Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-4497Constance P. Brunt, Esquire Supreme Court ID #29933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7200 MARIAN P. CLARK, Plaintiff V. THOMAS C. CLARK, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. DS-?l?l5>7 IN DIVORCE 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 may proceed without you and a decree of divorce or annulment may be entered against you by the court. A judgment may also be entered against you for any other 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, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013-3387. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A CLAIM FOR ALIMONY, DIVISION OF PROPERTY, LAWYER'S FEES OR EXPENSES BEFORE A DIVORCE OR ANNULMENT IS GRANTED, YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY OF THEM. 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. 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 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Constance P. Brunt, Esquire Supreme Court ID #29933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Lingiestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232.7200 MARIAN P. CLARK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAIN V. : NO. (2-5- VY 97 T THOMAS C. CLARK, Defendant : IN DIVORCE COMPLAINT IN DIVORCE AND NOW, comes the above-named Plaintiff, MARIAN P. CLARK, by and through her attorney, CONSTANCE P. BRUNT, ESQUIRE, and seeks to obtain a Decree in Divorce from the above-named Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, upon the grounds hereinafter set forth. COUNTI DIVORCE 1. Plaintiff is MARIAN P. CLARK, an adult individual, who currently resides at 1907 Chatham Drive, Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 2. Defendant is THOMAS C. CLARK, an adult individual, whose current permanent residence is at 1907 Chatham Drive, Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. Effective August 24, 2005, however, he is temporarily residing at Father Martin's Ashley, 800 Tydings Lane, Havre de Grace, Maryland, 21078, a residential alcohol treatment facility. 3. Plaintiff and Defendant have been bona fide residents in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for at least six (6) months immediately previous to the filing of this Complaint. 4. The Plaintiff and Defendant were married on October 22, 1988, in Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 5. There have been no prior actions of divorce or for annulment between the parties. 6. The Plaintiff and Defendant are both citizens of the United States of America. 7. The Defendant is not a member of the Armed Services of the United States or any of its allies. 8. The Plaintiff has been advised of the availability of marriage counseling and understands that she may request that the Court require the parties to participate in counseling. 9. The Plaintiff avers that the grounds on which the action is based are that Defendant has offered such indignities to the person of the Plaintiff, the innocent and injured spouse, as to render her condition intolerable and life burdensome. 10. Plaintiff requests the Court to enter a Decree in Divorce. 2 COUNT II REQUEST FOR EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 3502(a) OF THE DIVORCE CODE 11. Paragraphs 1 through 7 inclusive of Count I are specifically incorporated by reference as though fully set forth hereinafter. 12. Plaintiff and Defendant have individually or jointly acquired real and personal property during the marriage, in which they individually or jointly have a legal or equitable interest, which marital property is subject to equitable distribution. 13. Plaintiff requests the Court to determine and equitably distribute, divide or assign said marital property, pursuant to Section 3502 of the Divorce Code. COUNT III REQUEST FOR ALIMONY PENDENTE LITE, COUNSEL FEES. COSTS AND EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 3702 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 14. Paragraphs 1 through 7 inclusive of Count I are specifically incorporated by reference as though fully set forth hereinafter. 15. Plaintiff is without sufficient assets and income to support herself and pay her attorney's fees and the costs and expenses of this action. 16. Defendant has sufficient earning capacity to :support the Plaintiff and to pay the Plaintiffs attorney's fees and the costs and expenses of this action. 17. Plaintiff requests the Court to order the Defendant to support the Plaintiff during the pendency of this action and to pay Plaintiffs counsel fees, expenses and the 3 costs of this action, pursuant to Section 3702 of the Divorce Code. COUNT IV REQUEST FOR ALIMONY UNDER SECTION 3701 OF THE DIVORCE CODE 18. Paragraphs 1 through 7 inclusive of Count I are specifically incorporated by reference as though fully set forth hereinafter. 19. Plaintiff lacks sufficient property to provide for her reasonable needs. 20. Plaintiff is unable to sufficiently support herself through appropriate employment. 21. Defendant has sufficient property, assets, andl income to provide continuing support for the Plaintiff. 22. Plaintiff requests the Court to order the Defendant to pay alimony to Plaintiff pursuant to Section 3701 of the Divorce Code. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that your Honorable Court enter a Decree in Divorce as follows: (a.) dissolving the marriage between the parties; (b.) equitably distributing, dividing or assigning the marital property of the parties; (c) ordering Defendant to pay alimony pendente lite, counsel fees, expenses and costs of this action to Plaintiff; (d) ordering Defendant to pay alimony to Plaintiff; and 4 (e) granting such other further relief as the Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, zz CONSTANCE P. BRUNT, ESQUIRE Supreme Court ID# 29933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110-3339 (717) 232-7200 Attorney for Plaintiff 5 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint In Divorce are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: ,/ / /sot 31 ?oUS? MARIAN P. CLARK, Plaintiff -414. D C-1 c h v ? C O cil 1? ?O TJ Constance P. Brunt, Esquire Supreme Court ID 029933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232.7200 MARIAN P. CLARK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. : NO. DS - I-IY9'7 l21 uL`? THOMAS C. CLARK, Defendant IN DIVORCE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF MARITAL RESIDENCE AND FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, comes the above-named Plaintiff, MARIAN P. CLARK, by and through her counsel, CONSTANCE P. BRUNT, ESQUIRE, and petitions this Honorable Court as follows: 1. The above-captioned action in divorce was instituted by Plaintiff, MARIAN P. CLARK, on August 31, 2005, by the filing of a Complaint In Divorce which included a claim for equitable distribution of marital property. 2. The parties are the parents of 1 minor child, Kathryn L. Clark, who is 14 years of age. 3. Until August 24, 2005, the parties had been residing together with their daughter at the jointly-owned marital residence at 1907 Chatham Drive, Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 4. Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, is an active alcoholic who was admitted to a residential treatment facility in Maryland on August 24, 2005, after an episode of intoxication during which his uncontrolled and menacing behavior cause (Plaintiff to call for police asisstance. 5. This is the third time that Defendant has sought treatment for alcohol addiction. On one occasion, he checked himself out of the facility against medical advice prior to the completion of the program. He also failed to complete prescribed outpatient treatment after prior residential treatments. 6. Defendant's drinking has become so uncontrolled that he has been convicted of driving while under the influence and has been cited for public drunkenness after being found wandering naked in the neighborhood. When Defendant is intoxicated, he becomes belligerent, verbally abusive and physically aggressive toward Plaintiff and his minor daughter, pushing and shoving them and causing bruises, particularly when Plaintiff refuses to give him the keys to a family automobile when he has been drinking. 7. Defendant's alcoholism has become progressively worse, and he is almost constantly intoxicated to some degree. 8. Plaintiff fears that Defendant will attempt to return to the residence upon his discharge from the alcohol treatment facility. After less than a week in the residential facility, Defendant has already called Plaintiff to suggest that he leave the facility before the completion of the scheduled 28-day treatment plan to return to the marital home and pursue outpatient treatment, treatment with which he has failed to comply in the past. 9. Plaintiff is fearful for her safety and for the safety and emotional well-being of her minor child if Defendant does return to the marital home. 10 Pursuant to §3502(c) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. §3502(c), Plaintiff -2- requests this Honorable Court to award her exclusive possession of the aforesaid marital residence pending resolution of the parties' claims for equitable distribution. 11. Throughout the course of the marriage, the parties have accumulated various bank or other depository accounts, investment accounts, life iinsurance policies having cash value, Individual Retirement Accounts, real estate and personal property. 12. Many of these said assets are in the form of mutual fund accounts or bank accounts in Defendant's name, over which Plaintiff has no control. 13. Given Defendant's out-of control behavior, Plaintiff fears that Defendant will liquidate these marital assets and divert the proceeds to his own individual use, thereby prejudicing Plaintiffs rights to equitable distribution of such assets. 14. Plaintiff therefore seeks the entry of an Order Of Court, pursuant to §3323(f) and §3505(a) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. §§3323(f) and 3505(a), and Pa. R.C.P. 1920.43(a), enjoining and prohibiting Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, from transferring, selling, encumbering or dissipating in any fashion any real or personal assets of any nature and however titled and directing that all existing assets held by either party be preserved pending final resolution of all economic claims in this matter. 15. Plaintiff also seeks the entry of an Order Of Court specifically enjoining and prohibiting Defendant from making any withdrawals from, transferring, conveying, encumbering or dissipating in any fashion any bank or depository accounts, Individual Retirement Accounts, mutual fund accounts, brokerage accounts, or other accounts of any nature except upon agreement of the parties or further Order Of Court. 16. Some of the marital assets of the parties which are owned in the individual name of Defendant are in the form of life insurance policies, Individual Retirement Accounts, -3- or other retirement accounts in Defendant's name, which would be distributed in the event of Defendant's death according to beneficiary designations and not as part of his probate estate. 17. In the event that Defendant would die prior to the final resolution of the economic claims in this matter after having changed the beneficiaries for these assets, Plaintiff would be severely prejudiced in her ability to provide for the needs of their minor child. 18. Pursuant to §3502(d) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. §3502(d), Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to maintain all insurance policies on his life which existed on August 24, 2005, paying all necessary premiums thereon as due and designating Plaintiff as the primary beneficiary of said policies, pending final resolution of the economic claims of the parties. 19. Plaintiff also requests that the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to designate and maintain Plaintiff as the primary survivor beneficiary on any individual Retirement Accounts or retirement accounts of any nature, pending final resolution of the economic claims of the parties. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order providing as follows: (a.) Granting sole and exclusive possession of the marital residence at 1907 Chatham Drive, Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011, to Plaintiff, MARIAN P. CLARK, pending resolution of the parties' claims of equitable distribution; (b.) Enjoining and prohibiting Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, from transferring, conveying, selling, secreting, encumbering or dissipating in -4- any fashion any real or personal assets of any nature and however titled, including, without limitation, all bank accounts, brokerage accounts, mutual fund accounts, stocks, certificates of deposit, life insurance policies, annuities, individual retirement accounts or retirement accounts of any nature, real estate or personal property, pending final resolution of all economic claims in this matter; (c.) Directing that all assets of any nature existing as of August 24, 2005, be preserved by the parties pending final resolution of all economic claims; (d.) Directing Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, to maintain all insurance policies on his life which were in existence on August 24, 2005, paying all necessary premiums thereon as due, and prohibiting and enjoining Defendant from taking any loans from said policies or in any way encumbering the proceeds of said policies, pending final resolution of all economic claims in this matter; and (e.) Directing Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, to designate and maintain Plaintiff as the sole primary beneficiary of any life insurance policies insuring his life and as the sole primary survivor beneficiary of all Individual Retirement Accounts, annuities or retirement accounts of any nature as he may have, pending final resolution of the economic claims of the parties. Respectfully submitted, - Z?i&- CONSTANCE P. BRUNT, ESQUIRE Supreme Court ID# :?9933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110-3339 (717) 232-7200 Attorney for Plaintiff -5- VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Plaintiffs Petition For Exclusive Possession Of Marital Residence And For Special Relief are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: /? ??jvst 3/, aooS MARIAN P. CLARK, Plaintiff .a ?_ v T T . r o ?' ti RECEI EO SAP r o "005 Constance P. Brunt, Esquire Supreme Court ID #29933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7200 MARIAN P. CLARK, Plaintiff V. THOMAS C. CLARK, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 4 7 IN DIVORCE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this 46?_ day of 2005, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs Petition For Exclusive Possession Of Marital Residence And For Special Relief, A RULE IS HEREBY ISSUED on Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, to show cause, if any he has, why the relief requested in the said Petition should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE at a hearing to be held on the day of 2005, in Courtroom No. _/, Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013, 4-e .3%01J /' M . BY THE COURT; (?, ? - ! 1 ! ? E?- ? I'z , ?, i ?j Erli Constance P. Brunt, Esquire Supreme Court iD #29933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7200 MARIAN P. CLARK, Plaintiff V. THOMAS C. CLARK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW :NO. OS - -f'Y97 IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of 2005, following hearing on Plaintiffs Petition For Exclusive Possession Of Marital Residence And For Special Relief, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED as follows: (a.) Sole and exclusive possession of the marital residence at 1907 Chatham Drive, Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011, is hereby granted to Plaintiff, MARIAN P. CLARK, pending final resolution of all economic claims in this matter. (b.) Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, is enjoined and prohibited from transferring, conveying, selling, secreting, encumbering or dissipating in any fashion any real or personal assets of any nature and however titled, including, without limitation, all bank accounts, brokerage accounts, mutual fund accounts, stocks, certificates of deposit, life insurance policies, annuities, Individual Retirement Accounts or retirement accounts of any nature, real estate or personal property, pending final resolution of all economic claims in this matter. (c.) The parties are directed to preserve all assets of any nature existing as of August 24, 2005, pending final resolution of economic claims. (d.) Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, is directed to maintain all insurance policies on his life which were in existence on August 24, 2005, paying all necessary premiums thereon as due, and is prohibited and enjoined from taking any loans from said policies or in any way encumbering the proceeds of said policies, pending final resolution of all economic claims in this matter. (d.) Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, is directed to designate and maintain Plaintiff as the sole primary beneficiary of any life insurance policies insuring his life and as the sole primary survivor beneficiary of all Individual Retirement Accounts, annuities or retirement accounts of any nature as he may have, pending final resolution of the economic claims of the parties. BY THE COURT: J. -2- Constance P. Brunt, Esquire Supreme Court ID #29933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7200 MARIAN P. CLARK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. : NO. DS - ?iyg7 ?I ???? THOMAS C. CLARK, Defendant IN DIVORCE PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF MARITAL RESIDENCE AND FOR SPECIAL RELIEF AND NOW, comes the above-named Plaintiff, MARIAN P. CLARK, by and through her counsel, CONSTANCE P. BRUNT, ESQUIRE, and petitions this Honorable Court as follows: 1. The above-captioned action in divorce was instituted by Plaintiff, MARIAN P. CLARK, on August 31, 2005, by the filing of a Complaint In Divorce which included a claim for equitable distribution of marital property. 2. The parties are the parents of 1 minor child, Kathryn L. Clark, who is 14 years of age. 3. Until August 24, 2005, the parties had been residing together with their daughter at the jointly-owned marital residence at 1907 Chatham Drive, Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 4. Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, is an active alcoholic who was admitted to a residential treatment facility in Maryland on August 24, 2005, after an episode of intoxication during which his uncontrolled and menacing behavior cause Plaintiff to call for police asisstance. 5. This is the third time that Defendant has sought treatment for alcohol addiction. On one occasion, he checked himself out of the facility against medical advice prior to the completion of the program. He also failed to complete prescribed outpatient treatment after prior residential treatments. 6. Defendant's drinking has become so uncontrolled that he has been convicted of driving while under the influence and has been cited for public drunkenness after being found wandering naked in the neighborhood. When Defendant is intoxicated, he becomes belligerent, verbally abusive and physically aggressive toward Plaintiff and his minor daughter, pushing and shoving them and causing bruises, particularly when Plaintiff refuses to give him the keys to a family automobile when he has been drinking. 7. Defendant's alcoholism has become progressively worse, and he is almost constantly intoxicated to some degree. 8. Plaintiff fears that Defendant will attempt to return to the residence upon his discharge from the alcohol treatment facility. After less than a week in the residential facility, Defendant has already called Plaintiff to suggest that he leave the facility before the completion of the scheduled 28-day treatment plan to return to the marital home and pursue outpatient treatment, treatment with which he has failed to comply in the past. 9. Plaintiff is fearful for her safety and for the safety and emotional well-being of her minor child if Defendant does return to the marital home. 10 Pursuant to §3502(c) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. §3502(c), Plaintiff -2- requests this Honorable Court to award her exclusive possession of the aforesaid marital residence pending resolution of the parties' claims for equitable distribution. 11. Throughout the course of the marriage, the parties have accumulated various bank or other depository accounts, investment accounts, life insurance policies having cash value, Individual Retirement Accounts, real estate and personal property. 12. Many of these said assets are in the form of mutual fund accounts or bank accounts in Defendant's name, over which Plaintiff has no control. 13. Given Defendant's out-of control behavior, Plaintiff fears that Defendant will liquidate these marital assets and divert the proceeds to his own individual use, thereby prejudicing Plaintiffs rights to equitable distribution of such assets. 14. Plaintiff therefore seeks the entry of an Order Of Court, pursuant to §3323(f) and §3505(a) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. §§3323(f) and 3505(a), and Pa. R.C.P. 1920.43(a), enjoining and prohibiting Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, from transferring, selling, encumbering or dissipating in any fashion any real or personal assets of any nature and however titled and directing that all existing assets held by either party be preserved pending final resolution of all economic claims in this matter. 15. Plaintiff also seeks the entry of an Order Of Court specifically enjoining and prohibiting Defendant from making any withdrawals from, transferring, conveying, encumbering or dissipating in any fashion any bank or depository accounts, Individual Retirement Accounts, mutual fund accounts, brokerage accounts, or other accounts of any nature except upon agreement of the parties or further Order Of Court. 16. Some of the marital assets of the parties which are owned in the individual name of Defendant are in the form of life insurance policies, Individual Retirement Accounts, -3- or other retirement accounts in Defendant's name, which would be distributed in the event of Defendant's death according to beneficiary designations and not as part of his probate estate. 17. In the event that Defendant would die prior to the final resolution of the economic claims in this matter after having changed the beneficiaries for these assets, Plaintiff would be severely prejudiced in her ability to provide for the needs of their minor child. 18. Pursuant to §3502(d) of the Divorce Code, 23 Pa.C.S. §3502(d), Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to maintain all insurance policies on his life which existed on August 24, 2005, paying all necessary premiums thereon as due and designating Plaintiff as the primary beneficiary of said policies, pending final resolution of the economic claims of the parties. 19. Plaintiff also requests that the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to designate and maintain Plaintiff as the primary survivor beneficiary on any Individual Retirement Accounts or retirement accounts of any nature, pending final resolution of the economic claims of the parties. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order providing as follows: (a.) Granting sole and exclusive possession of the marital residence at 1907 Chatham Drive, Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011, to Plaintiff, MARIAN P. CLARK, pending resolution of the parties' claims of equitable distribution; (b.) Enjoining and prohibiting Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, from transferring, conveying, selling, secreting, encumbering or dissipating in -4- any fashion any real or personal assets of any nature and however titled, including, without limitation, all bank accounts, brokerage accounts, mutual fund accounts, stocks, certificates of deposit, life insurance policies, annuities, individual retirement accounts or retirement accounts of any nature, real estate or personal property, pending final resolution of all economic claims in this matter; (c.) Directing that all assets of any nature existing as of August 24, 2005, be preserved by the parties pending final resolution of all economic claims; (d.) Directing Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, to maintain all insurance policies on his life which were in existence on August 24, 2005, paying all necessary premiums thereon as due, and prohibiting and enjoining Defendant from taking any loans from said policies or in any way encumbering the proceeds of said policies, pending final resolution of all economic claims in this matter; and (e.) Directing Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, to designate and maintain Plaintiff as the sole primary beneficiary of any life insurance policies insuring his life and as the sole primary survivor beneficiary of all Individual Retirement Accounts, annuities or retirement accounts of any nature as he may have, pending final resolution of the economic claims of the parties. Respectfully submitted, - Z4& - CONSTANCE P. BRUNT, ESQUIRE Supreme Court ID# 29933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110-3339 (717) 232-7200 Attorney for Plaintiff -5- VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Plaintiffs Petition For Exclusive Possession Of Marital Residence And For Special Relief are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: :??jvst MARIAN P. CLARK, Plaintiff ?? o ?, > r u? "il .T _ f'.t? (.! C.J -i _? C ,i r+ .7 <?, -_ Constance P. Brunt, Esquire Supreme Court ID #29933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)232.7200 cpbrunt(abpaonline.com MARIAN P. CLARK, Plaintiff V. THOMAS C. CLARK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION -LAW : NO. 05-4497 CIVIL TERM IN DIVORCE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND NOW, come the above-captioned parties and stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The above-captioned action was initiated on August 31, 2005, by the filing of Plaintiffs Complaint In Divorce. 2. Simultaneously with the filing of the said Complaint In Divorce, Plaintiff filed a Petition For Exclusive Possession Of Marital Residence And For Special Relief. 3. The said Petition For Exclusive Possession Of Marital Residence And For Special Relief is set for hearing on December 12, 2005, at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. 4. The parties have reached an amicable resolution of the issues raised by the said Petition and stipulate and agree to the entry of an Order Of Court as follows: a. Awarding sole and exclusive possession of the marital residence at 1907 Chatham Drive, Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011, to Plaintiff, Marian P. Clark, pending further Order Of Court or final resolution of economic claims. b. Enjoining and prohibiting either party from transferring, conveying, selling, secreting, encumbering or dissipating in any fashion any real or personal assets of any nature and however titled, including, without limitation, all bank accounts, brokerage accounts, mutual fund accounts, stocks, certificates of deposit, life insurance policies, annuities, Individual Retirement Accounts or retirement accounts of any nature, real estate, or personal property, pending further Order Of Court or final resolution of all economic claims in this matter, except as specifically set forth herein or except upon mutual written agreement of the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiff shall have exclusive use of and access to all funds in Commerce Bank Checking Account No. 537060956. Defendant shall have exclusive use of and access to all funds in the joint checking account with M & T Bank, Account No. 878898. C. Directing both parties to preserve all assets of any nature existing as of August 24, 2005, except as expressly set forth herein, pending -2- 1 further Order Of Court or final resolution of economic claims or except as otherwise mutually agreed by the parties in writing. d. Directing both parties to maintain all insurance policies on their lives which were in existence on August 24, 2005, paying all necessary premiums thereon as due, and prohibiting and enjoining the parties from taking any loans from said policies or in any way encumbering the proceeds of said policies, pending further Order Of Court or final resolution of all economic claims in this matter. e. Directing each party to designate and maintain the other party as the sole primary beneficiary of any life insurance policies insuring his or her life and as the sole primary survivor beneficiary of all Individual Retirement Accounts, annuities, or retirement accounts of any nature as he or she may have, pending further Order Of Court or final resolution of all economic claims in this matter. Witness: 2 f MARIAN P. CLARK, Plaintiff THOMAS C. CLARK, Defendant pro se Dated: -3- Constance P. Brunt, Esquire Supreme Court ID #29933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7200 cpbrunt(a-paonline.com MARIAN P. CLARK, Plaintiff V. THOMAS C. CLARK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION -LAW : NO. 05-4497 CIVIL TERM : IN DIVORCE ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, THOMAS C. CLARK, Defendant pro se, hereby acknowledge that, on September 3, 2005, 1 accepted service of a copy of the Complaint in Divorce filed in the above-captioned divorce action. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notarial Seal Shari R. Copenhaver, Notary Public Susquehanna Twp., Dauphin County TH AS C. CLARK, Defendant pro se My Commission Expires Sept. 13, 2008 Member, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries Sworn and subscribed before me 1 V1 this 4t-i?day of K Of &&A) 2005. Notary Public -. '? - - ? ? .J f OCT 2 6 2flfl5? Constance P. Brunt, Esquire Supreme Court ID #29933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7200 cpbrunt(rDpaonli ne.com MARIAN P. CLARK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. THOMAS C. CLARK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-4497 CIVIL TERM Defendant : IN DIVORCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of C' t 2005, upon the Stipulation of the Parties filed herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED as follows: A. Sole and exclusive possession of the marital residence at 1907 Chatham Drive, Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011, is hereby granted to Plaintiff, MARIAN P. CLARK, pending further Order of Court or final resolution of economic claims. B. Except as expressly set forth herein, both parties are enjoined and prohibited from transferring, conveying, selling, secreting, encumbering or dissipating in any fashion any real or personal assets of any nature and however titled, including, without limitation, all bank accounts, brokerage accounts, mutual fund accounts, stocks, certificates of deposit, life insurance policies, annuities, Individual Retirement Accounts or retirement accounts of any nature, real estate or personal property, pending further Order of Court or final resolution of all economic claims in this matter, or except upon mutual written agreement of the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiff, MARIAN P. CLARK, shall have exclusive access to and use of the funds in the Commerce Bank checking account No. 537060956. Defendant, THOMAS C. CLARK, shall have exclusive access to and use of the funds in the joint M&T Bank checking account No. 878898. C. Except as expressly set forth in Paragraph B. above, the parties are directed to preserve all assets of any nature existing as of August 24, 2005, pending further Order of Court or final resolution of economic claims, or except as otherwise mutually agreed by the parties in writing. D. The parties are directed to maintain all insurance policies on their respective lives which were in existence on August 24, 2005, paying all necessary premiums thereon as due, and are prohibited and enjoined from taking any loans from said policies or in any way encumbering the proceeds of said policies, pending further Order of Court or final resolution of all economic claims in this matter. E. Each party is directed to designate and maintain the other party as the sole primary beneficiary of any life insurance policies insuring his or her life and as the sole primary survivor beneficiary of all Individual Retirement Accounts, annuities or retirement accounts of any nature as he or she may have, pending further Order of Court or final resolution of the economic claims of the parties. F. The hearing on Plaintiffs Petition For Exclusive Possession of Marital Residence And For Special Relief scheduled for December 12, 2005, at 3:00 p.m. is hereby canceled. BY THE COURT: J. Esrey Ofer,-A., J Distribution To: WORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF: Constance P. Brunt, Esquire Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110-3339 DEF DANT PRO SE: Tomas C. Clark 1120-10 Columbus Avenue Lemoyne, PA 17043 o? -6- Constance P. Brunt, Esquire Supreme Court ID #29933 Beaufort Professional Center 1820 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-7200 cp bru ntfcQpaon I i ne. com MARIAN P. CLARK, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. THOMAS C. CLARK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-4497 CIVIL TERM Defendant : IN DIVORCE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND NOW, come the above-captioned parties and stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The above-captioned action was initiated on August 31, 2005, by the filing of Plaintiffs Complaint In Divorce. 2. Simultaneously with the filing of the said Complaint In Divorce, Plaintiff filed a Petition For Exclusive Possession Of Marital Residence And For Special Relief. 3. The said Petition For Exclusive Possession Of Marital Residence And For Special Relief is set for hearing on December 12, 2005, at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. 4. The parties have reached an amicable resolution of the issues raised by the said Petition and stipulate and agree to the entry of an Order Of Court as follows: a. Awarding sole and exclusive possession of the marital residence at 1907 Chatham Drive, Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011, to Plaintiff, Marian P. Clark, pending further Order Of Court or final resolution of economic claims. b. Enjoining and prohibiting either party from transferring, conveying, selling, secreting, encumbering or dissipating in any fashion any real or personal assets of any nature and however titled, including, without limitation, all bank accounts, brokerage accounts, mutual fund accounts, stocks, certificates of deposit, life insurance policies, annuities, Individual Retirement Accounts or retirement accounts of any nature, real estate, or personal property, pending further Order Of Court or final resolution of all economic claims in this matter, except as specifically set forth herein or except upon mutual written agreement of the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiff shall have exclusive use of and access to all funds in Commerce Bank Checking Account No. 537060956. Defendant shall have exclusive use of and access to all funds in the joint checking account with M & T Bank, Account No. 878898. C. Directing both parties to preserve all assets of any nature existing as of August 24, 2005, except as expressly set forth herein, pending -2- further Order Of Court or final resolution of economic claims or except as otherwise mutually agreed by the parties in writing. d. Directing both parties to maintain all insurance policies on their lives which were in existence on August 24, 2005, paying all necessary premiums thereon as due, and prohibiting and enjoining the parties from taking any loans from said policies or in any way encumbering the proceeds of said policies, pending further Order Of Court or final resolution of all economic claims in this matter. e. Directing each party to designate and maintain the other party as the sole primary beneficiary of any life insurance policies insuring his or her life and as the sole primary survivor beneficiary of all Individual Retirement Accounts, annuities, or retirement accounts of any nature as he or she may have, pending further Order Of Court or final resolution of all economic claims in this matter. Witness: 2( " - MARO N P. CLARK, Plaintiff A, 0 OZI THOMAS C. CLARK, Defendant pro se Dated: /°/' ``f? 3- _a Y =it r t jit C, ? J1 SOVEREIGN BENEFITS CONSULTING f/k/a WAYPOINT BENEFITS CONSULTING f/k/a E3 CONSULTING, INC., Plaintiff, V. DANIEL G. THOMAS, CONNIE M. HARDER, and TRIVALENT BENEFITS CONSULTING,: Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA EQUITY No. 05-4669-Civil PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Plaintiff Sovereign Benefits Consulting f/k/a Waypoint Benefits Consulting f/k/a E3 Consulting, Inc. ("Sovereign Benefits"), by and through its counsel, Stevens & Lee, hereby responds to the Preliminary Objections of defendants Daniel G. Thomas ("Thomas"), Connie M. Harder ("Harder'), and Trivalent Benefits Consulting ("Trivalent") (collectively, "Defendants") and avers as follows: 1. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Sovereign Benefits initiated this action by filing the Complaint on September 8, 2005. It is further admitted that Sovereign Benefits also filed an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a Motion for Expedited Discovery, and presented copies of the memorandums of law in support of these motions to the Court Administrator on September 8, 2005. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. 2. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that the Court scheduled the preliminary injunction hearing to take place on September 22, 2005. However, the remaining allegations of this paragraph refer to a writing, which speaks for SLI 583354v1/008370.01018 itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the alleged writing contrary to the express terms thereof. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Sovereign Benefits served copies of its Complaint (certified), Emergency Motion for Special and Preliminary Injunction (certified and with proposed order), Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Special and Preliminary Injunction (stamped "received" by Court Administrator), Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery (certified with proposed order), and Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery (stamped "received" by Court Administrator) on Defendants via Federal Express on September 9, 2005, which was received by counsel for Defendants on September 12, 2005. It is further admitted that counsel for Defendants executed an Acceptance of Service concerning these documents on September 12, 2005. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied, 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that the Court issued an Order on Sovereign Benefits' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on or about September 27, 2005. However, the Order is a writing, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the writing contrary to the express terms thereof. 7. Admitted. 8. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. SW 583354v1/008370.01018 I. DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO RULE 1028(A)(2) FOR ALLEGED IMPERTINENT MATTER IN COMPLAINT 9. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. Further, the phrase "narrative statement" is vague and susceptible to varying interpretations, thus, making an accurate answer to this allegation impossible. 10. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. Further, the phrase "narrative statement" is vague and susceptible to varying interpretations, thus, making an accurate answer to this allegation impossible. 11. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. Further, the phrase "narrative statement" is vague and susceptible to varying interpretations, thus, making an accurate answer to this allegation impossible. 12. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. Further, the SLl 583354v1/008370.01018 phrase "narrative statement" is vague and susceptible to varying interpretations, thus, making an accurate answer to this allegation impossible. 13. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. 14. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sovereign Benefits respectfully request the Court overrule the first preliminary objection of defendants Thomas, Harder, and Trivalent. H. DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF DEMURRER UNDER RULE 1028(A)(4) (II THROUGH VIID 15. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to Rule 1028(a)(4), which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of Rule 1028(a)(4) contrary to the express terms thereof. 16. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for SLt 583354v11008370.01018 itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. 17. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. Further, the claims set forth in the Complaint are legally sufficient. 18. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Sovereign Benefits specifically denies the allegations of this paragraph. To the contrary, in this paragraph Defendants' improperly assert facts with no basis whatsoever in the Complaint. However, it is well- settled that a demurrer admits all properly pled allegations of the Complaint. See Wawa, Inc. v. Alexander J. Litwornia & Associates, 817 A. 2d 543, 544 (Pa. Super. 2003); see also In re Adoption of S.P.T., 783 A.2d 779, 782 (Pa. Super. 2001) (stating that the Court's review on a demurrer is confined to the contents of the Complaint). In further response, Thomas and Harder were employees of Sovereign Benefits when Sovereign Benefits filed the Complaint. [See Complaint 112-3, 21, 36, 37-41, 45-46, 54]. Further, Sovereign Benefits incorporates the allegations of the Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 19. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Sovereign Benefits specifically denies the allegations of this paragraph. To the contrary, in this paragraph Defendants' SLl 583354v1 /00 8 3 70-01 01 8 improperly assert facts with no basis whatsoever in the Complaint. However, it is well- settled that a demurrer admits all properly pled allegations of the Complaint. See Wawa, 817 A. 2d at 544; see also Adoption of S.P.T., 783 A.2d at 782 (stating that the Court's review on a demurrer is confined to the contents of the Complaint). In further response, Thomas and Harder were employees of Sovereign Benefits when Sovereign Benefits filed the Complaint. [See Complaint ¶¶ 2-3, 21, 36, 37-41, 45-46, 54]. Further, Sovereign Benefits incorporates the allegations of the Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 20. Admitted in part and denied in part. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, it is admitted only that Sovereign Benefits never assigned Defendants Thomas's and Harder's respective agreements to Sovereign Bank or Sovereign Bancorp. Sovereign Benefits specifically denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph. To the contrary, in this paragraph Defendants' improperly assert facts with no basis whatsoever in the Complaint. However, it is well-settled that a demurrer admits all properly pled allegations of the Complaint. See Wawa, 817 A. 2d at 544; see also Adoption of S.P.T., 783 A.2d at 782 (stating that the Court's review on a demurrer is confined to the contents of the Complaint). In further response, Thomas and Harder were employees of Sovereign Benefits when Sovereign Benefits filed the Complaint. [See Complaint J¶ 2-3, 21, 36, 37-41, 45-46, 54]. Further, Sovereign Benefits incorporates the allegations of the Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 21. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are SL7 583354v1/008370.01018 specifically denied. To the contrary, Thomas and Harder are subject to valid and binding restrictive covenants. Further, Sovereign Benefits incorporates the allegations of the Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 22. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, Sovereign Benefits' claims stated in the Complaint are legally sufficient. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sovereign Benefits respectfully request the Court overrule the second preliminary objection of defendants Thomas, Harder, and Trivalent. III. DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO RULE 1028(A)(7) FOR ALLEGED FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATUTORY REMEDIE (COUNTS II THROUGH VIII) 23. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to Rule 1028(a)(7), which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of Rule 1028(a)(7) contrary to the express terms thereof. 24. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Sovereign Benefits specifically denies the allegations of this paragraph. To the contrary, this paragraph refers to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. Further, Sovereign Benefits incorporates the allegations of the Complaint as if set forth at length herein. SL 583354v1/008370.01018 25. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Sovereign Benefits specifically denies the allegations of this paragraph. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph constitute an affirmative misrepresentation to the Court that the cited provision of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA") provides for the "exclusive remedy" for misappropriation of trade secrets. In fact, the UTSA only displaces certain remedies related to the misappropriation of trade secrets but specifically and clearly excludes from such preemption, among other things, "contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret" and certain other civil remedies. See 12 Pa.C.S.A. § 5308(b)(l)-(2). 26. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. Further, Sovereign Benefits incorporates the allegations of the Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 27. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Sovereign Benefits specifically denies the allegations of this paragraph. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. In further response, the allegations of this paragraph constitute an affirmative misrepresentation to S L 1583354 v l /0083 70.01018 the Court that the cited provision of the UTSA provides for the "exclusive remedy" for misappropriation of trade secrets. In fact, the UTSA only displaces certain remedies related to the misappropriation of trade secrets but specifically and clearly excludes from such preemption, among other things, "contractual remedies, whether or not based upon misappropriation of a trade secret" and certain other civil remedies. See 12 Pa.C.S.A. § 5308(b)(1)-(2). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sovereign Benefits respectfully request the Court overrule the third preliminary objection of defendants Thomas, Harder, and Trivalent. IV. DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO RULE 1028(A)(8) FOR ALLEGED FULL, COMPLETE, AND ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW - (COUNTS 11 THROUGH VIII) 28. Denied. This paragraph sets forth conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. Further, Sovereign Benefits incorporates the allegations of the Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 29. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to Rule 1028(a)(8), which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of Rule 1028(a)(8) contrary to the express terms thereof. SLI 583354v1/008370.01018 30. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Court's Order dated September 27, 2005, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Court's Order contrary to the express terms thereof. In further response, the Court granted in part and denied in part Sovereign Benefits' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, but such a determination does not constitute a ruling on the merits of Sovereign Benefits' equitable remedies as Defendants allege in this paragraph. See, e.g., Lewistown Police Ass'n by & Through Rarick v Mifflin Cty. Reg. Police Dept, 661 A.2d 508, 513 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995) (noting that a ruling on an application for preliminary injunction is not a final determination of the merits of the case). Moreover, the Court has not issued any findings of fact regarding the allegations of the Complaint. 31. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. Further, Sovereign Benefits incorporates the allegations of the Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 32. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the SLl 583354v1/008370.01018 Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. Further, Sovereign Benefits incorporates the allegations of the Complaint as if set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sovereign Benefits respectfully request the Court overrule the fourth preliminary objection of defendants Thomas, Harder, and Trivalent. V. DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION PURSUANT TO RULE 1028(A)(6) REGARDING ALLEGED AGREEMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION - (COUNT VI) 33. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to Rule 1028(a)(6), which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of Rule 1028(a)(6) contrary to the express terms thereof. 34. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. Further, Sovereign Benefits incorporates the allegations of the Complaint as if set forth at length herein. 35. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the a SCI 583354v1/008370.01018 writing, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the writing contrary to the express terms thereof. 36. Denied. This paragraph states conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations of this paragraph are specifically denied. To the contrary, the allegations of this paragraph refer to the Complaint, which speaks for itself, and Sovereign Benefits specifically denies any characterization of the Complaint contrary to the express terms thereof. Further, Sovereign Benefits incorporates the allegations of the Complaint as if set forth at length herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sovereign Benefits respectfully request the Court overrule the fifth preliminary objection of defendants Thomas, Harder, and Trivalent. Respectfully submitted, STEVENS & LEE Dated: October 27, 2005 Joseph Wolfs Esquire Attorney I.D. . 44431 Todd J. Cook, Esquire Pa. Attorney I.D. No. 89041 111 North Sixth Street P. O. Box 679 Reading, PA 19603-0679 (610) 478-2000 Fax (610) 376-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sovereign Benefits Consulting f/k/a Waypoint Benefits Consultingf/k/a e3 Consulting, Inc. SLl 583354v V008370.01018 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Todd Cook, Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Responses and Objections to Defendants' First Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories on counsel for Defendants via Federal Express addressed as follows: Susan M. Zeamer, Esquire Peter M. Good, Esquire Smigel, Anderson & Sacks, LLP River Chase Office Center 4431 North Front St. Harrisburg, PA 17110-1709 Dated: October 27, 2005 Todd J. Cook SLl 5833541/008370.01018 .., -1 7 '? :` ??. _,- ; ..i r? 1`= ??1 Curtis R. Long Prothonotary office of the Protbonotarp Cumberranb Countp Renee K. Simpson Deputy Prothonotary John E. Slike Solicitor 0.5% JN 97 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE - THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R C P 230.2 BY THE COURT, CURTIS R. LONG PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 • (717) 240-6195 • Fax (717) 240-6573