HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-4409
II
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2005- '!YOj CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
SUSAN D. COSTA and
JAMES 1. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs,
CS SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
Artisan Deck & Fence,
Defendant.
NOTICE
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are
served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with
the court, your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if
you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you
by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim
or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to
you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LA WYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION
ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER
LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE.
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-3166
II
SUSAN D. COSTA and
JAMES L. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO, 2005- ~'{o~ CIVIL TERM
V.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
CS SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
Artisan Deck & Fence,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
NOW, come Plaintiffs, Susan D. Costa and James L. Hardesty, by and through their
attorneys, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER, and file the within Complaint and, in support
thereof, set forth the following:
1. Susan D. Costa is an adult individual with a residence address of5 West Linden
Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
2. James L. Hardesty is an adult individual with a residence address of 5 West
Linden Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 170\3.
3. CS Systems, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business
located at 24 North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 170\3.
CS Systems, Inc. does business as Artisan Deck & Fence.
4. In 2004, Costa and Hardesty began seeking bids for the construction of a deck at
their home at 5 West Linden Drive in Carlisle. When Costa and Hardesty purchased 5 West
Linden Drive, there was an existing rectangular deck approximately 13 feet by 19 feet at the first
floor level of the home accessed by french doors from the family room. The floor ofthe original
deck was composite material. The land at the back of the home slopes away from the house.
1
:1
The new deck was to include two sections, one being 20 feet by 10 feet and the second thirteen
by 26 feet. These sections were to be built around the original deck. A pergola was to be built
over the original deck and the larger new deck section was to be roofed over and screened along
the sides. Pavers were to be installed creating walkways and steps over the yard leading to a
landing in the yard. (hereinafter the work is referred to as the "project").
5. Jonathon Irwin, the owner of CS Systems, Inc., came to the Costa/Hardesty
residence and met with Susan D. Costa to discuss and review the deck and landscaping work
desired by Susan D. Costa and James 1. Hardesty.
6, After meeting with Susan D. Costa, Jonathon Irwin provided ajob estimate for the
project dated July 8, 2004. A true and correct copy of the Job EstimatelInvoice is attached hereto
as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated by reference. The total estimated price for the project was
$28,975.00.
7. Susan D. Costa accepted the Job EstimatelInvoice and provided Artisan Deck &
Fence with a deposit check in the amount of $15,000.00 in July, 2004.
8. On or about June 30, 2004, CS Systems, Inc. d/b/a Artisan Deck & Fence,
submitted a Building Permit Application to Dickinson Township for the work to be done at the
Costa/Hardesty residence. A true and correct copy of the Building Permit Application and Plan
of Proposed Work are attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and are incorporated by reference.
9. Several months expired after Susan D. Costa accepted the Job EstimatelInvoice
provided by Artisan Deck & Fence before Artisan Deck & Fence began execution of the work.
10. The work accomplished by Artisan Deck & Fence continued to approximately
April 20, 2005.
2
!I
II. Subsequent to April 20, 2005, Susan D. Costa and James L. Hardesty began to
realize certain aspects of construction of the deck and landscaping which did not appear to have
been completed, completed properly or completed in a workmanlike fashion. Susan D. Costa
and James L. Hardesty brought these apparent defects to the attention of Artisan Deck & Fence.
12. In May, 2005, Susan D. Costa and James L. Hardesty retained Lloyd's Home
Inspection, Inc. to review the deck and landscape work of Artisan Deck & Fence. Lloyd's Home
Inspection, Inc. inspected the work and provided a report to Susan D. Costa and James L.
Hardesty finding numerous defects in the work including, but not limited to, the following:
a) electrical work which presented safety hazards;
b) improper installation of screws into the composite deck boards which
would void the manufacturer's warranty;
c) irregular tread heights for stairs constituting a hazard;
d) improper installation of joists and joists hangers;
e) improper attachment of framing members;
f) inadequate attachment of railing posts and railings;
g) loose pavers in the walkways and stairs;
h) improper installation of pavers forming walkways and stairs;
i) inadequate rigidity of deck framing and trellis;
j) improper and/or lacking installation of flashing at the juncture ofthe deck
with the home permitting the entry of water into the interior of the home; and,
k) failing to install joists on a 12" center as required by the manufacturer to
obtain a warranty.
3
if
A true and correct copy of the report of Lloyd's Home Inspection, Inc. is attached hereto
as Exhibit "c" and is incorporated by reference.
13. Based upon the scope of the defects in the work performed by Artisan Deck &
Fence, it is averred that complete removal of the work performed by Artisan Deck & Fence is
necessary with the deck having then to be rebuilt and the landscaping redone to provide Costa
and Hardesty with the deck and landscaping originaUy agreed upon in a manner which is
warrantable, habitable, safe and workmanlike.
14. Estimates for the removal of the defective work and installation of a sound and
workmanlike deck and the repair of the paver walkways and stairs range from $45,850.00 to
$64,200.00.
15, Despite being apprised of the defects in construction, Artisan Deck & Fence has
failed and refused to correct the deficiencies as noted hereinabove,
COUNT I-NEGLIGENCE
SUSAN D. COSTA AND JAMES L. HARDESTY v. CS SYSTEMS, INC. dlb/a
Artisan Deck & Fence
16. Plaintiff incorporate by reference paragraphs one through fifteen as though set
forth at length,
17. By undertaking to build the deck and provide the landscaping for the project,
Artisan Deck & Fence had a duty to accomplish the construction in a workmanlike manner.
4
II
18. Artisan Deck & Fence breached the duty to perform the construction in a
workmanlike manner which breach included, but was not limited to, the following:
a) failing to properly install electrical lines and receptacles which now
present safety hazards;
b) improperly installing screws into the composite deck boards which voids
the manufacturer's warranty;
I
I
II
c)
installing irregular tread heights for stairs constituting a hazard;
d)
improperly installing joists and joists hangers;
e) improperly attaching framing members;
f) inadequately attaching railing posts and railings;
g) improperly installing pavers in the walkways and stairs which are now
dislodging, uneven and a safety hazard;
h) inadequately installing the deck framing and trellis so that it lacks
appropriate rigidity and
i) improperly and/or failure to install flashing at the juncture of the deck with
the home permitting the entry of water into the interior of the home.
19. The acts and omissions of Artisan Deck & Fence and its representatives and
employees have caused the damages accruing to Costa and Hardesty and have resulted in a deck
and landscaping which are defective, unusable, structurally deficient and in a state which is
permitting the entry of water into the home which is damaging the interior of the home.
5
II
20. As a consequence of the negligent acts of Artisan Deck & Fence, Costa and
Hardesty have incurred the following damages:
a) paying the sum of $15,000.00 to Artisan Deck & Fence for work which is
worthless to Costa and Hardesty;
b) having to pay a contractor to completely remove the deck structure as built
by Artisan Deck & Fence and
c) requiring them to incur the costs of disposal of the deck materials provided
by Artisan Deck & Fence.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment in their favor and against CS Systems, Inc. in
an amount in excess of$35,000.00 together with costs and expenses.
COUNT II-BREACH OF CONTRACT
SUSAN D. COST A AND JAMES L. HARDESTY v. CS SYSTEMS, INC.
d/b/a Artisan Deck & Fence
21. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one through twenty as though set
forth at length.
22. Susan D. Costa accepted the proposal of Artisan Deck & Fence to built the deck
and landscape the grounds when she provided Artisan Deck & Fence with a check in the amount
of$15,000.00 in July, 2004.
23. Artisan Deck & Fence began work after receiving the check from Susan D. Costa.
24. Implicit in every contract for services is a requirement of reasonable and
workmanlike performance.
6
II
25. Artisan Deck & Fence was obligated to provide to Costa and Hardesty a deck and
landscaping as referenced in the Job EstimatelInvoice attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
26. Artisan Deck & Fence breached the contract by failing to perform in a
workmanlike manner.
27. Artisan Deck & Fence breached the contract by failing to complete the project
such that a safe, useable and functional deck and landscaping was provided to Costa and
Hardesty.
28. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of Artisan Deck & Fence, Costa and
Hardesty have and will incur the following damages:
a) the payment of $15,000,00 to Artisan Deck & Fence for which Artisan
Deck & Fence failed to provide a safe, useable and functional deck and landscaping and
b) the cost to tear down the deck and redo the landscaping estimated as being
$45,850.00 to $64,200.00
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against
Artisan Deck and Fence for the sum of $79,200.00 plus costs, expenses and interest.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs request the contract be rescinded, Artisan Deck & Fence make restitution
to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs be awarded additional damages plus costs, expenses and interest.
COUNT III-BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES
SUSAN D. COST A AND JAMES L. HARDESTY v. CS SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a
Artisan Deck & Fence
29. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one through twenty-eight as though
set forth at length.
7
II
30. Artisan Deck & Fence impliedly warranted that the work they would perform
would be of reasonable workmanship.
31. Artisan Deck & Fence breached the implied warranty of reasonable workmanship
by
a) failing to properly install electrical lines and receptacles which now
II
I
'I
present safety hazards;
b) improperly installing screws into the composite deck boards which voids
the manufacturer's warranty;
c) installing irregular tread heights for stairs constituting a hazard;
d) improperly installing joists and joists hangers;
e) improperly attaching framing members;
f) inadequately attaching railing posts and railings;
g) improperly installing pavers in the walkways and stairs which are now
dislodging, uneven and a safety hazard;
h) inadequately installing the deck framing and trellis so that it lacks
appropriate rigidity and
i) improperly and/or failure to install flashing at the juncture of the deck with
the home permitting the entry of water into the interior ofthe home.
II
32. As a direct and proximate result ofthe breach of the implied warranty of
reasonable workmanship, Artisan Deck & Fence has caused the following damages to Costa and
Hardesty:
a) the payment of $15,000.00 to Artisan Deck & Fence for which Artisan
Deck & Fence failed to provide a safe, useable and functional deck and landscaping; and,
b) the cost to tear down the deck and reconstruct the landscaping estimated as
being $45,850.00 to $64,200.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against
Artisan Deck & Fence in the amount of $79,200.00 plus costs, expenses and interest.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs request the contract be rescinded, Artisan Deck & Fence make restitution
to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs be awarded additional damages plus costs, expenses and interest.
Respectfully submitted,
D::7;a
David A. Baric, Esquire
I.D. # 44853
19 West South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-6873
Attorney for Plaintiffs
dab.dirllitigation/costa/decklcomplaint.pld
II
VERIFICATION
The statements in the foregoing Complaint are based upon information which has been
assembled by our attorney in this litigation. The language of the statements is not our own. We
have read the statements; and to the extent that they are based upon information which we have
given to our counsel, they are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and
belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.
S 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities
DATE:
5,0-zj5
I I
,Juaw <<I ~
Susan D. Costa
II
I
\....-/'
FRDM :CS SYSTEMS
FAX NO. :7177769201
JuI. 08 2004 09:42AM P2
CS p~~l~MS (~
CARLISLE, PA 17013 \.....::FElICE
CARLISLE (MAIN OFFlCE)
CAMP HILL
.v.RRls8URG
GE1'I'YSBURG
CIU.s8URO
SHIPPENSBURO
PERRY COUNTY
TOLL FREE:
FAIl
(717) "A~
(717) 737.0101
(717) i'l'e-<Xl:I7
(717) 337-1222
(717) ~t815
(717) ~.7O'nS
(7J 7) S82- 7S!5!5
(800) 757.0424
(717) 778-82:01
................-----..-.--.1l..
7-8..2004 ;1
,
....i1ing Address:
SueCosrA
S W.LIr.DENDR,
CAIUSLE, ~A 17m3
~~~
Job Location:
Same
249-9654
IJonatmn Irwin
JlAVERS
COMPCSITE DECKING - FLOORING I STEPS
PRESSUIf: TREATED LUMBER - FR!lMING
WHITE VINYL. RAIUNG
F~NGLUMBER/PLYWOOD-ROOF
SHINGLES TO MATCH HOUSE
SIOI'fGTOMATCH HOI.GE
SOFFIT f FAaA TO MATCH HOUSE
GUTIERS ANDOOVlN SPOUTS
SCREENING
SCREEN DOOR.. ALLMNUM
RETAINING WALL- 6X6 P.T.
STONE DUST
EXTERIOR DOOR . INTO GARAGE-INSTALLED
WIRE /OUTlETS /SWITCHES
IfIl'iTALl PAVERS AS STEPS AM)
WAlXWAY. THE STEPS WILL BE
BULL,.NOSED. WALK TO HAVI: RETAINNG
WAll
PERGAlA BUILT OVER EXISTING DECK
BUILD DEOO OFF EXISTING DB:K..
APPROX. SIZES.. 2OX10AND nX26 WITH
STEPS. THE /)l,RGER DECK WILl8E UNDER
ROOF WrrH SCREENED PORCH. ROUGI
ELECTRICAL WORK 51f\l:LUDED
ml~)lr-;'lP'.~':11EJ:J"i'%;..1Utl~ i,;'" :-\r :"',,'{ ;;-"1,"'1> WI:
'ii,";J.5: ~{b-<'f. ..'j,~~ ,2r-'r~ ;~;;,~' -",-.., ,. -' il~
~~L'i?~~~~t~~.:~l~.tJ.~-;:(J~;~~'~~~':... '1 >\'",~,,"'t': >...;~:L~!
EQUIPMENT FEE
PEPMIT FEE I DIG
ROUGH ELECTRICAL
$40000
$30000
547500
~r?':'f;,"~.Vl')j' , "i'~)II"''''.I\-~I'Il'' {~. ':J:R l.""'f~''''X"i
~ t:~~~)1;~14~~~~...." .,"'~; .'1-."".', ,~~...., ~L. . o>-'l'i"'~
.1...I,rJ-::-y;.'(::!to.!:,..:.,....i.,.4, :"c '~.'J-~":~'!' ,:'...-" ".\~f
~{.;e.(~t:..~aittl~~~!:.~r:lli'::'~^ ~_~ ?:~'.';....:_.~,L\!~~
INST ALlA nON
5'3,COO.oo
TOTALCosr OFMATER"'LS.
-ELECTRlCALDOES NOT INCLUDE FIXTURES
Sl8.8>O.oo
1""'~~()!~:.~~n;~~IIC'..I~.;'"'D;'\~~
!' I~"<J I -' ~ . ,,'" l' - ~ i (.".1
liir;:~-,._-,._____.... _,'-2.:! ~__~~
T Olal Materials
518.8>0,00
Check Number
T otallabor
Total Malel'ials
T alai Other
Tax
Total En.
S9,COO.oo
518.8>0.00
S1,175.oo
Iiiiii
Oete Paid
Terms
ESTt.iA TE
so %DOWN. THE 3PD V4 WHEN UNDER ROOf
BAlANCE UPONCOMPLErION
,'" ~". I.,
,-1;, ~. ,. ...,- ~
A...~, ,....
Deposit paid
Balance
/5, (')Q: 00 rJ. GIJO, C~Lp..,)7/) 'I
EXHIBIT "A"
'I' - 2 ~ - 2 ':' '::'
T I ~~' . : II
. ~, ,,'/
',p
"'1174.0^011)
ai, , I.:Du... I '-
p. 002
Dickinson Tovvnship
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Zoning - Building Permit Application
Date of Application:
l'I.MSE l"lLL au'!' COMl'!ETI;LY
.tho;;'l/ Contractor: Ch'41AJ~~~f~~/I,~ ~L:.
, I '.Y.8..4. 'A,1:'$4~ '<!'.r:1: +1&h"'f..
S J. t-,:.v~I1a.Addres,ofContractor; I~Z UH-rlM R4.
Ur/'di. . PA, 17013 /tI,{NY,(/{ (:II? 171-0
, ;
:SW~ 651;1( Phone Number: 7/? T.Jc.9ZZ'l-
.c: 7/"1 Ja's'- glt>1
Address ofWorksite:
Name of Landowner
OfWorksite:
Address of Landowner:
Phone Number:
S IJ ',,,/e,., });
C4r/.-;k, P/iI Ipr3
(7i?h'l>:. 9//6
J:ro'mo IT LANDOWNElt IS PERFOR'lINC TID: WORK lllM 01\ HEll SEJ.11. lF CON'I'JlacrOR HAS NO EMPLOYEES. OR IF CONTR.\.CfOR IS
EXEMPTFROMWOllJlEIlS COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF l\EUCIOUS EXEMITION, PLEIlSEFlLLOIJr Am!>AVIT OF EXEMPTION FORM
TO aCCOMl'ANYTHIS APPIlCATION, IF NONE OF'l'HEAB01iE APPLY, PLEASESE:E 'l'lL'.TTIlE TOWNSll1l' HAS a CERTIFICATE OF
lNS\J1\MCl'l'OR THE CONTRACfOR ON FlLE
Project Details: '
Work To Be Performed:. E><:d,"I iJ6"1:. ~GF/;?f.)7>&/l0,//!"""$,I1#c:.j::,.",)
JohIfWH'1f ",. ~f.D ~rM) (~V~A.-S)
Estimated Cost of Construction: 'It 30. 000, .1!2
.
Square Footage of Construction: Pak'''i - 5'38 Sf./l./'1JrI{r,~ 17'70 ':f.fr.
"",,
\
Please include sketch ]Jlan on following page according to directions.
EXHIBIT "B"
~AV-21-2~S~ T~~ ~1 :~] DI,I
.'J:')
i'i~!~S3Bj12
D, 003
Plan of Proposed Work:
Please sketch lot shape with dimensions, mark location and dimensions of proposed construction,
location of existing slructures, location of septic system, and location of well. Please include distances
(in feell between oroposed conslruction and all prooerty Iines_ If you are illlsure of what the setback
distances are in your particular zoning district, plea.\e call 486-7424.
y(l'V~ WP'(
~
J
~
~
vi
!!~r.., '51-
Q6\1f/ Yttf.#
~o'xi6) ..............._.
l~!Jj-t'l ;<1:-
(I~Xd,)
100 _
P<f,~
(iJI"fr.v
I
70'
As the Applicant, I realize that I am responsible for the correctness of, and compliance to, all dimensiollS,
setback distances, and footer requirements of the Dickinson Township Zoning Ordinance (enacted
September 6,1994).
I hereby certify that the proposed work is authorized by the oll'ner of the property and that I have been
authorized by the owner to make application as the agent thereof. I certify that the work described herein will
not be altered. rfrD A//H.. "-
SignatUre: -Vv;rrvvJdt:- Date: 0~;';l;I
\'A v - 2 J. 2 '; '),~
Tile
,~, 1 ~.., :: \)
','
r;L
i ~ 7 1 7 ~ c: 6 S 2 < 2
F'.0:J4
DICKINSON TOWNSHIP
OUMBERLAND OOUNTY, PENNSYL.VANIA
ZONING / BUILDING PERMIT
OATE ~~ COhCPLETE:D ApPLICATION;
7/13/04
ApPLICATION :#
2004Q99~
NAME
SUE: C;:OSTA
P~ONIE:
24$,91 '6
AOOA,E:89
S WEST LlNDE:N DR
LAN COWHER
SUE: COSTA
CARLISLE FA 17D1:B'
SITE
5 LINDEN DR W~ST
eON"r'''.....c:TOP: dl-llMNEY SWEEFl SY9TEf'vtEi INc/A.l':!..T
Pl-lONE
77Ei'~222
ADDRESS P.O, BOX 1057 OARLI5;ll....E 1 7Cl1:;g
WORKERS COMP 046662.55 O~ 1
lAX PARCEL :#
ClS.09'Cn:S25-129
SU"DIVUIIQN l:JLARENOON
LeT B6
ZeNINB
A
o G 0 A 0 LD" 0 MD"-D 0 8,,, 0 8" 0 M'l
o ,"LCOC:U::OI...o..l~
PRD.JECT INFO
WQRK TO BE PEA.f"ORMEO
1 Ii. 2 F"AMILY DEi;K:
ESTIMATED C06T OF' CDN6TRUtlTlg,..
1/:>30,000,00
Sr:tUAMB: r'1Il;t:Y CF CONSTRUCTION
2326
PERMIT COST
$515.00
DATE ISSUEO
711 '3/2004
IlG2D CO + !f\~ nOlle nVF"R ofISQnn.nrll
SEPTIC PERMIT
ROAO OCCUPANCY
1'15'"41;1<" PRn....,DF:.tI. RRrC::F" s;:1C~Q~ '!1ITl-( I MT ~n.\e:NRlnNR ANn RlltLC.Nt:; s;;rrg.o.c:IC= IiHdWN
As the Applicant, I realize th;l! I am responsible for the correctness of, and compliance to, all dimensions,
setback distance" and footer requireroenls of the Dickinson Township Zoni.'1g Ordinance (enacted
September 6, 1994).
I hereby certify that the proposed work is authorized by the owner of the property and that I have been
authorized by the owner to make application as the agent d1ereof r certifY that the work described herein will
notbealter~ed' ~
Signature: Ic!f= Date ~~If
d I I
THE. EXPERIENCE.
Lloyd's Home Inspection Inc.
1698 Walnut Bottom Road, Newville, P A 17241
717-776-40 I 0 www.llovdshomeinspection.com
Member # 11243
Robert L. Lloyd
June 3, 2005
James Hardesty & Susan Costa
5 West Linden Drive
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: 5 West Linden Drive
Carlisle, P A 17013
Dear James Hardesty & Susan Costa:
WE SPEAK HOUSE.
I inspected the deck area and walkway in the rear and side of your house and found the following
deficiencies and safety hazards.
The newly installed electrical outlet does not work. An electrical wire was run under the siding next
to the deck. This is a safety hazard. Correction is needed; a licensed electrician should correct this.
A photo of wire is shown below left photo # I.
1.
2.
The screws have been installed in a manner not consistent with the manufacturer's directions. The
manufacturers warrantee will be void. The screw holes need to be predrilled and countersunk. A
proper fix for this is to remove the planking and install new planking. Photo above right shows the
effect of not drilling.
EXHIBIT "C"
The next photo # 3 shows a twisted post, only attached with toenails. This does not look good and is
not fastened well to the deck. This attachment should not be to the deck planking but through it to
other framing members.
3.
4.
Photo # 5, the rise from one treat to the next tread or landing should never exceed eight inches. This
distance should be the same between each and every step. This one is ten and one half inches. The
others are approx eight inches. This irregular rise makes a trip hazard. Repair is needed; each rise
should be the same.
Many of the joist hangers are without the benefit of proper nails. Screws and other kinds of nails
were used. They lack the thicker galvanized nail designed for joist hangers. This should be
corrected. The proper nails are needed. Photo #5 is below.
5.
6.
Photo #6 shows the attachment of framing members to a support post. They are only attached with
nails or screws. This is not a secure method. It does need to be inlet into the post or otherwise
attached as to not depend on the sheer strength of a nail or screw. Repair is needed.
Photo # 7 shows the irregular cuts in the end of the planking at the stairs. Repair is needed. A new
cut will correct this.
2
Photo # 8 has the deck boards with treated lumber in front and acting as a step this treated lumber
should be under the treads (steps). All surface area of floor and steps should be made of the deck
material.
7.
8.
The next two photos (#9 & # 10) show the attachment of the posts that hold the railing. These are
not well attached. The posts should pass through the floor planks and attach with bolts to the
framing members under the floor.
9.
10.
The next photo # 11 shows the connection between a previous deck and the new one. This joint
should have been done without the framing showing. The framing should have been hidden under
the new deck planks.
Photo # 12 the framing member has moved and splintered the wood. Repair is needed.
3
11.
12.
The next series of photos are of the walkway and steps to the right of the house. The steps and risers
are set on limestone gravel. They are free floating on top of this gravel. They do have some kind of
glue between them but most of them are loose and you can feel the looseness when you walk on
them. These pavers will not stay in place. This is a safety hazard. The stairs will need to be rebuilt
using some other method that incorporates these pavers being tight. If these were all on one level it
should work.
13.
15.
14.
16.
4
Photo #17 shows a frame that moves easily and will loosen over time and will eventually hit the
spouting to the left. This frame needs to be more rigid.
Photo # 18 is the ceiling under the new deck roof. It is vinyl and needs more support to keep it from
having bulging look between the framing members above.
17.
18.
It is my opinion that most of the deck will need to be removed and rebuilt for it to be safe, attractive,
properly built, and warrantable by the manufacturer.
Sincerely,
R~~~~
Robert L. Lloyd
Lloyd's Home Inspection Inc.
ASHI # 11243
DEP Radon # 1671
5
~
--
S
-.'V
....c
--C>
D
("\.
~,
~
~
--
Q.'
~ vd
.:i\ ~
~
~
"2
"
i..
(')
c
@)
...,
~.:c-;:,
<:-"',':')
c_.~.,
o
"
.-{
:T
n~;;n
:~....
(~
(;"')
r.'\
u:~
"
(,J
",-j
~?
,
:::t.,
r._)
,,--,'
/"',"1
I',)
C)
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 2005-04409 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
COSTA SUSAN D ET AL
VS
CS SYSTEMS INC D/B/A ARTISAN D
BRIAN BARRICK
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
CS SYSTEMS INC D/B/A ARTISAN DECK & FENCE the
DEFENDANT
, at 0806:00 HOURS, on the 10th day of September, 2005
at 132 LEFEVER ROAD
NEWVILLE, PA 17241
by handing to
JOHN IRWIN, OWNER
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE
together with
and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Postage
Surcharge
So Answers:
18.00
8.00
.37
10.00
.00
36.37
~/~J
R. Thomas Kline
me this
J?J
day of
Deputy Sheriff
09/12/2005
OBRIEN BARIC
Sworn and Subscribed to before
By:
SCHER~
'-11JtV I/fIt
A.D.
SUSAN D, COST A and
JAMES L HARDESTY
Plaintiffs
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
: CIVIL ACTION- LAW
CS SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
ARTISAN DECK & FENCE,
Defendant
: NO, 2005-4409 CIVIL TERM
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Susan D, Costa and James L Hardesty
C/O David A Baric, Esquire
O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER
19 West South Street
Carlisle, Pa 17013
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed within twenty (20) days
from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you,
James Nelson, Esquire
ou Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 241-6070
Supreme Court ID # 91144
Attorney for Defendants
SUSAN D, COSTA and
JAMES L. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
v,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CS SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
ARTISAN DECK & FENCE,
Defendant
NO, 2005 - 4409 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER. NEW MATTER, & COUNTERCLAIM
AND NOW, this 10th day of November, 2005, comes the Defendant, by and
through its attorneys, Rominger, Bayley & Whare, and files the following Answer,
New Matter, & Counterclaim, and in support thereof avers the following:
1. Admitted,
2, Admitted,
3, Admitted in part, denied in part. Defendant's principal place of
business is at 133 Lefever Road, Newville, Pennsylvania 17241. The remaining
averments of this paragraph are admitted,
4, Admitted,
5, Admitted in part, denied in part. The owner of Defendant company is
Jonathan J. Irwin, The remaining averments of this paragraph are admitted,
6. Admitted.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted.
11. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that, with respect to
the project at issue, as in any construction project, there may exist a punch list of a
few items or details which require adjustment or correction in order to obtain the
satisfaction of the customer. It is specifically denied that the project was completed
in a non-workmanlike manner. To the contrary, Defendant completed all services
for Plaintiffs in a good and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the standards
and methods of the trade, and in accordance with the job estimate provided to
Plaintiffs prior to the start of this project. Strict proof of the averments in Paragraph
11 is demanded at trial.
12. Admitted in part, denied in part. With respect to the retention of
Lloyd's Home Inspection and the servIces provided by that particular company,
Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge sufficient to form a
belief and said averments are therefore denied. It is denied that the project was
completed in a non-workmanlike manner. It is denied that the inspection report
attached to the complaint contains an accurate report/representation of Defendant's
work. To the contrary, Defendant completed all services for Plaintiffs in a good and
workmanlike manner, in accordance with the standards and methods of the trade
and in accordance with the job estimate provided to plaintiff prior to the start of the
project. It is admitted that, with respect to the project at issue, as in any construction
project, there may exist a punch list of a few items or details which requrre
adjustment or correction in order to obtain the satisfaction of the customer; however,
as to subparts a) through k) of this paragraph, said averments are denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at trial.
13. Denied. As stated in preceding paragraphs, with respect to the project
at issue, as in any construction project, there may exist a punch list of a few items or
details which require adjustment or correction in order to obtain the satisfaction of
the customer; however, Defendant specifically denies that the complete removal of
the work performed by Defendant is necessary. It is further denied that the deck
must be rebuilt and that landscaping must be redone. Furthermore, had Plaintiffs
permitted Defendant to complete its work and conduct requisite adjustments, in
accordance with a punch list, the project would be warrantable, habitable and safe
for many years to come. Strict proof of the averments in Paragraph 13 is demand at
trial.
14.
Denied.
After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. Further, it is
denied that removal and re-installation of a deck, walkways and/or stairs is
necessary or required due to any act or omission on the part of the Defendant. Strict
proof of the averments in Paragraph 14 is demanded at trial.
15. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant has requested the opportunity to
review the project with Plaintiffs and counsel and said opportunity has been denied.
Strict proof of the averments in Paragraph 15 is demanded at trial.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
16. Defendant's responses to Paragraphs 1 - 15, above, are incorporated
by reference as if fully set forth herein.
17. Admitted.
18. The averments of Paragraph 18 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required, the
averments of Paragraph 18 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
19. The averments of Paragraph 19 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required, the
averments of Paragraph 19 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
20. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant completed all servIces for
Plaintiffs in a good and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the standards and
methods of the trade and in accordance with the job estimate provided to Plaintiffs
prior to the start of this project, and plaintiffs have incurred no consequential
damages as averred herein. Too, the averments of Paragraph 20 are a conclusion of
law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof of the averments in
Paragraph 20 is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered on behalf of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff.
COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT
21. Defendant's responses to Paragraphs 1 - 21, above, are incorporated
by reference as if fully set forth herein.
22. Admitted.
23. Admitted.
24. The averments of Paragraph 24 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required, the
Defendant completed all services for Plaintiffs in a good and workmanlike manner,
in accordance with the standards and methods of the trade, in accordance with the
job estimate provided to Plaintiffs prior to the start of this project, and pursuant to
the agreement between the parties. Strict proof of the averments in Paragraph 24 is
demanded at trial.
25. The averments of Paragraph 25 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required,
Defendant completed all services for Plaintiffs in a good and workmanlike manner,
in accordance with the standards and methods of the trade, in accordance with the
job estimate provided to Plaintiffs prior to the start of this project, and pursuant to
the agreement between the parties. Strict proof of the averments in Paragraph 25 is
demanded at trial.
26. The averments of Paragraph 26 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required,
Defendant completed all services for Plaintiffs in a good and workmanlike manner,
in accordance with the standards and methods of the trade, in accordance with the
job estimate provided to Plaintiffs prior to the start of this project, and pursuant to
the agreement between the parties. Strict proof of the averments in Paragraph 26 is
demanded at trial.
27. The averments of Paragraph 27 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsIve pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required,
Defendant completed all services for Plaintiffs in a good and workmanlike manner,
in accordance with the standards and methods of the trade, in accordance with the
job estimate provided to Plaintiffs prior to the start of this project, and pursuant to
the agreement between the parties. Strict proof of the averments in Paragraph 27 is
demanded at trial.
28. The averments of Paragraph 28 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsIve pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required,
Defendant completed all services for Plaintiffs in a good and workmanlike manner,
in accordance with the standards and methods of the trade, in accordance with the
job estimate provided to Plaintiffs prior to the start of this project, and pursuant to
the agreement between the parties. Furthermore, it is denied that Plaintiffs have
and/or will incur damages. Strict proof of the averments in Paragraph 28 is
demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered on behalf of the Defendant and against Plaintiffs.
COUNT III - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES
29. Defendant's responses to Paragraphs 1 - 28, above, are incorporated
by reference as if fully set forth herein.
30. The averments of Paragraph 30 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsIve pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required,
Defendant completed all services for Plaintiffs in a good and workmanlike manner,
in accordance with the standards and methods of the trade, in accordance with the
job estimate provided to Plaintiffs prior to the start of this project, and pursuant to
the agreement between the parties. Strict proof of the averments in Paragraph 30 is
demanded at trial.
31. The averments of Paragraph 31 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsIve pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required,
Defendant completed all services for Plaintiffs in a good and workmanlike manner,
in accordance with the standards and methods of the trade, in accordance with the
job estimate provided to Plaintiffs prior to the start of this project, and pursuant to
the agreement between the parties. Strict proof of the averments in Paragraph 31 is
demanded at trial.
32. The averments of Paragraph 32 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsIve pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required,
Defendant completed all services for Plaintiffs in a good and workmanlike manner,
in accordance with the standards and methods of the trade, in accordance with the
job estimate provided to Plaintiffs prior to the start of this project, and pursuant to
the agreement between the parties. Furthermore, it is denied that Plaintiffs have
and/ or will incur damages. Strict proof of the averments in Paragraph 32 is
demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed
and that judgments be entered on behalf of Defendant and against Plaintiffs.
NEW MATTER
33. Defendant's responses to Paragraphs 1 - 32, above, are incorporated
by reference as if fully set forth herein.
34. Plaintiffs' complaint, or some part of it, fails to state a claim or cause
of action upon which relief can be granted.
35. Plaintiffs have not suffered any legally cognizable injury or damages as
a result of Defendant's alleged acts or omissions.
36. Any injury, damage, or loss sustained by Plaintiffs was caused by the
acts or omissions of Plaintiffs or third parties over whom Defendant had no direction
or control, and not as a result of any acts or omissions of Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in its favor along with costs,
attorney fees, and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
COUNTERCLAIM
37. Defendant's responses to Paragraphs 1 -36, above, are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
38. Plaintiff Costa accepted the proposal tendered by Defendant to
construct a deck and landscape grounds when she provided Defendant with a check,
in the amount of$15,000.00, in July 2004.
39. The total price which Plaintiffs agreed to pay to Defendant for the
completion of the project was $28,975.00.
40. Defendant completed all servIces for Plaintiffs in a good and
workmanlike manner, in accordance with the standards and methods of the trade, in
accordance with the job estimate provided to Plaintiffs prior to the start of this
project, and pursuant to the agreement between the parties.
41. Implicit in every contract for services is a requirement of payment in
full for services rendered.
41. To date, Plaintiffs have paid only $15,000.00.
42. Notwithstanding the repeated demands for full payment made by
Defendant to Plaintiffs, the latter have failed and refused to pay the same or any part
thereof.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that Plaintiffs complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered on behalf of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs in
the amount of $14,975.00, plus interest. Defendant also requests that this Court
award costs and attorney fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate.
,
Respectfully Submitted,
ROMING , BAYLEY & WHARE
Date: 11 /10 / f7C!?
J es. Nelson, Esquire
155 So Hanover Street
arlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 241-6070
Supreme Court ID# 91144
Attorneys for Defendant
L__
.'
VERIFICATION
I verify that I am the owner of Artisan Deck & Fence and that the facts
contained in the foregoing answer and counterclaim are true and correct tot eh best
of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements made
herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.S. Section 4094, relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
Date
1I/1/;s-
I /
"
SUSAN D. COSTA and
JAMES L. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CS SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
ARTISAN DECK & FENCE,
Defendant
: NO. 2005 - 4409 CIVIL TERM
: JURYTIDALDEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James 1. Nelson, Esquire, do hereby certify that I this day served a copy of
the foregoing pleading by depositing the same in the United States mail at Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
David A. Baric, Esquire
O'BIDEN, BAIDC & SCHERER
19 West South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Respectfully Submitted,
ROMING R, BAYLEY & WHARE
Date:
U;l%C;-
mes Nelson, Esquire
.5 So Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 241-6070
Supreme Court ID# 91144
Attorneys for Defendant
(': ....' 0
~
c;.J -n
<f' :-:1
?....~
{:--} \ ,.~
....r;;' \\'r--:-'
'~~,\-:3
0 r~. l.
':...:-'.'~'
- ,
-., .,
-",'" ,)[)
-- ;,:;,,'\"\
,,,.) <\
'p'
,- ..,'-,
.-'~
~~. Cf' ~
II
SUSAN D. COSTA and
JAMES L. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs,
V.
CS SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
Artisan Deck & Fence,
Defendant.
TO: CS Systems, Inc.
d/b/a Artisan Deck & Fence
c/o James 1. Nelson, Esquire
Rominger, Bayley & Whare
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2005-4409 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NOTICE TO PLEAD
You are hereby notified that you have twenty (20) days in which to plead to the enclosed
Reply To New Matter, Answer and New Matter To Counterclaim or a Default Judgment may be
entered against you.
Date: December 7, 2005
O'BRIEN'.BARIC & S"
~ ~J a-'
David A. Baric, Esquire
1.D. #44853
19 West South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-6873
SUSAN D. COSTA and
JAMES 1. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2005-4409 CIVIL TERM
V.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
CS SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
Artisan Deck & Fence,
Defendant.
REPLY TO NEW MATTER, ANSWER AND NEW
MATTER TO COUNTERCLAIM
I,
Ii
!i
II
,I
,.1
il
Ii
II
II
II
I
II
II ","00" re"p<m~ m,y b, d~'" oOC""",, ,In,,_oo," = doci,d, T""" 00","", <h,
NOW, come Plaintiffs, Susan D. Costa and James 1. Hardesty, by and through their
attorneys, O'BRIEN, BARIC & SCHERER, and file the within Reply to New Matter, Answer
and New Matter to Counterclaim and, in support thereof, set forth the following:
REPLY TO NEW MATTER
33.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one through thirty-two of their
complaint as though set forth at length.
34.
These averments are legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
Plaintiffs have stated valid and supported causes of action against the Defendant.
35. Denied. To the contrary, the Plaintiffs have incurred the damages as set forth in
the Complaint as a direct and proximate result ofthe acts and omissions of the Defendant.
36. Denied. To the contrary, the damages and losses sustained by the Plaintiffs were
the direct and proximate result ofthe acts and omissions of Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment be entered in their favor and against the
Defendant in accordance with the prayers for relief set forth in the Complaint.
d
ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM
37. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one through thirty-two of their
Complaint and paragraphs thirty-three through thirty-six of their Reply to New Matter as though
set forth at length.
38. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Susan Costa provided
II
II
I'
I
,
I
!
II
'I
!
I
I
Defendant with a check for $15,000.00 in July of2004. The remaining averments are denied.
To the contrary, Susan Costa agreed to pay Defendant the sum of $28,975.00 to construct a deck
and provide landscaping which was to be sound and workmanlike not defective, unsafe and
unworkmanlike as was the case for the work performed by Defendant.
39. Denied as stated. To the contrary, Susan Costa agreed to pay the Defendant the
sum of$28,975.00 to construct a deck and provide landscaping which was to be sound and
workmanlike and not defective, unsafe and unworkmanlike as was the case for the work
performed by Defendant.
40. Denied. To the contrary, the work of Defendant was shoddy, unworkmanlike,
defective, unsafe, failed to meet accepted building standards and practices and was not in
accordance with the representations and job estimate provided by Defendant.
II
41.
Admitted.
42.
Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that the sum of
$15,000.00 has been paid by Plaintiffs to Defendant. The remaining averments are denied. To
the contrary, no further payment is warranted and Plaintiffs are entitled to a return of the
$15,000.00 previously paid to Defendant.
'i
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the counterclaim of Defendant be dismissed with
prejudice and judgment be granted in favor of Plaintiffs in accordance with the prayers for relief
as set forth in the Complaint.
NEW MATTER
43. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs one through thirty-two of their
Complaint, paragraphs thirty-three through thirty-six of their Reply to New Matter and
paragraphs thirty-seven through forty-two of their Answer to Counterclaim as though set forth at
length.
44. The Defendant's counterclaim fails to state a cause of action for which recovery
could be granted.
45. The Plaintiffs were justified and privileged in refusing to pay any additional sums
to Defendant.
46. The Defendant is estopped from asserting the claims set forth in its counterclaim.
47. There was a failure of consideration in that the Defendant failed to give the
Plaintiffs a deck and landscaping which were workmanlike, safe, functional and in accordance
with standards in the trade.
I
I
,[
u
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the counterclaim of Defendant be dismissed with
prejudice and judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiffs in accordance with the prayers for relief
as set forth in the Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
t RIEN, BAIDc~11
David A. Baric, Esquire
l.D. 44853
19 West South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-6873
Attorney for Plaintiffs
,
II
I
i
dab.dirllitigation/costaldecklnewmatteranswer&counterclaim. rep
'I
VERIFICATION
The statements in the foregoing Reply To New Matter, Answer and New Matter To
Counterclaim are based upon information which has been assembled by our attorney in this
litigation. The language of the statements is not our own. We have read the statements; and to the
I
t
'I
]I
,\
'I
il
II
II
I
I
II
\
I
I
extent that they are based upon information which we have given to our counsel, they are true and
correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements
herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 9 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to
authorities.
DATE: I). -I-OS-
'/,;, \. b& )7<
di)t,(j''--- L\ > .~ u---
Susan D. Costa
/ />
\:,{ " "'';/ ~/
.r~mes t. Har.gesty c:./
\ .' ~J
.pJ .
..,
,.
1-
'I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 hereby certify that on December 7, 2005, I, David A. Baric, Esquire of O'Brien, Baric &
Scherer, did serve a copy of the Reply To New Matter, Answer and New Matter To Counterclaim,
by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the party listed below, as follows:
i
i
i
.1
I
ii
Ii
II
i
James 1. Nelson, Esquire
Rominger, Bayley & Whare
155 South Hanover Street
C"Ii"", '7di::/ A
David A. Baric, Esquire
c~
......;:
-
()'~
SUSAN D. COSTA and
JAMES L. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CS SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
ARTISAN DECK & FENCE,
Defendant
NO. 2005 - 4409 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER
AND NOW, this 21" day of December, 2005, comes the Defendant, by and
through its attorneys, Rominger, Bayley & Whare, and files the following Reply to
Plaintiffs' New Matter, and in support thereof avers the following:
43. AIl averments in Defendant's previous pleadings are incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
44. The averments of Paragraph 44 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required, the
averments of Paragraph 44 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
45. The averments of Paragraph 45 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required, the
averments of Paragraph 45 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial. By way of further response, Plaintiffs were not justified and
privileged in refusing to pay the contractually agreed upon amount to Defendant.
-
46. The averments of Paragraph 46 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required, the
averments of Paragraph 46 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
47. The averments of Paragraph 47 are a conclusion of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. If a more specific answer is deemed required, the
averments of Paragraph 47 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial. By way of further response, the Defendant provided the Plaintiffs
with a deck and landscaping services which were workmanlike, safe, functional, and
in accordance with the applicable standards of the trade.
WHEREFORE, Defendant demands that Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed
and that judgment be entered on behalf of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs in
the amount of $14,975.00, plus interest. Defendant also requests that this Court
award costs and attorney fees, and any other relief deemed appropriate.
Respectfully ubmitted,
ROMINGE ,BAYLEY & WHARE
es . Nelson, Esquire
Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 241-6070
Supreme Court ID# 91144
Attorneys for Defendant
VERIFICATION
James 1. Nelson, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for Defendant in this
action; that he makes this affidavit as attorney because he has sufficient knowledge
or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or
denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Pa.C.S. ~4904, relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
'"
Date: 12/21/2005
.la1fl'~elson, ES~U-:;- -
LA:tto-rney I.D. No. 91144
ROMINGER, BAYLEY & WHARE
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
,.'
SUSAN D . COSTA and
JAMES L. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CS SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
ARTISAN DECK & FENCE,
Defendant
: NO. 2005 - 4409 CIVIL TERM
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James 1. Nelson, Esquire, do hereby certify that I this day served a copy of
the foregoing pleading by depositing the same in the United States mail at Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
David A. Baric, Esquire
O'BIDEN, BAIDC & SCHERER
19 West South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Respectfully Submitted,
ROMINGE ,BAYLEY & WHARE
Date: I;z./~/t'r
es Nelson, Esquire
155 So Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 241-6070
Supreme Court ID# 91144
Attorneys for Defendant
(')
C.:
~
c...,:;"~
c..n
c:J
r>
("')
f'0
\:
-v-
::i::
~
---\
-j::-r1
!"'i1 ?:::
-r(T"~
:.6Q
:.~c.;
__C~. "f'
;~_;2f~
'}
:::.-1
J?~
::<.
t;:1
N
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
'IO THE PROTHOIDI'ARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
(Check one)
for JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
( X
for trial without a jury,
-----------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
(check one)
( X) Civil Action - Law
Appeal from Arbitration
SUSAN D. COSTA and
JAMES L. HARDESTY,
(other)
(Plaintiff)
vs,
The trial list will be called on
and
CS SYSTEMS, INC, d/b/a
Artisan Deck & Fence
Trials commence on
(Defendant)
Pretrials will be held on
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials,)
vs.
(The party listing this case for trial shall
provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to
all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.)
No, 4409
Civil Term
XJl9X 2005
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
David A. Baric, Esq" 19 West South Street, Carlisle, PA 17013
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:
Karl E, Rominger, Esq" 155 South Hanover St., Carlisle, PA
Signed:
17 D-13
.~~
This case is ready for trial.
Uz.
Date:
7 ! f/Of;;
Print NooE: David A. Baric, Esquire
Plaintiffs
Attorney for:
5-')
.......
P',
C.:,.J
I
CO
-;-,
{'-'..:~
('-'
SUSAN D. COSTA and
JAMES L. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CS SYSTEMS, INC.,
d/b/a ARTISAN DECK &
FENCE,
Defendants
NO. 05-4409 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2006, a pretrial conference in the above
matter is scheduled for Wednesday, April 12,2006, at 10:15 a.m., in chambers of the
undersigned judge, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Pretrial
memoranda shall be submitted by counsel in accordance with C.C.R.P. 212-4, at least
five days prior to the pretrial conference.
A NONJURY TIDAL in the above matter is scheduled for Thursday, May 4,2006,
at 9:30 a.moo in Courtroom No. I, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania.
BY THE COURT,
David A. Baric, Esq.
19 West South Street
Carlisle,PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
Karl Rominger, Esq.
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Attorney for Defendant
Court Administrator's Office-- NIl1;d.lrA~~
Sllf4 06 /,-<--,'
-~
-j,.J..:). It.Ol.-
/}'}1._t'LI... ./ ^\
'--I-"
c <- " "
- '.'
~ '~ . '
\\,\ \~,'") j
,t^',
"'.
~-
SUSAN D. COSTA aud
JAMES L. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs
v.
CS SYSTEMS, INC.,
d/b/a ARTISAN DECK &
FENCE,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 05-4409 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2006, upon agreement of counsel, the pretrial
conference previously scheduled in the above matter for April 12, 2006, is rescheduled to
Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 1:30 p.m., in chambers of the undersigned judge. The
nonjury trial previously scheduled for May 4, 2006, is rescheduled to Thursday, July 13,
2006, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom No. I, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania.
~vid A. Baric, Esq.
19 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
~I Rominger, Esq.
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Defendant
:rc
BY THE COURT,
"
,
~
SUSAN D. COSTA and
JAMES L. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CS SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
ARTISAN DECK & FENCE,
Defendants
NO. 2005-4409 CIVIL TERM
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
A pretrial conference in the above-captioned case was
held in the chambers of Judge Oler on Wednesday, June 28, 2006.
Present on behalf of the Plaintiffs was David A. Baric, Esquire.
Present on behalf of Defendants was Karl E. Rominger, Esquire.
This is a breach of contract/negligence case arising
out of the construction of a deck by Defendants on a house owned by
Plaintiffs - allegedly in an unworkmanlike manner.
This will be a non-jury trial of an estimated duration
of one day. By separate order of Court the trial has been
scheduled for Thursday, July 13, 2006, commencing at 9:30 a.m.
An issue may arise as to the proper measure of damages
in this case, and counsel are requested to submit briefs to the
Court at least three days prior to the commencement of the trial on
that issue.
With respect to settlement negotiations, counsel have
indicated that they may be utilizing the services of William P.
Douglas, Esquire, as a mediator, and in that event, there does
appear to the Court to be a reasonable possibility of settlement.
By the Court,
~
~
~
b
--~
............
p,\
.. ;,)
L
:~ ('II
"
David A. Baric, Esquire
19 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For the Plaintiffs
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For the Defendants
pcb
SUSAN D. COSTA and
JAMES L. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v
CS SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
ARTISAN DECK & FENCE,
Defendants NO. 2005-4409 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: HEARING CONTINUED
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2006, upon
consideration of the complaint and counterclaim filed in the
above-captioned matter, and upon relation of counsel that this
matter has been amicably resolved, the case is continued
generally to facilitate the parties' formalization of their
agreement.
Counsel are requested to notify the Court at such
time as the case has been discontinued.
By the Court,
J.
David A. Baric, Esquire
19 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Plaintiffs
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Defendants
~ ~ 7.1'-1,0(,.
~
:mae
r:
"]
,~~::')
c...;"'J
<'~
SUSAN D. COSTA and
JAMES L. HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs,
V.
CS SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a
Artisan Deck & Fence,
Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA
NO. 2005-4409 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please mark the above-captioned matter as having been settled and discontinued with
prejudice.
, RIEN, BARIC & S~"
'~/~
David A. Baric, Esquire
LD. # 44853
19 West South Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 249-6873
Attorney for Plaintiffs
dab.dirllitigationlcostaldeckldiscontinue.pra
ROMINGER & WHARE
:7
,/'
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
LD. # 81924
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 241-6070
Attorney for Defendant
~-
~
.,-
(J:J
~'"
''67'0
(;",,<
?:c ~
~.(...,: (.I:)
,<-~L.i ."
7~ ~
~ q.
c:::1
~ ~:r,j
~ f\'tE~
cr> :%
r-:> 'Q'
....- ~~~
1:.~
~~
g
~