HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-05569it
,t
d'
N
I?
Y !'I
mss' '
'TJ
9
gyF
ray
n
l.?
E')
,Sa
k„
1b
?'..k
I
I
!t
r {,
s.
&rwl r a4p
iz 9 S L? wtsd?i?° I e6
/ 7ez>.f
s;
is
,l.
i,
4
4 1
1
1
Jig,Zr' A /YvlzHd rl-
)g,vx SB ?
/3owh??0s POvzg,- ?
/poi
I? ;t
I
S:
l -i
1 '
P
I OCT 21x2002
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS r
Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : No. 99-5569
MUMMA REALTY I, MUMMA REALTY
II, MUMMA REALTY ASSOCLiTION, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
INC, AND BOBALI CORPORATION
Defendants
ORDER OF COAL
AND NOW, to wit, this _ day of October, 2002, upon due consideration of the
within Objection to Dismissal filed in the above-captioned matter, and good cause having been
shown, and a written objection having been filed, it is ORDERED that the Prothonotary shall not
dismiss this matter for failure to prosecute.
BY THE COURT:
J.
? A
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : No. 99-5569
MUMMA REALTY I, MUMMA REALTY :
II, MUMMA REALTY ASSOCIATION, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
INC, AND BOBALI CORPORATION
Defendants
BJECTI N TO DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO
CUMBERL COUNTY L CAL RULE 228
AND NOW, comes Robert 1q. Mumma, II, the Plaintiff in the above-captioned case, and
pursuant to Rule 228 of the Cumberland County Local Rules of Court and Rule 1901 of the
Rules of Judicial Administration, fries the following Objection to the Dismissal of the above-
captioned case and, in support thereof, alleges as follows:
The note to Rule 1901 of the Rules of Judicial Administration dealing with the
disposition of inactive cases specifically indicates that it may be proper to have a dormant matter
when it is a protective action related to other cases that have been filed and are being pursued in
other jurisdictions and venues.'
2. The entities named above as Defendants (Mumma Realty I, Mumma Realty II,
Mumma Realty Association, Inc., and Bobali Corporation) are entities in which the Plaintiff,
1 The note to the Rule provicles in pertinent part as follows:
Where a party objects to the termination of an inactive matter, it is
intended that the court exercise its judicial discretion. For
example, the documetrt matter may be a protective action related to
a case pending in another jurisdiction between the parties on the
same cause of action, or an action involving a controversy arising
from a clash of perso>lalities which will probably be terminated
upon the death of one of the parties under circumstances where the
public interest will not be served by forcing the parties to a judicial
resolution of their dispute, etc.
I•
Robert M. Mumma, II, has an equity and ownership interest which is substantially impacted by
whether or not a shareholders agreement existed requiring that Pennsylvania Supply Company
repurchase shares of that company upon the death of Plaintiff's father, Robert M. Mumma. This
existence of a shareholders agreement is the main issue in the present case.
3. There are several actions that are being vigorously pursued both in Cumberland
County and Dauphin County where the issue of the existence of a shareholders agreement and its
impact has been raised. These actions involve a case in Dauphin County under the caption of
Robert M. Mumma, II v. Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Company, Civil Action - Law, No.
4753-S-1993; and a case in Cumberland County under the caption Robert M. Mumma, II v.
G.A.T. Distribution, Cumberland County, Civil Action - Law, No. 423-1994, which have as their
basic underlying issue whether or not a redemption or shareholders agreement existed which
gave to stockholders of Pennsylvania Supply Company (such as Robert M. Mumma, II) the right
to purchase shares of Robert M. Mumma's stock upon his death. The existence of such a
shareholders agreement would result in control of the assets being in Plaintiff plus one of his
three sisters as opposed to the executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma.
4. To date, Robert M. Mumma, II has been successful in proving that the safe
deposit box that was jointly owned by he and his father was broken into after his father's death
and critical corporate records were taken from that box and have yet to be found; that his father
had some of the best estate planning counsel in Pennsylvania and it is incredible that they would
allow $60 million in assets to pass into an estate where they would be subject to estate tax when
the vehicle of a shareholders agreement would avoid such taxes; and that corporate records have
been lost, stolen and misrepresented to him in his attempt to establish the nature and conditions
under which his father held stock in Pennsylvania Supply Company.
f
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the Motion for Commission to Take Out of State
Depositions and to Produce Documents and its supporting Affidavit in the case of Robert M.
Mumma, H v. G.A.T. Distribution, supra., which clearly shows the necessity and need to depose
Robert M. Mumma's former accountant, George W. Hadley, Jr., a witness who has refused to
come to Pennsylvania for deposition and who has critical evidence relating to Robert M.
Mumma's ownership of Pennsylvania Supply Company and other matters relating to the
existence of a shareholders agreement and directly impacting on the issue of who rightfully
controlled assets upon the death of Robert M. Mumma as stated earlier. This will also be the
main issue in this case.
. 6. The deposition of George W. Hadley, Jr. has been ordered by Judge Bayley in the
case of Robert M. Mumma, II v. G.A.T. Distribution, in which I am represented by James J.
West, Esquire, and in the case of Robert M. Mumma, II v. CRH, Inc. (the company that
purchased a large portion of the $60 million in assets) in which I am proceeding pro se. A copy
of Judge Oler's Order in both those cases is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
7. This case is in the nature of a protective action which, upon discovery of the true
nature of the ownership of Pennsylvania Supply Company, and the existence of shareholders
agreements, redemption agreements, and other documents directly effecting that rightful
ownership of assets, will cease to be dormant and will go forward or be dismissed based on facts
developed by discovery such as the Hadley deposition that is presently scheduled to occur.
8. Given the nature of this action and its relationship to the pending cases which are
being vigorously pursued with critical depositions scheduled of out of state witnesses, it is
1.
respectfully submitted that this case should not be dismissed either pursuant to the Cumberland
County Local Rule or the Rules of Judicial Administration.
De&M???tW
Respectfully Submitted,
kRobert M. Mumma, II
Box E
Bowmansdale, PA 17007
Dated: October I8, 2002
6 r
? r
b
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 18th day of October, 2002, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served upon the parties named below by depositing same in the United
States Mail, First Class postage prepaid, and addressed as follows:
Mutr1 fZ,? ,&,179/ ws?,VelAM%
?T 3pg ,?5r ??,? pzrd?
&?o?a PA- l ?DZS
6
IZ9 S- G?wesS ? y ?? ?
Robert M. Mumma, 11
Exhibit I
1
" _. _. ._...._.. .. ??...... ?....?e+w-ter-
kf
fi;,
t
WEST LONG LLC
105 North Front Street
Suite 205
Harrisburg, PA 11101
(717) 233-5051
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PH
fJ n
G-A-TDISTRIBUTTON,
Defendant
No. 423-1994
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MOT IO N FOR CON WSSION TO TAKE
DEPOSIT ION S AND TO PRODUCE D OCUMENTS
u?
-< -3 Z6-
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Robert M. Mumma, II, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §5235
and Pa.RC.P. §4015 and respectfully moves this Court to enter an Order granting the
Commission to take the deposition of George W. Hadley who resides in Buffalo, New York and
to require him to produce documents within his possession and control and avers as follows:
1. ' The Complaint in the above-captioned case was filed by the Plaintiff, Robert M.
Mumma, II, to determine the validity of the sale of Hummelstown Quarry, Inc. ("HQP').
2. ' The Plaintiff, Robert M. Mumma, II, has been attempting to obtain access to the
books and records of the various Mumma Entities, including the Hummelstown Quarry, Inc.
("HQI") that is the subject of this litigation and Pennsylvania Supply Company and successor
entities known as Peansy Supply Inc. (note no comma) and Peansy Supply, Inc. (note the
comma).'
' As will be discussed in this Motion and attached Affidavit, Pennsy Supply was really
two (and possibly more) companies, one Peansy Supply (no comma) Inc. and one Pennsy
Supply, Inc. the only difference being the comma Obviously this has led to much confusion and
created numerous opportunities to deceive individuals who did not know of the multiplicity of
corporations using the Peansy Supply name.
3. As has been set forth in the pleadings, briefs and exhibits filed in this case, it is
imperative that Robert M. Mumma, II obtain complete knowledge of the corporate structure of
Pennsylvania Supply Company, it successors and subsidiaries because the number of his shares
in HQIIGAT will be determined in proportion to his share and ownership interest in:
Pennsylvania Supply Company.'
4. Robert M.'Mumma,11 has been consistently denied access to information from
which he could make a determination as to the legitimate formation of HQI, the legitimacy of the
sale of HQI to CRH and/or the amount and value of any pro rata share if a corporation known as
HQI was formed and sold resulting in the issuance of GAT stock for the purpose of offering the
Plaintiff dissenters' rights. (See Reply to New Matter)'
5. This Court has had before it several examples of the type of difficult and
diversionary discovery which has been orchestrated by the Defendant and others who have
aligned themselves with the executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Sr. in an attempt to
permanently block Robert M. Mumma, II from independently reviewing the relevant records and
z As was pointed out in the Plaintiffs Answer to New Matter filed in this case, Robert
M. Mumma, H was told by the executrix of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Sr. that the
Hummelstown Quarry property was going into a tenancy in common arrangement with the other
heirs of the Estate and not into a separate corporation. This appears to be a misrepresentation.'
The executrixes created the Hummelstown Quarry corporation in secret. There was never an
appropriate corporation formation meeting but nonetheless the executrixes have ever since
contended that the Hummelstown Quarry took on a corporate form which enabled the executrixes
to sell the quarry and to give Robert M. Mumma, U dissenters' rights under the Pennsylvania
Business Corporate law as opposed to a right of first refusal under tenants in common law. We
believe that access to the records will show that the very reason for forming Hummelstown
Quarry was to avoid the promised joint tenancy arrangement and to enable the sale of
Hummelstown Quarry as a corporate entity against the wishes of Robert M. Mumma, II and his
deceased father. This will support and inference that the whole transaction was initiated in bad
faith by the executrixes and strengthen the position that HQI has been very badly undervalued.
2
discovering facts relating to the formation and ownership of HQI as well as the other Mumma
related entities such as Pennsylvania Supply Company and Pennsy Supply, Inc. and Pennsy
Supply Inc.'
6. The Present witness, George W. Hadley, is in possession, custody and control of
additional documents that are material, relevant and necessary to the prosecution of Plaintiff's
claim before this Court. (See Affidavit of Robert M. Mumma, H attached hereto as Exhibit A )
The witness, George W. Hadley, served as the accountant and advisor for the
companies referred to herein subsequent to 1986 and a senior partner in his accounting firm, Karl
Felmeden, served as the accountant and advisor for these companies during the late 1950's until
the time of his death in 1986 and his records, notes, correspondence and documents relating to
this matter would be in the custody and control of the witness, George W. Hadley. Hadley has
care, control and custody of documents relating to insurance on the life of Robert M. Mumma, R
and his father and other officers and key employees of the various corporations involved which
insurance could obviously have as it purpose the funding of buy-backs required by shareholder
and buy/sell agreements. Hadley also has control over the documents that would deal with and
explain the formation of the two Pennsy Supply Inc. companies (one with a comma, one without
a comma); the existence of any additional shareholders agreements covering Pennsylvania
Supply Company shareholders; the estate plan of Robert M. Mumma, Sr. developed by his
predecessor, Karl Felmeden, and/or George Hadley; the direct and circumstantial evidence that
shareholder agreements existed for Pennsylvania Supply Company and other Mumma entities;
These discovery difficulties are detailed in the Plaintiff's Motion to Inspect and Copy
Records which was filed on February 28, 2000 in support of obtaining access to records in the
care, custody and control of David R. Landry of Stradley, Ronon, Stevens and Young.
correspondence relating to the due diligence examinations conducted by perspective purchasers
(particularly showing the inquiries made and explanations given for the lack of any shareholder
agreements and the existence of multiple Peony Supply companies); the manner and means
of valuation and sale of 85 shares of stock upon Robert M. Mumma, Sr.'s death; the existence
and terms of any redemption agreement or appraisal allowing such valuation; the manner and
means by which stock was valued on financial statements of Robert M. Mumma, II and his
father, financial documents from which it can be determined what assets belonged to Penny
Supply, Inc. (the comma company) and what belonged to Pennsy Supply Inc. (the no comma
company); how assets of the two Peansy Supply companies were valued and owned; and the
identities of individuals who made the decisions or gave his firm instructions not to produce
records involving these companies to Robert M. Mumma, II notwithstanding the fact that Robert
M. Mumma, II was an officer, director, shareholder and had a substantial ownership interest in
the companies referred to as well as being an heir to the estate that purported to own and operate
those companies. In addition, Hadley may have records relating to the creation of Hum melstown
Quarries, Inc. as well as correspondence and other documents relating to the rejection of Robert
M. Mumma, II's offer to buy assets from the Estate as opposed to CRH and explaining why
Robert M. Mumma, 11's higher purchase offers were rejected.
8. No undue prejudice to any party or witness will result from the issuance of this
Commission.
9. Copies of the proposed Order and Commission are attached to the front of this
Motion.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Robert M. Mumma, A respectfully requests this Court to
enter an Order granting a Commission in this action.
Respectfully
(W 8TL K LLC
Attorney Id. 00331
105 North Front Street, Suite 205
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 233-5051
(717) 2347517 (fax)
Dated: January 18, 2002
EXHIBIT
A
ROBERT M. N4UNffvK II Plaintiff
G-A-T DISTRIBUTION,
Defendant
: IN TEE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: No. 423-1994
: CNIL ACTION- LAW
DDAVTT OF ROBERT M MTMMA II IN RT1PpR
I9TION FOR COMMISSION To TA L DEpnPSMOMO-OF
1VD PRODUCE IJU UA E S W a FnuvIGNaURISD O d
AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, A the Plaintiff in the above-captioned case, and
files the following Affidavit in Support of the Motion for a Commission to Take Deposition and
Produce Documents in a foreign jurisdiction and alleges as follows:
1. I have filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county
attempting to obtain a fair market value and the return of my interest in GAT Distribution
Company, which is the successor to the company named Hummelstown Quarry, Inc., which was
made up of assets previously owned by Pennsylvania Supply Company. When the assets of the
Pennsylvania Supply Company were being divested by the company, I was informed that the
proposed Hummelstown Quarry would be put in joint tenancy with myself and the other heirs of
the Estate giving me a right of first refusal in the event the other owners wanted to sell their
shares. This did not happen and apparently there was an attempt to put the assets into a corporate
form enabling the executrixes of my father's Estate to attempt to sell it to an Irish corporation
going by the name of CRH, Inc.
2. The value of my proposed shares in Hummelstown Query depended on what my
ownership interest was in Pennsylvania Supply Company as well as what was actually sold and
capable of being sold by the executrixes to CRH. This makes it necessary for me to determine
what assets Pennsylvania Supply Company owned as well as its subsidiaries (Penny Supply Inc.
and Pennsy Supply, Inc.) and whether or not there were any shareholders agreements that would
have given me the right to purchase stock of Pennsy Supply Ind. or other Mumma entities. One
such shareholders agreement has been discovered after mr:-.h effort and it is believed that other
such agreements exist and that George W. Hadley has documents and circumstantial evidence
indicating that existence.
THE STOCK BOOK OF PENNSYLVANIA SUPPLY COMPAN S'
AND MY SAFE DEPOSIT BOX
3. I have filed a suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County alleging that
my safe deposit box at Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Company was entered by unauthorized
individuals in violation of bank rules and regulations and a large number of documents removed
from the safe deposit box. The facts relating to this are set forth in the Court's Opinion denying
summary Judgment to the Defendants which is Exhibit 1 attached hereto.
4. One of the main documents that I was seeking was the stock book of
Pennsylvania Supply Company because it would contain any shareholders agreements that apply
to Pennsylvania Supply Company. 1 had previously been informed by the law firm of Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, that represents the executrixes of my father's Estate, that the original stock
book of Pennsylvania Supply Company was missing and has not been found to date. (Exhibit 2
attached hereto.)
5. This Court directed that documents dealing with the due diligence investigation
conducted by the law firm of Stradley, Ronon be produced for inspection and copying.
Numerous documents were produced and after a thorough search a note was found which is
attached hereto as Exhibit 3 that is in the handwriting of Pamela Smeltzer, my father's secretary
in 1985, in which she indicates that on August 1, 1985 my father put the original Pennsylvania
Supply Company stock book in our safe deposit box. As shown by the record of access to the
safe deposit box in question, my father entered the box on August 2, 1985 and this would be the
last entry prior to his death in April of 1986. (Exhibit 4 attached hereto.)
6. This shows not only that the Stradley firm had critical evidence as to what had
happened to the books of Pennsylvania Supply Company (i.e., they bad been stolen from my
safe deposit box when it was broken into) but that they did not, during their due diligence work,
attempt to resolve this issue and, during the entire pendency of the lawsuit involving Dauphin
Deposit Bank, they sat on this critical evidence and did everything possible to keep from
producing it with the critical document only being brought to light after this Court ordered that
the due diligence documents be produced for my inspection.
THE SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT
7. As indicated above, tremendous resistence has been encountered in attempting to
obtain access to records of the Pennsy Supply entities of which Robert M. Mumma, II was an
Officer, Director and Shareholder. Part of the reason access was sought to these records was to
determine whether or not there were standard shareholders agreements in place for closely held
family corporations that would have resulted in rights on the part of shareholders to buy back
stock upon tl,e death of a shareholder such as my father. The existence of such agreements
. ' That deposition of Attorney Landrey of the Stradley firm in the safe deposit box was
attached in toto to the Plaintiffs Motion to Inspect and Copy Records as Exhibit 2. The
attorneys defending that deposition objected to virtually every question in an attempt to keep
facts coming out concerning shareholders agreements and corporate records. This
notwithstanding the fact that the questions had been written out and provided to them in
summary form well in advance of the deposition.
would have impacted the ability of the executrixes to sell and convey the entities referred to
herein as Pennsy Supply.
8. In this proceeding this Court enforced an earlier subpoena for records addressed to
Attorney David Landry of the law firm of Stradley Ronon, in Philadelphia, p ennsylvania over
the firms strenuous objection.
9. These records were produced in October of 1997 and a shareholders agreement
.was discovered for the first time by Robert M. Mumma, II, which is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
10. This shareholders agreement was entered into on December 29, 1961 by Kim
Company, a Mumma family owned company, and was joined in by Pennsy Supply Inc, on
January 3, 1962.
11. Section 1, paragraph b of the shareholders agreement restricts the transfer of
shares by the persons joining in the agreement upon death or dissolution of a signatory to the
agreement.
12. The Minute Books of Kim Company were obtained from Attorney Michael Finio
during the course of discovery in an action in the United States District Court for the District of
Pennsylvania before the Honorable Malcolm J. Muir, captioned Robert M. Mumma, II v.
O1dCastle, Inc. et.al., under Docket No. 1:98-CV-0425, and an examination of those Minute
Books show that neither the Shareholders nor the Directors of the Corporation ever rescinded or
terminated the shareholders agreement at any time.
13. • Pennsy Supply Inc. joined in the shareholders agreement which required that
"before the stock or the company could be lawfully offered for sale to any third party outsider,
4
Penny Supply Inc. was bound by the Agreement to offer the stock in the company back to the
Shareholders, including Robert M. Mumma, II for purchase at book value."
14. The By-Laws for Pennsy Supply Inc, provided certain restrictions upon the
issuance and transfer of shares in paragraphs 32 and 33. The last sentence of paragraph 33
provided: "no transfer shall be made inconsistent with the requirements and provisions of any
written agreement on file with the secretary signed by all shareholders of the corporation."
15. From and after the'death of my father, Robert M. Mumma, Sr., the Estate's
executrixes and their attorneys always represented to me that no shareholders agreements existed.
16. The transfers of the stock of Pennsy Supply Inc, and its successor corporations,
which occurred on or after the execution of the December 29,1961 shareholders agreement, are
arguably voidable because they.violate the shareholders agreement. Moreover, the existence of
this agreement indicates the possibility that other such agreements contained in the safe deposit
box may well also exist.
17. Penny Supply Inc. and its successors failed to give written notice, to me pursuant
to the terms of the shareholders agreement, that the shareholders agreement existed and that I had
an opportunity to purchase all shares scheduled for transfer to the companies being offered for
sale to third parties such as CRH and Allied Irish Inc. who eventually gained control of the assets
of Penny Supply Inc.
18. It is my belief that the Estate and executrixes withheld this information
concerning the existence of this shareholders agreement and that there may even be other
documents that came from the safe deposit box evidencing other shareholders agreements and
ownership interests that would have changed the balance of control insofar as the executrixes'
ability to consummate and go forward with the sale of the assets of Pennsy Supply Inc.
19. The Defendants in this case have fought vigorously to keep shareholders
agreements from coming to light resulting in a stack of pleadings over a foot tall in order to
discover that a shareholders agreement in fact existed and that the stock book of Pennsylvania
Supply Company had been stolen from my and my father's safe deposit box.
MULTIPLE PENNSY SUPPLY COMPANIES
20. In the course of discovery in a case filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania before United States District Judge Muir, captioned Robert M.
Mumma, lI v. 01dCastle, Inc., et.al., under Docket No. 1:98-CV-0425, documents were produced
by Attorney Finio representing CRH (the purchaser of Pennsy Supply, Inc.) which showed for
the first time that there were two (2) Pennsy Supply Ines. One is registered and expressed with a
comma between the words "Supply and Inc" (i.e., Peonsy Supply, Inc.) and the other has no
comma between the words "Supply and Inc" (i.e., Pennsy Supply Inc.).
21. Based on records that have been obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of
State this extremely confusing duel corporation set up indicates that Pennsy Supply Inc. was the
company that held the majority of assets in 1961 when the shareholders agreement was entered
into and it appears from the records that the company that was purchased by CRH/Allied Irish
from the Estate was a later formed Pen nsy Supply, Inc. which eventually became the company
known as Mine Nine Nine and was sold to CRH/Allied Irish.
22. Additional records which appear to be in the care and custody of the witness
Hadley are needed to clarify exactly why this second Pennsy Supply, Inc. was formed and what
impact the 1961 and other shareholders agreements had on its stock ownership; what assets Were
in fact owned by the respective Penny Supply companies and what had been sold to CRH/Allied
Irish; and whether the company known as Penny Supply, Inc was formed to somehow confuse
and attempt to negate the shareholders agreement which applied to the first company, Pennsy
Supply Inc.
23. The fact that there were two (2) Pennsy Supply companies with such close names
was never revealed to me by the executrixes or the Estate's attorneys and it appears as if the
company that was ultimately sold to CRH was nothing but a shell corporation created in
approximately 1981 and that the company which owned all of the assets still exists and may well
still be owned by myself and the other shareholders subject to the shareholders agreement. In
fact, one of the reasons for starting the new Pennsy Supply could well be to create a company
whose stock was not subject to the shareholders agreement and make it appear that that company
had all the assets in case the shareholders agreement was ever discovered.
24. We would also point out that while the contention is being made that the Pennsy
Supply, Inc. was simply a shell with no assets, when Hadley was deposed in the safe deposit box
case he testified that the company known as the old Pennsy Supply Inc. dropped certain assets in
to the new Pennsy Supply, Inc. as a wholly owned subsidiary and changed its name to Nine,
Nine, Nine, Inc. so it could be sold to Robert M. Mumma, 11. This explanation does not comport
with other explanations that have been made by the executrixes and must be verified through the
examination of records to determine who actually owned what and when.
TIE HADLEY DEPOSITION IN THE SAFE DEPOSIT BOX C SF
25. In January of 2000, George W. Hadley was deposed pursuant to a Commission
issued by President Judge Kleinfelter in the Dauphin County safe deposit case. I was present at
that deposition and it reflects as follows.
26. Hadley, other than saying that the old Pennsy Supply dropped certain assets into
the new Penmsy Supply, would not go into the details concerning the two Penmsy Supply
companies. He produced no documents relating thereto and took the position that the deposition
was strictly limited to matters involving the safe deposit box case. He also indicated that
accountant Felmeden, his partner, who died in 1986, handled all matters prior to 1986 and while
he had records of those matters he did not produce them but insisted on testifying only to what he
knew and recalled relating to shareholders agreements.
27. Hadley said he had never seen the shareholders agreement prepared in 1961
(Exhibit 5) which we produced for him prior to the deposition but testified that shareholders
agreements were important to accountants and they would have asked about them. The inference
is that Fehneden would have asked about them and would have notes and records concerning the
shareholders agreement, certainly the 1961 shareholders agreement.
28. From my business experience, I know that life insurance is sometimes used to
fund the purchase back of shares subject to a shareholders agreement upon the death of a
shareholder. There was life insurance of $1.5 million taken out by the corporations covering the
life of my father that could have funded such shareholders agreement. Hadley did not produce
the records relating to this life insurance but insisted on only testifying to memory. He also
refused to answer questions about whether he had been instructed by someone not to disclose
information concerning life insurance on myself or my father. Records showing the existence
and disposition of life insurance proceeds may establish the existence of yet an additional
shareholders agreement.
29. Hadley was confronted with a 1950 shareholders agreement involving my father
and Mr. Bowen and indicated he knew nothing about such an agreement with the inference that it
would be contained in the Felmeden records that he was not producing.
30. Hadley indicated that the stock books of Pennsylvania Supply Company would
have been reviewed by some member of the accounting firm at some time but did not produce
any documents, notes or correspondence relating to that review.
31. An attempt was made to ask Hadley questions about Lisa Mumma Morgan
working on the father's Estate at the time ?.te was an associate of Morgan; Lewis and Boddus
and Hadley's counsel directed him not to a::swer those questions.
32. An attempt was made to as' Hadley about estate planning when he testified that
his former partner, Felmeden, would have lone the estate planning for Robert M. Mumma, Sr.
The specific inquiry was why would an asset worth $30 million be left in an estate when a
shareholders agreement would have removed it from the Estate and saved millions of dollars in
federal and state estate taxes. Hadley was directed not to answer this line of questioning
concerning Felmeden's est_nte plan and would have records reflecting the rationale of that estate
plan.
33. Hadley was asked about 85 shares of stock that was sold to the Pennsylvania Supply
Company immediately following my father's death and how that stock was valued. He produced
no documents and was vague in this area but indicated that he felt there was a redemption
agreement. His records would not only show the terms of the redemption agreement but would
show how the value of the shares was determined., The value used (approximately $7,000 per
share) appears to be book value which is the value frequently used when a shareholders agreement
exists.
34. Likewise, after I became a shareholder of Pennsylvania Supply Company, I
received statements on which my shares were valued at book value plus insurance proceeds.
Again, the use of book value as opposed to market value is an indication of a shareholders
agreement. Mr. Hadley refused to produce records or answer questions relating to that method of
valuation and, in fact, produced financial. statements at my request that had exhibits, which may
t.gr.n et.?.:.n f}?nen?? .o1 a}'n? iTc?ng {?nm 4}?Pn, A??? mrr m3. nhjrr'nn? dictributeA thnce
financial statements to others participating in the deposition. I& Hadley should be required to
produce the exhibits attached to my financial statements to determine whether he and his deceased
partner were valuing the stock at book value plus life insurance - an indicator of a shareholders
agreement
35. In addition, Mr. Hadley would have records and be knowledgeable about the
creation of HQI and possibly show whether HQI was specifically created to avoid the joint tenant
distribution which would give me a right of first refusal.
36. Finally, when the Pennsy Supply assets were being sold to CRH, I made a
competitive offer and had financing available at which the Estate would have made.even more
money by selling the assets to me as opposed to CRH. This offer was rejected. This seems bizarre
and unusual and the reasons for this rejection must be explored. Obviously one of the reasons my
higher offer would be rejected would be that I would then have the right to do due diligence on the
records, would discover the missing/stolen stock books and shareholders agreements outlined
herein as well as the probable existence of other shareholders agreements and the way the
valuation and sale ofHummelstown Ouarrv was beine handled and would realize I did not have
to buy something that I and my sisters already controlled if the shareholders agreements set up in
the estate plan of my father had been properly followed. Hadley should have records which
circumstantially support this theory as to why my higher offer was rejected.
I, Robert M. Mumma, H, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing
Affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand
that this verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.§4904 relating to uaswom
falsification to authorities.
Date; &/tgaa 1 0 c1f) z
Robert M. Mumma, R
E
I
1
#10 February 1997 Argument-Court
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II,
Plaintiff
VS.
DAUPHIN DEPOSIT BANK AND
TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant
BEFORE KLEINFELTER AND HOOVER, JJ.
NO. 4753 S 1993
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plaintiff Robert M. Mumma, II (hereinafter "Mumma II") jointly leased a
safe deposit box, number 3332, with his father, Robert M. Mumma, Sr.,
(hereinafter "Mumma Sr.") at defendant Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Company
(hereinafter "Dauphin Deposit"). The Mummas were co-lessees of box 3332 from
,May 29, 1964 until Mumma Sr.'s death on April 12, 1986. After Mumma Sr.'s
death, Mumma Sr.'s wife, Barbara Mumma (hereinafter "Mrs. Mumma") and
Mumma Sr.'s daughter, Lisa Mumma, were named co-executrixes of Mumma Sr.'s
estate. On April 23, 1986, a successful will search for Mumma Sr.'s will was
conducted on the safe deposit box by Mumma II, Mrs. Mumma and Dauphin
Deposit Officer Donald Cromwell. On October 31, 1989, an entry.to the safe
deposit box was recorded on the box's entry card. However, the entry was voided
with the words "no entry" and initialed by now deceased Dauphin Deposit
employee, Evelyn Fortnay. On November 2, 1989, an inventory of the safe
deposit box was conducted by Mrs. Mumma and Pennsylvania Department of
Revenue Officer Thomas Shambaugh. Mumma II was not present at the inventory.
An inventory report was prepared and signed by Shambaugh which stated that "no.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
items of value" were found in the box. The contents of the box were then released
to Mrs, Mumma.
In 1993, against Mumma It's wishes, Mrs. Mumma and Lisa Mumma -
sold the family business, Pennsy Supply, to CRH, Inc, for Thirty-Two Million
Dollars, Pennsy Supply was owned by an another family business, 999, Inc.
Shortly after the sale of Pennsy Supply, Mumma II received his canceled stock
certificates from CRH. One canceled stock certificate was for three hundred
fourteen (314) shares of common stock in 999, Inc., issued January 4, 1982. The
stock certificate was used as a part of CRH's acquisition of Pennsy Supply.
Mumma It claims the safe deposit box was used to store documents
related to various family businesses. The exact quantity and nature of the
documents located in the box is a matter in dispute in this litigation and there is
little written proof of what the box actually contained. Mumma II asserts the box .
contained documents that would have given him control over the family business
after the passing of Mumma Sr. Particularly, Mumma II claims that the box
contained stock certificates of 999, Inc. Mumma II claims that Mumma Sr. told
him the safe deposit box contained the stock certificates. Additionally, Mumma II
claims he saw the 999, Inc., stock certificates in the box at the time of the will
search.
On June 22, 1995, Mumma II filed a complaint against Dauphin
Deposit alleging breach of contract, negligence, conversion and intentional breach
of duty in its care of Mumma II's safe deposit box. In particular, Mumma II claims
that Dauphin Deposit owed a duty to him as co-lessee to protect and preserve the
contents of the safety deposit box and that Dauphin Deposit allowed an
unauthorized access to the box between the will search on April 23, 1986 and the
inventory on November 2, 1989. As a result of the unauthorized access, the stock
certificate of 999, Inc., as well as other documents relating to the family business,
were improperly taken.
On November 6, 1996, Dauphin Deposit moved for summary
judgment. Dauphin Deposit claims that: 1) Mumma II has produced no evidence
that the stock. certificates were in the box, 2) Mumma II has produced no evidence
of lack of care, 3) Dauphin Deposit properly permitted Mrs. Mumma to inventory
the box in the presence of the revenue officer, and 4) Mumma 11 can not establish
any damages or harm suffered. Summary judgment is appropriate when:
After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such
time as to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move
for summary judgment in whole or in part as a matter of
law
(1) Whenever there is no genuine issue of any material
fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or
defense which could be established by additional
discovery or expert report,
Pa.R.Civ.P. 1035.2(1).
As discussed infra, defendant's summary judgment motion is denied.
Dauphin Deposit's first claim is that Mumma 11 has produced no
evidence that the stock certificates of 999, Inc., were in the safety deposit box and
that no evidence exists that Dauphin Deposit has breached a duty of,care. We
disagree. Generally, a safe deposit box rental agreement establishes a bailment.
Mitchell v. First National Bank of Confluence, 136 Pa.Super. 467, 7 A.2d 513
(1939). A cause of action for breach of a bailment agreement arises if the bailor
proves a bailment, makes a demand for return of the bailed goods and the bailee
fails to, deliver the property or account for its loss. Schell v. Miller N. Broad Storage
Co., 142 Pa.Super. 293, 16 A.2d 680 (1940). A bailment exists when there was
delivery of personal property by a bailor to the bailee for some particular purpose
under an express or implied agreement that when the purpose. is completed, the
personal property will be re-delivered to the bailor. Johnson v. Mathia, 363
Pa.Super. 397, 526 A.2d 404 (1987). If the facts and circumstances support a
determination that a bailment exists, the factfinder then determines whether the
bailment was structured for the sole benefit of either the bailor or bailee, or for the
mutual benefit of both. Beachwoods Flying Service Inc. v. At Hamilton Contracting
Corp., 317 Pa.Super. 513, 464 A.2d 440 (1983), aff d, 504 Pa. 618, 476 A.2d
350 (1984). If the benefit of the bailment was mutual, then the baillee is charged
with the exercise of ordinary care and is liable for ordinary negligence. Johnson,
526 A.2d at 405.
ln.the case at bar, we find the safe deposit box lease agreement to be
informative. It states:
2) Access shall be had to the safe only by the renter or
legally authorized deputies recorded on the books of the
company. In the case of death, or other disability of the ;
renter however, the company shall have the right to
permit any person or persons deemed by it to have a
proper interest to enter the box for the purpose of
determining whether it contains a will, power of attorney
or cemetery lot deed, and if any such items are found, the
company still have the right to deliver possession thereof
to such person or persons which it deems proper.
3) As safe rented by two or more persons, or by a
partnership, shall in the absence of specific written
instructions to the contrary, be under the control of each
said persons, or each member of the partnership, as fully
as though it stood in his or her name alone, and he or she a
may have access alone or surrender the safe, or may }
appoint a deputy to have access or surrender the safe.
Rules, Regulations and Conditions (Plaintiff's Complaint Exhibit A).
Further, Dauphin Deposit's operating procedures in the event of death or
incompetence of a lessee is relevant.
12.0 PROCEDURES IN THE EVENT OF DEATH OR -
INCOMPETENCY OF A LESSEE
12.2 On Boxes Rented By Two Or More individuals As
Co-Tenants
.4 The fiduciary of a deceased or legally
incompetent lessee could be construed to have the
right of access: To prevent litigation with the
surviving co-lessee, the initial access should be
made only in the presence of the surviving
lessee(s). At that time the existing contract should
be surrendered by both the surviving lessees(s) and
the fiduciary. A new contract can then be issued
either in the name of the estate or by the surviving
lessee(s),
Operating Procedures 12.2(.4) (Plaintiff's Complaint Exhibit Ell.
As a co-tenant of the safe deposit box, Mumma II had an interest in all
the documents that were stored in the box. As stated in the Operating Procedures,
Dauphin Deposit's authority to allow access to a safety deposit box after the death
of a co-lessee is limited. The surviving co' lessee has primary rights to the box until
the lease is surrendered. Here, it is beyond dispute that Mumma II was not present
at the inventory of the box on November 2, 1989. Thus, there is evidence that the
Lease Agreement may have been breached. In addition, we also find the voided
October 31, 1989 access card entry as evidence that an improper entry may have
occurred. Further, Mumma II has presented evidence that the box may have
contained documents that were improperly taken. Mumma II claims to have seen
the stock certificates in the box at the will search. The certificates were not in the
box at the inventory in 1989. Canceled stock certificates were returned to Mumma
II from• t CRH. An issue of fact exists as to whether the certificates were improperly
taken form the box after the will search.
Additionally, the evidence of record shows that, at the time of the will
search, there were enough documents in the box that Dauphin Oeposit Officer
Cromwell required sixteen minutes to locate a blue-backed will. While this alone is
not evidence the certificates were in the box, it does show that the box was not
empty and did contain a considerable amount of documents.
Lastly, Dauphin Deposit claims that Mumma II can not establish
damages resulting from a breach of contract. At the least, if Mumma 11 proves his
case, he is entitled to nominal damages. Stevenson v. Economy Bank of Ambridoe,
413 Pa. 442, 197 A.2d 721 (1964) (plaintiff safe deposit co-lessee could recover
nominal damages when bank breached safe deposit box contract). Additionally,
Mumma II's claimed lost stake in the potential control of the family businesses
creates the possibility that Mumma II has suffered damages and that summary
judgment should be denied.
Accordingly, we enter the *following:
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of March 1997, upon consideration of
defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's response thereto and oral
arguments of counsel, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant's motion is denied.
' v
i
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II,
Plaintiff
VS.
DAUPHIN DEPOSIT BANK AND
TRUST COMPANY,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 4753 S 1493
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of March 1997, upon consideration of
defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff's response thereto and oral
arguments of counsel, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant's motion is denied.
Distribution:
James J. West, Esquire, 105 N. Front Street, Hbg., PA 17101.
R. Stephen Shibla, Esquire, Rhoads and Sinon, LLP, One South Markdt Square, P.O.
Box 1146, Hbg., PA 17108.
EXH.IBIT
2
t .
1
PhAEdeiphle, PA I9103-S93 • . ' ?p
215463-6000 &Bockius LLP
Pc 215963-6299 COUNSELOaS AT LAW
Marc J. Sonnenteld
215463-6572
June 6, 1997
James J. West, Esquire
105 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17011
Re: Pennsylvania Supply Company and Kamm CompM
Dear Mr. West:
We are in receipt df your May 19, 1997 letter regarding Pennsylvania Supply Company and Kim
Company. To date, our clients have been unable to locate the original books of those two long-
dormant corporations. However, their investigation is continuing and we will advise you as to
whether the books ultimately are located.
In the meantime, we reiterate our earlier requests for information regarding the authority upon
which Robert M. Mumma, II filed a change of address for Pennsylvania Supply Company in
March of this year. Other than to confirm that no'"corporate meeting" occurred at which such a
change could have been authorized, your letter offers no response to these inquiries. Under 15
Pa.C.S. § 1507, a change of the registered address of a corporation requires the approval of the
board of directors; and no such change may become effective until the corporation files a
statement that the change was authorized by the board of directors. We note that on the
document filed by Mr. Mumma, II, a copy of which is enclosed, the preprinted representation that
the change was authorized by the corporation's board of directors has been crossed out.
Accordingly, please have Mr. Mumma, II immediately take all steps necessary to withdraw his
admittedly unauthorized attempt to change (lie registered address of Pennsylvania'Supply
Company and reinstate the duly authorized registered address of the corporation.
Finally, in response to your request that we provide any documents in our files reflecting
"restrictions on the shares of Robert Mumma, Sr" and any shareholder agreements for Kim
Company and Pennsylvania Supply Company, please be advised that we do not have any such
MOKIPA Lewis
James J. West, Esquire
June 6, 1997
Page 2
shareholder agreements. In addition, although we are not certain as to precisely what you mean
by documents showing restrictions, please be advised that we are not aware of any restrictions on
the shares.
Very truly yours,
Marc J. donn:nfeld
Enclosure
E,XHI??T
3
• i
4
rfy?l`? SAFE DEPOSIT BOX No, a7?Z-
OO Record of Access
No, bf Lesseer
Lessee {1resent aF epening
Lossoo Robert }q -""?'"'O?-•y'
Humna I Son sr. i
lessee
V m ENTERED rNfeur ASntNS
U Att FIM( LNOY; l1eCf KI UISCC$ Att tN0, U,,,
' r.. :? •r. et
. a C r
rrPR Pff 2
we
1984 N8Y n /YGTiifFcgy
1
[..u
• _r
I ..
5
'Ak116M OF MRMiDrA Alt an.a antarel Sato tbAA2Y'e
dal of 0,6CZ4 kei , 1961 'ty Ard brtvem srx COMPA", a
PernsyiraaId eorporatLan vlth Ice prLmlL'ptL 7L ace cf businas a
1n the City of L4arri. urg, Jevprlt. CIYMIt , Psaaayl'raatia, hArafn
after saaa.Cijw eallad Ka,,aad•JM1 T. SV BOk of tbA Unship
1 '
of lw?t Paatcon, Co tty cE De.ph:.%, Cas7oaea11Lb of PannglviALa,
hdtowptftlr s=ttL:%u called,SMMOR
R
1rdLRLA.9, the put La baraco ari &.1 L- of the stockholdara
_ wt Pace-; vuplfy rue., a peaaAX1y=is rorporatton 1LkMAG xtth
Its prlaelpAl place-of buALeads in tba sAld City of Battl.Ac g,'
and u each desire to Aat forth In tbLS AArewaccnt,th4 teas and
roadttlone Yndar vhLeh the aatereL.ee of their o'#narabip rights.in
the capital Atock of the GrrFoiat L.ov A`aall be, goraxned and Con-
.
trolled r.. _.(... ._ .. ... ._y....wuww t.e.e...•YL-......-.
KOV, 1 ujjOU, LK CDRBIDaATIOf or ='PRMAXB . and
tba sum of One ( 1.00) Do13A.r to aich other intai•ehaogabljr wd
hend paid, r.ec.etpt vharoof Lt hereby icknwled.ged•by uch:aad
the ccyczA stn and ovaditioas hareLnafter set forth aad vI.A !meat
to be legally board hereby, it is agreed by and bttvetn tha
pertieA hereto Aere're11y in aanar.r lolLoringt
1..: the rlpitel etock•of the Corporation tha11
be 1"'jcd and held rbJset.eo certain reAtr LritiocA.vhtclt ALA1L_..
bn pcortdad for upon the reeordd of the Corporition Ln.d.04tite
of vbtch .bell. be andonaA upon the stock carcif LeAtu •iaruad bye
LKu Corporation obro pastimllarl.y u follws;
(a) rrontfocs of sWaA's611' be 7La6•? only
uptn for books of duY CorpOrstlor. and before a Ae 'LbrtLfltatto
for 'paa
to 03-I'd the old C%rtLflnete r+uat.bs AUXTe dera4 callatLoo
•
(b) The shAres '.f the Ccrpnratioo ntv held
or to be hereafter issued shalt aot L\r.eold, Keeigneds eranaTerre?
hypothecated, tavum1urad or otherwLae disposed of, either c6jLng';*.
the llEetiaa• of the. shareholder or }f eer:,tSZSt;ra}>;ofa491M?s5e4s
death, except In•accordaace with cue provXaLooa of, this Agreement,
(c)- The shares shall ftrat be offered foi• sal6,
in fritL" by reglatetad•mail to --he Corporation.
(d)• The Corrordti:.n ahail have the privilege
wt thin thirty (30) days from, the a.W lr.g of said offer to purcbsaa
all•of the shares' so offtrtd. Acc:ept.noe of the offer shall be
Y
atgaf.fied in wrLtiog sent by Tegisterad,mall to the offeror.
(a) Upon thr rl-i{_.:Ft of the teataiaLng- ahare-
braider or.shdteholdera, the offerf.ng shareholder ahd11 vote his
the nhnTr_bOL-1-.. 24ke-any.alde!adxT-.--.?.
axendntoes to the, Articles of LncorFordtLon of tbt Corp -4,1doo.
receaeary t: sake said purchase by the Corporation legally
po.iALbl C.
(f) If the Corpo)+tfon fa11a to aLgnify its
dtstre cc purchase d11, of the shires so offered, the shares
shall then be offered In wrttlag AcverAlly and not jointly to
the other nhnrrb.olders of record (pr: rated in accordance with
their there axlltLng shareho Ld(o.ai).
(g) if any of the ocher sharcholdars fail
to signlfy by cegistercl =1.1 thetr daALca to purehasfa the stock
or sny part ca-reef so of Cared wl.chin cen (10) ddye .fret the daeo
cif the m "Iing of sAiL oE(cr, chc :fCervr ohs L1 then nuke a ceeout
cf [or by cogteu rcd oALL, Aav.raliy Iid rant )oinF:ly co aoekboldare
• •' i• • •'rlkY?.
who did . t' -" '.%k•'j
purchase .that part of the acock offered to them,s+tid .:
a
tockholdare shall have the right to S`
• pta•chaae i11 of the ?'' '
stock pro rated among those aLgnLfyL¢g thetr desire to 4 J i
1?»eltsia.
I£ the. Wear mtaekholdara Lail to s
Lg¢Lfy by regiaeerad mail, pl•+{;
4 1 1
their des.ira to purchase all of the remitting seoek within teat
(LO) gays Cram She maLLing of the last cantioned offs;r the'Iroidet
of sold ,Cock at his option shall have the right to sell.e 'ass `
, igth;
transfer, hypothaeate or othdrr!aa dlsposa of either hll;'df .Chore
acock or chi at:ek not purchaaa Le above providade fra:ad'of atij?llt
and all resetLeti6na except the requLreernea of paragistih 1(e)
hor4rf.
(h) The Pelee of tits, stock to be 6fferdd for.
sale as aI,rF.0ALd stall be at the book s•w,tti thereof.
(L)• In case,thzra be joy dLsptree with..rsapect
La Ch<'bosk r`ii .'dC'Chi afic , a•s:1".Sii;rjte•eliail" a aa?tn nlna?"
by the then rej:Aar audixers of tha corporatiin.
U) paymentrnr said stock aha11 be tea (lox)
ptreent •.t6 eecept-race of ofrvr and the brlaned to be upon tans
ar:cailly agreeable buc Oct eaaaadt¢g Ctv6 (5) ysard.
(k) ratlure to lake the. down payoant aforesaid
nhnll hj.. tb.e neat ernes aj cho. faLlura to signify a dasire to
parenaee. .
(i) Upon fa:lare to pct- the batanea within the
partod ercreaatd, the cfferar shad hd•re the optio¢ of insisting
upon the l.anpletl.ot GC the date and the p•s .e,l.mt of tho price or
of tetraL¢atLng the At, and eecalnlng the de•.m pa)meat da Uqui-
dlL6d da-tges. In eha L..rter n'cp..e the offeror 'ahaL1. proceed as
chovgh ouch ahmrdwlder hod ftLI.6d to aLgnify his desire to
purchade.
.3-
• "Vrrb
(a) The restrLetions tpon the sues aas(ge6t
tratufex, hjpochac tLan or octmr dLa oaLr
• p Lan of aaLd ¦tock as •.
here!.", set forth a•'u11 aPply co sSid'atock in be. hands of any
truaree, recaivdr', wecaeacr, heirr legttea,•eurlnlet2ator mtd'
mtceueor ,Tf the Partiea herdo or say oaa who may hare4ftsr
baoazce ,t F,tt•ty hereto.
{R) Ax Used in t1dM puagraph uln and its
Sob-P,tragrcphg, t'CurporStion'r• w ,.
treatla Panaiy.BaPP17 Int.'
2. In the event of the aile •;
Buck as 'bf•
herein provid.d amd pura4s1t ap y
, the CBrtifLctcga'Of said atbhk sball .
be do-podIcad with 1)&vpbin pepoif't Tn.•at COVany unctl fully paid
'for end Sbnl,l'be Voted by the rtta-'.ning abareholdera so long an
tha:e Shell. he no daftult in the Peycent for SaLd stock tinder
tba terria of this Agreenear. ,
, vo,•:.,.•. .. .. ,s:r.'....asJ:,,.•!1•S,'._. .-• ?__.... .:.._.,dvr.J,:. ..:--??+o""?o.??ic`R+
Nocuithataodlttg any other provJ.aiona heitaof- the
stock held by Kin C
aaFaay or stock Tcttlr3 bareaftar ssty ?( ti(ld''t?•
by Robert H. MZMA `'.
stay bi'traneferred to Rohart H,
r:.M%.u
Robert H. .. ,.•.., PUMA If either
,
jointly t? savenll ?i ita "a
t'°'4
y ¢r divi•de;htx3ta`'•,:;?
thax, prnride.d tba tr„naltrr•ao or trandflrrda shall firs C' ?'•
std deliver to the other trritteh Jo1ndr4ute •.3
tharahoidarS a
dax lur?in
aignlfying that he or they the.
ba> ama.a Par r
ty to this Agree-
AMC and that all Stock Ld 11emt5r gs17ply Inc_ held by hies or
thm, shall ba mbjact to tha ter= of this . nt:
.IN WIL%WS YFM=F, rMl Ca(P
AK'I haC
to be ezacvted b .,• •,?•.•; i:.
y its FreaLdctit,.Otteated
L7 its Becra :+edd.St;.;9
sit
cozno¢ or corporata co be affLied
. b7; athoriSy of S.rl; r?":•
h. ,. i. c.
of Diractor¦ • ; ,
cud JLgRT T. Sj7Q'SDH'h[i hr. t6 s.et hSL'Ih??i?}d}Ahl+"4
.1 44.
-4-
\
14na ard':, :ha oaj ind yitr first +ave wr.Jccen. b?
KIM CONVAh
.. , . L a. ?! •£?torls M. •?tie rt ' 1 By. /`.tea b L :,`t :,?,c+^:7?.'?
e eei M.•at..
$Ar
\? . aT
\ 1.?./II
. fal, Jerry T. 8170EL
, ItS
• 41'7
! o r o n e A
4
PBNN9Y Swett INC. hereby Joioa Lr. the furagoing Agt*tmsm•
to =a Lfast Lrs uodsrtakbig cbac no stock shall ba issued try. it
except in accorc4nce vtrh all of dre provisions of tha foregoing
Agras"ut.
IN NIIABSS WHEMF, Pennay Supply Inc. bsa Csarsod thih
Jotndar to be cx+cuecd by Lea P.rslLdent, ateestod to by its
Seee.Lary ind Lco c:•rpucaed anal to do dfff.ned thle 9-4- day
of. I.ancerv, 1962. '
11 hr.orte W. Ebert
S•..r rt e.&ry
4 r,
PB7(NST SUPPLY xx.•
B.y /al Robcrt M. Murrina
•, asi c ,
i
o>?o u
•r
11,.. ft C//Ir?fJIw1 IJll..r/y
II . ?.
on I'?• / .l /I / r•r•r ?.?.r?
I
1.1S Ira.l •w.t,l fiw la/.... arse. rJ:•rM1 v.r/? n.
l.. / .I r r n ..rr ..
CERTIFICATE nF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on tbis 18'" day of January, 20021 a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Motion for Commission to Take Depositions and to Produce Documents was served
upon the party named below via first class mail, addressed as follows:
Brady L. Green, Esquire
Morgan, Lewis & Bocldus, LLP
2000 One Logan Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
oarme M. Bennett ??
Paralegal to James J. West, Esquire
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:No. 423-1994
G-A-T DISTRIBUTION, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, upon Motion of Plaintiff and consideration of the Affidavit attached thereto,
it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs Motion be and the same hereby is
granted and it is fiirther ORDERED that a Commission issued out of this Court authorizing
Court Reporter Services to administer the oath and take the deposition of George W. Hadley on
oral examination attaching thereto documents relating to said deposition,
BY THE COURT:
J.
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II
Plaintiff
G-A-T DISTRIBUTION,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:No. 423-1994
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMMISSION
FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE COMMONWF•1LTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, to court
Reporter Services, a Court Reporting Agency and Notary Publics for the County of Erie, New
York
WHEREAS, it appears to this Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, that George W. Hadley, 2A' Main Street, Suite 100, Buffalo, Erie County, New
York is a material witness and has posses n, custody and control of numerous relevant
documents, in the above-captioned case n : pending in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, between the above-r : ed parties, we in confidence of your prudence and
fidelity, have appointed and by these pres ;, so appoint you as Commissioner to take the
deposition of George W. Hadley and we , orize and empower you, at certain days and places
to be set by the attorneys for the parties, r ake the deposition of said witness, attaching thereto
relevant documents produced, and cause , said examination to be reduced to writing and
subscribed by said witness that you certi' the same and return the same annexed to this
Commission to the Prothonotary of said lourt of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
Said deposition to be taken upon oral examination and pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §5235 and
Pa.RC.P. §4015.
BY TI-M COURT:
Dated:
J.
;f
f f ? 7 aJi
i „f±
1
dM,i
b.
YI w?
f
J
¦,
? Y w
APR26RB
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
G-A-T DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION,:
Defendant
----------- 94-0423 CIVIL TERM
-------------
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, -------------
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CRH, INC., PENNEY SUPPLY,
INC., LISA MORGAN,
BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA,
LINDA MUMMA ROTH,
MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS,
STRADLEY, RONAN, STEVENS
AND YOUNG,
Defendants 99-1546 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2002, upon
consideration of the motion of Defendants Barbara McK. Mumma, Lisa
M. Morgan and G-A-T Distribution Corporation for a protective
order and commission to take the deposition of George W. Hadley,
Jr., and it appearing that the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
previously issued an order authorizing the deposition of Mr.
Hadley, and that he has no objection to a modification of the
order to limit the documents to be brought to the deposition by
Mr. Hadley and the areas to be covered by his deposition, and
following a discovery conference held in the chambers of the
undersigned judge on today's date in which James J. West, Esquire,
represented Plaintiff Robert M. Mumma, II, at No. 94-0423 Civil
Term, Robert M. Mumma, II, represented himself as Plaintiff at No.
99-1546 Civil Term, Brady L. Green, Esquire, represented G-A-T
Distribution Corp., Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan, Thomas
J. Williams, Esquire, also represented Lisa M. Morgan and Barbara
McK. Mumma, Richard E. Connell, Esquire, represented Stradley,
Ronan, Stevens & Young, and Stephen M. Donweber, Esquire,
represented Pennsy Supply, Inc., and CRH, Inc., it is ordered and
directed as follows:
1. The motion is granted to the extent that the
commission to take the videotape deposition of George W. Hadley,
Jr., for purposes of discovery and use at trial is granted.
2. The areas of inquiry at the deposition and the
documents which Mr. Hadley shall be required to present at the
deposition shall be limited to (a) those items enumerated in the
aforesaid motion, and (b) the following items: Life insurance
policies purchased by Pennsylvania Supply Company, Kim Company,
Pennsy Supply, 999, Inc., and Bobali; estate plan of Robert M.
Mumma, Sr.; shareholder agreements; stock certificates, share
registers, stock certificate books and shareholder lists for the
foregoing corporations; the redemption agreement; documents
showing how stock was valued on financial statements and why;
records regarding the creation of Hummelstown Quarry; records
relating to rejection of the offer of Robert M. Mumma, II, to buy
assets being purchased by CRH for more than was offered by CRH;
all documents relating to 999, Inc. (as opposed to Nine
Ninety-Nine, Inc.); inventories of safe deposit boxes of Robert M.
Mumma, Sr., 999, Inc., Kim Company, and Pennsy Supply, Inc.; all
documents relating to redemption of 85 shares of PSC stock;
records regarding the transfer of stock of Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc.,
or 999, Inc., to the estate of Robert M. Mumma, Sr.; all
communications between Mr. Hadley and the estate of Robert M.
Mumma, Sr., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, AllFirst Bank, Price
Waterhouse, and Rhoades & Sinon regarding the guardianship for
Robert M. Mumma, II, at AllFirst Bank; all communications between
Mr. Hadley and the aforesaid estate, Barbara McK. Mumma, Lisa M.
Morgan, and Morgan, Lewis and Bockius regarding Dauphin Deposit
1 \L, t'L V
Bank after 1985; tax returns of the Kim Company and Pennsy Supply
Company after 1985; all deeds transferring any property into the
"MRA," Nine-Ninety-Nine, Inc., or 999, Inc., and Hummelstown
Quarry; and a list of all assets transferred to "MRA."
By the Court,
W?
4JJ.ee-sley Ole g . , J.
James J. West, Esquire
105 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
For Plaintiff
Robert M. Mumma, II
6880 S.E. Harbor Circle
Stuart, Florida 34996
Plaintiff Pro Se
Brady L. Green, Esquire
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
For Defendants G-A-T, Lisa M. Morgan and Barbara McK. Mumma
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Defendants Lisa Morgan and Barbara McK. Mumma
Richard E. Connell, Esquire
Penn National Insurance Plaza,
2 North Second Street
7th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
For Defendant Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young, LLP
Stephen M. Donweber, Esquire
Centre Square West
1500 Market Street, 28th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
For Defendants Pennsy Supply, Inc., and CRH
Allen C. Warshaw, Esquire
305 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
For Defendant Linda Mumma Roth
pcb
Robert M. Mumma, II
Box E
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
Plaintiff
V.
Mumma Realty I
Mumma Realty 11
1043 Mumma Road
Cumberland County, PA 17008
and
Mumma Realty Associates, Inc.
C/o CT Corporation
123 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19109
and
Bobali Corporation
1043 Mumma Road
Cumberland County, PA 17008
Defendants
PRAECIPE FOR A WRIT OF SUMMONS
Please issue a Writ of Summons against the above named defendants to:
Mumma Realty I
1043 Mumma Road
Cumberland County, PA 17043 ( Wormleysburg, PA 1704 3 )
and
Mum-ta Realty 11
1043 Mumma Road
Cumberland County, PA 17043
and
Mumma Realty Associates
C/o CT Corporation
123 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19109
and
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Civil Action - Law
No.: qq-- sss t+ 9 e ": (
(Wormleysburg, PA 17043)
Bobali Corporation
1043 Mumma Road
Cumberland County, PA 17043 (Wormleysbura, PA 17043) -Per Sheriff's Office
Further, please index this as a Lis Pendens against any and all property owned by
Defendants.
Dated: *, /m/
By A&- T/J? ? 2e
Robert M. Mumma, 11
9
Lo
m
L)?
.1
v J 1..
u.
O
i!I , I O
LL 1I?!
{1J J:?
v:
G?
d
C
G
QL
0
Od
RS
RS
Go
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
Mumma Realty I • ------------------------------------- ----
Mumma Realty II In __Civil 1043 Mumma Rd., Wormleysburg, PA n '-""""-""-'"-'-'"
17004 '""43
Mumma Realty Associates, Inc., c/o CT Corporation, 123 S. Broad St.,
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Bobali Corporation, 1043 Mumma Rd., Wormlesyburg, PA 17043
Box E
Bowmansdale, PA 17008 Court of Common Pleas
sn, No 99-5569 Civil Term P9
Robert M. Mumma, II
To Mumma_ Realty_ I?__Mumma_ Realty__II, Mumma Realty Associates, Inc.,
Bobali Corporation
You are hereby notified that
•-------------------------------- Robert;_ M_lliltgl8sl. ;i--------------------------------------
the Plaintiff has commenced an action in ____Civil Action - Law
--------------- ---------------------------------
against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you.
(SEAL)
Date September 13th-------- 1999_
Curtis R. Long
--------------------------------------
Prothonotary
By ---Puri "?rY3C - ?T"l -
• U
H C
H H
`
'1 J
N
H N
m J.+
a •.a
oo
B
? m
F
A `
Cl H E N
F H E
H
_
N N
a
e
.
{ •
L
E H H N
U? O >vN U
j
vm
?i i £ 10
'j)? i H :3 0
m£
m
O t 7 C C
0
d 1 a £mm
.o
3; o
m, H o
a
of
?1 0
u' £ w
41
m
?i £ N
.I' 1 C
>1 N W m
? N gE
,i 00 O
amaq
Iw
W
H
1+
C
.H
to
a
Y
In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Robert M. Mumma, II
VS.
Mumma Realty Associates, Inc., c/o
CT Corporation No. 99-5569 Civil
Now, 9/14/99 19_, I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do
hereby deputize the Sheriff of Philadelphia County to execute this Writ, this
deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. /f
Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA
Affidavit of Service
Now, , 19_, at o'clock M. served the
within
upon
at
by handing to _
a
and made known to
So answers,
Sheriff of
Sworn and subscribed before
me this _ day of , 19_
County, PA
COSTS
SERVICE $
MILEAGE
AFFIDAVIT
copy of the original.
the contents thereof.
SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY
CASE NO: 1999-05569 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
MUMMA ROBERT M II
VS.
MUMMA REALTY I ET AL
R. Thomas Kline Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within
named defendant, to wit: MUMMA REALTY ASSOCIATES INC
but was unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore
deputized the sheriff of PHILADELPHIA County, Pennsylvania.
to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS
On October 22nd, 1999 , this office was in receipt of
the attached return from PHILADELPHIA County, Pennsylvania.
Sheriff's Costs: So answer
Docketing 6.00
Out of County 9.00 rte?`
Surcharge 8.00 omas ine, eri
Dep. Phila Co 116.00
$T3.= ROBERT M. MUMMA, II
10/22/1999
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this M" day of ll.Qc-,,,
19Z)q_ A.D.
T Q. )Imfi-e. ar
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 1999-05569 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
MUMMA ROBERT M II
VS.
MUMMA REALTY I ET AL
CPL. TIMOTHY REITZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according
to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served
upon MUMMA REALTY I the
defendant, at 15:22 HOURS, on the 17th day of September
1999 at 308 E PENN DRIVE
ENOLA, PA 17025 CUMBERLAND
County, Pennsylvania, by handing to BAMBI NEVILLE (BOOKKEEPER)
a true and attested copy of the WRIT OF SUMMONS
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs: So answers:
Docketing 18.00
Service 9.30
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 8.00 A-'Is5 ri
-ROBERT M. MUMMA, II
122/1999
by
ep y e
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this F day of LQ?u_
19? A.D.
??on??
',f .' SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 1999-05569 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
MUMMA ROBERT M II
VS.
MUMMA REALTY I ET AL
CPL. TIMOTHY REITZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according
to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served
upon MUMMA REALTY II the
defendant, at 15:22 HOURS, on the 17th day of September
1999 at 308 E. PENN DRIVE
ENOLA, PA 17025 CUMBERLAND
County, Pennsylvania, by handing to BAMBI NEVILLE (BOOKKEEPER)
a true and attested copy of the WRIT OF SUMMONS
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs: So answers:
Docketing 6.00
Affidavit .00
Surcharge 8.00 R. T omas ine, 9 eri
-ROBERT M. MUMMA, II
1/22/1999
by
pu y i
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this ?& day of „_.h••-
19? A.D. nn
?1'ro tIUILULMLy
?-'
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NO: 1999-05569 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
MUMMA ROBERT M II
VS.
MUMMA REALTY I ET AL
CPL. TIMOTHY REITZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according
to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served
upon BOBALI CORPORATION the
defendant, at 15:22 HOURS, on the 17th day of September
1999 at 308 E PENN DRIVE
ENOLA, PA 17025 CUMBERLAND
County, Pennsylvania, by handing to BAMBI NEVILLE (BOOKKEEPER)
a true and attested copy of the WRIT OF SUMMONS
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof.
$14.UU ROBE T1M. MUMMA II
10/22999
Sheriff fIs Costs:
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
So answers:
6.00
.00
.00
8.00 zMeriff
e
e u y i
by
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this _- day of
19 9c/ A. D.
?o ar??
??'??
(
fl'10fC? C.c?p
c?/?"s?cr
1
L, 11 A
l
1
5
I
Q82L'naS) SZZ•Zt -
.A?1??NS Gndap .
J, ?a 4? ;M) •a or
'siamsue OS
• FF 61
_ 0I JO SV'OIUUAIASUUad JO MIS'u!gdlapupgd do (IunoZ) a p ulgt!m'LUSpuadap
pawea 0A0ge agt ' 1 ry/ 0 I S ?? ?? w W /? o) su ON(l0J LON
1 oIJ? ??t?t/?Xf ,yW(rvn ?„?
b (S 'ON Cv/
6 U'WH31 snSH3A
AnOO A1Nf100
'ON SV3ld NOWWO0
ONno:j ION • Nunam S.ddLH3HS
1 ?
7r
a) f'
I
SHERIFF'S RETURN-NOT FOUND 1- S`a0 3?1_
COMMON PLEAS NO,
COUNTY COURT
VERSUS
TERM, t 9q Cf
MtJMMfY 14c NO. 9q io
NOT FOUND as to M t/M M'4 ?E --9 t, ?y SJ p e A/9-
defendant, within the County of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, as of _ /,0-
19 11 -
12.225 (Rev. 12157)
the above named
So answers,
JOHN D. GREE ,JIFF
By: p"
Deputy Sheriff
In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Robert M. Mumma, It
VS.
Mumma Realty Associates, Inc., c/o
CT Corporation
No. 99-5569 Civil
Now, 9/14/99 . 19_, I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do
hereby deputize the Sheriff of Philadelphia County to execute this Writ, this
deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff.
e,5,z -
Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA
Affidavit of Service
Now,
within
upon
at
by handing to _
a
and made known to
So answers,
the contents thereof.
Sheriff of Counry, PA
Sworn and subscribed before
me this _ day of , 19
19_, at o'clock M. served the
copy of the original
COSTS
SERVICE $
MILEAGE
AFFIDAVIT
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
Robert M. Mumma, II
Box E
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
va
Court of Conunon Pleas
Mumma Realty I No. 99_DD69 Civil Term
-------- ?-- -
Mumma Realty II
1043 Mumma Rd., Wormleyyburg, PA In l.Action__ Law
17043
Mumma Realty Associates, Inc., c/oCTCorporation, 123 S. Broad St.,
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Bobali Corporation, 1043 Mumma Rd., Wormlesyburg, PA 17043
To _ Mumma_ Realty_ I._ Mumma_ Realty__II, Mumma Realty Associates, Inc.,
Bobali Corporation
You are hereby notified that
•------------------------------- M_bl?mm??--t?-----------------
---------------------
the Plaintiff has commenced an action in ____Civil Action-----Law
against you which you arc required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you.
IT:"? ham
Pa.
(SEAL) f r!i.? ?,! t `JvSuW?_'42S 1 -i ?Qlg_
Prothonotary
Curtis R. Long
-------------------
Prothonotary -------------------
_ By A I 1? -
Date _ September 13th -----'-- 1919
Deputy
?a
<> Q LEJ x
u L
J
L
J
L
• U
H C
H H
i
Ei
.1?
.a
u
m!
i
z
H
H
rti
E
a
£
N
N
O
z
>1 %
? N
r-I N
U/ i0
f? •r1
U c
Co O O
E w •.+
?¢ m
£ 0
?
H H 0
fa 0
a u
CE.0
E£ 000
E 'O '0
Z) c c
£ m m
3
.
a
.9
G
0
uU
Q
tq ?
u
co
0
H O
H r
H
a
s ai
H
£ ro
m
+? C
H W N
C1
.0 x
aomom0
L
W
W
a+
C
N
.a
a
OCT ? 1 a92
ROBERT M. MUMMA,11, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ()`'
Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. : No. 99-5569
MUMMA REALTY I, MUMMA REALTY :
II, MUMMA REALTY ASSOCIATION, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
INC, AND BOBALI CORPORATION
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, to wit, this day of October, 2002, upon due consideration of the
within Objection to Dismissal filed in the above-captioned matter, and good cause having been
shown, and a written objection having been filed, it is ORDERED that the Prothonotary shall not
dismiss this matter for failure to prosecute.
BY THE COURT:
c
7.
.I
OCT 2 IF
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II,
Plaintiff
V.
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 99-5569
MUMMA REALTY I, MUMMA REALTY :
II, MUMMA, REALTY ASSOCIATION, :CIVIL ACTION- LAW
INC, AND BOBALI CORPORATION
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, to wit, this _ day of October, 2002, upon due consideration of the
within Objection to Dismissal filed in the above-captioned matter, and good cause having been
shown, and a written objection having been filed, it is ORDERED that the Prothonotary shall not
dismiss this matter for failure to prosecute.
BY THE COURT:
J.
OCT 2, i ooZ
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II,
Plaintiff
V.
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 99-5569
MUMMA REALTY I, MUMMA REALTY :
11, MUMMA REALTY ASSOCIATION, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
INC, AND BOBALI CORPORATION
Defendants
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, to wit, this _ day of October, 2002, upon due consideration of the
within Objection to Dismissal filed in the above-captioned matter, and good cause having been
shown, and a written objection having been filed, it is ORDERED that the Prothonotary shall not
dismiss this matter for failure to prosecute.
BY TIM COURT:
J.
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II,
Plaintiff
V.
MUMMA REALTY I,
MUMMA REALTY, II, MUMMA
REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC.,
AND BOBALI CORPORATION,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
No. 99-5569 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 22nd day of October, 2002,
upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion in the form of an
Objection to Dismissal Pursuant to Cumberland County Local
Rule 228 requesting that this case be stricken from the
purge list, and no objection having been presented to the
motion in open court, the moticn is granted, the case is
stricken from the purge list, and the case shall remain
open.
Robert M. Mumma, II, Pro Se
Plaintiff
Hobali, Corp. 7
129 S. Lewisberry Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17005
Defendant
/ Mumma Realty I
Mumma Reality II
Mumma Realty Association
308 East Denn Drive
Enola, PA 17025
By the Court,
- -I ??,( -//
Y Wesley O e , Jr. ,
Ryjs
Court Administrator
wcy
V
'1'iZ-
?oe?ac M. MUMMA , IC _
vs Case No. _qq_S,5&7
N lo MAI-1Y Z VOM A "A LIT 7L,
M)PAMA ?E&TY tSCtA?E'j ANC 9Og14?-?
StntemAnt of l7tention to Proceed
To the Court: -r-?-
?BERr M. M11MM A r .1.7- intends to proceed with the above captioned matter.
PrintNameto6E?% K MOMMAr?SignName ?
Date: IO (? 2? S A ey for 1 Sr
Explanatory Comment
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has promulgated new Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 governing the termination of
inactive cases and amended Rule of Judicial Administration 1901. Two aspects of the recommendation merit
comment.
1. Rule ojcivil Procedure
New Rule of Civil Procedure 230.2 has been promulgated to govern the termination of inactive cases within the
scope of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The termination of these cases for inactivity was previously
governed by Rule of Judicial Administration 1901 and local rules promulgated pursuant to it. New Rule 230.2 is
tailored to the needs of civil actions. It provides a complete procedure and a uniform statewide practice, preempting
local rules.
This rule was promulgated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shop v. Eagle, 551 Pa. 300,710 A.2d
1104 (1998) in which the court held that "prejudice to the defendant as a result of delay in prosecution is required
before a case may be dismissed pursuant to local rules implementing Rule of Judicial Administration 1901:"
Rule of Judicial Administration 1901(6) has been amended to accommodate the new rule of civil procedure. The
general policy of the prompt disposition of matters set forth in subdivision (a) of that rule continues to be applicable.
II inactive Cases
The purpose of Rule 230.2 is to eliminate inactive cases from the judicial system. The process is initiated by the
court. After giving notice of intent to terminate an action for inactivity, the course of the procedure is with the parties.
If the parties do not wish to pursue the case, they will take no action and "the Prothonotary shall enter an order as of
course terminating the matter with prejudice for failure to prosecute." If a party wishes to pursue the matter, he or she
will file a notice of intention to proceed and the action shall continue.
a. Where the action has been terminated
If the action is terminated when a party believes that it should not have been terminated, that party may proceed
under Rule230(d) for relief from the order of termination. An example of such an occurrence might be the termination
of a viable action when the aggrieved party did not receive the notice of intent to terminate and thus did not timely file
the notice of intention to proceed.
The timing of the filing of the petition to reinstate the action is important. If the petition is filed within thirty days of
the entry of the order of termination on the docket, subdivision (d)(2) provides that the court must grant the petition and
reinstate the action. If the petition is filed later than the thirty-day period, subdivision (d)(3) requires that the plaintiff
must make a show in to the court that the petition was promptly filed and that there is a reasonable explanation or
legitimate excuse both for the failure to file the notice of intention to proceed prior to the entry of the order of
termination on the docket and for the failure to file the petition within the thirty-day period under subdivision (d)(2).
6. Where die action has not been terminated
An action which has not been terminated but which continues upon the filing of a notice of intention to proceed may
have been the subject of inordinate delay. In such an instance, the aggrieved party may pursue the remedy of a
common law non pros which exits independently of termination under Rule 230.2.
> N
is
?cu '-
?
O
a
LL
°
c
v G
e-
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II,
Plaintiff
V.
MUMMA REALTY I, MUNIMA
REALTY H, MUMMA REALTY
ASSOCIATES, INC., & BOBALI
CORPORATION,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 99 - 5569
STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED - PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 230.2
and
WRITTEN OBJECTION - PURSUANT TO C.C.R.P. 228
TO THE COURT:
I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, the Plaintiff, intend to proceed with the above captioned
matter.
DATE: October 7, 2008
ZA?b+M?,+//s
Robert M. Mumma, II
BOX 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
(717) 612 - 9720
PRO SE
_,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, do hereby certify that a copy of the Statement of
Intention to Proceed pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 230.2 and Written Objection pursuant to C.C.R.P.
228 was served this date by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to:
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Court House
One Courthouse Square
High & Hanover Streets
Carlisle, PA 17013
DATE: October 7, 2008
BY:
Robert M. Mumma, II
Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
717 -612 -9720
PRO SE
C? rv
?a
t I
?
David r). Bue((
,Pr(, thionotary
KirkS. Sohonage, E.SQ,
Soficitor
F L'`
v T
Renee X Simpson
1" (Deputy lnrrothonotary
Irene E. -Ylorrow
2n° Deputy Prothonotary
Office of the Prothonotary
Cumber(and County, 1Tennsykania
99-S-50 CIVILTERM
ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES
AND NOW THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011, AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE - THE ABOVE
CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA
R.C.P 230.2
BY THE COURT,
DAVID D. BUELL
PROTHONOTARY
One Courthouse Square • Suite 100 * Carf"s(e, PA 17013 0 (717) 240-6195 • Ta.,Y(717) 240-6573