The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-18-15 IN RE: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ESTATE OF GEORGE W. HOWARD : CUMBERLAND COUNTV, R6NNSYLVk�A a DECEASED . � � � rt� a '� c' : NO.21•13-1143 ORPHANS'-,CQl1,R,T DE56 � `i . - �- — �-- . ; �� MOTION IN LIMINE � - � � ��' :� n COMES NOW,thi5 8`"day of August,2015,the petiti0ner, Robert 1 HOward and Dennis Howard �.�� ca m makes the following Motion in Limine,averring as follows: _r. �m o o � 1. Robert 1 Howard is proceeding Pro Se, Dennis Howard has released his interests in the matter and as such they will be handled by Robert 1 Howard.They are the Beneficiaries of the last Will and Tes[ament [hat George W. Howard execu[ed while still being in sound mind and under no influence other than his own.The Will was executed November 24,2009 by Stephen 1. Hogg, Esq.at George and Edna Howard's request. 2.The Estate of George w. Howard is presently being represented by Attomey Ivo V.Otto III, Esq.of Martson Law Office,Wrlisle, PA. 3. Robert Surfield is the sole beneficiary in the purported Will drafted by John Oszustowicz, Esq.on April 24,2012,which was offered for probate and is the subject of the issue before this Court. 4.lohn Oszustowicz(lohn O)was the personal Attorney of Robert Surfield's Fa[her-in-Law,Harvey MCCommon and hiswife Lois MCCommon. Harvey was the last remaining brother of Edna Howard (nee McCommon), George Howard's wife.The intent of the purported W ill was that the Estate of George Howard be inherited by his natural daughter through her marriage to his clien[s'Son-in-Law Robert Su�eld. George's Wife, Edna Howard's last Will was structured to subsequently give all her inheritance [o his Client Harvey McCommonJohn O also made himself Ezecu[or of both Wilis and Tmstee of any flnancial estate remaining afterthe deceased's Will is executed. He also handled all the Financial and monetary business during the last years of both Edna and George's lives by becoming the Attorney in Fact for their flnances(Financial Power of Atmrney).Through this structure there are no checks and balances as the Power Of Attorne�/s actions while the person is still alive cannot be verifed.The only verification of the Power 6f Attorney's actions would be by the exeator of the will following the person's death who in this case is also lohn 0. � 5. In addition to creating the purported Will and the responsibilities noted in item N4,lohn Oszus[owicz was also one of the lwo witnesses to its signing. Chris Rice Esq.was the other witness to the signing and has a business rela[ionship and friendship with lohn O.As an employee of Ivo V.Otto's Firm, Martson Law Offces,Attorney Rice received a check for 5100.00 made out to the firm for being a witness to the Will a[issue before the Court.There were plenty of respec[able medical personnel who ac[ually knew George Howard and were available to wi[ness his signature, however John O opted[o pay to bring a witness wi[h him.Attorney Rice was also representing Attorney John 0. as Executor of the Esta[e [hrough December 2013, before the senior firm partner Ivo V.Otto took over.Attorney Rice had no relationship with George W. Howard[o have knowledge of George's personaliry or mental capacity to make major f nancial decisions regarding his Es[ate or reverse his previous dedarations regarding its beneficiaries.Attomey Rice is not a Medical Professional such as many of the staff that took care of George on a daily basis that were undoubtedly available during the execution of this will and very easily could have been witnesses. 6.The Court in its Order barring Dennis and Robbie Howard from entering into evidence any verbal statements of George W. Howard,did not put into effect the Dead Man's Rule in this case as it may pertain to any other witnesses or their munsels' (Order of Court February 2,2015, attached as Exhibi[A, and again in Order of Court February 9,2015,attached as Exhibit B).The Court specifically issued evidence resVic[ions on Robbie and Dennis Howard as a penalty for not signing an agreement drew up 6y opposing Counsel,when the request was for a written offer and it was specifically requested the Court not be notifed until the offer had been reviewed and approved by the Petitioners(Exhibit C attached�.Although the Petitioners objec[to[his penalty,[hey believe it to be only fair and in the best interest of Justice to also impose the same restrictions on the o[her parties. 7.While the Pe[itioners realize they are bringing this issue to the Court,they would like to point out that originally all of the parties agreed [he probate of the Will would be passed up to[he Court for decision without a finding of the Registers of Wills.An informal meeting was held where a decision to Probate the W ill was somehow the result.While the ROW did utilize a stipulation to restrict probate,the ROW realized i[was unclear if the Will was correctly or legally accomplished.The Will being probated and petitioners having to appeal, unfairly puts the burden of proof on the Petitioners. It should be known that because the informal meeting was not a Formal Hearing on the Caveat, Petitioners were not aware or prepared to offer evidence to the ROW that the purported Will is not a61e to legally be probated.The purpose of the Caveat was m show[hat the document was invalid,and thus place the burden of proof on[he atrorney who drefted the document.The at[omey,John Oszustowia, not only draked the document, he witnessed the signature of the deceased on the document, named himself the Executor, the 7rustee of the Estate's finances, held the Power of Attorney for the deceased's Finances while alive, and draRed the Power of Attorney for medical documen[which replaced the deceased's son from that position.The circumstances and fac[that lohn O held and holds so many influential and powerful positions in this estate and has ties to the benefciary's family he named in[he purported Will is suspect and should require a higher level of scrutiny in the probate procedure. Will probate is pro forma for the ROW and every will can't be scrutinized, but the Caveat and grave concerns of the deceased family should have initiated a more s[ringent procedure and should not have been treated pro forma.The petitioners were not given the opportunity to even be heard as they were informed That an informal meeting was scheduled,not a hearing on whether or not the ROW should probate the Will. 8. At[ached Exhibit'C'are emails from Robbie Howard[o his attorney, Mark Mateya, Esq.,in regards to the "Settlement AgreemenY' previously discussed in Court on February 2,2015.The emails show that Robert Howard clearly wanted see an offer of settlement in writing before any cancelation of depositions or informing of the Court or other parties that a set[lement had been reached.The Petitioners object to the Court Order to pay Attorney fees as Robert Howard did not back out after agreeing to settlement. He did not agree to settle at all hut agreed to consider a settlement after seeing an offer in writing.No such written offer was ever produced,which was what Robert Howard agreed to consider. His Attorney's insistence that he sign an agreement is also evident in his response. 9. Robert Howard would like to request and inform the Court and all parties of the intention and wish[o testify and present his position in a narrative fashion in Court on August 21,2075. WHEREFORE,Robert Howard requests the Court to issue the same evidence restrictions on ivo V. Otto,lohn Oszustowicz,Robert Surfield, Marcus McKnight, Chris Rice and any other witnesses that have been placed on the Petitioners.Also requested is that the Motion be considered by the Court in its entirery and that the Court reverse its previous Order that the Attorney fees be paid by Robert Howard and Dennis Howard and that they 6e reimbursed for these funds. Respec[fully submitted and dated[his 8`^day of August 2015. R bertJ. Howard 922 Mountain Meadow Rd. Libby,Mt 59923 CC Marcus MCKnight 111, Esquire For Robert Su�eld Ivo Otto, Esquire Forthe Estate lason A Spak,Esquire Dennis Howard � �pvq,A,�n A , . ^ IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ESTATE OF GEORGE W. HOWARD, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DECEASED : NO. 21-13-1143 ORPHANS' COURT DIV. IN RE: MOTION IN LIMINE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2ntl day of February, 2015, upon consideration of Robert Surfield's Motion in Limine, the Answer filed by Dennis Howard and Robert Howard, the briefs filed by the parties and after oral argument; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Robert Sufiield's Motion in Limine is GRANTED. Robert Howard, Dennis Howard and their legal counsel will be barred from offering any evidence of any statement made by the deceased, George W. Howard. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., �. Maric Mateya, Esquire Ivo Otto, Esquire Marcus McKnight, Esquire , bas 0 c �� ; 0 3 r m o � r-'�i :r� o m � � m u :.. r � _ � _'� � . ' , =1 ' .(i i-. " c> � O - r,i r N o� o � -1 EXi�4�§�' � -- � IN RE: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ESTATE OF GEORGE W. HOWARD, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DECEASED NO. 21-13-1143 ORPIiQNS' CQt�2T.qib�'� �= o ," c, ;.—� � r= -' o � .:_ � � - � ORDER OF COURT . `� _ � AND NOW, this 9'" day of February, 2015, upon review of the Memora?idum fi�ed � - ��, by the parties and the status conference held before this court on Feb�uary �20�45 a.`� 2:00 p.m. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. The Petition to Withdraw by Mark Mateya, Esquire, as legal counsel of Robert Howard and Dennis Howard is GRANTED. 2. The Petition for the Enlargement of Time is GRANTED in part. Robert Howard and Dennis Howard are granted an extension of time to complete discovery until the close of business, Friday, March 20, 2015. 3. The Motion in Limine filed by Robert Sufiield is GRANTED in that Robert Howard and Dennis Howard are prohibited from entering into evidence any verbal statements or actions of the Deceased George Howard. Counsel must make objections to any evidence offered at the time of the hearing when the evidence is offered. 4. The Court finds that Robert Howard and Dennis Howard through their legal counsel had agreed to settie their objections to Probate of the Will of George Howard as well as the American Annuity Beneficiary Designations of George Howard. Legal fees are awarded to Ivo V. Otto, IIi, Esquire, and Marcus A. McKnight, III, Esquire, for the time required to prepare releases and return the litigation to its present status following EX�@9�9� ,��z� - � tbe Agreement to Setlk by Robert and Dennis Howard. The amount d feea payabie by Raberl Howard ard Dennis Howard are as folbws: - � a. To Ivo V. Olto, IIi, Esquire,Attarney for the Estate of George Howard d�e sum of Eight Hundred SBcty Frve and ral1� (5865.00) Dolars. . . . b. To Marcus A McKnight, III, Esquire,on behaN of Robart �Sufieid the sum of One Thousend F_ight Hundred Thirty Seven Dollars and fifly cenffi(51�837.50)with�af$30.00. - Total Counael Fees 2Mt C�fa=2,702:50 payable i�Thirty(30)dayn hom , tlie date of thb Order of Court by Robert Howard and Denn�s Hovra►d• 5.-A heering to decide the objections by Robert Howard and Dennis Howard to � the Probate of the W01 of George W. Hrnvard ard to Uie American Mn�ity Beneficiary ^ shall be held on Friday. MaY 8. 2015, at 10:00 a.m. in CouArooM No• 2 of the Cumberland CourKy Courthquse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. By the Court, �� M. L Ebert, Jr., J. MaAc Mateya, Esquire Ivo Otto, Esquire For the Estate Marcus McKnigM, Esquire For Robert SurFieW Jahn C: Oswstowicz, Esquire Far George Howard robbieinmt-Yahoo Mail Page 1 of i E�� C AMome Mail Seard� News SpMs Finance WeaNer Games Mswe�s Screen Flick� Mo�II�TNA�mMalonFlrefox�� searcn � sea,m iaan searrn wee * H,me Q aoneia (�} t co�wou h ah � �oeie�e h M�� 0 soam�eampnw * + x i�nm ORerC3) Po^nie Drahs(B21 $¢nt PaEMallowN Dec16E0ta ^ Spsn 1185) *o MaM1 Mafryt Bart naM1ry MD�k "SmMY Ivpe[tawr�lenoHerhomo00oHM�ou�sNbrrtyv9Murep^ato Inporu�rc a�ryroVfioYontotMCourtINamyagreememEeMee Mepaitiev u�reae Na°b1 SbirtG MaM1 Peopk �� Iaptttax+itRnoHerfromappo9�gmunsNfam�sigvurepiorm mym4fiqtimm VeCaurtolmyagreementOeMttnqepa�tin. T�arN SInVP^9 RWOie Fi�uun[e pll w fervnM�Man �Poltlers �WY,wqY �s �Wap�� M�kN�ty� pe��].]Ola io'POEdeWwad > nam� cc omris Mo..xa.�miron mm.e�.�mamareyaiaw.wm W!vnY I W!a FTR�5lI11Ment i9REm[nt PonY wOM a00N�INL Yw xill see it aM v9n 2 af2ryvu M1a�e reaE u. Mah Wh A MaR�a,Esp. Male/a Wx Frm ww�nmaRyaNw.mm UehaRoubbg; 'PoxerofRtM�'ryPOuu,-'[dte%annin9aM � AOminisVaMm' aM'Iati�y CveMYwr VarmK My6wn Slwy' at wwma V�alan.�wNblo35 TIE INiOflMF110N COMRINEO W lXR COMMUNIUTION I$P lMN5MI5510N FROMTHE MATEYA UW FIflM ANO IS INi02M4ilON PI4�TERFD 9V T11F ATLOIiNEY/CLI f M ANO/CA�iTCRNEY/K'V NR 4�DIlCf%UVII£GE Ir IS IMfNOFDONLY WR ME PEFSONFLRN� CONFlOEMIPL VSEOFT1f XECIYIEM(S)fUMEOFBOJE PNO Mt � PRMIEGES FRE NOi WPNED BYYrRNE OF TIIS H.1NNG BEEN SEM BY EIfRWNKMRIL --plqlNl Mesa�e fmm:nneNe NowaN t�aikn's4p�cC�x1¢�c�ml XO[TU[SE2'/.0![eT'b l6,]010932 PM io'Mah Ma@p:61� $uOjMOIfC� Ua� I vCM i wl�Ihn Ofle�fian OPN+��9[wm01 M mJ u9re W R Orl ol�0 aM�o��mNeCourtofarya9reemm<betwxnthepa�tiez Fupbie Rply.Pply NI M FomM�Merc � V C ) ht}ps://us-mg5.mail.yahoo.wm/neo/launch?.rand=fc34eup2jOvbq 8/10/2015