HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-1359
09-1-02
Ds/ /.3$'"1 ~ J. ....--
NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT
CIVIL CASE
PLAINTIFF: NAMI" and ADDRESS
'BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG I
20 MARKET STREET
WORMLEYSBURG, PA 17043
L ~
VS.
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF' CUMBERLAND
J
Mag D!s) l'j~
OJ Name ron
ROBERT V. MANLOVE
Add,,,, 1901 STATE ST
CAMP HILL, PA
1c1'..p,""c 1717) 761-0583 17011-0000
DEFENDANT NAM!: and ADDRESS
r~'HTTERS, DONALD M, ET AL.
8 POPLAR ST
WORMLEYSBURG, PA 17043
L
I
BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG
20 MARKET STREET
WORMLEYSBURG, PA 17043
Docket No.: CV- 00Q0596 - 04
Date Filed: 11/24/04
~
-
THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT:
Judgment:
DEFAUI.T .nmC::MRN'I' PLTF i
Judgment was entered for:
(Name)
J'lnRnnt:ll' nli' wnRMT.F.VRJ'lTr9C::
[!]
[!]
Judgment was entered against: (Name)
WTTTRRR KATHY M
In the amount ot $
? ?'E;1 q4 on:
(Date of Judgment)
1/11/0"'
o Defendants are jointly and severally liable.
o Damages will be assessed on:
o This case dismissed without prejudice.
(Date & Time)
O Amount of Judgment Subject to
Attachment/42 Pa.C,S. S 8127 $
o Portion of Judgment for physical
damages ariSing out of residential
lease $ _
Amount of JUdgment $ 2,171.94
Judgment Cesls $ 92.00
Interest on J~dgment $ .00
Attorney Fees $ .00
Total $ 2,263.94
Post Judgm~nt Credits $
Post Judgm~nt Costs $
------------
------------
Certified Ju~gment Total $
ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BV FILING A NOTICE
OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISlpN, YOU
MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE ~F APPEAL,
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTI~ES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER
ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCES~ MUST COME FROM THE COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT JUSTICE.
I
UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTEREST~D IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE
A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBtOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES,
OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT.
--
, District Justice
.------
Date
Date
of the proceedings containing the judgment.
, District Justice
this is a tru
---
My commission expires first Monday of January, 2006
SEAL
AOPC 315-03
DATE PRINTED:
1/14/05
1:40:38 PM
-r.;;
~
~
~
""'-
~
,
))
c...
\
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA
eOUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
# I "i,W D" \,' 09-1-02
LLI f,Ja\w,', H':!\1
NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT
CIVIL CASE
PLAINTIFF: NAlvlE dnd ACJF1ESS
'BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG I
20 MARKET STREET
WORMLEYSBURG, PA 17043
L ~
VS.
ROBERT V. MANLOVE
Add"" 1901 STATE ST
CAMP HILL, PA
I,'cpl",,, (717, 761-0583 17011-0000
DEFENDANT: NAME and ADDRESS
twITTERS, DONALD M, BT AL.
8 POPLAR ST
WORMLEYSBURG, PA 17043
L
I
BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG
20 MARKET STREET
WORMLEYSBURG, PA 17043
Docket No: CV- 00Q0596 - 04
Date Filed: 11/24/04
~
."
.d ~. '~'i .
,'" .
THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT,
Judgment:
DEFAULT JImC::MF:N'T' PLTF
[!]
[!]
Judgment was entered for:
(Name)
J'lnRnrrc::ll' nli' wnRMT.RVRJ'I~C::
Judgment was entered against: (Name)
WTTTRRS, DONALn M
in the amount of $ 'r? ?'E;1 q4 on:
.../...:..'
(Date of Judgment)
1/11/0"'
o Detendants are faintly and severally liable.
o
o This case dismissllf without;:rej:~
./'" (--,
O Amount of Judgm<(rll-BubjeSto
Attachmenl42 Pa.C.'S. S 81,i:? $ /"
1.--',
O Portion of Judgment ffir phY.&J:al
damages arising au! of residential /'
.-,0
lease $ __
(Date & Time)
c.ii......
Damages will be as~ed on:
Amount of Judgment $ 2.171.94
Judgment Costs $ 92.00
Interest on Judgment $ .00
Attorney Fees $ .00
Total $ 2.263.94
PO~dgment Credits $
Po dgment Costs $
----------.....-
\) ------------
Cerij.lied Ju<jgment Total $
d
v
[- ,
ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUD~MENT B~ FILING A NOTICE
OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CI~L DIVISI<!>N. YOU
MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOU~:NOTlCE OF APPEAL.
EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR DISTRICT JUSTICIES, IF THE JUDGMENT HOLDER
ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESSIMUST COME FROM THE COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TICE.
UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYON TERESTEp IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE
A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE DISTRICT JUSTICE IF THE JUDG ENT DEBTbR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES,
OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT.
~
, District Justice
oceedings containing the judgment.
~.
, District Justice
My commiSSion expires first Monday of January, 2006
SEAL
AOPC 315,03
DATE PRINTED:
1/14/05
1:40:03 PM
,
- ,
,
~- ,~
~
~
~(') ~
-
~
"t
- f
~ ~- ~
..... \
~ "\l
~ -...J
'"'I .P"
~
"
~
- ._-~~~---
-----_.~
Wormleysburg Borough,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL ANlA
v.
NO. 05-1359
Donald M. and Kathy M. Witters,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION
(PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
(1) Issue writ of execution in the above matter, directed to the Sheriff of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania:
(2) Against Donald M. and Kathy M. Witters, Defendants:
(3) And against N/A , Garnishee(s):
(4) And index this writ
(A) Against Donald M. and Kathy M. Witters, Defendants
(B) Against N/A (Garnishee(s)
As a lis pendens against real property of the defendant(s) in the name of the garnishee(s) as follows (sp cifically
describe property)
Any and all personal property of the Defendants, Donald M. and Kathy M. Witters, 0 8
Poplar Street, Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania 17043.
(5) Amount due
Interest from
@6%
to
$ 2,263.94
$ -0-
Total
$ 2,263.94
Plus All Costs in Offices
Of P othonotary & Sheriff
Plaintiff
{?,c: R12.E.s-Yozd..
Dated: ?jJ,~!.>-
NOTE
Under paragraph (I) when the writ is directed to the sheriff of another county as authorized by Rule 31 0 (b), the
county should be indicated.
Under Rule 30 13( c) a writ issued on a transferred judgment may be directed only to the sheriff of the co ty in
which issued.
Paragraph (3) above should be completed only if a named garnishee is to be included in the writ.
Paragraph (4) (a) should be completed only if indexing of the execution in the county of issuance, is desi d as
authorized by Rule 31 04(a). When the writ issues to another county indexing is required as of course in that coun by
the prothonotary. See Rule 3014(b).
Paragraph (4) (b) should be completed only if real property in the name ofa garnishee is attached and ind xing
as a lis pendens is desired. See Rule 3104(c).
'G
s:' 0
+- ;:J r,..
\l~
'?b - -g
-\ r
~ ~ f;
~ fj
~
():
V
~
'-"\
l
kl.
-
b
N
c
--'4 -lA..
~..o~
~ 't-' C)
&( 11\\ \)
\ '-0
,~r
, + ...,)
,r;:Jr-
-i-J-M
, --
'Ci?> q,
....~
Gf'
~
?'1
--
I'-'
-,
-:C....-;\
(fl.?
--CJ''O~
-n"--"
~~), (-)
~:?,:\J..
~~ :~_~ t~
..."" ~-:;~, \'~'
-- ":,::\
..
~ ?l.
0'
~
.".
.2t~~
~)
.t F
..t,...f..
~6-
J
-
------
Borough of W ormleysburg,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL ANIA
v.
: NO. 05-1359
DonaldM. And Kathy Witters,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION
WRIT OF EXECUTION - NOTICE
This paper is a Writ of Execution. It has been issued because there is a judgment aga nst you.
It may cause your property to be held or taken to pay the judgment. You may have rights to event
your property from being taken. A lawyer can advise you more specifically of these rights. I you
wish to exercise your rights, you must act promptly.
The law provides that certain property cannot be taken. Such property is said to be ex mpt.
There is a debtor's exemption of $300.00. TheTe are other exemptions which may be applicab e to
you. Attached is a summary of some of the major exemptions. You may have other exempti s or
otheT rights.
If you have an exemption, you should do the following:
(a) Fill out the claim form and demand a prompt hearing.
(b) Deliver the form or mail it to the Sheriffs Office at the address noted.
You should come to the court ready to explain your exemption. If you do not
come to court and prove your exemption, you may lose some of your property.
This and any future communication fTOm our debt collection firm are attempts to colle a
debt and information obtained will be used for that purpose.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HA VE 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
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(800) 990-9108
(717)249-3166
.
Wormleysburg Borough,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL ANIA
v.
NO. 05-1359
Donald and Kathy Witters,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION
MAJOR EXEMPTIONS UNDER PENNSYL VANIA AND FEDERAL LAW
(1) $300.00 statutory exemption
(2) Bibles, school books, sewing machines, uniforms and equipment
(3) Most wages and unemployment compensation
(4) Social Security benefits
(5) Certain retirement funds and accounts
(6) Certain veteran and armed forces benefits
(7) Certain insurance proceeds
(8) Such other exemptions as may be provided by law
CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION
TO THE SHERtFF:
] . The above-named defendant claims exemption of property from levy or attachment:
(1) From my personal property in my possession which has been levied upon:
(a) I desire that my $300.00 statutory exemption be:
[ ] 1. Set aside in kind (specify property to be set aside in kind):
[ ] n. Paid in cash following the sale of the property levied upon; or
[ ] III. I claim the following exemption (specify property and basis of exe ption):
(2) From my property which is in the possession of a third party, I claim the following exemptions
(a) My $300.00 statutory exemption: [ ] in cash; [ ] in kind (specify property):
(b) Social Security benefits on deposit in the amount of: $
(c) Other (specify amount and basis of exemption):
I request a prompt court hearing to determine the exemption. Notice of the hearing sho ld be
given to me at:
Address
Telephone Number
I verify that the statements made in this Claim for Exemption are true and correct. I
undeTstand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ;l4904 rating
to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date:
Defendant:
THIS CLAIM TO BE FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
WRIT OF EXECUTION andlor ATTACHMENT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND)
NO 05-1359 Civil
CIVIL ACTION - LA
TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH, Plaintiff (s)
From DONALD M. AND KAHY M. WITTERS, 8 POPLAR STREET, WORMLEYSBURG, P
17043
(I) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant (s)and to sell ANY AND ALL
PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANTS
(2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession
of
GARNISHEE(S) as follows:
and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued; (b) the garnlshee(s) is enjoined fro
paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant (s) and from delivering any property of the defend
(s) or otherwise disposing thereof;
(3) If property of the defendant(s) not levied upon an subject to allachment is found in the possession
of anyone other than a named garnishee, you are directed to notify him/her that he/she has been added as
garnishee and is enjoined as above stated.
Amount Due $2,263.94
Interest
Ally's Comm %
Ally Paid
Plaintiff Paid $34.25
Date: APRIL 12,2005
L.L.
Due Prothy $1.00
Other Costs
CURTIS R. LONG
(Seal)
By:
Deputy
REQUESTING PARTY:
Name GARY BERRES FORD
Address: BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG
20 MARKET STREET
WORMLEYSBURG, PA 17043-1396
Attorney for:
Telephone: 717-763-4483
Supreme Court ID No.
''-
:I
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states
this writ is Teturned SATISFIED.
Sheriffs Costs:
Docketing
Poundage
Advertising
Law Library
Prothonotary
Mileage
Misc.
Surcharge
Levy
Post Pone Sale
Garnishee
Postage
TOTAL $
18.00
45.28
1.00
11.10
30.00
40.00
.74
146.12
Sworn and Subscribed to before me
this,N~ day of '11t'{
2005 A.D. ~". 0 ~;JL.J, ~'
PR HONOTARY
~~~
~~
'.' :'-", \_....
'I \ :\j1 V
., ..
Jj\'d
Pd by Defendant
r:.,
\)-~
,
'-"
\1",
..:il
?~~~
R. Thomas ~l:, ~Lc/
~ A. Brewbaker
~.",
::. \ HeW SUDL
;/ djj ;1
~. Ul;;,-~fti (J)
-
j:'_ -t)
.,'
~j~) I J .-j ':~J
l.aD
"
tr~ L/ '197~
KJ.u' J (, '('1f1
WRIT OF EXECUTION ""d/or ATTACHMENT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND)
NO 05-1359 Civil
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH, Plaintiff (s)
From DONALD M. AND KAHY M. WITTERS, 8 POPLAR STREET, WORMLEYSBURG, PA
17043
(1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant (s)and to sell ANY AND ALL
PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANTS
(2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant( s) not levied upon in the possession
of
GARNISHEE(S) as follows:
and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued: (b) the garnishee(s) is enjoined from
paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant (s) and from delivering any property of the defendant
(s) or otherwise disposing thereof;
(3) If property of the defendant(s) not levied upon an subject to attachment is found in the possession
of anyone other than a named garnishee, you are directed to notify him/her that helshe has been added as a
garnishee and is enjoined as above stated.
Amount Due $2,263.94
L.L.
Interest
Atty's Comm %
Atty Paid
Plaintiff Paid $34.25
Date: APRIL 12, 2005
Due Prothy $1.00
Other Costs
(Seal)
CURTIS R. LONG
Proth~ n ~
~: a..,.. Le:. Lf./Y y, ;---
Deputy
REQUESTING PARTY:
Name GARY BERRESFORD
Address: BOROUGH OF WORMLEYSBURG
20 MARKET STREET
WORMLEYSBURG, PA 17043-1396
Attorney for:
Telephone: 717-763-4483
Supreme Court ID No.
'.
ATTORNEY Gary Berresford
WRIT NO. 2005-1359 Civil
Wormleysburg Borough
~vs-
Donald M. and Kathy M. Witters
Real Debt
Interest
Attorney's Comm.
Writ Costs, Atty
Writ Costs, Pltff.
Miscellaneous Attorneys Fees
DISTRIBUTION
$ 2263.94
34.25
$ 2298.19
Sheriffs Costs:
Docketing
Poundage
Posting Sale Bills
Law Library
Prothonotary
Service
Postage
Advertising
Postpone Sale
Surcharge
Garnishee
Levy
TOTAL
Defendant Paid to Sheriff
Advance Costs
Total Collected
DISTRIBUTION
Pd. To Pltff.
Refund of Adv. Costs
Pd. To Prothonotary
$ 18.00
45.28
1.00
11.10
.74
30.00
40.00
$ 2298.]9
150.00
1.00
$ 146.12
$ 2444.31
150.00
$ 2594.31
~~i
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
Bt~ 0/ / J ~D BVUW!~dW
John W. Purcell. Jr.. Esquire
PA Atty. 10 No. 29955
PURCELL. KRUG & HALLER
1719 N. Front Street
Harrisburg. PA 17102
Telephone: (717)234-4178
Email: jpurcelltmpkh.com
LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY. INC.
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
: NO. 05-1359 CIVIL
HOWARD B. KRUG and RUTH ANN
KRUG. husband and wife.
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendants
and
KARL BAU and WENDY BAU.
husband and wife.
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEIVIANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Liberty Forge Hospitality, Inc.
Keith A. Clark, Esquire
Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 17108
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to file a written response to the attached New Matter
and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or judgment may be entered
against you.
Date: 1 -1 -Os
Jo n W. Pure I. Jr., uire
liD No. 29955
Nichole M. Stley O'Gorman. Esquire
ID No. 79866
1719 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 234-4178
Attorney for Defendants
BY:
John W. Purcell, Jr.
I.D.29955
Purcell, Krug & Haller
1719 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
(717) 234-4178
email: jpurcell@pkh.com
LIBERTY FORGE
HOSPITALITY, INC.,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 05-1356 CIVIL
VS.
: CIVIL ACTION-lAW
HOWARD KRUG and
RUTH ANN KRUG
husband and wife,
Defendants
and
KARL BAU and
WENDY BAU,
husband and wife,
Defendants
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
NOW COMES Defendants by their attorneys, Purcell, Krug & Haller in response
to the Complaint as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. Defendants do not know the person referenced in the Complaint.
5. Denied. Defendants do not know the person referenced in the Complaint.
6. Denied as stated. In late February 2004, Defendant Ruth Ann Krug
contacted Plaintiff about hosting the September 5, 2005 wedding and reception of her
daughter, Wendy Krug, as the band for the event was open and tentatively booked for
that date.
7. Admitted, as the size and configuration of the Wedge Restaurant was
deemed unsuitable for the wedding and reception. See New Matter.
8. Admitted, as to Wendy Krug's and Karl Baum's wedding and reception, after
changes were agreed upon by the parties. However, Plaintiff was chosen in very early
March, 2004.
9. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Defendant Howard B. Krug forwarded
Exhibit "A", signed solely by Defendant Ruth Ann Krug, wiith a check for a 15% deposit,
also signed by Defendant Ruth Ann Krug, to Plaintiff for the wedding and reception.
Defendant Howard Krug did not sign either the contractual document or the check.
10. Denied. On March 1, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug advised Plaintiff, by its
authorized employee, Jennifer Beard, that the Ivan Taub Orchestra, a seven piece
band was reserved and tentatively booked for September 5, 2004 to play in the tent
during the reception between 8: 15 p.m. and 12: 15 a.m.. Throughout their dealings,
Jennifer Beard was impressed that the performance of this live band at the reception in
the tent was a material and critically important issue to Ruth Ann Krug. Jennifer Beard
confirmed and represented that the engagement of this seven piece, live band to play in
2
the tent for the reception presented no problem and could be easily accommodated.
This representation that the band would perform in the tent by Jennifer Beard continued
until September 4, 2004, when her supervisor, Brett Shaffer, met with Defendants and
informed them that no live band could perform in the tent because of Liquor Control
Board rules and regulations. Ruth Ann Krug reasonably relied on this continuing
representation as to her detriment.
11. Admitted.
12. Denied as stated. At the scheduled, first meeting on August 7,2004,
Jennifer Beard advised Defendants of a "cranky" neighbor, who had on numerous
occasions filed reports with the police regarding late night noise originating from the
tent, without result. Although the neighbor finally complained to the Pennsylvania
Liquor Control Board ("LCB"), Jennifer stated that a mediation with the neighbor had
resulted in a complete settlement and resolution of this issue. This resolution was
achieved, as per Jennifer, after Liberty Forge told the nei~lhbor that it would bring
trailers onto the facility and turn it into a trailer park if her Gomplaints continued. In the
mediated settlement, Liberty Forge allegedly agreed to en~ct a sound barrier between
the tent and the neighbor's property and would have an employee monitor noise levels
at all events held in the tent. To these ends, and for political purposes, Liberty Forge
had allegedly hired the former Mayor of Camp Hill to perform the monitoring, and he
would be dressed in a business suit to look like a guest. Jlennifer assured Ruth Ann
Krug that these steps were taken solely to keep the compliaining neighbor happy, and
Jennifer represented that this monitoring would have little or no impact on the band or
volume of its play in view of the sound barrier and the guest-friendly-way the monitoring
3
was being carried out. She emphasized that this mediated agreement had resolved the
problem entirely. At no time were Defendants told bv Jennifer that no band could
entertain in the tent, owing to LCB rules and regulations or that any LCB problem
continued to exist after the mediation.
13. Denied. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 12 is incorporated herein. No
such advice was given until September 4, 2004 by Brett Shaffer. Defendants were
continuously assured by Jennifer that the band could and would perform in the tent, a
provision which Jennifer Beard understood was critical to Defendants. To these ends,
Jennifer Beard scheduled staging to be erected in the tent for the band's use on or
about August 17, 2004. Had this disclosure been made to Defendants on August 7,
2004, another venue would have been sought.
14. Denied as stated. After the first August 7,2004 meeting with Jennifer
Beard, Defendants walked over to inspect the tent and returned to the Wedge
Restaurant, where they spoke with a woman whose daughter's August 7,2004 wedding
event had been moved from the tent to the Wedge Restaurant because of a "noise
problem". No specifics were given. On hearing this, Defendants immediately sought a
second meeting with Jennifer Beard. Jennifer repeated that the Krug/Baum wedding
would not be similarly impacted, as the decision to move the other wedding event was
made prior to the mediation and settlement with the neighbor. The noise issue having
been completely resolved at the mediation, according to Jennifer, it would not have any
impact on the subject wedding event. The band would play in the tent. There was no
hint that Defendant's band could not play under any circumstance inside the tent at the
reception, as scheduled, until September 4, 2004.
4
15. Denied as stated. Ruth Ann Krug scheduled the rehearsal dinner - not other
Defendants.
16. Denied as stated. Solely Ruth Ann Krug guaranteed 188 guests - no other
Defendant did such. A guest suffering from cancer and on a feeding tube who could
neither eat nor drink at the wedding was excepted by Plaintiff from the number of
guaranteed guests attending the reception on September 5, 2004. This guest left at
the conclusion of the wedding and did not stay for either the cocktail hour or reception.
17. Denied. The contract speaks for itself. This issue was never raised by
Plaintiff until after the wedding was held, despite Plaintiff's knowledge of the non-
payment. This term was waived by the parties through their continuing dealings
disregarding this item. At no time did Plaintiff threaten to cancel the reception or even
remind Ruth Ann Krug that any payment was due after the~ deposit was sent with the
signed contract.
18. Denied. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 17 is incorporated herein by
reference thereto. Defendant made all payments when rE!quested, up to and including
the date of the wedding. The course of dealing of the parties waived these terms.
19. Denied. Plaintiff's employee was advised of the band's start and end time in
early March 2004. Furthermore, the contractual documents confirm that the reception
would continue until 12:30 a.m. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 10 is incorporated
herein by reference thereto.
20. Denied. Defendants' answers to Paragraph 10 -12 are incorporated herein
by reference. This information was not given to Defendants until September 4, 2004,
the day before the wedding, by Brett Shaffer.
5
On September 2, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug called Jennifer Beard to ensure that
there were no last minute problems. For the first time, Jennifer asked whether she was
correct that the band would stop playing in the tent at 11 :()O p.m. Despite discussions
since March of 2004 and a contract of April 2004, this was the first time Ruth Ann Krug
was told that music would not be allowed in the tent after 11 :00 p.m. by virtue of a
township ordinance. Never before had this 11 :00 p.m. deadline been disclosed. The
reception was scheduled to continue through 12:30 a.m., as per the original contract.
Had this issue been disclosed earlier in June, prior to printing invitations, the wedding
could have been scheduled an hour and a half earlier. Jennifer made no mention of
LCB rules or regulations on September 2, 2004. Ruth Ann Krug believed that the band
could play in the tent until at least 11 :00 p.m., as per Jennifer. It is believed and
therefore averred that on or about September 2, 2004, Jennifer Beard had band staging
scheduled for erection in the tent.
21. Denied. After Plaintiff shifted from a position of totally satisfying Defendant,
then to the September 2, 2004 position that no band could play in the tent after 11 :00
p.m. (township ordinance), then to a September 4,2004 position, expressed by
telephone, that no band could play for any period of time in the tent, such shifts taking
place within less than a 72 hour period, a meeting was scheduled at Liberty Forge on
September 4, 2004, at 1 :00 p.m. with Brett Shaffer, the Director of Food and Beverage
and Jennifer Beard's supervisor. The meeting was to discuss and settle the issues
between the parties. Despite the fact that many guests were arriving by the afternoon
of September 4, 2004, Defendant's' plans to greet their friends and relatives had to be
significantly curtailed by this meeting.
6
22. Denied as stated. At the meeting with Mr. Shaffer, Defendants were told
that LCB rules and regulations totally prohibited a band from playing in the tent, as the
music would escape the premises. He indicated that Jennifer was aware of this for
sometime and that he had twice instructed her to meet with Ruth Ann Krug to cancel
the band and suggest alternative options. Despite his instructions, he alleged that he
had only just learned that Jennifer had deceived Ruth Ann Krug and disregarded his
instructions when he observed an invoice for band stagin!~ to be erected in the tent. On
confronting Jennifer, the deception, non-disclosure, and disregard of his instructions
was revealed. He was most apologetic, accepting full responsibility for this problem on
behalf of Liberty Forge. He also advised that Jennifer had been fired although a
meeting with the "owner" was scheduled. Mr. Shaffer discussed options. He agreed
that Liberty Forge would be responsible for all losses to Ruth Ann Krug resulting from
Jennifer's deception, misrepresentations, and failure to disclose earlier.
23. Denied as stated. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 22 is incorporated
herein by reference thereto. The critical importance of this band playing at the
reception was made known to Liberty Forge at all times. 1N0twithstanding this, under all
options the tent could not serve as a venue for a live band. Ruth Ann Krug's only
option at this stage, twenty-four hours before the wedding, was to bifurcate the
festivities by moving them from the tent to the Wedge Restaurant midway through the
reception, after the main course was consumed. This required guests to walk up to the
Wedge Restaurant, where the band would begin to play at approximately 10:15 p.m.
Despite Defendant's fears that guests would leave at 10:15 p.m., an arrangement was
reached with Plaintiff's authorized employee by the terms of which the wedding would
7
continue at Liberty Forge under a modified agreement beneficial to Ruth Ann Krug.
The agreement encompassed not only items one through five, stated by Plaintiff in
Paragraph 23 of its Complaint, but also the following:
A. Liberty Forge would reimburse or credit Defendant for all financial
losses, including but not limited to lost band playing time resulting
from the band's inability to play until 110:15 p.m.
B. A dessert buffet, consisting of several desserts, was to be served
without charge.
C. Snack food, to create a late night party atmosphere, would be
served without charge.
D. The Wedge Terrace would be appropriately decorated, including
flowers, without charge.
E. Steps would be taken to keep the guests motivated to stay at the
wedding; to wit, rides to the Wedge from the tent without charge.
F. Liberty Forge would hire a disc jockey to play music in the tent at
no charge to Defendant.
G. Free martini bar.
24. Admitted. It is admitted that Wendy Krug took this step to lighten her
mother's burden.
25. Admitted.
26. Denied as stated. The answer to Paragraph 115 is incorporated herein.
27. Denied as stated. To the best of Defendants' l<nowledge, the food and
service during the cocktail hour was lacking in both quality and quantity. It is admitted
that dinner took place in the tent, during which a disc jockey provided music at no
8
charge to Defendant, pursuant to the September 4, 2004 agreement of the parties.
28. Denied. The bar in the tent was closed during most of dinner time. During
the cocktail hour, the bartender ran out of white wine and never replaced it. He also
had no bloody mary mix, a common mixer. Tip jars were located at all bars throughout
the evening, despite the fact that gratuities were added to Defendant's bill, and there
was no reason for guests to feel obligated to separately tip the bartenders. This
cheapened the wedding.
29. Denied as stated. Two choices of desserts (instead of the promised
dessert buffet) were placed on trays and located in an obscure area of the Terrace,
where guest tables went uncovered.
30. Denied. The band played from approximately 10:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m., a
loss of approximately 50% of the $7,000 paid for the four hours of scheduled music.
31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and strict proof
thereof is demanded at trial. In any event, given the circumstances, the time, and the
type of event, such expressions and politeness should not be confused with true
feelings or the loss of what had been bargained for. As to Defendants, this did not
happen with regard to Jennifer, who did appear despite bE~ing allegedly terminated.
32. Denied. The answer to Paragraph 31 is incorporated herein. The wedding
and reception were not successful, inasmuch as it was not in accordance with the
detailed and meticulous planning that had gone into it, most of which had to be
discarded at the last minute, to the great chagrin and emotional heartache of the
Defendants. This was not stated seriously by any Defendant, if it were stated at all.
9
33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without sufficient
knowledge or information to form a belief at to the truth of this averment. Proof is
demanded at trial.
34. Denied. The florist expense for the decorating of the tent was lost after two
hours, half the scheduled time, because the guests vacated the tent to either go home
or to the Wedge at approximately 10: 15 p.m. In addition, Plaintiff agreed to place the
glasses containing fresh flowers in water at each tent tabl<e upon the dissipation of
excessive heat in the tent to avoid wilting. This was not done, despite Plaintiff's Mission
Statement.
35. Admitted in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff provided available fall
flowers at its own cost in the Wedge Restaurant, as part of the settlement agreement
with Ruth Ann Krug. Tablecloths and centerpieces were not provided in the decorated
Terrace area, where guests sat around bare tables. The cost is unknown and irrelevant
to Defendants. In further reply, see New Matter below.
36. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that a disc jockey was
hired by Plaintiff, as part of its settlement agreement with Ruth Ann Krug, to perform
during the dinner. The balance of the averment is denied. After reasonable
investigation, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the averment and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
Pursuant to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, this was a no charge item.
37. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitfted that a dance floor was
ordered by Ruth Ann Krug for the tent so that certain traditional circle dances, in whichi
10
most of the guests participate, could occur. The expanded dance floor was not placed
in the tent. The balance of the averment is denied. After reasonable investigation, the
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the cost averment and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. Pursuant to
Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, there was to be no charge for this under the settlement
agreement.
38. Denied. Defendants received only two billings dated September 29, 2004
and October 8, 2004, respectively. No prior bill was received, and the bills failed to
include credit or reimbursement for Defendant's losses. In further reply, see New
Matter below. Plaintiff's reasons for sending such late invoices is unknown to
Defendant, as such knowledge is solely within the exclusive control of Plaintiff. Proof is
demanded.
39. Denied. Exhibit "B" speaks for itself. In any event, Plaintiff had agreed to
reimburse Defendant for losses but ignored same in its billlings and refused to consider
same.
40. Admitted.
41. Admitted in part. In further reply, see New Matter below. Howard B. Krug
paid for the rehearsal dinner in full, at Plaintiff's request, to assist his burdened spouse.
After reviewing the invoice and approving same, a credit card invoice was signed by
Howard B. Krug. He gave Plaintiff no authority to ever USl3 that card again for anything
but the cost of the rehearsal dinner, and it should not have been used electronically
and without signature on the invoice 26 days later to pay for the wedding and reception.
11
42. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "8" speak for themselves.
Defendant is unaware of any "snacks" being served, despite prior agreement for no
charge snacks in conformity with the September 4, 2004 settlement agreement
between the parties.
43. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "8" speak for themselves. Items
were not billed pursuant to the contract between the partie3s. The tent could not be
used as represented. Plaintiff understood this and billed accordingly.
44. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "8" speak for themselves. Dinner
was rushed and non-dairy deserts were never served. In further response, see
Defendants' New Matter.
45. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "8" speak for themselves. Without
a review of the actual records of alcohol consumed, Defendant cannot agree with the
summary provided by Plaintiff, especially since guests were charged separately for
drinks at the outset and no accounting for tips from tip jars has been provided, despite a
20% service fee charged Defendant.
46. Denied. The charges set forth in Exhibit "8" speak for themselves. See
answer to Paragraph 37 and New Matter. It is not clear that this floor was used;
however, in any event, it was not used for the tent.
47. Denied. It is admitted that a deposit of $1,937.70 was paid by Ruth Ann
Krug and that Plaintiff was always aware of this. The balance of the averment is
denied, based on Plaintiff's breach of the contract, as modified, and its other breaches,
deceptions, and violations by its employee, as set forth in New Matter and
Counterclaims herein. No such balance is due. Exhibit "B" appears to contradict this
allegation.
12
48. Admitted, but no such invoice dated prior to Sl3ptember 29,2004 was ever
received. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 41 is incorporated herein by reference
thereto. Although Plaintiff did this, it was never authorized to charge the subject credit
card for anything other than the rehearsal dinner without the sDecific approval and
siqnature of Howard B. Krug. Plaintiff had neither. In further reply, see New Matter.
Pursuant to the written contract between Plaintiff and Ruth Ann Krug, the former could
not charge anything to a credit card unless same was on file for and the charges found
reasonable by Ruth Ann Krug. Liberty Forge never had a credit card on file for or Ruth
Ann Krug's prior approval of the charges. Ruth Ann Krug had to approve any charges
as reasonable before even a credit card on file could be Ulsed. In fact, Plaintiff was
aware when it put through the charges that it was Ruth Ann Krug's intent to dispute
charges where needed, after review.
49. Denied as stated. Defendant Howard Krug disputed the Plaintiff's
unauthorized, unreasonable and unapproved credit card c:harges for a number of
reasons, as more fully set forth in the New Matter below and in the Answer to
Paragraphs 41 and 48, incorporated herein by reference thereto.
50. Denied. Ruth Ann Krug was the principal person involved in the planning,
negotiations and scheduling decisions for the event. She had some help and
suggestions from others, as any mother would for such a task. However, Plaintiff was
to and did contact Ruth Ann Krug for all decisions concerning significant and material
issues and problems. Proof is demanded.
51. Denied. It is admitted that Howard B. Krug is an attorney, as is Plaintiff's
13
President and others involved or associated with Plaintiff. The said Defendant
contributed nothing toward the planning of his daughter's wedding. His only role was to
review the legal terms of Plaintiff's proffered contract. Once Plaintiff's deceptions were
made known, Defendant did attempt to cheer up Wendy and advise Ruth Ann Krug.
52. Denied. As set forth in the contract attached als Exhibit "A" to Plaintiff's
Complaint, only Ruth Ann Krug requested that Plaintiff host the wedding. In addition,
Paragraphs 6-7 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein. No Defendant other
than Ruth Ann Krug made such a request of Plaintiff. Proof is demanded.
53. Denied as stated. On September 4, 2004, Mr. Shaffer requested, after the
parties came to a new agreement, a new schedule for the wedding and reception, as
things had obviously changed, due to the deceptions, misrepresentations, and non-
disclosures of Plaintiff's authorized employee, Jennifer Beard. Wendy lightened this
last minute burden, acting with her mother's prior approval, by typing the schedule after
discussion. At this point on September 4,2004, after 3:30 p.m., Ruth Ann Krug was
very involved with family, friends and problems concernin!l elderly relatives, among
others.
54. Denied as stated. The Answers to Paragraph 48 and 49 are incorporated
herein by reference thereto. Unauthorized use of a credit card, provided 26 days earlier
by a third party to pay for the rehearsal dinner, would obviously be unrelated to the
legitimacy of any debt contracted by Ruth Ann Krug to Plaintiff for the wedding and
reception. Plaintiff has clearly admitted it was given the subject credit card to pay for
the rehearsal dinner, alleging nothing more regarding authorization. After failing in its
attempts to charge $22,432.20 (more than that claimed b}' Plaintiff is even due), it did
not voluntarily return said funds. See New Matter.
14
55. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the alleged balance of
$17,493.50, claimed by Plaintiff has not been paid. It is denied that the amount is due
and owing for the reasons set forth herein and in New Matter. Aside from Ruth Ann
Krug, the other Defendants have no obligation, if any exists, to make any payment to
Plaintiff.
COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT
PLAINTIFF v. DEFENDANT RUTH ANN KRUG
56. Defendant's response to Paragraphs One through Fifty-Five are
incorporated herein by reference.
57. Defendant's answer to Paragraph 8 hereof is incorporated herein by
reference. Plaintiff's standard contract was changed in several respects prior to
execution.
58. Denied. Exhibit "A", signed by Jennifer Beard on behalf of Plaintiff, speaks
for itself. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form a belief as to
the truth of the averment. A copy of the fully signed contract was never forwarded by
Plaintiff to Defendant until it was included with Plaintiff's Complaint.
59. Denied. Exhibit "A" speaks for itself. In further reply, Plaintiff never
requested an additional deposit 90 days prior to the wedding, and despite knowledge of
there being no additional deposit, hosted the wedding. NE~ither of the parties
understood this payment to be "material" and by their actions waived the term. See
Defendant's answer to Paragraph 17 and 18.
60. Denied. The document speaks for itself. See response to 59 above.
15
61. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. See
response to 59 above.
62. Denied. Plaintiff never requested that Ruth Ann Krug pay for the full amount
of the wedding and reception 14 days prior thereto. Plaintiff hosted the wedding without
requesting any additional compensation, until a bill was received in very early October
by Defendant. This term was waived by the agreement and actions of the parties.
Also, Defendant was entitled to credits and reimbursement for her losses and under the
contract for improper charges, as per the agreement of September 4, 2004, all of which
Plaintiff has refused to consider since the wedding was concluded.
63. Denied. The document speaks for itself. See response to 62 above.
64. Denied. The contract attached as Exhibit "A" and the clause in question
speak for themselves. Defendant never placed a credit card on file for these purposes,
and the charges were not for "incidentals". The charges were never deemed
reasonable by "Patron" Ruth Ann Krug, prior to the use of the credit card of Howard B.
Krug by Plaintiff, especially in view of her losses and the items not provided (See New
Matter); thus, the clause is inapplicable. Plaintiff agreed Cind did not require a credit
card from Defendant. In further reply, see New Matter bellow.
65. Denied. Exhibit "A" speaks for itself. However, Plaintiff never disclosed it
would have tip jars placed at all bars, thereby cheapening the wedding and exceeding
the established 20% service charge to be paid by Ruth Ann Krug. Such tips should be
accounted for and considered against Plaintiff's bill for service charges.
66. Denied. See response to paragraph 16.
16
67. Denied. See response to paragraph 62.
68. Denied. See response to paragraph 62.
69. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant's answer to Paragraph 41 is
incorporated herein by reference. It is admitted that Howard B. Krug provided a credit
card to pay the Plaintiff's charges for the rehearsal dinner onlv and that this transaction
required his actual signature. It is denied that the credit card was provided to pay for
the entire wedding and reception or in any way authorized Plaintiff to utilize the card for
any purpose without his express prior approval and signature. Plaintiff never requested
permission or consent for such use, but it eventually used the card to pay for the
wedding and reception, improperly receiving $15,943.94. It is believed and therefor
averred that Plaintiff was aware that such use was improper when it did so without the
signature, advance authorization, and prior bill review by Howard B. Krug, who was not
even a signatory to the contract.
70. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 38.
71. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 49.
72. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 54.
73. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 55.
74. Denied as a conclusion of law. Defendant's Answer to Paragraph 63 is
incorporated herein by reference. Defendant has significant losses for which she is
entitled to reimbursement and credit. See New Matter.
75. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 47.
76. Denied as a conclusion of law. These sums are not due, as previously set
17
forth herein. In addition, Defendant is entitled to setoffs, credits, and deductions, as per
the September 4, 2004 agreement of the parties. Defendant is also entitled to
reduction for Plaintiff's failure to perform in conformity with the contract, its own
advertised standards, and possibly with the accepted professional standards of the
Food and Beverage industry when conducting weddings.
77. Denied as a conclusion of law. In further reply, to the extent this paragraph
contains factual averments, the Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the same and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter
judgment in favor of the Defendant, and dismiss the Complaint.
COUNT II
THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY
PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANTS WENDY BAU AND KARL BAU
78 through 86. No response required per the Court Order granting Preliminary
Objections dated June 6, 2005.
COUNT \II
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
PLAINTIFF v. ALL DEFENDANTS
87. The Answers to Paragraphs One through Eighty-Six of the Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference.
88. Denied as a conclusion of law. Plaintiff has conferred no benefit on
Defendants other than Ruth Ann Krug, with whom it contracted, any more than it
conferred a benefit on other guests in attendance at the wedding.
18
89. Denied as a conclusion of law. Plaintiff has an express contract with Ruth
Ann Krug, as modified on September 4, 2004. In any event, this benefit was accepted
by Ruth Ann Krug, pursuant to an express contract with Plaintiff to provide the facility
and services. Other Defendants have derived no more benefit than any other guest.
Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief, as it has an adequate remedy at law.
90. Denied as a conclusion of law. An express contract exists with Ruth Ann
Krug. Plaintiff should not be entitled to equitable relief. In any event, considering what
Plaintiff did to Defendants by its authorized employer, its actions on the eve of the
wedding, and its improper actions after the wedding, it is not unjust that it receive
nothing.
91. Denied as a conclusion of law. Defendants' answer to Paragraph 90 is
incorporated herein.
92. Denied. See Answer to paragraph 47.
93. Denied as a conclusion of law. All items, by express agreement, were to be
without charge so long as Defendant held the wedding at Liberty Forge, which
occurred. In any event, Plaintiff cannot recover in equity or escape from the terms of its
contract with Ruth Ann Krug. See New Matter.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter
judgment in favor of the Defendants and dismiss the Complaint.
COUNT IV
FRAUD
PLAINTIFF V. ALL DEFENDANTS
94 through 134. No response required per the Court Order granting Preliminary
Objections dated June 6. 2005.
19
NEW MATTER
135. In late February 2004, Ruth Ann Krug called Plaintiff (hereinafter "Liberty
Forge") and other venues to determine those available for a September 5, 2004
wedding reception, as this date was already cleared with and reserved by Ruth Ann
Krug's desired band.
136. Jennifer Beard advised the date was available at Liberty Forge.
137. At all times relevant hereto, Jennifer Beard was an authorized employee of
Plaintiff, acting within the course, scope and in furtherance of her authorized duties.
138. Plaintiff is vicariously liable for the actions and statements of its employee,
Jennifer Beard.
139. On March 1, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug met Jennifer Beard at Liberty Forge to
tour the facility, which was the last facility toured that day.
140. Ruth Ann Krug advised Jennifer that she required a venue for September
5, 2004 to meet certain dietary standards, accommodate ~~OO guests, and have a large
dance floor with space for a large band to play at the formal, evening reception.
141. Jennifer was also told that the seven piece Ivan Taub Orchestra had
already been reserved and tentatively booked to play at the reception on September 5,
2004 from 8:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m.
142. Ruth Ann Krug also expressed how excited she was to have this band
perform at the reception of her daughter, owing to her attendance at other band
performances.
143. This band was reserved before any wedding location was even chosen, as
explained to Jennifer.
20
144. After the tour, Jennifer was advised by Ruth Ann Krug that the Wedge
Restaurant was rejected as a reception site because of its size and room configuration,
which impacted upon large numbers dancing to the live band.
145. Ruth Ann Krug told Jennifer that the Liberty "Big Top" tent ("tent") was the
onlv venue at Liberty Forge of interest.
146. Throughout their dealings, Jennifer Beard was advised that the most
material and critically important issue was having the Ivan Taub Orchestra perform
during the entire wedding reception, which was to take plclce in the tent at Liberty
Forge.
147. Ms. Beard emphasized at this meeting that Liberty Forge was fully capable
of accommodating the expressed needs of Ruth Ann Kru~l, and color photos were
shown of Liberty Forge weddings, including those in the tEmt.
148. Ms. Beard impressed Ruth Ann Krug with the professionalism, skill, and
eagerness to please of Liberty Forge and its staff, as well as its available facilities, to
meet the expressed needs of this wedding, including danc:ing.
149. No warnings, problems, conditions, or objections were asserted by Jennifer
with regard to the band performing in the tent, Jennifer understanding that Liberty Forge
would then be eliminated as a location for the wedding.
150. Ruth Ann Krug was given a packet, which included a DVD and an
informational booklet, attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
21
151. The informational booklet at page 3 provided that "dance floors can be
placed at any of the various dining venues....".
152. The DVD appeared to show a dance floor in the tent.
153. After reviewing the Liberty Forge packet and comparing the facilities
offered by others, Ruth Ann Krug called Jennifer Beard to reserve the tent for
September 5, 2004.
154. On March 8, 2004 Ruth Ann Krug signed a contract dated March 3, 2004 to
have the Ivan Taub Orchestra play at the scheduled wedding (location to be
determined) on September 5,2004 from approximately 8:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m.
155. Until Plaintiff forwarded its original March 2004 contract for signature by
Ruth Ann Krug, it had no contact whatsoever with Howard Krug.
156. On April 20, 2004, after amendment of Plaintiff's standard contract, Ruth
Ann Krug signed the contract between the parties, as well as a check for a 15%
deposit, both of which were mailed to Jennifer Beard at Liberty Forge.
157. Based on Exhibit "A" to the Complaint of Liberty Forge, Jennifer Beard was
authorized to sign the contract on behalf of Plaintiff.
158. At no time did any Defendant other than Ruth Ann Krug sign the contract
between the parties.
159. No Defendant other than Ruth Ann Krug signed a check or provided funds
toward the cost of the wedding and reception.
160. Ms. Beard was at all times aware that the chosen venue for the reception
with seven piece orchestra was to be in the tent.
22
161. At no time until September 4, 2004 did Plaintiff advise Ruth Ann Krug that
a live band could not perform in the tent for any reason.
162. It is believed and therefore averred that at all times Plaintiff, its managers
and employees knew or should have known prior to SeptElmber 4, 2004 of the
proscription of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board ("LCB") rules and regulations with
respect to noise and music emanating from the boundaries of a licensed establishment.
163. On August 7, 2004, Jennifer Beard advised Defendants of a cranky
neighbor who had complained approximately twenty-five (25) times to township police
with regard to hearing late night music emanating from thl3 tent.
164. Jennifer advised that police had never issued a single citation to Plaintiff as
a result of these numerous calls.
165. Jennifer also advised that the neighbor eventually called the LCB, which
became involved to assist the neighbor.
166. This filing, according to Jennifer, led to a mediation, during which Liberty
Forge threatened that the neighbor's continuing complainlls would result in mobile
homes and trailers being brought onto the grounds, turning it into a trailer park.
167. Jennifer also indicated that the neighbor was very intimidated by such a
possibility.
168. As a result of the mediation, Plaintiff agreed to erect a sound barrier
between the tent and the neighbor's property.
169. Jennifer also advised that Liberty Forge hired the former Mayor of Camp
Hill for political advantage to monitor noise levels for events held in the tent.
23
170. Jennifer minimized the monitoring, assuring Huth Ann Krug that such would
have little impact on the wedding, the band or volume of its play, owing to the
placement of the sound barrier and Plaintiff's guest-friendly, control.
171. Jennifer again firmly and unconditionally advised that the neighbor fully
agreed, and the mediated agreement resolved the entire problem.
172. Jennifer did not state that there was any continuing LCB problem, and
Defendants left the meeting thinking all was fine.
173. On August 7,2004, Jennifer never advised Defendants that a band could
not entertain in the tent, owing to LCB rules or regulations or any other reason.
174. Jennifer also did not advise that there was any township ordinance
requiring band music to stop in the tent at 11 :00 p.m.
175. After meeting with and being assured by Jennifer on August 7,2004,
Defendants walked to the tent and returned to the Wedge Restaurant, where they met
the mother of a bride scheduled to be married that day, and she advised that her
wedding had to be moved to the Wedge Restaurant because of "noise problems" in the
tent.
176. On hearing this, Defendants immediately returned to speak to Jennifer,
who responded that the decision to move the other wedding was made prior to the
mediation and settlement with the neighbor.
177. Jennifer repeated that the noise issue, having been completely resolved
at the mediation, had been totally eliminated and would have no impact on the wedding,
at which the band would play during the reception in the tEmt, as scheduled.
24
178. Jennifer Beard was fully aware, owing to the importance of this band to
Ruth Ann Krug, that had she disclosed that no band could play in the tent, the wedding
at Plaintiff's facility would have been canceled and anothm location found.
179. At no time thereafter, prior to September 4, 2004, did Jennifer or Plaintiff
advise Ruth Ann Krug that Liberty Forge was cited by or Eingaged in continuing legal
proceedings with the LCB, Defendants being left under the clear impression that the
mediation led to the resolution of the tent-noise issue entirelv.
180. It is believed and therefore averred that in JIJly or early August, 2004
Plaintiff received from the LCB a Notice of Intent to File Citation against Plaintiff.
181. It is further believed and therefore averred that on August 26,2004, a
citation or series of citations were issued against Plaintiff by the LCB.
182. At no time did Plaintiff or its authorized emplioyees advise any Defendant
of receipt of the Notice of Intent or the actual filing of citatilon(s) against Plaintiff by the
LCB.
183. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff decided to comply with
LCB rules and stop bands from performing in the tent, because the music invariably
escaped the boundaries of Plaintiff's licensed property, despite its much touted "sound
barrier" .
184. Plaintiff did not in good faith make Ruth Ann Krug or any Defendant aware
of this position or decision, despite its contract of April 20, 2004 and the express and
implied duties thereof.
25
185. At no time prior to September 4, 2004 did Plaintiff advise any Defendant
of this information, despite the negative impact it would have on this long planned
wedding, with a band already scheduled to play in the tent.
186. At all significant times it was known to Plaintiff that the reception was
scheduled to commence in the tent on September 5, 2004 at approximately 8: 15 p.m.
and continue through approximately 12:30 a.m., with the band playing throughout.
187. At all times, Plaintiff was aware that Defendant relied on representations
that the band would play in the tent.
188. Plaintiff was also aware that Defendant had CI specific schedule for
wedding events, based in part on band play.
189. During the contract period, Plaintiff owed a duty to Defendant of good faith,
full disclosure, and fair dealing.
190. On or about August 17, 2004 Plaintiff, by its authorized employee, ordered
staging to be erected for the band in the tent, as per recent request of the band.
191. On September 2, 2004, seventy-two (72) hours before the wedding, when
Ruth Ann Krug called her to see, in general, if any problems existed, Jennifer Beard
told Ruth Ann Krug for the first time that the band could not play in the tent after 11 :00
p.m., owing to township ordinance.
192. On September 3,2004, at 10:30 p.m. Brett Shaffer, the Director of Food
and Beverage at Liberty Forge (and Jennifer's supervisor), called Ruth Ann Krug,
requesting that she call him immediately; however, she did not get the message until
the next morning.
26
193. By telephone during the morning of September 4, 2004, Brett Shaffer told
Ruth Ann Krug that as per LCB rules, no band could legally play in the tent under any
circumstances, which last minute disclosure caused emotional distress for Ruth Ann
Krug and Wendy Krug.
194. In response to her question why she was never told about this proscription
before, Mr. Shaffer told Ruth Ann Krug that a morning meeting was scheduled to
determine just that.
195. As a result of these stress inducing, last minute position shifts by Plaintiff,
and in an attempt to salvage this wedding, because it was, too late to secure an
alternate site, a face to face meeting was scheduled for September 4, 2004 at 1 :00
p.m. with Brett Shaffer, and this lasted until almost 3:00 p.m.
196. Although many guests were to arrive during the morning and afternoon of
September 4, 2004, Defendants' plans with out-of-town guests were cancelled, as Ruth
Ann Krug and family did not return home from the meetin!l until approximately 3:30 p.m.
197. At the September 4, 2004 meeting, Mr. Shaffer repeated that LCB rules
and regulations prohibited a band from playing in the tent, as the music would escape
the premises.
198. Allegedly, Jennifer had twice been instructed to meet with Defendants to
fully and honestly disclose the band problem, the first timE! approximately a month
earlier, in early August.
199. In the beginning of September, when he saw an invoice for band staging
to be erected in the tent, Mr. Shaffer allegedly confronted Jennifer, resulting in the late
evening message to Ruth Ann Krug on September 3, 2004.
27
200. He was most apologetic and accepted full responsibility for this problem
on behalf of Liberty Forge.
201. He advised that Jennifer Beard had been allegedly fired because of her
dishonesty, deception, and failure to deal with the problem honestly and openly with
Ruth Ann Krug.
202. Allegedly, no one checked to determine whether Jennifer had honestly
disclosed all to Ruth Ann Krug until the eve of the weddin!~.
203. At no time did Mr. Shaffer request additionall funds of Ruth Ann Krug
toward the cost of the wedding on behalf of Plaintiff.
204. On behalf of Liberty Forge, Mr. Shaffer agreed to make up for this
situation, but under no circumstances could a band play in the tent.
205. Mr. Shaffer made several suggestions, and despite fears that guests
would leave at 10: 15 p.m., a settlement agreement was reached by the terms of which
the wedding would continue at Liberty Forge, with significant event changes benefitting
Ruth Ann Krug to make up for this situation.
206. By the terms of the settlement agreement, once dinner was completed
between 10:00 and 10:15 p.m., the venue for the reception would change to the Wedge
Restaurant, where the band could play, as no large dinner tables were needed.
207. The settlement agreement approved by Ruth Ann Krug and Brett Shaffer,
Plaintiff's authorized employee, provided for several additllonal items beyond those
admitted by Plaintiff in Paragraph 23 of its Complaint, including the following:
a. Liberty Forge would reimburse or credit Defendant for all economic
losses, to the extent of unnecessary or partially unnecessary
28
expense, including lost band playing Itime (inability to play in the
tent from 8:15 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.).
b. A dessert buffet of several desserts would be served without
charge.
c. Snack food to create a late night party atmosphere would be
served without charge.
d. The Wedge Terrace would be decorated for a reception, including
full flowers, without charge.
e. Steps would be taken to keep the guests motivated to remain at the
wedding during the change of venues, to include rides to the
Wedge, without charge.
f. Martini bar without charge.
208. As a result of this settlement agreement, the wedding took place at Liberty
Forge.
209. Mr. Shaffer's September 3rd and 4th contacts and agreements were with
Ruth Ann Krug and no other Defendant.
210. On or about September 4,2004, an employel~ of Plaintiff advised Ruth Ann
Krug that Jennifer was very upset and exceptionally sorry for all that had occurred.
211. Incredibly, Jennifer appeared at the September 4, 2004 rehearsal dinner,
where she told Ruth Ann Krug that she had been fired.
212. The rehearsal dinner of September 4,2004 took place uneventfully, and to
help his wife during this stress-filled time, Howard B. Krug paid for the dinner in full, at
its conclusion, by credit card slip he expressly sianed aftel" review and aooroval of the
billing.
29
213. On September 4,2004, at the time of payment for the rehearsal dinner,
Plaintiffs employee stated that there was $1,937.70 on deposit for the wedding.
214. On September 4,2004, no additional funds, besides those necessary to
pay the exact bill for the rehearsal dinner, were requested of Howard Krug for the
wedding.
215. At no time was Howard Krug advised that his credit card would be used for
anything other than the rehearsal dinner.
216. At no time did Howard B. Krug authorize Plaintiff to use his credit card to
pay for the wedding.
217. At no time did Howard B. Krug authorize Plaintiff to use his credit card
without his signature.
218. At no time did Ruth Ann Krug leave with Plaintiff a credit card of record.
219. At no time did Plaintiff object to this lack of credit card on record.
220. At no time between April 22, 2004 and September 5, 2004 did Plaintiff
request an additional deposit toward the cost of the wedding and reception, despite the
express terms of the contract between the parties.
221. At no time between April 22, 2004 and September 5, 2004 did Plaintiff ever
request that the entire wedding and reception be paid for, despite the terms of the
contract between the parties.
222. At no time did Plaintiff remind Ruth Ann Kru!~ to make any payment
pursuant to the terms of the contract.
223. Ruth Ann Krug made all payments requested by Plaintiff on or before
September 29, 2004.
30
*
224. On September 5, 2004, the following receptilon problems were noted:
a. During the cocktail hour, the outside bartender ran out of white
wine and never replaced it.
b. The outside bar never had nor secured Bloody Mary mix, despite
requests.
c. Tip jars were placed at all bars throu9hout the evening, despite the
fact that a service charge was added to Ruth Ann Krug's bill.
d. There were either too many or insufficient chairs at many tables in
the tent to seat the number of guests assigned to each table,
causing guests to embark on a scavenger hunt in the tent for
available chairs.
e. No salad dressing was served or present on the dry salad.
f. For the majority of the dinner in the tE!nt, the bar was closed, guests
being falsely told that this was on the instructions of the bride and
groom.
g. Only two choices of dessert were placed on trays in an obscure
area of the Terrace, rather than the agreed dessert buffet.
h. The Terrace patio, although decorated with Fall flowers, lacked
tablecloths and flowers or centerpieces on the tables, resulting in
guests sitting at bare, ugly tables.
I. The dance floor intended for the tent, so that traditional circle
dances could take place, was not installed in the tent, making it
impossible for the majority of guests to participate.
31
j. Defendants are unaware of any snaciks served at the reception.
k. No non-dairy desserts were served at the wedding, despite
charges.
I. The wedding reception in the tent was hurried.
m. At the beginning of the wedding, guests were charged for drinks,
and it is unknown whether Plaintiff's charges to Ruth Ann Krug
include drinks paid for by guests.
225. The Ivan Taub Orchestra played until approximately 12:15 a.m., a loss of
approximately 50% of the four hours scheduled for music, Ruth Ann Krug having paid
$7,000 for four hours of scheduled music, resulting in a loss of $3,500.
226. The florist expense for decorating the tent was significantly lost, as the
guests were in the tent for no more than two hours, roughly half of the scheduled time.
Thus, 50% of the floral expense was lost and made unneeessary.
227. In addition, Plaintiff agreed to place flower bowls at the tables in the tent
once the excessive heat dissipated to avoid wilting; however, this was never done and
the entire expense for such was lost.
228. The total loss for the decorations, bowls and other flower involvement was
approximately $930.
229. The small plates of non-dairy desserts were never served, for a loss of
$636 plus 20% service charge or $756.
230. An accounting of the tips paid by the guests was never provided to Ruth
Ann Krug, despite her obligation for a 20% service charge.
32
231. Although there was a charge for an audio/visual miscellaneous setup of
$1,040, it is believed and therefore averred that this was intended for use by the band
for a four hour period, which lasted only two hours. It is b,elieved and therefore averred
that the disc jockey brought his own music, speakers, and other audio/visual
equipment.
232. Had Ruth Ann Krug been properly advised that the wedding would have to
be bifurcated to have the band, tent decorations and expemditures would have been
minimal.
233. The following charges should be reduced by half or more because of the
short amount of time spent at the tent reception, or as provided above:
Item
Charae
a. Band (lost 2 hours - 50%)
b. Florist (tent deco) (50% use)
c. Unserved non-dairy desserts
d. Stage rental for band (50% use)
e. Sound system rental (50% use)
f. Special linen rental for tent tables
g. AudioNisual setup
Total Credit for losses and unserved items:
$7,000
1,860
756
300
384
356
1,040
Credit
$3,500
930
756
150
192
178
520
$6,226**
** Not including tip credit against service charges and drinks paid for by
guests and possibly charged to Ruth Ann Krug at beginning of event.
234. On or about September 29, 2004, Ruth Ann Krug received a call from a
Liberty Forge employee inquiring whether a billing had belen received.
33
235. Ruth Ann Krug advised the employee that no bill had yet been received.
236. The employee responded that corporate billing was notoriously slow.
237. It was during this conversation of September 29,2004 that Ruth Ann Krug
advised the employee that she needed the bill, as she intEmded to dispute same where
appropriate, after review.
238. Ruth Ann Krug received only two separate billings, dated September 29,
2004 and October 8, 2004, respectively.
239. No bill prior to that dated September 29, 2004 was ever received, if even
sent.
240. The bills failed to include any credit or reimbursement for Defendant's
losses or the credits due and stated in this New Matter for items not provided.
241. Prior to receiving Plaintiff's invoices, Ruth Ann Krug had no idea of the final
billing total.
242. At all times Plaintiff was aware that Defendant had losses to be discussed
and addressed in the billing; however, Plaintiff chose to ignore same entirely.
243. At no time was Plaintiff authorized to charge the credit card of Howard Krug
for anything other than the rehearsal dinner, without his specific approval and signature.
244. Plaintiff never requested such consent or authorization from either Ruth
Ann Krug or Howard B. Krug.
245. Pursuant to the written contract between Plaintiff and Ruth Ann Krug,
Liberty Forge could not charge anything to a credit card not on file for "Patron" Ruth
Ann Krug without her orior review and approval as "reasonable".
246. Liberty Forge never had a credit card on file for Ruth Ann Krug.
34
247. The contract between Plaintiff and Ruth Ann Krug provides in pertinent part
under "PAYMENT IN ADVANCE" with respect to "incidental charges" that:
Patron agrees to such amount as may be charged to their
credit cards with the provision that such amounts are
deemed reasonable bv the patron. (emphasis added).
248. The underlined language quoted above was added by Ruth Ann Krug to
Plaintiff's standard agreement to prevent unauthorized credit card charges to a credit
card on file.
249. At no time were Plaintiff's charges deemed reasonable or even seen by
Ruth Ann Krug prior to Plaintiff's unauthorized use of the credit card of Howard Krug to
pay its charges.
250. No attempt by Liberty Forge to use the Visa card of Howard B. Krug was
made until September 30, 2004, one day after Ruth Ann Krug advised the Liberty Forge
employee that she may dispute Plaintiff's billing.
251. It is believed and therefore averred that on September 30,2004, the
following unsuccessful attempts were made to charge the credit card of Howard B. Krug
by Plaintiff:
Date
9/30/2004
9/30/2004
9/30/2004
9/30/2004
9/30/2004
9/30/2004
9/30/2004
Merchant
Liberty Forge Hospitality
Liberty Forge Hospitality
Liberty Forge Hospitality
Liberty Forge Hospitality
Liberty Forge Hospitality
Liberty Forge Hospitality
Liberty Forge Hospitality
Amount
$22,432.20
$22,432.20
$1,200.00
$6,000.00
$12,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
(See fax from Citi Bank to Howard B. Krug from S. Larson dated January
17,2005, attached hereto as Defendants' Exhibit "B".)
35
252. It is believed and therefore averred that the initial sums Plaintiff attempted
to charge against Defendant's Visa card $22,432.20, exceeds the amount Plaintiff has
ever claimed is owed in this case since September 5, 2004.
253. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff continued in its attempts to
use without authorization the credit card of Howard Krug, and Plaintiff, without
authorization and actual approval, obtained three (3) separate payments on September
30,2004 of $5,000, $5,000, and $1,000 respectively. (Se'e Exhibit "B" of Plaintiff's
Complaint.)
254. Thus, on September 30,2004, Plaintiff made Ten (10) attempts to use the
credit card of Howard B. Krug without authorization, securing payment of $11 ,000 finally
in the last three.
255. It is further believed that on or about October 6, 2004 Plaintiff attempted an
11th unauthorized charge and received a payment of $4,943.94 from the credit card of
Howard B. Krug. (See Exhibit "B" of Plaintiff's Complaint.)
256. It is further believed and therefore averred that through the unauthorized
use of Defendant's Visa, Plaintiff received $15,943.94.
257. As a result, Howard B. Krug canceled the credit card, at great trouble and
inconvenience.
258. Plaintiff was aware at all times that it was not authorized to use this credit
card to pay for the wedding and reception.
259. As an express contract with Ruth Ann Krug exists, Plaintiff is not entitled to
equitable relief for unjust enrichment or for any equitable or other relief against any
Defendant other than Ruth Ann Krug.
36
260. Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law.
261. Plaintiff's request for equitable relief is barred by the Doctrine of Unclean
Hands by virtue of its actions and representations.
262. Due to the express contract as modified, Plaintiff cannot recover, if at all,
more than that due under its existing contract, as reduced or eliminated by Defendants'
Counterclaims and defenses.
263. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff knew or should have
known, and disclosed to Ruth Ann Krug when it was contracting or dealing with her,
that LCB rules and regulations barred the performance of a live band in the tent.
264. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff knew or should have
known of and disclosed to Ruth Ann Krug when it was contracting or dealing with her
that a township ordinance barred live music emanating from the tent after 11 :00 p.m.
265. It is believed and therefore averred that Liberty Forge recklessly failed to
train, supervise or reasonably monitor its employee, Jennllfer Beard, and bestowed
upon her inordinately high levels of authority after only a short time on the job.
266. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff failed to investigate the
prior performance and conduct of Jennifer Beard as an employee in this field before it
hired her in late 2003 or in January or February 2004.
267. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff acted very late regarding
this band issue and wedding changes, thereby coercing Ruth Ann Krug to accept a
wedding of lesser quality to that which was contracted for and desired.
268. It is believed and therefore averred that Ruth Ann Krug, owing to duress,
agreed to a bifurcated wedding, rushed dinner service, and use of the Wedge
Restaurant for half the reception, as it was too late to mak.e changes.
37
269. It is believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff's employee may have
engaged in a "bait and switch" course of conduct, as she l<new Ruth Ann Krug did not
want the reception and dinner dance to be held in the Wedge Restaurant.
270. It is believed and therefore averred that during the wedding, one or more
minors somehow received intoxicating beverages on Plaintiff's premises.
271. It is believed and therefore averred that employees of Plaintiff were
ordered to use the credit card of Howard B. Krug to pay for the wedding reception,
Plaintiff knowing that such action was not authorized by Howard B. Krug.
272. It is further believed and therefore averred that Plaintiff was aware that
unauthorized charges against a credit card without the express consent of the owner is
improper and prohibited in law.
273. It is further believed that the daughter and son-in-law of Ruth Ann Krug and
Howard B. Krug have been included as Defendants in this case solely to intimidate and
coerce Ruth Ann Krug to pay this debt.
274. Count IV of Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed by the Court of Common
Pleas on the basis of a demurrer.
275. There was never a factual basis to bring a fraud count against Defendants,
individually or collectively.
276. It is believed and therefore averred that this \/lias no more than an attempt
to increase damages and further intimidate Defendants.
277. It is further believed and therefore averred that Curt Williams, Esquire,
Plaintiff's President, signed a verification to the Complaint knowing that there was no
good faith basis for the fraud count against all or any of the Defendants.
38
278. It is believed and therefore averred that this was not the first time Plaintiff
has canceled events or made last minute, significant changes in wedding receptions.
279. It is believed and therefore averred that given the performance of Plaintiff
during this event, including but not limited to the stress it created during the days before
September 5, 2004, the deception and misrepresentation of its employee, evidently
supported by Plaintiff, and its own failure to comply with accepted practice standards of
the hospitality industry, Plaintiff should receive nothing.
280. It is believed and therefore averred that Brett Shaffer was terminated by or
no longer works for Plaintiff.
281. It is believed and therefore averred that Jennifer Beard was terminated by
or no longer works for Plaintiff.
282. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for interest, attorneys fees and
costs.
283. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by collateral estoppel.
284. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by waiver.
285. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by duress.
286. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by release.
287. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of novation of
contracts.
288. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by accord and satisfaction.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed by this Honorable
Court.
39
COUNTERCLAIMS
COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT
RUTH ANN KRUG v. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC.
289. Ruth Ann Krug incorporates by reference all factual allegations contained
in paragraphs 1 through 134 of the Answer to the Complaint and paragraphs 135
through 288 of the New Matter, as if set forth at length.
290. By reason of Liberty Forge's failure to conform to its own written
Agreement, as subsequently modified by the parties on Sleptember 4, 2004, it is in
breach of the contract. See paragraphs 193 through 198 of New Matter above.
291. By reason of Liberty Forge's breach of the contract, Ruth Ann Krug has
incurred damages and expenses, including but not limited to those stated in paragraphs
222-231 of New Matter. It is believed and therefore averned that these damages may
increase, based upon some charged beverages being paid for separately by guests at
the commencement of the wedding, as well as guests being solicited for tips, despite
Ruth Ann Krug being charged a service fee of 20%.
292. Despite the parties' agreement, Liberty Forge failed to give or even discuss
appropriate credits, billing Ruth Ann Krug for the full amount of the wedding.
Wherefore, Ruth Ann Krug requests this Honorable! Court to enter judgment in
favor of Ruth Ann Krug and against Liberty Forge in the amount of $6,226.00, plus
interest and costs of suit.
40
COUNT II
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW
RUTH ANN KRUG v. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC.
293. Ruth Ann Krug incorporates by reference all factual allegations contained
in paragraphs 1 through 93 of the Answer to the Complaint and paragraphs 135
through 288 of the New Matter, as if set forth at length.
294. At all relevant times, Liberty Forge was engalled in trade or commerce, as
defined in the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Collection Law 73 P.S. ~201-1
et seq. (hereinafter "UTPCL").
295. Ruth Ann Krug entered into the transaction primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes.
296. Implied, if not expressed, in the Liberty Forge Agreement, the statements
of Jennifer Beard, and the written information packet given to Ruth Ann Krug on March
1,2004, including the Liberty Forge "Mission Statement", was that Liberty Forge would
provide honest, high quality services through creative staff, who would help Ruth Ann
Krug design "a unique and personalized wedding." See Exhibit "A" hereof.
297. The Mission Statement further provides that the Liberty Forge objective is
"to make each visit to Liberty Forge an event worth remembering and repeating." See
Exhibit "A" hereof.
298. Liberty Forge violated the UTPCL as follows:
a. By representing that the goods and services which it was to provide
to Ruth Ann Krug, and indirectly to her family, friends and guests,
had the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or qualities that
in fact they did not have. 73 P.S. ~201-2(4)(v)
41
b. By representing that the goods and services provided by Liberty
Forge to Ruth Ann Krug, her family, friends and guests, were of a
particular standard, quality or grade, when in fact they were of
another standard, quality or grade. 73 P.S. S201-2(4)(vii)
c. By advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as
advertised. 73 P.S. S201-2(4)(ix)
d. By failing to comply with the terms of its warranty given to Ruth Ann
Krug at and prior to the contract for the purchase of goods and
services. 73 P.S. S201-2(4)(xiv)
e. By engaging in fraudulent or deceptive conduct which created the
likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. 73 P.S. S201-2(4)(xxi)
299. More specifically, as to each of the above, respectively, and as more fully
stated in the New Matter:
a. Liberty Forge, by its authorized employee, continuously
represented that a band, hired by Ruth Ann Krug, would be able to
perform at and for the entire wedding reception (to 12:30 a.m.),
scheduled for the tent, as promised, represented and warranted by
Liberty Forge, when it knew, or should have known, that such was
proscribed by LCB rules and regulations and township ordinances.
In addition, Liberty Forge failed to notify Ruth Ann Krug until the
day before the wedding, when it would obviously be too late to
cancel the contract and make other arrangements.
42
b. The goods and services provided by Liberty Forge were well below
the professional standard, quality or grade represented to Ruth Ann
Krug when she entered into the contract, based on Liberty Forae
Hiahlights, Jennifer Beard statements, and during the course of
planning the entire event.
c. Exhibit "A" and the accompanying DVD (video of tent with dance
floor referring in audio to Wedge), constitute an advertisement that,
along with the assurances and reassurances given during the
meetings with Liberty Forge, clearly indicate an intent to provide
goods and services of a superior quality that were not provided and
create a level of confusion or misunderstanding through deception.
d. Liberty Forge's written solicitations, set forth and attached hereto
as Exhibit "A" , and its written contract, contains statements which,
taken as a whole, constitutes a promise or warranty with which
Liberty Forge failed to comply with regard to hosting a quality
event.
e. Liberty Forge's actions and omissions by its employee were
fraudulent and/or deceptive, which created the likelihood of
confusion or misunderstanding on the part of Defendant, who
believed that the wedding and reception would be held in
accordance with her expectations, conversations, and agreements
with Liberty Forge, which did not happen.
43
f. Liberty Forge failed to provide Ruth Ann Krug an opportunity to
approve or question the billing of Liberty Forge before the latter
attempted to put charges through on the credit card of Howard B.
Krug without authorization, in violation of the written contract
between the parties.
300. Section 201-9.2 of the aforementioned Law allows the Court, in its
discretion, to award up to three times the actual damages sustained but not less than
$100.00, and further to provide other relief, including the award of costs and reasonable
attorney's fees.
301. Liberty Forge's actions in utilizing the credit card of Defendant Howard B.
Krug, spouse of Ruth Ann Krug, without authorization, signature or consent, to pay
sums in excess of that it claimed to be due from Ruth Ann Krug for the wedding
reception, violates both Federal and State law, especially in view of the fact that there
was no contractual or other obligation with any Defendant providing for this and
approximately ten attempts were made for decreasing amounts on September 30,
2004, all on the same day, with an 11th charge put through six (6) days thereafter on
October 6, 2004.
302. Ultimately, $15,943.94 was paid to and received by Liberty Forge from the
credit card of Howard B. Krug, but this sum was eventually reclaimed by Citicard VISA
involuntarily, without the cooperation of Liberty Forge, which refused to discuss the
issue.
44
303. Ruth Ann Krug has had to retain counsel, thereby incurring current bills
exceeding $1,000 and increasing.
304. Liberty Forge's actions justify the Court awarding Defendants treble
damages and attorneys fees' under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law because the non-disclosure and deception of its authorized employees,
as follows, have proximately resulted in damages to Defendant:
a. Breaching the contract and settlement agreement between the
parties; and
b. The continuing misrepresentation to and deception of Defendant
with respect to its ability to have the scheduled band play in the
tent, as planned and scheduled for almost six months thereby
disrupting the smooth flow of the planned event; and
c. The failure to reveal the truth of the siituation until one day before
the scheduled wedding, when it was too late to either cancel or
move the event; and
d. Providing inferior goods and services, contrary to its promises,
contracts and warranties; and
e. Attempting to extract more than the actual amount claimed by
Liberty Forge to be owing, as per its billing, by charging the credit
card of Ruth Ann Krug's spouse, Howard B. Krug, who was never a
party to the contract and had not authorized the use of his credit
card for that purpose; and
45
f. Forcing Defendants to hire attorneys and incur attorneys' fees
exceeding $1,000 and expending significant effort in resisting the
credit card charges and defending this action.
WHEREFORE, Ruth Ann Krug requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment
in her favor and against Liberty Forge in the amount of $18,678.00, plus interest,
reasonable attorney's fees, and the costs of suit.
COUNT III
FRAUD
RUTH ANN KRUG VS. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC.
305. Paragraphs 1 through 93 of the Answer and Paragraphs 135 through 288 of
New Matter are incorporated herein.
306. Liberty Forge is vicariously responsible for the actions, statements and
omissions of its authorized employee Jennifer Beard, acting with the scope and in
furtherance of her employment duties.
307. It is alleged and therefore averred that prior to September 4,2004, while
acting within the authorized scope and in furtherance of her employment duties, Jennifer
Beard continuously represented to Ruth Ann Krug that a band could perform in the tent
at Liberty Forge, a material fact in this transaction.
308. It is further believed and therefore averred that these continuing
representations that the scheduled band could play throughout the reception in the tent
were made falsely, with knowledge of their falsity, or reckle,ssly without regard to whether
they were true or false, with intent to cause Ruth Ann Krug to rely by entering into a
46
contract with Liberty Forge to host the wedding and subsequently to keep the wedding at
Liberty Forge until such time as it became too late to mOVE! the wedding elsewhere.
309. Ruth Ann Krug was at no time aware of the falsity of these statements and
continuing misrepresentations, and she justifiably relied upon same.
310. As a proximate result of Ruth Ann Krug's justifiable reliance on continuing
misrepresentations since March 1, 2004, the planned reception could not be moved to
the venue of another host and had to be materially changed on September 4, 2004,
within 24 hours before the wedding, resulting in significant losses to Ruth Ann Krug,
including but not limited to $6,226.
311. Liberty Forge's evil motive and reckless indifference to the rights of others
amounts to outrageous conduct, warranting the imposition of punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Ruth Ann Krug demands that a jud9ment be entered against
Liberty Forge in the amount of $6,226 for actual damages, plus interest and costs of
suit, and punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit requiring arbitration.
COUNT IV
FAIR CREDIT EXTENSION UNIFORMITY ACT
HOWARD B. KRUG v. LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC.
312. Counterclaim Plaintiff incorporates by reference all factual allegations
contained in paragraphs 1 through 93 of the Answer to the Complaint and paragraphs
135 through 288 of the New Matter, as if set forth at length.
313. Liberty Forge has alleged that Howard B. Kru~I, among other things,
requested goods and services from it.
47
314. Although Howard B. Krug denies such, if it is judicially determined to be
correct, Howard B. Krug would enjoy the rights and protections under the UTPCL and
The Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act (hereinafter "FCEUA"). 73 P.S. S2270.1 et seq.
(2000).
315. The FCEUA prohibits creditors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or
practices with regard to the collection of debts. Id. at S2270.2.
316. Pursuant to the FCEUA, the acts of creditors are covered. ld. at S2270.3.
317. The FCEUA states, in pertinent part, as follows:
a. A creditor may not engage in any conduct, the natural consequence
of which is to harass, oppress or abuse any person in connection
with the collection of a debt. Id. at Sn70.4(b)(4).
b. A creditor may not use any false, deceptive or misleading
representation or means in connection with the collection of any
debt. Id. at S2270.4(b)(5).
c. A creditor may not use any unfair or unconscionable means to
collect or attempt to collect any debt. ...including: i) The collection of
any amount...unless such amount is expressly authorized by the
agreement creating the debt or permitfled by law. 73 P.S.
S2270.4(b)(6)(I).
48
318. Liberty Forge has violated the above through IIhe use of the credit card of
Howard B. Krug for the payment of a debt for which he did not contract, and the
unauthorized electronic use of his credit card without his silgnature on an invoice for
payment of wedding bills.
319. On September 30,2004, Liberty Forge attempted approximately ten (10)
electronic charges against the aforesaid credit card for dec:reasing amounts, some 26
days after Howard B. Krug used it solely to pay for the rehl3arsal dinner, after reviewing
and approving the Liberty Forge billing.
320. Liberty Forge made the electronic charges at Qr shortly after being informed
by its employee that Ruth Ann Krug would review the billin!g when received and that
such would be subject to dispute.
321. Said charges served to deprive Mr. Krug of his right to the use and
possession of his property.
322. After expending considerable time and effort, Howard B. Krug succeeded in
reversing the credit card charges, Liberty Forge refusing to discuss the unauthorized use
issue.
49
323. The collection efforts of Liberty Forge, among other things, included the
following:
a. Reference to an alleged criminal fraud violation by Howard B. Krug;
b. Threat of depositions of the bridal party and wedding guests;
c. Assertion of substantial claims or counterclaims against Mr. and
Mrs. Krug and their attorney;
All of this in violation of FCEUA at 92270.4(b)(5)(v), (vii), and 4(b)(6).
324. Liberty Forge now asserts in its Complaint, a public document available for
inspection by the general public, that Mr. Krug civilly defrauded Liberty Forge and made
inaccurate and possibly libelous statements to Citibank to secure reversal of the
wrongful charges.
325. Liberty Forge knew that these intimidating allegations could not be
substantiated, and it is believed and therefore averred that they were made solely for the
purpose of further harassing, intimidating, and disgracing Mr. Krug, in violation of the
FCEUA at 92270.4(b)(5)(v), (vii), (x) and 4(b)(6).
326. Howard B. Krug's credit card was charged $Hi,943.94 after eleven
electronic charges occurring on September 30, 2004 (ten reducing charges) and
October 6,2004 (one charge), all at least 26 or more days after the credit card was
originally tendered for payment of the rehearsal dinner.
327. Pursuant to the FCEUA and UTPCL, Howard 13. Krug may be entitled to
treble damages and reasonable counsel fees, as well as costs and expenses.
328. Howard B. Krug has expended in excess of $180 for counsel fees, which
amount has increased as a result of this litigation.
50
WHEREFORE, Howard B. Krug respectfully requests this Honorable Court to
enter judgment in his favor and against Liberty Forge in the amount of $47,831.82 plus
reasonable counsel fees as well as the costs and expenses of this action plus interest.
PURCELL, KRUG & HALLER
BY:
Date: ~ 7/ OC;
51
Highlights
orge
Liberty
The history and programs of Liberty Forge Video
AT NATURE'S DOOR... LIBERTY FORGE
A STORIED PLACE
For your personal copy of the video, please call Liberty Forge
at 717.795.9880 x 213 or E-mail usatwww.LibertyForge.net.
The video describes by pictures and story this historic place
and its unique programs for y'C)ur health and pleasure.
,
In the next few minutes we will visit the historic site
of Liberty Forge and witness its natural beauty... the wide
variety of programs for persons of all ages and interests...
the many dining opportunities and venues... the facilities
for weddings, corporate rneetings and holiday parties... and
the unique, corporate picnic ,rod golf outing opportunities.
The question is often asked, "when was the begin-
ning of Liberty Forge?"... The answer to this surprises
most!... Liberty Forge had its start when George
Washington was President of the United States. Yes, it start-
ed more than two hundred years ago... It was an iron forge
and its location along the Yellow Breeches was ideal for the
rnaking of iron ore as was the abundant forests of hard-
wood trees on the property... The manor house and the
barn that housed the mules for operation of the forge were
located where the present Green Storage Building is on
Lisbum Road... The hardwood trees were essential to rnake
coke, a key ingredient in the making of iron ore. The forge
was located where now is the miniature golf course... Two
hundred years ago and for almost one hundred years after
that beginning, it was called Liberty Forge... as it is now
called.
Liberty Forge is located next to the historic village of
Lisbum... Lisbum was a crossroads for colonial travelers
headed west... It was the first overnight stop after crossing
. the Susquehanna River near the village of Goldsboro...
Lisbum was then an integral part of the trail west.
Liberty Forge became in time one of the largest
employers in Cumberland County... It participated fully in
the great Industrial Revolution of the United States in the
rnid 1800's... Its demise came upon the invention of the
Bessemer Furnace in the late 19th century.
-'[-
,
During the early part of the 20th century the land
was subdivided into various smilier parcels... Beginning
about 1985, the Williams family began to reassemble the
subdivided parts to save it from another housing develop-
rnent.
Today... Liberty Forge presents a wide variety of pro-
grams, activities and dining opportunities for persons of all
ages and interests.
Since the opening of the first phase in June 2003, we ,
have hosted the blessing and celebration of hundreds of
weddings and receptions in the first five rnonths...
Generally there are at least four weddings each week in the
natural beauty of the five lakes" gardens and gazebos... All
present unique photo opporturlities... Other one-of-a-kind
photo opportunities exist in the Wedge that include the
unique winding staircase and (~levated stage where the
wedding party can be remembered in all its splendor.
The variety of reception facilities, makes Liberty
Forge affordable and exciting for wedding couples, their
families and guests... Liberty Forge has the largest perrna-
nent heated tent facility in Central Pennsylvania that per-
mits receptions of over 800 persons. It is a unique venue
that allows the wedding at one of the gazebos and the
. reception in the Liberty Big Top that overlooks lakes and
gardens.
In addition, in the Wedge, the Pennsylvania Room
allows receptions and parties for up to 125 persons... It is
equipped with multiple plasma televisions for teleconfer-
encing as well as entertainment, and dance floor, if desired.
-2-
,
Dance floors can be placed at imy of the various dining ven-
ues and all are integrated by the state-of-the-art sound sys-
tern.
Nothing is quite so unique as the elevated 3,000
square foot tented Wedge Deck that presents a panoramic
view of three lakes, gardens and is fully enclosed for all sea-
son use, and accommodates receptions for up to 100 per- )
sons. )
The Wedge presents additional, exciting reception
and party opporhmities for up to 300 persons that are with-
out equal in Pennsylvania... Uberty Forge was awarded the
first place blue ribbon for 2003, for the design and construc-
tion of the Wedge... It was awarded by the International
Timber Frame Association, an association cornprising rnem-
bers in Europe, Canada and the United States... This presti-
gious honor recognizes the unique construction of this tim-
ber frame building that is pegged together to create a venue
for fine dining unlike any other place in Pennsylvania... It
is done with elegance and grace that is breathtaking...
Wood craftsmen, architects and builders come to Liberty
Forge to study this construction wonder.
To add to the special elegance and grace of the
Wedge, the Cumberland Room for groups up to 300 fea-
. tures not only statues and sculptures, but original art by the
honored Canadian artist Francine Gravel... Liberty Forge is
one of the largest collectors of this highly acclaimed interna-
tional artist from Montreal, Cmada.
-/
,
1
Throughout the Wedge as well as the gardens will be
found numerous life size statues and fountains... One stat-
ue that no one can miss is the life size black bear at the
entrance to the Wedge.
-3-
,
Adjoining the Wedge is located the beautiful outdoor
Terrace Garden, overlooking three lakes, fountains, and gardens
for casual outdoor dining, receptions or cocktail parties for up to
200 persons.
~
<
Opening in the Spring of 2004 will be the second of three
phases for Liberty Forge. This second phase will include the Cool
Beans Cafe, featuring gourmet coffee choices, ice cream, light din-
ing fare, and will be open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. each day. Itwill
present a variety of breakfast and other dining items for breakfast,
lunch and dinner.
The Cool Beans Cafe is located next to the new miniature
golf course. This sports miniature golf course is the longest course
of its type in Pennsylvania and is constructed along the historic
and beautiful Yellow Breeches Creek. It is designed to accornrno-
date persons with physical challenges and is ADA approved.
The second phase, opening in the Spring of 2004, includes
in addition to the Cool Beans Cafe and rniniature golf course, the
new 300 yard lighted golf practice and instruction facility.
~
f
There are so many activities at: Liberty Forge. To mention a
few would include the garden and arboretum tours, the newest,
finest and challenging 18 hole, all bent grass golf course,... river
trips by kayaks, canoes and rafts that last from 3 to 6 hours with
lunches provided,... volleyball, horseshoes, and biking,... fly fish-
ing instruction and... catch and release pond fishing.
The gardens and arboretum are nationally registered by the
National Arboretum Association.
Liberty Forge is a unique venue for so many types of
events... We have hosted in the first six rnonths, individual groups
up to 900 people for corporate outings and picnics...
-4-
,
Frequently such events start as a golf outing in the morning
and then followed by a variety of activities from cooking
classes, pony rides, miniature golf, golf lessons, garden
tours, pond fishing and fly fishing, river trips, and the
always enjoyable Liberty Forge Trolley... The Liberty Forge
Trolley is available to transport our guests from one venue
to another.
In addition, during these corporate outings and pic-
nics, golf carts holding from 2 to 8 persons are available for
personal or group self tours.
Because only about 10 percent of people in
Pennsylvania play golf... and about 13 percent nationwide,
most golf tournament sponsors need to appeal to all per-
sons... Liberty Forge is totally unique in that respect, since
our golf outings are designed to appeal to both golfers as
well as non-golfers... While the golfers enjoy the newest,
finest golf course in the area, the non-golfers can engage in
so many other, varied events and then all rneet at the end of
the day for the banquet.
All food at Liberty Forge is prepared on site by our
team of professional chefs, some graduates of the American
Culinary Institute, Hyde Park, New York... We rnaintain
two state-of-the-art kitchens... One kitdlen is designed sole-
ly for the preparation of food for ala carte fine dining in the
Wedge... There is a second, separate barrquet kitchen locat-
ed in the Wedge that prepares food for large groups of up to
800 persons.
OUT Mission Statement is:
1. To bring all guests back to nature with our varied
outdoor programs.
-5.
2. To give all guests a place for escape and serenity...
close to home and at affordable prices.
3. To provide varied wedding and reception venues of
incomparable beauty in Central Pennsylvania.
4. To assist our guests to design unique and
personalized events, weddings, and corporate out
ings and assist in doing so by the creative staff of
Liberty Forge.
5. To make each visit to Liberty Forge an event worth
remembering and repeating.
6. To call each guest by name.
7. To remind all our guests that when we fail to achieve
our goals or our Mission Statement that they will
hopefully advise us prornptly so that we can make
amends and to do better for thern and for other
guests who favor us with their patronage.
Your visit to Liberty Forge begins by a call to our
Sales Office at 717-795-9880, or a visit to our web site. You
will be asked to complete an event inquiry form that will
help us to expedite the process of attending to your needs
and planning your special event. Upon receipt of that event
inquiry form it will be assigned to an Event Coordinator.
Each event is custom designed and coordinated to fit your
culinary tastes, budget and interests.
Thank you for visiting Liberty Forge in the last few
rninutes, We hope we may serve you, your family and
friends.
-6-
AT NATURE'S DOOR,
LIBERTY FORGE, A STORIED PLACE
Just ten minutes from Harrisburg and minutes
from anywhere on the West Shore
3804 Lisbum Road
Mechanicsburg, PeImsylvania 17055
Next to Lower Allen Community Park
(717)795-9880 extension 213
www.LibertyForge.net
,
01/17,'2005 15:26 FAX 605 030 6709
3D CKL--
~ uUJ.
Facsimile
embank
Cardmember Semces
To: Howard Krug
Fax: (717) ).3~-OYDCf
DaIe: 011/712005
From: Cusromer Service
ID: P30337.5
Re: Account il412800339213XXXX
Phone 800-950-5114
No. of Pages (including this page): 1
Dear Mr. Krug.
Thank you for ronracting Citibank Customer Service.
As you requested. listed below is the infonnation you requested regarding failed authorizalion ,auempts . .,
on 913012004 for the acCOll1lr number Jiued .bove..
Dllt~
9/3012004
9/3012004
913012004
9/3012004
9/3012004
9/3012004
9130/2004
Merchant
Lib~rry Forge Hospitality
Liberty Forge Hospitality
Libe.itXjF,!)rg~Jia'-pital iry
LibeiiylForge Hospitality
Liberty Forge HospiLalii)'
Liberty Forge Hospit:>.1ity
Ubet-ry Forge Hospitality
<,
Amount
22,432.20
21,431.20
1200.00
6000.00
12000.00
6000.00
6000.00
.') l'~'::g..:: H~""J
If we may be of any further assistance, please clon't besiwe to contact us at 1-800-950-5114.
Sincerely,
A.J~
S. LJrson
Customer Service
F",crlJll"1!~ulatj"ru rC'Jllir~ JU to prinJlllI~ ftJlltJ"""mI3ru'~I":
The ft:tJerol Egw/ emit Oppornmlty Act prohibits cn:dl(ot',f from diJcr/minarinr "'4;1/11 emfir tJppliC4J1f1 on tk IJtuU ~,.~, color. nJi,i.on.
national ari,ih. SUo 1tIQrital SIdIUr, o:g~ (pl'tl\lidcd the oppliC4/1t htu lite! CI1pccity w cltt~r into 11 bUtJIII~ 'DnfnKt); ~~/1UH"II tV pan althe
ttpp/kttnt 'f i"ef.lrJl(! drrill'f!J from a"J public a.rsirkJm:t: prD,"'am; a' Mt::D.uU lA~ ."licwJl h4r i'1 glll.lJfditIJ. auciscJ WAy tie"" wultr rII<< CO".
SUI/leT Cwlil ProrccnOll ACL The F~cral Ageng' l/rat aeminixun CD>>lp&'UIt::t: lvius rhu law cO:'1urnbIR CiribtJ"k (SOllfft t;Ja1ola). N.A. is lilt
Cnn,ptToUerofrll.e Cllrrurcr, CuilomC,. N:5;:.'WJCt Gr~up, /301 McKifl.llt'y 5"'.:~t Swilc 34S0. HOll;rlm. Tasu 71010.9rJSO.
VERIFICATION
I, RUTH ANN KRUG, hereby verify that the facts Gontained in the foregoing
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of
18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
/~-~
RUTH ANN KRU
Date: 7/7/cJ':,~
f f
vs.
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 05-1359 CIVIL
LIBERTY FORGE HOSPITALITY, INC.
Plaintiff
HOWARD B. KRUG and RUTH ANN
KRUG, husband and wife,
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendants
and
KARL BAU and WENDY BAU,
husband and wife,
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, ANGELA S. SHAFFER, an employee of the law firm of Purcell, Krug & Haller,. counsel
for Defendants, hereby certify that service of the attached ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH
NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM was made upon the following by placing a copy of same
in the United States Mail, first class mail, postage prepaid, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, on
JU~l, 2005.
Keith A. Clark, Esquire
Melissa A. Swauger, Esquire
P.O. Box 88
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Attorney for Plaintiff
LJ
S. SHAFFER
0 "'->
c = ~
:S:' =
"'"
(",' <- s:!
C
r- m"'T1
r-
I ""'Om
-.l "19
00
-0 :;1,
:;;: o.-d
. ~ ~::.:~
~ c;::
U1 51
-.J -<