The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About95-07093 " ~~ 'n~~" f _ ! ~. -~ . , . I , .' , ' LEROY DEPUTY, JR. and ROXANNE DEPUTY, Pla1ntiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 95-7093 CIVIL 1995 v. B'B CONSTRUCTION , HOME IMPROVICHIi1NT COMPANY, Defendant IN CONTRACT ANSWD or B'B CONSTRUCTION , BOMB IMPROVIIImNT COMPANY WITH COUNT&CLAIM AND NOW, comes Defendant, B&B Construction & Home Improvement Company, and respectfully represents as follows 1n Answer to P1a1nt1ff's Compla1nt 1. Adm1tted. 2, Adm1tted. 3. Adm1tted 1n part and den1ed 1n part. It 1s den1ed that the contract was entered 1nto on March 1995. 4. A response to th1s averment is not requ1red because the terms of the contract are set forth w1thin the contract, wh1ch speaks for 1tself. If a response 1s requ1red, 1t is adm1tted that the spec1f1c 1tems l1sted 1n the contract were called for by the contract, but den1ed that the term "cut doorway" was under11ned 1n the contract. 5. The follow1ng answers relate to the correspond1ng numbers and letters 1n paragraph 5 of Pla1ntiff's Complaint. 4(a) Dsnied. 4(b) Den1ed. 4(d) Den1ed. 4(e) Admitted in part and den1ed 1n part. It 1s admitted that no outside insulation was installed because plywood, which is stronger and better, was used instead. By way of further answer, it is admitted that installation of the vinyl siding was not completed. By way of further answer a large portion of the vinyl siding was installed. Therefore it is denied that vinyl siding was not installed on the homs. By way of further answer Defendant purchased the siding and has left enough siding at the site to complete the job. 4(f) Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that installation of the vinyl siding was not completed. By way of further answer a large portion of the vinyl siding was installed. Therefore it is denied that vinyl siding was not installed on the home. By way of further answer Defendant purchased the siding and has left enough siding at the site to complete the job. 4(g) Denied. 4(h) Admitted. 6. Denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiff has paid Defendant only twenty-eight thousand eight hundred twenty-two and seventy cents ($28,822.70) dollars on the original contract. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs did not pay that amount prior to the work being commenced. By way of further answer, other sums paid by Plaintiff were for extra work not contemplated by the original contract. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs purchased paint and stain. However, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments pertainin~ to the prices paid for the paint and stain. Therefore, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. It is admitted that PlaintiffS purchased kitchen cabinetry from Defendant in the amount of five thousand six hundred ($5,600.00) dollars. It is admitted that Defendant a~reed to reimburse Plaintiff for the purchase price of paint, stain, and kitchen cabinets and that Defendant has not reimbursed Plaintiffs for these expenses. By way of further answer, Defendant has not been presented wi th receipts for paint or stain, and is still owed money by Plaintiffs for additional work performed at Plaintiffs request. B. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs expressed dissatisfactions to Defendant and that Defendant promised to correct some problems. However, it is denied that Defendant promised to correct all of Plaintiffs' subjective di8Bat1sfact1ons. By way of further answer most of Plaint1ffs' dissatisfactions were not discrepancies. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that most of Plaintiffs alle~ed discrepancies were actual discrepancies. It is denied that all discrepancies alleflled by Plaintiff have not been corrected. It is admitted that Defendant had to abandon the job. By way of further answer, Defendant abandoned the job only because Plaintiff unequivocally stated that he would not pay for the work. 10. The averments of Para~raph ten are conclusions of law to which no response is deemed to be required. WHBREFORE, Defendant B'B Construction , Home Improvement Company respectfully prays for jud~ment in its favor and a~ainst Plaint1ff for the balance of the contract pr1ce due. COUNTIIRCLAIM HB CONSTRUCTION , HOMII IMPROVIIMDT COMPANY V. LIIROY O.PUTY. JR AND ROXIUftm OIlPUTY 11. Para~raphs 1 throu~h 10 are hereby 1ncorporated by reference as thou~h set forth at lenfllth. 12. Pla1nt1ff B&B Construct1on & Home Improvement Company 1s a bUild1ng contractor w1th a place of bus1ness located at 9 H111top C1rcle, Carl1s1e, PA, 17013. 13. Pla1ntiffs LeRoy Deputy, Jr. and h1s w1fe Roxanne Deputy, are adult 1nd1v1duals resid1ng at B2B Baltimore P1ke, Gardeners, Cumberland County, PA. 14. On or about May 12, 1995, Pla1nt1ffs and Defendant entered 1nto a wr1tten contract for modificat1ons to the Plaint1ffs' bu1ld1n~ located on the Pla1nt1ffs' property. A true and correct copy of the contract 1s attached as Exhibit A to Pla1nt1ffs' Compla1nt, and is 1ncorporated here1n by reference, Defendant entered upon performance of the contract and commenced the work called for by the same. 15, In accordance w1th the contract, Defendant d1d and performed all work and provided all mater1al necessary for completion of the work up to and 1ncludin~ the date that Plaint1ff refused to pay Defendant. 16. Pla1ntiffs made a number of requests for extras, : bein~ items not included in the original contract, frequently canceling their requests and then reinstating their requests, making it impossible for the Defendant to do the work. 17. When the Defendant learned that Plaintiffs were planning on not payin~ him, he ceased work on the project and demanded an assurance of performance on the Plaintiff's part. lB. Plaintiffs have failed and refused to pay the Defendant the remaining balance of the contract price in the amount of three hundred dollars ($300.00), as well as the invoice for the extra work requested by Plaintiffs, being three thousand five hundred and ninety-five dollars and seventy two cents ($3,595.72) for materials used, and two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500,00) for labor, althou~h Defendant has repeatedly demanded payment of the same. WHEREFORE, B&B Construction & Home Improvement Company demands jUdgment a~ainst LeRoy Deputy, Jr. and Roxanne Deputy for a sum in excess of six thousand three hundred and ninety five dollars and seventy-two cents ($6,395.72), with costs and interests, Respectfully submitted, & Home By Ole 9 H lltop Circle Carlisle, PA 17013 717/ 243-0363 Dated. 3.,.C1(' ~: .3 .... ,-) ': r" .. ~j r~ !:J . ~"i l.'5, i t....... .- ~..... ; ': ft. .~ u.. , , :...; 9L ~' -',1 I " . I.. 'r; u:l' ".' "J .. 1':' : . . ~... . U. \.'~. ':j (.) l;' U . . . . v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 95-7093 CIVIL 1995 LBROY DEPUTY, JR, and ROXANNE DBPUTY, Plaintiffs B&B CONSTRUCTION , HOMB IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, Defendant IN CONTRACT CIRTIFICATB OF SIIRVICB I hereby certify that I have this day served the fore~oing ANSWER OF B'B CONSTRUCTION AND HOME IMPROVEMENT WITH COUNTERCLAIM by depositing in the United States mail, first-class, postage pre- paid, a true and exact copy addressed to the following. LEROY DEPUTY, JR. and ROXANNE DEPUTY c/o ARTHUR T. MCDERMOTT & ASSOCIATES FIFTY EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 Respectfully submitted, Date 3 - , . C; ~ HOME By Gle 9 H lltop Circle Carlisle, PA 17013 717/ 243-0363 LeRoy Deputy, Jr. and Roxanne Deputy, plaintiffB I IN THE COURT or COMMON PLBAS or I CUMBBRLAND COUN'l'Y, PBNNSYLVANIA I I CIVIL ACTION - LAW I NO. 95-7093 CIVIL 1995 I I I IN CONTRACT I v.. B'B CONSTRUCTION and HOD IHPROVBIIBNT COMPANY, Defendant AII8IIBR '10 COOII'I'IIIII"T'" ™ 11. Thi. para9raph i. an incorporation which require. no An.wer. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted 15. Denied. Defendant did not perfoX1ll electrical wirin9, .iding, roof, in.ide wood work, painting, clean up. Plaintiff refer. to para9raph 4 throu9h 7 of the Complaint. 16. Admitted that plaintiff reque.ted change., however, it i. denied that Defendant perfoX1ll8d any work on the change. and plaintiff refu.ed to pay Defendant any IlIOnie. until original contracted-for work wa. completed. 17. Denied. Defendant cea.ed work on the project without completin9 work which he had been paid for. 18. Admitted in part and denied in part. It i. admitted that Plaintiff refused to pay Defendant any more monie. until the work already paid for was completed. It i. denied that plaintiff owe. Defendant for additional work and materials which were not completed or provided. '- ...:~ r ~ r; M t::: .:.:.: .. :j...... ~f[ ~ ....,J). .~ :~) :~-= u.. .'.)~~ C . ,~;..') n I ~;J ?;i c. lEf; r.~ ,;Iii) It_ ~ :~ LL.. r=: :.:.. ,. 11_ ," .:J 0 <." () CBR'l'II'ICA'1'II 01' SIIRVICB I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoin9 An.war to Counterclaim WII8 ..rved by on the below nlllll8d peraon(a), by firat claaa ..il, poatage prepaid, addre..ed tOI 1Ir. GllUUl Brunt BiB Coutruction UId &.e 1IIpI:.." at C~I\J' 9 Hilltop Circl. carliale, PA 17013 Date ~~f' cg~cY' ~ Art ur T. McDermott, Eaquire 50 Baat Hi9h Street Carliale, PA 17013 (717) 243-7807 . '0 f:: ,", ,- ~ lU\ , : -.: ~.~: h:\ ~:i . ...:;.;, :j 1, , E" . l{) 1 7~;.~ . (.,,; fi: ; r ,1 1-, n... "" I") .) (,) ..., U .. .... ?~ E.' In ~ j:-: 0 ~i.d t1.l9 f, J:.."! r ,.-.;. ....)::t ~( I (......' '-- . . ~r:- '~:--J ~~ t,.. -. . ,; ~~.~ I' . u. ~t'! r.n 'tl.~ r~:-J I"J (~~.. F' lL. 'I.. '1'1 ~5 u (.n (.) LEROY DEPUTY, JR and ROXANNE DEPUTY, PLAINTIFFS : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VI. CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO. 9507093 CIVIL 199! BAa CONSTRUcnON .. HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN CONTRACT ~SWt:R TO COUNTERCLAIM pY LEROY DEPUTY. JR. and ROXANNE DEPUTY AND NOW, this ~ day of March, 1996, comes the Plaintiffs, Leroy Deputy, Jr. and Roxanne Deputy. and makes the following Answer to the Counterclaim of the Defendants: 1. Paragraphs one (1) through ten (10) of the complaint are incorporated by reference in mponse to paragraph eleven of the counterclaim. 2. The averments of paragraph twelve (12) of the counterclaim are denied, B&B Construction & Home Improvement Company is a fictitious name of Glenn E, Brunt and Deborah L. Brunt who are the actual contractors. 8. The Ivennents of parasraph eighteen (18) of the counterclaim arc denied, On the contrary, the Defendants have been paid in full for all the work actually perfonned and the P1aIntlfti owe nothlna funher to the Defendants, WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request that the Counterclaim of the Defendant be d1smiued with judgment entered on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the amount ofThlny Five Thousand Four Hundred Fony.two and 41/100 ($35,442.41) Dollars with interest and costs u pennitted by law. Respectfully submitted, IRWIN, Me Attorney for the Plaintiffs, Leroy Deputy, Jr. and Roxanne Deputy PLIAIlIHCWIM'Y.AHlWll