Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-13 6',0727 ryi t C? �7 O M -c Ct3 C-) r- 1 r'3 Richard F. Rinaldo Pa. I.D. No. 33222 Williams Coulson Johnson Lloyd Parker & Tedesco, LLC - 9 One Gateway Center, 16th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412-454-0200 Attorneys for Barbara M. Mumma IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA In re: ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased. No. 21-86-398 OBJECTIONS OF BARBARA M. MUMMA TO AUDITOR'S INTERIM REPORT FILED APRIL 26, 2013 In accordance with the Local Rule 8.7-2 of the Local Rules of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Orphans' Court Division, Barbara M. Mumma ("Barbara Mumma") hereby files and serves her objections to the Audi- tor's Interim Report and Request for Order filed and served April 26, 2013 ("Inter- im Report") by the Auditor appointed by this Court in the above-captioned matter, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire ("Auditor Buckley"). Introduction and Procedural Issues and Background On Friday, April 26, 2013,. Auditor Buckley sent via e-mail to counsel of record and to Robert Mumma, II, who is proceeding pro se in this matter, a notice which stated, in pertinent part: "I am attaching a copy of an Interim Report I will be filing today regarding the two outstanding petitions of the Trustee. A copy of said e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit"A."E Pursuant to Local Rule 8.7-2 of the Cumberland County Orphans' Court Rules: Objections to the auditor's report shall be filed with the Clerk within twenty days after receipt of the notice of filing of said report. Objections shall be specific as to the basis of the Objection whether as to the findings of fact or conclusions of law, or both. C.C.O.C.R. 8.7-2. A copy of C.C.O.C.R. 8.7-2, printed from the official website of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, is attached hereto as Exhib- it `B." Accordingly, Objections to the Interim Report are timely if filed with the Clerk of the Orphans' Court on or before April 16, 2013. {See Pa. O.C. Rule 4.1: "When any period of time is referred to in any rule, such period in all cases . . . shall be so computed as to exclude the first and include the last day of such peri- od."}; see also Pa. R.C.P. 106(a). 1 Thus, although the report is captioned "Auditor's Interim Report, April 24, 2013, And Request for Order," the first date on which counsel and/or the parties could have received notice of the filing of the Interim Report is April 26, 2013. 2 - f Despite the provisions of C.C.O.C.R. 8.7-2, this Court, per Oler, S.J., grant- ed the two Orders recommended by Auditor Buckley by orders dated May 6, 2013 and entered May 1.0, 2013. Copies of the two Orders, both date-stamped May 10, 2013, were received in the office of counsel of record for Barbara Mumma on Monday, May 13, 2013, and are attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and "D" respec- tively (for convenience, the Orders will be referred to as the "May 10 Orders," since that was the recording date in the office of the Clerk.). Thus, in light of the unequivocal text of the applicable rules, Barbara Mum- ma respectfully submits that the following objections are timely filed and the May 10 Orders were prematurely entered. For this reason, Barbara Mumma also is fil- ing and serving this date a Motion to Vacate or, in the alternative, to Reconsider the May 10 Orders. Barbara Mumma's Objections, set forth below, are to the Or- der attached as Exhibit "C." Objections to Interim Re ort 1. The Interim Report Recommends Excessive and Premature Relief Beyond that Sought By the Petition or Warranted By the Petition. The Order recommended by Auditor Buckley in the Interim Report recom- mends that Lisa Morgan be "authorized and directed to proceed with a plan of liq- uidation of the assets remaining in the trust established under the Seventh Section and the Eighth Section of the Last Will and Testament of Robert M. Mumma, and following receipt by this Court of its Order regarding the accounts previously filed, - 3 - to distribute then reamining [sic] assets among and between the named beneficiar- ies . . . " This recommendation is objectionable for several reasons. First, the rec- ommendation is premature. There are objections filed on behalf of Barbara Mum- ma and other objections filed on behalf of Robert Mumma II to the accountings filed in this matter which have not been resolved and which remain pending at this time. Auditor Buckley has not issued his final report, and this Court has not yet reviewed the proceedings. Liquidation of the assets of the trust is neither neces- sary nor appropriate prior to the resolution of the pending objections. Second, the Interim Report appears to recommend that this Court by order authorize Lisa Morgan to perform actions which are outside the jurisdiction of this Court because they affect corporate parties not before the Court. As Exhibit A-1 to the official transcript of the proceedings2 before Auditor Buckley demonstrates, there are several parcels of real estate referenced in the proceedings which are owned by D-E Distribution Corporation or by G-A-T Distribution Corporation. See Transcript, Exhibit A-1, at IT 14-16. The assets of the Trust in those cases are not z The argument before Auditor Buckley was on the record and has been tran- scribed. In the event that Auditor Buckley has not yet filed the transcript of the proceedings, see generally Pa. Orphans' Court Rule 8.5, Counsel for Barbara Mumma will submit a copy, with its exhibits, to the Court for the Court's conven- ience, but will not serve a copy on other parties, who presumably already have it. - 4 - parcels of real estate; they are shares of stock in Pennsylvania corporations not par- ty to this proceeding. See Transcript at p. 65. In addition, the trust claims an inter- est in parcels of real estate owned by Bobali Corporation, also a Pennsylvania cor- poration not before this Court. In fact, the parcels of real estate owned by Bobali Corporation are at issue in a civil action pending before Judge Bratton in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Morgan v. Mumma, No. 20 10-cv-11490, in which a non jury trial is scheduled to resume May 21, 2013. Other parcels of real estate are owned by one of two tenancies in common, described as MRA-I and MRA-I1 (see transcript, Exhibit A-1, at IT 10-11), which merely establishes that the trust has an undivided percentage interest in the assets of the tenancies in common. Auditor Buckley refers to two opinions by Judge Sheely at 66 Equity 1988, interpreting those opinions as absolving Lisa Morgan of the obligation to seek or obtain the prior permission or consent of the residuary beneficiaries with respect to the assets of the MRA tenancies in common. See In- terim Report at pp. 20-21. However, Section 3 and Section 13 of the MRA Agreements clearly provide that a Transfer Notice, accompanied by an appraisal, must be provided to those who own an interest in MRA prior to any sale, and there is absolutely nothing in either of Judge Sheely's opinions which addresses the no- tice requirement. As the transcript before Auditor Buckley demonstrates, no vote was ever taken and no notice was given as required by the MRA Agreements. 5 Moreover, it is significant that the two opinions by Judge Sheely at 66 Equi- ty 1988 were both issued in 1992. At that time, Barbara McK. Mumma, Mr. Mumma's widow, was still very much alive. Accordingly, Section Seven and Sec- tion Eight of Mr. Mumma's Last Will and Testament, which governs the disposi- tion of the trust assets following the death of Barbara McK. Mumma, were not yet operative, applicable or material. Those provisions were not a part of or, so far as can be gleaned from the opinions themselves, ever considered by Judge Sheely in reaching his determination about the MRA Agreements. Now, with the passing of Barbara McK. Mumma, as set forth in more detail infra, the fifth paragraph of Sec- tion Seven and the second paragraph of Section Eight of Mr. Mumma's will are both relevant and material in determining the obligations of the trustee in distrib- uting the assets of the trust. In short, the passing of Barbara McK. Mumma argua- bly makes Judge Sheely's 1992 Opinions inapplicable to the current interpretation and status of the trust and the obligations of Lisa Morgan as trustee. Third, the Interim Report is objectionable because it appears to recommend that this Court authorize Lisa Morgan to perform acts and liquidate assets which were far beyond the relief requested in the petitions and, in at least one instance, was expressly disclaimed by counsel for Lisa Morgan. In the filings made on behalf of Barbara Mumma and during the argument before Auditor Buckley, counsel for Barbara Mumma objected to the inclusion of 6 Union Quarries in the petition, because the appraisal for Union Quarries which had been done was —to say the least — suspect in that it failed to value the reserves. In response, Brady Green, counsel for Lisa Morgan as trustee, responded: "We didn't intend to ask to sell it. That was not the intent of the petition." Transcript, at p. 73. There is nothing in the recommended order which would appear to prevent such an action, despite the fact that Auditor Buckley himself stated: "I don't think the court would permit them to sell that interest based on the income that that has gencrat- ed." Id. at 73. Nonetheless, the proposed order purports to authorize Lisa Morgan to liquidate the assets "without further order of this Court." Not only is this exces- sive and objectionable, but it also appears clearly to contradict the expressed intent of Auditor Buckley himself during the argument. Similarly, the Amity Hall property in which the trust claims an interest was a subject of argument in that it appears to have been substantially undervalued be- cause the appraisal did not consider the fact that the property appears to have sub- stantial Marcellus Shale assets. See Transcript at pp. 73-74. A new appraisal of this property which takes into account the mineral rights as well as the surface property is not only essential but also would appear to be in the interest of all of the beneficiaries, including Lisa Morgan herself. Moreover, it is undisputed that none of the properties in question have been appraised since 2010 (See exhibit B to Ex- hibit A-i attached to Transcript), and if the trust were to undertake the new ap- - 7 - praisals, all four of the residuary beneficiaries would share equally in the eventual cost and benefit equally from more accurate and current appraisals. Although this issue was addressed at length in the argument before Auditor Buckley and in the papers filed by the parties, Auditor Buckley does not suggest that Lisa Morgan must follow the requirements of the MRA Agreements regarding notice prior to liquidating assets and, presumably, selling real property owned by the MRA tenancies in common. 2. There is No Need Shown in the Petition for Liquid Assets Beyond Those Already Received by the Trust in This Proceeding. The principal reason given by Lisa Morgan for the fling of the petition was, as Auditor Buckley put it, "to inject the trust with funds to insure ongoing expenses can be paid." See Interim Report, at 2, In the filings and the discussions both be- fore and during the argument and the telephone conferences which preceded it, it was determined that there were certain life insurance policies owned by D-E Dis- tribution Corporation which had a cash value in excess of$2,000,000. It is undis- puted that those.policies now have been surrendered and the cash value of the poli- cies distributed to the shareholders of D-E Distribution Corporation in the propor- tion of the shareholders' interest in the company. As a result, the trust received a substantial inflow of cash, in an amount which approached or exceeded one million. dollars. Auditor Buckley confirms that "Counsel for the Estate and the trusts cre- ated thereunder did not report that the trusts were in any immediate need of fund- - 8 - ing beyond the funds it believed would be received from the each value of the life insurance policies." See Interim Report, at 4. Thus, based on the petition itself and the status of the trusts, there is no need for haste in liquidating the real estate in which the trust claims an interest. There is no reason why those who have an interest in the property other than the trust cannot receive notice as required by the MRA Agreements, and there is no reason why steps cannot be taken to preserve the assets of the trust as they are currently constituted while this matter moves toward conclusion. 3. The Interim Report is Objectionable as a Matter of Law Because It Makes Recommendations Which Violate the Intent of the Testator. It is well established that "[w]hen interpreting the provisions of a trust, the polestar in every trust is the settlor's intent and that intent must prevail." In re Hirt, 832 A.2d 438, 448 (Pa. Super. 2003). Moreover, "the rules for determining a set- tlor's intent are the same for trusts as for wills." Id. See also In re McFadden, 705 A.2d 930, 931 (Pa. Super. 1998). It is equally well established that "[w]here provisions of a trust instrument conflict, they should be read in such a fashion as to give effect to both and/or fulfill the intent of the settlor." In re Hirt, 832 A.2d at 448, citing In re McCune,705 A.2d 861, 867 (Pa. Super. 1997). Nothing could be more clear from the provisions of the will and the trust than the fact that Robert Mumma wanted his children to be equal beneficiaries and - 9 - to be treated equally following the death of Mr. Mumma's wife, which occurred in 2010. Here, there are four residuary beneficiaries, one of whom is the trustee, Lisa Morgan. As Auditor Buckley recognizes, "If a trust has two or more beneficiaries, the trustee shall act impartially in investing, managing and distributing the trust property, giving due regard for the beneficiaries' respective interest in light of the purpose of the trust." Interim Report, at 18, quoting 20 Pa. C.S. § 7773. See, e.g., Restatement (Third) of Trusts, § 79 (2007). Auditor Buckley's Interim Report quotes the fifth paragraph of Section Sev- en of Mr. Mumma's Last Will and Testament, which provides; "Upon the death of my said wife, the principal of this Trust, as it is then constituted, shall be paid over by my surviving trustee unto my children, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, BAR- BARA M. McCLURE, LINDA M. ROTH and LISA M. MUMMA, free of this Trust, share and share alike, per stirpes and not per capita." (emphasis added). See Interim Report at 27. The Interim Report also quotes the second paragraph of Section Eight of Mr. Mumma's Last Will and Testament, which provides: "Upon the death of my said wife, the principal of this trust, as it is then constituted, or, if my said wife does not survive me, upon my death, my residuary estate, shall be paid over by my sur- viving trustee or by my successor Executor, as the case may be, unto my children, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, BARBARA M. McCLURE, LINDA M. ROTH and - 10 - LISA M. MUNC A, share and share alike, per stirpes and not per capita." (em- phasis added). See Interim Report at 27.3 Auditor Buckley, after quoting these paragraphs, then asserts the following conclusion: "Lisa Morgan, as the surviving trustee, has the authority to liquidate and distribute those assets among the four named beneficiaries." Interim Report, at 27 (emphasis supplied). There is nothing whatsoever in the sections quoted by Auditor Buckley which addresses the question of liquidation at all, much less au- thorizes giving Lisa Morgan carte blanche to liquidate all of the assets of the trust (not to mention purporting to authorize her to sell real estate that is not owned by the trust but is owned by other entities). To the contrary, Mr. Mumma's contrary intent is quite clear: following his wife's death, the principal of each trust "as it is then constituted" is to be distributed "share and share alike" among his four chil- dren equally. In his Interim Report, Auditor Buckley quotes In re Scheidmantel, 868 A.2d 464, 488 (Pa. Super. 2005) for guidance as to determining the intent of the testator or settlor. In Scheidmantel, the Superior Court also emphasized that although a 3 For some reason, Auditor Buckley omits from his quotation the words "as it is then constituted" from his quotation of Section Eight and replaces them with an el- lipsis. See id. It is respectfully submitted that the words "as it is then constituted" are extremely significant in determining Mr. Mumma's intent, and do not support Auditor Buckley's interpretive conclusion. - 11 - trustee does have discretion, "[t]he real question is whether it appears from the record that the trustees acted in "that state of mind" contemplated by the grantor of the trust." Id., quoting In re Briggs' Estate, 27 A.2d 430, 433 (1942)(which cited Restatement of Trusts, Section 187 (1929)). In re Scheidmantel, 868 A.2d at 481. In Scheidmantel, the Superior Court concluded that "A trustee may be found to have breached his duty of trust if he fails to exercise his discretion in a manner consistent with the document that created the trust." Id. Here, Auditor Buckley's Interim Report is objectionable because it requests an order authorizing the trustee, Lisa Morgan, to liquidate the assets of the trust be- fore distributing those assets. That recommendation is contrary to the state of mind of Mr. Mumma in creating the trust as expressed in the unequivocal language of the document itself. The principal of the trust "as it is then constituted," is to be paid over and distributed, "share and share alike" to Mr. Mumma's four chil- dren. In fact, as Auditor Buckley himself appears to concede, "The final purpose of the trust is also to insure that its assets are equally distributed to his four chil- dren and Lisa Morgan, as Mr. Mumma's trustee, has been designated by her late father to be the person to complete this final duty." Interim Report, p. 25. He sup- ports this conclusion by stating that "[t]he PEF Code supports the conclusion that the trust has terminated." Id. What Auditor Buckley's recommendation and report - 12 - does not address -- and in fact contradicts -- is that fact that the document expressly states that the principal is to be distributed on the death of Mr. Mumma's wife "as it is then constituted." The intent of the settlor is clear not only as to the fact that the four children are to be treated equally, but also that they each receive a one- fourth share of the principal of the trust "as it is then constituted." Auditor Buckley also concludes that Mr. Mumma "intended surviving trus- tee, Lisa Morgan would act alone in distributing the residuary trust's assets in equal shares to the beneficiaries." Interim Report, p. 28. There is nothing in the Interim Report that asserts that such a distribution of"share and share alike" from the trust "as it is then constituted" cannot be accomplished, which makes the Inter- im Report objectionable in itself. For example, for purposes of this petition, the parties stipulated that the MRA-1 Agreement lists ownership interests in which the Estate of Robert M. Mumma had a listed interest of 81.82507%. See Transcript, Exhibit A-1, at ¶ 7. There is nothing to prevent Lisa Morgan from distributing one fourth of the Trust's interest, an undivided 20.4562675% interest, from the Trust to each of the four re- siduary beneficiaries. According to the stipulation, then Lisa Morgan would have a 25.9130175% interest in MRA-1, while Barbara Mumma and Linda Mumma each would have an undivided 24.6918175% interest in MRA-1 and Robert Mumma 11 would have an undivided 24.7033475% interest in the tenancy in com- - 13 - mon and, presumably, in the properties owned by the tenancy in common. Similar distributions can be made for the respective shares of stock in D-E Distribution Corporation, G-A-T Distribution Corporation and Bobali Corporation.a In fact, as set forth in considerable detail in the papers filed in this matter, on the death of Barbara McK. Mumma on July 17, 2010, this distribution should al- ready have occurred during the past nearly three years. As Barbara Mumma averred in paragraph 51 of the New Matter contained in her initial Response to the Petition to Authorize Liquidation which has resulted in this Interim Report and which Barbara Mumma has demonstrated and maintained throughout, "There is nothing in the Will which provides that, following the death of Barbara McK. Mumma, the assets of either of the Trusts should be liquidated." New Matter, ¶ 51. Moreover, as Barbara Mumma has asserted from the outset: "Liquidation of the as- sets and sale of all the real properties as sought in the Petition would not only be premature, but also would be economically disadvantageous to the beneficiaries and clearly not in their best interests and would violate both the express provisions of the Will and the intent of the Testator." New Matter, T 54.5 4 It bears repeating that the assets of the Trust are the shares of stock in the corpo- rations and the undivided percentage interests in the tenancies in common. The as- sets are not the parcels of real estate. 5 It should be noted that the arguments and issues which form the basis of Barbara Mumma's Objections were raised before Auditor Buckley, either by filings ofrec- ord and documents or during the argument before Auditor Buckley or both. - 14 - Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the Response of Barbara M. Mumma In Opposition to Petition to Authorize Sale of Real Estate and in the Post-Hearing Memorandum of Barbara M. Mumma In Opposition to Petition to Authorize Sale of Real Estate, both of which are incorporated herein by refer- ence, Barbara Mumma respectfully requests that this Court sustain the Objections of Barbara Mumma to the Interim Report and deny the relief sought in the pro- posed order attached thereto with respect to the authorization to proceed with a plan of liquidation of the trust assets without further order of Court. WILLIAMS COULSON JOHNSON LLOYD PARKER& TEDESCO, LLC By: Richard F. Rinaldo Dated: May 16, 2013 Attorneys for Barbara M. Mumma - 15 - Richard F. Rinaldo From: JOEBIAW @aol.com Sent: Friday,April 26, 2013 6:29 AM To: bgreen @morganlevhs.com; Richard F. Rinaldo;iotto @martsonlaw.com; rmmtwo @mac.com Subject: Estate of Ronert M. Mumma Attachments: MUMMAA-1.PDF Gentlemen, I am attaching a copy of an Interim Report I will be filing today regarding the two outstanding petitions of the Trustee. I am readying the final report but would entertain a short memo from all parties as to the taw of this matter in light of the Superior Court decision in Mumma v. Estate of Mumma, 40 A.3d 196. 1 will give you 30 days if you wish to respond. My office received a letter from an attorney not of record in this matter relative to a request from Mr. Mumma. I would advise each of you if you need any information which is in the record of this matter you consult the record or if you desire information contained in any transcribed arguments, you consult those transcriptions. Please do not attempt to convert your unsolicited, out of hearing statements to me as a statement attributed to me. I reiterate to you all, as I did to Mr. Mumma if you have questions relative to any matter where you may have not been present, please consult the record, the transcripts or the files of your attorneys of record. Thank you. Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013-4435 717-249-2446 t Adopted May I5, 1990, effective July 1, 1990-; amended December 29, 2004.effective December 29, 2004. Rule 8.7. Confirmation of Report (a) The report of an auditor shall be confirmed in such manner as local rules shall prescribe. (b) The report of a master shall not be approved until a decree is entered adopting its recommendations. CONFIRMATION Rule 8.7-1. [No revision required, except as noted] OBJECTIONS Rule 8.7-2. Objections to the auditor's report shall be filed with the Clerk within twenty days after receipt of the notice of Ming of said report Objections shall be specific as to the basis of the Objection whether as to the findings of fact or conclusions of law, or both. Adopted May 15, 1990, effective July 1, 1990; amended December 29, 2004, effective December 29, 2004. DISPOSITION OF OBJECTIONS Rule 8.7-3. [No revision required, except as noted] Rule 8.8. Security for Expenses and Fees An auditor or master, the accountant or any party in interest may apply to the court at any time for leave to require security for the payment of the auditor's or master's expenses and fees,and, when such leave is granted,the auditor or master may decline to proceed until security is entered. Rule 8.8-1. [RESERVED] Note: No local rule required. Adopted May 15, 1990,effective July 1, 1990. RULE 9. OFFICIAL EXA MNTERS -28- RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. : LN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MU31,1MA, deceased : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN'S-y-LV-A.NjA ORPILANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 21-86-398 •0 � ORDER_ AND NOW, this t* day of a 2013, upon the recommendation of the Auditor in this case it is hereby ordered that the request of Lisa M. Morgan, that she be authorized to proceed with a plan of liquidation is hereby granted. Lisa M. Morgan is authorized and directed to proceed with a plan of liquidation of the assets remaining in the trust established under the Seventh Section and the Eighth Section of the Last Will and Testament of Robert M. Mumma, and following receipt by this Court of its Order regarding the accounts previously filed to distribute then reamining assets among and between the named beneficiaries: Robert M. Mumma II, Barbara M. Mumma, Linda Mumma, and Lisa M. Morgan in equal shares without further order of this Court. BY THE COURT J. esley Oler, Jr.6Pnior Judge ` n - T, Joseph D. Buckley, Esq 6 Auditor Clerk of Orphan's Co Iva V. Otto, Brady Green, Es Richard F. Ri do, Esquire :J =? o ro Robert M. a II Z:- Linda M a Roth Joseph D. Buckley, Esq. 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Court-Appointed Auditor Robert M. Mumma, II Box F Grantham, PA 17027 No V. Otto, III, Esq. 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Brady L. Green, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 John Kerr, Esq. 5020 Ritter Road Suite 104 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Linda Mumma P: O. Box 30436 Bethesda, MD 20824 /Rh F. Rinaldo, Esqs Coulson Johnson Lloyd Parker & Tedesco, LLC eway Center, 16� Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 \ \ g (mn ` ( / \ \ � [ ( 9 ) m / \ . « . . / 9 � C) ( r CD < % P / / \ UP fli IC) J \ } \ ƒ _ % \ L . r"KtV� . . 0 \ C) \ Ci IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ML?vU\ZA, deceased : CU-IVMcRLA,NTD COUNTY; PENNSYLVANIA ORDHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 21-86-398 ORDER AND NOW, this day of N4 ) 2013, upon the recommendation of the Auditor in this case it is hereby ordered that the Petition of Lisa M. Mumma to authorize the sale of the real property owned by the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, located on UPS Drive in Dauphin County and commonly referred by the parties as "the UPS Property' is hereby granted. BY THE COURT J. �SleyOler, , SenierJu ge Joseph D. Buckley, E uire,Auditor —_ - _ A Clerk of Orphan's C e c T1 m h o V. Otto, IV, Fs ire Brady Green, Esq e Richard F. Rinal o, Esquire 2 ^ o� �n r''J ti Robert M. M a, II �' _ o r. Linda Mumma oth " -1. 7 c __ co — .1 O - .� T w. -.. __ ', ,. r . , r' < . �. . ,, s � . : ... fi ..r'-+w.Y51!.y.N °h.m!. *� � tl'v y._w. a v�.ro-�°'emt..+iT'�Ml'+ .yu�.... �k•v.+w" e±m+w "+YWPY�+Y? £Tewvr'.w-=..v. X, qy.�. Tll n o L c n A m cn Z N r m m A < m T p L O > o r m o m m A L 3 S 0 tJ ft.= cp can R = n CD G] m C) ca, CD N G O C r T Q _ , l _ o O � > Q r W O n w CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Objections of Barbara M. Mumma to Auditor's Interim Report Filed April 26, 2013 was served by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, this 16`h day of May, 2013 to the following: Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. Senior Judge Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 (via hand delivery) Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 No V. Otto, IV, Esquire George B. Faller, Esquire Jennifer L. Spears, Esquire Martson Law Offices 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Brady L. Green, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Robert M. Mumma II 840 Market Street Suite 3333 Lemoyne, PA 17043 - 16 - (Certificate of service continued) Robert M. Mumma II 6880 S.E. Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996 Ms. Linda M. Mumma, P.O. Box 30436 Bethesda, MD 20824 Ri and F. Rinaldo Counsel for Barbara M. Mumma - 17 -