HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-00432
"
'I "
, ,
./ ,
" , . ,
,
1 l'i " "
; I , , , I'
'" . , ,
'Ii
"~I , ,
oj' "
; 'I
~ I . ",
, , I
!J
il . ,
, "
" I "
, , , , I' ;,'
" I
, , , ,
, 'I ,
. I ,
,
, ~ " , "
I' , ,
,I' "~I iI "
,
"
'3 I .
, I , !)" "
i" ,
lj " "
,
" , . , I
," , ':1
, \,
"I . , ,
, , "
,( ;'1 , "
~ I'
"
\ "
\ , ,
, ,
!I ,
" ,
"
) ,I II, II
, "
II " , i, "
,
/1 . !
,
" "
I' 1
il
,'I ,,"
,I V ,
, Ii ".' ,
'i' , , q , ~
'q
, ,
" "
'I I
, " i,
'i 'I
, , I)
, . , t
,I ;'1 ')
, ,
,
I
, ! .
, , "
, " I
ii'
. , , 1
,
'I !:
,I"~ ~
" .
. I
, , h~
' .
i~:
'. , 'I ~'
, I I
, I
_nHlOOOI/PtbllllF1I,IH4/IlDQ/MHltLP/JI64J
MARY E. WEIBLEY.
IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS Of
CUMBl!RLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO.
Plalnl'"
VI.
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
DOROTHY O. STODDART IIIId
BDWARD H. STODDART,
Defendanll
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, IIIls ~Uf February. 1994, cumes lIIe Plaintiff, Mary E. WelbJey, by her attorneYI,
Jobneon, Dum., Stewart and Weidner, and brlnlls a cause uf aCllon whereof Ihe t'llllowinals a Ilalemenl:
J. The Plaintiff Is Mary E, Welbley, an adult Individual realdlnll at 147 Soulll Enol. Drive, Enola,
Cumberland Counly, Pennsylvania.
2. The Defendants are DOrnlhy 0, Sluddarl and Edward H. Sloddart, aduh Individuals r..ldlna al 425
Third Slreel", Weal Falrvlew, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
COUNT I
MARY E, WEIBI,EY v. DOROTIIY G, STODDART
BREACII OF CONTRACT
3. On Oclober 6, 1992. Plalnllff and Defendant Durotby 0, Studdart entered Inlo a conlracl wherein lIIe
Plalnllff conlracled III sell h.r real tllale Illcaled II 424 and 426 Third Stree!, Wesl Falrvlew, Cumberland Counly,
Pennsylvania, for a price of $40.000,00, with payments III be made as fllllowa:
A. $500.00 down on OClllber 6. 1992, und
I
I
.\
B.
$39,500,00 III b. paid prillI'll) ur al aenlemenllln Ihe real eSlale. with $20,000,00 10 be paid
thr\)uah a mortaaa. and $19.500,00 III he paid olherwls. hy Dllt'endanl Dorolhy O. Sloddart.
OOt)"~l/lanUll,~)I, 1994IRDO/MHIILPI3I64l
4, On (Mober 21, 1992, Defendanl Dllnllhy 0, SlIlddarl conllrm"" Ihe lerm. lit' Ih. conlracl by wrllln,
the Itrma on a documenl which allo evidence. Plalnlltr. recelpl lit' Ihe .ald Defel1llanl'. $500.00 deposlli .ald
D.f.ndanlsllned h.r name with Ih. d..e after wrlllnlllhe wms,
5. A lru. and correCI copy III' Ihe said dllcument cllntalnlnlllhe contraclterms II auached h.r.lO, marked
II Exhlbll . ^', and mad. a part herellf.
6. Defendants had frequenlly vlsltl\llhe properly alls.ue prlllr 10 Octuber, 1992, and knew the condition
of Ih. property prior III Octnber, 1992,
7. Pursuanltn Defendant Dnrnthy Q, Studdart'. request, Plaintiff allre"" III hBVllhe HUD-I'llllemenl
.h.ot r.l1.cl the purchase price of $25,000,00 inslead of the 540,000,00 I1l1ure hI be paid 10 Plalnllff by .ald
D.f.ndlnl.
B. Plalnllff believes Bnd therefore aver. that Defendant Dllrolhy G, Stoddarl wanled the purchas. prlcl
10 b. lIIown II $25,000,00 nn Ih. seUlemenl documents In nrder ti,r said Defendanl hlllblaln I1nanclna. A Iru. and
correcl copy of 1 Salta Alreemenl which Plalnt"l' believe. and therelelre avers WI., execuled fllr purpo.ea of .ald
D.fendanl oblllnlnl flnanclnllls allach~.d herllo, mark"" us Exhibit" B", and made a parI hereof,
9. Defendant Durolhy 0, Studdart Inld Plaintiff hI tell nil une Ihat Iho BClual purchas. price WII
540,000.00.
10. On Oclllber 6, 1992, Plalnllff received a 5500,00 paymenl from Defendanl Dnrothy O. Stoddart.
II. AI the seulemenlon January 27, 1992, Plaintiff recelv~ funds accllunllnK for an additional $24,500.00
of the purchue price,
12. A Irue and CllrreCI copy lit' Ihe HUD-I seUlemenl shell I. auach"" herelo, markl!d as Exhibit 'C", and
mad. 1 plrt hereof.
1lOtJ7J.OflOC)IIPoI>JUlI)' I, 1994/RDOIMIIIILP/316043
13, Plalnllffhlll mllll. r,p,uIl/d wrlllan and oraldamand~ fOI' Iha paymanl of Iha r.malnln, '15,000.00 of
the pur~hu. prl~.. hul Defendanll have r.t\J~ad 10 pay lhl~ amounlde~plte lUI~urlnll Plalnllff thai D,f,ndanll would
pay Plalnllff the oUllllndlnll 115,000,00,
14, B.~au.. of PI.lnllfr~ Inablllly 10 buy a houRI III a relllll of nol r.~.lvlnllh. r.malnln, '15,000.00
owed on the pur~hue prl~., Plalnllff has hlllllo In~ur Itoral. ~osla for har pmperty In th. amounl of S690,68 u of
Dc.mh,r. 1993, with an Iddlllonul $63,60 belnllln~urrl/d 'a~h month Iheraan,r.
15. Defendanl Dllrothy G. Slnddart all reed In Ih, monlh of February, 1993, to pay Plalnllff the amounl
of $30.00 for a mirror,
16. Defendanl Dorolhy G, Slnddart hal not paid Plalntln' lhe $30.00 owed for the mirror.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prayslhls Honnral-lle Court d.~re. and dlr.~llhal Defendanl Dorothy O. SlOddart
b. ord.red 10 pay Plalnllff Ihe sum of S 15,720.68 wllh InlereRt, ~oll of suit, an IIlldlllonal $63.60 for each month aft.r
Dec.mber, 1993, and .u~h other and further relief althl. Court deeml JUII and rea.~onal\le, The amounl ~Ialmed does
nol .~ceed the Jurlsdl~llonal amounl tilr compul~ory arhllrallnn,
COUNT II
MARY E, WEIBI.EY v. EDWARD II. STODDART
17. Paraarallhs one (I) Ihmuah .1~leen (16) <If' Counll are Inc'lrporated herein by ref.rence.
18. Ddendanl Edward H. Stoddart henenued by Defendanl Dorolhy G, Sloddart's purchase of th.
Plalnll/fs real property hecau~e he hili Uled parr of Ihe muclure as a work place, has marllal prop.rty rlahllln the
property, and sharllS In any renlal or ~apltaJ appreciation aalM fmm the pmperty III a resull of hla marrlaa' with
D.fendanl Dorolhy G, Shlddarl.
19. Plalnllffhellevel and Iherefore aws that Defendant Edward H, Sloddarl knew Ihal Defendanl Dorothy
G. Sloddart hid pmmlsed 10 pay Plaintiff the aumnf $40,000,00 for Ihe pmperly,
OOtJ1J,j)QOOl/flOIbruery I, 1994/RDO/MII/Sl.P/316<13
20. Defendant Edward H. Studdart lIII~urud Plaintiff that Defendant Dnrolhy 0, Stoddarl would pay PlalntllJ
the full pur~h... prl~. uf S40.000,OO fur the property.
21. In~llfar as henetll~ were confe"ud upon Edward H. Slllddarl hy purchlllle of the property. Dorothy 0,
Stoddart acled as allent tilr Edward H. Stoddart In her purchllSe ut' the property.
22. Plaintiff suld the pruperty to Defendant Durolhy O. Stoddart lIS opposed to otller purch..er. beeau..
of Plaintiff'. friendship with and lru~tln the Defendants and In reliance upon the statemenls of Edward H. Stoddart.
WHEREFORE, Plalnllff prays this Honlllahle CUUrl decree and direct that Defendant Edward H. Stoddart
b. ordered 10 pay Plalntlt'fthe sum ofSI5.720,68 with Interest, costufsult, an additional S63.60 for each month after
Dec.mher, 1993. and such nther and further relief as this Court deems just and re"'llOahle, The amount claimed do..
not exceed the jurlsdlctlunal amllunt fllr cumpulsllry arhltratlun.
COUNT III
MARY E, WEIBLEV y, DOROTJlV G. STODDART IInd EDWARD II. STODDART
MISREPRESENTATION
23. Parallraphs une (I) throullh twenly-two (22) uf Cuunts I and II are Incorporated herein by reference.
24. The Plaintiff Is seventy (70) years uld,
25. From the summer ut' 1992 10 the dale Ilf senlement. January 27. 1993. Defendants frequently visited
Plaintiff at the house at Issue. speaking with and hecumlngguud friends uf Plaintiff,
26. PlalntltY considered Defendanls IU he guut! friends and trllsted them durlnll the period precedlnll the
sal. of the reaJelItate atls8ue here,
27. Plaintiff hell eves and therefllre aven that Defendant DUMhy O. Studdart knew that Plalntlff's.lster.
the lasllurvlvlnllslhllnll heslde. Plaintiff uf eleven (II) children, died nn January 13. 1993. The funeral for Plaintiff'.
.lster occurred on January 16, 1993, and durlnglhls time Plaintiff unexpectedly recelvud a call from said Defendant
thai the settlement nn the real eSlale wuuld he uccurrlng shnrlly,
0Il937).OOOOIlP""rijI/Y I, 19941MDOIMIIISl.Pl316<13
21, Aller the JlIlIullry 27, 1993, settlemenl.the Defendants did mil Vlllt, speak with, or lnltlale any ~onta~t
with Plaintiff ex~'ptto "II Plaintiff to va~a" th, premises and to assure Plaintiff that Plaintiff would re~.lve payment
of theoulltandlnll 515,000,00 due on the pu,~hll!le prl~e,
29, Plalnliff had re~elved numeruus uffers of $40,000,00 or mure for the real estate, but refu.ed to .ell
the real ..tale to anyone hut Oel'endant Dorothy 0, Studdart he~ause of Plalntlt't's friendship with and trust In th,e ..Id
Defendant, II well II Pllllntltl's relllln~e upon said Defendant's representathm to pay the $40,000,00 pur~hll"prl~e.
30. Plaintiff relied on Defendant Dorolhy 0, Stoddart's assuran~es and promise to pay the 540,000.00
pur~hlle prl~. on the real IIstate, and a.~ a result of su~h rellan~e Plaintiff did not sellthu real estate to othen for the
540,000.00 prl~e.
31. Defendant OOrnlhy O. Stoddart knew Plaintiff ~ould have sold the real estate to other. for the
$40,000.00 prl~e, and said Defendant knew Plaintiff did not do 80 he~ause Plaintiff believed that said Defendant
Intended to pay the full $40.000.00 pur~hase prke.
32, Oefendllnt Duruthy O. Studdart misrepresented her InlllntlO pay the full 540,000.00 pur~hBle prl~.
when she entered Into the said ~untra~t with Plaintiff, Detimdant Dllrolhy O. Sloddart did not Intend to pay the full
pur~hBl' prl~e of $40,000,00 al any time.
33. Defendant Dmulhy G. SlOddart Intended hI have Plaintiff rely on said Defendant's promise to pay
$40,000,00 In order tolndu~e the Plaintiff tu sell the real estate at Issue In this ~llSe to said Defendant and not to other
prosp.~tlve pur~hBlen,
34. Plalntlfl'helleves and therefure awrs that Defendant Edward H, Studdart knew that Defendant Dorothy
0, Shlddart had promised l() pay Plaintiff the sum of $40,000,00 tilr.the property, and that Defendant Dorothy o.
Stoddart did not Intend to pay the $40,000,00 at any time,
35. On ur ahuut February 14, 1993, Defendant Edward H, Stoddart told Plaintiff to remove all of
Plaintiff's poasessillns thlm the property m he wlluld take Plaintiffs perslmal possessluns to a dump and ~harle
Plaintiff to do su.
OfIlIm.ooooIIF.llIlllry I, 19941RDOIMIlISl.PIJI6U
WHEREFORE, PIKlntlff prK)'. thl. HonorKbl~ Court d~~r~~ and dlr.~t thKI Oe'.ndant. be ordered to pi)'
P1.lntl" till sum ots 15.720,68 with Interllllt. ~osts of IUIt, an IIlIdltlonal $63.60 for OlI~h month aft.r O~.mber, 1993,
IIloml)". ,.... punitive damaaN, Knd l\j~h olh~r and furth~r r~lIe' II thl. Court deem. JUlt allll relllQnable. 111,
IIIlOIInt ~1.lmed do.. ROI e.c.od lbe Jurlldl~tlonal amount for ~ompul.or)' arbitration.
"
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER
B)'::g~f/~ Ud-t~
Robert D, 0 B en
Attorne)' I,D. No, 65737
Jame. A. Johnson
Attorne)' I,D. No, 39867
30 I Markel Str.et
P,O, J)(lX 109
Lernl))'ne, PA 17043-0109
Telephone (717) 761-4540
Attorn~)'1 for Mar)' E, Weible)'
DU':-2/1/f-t
"
, "
"
, ,
, I
\, ,
I I
I'
I I, \ "
" I \
I
, I'
, \
, I
,
I
.1IXNDIt 1,
,
,!
"
I,
II
~" '''~ II " ',If '.... t, "'I '~...,..
I
,
.,
,
"
, '
\,
)1'
"
, ,
ill ),
"
,
,
I'
,I,
"
'":''' (i)
,Ii
,
.,
I " ~ I
"
"
'I
I \ II
,
.,
I,
"
, ,
II,
, '
'II
"
" 'I
, .,
1
,
,
III
"
,
"
,
I
"
1'1
"
'I II
"
.,
,:,\
,
Ii
il
III
!,
I,
'I,
"
,II
I, Mary E. Weibley, have received this 6th day of Oct. 1992
the aum of fP d-IJ (), IJ-tJ which upreunta 8
"partial down payment on my property located at 424-426 Third
Street, We.t Fairvi~w, PA from Dorothy G. Stoddart & Edward
~' H. Stoddart.
/1f/j~. tf', //~~~
I ~aW1. wur-y
r'''''''';'::'':~''':'~~ _.,~~,;10~:,~.,J.A.I,~,t>100~,. :.', '. ",' ,;:.
,1(. ..' I, ," " 1"i1':'_'~4.:r "~ .:"'~[n;I~.~'~'~',.',r~.',7"~,;,,'-""~~.>~~,~ ',,,",,-' .,",.'. ",r_",,~,I,.,'(lrl.J\h,."'''i''tl'I'\'''''~''''I~'
:< ",'; ''':'/: . Wl1lA- 'u;' 1~V ~w. '~:o.-""cSJ.'b'~":'lJ'b6~";.;.~,;;.~\i.r':~;~,t.!'~';'1:;"'~':;i),w"
.. ~ Mnc1d~ ' ..' . I
/0/ &/9 /)., , .'
J3 ~.~ ~lJ-t~ '~fYt\-t4
ciu.0 .),& "1 q) so 0, (u IS~ OCJO
~II 1-\, S DO')
,/
., ,
,','"
,', ',I
, "',
:"';'; ,.
"
,,"'/
":":..";',,"'. ...,:,;,;"....... '.' ." . . .... f,. ^7C M; htJ;dIlJ.-.'.:. ,~l.(..JI).,p.:()....> ..:....,:.:,:",I,j..',',".
tiU4i~ '~~lCU;mM<i;3~~~t/;)o/ 6lpi;:'
~-zt;A ~~ '/?ttl11L '~ 191 S 0(;
a1id<.ft{f')1-& itu~ 11o/ft'~
;1Ja4.I2' I.ad! rt "mat :J 0 I 0 tJ 0 .
\~~6t.
f). ! / iJ / ~J/q?--
"
I
,
'I
IIHllt .
Ii'
" i
~., ~l~I~II'""h',"~",,) ,.""..,,,," IP" ~1'''''1l G,
, ,
II"
"
I)
I',
I
"I
, I
"
"
",
"
,1
'1
I.
I,
"
,
"
,
,
'1
I
"
"-) I
I,
,
I',
,I
II
',,01'11...,0, ,"'"" ,..)0,."",., I.
Ibhlblt C
"
I
"
1i ,,&&l'lllt Itlt'lll~
Ii "~"~ of LI"
1.1 IlIA 1.( II'U 1.IIICon. Vllu. I !.rll. IUlblr I1.LOIIIUlblr II,Wort,.,. Imum CUI I..
/.1 In 1,1 If''', III, I I ''''IIH I
e,l.t., '~II lorl I. I~rllll.. to ,I'. 'o~ I It.t.I,nt 01 'ct~.1 "ttl'l,ot co,tl. Alount, pll. to II' I, Ib, "11111111 1,'11 Irl
'~OVI. lUll lIIkt. 'I,.o.cl' Vtrl ,Ii' O~t1Id, tb, cl0l1191 tit, trI ,bm IIll lor Illollltlolll pur,olll II' III lOt lUlu',. II
lh t,t.h.
1,11'1 II' I"r'l' 01 I.,ro"r
I.rllll G. 110".rt
.
eOIIOIIIAL'. LA'D 'I'Ll 1IIIIlICI CONIAI'
1.1, I",rtl'll 01 10~III' I" Irbll 11,.I','llt
011 I.. 1111..111
'ltl, 101~r'09' 10.IIJIIIIC'
, -
~
11,1'1' II' I"rll. 01 ..lllr
I Nlr, I. V'lbl"
I
I
I
I
I
1.'r',lrt, Lllltll'
III 'blr' Itr"t
V.lt ',lr,I" loro~,b
Cu.b,rllo' co~ol', II
I. IIIIAI' 0' 10110111'1 'II,IIC"OI
III, 11011 11011' 011 1101 1011011',
111.Collrlct 1.1.1 ,rlc,
l.l.'lrlo.11 ,ro"rt,
111.llttlll'lt ,blr,.. to borrov.r (110' 1I111
1.1.,III.t. lor Itl.1 III' b, "II,r iiii"IOCI
111.Cll,/loVI tA1'1 to
11J.CIUftt, tllll to
Ill.ICWOOL .AI el/lJ/II to 11/11/11
Ill. GIOII 11011' IVI
1111 lonOllI_
III, '"011'1 'liD I' 01 II IIIILI or 10110111
1'1.01'0111 01 'IrO'lt 101"
111,'rllcl,11 IIOllt 01 I'V 1.11(11
1Il,llhUI, lou(11
III.
III,
III,
lfl.
Ill.
III.
&.,..tlll&' for Itlll ....1. bY 1111.r
1I1.C1t'/Im lnll 11/11/13 to '1/lJ/l1
IIl,CIUnlr t.m to
Ill. 'O'IL 'liD 1"rOI
lonom
I". rotlL ., II"LIIII' rlOl/'O 10110111
Ill,Groll .IOUlt .~, Iro. borrov.r (III' 1111
1t1~~tl 111.ltl III' blllor borrol.r lllol 1111
IU, till
(1111 'lOll (I I '01 10110111
lOll III IHll
,
j ,"0'1, l"tIll~''''
'~L,~
".,,"""
,i,wt,\. jfC" "1'''1\\
\1.11" .1' 1"r'll 01 L....r
I D,~,bll Ilpo,lt II.t II' 'rull CO"I'Y
I
I
I
I
I
I 1.llttl'I,.t l,'ll
\ CONIOllllL'" LIII 'I'Ll IIIUIAICI COl. II'
I 'III' 01 Illtl"'ll
I IJ som MUm 10. SUlU H,
\ "IUlUUla, fA 111..
I Linda K. 'rl"I, Ln
I r. IUllm or IILm'l nAlUfrJOI
I III. mil lIom D8I to IILm
11"',11 I 1.I,Cootrlct 11111 ,rlcl
I 1.2.',rlooll proplrly
IIll.1I I 'hI.
I
I "hltlnll lor lUll Dll. bt Jllln II "mil
I Ill,Clty/tovn tll'l to
I 4'J,CO~ll, tll'l to
111,11 I III,SCHOOL TAl tII17/1l to UIlOIll
_I._-
I III. alOlI mm DVI
TU 51Lt'.~
III. IIDlc'IOII II aIOOI' DII '0 IILLII
III,U III.Ot,ollt 01 IInllt lOllY
IIlU,U 1dl,S11tlllllt cbu,n to IIllu 11111 IU'I
111.lllltln9 10'"(11
IU.
III,
m.
111 ,
IU.
\Il.
11.lltll'I'lt ,.t,
I
I IImr, n, 1"1
I
mdt,o,
111.11
llIul.'i
1\IU.tI
III."
111.11
I'lultl,.11 lor Itlll 11111' '1 1111II
1l.1! III.CIt,ItOVft um tIIU/l1 to UIIIIlI II.IJ
111,Count, III" to
III, ,0,aL IIDOC'IOI INOVI'
ltlll.ll DIIIUL.. 111.11
III. CAli ar 'I"LIIII' '0/1101 IILLII
11111.11 UI.Groll .10111 'VI to 1111" (lie. III) 11111,"
ItIIl.1! IIl,LlII rt'UCUOII Ie nllll 'VI ..lIn IlIullll 11I.11
Ul. cau
I,m." (l1I1 to) II I mIl mm lI,m.1t
. J
.
... JiJ,''f
IUD'1 lHII 11m. IIIltH
, 7u/. "/'"
7- ,
;r-
.~ 1
(j .
'f1.. "-( Ii
,. ~ ,}- "
,~:~ } ~~ ....)
if: " I~ lD " \f)
, " r.r
HI, \ ." ,:) ~
Ct .,,1 .!:I
" . 1;) \ll ' , , " ~
,~ f...) , , ~
N '"J'" :r t' \"cI
C1?= Jill. ~
- " ~
, "
" ..;oi <:j.
J}! .',
~ " ',: i;J
- ---
ii ~ ...,~.:nr...
f-
~ r'l ~ e
i. ~ ~ ~ ~'
] n :i:
., li~!,l
,~ I
~~ ~ . ~ II ~
~M
. ~! ~ ~
~;.~ I ~ ~ 0, ~ ~
. ." <)j
~ ~ pj Ii ~ ~ i
~=-___ __ J
0
~
_.-
..J::;_ _::::==:::.:::::.
=::-:===::u::::=:t====
, I
, i
, ,
"
" , I
I, I
II "
, '
"
"
,
" '
I'
'I; ,
,
i I I
,
.1
.
. ,
BIIErm.'I'" H Ilf:'I\HiN
CX~ll1l OF' PENNSYINANIA.
COUllfl'Y OF Cl.MIlERl.AND
In The Court of Cmnmon Plea9 of
Cumberlann County, l'onnsy.Jvania
No. 432 civil Term 1994
Notice to defend, Civil Act.ion
Law and Complaint
Mary E. Weibley
VB
Dorothy G. stoddart and
Edward H. Stoddart
MJ.chael Barrick
,x.ttWtXlItlf*- Deputy Sheriff of
Cunberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly swrn according to law, says,
that he soxved the within Notice to Defend, Civ.i1 p-ction [,aw ~omplaint
upon QQfothv a. & E,lward II. Btodda.!/ tho defendant, at !~.?.!-___ o'clock
.J\M. EST l)fQ;r, on the
10
day of -.!:..~~ua~_, 19-2.<et
___, Cunbcrland CQunty,
425 Third ~treet, West Fairview
Pennsylvania, by handing to Edward II, St<?EdaE-~' defendant Bnd adult in
a tnlo and attested copy of the
c,harge
Notice to Defend, Civil Action Law and,
Complaint
his attention to the contents thereof and
and at the same time direct.ing
tho "Not ice to Plead" endorsed thereon,
Sheriff's Costs.
Docketing
SexviGe
Affidavit
Surcharge
18,00
8.96
,-~~;(:~~, .. ..//~
r .......".'- .... "'-,.,' _,.i.,.{'..'.~.c...?
I
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
;P~~e~~
Deputy Sheriff
4.00
30 .96 Pd. by At t Y .
2-11-94
SWorn nnd subscribed to before me
this -L ,"~
day of J.t.'''''r
19_-.!LL_ A.D.
~).Y" (), )H,U,.
Prothonotary
~Phr:; .
I I
I,
QOU7J.OOQOI/M".h aI, lt17IJLHIKKMIUI17
MARY E, WEIIlLIlY,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 432 CIVIL 1994
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plalnllff
v.
I
I
I
I
DOROTHY O. STODDART Il/Id
EDWARD H, STODOART,
Det.ndanla
'f'htlNTIEF AND /JBF6NDANTS' "OJNT PMI1Cll'fi 1P plSCON'fINf/6
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Ple..e mark Plalnllft's Complalnl and the claims raised !herein dlsconllnued.
JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART &; WEIDNER
BY/ i~~.
~sePh L. Hltchln
Attorney I.D. #65551
301 Markel Slreet
P,O, Box 109
Lemoyn.. PA 17043'()109
(717) 761-4540
AllOrneys for Plalnlil'f
Pl.... mark D.f'lIdanls' Counlerclalm and !he claims raised therein dlscrmllnued,
/'
-'
:rNO
Jor D. Cunnlnaham
2 0 North Second Slreel
.0. Box 60457
Harrlsbura, PA 17106-0457
(717) 238-6570
Allorneys for Defendanls
"
I'
"
,
,
"
,
'I
,I
,I
"I' "
, ,
~. ."'.
..1' ..:J l'~:
I. (~j
pr ; ,'r.
f" .
l' ' ,-1':
c-i' ,
r ~ "
6f N " , /1
I
IT' V. '""'1.
J. 'I)
..'
I :l.~ .:~O:.
I' 1'- :'j
, , \J', 0
"
,
"
" I
"
:11
I,
"
"
"
,
,
'I
" ,
II,
, ,
,
,
I'
,I,
I,
,
,
"
,
"
"
,
I
"
"
"
"
I'
,
, ,
1'1
.....~ el) ':-"
I'J~ I~;;
I'!, .. ~',\ .'~
(I .;1 ,
~J;j .;'.
)'.~
(I" , - 'l~j
l'...., I.,.
'rl - ....
r.... 'Ii?
hr ,..: I of 'II
~.I ""e
[;:' " \(
I ",
" "- j
l..~ \1' '.)
"
1;1
I,
.1
'1'1'
1'1,
"'!
"
Ii'
"
, , "
"
, "
"
,
I 1
, ,
il
"
'I' , ,
I I
, ,
.,
"
"
'I
,
,
"
"
"
I
"
,
'I
,
I,
"-21 I.
COIOl'1' I
'.~~l.y V. Do~G'~y G.
....e. O. eOIlT.anT
.toll....t
3. The averments of Paragraph 3 are denied. To the
contrary, on Ootober 6, 19~2, Plaintiff and Defendant, Dorothy
G. stoddart, entered into a written oontractua,l Agreelllent
providing tor the sale of the property to Defendant, Dorothy
a. stoddart, for the sum of Twenty Five Thou.and and 00/100
Dollars ($2~,000.00). By way ot further pleading, plaintiff
had originally offered the property to Defendant, Dorothy o.
stoddart, for the sum of Forty Thou.and and 00/100 Dollars
($40,000,00). upon a thorough review of the property, the
parties agreed to a Fifteen Thouaand and 00/100 Dollar
($15,000.00) reduction in the price in the event that
Defendant, Dorothy G. stoddart, was to make varioua agreed
upon repairs to the premises,
Between the point of the
.igning of the Agreement ot October 6, 1992 providing tor a
Bale prioe of Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollar.
($25,000.00) and the date of olosing, the Plaintiff vacillated
between making the repairs and not making the repairs. It
Plaintiff made the agreed upon repairs, then Defendant,
Dorothy G. stoddart, was to pay the Plaintiff the Bum ot Forty
ThouBand and 00/100 Dollars ($40,000.00). At the time of
Closing, the repairs had not been effeoted and therefore the
HUD .ettlement .heet l'eneot:8d the oontraot .ale prioe of
Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollar. ('2&,000.00).
4. The averlllente of Pal'agr~ph 4 are pertially admitted
and partially denied. It i. admitted that on or about Ootober
21, 1992, Defendant, Dorothy G. stoddart, .igned a reoeipt
whioh indioated a .ale prioe of Forty Thou.and and 00/100
Dollara ($40,000.00). By way of further pleading, however, at
that time, Plaintiff had represented that .he was going to
finanoe and make the agreed upon repair. to the hou.e, and
therefore, raising the prioe of the house to the .um of Forty
Thou.and and 00/100 Dollars ($40,000.00). By the time
.ettlelllent took plaoe on January 27, 1993, plaintiff had
failed to effeot the agreed upon repaira and therefore the
olo.ing sheet. reflected the .ale price of Twenty rive
Thouund Ilnd 00/100 Dollara ($25,000.00) instead of Forty
Thou.and and 00/100 Dollars ($40,000.00).
5. The averment. of Paragraph 5 lire denied. To the
contrary, the Defendant and Plaintiff entered into a oontract
for thll .ale of the property a. set forth in Exhibit "B"
attaohed to Plaintiff'. complaint.
I,
1
"
3
6. The averment. of Paraqraph 6 are denbd. To the
contrary, Defendant, Dorothy o. stoddart, had not vi.ited the
property prior to Ootober, 1992. By way of further pleadinq,
there were a number of latent defeot. whioh were not
diaoove/:'ed in the property until an invelUgaUon of the
property waa undertaken. speoifioally, kitohen plumbinq had
to be repaired, oentral heating wae not preaent and eleotrio
baaeboard heating had to be in.talled on the .eoond floor,
floor. in two (2) rooms (both downatair. and upatair.) needed
to be repaired as the result of damage oaused by urination
Unto the floor, the dining room oarpet needed to be repaired,
upataira flooring needed to be repaired, the roof needed to be
replaced, a oeiling in a bedroom and a oeiling in the bathroom
needed to be repaired a. the result of water penetration frolll
leaka in the roof, a window in a main bedroom needed to be
replaced, a leak exi.ted in the bathroom window, electrical
repaira had to be effected to the property inoluding the
inatallation of a new aervioe board, upgrading of the
electrioal servioe, rewiring of oertai,n section. of the home,
and additional miaoellaneous eleotrical repairs.
7. The averments of paragraph 7 are partially admitted
and partially denied. It ia admitted Plaintiff agr.ed to have
4
the HUD-1 .ettlement aheet reflect a puroha.e prioe of TWenty
rive Thousand 00/100 Dollara ($2~,OOO.00), in.tead of Forty
Thousand and 00/100 Dollar. ($40,000.00). To the oontrary,
however, the ohange waa not made purauant to the reque.t of
Defendant, Dorothy G. stoddart, but, instead, a. the reault of
the contraot which had been entered into between the partie.
on ootober :;I, 1992, which indioated a puroha.. prioe of Twenty
Five Thousand and 00/100 DoHan ($215,000.00). The Twenty
Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($25,000.00) figure wa.
agreed upon as the result of repaire Whioh needed to be
effeoted to the premise. and whioh were to be undertaken by
the Defendant, and not the Plaintiff aa aet forth in prior
Answers.
8. The averments of Paraqraph 8 are denied. To the
oontrary, the purchase price of Twenty Five Thousand and
00/100 Dollars ($25,000,00) was ahown on the settlement
doouments in order to refleot the change to the understandinq
reaohed between the parties as has been fully .et forth in
thia Answer.
9. The averments of Paragraph 9 are denied. To the
contrary, Defendant Dorothy G. Stoddart never told Plaintiff
~
1.. The averm.nt. of Paraqraph 18 are admitted.
19. The averm.nt. of Paraqraph 19 are denied. To the
oontrary, Detendant, Edward H. stoddart, wa. aware that
Defendant, Dorothy G. Stoddart had entered into an aqr.elllent
tor the purcha.. ot the prop.rty in the alllount of TWenty Five
Thou.and and 00/100 ($25,000.00) in the event that the
plaintiff did not effect the agreed upon repaire to the
pr.mi..s. By way of further pl.ading, Detendant, Edward H.
stoddart, also understood that if the Plaintift had efteoted
all the agreed upon r.Pllir. that were n.oe...ry in order to
bring the property into compliano. with the oral underetanding
r.aohed between the Plaintiff and Defendant, Dorothy G.
stoddart, th.n, in that event, Dorothy G. stoddart would be
re.ponaible to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Forty Thou.and
and 00/100 Dollllra ($40,000.00).
20. The averments ot Paragraph 20 are denied a. .tatad.
To the oo"trary, Defendant, Edward H. stoddart, a..ured the
Plaintiff that it she lIIade all of the repair. that had been
agre.d upon between her..lf and the Defendant, Dorothy G.
stcddart, th.n in that event, Defendant, Dorothy G. stoddart,
would pay the plaintiff the full purohaae price of Forty
II
Thou.and and 00/100 Dcllar. ($40,000.00). In.the event that
plaintiff did not make the repair. that had been agre.d upon
betw.en plaintiff and Defendant, Dorothy G. stoddart, then, in
that event, the puroha.e prioe of the property wa. to be
Twenty Five Thou.and and 00/100 Dollar. ($25,000.00), The
repairs agreed upon between Plaintiff and Defendant, Dorothy
o. stoddart, were never made by the plaintiff and therefore at
the time ot olosing, the oontract price waa ..t forth in HUD-l
..ttlement .heet. as Twenty Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollar.
($25,000.OQ) purauant to the term. and oondition. a. .et forth
in the Aqreement of Sale attached a. Exhibit "B" to the
complaint.
21. The aver1\lente of Paragraph 21 represent II conolusion
of law to whioh a response is not required. If it is later
judicially determine a re.pons. .hould have been filed, the
averment. are .pecitioally denied.
22. The averments of Paragraph 22 are denied.
Defendants are without knowledge or information SUfficient to
form a belief as to the truth of the averments and striot
proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial.
9
Defendant, Dorothy G. stodcSart, if .he wa. intere.ted in
purohaainq the aa~e. It i. only on the baai. of a poeaible
puroh..e of antique furniture from the PlainUff that the
Defendant even beoame aware of the Plaintiff'. existenc..
26. The averments of Paraqraph 26 are denied. To the
oontrary, the Defendants are without knowledge or inforlllation
sufficient to form an opinion a. to whether or not the
Plaintiff conddered the Defendant. to be good friend. or
"trusted them" during the periOd preoeding the sale of the
real e.tllte and .trict proof thereof, if relevant, is delllanded
at the tillle of trial.
27, Tha averment. of Paragraph 27 are denied ft. .tated.
To the oontrar.-y, it is denied that Defendant, Dorothy O.
Stoddart, knew Plaintiff'. si.ter had died on January 13, 1993
or the funeral for Plaintiff'. sister had occurred on January
16, 1993. It is admitted that at or near that time Defendant,
Dorothy o. stoddart, received a oall from Dauphin Deposit Bank
, Trust Company requesting settlelllent be soheduled and that
ahe oontaot the Plaintiff to arranqe $ date for .ettlement.
Def.ndant, Dorothy G. stoddart, i. without knowledge or
infollllaUon auffioient to form a belief as to whether her oall
11
101" unexpeoted and if that i..ue i. relavant, .triot prClof
thereof i. demanded at the time of trial.
28. The IIverment. of Paraqraph 28 are partially admitted
and partial.ly denied. It ia admitted that attar January 27,
1993 Defendant. did not vi.it or .peak with the Plaintiff a.
there wa~ no rational or relevant rea.on to do .0.
Furthermore, it i. denied that Defendant. oontaoted the
Plaintiff to advise her to vacate the premi... a. she never
lived in the premises nor did they assure her that Plaintiff
would receive any additional payment a. Ihe had not effeoted
the work a. required by the terme and conditione of the
understanding reached betweon Plaintiff a/'ld Defendant, Dorothy
G. stoddart. By way of further pleading, Defendants
requested Plaintiff to remove items of penonalty that had not
been removed by her by the date of settlement, which ite..
were eventually removed by Plaintiff.
29. The avermente of Paragraph 29 are denied. The
Defendants are without knowledge or information suffioient to
form a belief as to the truth of the averment the Plaintiff
had received numerou. otters of Forty Thoueand and 00/100
Dollars ($40,000.00) for the real estat. 01' that Ihe had
12
?'
f~;
Ii
refulled to ..11 the real e.tate to anyone but Defendant,
Dorothy G. stoddart, beoau.e of Plaintiff friendahip with and
truat in .aid Defendant .. well all her relianc. upon
Defendant '. alleged promiae to pay an additional rifteen
Thouaand Dollan and 00/100 ($115,000.00) of oonllideration. By
way of fur.ther pleading, at the time that the Salee Agreement
was exeouted on october 6, 1992, Defendllnt, Dorcthy G.
stoddart, had not known of nor been involved with or had
aooial hed with the Plaintiff. Between the date of Ootober 6,
1992 and the date of aettlement, with the exoeption of
intermittent oontact with the Plaintiff, Defendant e.tablillhed
no Rocial or personlll relationRhip with the Plaintiff.
,.
if
I
Ii
30. The averment. of Paragraph 30 are denied.
Defendant. are without knowledge or information .uffioient to
form a belief as to the truth of the averment. and .triot
proof thereof, if relevant, 1& demanded at the time of trial.
31. The averments of Paragraph 31 are denied. To thn
oontrary, Oefendant, Oorothy G. Stoddart, knew of no oth.r
individual. to whom Plaintiff oould hllve .old the real e.tate
for Forty Thousand and 00/100 Dollar. ($40,000.00), nor did
.he, at any time, have reason to believe Plaintiff could hava
13
lIold the prop.rty for Forty Thou.and and 00/100 DoUan
($40,000.00) in ita exi.ting oondition.
32. The averment. of Paraqraph 32 are denied. fo the
contrary, at no tillle did Defendant, Dorothy a. stoddart,
miarepre.ent her intent. By way of further pleading, her
intent was either to pay the Forty Thouaand and 00/100 Dollar.
($40,000.00) purohase price with 1111 repaira whioh had been
agreed upon between Plaintiff and Defendant, Dorothy G.
stoddart, being made by the Plaintiff or, in the alternative,
take the property as it existed and pay the Plaintiff the .um
of Twenty Five Thouaand and 00/100 Dollllrs ($25,000.00).
33. The averments of Paragraph 33 are denied. To the
contrllry, at no time did Defendant intend to have Plaintiff
r.ely upon any repre..ntations other than those whioh the
partie. had agreed upon as set forth in prior answers to thi.
Complaint.
34, The averment. of Paragraph 34 are denied. To the
oontrary, Defendant, Edward H. Stoddart, knew Defendant,
Dorothy G. stoddart, had entered into an underatanding with
the Plaintiff regarding the purohase prioe of the property a.
14
MARY I. WEJBLlY,
Plaint.iff
v.
I IN THI COURT or COMMON PLEAS
I CUMBIRLAND COUNTY, PINNSYLVANIA
I
I NO. 432 CIVIL 1994
I
I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I
I
DOROTHY a. STODDART and
EDWARD H. STODDART,
Defendants
".aIrICI.T%QII
I, Dorothy a. stoddart, verify that the atatemants made
in the foreqoinq DSf.ndants' l.Daw.~ T09.th.~ Wlth II.. Katt.~
and CO\lftt.~olal. are true and correct to the best of my
knowledqe, information, and belief. I underatand that fala.
statementa her.in are made subject to ths penalUe. of 18
Pa.c.s.!4904,
author! tie..
relating to unsworn
falsification to
/au.;(l';l )j .JOJdda,(1
Dorothy aQ stoddart
j
I,
Date I
d-/3/917
I'
,., I
, '
Lil!><'-_Io<l...
MARY I. WIIBLIY,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COU~TY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 432 CIVIL 1994
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
DOROTHY G. STODDART and
EDWARD H. STODDART,
Defendants
0..TI'10I.TI 0' ...VIa.
I do hereby state that I .erved a true and correct copy
of the Defendants' Answer together with New Hatter and
Counterolaim in the above oaptioned matter, by forwarding the
same! via teleoopy to Robert D. O'Brien! Esquire at 761-301~,
and bY placing the same in the United states mail, first-
clas., postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on
February 4, 1997, addressed to.
Robert D. O'Brien, Esquire
Johnson, DUffie, stewart & Weidner
301 Market street
P. o. Box 109
Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109
Respectfully submitted,
CUNNINGHAM' CHERNICOFF, P.C.
Date. February 4, 1997
A...
lanche A. Mo ri on Secretary
to Jordan D. cunningham, Esquire
I.D. *23144
2320 North Seoond Street
P. o. Box 60467
HarriSburg, PA 17106-04~7
Telephone. (717) 238-6~70
(Attorneys for Defendants)
(-~ ,
I
/
III'
, ,
I'
(
,.
~;- ':
':
J
"
"jl
"
,
I
1
,,'
/,
"
,
I
/...
)
".
"
-~
~ ~
.I~
.. III
Ii [
I
L ---
~
I "
!
g "
~~ 'II
o ~
w...
~~
1~i.3 ,r
'ti ,~
i'> '~ I
J~ ' .
.
- '-
0
CUNNINGHAM" CHIRNICOfl', P.C.