The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-02-08F:\F[LES\Clients\Mumma 5844.1 (esta[e) 8747 (Kim)\5844. LMumma Estate\5844. Lanstomo[quash.wpd/nlm Created: 9/20/04 0:06PM Revised: 5/2/08 3:19PM 5894.5 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire I.D. No. 49813 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER N MARTSON LAW OFFICES ~ ~ -~, - 10 East High Street ~ c~-v a. ~1 ~ ~~ ~ r = c-7 Carlisle PA 17013 ~ ~ -4 `-=-~ ~ ~~ (717) 243-3341 ~~~ ^~ ~~' `~~ fag ller(c%martsonlaw.com ~n~ ~ f Attorneys for Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan, ~~ c~ .=- - ~~r; .._. Co-executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma '~' ~ ~, ~ ,,--, ._x 3 IN RE ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ROBERT M. MUMMA CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Deceased NO. 21-86-398 ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION EXECUTRIXES' ANSWER TO ROBERT M. MUMMA, II's MOTION TO OUASH & GENERAL OBJECTION TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND NOW, comes Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan, Co-executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, by and through their attorneys, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, and hereby aver as follows: 1. Admitted. A true and accurate copy of said discovery request is attached hereto as "Exhibit A." 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. The document speaks for itself. Additionally, the majority of the subparts are "subsidiary inquiries which are reasonably and logically necessary to explain or justify the response to the initial inquiry." See Brittain v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 36 C.L.J. 497 (1986), 503. It is admitted that some of the subparts are document requests and not interrogatories. Moreover, Robert M. Mumma, II ("RMMII") has stated no valid objection to the requests for documents. 4. Denied. The document speaks for itself. Moreover, the subparts include document requests and not merely interrogatories. 5. Denied. The document speaks for itself. The Executrixes' discovery requests were reasonably calculated to lead to information necessary for their defense against the obj ector, RMMII. _a Moreover, the Interrogatories relating to the Executrixes do not constitute double the questions just because there are two Executrixes. Their fiduciary duties are the same. 6. Denied. The document speaks for itself. The Executrixes' discovery requests were reasonably calculated to lead to information necessary for their defense against the obj ector, RMMII. 7. The Local Rules speak for themselves. However, see also Brittain v. Merrel Dow Fhar., Inc. for the definition of an interrogatory as stated in number 3 above. 8. The Local Rules speak for themselves. However, see also Brittain v. Merrel Dow Phar., Inc. for the definition of an interrogatory as stated in number 3 above. 9. Denied. This case has been ongoing for over twenty years and contains complicated issues, many of which have been raised or challenged by RMMII. Further, the Executrixes have responded to numerous discovery requests by RMMII and produced boxes and boxes of documents for him over the years pertaining to this case. The requests are not unreasonably burdensome, overly broad, or oppressive. RMMII objects to the number of Interrogatories and subparts propounded in this discovery request, and the Pa.R.C.P. clearly state that the statement of an objection shall not excuse the answering party from answering all remaining interrogatories. The objection to all the interrogatories onthe basis that he feels they exceed 40 in number is not a valid excuse not to answer any of the interrogatories. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. Rule 4006, governing answers to interrogatories, each interrogatory shall be answered fully and completely unless objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. Furthermore, the Rules specify that upon motion for a protective order and good cause shown, the court may make any order justice requires to protect the person from "unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense." RMMII does not claim any of these, only that he counts (incorrectly) that there are an excessive number of interrogatories. Moreover, a discovery deadline has been set by the Court for May 31, 2008, and it appears RMMII is attempting to stall or delay the Executrixes efforts in obtaining necessary discovery before that deadline. 10. Denied. See No. 9 above. The discovery requests also include requests for documents which do not count as interrogatories. 11. The Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure speak for themselves. The discovery requests are relevant and necessary to substantially aid in preparation for and trial of case. Further, the responses requested are necessary for discovering truth, narrowing issues and eliminating surprise. Finally, RMMII has made no showing of any unreasonable expense, annoyance, burden, embarrassment or oppression. 12. Denied. The Interrogatories propounded by the Executrixes request information necessary to defend their actions for the Estate and gather information regarding Robert M. Mumma, II's objections. Further, the discovery requests are necessary for preparing for trial and eliminating surprise. The interrogatories were propounded to RMMII in order to narrow issues, and reveal facts, witnesses and existing evidence. See Brittain at p. 500. 13. Admitted. 14. No response is required. WHEREFORE, the Executrixes request that the Court and/or the Court appointed auditor dismiss the objections of Robert M. Mumma, II and order him to respond to the discovery by May 12, 2008 as set forth by the Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure. By Respectfully submitted, MARTSO~1 LAW OFFICES Ge6rge B' Faller, Jr., Esq I.D. Number 49813 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: May 2, 2008 Attorneys for Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan, Co-executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma F 1-il~~lre~.'.,'V .. .. a..J' .~~,,~; '.- ~."',"a~i VI-.;._1 L. ,.e: '?'.1 ... I~~r' ,, '.Af\Fr ~~. ~'d George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire l.D. No. -19513 I~ o ~'. Otto, lII, Esquire LD. No. 2,;63 MARTSON DEARDORFF ~VILLIALIS OTTO GILROY & F ALLER MARTSON L~~~~' OFFICES IO East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Barbara b1cK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan IN RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COti1MON PLEAS OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENiVSYLVANIA Deceased NO. 21-86-398 ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO: Robert M. NTumma, II, Box 58, Bowmansdale, PA 17008 Enclosed are Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents propounded by the Estate to be answered under oath by Robert M. Mumma, II, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4005, within thirty (30) days from the date of service hereof: A copy of said Answers shall be served upon counsel for the Estate at the addresses below. These Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents and if, between the time of your .Answers to said discovery requests and the time of trial of this case, you or anyone acting in your behalf learn of any further information not contained in your said Answers, you shall promptly >rumish said information to the undersigned by supplemental answers or responses. ,1s used herein, the word "you" or "your" includes your attorneys, representatives, insurers, ~u1d all others purporting to act on your behalf. Unless otherv~°ise speciFed, response to the follo~~ing Interrogatories shall give the requested i~~nformatiou for the period ti-om 1986 to the present (hereinafter sometimes referrer! to as the "time period"). EXHIBIT "A" It is hereby rertilied that a true and correct copy of these Interrugatories ~t~as mailed to Robert tit. Mumma, II, on this date by the undersigned. MARTSO~ L~~~~" OFFICES By.. ~ ~ George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire No V. Otto, III, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 2~3-33-I1 Attorneys for Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Barbara i~1cK. tilumma and Lisa M. Morgan 1~ Date: ~,~-~i.~.,~ ~1 f ~~`~x:~ 1. For every asset you contend Barbara ~teK. Mumma and Lisa ~I. :~~lor~aan pace "grossly undervalued:,, (a) identity each asset as to which you make this contention; (b) state in detail the tactual basis for such contention, and the method used bti you to make the valuation; (c) identify all persons having knowledge of the facts relating to such contention; and (d) identify and produce all documents supporting or relating to such contention, including but not limited to all documents supporting your valuation and,'or contradicting the valuation of the Estate. ANSWER: ?. For each asset ~ ou contend ~~ as "disproportionately allocated into the Marital Trust": (a) identify each asset as to «~hich you make this contc;ntiuu, including a list of each asset you contc;nd should not ha~~e been allocated to the tilarital Trust; (b) state in detail the factual basis for such contention; (c) identify all persons haying kno~~ledge of the facts relating to such contention; and (d) identify and produce all documents supporting or relating to such contention. ANS`'~'ER: To the e~tc:nt that you contend that anv "withdrawals from the ~[arital Trust" have bt~:n improper or wrongfi~l: (a) identity each such "withdrawal"; (b) state the amount by which you contend the "withdrawal" diminished the "interests of the beneficiaries"; (c) state in detail the factual basis for such contention; (d) identify all persons having knowledge of the facts relating to such contention; and (~) identify and produce all documents supporting or relating to such contention. ANS`'~'ER: 4. For each and e~'ery "unilateral or unauthorized action" and "failure to comply ~~ ith state la~ti~" referenced in your Supplemental Objection \o. 5: (a) identify the action or failure; (b) identify the la~~~ or regulation y-ou contend has not been complied ~~ith; (c) state in detail the factual basis for your contention; (d) identify all persons ha~~ing knowledge of the facts relating to such contention; and (e) identify and produce all documents supporting or relating to such contention. ANS~~'ER: ~. For every shareholder agreement governing ownership ofcorporate stock you contend dirs. liununa and tilrs. 'Morgan "not recugnized" or "concealed": (a) produce a copy of said agreement: (b) if you cannot produce a copy of the agreement, state in detail the: terms of the alle~cd agreement; (c) state whether you have ever seen the original of the document, and, i f so, the date and location in which you last saw the original of the document; (d) state the date on and location in which you last saw a copy of the document; (c') state the manner in which you believe the document supports your contentions or allegations; (f) state in detail the factual basis for your contentions; (g) identify all persons having knowledge of the facts relating to such contentions; and (h) produce all documents relating or referring to such document. ANS`W'ER: 6. ~~"ith respect to the shareholder agreements you contend ~~~uuld ha~~e precluded the Estate from acquiring stock in the corporations identified iii your Supplemental Objection ti~o. -, and any corporations omitted from that listing, (a) produce a copy of said agrrec;ment; (b) i f you cannot produce a copy of the agreement, state in detail the tcnns of the alle,ed agreement; (c) state whether you have ever seen the original of the document, and, if so, the date and location in which you last saw the original of the document; (d) state the date on and location in which you last saw a copy of the; document; (c} state the manner in which y-ou believe the document supports your contentions or allegations; (f) state in detail the factual basis for your contentions; (g) identify all persons having knowledge of the facts relating to such contentions; and (h) produce all documents relating or referring to such document. ~~~SWER: ~. ~~'ith respect to the "coipvrate transactions ~~~hich con~~c~~ed ~issets ouC of the co~~~orations listed in ~~our Supplemental Objection ti`o. S: (a) state the date of the transaction; and (b) state the entity or entities transterrin~ assets; (c) state the entity or entities to whom assc;ts were transferred; and (d) identify the assets transferred. A~iS~~"ER: S. To the extent that you contend that ~irs.:~Iunnna and Mfrs. Morgan acted improperly ~ti~ith respect to any transaction identified in your response to hlterro~ato--y tio. 7: (a) identify all action you contend ~~-ere ~t rungful: (b) state in detail the factual basis for your contention; (c) identify all persons hay ing knowledge of the facts relating to such contention: and (d) identify and produce all documents supporting or relating to such contention. A~iS~VER: 9. ~~~ith i-cspcct to your contention that dirs. Mumma and yirs. ylor,an "ti-audulentl~~ terminated the corporate existence of diddle Park, Inc." (a) state in detail the factual basis for your contention; (b) identify all persons having kno~ti~ledgc of the facts relating to such contention; and (c) identify and produce all doc~unents supporting or relating to such contention. :~tiS`~'ER: 10. ~'~"ith respect to your allegation in your Supplemental Objection tiu. 10 that ~Irs. ~Tununa and ~Irs.:~torgan "knowingly concealed corporate records that ~~~ere kno~~ n to be altered": (a) identify all documents you contend ~~~ere concealed; fib) state the maiuler in wluch the documents were "altered"; (c) state in detail the factual basis for dour contention; (d) identify all persons having knowledge of the facts relating to such contention; and (e) identify and produce all documents supporting or relating to such contention. ANSw~ER: 11. ~~"ith respect to y~otu- allegation in your Supplemental Objection tio. L 1 that L~Trs. ;~tununa and dirs. Morgan "concealed their kno~~ ledge ofthe Decedent's activities prior to ~~pril 1 ~. 1956": (a) idc;ntify all `'activities of the Decedent" that allegedly were concealed; (b) state in detail the tactual basis for ti~uur contention; and (c) identif~~ all persons having knowledge of the facts relating to such contention. ANS~~'ER: 1?. For all life insurance proceeds ~~~hich you contend ~~ere "fraudulently misappropriated": (a) identify the life insurance policies, amount and disposition of proceeds, and any and all beneficiaries ofsaid policies; (b) state; in detail the factual basis for your contention; (c) identify all persons having I:nowledge of the facts relating to such contentions; (d) identify and provide the authority for your contention that proceeds ware misappropriated; and (e) identify- and produce all documents supporting or relating to such contention. ANSWER: 13. For each and crery corporate designation or position you contend the Executrices assumed ~~ hich ~~-ere unauthorized: (a) identifv the d,aignation or position and the respecti~~e corporation; (b) identity and produce the governing b}~-laws for each corporation 1 fisted in your ans~~-er above; (c) identify all persons having knowledge of the facts you are contending above; and (d) state the basis for your claim that the assumption of the designations or positions were unauChorized. ANSV4'ER: 1-~. for e~~e-y "salary and health insurance benefit" ~~ou contend the Eyl'.Cntt'lec'S a~~~arded themsel~~es ~~hich was unauthorized: (a) idontify the benefit you contenii «~as a~~~arded and ~~~hy it ~~~as unauthorized; (b) identify where the benefit came from; (c) identify all persons ha~~ing knowledge of the facts you contend above; and (d) identify and produce all documents which support your contention. ANS~~"ER: l ~. For each and << ery action ~~ith aspect to the Estate and or the Trusts ~~hich ~~ou cuntcnd Barbara yIcK.~Iunima and. or Lisa ~~1. Morgan constitute "self-dealing and personal enhancement": (a) identify each action you contend constituted self-dealing; fb) state in detail the factual basis for such contention; (c) identity all persons having knowledge of the facts relating to such contention; (d) identify all documents supporting or relatingr to such contention; (e) produce all documents supporting or relating to such contention that were not produced by the Estate and. or the Trusts in this proceeding; and (~~ state in detail why the action was not allowed bylaw. ANSWER: 1 G. For each and every "conveyance of estate assets" which you contend dirs. '~Iununa acid ~1rs. tilorgan made fraudulently, (a) identify each asset and conveyance ~~~hich are the basis of this contention; (b) state the basis for your contention that the conveyance was fraudulent; (c) identify all persons having knowledge of the facts relating to such contention; and (d) identify and produce all documents supporting or relating to such contention. :~NSw"ER: 1,. ~~'ith respect to coot contention in your Supplemental Objection \o. 1 that dirs. titununa and ~Irs. ~lorgau "ha~~e refused to account" for any- trnnsacCiuns: (a) identify the transaction(s) in ~ucstion; (b) state in detail the factual basis for your contention; and (c) identify and produce all documents supporting or relating to such conte~ition. .~~5~~'ER: 13. To the tttent that ~~ou contend that any of the actions of qtrs. Mumma and ~lrs. Morgan alleged in your Supplenuntal Objections hai7ncd or diminished the ~~atue of the Estate of Robert ~1. Mumma and, or the Trusts established under his ~~'ill: (a) state the amount or nature of the harm; (b) state in detail the tactual basis for dour contention; (c) state in detail the manner in which the amount of any Kann ~ti~as calculated; (d) identify all persons ha~~ing knowledge of the facts relating to such contention; and (e) identify all documents supporting or relating to such contention or calculation. .~:v'Sw'ER: CERTIFIC:~TE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent for '~lartson Deardorff ~~"illiams Otto Gilroy & Faller, hereby certif~° that ~ copy of the foregoing Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents ~~as ser~~ed this date by dcpositin;~ same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P:~, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follo~~ s: 'dir. Robet~t M. Mumma, 1I Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA I ; 008 ~Ir. Robert fit. i~tumma, II (1880 S.E. Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996-1968 ~1r. Robert i1i1. ?Mumma, II $40 Market Street, Suite 164 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Ralph A. Jacobs, Esquire JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 705 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (Attorney for Barbara Mann Mumma} Brady L. Green, Esquire MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIL;S LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 (Attorney for Estate and Executrixes) Ms. Linda Mumma Roth 512 Creekview Lane Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Taylor P. ~=~ndrews, Esquire ~~VDRE ~~'S & JOH?`vTSON 78 Nest Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Court-,appointed Auditor) ~iARTSO~~ LA~V OFFICES ~ ~ ~ s 13y, -~-~-.-- - r .r Tricia D. Eckc;nroad Ten East High Strut Carlisl.:, PA 1 ~ U! ,. Date: ' a.. ~, :~ ~ ~~ j~ (717) ?43-3341 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, and authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & :Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Executrixes's Answer to Robert M. Mumma, II's :Motion to Quash and General Objection to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents 'was served this date by depositing same in the Past Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II 6880 S.E. Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996-1968 Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II 840 Market Street Suite 164 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Ralph A. Jacobs, Esquire JACOBS & SINGER, LLC 1515 Market Street Suite 705 Philadelphia, PA 19]02 (Attorney for Barbara Mann Mumma) Brady L. Green, Esquire MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 (Attorney for Estate and Executrixes) Ms. Linda Mumma Roth P.O. Box 840 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Ms. Linda Mumma Roth 512 Creekview Road Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Ms. Linda Mumma Roth 2038 Spruce Street, Apt. 3R Philadelphia, PA 19103 Taylor P. Andrews, Esquire ANDREWS & JOHNSON 78 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Court-Appointed Auditor) MARTSON LAW OFFICES T"a D. Eckenroac 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: 5/2/08