Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-12 (2)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 ANSWER TO PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, comes Fred H. Junkins, Executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, and files the following Answer with New Matter to the Petition of Steven A. Maxwell, Barry Maxwell, Douglas Maxwell, and Sherri Maxwell, as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. - 3. The Order of June 17, 2011, speaks for itself. 4. Admitted. By way of further response, the Executor avers that, after diligent search, the Executor has been unable to locate any records, beyond the information that the Executor has disclosed to counsel for John W. Maxwell, that would be sufficient to enable the Executor to prepare the ordered accounting and that the Executor has disclosed everything that he has that could possibly be pertinent to the Edith S. Rife Trust. After reasonable investigation, the Executor has been unable to determine whether or not the decedent, Charles J. Rife, failed to maintain books and records of his administration of the Trust that would be sufficient to enable the Executor to file an account as ordered by the Court. 5. The Order of October 31, 2011, speaks for itself. 6. - 7. Admitted. ;: __: ~, r ~, ~ ~ ~ 4~ ., ; _ _ ~ , ~,`1 T n.l~ ~ n ^'l G t r:` "ii ~=:~ : _ . .~ `r - _y _ _~ "7 C i_n r ' ~ ~"r Tl ~~ 8. Admitted. By way of further response, the Executor avers that his preliminary objections were dismissed on procedural grounds without addressing the substantive issues raised therein and which have now been raised in the Executor's New Matter in response to the Motion of John W. Maxwell for Rule to Show Cause of October 27, 2011. 9. The averments of ¶ 9 of the Petition are denied. On the contrary, the Executor avers that he has not violated any prior court orders and that a determination of whether or not the legal interests of the Petitioners as remainder beneficiaries of the Edith S. Rife Trust have been unjustly or adversely affected or whether they have incurred damages due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duty are not dependent upon an accounting by the Executor and that, if the Executor were capable of rendering an accounting, it would not establish the nature or extent of any losses of the Petitioners. 10. The averments' of ¶ 10 of the Petition, being conclusions of law, no response is required. 11. The Executor avers that he has not violated any prior court orders where he is incapable of filing an accounting of the Edith S. Rife Trust through no fault of his own and where he has disclosed everything that he has that could possibly be pertinent to the Edith S. Rife Trust. 12. The averments of ¶ 12 of the Petition are denied. On the contrary, the Executor believes and therefore avers that Petitioners were aware of the existence of the -2- written Edith S. Rife Trust in the nineteen years between the date of death of Edith S. Rife on December 3, 1983, and the collapse of the value of the Allied Irish Bank stock in 2002, due to the intervening, and superseding criminal conduct of a rogue currency trader at M&T Bank, the successor to Dauphin Deposit Bank, that caused the losses to the Trust which consisted predominantly of stock in Allied Irish Bank. The Executor believes and therefore avers that, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, Petitioners could have made themselves aware of the provisions of the written Edith S. Rife Trust between the date of death of Edith S. Rife on December 3, 1983, and the collapse of the value of the Allied Irish Bank stock in 2002. The Executor believes and therefore avers that there is no reasonable explanation as to why Petitioners did not address any complaints against Charles J. Rife during the more than twenty-eight years between the December 3, 1983, date of death of Edith S. Rife and the filing of their Petition herein. With the death of Charles J. Rife prior to the advancement of any complaints by Petitioners, the Estate of Charles J. Rife is materially and irrevocably prejudiced by the inability of the Executor to respond to the claims of Petitioners. 13. It is admitted that, on March 19, 2012, an Answer with New Matter to the Motion of John W. Maxwell for a Rule to Show Cause was filed and that Petitioners' request to file claims would not significantly delay the current proceedings, but it is denied that the Petition is timely. On the contrary, the averments of ¶ 12, above, are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. -3- WHEREFORE, the Executor respectfully requests that the Petition be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, Gam/ / Wayne F. hade, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. # 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243 -0220 Co-Counsel for Respondent Fred H. Junkins -4- The statements in the foregoing Answer are based upon information which has been assembled by my attorney in this litigation. The language of the statements is not my own. I have read the statements; and, to the extent that they are based upon information which I have given to my counsel, they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~ 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: April ~~ , 2012 ~' ~ ,. Fred H. Junki