HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-13
7 Anthony L. DeLuca, Esquire
PA Supreme Court ID No. 18067
113 Front Street
Boiling Springs, PA 17007
Ph: (717) 258-6844
IN RE: KATHLEEN M. KNISELY, IN THE COURT OF 1MON~PLE &JF
an incapacitated person CUMBERLAND CO Y PEA 1S rx MANIA,
ORPHANS' COURT%ilgm a E
:7 M C.0
ct"
NO. 21-12-946,
PETITIONERS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF RSPONDWT
Petitioners, James G. Knisely and Barbara Lynn Knisely, in their capacities as co-
guardians of the person of Kathleen M. Knisely, an incapacitated individual, ("Mrs. Knisely"),
and Bryn Mawr Trust Company ("BMTC" plenary guardian of the Estate of Mrs. Knisely,
jointly file this Reply to New Matter of Respondent, Samuel Scott Knisely ("Respondent"), as
follows:
70. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 69 set forth in the Petitioners' 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) filed with
this Court on December 7, 2012 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
71. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Knisely's capacity or lack of capacity
was the same from August 2011 through November 15, 2012. To the contrary, Mrs. Knisely's
incapacitation has been progressive.
1 James G. Knisely, Barbara Lynn Knisely, and BMTC are collectively referred to herein as the "Petitioners."
s 72. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Dr. Watkin's testimony speaks
for itself. To the extent the Respondent mischaracterizes, misinterprets, misquotes,
misrepresents, elaborates upon, or removes the contents of the testimony from its context, said
averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded, if deemed relevant.
73. Admitted.
74. Denied. Petitioners' incorporate their response to paragraph 71 above herein as if
fully set forth.
75. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Knisely was incapacitated as of
February 3, 2012 such that she was unable to execute the Will dated February 3, 2012. Strict
proof thereof is demanded, if deemed relevant.
76. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Knisely was incapacitated such that she
was unable to execute the Will dated April 18, 2012. Strict proof thereof is demanded, if deemed
relevant.
77. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Knisely was incapacitated such that she
was unable to execute the Qualified Personal Residence Trust dated June 5, 2012. Strict proof
thereof is demanded, if deemed relevant.
78. Denied. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Knisely was incapacitated such that she
was unable to execute the Deed dated August 2, 2012. Strict proof thereof is demanded, if
deemed relevant.
79. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 79 constitute conclusions of law to
which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is specifically
denied that Mrs. Knisely was in a confidential relationship with Barbara Lynn Knisely, James
2
W
Grant Knisely, Kathleen L. Knisely, and Lee Ann Knisely Cast. Strict proof thereof is
demanded, if deemed relevant.
80. Denied. Mrs. Knisely's testimony during the August 31, 2012 hearing speaks for
itself. To the extent the Respondent mischaracterizes, misinterprets, misquotes, misrepresents,
elaborates upon, or removes the contents of the testimony from its context, said averments are
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
81. Denied. The averments of paragraph 81 constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required. By way of further answer, Petitioners incorporate their responses to
paragraphs 70, 71, and 75-79 herein as if fully set forth.
82. Denied. The averments of paragraph 82 constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required. By way of further answer, it is within the Court's discretion to determine
the credibility of all testimony which is otherwise admissible. Respondent has failed to identify
any evidentiary objection which would preclude the admissibility of the allegations referenced in
paragraph 82 of Respondent's New Matter.
83. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Petitioners' "failed" to disclose anything
in their Petitions dated August 30, 2012 and October 4, 2012. By way of further answer, said
Petitions are written documents which as such speak for themselves.
84. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Respondent and Mrs. Knisely
appeared at the law firm of Mette, Evans & Woodside on August 29, 2012 at approximately 2:30
p.m. Any implication that Mrs. Knisely made any demand to anyone during that visit is
specifically denied. To the contrary, the Respondent made loud and argumentative demands to
the receptionist, whose primary responsibilities include answering the telephone and greeting
3
people who come into the law office. Mrs. Knisely stood in the reception area with her back to
the receptionist and the Respondent. Mrs. Knisely was reading a magazine and performing
squatting exercises. The attorney who assisted Mrs. Knisely in drafting the estate planning
documents, Jeffrey A. Ernico ("Attorney Ernico") was out of the office and unavailable at the
time of Respondent and Mrs. Knisely's visit. However, Attorney Ernico's secretary, RoxAndra
M. Rosario, was consulted. The receptionist and secretary prepared memoranda documenting
the incident, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B" and incorporated
herein.
85. Denied. The averments of paragraph 85 constitute conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. The averments set forth in paragraph 84 above are incorporated
herein by reference as if fully set forth. Any implication that Kathleen L. Knisely was consulted
in making any determination as to whether Mrs. Knisely could have copies of the documents is
specifically denied. By way of further answer, Mrs. Knisely, herself, never requested copies of
any documents from anyone at Mette, Evans & Woodside.
86. Denied. The averments of paragraph 86 constitute conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the averments set forth in response to
paragraph 84 above are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. By way of further
answer, Attorney Ernico was out of the country and therefore not available the day Respondent
showed up at Mette, Evans & Woodside unannounced. Attorney Ernico was not made aware of
the Respondent's demands until the following day.
4
87. Denied. It is specifically denied that Respondent did not remove his mother from
her home. To the contrary, Respondent showed up at the house and took Mrs. Knisely with him
in Mrs. Knisely's car. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded, if deemed relevant.
88. Denied. The Petitioners are without information sufficient to hold a belief as to
what brokerage firm was contacted or whether it was contacted with Mrs. Knisely's informed
consent or instructions. Strict proof thereof is demanded, if deemed relevant.
89. Denied. The averments of paragraph 88 above are incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth.
90. Denied. The averments of paragraph 88 above are incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth.
91. Denied. The averments of paragraph 91 constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required. To the extent which a response is deemed required, it is specifically denied
that Respondent's other siblings worked together to adversely affect Mrs. Knisely in any way.
Strict proof thereof is demanded.
92. Denied. The Petitioners are without information sufficient to hold a belief as to
truth to the averments of paragraph 92. It is specifically denied that Mrs. Knisely ever instructed
any of the Petitioners to discuss Mrs. Knisely's estate planning with the Respondent. Strict proof
of the averments of paragraph 92 is demanded, if deemed relevant.
93. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Petitioners have taken any actions
intended to create estrangement between the Respondent and Mrs. Knisely. To the contrary, the
relationship became strained in or about January of 2012 when Mrs. Knisely discovered that the
Respondent had been siphoning money belonging to Mrs. Knisely out of joint accounts held by
5
Mrs. Knisely jointly with the Respondent. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded, if deemed
relevant.
94. Denied. The Petitioners are without information sufficient to hold a belief as to
the truth of the averments of paragraph 94. By way of further answer, Mrs. Knisely consistently
expressed a desire to treat her five (5) children equally in her estate plans. It was only after Mrs.
Knisely discovered that the Respondent had removed a large sum of money belonging to Mrs.
Knisely from joint accounts held by Mrs. Knisely and the Respondent, that Mrs. Knisely took
steps to equalize the inheritances of her other four (4) children.
95. The averments of paragraph 95 constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required. It is specifically denied that the court should reconsider the appointment of
the Plenary Guardians or that any new information now before the court establishes a conflict of
interest and/or a desire to create estrangement between Respondent and Mrs. Knisely.
96. The averments of paragraph 96 constitute conclusions of law to which no
response is required. By way of further answer, the Petitioners incorporate the averments set
forth in response to paragraphs 84, 91, 92, 94 and 95 above herein, as if fully set forth. By way
of further answer, the Respondent's suggestion that prior to August of 2011 Mrs. Knisely would
never have considered disinheriting the Respondent by her Will or for purposes of estate
planning and related gifting is consistent with the Petitioners' suggestion that it was not until
January of 2012 that Mrs. Knisely discovered the Respondent's removal of large sums of money
from Mrs. Knisely's joint accounts.
97. Denied. It is specifically denied that the best interests of Mrs. Knisely will be
served if she is permitted to spend time with the Respondent or that Mrs. Knisely benefitted from
6
. • . ,
time spent together with the Respondent. To the contrary, the Respondent's activities have been
detrimental to Mrs. Knisely both financially and mentally.
98. Denied. The averments of paragraph 98 constitute conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is specifically
denied that James G. Knisely and Barbara Lynn Knisely have in any way allowed their own
interests to negatively affect Mrs. Knisely. Strict proof thereof is demanded.
99. Denied. Mrs. Knisely's testimony from the August 31, 2012 hearing speaks for
itself. To the extent the Respondent mischaracterizes, misinterprets, misquotes, misrepresents,
elaborates upon, or removes the contents of the testimony from its context, said averments are
specifically denied.
100. Admitted. By way of further answer, Mrs. Knisely was not aware of the "gifting"
that Respondent purports Mrs. Knisely was making to the Respondent during the period
beginning in 2007 and ending in January of 2012. Moreover, Respondent's allegations in
paragraph 100 are in conflict with his allegations in paragraphs 80 and 96.
101. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Mrs. Knisely's other children
believe Respondent suffers from mental infirmities and Respondent denies that he is mentally ill.
It is specifically denied that if the Respondent suffers from mental infirmities that it necessarily
follows that Mrs. Knisely would want to provide more for him than for her other children. Strict
proof thereof is demanded, if deemed relevant.
102. Denied. The averments of paragraph 102 constitute self-serving expressions of
opinion on behalf of the Respondent rather than factual allegations necessitating a response. It is
7
' w
specifically denied that reevaluation is in any way necessary under the circumstances. Strict
proof thereof is demanded, if deemed relevant.
103. Denied as stated. It is specifically denied that the Respondent's siblings have
wrongfully attempted to "convince" Mrs. Knisely that Respondent is mentally ill. To the
contrary, it is believed that Respondent does in fact have mental illness and that in his state of
mental illness the Respondent has mentally, emotionally, and financially abused Mrs. Knisely.
The siblings' actions speak for themselves. It is specifically denied that any of the sibling's
actions have been taken for the purpose of fostering and maintaining estrangement between
Respondent and Mrs. Knisely. To the contrary, the siblings do believe that Respondent needs
help and that he is, at times, a danger to his mother's physical, mental, and financial well-being.
104. Admitted.
105. Denied. The averments of paragraph 105 constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required.
106. Denied. The averments of paragraph 106 constitute conclusions of law to which
no response. By way of further answer, the Court entered an Order addressing these issues at the
conclusion of the December 20, 2012 proceedings.
107. Denied. It is specifically denied that it is in Mrs. Knisely's best interests to have
contact with Respondent under the circumstances. Strict proof thereof is demanded, if deemed
relevant.
108. Denied as stated. It is specifically denied that the Petitioners have any duty to
provide information to the Respondent.
8
109. Denied. As of this writing, the Petitioners are without information sufficient to
hold a belief as to Mrs. Knisely's 1983 financial situation. Strict proof thereof is demanded if
deemed relevant. By way of further answer, it is alleged that Mrs. Knisely's present financial
position would be significantly better but for the Respondent's unauthorized removal of funds
from Mrs. Knisely's joint accounts.
110. Dr. Watkin's testimony from August 31, 2012 speaks for itself. To the extent the
Respondent mischaracterizes, misinterprets, misquotes, misrepresents, elaborates upon, or
removes the contents of testimony from its context, said averments are specifically denied. Strict
proof thereof is demanded. It is specifically denied that under the circumstances, Respondent is
best-suited to provide Mrs. Knisely with necessary assistance. Strict proof thereof is demanded.
111. The averments set forth in paragraph 111 are not factual in nature and therefore
no response is required.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioners respectfully request that the Court deny the requests made
by Respondent, Samuel Scott Knisely, in his Answer and New Matter and grant the relief
requested in the Petition dated December 7, 2011, together with such other relief as the Court
deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted
By: _ x
Anthony L. uca, Esquire
Sup. Ct. I.D. No. 18607
113 Front Street
P.O. Box 358
Boiling Springs, PA 17007
(717) 258-6844 - Phone
(717) 258-3902 - Fax
Attorneys for Petitioners
Date: January 9, 2013
9
VERIFICATION
I, JAMES G. KNISELY, have read the foregoing document and verify that the facts set
forth herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the
extent that the foregoing document and/or its language is that of counsel, I have relied upon
counsel in making this Verification.
I understand that any false statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATED:
JAMES KNISEL
6135790
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the
person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail at
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows:
Delano M. Lantz, Esquire Mark F. Bayley, Esquire
DELANO M. LANTZ & ASSOCIATES 17 West South Street
4 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013
Carlisle, PA 17013 Court-appointed attorney
Attorney for Respondent, Samuel Scott Knisely for Kathleen M. Knisely
Lee Ann Knisely Cast Barbara Lynn Knisely
485 Front Street 3501 Sunset Drive
Louisville, CO 8002 Madison WI 53705
James Grant Knisely Kathleen L. Knisely
3822 Pamay Drive 9008 Avis Court
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Vienna, VA 22182
The Bryn Mawr Trust Co.
c/o Susan O'Donnell, Esquire
Senior Vice Pres. & Trust Advisor
Wealth Management Division
10 S. Bryn Mawr Avenue
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
Respectfully submitted,
By:
Anthony L. e uca, Esquire
Sup. Ct. I.D. o. 18607
113 Front Street
P.O. Box 358
Boiling Springs, PA 17007
(717) 258-6844 - Phone
(717) 258-3902 - Fax
Attorneys for Petitioners
Date: January 9, 2013
-Ernico, Jeff
From: Ernico, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:13 PM
To: Front Desk
Cc: Smida, Thomas; Redding, Jeremy; Rosario, RoxAndra M.
Subject: Re: My version of the incident with Kathleen Knisely and her son
This is most distressing. Please inform Howell. ASAP. Samuel has been written out of Kay's will and has been
accused of drugging his mother in the past. Kathleen in Virginia is her POA and must be alerted. This may
require police!
Sent from my Whone
On Aug 30, 2012, at 6:17 PM, "Front Desk" <frontdeskQmette.com> wrote:
Mandy, Receptionist
I greeted both of them when they came in. I asked for their names and how I could help them
and he said he thought I already knew who she was because I said hello to them when they came
in. She then said no, that I was new. He told me her name was Kathleen Knisely and he was her
son. He showed me her driver's license (which he had) and he also showed me his, which was
an out-of-state license. He did most of the talking for her. He said she wanted copies of all of
her documents for the year 2012. I asked her who her attorney was so I could page the secretary
and she said Mr. Ernico. I asked them if I could get them beverages and they said no.
I buzzed Rocky to see if she could come down to help them with some copies and she came
down. Rocky informed them that Mr. Ernico was out of the country but that she would check
with the paralegal, Lisa, and see what she could do. Rocky asked them if they wanted any
beverages and went towards the cooler and he bluntly said they would help
themselves. Kathleen seemed weak as she couldn't open the cooler door. Her son had to do it
for her.
Lisa had been on the phone so Rocky buzzed me. I informed them that Lisa was on the phone
and it would be a few more minutes. Samuel seemed very irritated and impatient. He asked for
my full name, Rocky's full name, and Lisa's full name. I did not provide our last names. During
this time frame, Betty had actually called and asked for Kathy H. so I transferred her. He started
inquiring me about who Betty was. I said Betty was another call and had nothing to do with
him.
He said that what he was asking for wasn't that difficult and did I think it was difficult? I told
him that I could take his number (336-253-1038) and give it to Rocky so she'd have it. At the
same time I am noticing that his mother is standing on the carpeted area reading a magazine
doing squats.
Rocky came back out and told them she was going to the accounting department to get some
printouts. He was very rude to Rocky so as Julie was going by my desk, I told Julie I had a
message for her and slipped her a note that asked her to stick around. I believe at this point, Julie
went to find Jeremy in the Library.
1
A short time later, Jan came out and sat at me with my desk. While Jan was sitting with me,
Kathleen Knisely (the daughter of Kathleen) called and asked to speak with her mother. I put her
on hold and told Kathleen that her daughter wanted to speak with her. I thought that perhaps I
could send her to the Client Phone Room. Samuel stood up and said they were leaving and
going to the police department and pressing charges of stalking and harassment. Jan asked why
and/or for his reasoning and he simply repeated himself and they left. I got back on the phone
with the daughter and told her that they seemed upset and had left.
Shortly after, Rocky came back out from the accounting department but they were already gone.
2
Rosario, RoxAndra M.
From: Rosario, RoxAndra M.
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:17 PM
To: Smida, Thomas
Subject: Incident with Samuel Scott Knisely
Importance: High
When I came into work this morning, Wednesday, August 29, 2012,1 had a voicemail message from LeeAnn Knisely, daughter of
our client, Kathleen M. Knisely, and sister to Samuel Scott Knisely asking me to return the call. I called her back and she
informed me that her brother Sam (estranged from the family for some time now) showed up at Mom's house on Monday and
left with Mom (in Mom's car) on Tuesday and no one had seen or heard from her since that time. LeeAnn had tried calling Sam's
cell once and he did not pick up. Another sister, Barbara Knisely, had called his cell numerous times also with no
success. LeeAnn said that they were going to get the police involved because it had been 24 hours since she went missing. I
asked her to keep us posted.
At approximately 2:30 this afternoon, Mandy called me from the front desk and said that a client of Mr. Ernico's wanted some
copies made. I asked her who it was and she said Ms. Knisely. When I got off the elevator, Sam and Mrs. Knisely were both
standing and he approached me when I said hello to Mrs. Knisely. He said that he wanted copies of all documents we had
prepared for Mrs. Knisely in 2012. Mrs. Knisely did not ask for anything. He "flashed" a Nevada driver's license in my face, so
close to my face that I actually had to move away from it, and said to me that "we have the same last name" and then leaned in
to his Mom wanting me to see the resemblance is how 1 took it. He looked rather rough around the edges, hair was a mess,
hadn't shaved in a day or two and his clothes were a bit disheveled. I told him that I would need to speak with Mr. Ernico or a
paralegal to see if I could copy documents for him and I would be right back out to the lobby. I talked with Lisa and Mr. Mette
who said to tell him that I would try to get ahold of Jeff and call them the next day to let them know when the documents were
ready to be picked up. Sam then said that he wanted to speak with "the paralegal." I told Lisa and she said that she knows
nothing about the Knisely file and wouldn't be able to help him at all. I relayed the message to Sam and he then said that he
wanted a print out of invoices that had been sent to his Mom for 2012. 1 then went to Diane and told her what Sam
wanted. While I waited for Diane to put something together, I went back upstairs and called daughter LeeAnn to let her know
that her mother was in our building with Sam.
LeeAnn conferenced in her sister Kathleen from Virginia and they advised that a BOLO had been issued on her mother's vehicle
and that a "Silver Alert" had also been issued. I hung up and went back downstairs. By the time I got to the reception area Sam
and Mrs. Knisely had left the building.
LeeAnn called me back this afternoon and said that they had contacted the West Shore Police to make them aware of what was
happening. She also told me that Sam lives in North Carolina. I told her he had flashed a Nevada driver's license in my face and
she said that he has multiple properties and the property in Nevada had been funded by Mom. I asked where the siblings all
lived and she said that she lives in Colorado, Barbara lives in Wisconsin and James lives in PA.
Mr. Mette also called me this afternoon and advised that he had spoken with the Knisely children to make them aware of what
had transpired here in our office.
RoxAndra M. Rosario
Secretary to Jeffrey A. Ernico, Esquire
Secretary to Paula J. Leicht, Esquire
Mette, Evans & Woodside
3401 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
1
rmrosario(),mette.com
717-232-5000
Fax 717-236-1816
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client
communication and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: In compliance with U.S. federal tax regulations, unless expressly stated otherwise, any advice contained in this communication (or any
attachment hereto) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding any federal tax penalties that may be imposed on a
taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein (or any attachment hereto).
2