Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-09George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire I.D. No. 49813 ^' ~ No V. Otto, III, Esquire ~p ~ ~~ LD. No. 27763 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ Jennifer L. Spears, Esquire y'~ ~ ~ .~.~.. :=~= ~ `~} I.D. No. 87445 `~ ~ ~ ~'""' ~ ~~" ' ` ~^' MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER r~~ ~ ~~ ~ .,' - ~' MARTSON LAW OFFICES `-.~~~ ~ ca - f .; 10 East High Street ~ rv :'..- Carlisle, PA 17013 ~ ~ :~ (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IN RE: OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Estate of Robert M. Mumma, NO. 21-86-398 Deceased. ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION BARBARA MCK. MUMMA AND LISA M. MORGAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS OBJECTIONS Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan move on the following grounds for dismissal of Objections filed by Robert M. Mumma, II and Barbara Mann Mummal to accounts filed by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan regarding the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased and the Trusts established under his will: Objection 3 (Mr. Mumma, II's Ob~cfion 3): Objectors have not presented any fact or expert testimony or other evidence as to any specific instance in or asset as to which any "unnecessary capital gains taxes, fiduciary income taxes or inheritance taxes." Nor have they presented any evidence as to the amount of any taxes "unnecessarily" paid or incurred. Objection 4 (Mr. Mumma, II Objection 4): Objectors have offered no evidence or testimony to support the notion that there was anything improper in the decision of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan to satisfy By omitting from this motion any of Mr. Mumma, II's or Ms. Mumma's Objections, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan do not concede either that the omitted Objections have merit or that Objectors have satisfied their burdens of proof with respect to those Objections. Mrs. Mumma's 5% withdrawal elections with assets in kind rather than in cash. Rather, the only issue as to which evidence and testimony has been presented goes to the value of certain assets transferred to the Marital Trust at the time of its funding in December 1987. Objection 5 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 5): Objectors have not identified any instance in which there has been a "failure to properly account" for stock distributions to Mrs. Mumma. Nor have they presented any evidence or testimony that there was any deficiency or impropriety in the manner in which Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan have accounted for any distributions. Objection 6 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 6~: Objectors have not identified any instance in which there has been a "failure to properly account" for income paid to Mrs. Mumma. Nor have they presented any evidence or testimony as to any instance in which there was any impropriety with any distribution of income from the Estate or the Trusts to Mrs. Mumma. ObLection 7 Mr. Mumma, II's Ob'e~ ction 7~: Objectors have neither identified nor proved the existence of any "rights of first refusal" held by Mr. Mumma, II with respect to any stock transferred to the Marital Trust." In a prior decision, the Court held that Mr. Mumma, II did not possess an alleged oral right of first refusal to purchase Pennsy Supply, Inc. See Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. v. Robert M. Mumma, II, et al., No. 66 Equity 1988, Opinion and Order at 32 (C.P. Cumberland Mar. 24, 1992) ("[Mr.] Mumma, II was never given an oral right of first refusal to purchase Pennsy Supply, Inc., in June 1987..."), post-trial motion denied and final decree entered, Opinion and Order (C.P. Cumberland Nov. 5, 1992), aff'd, 433 Pa. Super. 660, 639 A.2d 846 (1993), allocatur denied, 539 Pa. 679, 652 A.2d 1324 (1994). Similarly, to the extent that Mr. Mumma, II claims such a right under an agreement among the shareholders of Pennsy Supply Inc. dated December 29, 1961, the Court previously has held that agreement was terminated by the then-shareholders of the corporation in August 1963. See discussion of Objection 15 below, specifically section (a). Objection 8 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 8): Objectors have not identified any instance in which any "gains and increases in value of estate assets" have been allocated or treated improperly during the administration of the Estate or the Trusts. Obi ection 9 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 9~: Objectors have presented no evidence or testimony to suggest that there was any impropriety or other failure with respect to the timing of the funding of the Residual Trust. Nor have they presented any evidence that, even had there been some failure in 2 that regard, any injury or harm was suffered by the Residuary Trust or the contingent beneficiaries of the Residuary Trust. Objection 10 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 10): Objectors have not identified any respect in which Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan somehow "improperly accounted" for the Fulton Bank building as an asset of the Estate or, thereafter, the Marital Trust. Objection 11 (Mr. Mumma, II's Oblection 11): Objectors have not identified any respect in which Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan "improperly accounted" for the property in Leadville, Colorado. Indeed, there was no evidence or testimony whatsoever ,regarding the handling or treatment of that property during the administration of the Estate or the Trusts. Objection 12 Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 12): Objectors have not identified any respect somehow "improperly accounted" for the testimony presented by Objectors related property for purposes of its transfer to the within other objections. in which Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan Bender property. The only evidence and to issues relating to the valuation of that Marital Trust. Those issues are subsumed Objection 13 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 13): Objectors have not identified any respect in which Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan somehow "improperly accounted" for the Grove property. The only evidence and testimony presented by Objectors related to issues relating to the valuation of that property for purposes of its transfer to the Marital Trust. Those issues are subsumed within other objections. Objection 14 ~Mr. MummaLII's Objection 14~: While there were throughout the hearing general allegations regarding improprieties by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan as to various corporate matters (most particularly Bobali Corporation), Objectors offered no identification of and presented no evidence or testimony regarding any specific actions taken by Mrs. Mumma or Mrs. Morgan "on behalf of corporations that were "unauthorized" or "failed to comply with applicable state law or regulations." Moreover, actions taken by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan as directors or officers of corporations were not taken in their capacities as executrices or trustees and are, therefore, outside the scope of this proceeding. Any challenge to those actions are matters of corporate governance. In recognition of that fact, Mr. Mumma, II has made numerous such allegations in other actions. 3 Objection 15 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 15): Objectors have presented no evidence regarding the existence, as of Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s death, of any agreement among the shareholders of any corporation in which Mr. Mumma, Sr. owned stock directly or indirectly. Objectors, whether in testimony, questioning or argument to the Auditor, have referenced alleged "shareholders' agreements" pertaining to four corporations: Nine-Ninety-Nine, Inc. f/k/a Pennsy Supply Inc., Lebanon Rock, Inc., Pennsylvania Supply Company and High-Spec, Inc. (a) Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc. f/k/a Pennsy Supply Inc. Mr. Mumma, II has made repeated reference to an agreement entered into by the then- shareholders of this corporation on December 29, 1961. It previously was adjudicated that "[o]n August 1, 1963, the two shareholders, Kim Company and Jerry T. Simpons, entered into a termination agreement, which provided, in pertinent part: `[S]aid parties hereto agree that said shareholder's Agreement of December 29, 1961 between Kim [Company] and [Jerry T.] Simpson is hereby cancelled, annulled and terminated." Robert M. Mumma, II v. Pennsy Supply, .Inc., No. 99-2765 Equity, Opinion and Decree Nisi, Finding of Fact 6 (C.P. Cumberland. May 17, 2002), post-trial motions denied and final decree entered, Opinion and Final Decree (July 29, 2002), aff'd, 833 A.2d 1156 (Pa. Super. 2003), allocatur denied, 577 Pa. 723, 847 A.2d 1287 (2004). The Court further determined that "[t]he termination agreement further provided that `upon transfer of all of the shares of stock of [Jerry T.] Simpson to [Robert M.] Mumma, [Plaintiff s father,] all rights, obligations and conditions of said Agreement shall cease." Id., Finding of Fact 7. Thus, it already has been adjudicated that the agreement cited by Mr. Mumma, II had no further effect as of the date of Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s death. (b) Lebanon Rock, Inc. While Mr. Mumma, II has mentioned such an agreement, there has been absolutely no evidence as to the terms of such agreement. No copy of the document has been presented, much less a copy signed by Mr. Mumma, Sr. A party seeking to recover on an instrument that is lost or for other reason cannot be produced at trial must "prove its former existence, execution, delivery, and contents. The evidence to sustain these averments must be clear and convincing." Compass Tech., Inc. v. Tseng Lab., Inc., 71 F.3d 1125, 1133 (3d Cir. 1995); see also Mahoney v. Collman, 143 A. 186, 187 (Pa. 1928) (party seeking to rely upon 1'o~st instrument bears "very heavy burden" and must meet "clear and convincing" evidence standard). "'Clear and convincing evidence' .. . means that that the witnesses must be found to be credible, that the facts to which they have testified are remembered distinctly and the details thereof narrated exactly and in due order, and that their testimony is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable either a judge or jury to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue" Jones v. Prudential Prop. ~ Cas. Co., 856 A.2d 838, 844 (Pa. Super. 2004); Tapley v. Frey, 132 A.2d 890, 893 (Pa. Super. 1957). Mr. Mumma, II has not established the existence and terms of the alleged Lebanon Rock, Inc. shareholders' agreement under this standard. 4 (c) Pennsylvania Supply Company Mr. Mumma, II has repeatedly alleged that there was an agreement among the shareholders of Pennsylvania Supply; Company. that should have governed disposition of Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s stock in the corporation following his death. Objectors have not presented any evidence sufficient to meet the applicable factual and legal standards (see paragraph (b) above) for proof of such and agreement or its terms. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan also incorporate their Motion to Dismiss Objections Based Upon Purported Existence of Agreement Among Shareholders of Pennsylvania Supply Company and their memorandum of law in support thereof. (d) High-Spec, Inc. Mr. Mumma, II has claimed that there existed an agreement among the shareholders of this corporation that should have governed disposition of Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s stock upon his death. There is no evidence in the record of the terms of such agreement. More significantly, Mr. Mumma, II's allegations regarding the existence of such an agreement with respect to High-Spec, Inc. have been the subject of multiple prior rulings adverse to Mr. Mumma, II's position. After years of litigation, a Florida court that "[Mr. Mumma, II]'s continued attempts to re-litigate the Shareholder's status of [Estate/Trust] based on allegations of an existing Shareholder's Agreement are barred by res judicata, estoppel by judgment, and judicial waiver by failing to raise an appeal, this Court's refusal to consider the alleged Shareholder's Agreement in the 2000 Final Judgment and the January 16, 2004, Order on Defendant Mumma's Motion to Dismiss or for New Trial." Barbara McK. Mumma et al. v. Robert M. Mumma, II et al., No. 89-503 CA, Amended Final Judgment Following Appellate Review (Fla. Cir. Martin Feb. 17, 2006). Mr. Mumma also filed an action in Cumberland County -Robert M. Mumma, II et al. v. Estate of Robert M. Mumma et al., No. 2004-6183 (C.P. Cumberland) -alleging the existence of a share restrictive agreement for High Spec, Inc. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan filed a motion to domesticate the Florida judgment in Pennsylvania. Barbara McK. Mumma et al. v. Robert M. Mumma, II et al., No. 2006-2197 (C.P. Cumberland). The two cases proceeded in tandem, and on December 6, 2006, the Court held that Mr. Mumma, II's claims regarding the alleged share restrictive agreement were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. The Court also denied Mr. Mumma, II's motion for reconsideration, in which he claimed that the Florida court's decision was void because that court was without jurisdiction. The Court held that the Florida court had jurisdiction, and its decision was affirmed by the Superior Court. Barbara McK. Mumma et al. v. Robert M. Mumma, II et al., No. 462 MDA 2007 (Pa. Super. Oct. 30, 2008), allocatur denied, 88 & 89 MAL 2009 (Pa. July 2, 2009). Mr. Mumma, II also tried to re-litigate the issue of the validity of the alleged share restrictive agreement in Dauphin bounty. In that case, the court granted preliminary objections to Mr. Mumma, II's complaint based on res judicata and collateral estoppel. Robert M. Mumma, II v. Boswell, Tintner, Piccola 8c Wickersham et al., No. 2004 CV 5 1779 (C.P. Dauphin Oct. 1, 2009). Therefore, three different courts already have held that Mr. Mumma, II's allegations regarding aHigh-Spec, Inc. shareholders' agreement have been litigated and that further litigation of the issue is foreclosed by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Objectors also have presented no evidence or testimony demonstrating that Mrs. Mumma or Mrs. Morgan "concealed" any shareholders agreement.. Lastly, Objectors have not presented any .evidence or testimony demonstrating that any failure by Mrs. Mumma or Mrs. Morgan xo acknowledge or act as though there existed a binding shareholders' agreement constituted a breach of any duty they owed as executors or trustees. Objection 16 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 16): As noted above with respect to Objection 15, Objectors have presented no evidence or testimony sufficient to prove the existence of any agreement among the shareholders of any corporation in which Mr. Mumma, Sr. owned any direct or indirect interest that was in effect and binding at the time of his death, or that Mrs. Mumma or Mrs. Morgan breached any duty by not acting as though there existed such a binding agreement. Moreover, this objection claims that Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan acted so as to prevent the Estate or the Trusts from acquiring stock in various corporations. Neither Objector has even contended in the hearing that proper application of any shareholders' agreement would have resulted in the Estate or the Trusts acquiring stock. Rather, Objectors' only allegation has been that the alleged agreements would have required the Estate or the Trusts to sell their stock or the corporations to redeem it. With respect to the existence of the alleged shareholder agreements, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate their discussion above pertaining to Objection 15. Objection 17 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 17). Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate herein their discussion above pertaining to Objection 15. Objection 18 Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 18): Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Mumma incorporate herein their discussion above pertaining to Objection 15. Moreover, even had Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan violated an agreement among the shareholders of High-Spec, Inc. by not offering Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s shares in the corporation "to the remaining shareholder at book value," any failure to do so did not constitute a breach of any fiduciary duty owed by them to the Estate, the Trusts or the beneficiaries of either. Rather, any such failure would have given rise, at most, to a claim by Mr. Mumma, II against the Estate, a claim which would not be a proper grounds for an objection to the accounts filed by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan. Indeed, Mr. Mumma, II has asserted the claim in prior litigation, as discussed above with respect to Objection 15 (see paragraph (d)), and it has been rejected. 6~ Objection 19 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 19): Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan incorporate herein their discussion above pertaining to Objection 15. Morever, Objectors have offered no evidence or testimony that, even had there existed a binding agreement among the shareholders of High-Spec, Inc. at the time of Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s death, the transfer of High-Spec, Inc. stock from the Estate to the Residual Trust in any way violated such agreement. Objection 20 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 20~: Objectors have presented no evidence or testimony as to the alleged "undervaluation" of the stock of Lebanon Rock, Inc., Bobali Corp.., High-Spec, Inc. or "999, Inc." to the extent, as used in Objection 20, it is intended to refer to a corporation other than Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc. Objection 21 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 21~: Objectors have not claimed or presented any evidence or testimony suggesting that Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan "overstated the value of the Decedent's corporate stock." Objection 22 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 22): While various transactions -for example, the liquidations of Pennsylvania Supply Company and Kim Company, the sale of the Pennsy Supply Businesses, various real estate sales -have been the subject of evidence and testimony, this objection does not allege, nor have Objectors presented evidence or testimony to prove, that any such actions resulted in damage to the Estate or the Trusts. Objection 23 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 23): Objectors have not presented any evidence that (a) Mrs. Mumma or Mrs. Morgan took any steps with regard to the merger of Middle Park, Inc. into Bobali Corporation in early 1987 in their capacities as executrices or trustees or (b) the Estate or the Trusts were in any way harmed by the merger. (Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan do not concede that there was any impropriety regarding the merger of Middle Park, Inc. into Bobali Corporation, but even had there been that would be a corporate rather than an Estate or Trust matter. There has been no suggestion that the Estate or Trust was shortchanged in the merger. Objection 24 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 24): Objectors have not presented testimony or evidence demonstrating that any corporate records were "altered" or that Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan "concealed" any documents or otherwise sought to obscure the "identity of true stock ownership." The only specific documents claimed to have been concealed (though, as noted elsewhere in 7 this motion, no evidence or testimpriy has been presented to establish any concealment) are alleged agreements among the shareholders of various corporations. Objection 25 ~Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 25): Objectors have not offered any specifics or presented any testimony or evidence as to any information regarding "Decedent's activities prior to April 12, 1986" of which Mrs. Mumma or Mrs. Morgan became aware, which they concealed or, most significantly, which has any material bearing on any actions taken by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan as executrices or trustees. Objection 26 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 26): Objectors presented no evidence or testimony with respect to life insurance, much less any evidence of any "misappropriation" of the proceeds of any life insurance policies. Objection 27 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 27): Objectors have not presented any evidence or testimony that Mrs. Mumma or Mrs. Morgan "assumed corporate designations which were not set forth in any corporate by-laws," that any such assumption, assuming it occurred, was in any way improper, or that such actions resulted in any adverse impact to the Estate or the Trusts. Objection 27 expressly references actions were taken by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan "individually" rather than as executrices or trustees. Objection 28 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 28): Objectors have not presented any evidence or testimony that Mrs. Mumma or Mrs. Morgan "assumed corporate positions to which they were not elected and which were not otherwise authorized," that any such assumption, assuming it occurred, was in any way improper, or that such actions resulted in any adverse impact to the Estate or the Trusts. Objection 28 expressly references actions were taken by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan "individually" rather than as executrices or trustees. Objection 29 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 29): Objectors have not presented evidence or testimony as to any salaries or health insurance benefits paid to Mrs. Mumma or Mrs. Morgan, much less that they "awarded" such items to themselves or that any such items, were "never authorized." Objection 30 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 301: Objectors have not identified any specific "significant changes in major investment holdings of the Estate," nor have they offered any specifics or presented any evidence or testimony regarding any "failure to account" for such changes. 8 Objection 31 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 31): Objectors have not presented any evidence or testimony showing any "self-dealing" or any "pattern of ...self-enhancement" by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan. Ob'ect~ ion 36 ~Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 36): , Objectors have not presented evidence~or testimony showing that there have occurred any "fraudulent conveyances" of Estate or Trust assets, or, in fact, that any transfers of assets have resulted in harm or loss to the Estate or the Trusts. Objection 37 LMr. Mumma, II's Objection 37): Objectors have not presented any evidence that any contents of any safe deposit boxes in which Mr. Mumma, Sr. held an interest at his death were not "accounted for" or "documented." Objection 3 8 ~Mr. Mumma, II's Obi ection 3 8): Objectors have not presented evidence or testimony of any bank account in which Mr. Mumma, Sr. held an interest at his death which Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan have "failed to account for or document the value of...." Objection 39 Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 39): Objectors have not presented evidence or testimony that Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan "failed to account for or document" any documents relating to the Estate, the Trusts or their administration. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan are uncertain what the terms "account for" and "document" are intended to connote in this context. Objectors also failed to present any evidence that there existed at the time of Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s death or at any time since any "documents, contracts, and other records" in Europe. Objection 40 Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 40): Objectors have not presented any evidence or testimony that Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan "refused to entertain the highest and best offers of purchase of Decedent's property and/or enterprises...." No evidence was presented as to the terms or amount of any alternative or competing offers received by Mrs. Mumma or Mrs. Morgan for any asset owned by the Estate or the Trust, or how any such offer compared with the value and terms obtained by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan for any asset. Objection 41 (Mr. Mumma, II's Objection 41~: Objectors have failed to identify any term or provision of Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will which Mrs. Mumma or Mrs. Morgan failed to carry out. Objectors have not identified any "testamentary plan" of Mr. Mumma, Sr. other than that embodied in his will or offered 9 any support for the notion that Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan were at liberty or required to follow any such "plan." To the extent that the "plan" mentioned in Objection 41 is embodied in Article THIRTEENTH of Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan note that the Court's prior ruling in these proceedings that "under Article THIRTEENTH of decedent's Will, the [executrices] may sell Mumma family company stock to non-family members once the [executrices] unanimously agree in writing. Therefore, the language of Article THIRTEENTH is precatory and not mandatory." In re Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, No. 21-86-398, Order and Opinion (O.C. Cumberland, Mar. 8, 1989). Objection 43 (Ms. Mumma's Objection 1):. Objectors have not presented any evidence or testimony that Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan employed any "counterproductive asset distribution strategy." The gist of Objection 43 is that actions of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan in allocating assets to the Marital and Residuary Trusts resulted in "the potential for unnecessary estate tax liability" in Mrs. Mumma's estate. No evidence or testimony was presented as to the nature or scope of this "potential" tax liability, how it was impacted by the assets allocated to the two trusts, how the alleged "unnecessary" tax liability might have been avoided, or why Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan owed a duty as executrices and trustees to minimize taxes in Mrs. Mumma's estate. Objection 44 GMs. Mumma's Objection 2): Objectors have not presented any evidence or testimony suggesting that the Fulton Bank property was "undervalued" such that its distribution to Mrs. Mumma in satisfaction of her entitlement to income "prejudic[ed] the rights of other beneficiaries." There has been no evidence to suggest that the value of the Fulton Bank property was other than as represented in the accountings. Objection 46 Ms. Mumma's Objection 4): Ms. Mumma has withdrawn Objection 46. Objection 47 (Ms. Mumma's Objection 5): Objectors have not offered any evidence or testimony demonstrating that Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan took any actions with regard to Bobali Corporation as executrices and trustees. While copious testimony and evidence was presented regarding Bobali Corporation, none of that evidence established that either the Estate or the Residual Trust (the only relevant entities) ever owned a controlling interest in Bobali Corporation. Moreover, while Objectors have suggested in argument that the Estate's and/or the Residual Trust's interest, when added to those of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan individually, has constituted a collective "controlling interest." However, there has been no evidence that that was the case or any explanation why, even if it had been true, it would be of consequence to an assessment of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan's 10 fulfillment of their duties as executrices and trustees. Nor has there been any evidence or testimony establishing that any alleged "inefficient" management of real estate or that the manner in which any real estate has been managed or administered has resulted in any loss or injury to the Estate or the Trusts. Objection 48 Ms. Mumma's Objection 6): Objectors have not presented any evidence or testimony as to the alleged failure of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan to "wind up the Estate promptly." There has not been any evidence as to any steps needed to close the Estate that could or should have occurred earlier. More importantly, given that all of the assets administered by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan as part of the Estate would have to have been administered as assets of one of the Trusts had the Estate been closed sooner. As neither of the Trusts has yet been closed, the timing of the closing of the Estate did not have any impact on the scope of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan's obligations, the breadth of the assets as to which they have borne responsibility, or the need to account for their actions. WHEREFORE, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan request dismissal of the foregoing Objections. Respectfully su fitted, George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire I.D. No. 49813 No V. Otto, III, Esquire I.D. No. 27763 Jennifer L. Spears, Esquire I.D. No. 87445 MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Brady L. Green, Esquire MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 963-5079 Attorneys for Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tricia D. Eckenroad, an authorized agent of Martson Law Offices, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan Motion to Dismiss Objections was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II Box F Grantham, PA 17027 Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II 840 Market Street, Suite 164 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II 6880 S.E. Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996-1968 Brady L. Green, Esquire MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 (Attorney for Estate and Executrixes) Ms. Linda M. Mumma 512 Creekview Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Pro Se Ms. Barbara Mann Mumma 541 Bridgeview Drive Lemoyne, PA 17043 Pro Se Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (Court Appointed Auditor) MAR SON LAW OFFICES By. ri a D. Eckenro .~0 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: November 13, 2009 (717) 243-3341 F:\FILES\Clients\5844 Mumma Estate\5844.1.Mumma Estate\5844.1.398.Motion to Dismiss Objections2.doc