HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-14 IN�' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ESTATE OF GEORGE W.HOWARD . CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
. PENNSYLVArTIA
. NO.21-13-1143 ORPHANS COURT DIV.
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Mark A. Mateya,Esquire
55 W. Church Avenue
Carlisle,PA 17013
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE
ENCLOSED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20)
DAYS rRGi�� SE��'ICE .T-IEREOF OF.A JUDGMENT MAS'BE rT;TERED�.GAINST YOU.
IRWIN& MCI�NIGHT,P.C.
...�c�
By:
Marcus A. Mc igh , II,Esquire
60 West Pomfret tree
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717)249-2353
Supreme Court I.D. No. 25476
Attorney for Defendant
,_�.,
c� ==.:� -,�
c s- ���:
�� s„, r-r<<, .-
Date: August 4, 2014 ,x,--�; c- %,__:•<_=
rn=--. ci :Y�- ��
� �--�- � L-;'
��f ; ,� '_
s
C��� .� , ,';
��; � ,,
c.J� _= ��`'
_ �;a r.,y ; � ,-�=,
-o _.� " �,,C7
A N --T,
CT�
\V
��.
IN RE: . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ESTATE OF GEORGE W.HOWARD . CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
. PENNSYLVANIA
. NO.21-13-1143 ORPHANS COURT DIV.
ANSWER TO CITATION TO SHOW CAUSE
Now this 4�' day of August, 2014 comes the Respondent, Richard Surfield, by their
attorneys, Irwin& McKnight, P.C. and makes the following Answer to Petition to Show Cause:
1.
. The averments of fact contained in Paragraph One (1) of the Citation are admitted.
C� �=,: _�_ �r
2. �:x1 �• rr`i : .
,..�,��;�?;. c.� � :: _::
zr�� � c, -
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Two (2) of the Citation are�itted. �. ,°_
, �
r-,
c
`-"C°. :
C7 C> � ,
- - -r
_.
.
�.. _�,
�[': N ,._; ,`-ri
3. D -y r�
� ``��---�,
���:
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Tthree (3) of the Citation are admitted in
part and denied in part. It is admitted that the will dated November 24, 2009 named the
Petitioners as beneficiaries. The Respondent beiieves another Will as enacted by George
Howard between 2009 and April 12, 2012, but it was destroyed and replaced by the Will which
has been probated.
4.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Four(4)of the Citation aze admitted.
�
�
5.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Five (5)of the Citation are denied. The
Last Will and Testament of George Howard was executed on Apri124, 2012 and was properly
admitted to probate in this case.
6.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Six(6)of this Citation are specifically
denied. The will of November 24, 2009 was drafted at the request of Dennis Howard who was
responsible for its execution and its possession. He did not give a copy to George W. Howard.
7.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Seven(7)of this Citation are admitted.
8.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eight(8)of this Citation are admitted.
9.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Nine(9)of this Citation are specifically
denied. On the contrary,the terms of the Will were carefully explained to George W. Howard
who had provided specific direction to his legal counsel. At the time the Will was executed on
Apri124, 2012, George W. Howard had capacity to execute the Will.
10.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Ten(10) of this Citation are denied and
strict proof thereof denied. On the contrary, in a subsequent visit to the VA Hospital in Lebanon
in 2010,he was diagnosed as being of sound mental abilities and was returned to Chapel Point.
11.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eleven(11)of this Citation are admitted.
12.
The av�rments cf fact contain�d in Puxagraph Twe1vP(12) of this Citation are aclr.iitted.
13.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirteen(13)of this Citation are admitted
in part and denied in part. George Howaxd requested that he be sent to the VA Hospital. It is
denied that he threatened homicide or suicide. He was discharged with a diagnosis of sound
mental health.
14.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fourteen(14)of this Citation are admitted.
15.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Fifteen(15) of this Citation are admitted in
part and denied in part. It is admitted that George Howard had trouble recognizing Robert
Howazd. This was due in part to the infrequent visits of Robert Howard. In the last ten(10)
years of George Howard's life, Robert visited his father only three (3)times. In January of 2012,
Roberts appeazance was different from pervious visits.
16.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Sixteen(16)of this Citation are beyond the
knowledge of the Respondent. They also violate the"Dead Man Act." They are therefore
denied and strict proof demanded.
17.
Tr.e ave:r:lents�f fact contained in Parag:aph Ssevent�er.(�7) cf this Citation are
admitted.
18.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Eighteen(18)of this Citation are
specifically denied. On the contrary, it was George Howard who repeatedly expressed concerns
about the paternity of the children. No one was making those suggestions to him.
19.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Nineteen(19) of this Citation are
specifically denied. George Howard became sterile as a result of x-ray treatments.
20.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty(20) of this Citation are
specifically denied. Any confusion suffered by George Howard was due to his diabetes and was
temporary aiid not frequent.
21.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty One(21)of this Citation are
specifically denied. On the contrary, George Howard understood his condition of sterility.
22.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty Two (22)of this Citation are
specifically denied. In personal care all rooms were private. When George Howards room was
selected,the Respondent was not serving as his Medical Power of Attorney. At no time was
George Howard secluded by the Respondent. On the few occasions that the Petition came to
visit had access to George Howard. The Petitioner never called the Respondent to inquire about
their father's care or condition.
23.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty Three (23)of this Citation are
beyond the knowledge and belief of the Respondent. They are therefore denied and strict proof
is demanded.
24.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty Four(24)of this Citation are
beyond the knowledge and belief of the Respondent. They are therefore denied and strict proof
demanded. It is evident that iJeorge Howard was reluctant to leave his wife in her weaic
condition.
25.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty Five (25) of this Citation are
specifically denied. On the contrary, no promises were ever made since Dennis and Robert
Howard..er�r�at invclve3 in�he affa:rs of their fat:�er�x:,ept tc r�quest rioney frorn hirn.
26.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty Six(26) of this Citation are beyond
the knowledge of the Respondent. They are therefore denied and strict proof demanded.
27.
The averments of fact contained in Pazagraph Twenty Seven(27)of this Citation are
admitted.
28.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty Eight(28) of this Citation are
admitted. It is admitted that Robert Surfield is the nephew of Edna Howard.
29.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty Nine(29)of this Citation are
admitted. It is admitted that Edna Howard was not the natural mother of the Petitioners.
30.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty(30)of this Citation are specifically
denied. On the contrary, the Respondent frequently visited George Howard but it was never
refened to as a confidential relationship.
31.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty One(31) of this Citation are
specifically denied. The Respondent had no reason to make suggestions to George Howard of
this nature. It was George Howard who questioned the paternity.
32.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty Two (32)of this Citation are
admitted.
33.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty Three (33) of this Citation are
specifically denied. On the contrary, George Howard continued to express his opinions and at
the time of execution of his Last Will and Testament on Apri124, 2014 he was able to
understand and execute the Will with full capacity.
34.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty Four(34)of this Citation are
specifically denied. The decedent specifically request the change to the beneficiary of his Last
Will and Testament and at the time of signing understood and exhibited the capacity to do so.
35.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty Five (35) of this Citation are
specifically�enied. At t:�?time ef signing he�.a.ncterstoed and care:tzily re�ieweu the Will with
Witnesses and his legal counsel.
36.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty Six(36) of this Citation are
specifically denied. On the contrary,the Last Will probated in this case makes reference to
Robert and Dennis Howard. He understood the Will and desired its changes from previous Wills
he had made.
37.
The averments contained in Paragraph Thirty Seven(37)of this Citation are Conclusions
of Law to which an answer is not required. They are therefore denied and strict proof demanded.
38.
The averments contained in Paragraph Thirty Eight(38)of this Citation are Conclusions
of Law to which no answer is required. They are therefore denied and strict proof demanded.
39.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Thirty Nine (39) of this Citation are
specifically denied. On the contrary, Robert Surfield had only the authority of a medical Power
of Attorney. His attorney served as Power of Attorney and managed his financial affairs. Robert
Surfield did not receive inquires from the Petitioners regarding their father's condition.
40.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Forty (40)of this Citation are specifically
denied. On the contrary,the change in deposition was the decedent's idea repeatedly expressed
to his legal counsel.
41.
The averments contained in Paragraph Forty One (41)of this Citation are Conclusions of
Law to which an answer is not required. They are therefore denied and strict proof demanded.
42.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Forty Two (42) of this Citation aze
specifically denied. On the contrary, following the death of his wife,the Petitioners rarely spoke
to George unless it was to request money.
43.
The averments of fact contained in Paragraph Twenty Nine(29) of this Citation are
admitted.
WHEREFORE,the Respondent requests that the Court dismiss the Appeal of the
Petitioners with prejudice.
NEW MATTER
�ND NO`J�'th�l�espcndent, Robe:t Surfiel3 by Y��is attorr�ey s, Irv�in& McK.-ught, PC
makes the following New Matter.
44.
The averments of fact contained in the Answers to the Citation were incorporated by
reference and made a part of this New Matter.
45.
Robert Howard frequently was asking for money from George Howard. Robert called
George Howard and made him very upset two weeks before he died.
46.
Robert Surfield served as Medical Power of Attorney only for the Howards. All legal
matters were handled by his attorney.
47.
Robert and Dennis Howard had very limited contact with their father following the death
of Edna Howard.
48.
The Last Will and Testament signed on Apri124, 2012 by George Howard was made in
consultation with his attorney. Robert Surfield was not present when George Howard executed
the will with understanding and the capacity to do so.
W�IEREFORE,±he R�spor.dent re�uests;,�:at the CQU.�t dis::�iss*he Ap��al of the
Petitioners with prejudice.
IRWIN& MCKNIGHT,P.C.
By: .,
Marcus A. McKni ht, I Esquire
60 West Pomfret Str t
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717)249-2353
Supreme Court I.D.No. 25476
Attorney for Plaintiff,
Date: August 4, 2014
VERIFICATION
The foregoing document is based upon information, which has been gathered by my
counsel and myself in the preparation of this action. I have read the statements made in this
document and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I
understand that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section
4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
By:
ROBERT SURFI LD
Date: August 4, 2014
IN�� . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ESTATE OF GEORGE W.HOWARD . CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
. PENNSYLVANIA
. NO.21-13-1143 ORPHANS COURT DIV.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, l��zrcus A. McKnight, III, Esq�aire, hereby certifiy that a copy of attached document was
served upon the following by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States
mail, First Class, postage prepaid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on the date referenced below and
addressed as follows:
Mark A. Mateya,Esquire John C. Oszustowicz,Esquire
55 W. Church Avenue 104 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013 Carlisle,PA 17013
Ivo V. Otto,III,Esquire
Martson Law Offices
10 East High Street
Carlisle,PA 17013
IRWIN& McKNIGHT,P.C.
.�
By: Marcus A. cKn ght, II, squire
60 West Pomfret S et
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717)249-2353
Supreme Court I.D.No. 25476
Date: August 4, 2014