HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-29-08 (5)IN RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ROBERT M. MUMMA, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN IA
Deceased ~
-o "' ="f' '-=7
~~
ORPHAN' S COURT DIVISION ~?, ~.~ ~ ~,
_;
.'~'.~ t ~,
_ f"'
~
=L:~
N0.21-86-398 = `J' ~' ll? -' ---
~ .
~--- i
--~
.~
RESPONSE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA. II TO THE MOTION OF BARBARA McK.
MUMIVIA AND LISA M. MORGAN TO DISMISS OBJECTIONS BASED UPON
PURPORTED EXISTENCE OF AGREEMENT AMONG SHAREHOLDERS OF
PENNSYLVANIA SUPPLY COMPANY
AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, (the "Respondent" hereinafter) who
responds as follows to the Motion of Barbara. McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan to Dismiss
Objections based upon Purported Existence of Agreement Among Shareholders of Pennsylvania
Supply Company, and in support thereof avers as follows:
1. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the Respondent has filed objections to
the accounts filed by the Movants with respect to the Estate and the Trusts. It is further admitted
that the objections encompass issues relating to the existence of and the legal import of an
agreement among shareholders of Pennsylvania Supply Company. Those objections are in
writing and speak for themselves, and the Respondent denies all characterizations of same as
framed by the Movants. The Respondent further denies the allegations set forth in said
Paragraph #1 as framed by the Movants as argumentative and not requiring a response.
2. Admitted as stated. By way of further response, the objections referenced by the
Movants in the instant motion are in writing and speak for themselves.
3. Denied. The Respondent denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph #3 of the instant
motion as azgumentative, as purported conclusions of law, as legally insufficient, as impertinent
and/or scandalous, and not requiring a response. By way of further response, the objections
referenced by the Movants in the instant motion are in writing and speak for themselves.
(a) Same response as set forth hereinabove.
(b) Same response as set forth hereinabove.
(c) Same response as set forth hereinabove.
4. Denied. The Respondent denies that the Movants can incorporate an "accompanying
memorandum of law" setting forth additional factual background, azgument, 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).'
WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests that the Movants' Motion to
Dismiss Objections based upon Purported Existence of Agreement Among Shareholders of
Pennsylvania Supply Company 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.
Respectfiilly submitted,
Robert M. Mumma, II
P.O. Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
(717) 612-9720
PROSE
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 law" 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 perse.
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response
to Motion to Dismiss Objections based upon Purported Existence of Agreement Among
Shareholders of Pennsylvania Supply Company was served this date by U.S. Mail, first class,
postage prepaid, addressed to:
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
Manson Law Offices
10 East High Street
Carlisle, 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
2~
DATE: September ~, 2008
^.-- .
BY: ~
R bert M. umma, II
Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
717-612-9720
PROSE