Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-05 IN RE: MILDRED J. GERBER TRUST UNDER AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 19,1997 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION NO. 21-2002-0540 IN RE: FRED E. GERBER,SA. TRUST UNDER AGREEMENT DATED JULY 29,1994 t-,) c::> (;.;::) ...:.J"1 NO. 21-1998-0195 c:::> ANSWER TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF RESPONDENT N FREDERICK E. GERBER,II TO PETITION OF MARILYN J. GERBER TO REMOVE RESPONDENT AS TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR,FREEZE TRUST OR ESTATE ASSETS, HIRE A FORENSIC CPA AND CAUSE RESPONDENT TO OBTAIN A PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION AND NOW comes Marilyn Gerber, Pro Se as the Petitioner of the above stated petitions who files the following answer to Preliminary Objections to above stated Petition of Marilyn J. Gerber as follows: The below answers shall correspond to the numbers shall correspond to the numbers as stated by Richard Rupp,Esquire, the attorney for Frederick E. Gerber,1I and the firm Rupp & Meikle as follows: I . PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ON GROUND OF SCANDALOUS OR IMPERTINENT MA TIER: I. Denied. 2. Denied. Again, there are no specifics for which a response can be provided. 3. Denied. 4. Denied. Petitioner objects to this response as the Accounting as ~=-: :..:;-; I N -;:1 C'-;~.; -,, -: ) in submitted to this Court by the Accountant Frederick E. Gerber,11 in its facts and financial information provide ample evidence of fiduciary irresponsibility and the wasting of the Trusts as well as loss of investment and the intent of the Trustee, Frederick E. Gerber,1I appears to be motivated by extreme sibling hatred and an intent to defraud the Petitioner from her rightful inheritance. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ON GROUND OF SCANDALOUS OR IMPERTINENT MATTER: 5. No response is required. 6. Denied. 7. Denied. 8. Denied. 9. Denied. 10. Denied on the grounds that this Petitioner has no idea for which Petition the Respondent if referring to and therefore cannot make an intelligent answer. III. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ON GROUND OF INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY: 11. No response is required. 12. Denied. Respondent provides no citation of the law or reference where this applies. 13. Denied. 14. Denied. 15. Denied on the grounds that this Respondent only filed a Preliminary Objection as they appear to be unprepared and rushed in their response to the Petition. IV. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ON GROUND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION: 16. No response is required. 17. Denied. This Petitioner does not understand the response and is erroneous and is a conclusion of law. 18. Denied. 19. Denied. On the contrary, over the course of the last seven and half years, the Trustee has engaged on a path of REFUSAL in supplying basic yearly fiduciary accounting and REFUSED to communicate with a beneficiary of the above stated Trusts as well as engaged on a course of defrauding the Petitioner of her rightful inheritance by having Mildred J. Gerber who was declared incapacitated amend her Trust on two separate occasions which would enrich the Trustee, Jane Heflin, his sister and essentially cut this Petitioner from any inheritance. 20. Denied. V. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ON GROUND OF LACK OF CONFORMITY TO LAW OR RULE OF COURT: 21. No response is required. 22. Denied. The following letters a-i. are erroneous as they ask for a conclusion of law. a. The Respondent fails to cite which Rule of Civil Procedure he is referring to. b. The Respondent fails to cite which paragraphs in the Petition he is referring to. c. The Respondent fails to cite clear example or cite which avernments that he cannot understand. d. Denied. e. Denied. The Respondent fails to cite a reference to which avernments he is referring to. f. Denied as for the same reason stated above. g. Denied as the Respondent fails to cite a Rule of Law which states there is a specific format that must be followed when a Pro Se files a Petition to this Court. h. Denied. This Petitioner believes that this Court has ample evidence and experience with the Trustee who has exhibited extreme and consistent examples of sibling hatred. Judge Hess provided a statement in his ruling on November 1,1999. Judge Bayley also provided a statement in his rulings concerning the Trustee. i. Denied. The Respondent is not specific and Judge Oler ruled that this Petitioner could resubmit her Motions and Petitions as was agreed upon in stipulations that were sworn under oath by all the counsel involved in this case, named as Richard Rupp, Jacqueline Verney and this Petitioner in December 2004 and signed on March 17,2005. 23. Denied. 24. Denied. 25. Denied. VI. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ON GROUND OF LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY OF PLEADING (DEMURRER): 26. No response is required. 27. Denied. This Petitioner does not understand which paragraphs in her Petition the Trustee is referring to. Letters a-g are erroneous and ask for conclusions of law. a. Denied. b. Denied. The last Accounting supplied by the Trustee on January 28,2005, indicates further wasting of the Trust and a personal enrichment by taking large amounts of money to purchase a home, and his failure to disburse interest from the principal to this Petitioner in an attempt to defraud her of her beneficiary inheritance. The terms of the Trust do not allow for such disbursements and the Trust was not written as an inheritance out right but as a Trust that would disperse yearly income from the interest from the principal. The Trustee has deliberately and defiantly WASTED the assets of the Trusts and taken large amounts of moneys for himself as well as has WASTED large of amounts of moneys for the use of attorneys. c. Denied. The Petitioner believes that the new Accounting supplies ample evidence of new wasting of the Trusts assets and investments and this Petition was allowed by Judge Oler's ruling that she could resubmit old and new petitions as also was agreed upon by Auditor Duncan. d. Denied. The Petitioner FAILED to supply an Accounting of the expenses for 2005 as was sworn to by Richard Rupp in December 2004 before Auditor Duncan and Jacqueline Verney and this Petitioner. The Trustee failed to comply with this sworn agreement and was just recently ordered to comply with a full accounting of the expenses of the Fred E. Gerber,Sr. Trust by August 7,2005. It is expected that more moneys have been wasted and used for his personal enrichment. If this Court does not FREEZE the Trusts, then there shall be no moneys left and the attorneys and the banks shall take the majority of the two Trusts assets. e. Denied. 1. Denied. At this juncture of over seven years, the Trustee has not filed a forensic Accounting but instead has entered upon a course of avoiding any accounting, has supplied documents which are redacted, receipts that overlaid upon each other, and has not complied with fiduciary requirements on a yearly basis to provide an Accounting of the two Trusts. The proposal of a CPA forensic Accountant is a logical and well meaning Petition which would require a CPA to sign off on the over 1.2 million dollars that the Trustee has essentially wasted over the course of just seven and half years in his defiant attempt to defraud the Petitioner of her rightful inheritance. g. Denied. Petitioner believes that there is ample evidence of the Trustee's extreme behavior, his hatred of the Petitioner and his most recent behavior at his deposition on May 31,2005 was bizarre. Frederick E. Gerber,1I could not remember what he paid for his home on Fairfax Hunt Lane, nor could Frederick E. Gerber,1I provide answers to the majority of the Petitioners questions. Frederick E. Gerber, II stated that he was suffering from diarrhea, he had a large surgical patch on his left eye and was wearing very dark medical glasses, as well as Frederick E. Gerber,1I stated that he was in pain due to 31 years of parachuting. The Petitioner believes that this constitutes ample evidence to order Frederick E. Gerber,1I to undertake a medical and psychiatric examination as these conditions more than likely have affected his performance and were his driving motivation and intention in defrauding this Petitioner from her rightful inheritance. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. 30. Denied. IV. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ON GROUND OF MISJOINDER OF ACTION: ***Please note that the Respondent REPEATS this Roman Numeral twice as IV.***** 31. No response is required. 32. Denied. This Petitioner may at any time entertain and request and file a Petition for the Removal of the Trustee also as Executor as he is also going to be the Executor and was admitted by this Court as the Executor of the Mildred J. Gerber Estate. If Frederick E. Gerber,1I is allowed to remain as the Executor of the Mildred J. Gerber Estate, he will do irreparable damage to the inheritance right of Marilyn Gerber and then the Estate shall POUR OVER into the Mildred J. Gerber Trust. The Trustee is trying to confuse this Court and there is no law in this County which states that the Petitioner may not file a Petition to Remove the Trustee who is also the Executor. This response if erroneous and asks for a conclusion of law. 33. Denied. 34. Denied. 35. Denied. ***PLEASE NOTE: The Respondent has failed to include Roman Numeral VII. VIII. CLAIM FOR LEGAL FEES FOR THE RESPONDENT FREDERICK E. GERBER,II 36. No Response is required. 37. No response is required other than the attorney fails to provide how much exactly was incurred. 38. Denied. Attorneys fails to provide exact billable hours but only an estimated. It is hard to believe that it took the firm of Rupp & Meikle almost four hours to complete this Preliminary Objections 39. Denied. Erroneous as it asks for a conclusion of law but in the event that a response is required, this Court and Auditor granted this Petitioner the right to resubmit dismissed motions and petitions that were dismissed without prejudice in December 2004 and granted her the right to resubmit them as well as Auditor Duncan in the many status conferences guided and suggested that Marilyn Gerber file a Petition or Motion to her many concerns regarding the above two stated Trusts. NEW MATTER 40. This Petitioner views this Preliminary Response as an attempt to intimate Marilyn Gerber and waste the assets of the above two stated Trusts. If you examine the response from the firm of Rhoads & Sinon which was direct, exact and professional in their legal demeanor and contrast it with the response by the firm of Rupp & Meikle, it is striking in its confusion, lack of specificity, using two Roman Numerals twice, no pagenation, and a regurgitation of the same language over and over. See Exhibit A. 41. Richard Rupp and this Trustee were fully instructed by Auditor Duncan and this Court as to the right of Marilyn Gerber to have all past motions and petitions dismissed without prejudice and the right to resubmit them after January 28,2005. Marilyn Gerber has the right to file any Petition or Motion which she feels support a problem and as long as Marilyn Gerber approaches a motion or petition with the support of facts that are supported with valid data, clear specifics and an affidavit, then Marilyn Gerber has met the challenge of the law in the lower Court. 42. Please note in the verification that was submitted by Richard Rupp, he states that AGAIN, the Trustee, Frederick E. Gerber,1I was not within jurisdiction and this Petitioner believes that he is out of the country again and that he is not capable of action as an Executor or as Trustee and should resign as he consistently fails to fulfill his role a a fiduciary, executor, and Trustee. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT EVERY TIME A RESPONSE OR APPEARANCE IS DEMANDED OF FREDERICK E. GERBER,II THAT HE IS CONVENIENTLY OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND NOT AVAILABLE. This Petitioner believes that he is trying the apply the Sailors and Soldier Relief Act in the civilian world and praying upon the sympathies of this Court as he is clearly working for a Federal Contractor that is related to the Iraqi War or a related events. It this Petitioner's opinion that HE IS NOT MINDING THE STORE!!!! 43. Marilyn Gerber has expended time, expenses for the response to this frivolous Preliminary Response by the firm of Rupp & Meikle and asks that the request for $750.00 be DENIED and that their expenses be charged back to the above two Stated Trusts as well as all expenses be returned to Marilyn Gerber for answering this Preliminary Response. 44. Marilyn Gerber believes that if this Court rules that she must rewrite each Petition and separate these Petitions which are clearly inter related, then more moneys shall be expended and shall constitute a real financial on the above stated Trusts as 5 individual Petitions shall have to be rewritten and then responded to 5 times by two sets of attorneys, Richard Rupp and Rhoads & Sinon. 45. This Petitioner asks that this Court order that Frederick E. Gerber,1I provide the following information: a. the name of his employer, when he became employed after his retirement from the US Army as in his deposition conducted by Marilyn Gerber, Frederick E. Gerber,lI REFUSED to answer any questions about who his employer is or almost every other question. b. where he has been each time he has been out of the country and state where he has gone and for how long. Order him to supply airline tickets for each time that he has been out of the country or out of jurisdiction from 1998 to the present. c. explain why he feels that when he is out of the country that he is able to watch investments, answer petitions and motions and prepare for the upcoming hearings. d. explain where he is when is out of jurisdiction and in this country. e. explain how he managed to act as Guardian of Person and Trustee of the Fred E. Gerber,Sr. Trust when he was in Iraq for six months in 2003. 46. Marilyn Gerber offers the envelope that was used by the firm of Rupp & Meikle to allegeldy mail the enclosed Preliminary Objections which was dated July 12,2005. Please note that there is no postage cancelation on this envelope and this Petitioner shall bring this envelope to show that she believes that they dropped off this letter without any proof of when it was served and it was actually served past the date of July 12,2005. Exhibit B. This Court is clearly aware that Marilyn Gerber is preparing for an upcoming hearing on September 7-9,2005 as well as status conferences for the Objections that she filed for PNC Bank's last stated Accounting in addition to a Superior Court Brief which is due on August 22,2005. This would place a clear and difficult burden upon Marilyn Gerber not to speak of the financial and stress as she is not only Pro Se but she is and could be viewed as a sole practitioner and there is a limit that she can be awake with the clear and known knowledge that she works full time. This would require that Marilyn Gerber stop working, have reduced income in order to fulfill the requirements of rewriting 5 Petitions when this Honorable Court has understood this Pro Se in the past seven years. WHEREFORE, this Petitioner, Marilyn Gerber respectfully requests that the Preliminary Response by the Trustee be DENIED and that no legal fees of at least $750.00 be awarded to the firm of Rupp & Meikle. Respectfully submitted, Maril n Gerber,Pro Se 717 Market Street,#317 Lemoyne, P A 17043 TEL 717 503-5280 Date: ~ d; ;VVu VERIFICATION I, Marilyn Gerber am making this verification as the Petitioner to the Petition that the firm of Rupp & Meikle responded to the answers of the Preliminary Objections and verify that the statements in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Said statements are based on my own knowledge, belief and information provided to me. I understand that false statements herein are made subject top penalties of the Court under sworn statements. ~ Date: a, ;?- ?nJ;- I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marilyn Gerber, do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the persons names below by placing the foregoing document upon the persons names below by placing the same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid on the date stated below: William Duncan One Irvine Row Carlisle,PA 17013 Joanne Book Rhoads & Sinon One South Market Square Harrisburg,PA 17108 Jacqueline Verney 44 South Hanover Street Carlisle,PA 17013 Lindsay Dare Baird 37 South Hanover Street Carlisle,PA 17013 Richard Rupp 355 N. 21 st Street Camp Hill,PA 17011 ?i~'~ Date:~;;: ~r INRE: MILDRED J. GERBER TRUST UNDER AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER L9,1997 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYL VANIA ORPHANS' COURT NO. 21-2002-0540 INRE: FRED E. GERBER,SR. TRUST NO. 21-1998-0195 ORDER OF THE COURT UPON the review of the New Matter of the Petitioners responses to the Preliminary Objections filed by Richard Rupp, Esquire for the Trustee, Frederick E. Gerber,1I for the above two stated Trusts, it is hereby ordered: 1. Frederick E. Gerber answer the questions as to who is his employer, where he is employed and state each time that he has been out of the country from 1998 to present as well as supply copies of the airline tickets for each travel from 1998 to the present. 2. That the seven hundred an fifty dollars requested by the firm of Rupp & Meikle be DENIED and that the $750 of alleged legal expenses be paid back to the Trusts by Frederick E. Gerber,1I 3: That Frederick E. Gerber,1I be REMOVED as Executor and as Trustee of the two above stated Trusts especially in the event that PNC Bank is attempting to resign and return the Mildred J. Gerber Trust back to Frederick E. Gerber,ll. 4. Reimburse all the expenses and fees that Marilyn Gerber has incurred in answering this petition including postage, mileage, filing fees in the Orphans' Court and lost work in order to answer this Petition. J. Date: