HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-12IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
M. MLJMMA, Deceased : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNS ANIA o
: ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ~~ ~
• ~~ t? =c
: NO. 21-86-398 ~n -
~~:~ r
IN RE: OPIIVION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P.1925 0°"' ~
OLER, J., May 14, 2012. ~~ ~
r
In this seemingly endless decedenYs estate case,l which is presently subje t to
court-appointed auditor proceedings,2 a beneficiary of the estate of lus deceased father,
and remai.nderman of trusts created under his father's will,3 has filed yet another appeal
from an order during the course of the proceedings.4 This appeal, in a multi-million dollar
~~
~:~
: ;--;
,:~ ;3;
_.; ~-,
~~ ~
.,. ~
~ J
~
estate, challenges an order entered pursuant to the auditor's recommendation authorizing
a transfer of funds from one ba:nk to another and a payment of $125,000.00 to a residuary
trust for expenses of the trust.s Whether the appeal is interlocutory is beyond the scope of
this opinion.6
' I.etters Testameatary were granted on June 5, 1986. See Letters Testamentary, Will Book No. 100:38;
Death Certificate of Robert M. Mumma, filed June 5, 1986; Docket, Register of Wills, No. 21-86-389, at
1.
Z At this poiat, the auditor has conducted about 40 days of hearing.
3 Last Will and Testament of Robert M. Mumma.
`No~ice of Appeal, filed January 12, 20I2.
The Superior Court has aptly characterized appellant's conduct in this estate as "litigious." Opinioq
dated Febrnary 22, 2012, No. 481 MDA 2011. With n~gard to appellant's prior appeais in thiy case alone,
see, e.g., Norice of Appeal, filed September 15, 2005 (appeal quashe~ by Superior Court by order dated
October 28, 2005, at No. 1546 MDA 2005), Notice of Appeal, filed January 14, 2009 (appeal qaashed by
Superior Court by order dated March 27, 2009, at No. 270 MDA 2009); Noxice of Appeal, filed March
14, 2o i i(order affirmed by Superior Court by onier dated February 22, 2012, at No. 481 1~IDA 2011).
Appellam is also engaged in litigation against his rece~ly~deceased mother's estate in Florida. See N.T.
88, Hearing, Januasy 28, 2011; RMM Exhibit 1, Hearing, January 28, 2011 (objections filed in mdher's
estate).
s Order, December 13, 2011.
6 As a general rule, in a decedem's estate "the confirmati~ of the Sna1 account of the personal
npresentative represents the final order, subject to exceptions being filed and disposed of by the court.
See 20 Pa. C.S. §3514." In re Fstate of Barkowski, 2002 PA Super 57, ¶~, 794 A.2d 388, 389-90; see
generally In re Estate of Quinn, 805 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 2002) (appeai &om order directing partial
distribution quashed as irnerlocutory). Under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 342(ax6), "[a]n
The bases of the appeal have been expressed in a statement of errors complained
of on appeal as follows:
1. Appellaut Robert M. Mumtna, II(hereinafter, "Appellant" or Mumma, II")
respactfully submits that your Hpnorable Court erred by failing to address Mumma II's
challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction during the course of the proceedings
before the Auditor, Jos~ph D. Buckley, Esquirc.
2. ~eed, the Auditor's Interim Report, date~i December 5, 2011, specifically
aclmowledged tLat during the frst sud third telepho~ne conferences, "Mr. Mutnma argued
that the court had no jurisdiction" (see pages 1& 2 of Interim Report).
3. Moreover, in his Answer to M&T Bank's Request For Parti~al Disposition On
Undisputed Issues of Fact, filed December 14, 2011, Mumma, II, acding nro se•
specifically alleged that "rhe Orphan's Court does not have jurisdiction over D-E
Distribution or its assets."
4. As Auditor, Joseph Buckley lacked suthority to resolve and w determine a
challenge to the subject matter jurisdidion of the Court a~ should have submitted this
question to the Court.
S. Tn fact, at page 1 of his Interim Report, Auditor Buckley stated as follows:
I also provided all parties with a co~py af applicable sections of the
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes relating to the Orphan's Court
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 Co~rt's decision in P~e v. Daaher. 429 Pa. 576; 240 A.2d
518 (1968), a case wlrich discussed whether a court of common pleas
or the orphan's caut had jurisdicrion W determine the ownership of
certain realty recorded in decedeat's name at the time of death and of
certain shares of corporate stock registered ia decedent's name at the
time of death.
6. Appellant Robert M. Mumma, II respectfully submits that said case is
inapplicable to the facts of the present matter. The fact is that Robert M. Mumma, at the
time of his death, did ttot own stock in DE Distribution and Mumma Realty Associates
was formed after his death, in addition, he did not own stock in Pennsy Supply 1nc.
7. Appellant Robert M. Mumcna, II also submits that no record was kept of the
referenced telepho~ conference ca11s, and Auditor Buckley misrept+esented what was
said by Robert M. Mumma, II. Moreover, Auditor Buckley berated Barbara Mumma to
the exteirt thax she could not express her opinion.
8. The Trustee relies upon a purported agrcement among the tenauts-in-common
to support her rights to the assets of the tenancy-in-common. The ag~eemeirt she relies
upon contains an express provision that all disputes b~we~en the tenants are subject solely
to arbihation in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, and thus nat subject to the jurisdiction of
the Orphans Court of Cumberland Ca~my, Pennsylvania.
order [of an Orphans' Court] deterntining an ttrterest in real or P~~ PraP~Y" ~ 8PP~able. Whether
appellant's challenge to tlris court's "subject matter" jurisdiction should be consaved as implicating tl~is
provision of the appellate rules is beyond the scope of this apinion.
9. In addition to the jwisdictional challenge, Appellant Robert Mumma, II
submits that the distributions authorized by the Court's Order of December 13, 2011,
were inappropriate and an abuse of the Court's discretioq for the following reasons:
a) The parties were not given an oppordmity to respond to the Auditor's
Iteport;
b) Neither D-E Distribution, nor Mumma Realty Associates were parties
to any action before the Court;
c) No Hearings were held in this matter and no record was kept of the
telephone conferences; and
d) Mumma Realty Asaociates is not a legal eMity in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.'
This opi~nion in support of the order directing partial distribntion is written
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Overview of early history of this case. The early history of this estate has been
related in the contexts of multiple prior appeals by appellant to the Superior Court in
opinions authored by the Honorable George E. Hoffer, former President Judge, in an
opuuon in 2000,g and in opinions by the undersigned judge dated July 15, 2005,9
November 4, 2005,10 November 8, 2006," December 8, 2008,'2 and May 31, 2011.'3
On 7anuary 6, 1499, Robert M. Mumma, II... petitioned this court for an
accounting of the estate of his father, Robert M. Mumma, Sr. .., who died testate on
April 12, 1986. The decedeut's will and the codicil thereto were probated on June 5,
1986. The will appoints Mrs. Barbara McK. Mumrria, decedent's widow [now also
~ C~cise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal Pursvant to Pa. R.A.P. 19259B), Filed on
Beha,lf of Appellant Robert M. Mumma, II, filed Apri13, 2012.
8 See In rn: Estate ofRobertM. Mumma, No. 21-86-398 (Ct. Com. Pl. Cumb. Feb. 23, 200Q) (Hoffer, P.J,,
appeal quashed 776 A.2d 300 (2001) (table decision).
9 See In re: Estate ofRobertM. Mumma, In re: Opinion Pursuant to PA. R.A.P. 1925, No. 21-86-398 (Ct.
Com. Pl. Cumb. Jul. 15, 2005).
10 See In re: Esta~e ofRobertM. Mumma, In re: Opinion Pursuazrt to PA. RA.P. 1925, No. 21-86-398 (Ct.
Com. Pl. Cbmb. Nov. 4, 2005).
" See In re: Estate ofRobertM. Mumma, In re: Opinion Putsuaat to PA. R.A.P. 1925, No. 21-86-398 (Ct.
Com. Pl. Cumb. Nov. 8, 2006).
'a See In re: Estate ofRobertM. Mumma, In re: Opinion Pursuaut to PA. RA.P. 1925, No. 21-86-398 (Ct.
Com. Pl. Cumb. Dec. 8, 2008).
13 See In re: Estate ofRobertM. Mumma, In re: Opinion Pursuaat to PA. RA.P. 1925, No. 21-86-398 (Ct.
Com. Pl. Cumb. May 31, 2011).
decea,4ed], and Lisa M. Morgan [decedent's daughter] ... as executrices thereof and as
ttustees of a Marital Trust and a Residuary Trust created thereunder .... Under the will,
the presumptive remaindermen of the Tn~sts, if they survive Mrs. Mumma, are the
decedceirt's children, petitioner Robert M. Mumma, II, Linda M. Mumma, Barbaza M.
Mmruna and Mrs. Morgan. 17~e decede~rt bequeathed to his testamentary trustees an
amouirt equal to fifty perceat of his total gross estate to be held in trust exclusively for the
benefit of ~is wife during her lifetime, the principal to be distributed to the decedex-t's
childnen upon her death. In addition, the decede~t gave his residuary estate to his
testamentary tivstees to be held in t~vst exclusively for the benefit of lris wife during her
lifrxime, the principal to be paid to the decedem's clrildren upon her death.
(Decedern's widow and Mrs. Morgaa] filed iuterim accou~s of their acts and
t~ansactions as executrices and as ttustees on August 9, 1991 ....
(Robert M. Mumma, II,] disclaimed lris iuterest under the will in 1987. in 1989,
[former Presid~nt Judge Harold E. Sheely of] this court g~anted petitioner's mation to
revoke his disclaimer. [Robert M. Frey, Esq.], who was appointed guardian ad litem for
the minor persons iirterested in the Estate in 1988, appealed the revacation of the
disclaimer. The Superior Court ruled that Mr. Frey's representati~ of the estate with
respect to the revocation of the disclaimer was beyond the sca~pe of lris limited
aPpoiirtment and therefore he lacked sta~ding to appeal.
[Robert M. Mumma, II, eventually] ask[ed] for a complete accaum~ng of the
Estate, including an acxounding of the Trusts in which [he] claim[ed] an imerest.
[Deoedern's widow and Mrs. Morgan] claimed ia response that they [could nnt] provide
an acc;ouuting to [Robert M. Mumma, II] because he [did] nat have standing, and the
issue of the revocation of [his] disclaimer ha[d] not been fully litigated ....'a
The position of the executrices/trustees was rejected by the court, and an
accounting by the executrices/hustees was ordered on February 23, 2400 ...."~s
Appellant has proceeded pro se at various times, and with various counsel at other
times. At the time the issues he raises on his current appeal were being developed, he was
proceeding pro se; but a new attorney is now representing him on the appeal. The docket
at this time com~rises 67 pages.
The latest controversy was precipitated by a Petition To Authorize Distributions
filed by the trustee of the residuary trust under the decedent's will.16 The petition noted
14 In re Estate ofRobertM. Mumma, No. 21-86-398, slip op. at 7-8, (Ct. Com. Pl. Ctimb. May 31, 2011);
1» re Estate of Robert M. Mumma, No. 21-86-398, slip. op. at 2(Ct. Com. Pl. Cumb. Nov. 4, 2005, citing
In re Estate of Rob¢rtM. Mumma, No. 21-86-398, slip c~, at 1-3 (Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland Feb. 23, 2000
(Hoffer, P.J.) (citations omitted).
'S In re Estate ofRobertM. Mumma, No. 21-86-398, slip op. at 8(Ct. Com. Pl. Cumb. May 31, 2011); In
re Estate ofRobertM. Mumma, No. 21-86-398, slip, op. at 2-3 (Ct. Com. Pl. Cumb. July 15, 2005, cittng
In re Estate of Robert M. Mumrncr, No. 21-86-398, slip. op. at 1-3 (Ct. Com. Pl. Cumb. Feb. 23, 2000)
(Hoffer, P.J.), appeal quashed, 776 A.2d 300 (2001) (table decision).
16 Pedtion To Authorize Distributions, filed August 26, 2011.
that two business entities in which the trust had a substantial interest-D E Distribution
Corporation and Mumma Realty Associates I--ha.d funds available for distribution and
that a bank (M&T) at which funds of D E Distribution Corporation were located was
unwilling to release them to anyone without a court order.'~ This matter was referred by
the court to the auditor for a brief interim report and recommendation.
While this petition was pending, the bank (M&T) at which the D E Distribution
Corporation account in question was located filed a petition describing itself as a mere
stakeholder and sought authorization to transfer the fimd (amounting to about $86,000) to
an account of D E Distribution Corporation at another bank.'g This petition was opposed
by appellant, acting pro se, on the theory that "the Orphans' Court does not have
jurisdiction over D-E Distribution or its assets. The proper venue for disputes over the
funds in the M&T account is in the County where the account was opened.s19
In his interim report in response to the court's referrai, the auditor described the
procedure he used in arriving at his recommendation:
After contacting the parties or their representatives I conduded a series of
telephone wnferences with all the parties. I also invited any local party to participate in
person in my offices. Daring the first cariference, Attomey Otto and Linda Mwnma 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
jurisdictiott, the Trustee's position was that funds were needed for ongoing ex~enses. The
three beneficiaries preseirt requested additional inforniation from the Trust's acc~unt. The
Trust a~d its attorneys agrced to have the reque.sted financial information made available
and a seco~i conference was scheduled. I also provided all parties with a cc~y of
applicable sedions of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes relabng to the Ocphan's
Court's jurisdiction (20 Pa. C. S. ~ 3543) 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 c~se which discussed whether a court of
common pleas or the orphaas' court had jurisdiaron to determine the ownership of
certam realty recorded in decederrt's name at the time of death and of ceitain shares of
corporate atock registered in decedeat's name at tha time of death.
"Id.
18 Respondern M&T Bank's Request for Partial Disposition on Undisputed Issues of Fact, in ~e Nature of
a Motion for Partiai Judgmeut on the Pleadings, filed December 7, 2011.
19 Respondent Robert M. Mumma's Answers to Responderrt MBcT Bank's Request for Partiat Disposition
on Undisputed Issued (sic) of Fact, in the Nat~u~e of a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, filed
December 14, 2011.
A second conference was held, Linda Mumma informed this office she did not
dasire to participate, Attorney Otto was present in my affice and Robert Mumma and
Barbara Mumma were prese~ on the telephone. During this conference Barbara Mumma
and Robert Mumma stated that they had recently received the fuiaucial material they had
requested and had not had time to review the information. A third confereuce was then
scheduled.
A third conference was held. Linda Mumma ivformed this office she did not
desire to paiticipate, Attorney Otto was present in my office and Robert Mumma and
Barbata Mumma were present on the telephone. Mr. Mumma azgued that the court had
na~ jurisdiction, Barbaia Mumma stated maybe the cairt had jurisdidion and Attorney
Otto stated that the court did have jurisdiction, but he would withdraw the p~ition and
proceed. Attomey Otto stated that the Tr~stee had inforn-ed the Court t~at she, as Trustee
would make no distributions without first pe~tioning the court.ZO
As a result of the agreement on the part of the trustee not to make any distributions
without first petitioning the court, a basically innocuous order was recommended by the
auditor, which the court entered and which appellant has appealed:
AND NOW, this 13th day of December, 2011, up~ t~e recommendation of the
Auditor in this case it is hereby ordered that the Money Market Accoum of D E
Distributian Corporation currently maintained at M& T Bank having an accou~ number
ending in 5251 shall be released and M dt T Bank is hereby direct[ed] to disburse, by
wire t~ansfer, ~e e~ire balance to D E Distributi~ Corporation's checking aacount at
Fulton Bank.
It is further ordered that the sum of $125,000.00 from the accou~s of the
Mumma Rsalty Associates I be distributed to the Tn~st established under the Will of
Robert M. Mumma and that ttris amou~ shall be a ciedit to aay firture distributions w
wluch the said Trust established under the Will of Robert M. Mumma sl~all be entitled.
In essence, the order simply directed the transfer of 586,000 of a corporation in
wluch the trust was said to have a substantial interest from the account of the corporation
at one bank to the account of the corporation at another bank, and the deposit of $125,000
in funds of another business entity in which the trust was said to have a substantial
interest into the trus~ to be credited against future distributions of the entity.
DISCUSSION
The rationale for the auditor's recommendation is contained in the auditor's report,
attached to this opinion and adopted by the court. With regard to the bank transfer, the
report notes, inter a1ia, that "Mr. Mumma could offer no reasonable explanation for his
[objection to a hansfer of funds from one bank account to another] other than personal
20 Auditor's Interim Report, December 5, 2011, appended to Order, December 13, 2011.
animosity toward certain Fulton Bank employees, officers or directors ...." With regard
to the disiribution to the trust of 5125,000 from available funds of Mumma Realty
Associates I, the auditor's observations included the following:
'The Tmst owns a Iarge interest in Mumma Realty Associates I("MRA I'~. That
interest is alleged to be over eighty (80) percent. ... Robert Mumma ... did not dispute
that expenses are being incurneci by the Uust/estate but claimed that such expenses were
only litigatioa costs and should therefore not be considered. ... The parties did not
dispute that 5200,000.00 is available for distribution. Therefore I would recommend that
$125,000.00 be distribnted to the Trust and that such distribution be a credit to any future
distributions. Because the parties caonot agree on their respactive shares and no party,
beneficiary, shazeholder, or pardner petitioned for a distributioq o~er thaa the Trustee,
the pardes must be coment to await the final decision of the court in the audit of the
accounts.
With respeat to the jurisdictional issue being pursued by appellant, it would appear
to be well-settlcd that an Orphans' Court in which a decedent's estate is pending has
jurisdiction over matters relating to the ownership of assets by the estate and their
administration. See Pope v. Dascher, 429 Pa. 576, 240 A.2d S 18 (1968); 20 Pa. C.S §711.
With respect to the procedure employed by the auditor in this case in arriving at
his recommendations, while it might have been beneficial to hold yet more auditor's
hearings on the petition at issue, there is no indication that appellant expressed
dissatisfaction ~t the time with the more informal procedure employed by the auditor. It
was incumbent upon him to do so if he wished to make an issue of i~ Weiner v. Lee, 669
A.2d 424, 424 (Pa. Commw. 1995). In addition, the order entered was basically
innocuous given the initial request of the trustee's petition.
Finally, with respect to the court's adoption of the recommendation of the auditor
and entry of the order appealed from without a hearing or further argument, the
arguments of appellant on the issue were reviewed in detail in the auditor's report and
considered by the court. The final auditor's report and recommendations, dealing with the
many issues raised by appellant and others, will of course be subject to exceptions, briefs,
oral argument, and disposition following review by the court. See Cumberland County
Orphans' Court Rule 8.7-2.
For the foregoing reasons, it is believed that the very limited order entered in
accordance with the auditor's interim report in this case was a proper one.
BY THE COURT,
~~ -~ c / ~
. esley Ol , r., S.J.
Joseph D. Buckley, Esq.
1237 Holly Pike
Carlisle, PA 17013
Auditor
Thomas A. French, Esq.
Rhoads & Sinon, L.L.P.
1 South Mazket Square
P.O. Box 1146
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Attorney for M&T Banlc
Brady I,ee Crreen
Morgan, Lewis 8c Bockius, L.L.P.
1701 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
Attomey for Estate of Robert M. Mumma
George B. Faller, Jr.
Martson, Deardorff, Witliams, Otto, Gilroy & Faller
10 E. High St.
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Estate of Robert M. Mumma
Linda Mumma Roth
512 Creekview Lane
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Linda Mumma Roth
c/o Carter Ellis
203 Friar Court
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050-6872
Barbara Mann Mumma
541 Bridgeview Drive
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Richard F. Rinaldo, Esq.
Willisms Coulson Johnson Lloyd
Parker & Tedesco, LLC
One Gateway Center, 16~' Floor
Pittsbwgh, PA 15222
Jeffrey G. Braoks, Esq.
Minto Law Gro~p, LLC
Two Gateway Center
603 Stanwix Street, Suite 2025
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
MUMMA, deceased : CUMBERLAND COiJNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
: N0.21-86-398
AUDITOR'S INTERIM REPORT, December 5, 2011 AND REQUEST FOR ORDERS
To the Honorable 3. Wesley Oler, Jr.:
Your Honor has appointed me Auditor in the above captioned matter and chazged me
with reviewing the most recent and final account and proposed distribution in the above matter
~nd 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 I eonducted a series of telephone
conferences with all the parties. I also invited any local party to partici~ate in person in my
offices. During the first conference, Attorney Otto and Linda Mumma were present in my off ce
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 beneficiazies present requested
additional information from the TrusYs 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 reiating 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
1
whether a court of common pleas or the orphans' court had jurisdiction Co determine the
ownership of certain realty recorded in decedent's name at the time of death and of cenain 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 Barbaza
Mumma were present on the telephone. During this conference Barbaza 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 T agreement.
The Residuazy 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 shares. 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 Ivlr. 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 transferred.
The relative shares of ownership in DE Distributions is disputed by Robert and Bazbara
IVlumma who raise arguments which had been raised in the origin~l 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 tq 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 Bazbara Mumma did not dispute that
expenses are being incurred by the trustJestate 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 shares and no party,
beneficiary, shareholder, 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 according~y and I have attached recommended orders to accomplish the same.
Respectfully submitted,
,,
~
~~ .
~:
, :
Supreme Court II~#
1237 Holly Pike
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-2448
JoeBLaw(c~aol.com
" l ~' /~, li"+'r ~ /
( f.
Esquire, A ', or
38444 ~%
4
In Re: ROBERT MiJMMA-
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 86-398
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF ORDER
ORDER DATE: OSl14/12
NDGE'S INITIALS: JWO
TIME STAMP DATE: OS/14/12
~ IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA RAP 1925
...........................................................
SERVICE TO: JOSEPH BUCKLEY .................................................................
GEORGE FALLER JR RICHARD RINALDO
THOMAS FRENCH LINDA MUMMA ROTH - MECH & C/O CARTER ELLIS
BRADY GREEN BARBARA MANN MUMMA JEFFREY BROOKS
METHOD OF MAILING: ENVELOPES PROVIDED BY:
, ~ USPS ^ PETITIONER
~ ~ ^ NDGE
^ HAND DELIVERED ~ CLERK OF ORPHANS COURT
^ OTHER
MAILED: OSl14/12
...........................................................
SERVICE TO: .................................................................
METHOD OF MAILING: ENVELOPES PROVIDED BY:
^ USPS ^ PETITIONER
~ ~ ^ NDGE
^ HAND DELIVERED ^ CLERK OF ORPHANS COURT
^ OTHER
MAILED:
/
eputy
Clerk of hans' Co