HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-19-12 (2)DELANO M. LANTZ & ASSOCIATES
By: Delano M. Lantz, Esquire
Identification No. 21401
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-422-5874
717-422-5879 (fax)
IN RE: KATHLEEN M. KNISELY,
an incapacitated person
r.,-
~+• ~_..
c--a ~y ::~
~ ~
"Aw.._ t'~"' t 4
~ ~ ~ ~ ~`
~
,....,
r
; :
-
k
~
.: .,
i~~ `
~~ .;L ,€
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
N O. 21-12-946
ANSWER OF SAMUEL SCOTT KNISELY
TO THE RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND PETITION SEEKING
CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE OF GUARDIANSHIP POWERS AND
REQUESTING THE COURT TO SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THAT
OF THE INCAPACITATED PERSON PURSUANT TO 20 PA. C.S. ~5536(b)
AND NOW COMES Samuel Scott Knisely (hereinafter "Scott"), by and through
his attorney, Delano M. Lantz, Esquire, and submits the following Answer to the Rule to
Show Cause issued on December 7, 2012, and the Petition Seeking Clarification of
Scope of Guardianship Powers and Requesting the Court to Substitute Its Judgment for
that of the Incapacitated Person Pursuant to 20 Pa. C.S. §5536(b).
Introduction
As set forth below, this matter presents serious issues of capacity, abuse of
confidential relationships, undue influence, conflicts of interest, what is truly in Kathleen
M. Knisely's best interest and what she would do regarding gifting if not incapacitated
and not subjected to undue influence and the abuse of confidential relationships.
~~
~~~~,
Counsel for Scott requests the Court to permit an appropriate period of time in order to
take discovery on these issues and to consult with qualified independent experts.
With respect to the allegedly time sensitive matter involving certain provisions of
the EGTRRA and Tax Relief Act of 2010 that are "scheduled to sunset for estates of
decedents dying, gifts made or GSTS made after December 31, 2012", the Court should
not make any orders without a full record on the important issues set forth above merely
because of this cited possibility. Congress may well act to continue the current
provisions or some modified version of them so that there would be little or no estate tax
impact. Even if, however, there would be some adverse impact down the road, that
simply would be a consequence of the fact that these important issues needed more
time to be fully developed.
There are issues as to whether the Court should exercise its authority under
Section 5536(b) of the PEF Code under these circumstances. Before the Court
considers substituting its judgment for her, the Court should hear all of the relevant
evidence on these issues. Scott asserts that his mother would not take actions to
benefit four of her children and intentionally exclude him from her estate plan and any
gifting mechanisms that would be set up and made during her lifetime in the absence of
the abuse of a confidential relationship and undue influence and if she was not
incapacitated. She testified on August 31, 2012 that her will divided her estate "equally
among the five children." Transcript page 20, line 14. If the Court decides to substitute
its judgment for Mrs. Knisely, the court should give great weight to her testimony and
her will that she signed prior to August 2011.
2
Procedural Background
1. Admitted .
2 . Admitted .
3. Admitted.
4 . Admitted .
5 . Admitted .
6. Admitted.
Personal Background
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted .
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that various events
leading up to the appointment of a guardian are averred in Petitions for Appointment of
Guardians dated August 30 and October 4, 2012 Petitions. Denied that the Petitions
set forth all material facts and other facts are denied consistent with the averments in
this Answer. The Petitions failed to disclose that the Petitioner, James Knisely, and his
siblings, Barbara Knisely, Lee Ann Cast and Kathleen L. Knisely, had actively worked to
have their mother sign wills on February 3, 2012 and April 18, 2012 that attempt to
disinherit Scott, a trust document in June and a deed transferring her home to the Trust
on August 2, 2012, just 28 days before the first Petition was filed. Scott believes that he
is excluded as a beneficiary under the Trust. Petitioner did not mention these
documents in the earlier Petitions. When Scott went to see his mother in late August,
she told Scott that "she signed papers recently" and that "they "(meaning her other
3
children) "had discussed it with you." Scott's siblings had not discussed any of the
documents with him. After Mrs. Knisely went to play bridge one morning as she
customarily did, Scott and his mother had lunch. After lunch, Mrs. Knisely wanted to
know what she signed so Scott and Mrs. Knisely went to the Mette offices to obtain
copies of the documents. She had every right to get them so Scott could help her
understand what she had signed. She wanted to know. The mere fact that Kathleen L.
Knisely was an agent under a Power of Attorney did not deprive Mrs. Knisely of her right
to get the documents she signed. The actions of the Mette firm in contacting Kathleen
L. Knisely rather than providing copies of documents to Mrs. Knisely call into question
the persons who were providing instructions to the Mette firm on the estate planning
issues. Scott did not "remove" his mother from her home. His mother willingly
accompanied him at all times during this period as she stated in her August 31, 2012
testimony. Transcript, p. 6-7. Scott and his mother were at the Courtyard Marriott in
late August and drove there in her car that she paid for and had for her use, but that
was titled in James Knisely's name. After the police left the hotel, James Knisely took
his mother's car so she and Scott would have difficultly leaving the hotel. Transcript, p.
9-10. Scott and his mother contacted the brokerage firm that had three weeks earlier
taken over the accounts from the firm that had handled them for 30 years -again
information that Mrs. Knisely was entitled to obtain. It is denied that Scott was
attempting to obtain any of his mother's money. Scott was not attempting to take
control of his mother's assets. He was only trying to help his mother find out what had
happened and he believed that he was at all times acting in her best interest.
Information now shows that his other siblings, prior to Scott's return to see his mother in
4
late August, had in fact worked together to take control of all the assets and to cause
their mother to sign the documents referenced above that adversely affected both Mrs.
Knisely and Scott. They accomplished their goals by abusing confidential relationships,
exercising undue influence and taking advantage of her capacity issues. Petitioners
had conflicts of interest and failed to disclose these conflicts of interest in their Petitions.
11. Denied. The answer to paragraph 10 is incorporated herein by reference.
Scott never abducted Mrs. Knisely and did not attempt to access Mrs. Knisely's finances
for his personal use. Mrs. Knisely willingly accompanied Scott. He and Mrs. Knisely
were attempting to obtain information as to what the other children had done in regard
to documents she had signed and which Mrs. Knisely had every right to know.
Extensive factual background must be presented to place the events of August in
proper context. Scott believed at all times that he was acting in his mother's best
interest and was attempting to prevent her from being taken advantage of. Mrs. Knisely
willingly returned to the residence in Nevada where she has spent substantial time over
the last several years. She has enjoyed her time in Nevada with Scott and should be
allowed to do so in the future.
12. Denied. Scott never wrongfully obtained any funds from his mother. No
details of the allegations are provided. After reasonable investigation Scott lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. The
averment is therefore denied and proof thereof demanded.
13. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Scott has not sought to
obtain full time employment since approximately 2002. Scott devoted much of his time
from 2000 until 2012 in being a supportive son and assisting his mother who had many
5
difficulties following the death of her mother in 2000. His mother greatly benefitted from
Scott's close involvement with her. Scott denies that he "suffers from his own mental
problems." Scott's siblings have attempted to convince Mrs. Knisely that Scott has
serious mental illness. In late August 2012 at the Courtyard Marriott, James Knisely
shouted out to Scott in his mother's presence for her to hear as well as the police that
were present that: "Scott you are crazy." After the police spoke to Scott and Mrs.
Knisely separately, she remained with Scott and the police took no action. In early
September when Mrs. Knisely was in North Carolina with Scott, she called James. In
that conversation Scott overheard James telling his mother: "Don't you remember you
are afraid of Scott?" Mrs. Knisely objected and said she was not afraid of Scott. After
the November 15, 2012, hearing and while standing outside of the courthouse in the
presence of Kathleen and Lee Ann, Barbara Lynn Knisely said to Mrs. Knisely in Scott's
presence: "Mom, tell Scott you love him very much and that he needs help and you
want Scott to get help, don't you mom?" Barbara was again attempting to convince her
mother that Scott had a serious mental illness. This illustrates the over mastering
influence that Barbara and James were exercising and attempting to exercise over their
mother and are still exercising over her. By these efforts the siblings are attempting to
foster and maintain estrangement between Scott and his mother in his mother's mind.
His siblings are attempting to use this claim to impede the relationship between Scott
and his mother.
14. Denied. Denied that Scott has become erratic or desperate, or that his
actions are in any way related to lack of access to his mother's funds. At all times he
has attempted to act in the best interest of his mother. He further believes that his
6
siblings have taken actions intended to create estrangement between Scott and his
mother in order to obtain financial gain from her estate and to punish Scott regardless of
Mrs. Knisely's true wishes.
Mrs. Knisely's Financial Situation
Assets
15. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Mrs. Knisely's
estate has very substantial assets. Scott is not fully aware of all of the assets and after
reasonable investigation he lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of these averments. The averments are therefore denied and proof thereof
demanded.
16. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Mrs. Knisely is the
beneficiary of a trust established by Dr. Knisely. As to the date and details of the trust
and the amount in the trust, after reasonable investigation Scott lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments. The averments
are therefore denied and proof thereof demanded.
17. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that she resides at the
Wormleysburg residence some of the time. Denied that she resides only at that
residence. Over the last six years, she has also resided for substantial periods of time
at the Nevada residence as well as at the residence in North Carolina. She has
probably spent more time at those locations than at the Wormleysburg residence over
that time period. If allowed to choose, Scott believes she would choose to continue to
spend substantial periods of time at those other residences as well at other locations.
7
18. Denied. After reasonable investigation Scott is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the averment is
therefore denied and proof demanded. Any and all instruments signed by Mrs. Knisely
after January 1, 2012, are suspect and involve issues of abuse of confidential
relationship, undue influence and capacity.
Income
19. Denied. Scott had knowledge of the income available in the past, but at
this time, after reasonable investigation Scott is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments regarding income and the
averments are therefore denied and proof thereof demanded.
Liabilities
20. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Mrs. Knisely is
responsible for her various expenses. Scott worked with his mother for many years and
assisted her in these matters. However, at this time after reasonable investigation Scott
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this
averments and the averments are therefore denied and proof demanded.
Request for Clarification of Order of Incapacity
21. Admitted .
22. Admitted. However, the appointment of the plenary guardians should be
reconsidered by the court in view of the new information now before the court that
establishes they have ongoing conflicts of interest that motivate them to create
estrangement between Scott and Mrs. Knisely and to impede and prevent any contact
between Scott and his mother.
8
23. Denied. The answer to paragraph 10 is incorporated herein by reference.
No reasons are given as to why any clarification is necessary or why a finding of total
incapacity is warranted. Scott requests an opportunity to fully develop all the relevant
facts regarding these issues, which is in Mrs. Knisely's best interest. Dr. Hume saw
Mrs. Knisely only within a short period of time after she was removed from Nevada
against her wishes and before she had an adequate period of time to recover from
these events. The Guardians have a conflict of interest under the circumstances where
they are seeking to obtain gifts from the estate while excluding Scott from the gifting
plan and have caused the procurement of the documents set forth above. After such
review the Court is requested to appoint an independent guardian or consider
appointing Scott as guardian.
24. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that the request is made.
Denied that the request is appropriate or in the best interest of Mrs. Knisely. The
request is unfounded, and not necessary. Issues exist with respect to abuse of a
confidential relationship by these individuals and whether or not they have exerted
undue influence on Mrs. Knisely. Conflicts of interest exist which should be fully
explored and considered by the Court based on a full record developed through
discovery and then presented to the Court after the record is fully developed.
Request for Protective Order
25. Denied. Scott believes and therefore avers that Mrs. Knisely's well being
will best be met if Mrs. Knisely is able spend substantial time with Scott and to travel
and enjoy various activities with him and with others in a variety of locations as she has
done in the past. She enjoys golf and tennis. She has spent most of the winters for the
9
last seven or eight years outside of the Central Pennsylvania area. Her best interests
will be served by facilitating similar activities going forward. No reasons are cited by
Petitioners as to why it is crucial "that they maintain access to her person." As noted
above, they have conflicts of interest and consideration must be given to the reasons
why they may want to keep her from Scott and perhaps others at this time.
26. Denied. Scott denies that he engaged in "erratic behavior and threats."
He attempted at all times to act in the best interest of his mother. The averments set for
above are incorporated herein by reference. The Protective Order should not be
issued. A full development of all the relevant facts will demonstrate that Mrs. Knisely
will benefit from frequent contact with Scott as set forth above. An independent
guardian should be appointed on an interim basis and Scott believes he can ultimately
satisfy the Court that Mrs. Knisely's best interest will be served if Scott is named
Guardian.
Request for Approval of Maintenance of Personal Checking Account
27. Admitted.
28. Admitted.
29. Admitted.
Request for Approval of Principal Expenditures
to be used to Renovate Residence
30. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Ms. Knisely resides at
the residence, but she has also resided at other locations over the last six years as set
forth in the answer to paragraph 17. With respect to the QPRT and its provisions, the
answer to Paragraph 18 is incorporated by reference. The deed dated August 2, 2012
(28 days before the these proceedings were instituted) transferring the residence from
10
Mrs. Knisely to Kathleen L. Knisely as Trustee is attached as Exhibit "A." Denied that
these expenditures should be made for a home no longer owned by Mrs. Knisely and in
view of the conflicts of interest involved regarding the interests in the home.
31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Scott is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the averment is
therefore denied and proof demanded.
32. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Mrs. Knisely should be
living at the residence. However, Scott has not been provided access to or full
information regarding where Mrs. Knisely has been actually living since early
November, and after reasonable investigation Scott lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. The averment is therefore
denied and proof thereof demanded.
33. Admitted.
34. Denied. Various improvements have been made over the years. Also, In
August 2012 Scott observed that various renovations were taking place in the home.
Mrs. Knisely testified in August that the laundry room was being remodeled. Transcript,
page 8, line 8-11.
35. Admitted in part and denied in part. The conflict of interest and ownership
issues should be resolved before permitting any funds to be spent on renovations.
Upon resolution of these issues, renovations that will truly improve Mrs. Knisely's quality
of life are appropriate. Mrs. Knisely is 79 years old and does not have any mobility
limitations at this time and her physical health is generally good. However, her quality
of life also requires that she spend time at various other locations as she has done in
11
the past and is still fully capable of doing, such as spending time in Nevada, North
Carolina, Florida and to otherwise travel to various places as she did in the past. She
should be allowed the opportunity to engage in these types of activities with Scott as
she has done since 2000.
36. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that the renovations are
proposed. The answer to paragraph 35 is incorporated herein by reference. As to the
listed items, after reasonable investigation, Scott lacks sufficient information to form a
belief as to the truth of the averments and the averments are denied and proof thereof
demanded.
37. This paragraph stated a legal conclusion which requires no answer.
38. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that the request is made.
Denied that the request should be granted at this time. The answers to Paragraphs 30-
36 are incorporated herein by reference. The Court should hear all of the evidence on
all material issues before ruling on this matter. If an independent guardian is appointed,
the request should be referred to that guardian for evaluation and input to the Court. In
the alternative, the court is requested to scrutinize the requests and in no event should
any sum in excess of the estimated cost $162,500 be approved if the Court deems it
appropriate to advance any sums at this time.
Request for Court to Substitute its Judgment for that of Mrs. Knisely
Pursuant to 20 Pa. C.S. $5536
39. Denied. After reasonable investigation Scott lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. The averment is
therefore denied and proof thereof demanded. By way of further answer, the answers
to paragraphs 40-42 and 54-59 are incorporated herein by reference.
12
40. Denied. After reasonable investigation Scott lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding making
appointments or any meetings. The averments are therefore denied and proof thereof
demanded. As to the Will dated February 3, 2012, and attached as Exhibit "A" to the
Petition, the Will is voidable and should be voided by the Court because it was procured
through the abuse of confidential relationships and the exercise of undue influence by
Scott's siblings. Additionally, Mrs. Knisely's condition that led the Court to find that she
was incapacitated on November 15, 2012 existed throughout the period from the last
half of 2011 through the November 15 hearing before the Court. Dr. Watkin testified on
August 31 that the "symptoms started a little over a year ago with confusion,
disorientation, extreme anxiety, frustration to where she just couldn't cope with things.
felt she was exhibiting dementia." Transcript, page 25-26. Therefore, she was
incapacitated at all times when she was allegedly engaged in estate planning and
signing documents during this period, including at the time she allegedly "updated" her
Will on February 3, 2012. Therefore, the Will is void for lack of capacity at the time it
was signed. Scott requests an opportunity to develop a full record on all of these
issues.
41. Denied. After reasonable investigation Scott lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding any
meetings and estate planning. The averments are therefore denied and proof thereof
demanded. The answer to Paragraph 40 is incorporated herein by reference. The
same issues and concerns exist regarding the "slightly modified" Last Will and
13
Testament dated April 18, 2012, as exists for the earlier Will dated February 3, 2012.
The Will is voidable and void for those reasons.
42. Admitted in part and denied in part. The answer to Paragraphs 40 and 41
are incorporated herein by reference. The same issues regarding lack of capacity,
abuse of confidential relationships and undue influence by Scott's siblings exist for all
matters regarding the alleged goals of Mrs. Knisely in any estate planning. Scott
believes that Mrs. Knisely, if not subjected to undue influence and the abuse of
confidential relationships by Scott's siblings, would want any will to provide equally for
all of her children and any transfer of assets made for estate planning purposes to be
made to all of her children in as close to equal shares as possible. As set forth above,
on August 31 she testified, in response to the Court's questions, that her Will shared her
estate equally among her five children. As to gifts she chose to make during her
lifetime, she would not want those transfers to be reexamined. Scott denies that his
mother would ever consider disinheriting him unless she was subjected to the abuse of
a confidential relationship and undue influence and had capacity issues, which issues
existed during this time.
43. Denied as stated. Admitted that a Petition was filed on August 30, 2012,
to have Mrs. Knisely to be determined to be incapacitated and that the Court made such
a determination on November 15, 2012, based on the record before it. As set forth
above, however, if she was incapacitated from the August to November timeframe she
was then also incapacitated prior to February 3, 2012 and throughout the period from
prior to February 3, 2012 through November 15, 2012.
44. This paragraph states a legal conclusion which requires no answer.
14
45. Admitted that due to the size of the estate, it likely will be subject to some
estate tax.
46. This paragraph states a legal conclusion which requires no answer.
47. This paragraph states a legal conclusion which requires no answer.
48. This paragraph states a legal conclusion which requires no answer.
49. This paragraph states a legal conclusion which requires no answer.
50. This paragraph states a legal conclusion which requires no answer.
51. This paragraph states a legal conclusion which requires no answer.
52. This paragraph states a legal conclusion which requires no answer. By
way of further answer, however, the assertion that the EGTRRA's 2001 changes will
"spring back into life in 2013" assume that Congress will take no action. Based on
information and belief, it is much more likely that Congress will take action to prevent
EGTRRA 2001 changes from springing back into life in 2013 or at any future date.
Based on information and belief, the most likely outcome will be that there will not be
any significant changes in the estate tax provisions in 2013 or forward that would
materially affect the estate taxes on Mrs. Knisely's estate.
53. This paragraph states a legal conclusion which requires no answer. The
answer to Paragraph 52 is incorporated herein by reference.
54. Denied. After reasonable investigation Scott lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. The averment is
therefore denied and proof thereof demanded. Further, all such discussions which may
have occurred are subject to the same concerns about abuse of confidential
relationship, undue influence and capacity.
15
55. Denied. After reasonable investigation Scott lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. The averment is
therefore denied and proof thereof demanded.
56. Denied. After reasonable investigation Scott lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. The averment is
therefore denied and proof thereof demanded.
57. Denied. After reasonable investigation Scott lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. The averment is
therefore denied and proof thereof demanded. By way of further answer, to the extent
Petitioners assert that Kathleen M. Knisely would disinherit Scott, the answer is denied
based on Scott's knowledge of his mother and what she would do and want to do with
regard to how she would treat her five children for estate planning purposes if a
confidential relationship was not abused and she was not subjected to undue influence
and had capacity. As set forth above, she testified on August 31 that under her Will her
estate was shared equally among her five children.
58. Denied. After reasonable investigation Scott lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. The averment is
therefore denied and proof thereof demanded. By way of further answer, to the extent
Petitioners assert that Kathleen M. Knisely would disinherit Scott, the answer is denied.
Unless subjected to undue influence or the abuse of a confidential relationship by
Scott's siblings, Mrs. Knisely would never disinherit Scott. The answers to paragraph
12 and 57 are incorporated herein by reference. Mrs. Knisely made gifts to all of her
children.
16
59. After reasonable investigation Scott lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. The averment is therefore
denied and proof thereof demanded.
60. Admitted in part and denied in part. After reasonable investigation Scott
lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment.
The averment is therefore denied and proof thereof demanded. It is admitted that Mrs.
Knisely was declared incapacitated on November 15, 2012.
61. This paragraph states a legal conclusion which requires no answer. By
way of further answer, however, it is denied that Section 5536(b) of the PEF Code
would intend to have transfers made as requested in the Petition under these
circumstances. Further, if any such transfers otherwise would be appropriate, they
would only be appropriate after a full hearing following discovery on the issues of
confidential relationship, undue influence and capacity as set forth above. Based on
Mrs. Knisely's testimony on August 31, 2012, any such transfers should include Scott
on an equal basis with his siblings if any transfers are permitted.
62. This paragraph states a legal conclusion and requires no answer.
63. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that the estate has
substantial assets and as a practical matter there should be ample assets for Mrs.
Knisely's maintenance, support and well-being. However, the Court should not
necessarily make that assumption since life is uncertain and the Court should hesitate
to substitute its judgment for Mrs. Knisely under such circumstances. Further, no
transfers should be allowed until all issues of undue influence, abuse of confidential
17
relationships and capacity are resolved. If any transfers are allowed, Scott should be
included on an equal basis with his other siblings.
64. Denied. After reasonable investigation Scott lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this averment. The averment is
therefore denied and proof thereof demanded. Further, no such plan has been
presented to Scott.
65. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted the request is made. For
the reasons above, the request should be denied. Further, no such decisions should be
made until there has been a full opportunity for discovery and a full presentation of all
the relevant facts to the Court. If the Court deems it appropriate to substitute its
judgment and allow any gifts to avoid taxes, the Court should order that Scott shall be
included on an equal basis with his siblings. Mrs. Knisely expressed her understanding
of what was provided for in her Will in her testimony on August 31, 2012. At that time,
she stated in response to this Court's question as follows:
Q Do you mind saying what's in the will, who gets your estate?
A It's divided equally among the five children.
Transcript, p. 20 lines 12-14. This is a clear expression of Mrs. Knisely's intentions.
Scott requests the Court to follow her intentions as expressed above.
Concurrence/Consents of Interested Parties
66. Admitted that the consents of Scott's siblings are attached.
67. Admitted. Samuel Scott Knisely does not concur in the relief requested.
18
68. By this answer, Samuel Scott Knisely responds to the Rule issued by the
Court and requests the Court not to grant the requested relief and to take the actions
and to make orders as requested above and below.
69. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that Mr. Bayley indicates he
has no objection to the items regarding clarification of the order of incapacity, request
for protective order, request for approval of maintenance and personal checking
account and request for approval of principal expenditures to renovate the residence.
However, Mr. Bayley goes on to state "the undersigned defers taking a position with
regard to Petitioners' request for the Court to substitute his judgment for that of
Mrs. Knisely pursuant to 20 Pa. C. S. 5536 until after a hearing regarding the matter."
WHEREFORE, Samuel Scott Knisely requests the Court to deny the Petition.
Samuel Scott Knisely requests the opportunity to conduct full discovery regarding the
issues of abuse of confidential relationship, undue influence and the capacity of his
mother from the latter part of 2011 through the present and the opportunity to present
evidence following such discovery on all pertinent issues. He requests that the court
appoint an independent guardian on an interim basis. He further requests such other
relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances. If any
gifting to trusts is allowed, the court should direct that Scott must share equally with his
siblings in such gifting.
NEW MATTER
70. Paragraphs 1 through 69 of the Answer are incorporated herein by
reference.
19
71. Kathleen M, Knisely's capacity or lack of capacity was the same from
August 2011 through November 15, 2012.
72. Dr. Watkin testified on August 31, 2012, that Mrs. Knisely's "symptoms
started a little over a year ago with confusion, disorientation, extreme anxiety, frustration
to where she just couldn't cope with things. I felt she was exhibiting dementia."
Transcript, page 25-26.
73. The Court determined that Kathleen M. Knisely was incapacitated at the
hearing on November 15, 2012.
74. Based on that finding, she was necessarily incapacitated from at least late
2011 through November 15, 2012.
75. Based on the above, Kathleen M. Knisely was incapacitated at the time
she executed the Will dated February 3, 2012.
76. Based on the above, Kathleen M. Knisely was incapacitated at the time
she executed the Will dated April 18, 2012.
77. Based on the above, Kathleen M. Knisely was incapacitated at the time
she executed the Qualified Personal Residence Trust dated June 5, 2012.
78. Based on the above, Kathleen M. Knisely was incapacitated at the time
she executed the Deed dated August 2, 2012 attached as Exhibit "A."
79. Barbara Lynn Knisely, M.D., James Grant Knisely, Kathleen L. Knisely
and Lee Ann Knisely Cast were in confidential relationships with Kathleen M. Knisely
during the time period from December 2011 through November 15, 2012, except for the
period she was with Scott in late August until she returned to Pennsylvania in
November. The confidential relationships have continued since November 15, 2012.
20
80. At the hearing on August 31, 2012, Mrs. Knisely testified during
questioning by the Court:
Q Do you mind saying what's in the will, who gets your estate?
A It's divided equally among the five children.
Transcript, p. 20 lines 12-14.
81. The Wills attached to the Petition as Exhibits A and B and the QPRT
dated June 5, 2012 and the Deed dated August 2, 2012 attached as Exhibit "A" hereto
were procured through the abuse of confidential relationships and the exercise of undue
influence over Kathleen M. Knisely by Scott's siblings and are voidable and should be
found void by the Court.
82. The alleged discussions regarding various transfers and gifting as set forth
in the Petition are tainted and untrustworthy because of the capacity issues and the
abuse of the foregoing confidential relationships and/or undue influence and should not
be considered by the Court in substituting its judgment for Mrs. Knisely if the Court
deems it appropriate to consider doing so.
83. The Petitions for Appointment of Guardians dated August 30 and
October 4, 2012 failed to disclose that the Petitioner, James Knisely, and his siblings,
Barbara Knisely, Lee Ann Cast and Kathleen L. Knisely, had actively worked to have
their mother sign Wills on February 3, 2012 and April 18, 2012 that disinherited Scott
and to sign a Trust document dated June 5, 2012 (which is believed to exclude Scott as
beneficiary) and a deed dated August 2, 2012 (just 28 days before the first Petition was
filed) transferring her home to the Trust.
21
84. Scott and Mrs. Knisely went to the Mette offices to obtain copies of the
documents she signed. She had every right to get them so Scott could help her
understand what she had signed. She wanted to know.
85. The mere fact that Kathleen L. Knisely was an agent under a Power of
Attorney did not deprive Mrs. Knisely of her right to get copies of the documents she
signed when she went to the Mette offices.
86. The actions of the Mette firm in contacting Kathleen L. Knisely rather than
providing copies of documents to Mrs. Knisely calls into question the persons who were
providing instructions to the Mette firm on the estate planning issues.
87. In late August, Scott did not "remove" his mother from her home. His
mother willingly accompanied him at all times during this period as reflected in her
August 31, 2012 testimony to the Court.
88. Scott and his mother contacted the brokerage firm that had three weeks
earlier taken over the accounts from the firm that had handled them for 30 years to
obtain information regarding the accounts that Mrs. Knisely was entitled to obtain.
89. In contacting the brokerage firm with his mother, Scott did not attempt to
obtain any of his mother's money.
90. Scott was not attempting to take control of his mother's assets. He was
trying to help his mother find out information she wanted to know.
91. The information now disclosed to the Court shows that Scott's other
siblings had in fact worked together to take control of all the assets and to cause their
mother to sign documents that adversely affected both Mrs. Knisely and Scott through
22
the abuse of confidential relationships, the exercise of undue influence over her and by
taking advantage of her capacity issues.
92. When Scott went to see his mother in August, she told Scott that "she
signed papers recently" and that "they "(meaning her other children) "had discussed it
with you." Scott's siblings had not discussed any of the documents with him.
93. Petitioners and Scott's other siblings have taken actions intended to
create estrangement between Scott and his mother in their mother's mind in order to
obtain financial gain from her estate and to punish Scott regardless of Mrs. Knisely's
true wishes.
94. When she was with Scott from late August until early November 2012,
Mrs. Knisely's actions and statements on the subject of her estate were always
consistent with her desire to include Scott in her will and any other estate plans. While
with Scott, she on her own initiative discussed a desire to remove the other siblings
from her will. Scott did not feel that it would be fair for her to remove them and
convinced her that she should not prepare a new will. As a result, she did not prepare a
new will while with Scott.
95. The Court should reconsider the appointment of the plenary guardians in
view of the new information now before the court that establishes they have conflicts of
interest that motivate them to create estrangement between Scott and Mrs. Knisely and
to impede and prevent any contact between Scott and his mother.
96. In substituting its judgment for Mrs. Knisely (if the Court finds it
appropriate to do so), the Court should consider Mrs. Knisely's capacity issues from
August 2011 and thereafter and not take into consideration any matters relating to
23
estate planning activity involving the Mette firm. The Court should consider her
testimony to the Court on August 31, 2012 where she stated that under her Will her
estate was shared equally. Prior to August 2011, Kathleen M. Knisely would never
consider disinheriting Samuel Scott Knisely in her Will or for purposes of estate planning
and estate related gifting. Under the will in effect prior to August 2011, all children were
treated equally.
97. The best interests of Kathleen M. Knisely will be served if she is permitted
to spend substantial time with Samuel Scott Knisely as she had done during most of the
period from 2000 until January 2012. Kathleen M. Knisely benefitted from the time
spent together with Samuel Scott Knisely.
98. The Guardians, James G. Knisely and Barbara Lynn Knisely, have
conflicts of interest. These conflicts of interest color the Guardians' desires relative to
contact between Kathleen M. Knisely and Samuel Scott Knisely and it is not in the best
interest of Mrs. Knisely for them to continue as guardians. An independent guardian
should be appointed at this time and continue until these issues are resolved.
99. Kathleen M. Knisely provided money to Barbara Knisely at her request
and was led to believe that Barbara Knisely had huge financial problems. August 31,
2012 transcript, page 21.
100. Mrs. Knisely was not under any obligation to treat her children equally with
respect to gifting during her lifetime and was free to take into account all of the
circumstances in making her decisions as to the extent and degree to which she wanted
to confer benefits on one or more of her children.
24
101. Petitioners have alleged that Samuel Scott Knisely suffers from certain
mental health issues. Scott denies having such issues. Assuming arguendo that such
allegations have merit, then it would affect his ability to provide for himself through the
remainder of his life and his mother would want to confer gifts and other benefits on him
and make sure that he is amply provided for in her in her will and any other estate
planning.
102. Dr. John D. Hume's evaluations of Mrs. Knisely took place immediately
after Mrs. Knisely was subjected to the highly stressful event of being forcibly removed
from Nevada and returned to Pennsylvania. She should be allowed to be reevaluated
at a time when she is not in such a stressed condition.
103. Scott's siblings have wrongfully attempted to convince Mrs. Knisely that
Scott has serious mental illness. In late August 2012 at the Courtyard Marriott, James
Knisely shouted out to Scott in his mother's presence for her to hear as well as the
police that were present that: "Scott you are crazy." After the police spoke to Scott and
Mrs. Knisely separately, she remained with Scott and the police took no action. In early
September when Mrs. Knisely was in North Carolina with Scott, she called James
Knisely. In that conversation Scott overheard James telling his mother: "Don't you
remember you are afraid of Scott?" Mrs. Knisely objected and said she was not afraid
of Scott. After the November 15, 2012, hearing and while standing outside of the
courthouse in the presence of Kathleen and Lee Ann, Barbara Lynn Knisely said to
Mrs. Knisely in Scott's presence: "Mom, tell Scott you love him very much and that he
needs help and you want Scott to get help, don't you mom?" Barbara was again
attempting to convince her mother that Scott had a serious mental illness. This
25
illustrates the over mastering influence that Barbara and James were exercising and
attempting to exercise over their mother and are still exercising over her. By these
efforts the siblings are attempting to foster and maintain estrangement between Scott
and his mother in his mother's mind.
104. Since November 15, Scott has called his mother's telephone number in
Wormleysburg and the calls have gone unanswered. On November 18, he got the
message on his cell phone that calls from his cell phone to her number were blocked.
105. No further action should be taken on the guardianship and capacity issues
until a full record is developed, other than the appointment of an independent guardian.
106. So long as Petitioners remain as Guardians, the Court should direct the
Guardians to immediately permit and require Mrs. Knisely to have regular telephone
contact with Scott and to allow unrestricted contact between Scott and his mother on a
regular, unsupervised basis including traveling and spending time at the Nevada and
North Carolina residences and elsewhere.
107. It is not in Mrs. Knisely's best interest to be prevented from having contact
with Scott.
108. Since being appointed guardians on November 15, 2012, the Guardians
have withheld all information from Scott and have made no effort to provide any
information to him.
109. Mrs. Knisely's investment assets in 1983 were $2,147,227. Due to the
management by the brokerage firm and assisted by Scott, Mrs. Knisely's financial
assets have grown to what exist today.
26
110. In his August 31, 2012, testimony, Dr. Watkin stated that he believed that
it was in Mrs. Knisely's interest to be in a safe place and that she should have someone
with her. Scott had provided the companionship that Dr. Watkin indicated was
beneficial to her. Scott is willing to and is able to provide the assistance and would
facilitate and allow contact with all siblings which is in his mother's best interest.
111. Samuel Scott Knisely reserves the right to supplement this New Matter
after counsel has had an opportunity to further investigate this matter and conduct
discovery.
WHEREFORE, Samuel Scott Knisely requests the Court to deny the Petition.
Samuel Scott Knisely requests the opportunity to conduct full discovery regarding the
issues of abuse of confidential relationship, undue influence and the capacity of his
mother from the latter part of 2011 through the present and the opportunity to present
evidence following such discovery on all pertinent issues. He requests that the court
appoint an independent guardian on an interim basis. He further requests such other
relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate under the circumstances. If any
27
gifting to trusts is allowed, the court should direct that Scott must share equally with his
siblings in such gifting.
By:
Dated: December 19, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
DELANO I~Q:ILANTZ & ASSOCIATES
iDel~no M. Lantz
I . D. No. 21401
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-422-5874
717-422-5879 (fax)
Attorney for Respondent
Samuel Scott Knisely
28
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Petition are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false
statements are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
Dated: December 19, 2012
Sa el cott Knisely
~~
PREPARED BY:
lcffrey A. Ernico, Esq.
Mette, Evans & Woodside
3401 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Jeffrey A. Ernico, Esq.
Mette, Evans & Woodside
3401 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Tsx Parcel No.: 47-20.18Sb-015; 47-20-1856-015A;
47-20-1856-415B; 47-20.1856-OiSC &
47-20-1856-0ISD
E ABQVE THtS LINE 1S FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY
SJPECIAL WA~~]E2ANTY DEED
This Deed is made the ~~-L-'~ day of , 2012,
BETWEEN
BETWEEN Kathleen M. Knisely, widow, party of the first part, collectively the Grantor herein
AND
Kathleen L. Knisely, Trustee under the Kathleen M. Knisely Qualified Personal Residence
Trust, party of the second part, the Grantee herein,
WITNESSET~I that the said Grantor, for and inconsideration of the sum of ONE and 00/100
($1.00) dollar lawful money of the United States of America, unto them well and truly paid by
the said Crrantee, at or before the sealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold, aliened, released, conveyed and confirmed,
and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, alien, release, convey and confirm, unto the said
Grantee, its successors and assigns forever,
PARCEL 1-ALL TI30SE CERTAIN two tracts of land situate in the Borough of
Wormleysburg, County of Cumberland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, more particularly
bounded and described as follows, to wit:
TRACT NO. Z -BEGINNING at a point on the eastern line of West Lawn Circle, which point
is forty (40} feet north of the dividing line between Lots No. 22 and 23 on the hereinafter
mentioned Plan of Lots and at line of other lands of the Grantees herein; thence along the eastern
line of West Lawn Circle in a northwardly direction two hundred fifty (250) feet to a point,
which point is on the dividing line between Lots No. 20 and 20-A on said hereinafter mentioned
Plan of Lots; thence in a eastwardly direction along the dividing line between Lots No. 20 and
20-A on said hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots a distance of one hundred ninety (190) feet to a
point on the wes#ern line of Vest Lawn Circle; thence along the western line of West Lawn
di~~~r~
Q
~,~
Circle by a curve to the left having a radius of one hundred twenty-nine and ninety hundredths
{129.90) feet, a distance of twenty-three and sixty-nine hundredths (23.b9} feet to a point on the
dividing line between Lots No. 20 and 30 on said hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots; thence in a
southwardly direction along said last mentioned dividing line and the dividing line between Lots
No. 21 and 22 and Lots No. 30 and 29 on said hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots a distance of
two hundred thirty-one and three tenths (231.3) feet to a point, which point is forty (40) feet
north of the dividing line between Lots No. 22 and 23 on said hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots
and at lines of other lands of the Grantees herein; thence in a westwardly direction along said last
mentioned line a distance of one hundred ninety (190) feet to a point on the eastern line of West
Lawn Circle, the place of BEGINNING.
BEING the northern sixty (60) feet of Lot 22 and all of Lots 21 and 20 on the Revised Plan of
Pennsboro Manor as recorded in the Office for the Recording of Deeds in aad for Cumberland
County in Plan Book 3, Page 6.
TRACT N0.2 - BEGil\fNING at a point on the western line of Beach Farm Road, which point
is one hundred fifty (I50) feet north of a stone monument, at line of lands now or late of the
Estate of Walter M. Mwnma, deceased; thence along the line of lands now or late of the Estate of
Walter M. Mumnna, deceased, in a westwardly direction one hundred ninety (190) feet to a point
at line of lands now or late of the Grantees herein; thence in a northwardly direction along the
eastern line of laixis now or Late of the Grantees herein and along the eastern line of lands
described in tract No. 1 herein, which line is also the dividing line between Lots No. 28 and 29
and Lots 23 and 22 on said hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots, a distance of one hundred fifty
(150) feet to a point on the dividing line between Lots No. 29 and 30 on said hereinafter
mentioned Plan of Lots; thence along said dividing line between Lots No. 29 and 30 on said
hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots in an eastwardly direction and distance of one hundred ninety
(190) feet to a point on the western line of Beach Farm Road, which point is thirty and ninety-six
hundredths (30.96) feet south of a stone monument; thence along the western line of Beach Farm
Road in a southwardly direction a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet to a point, the place of
BEGINNING.
BEING the northern fifty (50) feet of Lot No. 28 and all of Lot No. 29 on the Revised Plan of
Pennsboro Manor as recorded in the C}ffice for the Recording of Deeds in and for the County of
Cumberland in Plan Book 3, Page 6.
BEING THE SAME PREMISES which Pennsylvania Supply Company by Deed dated
February 18, 1963, and recorded February 19, 1963, in the Recorder of Deeds Office in and for
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book T-20, Page 691, granted and conveyed unto
Samuel W. Knisely and Kathleen M. Knisely.
PARCEL 2 -ALL THAT CERTAIN piece or parcel of land situate in the Borough of
Wormleysburg, County of Cumberland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, more particularly
bounded and described as follows, to wit:
BEGIlVNING at a point on the eastern line of West Lawn Circle at line of lands now or late of
Verdrie F. Clark and Eleanor L. Clark, his wife; thence in a northerwardly direction along the
eastern Line of West Lawn Circle a distance of one hundred twenty (120} feet to a point at line of
lands now or late of Robert M. Mumma; thence in an eastwardly direction along said Tine of
Iands aow or late of Robert M. Mumma a distance of one hundred ninety (190) feet to a point on
line of other lands now or late of Robert M. Mumma and Barbara M. Mumma, his wife, which
point is on the western line of Lot No. 29 on said hereinafter mentioned plan of lots; thence in a
southwardly direction along the western line of Lot No. 29 on said hereinafter mentioned plan of
lots and continuing along the western line of part of Lot No. 28 a distance of one hundred twenty
(120} feet to a point on the line of lands now or late of Verdrie F. Clark and Eleanor L. Clark, his
wife; thence in a westwardly direction along the northern line of lands now or late of Verdrie F.
Clark and Eleanor L. Clark, his wife, a distance of one hundred ninety (190) feet to a point on the
eastern line of West Lawn Circle, the place of BEGINNING.
BEING the northern ninety (90) feet of Lot No. 23 and the southern thirty (30) feet of Lot No.
22 on flee Revised Flan of Pennsboro Manor as recorded in the Office for the Recording of
Deeds in and for the County of Cumberland in Plan Book 3, Page 6.
BEING THE SAME PREMISES which Project Builders, Inc. by Deed dated October 25,
1962, and recorded October 30, 1962, in the Recorder of Deeds Office in and for Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania in Deed Book R-20, Page 535, granted and conveyed unto Samuel W.
Knisely and Kathleen M. Kinsely.
PARCEL 3 -ALL THAT CERTAIN piece or parcel of land situate in the Boxough of
Wormleysburg, County of Cumberland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, more particularly
bounded and described as follows, to wit:
BEGINI~tING at a point on the western line of Beach Farm Road, which point is 30.96 feet
south of a stone monument, at the dividing line between Lot No. 29 and Lot No. 30 on said
hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots; thence in a southwestwardly direction along the dividing line
between Lots No. 29 and 30 on said hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots a distance of 190 feet to
a point which point is the point of intersection between the dividing line between Lots No. 21
and 22 and Lots No. 30 and 29 on said hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots; thence in a
northwestwardly direction along the dividing line between Lot No. 30 and Lots No. 2I and 20 on
said hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots a distance of 171.3 feet, more or less, to a point on the
southern line of West Lawn Circle; thence along the southern line of West Lawn Circle by a
curve to the left having a radius of 129.90 feet a distance of 99.86 feet to a point; thence in an
easn~vardiy direction along said last mentioned line a distance of 7.77 feet to a point; thence
along last mentioned line and the western line of Beach Farm Road by a curve to the right having
a radius of 98.98 feet a distance of 150.41 feet to a stone monument on the western line of Beach
Farm Road; and thence along the western line of Beach Farm Road in a southwardly direction a
distance of 30.96 feet to a point, the dividing line between Lots No. 29 and 30 on said hereinafter
mentioned Plan of Lots, the place of BEGINNING.
BEING all of Lot No. 30 on the Revised Plan of Pennsboro Manor as recorded in the office for
the Recording of Deeds in and for the County of Cumberland in Plan Book 3, Page 6.
3
BEING THE SAME PREMISES which Pennsylvania Supply Company by Deed dated March
1 I, 1964, and recorded March 16, 1964, in the Recorder of Deeds Office in and for Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania in Deed. Book D-21, Page 354, granted and conveyed unto Samuel W.
Knisely and Kathleen M. Knisely.
PARCEL N0.4 -ALL THAT CERTAIN piece or parcel of land situate in the Borough of
Wormleysburg, County of Cumberland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, more particularly
bounded and described as follows, to wit:
BEGINNING at a point on the eastern line of West Lawn Circle, which point is thirty (30) feet
north of the dividing line between Lots No. 22 and 23 on said hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots
and line of lands now or late of Project Builders, Inc. to be conveyed by Project Builders, Inc. to
the Grantees herein; thence along the eastern line of West Lawn Circle in a northwardly direction
ten (10) feet to a point to line of.other Lands of the Grantor herein; thence in an eastwardly
direction by a line parallel with the dividing line between Lots No. 22 and 23 on said hereinafter
mentioned Plan of Lots a distance of one hundred ninety (190) feet to a point online of other
lands of the Grantor herein, being the dividing Line between Lots No. 22 and Lot No. 29 on said
hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots; thence along said last mentioned Line in a southwardly
direction a distance often {10) feet to a point on said first mentioned Line, being the line of lands
now or late of Project Builders, Inc. to be conveyed by Project Builders, Inc. to the Grantees
herein; thence along said last mentioned line in a westwardly direction a distance of ten (I O) feet
to a point on the eastern Line of West Lawn Circle, the place of BEGINNING.
BEING part of Lot No. 22 on the Revised Plan of Pennsboro Manor as recorded in the Office for
the Recording of Deeds in and for Cumberland County in Plan Book 3, page 6.
PARCEL 5 -ALL THAT CERTAIN piece or parcel of land situate in the Borough of
Wormleysburg, County of Cumberland and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, more particularly
bounded and described as follows, to wit:
BEGINNING at a stone monument on the western line of Beach Farm Road at the dividing line
between Lot No. 27 and Lot No. 26 on the said hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots; thence in a
westwardly direction along said last mentioned dividing line a distance of one hundred ninety
(190) feet to a point at the dividing line between Lot No. 27 and Lot No. 24 on said hereinafter
mentioned Plan of Lots; thence in a northwardly direction along said dividing line between Lot
No. 27 and Lot No. 24 and continuing along the dividing line between Lot No. 28 and Lot No.
23 on said hereinafter mentioned Plan a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet to a paint;
thence in an eastwardly direction by a line parallel to the dividing line between Lot No. 2? and
Lot No. 26 on said hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots and perpendicular to the dividing Line
between Lot No. 28 and Lot No. 23 on said hereinafter mentioned Plan of Lots a distance of one
hundred ninety (190) feet to a point on the eastern line of Beach Farm Road; thence in a
southwardly direction along the western line of Beach Farm Road a distance of one hundred fifty
(150} feet to a stone monument, the place of BEGINNING.
4
BEING the whole of Lot No. 27 and the southern fifty (50) feet of Lot No. 28 on the Pian of
Lats known as Pennsboro Manor, Revised which Plan is recorded in the Office for the Recording
of Deeds in and for the County of Cumberland in Plan Book 3, Page 6.
BEING THE SAME PREMISES which Robert M. Mumma and Dauphin Deposit Trust
Company, Executors of the Estate of Waiter M. Mumma, by Deed dated September 26, 1963,
and recorded October 4, 1963, in the Recorder of Deeds Office in and for Cumberland County,
'Pennsylvania in Deed Book Z-20, Page 840, granted and conveyed unto Samuel W. Knisely and
Kathleen M. Knisely.
AND THE SAID Samuel W. Knisely died August 18. 1983, whereby title vested solely into
Kathleen M. Knisely by operation of law.
UNDER AND SUB.TECT TO the following covenants, restrictions and conditions:
l . No building shall be constructed on the land herein conveyed except one detached single
dwelling house for the use of one family only and no outbuilding, except a private garage, shall
be allowed unless connected with the main residential building.
2. No building shall be erected on the land herein conveyed nearer than fifty (50) feet from
any road or street line or nearer than twenty (20) feet from the side line of said tract.
3. No trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn or other outbuilding erected on the tract
shall at any time be used as a residence, temporarily or permanently, nor shall any residence of a
temporary character be permitted, except that appropriate Living quarters for domestic servants
above garages shall be permitted.
4. No trade, business or occupation and no manufacturing shall be carried upon the tract
herein conveyed nor shall anything be done on any of the said tract which maybe or may
become a nuisance or annoyance to the neighborhood. No horses, cattle, swine, goats, poultry or
fowl shall be kept or maintained on the tract herein. conveyed. No signs of any character shall be
displayed, except that the owner, or his designated agent, may display on said premises a "For
Sale" or "For Rent" sign, such sign, however, shall not exceed four (4) feet square in size.
5. No boundary wall shall be constructed with a height of more than five (5) feet, and no
boundary line, fence, hedge or shrubbery shall be permitted with a height of more than five (S)
feet. No wall or fence of any height shall be constructed on the tract herein conveyed until after
the height, type, design and approximate location thereof shall have been approved in writing by
the Grantees or their designated agent.
5
6. The ground floor area of the main structure on the tract herein canveyed, exclusive of
one story open porches and garage shall be not less than eighteen hundred (1800) feet square in
the case of a one story structure, nor Iess than thirteen hundred (1300) square feet in the case of a
structure having more than one story.
7. For the purpose of further insuring the development of the land herein conveyed and the
surrounding azea, the parties of the first part reserve the power to control the buildings, structures
and other improvements to be placed on said tract. The Grantees, by acceptance of title hereto
and by taking possession thereof, covenant and agree that no building, wall, fence or other
structure shall be placed upon such lot until the plans and specifications therefor and the plot
plan have been approved in writing by the Grantors or their agent or designee. Each such
building, wall, fence or structure shall be placed on the premises only in accordance with the
plans and specifications and plot plan so approved. Refusal of approval of plans and
specifications by the Grantors or their agent or designee may be based on any ground, includutg
purely aesthetic ground, which, in the sole and uncontrolled discretion of the Grantors shall seem
sufficient. No alteration in the exterior appearance of the buildings or structures shall be made
without Like approval.
S. These covenants, conditions and restrictions are to run with the land and shall be binding
upon all parties and all persons claiming under them until the I sc day of January, A.D. 1989, at
which time said covenants, conditions and restrictions shall terminate. The covenants, condition
and restrictions, however, herein contained, or any portion thereof, may be extended for
additional periods of time by making appropriate provision therefor.
9. Invalidation of any of these covenants, conditions and restrictions b ud
court order, shall in no wise affect any of those other provisions not so invalidated buttsuch
other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
Grantor hereby covenants and agrees that GRANTOR will warrant SPECIALLY the
property hereby conveyed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto set her hand and seal the day and
year first above written.
Witness:
~w zt~~V.~ ~~)1 ~a~ ~
--
thleen M. sely
COMMO>`~TWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY of
On this the ~ day of _ U~US ~ , 2012, before me, a Notary Public, personally
appeared Kathleen M. Knisely, known to me, or satisfactorily proven, to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that she executed the same for the
purposes therein contained.
I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
N tary Public
NOTARIAL SEAL
JESSICA R i'ORTER
Notufr PuOik
NARRIS8t1RG CITY, t'3At1PHlN COtAtTY
Mfr Con~mh~loa Expkat Jun 29, 2015
CERTIFICATION OF ADDRESS
The Undersigned certifies that the precise address of the Grantee is:
o~~m C roe , G~or~~e,.saK/'4, P.9/7~aY3
Atto~/Agent for Grantee
sa2s~o~~
7
REv-yes ex toe-toy REALTY TRANSFER TAX RECORDER'S USE ONLY
STATEMENT OF VALUE State Tex Paid
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
BUREAU OE 1NDMDtIAL TAXES
DEPT. 280603
HARRIS6URG PA 17128-0603
See Reverse for Instructions
Date Recorded
Complete each sectiart and fife in duplicate with Recorder of Deeds when (1) the full value%onsideration is not set forth the d , (2)
the deed is without consideration, or by gift, or (3) a tax exemption is daimed. A Statement of Value is not required if the transfer is
who exern t from tax based on farm reiatjonshi or blic utili easement. If more ace is needed attach add#tional sheets .
A. CORRESPONDENT -Alf inquiries may be directed to the following person:
Evans 8
_...,...
3401 N Front Street
B. TRANSFER DATA
23 West Lawn Circle
D. PROPERTY I.OCATtON
Gity
T17-23Z-5000
namsourg pA
C. Date of Acceptance of Document:
Grantee(s}/Lessee(s) Kathleen L Knisefy, Tr
Kathleen M. Knisel Qualified Personal Reslc
Mailing Address
23 West Lawn Circle
17110
`"""""'"""'~ City, Township, Borough
Lots at Beech Farm Road Wortnl abu t3oro h
County School District Tax Parcel Number 4T 20-1856-01 S; 47.20-1866-015A;
Cumberland West Share 4T-20-1858-015B• 4T-20-1856-015C b 4T-20-1856-0180
E. VALUATION DATA - WA3 TRANSACTION PART OF AN ASSIGNMENT OR RELOCATION? ^ Y ^ N
1. Actual Cash Consideration 2. Other Consideration 3. Total Consideration
s1.0o -o- s1.oo
4. County Assessed Value;98,4 + =380,500 5. Common f~vel Ratio Factor 6. Fair Market Value
+ 1112 700 + Z80 000 + s93 000 = 1764 600 X 1.00 ~T64 600
F. EXEMPTION DATA
1a. Amount of Exemption Clatmed 1b. Percentage of Grantor's Interest in Real Estate 1 c. Percentage of Grantor's Interest Conveyed
100% 100% 100•~G
2. Check Appropriate Box Below for Exemption Claimed
^ WiU or intestate succession
(Name of Decedent) {Estate File Number)
^ Transfer to Industrial Development Agency.
® Transfer to a trust. (Attach complete copy of trust agreement identifying aU beneficiaries.)
^ Transfer between principal and agent. (Attach complete copy of agency/straw party agreement.)
^ Transfer to the Commonwealth, the United States and Instrumentalities by gift, dedication, condemnation or in lieu of
corxiernnatbn. {!f condemnation or in Ueu of condemnation, attach copy of resotution.)
^ Transfer from mortgagor to a holder of a mortgage in default. Mortgage Book Number ~ Page Number
^ Corrective or confirmatory deed. {Attach complete copy of the prior deed being corrected or confirmed.)
^ Statutory corporate consolidation, merger or division. (Attach copy of articles.)
0 er (Pt ' explain ~cerr~t' datmed, i er than its d ve.} ~j~- cs s f '~~"
Under penalties ~ larv declare that I have exam#ned this Statement, i ncluding accompanying informatk>~, and to the best of
m knowl a e, correct and com late.
Signature sibte Party Date
~~3 /Z
FAILURE OMPL THIS FORM PROPERLY OR ATTACH APPLICABL DOC MENTATtON MAY RESULT IN THE
RECORDER'S REFUSAL TO RECORD THE DEED.
ROBERT P. ZIEGLER
RECORDER OF DEEDS
CUMBERLAND COITNTY
1 COURTHOUSE SQUARE
CARLISLE, PA 17013
717-240-6370
instrument Number - 201224624
Recorded On 8/14/2012 At l 1:39:36 AM
* Instrument Type -DEED
Invoice Number -115065 User ID - SW
* Grantor - KNISELY, KATHLEEN M
* Grantee - KNISELY, KATHLEEN M
* Custonner -METE EVANS & WOODSIDE
* FEES
STATE WRIT TAX $0.50
STATE JCS/ACCESS TO $23.50
JUSTICE
RECORDING FEES - $18.50
RECORDER OF DEEDS
PARCEL CERTIFICATION $50.00
FEES
AFFORDABLE HOUSING $11.50
COUNTY ARCHIVES FEE $2.00
ROD ARCHIVES FEE $3.00
WEST SHORE SCHOOL $0.00
DISTRICT
WORMLEYSBURG BOROUGH $0.00
TOTAL PAID $109.00
* Total Pages - 9
Certification Page
DO NOT DETACH
This page is now part
of this legal document.
I Certify this to be recorded
in Cumberland County PA
.~
~~,~~°
RECORDER O D DS
~' -Information denoted by an asterisk may change during
the verification process and may sot be refltcttd oa thin page.
iiiui~uwnM~uN
.r..~~.::,_ .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following:
Anthony L. DeLuca, Esquire (also via facsimile)
113 Front Street
P.O. Box 358
Boiling Springs, PA 17007
Mark F. Bayley, Esquire (also via facsimile)
17 West South Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Kathleen L. Knisely
9008 Avis Court
Vienna, VA 22182
Lee Ann Knisely Cast
485 Front Street
Louisville, CO 8002'
Date: December 19, 2012