Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-13 (2) F:T1LES\Chants\5844 Mumma Estate\5844.19 Accounts and Distribution Tmsts15844 19 High Spec FL\5844.Lenswer.5.17 13 LMM edits wpd REC0"DE-0 OFFICE OF REGiSTE1? OF 1','l_!S No V. Otto III, Esquire �i3 ley PIS I.D. No. 27763 George B. Faller Jr., Esquire C L E i;K C r I.D. No. 49813 ORPliAltJS' COU;IT Jennifer L. Spears, Esquire CUP46ERL?'4i40 C"v., PA I.D. No.87445 MARTSON LAW OFFICES 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Lisa M. Morgan IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF IN RE: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Estate of Robert M. Mumma, NO. 21-86-398 Deceased. ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PETITION OF ROBERT M. MUMMA II BARBARA MANN MUMMA AND LINDA MUMMA ROTH RE: HIGH-SPEC TO: ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, BARBARA MANN MUMMA and LINDA MUMMA ROTH YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. AND NOW, comes the Trustee, Lisa M. Morgan, and replies to the Petition seeking an injunction with respect to actions regarding High-Spec, Inc.: 1. Admitted, except the Petition is not signed by Linda Mumma. 2-7. Admitted. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that at the time of his death, Robert M. Mumma, Sr. ("Mumma I"), owned 50% of the shares of High-Spec and the remaining 50% were owned by Petitioner, Robert M. Mumma, II ("Mumma II"). It is denied that Petitioner Mumma II owns those shares now. 9. Admitted. 1 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that Mumma I is currently a 50% shareholder of High-Spec. By way of further answer, the Florida Courts, in the context of the Florida Litigation, consisting of several trials, and serial appeals taken by Mumma II with respect to the judgment entered against Mumma II in favor of High-Spec, have appointed a receiver for High-Spec, for the purpose of the winding up of High-Spec, subject only to final quantifying of interest, attorneys fees and costs with respect to the judgment entered against Mumma II. 11. Admitted as to High Spec's status as the time of institution of the Florida Litigation. The balance of the allegations of Paragraph I I are legal conclusions to which no response is required. See also answer to Paragraph 10. In any event, the various rulings of the Florida Courts speak for themselves. 12. The averments of Paragraph 12 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, these averments are specifically denied. 13-16. The averments of Paragraphs 13-16 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. In any event, the Will speaks for itself. 17. Admitted that Morgan acts as sole Trustee and that the assets of the Trusts are still subject to administration. The balance of the averments of Paragraph 17 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. In any event, the Will speaks for itself. 18. The averments of Paragraph 18 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 19. Admitted. By way of further answer, the Florida Court has determined that such shares are so held. 20-23. Denied. To the contrary, see the answer to Paragraphs 13-16 and 19 above. 24-25. The averments of these Paragraphs 24 and 25 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. 26. The averments of this Paragraph 26 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, see the answer to Paragraphs 13- 17 and 19 above. 2 27. The averments of this Paragraph 26 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, see the answers to Paragraphs 13- 17 and 19 above. 28-34. The averments of these Paragraphs 28-34 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, see the answers to Paragraphs 11-27 above. 35. Denied as to the allegation of "irreparable harm". Admitted that the hearing occurred. By way of further answer, Mumma II was present and participated in the bearing in the Florida Court pro se. The purpose of such hearing was to confirm the standing of Morgan to proceed with the final step in the lengthy Florida litigation, to wit, to quantify the final judgment and award of interest and attorneys fees against Mumma IL Such standing was confirmed by the Florida Court and testimony presented with respect to tees and the interest calculation. The Florida Court's final judgment is pending. See also answer to Paragraphs 1.0 and 11. 36. After reasonable investigation, Morgan is unable to ascertain the veracity of the averments of this Paragraph 36. See also the answer to paragraph 35. 37. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Petitioners Barbara Mann Mumma and Linda Mumma Roth are not parties in the Florida litigation. It is denied that they have no opportunity to be heard in that Court. Barbara Mann Mumma was present at a hearing before the Honorable Judge Bauer, and was questioned by the Court regarding her position as to the Florida litigation. 38. Admitted that Mumma II brought this Petition to the attention of the Florida Court. The allegations of this Paragraph 38 as to "beliefs" are either conclusions of law or otherwise such that no response is required. See also answer to Paragraph 35, 39. Admitted that a purported "Joinder" has been filed by Linda Mumma Roth. It is denied that the Petitioners Barbara Mann Mumma and Linda Mumma Roth are owners of the shares of High Spec. NEW MATTER 40. The averments of Paragraphs i through 39 are hereby incorporated by reference. 41. Despite numerous adverse rulings in the Florida courts, Mumma Il, has filed six (6) actions in Pennsylvania state and federal courts regarding High-Spec. Those cases are identified as follows: 3 a. Robert M. Mumma, II and High-Spec, Inc. v. The Estate of Robert M. Mumma, The Executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Lisa M. Morgan and Barbara McK. Mumma, The Residuary Trust under the Will of Robert M. Mumma, and The Trustees of the Residuary Trust under the Will of Robert M. Mumma, Lisa M. Morgan and Barbara McK, Mumma, No. 04-6183 (Civil) Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. b. Robert M. Mumma, II v. Lisa M. Morgan, Individually, and as Executrix of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee of the Marital Trust under the Will of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee of the Residual Trust under the Will of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee under the Will of Barbara McK. Mumma, and as Trustee under the Barbara McK. Mumma 4/28/03 Amendment to and Restatement of Agreement of Trust, and George W. Hadley, Individually, and as Trustee under the Will of Barbara McK. Mumma, Deceased and as Trustee under the Barbara McK. Mumma 4/28/03 Amendment to and Restatement Agreement of Trust and High-Spec, Inc., a Florida corporation, No. 10-7424 (Civil) Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. C. Robert M. Mumma, II, v. Lisa M. Morgan, Individually, and as Executrix of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee of the Marital Trust under the Will of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee of the Residual Trust under the Will of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee under the Will of Barbara McK. Mumma, and as Trustee under the Barbara McK. Mumma 4/28/03 Amendment to and Restatement of Agreement of Trust, and George W. Hadley, Individually, and as Trustee under the Will of Barbara McK. Mumma, Deceased and as Trustee under the Barbara McK. Mumma 4/28/03 Amendment to and Restatement Agreement of Trust and High-Spec, Inc., a Florida corporation, No. 2010-CV-16273 CV (Civil) Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. d. Robert M. Mumma, II v. Lisa M. Morgan, individually, and a Executrix of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee of the Marital Trust under the Will of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee of the Residual Trust under the Will of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee under the Will of Barbara McK. Mumma, and as Trustee under the Barbara McK. Mumma 4/28/03 Amendment to and Restatement of Agreement of Trust, George W. Hadley, individually, and as Trustee under the Will of Barbara MeK. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee under the Barbara McK. Mumma 4/28/03 Amendment 4 I to and Restatement of Agreement of Trust, High-Spec, Inc„ a Florida corporation, No. CV WS 2011-24 -Perry County Court of Common Pleas. e. Robert M. Mumma, II v. Lisa M. Morgan, individually, and as Executrix of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee of the Marital Trust under the Will of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee of the Residual Trust under the Will of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Barbara McK. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee under the Will of Barbara McK. Mumma, and as Trustee under the Barbara McK. Mumma 4/28/03 Amendment to and Restatement of Agreement of Trust, George W. Hadley, individually, and as Trustee under the Will of Barbara McK. Mumma, Deceased, and as Trustee under the Barbara McK. Mumma 4/28/03 Amendment to and Restatement of Agreement of Trust, High-Spec, Inc., a Florida corporation, No. 2011-00021-Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas. f. Robert M. Mumma, 1I v. High-Spec, Inc., Barbara McK. Mumma, Lisa Mumma Morgan; James L.S. Bowdish; and Kim Company, Civil No. 1:09-CV-1447 United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 42. In the cases referred to in Paragraph 41 (excepting those dismissed for plaintiffs failure to proceed), the various Courts held that the rights of the parties regarding High-Spec, Inc., were subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida courts, and that the decisions of the Florida courts were res judicata as well as time barred with respect to actions in Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, Lisa M. Morgan, requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Petitioners' Petition regarding High-Spec,Inc. (signature on next page 6] 5 Respectfully submitted, MAR SON OFFICES By: No V. Otto III, Esquire George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Jennifer L. Spears, Esquire 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Brady L. Green, Esquire WILBRAHAM LAWLER& BUBA 1818 Market Street, 31 st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 972-2860 Date: Attorneys for Lisa M. Morgan 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,Shelly R.Taylor,an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy&Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Jeffrey G. Brooks, Esquire Minto Law Group, LLC Two Gateway Center 603 Stanwix Street, Suite 2025 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Richard F. Rinaldo, Esquire Williams Coulson Johnson Lloyd Parker & Tedesco, LLC One Gateway Center, 16" Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Ms. Linda M. Mumma P.O. Box 30436 Bethesda, MD 20824 Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II 840 Market Street, Suite 33333 Lemoyne, PA 17043 MARTSON LAW OFFICES Y "& Sh 11 R. Tayl T ast HigLSfreet Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: 1 c�b13 F TILES\Clients\5844 Mumma Es ale\5844.1 Mumma Estat65844.19.cas.w d