Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-30-14 IN THE COURT OF CONIl�SON PLEAS OF CiTN�ERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION In re : . No. 21-13-154 Estate of E. JEANNE (HOGUE) RECHT, . deceased • � ° c, �� c� c� � ~' rn ANSWER TO PETITION FOR CITATION TO SHOW CAUS� .a � � c-� .�,_� `T7 'L7 ,�.__ Q , �7_' h � L� �7 -• • t-" � ° C7 1 . No response required. { �. �°�� ° `- � �'-.; 9 r J .�f i' � : --ri 2 throu h 11 . Admitted. '�, � 12 . Denied. The instrument admitted to probate-;,i�� the Las�.� � =� �v cn o � � will and Testament of the decedent . 13 through 25 . Admitted in part, denied in part . To the extent that these averments are general matters of historical fact relating to the decedent' s life, and are subject to objective proof, Respondent has substantially similar information. To the extent that these averments are matters of opinion and subject to subjective interpretation, they are denied, as after reasonable investigation, Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth, particularly with regard to the specific diagnoses of the claimed mental health disorders . No one encouraged the decedent to live in unhealthy conditions . She accepted cleaning services . The decedent was a hoarder, but nevertheless was able to be a functioning member of society. Proof of these allegations, to the extent they are relevant, is demanded. These allegations are largely irrelevant as to the fundamental question of whether the writing dated August 3 , 2011, constitutes the decedent' s Last Will and Testament . Any inference from these allegations that the decedent' s said Last Will and Testament was not her free and voluntary act, was not executed while the decedent was of sound mind, or was not executed by the decedent at all are expressly denied. In further answer, the decedent, at the time of the execution of her Last Will and Testament, was fully aware that she was executing a testamentary document, understood the nature of a testamentary act, knew the natural objects of her bounty, and knew the nature and value of the assets as to which she could make a testamentary disposition, and was free of any weaken intellect, loss of free will, or undue influence. 26 . Denied. The Respondent and her father are not responsible for the relationship between the decedent and the Petitioner. 27 through 30 . See responses to Nos . 13 through 26 . Any indications by Mr. Hogue that the decedent did not want to interact with the Petitioner were true, and made at the decedent' s request . 31 . Admitted. This was a short convalescence, after which the decedent returned to independent living. 32 . Admitted. 33 . Admitted. 34 . Admitted, except the qualification word "allegedly, �� which suggests doubt that the signature is that of the decedent . Such a suggestion is denied. 35 . Denied. a. The name used in the drafting of the Will was determined after discussion between the decedent and Attorney 2 Reilly, originally in the Power of Attorney document that he prepared, and later carried over into the Will that he drafted approximately three weeks later. His purpose in advising the decedent to designate her name as such on these two legal documents was his belief that by doing so, the documents would identify her in as precise a manner as was possible, given variations of her name that she had used from time to time during her life . b. This belief and averment relates to the Petitioner' s opinion of the possible state of mind of another person, and as such, is by definition speculation. The decedent did, in fact, knowingly and voluntarily execute the Will . c. This belief and averment relates to the Petitioner' s opinion of the possible state of mind of another person, and as such, is by definition speculation. The decedent did, in fact, knowingly and voluntarily execute the will . d. This belief and averment relates to the Petitioner' s opinion of the possible state of mind of another person, and as such, is by definition speculation. The decedent did, in fact, knowingly and voluntarily execute the Will . After reasonable investigation, the answering party is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the nature of any conversation between Ken Hogue and a funeral director, nor is the answering party acquainted with any fact relating to the need to amend the death certificate of the decedent . e . Admitted in part; denied in part . It is admitted that the handwritten directive is a directive authored and signed 3 by the decedent . Its content speaks for itself . The numbered paragraphs are in the handwriting of Ken Hogue . The effect of the handwritten directive was simply to advise the Respondent and others who might read it of the decedent' s wishes, so that the Respondent could carry them out without challenge . f . This belief and averment relates to the Petitioner' s opinion of the possible state of mind of another person, and as such, is by definition speculation. The decedent did, in fact, knowingly and voluntarily execute the Will and this directive . After reasonable investigation, the answering party is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the nature of any conversation between Ken Hogue and the Petitioner. g. Denied. See e. above. h. This belief and averment relates to the Petitioner' s opinion of the possible state of mind of another person, and as such, is by definition speculation. i . Denied. The Will is not invalid. The notarial seal on the Acknowledgement and Affidavit of the Will is not essential to the validity of the Will, nor is it invalid. Upon information and belief, the disciplinary complaints that the Petitioner has caused to be prosecuted against the two notaries relate to the manner that each kept her notary log, and do not relate to the actual witnessing or affixation of the notarial seal on the will . j . Pauline Gima did notarize the Will, and the use of the word "allegedly" improperly implies that this fact is in question. 4 k. Cori Spisak was not present at the time of the execution of the Will . The manner in which her notary log was kept, if improper, and any entries made into it by Attorney Reilly do not affect the validity of the Will . l . The Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to fo�n a belief as to whether this allegation is true, but even if true, has nothing to do with the validity of the will, which would have been executed months/years earlier. 36 . Denied. The failure of a notary to carry out her record keeping duties in the statutorily correct fashion does not affect the validity of the decedent' s Will . The decedent' s health or previous medical treatment did not affect her capacity, nor was there any undue influence exercised or capable of being exercised over the decedent . Attorney Reilly' s choice of name by which the decedent was identified is a matter of scrivener' s discretion, which does not affect the validity of the Will . All of the allegations of this paragraph amount to nothing more than an assertion of the Petitioner' s suspicions, which are an insufficient challenge to the validity of the will in light of the true facts concerning its execution. 37 . Admitted in part; denied in part . To the extent that this paragraph uses the term "witnesses" to refer to subscribing witnesses, they are the only subscribing witnesses . It is unknown whether others were present and saw the decedent sign her name . The remainder of this paragraph asserts no factual matter to which a response is required. 5 38 . This paragraph states no factual matter of relevance to the issue before the Court to which the answering party can respond. How the notaries mentioned kept their notary logs or the consequences of this have no bearing on the validity of the will . 39 . Admitted. Decedent had expressed wishes to this effect on numerous prior occasions to others to whom she remained close . Such matters are irrelevant to the validity of the Will . 40 . See Paragraph 39 . Clearing her prior living space was a necessity due to the obvious fact that the decedent, after her stoke, could not be expected to return to her prior housing. 41 . Denied. The decedent was not intentionally isolated by any third party. The decedent may well have chosen to isolate herself from the Petitioner for her own reasons . 42 . The will which has been admitted to probate is a matter of record. The parenthetical comment that it contains "unlawful notarizations" is denied. The will contains a single acknowledgement, the validity of which is unaffected by any claimed irregularity in the log book of the notary who affixed her notarial seal to the Will . 43 . The fact that the Petitioner is a natural child of the decedent, among other natural children, is admitted. The Petitioner has described her level of contact and lack of contact for a substantial period of time prior to the decedent' s death elsewhere in her Petition. The Petitioner' s motives during the period of time that she was a named agent under Power of Attorney are not relevant to the issue of the validity of the Will . 6 44 . This paragraph restates facts alleged and responded to elsewhere in these pleadings in an argumentative fashion. No further response is required. 45 . This paragraph restates facts alleged and responded to elsewhere in these pleadings in an argumentative fashion. No further response is required. 46 . This paragraph restates facts alleged and responded to elsewhere in these pleadings in an argumentative fashion. No further response is required. 47 . This paragraph restates facts alleged and responded to elsewhere in these pleadings in an argumentative fashion. No further response is required. Also contained in this paragraph is a non-factual statement concerning the involvement of a witness, to which no response is required. 48 . This paragraph makes allegations of fact in an argumentative nature, and the argument concerning the implication of these facts is denied. It is acknowledged that the decedent was 91 years of age at the time she executed her Will, and 93 years of age at the time of her death. It is further acknowledged that the non-essential entry "93 years old" appearing in the log appears to have been added at a different time than the original entry. 49 . While the Respondent can neither admit nor deny what the Petitioner genuinely believes, the signatures appearing to be those of the decedent are, in fact, those of the decedent, and those signatures were entered freely and voluntarily with full knowledge of their purpose and effect . 7 50 . This paragraph is a hypothetical statement, the premise of which, if accepted, would be true . 51 . Denied. The prior will exists . It has not been destroyed. 52 . No response required. 53 . This paragraph contains a statement of belief and conclusion of law without supporting facts . No response is required. 54 . No response required. 55 . Denied. The decedent was competent to make a will . Neither the Respondent nor her father had any plan to gain confidential trust with the decedent, to isolate her from any family members, or to otherwise control her testamentary acts . This paragraph represents speculation by the Petitioner which is not supported by facts . 56 . Denied. The decedent was competent to make a will . Neither the Respondent nor her father had any plan to gain confidential trust with the decedent, to isolate her from any family members, or to otherwise control her testamentary acts . This paragraph represents speculation by the Petitioner which is not supported by facts . 57 . No response required. 58 . Denied. This paragraph is an argumentative restatement of facts previously alleged and responded to in these pleadings . No further response is required. 59 . This paragraph contains a statement of belief and 8 conclusion of law without supporting facts . No response is required. WHEREFORE, Petitioner' s Petition should be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, / Marc Roberts, Esquire Attorney for Jennifer Margush 149 East Market Street York, PA 17401 (717) 843-1639 I .D. No. 34355 9 IN THE COURT OF CONII�ION PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUN'TY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION In re: . No. 21-13-154 Estate of E. JEANNE (HOGUE) RECHT, . deceased • VERIFICATION I, JENNIFER MARGUSH, do hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge or information and belief, and that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa.C. S . Sec. 4904) relating to unsworn falsification to authorities . Date: April �� , 2014 JENNIFER MARGUSH IN THE COURT OF CONII�lON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION In re : . No. 21-13-154 Estate of E. JEANNE (HOGUE) RECHT, . deceased - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, MARC ROBERTS, ESQUIRE, attorney for Jennifer Margush, hereby certify that I have on the 29th day of April, 2014 , served the attached Answer to Petition by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the persons and to the addresses indicated below: Kathleen Misturak Gingrich, Esquire THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER J. RUSSO, P.C. 5006 East Trindle Road, Suite 203 MeChanicsburg, PA 17050 MARC ROBERTS, ESQUIRE