Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-17-08 (4)v F:\FILES\Clients\Mumma 5844. I (estate) 8747 (Kim)\5844. LMmnma Estate\5844.1.Resp to RMM ^ RFA.DOC ~ r _ George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire ?' ~ ~ ~' ~. LD. No. 49813 ~_:'=_, --.- MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER ~-- ~ ``' MARTSON LAW OFFICES _ -~ =~~ ` ~~` r T7 10 East High Street .-''_~ ;~., Carlisle, PA 17013 ~' ~' (717) 243-3341 , ~~ Attorneys for Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Estate of Robert M. Mumma, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Deceased NO. 21-86-398 ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION RESPONSES OF BARBARA MCK. MUMMA AND LISA M. MORGAN TO ROBERT M. MUMMA, II'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan respond as follows to the First Set of R'.equests for Admission served upon them by Robert M. Mumma, II. 1. The original contract for the purchase of the Snyder Farm was between the Snyders and Robert M. Mumma, II. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms "original contract" and "Snyder Farm." In addition, the request seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Without waiver of, and subject to, their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond as follows: Denied. After a reasonable investigation, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan are unable to respond to this request insofar as it refers to an unidentified "original contract." It is their understanding based upon available information that what they understand to be the Snyder Farm was purchased by Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc. from John J. and Evelyn R. G. Snyder. The transfer was reflected in a deed dated January 16, 1989. 2. The original contract for the purchase of the Snyder Farm was among the possessions of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased at the time of his death. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms "original contract" and "Snyder Farm." Without waiver of, and subject to, their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond as follows: Denied. After a reasonable investigation, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan are unable to state whether any "original contract" for the sale of what they understand to be the Snyder Farm was a "possession" of Robert M. Mumma at the time of his death. By way of further response, the Snyder Farm was not a possession of Robert M. Mumma at the time of his death. See also response to Request 1. 3. The plans of liquidation of Kim Company and Pennsylvania Supply Company adopted by the directors of said companies called for the liquidation of Kim Company's assets to b~e distributed to the shareholders pro rata. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information relating to matters which have been fully and finally adjudicated by the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As a consequence, they seek information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks characterization of the contents of a document which is in writing and speaks for itself. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Denied. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan understand this request to refer to the Plans of Dissolution and Complete Liquidation of Kim Company and Pennsylvania Supply Company. Those plans do not state that the assets of the respective corporations will be "distributed to the shareholders pro rata." Rather, each of the plans states that "complete liquidation" will occur "[a]s soon as practicable after the adoption of the Plan," and that "the appropriate officers of the Company shall proceed to effect the liquidation of the Company on such terms and conditions as such officers in their sole discretion consider to be reasonable and in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders." The plans also state that, as soon as practicable, the directors shall cause to be distributed to the shareholders all of the assets of the Company remaining after the payment of or provision for all remaining obligations or claims against the Company, in complete cancellation and redemption of all of the outstanding shares of the Company." Moreover, following the unanimous consents of the shareholders and directors of the corporations approving and adopting the Plans of Dissolution and Complete Liquidation, the family members signed other documents governing the terms on and manner in which the liquidations would occur. They signed two agreements among tenants-in-common -commonly referred to as "MRA I" and "MRA II" governing the assets of the liquidated corporations. They also executed a bill of sale transferring real and personal property of Kim Company and Pennsylvania Supply Company to themselves in respect of their respective shareholdings in the two corporations. In addition, Mr. Mumma, II, in his capacity as Vice-President of Kim Company and Pennsylvania Supply Company, also executed a master deed transferring all real estate owned by Kim Company and Pennsylvania Supply Company to their shareholders as tenants-in-common under the MRA I and MRA II agreements, as well as deeds transferring various rights and interests from Pennsylvania Supply to Hummelstown Quarries, Inc. See Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. v. Robert M. Mumma, II, et al., No. 66 Equity 1988, Opinion and Order, Findings of Fact 16, 31, 37, 40, 44, 45, 52, 53, 54 (C.P. Cumberland Mar. 24, 1992), post-trial motion denied and final decree entered, Opinion and Order (C.P. Cumberland Nov. 5, 1992} (Sheely, P.J.), aff'd, 433 Pa. Super. 660, 639 A.2d 846 (1993), allocatur denied, 539 Pa. 679, 652 A.2d 1324 (1994); see also, e.g., Robert M. Mumma, II v. G A-T Distribution Corp., No. 423 Civil 1994, Answer of Robert M. Mumma, II to Motion to Quash (C.P. Cumberland Apr. 30, 1997) ("Hummelstown Quarries, Inc. was formed out of Pennsylvania Supply Company and the ownership interest in Pennsylvania Supply Company is what determined the ownership interest in Hummelstown Quarries, Inc.); Robert M. Mumma, II v. G-A-T Distribution Corp., No. 423 Civil 1994, Answer of Robert M. Mumma, II to Motion for Protective Order (C.P. Cumberland May 5, 1997) ("[i]t is admitted that on December 19, 1986, [Mr. Mumma,] II, executed deeds as Vice President of Pennsylvania Supply Company purporting to transfer various rights and interests from Pennsylvania Supply Company to Hummelstown] Q[uarries,] I[nc.] in furtherance of a liquidation of Pennsylvania Supply Company and that these deeds would have constituted the source of all of the assets of Hummelstown] Quuarries,] I[nc.]"). The foregoing documents and instruments governed the liquidations of Pennsylvania Supply Company and Kim Company and the ownership of those assets following the liquidations. 4. After the liquidation of Kim Company, Pennsylvania Supply Company was to be liquidated with the distribution of its assets to the shareholders pro rata. RIESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information relating to matters which have been fully and finally adjudicated by the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As a consequence, they seek information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that the liquidation of Kim Company occurred prior to the liquidation of Pennsylvania Supply Company, as Pennsylvania Supply Company was a shareholder of Kim Company, and that certain assets were conveyed to their shareholders pro rata at the time of the liquidations of Kim Company and Pennsylvania Supply Company. The remainder of the request is denied to the extent that it seeks to characterize the terms of the Plan of Dissolution and Complete Liquidation of Kim Company, or that it seeks to characterize the terms or effect of the various documents executed by the shareholders of Pennsylvania Supply Company and Kim Company in December 1986. See also Response to Request 3. 5. The purpose and intent of said liquidation plans was to benefit only the shareholders of either Kim Company or Pennsylvania Supply Company. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information relating to matters which have been fully and finally adjudicated by the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As a consequence, they seek information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that they believed the liquidations of Pennsylvania Supply Company and Kim Company were in the best interests of the shareholders of those corporations, and they understood that the other shareholders, in agreeing to the liquidations, held a similar belief. The purpose of the liquidations was to avoid the effects of the "1986 Tax Reform Act [which] overruled the General Utilities doctrine which had previously permitted corporations to liquidate and pay only one tax on the appreciation in the value of corporate assets rather than two taxes; one at the corporate and the other at the shareholder level," thus economically benefitting all the shareholders, including the Estate. Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. v. Robert M. Mumma, II, et al., No. 66 Equity 1988, Opinion and Order, Finding of Fact 5 (C.P. Cumberland Mar. 24, 1992) (Sheely, P.J.), post-trial motion denied and final decree entered, Opinion and Order (C.P. Cumberland Nov. 5, 1992), aff'd, 433 Pa. Super. 660, 639 A.2d 846 (1993), allocatur denied, 539 Pa. 679, 652 A.2d 1324 (1994). All other aspects of the request are denied. 6. Said liquidation plans were formulated and structured by Morgan, Lewis & 13ockius to avoid taxes on distributed assets in anticipation of upcoming changes to federal tax laws. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information relating to matters which have been fully and finally adjudicated by the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As a consequence, they seek information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms "formulated" and "structured." Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that personnel at Morgan, Lewis &Bockius brought to the attention of the family the potential benefits associated with a liquidation of Pennsylvania Supply Company and Kim Company, and thereafter prepared the Plans of Dissolution and Complete Liquidation that were adopted and approved by the directors and shareholders of Kim Company and Pennsylvania Supply Company. It is further admitted a purpose of the liquidations was to avoid the effects of the "1986 Tax Reform Act [which] overruled the General Utilities doctrine which had previously permitted corporations to liquidate and pay only one tax on the appreciation in the value of corporate assets rather than two taxes; one at the corporate and the other at the shareholder level." Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. v. Robert M Mumma, II, et al., No. 66 Equity 1988, Opinion and Order, Finding of Fact 5 (C.P. Cumberland Mar. 24, 1992), post-trial motion denied and final decree entered, Opinion and Order (C.P. Cumberland Nov. 5, 1992), aff'd, 433 Pa. Super. 660, 639 A.2d 846 (1993), allocatur denied, 539 Pa. 679, 652 A.2d 1324 (1994). All other aspects of the request are denied. 7. Morgan, Lewis &Bockius filed articles of incorporation for Hummelstown Quarries, Inc. in December 1986. R1=;SPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information relating to matters which have been fully and finally adjudicated by the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As a consequence, they seek information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that personnel of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius or individuals acting at their direction filed articles of incorporation for Hummelstown Quarries, Inc. A certificate of incorporation for Hummelstown Quarries, Inc. was also filed with the Secretary of State on December 19, 1986. Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. v. Robert M. Mumma, II, et al., No. 66 Equity 1988, Opinion and Order, Finding of Fact 57 (C.P. Cumberland Mar. 24, 1992), post-trial motion denied and final decree entered, Opinion and Order (C.P. Cumberland Nov. 5, 1992), aff'd, 433 Pa. Super. 660, 639 A.2d 846 (1993), allocatur denied, 539 Pa. 679, 652 A.2d 1324 (1994). 8. There was no shareholders meeting held in the Harrisburg offices of Pennsy Supply in December 1986 which led to the creation of Hummelstown Quarries, Inc. F;ESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information relating to matters which have been fully and finally adjudicated by the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As a consequence, they seek information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous with respect to its use of the terms "shareholder meeting." Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Denied. An organizational meeting of the board of directors of Hummelstown Quarries, Inc. was held at the offices of Pennsy Supply, Inc. on December 19, 1986. Moreover, one of the purposes of the family meeting held on that same date "was to take the necessary steps to create ...Hummelstown Quarries, Inc." Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. v. Robert M. Mumma, II, et al., No. 66 Equity 1988, Opinion and Order, Finding of Fact 31 (C.P. Cumberland Mar. 24, 1992), post- trial motion denied and final decree entered, Opinion and Order (C.P. Cumberland Nov. 5, 1992), aff'd, 433 Pa. Super. 660, 639 A.2d 846 (1993), allocatur denied, 539 Pa. 679, 652 A.2d 1324 (1994}. See also response to Request 3. 9. Morgan, Lewis &Bockius created Hummelstown Quarries, Inc. to convey rights to various quarries and mineral reserves to entities controlled by the Estate in violation of the plan of liquidation adopted by Pennsylvania Supply Company. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information relating to matters which have been fully and finally adjudicated by the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As a consequence, they seek information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous with respect to its use of the phrase "Morgan, Lewis &Bockius created." The request also is compound and confusing. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that all assets transferred to Hummelstown Quarries, Inc. were controlled by the Estate of Robert M. Mumma by virtue of the Estate's ownership of more than 98% of the stock of Pennsylvania Supply Company at the time of its liquidation. Thus, both before and after the transfer of those assets from Pennsylvania Supply Company to Hummelstown Quarries, Inc. they were owned by entities controlled by the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased. All other aspects of this request are denied. See also responses to Requests 3 and 8. 10. In a sworn affidavit dated April 13, 2004, William F. Martson, Esquire, of the estate's counsel's firm, stated that he filed a document entitled "Disclaimer by Robert M. Mumma, II" in the Cumberland County Office of the Register of Wills at the direction of Arthur L. Klein, Esquire. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted. 11. Attorney Martson received no instructions directly from Robert M. Mumma, II to file a disclaimer with the court. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous with respect to its use of the terms "a disclaimer." Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Attorney Martson never received verbal or written instructions directly from Robert M. Mumma, II, himself, however Attorney Martson received instructions from Mr. Mumma, II's attorney and authorized agent to file the disclaimer with the court. Moreover, in early January, 1987, Mr. Mumma and Mr. Klein had a discussion concerning Mr. Mumma disclaiming his interest under his father's will in favor of his children. Mr. Mumma authorized Mr. Klein to draft a disclaimer of his interest for his review. Mr. Mumma executed the qualified disclaimer of his interest on January 6, 1987, and said disclaimer was filed with the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Orphans' Court Division on January 12, 1987, in Book 115 at Page 20 with the knowledge and authorization of Mr. Mumma. Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. v. Robert M. Mumma, II, et al., No. 66 Equity 1988, Opinion and Order, Findings of Fact 15, 16, 18 (C.P. Cumberland Feb. 13, 1989) (Sheely, P.J.), post-trial motion denied and final decree entered, Opinion and Order (C.P. Cumberland Nov. 5, 1992), aff'd, 433 Pa. Super. 660, 639 A.2d 846 (1993), allocatur denied, 539 Pa. 679, 652 A.2d 1324 (1994) (citations omitted). 12. In a letter dated June 9, 2005, addressed to the Auditor, counsel for the Executrices, No V. Otto, III, Esquire, indicated that the Executrices have stated from the time of Robert M. Mumma, II's initial request to revoke his disclaimer that they do not take any position or.~ the merits of same request and that their position has been consistent. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. The request also is vague and ambiguous with respect to its use of the term "same request." Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks characterization of the contents of a document which is in writing and speaks for itself. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan do not take a position on the merits of the disclaimer issue. However, as they have consistently stated, they do not believe that the issue has been fully adjudicated by parties having standing to do so, and that a ruling on the issue is essential to the exercise of their fiduciary duties with respect to the identities of individuals to whom they must account and who, ultimately, will be the remaindermen of the Trusts established under the will of Mr. Mumma, Sr. 13. Since the time of Robert M. Mumma, II's initial request to revoke the disclaimer, the Executrices have stated in multiple filings with the Court that they do not take any position on the merits of Robert M. Mumma, II's request to revoke the disclaimer. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous with respect to its use of the terms "multiple filings." Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks characterization of the contents of various documents which are in writing and speak for themselves. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan do not take a position on the merits of the disclaimer issue. However, as they have consistently stated, they do not believe that the issue has been fully adjudicated by parties having standing to do so, and that a ruling on the issue is essential to the exercise of their fiduciary duties with respect to the identities of individuals to whom they must account and who, ultimately, will be the remaindermen of the Trusts established under the will of Mr. Mumma, Sr. 14. Counsel for the Estate and the Executrices have not filed any motions, petitions, ~or other court documents, nor otherwise commenced any litigation or proceedings, to challenge, ;remove, strike, rescind or otherwise declare as invalid the revocation praeciped by Robert M. i1~lumma, II with the Register of Wills office on January 16, 1990, and designated on the docket as revoked on January 23, 1990, pursuant to the Order of Court dated November 17, 1989. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous with respect to its use of the terms "other court documents," "proceedings"and "challenge." Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that they have not filed documents seeking to have the revocation stricken or overturned, as they lack standing to seek such relief. They have, however, raised in numerous pleadings, motions, briefs, and letters to the Auditor their belief that the issue of the validity of that revocation has not been litigated by persons having standing to do so. See, e.g., the document referenced in Request 20 and Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan's response to that request. All other aspects of the request are denied. 15. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius was representing Robert M. Mumma, II in late 1986 and early 1987 when he was counseled by Arthur L. Klein, Esquire as to the disclaimer which was filed by William F. Martson, Esquire at the Register of Wills office. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information relating to matters which have been fully and finally adjudicated by the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As a consequence, it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous with respect to its use of the terms "counseled" and "as to the disclaimer." Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part; denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that Mr. Klein was an attorney for Mr. Mumma, II on matters, during time periods and under terms and conditions that have been the subject of discovery, testimony and adjudications in the above-captioned action and other proceedings. See, e.g., Barbara McK. Mumma et al. v. Robert M. Mumma, fI et al., No. 66 Equity 1988, Opinion and Order, Finding of Fact 11 (C.P. Cumberland Feb. 13, 1989) ("Mr. Mumma understood that Morgan, Lewis was only representing him concerning his `estate planning and related matters"'), post-trial motion denied and final decree entered, Opinion and Order (C.P. Cumberland Nov. 5, 1992) (Sheely, P.J.), aff'd, 433 Pa. Super. 660, 639 A.2d 846 (1993), allocatur denied, 539 Pa. 679, 652 A.2d 1324 (1994}. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan also are aware that these matters were in part among the matters that were the subject of an action filed by Mr. Mumma, II against Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and Mr. Klein. [CITE] All other aspects of the request are denied. 16. In her sworn deposition testimony taken on January 24, 2007, at page ] 64, B~u-bara McK. Mumma, Executrix and Trustee, testified that Arthur Klein had discussions with R1vIMII wherein she acknowledged that Arthur Klein had misled RMMII in general about the Estate and the business. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous with respect to its use of the terms "the business." Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks characterization of testimony that has been transcribed and speaks for itself. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that Mrs. Mumma testified in her deposition on January 24, 2007 as follows: Q And once your husband passed away, there must have been some discussions with Morgan Lewis about what would happen to the company? A I didn't get into that too much in the beginning. I know that Arthur Klein - well, he died in the meantime, and I hadn't had too many discussions with him on it. I think he had some discussions with Bobby on it and sort of misled Bobby. Q How? A I just said I think he misled him. Q Misled him about what? A Something to do with the estate and the business. Q Are you referring to a specific conversation or a specific issue? A No; just general. Q Well, for example, in 1986, your son, Robert, was still the natural purchaser of the business if there was going to be somebody to purchase it. Was that your feeling? A Frankly, I didn't give any thought to it at the time. Q Do you know whether anyone from Morgan Lewis talked to your son about that? A I don't know. I think maybe somebody did. I think maybe Art Klein did, but I don't know for sure. In re Estate of Robert M. lUlumma, Deceased, No. 21-86-398, Deposition of Barbara McK. Mumma at 163-64 (O.C. Cumberland Jan. 24, 2007). Neither Mrs. Mumma nor Mrs. Morgan has any information suggesting that Mr. Mumma, II was unaware of or uniformed regarding any material matter relating to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, the Trusts established under his will, or the family-owned businesses. All other aspects of the request are denied. 17. On July 23, 1993, the Executrices filed a Response to the Petition of Robert M. Frey for Preliminary Injunction and Rule to Show Cause which admitted in Paragraph 10 thereof that Robert M. Mumma, II's disclaimer was ineffective, and which further admitted that his minor children were not beneficiaries under the Will. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Mr. Mumma, Sr. and the Trusts established under his will. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks characterization of the contents of a document which is in writing and filed with the Court and speaks for itself. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part; denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that paragraph 10 of their Response to the Petition of Robert M. Frey for Preliminary Injunction and Rule to Show Cause stated in part that "Petitioner was not given notice of the proposed sale because, on the current state of the record in this action, [Mr. Mumma, II]'s disclaimer is ineffective and his minor children are not, therefore, beneficiaries under the Will of Mr. Mumma, Sr." (emphasis supplied). See also responses to Requests 12-14. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan do not believe, and therefore deny, that they have admitted that Mr. Mumma, II's was ineffective or that they have taken a position as to whether, as an ultimate matter, Mr. Mumma, II's children are beneficiaries under the will of Mr. Mumma, Sr. They are awaiting a decision from the Court on this matter, so that they can have certainty as to the parties to whom they are required to account, and as to the identities of all individuals who properly are remaindermen of the Trusts established under the will of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased. 18. Counsel for the Executrices filed a brief on July 26, 1993 with Judge Sheely which acknowledged that the disclaimer had been validly revoked and that Robert M. Mumma, II's interests under the Will were restored via its assertion that "Because Bob's disclaimer is, on the current state of the record, ineffective, Bob is the presumptive remainderman." RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks characterization of the contents of a document this in writing and of record with the Court and speaks for itself. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that they filed a Memorandum of Law on July 26, 1993 that stated, inter alia, that "[a]t the time of the entry of the Order appointing him guardian ad litem, [Mr. Mumma, II] had disclaimed his interest under the Will in favor of his minor children. Subsequently, however, [Mr. Mumma, II] sought to revoke the disclaimer, and this Court upheld the revocation. By Order dated July 21, 1993, this Court denied Petitioner's exceptions to that [sic] the Court's order upholding the revocation.... Because [Mr. Mumma, II]'s disclaimer is, on the current state of the record, ineffective, [Mr. Mumma, II] is the presumptive remainderman. As such, he represents the interests of his minor children under the doctrine of virtual representation. Consequently, on the current state of the record [Mr. Mumma, II]'s minor children have no standing to enjoin actions taken by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan." All other aspects of this request are denied. 19. In response to the Motion to Compel Discovery filed by RMMII on 12-21-04, the Estate filed a Response on 12-29-04 which admitted in Paragraph #4 that RMMII is a beneficiary under the Estate and the two Trusts. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan abject to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks characterization of the contents of a document that is in writing and of record with the Court and speaks for itself. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that the document so stated and that, for the reasons set forth in their response to Request 18, that was the state of the record as of the date in question. 20. In response to the Motion for Recusal of Judge due Appearance of Impropriety filed by RMMII on 04-27-05, the Estate filed a Response on OS-13-OS which admitted in P~u-agraph #2 that RMMII is a beneficiary of the Estate. REESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request on the grounds that it seeks characterization of the contents of a document which is in writing and of record with the Court and speaks for itself. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part; denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that their response to paragraph 2 of the Motion in question read as follows: Admitted. By way of further response, Mr. Mumma, II disclaimed his interest under Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will in January 1987. He later was permitted to revoke that disclaimer. This revocation, however, has never been litigated by persons having standing to do so on behalf of Mr. Mumma, II's minor children." All other aspects of the request are denied. 21. In his letter dated May 24, 2005, the Auditor stated in part: "During the prehearing conference Robert M. Mumma, II objected to even any discussion about the disclaimer issue by the estate's counsel on the basis that such discussion was ethically barred because one of the estate's counsel acted as his counsel when the disclaimer was made. Counsel for the estate caucused and then indicated that 30 days would be needed to determine if current counsel could respond on this issue or if new counsel would have to be engaged. It was agreed at the end of the conference that the estate through current counsel or new counsel would express its position with regard to the disclaimer in writing within 30 days." :RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request on the grounds to the extent that it seeks characterization of a document that is in writing and speaks for itself. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that this request accurately quotes a portion of the Auditor's letter. 22. The letter dated June 9, 2005, by No V. Otto, III, Esquire constituted the written position of the Estate with regard to the disclaimer as same was required by the auditor in his letter dated May 24, 2005. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. The request also is vague and ambiguous with respect to its use of the term "written position." Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that Mr. Otto's letter was submitted in response to the request from the Auditor for a statement of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan's "position with regard to the disclaimer." Any other aspects of the request are denied. 23. The majority of the text of the letter dated June 9, 2005, addressed to the Auditor by No V. Otto, III, Esquire, was re-sent to the Auditor by George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire, in the Tatter's letter dated November 7, 2007. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request to the extent that it seeks characterization of documents that are in writing and speak for themselves. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that Mr. Faller's November 7, 2007, letter contained the same and/or similar content as Mr. Otto's June 9, 2005 letter. 24. Neither the Executrices nor any other party or counsel ever responded timely in writing as to the issue raised at said prehearing conference as to whether the estate counsel was ethically barred from participation inasmuch as the estate counsel also acted as counsel to Robert M. Mumma, II when the disclaimer was made. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. In addition, the request is vague and ambiguous with respect to its use of the terms "timely," "said prehearing conference" and "participation." Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Denied. 25. Following the issuance of the Superior Court's Memorandum Opinion filed .January 3, 2001, the Executrices did not obtain a certification from the trial court under Pa. [~.A.P. 342 as to the `status of individuals' in the context of Judge Hoffer's decision of :February 23, 2000. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request to the extent that it seeks from them a characterization of matters that are of record with the Court. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan also object to this request on the grounds that it its vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase "status of individuals." Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part, denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that they are not aware of the entry since January 3, 2001, of an order certifying issues relating to the disclaimer of Mr. Mumma, II for appellate review pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 342. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan have expressly requested such relief from the Court. All other aspects of this request are denied. 26. The Orphans' Court failed to decide, within 120 days or otherwise, the exceptions filed by the Executrices on March 3, 2000. F:ESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request to the extent that it seeks from them a statement as to matters that are of record with the Court. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan are not aware of a ruling by the Court on their exceptions filed by March 3, 2000. 27. The exceptions filed by the Executrices on March 3, 2000, are deemed denied by operation of law pursuant to Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rule 7.1 (f). RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Denied. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan do not believe that the exceptions are deemed denied absent the entry of a deemed denial on the docket. The docket for this matter does not reflect any such entry. Moreover, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan deny that any failure of the Court to rule upon the exceptions has any impact upon the ultimate question of whether Mr. Mumma, Il's revocation of his disclaimer was valid or effective. See also responses to Requests 12-14. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further deny that any failure by the Court to rule on the exceptions reflects any ruling on the merits of the matters raised in the exceptions. 28. When Joseph O'Connor appeared before Judge Oler at a hearing conducted on April 18, 2005, Judge Oler recused himself due to an appearance of impropriety inasmuch as Attorney O'Connor had prepared the last will and testament of Judge Oler's mother. RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request to the extent it seeks characterization of events transpiring at a hearing, the transcript of which is in writing, of record with the Court and speaks for itself. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted in part; denied in part. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that Judge Oler recused himself from further participation in Robert M. Mumma, II v. Estate of Robert M Mumma et al., No. 04-6183 (C.P. Cumberland), for reasons stated on the record during the hearing in that matter on April 18, 2005, and reflected in his Order entered that date. All other aspects of the request are denied. 29. In the Memorandum Opinion of the Superior Court dated July 15, 1994, in footnote #1, the Superior Court stated: "Robert II validly revoked his disclaimer; therefore, the children, through the guardian ad litem, no longer have an interest in this dispute." RESPONSE: Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan object to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, the request appears to seek information that is unrelated to any proper objection asserted to the accounts filed with respect to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan further object to this request to the extent that it seeks characterization of the contents of a document that is in writing and of record with the Court and speaks for itself. Without waiver of and subject to their objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan respond to this request as follows: Admitted. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan admit that footnote 1 to the opinion in question states as quoted above. A subsequent opinion of the Superior Court stated: We note that there is some dispute over whether [Mr. Mumma, II] actually possesses a legitimate property interest in decedent's Estate. As the trial court noted, one threshold question is whether [Mr. Mumma, II) remains a beneficiary in light of his January 6, 1987 filing of an irrevocable disclaimer of his interest under the decedent's will. In re Estate of Robert M. Mumma, No. 856 MDA 2005, Memorandum at 12 n.l (Pa. Super. Mar. 7, 2006). Respectfully Submitted, i No V. Otto, III George B. Faller, Jr. MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 E. High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr. Brady L. Green MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 (215) 963-5212, 5079 Date: June 2, 2008 Attorneys for Barbara McK. Mumma Lisa M. Morgan MAY-30i-2008 11:14 FROM-AFFINIA GARDENS 2127587858 T-231 P.001/001 F-263 . -.-~ VERIFICATION The faregoing Responses of Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa 1VI. Morgaz- to Robert M. Mumma, I)('s Request for Admis~.5ions is based upon i,nfarmation which has been gathered by my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. ~`hc language of the document is that of counsel and not my own. ~ have read the document and to the e~tezzt that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and cdirect to the best of my knowledge, infornnation aril belief. To the extent that the content of the document zs that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. Tl'ris statement and verification are made subject td the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make lmowingly faire averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. "~ Lisa M. Morgan, Indi ally, and as Executrix of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad an authorized agent of Martson Law Offices hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Responses of Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan to Robert M. Mumma, II's Request for Admissions was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008 Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II 6880 S.E. Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996-1968 Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II 840 Market Street, Suite 164 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Ralph A. Jacobs, Esquire JACOBS & SINGER, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 705 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (Attorney for Barbara Mann Mumma) Brady L. Green, Esquire MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 (Attorney for Estate and Executrixes) Ms. Linda Mumma Roth P.O. Box 480 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Taylor P. Andrews, Esquire ANDREWS & JOHNSON 78 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (Court-Appointed Auditor) M~TSON LAW O E `j , i U --By- ~~ r is D. Eckenroad 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: June 2, 2008 (717) 243-3341