Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-09 (2) ~. IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MUMMA, deceased :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORP ' ~ m HANS COURT DIVISION s z,;=; `', N0.21-86-398 ~ c ~~ ~ ~~~ o ~ - .T7 AUDITOR'S INTERIM REPORT, Apri120, 2009 AND REQUEST FOIY'ORDERo ' ~ ~' w ; -f7 To the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr.: Your Honor has appointed me Auditor in the above captioned matter and chazged me with reviewing the existing file and a multitude of prehearing issues raised by the parties and to schedule and hold a hearing as soon as scheduling permitted. A three day hearing has been scheduled in this matter for April 21-23, 2009. This hearing was to be held in the second floor Courtroom of the Old Courthouse, but was moved by the Court Administrator's Office to the Jury Assembly Room, 4s' Floor of the Courthouse. On April 16, 2009, Dean Schwartz, by and through counsel, Richard E. Connell, Esquire, filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena served upon Dean Schwartz, Esquire to Attend and Testify at and during the scheduled Auditor's Hearing. The undersigned contacted Mr. Mumma and Mr. Connell by means of telephone conference to obtain their respective positions in the matter. Mr. Connell's position was stated in his Motion and he relied thereon. He also stated that Mr. Mumma had on more than one occasion scheduled then canceled depositions of Attorney Schwazz's in a sepazate case involving Mr. Mumma. (ROBERT MMUMMA II v. CRH INC PENNSY SUPPLY INC LISA MORGAN BARBARA McKIMMIE MUMMA LINDA MUMMA MORGAN LEWISAND BOCKIUS and STRADLEY RONAN STEVENS YOUNG (sic) docketed at No 195496 Civil Term Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas.) Attorney Schwartz is attorney with the law firm 1 t: ~' of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young located in Malvern, PA. Mr. Connelly represented Mr. Swaztz and his law firm did some legal work for the Executrices/Trustees sometime in the late 1980s and the early 1990s and has not represented them since that time. Mr. Schwartz also through affidavit represented that on April 1, 2009 had major foot surgery and as a result cannot drive, walk or beaz any weight on his foot. Mr. Swartz also advised Your Honor that he will not be able to drive until sometime in July 2009. Mr. Connell also complained that Mr. Mumma has not contacted Mr. Schwaztz directly or through counsel for a period of two years and the first communication was the receipt on April 10, 2009 of a subpoena delivered to Mr. Schwartz's firm directed to a Mr. Swartz. Mr. Mumma claimed that Mr. Schwart's oral testimony was being sought regazding the transfer of certain Estate assets and that the facts involved those facts set forth in a memo prepared by Mr. Schwartz and/or his firm. Mr. Mumma also stated Mr. Schwaztz would provide evidence regazding the delivery of stock certificate in a corporation named 999, Inc. Mr. Mumma in his answer/response related to the transfer of certain stock in 999, Inc. In Mr. Mumma's Answer it appears that on Mazch 19, 2009, Mr. Mumma had given advance notice to Morgan Lewis 8c Bockius, LLP, through Brady L. Green, Esquire, that Mr. Mumma intended to call Mr. Schwartz, but did not notify Mr. Schwartz nor his firm. Mr. Mumma's answer also stated that the witness is not being called to supply any documents, but only to give testimony. Mr. Mumma also stated in his answer that the witness would only need to be available to testify for one hour on any one of the three days of the scheduled hearing. This morning the undersigned spoke with the court administrator's office and was assured the hearing room would be equipped with a telephone with speaker phone capabilities. Thereafter, the undersigned held a second telephone conference with Mr. Mumma and Mr. 2 .. Connell were posed the question "if the court would deny the motion to quash the subpoena what dates and times could the witness be available to give testimony via telephone." The parties did not object to this proposed arraignment. Mr. Connell stated he would contact his client. Mr. Connell contacted the undersigned's office and stated he had attempted to contact Mr. Schwartz and he was unavailable, but that Mr. Connell would keep trying to reach Mr. Schwartz. I recommend that the Motion to Quash the Subpoenas be denied; however, that the witness be permitted to testify via telephone. 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, h D. Buc ~; Esquir Supreme Court D# 38444 1237 Holly Pike ' Cazlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaw(u,aol.com 3