Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-09 (2)IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MUMMA, deceased :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ~..~ N0.21-86-398 c--~ c--, '-~' .~ _ _..~ - ,__ ( . .....~ ~ _.~-s :_~ ....._ AUDITOR S INTERIM REPORT, October 19, 2009 AND REQUEST FO~I~~~tDF~ ., _. ..__.. ~`~ *: "' R '`~ .~~ _. To 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 and to schedule and hold a hearing as soon as scheduling permitted. Ten days of hearings have been held and five days of hearings are scheduled for October 26-30, 2009. On September 11, 2009 Objector, Robert M. Mumma II, filed a Motion to Compel Compliance with the Auditor's Ruling Regarding the Rule 243.3 Notice to Produce Issued to the Executors/Trustees in this matter. Thereafter on September 16, 2009, Your Honor, ordered a Rule be issued upon all interested parties to show cause why the relief should not be granted. Thereafter the parties responded. Prior to the August 3, 2009 auditor's hearing, Mr. Mumma served a Notice to produce on one of the Executrices/Trustees, Lisa Morgan. These documents included: A. A copy of the post-nuptual agreement between Barbara McKimmie Mumma and the Decedent. B. A copy of the Union Quarries consent agreement with the U.S. Justice Department. C. A copy of any correspondence between Mr. Boswell and the Decedent regarding High-Spec, Inc. 1 D. A copy of any correspondence between Mr. Boswell, the Co-Executrices/Co- Trustees, and David Brown regarding High Spec, Inc. and Dauphin Deposit purchase of the Dauphin Building. E. A copy of the Dauphin Deposit loan documents pertaining to the 1985 transaction of approximately $184,13 5.34 between High Spec, Inc. and Kim Company. During the August 3, 2009 hearing the parties argued the merits of the Notice undersigned directed the Executrice/Trustee to produce the some of the requested documents, but only if the Estate had possession of the documents. The undersigned informed the Estate that they would have two months until the next hearing dates to produce any documents which were found to be in the Estate's possession (See attached Notes of Testimony pages 1483-1506). On September 30, 2009, the Executrices/Trustees filed a response to Mr. Mumma's Motion to Compel verifying that after a reasonable search that the documents requested by Mr. Mumma were not in the possession of the Estate or that any such documents could be located. In so much as the undersigned had given the Estate two months to attempt to locate the documents desired by Mr. Mumma, even though the Estate argued that some of the documents may not have existed, the if they existed they were formerly provided or made available to Mr. Mumma during discovery, or not in its possession or control; and given the Estate has verified that it has made a good faith effort to determine whether it had the requested documents, the undersigned believes the Estate has not violate the undersigns former ruling. Thus, I recommend that the Motion to Compel Compliance with the Auditor's Ruling Regarding the Rule 243.3 Notice to Produce Issued to the Executors/Trustees be denied. 2 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 h D. uckle squire, Auditor Supreme Court ID# 3 8444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaw(u~,aol.com 3 1483 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 office received recently on a request to the executrices? MR. MTJMMA: Correct . THE AUDITOR: And when did you send that out? MR. MUMMA: It's dated July 28. I'm sorry for the late sending of it, but I believe we requested all of this information back in the last hearing. MR. GREEN: I'm not aware of any of that, but I certainly don't recall having been requested to provide a copy, for example, of the Union Quarries consent agreement to the Justice Department. I don't know what its relevance possibly could be. THE AUDITOR: Again, I saw that as well, and didn't you obtain these items during discovery? MR. MUMMA: No. There was no discovery. They have at all times refused to provide any documents to anybody. There was no correspondence. None of the Union Quarries stuff has ever been determined. MR. GREEN: This matter -- I mean, when he talks about the consent decree, this goes back years before Mr. Mumma's death. That's why I question the relevance. I will say that I have no awareness and I don't believe there ever was a postnuptial agreement 1484 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 between Mrs. Mumma and her husband. MR. MUMMA: The postnuptial is specifically listed in their own billing records. THE AUDITOR: Did you request a postnuptial agreement during discovery? MR. MUMMA: No, not during discovery because we didn't know about it. Remember, the postnuptial agreement first surfaced when they turned over the last batch of billing records, the first time it was ever mentioned to anybody. It was in that packet of the first 15 pages of redacted billing records that they turned over. MR. GREEN: We have produced, Mr. Buckley, the documentation which shows that postnuptial agreements were discussed and evaluated with respect to the children of Robert Mumma after his death. The billing records that Mr. Mumma is talking about don't say it's a postnuptial agreement between Mrs. Mumma and her husband. That's what he wants to believe it says, but it doesn't say that. The billing records don't say that. We have produced those documents which pertain to the discussion of postnuptial agreements that were part of the estate planning and estate administration following Mr. Mumma's death. 1485 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's what we have, and that's what the record says. MR. MtJMMA: That's not fair because we don't know that. That's his representation. He hasn't put anybody on to say what they were reviewing. That's Mr. Green's representation. I want to see the documents they're claiming they were reviewing on that day -- that's all I'm asking for -- rather than have him testify to something he knows nothing about other than, oh, well, I' 11 just tell him what was these other documents. THE AUDITOR: Well, again, Mr. Mumma, I looked at the billing records as well, and those billing records don't say anything was prepared. You're going on a -- you're asking them if -- MR. MLTMMA: Let's see what they were studying; that's all I'm asking. THE AUDITOR: Well, you're asking them to produce something that you don't even know exists. MR. MUMMA: It says it exists. It said they were billing the Estate for reviewing a postnuptial agreement. Where is it? THE AUDITOR: Copy of Union Quarries consent agreement with Justice Department. What does that have to do with this matter? 1486 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. MLTMMA: Well, don' t you think that would have a lot to do with valuation of the Union Quarry stock? THE AUDITOR: I'm saying, what relevance do you have, not what do I think. What does that have to do with your matter? MR. MUMMA: Right there. That consent agreement could have all kinds of implications for Union Quarries, Kim Company and the shareholders. THE AUDITOR: And why would you not have requested that during discovery? MR. MLTMMA: Didn't know about it. THE AUDITOR: You did not know about it? MR. MUMMA: I found out about it reading a footnote in an accountant's report. THE AUDITOR: You're saying when you were with -- MR. MUMMA: I was involved in that lawsuit and I didn't know about the consent agreement. I was sued as a director of Union Quarries, and I was not told that they had entered into a consent agreement. THE AUDITOR: And when was this? MR. MLTMMA: That was in 1982. THE AUDITOR: Again, I don't see any relevance. 1487 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MUMMA: That's the relevance right there; concealment. THE AUDITOR: Okay. Your father concealed this -- are you saying your father concealed that from you? MR. MtTMMA: He and Max Hempt concealed that they had entered into a consent decree. A consent decree implies something was done wrong and that they have agreed with the government to take certain steps, and I want to know what that was. THE AUDITOR: Again, sir, what does that have to do with the executors in this case, something that your father failed to tell you in 1982, what does that have to do with anything? MR. MLTMMA: Depends on the terms of the agreement. THE AUDITOR: You tell me what that has -- MR. MLTMMA: What if that agreement says that they're not allowed to -- THE AUDITOR: It doesn't matter what it says. Why is that -- MR. MLTMMA: Because it goes to the value of the stock of Union Quarries. THE AUDITOR: And why would that have any effect on this matter? 1488 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. MtFMMA: Because it obviously restricts what Union Quarries was doing. THE AUDITOR: Again, what does that have to do with this case? MR. MLJMMA: Because -- I hate to get upset. But, you know, it's so clear it has everything to do with it. What if it says Union Quarries is going to go out of business or going to be sold or going to pay half-a-million-dollar fine over a certain period of time? THE AUDITOR: And? MR. MUMMA: That affects the value of Union Quarry stock. THE AUDITOR: How does that affect it? MR. MUMNIA: Well, if they got a $500, 000 fine that they have to pay the United States Government, that would be 500,000 diminution to the value of the stock in Union Quarries. THE AUDITOR: In 1982. What does that have to do with anything -- MR. MLTMMA: Maybe it's payable in the future. THE AUDITOR: What does that have to do with anything -- MR . MLTMMA It has to do with the 1489 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 value -- again, this is absurd. THE AUDITOR: Sir, you're the one bringing this up. MR. MUMMA: Mr. Buckley, you know, you're wasting my time and everybody else's time. It's absurd to believe that a consent agreement has nothing to do with the value of the underlying corporation. Even my father agreed to pay the fine. We don't know what it says. They don't want anybody to see it, though. They've been hiding it for all these years and don't want anybody to see this. Another thing is, if there is an admission, if there is -- THE AUDITOR: Mr. Mumma, stop right there. MR. MLTMMA: Excuse me -- THE AUDITOR: No. You stop right there. You stop. You are representing yourself in front of me, okay? You don't have to walk around. You're here. You answer my questions. You don't have to act like that, okay? Just calm down. MR. MLTMMA: No. The record that you're trying to promote here is the one that you all could match the decision that you and Judge Oler have already decided. That's all it is. Anything that goes into the record that's against that decision is 1490 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 not going to be allowed. It's clear to me that a consent decree on a corporation that's making $300,000,000 a year is an important issue. And it's also clear to me that the fact that they were engaged in some kind of an illegal activity -- well, it was an illegal activity or the U.S. Department of Justice wouldn't have been involved. THE AUDITOR: Again, sir -- MR. MtTMMA: That they were engaged in illegal activity that caused me to be drawn into a anti-trust suit that cost me over $750,000 individually, much less what it cost the other shareholders of Union Quarries is an important event. THE AUDITOR: Mr. Mumma, are you saying that you had an attorney and you were incurring costs during this thing with the Department of Justice yet you knew nothing about it? MR. MtTMMA: There was an anti-trust suit, a civil action brought by RSE, River Sons Enterprises. It was held in front of Sylvia Rambo. It took eight months to try the case, and the procedure lasted from 1977 to 1982. Because I was a director of Union Quarries, I was brought into that action, and it cost me over $750,000 in legal fees alone to defend myself. 1491 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: Now, and you're saying, you're representing to me that your attorneys never gave you copies of any documents that you paid $750,000 for representation? MR. MUMMA: I never said my attorneys never gave me any copies of any documents. THE AUDITOR: So you don't have a copy of this consent decree? MR. MtTMMA: I wasn't even aware of the consent agreement. And I not only don't have a copy of it, I didn't even know about it. THE AUDITOR: You're saying you were a named person and the Federal Court didn't give you a copy of a consent decree? MR. MUNIl~IA: That's exactly what I'm saying. And not only that, we have to make a decision -- THE AUDITOR: Who were your attorneys, sir? MR. MLTMMA: William D. Boswell and Richard Franch (phonetic) . THE AUDITOR: And did you seek a copy of this from your attorneys? MR. MLTMMA: I have yet to see it. THE AUDITOR: No. Did you see it? Did you ask them for a copy of it? MR. MLTMMA: I didn't. I'm sorry, but I 14 92 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 just said that five times; I didn't know about it. MR. GREEN: But even to back up, I mean, clearly it's entirely hypothetical this has anything to do with anything. There's no evidence that the executrices or any advisers, that this factored into any decision-making, that"it played any role. Mr. Mumma's extremely vague about what footnote he saw this reference in or when the document that he's referring to came into his possession. And none of it could possibly tie to the administration of the Estate which didn't occur until years after the events that he's describing. MR. MUMMA: That's not true. It could very much be the whole reason that they decided to sell the companies because they were guilty of illegal activity. I mean, once they sign that consent decree, that opens up a Pandora's box where anybody else that may have been in a position to file a suit against the corporation or the Estate for their actions. MR. GREEN: Well, I'll make it simple: Union Quarries has never been sold so it couldn't have been a motive to sell the Union Quarries stock. Union Quarries wasn't sold to CRH, so I don't understand how that this has anything to do with anything. It 1493 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 couldn't have been a motive to sell the business because it wasn't among the assets that were sold. THE AUDITOR: Ms. Mumma? MS. MUMMA: Mr. Buckley, my Union Quarries stock, I was told by Morgan Lewis, had to go into a block of stock that would be controlled by the Estate. Morgan Lewis presented to me that I needed to move my stock. So I'm kind of -= I mean, this is a first time I've heard this, but I'm kind of concurring as a stockholder that if I was given information by Morgan Lewis advised to do something -- THE AUDITOR: Again, I don't know what -- that's testimony. MS . MLTMMA : I' m s o r r y. THE AUDITOR: That's okay. I'll reserve that. MS. MUMMA: But I was a shareholder. I no longer am. The Estate took my stock. THE AUDITOR: Next thing, Mr. Mumma, you want is a copy of correspondence between Mr. Boswell and the decedent regarding High-Spec, Inc. Again, why would you not have gotten that during any discovery and then made a motion relative to that during your discovery? 1494 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: I made a motion in front of Taylor Andrews. He never responded to the motion. Those motions were turned over to you for your decision. THE AUDITOR: Which motion was that, sir? MR. GREEN: I would just note that these High-Spec documents are being sought in connection with Mr. Mumma's ongoing litigation in Florida with High-Spec, the ongoing shareholders' derivative action? They're also the subject of a federal action he filed before Judge Rambo in which Judge Rambo has now ruled. I mean, this is just Judge Rambo says you can't get it so you come here and ask for it. I don't know how we can possibly respond to these -- MR. MtTMMA: I don't know what he's talking about when he says Judge Rambo. MR. GREEN: I'm sorry. The High-Spec is the Florida action. THE AUDITOR: Is this the case that was down in Florida that the Florida courts -- MR. MUMMA: It's a case that's right here too in front of you. THE AUDITOR: Well, no. Is this the case that the Florida courts .ruled upon, you appealed it up 1495 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 they made a ruling on that? MR. MtTMMA: The only ruling that they made was I asked for an injunction to keep them from claiming that they were shareholders until this Court made its decision on the probate. Of course, they spun that all around to, well, we made a filing that said this is the only court of jurisdiction. And the Superior Court said, no, that's not true, it could be another court. But this is the court they chose, probate court; they put the High-Spec stock in for probate here. That's what the testimony of Joc O'Connor was; this is the court that has jurisdiction to decide who owns the High-Spec stock. MR. GREEN: Mr. Mumma also has a lawsuit on that topic that's pending in this court or up at the Superior Court. I don't know the exact status of it because our firm hasn't been involved in it. But the whole High-Spec, the shareholders' agreement, the inner-relationship with the Florida litigation has been to the Superior Court. It's another example of we just never make any progress because we keep arguing the same issues over and over again. MR. MLTMMA: Mr. Buckley, the High-Spec 1496 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 is clearly listed as an asset of this estate. It's listed in the inventory. I'm saying it doesn't belong in that inventory. '1'H~ AUDITOR: Is there correspondence between Boswell and the decedent regarding High-Spec, Inc.? MR. MUMMA: Yes; from his billing records there's substantial correspondence. MR. GREEN: I have no idea whether that's true. MR. MLTMMA: He sent the shareholders' agreement to my father. MR. GREEN: And he also executed an affidavit which Mr. Mumma showed his expert that said, from Mr. Boswell, that the agreement had never been signed, which is contrary to the argument that Mr. Mumma continues to make. MR. MITMMA: Mr. Boswell wouldn't know whether or not my father and I signed the agreement in the vault at Dauphin Deposit Bank. He wouldn't know that. THE AUDITOR: Again, does this go back to that agreement that you do or don't have? MR. MUNIl~IA: I don't have it. They stole it. 1497 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: Well, I understand you're saying that someone, that it doesn't exist now. Are you going to get some evidence on the record regarding this information rather than argument? I mean, you argue things, but I have not seen any evidence. MR. MLTMMA: That's the whole purpose of this. You're asking me to produce evidence that my father received a shareholders' agreement from William D. Boswell. THE AUDITOR: No. Yeah, that's your claim that he did do it, so where's the evidence that he did MR. MUMMA: Yeah. And then when I say if Mr. Boswell sent him this correspondence, I need to see that correspondence, I want to see that correspondence file, they say, hey, if we can keep him from getting to the file, then he won't have the evidence to put in front of the Court. That's why they don't want to see any of this. MR. GREEN: I'm so hard-pressed to understand why in litigation among the shareholders of this corporation in Florida since 1989 this hasn't been requested, decided, or why this isn't res judicata as a matter of -- I mean, if it was an issue in the Florida case, how are we -- 1498 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. MLTMMA: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. This man right over here, Joc O'Connor, testified he was running this estate, he testified that the jurisdiction is in this court right here. THE AUDITOR: I'm just asking you -- I don't care what Mr. O'Connor -- do you want to come back up here to hear me? MR . MtTMMA : I j u s t want - - THE AUDITOR: I don't care what he said there; that doesn't matter. My question to you is, in of this other litigation that you had, did you not request it and get this information from Mr. Boswell? MR. MLTMMA: My attorney, my attorney and Mr. Boswell were in the courthouse in Florida, and the attorney, in the opening arguments somewhere in the beginning of this trial, said, Your Honor, there's a shareholders' agreement. Their attorney got up and objected to any evidence being put on about a shareholders' agreement. And the judge in Florida said, we're not here to hear that, that's not part of this case and I'm not going to hear it. THE AUDITOR: I'm going to stop you right there. Refresh my recollection as to why the existence of that agreement is important to me. 1499 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: Because that agreement says upon his death, my father had to put, it was a put agreement, that if a shareholder died, they had to put their stock back to the corporation. THE AUDITOR: Okay. And you signed that? MR . MUNIl~IA : Yes . THE AUDITOR: Where's your copy? MR. MtTMMA: In the safety deposit box. There was only one signed copy. THE AUDITOR: Okay. That's your -- then we're back to this agreement that may or may not have existed. MR. MUMMA: Well, we clearly have -- THE AUDITOR: Okay. Here's what I'm going to say -- MR. MUMMA: There's no question the agreement -- THE AUDITOR: I've heard enough. MR. MUMMA: They'll stipulate the agreement existed. Whether it was signed or not is their issue. THE AUDITOR: Are you finished speaking, sir? May I speak? MR. MUNlNIA: Certainly. THE AUDITOR: Thank you. Okay. On the correspondence between Boswell and decedent, in so 1500 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 much as you have the copies, I want them, okay, on the High-Spec. I want to see if any of those documents say, Dear Mr. Mumma, Dear Client, enclosed is a copy of the agreement you requested me to draft, please execute the same, whatever, because it would -- I mean, if he did do that, I want it if you have them. MR. GREEN: All we can do is look. MR. MLTMMA: What about the other correspondence? THE AUDITOR: Other correspondence for what, sir? MR. MtTMMA: There are letters from Boswell directly to my father that I was not copied on regarding High-Spec. THE AUDITOR: I thought the agreement was what you were after. MR. MLTMMA: No. I'm saying all correspondence regarding High-Spec. THE AUDITOR: For what purpose before me? I mean, I understand you might want that for other purposes, but I don't see what that has to do with our case. MR. MUMMA: You know, I think I'm entitled to it as a beneficiary of the Estate. THE AUDITOR: But you're -- that was 1501 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 between -- I don't think that has anything to do with the Estate because those are documents between your dad, when he was living, and his attorney. If the Estate has it, they have it; if they don't have it, they don't have it. MR . MUN.~IA: Mr . Boswell was also my attorney. He was the corporate attorney. THE AUDITOR: That's something you take up with Mr. Boswell. MR. MUMMA: Mr. Boswel l's dead. MR. GREEN: Mr. Mumma deposed Mr. Boswell numerous times. THE AUDITOR: All I'm saying is if you have it, I want to see it, correspondence between Mr. Boswell and the coexecutors of the Estate and Mr. Brown regarding High-Spec and Dauphin Deposit, purchase of Dauphin Deposit building, and why haven't we exchanged those before; if they exist, why haven't they been given. MR. GREEN: I don't know that they haven't. I don't know if they exist. I mean, I guess I'm somewhat at a loss when these things come up because we have produced well over a hundred thousand pages of documents. So it's a little hard to stand here and then try to explain what was and wasn't produced. 1502 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 We did make a number of objections and so forth. I mean, if you believe that this is something we should produce, all we can do is take a look and see what we find. THE AUDITOR: Are you stating, Mr. Mumma, these were not in all the things that they produced before? MR. MLTMMA: No, they were not . THE AUDITOR: And can you identify them with specificity as to what you need, I mean, so they can find -- MR. MtTMM~: I don't know specifically what letters or what those letters said to Mr. Boswell. THE AUDITOR: But there were letters between Mr. Boswell and the executrices? MR. MUMMA: Yes. THE AUDITOR: And Mr. Brown? MR . MUI~~ : Yes . THE AUDITOR: How do you know they exist? MR. MLTMMA: From Mr. Boswell's billing records and from conversations I had with Mr. Boswell. Mr. Boswell, on behalf of High-Spec, sought to enforce the terms of the shareholders' agreement, which is a very important point because Judge Guido, not knowing that, ruled that I had waived my ability to enforce 1503 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 shareholders' agreement. THE AUDITOR: And what's the copy of the Dauphin Deposit loan documents, what's that have to do with -- MR. MtTMMA: Because I went to Dauphin Deposit Bank and I borrowed the $184,000 that Kim Company used to benefit High-Spec, and Kim Company received a note for $184,000 in exchange for the Rax Roast Beef property. THE AUDITOR: Okay. And why don't you have the copies of those documents then if it was your loan? Where are your copies? MR. MtTMMA: It was Kim Company's loan. I went on behalf of Kim Company as a vice president. THE AUDITOR: And where are your copies? MR. MLIMMA: They're Kim Company's copies. MR. GREEN: This was the subject of the lawsuit before Judge Rambo where Mr. Mumma sought from Kim Company these documents. And an Order has been entered, as far as I know, on that. MR. MUMMA: And they haven't complied with it. I mean, there was an Order entered to turn over all this information, and they have not complied with it. THE AUDITOR: What does that have to do 1504 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 this? What does that have to do with what's before me right now? MR. MLTMMA: Because they're trying to steal that money from Kim Company. MR. GREEN: A lot of theys in this, not many names attached to this. MR. MUMMA: The Estate is stealing the money from Kim Company. MR. GREEN: But your father stole it first. MR. MLTMMA: Where did that -- I never made that statement. When did I make that statement? Right there; I never made that statement. THE AUDITOR: Again, please, Mr. Mumma. MR. MLTMMA: Don't you ever call my father a thief, Mr. Green. THE AUDITOR: Again, this is a 1985 action prior to your father's passing, correct? These are documents that you -- are these documents that you state were in a lockbox, again? Is this part of the lockbox? MR. MUNIMA: No. These are documents that I went to the Dauphin Deposit Bank, saw Buff Holly, he had these loan documents, it was demand notes and loan documents. I signed them, he gave Kim Company a check for $184,000, I took the check and the documents back 1505 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 the office of Kim Company, and the Rax Roast Beef property was transferred to High-Spec. THE AUDITOR: Okay. MR. MLTMMA: High-Spec owed $184, 000 to Kim Company. The note was written out to Kim Company. They are now somehow claiming that the shareholders of Kim Company were not entitled to their pro rata share of those proceeds but that they go to the MRA I. That is just not true. What they've refused to acknowledge is that -- in fact, they -- their own attorneys testified in court that Kim Company never borrowed the money from Dauphin. THE AUDITOR: I'm not listening to the arguments; I'm just trying to figure out these documents. The documents exist; obviously there are loan documents somewhere in a file. Take a look, have somebody take a look and see if there's a loan file on that; there should be. And let's -- MR. MLTMMA: I might add, Mr. Buckley -- THE AUDITOR: No. I don't want any adds. I don't want anything right now. MR. MUMMA: But -- THE AUDITOR: Please, I don't need any arguments right now. MR. MLTMMA: Okay. We'll put some facts in. 1506 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. Let's step back. Thank you. Also, gentlemen, if you need documents prior to hearings -- I thought we had had an agreement early on in the hearings that you were going to request information early, not late. And, again, I understand that both of you are proceeding pro se now. However, you have to do this. You can't all of a sudden say I want these documents a couple of days before the hearing when you've had weeks and months. We've given a couple of months in between time so that we don't have this problem, and please try to stick to that. And same with you, Ms. Mumma. If you need things, the earlier you ask for them, the quicker we can get them for you and there's not going to be any delays. Okay? Any other questions right now? MR. GREEN: I had one other question. I just was hoping we could get some outline of the witnesses for the week. Mr. Mumma, through Mr. Gault, was kind enough to advise that he intended to call Mr. O'Connor today and have Mr. O'Connor here. But if we could kind of know what the outline is.