HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-13 IN RE: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
EST� OF ROBERT J. LAPORTE : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
�`�� ��:, : ORPHANS COURT DIVISION
�,:.. �',.�°� `�'�-s ,,..�,
�,.5 �' �---� ��u;�� � : NO. 2011-00026
„ rwm.
_, ..._„
,.,...�
t.. ._,�
4.�.,. �:.� r. ^�� f;..:,t
... m d,;� ._. n;� �':M:i!�
y w r �
�� ` �' � ANSWER TO NEW MATTER
i ., , .. C.�'.� ....� ��, �":
" � - �__� �� ''� �
c�,��� ,�,f .,� �,.
��� ��.:� �..,�ND I'�� COMES Petitioner, Susan M. LaPorte, by and through the undersigned
Lr�d m,� C'�
F LLwi�.w Y•�—i
�xiv�
r".._,.a
counsel, answering the New Matter as follows:
17. No responsive pleading required.
18. Admitted. By way of further answer, during trips to Decedent's residence, the
Executrix was always present, aware of, and consented to the distribution of property. All items
were accounted for and an itemized list of items taken was e-mailed to Executrix.
19. Denied. Statutes and laws govern the Executrix's obligations to the estate. The
Executrix is accountable and held to a fiduciary duty for the best interests of the estate.
20. Denied. The insinuation that Petitioner would spark a confrontation with
Respondent had the Respondent made a claim for an appraisal of those items removed by the
Petitioner is ludicrous. Petitioner was at all times forthcoming about the removal of those items
she took from the Decedent's former home, and she expressly informed Respondent to notify her
if an accounting of those specific items was required.
21. Denied. The Executrix should have performed her duties as required by law from
the outset and inventoried the items she took. Respondent is now attempting to cover up her
misdeeds. There is still personal property missing and unaccounted for.
22. Denied. Respondent has not inventoried all personal property she removed and
has secured an appraisal on only a small portion of the personal property removed.
- ��
23. Denied. Although counsel for the estate demanded an appraisal, items removed
by Petitioner were identified by Petitioner when taken which was years ago.
24. Denied. An appraisal of the property was unwarranted, unneeded and untimely.
The property should have been valued prior to distribution.
25. Denied. An appraisal of the property was unwarranted, unneeded and untimely.
The property should have been valued prior to distribution.
26. Denied. Due to the Executrix's failure and refusal to inventory the estate and her
subsequent inability to ask for further information concerning valuation, the Executrix filed a
Petition attempting to hide her malfeasance.
27. Denied. Petitioner did not object to the request for an appraisal. Petitioner's
response to the appraisal request was to ask Respondent why such an appraisal was necessary
and what benefit an appraisal had to the estate. The Respondent never replied to these questions.
28. Denied. Petitioner is still questioning the accuracy, completeness, and
appropriateness of Respondent's filings.
29. Denied. It is denied that Petitioner's actions are intended to avoid valuation of the
personal property items in her possession, and that Petitioner is attempting to secure an
advanta.ge regarding the final distribution of assets of the estate. Petitioner has been forthcoming
with Respondent in all aspects of items removed from the home. Petitioner has been reluctant to
agree to the unneeded expense to the estate in order to cover up the Executrix's wrongdoings. It
is Petitioner's accountings that are the only record of existence of this property.
30. Denied. It is denied that Petitioner has intentionally tried to delay the finalization
of the estate, cause confrontation with the Respondent, or add burden or cost to the
administration of the estate. No explanation is provided as to why Petitioner is delaying
finalization of the estate and this averment is ridiculous.
31. Denied. Petitioner had no choice but to file the Petition to Disclose Itemization of
Personal Property and Reasons for Untimely Filing due to Respondent's mismanagement of the
estate, her lack of accounting for missing items of personal property and cash, and the
unreasonable delay in finalizing the estate, which is now at 21/2 years and counting.
32. Denied. It is Respondent's misdeeds and malfeasance that has caused the instant
Petition to be filed. Any legal costs should be borne by Respondent, personally, since she failed
to comply with her Executrix duties properly.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests this Honorable Court to issue an Order requiring the
Executrix to provide an itemized accounting of the personal property of the estate, to supply
reasons why the filings were untimely, imposing a deadline to complete the administration of the
estate,requiring any legal fees to respond to this Petition to be borne personally by the Executrix,
and for such other relief this Court believes is just and reasonable.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF CR.AIG A. DIEHL
Date: By:
� d
Craig A. iehl, Esquire, C.P.A.
Attorney I.D.No. 52801
3464 Trindle Road
Camp Hill,PA 17011
Tel: (717) 763-7613
Fax: (717) 763-8293
VERIFICATION
I, Susan M. LaPorte, Petitioner above-named, being duly sworn according to law,
deposes that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answers to New Matter are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that the
statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
�
Date: � � 13
Susan M. LaPorte
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW,the �5`'�' day of August, 2013,the undersigned hereby certifies that a
true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer to New Matter was served upon the opposing
party by way of United States first class mail,postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire
200 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
��
Debra A. Fike, Legal Secretary