Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-11In re the Edith S. Rife Trust : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 11-0325 ORPHANS' COURT NO. 10-1006 ORPHANS' COURT NO. 83-0773 ORPHANS' COURT ANSWER OF THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES J. RIFE TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF JOHN W. MAXWELL TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES J. RIFE AND NOW, comes Respondent, FRED H. JIJNKINS, Executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, by and through his co-counsel, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, and files the following Answer to the Preliminary Objections of John W. Maxwell to the Preliminary Objections of the Executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife. 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. By way of further response the Executor avers that the original petition WAYNE F. SHADE Attomry at Iaw 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pem~sylvania 17013 of John W. Maxwell that was filed on March 8, 2011, only requested relief it~.the Edith S. '=" Rife Trust ~ `-:' l ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y. '~~-cn~ u~ _. __ ~JC)C7 ~~~~ -n a~ -~ `n C~a 4~F 3. Admitted. By way of further response the Executor avers that the original petition of John W. Maxwell that was filed on March 8, 2011, did not request any relief that would have adversely affected the heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife. 4. - 6. Admitted. By way of further response, the Executor avers that he is unaware of the existence or availability of any records that would be necessary to enable him to prepare an accounting of the administration of the Edith S. Rife Trust by Charles J. Rife during his lifetime and that the Executor has disclosed everything that he has that would be pertinent to the Edith S. Rife Trust. 7. It is admitted that, on October 27, 2011, John W. Maxwell filed a document that WAYNE F. SHADE Attomry at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 was styled as a motion with a rule to show cause, but the Executor avers that the document was actually a complaint for declaratory relief on the issue of the liability of the Estate of Charles J. Rife to John W. Maxwell for the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by Chazles J. Rife with respect to the Edith S. Rife Trust. The document expressly requested a declaration that Charles J. Rife had breached his fiduciary duty as Trustee of the Edith S. Rife Trust. By way of further response, the Executor avers that, on September 17, 2011, John W. Maxwell filed a claim against the Estate of Charles J. Rife in the amount -2- of Six Hundred Thousand and No/100 ($600,000.00) Dollars for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Charles J. Rife as Trustee of the Edith S. Rife Trust. The request for a declaratory judgment on liability in the motion of October 27, 2011, was directed only to the Executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife. It did not join the residuary beneficiaries of the Edith S. Rife Trust or the 21 other residuary heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, all of whom would be materially and adversely affected by the claim of John W. Maxwell. 8. 9. Admitted. 10. The averments' of ¶ 10 of the preliminary objections of John W. Maxwell, being conclusions of law, no response is required. Byway of further response, the Executor avers that, although styled as a motion with a rule to show cause, the motion of October 27, 2011, was actually a complaint for declaratory relief on the issue of the liability of the Estate of Charles J. Rife to John W. Maxwell for the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by Charles J. Rife with respect to the Edith S. Rife Trust. 11. It is denied that your Honorable Court can make the requested rule absolute. On WAYNE F. SHADE AttomeyatLaw 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 the contrary, the Executor avers that Pa.R.C.P. 1032 deprives a court of jurisdiction where there has been a failure to join an indispensable party. The failure to join an -3- indispensable party may be raised at any point in the litigation, and the court is required to dismiss the action on the basis of lack of jurisdiction if the indispensable parties are not joined. 12. The averments' of ¶ 12 of the preliminary objections of John W. Maxwell, being conclusions of law, no response is required. 13. It is admitted that the Executor is a proper party to defend against the claims of John W. Maxwell against the Estate of Charles J. Rife. By way of further response, the Executor avers that the residuary beneficiaries of the Edith S. Rife Trust, who are also residuary heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, and the 21 other residuary heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, are indispensable parties to the request of John W. Maxwell for declaratory relief because all of them would be materially and adversely affected by the claim of John W. Maxwell against the Estate of Charles J. Rife. 14. It is denied that the burden is upon the Executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife to WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Lew 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 1'7013 join the residuary heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife. On the contrary, the interest of the Executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife in administering the Estate of Charles J. Rife is not adverse to the interests of the residuary heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, but, -4- rather, is congruous with the residuary heirs. It is John W. Maxwell who is adverse to the other residuary heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife because, to the extent that his claim is successful, the inheritances of the other residuary heirs will be materially diminished. By way of further response, with respect to the charitable residuary heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife which would be adversely affected by the claims of John W. Maxwell in his motion of October 27, 2011, they are not only indispensable parties, but also it is incumbent upon John W. Maxwell to join the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, as the official representative of the charitable, residuary legatees. Little Estate, 403 Pa. 534, 170 A2d 106 (1961). 15. It is admitted that the other residuary heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife cannot be found liable for anything that Charles J. Rife did or failed to do, but it is denied that the issue involves the Executor's joinder of the other residuary heirs as additional defendants. On the contrary, the issue is the failure of John W. Maxwell to join, as indispensable parties, all of the parties who would be adversely affected by the relief that he is requesting. 16. It is admitted that the residuary beneficiaries of the Edith S. Rife Trust are proper WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 parties to the request of John W. Maxwell for declaratory relief against the Estate of -5- Charles J. Rife in their capacity as residuary heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, but it is denied that the residuary beneficiaries of the Edith S. Rife Trust are proper parties to the request of John W. Maxwell for declaratory relief against the Estate of Charles J. Rife in their capacity as residuary heirs of the Edith S. Rife Trust. On the contrary, the averments of ¶ 13 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 17. It is admitted that the Executor failed to file an accounting of the administration of the Edith S. Rife Trust, but it is denied that he failed to answer the rule of October 31, 2011. It is further denied that the Executor's answer to the rule of October 31, 2011, in the form of his preliminary objections to the motion of October 27, 2011, and the rule of October 31, 2011, are not allowed by law and are without substantive basis. On the contrary, the averments of ¶¶ 7 and 10 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. By way of further response, the Executor avers that he is unaware of the existence or availability of any records that would be necessary to enable him to prepare an accounting of the administration of the Edith S. Rife Trust by Charles J. Rife during his lifetime and that the Executor has disclosed everything that he has that would be pertinent to the Edith S. Rife Trust. WAYNE F. SHADE Attomry at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 -6- 18. It is denied that your Honorable Court can make the requested rule absolute. By way of further response, the averments of ¶ 11 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. WHEREFORE, the Executor demands that the Motion of John W. Maxwell of October 27, 2011, and the Rule of October 31, 2011, issued pursuant thereto be dismissed for failure to join indispensable parties. Wayne .Shade, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Co-Counsel for Respondent Fred H. Junkins WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pemvsylvania 17013 -7- ~ I Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for the party or parties filing the foregoing document; that he makes this verification with the authorization to do so and based upon facts which are within his knowledge, information or belief and that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~ Date: December 15, 2011 GUa~e ~~~~;. Wayne .Shade WAYNE F. SHADE Attomry at Law 53 Wes[ Pomfret Street Carlisle, Peansylvenia 17013 In re the Edith S. Rife Trust IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 11-0325 ORPHANS' COURT NO. 10-1006 ORPHANS' COURT NO. 83-0773 ORPHANS' COURT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have this date served copies of Respondent's Answer to the Preliminary Objections of John W. Maxwell to the Preliminary Objections of the Executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife in the above- captioned matter upon John W. Maxwell by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to his counsel of record, James D. Cameron, Esquire, 1325 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102. Date: December 15, 2011 WAYNE F. SHADE Attorney at Law 33 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Wayne F!/Shade, Esquire 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Co-Counsel for Respondent Fred H. Jenkins