Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-18-05 (2) ~. .- r' -r-r- .. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA r i" ' , ., '2 ". I ',~' i" ~. ;~ (" " IN RE: EST A TE OF : ORPHANS' COURT DI,VISION . ROBERT M. MUMMA : : Deceased. : NO. 21-86-398 REPL Y TO NEW MATTER AND MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE OR IN THE AL TERNA TIVE TO SCHEDULE A HEARING ON THE MATTER AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma II, a party in interest to the above- captioned Estate, through his counsel, and files this Reply to New Matter of Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan, Executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma and files this Motion to Make Rule Absolute and in support thcrcof avers the following: 1. Denied. The allegations of Paragraph One (I) are specifically denied and strict proofthcrcofis dcmandcd at thc time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Mr. Mumma II is attcmpting to "wrest control of the asscts from Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan." To thc contrary, as a beneficiary of the Estate, Mr. Mumma II is entitled to know how and when assets of the Estatc are being disposed and/or transferred. The purpose of the request is so that Mr. Mumma can have an opportunity to protcct his intcrcsts in thc asscts. During the administration of the Estatc assets havc bccn disposcd of without Mr. Mumma bcing given the opportunity to retain his intcrcsts. ~ \-t-, 2. Denied. The opinions expressed in Paragraph Two (2) of the New Matter are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, the administration of the Estate by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan will in no way be hindered by requiring advance notice of the transfer or disposal of assets to the beneficiaries of the Estate. To the contrary, the purpose of the request is to providc an opportunity to verify the Estate actually has legal title. 3. Denied. The opinions expressed in Paragraph Three (3) of the New Matter constitute legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, such opinions are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is dcmanded at the time of trial. 4. Denied. The averments of Paragraph Four (4) of the Ncw Matter constitute legal conclusions to which no responsive pleading is rcquired. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, such averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time oftrial. 5. Denied. The opinions expressed in Paragraph Five (5) of the New Matter arc specifically denied and strict proofthcreofis demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, it is because of the secretive administration of the Estatc and refusal to divulge even basic information to beneficiaries and/or shareholders of companies that thc Estate has operated that the motives of the Executrixes have been questioned. Mr. Mumma has been provided certain information for inclusion on his tax returns, but has bcen unable to verify or question its accuracy because the Estate refuses to provide details. Givcn the potential penalties involved, Mr. Mumma should have the right to determine the accuracy of the information provided to him. 6. Admitted. The Executrixes have followed a course of disposing of asscts owned by Mr. Mumma without providing him notification and have personally benefited from the sale of those assets. 7. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Mr. Mumma IJ did file for a preliminary injunction. It is denied that Mr. Mumma unilaterally discontinued the pctition. The petition was revoked without Mr. Mamma's knowledge, which allowcd the subsequent salc of over $1.3 million of real estatc by the Estate, when ownership of the real estate was, and continues to bc, in dispute. An action currently exists in Cumberland County regarding the ownership of the Estate. 8. Admitted. Gemini Equipment Company filed a replevin action to redeem an automobile that was leased by Pennsy Supply, Inc. for use ofMr. Mumma Senior. Arrangements had been made between the companies to provide the tinher with a $75,000 car utilizing Gemini's credit line. Mrs. Mumma was never a defendant in this matter and the Court's language was incorrect. Gemini was successful in that action and the Court ordered the car be returned to Gemini. 9. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Mr. Mumma filed an action rclating to the operations of Lebanon Rock. It is specifically denied that the Estate was a legitimate shareholder. Mr. Mumma owned fifty (50%) percent of the company and the transfer of his shares was controlled by a written, signed shareholder agreement on tile at the 100 I Paxton Street of1ice. The primary issucs wcre theft of monies in the Lebanon Rock operating accounts by Pennsy Supply, Inc. and the unauthorized mining and sale of dolomite from Lebanon Rocks Quarry by Eleo Concrete, a Pennsy Supply, Inc. subsidiary. 10. Denied. The statements in Paragraph Ten (10) of the New Matter are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Mr. Mumma had been given an oral right of first refusal by the Estate in exchange for his agreement to allow sale of real estate in which he had an ownership interest. After the property was sold the Estate refused to honor its agreement. The buyer's dccision not to procecd was communicated in a lettcr that speaks for itsel f. 11. Admitted in part. [t is admitted that the Estate commenced litigation regarding whether Mr. Mumma II had a right of tirst refusal. It is denied that the court consistently held that Mr. Mumma did not have the right. In fact, the Court initially ruled that Mr. Mumma did have a right of first refusal. 12. Admitted in part, Denied in part. It is admitted the Estate renegotiated and consummated a sale of the company for a significantly lower price. It is specifically denied the reason for the [ower purchase price was because of a decline in economic and market factors or as a result ofMr. Mumma II's actions. Rathcr, the buyer determined that the asscts to be sold might not belong to Pennsy Supply, Inc. or Nine Ninety Nine. 13. Admittcd in part. It is admitted that Mr. Mumma II sought to enjoin the closing ofthe transaction. To the extent that the remaining averments of Paragraph Thirteen (13) attempt to characterize a written document that speaks for itself, such averments are specifically denied. 14. Denied. The averments contained within Paragraph Fourteen (14) of the New Matter are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at thc time of trial. Mr. Mumma signed a consent and joinder to the sale of Nine Nincty Nine, Inc., but objected to the sale of Hummelstown Quarries Inc., a fraudulent transaction that is the subject of a lawsuit. 15. Denied. Due to the vagueness of the allegations contained within Paragraph Fifteen (15) of the New Matter, Mr. Mumma is unable to accurately answer these averments; therefore, the same are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted. By way of further response, the cases were non-prossed after repeated requests of information regarding shareholder agreements and stock registers were obstructed by the Estate. Only after the cases were non-prossed did the Estate "find" the requested items. These "newly discovered" records would have prevented the sale to CRH. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. 20. Admitted. 2\. Admitted. By way of further response, Judge Sheely refused tallow examination of the records that would have clearly revealed that the Estate was subverting a series of shareholder agreements, insurance policies and corporate structures that were put into place by the decedent and his father to assure that the operating corporations would be owned by the Mumma children and established a fixed price for the Estate's interests. Had these been followed, the Executrixes would have been unable to have diverted more than $25 million to the Marital Trust. 22. Denied. The avemlents of Paragraph Twenty-Two (22) are specifically Denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Although some ofMr. Mumma's allegations were based upon businesses that were in competition with Estate owned assets, it is inaccurate to use the language "Many" with regard to his allegations. 23. Denied. The averments of Paragraph Twenty-Three (23) of the New Matter are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 24. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Mr. Mumma has made such allegations, but it is specifically denied that such allegations are without justification or support. To the contrary, all of his claims are substantiated by the available corporate records. 25. Denied. The averments contained within Paragraph Twenty-Five (25) of the New Matter are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Mr, Mumma has attempted to obtain information on property and has been denied. Furthermore, the Estate is not maintaining the properties and the Estate assets are being wasted. 26. Denied. The averments of Paragraph Twenty-Six (26) of the New Matter are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 27. Denied. The averments ofl'aragraph Twenty-Seven (27) of the New Matter are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 28. Denied. The averments of Paragraph Twenty-Eight (28) of the New Matter are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 29. Denied. The averments of Paragraph Twenty-Nine (29) of the New Matter are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 30. Denied. The averments of Paragraph Thirty (30) of the New Matter are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Robert M. Mumma II respectfully requests this Honorable Court Make the Rule Absolute and require the Estate to provide Notice to all beneficiaries before the disposition of any property controlled by the Estate or, alternatively, to schedule a hearing on this matter. SOHONAGE & CHRISTOPHER /1/;// / BY: Kirk'S. Sohonage, Esquire Attorney ID# 77851 840 Market Street PO Box 480 Camp Hill, PA 1701 I P.717.612.7721 F.717.612.9722 For Robert M, l'vfumma If VERIFICA nON I do hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and corrcct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsitlcations to authorities. ~J\ ( )' . . ./ I :1 ' /; i} '/' V / l,({.U A.-U H (~ 1) Robert M. Mumma II CERTlFICA TE OF SERVICE I, Kirk S. Sohonage, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter and Request to Make Rule Absolute was served this datc by regular mail upon thc following: Ivo V. Otto III, Esquire MARTSON, DEARDORff, WILLIAMS & OTTO 10 East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 717.243.3341 Joseph A. O'Connor, Esquire Brady L. Green, Esquire MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA \9\03-292\