Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-3269 ROBERT G. HUSTON, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA ;NO. OS - 32~ 9 C', ul <--r f..;2...vY\ v. THOMAS SUDDETH & ELIZABETH SUDDETH, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION NOTICE You have been sued in court. If vou wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages. vou must take action within twenty (20) davs after this Complaint and Notice are served, bv entering a written appearance personallv or bv attornev and filing in writing with the court your defenses or obiections to the claims set forth against vou. You are warned that if vou fail to do so the case mav proceed without vou and a iudgment mav be entered against vou bv the court without further notice for anv monev claimed in the Complaint or for anv other claim or relief requested bv the plaintiff You mav lose monev or propertv or other rights important to VOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE. GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. COURT ADMINISTRATOR 4'" Floor, Cumberland County Court House Carlisle, PA 17013 7171240-6200 ~~ By MARKIAN R. SLOBODIAN, ESQ. ill No. 41075 ANDREW R. EISEMANN, ESQ. ill No. 87441 801 North Second Street P.O. Box 11967 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1967 717/232-5180 Counsel for Plaintiff ROBERT G. HUSTON, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA eu'L'--r~ D5 - .3 J,.(;F/ v. :NO. THOMAS SUDDETH & ELIZABETH SUDDETH, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT NOW COMES, Plaintiff, Robert G. Huston, by his counsel, The Law Offices of Markian R. Slobodian, and file the following Complaint against Defendants, Thomas Suddeth and Elizabeth Suddeth: I. Plaintiff, Robert G. Huston, is an adult individual residing at 10 Moongale Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013. 2. Defendants, Thomas Suddeth and Elizabeth Suddeth, are adult individuals residing at 26 North Main Street, Mercersburg, Franklin County, PAc 3. On or about August 23, 1995, Plaintiff lent to Defendants the sum of $9,980.00 to assist Defendants in avoiding mortgage foreclosure on their home. 4. The loan transaction was executed and loan funds were disbursed in Cumberland County, PA. 5. The loan is evidenced by a certain Promissory Note dated on or about August 23, 1995 (the "Note") pursuant to which Defendants agreed to repay the loan obligation in regular monthly payments of $75.00 per month with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. A copy of the Note is unavailable to Plaintiff because the original and all copies of the Note are believed to be in the possession of Defendants. 6. The Note provides that "if the Holder of this Note incurs any expenses to enforce any provisions of this Note, including reasonable attorney's fees, either before or after a lawsuit is begun to enforce this Note, the Signer of this Note agrees to pay the Holder's expenses and reasonable attorney's fees, including any attorneys fees at trial and on appeal of any such action." Count I . Breach of Contract 7. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 6 of this Complaint. 8. Defendants are in default of the Note, having failed to make any payments after January 17, 2004. 9. Plaintiff has requested that Defendants pay the amount currently due on the Note, but Defendants have failed and refused to do so. 10. The following amounts are due on the Note: A. Balance of principal: B. Interest at 9% per annum through 5/31/05: C. Attorneys' fees as authorized by Note: TOTAL $10,000.00 $ 4,929.92 To Be Added $14,929.92* *Plus attorneys' fees as authorized by the Note. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Robert G. Huston demands judgment against Defendants Thomas Suddeth and Elizabeth Suddeth in the amount of $14,929.92 plus attorneys' fees as authorized by the Note, which sum does not exceed the amount for compulsory arbitration, plus the following amounts accruing after May 31, 2005: A. Interest at the rate specified in the Note: 9% per annum from June 1,2005 until Defendants pay the judgment obligation in full; B. Additional attorneys' fees hereinafter incurred, plus costs of suit. Count II . Uniust Enrichment If this Honorable Court should find that an express contract did not exist between the Parties, which is denied, then, Plaintiff pleads the following alternative cause of action in unjust enrichment against the Defendants: 11. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 throughlO of this Complaint. 12. Having asked Plaintiff to provide the funds to them, Defendants became liable to Plaintiff 2 for the monies they received from Plaintiff. 13. The Defendants have been unjustly enriched by accepting the funds. 14. The total value by which Defendants have become enriched on account of receiving funds from Plaintiff is $10,000.00. 15. To date, Defendants have not paid the total amount due. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Robert G. Huston demand judgment against Defendants Thomas Suddeth and Elizabeth Suddeth in the amount of $10,000.00, plus costs of suit and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of judgment, which sum does not exceed the jurisdictional limit for compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, THE LAW OFFICES OF MARKIAN R. SLOBODIAN Dated: (, b, ~ l c.) ~~ MARKIAN R. SLOBODIAN, ESQ. ANDREW R. EISEMANN, ESQ. 801 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17102 717/232-5180 Attorneys for Plaintiff 3 VERIFICATION I, Robert G. Huston, Plaintiff, hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing Plaintiff's Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 84904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 0 ~ U( AJ \ VI :\t- V( -- ~ C> ~ if\ ~ n In U'! ~:~ ~ 'T_l ~ ~ ~ -L... .....'. G '" c...:..) C~:) CJ'\ (- ::-:-.~ o -" :::j . ~- " Cl1f..:o: -a r-n :-,:;C;:.l ~--] ~~:' --'J '~ ) [";1 ['..) -' -,:) ~ ':;' f',) U) J :<. SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2005-03269 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HUSTON ROBERT G VS SUDDETH THOMAS ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: SUDDETH THOMAS but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On July 18th , 2005 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep Franklin Co Postage 18.00 9.00 10.00 63.59 .74 101.33 07/18/2005 MARKIAN SLOBODIAN so. a.nsww.ee~~.. ~/ ..' .., __...-- ..../ '--:5" / . .,~ --?~ '-~ R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this .,.(dM day of '-f,01 ;L IhJ -: A. D . ~4~ Q. J1uPJ-., ~ I Prothonotary SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2005-03269 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HUSTON ROBERT G VS SUDDETH THOMAS ET AL R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT , to wit: SUDDETH ELIZABETH but was unable to locate Her in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On July 18th , 2005 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge 6.00 .00 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 07/18/2005 MARKIAN SLOBODIAN so. an~. we~.,~/~~// ~~~ R.' Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this .1d~ day of Cf,7 ;LlJ1),{ A. D. ~Q kCLAk . prothonotary'~ In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Robert G. Huston VS. Thanas Suddeth et al SERVE: Thanas Suddeth No. 05-3269 civil Now, June 28, 2005 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Franklin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. .~~~~ Sheriff of Cumberland County, P A Affidavit of Service Now, TC/L. /' 0'1: , ,2005 ,at//..'/8 o'clock /7. M. served the within C:'o-""/'LAI.A--7: F/fJ:b.r..(t.//V ccP'.."--?y <:'CX/;t'T,PJ. ;2eJt:6-- /S<3 T upon EL/-zA/N7// Sv~// at;2~ ~7H /'1~ S'~ .-#qC"i-~sdC/R~ lW. /72 "7L byhandingtoEL/;Z$~$ SC/.?P'~ TA' a /?t'v-F copy of the original c!o.Afl.4~ and made known to .6-L.~ rA/ S-.?!.r b:7~;r# the contents thereof. So answers, ~'90 PA: ~''1#~'- S<vom an1SUbSCribfifOre me this day of ,204i::l ,t~d. ~4 ~&:~ /'6J// --- . <- County,PA /7..:JO,/ a;p,ry Sheriff of "c7f11PA:L.1/<-- . CoYrr 6vS" /9L.<0</oC(' COSTS SERVICE MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT $ NOIariaISea! RicbardD. McCarty, Notary Public Chambenburg Bora, Fraaklin County My Commission Expires Jan. 29, 2007 $ In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Robert G. Huston VS. Thomas Suddeth et al SERVE: Elizabeth Suddeth No. 05-3269 civil Now, June 28, 2005 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Franklin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk ofthe Plaintiff. .~~~J~~J Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service -r7' ~ v Now, ~ / 01 , 2(b5 , at /)."/8 0 'c!ockA M. served the within Cq~?<-r; /7f?4M-Lt-V <!:=:/~7Y <:?t::v;q- ~. dtc:x>S- -- /41'3 r uponEL/;;?~t="m .5"'~~~p Fo/f' T~/?5' Sl/~'??;// at X,~7?/ ~..4,,;4-..57.;" ~~(=~.;e4- !7l. /'/23'L byhandingtoEL/446',f:/7~sY~/W- 0~~ F6A' ~>SUt2:Z..r& a 74"PG copy of the original ~~40?'~7 and made known to c:a 24&FT-'i SZ/,c7...a:-W the contents thereof. So ariswers, Sworn and sUbscri~e me this L day 0 , 20 1Js:- ,~~k Cr;1-. t ~ ~~~ OC7"U7Y Sheriff of ~Y<- County,PA/7.2q' ~~.J /9<e:x!OC( COSTS SERVICE :MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT $ ~~~ NotarialseaJ RichardD.McCarty.~Publi(: Chambmburg Boto. Fraaldin County My Commission E:otpires 1811. 29, 2007 $ STEIGER. STEIGER 8< MEYERS ,r.,TTORNEYS AT LAW 120 N. MAIN STRE:ET ~ERCER5BURG,PA17236 (717) 328-3525 II IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Robert G. Huston, Civil Action-Law Plaintiff, No. 05-3269 vs. Thomas Suddeth and Elizabeth Suddeth, Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE I, Thomas B. Steiger, Jr., Esquire, hereby enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendants, Thomas Suddeth and Elizabeth Suddeth, in the above captioned action. Date: 1) /~(TP) ( homas B. Stei r, Supreme Court 1.0. Steiger, Steiger & Meyers 120 North Main Street Mercersburg, PA 17236 (717) 328-3525 Attorney for the Defendants ~ % :e:. <-- G"' tj, q. .-1 ::t,-n rn~ -0 r.D '})I..( ,].C) -,(~ ~-3 '-:$CJ (5'r\\ A ~ . . - ...,., ~ ~ '" <...:> STEIGER, STEIGER & MEYERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 120 N. MAIN STREET ~ERCERSBURG,PA17236 (717) 328-3525 II Robert G. Huston, Plaintiff In the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, PA vs. No. 05-3269 Thomas Suddeth and Elizabeth Suddeth, Defendants Civil Action NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Robert G. Huston, Plaintiff You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Defendants' Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint within twenty (20) days from the date of service hereof or a judgement may be entered against you. DATE: t3P~or , q as B. Steiger, J, qui IC~rt I.D. No.: 18021 (y;:"ttorney for the Defendants Steiger, Steiger & Meyers 120 North Main Street Mercersburg, PA 17236 (717) 328-3525 STEIGER. STEIGER 8< MEYERS A.TTORNEYS A.T LAW 120 N. MAIN STREET IERCERSBURG,PA17236 (7171 328-31525 II Robert G. Huston, Plaintiff In the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, PA vs. No. 05-3269 Thomas Suddeth and Elizabeth Suddeth, Defendants Civil Action ANSWER TO COMPLAINT Come now the Defendants, Thomas Suddeth and Elizabeth Suddeth, by their counsel, Thomas B. Steiger, Jr., Esquire, and make the following answer to the Plaintiff's complaint: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Count 1- Breach of Contract 7. No answer is required to this paragraph. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. HEIGER. STEIGER & MEYERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 120 N. MAIN STREET IERCERSBURG. PA 11236 (717) 328-3'525 II 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. Count 1- Unlust Enrichment 11. No answer is required to this paragraph. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. New Matter and Affirmative Defenses 16. paragraphs herein. Defendants incorporate their by reference as if more fully answers to set forth The 1-15 17. Defendants assert Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of frauds. 18. Defendants assert Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations, 19. Defendants assert Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of fraud. 20. Defendants assert Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. nEIGER, STEIGER & MEYERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 120 N. MAIN STREET ERCERSBURG,PA17236 (717) 328-3525 II 21. Defendants assert Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. Wherefore, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted, homas B. Steiger, Court I.D. No.: 18021 Attorney for the Defe dants Steiger, Steiger & Meyers 120 North Main Street Mercersburg, PA 17236 (717) 328-3525 STEIGER. STEIGER 8< MEYERS ATTORNEYS A.T LAW 120 N. MAIN STREET lERCERSBURG,PA17236 (717) 328-31525 II I' VERIFICATION I, Elizabeth Suddeth, Defendant, hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing Answer to Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S.A. g4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: August 25, 2005 ~~~h~ 0 ....., 0 ~,:=> ~,: = " "" );:,. :I! ,~:.-. c:: f,,:n C) r- '''' -ol-n ''is? G. S;{C) ...., ~-1 -D ;.'5;:1 -;~ \~"') ; '""-) rn -, :::., ::2 f'..' ?D (...> .< STEIGER, STEIGER 8< MEYERS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 120 N. MAIN STREET MERCERSBURG,PA17236 (717) 32e-3!52!5 Robert G. Huston, Plaintiff In the Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County, PA vs. No. 05-3269 Thomas Suddeth and Elizabeth Suddeth, Defendants Civil l\ction CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas B. Steiger, Jr., Attorney for the Defendants, do certify that I served a copy of the Defendants' Answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter upon Markian R. Slobodian, Esquire and Andrew R. Eisemann, Esquire, via United States Postal Service first-class mail, addressed to Markian R. Slobodian, Esquire and Andrew R. Eisemann, Esquire, 801 North Second Street, P.O. Box 11967, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17108-1967, mailed from the Mercersburg Post Office August 29, 2005. ~ T 0 B. Steiger, Jr., ttorney for the Defendant (") S:~ "c, 1'-' = ,= en "'" c:-: G~ ':'" o o -n ....... :1:"""'1 rnf:::: -:""'Ifi"? - ~'J C.J :~~fj; )~~I~ ~X5 :< ....., '" CO ROBERT G. HUSTON, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA v. :NO. 05-3269 THOMAS SUDDETH & ELIZABETH SUDDETH, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER NOW COMES, Plaintiff, Robert G. Huston ("Huston"), by his counsel, The Law Offices of Markian R. Slobodian, and respond to Defendants' New Matter as follows: 16. Plaintiff incorporates his averments in paragraphs I - 16 of the Complaint by reference as more fully set forth herein. 17. This paragraph states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Huston denies the allegation that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the statute of limitations. By way of further answer, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require fact pleading and Defendant has failed to conform with this requirement. 18. This paragraph states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Huston denies the allegation that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the statute of frauds. By way of further answer, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require fact pleading and Defendant has failed to conform with this requirement. 19. This paragraph states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Huston denies the allegation that Plaintiffs claims are barred by fraud. By way of further answer, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require fact pleading and require fraud to be plead with specificity and Defendant has failed to conform with these requirements. 20. This paragraph states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Huston denies the allegation that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of fraud. By way of further answer, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require fact pleading and Defendant has failed to conform with this requirement. 21. This paragraph states a conclusion oflaw to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Huston denies the allegation that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of laches. By way of further answer, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require fact pleading and Defendant has failed to conform with this requirement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor. Respectfully submitted, THE LAW OFFICES OF MARKIAN R. SLOBODIAN Dated: cy { I s l o~ ~~ MARKIAN R. SLOBODIAN, ESQ. ANDREW R. EISEMANN, ESQ. 801 North Second Street Harrisburg, P A 17102 717/232-5180 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs' Response to New Matter by United States mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed to the following individual(s): Thomas B. Steiger, Jr., Esq. Steiger, Steiger & Meyers 120 North Main St. Mercersburg, PA 17236 aren L. Hay Carroll egal Secretary Dated: ~l,-. 'VI 'OS () ~; -r; l:: n"'; ".,.>'.., ",,,....l <.::. t t.o ~~C )~~ .- -7' '~~~ ~ ...., = = ""'"' Vi 1""'1 ." N o ~ :1 n,:n .."Fn "D6 o ._, ::J. :r: ....., (5:D '::7"(') <-m o -< ?I5 -< ::E ~ ~ c:> ...0 ~. ,~ ROBERT G. HUSTON, Plaintiff :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. :NO. 05-3269 THOMAS SUDDETH & ELIZABETH SUDDETH, Defendants :CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOINT PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE WITH PREJUDICE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. Please mark the above-referenced civil action and Defendants' New Matter as DISCONTINUED WITH PREJUDICE. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF MARKIAN R. SLOBODIAN By ~ -it/--- MARKIAN R. SLOBODIAN, ESQ. ID No. 41075 ANDREW R. EISEMANN, ESQ. ID No. 87441 801 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717) 232-5180 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Robert G. Huston LAW OFFICES OF STEIGER, STEIGER & MYERS THOMAS B. STEIGER, JR 120 North Main Street Mercersburg, PA 17236 (717) 328-3525 Attorney for Defendants, Thomas Suddeth & Elizabeth Suddeth Dated: JUZJ 1<f1L, ;<DO 6 , ". ""...... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Joint Praecipe to Discontinue With Prejudice by United States mail, first class, postage prepaid and addressed to the following individual(s): Thomas B. Steiger, Jr., Esq. Steiger, Steiger & Meyers 120 North Main Street Mercersburg, P A 17236 ll~ OLL, Legal Secretary Dated: ~\,.. L.~ I ' i) 0 o c s: -1:) n.: ~? ::-~~J .) .;. ~ ;.;;.... ,.~ ":?~ '. ~c-'.. Pc :z '-:;1 .-.... ~ c:::J <=> 0'" (/) f"l' -0 N N o -n :;:! --:m nl, -om ~rJ CJ (:)6 :-;:l-r. ;'-::0 ,,-;Jo om :;-i ~ -< -0 ::J.'I.: ~ :- J:""'