Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-07 In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania -'-'-.1 Howard P. Steager, Orphans' Court Division .~~ Petitioner v. No. ~\ b"l \O:,~ __J H. Glenn Steager, Respondent ~ \ r',) PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AGENT SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO FILE AN INVENTORY AND ACCOUNT FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY OF HIS PRINCIPAL TAKEN AND RETAINED BY AGENT UNDER CLAIM OF GIFT f',) AND NOW COMES, the Petitioner, Howard P. Steager, by and through his undersigned attorneys, and petitions for a Rule to Show Cause, stating in support the following: 1. The petitioner, Howard P. Steager, is an adult individual residing at 411 Reno Street, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Petitioner is 89 years of age, and is the father of the respondent. 3. The respondent, H. Glenn Steager, is an adult individual residing at 625 Mountain Street, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Prior to May of 2006, the petitioner and the respondent had been estranged for a number of years. 5. Beginning in May of 2006, the respondent resumed relations with the petitioner and began to visit him from time to time. 6. On or about August 25, 2006, the respondent obtained the petitioner's signature on a power of attorney dated the "4th day of Aug 06," which the respondent presented to M&T Bank, Citizens' Bank and Susquehanna Credit Union. 7. The import and significance of the said power of attorney was not explained to the petitioner, who has difficulty reading anything not printed in very large type, and the power of attorney lacks both the "Notice" to the principal and the "Acknowledgment" required to be executed by the agent under 20 Pa. C.S. S 5601. 8. The photocopies of the said power of attorney, presented by the respondent in otherwise identical versions to M&T Bank and to Susquehanna Credit Union, vary at the signature page. 9. The version ofthe power of attorney presented to M&T Bank features a standard notary's acknowledgment below the petitioner's signature, attesting that the "undersigned officer" witnessed Barbara Smith execute the power of attorney on August 17, 1998, except that where the notary would sign, the signature of "Barbara R. Smith" appears and there is no stamp or seal of a notary. 10. The version of the power of attorney presented to Susquehanna Credit Union was evidently created from a photocopy of the same signature page, except that the printed portion of the acknowledgement featuring the date August 17, 1998 has apparently been covered by a white paper while being photocopied, although the anomalous signature of "Barbara R. Smith" remains. 11. The respondent now or formerly had a female companion named Sandy Smith, possibly the daughter or niece of one Barbara R. Smith. 12. Under the purported authority of the above-described power of attorney, the respondent withdrew, inter alia, $3,760 from the petitioner's account at Citizens' Bank and deposited the funds in a certificate of deposit in the respondent's own name at PNC Banle 13. The respondent, through his attorney, maintains that these funds will be made available, "if necessary" for the petitioner's expenses. 14. The respondent's response to the petitioner's request for an informal accounting of the respondent's banking transactions with the petitioner's funds was limited to a general averment that amounts withdrawn as cash were paid over to the petitioner as spending money. 15. Over the petitioner's helpless protestations, the respondent and Sandy Smith removed from the petitioner's residence a metal strong-box and approximately fifteen bags containing the petitioner's collection of old coins, silver certificate dollars, and other collectable currency, including one bill of currency given to the petitioner as a child by his father in the 1920s, which features a printing error. 16. The respondent has refused the petitioner's demand that he return the coin and currency collection, and even claims incredibly that his removal of the above-described valuables from the petitioner's residence, in the face of the petitioner's helpless objections, amounted to a gift. 17. The respondent admits retaining in his possession the petitioner's Mason's watch, and refuses to return it to the petitioner, claiming through his attorney the right and authority to "hold his father's Mason's watch on behalf of his father." 19. The respondent also took from the petitioner's home the petitioner's extensive collection of antique and otherwise valuable firearms, military memorabilia, bayonettes, etc. 20. The respondent acknowledged taking the petitioner's firearm collection and agreed to place the petitioner's firearms in secure storage with a gun dealer in Camp Hill, but an inventory of the items produced by the respondent uncovered the fact that the respondent turned in less than half of the petitioner's collection, retaining those items which it pleases the respondent to characterize as gifts to him. 21. The petitioner never gave anything in his collections of coins, bills, firearms or other items from his collection to the respondent. 22. The petitioner's wife, Ida, now resides in the Church of God nursing home in Carlisle. 23. The petitioner has three sons, and many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. 24. The respondent is likely aware that his nearly-ninety year old father, the petitioner, has made no provision for him in his will, and the respondent has evidently taken it upon himself to wrest from his father an inheritance by self-help measures of the most unsavory sort. 25. The respondent's unauthorized scheme of distribution to himself of his father's estate is both premature and contrary to his father's testamentary intentions. WHEREFORE, the petitioner prays this Court issue a Rule upon the respondent directing him to show cause, if any there be- (a) why he should not file an inventory of all personal property of the petitioner now in his possession or control or at any time sold or otherwise disposed of by him, (b) why he should not account for his actions under the alleged power of attorney and be surcharged for any resulting losses to the petitioner, and (c) why a constructive trust should not be imposed upon all those assets of the petitioner taken from him by the respondent under spurious claim of gift. Respectfully Submitted: SAIDIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY Dated: Il/d07 By: ~~ Thomas E. Flower S.Ct. #83993 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, P A 17011 (717) - 737 - 3405 Attorneys for the petitioner In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Howard P. Steager, Orphans' Court Division Petitioner No. ~ \ 6 \. \ ()?>? v. H. Glenn Steager, Respondent VERIFICATION I, Howard P. Steager, hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Petition are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: /f) r /7 ~ 07 By:)f~-vJ~ Howard P. Seager C] r"<> r'.: