Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-15 F.STATE OP GLORGE W. HOWARU ) IN THE COOR'i OF COMMON PLEAS Deceased ) CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVA�IA ) " ^ � � ) N0. 21-13-1143 ; a � m o c' � �n � � � v � � _ ro � ) ORPHANS' COURT DNISION-' ' n o .�' ^� �-. �.� -_ -_ <> AMERICAN EOUITY'S CONSENTED-TO PF.TiTION TO INT�&V�N� -" �' „ � = o Amcrican Equiry Investment Life Insurance Company ("American EquHy") respectf�iyo o �^ pe[itions this Hono�able Court to permit it to intervene in the above-captioned actio�, parsuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 2326 et seg. In s�pport of this Petition, American Equity avers that it has received consent from Robert Howard and 2obert S�rfield to this Petition ro Intervene, and thrther avers as follows: ]. On November 24, 2009, Decedent George W. Howard apparently executed a Last WiLI and Testament (the "2009 Will") which benefitted his sons, Robert Howard and Dcnnis Howard. 2. On April 24, 2012, Decedent apparontly cxeeuted a subsequent I.ast Will and Testament(the"2012 Will") which benefiried his nephew-in-law, Robert Surfield. 3. On April 23, 2013, Decedent apparently executed a Beneticiary Claim Form (the "2013 Claim Form") whieh slated that in the event of his death, the Death Proceeds associated with American Equity Annuity Contract Nos. 179442 and 180110 (which wece cont�acts between Decedent and Ameriea� Fquity) should be paid to Robert Surfield. 4. Decedent dicd testate on Ocrober 7 5, 2013. 5. On Octobe� 28, 2013, Robert Howard commenced this action by fili�g an iuformal Caveat to the 2012 Will, alleging that the 2009 W ill was Decedent's true Will. 6. The above-caption actio� thus involves a dispute between Robert Surfield, and Robert Howazd (together with his brother Dennis Howard), regarding whether the 2012 Will � ��0, should be probated as Dccedent's truc Last Will and 'Cestament Amorican Equity has not been a party to this action. 7. On Octobe� 30, 2013, American EquiTy received a letter from Robert Howard which challenged whether Decedent had capacity to exec�te the 2072 Will and the 2013 Claim Fonn. 8. On several occasions from April 2014 through November 2014, while this action was pending, counsel for American Equity, u�dersigned, contactcd counsel for Robert Surfield, and counse] for Roben aud Uennis Howard, to discuss whether the Death Proceeds associated with American Equity Annuity Contract Nos. 179442 and 180110 should be interpleaded in a court of competent jurisdietion, or should be paid ro the prcvailing party or parties in this action. American Equity gave thc pariies herein a eo�sidexable amount of timc to try to effectuate a settlement of this action which would obviate the need for an interpleader actiou �egarding the Annuiry Contracts. 9. On December 16, 2014, counsel fbr Robert Surfield, and cou�sel for Robert and Den�is Howacd, notified eounsel for American Equity of a settlement that would have resolved tbe Howard bmthers' challenges to the 2012 Will and the 2013 Claim Form. ]0. Iiowevec, on December 25, 2014, and contrary to the aru�ouocement of a settlement by all parties, Robert Howard personally contacted counseL foc Amcrican Equity to state that he would not zgree to ihe settlement that counsel had annuunced on December 16. 2014. 11. On December 31, 2014, counsel for the Howard brothers confirmed that RobeR Howazd would not agrec to the settlement which had been reached. 12. As of December 3I, 2014, American Equity, as mentioned above, had never been a party to Ihis actiou, and it had �ever received or been mentioned in any documents filed in this 2 action. 13. On January 7, 2015, and following the collapse of the settlement, Ame�ican Equity fiLed a Complaint for Interpleader in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania at Case No. 1:15-cv-00043-YK-KM (the '9ntcrpleader Action"), esking that court m allow it to pay the value of the Death Procceds for A�nuity Contract Nos. 179442 a�d 180110 into federal court, to be distributed by the fedecal court following its resolu[ion of thc dispute among tlie Howard bmthers and RobeR Surfield with respect to those fuods. 14. "Ihc Interpleader Action thus involves a dispute among the Howard brothers a�d Robert Surfield with eespect to whcthc� the Death Proceeds for Annuity Nos. 179442 and 180110 should be distributed: i) to Robert Surfield, pursuant to the 2013 Claim Focm; o� ii) to Robert and Dennis Howard, pursuant to prior Claim Forms. See Case No. 1:15-cv-00043-YK-KM at ECF No. I (Interyleader Complaint) at ¶¶ 19, 24, 25, 30; ECF Nos. I-5 and 1-6 (thc prio� Claim Forms); and ECP No. 1-7 (the 2013 Claim Form). I5. The fedecal intcrplcader statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1335 gives federal eourts jurisdietion over ac[ions i� interpleader whieh, like this o�e, involve claima�ts who reside in different states. Accordingly, American Equity liled the Intetplender Ac�ion in fede�al wurt. American Equity then served process oo Robert Howard (in Montana) on January t2, 2015; on Dennis Howacd (in Maryland) on January l4, 2015; and ou Robert Surfield (in Yennsylvania) through a Waiver of Service form that his counse] received on oc about January 1l, 2015 and subsequentLy executed. 16. On February 2, 2015, ihis Court issued an O�der whieh granted a Motion in Limine filed by Robert Surfield, and this Coutt issued a separate Order which g�anted a Motion to Withdraw filed by counsel f'or Robert and Dennis Howard. Those Orders did not mention and 3 wece not served on American 8quity or its counsel undersigned. l7. O� February 9,2015, this Court issucd an O�de� which stated that A hearing to decide the objections by Robert Howazd and Den�is Howard to the Probate of the [2012] Will of George W. Howard and ro the American Annuity Beneficiary shall be held on Friday, May 8, 2015, a[ 10:00 am in Courtroom No. 2 of tbe Cumbedand County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. l8. Pursuant to this Coun's practices and procedures, the February 9 Order listed the parties and/or counsel upon whom this Court would serve the O�dec by mail, namely: eou�sel for the Howacd brothers; counsel for Robert Surfield; and counsel for the Fslate of George Howa�d. The Ordcr did not state that this CouR would serve the February 9 Order on American Equity or its counsel, a�d this Court did not serve that Order on them. 19. On March 13, 2015, this Court issued an Order which denied Robert Howard's motion to reconsider the Pebruary 9, 2015 Order. 20. The March 13, 2015 Order indicated that this CouR would serve the Order on American Equity's cou�sel undersigned by mail. However, Ame�ican Equity's counsel u�de�sig�ed has neve�, to datc, reccived a copy of that Ocder in the mail from this Court. 2L On Macch 26, 2015, American Equity paid the value of the Death Proceeds associated with American Equity Annuiry Contraet Nos. 179442 and 180110 into the federal court in the Interpleader Actioa See Case No. 1:15-cv-00043-YK-KM at F.CF Nos. 22-24 (showing American Fquity's payment of$79,55820 to that court). 22. On April 2, 2015, Robert Howard contacted American Equiry's counsel undersigned to discuss the impact of lhis Courl's March 13, 2015 Order on the In[erpleadec Action. Couosel for American Equity immediately informed Mr. Howard, and Mr. Surfield's counsel, that Ameriean Equity had not received a copy of that March 13, 2015 O�der. Exhibit 1 (email eorrespondence between Robert Howacd and counsel undersigned); Exhibit 2 (email 4 coaespondence from Johanna Kapura, a paralegal in the office of counsel for Robert Surfield, following a phone call fmm counscl undcrsigoed). 23. In summary, American Equity ficst received notice on April 2, 2015 that this Court had issued an Order on Feb�uary 9, 20I5 which retlected an intent to "decide the objections by Robert Howard and Dermis Howazd to ... thc America� AnnuiTy Beneficiazy," i.e., the 2013 Claim Form. 24. American Equity may intervene in this above-captioned eivil aetion if "[t]he determination of [this] action may affect auy legally enfomeable interest of [American Equity] whether or not [American Equity] may be bound by a judgmcnt in actio�." Pa. R. Civ. P. 2327(4). 25. American Equity respectfully submits that this Court's "determination of [this] action may affect any Icgally e�forceable interest of [American F,quity] whether or not [American Equity] may be bound by a judgmcnt in action." 26. Speeifically, if this Court were to go beyond the limited quesuon of whethec Decedent had eapaciTy to execute the 2013 Claim Form, then lhere is a risk of double jeopazdy and inconsis[ent court decisions: this Court might hold that American Equity is required to pay the Death Proccods associated with American Fquity Annuity Contract Nos 179442 and 180110 to a particular party, even though American Equity has already paid those funds into the federal court and asked to be discharged from any liabiliry regarding them. 27. Pu�suant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 2328(a), American Equiry states that it desires to demand lhe following relief in this above-captioned civil action: That this CouR should issue an Ordec which clazifies its Order of Febmary 9, 2015 and states that this Couri will not make a�y determination that could require American Equily to take any action with respeet lo ihe Death Proceeds associated with American Equity Annuity Contrac[ Nos. ]79442 and 1801 I O or which could otherwise affect American Equiry's request for a discharge of liability i� the 5 Interpleader Action. 28. Pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 2328(a), American Equity is attaching thc plcading that it will file in this above-captioned civil action if it is permitted to intervene. Exhibit 3 (Amcrican Equity's Petition for a Rule in the Iuterest of Justice,pursuant to I.ocal Rule 206.I(u)). 29. Pu�suant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 2328(a), American Equity is serving a copy of this Pe[ition on each party to this above-captioned civil action. 30. Pursuant to Local Rule 2082(d), America� Equity states that it provided a copy of this Petition to Intervene to Robert Ilowa�d (pro se) and counsel for Robert SurFeld.' Both Robert Howard (pro se) and Robert Surfield (through cou�sel) consented to American Equiry's Petition to Intervene through telephone calls to counsel undersigned. 31. Amcrican Equity notes that pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 2329(3), this Court may deny a Petition to Intervene if it finds that "the petitioner has unduly delayed in making application for intervention' American Equiry respectfully submi[s that because it did not receive �otice that this Court inte�ded to take any action rega�ding the 2013 Claim Form u�til April 2, 2015, this Petition to Intewene is timely. ' American LquiTy did not provide a copy to Dennis Howard,because he has stated that he is allowing his brother Robert Howard to prosecu[e whatever claims he has on his behalE Sce Inlerpleader Aclion at Case I:I S-cv- 00043-YK-KM, BCE No.20-1 (Declaration of Dennis Howard),at T 6. 6 WHEREFORE, American Equity respectfully prays that this Hono�able Cou�t might gra�t this Petition to Intervene and permit it to fi1e a Petition for a Rule in the Interest of Justicc and olherwise intervene in this above-captioned civil action. Dated: April 17, 2015 Respectfully submitted, PICADIO SNEATH MILLER& NORTON, RC. Henc Sneath (PA40 9 Jaso Spak (PA89077) Four Gateway Center 444 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1105 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 288-4000 Counse7 far Plainl� 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I he�eby certify that on April 17, 2015, a lrue and correct wpy of the foregoing CONSENTED-TO PETITION TO INTERVENE was served upon all pariies of record, or their cou�sel, via P'irst-Class United States Mail, pos[age prepaid, addressed as follows: Mr. Dennis Howazd Robert J. Howard 6016 Snowdens Run Road 942 Mountain Meadow Road Eldersb�rg, MD 2I784 Libby, MT 59923 Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire Irwin & McKnight, P.C. 60 West Pomfret Sffeet CarlisLe, PA 17013-3222 (Counse!for Rober�Surfie7d) PICADIO SNCATFI MILLER Rc NORTON "l Jason pak 8 From: faM1bA M1nwnM TO: ]y�nn cnTk SubjeR: Re: Courtof Common Pleas Da[e: Thurstlay,BOnI @,2015 3:59:56 GM Jason, Just got your email, I'll pull the related documents so it makes sense and scan and send soon. Robbie On Thursday, April 2, 2015 10:13 AM, Jason Spak <jspak@psmn.com>wrote: Robbie— We have not received any documents from the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, the Cumberland County Orphans' Court, or any state court that has been handling the will contest between you and Su�eld. Specifically, we have not received any Order dated March 13, 2015, which allegedly copies us. I am going to call the court to see what happened here, but if you have a copy of the March 13, 2015 Order, please send it to me. Email is fne if you can scan and send documents that way. Jason A. Spak, Esq. Picadio, Sneath, Miller, & Norton` 412-288-4385 Ema�l �E[4fILe � B1nS 'Member of the USLAW Network —www.uslaw.ora From: mbbie howard [mailto:robbieimmt@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 12�.05 PM To: Jason Spak Subject Court of Common Pleas Jason, I was reviewing the Court of Common Pleas Order dated March 13, 2015, regarding the Court's denial of my Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order stating it will decide on the beneficiary of American Equity's Annuities. I noticed you were copied on it and I don't recall you being copied on the Orders form the Common Pleas Court previously. I have a couple questions: 1. Has American Equity been copied on other documents from the Court of Common Pleas? (I don't see any at firsl glance). h *� �' 5'���f� . F�� 4� 8rv ��� • e . 2. As lhe US District Court informed me, the Interpleader is a 2 stage process. How can the U.S. District Court decide the first part and the Court of Common Pleas decide the second? I don't see how The Court of Common Pleas could have any of the documents or information which have been transmitted so far in lhe Districl Court. This is wrong somehow but I don't know what it is I should do about it, but I guess I'll figure out something (and embarrass myself al the same lime probably). I'm pretty sure you can answer my first queslion, I don't think the second is legal advice either - your call. Robbie Frvm: ]nFanna Naoura To: ]y5pp_5p3k Sub]ec[: Howard Da[e: Thurs�ay,April 02,2015 23925 PM Good akernoon. I just looked through the entire file and did not find an Order stating that it was now being handled by the Orphans Court for decision. If you do located tha[ Order, please send it over to me. Have a grea[weekend. lohanna Kapura, Paralegal 4 ..,, y ��,v'� � . 4''�w€� �^ '4"z . L � #. e 4� tiSTATE OF GGORGE W. HOWARD ) iN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Deceased ) CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ) ) N0. 21-13-1143 ) ) ORPHANS' COURTDIVISION AMERICAN EOUITY'S PETTT[ON FOR A RULE TO SERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE American Equity Investment LiCe Insurance Company ("American Equity") cespect£ully petitions this Honorable Court to issue a Rule to Serve the Interest of Justice, pursuant to Local RuLe 206.1(a). At a hearing scheduled foc May 8, 2015, this Couri may be asked to consider issues Ihat are before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in a pending interpleader actioa To avoid conRicts, and to permit the issues which are properly before the federal court to be decided by that court, Ame�ican Equity is filing this Petition and asking this Court, at a�d after the May 8, 2015 heazing to limit its consideration of issues [hat involve American EquiTy. In support of this Petitioq American Equity avers as follows: 1. Decedent Geoige W. Howazd executed the following documents regarding his Estate and certain Annuiry Co�tracts which he made with American Equity: a. On or about September 17, 2004, a change of beneficiary foim rega�ding American Equiry Annuity Contract No. 179442 (the "2004 Form"), which named Robert Howazd as Decede�t's contingent beoeficiary for that Annoity Contract b. On or about December 28, 2007, a change of beneficiary form regarding American Equiry Annuity Conhact No. 180110 (the "2007 Form"), which named Robert and Dennis Howa�d as DecedenYs contingent beneficiaries foi that Armuity Co�tract; c. On Novembei 24, 2009, a Last Will and Testament (the "2009 WiIP') which benefitted his sons, Robert Howard and Dennis Howazd; 1 ;a �r R � r d. On April 24, 2012, a subsequent Last Will and Testament (the "2012 Wi1P') which benefitted his nephew-in-]aw, Robert Surfield; and e. On April 23, 2013, a Beneficiary Claim Form (the "2013 Claim Form") which stated that in the event of his death, the Death Proceeds associated with American Equity Annuity Contrac[Nos. 179442 and 1801 t 0 should be paid [o Aobert Surfield. 2. Decedent dicd testate on October I5, 2013. 3. On October 28, 2013, Robert Howard commenced this action by filing an info�mal Caveat to the 2012 Wil] and alleging that the 2009 Will was Decede�Ps true WiLI. 4. The above-captioned action thus imolves a dispute between Roberi Surfield, and RobeR Howard (together with his brother Dennis Howard), regardiog whether the 2012 Will should be probated as Decede�Ps true Last Will and Testament. 5. On January 7, 2015, American Equity filed a Complaint for Interpleader in the United States District Cour[ for the Middle Disttict of Pennsylvania at Case No. 1:15-cv-00043- YK-KM (the `9nterpleader Actiod'), asking that coun to resolve a dispute among the Howard brothers and Roben Surfield with respect to whether the Death Proceeds foi Annuity Coutract Nos. 179442 and 180110 should be distributed: i)to Robert Surfield,pucsuant to the 2013 Claim Form; or ii) to Robert and Dennis Howazd, pursuant m the 2004 and 2007 Forms. See Case No. 1:15-cv-00043-YK-KM at ECF No. 1 (Interpleader Complaint) at¶¶ 19, 24, 25, 30; ECF Nos. 1- 5 and I-6 (the 2004 and 2007 Fonns); and ECF No. 1-7 (the 2013 Claim Form). 6. On February 9, 2015, this Court issued an Order which s[ated that: A hea�ing to decide Ihe objections by Robert Howard aud Dennis Howard [o the Probate of the [2012] Will of George W. Howard and to the American AnnuiTy Beneficiary shall be held on Friday, May 8, 2015, at ]0:00 am in Courtroom No. 2 of the Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. 2 7. On Mazch 4, 2015, the federal court issued an Order in the Interpleader Action which direcced American 8quity to pay funds into that court and to move for summazy judgment. 8. On Mazch 26, 2015, Ameriean Equity paid $79,55820 to the fedeial court in the Interpleader Action and moved that court to, inter aliu: i) discharge American EquiTy from any liability with respect to [he Death Proceeds for Annuity ConUact Nos. 179442 and 180110; and ii) enjoin Robert and Dennis Howacd, and Robert Su�field, from bringing their elaims [o those Death Proceeds in any other forum, including this Court. 9. There is a potentia] confliet between this Court's decisions in this action, and the federal court's decision in the Interpleader Action. Speeifically, if this Cour[ were to decide, followiug i[s May 8, 2015 heazi�g, tha[ a par[ic�laz party is entitled to the Dea[h Proceeds foc A�nuity Contcact Nos. 179442 and 180110, that decision eould conflict with the federal court's decision in the Interpleader Action. It eould also expose American Equiry to doublejeopardy, in that Amecican Fquity migh[ be required by this CouR to pay funds to a particular par[y, when American Equity has already paid that same sum to the federal court in the Interpleader Ac6on. 10. It is well established that, in eases which involve a court's cont�ol of assets oc othe� pioperty, the coutt which first takes control of the contested asset or property has jurisdiction[o whieh the second court must yield: 7'o avoid unseemly and disaslrous conflicts in the adminis[ration of our dual judicial system ... the principle, applicable to both federal and state courls, is established [hat the court first assuming jurisdiction over the property may maintain and exercise[hat jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other. Penn Generad Casualry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 294 U.S. 189, 195 (]935).� � The rule applies lo "suits [which] ace in rem or q�asi in rem, requiring Ihat the coutl or i[s officer have possession or control of the property which is[he subject of Ihe suit in order[o proceed with the cause and m p;ant the relief so�ght" 294 U.S.at 195. The federal court In[erpleade�Action at issue here isj�s[such a sui[. The separate bu[ relaeed rule, [hat intetpleader actions are nm "quasi-imrem actions for purposes oj personal jurisdie(ion," is not ro the wntrary. Wilson v. Can. Life Assur. Co., No. 4:08-CV-1258, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16714, at'*33-34 n.l l (M.D. Pa. Mar. 3,2009) (emphasis added)(citing K Y Life Ins. Co. v. Dunlevy,241 3 11. Because the federal court has taken control over Ihe Death Proceeds associated with Amecican Equity Annuity Contract Nos. 179442 arid 180110, Penn General requi�es this CouR to defer to the federal couR regazding the disposition of those funds. 12. Moceover, this Orphans' C�ourt action is a will contesy not a dispute over the Annuiry Contracts. Neither Robert Howard nor Roberi Surfield has asked this Court to detenni�e the proper be�eficiary of the Death Proceeds associated with American Equiry Annuity Contract Nos. 179442 and 180110. The fact that America� Equity was mentioued for the ficst time in this case sua sponte, in ihis Court's February 9, 2015 Order, suggests [hal lhis Court should defer to the federal court's determination of the proper beneficiary of American Equity Annuity Contract Nos. 179442 and I S011 0. 13. For all of these reasons, this Court should limit its consideration of issues that involve American Equiry, so that the issues which are properly beFo�e the federal court in the Interpleader Action may be decided by thxt couri. 1b do this, this Court should grant the attached proposed drafr Order at Paragraph 1. 14. The paRies to this will contest — Robert Surfield and Robert Howard — disagree over whether this Court should address the limited question of whether Decedent George W. Howazd had eapacity to execute the 2013 Claim Form. If this CouR wishes to address that question, it should grant the attached proposed draft Order at Pazagraph 2. If this Court prefers to leave tha[ issue for resolution by the federal couri, then it should slrike or modify Pazagraph 2 of the attached proposed drafr Order. U.S. 518, 521 (1916)(stating that Mrs. Dunlevy's s�it was nol barred by a related interpleader action which named her as a claimant, because she had not bun served with, or appeered iq that action, and the i�teryleadee court's mere control of funds did not give [hat court personal jurisdic[ion over her claims [o Ihose funds)). The Howard brothers and Surfield have received or waived service and appeared in the Interpleader Actioq so the question of whether the Interpleader Action would creare personal jurisdiction over Ihem is not a[issue here. 4 a. Robert Surfield co�tends Ihat this Court may address whether Decedent had capacity ro execute the 2013 Claim Form, as that question is similar to the question of whethec Decedent had capacity to execute the 2012 Will, and wiLL be decided based on similar evidence, such that judicial economy will be promoted if this Couri takes testimony arid evide�ce on both ques[ions. Moreover, RobeR Surfield contends that even if this Court determines that Decedent had capaciTy ro execute the 2013 Claim Form, Robert Howard will still be able to challenge that Claim Form in federal court, foc reasons he set forth in a Motion in the Interpleader Action. See Case No. L I S-cv-00043-YK-KM at ECF Nos. 10, t 1. Accordingly, Robert Surfield consents to both¶ 1 and!;2 of the a[tached drafr Order. b. Robert Howard eontends [hat this CouR should not decide whether Decede�[ had capaeity to execute the 2013 Claim Form, for the reasons set forth in his Motion to Reconsider Couri Ocde�, whieh he filed on February 24, 2015. Thus, while Robert Howard consents to¶ 1 of the attached drafr Order, he opposes¶ 2 of the attached diafr Order. c. American Equity takes no posi[ion on whether this Court can or should decide the limited quescion of whether Decedent had capacity to execute the 2013 Claim Form. American Equity simply seeks to ensure that this Court does not take any additio�al action, over and above any decision on thal limited questio�, thet could interfere with the federal cooR's disposition of the I�terpleade� Action o� place American Equity in double jeopazdy. Thus, Ameriean Fquity petitions the Court to entex ¶ 1 of the attached drafr Order, but it takes no position as to whether the Court should e�ter, strike, or modify¶2 of the attached drafr Order. 15. Pursuant ro Local Rule 208.2(d), American Eqairy states that it provided a copy of this Petition fo� a Rule to Serve the Interest of Jus[ice to Robert Howa�d and Robert Su�field.� ' American Equity did m[ provide a copy to Dennis Howard, because he has s[a[ed that he is allowing his brolher Robert Howerd ro prosecu[e wha[ever claims he has on his behalC See Interpleader Action at Case 1:15-cv-00043-YK-KM,ECF No. 20-I (Declaratiou of Dennis L3oward),at¶6. S Robert Surfield expressed his conseut to Amecican Equity's Petition for a Rule to Serve the Interest of Justice and to Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached proposed draft Ordec Robert Howazd expressed his co�sent to American Equity's Petition for a Rule to Serve the Interest of Justice and to Paragraph 1, but not Paragraph 2, of the attached proposed draft Order. WHEREFORE, American Equity respectfully prays that this Honorable Court might g�ant [his Petition fo�a Rule to Serve the Interest of Justice by entering the Order being piovidcd hecewith pursua�t to Local Rule 2083(a)(3). Dated: April 17, 2015 Respectfully submitted, Picad' Sneath, Miller, &Norton,P.C. n Hen Sneath (PA405 ) Jaso pak(PA89077) 444 Liberty Avenue, Suite I]OS Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (4l2) 288-4000 Counsel far Amerrcan Equity 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i hereby certify that on Apri] ll, 2015, a Vue and correct copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR A RULE TO SERVE 'IHE INTEREST OF JUSTICE was served upo� al] parties of�ecord, or Cheir counsel, via First-Class Uuitcd States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Mr. Dennis Howazd RobeR J. Howard 6016 Snowdens Run Road 942 Mountain Meadow Road Eldersburg, MD 21784 Libby, MT 59923 Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esqaire Irwin& McKnight, P.C. 60 West Pomfret Street Cazlisle, PA 17013-3222 (Counse7 for Rober7 Surfield) PICADIO SNEATH MILLER &NORTON l.0 Jason . p k 7 ESTATE OF GEORGE W. HOWARD ) IN THE COURT OF WMMON PLEAS Deceased ) CUMBERLAND COIJNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ) ) N0. 21-13-1143 ) ) ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ORDER OF COURT NOW, to-wit, on this day of , 2015, afrer consideratiou of[he within Petition for a Rule to Serve the Intecest of Justice, as 51ed by American Eqaity Investment I.ife Iusurance Company, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that: 1. This Cour[ will not make any Order that determines the proper beneficiary of Americau Equiry Annuity Contrac[ Nos. 179442 and 180]10 or that directs American Equity to take any action with respect to those AnnuiTy Contracts; and 2. This Court will take testimony regarding whether Decedent George W. Howard had capaciry to execute the 2013 Claim Form. BY THE COURT: