Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-11IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MUMMA, deceased :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA • rya ~: ORPHANS' COURT DIVISIOl~p ~-= '.]C~ x ~' i ~~..,, Cat N0.21-86-398 ? ' , b C/7 ~ ~ ` - ..r., _ `~ ~ :- AUDITOR'S INTERIM REPORT, December 5, 2011 AND REQUEST FO)~~2DER~, `" c To the Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr.: Your Honor has appointed me Auditor in the above captioned matter and charged me with reviewing the most recent and final account and proposed distribution in the above matter and holding a hearing on the most recent accounting and proposed distribution. By Order dated October 5, 2011 you referred a Petition to Authorize Distributions and the Response to Petition to Authorize Distributions in this matter. After contacting the parties or their representatives Iconducted aseries of telephone conferences with all the parties. I also invited any local party to participate in person in my offices. During the first conference, Attorney Otto and Linda Mumma were present in my office and Robert Mumma, Barbara Mumma and Attorney Green were present on the telephone. Mr. Mumma's position was that the Orphan's Court had no jurisdiction, the Trustee's position was that funds were needed for ongoing expenses. The three beneficiaries present requested additional information from the Trust's accountant. The Trust and its attorneys agreed to have the requested financial information made available and a second conference was scheduled. I also provided all parties with a copy of applicable sections of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes relating to the Orphan's Court's jurisdiction (20 Pa. C.S. ~ 711) and relating to income on distributive shares (20 Pa.C.S. ~ 3543) together with a copy of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision Pope v. Dasher, 429 Pa. 576; 240 A.2d 518 (1968), a case which discussed whether a court of common pleas or the orphans' court had jurisdiction to determine the ownership of certain realty recorded in decedent's name at the time of death and of certain shares of corporate stock registered in decedent's name at the time of death. A second conference was held, Linda Mumma informed this office she did not desire to participate, Attorney Otto was present in my office and Robert Mumma and Bazbaza Mumma were present on the telephone. During this conference Barbara Mumma and Robert Mumma stated they had recently received the financial material they had requested and had not had time to review the information. A third conference was then scheduled. A third conference was held, Linda Mumma informed this office she did not desire to participate, Attorney Otto was present in my office and Robert Mumma and Bazabaza Mumma were present on the telephone. Mr. Mumma argued that the court had no jurisdiction, Barbara Mumma stated maybe the court had jurisdiction and Attorney Otto stated that the court did have jurisdiction, but he would withdraw the petition and proceed. Attorney Otto stated that the Trustee had informed the Court that she, as Trustee would make no distributions without first petitioning the court. The undersigned identified three distinct matters to be resolved: the first being the M & T Bank money market account with an account number ending in 5251. The second being the proposed distribution to the shareholders of DE Distribution and third a proposed distribution to the tenants in common of the MRA I agreement. The Residuary Trust under the Will of Robert M. Mumma maintains alleges it is the owner of 27.192650% of the stock in DE Distributions, the late Mr. Mumma's four children and the estate of his late wife owning the balance in approximately equal shazes. DE Distributions alleges it is holding excess cash in the amount of $100,000.00 an account at Fulton Bank and an 2 account at M & T Bank. It desires to consolidate the accounts into the Fulton Bank account and make a distribution. Robert Mumma II had requested that the M & T Bank not permit the funds deposited with that bank to be withdrawn and placed in the Fulton Bank account. Mr. Mumma could offer no reasonable explanation for his request. M & T Bank through its counsel has no objection to transferring the funds, but because of Mr. Mumma's objection desires a court order to permit the same. Because he offered no reasonable explanation other than personal animosity toward certain Fulton Bank employees, officers or directors, his objection should be dismissed and the Court should enter an order directing the funds to be transfer, ed. The relative shares of ownership in DE Distributions is disputed by Robert and Barbara Mumma who raise arguments which had been raised in the original hearings. When questioned why the Trustees needed addition funds the undersigned was informed that Robert Mumma and/or Barbara Mumma have initiated new actions in jurisdictions outside of Cumberland County and the Trust and Trustee have been called upon to defend these new actions. The new expenses relate to new litigation expenses. Mr. Mumma argued that DE Distributions, being a corporation should follow Pennsylvania statutes governing corporation. Therefore I believe the court should allow the corporation to act on it own accord to distribute its excess funds as it deems appropriate. The Trust owns a large interest in Mumma Realty Associates I ("MRA I"). That interest is alleged to be over eighty (80) percent. Mr. Mumma argued that the agreement between all the parties in interest in MRA I requires arbitration if the parties cannot agree thus the matter should be submitted to such arbitration. Robert Mumma and Barbara Mumma did not dispute that expenses are being incurred by the trust/estate but claimed that such expenses were only litigation costs and should therefore not be considered. They argued that they would have to 3 indirectly incur a portion the cost of the defense to the litigation they had initiated against the Trust and Trustee. The undersigned does not know the parties to or the subject matter of the litigation, but it was stated that it is an action filed in Dauphin County. The parties did not dispute that $200,000.00 is available for distribution. Therefore I would recommend that $125,000.00 be distributed to the Trust and that such distribution be a credit to any future distributions. Because the parties cannot agree on their respective shazes and no party, beneficiary, shazeholder, or partner petitioned for a distribution, other than the Trustee, the parties must be content to await the final decision of the court in the audit of the accounts. I further recommend that if your Honor agrees with my recommendations, you enter Orders accordingly and I have attached recommended orders to accomplish the same. Respectfully submitted, ~'~f D. Buckl ,Esquire, Supreme Court I # 38444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaw(a,aol.com 4