Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-03 (2) C/ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA IN RE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ........r ..)'. c::i '" Deceased. NO. 21-86-398 ~.;;. AMENDED AND RESTATED EXCEPTIONS OF BARBARA McK. tvWMMA AND LISA M. MORGAN TO ADJUDICATION OF FEBRUARY 23'?'2000 -0 ,:1i Barbara McK. Mumma ("Mrs. Mumma") and Lisa M. Morgan ("Mw. Morgan"), executrices of the estate and trustees under the will of Robert M. Mumma, deceased ("Mr. Mumma, Sr."), in order to permit them to close Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s estate and properly administer the trusts established under his will, hereby amend and restate their exceptions to this Court's Order dated February 23,2000, as follows: 1. Mr. Mumma, Sr. died testate on April 12, 1986. His will appointed Mrs. Mumma, decedent's widow, and Mrs. Morgan, one of his daughters, as executrices thereof and as trustees of two trusts created thereunder. The presumptive remaindermen of the trusts were Mr. Mumma Sr.'s children, including Robert M. Mumma, II ("Mr. Mumma, II"), ifthey survive Mrs. Mumma. 2. On January 6,1987, Mr. Mumma, II executed an irrevocable disclaimer of his interest under the will (the "Disclaimer") in which he "absolutely, irrevocably and unqualifiedly" revoked and disclaimed all his rights in and to the principal ofthe trusts. Mr. Mumma, II's Disclaimer had the effect of substituting his three children as remaindermen of his share of the trusts in his place. Two of Mr. Mumma, II's three children are minors. 3. On June 20,1989, Mr. Mumma, II petitioned to revoke his Disclaimer. The petition was opposed by Robert M. Frey, Esquire as guardian ad litem on behalf ofMr. Mumma, II's minor children. On November 17, 1989, President Judge Sheely granted Mr. Mumma, II's petition, and on March 21,1991, he entered an Opinion and Decree Nisi directing that Mr. Mumma, II be permitted to revoke his Disclaimer. 4. On July 21, 1993, Judge Sheely denied Mr. Frey's exceptions to the rulings permitting Mr. Mumma, II to revoke his Disclaimer. Mr. Frey appealed. The Superior Court dismissed Mr. Frey's appeal from the denial of his exceptions on the ground that "Mr. Frey lacks standing to appeal the decision to revoke [Mr. Mumma, II] 's disclaimer. . . ." because "the attempt to represent the minor children with respect to the revocation of [Mr. Mumma, IITs disclaimer is beyond the scope ofMr. Frey's limited appointment" as guardian. In re Estate of Robert M Mumma, Mem. Op., at 2 (Pa. Super. July 18, 1994) (emphasis supplied). 5. In response to Mr. Mumma, II's December 22, 1998 petition for an accounting for Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s estate, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan asked the Court to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent Mr. Mumma, II's minor children with respect to a determination of the validity ofthe revocation of his Disclaimer. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan expressed no objection to filing an accounting. In fact, they filed second and interim and third and interim accounts for the estate and the trusts in May and June 2000. 6. On February 23, 2000, this Court issued an Order and Opinion granting Mr. Mumma, II's petition for a final accounting and denying Mrs. Mumma's and Mrs. Morgan's motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for Mr. Mumma, II's minor children. A true and correct copy of the February 23,2000 Order and Opinion is attached as Exhibit A. 2 7. On March 3, 2000, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan filed exceptions to the Order of this Court dated February 23,2000. A true and correct copy ofthe exceptions is attached as Exhibit B. 8. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan also filed a notice of appeal in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in order to preserve all rights on appeal and avoid waiver of any rights to appeal with respect to the same issues and matters complained of in their exceptions.1 9. Mr. Mumma, II filed an answer to exceptions, with new matter, on April 17, 2000, and Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan responded with a reply to new matter on May 8, 2000. True and correct copies ofthese documents are attached as Exhibits C and D. 10. This Court has not ruled on the exceptions. 11. The Superior Court subsequently quashed Mrs. Mumma's and Mrs. Morgan's appeal. In an Order dated January 3,2001, the Superior Court held that this Court's February 23, 2000 Order "was not final because it did not dispose of all claims and of all parties." The Superior Court observed that "further litigation is contemplated, as evidenced by [Mrs. Mumma's and Mrs. Morgan's] filing of exceptions." In re Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Mem. Op., at 4 (Pa. Super. January 3,2001). A true and correct copy ofthe Superior Court's Memorandum is attached as Exhibit E. 12. The Superior Court's ruling, in essence, referred the matter back to this Court for resolution ofthe pending exceptions. 1 Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan filed exceptions and a notice of appeal due to a concern regarding whether the filing of exceptions under former Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rule 7.1 ("[ e]xceptions shall be filed at such place and time, shall be in such form, copies thereof served and disposition made thereof as local rules shan prescribe") tolled the running of the time for an appeal from the decision to which exceptions were filed, or whether an appeal could be taken without exceptions fIrst having been filed. Local Orphans' Court Rules 7.1-1, 7.1-2 and 7.1-3 do not speak to these issues. A 2000 amendment to the state rule clarifIed that "[i]f exceptions are filed, no appeal shall be filed until the disposition of exceptions. . . . Failure to file (continued). 3 13. As a consequence of the foregoing decisions, no person with standing on behalf ofMr. Mumma, II's minor children (who are beneficiaries of the estate if the revocation is held not valid) has been able to question the validity of Mr. Mumma, II's revocation of his Disclaimer. 14. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan, as fiduciaries, wish to proceed with the closing ofMr. Mumma, Sr.'s estate, and to properly account with respect to their activities with respect to it. In order to do so, they must know who are the proper persons to whom they must account and who, ultimately, will be the beneficiaries of the estate and of the trusts. 15. If Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan improperly account to persons who are not beneficiaries under Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s will, or ifthey distribute property to or enter into arrangements with such persons, they may face a risk of liability to individuals properly interested in the estate and the trusts. 16. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan, as fiduciaries, seek to ensure that the issue of the validity ofMr. Mumma, II's revocation of his Disclaimer is fully litigated on behalf of Mr. Mumma, II's minor children. 17. The need for a final determination, following proceedings by parties with standing to raise the issue, is underscored by Mr. Mumma, II's latest filing in this matter. On or about May 14, 2003, Mr. Mumma, II filed a petition for removal of Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan as executrices and trustees.1 . exceptions shall not result in waiver if the grounds for appeal are otherwise properly preserved." Pa.a.C.R. 7.1(a). By Order of the Court dated May 15,2003, a citation was entered upon Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan to show cause why Mr. Mumma, II's petition for removal should not be granted within sixty (60) days of service. 4 18. Adjudication ofMr. Mumma, II's alleged grievances regarding the administration of the estate and the trusts promises to be protracted. Since his father's death, Mr. Mumma, II has repeatedly challenged various actions taken by Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan. 19. In addition, he has repeatedly attempted to have Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan removed as or limited in their capacities as executrices and trustees. Mr. Mumma, II first petitioned to remove Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan in January 1989. He has since sought appointment of a temporary fiduciary, and also has attempted on two occasions to enjoin significant transactions into which Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan sought to enter on behalf of the estate and the trusts. None ofMr. Mumma, II's requests in this regard have been granted. See, e.g., In re Estate of Mumma, No. 21-86-398, Opinion and Order at 6-7 (O.C. Cumbo Nov. 5, 1992) ("it is evident that if anyone is acting in detrimental fashion in regard to the estate, it is [Mr. Mumma, II]"). 20. Before Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan - and Mr. Mumma, Sr.'s estate- should be required to incur the time and expense necessary to respond to Mr. Mumma, II's petition, the question whether Mr. Mumma, II has standing even to file a petition for removal should be resolved with finality by the appointment of a guardian ad litem for Mr. Mumma, II's minor children with specific power to litigate on their behalf the question of the validity of the revocation. WHEREFORE, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan request that the Court amend its order of February 23,2000 and appoint a guardian ad litem for Mr. Mumma, II's minor children. Alternatively, Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan request that this Court enter an order, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 342, that the February 23,2000 Order "shall 5 constitute a final order upon a determination of finality by [this Court]" to permit an appeal and a final adjudication of this issue. ~ ~ Ivo V. Otto, III MARTS ON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717.243.3341 Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr. Brady L. Green MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 170 I Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 215-963-5079 Attorneys for Barbara McK. Mumma Lisa M. Morgan 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 28th day of July, 2003, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended and Restated Exceptions of Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan to Adiudication of February 23.2000, was served upon the party named below by depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: James J. West, Esquire WEST LONG, LLC 105 North Front Street Suite 205 Harrisburg,PA 17101 ~~~~~~~ Corrine L. Myers Paralegal 7 1 " . . \ c.. . .. ., ,. . : '\ "..-.. .' '\\ It: ,. . . - . , IN RE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND : COUN.TY, PENNSYLVANIA : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION : NO. 21-86-398 Deceased. IN RE: PETITION OF ROBERT M. MUMMA" FOR ACCOUNTI~ Before HOFFER.P.J. ,1,\%~ ~,\\\.':\'I ~ ORDER OF COURT AND NOW,f:Jr 1- ~, 2000, upon consideration of the briefs submitted by both parties, the facts of record, and the applicable law, Petitioner Robert M. Mumma II's petition for an accounting of the Estate and Trusts of Robert M. Mumma, Sr, is hereby granted. An accounting shall be filed within ninety days of this order. The motion of Respondents Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa. M. Morgan for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor children of petitioner is denied. By the Court, A TRUE COpy FROM RECORD In Testimony wherot. I hereunto set my hand and the seal of said Court at Carlisle, PA This ';;3~dayof t.: ;20~ P.J. rohans Court ~;.tD':;(~ ~\\~' Robert M. Mumma II, Petitioner SoxE Bowmansdale. PA 17008 6880 S.E. Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996 Pro se Ivo V. Otto III 10 East High Street Carlisle. PA 17013 Attorney for Respondents ".~,\,' ":,,,""'i,. ~i;~V;': Joseph A. O'Connor. Jr. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Attorneys for Respondents (:7~ t""".,J .'.v;.:,..t IN RE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND : COU~TY, PENNSYLVANIA : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION Deceased. : NO. 21-86-398 IN RE: PETITION OF ROBERT M. MUMMA" FOR ACCOUNTING Before HOFFER. P.J. OPINION ~~~i'13 ,,,,.,,,\. .l&;.\l In this opinion, we address Robert M. Mumma II's request for an accounting. On January 6, 1999, Robert M. Mumma II (hereinafter "petitioner") petitioned this court for an accounting of the estate of his father, Robert M. Mumma Sr. (hereinafter "decedenr), who died testate on April 12, 1986. (Respondents' Brief at 1). The decedent's will and the codicil thereto were probated on June 5, 1986. (Respondents' Brief at 1). The will appoints Mrs. Barbara McK. Mumma, decedenfs widow, and Lisa M. Morgan (hereinafter "respondents") as executrices thereof and as trustees of a Marital Trust and a Residuary Trust created thereunder ("the Trusts"). (Respondents' Brief at 1). Under the will, the presumptive remaindermen of the Trusts, if they survive Mrs. Mumma, are the decedent's children: petitioner Robert M. Mumma II, Linda M. Mumma, Barbara M. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan. (Respondents' Brief at 1). The decedent bequeathed to his testamentary trustees an amount equal to fifty percent of his total gross estate to be held in trust exclusively for the benefit of his wife during her lifetime, the principal to be distributed to the decedent's children upon her death. (The will, Article 7). In addition. the decedent gave his residuary estate to his testamentary trustees to be held in trust exclusively for the benefit of his wife during her lifetime, the principal to be paid to the decedent's children upon her death. (The will. Article B). The respondents filed interim accounts of their acts and transactions 'f;~~~::, \"~\'~:\';,,.\~~,{ '-1'0,,",1' as executrices and as trustees on August 9, 1991. (Respondents' Brief at 4). There have been no further accountings since that time. Petitioner disclaimed his interest under the will in 1987. (Respondents' Brief. Ex. A). In 1989, this court granted petitioner's motion - - to revoke his disclaimer. (Respondents' Brief, Ex. D). Mr. Frey, who was appointed guardian ad litem for the minor persons interested in the Estate in 1988, appealed the revocation of the disclaimer. (Respondents' Brief, Ex. E). The Superior Court ruled that Mr. Frey's representation of the estate with respect to the revocation of the disclaimer was beyond the scope of his limited appointment and therefore he lacked standing to appeal. In re Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Mem. Op.. at 2 (Pa.Super. July 18, 1994). Petitioner now asks for a complete accounting of the Estate, including an accounting of the Trusts in whJch petitioner claims an interest. The respondents claim they cannot provide an accounting to petitioner because he does not have standing, and the issue of the revocation of petitioner's disclaimer has not been fully litigated. Further, respondents ask this court to appoint a guardian ad litem for petitioner's minor children. We will address the claims of both parties in turn. Discussion ~~ Petitioner seeks a final accounting of the decedent's Estate pursuant to section 3501.1 of the Decedents, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code.' Respondents do not dispute that they must account to those interested in the Estate and Trusts. (Respondents' Brief at 5). However, respondents assert that petitioner does not have an interest in the Estate or Trusts giving him standing to request an accounting. Respondents question whether petitioner's disc/aimer has been properly revoked. In their brief, respondents state, "if the disclaimer is still valid, Mr. Mumma II, has absolutely no interest in the Estate or the Trusts and would be an improper party to any accounting proceeding." Respondents' Brief at 6. I Six months from the first complete advertisement of the original grant of letters, the personal ,pnrP<pnt"rive maY be cited to file the accoWlt bv any pari)' in interest. 20 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 3501.1. i~~) (@l1~ Respondents contend that since the issue of the revocation of petitioner's disclaimer has not been fully appealed, petitioner has no interest in the Estate. We disagree. This court revoked petitioner's disclaimer in 1989. Although Robert Frey, limited guardian of the minor children of the Estate, appealed the decision, the Superior Court ruled that Mr. Frey did not have standing to appeal the issue and that such an appeal exceeded the scope of his representation. In re Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Mem. Op., at 2 (Pa.Super. July 18, 1994). Respondents' challenge to the validity of petitioner's disclaimer is a collateral attack on the prior judgment of this court revoking the disclaimer. It is a rule of law of general application that a judgment properly entered is not subject to collateral attack. See Mangold v. Neuman, 371 Pa. 496, 500,91 A.2d 904, 906, (1952). Therefore, respondents may not collaterally attack the prior judgment revoking petitioner's disclaimer. Until adjudicated otherwise, our decision revoking petitioner's disclaimer restores his interest in the Estate. As it has been determined that petitioner is a party in interest, he may petition the court to require the trustee to file an account of the management of the trust estate. See Rock v. Pyle, - Pa.Super. -, 720 A.2d 137, 142 (1998), In re Wheeler's Estate, 287 Pa. 416,135 A. 252 (1926). The Decedents, Estates and Fiduciaries Code provides that a ~~ ~fEij court may order a trustee to file an account upon the petition of a beneficiary of the trust. 20 Pa.C.S.A. S 71~1. Although the respondents filed an interim accounting in August of 1991, no evidence of additional accountings has been presented. Respondents, as fiduciaries entrusted with the administration of an estate, have a duty to exercise the utmost faimess in dealing with beneficiaries. See Estate of Boslco, 488 Pa. 274, 278, 412 A2d 50S, 507 (1980). Respondents are therefore direded to file an accounting of the Estate and Trusts. Respondents raise the second issue of whether the court should tf.~~~f~\ ~;;# appoint a guardian for the minor children of petitioner. Respondents request that the court appoint a guardian for petitioner's minor children in order to satisfy their possible interests in the event that petitioner's disclaimer is revoked. Rule 12.4 of the Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rules states: (a) On petition of the accountant or any party in interest, or upon its own motion, the court may appoint (1) a guardian ad litem to represent a minor or an incompetent not represented by a guardian or (2) a trustee ad litem to represent an absentee, a presumed decedent, or unbom or unascertained persons not already represented by a fiduciary, unless the court considers that the interests of such persons are adequately represented. Pa.O.C.R. 12.4. As petitioner's children currently do not have any interest under the Trusts, there is no reason to appoint a guardian for the minor children of petitioner. Further, respondents have failed to show that the children's interests are not adequately represented. Therefore, respondents' motion for the appointment of.a guardian for petitioner's children is denied. ~7'.t~~.,\" r.~s\\\,\\,\;;"\\~,\" '\'~'\\"" I I IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, Deceased _' IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 21-86-398 EXnr.PTJONS TO ADJUDICATION TO THE HONORABLE. TI:IE 1UDGES OF TI:IE SAID COURT: AND NOW, this '3'"" day of March, 2000, pUISUllllt to Pa. O. C. Rule 7.1 and C.C.O.C. Rules 7.1-1 and 7.1-2, the Exceplllnts,Barbara McK. Mumma("Mrs. Mumma'') and LisaM. Morgan ("Mrs. Morgan"). as execu1rices of the Estate and trustees under the will of Robert M. Ml1ID11I8, deceased , ("Mr. MUIJUDlI, Sr.''), except as follows to the adjudication in the Order and Opinion oftbis Court, George E. Hoffer, P.J., dated Febtu!uy 23, 2000: I. The Honorable Judge erred in denying Mn. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan's petition for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for Robert M. Mumma, n ("Mr. MUIlUJ1lI, U'')'s children, all of whom are minors. 2. There is no dispute, and President Judge Sheely previously ruled, that Mr. Mllmm". n filed a disclaimer ofhis interests under Mr. MIIIIIJIlll, Sr.'s will in mvor of his minor children. 3. In order to be effective for fi:deral tax purposes, that disclaimer was required to be irrevocable. 4. Nonetheless, Mr. MIIIIIJIlll, n sought, and President Judge Sheely granted, permission to revoke his disclaimer. 5. Mr. Mumma, II's request to revoke his disclaimer was contested only by Robert M. Frey, Esquire, purporting to act as guardian ad litem for Mr. Mumma, n's minor children. 6. The Superior Court held that Mr. Frey lacked standing to litigate the issue of the validity of the reyocatiQn of the disclaimer. 7. As a consequence, the issue of the validity of the revocation has never been litigated on behalf of Mr. Mumma, II's minor children by anyone having standing to do so. 8. The issue whether Mr. Mumma, II effectively revoked his disclaimer bears directly, and dispositively, upon the identity' of those persons to whom Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan must account and who are beneficiaries under the will of Mr. Mumma, Sr. 9. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan believe that they have a fiduciary duty to make sure that the issue of the validity of the revocation, due to its centrality to the proper administration of RobertM. Mumma's estate and the trusts established under his will, has been fully litigated by persons having standing to do so. 10. There is no alternative means by which the minor children's arguments can be heard and their rights protected, or by which the proper beneficiaries might be identified. II. Mrs. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan do not except to the portion of the February 23, 2000 opinion and order directing them to file accountings, except to the extent that they are ordered to account to Mr. Mumma, II prior to a final determination of his entitlement to receive an accounting and his status as a beneficiary under his father's will. Respectfully submitted, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO By,~~ 1.0. No. 27763 Mark A. Denlinger, Esquire J.D. No. 83794 " Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3093 (717)243-3341 Attorneys for Exceptants Date: March 0 ' 20pO CER~CATE OF SERVICE I, Jacqueline A. Decker, an authorized agent ofMartson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Exceptions to Adjudicapon was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Mr. Robert M. Mumma n BOKE Bowmansdale, PA 17008 MARTSONDEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO ~hL,.12!;)AJ line A. Declcer T t High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: March J ,2000 I 01/08/2001 11:36 7172431850 MDWO PAGE 02/06 J. A42011/00 IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED APPEAL OF: LISA M. MORGAN AND BARBARA McK. MUMMA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA NO. 770 MDA 2000 Appeal from the Order Entered February 23, 2000, In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Orphan's Court Division at No. 21-86-398. BEFORE: POPOVICH, FORD ElliOTT and BROSKY, JJ. MEMORANDUM: F , L'S '0 JAN 3 2001 This appeal arises from the February 23, 2000 Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, which granted Robert M. Mumma, II's petition for accounting of the Estate and Trusts of Robert M. Mumma, Sr. and denied Barbara McK. Mumma's and Lisa M. Morgan's motion for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor beneficiaries. For the following reasons, we quash the appeal. Robert M. Mumma, Sr. ("decedent") died testate on April 12, 1986. His will and subsequent codicil were probated on June 5, 1986. The will appointed Barbara McK. Mumma, decedent's widow, and Usa M. Morgan, decedent's. daughter, (collectively "Appellants") as Executrices of the estate and as trustees of a Marital Trust and a Residuary Trust. The will named the _~-.: ~f ' .",~. ~cedent's children, Robert M. Mumma, n. ("APPellee"), Linda M. Mumma," Barbi!ira M. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan, as the presumptive remaindermen of the Trusts if they survive Barbara McK. Mumma. -- ".. ~!/~~/~~~~ !!:~b (~/"'~~!tIi:ltJ MUWU PIllGE 03/06 . J. A42011/00 On January 6, 1987, Appellee executed a disclaimer of his Interest under the will. On January 12, 1987, the disclaimer was filed In the Office of the Register of Wills. Appellants then sought appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the minor beneficiaries, Appellee's minor children, who became presumptive remaindermen via his disclaimer. Subsequently, the trial court appointed a guardian ad litem with authorization to represent Appellee's minor children In all matters relating to the sale of decedent's businesses and any proceedings relating thereto. On June 20, 1989, Appellee petitioned the trial court to revoke hls disclaimer.' On November 17, 1989, the trial court granted Appellee's petition, and on March 21, 1991, the trial court entered a decree nisI directing that Appellee be permitted to revoke his disclaimer. The guardian filed exceptions on April 2, 1991, which the trial court denied. The guardian appealed. We dismissed the guardian's appeal finding that he lacked standing to appeal the trial court's decision permitting Appellee to revoke his disclaimer In that the guardian ad litem was not the proper party to represent the minor children in opposing their father. See In re Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, 561 HBG 1993, 7/18/94 (Unpublished Memorandum). _= ~9n December 2~~. 1998, Appellee.. petitlon~ for an immediate, final .~ ' ",.;.0... accounting for the Estate. On January 12, 1999, the trial court ordered". Appellants to show cause why an accounting should not be ordered. On - 2- ..-.- .....,.~....... J. A42011/00 February 26, 1999, Appellants filed an answer and new matter. Appellee . , filed his answer, and then Appellants filed corresponding memorandums! of , law. On February 23, 2000, the trial court issued an order and opinion granting Appellee's petition for a final accounting and denying Appellarilts' i motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem for Appellee's minor chlldl-en I to' oppose their father. The court also directed Appellants to file acco~nts with the court within ninety days. ,. i On March 24, 2000, Appellants filed notice of appeal to this court.11 I Appellants present the following Issues on appeal: I I I i I I I I ! : 1. Whether Appellants can fulfill their fiduciary duties without a determination of the persons Interested under the will to whom they must account. 2. Whether a guardian ad litem must be appointed because the rlghts and interests of minor beneficiaries under the will may be impacted by Appellee's revocation of his disclaimer. Appellants' Brief, at 9 & 13. We have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all appeals from final orders of the courts of common pleas. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 742. In a decedent's estate, the confirmation of the final account of the personal representative represents the final order subject to exceptions being filed and disposed of _~'- ':":"1 ...... -JII' 1 On March 3, 2000, Appellants filed exceptions to the February 23rd order and opinion. At the time of the filing of the appeal, the trial court had not ruled on the exceptions. . - 3- __. ......u ____ .. ........................w .......wu I-'AGE 8S/El6 J. A42011/00 by the court. See 20 Pa.C.S.A. ~ 3514. However, in the present case, Appellants do not appeal from an order that confirms the final account. Additionally, an order Is not finat unless. It disposes of all claims and of all parties. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(l). It is well-settled that orders that are not final are generally not appealable. See In re Manley, 451 A.2d 557, 559 CPa. Super. 1982). Here the order is interlocutory because the estate has not had a final accounting, and further litigation is contemplated, as evidenced by Appellants' filing of exceptions. The :February 23rd order granted Appellant's petition for a final accounting and denied Appellants' motion for an appointment of a guardian ad litem. This order was not flnal because it did not dispose of all claims and of all parties. Pa.R.A.P. 342 provides for the appeal of an interlocutory order of distribution In a decedent's estate as follows: An appeal may be taken as of right from any order of distribution entered In an orphan's court division which is not final within the meaning of Rule 341 (final orders generally) If the lower court shall certify that the order is sufficiently deflnlte to determine the substantIal Issues between the parties. On this appeal, we lack (a) an order of distribution arid (b) a trial court certIfication. 0. In re Estate of Habaz/n, 679 A.2d 1293, 1295 (pa. Super. 1996) (quashed appeal pursuant to Rule 342 because order fixing ~rai~al value of reaLproperty was not an ord.er of distribution and not ... "'" ' -.. - 4- ,....."'~ l:lb/tl6 J. A42.011/00 certified by trial court}. Therefore, we find that the within. appeal is Interlocutory, taken without right, and must be quashed. Appeal quashed. Date: JAN - :3 2001 " - 5- -.. . . ,.fI!' . \ .' . } , , .,'. . IN RE:ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, Deceased IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA ORPHAN'S COURT DMSION NO. 21-86-398 ANSWER OF PETITIONER, ROBERT M. MUMMA, n, TO EXCEPTIONS TO ADJUDICATION AND NOW, comes Petitioner Robert M. Mumma, n, appearing tlro ~ 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 Febroary 23, 2000, at 5-6) clearly enunciates, Petitioner Mumma's minor children have no interest under the trusts and Exceptants 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. Mumma, 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 did not state that Robert M. Mumma, n filed a disclaimer of his interests under the will. Judge Sheely's Opinion stated as follows: Robert M. Mumma, II {petitioner}, one of Testator's four children, executed a disclaimer dated January 6,1987, which was filed in the office of the Register of Wills on January 12, 1987. (Opinion and Order of Court, November 17, 1989, at 1)( emphasis added} 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 ali!!, "I 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. ADMlTI'ED. 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 final 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 ~ 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. Exceptants' redundant arguments represent nothing more than a collateral attack upon a final judgment of this Court which is now the law of the case. 11. DENIED. The averments at paragraph 11 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 finaI 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 appeaJis 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 MA'ITER 12. On or about March 24, 2000, Exceptants filed a Notice of Appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. 13. This appeal was improvident while their Exceptions were pending 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. Mumma, II. Respectfully submitted, Robert M. Mumma, II appearing pro se BoxE Bowmansdale, P A 17008 (717) 766-1598 Dated: April 14, 2000 -4- . . IN RE:ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, Deceased IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 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, n, To Exceptions To Adjudication" on the following named individual in the matter indicated: Dated: April 17, 2000 First - Class Mail. Postal!:e Pret>aid lvo V. Otto, 1II, Esquire Martson, Deardorf, Williams & Otto Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 170 ~ 3 ~ffi~ J1:\FILIlS\DATAf'lLE\Gendm:.~y.l CraI8d: 0SlOlV0107:4I:MAM R.m.d: O.1lOlllNl 01:11:01 AM . . IN RE: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, . - Deceased IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DMSION NO. 21-86-398 EXCEPT ANTS REPLY TO NEW MAlTER AND NOW, this 8* day of May , 2000, the Exceptants, Barbara McKimmie Mumma and Lisa M Morgan, Executrices of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, file this Reply to the Answer and New Matter of Petitioner, Robert M. Mumma, IT, to Exceptions.to Adjudication, and state the following: 12. Admitted. 13. The averments of paragraph 13 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 14. The averments of paragraph 14 are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. IS. The averments of paragraph IS are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. Respectfully submitted, MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO r- \::~ <:t -,0... 15 ., ..t.1 r"\ Xi ~~ c- ". co .. t - "tJ ~ ~ .~0 ~J!:; ~, 0/' .': .D ~'~ ~ i~ a: a: au By#l~-% ~ I . No. 27763 Marie A Denlinger, Esquire I.D. No. 83794 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3093 (717) 243-3341 Additional counsel: Joseph A O'Connor, Jr., Esquire Marc 1. Sonnenfeld, Esquire Bmdy L. Green, Esquire MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 (215) 963-5212, 5572, 5079 Attomeys for Exceptanls Date: May 8, 2000 . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jacqueline A. Decker, an authorized agent of Marts on Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby ceJ1i1Y that a copy of the foregoing Reply to New Matter was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Mr. Robert M. Mumma n BoxE Bowmansdale, P A 17008 Mr. Robert M. Mumma n 6880 S.E. Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996 MARTSON DEARDORFF wn.LIAMS & ono Bv~~~'. 4J,-#~ e A. Decker Ten High Street Carlisle, PA 170 I3 (717) 243-3341 Dated: May 8, 2000