Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-6936 CivilHEMPT BROS., INC., Plaintiff VS. ROBERT G. LARKIN and NANCY Y. LARKIN, Individually and t/a LARKIN HOMES, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 97-6936 CIVIL IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., HESS AND OLER, JJ. ORDER AND NOW, this ~'* day of June, 1998, the preliminary objections of the defendants to the plaintiff' s complaint are OVERRULED. Michael L. Bangs, Esquire For the Plaintiff Marc Roberts, Esquire For the Defendants BY THE COURT, 7/. Hess, J. :rlm HEMPT BROS., INC., Plaintiff VS. ROBERT G. LARKIN and NANCY Y. LARKIN, Individually and t/a LARKIN HOMES, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 97-6936 CIVIL IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., HESS AND OLER, JJ. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before us on defendants' preliminary objections to plaintiff's complaint. The defendant requests that this court require the plaintiff to file a more specific pleading. For the following reasons, the defendants' motion is denied. The plaintiff, Hempt Bros., Inc. ("Hempt") has alleged that they provided construction materials to the defendants, Robert G. Larkin and Nancy Y. Larkin, t/a Larkin Homes ("Larkin".) Hempt avers in its complaint that Larkin came to them and asked to have a credit account opened so that Larkin could make purchases. Hempt agreed, with the understanding that all outstanding invoices would be paid within thirty days, and any invoices due after thirty days would be subject to a 1 1/4% monthly interest charge. Between September 1997 and October 1997, Hempt alleges they provided Larkin with construction materials, and that Larkin failed or refused to pay Hempt. Hempt attached Exhibit A to their complaint, showing the date the items were received, the invoice amount, and the invoice numbers. In response to Hempt's complaint, Larkin filed a Motion for a More Specific Pleading under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(h) and Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). Larkin 97-6936 CIVIL requests that the invoices themselves be attached to the complaint so that they can determine whether they are the correct party in this action The applicable rules are as follows: Rule 1019. Contents of Pleadings. General and Specific Averments (h) A pleading shall state specifically whether any claim or defense set forth therein is based upon a writing. If so, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing, or the material part thereof, but if the writing or copy is not accessible to him, it is sufficient so to state, together with the reason, and to set forth the substance of the writing. 42 Pa.C.S. Section 1019. Rule 1028. Preliminary Objections (a) Preliminary objections may be filed by any party to .any pleading and are limited to the following grounds: (3) insufficient specificity in a pleading; 42 Pa.C.S. Section 1028. We do not dispute that the invoices themselves are important evidence in Hempt's suit against Larkin. However, there is no requirement under the Rules of Civil Procedure that this evidence be attached to the plaintiff's complaint. We are satisfied that Pa.R.C.P. 1019(h) does not require that the invoices be attached to the complaint in the case sub judice because they are not documents which created the legal obligations Larkin is said in the complaint to have breached. See Foster v. Peat Marwick Main and Co., 138 Pa. Cmwlth 147, 156, 587 A.2d 382, 388 (1991). In Foster, the defendant objected to the plaintiff' s failure to attach financial 2 97-6936 CIVIL statements and reports to the complaint. The Commonwealth Court opined that the attachment of these documents is not necessary inasmuch as they did not create the legal obligations between the parties. We believe that the invoices are akin to the financial statements in Foster. Therefore, there is no need to have the actual invoices attached to the complaint itself. Furthermore, we find that the plaintiff's complaint complies with Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). Exhibit A, attached to the complaint, lists the date the items were received, the invoice amount, and the invoice numbers. This is sufficient to notify Larkin of the claims against them. "[T]he motion for specificity cannot be used to make a party plead purely evidentiary matters; and the requirements of precision and detail are more easily met where the matters involved are equally or more in the knowledge of the objecting party." Local No. 163 v. Watkins, 417 Pa. 120, 122- 123,207 A.2d 776, 778 (1965). Larkin need only search its records for any of the invoice numbers listed in plaintiff's complaint. In the meantime, to require anything more in Hempt's complaint would be unduly burdensome and would elevate the invoices from their proper place as mere evidence. ORDER AND NOW, this ~" day of June, 1998, the preliminary objections of the defendants to the plaintiff's complaint are OVERRULED. BY THE COURT, 97-6936 CIVIL Michael L. Bangs, Esquire For the Plaintiff Marc Roberts, Esquire For the Defendants :rlm