Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-04 IN RE: ELEANOR U. COOLIDGE · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, · ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION · NO. 21-03-936 ANSWER TO PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Respondents, Thomas E. Coolidge and Philip Coolidge, make the following response to the Petition for Preliminary Injunction filed by Julia Coolidge-Stolz on March 24, 2004: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied. Respondent Philip Coolidge lives in the State of Massachusetts and has not resided in the State of Florida for approximately twelve years. · ~. 4. Admitted. The Petitioner and Respondents are the only issue of Eleanor ,~ Coolidge, but as of the filing of this Answer Eleanor Coolidge is deceased· ~ 5. Admitted. ~2' ~ 6. i~mitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that a brief hearing was conducted on November 17, 2003 and that a Court Order was issued that the record remain open. The purpose of leaving the record open was to enable Petitioner to take the deposition of Dr. Craig Jurgensen, a consulting neurologist to Mrs. Coolidge. His deposition was scheduled and cancelled by SAIDIS Petitioner· Said deposition has never been rescheduled or taken by Petitioner. SHIJFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY It is denied that Exhibit "B" is attached to the Petition. ATrORNEYS~ 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA 7. Admitted. 8. It is admitted that Petitioner challenged Power of Attorney for the reasons asserted, but denied that any such reasons were to any degree valid. 9. Denied. Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge has by no words or actions of his own given Petitioner any cause to believe that he is using the Power of Attorney for his own benefit. 10. Denied. Petitioner has been conscientiously advised of any gifts made to the issue of Eleanor U. Coolidge by Thomas E. Coolidge's Power of Attorney as Attorney-In-Fact. Not only has Thomas E. Coolidge not stated to the Petitioner that he has made testamentary changes, but through his counsel he has advised her attomey specifically that as Attorney-In-Fact he has absolutely no power to change his mother's will. To the extent that the Petitioner continues to aver that the Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge has changed his mother's will, these averments are made in bad faith. 11. Denied. Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge never indicated that he made any changes in the will of Eleanor U. Coolidge, but in fact affirmatively stated that he had no power to do so. Any allegation to the contrary is made in bad faith. 12. Denied. In fact, Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge has shared with Petitioner's counsel statements of the trust resulting from the estate of Warren Coolidge, father of all the parties. Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge also offered to have a fraud audit conducted at Petitioner's expense concerning all accounts handled SAIDI$ by Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge, and owned by Eleanor U. Coolidge. SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Petitioner has never responded to that offer or taken any steps to conduct such a ATtORNEYS,AT,LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA fraud audit. By way of further answer, Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge, provided all financial information which Eleanor U. Coolidge authorized him to provide. Mrs. Eleanor U. Coolidge established the boundaries of what information should be shared with Petitioner. 13. The testamentary "plans" of Eleanor Coolidge and her deceased husband are irrelevant. Warren Coolidge's will has been probated and has not been contested by Petitioner within the statutory period permitted for such a will contest. She is consequently barred from contesting the will of Warren Coolidge. Eleanor U. Coolidge's will speaks for itself and it is anticipated to be probated in the very near future, possibly before the hearing scheduled on this matter. First Paragraph 14. After reasonable investigation Respondents are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the beliefs of the Petitioner. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge, individually or in concert with Respondent Philip Coolidge, has altered the testamentary plans of Eleanor Coolidge in any way. Neither Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge nor Respondent Philip Coolidge has any authority or power to alter the testamentary plans of Eleanor U. Coolidge. Second Paragraph 14. a. Denied. Eleanor U. Coolidge executed the Power of Attorney of her own free will. No influence-undue, coercive or otherwise-was applied to her; SAIDIS b. Denied. Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge did not grant himself an SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATrORNEYS.AT,.LAW antique banjo clock, it was given to him by Eleanor U. Coolidge prior to 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA the Power of Attorney. The decision to give Thomas E. Coolidge the banjo clock (appraised value $4,500.00 to $5,000.00) was made after Petitioner requested from Eleanor U. Coolidge, and received, the family silver tea service which was appraised at $5,500.00. Any allegation regarding the granting by Thomas E. Coolidge of the banjo clock to himself has been knowingly made in bad faith; c. Denied. Thomas E. Coolidge withheld no items from the public auction. Eleanor U. Coolidge had the right to and did withhold various items from the public auction, and chose not to provide any accounting to her children during her lifetime; d. Denied. On the contrary, in consultation with Petitioner's counsel, Respondents did agree to make certain medical records available concerning Eleanor Coolidge's mental capacity as of December 20, 2002, which records will support the fact that she had sufficient capacity to establish such a Power of Attorney, therefore any statement regarding a refusal is made in bad faith; e. Denied. On the contrary, only the actions of Petitioner were operative in creating the long-standing rift between Petitioner and her mother. Neither of the Respondents took any steps to prohibit Petitioner from having access to her mother or her mother's medical condition. To the contrary, Respondent Thomas Coolidge had provided notice to Petitioner regarding significant health changes in his mother's SAIDIS condition. SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY f. Denied. Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge did not make any statement ATtORNEYS*AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA to Petitioner that he had made changes to Eleanor U. Coolidge's estate, and he did not advise Petitioner that she could do nothing about such fictitious changes, but he affirmatively, through counsel, advised Petitioner that he had no authority to make any such changes. Any averment to the contrary is made in bad faith; and g. Denied. Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge did everything practical to resolve the concerns which Petitioner expressed, but it is not believed that any amount of information provided to her would entirely allay her suspicions. 16. This paragraph expresses the intent of Petitioner in terms of procedural issues in this case, and requires no response. 17. After reasonable investigation Respondents do not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to Petitioner's allegation. By way of further answer, Respondents have no basis to disagree with Petitioner's verbal statement to them that the chance of obtaining any meaningful information through an autopsy would be "very remote". 18. After reasonable investigation, Respondents are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. 19. It is admitted that this is a quote from the said letter of Dr. Price, but not admitted that said conclusion is accurate and Respondents believe such statement must be read in the context of the letter as a whole. SAIDIS 20. It is admitted that this is a quote from the said letter of Dr. Kosofsky, but not SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ~ admitted that said conclusion is accurate and Respondents believe such 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA statement must be read in the context of the letter as a whole. 21. a. After reasonable investigation, Respondents are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further answer, Respondents have no basis to disagree with Petitioner's verbal statement to them that the chance of that obtaining any meaningful information through an autopsy would be "very remote". b. After reasonable investigation, Respondents are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. By way of further answer, Respondents have no basis to disagree with Petitioner's verbal statement to them that the chance of obtaining any meaningful information through an autopsy would be "very remote" 22. Admitted. Respondents were requested to provide permission for an autopsy of Eleanor U. Coolidge's brain upon the express representation that the reason for such an autopsy was entirely for diagnostic or health purposes. Respondents, desiring to prevent a fishing expedition to promote meritless litigation, proposed a stipulation to permit the autopsy on the conditions that such an autopsy would not be used for the purpose of litigation. Petitioner refused to agree to such terms. Only with the filing of this Petition did Petitioner acknowledge that she intended to use the results of such an autopsy for the purpose of litigation. 23. Admitted. By way of further answer, however, all parties have acknowledged that it was the desire of Eleanor U. Coolidge to be cremated. Respondents have SAIDIS fully cooperated with a delay of cremation for the purpose of this proceeding. SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ?ro~v~ 24. Denied. Petitioner would suffer no irreparable harm. 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA a. Ample evidence exists to establish that Eleanor U. Coolidge was competent for legal purposes on all relevant dates for purposes of this litigation; b. It is a belief that is averred by Respondents that the true purpose of the autopsy is not to seek medical information, but to promote meritless litigation. 25. Denied. Respondents do not believe that such medical information would be a benefit to them and to their children. 26. Denied. Sufficient evidence of Eleanor U. Coolidge's competence on all relevant dates is available and the autopsy would be unnecessary and intrusive to the family and against the express wishes of Eleanor U. Coolidge. 27. Denied. Such an autopsy would be intrusive and was contrary to the express desires of Eleanor U. Coolidge who requested prompt cremation. 28. Denied. Thomas E. Coolidge's conduct has in all respects been appropriate and is in no way actionable. 29. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no response or pleading is required. 30. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no response or pleading is required. 31. Admitted. By way of further answer, however, Respondents have fully cooperated in delaying the cremation until the Court can resolve this issue. SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY .ATtORNEYS,AT*LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA WHEREFORE, Respondent requests this Court to deny the request for Preliminary Injunction in the form of a temporary restraining order. Saidis, Shuff, Flower & Lindsay Ki~It~'S. Sohonage, Esquire for Attorney ID//77851 James D. Flower, Jr., Esquire Attorney ID//27742 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: 717.243.6222 Attorney for Respondents SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Arro~~ 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA VERIFICATION I, Philip Coolidge, the undersigned, hereby verify that the statements made in the Answer to the Petition for Preliminary Injunction, herein are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Philip Cooli/tge 6 SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA VERIFICATION I, Thomas E. Coolidge, the undersigned, hereby verify that the statements made in the Answer to the Petition for Preliminary Injunction, herein are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Thomas E. Coolidge SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A'I'FORNEYSsAT~ 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA