Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-0994IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9r" JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - CUMBERLAND COUNTY BRANCH Crystal J. Bard, Plaintiff VS. James W. Hunt, TIDB/A1 The Fence Doctor, Defendant Civil Action - Law No. - 6E - 494 Judge: Jury Trial Demanded 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Pennsylvania Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service Telephone: 1-800-692-7375 (PA ONLY) or 717-238-6715 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9T" JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - CUMBERLAND COUNTY BRANCH Crystal J. Bard, Plaintiff VS. James W. Hunt, T/DB/A/ The Fence Doctor, Defendant Civil Action - Law No. - 0E - 44y Judge: Jury Trial Demanded COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Crystal J. Bard, by and through her attorney, Eric J. Weisbrod, Esquire, and sets forth the following in support of her requested relief: The Plaintiff is Crystal J. Bard, (hereinafter "Bard"), a sui juris adult residing at 305 Liberty Drive, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. 1 The Defendant is James W. Hunt, (hereinafter "Hunt"), a sui juris adult trading and doing business as a general contractor, with a principle place of business at his residence located at 1824 East Canal Road, Dover, Pennsylvania. 3. On or about November 3, 2003, Bard and Hunt entered into an agreement wherein Hunt agreed to erect a 269 square foot wooden picket fence to enclose Bard's backyard. Bard agreed to pay, and did pay, Hunt $4,035.00. Hunt agreed to erect the fence in accordance with the written specifications contained in his proposal, and to do so in a workman like manner. A copy of this agreement and specifications are attached hereto as "Exhibit A", incorporated herein by reference, and shall be referred in this Complaint as the "contract". 4. Pursuant to the contract, "[a]ll material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of $4,035.00." When Hunt completed construction of the fence, he and Bard inspected the completed project. The fence was not completed in accordance with the contract. Bard requested that a few things be fixed prior to her paying the balance of what she owed, including fixing a picket that was not properly installed and some missing bolts and screws. 6. Although Hunt made the requested changes, Bard was still not satisfied with the workmanship of the fence. As required under the contract, Bard paid Hunt the balance of what she owed him. Bard continued to contact Hunt in an attempt to have the fence he constructed brought up to the construction standard established in the contract. Bard had the following issues with the fence: (1) nails are rusty; (2) posts are uneven and loose; (3) all gates installed need to be fixed; (4) some of the boards used are warped; (5) the pickets of the fence are uneven; and (6) at places there is a two inch gap between the bottom of the picket and the ground. 8. Thereafter, Bard contacted two other fencing companies to obtain estimates on the cost of fixing the problems with the fence installed by Hunt. Both companies advised that the fence could not be repaired due to its poor construction. Both companies opined that the fence erected by the Defendant must be torn down and a new fence constructed. 9. Specifically, one of the fencing companies, Ryder Fencing, made the following observations about the fence installed by Hunt: (1) fence is severely twisted due to not enough nails being used; (2) posts are spaced unevenly; (3) posts are not set plumb or in line; and (4) gates are hung crooked. Ryder Fencing recommended that the fence installed by Hunt be removed and a new fence be installed at a cost of $5,700.00. 10. Despite repeated phone calls from Bard to Hunt asking to have the fence repaired to meet the specifications of the contract, Hunt has not repaired the fence. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court find in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant as follows: Defendant Hunt breached the contract for failure to build a fence for Bard according to the specifications in the contract signed by Hunt and Bard. 2. Defendant Hunt shall pay Plaintiff Bard the amount of $5,700.00 to have the fence torn down and replaced with a fence built according to specifications. 3. The Plaintiff shall be awarded cost of this suit. Respectfully submitted, Eric J. Weisbrod, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 80456 2025 East Main Street Waynesboro, PA 17268 (717) 761-1131 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements set forth in the attached document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904, rel to unsworn fal i nations to authorities. ? C+ c` , 2005 l L ?J Crysta J. Bard PROPOSAL PROPOSAL SUBMITT =_ __r WORK TO BE PERFORMED AT: PROPOSAL NO. SHEET NO. DATE We hereby propose JI s and perform the labor necessary for the completion of e 00 Q 0, l All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifi- cations submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmn nli nner for the sum Dollars ($ ) with payments to be made as follows. ? J 0 Gip p t? 77 1 Respectfully submitted _ci -? Any alteration or deviation from above specifics Ions involying extra costs will be exeduted only upon written order, and will become an extra charge Pe over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, ac- cidents, or delays beyond our control. Note-This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within-days. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You re authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will be made as outlined above. r Signat re Date l? 3 Z a --<a 3 Signature EXHIBIT 3818-50 Proposal 41Q. C7 V-L b ti-, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRYSTAL J. BARD, Plaintiff vs. JAMES W. HUNT, t/d/b/a The Fence Doctor, Defendant Civil Action - Law No. 05-994 Civil Term Judge Jury Trial Demanded ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the above-named. Defendant and files this Answer to the ROB A. KRUG ATTORNEY AT uw PO. 60% 166 63 E. CANA1 ST. OVER. PENNSYLVANIA 1)]16 Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant and Plaintiff inspected the completed project. It is also admitted that there were some minor problems with the fence that the Plaintiff requested to be fixed and the Defendant did fix. The remaining averments containing in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Complaint are specifically denied; the averment that the fence was not completed in accordance with the contract, is specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the balance of what was owed to him under the contract. With regard to the remaining averments. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 6 and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. By way of further answer, it is averred that Plaintiff fully inspected the fence, was quite satisfied with the fence and the workmanship of the fence, and at that point then decided to pay the Defendant the balance of what she owed him. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in ROB A. KRUG ATTORNEY AT L PO. 60% , 66 63 E. CANAL $T. WER, PENNSYLVANIA 1"!]16 paragraph 7 and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. By way of further answer, it is averred that Defendant uses galvanized screws and not nails to construct the fence. By way of further answer, it is averred that Defendant advised Plaintiff that due to the fact that the boards were pressure treated and were green, there would be some warping and/or twisting if the fence was built during the winter, as she insisted. 8. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 8 are strictly within the control of the Defendant and, as such, are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 9. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 9 are strictly within the control of the Defendant and, as such, are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 10. It is admitted that Defendant has not repaired the fence. It is denied that the fence needs to be repaired, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. WHEREFORE, the Defendant requests the dismissal of Plaintiffs suit with court costs to be borne by the Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, gtiQ t 53 East Canal Street Dover PA 17315 Any I.D. # 25123 ROB A. KRUG Ar?oaNEV AT uw PO. 60. 166 63 E. CANAL ST OWE., PENNSYLVANIA 1131. VERIFICATION I, HEREBY verify that the facts and information set forth in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I that any false statements contained herein are subject to unsworn falsification es W. Hunt ROR A. KRUG ATTORNEY AT LAW PO. BO% 166 60 E. CANAL ST WE%. TENNSYLVANIA 11916 r a C 7 - i.,? C ? -r1 _, ._? ?j _? i'?1 _ ?? , --(`,t _ N 1" ' _ s, 4= r t Curtis R. Long Prothonotary office of the Protbonotarp CCumbprranb Countp Renee K. Simpson Deputy Prothonotary John E. Slike Solicitor s - QQy CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 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, CURTIS R. LONG PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 • (717) 240-6195 • Fax (717) 7dl1_A1V72