Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-13 IN RE: ESTATE OF : THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHARLOTTE F. STONE, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Deceased ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 21-13-88 RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO PETITION FOR CITATION FOR APPEAL FROM PROBATE AND NOW comes Respondent BRUCE R. STONE by and through his attorney Wayne F. Shade, Esquire, and respectfully responds to the unverifigl petitionZf C= rn m Petitioners, as follows: a t 1. Admitted. `T) 2. Because the averments of 2 of the Petition are conclusions-of law,no response is required. r C ; "' ; 3. The averments of¶ 3 of the Petition are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that, on January 28, 2013, the Register of Wills admitted to probate, as the Last Will and Testament of Charlotte F. Stone, a writing dated February 11, 2009. The feelings of Petitioners are within the exclusive knowledge of Petitioners and are, therefore, denied; and proof thereof is demanded. It is further denied that the Decedent was unduly influenced to authorize or sign her Last Will and Testament dated February 11, 2009, by Respondent or by anyone else. On the contrary, Decedent's authorization and execution of her Last Will and Testament dated February 11, 2009, were in accordance with her own free will, with full testamentary capacity, and with the aid and advice of legal counsel. Respondent denies that Decedent was of diminished intellect to authorize and sign her Last Will and Testament on February 11, 2009, and that he ever abused Decedent. On the contrary, Respondent avers that Decedent possessed full testamentary capacity and was fully aware of what she was doing when she authorized and signed her Last Will and Testament on February 11, 2009, with the benefit of counsel. Respondent further avers that he was always attentive to Decedent and solicitous of her needs. 4. Because the averments of¶4 of the Petition that Petitioners are the persons entitled to inherit under the intestate laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that they will be the heirs of the Decedent if the probate of the Last Will and Testament of Decedent would be reversed are conclusions of law, no response is required. By way of further response, Respondent avers that Petitioners' conclusion of law is incorrect in that, if the probate of the Last Will and Testament of Decedent dated February 11, 2009, would be reversed, the previous Will of Decedent to which Petitioners refer in!j 9.a., of the Petition, and which Petitioners have not alleged is invalid, would define the heirs of the Decedent. Respondent further avers that, even if the reversal of the probate of Decedent's Will would not constitute a reinstatement of the previous Will of the Decedent, Petitioners would only be some of the persons who would be entitled to inherit under the intestate laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is further denied that Petitioners were active in the life of Decedent, that Decedent's children were not provided for, and that Respondent exerted any undue influence or intimidation upon Decedent. On the contrary, Respondent avers that Petitioners were often only minimally involved in the life of Decedent. Petitioners were provided for by Decedent where they each received approximately $40,000 as beneficiaries of Decedent's individual retirement - 2 - account. Further on the contrary, Respondent avers that he was always attentive to Decedent and solicitous of her needs. 5. Admitted. By way of further response, the name of the Executor of the Last Will and Testament admitted to probate is Bruce R. Stone. 6. The averments of¶ 6 of the Petition are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Joy Nargi, Tammy Duncan, Debbie Ulsh, and Angela Book are parties in interest and that their addresses are as stated, but it is denied that Sherrie Campbell is a party in interest. On the contrary, where Sherrie Campbell is not named in the initial paragraph of the Petition, she has signified that she does not consider herself to be a party in interest in the Petition. By way of further response, Respondent avers that there is an adult son of Decedent who has full legal capacity and who has not joined in the Petition. 7. Admitted. 8. The averments of 8 of the Petition are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that, on August 22, 2013,Petitioners filed an appeal from the Order of the Register of Wills admitting the Will to probate and that a copy of the Notice of Appeal was served upon the Register of Wills on August 22, 2013, but it is denied that a true and correct copy of the Notice of Appeal was attached to the Petition as served upon Respondent. On the contrary, a copy of the Notice of Appeal was not attached to the Petition as served upon Respondent. 9. The averments of¶9 of the Petition are admitted in part and denied in part as specified below. Specifically, it is denied that the testator lacked testamentary capacity or that she was of diminished intellect, or that she executed her Last Will and Testament - 3 - on February 11, 2009, as a result of undue influence. On the contrary, Decedent's authorization and execution of her Last Will and Testament dated February 11, 2009, was in accordance with her own free will, with full testamentary capacity, and with the aid and advice of legal counsel. Respondent further denies that he ever abused Decedent. On the contrary, Respondent avers that Decedent possessed full testamentary capacity and was fully aware of what she was doing when she authorized and signed her Last Will and Testament on February 11, 2009. Respondent further responds, as follows: a. The averments of¶ 9.a. of the Petition are denied. On the contrary, pending the opportunity to pursue a reasonable investigation, Respondent is unable to admit or deny whether or not the probate assets that Decedent possessed at the date of execution of her previous Will were substantial, and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further response, Respondent avers that, to the extent that Sherrie Campbell is a party in interest, Decedent's previous Will expressly excluded Sherrie Campbell as an heir on the basis that adequate financial provisions had been previously made to her. Respondent further avers that at the time that the parties executed their Wills on February 11, 2009, Respondent made Decedent the sole heir of his estate which was then valued at more than $200,000 more than the combined value of Decedent's probate and non-probate assets. Respondent further avers that he did nothing to overcome the will of Decedent because she did give tens of thousands of dollars to each of her children by designating them as beneficiaries of her individual retirement account at Orrstown Financial Advisors. b. The averments of 19.b. of the Petition are denied. On the contrary, it is clear that Respondent did not exert undue influence over Decedent and that her will was not - 4 - overcome because she did give tens of thousands of dollars to each of her children by designating them as beneficiaries of her individual retirement account at Orrstown Financial Advisors. c. The averments of¶ 9.c. of the Petition are denied. On the contrary, Respondent avers that only Debbie Ulsh maintained contact with Decedent from 2008 to 2009 and that Respondent never acted to refuse to allow calls from Decedent's biological family members. d. The averments of¶ 9.d. of the Petition are denied. On the contrary, Respondent avers that Petitioner Debbie Ulsh would visit Decedent almost weekly and that Respondent did not do anything to interfere with her visits or the attempts of any other family members of Decedent to visit Decedent. e. The multiple averments of¶ 9.e, of the Petition, being within the exclusive knowledge of Petitioner Joy Nargi, are denied; and any legally admissible proof thereof is demanded. By way of further response, Respondent avers that Matthew Ulsh did visit Decedent for a week at Respondent's home where Decedent resided at all times. after the date of the marriage until Decedent was hospitalized in November of 2011 and ultimately took up residence at the Cumberland County Home, and that Petitioners' own averments respecting such a visit establish a lack of any attempt on the part of Respondent to exclude family members of Decedent from Decedent. £ The averments of¶9.f. of the Petition are denied. On the contrary, Respondent avers that it would have been impossible for him to have prevented family members of Decedent from visiting Decedent when Respondent was not present because he would not - 5 - have been there to have prevented it. Further on the contrary, Respondent avers that he never refused to allow Decedent to walk outside the house unless he was there. By way of further response, Respondent avers that Decedent would always go with Respondent wherever he went because Decedent did not want to be home by herself. g. The averments of¶ 9.g. of the Petition are denied. On the contrary, Respondent avers that he never monitored telephone calls from Decedent's children, never prevented Decedent from independently calling her children, and never complained that he had to pay for any telephone calls from Decedent to her children. h. The averments of 9.h, of the Petition are denied. On the contrary, Respondent avers that he never canceled Decedent's cell phone or membership at Curves at anytime. By way of further response, Respondent avers that Decedent gave her cell phone to her now deceased son, Dennis Stone. i. The averments of¶9.i. of the Petition are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Debbie Ulsh is Decedent's daughter and that on or about October 22, 2011, Debbie Ulsh visited Decedent at Respondent's home and transported Decedent to Ewing Brothers Funeral Home to make funeral arrangements for Dennis Stone who was Decedent's son, but it is denied that there were a scar and bruising on Decedent's face at that time. On the contrary, Respondent avers that there were no scars or bruising on Decedent's face on or about October 22, 2011.. Pending the opportunity to pursue a reasonable investigation, Respondent is unable to admit or deny whether or not Steve Ewing commented on a scar or bruising on the face of Decedent; and any legally admissible proof thereof is demanded. - 6 - j. The averments of¶ 9.j. of the Petition are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that in October or November of 2001, representatives of the Department of Aging of Cumberland County were at the residence of Respondent, but it is denied that they were there for the purpose of investigating Respondent for alleged abuse of Decedent. On the contrary, Respondent avers that the representatives of the Department of Aging of Cumberland County were assessing whether or not the residence of Respondent was sufficiently, physically equipped to enable Decedent to return to the residence to live. k. The averments of¶91. of the Petition are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on November 23, 2011, at about 5:30 P.M., Petitioner Tammy Duncan visited Decedent at Respondent's residence, where Decedent had resided at all times after the date of the marriage until Decedent was hospitalized in November of 2011 and ultimately took up residence at the Cumberland County Home, and that Petitioner Tammy Duncan spoke with Decedent. It is further admitted that, at that time, Decedent did not need any immediate medical care or treatment, but it is denied that there were any arguments between Petitioner Tammy Duncan and Respondent regarding items of the estate of Dennis Stone or that Respondent made any issue over any tractors. On the contrary, Respondent avers that he never made any issue over anything regarding the estate of Dennis Stone. By way of further response, the averments of Petitioner Tammy Duncan establish that she had no difficulty in visiting Decedent at Respondent's residence where Decedent had resided at all times after the date of the marriage until - 7 - Decedent was hospitalized in November of 2011 and ultimately took up residence at the Cumberland County Home. 1. The averments of 9.1. of the Petition are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that, on the evening of November 23, 2011, Decedent fell down the steps at the residence of Respondent, where Decedent had resided at all times after the date of the marriage until Decedent was hospitalized in November of 2011 and ultimately took up residence at the Cumberland County Home, and that Bertha Rogers was a friend of Decedent and that she visited the home on or about November 25, 2011. It is denied that Respondent did not obtain or seek medical treatment for Decedent and that he merely moved Decedent from the injury location to another room in the home. On the contrary, Respondent avers that he repeatedly asked Decedent to let him take her to the hospital but that she refused. It is further denied that Bertha Rogers insisted that Decedent be taken to the hospital. On the contrary, Respondent avers that Bertha Rogers was successful in persuading Decedent to agree to go to the hospital. m. The averments of T 9.m, of the Petition are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on November 25, 2011, Decedent was transported to Hershey Medical Center due to a head injury. Pending the opportunity to pursue a reasonable investigation,Respondent is unable to admit or deny whether or not Decedent suffered a brain injury, what, if anything, anyone stated at Hershey Medical Center and whether or not the Middlesex Township Police Department were notified of anything; and any legally admissible proof thereof is demanded. By way of further response, Respondent avers that he never abused Decedent and never told varied stories as to how Decedent - 8 - was injured and that no charges were ever filed against Respondent by anyone for abusing Decedent. n. The averments of¶ 9.n. of the Petition are denied. Pending the opportunity to pursue a reasonable investigation, any allegations as to what anyone from the Department of Aging stated or did is denied; and proof thereof is demanded. o. The averments of 9.o. of the Petition are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that, during November of 2011, Decedent was a patient at Carlisle Regional Medical Center, but it is denied that Respondent told three differing accounts of I Decedent's injury. Pending the opportunity to pursue a reasonable investigation, Respondent is unable to admit or deny anything that the nursing staff at Carlisle Regional Medical Center may have told to Angela Book; and any Iegally admissible proof thereof is demanded. p. The averments of¶9.p. of the Petition are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that in December of 2011, Decedent was taken to the Cumberland County Home. Because the averments that Petitioner Tammy Duncan visited Decedent at Claremont Nursing Home and that she noticed significant bruising all over Decedent's body are within the exclusive knowledge of Petitioner Tammy Duncan, they are denied; and proof thereof is demanded. Pending the opportunity to pursue a reasonable investigation, Respondent is unable to admit or deny what, if anything, was documented by the nursing staff at the Cumberland County Home; and any legally admissible proof thereof is demanded. - 9 - q. Pending the opportunity to pursue a reasonable investigation, Respondent is unable to admit or deny the allegations in ¶ 9.q, of the Petition; and any legally admissible proof thereof is demanded. r. Because the averments of¶9.r. of the Petition are within the exclusive knowledge of Petitioner Joy Nargi, the same are denied; and any legally admissible proof thereof is demanded. By way of further response, Respondent avers that he never did anything to upset Decedent and that he was never upset with Decedent for anything that she said to a social worker. s. The averments of¶9.s. of the Petition are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Decedent died on January 12, 2013, but it is denied that she died from any injuries sustained. On the contrary, the official certificate of her death indicates that she died from inanition, with the secondary cause of dementia. 10. The averments of¶ 10 of the Petition are denied. On the contrary, Respondent avers that the Last Will and Testament of Decedent was expressed in accordance with her own free will, with full testamentary capacity, and with the aid and advice of legal counsel and that the provisions of the Last Will and Testament of Decedent were completely consistent with the provisions of the Last Will and Testament of Respondent that gave everything that he had to Decedent. - 10 - WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Petition be dismissed and that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent and against Petitioners. Wayne` Shade, Esquire Supreme Court No. 15712 53 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone: 717-243-0220 Attorney for Respondent - I1 - The statements in the foregoin been assembled b g Answer are based upon information which has my own. I have read he statements. and, to the extent they information w language of the statements is not which I have given to my counsel, the Y are based upon and correct to knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements herein abest made authorities. S*penalties of]8 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to e made Date: September 26, 2013 Bruc �.�_Qj Stone