The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About96-00172 . -7 ~ j ~ L' - ..ji 0-: " I 0' <:1 i I' I f I , i I I' i , I ...' , . . . VBRI.ICATION I, Charles L. stoup, Jr., state upon personal knowledge or information and belief that the averments set forth in the foregoing document are true. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsifica- tion to authorities. Ch Date: ~I'/fv .... V) r~ : "- t~. c., I:: 1I1~ ) .. .:;-;. " Q' ~ (-, ~ , I, I r -, : - ( ... ; i~ '- ' '-' 0, . \'i , }:J fiJ:. .:-,J . "1 .- [:" : , .' . I . '. 'i: .. I , , " ; U L , . () . . " ..... .'.. 4, . . ;. . , ,. 1 ~ "I.i ~ ~~ ... ';" j ~\\.:1 .}} y 'i .,;~ ,~ I~ ~ .... j I J ~ ;; 51 is !~~ ~~I c - 11-- CHARLES L. STOUP, JR., ) IN 'rHE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUN'l'Y, ) PENNSYLVANIA ) vs. ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW ) ) NO. 96-172 CIVIL 'l'ERM DEBORAH D. s'roup, ) Defendant ) IN DIVORCE IIOTTCB , , i I' , I' 'j i \, ! I . I TO PLAINTIFF NAMED HEREIN: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO RESPOND TO THE ENCLOSED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. ! By ~.~~ uel L. des Attorney tor Defendant Supreme Court ID 17225 525 North 12th Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-5361 ,'j., " if , ;-i, 'j' r. I; n i ~l , r I " ;f I' I' ,\ I, i CHARLES L. STOUP. JR. , ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, ) PENNSYLVANIA ) I; vs. ) CIVIL AC1'ION - LAW ) ) NO. 96-172 CIVIL 1'ERM DEBORAH D. STOUP, ) Defendant ) IN DIVORCE il R.RRPONB.H TO APPLICA.TION POR 8PBCIAIJ RRI.TRF AND NOW comes the above-named Defendant. by her attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and makes the fOllowing response to Plaintiff's application for I special relief: 1. Admitted. 2. Denied as stated. Plaintiff has planned to attend a seminar or [professional meeting in Florida for some time. Prior to the parties' i !separation. both Plaintiff and Defendant planned to take the children to IFlorida to spend time at Disney World while the Plaintiff attended his i iProfessional meeting. At no time did the plans ot the parties icontemplate thdt the Plaintift would travel to Florida with the children , i iwithout Defendant. i 3. It is admitted that travel plans and reservations were made. but ifor all four members of the familY to travel so that Defendant could vacation with the children while Plaintitt attended his protessional meeting. 4. Admitted. subject to the clarifications set out in the answers ita Nos. 2 and 3 above and the averments set out in the New Matter which is attached hereto. 5. Denied as stated. Detendant has advised Plaintiff that Rhe does not believe it to be in the best interests ot the childnm fOl" them to I i I, I travel to Florida with the Plaintiff alone. and without the Detendant, for the reasons set out in her New Matter which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 6. Denied as stated. Defendant has ottered to travel to Florida with the children so that they could have the vacation with her, as originally planned. It is Plaintift who has refused that proposal and who now wishes to change the underlying plans of the parties. 7. Denied as stated. Defendant admits that she was the primary, if not eXClusive, care provider for the children and that. in that role, she constantlY made decisions tor the children, including travel and vacation plans. She denies, however, the suggestion that she has taken steps to exclude the Plaintiff from significant decisions regarding the children. Defendant incorporates herein the averments set out in her New Matter. WHBREFORB, Defendant prays this Court to dismiss Plaintiff's application and to take no action in this case until such time as the facts have been properly developed for the Court or the conciliator. IIBW MATTER By way of further or supplemental answer to Plaintiff's Application for Special Refief. Detendant avers the fOllowing New Matter: 8. Plaintiff has been verballY and emotionally abusive to the children. In the past Plaintiff has lost his temper in the presence of the children, thrown plates ot food and other Objects across the room, screamed at the children, and screamed at the Defendant in the presence i IOf the children. On such occasions, Plaintiff has demonstrated his liinability to control his rages. 9. Defendant believes that the children fear Plaintiff and his rages and temper outbursts. As a result, she does not believe it is in the best interests of the children that they be alone with the Plaintiff for eight days or more. 10. Plaintiff is scheduled to attend a prOfessional meeting tor part of the time that he wishes to have the children with him in Florida. Based upon her prior experiences with the Plaintitt, Defendant believes the Plaintiff will attend meetings most ot the days when those meetings are scheduled and that the children will be left alone without him. 11. The children involved in this matter havA not been separated from their mother, the Defendant, tor more than a tew hours at a time. As a resUlt, Defendant does not believe it will be in the children's best interests to travel to Florida for eight days and be away from her that entire time. 12. Defendant is prepared to take the children to Florida for a vacation if the Court deems it to be in the best interests of the children to do so. She is reluctant to take the children at the time currently scheduled, because they have already missed a great deal of schOOl because of the recent snowstorms and she does not yet know when they will be schedUled to make up those lost days. The Plaintiff's plans will require the children to be out of school more than five days, which will viOlate the pOlicies of the Carlisle School District. Defendant is willing to arrange her schedule so she can take the children on a vacation to Florida later in the spring of 1996, when it will not interrupt or interfere with their schooling or viOlate the school district's policies. 13. Although reservations have been made for the trip originallY contemplated by Plaintitf and Defendant together, those reservations can be cancelled and the parties can obtain a fUll refund of nIl charges without expense or inconvenience. 14. With one exception, Plaintiff has never been alone with the children, charged with their primary care, tor more than a few hours at a tiMe. Defendant does not belicve that Plaintift can properly care for the children {or a prolonged period ot timo, given his history of anger, rage. and temper problems. 15. Since the partics' separation in mid-December, 1995. Plaintiff has not had the children with him overnight and has not had the children with him for more than a few hours at u time. Defendant believes that a protracted period of time with the Plaintiff. away trom the Defendant, will be upsetting and stressful to the children. 16. Until such time as this Court hears testimony in this case, or the parties have the opportunity to seek psychological evaluation of the parties and each of their relationships with the children, Detendant believes it is against the best interests of the children to have them travel so far with the Plaintift outside of contact with the Defendant. WHBIBPORB, Defendant prays this Court to dismiss Plaintiff's lapPlication for special relief and to direct that the parties proceed to la conciliator for the negotiation or litigation, it necessary, of a proper custody schedule. II s~~ a el L. Andes Attorney tor Defendant Supreme Court ID 17225 525 North 12th street Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-5361 . Therea. Sarrett Hale Supreme Court 146439 10 South Harket Square - Suite 500 Harriaburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Attorney For Plaintitt COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES L. STOUP, JR., Plaintiff v. NO. 91;- 17:L, civil Term DEBORAH STOUP, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY OIUlER OF COURT AND NOW, thia -J if" day ot )oV)wtfY, 1996, upon consideration ot the .ttached complaint or cuatody, it ia he by dire~ted tha the partiea and their reapective counael appear J>etore ", S . S rot c.- , laquire, the con~liator, at hit ctHce, . . , , N'I e ( ~ n \Co;. j"A,. -jJn the day ot vC~ I ,1996, a m. tcr a Pre-Hearing Cuatcdy Conterence. At euch Conterence, an ettcrt will be made to reaolve the ieauee in diapute, or it thie cannot be accompliahed, to detine and narrcw the ieauea to be heard by the Court, and tc enter into a Temporary Order. All children age tive or older may alee be preaent at the ccnterence. Failure to appear at the Conterence may prcvide grounds tor the entry ot a temporary or permanent Order. For the Court, Date ot Order. /-/7-q" By. flcuAh1,A JLl-IJ,Vl- b<J..:. ~ody Conciliator t7 r~ ( YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FINO OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse - 4th Flcor 1 Courthouse Avsnue Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 (717) 240-6200 , "'J.Lt.- . i:"::t'UI' There.a Barrett Hale Supreme Court 146439 10 South Harket Squaro - Suite 500 Harri.burg, PA 17101 (717) 233-3220 Attorney Fer Plaintitt COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES L. STOUP, JR., Plaintiff v. NO. 95- OJ... Civil Term DEBORAH STOUP, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - CUSTODY COMPLAINT .OR CUSTODY 1. The plaintiff is Charles L. stoup, Jr., residing at 410 South Pitt Street, Carlisle, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania 17013. 2. The defendant is Deborah stoup, residing at 1209 Sherwood Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. Plaintiff seeks custody of the following children: li.AM Present Residence I2QD.i. 3/16/86 4/1B/BS Andrea stoup Elizabeth stoup 1209 Sherwood Drive Carlisle, PA The children were not born out of wedlock. The children presently are in the custody of Defendant, who resides at 1209 Sherwood Drive, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. During the past five (5) years, the children have resided with the fOllowing persons at the fOllowing addresses: liAU Address ~ Charles stoup, Jr. Deborah stoup 1209 Sherwood Drive carlisle, PennsYlvania 1209 Sherwood Drive carliSle, Pennsylvania Mid-December, 1995 to present Deborah stoup Birth to Mid-December, 1995 The mother of the children is Deborah stoup, currently residing at 1209 Sherwood Drive, carlisle, pennsylvania. She is married. The father of the children is Charles L. stoup, Jr., currently residing at 410 South pitt street, carlisle, pennsylvania. He is married. 4. The relationship of plaintiff to the children is that of father. The plaintiff currently resides with the following persons: no one. 5. The relationship of Defendant to the children is that of The Dafendant currently resides with the following mother persons: the subject children. 6. plaintiff has not participated as a party or witness, or in another capacity, in litigation concerning the custody of the children in this or in any other court. plaintiff has no information of a custody proceeding concern- ing the children pending in a court of this commonwealth. plaintiff does not know of any person not a party to this proceeding who has physical custody of the children or who claims to have custody or visitation rights with respect to the children. 2 ~ >--. ,.. " . -I- It' ~ ...... :\: b~ m '. ~ -..J ".....,1 r., rf u-... -.J. .' 'i f" 6\ " ; .". <..) lU~:'.! , , ~ ~ ( ") "':. ;r:~ , ; J r1 r-c, () J ,_, '-. I.'. c;:i (".r : 1 .'~ V) Cl l..') ::tj 't\ n-)I ; . ~ JlC... {) .::J. L.~' ' : 1 ~ r::J. : I ;'~ ::f ~ f- " -i'- L'. 1....1 I L,J f.', V 't7';) . . . . " , >- t.n ;-. cr: l'~ " ,- . ,:j :'::, .. ,~.,(? l~:)~';; r '. n:( .', i;: U", .. ~i' "'I ~'.: r' '0 ::.;f) t C'. J Iii,.. I roo ,........ ill!_1 ~ '; . I. ~2c.. j-:: L,_ t,~ U-, ::, () C . ~.) .~ CHARLES L. STOUP, JR., Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. NO. 96-172 CIVIL TERM DEBORAH STOUP, Defendant IN CUSTODY (IUD OF <DRl' IlIID _, this 12th day of February, 1996, the Custody Conciliator, being advised by Plaintiff's counsel that the Custody action filed in the above-captioned matter is being withdrawn, hereby relinquishes jurisdiction in this case. ~dn Dawn S. Sunday, Esqu re (J Custody Conciliator FRANCES PRIBULSKY, individually and trading as SILKS AND TWEEDS AND SO FORTH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : NO.: 96-0272 v, IRENE B, KERMISCH, et aI., Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY OF DEFENDANT, CORY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., TO NEW MATTER OF FIRESTONE DEFENDANTS NOW, comes Defendant, Cory Construction Company,lnc" by its allorneys, Goldberg, Katzman, & Shipman, P,C. who states: 319. Objection. This pleading violates the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure by seeking to incorporate by reference 318 other paragraphs, To the extent a response is required, the averments of this paragraph are denied. 320, Objection. This paragraph seeks to incorporate the numerous averments set forth in the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in contravention of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, The Answer of Defendant, Cory Construction Company,lnc, to the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint is incorporated herein by reference. 321. Denied. This paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary, WHEREFORE, Defendant, Cory Construction, Inc" requests that the New Maller ofthe Firestone Defendants be dismissed with prejudice, Res~ul1Y-submille~,) GPLDBERG, KAZ:r,tMAN & SH,IPMAN, P.C. By: . !-\-....~ _ ~/-:::)t(I'\-'^.......-' ...... ) ..-' Thomas-E; Brenner, Esquire 10#: 32085 PO Box 1268 8: -- J Harrisburg, PA 17108-1268 ':.../".0 Date: _ _L. (717) 234-4161 49910.1 Allorney for Cory Construction Company, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that 1 served a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) indicated below by depositing a copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, st Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and addressed as follows: Daniel M, Taylor, Jr., Esquire Jones, Gregg, Creehan & Gerace 411 Seventh Ave" Suite 1200 Pillsburgh, PAl 5219-1905 Allorney for Plaintiff, Mechanicsburg Ovcn, Inc. Douglas B. Marcello, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Allorney for Plaintiffs Pribulsky & Esposito Mark T. Levin, Esquire Farrcll & Ricci, P.C. 2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 108 Harrisburg, P A 17110 Allorney for Defendants Kermisch, Kleiman, Brown, Cohcn & Lipitz and Windsor Park Dennis J. Bonetti, Esquire Peters & Wasilefski 2931 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Allorney for Defendant Donald B. Smith, Inc. Timothy J. McMahon, Esquire Marshall Dennchey Warner Colcman & Goggin 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, P A 1710 1 Allorney for Defendant Bert Davis & Associates Kelly B. Bakayza, Esquire Burns, White & Hickton 2400 Fifth Avenue Place, 120 Fifth Avenue Pillsburgh, PA 15222-3001 Attorney for Defendant Rothschild Architects ThomasJ, Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant Charles Klein & Sons Samuel L, Andes, Esquire 525 North Twelfth Street P,O, Box 169 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Attorney for Defendant, Ronald Raffensperger Stuart S, Smith, Esquire John Churchman Smith & Associates 114 West Second Street PO Box 229 Media, PA 19063 Attorney for Defendants Mechanicsburg Oven, Inc., Victor Smith, IId/b/a Smith Management Group (incorrectly designated as Victor Smith, & Capital Ovens, Inc.) James Kutz, Esquire McNees, Wal1ace & Nurick PO Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Attorney for Defendants Firestone Building Products Co" Firestone Building Products Co., a division of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Firestone Tire & Rubber Co" Bridgestone, Firestone, Inc, & Bridgestone Corp, Bt:~~.~RGi<~~:.~ SHI~MANt P.C. - -ThomllS"E:- renner, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Cory Construction Company, Inc. Date: August IS, 2000