The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-17-14 r � ESTATE OF JUNE K. OTTO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA� OF DECEASED : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,�ENNSY��Al`��'�' . ORPHAN'S COURT I� ION� �a o � {r! � C� �--- '^� �:.7 � : f._ � .� r�i : NO. 21-OS-0544_ =_ �,�, ..�, , , ; . , ,, a - . � _ , -� - . _. . _._3 , -�.i ANSWER OF CO-EXECUTORS TO PETITION �� =; _r_ r.�.� FOR ORDER DIRECTING CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPEItTY r�, �,� c� ....� `r� AND NOW this 17�'day of November, 2014, come EDWIN R. OTTO and PATRICK K. MYERS, Co-Executors of the Estate of June K. Otto, and respectfully file this Answer, by and through its attorneys, Irwin & McKnight, P.C., to the Petition for Order Directing Conveyance of Real Property filed by Randy L. Cramer, and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, the Respondents are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of fact contained in paragraph one (1) of the Petition so they are therefore specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 2. The averments of fact contained in paragraph two (2) are admitted. 3. The "Agreement of Sale" referenced by Petitioner in paragraph three (3) speaks for itself and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, any inference that all pertinent terms and conditions are contained within the document and that there are not important terms omitted from and inconsistencies within the document are specifically denied ar�d strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 4. The averments in paragraph four (4) are denied as stated. It is admitted that the Petitioner's attorney, not the Decedent, recorded a Memorandum of Agreement as attached to the Petition. The remaining averments in paragraph four (4), including any inference that all LJ � pertinent terms and conditions are contained within the document and that there are not important terms omitted from and inconsistencies within the document are specifically denied and strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 5. The Decedent's Last Will & Testament referenced in paragraph five (5) speaks for itself and therefore no response is required. To the extent a response is required, any inference that all pertinent terms and conditions are contained within the document and that there are not important terms omitted from and inconsistencies within the document and with the aforementioned "Agreement of Sale" are specifically denied and strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 6. The averments in paragraph six (6 j are denied as stated. It is admitted that the Decedent's property was not subdivided either at the time that Petitioner's attorney prepared the aforementioned "Agreement of Sale," or at the time of the passing of the Decedent. It is also admitted that the "Agreement of Sale" prepared by the Petitioner's attorney does not further specify the responsibility for subdivision and payment of the significant costs associated with subdivision. The remaining averments in paragraph six (6), including any inference that all pertinent terms and conditions are contained within the documents and that there are not important terms omitted from and inconsistencies within the documents are specifically denied and strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 7. The averments of fact contained in paragraph seven(7) are admitted. 8. The averments contained in paragraph eight (8) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments in paragraph eight (8), including that Respondents were solely responsible to obtain subdivision approval and bear all of the significant costs and expenses of subdivision, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. To the contrary, Petitioner's attorney prepared the "Agreement of Sale" without including terms as to the party responsible for, the timing of, or the payment for the considerable subdivision expenses, and said document should therefore be construed against Petitioner. 9. The averments contained in paragraph nine (9) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments in paragraph nine (9), including that Respondents had "legal title and access to the entire tract which was to be subdivided" are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. To the contrary, and by way of further answer, Petitioner's attorney had previously recorded the aforesaid Memorandum of Agreement of record �n the Cumberland County Recorder of Deeds office, a�nd Petitioner has had and continues to have physical access to and use of the subject property. 10. The averments in paragraph ten (10) are denied as stated. Ii is admitted that Respondents engaged the services of surveyors and engineers with regard to obtaining subdivision approval, and that Respondents consistently conveyed to Petitioner and his legal counsel that a portion of those subdivision expenses would be Petitioner's responsibility. The remaining averments in paragraph ten (10) are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 11. The averments contained in paragraph eleven (11) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments in paragraph eleven (11) are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. The minutes referenced in paragraph twelve (12), and more importantly the final subdivision plan filed of record in Cumberland County, speak for themselves and therefore no response is required. 13. The averments in paragraph thirteen (13) are denied as stated. It is admitted that Respondents have not signed a Deed transferring the subj ect property to the Petitioner. The remaining averments in paragraph thirteen (13), including any inference that all pertinent terms and conditions are contained within the documents and that there are not important terms omitted from and inconsistencies within the documents, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 14. The averments in paragraph fourteen (14) are denied as stated. It is admitted that Respondents sold the Decedent's other real property in order to have sufficient funds to pay among other obligations the Pennsylvania inheritance taxes due to the Department of Revenue. The remaining averments in paragraph fourteen (14), including any inference that Respondents were not permitted to transfer Decedent's other real property, are specifically denied and strict pr�of thereof demanded at trial. 15. The averments contained in paragraph fifteen (15) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments in paragraph fifteen (15) refer not to a demand but to correspondence specifically offered and stated to be settlement proposal terms, and they are therefore specifically denied and objected is raised as to the admissibility of said terms. 16. The averments contained in paragraph sixteen (16) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments in paragraph sixteen (16) are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. The averments contained in paragraph seventeen (17) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments in paragraph seventeen (17) are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, the "Agreement of Sale" and associated Memorandum were prepared by Petitioner's attorney yet are silent as to key terms and obligations, including terms as to the party responsible for, the timing of, or the payment for the considerable subdivision expenses and costs necessarily required in this matter. Respondents have consistently taken the position that the terms of the "Agreement of Sale" should be construed against Petitioner as his attorney prepared and recorded the documents, and furthermore that Petitioner should be responsible for a proportional share of the considerable expense while Petitioner has continued to use and utilize the subject property. 1$. The averments contained in paragraph eighteen (18) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments in paragraph eighteen (18) are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 19. The averments contained in paragraph nineteen (19) are incomplete and therefore incapable of being answered. To the extent that a response is required, the attorney for Petitioner did not pro��ide the under�igned with a copy of the proposed Petition prior to it being filed and did not otherwise respond to the aforementioned settlement proposal prior to filing the Petition. WHEREFORE, Respondents EDWIN R. OTTO and PATRICK K. MYERS respectfully request that this Honorable Court dismiss the instant Petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner in this matter on the basis that objections have already been filed to the accounting and that Petitioner already occupies and has use of the subject property pending determination by this Court of the proposed accounting of the Respondents and objections by the Petitioner, together with such other and further relief as this Court deems just. Respectfully Submitted, I IN & McKNIGHT, P.C. � By: Do glas . Miller, squire Supreme Court ID No. 83776 West Pomfret Professional Building 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 Dated: November 17, 2014 Attorney for Respondents VERIFICATION The foregoing document on behalf of the Respondent is based upon information which has been gathered by counsel for the Respondent in the preparation of this document. The statements made in this document are true and correct to the best of the counsel's knowledge, information and belief. The Respondent's verification cannot be obtained within the time allowed for filing the pleading. The undersigned is therefore verifying on behalf of the Respondent according to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 1024(c)(2). The undersigned understands that false statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ougla G. Miller, Esquire Date: /�/��'►� C�� 1�/ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the persons indicated below by facsimile and by first class United States mail, postage paid in Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, on the date set forth below: DAVID A. MILLS, ESQUIRE BLAKEY, YOST, BUPP & RAUSCH, LLP 17 EAST MARKET STREET YORK, PA 17401 Date: November 17, 2014 IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. � �. Douglas Miller, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 83776 West Pomfret Professional Building 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222 (717)249-2353