The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About94-01807 ;-~ '" '- <V { , J J v. . . . . . . . . . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. Civil 1994 q4~/~07 CiVil Tom ACTION IN EJECTMENT JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiffs LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN his wife, Defendants . . . . . . . . NOT ICE 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 Plaintiffs. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU I)Q NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Thomas E. Cheffins, Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3387 (717) 240-6200 NOT I C I A LE RAN DEMANDADO A USTED EN LA CORTE. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. S1 NO T1ENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERV1CIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OF1C1NA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Thomas E. Cheffins, Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3387 (717) 240-6200 -"~, ~-" ";'.; ~:'';'';:';''li.:';~;::,'t:~ .- JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . . . . No. Civil 1994 v. . . . . LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN his wife, Defendants ACTION IN EJECTMENT COMPLAINT AND NOW come Plaintiffs, Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers, his wife, through their counsel, Mette, Evans & Woodside, P.C., and make this complaint, in support of which they aver as follows: 1. Plaintiffs are Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers, his wife, both of whom reside at 408 Shippensburg Road, Hopewell Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Lucia F. Chamberlin is an adult individual residing at 70 Dead End Lane, Hopewell Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant David C. Chamberlin and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin, his wife, are adult individuals residing at 51 Dead End Lane, Hopewell Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. """"'~.'~"'-~ 4. Plaintiffs are the owners of a farm consisting of two adjoining tracts of land situate in Hopewell Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which two tracts of land are described in a deed dated May 31, 1967 and recorded in the Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds Office, beginning at Book J22 page 344. A true and correct copy of the aforementioned deed is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 5. Plaintiffs became the record owner of the property described in the deed attached hereto as Exhibit "A" by conveyance from Jay A. Burke and Mary L. Burke, his wife, on or about May 31, 1967, as evidenced by the deed. 6. Defendant Lucia F. Chamberlin is the record owner of an approximately 195 acre tract of land situate in Hopewell Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania which tract of land borders the Myers' farm on the west and which is described in a deed dated June 17, 1957 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County beginning at Deed Book W, Volume 17, page 260. 7. Defendants David C. Chamberlin and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin, his wife, are the record owners of an approximately - 2 - one acre tract of land which borders the Myers' farm on the west and which is described in a deed dated December a, 1973 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cumberland County beginning at Deed Book L, Volume 25, page 1092 a period of ownership less than twenty-one years. 8. On December 30, 1992, John R. Kissinger, R.S., completed a survey of the Myers' farm, having been retained for that purpose by the Plaintiffs. A true and correct copy of the Kissinger survey reduced to 8 1/2" x 11" for filing is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. Defendants' counsel has been provided a full size Kissinger survey. 9. The eastern boundary of the David and Ava Chamberlin deed corresponds to the boundary of the Myers farm as described in the Kissinger survey and in the Myers' deed. 10. The Plaintiffs have continued to pay all real estate taxes assessed on their farm as described in their deed and in the Kissinger survey. 11. The Kissinger survey is consistent with the legal description in the Myers' deed. - 3 - '" .{--.~...-. 12. The Kissinger survey is also consistent with an 1890 survey of the original Alleman property which adjoins the Myers' farm to the south and which is an out parcel of the Myers' farm. 13. The common boundary line between Lucia Chamberlin's property and the Myers' farm as drawn on the Kissinger survey was also derived with reference to an existing survey of the farm adjoining the Myers' farm to the north, on the northern side of the Conodoquinet Creek. The Myers' boundary as depicted on the Kissinger survey is consistent with this adjoining survey. 14. Upon receipt of the Kissinger survey, Plaintiffs became aware that a fence row near the western boundary of their property was not on the boundary between their property and that of Defendants, but rather had been improperly placed several feet east of the property line, thereby placing Defendants in possession of a portion of Plaintiffs' property totalling approximately .5 acres north of the fence row in question, a portion of the Myers' farm property consists of woodlands which extend across the western boundary of the Myers' farm property onto land owned by Lucia F. Chamberlin. - 4 - - 5 - 15. The aforesaid fence row is in a dilapidated condition, is overgrown and is not continuous along the length of the boundary between the Myers' and the Chamberlins' properties. 16. At some time prior to December 30, 1992, Lucia F. Chamberlin or persons acting on her behalf apparently cut and removed several large red oak trees from the wooded portion of the Myers' farm property, all without the knowledge or permission of Plaintiffs. COUNT I - ACTION IN EJECTMENT 17. The averments in paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 18. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs are the legal owners and have the right to possession of all the premises within the metes and bounds of the Kissinger survey of their property as attached hereto at Exhibit "A", 19. Defendants are currently in wrongful possession of a portion of Plaintiffs' property, that being the portion of the property west of the fence row and within the western boundary of the Myers' farm property as depicted on the Kissinger survey attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 20. In addition, Defendants, by the removal of trees from the wooded portion of the Myers' farm property, have taken possessory actions with respect to that portion of the property which are inconsistent with Plaintiffs' superior title and interest in such portion of the property. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Jay H. Myers and Helen Myers, his wife, respectfully request this court to enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants in the form of an order requiring Defendants to relinquish possession of any portion of the premises depicted in the Kissinger survey of the Myers' farm property and directing that Plaintiffs recover possession of the entire premises, together with reasonable attorneys' fees, costs of this action and such other remedies as this court shall deem just. COUNT II - DECLARATORY RELIEF 21. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 22. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief in the form of an order declaring their superior title and right to immediate possession of all the - 6 - COUNT III - DAMAGES premises set forth and described in the Kissinger survey attached hereto as Exhibit "A". WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this court to enter an order declaring them to be the legal owners of all the premises described and set forth in the Kissinger survey attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and further declaring them to be entitled to immediate possession of all such premises, together with the costs of this action and such other remedies as this court shall deem just. 23. The averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 24. As a result of Defendants' wrongful removal of trees from Plaintiffs' property, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount in excess of $5,000.00. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this court to enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs in an amount in excess of $5,000.00, plus pre-judgment interest, costs of this action and such other remedies as this court shall deem just. - 7 - METTE, EVANS 6& WOODSIDE By: )J;J!/ j) ~( Michael D, Reed, Esquire Sup. Ct. I. D. #35193 Paula J. Leicht, Esquire Sup. ct. I. D. #42585 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers DATE: April 8, 1994 exhibit A tou".'hlGAl,."""'OO '.m.'. lOll NUGlID @ U1.-:'1'i":"V::'I~&~ .... A.t .. I~. tEbt~ meeb, MADE THE 315 t ,,/ our lArd one tAoUMInd "in" h'IIIdrrd d.v'" IIay and sixty-seven in tile IItflr BETWEEN J. ,\. IlUJU; and ;iARl' O. IlUlU;, his wife, of the Ilorou~h of Shippensburg, Ceunt). of Franklin and State oC I'ennsylvania, parties of the first part as and Grantors. JAY II. HYERS and IIELEN L. I!YEIIS, his wife, of the Township of Hopewell, Ceunty Df Cumberland and State of l'ennsy1vanio, parties oC the second port as .. 'il'/TNESSETH, Ihat in r....id.rolu,. 0' Sixteen Thousand Five Itundred . (516,500.00) Dol/4.... . IuInd paid. tilt rectipt ,,'II('rto/ .... hrrrbll atkiaowlrdgtd. th" laid gmntor d" hrrtbr grant Ind ron.." 10 th. mid gronlrrs, ALl that certain farlll consisUnj! of two adjDining tracts of land situate in lIopewe11 Township, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, bounded and described as follows: Tract No.1- Beginning at a Run near a Walnut tree st scorner; thence dewn said run North Thirty and Twenty-five lIundredths (30.25) legrees East Thirty-five (35) perches; thence North Forty-one and SeventY-five Itundredths (41.75) degrees East Thirty-seven (37) perches; thence North TwentY-Dne and Seventy-five lIundredths (21.75) degrees ~ast Four and Five Tenths (4.5) perches: thonee NDrth Forty-six and 'SeventY-five lIundredths (46.75) degrees Eest Seven (7) perches: thence South Forty-eight and Five Tenths (48.5) degroes East Twelve and Five Tenths (12.5) perches: thence North Sixty-tWD and Seventy-five lIundredths (62.75) degrees East Eight and Seven Tenths (8.7) perches; thence 'South EightY-five and Seventy-five lIundredths (85.75) degrees East Thirteen (13) perches; thence South Forty-four (44) degrees East Twelve (12) porches; thence North Eighty-nine and Five Tenths (89.5) I~degrees East Twenty (20) perches to where said nun enters the Cenodoguinet Creek: thence up said creek Forty and Five Tenths (40.5) ~ degrees East Seven (7) perches: thonee South Twenty-two and Five Tenths (22.5) degrees East Twenty-three (23) perches; thence South . Fourteen (14) decrees East Twenty-four (24) perches: thence South Nineteen (19) degrees East Fifteen (15) porches: thence South One and ' " .' Twenty-five lIundredths (1.25) degrees East Thirteen and Six Tenths (13.6) , perches: thence South Nineteen and Five Tenths (19.5) degrees Esst Thirteen (13) perches; thence South Forty-eight and Five Tenths (48.5) degrees East Seven (7) perches; thence by lands of now or formerly Benjamin Newcomer North Seventy-five (75) degrees liest Thirty-one (31) perches to a White Oak; thence by lands of same North Firty-two (52) degrees West Thirty-three (33) perches to a Gum; thence by lands of same II.. North Eighty-nine (89) degrees West Eighty-six (86) perches to a post; " thence North Fifty-five (55) dogrees West Ten (10) perches to the .- II place of Beginning. Containing FiftY-Dne (51) Acres and One Hundred , '.' Twenty-three (123) perches, strict measure. d' ' I Tract No. 2 - Beginning at a post: thence by land now or formerly of John McCune, South Thirty-eight and Seventy-five Itundredths (38.75) Grantte 5 : . ':;(~I ~.:..,,',.. I. ..~< r..II.hlp ., '':~,,;-t.'..<It:~ Lc... ;cloool Oil!. Cumb, Co" Po. Cumbo Co., ~o, ...... ~ aNi btd. T,.",f" T.. '!!' ".'l".f. r'..,hr Tn ... -. \' .:? -: I r, O I.. 7_J'.7 .~ /....! - D... J....(.";J:.? AM. ~v:- ............1".4".._............,. ..h ......... ~ IL:.....JA'" ...} r'u".d ht.;..(.-I//.~)r:u;;"'-".:. c.-.. C.. DI,f. Col. ...,f. ,J. I eco~Il:l~2:~tfC.:t4~ '.' ,/ de~ree. We.t Eighty .nd Two Tenth. f80.2) perche. to e BI.ek O.k; thence by lend now or formerly of S.muel Newcomer South Eighty-one .nd Twenty-five lIundredth. (81.25) de~ree. Weat Forty-.ix and Nine Tenth. (46.9) porche.: thonce by land. of Jamas lIondorson North Thirty-one (31) dogreo. We.t Ninety 90) porchos to tho Creek (. .tone); thonco by .aid crook (Conodogulnot) by 'the v.riou. windin,. .nd eour.o. of tho ..... e..t Thirty-throo and Throe Tenth. (33,3) porche. to . W.lnut: thonce North FortY-four (44) dogreo. E..t Fourtoon (14) "orchos to. .tone: thoneo SouthSlxty-three (63) degree. Elat Tlirty-eight (38) porche. to . Locu.t; thence South Twenty and Fivo Tenths (20.5) degree. East One Hundrod Twenty-five and Five Tenth. (125.5) porche. to . po.t by l.nd now or formerly Df J.cob Miller, the place of BOfinning. Containing One lIundred Twenty (120) acre. and Sixty. four (6 ) perche., strict mea.ure. BEING the lime tracu of land which Merrill F. lIum...l, ExecutDr of the Estate of Mary Amand. SnYder, Docea.ed, by deed dated tho 4th d.y of May, 1937 and recordod in the office for the rocording of doed. in and for the County of Cumberlsnd in Doed Book "T", Vol. 11, P.ge 452 conveyed to J. A. Burk and J. Horvey Coover. J. Hervey Coover, .ingle, by his deed d.ted the 15th day of February, 1941 and recorded in the office for the recording of deed. in and for the County of Cumberland in Doed Book "I", Vol. 12, Page 10 conveyed his undivided one-h.lf intere.t to J. A. Burk, thereby ve.ting the entire fee 'n J. A. Burk, one of the Grantor. herein. &ooKJ222fAGf 345 .. AND I~. IClld ,,,,.,oro ~.robV ........1 .11II ."... IIIaIIA'lI ..., ...A 0' IA... wIJI wa.....' Rene rally lA. proptrlv A".bv ....Il/.el. OJ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ..ld ,,,,.to,. ha ve A"...,o .., thai r hand s .11II ...1 · ,Ae d4v.1III V'" /Irot .bo.. ..rltl.... . i /,' .~ '~' _ ... . .. D I. (iJ.L.. :Zd..:f. --.---~ ",D. ,ald. . ..". ./ ........ - .....'r.._~.: ,~...'",i-.\.__.~_':"':"- ...r...-'--___~ oJ"1 Lt' ,{/ ,.' ~ ........._.........,..:.0.., _,...."'-".l....._ ~ ____..,'*" _. .r, ..L'td,<" .." 1.;1::,-,- J- -.-----~ SI4I.o' Pennsylvania COllnlv 0' Cumber land On 1~Ie, the !JI-::t l... I 'jJii. ,I' J. A. Burk and H.ry his wife, 67.6'/0" me:' d4v 0' tAl. undtmU71td otlfctr. pen01Ulllll apptartd O. Burk, known to me (or .atillactorilll proven) 10 be tAc perlon swhOle' name 5 are IUb,cribed 10 the within iAl'n,meftt, and acknowl,dQtd that 'h, Y tZfJctded tlae .4me for III, purpOlU therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I A..."n'o ..I mv hand .nd olf!cial ...~ ~., V. I, '!l Jj ~ ,_ _.._o\'('[.aLI..~~:-L.w....L..!......z.t...f........~.L._...... ~ } "...... c b 11 r .~. ..~. fr; ..':~!!.;,~!.Y....r..~.......,.E..............................,.. ,{ ::~,:. A^.:' ".."\ Till. 0' Olf!..., i. " r; ~ ~ a- i ..~. C011\ll>i 'pxpires: ,A I I I:!^ ::: -fl" el' ,t". ,..! ' 'l~-- j , ",. -S;.,:' '.... .':' , \1/., ~"J / . ......,,~(;J,.. ",' '), ..'.. 'II' ".. "t.'" ..' ,.' .' ~~.- eCOK J2A!fALE 346 .' SI4/. of CoalllJl of OntAlI,lh }". . 10 . be/flr,. "'to dav of Ih aral.,.,lg..d 061.... p......'lv app..rtd noWft to me (or IGtUftu:torU~ prop,") to be 'lit per,ol. u'lIou Mm, ."b,trilled 10 tlrt' wllAln 111I,"'....." and admowltdgtd tllot A. .%..al.d Ih IOmr for tAc ,...,.,.,... IAcrtl. .0nIaIMcf. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I Alrt..,o ..t ..v Mild alld o6lt14l ...1, ,..-........-.......................................................................e .................-.................................................................... Till, of 06ltlr, ~ do I&.rdl1 cen'/II tAGt tll, prtcilt ".'dent(" and co,"pltlr IJOII "iii"" add,.,." of u.. wllAln nam.d granl..,1I '""I '1f 'I J,.,r/_ C-rl'-.;.. P,_ r 7 19 '/ , .......__...._,l0.({,..tf..L:_...(~!i....~... Allortl'll for ...._,......~<'"',,4!.:.....,....,............. . . ... .. d z .. 5 ~ '.. .. ... ~ ... . >- .. =~ .. ~ .. ...>. ~ - ...... "..... . lP Z ..... !I ...~ .... ~ 5... .. < :!B ~ ~: l2:a ~ At 0 ... ..... ... .. ~ . ~ ~... 5 {'" .,... l2 < ..... ........ .... ...... . . =~ ~ :0 .. <~ .....i ~ ..... .., .l!o" .,.. ., :cu COMMONi:V /.TH OF PENNSYLVANIA, } I. ... Coanlv 0 _.,',..'J<-'IL.Lf..6.,..,.~"'L...... RECORDED on 'All _._.....L../.J{. IIGv of ;fs''',\.Jo_... .. A. D. ,oi7.. In 'Ac R.eatd",. 061.. of .ald Co.IftIV, i. Drrd Bonk ;,. 1'0'. .,;{.:!....._......, Pag. ,_~.j(._. .J GIr',n aral.r..v hnd aral lA}"lf lAc ~ 022 dol. obu.,. ..rill.o, . ,..... ..' .... ............F........... ... --.. Rfconler. 8l1(]Xg22rACf J47 Flfhlhlt R .H'l"III~""""'(.O ._tn.,. Iftll , ftj . ., ~ ;;0 llliill , ~ t. ~Ih It ~i~' ,. '" -II . I~, i , ~ J~ I . \ 1 . 1 \ , l !l ,-~~ ~::ll \ \ \ .. I .......,. N I ,--""" .........- -.. " - ,....-..;...,1' :'H:~""T"i-' l';""',...r-d'~' VERIFICATION I have read the foregoing document and hereby verify that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.B.A. S4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: ~,.:[ 8, /7'1 f ?.u-/-:~.~ Paula J~ eic t - ,\,) c..'.~.J-~ r6 ~ IS V, l() <:r'- D<:> "'"'I ::t '0 ~. ~ u ~ Gi <:.) f. :i; 'I, " -::r en . "" ~~ ~.. ;:!r;. 0 ""'c-,:,..c ,- ~;,:~':c..., :t ....OU., 0 _ :::'0:- L"')"':3 _J ,"",".....0 \_: ..J~ :::r- \.() ,.,,,~ ".. "'" .. :.JLo.J "T1 ) ~-~ (., :.... ,:,;u <::l Iv) ~ -:::r-. i!,.. :II: 0- C) ... ('P) ~ I! II ': II Ii' I,; p~ i:' 'I, Ii I' .f\) li~ ~O/~ ~~ ~~_ -' 1:c1 tk fJUj t 1JefI~ht..R1 ke- ~ J C<J- I:.~" II---/~ Ii ~,~,1~,wn;-", -f' I -1--10" 1:: (j) ~.!{)~j~/VJ CV1~~~e0,I-W(J !::~ v.reA~-+ P4~~ :;'~1 ~D:f1()J ~/~5~f ;:-5~~' ~ P~'of;Ud y/!Y/13 :' /.:""~ ry ~ ~'N 2-1" tf{/ 3tJ// V I' <e)': '..I) r - . ~ :: ~~ ~ o-p~ ~-ti~ 5~ i CA- ~ ~ f()e) ~ ~ . ..:~ Z.O~ ~~ i:CfJ~~ C)~/M~~~ ;: ~ ~~~ -~ ~Ni.c1' .. ~ ~~ /)lNCk~ ~ -to-e ~ \.I::: /I~ tire, ~ ~ A::? c:I'-o..- . ~ ~~ "(j ( ~r;;;,~-1;:f !:' ..i::;! 04?1t:-c-f I'; lts ~ I()~ , ~ J :,5~ ~ ~/~l~/PL5 de:;tW :,~~P~ ~~.J.P kL 9O~tt/ ~ ~ ~ ~dtVJt4,~ ~ ~ :w-..-tti ~I\.-. p~ 4~M" iP4. (~~ ~. ~ k -uJ.t ~J~ ('M. ~ ;:: ..J~~ ~~'0 ? ~ ' X!7 IOd~r- ~ 1?ii1JAJvzn1~ "~"_."~ . . , , r,s ,L ~ p~ ~U h ~41h : ~~~~~~~~~.) : 'Cf: I~ Jrn-T---'A^-~ ~v()-i Jt7'o~/JL.J.~ . (J~ ;;:i~ ~ ~J ~;:J;;L N 0- dNt~ 0.{1 .f()o{~ ~~~~ ~-- f;.) ~ 1'he!~~ /Jt..&f) ~ ~J ~ ~~/L5 ~~ ~d~5~j), ~~ - (3tJ) .~L ' ~ ofe4t tt~ ~ ~ Jl ~ I ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ .cA~ f}~ ~ IJ~ ck Tt~ ~Mv/kP( ~ J 12" ~ c, ~L~tl..~ ~ ~ ~ 0 dCLH~ -:i.7 1 -I:k. & ~ 111~ <7lk.:.~ - r KAfJ \ " <.. . JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L MYERS, his wifc, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANElTE CHAMBERLIN, his wifc, Dcfcndants 94-1807 CIVIL TERM ORDER AND NOW, this '1' 7 day of January, 1995, counscl having confirmcd thc idcntity of a certain boundary Iinc, lhc agrccmcnl of thc partics, as slalcd in opcn court on Dccember 14, 1994, as cvidcnced by thc allachcd transcript, is hcrcwith madc an ordcr of court. BY THE COURT, ---/~'A/i 7~Vj~~. Hcss, J. Michacl Rccd, Esquirc _ ~ rh"'~~ '/ID/'15, For thc Plaintiffs ../, ,I Dalc F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire - c....,." f(.. ~"..c ....:.- ~ 1 /'0 h~, For thc Dcfcndants U () A . f' . :rlm JAH 10 3 12 PH '95 "r!l:;; IJj ';' l.. "i --:., "-'\h' '.':U"V ,'., ;.,' :n" l't'1:\ ') 'i"', t;', .;. t:~,.--:,,,,:,,"";,, ~ JAY H. MYERS, MYERS and HELIN L. I hi. wife, t Plaintiffs t I I t t t t t I V. LUCIA P. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN, hi. wife, Defendants IN REI TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OP CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 94-1807 CIVIL TERM Proceedings held before the Honorable KEVIN A. HESS, J., Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday, December 14, 1994, in Courtroom Number Pour. APPEARANCESt MICHAEL REED, Esquire Por the Plaintiffs DALE F. SHUGHART, JR., Esquire For the Defendants 1 THE COURTt So if I understand correctly, the 2 parties have resolved the matter? 3 MR. SHUGHARTt That is correct, Your Honor. 4 And all parties are present in court. Mrs. Lucia Chamberlin S is next to me. Mr. and Mrs. David Chamberlin are behind me. 6 Mr. and Mrs. Myers are behind Mr. Reed -- or Mr. Myers is 7 seated with him now. I am going to state, actually read 8 part of what I believe to be the agreement of the parties. 9 A part of it I will just be speaking. But at any point here 10 if anybody feels I haven't stated it accurately or clearly 11 enough, hopefully they will just speak up, whether they are 12 an attorney or a party so we do get it right. But I am 13 confident that we have reached an agreement. It will just 14 be the failure of my words if I misstate something. lS THE COURT: Fine. What we will do then is I 16 will simply have transcribed what it is being said, and we 17 will reduce it to the form of an order. 18 MR. SHUGHART: The components of the order 19 would be as follows: 20 1. That the court finds that there is a 21 genuine dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants as 22 to the location of the boundary between their respective 23 properties located in Hopewell Township, Cumberland County, 24 Pennsylvania. 2S 2. The parties have agreed upon a resolution 2 3 1 of this legitimate boundary dispute. It is therefore 2 ordered and directed that the boundary line between the 3 properties of the plaintiff and the respective defendants 4 shall be established as follows I 5 1. The boundary line shall begin at an 6 iron pin at the southwest corner of land of the plaintiff 7 and southeast corner of the land of the defendant, David C. 8 Chamberlin, ex ux, as depicted on the survey of Samuel David 9 Runyon, PLS, dated April 14th, 1993. 10 2. The boundary line shall proceed north 11 twenty-six degrees, forty-six minutes, thirty seconds west, 12 along the line appearing on the Runyon survey, a distance of 13 approximately nine hundred feet to a point exactly 25.0 feet 14 into the wood line appearing on the Runyon survey, at which 15 point an iron pin shall be placed. 16 3. The boundary line shall proceed from 17 such point in the woods, northwesterly on a straight line 18 distance to a point on the line depicted on the survey of 19 John R. Kissinger, PLS, dated September 17th, 1992, which 20 point shall be established by a line perpendicular to the 21 line appearing on the Runyon survey aforesaid, at a fence 22 post located on the Runyon survey, which point is 23 approximately one hundred feet from the wood line. An iron 24 pin shall be placed at the aforesaid point on the Kissinger 25 survey line. 1 4. The boundary line shall proceed from 2 such point along the Kissinger survey line, north 3 twenty-eight degrees, thirteen minutes, twelve seconds west, 4 a distance of approximately 500 feet to the Conodoguinet 5 Creek. 6 Now, not part of the order here, did I miss 7 anything or misstate anything? I see you looking around. 8 MR. REED: The only thing, Mr. Shughart, that 9 I am trying to check is the correct date of the Kissinger 10 survey because... 11 MR. SHUGHART: This is what you gave me. 12 MR. REED: We have one that's dated December 13 30 that I have been using for purposes of this case. Is 14 that not the same one that you -- the larger one that we 15 gave you? 16 MR. SHUGHART: This is the copy you gave me, 17 and that shows a date on there. That's what I have been 18 operating from. 19 MR. REED: This is the reduced one. Let me 20 check the pleadings. I believe they would have established 21 the one that we are relying on. The survey that we are 22 relying on in the complaint and the larger survey which we 23 have here with us today are dated December 30, 1992. So I 24 believe it should be that. I don't believe there is any 25 change in that line that we are talking about. But just for 4 (',. ....-, c'~'"~_ l. ~d.""'t" :'_. ~. ...', ~, l J 1 t~ 'f " :_,~ 1 2 3 accuracy sake it should be... MR. SHUGHARTt I want to go out of the order and just state this on the record. I do not think we are 4 going to have a problem, but I will need an opportunity to 5 confer with our surveyor before this is completed, and I 6 will explain why. 7 We had been provided a reduced size copy of a 8 survey from John Kissinger, which is the only thing our 9 surveyor had when he established the line. That is dated 10 September 17, 1992. That establishes the line with a course 11 of north twenty-eight degrees, thirteen minutes, twelve 12 seconds west, which is the one that I just called. 13 Subsequently, at the time we had the pretrial 14 conference, I was given a full size copy of the Kissinger 15 survey, which I sent to our surveyor. It was the first time 16 we had a full size copy. The full size copy being produced 17 today is dated December 30th, 1992. It makes no reference 18 whatsoever to a prior survey of September, and the course is 19 different. The course is south thirty-one degrees, 20 forty-five minutes, zero zero seconds east. 21 Now, magnetic north changes. And these 22 courses are relative to magnetic north, which surveyors 23 understand, so it probably doesn't mean very much. 24 MR. REED: Let me just say on the record that 25 my understanding is that that line did not change and that 5 r" .t" ;...:",', ~ 1 that was not the reason for the revision in the survey in 2 December of '92. But I think there was a more complete 3 survey done in December of '92. And that's the full size 4 one that we did give you at -- I believe that's the same one 5 that we gave you at the pretrial conference. I am almost 6 certain that it was. 7 MR. SHUGHART: I think we can go ahead today. 8 But as soon as I get back to my office I am going to have to 9 call our surveyor and confirm in writing to Mr. Reed and to 10 the court that this is the same. But with that in mind... 11 THE COURT: What are the two called? 12 MR. SHUGHART: Based upon my understanding 13 that this is merely a change in magnetic north, it does not 14 affect where we think the Kissinger line is. The call that 15 I previously provided was north twenty-eight degrees, 16 thirteen minutes, twelve seconds west, based on a survey of 17 September 17th, 1992, which my reduced size copies have in 18 hand. The line to be used in the agreement as established 19 by the Kissinger survey dated December 30th, 1992, and the 20 course is north thirty-one degrees, forty-five minutes, zero 21 zero seconds west -- east, excuse me, east. 22 (Brief discussion with counsel off the 23 record.) 24 MR. SHUGHART: It would be northwest. So 25 that is consistent. On the first survey it was northwest. 6 1 And on the second survey it is northwest. 2 So just to olarify, the requested settlement 3 order should refer to the Deoember survey I just gave and 4 that distanoe or that oourse, exouse me, but subjeot to our S oonfirming in writing to Mr. Reed and the oourt that in faot 6 our surveyor sees no differenoe in the two surveys. It is 7 just a ohange in the magnetic points used. 8 THE COURTt I won't file the order until I 9 reoeive that written oonfirmation from you. 10 MR. SHUGHART: All right. Continuing, the 11 two iron pins referred to, paragraph whatever, shall be 12 plaoed by John R. Kissinger, PLS, and the aocuraoy of their 13 looation shall be oheoked by Samuel D. Runyon, PLS, within 14 thirty days of the date of this order. If the surveyors are lS unable to agree upon the oorreot looation of the two iron 16 pins, either party shall have a right to petition the oourt 17 for a hearing on the matter within ninety days of the date 18 of this order. 19 Is that satisfaotory? 20 MR. REED: Yes. 21 MR. SHUGHART: Then this will be B or 2 or 22 however you set up the numbering system. The parties hereby 23 release and forever discharge any olaim for monetary damages 24 against the other parties arising from the claims in issue 2S in this matter. 7 . 1 Next number. Plaintiffs Jay Myers, et ux, 2 may, at their sole option, replace the fence fo~ing the 3 boundary between the two properties on the boundary line at 4 the sole expense to the Myers'. The defendants shall not be 5 obligated to contribute to the expense of installing a new 6 fence should Myers choose to install one. Should Myers 7 choose to install a new fence, they shall not damage or 8 destroy any trees located on the Chamberlin side of the 9 boundary line. 10 The final part of the order is that the 11 parties shall record a true and correct copy of this order 12 of court in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for 13 Cumberland County with legible reduced size copies of each 14 survey being attached hereto. This order shall be binding 15 upon the parties hereto, their respective heirs, executors, 16 administrators and assigns. 17 I believe that covers all segments of the 18 agreement as I understand it, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Fine. Mr. Reed. 20 MR. REED: I believe that is correct, Your 21 Honor. 22 THE COURT: Very good. Well, it wasn't the 23 best day in the world to have a view in Hopewell Township 24 anyway. But it isn't for that reason alone that we 25 congratulate the parties and counsel for their work in 8 . . 1 settling the case. It is always better I think to obtain a 2 resolution which you can live with than risk the possibility 3 of some more extreme result. So we thank you. Anything 4 else? 5 (End of proceedings.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 . '.' . . 1 2 3 4 5 CERTIFICATION 6 I hereby certify that the proceedings are 7 contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on 8 the above oause and that this is a correct transcript of 9 same. 10 11 12 13 ~aJJMIl.I ~~ Barbara E. Graham Official Stenographer ---------------------------------- 14 15 The foregoing record of the proceedings on the 16 hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and direoted 17 to be filed. 18 19 20 21 ~ Ad- 22 23 24 25 DattAtJ 10 1"/ f r , 10 ,~" , \ , .. JAY H. MYERS, MYERS and HEL!:N L. I hi. wife, I Plaintiffs I I I I I I CIVIL ACTJ:ON - LAW 94-1807 CIVIL TBRM IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OP CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. LUCIA P. CHAMBBRLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBBRLIN and AVA JBANBTTE CHAMBBRL:IN, hi. wife, . . I Defendants . . :IN REt TRANSCRIPT OP PROCEEDINGS Proceedings held before the Honorable XBV:IN A. HESS, J., cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday, December 14, 1994, in Courtroom Number Pour. APPEARANCBS, MICHAEL REED, Esquire Por the Plaintiffs DALE P. SHUGHART, JR., Esquire Por the Defendants ""-.".,.. r'.... .,.- '". 1 THB COURTt So if I understand correctly, the 2 partie. have resolved the matter? 3 MR. SHUGHARTt That is correct, Your Honor. 4 And all parties are present in court. Mrs. Lucia Chamberlin S is next to me. Mr. and Mrs. David Chamberlin are behind me. 6 Mr. and Mrs. Myers are behind Mr. Reed -- or Mr. Myers is 7 seated with him now. I am going to state, actually read 8 part of what I believe to be the agreement of the parties. 9 A part of it I will just be speaking. But at any point here 10 if anybody feels I haven't stated it accurately or clearly 11 enough, hopefully they will just speak up, whether they are 12 an attorney or a party so we do get it right. But I am 13 confident that we have reached an agreement. It will just 14 be the failure of my words if I misstate something. lS THE COURTI Pine. What we will do then is I 16 will simply have transcribed what it is being said, and we 17 will reduce it to the form of an order. 18 MR. SHUGHART I The components of the order 19 would be as follows I 20 1. That the court finds that there is a 21 genuine dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants as 22 to the location of the boundary between their respective 23 properties located in Hopewell TOWDShip, Cumberland County, 24 Pennsylvania. 2S 2. The parties have agreed upon a resolution 2 "".........-... ""- \ '. 1 of this legitimate boundary dispute. It is therefore 2 ordered and directed that the boundary line between the 3 properties of the plaintiff and the respective defendants 4 shall be estab!ished as follows I 5 1. The boundary line shall begin at an 6 iron pin at the southwest corner of land of the plaintiff 7 and southeast corner of the land of the defendant, David C. 8 Chamberlin, ex ux, as depicted on the survey of Samuel David 9 Runyon, PLS, dated April 14th, 1993. 10 2. The boundary line shall proceed north 11 twenty-six degrees, forty-six minutes, thirty seconds west, 12 along the line appearing on the Runyon survey, a distance of 13 approximately nine hundred feet to a point exactly 25.0 feet 14 into the wood line appearing on the Runyon survey, at which 15 point an iron pin shall be placed. 16 3. The boundary line shall proceed from 17 such point in the woods, northwesterly on a straight line 18 distance to a point on the line depicted on the survey of 19 John R. Xissinger, PLS, dated September 17th, 1992, which 20 point shall be established by a line perpendicular to the 21 line appearing on the Runyon survey aforesaid, at a fence 22 post located on the Runyon survey, which point is 23 approximately one hundred feet from the wood line. An iron 24 pin shall be placed at the aforesaid point on the Xissinger 25 survey line. 3 '. 1 4. The boundary line shall proaeed from 2 suah point along the Xissinger survey line, north 3 twenty-eight degrees, thirteen minutes, twelve seconds west, 4 a distance of approximately 500 feet to the Conodoguinet 5 Creek. 6 Now, not part of the order here, did I miss 7 anything or misstate anything? I see you looking around. 8 MR. REED: The only thing, Mr. Shughart, that 9 I am trying to check is the correat date of the Xissinger 10 survey because... 11 MR. SHUGHART: This is what you gave me. 12 MR. REED: We have one that's dated Deaember 13 30 that I have been using for purposes of this aase. Is 14 that not the same one that you -- tho larger one that we 15 gave you? 16 MR. SHUGHART: This is the copy you gave me, 17 and that shows a date on there. That's what I have been 18 operating from. 19 MR. REED: This is the reduced one. Let me 20 aheck the pleadings. I believe they would have established 21 the one that we are relying on. The survey that we are 22 relying on in the complaint and the larger survey whiah we 23 have here with us today are dated December 3D, 1992. So I 24 believe it should be that. I don't believe there is any 25 change in that line that we are talking about. But just for 4 1 accuracy sake it should be... 2 MR. SHUGHARTt I want to go out of the order 3 and just state this on the record. I do not think we are 4 going to have a problem, but I will need an opportunity to S confer with our surveyor before this is completed, and I 6 will explain why. 7 We had been provided a reduced size copy of a 8 survey from John Kissinger, which is the only thing our 9 surveyor had when he established the line. That is dated 10 September 17, 1992. That establishes the line with a course 11 of north twenty-eight degrees, thirteen minutes, twelve 12 seconds west, which is the one that I just called. 13 Subsequently, at the time we had the pretrial 14 conference, I was given a full size copy of the Kissinger lS survey, which I sent to our surveyor. It was the first time 16 we had a full size copy. The full size copy being produced 17 today is dated December 30th, 1992. It makes no reference 18 whatsoever to a prior survey of September, and the course is 19 different. The course is south thirty-one degrees, 20 forty-five minutes, zero zero seconds east. 21 Now, magnetic north changes. And these 22 courses are relative to magnetic north, which surveyors 23 understand, so it probably doesn't mean very much. 24 MR. REED: Let me just say on the record that 2S my understanding is that that line did not change and that S 6 1 that was not the reason for the revision in the survey in 2 December of '92. But I think there was a more complete 3 survey done in December of '92. And that's the full size 4 one that we did give you at -- I believe that's the same one 5 that we gave you at the pretrial conference. I am almost 6 certain that it was. 7 MR. SHUGHART I I think we can go ahead today. 8 But as soon as I get back to my office I am going to have to 9 call our surveyor and confirm in writing to Mr. Reed and to 10 the court that this is the same. But with that in mind... 11 THE COURT I What are the two called? 12 MR. SHUGHART I Based upon my understanding 13 that this is merely a change in magnetic north, it does not 14 affect where we think the Kissinger line is. The call that 15 I previously provided was north twenty-eight degrees, 16 thirteen minutes, twelve seconds west, based on a survey of 17 September 17th, 1992, which my reduced size copies have in 18 hand. The line to be used in the agreement as established 19 by the Kissinger survey dated December 30th, 1992, and the 20 course is north thirty-one degrees, forty-five minutes, zero 21 zero seconds west -- east, excuse me, east. 22 (Brief discussion with counsel off the 23 record.) 24 MR. SHUGHART I It would be northwest. So 25 that is consistent. On the first survey it was northwest. . .1 And on the second survey it is northwest. 2 So just to clarify, the requested settlement 3 order should refer to the December survey I just gave and 4 that distance or that course, excuse me, but subject to our 5 confirming in writing to Mr. Reed and the court that in fact 6 our surveyor sees no difference in the two surveys. It is 7 just a change in the magnetic points used. 8 THE COURT: I won't file the order until I 9 receive that written confirmation from you. 10 MR. SHUGHART: All right. Continuing, the 11 two iron pins referred to, paragraph whatever, shall be 12 placed by John R. Kissinger, PLS, and the accuracy of their 13 location shall be checked by Semuel D. Runyon, PLS, within 14 thirty days of the date of this order. If the surveyors are 15 unable to agree upon the correct location of the two iron 16 pins, either party shall have a right to petition the court 17 for a hearing on the matter within ninety days of the date 18 of this order. 19 Is that satisfactory? 20 MR. REED: Yes. 21 MR. SHUGHART: Then this will be B or 2 or 22 however you set up the numbering system. The parties hereby 23 release and forever discharge any claim for monetary damages 24 against the other parties arising from the claims in issue 25 in this matter. 7 . 1 Next number. Plaintiffs Jay Myers, et ux, 2 may, at their sole option, replace the fence for.ming the 3 boundary between the two properties on the boundary line at 4 the sole expense to the Myers'. The defendants shall not be S obligated to contribute to the expense of installing a new 6 fence should Myers choose to install one. Should Myers 7 choose to install a new fence, they shall not damage or 8 destroy any trees located on the Chamberlin side of the 9 boundary line. 10 The final part of the order is that the 11 parties shall record a true and correct copy of this order 12 of court in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for 13 Cumberland County with legible reduced size copies of each 14 survey being attached hereto. This order shall be binding lS upon the parties hereto, their respective heirs, executors, 16 administrators and assigns. 17 I believe that covers all segments of the 18 agreement as I understand it, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Fine. Mr. Reed. 20 MR. REED: I believe that is correct, Your 21 Honor. 22 THE COURT: Very good. Well, it wasn't the 23 best day in the world to have a view in Hopewell Township 24 anyway. But it isn't for that reason alone that we 2S congratulate the parties and counsel for their work in 8 .. 1 settling the case. It is always better I think to obtain a 2 resolution which you can live with than risk the possibility 3 of some more extreme result. So we thank you. Anything 4 else? S (End of proceedings.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 9 . 1 2 3 4 S CBRTIPlCATIOH 6 I hereby certify that the proceedings are 7 contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on 8 the above cause and that this is a correct transcript of 9 same. 10 11 12 13 14 ~tVJMtJ. r. ~~ Barbara E. Graham Official Stenographer ---------------------------------- lS The foregoing record of the proceedings on the 16 hearing of the within matter is hereby approved and directed 17 to.be filed. 18 19 21 -AJJ- 111N 10 19fr Dat' ' , A. Bess, J. th Judicial District 20 22 23 24 2S 10 ...... en - ~. , ~ ~-~'.: if: CO> N -:r ,..- ;-:it.'" ~- :.;-. . ..... .- ., C=> .J !~- :z: oq -, c. . . t I J JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 94-1807 civil 1994 vs. LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN, his wife, Defendants . . . . : IN EJECTMENT PRAECIPE Dear sir: Kindly file the attached survey of Samuel David Runyon, PLS memorializing Boundary Agreement entered as Order of Court on January 9, 1995 to the above term and number. A copy of the Plan has been filed in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds ~and for Cumberland County in Right-of-Way Plan Book / () , Page ~ . To: Lawrence E. Welker, Prothonotary August 25, 1995 Respectfully submitted, FOWLER, ADDAMS, & RUNDLE ;',) , I . , BY/(\Y~ ~ Dale F. Shugh~t, Jr. Atty 1.0. 19373 28 South pitt Street P. O. Box 208 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-8300 .. ,., ,. . Attorneys for Defendants Lucia F. Chamberlin, David C. Chamberlin and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin 1;;'~'.' ~."~:,, LI"t en ,- .. "t: )- ..~ .7 \, .1 ld, r..~' ~' ~ ~.r.: 0.,. (11 r-I C") .:,:,;., ;'1 , In ...... <.~ :=0 -"" .'1"- t.~~~~~ .....~ "" , . 4 .... JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . MYERS, his wife, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . plaintiff . No. 94-1807 civil 1994 . . . vs. . . . . LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and : AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN, . . his wife, Defendants . IN EJECTMENT . TO: Robert P. ziegler, Recorder of Deeds CUmberland county Courthouse carlisle, PA pursuant to Order of Court dated January 9, 1995 entered to the above term and number, memorializing a Property Line Agreement reached by the parties in open court, samuel David Runyon, PLS and John R. Kissinger, PLS, established the boundary line between the two properties on February 24, 1995. A survey of the Property Line as established in accordance with the Order of Court accompanies this document. Kindly file the survey in the Right-of-Way Plan Book. Respectfully submitted, FOWLE , ADDAMS, SHUGHART & RUN LE ~ By: :tC: :J,: ~. .~':: (. ~_ ~~:;o Dale F. S ughar 28 South pitt S P. O. Box 208 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-8300 Attorneys for Defendants Lucia F. Chamberlin, David 'C. Chamberlin and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin R[CORDt:f, Of ~,E:.DS i;UMBERL:.r;:; COUllT':'- ,:, '.95 RUG 25 PI'I 3 16 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND On this, the 25th day of August, 1995, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Dale F. Shughart, Jr., known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and official seal. NOTI.RIAL SfAl IllIIIlE L ~, NOTfJI'/ Pl/lLlC IIOlllI Of NT Hoily S""NGS, CUlOllER\JJlO CO. IIY Cl)NIoIlSSION EXPtllES 0CTll6Ef\ 17, ,\:9B ~'''''~'x ~~ [SEAL] The Plan prepared by Samuel David in Cumberland county Right-of-Way Book filed Runyon, PLS has been !t) , Page 3' . lJ') D"> ~ >'>- ~~: 1- . .~ .., t~~~_:; t~: ~:~'.~~ O!". ;,; :s:: 0- m .-l "" " , LI'") C'oo,J .." ::0 -:L , I: \ ~ LJ ~~: ~. ::> .....Q <> . .' JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 94-1807 Civil 1994 vs. LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN, his wife, Defendants IN EJECTMENT PRAECIPE Dear Sir: On August 25, 1995 the undersigned filed a Plan memorializing a Boundary Agreement entered as an Order of Court on January 9, 1995 in the above matter. A copy of that Plan was also filed in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in Right-of-Way Plan Book ~, page 8. II . Subsequently it was determined that there was an error in the distance along the course North 260 40' 36" West. The correct distance is 941.73 feet. The Plan filed on August 25 incorrectly states the distance as 971.43 feet. Attached to this Praecipe is a revised Plan dated August 28, 1995. Kindly file this Plan as a part of the record in this case, superseding and replacing the incorrect Plan filed on August 25. Please destroy the incorrect Plan. A copy of this revised Plan has been filed in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and for Cumberland county in Right-of- Way Plan Book II, Page 9 To: Lawrence E. Welker, August 26, 1995 ~i) Respectfully submitted, Prothonotary FOWLER, ADDAMS, SHUG~AR & RUNDLE - ./. )0--09 }c~ Dale F. Shughart, Atty I.D. 19373 28 South pitt Street P. O. Box 208 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-8300 Attorneys for Defendants Lucia F. Chamberlin, David C. Chamberlin and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin By: ~ .. ~ C:t '-" .. ...... -r- ....". '.... ~!;..~~'~ j"-l:"'~ ~:.j ~~. ~~ ~' ",\0. . "~J . ":~ ;'.._14',,!, ,~ '~ Ig "r.:l ,. -.: 1 ;,' 4~ . JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 94-1807 civil 1994 vs. . to en , ::D ,= C":i Co.) c:: .: ~ c -- "1t ~, i'f~ :0 "' (~f-.l "., c) , , r ;,J.'J 1'1 1.. C".J ~,' _ f" --.1 c-j ;.r; . ~: ~ (J, C. f :3 O"'-~ c:: r;: J ~:. I ro Z rtl '':: -t rn t f';E -< 0 ~;: On August 25, 1995 the undersigned filed an Affidavit tIIId .;" (f:' accompanying Plan memorializing a Boundary Agreement entered a~' an Order of Court on January 9, 1995. The Plan was filed in Right-of-Way Plan Book 10, Page 8. Subsequently, it was determined that the Plan contained an error in the distance along the course North 260 46' 30" West. The distance is actually 941.73 feet. It was incorrectly stated to be 971.43 feet. LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN, his wife, Defendants IN EJECTMENT TO: Robert P. Ziegler, Recorder of Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA Deeds A Revised survey dated August 28, 1995 accurately states the distance and depicts the boundary line established between the two properties on February 24, 1995 by Samuel David Runyon, PLS and John R. Kissinger, PLS pursuant to the Order of Court dated January 9, 1995. Kindly file this Plan in the Right-of-Way Plan Book and destroy the Plan filed in Right-of-Way Plan Book 1~, Page 8. IIOTAAlAl. SEAL llOIlNIi L COYlE, NOTARY PIl!l.te OORO or liT HOllY SP.~_:;s. CUJ,lIlERLAlfO CO. IIY COIINISSIOlj EXPIRES OCTOBER 17. 1m Respectfully submitted, r FOWL~, A~DAMS, Sm;GHZ~) RUNDLE By:~f . Dale F. Shughart, J~ 28 South Pitt stree~ P. O. Box 208 l Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-8300 Attorneys for Defendants Lucia F. Chamberlin, David C. Chamberlin and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND On this, the 30th day of August, 1995, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Dale F. Shughart, J~., known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and official seal. ~k ~ [SEAL] The Plan prepared by Samuel David Runyon, P~ in Cumberland County Right-of-Way Book 1) , Page been filed r. I Ha.UL C .,urn JAMU .... (VAN$ l-Oll.l- T MOOU CHAl-LU I Z\I' AU Y ,I.Ul- J kunEk LLOYD k '(UUN CkAIC A $TONI. JAMU A UUH DAHIlL l $UUIVAH $lfVEN D $NYDfll GUN k CUl.L CHkUTO'Hlk C CONNEll ll.YU [ IlOClkl ltlJIITTJIl, JIlVANH . WOODHIDJIl A l'ICOFDlHIONAL L'OHI'ONATIOS A'M"ONNJl:YH AT LAW 3401 NORTII P'RONT IlTRB1l:T 1'.0. uOX rlOtK) JlANN1HUUKU. I'A 17110'OOrlO AHDU.... H DOWLING MICItAU D ttUD IlOIll- T , HA YNU III PAULA J LlICHT DAVID ^ F1TIJIMON$ GUY, If.NEVlNTANO MICHAfL D PlPA It.Al.f.H N CONNt.l.L Y JlOIYN J KATZMAN JAnON Il WOUGANC Korr D MOOJll ANDl-lW J o$1"O"$1t.1 tLIIAlnu M CAl.CAGNO fMlL Y L HOffMAN AlTlJlfD kOllAT f WOOWIDI. nu,HONf 17111 .1J2.~OOO fAX 17111 ala.lIl1a Ik$ NO. 2J.IDe~oo~ November 8, 1994 Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire Fowler, Addams, Shughart & Rundle P. O. Box 208 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013-0208 Re: Myers v. Chamberlin Dear Mr. Shughart: We are writing in response to your letters of November 1, 1994 and November 7, 1994. Based upon the information which we have in our title abstract, the information you recite in your November 1, 1994 letter as to the earliest deed in the Chamberlins' chain of title is correct. We cannot confirm that recording dates of the Myers' deeds as you recite in the foregoing correspondence and have requested additional information as to this issue. We also have not determined as of yet which of the earliest Myers' deeds form a common boundary with the Chamberlin property. It may be that the properties described in both deeds abut the Chamberlin tract. It does appear, however, from our abstract of title that there was never a common owner of both of these tracts. We have searched the chains of title for both the Chamberlin and Myers' properties in order to respond to your technical defense which you raised in your Answer with New Matter and to respond to the technical requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to actions in ejectment. It is our position that there are no overlapping boundary lines as established by the deed references in the Kissinger survey. , . Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire November 8, 1994 Page 2 We have no objections to your proposed amendment so long as you have no objections to ours regarding the abstract of title. Please advise if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely yours, i?t.~. +" Paula J. Leicht PJL:tas cc: Honorable Keith A. Hess Mr. and Mrs. Jay Myers JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACfION - LAW LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETIE CHAMBERLIN, : his wife, Defendants 94-1807 CIVIL 'TERM ORDER AND NOW, this 'Z Go' day of October, 1994, trial herein is set for Wednesday, December 14, 1994, at 8:30 a.m, in Courlroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courlhouse, Carlisle, PA. BY THE COURT, Paula Leicht, Esquire For the Plaintiffs -/I . Hess, J, Dale F. Shughart, Jr" Esquire For the Defendants :rlm I, Uer 2.' '; I" ,;; u llj ",I '94 ~. ~ .:~~. , ","H"', ~L,~~ .'.;1 ~'.:J' \: ',:'( : i..'i:'Y, ''':'''''A "~"~..". "' . . .,." ".- -....-, .... lINIHD ',.TATES I)CPMHMCNT OF AGHICULTUH[ COW,OL ID^T[[t rArm ~[RVIC[ AGCNCY CUMlILll1 ^~JU ct'lllrlTY CI'~;A (IFF ICe ~" [lIWOKWOUlI Ave ~;UI TC :I CAf<L1 ~,Lr., I'A 17u 1 :1,1)1"/2 Phonp: rl t '7. ~1t1~J~. :19211 OI~ct.~l11ber 13, 11')')4 To: Cumberland County Court of Common Pl.,,)'] We have received a Subpoena in tho matter of Lucia F. Chamberlin vs Jay It. Myers from the Court of COllllllon Pl'~as of Cumberland County (File n94-1007 Civil 1994). We have been advised by our State Executlvo Director that In accQrdance with Touhy Regulations (attached), wn mu~t rospectfully decline to tostlfy. Va have notlflod tho attorney requesting the subpoena asKing that it be withdrawn since nthnr avenues to secure the Information are 'Available, We have advised the attorney requesting the subpoena that the information caught under the subpoena may bo available if B request is filed with this offlce undar ttll! ~re~dom l1f Information Act. Also I must Inform you that Glenn M. Kl~nnl will not be In the offlco on this day as he is away for training. I 'IIn r.~placing Mr. Kimmel In hie; absollce from tl)o office. ~IO O~~~ Dod i" A. G.3rrnan Ac t lr,g CEO " ,"/" It ~~ ;." ~. ~. .. -.. .' Unl1eclllll.. CIIltl\lll'''' of AlIllC~'~1I OIliO' or I~. 011/I.,11 CO~n..1 WU""'IIO/l, a.C. ZOUO.UOO ;. RQV. ,., .. NIHOMNDUM I'OJ\ ~lJgn ~ COWIU AI.own QItWW, COVU1W .u,ltt'AH'I ~.u. COWllr.. RlQ%OIWt 1onOM&Y1 . MaOC:A9 NGZOIWt AnCMIY. MUIIlAn 1.IQ:.,. UfOMB' DOH I ~M ~1'1.. Jla~J.lMI' ~ ~"Il COl&:l.N I[~ .000000fl fo\lhy IIpl.~=. . .' ~.='cl i.t . DOpy 0'. IItw ft9'llatba. nolftLt, .11ftt1t ~, WI. "~t~ "t.abU'lWlf 'PftIo.~. ,cmnJ.a, tlI. Ippellll'_oe, O. 1:U Ufti1:.. nit.. ~'Jl.nm.nt at ~d~,,,," (~- .,.101'" ... ritA..... "n oCdIS' tlo tlett:y 01' plO4lla oUkia1 doO\llDMU .LA j1lClilbl or ~~~It.;ltL'V'I PI'OOllclUlg.. ne :t9\liaUoa. . "'tOUioaU)' &'8PI~ 7 en 5i.n 1~1 ~iOll of t:u UIDI.Int_ Df ZAtOlMt~OA.Ic~ (ro%.1,l' n~h"DA. ~al: ;:lInal=- ~o ~"". pnlll"', ~~al Jtq\l1aUOtl :tUO~i, iha CUrnll~ J.At'1CIa.l ~.iiOft ~1'l'lL:l, thl app'UIn=t of ~ ~o7'" .. n~...., i. Ln .,21.6 prooeQ of bt:'ll, =eptl:.t<I. th. .'t'M.d "fII1.tioft, .~ to~ Ln ane ~l&CI a11 1UL'.UOft., Oft 1lD101'''' t..u,yL:\" ~~ U f&~ .1tn..... Dr in ~0Jl" \0 I1IiIpolft.. fozo noonll. I'IlI uf\l1~Uon. ~'Y1C1t1 . Ii) Dati RU' the ~Ltl4 at".. ~. . palt" 1ft ~oJ'e Q&Jl on11 t:..Ut, O~ pI:'Od;a. n~ru n !I_aU of al\otJae: pl:ty '" nlP_. u a 1UJtoa&, !:Nt: .. auapotfta w~~l no~ ~ nlel..,:, v.bea tba.t~o~'f n.,ootU,l. to: .l:.pn'flItla, the UnJ.t:lcS 'Jah' &~or"'a" ~I applUlIlce Ie :pndlaatlj,=1 (I) fbat 1fhen tlll t1nLud hat.. L. . p&n1L the "'lcS of III IVtA=1 J}laU OM.t\a1t riCl~ \1M ~n'n1 ~.3. u to lfbf;halll' U.~. an po1D\d. h oppo" ~ Implo"_'. - .. attllZlcSalloe a. ,~lIlIbn af ~~~Al:. CIA Ml,lJ.f o. ue~a: '11'1:" (~) Dat ..JwI:'I ~ I1nlucl S\:.at.. ~, n.t a pu'r, . ~o.na. t.~ nGard. Pall M tnattd It ,o:a, ~It. end IWICU.ttS in aOOO~IIlQI' "Lt.\ t/8DA lOU .lll;\llal:iolll' ~ ~ ~ .~ . 'j ;: I. ( .'i . (4) ,~.. WIlen the u"n,. 'Ut.. I. ftOI: a ,..n,,. M '-.10'" 11III,1: b, IU\"td . tu!rpo.". to itnUl' Oft hlaU," . of Mr U,lglllt, bIl' a 1.'O&llt.riU an 1M II",,'I~ wbIA I' i, cSltanl.l1.. ~, tN &viney 2s..cI to " b 'b. Utu,.1: of UIDA. '011 '21. .,105' to tt,tLI11 lAd fUQ 4.IIra&aaUon I.. OonCllnt4 iA tht ~cOPI' .,. AI.I.taat N ~lIt, 'Iontuy ~ 1m, fiiw.rl1 COIUll'~, au . el) ~.an. ~ttd hat.. I. I~ . pan" II .~tntcI "i~ . tUllp,tDl t. teN" "L:r II =:-.. ':::;~~;~.:..-~..1.~........ ," ' :- 4.1.:0 ~:;~'..... ,--..d co:..!, Itd \1POI . datllz:ai:lIUon tut hi. "1hZlQe i. ~'IM iMlft,i It O~. . , It: b tat 4.=1:11' Ol t:a. "i\lbUOIII 'altl: dtlllbloM Mdt w g_ "'_1' b '''"Aiel .Ii ~ &;lIIey Utes .1noe1,. .l.cJCJOftLAg111 U PHftUIII i. ..lit fool' ~ Ig'I:csy h... \0 d.a.1lpt. U. "_.UtWtLI.. :lI.iI av MUlt that: !:U.. IIatlte... .~.o .b~cI M 11.,11 I"~ . ClorzltpoDcUA, '&lILer hnl in tllU Ofl.lftf IOOonu,a." OAly~. ~1:V ~1J'L1 ~..l &;lei ""Ioa..t. "wal O~t1, In dell,llIld ll\1thOIlL~ to 1lI~ OY, ~ "'~Ul.til. 01 to'l. QIA.:'11 CoWl...1, ,=oYlucS Lta '1.214.0.) (1) lAd (a,. .u:z. .lcLpifJ'll:l Of tl\L, =-=o~1lSdIm q, l1IlJ!od..d 110 o~ htl 'h. rt~lJl"Ut1.. ot !:!Ie ;ene..L CO\lDae1 ~dN ~n .,. 'Iabna ot 111\1 Z"flIbthn.. . . to , aU''''''a'Dt ., . . . . , . -. . ':1. . ( PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Musl be lypewrlllen and submllled In dupllcale) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY (Check one) Please IIsllhe following case: ) for JURY lrlal atlhe nexlterm of civil court. x ) for lrlal without a fury. . ...-...........-......-............................................................................................................................--................. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption musl be staled In lull) (check one) Assumpsll JAY H. MYERS AND HELEN L. MYERS, HIS WIFE, Trespass (X~ Trespass (Molor Vehicle) In Ejectment (other) (Plaintiff) vs. LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN AND DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN, HIS WIFE, The lrlalllsl will be called on _ October 18, 1994 and Trials commence on November 14, 1994 Prelrlals will be held on October 26,' 1994., (Briefs are due 5 days before prelrlals.) (The parly listing this case for lrlal shall provide forlhwllh a copy of the praecipe 10 all counsel, pursuanllo local Rule 214.1,) ,) ,,' ;,~ (Defendanl) vs~ ..::>. '" NO,94-1801 Civil Term, lq8X_X_X Indicate the allorney who wllllry case for the party who flies this praecipe: ______ _ Dale F. Shughart, Jr., esq., for Defendants Indlcale lrlal counsel for olher parties If known: Michae LJl._Reed,_Esq.._,f.oJ:_plaintif f This case Is ready for lrlal, 5'''od b~Q3:5~-,Z;t Prlnl NamePll.!e F '.._!?.hl!gh'!.~~, Jr. Allorney for: [)~fenda!lt Date: August~..!99~__ ~E . tD .':.T.:P't . , > 6; - ('I') ~,. "'... ;:!~'" tun.- -. ....(,.I"'-t...~ ',~ ~ c;o ~\ . ~~~~.~ " .....r;." \...-,.:....-; :~, l..~':: ::":::..llUI "J t:~C1. => ;';0 a:t - g - JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 94-1807 Civil 1994 . . . . v. LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN his wife, Defendants ACTION IN EJECTMENT . . . . . . PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 36. The averments of Plaintiffs' Complaint and Reply to Defendants' New Matter are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 37. Admitted in part and denied in part. with regard to the allegation concerning the length of the portion of fence which was removed, after reasonable investigation, Counterclaim Defendants are without knowledge, information or belief as to the truth of the averments and they are therefore denied with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. The remaining averments of paragraph 37 are admitted. 38. Denied. It is specifically denied that the fence in question which was removed by the counterclaim Defendants was located upon the property of the counterclaim Plaintiff Lucia F. Chamberlin. To the contrary, the fence was located upon the property of Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers, his wife. 39. Denied. It is specifically denied that the value of the fence which was destroyed is approximately $1,000.00. To the contrary, the value of the portion of the fence removed is, upon information and belief, far less than the amount claimed. 40. Denied. The averments of paragraph 40 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is required, it is specifically denied that counterclaim Defendants wrongfully removed any portion of the fence line or trees or that counterclaim Plaintiff Lucia F. Chamberlin has suffered any damages thereby. To the contrary, the removal was lawful and no damages were suffered by Lucia F. Chamberlin. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and counterclaim Defendants Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers, his wife, respectfully request this Court to dismiss the counterclaim of Defendant and counterclaim Plaintiff Lucia F. Chamberlin and to enter judgment in favor of the counterclaim Defendants, together with such other remedies as this Court shall deem just. - 2 - . \1't- ::'~J~"'''''" ~...~~"...".,.,.., METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: lrtL.tj,D- ichael D. Reed, Esquire Sup. ct. t. D. #35193 Paula J. Leicht, Esquire Sup. Ct. t. D. #42585 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers, his wife DATE: June 8, 1994 "...' ',....,'-c .......~._ .', . ...." VERIFICATION I have read the foregoing document and hereby verify that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.B.A. S4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: ~JS/9<! { I ~ 'tru(CW3 Jay . yers . " .c;,..~ VERIFICATION I have read the foregoing document and hereby verify that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.B.A. S4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: C/9)9t.J i1IlAL oR. 'rv\-l' .~ Helen L. Myers \ .",.",-.~",. "'.':- ~~" ,"--.,-.". -':"-~"\';""'~i[r.~,:::': '::(:-/-- ,'--~:,-- yi ~IPICATE OP SKRVICI!: I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United Btates Mail, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire Fowler, Addams, Shughart & Rundle 28 South Pitt Street P. O. Box 20B Carlisle, PA 17013 By: METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE J1dJ d& Michael D. Reed, Esquire Sup. Ct. I. D. #35193 Paula J. Leicht, Esquire Sup. ct. I. D. #425B5 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers, his wife DATE: June B, 1994 <",j--,~"., '-''';',,-- -"...yy~';'~'-'-~'-" /,'/" '.',' ,...~;y...,::,...,.. t , i~ . .",., .;.) ":I- cr, ~ >:.Jo- ~( ';; ~,?~.:~; .. '_1... .' '~-;": ::;:: .......- ~.., .:r <'-J - '" '=> -~'") ~j ,,-' . . . JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 94-1807 civil 1994 . . vs. . . . . LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN, his wife, Defendants . . . . . . : IN EJECTMENT NOTICE To the plaintiff: You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service thereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. :~ER' ADDAMS, Si & RUNDLE I _~~ -1J;I>~.i,~_~~i';<;i' .~,;.:--".,-~-U",,, ~ ~~~ JAY H. MYERS, MYERS and HELEN L. his wife, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 94-1807 civil 1994 vs. . . . . . . LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN, his wife, Defendants . . . . : IN EJECTMENT ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW, comes the Defendants, Lucia F. Chamberlin, David C. Chamberlin and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin, his wife, by their attorneys, Fowler, Addams, Shughart & Rundle and makes the following Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim in response to the Complaint: ANSWER 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff3 acquired the two adjoining tracts of land in Hopewell Township by virtue of the deed referred to in Paragraph 4. It is denied that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the strip of land in dispute in this case by virtue of the aforesaid deed. On the contrary, to the extent that the strip of land in dispute by virtue of these proceedings may fall within the legal description in the deed attached as Exhibit "A", the Defendants herein own better fee simple title to the land in dispute for the reasons hereinafter set forth in Defendants' Answer and New Matter the averments of which are incorporated herein by the reference thereto. 5. Admitted in part. Denied in part. The averments of Defendants' Answer to Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference hereto. 6. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted Defendant is record owner by virtue of said deed. The legal description of her property was, however, later corrected of record. The distance in the first course and distance stated in Defendant's deed was inadvertently transposed. By quitclaim deed from D. N. Powell, widower, to Defendant dated August 23, 1957 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in Deed Book "A", Vol. 18, Page 245 the erroneous distance was corrected. Further, title to the premises was originally vested in fee simple in Defendant and her husband, Charles R. Chamberlin by virtue of said deeds. Charles R. Chamberlin died vesting full title in simple in Defendant. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that John R. Kissinger completed a survey on behalf of the Plaintiffs and that a reduced size copy is attached as Exhibit "B". It is denied that the aforesaid survey is accurate. It is further denied that Defendants' counsel have been provided a full size copy of said survey. On the contrary, the Kissinger survey -2- contains numerous errors. The boundary between the properties is accurately set forth on a survey of Samuel David Runyon, P.L.S., dated April 14, 1993 and prepared on behalf of the Defendants, a full size copy of which has been provided to Plaintiffs' counsel. 9. Denied. On the contrary, the eastern boundary between the land of Defendants David and Ava Chamberlin and the land of the plaintiff is accurately set forth on a survey prepat'ed by Samuel David Runyon, P.L.S., dated April 14, 1993, a full size copy of which has been provided to the Plaintiffs' counsel. 10. Denied. On the contrary, it is believed and therefore averred that the taxes on the disputed strip of land in question have been paid by the Defendants as the land is described in their deeds and the Runyon survey. 11. Denied. On the contrary, Kissinger's survey is not consistent with the legal description of the Myers' deed. Numerous adjustments have been made and Kissinger was unable to follow precisely the monumentation referred to in the aforesaid deed. 12. Denied. On the contrary, after reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the averments of Paragraph 12 and proof thereof is demanded. 13. Denied. On the contrary, after reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to -3- , form a belief as to the truthfulness of Paragraph 13 and proof thereof is demanded. 14. Denied. On the contrary, the existing fence row is the western boundary between the properties of Plaintiffs and that of Defendants except in the area along the northern portion of the boundary between the two premises where the fence does not proceed in a straight line . The boundary in that area is the line depicted on the Runyon survey, aforesaid. 15. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that portions of the fence in question are old, and that the growth of hedgerow has been allowed to occur along the fence. However, the fence is continuous along the properties between the land except: a. In the most northern area between the properties of the parties; and b. In an area approximately 200 feet in length along the boundary where Plaintiffs removed a portion of the fence prior to the entry of a preliminary injunction by agreement of the parties in proceedings to No. 27 Equity 1993. 16. Denied. On the contrary, during calendar year 1988 or at the latest during calendar year 1989 Defendants removed mature red oak trees from their own property, but in the area claimed by Plaintiffs by virtue of the Kissinger survey. Defendants believe and therefore aver that a total of three mature trees were removed from the area in dispute. -4- .....' '~~':"'.<:~::-;;;';:"Mt:.);,:';"';j.J Lj,{lLl!:'H.,./'C1>>,:,.:(;,!'t;~ J;.-'_-'."~"-'" ..-., , ACTION IN EJECTMENT ANSWER TO COUNT I 17. No answer required. 18. Denied. On the contrary, Defendants are the legal title owners of the area in dispute and have the right to possession of the premises in accordance the boundary line established by the Runyon survey aforesaid. 19. Denied. On the contrary, Defendants are properly in possession of the property lying within the line depicted on the Runyon survey. Plaintiffs are not the owners of the disputed strip created by the conflict between the two surveys. Rather, the Defendants are the owners thereof. 20. Denied. On the contrary, Defendants are the owners of the property in dispute for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Answer and New Matter, the averments of which are incorporated herein by reference thereto. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray Your Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs. ANSWER TO COUNT II - DECLARATORY RELIEF 21. No answer required. 22. Denied. On the contrary, Kissinger's survey is inaccurate. The strip of land in dispute is owned by Defendants as established by the line set forth on the Runyon survey. The land is owned by the Defendants, and the Defendants are entitled to retain ownership and possession thereof. -5- !.. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray judgment be entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs. ANSWER TO COUNT III - DAMAGES 23. No answer required. 24. Denied. On the contrary, Defendants have not damaged Plaintiffs' property, for the reasons set forth in Defendants' Answer and New Matter, the averments of which are incorporated herein by reference thereto. WHEREFORE, Defendants pray judgment be entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs. NEW MATTER 25. Defendant Lucia F. Chamberlin is the owner of the property described in the deed of June 17, 1957 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and Cumberland County in Deed Book "W", Vol. 17, Page 260, as corrected by the quitclaim deed referred to in Defendants' Answer to Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. The legal description which encompasses the disputed strip is the boundary line between the premises of the Defendants and the premises of the Plaintiffs and is accurately depicted as the boundary line in the survey of Samuel David Runyon, dated April 14, 1993, a copy of which has been provided to the Defendants. 26. Defendants David C. and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin are the owners of the property described in the deed of December 8, 1993 and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in and -6- Cumberland County in Deed Book ilL", Vol. 25, Page 1092, the legal description of which encompasses the disputed strip and is the boundary line between the premises of the Defendants and the premises of the Plaintiffs as depicted on the boundary line in the survey of Samuel David Runyon, dated April 14, 1993, a copy of which has been provided to the Defendants. 27. Rule of Law in Pennsylvania being that the oldest claim of record title, as recorded, establishes ownership over disputed property, and the Plaintiffs having failed to allege a chain of title to a common source of the adverse titles of the parties as required by Pa. R.C.P. 1054, Defendants are the owners of all land encompassed within their legal descriptions by virtue of having the oldest claim of record to the premises in question. The title to the land of David and Ava Jeanette is derived from that of Charles R. and Lucia F. Chamberlin. 28. By failing to allege their claim of title to a common source of adverse title, Plaintiffs have admitted that to the extent a genuine overlap of legal descriptions may exist, Defendants own better title by virtue of their record ownership thereof prior to the Defendants. 29. Although Defendant Lucia F. Chamberlin believes and avers the boundary between the properties as depicted on her aforesaid deeds of conveyance encompasses the land in dispute, if the land in dispute is not within said boundaries, at the time Defendant acquired her property, more than thirty-six (36) years -7- 1*:"7' '~,~"~.~~:'~l-',~,:~;,,~.9 ago, the boundary between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs was designated by the fence which has been maintained by Defendants throughout Defendants thirty-six (36) years of possession. 30. The Defendant Lucia F. Chamberlin, has openly, continuously, notoriously and hosti1y and exclusively maintained possession of the land in question by virtue of maintaining the property on her side of the fence in agricultural use and by maintaining the fence for a period of more than thirty-six (36) years. By virtue of such possession under claim of title, Defendant is the owner of the disputed strip by adverse possession. 31. Although Defendants David C. and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin believe and aver the boundary between the properties as depicted on their aforesaid deed of conveyance encompasses the land in dispute in this case, if the land in dispute is not within said boundaries, at the time Defendant acquired their property, more than twenty (20) years ago, the boundary between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs was designated by the fence which has been maintained throughout Defendants twenty (20) years of possession and by sixteen (16) years of prior possession by Charles R. and Lucia F. Chamberlin. 32. The Defendant David C. and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin, and their predecessors in title, Charles R. Chamberlin and Lucia F. Chamberlin, have openly, continuously, notoriously and hosti1y and exclusively maintained possession of the land in question by -8- virtue of maintaining the property on their side of the fence in agricultural use and by maintaining the fence for a period of more than thirty-six (36) years. By virtue of such possession under claim of title, Defendant is the owner of the disputed strip by adverse possession. 33. Prior to Defendants assuming personal ownership and possession of the land in question by virtue of the aforementioned deed, the property was possessed and maintained by Defendants predecessors in title, Charles R. Chamberlin and Lucia F. Chamberlin, since June, 1957, which time of possession be and is hereby tacked onto the possession of the Defendants, a total of occupancy and possession of more than thirty-six (36) years. 34. The mature trees, believed to be three (3) in number, which were removed by the Defendants from the area in dispute in 1988, at the latest in 1989, are located within the land owned by the Defendants. 35. The trees in question having been removed more than two (2) years prior to filing of the Plaintiffs' Complaint which initiated this action, the Plaintiffs claim for damages are barred by virtue of the statute of Limitations which is two (2) years as set forth in the Judicial Code, Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142, Section 2, as amended, 42 Pa. C.S. 5 524(3), (4) . WHEREFORE, Defendants pray judgment be entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs. -9- COUNTERCLAIM LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN. COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF VS JAY H. MYERS AND HELEN L. MYERS. COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS 36. The averments of Defendant's Answers to Plaintiffs' Complaint and Defendant's New Matter are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 37. On or about January 21, 1993, the Counterclaim Defendants, Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers, instructed a contractor to remove the existing fence and tree line between the properties of the Counterclaim Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants. Pursuant to the instructions by Myers, the contractor, as their agent, removed a portion of the fence, approximately 200 feet in length, as depicted on the survey of Samuel David Runyon, dated April 14 1993, a copy of which has been provided to the Counterclaim Defendants. 38. The fence in question, which was removed by the Counterclaim Defendants, was located upon the property of the Counterclaim Plaintiff, Lucia F. Chamberlin. 39. The value of the fence which was destroyed is approximately One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars. 40. As a result of Counterclaim Defendants' wrongful removal of the fence line and trees from Counterclaim Plaintiffs' property, Counterclaim Plaintiff, Lucia F. Chamberlin, has suffered damages in the amount of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars. -10- WHEREFORE, Counterclaim Plaintiff, Lucia F. Chamberlin, respectfully prays Your Honorable Court enter jUdgment in favor of Counterclaim Plaintiff and against the counterclaim Defendants Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers in the sum of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars, together with interest and costs of suit. , RUNDLE By: JJ~~)~ Dale F. Shug 28 South Pit P. O. Box 208 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-8300 -11- ; VERIFICATION Lucia F. Chamberlin, David C. Chamberlin and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin hereby verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, and understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 54904 relating to unsworn falsifications. y -<-<-00.' ~ i 7: (r --I? ~ T tJ.. . L uc a F. Ch mber1 n av~~ C~~~~ Ava Jeanette Chamberlin DATE: May 11, 1994 -12- r;".',,:~ ".,r~'~;';_;;~ '>:";'~'::d~V-:~ JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 94-1807 Civil 1994 . . vs. . . LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN, his wife, Defendants . . . . . . : IN EJECTMENT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 19th day of May, 1994, I, Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire, of Fowler, Addams, Shughart & Rundle, attorneys for Defendants, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim by mailing a copy of the same by United states mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Michael D. Reed, Esq. Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 '/1 0... .;;>. Shughar FOWLER, ADDAMS, SHUGHART & RUNDLE 28 South Pitt Street, P.O. Box 208 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-8300 ..... ;...- ....-....', t , , t " jf I I 1~ !' ! ~ ~ iE .... o C"J >- ",>- ..,,"- l.4,~-"! == ~ (~..:~ ... ci(" ::- ;o.-'t" . 0' 'f_ L:) . ,,:{;:..I ; "- l~' ~:) .' _::: ~g::; t--- .r Q.. ..,.;:) CoU cr, - - :if! ~ ) JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . VB. : : No. 1807 civil 1994 LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN AND DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN AND AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN, his wife, Plaintiffs . . : Action in Ejectment . . . . ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE Dear sir: ~e hereby enter our appearance as attorneys for the above captioned Defendants, Lucia F. Chamberlin and David C. Chamberlin ~~ ~1 and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin, his wife, and hereby accept service of the complaint in Ejectment in the above matter on their .... behalf. TO: LAWRENCE E. WELKER, PROTHONOTARY April 14, 1994 FOWLER, By: Attorneys for Defendant a; - a N :r -:r - ~r: ~~.I W<.'1:.J_- Qz.o~ ~OU~'l i.... -:&.0 '--1 ot-.:'i;:' :' - :;:~~ .~ -'.w"Z .oJ ..p"'-' ;~: -:rQ.. :::> :~ (;t - - ... ... c:c JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 94-1807 Civil 1994 v. LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN his wife, Defendants . . . . ACTION IN EJECTMENT PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER 25. Denied. It is specifically denied that the boundary line between the premises of Defendants and the premises of the Plaintiffs is accurately depicted as the boundary line in the survey of Samuel David Runyon dated April 14, 1993. To the contrary, the Runyon survey is incorrect, and the correct boundary line is that shown on the survey of John R. Kissinger, R.S., dated December 30, 1992. The remaining averments of paragraph 25 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is required, it is specifically denied that the quitclaim deed referred to in paragraph 25 corrected the original deed pertaining to the property of Defendant Lucia F. Chamberlin. To the contrary, the quitclaim deed is itself erroneous and, by definition cannot convey title to property which was not owned by the grantor. 26. Denied. It is specifically denied that the boundary line between the premises of Defendants and the premises of the Plaintiffs is accurately depicted as the boundary line in the survey of Samuel David Runyon dated April 14, 1993. The remaining averments of paragraph 26 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a response is required, it is specifically denied that the deed of December B, 1993 is a valid conveyance to Defendants David C. and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin. To the contrary, the deed is not valid in that it seeks to convey title to lands actually owned by Plaintiffs. 27. The averments of paragraph 27 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 2B. The averments of paragraph 2B constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 29. Denied. It is specifically denied that the boundary between the properties is as depicted on the aforesaid deeds of conveyance. To the contrary, the boundary is accurately - 2 - 4--.'" c., ..... ....._ depicted on the survey of John R. Kissinger, R.S., dated December 30, 1992. It is further specifically denied that the boundary between the land of Defendant Lucia F. Chamberlin and Plaintiffs was designated by a fence at the time Defendant Lucia F. Chamberlin acquired her property. To the contrary, the fence at that time followed the boundary line as depicted on the Kissinger survey, but was subsequently moved to its present location. It is further specifically denied that the fence has been maintained by Defendants throughout 36 years of possession. To the contrary, the fence is not currently maintained by Defendants and has not been maintained for several years prior to this action, such that, in many areas, it is an insubstantial fence. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Lucia F. Chamberlin has openly, continuously, notori?usly and hostilely and eXClusively maintained possession of the land in question by virtue of maintaining the property on her side of the fence in agricultural use and by maintaining the fence for a period of more than 36 years. To the contrary, the land has not been maintained in agricultural use up to the fence in its present location for 36 years, nor has the fence itself been in its present location for 36 years. The remaining averments constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. - 3 - ?_~'l'O-._,."^..,.,,...,_....,_ ' 31. Denied. It is specifically denied that the boundary between the properties as depicted on the aforesaid deed of conveyance encompasses the land in dispute in this case. To the contrary, the boundary between the properties is as described on the survey of John R. Kissinger, R.A., dated December 30, 1992. It is further specifically denied that the boundary between the properties is or has been properly designated by the fence in question. To the contrary, the fence was improperly moved onto Plaintiffs' property at some time prior to the Plaintiffs' purchase of their property and is currently, in several areas, an insubstantial fence. The remaining averments of paragraph 31 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 32. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants David C. and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin, and their predecessors in title, Charles R. Chamberlin and Lucia F. Chamberlin, have openly, continuously, notoriously and hostilely and exclusively maintained possession of the land in question by virtue of maintaining the property on their side of the fence in agricultural use and by maintaining the fence for a period of more than 36 years. To the contrary, neither Defendants nor their predecessors in title have maintained possession of the land in question in agricultural use on their side of the fence for the alleged 36 year period, nor have they maintained the - 4 - Pr,.." .;"." , :&g~!:~~_M~""__' fence during that same period. By way of further answer, the fence was improperly moved onto Plaintiffs' property at some time prior to Plaintiffs' purchase of their property. By way of further answer, Defendants have not maintained the fence, and it is an insubstantial fence in many areas of the fence row. In the alternative, even if Defendants are determined to have maintained the property on their side of the fence and to have maintained the fence, Defendants David C. and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin cannot obtain title by adverse possession since they have not been in possession for 21 years and they cannot acquire adverse possession by tacking since the original deed to them did not describe the land in question, thereby creating a break in the chain of adverse possession. The remaining averments of paragraph 32 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 33. Denied. It is specifically denied that the property in question was possessed and maintained by Defendants' predecessors in title, Charles R. Chamberlin and Lucia F. Chamberlin, since June 1957. To the contrary, in the areas where there is an insubstantial fence, there was never any possession on the part of Defendants or their predecessors in title. The remaining averments of paragraph 33 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. - 5 - t . J t ~ ~ ,t 34. Denied. It is specifically denied that the mature trees removed by Defendants from the area in dispute are located within the land owned by the Defendants. To the contrary, five mature trees were removed from land owned by the Plaintiffs. with respect to the dates of removal, Plaintiffs are at this time without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments and they are therefore denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 35. The averments of paragraph 35 constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to enter jUdgment in their favor pursuant to the prayer for relief contained in their complaint in this matter. By: METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE -}nJfJ ~ Michael D. Reed, Esquire Sup. Ct. I. D. #35193 Paula J. Leicht, Esquire Sup. Ct. I. D. #425B5 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers, his wife DATE: June B, 1994 ,.-.-.., -".-., ,~_:W~;"&'t;;;\\.jt'Xol;~1~;;~7i~~~_'}',',:,' c .. .',~ ",. ~ VERIFICATION I have read the foregoing document and hereby verify that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.B.A. S4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: (pi 0/7Y Jay'h::t 'nIAf~ VERIFICATION I have read the foregoing document and hereby verify that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements made herein are SUbject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. S4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: ~/~/9~ ~ 'cL ~ QA4.I Helen L. Myers r.RRTIFICATE OF SERVICI!: I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United states Mail, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire Fowler, Addams, Shughart & Rundle 2B South Pitt Street P. O. Box 20B Carlisle, PA 17013 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: niJfJ J U Michael D. Reed, Esquire Sup. Ct. I. D. #35193 Paula J. Leicht, Esquire Sup. Ct. I. D. #425B5 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box S950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers, his wife DATE: June B, 1994 ;;';\..;. ~ ,"': ~'..j.~.",^",",.;'.",.~, -~"~.-' ...."',._~._-,.,-.' "="" 0") . ~~ ". >,~ ~,,- !d " -'.,.., '" r'l ..,',.j' '.:.; , c " " .. .. ~-. ,I " :~; '../ f ~.;.t i , > ~, ., .. ,er 'f' :.1. " ".,.,,,.- FOWLER, ADDAMS, SHUGHART" RUNDLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 208 28 SOUTH PITT 8TREET CARLISLE. PENNSYLVANIA 17013-0208 "OHN I. POWLI.., III WILLIAM A. ADDAMI DALe P. IHUGHA..T f ..... MICHAU ... ..UNDLI TELEPHONE 17171 248-8300 FAX 17171241.8164 POWU". ADDAMI . IHUGHART C1l'1-1I131 OP COUNIU HONORAILIE DALI P. IHuaHART January 6, 1995 Honorable Kevin A. Hess CUmberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Myers v. Chamberlin No. 94-1807 Civil Term In Ejectment Dear Judge Hess: I am writing to confirm that the Chamber1ins' surveyor has now confirmed that the "erroneous" survey line on our survey and the boundary line depicted on the Kissinger survey of December 30, 1992, are in fact the same line. Therefore, the settlement agreement stated of record to be entered as an Order of Court on December 14 may and should be entered by you as an Order of Court. Very truly yours, FOWLER, ADDAMS, SHUJ; & jc-IJ-f r 54~ Dale F. Shughart, Jr. RUNDLE DFS,Jr/mp cc: Michael Reed, Esquire Tpr. and Mrs. David Chamberlin Mrs. Lucia Chamberlin -. NO. 30 JAY H. MYERS and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVILACfION - LAW LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN, his wife, Defendants 94-1807 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE Present at a pretrial conference held Oetober 26, 1994, were Paula Leieht, Esquire, attorney for the plaintiffs. and Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire, attorney for the defendants. This is a boundary dispute involving trael~ of land in Hopewell Township, Cumberland County. The hearing of this case will be without a jury. Trial of the matter is expected to last at least a day. Prior to taking testimony, it is anticipated that court and counsel will conduet a view. At the pretrial conference, certain understandings were reached concerning amendments to the pleadings. It was agreed that paragraph 26 of the defendants' new matter contains a typographical error and that the year of conveyance of the deed mentioned therein is 1973. The defendant, in light of testimony adduced at a recent deposition, wishes to pursue the theory that the boundary between the two properties exists by an agreement reached in 1952 or 1953. The plaintiffs desire an amendment which would include an affidavit of title containing, inter alia, a conclusion as to whether or not the two tracts of land are traceable to a common owner. The defendants' concern is that such an amendment would result in permitting the plaintiffs to pursue a claim that their deed deseription predates that of the defendants', a matter which they did not aver in response to the defendants' new matter. The court indicated that, since both counsel desired to make substantive amendments in their pleading, they could do so by either agreement or by filing motions to amend. Counsel indicated that they could probably stipulate with regard OCT 27 9 06 ,lH '91/ " J' 'j' I II;: (iF.", "I'(';WJN'iAhY GU"b/:~1 !",r, C'!LHY ,1["'15 n. '~'/~'f ~A , i : I I >","'~"'''' "'~' < .... .."..- ~_"'~;'_"C'>~~~1" ... to the amendments unless the plaintiffs' abstract of title were to preclude them from doing so. They indicated that they would notify the court within the week, by exehange of letters. The defendants indicated that they desired to add surveyor, Tom Neff, to their witness list. It was agreed that Mr. Shughart would notify Ms. Leicht, within fifteen days, of any proffer with regard to Mr. Nerrs testimony in order to give her an opportunity to react to any new information. By order of even date herewith this matter is set for trial on Wednesday, December 14, 1994. A view will be conducted at 8:30 a,m. and the trial will commence as soon thereafter as conveniently may be done. October 26,1994 ./lL Paula Leicht, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire For the Defendants :rlm JAY H. MYERS and HELEN 1.. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVILACfION - LAW LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETfE CHAMBERLIN, his wife, Defendants 94-1807 CIVIL TERM ORDER AND NOW,this '2 ~' day of October, 1994, trial herein is set for Wednesday, December 14, 1994, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA. BY THE COURT, .,44- Paula Leicht, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire For the Defendants :rlm " t~p 'C_'. ~"''''\~.:>~;''<,Vd<;;'';'''' OCT 27 9 OD ~H '9~ . .' Jfrl(l~ Of ':,.i ! ",'f~O~n"hY COMUtRlAND COU" ry PEHkS Yl VA"I~ 11 ~~, -.~ t...."...,""...,."" . FOWLER, ADDAMS, SHUGHART & RUNDLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 208 28 SOUTH PITT STREET CARLISLE. PENNSYL VANIA 17013.0208 "OHN .. 'OWLUI, III WILt.IAM A. ADDAM' OALI p, IHUDHART, .1ft. MICHAIL ft. ftUNDL-I TElEPItONE 17' 11 241.8300 FAX 17111 241.81&4 'OWL'", ADDA"'I . IHUGHART IU71.UIJI 0' COUHIIL HONO"A'L1 DALI Po tHUDHA'" November 7, 1994 Honorable Kevin A. Hess Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Jay H. Myers, et ux. v. Lucia F. Chamberlin, et a1. No. 94-1809 Civil Term In Ejectment Dear Judge Hess: Enclosed herewith is a copy of my letter to Attorney Leicht confirming our agreement that they may amend their complaint to include an abstract of title based upon documents submitted to me last week. Our agreement encompasses original patents which Attorney Leicht's firm is attempting to locate assuming they are a part of the record chain of title. This agreement is conditioned upon a reciprocal agreement allowing us leave to amend verbally. Absence such agreement, both sides will file petitions for leave to amend in accordance with your pretrial order. Very truly yours, ~?.fir{< RUNDLE DFS,Jr/mp Enclosure cc: Paula Leicht, Esquire Mrs. Lucia Chamberlin Mr. and Mrs. David Chamberlin l!IIlIIUIIf'iI'('; FOWLER, ADDAMS, SHUGHART & RUNDLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 208 28 SOUTH PITT STREET CARLISLE. PENNSYLVANIA 17013.0208 JOHN 10 'OWLUl. III WILLIAM A. ADDAM' DALl Po IHUGHART. Jft. MICHAIl. ft. RUNDLE TELEPHONE 17171 248.8300 FAX 17171 248.8154 'OWLE". ADDAMI . IHUGHART "If..tt.~. O' COUHln HONORAIU DALl Po SHUGHART November 7, 1994 via Te1ecopier only 238-".816 Paula Leicht, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 RE: Mr. and Mrs. Jay Myers/Mrs Lucia Chamberlin Mr. and Mrs. David C. Chamberlin Dear Paula: I wrote to you on November 1, 1994 confirming that I was in agreement to allow the amendment of your pleadings. That letter stated my understanding of the deed copies which I received from you since no abstract was enclosed. Since you did not respond, you agreed. I understand you are searching for patents of original conveyance from the Commonwealth. Unless any patents which may be located were issued to the grantors on the oldest deeds of record, they are not part of the record chain of title. If you locate such patents which are part of the record chain of title and disclose all the information to me well in advance of trial, I shall not object to that amendment either. I shall await confirmation from you that you are in agreement to our requested amendments. Of course, our agreement is conditioned upon your reciprocal agreement. Very truly yours, FOWLER, ADDAMS, SHUGHART & RUNDLE Dale F. Shughart, Jr. DFS,Jr/mp cc: Honorable Kevin A. Hess Mr. and Mrs. David C. Chamberlin Mrs. Lucia F. Chamberlin JAY H. MYERB and HELEN L. MYERS, his wife, Plaintiffs . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAB CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 94-1B07 Civil 1994 . . v. LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN his wife, Defendants ACTION IN EJECTMENT PLAINTIFFS' PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM I. BASIC FACTS AS TO LIABILITY Plaintiffs and Defendants are the owners of adjoining properties in Hopewell Township, Cumberland County. Defendants David C. Chamberlin and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin obtained their property by deed from Lucia F. Chamberlin and her late husband on or about December B, 1973. The parties dispute a certain strip of land extending along the western boundary of the Myers' farm, based upon conflicting surveys. Plaintiffs obtained a survey from John R. Kissinger dated December 31, 1992 which is a perimeter survey corresponding to the metes and bounds of their deed description. Further, that survey is consistent with pre-existing monuments. The conflicting survey performed for Defendants by Samuel Runyon presumes the existing fence line to be the boundary between the - 2 - properties, without any deed reference or monumentation to support that inference. Additionally, the Runyon survey is inconsistent in its angles and courses with certain existing monumentation. A portion of the disputed property line transverses a wooded area. In that area, Defendants removed certain trees which are believed to have been on Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiff is claiming that a total of five trees were removed, causing a loss to Plaintiffs of approximately $2,500.00 for the value of the trees. II. BASIC FACTS AS TO DAMAGES Plaintiffs will testify that their best estimate of the replacement costs of the trees removed by Defendants is $2,500.00. III. PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGE A. Are Plaintiffs entitled to legal ownership of the property extending up to the boundary line fixed by the Kissinger survey? .~....".,'-;........_...... B. With regard to Defendants' claim of adverse possession, is the claim of David C. and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin premature in that they had not held their portion of the property for 21 years at the time of this action? C. Is the adverse possession claim of Defendant Lucia F. Chamberlin valid where the fence line upon which it relies is insubstantial in several locations and was moved from a previous fence line which would have corresponded to the actual property line? IV. SUMMARY OF LEGAL ISSUE The primary legal issue will be that of adverse possession and, in the case of Defendants David C. Chamberlin and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin, the prohibition against tacking where a deed does not specifically convey the disputed property. See Wolfe v. Porter, 405 Pa. Super. 385, 592 A.2d 716 (1991). V. IDENTITY OF WITNESSES Jay H. Myers Helen L. Myers Defendants, as on cross-examination John R. Kissinger - 3 - 'i ; VI. LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. Kissinger survey. 2. Myers' deed dated May 31, 1967. 3. Deed to David Chamberlin and Ava Jeanette Chamberlin dated December B, 1973. 4. Photographs relating to disputed boundary areas. 5. Videotape of disputed area. 6. Abstract of title for the property in question. By: METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE ')Pf~~J AIL kichae1 D. Reed, Esquire Sup. Ct. I. D. #35193 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers, his wife DATE: October 21, 1994 CKRTIFICATE OF SBRVICK I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United states Mail, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire Fowler, Addams, Shughart & Rundle 28 Bouth Pitt Street P. O. Box 208 Carlisle, PA 17013 By: METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE //1[$ ~ ~ Michael D. Reed, Esquire Sup. Ct. I. D. #35193 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Jay H. Myers and Helen L. Myers, his wife DATE: October 21, 1994 ,"T"....-"',-...,,..., ,-""".~_ ., @ ~r:I-<"1 JAY H. MYERS, MYERS and HELEN L. his wife, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 94-1807 civil 1994 vs. LUCIA F. CHAMBERLIN and DAVID C. CHAMBERLIN and AVA JEANETTE CHAMBERLIN, his wife, Defendants IN EJECTMENT DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM I. BASIC FACTS AS TO LIABILITY Plaintiffs and Defendants own adjoining farms in Hopewell Township. Each party has a survey which conflict with each other, creating an overlap. Defendants' surveyor will testify that his survey accurately depicts the boundary between the parties consistent with the Defendants' deeds. Additionally, Defendant's witnesses will testify that the boundary as established by their surveyor follows an existing fence which was erected in 1952 or 1953 by the Defendants' predecessor in title and the Plaintiffs' predecessor in title, and that this fence (which remains in existence), replaced another fence in the same location. Defendants contend that they are the owners of the property contained within their respective survey descriptions by virtue of their deed descriptions, adverse possession and/or as a consentual line established by recognition and acquiescence. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants removed trees located on his property. The trees which were removed were located on the i ..'( ,:\ , { I :~ , jJ(J....- "''' 1 Defendants' property. Moreover, Defendants contend that the trees were removed more than two (2) years prior to the filing or this action and therefore any claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs removed a section of the fence which establishes the boundary between their property without authorization. Defendants contend the value of the fence was the sum of $1,000. II. BASIC FACTS AS TO DAMAGE The Defendants contend that the replacement cost of the portion of the fence removed by the Plaintiffs without authorization is the sum of $1,000. III. PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGE A. Are the Defendants the owners of the property claimed by the Plaintiffs by virtue of their deed description as confirmed by their survey? B. Assuming the Court would determine the Defendants are not the owners by virtue of their deed description, are the Defendants the owners by virtue of adverse possession and/or a consentua1 line established by recognition and acquiescence. IV. SUMMARY OF LEGAL ISSUES It is not believed there are any unusual legal issues. The issues are factual. V. IDENTIFY OF WITNESSES A. Defendants David C. Chamberlin, Ava Jeannette Chamberlin and Lucia F. Chamberlin. , , II ~ r , f t....'~-- ry--''_ , B. Samuel David Runyon, Registered surveyor, who prepared the surveys of Defendants' property. C. Glenn Kimmel, Manager, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation, Brookwood Avenue, Carlisle, PA. Mr. Kimmel will sponsor an aerial photograph taken in 1964 showing the existing fence and the agricultural uses on either side of the fence. VI. LIST OF EXHIBITS A. Runyon's survey of boundary between Plaintiffs and Defendants dated April 14, 1993. B. Runyon's survey of land of David Chamberlin dated July 6, 1994. C. Thomas A. Neff survey of property of David Chamberlin dated November 1973. D. Aerial Photograph No. AHD-8EE 255, dated June 27, 1964, showing existing fence and agricultural use of the property. E. Copy of deed from Clarence R. Chamberlin et ux. to Lucia F. Chamberlin et vir. dated June 17, 1957 in Deed Book "W", Vol. 17, Page 260. F. Copy of deed from D. N. Powell to Lucia F. Chamberlin, et vir. dated August 23, 1957 in Deed Book "A", Vol. 18, Page 245. G. Copy of deed from Lucia F. Chamberlin, et vir. to David Chamberlin, et ux. dated December 8, 1973 in Deed Book "L", Vol. 25, Page 1092. H. Photographs of various points along the area in dispute. ~ r I. Videotape of area in dispute. VII. CURRENT STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS There are no settlement negotiations. The Court must resolve the dispute. t I' /'., ~ I i . Respectfully submitted, FOWLER, ADDAMS, SHUGHART & By:J)~ j. Dale F. S ughar 28 South Pitt S P. O. Box 208 carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-8300 Attorneys for Defendants