Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-6075C GREGG R. CARIGNAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Appellant CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DOCKET NO. O ` 607 C u't? Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Respondent DEFENDANT"; REQUEST 0 PROCEED IN FORMA PA P RIS AND NOW COMES, Gregg Carignan, herein referred to as the Appellant, and avers the following in support of this petition: 1. The Appellant after his support payment i s left with only $550.00 per month upon which to live. 2. The Defendant's i s bankrupted, and i s unable to pay the appeal fee. 3. The Defendant lives without running water, as pipes froze and broke during the winter of 2004 - 2005, he remains unable to pay to afford repairs to the pipes. 4. The Defendant is destitute and without moneys to afford transcript costs and the cost of this appeal. 5. In the Matter of Carignan V. Silver Spring Township No. 259 CD 2005, the Appellant's appeal before the Commonwealth Court and the action preceding this appeal in the Lower Court, the Appellant, Gregg Carignan, was granted In Forma Pauperis standing in the Common Pleas Court and was subsequently continued by the Commonwealth Court, due to the Appellant's dismal financial standing. 6. Carignan i s unable to barrow to money for this appeal. 7. Carignan does not have either a checking or savings account, as he has no cash reserves or the minimum balance to open a checking account. WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully request permission to continue to proceed In Forma Pauperis, the fee for this appeal be waived and or be set aside. Respectfully Submitted, Gregg Carignan 3507 Margo Road Camp Hill, PA 17011-1544 (717) 802-7333 November 28, 2005 1, GREGG R. CARIGNAN, verify that these facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Ss 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Gregg Carignan 3507 Margo Road Camp Hill, PA 17011-1544 (717) 802-7333 November 28, 2005 Certificate of service I, Gregg Carignan, hereby on this day the 29th of November am serving the preceding document upon the following party in the following manor so described; By First Class Regular mail Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Old Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Gregg Carignan 3507 Margo Road Camp Hill, PA 17011-1544 (717) 802-7333 Date; November 28, 2005 ?.J -? '15 i S 1 [. r? ?> n " °';? 0 GREGG R. CARIGNAN, Appellant V. Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. ()5-- 60 75 Respondent 7A DEFENDANT'S APPEAL OF THE ORDER DATED OCTOBER 28 2005 AND NOW, this 28th day of November, 2005, comes Gregg Carignan, herein referred to as the Appellant, and states the following in support of his appeal; 1. Carignan was unable to attend the hearing on October 28, 2005 as the car he was using broke down in western Pennsylvania in a remote area. 2. The Appellant was without the means to contact the board and apprise it of his situation. 3. Repairs took several days to complete leaving Carignan stranded there. 4. The Appellant did not mean to abandon his appeal and seeks the opportunity to present his evidence as to the error of the assessed value of the property. Wherefore, Carignan respectfully requests that this appeal be remanded back to the Board of Assessment for a :dentiary hearing. Respectfully Submitted, Gregg Carignan 3507 Margo Road Camp Hill, PA 17011-1544 (717) 802-7333 1, GREGG R. CARIGNAN, verify that these facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. Ss 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Gregg Carignan 3507 Margo Road Camp Hill, PA 17011-1544 (717) 802-7333 November 28, 2005 Certificate of service 1, Gregg Carignan, hereby on this day the 29th of November am serving the preceding document upon the following party in the following manor so described; By First Class Regular mail Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Old Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Gregg Carignan 3507 Margo Road Camp Hill, PA 17011-1544 (717) 802-7333 Date; November 28, 2005 ? ? _3 ? (?? . ?l L ? _. . . ,?+ t? ?l .. IN RE: GREGG R, CARIGNAN APPELLANT VS. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF : ASSESSMENT APPEALS RESPONDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION NO. '40 0-9-- 6 a PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM THE TERMINATION OF CASE 05-6075 CIVIL AND NOW, comes, Gregg Carignan, herein called the "Petitioner" and petitions for the reinstatement of this case and states the following in support thereof. 1. "Notice of Proposed Termination of Court Case" was sent out by Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary, sometime on or after September 16, 2008. 2. The Petitioner was away and did not receive this notice until after October 28, 2008. 3. The Petitioner after receiving the Prothonotary's notice on the 30'h of October showed up at the office of the Prothonotary to file the Statement of Intention to Proceed, which the Clerk told the Petitioner that they could not take any filings after the October 28, 2008 deadline. 4. The Petitioner seeks to pursue this case and seeks reinstatement of this 5. The Petitioner was out of town on work which prevented the Petitioner from timely filing the Statement of Intention to Proceed. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests your Honorable Court to reinstate Case 05-6075 Civil the reasons contained within this petition or what equitable relief the Court deems fair and just. Date; 2 Respectfully submitted, Gregg Carignan 1394 west King Street York, PA 17404 (717) 802-7333 VERIFICATION I, Gregg Carignan, Petitioner, states the statements and facts contained within are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I understand that this verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 PA.C.S. Ss 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date; d M CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned hereby certify that I served true and correct copy of the foregoing reply by placing a copy of the same in the United States mail, pre-paid postage, addressed to: Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Old Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Hand delivered: Date.Z Y /-O r Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Gregg Carignan 1394 West King Street York, PA 17404 (717) 802-7333 :7 t _ °t GREGG R. CARIGNAN APPELLANT V. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, RESPONDENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 05-6075 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of December, 2008, the petition for relief from the termination of the case on October 29, 2008, IS DENIED.' By the Edgar B Xregg Carignan, Pro se / 5 mberland County Board of Assessment Appeals :sal J J. ' This assessment appeal was filed on November 28, 2005. Not a single thing has occurred on the case until the order of termination was entered on October 29, 2008. There is no reasonable basis for reinstating this matter. O t? ?w43 U Curtis R. Long Prothonotary ®fffce of the Protbonotarp Cumberfanb Lamp Renee K. Simpson Deputy Prothonotary John E. Slike Solicitor 6,5 - LOTCIVIL 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 nns. rn„rthmicE..e„narP • rarlicln UPnneiii%ianla 17(112 . (711% ')AA 41 nc . v.... /^71^7'% IAn <c7,2 IN RE: GREGG R, CARIGNAN APPELLANT VS. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS RESPONDENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION ? 07S- NO. 200;4M@ IF lllllp, AND NOW, comes, Gregg Carignan, herein called the "Petitioner" and seeks the Reconsideration and reinstatement of this case and states the following in support thereof, 1. Petitioner filed his petition on December 1' 2008 as the Cumberland County Courthouse was closed on December 28, 2008. 2. It is the position of the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley That the termination order was entered on October 24, 2008. (Footnote 1 of his order dated December 8s', 2008) 3. Pursuant to the New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary for Cumberland County sent out -NOTICE OF PROPOSED TERMINATION OF COURT CASE" Attached hereto as Exhibit "I". 4. Petitioner filed his "PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM THE TERM INATTON OF CASE 05-6075" Pursuant to Rule 230.2(d) (1) and (2) states in pertenate part; (d)(l) If V action has been terminated pursuant to this rule, an aggrieved party may petition the "M to reinstate the action. (2)If the petition is filed within thirty days after the entry of the order of termination on the docket, the court shall grant the petition and reinstate the action. 5. Explanatory Comment- II.a. Second paragraph 2003 states in pertinate part: ..............If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action ................ 6. The some language is quoted in Curtis R. Long's notice, attached hereto as Exhibit "I ",on the second page, fifth paragraph. 7. All recipients of the "NOTICE OF PROPOSED TERMINATION OF COURT CASE" had court cases that had been inactive for two years. 8. P. 2-28 of the Pa. Real Estate Tax Sales and Municipal Claims cumulative supplement states; A tax assessment appeal is a statutory appeal and not an action at law or in equity. 42 Pa. C.S. §102 As such, it is commenced by the filing of a petition, not a complaint. Therefore, the rules of civil procedure, including discovery rules, are not applicable in a tax assessment appeal. To obtain discovery, absent a local rule dealing with tax assessment appeals or statutory appeals generally, one must file a motion with the court requesting discovery. Once the appeal is filed, the appellant or the taxing bodies may place the case at issue, but are under no obligation to do so, absent a local rule. Therefore, the trial court may commit reversible error in dismissing a tax assessment appeal because of the taxpayer's failure to proceed with the appeal in a timely manner. Sec Terminal Freight Handling Corp. v. Board of Property Assess. Appeals, 790 A2d 1068 (Pa Cmwlth. 2001). 9. Once an assessment appeal is filed with the board or court. All subsequent years' assessments are incorporated in the appeal until there has been a decision on the original appeal. 72 P.S. §5020-5181(b). Thus, in an appeal to the common pleas court, that court must make findings on all assessments of the property made from the time of the assessment originally appealed from until the conclusion of the case. West Mifflin Area Sch. Dist. V. Board of Property Assess. Appeals, 944 A.2d 602 (Pa. Crawlth. 2004) 10. Carignan's Statement of Matters Complained of filed with the Hournable Judge Edgar B. Bayley, and the tier of fact in case 2007-5738 Cumberland County Court of Common pleas and the subject of appeal at 1561 CD 2008 before the Commonwealth Court of PA. seeks to set aside the sale of the property, the same property, subject of the Assessment Appeal at 05-6075, the Petitioner seeks to set aside the tax sale of this property because the tax claims against the property never became absolute because of the tax appeal, 05-6075 supported In re: Upset Sale, Tax Claim Bureau Montgomery County, 205 A. 2d 104, 204 Pa. Super, 409, 1965 as Carignan cited in his closing argument before the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley. 11. His Honor is intimately familiar with the reason that the Petitioner seeks to keep this case open as it is one of the points of the appeal to the Commonwealth Court at 1561- 2008 as stated above. 12. The Petitioner incorporates his petition of December 1, 2008 as though set forth here in its entirety. WE[EREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to reinstate Case 05-6075 Civil for the reasons contained within this petition and the preceeding one, as it defies the case law and the statutes cited above. Respectfully submitted, Gregg Date; carignan 1394 west King Street York, PA 17404 (717) 802-7333 Office of the Prothonotary Cumberland County, PA Curtis R. Long Prothonotary Case # (s) 05-6075 NOTICE OF PROPOSED TERMINATION OF COURT CASE To: GREGG R. CARIGNAN The court intends to terminate this case without further notice because the docket shows no activity-in the case for at least two years. You may stop the court from terminating the case by filing a Statement of Intention to Proceed. The Statement of intention to Proceed should be filed with the Prothonotary of the Court at: CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY ONE COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA 17013 717-240-6195 on or before October 28, 2008. Date IF YOU FAIL TO FILE THE REQUIRED STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED, THE CASE WILL BE TERMINATED September 16. 2008 A * ZZ' ?,_ Date of this Notice `Curtis-R-1_0 g; PrV6notary CHECK YOUR CASE #'s at www.ccpa.net Put cursor on the word "Govermment" for a drop down box. Then put your cursor on the word "Courts. Click on the word "Prothonotary". This will bring you to the "Prothonotary Home Page". On the left hand Navigation Bar click on "Searchable Civil Records". Follow these directions exactly. ?xYll?i/ (??) vs Case No. Statement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name Date: Sign Name Attorney for Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. " This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination ?o a via a action when the aggrieve party not receive t e notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. ?v R (? ,. - 51 h ? vs Case No. DaS -elf d,,,7-5 Ce, *1 //47,0) Cak 11 )6 1- -f 4S5r@$ '+? e f atement of Intention to Proceed To the Court: intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Print Name_!2 Sign Name Date: Z g Attorney for Explanatory Comment The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit comment. 1. Rule of civil Procedure New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting local rules. This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901." Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(b) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable. II Inactive Cases The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. Th6 process is initiated by the court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties. If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue. a. Where the action has been terminated If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed under Rule230id) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination of -a viaBre action when the aggneved partydiTnot receive tie notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file the notice of intention to proceed. The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff must make a show in to the court that the. petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2). B. Where the action has not been terminated An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2. VERIFICATION I, Gregg Carignan, Petitioner, states the statements and facts contained within are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I understand that this verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 PA.C.S. Ss 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date;) ;/q// O Gf eg ngnan CERTIFICATE OF UR CE 1, the undersigned hereby certify that I served true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Reconsideration by placing a copy of the same in the United States mail, prepaid postage, addressed to: Cumberland County Board of Assessment Appeals Old Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Date: d Gregg Carignan 1394 West Ding Street York, PA 17404 (717) 802-7333 4 G._ c? ii. le? Fry C-1) A , , GREGG R. CARIGNAN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF APPELLANT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, RESPONDENT 05-6075 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2008, the petition for reconsideration of the order of December 8, 2008, denying the petition for relief from the termination of the case on October 29, 2008, IS GRANTED. The order entered on October 29, 2008, terminating the case, IS VACATED.' Gregg R. Carignan, pro se 1394 West King Street ' York, PA 17404 prs 'Under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2(d)(2), if a petition is filed within thirty days after the entry of the order of termination on the docket, the Court shall grant the petition to reinstate the action. The thirtieth day from the order of termination on October 29, 2008, was Friday, November 28, 2008. The Cumberland County Courthouse was closed on a county holiday. Therefore, the next day the courthouse was open was Monday, December 1, 2008. Petitioner timely filed his petition for relief from the termination entered on October 29, 2008, on Monday, December 1, 2008. tagar b. t5ay.iey; j. ? ??F ? ? ? ? ?? t . r .. :?: ,, .?. -,,,: . ,?. , ? . if P?-- ? +,-,t , l.,t_ ,,. .._ a? .,.,,} ?? ?? .w °?`'C3 z,,c? ?' 1 ?`? ,~?