The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-10-08IN RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Deceased ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION 21-86-398 N0 . ~ ,.,, ~~ - c ~ m _ , r'--~~~ o F~-, j: mn m ~- m _i ,;~ ` n ..c,..n~ O .~_.i ~,-, MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING -', ~ _-, c~~ N -, ~,^r~~ ~_~ r_ ~ ~. - C17 AND NOW comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, and files the Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing, and in support thereof avers as follows: The undersigned Movant is Robert M. Mamma, II, an adult individual, acting pro se in this matter inasmuch as no attorney has currently entered an appearance on his behalf. 2. The Movant is a beneficiary/remainderman of the above-captioned Estate and the Trusts created under the Will of the Decedent. The Movant is also a trustee of contingent beneficiaries/remaindermen of the above-captioned Estate and Trusts. Two other beneficiaries/remaindermen of the Estate and Trusts are Linda Mumma and Barbara Mann Mumma, same being parties to this action and also having standing before the Orphans' Court. 4. The Executrices/Trustees of the aforesaid Estate and Trusts aze Lisa Mumma Morgan and Bazbaza McK. Mumma. 5. The Executrices/Trustees secured Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ("MLB") and The Martson Law Office ("Manson") as legal counsel in this Estate case. 6. On August 22, 2008, the undersigned filed a Motion For Disqualification of MLB and Martson From Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts. On August 28, 2008, Judge Oler issued an Order with respect to said Motion for Disqualification. 8. On September 18, 2008, Bazbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan filed an Answer and New Matter. 9. Despite the instructions in Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008, neither of the said law firms, i.e., neither MLB nor Martson, on their own accord or via other counsel retained by either of the said law firms, returned a rule to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted, nor was an answer filed on behalf of either of the said law firms. 10. Despite the instructions in Pazagraph #1 of Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008, neither of "the said law firms" responded to the rule returnable to show cause why Movant is not entitled to the relief requested. 11. Despite the instructions in Paragraph #2 of Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008, neither of "the said law firms" filed an answer to the motion either within 21 days of the order or at any other time thereafter. 12. On November 21, 2008, the undersigned filed a motion entitled "Motion for Entry of a Rule 206.7(a) Order". Said Motion requests the Court to enter an appropriate Order under Pa. R.C.P. 206.7(a) given that all averments of fact in the motion to disqualify Estate counsel shall be deemed admitted because the said law firms failed to comply with the August 28, 2008 Order by not showing cause why the relief requested should not be granted and by not filing an Answer on behalf of the said law firms. 13. On November 26, 2008, an "Answer to Motion for Entry of Rule 206.7(a) Order" was filed. The introductory paragraph of said Answer states: "Morgan, Lewis & Bocicius ("Morgan Lewis") and The Manson Law Office (the "Manson Firm"), in addition to Bazbaza McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan respond as follows to the Motion of Robert M. Mumma, II to disqualify Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and The Martson Law Office from Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts:". Pursuant to the plain meaning of this introductory paragraph, said Answer was ostensibly in response to the Motion to Disqualify the Estate counsel, even though the Answer was entitled as being in response to the Motion for Entry of Rule 206.7(a) Order. 14. Also on November 26, 2008, the undersigned Movant filed a "Motion Regarding Oral Argument Session of December 17, 2008." The primary relief requested therein sought cancellation of said oral argument session given the recently filed Motion for Entry of a Rule 206.7(a) Order. In the alternative, the said Motion filed on November 26, 2008 requested that the Court identify those matters for proper argument in light of the said law firms failure to comply with Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008, or that the Court otherwise restrict the scope of those matters which can be presented for adjudication via oral azgument. Additionally, said Motion filed on November 26, 2008 sought the alternative relief of a general continuance of oral azgument pending resolution of the Motion for Entry of a Rule 206.7(a) Order. 15. No Answer has been filed to the Motion Regazding Oral Argument Session of December 17, 2008 which was filed on November 26, 2008. 16. On December 4, 2008, the undersigned Movant filed a Motion to Strike as untimely said Answer to Motion for Entry of Rule 206.7(a) Order to the extent same was filed on behalf of MLB and Martson and to the extent said Answer constituted an attempt by the said law firms to incorporate and adopt the statements and averments of the Answer and New Matter of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan as if fully set forth therein, same being untimely under both Pa.R.C.P. 206.7 and Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008. 17. Also on December 4, the undersigned filed a Further Motion Regazding Oral Argument Session of December 17, 2008. Pazagraphs #16(a) through (j) therein set forth additional grounds for the Court's consideration with respect to the propriety of proceeding with oral azgument in this case. 18. Pazagraphs #16(h) and # 16(i) of the Further Motion Regarding Oral Argument Session of December 17, 2008 indicated that the undersigned's attempted good-faith examination of Mr. O'Connor who appeared for a deposition on October 27, 2008 was thwarted by counsel from MLB who registered dozens of objections and who likewise instructed the witness not to answer dozens of questions during the course of said deposition. 19. Pazagraph #17 of the Further Motion Regazding Oral Argument Session of December 17, 2008 indicated that the undersigned had attempted to comply with Judge Oler's Order of August 28, 2008 by taking depositions in good-faith in support of the said Motion for Disqualification of MLB and Martson, but nonetheless has been hampered, obstructed, and hindered in doing so by virtue of (a) MLB's scuttling of good-faith efforts at deposing Mr. O'Connor by instructing the witness not to answer dozens of questions, and by otherwise raising objection after objection during the course of said deposition, and (b) Judge Oler's granting of motions for protective orders for two (2) of the three (3) witnesses whom the undersigned attempted to depose in good-faith in compliance with the Order of August 28, 2008. 20. No Answer has been filed to the Further Motion Regazding Oral Argument Session of December 17, 2008 which was filed on December 4, 2008. 21. The undersigned has filed Motions for Reconsideration with respect to Judge Oler's Orders which cancelled the depositions of the two witnesses (Lisa M. Morgan and Harry G. Lake, Jr.). 22. In response to the Motion Regarding Oral Argument Session of December 17, 2008 which was filed on November 26, 2008, Judge Oler issued an Order docketed on December 5, 2008 which states: "AND NOW, this 4w day of December, 2008, upon consideration of the Motion Regazding Oral Argument Session of December 17, 2008, filed by Robert M. Mumma, II, and it appearing to the court that the motion is at best premature, it is denied without prejudice to the movant's right to argue his position as to the effect, if any, of an absence of a response to the Rute by the law firms in question, at the oral azgument scheduled for December 17, 2008." 23. Judge Oler has not issued any Order in response to the Motion for Entry of a Rule 206.7(a) Order. 24. The Order docketed on December 5, 2008 was entered in the absence of any Answer filed by either the Executrices/Trustees or by the said law firms in response to the Motion Regarding Oral Argument. 25. The Order docketed on December 5, 2008 has permitted oral azgument to proceed without entering the appropriate Order required by Pa.R.C.P. 206.7(a). 26. In consideration of the foregoing Pazagraphs #I through #25, and in light of the need for the presentation of evidence of record upon which this Court can properly make a ruling as to the Motion For Disqualification of MLB and Manson From Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts, the beneficiaries and remaindermen seek an evidentiary hearing. 27. An evidentiary hearing is required in order to present testimony and exhibits in accordance with the Rules of Evidence. 28. An evidentiary hearing is required in order for testimony to be presented in good- faith from key witnesses. 29. An evidentiary hearing is required in order for testimony to be presented from properly subpoenaed witnesses. 30. An evidentiary hearing is required in order for testimony to be presented from witnesses before the Court in order to make the necessary credibility determinations, and in order for the witness to testify without being instructed not to do so by the Estate counsel. WHEREFORE, based upon the reasons set forth hereinabove, the undersigned respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue an Order scheduling an evidentiary hearing. Respectfully submitted, 5 R bert M. Mumma, II Box F Grantham, PA 17027 (717)612-9720 PROSE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, do hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing Motion for Evidentiary Hearing to be served this date by U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to: George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire No V. Otto, III, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Cazlisle, PA 17013 Brady Green, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1701 Mazket Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Ralph Jacobs, Esquire 1515 Mazket Street -Suite 705 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Linda Mumma Roth PO Box 480 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire Court-Appointed Auditor 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 DATE: December 10, 2008 BY: f ~ r Robert M. Mumma, II Box F Grantham, PA 17027 717-612-9720 PROSE