Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-3898 Supreme CourtofTennsylvania Couryof�CtimmonPleas For Prothonotary Use Only: r CJvi1.'Cover Sli et "� �V( �";�t Docket No: � Cumberland ' J County ' 3��� `. The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form does not supplement or replace the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law or rules ofcourt. Commencement of Action: S Fle Complaint E3 Writ of Summons El Petition E 0 Transfer from Another Jurisdiction 0 Declaration of Taking C Lead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name: T David E. Davis Paul m. Weaver Dollar Amount Requested: Owithin arbitration limits I Are money damages requested? [x Yes No O 1 (check one) [0 outside arbitration limits N Is this a Class Action Suit? El Yes X! No Is this an MDJAppeal? FLI Yes 0 No A, Name of Plaintiff/Appellant's Attorney: Christopher E. Rice, Esquire/Martson Law Offices 0 Check here if you have no attorney(area Self-Represented ji'ro Sel Litigant) Nature of the Case: Place an "X"to the left of the ONE case category that most accurately describes your PRIMARY CASE: If you are making more than one type of claim, check the one that you consider most important. TORT(do not include Mass Tort) CONTRACT (do not include Judgments) CIVIL APPEALS Intentional C=+ Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies Malicious Prosecution M Debt Collection: Credit Card 0 Board of Assessment Motor Vehicle 0 Debt Collection: Other Board of Elections 0 Nuisance Dept. of Transportation E] Premises Liability 0 Statutory Appeal: Other S 0 Product Liability(does not include E mass tort) El Employment Dispute: Slander/Libel/Defamation Discrimination 0 C 0 Other: 0 Employment Dispute: Other Zoning Board T Other: I 0 Other: O MASS TORT 0 Asbestos N [3 Tobacco EJ Toxic Tort-DES 0 Toxic Tort-Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS 0 Toxic Waste Other: M Ejectment 0 Common Law/Statutory Arbitration B El Eminent Domain/Condemnation E] Declaratory Judgment El Ground Rent Mandamus l_p Landlord/Tenant Dispute 0 Non-Domestic Relations Mortgage Foreclosure: Residential Restraining Order PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY 0 Mortgage Foreclosure: Commercial 0 Quo Warranto Dental 0 Partition 0 Replevin 0 Legal 0 Quiet Title 0 Other: E] Medical Other: Other Professional: Updated 1/1/2011 ;-.. ; Christopher E. Rice, Esquire I.D. No. 90916 Aaron S. Haynes, Esquire 411 : P I.D. No. 307746 +;UNBERL .jD MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLFA*� SYLW� j'/"' f MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiffs David E. And Dianna Davis DAVID E. DAVIS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIANNA DAVIS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. 2014 - 3$rq ? CIVIL TERM PAUL M. WEAVER and RUTH H. WEAVER, Defendants 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 Plaintiffs. 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 REDUCE FEE OR NO FEE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD A LAWYER Contact: Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street 1-td 3 . 7 Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 a�y Telephone (717) 249-3166 S x",16 FAF1LES\Clients\15526 Davis\15526.1.Davis.Complaint.wpd Christopher E. Rice, Esquire I.D. No. 90916 Aaron S. Haynes, Esquire I.D. No. 307746 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiffs David E. Davis and Dianna Davis DAVID E. DAVIS and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIANNA DAVIS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. 2014 - 3 CIVIL TERM PAUL M. WEAVER and RUTH H. WEAVER, Defendants COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, David E. Davis and Dianna Davis, by and through their attorneys, Martson Law Offices, bring this action against the Defendants, and in support thereof state the following: 1. Plaintiffs, David E. Davis and Dianna Davis ("Plaintiffs"), reside at 576 Gutshall Road, Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania 17007 ("Plaintiffs' Property"). 2. Defendants, Paul M. Weaver and Ruth H. Weaver ("Defendants"), reside at 640 Gutshall Road, Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania 17007. 3. Plaintiffs and Defendants' respective properties are located adjacent to each other. 4. Plaintiffs have resided at Plaintiffs' Property since November 14, 1989. 5. Plaintiffs home was previously owned by Dianna Davis' parents. 6. Along the border of Plaintiffs' and Defendants' joint property line stood approximately ninety-five(95)trees("Trees"), which the Plaintiffs relied upon for various reasons including, screening, aesthetics, and shading. 7. On January 23,2014,Defendants removed,byway of cutting,substantially all of the Trees that separated the Plaintiffs' and Defendants' properties. 8. Plaintiffs were not home during a majority of the cutting by Defendants. 9. When Plaintiff David returned home and realized the situation, he immediately demanded that the cutting stop. 10. Plaintiffs request for the cutting to stop was not immediately obeyed. 11. As a result of the cutting, thirty-seven mature trees ("Mature Trees")were removed from Plaintiffs' Property. 12. Defendants did not have Plaintiffs' permission to cut the Trees. 13. Defendants accessed Plaintiffs' Property to cut the Trees. 14. Defendants did not have permission to access Plaintiff's Property. 15. Defendant used heavy equipment to remove the Trees. 16. Defendants caused unsightly ruts and divots in Plaintiffs' yard during the course of the removal of the Trees by the use of heavy equipment and dragging the cut Trees. 17. Plaintiffs aver that, as a result of the Defendants' actions to cut the Trees,Plaintiffs' Property has been significantly damaged. 18. Several items of personal property were damaged by Defendants during the cutting or as a result of falling Trees, which include the following: a. 11.2-28 Goodyear Duratorguq Tire for a Ford 8n Tractor. b. Suzuki rear fender for a 1986 Suzuki LT 185 All-Terrain Vehicle. C. A Stens high-back mower seat for a Craftsman Ride-On Mower. d. A Channel Master Outdoor Yagi-Type Antenna. e. American Kennel Club 0.2ft x 4ft x 6ft outdoor Dog Kennel Panels. 19. Plaintiffs now suffer emotional distress as a result of the damage to Plaintiffs' Property. COUNT I - TRESPASS TO REAL PROPERTY 20. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 19 as if set forth fully below. 21. Defendants willfully and knowingly entered onto Plaintiffs' Property without their express permission. 22. Defendants intentionally, willfully, wantonly and recklessly cut down the Trees without Plaintiffs' express permission. 23. The tools used by Defendants caused distinct, permanent, and severe damage to Plaintiffs' Property and the Trees while improperly removing the Trees on Plaintiffs' Property. 24. The removal of the Trees negatively affected the value of the Plaintiffs' Property and the aesthetics and protection the trees provided to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, David E. Davis and Dianna Davis, demand judgment against Defendants Paul M. Weaver and Ruth H. Weaver for their trespass and permanent and continuing injuries due to the removal of the Trees situated on Plaintiffs' Property in the amount of $120,000.00,together with legal fees and associated costs of suit as well as punitive damages as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT II - TRESPASS TO CHATTELS 25. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully set forth below. 26. Defendants entered onto Plaintiffs' Property without proper permission from Plaintiffs. 27. Defendants intentionally,willfully,wantonly and recklessly cut 37 trees on Plaintiffs' property, without Plaintiffs' express permission. 28. Several of the trees that were cut by Defendants fell on Plaintiffs' personal property. 29. The personal property sustained damages caused by the falling Trees. 30. Due to the damages caused by Defendants'actions,the property damaged is no longer of any functional use to Plaintiffs',thereby denying them of the use of their own personal property. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs,David E.and Dianna Davis,demand judgment against Defendants Paul M. Weaver and Ruth H. Weaver for their trespass and intentional destruction of personal property in the amount of$120,000.00,together with legal fees and associated costs of suit as well as punitive damages as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT III -VIOLATION OF 42 PA.C.S.A. SECTION 8311 31. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 as if fully set forth below. 32. Defendants entered onto the property without proper permission from Plaintiffs. 33. Defendants deliberately cut the Mature Trees on Plaintiffs' Property, without Plaintiffs' express consent. 34. According to 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 8311,a person who cuts and removes the timber of another person without the consent of that person shall be liable to that person in a civil action for an amount of damages equal to three times the market value of the timber cut or removed if the act is determined to have been deliberate. 35 Plaintiffs have been irreparably harmed by Defendants' deliberate removal of the Mature Trees. WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs, David E.and Dianna Davis,demand judgment against Defendants Paul M. Weaver and Ruth H. Weaver for their trespass and deliberate removal of timber from Plaintiffs'property without Plaintiffs'consent in the amount of$120,000.00,together with legal fees and associated costs of suit and fees, as well as punitive damages as the Court deems appropriate. MARTSON LAW OFFICES By: r-, 5-- t'Z--, Christopher E. Rice, Esquire I.D. No. 90916 Aaron S. Haynes, Esquire I.D. No. 307746 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Date: i I VERIFICATION i The foregoing Complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by our counsel in thepreparation of the lawsuit. The language of the document is that of counsel and not our own. We have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which we have given to counsel,it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge,information and belief. To the extent that the content of the document is that of counsel, we have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subjeetto the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if we make knowingly false averments, we may be subject to criminal penalties. n�'f)C'(),�' David E. Davis Dianna Davis i. Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY � o-t„vp .01 ember/ THEr�R ? HONO r r, ©rfiiCE Qr. THE, SHE IFP JUL I lid: 20 GiJ� ENNSYLVAN f\ COUNI David E Davis vs. Paul M Weaver (et al.) Case Number 2014-3898 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 07/08/2014 03:40 PM - Deputy Dennis Fry, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice by "personally" handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be the Defendant, to wit: Paul M Weaver at 640 Gutshall Road, South Middleton, Boiling Springs, PA 17007. DE I NIS FRY, DEPU 07/08/2014 03:40 PM - Deputy Dennis Fry, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Paul Weaver, husband, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for Ruth H Weaver at 640 Gutshall Road, South Middleton, Boiling Srpings, PA 17007. DEN S FRY, DEP SHERIFF COST: $51.27 SO ANSWERS, July 09, 2014 RONNR ANDERSON, SHERIFF (c) CountySuie Sheriff, Teleosoft. Inc. Robert G. Frey, Esquire Attorney for Defendants Frey and Tiley 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 DAVID E. DAVIS and, DIANNA DAVIS, Plaintifffs vs. PAUL M. WEAVER and RUTH H. WEAVER, Defendants Supreme Court I.D. No. 46397 Tel: 717-243-5838 Fax: 717-243-6441 : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 2014-3898CIVIL TERM ANSWER Defendants, Paul M. Weaver and Ruth H. Weaver, by and through their attorneys, Frey & Tiley, answer the complaint of Plaintiffs as follows: 1. Admitted rn tT 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. rte— ' � C 4. Denied. Defendants are without knowledge of the duration of the cpD residency of Plaintiffs at their property. ria rs 5. Admitted. After investigation, Defendants believe the allegations of this paragraph to be accurate. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that there were trees growing along the shared property line of Plaintiffs and Defendants. Defendants are without knowledge as to the approximate number. By way of further answer, Defendant Paul Weaver believes and avers that the number of trees is significantly less than the 95 alleged by Plaintiffs. Defendant Paul Weaver counted 41 stumps on both sides of the fence row. Defendants believe that many of the wild vegetation claimed to be trees was scrub vegetation. Defendants are without knowledge as to what use, if any, Plaintiffs made of the "Trees." By way of further answer, Defendant Paul Weaver believes that the fence row is at least 150 feet from the house and only one or two of the trees could have provided any screening. Defendant Ruth Weaver has not been to this area recently to have any independent knowledge of the number of trees. 7. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant, Paul M. Weaver, participated in the cutting of trees. It is denied that Defendant, Ruth H. Weaver had any involvement in the cutting of any trees. The cutting was done by Defendants' sons and grandsons under the supervision of Defendant Paul Weaver. 8. Denied. Defendant Ruth Weaver was not in the area of Plaintiffs' property at the time of the clearing of the fence row and has no knowledge of whether either of Plaintiffs or other persons were at their residence. Defendant Paul Weaver does not know if anyone was at Plaintiffs' residence prior to Plaintiff David Davis and the father of Plaintiff Dianna Davis appeared in the back yard. 9. Admitted in part; denied in part. Defendants are without knowledge as whether either of the Plaintiffs were at their residence during any of the cutting. Defendants are further without any knowledge of when either of them may have returned if they were not present when the cutting began. Defendant Ruth Weaver was not present when the fence row was being cleared and has no independent knowledge of who was present. Defendant Paul Weaver admits that Plaintiff David Davis eventually told them to stop clearing the fence row. Defendant Paul Weaver is without knowledge as to where Plaintiff David Davis was prior to him instructing them to stop clearing. Therefore, the allegation that "he immediately demanded that the cutting stop" is denied. By way of further answer, Defendant Paul Weaver saw Plaintiff David Davis step into the backyard and then went back into his residence. It was not until he appeared a second time a few moments later with his father-in-law that Defendant Paul Weaver heard the father-in-law demand that the cutting be stopped. Defendant Paul Weaver does not recall hearing Plaintiff David Davis demanding that they stop. 10. Denied. As soon as Defendant Paul Weaver heard the father-in-law's demand that they stop cutting, he instructed the others to stop. By way of further answer, when he instructed them to stop, a tree was one half cut and the men were attaching a chain to the top of the tree so that the cutting could be completed and the tree pulled onto Defendants' property and away from Plaintiffs' property. Although Defendant Paul Weaver did not believe it was prudent to leave the tree half cut, he complied with the father-in-law's demand. 11. Denied. Defendant Ruth Weaver was not present and did not see any of the cutting and has no knowledge of how many trees were cut. Defendant Paul Weaver believes, based on his observations, that the total number of trees on Plaintiffs' property cut that would be considered mature is far less than thirty seven. 12. Denied. Plaintiff David Davis explicitly gave his permission to Defendant Paul Weaver on two separate occasions. Defendant Paul Weaver first spoke to Plaintiff David Davis in the fall of 2012 about clearing the fence row. Defendant Paul Weaver's plan was to have the cutting done in January, 2013. That work did not get done as planned. Therefore, Defendant Paul Weaver again went to Plaintiffs' house in late October or early November of 2013 and spoke with Plaintiff David Davis in the Plaintiffs' driveway. He again asked him if he had any objections to his cutting the trees on the fence row. In both 2012 and 2013 Plaintiff David Davis gave his permission to Defendant Paul Weaver to have the trees cut and removed. Defendant Paul Weaver told Plaintiff David Davis that he would not cut the pine trees on Plaintiffs' property and asked to be notified if there were any other trees that they did not want cut. Defendant Paul Weaver also told Plaintiff David Davis that they would try to pull all of the trees over onto Defendants' property but that it may be necessary to bring equipment onto Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiff David Davis agreed that it was a good idea to bring the trees down on Defendants' property and gave his permission for them to come onto his property if necessary. 13. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Paul Weaver had family members under his supervision enter onto Plaintiffs' property to cut trees. It is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver was present at the time of cutting or at anytime accessed Plaintiffs' property. 14. Denied. As stated in Paragraph 12 above, when Plaintiff David Davis and Defendant Paul Weaver were talking in Plaintiffs' driveway in the Fall of 2013, Defendant Paul Weaver told Plaintiff David Davis that they would try to pull all of the trees over onto Defendants' property but that it may be necessary to bring equipment onto Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiff David Davis agreed that it was a good idea to bring the trees down on Defendants' property and gave his permission for them to come onto his property if necessary. 15. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Paul Weaver owns a skid loader that he uses in his farming operations and that this skid loader was used in the removal of trees. It is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver entered Plaintiffs' property with equipment or authorized anyone to use equipment on her behalf. 16. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver used any equipment or authorized anyone to use equipment on her behalf on Plaintiffs'. property or in any other way caused any ruts in Plaintiffs' yard. Defendant Paul Weaver denies that any action taken by him or authorized by him caused ruts or divots on Plaintiffs' property. The cutting took place in January, 2014 when the ground was frozen during an extremely cold period that has been referred to as a "polar vortex." Defendant Paul Weaver intentionally waited until the ground was frozen to minimize the impact that the tree removal would have. Defendant Paul Weaver further denies that any "yard" was damaged. The portion of Plaintiffs' property accessed during the cutting by Defendant Paul Weaver and those working for him was an open field that was not regularly mowed or maintained as a yard. 17. Denied. As stated in various paragraphs above, it is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver had any involvement or authorized anyone to take any actions in the removal of trees. As stated in paragraph 16 above, it is denied that any actions taken or authorized by Defendant Paul Weaver caused any damage to Plaintiffs' property. By way of further answer, the removal of the scrub vegetation improved the condition and appearance of Plaintiffs' property. 18. Denied. As stated in various paragraphs above, it is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver had any involvement or authorized anyone to take any actions in the removal of trees. Defendant Paul Weaver denies that any personal property of Plaintiffs was damaged. By way of further answer, it is denied that any of the personal property was functioning or had been moved for several years. The antenna mentioned in Plaintiffs' complaint was lying on the ground on its side and, during the growing season, weeds could be seen growing up around of the personal property that appeared to have been left there as scrap pieces. 19. Denied. Defendants are without any knowledge as to the mental or emotional state of the Plaintiffs. Strict proof at trial, to the extent the allegation is relevant, is demanded. COUNT I: TRESSPASS TO REAL PROPERTY 20. No responsive pleading is required. 21. Denied. As stated in various paragraphs above, it is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver had any involvement or authorized anyone to take any actions in the removal of trees or entering onto Plaintiffs' property. Defendant Paul Weaver denies that he did not have Plaintiffs' permission. As stated in more detail in paragraph 12, Plaintiff David Davis explicitly gave his permission to Defendant Paul Weaver on two separate occasions. By way of further answer, Defendant Paul Weaver would not have entered or cut any trees on Plaintiffs' or any other neighbor's property without first obtaining permission. 22. Denied. As stated in various paragraphs above, it is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver had any involvement or authorized anyone to take any actions in the removal of trees. Defendant Paul Weaver denies that he did not have Plaintiffs' permission. As stated in more detail in paragraph 12, Plaintiff David Davis explicitly gave his permission to Defendant Paul Weaver on two separate occasions. By way of further answer, Defendant Paul Weaver would not have entered or cut any trees on Plaintiffs' or any other neighbor's property without first obtaining permission. Defendant Paul Weaver's actions were not reckless or wanton, but were careful and after consultation with Plaintiff David Davis. 23. Denied. As stated in various paragraphs above, it is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver had any involvement or authorized anyone to take any actions in the removal of trees. Therefore, she denies causing any damage to Plaintffs' property. It is denied that Plaintiffs' property suffered any damage. Defendant Paul Weaver supervised the removal of the trees with the prior permission from Plaintiff David Davis. As stated above, and as stated specifically in paragraphl6, 18 and 22, Defendant Paul Weaver used due and proper care in the removal of the trees so that no damage was caused to Plaintiffs' property. 24. Denied. It is denied that the cutting of trees negatively affected the value of Plaintiffs' property or that the trees that were cut provided any aesthetics or protection to Plaintiffs' property. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on their claim of Trespass to Real Estate. COUNT II: TRESSPASS-TO CHATTELS 25. No responsive pleading is required. 26. Denied. As stated in various paragraphs above, it is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver had any involvement or authorized anyone to take any actions in the removal of trees or entering onto Plaintiffs' property. Defendant Paul Weaver denies that he did not have Plaintiffs' permission. As stated in more detail in paragraph 12, Plaintiff David Davis explicitly gave his permission to Defendant Paul Weaver on two separate occasions. By way of further answer, Defendant Paul Weaver would not have entered or cut any trees on Plaintiffs' or any other neighbor's property without first obtaining permission. 27. Denied. As stated in various paragraphs above, it is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver had any involvement or authorized anyone to take any actions in the removal of trees. Defendant Paul Weaver denies that he did not have Plaintiffs' permission. As stated in more detail in paragraph 12, Plaintiff David Davis explicitly gave his permission to Defendant Paul Weaver on two separate occasions. By way of further answer, Defendant Paul Weaver would not have entered or cut any trees on Plaintiffs' or any other neighbor's property without first obtaining permission. Defendant Paul Weaver's actions were not reckless or wanton, but were careful and after consultation with Plaintiff David Davis. 28. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver cut or in any way participated in the cutting of any trees. Defendant Paul Weaver denies that several trees fell on Plaintiffs' property. Defendant Paul Weaver saw one tree fall on Plaintiffs' property. 29. Denied. Defendant Paul Weaver saw one tree fall on Plaintiffs' property and believes and avers that no personal property were hit or damages by it. 30. Denied. Defendants believe and aver that equipment was not functioning prior to the cutting of trees and were merely scrap that was not damaged by any falling trees. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on their claim of Trespass to Chattels. COUNT III: VIOLATION OF 42 PA. C.S.A. §8311 31. No responsive pleading is required. 32. Denied. As stated in various paragraphs above, it is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver had any involvement or authorized anyone to take any actions in the removal of trees or entering onto Plaintiffs' property. Defendant Paul Weaver denies that he did not have Plaintiffs' permission. As stated in more detail in paragraph 12, Plaintiff David Davis explicitly gave his permission to Defendant Paul Weaver on two separate occasions. By way of further answer, Defendant Paul Weaver would not have entered or cut any trees on Plaintiffs' or any other neighbor's property without first obtaining permission. 33. Denied. As stated in various paragraphs above, it is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver had any involvement or authorized anyone to take any actions in the removal of trees or entering onto Plaintiffs' property. Defendant Paul Weaver denies that he did not have Plaintiffs' permission. As stated in more detail in paragraph 12, Plaintiff David Davis explicitly gave his permission to Defendant Paul Weaver on two separate occasions. By way of further answer, Defendant Paul Weaver would not have entered or cut any trees on Plaintiffs' or any other neighbor's property without first obtaining permission. 34. The allegations contained in paragraph 34 are legal conclusions that require no responsive pleading. By way of further answer, it is denied that the removal of the trees was without the consent of Plaintiffs. Aug. 2014 10:40AM No. 1486 P. 11 35. Denied. As stated in various paragraphs above, it is denied that Defendant Ruth Weaver had any involvement or authorized anyone to take any actions in the removal of trees or entering onto Plaintiffs' property. It is further denied that there was any damage suffered by Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on their claim of a violation of 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8311. By: Respectfully submitted, Frey & Tiley, Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert G. Frey, Esquire Supreme Court Number 46397 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 243-5838 We each verify that the statements made herein are true and correct and understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: August / , 2014 ,2 1,,..ele/e4/ Paul M. Weaver ttic- 2[ULv- Ruth H. Weaver