Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-08 (3) ~.. .,. ~'.:~i 1 ijL. ,~ George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire ~"1 `` I.D. No. 49813 if'~R ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ No V. Otto, III, Esquire ~ - - LD. No. 27763 MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER ~~'''-F~ '` ~~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MARTSON LAW OFFICES ~ ~'~ ' ' `' '`~ ' 10 East Highs Street ~''` ~_ ~ ~ ~ _ Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys four the Estate IN RE ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ROBERT M. MUMMA :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Deceased N0.21-86-398 ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION RESPONSE OF BARBARA McK. MUMMA AND LISA M. MORGAN TO FURTHER MOTION OF ROBERT M. MUMMA. II FOR REMOVAL OF EXECUTRICES AND/OR TRUSTEES PURSUANT TO ORPHANS' COURT ORDER OF OCTOBER 3, 2007 AND NOW, comes Lisa Mumma Morgan and Barbara McK. Mumma as Executrices of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma and Trustees under his will, respond as follows to the Motion of Robert M. Mumma, II: 1. Admitted. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that Mr. Mumma, II, is currently acting pro se in that no counsel has entered an appearance on his behalf. Mrs. Mumrria and Mrs. Morgan understand, however, that Mr. Mumma, II, is being assisted by counsel with respect to these matters. 2. Denied. To the contrary, a disclaimer was filed in this matter on or about January 6, 1'987, whereby the Petitioner disclaimed any interest in the above-captioned Estate. The Court has not issued a final ruling on the effect of that disclaimer, as indicated in the Auditor's letter of September 26, 2005. By way of further response, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate by reference their Response to Petition to Orphans' Court Division for the Entry of the Date of the Deemed Denial of Exceptions Under Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rule 7.1(f) and New Matter. ~~ 3. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of this averment. They demand strict proof. 4. Denied. To the contrary, see the averments of Paragraph 2 above, which are incorporated herein by reference. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that Mr. N[umma, II, filed on or about January 25, 1989, a document entitled "Petition for Removal of Executrices and Trustees," and that Mr. Fowler was among the counsel listed for Mr. N[umma, II, on that Petition. By way of further response, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan filed an Answer to the Petition and Memorandum of Law. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that President Judge Sheely entered an order dated on or about March 30, 1989, continuing, generally a hearing on Mr. Mumma, II's Petition. The Order is in writing and speaks for itself, and Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny all characterizations of it. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny all remaining allegations of this paragraph. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that on or about March 13, 1991, Mr. Mumma, II, filed a Petition to Defer and Postpone Action Upon Petition for Removal of Executrices. That Petition was in writing and speaks for itself, and Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny all characterizations of it. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that a document entitled "Motion to Lift Stay and for Hearing on Petition for Removal" was filed on Mr. Mumma, II,'s behalf on or about February 25, 2004. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny that the document was filed by Mr. Mumma, II, pro se. Rather, the document indicates that it was filed by Chadwick Bogar, Esquire as counsel for Mr. Mumma, II. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. By way of further response, President Judge Hoffer entered an Order regarding the conference on March 24, 2004. 14. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that President .fudge Hoffer entered an Order in connection with the March 24, 2004, status conference;. That Order is in writing and speaks for itself, and Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny all characterizations of it. 15. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that the allegations of this paragraph accurately quote a portion of the Petition in question. That Petition is in writing and speaks for itself, and Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny all further characterizations of it. 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted. Robert M. Mumma, II, filed a motion to recuse the Auditor and to appoint a new Auditor on or about January 31, 2005. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. After a hearing, Judge Oler issued numerous Orders on March 11, 2005, relating to this case. 20. Admitted. 21. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that Judge Oler has referred the issues raised in various Motions or Petitions filed in the case to the: Auditor for purposes of a recommended order and/or interim report. Those orders are in writing and speak for themselves, and Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny all characterizations thereof and all remaining allegations of this paragraph. 22. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that Judge Oler presided over a proceeding on October 3, 2007. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny that the proceeding was a "hearing." On the contrary, the October 3, 2007, proceeding was a Status Conference at which Judge Oler issued a comprehensive Order setting deadlines for completion of various aspects of these proceedings. 23. Admitted. 24. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit the Auditor's last "interim report" was dated December 30, 2005. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny all remaining allegations of this paragraph as argumentative and not requiring a response. 25. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that the last pre-hearing conference held by the Auditor occurred on October 19, 2006. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph as argumentative and not requiring a response. 26. Admitted in part; denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that the Auditor made several attempts by letters in January and February, 2008 to schedule apre-hearing conference. However, the Auditor's letter of February 11, 2008, indicates that it is Mr. Mumma, II, who advised he was not available for apre-hearing conference: that was originally scheduled, and agreed to by counsel, for February 29, 2008. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph as argumentative and not requiring a response. 27. Denied. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, which therefore are deemed to be denied. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan are not aware of any actions the Auditor has taken since February, 2008 to schedule apre-hearing conference; in this case. 28. Admitted. 29. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that Judge Oler has issued Orders referring issues to the Auditor for purposes of a recommended Order and/or interim report, and that the Auditor has not issued any recommended Orders or interim reports since at least January, 2008. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph as argumentative and not requiring a response. They also deny any implication that the Court set forth deadlines or time periods for the Auditor to decide any matters that have been referred to him. 30. Denied. No response to this paragraph is necessary, and Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan therefore deny its allegations. 31. Denied. No response to this paragraph is necessary, and Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan therefore deny its allegations. By way of further response, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate by reference all prior statements, motions and briefing on the subject of Mr. Mumma, II,'s requests for removal of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan as executrices and/or trustees. 32. Denied. No response to this paragraph is necessary, and Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan therefore deny its allegations. By way of further response, this paragraph is legally insufficient as either a statement of bases or a request for any relief. 33. Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that Mr. T/Iumma, II, did not seek concurrence of counsel prior to filing the instant motion. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 34. Admitted. Judge Oler has previously decided motions and petitions filed in these proceedings. WHEREFORE, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respectfully request that Mr. Mumma, II,'s Further Motion for Removal of Executrices and/or Trustees Pursuant to Orphan:;' Court Order of October 3, 2007, be denied. By MARTSON LAW OFFI I.D. No. 49813 No V. Otto, III, Esquire I.D. No. 27763 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Date: July 16, 2008 Attorneys for Barbara McK. Mumma & Lisa M. Morgan ' F:\FILES\Clients\Mutnma 5844.1 (estate) 6747 (Kim)\5840..LMumma Estate\5844-1.398.certservice CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent of Martson Law Offices, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response of Barbara Mck. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan to Further Motion of Robert M. Mumma, lI, for Removal of Executrices And/or Trustees Pursuant to Orphans' Court Order of October 3, 2007, was served this date by depositing same in the Post 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 19102 (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) Taylor P. Andrews, Esquire ANDREWS & JOHNSON 78 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Court-Appointed Auditor) MARTSON L W OFFICE By Tricia D. Eckenroad y 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: July 16, 2008