Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-0660,; ~" '~ _:_ 1~i i r =,~~~ I3 ~~P U~~9t~ERl.~t~) r +.f ,~~ .,. ~EtdRdS YL.~,~ ~~ f,'$, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DON PAUL SHEARER 422 NORTH FRONT STREET WORMLEYSBURG, PA 17043 No. 13 - ~6 Civil Action - (xx) Law ( )Equity JURY TRIAL DEMANDED c,;~< < ~~ GREG EVANS 457 TEXTER MOUNTAIN ROAD versus ROBESONIA, PA 19551 RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS f/k/a RENEE M. RHOADS 710 N. HIGHLANDS DRIVE HARRISBURG, PA 17111 Plaintiff & Address Defendants & Addresses PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue writ of summons in the above-captioned action. XX Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to ( ) Attorne Howard B. Krug, Esquire PURCELL. KRUG & HALLER 1719 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 Name /Address /Telephone No. of Attorney WRIT OF SUMMONS Supreme Court ID No. 16826 Date: ~ ~ (o - ~I~ TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: GREG EVANS and RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS f/k/a RENEE M. RHOADS YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF, DON PAUL SHEARER, HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Prothonotary Date: ~ ~ / ~~-~~ 3 Check here if reverse is issued for additional information. Prothon. - 55 ~" l 03 . ~l~ ~~ ~~ C-##.30 oc~ a SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny RAnderson FILED-OFFICE Sheriff OF THE PRO THGNt�"�t:R``' C14 of uu�br � Jody S Smith 2013 MAR 18 AM 9: 56 Chief Deputy r Richard W Stewart ;.a. p CUMBERLAND COU14TY Solicitor OFFICE OF THE SHERI F` PENNSYLVANIA Don Paul Shearer Case Number vs. Greg Evans(et al.) 2013"660 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 02/08/2013 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law,states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit: Greg Evans, but was unable to locate the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick.The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Berks, Pennsylvania to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 02/08/2013 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law,states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit: Renee M Rhoads Evans,but was unable to locate the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick.The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Dauphin, Pennsylvania to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 02/16/2013 09:00 AM-The requested Writ of Summons served by the Sheriff of Dauphin County upon Chris Garcia, adult son of defendant,who accepted for Renee M Rhoads Evans, at 710 N. Highlands Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17111. Jack Lotwick, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. 03/08/2013 10:15 AM-The requested Writ of Summons served by the Sheriff of Berks County upon Greg Evans, personally, at 457 Texter Mountain Road, Robesonia, PA 19551. Eric J. Weaknecht, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. SHERIFF COST: $62.46 SO ANSWERS, March 08, 2013 RbNPn R ANDERSON, SHERIFF i (c+CountySuite Sheriff,Teteosoft,Inc. COUNTY O S, PENNSYLVANIA ,RTY"�N� SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Courthouse-3rd Floor Phone: 610.478.6240 633 Court Street Fax:610.478.6222 7 �7 Reading,PA 19601 S*C Eric J. Weaknecht, Sheriff John Stanton, Chief Deputy . AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE DOCKET NO. 13-660 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF BERMS Personally appeared before me,Herbert Carter,Deputy for Eric J.Weaknecht, Sheriff of Berks County,633 Court Street,Reading, Pennsylania,who being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that on 2/13/2013 10:15:OOAM,he served the annexed Summons upon GREG EVANS,within named defendant,by handing a copy thereof to GREG EVANS,HIM personally, at 457 TEXTER MOUNTAIN ROAD,Heidelberg Township, Berks County,Pa.,and made known to defendant the contents therea Pl SHERIFF OF BERMS COUNTY.,PA Sworn and subscribed before me Herbert Carter this 14 clay of Feb,2013 &7 <::�I i I I NOTA T11,ICY, EADING,BERMS CO.,PA NOTARIAL SEAL Services made as set forth above JENNN�R DEFREES Nobly Public ING CITY,KIRKS COUNTY i uuMNon Expitoo JO 20.2016 So Answers, SHERIF OF BERMS COUNTY,PA Eric J. Weaknecht Sheriffs Costs in Above Proceedings $ 100.00 DEPOSIT $ 39.82 ACTUAL COST OF CASE $ 60.18 AMOUNT OF REFUND All Sheriffs Costs shall be due and payable when services are performed, and it shall be lawful for him to demand and receive from the party instituting the proceedings,or any part liable for the costs thereof,all unpaid sheriffs fees on the same before he shall be obligated by law to make return thereof. _Sec.2,Act of June 20, 1911,P.L/ 1072 Dedicated to public service with integrity, virtue & excellence www.countyofbe jtj.comJsheriff tf, o ' Shelled Ruhl Jack Duignan Real Esta a Deputy Chief Deputy Matthew L. Owens ' Michael W. Rinehart Solicitor Assistant Chief Deputy Dauphin County 101 Market Street Harrisburg,Pennsylvania 17101-2079 ph:(717)780-6590 fax:(717)255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania DON PAUL SHEARER VS County of Dauphin RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS F/K/A RENEE M. RHOADS Sheriff s Return No. 2013-T-0435 OTHER COUNTY NO. 2013-660 And now: FEBRUARY 16, 2013 at 9:00:00 AM served the within WRIT OF SUMMONS upon RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS F/K/A RENEE M. RHOADS by personally handing to CHRIS GARCIA 1 true attested copy of the original WRIT OF SUMMONS and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 710 N. HIGHLANDS DRIVE HARRISBURG PA 17111 ADULT SON OF DEFENDANT AND PERSON IN CHARGE AT TIME OF SERVICE. Sworn and subscribed to So Answers, before me this 19TH day of February, 2013 V i� - `L ' f She f Dauphin Co ty, Pa. • �( By COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Dep Sheriff NOTARIAL SEAL De : J MILLER Karen M.Hoffman,Notary Public City of Harrisburg,Dauphin County S ff s Costs: $47.25 2/14/2013 My Commission Expires August 17,2014 'FIF I C E- Howard B. Krug, Esquire !t,RL 9,14D ID#16826 �rj ANA Purcell, Krug & Haller 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717)234-4178 hkrug@pkh.com DON PAUL SHEARER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 13-660 Civil Term GREG EVANS, and RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS, formerly RENEE M. RHOADS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY 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 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 Howard B. Krug, Esquire PA Supreme Court ID# 16826 Purcell, Krug & Haller 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Phone: (717) 234-4178 Fax: (717) 234-0409 hkrugCaD.pkh.com DON PAUL SHEARER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 1:3-to (j* t IT" GREG EVANS, and RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS, formerly RENEE M. RHOADS, CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, COMES Plaintiff, Don Paul Shearer, by his attorneys, Purcell, Krug & Haller and files the following Complaint: 1. Plaintiff is Don Paul Shearer (hereinafter "Shearer") an adult individual residing at 422 North Front Street, Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant One is Greg Evans (hereinafter "Evans"), an adult married individual currently residing at 457 Texter Mountain Road, Robesonia, Berks County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant Two is Renee M. Rhoads Evans, formerly Renee M. Rhoads (hereinafter "Renee"), an adult married individual currently residing at 710 N. Highlands Drive, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. I. FACTS 4. On November 9, 2005, Shearer purchased a 2003 BMW X-5 (hereinafter "BMW"). 5. Although Shearer paid the full $39,000 purchase price for the vehicle, in contemplation of marriage to Renee, he titled the BMW jointly with her. 6. Shearer also purchased furniture (hereinafter "Furniture") at an approximate cost of$3,000, which Renee was to store at her home in contemplation of marriage. 7. Both Defendants were aware that between November 9, 2005 and February 16, 2011, Shearer was in constant and exclusive control and sole possession of the BMW, its title and all its keys, and he was the only person who used and possessed the vehicle. 8. Shearer was also the only person who insured the vehicle from its date of purchase until after February 16, 2011, when Defendants secured insurance. 9. At no time did Renee or Evans contribute anything to the purchase price, the regular maintenance or other expenses associated with the BMW. 10. On or about June 2008, Renee ended the engagement prior to any marriage taking place. 11. It is believed that thereafter, Renee moved the Furniture to Evans' home in Berks County, despite both Defendants knowing that Renee was given the Furniture to store, contingent on marriage to Shearer, and that she had no right to use and possess the items. 2 12. After many requests for the return of the Furniture and his engagement ring, and for Renee to sign over to Shearer the BMW title, Shearer filed a civil action on July 15, 2010 in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County to Docket No. 2010 CV 9299. 13. Through February 16, 2011, Shearer utilized the BMW as a mobile office to conduct his occupation as a certified real estate appraisal expert and for business travel. 14. In mid February 2011, Renee and Evans represented to a BMW dealer that she was the titled owner of the subject BMW, had lost her keys, and requested a duplicate set. 15. It is believed and therefore averred that Renee took part in this charade by virtue of duress and coercion exercised by Evans. 16. Evans paid for and immediately took personal, exclusive possession of the duplicate set of keys. 17. On the evening of February 16, 2011, Shearer parked the BMW around the Wormleysburg Borough Hall in Wormleysburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania to attend a Borough meeting. 18. In the dark of night on February 16, 2011, without Shearer's consent and after stalking Shearer, Evans used the duplicate keys to unlock, take possession of, and drive the BMW to his Berks County residence with all of the personal property contained therein, including confidential files belonging to third parties, personal business documents, maps and data for ongoing appraisal studies, as well as analyses for current clients. 3 19. This Court has jurisdiction, as the BMW and personal property were furtively taken from Cumberland County and driven to Evans' home in Berks County. 20. This action was intended to and did deprive Shearer of the use and enjoyment of his vehicle, and its contents, including his work product for clients. 21. Both Defendants understood at all times that they had no possessory or ownership right to the BMW, its contents, or the Furniture. 22. Solely as a result of a police demand, some of the personal property was returned to Shearer weeks later, but the business, financial and appraisal records, documents, studies and work product analyses were never returned, and Shearer had to hurriedly re-gather the missing information and spend some fourteen (14) hours again analyzing, formulating an opinion, and writing a report on each of the upcoming projects. 23. Despite Evans having his own vehicle and no need for the BMW, he willfully, wantonly and recklessly operated it, contrary to Renee's repeated instructions, protestations and warnings against doing so. 24. Evans drove it through muddy farmers' fields and other rough terrain, where it was scratched, dented, stained and muddied. 25. Evans also intentionally placed his large dogs in the BMW, where they urinated in and otherwise damaged the interior. 26. When Evans recklessly drove the vehicle over a high curb, the metal transmission fluid cover of the BMW was damaged and torn, causing a loss of all transmission fluid and disabling the vehicle. 4 27. After attempting to hide the transmission damage, Evans was forced to have the vehicle towed to have a cheap patch job performed on the transmission cover, contrary to manufacturer recommendations and good and workmanlike standards, including the use of improper, cheaper transmission fluid. 28. Despite demand, Evans refused to return the BMW or the missing business records, which were located in the vehicle when he removed it. 29. In addition, during a marital disagreement, it is believed that Evans bodily picked up Renee in a fit of anger and threw her on top of the glass cocktail table purchased by Shearer (an item of Furniture), totally destroying the table. 30. Evans also placed his dogs on the couch and chairs of Furniture, where they urinated, chewed, and otherwise caused damage. 31. It is believed and therefore averred that despite demand, Renee, under the coercive, violent and controlling influence of Evans, was unable to return the diamond engagement ring, the BMW, the missing personal property, or the Furniture. 32. On March 24, 2011, Shearer filed a Complaint in Replevin and a Motion for Writ of Seizure against Defendants to C.C.P. Docket # 11-3234, the allegations of which are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 33. As a result, on May 10, 2011, this Court issued an Order on the Writ of Seizure, a copy of which is made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". 5 34. The BMW and diamond ring were returned to Shearer by Renee on May 10, 2011, but the transmission was damaged and could not be placed in reverse gear. 35. It was eventually determined that the transmission cover damage resulted in irreversible damage to the transmission, requiring its complete replacement. 36. Although the insurance carriers for the parties each agreed to pay half of the costs of transmission replacement, subject to Shearer's $500 deductible, Evans refused to authorize Donegal Insurance, his company, to pay its share of the claim, which led to the vehicle remaining in an unusable state with its transmission lying outside the car until December 2012, when Donegal Insurance, on advice of counsel, finally elected to pay its share of the claim without Evans' agreement. 37. At all times, Renee and Shearer agreed to the settlement between the two insurance carriers and the documents requested by Donegal. 38. It is believed and therefore averred that Evans intentionally delayed settlement by being unresponsive to his insurance carrier. 39. Evans continued to prevent Shearer from regaining use of his vehicle in an attempt to leverage this "chip" into a complete settlement of all the harm he had done to Shearer. 40. From February 16, 2011 to December 17, 2012, a period of twenty-two (22) months, Shearer did not have use of his vehicle because of the 6 actions and damages initiated by Evans and the latter's refusal to authorize his insurer to settle. 41. On June 28, 2012, Shearer filed a Motion for Contempt of this Court's Order of May 10, 2011, and a hearing was held on September 25, 2012 before the Honorable M.L. Ebert, Jr. 42. At the hearing, the parties jointly advised the Court that the issue of cost of repairs of the BMW had been settled, with Evans paying $500 to Shearer and Shearer receiving the balance of the repair costs from Donegal (Evans' carrier) and PA National Insurance (Shearer's insurance). 43. All other issues between the parties remained unresolved. 44. Thus, the contempt court did not consider cost of repairs or other damages, aside from missing music compact discs. 45. After the Court issued its decision, finding Evans in contempt, Evans refused to pay the $500 to Shearer. 46. The BMW had been towed from Sun Motors to Emory Transmission and Total Car Care Center (hereinafter "Emory") at the request of Donegal, acting on the part of Evans, its policy holder, to determine the validity of Shearer's damage claim. 47. The claim was found to be meritorious by Donegal, and the vehicle remained with Emory to do the repairs, as it appeared the matter of repairs would be promptly settled upon receipt by Donegal of Evans' written authorization. 7 48. As previously stated, Evans refused to authorize repairs and release Donegal, leaving a bill from Emory for towing and storage in the amount of $11,036 accrued and owing through December 17, 2012. II. CONVERSION 49. Paragraphs One through Forty-Nine are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 50. The value of the use of the subject BMW is $350 monthly; thus, over the twenty-two months he has been deprived of use, Shearer has been damaged in the amount of$7,700. 51. In addition, the BMW has sustained significant depreciation from February 16, 2011 to December 17, 2012, which is $2,975, based on NADA values. 52. Since February 16, 2011, Shearer continued insurance coverage on the BMW, a vehicle he did not possess and could not use, as queries to counsel for Defendants concerning their having insurance on the BMW was never answered, despite repeated requests, resulting in an additional expense through December 17, 2012 of$1,074. 53. As a result of business files being withheld, Plaintiff had to expend fourteen (14) hours in gathering and re-analyzing the missing information, and redrafting reports, resulting in lost billing time at $200 per hour, for a loss of$2,800. 54. Shearer has expended $15,240 in legal fees in fighting for the return of his property in the Replevin action, docketed to CCP No. 11-3234, the 8 Writ of Seizure Motion, and in follow-up to intentional damage and unauthorized use of his vehicle. 55. Shearer has incurred storage charges for 454 days through December 17, 2012 with Emory at the rate of$24.00 per day ($10,896). 56. These storage fees would never have been incurred had Evans cooperated with his insurance carrier's request for written authorization to pay the claim, as Evans admittedly damaged the vehicle. 57. On February 16, 2011, when Evans took the BMW, Shearer was the real owner, entitled to immediate possession. 58. It is believed and therefore averred that Evans deprived Shearer of his use and enjoyment of the BMW intentionally, removing it only for vindictive and malicious purposes to cause Shearer distress, anguish, and the loss of his mobile office, giving Evans a "bargaining chip" to compel Shearer to make concessions in the pending Dauphin County Replevin suit. 59. Renee has conceded that the BMW belonged solely to Shearer, notwithstanding attempts by her attorney, acting solely on the instruction of Evans, to seek large sums of money for the return of the vehicle and settlement of the Dauphin County law suit. 60. It is believed and therefore averred that Evans has destroyed all missing records and intentionally caused all damages to existing property. 61. By reason of the conversion of Shearer's BMW, Shearer has incurred and should be awarded costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney's fees of 9 $15,240 in pursuing the earlier replevin and this conversion action to make him whole. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following sums: a. Loss of use of his vehicle for twenty-two,months totaling $7,700; b. Depreciation of his vehicle in the amount of$2,975; C. $500 to reimburse Plaintiff's insurance deductible for repairs to the BMW agreed by Evans on the record at the contempt hearing; d. Storage fees of$10,896; e. Shearer's Insurance payments during time Evans possessed or kept the BMW from Shearer's use totaled $1,074; f. Loss of business files and time spent to reproduce documentation, analysis and reports - $2,800; g. Attorney fees in the amount of$15,240; h. Destruction of furniture totaling $3,000; and, i. Any other and further damages and relief this Court deems appropriate. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 62. Paragraphs One through Sixty-One are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 63. As a direct and proximate result of Evans' willful and unlawful acts, resulting in significant property damage, destruction and loss, the invasion of Shearer's rights, and the conversion of his automobile and personal property, Shearer is entitled to recover from Evans significant punitive damages. 10 64. The Court's Order of May 10, 2011 (wherein the vehicle was to be returned to Shearer with all duplicate keys Defendants possessed and no damage to the vehicle, including personal property) was determined in favor of Shearer, and Evans was found in Contempt of Court, a finding also that Evans committed perjury by denying that he had any compact discs. 65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wilful and unlawful acts, invasion of Plaintiff's rights, and conversion of his automobile and personal property, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Evans punitive damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court award him punitive damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limit requiring arbitration with costs and interest from the date of judgment. PURCELL, R & HA LER BY: w d B. uire Att ney ID: 16826 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Phone: (717) 234-4178 Date: Attorney for Plaintiff �- 10 ��U ) ?J 11 DON PAUL SHEARER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 11-3234 Civil Term RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS, formerly RENEE M. RHOADS, and GREG EVANS, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER AND NOW, this A941day of after hearing, the following relief is granted to Plaintiff: I Defendants are directed to bring the 2003 BMW X-5, the subject of this case to a parking area in front of or immediately surrounding the Wormleysburg Borough Hall at 20 Market Street, Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania on or before— May it 2011. 2. Defendants will turn over all keys they possess for the vehicle to Plaintiff or his counsel. 3. Plaintiff will have a period of three (3) business days from his receipt of the said vehicle to have it inspected by a BMW franchise dealer to ensure that there has been no damage to the vehicle. 4. Defendants shaft turn over all personal property claimed by Plaintiff to have been within the subject vehicle on February 16, 2011, including all client and other business files of Plaintiff and all Compact discs generally identified by Plaintiff and not returned by Defendants. Should all compact 'discs not be returned to Plaintiff, Defendants will pay to Plaintiff the sum of$10 for each missing compact disc. 5. Any other relief this Court may deem appropriate. BY THE COURT: EXHIBIT kt s TRUE COPY FROM RECORD A In Testimony whereof.I here unto set my hand and the seat of said Court at Carlisle,Pa- �. &. This day of loor Cl ­ProthonotafY Distribution V Howard B. Krug, Esquire, 1719 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102 (fax., 234-0409) Peter M. Good, Esquire, 4431 N. Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17110 (fax: 234-3611) Court Administrator VERIFICATION I, DON PAUL SHEARER, hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DON PAUL SHEARER Date: S� lS 13Db CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Angela S. Shaffer, employee for the law firm of Purcell, Krug & Haller, counsel for Plaintiff hereby certify that service of the foregoing COMPLAINT was made on the following via first class, regular mail, on May 1!5-, 2013: A. Greg Evans 457 Texter Mountain Road Robesonia, PA 19551 Defendant and Renee M. Rhoads Evans f/k/a Renee M. Rhoads 710 N. Highlands Drive Harrisburg, PA 17111 Angel O. Shaffer _r FAFILES\Clients\14854 Evans\]4854.1.po.wpd ` ' 1 ! �� ,� ,r , David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire it j,.>, Katie J. Maxwell, Esquire 203 JUN -4 AM 9: 53 I.D. Nos. 41722 and 206018 MARTSON LAW OFFICES PENNSYLVANIA " Ten East High Street � � Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Greg Evans DON PAUL SHEARER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : No. 13-660 CIVIL TERM GREG EVANS and RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS, formerly RENEE M. RHOADS, and Defendants PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT GREG EVANS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT TO: Don Paul Shearer, Plaintiff, and Howard B. Krug, Esquire, Plaintiffs Counsel YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THIS DOCUMENT WITHIN TWENTY(20)DAYS OF SERVICE THEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Greg Evans,by and through his attorneys, MARTSON LAW OFFICES, and hereby submits as follows: 1. On or about May 15, 2013,Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. 2. Plaintiffs Civil Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028,for legal insufficiency of the pleading and the inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matter. MOTION TO STRIKE FOR INCLUSION OF SCANDALOUS OR IMPERTINENT MATTER PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) 3. The averments of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 4. Plaintiff s Complaint contains numerous allegations against Defendant Evans that are immaterial and inappropriate to the cause of action pled by the Plaintiff. 5. Plaintiff's Complaint at Paragraphs 18,20, 23, 24, 25,27, 29, 31, 38, 39, 58, 60, 63, 64, and 65 contain allegations which are scandalous and impertinent and which fail to be supported by any allegations establishing any factual basis for their inclusion within the Complaint or their relevance to Plaintiff's action for conversion, and the allegations should therefore be stricken. WHEREFORE,Defendant Greg Evans respectfully requests that this Honorable Court strike Plaintiff's Complaint for the inclusion of scandalous and impertinent matters pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2). MOTION TO STRIKE FOR LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY (DEMURRER) PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) 6. The averments of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. 7. The definition of conversion under Pennsylvania law is"the deprivation of another's right of property in or use or possession of,a chattel without the owner's consent and without lawful justification." Paves v.Corson, 765 A.2d 1128, 1134 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). 8. Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Complaint indicates that co-defendant Renee Rhoads Evans was a titled owner of the vehicle in question. 9. Again at Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Complaint,Plaintiff alleges that it was Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans who requested a duplicate key from the BMW dealership,which permitted her to access the vehicle and remove it from Plaintiff's possession. 10. Defendant Evans was permitted to use the vehicle by co-owner, Defendant Renee Rhodes Evans. 11. Plaintiff's claim for conversion fails to provide the necessary allegation to sustain a cause of action for conversion. WHEREFORE,Defendant Greg Evans respectfully requests that this Honorable Court strike Plaintiff's Complaint for legal insufficiency (demurrer) pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(a)(4). MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: &2a4 David A. i imons, Esquire I.D. No. 722 Katie J. Maxwell, Esquire I.D. No. 206018 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: /2� Attorneys for Defendant Greg Evans CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY&FALLER,hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer to Motion for Contempt was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Howard B. Krug, Esquire PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Renee M: Rhoads Evans f/k/a Renee M. Rhoads 710 North Highlands Drive Harrisburg, PA 17111 MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: 4-4tM) A p a M. Price 10 Vast High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT C (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) �7 w ri may. TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter fo�ne i-,, }a Argument Court.) -------------cn August 9, 2013 ---------------------- g ---------------------------------------- ' CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) C7 �a N �• DON PAUL SHEARER, Plaintiff -4 ON vs. GREG EVANS AND RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS, formerly RENEE M. RHOADS Defendants No. Ci vi 1 Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Preliminary Objp-Qions 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Howard B. Krug (Name and Address) 1719 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17102 (b) for defendants: David A. Fitzsimons and Katie J. Maxwell (Name and Address) 10 East High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: August 9, 2013 Sign re Howard B. Krug Print your name Attorney for 'plaintiff Date: June 25, 2013 INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2.The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. 3.The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary)after the case is relisted. OLVo s cQ ga3SI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Carol A. Masich, Legal Assistant, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the Defendants, by sending a copy of the same via first class U.S.-Mail to: Katie M. Maxwell, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Renee M. Rhoads Evans 710 North Highlands Drive Harrisburg, PA 17111 Carol A. Masich, Lega Assistant Purcell, Krug & Haller 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 DATE: DON PAUL SHEARER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. GREG EVANS, AND RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS, Formerly RENEE M. RHOADS NO. 13-660 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANT GREG EVANS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE GUIDO, J., EBERT, J. AND PECK, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23rd day of August, 2013, upon consideration of Defendant Greg Evans' Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiffs Complaint, the briefs filed by the parties in support of their respective positions and after argument; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Defendant, Greg Evans' Preliminary Objections are OVERRULED. Defendants are directed to file an Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint within 20 days of the date of this Order. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. ,,-'Howard B. Krug, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff C-) C= avid Fitzsimons, Esquire Z mca M- Katie Maxwell, Esquire =M C= F— Attorney for Defendants c-- 0 bas >C: FAFILES\Clients\14854 Evans\14854.Lans,13.660.wpd David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire _ Katie J. Maxwell, Esquire r n CD I.D. Nos. 41722 and 206018 ; -` MARTSON LAW OFFICES Ten East High Street a Carlisle, PA 17013S ;Z r." 1 (717) 243-3341 NJ ca r Attorneys for Defendant Greg Evans c-,, .. DON PAUL SHEARER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. : No. 13-660 CIVIL TERM GREG EVANS and RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS, formerly RENEE M. RHOADS, and Defendants ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NEW MATTER TO: DON PAUL SHEARER, Plaintiff, and his attorney, HOWARD B. KRUG, ESQUIRE and RENEE M. RHOADS, DEFENDANT YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER AND CROSS CLAIM WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. AND now, comes the Defendant, Greg Evans, by and through his attorneys, MARTSON LAW OFFICES, and in support of his Answer to Plaintiff s Complaint avers as follows: 1. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. 2. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the residence address for Answering Defendant Evans is correct. He is, however a single individual as of this writing. 3. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. I. FACTS 4. Denied. Answering Defendant Evans is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. 5-8. Denied. Answering Defendant Evans is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Evans did not contribute to the purchase price of the BMW. It is denied to the extent that Evans did not share in maintenance expenses or insurance expenses associated with the BMW once it was in his and his then-wife's possession as he added the vehicle to his Donegal insurance policy. 10. Denied. Answering Defendant Evans is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. 11. Denied as stated. Answering Defendant Evans is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph with respect to Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans' state of mind. It is further denied that Answering Defendant Evans knew Plaintiff's expectations with respect to the furniture Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans brought to her new marital home. Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans never mentioned it was Plaintiff's furniture. 12-13. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. 14. Denied as stated. Defendant Renee Rhoads was in fact a titled owner of the subject BMW, and it was Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans who represented that information to a BMW dealer in order to get a duplicate key; Answering Defendant Evans never represented that he was a titled owner of the vehicle. 15. Denied. The averment of Paragraph 15 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the Pa.R.C.P. However,to the extent that a response is required,Answering Defendant Evans never coerced or caused the distress of Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans. 16. Denied. To the extent that a response is required, Answering Defendant Evans and Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans both had possession of the BMW and of the duplicate set of keys. 17. Admitted. 18. Denied as stated. Answering Defendant Evans was driven by his wife at the time, Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans, to places Plaintiff had been known to frequent and she inadvertently tried to turn around and saw Plaintiff's care. Answering Defendant Evans, with the consent of his wife, drove the subject BMW to their residence in Berks County; the remaining averments of this paragraph are denied. 19. Denied. The averment of Paragraph 19 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the Pa. R.C.P. To the extent that a response is required, it is denied that any actions undertaken by either Defendant were "furtive." It is not disputed that this Court has jurisdiction of the action. 20. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 21. Denied. The averment of Paragraph 21 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the Pa. R.C.P. To the extent that an Answer is required, Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans was a titled owner to the BMW and consequently, had an absolute right to possess the BMW. Moreover, upon information and belief, Renee M. Rhoads Evans repeatedly asked Shearer to remove her name from the title to no avail. 22. Denied. It is specifically denied that solely as a result of police demand that limited personal property was returned to Shearer. On the contrary, all of the contents of the vehicle were returned through an exchange by Answering Defendant's legal counsel at the time, Peter Good, Esquire, to counsel for Plaintiff. 23. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, it is specifically denied that Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans repeatedly instructed,protested and warned Evans against using the vehicle. In fact,Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans drove the car frequently. 24. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Answering Defendant Evans drove the BMW, but denied to the extent that he caused the vehicle to be scratched,dented,stained or muddied. There was a small hole in the transmission pan which occurred at night when Answering Defendant Evans took Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans to the Emergency Room at St. Joseph's Hospital and parked across the street at the Reading Airport restaurant. 25. Denied. It is denied that Answering Defendant Evans' dogs were in the BMW and caused damage to the interior of the vehicle. It is believed that Plaintiff's dog caused the damage to the BMW. 26. The averment of Paragraph 26 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the Pa. R.C.P. To the extent that a response is required, it is denied that Evans was reckless in driving the vehicle over a high curb;however,it is admitted that the vehicle was damaged while Evans was driving it. 27. Denied as stated. Answering Defendant Evans had the vehicle repaired. Upon observing the transmission fluid leak, Plaintiff's car was parked and towed. Answering Defendant Evans had the transmission pan repaired by a state licensed mechanic with 25 years experience who used the type of fluid he deemed appropriate The remaining allegations in this paragraph are legal conclusions to which no response is required. 28. Denied. Answering Defendant Evans arranged for all of Plaintiff's personal property from the BMW to be returned to him through an arrangement between the parties' counsel. 29. Denied. The averment of Paragraph 29.constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the Pa. R.C.P. To the extent that a response is required, it is denied that Plaintiff maintained any ownership interest in the furniture which he had given to Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans when she was his fiancee. The remainder of Paragraph 29 is denied as scandalous and impertinent matter to which no response is required by the Pa. R.C.P. 30. Denied. The averment of Paragraph 30 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the Pa.R.C.P.To the extent that a response is required,it is assumed that the furniture in question is furniture that was Evans' home which he shared as a marital residence with his wife at the time, Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans. Therefore, any concern alleged in this Paragraph regarding damage to said furniture is irrelevant and not the business of Plaintiff. Moreover, any inference that Evans"placed"dogs on furniture in order to "damage"is specifically denied. The dogs are housebroken and do not defecate or urinate on furniture. 31. Denied. The averment of Paragraph 31 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the Pa. R.C.P. By way of further answer, Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans told Answering Defendant Evans that the ring and furniture belonged to her. 32. Admitted. 33. Denied. Exhibit "A" is a document which speaks for itself to which no further response is required. 34. Admitted upon information and belief. The car was returned against Answering Defendant Evans' request it not be driven. The resulting damage occurred on the drive from Berks to return the car to Plaintiff. Answering Defendant Evans repeatedly told Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans not to drive the car in the present condition. At that point in time,the transmission had minor slippage and could have been repaired with minimal maintenance. 35. Denied. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. 36. Denied. To the extent that an answer is required,both parties had previously agreed to their respective insurance company's$500 deductible. The agreement broke down when Plaintiff refused to pay his own deductible and wanted Answering Defendant Evans to pay the $500 on Plaintiff's behalf. 37. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff agreed to the settlement between the two carriers. On the contrary,Answering Defendant's carrier, Donegal,was at all times willing and authorize to enter into settlement and a timely settlement was prevented when Plaintiff, upon information and belief, refused to agree to completion of the settlement along the terms that had originally been agreed to by the parties. All multiple offers of settlement were refused by Plaintiff. 38. Denied. Answering Defendant Evans did not intentionally delay any settlement between the parties. Answering Defendant Evans was in communication with his insurance company and counsel trying to settle the matter. By way of further response,settlement negotiations dissolved when Plaintiff indicated that he would be pursuing the instant litigation. 39. Denied. The averment of Paragraph 39 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the Pa. R.C.P. Answering Defendant Evans denies causing any harm to Plaintiff and requests strict proof at trial. By way of further response upon information and belief, Plaintiff engaged in a long series of harassing treatment of Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans, at the time the wife of Answering Defendant, and continued to exploit the situation to his own benefit. 40. Denied. To the extent that a response is required, if Plaintiff had mitigated his damages by paying to have the vehicle repaired, he would have had access to the BMW the entire 22 month period he claims that he was without its use. By way of further response throughout the relevant time period upon information and belief, Plaintiff continued to maintain Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans as a joint owner of the vehicle throughout that time frame relevant to his alleged inability to use the vehicle. Moreover, upon information and belief, at no time in the relevant time period was Plaintiff ever without transportation or transportation alternatives. 41. Admitted. 42. Admitted. 43. Denied. The averment of Paragraph 43 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the Pa. R.C.P. To the extent that a response is required, upon resolution of the settlement of the damage to the vehicle and payment pursuant to Court Order for compact discs which Answering Defendant believes and avers never were in the vehicle, all matters between the parties which could and should have been brought at the time in question and the action in question, are resolved. 44. Denied. The averment of Paragraph 44 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the Pa. R.C.P. To the extent that a response is required, consistent with the averments of Plaintiff's Complaint Paragraph No. 42, the Court was indeed advised that the issue of repairs to the BMW had been settled. Upon information and belief, the instant action was only initiated by Plaintiff upon a suggestion to Plaintiff's counsel by the Honorable M. L. Ebert, Jr.,that a conversion action might have been appropriate at the time the first action was initiated, upon information and belief in March 2011,when Answering Defendant was alleged to be improperly in possession of Plaintiffs property. As is clearly demonstrated and admitted in Plaintiff's instant Complaint,he has been in possession of his vehicle since before the initiation of the instant action, therefore, a conversation action is not appropriate. 45. Denied.. The averment of Paragraph 45 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the Pa. R.C.P. To the extent that a response is required, Answering Defendant did not pay $500 to Plaintiff representing Plaintiffs deductible on his own insurance coverage for the repairs to the damaged BMW because Plaintiff breached the agreement for a global settlement on all issues by acting upon the comments by Judge Ebert as a suggestion that the action was incomplete and he could now proceed for additional damages beyond those he had sought in his initial action. 46. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant Evans is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. 47. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant Evans is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averment of this paragraph. 48. Denied. To the extent that a response is required, it is denied that Answering Defendant Evans refused to authorize repairs, and as is demonstrated by Plaintiff s own pleading, the vehicle was repaired but only after Plaintiff s delaying tactics in effectuating the repairs ended. II. CONVERSION 49. The answers to Paragraphs 1-48 are incorporated herein by referenced. 50. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 51. Denied. Upon reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant Evans is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. 52. Denied. Upon reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant Evans is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. 53. Denied. Upon reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant Evans is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph.To the extent that an answer is required, Answering Defendant Evans returned all of Plaintiffs personal property that had previously been in the BMW through an agreement between the parties' counsel. 54. Denied. Upon reasonable investigation,Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. 55. Denied. Upon reasonable investigation,Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. 56. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant Evans delayed repair of the vehicle. To the contrary, any delay in the repair of the vehicle is, upon information and belief, the responsibility of Plaintiff who refused to cooperate with his own insurance carrier and with Answering Defendant Evans' carrier in coming to an agreement for repair of the vehicle. Moreover, it is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff has never paid any storage costs or charges to Sun Motors for storage of the vehicle. 57. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on February 16, 2011, that Plaintiff was an owner of the BMW. Answering Defendant Evans' wife, Defendant Renee Evans was also a titled owner of the vehicle at that time, and entitled to immediate possession of the vehicle. 58. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 59. Denied. Upon reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant Evans is without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments of this paragraph. To the extent that a response is required,the record of the interaction between the parties during the replevin action will demonstrate that the legal conclusions and factual allegations of Paragraph 59 are false. 60. Denied. The averment of Paragraph 60 constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the Pa. R.C.P. To the extent that a response is required, .Answering Defendant Evans has previously provided Plaintiff with all personal property previously located in the subject BMW, and has not destroyed or intentionally damaged Plaintiff's personal property. 61. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE,Defendant Greg Evans respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint and enter judgment in favor of Defendant Greg Evans. III. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 62. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 61 are incorporated herein by reference. 63. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 64. Exhibit A is a document which speaks for itself to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, no Court has issued any finding indicating that Answering Defendant Evans has committed perjury. 65. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE,Defendant Greg Evans respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint and enter judgment in favor of Defendant Greg Evans. NEW MATTER 66. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 65 are incorporated herein by reference. 67. At all times relevant hereto,Defendant Renee Evans was a titled owner of the subject BMW. 68. Plaintiff received his personal property. 69. Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans was in fact a titled owner of the subject BMW,and it was Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans who represented that information to a BMW dealer in order to get a duplicate key; Answering Defendant Evans never represented that he was a titled owner of the vehicle. 70. Answering Defendant Evans, with the consent of his wife, drove the subject BMW to his residence in Berks County. 71. Answering Defendant Evans never coerced or caused the distress of Defendant Renee Evans. 72. Defendant Renee Evans was a titled owner to the BMW and consequently, had an absolute right to possess the BMW. 73. Upon information and belief, Defendant Renee M. Rhoads Evans repeatedly asked Plaintiff to remove her name from the title to no avail. 74. All of the contents of the vehicle were returned through an exchange by Answering Defendant's legal counsel at the time, Peter Good, Esquire, to counsel for Plaintiff. 75. Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans told Answering Defendant Evans that the ring and furniture belonged to her. 76. Answering Defendant's carrier, Donegal, was at all times willing and authorize to enter into settlement and a timely settlement was prevented when Plaintiff, upon information and belief, refused to agree to completion of the settlement along the terms that had originally been agreed to by the parties. All multiple offers of settlement were refused by Plaintiff. 77. Plaintiff engaged in a long series of harassing treatment of Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans, at the time the wife of Answering Defendant, and continued to exploit the situation to his own benefit. 78. Plaintiff continued to maintain Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans as a joint owner of the vehicle throughout that time frame relevant to his alleged inability to use the vehicle. 79. At no time in the relevant time period was Plaintiff ever without transportation or transportation alternatives. 80. Plaintiff has been in possession of his vehicle since before the initiation of the instant action, therefore, a conversation action is not appropriate. 81. Any delay in the repair of the vehicle is, upon information and belief, the responsibility of Plaintiff who refused to cooperate with his own insurance carrier and with Answering Defendant Evans' carrier in coming to an agreement for settlement of the vehicle. 82. Plaintiff has never paid any storage costs or charges to Sun Motors for storage of the vehicle. 83. Answering Defendant Evans' wife,Defendant Renee Evans was also a titled owner of the vehicle at that time, and entitled to immediate possession of the vehicle. WHEREFORE,Defendant Greg Evans respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint and enter judgment in favor of Defendant Greg Evans NEW MATTER AND CROSS CLAIM DIRECTED AGAINST DEFENDANT RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS 84. Paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Answer With New Matter Cross Claims are incorporated herein as fully set forth below. 85. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates the allegations against Defendants Evans for the sole purpose of its cross claim against Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans and without admitting any of the averments set forth therein. 86. To the extent that Plaintiff was harmed, said harm and any damages, which is expressly denied, were caused by the negligence of Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans. 87. Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans is solely, exclusively, and/or contributorily liable to Plaintiff or,in the alternative,should Answering Defendant be found to be liable to Plaintiff,which is expressly denied, then Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans is jointly liable and/or liable over to Answering Defendant by way of contribution and/or indemnification. WHEREFORE,Defendant Greg Evans respectfully request judgment in his favor and against Defendant Renee Rhoads Evans together with such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 88. The answers to Paragraphs 1 through 89 are incorporated herein by reference. 89. Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 90. Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed because the defense of accord and satisfaction which is hereby asserted. 91. Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed because of the affirmative defense of estoppel which is hereby asserted. 92. Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed because of the affirmative defense of waiver which is hereby asserted. 93. Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because of the affirmative defense of laches, which is hereby asserted. 94. Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because of the affirmative defense of payment, which is hereby asserted. 95. Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because of the affirmative defense of release, which is hereby asserted. 96. Plaintiffs complaint must be dismissed because of the affirmative defense of res judicata, which is hereby asserted. 97. Plaintiff s complaint must be dismissed because of"unclean hands." WHEREFORE,Defendant Greg Evans respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint and enter judgment in favor of Defendant Greg Evans. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire I.D. No. 41722 Katie J. Maxwell, Esquire I.D. No. 206018 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: September 16, 2013 Attorneys for Defendant Greg Evans VERIFICATION I, Gregory C. Evans, hereby verify that I have reviewed the foregoing document and state that to the extent that the foregoing document contains facts supplied by or known to me, they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. - La C—g=" regory C. vans FAFILEST ients\14854 Evans\14854.I.verification.wpd CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint and New Matter was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Howard B. Krug, Esquire PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER 1719 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 Renee M. Rhoads Evans f/k/a Renee M. Rhoads 710 North Highlands Drive Harrisburg, PA 17111 MARTSON LAW OFFICES y ricia Eckenroad 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: September 16, 2013 FILED-.C''FF';CL' Howard B. Krug, Esquire I HE PROTHONCJTAR PA Supreme Court ID# 16826 �,� Purcell, Krug & Haller 2813 OCT -7 PM 2: 30 1719 North Front Street CUMBERLAND COUNTY Harrisburg, PA 17102 PENNSYLVANIA (717) 234-4178 Fax: (717) 234-0409 hkrug@pkh.com DON PAUL SHEARER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : DOCKET NO. 13-660 CIVIL TERM • GREG EVANS and RENEE M. RHOADS EVANS, formerly RENEE M. : RHOADS, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER 66. Neither admitted nor denied, except as set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint. 67. Admitted, except that it was always understood by Renee Evans that Plaintiff was the true owner and sole person entitled to possession. 68. Denied, as more fully stated in Plaintiff's Complaint. The Order finding solely Greg Evans in contempt is based on his failure to return all of Plaintiff's personal property. The Court could not in the contempt proceeding consider evidence of Plaintiff's lost work in process or the hours expended to re-gather background material. 69. Denied as stated. Renee Evans was coerced by Greg Evans to secure the key to the subject vehicle. It is admitted that Greg Evans was not a titled owner of the vehicle. The balance of the averment cannot be answered by Plaintiff in that he was present when Greg Evans operated the vehicle or authorized repairs of damage he did. 70. Denied. It is believed and therefore averred that Greg Evans coerced Renee into this misadventure and disregarded her demands to stay away from the subject BMW. He did not have her consent to drive the vehicle. 71. Denied. Sworn testimony at the contempt hearing confirms the coercion, abuse, and duress to which Renee Evans was exposed. 72. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In any event, Renee Evans at all times regarded the subject BMW as Plaintiff's vehicle, and she wanted to be removed from the title. 73. Denied as stated. Prior counsel for Defendants always demanded half the value of the BMW before Renee would sign over the car title. It is believed and therefore averred that the said attorney acted solely under instructions from Greg Evans, and Renee did not seek any sums. 74. Denied. It was made clear to former counsel for Defendants when Plaintiff's personal property arrived at his office that many items were missing, and a complete list of missing items was given to former counsel at the time. 75. Denied. After a reasonable investigation, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Renee Evans wanted to return all such items to Plaintiff. 76. Denied. It is believed and therefore averred that Greg Evans frustrated his carrier by his refusal to agree to an exchange and release to conclude the damage claim. 77. Denied. Plaintiff never harassed or otherwise mistreated Renee Evans. 78. Admitted that with Renee's name on the title, Plaintiff had no way of unilaterally removing her as a joint owner. Peter Good, Esquire, apparently representing the demands of Greg Evans, rejected turning over the title to Plaintiff without payment, and there was nothing Plaintiff could do to remove Renee's name. 79. Denied. Plaintiff had to make many alternative, inconvenient arrangements, ultimately leading to his being forced to purchase, with financing, another motor vehicle. The subject BMW was Plaintiff's mobile office, and its removal caused him great anguish, frustration, and monetary loss. 80. Denied. Greg Evans took steps prior to the turnover of the subject vehicle to damage it, ultimately rendering it unusable. He also prevented a settlement of the vehicle damage sought by his own insurance carrier. Since the vehicle was not drivable, he could not take possession or use it. The balance of the allegation is denied as a conclusion of law. 81. Denied. At all times, Plaintiff and Renee Evans cooperated with the insurance carriers to repair his vehicle and return it to an operable state. 82. Admitted. 83. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. 84. - 87. Neither admitted nor denied, as this claim is not directed against Plaintiff. IL 88. - 97. Denied as conclusions of law to which no response is required. In addition, no facts are stated upon which these affirmative defenses are based; therefore they should be dismissed. P∎ T CELL, K" e & HAL - B B . djr4V , •rney ID: 16826 719 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 234-4178 Date: / 0-- 03 ■ , VERIFICATION I, Don Paul Shearer, hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Don Paul Shearer Date: /L?r`it A0/3 J ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Angela S. Shaffer, employee for the law firm of Purcell, Krug & Haller, counsel for Plaintiff, Don Paul Shearer, hereby certify that service of the foregoing RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER was made on the following via regular mail on October Lf , 2013: David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire Katie J. Maxwell, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant, Greg Evans and Renee M. Rhoads 710 North Highlands Drive Harrisburg, PA 17111 Defendant --$L4 Angel . Shaffer