Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-09MAR 2 7 YOOA~ IN RE: WILLIAM I. EVANS WILL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ESTATE NO. 21-08-979 RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO CITATION SUR APPEAL FROM DECREE OF PROBATE NOW COMES Respondent Irma Davenport, by and through her counsel, Mark A. Mateya, Esquire, and in response avers the following: ~ _. _:, PARTIES _... ~ , ~ -~ ~ ; ~~ ~ d f" t 1 ~`j'~'ta ~ ... ~~ 1 Admitted ~ ~ L \ l - r•V C., " i -A - . . _y. ~~ , .:.. ~,, t . , , . 2 ~ Admitted. I.__~ R""~. 4 ,. ~ ~_ 7 ~ . r _..... I ..~, _ :. ~_,~ -_~ -' . _ -.,,. ~:.' 3. Admitted. =~ . © _~ , rv 4. Admitted. ... 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. It is admitted that Respondent is a party of interest in this matter. It is admitted that Petitioner is a party in interest inasmuch as Petitioner is one of the natural objects of the decedent's affections. JURISDICTION 8. Admitted. BACKGROUND 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted to the best of the Executrix' knowledge. C» 1 r 11. Admitted. 12. Denied as stated. Executrix is unaware of what Petitioner means by the phrase "the relevant time period." By way of a more complete answer, petitioner lived in Carlisle, Pa from April 1972 for an unknown number of years while his father, the decedent lived in Carlisle. 13. Denied. Respondent avers and therefore believes that petitioner and decedent had several sharp disagreements and had clashed over serveral large issues, including the real property which decedent owned in Virginia; petitioner visited decedent infrequently. Petitioner did not invite decedent to his daughter's wedding. Prior to the disagreement over the property, decedent helped petitioner become established financially. 14. Denied as stated. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Proof thereof is demanded. 15. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 16. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 17. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 18. Denied as stated. Decedent's divorce from Gisela was filed on or about June 11, 2002. The divorce decree was entered May 31, 2005. 19. Denied as stated. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Proof thereof is demanded. 20. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the 2 means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 21. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that decedent and his wife's marital estate were divided based upon the Divorce Code of Pennsylvania. It is denied that he was forced to so divide the marital estate but, rather, that he followed the dictates of the law and of the Court. 22. Denied as stated. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Proof thereof is demanded. 23. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 24. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 25. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 26. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 27. Denied as stated. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, decedent never changed the locks of his house after his divorce. 28. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. By way of father answer, respondent is not aware of decedent ever threatening anyone. 29. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the 3 means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 30. Denied as stated. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Proof thereof is demanded. 31. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 32. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 33. Denied as stated. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Proof thereof is demanded. 34. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 35. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 36. Denied. By way of further answer, discussions suggested by Petitioner was not party to any such discussions. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Proof thereof is demanded. 37. Denied. Respondent is the sister of decedent and always enjoyed a close relationship with decedent. Respondent did not express an interest in learning about decedent's financial situation or daily affairs. 38. Denied. Respondent did not ask petitioner about decedent's finances. 39. Denied. Respondent did not ask petitioner anything concerning decedent's estate plans. 4 40. Denied as stated. It is denied that decedent had a volatile mental state. Strict proof is demanded thereof. By way of further answer, decedent and his sister, respondent, always enjoyed a close relationship. 41. Denied as stated. Petitioner's relationship with decedent was damaged after petitioner recieved real property in Virginia from the decedent with a promise to relinquish the property back to decedent upon request' and thereafter refused to do so, prompting decedent's and petitioner's relationship to rapidly deteriorate. 42. Denied as stated. Respondent borrowed five hundred dollars from decedent in 1962 and two thousand dollars from decedent in 2002. Both amounts were repaid prior to date of death of decedent. 43. Denied as stated. Respondent visited decedent regularly, but less frequently toward the end of his life. 44. Admitted. 45. Denied in part and admitted in part. Based on discussion with the respondent, it is denied that decedent had forgotten what property he owned or purchased; decedent was well aware of what assets he owned, including real property. It is admitted that decedent purchased real property in Virginia and placed it in petitioner's name. Petitioner promised to transfer the property back to decedent upon request. Upon refusal of petitioner to transfer the property back to decedent, decedent was upset. Petitioner, in turn, did not invite decedent to petitioner's daugher's wedding because of the rift between petitioner and decedent. 1The property referred to in Virginia included a vintage, country corner store which decedent planned to restore in his retirement. Petitioner, after refusing to relinquish the property back to his father as promised, burned the building to the ground to clear the lot. 5 46. Denied as stated. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Proof thereof is demanded. 47. It is admitted that decedent executed a will on April 14, 2006, with the assistance of Attorney Jane Adams. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. 48. Admitted. 49. Admitted. 50. Admitted. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 51. Admitted. 52. Admitted. COUNT I -LACK OF TESTAMENTARY CAPACITY 53. No response is required. 54. Admitted. 55. It is admitted that decedent was never ajudicated as incapacitated. It is denied that decedent exhibited signs of severe mental illness. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Strict proof is demanded thereof. 56. Denied. By way of further answer, no autopsy was ever performed. See Exhibit A, attached. 57. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the degree that this averment requires an answer it is denied. Strict proof is demanded thereof. 6 COUNT II -UNDUE INFLUENCE 58. No response required. 59. Denied as stated. Respondent and decedent always enjoyed a close relationship. Whether decedent and respondent's relationship raised to the level of a confidential relationship is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 60. Admitted. 61. Denied. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Proof thereof is demanded. 62. Denied. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Proof thereof is demanded. 63. Denied. After reasonable investigation Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment. Proof thereof is demanded. 64. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. Respondent has never seen a will, save the one which has been probated by the Register of Wills of Cumberland County. 65. Denied as stated. Respondent is without such knowledge or information because the means of proof are within the exclusive control of petitioner. Proof thereof is demanded. Respondent has never seen a will, save the one which has been probated by the Register of Wills of Cumberland County. 7 66. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the degree that this averment requires an answer it is denied. Strict proof is demanded thereof. WHEREFORE, respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Court dismiss petitioner's citation, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Mark A. Mateya, Esq re Attorney ID No. 78931 P.O. Box 127 Boiling Springs, PA 17007 (717) 241-6500 (717) 241-3 099 Fax Counsel for Respondent Date: ZCQ D ~ 8 VERIFICATION I, Irma Davenport, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Irma Davenport DATED: b 3 -l g -d ~f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Mateya, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document on the following person(s) by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail, by way of United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania addressed to: Ronald L Finck Esquire Mette Evans & Woodside PO Box 5950 Harrisburg PA 17110 Dated: 3 ~ Q 7 Mateya Law Firm 1~ Mark A. Mateya, Es uire PO Box 127 Boiling Springs, PA 17007 (717) 241-6500 (717) 241-3099 Fax