Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-04 IN RE: ELEANOR U. 'IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF COOLIDGE, 'CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DECEASED. · ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ~:; · NO. 21-03-936 ,. · JURY TRIAL DEMANDED f ~7 ~ ANSWER TO ~ - PETITION FOR CITATION Respondents THOMAS E. COOLIDGE and PHILIP W. COOLIDGE, make the following response to the Petition for Citation of JULIA ELIZABETH COOLIDGE-STOLZ. 1. Admitted 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. Decedent's husband of some fifty years died in July of 2001. It is admitted that decedent in 2002, on three occasions of four to seven days each, voluntarily admitted herself to the Chambersburg Hospital Behavioral Health Unit for adjustment of medications for the treatment of depression, which resulted from the death of decedent's husband. It is SAIDIS denied that decedent ever entered the Green Ridge Village "nursing facility" or had a SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY level of care needs requiring nursing facility care. Decedent upon her third discharge ATtORNEYS.AT,LAW 26Carlisle,W' High pA$1reet in 2002, voluntarily elected to reside in Green Ridge Village "Assisted Living" until the stroke which led to her death. Mrs. Renea Kreamer, Administrator at Green Ridge Village Assisted Living, testified in a hearing before the Honorable J. Wesley Oler in March of 2004 that decedent's level of care needs were appropriate for her residency in assisted living. 5. Admitted in part and denied in part. In the summer of 2003, decedent's physical functioning had experienced a measure of decline. Denied to the extent that this averment suggests that decedent, on December 8, 2003, did not have testamentary capacity to instruct her attorney concerning her wishes for revision of her Will. By way of further answer, Dr. Herbert E. Myers, a psychiatrist with Philhaven Behavioral Healthcare Services, decedent's treating psychiatrist at Green Ridge Village, reviewed her mental state on December 8, 2003, and thereafter witnessed the execution of her Will. 6. Denied to the extent that this averment is intended to suggest that on December 8, 2003, decedent did not have testamentary capacity. It is admitted that Dr. J. Craig Jurgensen saw decedent on one occasion in April of 2003, and diagnosed her as having degenerative brain disease. By way of further answer, Dr. Jurgensen, based upon his examination and a C.T. scan available to him for review during the examination, expressed a belief that decedent's gradual deterioration in mental and motor function was caused by what could be technically referred to as degenerative brain disease. Dr. Jurgensen advised Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge $^IDI$ that the disease could have started, and gradual deterioration could have begun, as S HD'FF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ^rrORNEVS,^T.I~W early as some point in decedent's forties. 26 W. High Street c~r~s~e, ~^ 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that decedent's degenerative brain disease resulted in a measure of physical and mental functional deterioration, but denied that any such deterioration prevented her from having 2 testamentary capacity on any relevant date. To the extent that this allegation alleges a "weakened intellect", the averment sets forth a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it was entirely decedent's decision to change her Will, in response to her daughter's decision to drag her into Court to contest her mental competency and her ability to make decisions about her finances and her personal affairs. In fact, Respondent Philip W. Coolidge, with the support of Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge, suggested a particular change to decedent's Will, which would have given Respondent Philip W. Coolidge some latitude in determining how, at his death, remaining funds would be allocated among his children. Decedent considered this request but informed Robert M. Frey, Esquire, in the course of conveying her wish for a Will change that she rejected it. This supports Respondents' belief that on December 8, 2003 decedent was possessed of testamentary capacity. 8. Denied. When decedent appointed Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge as decedent's Attorney-in-Fact on December 20, 2002, she established boundaries for the duties which she wished him to perform with respect to her financial and personal affairs. Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge at all times respected the boundaries which were established by his Mother, Eleanor U. Coolidge. As the SAIDIS Attorney-in-Fact he handled day to day transactions for his Mother, but he continued to SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ^wOR~VS.^T.~W consult with her, and to defer to her, on major financial decisions, such as the decision 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA to sell her home and to sell personal property at auction, as well as any decisions relating to gifting. 3 9. Denied. As set forth above, Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge at all times respected the boundaries of the duties which his Mother assigned him in the conduct of her financial affairs. He performed routine financial duties for her convenience. He continued to consult with her and to defer to her on major financial decisions, such as the decision to sell her home, the decision to sell personal property at auction and on any decisions relating to gifting. While Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge as decedent's Attorney-In-Fact did not have any duty to advise Respondenl Philip W. Coolidge or Petitioner of decedent's financial and personal decisions Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge did, with decedent's knowledge and authorization communicate by letter on several occasions on such subjects with Respondent Philip W. Coolidge and Petitioner. On September 23, 2003 Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge wrote Respondent Philip W. Coolidge and Petitioner to update them on his progressing of decedent's wish to sell her home and distribute her remaining personal property. On October 7, 2003, Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge wrote Petitioner's then-attorney Jason Kutulakis, Esquire to respond to five information requests made by letter of September 30, 2003. Specifically, the letter of October 7, 2003, provides in 3ertinent part "Your next two requests [for a copy of Larry E. Foote's market value appraisal for decedent's home and a complete accounting of all the personal property $^IDI$ contained in the estate, including but not limited to the personal property remaining in SHIJFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY '.~O,:~S.^T.~.V decedent's home] seek information my mother considers private, and which she wants 26 W. High Streel c~r~is~c, ,^ to know she already has shared as broadly as she wishes. Moreover, my mother wants afl to know that she intends, for so long as she is able, to continue to decide for herself to whom and to what extent she wishes to share personal information. I will 4 continue to honor her wish that the privacy of her personal affairs be respected for so long as that remains her wish." (parenthetical language inserted in quote) This language was included in the letter at decedent's direction. Petitioner, until decedent's instruction to Green Ridge Village in November of 2003 to restrict Petitioner's access to decedent, which was testified to by Mrs. Renea Kreamer, Administrator at Green Ridge Village Assisted Living, in a hearing before the Honorable J. Wesley Oler in March of 2004, had unrestricted and unlimited access to decedent and could at any time have asked decedent for any information she desired. 10. Denied. When decedent appointed Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge as her Attorney-In-Fact, on December 20, 2002, she established the boundaries of his duties, and he always respected those boundaries. Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge handled routine financial transactions for his Mother's convenience, but he at all times consulted with her, and deferred to her, on all major financial decisions, such as decisions to sell her house, to sell certain personal property at auction and decisions relating to gifting. It is believed that she trusted Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge to handle the routine financial transactions which she assigned to him. 11. Denied. Robed M. Frey, Esquire, was personal counsel to SA[DIS decedent, and before decedent's husband's death, to decedent's husband, for many SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY A~O*~YS,^T.U¢ years. Decedent retained Robert M. Frey, Esquire, to draft the December 8, 2003, Will 26 W, High Street c~r~,~,^ and to draft a Power of Attorney dated December 20, 2002. Respondents never retained any attorney for decedent. 5 12. Denied. On November 17, 2003, en route to Green Ridge Village after a hearing in the chambers of the Honorable J. Wesley ©ler, on Petitioner's Petition for appointment of an emergency guardian, decedent instructed her son, Respondent Philip W. Coolidge, to request that her attorney, Robert M. Frey, Esquire, visit her at Green Ridge Village. Neither Respondent requested decedent to redraft her Will. 13. Denied as stated. Respondent Thomas E. Coolidge visited with his Mother at her nursing home once or twice a week during the last year of her life. Respondent Philip W. Coolidge, who lived in Massachusetts, visited his mother several times during her final year. Petitioner also had the right to visit with her Mother as often as she wished, until her Mother's instructions to Green Ridge Village in November of 2003. 14. Admitted. 15. Denied. This averment sets forth a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 16. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that decedent Eleanor U. Coolidge was shocked, angered and appalled that her daughter, Petitioner, Julia Elizabeth Coolidge-Stolz, would drag her into Court to contest her mental SA[DIS competency and her ability to make decisions about her finances and personal affairs, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ^~'OR~s.~T.~W and that decedent Eleanor U. Coolidge was, as a result, moved to direct her long time 26 W. High Street C~r,s~,~^ attorney, Robert M. Frey, Esquire, to revise her Will and exclude Petitioner and Petitioner's son as a beneficiary. By way of further answer, Respondents Thomas E. 6 Coolidge and Philip W. Coolidge are income beneficiaries only, with the residuary at the death of each income beneficiary to be paid to his surviving children. 17. Denied. It was never decedent's intent to give any portion of her estate outright to any of her children, including Petitioner. Prior to Petitioner's filing of the petition that resulted in a hearing in November of 2003, it was always decedent's intent that each of her children would be an income beneficiary of one-third of the estate, subject to invasion of principal for education of grandchildren of Eleanor U. Coolidge, and that the share of each child would be distributed to said child's children upon the income beneficiary's death. LACK OF TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY 18. Respondents incorporate herein by reference their responses to paragraphs 1 through 17 of the Petition. 19. Denied. On December 8, 2003, the date she signed her Will, decedent was of personal sound mind and was possessed of testamentary capacity. A. Denied. Decedent's voluntary admission in 2002 on three occasions of four to seven days each to the Chambersburg Hospital Behavioral Health Unit, was for adjustment of medications for the treatment of depression arising from SAIl)IS the death, in July of 2001, of her husband of over fifty years. Decedent never entered SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ^rro~s.^'r.~,w the Green Ridge Nursing Facility nor had a level of care needs requiring nursing 26 W. High Street c~.~,.^ facility care. Upon her third discharge in 2002, she decided to live in Green Ridge Village Assisted Living. Mrs. Renea Kreamer, Administrator at Green Ridge Village Assisted Living, testified in a hearing before the Honorable J. Wesley Oler in March of 7 2004 that decedent's level of care needs were appropriate for her residency in assisted living. B. Denied. Specifically on December 8, 2003, decedent was orientated as to time, person and place, and had testamentary capacity. By way of further answer, at the hearing on November 17, 2003, in Judge Oler's chambers, decedent responded to over eighty questions on a wide range of subjects, which included those of time, person and place. C. Denied as stated. Respondents do not believe that decedent suffered all of the symptoms set forth in this averment and note that decedent's treating physicians never stated to Respondents that decedent suffered all the symptoms set forth in this averment. Respondents believe that the recurrent depression that their Mother suffered was more directly related to her loss of her husband of over fifty years, than to her degenerative condition. By way of further answer, decedent had testamentary capacity on December 8, 2003. 20. Denied. On December 8, 2003, decedent had knowledge of the nature and extent of her property, certainly knew who her children were, the natural objects of her bounty, and possessed testamentary capacity. She demonstrated this in Judge Oler's chambers at the hearing on November 17, 2003, and again at the SAIDIS execution of her Will before Robert M. Frey, Esquire, and Dr. Herbert E. Myers. SH1JFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. Iligh Slreet Carlisle, PA 8 UNDUE INFLUENCE 21. Respondents incorporate herein by reference the responses to paragraphs 1 through 20 and this Petition. 22. Denied. Eleanor U. Coolidge was shocked, angered and appalled that her daughter, Petitioner, Julia Elizabeth Coolidge-Stolz, would drag her into Court to contest her mental competency and her ability to make decisions about her finances and personal affairs, and decedent Eleanor U. Coolidge was, as a result, moved to direct her long time attorney, Robert M. Frey, Esquire, to revise her Will and exclude her as a beneficiary. The Will was not "procured" by either Respondent to any degree and Respondents find outrageous any allegation of undue influence. No influence, let alone undue influence or exploitation, was performed by either Respondent. The averment that one or both Respondents were in a confidential relationship to the decedent is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, it is denied that either Respondent was in a confidential relationship to decedent. By way of further answer, the Will dated December 8, 2003, does not give decedent's estate entirely to Respondents. Their interest is limited to an interest as income beneficiaries as set forth above. Prior to Petitioner's filing of the petition $^]D]$ that resulted in a hearing in November of 2003, decedent's intent for many years had SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ~oR~YS.^T.~w been that her three children would be income beneficiaries for the term of their lifetime, 26 W, High Street c~r]~c,P^ subject to the invasion of principal for education of the grandchildren of Eleanor U. Coolidge, residuary to be paid to the children of the income beneficiary at his or her death. 9 23. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Respondents request that the Court deny the requests in Petitioner's Petition for Citation. Respondents request that Petitioner's prayer to the Court that this matter be submitted to a jury be denied. A jury trial in such cases is governed by 20 P.S. §777(c), which reposes discretion in the Court as to whether a jury should be impaneled to hear these cases. Respondents submit that the issues involved in this case are complex and confusing and would be more efficiently tried before the Court without a jury. SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY Attorneys for Respondents ,] James D. Flawer, Jr., Esquire i 26 West High Street ', Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 I.D. # 27742 SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W, High Streel Carlisle, PA 10 VERIFICATION J, 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 unswom falsification to authorities. Date: ~ ~- C~.~ ~ Thomas E. Ooolidge~ SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORNEYS°AT.LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA