Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-13 (3) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION FILE NO.21-86-0398 ACCOUNT OF THE RESIDUAL TRUST UNDER THE WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA DECEASED OBJECTIONS OF ROBERT M. MUMMA,11 TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE RESIDUAL TRUST JULY 18,2010 TO DECEMBER 31,2012 Robert M. Mumma, 11 Pro se Box F Grantham, PA 17027 o ..Q n o n o 0 c, , Z-3 r General Objections to Account 1. The Estate of Robert M. Mumma was improperly funded. The original inventory has been disputed. Transfer of stock in corporations held by Robert M. Mumma, Kim Co, Pennsylvania Supply Co and Robert M. Mumma, Il was restricted by bylaws and agreements between the shareholders. 2. The executor's of the estate determined to violated these agreements and restrictions and the intentions of Robert M. Mumma that his four children owned these companies and that through redemption of his shares would be the only remaining shareholders. The redemptions of the Decedent's stock using insurance proceeds would provide funding of the Marital Trust. 3. The executors have withheld documentation of the decedent's desire that his children continue to own and operate these assets. The decedent provided millions of dollars of life insurance policies to achieve this goal. 4. Recent discovery has documented proof that insurance was issued for this express purpose. S. The executors fraudulently proposed a plan of liquidation of Pennsylvania Supply Company and Kim Company. The executor's without authority or agreement distributed the assets into two accounts that have no legal authority in Pennsylvania. They have diverted the income and principal to bank accounts that they controlled and have continued to utilize the trusts to divert the �µ 1 income. They have continued the trust past the stated expiration of the trust as provided by the Will. This has resulted in the loss of millions of dollars to the individual beneficiaries. Objections to Residues Trust. 1. The values given are based on "accounting" values not fair market values as required by the format of the petition. 2. There Is an ongoing challenge to the principal items listed in Schedule A and the overfunding of the Marital trust. 3. 1 object to the summary on page 3 and the accountant's conclusions. The residuary trust has been underfunded and income has been diverted to the MT. 4. There is no explanation for the 1.401 shares of Bobali Inc. stock S. $2,338,500 loan payable to the Marital Trust is improper. 6. There is no explanation of how the "new receipts" propertt were discovered. Since it is real estate it must be assumed that taxes have been paid on these items and they have just been hidden. 7. The values used are understated and do not represent fair market 8. MRAII is not a legal entity and can not hold real estate. There is no explanation for the decrease in value. 9. Walter's re appraised the property interests of the residuary trust. Thus fair market value should be used in this accounting. 10. Legal fees to Crary Buchanan are excessive and improper. Lisa Morgan and George Hadley have specific knowledge that the Ir 2 �µ case they brought was improper. A shareholder agreement controlled the transfer of high-Spec stock and had been adopted by the corporation and it's shareholder's 11. Fees paid to MLS, Saul Ewing and Martson were excessive and to the detriment of the residuary trust. 12. On schedule F Sobali Inc. stock is listed at $32,971. There is no explanation for this or who held the stock prior to 7/18/2010 13. Property in Leadville Co is undervalued 14. There are no entities MRAI or MRAII of record in PA. Ownership of the properties assigned to these designations belongs to the shareholders of Pennsylvania Supply Company. 15. Loans payable to the Marital Trust are improper due to the pecuniary nature of the trust and the overfunding of the Marital Trust. 16. Items shown on Schedule G under stocks are not the property of Robert M. Mumma's estate, and not part of the residuary. 17. There is no listing of the items sold, so a proper evaluation of the transaction s is not possible. 18. Legal and professional fees are excessive 19. No money was to be paid into an income account after July 17, 2010. Income was to be distributed directly to the beneficiaries. r e4w Z 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served this _ day of 2013, by first class mail, postage prepaid,upon: Ms. Lisa M. Morgan 1315 Neptune Drive Miss Susan Mann Mumma Boynton Beach, FL 33426 c/o Mr. Robert M. Mumma II P.O. Box F Mr. Robert M. Mumma II Grantham, PA 17027 P.O. Box F Grantham, PA 17027 Miss Marguerite Mann Mumma c/o Mr. Robert M. Mumma II Ms. Barbara M. Mumma P.O. Box F 541 Bridgeview Drive Grantham, PA 17027 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Mr. Robert M.Mumma III Ms. Linda M. Mumma c/o Mr. Robert M. Mumma II P.O. Box 30436 P.O. Box F Bethesda, MD 20824 Grantham, PA 17027 And c/o Ms. Barbara M. Mumma 541 Bridgeway Drive Lemoyne, PA 17043 Cc: No V.Otto Ili, Esq. Robert B. Eyre, Esquire Richard F. Rinaldo,Esquire Brady L, Green,Esquire ROBERF(T'�M, MUMMMA 11 By:Fiy/i Robert M. Mumma II P.O. Box F Grantham, PA 17027 ?, 2o(&