Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-92 (2) . 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 RESPONSE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, II TO PETITION OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM ROBERT M. FREY. ESQUIRE Robert M. Mumma, II ("RMMII"), by his counsel, responds to the petition of guardian ad litem Robert M. Frey, Esquire, as follows: In formulating his Petition for Rule to Show cause, Attorney Robert M. Frey states that he is the "guardian ad litem for the minor children of RMMII." However, as indicated by the Order of Court entered in this matter on December 29, 1988, Attorney Frey is guardian "for the minor persons interested in the estate of Robert M. Mumma, deceased." Accordingly, Attorney Frey is guardian not only for the minor children of RMMII, but also for all other minor beneficiaries of such estate. 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the December 29, 1988 Order was entered upon petition of Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan (lithe executrices"). It is denied that the executrices were attempting to confirm their authority to sell two assets of the estate. They were attempting to circumvent the limitations 1'1'1 ,1 imposed by the will of Robert M. Mumma, Sr. on their authority to sell estate assets, and their petition for the appointment of a guardian ad litem was an attempt to frustrate RMMII's ability to object to such circumvention. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Robert M. Frey has properly summarized Paragraph 5 of the Petition filed by the Executors and Trustees, but it is denied that the Executors and Trustees have properly reflected in Paragraph 5 the legal consequences of RMMII's purported disclaimer. 5. Admitted, SUbject to the qualification noted above that Robert M. Frey was appointed guardian ad litem for all minor beneficiaries of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that "subsequent to the entry of the above-referenced Order, Robert M. Mumma, II filed a revocation of the above- mentioned disclaimer." It is denied, however, that the disclaimer created the interests of the minors that Attorney Frey now represents. To the contrary, Attorney Frey is guardian ad litem for all minor beneficiaries of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, and the interests that he represents were created by the will of such decedent. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Robert M. Frey, as guardian ad litem, has opposed the revocation of RMMII's purported disclaimer and he has filed -2- 1715 exceptions to the Decree of this Honorable Court sanctioning such revocation. It is denied, however, that the revocation of such disclaimer has removed the minor children of RMMII from being interested parties in Nine Ninety-Nine, Inc. and Hummelstown Quarries, Inc. The minor beneficiaries of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Sr., including RMMII's minor children, derive whatever interest they may have in such estate by reason of the will of the decedent. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. The executrices of the estate of Robert M. Mumma, Sr. have taken the position that Robert M. Frey, Esquire should be considered the proper representative of the minor persons interested in the estate in all proceedings relating thereto, which is inconsistent with the scope of authority granted to Mr. Frey by this Court's December 29, 1988 Order. The reason that the executrices have persisted in their position that only Mr. Frey is entitled to represent the minor beneficiaries is because in that case, no one but Mr. Frey would have legal standing to file objections on behalf of the minors to the executrices' estate and trust accountings. Mr. Frey did not file objections to the accounting, because to do so would have been beyond the scope of his authority. The deadline for filing those objections has now passed, and the executrices have intimated in other proceedings before this Court that Attorney -3- 1716 Frey's failure to file such objections now bars the minor beneficiaries of the estate from objecting to such accountings. This Court should know that the executrices have filed a petition in York County to have RMMII and Gary Gilbert, Esquire restrained from acting as guardians of RMMII's two daughters with respect to any litigation involving the estate. They have also filed a petition in this Court to have Robert G. Frey appointed guardian for the minor beneficiaries of the estate with respect to all litigation involving the estate. It is believed that they have undertaken such actions in order to assert that RMMII's objections on behalf of his minor daughters to the executrices' estate and trust accountings should be thrown out due to lack of standing, and so they can further assert that it is already too late for either of the Freys to file objections. Therefore, the executrices will have gotten away with their scheme to avoid accounting for their actions in the administration of the estate. 12. Admitted. RMMII has no objection to the entry by this Honorable Court of Mr. Frey's proposed Order, although RMMII believes that it is regrettable that the executrices have forced Mr. Frey to seek a clarification of his original appointment order by reasons of the executrices' continual mischaracterization of such order before this Court and courts in other counties. In light of the fact that the executrices have forced Mr. Frey to seek the relief requested herein, RMMII believes that the costs incurred by Mr. Frey in the present proceeding should be borne personally by the executrices rather -4- 1.','1'1 than by the Estate of Robert M. Mumma. The fact that the executrices now consent to Mr. Frey's proposed order underscores the fallacy of their original construction of such order. WHEREFORE, Robert M. Mumma, II respectfully requests that this Court grant the petition of Guardian ad Litem Robert M. Frey, Esquire. Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ Gerald K. orr1son, Esq. Pa. ID # 06876 Andrew S. Gordon, Esq. Pa. ID # 26542 Christopher F. Farrell, Esq. Pa. ID # 23538 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 30 N. Third Street, 8th Floor P.O. Box 1.2023 Harrisburg, PA 171.08-2023 (71.7) 237-4800 Dated: June E5, 1.992 -5- 11"18 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements in the foregoing RESPONSE TO PETITION OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM ROBERT M. FREY, ESQUIRE 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). Date~ $/~ BY:~'~ Robert M. Mumma II 1.'713 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sarah M. Bricknell, do hereby certify that on June 6, 1992, I caused to be served copies of the foregoing RESPONSE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, II TO PETITION OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM ROBERT M. FREY, ESQUIRE, 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 17'20 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 ~ ~~l~ 1: i!l .. ~h J" * q ~ i "Q l lIIt~;i \%~~~t -JHU ~; ~t=- s~ i o '" ~ ~-.