HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-25-08IN RE: ESTATE OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ROBERT M. MUMMA, CUMBERLAND COUNT~c', PENNSYLVANIA
Deceased
ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION ~~ ~ ~,-, ;-`
N0.21-86-398 ?`~ ~ -~.
~_'-~ N
-~,
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION '' -_°
_ J, _ ;
_~
OF THE ORPHAN'S COURT ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 4 2008 -~
AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, who files the instant motion for
reconsideration of the Orphans' Court Order dated November 4, 2008, ar~d in support thereof
avers as follows:
1. On August 22, 2008, the undersigned Movant filed a Motion for Disqualification of
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius ("MLB" hereinafter) and The Martson. Law Office ("Martson"
hereinafter) from Continuing Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts.
2. Said motion for disqualification of Estate counsel set forth severa key averments which
can be summarized succinctly as follows:
(a) While a client of MLB, the undersigned was given legal advice with respect to a
disclaimer and its impact on his interests and his minor children's interests. After the
undersigned had signed a single copy of the disclaimer and returned it to MLB with
express written instructions to deliver same only to Lisa Morgan, MLB then hired
Martson to file it with the court. In spite of the revocation thereof which has been
twice-endorsed by this Orphans' Court, both MLB and Martson have continually
relied upon the filing of said disclaimer in support of various legal arguments
proclaiming that the undersigned is without standing. Additionally, both of the said
firms have otherwise used the disclaimer in the construction of various legal positions
adverse to the undersigned's interests as a beneficiary of the Estate and the Trusts.
~i~
(b) Attorneys of both firms (Joseph O'Connor, Esquire and William F. Martson, Esquire)
have already been witnesses in these proceedings. According to the court's
observations at a hearing in this Estate case conducted on August 18, 2008 hearing,
there is a great likelihood that each of these two attorneys wild appear again to testify
at upcoming hearings or a trial.
(c) MLB and Martson filed a response to the undersigned's motion to vacate the
appointment of Attorney Andrews as auditor which denied the majority of the
averments in said motion to vacate and which sought to have 'the motion denied by
the court. Hence, the Estate counsel contested the undersigned's efforts to remove
the Auditor, notwithstanding the fact that the Auditor himself later admitted that his
failures and his neglect in his court-ordered duties as auditor c;aused excessive and
inexcusable delay. Such delay is related to the depletion, prejudice, and frustration of
the beneficiaries interests in the Estate and the Trusts.
(d) Over the past 22 year history of this case, MLB and Manson leave pursued a
deliberate course of action devised to deplete, prejudice, and frustrate the interests of
the beneficiaries of the Estate and the Trusts, notwithstanding said Estate counsels'
legal and fiduciary duties owed to and for the benefit of said beneficiaries.
(e) Specifically, MLB and Martson have allied themselves with the Executrices /
Trustees and orchestrated a manipulation of the 5% withdrawal rights under the
Marital Trust in a manner designed to deplete, prejudice, and frustrate the interests of
the beneficiaries of the Estate and the Trusts, notwithstanding said Estate counsels'
legal and fiduciary duties owed to and for the benefit of said beneficiaries.
(f) As a result of their legal counsel to the Executrices/Trustees concerning the
acquisition and disposition of various assets, interests, and property allegedly
belonging to the Estate, as well as the Executrices/Trustees' subsequent actions taken
with respect thereto in spite of the contested nature of any right to claim same as an
Estate asset, MLB and Martson have caused the interests of the beneficiaries of the
Estate and the Trusts to be converted and prejudiced notwithstanding the legal and
fiduciary duties owed to and for the benefit of said beneficiaries.
3. On August 28, 2008, the Orphan's Court issued the following Order:
AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 2008, upon consideration of the Motion to
Disqualify Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and the Martson Law Office from Continuing
Legal Representation of the Estate and the Trusts, it is ordered that:
1. A Rule is issued upon all interested parties and the said law firms to show cause
why Movant is not entitled to the relief requested;
2. Answers to the motion shall be filed within 21 days of the date of this order;
3. The petition shall be decided under Pa. R.C.P. 206.7;
4. Depositions shall be completed within 49 days of the date of this order;
5. Argument shall be held on Wednesday, December 17, 2008, at 11:00 a.m., in
Courtroom No. 1, Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
6. Briefs shall be submitted at least seven days prior to argument.
7. Pending argument and further order of court, neither law firm is prohibited from
continuing its representation of record herein.
BY THE COURT,
J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.
4. On September 18, 2008, Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan filed an Answer
and New Matter. t Said New Matter cites a prior motion filed in January 1989 which
sought to disqualify MLB from acting as counsel for Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan.
Said New Matter further cites the opinion issued by Judge Sheely on February 13, 1989.
5. On October 7, 2008, the undersigned filed a Reply to the New Matter which asserted,
inter alia, that (i) the pending motion to disqualify Estate counsel extends to both MLB
and Martson (not just MLB as was the case in 1989); (ii) Judge Sheely specifically left
the door open to file future motions to disqualify the Estate counsel (see, i.e., Paragraph
62 of the Reply); and, (iii) the pending motion to disqualify MLB and Martson seeks to
address Estate issues that have transpired in the 19 year interim between the filing of the
aforesaid January 1989 motion and the pending motion.
6. Following the filing of the aforesaid Answer and New Matter, the undersigned served
subpoenas and notices of deposition upon Lisa M. Morgan, Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr.,
Esquire, and Harry G. Lake, Jr. Said subpoenas and notices of deposition were sent to all
three of the proposed deponents on September 30, 2008.
1 Despite the instructions in Paragraph # 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. Likewise, neither of "the said law firms" filed an answer to the motion within 21 days of the
order. On November 21, 2008, the undersigned filed an appropriate motion under Pa. R.C.P. 206.7(a)
with respect to the failure of MLB and Manson to respond as ordered by Judge Oler's Order of August
28, 2008.
7. Following service of the subpoenas and the notices of deposition, all three of the
proposed deponents objected through their respective counsel by filing motions (i.e.,
motions for protective orders and/or motions to quash the subpoenas).
8. On October 6, 2008, counsel for Lisa M. Morgan filed an Emergency Motion for a
Protective Order.
9. On October 8, 2008, Judge Oler issued an Order which directed the undersigned to file a
rule returnable to show cause why Lisa M. Morgan's motion should not be granted within
14 days.
10. On October 9, 2008, the undersigned filed an Emergency Response to Lisa M. Morgan's
motion. On October 17, the undersigned filed a Response to Lisa, M. Morgan's motion.
Paragraph 16 of said Responses cited Pa. R.C.P. 4007.1(c) which provides that a party
who notices a deposition of a witness is not required to divulge bf;forehand the purpose of
the deposition and the matters to be inquired into.
l l . On November 4, 2008, Judge Oler issued an Order which granted Lisa M. Morgan's
Emergency Motion for a Protective Order. Within said Order, Judge Oler enunciated
three reasons for granting said motion and for cancelling her deposition:
(a) that the undersigned failed to attend a noticed deposition of Lisa M.
Morgan in the past;
(b) that Mrs. Morgan has previously testified on the subject of the
disqualification of MLB; and,
(c) that the undersigned has declined in his Response to provide any basis for
a conclusion that further testimony by Mrs. Morgan at this time would
advance the inquiry as to disqualification.
12. The instant Motion for Reconsideration is filed in an effort to persuade Judge Oler to
reconsider his decision which has foreclosed the undersigned from taking the deposition
of Lisa M. Morgan at this time. As addressed hereinbelow, persuasive reasons for
reconsideration include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) the crucial distinctions between the pending disqualification motion and
the 1989 motion;
(b) the fundamental fact that 19 years have elapsed with its concomitant
history of various and diverse Estate transactions undertaken by the said
two law firms during said interim;
(c) the status-changing role played by this Court's Orcier of August 28, 2008
and its invocation of Pa. R.C.P. 206.7;
(d) key misapprehensions by Judge Oler as to the nature and identity of the
principal figures implicated by the pending motion. for disqualification of
Estate counsel; and,
(e) the impact of the vacation of the appointment of Attorney Andrews as
Auditor following the hearing on August 18, 2008 wherein Attorney
Andrews admitted that he was responsible for neglect and delay,
notwithstanding the fact that Estate counsel filed pleadings and otherwise
contested the undersigned's said motion to vacate.
FIRST REASON SPECIFIED IN THE NOVEMBER 4.2008 ORDER: "THAT
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, HAS FAILED TO ATTEND A NOTICED
DEPOSITION OF LISA M. MORGAN IN THE PAST"
13. This court should reconsider the first of the three reasons stated for granting the
Emergency Motion for a Protective Order which determined that Lisa M. Morgan's
deposition would be cancelled because the undersigned failed to attend a noticed
deposition of her in the past. The undersigned was unable to attend the November 12,
2007 deposition of her in Florida due to a longstanding scheduling conflict that was fully
disclosed to the Estate counsel, yet the Estate counsel proceeded with the noticed
deposition in spite of the undersigned's unavailability on said date.
14. The court should further consider this reason for granting the Emergency Motion given
that the purpose of the November 12, 2007 deposition and the matters to be inquired into
at that time are not related to the testimony sought from Lisa M. Morgan with respect to
the pending motion to disqualify Estate counsel at this time. The November 12, 2007
deposition was noticed as a result of Judge Oler's Order of October 3, 2007, at which
time the Estate proceedings rested in the hands of Auditor Andrews. The instant motion
to disqualify Estate counsel followed the August 18, 2008 hearing and the Order of the
same date. Much of the testimony at said hearing was focused on the delay, neglect, and
mismanagement of the Estate proceedings, including 24 motions and other filings that
had been ignored over the span of the past few years. The undersigned's motion to
disqualify Estate counsel followed the August 18, 2008 hearing; ;fudge Oler's subsequent
Order of August 28, 2008 expressly remedied the situation by citing Pa. R.C.P. 206.7
which expressly provides for the taking of depositions in resolving those disputed issues
of material fact raised in the petition and answer. Therefore, whatever was the purpose of
the November 12, 2007 deposition of Lisa M. Morgan in Florida is irrelevant in light of
the subsequent events, hearings, and orders; even more so, the fact that a past deposition
was scheduled and unattended is equally irrelevant given this Coiut's express invocation
of the procedures of Pa. R.C.P. 206.7 in its August 28, 2008 Order. Hence, by operation
of said rule, the undersigned is entitled to take the deposition of Lisa M. Morgan at this
time to address those disputed issues of material fact raised in the answer. See, Pa.
R.C.P. 206.7(c).
SECOND REASON SPECIFIED IN THE NOVEMBER 4.2008 ORDER: "THAT
MS. MORGAN HAS PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED ON THE SUBJECT OF THE
DISQUALIFICATION OF MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS "
15. This court should reconsider the second of the three reasons stated for granting the
Emergency Motion for a Protective Order which determined that :Lisa M. Morgan's
deposition would be cancelled because she had previously testified as to the
disqualification of MLB. First and foremost, Judge Oler has misapprehended the nature
or identity of the principal figures inasmuch as his November 4, x!008 Order only
includes MLB, without any mention whatsoever of the Martson farm. The pending
motion to disqualify Estate counsel expressly includes both MLB and Martson.
Obviously, this is a distinction with a great difference. Nonetheless, the reasons specified
in Judge Oler's Order of November 4, 2008 reference MLB and MLB only.
16. In light of its focus on Ms. Morgan's `prior testimony', Judge Oler's Order of November
4, 2008 fails to appreciate two fundamental dissimilarities between the pending motion
and the proceedings in 1989. Not only has Judge Oler misapprehended the fact that the
pending motion seeks to disqualify both of the said two law firms'. (and not just MLB as
was the case in 1989), but the 1989 motion sought to disqualify IVZLB from representing
Lisa M. Morgan and Barbara McK. Mumma. Quite to the contrary, the pending motion
seeks to disqualify MLB and Martson from continuing legal representation of the Estate
and the Trusts. Obviously, this is a distinction with a great difference. Nonetheless, the
second reason specified in Judge Oler's Order of November 4, 2008 which concerns Ms.
Morgan's prior testimony in 1989 involving MLB's representation of her individually
does not appreciate the fact that the pending motion seeks to disqualify MLB and
Martson from continuing legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts.
17. In reconsideration, the court should further take notice that Judge Oler's Order of
November 4, 2008 specified that Lisa M. Morgan had testified prE:viously on the subject
of the disqualification of MLB, with said Order further noting that it had considered the
Emergency Motion. With respect to said `prior testimony' of Ms. Morgan, the
Emergency Motion cites her testimony at a hearing on January 25, 1989. See, Paragraph
#14 of the Emergency Motion (also incorporating their Answer and New Matter). Said
hearing transcript from January 25, 1989 is attached as Exhibit B to said Answer and
New Matter. According to said Exhibit B, this `prior testimony' of Ms. Morgan
purportedly on the subject of the disqualification of MLB in 1989 appears in a transcript
for the matter encaptioned: "Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan, individually
and as executrixes of estate of Robert M. Mumma, deceased, Plaintiffs v. Robert M.
Mumma, II, Defendant".2 Said `prior testimony' on this subject is actually no more than
a mere 11 pages of Ms. Morgan testifying on matters that concern the initial selection of
MLB as legal counsel, as well as other matters which involved hear participation as an
associate attorney at MLB, and the role of other MLB attorneys and their various
interactions with the Mumma family in the 1986 to 1989 time pe~~iod.
18. In reconsideration, the court should further take notice that none of this 11 pages of so-
called `prior testimony on this subject' which was specified as the second reason in Judge
Oler's Order of November 4, 2008 should be seen as foreclosing her deposition testimony
at this time in light of the fundamental fact that 19 years has elapsed with its concomitant
history of various and diverse Estate transactions undertaken by the said two law firms
during said interim. Obviously, the pending motion to disqualify both MLB and Manson
from continuing legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts raises vastly different
issues than the `initial selection of MLB as counsel' issue as was the main subject of her
11-pages of prior testimony in January 1989.
` Other than the 11 pages appearing on pp. 136-147 of the January 25, 1989 hearing transcript in said
captioned matter, no other `prior testimony' on the subject of disqualification oi'Estate counsel from Lisa
M. Morgan has been attached as an Exhibit to the Executrices' Motions or Answer and New Matter.
THIRD REASON SPECIFIED IN THE NOVEMBER 4.200$ ORDER: "THAT
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, HAS DECLINED IN HIS RESPONSE TO THE
MOTION TO PROVIDE ANY BASIS FOR A CONCLUSION THAT FURTHER
TESTIMONY BY MS. MORGAN AT THIS TIME WOULD ADVANCE THE
INQUIRY AS TO DISQUALIFICATION"
19. 'This court should reconsider the third and final reason stated for granting the Emergency
Motion for a Protective Order which determined that Lisa M. Margan's deposition would
be cancelled because the undersigned's Response did not provide: a basis to conclude that
further testimony by Ms. Morgan at this time would advance the inquiry as to
disqualification. First and foremost, Judge Oler's reference in said third reason to
"further testimony by Ms. Morgan" must be reconsidered in light of Pazagraphs #17 and
#18 hereinabove regazding the actual limited nature of her prior testimony back in 1989.
20. In reconsideration, the court should take notice that Judge Oler's use of the phrase "at
this time" must be reexamined in light of the fact that the pending motion to disqualify
MLB and Manson seeks to address Estate issues that have transpired in the 19 year
history since Ms. Morgan provided her 11-pages of testimony in 1989 which centered
upon the initial selection of MLB as counsel. The fact that 19 yeazs have elapsed with a
history of various and diverse Estate transactions undertaken by the said two law firms
during said time period is certainly a compelling reason to reconsider the difference
between her limited testimony in 1989 and how `further testimony' at this time is
warranted with respect to the pending motion. After all, Lisa M. Morgan is uniquely
qualified as a Co-Executrix and Co-Trustee to respond to the issues raised in the pending
motion to disqualify MLB and Maztson from continuing legal representation of the Estate
and the Trusts at this time, especially those issues where she mai~itains legal and
fiduciary obligations to the beneficiaries. Hence, the phrase "at this time" as chosen by
Judge Oler is actually more indicative of a persuasive reason to permit her deposition to
proceed at this time as compared to 1989.
21. In reconsideration, the court should take notice that Judge Oler's use of the phrase "at
this time" must be reconsidered in light of the fact that the pending motion to disqualify
MLB and Martson from continuing legal representation of the Estate and the Trusts
followed the August 18, 2008 hearing and the Order of the same date. Much of the
testimony at said hearing was focused on the delay, neglect, and mismanagement of the
Estate proceedings, including 24 motions and other filings that had been ignored over the
span of the past few years. The pending motion to disqualify Estate counsel followed the
August 18, 2008 hearing. Judge Oler's subsequent Order of August 28, 2008 cites Pa.
R.C.P. 206.7 which expressly provides for the taking of depositions in resolving those
disputed issues of material fact raised in the petition and answer. See, Pa. R.C.P.
206.7(c). In other words, Ms. Morgan's deposition must proceed at this time given the
outcome of the August 18, 2008 hearing and the express terms of'the August 28, 2008
Order.
22. In reconsideration, the court should take notice that the phrase "at this time" as chosen by
Judge Oler is actually more indicative of a persuasive reason to permit her deposition to
proceed at this time as compared to the status quo that had reigned prior to the vacation
of Attorney Andrews as Auditor with its attendant mismanagement and neglect.
23. In reconsideration, the court should further take notice that Judge Oler's third and final
reason suggests that the undersigned's Response "declined" to provide a basis for her
testimony. However, it cannot be overlooked that said Response ;asserts several times the
status-changing consequences that stem from the August 18, 2008 hearing, the reasons
why the appointment of Attorney Andrews as Auditor was vacated, and this Court's
subsequent orders. Likewise, said Response asserted that the hearing in January 1989
and the subsequent opinion in 1989 were inapplicable as same co~~ld not conceivably
govern the broader and far-greater considerations raised by the pending motion, with the
most-weighty reason being the passage of 19 years of history of E;state administration,
along with other cogent reasons as set forth herein and in the Response.
24. In reconsideration, the court should further take notice that Paragraph #19 of the
Response cited Pa. R.C.P. 206.7; said paragraph fully acknowledged that any testimony
to be elicited from Ms. Morgan at a deposition would be limited to the specific matters
and subjects encompassed by the petition and answer.
25. In reconsideration, the court should further take notice that the third and final reason
provided in Judge Oler's Order of November 4, 2008 should be reconsidered in light of
the fact that the pending motion to disqualify specifically raises the claim that MLB and
Martson have allied themselves with the Executrices /Trustees anal orchestrated a
manipulation of the 5% withdrawal rights under the Marital Trust in a manner designed
to deplete, prejudice, and frustrate the interests of the beneficiaries of the Estate and the
Trusts, notwithstanding said Estate counsels' legal and fiduciary duties owed to and for
the benefit of said beneficiaries. Certainly this position is not indicative of `declining' to
provide a basis to conclude that Ms. Morgan's deposition testimony would advance the
inquiry as to disqualification,
26. In reconsideration, the court should further take notice that a central argument advanced
in seeking the disqualification of MLB and Martson concerns the acquisition of and
disposition of various assets, interests, and property allegedly belonging to the Estate, and
subsequent actions taken with respect thereto by the Executrices /Trustees in spite of the
contested nature of any right to claim same as an Estate asset. It is reasonably believed
that Lisa M. Morgan's deposition testimony would be relevant, probative, and material
with respect to this particular aspect of the pending motion at this time in light of the
pending motion to disqualify Estate counsel as amplified by the cogent reasons set forth
herein (as well as those reasons set forth in the Responses previously filed by the
undersigned on October 9, 2008 and October 17, 2008).
27. Specifically with respect to this particular aspect of the pending disqualification motion,
it is believed that Lisa M. Morgan's deposition testimony would be relevant, probative,
and material with respect to questions pertaining to the Estate and the Trusts' need for
duplicative representation by two azea law firms.3 Not only has the undersigned raised
this point, but similar protestations were raised by other beneficiaries at the August 18,
' Indeed, multiple appearances by counsel in matters involving representation of the Estate and the Trusts
is exemplified by the recent appearance of three (3) attorneys at the deposition of one witness: Brady
Green, Esquire of MLB, Jennifer Spears, Esquire of the Martson firm, and Keitli Brenneman, Esquire all
attended the deposition of Joseph O'Connor, Esquire on October 27, 2008 in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania.
Questions posed to counsel at said depasition as to who was paying their respective counsel fees were not
answered.
2008 hearing before Judge Oler. Both Linda Mumma Roth and Barbara M. Mumma
expressed concern as to the identity of Estate counsel and/or the manner in which said
Estate counsel was representing (or not representing) the interests of the beneficiaries.
28. Inasmuch as Judge Oler's Order of November 4, 2008 has specified three distinct
reasons for cancelling the deposition of Lisa M. Morgan, the instant motion for
reconsideration has not revisited any other issues which were raised in the Emergency
Motion that may or may not necessarily be embraced within the ambit of Judge Oler's
three specific reasons.
29. Pa. R.C.P. 4007.1(c) provides that a party who notices a deposition of a witness is not
required to divulge beforehand the purpose of the deposition and 'the matters to be
inquired into.
30. Generally, discovery is to be liberally allowed with respect to any matter, not privileged,
which is relevant to the cause being tried. PECO Energy Co. v. INA, 852 A.2d 1230 (Pa.
Super. 2004).
31. The purpose of the discovery rules is to prevent surprise and unfairness and to allow a
fair trial on the merits. McGovern v. Hosp. Service Ass'n., 785 A,.2d 1012 (Pa. Super.
2001); see also, Stern v. Vic Snyder, Inc., 473 A.2d 139 (Pa. Super. 1984) (courts are to
insure adequate discovering of matters allowed by the Rules of Civil Procedure).
32. Court orders which restrict or prohibit discovery constitute state ;~.ction which is subject
to constitutional limitations. Stenger v. Lehi Vallev Hosp., 609 A.2d 796, 801, n. 8
(Pa. 1992) (citing Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 1C14 S. Ct. 2199, 81 L.
Ed.2d 17 (1984)).
33. The deposition to be taken of Lisa M. Morgan is not sought in bad faith, is not violative
of any of the other proscriptions set forth in Pa. R.C.P. 4011, and would be limited to
matters of disputed issues of material fact in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 206.7(c).
34. The deposition to be taken of Lisa M. Morgan is permitted by Pa. 4003.1(a) which
provides that a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, :not privileged, which is
relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the
claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other
party, including the existence, description, nature, content, custody, condition and
location of any books, documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of
persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.
35. The undersigned has not obtained the concurrence of counsel to the other interested
parties inasmuch as the prior statements and representations of said counsel have
indicated that the undersigned would not receive cooperation from them with respect to
such a motion for reconsideration.
36. The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., has previously ruled on prior motions filed in this
case.
WHEREFORE, based upon the cogent, persuasive, and compelling reasons
addressed hereinabove, the undersigned respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
reconsider its Order of November 4, 2008, and that this Court issue an appropriate order
which permits the deposition of Lisa M. Morgan to proceed at this time. Without such
reconsideration, the undersigned will be unable to comply with this C;ourt's Order dated
August 28, 2008. The proposed Order submitted with the instant motion for reconsideration
provides for the insertion of any limitations which this Court may feel are warranted with
respect to taking her deposition.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~
~~ i'lJ-~L~rL~'l~
Robert .Mumma, II
Box F
Crrantham, PA 1702,7
(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 Reconsideration of the Orphan's Court Order Dated November 4, 2008 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 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
DATE: November 25, 2008
Robert M. Mumma, II ` ~~
Box F
Grantham, PA 17027
717-612-9720
PROSE