Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-13 (2)In re the Edith S. Rife Trust : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 11-0325 ORPHANS' COURT NO. 10-1006 ORPHANS' COURT NO. 83-0773 ORPHANS' COURT ANSWER OF THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES J. RIFE TO THE MOTIONS OF JOHN W. MAXWELL FOR JUDGMENTS ON THE PLEADINGS AND NOW comes FRED H. JUNKINS, executor of the Estaa~ oaf Char J.~i by and through his attorneys, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, and Murr'e1~.~V~1ter~II,~ r., ~ ~ ~''' rrr r-1- Esquire, and respectfully represents, as follows: ~ u? ,.~,~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ c,'.a .. ~„~ .....t ~~1 1. - 4. Admitted. ~ ~ ~= ,~, _ ~ ~...~. ~-,.., ~,, e~ 5. The averments' of paragraph 5 of the motion, being within the exclt~Ive -n knowledge of John W. Maxwell are denied; and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further response, the executor avers that John W. Maxwell's own averments in paragraph 12. d. of his motion of October 27, 2011, allege that it is not possible for the executor to construct a proper accounting, as ordered by the court, because the decedent failed to keep sufficient records of administration of the trust to enable the executor to prepare the ordered accounting in a form consistent with Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rule 6.1. 6. Admitted. By way of further response, the executor avers that John W. Maxwell's own averments in paragraph 12. d. of his motion of October 27, 2011, allege that it is not possible for the executor to construct a proper accounting, as ordered by the court, because the decedent failed to keep sufficient records of administration of the trust to enable the executor to prepare the ordered accounting in a form consistent with Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rule 6.1. 7. - 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. By way of further response, the executor avers that the Maxwell heirs, as the remainder beneficiaries of the Edith S. Rife Trust, are not all of the parties who would be adversely affected by the relief that is being sought by movant. To the extent that John W. Maxwell would be successful with his claim against the Estate of Charles J. Rife, all of the other residuary heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife are real and indispensable parties in interest, including the eleven charitable heirs, because all of them would be adversely affected by the resulting material reduction in their respective shares of the Estate of Charles J. Rife. John W. Maxwell has sought his relief against the Estate of Charles J. Rife. The court has placed obligations on the executor with respect to the claims of John W. Maxwell in the forms of the orders that have been entered herein. The executor owes fiduciary responsibilities to the estate's beneficiaries as well as to the estate's creditors. 10. -18. Admitted. 19. The averments of paragraph 19 of the motion are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that, on March 7, 2012, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order of court sustaining the preliminary objections of John W. Maxwell, dismissing the preliminary objections of the executor, and directing the executor to file a response to the rule to show cause; but it is denied that the motion of John W. Maxwell and its averments became the functional equivalent of a complaint in the trust case. On the -2- contrary, the executor avers that the motion of John W. Maxwell of October 27, 201 1, remains what it specifically avers in the ad damnum clause that it is, a request for a declaratory judgment of liability, against the executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, that Charles J. Rife breached his fiduciary duty as Trustee of the Edith S. Rife Trust. By way of further response, the executor avers that the preliminary objections of the executor were dismissed on the procedural ground that preliminary objections were not a proper response to a rule to show cause. The preliminary objections were not dismissed on the substantive basis that the other heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife are not indispensable parties. The executor further respectfully avers that the court made an erroneous statement of fact in the opinion of March 7, 2012, when it was stated that John W. Maxwell "is not a beneficiary to the Rife Estate" and that, therefore, success with his claim would not affect the shares of the other beneficiaries. The statement of fact was erroneous because John W. Maxwell is a beneficiary of 7.5% of the residue of the Estate of Charles J. Rife under the provisions of Item IV. C. of the Will which is a matter of record in the case by virtue of its having been probated. This led to the erroneous conclusion in the opinion that the motion of John W. Maxwell was actually for a surcharge and not a declaratory judgment against the executor as the personal representative of the Estate of Charles J. Rife. Nevertheless, the executor avers that it was not the erroneous statement that John W. Maxwell "is not a beneficiary of the Rife Estate" that is problematical. It is, rather, the undisputable fact that, to the extent that John W. Maxwell would be successful with his claim against the Estate of Charles J. Rife, all of the twenty-five other residuary heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, including -3- the eleven charitable heirs, would be adversely affected by the resulting material reduction in their respective shares of the Estate of Charles J. Rife. 20. Admitted. 21. Admitted. By way of further response, the executor avers that John W. Maxwell's own averments in paragraph 12. d. of his motion of October 27, 2011, allege that it is not possible for the executor to construct a proper accounting, as ordered by the court, because the decedent failed to keep sufficient records of administration of the trust to enable the executor to prepare the ordered accounting in a form consistent with Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rule 6.1. 22. - 27. Admitted. 28. The averments of paragraph 28 of the motion are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that, on May 30, 2012, the other remainder beneficiaries of the Edith S. Rife Trust filed an answer to the motion of John W. Maxwell of October 27, 2011, and to the new matter raised by the executor in his answer with new matter to The motion of John W. Maxwell of October 27, 2011; but it is denied that the motion of John W. Maxwell of October 27, 2011, became the functional equivalent of a complaint in the trust case. On the contrary, the executor avers that the motion of John W. Maxwell of October 27, 2011, remains what it specifically avers in the ad damnum clause that it is, a request for a declaratory judgment of liability, against the executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, on the basis that Charles J. Rife breached his fiduciary duty as Trustee of the Edith S. Rife Trust. -4- 29. The averments of paragraph 29 of the motion are denied. On the contrary, on February 1, 2013, the other Maxwell heirs filed a motion for leave of court to amend the answer that they filed on June 4, 2012. 30. The averments of paragraph 30 of the motion are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the averred pleadings are principal pleadings in the case, but it is denied that they represent all of the principal pleadings in the case. On the contrary, the executor avers that the principal pleadings also include the motion of the Maxwell heirs other than John W. Maxwell dated April 18, 2012, the answer of the executor thereto, filed on Apri125, 2012, and any additional pleadings of the Maxwell heirs other than John W. Maxwell which may be permitted with leave of court. 31. Admitted. 32. The averments' of paragraph 32 of the motion, being conclusions of law, no response is required. 33. The averments' of paragraph 33 of the motion, being conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, the executor avers that the claims of the other Maxwell heirs are also against the executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife. This is as in the case of the motion of John W. Maxwell of October 27, 2011, which specifically avers in the ad damnum clause that it is a request for a declaratory judgment of liability against the executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, that Charles J. Rife breached his fiduciary duty as Trustee of the Edith S. Rife Trust. The Estate of Charles J. Rife is the only entity, as between the Edith S. Rife Trust and the Estate of Charles J. Rife, which has any assets of any significant value. -5- 34. The executor's responses to paragraph 12 of the motion of John W. Maxwell of October 27, 2011, and the new matter of the executor of March 19, 2012, are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 3 5. Admitted. 36. The averments' of paragraph 36 of the motion, being conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, the executor avers that John W. Maxwell has brought his action directly against the Estate of Charles J. Rife where the motion of John W. Maxwell of October 27, 201 1, specifically avers in the ad damnum clause that it is, a request for a declaratory judgment of liability, against the executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, that Charles J. Rife breached his fiduciary duty as Trustee of the Edith S. Rife Trust. 37. The averments' of paragraph 37 of the motion, being conclusions of law, no response is required. 3 8. Admitted. 39. The averments of paragraph 39 of the motion are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the executor's answer with new matter filed March 19, 2012, raises the issue of indispensable parties, but it is denied that the executor raises the issue again. On the contrary, the executor avers that the preliminary objections of the executor to the failure of John W. Maxwell to join the other residuary heirs of the Estate of Charles J. Rife as indispensable parties were dismissed on the procedural ground that preliminary objections were not a proper response to a rule to show cause. The preliminary objections were not dismissed on the substantive basis that the other residuary heirs of the -6- Estate of Charles J. Rife are not indispensable parties. Pa.R.C.P. 1032, as incorporated in Pa. Orph. Ct. Rule 3.1, deprives a court of jurisdiction where there has been a failure to join an indispensable party. The jurisdictional issue of the failure to join an indispensable party may be raised at any point in the litigation, and the court is required to dismiss the action on the basis of lack of jurisdiction if the indispensable parties are not joined. Where the court has not ruled on the merits of the issue of indispensable parties, the issue remains before the court as a threshold jurisdictional issue, so the dismissal of the executor's preliminary objections on procedural grounds rather than on the merits does not constitute the law of the case. 40. The averments' of paragraph 40 of the motion, being conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, the averments of paragraph 39 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 41. The averments' of paragraph 41 of the motion, being conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, the averments of paragraph 39 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 42. The averments' of paragraph 42 of the motion, being conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, the executor avers that John W. Maxwell has brought his action directly against the Estate of Charles J. Rife where the motion of John W. Maxwell of October 27, 2011, specifically avers in the ad damnum clause that it is a request for a declaratory judgment of liability against the executor as the personal representative of the Estate of Charles J. Rife, for the breach by Charles J. Rife -7- of his fiduciary duty as trustee of the Edith S. Rife Trust, as opposed to against Charles J. Rife as trustee. WHEREFORE, the executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife respectfully requests that the Motions of John W. Maxwell for judgments on the pleadings be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, Wayne .Shade, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243 -0220 Co-Counsel for Respondent Fred H. Junkins Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, states that he is the attorney for the party or parties filing the foregoing document; that he makes this verification with the authorization to do so and based upon facts which are within his knowledge, information, or belief and that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: February 14, 2013 ~~C/ Wayne F. hade -8- In re the Edith S. Rife Trust : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 11-0325 ORPHANS' COURT NO. 10-1006 ORPHANS' COURT NO. 83-0773 ORPHANS' COURT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing Answer of the Executor of the Estate of Charles J. Rife to the Motions of John W. Maxwell for Judgments on the Pleadings in the above-captioned matter, upon John W. Maxwell herein by first class United States Mail, postage prepaid, to his counsel of record, James D. Cameron, Esquire, 1325 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102, and David A. Fitzsimons, Esquire, Martson Law Office, 10 East High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013; and upon Steven A. Maxwell, Sherri Maxwell, Douglas Maxwell, and Barry Maxwell by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to their counsel of record, Craig A. Diehl, Esquire, 3464 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. Date: February 14, 2013 Wayne F. ade, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Co-Counsel for Respondent Fred H. Junkies