The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-29-08 (4)IN RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN>~ _,--, Deceased : ~ o ~ "T • ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION ; ~ c-n ~v ~ ~~ ~ ' ,~;;,.; ~ -~' N0.21-86-398 ^ ~ ,` ._f =~ ~ ' . IV ,. C.~'3 RESPONSE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, II TO THE MOTION IN LIlVIINE OF BARBARA McK. MUMMA AND LISA M. MORGAN TO EXCLUDE ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE AS TO MATTERS PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, (the "Respondent" hereinafter) who responds as follows to the Motion in Limine of Bazbaza McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan To Exclude Argument and Evidence as to Matters Previously Adjudicated, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of this averment; strict proof is demand. By way of further response, the Respondent cannot formulate a written reply in response to what the Movants may believe or postulate or hypothesize as to the parameters of the pending proceedings. The Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph # 1 of the instant motion as vague, ambiguous, argumentative, legally insufficient, and requires no response. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of this averment; strict proof is demand. By way of further response, the Respondent cannot formulate a written reply in response to what the Movants may believe or postulate or hypothesize as to the parameters of the pending proceedings. The Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph #2 of the instant motion as purported conclusions of law, ambiguous, azgumentative, legally insufficient, and requires no response. By way of further response, any decisions, opinions and orders are in writing and speak for themselves, and the Respondent denies all chazacterizations of same as framed by the Movants. 3. Denied. No response to this paragraph is necessary, and the Respondent therefore denies its allegations. By way of further response, Paragraph #3 is legally insufficient as either a statement of bases or a request for any relief. The Respondent further denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph #3 of the instant motion as purported conclusions of law, as azgumentative, and not requiring a response. By way of further response, any decisions, opinions and orders aze in writing and speak for themselves. Also, the Respondent after reasonable investigation is without knowledge or information suiTicient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of this averment as well as the documents comprising Exhibit "A"; strict proof is demanded. 4. Denied. The Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph #4 of the instant motion as purported conclusions of law, as legally insufficient, as azgumentative, and not requiring a response. 5. Denied. The Respondent denies that the Movants can incorporate an "accompanying memorandum of law" setting forth additional factual background, aggument and legal authority in support of the instant motion. The filing of said "accompanying memorandum of law" constitutes an attempt by the Movants to submit a brief which is not permissible at this juncture and which is not authorized by the rules of civil procedure inasmuch as this court has not promulgated a rule numbered as Local Rule 208.3(b) which addresses the filing of briefs accompanying motions. See, Pa.R.C.P. 208.3; see also, Pa.R.C.P. 208.4(a)(2)(ii)(indicating the filing of initial briefs may only follow the entry of a court order setting forth the procedures the court will use in deciding the motion).1 1 The local rules of court reference briefing requirements in the context of Argument Court (see, C.C.R.P.1028,1034(a),1035.2(a)); it is believed that there are no local rules which govern the filing of briefs at the time of the filing of motions. See, Pa. R.C.P. 208.3. According to C.C.R.P. 208.3(a)(5), no petition or motion (such as the instant motion filed by Movants) shall be placed on an argument court list unless directed by the Judge assigned thereto. Given that Judge Oler has not directed the instant motion to be placed on an argument court list, the Movants are not yet entitled to file any brief in support of the motion. In the absence of any other Order at this juncture, the Orphans' Court cannot consider the Movants' "accompanying memorandum of lar/' whether same is sought to be incorporated into the motion or whether same has been filed for consideration by the Orphans' Court separate and apart from the motion per se. 3 WI~REFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests that the Movants' Motion in Limine To Exclude Argument and Evidence as to Matters Previously Adjudicated be DENIED. Furthermore, the "accompanying memorandum of law" which the Movants have attempted to incorporate into the instant motion must be stricken as not authorized by the rules of civil procedure. Respectfully submitted, v~~ ~ s R bert M. Mumma, II P.O. Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 (717) 612-9720 PROSE 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Motion in Limine of Movants to Exclude Argument and Evidence as to Matters Previously Adjudicated was 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 Carlisle, PA 17013 Brady Green, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1701 Market 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 Cazlisle, PA 17013 Z~ DATE: September ~ 2008 ~` ~ BY: Robert M. Mumma, II Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 717-612-9720 PROSE