Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-26-07 ESTATE OF GARY LEE BREMER, JR., DECEASED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA INRE: ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ESTATE NO. 2006-00906 ANSWER TO PETITION FILED ON BEHALF OF HEATHER BREMER AND NOW, comes the Executrix, Stacy A. Miller-Lobdell, by her undersigned attorney, Andrew H. Shaw, and files this Answer to the Petitioner's Petition For Citation: 1. Admitted. 2. Paragraph 2 of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. 3. Paragraph 3 of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent and answer is required, it is denied as to the contents of the Last Will and Testament (hereinafter "Will"). The Will speaks for itself. It is admitted that the Register of Wills admitted for probate a Will for the Decedent on October 13,2006. 4. Paragraph 4 of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. As a matter of further response, it is believed that Decedent did not execute a Will prior to the Will currently at issue in this Petition. 5. Denied. As a matter of further response, Respondent's address is P.O. Box 215, Gardners, Pennsylvania. 6. Admitted. ,_., t ~ ,- - l 1 ~ (:,:~ :~. i:,'; \ CI'... 7. It is admitted only that the proceedings before the Register of Wills have consisted of the admission to probate of a Will of Decedent and the Grant of Letters Testamentary. The specific contents of the Will are denied in that the content of the Will speaks for itself. 8. Admitted. 9. Paragraph 9 of the Petition are specifically denied as set forth hereafter: A. Paragraph 9(A) of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. 1. Paragraph 9(A)(i) of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. a. Paragraph 9(A)(i)(a) ofthe Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is required, it is admitted that Decedent and Respondent were involved in an intimate relationship. b. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Decedent was married. It is denied that Respondent was married. By way of further response, Decedent was involved in divorce proceedings with Petitioner during the existence of the relationship between Decedent and Respondent. c. Denied. See answer to 9(A)(i)(b) above. d. Paragraph 9(A)(i)( d) of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required, as it relates to 2 any averment regarding a confidential relationship. To the extent an answer is required, it is admitted only that Respondent learned Respondent did not have a Last Will and Testament. e. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted only that Decedent did not have a Last Will and Testament until Decedent executed the Will currently in dispute. Respondent denies any inference that she influenced Decedent in the making or the terms of said Will. f. Denied. g. Denied. It is denied that Respondent advised Decedent or presented the legal terms to Decedent in the order to assist in generating the Will. As a matter of further response, said legal terms listed in Exhibit C have no relation to the drafting of a Last Will and Testament. h. Paragraph 9(A)(i)(h) of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. Further, after reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(A)(i)(h) of her Petition. To the extent an answer is required, Decedent properly executed his Will, as is shown by the signature of the witnesses and the Notary Public. 3 11. Paragraph 9(A)(ii) of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. a. Denied. It is denied that Respondent knew, or became aware, that Decedent was contemplating suicide. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the Hearing on said Petition. b. Denied. It is denied that Respondent attempted to force Decedent to generate a will naming Respondent as sole beneficiary. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. c. Denied. It is adamantly denied that Respondent encouraged Decedent to follow through with his threats of suicide. d. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(A)(ii)(d) of her Petition. e. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted only that Respondent informed Petitioner that Decedent had executed a will naming Respondent as the Executrix. Respondent denies any inference that she withheld any information regarding the existence of a Will after the death of Decedent. f. Denied. The contents of the Will speak for themselves. 4 111. Paragraph 9(A)(iii) of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. a. Paragraph 9(A)(iii)(a) of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is required, it is admitted only that Decedent's demeanor changed prior to his death. Respondent denies any inference that she was the cause of Decedent's change in demeanor. As a matter of further response, Decedent was in current divorce proceedings with Petitioner. b. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(A)(iii)(b) of her Petition. c. Denied. Respondent denies that Decedent told Respondent that he was contemplating suicide. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the hearing on said Petition. d. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(A)(iii)(d) of her Petition. e. Denied. The writing speaks for itself. 5 f. Denied. Respondent denies that Decedent suffered from a weakened mental intellect. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the hearing on said Petition. B. Denied. Respondent denies that the signature on the Will is a forgery. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the hearing on said Petition. 1. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(B)(i) of her Petition. a. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(B)(i)(a) of her Petition. b. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(B)(i)(b) of her Petition. To the extent an answer is required, it is admitted that Petitioner and Decedent were married for approximately nine (9) years. c. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(B)(i)(c) of her Petition. 6 d. Admitted. By way of clarification, Frank Bremer's capacity is that of alternate executor, not alternate administrator. e. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(B)(i)(e) of her Petition. f. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(B)(i)(f) of her Petition. 11. Paragraph 9(B)(ii) of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent ,m answer is required, after reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(B)(ii) of her Petition. a. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Respondent had access to the Will, as she had access to the mobile home where Decedent was living at the time of his death. Respondent denies any inference that she forged the will. b. Denied. The document speaks for itself. c. Denied. The document speaks for itself. 7 d. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(B)(ii)( d) of her Petition. e. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to answer the averments made by Petitioner in Paragraph 9(B)(ii)(e) of her Petition. C. Paragraph 9(C) ofthe Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is required, the Will was properly executed. a. Paragraph 9(C)(a) of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. i. Paragraph 9(C)(a)(i) of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. ii. Denied. The document speaks for itself. b. Paragraph 9(C)(b) of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. 1. Denied. The document speaks for itself. ll. Denied. The document speaks for itself. iii. Denied. The document speaks for itself. iv. Denied. The document speaks for itself. 8 c. Paragraph 9(C)(c) of the Petition is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent an answer is required, Decedent signed the Will in the presence of the witnesses and Notary Public on October 6,2006. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests your Honorable Court sustain the decree of the Register of Wills dated October 13,2006, admitting to Probate the Last Will and Testament of Gary Lee Bremer, Jr. Date: ;2 ~ .z: -0 7 By: Andrew . Sha; quire Sup. Ct. ID No. 87371 200 S. Spring Garden St., Suite 11 Carlisle, PAl 70 13 (717) 243-7135 Attorney for Respondent 9 VERIFICATION I, Stacy A. Miller-Lobdel, verify that the statements made in this Answer are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of Date: OJ. . 1'5 - JDD 1 f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Andrew H. Shaw, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the following document, Answer to Petition for Citation, was served this date on the below named, by placing same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid thereon, addressed as follows: Kristen B. Hamilton, Esquire Neuharth Law Offices 232 Lincoln Way East P.O. Box 359 Chambersburg, P A 17201 Attorney for Heather Bremer /) "i ) 0 '--' Date: d- v ~b -' / /l)i 11M! /7 i / ~ _ i fz~ Aiidrew H. Shaw, Esquire Sup. Ct. J.D. No. 87371 200 S. Spring Garden St., Suite 11 Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-7135 (phone) (717) 243-7872 (facsimile)