Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-12Richard F. Rinaldo Pa. I.D. No. 33222 Williams Coulson Johnson Lloyd Parker & Tedesco, LLC One Gateway Center, 16th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412-454-0200 Attorneys for Barbara M. Mumma ~, G: ,f G f~J ~~ ~ c-, ,_ -~~_; :; _, ~~; - : _ -. ~-;, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA In re: ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased. No. 21-86-398 RESPONSE OF BARBARA M. MUMMA IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO AUTHORIZE PLAN OF LIQUIDATION In accordance with the Rule to Show Cause issued by this Court on April 16, 2012, Barbara M. Mumma ("Babs Mumma"), by her attorneys, Williams Coulson Johnson Lloyd Parker & Tedesco, LLC, hereby files and serves Barbara Mumma's Response in Opposition to the Petition to Authorize Plan of Liquidation ("Peti- tion")and respectfully request that this Court not grant the relief requested by the Petition. Answer 1. As to the allegations of paragraph 1 of the Petition, Babs Mumma re- sponds that Lisa M. Morgan is currently a Co-Executrix of the above-captioned Es- tate because, contrary to the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Petition, the Estate was not closed on September 30, 2003 and has not been closed as of this date be- cause there are Objections to the Account filed which remain pending at this time. The other Co-Executrix of the Estate is Barbara Mumma. Babs Mumma agrees that, as of this date, Lisa M. Morgan is the sole Trustee of the Marital Trust and the Residuary Trust under the will of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased (the "Will"). 2. As to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the Petition, Babs Mumma re- sponds that Robert M. Mumma II, Babs Mumma, Linda Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan are the four beneficiaries of the Marital Trust and Residuary Trust, accord- ing to the express terms of the Will. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. As to the allegations of paragraph 5 of the Petition, Babs Mumma re- sponds that it is true that Mrs. Mumma and Lisa Morgan, in their capacities as Co- Executrixes prior to July 17, 2010, filed Interim and Final Accounts which covered certain periods after 1986. 6. As to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Petition, Babs Mumma re- sponds that it is true that Mrs. Mumma and Lisa Morgan, in their capacities as Co- Trustees prior to July 17, 2010, filed Interim and Final Accounts which covered certain periods after 1986. -2- 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. As to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Petition, Babs Mumma re- sponds that Babs Mumma filed certain objections to the accounts filed by Mrs. Mumma and by Lisa Morgan. Said objections are filed of record in this matter and have not yet been ruled upon or decided. Robert M. Mumma II separately filed ob- jections which he had and has to the accounts filed by Mrs. Mumma and by Lisa Morgan. The objections filed by Robert M. Mumma II also are filed of record in this matter and Mr. Mumma's objections also have not yet been ruled upon or de- cided. 10. As to the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Petition, Babs Mumma agrees that this Court has referred the objections filed to Joseph D. Buckley as Au- ditor ("Auditor Buckley"), for a report and recommendation. 11. As to the allegations of paragraph 11 of the Petition, Babs Mumma re- sponds that beginning in Apri12009 and concluding in June 2011, Auditor Buckley conducted evidentiary hearings as to the objections filed by Babs Mumma and as to the objections filed by Robert M. Mumma II. 12. As to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Petition, Babs Mumma re- sponds that it is her understanding that the hearings before Auditor Buckley have concluded and that Auditor Buckley will issue a report and recommendation at -3- some point in the future. To date, Auditor Buckley has not filed a report or recom- mendation as to the objections. 13. As to the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Petition, Babs Mumma re- sponds that the document attached as Exhibit "A" to the Petition purports to be a summary of appraisals of certain real properties in which the Marital and/or Resid- uary Trust claim to hold an interest, and that the summary purports to estimate the value of such properties as of 2010. Babs Mumma denies that the summary accu- rately values some or all of the properties listed thereon even as of the year 2010, and further notes that the purported values are approximately two years out of date. Moreover, the interest claimed by the Marital and/or Residuary Trust in some or all of the properties listed in Exhibit "A" is a disputed issue of fact. 14. As to the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Petition, the ownership in- terest of the Residuary Trust has been and remains a disputed issue of fact. Babs Mumma, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information suffi- cient to form a belief as to the purported interests set forth in paragraph 14 of the Petition, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Babs Mumma de- mands strict proof thereof. Moreover, as set forth more particularly below, the Will expressly provides as to the Residuary Trust that: "Upon the death of my said wife, the principal of this trust, as it is then constituted, ...shall be paid over by my surviving trustee ...unto my children, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, BARBARA M. -4- McCLURE [now Babs Mumma], LINDA M. ROTH [NOW Linda Mumma] and LISA M. MLJMMA [now Lisa Morgan], share and share alike, per stirpes and not per capita" (Will, Paragraph Eighth, emphasis supplied). Accordingly, re- gardless of the accuracy of the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Petition, upon the date of death of Barbara McK. Mumma on July 17, 2010, Lisa Morgan, as the then-surviving Trustee, was required under the clear and unequivocal directives of Paragraph 8 of the Will to pay over whatever interest the Residuary Trust then had to each of the four beneficiaries (25% to each of whatever interest the Residuary Trust then had), and the fact that Lisa Morgan has failed to do so in violation of the Will cannot serve as a basis or justification for Lisa Morgan now to presume to claim that the Residuary Trust should be permitted by this Court to exercise its rights because of a percentage interest which it no longer legitimately possesses. 15. As to the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Petition, Babs Mumma denies said allegations and incorporates by reference her Response to paragraph 14 of the Petition set forth above. 16. As to the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Petition, the ownership in- terest of the Residuary Trust has been and remains a disputed issue of fact. Babs Mumma, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information suffi- dent to form a belief as to the purported interests set forth in paragraph 16 of the Petition, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Babs Mumma here- -5- by demands strict proof thereof. Moreover, as set forth more particularly below, the Will expressly provides, in pertinent part, as to the Residuary Trust that: "Up- on the death of my said wife, the principal of this trust, as it is then constituted . . .shall be paid over by my surviving trustee ...unto my children, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, BARBARA M. McCLURE [now Babs Mumma], LINDA M. ROTH [NOW Linda Mumma] and LISA M. MUMMA [now Lisa Morgan], share and share alike, per stirpes and not per capita" (Will, Paragraph Eighth, emphasis supplied). Accordingly, regardless of the accuracy of the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Petition, upon the date of death of Barbara McK. Mumma on July 17, 2010, Lisa Morgan, as the then-surviving Trustee, was required under the clear and unequivocal directives of Paragraph 8 of the Will to pay over whatever interest the Residuary Trust then had to each of the four beneficiaries (25% to each of whatev- er interest the Residuary Trust then had), and the fact that Lisa Morgan has failed to do so in violation of the Will cannot serve as a basis or justification for Lisa Morgan now to presume to claim that the Residuary Trust should be permitted by this Court to exercise its rights because of a percentage interest which it no longer legitimately possesses. 17. As to the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Petition, Babs Mumma denies said allegations and incorporates by reference her Response to paragraph 16 of the Petition set forth above. -6- 18. As to the allegations of paragraph 18 of the Petition, Babs Mumma is informed and believes that the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma in Florida has been closed, and therefore Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Lisa Morgan remains the Ex- ecutrix of the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma at this time or whether the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma has any interest at all in MRA I or MRA II, but Babs Mumma is informed and believes that, pursuant to the express terms of the Will as set forth in paragraph 14 above, the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma may not have had such interest. 19. As to the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Petition, Babs Mumma does not understand what Lisa Morgan intends by the use of the term "bulk." Babs Mumma agrees that MRA I and MRA II, both tenancies in common, have owner- ship interests in certain real estate assets. As to the ownership of particular parcels, the Petition provides inadequate information as to such ownership. 20. As to the allegations of paragraph 20 of the Petition, after reasonable investigation, Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information at this time to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Babs Mumma hereby demands strict proof thereof. 21. As to the allegations of paragraph 21 of the Petition, after reasonable investigation, Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information at this time to -7- form a belief as to the truth of said allegations, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Babs Mumma hereby demands strict proof thereof. 22. As to the allegations of paragraph 22 of the Petition, Babs Mumma re- sponds that after reasonable investigation she is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of said paragraph, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 23. As to the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Petition, the ownership in- terest of the Marital Trust has been and remains a disputed issue of fact. Babs Mumma, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information suffi- cient to form a belief as to the purported interests set forth in paragraph 23 of the Petition, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Babs Mumma here- by demands strict proof thereof. Moreover, as set forth more particularly below, the Will expressly provides as to the Marital Trust that: "Upon the death of my said wife, the principal of this Trust, as it is then constituted, shall be paid over by my surviving trustee unto my children, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, BARBARA M. McCLURE [now Babs Mumma], LINDA M. ROTH [NOW Linda Mumma] and LISA M. MLTMMA [now Lisa Morgan], free of this Trust, share and share alike. per stirpes and not per capita" (Will, Paragraph Seventh, emphasis supplied). Accordingly, regardless of the accuracy of the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Petition, upon the date of death of Barbara McK. Mumma on July 17, 2010, Lisa -8- Morgan, as the then-surviving Trustee, was required under the clear and unequivo- cal directives of Paragraph 7 of the Will to pay over whatever interest the Residu- ary Trust then had to each of the four beneficiaries (25% to each of whatever inter- est the Marital Trust then had), and the fact that Lisa Morgan has failed to do so in violation of the Will cannot serve as a basis or justification for Lisa Morgan now to presume to claim that the Marital Trust should be permitted by this Court to exer- cise its rights because of a percentage interest which it no longer legitimately pos- sesses. 24. As to the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Petition, the ownership in- terest of the Marital Trust has been and remains a disputed issue of fact. Babs Mumma, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information suffi- cient to form a belief as to the purported interests set forth in paragraph 24 of the Petition, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Babs Mumma here- by demands strict proof thereof. Moreover, as set forth more particularly below, the Will expressly provides as to the Marital Trust that: "Upon the death of my said wife, the principal of this Trust, as it is then constituted, shall be paid over by my surviving trustee unto my children, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, BARBARA M. McCLURE [now Babs Mumma], LINDA M. ROTH [NOW Linda Mumma] and LISA M. MUMMA [now Lisa Morgan], free of this Trust, share and share alike. per stirpes and not per capita" (Will, Paragraph Seventh, emphasis supplied). -9- Accordingly, regardless of the accuracy of the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Petition, upon the date of death of Barbara McK. Mumma on July 17, 2010, Lisa Morgan, as the then-surviving Trustee, was required under the clear and unequivo- cal directives of Paragraph 7 of the Will to pay over whatever interest the Residu- ary Trust then had to each of the four beneficiaries (25% to each of whatever inter- est the Marital Trust then had), and the fact that Lisa Morgan has failed to do so in violation of the Will cannot serve as a basis or justification for Lisa Morgan now to presume to claim that the Marital Trust should be permitted by this Court to exer- cise its rights because of a percentage interest which it no longer legitimately pos- sesses. Babs Mumma further incorporates herein her Response to paragraph 18 above. 25. As to the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Petition, Babs Mumma is informed and believes that the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma in Florida has been closed, and therefore Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Lisa Morgan remains the Ex- ecutrix of the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma at this time or whether the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma has any interest at all in MRA I or MRA II, but Babs Mumma is informed and believes that, pursuant to the express terms of the Will as set forth in paragraph 23 above, the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma may not have -10- had such interest. By way of further Response, Babs Mumma hereby incorporates herein paragraph 24 above. 26. As to the allegations of paragraph 26 of the Petition, after reasonable investigation Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Bab Mumma demands strict proof thereof. 27. As to the allegations of paragraph 27 of the Petition, after reasonable investigation Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Bab Mumma demands strict proof thereof. By way of further response, Babs Mumma responds that, if the allegations concerning the life insurance poli- Gies are accurate, the life insurance policies in question have current cash values in excess of $2,000,000 and the Petition has made no showing as to its inability to pay for the various financial obligations which might exist for the Estate or the Trusts. 28. As to the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Petition, the ownership in- terest of the Marital Trust has been and remains a disputed issue of fact. Babs Mumma, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information suffi- cient to form a belief as to the purported interests set forth in paragraph 28 of the Petition, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Babs Mumma here- -11- by demands strict proof thereof. Moreover, as set forth more particularly below, the Will expressly provides as to the Marital Trust that: "Upon the death of my said wife, the principal of this trust, as it is then constituted, ...shall be paid over by my surviving trustee unto my children, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, BARBARA M. McCLURE [now Babs Mumma], LINDA M. ROTH [NOW Linda Mumma] and LISA M. MUMMA [now Lisa Morgan], share and share alike, per stirpes and not uer cauita" (Will, Paragraph Seventh, emphasis supplied). Ac- cordingly, regardless of the accuracy of the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Peti- tion, upon the date of death of Barbara McK. Mumma on July 17, 2010, Lisa Mor- gan, as the then-surviving Trustee, was required under the clear and unequivocal directives of Paragraph 7 of the Will to pay over whatever interest the Residuary Trust then had to each of the four beneficiaries (25% to each of whatever interest the Marital Trust then had), and the fact that Lisa Morgan has failed to do so in vi- olation of the Will cannot serve as a basis or justification for Lisa Morgan now to presume to claim that the Marital Trust should be permitted by this Court to exer- cise its rights because of a percentage interest which it no longer legitimately pos- sesses. Babs Mumma further incorporates herein her Response to paragraph 18 above. 29. As to the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Petition, Babs Mumma is informed and believes that the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma in Florida has been -12- closed, and therefore Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Lisa Morgan remains the Ex- ecutrix of the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma at this time or whether the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma has any interest at all in MRA I or MRA II, but Babs Mumma is informed and believes that, pursuant to the express terms of the Will as set forth in paragraph 23 above, the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma may not have had such interest. By way of further Response, Babs Mumma hereby incorporates herein paragraph 24 above. 30. As to the allegations of paragraph 30 of the Petition, after reasonable investigation Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Bab Mumma demands strict proof thereof. 31. As to the allegations of paragraph 31 of the Petition, after reasonable investigation Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Bab Mumma demands strict proof thereof. 32. As to the allegations of paragraph 32 of the Petition, after reasonable investigatian Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Bab Mumma demands strict proof thereof. -13- 33. As to the allegations of paragraph 33 of the Petition, after reasonable investigation Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Bab Mumma demands strict proof thereof. By way of further Re- sponse, Babs Mumma hereby incorporates herein paragraphs 23-24 and 28 above. 34. As to the allegations of paragraph 34 of the Petition, after reasonable investigation Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Bab Mumma demands strict proof thereof. By way of further Re- sponse, Babs Mumma hereby incorporates herein paragraphs 14, 16, 23-24 and 28 above. 35. As to the allegations of paragraph 35 of the Petition, after reasonable investigation Babs Mumma is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations, and therefore said allegations are deemed denied and Bab Mumma. demands strict proof thereof. Babs Mumma further Re- sponds that Lisa Morgan has never provided any information or documentation to support her allegation that the real estate to which the Petition refers requires "sub- stantial capital expenditures." To the contrary, Babs Mumma is informed and be- lieves that Lisa Morgan, acting in her capacity as Co-Executrix prior to July 17, 2010 and in her capacity as Trustee, has not in fact expended substantial funds on -14- the maintenance o, development or improvement of the real estate parcels to which the Petition refers. By way of further Response, Babs Mumma hereby incorporates herein paragraphs 14, 16, 23-24 and 28 above. 36. Admitted. By way of further Response, Babs Mumma avers that, giv- en the express terms of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Will, Babs Mumma, Robert M. Mumma II and Linda Mumma should be consulted and give approval prior to the sale or disposal of any of the substantial assets to which the Petition refers, and Li- sa Morgan has not consulted or sought approval from any of her siblings, who to- gether constitute 75% of the beneficiaries of the Trusts in question. 37. As to the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Petition, Babs Mumma denies the allegation as stated. Babs Mumma is aware of one discussion held in the context of the proceedings before the Auditor and with the involvement of the Auditor himself. Babs Mumma stands ready to make agood-faith effort to address the question of the disposition of the assets of the Trust to the extent that such dis- position would be consistent with the Will, but has not been asked to do so. In fact, the efforts of Babs Mumma to initiate such discussions with an independent outside mediator, Andrew Hier, have been frustrated to date. 38. As to the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Petition, Babs Muinma re- sponds that the Petition provides no documentation or information as to any pur- ported "substantial financial obligations of the Trusts" and Lisa Morgan has pro- -15- vided no such documentation to Babs Mumma, and Babs Mumma, after reasonable investigation, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning either the claimed "lack of liquidity" or any financial obligations of the Trusts. Babs Mumma understands that there has been a history of litigation, which to a substantial extent remains pending at this time. However, Babs Mumma expressly denies that it would be appropriate to sell the real estate assets to which the Petition refers. To the contrary, Babs Mumma avers that not only would such sale violate the express terms of the Will, but also such sale would not be in the financial best interests of Babs Mumma or, for that matter, the other beneficiaries of the Estate and the Trusts given the nature of the assets and the economic circumstances in the relevant geographic area at this time. Moreover, objections to the Accounts remain pending at this time and, in any event, to the extent that assets should be distributed, they should be distributed in accordance with the express terms of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Will, and not sold in a manner which violates but the express terms of the Will and the intent of the Testator, Robert M. Mumma. 39. Paragraph 39 of the Petition sets forth Lisa Morgan's desires. As to whether the life insurance policies should be liquidated at this time, Babs Mumma has no information on which to base a response to the allegation. Babs Mumma -16- therefore demands strict proof as to whether the liquidation of the policies in ques- tion would be appropriate. 40. Paragraph 40 of the Petition sets forth merely that Lisa Morgan seeks an Order authorizing her to engage a third party to sell all of the assets of the vari- ous entities to which paragraph 40 of the Petition refers. Babs Mumma expressly denies that such an order would be in the best interests of Babs Mumma or, for that matter, the best interests of any of the beneficiaries. Moreover, such a procedure would clearly violate the express terms of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Will. By way of further Response, Babs Mumma hereby incorporates herein paragraphs 14, 16, 23-24 and 28 above. NEW MATTER 41. Paragraph 7 of the Will expressly provides as to the Marital Trust that: "Upon the death of my said wife, the principal of this Trust, as it is then constitut- ed, shall be paid over by my surviving trustee unto my children, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, BARBARA M. McCLURE [now Babs Mumma], LINDA M. ROTH [NOW Linda Mumma] and LISA M. MUMMA [now Lisa Morgan], free of this Trust, share and share alike, per stirpes and not per capita" (Will, Paragraph Seventh, emphasis supplied). 42. Paragraph 8 of the Will expressly provides as to the Residuary Trust that: "Upon the death of my said wife, the principal of this trust, as it is then con- -17- stituted, ...shall be paid over by my surviving trustee ...unto my children, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, BARBARA M. McCLURE [now Babs Mumma], LINDA M. ROTH [NOW Linda Mumma] and LISA M. MUNIMA [now Lisa Mor- gan], free of this Trust, share and share alike, per stirpes and not per capita" (Will, Paragraph Eighth, emphasis supplied). 43. Babs Mumma was duly appointed Co-Executrix of the Estate of Rob- ert M. Mumma by Glenda Farner Strasbaugh, Register for the Probate of Wills for Cumberland County on September 17, 2010. 44. Objections have been filed and remain pending to the Accounts filed by Lisa Morgan in this matter. 45. Given that objections to the Accounts remain pending, this Estate is not closed. 46. Since September 17, 2010, Lisa Morgan has failed to communicate with Babs Mumma in her capacity as Co-Executrix, has provided Babs Mumma no information concerning the Estate, and has proceeded unilaterally in all respects. 47. The Petition provides no information as to what, if any "substantial fi- nancial obligations of the Trusts" exist at this time, and Lisa Morgan has disclosed no information to Babs Mumma concerning any such financial obligations. -18- 48. Babs Mumma has proposed to have an independent mediator, Andrew Hier, meet with all four of the beneficiaries in an effort to find a way in which to resolve the differences among the parties. 49. Babs Mumma has received no information concerning the financial condition, assets or obligations of the Trusts since the last day in which a hearing was conducted before the Auditor, and has no current information with respect to the financial condition of the Trusts. 50. No appraisals have been done for any of the properties to which the Petition refers since 2010, and as to certain of those appraisals, there is substantial question as to their accuracy or reliability, including but not limited to the appraisal conducted for Union Quarries, Inc. 51. There is nothing in the Will which provides that, following the death of Barbara McK. Mumma, the assets of either of the Trusts should be liquidated. 52. Lisa Morgan did not consult or confer with Babs Mumma or with any of the other two beneficiaries of the Trusts (excluding Lisa Morgan herself) prior to seeking liquidation of the assets of the Trusts. 53. Prior to filing the Petition seeking liquidation of the assets of the Trusts, Lisa Morgan made no effort to communicate with Babs Mumma or with any of the other two beneficiaries of the Trusts (excluding Lisa Morgan herself) as to -19- their preferences with respect to the disposition or distribution of any of the aseets of the Trusts. 54. There are substantial alternative methods for disposition or distribu- tion of the assets of the Trusts which would vastly be in the better interests of the four beneficiaries of the Trusts, including Lisa Morgan herself. Liquidation of the assets and sale of all the real properties as sought in the Petition would not only be premature, but also would be economically disadvantageous to the beneficiaries and clearly not in their best interests and would violate both the express provisions of the Will and the intent of the Testator. 55. Even if the Trusts demonstrate that there are financial obligations out- standing, the Petition does not justify a total liquidation of the real property assets of the Trusts. Rather, there are substantially less extreme measures, such as a liqui- dation of the life insurance policies or a joint decision as to the possible sale of a particular property, which. would better serve the interests of the parties. WILLIAMS COULSON JOHNSON LLOYD PARKER & TEDESCO, LLC By: Richard F. Rinaldo Dated: Apri126, 2012 Attorneys for Barbara M. Mumma -20- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance was served by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, this 26th day of April, 2012 to the following: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 No V. Otto, III, Esquire George B. Faller, Esquire Jennifer L. Spears, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Brady L. Green, Eaquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Jeffrey G. Brooks, Esquire Minto Law Group, LLC 603 Stanwix Street, Suite 2025 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Ms. Linda M. Mumma, P.O. Box 30436 Bethesda, MD 20824 Richard F. Rinaldo Counsel for Barbara M. Mumma -21-