Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-674 civilCOL. JOHN K. JACCARD and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PAMELA M. JACCARD, his wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : v. : NO. 99-674 CIVIL : MARY L. SHEARER, : Defendant : IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Before HOFFER, P.J., HESS, J. and GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, June 8, 1999, after careful consideration and pursuant to the Opinion filed on this date, Defendant's Preliminary Objections are sustained in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended complaint containing more specific allegations regarding Defendant's role in causing the damage suffered. By the Court, Marcus A. McKnight, Esquire H. Anthony Adams, Esquire Irwin, McKnight & Hughes 128 East King Street 60 West Pomfret Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 Carlisle, PA 17013 For the Defendant For the Plaintiff COL. JOHN K. JACCARD and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PAMELA M. JACCARD, his wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : v. : NO. 99-674 CIVIL : MARY L. SHEARER, Defendant : IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Before HOFFER, P.J., HESS, J. and GUIDO, J. OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: In this opinion, the Court shall address defendant's Preliminary Objections. The allegations begin that plaintiffs, Col. John K. Jaccard, and his wife, Pamela M. Jaccard, entered into a contract of sale to purchase real estate from defendant, Mary L. Shearer. The property is located in Mt. Holly Springs, Cumberland County. Settlement date on the property was set for June 30, 1998. A home inspection, satisfactory to the Jaccards, was completed April 23, 1998. To accommodate Col. Jaccard's travel schedule, Ms. Shearer agreed to move up the settlement to June 25, 1998, if she could have a one day lease period on June 26, 1998 to finish moving her personal belongings from the property. Ms. Shearer vacated the home before midnight June 26, 1998. When the Jaccards took possession and began to move in, they noticed a crack in the main support beam of the home's living room area. An additional inspection of the beam revealed that it needed to be fixed in order to make the 99-674 CIVIL property habitable. The Jaccards contracted for the work to be done at a cost of approximately $4000. Additional damages were incurred for rent and utilities until the repairs were completed, and for inspection and design fees. On February 5, 1999, the Jaccards filed their complaint against Ms. Shearer to recover the costs of repairing the damage to the beam. The Jaccards' complaint alleges that "in the process of moving from the property the defendant had caused the main support beam in the living room area to be cracked." Plaintiffs' Complaint, Paragraph 5. The Jaccards claim that Ms. Shearer breached her contractual duty to maintain the property in the same condition in which it was sold to the Jaccards and "[i]n the alternative, the defendant, Mary L. Shearer, or her agent were negligent in the manner in which the furniture and belongings were removed from the dwelling which caused the support beam to crack which required repair." Plaintiffs' Complaint, Paragraph 9 - 10. Ms. Shearer filed preliminary objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint on February 22, 1999. In her preliminary objections, Ms. Shearer filed a motion for more specific pleading, a motion to strike and an allegation that the Jaccards have failed to comply with a provision of the contract for sale that required alternative dispute resolution.1 t At argument, the parties agreed to stipulate that the actions which give rise to liability occurred after settlement on June 25, 1998 and before Ms. Shearer vacated the premises on June 26, 1998. They also agreed that, if it becomes clear that the 99-674 CIVIL Discussion Preliminary objections in the form of a motion for more specific pleading ask only if the plaintiff's complaint is sufficiently clear to enable the defendant to prepare an adequate defense. Paz v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Corrections, 135 Pa. Commw. 162, 170, 580 A.2d 452, 456 (1990). A more specific pleading is not required where the defendant has or should have more knowledge of the subject matter than the plaintiff. Id. at 171,580 A.2d at 456. In the case at bar, more specific pleading is required. The Jaccards' bald allegations that Ms. Shearer either caused the damage or was negligent in causing the damage are not clear enough to enable Ms. Shearer to prepare a defense. The Jaccards are the only people who know the exact damage to the beam. Their inspectors, engineers and contractors conducted a full investigation and repaired the damage. Ms. Shearer must be provided more detail in the complaint to understand clearly what she is alleged to have done to cause the damage. Her preliminary objection in the form of a motion for more specific pleading is sustained. Ms. Shearer's preliminary objections also contain a motion to strike Exhibits C and D of the Jaccards' complaint, claiming that the exhibits contain impertinent damage occurred prior to June 25, 1998, the matter will be submitted to arbitration as set forth in the Agreement of Sale. 3 99-674 CIVIL surplusage. Impertinent matter is defined as irrelevant matter which has or can have no effect on the outcome of the case. 5 Standard Pennsylvania Practice §25:52, The matter included in Exhibits C and D of the Jaccards' complaint is not irrelevant. The exhibits contain some information about the damage suffered and the cost of repair. Ms. Shearer's motion to strike is therefore denied. 4