HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-0925STEPHANIE E. CHERTOK, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 52651
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-1177
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE AND
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE,
Plaintiffs,
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER,
Defendants.
ANDREW H. SHAW, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 87371
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.O(a-
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
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 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 LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU
DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH
BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT
HIRING A LAWYER.
IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE 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, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
STEPHANIE E. CHERTOK, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 52651
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-1177
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE AND
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE,
Plaintiffs,
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER,
Defendants.
ANDREW H. SHAW, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 87371
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AVISO
LISTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las
quejas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, debe toma accion dentro de veinte (20) dial a partir
de la fecha en que recibio la demanda y el aviso. Usted debe presentar comparecencia escrita en
persona o per abogado y presentar en lat Corte por escrito sus defensas o sus objeciones a ]as
demandas en su contra.
Se le avisa que si no se defienda, el caso puede proceder sin usted y la Corte puede
decidir en su contra sin mas aviso o notification por cualquier otra queja o compensation
reclamados por el Demandante. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO, O PROPIEDADES U
OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES PARA LISTED.
LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED
NO TIENE O NO CONOCES UN ABOGADO, VAYA O LLAME A LA OFICINA EN LA
DIRECCION ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE OBTENER
ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
Cumberland County Bar Association
32 South Bedford Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-3166
STEPHANIE E. CHERTOK, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 52651
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-1177
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE AND
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE,
Plaintiffs,
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER,
Defendants.
ANDREW H. SHAW, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 87371
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. OL- 92.S' ?lU?l l
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
NOW COME the Plaintiffs, Joan Lartin-Drake, M.D. and James Lartin-Drake, by and
through their Attorneys, Stephanie E. Chertok and Andrew H. Shaw, and file the instant
Complaint, and in support thereof state as follows:
1. Plaintiffs are adult individuals residing at 3 Forest Lane, Newville, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, 17241
2. Defendants, Stephen Copenhaver and Barbara Copenhaver (Defendants), are adult
individuals residing at 180 Leper Farm Road, Gardners, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania 17324.
3. Plaintiff is the owner of rental property (hereinafter Property) located at 8 Michaux
Drive, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241.
4. The Property consists of a cabin and surrounding forest like land.
5. Defendants entered into a lease (hereinafter "Lease") for the Property with Plaintiff on
May 7, 2005. A copy of the Lease is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as
"Exhibit A."
6. Pursuant to the Lease, the rental contract for the Property ran from May 1, 2005 to May
31, 2006.
7. Pursuant to the Lease, the total rental of the Property was $850.00 per month.
8. Pursuant to the Lease, the Defendants paid a security deposit of $785.00 on or before
June 1, 2005.
9. Defendants paid the rent for June 2005 in the amount of $850.00 on or before June 1,
2005.
10. Defendants entered into possession of the Property June 6, 2005.
11. On October 7, 2005, Defendants gave notice to Plaintiff of their intent to vacate the
Property on October 31, 2005.
12. Defendants vacated the Property on October 31, 2005.
13. Defendants have refused to pay any rent since October of 2005.
14. In order to mitigate damages, Plaintiff advertised for a new tenant in the Carlisle Sentinel
for a period of three weeks at the cost of $118.63 per week for a total of $355.89.
15. On December 1, 2005, Plaintiff secured a tenant for the remainder of the Defendants'
lease-term at the monthly rent of $700.00.
16. Pursuant to Section 13 of the Lease, Defendants agreed to pay rent owed if they were to
default on the lease. See Exhibit A.
17. To date, Defendants have refused to pay the difference in the amount between the
Defendants' rent and the mitigated rent from the new tenant.
18. The difference in the amount of rents is $85.00 per month.
19. Defendants owe a total of $510 for December 2005 to May 2006 for the difference in
amount between the Defendants' rent and the amount the new tenant is paying.
20. Defendants have failed and refused to pay the outstanding rent for May 2005 of $395.00.
21. Defendants have failed and refused to pay the rent for November 2005 of $785.
22. The total amount of rent in arrears that Defendants owe is $1690.00
23. On or about July 11, 2005, Defendant Barbara Copenhaver, without permission from
Plaintiffs, substantially destroyed the landscaping of the Property, in that she cut down
2
trees and severely damaged numerous other trees on the Property by cutting off most or
all of their lower branches.
24. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Lease, Defendants were not to make any alterations without
the written permission of the Plaintiffs. See Exhibit A.
25. To date, the Defendants have refused to pay for the damages to the landscaping.
26. After Defendants vacated the Property, Plaintiff discovered numerous violations of the
Lease, including but not limited to the following items:
a. Scratched and chipped walls;
b. Broken window shade;
C. Cracked and broken front and top panel of a newly installed washing
machine; and
d. Missing broiler pans, belonging to a newly installed stove.
27. In addition to repairing the above-mentioned damages, Plaintiff was forced to empty the
holding tank for the sewer.
28. Said cost to empty the holding tank was $115.00.
29. Pursuant to Section 4 of the Lease, Defendants were responsible for sewage fees.
30. Plaintiff gave written notice of the above damages to the Defendants within thirty (30)
days after surrender of the Property.
31. To date, Defendants have refused to pay the same or any part thereof.
32. The unpaid balance due Plaintiffs is $ 9,050.91.
COUNT 1- TRESPASS TO CHATTELS
33. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all averments of this pleading as if more fully
set forth hereinafter.
34. Defendants, without approval from Plaintiffs, destroyed the landscape on the Property.
35. In the four months of occupancy, Defendants severely soiled and scratched the interior
walls.
36. At or prior to the time when Defendants vacated the Property, Defendants damaged
various property in the house, in that:
a. Defendants broke one of the window shades. Plaintiff had window shade
replaced at a cost of $6.98;
b. Defendants caused the top and front of the washing machine to become cracked
and substantially detached from the body of the machine, Plaintiff ordered and
had installed the damaged part at a cost of $47.50; and
c. Defendants disposed of the broiler pans that accompanied the stove. Plaintiff has
ordered new broiler pans at a cost of $25.00.
37. To date, Defendants refuse to reimburse Plaintiff for the cost of the above-stated repairs.
38. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered damages as follows:
a. $7,281.43 to replace the destroyed landscaping;
b. $45.00 to repaint walls;
C. $6.98 for new window shade;
d. $47.50 to repair washing machine; and
e. $25.00 to replace broiler pans.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of
$7,405.91 together with costs and interest and such other relief as this Honorable Court may
deem appropriate under law, said amount being necessary to place Plaintiffs in the position they
would have been in had Defendants not destroyed the above-mentioned items on the Property.
COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT - LOSS OF RENTAL PAYMENTS and
FAILURE TO PAY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED
39. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference all averments of this pleading as if more fully
set forth hereinafter.
40. Pursuant to the Lease, Defendants agreed to pay rent for the entire year and to be
responsible for any and all damage to the Property, normal wear and tear excepted.
41. Plaintiffs provided the appropriate notice to Defendants for the amount of rent remaining
due, and for the amount of the damages caused by Defendants.
42. To date, Defendants refuse to pay any sums due.
43. Defendants have failed to perform under the Lease.
44. As a result of Defendants' breach, Plaintiff has suffered damages as follows:
a. $45.00 to repaint walls;
b. $6.98 for new window shade;
C. $47.50 to repair washing machine;
d. $25.00 to replace broiler pans; and
e. $115.00 to empty the holding tank for the sewer.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in the amount of $
9,165.91, together with costs and interest, attorney fees and such other relief as this Honorable
Court may deem appropriate under law, said amount being necessary to place Plaintiff in the
position they would have been in had Defendants breached their rental contract.
Dated: O? ` I r? '"lam
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew H. S aw, squire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 87371
Stephanie E. Chertok, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 52651
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-1177
VERIFICATION
We verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct. We
understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section
4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
?Yl
Jo Martin-Drake
EXHIBIT A
RESIDENTIAL LEASE - RENTAL AGREEMENT
The agreement is made between Joan Lartin-Drake, hereinafter
referred to as Owners, and Stephen and Barbara Copenhaver„ hereinafter
referred to as Tenants. Owners lease to Tenant(s,) and Tenant(s) lease
from Owners the premises located at 8 Michaux Drive, Newville PA,
together with appliances, fixtures and furnishings: oven, refrigerator,
light fixtures on walls,& outside shed.
The Owner and Tenants agree upon the following TERMS
AND CONDITIONS:
1. TERM: The term hereof shall commence on May 1, 2005, and
continue through May 31, 2006. Tenant plans to occupy the
premises on or about May 25, 2005, and pay for May's rent by
adding an additional $65.00 to the monthly rent for one year for a
total of $850 per month. Owner agrees to rent the property to the
Tenant for the `05-'06 rent ($785) for an additional year if both
parties agree that the Tenant will continue to rent the property.
2. RENT: Monthly rent shall $850 payable on the Pt day of each
and every month through the term of the lease. All rents shall be paid to
the Owners or their authorized agent at the following address: 3 Forest
Road, Newville, Pa 17241„ or at such other places as may be designated
by Owners from time to time. In the event rent is not paid within five (5)
days after due date, Tenants agrees to pay a late charge of $10.00 plus
interest at 10% per annum on the delinquent amount. Tenant(s) agrees
further to pay $30.00 for each dishonored bank check.
3. SECURITY DEPOSIT: A security deposit in the amount of
$785.00 is to be paid by Tenants to Owners upon execution of this lease
or no later than May 31, 2006.. See below for conditions applying to
refund of the deposit.
4. UTILITIES: Tenants shall be responsible for the following utilities
and services: electricity, sewage, and trash A pellet stove is available for
use by tenant(s Tenant(s) who assume responsibility for care and
maintenance of the pellet stove if used at all.
5. USE: The premises shall be used as a residence by the undersigned
Tenants and for no other purpose, without the prior written consent of the
Owners. Occupancy by guests, other than members of the immediate
family, staying over 15 days will be considered to be in violation of this
lease and grounds for termination of the lease within 30 days of
notification by Owner.
6. PETS: No pets shall be brought on the premises without the prior
written consent of the Owners. The tenant agrees to assume complete
responsibility for any and all damage done by pets that are owned by the
Tenant or visiting the premises. These damages will be repaired within 30
days of the incident. Once permission is given for pets, the Tenant agrees
to shampoo the rugs in May and in November, at his/her expense at
theowner's discretion. Permission for 1 pet(s) given. 5cC
7. HOUSE RULES: Tenants agree to abide by any and all house
rules, whether promulgated before or after the execution hereof,
including, but not limited to, rules with respect to noise, odors, disposal
of refuse, pets, parking, and use of common areas. Tenants shall not
have a waterbed on the premises without prior written consent of the
Owners. Tenants shall not engage in loud noisemaking, whether music
or otherwise, and shall maintain generally quiet premises. Tenants shall
maintain premises and surrounding areas in a generally clean and orderly
condition. Owners shall be the ultimate determiners of whether excessive
noise has taken place, or the condition of the premises is not being
z
maintained appropriately.
Tenants shall not use any heat source other than the heat provided in
the premises without prior written approval of Owners.
8. ORDINANCES AND STATUTES: Tenants shall comply with
all statutes, ordinances and requirements of all municipal, state and
federal authorities now in force, or which may hereafter be in force,
pertaining to the use of the premises.
9. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING: Tenants shall not assign
this agreement or sublet any portion of the premises without prior written
consent of the Owners.
10. MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS OR ALTERATIONS: It is the
Owners' responsibility to maintain appliances, plumbing, heating, air
conditioning, and other basic functions, unless the damage is caused by
Tenants' negligence. Tenants acknowledge that the premises are in good
order and repair, unless otherwise indicated at the time of moving into
premises. Tenants shall, at their own expense, and at all times, and
subject to the above Owner responsibilities, maintain the premises in a
clean and sanitary manner including all equipment, appliances, and
furnishings therein and shall surrender the same, at termination hereof, in
as good an , clean a condition as received, normal wear and tear
excepted. Tenants shall be responsible for damages caused to the house
or surroun ing areas by their acts and/or that of their family or invitees
and guests.)Tenants shall not paint, paper or otherwise similarly
redecorate or make alterations to the premises without the prior written
consent of the Owners. Owners are responsible for keeping house free of
fleas and other pests unless attributable to Tenants' actions.
3
11. ENTRY AND INSPECTION: Tenants shall permit Owners or
Owners' agents to enter the premises at reasonable times and after
reasonable notice for the purpose of making necessary or convenient
repairs, or to show the premises to prospective tenants, purchasers, or
mortgagees, or to inspect the premises or for other necessary purposes. If
damages requiring repair are discovered on inspection or at any other
time, Owners may, at their option, assess Tenants for the cost of repairs
and, if Tenants fails to pay for such repairs within fifteen (15) days of
notification of the repairs required and their cost, may exercise the
Default provisions described below and charge Tenants for the damages.
Additionally, if damages are sufficiently extensive that they represent to
Owners a disregard for the premises, Owners may consider this a failure
to perform a lease term and exercise the Default provisions.
12. INDEMNIFICATION: Owners shall not be liable for any
damage or injury to tenants, or any other persons, or to any property,
occurring on the premises, or any part thereof, or in common areas
thereof, unless such damage is the proximate result of the negligence or
unlawful act of Owners, their agents, or their employees. Tenants agree
to hold Owner harmless from any claims for damages no matter how
caused, except for injury or damages for which Owners are directly
responsible.
13. DEFAULT: If Tenants shall fail to pay rent when due, or
perform any term hereof, after not less than five (5) days written notice
delivered to Tenants or posted at their residence, the Owners, at their
option, may terminate all rights of Tenants hereunder. If Tenants
abandon or vacate the property, while in default of the payment of rent,
Owners may consider any property left on the premises to be abandoned
and may dispose of the same. In the event the Owners reasonably believe
that such abandoned property has no value, it may be discarded. In the
event of a default by Tenants, Owners may elect to:
4
(a) continue the lease in effect and enforce all their rights and
remedies hereunder, including the right to recover the rent as it becomes
due, or
(b) at any time, as provided above, terminate all of Tenants
rights hereunder and recover from Tenants all damages they may incur by
reason of the breach of the lease, including the cost of recovering the
premises, and including any damages, attorney fees and unpaid rent.
14. SECURITY: The security deposit set forth above shall secure
the performance of Tenants' obligations hereunder. Owners may, but
shall not be obligated to, apply all or portions of said deposit on account
of Tenants' obligations hereunder. Any balance remaining upon
termination shall be returned to Tenants and any damages exceeding the
security deposit shall be payable by Tenants. Tenants shall not have the
right to apply the security deposit in payment of the last month's rent.
15. DEPOSIT REFUNDS: The balance of all deposits shall be
refunded within thirty (30) days from date possession is delivered to
Owners or their Authorized Agent, together with the statement showing
any charges made against such deposits by Owners.
16. WAIVER: No failure of Owners to enforce any term hereof
shall be deemed a waiver, nor shall any acceptance of a partial payment
of rent be deemed a waiver of Owners' right to the full amount thereof.
17. END OF LEASE TERM: If Owners or Tenants intend to
terminate this agreement at the end of the lease term, they shall do so by
providing notice at least sixty (60) days before the end of this lease.
Failure to give this advance notice will be construed as a holding over for
at least one additional month beyond the lease term. Notice is to be
hand-delivered or delivered by certified mail. Upon vacating the
s
premises, Tenants shall have the carpeting of the premises professionally
cleaned or the cost for such cleaning will be assessed by Owners out of
Tenants's security deposit.
18. HOLDING OVER: Any holding over after 5/31/06, with the
consent of Owners, shall be construed as a month-to-month tenancy in
accordance with the terms hereof, as applicable, until either party shall
terminate the same by giving the other party one-month advance written
notice hand-delivered or delivered by certified mail.
19. HEIRS, ASSIGNS, SUCCESSORS: This lease is binding
upon and inures to the benefit of the heirs, assigns and successors in
interest to the parties.
20. ACTS OF OWNERS: Any lease provision may be enforced or
exercised individually or mutually by the two Owners.
- ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS -
21. RENTER'S INSURANCE: Tenants acknowledge that the
Owners have recommended that they secure and maintain a "Renter's
Insurance" policy to protect them from any losses (fire, theft, liability,
personal property) as a result of their tenancy during the term of this
lease.
AMOUNT PAID PRIOR
EXECUTION OF THIS
Security Deposi -
$785_ v , h
First Month Rent -
$850
TO AND AT THE
AGREEMENT:
TIME OF
6
ENTIRE AGREEMENT: The foregoing constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties and may be modified only by a writing
signed by all parties. The following Exhibits, if any, have been made a
part of this agreement before the parties' execution hereof Owner and
tenant may decide to exchange work done to the cabin or premises to be
exchanged for part of the rent due. The terms of this exchange will be
placed in writing for everyone's benefit.
The undersigned parties hereby agree to the above terms.
w'?u.,
Owner U
Date: S? ?/o
Q Li
Tenant (? s c C
Date: d5 7' S
ill o?
r-'
r ?-??
-t
?,?i ?
)? ??
li t.
"?. ? l Y '
V 1
..lf?
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
Attorney ID # 78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
Attorney for Defendants
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE and
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE,
Plaintiffs
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER and
BARBARA COPENHAVER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
5
NO. 06-921 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Joan Lartin-Drake
and James Lartin-Drake, Plaintiffs
c/o Stephanie E. Chertok, Esquire
and Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New
Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be
entered against you.
Date:
Respectfully submitted,
i
ark W. Allshouse, Epquire
Attorney I.D. # 7801?K
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
Attorney for Defendants
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
Attorney ID # 78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
Attorney for Defendants
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE and
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE,
Plaintiffs
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER and
BARBARA COPENHAVER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-928 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
AND NOW, come Defendants, Stephen Copenhaver and Barbara Copenhaver, by and
through their attorney, Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire, and respectfully file this Answer with New
Matter and Counterclaim and in support thereof aver as follows:
Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted upon information and belief
5. Denied as stated. The Lease executed on May 7, 2005 was executed by Defendant
Stephen Copenhaver only. By way of further response, the Lease speaks for itself.
6. Denied. Paragraph 6 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By
way of further response, the Lease speaks for itself.
7. Denied. Paragraph 6 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By
way of further response, the Lease speaks for itself.
8. Admitted.
Admitted.
10. Denied. To the contrary, during the week of June 6, 2005 a mud slide occurred
which resulted in significant mud and water infiltration into the subject matter premises. By way
of further response, Defendants were unable to occupy the property until June 11, 2005.
11. Admitted.
12. Admitted.
13. Denied as stated. Defendants paid rent up to and including October 31, 2005.
14. Denied. Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth or accuracy of the
averments contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Strict proof thereof is demanded
if deemed relevant at the time of trial.
15. Denied. Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth or accuracy of the
averments contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Strict proof thereof is demanded
if deemed relevant at the time of trial.
16. Denied. Paragraph 16 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
By way of further response, the Lease speaks for itself.
17. Denied at stated. Defendants were under no obligation to pay any additional rent
or amounts owed as a result of Plaintiffs' breach of the Lease Agreement as more fully set forth
in Defendants' New Matter and Counterclaim.
18. Denied. Paragraph 18 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
19. Denied. To the contrary, Defendants owe no additional rent as a result of
Plaintiffs' default under the Lease as more fully set forth in Defendants' New Matter and
Counterclaim herein.
20. Admitted. By way of further response, Defendants owe no outstanding rent.
21. Admitted. By way of further response, Defendants owe no outstanding rent.
22. Denied. Paragraph 22 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By
way of further response, Defendants owe no outstanding rent as a result of Plaintiffs' breach of
the Lease Agreement as more fully set forth in Defendants' New Matter and Counterclaim.
23. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant Barbara Copenhaver had received permission
from Plaintiff Joan Lartin-Drake to trim the trees located on the property in order to prevent
further damage to Defendants' vehicles and allow proper and safe access to the property. By way
of further response, it is denied that the trimming undertaken by Defendant substantially
destroyed the landscaping of the property or severely damaged any trees on the property.
24. Denied. Paragraph 2 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By
way of further response, the Lease speaks for itself.
25. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendants have refused to
make any payment to Plaintiffs. It is denied that Defendants "damaged the landscaping" of
Plaitniffs and did not have permission to undertake the tree trimming.
26. (a) Denied. To the contrary, the property was never fully painted when
Defendants took possession and numerous scratches and chips on the walls were in existence at
the time Defendants took possession. By way of further response, Plaintiff Joan Lartin-Drake, in
fact, asked Defendants if they would paint the property after moving in as she had run out of time
and had not provided them possession on May 1, 2005, being the initial day of the Lease.
(b) Denied. To the contrary, the wheel of the window shade was defective, and
was not a quality shade at a cost of $6.98.
(c) Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiffs' agent left the shipping rods in the back of
the washer at the time of installation, therefore, causing it to violently shake and crack the panel.
By way of further response, Plaitniff Joan Lartin-Drake asked Defendant Stephen Copenhaver to
call the manufacturer and remove the rods himself, which he did.
(d) Denied. To the contrary, broiler pans were never provided upon possession of
the property.
27. Denied. Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth or accuracy of the
averments contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Strict proof thereof is demanded
if deemed relevant at the time of trial. By way of further response, if the holding tank was,
indeed, full, it was a result of discharge from Stanley Steamer cleaning the carpets on October
30, 2005 to remedy damp and musty conditions which persisted over a five-month period as a
result of the mud slide occurring the week of June 6, 2005.
28. Denied. Defendants are without knowledge as to the truth or accuracy of the
averments contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs' Complaint.
29. Denied. Paragraph 29 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By
way of further response, the Lease speaks for itself.
30. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiff has never, to the date of filing of this Answer
with New Matter and Counterclaim, ever provided written notice to Defendants of the alleged
damages to her property pursuant to the Pennsylvania Landlord Tenant Act.
31. Admitted.
32. Denied. Paragraph 32 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By
way of further response, the Lease speaks for itself.
COUNT I - TRESPASS TO CHATTELS
33. Paragraphs 33 is a paragraph of incorporation to which no response is necessary.
In the event a response is necessary, the averments of Paragraph 33 are denied.
34. Denied. To the contrary, Defendant Barbara Copenhaver specialty asked and
obtained the approval of Plaitniff Joan Lartin-Drake to trim the trees to avoid future damage to
Defendants' vehicles and allow proper and safe access to the property.
4
35. Denied. To the contrary, at the time Defendants took possession of the property,
the walls at the property were not painted and contained scratches and chips.
36. (a) Denied. Defendants' response to Paragraph 26 (b) is hereby incorporated by
reference as though set forth herein at length.
(b) Denied. Defendants' response to Paragraph 26 (c) is hereby incorporated by
reference as though set forth herein at length.
(c) Denied. Defendants' response to Paragraph 26 (d) is hereby incorporated by
reference as though set forth herein at length.
37. Admitted.
38. Denied. Paragraph 32 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request This Honorable Court to enter judgment
in favor of Defendants and against Plaitniffs, thereby dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint.
COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT - LOSS OF RENTAL PAYMENTS and
FAILURE TO PAY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED
39. Paragraphs 39 is a paragraph of incorporation to which no response is necessary.
In the event a response is necessary, the averments of Paragraph 39 are denied.
40. Denied. Paragraph 40 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By
way of further response, the Lease speaks for itself.
41. Denied. Paragraph 41 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
42. Admitted.
43. Denied. To the contrary, Plaintiffs defaulted under the terms of the Lease in
failing to provide a habitable property in which Defendants to live. As a result, Defendants
vacated the property after providing notice to Plaintiffs.
44. Denied. Paragraph 44 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request This Honorable Court to enter judgment
in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs, thereby dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint.
NEW MATTER
45. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth at
length.
46. The term of the Lease commenced on May 1, 2005.
47. The Lease was executed on May 7, 2005.
48, Defendants paid a security deposit of Seven Hundred Eighty-five Dollars
($785.00) and June rent on June 1, 2005.
49. Plaintiff was unable to deliver possession of the subject property on the date the
Lease was executed.
50. Plaintiff agreed to collect rent for May over a twelve (12) month period at Sixty-
five and 421100 Dollars ($65.42) per month, which amount Plaintiff paid for five (5) months.
51. Despite being obligated to pay rent for May of 2005 and paying rent for June,
2005, Defendants were not given possession of a habitable property until June 11, 2005, forty-
two (42) days after the commencement date of the Lease.
52. Defendants' possession was delayed as a result of Plaitniffs being unable to
deliver the property on May 1, 2005 because they had not yet completed renovations.
53. Defendants were denied possession of the property for a period of 42 days in
violation of the Lease.
54. At the time Defendants took possession, the cabin was not fully painted. There
were numerous chips and cracks existing and Plaintiff requested that Defendant paint the
property after they move in.
6
55. At the time Defendants took possession of the property, it had been recently
infiltrated by water and mud which resulted in severe dampness and dirt on the interior floors and
walls and carpeting.
56. Upon taking possession, Defendants noticed numerous problems with the property
and advised Plaitniffs of the same, including, but not limited to:
(a) A damp, musty and moldy odor;
(b) A severe roach infestation;
(c) Inability to access the property as a result of overgrowth of trees and
vegetation;
(d) Inoperable washer and later dryer, which was not repaired by Landlord.
(e) Lack of hot water and water pressure in the bathroom; and
(f) Lack of operating baseboard heaters sufficient to raise the temperature of the
property above fifty degrees Fahrenheit (50° F).
57. Despite providing notice to Plaintiffs of the numerous problems, Plaintiffs failed
to remedy the same for a period of over five (5) months.
58. The roach infestation grew worse and roaches infested Defendants clothing and
furniture.
59. Defendants, in October of 2005, advised Plaitniffs that as a result of their failure
to provide a habitable premises, Defendants would be vacating the property on October 31, 2005.
60. Defendants vacated the property on October 31, 2005 as a result of Plaintiffs'
breach of contract and failure to provide a habitable property.
61. Defendant Barbara Copenhaver was provided permission by Plaintiff Joan Lartin-
Drake to trim the trees after Plaintiff was advised of the following:
(a) The Defendants' moving truck was unable to access the property as a result of
the growth. Defendants were required to get an additional small truck in
which to move into the property at an additional cost.
(b) Defendants' vehicles suffered substantial scratching and damage as a result of
the overgrowth.
(c) The overgrowth created a safety problem, for not only the access of the
Defendants, but any fire or emergency personnel or equipment which may be
required and Defendants had concern for their safety.
(d) During a storm, a tree fell on a power line by the front porch and created a
small fire.
62. After being advised of the same, Plaintiff Joan Lartin-Drake provided permission
to Defendants to trim the trees.
63. Plaitniff never advised to what extent the trees were able to be trimmed.
64. Defendants trimmed the trees to a point where noticeable prior trimming had
occurred.
65. Plaintiffs are now attempting through their outrageous damage claim to improve
their property to include many landscaping amenities not in prior existence including, but not
limited to:
(a) Time controlled, electronic irrigation systems;
(b) New better quality soil; and
(c) Fully-grown trees to replace the "damage" done by Defendants, which are not
unhealthy or dead.
66. Plaintiffs' claim for landscaping repairs is baseless and has not been made in good
faith.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request This Honorable Court to enter judgment
in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs, thereby dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint.
COUNTERCLAIM
67. Paragraphs 1 through 66 are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth at
length.
68. As a result of Plaintiffs' aforementioned breach of the Lease in providing an
operable washer and dryer, Defendants were required to pay laundry and dry cleaning bills for six
(6) weeks in the amount of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) which amount Plaintiff agreed to
reimburse Defendants. A true and correct copy of Plaintiff's obligation to reimburse is attached
hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A".
69. As a result of needing to find new housing because of Plaintiffs' breach of the
Lease for failing to provide a habitable property, Defendants incurred additional moving fees in
the amount of Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00).
70. Defendants have suffered damages to their vehicles as a result of the overgrowth
to the property in the amount of Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-seven and 17/100 Dollars
($3,757.17).
71. As a result of a mudslide, which mud and water infiltrated the property on June 4,
2005 and which was not cleaned and repaired until June 11, 2005, Defendants were required to
stay in a hotel at a cost of Six Hundred Ninety-seven and 07/100 Dollars ($697.07).
72. Plaintiffs have collected rent from May 1, 2005 through June 11, 2005 in the
amount of One Thousand One Hundred Seventy-seven and 10/100 Dollars ($1,177.10) at which
time Defendants had no possession or access to the premises in default of the Lease.
73. Defendants seek reimbursement of rent for the 42 days in which they had no
possession in the amount of $1,177.10.
74_ As a result of Plaintiffs' breach of the Lease, Defendants were required to provide
an additional security deposit at their new property in the amount of One Thousand Three
Hundred Dollars ($1,300.00).
75. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Landlord Tenant Act, Plaintiffs are required to provide
Defendants written notice of the damages alleged to the property within thirty (30) days and/or
return the security deposit or any amount unused.
76. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Pennsylvania Landlord Tenant Act and
therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover twice the security deposit in the amount of One
Thousand Five Hundred Seventy and 00/100 Dollars ($1,570.00).
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request This Honorable Court to enter judgment
in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs, in the amount of Nine Thousand One and 34/100
Dollars ($9,001.34) together with interest, costs of suit and attorney's fees.
Date:. pSy
Respectfully submitted,
c W. Allshouse, E quire
ttom y LD. # 78014
33 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
Attorney for Defendants
10
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Joan Lartin-Drake <jlartin@kuhncom.net>
> Date: October 10, 2005 8:14:12 AM EDT
> To: Stephen_Cyrus_Copenhaver/AMERICAS/JLG@jlg.com
> Subject: Re: landscape bid
> HI Steve,
> I will call the exterminator and tell him he needs
to use something,
> unfortunately, more toxic, and if you need to be out
while he sprays,
> that may what has to happen, he has used the most
effective schemicals
> he has, if he is out of ideas i will hire another.
As soon as someone
> can be there, I will call you.
> The blower motor is on its way from Canada, and I
have a call in to
> the heath place so they can come out as soon as it
is here. It will be
> at least four or five days.
> The dryer part was also ordered last week, to arrive
sometime this
> week, and the repairman will replace it as soon as
that arrives.
> In the meantime I will pay for any gas and costs of
using a commercial
> dryer.
> Joan
> On Oct 10, 2005, at 7:21 AM,
> Stephen_Cyrus_Copenhaver/AMERICAS/JLG@jlg.com wrote:
>> Unfortunately over the weekend, we noticed two more
roaches. I have
advised
>> Barbara to start putting the roaches we find in a
jar and please
>> advise
>> when the cabin can be sprayed yet again.
>> I think they have nested in the furniture and
kitchen area. They were
>> small... it leads me to believe they are hatching.
>> Also, please let us know when the dryer guy will be
out so Barb or I
>> can be
>> there. It was a bit nippy over the weekend so I
will need an update
>> on the
>> stove repair as the wall unit heater does not work
very well as far a
>> warming the cabin up!! I wish the stove was
VERIFICATION
We, Stephen Copenhaver and Barbara Copenhaver, verify that the statements in the
foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief
under penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date:
y-an
Date: J -x' y -CLP
'-'step en Co n? ver
Barbara Copenhaver
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
Attorney ID # 78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
Attorney for Defendants
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE and
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE,
Plaintiffs
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER and
BARBARA COPENHAVER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-928 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been duly served upon the
following, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first-class, postage
prepaid, as follows:
Stephanie E. Chertok, Esquire
and Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: r
Yrk W. Allshouse, Es uiI
ttorney LD. # 78014
33 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
Attorney for Defendants
rr
-?3
;i
STEPHANIE E. CHERTOK, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 52651
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-8749
ANDREW H. SHAW, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 87371
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE AND
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE
Plaintiff
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-925 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Joan Lartin-Drake, by and through her Attorneys, Stephanie
E. Chertok and Andrew H. Shaw, and file the this Answer to Defendants' New Matter and
Counterclaim, and in support thereof state as follows:
45. No response required.
46. Denied. Paragraph 46 of Defendants' New Matter is a legal conclusion upon
which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the Lease speaks for
itself. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
47. Admitted.
48. Admitted.
49. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs were unable to
give possession of the Property on date Lease was signed. Plaintiffs specifically deny any
inference that Defendants were able to take possession of the Property. By way of further
response, Defendants intentionally entered into the Lease knowing they could not take
possession until June 1, 2006 for the purpose of insuring that no one else could lease the
Property. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
50. Admitted.
51. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants did not take possession of the
Property until June 11, 2005. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
52. Denied. Defendants intentionally entered into the Lease knowing they could not
take possession until June 1, 2006 for the purpose of insuring that no one else could lease the
Property. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
53. Denied. Paragraph 53 of Defendants' New Matter is a legal conclusion upon
which no responsive pleading is required.
54. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the cabin was not fully
painted at the time Defendants took possession of the Property. It is denied that Plaintiffs
requested that Defendants paint the property after they moved in. Strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
55. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that mud did enter the Property
before Defendants took possession. It is specifically denied that there was dampness and dirt on
the interior floors and walls and carpeting. By way of further response, Plaintiffs repaired and
cleaned the Property prior to the time Defendants took possession. Strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
56. (a) Denied. See Paragraph 55 above.
(b) Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that the roach infestation
was severe. By way of further response, treatment was ongoing prior to and after Defendants
2of8
took possession of the Property. Strict proof is thereof demanded at trial.
(c) Denied. It is denied that Defendants were unable to access the Property.
Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
(d) Denied. It is denied that the washing machine and dryer were inoperable.
Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
(e) Denied. After reasonable investigation the Plaintiffs are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter stated. By way
of further response, Defendants failed to notify Plaintiffs of any lack of hot water and water
pressure in the bathroom. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
(f) Denied. It is denied that the baseboard heaters were not sufficient to raise
the temperatures of the property above fifty degrees Fahrenheit (50° F). Strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
57. Denied. Paragraph 57 of Defendants' New Matter is a legal conclusion upon
which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
58. Denied. After reasonable investigation the Plaintiffs are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter stated. Strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
59. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs were advised that
Defendants would be vacating the Property on October 31, 2005. It is specifically denied that
the Property was uninhabitable. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
60. Denied. Paragraph 60 of Defendants' New Matter is a legal conclusion upon
which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is required it is denied that
3of8
Defendants vacated the Property as a result of the Property being uninhabitable. Strict proof
thereof is demanded at trial.
61. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs gave permission
to Defendant Stephen Copenhaver to trim a few branches on two trees bordering the driveway.
It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs gave permission to trim anywhere else. Strict proof
thereof is demanded at trial.
(a) Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter stated. To the
extent an answer is required, it is denied that Defendants' moving truck was unable to access the
Property. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
(b) Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter stated. Strict
proof thereof is demanded at trial.
(c) Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter stated. It is
specifically denied that the landscaping of the Property created a safety problem. In addition,
Defendants knew they were renting a lakeside cabin in the woods. Strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
(d) Denied. After reasonable investigation the Plaintiffs are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter stated. Strict
proof thereof is demanded at trial.
62. Denied. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs gave
permission to Defendant Stephen Copenhaver to trim a few branches on two trees bordering the
4 of8
driveway only, so his large truck would not hit the branches. It is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs gave permission to trim anywhere else. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
63. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically gave permission to only trim the branches of two
trees bordering the driveway. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
64. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants trimmed the trees to a point
where noticeable prior trimming had occurred. To the contrary, Defendant Stephen Copenhaver
apologized for the destruction that his wife had done to the foliage with her hacksaw, and he
offered to pay for the damages. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
65. (a) - (c) Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs are trying to improve their
property. To the contrary, Defendant Stephen Copenhaver apologized for the destruction that his
wife had done to the foliage with her hacksaw, and he offered to pay for the damages. Strict
proof thereof is demanded at trial.
66. Denied. Paragraph 66 of Defendants' New Matter is a legal conclusion upon
which no responsive pleading is required. To the contrary, Defendant Stephen Copenhaver
apologized for the destruction that his wife had done to the foliage with her hacksaw, and he
offered to pay for the damages. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
COUNTERCLAIM
67. No response required.
68. Denied. Paragraph 68 of Defendants' Counterclaim is a legal conclusion upon
which no responsive pleading is required. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter stated
regarding the amount of Defendants dry cleaning bills. Additionally, Plaintiffs only offered to
5 of 8
pay for Defendants use of a commercial dryer. By way of further response, Defendants declined
her offer to pay for their use of a commercial dryer. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
69. Denied. Paragraph 69 of Defendants' Counterclaim is a legal conclusion upon
which no responsive pleading is required to the extent of the Property being uninhabitable. After
reasonable investigation the Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the matter stated. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
70. Denied. Paragraph 70 of Defendants' Counterclaim is a legal conclusion upon
which no responsive pleading is required. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter stated.
Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
71. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiffs are without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter stated as to the costs of a hotel.
It is specifically denied that any mud and water that infiltrated the Property was not cleaned and
repaired until June 11, 2005. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
72. Denied. Paragraph 72 of Defendants' Counterclaim is a legal conclusion upon
which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Defendants intentionally
entered into the Lease knowing they could not take possession until June 1, 2006 for the purpose
of insuring that no one else could lease the Property. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
71 Denied. Paragraph 73 is not a statement of fact to which a response is required.
74. Denied. Paragraph 74 of Defendants' Counterclaim is a legal conclusion upon
which no responsive pleading is required. After reasonable investigation the Plaintiffs are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter stated.
Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
6of8
75. Denied. Paragraph 75 of Defendants' Counterclaim is a legal conclusion upon
which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
76. Denied. Paragraph 76 of Defendants' Counterclaim is a legal conclusion upon
which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request This Honorable Court to enter judgment in
favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, thereby dismissing Defendants' Counterclaim.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: y 3 c (o
Ste hanie E. Chertok, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 52651
Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 87371
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-1177
7of8
VERIFICATION
We verify that the statements made in this Answer to New Matter and Counterclaim are
true and correct. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of
18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Jo Lartin-Drake
James artin-Drake
8of3
STEPHANIE E. CHERTOK, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 52651
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-8749
ANDREW H. SHAW, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 87371
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE AND
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE
Plaintiff
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-925 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephanie E. Chertok, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Plaintiffs'
Answer to Defendants' New Matter and Counterclaim was served this date on the below named,
by placing same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid thereon, addressed as
follows:
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
Date: ('11f °L
4 ?.
Stephanie E. Chertok, Esquire
PA Sup. Ct. ID No. 52651
Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire
PA Sup. Ct. ID No. 87371
61 W. Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-1177
Attorneys for Petitioners
,?
t? _ a
•li?
t
..
,!
r
s ?,
STEPHANIE E. CHERTOK, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 52651
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-8749
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE
Plaintiff
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER
Defendants.
ANDREW H. SHAW, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 87371
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-925 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
Stephanie E. Chertok, Esq. and Andrew H. Shaw, Esq., counsel for plaintiff in the above action,
respectfully represents that:
1. The above-captioned action is at issue.
2. The claim of plaintiff in the action is $35,000.00.
The counterclaim of the defendant in the action does not exceed $35,000.00.
The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to
sit as arbitrators: Stephanie E. Chertok, Esq. and Andrew H. Shaw, Esq., attorneys for Plaintiffs,
and Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire attorney for Defendants.
WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays that your Honorable Courtappoint three (3)
arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted.
Dated:
Step a5 E. Cherto «2b
k, Esql uire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 52651
Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 87371
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-1177
STEPHANIE E. CHERTOK, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 52651
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-8749
ANDREW H. SHAW, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 87371
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, P.A 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE AND
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE
Plaintiff
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-925 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephanie E. Chertok, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the was served this
date on the below named, by placing same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid
thereon, addressed as follows:
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
4833 Spring Road
Sherman Dale, PA 17090
Date: 412 M E
tep anie E. Chertok, Esquire
PA Sup. Ct. ID No. 52651
Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire
PA Sup. Ct. ID No. 87371
61 W. Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-1177
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
i
(?h ?, .,.
."
,
;'
(,
.,
c -
? w
? ?
? ?-
°?
STEPHANIE E. CHERTOK, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 52651
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-8749
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE
Plaintiff
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER
Defendants.
ANDREW H. SHAW, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 87371
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-925 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this.
of the foregoing
By M
urt,
P.J.
captioned action as prayed for.
a,
uai j
tx. t°
N J
CASE NO: 2006-00925 P
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
LARTIN-DRAKE JOAN ET AL
VS
COPENHAVER STEPHEN ET AL
ROBERT BITNER
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
COPENHAVER STEPHEN the
DEFENDANT , at 1154:00 HOURS, on the 7th day of March , 2006
at 180 LEPER FARM ROAD
GARDNERS, PA 17324
by handing to
BARBARA COPENHAVER, ADULT IN CHARGE
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Service 10.56
Postage .39
Surcharge 10.00
.00
38.95
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this a'r-4 day of
aou A.D.
Pr o otary
So Answers:
R. Thomas Kline P
03/07/2006
STEPHANIE CHERTOK
gy.
eputy Sheriff
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
a'
CASE NO: 2006-00925 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
LARTIN-DRAKE JOAN ET AL
VS
COPENHAVER STEPHEN ET AL
ROBERT BITNER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon
COPENHAVER BARBARA the
DEFENDANT , at 1154:00 HOURS, on the 7th day of March , 2006
at 180 LEPER FARM ROAD
GARDNERS, PA 17324
BARBARA COPENHAVER
by handing to
a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 6.00
Service .00
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 10.00
.00
16.00
Sworn and Subscribed to before
me this dl ,a*- day of
' V O ti-V (v A.D.
Pr tary
So Answers: R. Thomas Kline
03/08/2006
STEPHANIE CHERTOK
B .
puty Sheri
I
STEPHANIE E. CHERTOK, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 52651
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-8749
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE AND
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE
Plaintiff
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER
Defendants.
CINDY L. HRIBAL, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 202325
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-925 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly withdraw the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Plaintiffs Joan Lartin-
Drake and James Lartin-Drake.
Date: 06
F
Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire
Supreme Court ID No. 87371
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Plaintiffs Joan Lartin-
Drake and James Lartin-Drake.
Date:
6ri L. r' al, Esquire
Supreme ourt ID No. 202325
1
STEPHANIE E. CHERTOK, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 52651
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-8749
CINDY L. HRIBAL, ESQUIRE
PA Supreme Court ID: 202325
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE AND
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE
Plaintiff
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-925 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Cindy L. Hribal, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Praecipe for
Withdrawal of Appearance and Praecipe for Entry of Appearance was served this date on the
below named, by placing same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid thereon,
addressed as follows:
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
01
Date: M
C4n-dy Hrib sq.
C) 0
F` 1 T
t,. ; w3 rn
JOAN lARnN-DRAKE AND
JAMES IARTIF-DRAKE
Plaintiff
SIEMM COPENIIAVER AND
BARBARA COPENRAVER
Defendant
In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania No. 06 - 925
Civil Action - Law.
Oath
We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office
with fidelity.
S' tore
Jerry R. Duffie
Name (Chairman)
Johnson Duffib Stewart
& Weidner
Law Firm
301 Market Street
P. 0. Box 109
Address
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
City, zip
# 114N
Mechaniesburg,'r-PA 17050
City, Zip
4 IMAA
Award
Leslie M, Fields
Name
Cos topoulos, Foster &
Fields
Law Firm
P.O. Box 222
Address
Lemoyne, PA 17043
City, zip
4: 16&55
We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the
following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.)
In favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants in the amount of $1.272.00
(jeplacement of trees) and in the amount of $850.00 (rent for month of November,
2005); and(-4n favor of Defendants against plaintiffs. an amotmt a=l to,w_
times the. amc mt i'.:Qf,.i tlhed .t4ocurity deposit or $1.570.00.
. Arbitrator ,dissents. (Insert name if applicable.)
Date of Hearing: .01/23/07
Date of Award: 01/23/07
(Chairman) iffl,
Signature (.--' Signatur
N John R. Fenstermacher
Name
Fenstermacher &
Associates, PC
Law Firm
5115 East 1Yindle Road
Address
Notice of %trv of Am,ar-d
at 1:30 E .M., the above award was
Now, the _ day of
, 20017
entered upon the docket and notice thereof ven by mail to the parties or their attorneys.
L"';
Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ ego. °O
rothonotary
By:
Deputy
40 A,-TI Del e ?°.?? ?
.?'n
4h& 1100 a
- 51 pub -00
Qu?es o be 06?
?.or dip
00
?e . I
Froor
2 _
V
1
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
V. NO. 06-925 CIVIL TERM
STEPHEN COPENHAVER and
BARBARA COPENHAVER, CIVIL ACTION -LAW
Defendants
PRAECIPE TO SATISFY JUDGMENT
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly mark the Judgment entered against Defendants in the above-captioned matter in
the amount of $2,122.00 satisfied and paid in full.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: 5 41/Q?
rr indy . H ' , Esquire
Supreme Ct. Id. No. 202325
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-8749
Attorney for Plaintiffs
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE and
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE,
Plaintiffs
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER and
BARBARA COPENHAVER,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-925 CIVIL TERM
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been duly served upon the
following, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first-class, postage
prepaid, as follows:
Mark W. Allshouse, Esquire
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
Respectfully submitted,
Date: S A/o
Cind L. H ' al, Esquire
Supreme . Id. No. 202325
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-8749
Attorney for Plaintiffs
U,
c
L
G
'
C
-z,
.__ C3
?D
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE AND
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE
Plaintiff
V.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-925 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO SATISFY JUDGMENT
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly mark the Judgment entered against Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter in the
amount of $1,570.00 satisfied and paid in full.
Respectfully submitted,
Date:51 10 j07
M k W. Allshouse, Esq ire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
Attorney for Defendants
i
r
JOAN LARTIN-DRAKE AND
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE
Plaintiff
v.
STEPHEN COPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-925 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the Praecipe to Satisfy Judgment has been served upon the
following on the below date, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first-
class, postage prepaid, as follows:
Cindy L. Hribal, Esquire
61 West Louther Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: 5 M (01
Mar W. Allshouse, Esq ire
Supreme Court I.D. No. 78014
4833 Spring Road
Shermans Dale, PA 17090
(717) 582-4006
Attorney for Defendants
2of8
c) rv C?
3
I
W
JOAN IARTIN-DRAKE AND
JAMES LARTIN-DRAKE
Plaintiff
STEPHEN C OPENHAVER AND
BARBARA COPENHAVER
Defendant
In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania No. 06 -925
Civil Action - Law.
Oath
We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office
with fidelity.
S' tore
Jerry R. Duf f ie
Name (Chairman)
Johnson Duffie Stewart
& Weidner
Law Firm
301 Market Street
P.O. Box 109
Address
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
City, zip
# 11431
Name
Fenstermacher &
Associates, PC
Law Firm
5115 East Trindle Road
Address
Medhanicsburg,'PA 17050
City, zip
4 I-r-aaA
Award
Leslie M. .Fields
Name
Costopoulos, Foster &
Fields
Law Firm
P.O. Box 222
Address
Lemo nee, PA 17043
City, zip
*16&55
We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the
following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.)
In favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants in the amotmt of $1_272.00
(eplacement of trees) and in the amotmt of $850.00 (rent for month of November,
2005); and(.in favor of Defendants against aintiffc, an amount equal to two
_ times the; ;amc)Lmt ..pf, tbe: Security deposit or $1.570.00.
. Arbitrator ,dissents. (Insert name if applicable.)
Date of Hearing: 01/23/07
Date of Award: 01/23/07
Notice of E try of Award
Now, the _ day of hVU %A ^1 , 20 07 at _:30 , P .M., the above award was
entered upon the docket and notice thereof ven by mail to the parties or their attorneys.
Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: 00
By:
rothonotary Deputy
L---'- Signaftn
Signature
John R. Fenstermacher
(Chairman)
I'VEM111
AITY
r V" _
x.13 eait 'to -.?if+
4h& 1100 00
fe? 00
Dig pe - ,gyp.
are
or
pp??r d
,
he
`e t 00-4 ?-
r?
0
wy' pry!{{("/`ry'_
Si •
{
z
?c
A
ry
?4 w
psa
'Irv
c.)
zx