Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-00 1.\ - \"\ -<;}~ IN RE~ESTATEOF ROBERT M. MUMMA, Deceased IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION NO. 21-86-398 ANSWER OF PETITIONER, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, TO EXCEPTIONS TO ADJUDICATION AND NOW, comes Petitioner Robert M. Mwnma, II, appearing pro se, and files the within Answer To Exceptions To Adjudication, the nature of which is as follows: 1. DENIED. As the Court's Adjudication (Order of February 23, 2000, at 5-6) clearly enunciates, Petitioner Mwnma's minor children have no interest under the trusts and Exceptar.ts have failed to demonstrate that the children's interests are not adequately represented. In fact, by Order of Court, dated October 14,1991, York County Judge John Miller appointed Robert M. Mwnma, II and Gary M. Gilbert as guardians of both the Estate of Susan Mann Mumma and the Estate of Marguerite Mann Mumma (see Order appended to this Answer). 2. DENIED as stated. Judge Sheely's ruling diet not state that Robert M. Mumma, II filed a disclaimer of his interests under the will. Judge Sheely's Opinion stated as follows: Robert M. Mwnma, II (Petitioner), one ofTes~t'sfour children, . executed a disclaimer dated January 6, 1987, ~~''':''a8 filed in the office of the Register of Wills on January t2fm:r. (Opinion and Order of Court, November 17, 1989, at l+t~hhasis added) " :r:. ~ The language of the Court indicates that a disclaimer was executed and that it was later filed. It does not state that Petitioner Mumma filed it. Indeed, Petitioner Mumma's letter to Judge Sheely of January 3, 1989 stated, inter alia, '1 have no knowledge of ever filing or instructing to be filed in Cumberland County Court a renunciation of my interest in the estate. If such a document was filed at the Court House, it was done against my wishes." This is an important point because Petitioner Mumma specifically instructed his attorney, Arthur Kline, not to file the disclaimer. The filing was, consequently, without authority and fraudulent. 3. DENIED. The allegation at paragraph 3 of the Exceptions represents a conclusion of law which does not require an answer under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Requirements for tax purposes are completely irrelevant to the present inquiry or issue to be litigated. 4. DENIED as stated. The Motion To Revoke Disclaimer was granted pursuant to an Order of Court, dated November 17, 1989. 5. DENIED. As Judge Sheely's Opinion clearly indicated, the Rule To Show Cause involving the Petition to Revoke was answered by Executrices / Trustees; by Robert Frey; and by Linda Roth. Robert Frey acted as a guardian ad litem of the minor children of Petitioner Mumma. 6. ADMITTED. By way of further answer, the decision of the Superior Court speaks for itself. 7. ADMITTED. By way of further answer, under applicable law. Judge Sheely's Order became fina1 and unappealable when no one with proper -2- ..~~ standing filed a Notice of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Order and the Superior Court dismissed the appeal of Robert Frey - the only individual to file a Notice of Appeal. 8. DENIED. The issue as to whether Petitioner Mumma effectively revoked his disclaimer has been finally resolved by the Order of Court, dated November 17, 1989, which was not successfully appealed by anyone with standing to do so. It is res iudicata and represents the law of the case. The identity of those persons to whom Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan must account is clear and unequivocal and includes Petitioner Mumma. 9. DENIED. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan have a fiduciary duty to finally account to the beneficiaries of the estate, which they have successfully avoided for a period of fourteen (14) years. By failing to do so, they have violated their fiduciary duty. 10. DENIED. As the Court correctly pointed out, there is no interest of the Mumma minor children which either requires protection or is not being adequately represented. Exceptant~' redundant arguments represent nothing more than a collateral attack upon a final judgment of this Court which is now the law of the case. 1 I. DENIED. The averments at paragraph II of the Exceptions contain nothing more than a statement of the Exceptants' intention in filing their Exceptions. Their statement, that they should not have to account to Petitioner Mumma "prior to a final determination of his entitlement to receive an accounting and his status as a beneficiary", is without any basis in law. Unless a stay or -3- ~ ~ injunction pending appeal is issued they are required to comply with the Court's Order of February 23, 2000. Moreover, there has been a final determination in this matter. NEW MATTER 12. On or about March 24,2000, Exceptants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. 13. lbis appeal was improvident while their Exceptions were pendmg and may have divested this Court of jurisdiction over the issue appealed from. 14. The disclaimer which Exceptants raise as an excuse not to comply with the Court's Order was not filed by Petitioner Mumma, and its filing represented a fraud upon him. 15. As a result of this fraudulent undertaking, the disclaimer was either properly revoked or was void ab initio from the outset. WHEREFORE, it is requested that the Court dismiss the Exceptions filed to the Adjudication and enter a Final Order or Decree, requiring Exceptants to account to Robert M. MUJDII1a, II. RespectfuIIy submitted, Robert M. Mulllma, II appearing Dm se BoxE Bowmansdale, P A 17008 (717) 766.1598 Dated: April 14, 2000 .4. ..)17'2000 10:50 FAX 717 8439039 Countess.Gilbert.Andrews III 002/002 '- ~' IN RE: ESTATES OF SUSAN MANN MUMMA AND MARGUERITE MANN MUMMA, of York County, Pennsylvania. Minors IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA , NO. lJry-'!l -12S1 ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, thiS.1j.!!: day of (}I'T:;:J;; v , 1991, after cO:lsidere.;:ion of t.he foregol.ng petition and upon motion of ?o;)e:::-c ~. Murn."'l\<i, 11, it: appea.ing to the Cou.t that the best cn::.e,es,::s and welfare of Susan Mann Mumma and Marguerite Mann ~umma would be promoted by the appointment of Guardians of their ~espec'::l.ve estates; I~ IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that ~.ODen: M. Mumma, II and Gary M. Gilbert be and they are hereoy appointed Guarcians of both the Estate of susan Mann Mumma and ~he Estate of Marguerite Mann Mumma. {:" ~~ d. .~ I I I I I I i. . IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, Deceased IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION NO. 21-86-398 PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby states that she has served a copy of the foregoing, "Answer Of Petitioner, Robert M. Mumma, II, To Exceptions To Adjudication" on the following named individual in the matter indicated: First - Class MaiL Pgstal!e Preoaid Ivo V. Otto, III, Esquire Martson, Deardort: Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: April 17, 2000 lltli!JIt ;