HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-091N RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
MUMMA, deceased :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN~,A
/''~ ~_
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION~o m
: ' ~ ~ ~ ~.
NO. 21-86-398 - ; ~ .n
- c.~~ : ;
(v~ c~
~ ~
_. .,}l.,J~ ,. Y
AUDITOR'S INTERIM REPORT, FEBRUARY 2009 AND REQUEST FOI~''~RDER
T'o the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr.:
Your Honor has appointed me Auditor in the above captioned matter and charged me
with reviewing the existing file and a multitude of prehearing issues raised by the parties. These
issues can be characterized as either procedural, evidentiary or discovery related. A three day
hearing has been scheduled in this matter for April 21-23, 2009. Your Honor issued discovery
arders in October 2005, January 2006, and October 2007 together with many other orders.
On October 29, 2008, following my appointment, I scheduled and conducted a Status
(:onference with all parties and counsel (Copy of Transcript attached). I did not immediately
schedule a hearing nor issue a report because there was an outstanding matter before the Court
relative to certain counsel for the estate. Also, I had not received nor reviewed the entire file.
The following is a list of twenty-six (26) outstanding issues together with the dates of
Your Honor's Order to the Auditor and my recommendation for disposition.
I. Petition of Robert M. Mumma II for Removal of Barbara McKinnie Muuma and
Lisa Mumma Morgan as Executrices and/or Trustees under the Will of Robert M.
Mumma dated March 29, 2005
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
2. Robert M. Mumma II Request for an Order that the Estate has Waived Its Right to
Contest a Disclaimer filed and Revoked, dated April 25, 2005.
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
3. Robert M. Mumma II Motion to Compel Inspection of all Books and Records dated
April, 29, 2005.
During the prehearing status conference, the parties acknowledged that the
records which were in the custody of the Estate had for many, many months been
made available to the requesting party or parties. All parties agreed that they were
given access to these records. Mr. Mumma requested additional time as he stated
there were literally warehouses full of documents. It is recommended that the
Estate, if it has not provided these documents or made them available, provide all
corporate minutes, by-laws, stock ledges and any official corporate records
generated by and held in the custody of the corporate secretary for any
corporations over which the Estate and/or Trust has control or which the Estate
and/or Trust has custody to the requesting party. Other than that all discovery
must be completed within thirty (30) days of the proposed Order.
4. Robert M. Mumma II Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions for Refusal to
Provide Discovery dated May 9, 2005.
All parties acknowledged that records had been made available. The Estate had
previously argued that discovery was premature. I believe this matter may have
been made moot by a subsequent Discovery Order. The only records which may
have not been made available are billing records of the law firms retained by the
Estate and the Trust. These billing records were made available to the auditor and
a few subject matters for minor charges were requested to be redacted. After an in
camera review of these records, it is recommended that if the Estate has not
provided any of these billing records to the requesting party, that a redacted copy
be provided within ten (10) days. Further any answers to Interrogatories which
remain outstanding or need supplemented shall also be completed by the Estate
and/or Trust within ten (10) days.
5. Robert M. Mumma II Motion for Reconsideration of Discovery Order, dated
November 18, 2005.
The parties have had over three years to conduct discovery and review
documents. Any further delay under the guise of additional time for discovery
should be denied. It is recommended that an any proposed Order require any and
all discovery to be completed within thirty (30) days of the Order.
6. Robert M. Mumma II Motion for Extension to File Expert Report and/or
supplemental Objections, dated January 31, 2008.
All parties have had ample for such filings and Mr. Mumma has filed some
reports, therefore it is recommended that this motion be denied.
7. Robert M. Mumma II Motion to Quash and General Objections to Interrogatories
and Request for Production of documents for Reconsideration of Discovery Order,
dated April 22, 2008.
It is recommended that the Motion to Quash be denied, the objections be denied
and Mr. Mumma provide the requested answers to interrogatories and produce the
requested documents within thirty (30) days of any proposed Order.
8. Estate's Motion to Compel Answers and Documents from Robert M. Mumma II,
dated May 13, 2008.
It is recommended that the Motion be granted. After reviewing the Estate's
Discovery Request, it is not unreasonably burdensome, overly broad, or
oppressive. Therefore to the extent that he has not answered these requests, it is
recommended that Mr. Mumma provide the requested answers to interrogatories
and produce the requested documents within thirty (30) days of any proposed
order.
9. Motion for Stay of Proceedings, dated May 12, 2008.
It is recommended that this Motion be denied and the Auditor's Hearing move
forward without any further delay.
10. Motion of Robert M. Mumma II for Protective Order and Motion to Stay
Proceedings, May 12, 2008.
It is recommended that these Motions be denied and the Auditor's Hearing move
forward without any further delay. If the Estate has not deposed Mr. Mumma and
still has the desire to do so, it is recommended that such deposition be concluded
not later than Thirty (30) days from the date of any proposed order.
11. Motion of Executrices/Trustees for Protective Order, May 12, 2008.
It is recommended that this Motion be granted. Depositions of the
Executrices/Trustees were noticed and Mr. Mumma was served at his various
addresses. The depositions were held during the time frame ordered by your
Honor. Mr. Mumma chose not to attend and he did not object to the notice of the
depositions.
12. Motion of Executrices/Trustees to Compel Disclosure, July 1, 2008.
It is recommended that this Motion be granted.
13. Motion of Robert M. Mumma II for a Jury Trial, July 1, 2008.
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
14. Motion of Robert M. Mumma II for disclosure of Executrices/Trustees Foreign Bank
Accounts and Foreign Safe Deposit Boxes, July 1, 2008.
It is recommended that this Motion be granted and that the Estate/Trustees
comply within ten (10) days of any proposed order.
15. Motion of Robert M. Mumma II for removal of Executrices and/or Trustees, dated
July 1, 2008.
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
16. Motion of Robert M. Mumma II for Filing of a Supplemental Inventory, dated July
1, 2008.
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
17. Motion of Robert M. Mumma II for Filing of a Supplemental Accounting, dated July
1, 2008.
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
18. Motion of Robert M. Mumma II for Disclosure of Executrices/Trustees Status as
Shareholders, July 1, 2008.
It is recommended that this Motion be granted and that the Estate/Trustees
comply within ten (10) days of any proposed order.
19. Petition of Robert M. Mumma II for Entry of Date of Deemed Denial of Exceptions,
dated July 2, 2008.
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
20. Preliminary Objections of Robert M. Mumma II to Executrices' New Matter, dated
July 15, 2008.
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
21. Motion of Executrices to Dismiss Objections of Robert M. Mumma II Based Upon
Purported Existence of Agreement Between Shareholders dated September 10, 2008.
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
22. Motion in Limine of Executrices to Exclude Argument and Evidence as to Matters
Previously Litigated, dated September 10, 2008.
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
23. Motion of Executrices to Strike Export Reports, dated September 10, 2008.
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
24. Motion of Executrices to Dismiss Objections Asserting Barbara McKinnie
Mumma's Exercise of Withdrawal Rights Under Article Seven of the Will Was
Invalid or Improper, dated September 10, 2008.
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
25. Motion of Executors to Compel Discovery Responses from Barbara M. Mumma,
dated September 15, 2008.
During the Prehearing Status Conference Ms. Mumma and her counsel stated
that they would be providing her responses with thirty (30) days. If the
responses have not been provided, I recommend Ms. Mumma be ordered to
respond within ten (10) days of any proposed Order.
26. Submission of Taylor P. Andrews, Esquire of Auditors fees and costs dated October
17, 2008.
I recommend that this issue be deferred until the final hearing in this matter.
I recommend that if your Honor agrees with my recommendations, you enter an Order
accordingly and I have attached a recommended order to accomplish the same.
Respectfully submitted,
e Yi'D. Buckle squire, Audi
Sup me Court ID 38444
1237 Holly Pike
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2448
JoeBLaw(a,aol.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE AUDITOR: My name is Joe Buckley. I am the
appointed auditor for the Estate of Robert M. Mumma by
order of Judge Oler dated September 22, 2008.
We are here pursuant to a Notice of Auditor's
Prehearing Status Conference which was sent by my office
on the 22nd of October 2008 for today, and I thank you all
for coming.
The purpose for this meeting was when I
received the documentation from the court as well as from
~,,~~yy lam
~rY1 Andrews, it was voluminous, and rather than sit there
and try to figure out what the status was of each
individual issue, and I have reviewed the entire file, I
wanted to address certain things today, and I had asked
the parties to be prepared to address issues that are
pending.
Before we move forward, just for the record I
wanted to state that with the exception of my knowing
Mr. Faller through the bar association, this is the first
time I have met every person here at this meeting.
Any communications that I have had with you
have been through my office assistant, which is Cheryl
Bennecoff. She had telephoned each one of your offices to
schedule this, and that is how we will operate from here
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
forward.
If you need to speak to me directly, I would
prefer if we did it in conference rather than
individually. I do have a stenographer present, and the
purpose that I have the stenographer present is that
Mr. Andrews did inform me that he had had one previous,
and I thought it would be wise to continue that at this
juncture.
After reviewing all of the documents, all of
the filings, and I know there are some current issues that
have reached our office of late, there were four issues
that I would like addressed prior to moving forward with
this matter.
The first is I need to know the status of the
discovery, where everyone is at this point. There had
been some objections. There had been some matters that
were presented during the past several years. I want to
know exactly where we are.
One thing that I did not review that was in my
office, there were certain documents that were given to be
reviewed by the auditor in camera. Those were the
billings and statements from the various law firms.
I have not looked at that. That is the only
thing I did not address. I didn't look at it because I
didn't know if that was pertinent at this juncture, and I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would like you to address that.
Second, I would like addressed just the status
of any pending litigation. There were so many different
issues of litigation, and I would hope that you would be
able to tell me what the status is, where it is.
Certain things are in Superior Court, certain
things have been either closed or are continuing. I just
would like to know so we don't address those issues.
There was a lot of documentation relative to an
issue, a disclaimer issue, and standing for Mr. Mumma, I
would like to know what your posture is at this point, if
that's still an active matter or if it is a moot matter
for the purposes of my audit.
And lastly, the question I had, is because
there is some additional litigation that has continued or
has developed during the course of this matter, have many
of the discovery matters that were addressed in those
cases made some of the discovery issues that you had moot.
I don't want to be redundant in saying yes, you
can have additional discovery if it has already been
discovered or if there has already been a chance for
discovery in another matter.
Now, I don't know how we wish to address each
one and who wishes to go first. However, because --
although I said ten minutes, you know, that's to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
discretion of the individual.
I am not going to -- there is not going to be a
green light, a yellow light, and a red light like there is
at the Supreme Court when you are arguing a matter, but --
and I understand that, Mr. Mumma, you may have some
additional matters that you wish to discuss, and we will
allow that.
I will open it up for discussion at this time.
MR. GREEN: I will be happy to undertake to try
to respond to your issues, and I will try to do it as
briefly as I can.
I also had prepared some more general thoughts
about what we believe are the steps, at a more conceptual
level, that need to be taken, but I will start if I may by
addressing your four questions.
And I am Brady Green here on behalf of Barbara
McK Mumma and Lisa Mumma Morgan, the executrices and
trustees.
Your first question pertained to discovery.
Discovery, briefly, in this matter Mr. Mumma has served
both written discovery requests and document requests.
There was an extensive production of documents, 92 boxes
of documents were made available for inspection by
Mr. Mumma and also by Mr. Jacobs.
Some additional time was sought. This was back
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the latter half of '05 and into 2006. Some additional
time was sought for review of those documents.
That time was granted into January of 2006. We
have occasionally received requests from Mr. Jacobs and
Mr. Mumma or his representatives for some additional
documents or an opportunity to go back into the 92 boxes,
and those have been granted so that there has been some
continuing access.
We have Bates stamped and produced the
documents which were identified as being of interest which
is more than 80,000 pages.
We also served written discovery responses
which attempted to address the concern that you expressed,
which was also Mr. Andrews' concern.
It is one thing to come in and say there has
been a lot of litigation. It is another to explain what
that litigation was and what discovery matters have been
addressed.
So we produced what looks like three phone
books worth of sort of synopses of the other litigation
summarizing the matters at issue, the disposition, and
discovery taken.
We also provided written discovery responses
and supplemental responses in response to Mr. Andrews'
instructions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And we received rulings on our objections from
Mr. Andrews in or about September of 2006. We believe
that the written discovery is completed in that respect,
at least insofar as production by the estate and the
trusts.
In addition to the 92 boxes I mentioned, there
are also documents made available, 15 boxes or so, I
believe, by the long time accountant for the businesses,
the estate, and the trusts.
His name is Mr. Hadley, and he is located in
Buffalo. Those documents also were made available and I
think had been provided in total to Mr. Mumma and in whole
or in part to Mr. Jacobs, who I believe reviewed them.
So we believe that subject to the issue that
you raised, the one thing that was left after our last
meeting with Mr. Andrews on the subject of written
discovery was our objection on privileged grounds to
production of certain time records, and the idea being
that if we -- our time records reflected that we
researched the possible course of action but did not take
it, for example, that that would disclose legal strategy
or thinking in a way that was unfair in the context of
this kind of a proceeding.
What we did was we produced to Mr. Mumma and
Mr. Jacobs redacted copies of those time records as well
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as unredacted copies of those time records and submitted
for in camera review by Mr. Andrews a subset of those
documents where we highlighted that which we thought we
should not have to turn over on privileged grounds.
We attempted, I will say, to make those
redactions as limited as possible, understanding that the
objective of everybody here is to try to move this
forward.
With respect to pending litigations, there are
a number of them. I guess I would characterize the
predominant one as being an action that Mr. Mumma has
filed against Mrs. Mumma, Mrs. Morgan, against Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, which is my law firm, against the
purchaser of the family business, which is a company
called CRH.
I believe that Pennsy Supply, which was the
family business, also may be a defendant in that case, and
another law firm called Stradley, Ronan, Stevens & Young
which had advised Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan at times.
That action alleges sort of a broad-based
conspiracy, I suppose is the best way to put it, to
defraud and otherwise maltreat Mr. Mumma, and that action
remains pending, and I think the only characterization I
could put of that is that it remains in discovery.
It is a sweeping action which raises many many
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issues which we believe are in whole or in part brought in
the Orphan's Court matter but shouldn't be.
But in any event, that is the largest piece of
litigation. There has been litigation which our firm and
Mr. Otto's firm have not been involved in down in Florida,
involving a company called High Spec. I don't know much
about that other than to say that it is my understanding
the action is still pending.
There is a legacy appraisal -- appraisal of
shareholder's rights -- what is the word I am looking for?
Shareholder -- dissenter's rights action which is hanging
over from the 1993 sale of the family businesses. It is
an action that was filed in 1994.
It pertains to a company called
GAT Distribution Corporation. It is not directly
involving all of the parties here.
Mr. Mumma has had litigation against Dauphin
Deposit Bank alleging its mishandling of certain materials
related to the Mumma family and its businesses and assets.
I believe that matter was tried to a jury verdict and is
on appeal.
And Mr. Otto's firm has handled some other
matters, and I don't know that I know all of that. There
is a High Spec related matter which is pending here in
Cumberland County and may be on appeal, but I think that
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the ones I mentioned are the largest ones that have sort
of direct broad based factual overlap with what we -- what
has been brought into the scope of the audit proceeding.
With respect to the disclaimer issue, I would
note first that this issue is one which is currently the
focus of a motion to disqualify our firm.
MR. MUMMA: I don't want to interrupt you,
Brady, but I think I must. I am not waiving any of my
personal rights against Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and your
firm, and I am instructing you certainly not to mention or
make any mention of the disclaimer.
I want that on the record. And if you do, I'm
going to file a suit against your firm, get an injunction,
and keep you from doing it in the future.
THE AUDITOR: If I may, I have -- the
disclaimer issue was in the file, okay. As one who was
looking at it, I don't need to know status, et cetera. I
just need to know position, whether -- and if you may, if
you believe it is moot now or if I should take it into
consideration during the audit.
That's the only question you need to address at
this time. I have looked at that. I have looked at
certain cases.
I believe there are only two cases that even
address the Superior Court decision, and then there is a
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Philadelphia common pleas decision that came down this
past year which addressed that and distinguished the
Superior Court.
Because if you look at the Superior Court on
that disclaimer, it was I think a different kind of
disclaimer that we have in this case. However, I ask
counsel to look at those two cases, and if you shepardize
the Superior Court case, and I will give that to you in a
second.
As a matter of fact, it was addressed in, I
believe, a letter brief that you had given the court,
Mr. Faller.
MR. OTTO: It is Otto. George isn't here. I
am standing in for George Faller.
THE AUDITOR: It was a letter that George had
written, and the name of the case escapes me. It is a
2001 Superior Court case. I do have a copy of it. I
thought I brought if with me, but I did not. It is still
in my printer in the office.
MR. MUMMA: And I don't want to interrupt, but
I think I need to develop a record on this before we raise
the issue on the record here. I would like to make my
objections to that first.
THE AUDITOR: Okay.
MR. MUMMA: Then I won't interrupt as long as I
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can get that in before he says anything else.
THE AUDITOR: Okay. And your objection would
be what?
MR. MUMMA: My objection would be that this
matter has been decided, and it is no business to be in
front of this, and they certainly have no right to
represent the estate in this issue.
If they -- if the estate wants to raise a
disclaimer issue, they need to get other attorneys to do
it than these two law firms that represented me.
And it is a violation of my constitutional
rights or the rights under the attorney-client privilege
that the very disclaimer these guys claim -- I know they
drafted and are making disclaimer, it is absolutely wrong
for them to be here representing the estate in that
matter.
THE AUDITOR: I recognize your objection, and
it is on the record. My only concern -- my only question
isn't what they -- all my question is is what is the
position.
MR. MUMMA: The estate is --
THE AUDITOR: I don't want anybody to address
any arguments about it. I just want to know if it is
going to be something that I have to address or I don't
have to address.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
If you say -- I am trying to get a poll from
everyone. If I don't have to address it, then it is a
moot issue for our audit procedure. That's the whole
question.
MR. MUMMA: And I don't think the estate --
these attorneys have any right to represent the estate in
any fashion with respect to that issue, because they were
my attorneys on that issue.
THE AUDITOR: Okay.
MR. MUMMA: And I don't think they can even put
forth an answer to your question. I think the estate
needs to be advised by some attorney that didn't advise me
on that issue.
THE AUDITOR: Okay.
MR. MUMMA: That's all I want to add. I want
that on the record. That is my position.
THE AUDITOR: And it is duly noted.
MR. GREEN: I would say two things, and then if
you have more questions, I am certainly mindful of
Mr. Mumma's position. I believe that it is before the
courts and perhaps it will be before the courts again.
THE AUDITOR: Again, if I may, I want to stop
you. If you feel uncomfortable based on an
attorney-client relationship that you don't want to
address it, that's fine too. Say I just don't want to
4
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
address it.
MR. GREEN: No, I don't feel uncomfortable
addressing it. These are the two points. First of all,
as to the merits of whether the disclaimer remains in
effect or not, neither our firm, Mr. Otto's firm, nor our
clients take any position whatsoever.
Whether or not it is binding, we take no
position. We do not, however, believe that the issue is
moot insofar as it would impact or could impact these
proceedings.
And I believe that that -- our reasons for that
belief are set forth in the letter that you mentioned. We
have filed -- there is at least one pending motion which
relates to this issue, and Mr. Mumma has filed motions as
well that relate to this issue.
And as I said, it is also part of the subject
of the motion pending before Judge Oler to disqualify our
firm and Mr. Otto's firm from participation in this
proceeding.
With respect to discovery matters addressed
elsewhere, I guess sort of two points to that. One, we
did attempt in the multiple phone book filing that I
mentioned earlier to sort of catalog what the discovery in
other matters had been and explain at the time for the
benefit of Mr. Andrews what those other proceedings were
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so that the factual overlap could be discerned.
I would say more particularly we have, because
this litigation has been going on a long, because
Mr. Mumma and others in fact have changed counsel multiple
times, we have reproduced in the 92 boxes I mentioned, all
of the documents previously produced in the litigation.
So we are not just saying you had it, go find it. We have
reproduced that material.
I believe that the filing that we made also
attached all of the written responses we have prepared in
any proceeding on behalf of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan.
What we also did, when it came time under Judge
Oler's order to file by May 31st dispositive motions and
procedural motions, was attempt to bring to the attention
of -- again at the time Mr. Andrews -- matters which we
believed had been adjudicated with finality and therefore
were entitled to preclusive effect in these proceedings
rather than being relitigated.
So it is not quite to your point of discovery,
but we did attempt to distill them those issues where we
thought actual matters of fact, and to a lesser extent
matters of law, had been adjudicated, so that whether a
certain material, for example, when a certain corporation
was formed, if that has already been the subject of a
factual finding, appealed final judgment, we attempted to
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
catalog those, cite the opinions, and provide certified
copies of the opinions in which that had occurred so that
we would not be relitigating certain factual matters and
asking, of course, that you would enter an order that
takes certain facts as preclusive and final for purposes
of any proceedings before you.
So I guess in overview, like I said, I did also
have an outline of what we might suggest would be a path
forward, but I don't want to interrupt the opportunity of
others to speak to the four questions that you put on the
table to start.
THE AUDITOR: We will return to you afterwards.
MR. GREEN: Thank you.
MR. JACOBS: I am Ralph Jacobs. I represent
Barbara Mann Mumma, who is a beneficiary in this matter.
She is the second oldest of the four children of the
decedent.
She is sometimes referred to in the litigation
as Babs to distinguish her from her mother, Barbara McK
Mumma, who is an executrix in the estate.
So legally, her interest in this matter is as a
beneficiary and as an objector. Personally, her interest
is in seeing that there is transparency and openness in
this proceeding, which has been pending for 22 years or
so.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Her personal interest and to the extent
relevant her legal position is that the estate and the
related trusts ought to be managed, the entities and the
assets in them ought to be managed, for the benefit of all
family members to the extent consistent with the
directions of the testator.
In particular, she notes her father's interest
in having all members of the family ideally being able to
work cooperatively to benefit from family assets such as
real estate or the family businesses that existed at the
time of her father's death.
And she is interested to the extent possible in
seeing that going forward, the estate and related trusts
are run with that guiding principal and not subject to
someone else's agenda.
On the subject of discovery, there has been a
significant amount of discovery, as Brady Green has
outlined, 90 some odd boxes that I had the opportunity to
review at Morgan, Lewis' office in Philadelphia, and some
number of boxes that we reviewed in Mr. Hadley's office up
in Buffalo.
But as I am sure you know, some of the matters
that have arisen in terms of the administration of the
estate and some related assets go back many many years and
involve complicated transactions.
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And it is our view that we, meaning all of the
parties to this proceeding, ought to take whatever time
and effort needs to be taken to make sure that all the
documents are out on the table and that there is full
transparency.
So much as we certainly have a goal of bringing
things to closure, we are certainly mindful of the fact
that the scope of discovery is not terribly limited.
And given the age and complexity of some of
these matters, it may take some effort to make sure that
everybody has the confidence that they have seen all of
the paper that they need to see.
We have -- I think Brady has summarized his
response to discovery. I would point out that the
executrices have served discovery requests on us and
frankly have been very patient and accommodating in that
we have not yet fully responded.
And in fact, today I have spoken to my client,
and I think in the third week of November, we are going to
be in a position to make a substantial document production
to the executrices, and of course the documents would be
equally available to Bob Mumma in his status in this
litigation.
But bottom line on discovery, we've made some
significant efforts, but there is a lot of stuff out
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there, and we just think -- we want to make sure
everything is out on the table.
In terms of the litigation status, my client is
not an active party or at least -- she is not a party or
at least not an active party in any of the other ongoing
pieces of --
MR. MUMMA: I will bring that up.
MS. MANN MUMMA: I am a party. I am a
defendant.
MR. JACOBS: Well, let me say it this way: She
may have been named as a defendant in some of the other
pieces of litigation. To my knowledge and --
MS. MANN MUMMA: The accounting I am an active
party in.
MR. JACOBS: The audit?
MS. MANN MUMMA: Yes.
MR. JACOBS: That is the current matter we are
here for, but in terms of other pieces of litigation it is
my -- not an active litigant in any of the other matters,
but I am at least not actively litigating any of them for
her, and if Mr. Green or Mr. Mumma has other information,
I welcome them to add it.
The disclaimer is an issue on which I have
nothing to say, and discovery obviated by discovery in
other cases is also an issue on which I have nothing to
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
add.
And I guess while it is not technically a
matter of discovery, I would point out that it has been
many years since there has been an accounting filed in
either the -- for either the estate or the related trusts,
and given the passage of time and my understanding that
there have been some significant transactions in the
interim, I think it would be appropriate sooner rather
than later to have a current accounting filed by the
executrices.
So I think that addresses the matters,
Mr. Buckley, that you have raised. And I'm certainly glad
to chime in later on when we get to issues of how we
should manage this moving forward.
THE AUDITOR: Okay.
MR. MUMMA: I would like to clarify something,
first of all, about this disclaimer. When I signed the
disclaimer, I sent it with specific instructions to
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius not to tell anybody about it.
In fact, I instructed one attorney who drafted
it to give it to one other attorney there and not send --
distribute it to anybody else. It was so important to me
that the existence that there might be a disclaimer not be
out.
And every time they raise it here and every
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
time it gets into a record somewhere, it is defeating my
entire purpose of it. That's why I am so disappointed
that they can go shouting to the world about this thing
after they were told and I was assured that it would be
kept in strict confidence.
It is a very important issue for me. And if it
is going to be the issue that brings this down, I am out
of here, because it was not something that I wanted
anywhere on the street.
And I think it is absolutely ridiculous that
these people can get away with this. It is like
blackmail, that is what it is, if you raise any issues we
are going to tell everybody about your disclaimer.
THE AUDITOR: I understand your position.
MR. MUMMA: Now, having said that I will also
tell you that Judge Shelley ruled on this.
THE AUDITOR: I read Judge Shelley's opinion.
MR. MUMMA: And then you also read Judge
Hoffer's opinion?
THE AUDITOR: I read Judge Hoffer's opinion.
MR. MUMMA: And you also read recent filings?
THE AUDITOR: I also read the Superior Court's
decision.
MR. MUMMA: And did you read the recent filings
in the courthouse?
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE AUDITOR: Yes, I have.
MR. MUMMA: This is a moot issue. They have no
reason raising it. If they want -- if the estate wants to
get a different set of attorneys and raise this issue, I
guess they can do that, but these guys certainly have no
right to do that.
THE AUDITOR: I understand what you are saying.
MR. MUMMA: Having said that, the discovery is
a key thing in my point of view. From the beginning of
this estate, they been untruthful and unforthcoming with
critical information to the beneficiaries.
They have misled the beneficiaries, and they
have ended up taking assets, particularly the quarry at
Silver Springs, Pennsylvania, which was left to my
grandfather -- by my grandfather's estate in the
settlement of his estate.
And he was a resident of Dauphin County. That
quarry was by court order on August 9th instructed to be
put into his estate, my grandfather's estate, on the
liquidation of the partnership between himself and my
father.
This quarry that ends up in my -- by that court
order is to be distributed there ends up in a corporation
controlled by my father called Kim Company. With a
shareholder's restrictive agreement, it specifically
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
required that if Kim Company were ever to be dissolved, it
would have to offer its shares of that quarry, its
interest in that quarry, back to the children.
They never divulged that to us. They took our
interest from my grandfather's estate and put it into the
marital trust, my father's estate, and then from there to
the marital trust.
And from the marital trust they sold that
interest to CRH, and they kept all of the money. In doing
that, they had to pay -- it changes the bylaws on the
transfer restrictions of the corporation that controlled
the quarry.
He refused to even acknowledge to us at the
meeting that they put that for a vote, that those bylaws
even existed, that that's what they were doing. Even when
asked specifically, refused to acknowledge it, we are not
telling you what we are doing.
And I think that is very telling, and that is
the way they have treated everything. They just do what
they want to do, and they are never going to tell anybody
about it. There are piece s of real estate that have been
sold that don't appear in any of the accountings.
So discovery and being able to follow the money
and follow the tracks of these corporate assets is very
important to me. Because as it turns out, there are
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
assets that basically my sisters and I own through our
inheritance from my grandfather and indeed the inheritance
tax was paid on them back in 1961.
Their effort to steal these assets, put them --
and give them to my mother, they are no longer in my
father's estate even, they have been passed off to the
marital trust.
Most of them, in fact, of the $17 million value
they claim for this estate, I doubt there is less than $2
million left. It has all been passed off.
But it is necessary for us to get a complete
and open discovery. And some of the things they are
hiding are corporate minutes in corporations that we are
officers and directors of.
So on that particular position, I filed a
lawsuit in Federal Court yesterday that names those
corporations and the other directors as defendants
seeking no more than the information that we are entitled
to or I am entitled to as a vice president, as a director,
and as a shareholder of the corporation.
THE AUDITOR: May I ask a question here? Is
the discovery that you find imperative, does that have to
~~~~-
do with these corporate se's that control the quarry
and real estate? Is that the basis of what discovery you
need?
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MUMMA: Yes, because to try and clarify
this for you, make it --
THE AUDITOR: Let me just ask --
MR. MUMMA: Put it in perspective.
THE AUDITOR: Let me ask another question. And
you informed me that you were -- you filed something in an
effort to get some discovery at another venue, in Federal
Court?
MR. MUMMA: Yes. And it is because it is
corporate information that I am seeking, and it is outside
of the estate.
THE AUDITOR: Next question, what state -- in
which states are those corporations incorporated?
MR. MUMMA: Pennsylvania, but Bobali was
incorporated in Colorado, and they are claiming there was
a merger of Bobali --
MS. MANN MUMMA: In Florida.
MR. MUMMA: -- and that is not true.
THE AUDITOR: I am just trying to get more
information. Setting aside the Florida and the Colorado
corporations, how many corporations in Pennsylvania are
involved in this issue?
MR. MUMMA: 30, over the course of events since
1961.
MS. MANN MUMMA: M-hmm.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MUMMA: That we know of.
THE AUDITOR: Now, you made an assertion, and
again, this is for information for me, that you are an
officer, shareholder, director of something in these
corporations?
MR. MUMMA: Of the majority of these
corporations, if not all of them.
THE AUDITOR: And have you sought the records
through the procedures that you were permitted to receive
records through the appropriate Pennsylvania statutes,
corporate statutes, as well as the bylaws?
MR. MUMMA: Yes.
THE AUDITOR: And you have been rejected?
MR. MUMMA: Routinely were denied any
information. If we send a letter to the accountant to ask
him what certain items are, line items are on an
accounting, we are not allowed to know.
They send me entries to include in my income
tax return and refuse to give me any knowledge as to how
they generated the number.
THE AUDITOR: Now, these questions that are
raised, are they part of any other lawsuit other than the
one that you just mentioned?
MR. MUMMA: The CRH lawsuit and lawsuits that
Brady Green mentioned are these issues are important
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there. But there again, the estate is merely a defendant
in a lawsuit against the two law firms and the buyer and
the estate. It is outside of these proceedings as I
interpret it.
THE AUDITOR: So one of the positions, and I'm
trying to -- rather than write this down in my notes, I
want it on the record for my thoughts.
One of your positions is that your grandfather
had an interest in some real estate which passed to his
estate, and there was a corporation involved in which
there was a shareholder's agreement or agreements as to
how the real estate would be handled in the event that the
real estate would be sold, transferred, liquidated or
changed to a successor corporation, that those procedures
weren't followed, and that the information regarding the
fact that there was a limitation on such a transfer was
not divulged to you until after the transfer had been
completed.
MR. MUMMA: That's exactly correct. And to put
this in even more perspective, the quarry was the capital
that was originally put into Pennsy Supply, Inc., which is
a corporation. It is still active. You see their trucks
running up and down the area and everything. The initial
capitalization of that company was this quarry.
THE AUDITOR: And that is the property in
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Silver Springs Township you said?
MR. MUMMA: Yes, that the Dauphin County courts
said it is part of Mr. Mumma's estate, Walter Mumma's
estate. It belongs to his beneficiaries.
So the question is how in the world does it end
up in my father's estate so that my mother can put the
stock of Pennsy Supply in her marital trust and then sell
it to an Irish corporation and take all the money? That's
the issue.
THE AUDITOR: Now, that being the issue -- I
mean, that's one of the issues, I assume. Is that the
major issue that you have?
MR. MUMMA: That stock -- that company, that
stock that they sold to the Irish, is probably about
50 percent of the value, certainly, of this estate.
THE AUDITOR: Okay. But -- and again, I'm
trying to quantify, if that matter were addressed, that
particular matter were addressed either through this
proceeding or through another proceeding, what about the
rest of the issues you have raised, or do they all -- or
are they all associated with that particular issue?
MR. MUMMA: They fundamentally are
associated -- my issues are all associated with that
issue, because these corporations were laddered.
THE AUDITOR: I am familiar with the
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
establishment of corporations that do that.
MR. MUMMA: And this corporation that they sold
was three rungs down. And the top corporation was
Pennsylvania Supply Company, which is the old established
corporation, it was the holding company.
This ladder was developed so that insurance
proceeds, my sisters and I own stock on -- in every
corporation on every rung of the ladder which you -- until
you get to Pennsy Supply.
Pennsy Supply held stock. They had wholly
owned affiliate subsidiaries. But from Pennsy Supply, Kim
Company, and Pennsylvania Supply Company, the top three
rungs, we owned shares of stock in each of those
corporations.
And there were significant amounts of life
insurance on both my father and myself in each of those
corporations. And the purpose of that life insurance was
to redeem stock.
And had they followed the redemption that they
started according to the redemption agreements that were
in place, my sisters and I would have ended up being the
sole shareholders of the corporation.
The estate would have had no interest in it,
but the estate would have had a substantial amount of
cash, basically the life insurance proceeds, for my mother
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to go cruising the world or do whatever else she wanted to
do.
THE AUDITOR: So in addition to the transfer of
certain real estate, you believe or -- you believe there
was in place a redemption to tie life insurance to the
purchase of stock?
MR. MUMMA: Absolutely. In fact, they cited
that redemption in the internal review -- or in the final
tax return for the estate -- not the final -- yeah, I
guess it was the final.
THE AUDITOR: Can you now address any of the
pending litigation?
MR. MUMMA: Well, we have all of the cases that
Brady has cited, and we have this case in front of the
Federal Court trying to get this information on these two
top tier companies and on Bobali Corporation, which is
another corporation that my sister and I and my two other
sisters own the stock in.
And it was a subsidiary of a company called
Middle Park, Inc., which was the Colorado corporation, and
that is the corporation we own stock in.
It was a Colorado corporation, and somehow or
another they terminated the existence of the Colorado
corporation and issued new stock, not the stock that the
Colorado corporation held, but claimed to have issued new
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
stock to us in Bobali.
But I don't believe they ever issued us any
shares of stock, it is just a claim they are making, which
is frozen, the assets of Bobali, for 22 years now.
Nothing can be done with them. And it is very valuable
real estate.
The biggest problem is both Pennsylvania Supply
Company and Kim Company filed tax returns stating to the
federal government that these corporations were fully
liquidated under the 1986 TEFRA act, and they weren't
fully liquidated.
They still have assets. They are still filing
tax returns, and they are still paying real estate taxes,
and I think -- because my sister and I, Babs and I, are
the ones that signed the plan of dissolution or
liquidation, and they refused to even discuss this issue
with us.
Somebody has got a lot of liability here to the
federal government, I believe, and I hope it is not Babs
and I.
MS. MANN MUMMA: They will be whistling Dixie.
MR. MUMMA: And so will we.
We're entitled to have information on this
stuff, not just -- and I find out more from a real estate
agent that I called than I get from anybody because he
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
happened to let something slip.
This is where the status of, in my mind, of
this is. I have always said if they are so sure they are
right about everything, bring everything and put it on
this table.
Give me a week to go through it, and I will
either agree with them or won't agree with them. But at
least then I will know, and I will know why, other than
all of this information I am telling you about my
grandfather's estate and where this came from, it didn't
come -- none of that information was given to us by
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.
If we asked them any questions, they wouldn't
tell us anything. This all came because I happened to
wander over to the Dauphin County Courthouse one day.
THE AUDITOR: Okay. Trying to get to the last
issue that I asked you to address, deals with any of the
discovery matters that you have obtained through the other
litigations, not including the federal which you just
filed.
What have you not obtained through there that
you believe you are entitled to, still entitled to?
MR. MUMMA: Well, one of the main important
things is my father had a 50 -- probably a 55-year career,
and they have turned over none of his correspondence.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
They have turned over none of his records.
The records that he kept in his locked filing
cabinet in his office have all apparently disappeared --
Well, they haven't disappeared, because my mother has
testified that she has rented storage facilities, some in
Florida, some in Pennsylvania, God only knows where else,
and she has got all of this stuff.
So when they are telling you that they are
turning it all over, and I take her deposition and she
says oh, I have got stuff spread out all over these
different states in storage facilities, and she is not
sure what is in there or exactly where the facility is
when she gives her deposition, but it's certainly true
that that wasn't part of any of the production that they
have made.
And I am talking now about the internal records
for these corporations that will show what happened to
those corporations' assets, where they came from, how they
were handled.
THE AUDITOR: Sir, are you asking for the
corporate minutes, what part of the corporate records
rather than personal records? Because you said v~>>r
father had records over 55 years, and I can understand
that he would being a businessman that he was.
MR. MUMMA: I know how many rooms I have full
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of records, and I am only up to 40 years.
THE AUDITOR: However, which part of those
records do you believe you will be entitled to?
MR. MUMMA: All parts. I think every record he
owned is part of his estate and that I have a right to
look through them, particularly since my father and I were
partners, were shareholders, in most of these entities
together.
They have taken records from corporations, High
Spec in this Florida lawsuit, Lisa Morgan and her husband
gathered up all of the records and I haven't seen them
since.
But the biggest issue is this stock that they
are contending that my father held in Pennsylvania Supply
Company. Nobody, from all of the questions I have asked,
nobody on the estate side has ever seen his -- any of his
stock certificates.
Yet they redeemed 85 of them, and they can't
tell us which 85 they redeemed, how they set the price on
it, anything. Because they have never seen one of his
certificates apparently, and the stock book has
amazingly -- how would you describe it, Brady,
disappeared?
MR. GREEN: I don't know where it is. We can't
locate it. I mean, I don't know -- you know -- I don't
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know what the answer to the question -- when some
historical document that either did exist or someone
believes existed or whatever can't be located in the
context of a proceeding like this, I don't -- it can't be
located.
I don't know what you or anyone thinks can be
done about that, but I don't want to interrupt your
presentation.
MR. MUMMA: Well, there is all of these records
in storage bins all over the country, apparently, in
safety deposit boxes somewhere. I would say we should be
able to accompany somebody and do a search of those things
and try and find this document.
MS. MANN MUMMA: May I ask a quick question?
THE AUDITOR: Sure.
MS. MANN MUMMA: Is it true that the court
ordered certain records to be kept in this courthouse and
that they have also disappeared?
MR. MUMMA: Yes. All of the exhibits from
the -- from -- all of the stock books and records of
Pennsy Supply Inc. corporation was sold to the Irish were
in the prothonotary's office, and they have disappeared,
and the District Attorney won't make any effort to try and
find out where they went.
I guess I lost my train of thought. There are
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
eight -- we have a list here of outstanding motions. Now,
my personal opinion is that the first thing that should be
decided is whether or not my mother can continue as an
executrix.
If you read the deposition testimony of her and
Lisa, there is only two -- one of two conclusions you can
come to. Either she doesn't understand and can no longer
remember and be expected to understand what is going on,
or she is purposefully being kept in the dark about what
is going on, because there are two different sides.
I told her all about it. I didn't have -- I
never heard about this before. So that is no way to run
an estate, even if it is just $2 million now. It needs to
have ongoing management that is making the current
decisions in a good and well informed manner, and I don't
believe by keeping my mother in the dark it is doing us
any benefit.
And I don't think, if she is not capable of
making these decisions, it is beneficial for her to be an
executrix. There are replacement executors in my father's
estate, and it is something that he anticipated happening
and he had a remedy for it.
The second thing is there is a motion to
eliminate Morgan, Lewis & Bockius from representing the
estate, and Martson, and I think that motion should be
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
decided. Once we understand, then we can go ahead and
proceed with the winding up of this.
But it would seem to me that it is
counterproductive to go through and have a bunch of
hearings and then decide at the end of those that
Mrs. Mumma really shouldn't have been an executrix or that
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius or the Martson firm shouldn't have
been involved in this and start all over again.
And that's, I guess, where I am coming from.
Here is our list of the outstanding motions. I think
there are 28 of them. Maybe you have them.
THE AUDITOR: I do have -- I know what all of
the motions are. I have --
MR. MUMMA: Do you have 28?
THE AUDITOR: Do you have a copy for everybody?
MR. MUMMA: I think I do.
THE AUDITOR: Mark that as Exhibit 1.
(Exhibit No. 1 was marked.)
THE AUDITOR: And I thank you for this.
Again, I just want to try to quantify,
Mr. Mumma, if I can have your attention and your counsel's
attention, in addition to certain corporate records that
you would like which pertain to the quarry, pertain to the
corporate structure, however it may be or may have been
which related to a holding company, various real estate
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
holding companies which may have been solely owned,
partially owned, the corporate records of those
corporations, not the personal letters back and forth
between office visits, because general correspondence I
don't think -- I'm not certain how that would lead you to
anymore information on the actual existence of the
corporate structures.
However, of those corporate records, which have
to be legally maintained to have a corporation exist, any
records pertaining to life insurance policies which were
taken out for the purposes of purchasing the interest of
certain shareholders upon their passing, third, the issue
of your mother's -- and if I may, may I ask what your
mother's age is at this time?
MS. MANN MUMMA: She was born in '24, so I
think she is 84.
THE AUDITOR: She is 84. Whether or not your
mother should continue, desires to continue, or wishes to
continue or has the ability to continue as the executrix.
And finally, the issue as to whether or not the
Morgan, Lewis firm and Mr. Otto's firm should continue to
represent the estate. Other than those, are those the
issues you have here?
MR. MUMMA: And let me clarify about the first
one. I believe, because I know the way my father filed
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
things, highly sensitive information that he didn't want
regular employees -- he had a gentleman by the name of
Amos Eber (phonetic) who was the corporate secretary for
most of these corporations and had been with my family
since the depression.
Amos retired, I think, in '95 or something.
But Amos maintained the stock books, minute books, and
other records of the corporation. But a lot of the
financial information and a lot of the information and tax
advice that he got from the Filmadin firm (phonetic), and
sensitive information about estate planning and different
projects he was working on, he didn't keep in the
corporate files.
He had a separate set of files in his office
that had specifically combination locks on them, and the
only two people in the world that had the combination to
those locks was my father and myself. Nobody else could
get in there.
That's how much he wanted to protect that
information. So to say that I am only -- the corporate
information, I don't think goes forward enough.
Any information that he used or that he relied
upon in his business dealings, I believe that we should
have access to, because it is important. He may have
had -- he may have had a contract with an individual to do
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
certain things and he didn't want anybody else to know
that that individual and he were working together.
So he would put that -- he would put that in
one of these safes. There was a building where the
Dauphin Deposit Bank's office is now. High Spec bought
that ground, and we did it through a surreptitious third
party. And all of those documents were kept in that file.
And those documents are very very important,
but nobody seems to know what happened to that ownership
papers. It is not reported on his return.
THE AUDITOR: Well, I heard you say that there
were certain documents which were placed somewhere where
only you and he had access to it.
MR. MUMMA: Right.
THE AUDITOR: Is it your position that you went
there after your father's passing and the files didn't
exist any longer?
MR. MUMMA: They changed the locks on the
doors, and I was never allowed back into the office.
THE AUDITOR: Okay.
MR. MUMMA: They changed the locks on his
house. I was never allowed in his house. They took all
of the records out of our safety deposit box.
Then the other issue that I have that I think
is very important is that my understanding of the PEF code
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is that if you have an issue regarding the ownership or
the inventory of the estate, which the stock of
Pennsylvania Supply Company or Kim Company or Pennsy
Supply Inc. that was inventoried in the estate, if it
shouldn't have been -- I am contending that it shouldn't
have been and I am saying that the majority of the assets
in the estate didn't belong there because they were assets
my sisters and I inherited from my grandfather.
THE AUDITOR: Those were the objections that
you had made relative to the funding of the trust being
greater than it should have been and the estate being
greater than it should have been.
MR. MUMMA: Those are also objections, but the
primary objection here is they took my company and -- or
my quarry and put it in my father's estate when they had
no right to do that.
And I can prove they had no right to do that.
But the PEF code says that if there is a substantial
question of the inventory, it can be decided by a jury
trial.
And if you read the Superior Court decision, I
believe they specifically state that I am entitled to a
jury trial under 777 of the PEF code if it can be
determined that this dispute is over a substantial
interest.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE AUDITOR: Okay. I saw certain cases and
opinions, and they are of record, it is public record, so
I did review those.
MR. MUMMA: What I am saying is I think I am
entitled to a jury trial, and I am, I think, entitled to
discovery before that trial, and there again I think it
would be a waste of a lot of effort to try and decide that
here and then have somebody decide it was a substantial
interest and he was entitled to a jury trial.
THE AUDITOR: I'm going to go back -- are
you --
MR. MUMMA: I'm done. I think I got
everything.
THE AUDITOR: Again, I just want to clarify a
few things. One of the reasons that I called this
meeting, and I am glad I did, is to try to quantify where
the issues still lie.
I think, and I don't mean to state that your
issues, one party is greater than another party's. I
believe that Barbara Mumma and her attorney have stated
what their position is on their issues. Some may or may
not be tied to Mr. Mumma's issues.
However, I would like to know what the status
of the request on corporate records are. Corporate
records, again, this is just a statement I -- the official
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
corporate records to include the -- any certificates, any
transfers of certificates, stock registries, the minutes,
the articles of incorporation to include bylaws, any
amendments thereto.
ti
What are th status? Have they been given for
the various corporations which are involved here?
MR. GREEN: Let me -- Mr. Mumma mentioned three
corporations which are the subject of this lawsuit that he
has filed in federal court. They are Pennsylvania Supply
Company, Kim Company, and Bobali.
There was, at the request of the executrices, I
will start with Bobali, a meeting called of all the
shareholders of Bobali to get together to decide what to
do, because the corporation owned three pieces of
non-income producing real estate and --
THE AUDITOR: Can I just stop you right there
real quick? Just a question. Were these corporate
records given over, I mean in part of the discovery in the
matter before this body?
MR. GREEN: Not in the matter before this body.
The outcome of this meeting was that all parties agreed to
gather all corporate information they had relative to
Bobali and its predecessors, index it, and send it to one
law firm in Harrisburg.
That was done. The documents sit there. I
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't know what access has been had to them. I don't know
what else could be provided. An index was provided of all
of the documents being given in.
It included complete copies of all the minute
books, stock certificates, and other documents of the type
that you have mentioned relating to Bobali and its
predecessors that could be located based on the search
that we did.
THE AUDITOR: Can I stop you right there?
Mr. Mumma, did you receive this?
MR. MUMMA: They are all over in Tom Smith's
control at Pepper, Hamilton & Sheets. I went over there
and went through them. The minute books are not there.
And more important they are contending that the --
THE AUDITOR: Can I stop you just real quick?
I don't want to argue about anything. I just want
factually what is there, what is not there.
MR. MUMMA: The minute books are not there.
MS. MANN MUMMA: Stock books.
MR. MUMMA: The stock books aren't there.
THE AUDITOR: Stock books and minute books.
MR. MUMMA: And minute books and more
importantly --
THE AUDITOR: Are you saying all the minutes or
just a portion thereof?
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MUMMA: There were no minutes that I could
find. The whole book is missing, however they would have
kept them. We couldn't find them.
THE AUDITOR: Other than that, what was
missing?
MR. MUMMA: There was one document that I have
asked Mr. Green for repeatedly, and that is the minutes of
the meeting where the shareholders were supposed to have
ratified a plan of merger.
THE AUDITOR: That is part of the minute book?
MR. MUMMA: It is not there, and yet they have
wrote to the State of Colorado and said such a meeting
took place. We can't find any evidence of it. I didn't
anyway.
THE AUDITOR: Okay. Again, I am trying to
quantify what is, what isn't. Next?
MR. GREEN: Pennsylvania Supply Company. By
way of brief background, this is a corporation that was,
as Mr. Mumma mentioned, liquidated in 1986.
All of the minutes and records -- minutes,
stock book, the items you mentioned, minute book, stock
book, stock ledger, bylaws, articles of incorporation that
we have been able to locate for that -- for those two
corporations have been provided.
Okay. Mr. Mumma has reviewed the originals of
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some in our offices. He has been offered the opportunity
to review the rest or rereview the same in our offices,
and he has been provided on multiple occasions with
complete copies of all that have been located of those
documents for those two corporations.
And if I might, this is the difficulty that I
have and that we have with how discovery works here. We
are asked, we produce, and the accusation is well, there
is stuff you are hiding. And that will never end, because
we can never prove we are not hiding something.
There is no way -- I guarantee you that if we
produce the floor sweepings, we would be accused of having
withheld. And I don't want to overdramatize the
situation, but we are in a very very difficult position.
When you speak of corporate records, as did
Mr. Andrews, as had various courts for Pennsylvania Supply
Company and Kim Company, we produced what we have.
Mr. Mumma can make his arguments based on what
we can't find. I don't know what to do about that. But I
do know that we have produced what we have. If he wants
to come, if Ms. Mumma would like to come and look in our
offices, they are welcome to do it.
I don't know what else to provide. The problem
is that when we start to talk about records, it just means
everything, and a test of whether we have produced
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
everything becomes whether we produce records which
support Mr. Mumma's version of what occurred.
The other issue, and I think this is a sweeping
and very important issue for these proceedings,
Mr. Mumma's comments about the Silver Springs quarry, he
gave a date but he didn't say a year, this -- his
grandfather died in the early 1960s.
MR. MUMMA: February 25, 1960.
MR. GREEN: And this court order is from 1961,
I believe, transferring to his grandfather's estate. Our
position, and I think it's a simple and straightforward
one, is that when Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan became
executrices at the time that Mr. Mumma died quite
suddenly, they had access to financial information from
the accountant, to the books and records.
They had an understanding current based on the
information and the people who were around as to what was
owned. It was not incumbent upon them to go back and
investigate whether and how each piece of property owned
by the Mumma family had been acquired and verify whether
adequate consideration had been paid or whether, you know,
it had been the object of some surreptitious sale of the
type that Mr. Mumma mentions.
A claim that Mr. Mumma rather than his father
owned some asset which Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan are
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
administering has to be brought against the estate, and it
is subject to the statutes and limitations and other
restrictions on the estate.
Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan would be derelict in
their duties to the estate if they were to credit hearsay
and other allegations that oh, Dad promised me that.
Their duty is to preserve the assets which it was their
understanding came into their possession, not to give
credence to unsubstantiated, in our view, claims that
other people should have owned that.
If someone believed that they owned something,
like Mr. Mumma's briefcase, that's my briefcase. Well,
they either needed to sue Mr. Mumma or needed on his death
to sue the estate for his briefcase.
And I don't mean to trivialize it, but the
point being if there is something he owned, that is the
claim. It is not a claim against Mrs. Mumma and
Mrs. Morgan for breach of fiduciary duty that they acted
based on a good faith and fully substantial understanding
that the briefcase had belonged to Mr. Mumma and was now
theirs to protect and preserve.
And that's exactly what has been going on with
the accusations. Mr. Mumma's argument is that he owned
what his dad said he owned -- what his dad said his dad
owned.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Now, that may or may not be true. There may or
may not be some argument for that. But it is not
Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan falling down as fiduciaries not
to have given Mr. Mumma everything on the representation
that there really was his. There is no documentation that
has been located to substantiate the shareholder
agreements that he is talking about.
He owned on the paper, on the records, on the
books, a minute fraction of the interest in each of these
corporations, a minute fraction. And but for the
existence of a shareholder's agreement, that's all that he
would ever own.
So what do we say? We say well, there was a
shareholder's agreement that would have completely changed
that around, and the fact that you won't produce it to me
is fraud. I don't -- that's where we are in this case.
We have been asked to produce the documents.
We looked. We haven't located them. We have produced
what we located, and the accusation is you won't give me
what I believe existed or what I claim existed.
And I don't know -- we will never get to the
end of discovery if the standard is discovery ends when we
produce the documents that prove Mr. Mumma's allegations,
and that's been the test.
I also -- the one other point, and I apologize,
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I skipped over discovery just to recount. There were a
few things Mr. Jacobs mentioned, discovery from
Ms. Mumma, and it sounds like we will be getting that
soon.
Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan and Mr. Hadley have
all been deposed. There is an open issue about the
deposition of Mr. O'Connor, Jack O'Connor, who is a lawyer
at Morgan, Lewis. Mr. Mumma had noticed that deposition,
and in our view after the discovery, the document
discovery piece had concluded, amended an entire new set
of document requests.
We objected to that, not to the concept of
producing Mr. O'Connor for a deposition. So we would
concede that that deposition should occur, and we would
like to depose Mr. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan. We also have
served written discovery on -- and Ms. Mumma. I'm Snrrv
We served discovery on Mr. Mumma, and we have
gotten absolutely no response other than his motion to
quash. So mostly the discovery that was served at this
late juncture is sort of contention discovery.
You have objected that things have been done
wrong, tell us what you mean. But as I said, I do have
some -- an outline what we have thought would be the
appropriate next steps, but I don't want to leap ahead of
the discussion, but I had omitted a piece of the discovery
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from my prior presentation.
THE AUDITOR: May I stop you right there?
Other than discovery contention issues, what legitimate
discovery documents do you need from the parties?
MR. GREEN: At this point, what we would like
is the documents that they have that relate to these
matters, at least to the extent not provided by us to
them.
I mean, I don't need back the 80,000 pages, but
if Ms. Mumma has a set of minutes that we can't locate, I
think we are entitled to that. I think the same is true
of Mr . Mumma .
And also, we have asked again, you know, when
an objection says there has been malfeasance, we have
attempted so that we can properly prepare for a hearing
and evaluate the objections to ask what malfeasance do you
have in mind.
And that really has been the nature of the
discovery that we sought, and then an opportunity to
depose them around the -- either the documents they
produce and/or the allegations that they are making. But
I don't believe that that is a terribly lengthy process in
terms of deposition.
THE AUDITOR: All right. Question for
Ms. Mumma and Mr. Mumma: On the documents that they are
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
requesting, be it any shareholder's agreements that you
have copies of, any insurance policies that you have
copies of, anything that -- those documents, do you have
them to produce for them?
MR. JACOBS: We don't have objections to that
general scope of discovery. And as I mentioned earlier, I
am working with my client to make a production sometime in
the next few weeks.
I don't think there is anything -- I don't
think there is going to be any substantial new material,
if anything, but we are going to go through the formal
process of producing the documents that have been scoped
that they requested.
Just one other comment on document discovery:
I think maybe some of the dispute has to do with perhaps
the -- not the scope of discovery but the nature of the
responding entity.
I know there have been references -- I don't
know if anybody has mentioned it today, but there have
been references over time to various documents that have
been in storage, for example my client's mother, who is
one of the executrices I gather has documents in storage,
and I think Bob maybe earlier this afternoon mentioned
something about documents that his mother had possession
of.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And when Mr. Green mentions that they have made
full discovery, I think he is referring to full discovery
from a particular universe of documents, but I don't know
to what extent he is familiar with the documents that
Mrs. Mumma, the executrix, has personally, but I don't
know if -- I don't think they have been produced to us,
and my impression is their view may be that those are not
within the scope of discovery. I am not sure about that.
MR. GREEN: Well, we understand our obligations
under discovery. We understand that if the executrices
have custody of a document, we are obligated to look for
it. I mean that is somewhat preachy in the context of
this litigation.
THE AUDITOR: If I can just --
MR. JACOBS: Just on a personal point, I
certainly didn't mean to preach. I am not suggesting that
they don't understand their obligations.
It was honestly my impression that Mrs. Mumma
personally had custody of documents, and I honestly
thought that the estate perhaps had the position that that
was -- those were not within the scope of discovery. I am
not trying to suggest anything untoward at this point.
THE AUDITOR: Are you asking that Mrs. Mumma
provide copies or provide discovery of personal documents
that she had from her husband?
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MUMMA: Well, yeah.
MR. JACOBS: I guess it depends on what you
mean by personal. In other words, by way of example, if
her husband had a briefcase full of paper, and those
papers were financial records, and they were possessed,
they were owned, by her husband, I guess technically upon
his death, those physical pieces of paper became what were
owned by the estate.
And so I guess they would be within the scope
of discovery, if they are otherwise relevant. Maybe Bob
has more first-hand information on this.
THE AUDITOR: I am just -- I will just tell you
that only information that pertained to the corporations,
only information that pertained to her as the executrix,
is discoverable. I mean, any information that she had
between her and her husband, that's personal.
MR. JACOBS: No one is looking for personal
correspondence or items like that.
THE AUDITOR: Even if I have control of papers
of my wife and my wife passes away, those are my papers.
They were my papers when I took possession of them. They
are not papers of the estate.
MS. MANN MUMMA: Corporate records are.
THE AUDITOR: Well, corporate records are
different. That is separate and apart.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MUMMA: Can I interpose a question?
THE AUDITOR: No. In one second. The -- what
you are not asking for are if she has boxes of things that
her husband had, personal things that he had given her or
she has, you know, you are not asking for that?
MR. JACOBS: No.
THE AUDITOR: You are only asking for the
corporations, matters that pertain to the various entities
and various real estates that weren't owned by them
individually but were owned by an entity other than he and
she as husband and wife.
MR. JACOBS: I was with you up until that last
qualification. Let me give you an example of the kind of
thing that I am talking about.
THE AUDITOR: What do they have that --
MS. MANN MUMMA: Si agreements.
MR. MUMMA: Life insurance.
MS. MANN MUMMA: Life insurance.
MR. MUMMA: Homeowners policies.
MS. MANN MUMMA: One of the things that is
important here is that these are family businesses, and so
oftentimes, things are written down or communicated among
members that own those businesses that pertain to
decisions made. Now minutes, of course, come under that,
but I just think corporate documents, there is a lot of
6
G
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those.
THE AUDITOR: Okay.
MS. MANN MUMMA: I don't think anybody is
asking for love letters or anything like that. We are
asking for things that will, if put on the table, would
clarify and be transparent to shed light on any of these
disputes dealing with these corporations. I don't think
anybody wants anything beyond that.
THE AUDITOR: I understand, but I am -- are you
saying that because maybe they ran their business
differently than the way they should have run the
business?
MS. MANN MUMMA: No, I absolutely did not say
that.
THE AUDITOR: I didn't mean they were doing
anything incorrect, et cetera, but they may have done it
looser than or informally than a formal proceeding or
formal minutes, that you want that information, or you
believe that it would be in certain documents? I am
trying to figure out what documents you are going to need.
MS. MANN MUMMA: Well, I will just cut to the
chase. Any document that sheds light and makes this more
transparent, creates understanding and conflict resolution
on any questions that have been asked that haven't been
told would be helpful.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think that there probably are a lot -- I know
that there -- Brady, you have been to the warehouse with
Lisa, the warehouses with Lisa?
MR. GREEN: I have been to multiple storage
spaces with Lisa.
MS. MANN MUMMA: And have you seen boxes of
corporate documents there?
MR. GREEN: Unless you think this is the way we
are going to do this, I don't know what to do with that.
MS. MANN MUMMA: I don't know either. There
are papers that haven't been discovered that should have
been discovered. So how do you about go about discovering
them?
THE AUDITOR: Again, I -- unless you can
identify -- you can't say I want something that is going
to prove something.
MS. MANN MUMMA: Corporate records I am talking
about.
THE AUDITOR: But do you have the dates when
the corporations were --
MR. GREEN: Even a definition of what is meant
by corporate record.
THE AUDITOR: Lastly, I have a note here, did
you have affidavits from the corporate secretaries as to
did they -- did your corporate secretaries verify the
8
7
L
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
records?
MR. MUMMA: The corporate secretary is sitting
right there. She hasn't had an opportunity to do it.
MR. GREEN: Or the corporation is defunct or --
MS. MANN MUMMA: The papers have been stolen.
The books and records have been lost. So any verification
that was verified doesn't exist anymore.
MR. JACOBS: Can I try and --
THE AUDITOR: Okay.
MR. MUMMA: They are trying to make it sound as
if they have turned all of this over. They haven't.
THE AUDITOR: Not to open a can of worms, but
Ms. Mumma, are you saying that you are the corporate
secretary, but you didn't have the records?
MS. MANN MUMMA: Correct, I didn't.
MR. MUMMA: They took them from her.
MS. MANN MUMMA: No, I will explain this. We
would have meetings between Thanksgiving, right after
Thanksgiving and right after Christmas. We were a family
business, right, where we would have shareholders'
meetings, directors' meetings. We had a secretary. It
was not me. I was secretary, but we had a stenographer
just the same as you do here.
THE AUDITOR: A recording secretary?
MS. MANN MUMMA: Yes, a recording secretary.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And then we would approve the minutes at the next meeting,
and they would be signed. And every record, every
financial statement, every everything that my father did,
he insisted never left his office but went into an
Electriever.
I think, you know, we were married. We had all
kinds of people in and out of our houses. He wanted to
make sure that our corporations' information was kept
under control.
We had full access to go to his office whenever
we wanted to and request from his secretary a document
that we wanted to review or look at, but we were not
allowed to take these documents out of the corporate
office building.
So he dies; where are the records? In the
corporate office building. Do I remember every minute
that we reviewed in 1986? No, I don't. It would be nice
to review those so that -- one of the major things that is
a problem with this family is nobody can think about
anything because they don't have any information.
It is like baking a cake without the flour.
You need to be able to review and know what was done so
that if people take different positions, they can have
dialogue about it. There needs to be transparency.
We have nothing. It has been under the control
0
1
L
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of -- well, the first time I noticed the control gone from
the way business used to be done was December of I think
'87 when Morgan, Lewis showed up at a directors' meeting.
MR. MUMMA: '88.
MS. MANN MUMMA: '88.
MR. MUMMA: And refused to give anybody
anything.
MS. MANN MUMMA: They told me I was free to go
into an office and review records, whatever.
MR. MUMMA: That's why I am filing a suit in
Federal Court, because they will not give us the documents
we are entitled to as officers.
MR. JACOBS: May I just make a narrower
observation? I don't know the historic facts going back
twenty or more years. I have only been involved in this
litigation for a few years.
But there seems to be either an ambiguity or
some lack of clarity about whether the documents that have
been produced to date, whether that document production
has been limited only by the nature of the information of
the document or whether it has also been limited based on
some theory of the ownership or the character of the
document.
I just don't know, and I think my client also
is not clear. I think she is under the impression that
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
her mother has some kind of physical control or real world
control over certain documents that may be in storage
somewhere which for some reason or another have not been
produced.
I don't know what the facts are. The facts may
be that all of those documents have been produced or the
facts may be that the executrices have some legal position
that the particular documents in question aren't within
the scope of production because they are not estate
documents or because they are owned or possessed by
someone else in some other capacity.
I just don't know. I am not making any
accusations. I am pointing out an area of ambiguity that
I think has caused some concern for my client and perhaps
for Mr. Mumma.
THE AUDITOR: It is Kim Co., is it Pennsylvania
Supply Company, and did you say Bobali?
MR. MUMMA: B-0 --
MR. JACOBS: B-O-B-A-L-I.
THE AUDITOR: Of those corporations, who is the
current secretary?
MR. MUMMA: Babs.
THE AUDITOR: Who is the current secretary of
that corporation?
MS. MANN MUMMA: One is -- Mr. Green? I don't
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know. There is a dispute about that so.
MR. GREEN: There is a dispute. We called a
shareholder's meeting, and people couldn't even decide who
the shareholders were let alone who the officers were.
THE AUDITOR: Okay.
MR. MUMMA: Wait a minute.
THE AUDITOR: So we don't know of these
corporations, under law, you have to have a president
and/or a treasurer/secretary, because you have to have at
least a treasurer, and you have to have -- the president
can be the secretary, I think -- no, the president can't
be the secretary. But who is what in these companies?
MS. MANN MUMMA: Right now they say my mother
is president of Bobali.
MR. MUMMA: But she is not.
THE AUDITOR: Who is the secretary?
MR. MUMMA: Babs is.
MS. MANN MUMMA: I think they say Lisa is.
THE AUDITOR: There is nobody registered at
either bureau of corporations for any of those states as
the secretary of this corporation.
MR. MUMMA: I believe my sister is the
secretary of the corporation, and we just looked at this.
MS. MANN MUMMA: Bobby, I don't think so.
MR. GREEN: To be truthful, I have no idea what
3
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the records of Colorado said. Two of these corporations
were liquidated 22 years ago. I don't know what --
THE AUDITOR: And the other one is in Colorado?
MR. GREEN: The other one is the one about
which we had the meeting and no one could agree who the
shareholder's officers were.
MR. MUMMA: But he has misrepresented this.
They weren't liquidated. They still own assets in
Cumberland County.
THE AUDITOR: I understand that position, but I
am trying to quantify who is what so we can --
MS. MANN MUMMA: I can help.
THE AUDITOR: Okay.
MS. MANN MUMMA: There was a meeting years ago
that took place at Holiday West in which this law firm
rewrote -- I was president of the corporation.
THE AUDITOR: Which corporation?
MS. MANN MUMMA: Bobali. I agendaed a meeting
and had it held at a certain location. The agenda was
changed and the location was changed. When they sent the
notice out, it was either east or west, and I forget the
name of the hotel.
I missed the fact that it was changed, so I of
course went to where I noticed the meeting. No one was
there. When my attorney and I arrived at the newly
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
noticed place or the place that I missed, I was considered
late.
The meeting had been taken over by this law
firm and my mother as interim president. This law firm
introduced new -- had my mother introduce new bylaws --
which they wrote without my knowledge. I didn't even know
about it -- and in my opinion hijacked the corporation.
I am there with a real estate agent, the
president of Hoss's Food, I have this whole agenda to
start developing real estate, and all of a sudden they
have taken the position on the way the shareholders are
noticed due to this merger that is disputed about Middle
Park, my mother becomes president supposedly, but then it
depends on what day it is whether they blame me for being
president.
I do have and did supply the meeting notices,
and they are over -- whatever meeting notices I had, I
took over to Pepper, Hamilton. There is a room twice the
size of this.
These files go up one wall, down the other, and
halfway around the other. So it wouldn't be surprising
that somebody -- because I don't know if anybody indexed
them -- well, you said they did index them.
MR. GREEN: We indexed what we provided.
MS. MANN MUMMA: So you should be able to see.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Whatever meeting notices I had, I had. But they certainly
have a meeting notice of that, because they were there and
helped introduce the new bylaws, and that's the last
Bobali meeting -- we tried to have one at my house in
which I get a letter from a Jeff Ernico (phonetic) telling
me I was totally out of order.
And that is all I know about this corporation
the last 15 years other than nobody is running it, nobody
is having meetings, nobody is doing anything. And despite
my objections, we have even had properties come up for tax
sale in which --
MR. MUMMA: We had to file a lawsuit to get
them to pay the taxes.
MS. MANN MUMMA: It is just horrible.
THE AUDITOR: What assets are in Bobali?
MS. MANN MUMMA: There are 11 acres at Cameron
& Alberton (phonetic) across from the farm show building.
There is property up at Amity Hall.
MR. MUMMA: 86 acres at --
MS. MANN MUMMA: Across from the UPS building.
THE AUDITOR: This is an asset of the estate?
MR. MUMMA: This is an asset of Bobali
Corporation. It has nothing to do with the estate other
than they are controlling it.
MS. MANN MUMMA: They are controlling it.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. MUMMA: They are control freaks.
THE AUDITOR: This is a separate corporation
that doesn't --
MS. MANN MUMMA: This corporation was owned by
it is called Bobali for Bob, Babs, Linda, and Lisa. We
were four children that were shareholders.
MR. MUMMA: 150,000 shares each.
MS. MANN MUMMA: When all of this started with
Morgan, Lewis showing up, one of the first things they did
was change the structure so that my mother became a
certain percentage owner through some ownership that she
had in another corporation. I don't remember.
So now my mother and two of my sisters would,
through this two percent of my mother, constitute a
majority, and my brother and I would become a minority or
another sister of mine and I would become a minority.
But this change of ownership was the brainchild
of Morgan, Lewis, and with that changing of ownership, it
changed the way that this corporation has run ever since.
MR. MUMMA: It certainly has.
THE AUDITOR: But that is not an asset of the
estate?
MS. MANN MUMMA: The estate has a portion of
that.
THE AUDITOR: The estate owns a portion of
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that?
MR. MUMMA: No. That is the issue, Joe.
MS. MANN MUMMA: Only because they designed it
that way. They didn't own it before this mess.
MR. MUMMA: The way they designed it, Middle
Park, Inc., the Colorado corporation --
MS. MANN MUMMA: It's not funny.
MR. MUMMA: -- was the parent company. We
owned stock in Middle Park, Inc., 150,000 shares for each
of us kids and 100,000 shares for Pennsylvania Supply
Company.
THE AUDITOR: Can I stop you just right here,
just for a question. And if you feel it is not -- if this
has no bearing on the estate too, please, I ask you to
join in.
Would it be helpful or would it not be helpful
if I had a corporate structure as it would have existed
prior to the death of Mr. Mumma and how it exists today?
MR. MUMMA: I think that would be very helpful,
because you can then determine how things got transferred
and where these control interests came from.
MS. MANN MUMMA: Yes is the answer.
MR. MUMMA: However --
THE AUDITOR: I am asking would anyone have an
objection to that?
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. GREEN: My first meeting -- our first
meeting with Mr. Andrews I brought a document which I
brought today. And it is Robert M. Mumma, Statement of
Fund and Investment Assets as of December 31, 1985, and I
am not going to hand it to you, because I know what the
reaction will be. (Indicating.)
There is a chart. There is a listing of all of
the ownership. It is not just a chart of Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s
ownership but it lists the interest of all of the
children.
At the time that I offered this to Mr. Andrews,
Mr. Mumma objected on the grounds that it was fraudulent,
inaccurate. So I am happy to provide it, but I don't --
MR. MUMMA: It doesn't include Bobali either.
MS. MANN MUMMA: I have a question. Don't you
have to have facts to draw the chart up like that?
THE AUDITOR: The only thing that I need, I
just want an agreement if we can look at something. I
know what the assets were that were taken into the estate,
because that is part of the documentation.
However, with corporate structure -- and I am
just asking if you guys can agree to what the corporate
structure was and what it is now. I mean, it is what it
is. It was what it was.
It is not something that can be manipulated or
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
changed, and I don't want to draw any conclusion from it.
MR. MUMMA: Why can't it be manipulated or
changed?
MS. MANN MUMMA: It has been.
THE AUDITOR: Because something exists at a
certain point in time.
MR. MUMMA: Right. It didn't exist in this
fashion. They then filed fraudulent documents at the
department of -- Colorado Department of State.
MS. MANN MUMMA: You are missing something.
The books and records were lost, so they didn't have the
facts with which to draw up the structure.
THE AUDITOR: The thing is -- again, if it is
helpful for me. If you don't believe it is helpful --
MS. MANN MUMMA: It's helpful.
MR. JACOBS: I will give you my answer. I
think if the parties could agree on the charts you are
talking about, the corporate structure then and now, that
would be very helpful. I fear that the parties would not
agree on the --
MR. MUMMA: I think the issue is where is the
starting point? The starting point for the change in
certain corporate structure is not 1985, it is 1961.
THE AUDITOR: But the thing is I can't involve
myself in something that occurred in 1961, okay? We have
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to -- it is as of the date of death of your father.
MR. MUMMA: Not the inventory.
THE AUDITOR: Everything. That's when it
starts. It is that day. That's the date that is
imperative. Now, if you have information that changes
something as to -- I know you have related 1961, which I
have made a few notes on.
And if you were going to be bringing something
up from the Dauphin County Register of Wills or anything
that occurred there, that is something that you would
bring up at the hearing.
However, you have to look at what occurred as
of the date of your father's passing, which would have
been on April 12th of 1986.
MR. MUMMA: But let me give you a for instance.
In 1961, these corporations bought life insurance -- whole
life insurance policies. They bought them on my life and
on my father's life.
And the purpose behind those insurance policies
was to redeem stock. Now, wouldn't it be important to
have those files, those corporate files regarding that
life insurance policy? It shows how much was made,
probably has a copy of the application for insurance in
there.
Now, to get insurance on somebody's life, you
l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have to have a reason. You have to have an interest in
that person's life. I couldn't get life insurance on your
life, but I could get insurance on your life if you were
the president of a corporation or a shareholder or there
was a redemption agreement or a shareholder restrictive
agreement that the proceeds of that policy would be used
to redeem.
So it would be very important to go back and
get those very elementary records from the life insurance
file. Now, they are not turning any of those files over.
THE AUDITOR: Again, I was alluding to this
question earlier when I asked in the discovery towards
yourself and your sister was if you took out a policy, if
you had a policy taken out on your life, do you have a
copy of it?
MR. MUMMA: I don't have a copy of it.
THE AUDITOR: But --
MR. MUMMA: I'm not the owner of the policy.
THE AUDITOR: So you don't have any records
showing that a policy was taken out on your life?
MR. MUMMA: No. Some of these policies were
taken out when I was one, two, three years old, back in
the 1940s. My grandfather -- I found out about a policy
within the last five years that my grandfather took out on
my life that was worth a substantial amount of money to me
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
five years -- when I found out about it.
I didn't know about it. I got a bill, I pay so
much every month, right, but I have no records on this
policy whatsoever because my grandfather took it out. I
didn't have a copy of the policy.
These corporate policies a corporation takes
out, those records are all -- each of these corporations
had safety deposit boxes that they kept stuff like that
in. They closed all of those, even though I was a
signatory on them. I don't know how they did that, but
they did it.
THE AUDITOR: That -- I saw another question
that I had written down. Were inventories taken?
MR. MUMMA: No.
THE AUDITOR: Standard inventories of safe
deposit boxes?
MR. MUMMA: No.
MR. GREEN: There is an inventory of a safe
deposit box -- I don't know -- which was, in our
understanding, a box in which Mr. Mumma, Sr. had an
interest. It has been disclosed.
What that -- where that stands relative to a
box that Mr. Mumma remembers for one of the companies, I
don't know that.
But this is one of the difficulties, I think.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Because I understand at one level what is being said. On
the other hand, Mr. Mumma says a couple of things. He
says these policies were taken out when he was one, two,
and three years old.
He has never seen them, but he knows that the
purpose was to provide liquidity to fund a shareholder's
agreement, which we also don't have a copy of. And that's
the problem, is the answers are in place before the
discovery is taken.
The discovery is made, and then when the answer
isn't what the pre-conceived thing was, then the discovery
is deficient.
I also -- I didn't mean to laugh earlier about
the Bobali situation. Our firm, as far as I know, had
nothing to do with the reorganization of that. I think it
is -- in fact, I think it is the Stradley firm that did
it. But in any event --
MR. MUMMA: Incredible.
MR. GREEN: I know that because at the time we
were asked to gather information about the corporation, we
actually went to the Stradley firm to get their records,
and that has been produced.
MS. MANN MUMMA: And you can prove that with
your time records, right, that during that time frame you
weren't working on anything to do with the Bobali
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
organization?
MR. GREEN: Our time records in respect of work
to this date have been produced. I don't know what to --
MS. MANN MUMMA: No, I'm just saying that we
could review the time records during that time frame and
it would reflect any work for Bobali.
MR. MUMMA: Joe, there is a big issue, is their
time records. The estate paid for that work or one of
these corporations paid for that work, and they refused to
give us the time records so we could see what they were
doing.
THE AUDITOR: Now, I have all of those records.
I haven't looked at them, but I have all of their time
records.
MR. MUMMA: It would be hard -- you know,
sometimes when you read across time records, something
that may be very important to me because I know the
situation -- you know, my mother and I are the only two
people in world that have been alive since the beginning
to the end of this and old enough to understand it during
that period of time. We are the only ones.
And instead of asking people what was going on,
these guys say we want the world, the history of the world
to be this way, so we are not even going to ask you what
was going on.
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And you say well, these life insurance
policies, for instance, if my grandfather and my father
tell me there is life insurance in place and the purpose
of it is for you to redeem stock, for the corporation to
redeem stock if you or I die, that should be a good enough
reason for me to say I want to see the life insurance
policies.
THE AUDITOR: Okay. Other than any life
insurance policies that may have been disclosed by the
estate to the parties, has the estate uncovered any other
life insurance policies?
MR. GREEN: Sitting here today, I have no idea.
I mean, we produced all of the policies which were made
part of the estate tax return that was filed. I honestly
don't know.
I mean, in the thousands of pages, dozens of
boxes that were produced, I don't know that. I don't even
know how I would go about answering you quickly other than
to go back through the documents.
MR. MUMMA: Let me give you an example of that.
I asked my mother what happened to the proceeds from the
life insurance policy. I don't know.
What do you mean you don't know what happened?
George Hadley and the lawyers handled that, and I have no
idea. You were there; what happened to those proceeds?
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So you know, we should be able to follow what
did happen to the proceeds. I know this: That one of the
first steps they took was to redeem 85 shares of my
father's stock.
I had asked Brady to see which certificates
were redeemed, how they came up with the valuation, and
who approved the redemption. And the answer is we don't
know which certificates were redeemed. We don't know.
The accountant came up with the valuation, and we don't
have any approval for the redemption.
So I think that is a good question; how do you
redeem stock without having the directors of the
corporation approve it unless there is a shareholder's
agreement in writing and they simply followed the terms of
it?
MR. GREEN: That is not a discovery question.
He has the answer. He believes it is insufficient, that
it is fraudulent, that it is improper. That we can --
someone will have to decide that.
MR. MUMMA: But somebody -- to do a stock
redemption, you have to have a certificate or you have to
state -- you have to file an affidavit of a lost
certificate.
MR. GREEN: And that is your argument.
MR. MUMMA: I want to know who did that work.
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE AUDITOR: I understand that. So we will --
I understand that argument. Does anyone have anything
else? I have a few other questions that I have written
down.
I am not certain as to under the will, because
I haven't read the will -- I read it originally and I know
it had provisions for co-executrices. What is the status
of it if one of the executrices does not continue? Is
there a replacement or does --
MR. MUMMA: My sister is a replacement.
THE AUDITOR: -- the other executrix continue
by themselves?
MS. MANN MUMMA: If either one or both of them
leave, the replacements are myself or M&T Bank, but I am
first. M&T Bank is second.
MR. GREEN: That is the case with the
executrices. It is not the case with the trustees.
MS. MANN MUMMA: Not the trustees. If this
closes, my sister is the sole trustee for everything,
Lisa.
THE AUDITOR: I knew there was a difference
between the two. And one of the questions that was raised
was whether or not Mrs. Mumma, your mother -- and she is
continuing as the executrix, she doesn't choose to
renounce or anything like that?
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. GREEN: As of this time, that's correct.
MR. MUMMA: That doesn't mean -- I mean, our
position is she shouldn't serve.
THE AUDITOR: I understand what your position
is.
MS. MANN MUMMA: I have had a conversation with
her about it.
THE AUDITOR: That's something -- because that
is an issue that is ongoing, and if it can be resolved
without having a hearing, that's something that the family
and --
MS. MANN MUMMA: It would be great.
THE AUDITOR: -- you could do.
There had been a statement that there were some
assets that were not included in the estate. I know there
was some discussion as to assets that may have been
included that maybe shouldn't have been included, but what
assets should have been included in the estate that are
not? What is your position on that, Mr. Mumma?
MR. MUMMA: There is a substantial amount of
individual assets, for instance -- and I don't want to
sound like this is important to me from a monetary point
of view, because it is not, but my father left me his
jewelry. I received one pair of cufflinks and one ring,
okay?
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE AUDITOR: And a grandfather's clock.
MR. MUMMA: And a grandfather's clock, which I
got separately. But, I know my father had a lot more
jewelry than that, all right. Now, it is the principal of
the thing that I am upset about, because if I had their
homeowners policy, this stuff was valuable, and I am sure
they had it scheduled.
The second thing that I would say is he had a
safety deposit box in Switzerland. I was there with him.
That's not in this anywhere. We asked my mother about it
in her deposition, and she says oh, yes, well, we closed
that.
That's the answer. It is not
the answer. It is supposed to be in the
THE AUDITOR: Did your mother
before or after your father's death?
MR. MUMMA: My mother wasn't
THE AUDITOR: Did she say she
or after?
supposed to be
inventory.
say she closed it
~n the box.
closed it before
MR. MUMMA: She didn't, but she said we closed
that, and I don't believe my father closed it.
THE AUDITOR: Okay. Any other assets?
MR. MUMMA: There are all kinds of assets. He
had all kinds of guns that have disappeared. A guy came
to me two years ago and said I got a Christmas present for
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you, and I go outside and there on the door is my sled
that was in my father's woodshed.
And I said how did you get this? He said I
bought it, and he had this warehouse out on Paxton Street
with all of this stuff in it. And this guy, this realtor,
Schubert, Chuck Schubert, was selling it. And you just
came in, and if you saw something you wanted, he would
sell it to you.
It was all of my father's stuff, all the stuff
that came out of this woodshed. There was a whole
warehouse of records out there. They disappeared.
I went there one day and they are all there,
all boxed up and everything. A month later, you go in
there and the place is completely cleaned out.
What happened to all of that stuff? There is
nothing about a gun in the inventory, and they were
valuable guns, they were $600, $700, $800 a piece.
THE AUDITOR: On the discovery request for
Ms. Mumma I have a note. Although I appreciate your
statement of being transparent, et cetera, my question is
what do you need? I need you to be specific as to what
you need so we can direct them to do it or not to do it.
I want you to quantify what specific type of
record that you believe they have so they can say either
we have it or we don't have it and then we can move on
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with that, okay?
MS. MANN MUMMA: M-hmm.
THE AUDITOR: There was a question on a current
accounting. The last accounting was through -- was it
2003, 2004?
MR. MUMMA: January of 2004.
THE AUDITOR: Okay. My question is this: Is
that really going to affect your position on any of these
other matters?
MR. MUMMA: From my understanding, and correct
me if I'm wrong, obviously I am not a lawyer, but my
understanding is once they file that final accounting,
this thing is dead. They have no more assets. There is
nothing more they can do. Otherwise, it is not the final
accounting.
MR. GREEN: Yeah, and if I could speak to that,
there has been a final accounting filed for the estate.
THE AUDITOR: The estate?
MR. GREEN: The trusts, there have been interim
accountings. They are up and through that date. We don't
have any objection to bringing down the accountings, but I
think one of the problems that you develop is what does
that mean for this proceeding, because it is a bit of a
merry-go-round.
I mean, if we now inject three more years,
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which were current at the time that we filed the request
for appointment of an auditor, they are no longer so
current.
As to the trusts, you can pick any point in
time and by the time you get to the resolution of the
objections to that portion of the accounts, some
additional period of time has passed and you need to do
another accounting.
So I think there are two questions. One is do
we think file a bring down account or accounting for the
trusts, and I think that is not an issue, but then the
other question is do we try to roll those into this
proceeding or do we wrap this proceeding up as to what was
before the auditor at the initial appointment and save it
for a later date, because there are going to be more.
The trusts will continue through and including
Mrs. Mumma's death, and I think that is obviously
hopefully not anyplace near. And so that's the only
difficulty I see is how we -- I have no problem with the
concept of bringing down accountings, but then what does
it mean relative to the proceeding that we are here on to
consider the accountings?
MR. MUMMA: Brady, do you agree --
THE AUDITOR: One at a time. Ms. Mumma,
please?
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. MANN MUMMA: I have two things that I want
to say. One is as I -- as I am starting to get
information, one of the things that was important to me
was to understand the accounting.
And I had a conversation with Jack O'Connor
asking him if in fact we could put it in a different form
than what it is in, because right now it exists in 1,400
pages.
And if for instance I wanted to know how much
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius earned during this time frame, I
would have to cull through each page and write an entry
down. And I was told that the state of Pennsylvania has
designed the accounting a certain way and they couldn't
change it.
So I took it upon myself, I spent $60,000 to
reduce those 1,400 pages to two pages. Yes, it was quite
a fee. So I really do know where the money has gone. And
one of the things that is important about getting this
accounting is there are assets that are still owned.
They say they are not in my father's estate.
That might be because they assigned them to the marital
instead of the residual trust, but they are assets in
which we have some ownership of some type that instead of
being say developed and the maximum value coming out of
those, they are selling them for ten cents on the dollar
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to people.
And so I believe it is really important to have
an accounting for the last four years, because there have
been farms and things that have been sold that we have no
idea where the money has gone or why they were sold, why
they weren't offered to us, and what has happened to them.
MR. MUMMA: They don't offer anything to us
before they sell it. They sell it, and then if we happen
to drive by and somebody else is on our property, we know
it is sold.
That is the way -- and here is my problem with
that, Joe: There is no way, even if you find 100 percent
for us, we will never get it back, will we?
MS. MANN MUMMA: No. Possession is nine tenths
of the law.
MR. MUMMA: They are all down in Florida, so
they are protected by the Homestead Act down there. Maybe
the whole thing is a moot point, because these guys have
gotten away with it.
But they are continuing to do it. They just
took a big distribution out of one of these corporations
worth tens of -- probably over a million dollars. I think
they should be stayed from taking any distributions from
any disputed asset, period, or taking any action with any
disputed asset without getting somebody's permission or
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
telling us so that we have an opportunity to go and raise
the issue with the court.
MS. MANN MUMMA: Here is the other thing that
is really important. Because nobody talks to us, there
could be very stellar reasons for their strategy, but they
don't tell us.
So therefore, in order to find out, we have to
spend hard-earned money to go to court to find out
something that an easy dialogue -- I mean, if there is no
wrongdoing here and they are doing things for the benefit
of beneficiaries, somebody should at least pick up the
phone once in a while and say hello. They leave you with
the impression that you are on the other side of the
Berlin Wall.
THE AUDITOR: For edification purposes for
myself, who manages the trust?
MS. MANN MUMMA: Good question.
MR. MUMMA: They don't know.
THE AUDITOR: I know there are named trustees.
Do they have an entity that manages the assets for them?
MR. GREEN: There are -- for the real estate
assets, there is a property manager. Most of the
assets -- I mean, I guess I can't speak comprehensively.
Most of the assets are in real estate at this point, and
some of it is leased and some is undeveloped.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
There is the accountant that we spoke about,
Mr. Hadley. He sees to most of the day-to-day financial
administration matters, writing of checks, taxes, and that
kind of stuff -- not writing of checks independent of the
approval of the executrices, but he sort of is the person
who decides -- who looks at what is out there and then
briefs the executrices and trustees on what needs to be
done.
THE AUDITOR: So they are not holding portfolio
bonds, stocks, any, you know, intangibles.
MR. GREEN: There is some of that, but there is
also a lot of cash, and in the current environment --
THE AUDITOR: That's good.
MR. MUMMA: It is not good for Babs and I,
because we are never going to see it.
THE AUDITOR: I meant because of the climate
and the economy.
MR. MUMMA: We have already been told we are
never going to see any of it, so it is not good for us.
It is only good for Lisa Morgan.
THE AUDITOR: Now, the final question I had
here, and it was something that was raised, is -- I don't
know if it was raised. Is there a big contention as to
the fees taken?
MS. MANN MUMMA: There is on my part, because I
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
saw the two pages that I reduced the 1,400 pages to.
MR. MUMMA: And there is on my part because I
think the strategy, instead of following my father's
strategy, his intention of following the insurance money
up the ladder and the stock certificates down the ladder,
they have created tremendous tax implications for us and
ended up taking our most valuable asset and stealing it
from us. And they did it purposefully and with full
knowledge of what they were doing.
MS. MANN MUMMA: And I would like to, I guess,
go out on a limb and say that since I know Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius is the winner of where the money has gone, I think
it would be in our best interest to get a new law firm
that might represent all of us.
THE AUDITOR: I have noted all of your
statements on that, those various issues. Any other
comments?
MR. GREEN: I guess in respect of trying to
make some progress on matters, if you had asked about a
statement of corporate affairs as of the date of
Mr. Mumma's death, maybe the way to do it is the opposite
of my proffering some document.
If Mr. Mumma or Ms. Mumma would like to propose
what they believe to have been the affairs in so far as
they can, maybe we can agree on some of it. I don't know
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
whether that is a possibility or not.
MS. MANN MUMMA: I think it is the first time
we have been invited to even have a perspective to paper.
It is a great idea.
THE AUDITOR: To me, I think it would be
helpful to everybody and it will be helpful to me to
understand what the various arguments are. So if you can,
try to develop -- and I don't necessarily -- no commentary
to it, just what the structure is, what it was, who owned
what, if you know what the shares were that were held by
that, if it is a wholly owned subsidiary, if it is just an
affiliated corporation.
And you understand and you understand what that
means, being an affiliate rather than a wholly owned
subsidiary. Anything that you have that can help us
identify that, if you two could agree or three could
agree, all of you, that would be great.
Once you do have some documentation, then you
can bring that in. Do we agree on that?
MR. MUMMA: Yeah, but I cannot tell you that I
will be able to do that within a month.
THE AUDITOR: The only thing that I would --
Well, I would hope that you would be able to do that.
MR. MUMMA: I could do it on a wipe board right
now.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
THE AUDITOR: That's what I mean.
MR. MUMMA: But to sit down --
THE AUDITOR: If I had a corporation, and I
didn't mean to state it that clear, but if I knew my
corporate structure, I know what it is, I know what
companies I have, I know who owed what to who, if I was
structured in that structure, and I would know it and you
could write it out right now.
It is a here is where it was. And if you
could, you could do that today with each other if you have
a couple of minutes, you could sit down and try to figure
it out, not while I am here, or I could be here if you
wanted me to be here. If you could do that that would be
great.
MR. MUMMA: I think it would be instructive to
you to allow us to put up the different variations of the
corporate structures so that you could see and ask
questions about why I come to a different result than they
come to.
THE AUDITOR: That's why it will be helpful for
me.
MR. MUMMA: Okay. And I am willing to lay my
corporate -- in fact I have -- but you have to do it on a
wipe board, because even after all of these years I start
through it and I forget something and I have to go back
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and erase it and do it again.
It is very -- it is probably one of the most
convoluted corporate structures, because they use similar
names for corporations. They had four Pennsy Supply Incs.
MS. MANN MUMMA: Do it by EIN numbers.
THE AUDITOR: If you believe it will be
helpful, we can do that right now. I don't have any
butcher block paper with me or any other --
MS. MANN MUMMA: There is a wipe board right
there. (Indicating.)
THE AUDITOR: We have one here.
MR. MUMMA: Do we have a crayon for it?
MS. MANN MUMMA: Can we take a five-minute
break?
THE AUDITOR: Please.
(Short recess.)
THE AUDITOR: We're back on the record. We had
some very good discussion relative to the various
corporate structures that evolved here, and I would like
to thank everyone for coming today.
I understand your arguments, and I will attempt
to get something to you within the next two weeks. I
understand the time limits that you desire, and I am going
to take that into consideration and I will issue something
within the next two weeks, and I will thank everyone for
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
coming. Thank you.
(The hearing concluded at 5:37 p.m.)
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I hereby certify that the proceedings and
evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes
taken by me on the within proceedings, and that this copy
is a correct transcript of the same.
~~~~ ~~
nni r Chance, Notary Public
NOTARIAL SEAL
Jennifer A Chance
NOTARY PUBLIC
Bono of Chambersburg, Franklin County
My Commission Expires 08130/2011
LIST OF JUDGE OLER'S ORDERS REFERRED TO THE AUDITOR FOR AN INTERIM REPORT AND/OR
RECOMMENDED ORDER & ADDITIONAL COURT FILINGS IN 2008.
CALENDER YEAR - 2005: (5 referrals)
- 03-11-OS -Request for Removal of Executrices/Trustees is Relegated to disposition in the
first instance by the Auditor, along with his other responsibilities.
= Oler Order 03-11-05.
- 04-22-05 -Request for Order that Estate has Waived its Right to Contest a Disclaimer Filed
and Revoked or Request for Immediate Hearing.
= Oler Order 04-22-05.
- 04-29-05 -Motion to Compel Inspection of All Books and Records.
= Oler Order 04-29-05.
- 05-09-05 -Motion for Sanctions for Refusal to Provide Discovery Pursuant to Court Order.
= Oler Order 05-09-05.
- 10-26-OS - RMMII's Motion for Reconsideration (Auditor's Discovery rulings in Oct. 2005).
= Oler Order 10-26-05.
CALENDER YEAR - 2008:
January 2008 (1 referral)
- 01-30-08 -RMMII Request for Extension of Time to File Expert Reports.
= Oler Order 01-31-08.
A rill 2008 (3 referrals /filings)
- 04-02-08 -RMMII Petition for Entry of Date of Deemed Denial of Exceptions under Pa.O.C.R.
7.1(f) & Estate Response.
= Oler order 07-02-08.
- 04-15-08 -RMMII Motion to Quash and General Objection (re interrogatories and request
for production of documents) & Estate Answer.
= Oler order 04-22-08.
~H~BR
`1
4 ~.9 a~
- 04-30-08 -Estate Motion to Compel (re interrogatories on RMMII in March 07 & Dec. 07) &
RMMII Response.
= Oler order OS-12-08.
May 2008 (16 referrals /filings)
- 05-01-08 -RMMII serves First Set of Requests for Admission
(Answered by Estate counsel on 06-02-08).
A 05-01-08 -RMMII Motion for Protective Order (re date of depo. of Barbara Mann Mumma).
= Oler order 05-12-08.
- 05-06-08 -Estate Emergency Motion for Protective Order (re depos. noticed for Lisa and
Kim) &RMMII Response.
= Oler order 05-12-08. (Discovery is stayed in the interim).
- 05-30-08 -RMMII Motion for Supplemental Accounting
= Oler order 07-01-08.
- 05-30-08 -RMMII Motion for Disclosure of Foreign Bank Accounts and Safe Deposit Boxes.
= Oler order 07-01-08.
- 05-30-08 -RMMII Further Motion for Jury Trial.
= Oler order 07-01-08.
- 05-30-08 -RMMII Motion for Disclosure of Executrices Status as Shareholders.
= Oler order 07-01-08.
- 05-30-08 -RMMII Motion for Removal of Executrices and Trustees.
= Oler order 07-01-08.
- 05-30-08 -RMMII Motion for Supplemental Inventory.
= Oler order 07-01-08.
- 05-30-08 -RMMII Further Motion for Recusal of Judge Oler
Oler order 06-26-08 (scheduling hearing or OS-18-08);
= Oler order 09-19-08 -Denied.
- 05-30-08 -RMMII Further Motion for Vacation of Appointment of Atty.Andrews as Auditor
= Oler order 06-26-08 (scheduling hearing or 08-18-08)
= Oler order 09-19-08 -Andrews vacated > Buckley appointed; all prior matters
referred deemed again referred to new auditor pursuant to terms of referral.
- 05-30-08 -Estate Motion to Dismiss Objections re Exercise of Withdrawal Rights under Art
of Will.
= Oler order 09-10-08.
- 0530-08 -Estate Motion to Dismiss Objections based upon Purported Evidence of
Agreement among Shareholders of Penna. Supply Company.
= Oler order 09-10-08.
- 05-30-08 -Estate Motion to Strike Expert Reports of Robert C. May, Esq.
= Oler order 09-10-08.
- 05-30-08 -Estate Motion in Liming to Exclude Argument and Evidence as to Matters
Previously Adjudicated.
= Oler order 09-10-08.
- 05-30-08 -Estate Petition for Judicial Notice (of parts of records of prior cases).
(no order due to "petition" status vs. motion)
June 2008 (1 referral)
- 06-26-08 -Estate Motion to Compel Disclosure (to RMMII to disclose info. re children).
= Oler order 07-01-05.
Julv 2008 (i referral)
- 07-10-08 -RMMII Preliminary Objections (to New Matter in Estate Response to Petition for
Deemed Denial under Pa.O.C.R. 7.1(f)).
= Oler order 07-15-08.
August 2008 (1 filing )
- 08-22-08-RMMII Motion to Disqualify MLB and Martson Law as Estate Counsel
= Oler Order 08-28-08 (specifying proceeding under Rule 206.7, depos., argument court
briefs due 12-07-08, argument court on 12-17-08).
September 2008 (4 referrals /filings)
- 09-08-08 -RMMII Emergency Motion re Tax Claim Bureau Sale of Lemoyne Real Estate
= Oler Order 09-15-08, rule returnable;
= Oler Order 09-23-08, matter moot due to payment of 2006 taxes.
- 09-11-08 -Estate Motion to Compel Discovery from Barbara Mann Mumma
= Oler order 09-15-08.
- 09-22-08 - Oler Order 09-22-08: Objections of Barbara Mann Mumma referred to Auditor.
- 09-29-08 -RMMII Motion for Reconsideration of Order of September 19, 2008 (denial of
Judge Oler recusal & apptmt. of new auditor)
Oler order 10-03-08 -denied.
October 2008 (4 filings, 3 orders)
- 10-08-08 - Oler order 10-08-08 rule returnable re Executrix' Emergency Motion for
Protective Order (to prevent depo. of Lisa M. Morgan).
- 10-08-08 - Oler order 10-08-08 providing for parties to reschedule depo. of JOC O'Connor at
a convenient time -depo. taken on 10-27-08).
- 10-09-08 - Oler order 10-09-08 rule returnable re Harry Lake Motion for Protective Order
and to quash subpoena.
- 10-17-08 -RMMII files Praecipe to enter July 3, 2000 as the Date of Deemed Denial of
Executrices' Exceptions to Judge Holler's ruling of 02-23-00.
- 10-17-08 -RMMII files Application for Certification of September 19, 2008 as Interlocutory
for purposes of Appeal.
- 10-17-08 -RMMII files Notice of Appeal to Superior Court - re September 19, 2008 Order.
- 10-17-08 -Taylor Andrews submits his auditor bill for $11,800+
A 10-29-08 > Prehearing Status Conference before Atty. Buckley.