The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-12-15 ESTATE OF JUNE K. OTTO, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DECEASED : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION . NO. 21-08-054�, � � rn c a rn � � �7 � �? 4 � � � � ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'� MOTION TO COMP�,� �—' F..� —+ c`� _�. r-�� v �� DISCOVE�tY RESPONSE� - L� . .. . , . � � � ,N;.� --r� ; r-� �, --r� ,--, �:� -,� .=3 AND NOW this 12th day of January, 2015, come EDWIN R. OTT�d �i�d PAT�ICI�=I� � ._.,� tw a �., .U, o MYERS, Co-Executors of the Estate of June K. Otto, by and through thei�i"attorneysc�rwin � McKnight, P.C., and respectfully file this Answer to the Petition for Order Directing Compliance with Discovery filed by Randy L. Cramer, and pursuant to the Order of Court dated December 29, 2014, and in supp�rt thereof aver as follews: 1. After reasonable investigation, Respondents are without knowledge ar information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph one (1) of the Petition so they are therefore specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 2. The averments contained in paragraph two (2) are admitted. 3. The Petition referenced in paragraph three (3) speaks for itself and therefore no response is required. 4. The Order of Court referenced in paragraph four(4) speaks for itself and therefore no response is required. 5. The averments in paragraph five (5) are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admittzd that Requests for Production af Documents datzd Oc�ober 31, 2C14, were rEceived by legal counsel for the Co-Executars of the Estate of June K. Otto. Furthermore, Respondents are contemporaneously with this pleading providing to Petitioner's legal counsel direct answers and additional supporting documentation responding to the Requests for Production of Documents. The remaining averments in paragraph five (5) are specifically denied. �, • 6. The averments in paragraph six (6) are denied as stated. It is admitted that Respondents are contemporaneously with this pleading providing to Petitioner's legal counsel direct answers and additional supporting documentation in response to the Requests for Production of Documents. However, Respondents during the course of this matter have provided multipie �ocur�ients arid su�porting c�rresponden�e io Pe�itiotier's legal counsel. Most recently, by correspc�ndence dated November 21, 2014, the Respondents through their legal counsel provided multiple additional documents requested by Petitioner, including tax bills, property record cards, and a realtor opinion of value letter. The remaining averments in paragraph six (6) are specifically denied. 7. The averments in paragraph seven (7) are denied as stated. It is admitted that Petitioner's legal counsel sent th� letter d�ted Decer.iber :1, 2014. LIowever, prior to that date Respondents had sent both a detailed settlement proposal and itemization of costs incurred by the Decedent's Estate, and on November 21, 2014, had also sent additional correspondence and supporting documentation without any direct response from Petitioner. Respondents are also contemporaneously with this pleading providing to Petitioner's legal counsel additional direct answers and additional supporting documentation in response to the Requests for Production of Documents. The remaining averments in paragraph seven(7) are specifically denied. 8. The averments in paragraph eight (8) are denied as stated. Respondents during the course of this matter have provided multiple documents and supporting correspondence to Petitioner's legal counsel. Most recently, by correspondence dated November 21, 2014, the Respondents through their legal counsel provided multiple additional documents requested by Petitioner, including tax bills, property record cards, and a realtor opinion of value letter. Respondents have also sent a detailed settlement proposal and itemization of costs incurred by 2 the Decedent's Estate without any direct response from Petitioner. Respondents are also contemporaneously with this pleading providing to Petitioner's legal counsel additional direct answers and additional supporting documentation in response to the Requests for Production of Documents. The remaining averments in paragraph eight (8) are specifically denied. 9. The averr�ients coiltained in pa�agrapi�niiie (9� are cunciusio�is of law tc, which no response is realuired: To the extent that a response is required, Petitioner has already been provided with numerous documents prepared by the individuals identified in paragraph nine (9), and Respondents are also contemporaneously with this pleading providing to Petitioner's legal counsel ac�ditional direct answers and additional supporting documentation in response to the Requests for Produciion of Documents. The remaining averments in paragraph nine (9) are specif.cally der�ied. 10. The averments contained in paragraph ten (10) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Respondents are contemporaneously with this pleading providing to Petitioner's legal counsel additional direct answers and additional supporting documentation in response to the Requests for Production of Documents, which is a matter distinct from any subpoenas Petitioner may seek and legitimate legal defenses raised in response. 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 Respondents are contemporaneously with this pleading providing to Petitioner's legal counsel additional direct answers and additional supporting documentation in response to the Requests for Production of Documents, which is a matter distinct from any subpoenas Petitioner may seek and legitimate legal defenses raised in response. 3 12. The averments contained in paragraph twelve (12) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Respondents are contemporaneously with this pleading providing to Petitioner's legal counsel additional direct answers and additional supporting documentation in response to the Requests for Production of Docurnei�ts, which i� a matter distinct from any subpoenas �et�tioner may seek and legitimate legal defenses raised in response. 13. The averments contained in paragraph thirteen (13) are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Respondents are contemporaneously with this pleading providing to Petitioner's legal counsel additional direct answers and additional supporting documentation in response to the tZequests for Production of Docume�ts, an�the averme:�ts ir�paragraph th�rte�n (13) a.r� specifi�a�ly deni�d. WHEREFt7RE, Respondents respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an Order denying the Petitioner's Petition for Order Directing Compliance with Discovery as both informal and formal responses have been provided to Petition and his legal counsel. Respectfully Submitted, IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. , � Dated: January 12, 2015 By: � ��. Douglas G.� iller, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 83776 West Pomfret Professional Building 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-2353 4 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. EDWIN R. OT O,Co-E�ecutor Date: 1/12/15 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 first class United States mail, pc�stag�p�id in Carlisle, PerLnsylvania 17013, on the date set forth helow� I'iAVID A. MILLS, ESQUIRE BLAKEY, YOST, BUPP & RAUSCH, LLP 17 EAST MARKET STREET YORK, PA 1740 i Date: January 12, 2015 IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C. �CIC � �J�� Douglas G. iller, Esquire Supreme Court ID No. 83776 West Pomfret Professional Building 60 West Pomfret Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3222 (717)249-2353