order of court and now - wordpress.coms counsel prepared for said master's hearing, including...

KELLY H. BINGAMAN, Plaintiff/Respondent :

VS. :

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE

ROBERT E. BINGAMAN, JR., Defendant/Petitioner

. NO. 05-1200 CIVIL TERM IN DIVORCE PACSES CASE: 063111293

ORDER OF COURT

AND NOW to wit, this 20th day of November, 2009, it is hereby Ordered that the

Alimony Pendente Lite conference scheduled for December 10, 2009 is canceled and continued

until disposition of the preliminary objections to defendant's petition for Alimony Pendente Lite

is adjudicated by the Court.

The matter may be relisted for a conference by the call of either party of by Order of the

Court.

This Order shall become final twenty (20) after the mailing of the notice of the

entry of the Order to the parties unless either party files a written demand with the

Prothonotary's Office for a hearing de novo before the Court.

BY THE COURT:

Kevj.WA. Hess, J.

DRO: R.J. Shadday xc: Petitioner

Respondent Vincent M. Monfredo, Esq. Joseph Caraciolo, Esq. Court Administrator

Service Type: M

Form 0E-001 Worker: 21005

FILED-01+CE OF THE PROTHONOTARY

2009 NOV 23 AM 07

CUM0L:..,- . JjNTY PENNSYLVANIA

Edgar B. Bayley,

ROBERT E. BINGAMAN, JR., : Plaintiff/Respondent :

VS. :

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION - DIVORCE

KELLY H. BINGAMAN, : NO. 05-1200 CIVIL TERM

IN DIVORCE Defendant/Petitioner :

PACSES CASE NO: 063111293

ORDER OF COURT - RESCHEDULE A CONFERENCE

AND NOW, this 2nd day of December 2009, upon consideration of the Petition for Alimony Pendente Lite and/or counsel fees, it is hereby directed that the parties and their respective counsel appear before R.J. Shaddav on December 23. 2009 at 1:30 P.M. for a conference, at 13 N. Hanover St., Carlisle, PA 17013, after which the conference officer may recommend that an Order for Alimony Pendente Lite be entered. This date replaces the prior conference date of December 10, 2009.

YOU are further ordered to bring to the conference:

(I) a true copy of your most recent Federal Income Tax Return, including W-2's as filed (2) your pay stubs for the preceding six (6) months

(3) the Income and Expense Statement attached to this order, completed as required by Rule 1910.110 (4) verification of child care expenses

(5) proof of medical coverage which you may have, or may have available to you (6)

IF you fail to appear for the conference or bring the required documents, the Court may issue a warrant for your arrest.

Date of Order: December 2, 2009

Copies mailed to: Petitioner Respondent Vincent M. Monfredo, Esq. Joseph D. Caraciolo, Esq.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO A LAWYER, WHO MAY ATTEND THE CONFERENCE AND REPRESENT YOU. 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 MAY GET LEGAL HELP.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVE.

CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 (717) 249-3166

cc361

17 THE

2C09 DEC -2 Ph 2: 31

ROBERT E. BINGAMAN, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW

KELLY H. BINGAMAN, : NO. 05- 1200 CIVIL TERM Defendant : IN DIVORCE

PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE

TO THE PROTHONOTARY:

Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Kelly H. Bingaman in the

above captioned matter.

Respectfully submitted, Rominger & Associates

Date: December 21, 2009 incent M. Monfredo, Esquire

155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 241-6070 Supreme Court I.D. # 206671 Attorney for Defendant/Kelly H. Bingaman

FILED-1.;::FICE ¶ )F THE PF371-..ONOTARY

11109 DEC 21 PH 3: 21)

Przf


VS. : No. 05-1200 Civil Term

KELLY H. BINGAMAN, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : IN DIVORCE

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSITANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1021.1

AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Robert E. Bingaman, Jr., by and through his Attorneys,

Foreman & Foreman, P.C., and Joseph D. Caraciolo, Esquire, and files this Motion for Sanctions

Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1, and in support thereof, avers as

follows:

1. Plaintiff filed a Divorce Complaint on March 8, 2005, docketed as captioned

above, alleging that the marriage was irretrievably broken and requesting that the marital

property be equitably divided by the Court.

2. As of the date of filing the instant motion, Plaintiff and Defendant have ceased

living together as Husband and Wife for a period of more than two years.

3. On September 18, 2006, in anticipation of the two-year period of separation, a

hearing to take testimony on the outstanding issues in the Divorce proceedings was scheduled for

March 29, 2007 (see Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated hereto).

4. Plaintiff's counsel prepared for said Master's hearing, including asking the

Plaintiff to take a day from work in order to meet regarding testimony to be offered.

5. On March 27, 2007, The Defendant filed two motions, with full knowledge of the

upcoming Master's Hearing, a Petition for Special Relief and a Motion for Marriage Counseling.

6. In Defendant's Petition for Special Relief, Defendant requested that the court

divide marital property that was scheduled to be dealt with at a Master's Hearing on March 29,

2007.

7. On March 28, 2007, Defendant's Counsel contacted the Divorce Master of

Cumberland County requesting a continuance and represented that he is, "currently scheduled

before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that day." (see Exhibit "B" attached and incorporated

hereto).

8. Plaintiff's counsel contacted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and was informed

that the court was not in session on March 29, 2007.

9. Plaintiff's counsel then contacted the Disciplinary Board and was informed that

Defendant's counsel was scheduled for a matter in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania on March 29, 2007.

10. According to the Disciplinary Board, this matter had been scheduled since January

2007.

11. Defendant's counsel knew or should have known about the scheduling conflict

prior to March 27, 2007.

12. Had Defendant's counsel informed the court of the scheduling conflict, the

Master's hearing could have been rescheduled prior to Plaintiff incurring additional expenses,

and to a time closer to March 29, 2007.

13. It is alleged, and therefore averred, that the intention of the Defendant was to

further postpone the proceedings, causing needless expense to the Plaintiff in the form of

Attorney's fees.

14. The Documents titled Petition for Special Relief had no evidentiary or factual

support.

15. The Document titled Motion for Marriage Counseling was filed only to harass the

Plaintiff, as the Defendant is currently being prosecuted criminally for physically assaulting the

Plaintiff and, as a victim, is unlikely to participate in counseling with his assailant.

16. On April 3, 2007, Plaintiff's counsel faxed and mailed Defendant's counsel a

notice to withdraw the recently filed petition and motion or an Application for Sanctions may be

filed in accordance with rule 1023 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. (see Exhibit

"C" attached and incorporated hereto).

17. The parties were then scheduled for a Pre-Trial Conference before Divorce Master

Elicker on April 4, 2007 at 1:30 p.m.

18. Defendant's counsel again contacted the Divorce Master and requested a

continuance indicating that he had a scheduling conflict for an issue in York County,

Pennsylvania.

19. Plaintiffs Counsel contacted York County and was informed that Defendant's

Counsel's York County issue would be concluded by 10:30 a.m.

20. The Divorce Master did not grant Defendant's request for a continuance.

21. On April 4, 2007, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel appeared for a Pre-Trial

Conference as scheduled by the Divorce Master.

22. On April 4, 2007, neither Defendant, nor Defendant's counsel appeared for the

scheduled Pre-Trial Conference.

23. When the Divorce Master contacted Defendant's Counsel by telephone,

Defendant's Counsel indicated that the Defendant was not available because it was raining

lightly, and Defendant's Counsel was not available because he had only returned to Harrisburg

between 12:15 and 12:30 p.m.

24. Defendant's Counsel sent a fax to the Divorce Master's office at 12:03 indicating

that he had arrived in Harrisburg "20 minutes ago." (see Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated

hereto).

25. Plaintiff avers that, even in lightly raining conditions, it would not take an hour to

travel from Harrisburg to Carlisle.

26. It is alleged and therefore averred that Defendant and Defendant's Counsel's

conduct have been designed to cause great expense to Plaintiff.

27. It is alleged and therefore averred that Defendant and Defendant's Counsel's

conduct have been designed to harass the Plaintiff.

28. Plaintiff has had to pay his counsel for seven additional hours of attorney's fees,

plus costs, in order to appear at the Master's Office and respond to the frivolous pleadings, an

amount equivalent to $1,275.00 in attorney's fees.

29. Plaintiff continues to suffer attorney's fees with the drafting and filing of this

petition and the appearance at the hearing now scheduled for May 31, 2007.

30. Defendant and Defendant's Counsel's conduct were willful and negligent.

31. Defendant and Defendant's Counsel's conduct in conjunction with the companion

custody case represents a pattern of activity intended to harass the Plaintiff.

32. Defendant and Defendant's Conduct has added additional time and expense to this

litigation, including the resources of the court and Divorce Master Elicker's office.

33. Defendant's Counsel should have known that such willful and negligent action

was not supported by any law or fact.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff is respectfully requesting that this Honorable Court impose

sanctions on the Defendant and the Defendant's Counsel, in the form of monetary compensation

to both deter future conduct of this nature, and to reimburse to the Plaintiff the added expense

due to the egregious conduct of Defendant and Defenda5s Counsel.

Respect

Date: • s— o 0

Jo h D. C aciolo, Es ire Market Street, 6 th Floor 'sburg, Pennsylvania 17101

ID# 90919 Tel. (717) 236-9391

Respectfi# itted /

eph D. Cara= o, E re 12 Market Street, 6 th Floor

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101-2015 ID# 90919 Tel. (717) 236-9391




ATTORNEY VERIFICATION

The undersigned, Joseph D. Caraciolo, Esquire, hereby verifies and states that:

1. He is the attorney for the Plaintiff, Robert E. Bingaman;

2. He is authorized to make this verification on his behalf;

3. The facts set forth in the foregoing Motion are known to him and not necessarily to his

client;

4. The facts set forth in the foregoing Motion are true and correct to the best of his

knowledge, information and belief; and

5. He is aware that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.

4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Date:

Respect

h D. Caraciolo, Esquire Market Street, 6 th Floor

arrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ID# 90919 Tel. (717) 236-9391 Attorney for Plaintiff




CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Joseph D. Caraciolo, Esquire, hereby certify that on the below-noted date, served a true

and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to PaA C_P 1023 1 upon the

following named Defendant by depositing same, postage prepaid, in the United States Mail,

addressed as follows:

Douglas R. Goldhaber, Esquire 4311 Sixth Street Harrisburg, PA 17110

Exhibit A

By the

ROBERT E. BINGAMAN, JR.

v.

KELLY H. BINGAMAN

: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION — LAW

NO. 05 - 1200

: IN DIVORCE

ORDER AND NOTICE SETTING HEARING

TO: Robert E. Bingaman, Jr.

Joseph D. Caraciolo

Kelly H. Bingaman

Bryan S. Walk

, Plaintiff

, Counsel for Plaintiff

, Defendant

, Counsel for Defendant

You are directed to appear for a hearing to take testimony on the outstanding

issues in the above captioned divorce proceedings at the Office of the Divorce Master, 9 29th

March 2007 at

9:00 a.m., at which place

and time you will be given the opportunity to present witnesses and exhibits in support

of your case.

Edgar B. Bayley, President Judge

Date of Order and 9 Notice: 9/18/06 By : Zee,,,,c,„_

Divorce Master

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 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET, CARLISLE, PA 17013 .

TELEPHONE (717) 249-3166

North Hanover Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the day of

Exhibit B

03/28/2007 12:52 7172219400 PAGE 02/02

DOUGLAS R. GOLDHABER, ESQUIRE 4311 N. Sixth St.

Harrisburg, PA 17110 717.221.9500

fax: 717.221.9600

March 28, 2007

E. Robert Elicker, II, Esquire Cumberland Cty Ct. Nine N. Hanover St Carlisle. PA 17013

RE: Bingarnan v. Bingaman.

Dear Attorney Elicker:

Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I am hereby requesting a continuance of the Masters proceeding scheduled in this matter for Thursday, March 28, 2007. I am currently scheduled before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that day. I apologize for the inconvenience and thank you for your consideration.

Trul urs,

as . Toklhaber

c.c.: Joseph Caraciola, Esquire

Exhibit C

LAW OFFICES

FOREMAN & FOREMAN, P.C.

BRUCE D. FOREMAN JEFF FOREMAN JOSEPH D. CARACIOLO LEONARD COWITCH, JR.

VIA FACSIMILE (717) 221-9400 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL

6TH FLOOR, VETERANS BUILDING 112 MARKET STREET

HARRISBURG, PA 17101-2015 TELEPHONE (717) 236-9391

FAN (717) 236-6602

April 3, 2007

bruceZforeman-foreman.com jeffQforeman-foreman.com

iosenhQforeman-foreman.com leonaraitloreman-toreman.com

Douglas Goidhaber, Esquire 4311 North 6 th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110

In Re: Bingaman v. Bingaman No. 05-2757, and No. 05-1200

Dear Attorney Goidhaber:

I am in receipt of three documents filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County purporting to be a Motion for Marriage Counseling, Petition for Special Relief, and Petition for Civil Contempt for Disobedience of Custody Order. In accordance with rule 1023.2(b) this letter shall serve as written notice that an application for sanctions may be filed if the above-mentioned motion and petitions are not withdrawn within twenty-eight days.

The Document titled Motion for Marriage Counseling violates rule 1023.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure because it is being presented to harass and cause unnecessary delay and needless cost of litigation. Specifically, your client is aware that Marriage Counseling has previously occurred, and in light of her conduct, including her assault on Mr. Bingaman for which she has been criminally charged, the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken. Any suggestion otherwise is only being done to delay the proceedings captioned above, or in a continuing effort to harass Mr. Bingaman.

The Document titled Petition for Special Relief, violates rule 1023.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure because it is being presented to harass and cause unnecessary delay and cost Mr. Bingaman needless cost of litigation and contains averments that have no evidentiary support. You are aware that the parties had been scheduled, since September of 2006, for a hearing on the Equitable Distribution of marital property before Divorce Master Eliker, II on March 29, 2007. Since your petition deals with marital property, the contents would have been dealt with at the hearing on March 29, 2007. This document was filed on March 27, 2007, just two days before the scheduled hearing. Its purpose could only have been to delay the hearing, which was delayed. In addition, the averments therein contain no factual basis and no supporting evidence. Your averment that the property was purchased for Ms. Bingaman is not supported by the fact that the property was purchased and presented to Mr. Bingaman on Father's Day. Your averment that the property was a "rehabilitation dog" is not supported by any evidence, nor is any evidence available that this dog had any special training for the purpose of rehabilitation. The purpose of this document can only be to harass my client, or to delay the Master Hearing previously scheduled for March 29, 2007.

The Document titled Petition for Civil Contempt, violates rule 1023.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure because it is being presented to harass and cause Mr. Bingaman needless cost of litigation. You are aware that the parties are currently scheduled for a hearing on May 2, 2007 dealing

with the very issue described in your petition. The purpose of the petition is to cause Mr. Bingaman unnecessary cost in answering the petition and the cost of attending a second hearing which your proposed order requests.

I look forward to receiving confirmation that the above motion and petitions have been withdrawn.

Sincerely,

Joseph D. Carapiolo, itire JDC/ Cc: Robert Bingaman

Exhibit D

04/04/2007 12:02 71722194e0 PAGE 01/01

Douglas R. Goldhaber, Esquire

4311 N. Sixth St., Harrisburg, PA 17110

Important Information!

Apnl 4, 2007

To From E. Robert Elicker, II, Esquire

Divorce Master, Cumberland County

Fax: 240-7890

Tel.:

E-Mail.

Douglas Goldhaber

Douglas R. Goldhaber, Esquire

Fax: 717-221-9400

Tel.: 717-221-9500

E-Mail.

This fax consists of 1 page. Please inform us if transmission errors occur.

RE: Bingaman v. Bingaman, 05-1200,

Dear Attorney Elicker:

I arrived at my office from York County about 20 minutes ago and contacted Mrs .

Bingaman. Mrs. Bingaman indicated that because of the weather, her physical condi-tion has deteriorated and she is immobile. I will be available by telephone if any infor-mation is necessary. Thank you for your time and consideration.

ruly your ..161111111111.

Pr 141IP ouglas R. Goldhaber

1

-2 (1,:i 9: SI+ •

t- I


vs. : CIVIL ACTION — LAW : NO. 05-1200 CIVIL

KELLY M. BINGAMAN, Defendant

IN RE: PETITION FOR MARRIAGE COUNSELING

ORDER

AND NOW, this V' day of May, 2007, following conference with counsel, the

defendant is given twenty (20) days within which to amend her motion for marriage counseling

to reflect that she has denied one or more allegations in the plaintiff's 301(d) affidavit. In the

event that the defendant does not deny any of the allegations of the plaintiff's affidavit, her

motion for marriage counseling will be dismissed as being otherwise untimely.

BY THE COURT,

Zseph D. Caraciolo, Esquire For the Plaintiff

th‘glas Goldhaber, Esquire For the Defendant

:rim

FILED-Q1 `ICE OF THE F1-1.07-'7,MARY

2007 MAY -7 Ail 6: 09

CU, UNIY

PEN N A

Ke . Hess, J.

Distribution: D. Caraciolo, Esq., 112 Market Stree Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101

uglas R. Goldhaber, Esq., 4311 Sixth Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110

MAY 0 3 MRS




ORDER

AND NOW, this V" day of P,ati , based upon Plaintiff's Motion for

Sanctions Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1023.1 and this Court's prior order of April 26, 2007, a hearing is

hereby scheduled for Thursday, May 31, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland

County Courthouse, Carlisle, PA.

BY THE COURT:

I S :£ Wd L- AVW HOZ

AZIVIONCHILEd 3141.40 301±10-0311J

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION- LAW

ROBERT E. BINGAMAN, JR., : No. 05-1200 Civil Term Plaintiff

vs. : Civil Action - Law

KELLY H. BINGAMAN, • Defendant : In Divorce

AMENDED MOTION FOR MARRIAGE COUNSELING UNDER 3301(D)

AND NOW, thisj3 6tay of May, 2007, comes the defendant Kelly H.

Bingaman, by and through her attorney, Douglas R. Goldhaber, Esquire, and

files this Amended Motion for Marriage Counseling under 23 Pa. C.S.A.

3301(D), and in support thereof avers as follows:

1. That the Plaintiff and the Defendant were married on June 1, 1984,

in Towson, Maryland.

2. That the above-captioned divorce was filed in the Cumberland

County Court of Common Pleas on March 8th, 2005.

3. That although the parties have lived separate and apart for a period

in excess of two (2) years, the Defendant Kelly H. Bingaman does not

believe that the parties marriage is irretrievably broken.

4. That the Defendant Kelly H. Bingaman believes that the marriage

of the parties can be saved.

5. That the Defendant Kelly H. Bingaman still loves the Plaintiff

Dat

Da • ougl R. Goldhaber, Atte - ey for Defendant Pa. ID 72174 4311 N. Sixth St. Harrisburg, PA 17110 717.221.9500

Robert E. Bingaman, Jr.

6. That the Defendant Kelly H. Bingaman believes that the Plaintiff

Robert E. Bingaman, Jr., still loves her.

7. That the Defendant Kelly H. Bingaman believes that the parties

can benefit from marriage counseling.

8. That two (2) children were born to the marriage of the parties.

9. That the Defendant Kelly H. Bingaman believes that if the parties

participate in marriage counseling that the problems which developed during

their marriage can be corrected and that the parties can live happily together.

10. The Honorable Kevin A. Hess has previously addressed domestic

issues between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

11. Defense Counsel Joseph D. Caraciolo, Esquire, attorney for the

Defendant does not concur in this motion.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Kelly H. Bingaman, respectfully

requests this Honorable Court enter an Order requiring the Plaintiff and the

Defendant to attend, and participate in, Marriage Counseling and to follow

the recommendations of the marriage counselor.