Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-92 IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, Late of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : No. 21-86-398 : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION RESPONSB OP ROBERT M. MUMMA, II TO PETITION OP BARBARA MeX. MUMMA AND LISA M. MORGAN POR THB APPOINTMENT OP ROBERT G. PREY AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM Robert M. Mumma, II ("RMMII"), by his counsel, responds to the petition of Barbara MeR. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan (lithe executrices"), as follows: 1. Admi tted. 2. Denied. Under the terms of his will, Robert M. Mumma, Sr. left his estate in trust for the life of his wife, Barbara McK. Mumma, who survived him. Upon the death of Mrs. Mumma, lithe principal of this Trust, as it is then constituted, shall be paid over by my surviving trustee unto my children, Robert M. Mumma, II, Barbara M. McClure, Linda M. Roth, and Lisa M. Mumma, free of this Trust, share and share alike, per stirpes and not per capita." 3. Denied. RMMII has been litigating in this Court not against the estate of his father or the trusts created under his Will, but against the actions taken by the executrices to advance their own financial interests at the expense of such estate and trusts. When the executrices were causing a deadlock in the operation of certain estate assets, RMMII filed a petition 1706 for the appointment of a temporary fiduciary to run those estate assets. When the executrices filed an estate accounting which evidenced the fact that they have been mismanaging estate assets, and diverting assets to their personal dominion and control, RMMII filed objections to that accounting. RMMII has persisted in litigation only because he believes that it is in the best interest of the estate and its beneficiaries. It is denied that RMMII has taken positions in those proceedings that are adverse to the interests of the estate, the trusts under Robert M. Mumma, Sr.'s ("RMMSr.") will, and their beneficiaries. To the contrary, RMMII has always advanced the interests of the estate and its beneficiaries. It is the executrices who are engaging in conduct adverse to the best interests of the estate and its beneficiaries. In response to the executrices' belief that a guardian ad litem should be in office to represent the interests of all the minor beneficiaries of the estate in these litigations, it is not necessary to appoint such a guardian. Attorney Robert M. Frey represents the minor beneficiaries in all matters set out in this Court's Order of December 29, 1988, and has also represented them with regard to RMMII's revocation of his purported disclaimer. With respect to matters that fall outside of those in which Robert M. Frey represent the minors, the minors' interests are sufficiently protected by their natural parents, who have the same interests in the estate as their -2- 1707 children. RMMII's children are represented by their court- appointed Guardians, RMMII and Attorney Gary M. Gilbert. RMMII has no objection to the expansion by the Court of Robert M. Frey's representative capacity or to the appointment by the Court of Robert G. Frey as guardian ad litem, provided circumstances arise that warrant such expansion or appointment. Those circumstances do not exist at present, however. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. In response to the executrices' belief that a guardian ad litem should be in office to represent the interests of all the minor beneficiaries of the estate in the accounting proceedings, RMMII notes that this position is contrary to the position previously asserted herein by the executrices. Heretofore, the executrices have asserted that the deadline for filing objections to such accountings has passed, and that the minor beneficiaries of the estate are barred from acting therein by reason of Robert M. Frey's failure to object on their behalf. RMMII, both individually and as Guardians of his two minor daughters, has filed objections to those accountings. Accordingly, the interests of his minor daughters are adequately protected on the record. If this Court believes that a guardian should be appointed for all other minor beneficiaries with respect to the accounting proceedings, then RMMII has no objection thereto provided the deadline for filing objections is -3- ~708 extended to allow that guardian to examine the accounting and file objections if necessary. 5. Denied. By Order of this Court dated December 29, 1988, Robert M. Frey, Esquire, was appointed Guardian ad Litem not just for RMMII's children, but also for the minor persons interested in the estate of Robert M. Mumma. deceased, with authorization to represent said minor persons in all matters related to the sale of Nine Ninetv-Nine. Inc. and Hummelstown Ouarries. Inc. and the actions for Declaratory Judgment and other Relief pertaining thereto, which actions are now pending before this Court, and in any further or other proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County or the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania relating to or arisina out of such matters. (emphasis added) 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that RMMII executed a disclaimer on January 6, 1987. On January 6, 1987, RMMII signed a document that purportedly disclaimed his interest in his father's estate. For the reasons set forth in the litigation in this Court on the disclaimer matter, that disclaimer was invalid. It is denied that, because of his purported disclaimer, RMMII's interests in his father's estate would then have been distributable to his minor children upon his mother's death. To the contrary, this Court has held that the purported disclaimer would result in the assets going only to RMMII's oldest child, Robert M. Mumma, III ("RMMIII"). It is admitted that Robert M. Frey has filed exceptions to this Court's granting of RMMII's petition to revoke his purported -4- 1709 disclaimer. It is admitted that those exceptions have yet to be disposed of. It is denied that an appeal of this Court's decision in the disposition of those exceptions is likely. It is denied that the invalidation of RMMII's revocation of his purported disclaimer will result in his minor children having a direct interest in the trusts under their grandfather's will. To the contrary, this Court has held that the purported disclaimer would result in the assets going only to RMMII's oldest child, RMMIII. The remainder of the averments of paragraph 6 are admitted. 7. Denied. Attorney Robert M. Frey was not appointed as the guardian ad litem of only the minor children of RMMII. He was appointed guardian ad litem of ftll of the minor beneficiaries of the estate of Robert M. Mumma, Sr. Therefore, appointing another guardian would not merely result in the overlap of the two guardians' responsibilities, it would be redundant. As for pending matters that are beyond the scope of Robert M. Frey's authority, there is no need to appoint a guardian in those matters. As has been pointed out, the interests of the minor beneficiaries are presently adequately represented by their natural parents. If a situation should arise in the future where that is no longer the case, then the Court may at that time consider expanding the representative powers of the guardian ad litem. There is no need at this point to encumber the estate with additional unnecessary expenses. -5- 1710 8. Admitted, but irrelevant. It is admitted that both Robert M. Frey and Robert G. Frey are prominent and well respected members of the Bar of this Honorable Court. However, the appointment of an additional guardian ad litem is unnecessary. There is no need to burden the estate with additional expenses unless they are absolutely necessary to protect the interests of the beneficiaries. An additional guardian ad litem should be appointed only if future circumstances warrant. WHEREFORE, Robert M. Mumma, II respectfully requests that the executrices' petition to appoint Robert G. Frey as guardian ad litem of all minor persons interested in the estate of Robert M. Mumma, Sr. be denied. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Gerald K. Morrison, Esq. Pa. 10 I 06876 Andrew S. Gordon, Esq. Pa. 10 I 26542 Christopher F. Farrell, Esq. Pa. 10 I 23538 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 30 N. Third street, 8th Floor P.O. Box 12023 Harrisburg, PA 17108-2023 (717) 237-4800 -6- 1.711 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements in the foregoing RESPONSE TO PETITION OF BARBARA MeK. MUMMA AND LISA M. MORGAN FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ROBERT M. FREY AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that the statements contained herein are made subject to the penalties provided by 18 Pa. C.S.A S4904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities). 0"0,)00 ~tl12 BY'IPJ.~ Ro ert M. Mumma II 1.712 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sarah M. Bricknell, do hereby certify that on June!), 1992, I caused to be served copies of the foregoing RESPONSE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, II TO PETITION OF BARBARA MeR. MUMMA AND LISA M. MORGAN FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ROBERT G. FREY AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM by depositing said copies in first class mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to the following: william F. Martson, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 william C. Costopolous, Esquire 831 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 James R. Ledwith, Esquire 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 John H. Young, Esquire Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur 1233 20th street, NW Washington, DC 20036-2395 Robert G. Frey, Esquire 5 South Hanover Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1713 Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr., Esquire 2000 One Logan Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 Charles E. Shields, III, Esquire National Bank Building Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Jon A. Baughman, Esquire 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Richard W. Stevenson, Esquire P. O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108 John B. Fowler, III, Esquire 28 South pitt Street P.O. Box 208 carlisle, PA 17013 . ~~~