Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-08-10In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Division In re: Estate of Glenn W. Black, Deceased No. 21-09-0360 Late of Dickinson Township RESPONSE OF LAVERNE BLACK TO PETITION SUR APPEAL FROM PROBATE AND FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LETTERS ISSUED TO HIM UPON DECEDENT'S WILL DATED JUNE 9, 2004 SHOULD NOT BE REVOKED AND DECLARED INVALID AS HAVING BEEN PROCURED BY UNDUE INFLUENCE AND NOW COME, Laverne C. Black, by and through his counsel, Salzmann Hughes, P.C., and Responds to the Petition Sur Appeal from Probate and Rule to Show Cause Why Letters Issued to Him Upon Decedent's Will Dated June 9, 2004 Should Not Be Revoked and Declared Invalid As Having Been Procured by Undue Influence Should Not be Approved and N their Respective Claims Denied as follows: ~ °- _r ~~ a f 1 Admitted. -~ `~ n ~ - 2 . :.~ ~F~- r _.. 2. Admitted. ` "r ~f ~ ~ `v~ `~~' _ _ -rt 3. Admitted. ~ ._ --~ ° ~ "? ~ ~ ,, > t11 :c a 4. N Denied. It is specifically denied that Laverne visited Linda on several occasions to complain about any provision in previous reciprocal wills. Byway of further response, Laverne began working full-time with Black's Water Conditioning in 1977 when the partnership was formed and became an equal partner in the business in 1983. The entirety of Decedent's interest in Black's Water Conditioning was conveyed to Laverne Black, Shirley Black, and Jason Black, who were all active in the business, by agreement dated January 1, 2000. Therefore, Black's Water Conditioning has no relevance to any proceeding related to Decedent's Will dated June 9, 2004, as Decedent no longer had any interest to convey. 5. It is admitted that Black's Water Conditioning was originally the Decedent's business. By way of further response, the entirety of Decedent's interest in Black's Water Conditioning was conveyed to Laverne Black, Shirley Black, and Jason Black, who were all active in the business, by agreement dated January 1, 2000. Therefore, Black's Water Conditioning has no relevance to any proceeding related to Decedent's Will dated June 9, 2004 as Decedent no longer had any interest to convey. 6. Denied. It is specifically denied that requiring Laverne to pay each of his siblings 1/1 Ocn of the value of Black's Water Conditioning would result in dividing Decedent's half of the business among his five children as Decedent had no interest in the business to convey. The entirety of Decedent's interest in Black's Water Conditioning was conveyed to Laverne Black, Shirley Black, and Jason Black, who were all active in the business, by agreement dated January 1, 2000. Therefore, Black's Water Conditioning has no relevance to any proceeding related to Decedent's Will dated June 9, 2004 as Decedent no longer had any interest to convey. 7. Denied. It is specifically denied that Laverne complained to Linda about Black's Water Conditioning. The entirety of Decedent's interest in Black's Water Conditioning was conveyed to Laverne Black, Shirley Black, and Jason Black, who were all active in the business, by agreement dated January 1, 2000. Therefore, Black's Water Conditioning has no relevance to any proceeding related to Decedent's Will dated June 9, 2004 as Decedent no longer had any interest to convey. 8. Denied. It is specifically denied that Decedent conveyed his farm and his half of Black's Water Conditioning to Laverne due to tensions in his marriage and also in an effort to protect these assets from possible claims in divorce. To the contrary, Decedent conveyed 2 his farm and his half of Black's Water Conditioning to Laverne in an effort to keep the property and the business in the family as Decedent knew that Laverne would not sell the assets. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in Paragraph 9. The same is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in Paragraph 10. The same is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. Denied. It is specifically denied that Decedent always treated his children equally by giving an equal amount to each of his other children when he helped one of his children financially. To the contrary, while Decedent may have attempted to treat his children fairly during his lifetime, this did not always entail providing an equal sum of money to each child. Weakened Intellect 12. Denied. It is specifically denied that Decedent's mental deterioration became increasingly evident during 2003. To the contrary, it was not unti12004 that Decedent began experiencing difficulty with his memory. By way of further response, Decedent's short term memory loss in no way provided any opportunity to exert an overmastering influence sufficient to destroy his free agency and operate as a restraint on his making of the Will in question. By way of further response, on April 24, 2004, Decedent was given a mini-mental status exam by Dr. McBeth and scored 24 out of 30 on Apri124, 2004. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in Paragraph 13. The same is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in Paragraph 14. The same is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in Paragraph 15. The same is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. It is specifically denied that Decedent became more confused or had more trouble remembering things during 2003. To the contrary, it was not unti12004 that Decedent began experiencing difficulty with his memory. Byway of further response, Decedent's short term memory loss in no way provided any opportunity to exert an overmastering influence sufficient to destroy his free agency and operate as a restraint on his making of the will in question. It is also specifically denied that Decedent was no longer "a talker." 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in Paragraph 17. The same is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. 20. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Decedent made statements concerning the transportation of his deceased wife's corpse, but only to the extent of considering 4 alternative transportation in an effort to avoid the expense associated with air transportation of a corpse. It is specifically denied that Decedent believed it would be appropriate to drive back to Pennsylvania with his deceased wife's corpse in the back of his automobile. To the contrary, Laverne and his son, David, flew to Florida to bring Decedent back to Pennsylvania and to aid in the arrangements for Decedent's recently deceased wife. 21. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Laverne agreed that Decedent's short term memory issues required medical attention as the Decedent had forgotten to take certain medications. It is specifically denied that Laverne and Linda agreed that Decedent's obvious mental confusion required medical attention. Byway of further response, Decedent specifically requested that Shirley take over his checkbooks after his return from Florida. However, Decedent continued to sign all checks upon completion. 22. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. O. McBeth prescribed Aricept as treatment for Alzheimer's disease. It is believed and therefore averred that the samples of Aricept were provided for treatment of early dementia. 23. It is admitted that Decedent was provided 5 mg samples of Aricept for the treatment of early dementia. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in Paragraph 24. The same is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further response, the Power of Attorney, in which Laverne was named primary Power of Attorney and Petitioner, Linda Black, was named alternate Attorney in Fact is not being challenged in the subject petition. 5 25. It is admitted that Linda and Laverne's wife, Shirley, shared the responsibility of seeing that Decedent took his pills, including Aricept and blood pressure medication, among others, each day after preparing his dinner. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in Paragraph 26. The same is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in Paragraph 27. The same is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 28. Admitted. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in Paragraph 29. The same is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in Paragraph 30. The same is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment in Paragraph 31. The same is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 32. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Decedent was admitted to the Elmcroft facility in Dillsburg in February of 2006. It is specifically denied that the family was no longer able to care for Decedent at home. 6 Confidential Relation 33. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Decedent experienced memory loss that was clearly frustrating to Decedent. It is specifically denied that Decedent often seemed confused and distracted or that he was increasingly dependent upon Laverne and his wife. To the contrary, Laverne and his wife had been helping Decedent since the death of his first wife and in no way does this indicate that Decedent was increasingly dependent. 34. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Shirley wrote checks for Decedent. However, it is specifically denied that Laverne and his wife had taken control of Decedent's checkbook. Decedent specifically requested that Shirley handle his checkbook and she then agreed. 35. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Power of Attorney provided Laverne with the power to make a gift to himself of absolutely all of the Decedent's earthly possessions. To the contrary, the Power of Attorney provided the right to make gifts to Decedent's issue and their spouses and children in such amounts as do not exceed the Decedent's total available credit for gift and estate tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code. The Power of Attorney also provided that Linda Black was to serve as Attorney-In-Fact in the event that Laverne Black is not able to serve in such capacity. By way of further response, Decedent specifically requested that Laverne serve as his power of attorney Additionally, to the best of his recollection, Laverne never once made a gift to himself or anyone else as a fiduciary acting as the decedent's power of attorney dated June 9, 2004. 7 Substantial Benefit 36. Denied. It is specifically denied that Decedent's residence was worth over $200,000. It is also specifically denied that Laverne had the right to purchase the estate for $64,000. By way of further response, Laverne paid $80,000 to the estate of the decedent for Decedent's residence pursuant to the exact terms of the Will. By way of further response, Black's Water Conditioning has no relevance to any proceeding related to Decedent's Will dated June 9, 2004, as Decedent no longer had any interest to convey as of January 1, 2000. WHEREFORE, Respondent, Laverne C. Black prays this Honorable Court to Deny Petitioner's Petition Sur Appeal from Probate and to direct that the Letters issued under the Decedent's Last Will and Testament dated June 9, 2004, be upheld and that the Will be declared valid as not having been procured by undue influence, with all fees and costs for such challenge being paid from the residuary of the estate. Respectfully Submitted, SALZMANN HUGHES, P.C. James D. Hughes, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 58884 E. Lee Stinnett II, Esq. Attorney I.D. No. 307128 354 Alexander Spring Road, Suite 1 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6333 Attorney for Respondent 8 VERIFICATION I, Laverne C. Black, verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Petition Sur Appeal from Probate and Response to Rule to Show Cause are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of Title 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. r O `~ i~~~~ '~ Date: .~`~ Laverne C. Black CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, E. Lee Stinnett II, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by first class United States mail, postage paid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17015, on the date set forth below: Thomas E. Flower, Esquire Saidis, Flower and Lindsay 2109 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Date: March 8, 2010 SALZNtA1vNHucxESPC ~' ~..~f E. Lee Stinnett II, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 307128 354 Alexander Spring Road, Suite Carlisle, PA 17015 (717) 249-6333 Attorney for Glenn W. Black