Roberts vs. Rosemeier/Poorman
Amended Complaint Filed
LOCK HAVEN – Rebuffed earlier in Clinton County Court in a civil action, attorney Lee Roberts has filed an amended complaint against Robert Rosemeier and Stephen Poorman.
Judge Michael Salisbury had ruled earlier this month that Roberts had no standing in his injunction request as part of a Roberts’s court effort to force Rosemeier, an abutting Lock Haven property owner, to proceed with a sale to a Camp Hill developer.
The Court on Feb. 3 issued an order denying Roberts’ request for an injunction. The Salisbury order said that Roberts as a “third party” did not have rights under the contract between Robert J. Rosemeier and developer J.C. Bar of Camp Hill.
Roberts has gone back into court with his amended complaint, claiming there had been a “verbal agreement” between Rosemeier and Roberts’ son Jason, owner of the old Lock Haven Laundry property.
Roberts’ most recent filing states that Rosemeier “approximately in 2004 or 2005” requested an agreement that Jason Roberts and Rosemeier would sell their properties together because of an “irregular boundary at the rear of the Roberts property” that would prevent efficient use of the Rosemeier property in that the rear building of the Roberts property and a Rosemeier building were attached.
Roberts claims a verbal agreement was reached “with an exchange of promises” that Rosemeier and Jason Roberts would market the properties together.
Because, Roberts states, Rosemeier and Poorman, his power of attorney, have failed to proceed with a planned December closing with J.C. Bar, his son has “lost control of his property and the ability to market it.”
Roberts is charging Rosemeier and Poorman with several offenses including breach of contract and is seeking $700,000 plus interest. $600,000 of that amount was lost, according to Roberts, when his son’s agreed sale price to J.C. Bar didn’t take place and another $100,000 was lost in attorney fees.
Roberts’ son Jason owns the former Lock Haven Laundry site at 309 Bellefonte Avenue while Rosemeier owns the former DrivePlus holdings at 311-315 Bellefonte Avenue. The Roberts have a separate agreement for sale of their holding, but its execution is contingent on completion of the Rosemeier sale.
Roberts’ court action and another pending court case from project developer J.C. Bar maintain that Rosemeier consultant Poorman has intentionally interfered with a signed sales agreement. Court filings show a signed agreement, from November of 2013, providing Rosemeier with $900,000; the Bar suit says Poorman intervened and raised the asking price to $1.1 million.
Roberts earlier this month asked the court to make the defendants Rosemeier and Poorman proceed with the sale, but Salisbury in early February said that had already been requested in the Bar suit and Rosemeier attorney Thom Rosamilia said any prospective sale should be stayed given the pending litigation involving Bar.
The Bar development group had gone into the local court in December, claiming Rosemeier and Poorman failed to abide by the signed sales agreement. The civil action charged both with breach of contract; additionally Poorman is charged with “intentional interference with contract.”
The Bar suit allegations against Poorman say the local musician/entrepreneur encouraged Rosemeier to “repudiate” the contract with Bar.
The filing from the Harrisburg firm of McNees, Wallace and Nurick seeks a civil trial and asks the court to award damages “expected to exceed $50,000.”
