HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-23-15 ^r� _ _ . _ _. _ _
ESTATE OF JUNE K.�O'FTO, � �� �:�IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
DF,CEASF.D �� � �i L`UMBERLAND COUNTY, PF,NNSYLVANIA
�i �".�� C3 f'I'� �'f 1� ORPHAN'SCOURTDNISION
�� . NO. 21-08-0544
Ci("'..,, . . � .
C,._':.'.:.:":
ANSWER TO PETITIONER'S MOT10N FOR ORDER OF CONTEMPT
AND NOW this 23rd day of March, 2015, come EDWIN R. OTTO and PATRICK K.
MYERS, Co-Executors of the Estatc of Junc K. Otto, by and tLvough their attorneys, Irwin &
McKnight, RC., and respectfully file this Answer to the Motion for Order of Contempt filed by
Petitioner Randy L. Gamer,and in support thereof aver as follows:
I. The averments of fact contained in paragraph one(I) of the Motion are admitted.
2. The Order of Court referenced in paragraph two (2) spenks for itself and therefore
no response is required. To the extent that a response is reyuired, on February 12, 2015,
Respondents tiled Exceptions to the Order of Court dated January 23, 2015.
3. The averments of fact contained in paragcaph three (3) aze admitted. By way of
further answer, on February 12, 2015, Respondents filed Exeeptions to the Order of Court dated
January 23, 2015.
4. The averments in paragraph four (4) are specifically denied and strict proof
tbereof is demanded. By way of further answer, prior to receiving Petitioner's correspondence
dated February 3, 2015, Respondents through their atromey attempted to contact Petitioner's
atromey in an effort to resolve all disputes between the parties, including the outstanding
objections to the accounting filed by Respondents. Petitioner's attomey advised that he had
obtained historical re�[ payme�[ information Yrom Stamy Farms and that a check from Peti[ionec
was already prepared. Respondents' attomey requested a copy of the documentation, but
advised that the check should not be sent as the re�t information did not match the payments
�
repoRed by Respondcnts. Petitioner's Exhibit 3 attachcd to his Motiou io fact is oot signed, does
not include cancelled checks which would only be in the possession of the farmer, is not
otherwise subject to cross-examinatio�, and does �ot match up with the rent payment �ecords of
Respondents. Respondents tt�erefore deny that the information set foRh by Pctitiouc� is accuratc,
and furthe�deny that the purported "AeeounP'of aod resulting check trom Petitione� is accurate.
5. The averments of Pact contained in paragraph five (5) are admitted.
6. The averments of fact contained in paragraph six (6) are conclusions of law to
which no response is required To the extent that a response is required, the averments are
specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, the
Exceptions filed by Respondents pursuant to Orphans' Court Rule 7.1 arc a prccursor to thc
filiug of any appeal to the Order of Ja�uazy 23, 2015. Pursuant to Rule 7.1, "no appeel shall be
filed wtil the disposition of exceptions...." It is respectfully submitted Ihat until Respondents'
righ[s to appeal have expired [here is no[ a final order upon which Petitioner can obtain the relief
that he currently seeks.
7. The averme�ts of fact contained in paragraph scvcn (7) are concWsions of law to
which �o respouse is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are
specitically denied and stric[ proof [hereof is demanded. By way of fitrther answer, the
Exceptions filed by Respondents pursuan[ to Orphaz�s' Court Rule 7.1 are a precursor to the
liling of any appeal lo lhe Order of Januazy 23, 20I5. Pursuant to Rule 7.1, "no xppeal shall be
liled until the disposition otexcep[iu�s...:' It is respectfully submitted that until Respondents'
rights to appeal have expired there is not a final order upon which Petitioner can obtain the relief
that he currently seeks.
2
8. The averments of fact contained in paragraph cight (8) are conclusions of law to
which no response is required. To the extent that a response is �equired, the averments are
specifically denicd and strict proof thereof is demanded.
WHEREFORE, Respondents respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter a�
Order denying the Petitioner's Motion fo� Order of Contempt as Respondents have filed
8xecptions in this matter and still maintain thei�rights to Lile a� appeal.
Respeetfully Submittcd,
IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C.
c
Datcd: Mazch 23, 2015 By - -
Do s G illeq Esquire
Supreme Court ID No. 83776
West Pomfret Professional Building
60 West Pomfret Street
Cadisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(719)249-2353
3
VERIFICATION
The foregoing document is based upon infomiation 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 aze true and correc[ [o the best of my knowledge, inFocmation aud belie£ I
understand that false statements herein made aze subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section
4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities.
. '`,- r' _ . _ -
- � ✓ r
PA CK K. MYERS;Co-Executor
Date: 3/23/15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Douglas G. Miller, Esquire, do hereby cerlify that I have served a tmc and correct copy
of the foregoing document upon the pecsons indicated below by first class United States mail,
postage paid in Carlisle, Pennsyivania 17013, on the date set forth below:
UAVIU A. MILLS, ESQUIRE
BI,AKF.Y, YOST, RUPP& RAUSCH, LLP
17 6AST MARKET STREET
YORK, PA 17401
Date: March 23, 20I5 IRWIN & McKNIGHT, P.C.
Doug as G Millcq Esquire
Supreme Court ID No. 83776
Wes[ Pomfrct Profcssional Building
60 West Pomfret Sheet
Cadisle, Pennsylvnnia 17013-3222
(717) 249-2353