HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-27-04
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
INREESTATEOF : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
ROBERT M. MUMMA, :
:
Deceased. : NO. 21-86-398
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF BARBARA McK.
MUMMA AND LISA M. MORGAN TO MOTION FOR A RULE
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ESTATE SHOULD NOT BE ~
=
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO ALL BENEFICIA~ c;;;> ftl
-"""
BEFORE THE DISPOSITION OF ANY ESTATE PROPER~~ c:I ~o
r"1 ~C?9
l:~~::;~g ("') '-:")'00
N ~:rtCJ
,.m
-,.~.......-:o --.I ::J.:JO
~;-: 03 7' C~")O
')
Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan respond as follows to the:I\@li';il1 of:g ~"i"'l ,-:
,. ~ ._" :J;: .-.;;;:D
oc::: ::C~?t\
;::n (..;) r.-. ,.
Robert M. Mumma, II ("Mr. Mumma, II") for a rule to show cause why the eS!ite'of ~;, ,--
=0
-n
en
Robert M. Mumma, Sr. ("Mr. Mumma, Sr.") should not be required to provide notice to
all beneficiaries before the disposition of any estate property:
1. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Mr. Mumma, Sr. owned, at
the time of his death, various assets as more fully spelled out in the various accounts filed
with the Court and in other documents provided formally and informally to Mr. Mumma,
II. In addition, Mr. Mumma, Sr. held various titles and positions, and played various
roles, with respect to business operations owned by the Mumma family.
2. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will
provided for the creation and funding of two trusts. The remaining allegations of this
paragraph are denied to the extent that they purport to characterize the terms and
provisions of the Will, which is in writing and speaks for itself.
3. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Mr. Mumma, II is named
as a contingent remainderman with respect to the trusts established in Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s
)-
will. Mr. Mumma, II executed an irrevocable disclaimer of such interest in January 1987.
To the extent that this paragraph purports to allege additional matters, such matters
constitute legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required and/or
characterizations of the terms and provisions of Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will, which is in
writing and speaks for itself. All such allegations are denied.
4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the amounts placed into the
marital and residuary trusts were not the same. It is denied that this or any other facet of
the establishment, funding and administration of the trusts in any way violates the terms
and provisions ofMr. Mumma, Sr.'s will. The will provides that the marital trust is to be
funded with "an amount equal to fifty (50) percent of my total gross estate as finally
determined for Federal Estate Tax purposes." The will does not specify a particular
amount for the residuary trust, which is to be funded with the estate assets remaining after
all legacies are satisfied and after the payment of all taxes, debts and expenses. The
remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no
responsive pleading is required and/or characterizations of the terms and provisions of
Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will, which is in writing and speaks for itself. All such allegations are
denied.
5. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the martial trust established
under Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will is subject to a power of withdrawal by Mrs. Mumma, and
that Mrs. Mumma has exercised her rights pursuant to such power annually since 1987.
The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no
responsive pleading is required and/or characterizations of the the terms and provisions of
Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will, which is in writing and speaks for itself. All such allegations are
denied.
6. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are vague and ambiguous in their
use of the term "these assets," which is nowhere defined. As a result, the allegations of
this paragraph are susceptible of a meaningful response and denied. By way of further
response, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate by reference herein the interim and
final accounts they have filed with respect to the estate and the interim accounts they
have filed with respect to the marital and residuary trusts (the "Accounts").
7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that various assets owned by
the Mumma family have been sold since Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s death in 1986, and the
marital trust has been funded with various assets. With regard to the timing and amounts
of such funding, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate by reference herein the
Accounts. The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to
which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response is
necessary, it is specifically denied that any assets have been "undervalued." On the
contrary, in selling significant assets owned by the estate or the trusts, Mrs. Mumma and
Mrs. Morgan have obtained appraisals and/or consulted with persons or entities
knowledgeable regarding the valuation of such assets.
8. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is denied that Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will
required that the residuary trust be funded with "Fifty percent (50%) of the Estate's
assets." It is admitted that the residuary trust has been funded with various assets. With
regard to the timing and amounts of such funding, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan
incorporate by reference herein the Accounts. The remaining allegations of this
paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required and/or
characterizations of the terms and provisions ofMr. Mumma, Sr.'s will, which is in
writing and speaks for itself. All such allegations are denied. It is specifically denied
that the funding of the residuary trust in 2002 was in any way improper, or that it
prejudiced any of the beneficiaries under the will.
9. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Mr. Mumma, Sr. died more
than 17 years ago. It is further admitted that the residuary trust has been funded with
various assets. With regard to the timing and amounts of such funding, Mrs. Mumma and
Mrs. Morgan incorporate by reference herein the Accounts. The remaining allegations of
this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required.
All such allegations are denied.
10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Mr. Mumma, Sr. died
more than 17 years ago. It is further admitted that the residuary trust has been funded
with various assets. With regard to the timing and amounts of such funding, Mrs.
Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate by reference herein the Accounts. The remaining
allegations ofthis paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading
is required. All such allegations are denied. By way of further response, Mrs. Mumma
and Mrs. Morgan incorporate their response to paragraph 4.
II. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the residuary trust has
been funded with various assets. With regard to the timing and amounts of such funding,
Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate by reference herein the Accounts. The
remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to which no
responsive pleading is required and/or characterizations of the terms and provisions of
Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will, which is in writing and speaks for itself. All such allegations are
denied. By way of further response, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate their
response to paragraph 4.
12. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that certain distributions have
been made to Mrs. Mumma. With respect to the timing and amounts of such
distributions, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate by reference herein the
Accounts. The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to
which no responsive pleading is required and/or characterizations of the terms and
provisions of Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will, which is in writing and speaks for itself. All such
allegations are denied. By way of further response, it is denied that Mrs. Mumma and
Mrs. Morgan have taken any actions "in contravention" ofMr. Mumma, Sr.'s will. All
distributions to Mrs. Mumma from the estate were distributions to which she was entitled
as income beneficiary of the two trusts under the will.
13. Denied. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan have at all times managed the estate
and trust assets in accordance with the terms ofMr. Mumma, Sr.'s will and their
fiduciary obligations to the will's beneficiaries. With respect to the timing and amounts
of such transactions, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate by reference herein the
Accounts.
14. Denied. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan have at all times complied with their
fiduciary obligations and applicable laws in respect of sales of or other transactions
involving assets owned by Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s estate and/or the trusts established under
his will. Most notably, Mr. Mumma, II and all other shareholders in certain Mumma
family-owned corporations received advance written notice of certain corporate actions
and other matters in connection with the 1993 sale of certain family-owned assets-
known collectively as the "Pennsy Supply Businesses" - to CRH pIc in July 1993.
15. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute legal conclusions to
which no responsive pleading is required. All such allegations are denied. By way of
further response, it is specifically denied that Mr. Mumma, II has any right to dictate
whether, when or on what terms Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan may elect to dispose of
assets owned by Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s estate or the trusts established under his will.
NEW MATTER
1. Mr. Mumma, II's request to receive notice of potential transfers of estate- or
trust-owned assets is but his latest attempt to wrest control of those assets from Mrs.
Mumma and Mrs. Morgan.
2. If granted, Mr. Mumma, II's request would further hinder Mrs. Mumma and
Mrs. Morgan in the administration of the estate and the trusts. Over the past 18 years,
Mr. Mumma, II has repeatedly delayed or thwarted transactions that Mrs. Mumma and
Mrs. Morgan, as executrices and trustees, deemed to be in the best interest of the estate,
the trusts and their beneficiaries.
3. Despite his repeatedly-expressed desire to have control over or a de facto right
to veto transactions involving estate- or trust-owned assets, Mr. Mumma, II has never
advanced any valid legal basis for such a claim.
4. As a consequence, the appropriate forum for addressing any concerns or
grievances Mr. Mumma, II may have regarding the actions of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs.
Morgan is in the context of the resolution of Mr. Mumma, II's objections to the
Accounts. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held,
one ofthe most frequent areas of dispute amongst heirs concerns the valuation of
assets. In the interest of expeditiously resolving estates, the legislature has wisely
deprived the courts of the authority to umpire these disputes during the course of
the administration of the estate, unless of course the administrator is acting
beyond the scope of his legislatively defined powers. Should an administrator
prove negligent his actions are grist for consideration and possible surcharge.
However, the sale of assets by an administrator cannot be foreclosed on grounds
of mere improvidence.1
5. Almost from the outset, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan's actions as
executrices of the estate of and trustees of the trusts established under the will of Mr.
Mumma, Sr. have been hampered by the actions ofMr. Mumma, II.
6. Among others, this course of action has taken the form of repeated requests to
have Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan removed as or limited in their capacities as
executrices and trustees. Mr. Mumma, II first petitioned to remove Mrs. Mumma and
Mrs. Morgan in January 1989. He has since sought appointment ofa temporary
fiduciary, and also has attempted on two occasions to enjoin significant transactions into
which Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan sought to enter on behalf of the estate and the
trusts. None ofMr. Mumma, II's requests in this regard has been granted. Mr. Mumma,
II filed another such petition in May 14,2003.
7. Mr. Mumma, II also filed, on December 16,2003, a petition for preliminary
injunction accusing Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan of improprieties in their management
of the estate and the trusts, and asking that the Court enjoin them from disposing of
1 Estate of Hughes, 517 Pa. 410, 416-17, 538 A.2d 470, 473 (1988).
estate- or trust-owned property. That petition was discontinued by Mr. Mumma, II on
December 18,2003.
8. Mr. Mumma, II first initiated litigation involving aspects of his father's estate
in 1988. At that time, he filed an action, through one of his companies, described by the
court as "a son suing his mother over his deceased father's car."I
9. Mr. Mumma, II also filed in 1988 litigation relating to the operations and
activities of Lebanon Rock, Inc., a corporation 50% owned by the estate and 50% owned
by Mr. Mumma, II. That litigation lasted for a number of years. In an opinion on an
appeal by Mr. Mumma, II from a trial court ruling, the Superior Court commented that
"[Mr. Mumma, II's] past conduct evidences that he will exceed all bounds to force a
favorable result."J.
10. In response to notice that Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan were negotiating
the sale of certain family-owned businesses and assets to a third party, Mr. Mumma, II
asserted that he possessed certain rights of first refusal to purchase those businesses and
assets, and wrote to the potential buyer to that effect. Mr. Mumma, II's actions resulted
in decision by the buyer to withdraw from negotiations. As a result, the sale, for which
Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan had negotiated a purchase price of more than $50
million, did not go forward.
11. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan were forced to commence litigation to obtain
a determination that Mr. Mumma, II did not possess first refusal or other rights
< Gemini Equipment Co. v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., No. 3205 S 1988, Opinion (C.P. Dauphin.
Apr. 26,1990), aff'd, 407 Pa. Super. 404, 595 A.2d 1211 (1991).
J Lebanon Rock, Inc. v. Elco Concrete Prods., Inc., No. 373HBG90, Memorandum (Pa.
Super. July 3,1991).
precluding them from selling estate-owned assets to third parties. Judge Sheely
consistently held that Mr. Mumma, II did not possess those rights.1
12. Following Judge Sheely's decisions that Mr. Mumma, II did not possess the
rights he claimed, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan negotiated and consummated a
transaction in which estate- and trust-owned assets were sold to a third party. The
purchase price, due to a decline in economic and market factors since the time of the
original negotiations, was significantly lower than that originally negotiated by Mrs.
Mumma and Mrs. Morgan.
13. Mr. Mumma, II sought to enjoin the closing of the transaction. Judge Sheely
denied Mr. Mumma, II's request for an injunction. He concluded that Mr. Mumma, II's
conduct in frustrating the original sale cost the family "approximately $20 million
dollars. ,,~
14. Mr. Mumma, II also challenged the terms ofthe consummated sale in an
action filed in Philadelphia County. That action ultimately was discontinued after the
court ordered the case transferred to Cumberland County. At that point, Mr. Mumma, II
signed a consent and received his share of the sale proceeds.2
1 See Barbara McK Mumma, et al. v. Robert M Mumma, II, et al., No. 21-86-398,
Opinion and Order (O.c. Cumberland Mar. 8, 1989) (precatory language in will did not
create first refusal right), appeal discont., No. 206 Harrisburg 1989 (Pa. Super. May 17,
1989); Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. v. Robert M Mumma, II, et al., No. 66 Equity 1988,
Opinion and Order (C.P. Cumberland Mar. 24, 1992) (Mr. Mumma, 11 did not possess
oral or contractual first refusal right), post-trial motion denied andfinal decree entered,
Opinion and Order (C.P. Cumberland Nov. 5,1992), ajf'd, 433 Pa. Super. 660, 639 A.2d
846 (1993), allocatur denied, 539 Pa. 679, 652 A.2d 1324 (1994).
i In re Estate of Robert M Mumma, Deceased, No. 21 -86-398, Opinion and Order of Court
(O.C. Cumberland Aug. 4,1993), ajf'd, 437 Pa. Super. 672, 649 A.2d 467 (1994).
2 Robert M Mumma, II, et al. v. D-E Distribution Corp., et al., No. 666 Equity, Nov. Tenn
1993 (C.P. Philadelphia Jan. 20,1995), appeal dismissed, No. 714 Philadelphia 1995 (Pa.
Super. Mar. 20, 1995).
15. Mr. Mumma, II also sought to enjoin a subsequent closing after the purchaser
elected to exercise an option granted in the original transaction to purchase the estate's
interest in another corporation. This Court denied that request following a hearing.1
16. Notwithstanding the rulings against him in these cases, Mr. Mumma, II
continues to claim various rights to purchase estate- and trust-owned assets. Mr.
Mumma, II also has continued to file legal actions seeking to reverse the sale of the
family-owned businesses, which occurred more than ten years ago.
17. Mr. Mumma, II's litigation assault has also included the filing of various
additional actions naming Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan as defendants and alleging
various improprieties in their actions as fiduciaries and/or officers and directors of the
family-owned businesses.H The Court granted non pros as to three of these actions. The
others remain pending.2
18. In addition, Mr. Mumma, II filed a complaint against Mrs. Morgan, with the
Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and sought to
persuade the District Attorney of Dauphin County to investigate his mother's actions in
I In re Estate of Robert M Mumma, Deceased, No. 21-86-398, Order (C.P. Cumberland
Dec. 11, 1993).
~ See Robert M Mumma, IIv. Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc., et aI., No. 14 Equity 1990 (C.P.
Cumberland); Robert M Mumma, IIv. Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc., et al., No. 15 Equity 1990
(C.P. Cumberland); Robert M Mumma, II v. Barbara McK Mumma, et al., No. 84
Equity 1990 (C.P. Cumberland); Robert M Mumma, IIv. CRH Inc., et al., No. 99-1546
(C.P. Cumberland); Robert M Mumma, IIv. Bobali Corp., et al., No. 5683 Equity of
2000 (C.P. Dauphin).
2 Robert M Mumma, IIv. Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc, et al., No. 14 Equity 1990, Opinion and
Order (C.P. Cumberland Mar. 27,1997), appeal dismissed, No. 432 Harrisburg 1997,
Order (Pa. Super. July 24,1997); Robert M Mumma, IIv. Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc, et al.,
No. 15 Equity 1990, Order (C.P. Cumberland Feb. 20, 1997); Robert M Mumma, IIv.
Barbara McK Mumma, et al., No. 84 Equity 1990, Order (C.P. Cumberland Feb. 20,
1997).
managing family-owned properties.1Q No action was taken by the authorities on either of
these complaints.
19. Mr. Mumma, II also has filed numerous lis pendens proceedings against real
property owned by entities in which Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s estate and/or the trusts
established under his will own a controlling interest.ll
20. Mr. Mumma, II also has filed numerous actions against the attorneys, bankers
and accountants for and the purchaser of assets from the estate, the trusts and/or various
family-owned corporations.
21. Judge Sheely, in ruling upon petitions and motions filed by Mr. Mumma, II in
these proceedings, rejected Mr. Mumma, II's characterizations of the actions of Mrs.
Mumma and Mrs. Morgan in their administration of Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s estate,
concluding that "if anyone is hampering [the administration of the estate] or endangering
the estate, it is [Mr. Mumma, II]."ll Conversely, Judge Sheely stated that "the
executrices are managing the assets of the estate for the best interests of the estate.,,11
J.Q See Trial Testimony of Mr. Mumma, II, Mumma v. Mumma, No. 66 Equity 1988 (C.P.
Cumberland Mar. 13, 1991), at 710-12.
II See Robert M Mumma, IIv. Mumma Realty Associates, No. 91-12 Equity (C.P. Perry);
Robert M Mumma, IIv. Mumma Realty Associates, No. 5007 Equity 1991 (C.P.
Dauphin); Robert M Mumma, II v. Mumma Realty 1, et al., No. 3932 S 1999 (C.P.
Dauphin); Robert M Mumma, II v. Mumma Realty 1, et al., No. 99-811199-10 LIS PEN
(C.P. Perry); Robert M Mumma, IIv. Mumma Realty 1, et al., No. 99-5569 (C.P.
Cumberland).
II See In re Estate of Mumma, No. 21-86-398, Opinion and Order at 8 (O.C. Cumberland
Mar. 6, 1992); see also In re Estate of Mumma, No. 21-86-398, Opinion and Order at 6-7
(O.C. Cumberland Nov. 5,1992) ("it is evident that if anyone is acting in detrimental
fashion in regard to the estate, it is [Mr. Mumma, II]").
11 Id. at 6; see also id. at 4 ("the record provides an abundance of evidence in support of the
executrices in their efforts to prudently and reasonably administer the assets of the
estate").
22. Many of Mr. Mumma, II's demands and accusations have occurred in a
context in which he has operated businesses that acted in direct competition with those in
which the estate and/or the trusts owned a competing interest.B
23. Mr. Mumma, II's course of conduct is the apparent fulfillment of threats made
to Mrs. Mumma to enter into competition with and "bankrupt" the family businesses and
to "see you in court until the day you die."u
24. Mr. Mumma, II also has claimed, without justification or support, repeatedly
that Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan do not hold offices or positions with various
companies and entities to which they have been duly elected, or that they, the estate
and/or the trusts do not own stock or other interests demonstrated in corporate records,
financial statements, tax returns or other documents. His conduct has repeatedly impeded
Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan from entering into transactions or taking other steps they
deemed to be in the best interest of the estate and the trusts.
25. Mr. Mumma, II also has communicated with property managers and others
retained by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan to assist them in their duties in a way that has
interfered with or complicated the administration of the estate and the trusts.
26. Mr. Mumma, II's actions inside and outside the formal litigation context have
substantially increased the expense and time associated with the administration of the
14 See In re Estate of Mumma, No. 21-86-398, Proceedings before Sheely, P.J. (O.C.
Cumberland May 11, 1992) ("I can certainly see that there. . . is competition from [Mr.
Mumma, II's] businesses. . .").
U See Hearing Testimony of Mrs. Mumma, In re Litigation Involving Elco Concrete
Products, Nos. 4678, 4722 and 4744 Equity and No. 3210 S 1988 (C.P. Dauphin ApT. 28,
1989), at 22-23; Hearing Testimony of Mrs. Mumma, In re Litigation Involving Elco
Concrete Products, Nos. 4678, 4722 and 4744 Equity and No. 3210 S 1988 (C.P.
Dauphin Jan. 24, 1992), at 102-03.
estate the trusts, to the detriment of all of those holding interests under Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s
will. His actions have resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in otherwise
unnecessary litigation and other expenses, all of which has detracted from the value of
the estate and the trusts to the beneficiaries.
27. Mr. Mumma, II's primary tactic in frustrating Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan
in their actions as fiduciaries has been repeatedly to claim that he has received
insufficient information. In some cases, he is seeking information relating to activities
occurring 20 or more years prior to Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s death, and years prior to Mrs.
Mumma and Mrs. Morgan's commencement as fiduciaries under his will.
28. When additional information is produced to Mr. Mumma, II's ever-evolving
demands, it inevitably undercuts his contentions. His response is (a) to claim that the
information provided is inadequate, has been falsified, etc., and/or (b) to demand still
more information. All told, Mr. Mumma, II has been provided with 20,000 or more
pages of documents relating to the estate, the trusts and/or family-owned businesses,
properties and assets.
29. Despite Mr. Mumma, II's actions, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan have
continued to fulfill their fiduciary duties and responsibilities. Mr. Mumma, II's
multifarious allegations of misconduct have never been adopted or recognized by the
courts, despite days of courtroom testimony, numerous depositions, scores of motions
and dozens of written opinions and orders by this Court and others.
30. In addition, Mr. Mumma, II's actions toward Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan
have occurred in the context of a situation in which, by virtue of his having disclaimed
his interest under Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will, there exist serious questions as to whether he
has standing to challenge any of the actions taken by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan. In
this regard, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate by reference herein their
amended exceptions to this Court's adjudication of February 23, 2000.
WHEREFORE, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respectfully request that
the Court enter an order dismissing the motion and granting any and all such additional
relief as may be appropriate.
~~J
Ivo V. Otto, III
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS
& OTTO
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717.243.3341
Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr.
Brady 1. Green
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
215-963-5212,5079
Attorneys for Barbara McK. Mumma
Lisa M. Morgan
VERIFICATION
Ivo V. Otto ill, Esquire, of the firm of MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO,
certifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter of Barbara McK.
Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan to Motion for a Rnle to Show Cause Why the Estate Should Not
Be Required to Provide Notice to All Beneficiaries Before the Disposition of Any Estate
Property are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands
that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
~~
Ivo V. Otto ill, Esquire
F:\FlLES\DA T AFlLE\General\Current\ivo. verification
F,\FILES\DATAFILE\General\Current\5844.cerficate
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jacqueline A. Decker, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto,
hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing Answer with New Matter of Barbara McK. Mumma
and Lisa M. Morgan to Motion for a Rule to Show Cause Why the Estate Should Not Be
Required to Provide Notice to All Beneficiaries Before the Disposition of Any Estate Property
was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Kirk S. Sohonage, Esquire
P.O. Box 480
Camp Hill, P A 17001
Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire
P.O. Box 480
Camp Hill, P A 17001
Joseph A. O'Connor, Esquire
Brady L. Green, Esquire
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
0/l.WaJ
ine A. Decker
en ast High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: December 27,2004
- FIFILES\DA TAFlLE\Mumma 5844.1 (estate) 8747 (Kim)\S844. I.Mumma Estate\5844.] ,Petition for Auditor wpd
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE ESTATE OF : ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION
ROBERT M. MUMMA, :
:
Deceased. : NO. 21-86-398
Petition for Appointment of Auditor
AND NOW come Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. MorganMetitioner~who
Co ~
,""' :0 ;;x;;, FR
represent, through their counsel, as follows: ,9,-0 ~ 1Tl 0
J:J~P ;c 0.?~
-.- (/')
'c> m I '-"0
I. Petitioners are Executrices of the above captioned Estate<;:~ crj 3? CJl ::f! fE
.~,:-'Oo (-
')Q., "" ~o
2. Petitioners filed a Fourth and Final Account (the "Acco~ on J~ary ~;;
.;:... ... r-rn
2004. .c- ens;;;:::
.c-
3. Objections to the Account were filed by Robert M. Mumma II ("Mr. Mumma
If') on or about May 27,2004.
4. The objections filed by Mr. Mumma II to the accounting of the Estate raise
questions of fact.
5. Cumberland County Orphan's Court Rule 6.10-2 (a) requires the filing ofa
petition for, and the appointment of, an Auditor to pass upon the objections.
6. The above captioned Estate has been open since 1986, during which time there
have been numerous lawsuits, which have involved varying degrees of discovery, motions practice
and testimony, and many of which present overlapping allegations by Mr. Mumma II of misconduct
on the part of various persons and entities, including Petitioners. Numerous local attorneys have
been involved in these matters representing the parties thereto, and, accordingly would be
.
to serve as Auditor.
WHEREFORE, the Executrices respectfully request that this Honorable Court to
schedule a conference among counsel for Petitioners and Mr. Mumma II with a view toward
identifYing an appropriate individual to act as Auditor to pass upon the objections.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Ivo V. Otto, III
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS
& OTTO
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-3341
Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr.
Brady 1. Green
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
215-963-5212,5079
Attorneys for Barbara McK. Mumma
Lisa M. Morgan
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jacqueline A. Decker, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby
certify that a copy of the foregoing Petition for Appointment of Auditor was served this date by
depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
Daryl 1. Christopher, Esquire
840 Market Street
Lemoyne, P A 17043
Kirk S. Sohonage, Esquire
840 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
BYE)d.~
q ne A. Decker
en ast High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: 1/5/05