The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-14-12600171 Richard F. Rinaldo Pa. I.D. No. 33222 Williams Coulson Johnson Lloyd Parker & Tedesco, LLC One Gateway Center, 16`" Floor Pittsburgh,PA 15222 (412-454-0200 Attorneys for Barbara M. Mumma C O rt, `v' ~7 ~ ~ ~ ~~ rrn ~ ~C3 ~ S C7 ~ `A? :meJ ~_ , -~~ ~,~ ., ~;, p _. ~ . ~ ;:~ ~:; ~.a 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 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TO AUTHORIZE SALE OF REAL ESTATE In accordance with the Order of Court entered December 16, 2012 issuing a Rule returnable within 10 days of service, Barbara M. Mumma ("Babs Mumma"), by her attorneys, Williams Coulson Johnson Lloyd Parker & Tedesco, LLC, here- by files and serves Barbara Mumma's Response in Opposition to the Supplemental Petition to Authorize Sale of Real Estate (the "Supplemental Petition") and re- spectfully requests that this Court not grant the relief requested by the Petition. ~ i1 Introduction, Background and Discussion The Supplemental Petition consists of only two paragraphs, the first of which incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-9 of a Petition to Authorize Sale of Real Estate filed May 30, 2012, which sought judicial approval to sell two parcels of real property identified by Tax ID Nos. 63-024-102 and 62-024-112 and the se- cond of which merely references a communication from United Parcel Service ex- pressing a concern about the fact that the Auditor and Court had not yet acted on the Petition to Authorize Sale of Real Estate. The Supplemental Petition requests no other relief. Respondent Babs Mumma has previously filed a Response in Op- position to Petition to Authorize Sale of Real Estate, filed and served June 21, 2012. Following argument, Babs Mumma also filed aPost-Hearing Memorandum of Barbara M. Mumma in Opposition to Petition to Authorize Sale of Real Estate, filed and served August 2, 2012. Babs Mumma hereby incorporates by reference each of these previous filings, which respond fully to the Supplemental Petition. In addition, reference is made to an Order of Court dated July 30, 2012, per Oler, J.~ The July 30, 2012 Order authorized and directed Lisa Morgan to "cancel, ' During a conference call with Auditor Buckley during the afternoon of Decem- ber 4, 2012 counsel for Babs Mumma first learned of this order which for some reason never arrived at his office or, as it was determined, at the office of Jeffrey Brooks, counsel for Robert M. Mumma, II. Fortunately, the Order in question only dealt with the distribution of the net proceeds of certain life insurance policies owned by D-E Distribution Corporation. -2- redeem or terminate the life insurance policies owned by D.E. Distribution Corpo- ration, receive the proceeds of the same and hold the proceeds for distribution to all shareholders of D.E. Distribution Corporation according to their respective interest in said corporation." The July 30, 2012 order further directed Lisa Morgan to provide information concerning the shareholders' proportional interests and, if no objections were made within five (5) days of Lisa Morgan's sending that infor- mation, then Lisa Morgan was directed to "distribute the net proceeds received from the terminated policies to all shareholders in accordance with his, her or its proportional interest." In it undisputed that No Otto, counsel for Ms. Morgan, sent that information to counsel of record via e-mail on or about August 2, 2012. It also is undisputed that no objections were received to the August 2, 2012 communication by August 7, 2012. Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the July 30, 2012 Order, the pro- ceeds from the insurance policies in question already should have been distributed months ago to the shareholders of D-E Distribution Corporation in accordance with their proportional interest. This, as counsel learned during the conference call of December 4, 2012, has not occurred, and it does not appear that the policies have even been terminated and the cash received by D-E Distribution Corporation, de- spite the express wording of the July 30, 2012 Order. -3- The failure of Lisa Morgan to terminate the life insurance policies owned by D-E Distribution Corporation and to receive and distribute the proceeds to the shareholders of D-E Distribution Corporation contradicts the allegations made by Ms. Morgan and her counsel in their original Petition to Authorize Liquidation that there is a "lack of liquidity in the Trusts [and there exist] substantial financial obli- gations of the Trusts ...." See Petition to Authorize Plan of Liquidation, filed April 16, 2012, at ¶ 38. See also id. at ¶ 39. Apparently, the Trust are not in need of cash nearly as much as Lisa Morgan implied. It should also be noted that the failure of Lisa Morgan to comply with the July 30, 2012 Order of Court and to distribute the proceeds of the terminated life insurance policies to the shareholders of D-E Distribution Corporation prior to the end of calendar year 2012 is likely to have significant deleterious tax consequences for some or all of the shareholders in question, for which Lisa Morgan is solely re- sponsible resulting from her failure to comply with the July 30, 2012 Order of Court. As to the UPS Drive Property itself, as set forth in the Post-Hearing Memo- randum, Lisa Morgan should have already distributed the assets of the Trust, which would have meant that she was no longer a person who owned or controlled a ma- jority interest in the real properties in question. Moreover, she has never shown that she considered other options with respect to the UPS Drive Property which -4- would have been less detrimental to the interests of Bobali Corporation, a corpora- tion in which each of the beneficiaries also has an interest. Finally, it should be noted that, without being redundant with respect to the objections previously filed on behalf of Babs Mumma, the conduct of Lisa Morgan in this matter has been typical of her mismanagement of the assets of the Trusts, her failure to develop and make profitable the real estate holdings in question and what appears to be a strategy of failing to hold or conduct corporate meetings, at- tempting to make the entities profitable or otherwise acting in the best interests of the residuary beneficiaries of the Trust. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the Response of Barbara M. Mumma In Opposition to Petition to Authorize Sale of Real Estate and in the Post-Hearing Memorandum of Barbara M. Mumma In Opposition to Petition to Authorize Sale of Real Estate, both of which have been incorporated herein by reference, Babs Muinma respectfully requests that this Court deny the relief sought in the Supplemental Petition. WILLIAMS COULSON JOHNSON LLOYD PARKER & TEDESCO, LLC By: chard F. Rinaldo Dated: December 13, 2012 Attorneys for Barbara M. Mumma -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response of Barbara M. Mumma in Opposition to Supplemental Petition to Authorize Sale of Real Estate was served by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, this 13"' day of December, 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, Esquire 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 Robert M. Mumma II 840 Market Street Suite 3333 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (Certificate of service continued) -6- Robert M. Mumma II 6880 S.E. Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996 Ms. Linda M. Mumma, P.O. Box 30436 Bethesda, MD 20824 Ri and F. Rinaldo Counsel for Barbara M. Mumma -7-