Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-4964PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, Plaintiff JOHN KAKAVOULAS, Defendant 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by 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 F1ND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, Plaintiff JOHN KAKAVOULAS, Defendant 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA · NO. o t - : CIVIL ACTION - LAW COMPLAINT FOR ANNULMENT 1. The Plaintiff is Panagiota Asimakakis, an adult individual currently residing at 31 Partridge Circle, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. The Defendant is John Kakavoulas, an adult individual currently residing at 2266 South Queen Street, York, Pennsylvania 17403. 3. The parties were married on or around June 21,2001, in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. The marriage between Panagiota Asimakakis and John Kakavoulas was procured by Defendant John Kakavoulas by fraud. 5. The fraud perpetrated by Defendant against Plaintiff includes, but is not limited to: A. Misrepresentations by Defendant regarding Plaintiff's marital responsibilities, which were agreed to by the parties before the marriage, but which were unilaterally changed by Defendant shortly after the marriage took place; B. Misrepresentations by Defendant causing the Plaintiff to enter into the marriage contract with the belief that Plaintiff and Defendant would later be married in the Greek Orthodox Church, while Defendant had no intent to do so; C. Misrepresentations by Defendant convincing the Plaintiff that Defendant loved her and cared for her, while Defendant secretly sought to secure citizenship in the United States and not the love and care of Plainti~ and other D. Misrepresentations which may be revealed through Discovery in this matter. 6. The aforesaid misrepresentations were false statements material to the marriage contract, were made falsely or recklessly by Defendant with the intent that Plaintiff rely on them, and were justifiably relied upon by Plaintiff to her injury. 7. But for the fraud procured by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, Plaintiff Panagiota Asimakakis would not have entered into marriage with the Defendant. 8. PlaintiffPanagiota Asimakakis has suffered, and continues to suffer, injuries as the result of this fraud. Said injuries include embarrassment, emotional and mental distress, loss of sleep, and profound disillusionment. 9. Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3305(a)(5), the marriage between Panagiota Asimakakis and John Kakavoulas is subject to annulment for fraud as averred in the preceding paragraphs. 10. There has been no confirmation by cohabitation or other acts by Plaintiff subsequent to the revelation of Defendant John Kakavoulas' fraud. 11. There has been no consummation of the marriage between Panagiota Asimakakis and John Kakavoulas. WHEREFORE, PlaintiffPanagiota Asimakakis respectfully requests that the alleged marriage between PlaintiffPanagiota Asimakakis and Defendant John Kakavoulas be deemed null and void, and that this Honorable Court enter a Decree of Annulment. Dated: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: William C. Kollas, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 06341 James W. Kollas, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 81959 KOLLAS AND KENNEDY 1104 Fernwood Avenue Suite 104 CampHill, PA 17011 (717) 731-1600 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, Plaintiff Vo JOHN KAKAVOULAS, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. _ . Civil : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW .' I, PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, verify that the statements made in the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR ANNULMENT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Panag{o~ Asimakakis DATE: ~'~ ~-~{- O t PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, Plaintiff JOHN KAKAVOULAS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ·NO. 01-4964 Civil Term ~ · CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR ANNULMENT MADE SUBSEQUENT TO PROCEEDINGS HELD BEFORE THE DIVORCE MASTER I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter was initiated via a Complaint for Annulment filed by the Plaintiff, Panagiota Asimakakis, on August 24, 2001. The complaint was served on the Defendant, John Kakavoulas, by the SheriffofYork County, on September 7, 2001. Defendant failed to respond to the complaint. On October 15, 2001, Plaintiff filed her motion for appointment ora master. On October 17, 2001, by an Order signed by President Judge Hoffer, E. Robert Elicker, II, was appointed Divorce Master in this matter. Notice for a hearing before the Divorce Master was sent to the parties on October 30, 2001. Said hearing was scheduled for December 13, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff attended said hearing, while Defendant did not. At the terafination of the testimony presented by Plaintiff, it was suggested that Plaintiff supplement the record for this case through submission of a memorandum. The present memorandum is entered to supplement the record. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Panagiota Asimakakis, also known as Penny, met the Defendant in or around January, 2001. Penny was (and remains) a citizen of the United States, having been born in this country on July 12, 1976. She maintains a residence at 31 Partridge Circle, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The Defendant is a citizen of Greece, staying with members of his family while in the United States. Defendant's last known address was 2266 South Queen Street, York, Pennsylvania. Shortly after meeting Penny, Defendant, wanting to remain in this country, approached Penny with overtures of love and marriage. Penny was (and remains) a college student, and did not believe that she could marry the Defendant on such short notice; she had plans for herself, and wanted to see them reach fruition. However, because his visa to the United States was set to expire in July of 2001, the Defendant could not afford delay. Despite Penny's protestations, Defendant continued to pressure Penny for marriage, finally convincing her to appear before Judge Oler in the Cumberland County Courthouse. On June 21, 2001, they exchanged vows, but little else. The parties had agreed to terms proffered by the Defendant. Namely, that they would get married before a judge, but reserve what was explained by Defendant to Penny as true marriage for a proper Greek Orthodox ceremony. They would not live together before such a ceremony, nor would they engage in sexual relations. Moreover, Defendant convinced Penny that the courthouse ceremony would mean nothing. It would only allow him to remain in this country, apply for a social security card, and seek a driver's license, which would enable him to drive from York to Carlisle instead of Penny continually driving from Carlisle to York. Furthermore, Defendant implored his love and affection for Penny. Constrained and convinced by Defendant's arguments, Penny succumbed to participate in the courthouse proceedings. After the courthouse proceeding, Defendant's attitude toward Penny changed. Defendant's views of the courthouse proceeding also changed. Defendant began to make additional demands upon Penny. Defendant demanded that Penny move in with him and proceed with the Greek Orthodox marriage as soon as possible. He wanted Penny to change her plans to visit Greece and remain in the United States with him. He wanted her to neglect her collegiate responsibilities and concentrate on his needs. Defendant's true objective, to remain in the United States, became his paramount concern, overriding all he had previously avowed and averred. Seeing these changes in Defendant and realizing her mistake, Penny refused to condone Defendant's fraud and filed her Complaint for Annulment on August 24, 2001. Even though the annulment was not contested by the Defendant, and despite her best efforts, Penny was unable to communicate these facts concisely before the Divorce Master, but does so here at the Divorce Master's magnanimous suggestion. III. STATEMENT OF LAW The Complaint for Annulment was filed pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3305(a)(5). Said section states: §3305. Grounds for annulment of voidable marriages (a) General Rule.-- The marriage ora person shall be deemed voidable and subject to annulment in the following cases: (5) Where one party was induced to enter into marriage due to fraud, duress, coercion or force attributable to the other party and there has been no subsequent voluntary cohabitation after knowledge of the fraud or release from the effects of fraud, duress, coercion or force. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3305(a)(5). IV. ISSUE PRESENTED Whether Plaintiff can prevail under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3305(a)(5) and receive annulment of her marriage to Defendant? Suggested Answer: In the affirmative. V. ARGUMENT Penny met John Kakavoulas some time in January of 2001. By early June, 2001, they were married in the Cumberland County Courthouse before the Honorable Judge Oler. However, Penny and John never lived together. They never engaged in sexual relations. They never shared financial accounts. By mid-August, 2001, Penny filed a Complaint for Annulment, which the Defendant did not contest. What happened to make this turn of events come into being is not readily apparent. Further explanation is needed. And, although Penny attempted to support her Complaint for Annulment in her testimony to the Divorce Master at the December 13, 2001, hearing, her attempt was impeded by her inability to communicate the events in a concise, cogent fashion. Herein, Penny offers the following in furtherance of her position. After meeting each other in January of 2001, the relationship between Penny and the Defendant proceeded at a whirlwind pace. Indeed, the Defendant knew that his days in the United States were numbered, and that he would have to act fast in order to avoid being deported at, er his visa expired in July of 2001. Seeing an opportunity to cure his dilemma, the Defendant rapidly convinced Penny that he loved and cared for her. Penny quickly became enamored with the Defendant, who speedily approached Penny with the subject of marriage. Yet, Penny had other desires than simply getting married. She wanted to earn an advanced degree after finishing her college education. So, she would not commit to marriage in the Greek Orthodox Church for the two years she had remaining before completing her college program. So, the Defendant suggested that Penny marry him in a civil ceremony before a Judge. Penny was reluctant to accept this proceeding, and the Defendant contrived to convince her that such a proceeding would be okay. The Defendant convinced Penny that the civil proceeding would not be a real marriage. It would mean nothing. They would not live together, nor would they engage in sexual relations. Furthermore, the civil ceremony would allow him to get a driver's license so that he could travel to Carlisle to visit Penny instead of Penny always having to drive to York. Furthermore, it would allow him to apply for a social security card, enabling him to open his own bank account. And, after Penny finished college, they would get married for real in the Greek Orthodox Church, and would have a good life together. Constrained and convinced by Defendant's arguments, Penny succumbed to participate in the courthouse proceedings. Immediately thereafter, the Defendant began to exhibit troubling behavior towards Penny. He focused on his need to become a citizen of this country, and pressured Penny to move in with him and to proceed with the Greek Orthodox wedding as soon as possible. He used derogatory language in describing her desire to finish college, and unilaterally told her how their marriage would function. He was the boss and she was to service his needs. And, his chief needs, getting his social security card and citizenship papers, became his paramount concern. To that end, the Defendant arranged to see an attorney in York on July 12, 2001, to discuss immigration issues. Ignoring Penny's wishes to discuss why the Defendant was treating her poorly, the Defendant explored with the attorney what else needed to be done to keep him in the United States. This meeting was an epiphany for Penny, who then saw what the Defendant had done. He tricked her. He lied to her. He did not love Penny at all; he was only concerned with his own well-being He had used her as a stepping stone to stay in this country. He used her naivete to perpetrate a fraud. After realizing the Defendant's fraud, Penny diligently sought legal representation to annul her marriage. Indeed, by mid-August, 2001, Penny filed a Complaint For Annulment, under 23 Pa.C.S.A §3305(a)(5). Said section states: §3305. Grounds for annulment of voidable marriages (a) General Rule.-- The man/age of a person shall be deemed voidable and subject to annulment in the following cases: (5) Where one party was induced to enter into man/age due to fraud, duress, coercion or force attributable to the other party and there has been no subsequent voluntary cohabitation after knowledge of the fraud or release from the effects of fraud, duress, coercion or force. 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3305(a)(5). Because Penny was induced to marry the Defendant by the Defendant's fraudulent misrepresentations, and because there has been no voluntary cohabitation between the parties since Penny discovered the Defendant's fraud, Penny is entitled to an annulment under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3305(a)(5). As stated above, Defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations to Penny in order to convince her to marry him in a civil ceremony. Fraud consists of anything calculated to deceive. Sewak v. Lockhart, 699 A.2d 755, 759 (1997), Pittsburgh Live, Inc. v. Servov, 419 Pa. Super. 423,428, 615 A.2d 438, 441 (1992). Actual fraud is characterized by: 1) a representation; 2) which is material to the transaction at hand; 3) made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; 4) with the intent of misleading another into relying on it; 5)justifiable reliance on the representation; and 6) resulting injury. Kit v. Mitchell, 2001 WL 290413, 4 (Pa. Super)(2001), Sewak, supra. The Defendant told Penny that he wanted to marry her because he loved and cared for her, despite the fact that he only desired to stay in this country and look after his own well-being and not because he cared for Penny. Through these material representations the Defendant mislead Penny, who justifiably relied on these representations, into marrying him. As a result, Penny has been injured financially, mentally, and emotionally. Thus, this marriage was perpetrated through the Defendant's fraud, and must be annulled. Additionally, an annulment would stop the Defendant from perpetrating a fraud on the hnmigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Failure to annul the marriage will enable the Defendant to remain in the United States, allowing the Defendant's fraud to persist. Now that Penny has realized that the Defendant's reason for marrying her was for his citizenship, she wants no part in the Defendant's fraud against both the INS and Penny herself Simply put, annulling this marriage will end the Defendant's fraud. VI. CONCLUSION This marriage must be annulled. It is the product of the Defendant's fraud. After discovering the fraud, Panagiota Asimakakis, the Plaintiff in this matter, acted diligently to bring this matter to issue, and has otherwise met the requirements of 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3305(a)(5) and common law fraud, such that she is entitled to an annulment. Additionally, annulling the marriage will end the Defendant's fraud against the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Allowing the marriage to continue would only serve to perpetuate Defendant's fraud, while annulment cures the ills he has wrought. Furthermore, if the Divorce Master should require more testimony, Penny agrees to appear before the Divorce Master as may be needed. If the Divorce Master should require an affidavit from Penny in support of this memorandum or in another similar capacity, Penny agrees to enter the same. Dated: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: James W. Kollas, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 81959 KOLLAS AND KENNEDY 1104 Fernwood Avenue Suite 104 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-1600 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, Plaintiff Vs. JOHN KAKAVOULAS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01 - 4964 CIVIL IN ANNULMENT TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Proceedings held before E. Robert Elicker, II, Divorce Master 9 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania proceedings held on December 13, 2001, commencing at 9:15 a.m. APPEARANCES: James W. Kollas Attorney for Plaintiff John Kakavoulas (Did not appear) Defendant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, : Plaintiff : : Vs. : : JOHN KAKAVOULAS, : Defendant : 13, 2001. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01 - 4964 CIVIL IN DIVORCE THE MASTER: Today is Thursday, December, This is the date set for an annulment hearing in the above captioned proceedings. The complaint in annulment was filed on August 24, 2001. The complaint was served on the Defendant by the Sheriff of York County; the return showing the complaint was served at 2266 South Queen Street, York, Pennsylvania 17403 on September 7, 2001. The Defendant has not responded to the pleadings. Consequently we are proceeding today with the appearance of the Plaintiff and her counsel, James W. Kollas. The time is 9:15 a.m. and the Defendant has not appeared nor has an attorney appeared on his behalf. The hearing was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. A notice was sent to the parties and counsel for wife setting the date of hearing as December 13, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. The notice was sent by regular mail. We did not have any returned mail showing that the sending of the notice was not received or that the Defendant did not have a proper address. Mr. Kollas, you indicated in an off the record discussion that you did hear from an attorney on behalf of the Defendant. Would you relate on the record 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 just briefly the fact as to whether or not you heard from an attorney and if you gathered from that conversation that the attorney knew that there was a hearing scheduled and that likewise the Defendant was aware of that notice? MR. KOLLAS: On December 12, yesterday, our office received a phone call from an attorney in York. The phone call was directed to William C. Kollas, who took the phone call. After the phone call was over, William C. Kollas brought me into his office, asked me if there was going to be a hearing today in Carlisle on Panagiota Asimakakis' complaint for annulment. I said that there was going to be a hearing and that I was going to attend. Mr. Kollas then told me that he received a phone call from an attorney in York who had been contacted by the Defendant and that the Defendant did not intend to attend this hearing. THE MASTER: All right. Mr. Kollas has indicated that the code section that we are proceeding under today is Section 3305(a) (5) which involves an allegation of fraud, duress, coercion, or force; and the allegation is that the facts will support a finding that the marriage should be declared voidable under that section of grounds for annulment. Whereupon, PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, having been duly worn, testified as follows: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. KOLLAS: Q record? A Q A Q Pennsylvania? A DIRECT EXAMINATION Penny, could you state your name for the My name is Panagiota Asimakakis. Do you go by any nicknames? Penny, short one. Penny, how long have you lived in Actually I was born here but that is when I was too young so I live here from '95 -- I come back from Greece in '95 and lived here since then. dating. 20017 BY MR. KOLLAS: Q address? A Carlisle, PA Q Q Do you know the Defendant in this matter? A I actually met him last January. We started I didn't know anything about him before that. THE MASTER: You met him in January 2000 or THE WITNESS: 2001. (A discussion was held off the record.) Penny, could you give us your current My current address is 31 Partridge Circle, 17013. And how old are you? 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I am 25 years old right now? Q The Defendant in this matter, John Kakavoulas, do you know where he currently resides? A Right now, I think, he is supposed to be at 2266 South Queen Street, York. I don't know if he is there. Q A 2001. Q He is supposed to be there. When were you married? I think it was June -- around June 21st, And where was that. It was Carlisle, here at the Court. Was it before a judge? Yes. Do you remember what judge? It was Oler -- Judge Oler. Before you married the Defendant, did you reach any agreement with the Defendant as far as this marriage was concerned? A Yeah, I specified to him and I just wanted him to make sure that he knew that this marriage didn't mean an actual marriage to me. An actual marriage to me means a marriage in an Orthodox church because I am an Orthodox. This marriage was intended by my side, as I specified to him, because he wasn't an American citizen. He didn't have a driver's license so he lived in York and 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 had to be making the driving back and forth, which is 45 minutes whenever we were going out. At that time I was a full-time student and full-time working here in Carlisle so it was really hard for me going back and forth 45 minutes and 45 minutes coming back so that's why we rushed the marriage thing so he could get his social security and then his driver's license. Q Now after the marriage took place, did the Defendant indicate any changes? A Yes, many changes; that's why I don't like to continue this marriage. Like -- as we were talking after our regular marriage then, like, things changed. It was really -- I didn't like the way he was talking because he was talking really hard to me and, like, he wanted the things the he wanted them. That's it. He would not sit there and listen to me and, like, we were in the process of fixing his papers then and I understood that he was more concerned about fixing the papers and becoming a legal citizen here rather than being married to me. THE MASTER: What did he say that would make you believe that? THE WITNESS: Like we were at the attorney's office for a consultation to start the paper process and because we had some arguments two days before I was asking the attorney how much time was it going to take for the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 process because if it was, like, after -- before -- because I didn't want it to take so much -- I wanted to finish the papers there and he was asking the attorney, when am I going to get my social security. He didn't, like, realize that something was going on and I wanted the marriage to stop there. He was just checking to see when his social security was going to be ready. THE MASTER: Well, you were already married at that time? THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. KOLLAS: Q Did he -- was there a change in household duties, that you were supposed to do something before the marriage was entered into and then he changed the terms of the marriage contract at that point? A Like -- as we were discussing, I wanted him to sit down and discuss how things were going to be in the regular marriage -- we are going to do this; we are going to go to Greece, we are going to get married there, do this; do that, but, like, he wanted everything the way he wanted them. He changed everything on me. It was -- he was talking really hard on me. I didn't like the way he was talking. That's what I told him. I thought the relationship was going to be something more happy because -- it is better for me to stay like that, as I told him, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 rather than being married to him. Q A He was really hard. Did you ever live with the Defendant? No; not at all. I was going to one day, he was forcing me to live there, but no. Q Did you ever have sexual relations with him? A No; nothing. Just dating that's all, going out. That's it. Q Do you know the Defendant's age? A I think right now he is supposed to be 32. Q Do you know whether the Defendant intends to stay in this country? A I guess for work wise reasons because I know his brother owns a restaurant in York so -- I know he works there full-time as a cook and I know the circumstances of working here is a hundred times better than in Greece. Q current? A Do you know whether his Visa is still I think his Visa has expired since July? (A discussion was held off the record.) THE MASTER: on June 21, 20017 THE WITNESS: THE MASTER: married? THE WITNESS: You were married by Judge 01er Yes. When did you decide to get You mean the Orthodox church 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE MASTER: No. When did you decide to get married by Judge Oler? THE WITNESS: It was, like, one week before that. BY THE MASTER: Q Now, when you made that decision to get married one week before, what did you talk about as far as any expectations you had with him? A Actually we were planning on doing that in the Court September. I was planning on going to Greece for the summer and coming back and doing it but because it was getting so bad on me going back and forth -- I was getting tired -- he wanted, like, things to rush up so he could get his social security and his driver's license; that's why we rushed things. Q A Q A Q A Q A That's the only reason. When were you going to go back to Greece? July; just for the summer. And that never happened? Yeah, I went. You went? Yes. July 20017 Yes. Q Did he go? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wedding? A No. He did not go with you? No. Did you expect him to go with you? No. So when were you going to have this Orthodox A In two years. Q Two years. So that he didn't have any obligation to have an Orthodox wedding, as far as your agreement, until two years after you were married here? A He didn't like the two years. He wanted it before that but I explained to him my reasons, that I was student and I wanted to finish. Q So -- A Like there was no way he could get his driver's license or his social security because without social security everything was starting, like, I don't know, he couldn't go to the bank or he couldn't get his driver's license so the only means of getting this was the marriage. There was nothing else. That was one reason that pushed me more. Q Did he discuss that with you before you got married, that that's why he wanted to get married here, to get the social security and the driver's license? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A No. At the beginning, no. Everything was -- yeah, that was the main reason but at the beginning everything was -- Q Did he tell you that before you got married with Judge Oler, that the reason that he wanted to get married -- A No, no, no. At the beginning everything was fine. Like, we were planning on having a good life together, like, being a married couple. After the marriage, things changed, like, as I told you, at the attorney he was asking questions about his social security. He wasn't, like, we have a problem here and I want things to end. Q A Q When did you plan to live together? After the marriage -- the Orthodox marriage. What did you consider your relationship to be after the Judge Oler's ceremony? A Actually I just considered him a friend, I told him. Q either? You didn't consider yourself to be married A No. I told him from the first moment. May be I should have thought more of it but since that was the only means of getting, like, started, going somewhere, getting social security or doing something -- that was my 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 actual fault, I think, I should have knew more about what marriage means and, you know, it just is not for the social security because if I would have knew, I would not have gone through that situation now. Q Well, you didn't consider yourself to be married anyway until you had an Orthodox wedding? A Exactly. THE MASTER: Let me take a recess here. (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) AFTER RECESS THE MASTER: The Master had a short discussion with counsel off the record. The Master has asked counsel to prepare a memo based on the evidence that has been presented to date. The Master will keep the record open in the event that Mr. Kollas wishes to make any further additions to the record and then when the Master has had a chance to read the memo and know from Mr. Kollas whether he wants to close the record or keep the record open for further testimony, after that, the Master will make a finding with respect to the allegations of fraud. Mr. Kollas indicated that he would provide a memo within twenty (20) days after he receives a copy of the transcript. (Whereupon, Court adjourned at 9:33 a.m.) 11 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the proceedings are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of same. Official Court Reporter The foregoing record of the proceedings on the hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed to be filed. Date E. Robert Elicker, II Divorce Master PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, Plaintiff vs. JOHN KAKAVOULAS, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01 - 4964 CIVIL Defendant : IN ANNULMENT ~ ~o NOTICE OF FILING MASTER'S REPORT ~ ~o The report of the Master has been filed thi~atgh?an~ copies have been sent with this notice to counsel of~re%mord~ and the parties. In accordance with P.R.C.P. 1920.55 within ten (10) days after the mailing of this notice and report exceptions may be filed to the report by any party. If no exceptions are filed within the ten (10) day period, the Court shall receive the report, and if approved, shall enter a final decree in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report. Date: 1/22/02 NOTE: E. Robert Elicker, II Master If exceptions are filed, file the original with the Prothonotary and a copy with the Master's office. At that time, the party filing the exceptions should notify the court reporter in the Master's office so arrangements can be made for a transcript. Upon completion of the transcript and receipt of payment, the entire file will be returned to the Prothonotary's office for transmittal to the Court at time of argument on the exceptions. If no exceptions are filed, counsel shall prepare an order of Court consistent with the recommendations and provide a proposed order of Court to the Master. Counsel shall also prepare and provide with the proposed order of Court a praecipe* to the Prothonotary directing the Prothonotary to submit the case to the Court for final disposition. The Master will then transfer the file with the proposed order of Court and praecipe to the Prothonotary's Office for docketing and transmittal by the Prothonotary to the Court. Form available in the Prothonotary's office and the Master's office. (NOT the praecipe to transmit the record form as set out in P.R.C.P. 1920.73(b) .) PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, Plaintiff : Vs. : NO. 01 - 4964 CIVIL : JOHN KAKAVOULAS, : Defendant : IN ANNULMENT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MASTER'S REPORT Proceedings held before E. Robert Elicker, II, Master 9 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania proceedings held on December 13, 2001, commencing at 9:15 a.m. APPEARANCES: James W. Kollas Attorney for Plaintiff John Kakavoulas (Did not appear) Defendant PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed an annulment complaint on August 24, 2001. The York County Sheriff served the complaint on the Defendant on September 7, 2001. The Defendant did not respond to the complaint. On October 15, 2001, Plaintiff filed her motion for appointment of a Master. On October 17, 2001, E. Robert Elicker, II, was appointed Master in this matter by an order signed by President Judge George E. Hoffer. Notice for a hearing before the Master was sent to the parties on October 30, 2001. The hearing was scheduled for December 13, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff and her counsel appeared for a hearing; the Defendant did not appear nor did counsel appear on his behalf. The notice to the Defendant was not returned to the Master's office and an attorney for the Defendant contacted Plaintiff's attorney prior to the hearing date. After the conclusion of the hearing, the Master requested that counsel for Plaintiff provide, within twenty (20) days of receipt of the hearing transcript, a memo outlining his client's position. This memo was received on December 26, 2001. FINDINGS OF FACT The Plaintiff, Panagiota ("Penny") Asimakais, a 25-year-old student, is a citizen of the United States who lives in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The Defendant, John Kakavoulas, is a citizen of Greece who resides with family members in York, Pennsylvania. The parties became acquainted in January of 2001 and were subsequently married by Judge Oler in the Carlisle Courthouse, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on June 21,2001. 4. The parties did not live together nor did they have sexual relations. The Plaintiff filed a complaint in annulment on August 24, 2001, approximately two (2) months after the marriage ceremony. The Defendant induced the Plaintiff into a marriage relationship for the purpose of obtaining benefits of United States citizenship without intending to fulfil the obligations and assume the responsibilities of the marital relationship. APPLICABLE LAW 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 3305. Grounds for annulment of voidable marriages. (a) General rule - - The marriage of a person shall be deemed voidable and subject to annulment in the following cases: (5) Where one party was induced into the marriage due to fraud, duress, coercion or force attributable to the other party and there has been no subsequent voluntary cohabitation after knowledge of the fraud or release from the effects of fraud, duress, coercion or force. CONCLUSION OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. 3305(a)(5), the Master finds that the marriage between the parties is voidable having been entered into by the Defendant with fraudulent intent and no voluntary cohabitation having occurred between the parties. The Master recommends, therefore, that the marriage be annulled and that an order of annulment be entered by the Court. Respectfully submitted, E. Robert Elicker, II Master LAW OFFICES OF KOLLAS AND K~NNEDY 1104 FERNWOOD AVENUE CAMP HILL, PENNSYLVANIA 17011 WILLIAM C. KOLLAS MARY KOLLAS KENNEDY JAMES W. KOLLAS February6,2002 TELEPHONE NO. (717) 731-1600 FAX NO. (717) 7fC3~ 3~.43 73 ] - 1460 E. Robert Elicker, II, Esquire Office of Divorce Master 9 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Asimakakis v. Kakavoulas Dear Divorce Master Elicker: Enclosed please find a proposed Decree of Annulment. Please note that "void" has been changed to "voidable." Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, KOLLAS AND KENNEDY James W. Kollas J'~VmJcar Enclosure PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS Plaintiff JOHN KAKAVOULAS Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : NO. 01 -4964 CIVIL 19 : : IN DIVORCE STATUS SHEET DATE: ACTIVITIES: OFFICE OF DIVORCE MASTER CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 9 North Hanover Street Carlisle. PA 17013 (717) 240-6535 E. Robert Elicker, II Divorce Master Traci Jo Colyer Office Manager/Reporter November 19, 2001 West Shore 697-0371 Ext. 6535 John Kakavou[as 2266 South Queen Street York, PA 17403 RE: Asimakakis vs. Kakavou[as No. 01 - 4964 Civil In Divorce Dear Mr. Kakavoulas: Enclosed is a notice for an annulment hearing, which is scheduled for Thursday, December 13, 2001. A previous notice went out in the mai[ on October 30, 2001, indicating a hearing date of December 13, 2002. This was an error and I am sending a new notice correcting that date. Very truly yours, Traci J. Co[yer Office Manager/court reporter To: Bob Elicker From: Shane Kope Re: Annulment Date: December 10, 2001 Question: Answer: What is an "Annulment"? An annulment is a legal procedure that dissolves a couple's marital status by establishing that a valid marriage never existed. State statute determines the grounds and procedures for invalidating a marriage. Couples can file for an annulment in the state in which either the husband or wife resides, in the state in which the marriage occurred, or when both the husband and wife appear before the court in an entirely unrelated state. Question: Answer: When Might an Annulment be Granted? Each state's individual annulment laws determine whether the following common grounds for an annulment are recognized: · Fraud (i.e., a spouse may have lied about his or her ability to have children) · Concealment (i.e., a spouse may have concealed his or her addiction to drugs or alcohol) · Failure to consummate the marriage · Bigamy · Incest · No age of consent · Marriage under duress Pennsylvania's Law is as follows: §3304. Grounds for annulment of void marriages. (a) General rule.--Where there has been no confirmation by cohabitation following the removal of an impediment, the supposed or alleged marriage of a person shall be deemed void in the following cases: 1.Where either party at the time of such marriage had an existing spouse and the former marriage had not been. annulled nor. had there been a divorce except where that party had obtained a decree of presumed death of the former spouse. 2.Where the parties to such marriage are related wiflfin the degrees of consanguinity prohibited by section 1304(e) (relating to restrictions on issuance of license). 3.Where either party to such marriage was incapable of consenting by reason of insanity or serious mental disorder or otherwise lacked capacity to consent or did not intend to consent to the marriage. 4.Where either party to a purported common-law marriage was under 18 years of age. (b) Procedures.--tn all cases of mamages which are void, the marriage may be annulled as set forth in section 3303 (relating to annulment of void and voidable marriages) or its invalidity may be declared in any collateral proceeding. §3305. Grounds for annulment of voidable marriages. (a) General rule.-The marriage of a person shall be deemed voidable and subject to annulment in the following, cases: 1.Where either party to the marriage was under 16 years of age. unless the marriage was expressly authorized by the court. 2.Where either party was 16 or 17 years of age and lacked the consent of parent or guardian or express authorization of the.court and has not subsequently ratified the marriage upon reaching 18 years of age and an action for annulment is commenced within 60 days after the marriage ceremony. 3.Where either party to the marriage was under the influence of alcohol or drugs and an action for annulment is commenced within 60 days after the marriage ceremony. 4.Where either party to the marriage was at the time of the marriage and still is naturally and incurably impotent unless the condition was known to the other party prior to the marriage. 5.Where one party was induced to enter into the marriage due to fraud, duress, coercion or force attributable to the other party and there has been no subsequent voluntary cohabitation after knowledge of the fraud or release from the effects of fraud, duress, coercion or force. (b) Status of voidable marriage~--In all cases of marriages which are voidable, either party to the mamage may seek and obtain an annulment of the marriage but, until a decree of annulment is obtained from a court of competent jurisdiction, the marriage shall be valid. The validity of a voidable marriage shall not be subject to attack or question by any person if it is subsequently confimied by the parties to the marriage or if either party has died. §3303. Annulment of void and voidable marriages. (a) General nde.-In all cases where a supposed or alleged marriage has been contracted which is void or voidable under this title or under applicable law, either party to the supposed or alleged marriage may bring an action in annulment to have it declared void in accordance with the procedures provided by this part and prescribed by general roles. (b) Common-law marriage.-In the case of a purported common-law marriage where a party was under 18 years of age, a parent or guardian of the minor may bring a declaratory judgment proceeding during the party's minority to have the marriage declared void. PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS V. JOHN KAKAVOULAS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 01-4964 : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : : IN DIVORCE ORDER AND NOTICE SETTING HEARING TO: Panagiota Asimakakis James W. Kollas John Kakavoulas , Plaintiff , Counsel for Plaintiff , Defendant , Counsel for Defendant You are directed to appear for a hearing to take , testimony on the outstanding issues in the above captioned divorce proceedings at the Office of the Divorce Master, 9 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania on the 13th day of December 2001 at 9:00 a.m., ak which place and time you will be given the opportunity to present; witnesses and exhibits in support of your case. By teC~rt, President Judge Date of Order and Notice: 11/19/01 By: Divorce Master 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 L1BERTY AVENUE CARL] ~I,E, PA 17013 TELEI~ltON}-i (71'1) 249-316(~ TESTIMONY WILL BE ON GROUNDS OF ANNULMENT. PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS V. JOHN KAKAVOULAS IN THE'COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01 -4964 CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN DIVORCE ORDER AND NOTICE SETTING HEARING TO: Panagiota Asimakakis James W. Kolla~ John Kakavoulas , Plaintiff · Counsel for Plaintiff , Defendant , Counsel for Defendant You are directed to appear for a hearing to take testimony on the outstanding issues in the above captioned divorce proceedings at the Office of the Divorce Master, 9 North Hanover Street, Carlisle Pennsylvania on the 13~ day of December ' ~0~ at 9:00 a.m., at which place and time you will be given the opportunity to present witnesses and exhibits in support of your case. President Judge Date of Order and Notice: 10/30/01 By: Divorce Master 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 TELEPHONE (717) 249-3166 TESTIMONY WILL BE ON GROUNDS OF ANNULMENT. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2001-04964 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND AS IMAKAKI S PANAGI OTA VS KAKAVOULAS JOHN R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: KAKAVOULAS JOHN but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of YORK County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within ANNULMENT On September 17th , 2001 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep York Co 18.00 9.00 10.00 24.14 .00 61.14 o9/17/2OOl ~ ~..,~m~as ~line~ "~e~ff of Cumberland County KOLLAS & KENNEDY Sworn and subscribed to before me this /~ day of COUNTY OFYORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF 28 EAST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401 SERVICE CALL (717) 771-9601 SHERIFF SERVICE PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN 1. PLAINTIFF/S/ Panaqiota Asimakakis 3. DEFENDANT/S/ John Kakavoulas 2. COURT NUMBER 01-4964 civil ~ ~R CO~T Not±ce & Comp/Annulment SERVE ~' s. NAME OF ND V/DUAL COMPANY, CORPORATION, ETC. TO SERVE OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE LEVIED, All'ACHED, OR SOLD John Kakavoulas 6. ADDRESS (STREET OR RFO WITH BOX NUMBER, APT. NO., CITY, BORO, 7WP., STATE AND ZIP CODE) AT 2266 South Queen st. York, PA 17403 7. INDICATE SERVICE: O PERSONAL C) PERSON IN CHARGE X~I:~EPUTIZE .~ CE~T. MAiL ~ C3 1ST CLASS MAIL C) POSTED r~ OTHER NOW AUgUSt 27 , 20 01 I, SHERIFF OF~K~( COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the sheriff of York ~o COUNTY to execute rding to law. This deputization being made at the request and risk of the plaintiff. SHERIFF OFmI~K COUNTY 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: ADVANCED FEE PAID BY SHERIFF Cumberland OUT OF COUNTY CUMBERLAND NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION: N.B. WAIVER OF WATCHMAN - Any deputy sheriff levying upon or attaching any property under w;~hin writ may leave same without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found in possession, after notifying person of levy or attachment, without liability on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of any Ixoporty before sheriff's sale thereof. 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of A'FTORNEY I ORIGINATOR and SIGNATURE 10. TELEPHONE NUMBER 11. DATE FILED KOLLAS & KENNEDY 1104 FERNWOOD AVE. STE 104 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 731-1600 8-24-01 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOV~ (This area must be completed if notice is to be mailed). CUMBERLAND CO. SHERIFF 13. I acknowledge receipt of thewfit or complaint as indicated above. R. AHRENS 1~4. DATE RECEIVED 8-29-01 I 15. Expiration/Hearing Date 9-23-01 16. HOW SERVED: PERSONALx RESIDENCE ( ) POSTED ( ) PO.~I~ SHERIFF'S OFFICE ( ) OTHER ( ) SEE REMARKS BELOW 17. O I hereby ce~fy and return a NOir FOUND because I am unable to locate the individual, company, etc. named above. (See remarks below.) 18~.N~ME AND~TLE OF INDIVIDUAI..~ERVED~/LIST ADDRESS HERE IF NOT SHOWN ABOVE (Relationship to Defendant) 119. Date of Service [ 20. Time of Servica 2~,ATTEMPTS Date Time~ Int. IDate '~r~~Mil d~ Int, I ~ lime Miles Int. I Date Tim~ Mil~ I~, I DI~ Time Miles Int. I D~te Time ~iles 22. REMARKS: .... ry . rchg .... k No. 75.00 18.00I 4.14 [ 22.]4 ?_nn ?a l& m~A~--I1q~(572, 41. AFFlRMED and subscripa; to betore me this ' 11 ! ' ..~.~,/~) / so/~sw~.~ ' 44. Signature of DATE /~~~~-~= ~_ . I ". ~n.m= ofFo~ign 49. DATE / _"- m Shedff ] 50. I A~NO~E~E RE~T ~E'~IF~R~SIG~TURE [ 51, DATE RECEIVED O~ AUTHORIZED ISSUING AU~'AND T~E [ 1. WHITE - Issuing Authority 2. PINK - Attorney 3. CANARY - Sheriff's Office 4. BLUE - Sheriff's Office PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, Plaintiff JOHN KAKAVOULAS, Defe~Aont IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-4964 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION- LAW ORDER APPOINTING MASTER master with respect to Plaimiffs claim of arm--ulment. BY THE COURT: 1t :01 N~/ L I 130 10 XI:~fJ.ONOHzC:Lid ]-ii :t0 301:L40~-O3]W, PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, Ph~int~ JOHN KAKAVOULAS, DeiL~nt IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01 4964 Civil T~m CML ACTION - LAW MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MASTRR Panagiota Asimakakis, plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, Kollas and Kennedy, moves the court to appoint a master with respect to her claim for Annulment, and in support thereof Discovery is complete as to the claim for which appointment of a master is 3. The statutory grounds for annolmem are found at 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3305(a)(5); the marriage between plaintiff and Defendant is subject to annulment for fraud as averred in the 4. This action has not been contested by the Defendant. 5. The action does not involve coaiplex issues of law or fact, 6. The hearing is expected to take one (1) hour. PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, Vo JOHN KAKAVOULAS, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : NO. 01-4964 CivilTerm : : CML ACTION - LAW MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MASTER Pan~oiota Asimakakis, piaintiff~ by and through her attorneys, Kollas and Kennedy, moves the court to appoint a master with respect to her claim for Annulment, and in support thereof states the followin$: Discovery is complete as to the claim gor wh~'u~h appointment of a master is 2. The Defendant has not appeared in this action, nor has an attorney entered an appearan~ on the Defendant's behalf. 3. Tl~ statutory grounds for annulmem are found at 23 Pa.C.S.A. §3305(a)(5); the marriage between Plaintiff and Defendant is subject to annulment for fraud as averred in the Complaint. 4. This action has not been contested by the Dele ~__~nt. 5. The action does not involve co~:,~,lex issues of law or fact. 6. The ~g is expected to take one (1) hour. Dated: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: gr~iam C. Kollas, Esquir~ Supreme Court I.D. No. 06341 W. Kollas, E~luire Supreme Court I.D. No. 81959 KOLLAS AND KENNEDY 1104 Fernwood Avenue Suite 104 Camp Hill; PA 17011 (717) 731-1~00 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LAW O~HCE$ OF KOLLAS AND KENNEDY 1104 FERNWOOD AVENUE CAMP H~.,L, PENNSYLVANIA 17011 WILLIAM C. KOLLAS MARY KOLLAS KENNEDY JAMES W. KOLLAS December 26, 2001 TELEPHONE NO. (717) 731-1600 FAX NO. (717)~ 731-1460 E. Robert Elicker, II, Esquire Office of Divorce Master 9 North Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 RE: Asimakakis vs. Kakavoulas Dear Divorce Master Elicker: Enclosed please find a copy of the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Complaint for Annulment Made Subsequent to Proceedings Held Before the Divorce Master. If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me. JWK/lbb Enclosure Very truly yours, KOLLAS AND KENNEDY James W. Kollas LAW O~'~ICES OF KOLLAS AND K~NNEDY 1104 FERNWOOD AVENUE CAMP I'~LL, PENNSYLVANIA 17011 WILLIAM C. KOLLAS MARY KOLLAS KENNEDY JAMES W. KOLLAS Febmary4,2002 TELEPHONE NO. (717) 731-1600 FAX NO. (717)~ 731-1460 E. Robert Elicker, II, Esquire Office of Divorce Master 9 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Asimakakis v. Kakavoulas Dear Divorce Master Elicker: Enclosed please find a proposed Decree of Annulment. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, KOLLAS AND KEn. DY ~Car Enclosure PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, Plaintiff Vo JOHN KAKAVOULAS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-4964 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION- LAW DECREE OF ANNULMENT AND NOW, this ~ day of~__, 2002, having received no exceptions to the Report and Recommendation of the Master, it is ordered and decreed that the alleged marriage between PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS, plalmiff~ and JOHN KAKAVOULAS, Defendant, is null and voidable, and that said marriage is hereby annulled. Jo IN THE COURT OF COMMON OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY STATE OF PLAINTIFF VERSUS D~RNDANT PENNA. NO. PLEAS 01-4964 CIVIL TERM DECrEe OF__ .Ai~_ LMENT And NOW, ~~ %\ , , IT IS ORDERED AND THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN PANAGIOTA ASIMAKAKIS DECREED THAT , PLAINTIFF, AND JOHN KAKAVOULAS ,DEFENDANT, IS NUll AND VOid AND THAT SAID MARRIAGe iS HEREBY ANNULLED. THE COURT RETAINS JURISDiCTiON OF THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS WHICH haVE BEEN RAISED OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION FOR WHICH a FINAL ORDER HAS NOT YEt BEEN ENTERED; NONE ATTEST: ~PROTHONOTARY