Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-4581DOUGLAS W. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PAMELA S. HEISHMAN, an adult NO. O a- ?fS?` individual, and LEE BARRICK and STELLA BARRICK, husband and wife, Defendants NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and ajudgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the,complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 TELEPHONE: (717)-249-3166 DOUGLAS W. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PAMELA S. HEISHMAN, an adult : NO. individual, and LEE BARRICK and STELLA BARRICK, husband and wife, Defendants COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the plaintiff, Douglas W. Miller, by and through his counsel, R. Mark Thomas, Esquire, and files this Complaint in conversion and in support thereof respectfully represents: Plaintiff Douglas W. Miller is an adult individual residing at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241. 2. Defendant Pamela S. Heishman is an adult individual who is believed to be residing at 1040 Crane's Gap Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. Defendants Lee Barrick and Stella Barrick are husband and wife who currently reside at 1040 Crane's Gap Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. BACKGROUND 4. Plaintiff Douglas W. Miller and Defendant Pamela S. Heishman entered into a romantic relationship with one another on or about October 20, 2000. 5. By mutual agreement between Douglas W. Miller and Pamela S. Heishman, Douglas W. Miller moved into an apartment being rented by Pamela S. Heishman shortly after their relationship started. 6. When the plaintiff moved into Pamela S. Fleishman's apartment, Pamela S. Heishman had very few personal belongings and the plaintiff moved all of his possessions into the apartment. 7. In May of 2001 plaintiff made a gift to Pamela S. Heishman in the amount of Eight thousand ($8,000.00) dollars which was to be used toward the purchase of the real property located at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, PA. 8. Although the Mortgage was in the name of Pamela S. Fleishman, the Deed was issued to both Pamela S. Fleishman and the plaintiff. 9. The plaintiff moved all of his personal belongings into the residence at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, PA. 10. From May 2001 through approximately May 15, 2002 the plaintiff and Defendant Pamela S. Fleishman resided together at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, PA. 11. During the time that the parties lived together they maintained separate checking accounts and each party maintained separate possession of his or her respective items of property. 12. Plaintiff purchased numerous lawn equipment items for his personal lawn care business as well as for maintenance of the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, PA, which consisted of more than two (2) acres of rural property. 13. On or about May 28, 2002, Defendant Pamela S. Fleishman filed a Protection From Abuse Petition with the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County indexed at No. 02- 2591 Civil Term. 14. A temporary order was issued issuing a Protection From Abuse Order against the plaintiff, but as yet no hearing has been held on the merits of that petition. 15. The plaintiff was excluded from the residence at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, PA as a result of the temporary order issued pursuant to the Protection From Abuse Petition. 16. By agreement between the parties, plaintiff purchased the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, PA from Defendant Pamela S. Heishman for an agreed upon consideration. 17. Plaintiff was to take possession of the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, PA following settlement on the purchase of the property. ] 8. During the time that the plaintiff was excluded from the property pursuant to the temporary order on the Protection From Abuse Petition, all of his personal furnishings and property, including lawn equipment, remained at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, PA. COMPLAINT FOR CONVERSION 19. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 20. When the plaintiff arrived at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, PA to take possession of the real property he found that all of his personal belongings had been removed. 21. Based upon reasonable information, investigation and belief, the plaintiff believes and therefore avers that all of his personal belongings were removed from 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, PA by Defendants Pamela S. Fleishman and her parents, Defendants Lee Barrick and Stella Barrick. 22. All of the items belonging to plaintiff which were removed by the defendants had a reasonable value of Eleven thousand three hundred ninety-two ($11,392.00) dollars, and the defendants converted the same to their own use. 23. Defendants knew that the property they took was the property of plaintiff, but they nevertheless converted the same to their own use and have refused to return the property to plaintiff. 24. A list of the items owned by the plaintiff that were taken and converted to the use of the defendants, along with a statement of value is as follows: Goat, chickens and ducks 100.00 Wishing well 100.00 All lumber 300.00 Firewood 800.00 Antique bed 500.00 Oak dresser 200 00 Walnut foot stand . 20 00 Oak high boy dresser . 250.00 Red milk glass set 300.00 Antique oak fish stand (vanity) 600 00 McCoy pineapple cookie jars (2) . 400 00 Food dehydrator . 60 00 Food processor . 40 00 Dishes and flatware . 50 00 Microwave . 60 00 Match Box cars . 300 00 Antique tea carts (2) . 800 00 Oak night stand . 100 00 Fishing rods, tackle and supplies . 200 00 Stereo and CD's . 400 00 Television . 200 00 Baby goats (deceased) and vet bill . 140 00 Lamps (2) . 50 00 VCR and videocassettes . 200 00 CD rack . 50 00 Cedar chest - front porch . 200 00 Oak dry cupboard . 200.00 Pine potato bin 100.00 Telephones 60.00 Walkman 50.00 Gutter guards/screen 50.00 Paint/garage floor 20.00 Vacuum cleaner 100.00 Towels/linens 60.00 Electric skillet 50.00 All cookie jars 50.00 Push mower 50.00 Dog boxe 100.00 Pavilion lights and wire hook up 50.00 Bug sprayer and spray 30.00 Ladders (1 wooden, 1 aluminum) 300.00 Underground drain pipe 30.00 Lawn mower 1000.00 Weed whacker 125.00 Edger 125.00 Hedge trimmer 80.00 Blower 80.00 Lawn tools 250.00 Shop vac 80.00 Craftsman tools 200.00 Lawn mower ramps 125.00 Roto tiller 100.00 Chainsaw 180 00 Clothes dryer . 267.00 Carjack 50.00 Circular saw 60.00 Jigsaw 40.00 Drill 40.00 Grinder 40.00 Levels, hammers, chisels, screwdrivers 100.00 Sander 40.00 Nails/screws 80.00 Wrought iron benches (3) 100.00 Christmas decorations 100.00 Bull heads from garage (2) 120.00 Kitten in bird cage 60 00 Mushroom foot stool . 10 00 2 pair bolts (1 large, 1 small) . 70 00 Electric extension cords (5) . 50 00 Stereo stand . 100.00 TOTAL 11,392.00 WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against each of the defendants for compensatory damages in an amount not in excess of Twenty thousand ($20,000.00) dollars, together with exemplary damages and costs. Respectfully submitted, Ka-4 f "6 )xtLc? R. 410 Thomas, Esquire ID# 41301 101 S. Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 796-2100 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: !l0- -°-2, 4 OQ 1 -+a I A k c v in I_ 6 ,e.t n na cn -v N m :.n OD i,=? =Tr n <jrrt SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-04581 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MILLER DOUGLAS W VS HEISHMAN PAMELA ET AL DAWN , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon HEISHMAN PAMELA S DEFENDANT the , at 1533:00 HOURS, on the 25th day of September, 2002 at 1040 CRANE'S GAP ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to LEE BARRICK, FATHER a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 3.45 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 31.45 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ?&- day of IYCQo-Pc 02GVJ? A.D. ?ti, ?h 00 tiQr/ 'Prothonotary So Answers: /, R. Thomas Kline i 09/26/2002 R MARK THOMAS By. FJa, 9 Y. exx Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-04581 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MILLER DOUGLAS W VS HEISHMAN PAMELA ET AL DAWN , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon BARRICK LEE the DEFENDANT , at 1533:00 HOURS, on the 25th day of September, 2002 at 1040 CRANE'S GAP ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to LEE BARRICK a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: So Answers: Docketing 6.00 Service Affidavit .00 .00 r...s*"_! ..E a'a0 Surcharge 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 16.00 09/26/2002 R MARK THOMAS ( Sworn and Subscribed to before By: \ \ & me this Y?r-' day of ? Deputy Sheriff OCR . A.D. I Prothonotary / , SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-04581 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MILLER DOUGLAS W VS HEISHMAN PAMELA ET AL DAWN KELL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon BARRICK the DEFENDANT , at 1533:00 HOURS, on the 25th day of September, 2002 at 1040 CRANE'S GAP ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to LEE BARRICK, HUSBAND a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ?- day of ?c?.?., ?(1U2? A. D. - P-o honotary So Answers: i R. Thomas Kline 09/26/2002 R MARK THOMAS By: Deputy Sheriff DOUGLAS W. MILLER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PAMELA S. HEISHMAN, an adult NO.: 02-4581 Individual, and : LEE BARRICK and STELLA BARRICK, Husband and Wife, : Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to plead to Defendant's Answer and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof. ABOM & KUTUL.AKIS, L.L.P. Kara W. Haggerty, ire Attorney ID #86914 8 South Hanover Street, Suite 204 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 Attorney for Defendant, Pamela Heishman DOUGLAS W. MILLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PAMELA S. HEISHMAN, an adult NO.: 02-4581 Individual, and LEE BARRICK and STELLA BARRICK, Husband and Wife, Defendants ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Pamela S. Heishman, by and through her attorney, Kara W. Haggerty, Esquire, of Abom and Kutulakis, L.L.P., who respectfully answers as follows: 1. It is admitted that Plaintiff, Douglas W. Miller, is an adult individual ,residing at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241. 2. It is admitted that Defendant, Pamela S. Heishman, is an adult individual residing at 1040 Crane's Gap Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. It is admitted that Defendants, Lee Barrick and Stella Barrick, are husband and wife who currently reside at 1040 Crane's Gap Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 4. It is admitted that Plaintiff, Douglas W. Miller, and Defendant, Pamela S. Heishman, entered into a romantic relationship with one another on or about October 20, 2000. 5. It is admitted that, by mutual agreement between Douglas W. Miller and Pamela S. Heishman, Douglas W. Miller moved into an apartment being rented by Pamela S. Heishman shortly after their relationship started. 6. Denied. It is specifically denied that when the Plaintiff moved into Pamela S. Heishman's apartment, Pamela S. Heishman had very few personal belongings. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment stating that the Plaintiff moved all of his possessions into the apartment; therefore, it is denied. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff made a gift to Pamela S. Heishman in the amount of Eight thousand ($8,000) dollars in May of 2001. It is specifically denied that said gift was to be used toward the purchase of the real property located at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania or for any other specific purpose. 8. It is admitted that the Mortgage to the real property located at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania was in the name of Pamela S. Heishman, and that the Deed was issued to both Pamela S. Heishman and Douglas W. Miller. 9. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff moved all of his personal belongings into the residence at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania. 10. It is admitted that the Plaintiff and Defendant, Pamela S. Heishman, resided together at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania from May 2001 through approximately May 15, 2002. 11. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that during the time that the parties lived together they maintained separate checking accounts. It is specifically denied that during the time that the parties lived together each party maintained separate possession of his or her respective items of property. 12. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff purchased numerous lawn equipment items for his personal lawn care business as well as for maintenance of the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, which consisted of more than two (2) acres of rural property. 13. It is admitted that, on or about May 28, 2002, Defendant Pamela S. Heishman filed a Protection From Abuse Petition with the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County indexed at No. 02-2591 Civil Term. 14. It is admitted that a temporary order was issued issuing a Protection From Abuse Order against the Plaintiff, and as yet no hearing has been held on the merits of that petition. 15. It is admitted that Plaintiff was excluded from the residence at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania as a result of the order issued pursuant to the Protection From Abuse Petition. 16. It is admitted that, by agreement of the parties, Plaintiff purchased the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania from Defendant Pamela S. Heishman for an agreed upon consideration. 17. It is admitted that Plaintiff was to take possession of the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania following settlement on the purchase of the property. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment; therefore, it is denied. 19. Paragraph 19 sets forth an averment to which no responsive pleading is required. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment; therefore, it is denied. 21. Denied. It is specifically denied that all of Plaintiff's personal belongings were removed from 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania by Defendant, Pamela S. Heishman. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment that all of Plaintiff's personal belongings were removed from 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania by Defendants, Lee Barrick and Stella Barrick; therefore, it is denied. 22. Denied. It is specifically denied that all of the items belonging to Plaintiff were removed by the Defendant. It is specifically denied that the Defendant converted said property to her own use. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment stating that the items belonging to Plaintiff had a reasonable value of Eleven thousand three hundred ninety-two ($11,392.00) dollars; therefore, it is denied. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment; therefore, it is denied. By way of further answer, this averment states a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment; therefore, it is denied. By way of further answer, this averment states a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Pamela S. Heishman, respectfully requests This Honorable Court to dismiss the Complaint. COUNTERCLAIM 25. Paragraph numbers one (l) through twenty-four (24) are incorporated herein by reference. 26. After the incident of physical abuse that led to the imposition of the Protection From Abuse order prohibiting contact from the Plaintiff to Ms. Heishman, Ms. Heishman did leave the residence at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, to reside at a safer location. 27. When Ms. Heishman left the residence at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania following the incident of physical abuse, she left numerous items of her personal property behind intending to retrieve them at a later date. 28. A list of the items owned by Ms. Heishman that were taken and/or destroyed by the Plaintiff, along with a statement of value is attached as Exhibit A. 29. Ms. Heishman returned to the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, and discovered that multiple items of her personal property were missing and some of the remnants of items of her personal property were found in a burn pile behind the residence at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania. 30.The discovery by Ms. Heishman of the destroyed property items took place prior to the sale of the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania, from the Defendant and Plaintiff to the Plaintiff. COUNT I - TRESPASS 31. Paragraph numbers one (1) through thirty (30) are incorporated herein by reference. 32. Based upon reasonable information, investigation and belief, Ms. Heishman believes and therefore avers that some or all of the items listed in Exhibit A were destroyed in the fire in the backyard of the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania. 33. Based upon reasonable information, investigation and belief, Ms. Heishman believes and therefore avers that some or all of the items listed in Exhibit A were destroyed in a fire in the backyard of the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania that was set by the Plaintiff. 34. All of the items belonging to Ms. Heishman that were destroyed and/or removed by the Plaintiff had a reasonable value of Seven thousand one hundred seventy ($7,170.00) dollars. 35. The Plaintiff knew that the personal property that he destroyed in the fire was the property of Ms. Heishman. COUNT II - CONVERSION 36. Paragraph numbers one (1) through thirty-five (35) are incorporated herein by reference. 37. Based upon reasonable information, investigation and belief, Ms. Heishman believes and therefore avers that some or all of the items listed in Exhibit A were taken from the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania. 38. Based upon reasonable information, investigation and belief, Ms. Heishman believes and therefore avers that some or all of the items listed in Exhibit A were taken from the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania by the Plaintiff. 39. All of the items belonging to Ms. Heishman that were destroyed and/or removed by the Plaintiff had a reasonable value of Seven thousand one hundred seventy ($7,170.00) dollars. 40. The Plaintiff knew that the personal property that he removed from the property at 32 Lonesome Road, Newville, Pennsylvania was the property of Ms. Heishman, but he nevertheless converted the same to his own use and has refused to return the property to Ms. Heishman. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Pamela S. Heishman, demands judgment against the Plaintiff for compensatory damages in an amount not in excess of Twenty thousand ($20,000) dollars, together with exemplary damages and costs. Respectfully submitted, ABOM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P. Kara W. Haggerty, Oduire a Attorney ID #86914 8 South Hanover Street, Suite 204 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-0900 Attorney for Defendant I Fountain $130.00 Fountain with Light 160.00 Welcome Friends Planter 25.00 Qusar Bike 65.00 Douglas Stuffed Animal 20.00 Bank of Pennies 100.00 Monthly Garfield Plates 102.00 Home Interior Bears 45.00 Picture Frame 12.00 School Pictures of Kids: (1)8x10@6.99 (2) 5x7 @ 6.99 21.00 Picture of Parents 7.00 Camera 570.28 Stuffed Animals/Bears 50.00 Moose Stuffed Animal (Gift from children) 20.00 Mom's Day Bear (Gift from children) 15.00 Teddy Bear (Gift from children) 20.00 Stuffed Frog/Garfield 15.00 Cash 40.00 Loose Change 50.00 Diamond Ring 3,000.00 Diamond Ring 1,000.00 Diamond Ring ? Diamond Earrings 300.00 Heart Necklace/Ring Set 160.00 Heart Necklace 2 Hats (From Dad) 25.00 Secretary Day Basket 15.00 Portable Phone 40.00 American Flag Door Stopper 20.00 Old Camera 130.00 Small Fish Aquarium 28.95 Food Items from Work: Cocoa Puffs $2.99/box, 12/case-1 case 35.88 Cheerios $3.39/box, 12/case-1 case 40.68 Honey Nut Cheerios $4.69/box, 12/case, 1 case 56.28 Kaboom $3.79/box, 12/case-1 /2 case 22.74 Frankenberry $3.79/box, 12/case-1 1 /2 cases 68.22 Booberry $$3.79/box, 12/case-1 /2 case 22.74 Mini Wheat Chex $3.19/box, 12/cased /2 case 19.14 Cookie Crisp $3.59/box, 12/case-1 /2 case 21.54 EXHIBIT A 2 Lucky Charms $4.49/box, 12/case-1 case 53.88 Trix $2.99/box, 12/case-1 /2 case 17.94 Team Cheerios $3.39/box, 12/case-1 /2 case 20.34 Frosted Cheerios $3.39/box, 12/case-1 /2 case 20.34 Apple Cinn. Cheerios, $3.39/box, 12/case-1 /2 cs. 20.34 Honey Nut Clusters $3.59/box, 12/case-1 /4 case 10.77 Basic 4 $3.49/box, 12/case-1 /4 case 10.47 H-burg Helper $1.99/box, 12/case-1/4 case 5.97 Chicken Helper $1.99/box, 12/case-1 /4 case 5.97 P.B Cookies $1.89/box, 24/case-1,/2 case 22.68 C.C. Cookies $1.89/box, 24/case-1 case 45.36 Sugar Cookies $1.89/box, 24/case-1/2 case 22.68 Cake Mixes $1.59/box, 24/case-3 cases 114.48 Brownie Mixes $1.79/box, 24/case-3 cases 128.88 Lemon Bars $2.19/pkg., 12/case-1 case 26.28 Icing $1.59/container, 12/case-4 cases 76.32 Cinn. Strussel Bread, $1.59/pkg., 12/case-1 case 19.08 Banana Nut Bread $1.59/box-3 boxes 4.77 Angel Food Cake $1.85/pkg., 12/case-1 case 22.20 Pancake Mix $0.75/box, 24/case-'1 /2 case 9.00 Muffin Mix $0.85/box, 24/case-1 /2 case 10.20 Pizza Crust Mix $.79/box, 24/case-1 case 18.96 TOTAL $7,170.36 EXHIBIT A VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Answer are true and correct. I understandthat any false statements in this Answer are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities- DATE: Pamela S. Heishman DOUGLAS W. MILLER, Plaintiff V. PAMELA S. HEISHMAN, an adult Individual, and LEE BARRICK and STELLA BARRICK, Husband and Wife, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 02-4581 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kara W. Haggerty, Esquire, of ABOM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P., hereby certify that on this 13th day of February, 2003, a true and correct copy of the ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT was served upon the parties listed below, addressed as follows: BY FIRST CLASS MAIL: R. Mark Thomas, Esquire 101 South Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 ABOM & KUTULAKIS, L.L.P. Kara W. Haggerty, Rstlgire Attorney I.D. #86914 8 South Hanover Street, Suite 204 Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Defendant C? ? n .. 7?s- ...j ? = T7 C;-? ?? F ?- _? - `?7 ? ? __ ? <? DOUGLAS W. MILLER, Plaintiff V. PAMELA S. HEISHMAN, an adult individual, and LEE BARRICK and STELLA BARRICK, husband and wife, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-4581 CIVIL PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT PAMELA S. HEISHMAN AND NOW, comes the defendant, Douglas W. Miller, by and through his counsel, R. Mark Thomas, Esquire, and files this answer to defendant's counterclaim. 25. No answer required. 26. Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. 27. Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. 28. Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. 29. Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. 30, Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. COUNTERCLAIM COUNTI TRESPASS 31. The answers in Paragraphs 25 through 30 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 32. Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. 33. Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. 34. Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. 35. Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. COUNTERCLAIM COUNT II CONVERSION 36. The answers in Paragraphs 25 through 35 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 37. Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. 38. Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. 39. Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. 40. Denied. Plaintiff is without sufficient information following reasonable investigation to either affirm or deny this allegation and therefore same is denied and strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will enter judgment in his favor and against the defendant with regard to the defendant's counterclaim. Respectfully submitted, R. Mark Thomas, Esquire ID# 41301 101 S. Market Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 796-2100 VERIFICATION I verily that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: *9 244?-- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, R. Mark Thomas, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the within document on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the U.S. Mail at Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, First Class Postage pre-paid, addressed to: Kara Haggerty, Esq. 8 S. Hanover Street Suite 204 Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: iIQ v?? ,? R. Mark Thomas, Esq. ,, ', :; r,? Curtis R. Long Prothonotary ®ffice of the i9rotbonotary Cumberranb Countp Renee K. Simpson Deputy Prothonotary John E. Slike Solicitor 62 - 4/se 1 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE - THE ABOVE CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA R C P 230.2 BY THE COURT, CURTIS R. LONG PROTHONOTARY One Courthouse Square • Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 • (717) 240-6195 • Fax (717) 240-6571