Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-2453 SAMUEL L. FIELDS, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : NO. 05 di.f53 : IN DIVORCE CIVIL TERM KELLY M. FIELDS, NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take prompt action. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case will proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you for any claim or relief requested in these papers by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you, including custody or visitation of your children. When the ground for the divorce is indignities or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, you may request marriage counseling. A list of marriage counselors is available in the Office of the Prothonotary at Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17013. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAYBE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 SAMUEL L. FIELDS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW ; NO. 05. ;. "153 : IN DIVORCE CIVIL TERM v. KELLY M. FIELDS, COMPLAINT IN DIVORCE NO FAULT I. Plaintiff is Samuel L. Fields, an adult individual currently residing at 13 West Main Street, New Kingstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant is Kelly M. Fields, an adult individual currently residing at 101 Glenn Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff is a bonafide resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has been so for at least six months immediately previous to the filing of this Complaint. 4. Plaintiff and Defendant were married on March 2, 2002, in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. There have been no other prior actions for divorce or annulment between the parties. 6. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant are members of the United States Armed Forces or its Allies. 7. Plaintiff has been advised of the availability of counseling and the right to request that the Court require the parties to participate in counseling. Knowing this, Plaintiff does not desire that the Court require the parties to participate in counseling. 8. Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of the United States of America. 9. The parties' marriage is irretrievably broken. 10. Plaintiff desires a divorce based upon the belief that the Defendant will, ninety (90) days from the date of service of this Complaint, consent to this divorce. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to enter a divorce pursuant to 23 P.S. Section 3301 (c) of the Domestic Relations Code. Respectfully submitted, ,,"'7 /~;~ (I fii!;.o~~~ Brian c. Bornman, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff GRIFFIE & ASSOCIATES 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-5551 (800) 347-5552 , . VERIFICA nON I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. DATE: '1 )J7/100'5 f ' ~~v~ Samuel L. Fields, Plaintiff \~. -- ~ ~ \) \~ ~ '- V\~ , . <:-.... (r.. ~ ~~. ~ \, '\ ~ ""-.." ~ ~~ ~f ~, ~ '1"'-' C)l '0\ ~.~ .......'"';:i';' -- "" -~~ ~_., . r .-- -~?~ (J-' SAMUEL L. FIELDS, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW KELL Y M. FIELDS, Defendant : NO. 05-2453 : IN DIVORCE CIVIL TERM ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, James A. Miller, Esquire acknowledge that on or about ~A 1 I, 2..DD'\ I T received a copy of Plaintiff s Complaint for Divorce directed to Defendant, in the above captioned action and acknowledge that I am authorized to do so on behalf of Kelly M. Fields. '-"---~ ------ Date: 'S) lJ /0-\ r-' c-::'-> i;:::> <P <.- ~.::~~ ~ :;:. o -n -' -"(.--\. f\\ f~ -ntl"", _,~c -,;,) \ c_,:e-\\.~Jc 'T__ -1"< .~~?, .P .4 ~\". _:~" 7.2 .r:- r'" THOMAS KINNEY, SR., AND PAOLA KINNEY d/b/a KINNEY ASSOCIATES and INTEGRITY BANK and WILLIAM WRAY, JR. and KAY GRAY WRAY and NANA E. WRAY DESTEFANO d/b/a DWM PROPERTIES Plaintiff(s) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC BY: JOHN M. CLARK, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 72652 BY: WILLIAM DIRK PASTORlCK IDENTIFICATION NO.: 77070 457 HADDON FIELD ROAD, SUITE 710 CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002 (856) 665-8500 Attorneys for Defendant Certain Underwriters at L1oyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 No. 04-2453 v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW LLOYD'S OF LONDON, BELL & CLEMENTS LIMITED, W.N. TUSCANO AGENCY, INC. and COMMUNITY BANKS INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant(s) DEFENDANT CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS, LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. BCM04707 AND CONTRACT NOS. BC7225/03 AND BC7368/02 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER/MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING AND/OR STAY OF PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY DEPOSITION REOUEST Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 (incorrectly identified in the Complaint as "Lloyd's of London"), by their undersigned counsel, hereby move the Court to enter a protective order pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4012 against Plaintiffs' discovery deposition notice. Additionally, Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London 2 subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 hereby move the Court to schedule an emergency hearing on this matter or, alternatively, stay Plaintiffs' discovery deposition request until such time as this Honorable Court issues a ruling on this matter. In support of this Motion, Defendant Certain Underwriters at L1oyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02aver as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter have noticed the deposition of the corporate designee of "Defendant, Lloyd's of London" for Friday, November 4,2005, beginning at 9:30 a.m. at the Law Offices of McNees Wallace & Murick, LLC, 100 Pine Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (See Plaintiffs' Deposition Notice, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A.") 2. Defendant Certain Underwriters at L1oyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 (incorrectly identified in the Complaint as "Lloyd's of London") are seeking a protective order limiting Plaintiffs' discovery deposition notice to the appropriate corporate entity herein, which is not "Lloyd's of London." 3. Lloyd's of London is not an insurance company or corporate entity. To the contrary, it is a "marketplace" where members/underwriters conduct the buying and selling of insurance risks. 4. By way oflocal example, Plaintiffs' deposition notice is the equivalent of attempting to take the deposition of a corporate designee of the "Italian Market" in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3 5. Although there is a corporate "marketplace" referred to as Lloyd's of London, no such entity exists for purposes of designating a corporate representative for deposition purposes in this case. 6. The London insurance market entities involved in this case are "Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02," and Plaintiffs' deposition notice should be designated accordingly. (See Declaration Page attached to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and hereto as Exhibit "B.") 7. Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 further seeks a protective order with respect to the appropriate location and/or method of deposing their corporate designee. 8. Specifically, any such properly noticed deposition should be conducted telephonically. 9. Alternatively, if Plaintiffs insist on an in-person deposition, said proceeding should be held in London, England. 10. It should further be noted that the underwriters who Plaintiffs presumably wish to depose are presently working around the clock to resolve devastating claims arising from Hurricane Katrina and Rita, and thus compelling their appearance in Pennsylvania would unnecessarily interrupt the extremely important ongoing adjustment of these insurance claims. 11. Finally, Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 are seeking an 4 emergency hearing on this matter prior to the scheduled deposition date of November 4, 2005. 12. In the event the Court cannot hear this matter prior to the scheduled deposition date, Defendant Certain Underwriters at L1oyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 are seeking a stay of discovery regarding Plaintiffs' discovery deposition notice until such time as the Court can address this matter. 13. Pa.R.C.P. 4012 states in pertinent part as follows: (a) Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery or deposition is sought, and for good cause shown, the court may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense, including one or more ofthe following: (I) that the discovery or deposition shall be prohibited; (2) that the discovery or deposition shall be only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time and place; (3) that the discovery or deposition shall be only by a method of discovery or deposition other than that selected by the party seeking discovery or deposition; . . . 14. It is well-established that whether good cause exists for granting a motion for protective order against discovery falls within the discretion of the court. See Alleghenv West Civic Council Inc. v. Citv Council ofPittsbunw, 86 Pa. Commw. 308, 484 A.2d 863 (1984). 5 IMPROPER DESIGNATION IS. The Plaintiffs herein have noticed the deposition of the corporate designee of "Defendant Lloyd's of London." (See Exhibit "A.") 16. However, "L1oyds of London" is not an insurance company or corporate entity for purposes of this litigation. 17. A brief exp lanation of the unique structure of the London insurance market may assist this Court in resolving the instant dispute. 18. The London insurance market is very different from the market for insurance in the United States. Insurance in the United States typically is placed with individual limited liability insurance companies. Where complex, large-scale insurance programs are involved, coverage may be obtained from multiple insurance companies, sometimes with the assistance of an insurance broker. Even in these circumstances, however, the coverage usually will be reflected in a series of separate policies, each of which is issued by a single company that is responsible for fulfilling all ofthe obligations assumed under the policy. 19. The London insurance market, in contrast, is just that-a marketplace of underwriters in which insurance is brokered and placed. Underwriters operating within the London market do not assume the entire risk reflected in an insurance policy. Instead, various participants in the market each will underwrite a percentage of the policy's risks, agreeing to provide only that portion of coverage and expressly disclaiming responsibility to pay any other underwriter's assumed share. The result of this structure is that an individual insurance policy placed in the London market, such as the one alleged to have been subscribed in this case, are participated in or subscribed to by many different 6 However, Lloyd's is not, and has never been, an insurance company. See Edinburgh Assurance, 479 F.Supp. at 144. Although some people might say that they "have insurance with Lloyd's," it should be noted that the organization does not sell 7 '. insurance itself and is never at risk on the insurance sold upon its floor. Additionally, Lloyd's does not accept premiums. See Lipcon, 148 F.3d at 1288. 24. Further unlike a traditional insurance company, underwriters operating at Lloyd's of London historically have been made up of individual investors, known as "Names." Names operate through "Syndicates," i.e., groups of Names whose affairs are managed by agencies responsible for decisions regarding underwriting, claims handling and other administrative affairs of the Syndicate. See Lowslev-Williams v. North River Insurance Co., 884 F.Supp. 166, 167-68 (D.N.J. 1995). 25. As of2003, there were 66 insurance underwriting syndicates operating within the Lloyd's market, covering both marine- and non marine-related risks. See Llovd's of London: Explanation ofthe Market at http:\\www.lIovds.com \index.asp ?itemid=2605. 26. In addition to Syndicates operating at Lloyd's of London, the London Companies market is made up of limited-liability insurance companies from all over the world. Like the Syndicates, some of these companies historically have joined under the management of underwriting and claims handling agencies. Others have organized into groups to permit the collective handling of various affairs of the companies, including the approval of policy wording and the issuance of policies. 27. Once the Syndicates and London Companies involved in underwriting the policy at issue are identified, a further classification is needed. The London market functions on a "lead underwriter" system, under which the first underwriter to accept a risk functions in the role of the "leader." The underwriters who agree to participate in the risk after the "lead underwriter" or designated as the "following market." As a general rule, 8 '. most of the negotiations conceming, and underwriting analysis of, a proposed risk will be perfOlmed by the lead underwriter. When both Syndicates and London Companies participate in underwriting a risk, there may be a Syndicate lead and a Company lead underwriter. 28. Additionally, the Syndicates do not operate in a free-access market. Rather, insurance can be placed with the Syndicates only through an approved broker. Typically, London Companies also require potential insureds to operate with an approved broker when placing insurance in the London market. In regard to brokers, there are currently over 169 broker's firms working at Lloyd's. Id. 29. In light of the foregoing, Defendant Certain Underwriters at L1oyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 posit that they cannot produce a corporate designee pursuant to Plaintiffs' deposition notice, since "Lloyd's of London" is a marketplace rather than a corporate entity. 30. Accordingly, Defendant Certain Underwriters at L1oyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an appropriate protective order reflecting this distinction and directing Plaintiffs to address any and all future corporate designee deposition notices to the appropriate underwriting syndicate and/or company. IMPROPER LOCATION 31. Plaintiffs have noticed the deposition of the designated representative of "Lloyd's of London" for November 4,2005 at Plaintiffs' attorneys' office in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (See Exhibit "A.") 9 32. However, it is a well-established principle in Pennsylvania that depositions of foreign corporate representatives should either be conducted telephonically or at the locale where the desired witness resides, with the parties splitting the reasonable travel costs incurred therewith. See l.A. Reinhardt & Co. v. Stettz, 35 Pa. D.&C.4th 558 (Pa.Com.PI. Monroe Co. 1995); Pennington v. Cuprum, 32 Pa. D.&C.4th 75 (Pa.Com.PI. Northampton Co. 1996); Philadelphia Indemnitv Ins. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co., 215 F.R.D. 492 (E.D.Pa. 2003). 33. In Reinhardt, the court addressed the issue of whether a defendant was required to appear in person in Pennsylvania for deposition, rather than telephonically. Specifically, the defendant indicated his willingness to be deposed, but requested that the deposition be taken telephonically rather than in person so as to avoid the burdensome expense he would allegedly incur in traveling from Wyoming to Pennsylvania. Reinhardt, 35 Pa. D.&C.4th at 561-62. Defendant argued that Pa.R.C.P. Rules 4012(a)(2) and (a)(3) prevented plaintiffs from requiring defendant's physical attendance at the deposition in Pennsylvania. Id. at 563-65. In granting defendant's motion for protective order, the court cogently reasoned as follows: For the following reasons we find that plaintiffs' motion to compel personal appearance of David Howell at deposition should be denied and defendant's motion for protective order should be granted: (a) plaintiffs and defendant had previously agreed that defendant would be deposed telephonically and plaintiffs should not now be allowed to renege that agreement; (b) requiring defendant's personal appearance in Pennsylvania would subj ect defendant to unreasonable annoyance, burden, and expense in that he would have to travel to this Commonwealth from Wyoming; and (c) no prejudice will result to plaintiffs from the taking of an oral telephonic deposition rather than an in-person deposition. Id. at 566. 10 34. A similar approach was taken by the court in Pennington. There, the court addressed the issue of whether the plaintiffs could take the oral depositions of employees of defendant Cuprum, a Mexican corporation. Pennington, 32 Pa. D.&C.4'h at 76-77. Plaintiffs filed a notice of taking the depositions of employees of Cuprum regarding the design, testing, and production ofa ladder; the design and use ofwamings contained on the ladder; and information as to other lawsuits alleging a defective product designed or manufactured by Cuprum. Id. The deposition notice set the place of the depositions at the Northampton County Courthouse. Cuprum's motion for protective order sought to have the depositions taken at the defendant's corporate headquarters in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Id. at 77. Specifically, the court framed the issue as follows: In support of the motion for protective order, Cuprum asserts that it must produce three of its high-level management representatives to answer the matters listed in the deposition and that to do so in Easton, Pennsylvania, would be burdensome. It argues that the deposition should occur at the corporate headquarters in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, so that the individuals can attend to their daily obligations to the corporation while also providing plaintiffs with the deposition testimony. Plaintiff asserts that the depositions should occur at the Northampton County Courthouse because the litigation is filed in Northampton County, defendant manufactures its product with the objective and knowledge that it will be distributed in the United States, and to require plaintiff to take the depositions in Mexico would be unreasonably financially burdensome to an injured individual such as plaintiff. Id. at 78. In addressing the above issue, the court noted that there was no Pennsylvania appellate court decisions on the issue of where oral depositions of out-of-country or out-of-state corporate officials or employees should be taken. Id. The court did note, however, that there was substantial federal authority on the issue. Specifically, the court reasoned as follows: The general rule in federal litigation is that, in the absence of special circumstances, a party seeking discovery must go where the desired witnesses are normally located. The rationale for this rule II is the concept that it is the plaintiff who brings the lawsuit and chooses the forum. The defendant is not before the court by choice. Thus, courts have held that the plaintiff normally cannot complain ifhe is required to take discovery at a great distance from the forum. Farquhar v. Shelden, 116 F.R.D. 70 (E.D.Michigan I 987)(ho1ding that the defendant, a citizen of the Netherlands, was entitled to a protective order requiring plaintiff to take his deposition in the Netherlands). With respect to corporate defendants and their officers and employees, the general rule is "[t]he deposition of a corporation by its agents and officers should ordinarily be taken at its principal place of business. This rule is subject to modification, however, when justice requires." 8 C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 9 2112 (1970). See Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649 (C.A. 5, 1979); Wilson v. Lamb, 125 F.R.D. 142 (D.C. Kentucky 1989); Mitchell v. American Tobacco Co., 33F.R.D. 262 (D.C. Pa. 1963). Id. at 79. Pursuant to the above reasoning, the court held that the oral deposition of defendant Cuprum's employees were to be conducted at the defendant's corporate headquarters in Mexico. Id. at 80. Additionally, the court held that the "fair approach" was for the parties to split the reasonable travel expenses incurred, with said expenses to be taxed as costs of the litigation in favor of the prevailing party. Id. at 81. Alternatively, the COllrt held that plaintiff could choose to conduct the oral deposition by telephone conference call. Id. 35. Finally, in Philadelphia Indemnitv. the court addressed the issue of whether a corporate defendant was entitled to a protective order directing that depositions of its employees take place in California where they were located, rather than in Pennsylvania as requested by the plaintiff. Philadelphia Indemnitv, 215 F.R.D. at 493. In examining this issue, the court noted that, usually, a party seeking discovery may set the place where the deposition will take place, subject to the power of the courts to grant a protective order designating a different location. [d. at 495. The court also noted that the deposition of a corporate officer or employee should usually take place at the corporation's principal place 12 of business or, as other courts have held, at his place of business or employment. Id. Pursuant to this reasoning, the court held as follows: Since Philadelphia Indemnity is a large corporation capable of bearing the financial burden of traveling to California, and no equitable considerations weigh in favor of compelling these Federal employees to travel to this district, we see no reason to depart from this general rule. Thus, considering the fact that some of Federal's corporate records pertinent to this case, which Philadelphia Indemnity would likely request, are located in Southern California and that Federal's corporate operations would be disrupted by the absence of these employees, Philadelphia Indemnity should bear the cost of traveling to California to conduct these depositions. Accordingly, we grant Federal's motion and order that the deposition of Rose, Rangel and Zegel shall take place in Irving, California, where these Federal employees are employed. Id. 36. Based on the foregoing, it is apparent that Plaintiffs cannot compel a representative of Defendant Certain Underwriters at L1oyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 to appear in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania by means of a discovery deposition notice. 37. As the courts of this jurisdiction have repeatedly held, the deposition of a corporate officer or representative should be conducted either telephonically or at the corporation's principal place of business, which in this case is London, England. 38. Additionally, in the event Plaintiffs desire to conduct an in-person deposition in London, the accepted practice in this jurisdiction is that the parties should split all reasonable travel costs incurred therewith. 13 , , WHEREFORE, Defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 ask that this Honorable Court enter and order in the form proposed, scheduling an emergency hearing on this matter and/or staying Plaintiffs' discovery deposition request until such time as this Court rules on the instant matter. Additionally, Defendant Certain Underwriters at L1oyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 ask that this Honorable Court enter a protective order in the form proposed. NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC BY: l6-~; ... JOHN M. CLARK WILLIAM DIRK. P ASTORICK ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS, LONDON SUBSCRffiING TO POLICY NO. BCM04702 AND CONTRACT NOS. BC7225/03 AND BC7368/02 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 710 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 (856) 665-8500 Dated: OctoberZ/' 2005 - IT ~ a ;:> J> ~~;bJ A v. NO. 04-2453 CIVIL. ACTION -- LAW THOMAS KINNEY SR. and PAOLA KINNEY d/b/a KINNEY ASSOCIATES, INTEGRITY BANK, and WILLIAM WRAY, JR., KAY GRAY WRAY, and NANA E. WRAY DEsTEFANO d/b/a OWM PROPERTIES, Plaintiffs, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JURY TRIAL DEMANDED LLOYD'S OF LONDON, BELL & ClEMENTS LIMITED, W.N. TUSCANO AGENCY, INC., and COMMUNITY BANKS INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC, Defendants. NOrlCI: OF DEPOSITION OF CORPORATE DESIGNEE OF DEFENDANT LLOYD'S OF LONDON TO: DEFENDANT LLOYD'S OF LONDON. and JOHN CLARK. itR attorney PLEASE:. TAKE NOTICE that pursllClnl to Pennsylvania Rule <;1 Civil Proc~dllre 4007.1 (p.). lhe pl;~inliff", will l"kp. Ihr-, (.Je,p<:>:,;ilinn 01 th", S':2ill9.!.t:l1fl nOf'Oinnee of Defendant, U.QY.d'1?, 91 London in this matter for purposes of discovery and/or lIse at trial, as to matters known or r08s0nably available to Lloyd's of London regmding the following: 1. Ddendant 1I0yds of London's Answer with New Maller to the Complaint; 2. Defendanllloyds of London's Answer with New Matter to the Amended Complain I; 3. Defendant Lloyds of London's Responses to Plaintiff Tom and Paola Klnneys' Interrogatories; '. 4. Defendant L10yds of London's Responses to Plaintiff lnt0grity Bank's Interrogatories; 5. Defendant Uoyds of London's Responses 10 Plaintiff Int~grity Bank's Request for Admissions; 6. Defendant 1I0yds of London's Hesponses to Plaintiff Torn and Paola Kinneys' Request for Production of Documents; 7. The issuance, binding of covoroge, and underwriting of Plaintiffs' insur~1ncc policy; 8. The cilncellation of Plainlilfs' insurance policy: and. 9. The pflrticipation of Lloyd's syndic<1\13S in underwriting :;m(! administering Plnintiffs' insurilnco policy. The deposition of the corporale designee of Lloyd's of London will take place before a notary public or olher parson authorized to adminisler oaths ;'It the law offices of McNEES WALLACE & NURICK Ltc, 100 Pin0 Street, Htlrrisbllrg. Pcnnsylvani<1. U.S.A., on Friday, November 4,2005, beQinninQ at 9:30 a.m. ~'kN(JlF.ES "}A~\CF. ~. Nl.I~kK ' Ie . ;' r II ,. . '( '_/ By /'" ..' '.// Michaei"Fi:-Kell'/ ~7 /.... Attorney 1.0. . 58854 Y Charles T, ,J. ng, Jr. Attorney 1.0 No. 806BO P,O. Box 66, 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17108.1166 (717) 237-5397 (717) 237-5300 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: September;){", 2005 " Attorneys for L1ovd's of London John M. Clark, Esq. Nelson Levine de I.uc<:l & Horst LLC 457 Haddonf1eld Road. Suite 710 Cherry Hill. NJ 08002 Attornoys for Community Banks Insurance $l;!rvices. LLC Jason P. MeN/choll, Esq. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Suite 205, 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hm. PA 17011 , , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -f.f I. Charles T. Young. Jr., herl;!by certify that on this .)C day of September 2005. a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by Facsimile and U.S. flrst- class mail, postage prepaid. upon the following: Attorneys for W.N. Tuscano Aaencv. Inc. Donald L. CarmGlIIc. Esq. Marshall. Dennehey, Wmnm. Coleman & Goggin, P.C. 4200 Crums Mill Road. Suile B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attornevs for Bell ,'? Clements, Limited Edward Murphy, Esq. Conran O'Brien Gellman & Rolln, P.C. 1515 Market Street. 16'~ Ploor I?hiladefphill. PA 19102-1916 ( --4t Ck/_,-/ Chi:lfl~S T. (oungt~" Esq. / Of Counsel for P'.(; tIffs I - ~ ':;$ g. - OJ fA'M/!>fB ~ - -~------- I e e s e -~ , 03,09 . 0316; 4% f'A.f.0%o128:iS222 BELL" CLElIEh'TL..- _ ~ --'- -----"-0.__.__ Ii1J002 lit BELL" CLEMEIlT5 liMITED SPECIAL FORM - Is Doclerallon pa e Is attaclled to and forms art of eertincate rovllions_ Quotl II CQOe6336Q Cer1ificale 1/ BCM04702 Previous # AuttJofil Ref: 110.00% BC7225/03 10.00% BC7368/02 1. Name and addr.... of ll1e AsS1Jred: Thomas K1imsy, Sr., Paola Kinney dba Kinney Assocrltes c/o Thoma. Kinney 100 W. Main 5t. Rear Mechanlcsburg, Cumberland I' 170$5 . EffecIIVefrom 13 August 200310 13 ust 2004 botll d at 12:0Ia.m. Local Stendsrd ilme 3. Inlulllnee II effective with certain Underwriters at L10 d'l London Her..on 100.00% . . 4, Sum Insurad Coverage Premium I. Building \lS$922,OOO Special Form USD 3,888.00 2. Businesslncom. US$50,OOO Calculated at 0.40% annual 26,^, Minimum Earned Premium SIfv~i1",,: U0-328 Market St.. Lemoyn., PA 17043 .. .... .. 5. IMPORTANT: Please eneure that you are fern"ar with the following wording end endorsements, if not ask for copies. It Is .....nUaill1atlha applicant I. mao_ ewere 01 all terms and condition. ollhe coverage. CP 10 30 06 95. Causes of Los. - Speciel Fonn. plus CP160 (11-115) . .CP 00 10 06 95 - BUilding & I'orsonsl Property Coverage Fonn RCV B~sls of Valuation DeducUble VS$ 2,500 per occurrence Co.ln$Urance ClaUS-iii 80% but iro Business Incomo 90 % CP 02 9911.85. Cencellatlon Changes CP 00 90 07 88 . Commer<:lal Property Condllions ILOO 171198 -Common Policy Conditions CP 00 30 0695 .. ausines8 Income & Extra EXpC!hSQ Coverage Forrh" IL 09.35 04 98 - Millennium Exclusion NMA 2\115 electronic Data Endorsement B .OCM-1 .Addltlonal Endors8ment. BCM-2 -Property Amendatory Endorsement BCM-3A ~ Mold and Fu"9i exclusion Claus8 3 11.0941 01 02 . Exclusion of War, MlIIilary Action & Terrorism . ... ..... .. " . MorIgallse'.'ancl/or Loss Payees Hereon Auto_lically added as theIr Interests may appear. . THE COVER PROVIDED ByTtfIS CERTIFICAl'E IS SUBJl!CTTO UNDERWRITERS ACCEPTAN'CEOF . THE INSPECTION REPORT NOT LATER THAN 12TH OCTOBER 2003 . Service 01 SuK Deslgnee:- MENDES & MOUNT. 760 SEVENTH AVE:NUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 100196829 UNDERWRITING INFORMATION COfistrucllon Jolstad Masonry Occupsncy Commercial Property Non-Manufacturing Protections Year BulK Updates Financial CoridKlon. music; store, WilrehouGe, shoe repaIr shop, OtnC8& Agent: W.N. Tuscano Commission: 17.5ll4f. 1953 . heat 1995, wiring, roof 1991/, plumbing 2001 Housekeeping Neighbourflood Loss Record : well mairililined gOOd 11102 Vl!.MM $1,150 T00055 \. NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC BY: JOHN M. CLARK, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO.: 72652 BY: WILLIAM DIRK PASTORICK IDENTIFICATION NO.: 77070 457 HADDONFIELD ROAD, SUITE 710 CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002 (856) 665-8500 Attorneys for Defendant Lloyd's of London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 THOMAS KINNEY, SR., AND PAOLA KINNEY d/b/a KINNEY ASSOCIATES and INTEGRITY BANK and WILLIAM WRAY, JR. and KAY GRAY WRAY and NANA E. WRAY DESTEFANO d/b/a DWM PROPERTIES Plaintiff(s) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA No. 04-2453 v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW LLOYD'S OF LONDON, BELL & CLEMENTS LIMITED, W.N. TUSCANO AGENCY, INC. and COMMUNITY BANKS INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC Defendant(s) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE !, .5t..e (L/ (Ji"l'1oi~, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Defendant Certain Underwriters at L1oyds, London subscribing to Policy No. BCM04702 and Contract Nos. BC7225/03 and BC7368/02 Motion for Protective OrderfMotion for Emergency Hearing and/or Stay of Plaintiffs' Discovery Deposition Request; Brief in support thereof; and Proposed Orders were served on October,,)!, 2005, upon counsel listed below by United States Mail, postage prepaid: Edward J. Murphy, Esquire Conrad, O'Brien, Gellman & Rohn, P.c. 1515 Market Street, 16th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 BY: 32 r: /7 ) k' _~ _.07'11/"; 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 710 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 (856) 665-8500 Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.c. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Charles Young, Esquire McNees Wallace & Nurick, LLC 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, P A 17108-1166 Timothy McMahon, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112 NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC Dated: October,) I . 2005 , SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATIORNEYS-AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA SAMUEL L. FIELDS, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 05-2453 Plaintiff KELLY M. FIELDS, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : IN DIVORCE WITHDRAW OF APPEARANCE Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff, Samuel L. Fields, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, SAlOIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY '.11. }l' ; ~:-~~.l~,~:,{ 1'( ,!~,-(/J:{j MarylOLtMatas, Esquire Attorney Yd. 84919 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 Dated: I', " ., I [ ./;' S ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter the pro se appearance of Samuel L. Fields in the above-captioned matter. " ___ /;-7 ,.."~ ?f. .,..' ---#>~ . ,~{ .---t Samuel L. Fie ds. Plaintiff, pro se Dated: II /95/u5- ... SAlOIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A1TORNEYS-AT-LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, P A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 1 st day of December, 2005, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the party listed below, via First Class Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: James A. Miller, Esquire 2157 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 :~Q/i/'(f Lr'iC."ft(j.(u/ J nne M. Bartley J Paralegal to Marylou Matas, Esquire (.. ';..f' (; ~ ('::) ~ 0 SAMUEL L. FIELDS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 05-2453 CIVIL TERM KELLY M. FIELDS, Defendant DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made this /q~day of December, between KELLY M. FIELDS ("Wife") and SAMUEL L. FIELDS 2005, by and ( "Husband") . WIT N E SSE T H: WHEREAS, the parties, currently Husband and Wife, will be obtaining a decree in divorce; and WHEREAS, effectuate and debts; and by this Agreement, the parties have intended to equitably divide their marital property and marital WHEREAS, diverse unhappy differences and difficulties have arisen between the parties and it is their intention to live separate and apart for the rest of their lives and to settle any claims by one against the other or against their estates. NOW THEREFORE, with the foregoing recitals being incorporated by reference and deemed as an essential part hereof and in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties, each intending to be legally bound hereby, covenant and agree as follows: 1. EFFECT OF DIVORCE DECREE. The parties agree that unless otherwise specifically provided herein, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect after such time as a Final Decree in Divorce may be entered with respect to the parties. This Agreement shall be incorporated, but not merged into the final decree in divorce. 2. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE. The parties confirm each has relied on the substantial accuracy of the financial disclosure of the other as an inducement to executing this Agreement. No representations have been made by either party to the other, or by anyone else, as to the financial status of the other except as set forth in this Agreement. 3. ADVICE OF COUNSEL. The parties have been advised by counsel of their choosing regarding this agreement, or have chosen to forego obtaining such advice. Both parties acknowledge this Agreement is, under the circumstances, fair and equitable and that it is being entered into freely and voluntarily, after having received independent legal advice, or choosing not to do so. The parties acknowledge this Agreement is not the result of duress or undue influence and is not the result of any collusion or improper or illegal agreement(s). This Agreement shall be construed as if drafted by both parties. 4. DISCLOSURE AND WAIVER OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS. The parties understand each has the right to obtain from the other party a complete inventory of all the property either or both parties now own or owned as of the date of separation, and that each has the right to have such property valued by appraisals or otherwise. The parties understand they have the right to have a Court hold hearings and make decisions on the matters covered by this Agreement. Both parties understand a Court's decision concerning the parties' respective rights and obligations might be different from the provisions of this Agreement. Both parties waive the following procedural rights: Appraisement Pennsylvania a. The right to obtain an of all marital and separate property Divorce Code. Inventory and as defined by the b. The right to obtain an Income and Expense statement of the other party as provided by the Pennsylvania Divorce Code. c. The right to have the Court determine which property is marital and which is non-marital and equitably distribute between the parties that property which the Court determines to be marital. 2 d. The right to have the Court decide any other rights, remedies, privileges, or obligations covered by this Agreement, including but not limited to possible claims for divorce, spousal support, alimony, alimony pendente lite, counsel fees, costs and expenses. 5. PERSONAL RIGHTS. The parties may live separate and apart free from any interference, direct or indirect, by the other in all respects as if unmarried. The parties shall not harass, disturb or malign each other or each other's families, nor attempt to compel the other to cohabit or dwell by any means whatsoever with him or her. 6. MUTUAL RELEASES. Husband and Wife each mutually release and forever discharge the other and the other's estate from any rights (including income and gain from property hereafter accruing) of the other or against the other's estate, which he/she now has or may hereafter have against the other or the other's estate, arising out of any circumstance whatsoever, including widower's rights, family exemption or similar allowance, or under the intestate laws, or the right to take against the spouse's will; or all other rights of a surviving spouse to participate in a deceased spouse's estate, regardless of the jurisdiction. The release includes any rights which either party may have or at any time hereafter have for past, present or future support or maintenance, alimony, alimony pendente lite, counsel fees, equitable distribution, costs or expenses, whether arising as a result of the marital relation or otherwise, except, and only except, all rights and agreements and obligations of whatsoever nature arising or which may arise under this Agreement or for the breach of any provision thereof. It is the intention of Husband and Wife to give to each other by the execution of this Agreement a full, complete and general release with respect to any and all property of any kind or nature, real, personal or mixed, which the other now owns or may hereafter acquire, except and only except all rights and agreements and obligations of whatsoever nature arising or which may arise under this Agreement or for the breach of any provision thereof. 7. PERSONAL PROPERTY. a) The parties agree they have equitably divided all their personal property to each's satisfaction and that each shall retain the property in his/her possession at the time of this Agreement (except as provided otherwise in this Agreement). 3 b) Each party will retain the checking, savings and/or money market accounts listed in his/her sole name. Each party waives any and all interest he/she may have in the other party's accounts. c) Wife shall retain sole and exclusive possession of the parties' 1999 Chevrolet Malibu. Husband shall promptly transfer his interest in such vehicle. Wife shall be responsible for all costs associated with this vehicle. Husband waives any and all interest he has in this vehicle. Wife shall hold Husband harmless and indemnify him from any claims arising from the ownership or operation of the vehicle. d) Husband shall retain sole and exclusive possession of the parties' 1998 Pontiac Trans Am and 1988 Chevrolet 5-10 pickup. wife shall promptly transfer her interest in such vehicles. Husband shall be responsible for all costs associated with these vehicles, including the Belco Credit union loan. Wife waives any and all interest she has in these vehicles. Husband shall hold Wife harmless and indemnify her from any claims arising from the ownership or operation of these vehicles. e) Husband shall be the sole owner of his 401(k) with primearica, his IRA with primearica and his state pension. Wife shall be the sole owner of her IRA with primearica. Both parties waive all interests he/she has in the other's retirement accounts. 8. REAL ESTATE. a) The parties acknowledge they are co-owners of a home and land located at 13 West Main street, New Kingstown, Cumberland County, PA, which is currently held in joint names as tenants by the entireties. Husband shall become the sole owner of this property. Wife shall promptly execute a Deed transferring her interest to Husband. Husband shall indemnify and hold Wife harmless from any and all debts or claims associated with the property. Husband will promptly refinance the property or otherwise remove Wife's name from the home debt. b) The parties are joint owners of a timeshare located in Orlando, Florida, which property is currently held in joint names as tenants by the entireties. Husband shall become the sole owner of this property. wife shall promptly execute a Deed and/or any other necessary documents to transfer her interest to Husband. Husband shall indemnify and hold Wife harmless from any and all debts or claims associated with the property. 4 9. AFTER-ACQUIRED PERSONAL PROPERTY. Each of the parties shall hereafter own and enjoy, independently of any claim or right of the other, all items of personal property, tangible or intangible, hereafter acquired by him or her, with full power in him or her to dispose of the same as fully and effectively, in all respects and for all purposes, as though he or she were not married. 10. DEBTS. a) The parties acknowledge there are no debts existing for which both parties are liable other than debts associated with the real estate and motor vehicles mentioned within this agreement. b) Each party shall be solely responsible for all debts listed in his/her sole name. Each party shall indemnify and hold the other harmless against all actions or collections of whatever kind arising from these debts. c) Each party represents he/she has not incurred any liability for which the other may be responsible except as may be provided for in this Agreement. Each party agrees to indemnify or hold the other party harmless from and against any and all such debts, except for the obligations arising out of this Agreement. 11. WARRANTIES TO FUTURE OBLIGATIONS. Husband and Wife each agree that each will now and at all times hereafter save harmless and keep the other indemnified from all debts, charges and liabilities incurred by the other after the execution date of this Agreement, except as may be otherwise specifically provided for by the terms of this Agreement and that neither of them shall hereafter incur any liability whatsoever for which the estate of the other may be liable. 12. ALIMONY. ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE. SPOUSAL SUPPORT. The parties hereby waive and surrender any rights and/or claims they may have to interim or final alimony, alimony pendente lite and spousal support. 13. ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS. The parties waive and surrender any rights and/or claims they may have to interim or final counsel fees and/or costs. 5 14. WAIVER OR MODIFICATION TO BE IN WRITING. No modification or waiver of any of the terms hereof shall be valid unless in writing and signed by both parties and no waiver of any breach hereof or default hereunder shall be deemed a waiver of any subsequent default of the same or similar nature. 15. BREACH. The parties agree that if either fails in the due performance of any of his or her obligations under this Agreement, the other party shall have the right at his or her election to sue for damages for breach thereof, to sue for specific performance, or to seek any other legal remedies as may be available and said other party shall have the right to recover his or her reasonable legal fees and costs for any services rendered by his or her attorney. 16. MUTUAL COOPERATION. Each party shall, at any time and from time to time hereafter, take all steps and execute, acknowledge and deliver to the other party any further instruments and/or documents that the other party may reasonably require for the purpose of giving full force and effect to the provisions of this Agreement. 17. LAW OF PENNSYLVANIA APPLICABLE. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 18. AGREEMENT BINDING ON HEIRS. This Agreement shall be binding and shall inure benefit of the parties hereto and their respective executors, administrators, successors and assigns. to the heirs, 19. INTEGRATION. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties and supersedes any and all prior Agreements and negotiations between them. There are no representations or warranties other than those expressly set forth herein. 6 20. NO WArVER OF DEFAULT. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless and until terminated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any provisions in this Agreement shall not affect the right of such party hereafter to enforce the same, nor shall the waiver of any breach be construed as a waiver of any subsequent default of the same or similar nature, nor shall it be construed as a waiver of strict performance of any other obligations herein. 21. SEVERABrLrTY. If any term or provision of this Agreement shall be determined to be invalid, then only that term or provision shall be stricken and in all other respects this Agreement shall be valid and continue in full force, effect and operation. Likewise, the failure of any party to meet her or his obligations under anyone or more of the paragraphs herein, with the exception of the satisfaction of the conditions precedent, shall in no way void or alter the remaining obligations of the parties. 22. HEADrNGS NOT PART OF AGREEMENT. Any headings preceding the text of the paragraphs and subparagraphs hereof are inserted solely for convenience of reference and shall not constitute a part of this Agreement nor shall they affect its meaning, construction or effect. ) . C/~~~l_ ~ <= .~-. , .:> / C5~~ SAMUEL L. FIELDS ~~---::: witness J .' ,r ~ . ~,l- <~) KE~M. FIfoos 7 () .-, () c'? ,'- "::";,1 -n Co"" c:J ...... ~ pe, rilp! n iT~ 1',) 9 ..0 () :'"'" - ...;. - , C:J _. , r" ~n ..0 --< - SAMUEL L. FIELDS, plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 05-2453 CIVIL TERM KELLY M. FIELDS, Defendant DIVORCE AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT 1. A complaint in Divorce was filed under section 3301 (c) of the Divorce Code on May 12, 2005. 2. The marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant is irretrievably broken and ninety (90) days have elapsed from the date of the filing and service of the Complaint. 3. I consent to the entry of a Final Decree in Divorce after service of notice to intention to request entry of the decree. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 3J{,fO{, ,,~---- ..... =---fr----------.r ._.-.~-C--<:::.-"- j ~---_..-. SAMUEL L. FIELDS ~, c~ c,;::? C) ,;;-..... I"~ ?: ..,.... :;;0 ,,-, o ::;:J rrl L1 r- iL~ >,) ,-,,\rn .'..:::; ~ .< .,__'Ct is " a SAMUEL L. FIELDS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 05-2453 CIVIL TERM KELLY M. FIELDS, Defendant DIVORCE AFFIDAVIT OF CONSENT 1. A complaint in Divorce was filed under section 3301 (c) of the Divorce Code on May 12, 2005. 2. The marriage of Plaintiff and Defendant is irretrievably broken and ninety (90) days have elapsed from the date of the filing and service of the Complaint. 3. I consent to the entry of a Final Decree in Divorce after service of notice to intention to request entry of the decree. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: J H-d...v v~lL. I~ KE Y M. ~ELiis ~~j ",-, <:;,~ ;.::~ ,;:>-- C) ...,"-, :yJ ','1;1] '-'1 i::i ---... .'. :;;:) r",J C .,"._, C:-) . () l" .-< c::--~ .c.-- SAMUEL L. FIELDS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 05-2453 CIVIL TERM KELLY M. FIELDS, Defendant DIVORCE WAIVER OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQUEST ENTRY OF A DIVORCE DECREE UNDER SECTION 3301 (e) OF THE DIVORCE CODE 1. I consent to entry of a final Decree of Divorce without notice. 2. I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses if I do not claim them before a divorce is granted. 3. I understand that I will not be divorced until a Decree is entered by the Court and that a copy of the Decree will be sent to me immediately after it is filed with the Prothonotary. 4. I verity that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 3/bJ06 ( _~~s..,.('-----::?- SAMUEL L. FIELDS 9 a ".... C::::,) ':::;",> =, -... :;::;'; :::;:l N C> (J .., 'II rnj~ "ofT} _ )("':1 ':") T ..:f~=> , , F)l"5 (jrn "'I ~ -< - ::::"'" - SAMUEL L. FIELDS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 05-2453 CIVIL TERM KELLY M. FIELDS, Defendant DIVORCE WAIVER OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQUEST ENTRY OF A DIVORCE DECREE UNDER SECTION 3301 (0) OF THE DIVORCE CODE 1. I consent to entry of a final Decree of Divorce without notice. 2. I understand that I may lose rights concerning alimony, division of property, lawyer's fees or expenses if I do not claim them before a divorce is granted. 3. I understand that I will not be divorced until a Decree is entered by the Court and that a copy of the Decree will be sent to me immediately after it is filed with the Prothonotary. 4. I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penal ties of 18 Pa. C. S. section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ,). /Y-e;0 ~u.~ KEr.: Y M. FIELDS J> ~ "" = c,::;) cr, o -., '-j ::c_ 1i1-!..1 -"t=n .....'.I~-) o ., J . ~;' ~r~ ~;.'o ;grn -< ~ ;:0 1'.) CO ::~ 9 ,:> SAMUEL L. FIELDS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 05-2453 CIVIL TERM KELLY M. FIELDS, Defendant : DIVORCE PRAECIPE TO TRANSMIT RECORD To The Prothonotary: Transmit the record, together with the following information, to the Court for entry of a Divorce Decree: 1. Ground for divorce: irretrievable breakdown under section (Xl 330Ucl (l 3301(dl of the Divorce Code. 2. Date and manner of service of the complaint: Acceptance of Service signed May 17, 2005 and filed July 20, 2005. 3. (Complete either paragraph (a) or (b)). (a) Date of execution of the Affidavit of Consent required by section 3301(C) of the Divorce Code and Waiver of Notice of Intention to Request Entry of a Divorce Decree: by the Plaintiff on 3/6/06; by the Defendant on 3/14/06. 4. Related claims pending: NONE. Propertv Settlement Aqreement incorporated into decree resolvinq all issues. DATED: 3/17/06 ?c-~ _/<"~~~ SAMUEL L. FIELDS P.O. Box 552 New Kingstown, PA 17072 (717) 787-3101 c .-.., . ~:? '.;.... C) ., ,i hl~ r- ~gF; :,_).1. J~; ~,--5 I'n -, :1:; .< ~~~ -'.-.., -v -~ Cl SJ t--- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY K~ ", +..~., , n~' ~Y:: it ..iJ;!.;;:.,",;" ..'c!!1J81A.,.', -~f:~:":~~___'<~' ,- STATE OF PENNA. ~ftmUEL L-, AELD5 05-2'1-53 C/lli} Teon NO. VERSUS KELt Y jv1. FJ EL.DS + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + DECREE IN DIVORCE AND NOW, -rn~ 2/' , ZOO/; , IT IS ORDERED AND DECREED THAT S/1fnUfL- L I FJ ELbS AND KELLY M, (JE.L})S , PLAINTIFF, , DEFENDANT, ARE DIVORCED FROM THE BONDS OF MATRIMONY. THE COURT RETAINS JURISDICTION OF THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED OF RECORD IN THIS ACTION FOR WHICH A FINAL ORDER HAS NOT YET BEEN ENTERED; TAe parft'e<; If)ecelYibe,'' /9r 20(15 c5eJf/e/JJer7fllj"lfelJ'lt'l;f;5- ;;lCOffJfJf47ed; !Nf!lof/lJfiiled /;;/zJ I/,/s !J('(ree, " J . BmeC U"~J ATTEST'~ . . J. , ~P"O'"ONO'A"' + + + + + + '+',.,,+,,*,,+,,+, ~;+: +.'+':+:+ 'to+:+. '+''f 't':+ +'1' Of +'1' 'f'f + + + + + + Of +.:+. 'f Of 'f:+ '+ Of 'f:+ 'f. +:+. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ( 0;~-fz?' -G. ~ t?Td.9~ / . . .~.;'. j?~??y1/. /~?tt, .?'(;? fc: .c' ~;2 /""l')l"1~~ ~)'r') ?,?[cf' .. ~ . .~~ \.,1., ~ . . "of. .. . i , ,t . ,