Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-15 G COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT c M CUMBERLAND COUNTY , c o ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION t 7 t 7 iT1 .. CIJ •.r3 C� IN RE: ESTATE OF EUGENE R. HANSON, DECEASED ;F'"" `' NO. 13-974 C, (� C/) PETITIONERS ANSWER TO RESPONDENTS NEW MATTER AND cn `'7 CROSS PETITION TO REMOVE EXECUTRIX IN ACCORDANCE WITH 20 Pa.C.S. §§3182(1) AND 3182(5) Now comes the Petitioner, Kathryn L. Johnson, by her Attorneys, Forest N. Myers, Esquire and Mark M. Mateya, Esquire and sets forth the following: New Matter 18. Petitioner's Paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. By way of further answer, Respondent herein answered Petitioner's 17 paragraph pleading with 49 paragraphs of New Matter and a separate action, a Cross-Petition to remove Petitioner from administration of her father's estate. Petitioner respectfully requests this Court address this Cross-Petition separately from the Petitioner's original request to transfer personal property according to the Last Will and Testament of her father. 19. Denied. On the contrary, the Last Will of Eugene R. Hanson provides that Testator's "...collection of historical artifacts..." be distributed to such museum(s) and/or historical society or other governmental or non-profit institution(s) the executors select. 20. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Last Will of Eugene R. Hanson does not define "historical artifacts" nor define the items making up the Testator's collection. It is specifically denied that the definition of historical artifacts and the collection are not known to the executors. On the contrary, Testator made clear to the co-executrices at or near his death that the items referred to in his will as historical artifacts consisted of the antique firearms, military uniforms and military items collected by Testator over several decades and further that these items formed a "collection" which Testator had planned to utilize to create a museum in his native Nebraska. 21. Admitted L 22. Admitted 23. Admitted 24. Denied. It is denied that Petitioner has failed and/or refused to cooperate with Respondent in the administration of the Estate of Eugene R. Hanson and the Trust created thereunder. On the contrary, Petitioner and Respondent at the.outset of the administration of the Estate agreed that Petitioner would handle the financial aspects of the estate. This was communicated to the Estate Attorney Thomas Flowers, Esquire and also to Attorney Taylor Andrews who had been consulted by the co-executrices. In addition, in dealings with Morgan Stanley both co-executrices were apprised of the monthly activity by way of statements issued to each of them. 25. Admitted. By way of further answer the Decedent, Eugene R. Hanson, referred to these firearms and historical artifacts as his "collection" in Paragraph 5 D of his Last Will and Testament. 26. Admitted 27. Denied. Strict proof thereof is demanded. 28. Respondent is without knowledge or belief as to the allegations of paragraph 28. Strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Petitioner believes and therefore avers that said attempt to designate firearms from the collection of Eugene R. Hanson to family members was in contravention of Paragraph 5D of the Last Will of Mr. Hanson. 29. Denied that Respondent modified her original designations, on the contrary Respondent only added colors to facilitate different museums which were previously identified. 30. " Admitted that Respondent provided Petitioner with a proposal for distribution of a part of the collection of firearms. 31. Denied. On the contrary, Petitioner responded to Respondent's proposal through her counsel indicating that she desired, as was her father's wish, that the collection be gifted to a single entity with the ability to accept and curate the entire collection. By way of further answer; Paragraph 5D of the Decedent's Last Will and Testament provides that the "collection" be gifted to a museum. 32. Admitted that the Petitioner did meet with Mr. Sanders. By way of further answer, Petitioner avers that she was under the belief that Respondent had agreed to donate the entire collection to Sallows Military Museum. The purpose of the meeting was to identify certain firearms which may not have been included in the gift to Sallows. ti 33. Admitted that the security cords have been cut. It is denied that the cords were cut to facilitate Petitioner's removal of certain firearms. On the contrary, Petitioner avers that it was required that the cords be cut to permit Mr. Sanders to fully inspect all the firearms and was done because the Petitioner was unable to find all-the keys to the various locks securing the cords. �F 34. Admitted that certain firearms were removed from the residence. By of further answer, Petitioner states that these items.were removed from the residence, ,.. because of their quality and value and to protect them from deterioration in a humid environment in which they were stored. The pistols in question were located by the Respondent and again were removed only to prevent their deterioration in quality and to prevent their theft in an unprotected and uninsured residence. 35. Denied. For the reasons set forth in the answer to Paragraph 34 the averments of Paragraph 35 are denied. 36. Denied. On the contrary, Petitioner has made repeated attempts to schedule a time or times when the Petitioner and Respondent could meet at the residence of Testator to inventory the personal property of Eugene R. Hanson. By way of further answer, Petitioner has been informed by Respondent that she, Respondent, saw no value in the personalty and that she had been informed by an auctioneer, believed to be Rowe Auction Services, that there was nothing of value in the home. In addition, Respondent removed furniture from the home without agreement of the Petitioner. 37. Admitted that some items of personal property were removed. By way of further answer, Petitioner avers that Petitioner and Respondent mutually agreed that certain items of personal property would be retained by them. Personalty items referred to herein were items of a personal nature (family photographs, clothing and family mementos) having little or no value except sentimental value. It is denied that Petitioner removed any items of personal property without the knowledge or consent of Respondent. . 38. Paragraph 38 avers more than one fact contrary to the Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather than file an objection, in the interest of judicial economy, Petitioner will respond to both averments made here. First, it is denied that Petitioner refuses to cooperate or facilitate the sale of Decedent's residence. Petitioner would be delighted to list Decedent's residence for sale. To that end, Petitioner has requested Respondent's assistance in securing a real estate agent to sell the home, and Petitioner has agreed to cooperate in the signing of a listing agreement. To date, Respondent's only response has been to suggest selling the home by auction. Second, it is denied that Petitioner has refused to work with Respondent on the disposition of the Decedent's historical artifacts, i.e., Decedent's gun collection. The disposition of the Decedent's gun collection is the very reason Petitioner filed the Rule to Show Cause, which brings Petitioner and Respondent (also known as sisters) before this Court in this matter. Respondent has refused to transfer her father's collection to the very place her father personally spoke with, the Sallows Military Museum, Alliance, Nebraska. 39. Denied for the reasons stated in Petitioner's answer to paragraph 37 above. Additionally, the averments herein are conclusions of fact and law to which no answer is required. 40. It is admitted that Richard Johnson is a financial advisor with Morgan Stanley. It is denied that Richard Johnson assisted Petitioner in the opening of an Estate Account with Morgan Stanley. On the contrary, Petitioner avers that accounts with Morgan Stanley are opened only by complex risk officers and not by financial advisors. 41. Denied. On the contrary, Morgan Stanley was aware that Petitioner was not the sole executrix of the Estate of Eugene R. Hanson, having been provided with copies of the death certificate and the short certificate issued by the Register of Wills of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania clearly showing the Kathryn L. Johnson and Kristine L. Kraft were the co-executrices of the Estate. 42. Admitted. By way of further answer, Petitioner avers that the titling of the account was the result of agreement between Petitioner and Respondent and did not prohibit Respondent from acting under the account. 43. Petitioner is without knowledge to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph 43, strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the evidence as to Morgan Stanley's refusal to provide access to the account is within the exclusive control of Morgan Stanley. 44. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Respondent could not draw funds or write checks from the account. It is denied that Respondent was prevented from drawing funds or writing checks on the account; on the contrary, Respondent early in the administration of the Estate indicated an unwillingness to write checks. By way of further answer, neither Petitioner nor Respondent are able to write checks on this account, since on or about September 2014 all checks on this account have been written by Morgan Stanley after approval from the Petitioner and Respondent. 45. Denied. Respondent is able to fulfill her duties as co-executrix of the estate by cooperating with Petitioner and with Morgan Stanley. 46. Denied. By way of further answer Petitioner and Respondent at agreed that Petitioner would take the lead in the day to day administration of the estate, including the payment of all reasonable expenses. It is denied that Petitioner has liquidated assets of the estate. Strict proof thereof is demanded. 47. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Petitioner has written checks from the estate to reimburse herself for reasonable expenses incurred by her in fulfilling her duties as co-executrix of the Estate. By way of further answer, Petitioner will make a full and accurate accounting of these expenses and reimbursements upon preparation of the accounting for the estate. 48. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Petitioner had not provided an accounting of the estate's expenses as such an accounting would be premature at this point in the administration of the estate. By way of further answer, Petitioner avers that she has provided to the Respondent, co-executrix information informally as to the amount and reason for checks written to reimburse herself for estate expenses. 49. Admitted. 50. Denied. It is denied that Petitioner has failed to cooperate with Respondent to provide documentation necessary to prepare the Pennsylvania Inheritance Tax Return. By way of further answer Petitioner avers that the return should not be filed until the assets of the estate are sold or otherwise disposed of and all expenses paid. Furthermore, Petitioner and Respondent have not agreed on counsel to undertake the administration of the estate, including the filing of the Pennsylvania Inheritance Tax Return. 51. Paragraph 51 avers more than on fact contrary to the Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather than file an objection, in the interest of judicial economy, Petitioner will respond to both averments made here . First, it is denied that an "adequate accounting" has not been provided, as the need for a formal accounting is untimely as has been previously stated. Second, the filling of a Pennsylvania Inheritance Tax Return is similarly untimely, in as much as the co-executrices have not agreed to engage counsel to assist them, though they have come close on several occasions. Third, it is denied that "respondent had to request" an informal hold be put on the estate. By way of further answer hereto, Petitioner was no solicited for her opinion or input, as co-executrix, on whether or not any communication with the Department of Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division was necessary. 52. The averments are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent an answer is required the averments are denied as stated. 53. Denied as Stated. By way of further answer, Petitioner and Respondent and Thomas Flower, Esquire, counsel for the estate, agreed that since, as pointed out elsewhere in Respondent's New Matter, no money was available to the trust to cover ongoing costs, funds from the estate could be advanced to the trust which to be later reimbursed to the Estate. 54. Admitted. By way of further answer see Petitioner's response to Paragraph 53, above. 55. Admitted. By way of further answer, Petitioner avers that as previously stated by Respondent there are no funds in the trust and further Petitioner's answer to Paragraph 53. 56. Admitted Answer to Cross Petition to Remove Executrix in Accordance with 20 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 3181(1) and 3182(5) 57. Paragraphs 18 through 56 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth herein. By way of further answer, Respondent herein answered Petitioner's 17 paragraph pleading with 49 paragraphs of New Matter and a separate action, a Cross-Petition to entirely remove the Petitioner from the administration of her father's estate. Petitioner respectfully requests this Court address the Cross-Petition separately from the Petitioner's original request to transfer personal property according to the Law Will and Testament of her father. 58. Denied. On the contrary Petitioner has at all times relevant to this Petition, desired to fully cooperate with Respondent in the disposition of the real estate owned by the Estate at 33 Country Club Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 59 Denied. On the contrary, Petitioner has sought out museums and other qualified entities willing to accept the collection of firearms and it is only as a result of Respondent's refusal to cooperate that has prevented the disposition of the collection. This is the reason for Petitioner's filing of her Petition for Rule to Show Cause Why She should not be permitted to Transfer the Collection to Sallows Military Museum. 60. Denied. On the contrary, Petitioner has at all times relevant hereto indicated to Respondent that she was ready and willing to cooperate and participate in the listing and sale of the residence. 61. The averments of Paragraph 61 are conclusions of law and no answer thereto is required. By way of further answer, Petitioner avers that the sections of the Probate, Estates and Fiduciaries Code relied upon require an affirmative showing that there must be a showing of waste and mismanagement of the estate. Strict proof thereof is demanded. 62. The averments of Paragraph 62 are conclusions to which no answer is required. 63 The averments of Paragraph 63 are conclusions to which no answer is required. 64 The averments of paragraph 64 are conclusions to which no answer is required. By way of further answer, Petitioner denies that she has mismanaged the Estate, has not created an account naming herself as the executrix; further she has not removed items from the residence without Respondent's approval, except as necessary to preserve said items and no proper business transactions have been prevented except by Respondent's refusal to cooperate with Petitioner. 65. Denied. On the contrary, Petitioner has transmitted to Respondent all information concerning the estate and has cooperated with Respondent. By way of further answer, Petitioner believes and therefore avers that the efficient and timely settlement of the estate has been hindered and impeded by Respondent's failure and refusal to communicate with Petitioner except by email or text messaging which results in the delay of necessary decision making by the co-executrices. 66. The averments of Paragraph 66 are conclusions of law and no answer is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded. 67. The averments of Paragraph 67 are conclusions of law and no answer is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Cross Petition of Respondent to remove be denied by your Honorable Court. Date: Respectfully Submitted, Forest N Myers Attorney ID 18064 137 Park Place West Shippensburg, PA 17257 717 532-9046 Mark A. Mateya Attorney I D 78931 55 West Church Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 717 241-6500 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION IN RE: ESTATE OF EUGENE R. HANSON, DECEASED NO. 13-970 I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Petition are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. -Date: l� f�—6M02015 Kathryn . Jo so , Petitio er y V CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Mateya, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document on the following person(s) by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail,by way of United States Mail, first class,postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania addressed to: James D. Hughes, Esquire Salzmann Hughes, PC 354 Alexander Spring Road Ste 1 Carlisle PA 17015 Mark A. Mateya, quire 55 W. Church Avenue Carlisle,PA 17013 (717) 241-6500 (717) 241-3099 Fax Dated: ' S