HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-6454IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY CARLISLE
MARK KENNETH ADAMS § CIVIL ACTIOI?j,- LA
Plaintiff § (fit./ - L. q,pq (? t, ,TERM
VS. § CASE NO.
ROSE ANN ADAMS §
Defendant § IN DIVORCE
NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS
You have been sued in court for:
3 Divorce
? Support
-, Division of Property
• Temporary Alimony
? Costs
? Annulment of Marriage
? Custody and visitation
? Alimony
? Attorney
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth on the
other side of this page, 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 this paper by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you,
including custody or visitation of you child or children.
When the ground for divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage,
you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of
the Prothonotary at the CARLISLE county Courthouse, in 4jz)is/9 , PA.
Cc?,?3EAZRN?
IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY,
LAWYER'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE DIVORCE OF 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 CO BAR ASSOCIATION
32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET
CARLISLE PA 17013
(717) 249 3166
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY CARLISLE
MARK KENNETH ADAMS § CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plaintiff § TERM
§ CASE NO.
ROSE ANN ADAMS §
Defendant § IN DIVORCE
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 3301(c) OR 3391(d) OF THE DIVORCE CODE
1. Plaintiff is MARK KENNETH ADAMS who resides at; 225 Worden Street; Portsmouth,
Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant is ROSE ANN ADAMS who resides at: 14 Shirley Lane; Boiling Springs,
PennsylvaniaPennsylvania l 7007.
3. ® Plaintiff and/or ® Defendant have been a bona fide resident(s) of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania for at least six months immediately prior to commencement of this action.
4. Plaintiff married Defendant on November 26, 2003 at Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Attached hereto
and marked as Exhibit "A" is the certificate of marriage evidencing said marriage.
5. Neither j7l- iff nor defendant is in the military or naval service of the Unites States or its
allies within the provisions of the Soldier's and Sailor's Civil Relief Act of Congress 1940 and
its amendments. PIA /,J '-i r- r o w 7-,q E V S tJ Av I
6. There has been no prior action of divorce or for annulment between the parties.
7.The marriage is irretrievably broken.
8. After 90 days have elapsed from the date of filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff intends to file an
affidavit consenting to a divorce. Plaintiff believes that Defendant may also file such an affidavit.
9. Plaintiff has been advised that marriage counseling is available and that Plaintiff may have the
Complaint for Divorce; Page 1
right to request that the Court require the parties to participate in marriage counseling.
10. There are no child(ren) under the age of eighteen years old were born to or adopted by the
parties of the marriage:
Divided by Court:
(1) Itemization: To Plaintiffs knowledge, the property of the parties consists of
the following described items:
Item #: Description of Property: Value
1.2001 Monte Carlo $ 001000
2. NFCU $ aa. cv
3. Military Star Card $ 1?, .,,
4. Providian VISA $ ")Zcv. o c'
(2) Division:
It will be fair and just for the court to award as Plaintiffs separate property the property
described in the above list at items numbered: *
It will be fair and equitable for the Court to order Defendant to assume and to pay without
any right to contribution or reimbursement from Plaintiff the debts described in the above list
below:
Any and all debts solely in the name of the Defendant
It will be fair and equitable for the Court to order Plaintiff to assume and to pay without any right
to contribution or reimbursement from Defendant the debts described in the above list at items
numbered: *1- 4
WHEREFORE, after 90 days have elapsed from the date of filing of this Complaint,
Plaintiff respectfully requests that a decree of divorce be entered pursuant to Section 3301(c) of
Complaint for Divorce; Page 2
the Divorce Code dissolving the marriage between the Plaintiff and Defendant.
MARK KENNETH ADAMS
I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. I understand that
false statements herein are made subject to penalties of the 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to
unworn falsification to authorities.
Date: ?--
MARK KENNETH ADAMS, Pro Per
Complaint for Divorce; Page 3
"'
QC
°G
,?T
O
-r?
rr)
r"'l c:.?
r,"]
?.., t
.. (`.)
4,
Y ?,_
?'_•?
_?
?Ir..
:r
Plaintiff:
Mark K. Adams
225 Worden Street
Portsmouth, PA 02871
Vs
Defendant:
Rose A. Adams
14 Shirley Lane
Boiling Springs, PA 17007
Civil Action - Law
Case Number - 04-6454
Notice of Intent to File Praecipe to Withdraw
Plaintiff, Mark K Adams wishes to file a withdraw in case number 04-6454, action of
divorce against Rose A. Adams. To be effective immediately.
Plaintiff 2Ze- %t/
Date 29x2
Case Number - 04-6454 - civil law
No 21 795 678 Lups 00
006 0410111968 sex M
Class C Eyes BLU
Endorse ---- Height 5*07'
Com/Mea Rstr "11
Issued 0210912002
Expires 04/0212006
Ow-d'i
MARK K ADAMS
110 PIPELINE RD
NEWVILLE PA 17241
i?
r., ti
r -a
m
N -fi 0
C%3
ROSE A. ADAMS, : IN THE COURT OI
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND CO
VS. : DOMESTIC RELA7
MARK K. ADAMS, : PACSES NO. 4251
Defendant : DOCKET NO. 1061
: NO. 2004 - 6454
COMMON PLEAS OF
JNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DNS SECTION
SUPPORT 2004
SE
NOW comes Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire, attorney for plaintiff, and presents this petition
for a rule to show cause why defendant's counsel of record, Marcus A. McKnight, III,
Esquire, and any other member of the law firm of Irwin & Mc fight should not be
disqualified from representing defendant n this case,
1. Petitioner is Rosa A. Adams, plaintiff in this action.
2. Respondent is Mark K. Adams, defendant in this act
of record is Marcus A. McKnight, Esquire, of the law firm of
Pomfret Street, Carlisle, PA 17013.
3. Petitioner filed a complaint for spousal support and a
held before R. J. Shadday, of the Cumberland County Dom,
conference resulted in an order dismissing the spousal su
grounds.
4. Petitioner then appealed the determination of DRO and
held before the Support Master, Michael Rundle, Esquire, on ,
master determined that the plaintiff has no earning capacity ar
support of $472.75 per month.
5. Respondent, acting pro se, filed exceptions to the m?
June 27, 2006, Judge Ebert ordered the transcription of the
as follows:
whose present counsel
in & McKnight, 60 West
conference was
Relations Office. This
petition on financial
hearing de novo was
ie 20, 2006. The
awarded her spousal
determination and on
testimony, that the
defendant file a brief within 15 days after the filing of the
responsive brief within 15 days after the appellant's brief.
6. On July 21, 2006, defendant's counsel, Marcus A.
his appearance for the defendant.
7. On July 27, 2006, the transcript of the Master's
8. Plaintiffs counsel notified plaintiff of the entry of
and the filing of the transcript, at which time plaintiff notified
McKnight has a conflict of interest in this case and that
conflict.
9. On August 1, 2006, plaintiffs counsel wrote to
of the conflict of interest and requesting that he notify his
defendant could retain other counsel.
10. Specifically, defendant's counsel was reminded of
plaintiff and her family that represent a significant conflict of
following:
Represented Rose in her previous divorce from Curtis Grant
Represented Rose in her previous custody case with Curtis Grant (last in
Represented her father (Jesse Walton) in a workers compensation case
Wrote estate planning documents and POA's for her parents (Jesse and
Handled the Jesse Walton estate
Handled three real estate transactions for her sister, Mary Stouffer
Handled a real estate transaction for her sister, Elizabeth Grimes
Provided a divorce consultation for her sister, Elizabeth Grimes
In short, you involvement with Rose's family's legal matters has been extensive
representation of Rose in her prior divorce and custody matters, provides an ad
demonstrates a clear conflict of interest.
A copy of that letter is incorporated herein by reference and
11. Attorney McKnight did not respond to the letter and he did
Instead, on the afternoon of August 11, 2006, the last day to file his
and the plaintiff file a
III, Esquire, entered
was filed with the court.
McKnight's appearance
counsel that Attorney
would not waive that
It's counsel advising him
immediately so the
contacts with the
including the
Walton)
particularly with your
we in this case and
hereto as Exhibit "A".
withdraw from the case.
he filed a brief on
behalf of the defendant.
12. Plaintiff believes and therefor avers that Attorney MI
her in her prior divorce and custody matters, let alone that
all of the members of her immediate family, constitute a su
conflict of interest such that he should be disqualified from
in this case.
13. Rule 1.9(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct prov
who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not th
person in the same or a substantially related matter in which
materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless
after a full disclosure of the circumstances....
14. In a similar case as the one at issue,
C. 4th 417 (1996), the Bucks County Court of Common
motion to disqualify the defendant's counsel stated the
In the case at bar, the divorce involves dissolution of the marriage,
prenuptial agreement, division of marital property, child support, ci
spousal support or alimony. It therefore touches virtually every asl
since the date of the marriage in 1985. While scope may be narro
and trespass matters, we can see no way in which it can be narrov
and equitable distribution litigation.
15. Likewise, in
A.2d 277 (1992), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that:
The public's trust in the legal profession undoubtedly would be unde
representation of
representation of
and prejudicial
tinq the defendant
as follows: A lawyer
after represent another
person's interests are
former client consents
35 Pa. D. &
ruling on the plaintiffs
iforceability of a
xty, and possibly
;t of plaintiffs life
r drawn in assumpsit
drawn in divorce
529 Pa. 241, 602
if this Court
does not correct the Superior Court's failure to recognize the comm n law foundation for
the principle that an attorney's representation of a subsequent client whose interests are
materially adverse to a former client in a matter substantially related to matters in which
he represented the former client constitutes an impermissible confli of interest
actionable at law. The Superior Court's decision is diametrically opposed to law
established by the courts of this Commonwealth and throughout the nited States which
have imposed civil liability on attorneys for breaches of their fiducia duties by engaging
in conflicts of interest, notwithstanding the existence of
attorneys also could be disciplined.
16. Furthermore, having been notified of the conflict and
waive the conflict, Attorney McKnight, as an officer of the C
immediately notify his client and withdraw from the case so
substitute counsel to handle these exceptions.
17. Instead plaintiff will now be required in incur
attorney fees in this matter, for which the plaintiff believes
18. On August 14, 2006, in an effort to resolve this
notified Attorney McKnight that this petition would be filed on
he would notify me that he would immediately withdraw from 1
letter is incorporated herein by reference and attached hereto
19. Again, Attorney McKnight provided no response to the
the case.
rules under which the
refusal of the plaintiff to
had a duty to
defendant could obtain
additional costs and
should be reimbursed.
attorney for plaintiff
gust 15, 2006, unless
case. A copy of said
Exhibit "B°.
to withdraw from
WHEREFORE, petitioner requests your Honorable Court to er
respondent to show cause why respondent's counsel, Marcus
and any other member of the law firm of Irwin & McKnight, she
from representing respondent and order respondent and 1 or I•
plaintiff her reasonable attorney fees in preparing and prosect
petitioner requests that the Court's order suspend the running
plaintiff has to file a responsive brief
of
August 15, 2006 v ?? l? v
HAROLD S. IRWIN,
Attorney for Petitio
64 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6090
Supreme Court ID h
:r a rule upon the
k. McKnight, III, Esquire,
lId not be disqualified
> counsel to reimburse
ng this motion. Further,
f the time within which
matter.
29920
VERIFICATION
The facts stated in this petition are known to petitioner's couns
Harold S. Irwin, 111,
who certifies that he is authorized to execute this verification on behalf of petitioner.
The foregoing petition is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief. I understand that false statements made herein are su iect to the penalties of
18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4094, relating to unsworn falsification to
August 15, 2006
HAROLD S. IRWIN,
Attorney for Petitio
EXHIBIT "A"
HAROLD S. IRWIN, I I I
MARK F. BAYLEY
RHONDA S. IRWIN
JACQUELINE G. EGE
SARAH A. HARDESTY
LEGAL ASSISTANTS
August 1, 2006
MARCUS A MCKNIGHT III ESQ
IRWIN & MCKNIGHT
60 W POMFRET ST
CARLISLE PA 17013
RE: Adams v. Adams
Support Appeal
Dear Mike:
www. irwinla wofice. com
e-mail: irwinlaw@earthlink.net
717-243-6090
PHONE
717-243-9200
FACSIMILE
I am now back from vacation and have received your entry of appea ance in this case.
Unfortunately, it is apparent that you have a conflict of interest in thi case which my client,
Rose Adams, is unwilling to waive. Specifically, you have been invo ved in at least the following
legal matters representing Rose, her parents or her sisters:
Represented Rose in her previous divorce from Curtis Grant
Represented Rose in her previous custody case with Curtis rant (last in 8/03)
Represented her father (Jesse Walton) in a workers compen ation case
Wrote estate planning documents and POA's for her parents Jesse and Rosella Walton)
Handled the Jesse Walton estate
Handled three real estate transactions for her sister, Mary St uffer
Handled a real estate transaction for her sister, Elizabeth Gri as
Provided a divorce consultation for her sister Elizabeth Grim
In short, you involvement with Rose's family's legal matters has beer} extensive and, particularly
with your representation of Rose in her prior divorce and custody matters, provides an
advantage in this case and demonstrates a clear conflict of interest.
Rose brought this to my attention as soon as she learned of your ent ry of appearance and
communicated her firm position that she will not waive the conflict. I the interests of moving
this case along and recognizing that a brief must be filed shortly, I wo uld appreciate your
notifying Mark Adams of this situation immediately so that he may ret ain other counsel.
Cc Fr1w I IRW/N & EA YLEY
Very truly yours,
AT7VAWers4r uw
"SDUTNP/rrSTREWT
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA f7VfS
EXHIBIT "B"
HAROLD S. IRWIN, I I I
MARK F. BAYLEY
RHONDA S. IRWIN
JACQUELINE G. EGE
SARAH A. HARDESTY
LEGAL ASSISTANTS
To:
Company:
Phone:
Fax:
From:
Phone:
Fax:
IRW/N & BAYLEY
ATrORNIFY, -LA
84 SO(/TN P/7T STREET
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA f 70M
www. irwinl a woffice. com
e-mail., invinlaw@earthlink.not
Marcus McKnight
IRWIN & MCKNIGHT
717-249-2353
717-249-6354
Hal Irwin
717-243-6090
717-243-9200
Date: August 14, 2006
Pages including this
cover page: 9
Comments: RE: Adams v. Adams
I will be filing this petition tomorrow unless you indicate that you will
NOTE: If you did not receive all of the pages or if you have any problem with the
number listed on this letterhead. THANK YOUI
717-243-6090
PHONE
717-243-9200
FACSIMILE
withdraw from the case.
fax, please call us at the
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This fax contains confidential Information which may al be legally pr privileged. It is
intended only for the use of the addressee named above. H you are not the Intended recipient, or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering It to the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this fax
or the taking of any action on the reliance on the contents of this telecopled Information may be strictly prohibited. If you
receive this fax in error, please notify us Immediately by telephone and return the enti fax to the above address via the
US Postal Service. THANK YOUI
o fl
ca
rx? -n
'l{?I GC'3 n.?T
UJ r::. Ul TJ
r'
t =c
...+ 40
M
L
N
Rose A. Adams, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
V.
PACSES NO. 425106947
Mark K. Adams, DOCKET NO. 1067 SUPPORT 2004
Defendant
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 17`h day of August, 2006, upon consideration of the Petition of
Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire, Attorney for the Plaintiff, a Rule is hereby issued upon the
Defendant to show cause why Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire or any member of the
Law Firm of Irwin and McKnight should not be disqualified from representing the
Defendant in this case.
1. The defendant will file an answer to this petition on or before
August 28, 2006;
2. A copy of said answer will be filed with this Court;
3. A conference with counsel in this matter shall be held on Wednesday,
August 30, 2006 at 8:15 a.m. in chambers at which time the necessity for further hearing
shall be determined. The filing date for the Plaintiff's reply brief will be reset at the in
chambers conference.
Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
bas
By the Court,
L
ROSE A. ADAMS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
MARK K. ADAMS, PACSES NO. 425106947
Defendant. DOCKET #1067 SUPPORT 2004
NO. 2004-6454
ANSWER TO PETITION
TO SHOW CAUSE
AND NOW, this 23rd day of August 2006, comes the Respondent, Mark K. Adams, and
makes the following Answer to the Petition for Rule to Show Cause filed by the Petitioner, Rose
A. Adams.
1.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph one (1) of the Petition are admitted.
2.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph two (2) of the Petition are admitted.
3.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph three (3) of the Petition are admitted.
4.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph four (4) of the Petition are admitted.
5.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph five (5) of the Petition are admitted.
6.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph six (6) of the Petition are admitted.
7.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph seven (7) of the Petition are admitted.
8.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph eight (8) of the Petition are admitted.
9.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph nine (9) of the Petition are admitted.
10.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph ten (10) of the Petition are admitted.
it.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph eleven (11) of the Petition are admitted.
12.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph twelve (12) of the Petition are specifically
denied. It is certainly true that Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esq., had represented Petitioner's
family over a number of years involving different matters, and that he represented the Petitioner
in a custody matter involving a different father. There is, however, no conflict of interest. The
last involvement with the Petitioner was in August of 2003 according to her counsel. See
Exhibit "A" of the Petitioner's Petition. The Petitioner married her current husband, Mark K.
Adams, on November 26, 2003. The Respondent's attorney, Marcus A. McKnight, III,
therefore, can have no special knowledge about any circumstances regarding Petitioner's present
marriage to the Respondent.
13.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph thirteen (13) of the Petition are specifically
denied. Rule 1.9(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits representation, "in the same
or a substantially related matter in which the person's interests are materially adverse to the
interests of the former client." The divorce action and spousal support with a new husband is
not the same or substantially related to anything for which Mr. McKnight previously represented
the Petitioner.
14.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph fourteen (14) of the Petition are specifically
denied. In the case of Lewis - Calabrette v. Calabrette, the legal counsel disqualified had
clearly been involved in issues related to the present divorce action. He had prepared wills for
the husband and wife and a prenuptial agreement involving the parties. See Lewis - Calabrette
35 Pa. D&C 4th at pp 418. In this case, Mr. McKnight has had no involvement with the parties
or the Petitioner's family immediately prior to and after the marriage of Rose A. Adams and
Mark K. Adams in November of 2003.
15.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph fifteen (15) of the Petition are specifically
denied. The facts in Maritrans GP Inc. Y. Penner. Hamilton & Scheetz, 529 Pa. 241, 602
A.2d 1277 (1992) are also quite different from the facts of this case. In Maritrans the Supreme
Court bared legal counsel from representing competitors of a corporate client in labor relations in
New York after having represented the Marirans Corporation in labor law matters. In this case,
Mr. McKnight had no involvement with the Petitioner regarding her marriage with Mr. Adams.
16.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph sixteen (16) of the Petition are specifically
denied. On the contrary, Mr. McKnight promptly notified his client who requested that he
continue as counsel. The Respondent had contacted Mr. McKnight through the Cumberland
County Bar Association - Bar Referral. See Contact Card marked as Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and made a part of this Answer.
17.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph seventeen (17) of the Petition are specifically
denied. The Petitioner knew that she had not consulted with Mr. McKnight since the onset of the
marriage to Respondent who was in the United States Navy. The Petitioner spent most of the
brief marriage with the Respondent in New England. She is not entitled to legal fees for raising
this issue.
18.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph eighteen (18) of the Petition are specifically
denied. On the contrary, counsel for the Petitioner never called Mr. McKnight and the
Respondent's brief was due. The Respondent requested that Mr. McKnight file the brief in order
to proceed with the appeal while he was required to pay spousal support.
19.
The averments of fact set forth in paragraph nineteen (19) of the Petition are admitted in
part and denied in part. No response has been made until this Answer was filed.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent, Mark K. Adams, requests that this Petitioner's Petition
be dismissed with reasonable legal fees awarded to the Respondent.
Respectfully submitted,
IRWIN &
By:
Marcu A'%1 1ght, III, Es
Supre m urt I.D. No: 25476
60 Wes omfret Street
Carlisle, ennsylvania 17013
717-249-23
Attorney for the Respondent
Mark K. Adams
Date: August 23, 2006
EXHIBTT "A"
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
LAWYER'S REFERRAL SERVICE - CONTACT CARD
32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET
CARLISLE, PA 17013-3308
CCBA FAX 717-249-2863
Referal #: 12046
TO: MARCUS A MCKNIGHT, III
The following client has been referred to you:
Client Name: Mark Adams
Date Referred: Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Type Case: Divorce
?J CML I accepted the case
[ ] Consultation only
[ ] Client did not contact me
[ ] Client did not keep appointment
[ j Client phone call only
[ ] CRIMINAL [ ] I accepted the case
[ j Client did not contact me
[ ] Client did not keep appointment
[ ] Client phone call only
FEE DUE TO THE CCBA (if applicable) $10.00
REMEMBER: $25.00 For the first 1/2 hour
Return form if referral does not show
Return $10 if refi
( ) 249-6354
VERIFICATION
The foregoing document is based upon information which has been gathered by
counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this
document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I
understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section
4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities.
MARK K ADAMS
Date: 23kbo6
ROSE A. ADAMS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vi. DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
MARK K. ADAMS, PACSES NO. 425106947
Defendant. DOCKET #1067 SUPPORT 2004
NO. 2004-6454
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of attached Answer was
served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States
mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and
addressed as follows:
Harold S. Irwin, III, Esq.
Irwin & Bayley
64 South Pitt Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
IRWIN &
By: Marcus6A. McKn[ghy? III, Esquire
60 West Pomfret S et
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2353
Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476
Date: August 25, 2006
6
? c.at
Ntt1
Rose A. Adams, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
V.
PACSES NO. 425106947
Mark K. Adams, DOCKET NO. 1067 SUPPORT 2004
Defendant NO. 20046454
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2006, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's
Motion for Disqualification of Defendant's Counsel, after consultation with the Attorneys,
and Attorney McKnight's representation that he will withdraw from the case, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Attorney McKnight is deemed WITHDRAWN
from this case and the Defendant is directed to obtain new counsel; IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Plaintiff shall file a brief in response to the
Defendant's current brief in support of his exceptions to the Support Master's Order on
or before September 15, 2006. If Defendant's new counsel wishes to respond to the
Plaintiff's brief, the response brief shall be filed by the Defendant on or before
September 30, 2006.
By the Court,
M. L. Ebert, Jr., J.
Harold S. Irwin, III, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiff
Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire
Mark K. Adams
Defendant
Domestic Relations Office
bas
I £ : I I WV 5- dls 9002
?tlt/IOPJ I ':(i d ]HI J0
ROSE A. ADAMS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. DOMESTIC RELATIONS SECTION
PACSES NO. 425106947
MARK K ADAMS, DOCKET NO. 1067 SUPPORT 2004
Defendant NO. 2004-6454
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE
To the Prothonotary:
Please withdraw my appearance from this case on behalf of the Defendant, Mark K.
Adams.
Respectfully submitted,
IRWIN & McKNIGHT
By:
Marcus A. Mc Il
60 West Porn t Street
Carlisle, P lvania I
717-249-2353
Date: AUGUST 30 , 2006
N
73 S -r
n t
ftl
o?
C3
ri- 1
N
_.} ctti
.s-
M A fk Adams
vs
?O?s C
Oq - o5 q
Case No.
Statement of Intention to Proceed
To the Court:
intends to proceed with the above captioned matter.
d5?- Pnnt Name Adims Sign Name -IIC-
Date: Attorney for
Explanatory Comment
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of
inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit
comment.
1. Rule of civil Procedure
New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the
scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously
governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is
tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting
local rules.
This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d
1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required
before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901."
Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The
general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable.
11 Inactive Cases
The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the
court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties.
If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of
course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she
will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue.
a. Where the action has been terminated
If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed
under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination
of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file
the notice of intention to proceed.
The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of
the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and
reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff
must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or
legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of
termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2).
B. Where the action has not been terminated
An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may
have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a
common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.
t.
BLED--O. FICE
OF THE PROT ONOTARY
2009 SEP 10 Pk°i I : 28
PENN5YL"MMA
David (D. Bueff
Prothonotary
KirkS. Sohonage, ESQ,
Soficitor
7750
Renee X Simpson
1"` Deputy Prothonotary
Irene E. Morrow
2nd Deputy Prothonotary
Office of the Prothonotary
Cumberland County, Tennsy(vania
0Al • L 1/0 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES
AND NOW THIS 30T' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012, AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE -THE ABOVE
CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA
R.C.P. 230.2.
BY THE COURT,
DAVID D. BUELL
PROTHONOTARY
One Courthouse Square • Suite 100 • Carlisle, P,4 17013 0 (717 240-6195 0 Tax (717 240-6573