get a loan to purchase the with the Defendants. 19. Of the $75,000.00, approximately downpayment on the property located Hill. Approximately $20,000.00 Ronald Bricker so the Defendants Poplar Church Road Property. About $17,000.00 went towards moving expenses and other miscellaneous expenses related to the move. About $5,000.00 of the $75,000.00 was retained by the Plaintiffs and just used up over time for regular expenses including but not limited paying off the mortgage owed on the Buxton Road Property. 20. The agreement between Defendants and Plaintiffs was the following: a. Plaintiffs would move in with Defendants at 512 Poplar Church Road; b. The $75,000.00 would be paid back by Defendants as soon as they could afford the same; c. Plaintiffs would make contributions to Defendants for monthly living expenses which were estimated to be between $400.00 and $500.00 per month; d. Defendants would attempt to get a second mortgage on the real estate to pay back at least part of the $75,000.00; and e. The only time schedule set for repayment of the $75,000.00 was that the Defendants would make a good faith effort to pay back the $75,000.00 when they could afford to do so. 21. Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with living with the Defendants and only stayed with the Defendants at 512 Poplar Church Road from July 14, E. Snyder Snyder. 22. 2001 until approximately 4 weeks later in the case of William and approximately 5 weeks later in the case of Martha K. The Plaintiffs never Defendants for various expenses. made any monthly contributions to the Without monthly contributions from Plaintiffs for various could not and cannot afford to live at 23. living expenses the Defendants 512 Poplar Church Road. 24. Because the Defendants could not and cannot afford to live at 512 Poplar Church Road the property is currently up for sale by the Defendants. 25. Defendants intend to pay to Plaintiffs most if not all of the net proceeds from the sale of 512 Poplar Church Road. 26. Defendants intend to pay back to Plaintiffs the balance of the $75,000.00 when they can afford to do so. 27. Defendants are not in breach of their agreement with Plaintiffs because there never was any firm schedule agreed to for the repayment of the $75,000.00 and the Defendants are making reasonable efforts to repay the $75,000.00 when they can reasonably afford to do so. WHEREFORE, Defendants request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to file another lawsuit against Defendants at such time as Defendants become unreasonable in their efforts to pay back Plaintiffs. bricker\answer YOFFE & YOFFE, P.C. 214 Senate Avenue, Suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-1838 Attorney ID No. 52933 VERIFICATION I hereby state that I am an adult individual who is authorized to make this verification and that the facts set forth in the foregoing answer and new matter are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Ronald Bri~ Dated: icker WILLIAM E. MARTHA K. VS. SNYDER and SNYDER, his wife, Plaintiffs RONALD BRICKER and MICHELLE BRICKER, his wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-656 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN ASSUMPSIT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on the date indicated below, he served the attached answer and new matter on the below individual. Service was accomplished by depositing the same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid and addressed as follows: Harold S. Irwin, III, Esq. 35 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: 3/20/2002 YOFFE & YOFFE, P.C. ~F~RE~'/N. VYOFF~,~ESQUIRE ~Attorney for Defendants 214 Senate Avenue, Suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 975-1838 Attorney ID No. 52933 HAROLD S. IRWIN, lilt ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 29920 35 EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA 17013 (717) 243-6090 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF WILLIAM E. SNYDBR and MARTHA K. SNYDER, his wife, Plaintiffs rs. RONALD BRICKBR and MICHBLLB BRICKER~ his wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 02 - 0656 CIVIL TERM IN ASSUMPSIT PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER NOW, come the plaintiffs, by their attorney, Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire, and respond to the defendants' new matter, representing as follows: 9. Plaintiff restates the averments of his complaint, paragraphs one through eight inclusive, by incorporation herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 10. admitted. The averments of paragraph ten of the defendants' new matter are 11. The averments of paragraph eleven of the defendants' new matter ara admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that in prior times defendant Ron Bricker had a good relationship with the plaintiffs. However, the remaining averments of this paragraph are denied. On the contrary, the parties' relationship deteriorated months before this litigation when the defendants failed and refused to honor their obligations to the plaintiffs, first as to their care of the plaintiffs and later as to the repayment of the money which is the subject of this litigation. By way of further response, plaintiffs allege that the averments of paragraph eleven of defendants' new matter, even if wholly true ara irrelevant. 12. The averments of paragraph twelve of the defendants' new matter ara admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that in prior times defendant Michelle Bricker had a fair ralationship with the plaintiffs. However, the remaining averments of this paragraph ara denied. On the contrary, the parties' relationship deteriorated months befora this litigation when the defendants failed and refused to honor their obligations to the plaintiffs, first as to their cara of the plaintiffs and later as to the rapayment of the money which is the subject of this litigation. By way of further response, plaintiffs allege that the averments of paragraph eleven of defendants' new matter, even if wholly true ara irralevant. 13. admitted. The averments of paragraph thirteen of the defendants' new matter ara 14. The averments of paragraph fourteen of the defendants' new matter ara admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that the plaintiffs stayed with the defendants for four and five weeks raspectively. On the contrary, William E. Snyder stayed with the defendants for three weeks and Martha K. Snyder stayed with the defendants for four weeks. The remaining averments of this paragraph are admitted. 15. admitted. The averments of paragraph fifteen of the defendants' new matter ara 16. admitted. The averments of paragraph sixteen of the defendants' new matter ara 17. admitted. The averments of paragraph seventeen of the defendants' new matter are 18. The averments of paragraph eighteen of the defendants' new matter are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the plaintiffs believed initially that it would be more comfortable for thegn to live with the defendants in their home and that defendants would care for them. it is admitted that plaintiffs agreed to loan defendants the sum of $75,000.00. The remaining averments of this paragraph are denied. On the contrary, the stated purpose of the $75,000.00 loan was to permit the defendants to payoff the existing mortgage on their Harrisburg property so that they could purchase the Camp Hill property prior to the sale of the Harrisburg property. 19. The averments of paragraph nineteen of defendants' new matter are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of those averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. By way of further response, however, the use of the $75,000.00 loan funds for the purposes expressed in this paragraph are contrary to the stated intentions of the parties when the loan was made by the plaintiffs to the defendants. 20. The averments of paragraph twenty of the defendants' new matter are admitted in part and denied in part, as follows: A. The averments of subparagraph a. are admitted. B. The averments of subparagraph b. are denied. On the contrary, the agreement of the parties provided that the defendants would pay back the $75,000.00 to the plaintiffs as soon as defendants sold their home in Harrisburg. C. The averments of subparagraph c. ara admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the plaintiffs would make contributions to the defendants for the plaintiffs' living expenses. However, defendants were also obligated, under this arrangement, to provide adequate care and maintenance of the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to cooking the plaintiffs' meals and caring for their day to day needs, which obligations the defendants wholly failed to fulfill. D. The averments of subparagraph d. ara denied. On the contrary, the agreement of the parties provided that the defendants would pay back the $75,000.00 to the plaintiffs as soon as defendants sold their home in Harrisburg. E. The averments of subparagraph e. are denied. On the contrary, the agreement of the parties provided that the defendants would pay back the $75,000.00 to the plaintiffs as soon as defendants sold their home in Harrisburg. 21. The averments of paragraph twenty-one of the defendants' new matter are admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that the plaintiffs stayed with the defendants for four and five weeks respectively. On the contrary, William E. Snyder stayed with the defendants for three weeks and Martha K. Snyder stayed with the defendants for four weeks. The remaining averments of this paragraph are admitted. By way of further response, however, plaintiffs aver that they were dissatisfied with living with the defendants because defendants wholly failed to fulfill their obligations to provide adequate care and maintenance of the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to cooking the plaintiffs' meals and caring for their day to day needs. 22. The averments of paragraph twenty-two of the defendants' new matter are denied. On the contrary, by defendants' admission in paragraph nineteen of their new matter, plaintiffs provided a $75,000.00 loan to defendants which defendants used not to payoff their Harrisburg property mortgage (as agreed upon by the parties), but to pay a variety of debts and regular expenses. By way of further response, any obligation of plaintiffs to make contributions for plaintiffs' living expenses was obviated by defendants breach of their agreement to pay the $75,000.00 loan back to plaintiffs at the time of the sale of the Harrisburg property and by defendants' failure to provide adequate care and maintenance of the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to cooking the plaintiffs' meals and caring for their day to day needs. Furthermore, the discussion about payment by the plaintiffs to the defendants for monthly expenses never came up until William E. Snyder moved out. At that time, Martha K. Snyder did pay $500.00 to the defendants. She then moved out the following week. Accordingly, plaintiffs aver that for the one month they did reside with the defendants, they did make one $500.00 payment to the defendants. 23. The averments of paragraph twenty-three of defendants' new matter are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of those averments and preof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 24. The averments of paragraph twenty-four of defendants' new matter are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of those averments and preof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 25. The averments of paragraph twenty-five of defendants' new matter are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of those averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 26. The averments of paragraph twenty-six of defendants' new matter are denied by reason that after reasonable investigation plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to form an opinion as to th~ truth of those averments and proof thereof at trial is demanded, if relevant. 27. The averments of paragraph twenty-seven of defendants' new matter are denied. On the contrary, during the time that plaintiffs lived with the defendants, defendants were obligated to provide adequate care and maintenance of the plaintiffs, including, but not limited to cooking the plaintiffs' meals and caring for their day to day needs, which obligations the defendants wholly failed to fulfill, thereby breaching their agreement with the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the agreement of the parties provided that the defendants would pay back the $75,000.00 to the plaintiffs as soon as defendants sold their home in Harrisburg, which the defendants did not do, in breach of their agreement to the contrary. By way of further response, it is ludicrous to expect that the plaintiffs would have loaned their remaining life savings to the defendants without a firm commitment for repayment at the time the Harrisburg property was sold. Meanwhile, defendants also state that they were not required to make any payments to the plaintiffs until defendants "could afford to", but the plaintiffs were supposed to pay the defendants $500.00 a month for living expenses. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants in the sum of Seventy-five Thousand and no/100 ($75,000.00) Dollars, plus interest from the time of the sale of the Buxton Road property, the costs of this action and attorney fees. April //, 2002 ~ . ,.~,.....- .........., .l. I Attorney for plaintiff~.~ 35 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court ID NO. 29920 VERIFICATION We hereby verify that we are the plaintiffs in this action and that the facts in stated in the above answer to new matter are true and correct. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. April t! ,2002 MARl'HA K, SNYDER ~ ~' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing answer to new matter was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: JEFFREY N YOFFEE ESQ 214 SENATE AVE SUITE 203 CAMP HILL PA 17011 April //, 2002 35 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2353 Supreme Court ID NO. 29920 HAROLD E. IRWIN, III, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 29920 35 EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA t701S (7t 7) 243-6090 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT PRAECIPE LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the following case: for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. X for trial without a jury. WILLIAM E. SNYDER and MARTHA K. SNYDER, his wife, Plaintiffs VS. RONALD BRICKER and MICHELLE BRICKER~ his wife, Defendants : IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 02 - 0656 CIVIL TERM : IN ASSUMPSIT 1. The trial list will be called on JUNE 11, 2002. 2. Trials commence on JULY 8, 2002. Pretrials will be held on JUNE 19, 2002. (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.) indicate the attorney who will try the case for the party who files this praecipe: HAROLD S. IRWIN, III, ESQ. Indicate trial counsel for other parties, if known: JEFFREY N. YOFFEE, ESQ. 6. The case is ready for trial. 7. Counsel for plaintiff has provi~iaecipe to opposing counsel. April 24, 2002 ~, i~~ HAROLD S. IRWI Attorney for plaintiffs ~ WILLIAM E. SNYDER : and MARTHA K. : SNYDER, his wife, : Plaintiffs : RONALD BRICKER and MICHELLE BRICKER, his wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 02-0656 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 29th day of April, 2002, a pretrial conference in the above matter is scheduled for Wednesday, July 17, 2002, at 1:30 p.m., in chambers of the undersigned judge, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Pretrial memoranda shall be submitted by counsel in accordance with C.C.R.P. 212-4, at least five days prior to the pretrial conference. A NONJURY TRIAL in the above matter is scheduled for Wednesday, August 7, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Harold S. Irwin, III, Esq. 35 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attomey for Plaintiffs BY THE COURT, JC?~sley Oler,~, v .~, Jeffrey N. Yoffe, Esq. 214 Senate Avenue Suite 203 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendants WILLIAM E. SNYDER and MARTHA K. SNYDER, his wife, Plaintiffs V$, RONALD BRICKER and MICHELLE BRICKER, his wife, Defendants : IN THIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : NO. 02 - 0656 CIVIL TERM : : IN ASSUMPSIT PETITION FOR CONTINUANCE NOW come the plaintiffs, by their attorney, Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire, and present this petition for a continuance, representing as follows: 1. The Court has scheduled a pre-trial conference in this matter for July 17, 2002 and a trial for August 7, 2002. 2. The parties' respective counsel have discussed an amicable resolution of this matter and plaintiff's counsel has prepared a a settlement agreement to be executed by the parties. Defendants' counsel has the agreement, has reviewed it with the defendants by telephone and has represented to plaintiffs' counsel that he believes that the defendants are willing to sign the settlement agreement. 3. All of the parties may be unable to execute the settlement agreement prior to the date set for the filing of pre-trial statements and the pre-trial conference; however, both counsel are relatively certain that they have reached an agreement in principal and that the agreement will be signed by all parties. HAROLD S. IRWIN, III, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NO. 29920 35 EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE PA t70t$ (7t7) 243-6090 ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER WILLIAM E. SNYDER and MARTHA K. SNYDER, his wife, Plaintiffs vs. RONALD BRICKER and MICHELLE BRICKER, his wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : .. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : NO. 02 - 0656 CIVIL TERM : : IN ASSUMPSIT ORDER OF COURT NOW, this [~'{~'day of July, 2002, on petition of the plaintiffs and on motion of Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire, a continuance in this matter is hereby granted. The pre-trial conference and trial, previously scheduled for July 17, 2002 and August 7, 2002, respectively, are hereby continued generally. Either party may re-list the case for trial if the settlement negotiations are not productive. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that the Court continue this case generally, permitting either party to re-list the case for trial if the settlement efforts are unsuccessful. July 10, 2002 Hat=old S. Irwin, I~ Attorney for Plaintiffs 35 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6090 Supreme Court ID No. 29920 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements in the above petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. July 10, 2002 Harold S. Irwin, III Attorney for Plaintiffs