Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-4927 SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA RIC~.~RD BASOM, Plaintiff EDITH BASOM, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, CIVIL TERM : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN DIVORCE NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you by the Court. A judgment may also be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for the divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counselling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of the Prothonotary at the Cumberland County Court House, High and Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania. ' IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. 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) 249-3166 SAIDIS, S F ER & LINDSAY Joh ~ Sup~me ~u~ ID'~ 78~re 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Counsel for Plaintiff RICF~%RD BASOM, EDIT}{ BASOM, Plaintiff Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO · IVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN DIVORCE COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 3301(c) OR 3301(d/ OF THE DIVORCE COD~ 1. Plaintiff is 238 Walnut Bottom Pennsylvania. Richard Basom, who currently resides at Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, 2. Defendant 102 Knollwood Drive, 3. Plaintiff has Commonwealth for at least filing of this Complaint. is Edith Basom, who currently resides at Carle Place, New York. been bona fide residents in the six months immediately previous to the 4. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on November 9, 1990 in North Carolina. 5. There have been no prior actions of divorce or for annulment between the parties. 6. The Plaintiff has been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and the Plaintiff may have the right to request that the Court require the parties to participate in counseling. Having been so advised Plaintiff does not desire the Court to order counseling. 7. The marriage is irretrievably broken. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests Your Honorable Court to enter a decree in divorce. Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Date: By :_ Jo ~ /' S ~r e ~e C~ouKr~ 6~p~re 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Counsel for Plaintiff AFFIDAVIT I, Richard Basom, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say: (1) I have been advised of the availability of marriage Counselling and understand that I may request that the Court require that my spouse and I participate in counselling. (2) I understand that the court maintains a list of marriage counselors in the Prothonotary,s Office, which list is available to me upon request. (3) Being so advised, I do not request that the Court require that my spouse and I participate in Counselling prior to a divorce decree being handed down by the Court. 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. Dated: _~ [~ ~ o! Richard Basom, Plaintiff V~ERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and Correct. 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. Richard Basom, Plaintiff LAW OFFICES SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 PHONE (7~7) 243-6222 SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA ~ET STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 PHONE (717) 737-3405 RICHARD BASOM, EDITH BASOM, CERTIFIED COPY: Plaintiff Defendant NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO.0['~CTIVIL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN DIVORCE If you wish to deny any of the statements set forth in this affidavit, you must file a counter-affidavit within twenty days after this affidavit statements will be admitted. has been served on you or PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT UNDER SECTION 3301(d) OF THE DIVORCE CODE 1. The parties 1999, and have continued to of at least two years. alimony, to this action separated in live separate and apart (2O) the June, for a period 2. The marriage is irretrievably broken. 3. I understand that I may lose rights division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses not claim them before a divorce is granted. concerning if I do 4. I verify that the statements made in this Affidavit are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.C. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: Richard Basom, Plaintiff RICHARD BASOM, PLAINTIFF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EDITH BASOM, DEFENDANT : 01-4927 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this _~~da¥' of October, 2001, a Rule is issued against plaintiff, Richard Basom, directing him to file an answer to the within petition challenging jurisdiction, and to show cause why the relief requested therein should not be granted. Rule returnable fifteen (15) days after service. Any response filed shall be forwarded by the Prothonotary to chambers. Johnna J. Kopecky, Esquire For Plaintiff Edith Basom, Pro se P.O. Box 256 Huntington, New York 11743 :saa Edgar B'~J. SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A~TOR~EY~AT*LAW 26 W. High SIreet Carlisle, PA RICF~%~RD BABOM, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : v. : NO. 01-4927 CIVIL TERM : EDITH BASOM, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : IN DIVORCE RESPONSE TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSF AND NOW comes the Respondent, Richard Basom, by and through his attorneys, Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay and respectfully avers the following in answer to the Petition Challenging Jurisdiction. 1. The Respondent is Richard Lloyd Basom, an adult individual residing at 238 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Edith Basom is an adult individual residing at 102 Knollwood Drive, Carle Place, New York 11514. 3. Sometime in April of 2000, the Respondent was served with a Summons entitled ~Notice if Issue - Uncontested Divorce", Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau; a copy of said Notice is attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit "A". 4. On or about October 2, 2000, served with a Notice of the Respondent was Settlement and Judgment of Divorce SAIDIS & LINDSAY 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA also issued in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau; a copy of said Notice and Judgment of Divorce is attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit 5. Sometime subsequent to that, the Respondent received a Statement of Proposed Distribution which is attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit ~C". 6. At no time since that time has any Divorce Decree been issued, nor has a hearing been held on the equitable distribution of marital assets. 7. Then, on or about January 9, 2001, the Respondent received a Notice of Discontinuance, also from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, stating that the Petitioner, Edith Basom, discontinued the above action, which would include the divorce and the property settlement. A copy of the Notice of Discontinuance is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit ~'D". 8. Having received the Notice of Discontinuance, and having never been adjudicated in divorce in Nassau County in the State of New York, nor any other County, the Petitioner filed a Complaint under Section 3301(c) or 3301(d) of the Divorce Code in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA County, Pennsylvania, filed to the above term and number; a copy of said notice is attached hereto and marked as a part hereof as Exhibit ~E". This divorce was filed on August 21, 2001, and it was served on the Respondent by certified mail, evidenced by the attached Certificate of Mailing on or about August 23, 2001. A copy of said certified mail return receipt card is attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit ~F". 9. Contemporaneously with the filing of the divorce, the Respondent filed his Affidavit under Section 3301(d) of the Divorce Code, which was served upon the Respondent and her attorney, Robert Preston, Esquire. 10. AS the parties have been separated for the more than the requisite two year period and because the divorce action was discontinued in New York, the Respondent avers that the divorce Complaint was properly filed, the Petitioner was given proper notice and the divorce is valid in Cumberland County. 11. To plead further, the Respondent has resided in Cumberland County for the requisite two year period for the divorce, and more importantly the requisite 6 month period as a bona fide resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for at least 6 months immediately previous to the filing of the Divorce Complaint. WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests Your Honorable Court to deny the Petition challenging jurisdiction, in and to allow the divorce to continue under 3301(d) Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Dated: Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY John~/~. Ko~c ~y, ~s~s~i r e Atto~dey I.~. #53147 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Attorney for Plaintiff SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26W. High S~reet Carlisle, PA NOTE OF ISSUE- UNCONTESTED DIVORCE For Use of Clerk SUPREME COURT OF ~ STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU .X EDITH BASOM, Plamrkff, - against - RICHARD LLOYD BASOM, Defendant. NO TRIAL FILED BY: Plaintiffs Attorney Index No.: 2000-201096 Calendar No.: DATE SUMMONS SERVED: 4/11/00 DATE ISSUE JOINED: NATURE OF ACTION: RELIEF: Attorneys for Plaintiff: Office and P.O. Address: Phone No.: NOT JOINED - Default UNCONTESTED DlwC'ORCE - ABSOLLrrE DIVORCE - PRESTON, PA.RDES & WOOLLEY, LLP 2 Robbim Lane Suite 210 Jericho, New York 11753 (516) 512-2100 Defendant: Office and P.O. Address: Phone No.: Richard Lloyd Basom 4185 Mountain View Road, Apt. 110 Mechanicsburgh, PA 17055 U~known SUPREM~E COURT OF ~ STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU EDITH BASOM, Plain~l~, -against- Index No.: 2000-201096 RICHARD LLOYD BASOM, Defendant. NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that an order of which the within is a lrue copy will be presented for settlement to the Hon. Presiding Justice, one of the judges of the within named Court, on November 2, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. Dated: Jericho, New York October 2, 2000 TO: PRESTON, PAR.DES & WOOLLEY, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 Robbms Lane Suite 210 //ericho, New York 11753 (516) 512-2100 RICHARD LLOYD BASOM Defendant 4185 Mountain View Road, Apt. 1 I0 Mechanicsburgh, Pennsylvania 17055 Present: Hon. Justice/Referee EDITH BASOM, 107-20-6701 Plaintiff, -against- RICHARD LLOYD BASOM, 184-26-5501 Defendant. At the Matrimonial/IAS Part of New York State Supreme Court at the Courthouse, Nassau County, on Index No.: 2000-201096 JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE This action was submitted for inquest this day of The Defendant was served personally outside the State of New York. Plaintiff presented a verified complaint. .,2000. The Defendant has not appeared and is in default. The Court accepted written proof of non-military service. The plaintiff s address is 102 Knollwood Drive, Carle Place, New York 11514 and social security number is 107-20-6701. The Defendant's address is 4185 Mt. View Road, Apt. 110, Mechanicsburgh, Pennsylvania 17055 and social security number is 184-26-5501. Now on motion of Preston, Pardes& Woolley, LLP, the attorneys for the Plamtiffit is: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Referee's Report, if any, is confirmed, and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiffshall have a judgment dissolving the marriage on the evidence found in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law based upon Index No.: DRL §170 subd.(1), and it is further page 2. ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the existing Suffolk County Family Court order under Docket No. F-2722-99 dated January 14, 2000, shall continue, and a copy of this judgment shall be served by Plaintiffupon the Clerk of the Suffolk County Family Court within days of entry; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Family Court shall be granted concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court with respect to the issues of maintenance, and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that both parties are authorized to resume the use of any former surname; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that Defendant shall be served with a copy of this judgement, with notice of entry, by the PlaintfiTwithin. days of such entry. Dated: ENTER: J.S.C./Referee CLERK SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU EDITH BASOM - against - R/CHARD LLOYD BASOM Plaintiff~ Defendant. Index No. 2000/201096 STATEMENT OF PROPOSED DISPOSITION This Statement of Proposed Disposition is made by Plaintiff herein, pursuant to 22 NYCRR Section 202.16(h). ASSETS CLAIMED TO BE MARITAL PROPERTY Marital Asset Description Title Value Date Net Equity none TOTAL MARITAL ASSETS II (a). ASSETS CLAIMED TO BE SEPARATE PROPERTY OF HUSBAND Separate Net Asset Description Title Value Date Equity TOTAL ASSETS CLAIMED SEPARATE PROPERTY OF HUSBAND II (b). ASSETS CLAIMED TO BE SEPARATE PROPERTY OF WIFE Separate Net Asset Description Title Value Date Equity 1. Ford Minivan Wife $1,400 $1,400 TOTAL ASSETS CLAIMED SEPAP. ATE PROPERTY OF WIFE STATEMENT OF PROPOSED DISPOSITION Page 1 PRESTON, PARDES & WOOLLEY, LLP r - ) % tr Suit~210 rt~s- ~.~o t I Jericho, New York 11753 (516) 512-2100 III (a). ALLOCATION OF DEBTS Specific Debt Description 1. Ford Minivan SPECIFIC TO ASSETS Marital/ Title Separate Wife Separate Value Date Lien $1,600 $1,600 TOTAL DEBTS SPECIFIC TO ASSETS III (b). ALLOCATION OF NONSPECIFIC DEBTS NonSpecific Debt Description Title Marital/ Value Separate Date Lien TOTAL NONSPECIFIC DEBTS IV. Amount Requested For Maintenance: $ 100 p/w plus any arrears outstanding. This request for maintenance is based upon consideration of the reasonable needs of Plaintiff in view of the standard of living which the parties established during the marriage, whether Plaintiff lacks sufficient property and income to meet such needs, whether Plaintiff has sufficient property or income to provide for such needs, and the circumstances of the case and the parties, together with the following factors: An existing Suffolk County Family Court Order under Docket No. F-2722-99 dated January 14, 2000 remains in full force and effect. copy of same is annexed hereto. A STATEMENT OF PROPOSED DISPOSITION Page 2 PRESTON, PARDES & WOOLLEY, LLP 2 Robbins Lane Suite 210 Jericho, New York 11753 (516) 512-2100 V. Proposal For Equitable Distribution: Qualified Domestic Relations Orders to distribute marital portion of defendant,s pensions. NET SUMMARy Net Marital Distribution to Defendant Net Marital Distribution to Plaintiff The parties have heretofore divided any and all marital assets except as hereinabove set forth. Dated: September 29, 2000 Edith Basom STATEMENT OF PROPOSED DISPOSITION Page 3 ~n~eroffice ~: aasom Client File: X:\M~TLAW\BASOM\basom. SCP 09/29/2000 02:32 p.m. PRESTON, PARDES & WOOLLEY, LLP 2 Robbins Lane Suite 210 Jericho, New York 11753 (516) 512-2100 SUPREM]E COURT OF ~ STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU EDITH BASOM, Plaintiff, Index No. 2000-201096 -against - RICHARD LLOYD BASOM, NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE Defendant. SIRS: ........... x PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that pursuant to CPLR 3217(a)(I) the attorney for the plaintiff, Edith Basom, hereby discontinues the above entitled action without costs to either pan3, as against the other. Dated: Jericho, New York January 9, 2001 TO: RICHARD LLOYD BASOM Defendant 414 Rear Baltimore Street Hanover, Pennsylvania 17331 Robert M. Preston, Esq. PRESTON, PARDES & WOOLLEY, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 2 Robbins Lane Suite 210 Sericho, New York 11753 (516) 512-2100 SAIDIS SHUn:, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High RI CHA/~D BASOM, EDITH BASOM, Plaintiff Defendant ~ERLAND COUNTY, NC.O[- IL TERM : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN DIVORCE NOTICE ~-~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PENNSYLVANIA YOU have been sued in court. If you wish to ~fen~against the claims set forth in the following pages, ~ W~st ~ke prompt action. You are warned that if you fail ~t~ do~so,~i the case may proceed without you and a decree of~d~forC~e~ or annulment may be entered against you by the Court. A judgment may also be entered against you for any other claim or relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for the divorce is indignities or · rretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counselling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of the Prothonotary at the Cumberland County Court House, High and Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. 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) 249-3166 SA~ER & LINDSAY Sup~me ~urt ID-# 78614 26 Wes~ High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Counsel for Plaintiff RI CF~tRD BASOM, Vo EDITH BASOM, Plaintiff Defendant : CUMBEPui~LND COUhPry, NO. CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAs PENNSYLVANIA ~OMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 3301(C) O__R 3301(d} OF THE DIVORCE COD~; 1. Plaintiff is 238 Walnut Bottom Pennsylvania. Richard Basom, who Road, Carlisle, currently resides at Cumberland County, 2. Defendant 102 Knollwood Drive, 3. Plaintiff has Commonwealth for at least filing of this Complaint. is Edith Basom, who Carle Place, New York. been bona fide Currently resides at residents in six months immediately previous to the the 4. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on November 9, 1990 in North Carolina. 5. There have been no prior actions of 'divorce or for annulment between the parties. 6. The Plaintiff has been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and the Plaintiff may have the right to request that the Court require the parties to participate in counseling. Having been so advised Plaintiff does not desire the Court to order counseling. 7. The marriage is irretrievably broken. W/ffEREFORE, Plaintiff requests Your Honorable Court to enter a decree in divorce. Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Date: 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Counsel for Plaintiff 2 AFFIDAVIT I, Richard Basom, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say: counselling and understand that I may request that the require that my spouse and I participate in counselling. (2) I understand that the court maintains a list of marriage counselors in the Prothonotary,s Office, which list is available to me upon request. (3) Being so advised, I do not request that the Court require that my spouse and I a divorce decree being handed down by the court. I understand that false statements herein are made to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. falsification to authorities. I have been advised of the availability of marriage court participate in counselling prior to subject Section 4904 relating to unsworn Richard Basom, Plaintiff I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. 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. Richard Basom, Plaintiff SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26W. High Street Carlisle, PA VERIFICATION I verify that the to Rule to Show false statements Pa. C.S. authorities. statements made in the foregoing Response Cause are true and correct. I understand that herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to Richard Basom SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE · On this ~;tc~ day of ~J~_/~//~~ hereby certify that I served a true and correct foregoing Response to Rule to Show Cause upon all record via United States Mail, postage prepaid, follows: , 2069[, I, copy of the parties of addressed as The Honorable Edgar Bayley Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Edith Basom P.O. Box 256 Huntington, NY 11743 SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY RICHARD BASOM, PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT V. EDITH BASOM, DEFENDANT/PETITIONER AND NOW, this : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 01-4927 CIVIL TERM .day of November, 2001, pursuant to the petition of defendant to dismiss the within divorce action, to which plaintiff has objected in a response to a Rule to show cause, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner shall file a brief in chambers, with supporting legal authority, not later than thirty (30) days from this date. Respondent shall file a response brief in chambers not later than fifteen (15) days thereafter? The petition will be decided without oral argument. Edgar B. Bayley,~/ ~~. ~ ~ Petitioner has averred that she commenced the second divorce action against respondent on August 9, 2001, in the Supreme Court of the County of Nassau in the State of New York, indexed at 01-202832 (a prior action was discontinued). Petitioner has further averred that this divome action was personally served on respondent on August 21, 2001, at 3:35 p.m. Respondent, in his response to the Rule to show cause, has not denied these allegations. He instituted the within divorce action in Cumberland County by filing a complaint on August 21, 2001, which is time stamped by the Prothonotary at 2:52 p.m. It is on these facts that the parties should address the legal issue of whether this action in Cumberland County should be dismissed because of the pending action in Nassau County, New York. Johnna J. Kopecky, Esquire For Plaintiff/Respondent Edith Basom, Pro se P.O. Box 256 Huntington, New York 11743 Defendant/Petitioner :saa RICHARD BASOM, PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT V. EDITH BASOM, DEFENDANT/PETITIONER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 01-4927 CIVIL TERM AND NOW, this day of November, 2001, based upon the attached communication by defendant/petitioner, the order of November 14, 2001, is amended to provide that petitioner shall file a brief in chambers, with supporting legal authority, not later than December 20, 2001. Respondent shall file a response brief in chambers not later than fifteen (15) days thereafter. All other provisions of the order of November 14, 2001, shall remain in effect. Johnna J. Kopecky, Esquire For Plaintiff/Respondent Edith Basom, Pre se P.O. Box 256 Huntington, New York 11743 Defendant/Petitioner Edgar §. ~ayley, J.~ :saa RICHARD BASOM, Plaintiff/Respondent, V. EDITH BASOM, Defendant/Petitioner, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 01-4927 CIVIL TERM LIMITED APPEAILMNCE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CHALLENGING JURISDICTION AND RESPONDING TO THIS COURT'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 14, 2001 I, Edith Basom, max the DefendantYPetitioner in tile above-captioned action. I make this pleading by way of a limited appearance for the purpo.se of contesting jurisdiction of the State of Pennsylvania over the ma~xiage between myself and the Plaintiff/Respondent Richard Bosom. My attorney has been ill for several months, his partnership has been dissolved, and I have agreed to release him from representing me in this matter. I am attempth~g to locate new counsel, but have been unable to find a lawyer who is willing to handle a Pennsylvania matter. I camaot afford to hire new counsel ia~ both New York and Pennsylv~mia. Therefore, I respectfully ask for this court's indulgenc© so that 1 may set Ibrth my arguments in lay terms ar~ without the customary reference to legal authorities. On August 9, 2001, after living in New York for more than two years, i commenced an action for divorce in the Supreme Court of the County of Nassau, action number 01-202832. On August 21, 2001, Plaintiff filed the present action in Pennsylvao/a. On August 21, 2001, approximately one-half hour after Plaintiff's action was filed, Plaintiff was personally served with the New York action. Plaintiff mailed a copy of the Pennsylvania action to my son's house and receipt was acknowledged by my daughter-in-law on August 23, 2001. I did. not receive the complaint until approximately September 1, 2001. I believe it is well established that j~risdiction does not attach until service is completed. Service is not complete until the party has either been personally served or, in the case of service by mail, when the mail has been delivered. Therefore, even if one were to assmnc that service was eft~ctive on me when my daughter-in-law received the complaint by mail,~ service had already been completed on ?lalntiffat least two days earlier. Because the New York court gained jurisdiction first, I believe this court should dismiss this action. This court should also dismiss this action because I do not have any recent contact with the State of Pennsylvania. I lived in Pennsylvania from 1986 to 1988 to be near Plaintiff. Since moving away in 1988, I have only been to Pennsylvania three or four times, and solely for the purpose of accompanying Piaintiffwhile he visited his family. I have not been to Pennsylvania in four of five years. I was not married there, nor did I live there as i~laintiff's wife.2 Thus, I have not had any substantial contacts with Pennsylvania in over ten years. Moreover, it would be a hardship for me to go to Peamsylvania because it is too far and too unsafe for me to drive. On the other hand, Plaintiff ~as significant ties to New York. He was employed in New York in 2000 and we lived together in New York as husband and wife until our separation, lie is also quite capable of driving to New York. If, for some reason, this court decides to allow this anatter to go forward, I request ~at the court's jurisclietion be limited to the termination of our marital status. Plaintiffhas not complied ~vith interim support orders issued by a New York court~ and it would be unfair for him to avoid his legal obligations by initiating a new action in a different state. Similarly, it would be unfair for this court to exercise jurisdiction over any money and/or property I have in the State of New York because I have no contact with Pennsylvania and Plaintiffean easily make any claims against New York property in the New York court. Finally, Plaintiff is well aware that he was personally served with a second a~'~on for divorce on August 21, 2001. In his" , Response To Rule To Show Cause,' he mentioned only the earlier action that was dismissed. By failing to mention the current action, Plaintiffknowingly mislead fids court. Plaintiff's sole purpose in maintaining the current action is to further delay this matter and increase my expenses in the hope that I will abandon the rights and claims that have ~While I acknowledge that I received notice of the present suit, I do not know Whether service was completed when delivered to my daughter-in-law or when I actually received it. ~Plaintiff and I were married in North Carolina on November 9, 1990. ~After making three or four payments, Plaintiffhas refused to make court ordered interim support payments. Plaintiff has blocked attempts to garnish his wages and retirement benefits and, as ' ofthts date, arrears are approaching $10,000. already been confirmed by a New York court. Plaintiff has engaged in a long history of verbal and sporadic physical abuse which culminated in a physical attack that ended our relationship. Despite his knowIedge that a New York action was commenced prior to the present action, Plaintiff refuses to abandon this matter because he knows that mY financial resources are li~nited and I can only fight him for so long. Plalntiffhas refused to pay a modest interim support payment based on the excuse that he does not have the money. Despite this protestation of poverty, Plaintiffhas manage.el to mount a concerted legal effbrt to not only block those payments, but wage dissolution cases in two 'states. His goal is obviously to subvert the New York cotu~'s order and fbrce me to give up on ever receiving any type of support.4 There is simply no way that ! can hire a lawyer in New York, another lawyer in Peunsylvania, and continue to spend resources to get Plaintiffto comply with the interim support order. This com~ should not reward Plaintiff's strategy by permitting this matter to go forward. Unfortunately, if this action does proceed, I will be unable to attend any hearings or hire counsel to represent me. I, Edith Basom, verify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. December 19, 2001 Edith B~om, Defendant/Petitioner 4I am requesting support because my mm'riage to Plaintiff effectively ended any chance I had of maintaining a steady job. Plaintiffasked me to stop working in the late 1980's. Every couple of years we moved to a new state in order to foster Plaintiffs career. Over the course of our relationship, Plaintiff bas been employed in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and New York. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEB~f~_U.S._MAIL Case Name: Basom v. Basom No.: 01-4927 CIVIL TERM On D.~.~Lg,~, ~ hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of: LIMITED APPEARANCE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CHALLENGING JURISDICTION AND RESPONDING TO THIS COURT'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 14, 2001 on Plaintiff Richard Basom via United States Ma~l. postage prepaid, addressed as follows: K/chard Basom c/o Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New York that I am over 18, the foregoing is true and correct, ~ud this declaration was executed on December 19, 2001, at ~ £' ..., New York. Address , - TOTRL P.05 RICHARD BASOM, PLAINTIFF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EDITH BASOM, DEFENDANT : 01-4927 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION TO DISMISS DIVORCE ACTIOn" AND NOW, this '~ ~ ~1" day of January, 2002, the petition of defendant to ~arol J. Lindsay, Esquire For Plaintiff dith Basom, ~P(.O. Box 256 Pro se Huntington, NY 11743 dismiss this action for a divorce, IS DENIED. gar B. Bayley~ J. - -( ;saa RICHARD BASOM, PLAINTIFF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EDITH BASOM, DEFENDANT : 01-4927 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PETITION TO DISMISS DIVORCE ACTIOn,,~ OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Bayley, J., January 31, 2002:- Plaintiff, Richard Basom, and defendant, Edith Basom, were married in Durham, North Carolina, on November 9, 1990. They moved to New York in December, 1998. Plaintiff separated from defendant in June, t999, when he moved to Pennsylvania. Plaintiff has lived in Pennsylvania since June, 1999. Defendant has continued to reside in New York. On August 9, 2001, wife instituted a divorce action against husband in the Supreme Court of the County of Nassau in New York. That divorce action was personally served on husband on August 2t, 2001, at 3:35 p.mJ Ironically, husband had just initiated this Cumberland County divorce action on August 21, 2001, by filing a complaint in the Office of the Prothonotary at 2:52 p.m. Wife has entered a limited appearance by filing a petition seeking dismissal ~ Wife had previously instituted a divorce action against husband on April 11, 2000, in the Supreme Court of the County of Nassau in New York. That action was discontinued on January 9, 2001. 01-4927 CIVIL TERM based on her pending divome action in Nassau County, New York, that was filed twelve days before husband filed this divorce action. In the New York action, wife seeks, inter alia, the equitable distribution of marital property. In this Cumberland County action, husband has made no collateral claims. He seeks a decree in divorce under the Divome Code at 23 Pa.C.S. § 3301(c) and 3301(d). Section 3104 of the Divorce Code provides: (a) Jurisdicfion.--The courts shall have original jurisdiction in cases of divorce and for the annulment of void or voidable marriages and shall determine, in conjunction with any decree granting a divorce or annulment, the following matters, if raised in the pleadings, and issue appropriate decrees or orders with reference thereto, and may retain continuing jurisdiction thereof: (1) The determination and disposition of property rights and interests between spouses, including any rights created by any antenuptial, postnuptial or separation agreement and including the partition of property held as tenants by the entireties or otherwise and any accounting between them, and the order of any spousal support, alimony, alimony pendente lite, counsel fees or costs authorized by law. (2) The future care, custody and visitation rights as to children of the marriage or purported marriage. (3) Any support or assistance which shall be paid for the benefit of any children of the marriage or purported marriage. (4) Any property settlement involving any of the matters set forth in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) as submitted by the parties. (5) Any other matters pertaining to the marriage and divorce or annulment authorized by law and which fairly and expeditiously may be determined and disposed of in such action. (b) Residence and domicile of parties.--No spouse is entitled to commence an action for divorce or annulment under this part unless at least one of the parties has been a bona fide resident in this Commonwealth for at least six months immediately previous to the commencement of the action. Both parties shall be competent witnesses to prove their respective residence, and proof of actual residence within this Commonwealth for six months shall create a -2- 01-4927 CIVIL TERM presumption of domicile within this Commonwealth. (c) Power of court.--The court has authority to entertain an action under this part notwithstanding the fact that the marriage of the parties and the cause for divorce occurred outside of this Commonwealth and that both parties were at the time of the occurrence domiciled outside this Commonwealth .... (d) Foreign forum.--After the dissolution or annulment of a marriage in a foreign forum where a matter under subsection (a) has not been decided, a court of this Commonwealth shall have jurisdiction to determine a matter under subsection (a) to the fullest extent allowed under the Constitution of the United States. (e) Venue.--A proceeding for divorce or annulment may be brought in the county: (1) where the defendant resides; (2) if the defendant resides outside of this Commonwealth, where the plaintiff resides; (3) of matrimonial domicile, if the plaintiff has continuously resided in the county; (4) prior to six months after the date of final separation and with agreement of the defendant, where the plaintiff resides or, if neither party continues to reside in the county of matrimonial domicile, where either party resides; or (5) after six months after the dare of final separation, where either party resides. (Emphasis added.) In Betz v. Betz, 103 Pa. Super. 306 (1931), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a county in Pennsylvania may assume "jurisdiction" in a divorce suit brought by one spouse even though a divorce suit between the same parties is pending in another county. The Court concluded that the spouse in the second suit may not be deprived of the right to secure a divorce unless a final decree in divorce is entered in the prior suit. The Court stated: The fear that there may be conflict of jurisdiction between courts is more fanciful than real. Neither court in any event would attempt to set aside the judgment entered by the order. When either case is finally decided, the other court can take cognizance of it and govern itself accordingly. -3- 01-4927 CIVIL TERM In Gantz v. Gantz, 338 Pa. Super. 528 (1985), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, noting that Betz v. Betz, supra, was decided when counterclaims were not permitted in divorce, held that Divorce law must be interpreted to require consolidation of all issues in divorce so as to counter the "monumental waste of judicial time and litigant's money." The Court stated, "[w]e would urge that with all deliberate speed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Civil Rules Committee promulgate rules which provide guidance to the Bench and Bar as to appropriate considerations of venue consolidation, certification and bifurcation." Now, Pa. Rule of Civil Procedure 1920.6 covers venue when a divorce action is filed in a county of Pennsylvania after an initial divorce action has been filed in another county of Pennsylvania. However, neither the Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Divorce Code specifically address jurisdiction where a divorce action has been filed in Pennsylvania by one spouse after the other spouse has filed a divorce action in another state? In Watson v. Watson, 243 Pa. Super. 23 (1976), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated: Our Supreme Court has recently set forth the standards for determining the validity of a sister state's divorce decree: "It is well established that once Ia sister state] has granted a divorce decree that decree is presumptively valid in this jurisdiction. Esenwien v. Commonwealth ex rel. Esenwien, 325 U.S. 279, 65 S.Ct. 1118, 89 L.Ed. 1608 (1945); Williams v. North Carolina (11), 325 U.S. 226, 65 S.Ct. 1092, 2 In contrast, in custody litigation, Pennsylvania, at 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 5341 to 5366, and New York, at McKinney's Domestic Relations Law §§ 75-a to 75-z, have adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. 01-4927 CIVIL TERM 89 LEd. 1577 (1945). Such a decree is 'a conclusive adjudication of everything involved therein except the jurisdictional facts on which it is founded...,' Commonwealth ex rel. McVay vo McVay, 383 Pa. 70, 73, 118 A.2d 144, 146 (1955), and bona fide domicile is the essential jurisdictional fact necessary to give any decree extraterritorial effect. See Williams v. North Carolina (I), 317 U.S. 287, 297-98, 63 S.Ct. 207, 212-13, 87 L.Ed. 279, 285-86 (1942); Commonwealth ex rel. McVay v. McVay, supra; Commonwealth ex rel. Meth v. Meth, 156 Pa. Super. 632, 41 A.2d 752 (1945). In the case sub judice, husband, who has continually lived in Pennsylvania since June, 1999, and lives in Cumberland County, has jurisdiction in this divorce action under Section 3104(b) of the Divorce Code (he has been a bona fide resident of the Commonwealth for at least six months immediately previous to the commencement of this action), and has venue in Cumberland County under Section 3104(e)(2) (defendant resides outside of the Commonwealth and plaintiff resides in Cumberland County). Some state courts have held that the forum in which a divorce action is first initiated and where jurisdiction of the defendant is obtained will be permitted on principles of comity to complete its proceeding, and the forum in which the subsequent divorce is brought will stay the second suit on principles of comity. Simmons v. Superior Court, 96 Cal. App.2d 119, 214 P.2d 844 (1950); Evans v. Evans, 186 S.W. 2d 277 (Tex. Cv. App. 1945). See Friedland v. Friedland, 295 F.Supp. 237 (D.C. Virgin Islands 1968). In New York, a statue at CPLR 3211 (a)(4) allows for dismissal "on the ground that.., there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in the court of any state." Dismissal is discretionary, and in determining whether such discretion should be exemised the court looks to the greater interest in -5- 01-4927 CIVIL TERM and contacts with the litigation as between New York and the other state. Guccione v. Guccione, 417 N.Y.S.2d 633 (1979). We have not found a similar statute in Pennsylvania that would be applicable to a divorce action. In Federici v. Federici, 44 D. & C.3d 591 (Eric Co. 1986), the issue was whether a resident of Pennsylvania may maintain a divorce action in Pennsylvania after an action resulting in legal separation has been maintained in New York, but before the New York action has been converted into a divorce action. The trial court held that the action in Pennsylvania could be maintained where the spouse's action in New York was based on different grounds than the other spouse's action in Pennsylvania. The court stated, This does not mean that Pennsylvania is the proper jurisdiction to determine the related marital claims. This court will not consider any marital claims and leaves those related matters to the New York court to address in the pending New York action pursuant to the divisible divorce doctdne espoused in Stambaugh v. Stambaugh, 458 Pa. 147, 329 A.2d 483 (1974) .... This court also believes it should not entertain any marital matters aside from the divorce issue itself based upon the legal principle of comity. The legal separation action in New York has already resulted in at least a temporary order regarding economic issues, including support, maintenance and custody. In the case sub judice, we are of the view that husband, who has jurisdiction in Pennsylvania and venue in Cumberland County, should not be deprived of litigating this divorce action unless a final decree in divorce has been entered in the New York suit. Husband has made no collateral claims in this action so there is no issue of whether such claims should be stayed on the principle of comity. Accordingly, the following -6- 01-4927 CIVIL TERM order is entered. AND NOW, this '~'~-' day of January, 2002, the petition of defendant to dismiss this action for a divorce, IS DENIED. Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire For Plaintiff Edith Basom, Pro se P.O. Box 256 Huntington, NY 11743 :saa Edgar B. Bayley, J. -7-