HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-11r _. '~',
_ n
- ._
~,,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS _ r ~`. f - ~ ~ ~ -
C ~ .. - __
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL~rAtl!+~iA, - ' ~ ' '` ~~,
IN RE: ESTATE OF ORPHAN' S COURT DIVISION
ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased N0.21-86-398
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE ORPHANS' COURT ORDER DATED MAY 6.2011
AND NOW, comes Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, an Objector, who files the instant motion for
reconsideration of the Orphans' Court Order dated May 6, 2011 which denied the Motion for a Jury Trial
and in support thereof avers as follows:
1. On April 8, 2011, the undersigned Movant filed a pro se Motion for Jury Trial in accordance with the
applicable sections of the Probate, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code, including, but not limited to 20 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 777, and in accordance with the applicable sections of the Pennsylvania Constitution concerning trial by
jury.
2. In an Order dated April 18, 2011, the Orphan's Court issued a Rule to Show Cause Order returnable
within seven (7) days.
3. Co-Executrix Lisa M. Morgan filed a Response on April 29, 2011.
1
4. On May 6, 2011, the Orphan's Court entered the following Order which denied the instant pro se
Motion for Jury Trial:
AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 201 1, upon consideration of the Motion for Jury Trial filed
pro se by Robert M. Mumma, II, and of the Response of Lisa M. Morgan to Motion for Jury Trial,
and the court-appointed auditor in the person of Joseph D. Buckley, Esq., having already conducted
33 days of hearings in this case as of the date of filing of this motion, the motion is denied.
5. The Orphan's Court has misapprehended the nature of the relief requested in the instant pro se Motion
for Jury Trial insofar as said Motion specifically and expressly sought a Jury Trial with respect to the
recent Accountings filed on September 10, 2010. (See, ¶¶ 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 of said Motion).
6. The " 33 days of hearings" already conducted by the Auditor, as referenced in the subject Order,
addressed the Accountings previously filed in 2004 and otherwise previously filed before September 10,
2010: by definition, nothing in those 33 days of hearings addressed the recent Accountings filed in
September 2010 insofar as those 33 days of hearings actually terminated in June 2010.
7. With respect to the " 33 days of hearings" already conducted by the Auditor, this Court previously
referred a prior pro se Motion for Jury Trial regarding said earlier Accountings to the Auditor for an
interim report and recommended Order. Therefore, unlike the instant Motion for Jury Trial which received
an outright denial by the Orphan's Court by way of the subject Order dated May 6, 2011, the prior pro se
Motion for a Jury Trial has been referred to the Auditor and the parties are currently awaiting his
recommendations thereon.
8. For those reasons outlined in the instant Motion for Jury Trial which expressly pertains to the recent
Accountings filed by Lisa M. Morgan on September 10, 2010, the undersigned Movant respectfully re-
submits his request for the relief stated therein.
2
9. Even assuming arguendo that the Orphan's Court had not misapprehended or misidentified the actual
Accountings for which the instant relief is requested, the " 33 days of hearings" conducted before an
Auditor is not tantamount to an actual jury trial as is specifically set forth in the PEF Code and the
Pennsylvania constitution. By definition, "a trial by a jury" as is provided in Section 777(a) of the PEF
Code requires "a jury" and not merely an auditor. The self-evident distinctions between a bench trial
(conducted before a judge or an auditor) and a jury trial (conducted before a jury) have been long
recognized in the law.
10. The Movant has not obtained the concurrence of counsel to the other interested parties inasmuch as
the prior statements of said counsel have indicated that the Movant would not receive concurrence from
them with respect to this motion.
11. The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr., has previously ruled on prior motions filed in this matter.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned Movant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court reconsider
its Order of May 6, 2011, and that this Court issue an appropriate order which grants the Motion for Jury
Trial. In the alternative, in lieu of an outright denial of the motion, this Court should refer the matter to the
Auditor for an interim report and recommended Order as Judge Oler has previously done during these
proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
obert M. Mumma, II
840 Market St. -Ste. 33333
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 612-9720
PROSE
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert M. Mumma, II, pro se, do hereby certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing
Motion for Reconsideration of the May 6, 2011 Order to be served this date by U.S. Mail, first class,
postage prepaid, addressed to:
Brady Green, Esquire
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
Martson Law Offices
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Barbara Mann Mumma
541 Bridgeview Dr.
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Linda Mumma Roth
512 Creekview Lane
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire
Court-Appointed Auditor
1237 Holly Pike
Carlisle, PA 17013
DATE: May 20, 2011
~, ~ ~ f ,
,,
BY: ~ '1/ ~~
obert M. Mumma, II 1
840 Market St. -Ste. 33333
Lemoyne, PA 17043
717-612-9720
PROSE
4