Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-11 Ronald L. Finck, Esquire ~p ~~UU ev r~ C ° C7 Sup. Ct. LD. #89985 ~ ~ ._ C n t ~-~ r~ METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE ~ ~~ r- ~_ 3401 North Front Street '~~ c~ ~ a ! _} ~'; P.O. Box 5950 on r-. ~-; ~ Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 ~ ©Q ~ : ' Phone: (717) 232-5000 ~~ ~ - ,`~ 4 Fax: (717) 236-1816 y ~ ' ' ~~-,~ rlfmck@mette.com ~ . IN RE: THE ESTATE OF LEWIS A. STRAW, deceased DONALD STRAW and RONALD STRAW, Petitioners VS. BRYAN W. SHOOK, ESQUIRE Executor/Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS COURT DNISION NO. 10.546 y EXECUTOR/RESPONDENT'SMQTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS The Executor/Respondent, Bryan W. Shook, Esquire ("Executor"), by and through his attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, files this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against the Petitioners, Donald Straw ("Donald") and Ronald Straw ("Ronald") (collectively the "Petitioners"), as follows: BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Decedent, Lewis A. Straw, deceased ("Decedent") died a resident of Cumberland County Pennsylvania on April 28, 2005. (Pet. at ¶1; Ans. at ¶1) 2. On Apri130, 2010, the Cumberland County Register of Wills admitted to probate as the Last Will and Testament of Lewis A. Straw, deceased ("Decedent"), a writing dated April 5, 2010 (the "2010 Will"). 3. On Apri130, 2010, letters testamentary were issued to the Executor in accordance with paragraph 15.02 of the 2010 Will. (Pet. at ¶3; Ans. at ¶3) 4. The beneficiaries of the 2010 Will are the Decedent's step-grandson, Lewis Dopp ("Lewis"), the Decedent's step-great granddaughter, Savannah Marie Dopp ("Savannah"), and the Decedent's surviving spouse, Anna Marian Straw ("Marian"), who he married in Dorchester Massachusetts on May 25, 1969. (Ans. at ¶¶46, 14) 5. The Petitioners are the surviving biological children of the Decedent and the step- children of Marian. (Pet. at ¶5; Ans. at ¶¶5, 15) 6. At the time of the Decedent's marriage to Marian, Marian also had a daughter from a previous marriage, Ruth P. Brunner ("Ruth"). (Ans. at ¶16) 7. Ruth died on December 16, 2008. (Ans. at ¶17) 8. Lewis is the surviving son of Ruth and step-grandson of the Decedent. (Ans. at ¶18) 9. Savannah is the three -year-old, natural daughter of Lewis. (Ans. at ¶19) 10. On August 12, 2005, the Decedent executed a prior will dated August 12, 2005 (the "2005 Will") (Ans. at ¶24, Ex. `A') 11. Under the 2005 Will, the Petitioners did not inherit anything from the Decedent. (Ans. at ¶24. Ex. `A') 12. In approximately October of 2006, the Decedent retained the Executor to represent the Decedent's interests in a variety of civil lawsuits and other legal proceedings involving the Decedent. (Ans. at ¶25) 13. As the Decedent's attorney, the Executor worked with the Decedent on a regular basis. (Ans. at ¶26) 2 14. During this time period, the Decedent made known to the Executor that the Decedent had a very poor relationship with his son, Donald. (Ans. at ¶27) 15. The Decedent maintained a fairly good relationship with his other son, Ronald, who suffers from early on-set Alzheimer's and is incapable of understanding the Petition filed by Donald on Ronald's behalf. (Ans. at ¶¶30, 33) 16. During his lifetime, the Decedent expressed concern to the Executor that Ronald's receipt of an inheritance from the Decedent would jeopardize Ronald's financial assistance. This concern played a part in the Decedent's decision to disinherit Ronald. (Ans. at ¶37) 17. In approximately January of 2010, Decedent suffered congestive heart failure and was hospitalized at the Holy Spirit Hospital. (Ans. at ¶38) 18. During his January of 2010 hospitalization, the Decedent contacted the Executor to assist in making changes to his 2005 Will. (Ans. at ¶39) 19. During his hospitalization, the Decedent appointed the Executor to act as the Decedent's power of attorney. (Ans. at ¶41) 20. From time to time, during his final illness, Decedent was released from Holy Spirit Hospital and either spent that time at Manor Care, Camp Hill, Cumberland County or at his residence until his death at Holy Spirit Hospital on Apri128, 2010. (Ans. at ¶42) 21. While the Decedent's physical health deteriorated in the months leading up to his death in April of 2010, his mental acuity remained intact. (Ans. at ¶43) 22. During this time period, the Decedent carefully considered and discussed his last wishes with the Executor. (Ans. at ¶44) 23. During this time period, the Decedent maintained that Donald or Ronald would not inherit anything from the Decedent after the Decedent's death. (Ans. at ¶45) 3 24. The Decedent further expressed a desire to benefit his wife, Marian as well as his step-grandson, Lewis, and step-great granddaughter, Savannah. (Ans. at ¶46) 25. The Decedent was especially fond of his step-great granddaughter, Savannah. (Ans. at ¶47) 26. 'The 2010 Will was drawn up and executed in order to accomplish the Decedent's expressed goals. (Ans. at ¶49) 27. The Decedent never discussed the existence or the contents of the 2010 Will with Lewis. (Ans. at ¶50) 28. In fact, the first time that Lewis was advised of the contents of the Decedent's 2010 Will, was by the Executor, at the Carlisle Diner, after the Decedent's death. (Ans. at ¶51) PROCEDURAL HISTORY 29. On Apri129, 2011, the Petitioners filed an Appeal from Decree of Probate and a document titled `Petition for Citation to Show Cause Why Appeal from Probate Should Not Be Sustained. ' 30. On May 10, 2011, the Honorable Albert H. Masland issued a Rule upon the Executor to show cause why the appeal from probate should not be sustained. 31. On May 31, 2011, the Executor filed a Response to Petition for Citation to Show Cause Why Appeal from Probate Should not be Sustained. ("Response"). 32. The Response contained New Matter and was properly endorsed with a Notice to Plead. 33. The Petitioners did not file a Response to the Executor's New Matter. Accordingly, under Pennsylvania law, the contents of the Executor's New Matter is deemed admitted. 4 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS FOR LACK OF STANDING 34. The averments of all paragraphs set forth above are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 35. A party must have standing to contest the probate of a decedent's will. 36. In order to have standing to contest the will, the party must be aggrieved by a judgment, decree or order of the register in the sense that some pecuniary interest of the contesting party has been injuriously affected. 37. A contestant to the validity of a will does not have standing to contest the will unless he can prove that he would be entitled to participate in the decedent's estate if the will before the court is ruled invalid. 38. As a result of the existence of the 2005 Will, wherein the Petitioners will not inherit anything from the Decedent, the Petitioners lack standing to contest the 2010 Will and Judgment on the Pleadings is appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Executor/Respondent, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against the Petitioners and in favor of the Executor dismissing the Petitioners' appeal, with prejudice, together with such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE Ronald L. Finck, Esquire Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 89985 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: Eric R. David, Esquire Rominger & Associates 155 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Petitioners Respectfully submitted, METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: Ronald L. Finck, Esquire Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 89985 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Executor/Respondent, Bryan W. Shoop Esquire Date: July 19, 2011 540317v1