Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-31-11 IN RE: WILLIAM I. EVANS WILL DANNY B. EVANS, Petitioner, vs. Irma Davenport, Respondent. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ESTATE NO. 21-08-979 OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES OF RESPONDENT IRMA DAVENPORT TO PETITIONER'S EXCEPTIONS TO COURT ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 30 2011 Respondent Irma Davenport, by and through her undersigned attorneys, objects and responds to Petitioner's Exceptions to the Court Order dated September 31, 2011, as follows: 1. Admits. 2. Admits. 3. Admits. n .~., r' - p - - -f _, 4. Admits a~ -tea _ n -~ ,r; . ~r; . ~ ~ r -ern ca , ~ _' 5 Admits v , _ :, . . E7 'TJ -. 6. Admits. ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~- <-, -n 7. Admits. R7 8. Admits. 9. No response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent agrees that Exceptions aze to be submitted according to Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rules of Procedure 7.1. FIRST EXCEPTION 10. Respondent Irma Davenport incorporates by reference here as if fully set forth her responses contained in all pazagraphs above. 11. - 20. These paragraphs aze parts of a legal azgument and are not exceptions. To the 1 extent that a response is required, these paragraphs are a matter of law and not fact and, as such, do not require a factual response of admitted or denied. To the extent a response is required, Respondent denies any implication that the law has not been followed in this matter. 21. Respondent objects to this paragraph as lacking any factual foundation: Orphans Court Rule 7.2 begins "All exceptions shall contain a request designating a portion of the record to be transcribed in order to enable the court to dispose of the exceptions." Here, where no portion of the record has been requested or cited to, Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record which supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion. 22. This paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. Respondent requests this court deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion. Respondent denies the assertion as stated. 23. This is paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. Respondent denies the assertion as stated. SECOND EXCEPTION 24. Respondent Irma Davenport incorporates by reference here as if fully set forth her responses contained in all paragraphs above. 25. - 28. These paragraphs are parts of a legal argument and are not exceptions. To the extent that a response is required, these paragraphs are a matter of law and not fact and, as such, do not require a factual response of admitted or denied. To the extent a response is required, Respondent denies any implication that the law has not been followed in this matter. 29. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. To the extent a response is required, Petitioner's expert testified concerning autopsy reports and also testified that he never met the decedent while he was alive. 30. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. To the extent a response is required, Respondent denies the assertion as stated. 31. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. To the extent a response is required, Respondent denies petitioner's characterization of the testimony without forming any basis for said characterization, and it is therefore denied. By way of further answer, see Petitioner's Exceptions herein, paragraph 50. 32. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. To the extent a response is required, both the 2005 Will and the 2006 Will aze part of the record herein and the documents speak for themselves. 33. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. To the extent a response is required, both the 2005 Will and the 2006 Will aze part of the record herein and the documents speak for themselves. By way of further answer, Respondent is still alive and does not, therefore, have a traditional "estate" as claimed by petitioner. 34. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. To the extent a response is required, the assertion is denied as stated. By the way of further answer, both the 2005 Will and the 2006 Will are part of the record herein and the documents speak for themselves. 35. This paragraph is a conclusion of law and does not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. By way of further response, the assertion is denied as stated. TffiRD EXCEPTION 36. - Respondent Irma Davenport incorporates by reference here as if fully set forth her responses contained in all paragraphs above. 37. - 43. These paragraphs aze parts of a legal argument and aze not exceptions. To 4 the extent that a response is required, these paragraphs aze a matter of law and not fact and, as such, do not require a factual response of admitted or denied. Respondent denies any implication that the law has not been followed in this matter. 44. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. By way of further answer, all of the decedent's other, living siblings and the Decedent's only son testified that Bernazd Davenport had to retrieve William when he was lost, though Bernard himself had no knowledge of the event which they had jointly concocted as evidence. Petitioner fails to cite decedent's neighbor, Jon Casey, who spoke with the decedent more regularly than all of the decedent's other, living siblings and the Decedent's only son combined. 45. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. By way of further answer, Petitioner's claim herein is irrelevant, as the petitioner did not execute the will admitted to probate at the time of his death, the only relevant time which Respondent's expert can claim first-hand knowledge. 46. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to-cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. To the extent a response is required, this is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If a response is required, Respondent denies the assertion as stated. 5 47. This pazagraph is a part of a legal argument and is not an exception. To the extent that a response is required, this pazagraph is a matter of law and not fact and, as such, does not require a factual response of admitted or denied. Respondent denies any implication that the law has not been followed in this case. 48. Denied. Respondent was the decedent's Attorney In Fact 6y virtue of the Power of Attorney document, which decedent executed, without Respondent's knowledge until after the fact when he requested that Respondent sign and have her signature notarized. 49. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion. 50. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. To the extent a response is required, it is denied as stated. 51. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. 52. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to-cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. To the extent a response is required, it is denied as stated. 53. Respondent objects to the lack of a citation to any fact in the record that supports 6 his assertion. Respondent requests this Court to deny petitioner's exception as baseless, or direct petitioner to cite a portion of the record that supports his assertion, which is required under Pa. OCRP 7.2. To the extent a response is required, it is denied as stated. 54. This is a conclusion of law and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is denied as stated. 55. This is a conclusion of law and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is denied as stated. 56. Respondent denies all other assertions not expressly admitted or to which she inadvertently failed to respond. WHEREFORE, Respondent Irma Davenport requests this Court to dismiss Petitioner's Exceptions, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, ~Q ~~ Mazk A. Mateya (Attorney ID No. 8931 Alexandra Makosky (Attorney ID No. 7) Mateya Law Firm, P.C. 55 West Church Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)241-6500 (717) 241-3099 Fax Attorneys for Respondent Irma Davenport Date: October 31, 2011 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Alexandra Makosky, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document on the following person(s) by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail, by way of United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania addressed to: Ronald L Finck Esquire Mette Evans & Woodside PO Box 5950 Harrisburg PA 17110-0950 Alexandra Makosky, Esquire 55 W. Church Avenue r Cazlisle, PA 17013 (717)241-6500 (717) 241-3099 Fax Dated: t U `3 r ` [ j