HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-31-07
IN RE:
ESTATE OF HOWARD L. KAUTZ,
Deceased
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
COUNTY,PENNSYLVAN
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
FILE NO. 21-06-0173
AUDITOR'S REPORT
~)
(, ~)
, )
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
......'
'---1
(r;
Howard L. Kautz died on February 3, 2006. On February 24, 2006
Decedent's daughter, Marilyn E. Kautz, Petitioned the Court for Probate of a Will
(Kautz Exhibit "1 ") dated August 9,2004 which named her as Executrix. Letters
Testamentary were issued to Marilyn E. Kautz on that day. On October 30,2006
an Inventory and Inheritance Tax Return were filed.
On January 31,2007 Executrix filed a First and Final Account. The
Account was called for audit on March 6, 2007 and was Confirmed by the Court.
The Order of Court was clocked-in at 10:29 a.m. However, shortly after the
Account was Confirmed, on March 6, 2007 at 9:56 a.m., two of the beneficiaries,
Sonja L. Brunner and Jeffrey D. Apgar, filed Objections to the Account and
Schedule of Distribution. The next day, March 7, 2007 Objectants filed a Petition
to reconsider their Objections.
The original Objections were stricken as untimely filed by Order dated
March 8, 2007. However, by order dated March 21,2007 the Court issued a
Rule to Show Cause why the March 8, 2007 should not be reconsidered. The
Executrix filed a Response on March 28, 2007 and a Hearing was held on April
2,2007. On April 2, 2007 the Order confirming the Account was vacated, the
Estate of Howard L. Kautz, Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page]
V"-
objections were reinstated, and Stephen D. Tiley, Esquire, was appointed Auditor
with respect to the objections.
By letter to the Auditor dated April 27, 2007, counsel for the Executrix
raised what amounted to preliminary objections to the Objections filed by the two
beneficiaries. The Auditor requested statements of the law by June 8, 2007 and
requested an extension of time within which to file his report. By Order dated
May 29, 2007 the Court extended to August 31, 2007, the time for the Auditor to
file his report. A hearing before the Auditor was scheduled for July 26, 2007. By
letter dated June 6, 2007, counsel for the Executrix withdrew the preliminary
objections to the Objections.
Trial memorandums were received by the auditor and on July 26, 2007 a
Hearing was held before the Auditor at which time all parties were present and
represented by counsel. All hearing exhibits were admitted without objection.
At the hearing the Executrix filed an Amended First and Final Account and
Proposed Schedule of Distribution. Counsel for the Objectants received a copy
of that document, and after the hearing it was filed and clocked-in with the
Register of Wills. The parties waived preparation of a transcript until after the
auditor's report is filed.
The Objections allege that the Executrix exercised undue influence over
the decedent, causing him to transfer ownership of certain accounts into joint and
survivorship ownership with Executrix, about two years prior to his death. In their
Trial Memorandum, and at the Hearing, the Objectants withdrew their objection
to the exclusion of one of the joint accounts (the PNC Bank account) from the
assets of the estate.1
1 This was done because Objectants could not provide evidence of a contrary intent at the
time the PNC account was established I 1989. Objectants' Trial Memorandum, page 2.
Estate of Howard L. Kautz. Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Decedent, Howard L. Kautz, died on February 3, 2006 at age
87. His Will (Kautz Exhibit "1 ") dated August 9, 2004 was probated and Letters
Testamentary were issued to his daughter, Marilyn E. Kautz.
2. Howard L. Kautz had been married to Marguerite Kautz, who died
on April 11, 1989.
3. Howard and Marguerite Kautz had two children, to wit: Joycelyn E.
Apgar and Marilyn K. Kautz, who is the Executor.
4. Executrix Marilyn E. Kautz has three children.
5. Daughter, Joycelyn E, Apgar died on December 1, 2003, survived
by two children, Sonja L. Brunner and Jeffrey D. Apgar, the Objectants in the
present action.
6. The Decedent's Last Will and Testament leaves his estate 50% to
the Executor and 50% to the Objectants. (Kautz Exhibit "1 ")
7. Schedule "F" of the Pennsylvania Inheritance Tax Return filed by
the Executrix discloses three (3) joint accounts. which the Decedent held by right
of survivorship with the Executrix (Petitioner's Exhibit "B"), to wit:
A. PNC Bank Accl. No. 5140033157, created April
18, 1989, and having a date of death value of $16,899.76.
B. Wachovia Bank Accl. NO.1 01 0084283379,
created February 5, 2004, and having a date of death value of
$90,589.83.
Estate of Howard L. Kautz. Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 3
C. Wachovia Securities Investment Acct. No. 6647-
7455 created February 5, 2004 and having a date of death
value of $24,416.60.
8. The PNC bank joint account was made joint with the Decedent and
both of his daughters. However, daughter Joycelyn E. Apgar died on December
1, 2003, thereby leaving the Decedent and the Executor alone as joint owners.
9. The Wachovia accounts were made joint with the Executrix
approximately two months after her sister, Joycelyn E. Apgar died, and when the
Decedent was 85 years of age. If the Objectants were aware of these accounts
at all, they were not aware that they were jointly owned with the Executrix until
they appeared so on the inheritance tax return.
10. The Executrix claims to have no knowledge as to the creation of the
Wachovia Bank account as a joint account, but admits signing the account
statement for the Wachovia Securities account. Executrix maintains that she
was not present at the Wachovia Securities office when the joint account was
created, and simply signed the account statement when her father presented it to
her, without any knowledge, or at least without any detailed knowledge, as to
what she was signing.
11. The Wachovia accounts were created with funds from the sale of a
rental property that the Decedent owned.
12. The Decedent managed the rental property up until its sale on
December 28,2008.
13. The Executrix encouraged her father to sell the property 'for his
own peace of mind.' Objectants evidently did not discourage Decedent from
Estate of Howard L. Kautz, Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 4
selling the rental real estate, but rather said that the decision was up to the
Decedent.
14. In the spring of 2004 Decedent made cash gifts to each of his five
grandchildren in the amount of $2,500.00 In prior years there were other gifts
that mayor may not have been in equal amounts to all five grandchildren, but
were not equal between the families of the two daughters.
15. Around the time that the Wachovia accounts were made joint,
Decedent continued to live in his home, and manage his own finances, but his
cognitive abilities were slipping. For example:
A. On at least one occasion the Decedent went
outside without all of his clothes on and the police were called.
B. The Decedent would occasionally be driving and
not be able to remember his way home. However, this was
learned as a result of the Decedent himself relaying this to his
son-in-law, David C. Apgar, the widower of Joycelyn E. Apgar.
C. A long time member of the fire police, Decedent
was removed from his duties, evidently because of a lack of
capacity to perform them properly.
D. In February of 2004 Decedent had bladder control
problems and would repeat his stories, he also would fall and
then forget that he had fallen.
E. The Decedent was not incompetent in February of
2004 or when his last will was executed.
Estate of Howard L. Kautz, Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 5
16. In the spring of 2004 Decedent gave a $2,500 gift to each of his five
(5) grandchildren.
17. On June 4,2004, a few months after the Wachovia accounts were
transferred into joint names, the Decedent changed his Will to give his estate
50% to the Executrix and 50% to be divided equally among his five (5)
grandchildren. The result of this Will would have been that 80% of his estate
would pass to the Executrix's side of the family, and 20% would pass to the
Objectant's side of the family. Prior to this time the Decedent had a long
standing Will which divided his estate equally between his two daughters and
their heirs.
18. The Auditor believes that the Executrix encouraged the Decedent
to make the June 4, 2004 Will, but was not present at the time that the Will was
executed.
19. Somehow, the Objectants learned that the Will had been changed.
20. The Objectants encouraged the Decedent to change his Will again,
to reflect a 50/50 distribution between the two "sides" of the family. (see e.g.
Kautz Exhibit "3" which was given to the Decedent in the summer of 2004.) In
addition, son-in-law David C. Apgar, discussed the Decedent's testamentary
wishes with him. David C. Apgar believes that the Decedent's true desire was to
have his estate divided equally. David C. Apgar advised his father-in-law that if
an equal division was his desire, that he would need to change his Will.
21. Son-in-law David C. Apgar was not aware of the joint accounts, or
at least the fact that they were joint, until after Decedent passed away.
22. On August 9, 2004 Decedent changed his Will to again provide for
an equal division of his estate between the Executrix and the heirs of his
Estate of Howard L. Kautz, Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 6
deceased daughter. This was his Last Will and Testament, and the Will probated
as such. (Kautz Exhibit "1 ")
23. Decedent enjoyed good family relations with his daughter, Marilyn
E. Kautz, the Executrix, with the Objectants, and a very close relationship with
his son-in-law. He visited regularly with all of his family. The Executrix did not
approve of Decedent's relationship with his girlfriend in Elizabethtown. His son-
in-law David C. Apgar and the Objectants supported Decedent in that
relationsh i p.
24. At some point in time, Decedent gave to the Executrix a Power of
Attorney, however, the Executrix did not use the Power of Attorney until shortly
before Decedent died.
25. Executrix, Marilyn B. Kautz, testified words to the effect that: 'My
sister and I were always joint owners in case something happened.'
26. The testimony of the Objectants, Sonja L. Brunner and Jeffrey D.
Apgar was credible, and more credible than that of the Executrix Marilyn B.
Kautz. The testimony of the Decedent's son-in-law, David C. Apgar, was the
most credible.
Estate of Howard L. Kautz, Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Auditor has jurisdiction to hear the Objectants claim that
certain joint property should have been included in the probate estate, and
therefore the Account of the Executrix. The Executrix first raised what amounted
to preliminary objections to the Objections filed by the Objectants. Later the
Executrix withdrew those preliminary objections, thereby waiving the jurisdictional
objection. 2
2. Before his death, Decedent created three joint accounts, as
referenced in Findings of Fact 7. The PNG account was joint with the Decedent
and his two daughters, Joycelyn E. Apgar, who died on December 1, 2003, and
the Executrix, Marilyn E. Kautz. The two Wachovia accounts are joint with the
Executrix Marilyn E. Kautz alone.
3. The Wachovia Securities account is expressly not only jointly
owned, but a survivorship account. (See Petitioner's Exhibit "G," top of second
page)
4. The Wachovia Bank checking account is expressly not only jointly
owned, but a survivorship account. (See March 16,2004 date of death balance
letter attached after Schedule "F" of the inheritance tax return, which is
Petitioner's Exhibit "B.")
2 The Auditor has independently reviewed the jurisdictional question, and arguably he does,
through the Orphan's Court, have such jurisdiction. The Executrix must account for all assets
which she received, or should have received. PLE Executrix and Administrator 9244. The joint
accounts are property in the hands of the Executrix in her individual capacity. It has been held
that the Court has jurisdiction to hear a claim to recover assets alleged to have been
misappropriated by an Executor. PLE Executors and Administrators 9 248, moreover, 20 Pa,
C.S.A.9711 (17) gives the Orphan's Court jurisdiction over "title to personal property in the
possession of the personal representative, or registered in the name of the Decedent...." The
case of Estate of Gilbert 492 A. 2d 401,342 Pa, Super. 82 (1985), on facts very similar to the
case at bar, held that the Orphan's Court had jurisdiction to hear a claim that joint assets should
be returned to the estate.
Estate of Howard L. Kautz. Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 8
5. The evidence offered at the hearing does not establish whether or
not the PNC Bank joint account was expressly a survivorship account.
6. All three accounts and "joint accounts" subject to the Multiple-Party
Accounts Act ("MPAA") 20 Pa. C.S.A. ~6301 - 6306. The MPAA concerns
accounts at financial institutions, such as banks. (20 Pa. C.S.A. ~6301 defs.
account, financial institution, and joint account. The Wachovia Securities
account is a "share account and other like arrangements." (20 Pa. C.S.A. ~6301
def. of account and Deutsch Larrimore & Famish, P. C. v. Johnson, 848 A. 2d
137,577 Pa. 637 (Pa. Sup 2004))
7. The MPAA makes any joint account presumptively a survivorship
account, whether or not it is expressly designated a survivorship account.
(a) JOINT ACCOUNT. --Any sum remaining on deposit at
the death of a party to a joint account belongs to the surviving party
or parties as against the estate of the decedent unless there is
clear and convincing evidence of a different intent at the time the
account is created. ...
(d) CHANGE BY WILL PROHIBITED. --A right of
survivorship arising from the express terms of an account or under
this section, or a beneficiary designation in a trust account cannot
be changed by will.
20 Pa. C.S.A. ~6304
8. Objectants having withdrawn their objections to the failure to
include the PNC account as an estate asset, that account is a joint account which
became the sole and separate property of the Executrix, Marilyn E. Kautz, upon
the passing of the Decedent, and it is not an asset of the estate. (Objectant's
Trial Memorandum, Page 2)
Estate of Howard L. Kautz, Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 9
9. Pursuant to the MPAA, the Wachovia accounts are statutorily
presumed to be joint unless Objectants show by clear and convincing evidence
that there was a different intent at the time the accounts were created. 20 Pa.
C.S.A. S 6304(a)
10. The burden of establishing clear and convincing evidence that there
was a different intent is on the Objectants. In Re Estate of Moyers.:, 642 A. 2d
525,434 Pa. Super 165 (1994)
11. A confidential relationship exists
"...where the circumstances are such as to make it certain
that [Decedent] and the benefited party did not deal on equal terms,
but that on one side there was overmastering influence, or on the
other, weakness, dependence or trust, justifiably [reposed]."
(By analogy to the law of Wills. PLE Wills S 112, footnote omitted)
12. The fact that the Executor held a power of attorney for the
Decedent does not, in and of itself, establish that a confidential relationship
existed between the parties. (Objectants aver that the power of attorney creates
a confidential relationship in their Trial Memorandum, but provide no citation for
this proposition, and your Auditor finds no express support for it in case law or
Chapter 56 of the Probate Estates and Fiduciary Code. However, see In re
Ryewell's Estate 354 Pa 154,5 A.2d 123 (1939) cited at footnote 56, PLE Gifts S
44.)
13. Existence of a confidential relationship does not in and of itself shift
the burden of proof. In Re Estate of Myers, Id.
14, Objectants failed to meet their burden of proof by clear and
convincing evidence that the Decedent intended the Wachovia accounts to be
Estate of Howard L. Kautz, Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 10
other than joint accounts, or that the Decedent was subject to undue influence in
making the accounts joint.
DISCUSSION
This case turns on the burden of proof. The Multiple-Party Accounts Act
(UMPAA") 20 Pa. C.S.A. 96301-6306, places a high burden on the Objectants.
The MPAA provides that the accounts are statutorily presumed to be joint unless
Objectants show by clear and convincing evidence that there was a different
intent at the time the accounts were created. As stated in In re Estate of Heske,
436 Pa. Super. 63, 647 A.2d 243 (1994):
"Clear and convincing evidence" is the highest burden in our civil
law and requires that the fact-finder be able to "come to clear
conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise fact in
issue." Lessner v. Rubinson, 527 Pa. 393, , 592 A.2d 678, 681
(1991 ).
Heske, Id. 436 Pa. Super at 65, 647 A.2d at 244.
Did Howard L. Kautz intend, in February of 2004, that his joint Wachovia
accounts not pass to his daughter Marilyn E. Kautz at his death? The evidence
suggests that may have been his intent, and it suggests that he may have made
a mistake, but there is not clear and convincing evidence that such was his
intent.
Objectants did show that the Decedent had a general intent to treat his
two daughters, and his grandchildren by them, equally. For example, he had a
history of doing so in his wills, and when it was pointed out to him that his
penultimate will did not do that, he changed his will to make such an equal
Estate of Howard L. Kautz, Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 11
division. Findings of Fact 17-22. That is indeed some evidence that he intended
an equal division of the Wachovia accounts a few months earlier when they were
made joint, but that is not clear and convincing evidence that he had that intent.
An intent to have one's probate estate pass equally does not preclude an intent
to have one's joint assets pass outside of the will and directly to their survivor, in
the manner that such joint accounts are titled. From the evidence, it is at least
conceivable that the Decedent could have intended for the Wachovia accounts to
pass directly to the Executrix, Marilyn E. Kautz. The auditor suspects that was
not the case, but a different intent has not been proved.
Maybe the best evidence for the Objectants is Marilyn Kautz's own
statement that she and her sister were always joint owners in case something
happened. Finding of Fact 25. However, that statement says very little about the
Decedent's intent with respect to the Wachovia accounts.
To satisfy the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, the evidence
must not be general, but must be detailed and specific. In re Estate of Sipe, 492
Pa. 125,422 A.2d 826 (1980)3 For example, in In re Rishel's Estate, 16 Pa. D. &
C.3d 267 (1979) the Court stated: "The vague expressions, attributed to
decedent, that he wanted to treat all of his grandchildren alike were not clear and
convincing evidence of such different intent, at the time these joint accounts were
created..." Id. at 275-276
Other than the will history and the generalized desire of the Decedent to
treat his children equally, there was no other evidence of Decedent's intent.
There was evidence attempting to show undue influence by Marilyn Kautz over
her father, the Decedent.
3 "It is important to note that [Sipe and others], are all cases with similar facts and controversies
decided by this Court after Chapter 63 was passed. However, Chapter 63 was not applied in these
cases because the accounts at issue therein were opened prior to the effective date of the Chapter
(September 1, 1976)." Lessner v. Rubinson, 527 Pa. 393; 592 A2d 678 (1991)
Estate of Howard L. Kautz, Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 12
The evidence certainly showed that the Decedent was slipping. Findings
of Fact 15. But it did not show that Decedent was so weak as to be dependent or
subservient to Marilyn Kautz. For example, Decedent continued to manage the
rental property which, upon sale, created the funds for the Wachovia accounts.
Findings of Fact 11 & 12. Although Decedent was beginning to become
confused and lost while driving, he continued to drive significant distances and
live a substantially independent life. Moreover, it was the Decedent himself that
relayed this confusion to his son-in-law. Finding of Fact 15(B). Importantly,
Decedent still managed his own financial affairs. Findings of Fact 15 & 24.
Certainly Decedent was susceptible to influence. No doubt Marilyn Kautz
influenced Decedent to sell the rental property. Finding of Fact 13. But such
advice is not the least unreasonable for any man of the Decedent's age given the
burdens of managing such property. Your Auditor believes that Marilyn Kautz
influenced the Decedent to change his will to affect an unequal division of his
assets. Finding of Fact 18. Similarly, the Objectants and their father influenced
the Decedent when they explained the true meaning of his penultimate will to
him, and encouraged him to correct or change that will. Finding of Fact 20. The
Auditor does not mean to equate the motives of the Objectants with those of the
Executrix,4 but rather to show that while the Decedent was susceptible to
influence, he was not controlled by the Executrix, Marilyn Kautz.
[A] confidential relationship exists when the circumstances
make it certain that the parties do not deal on equal terms; where,
on the one side there is an overmastering influence, or on the
other, weakness, dependence or trust, justifiably reposed. In both
situations an unfair advantage is possible. Leedom v. Palmer, 274
Pa. 22, 25, 117 A. 410,411 (1922). Such a relation is created
between two persons when it is established that one occupies a
superior position over the other; intellectually, physically,
governmentally, or morally, with the opportunity to use the
superiority to the other's disadvantage. [Union Trust Co. v. Cwynar,
4 The Objectants were motivated to preserve their equal share. Marilyn Kautz was
motivated to increase the share going to her and her family.
Estate of Howard L. Kautz, Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 13
388 Pa. 644, 653,131 A.2d 133, 137 (1957)]. A confidential
relationship is not limited to any particular association of parties, but
exists wherever one occupies such a position of advisor or
counsellor as reasonable to inspire confidence that he will act in
good faith for the other's interest. Drab v. Jaffe, 351 Pa. 297, 300,
41 A.2d 407, 408 (1945).ld. at 504-505, 556 A.2d at 825. A
confidential relationship may be shown by proof that the alleged
donee possessed a power of attorney over a decedent's assets.
Foster v. Schmitt, 429 Pa. 102, 108,239 A.2d 471,474 (1968);
Hera v. McCormick, 425 Pa.Super. 432, 449, 625 A.2d 682, 691
(1993)
Weir by Gasper v. Estate of Ciao, 521 Pa. 491, 556 A.2d 819 (1989), as quoted
in In re Estate of Myers, 434 Pa. Super. 165 at 169, 642 A.2d 525 at 527, (1994)
Other than the existence of the power of attorney, the evidence in the present
case does not rise to this standard. Your Auditor does not see a case where a
power of attorney, which has not been used at any time relevant to the inquiry, or
before that relevant time (Finding of Fact 24), has itself been enough to establish
a confidential relationship. Nevertheless, your Auditor assumes that in the face
of the above law a confidential relationship between the Decedent and Marilyn
Kautz existed based upon the power of attorney.
However, the effect of finding a confidential relationship is limited. The
Myers case is very instructive. While under traditional common law the existence
of a confidential relationship would have shifted the burden of proof back to
Marilyn Kautz; with the MPAA, the burden remains upon the Objectants. The
case at bar is very similar to Myers:
'Although confidential relationship no longer shifts burdens, it is,
nevertheless, necessary to consider the facts which constitute the
relationship together with all other evidence in determining the
intent of the decedent when the accounts. . . were issued.'
... Because an intent different from the stricture of Section 6304
had to exist at the time the account [was] created, the focal point of
the inquiry must be [the date when the account was opened].
Evidence of a confidential relationship, therefore, is relevant only
Estate of Howard L. Kautz. Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 14
for purposes of determining intent; it does not serve to shift the
burden of proof to the survivor.
... Although evidence was introduced which established that a
confidential relationship had existed between Meyers and Kline,
there was no evidence that undue influence had been exerted upon
Kline at the time the joint account was created. There also was no
evidence that the decedent had not voluntarily created the joint
account. ... Absent evidence which establishes that the decedent
had a "contrary intent" at the time the account was created, the
statutory presumption of survivorship is controlling. Here, the
presumption was not rebutted merely by the relationship existing
between the decedent and her neighbor. Therefore, the balance of
the account upon the death of Edyth Meyers became payable to
Hazel Kline and not to the decedent's estate.
Myers, Id." 434 Pa. Super. at 1717-172,642 A.2d at 528 citations omitted.5
Similarly, Objectants in the case at bar simply do not have sufficient evidence to
overcome the burden of proof placed upon them by the statute.
AUDITOR'S AND COUNSEL FEES
At the conclusion of the Hearing counsel for the Executrix filed an
Amended Account. The only change is an increase in counsel fees from $8,000
to $16,204.50. The stated reason for the increase is as a result of the present
litigation. Your Auditor recommends that the increase in fees in the Amended
Account be rejected, not because they were not earned or appropriate, but so
that each party, the Executrix and the Objectants, will be solely responsible for
their own costs and fees.
5 Another case showing how difficult a standard the statute has imposed is In re Estate of
Heske, 436 Pa. Super. 63, 647 A.2d 243 (1994) where a written declaration of intent
prepared by decedent's counsel two years after the accounts were created was, in the
majority's view, insufficient evidence of intent at the time the accounts were created to
satisfy the statute. That this case would be decided differently without the MP AA is
show by Estate of Gilbert, 342 Pa. Super. 82, 492 A.2d 401.
Estate of Howard L. Kautz, Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 15
Exhibit "A" hereto sets forth the Auditor's fees in the amount of $3,797.50.
Your Auditor recommends that they be charged to the estate with the result that
they are shared equally by the parties.
Dated: ~7~ -.-J-o>j fle7
Respectfully submitted,
By: .~4 hi .
Stephen ~..~iley, Esquire
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5838
Supreme Court 1.0.#32318
7-~
Estate of Howard L. Kautz, Deceased
Auditor's Report
Page 16
FREY TILEY
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
5 SOUTH HANOVER STREET
CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-3385
Auditor's Time Sheet
Estate of Howard L. Kautz
DATE CODE WORK DONE TIME
2007
4-May S Receive and review file for estate of Howard L.
Kautz, SDT appointed auditor, and 4/27/07 letter
from Atty Bangs 0.5
1 6-May L Review status and dictate letter to attorneys re
scheduling 0.2
23-May L Emails re schedule, dictate letter to attys and to
Court with draft Order 0.3
7-Jun L from Atty Bangs and dictate hearing notice and let 0.2
26-Jul A Prep for and attending hearing 3.3
9-Aug S Review file, law, and begin drafting Report (act. 2.0 1.0
27-Aug D Review and Revise procedural history and findings
of fact, begin conclusions of law 0.7
29-Aug D Research and draft Report 6.0
30-Aug D Research and draft Report 7.5
31 -Aug D Finalize and file Report 2.0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL HOURS:
21.7
RATE:
$175
DOLLAR VALUE:
$3,797.50
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEY
A Attend/Appear
C Confer/Conference
D Draft
G General Activities
L Dictate/Letter
R Research
S Study/Review
T Telephone
V Travel
EXHIBIT "A'"
IN RE:
ESTATE OF HOWARD L. KAUTZ,
Deceased
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
COUNTY,PENNSYLVAN
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
FILE NO. 21-06-0173
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
AUDITOR'S REPORT, by placing copy of the same in the United States mail,
postage pre-paid, addressed to :
Suzanne S. Becker, Esquire
Nauman Smith Shissler & Hall, LLP
P.O. Box 840
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0840
Michael L. Bangs, Esquire
Bangs Law Office
429 South 18th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Counsel for Objectants
Counsel for Executrix
I .~/ "177
Dated: ~r -...Jf.)"'?i /
,~~jJ. 7./7
St6phen D. Tiley, Esquire
5 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-5838
Supreme Court 1.0.#32318