Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-14 1N RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT J. : COMMONWEALTH OF PENII�YLVAN�� �, LAPORTE : 1N THE COURT OF COMMOI��EAS �`" ,m �-�'�', : OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DI�I'I�CT � -- ° : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISIOI's� T,�, � ~ � � rv ;y� �� : NO. 2011-00026 i �, � '-`� :��� �==' : PRIOR JUDGE: Thomas A. Pla�y�.; � � ° ;; r-, c, ._,� ,.:� _�,� e� ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS OF SUSAN M. LAPOR�T� � te�:° r`��i TO THE FIRST AND FINAL ACCOUNT OF � c.,�� �n � ANN E. LAPORTE, EXECUTRIX `� � AND NOW, comes Ann E. LaPorte, Executrix of the Estate of Robert J. LaPorte, by and through her counsel, Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire, and the law firm of Griffie & Associates, P.C., and files the following Answers to the Objections filed in this matter: 1. Denied. It is denied that items of personalty have been misrepresented. It is denied that items of personalty have been erroneously accounted for. It is denied that items of personalty are missing. It is denied that values associated with certain items of personalty are egregiously overstated. (A) It is admitted that there was an error on part of the Executrix and counsel in duplicating ten items of personal property from the initial Inheritance Tax Return to a Supplemental Return. It is averred that said items originally were valued at $2,945.00 in this estate, an estate, including non-probate assets, with a gross value of nearly $1,000,000.00. It is admitted the ariginal Inheritance Tax Return filed by Executrix presented personal property items that were appraised at $4,320.00. It is admitted that the Executrix' Answer to the Petition to Secure Order Directing Executrix to Disclose Itemization of Personal Property included listing of personal property items retained by the Objectant at a value of$25,976.00. It is admitted that the Supplemental Tax Return filed by the Executrix put the personalty at the value of$26,221.00. It is admitted that the Supplemental Return included personalty items valued at $245.00 that were not originally listed on the Inheritance T� Return, as these were additional nominal items by Executrix which Executrix had valued by a professional. It is admitted that there were ten items valued at $2,945.00 on the original Return, which were duplicated by error of the Executrix and counsel on the Supplemental Return. It is denied that the Executrix ever intentionally inflated the value of distributions made to the Objectant in order to gain financial advantage or otherwise. (B) It is denied that hundreds of items of personalty of the decedent are missing. It is admitted that the Executrix had an appraisal performed by Jones and Martin Auctions and Appraisals valuing a list of items at $6,205.00. It is further averred this appraisal was completed with the understanding that the items listed were likely to be retained by Objectant or, at least, Executrix had reason to believe they would be retained by Objectant. It is further averred that after the Objectant removed a wide array of personal property items from decedent's home, following multiple trips to the residence, items on the Jones and Martin Auction list, which remained in the home and were not removed by Objectant were deleted from the appraisal list with the understanding that those items would be auctioned by a local auctioneer once all remaining personalty was auctioned. It is admitted that of the 14 items that were listed to be auctioned, the auctioneer only removed five of those items, designating the other nine items as being without value or non-saleable and, therefore, not to be auctioned. It is denied that there are hundreds of items of personalty missing, which can be substantiated by photographs in Objectant's possession. It is further averred that Executrix, individually and through counsel, had made repeated and ongoing requests throughout the period of time this estate has been open, for the Objectant to set forth her claim that she alleged to have against the Executrix, but not until the First and Final Accounting was filed did the Objectant finally claim to have some type of evidence of personalty that was not otherwise accounted for in the estate. It is denied that the Executrix has intentionally misrepresented certain items of personalty were going to be auctioned when she was going to retain such items. The Objectant's claims relative to the Lincoln Town Car are further denied. It is averred the Lincoln Town Car was sold for $6,000.00 to a third party, a value at $215.00 under the Blue Book value, without incurring any expense of sale for the estate. It is further averred that there were power tools of the decedent's that he had used in his basement workshop throughout his life while he was residing at the residence where he passed away. It is averred, however, that in the later years of his life, decedent was unable to use ihe woodworking tools and other power tools in the basement and gave those tools to a family friend who performed woodworking. It is further averred that the family friend provided substantial assistance to the decedent and his late wife, prior to her passing in 2009, in return for decedent gifting the power tools and woodworking tools to the family friend, all of which occurred prior to decedent's wife's passing. It is further averred that at the time that some remaining items of personalty in Executrix' possession were again viewed by an auctioneer for appraisal purposes, the Executrix included for review a small "safe" that was purchased at Walmart for less than $100.00 shortly before decedent's death, which safe Executrix has retained and which the Executrix can only believe was deemed to be of little or no value by the auctioneer. It is further averred that if Objectant wants the safe to be viewed again and appraised by someone other than the auctioneer whose professional services have been used throughout the handling of this estate, she will make that safe available for appraisal. It is further averred that the Executrix admitted to the Objectant that immediately upon entering the decedent's home, with the Objectant, Executrix removed the decedent's handgun and put it in her home in a safe place for safekeeping and forgot about that handgun, even forgetting at one point where she had hidden the gun for safe- keeping. The handgun needs to be valued and ultimately needs to be disposed of with the proceeds being included in the estate. (C) Denied. It is denied that items of personalty have inflated values for property distributed to the Objectant. Without specifically referencing the multiple claims set forth in the Objectant in section "1C" of Objectant's Objections, Executrix avers that in anticipation of constant and unending confrontation from the Objectant over the handling of the estate by the Executrix and the estate's legal counsel, Executrix ultimately determined, on the advice of counsel, that conflict could only be avoided if a professional appraised the personal property items that were removed from Pennsylvania and retained by the Objectant at her home in Virginia. It is further averred that the Executrix, with the assistance of counsel, secured a professional auctioneer for purposes of appraising the personal property items retained by the Objectant, but Objectant refused to allow the appraisal to occur. It is further averred, specifically to avoid claims by the Objectant that the personal property in her possession was not properly valued, Executrix filed a Petition to have the personal property in Objectant's possession appraised by a professional appraiser, to which Objectant objected, filing an Answer to the Petition and refusing to allow the personal property to be professionally appraised. It is further averred that in order to stop spending additional proceeds for attorney's fees in the estate, and in keeping with Objectant's demands, Executrix determined she would simply value the personal property items in Objectant's possession, as Objectant demanded, by Executrix placing a value on those items to the best of her ability and knowledge, which she has done. 2. Admitted. It is admitted that an IRA was not reported on the First and Final Accounting because an IRA is not a probate asset and, therefore, not subject to the First and Final Accounting. It is further averred that the named beneficiary on the IRA was the Executrix and that, therefore, the Executrix, in fact, did receive the distribution from the IRA account. It is further averred that the Objectant has been provided with a copy of the Beneficiary statement and a photocopy of the check received by the Executrix. It is further averred that this issue is not the proper subject of an Objection to an Accounting, is completely irrelevant to the First and Final Accounting, was improperly included as an Objection to the First and Final Accounting and must be dismissed without further comment or waste of time. 3. Denied. It is denied that cash is missing from the decedent's estate. It is admitted that the Executrix and Objectant equally divided $27,000.00 in US currency. It is admitted that the Objectant and Executrix equally shared in the distribution of 350 Euros and 2,390 British Pounds. It is denied that there was $1,500.00 of Canadian money in the cash in decedent's possession at the time of his passing. It is admitted that a Supplemental Tax Return sets forth a value of $28,700.00 as the value of cash that was distributed between the parties. It is denied that the total of the money involved should have been$32,737.21. 4. Admitted. It is admitted that slightly over $14,000.00 was withheld in federal income tax from the liquidation of the Dow Chemical stock. It is denied, however, that the federal tax withholding is unaccounted for in the First and Final Accounting in that the value of the stock at the date of the decedent's death was claimed and, therefore, the total value is included in the First and Final Accounting and, therefore, further, said amount is already included in the First and Final Accounting and the sum distributable to the parties. It is further averred this Objection is completely irrelevant, groundless, without any basis in law or fact, and has no impact of any nature whatsoever on the First and Final Accounting or on Objectant. 5. Denied. It is denied that the 2011 and 2012 federal and state fiduciary income tax returns for the estate were not completed. It is averred that they were completed by the firm of Cohick & Associates and that all appropriate t� filings in that regard have been made with all appropriate refunds having been received. It is further averred there was no basis for the issuance of a K-1 based upon the t� returns filed. It is further averred this Objection is completely irrelevant, groundless, without any basis in law or fact, and has no impact of any nature whatsoever on the First and Final Accounting or on Objectant, and must be dismissed without further comment or waste of time. 6. Denied. The claims set forth in paragraph 6 are denied in their entirety. It is denied that the decedent retained a Certificate of Deposit in decedent's name in the amount of$37,000.00, which was the Objectant's money. It is averred that the $37,000.00 in CDs was, in fact, the decedent's asset and, therefore, said asset was included in the decedent's estate and tax was paid on the value of the CDs at the time of decedent's death. 7. Denied. The Objectant's claim that she is somehow entitled to one-half of the life insurance policy is absolutely denied. It is averred that life insurance proceeds paid to a third party named beneficiary is a non-probate asset and not part of a First and Final Accounting. It is further averred that this claim has no place in an Objection to a First and Final Accounting. It is further averred that the Objectant's claim is without any legal basis whatsoever and that Objectant is aware she has no basis to claim in an Accounting procedure that life insurance proceeds paid to the named beneficiary are somehow due to her. It is further averred that this issue is not the proper subject of an Objection to an Accounting, is completely irrelevant to the First and Final Accounting, was improperly included as an Objection to the First and Final Accounting and must be dismissed without further comment or waste of time. 8. Denied. Objectant's review of the filing date for the Inheritance Tax Return and Notice of Appraisement from the Department of Revenue is inaccurate in that she made the same mistake that the Department of Revenue made, that being that the Inheritance Tax Return was filed on Mondav, March 14, 2011 and, therefore, was filed for recordkeeping purposes on Friday, March 11, 2011, such that the estate has, in fact, received a discount for the filing of the inheritance tax payment within the three month timeframe of the decedent's death. It is further averred that this is additional evidence of the Objectant's confrontational attitude and effort to "nit-pick" at the handling of a nearly one million dollar estate, where the Executrix exerted untold hours of time, while claiming a modest commission, and was able to secure legal counsel who charged an hourly rate rather than a fee based upon the Johnson Estate, thereby, by the Executrix' actions and decisions, saving the estate tens of thousands of dollars in fees and commissions. It is further averred that this issue is not the proper subject of an Objection to an Accounting, is completely irrelevant to the First and Final Accounting, was improperly included as an Objection to the First and Final Accounting and must be dismissed without further comment or waste of time. 9. All of the averments set forth in paragraph 9 are denied. It is further averred that Executrix watched as Objectant removed more and more personalty from the decedent's home, without objection from the Executrix, but with the understanding that both Objectant and Executrix had been advised by counsel that "inconsequential" items of personalty and personalty of sentimental value could be removed without consequence. It is further averred that Executrix was allowing Objectant to retain the items of personal property without reporting them in the estate in any fashion to avoid arguments and confrontations with Objectant, until Objectant began making groundless and baseless objections relative to the nominal items of personal property retained by Executrix and other groundless claims regarding the handling of the estate by the Executrix, which ultimately caused the Executrix to review these matters with counsel for the estate. It is further averred that counsel for the estate recommended to Executrix that all items of personalty be valued by an expert appraiser so that all items could be accounted for, properly value, and all appropriate tax paid, without giving either party the basis for objection. It is further averred that it was at this time that the Executrix,through counsel, requested that the personalty retained by the Objectant be appraised by a professional. It is further averred, as set forth hereinbefore, that Objectant ob'�ected to the appraisal of the items in her possession. It is further averred that when Executrix requested Court intervention to secure an appraisal of the personalty in Objectant's possession, Objectant secured counsel and fought the efforts to secure a professional appraisal of the items in her possession. It is further denied that Objectant's belief that Executrix somehow was trying to "cover up" her "misdeeds" is completely fabricated and only found in the mind of the Objectant. 10. Denied. The Executrix absolutely denies that there is any reason whatsoever that her small and extremely reasonable Executrix' fee should be forfeited in any manner. It is further denied that there has been an intentional omission of assets. It is denied that there has been an inflated appraisal of personal property items to benefit the Executrix. It is denied that a critical deadline was missed. It is denied that the Executrix refused to communicate with Objectant. It is denied that the finalization of the estate and the time it has taken to finalize the estate is the fault of Executrix. Objectant's additional claims are groundless and without basis. It is further averred that the savings that the Executrix has been able to gain through retaining counsel who is paid on a hourly basis, rather than based upon a percentage as permitted by the Johnson Estate and the savings to the estate by Executrix claiming an extremely modest commission, dwarfs any conceivable loss that the Objectant may have due to the one error of the Executrix in duplicating nine items of personal property between the initial Inheritance Tax Return and the Supplemental Return. 11. Denied. It is denied there is any basis whatsoever in any of the claims that Objectant makes that suggest a surcharge should be imposed against the Executrix. WHEREFORE, Executrix requests your Honorable Court to dismiss Objectant's Obj ections. Respectfully submitted, ra . riffie, Esquire e or Executrix/Respondent upr e Court ID No. 34349 200 North Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-5551 (800) 347-5552 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. r , � ��� � . �' DATE: -/� /`� � ANN E. LAPORTE IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT J. : COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA LAPORTE : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : NO. 2011-00026 : PRIOR JUDGE: Thomas A. Placey CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE S'r I, Bradley L. Griffie, Esquire hereby certify that I did, the � day of January, 2014, cause a copy of Answers to Objections of Susan M. LaPorte to the First and Final Account of Ann E. LaPorte, Executrix to be served upon the Auditor, Robert P. Kline, Esquire, and the Petitioner, Susan M. LaPorte, by serving her attorney of record by first class mail, postage prepaid, at the following addresses: Robert P. Kline, Esquire PO Box 461 New Cumberland, PA 17070 Craig A. Diehl, Esquire 3464 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 DATE: � ('� B fie, Esquire oi y f Executrix/Respondent