HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-07-11IN RE:
ESTATE OF LOTTIE IVY DIXON
Deceased
IN RE:
ESTATE OF GEORGE F. DIXON, JR
Deceased
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
NO. 21-07-0686
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
NO.21-1994-0754
ANSWER AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS OF GEORGE F. DIXON, III
AND RICHARD E. DIXON IN RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES OF
MARSHALL DIXON. EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF LOTTIE IVY DIXON
AND NOW comes George F. Dixon, III and Richard E. Dixon (the "Dixon Brothers") to
file this answer and motions to strike and dismiss in response to the motion for attorneys' fees of
Marshall Dixon, Executor of the Estate of Lottie Ivy Dixon, and in support thereof state as
follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted in part and denied as stated in part. It is admitted that the Dixon
Brothers were involved in the filing of four sets of objections to the referenced Account o~n or
about August 22, 2008, by and through their counsel at the time, Martson Law Offices „,>
~-, ._
("Martson"). A copy of each set of objections as listed in paragraph 2 is attached hea'+etc~'as >
n n n n n n n n r t j ! ~
Exhibits A , B , C and D . -- ,, ,,,, ...~ _. ,
_::J !. _ ~ ~_-'; ~ -ERs
_^J ..~ T.._.
Y ~.f.`
e-<i -~,~
C ..~
4595913
i~
v
It is further averred, however, that the objections referenced in paragraph 2(a) and
(b) were filed by the Dixon Brothers in their capacity as co-trustees of the Lottie Ivy Dixon
Revocable Trust, the residuary beneficiary of decedent's estate. See Exhibits A and B. The
objections referenced in paragraphs 2(c) and (d) were filed by the Dixon Brothers in their
capacity as co-trustees of the QTIP Trust. See Exhibits C and D. By the filing of these
objections as trustees of the two trusts, the Dixon Brothers were advancing a fiduciary
responsibility to protect the best interests of the trusts.
This paragraph is denied to the extent that it states the Dixon Brothers filed all
four sets of objections on their own. To the contrary, as plainly recited in paragraphs 2(a;l and
(c), by the caption of the pleadings these two sets of objections were jointly filed by M&T Bank
with the Dixon Brothers.
3. Denied as stated. The four sets of objections (hereinafter the "objections°') are
written pleadings which speak for themselves. The Executor unfairly characterizes all of the
objections as "the Brothers' Objections" without indentifying those objections filed jointly by
M&T Bank together with the Dixon Brothers. In fact, at least six of the eight objections
specifically listed in paragraph 3 were part of the joint objections filed by M&T Bank an<i the
Dixon Brothers. See Exhibits A and C. All of the objections were filed by the Dixon Brothers
and M&T Bank in their capacities as co-trustees of either the Revocable Trust (the residuary
beneficiary of the estate) or the QTIP Trust. As such, all of the objections were filed in a.
fiduciary role, as reasonable and necessary steps to protect the interests of the trusts.
Moreover, at least five of the objections included in the set of objections at
Exhibit A and the objection which is the subject of Exhibit C were either conceded by the
4595913 2
Executor, resolved by agreement and/or found to have merit by the Auditor -resulting in either a
payment or reimbursement to the estate or an adjustment in the estate's favor.
4. Denied as stated. The Dixon Brothers are unable to fully respond to this
paragraph since it is unduly vague in referring to "[m]any of these objections." The Dixon
Brothers (and M&T Bank) prevailed on at least five of the objections included in the set of
objections in Exhibit A which resulted in payments or reimbursements to the estate and/or an
adjustment to the estate. Several of the other objections and joint objections were eventually
resolved after negotiations between present counsel for the Dixon Brothers and counsel for the
Executor, including explanations or exchanges of information and documents relating to t:he
objections between and/or among M&T Bank, the Executor and the Dixon Brothers.
It is further averred that Marshall Dixon, both in his capacity as Executor of the
Estate of Lottie Ivy Dixon and in his individual capacity, filed unfounded objections to the First
and Final Account of the George F. Dixon, Jr. QTIP Trust that were withdrawn and/or not
pursued.
5. Denied. It is averred, to the contrary, that there was a legitimate and good faith
basis for each of the objections set forth in the objections and joint objections. The Dixoli
Brothers (and M&T Bank) prevailed on at least five of the objections included in Exhibit A
which resulted in payments or reimbursements to the estate and/or an adjustment to the estate.
Several of the other objections and joint objections were eventually resolved after negotiations
between present counsel for the Dixon Brothers and counsel for the Executor, including
explanations or exchanges of information and documents relating to the objections between
and/or among M&T Bank, the Executor and the Dixon Brothers.
4595913 3
It is further averred that Marshall Dixon, both in his capacity as Executor c-f the
Estate of Lottie Ivy Dixon and in his individual capacity, filed unfounded objections to the First
and Final Account of the George F. Dixon, Jr. QTIP Trust that were withdrawn and/or not
pursued.
Counsel for the Dixon Brothers (and M&T Bank) at the time - Martson - is
entitled to a presumption under Rule 1023.1(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure that
by signing and filing the objections and joint objections, the objections were not being presented
for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, and the objections
were warranted by law or a plausible view of the law. None of the objections were filed or
advocated for the purpose of causing delay or difficulty. Each of the objections was based upon
facts or a plausible view of the facts and relevant law. Further, the objections were filed by the
Dixon Brothers (and M&T Bank) in their capacities as co-trustees of the Revocable Trust; or as
co-trustees of the QTIP Trust. Thus, they were filed in furtherance of a fiduciary duty to protect
the best interests of the two trusts.
6. Denied. The allegations of paragraph 6 state conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. It is specifically denied that the Dixon Brothers and/or their
counsel engaged in any conduct that was "dilatory, obdurate and vexatious." It is further averred
that there was a legitimate and good faith basis for each of the objections set forth in the
objections and joint objections. The Dixon Brothers (and M&T Bank) prevailed on at least five
of the objections included in Exhibit A which resulted in payments or reimbursements to the
estate and/or an adjustment. Several of the other objections and joint objections were eventually
resolved after negotiations between present counsel for the Dixon Brothers and counsel i~or the
4595913 4
Executor, including explanations or exchanges of information and documents relating to the
objections between and/or among M&T Bank, the Executor and the Dixon Brothers.
It is further averred that Marshall Dixon, both in his capacity as Executor of the
Estate of Lottie Ivy Dixon and in his individual capacity, filed unfounded objections to the First
and Final Account of the George F. Dixon, Jr. QTIP Trust that were withdrawn and/or not
pursued.
Counsel for the Dixon Brothers (and M&T Bank) at the time -Martson - i.s
entitled to a presumption under Rule 1023.1(c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure that
by signing and filing the objections and joint objections, the objections were not being presented
for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, and the objections
were warranted by law or a plausible view of the law. None of the objections were filed or
advocated for the purpose of causing delay or difficulty. Each of the objections was based upon
facts or a plausible view of the facts and relevant law. Further, the objections were filed by the
Dixon Brothers (and M&T Bank) in their capacities as co-trustees of the Revocable Trust or as
co-trustees of the QTIP Trust. Thus, they were filed in furtherance of a fiduciary duty to protect
the best interests of the two trusts.
It is further averred that the Dixon Brothers were forced to find and retain new
counsel late in this case. Prior counsel, Martson, was granted leave to withdraw on or about
December 11, 2009. The Dixon Brothers retained new counsel, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell
& Hippel LLP, and an attorney from Obermayer entered his appearance on January 25, :>_010.
Thus, a substantial amount of activity in this case, including the filing of the objections and
taking of discovery, took place long before Obermayer was involved.
4595913 5
At no time did the Brothers' present counsel "disregard" any of the Court's Orders.
Rather, they attempted to insure compliance with the Court's Orders even though they entered
the case just days before the pre-hearing conference and the hearing itself. At no time did the
Brothers cause needless delay in seeking information and documents relevant to their objections.
Rather, they sought financial records and data necessary to further the investigation of their
objections and to assess the integrity of the estate's assets and the Revocable Trust. For similar
reasons, the Brothers requested the appointment of a neutral fiduciary, an administrator pro tem,
who would be better positioned to fully investigate and evaluate the dramatic decline of the
assets of the estate.
Neither the Dixon Brothers or counsel should be penalized for advancing legal
positions intended to seek accountability and explanation for the condition of bank and
brokerage accounts and the related drain of the trust. Further, there was nothing "improper"
about the petition for appointment of an administrator pro tem or the appeal from its denial.
There is no appellate authority regarding the applicable statute. On the basis of existing caselaw,
there was a good faith and very plausible belief that this was an appeal of a collateral order.
Counsel for the executor never raised the issue of the propriety of the appeal and never asserted
that it was not an appealable order. The Orphans' Court did not raise the issue and the Superior
Court never raised the issue at argument or anytime prior to its opinion in the case.
Present counsel for the Dixon Brothers is entitled to a presumption under Rule
1023.1(c) that none of its filings were presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or
to cause unnecessary delay. This motion for attorneys' fees is an attempt to seek sanctions
against the Dixon Brothers and their counsel without having complied with the requirements of
Rules 1023.1 and 1023.2 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 1023.2 requires
4595913 6
Marshall Dixon to have served written notice and demand on the Dixon Brothers' counsel,
identifying with specificity the alleged violations of the rules and setting forth a demand that the
documents or portion of the document at issue be withdrawn or appropriately corrected..A
certification of such written notice and demand is a condition precedent to any party being
subject to sanctions. No such notice or demand was served in this case. The request for
attorneys' fees should be stricken and/or dismissed.
7. Denied as stated. The Dixon Brothers prevailed on at least five of the objections
included in the set of objections at Exhibit A resulting in payment to and/or reimbursement to the
estate. Several other objections were resolved through the efforts of present counsel seeking
negotiation and/or explanation of the issues involved.
8-9. Denied. The allegations of paragraphs 8 and 9 state conclusions of law to which
no response is required. It is specifically denied that there was "inappropriate conduct" on the
part of the Dixon Brothers and/or their counsel. It is specifically denied that the Executor
incurred any additional attorneys' fees as a result of any "inappropriate conduct." It is averred, to
the contrary, that the Dixon Brothers and their counsel acted at all times in good faith in pursuing
the objections and in furtherance of the Dixon Brothers' fiduciary duties as trustees. The
objections resulted in benefit to the estate and/or the underlying trusts. It is further averred that
the Executor and his counsel caused unnecessary legal fees and expense by failing to concede
and/or resolve obvious and well-founded objections until the eve of hearing and by filing
unfounded objections to the QTIP Trust Account.
10. The Dixon Brothers request that the Court dismiss this motion.
WHEREFORE, George F. Dixon, III and Richard E. Dixon respectfully request that the
court dismiss this motion and/or strike any reference to joint and several liability for the payment
4595913 '~
of Executor's attorney fees and order the Executor to pay them attorneys' fees related to this
motion and those incurred in responding to the Executor's account objections.
MOTION TO STRIKE AND/OR DISMISS
11. The Dixon Brothers incorporate by reference the above responses to paragraphs
1-10 as if set forth here at length.
12. The Executor fails and is unable to certify that he served written notice anti
demand upon the Dixon Brothers identifying with specificity the conduct and/or document
claimed to violate the rules together with a particular demand to withdraw or correct the conduct
and/or document as required by Pa. R.C.P. 1023.2.
13. The Executor fails to identify with particularity the conduct or action at issue and
whether it is the conduct or action of prior counsel or present counsel for the Dixon Brothers that
is at issue.
14. The Executor has failed to comply with the requirements of Rules 1023.1 and
1023.2 in requesting sanctions in the form of an award of attorneys' fees.
15. The Executor cannot simply include a request that the Dixon Brothers and. their
counsel are "jointly and severally liable" for payment of attorneys' fees as an additional prayer
for relief.
WHEREFORE, George F. Dixon, III and Richard E. Dixon respectfully request that the
court dismiss this motion and/or strike any reference to joint and several liability for the payment
of Executor's attorney fees and order the Executor to pay them attorneys' fees related to this
motion and those incurred in responding to the Executor's account objections.
4595913 8
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN
NECESSARY AND/OR INDISPENSABLE PARTIES
16. Paragraphs 1-15 of this Response are incorporated by reference as if set forth at
length.
17. The Executor's Motion for Attorneys' Fees complains about and seeks recovery of
attorneys' fees allegedly incurred as a result of objections filed jointly by the Dixon Brothers and
M&T Bank.
18. The Executor fails to acknowledge that he seeks to recover attorneys' fees
allegedly incurred because of the joint objections.
19. The Executor's Motion complains about and seeks recovery for attorneys' fees
alleged to have been incurred as a result of actions taken or not taken by the Dixon Brothers'
prior counsel, Martson Law Offices.
20. Martson is no longer a part of this case, is not presently before the Court, has not
been served and has been given no notice or opportunity to respond to the allegations set forth in
the motion.
21. The Executor has failed to join and include parties necessary to the resolution of
his motion for attorneys' fees.
WHEREFORE, George F. Dixon, III and Richard E. Dixon respectfully request
that the court dismiss this motion and/or strike any reference to joint and several liability for the
payment of Executor's attorney fees and order the Executor to pay them attorneys' fees related to
this motion and those incurred in responding to the Executor's account objections.
4595913 9
Respectfully submitted,
Date: December 7, 2011
OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL
& HIPPEL LLP
BY:
~~
Walter W. Co en, Esquire
Attorney ID # 12097
Kevin J. Kehner, Esquire
Attorney ID # 33539
200 Locust Street, Suite 400
Harrisburg, PA 17101
717-234-9730
717-234-9734 (fax)
Counsel for George F. Dixon, III
and Richard E. Dixon
4595913 1 p
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, KEVIN J. KEHNER, certify that on this date, I have served a true and correct copy of
the foregoing Answer and Motions to Strike and Dismiss of George F. Dixon, III and Richard E.
Dixon in Response to Motion for Attorneys' Fees of Marshall Dixon, Executor of the Estate of
Lottie Ivy Dixon upon the following, by first-class mail, addressed as follows:
Elizabeth P. Mullaugh, Esquire
Kimberly M. Colonna, Esquire
McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1166
Daniel L. Sullivan, Esquire
SAIDIS, SULLIVAN & ROGERS
26 West High Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Mark D. Bradshaw, Esquire
STEVENS & LEE
Harrisburg Market Square
17 North Second Street, 16~' Floor
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
Charlotte Dixon
323 Bayview Street
Camden, ME 04843
Date: December 7, 2011
Wayne F. Shade, Esquire
53 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Kevin J. Ke er, E~s~qui~re
4595913 11
N
n
<~'y
c._. _
~~
F:IFILFS1CIirntc\l2690Dicon112690.1.objeations.rcvtrust.revised.wpd `" t -,,= ~~ ~~ ; - '
~_
-s'
IN ~: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PL$~S OF >`~
ESTATE OF LOTTIE IVY DIXON, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN~L,VANIA~
Deceased,
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
N0. 21-07-0686
OBJECTIONS OF M&T BANK, RICHARD E. DIXON AND GEORGE F. DIXON III
TO THE FIRST INTERMEDIATE ACCOUNTING OF
MARSHALL L. DIXON, EXECUTOR
AND NOW, comes M&T Bank, Richard E. Dixon and George F. Dixon III, by and through
their attorneys, MARTSON LAW OFFICES, and set forth the following objections to the First
Intermediate Accounting of Marshall L. Dixon, Executor:
1. Objectors, M&T Bank, Richard E. Dixon and George F. Dixon III ("Objectors"), are
co-trustees of the Lottie Ivy Dixon Revocable Trust ("Trust"), the residuary beneficiary of the
Decedent's Estate.
2. Objectors obj ect to the Account and the proposed Schedule ofDistribution as follows:
a. Amounts paid for electric service at real estate for periods following the death
of the Decedent, as title to those properties vested in Marshall L. Dixon and Charlotte I.
Dixon by operation of law.
b. Amounts paid for property maintenance after the Decedent's death, as title
to those properties vested in Marshall L. Dixon and Charlotte I. Dixon by operation of law.
c. Amounts paid for real estate taxes for periods following the Decedent's
death, as title to those properties vested to Marshall L. Dixon and Charlotte I. Dixon by
operation of law.
d. Real estate taxes for periods after the death of the Decedent paid by the Estate
should be reimbursed to the Estate.
e. The loss in value of marketable securities held in the Estate caused by
the delay in the liquidation thereof.
f. Upon reasonable information and belief, substantial assets includable in the
Estate for both administrative and Federal Estate Tax purposes aze not accounted for.
~`
g. The appraisals for the Decedent's personal property and jewelry grossly
understate the value thereof.
h. The Federal Estate Tax Refund received by the Estate was improperly allocated
or distributed among the beneficiaries.
i. The attorney's fees disbursed are excessive relative to the size of the Estate,
the character of the work performed and other factors applied to determine the reasonableness
of attorney's fees charged to an estate under Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent.
j. The Executor's commissions claimed are excessive relative to the size of the
Estate, the character of the work performed, and other factors applied to determine the
reasonableness of an executor's commission charged to an estate under Pennsylvania Supreme
Court precedent.
k. The Objectors reserve the right to further object to such account for such other
irregularities which might become evident during the course of their ongoing discovery and
mvestrgarion.
WHEREFORE, Objectors, M&T Bank, Richard E. Dixon and George F. Dixon III,
respectfully request that:
1. Marshall L. Dixon be required to fully account for his actions as Executor of
the Estate.
2. Marshall L. Dixon be surcharged for the amounts paid by the Estate for
maintenance, electric service, and real estate taxes on properties owned by
Marshall L. Dixon and Charlotte I. Dixon.
3. Marshall L. Dixon be surcharged for the amounts lost by his failure to timely
liquidate the Estate's securities portfolio.
4. The Objectors be permitted to conclude their investigation into the financial
affairs of the Decedent and the Executor to determine the nature and extent of
assets improperly excluded or omitted from the administration of the Estate.
5. The Estate be required to cooperate with the Objectors' discovery requests so
that discovery can be concluded in a reasonable amount of time.
6. The Decedent's personalty and jewelry be preserved and maintained so as to
allow further appraisal of the value thereof.
7. Marshall L. Dixon be surcharged to the extent that the Court finds that the
attorney's fees and Executor's commission paid from the Estate exceed
reasonable fees and commissions as determined by the Court.
8. Marshall L. Dixon be removed as Executor of the Estate of Lottie Ivy Dixon.
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
By:
No V. Otto, I ,Esquire
I.D. No. 27763
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
I.D. No. 29943
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: g~~l~~'~ Attorneys for Objectors
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent for Manson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller,
hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Objections was served this date by depositing same in the
Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Elizabeth P. Mullaugh, Esquire
McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
~r
By l<
M y .Price
Ten t High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: ~'o2o2/Q~
F:\FILES\Clirnts\12690 Dixon\12690.1.objection.reNnut.G.R.8.21.O8.wpd
ll~I lam:
ESTATE OF LOTTIE IVY DIXON,
Deceased,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
NO.21-07-0686 `«
~~_
.~ ._.~
. DIXON AND GEORGE F. DIX' ~~ $I
TO THE FIRST INTERMEDIATE ACCOUNTING OF .`= ~,_I sv -=
MARSHALL L. DIXON. EXECUTOR ~ ~~ ~ -
_;% -1,
AND NOW, comes Richard E. Dixon and George F. Dixon III, by ~_an~ throw their ` ,
o
attorneys, MARTSON LAW OFFICES, and set forth the following objections to the~First
Intermediate Accounting of Marshall L. Dixon, Executor:
1. Objectors, Richard E. Dixon and George F. Dixon III ("Objectors"), are co-trustees
of the Lottie Ivy Dixon Revocable Trust ("Trust"), along with Manufacturers and Traders Trust
Company, of the residuary beneficiary of the Decedent's Estate.
2. Objectors obj ect to the Account and the proposed Schedule ofDistribution as follows:
a. The appraisals for the Decedent's personal property and jewelry grossly
understate the value thereof.
b. The Obj ectors reserve the right to further obj ect to such account for such other
irregularities which might become evident during the course of their ongoing discovery and
investigation.
WHEREFORE, Objectors, Richard E. Dixon and George F. Dixon III, respectfully request
that:
1. Marshall L. Dixon be required to fully account for his actions as Executor of the
Estate.
2. The Decedent's personalty and jewelry be preserved and maintained so as to allow
further appraisal of the value thereof.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
By:
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
I.D. No. 27763
Hubert X. Gilroy
I.D. No. 29943
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: August,1~2008 Attorneys for Objectors
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gikoy & Faller,
hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Obj ections was served this date by depositing same in the
Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Elizabeth P. Mullaugh, Esquire
McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
BY (~ `~~U~-FJ
M .Price
Ten t High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: ~~,'~2/~~
F:~F[LES1CIirnu112690 Dixon\12690.1.objcetion:.QTIp.8.21.OS.wpd
IN RE: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ESTATE OF LOTTIE IVY DIXON, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Deceased,
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ~, G
~~
• ~-~, ,~ _
N0.21-07-0686 _~ ,~ ~:; .
r_
OBJECTIONS TO THE FIRST INTERMEDIATE ACCOUNTIIYG'~r~ ~
OF THE ESTATE OF LOTTIE IVY DIXON - .
,J ~.)
AND NOW, comes Richard E. Dixon, George F. Dixon, III and Manufacturers and Traders
Trust Company, Trustees of the QTIP Trust under the George F. Dixon, Jr. Revocable Trust under
Agreement dated May 16, 1985 (the "QTIP Trust"), by and through their attorneys, MARTSON
DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, and file the following Objections to the
First and Intermediate Accounting of Marshall L. Dixon, Executor of the Estate of Lottie Ivy Dixon,
and aver as follows:
1. The Decedent's husband, George F. Dixon, Jr., died before the Decedent and through
his amended and restated Agreement of Trust he created a QTIP Trust for the lifetime benefit of the
Decedent.
2. The assets of the QTIP Trust are included in the Decedent's Estate for federal estate
tax purposes.
3. The Trustees of the QTIP Trust remitted to Elizabeth P. Mullaugh, Esquire, of
McNees, Wallace & Nurick, as counsel to the Estate, a check in the sum of $4,851,303.78 payable
to the United States Treasury for the amount of federal estate tax which the Estate determined to be
allocated to the QTIP Trust.
4. The check was submitted to McNees, Wallace & Nurick with a clearly expressed
understanding that the check would be remitted to the Internal Revenue Service with the request for
extension of time to file the estate tax return, and that any refund received after the filing of the
eventual return would be immediately returned to the QTIP Trust. A copy of the letter transmitting
such check is attached as Exhibit "A".
5. The federal estate tax return for Decedent's Estate showed that the QTIl' Trust's share
of the federal estate tax return was in fact $4,713,491.28, thus producing a refund of $137,812.50.
6. The Internal Revenue Service issued a refund of the federal estate tax by check
payable to the Estate of Lottie Ivy Dixon and such check was deposited to the Estate.
7. Rather than returning to the QTIP Trust its rightful share of the federal estate tax and
in complete disregard of the terms and conditions under which the QTIP Trust delivered the check
to McNees, Wallace & Nurick, the Estate and its counsel confiscated $128,344.28 of such refund.
WHEREFORE, Objectors respectfully request that The Executor immediately return to the
QTIP Trust the sum of $128,344.28 with interest.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
A.~ --
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
I.D. No. 27763
Hubert X. Gilroy
I.D. No. 29943
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: Augus ' X008 Attorneys for Objectors
{_.1 .
,/111 ~' •'":
,~,
~a..~as to
& SINaN LLP •
March 28, 2008
RR: DIXON MATTERS
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Elizabeth P. Mutiaugh, Esquire
McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 1'7108-1166
Dear Elizabeth:
Stanley A. Smith
p/r (717) 231-6628
jx (7 7 7~ 23 f -667G
ssmitft~a rhoacls-sinon.com
~~et+a 10789/02
Enclosed please find the following checks:
I. M&T Investment Group check from the George Dixon QTIP Trust payable to the
U.S. Treasury in the amount of $4,851,303.78. .
2. M3~T Bank check from Mrs. Dixon's Revocable Trust payable to the U.S.
• Treasury in the amount of $18,626.67.
3. M&T Bank check from Mrs. Dixon's Revocable Trust payable to the
Pennsylvania Department of Revenue in the amount of $6,438.43.
4. M&T Bank check from the George Dixon QTIP Trust payable to the Estate of
Lottie Ivy Dixon in the amount of $12,430.07, being acenied income on the
Trust's investment portfolio as of Mrs. Dixon's date of death.
S. M&T Bank check payable to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue in the
amount of $422.72 in payment of George Dixon's and Richard Dixon's share of
the Pennsylvania Inheritance Tax. This was not drawn from the George or Lottie
Dixon accounts.
These checks are being remitted to you as counsel to Mrs. Dixon's estate and with the
following understandings. We understand that they will be remitted to the appropriate tax
authorities today with extension requests, along with other checks for tax due. Additionally, we
--- are delivering the• checks to you and your firm with the expectation that you will assure that any
refunds that might arise will be promptly delivered to the source of~the payment to which the
refund relates. In particular, if the ultimate valuation of the Sheaffer Farm should be lower than
the presumed amount for the purposes of the prepayment of tax, it is 'our understanding and
expectation that that refund resulting from that reduction would be promptly returned to the
QT1P Trust.
.~
684278.1
Rhoads ~Sr 5inort LLP • Attorneys al Law • Twelltlt door • One Soutlr Market Sgtiare• • 1?O. Boy 114b
• Iiarrisburg, PA 17108-L14G.• ph (717) 233-5731 • fr (717) 232-1459 • w~v~v.rhoncls-sfnon.crzm
• ~ March 28, 2008 ~' •
Page 2 ,,,~
~~
Thank you for your continued efforts in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Enclosures.
cc: Mr. Joseph A. Maori, M&T•Bank (w/o encl)
Mr. Richard Dixon (w/enci)
Mr. George Dixon (w/encl)
No V. Otto, III, Esquire (wlencl}
..-y
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilray & Faller,
hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Obj ections was served this date by depositing same in the
Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Elizabeth P. Mullaugh, Esquire
McNEES, WALLACE & NURICK
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
~`
By:
Ma .Price
Ten t High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: ~~~J~
4.
F:~FILES\Clients\12690 Dixon'.12690-Lobjeccans.Qttp.G.R.wpd
~ ~: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ESTATE OF LOTTIE NY DIXON, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Deceased,
ORPHANS' COURT DNISION ~-;
• - = ~ .,~,
N0. 21-07-0686 _ x, '
_~ ~ .~ <
._ ~
OBJECTION TO THE FIRST INTERMEDIATE ACCOUNTIN~~ ` h' ,-
OF THE ESTATE OF LOTTIE IVY DIXON -' ~ ~ ~"_' ~'
-, ;
_;::'~:
AND NOW, comes Richard E. Dixon, George F. Dixon, III, co-Trustees o~th~ QTII'~rust
a
under the George F. Dixon, Jr. Revocable Trust under Agreement dated May 16, 1985 (the "QTIP
Trust"), by and through their attorneys, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GII,ROY
& FALLER, and file the following Objection to the First and Intermediate Accounting of Marshall
L. Dixon, Executor of the Estate of Lottie Ivy Dixon, and aver as follows:
1. The Decedent's husband, George F. Dixon, Jr., died before the Decedent and through
his amended and restated Agreement of Trust he created a QTIP Trust for the lifetime benefit of the
Decedent.
2. Objectors, Richard E. Dixon and George F. Dixon III ("Objectors"), are co-trustees
of the QTIP Trust, along with Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company.
3. The Unified Credit for Federal Estate Tax was improperly allocated among assets
includable in the Estate for federal estate tax purposes.
WHEREFORE, Objectors respectfully request that The Executor be surcharged for the
QTIP Trust's increased tax liability resulting from the improper allocation of the unified credit.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
Date: August~,~2., 2008
By:
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
I.D. No. 27763
Hubert X. Gilroy
LD. No. 29943
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Objectors
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller,
hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Objections was served this date by depositing same in the
Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Elizabeth P. Mullaugh, Esquire
McNEES, WALLACE & NLrRICK
100 Pine Street
P.O. Box 1166
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
j~ /
BY L ! ~' t ~i
~ M. Price
n East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: ~/~~~